Directed Energy Weapons

[Anonymous No.11673162]

I want to study Directed Energy Weapons. They're bad ass, basically unstoppable, and the way of the future.

Where should I go to study this. Google turns up nothing. I already have my bachelors in Aerospace Engineering and I currently work at NASA (not memeing).

inb4 how do I work at NASA. 2020 NASA sucks. It takes an act of god to actually get shit done and is incredibly political.

[Anonymous No.11673185]

>>11673162
Maser
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser

[Anonymous No.11673203]

>>11673162
>basically unstoppable,
LMAO

>muh laser maser
>a mirror
>reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Anonymous No.11673221]

>>11673203
Cool thanks for the useless shitpost. Mirrors still absorb the energy you stupid fuck. Get off of /sci/

[Anonymous No.11673357]

>>11673185
I don't mean to be rude, but what did you intend for us to get out of this article? College names?

[Anonymous No.11673436]

>>11673162
Go apply to work at Lockheed Martin or something you dumbshit.

[Anonymous No.11673503]

>>11673162
You literally just need a mirror to redirect em waves

[Anonymous No.11673530]

>>11673221
what about a giant mirror

[Anonymous No.11673534]

>>11673162
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF

[Anonymous No.11673548]

>>11673357
>I don't mean to be rude
son, it's ok to be rude here.

[Anonymous No.11673578]

>>11673534
https://pastebin.com/aYNv0zFc

[Anonymous No.11673623]

>>11673221
The defining feature about a mirror is that he does not absorb significant ammounts of EM radiation.

[Anonymous No.11673626]

>>11673578
Still pushing that nonsense, I see.

[Anonymous No.11673686]

>>11673626
>Still pushing that nonsense, I see.
Still pushing that nonsense, I see.

[Anonymous No.11673690]

>>11673686
>>Still pushing that nonsense, I see.
>Still pushing that nonsense, I see.
Still pushing that nonsense, I see.

[Anonymous No.11673693]

>>11673162
you should check this tesla patent, theres some very interesting concepts that you might find useful: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/62/90/92/45a5932052a940/US645576.pdf

using that principle plus an "ionizing channel" could turn apart metalic devices from a distance , the voltage and frequency is critical, I have a small and simple model of this concept but its too low voltages (only 40kV) and too low frequencies (less that 300hz) as to be impressive... but if you have the means for better set up and coils i highly recommend you play with this concept... you should have acces to high voltage AC power supplies being a "NASA engineer" (but I bet you are not).... for the coils I think you'll have to fabricate them but this should not be difficult for you just follow the instructions in the patent (you should not need the ionizing channel for the "proof of concept")


"..closed conductors, as washers of conducting material, are thrown off with a force of a magnitude which can be only explained on the assumption that the currents have maximum values of many hundred thousand amperes."
"... the vibrations used were from 400khz to 800khz..."
" frequencies of millions per second (MHz), shows little repellent action""

https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/some-experiments-teslas-laboratory-currents-high-potential-and-high-frequency

[Anonymous No.11673754]

>>11673693
It's still not too efficient or fast though

[Anonymous No.11673755]

>>11673203
I know this is a shitpost, but what if you had a retro reflector? It would still be destroyed obviously, but could that reflect enough energy to the weapon to render it inoperable?

[Anonymous No.11673993]

>>11673162
>Directed Energy Weapons
>unstoppable
>way of the future

First and foremost: Lasers are EXTREMELY susceptible to atmospheric conditions
Fog, Humidity, Sandstorms, and fucking Rain would wreck absolute havoc on its effectiveness. No fucking way it could penetrate through the clouds, let alone a human because lasers are calibrated at the infrared. They do NOT penetrate

Secondly, Lasers are not affected by gravity
As such, if your laser is ground-based, it would not have any further range that the horizon. Around 6km depending on your elevation.
That's hilariously short range. We have artilleries that can hit 150km. Railgun can hit 200m. Missiles can hit from the other side of the world.

