In a physics class I was in we worked out that the amount of energy required
to make a clean hole through a tank was about the same amount of energy
required to make a hole through a person.
An insignificant amount of reflective armor makes your laser worthless, as
does clothing of the same color.
Let's say you have your uber laser. It pokes a hole through me. Now I have a
2mm cauterized hole. There is a pretty good chance I am still functional.
Or, alternatively, I have a 2mm hole 3 or 4mm deep and a cloud of steam in
front of it blocking the beam. I'd also have a nasty burn.
I hope you don't have to go into combat on a foggy day. I also hope your
opponent with his old fashioned tech and
smoke/aerosol anti-laser fog.
I can buy a laser as an anti-tank weapon. I really have to
suspend disbelief in the anti-creature category. The massive
energy required is much better used throwing small pieces of mass at your
opponent or prey.
> From: Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net>
These all assume visible light (or near visible light LASERs). It is my
understanding that X-Ray (and other high freq. light) LASERs are what
hold the real 'promise' in this field.
Also, I have heard that the issue with a real LASER rifle is indeed the power
source. But, if SG2 has portable power sources for AFVs that make 100 tons
fly...
> At 08:11 PM 1/28/02 -0500, you wrote:
I remember reading something from Walter John Williams about this. Lemme see
if I can find it....
Here we go: "And forget the business of beam weapons making cauterized
wounds -- these beam weapons are tuned to the harmonic frequency of the
body's water, causing instant steam explosions that blow great bloody
chunks out of people." (From his adaptation of his book _Hardwired_ to
the Cyberpunk RPG.)
Dunno the physics, never claimed to -- I was an English major, by gum!
On Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:13 PM, John Crimmins
> [SMTP:johncrim@voicenet.com] wrote:
> Here we go: "And forget the business of beam weapons making cauterized
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 03:28:01PM +1100, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
If you tune your laser to be absorbed by water, it'll produce explosive scalds
of the type described. It'll also be absorbed by atmospheric
water, so you lose a lot of range. It's a trade-off that has to be made
at weapon design time. The sub-machine-laser might well be designed this
way; the sniper rifle won't be.
> From my limited physics knowledge, and what I remember of the
They had those too, and many more even less practical things. (Consider
the minimum size of a resonating cavity for a microwave - that's a
function of physics, not engineering.)
> Scott Clinton wrote:
> These all assume visible light (or near visible light LASERs). It is
X-ray lasers have the annoying problem that outside of an armored
vehicle, there is no way to guarantee that even if the target is square in
your sights
[quoted original message omitted]
I was watching a TV show a couple of years ago. (science show)
They had a segment about a laser in a labratory somewhere. I remember the
narrator saying something like:
"When those lasers in sci-fi shows exploded on things, they had the
science
right...."
(something about the extreamly rapid heating of the target material, would
cause some of the material to "explode" away from the spot.)
Donald Hosford
> John Crimmins wrote:
> At 08:11 PM 1/28/02 -0500, you wrote:
Lemme
> see if I can find it....