Author Topic: Death Rays now a reality  (Read 8760 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nuke

  • Ka-Boom!
  • 212
  • Mutants Worship Me
Re: Death Rays now a reality
thers where pulsed beams come into play.
I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Nuke's Scripting SVN

  

Offline BloodEagle

  • 210
  • Bleeding Paradox!
    • Steam
Re: Death Rays now a reality
I'm not a physicist, so.... How effective would reflective armor be against something like this?

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: Death Rays now a reality
I'm not a physicist, so.... How effective would reflective armor be against something like this?


Marginally effective. Any reflective surface still absorbs enough of the energy that it's surface would sublimate or vaporize almost instantly, lose it's reflectivity and then it would not be very effective any more.

Water ice layer would be a lot more effective since it takes a lot of energy to phase shift it into non-solid form. Even more effecive could be a circulated water layer where the absorbed energy is rapidly dispersed.

However, if the laser is powerful enough to instantaneously vaporize water and bore through the layer of ice or water, this kind of armour could turn agaisnt it's user since water vapour would end up expanding rather rapidly and violently...
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline Flaser

  • 210
  • man/fish warsie
Re: Death Rays now a reality
The problem when dealing with continuous wave lasers is once the laser hits the target, vaporized material will block/deflect the beam and lessen its effectiveness.  But maybe moving the laser across the target like a terran slash beam could overcome that. ;)

That's one of the problems weapon designers still have to overcome.
However the phenomenon maybe used in a nasty application - if you can match the lasing frequency of the expanding ball of debris gas, you can use it as another lasing cavity. Needless to say with messy results on the receiving end.

As usual Project Rho has all the answers mapped out a long time ago:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3l.html
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html
http://panoptesv.com/SciFi/DeathRay.html
"I was going to become a speed dealer. If one stupid fairytale turns out to be total nonsense, what does the young man do? If you answered, “Wake up and face reality,” you don’t remember what it was like being a young man. You just go to the next entry in the catalogue of lies you can use to destroy your life." - John Dolan

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: Death Rays now a reality
Quote
Water ice layer would be a lot more effective since it takes a lot of energy to phase shift it into non-solid form.

Yeah, but only by kJ at a time, hardly worth even spending the effort on.  Even factoring in instant conversion from solid to gas we're only talking somewhere around 2260 kJ total energy required to vaporize from solid state.  A 100 kW laser emits energy equivalent to 360 megajoules.  It would take about 0.0063 seconds to burn right through it, with a net energy loss of ~0.625 kW.  Behind that laser would still be  about 357740 kJ of energy ready to rip something open.

EDIT:  Had to fix a couple math mistakes

NOTE:  This is taking into account ice that is 1 cm thick, and a laser that is focused at a 1 cm point of contact.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2009, 11:50:00 pm by Scotty »

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
Re: Death Rays now a reality
I wouldn't bet that the spot diameter is below 1 cm. I would find it surprising if it was, due to a couple of fundamental properties of light. I project a sudden interest in the development of cheap reflective diffractive elements.

Scotty, could you explain reasoning behind of released energy of 360 MJ?

I think that the energy [J] released equals power [W=J/ s] times the time unit [ s ]. Now, using 360 MJ = 100 kW * t and solving for t gives
t = (360*10^6 J) / (100 * 10^3 J/s) = 3.6 * 10^3 s = 3600 s.  Somehow I suspect that illumination time is less than one hour...

Mika

EDIT: Had to modify [ s ], the forum will interprete it as strikethrough otherwise.
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
Re: Death Rays now a reality
It will also be interesting to see how quickly lasers are taken into use as airplane destruction devices. I would suspect that ground based laser systems that have high enough power levels to destroy aircrafts would drastically reduce the effectiveness of air forces. Surprisingly, the aircraft is actually a sitting duck in situation like that because a ground based laser is difficult to detect until it is too late. And it takes only a couple of seconds of lasing to knock off an airplane, and it can all be done visually point-and-click wise. No radar is required to engage the target.

Interesting times indeed.

Mika
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: Death Rays now a reality
Ah, you would be correct.  I was using a google converter and forgot to change from kW/hrs to seconds.

That of course makes it an order of magnitude more effective, but I still think that using some sort of high melting point metal would be more effective in deflecting energy from the target.

@second post:
It would have the effect of being unavoidable if targeted by computer.  If the 'projectile' is traveling at the speed of light, there is no maneuvering time whatsoever.

I'll get the math ready to find out how long it would take to shoot one down, provided 100 kW laser and aluminum plane.

