Jump to content



Photo

TIE Defender


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#41 Bilisknir

Bilisknir

    Member

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 04:35 AM

You do keep setting yourself up for this  beatdown now don't you.

 

Yeah, so I'm not an acoustical engineer. I have said what I do day to day. I'm currently working in financial statistics in London. My masters degree was Mathematics with a side order of Computer Science. I specialised in applied maths and theoretical physics for undergrad.

 

I was quite clear in my previous statement that there are some partial ways round the issues I have mentioned. The reason I did not comment on increasing beam width is that is doesn't actually help. Spreading the beam will undoubtably reduce thermal blooming issues, however it will also significantly reduce the power density of the beam. I haven't the figures to hand for how much blooming reduces as you widen the beam, but since it is related to the heating of the medium the beam is passing through I would have thought it is closely related to the beam energy density. (I may go look up the figures later). Assuming you have a laser of a given output, widening the beam will reduce blooming but increase the time you need to keep the shot on target to produce the same effect.

 

I do struggle to understand the logic in your next paragraph. You seem to say that scientists did not know what weaponised high powered lasers were capable of because they beleived that no laser could produce a beam equal to the energy put in. Well that is still the case I'm afraid. CO2 lasers are around 30% efficient. The highest efficiency lasers I can find quickly are green laser diodes at around 64% efficiency. Though that is at milliwatt power levels. As to whether lasers can be used in non-perfect conditions, of course they can and of course they knew that. But in non-perfect conditions you require more power and control for the same result because of the extra energy lost to the environment.

 

You maintain that lasers do this kinetic thermal damage. No there is no kinetic damage from a laser. You get thermal damage which can, at sufficiently high power levels, vapourise parts of the target. They may also cause shockwaves within the structure of the target due to the rapid expansion/contraction of the material. There is no kinetic energy transfer.

 

Where does this idea of explosions come from? Things do not explode because they are hit by a laser, even with a sudden extreme temperature change. A laser could ignite the target, but the effect of laser on material is not going to cause an explosion.

 

Yeah, so in my phalanx description I do compare 1 shell and the laser beam. I have to use energy output per second or some other mode of comparison. Please tell me how pulsing the laser changes the fact that to get the same total power from the laser you have to fire it for a defined period of time. Now we already know that 1 shot from the phalanx has a kinetic energy of 65KJ. 1KW is 1KJ for 1 second. So to get the same amount of energy to the target you have to fire our 100KW laser for 0.65 seconds. (Probably quite a lot longer than that as we are pulsing the laser so it will not be firing all the time).

 

In you next sentence I get the feeling you are channeling Yoda's description of the dark side. However you are starting from the description of the project used for public consumption in press releases. The website of the project itself doesn't mention pulling the fabric of space apart. http://www.extreme-l...h-field_5_2.php

 

No. I really did not understand what you mean. I tried to understand and I thought you were talking about nuclear pumped x-ray lasers (since those have been called gamma pumped lasers in places - especially science fiction). Given that was not the case then meh... Now sure I suppose you could pump a laser with a gamma burster, you would need a good constant source and knowledge of where the burster is, which would be hard. Also not exactly optimal for a weapon in that you cannot control when you fire. Not I really can't understand the next sentance, doesn't make much sense to me - what is "polls"? And why would that beam be more powerful than an equivalent power beam generated in any other way?

 

Yes, please do make up science. There is no known way we could bottle or hyperbend lasers. No theory exists that would allow you to do it (unless I suppose you gain control of gravity and can focus gravitic fields, but then if you can do that why would you be playing with lasers?).

 

Blah blah blah... junk bull spouted with no backing. Not knowing what science in the future will develop doesn't mean you can say that some particular item you describe will be developed. That is kind of the point. We just don't know what science will allow us to do.


Bilisknir corrupt ver of Bilskirnir (Old Norse "lightning-crack"). The hall of the god Thor in Norse mythology.

Rebel: 8 X-Wing, 9 A-Wing, 4 Y-Wing, 8 B-Wing, 2 YT-1300, 2 HWK-290, 2 GR-75 Transport, 1 Corellian Corvette, 8 Z-95, 4 E-Wing, 3 YT-2400

Imperials: 9 Tie/ln, 10 Tie Int, 5 Tie Bomber, 3 Tie Adv, 2 Firespray-31, 3 Lambda-Class Shuttle, 4 Tie Defender, 4 Tie Phantom, 2 VT-49 Decimator

Scum & Villany: 4 Most Wanted, 4 StarViper, 6 M3-A Interceptor, 2 IG-2000 (Pre-order)


#42 Parakitor

Parakitor

    Member

  • Members
  • 991 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 04:49 AM

Huh. I came here looking for a TIE Defender and all I found are Aggressors. Go figure.


  • Revanchist, Digitalkiller, Syleh Forge and 2 others like this

"That starship won't fly, Bastila."


#43 Rhinoviru3

Rhinoviru3

    Member

  • Members
  • 464 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 05:00 AM

Huh. I came here looking for a TIE Defender and all I found are Aggressors. Go figure.

 

...I see what you did there.


  • Syleh Forge, Parravon and Bilisknir like this

Rebels: 4X, 2Y, 2B, 2A, 2Hwk, 2YT, 1GR-75, 2E, 4Z, 1x YT-2400,
(See my Rebels paint thread here!)

