Compressed Air Knife

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Spyvie

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
508
Location
Edmonds Washington
http://dvice.com/archives/2008/03/menacing_compre.php

New patent on a CO2 powered hypodermic knife blade. Sounds really nasty to me, I think I'd rather be shot than inflated...

A patent has been filed by inventor Gregory Rondinone of Connecticut for a knife that will shoot a jet of compressed air into whatever it punctures at the press of a trigger. The concentrated burst would be powerful enough to rupture soft tissue in organs, not to mention pump a ton of air (or some other gas) deep into places it shouldn't be. It's been suggested that the knife has valuable applications for underwater use, such as a diver staving off a large animal, both injuring the offending creature and rendering it unnaturally buoyant so that it floats away.
Click to expand...


Compressed-gas-knife.jpg
 
If this "gadget" enters production, will it suffer the same fate as the Soviet ballistic knife? That is the first question that entered my mind after reading the opening post of this thread. The ballistic knife and its legal problems have been discussed on this subforum before. Anyone interested in that topic can find it using the search function. Again, I see this knife as a future target for legislation. Any takers here?


Timthinker
 
ummm. . . . .

this thing sounds like a firearm masquerading as a knife. The introduction of compressed air into a body cavity can cause massive damage and even death in some cases. I suppose there is a market for everything but this idea is screaming "PRODUCT LIABILITY" at about 120 decibels. I think the only thing it might render unnaturally buoyant is plaintiff's attorney as visions of seven figure settlements dance in his/her head. :scrutiny:
 
yep, this knife is destoned to be banned, its sole pourpose it to inject the target with gas, hopefully causing an air bubble in the bloodstream and causing massive heart failure.


then again just wait untill they come out with lightsabers:D

on another interesting note, anyone ever hear of a fish hook that has a miniture gun inside of it, apparently when the fish bites the gun fires and either incapacitates or kills the fish... i am not making this up.
 
Powerheads underwater cause severe damage, and they are often times loaded with blanks. Some chop large sharks nearly in half.
The jet of air and water cuts right through tissue. A knife doing the same thing with even a blank .22 through the tip of a blade already stuck in a target would jet air and blood right into the target cutting insides to pieces.
Such an idea could be lethal indeed.


New patent on a CO2 powered hypodermic knife blade.
Click to expand...
CO2 would be a horrible power source, as it can only reach a limited maximum pressure before liquifying. About 870 PSI at room temperature, which is not ideal for destroying internals. Compressed air would be far more effective, from a tiny cylinder like those used to store several thousand PSI for PCP airguns, which can be refilled by tank or hand pump. Several thousand PSI of compressed air would do a lot more than 870 PSI from C02.
However the volume of CO2 that could be stored in liquid form does compensate somewhat. Injecting the liquid CO2 right into the target would be devestating as it immediately and rapidly expanded.



However since its obvious use is as a weapon, and since it is not a gun, I also see legislation coming against it and nobody really standing up to defend its right to exist.
Now if it was a firearm thousands of people would stand up and defend its right to exist! Organizations would argue in favor of it.
Since it is a wierd knife, he will be on his own facing liability lawsuits and legislation.

yep, this knife is destoned to be banned, its sole pourpose it to inject the target with gas, hopefully causing an air bubble in the bloodstream and causing massive heart failure.
Click to expand...
No I think you misunderstand what would happen. Even with CO2 the organ stabbed would split in half or even burst. A liver for example would be destroyed. Most organs are elastic, or hard and will be destroyed by a massive injection of air pressure.
It has absolutely nothing to do with causing an air bubble in the blood.
Even more rapid injections of air, from compressed air rather than CO2, especialy a large volume like such a device could hold would have an effect similar to a powerhead or bang gun underwater. It would instantly creat a massive wound right inside the target many times larger than the knife.
Such a device powered by a blank round would be like a small grenade going off in the body, shooting flesh and blood fast enough to cut through tissue around it, as a bang gun does with water underwater.

Even further such a device with the blade filled with a poison forward of the air could use the poison both as a jet to cut through tissue, and then have the effects of the poison in addition.

