There is a (I am informed by someone I believe but will not name)
workable laser rifle design on the books. I say again _workable_ for
combat purposes. The only thing missing? Not the reliability nor robustness
(or they are considered adequate). The missing part is the small portable
source of power. You can choose to believe this or not. It is my strong
suspicion you will see this weapon deployed
operationally before 2015 especially if you consider some energy-density
and energy-storage projects DARPA is working on.
Why is a laser a good thing? Recharge from a portable solar cell. Low
logistics demand potentially. Why is a laser fragile? Maybe it uses a big
fiber rod as its core, and thus hasn't got conventional optics and has
effectively a "barrel" very similar to a rifle that is about as hard to jar or
adjust (zero). What else makes a laser a good thing? Multiple modes. Eh?
Modes:
1) wide beam - useful for driving off packs of predators, crowds of
brigands, or fighting insect swarms without massive pinpoint destruciton
2) focused beam - can be used to punch holes and bake things, accurate
and (if adjustable) potentially useful as laser saw or drill
3) flashlight mode - using miniscule amounts of power, you can have a
nice bright light.
I'm not saying their aren't times you'd prefer a HAMR. But I can see colonies
on which one of these would be far more useful than a HAMR. And their
progression in technology is not only possible, but quite likely given current
research in fiber optics and laser diodes and related stuff.
As to the issue of what the ESU would permit its colonists.... do you suspect
that Russia permits the Mob there to have weapons? And yet there seem to be an
awful lot of them out there. And do you suspect that weapons can't be made in
a 2183 machine shop at night or in secret? I can probably make a 2000
equivalent rifle with ease. Do you suspect that ESU army units won't be
moonlighting for extra cash as security for smuggling or as "hitters"? I think
you'll find weapons galore in ESU colonies, though hardly as evenly
distributed as those in Libertarian Colonies like the AE.
You're more likely to have few weapons (and fewer of the military kind)
in a Canadian-NAC colony than in an ESU colony. Or so I suspect.
Tomb.
> smuggling or as "hitters"? I think you'll find weapons galore in ESU
Weapons aren't evenly distributed in AE sovereignities. Some places
(Jack Old Ron, for example) have ship-killers mounted, others (Poor
Claires) have no weaponry other than kitchen knives and such. It's evenly
*available* if you have the cash, but most people just don't
Actually, both Communist China and the old USSR allowed people in rural areas
to have various types of hunting rifles and shotguns. The reason
is obvious in a rural setting, where farmers/herders need to kill
predators and vermin. In fact, there was a civilian hunting version of the
Druganov (sp.?) sniper rifle I believe. Also, a lot of the old militia units
in China had their own AK47s and SKS's (type 56s and type 53s to be more
exact). Of course, a lot of them had spears too, but that's a different
story...
About Canadian colonies having less weapons than ESU colonies... not if
they're from Alberta:)
------------------------------------------------
Increase my killing power, eh?
- Homer Simpson
> --- Tomb <tomb@dreammechanics.com> wrote:
> As to the issue of what the ESU would permit its
TomB, A more accurate model for the ESU would be communist China.
Bye for now,
> Tomb wrote:
> Why is a laser a good thing? Recharge from a portable solar cell. Low
Multiple
> modes. Eh?
Vaporising a 20 cm long wound channel with a sectional area of one square
centimeter requires delivering 45 kilojoules to the target. Hopefully, this is
fatal. Ignoring all losses and assuming that all efficiencies are
100%,
the solar collector area is sixty square metres (divided by the time between
shot in seconds), for Earth. Clouds, haze, dirt, and vegetation will increase
this, and it would be wildly optimistic for the efficiencies of either the
laser or the solar collector to get above 50%. Until someone starts burning
holes in living things, we will not know how uaseful the 45 kilojoules guess
is.
Your wide beam mode will require huge amounts of power. A seven watt laser
> Vaporising a 20 cm long wound channel with a sectional area of one
> Ignoring all losses and assuming that all efficiencies are 100%,
> ...it would be wildly optimistic for the efficiencies of
All of these statements are based on CURRENT, 2001 technology, not SG2
sci-fi tech and thus are basically mute.