Empire: 5x TIE/ln, 3x TIE/sa, 4x TIE/Int, 1x TIE/A, 1x F-31, 1x Lambda, 3x TIE/Pha, 1x TIE/D
(And my Imperial paint thread here!)


#44 Darthfish

Darthfish

    Member

  • Members
  • 416 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 07:22 AM

I did not really intend to get sucked into this, I am not in a camp. I think being in a camp makes you biased. I think there is great potential in energy weapons, particularly for lighter applications like middle defense. There are still significant hurtles to overcome, but they are getting there, and I forsee more use for them in the future. Fwiw, I agree that there is a lot of fear and bias against nuclear power. I don't think it's holding back research but I do think we would be well served as a nation with more nuclear power plants, though security for said plants is critical. As it stands right now, today. Kinetic weapons are clearly superior in most situations. I won't beat this horse to death, but consider the ability of a belt feed grenade launcher to carry different kinds of rounds. Gas, frag, HE, incendiary. Same with artillery shells, shipboard canons, tank rounds, etc. Kinetic weapons win right now in the vast majority of situations. They are cheaper, more reliable, more portable, more versatile. Does this mean we should stop playing with cool new toys? Of course not. As I said previously, I am glad they are building these new vessels to try some of these systems out. I am not anti laser. I am a major in the US army, not a lab rat. No offense. The purpose of the military is to break things and kill people. We need to be better at doing that than anyone else. When cool new toys help me do that, I love them. When they fail spectacularly, people die. When lasers are better, I will embrace them. I am in the combat effective camp. And I am done now. Regards.
  • Bilisknir likes this

All that is required for evil to prevail, is that good men do nothing. - Thomas Jefferson


#45 Millennium Falsehood

Millennium Falsehood

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,046 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 09:52 AM

I've tried to stay out of this, but if there's anything I can't abide it's scientific ignorance.

 

 

Iowa State University, altough I shouldnt have tell you where I learned it because if I recall correctly you are the same guy who refused to say where you practice your trade as a acoustical engineer.  

 

Your actions speek louder than words in regards to being agianst energy based weapons.  For example you keep on going on about how their is no way to get around the counters that have been mentioned.  Not once have I seen you take into consideration the size of the width of the beam in regards to making thermal blooming a non issue.

 

Now your comment about scientests knowing all along what weaponised  high powered lasers are capable of doing is not correct.  Most of the counters mentioned have existed since atleast the 80s.  When it was written they believed no laser could produce a beam equal to the energy put into it, they had not come to the understanding that high powered lasers can cause kinetic thermal damage and on top of that they cant be used in in any conditions not deemed perfect   Hell the stuff we can do with lasers now they never believed was possible.

 

I do understand how lasers cause damage.  The extreme laser can transfer extreme amounts of energy that can cause explosions and not just because the beam struck something flammable but also the sudden extreme tempature change.  

 

 

My whole point of this discussion is the evolution of laser weapons, it was never exculsive to the FEL or any system we have now.

 

As for the laser vs phalanx argument you have made a couple errors.  One is that you start the argument as a comparison of one laser beam vs one shell, but then you include dps.  Not only that but your estimate for dps for the laser is based on the assumption they dont know how to effectivly pulse the laser. 

 

Actully that Laser was made to pull the fabric of space apart.  To pull something apart is to tear it, to tear something is to rend it, and if it has been rended it is destroyed.

 

You knew full well what I meant when I said "Gamma Burster" no one calls any man made fusion explosive a gamma burster.  Anyway I was using earth as an example since you used it as the location I would be firing a ship based gamma laser.   The 1st major reason you would go to the trouble to make a gamma buster Laser is if you couldnt hit what ever it is your trying to hit with the gamma buster because it is not in the direction of the polls.  2nd reason is because the laser beam will be more dangerous for the reasons I mentioned already.

 

I think it is a mistake to assume what we cant do in the future, you cant be 100% positive we wont have the technology to hyperbened lasers or bottle them.  The future can be one seconed to infinity from now the latter end beinging a very long ways off.

 

Yes Laser technology is catching up with what we have seen in SW or atleast until enough people believe it is a waste of time devloping better Laser technology.  Their will be a day when we can do even more than what was seen in SW and agian it is a mistake to dictate what we cant do with technology in the future.  As for what they have in SW they arr exotic lasers... If they were plasma characts wouldnt get excited over plasma weapons or make a point to name those weapons plasma weapons but not name other plasma weapons plasma weapons.

 

 

I think the good people of Iowa State would take issue with you claiming to be one of their alumni.

 

If you really think he's against energy weapons, then you need to re-read what he wrote. Nowhere does he say they're not worth pursuing, nor does he claim that they will always be ineffective. What he's trying to do is explain why they are not the sort of godlike weapons you seem to think they are. I also want you to look up a little principle called the Inverse Square Law and tell me if you think that spreading the beam out over a wider area won't cause a dramatic increase in energy consumption on the part of the laser.

 

Um, you do realize photons are massless, right? You need mass to impart kinetic energy, therefore a laser has no kinetic energy, no matter how powerful it is. I'd be willing to bet scientists knew what we'd be able to do with lasers, given enough time. It has come faster than they anticipated, but there's still a long way to go before they can be weaponized.

 

How would a laser cause an explosion? Please, enlighten me and the rest of us as to what scientific mechanism causes this. It sure isn't a dramatic increase in thermal energy, though I can see how a layman would think it would.