"I saw some footage on it, it was horrible," says a diver describing the effects here. "Their bellies would inflate and they said it would force the shark’s stomach out of their mouths."
Click to expand...
The intended purpose of this knife was actualy to give bouyancy to dangerous fish like sharks immediately, taking them away from a diver. The intended effect and the actual effect proved to be a bit different, with the results more gruesome and effective than anticipated.
So a good defensive knife for a diver.
 
Last edited:
I suspect this will fall prey to PETA activists and the like. Pretty innovative, but unless there is a way to make sure only divers have them and not petty criminals (there isn't) I think it will fall under a legal tide of hawaiian proportions.

Since I am 19 and uneducated, is a liability lawsuit a pre-emptive measure?

As in Guy A sees product, says "That could kill somebody!", calls his buddy, Lawyer A, who files a lawsuit (subject: This could kill someone,) and then Judge A reiterates: "It could kill someone."

?
 
Since I am 19 and uneducated, is a liability lawsuit a pre-emptive measure?

As in Guy A sees product, says "That could kill somebody!", calls his buddy, Lawyer A, who files a lawsuit (subject: This could kill someone,) and then Judge A reiterates: "It could kill someone."
Click to expand...
No the liability would be would a criminal uses it on someone, and the family of said people are contacted by a lawyer seeing dollar signs, I mean offering to represent them, and convinces them they should sue the company that has money, and not judge the criminal soley on thier actions because the criminal's pocketbook is not as deep, and instead focus as much and more time on the company that produced it which as a successful company with insurance has deeper pockets.

Like people suing gun manufacturers for guns used in crimes, or suing ammo manufactuers because the bullet worked as intended.

It would be like someone going out and buying the fastest car on the market, racing it illegaly down the road, and crashing at a couple hundred mils per hour killing themselves and maybe others. Then the family of people involved filing a lawsuit against the sports car company because they have far deeper pockets with the argument something like "No car needs to be made to go that fast on the road, the speed limit is several times lower than the top speed of that vehicle, and the only purpose for such speeds on the road is for criminal purposes."
 
There was a similar gadget a year or three back called, If I remember correctly, called the WASP Injection System. It too was for use as a dive knife but what was injected into the critter from a handle resovoir was super cold gas (LOX ?) and prevented blood loss.

Supposedly that let the divers get out of Dodge before the leaking blood attracted other Sharks.

Can't find their web page...maybe they went kaput. Dunno. It should be in the archives here somewhere.

salty
 
If you wanted to be snarky sharky about it, the "bang stick" used to detonate a shotgun shell against a shark could be viewed as an NFA object; if this knife is limited to shark protection, it may pass under the radar as a weapon subject to crime control.
 
I have already seen the add for it (or something essentially the same) and it's at least in the prototype stage.

I'm betting that it will be such a monumental failure as a marketable product that no laws will be written to address it.
 
If you wanted to be snarky sharky about it, the "bang stick" used to detonate a shotgun shell against a shark could be viewed as an NFA object;
Click to expand...
Actualy they already are addressed, and they are viewed as such if they don't have a rod attached giving them an overall length of 18" or more. Most are sold with a soldered/welded rod "permanently attached" which is designed to be removed when they are attached to another shaft, such as a spear shaft.
Many divers do in fact remove the shaft altogether because they become much more convenient and portable, like a knife with some punch they can just store on thier belt in case.
I don't think most realize it becomes an illegal NFA weapon, not just something more convenient to dive with.

The most common ones are not those which use shotgun shells, but in fact several that use pistol calibers such as .357 magnum, .44 magnum, and .22s for hunting small fish.
I seem to recall one of the more effective common cartridges is the .223 remington because the quantity of gas created relative to the size of the cartridge is great.
Then the 12 gauge for use against larger fish. Blanks or live rounds can be used. Ironicly the blanks tend to do more damage because they have a higher charge in them, and it is the jet of water and gas that does most of the damage, not the bullet.

