On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:54:47 -0700, John Schilling
<schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>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...
>
>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.
Thought: some of it is my own, some that of convincing arguments from
others. I have not 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.
Can they deliver the energy all at once? I've seen capacitors used in
weapons, so maybe they can, but you'd either need multiple capacitors or
real quick recharge times. Also, wouldn't you lose something in the
conversion? Chemical --> laser seems to involve more steps than chemical
--> expanding cloud of other chemicals.
>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.
This is an excellent point which I had not thought of at all. I'd been
going on the "bigger is better" theory, which is definitely not
necessarily the case.
>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.
I still wonder about the efficiency, especially in terms of combat
conditions. Right now a combat effective laser is not something you can
carry around on a battlefield -- they are way more high maintenance than
chemical slugthrowers. But it wasn't that long ago that it'd be hard to
believe you could have a laser in your pocket at all, so I wouldn't find
it hard to believe that advances in tech could solve that problem.
--
chuk
|