 

I am not a graduate of the engineering program, so I can't honestly address the next few paragraphs.

 

Regardless of what the future holds, there are grievous errors in your understanding of basic physics. Even if they're mistakes, those are mistakes that no practicing scientist or engineer would make. I'm not an engineer yet, and even I can see the flaws in your reasoning.

 

What makes you think the lasers in Star Wars are lasers? They call many guns "rifles" in sci-fi even though they possess no rifling in the barrel. The lasers in Star Wars also behave nothing like real life lasers, therefore they must not be lasers but some other mechanism.


  • Bilisknir likes this

Rebel Alliance: 7 X-wings, 5 Y-wings, 4 A-wings, 1 YT-1300, 2 HWK-290s, 3 B-wings, 1 GR-75, 1 CR-90, 5 Z-95 Headhunters, 1 E-wing

Galactic Empire: 7 TIE Fighters, 1 TIE Advanced, 2 Firespray-31s, 1 Lambda class Shuttle, 3 TIE Bombers, 2 TIE Interceptors, 3 181st TIE interceptors, 3 Royal Guard Interceptors

 

"Main characters defeat a Star Trek villain? Give 'em a Star Wars celebration!"


#46 Millennium Falsehood

Millennium Falsehood

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,046 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 09:59 AM

 

Panel can grab more power per square metre than star puts out not youngling.

 

Based on what we use now it is not viable.  What they are using in SW is more advanced design and materials wise.  Heck I seriously doubt they are using silcon crystals in any of the TIES design, that change in material already would change the reaction created when light makes contact with.  Take in mind though the energy the TIEs use is not equal to its solar re energization of the fuel it carries, and if the fuel is to be fully charged it requires a diffrent process aboard a cap ship or base.

 

 

You should really re-think your claim of scientific acumen if you think a solar panel of any type can collect more energy than a star emits. Even if you got 100% energy capture from a solar panel in ideal circumstances, at the distances which habitable worlds orbit the sun there isn't nearly enough energy to collect at the areas we're discussing for them to power their ships or fire multi-GW laser cannons.


  • Two_Hands and Bilisknir like this

Rebel Alliance: 7 X-wings, 5 Y-wings, 4 A-wings, 1 YT-1300, 2 HWK-290s, 3 B-wings, 1 GR-75, 1 CR-90, 5 Z-95 Headhunters, 1 E-wing

Galactic Empire: 7 TIE Fighters, 1 TIE Advanced, 2 Firespray-31s, 1 Lambda class Shuttle, 3 TIE Bombers, 2 TIE Interceptors, 3 181st TIE interceptors, 3 Royal Guard Interceptors

 

"Main characters defeat a Star Trek villain? Give 'em a Star Wars celebration!"


#47 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,389 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 10:28 AM

**I do not in general agree with Black Knight Leader**

 

Photons actually can impart kinetic energy.  That's basically the reasoning behind the concept of solar sails.  You can insert math and physics here if you want, but photons do have momentum, even though they have no mass.  So while they themselves do not have kinetic energy per se, you don't need to have kinetic energy to create kinetic energy.  Only total energy in conserved, not any particular subtype of energy.



#48 Bilisknir

Bilisknir

    Member

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:10 AM

dbmeboy: Back of the envelope calculation. For a 1MW laser hitting 1cm^2 of a perfect reflector at a right angle (i.e. no thermal damage here) the radiation pressure would impart 66.71 N/m^2 (66.71 Pa). Compare this to surface atmospheric pressure on earth at 101325 N/m^2 (101325 Pa).

For Black Knight Leader: This is equivalent to the force of a 0.68g weight on the same area in earth normal gravity. So not a huge amount of force. Of course this is reduced as the surface is a less perfect reflector or is at an angle. Not a lot of energy being transferred here relative to the thermal effects.


Bilisknir corrupt ver of Bilskirnir (Old Norse "lightning-crack"). The hall of the god Thor in Norse mythology.

Rebel: 8 X-Wing, 9 A-Wing, 4 Y-Wing, 8 B-Wing, 2 YT-1300, 2 HWK-290, 2 GR-75 Transport, 1 Corellian Corvette, 8 Z-95, 4 E-Wing, 3 YT-2400

Imperials: 9 Tie/ln, 10 Tie Int, 5 Tie Bomber, 3 Tie Adv, 2 Firespray-31, 3 Lambda-Class Shuttle, 4 Tie Defender, 4 Tie Phantom, 2 VT-49 Decimator

Scum & Villany: 4 Most Wanted, 4 StarViper, 6 M3-A Interceptor, 2 IG-2000 (Pre-order)


#49 Millennium Falsehood

Millennium Falsehood

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,046 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:17 AM

**I do not in general agree with Black Knight Leader**

 

Photons actually can impart kinetic energy.  That's basically the reasoning behind the concept of solar sails.  You can insert math and physics here if you want, but photons do have momentum, even though they have no mass.  So while they themselves do not have kinetic energy per se, you don't need to have kinetic energy to create kinetic energy.  Only total energy in conserved, not any particular subtype of energy.

Yes, I'm sorry, you're right. I realized that as soon as I hit "Post".

 

But the kinetic energy is negligible compared to the thermal energy, as Biliskner pointed out.