Most of those used by divers are homemade, smoothbore weapons with less than an 18" barrel, since the entire device is usualy only 6-8" long.
They are exempted with a rod attached that makes them longer than 18".
Some are used from spear guns, especialy the pistol cartridge ones, to launch an explosive tipped projectile for hunting or defensive purposes underwater.
Others are attached to a shaft meant to be held.

I have already seen the add for it (or something essentially the same) and it's at least in the prototype stage.

I'm betting that it will be such a monumental failure as a marketable product that no laws will be written to address it.
Click to expand...
Yeah I saw it too, and thought it was the same thing.
I did a quick google and found a link to a link which linked to a magazine with this picture:
aqm-363-3.jpg

Which has a link to the main website:
http://www.waspinjection.com/
Which appears to be dead.

Maybe they went belly up (pun) maybe they renamed, or perhaps the newer company simply copied the idea and was the first to patent it, and then screwed the other guy over and threatened him with patent infringement.
I have seen it happen before. First guy never gets a patent, next guy does, and second guy has the legal rights to the design.

There is in fact even companies that do that for a living, horde and obtain patents they have no intention of using so others will be forced to purchase the rights. (I am sure it reduces innovation and production)
So I wouldn't just assume it wasn't successful. He may have in fact recieved a cease and desist.
Or it could be the same entity with a new name.
 
Zoogster said:
There is in fact even companies that do that for a living, horde and obtain patents they have no intention of using so others will be forced to purchase the rights. (I am sure it reduces innovation and production)
Click to expand...

I don't know if you follow paintball or have any interest in it but Smart Parts has, in the last few years, gone on a patenting spree and a few old paintball companies have had to quit making markers under threat of patent infringement, they have been reduced to selling accessories and SP has forced at least one company out of business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_parts#Patent_Controversy

The wikipedia page has gone under some editing over the last year or so, it looks like, because it's a little less honest about exactly what has happened.


So a bang stick is legal with an 18" handle? First read about those in Tom Clancy. Hard to imagine something so barbaric and badass is still legal today.
 
Gadgets such as the ballistic knife and the compressed air knife attract our attention because they are unusual. But are they really more deadly than a good fixed blade knife in the hands of a trained individual? My answer is no. A determined man with a kabar can wreak havoc like a modern day Jack the Ripper. It is not the knife so much as it is the knifer. This point is one we would do well to remember.


Timthinker
 
One thing about the ballistic knife in a fight is that if you miss, you have disarmed yourself. Duh.

99.99% of all field uses of knives are uses as utility tools, and not as weapons, so a ballistic knife is about the height of uselessness. Think of sharpening a tent peg or opening a food can with a blade that might go sproing or bang and take off. (By the way, 99.99% of statistics are made up on the spot.)

The question relevant here is, is the compressed air knife a practical anti-shark weapon? Would injecting compressed air into a shark have a dependable and desirable effect?

aside: anyone ever hear of a fish hook that has a miniture gun
yes! I have seen an illustration. Unfortunately, I have not unpacked completely since my last move and most of my ref books are still packed.
 
Hard to imagine something so barbaric and badass is still legal today.
Click to expand...
Just what's so barbaric about a bang stick, anyway?
I was under the impression that they were still widely used by divers and fishermen today.
 
Carl, you are correct that the compressed air knife was designed for use against aquatic creatures. In my comments, I hoped to make two points. First, legislators would enact laws against this device because of its perceived usefulness as a weapon. Second, such laws against gadgets like the compressed air knife and ballistic knife are silly since ordinary knives are quite capable of inflicting serious or fatal injuries. I suspect that my comments about the effectiveness of knife legislation are "preaching to the choir", but this seemed an apt place for those observations. Also, I agree that the ballistic knife was not a great idea. Hopefully, I have clearified my position. I would like to read about the fish hook gun you mentioned. Good luck in finding that reference.


Timthinker
 
I have fired the "fishhook' gun" in 22lr .

I have a bunch of pics of them.Will dig them out and post.


I have also fired and handles many versions of the sping powered type "Ballistic knives" and they really are next to useless.

Now a real Ballistic knife such as the russian version that fire captive piston rounds ..thats a excellent designed exotic weapon..but of VERY narrow use ..VERY narrow...maybe to narrow.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top