Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lounge' started by SWAGA, Mar 4, 2015.
no they were just putting another ford out of its misery... (ducking)
Yeah, but how long does it take to burn through? It probably takes several seconds at the very least, and would need to be held extremely steady on a small point to make it through.
Hey...that's why they need X billion dollars in funding, to create a tracking system that keeps it on target.
No need to do that, they do that all by themselves...
When i was in high school one of my geek buddies also happened to delve into the black market, and could obtain a laser you could cut a car in half with from across the street. Ended up with an FBI wiretap on my home phone at 16 over that one.
They could use this technology really easily if they wanted to. Problem is, the infrastructure to get the electricity required to power it...
Bullcrap. Lasers have huge issues with line-of-sight. To get miles of range requires a tower or air based platform, unlike with "conventional" weapons which can be ground based and use indirect fire techniques. And atmospheric attenuation has always been the bane of the most effective lasers for this purpose (IR). The U.S. military has spent bazillions of dollars for 3 or 4 decades trying to solve issues of atmospheric attenuation and the result is incredibly complex and "sorta usually works mostly" special adjust-on-the-fly refractors and lenses which require a second monitoring laser on a different frequency so that it can watch and correct for the random changes in laser path due to the vagaries of air expansion, contraction, and pollution.
hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha.... <wheeze> hahahahahahahahahhahaahahahahahahahahah <cough cough> hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
The platforms required for effective lasers are grotesquely expensive, particularly when compared to conventional weapons. They require rare, and often highly toxic and/or corrosive, chemicals, HUGE power sources, and highly complex (read "expensive as hell") mechanisms to produce the power impulse and still be able to survive for the next "shot." To get the amount of energy on target in a short enough time to perform acceptably for the task is enormously difficult and therefore expensive.
Nothing about lasers intended to damage by high energy is cheap or easy. Anyone telling you different is trying to sell you a laser.
Well, I guess the issues of collateral damage to the vehicle occupants (such as severe burns or blinding) really aren't "lethal" per se.
Still, I gotta say, as a guy who's been wanting "ray guns" since I was knee high to a grasshopper, this is pretty cool.
Peace favor your sword,
I once did a little reading on that subject for a book I was thinking of writing. Apparently, high-energy lasers ionize the air as they pass through, and can actually create weird issues with reflecting and diffusing the light, like Kirk was talking about. It's kinda like heat shimmer - When you see that happen, air currents and differences in density are diffusing the light and causing it to bend in weird ways. Take that and magnify it hundreds of times and see what it does to a beam of light from a laser.
The solution I had read about was a phased-pulse laser that basically clicked on and off so fast that the air didn't have time to ionize or create plasma. It apparently showed some promise as a solution, but we weren't able to get it to work right. I doubt that tech is less than several decades away.
Yup. That's probably one of the most successful. So expensive to build and operate that Secretary Gates canceled it. Had to use a second solid state laser for "beam control." And that funky looking zit of an emitter has highly complex refractors and lenses to minimize atmospheric attenuation.
Over-all, laser weapons just aren't a good solution for inside atmospheres. But they're the bee's knees for certain extra-atmospheric uses, including some kinds of combat.
Directed Energy Weapons that I think might make a lot more sense in atmo would be charged particle and "neutron guns." But both of those have issues as well.
I really had high hopes for neutron guns, but, well, there are several downsides which makes them "difficult."
Peace favor your sword,
Ah, the memories. I worked on a Missile Defense Simulator for the Air Force 15 years ago, it didn't work either. But, we need to detect the launch, follow it out of the atmosphere, and zap it in space. Back to star wars.... The simulator was supposed to show just that. It didn't work, but the company I worked for and all the subs told the Air Force it did. I told on them...yep, I'm a whistle blower...ended my career. Chaos, but saved the tax payers some money.
I think it would have been cooler if the truck had blown up. Who wants to see it just slow down and stop and then a couple of bad guys get out and run after crapping their pants? Ugh! Another self-inflicted vision I didn't need
You can do the same thing with a well placed .50 BMG AP or HE round and for a heck of a lot less money.
If I had my choice of cool toys... I'd go with a rail gun.
.50 cal machine gun. Or better yet, 105mm gun. Those can do some damage at 1 mile, with a heck of a lot less money.
Plus it's accurate to about 7 miles.
Like I said:
Oops! Didn't see that word, now I have no idea how to remove it. Sorry
The EM-1 Railgun from the movie Eraser?
The one that penetrated through solid steel, but made bodies fly back when hit?
That be the one.
I have a 60 watt CO2 laser... replacement tubes are $600!
How about a railgun pistol. I can think of some changes I would make to it. Use the reverse EMF from field collapse to feed the next coil pulse for one.