> Until someone starts burning holes in living things, we will not know
And how are these assumptions about LASERS any less acceptable than those
even less knowledge-based assumptions we all are making about gauss
weapons and hover tanks(for example)???? At least we know some of the the
limitations of LASER and humankind will have more time to
perfect/improve
the LASER.
> Your wide beam mode will require huge amounts of power.
Based on CURRENT, 2001 technology, not SG2 sci-fi tech... Not to
mention
(again) 100+ ton tanks can fly and humans can wear powered armor due to
advances in power generation but this same universe will not allow not enough
power for a more efficient LASER to burn through a enemy on the battlefield???
I just seems to me that some are prejudiced against LASERs as future
battlefield weapons because they already exist, and thus we know some of
their CURRENT limitations. This is an advantage, NOT a disadvantage. Until you
know a technologies limitations, you can hardly work to improve it.
Whereas weapon systems that are not even on an engineer's drawing board are
accepted without qualms (that I have heard on this list) when we don't even
have a realistic clue as to what their limitations might even be (gauss
weapons being one). This just does not seem logically consistent to me.
> From: "Scott Clinton" <grumbling_grognard@hotmail.com>
> All of these statements are based on CURRENT, 2001 technology, not
No offense intended, but the actual phrase is "the point is moot", not
"mute".
Sorry, that's just one of my (many) pet peeves.
> Scott Clinton wrote:
> >Vaporising a 20 cm long wound channel with a sectional area of one
Minor nit: current 2001 tech puts the theoretical (not technically possible)
efficiency of a free-electron laser (can't get much more efficient than
these) at 25%, and that number comes from a wildly optimistic SDI research
project.
> >Until someone starts burning holes in living things, we will not know
Hover, as opposed to grav, tanks are an engineering problem, not a physics
problem. The flying bedstead is proof of concept (vehicle that flies without
aerodynamic lift, just thrust). The hundred tonne hovertank will require huge
amounts of power, but the backpack-sized polymegawatt fusion reactor is
a sci-fi
staple (without it, none of our toys will work). Gauss weaponry has less of a
gap between what they are and what we wish them to be, than lasers. Aside from
embarrassingly large power requirements and bulky size, they could almost be
used to kill tanks now.
> >Your wide beam mode will require huge amounts of power.
A beam with an area of sixty square meters that has the same energy density as
a beam area of one square centimeter will require six hundred thousand times
the power. The wide angle beam will be one of very weak, very narrow, or very
close ranged. Being able to make 100 tonne vehicles fly will never impart the
abilty to divide ten by two hundred and get an answer of two.
> I just seems to me that some are prejudiced against LASERs as future
Until
> you know a technologies limitations, you can hardly work to improve
There are experimental gauss weapons, they were developed as part of the SDI
project. One limitation is anchoring the rails that pass current to the
projectile, as they are strongly attracted to each other. Another is the high
> There are experimental gauss weapons, they were developed as part of
And there are REAL, practical LASERs in use today that can burn a hole
through a soldier. Granted, they are not man-portable on a battlefield,
etc., etc... but the fact that they exist in commercial (i.e. economically
feasible) applications makes LASERs decades closer than their gauss
equivalents (at least).
> Scott Clinton Wrote:
> There are experimental gauss weapons, they were developed as part of
economically
> feasible) applications makes LASERs decades closer than their gauss
I'm interested to see how this discussion has progressed from my original
comments. I'm sure that this evolution has rendered my argument irrelevant to
the CURRENT line of discussion, but I want to clarify a few points:
In my original argument, I never claimed that military lasers were
non-viable. I never claimed that gauss weapons would develop faster
than them. My only observation was that, no matter how advanced the science of
lasers gets, whether that means new energy sources, beam types (Visible light,
microwave, whatever), portability, etc., they will always suffer the setback
of relying on their optics in order to be functional as a weapon. That means
that even slight misalignments, dirt, any sort of poor conditions, will have a
far more deleterious effect on it's performance than
say, a regular bullet-firing weapon. As a future frontiersman, NOT A
SOLDIER, where I may spend days or weeks ALONE (No platoon sgt., no logistics
section), away from my home, let alone from the nearest town, and even more
removed from Earth, I want a weapon that can withstand rough contitions, be
beaten about, is easy to service by myself. And I want it to be able to drop
big predators in their tracks.