Lastly: Lasers are not unstoppable AT ALL. Tank armors are already designed to dissipitate and equalize heat. A laser weapon would need to keep its aim on the same spot for as long as a minute just to penetrate it. And this is not including photochromatic technology that would render it completely ineffective

Sorry to rain on your parade, mate
>>11673203
COIL lasers attached on planes HAVE mirrors in order to adjust and calibrate its laser to prevent it from spreading out due to the reflectiveness of the clouds. Still, it's only effective as a last-resort anti-missile defense as it is so short ranged

[Anonymous No.11674389]

>>11673754
is there anyone in this board that knows just a little bit of electromagetism?...
ITS A POINT TO POINT DISCHARGE! THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE!

>durrr hhu but everything fallows the square law...

not in this particular case, I really hope that you are not the OP, NASA will have a lot of problems if they hire you...

[Anonymous No.11674402]

>>11674389
(not him)
No matter the atmospheric conditions?
I was under the impression that electromagnetism is best in cold and wet climates but sags during hot temperatures and useless in a fire

[Anonymous No.11675262]

>>11674402
actually best atmospheric conditions for transmission of energy is dry air. You only really care about the temperature (as far as I know) when you care about the noise of the receiver. In a directed energy weapon I don't think you care about the signal to noise ratio

[Anonymous No.11675271]

>>11673993
This post completely BTFO's the projec bluebeam lazer fags

[Anonymous No.11675293]

>>11673162
It's in the basics, frequency, power, wavelength.

[Anonymous No.11675377]

>>11673993
Lasers are excellent when they can be focused at a very high density on the target (and blowing high pressure gas), the joke of the mirror is a matter of energy density ... as you say IRL is very difficult at long distance.

>anti-missile defense as it is so short ranged

Still, in a 1 laser vs. 1 missile. I find it difficult for a laser to win against anti-laser missiles, using an ablative shield or some countermeasure that will last 20-10 seconds or less. If you add any missile with submunitions then lasers are pretty much useless. If the enemy has a laser it is a matter of firing more ammunition, the only limitation is the weight.

A little "smoke" (metallic oxide) and the laser is useless.

As jammer it can be excellent against unprepared equipment. To control an urban area against annoying targets (commercial drones) it works perfectly. Against anti laser weapons it is almost useless and more vulnerable than radars vs. anti-radiation missile.

[Anonymous No.11675455]

>>11675377
*me coating missiles in mylar*

I'M NUCLEAAAAAAR!~
I'M WIIIIILLLD!!!~

[Anonymous No.11675499]

>lasers are useless
not if you blind enemy troops, dont be squeamish

[Anonymous No.11675519]

>>11675455
mylar lmao
mylar + water, maybe
There are better materials, any material that serves for an atmospheric reentry... Lasers cannot cut easily and fast enough to kill "laser resistant" targets. In ideal conditions it is difficult, at long distance... Al foil + water gel...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TwgVAduebY


>>11675499
Blinding lasers are banned

[Anonymous No.11675524]

>>11675519
I know they are banned *now* but legal regimes do change & terrorists dont obey laws

[Anonymous No.11675756]

>>11675499
Blinding troops is pointless and only works like once, if you have line of sight to blind you could just use a gun to kill them and the gun also works when you don't have a line of sight.

[Anonymous No.11675770]

>>11675756
>Blinding troops is pointless and only works like once
Yes, I'm sure guerillas will gear up with protective eyewear lol. Having young men blinded is great for morale too!
>if you have line of sight to blind you could just use a gun to kill them
guns run out of ammo, lasers not so much. silent too, invisible to the naked eye at the right wavelengths

[Anonymous No.11675788]

>>11675770
>nooooo you can't just bring out the sunglasses

>guns run out of ammo
lasers run out of electricity which is logistically hard to produce in any conflict zone vs ammo which is cheap and easy to transport.

I get it, you think war is some kind of james bond story with elaborate death traps. Reality isn't a meme though which is a major problem with that.

