Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

I've worked in high energy lasers off and on for 25 years. Burning a hole in a slow-moving, thin-walled, absorptive rubber boat from a ground-based laser doesn't impress me too much.

Back in the 80's, we were going to knock Russian ICBM's out of space with "lasers". Now we can burn a hole in a rubber dingy.

That's what the government calls "progress."

Progress!

http://youtu.be/3X2ALG9iGPg

Drats! The Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

Defeat this with reynolds wrap and water...

OakRidgeStars wrote:Back in the 80's, we were going to knock Russian ICBM's out of space with "lasers". Now we can burn a hole in a rubber dingy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<sigh> ..... I wish this forum had a sarcasm smilie.

I've seen more impressive homemade jobs on Youtube. Some of the laser pistols are pretty nasty; it's cool seeing this technology develop and evolve before the eyes.

That video was some pretty weak sauce man. I hope that wasn't a real LM product.

Like Trailrunner, I used to work in laser technology when I first started in Electronic Engineering. I can tell you that a practical laser weapon is completely out of reach with our current understanding and capabilities. In order for a laser to be a useful weapon, you have to produce significant damage in picoseconds. This is not possible with our current technology of producing energy itself.

This is a very, very simply way of looking at it.

In order to cut a hole 1 foot in diameter in a 1/2" thick sheet of steel at point blank range in one second, it would require a photon burst that generates over 1,141,000 joules of energy. That's 1.14 million watts and enough photon power to literally destroy molecules of atmosphere the laser travels through as it travels to its target. And as air pollution increases or the humidity level increases, the photons slow down and/or get partially absorbed by that debris, requiring more energy at the source in order to have the desired energy at the target. AND, even at a foot round, that is still only for 1/2" of penetration.

Lets just say you manage to pull this level of power off... whatever your photon source is would be exhausted pretty quickly too.

And how many one foot diameter holes do you need to put in a carrier or airplane before they sink or crash (respectively)? I'm guessing its a lot.

I don't see this being a practical weapon, maybe ever.

Here is a video of what we are using right now. Just seems to take too long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqLkpcHavZE

I have a new idea that I think will put me at the forefront on the laser defense industry. If any has any old AOL CDs, I'll take them off your hands.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Hey guys... disregard my numbers above. The general principle is what I was thinking, but the math was all off. I don't know what the hell I was thinking as far as my math goes.

Someone sent me a PM and pointed it out. Im thankful for sure, but if you guys see me typing something clearly wrong or doesn't make sense... I am open to criticism and correction as long as it's friendly. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong and not to proud to admit it.

I think I got the point across about my opinions anyway. Those folks are never going to do anymore than pop balloons.

Aw, that's alright , Marc! I was ready to hook my old DeLorean up to your power source and make me a time machine...

LOL! Nice! That would be sweet.

Real death ray!

FIRE THE PHOTON TORPEDOES !!!

Wait... can we do proton torpedoes instead? I like my ordnance to have a little more mass. LOL

OakRidgeStars wrote:Back in the 80's, we were going to knock Russian ICBM's out of space with "lasers". Now we can burn a hole in a rubber dingy.

That only worked because they thought we MIGHT be able to.

MarcSpaz wrote:FIRE THE PHOTON TORPEDOES !!!

Wait... can we do proton torpedoes instead? I like my ordnance to have a little more mass. LOL

The fact I laughed at this is very sad.