On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:28:58 +0000 (UTC), cgoodin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Chuk Goodin)
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:26:18 -0700, John Schilling
><schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>Depends on how narrowly you define "laser pistol". But expecting
>>firearms to be replaced by *something*, that's just common sense.
>>It's almost certain that, within this century, we will be able to
>>build hand-held laser weapons that are massively superior to ordinary
>>pistols. Whether they have the handgrip-and-barrel form factor of
>>a "pistol", whether they will be called "laser pistols", I'm not
>>sure. I don't think it matters.
>>But the only thing that is going to stop them from almost completely
>>displacing the current sort of pistol sometime in this century or the
>>next, is the general collapse of civilization, or the development of
>>some weapon that is even better still.
>Unless you're just using "laser pistol" as a placeholder for "newest
>improved weapon", I don't think we will necessarily have them, or maybe
>any energy weapons at all. Basically it's a power requirement thing --
>chemical explosives are great at storing and using energy, tough to beat
>from an energy standpoint. Kinetic weapons may outlast us all...
If I'd meant to say, "improved weapon", that's what I would have said.
And I did allow for the possibility of weapons more potent even than
laser pistols.
But as for laser pistols, or other energy weapons, outclassing firearms,
I don't think you've thought that through, and I'm sure you haven't done
the math.
First off, chemical explosives are not all that tough to beat from an
energy standpoint. Batteries and fuel cells, in theory, can at least
match them - they do, after all, use roughly the same chemistry.
And in practice, an ordinary alkaline AAA battery is about the size and
only half the weight of a .44 magnum pistol cartridge. They both store
about 5,000-6,000 joules of total energy. That beats your "chemical
explosives" right there, at least as the latter are actually applied
to firearms, and I haven't even mentioned the lithium batteries that
have twice the energy density of alkali.
Obviously, we aren't going to be using actual AAA batteries to power
energy weapons. But not for lack of raw energy content, and not for
any reason that's fundamental to batteries or energy weapons.
Furthermore, it turns out to be very much *not* a power requirement
thing. Existing chemical explosives and existing batteries *both*
deliver substantially *more* energy than is required for jobs like,
"kill the next ten people I want dead, even if they're wearing the
toughest armor anyone knows how to make, using a gadget I can carry
in a coat pocket". So much so that we are willing to use pistol
cartridges that are ~90% inert mass, in pistols that are only ~25%
efficient at channeling the energy in their active ingredients.
What it is, is a speed, precision, and efficiency thing. Lasers are
faster than bullets, they are more precise than bullets, and in case
you haven't been paying attention the past decade or so, they are more
efficient than bullets.
There's still a lot of technology development to be done before we get
a practical laser pistol. And no particular urgency, on account of
the people with the big military R&D budgets have other priorities.
Like, for example, laser *cannons*. We'll probably see the first of
those in a decade or so. Laser pistols, will come later, just as
firearm-type pistols came later than firearm-type cannons.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
|