  • Bilisknir likes this

Rebel Alliance: 7 X-wings, 5 Y-wings, 4 A-wings, 1 YT-1300, 2 HWK-290s, 3 B-wings, 1 GR-75, 1 CR-90, 5 Z-95 Headhunters, 1 E-wing

Galactic Empire: 7 TIE Fighters, 1 TIE Advanced, 2 Firespray-31s, 1 Lambda class Shuttle, 3 TIE Bombers, 2 TIE Interceptors, 3 181st TIE interceptors, 3 Royal Guard Interceptors

 

"Main characters defeat a Star Trek villain? Give 'em a Star Wars celebration!"


#50 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,389 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:24 AM

Oh I agree that it's not much kinetic energy.  I just wanted to point out that saying "photons don't have kinetic energy so that can't impart kinetic energy" is faulty.  Because Science!

 

:)


  • Bilisknir likes this

#51 Millennium Falsehood

Millennium Falsehood

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,046 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:29 AM

Lol, yeah I meant to say low KE. Blame it on being up for about 22 hours straight. ;)

 

Ugh . . . no kinetic energy . . . and solar sailers run on it! XD


Edited by Millennium Falsehood, 20 February 2014 - 11:30 AM.

  • Bilisknir likes this

Rebel Alliance: 7 X-wings, 5 Y-wings, 4 A-wings, 1 YT-1300, 2 HWK-290s, 3 B-wings, 1 GR-75, 1 CR-90, 5 Z-95 Headhunters, 1 E-wing

Galactic Empire: 7 TIE Fighters, 1 TIE Advanced, 2 Firespray-31s, 1 Lambda class Shuttle, 3 TIE Bombers, 2 TIE Interceptors, 3 181st TIE interceptors, 3 Royal Guard Interceptors

 

"Main characters defeat a Star Trek villain? Give 'em a Star Wars celebration!"


#52 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,389 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:44 AM

It's not even that light has kinetic energy per se.  Light definitely has energy, and light has momentum.  Figuring out the balance between how much kinetic and thermal energy will be deposited by a laser requires balancing conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.  The bottom line is still that almost all of the deposited energy ends up as thermal energy, to an extent that the deposited kinetic energy in these applications would be negligible.

 

Edit: Please excuse my lack of formulas/numbers.  I haven't used the math near as much in medicine as I did in my nuclear engineering days so it's a little rusty.


Edited by dbmeboy, 20 February 2014 - 11:50 AM.

  • Bilisknir likes this

#53 Bilisknir

Bilisknir

    Member

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:57 AM

Heh - no worries. I think we three can agree whatever the situation the force applied by the beam is totally negligible compared to the thermal energy transfer. So more than sensible to exclude it for the purposes of understanding how damage might get caused!


Bilisknir corrupt ver of Bilskirnir (Old Norse "lightning-crack"). The hall of the god Thor in Norse mythology.

Rebel: 8 X-Wing, 9 A-Wing, 4 Y-Wing, 8 B-Wing, 2 YT-1300, 2 HWK-290, 2 GR-75 Transport, 1 Corellian Corvette, 8 Z-95, 4 E-Wing, 3 YT-2400

Imperials: 9 Tie/ln, 10 Tie Int, 5 Tie Bomber, 3 Tie Adv, 2 Firespray-31, 3 Lambda-Class Shuttle, 4 Tie Defender, 4 Tie Phantom, 2 VT-49 Decimator

Scum & Villany: 4 Most Wanted, 4 StarViper, 6 M3-A Interceptor, 2 IG-2000 (Pre-order)


#54 Millennium Falsehood

Millennium Falsehood

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,046 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 12:28 PM

Yes. The important thing to remember is that light causes damage by directly transferring heat, not kinetic energy.


Rebel Alliance: 7 X-wings, 5 Y-wings, 4 A-wings, 1 YT-1300, 2 HWK-290s, 3 B-wings, 1 GR-75, 1 CR-90, 5 Z-95 Headhunters, 1 E-wing

Galactic Empire: 7 TIE Fighters, 1 TIE Advanced, 2 Firespray-31s, 1 Lambda class Shuttle, 3 TIE Bombers, 2 TIE Interceptors, 3 181st TIE interceptors, 3 Royal Guard Interceptors

 

"Main characters defeat a Star Trek villain? Give 'em a Star Wars celebration!"


#55 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,389 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 12:36 PM

Yes, we are in agreement there.  [/sidetrack]



#56 Kaimuund

Kaimuund

    Member

  • Members
  • 55 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 04:07 PM

Wow. Interesting direction. I like that this game is enjoyed by all kinds of people, from kids, to advanced engineers. It makes for really great conversations. Seriously. 

 

As a Devil's Advocate here, I'd like to mention that most weapons in Star Wars are blasters. They use electro-magnetic fields to contain plasma until impact. Or so the fiction says.... I think the weapons are called laser cannons though, 

 

I think a good comparison would be the Tokamak reactor, which houses plasma held by powerful electro magnets.

 

So these aren't lasers per se, but controlled plasma melting targets, and probably the heat setting off fuel to cause explosions. If this could be imagined, considering the super powerful ion engines on TIE's are the tiny doo dads (technically speaking) to the sides of the conical disc on the back.  

