I wonder how much damage a glancing beam across skin does and what it feels like
[QUOTE=ubersoldier;50615799]That seems like a rather backwards thought process to me. Blinding our enemies is a no-go, but the complete destruction of an entire area is a-okay.[/QUOTE]
Because if you are blind, you are blind and you have to suffer for the remaining of your life. If you die from a blast, it's gonna be most likely fast. It's the most humane way.
[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;50617423]Because if you are blind, you are blind and you have to suffer for the remaining of your life. If you die from a blast, it's gonna be most likely fast. It's the most humane way.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather be blind than dead.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50617471]I'd rather be blind than dead.[/QUOTE]
Same but I'd rather be dead than be blind along with half of the population of my own town.
The ultimate in home defense
[QUOTE=mini me;50617403]I wonder how much damage a glancing beam across skin does and what it feels like[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;NSBGVhzGVxY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSBGVhzGVxY[/video]
it wouldnt do any damage you can safety move a 1000 watt laser across your skin.
holding it in one place however would definitely start to burn you.
Would be a true weapons at 50kw+
[QUOTE=PelPix123;50615723]this thing scared me a little less when the titanium gunpowder was bright enough to make the beam invisible by comparison. I was like "oh shit, is this going to be brighter than a titanium flash?" and thank [I]jesus[/I] no it wasn't that would've blown my mind.[/QUOTE]
Its a laser. If the laser was pointed directly at the camera lens the intensity would've been hundreds of times that of the titanium gunpowder, hell when he pointed it vaguely closely to the camera it started to fuck it up
[editline]29th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=yodaman888;50617993][video=youtube;NSBGVhzGVxY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSBGVhzGVxY[/video]
it wouldnt do any damage you can safety move a 1000 watt laser across your skin.
holding it in one place however would definitely start to burn you.[/QUOTE]
Thats because of the frequency of light that particular laser uses.
I have 2 questions:
how do I make it, and how can I make sure that I never make it
[QUOTE=Wormy;50614828]The future of weapons right here.[/QUOTE]
Unless we suddenly discover and contain antimatter or something unprecedented like that, directed energy weapons are most likely never going to replace conventional firearms.
It's hard to say what the next 200 will bring in the way of weapon advancements, but lasers and plasma weapons are almost assuredly not going to be a standard weapon to replace propellant firearms. Directed energy weapons are inefficient, cumbersome and have far more countermeasures against them than the comparatively simple action of shooting a bullet out of a tube with explosive powder; which already has devastatingly destructive effects. It seems novel, but the guns we have are already (relatively) cheap, easily portable and do a stellar job of killing and destroying things.
looks like the lightening gun from quake :v:
[QUOTE=RaptorJGW;50615750]That is illegal. Weapons that permanently blind someone. But weapons that temporarily blind you are legal and already exist. For example the PHaSR here
[IMG]http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/laser-weapon-6.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Can't pretty much any weapon permanently blind you?
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50624444]Can't pretty much any weapon permanently blind you?[/QUOTE]
Technically yes. It's a thing with the Geneva convention. Leveling a village with a fuel-air bomb is okay, because virtually everything in the blast radius will be killed. However, weapons designed to cause prolonged, dangerous harm to humans is not okay. That's why biological weapons of war are not a thing anymore in NATO countries. They aren't necessarily designed to kill. They are meant to cause excruciating pain and prolong death. Killing outright is humane, killing with the intent to cause as much pain and mutilation as possible is not.
It seems really silly to me that war has actual rules and boundaries, like the superpowers of earth are managed by a council of shitty and strict admins in a gmod RP server. It just seems silly to me because if one country was powerful enough and they didn't give a shit about world relations they could 100% do whatever the hell they want. If North Korea ever manages to have a successful space program and managed to sneak something up there (rods from god come to mind), then I think it's safe to say the world would actually be in quite a predicament. Nobody likes North Korea as is and it's not like the country cares about relations with other countries. If they cared enough they could totally weaponize space and cause lots of dangerous problems, despite the fact weaponizing space is against the rules of war.
[editline]30th June 2016[/editline]
Lasers in general are not really a thing that's being considered for weaponry just because of the massive power requirements. They're inefficient and require massive superstructures just to function. Outside of advanced point defense, they really don't have effective offensive means. All it would take is something thick enough to make it ineffective, not to mention distance.
However the same power requirements can be put to much better use for things like coil guns and rail cannons. There's already a huge test railgun built and maintained by the US Navy. Something like that is a lot more useful for general destruction because it can propel a metal slug right through heavy, thick armor. Something that a powerful weaponized laser will have difficulty doing without monstrous amounts of energy.
It looks like some sort of prototype weapon from halflife or something
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;50619757]Unless we suddenly discover and contain antimatter or something unprecedented like that, directed energy weapons are most likely never going to replace conventional firearms.