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: Death Rays now a reality
Finally got the math:

24.2 J/mol · k (298 k)
Melting point: 933.47 k (660.32°C)
Boiling point: 2792 k (2519°C)
Specific Heat: 0.89 J/g·C
Heat of Fusion: 10.790 kJ/mol
Heat of Vaporization: 293.40 kJ/mol
Density: 2.702 g/cm3
Atomic Weight:  26.98153858

Heat = mass x CpAl x temperature change = heat capacity x temperature change

MiG-29
Height: 4.73 meters
Wing Thickness: 39.4178 centimeters
Length: 17.37 meters
Wing Length: 4.75 meters
Total Volume of 1cm strip of wing at fuselage:  1872345500 cm3 » 1.87 m3
Total Volume of 1cm2 strip of wing: 39.4178 cm2 

106.5068956 g in 1cm2
3.947398896 mol in 1 cm2

106.5068956 g ·0.89J/g·C · 660.32 C = 62592.48364 J
3.947398896 mol · 10.790 kJ/mol = 42.59243409 kJ
Total energy required to melt a 1cm2 patch of wing: 105.1849225 kJ

Using 103 kW laser » 103 kJ/second energy output

Now just multiply that by the remaining 4750 centimeters in that wing.  Total energy required is (105.1849226 kJ x 4750 =) 499628.3817 kJ.  It would take nearly 500 mega joules of energy to take down the plane.  It will take 1.02121284 seconds to melt (just melt, not vaporize) just one patch, and will (would) take a little over 1.34 hours (1 hour, 20 minutes, 50.76 seconds) to melt completely through the wing.  Granted, the plane would not be in the air with a half-melted wing, it would still take considerable time to render a plane unfit to fly.

EDIT: holy crap did I mess that one up.  For some reason I thought it was 1000 cm to a meter.  The time should be about 8 minutes, not over an hour.

Still too long to be effective.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2009, 08:39:49 pm by Scotty »

 

Offline Dilmah G

  • Failed juggling
  • 211
  • Do try it.
Re: Death Rays now a reality
Yes but it would definitely get the MiG to piss off

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: Death Rays now a reality
I was thinking the water as ablative shielding would be far more effective on heavy vehicles or space ships rather than airplanes, since what I have in mind does require somewhat more thickness and mass on the shield system to increase it's thermal capacity.

By the way what happens with liquid water when you point a laser on it? Especially if the water is not still but kept in circulation. I'm thinking of a setup with outer shell and inner armour, with a layer of water in between. Ice would be problematic not only because it's solid and requires active cooling in most cases but also because of the expansive behaviour when it actually freezes. With liquid water plus de-ice chemicals you could still cool it below zero degrees Celcius, too.

How much energy would the water absorb as the laser passed through the outer shell and started to penetrate the water layer? Water is after all reasonably transparent, and would likely let most of the light travel through itself, so it's not like you can just focus all that energy on the surface of the water.

Second important thing is that water is what happens to the inner armor layer when the laser touches it. Mainly I'm interested in how much conduction and convection of thermal energy happens near the heating spot. Convection of course depends partly on how much the water circulates, but even on still water there would still be gravity-induced convection to some extent.

And what happens when you change the water into suspension by inducing some particles that very effecively diffuse any light?


Of course there are problems when the laser becomes powerful enough to focus enough energy on surface of the water to start immediately vaporizing it, in which case the rapidly expanding vapor will cause a steam explosion and a shockwave that first ruptures the outer shell of the armour configuration and then it would be a case of "Goodbye, Mr. Bond".
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline BS403

  • 29
  • I'm just sitting in my Cave.
Re: Death Rays now a reality
Now America can kill others more efficiently!

fixed it for you.
http://woogleville.myminicity.com/

Homer: Aw, twenty dollars! I wanted a peanut!
Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts.
Homer: Explain how.
Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
Homer: Woo-hoo!

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: Death Rays now a reality
Quote
Water is after all reasonably transparent, and would likely let most of the light travel through itself, so it's not like you can just focus all that energy on the surface of the water.

This interestingly enough would be one of the major flaws.  Not only would it let most of the energy through, providing negligible resistance, it would also magnify the intensity of the beam.

With respect to armor, the best materials that would be practical are either sodium, beryllium, or magnesium.  Magnesium is out for obvious reasons (tends to catch fire easily).  Sodium reacts violently with water, so wouldn't be effective anywhere there is even more than a little water (read: anywhere but a desert).  Beryllium has an enourmous specific heat (the amount of energy required to heat one gram of that substance by one degree celsius or kelvin, in this case 1.83 J/gxC) and also a very high melting point (around 1278 degrees celsius).  It is non-magnetic, and is also very light-weight.  It is also very corrosion resistant, so it would only have to be replaced after direct combat damage.  The greatest downside to it is that it is relatively rare.