[Anonymous No.11675801]

Scientists and Engineers who work on weapons should be executed. It should be against the moral code of ethics of engineers to apply their skills to warfare. Just like how doctors refuse to execute inmates.

[Anonymous No.11675810]

>>11675788
https://twitter.com/Matthew_Kupfer/status/1001412564570509312
whether or not this report is true, this is the sort of warfare you'd expect them to be deployed in i.e. big militaries vs. poorly equipped ones

[Anonymous No.11675847]

>>11675810
>Nooooo the hecking 6 peopperinos, the 5+1 good ukranians
And then people start wearing their sunglasses

[Anonymous No.11675856]

>>11675770
guerrillas? africa?

If the guerrillas can have TOWs and Konkrus then they can also have means to counter a possibly common weapon in the future.

Effectiveness of a prototype =/= effectiveness in service.


And a laser is not "silent", it is a "beacon in the dark", with some identifier (triangulation with inches of error) you can send a mortar in seconds to destroy it (remote use) or kill the one who used it.

[Anonymous No.11675859]

>>11675847
yes, sunglasses wont reduce tactical performance at night

[Anonymous No.11675869]

>>11675859
Less than getting shot

[Anonymous No.11675880]

>>11675856
given that they are so patently useless, its a wonder why they bothered to ban them by international treaty ;)

[Anonymous No.11675898]

>>11675880
The same reason you can't use a cheese grater as a weapon, not because they are "too powerful" but because the damage that is done is inhumane.

[Anonymous No.11675901]

>>11675869
why not encumber your enemy with having to wear sunglasses at night so you can shoot them more easily?

[Anonymous No.11675904]

None of you are thinking long term enough about lasers and particle beams.
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/PROCSIMA/

[Anonymous No.11675916]

>>11675898
>cheese grater as a weapon
facile comparison
>the damage that is done is inhumane
That standard can change. I'm not saying it should, but it can

[Anonymous No.11675918]

>>11675880
Against civilians it can be a weapon of mass destruction in the form of post-war collateral damage.

[Anonymous No.11675924]

>>11675916
>facile comparison
Both are ineffective weapons that cause inhumane damage. It's a perfectly valid comparison.

>That standard can change. I'm not saying it should, but it can
Even if it was you wouldn't see laser weapons for the same reason you wouldn't see cheese graters, they are still bad weapons.

Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.11675929]

>>11675918
Its a very ugly weapon, but any one who thinks they wont be used in the next century is kidding themselves

[Anonymous No.11676026]

>>11675924
>for the same reason you wouldn't see cheese graters, they are still bad weapons.
you'll be able to link me the US military toying with cheese graters then?
'The subject gets little publicity nowadays, but until the mid-1990s, the US Air Force openly funded research on how to destroy human eyeballs at a distance with lasers. At the time, the justification was that such a technology—causing permanent blindness—was no worse than burning people with napalm, irradiating them, or blasting them to bits with bombs. '
https://thebulletin.org/2014/09/blinding-them-with-science-is-development-of-a-banned-laser-weapon-continuing/#

[Anonymous No.11676055]

>>11676026
Just because some dude funded it doesn't mean it was effective.
Case of point, you are totally mental in need of meds, military is made of normal people a subset of which are mental in need of meds which means insane shit is tried all the time. They tried to train bats to be flying bombs too and the list of the topics of research contains all manner of similar insane things. In fact it's quite logical behavior to try insane shit just in case it works to keep an advantage over your enemies.

[Anonymous No.11676337]

>>11675856
>beacon in the dark
Sorry, man but you are wrong.
Lasers are calibrated in the infrared.
They are NOT visible
They are, however, a beacon of high temperature that can easily be pinpointed by thermal scanners

[Anonymous No.11676364]

>>11676337
In my understanding, if there are a lot of particulates in the air it can cause them to glow or in some cases fluoresce.