 

Well, maybe not. Perhaps I was looking at older books, this is from Wookipedia

 

 

Lasers were generated by stimulating a "gain medium"; this substance was charged with electricity, radiation or even by chemical reaction so as to release energy in the form of photons. The gain medium could come in the form of a solid (often a crystal), liquid or gas (Tibanna gas was reputedly a favored medium). The "gain medium", when charged, saw the rapid excitement of its constituent atoms. These atoms would experience increases in electron energy levels. Said electrons, seeking equilibrium, then released photons, or packets of electromagnetic radiation, so as to self-stabilize. The produced radiation, reflected and amplified by the optical cavity could then be released as a high-powered and potentially destructive beam of coherent radiation. The output coupler was responsible for the release of the beam from the optical cavity.


Blasters were a considerable improvement over the archaic laser design. Instead of a coherent beam of light, the blaster fired a compressed, focused, high-energy particle-beam that was very destructive, commonly referred to as a "bolt". The composition and characteristics of the blaster bolt could vary depending on the means used to produce it.


#57 Black Knight Leader

Black Knight Leader

    Member

  • Members
  • 604 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 09:55 PM

You do keep setting yourself up for this  beatdown now don't you.

 

Yeah, so I'm not an acoustical engineer. I have said what I do day to day. I'm currently working in financial statistics in London. My masters degree was Mathematics with a side order of Computer Science. I specialised in applied maths and theoretical physics for undergrad.

 

I was quite clear in my previous statement that there are some partial ways round the issues I have mentioned. The reason I did not comment on increasing beam width is that is doesn't actually help. Spreading the beam will undoubtably reduce thermal blooming issues, however it will also significantly reduce the power density of the beam. I haven't the figures to hand for how much blooming reduces as you widen the beam, but since it is related to the heating of the medium the beam is passing through I would have thought it is closely related to the beam energy density. (I may go look up the figures later). Assuming you have a laser of a given output, widening the beam will reduce blooming but increase the time you need to keep the shot on target to produce the same effect.

 

I do struggle to understand the logic in your next paragraph. You seem to say that scientists did not know what weaponised high powered lasers were capable of because they beleived that no laser could produce a beam equal to the energy put in. Well that is still the case I'm afraid. CO2 lasers are around 30% efficient. The highest efficiency lasers I can find quickly are green laser diodes at around 64% efficiency. Though that is at milliwatt power levels. As to whether lasers can be used in non-perfect conditions, of course they can and of course they knew that. But in non-perfect conditions you require more power and control for the same result because of the extra energy lost to the environment.

 

You maintain that lasers do this kinetic thermal damage. No there is no kinetic damage from a laser. You get thermal damage which can, at sufficiently high power levels, vapourise parts of the target. They may also cause shockwaves within the structure of the target due to the rapid expansion/contraction of the material. There is no kinetic energy transfer.

 

Where does this idea of explosions come from? Things do not explode because they are hit by a laser, even with a sudden extreme temperature change. A laser could ignite the target, but the effect of laser on material is not going to cause an explosion.

 

Yeah, so in my phalanx description I do compare 1 shell and the laser beam. I have to use energy output per second or some other mode of comparison. Please tell me how pulsing the laser changes the fact that to get the same total power from the laser you have to fire it for a defined period of time. Now we already know that 1 shot from the phalanx has a kinetic energy of 65KJ. 1KW is 1KJ for 1 second. So to get the same amount of energy to the target you have to fire our 100KW laser for 0.65 seconds. (Probably quite a lot longer than that as we are pulsing the laser so it will not be firing all the time).

 

In you next sentence I get the feeling you are channeling Yoda's description of the dark side. However you are starting from the description of the project used for public consumption in press releases. The website of the project itself doesn't mention pulling the fabric of space apart. http://www.extreme-l...h-field_5_2.php

 

No. I really did not understand what you mean. I tried to understand and I thought you were talking about nuclear pumped x-ray lasers (since those have been called gamma pumped lasers in places - especially science fiction). Given that was not the case then meh... Now sure I suppose you could pump a laser with a gamma burster, you would need a good constant source and knowledge of where the burster is, which would be hard. Also not exactly optimal for a weapon in that you cannot control when you fire. Not I really can't understand the next sentance, doesn't make much sense to me - what is "polls"? And why would that beam be more powerful than an equivalent power beam generated in any other way?

 

Yes, please do make up science. There is no known way we could bottle or hyperbend lasers. No theory exists that would allow you to do it (unless I suppose you gain control of gravity and can focus gravitic fields, but then if you can do that why would you be playing with lasers?).

 

Blah blah blah... junk bull spouted with no backing. Not knowing what science in the future will develop doesn't mean you can say that some particular item you describe will be developed. That is kind of the point. We just don't know what science will allow us to do.

 

No the problem is your behind on the times when it comes to laser science so I would say I more annoyed by that fact than quote unquote taking a beating.

 

Actully changing the  width of the beam and pulsing it tens of microseconeds per beam will make thermal blooming a non issue

 

Agian you are using older types of lasers to make a point, this time about efficiency.  Photonic-crystal lasers and possible XFEL lasers are what you should be looking at now

 

You until now never said fully what you do.

 

 Really high powered laser can cause thermal kinetic damage, the shockwave you mentioned caused by the LASER is attributed to this effect...  As for things not blowing up from lasers you didnt take into consideration just how powerful the beam is and what the materials are the beam is striking yottaton beam will do the trick...

