Re: Laser Weapons

>From: Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net>
>Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>Subject: Laser Weapons
>Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:11:51 -0500 (EST)
>
>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.
>
>Roger

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...

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.