[Anonymous No.11676378]

>>11676364
I was rather sure that it won't work in infrared.
But assuming you're right, if there are a lot of particulates in the air, then the laser gun won't be useful at all anyway

It is best used in a frozen desert.

[Anonymous No.11676395]

>>11676337
>Lasers are calibrated in the infrared.
So?
Use a fucking photodiode
>muh infrared is not visible


>pinpointed by thermal scanners
Useless, if it is a pulse laser it is much more efficient and cheap to detect the variation of intensity in the IR (like the detectors of laser designators -always IR-). The only thing that can generate short, intense IR pulses is a laser. Hence the expression "beacon in the dark".

If it is a continuous laser it is no risk, any welding helmet would stop it fast enough.

[Anonymous No.11676417]

>>11676395
I am all against the idea of laser being uberpower in sci-fi

Just pointing out that it is still not useless.
It's the speed of light - no weapon could ever be faster.
Hence laser are the ultimate close-ranged weapon and best last-resort defense.

You can even use microwave wavelenght to temporarily create plasma shielding that would solidify the air infront and protect the person from the air burst and fragmentations

[Anonymous No.11676427]

What's going to be the end all is being able to warp a payload directly to the target. If you can get right down to it and warp something the size of a grain of sand into a target human's brain, blood stream, heart or nervous system, etc. Something so small could do untold damage to something as fragile as a body.

[Anonymous No.11676432]

>>11676427
Oh shut up.
That violates many, many fundamental laws.

[Anonymous No.11676446]

>>11676417
>It's the speed of light - no weapon could ever be faster.
What matters is not the speed of light, but the time to destroy, or pulse duration.

Any continuous laser is too slow, it would take seconds to heat up to destroy a target, it is more vulnerable than radars to anti-radiation weapons.
Any pulse laser is detectable at kilometers (with centimeter error) and to achieve sufficient powers in real life (and compact) it is almost impossible. It would hardly serve to blind, as a destructive weapon it is basically useless. As a designators and rangefinders lasers are excellent.

TL;DR: good luck minced meat

[Anonymous No.11676460]

>>11676446
Newflash:
Combined arms exists because every weapon has a flaw.
You can raise that exact same argument to every single firearm ever invented but if it can kill at an effective manner, it would be studied for future use

No one would ever look down on a weapon that hits at the exact moment you fired the trigger. In fact, laser weapons would be amazing defensive weapons in space due to the lack of atmosphere.
You can reach hundreds of kilometers before the square law renders it ineffective

[Anonymous No.11676470]

>>11676417
>You can even use microwave wavelenght to temporarily create plasma shielding that would solidify the air infront and protect the person from the air burst and fragmentations
wow, I bet you could also use lasers to like mind control people and like you know other cool sci fi stuff, science is so CUUL man XD

[Anonymous No.11676476]

>>11673693
>dish of dirt
>ground

Hahaha

[Anonymous No.11676477]

>>11676470
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_window

[Anonymous No.11676481]

>>11676477
>The plasma window (not to be confused with a plasma shield[1]) is a technology that fills a volume of space with plasma confined by a magnetic field. With current technology, this volume is quite small and the plasma is generated as a flat plane inside a cylindrical space.
Which of that sounds like a
>>You can even use microwave wavelenght to temporarily create plasma shielding that would solidify the air infront and protect the person from the air burst and fragmentations

[Anonymous No.11676485]

>>11676470
Immediately clamped, fully vaccinated, very circumcised.

[Anonymous No.11676487]

>>11676481
Do you know the best way to create plasma?
Hint: microwave and grapes

[Anonymous No.11676501]

>>11676460
ok startek boi

[Anonymous No.11676508]

>>11676501
I'm more of a Lovecraft guy but sure. Whatever

[Anonymous No.11676517]

>Be me
>See an artillery shell exploding 5 meters from me
>T-pose to hit pause on the universe
>Bring in 10 tons of cylinders and magnetic coils from the tactical truck in the tactical combat belt
>Construct a plasma window and plug it to the high voltage line that is conveniently there
>Hide behind it
>T-pose again to restart the universe
>Die because the plasma window can only handle 9 atmospheres of preassure and shrapnel goes trough it anyways
>Forced to T-pose in hell for your sins

[Anonymous No.11676534]

>>11676517
>Miraculously survive
>die fried by 40MW/m^2 of the plasma window.