 

The problem with your calculation is you are having the laser fire to slow...   

 

You are making more stuff up agian if you thought I was talking about x-ray Laser you wouldnt have claimed you thought I was talking about gamma lasers that use nuclear bombs for the lasing process.

 

You should have believed me that we have made progress with controlling light.  You brushed it off but at Standford they used synthetic magnetism to control photons.  They can make a laser beam, or electron beam, do a 360 but you will ignore that fact just like anything else.

 

 

I did not really intend to get sucked into this, I am not in a camp. I think being in a camp makes you biased. I think there is great potential in energy weapons, particularly for lighter applications like middle defense. There are still significant hurtles to overcome, but they are getting there, and I forsee more use for them in the future. Fwiw, I agree that there is a lot of fear and bias against nuclear power. I don't think it's holding back research but I do think we would be well served as a nation with more nuclear power plants, though security for said plants is critical. As it stands right now, today. Kinetic weapons are clearly superior in most situations. I won't beat this horse to death, but consider the ability of a belt feed grenade launcher to carry different kinds of rounds. Gas, frag, HE, incendiary. Same with artillery shells, shipboard canons, tank rounds, etc. Kinetic weapons win right now in the vast majority of situations. They are cheaper, more reliable, more portable, more versatile. Does this mean we should stop playing with cool new toys? Of course not. As I said previously, I am glad they are building these new vessels to try some of these systems out. I am not anti laser. I am a major in the US army, not a lab rat. No offense. The purpose of the military is to break things and kill people. We need to be better at doing that than anyone else. When cool new toys help me do that, I love them. When they fail spectacularly, people die. When lasers are better, I will embrace them. I am in the combat effective camp. And I am done now. Regards.

 

Well just because you are neutral about what way you want weapons to evolve does not mean I should expect the same stance from other people.

 

I've tried to stay out of this, but if there's anything I can't abide it's scientific ignorance.

 

 

Iowa State University, altough I shouldnt have tell you where I learned it because if I recall correctly you are the same guy who refused to say where you practice your trade as a acoustical engineer.  

 

Your actions speek louder than words in regards to being agianst energy based weapons.  For example you keep on going on about how their is no way to get around the counters that have been mentioned.  Not once have I seen you take into consideration the size of the width of the beam in regards to making thermal blooming a non issue.

 

Now your comment about scientests knowing all along what weaponised  high powered lasers are capable of doing is not correct.  Most of the counters mentioned have existed since atleast the 80s.  When it was written they believed no laser could produce a beam equal to the energy put into it, they had not come to the understanding that high powered lasers can cause kinetic thermal damage and on top of that they cant be used in in any conditions not deemed perfect   Hell the stuff we can do with lasers now they never believed was possible.

 

I do understand how lasers cause damage.  The extreme laser can transfer extreme amounts of energy that can cause explosions and not just because the beam struck something flammable but also the sudden extreme tempature change.  

 

 

My whole point of this discussion is the evolution of laser weapons, it was never exculsive to the FEL or any system we have now.

 

As for the laser vs phalanx argument you have made a couple errors.  One is that you start the argument as a comparison of one laser beam vs one shell, but then you include dps.  Not only that but your estimate for dps for the laser is based on the assumption they dont know how to effectivly pulse the laser. 

 

Actully that Laser was made to pull the fabric of space apart.  To pull something apart is to tear it, to tear something is to rend it, and if it has been rended it is destroyed.

 

You knew full well what I meant when I said "Gamma Burster" no one calls any man made fusion explosive a gamma burster.  Anyway I was using earth as an example since you used it as the location I would be firing a ship based gamma laser.   The 1st major reason you would go to the trouble to make a gamma buster Laser is if you couldnt hit what ever it is your trying to hit with the gamma buster because it is not in the direction of the polls.  2nd reason is because the laser beam will be more dangerous for the reasons I mentioned already.

 

I think it is a mistake to assume what we cant do in the future, you cant be 100% positive we wont have the technology to hyperbened lasers or bottle them.  The future can be one seconed to infinity from now the latter end beinging a very long ways off.

 

Yes Laser technology is catching up with what we have seen in SW or atleast until enough people believe it is a waste of time devloping better Laser technology.  Their will be a day when we can do even more than what was seen in SW and agian it is a mistake to dictate what we cant do with technology in the future.  As for what they have in SW they arr exotic lasers... If they were plasma characts wouldnt get excited over plasma weapons or make a point to name those weapons plasma weapons but not name other plasma weapons plasma weapons.

 

 

I think the good people of Iowa State would take issue with you claiming to be one of their alumni.

 

If you really think he's against energy weapons, then you need to re-read what he wrote. Nowhere does he say they're not worth pursuing, nor does he claim that they will always be ineffective. What he's trying to do is explain why they are not the sort of godlike weapons you seem to think they are. I also want you to look up a little principle called the Inverse Square Law and tell me if you think that spreading the beam out over a wider area won't cause a dramatic increase in energy consumption on the part of the laser.

 

Um, you do realize photons are massless, right? You need mass to impart kinetic energy, therefore a laser has no kinetic energy, no matter how powerful it is. I'd be willing to bet scientists knew what we'd be able to do with lasers, given enough time. It has come faster than they anticipated, but there's still a long way to go before they can be weaponized.