The next best thing would be aluminum (0.91 J/gxC), but we've already gone through how that would do in my previous post.

 

Offline Nuke

  • Ka-Boom!
  • 212
  • Mutants Worship Me
Re: Death Rays now a reality
you really dont have to cut the wing iff, just pierce into the fuel tank. most planes put the tanks in the wings, easy to hit and a fuel explosion is enough to take the wing out. i doubt it would explode at first. youd probibly get a small fuel leak which will immediately ignite, however it would be much like a tiny flame, due to little oxygen at altitude and the cooling effects of wind over metal. localized metal vapor may mix with the fuel and cause an initial flareup. worst (or best if youre the gunner) case scenario is an internal fire. not sure how fast a laser will heat the fuel but pressure expansion may rupture the tank which would be extreamly hazardous with an internal fire raging. targeting specific parts of the plane, for example turbines, avionics, fuel lines to the engine, explosives in ordinance, the pilots head, ect may cause a more rapid failure of the aircraft.
I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Nuke's Scripting SVN

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: Death Rays now a reality
Quote
Water is after all reasonably transparent, and would likely let most of the light travel through itself, so it's not like you can just focus all that energy on the surface of the water.

This interestingly enough would be one of the major flaws.  Not only would it let most of the energy through, providing negligible resistance, it would also magnify the intensity of the beam.

How would it do that? It would absorb some of the energy (how much would be adjustable by suspension concentration). Even if there were some sort of lens effect in play, lasers aren't really that easily focused since they are already coherent beams of light. Moreover the water would cause scattering and dispersion of the beam like any substance that radiation passes through. and it definitely doesn't magically add power to the beam... :nervous:

The most important effect though would be how much of the heating power could the water conduct or transfer away from the point where the laser hits the inner surface under the water layer. If the water layer is able to absorb and disperse the beam enough, it might be weak enough not to be able to heat the inner surface enough to melt or vaporize it, especially when the water is there cooling the surface.


Quote
With respect to armor, the best materials that would be practical are either sodium, beryllium, or magnesium.  Magnesium is out for obvious reasons (tends to catch fire easily).  Sodium reacts violently with water, so wouldn't be effective anywhere there is even more than a little water (read: anywhere but a desert).  Beryllium has an enourmous specific heat (the amount of energy required to heat one gram of that substance by one degree celsius or kelvin, in this case 1.83 J/gxC) and also a very high melting point (around 1278 degrees celsius).  It is non-magnetic, and is also very light-weight.  It is also very corrosion resistant, so it would only have to be replaced after direct combat damage.  The greatest downside to it is that it is relatively rare.

Not to mention beryllium is pretty darn harmful (I think even more than asbestos or depleted uranium).

Quote
The next best thing would be aluminum (0.91 J/gxC), but we've already gone through how that would do in my previous post.


Well, in terms of volumetric heat capacity water is number one, which defines the physical dimensions (or thickness) of the layer you need against the laser. Water also has very very high specific heat, so even though it melts and boils at lower temperature than beryllium, it would still likely be more useful for space ship armour... as it can also be used as a heat sink and water supply as well as food supply (you can grow algae in some sections).

Certainly, beryllium has high melting point but it's also a lot less practical than building a lightweight dual-layered structure and filling it with water, and putting critical components within the water layer protection The inner and outer surface materials should obviously be something solid, but as far as

Obviously stuff like sensors, thrusters and weaponry that needs to be on the outside would still be vulnerable but structural integrity of manned sections would be protected along with life support and reactors and other critical components.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: Death Rays now a reality
Oh.  You were talking about space ships.  I was talking about stuff like tanks.

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: Death Rays now a reality
Oh.  You were talking about space ships.  I was talking about stuff like tanks.


Well it would still be somewhat applicable to tanks. More so than on airplanes anyway. The physical size of the tank would limit the usefulness of such armour though.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: Death Rays now a reality
Hence why I was talking about metals and not anything else.

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
Re: Death Rays now a reality
I think I need to go through some of those calculations first. My guts tell me something is missing in there. More about it on "not today".

When talking about aircrafts, a small cut is enough to cause significant deviations in the airflow.

Mika
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline BloodEagle

  • 210
  • Bleeding Paradox!
    • Steam
Re: Death Rays now a reality
If we're talking about computer-targeting, couldn't you just 'clip' something important?