[Anonymous No.11676882]

>>11676446
Pros of Laser:
>invisible
>speed of light
>impossible to dodge
>no need to calculate for ballistic trajectory, wind direction/velocity, mass of the ammo, Coriolis effect
>batteries are lighter than ammunition
>batteries are cheaper than ammunition
>batteries can be recharged via solar and wind.

Cons
>susceptible to the environment
>close ranged
>leaves thermal signatures

Objectively speaking, the pros completely outweights the cons.

[Anonymous No.11676887]

Pros of Laser:
>invisible
>speed of light
>impossible to dodge
>no need to calculate for ballistic trajectory, wind direction/velocity, mass of the ammo, Coriolis effect
>batteries are lighter than ammunition
>batteries are cheaper than ammunition
>batteries can be recharged via solar and wind.

Cons
>susceptible to the environment
>leaves thermal signatures
>close ranged

Objectively speaking, the pros completely outweights the cons.

[Anonymous No.11676954]

>>11676887
Batteries aren't lighter or cheaper than ammunition and "can charge by solar" isn't a plus either because battle doesn't wait for you to "hol up lemme charge my gun", and "no need to calculate sheeit" isn't an issue at the age of computers nor is the weapon any more invisible than a tank or artillery shell.
The whole system is more expensive less efficient weapon than an artillery or a tank gun. That is objectively speaking of course.

[Anonymous No.11676985]

>>11676954
It's a shortranged gun. No shit. It would instead be compared with conventional infantry weapons and anti-air guns
It may even be mounted on vehicles as an anti-missile defense.

And yes, batteries are lighter, cheaper, and more energy efficient than smokeless powder and nitroglycerine used in explosives
Efficiency of chemical fuels are at
.00000001%

Li-ion batteries have an efficiency of 99%
ICE is 25 to 30 %
Fuel cells are 20-60%

But of course, it would be unfair to compare efficiency of bullets that loses most of it energy at launch and lasers that loses most its energy at the atmospheric conditions

So, let us just say that batteries can be reused. Bullets need constant deliveries stockpiled in a warehouse. Ever heard of a cook-off?

[Anonymous No.11676994]

>>11676985
>Efficiency of chemical fuels are at .00000001%
Ye I think I will jump straight to the "take your meds" phase

Take your meds

[Anonymous No.11677001]

>>11676994
It's a chemical. It's entire point is the combustion that happens after it was exposed to something that ignites. That's super inefficient and only good because its an abundant resource

Batteries are already stored energy. And you can bring multiple packs like carrying magazines

A super efficient battery maybe much more expensive than a crate of machinegun rounds but in the long run, the rechargable battery would pay for itself.

[Anonymous No.11677003]

>>11677001
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.11677045]

>>11673162
>I want to study Directed Energy Weapons. They're bad ass, basically unstoppable, and the way of the future.
check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER

[Anonymous No.11677219]

>>11673162
Basically an plasma weapon could launch globular rays and the video games suggest that its velocity is lower.

[Anonymous No.11677306]

>>11677219
>velocity is lower
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER
>The plasma projectiles would be shot at a speed expected to be 3000 km/s in 1995 and 10,000 km/s (3% of the speed of light) by 2000.
i don't think so, tim

[Anonymous No.11678419]

>>11673203
No reflection is perfect. If it absorbs 0.0001% of the energy it's enough to melt it instantly

[Anonymous No.11678431]

Lasers are shit for weapons except for point defense. Particle beams is where the real shit's at.