 

How would a laser cause an explosion? Please, enlighten me and the rest of us as to what scientific mechanism causes this. It sure isn't a dramatic increase in thermal energy, though I can see how a layman would think it would.

 

I am not a graduate of the engineering program, so I can't honestly address the next few paragraphs.

 

Regardless of what the future holds, there are grievous errors in your understanding of basic physics. Even if they're mistakes, those are mistakes that no practicing scientist or engineer would make. I'm not an engineer yet, and even I can see the flaws in your reasoning.

 

What makes you think the lasers in Star Wars are lasers? They call many guns "rifles" in sci-fi even though they possess no rifling in the barrel. The lasers in Star Wars also behave nothing like real life lasers, therefore they must not be lasers but some other mechanism.

 

Well MF if people have a problem with me being here in IA they can try and move me if they have the guts...

 

As for your assement of Bilisknir and his stance on energy based weapons I highly disagree with it.  Rather I should have said he will appose anything I say ANYTHING.  This could be talks about what the most pure red is, he would write a long ass post about how the red I posted about would not be the purist red.  He has constantly changed his stance on things just to be combative.  The only reason he has started agreeing about things I have writen is because I reported him and he wants to look like he is not a problem for the community. 

 

Ummm Photons have mass, hense why a laser beam is excelerated 300 times the speed of light the photons are streched.  That and if they were massless they could not be bound.

 

Well since you think I don't know how a LASER would cause an explosion why would you ask me to tell you how its done?  You can easily look it up.

 

As for your opinion of myself you are forgeting one factor, philosophy.  If every scientist or engnieer acted the way you are expecting me too then pretty much what we have now in our accumulated knowledge would be the limit and no LAW would be broken like say the Law of time-reversal symmetry of light.

 

Actully we do have lasers that act similar, granted not exactly the same yet but we are on the right path.  I can see though you are using examples of bottom of the barrel examples of Laser tech in your opinion.

 

Ring-Airy Laser is another type of Laser that is a steping stone to what they have in SW and also a response to your Inverse-square law comment you threw at me ;)

 

 

 

Panel can grab more power per square metre than star puts out not youngling.

 

Based on what we use now it is not viable.  What they are using in SW is more advanced design and materials wise.  Heck I seriously doubt they are using silcon crystals in any of the TIES design, that change in material already would change the reaction created when light makes contact with.  Take in mind though the energy the TIEs use is not equal to its solar re energization of the fuel it carries, and if the fuel is to be fully charged it requires a diffrent process aboard a cap ship or base.

 

 

You should really re-think your claim of scientific acumen if you think a solar panel of any type can collect more energy than a star emits. Even if you got 100% energy capture from a solar panel in ideal circumstances, at the distances which habitable worlds orbit the sun there isn't nearly enough energy to collect at the areas we're discussing for them to power their ships or fire multi-GW laser cannons.

 

 

 

No you are not taking into consideration the effect of diffrent matarials that could be used that have a diffrent reaction than what we use now that would generate a more powerful charge.  Trust me I constulted the guy I house sit for who is a long time runing Frucon mechanical engnieer.  Unfortuntally he says we are both correct when it comes to are disscusion about solar panels.


Edited by Black Knight Leader, 20 February 2014 - 10:05 PM.

May the Holy Trinity be with you and give you peace.


#58 Bilisknir

Bilisknir

    Member

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 21 February 2014 - 06:23 AM

Oh goody...!!! More crap science to lambast!

 

Please tell me how I am behind the times with laser science? I may not work in the field but that doesn't stop me reading papers on the subject!

 

Please tell me how making the beam wider and pulsing in tenth's of a microsecond fixing thermal blooming is not going to affect the energy density at the target? I never said you can't stop blooming, only that you can't stop blooming without significantly affecting the energy density at the target. Since you clearly don't understand the trade off here I really don't know what more I can say...

 

You do rather miss the point. NO laser can be more than 100% efficient int erms of power input converted to power output in the directed beam. 60% is incredibly efficient for energy conversion. But whether or not the laser is efficient is mostly irrelevent, since you don't really care about efficiency in most situations, you just pump as much energy in as is needed for the required output.

 

Actually I have said in the past what I do (albeit in passing). But nice to see you attacking me back! It makes this even more of a giggle!

 

You do keep banging on about thermal kinetic damage. I think the rest of us agree that this is irrelevant. Secondary damage effects are completely that. I mean we don't claim lasers cause corrosive damage after they hit a theoretical flying target over an ocean and it falls into said ocean and starts to corrode! And yes I suppose you could cause a target to explode by hitting it with a laser, but only if what is actually happening is you are ingniting the explosive itself! That is the laser /causing/ an explosion, but not in a way which is in any way representative of the general case. (I love your use of a word for describing nuclear weapons equivalent energy release for the energy of a laser - what a good chuckle I had there!)

 

Um what? Laser firing too slow? You do know the relationship between Power and energy right? 1W is 1 J per second. Therefore a 100KW laser is outputting 100,000 J of energy every second (in continuous firing mode - i.e. firing all the time). You cannot "fire faster" and get more energy out. Basic physics 101 here. Though I think you probably failed that course!

 

You can think what you want. I was trying to read your terrible english and work out what you were on about. Now I was not expecting a reference to gamma ray bursters being used to pump lasers because the idea is pretty crazy out there. So I ended up choosing something which I thought you might be refering to.

