I am quite careful not to rely on any form of particular laser unless you first bring them up. I wouldn't want to confuse you. Yes there are some lasers with some properties that alleviate some of the issues I raise. Quite often they exacerbate some of the other issues.
I was not talking about any particular laser. I was mrely pointing out that for a given power of laser there are ways to reduce blooming and that those ways to reduce blooming will necessarily affect you damage dealing efficiency. That limits effective range and thus utility. It doesn't mean the weapons are broken, they are just not the awesome sause you seem to think they will be. You keep pointing out by the way that blooming will be a non issue. I see no proof as to this. Everything I read about this all say it will reduce the problem not negate it.
Who cares how efficient lasers are? Not me. You were the one saying that lasers were not efficient so scientists didn't know what they could do. Light bulds are not efficient, if I want more light I build a bigger bulb. Which is what scientists did when they wanted more powerful beams. So harping on about efficiency is just clouding the issue.
No actually - you said I refused to say what my job was. Which was an outright lie. I had never been asked. That I'm pretty sure constitues an attack!
http://mazur.harvard...ns/Pub_237.pdf It seems your comments about microexplosions come from this article. I notice you seem to have editted out that part about how surprisingly small the resultant damage was. Partial quotes really are the best aren't they!
No, that's not how science works. I'm not going looking for your arguments. That is your job to supply evidence to support your arguments.
Erm... what? I said the laser was on half the time. Do you want it on 3/4 of the time? You do realise than 100 pulses of 1/200 of a second has the same power output as running the laser for 1/2 a second right?
I aven't changed my explanations. I have expanded on them. I thought you meant something different. That is all. You are a crazy person who reads what they want to read. I can't change that for you but perhaps I can put others reading this forum in the right place not to read your insane rambles as truth.
Oh please give me another comparison? The light is being maniuplated using a physical substrate not a field.
Oh joy - you did Judo and Sambo. Whoop de doo..
Nah - i'm not attacking anyone else. You just need putting right! Plus good to see you understand I am deconstructing your arguments. See that is how science works!
On solar panels, fine believe what you want. I'm going to stick with science on this and say you can't have energy out > energy in. That breaks the conservation of energy. http://en.wikipedia....onal_parameters lists light output efficiencies of LEDs. Now indeed scientists at MIT have invented a LED which is 230% electrically efficient. However it draws energy from thermal sources around it. As such it is not more than 100% energy efficient. http://www.wired.co....-efficient-leds
So he designs gas turbines. What would he know about solar panels? And if he does know about them. Please go show this thread to him and ask if he really means that solar panels can in any way convert 1W of incoming energy into more than 1W of output energy. I'm sure he will have a good laugh!
And now you are talking magic shiny things! So i'm going to head off to bed. Ta ta!