[Anonymous No.11678558]

>>11676887
>>batteries are lighter than ammunition
>>batteries are cheaper than ammunition
>>11676985
>And yes, batteries are lighter, cheaper, and more energy efficient than smokeless powder and nitroglycerine used in explosives
You're a colossal idiot. Lithium ion batteries have an energy density of about 0.5 MJ/kg, which is about one order of magnitude lower than gunpowder and explosives. Which means batteries are about ten times heavier, yes, heavier, not lighter, than gunpowder and explosives.
Batteries are also not cheaper as they require expensive metals and elaborate manufacturing processes. Gunpowder and explosives on the other hand are dirt cheap because their main ingedient - nitrogen - is also the main ingredient of fertilizer, which the world produces in amounts of over one hundren million tonnes each year. It's literally the single largest production line of mankind and also the cheapest which gunpowder and explosives can piggyback on.

[Anonymous No.11678584]

>the virgin laser weapon
>the chad plasma toroid

In all seriousness though weaponized laser research has and will continue to serve primarily as a jobs program for the military industrial complex. We are so public with these projects because we like to draw in large companies and move money around, like Boeing’s YAL-1 adventure. The real deal wacky shit gets hidden, tucked away at some National Lab as soon as results indicate effectiveness a la MARAUDER.

[Anonymous No.11678589]

>>11673162
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzUoe-9bKa0

[Anonymous No.11678680]

>>11678419
> it's enough to melt it instantly
You brain absorbs 0.0001% of solar energy. More than enough to melt it instantly.

Retard

[Anonymous No.11679107]

>>11673162
Why would you use DEW when you can just KEW? KE means all your energy is transferred at once, and loose less energy to the atmosphere. It also can't have it's energy dispersed by super conductors or an ablative coating. Most importantly you can't intercept a hypersonic slug, but you can intercept a laser before it ramps up.

[Anonymous No.11679126]

>>11677306
Government psy-ops to trick Soviets that Americans are further ahead in technology than they actually are.

Hence why nothing happened with this project after several decades.

[Anonymous No.11679341]

>>11673993
>Lasers are EXTREMELY susceptible to atmospheric conditions

Just don't make them green or UV and you're good to go, minimize the Rayleigh and UV absorption effects.

[Anonymous No.11679371]

>>11676887
Why do popsci retards love batteries so much?
You could have used a turbine generator. Jet fuel is more weight-efficient then gunpowder and other propellants.

[Anonymous No.11679384]

>>11676887
Why do popsci retards love batteries so much?
You could have used a turbine generator. Jet fuel is lighter than ammunition and batteries. Jet fuel is cheaper than ammunition and batteries.

[Anonymous No.11679450]

>>11676887
>batteries are lighter than ammunition
>needs armor to avoid explosion by penetration/punctures
>"batteries can be recharged "
>self-detonating crap


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Yw5BuGGxQ

[Anonymous No.11679457]

>>11678558
>lihtuim ion
Yeah, that's your problem
No one's going to use those hand-held explosives in a military purpose, dude. They fuckin explode at the presence of oxygen.
Magnesium, Flouride, and Ammonia are currently on the way to overtake it because it is more stable and not so dangerous
Magnesium battery is expected to replace it as it has energy density per unit mass of 42.3 MJ/kg and volumetric density of 22.569 GJ/m3.
It's half the mass at +50% the charge.

Truth be told, I kinda don't like chemical batteries. I am actually going in favor of retrobatteries because they are environmentally friendly. NASA is currently researching the flywheel battery because it is so efficient in storing energy - a full 90% round-trip efficiency. Perfect for Spaceshits

And mind you, gunpowder and smokeless powder are 2 different things. We don't use gunpowder anymore. The main ingredient of smokeless power is nitroglycerine that stabilized by cotton that was mixed with citric acid or something.