Remember, there are vast differences between what is required of a military
weapon and what is required of a civilian sporting or utilitarian weapon. If
you mortally wound a grizzly, he does not drop his weapon, call for a
medic, and tie up significant portions of a logistic tail getting care.
Unless you stop him cold, he keeps coming, kills you, and then dies. Bloody
lot of good that does you.
2B^2
> Scott Clinton wrote:
> >There are experimental gauss weapons, they were developed as part of
economically
> feasible) applications makes LASERs decades closer than their gauss
Out of curiousity, how far away will these commercial lasers burn through a
person? The gauss weapon projectile does not suffer from diffraction or
dispersion, so if the weapon can fire a 7.62mm slug at the same mv as a 7.62mm
rifle, we can confidently say the gauss weapon will be lethal at the same
ranges. Of course, the gauss weapons I have learned about were much closer to
[quoted original message omitted]
Solid state focusing is being researched as we speak... Conceptually,
think fiber-optics from start to exit of the generator. AFAIR there's
two types, one using "imperfections" within the fiber to bounce off of (Think
nano-sized mirrors) the other uses the refractive properities of
differing materials to focus. The major advantage is ruggedness.
The other concept to wrap around here is auto-correcting focus. One
that set's itself. Totally self contained.
Either of these shouldn't be a stretch of imagination or technology... not
when you're willing to concede power, beam types, portability, etc... Which
can all be "solved" currently with tech we have, or will have in the next
decade. Doubt it, and I suggest you go look at some of the military research
being done on SDI (Star wars).
On a side, but possibly interesting note to some out there... Recently a
particle "laser" was produced. Coherent matter. Yum. No, not a "traditional"
particle beam, or ion gun, but a beam of coherent
matter. For more info go look up Bose-Einstein condensates and recent
articles about them.
As for stopping power, again, I'll point to research going on right now.
There's research going on for use of a ground based laser to propel a
satellite into orbit. Quick and dirty, it hits the bottom of the craft and
super heats the air under it, expanding air pushes the satellite up. This is
done with today's lasers. With tomorrows lasers, and a bit of research, we may
find that this concept could be used in a laser gun. So, super heated air such
that it "explodes" (not correct usage, I know, done for effect...:) right on
top of someone... Concussion, burning...
Rand.
> At 08:09 AM 1/31/02 +0100, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
Indeed, if
> the laser can be tuned to produce a low-power visible light beam, I
Anyway,
> scratched optics degrade fairly gracefully. Performance is impaired,
> Randall L Joiner wrote:
> As for stopping power, again, I'll point to research going on right
This
> is done with today's lasers. With tomorrows lasers, and a bit of
Unfortunately for weapons production, the vessel to be propelled conspires
mightily with the laser to produce the superheated air that blasts it upwards
into space. The bottom of the craft is designed to be illuminated from
In keeping with the nit-picking tradition on this list:
I don't think you meant "all be it" but rather "albeit"
Albeit Al`be"it, conj. OE. al be although it be, where al is our all. Cf.
Although. Even though; although; notwithstanding.
Albeit so masked, Madam, I love the truth. --Tennyson.
You know, for future reference.
Granted, every word.
However...:) I was trying to give an example of a concussive force generated
by a laser. Not that this exact technique would do it in other circumstances,
just that it can be done someway somehow. If you can do it one way, there's
often other ways to do it too...:)
Besides, it's really cool, and at least somewhat germane.:)
Rand.
> At 10:06 PM 1/31/02 -0500, you wrote:
> Randall L Joiner wrote:
This
> > is done with today's lasers. With tomorrows lasers, and a bit of
> below and