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.