That said, a single operation requires a tantamount amount of stockpiled ammunition that is extremely prone to cooking off. And while they have more energy, bullets also have more mass whereas lasers are mass-less. In the long run, rechargable batteries would over take it - batteries that can also double as emergency power for other gadgets and necessary tools

Don't get me wrong, I love guns. But my point is that lasers are just not something you should underestimate.
It does not make light,
does not make a sound,
fastest weapon possible,
no chance of missing,
and massive efficiency

And to make it all better, please understand that laser under infrared does not penetrate water.
Which means that should a powerful laser hit a man, that man would actually explode due to the accumulated heat and pressure under his skin.

>>11679384
Listen to yourself speaking, dude
You want an infantry-held fuel power generator. If it's vehicle-mounted, sure. But that is gonna be soooo hot.

[Anonymous No.11679462]

>>11679457
I just used gunpowder as the catch all for all propellants in ammunition. I honestly have no idea if the stuff in an artillery shell is the same stuff in rifle rounds.

[Anonymous No.11679540]

>>11679457
No chance of missing is a meme. They will have misalignment comparable to firearms. You will want a visible (to the computer) beam and a dynamic compensator to keep the actual laser in line with your point of aim.

[Anonymous No.11679548]

>>11679540
My point is that it hits where it was aimed
Bullets are always affected by the wind and humidity that gets more complex as the distance increases

[Anonymous No.11679561]

>>11679457
>>11679384
>over the shoulder, gas-turbine laser rifles
yes

[Anonymous No.11679565]

>>11673162
work for a defense contractor, not a meme government industry
>source, Im a defense contractor

if you want to actually make and analyze these systems, you won't be doing it with NASA.

[Anonymous No.11679570]

>>11673162
they are trash. they are some fringe uses, but this technology is extremely ineffective even for home use with nothing obstructing the way

did a presentation for my college about it cause it is a somewhat relevant topic and i could easily write about it, but they are extremely simple to make and to demonstrate, even thought the teacher would think that i'm retarded or something for doing it. anyway i didn't go to college to make a cure for cancer or solve teleportation

[Anonymous No.11681104]

>>11673623

At particular wavelengths, and even then there are no perfect reflectors. Mirrors wont stop a sufficiently powerful laser because it will still be able to heat the reflective surface enough to destroy whatever material characteristic that makes it reflective in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11681752]

>>11681104
So just optimize for the most used wavelength and make it ablative. You could probably incorporate reflective smoke as active defense in addition to a passive reflective ablative.

[Anonymous No.11681863]

>all demos of microwave and laser weapons were done in perfect sunny weather in very perfect and optimal conditions
OH NONONONONO

[Anonymous No.11681885]

>>11681863
I mean, you usually test stuff in ideal conditions. I agree that if they worked perfectly in overcast and rainy conditions then we would see tests of them, but the technology is still in development.

[Anonymous No.11681913]

ARL
NRL
MITLL

[Anonymous No.11681920]

>>11673185
For those who aren't retarded phonefags
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser

[Anonymous No.11681921]

>>11678419
>If it absorbs 0.0001% of the energy it's enough to melt it instantly
I barely know algebra and even I know this is wildly retarded.

[Anonymous No.11681924]

>>11673162
>>11673203
>>11673693
>>11673993
This is the correct solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle-beam_weapon

[Anonymous No.11681940]

>>11679565
No shit. This is more like Lockheed type or other DoD black project contractor thing.

[Anonymous No.11681962]

>>11681924
Even worse.

>It only works in a vacuum
>Even less range if they are charged particles
>a magnetic field can deflect it
>not pulsed
>heavy as fuck

[Anonymous No.11681963]

>using lasers that incapacitate targets by blinding them is considered a warcrime
>using bullets that incapacitate targets by killing them is not

[Anonymous No.11681965]

>>11681963
War is all theater. Blood for the central bankers.

[Anonymous No.11682004]

>>11681963
Indirect weapons that prolong the suffering is a warcrime
Flashbang, Teargas, Hollowpoint rounds etc are fine for civilian use because the hospital is just right around the corner.
In a war, it's different. Medical personal and supplies are bound to always be in short supply