It's hard to say what the next 200 will bring in the way of weapon advancements, but lasers and plasma weapons are almost assuredly not going to be a standard weapon to replace propellant firearms. Directed energy weapons are inefficient, cumbersome and have far more countermeasures against them than the comparatively simple action of shooting a bullet out of a tube with explosive powder; which already has devastatingly destructive effects. It seems novel, but the guns we have are already (relatively) cheap, easily portable and do a stellar job of killing and destroying things.[/QUOTE]
To be fair railguns are something that could potentially replace some aspect of our chemically propelled arsenal, especially if energy storage technologies increase over the next decade or so.
I wonder how far would the beam go if he fired at the sky at night
[QUOTE=426_Hemi;50627899]I wonder how far would the beam go if he fired at the sky at night[/QUOTE]
Well it doesn't appear to be focused well so it would probably disperse like pointing a flashlight into the sky... it would probably look like a spotlight.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50627896]To be fair railguns are something that could potentially replace some aspect of our chemically propelled arsenal, especially if energy storage technologies increase over the next decade or so.[/QUOTE]
One of the professor's in my university's engineering department was part of the team that worked on the railgun project the Navy eventually picked up. He went in to all the issues they had, including regularly having to replace the rails because their projectiles kept welding themselves to rails when fired. The Army had wanted to mount it to a tank or a Jeep and he said that it was entirely infeasible.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50624444]Can't pretty much any weapon permanently blind you?[/QUOTE]
Yes, but a weapon specifically designed to permanently blind someone is probably deemed ~inhumane~ by the UN
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50618703]Its a laser. If the laser was pointed directly at the camera lens the intensity would've been hundreds of times that of the titanium gunpowder, hell when he pointed it vaguely closely to the camera it started to fuck it up
[editline]29th June 2016[/editline]
Thats because of the frequency of light that particular laser uses.[/QUOTE]
If it were UV even doing that quickly would probably hurt a lot and burn dark hairs right off. basically the more melanin you have the worse
The energy from turning this on for one second could accelerate a softball to a hundred miles an hour.
Neat.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50628440]One of the professor's in my university's engineering department was part of the team that worked on the railgun project the Navy eventually picked up. He went in to all the issues they had, including regularly having to replace the rails because their projectiles kept welding themselves to rails when fired. The Army had wanted to mount it to a tank or a Jeep and he said that it was entirely infeasible.[/QUOTE]
I wonder what would happen if the projectile was cooled and transformed into a superconductor. It would probably reach exit velocities orders of magnitude higher than firing a normal projectile.
In fact this concept can be easily tested on a small scale with liquid nitrogen. I kinda want to build a small coil gun and get my hands on some liquid nitrogen and try it.
[QUOTE=xeo xeo;50628607]Yes, but a weapon specifically designed to permanently blind someone is probably deemed ~inhumane~ by the UN[/QUOTE]
Why the tilde? Do you not consider specifically blinding someone/something inhumane or was it more about the pointlessness calling one certain action inhumane in war?
[QUOTE=PelPix123;50615723]this thing scared me a little less when the titanium gunpowder was bright enough to make the beam invisible by comparison. I was like "oh shit, is this going to be brighter than a titanium flash?" and thank [I]jesus[/I] no it wasn't that would've blown my mind.[/QUOTE]
You can only see the beam because it's scattering off of material in the air. The actual beam itself is probably several hundred if not thousands of times brighter, but you would only be able to see it if it was focused on your eyes, in which case... Well, you wouldn't be seeing anything at all.
[QUOTE=haloguy234;50631303]I wonder what would happen if the projectile was cooled and transformed into a superconductor. It would probably reach exit velocities orders of magnitude higher than firing a normal projectile.
In fact this concept can be easily tested on a small scale with liquid nitrogen. I kinda want to build a small coil gun and get my hands on some liquid nitrogen and try it.[/QUOTE]Keep in mind a coil gun and a rail gun are different things.
That professor is a cool guy. Basically his job outside of being a professor is to conduct research on a military level. He has also worked on reactive armor as well.
How to take down a pilot version 1.0
[QUOTE=Wii60;50615063]give this to darpa
see what happens[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;cCBwLJjzDJQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCBwLJjzDJQ[/video]
just skim it. And this was from ~8 years ago
[QUOTE=Fetret;50631499]Why the tilde? Do you not consider specifically blinding someone/something inhumane or was it more about the pointlessness calling one certain action inhumane in war?[/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure he's poking fun at the fact that you can't use weapons that can blind someone, but you sure as hell can use weapons that will blast someone's arms and legs and face off and have them live to tell the tale.
[QUOTE=ubersoldier;50615799]That seems like a rather backwards thought process to me. Blinding our enemies is a no-go, but the complete destruction of an entire area is a-okay.[/QUOTE]
Weapons that are designed intentionally primarily maim are illegal essentially. It makes sense.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.