 

As to magnetism being used to control electron beams, of course you can do that. How do you think cathode ray tube televisions work? Go take a look at https://en.wikipedia...cle_accelerator for info on electron beams! Now as to photons, yes "synthetic magnetism". An interesting idea, it isn't magnetic steering of photos, but if has a similar effect. It uses a medium of photonic crystals which are themselves affected by electric currents applied to them to steer photos. The result is the ability to steer a photon. But it isn't something that happens in free space, it is just a clever way of using nano materials. I guess a simple comparison is saying the photons are electrically steered in the same way that I can cause a gun to fire a shell on a warship by clicking fire on the computer control systems. There are a number of steps between cause and effect! So yes you can steer photons, but you could do that already with other exotic materials (or even something as simple as a prism!)

 

-------------------

 

Not to your comments about MF.

 

Ah so now we get to see who you are. You must be a football player. Some sort of lineman - you know the huge ones who just stand around running into each other!

 

Actually I don't disagree with everything you say. Just almost everything. And by the way I am not changing my stance, I am taking your arguments apart, It's a different thing! I can't see any evidence of a report. Even if I did, it wouldn't change the way I act. If I get banned from here all that happens is I get more work done! So no loss to me really...

 

Yes, photons have a TINY mass. Really really really tiny. But as I showed above the force exerted by that mass is tiny. So not sure what you are on about here. You talk about "excelerated 300 times speed of light". Firstly you can't accelerate at a speed, secondly light travels at the speed of light (Note to idiots - that's why it is called the speed of light), thirdly nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Not sure what you are on about with binding photons but really can't be bothered to investigate.

 

I believe he is asking you to prove how a laser would cause an explosion. You know science requires proof. Just stateing something and then saying go look up the answer when someone calls you on it is not science or an argument! If it so easy to find then please provide a link for us.

 

You mean scientists and engineers requiring proof before they believe something. Well whoop de doo, you want to throw the scientific method out the window and return to greek philosophers thinking and not observing the universe go right ahead. But please leave the sciences part of the university and return to the departments of humanities! The thing about scientists is we review what we know and happily change laws if it turns out they are wrong. So if time reversal symmetry of light turns out to be wrong we'll just think of some other description.

 

Please provide proof of lasers which act similarly to the ones in Star Wars. Links and reviewed articles will do.

 

Ring airy lasers (seen here http://phys.org/news...plications.html) create a sort of light bullet. But this "light bullet" doesn't travel slower than light speed. It is just a really short laser pulse with some interesting self focusing properties. Not sure about the inverse square law application here. But spread out a beam and it will deliver less power per unit area, now having something self focus could mitigate this somewhat, but as soon as it begins to focus the blooming effects reappear.

 

 

-------------

 

Well I would like to say yet again. You cannot gain more energy from solar radiation than is there. No matter how efficient your collectors are. It is called conservation of energy and is a really simple and fundamental part of physics. Now if this Frucon guy thinks otherwise I wouldn't call him an engineer, unless he is the sort of engineer who repairs air conditioning units....(i.e. a glorified mechanic with a nice job title). So not sure where you can go with your argument. But hey, by all means keep shouting at the sky that it isn't blue,


Bilisknir corrupt ver of Bilskirnir (Old Norse "lightning-crack"). The hall of the god Thor in Norse mythology.

Rebel: 8 X-Wing, 9 A-Wing, 4 Y-Wing, 8 B-Wing, 2 YT-1300, 2 HWK-290, 2 GR-75 Transport, 1 Corellian Corvette, 8 Z-95, 4 E-Wing, 3 YT-2400

Imperials: 9 Tie/ln, 10 Tie Int, 5 Tie Bomber, 3 Tie Adv, 2 Firespray-31, 3 Lambda-Class Shuttle, 4 Tie Defender, 4 Tie Phantom, 2 VT-49 Decimator

Scum & Villany: 4 Most Wanted, 4 StarViper, 6 M3-A Interceptor, 2 IG-2000 (Pre-order)


#59 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,389 posts

Posted 21 February 2014 - 07:40 AM

After a quick review of the easily accessible literature (ie not an exhaustive review), I don't think it's accurate to say that photons have very tiny mass. They are theoretically massless. Experimentally, it's pretty much impossible to prove 0 mass, so all we can do is set an upper limit on the mass... Which has currently been done to something on the order of 10^-17 eV.

So we think photons have 0 mass, we can prove that they don't have more than very very tiny mass.
  • Bilisknir likes this

#60 Bilisknir

Bilisknir

    Member

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 21 February 2014 - 08:06 AM

indeed


Bilisknir corrupt ver of Bilskirnir (Old Norse "lightning-crack"). The hall of the god Thor in Norse mythology.

Rebel: 8 X-Wing, 9 A-Wing, 4 Y-Wing, 8 B-Wing, 2 YT-1300, 2 HWK-290, 2 GR-75 Transport, 1 Corellian Corvette, 8 Z-95, 4 E-Wing, 3 YT-2400

Imperials: 9 Tie/ln, 10 Tie Int, 5 Tie Bomber, 3 Tie Adv, 2 Firespray-31, 3 Lambda-Class Shuttle, 4 Tie Defender, 4 Tie Phantom, 2 VT-49 Decimator

Scum & Villany: 4 Most Wanted, 4 StarViper, 6 M3-A Interceptor, 2 IG-2000 (Pre-order)





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS