"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:27:15 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

Pseudoscience explanations intentionally spare the poorly educated
from those confusing numbers, such as the temperature of combustion
and the melting points of metals.

So, people are poorly educated until they have been taught these?

Set Theory
Group Theory
Algebra (linear, abstract, etc.)
Differential and integral calculus of a single variable
Differential and integral calculus of several variables
Ordinary differential equations
Partial differential equations
Real Analysis
Complex Analysis
Topology
Discrete mathematics (combinatorics, graph theory, etc.)
Number Theory
Geometry (projective, differential, etc.)
Probability theory
Statistics (statistics is often taught as a discipline in its own
right, rather than as part of a maths course).

You have a high bar, sir.

--
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

Here is the patent for the "200 mpg carburetor", so you can build one
and tell us how well it works:
https://www.google.com/patents/US1750354

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Nelson_Pogue
"...there is no evidence that the patents were ever suppressed or that
the rights were bought up by the oil industry, the motor industry or
the government."

-jsw

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 6:38:53 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Well you are looking at baby lasers.

In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate
like butter.

Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the
table top lasers used to study lenses.

All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or
snag.
A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive
friction
burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV.

This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot
an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself.

Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch
rocket is
out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles,
each
of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive
reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield.

Joe Gwinn

The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that
were
pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a
continuous 1
MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons.
They
just aren't practical.

The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly
diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and
welding lasers.

There are other types of lasers under development that hold
promise
for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for
high-power
direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They
could
make extremely compact weapons.

Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too
critical
to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of
megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all
but
reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by
then).

These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to
time.

Joe Gwinn

Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do.
Right
now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able
to
shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can shoot
down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at
Israel.
The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast.

At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have
that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor.

For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter
of
focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is
focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams
themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a
steady
laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down,
but
that's what the shipboard systems can already do.

Star Wars is still a ways off.

Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of
Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and
chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel
concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics
or electromagnetic research and production.

============

How can you use a computer yet be so ignorant? Have you heard of
Radar, a highly theory-dependent military invention of the mid 30's?
We ...

We? Who the hell are you talking about "we". Radar was invented by a Scot (Robert Alexander Watson-Watt). Honestly, I don't even know if he ever even visited the United States. Radar like research was going on in several countries. The US was not a pioneer in this area.

tested torpedos that sensed the target ship's magnetic field in
1928.

The budget devoted toward this field was still practically nothing relatively speaking.

The Navy developed the electromechanical drive used in modern hybrid
cars a century ago for battleships and submarines.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-038.htm

Cell phone technology arose from military research during WW2, as did
computers themselves.

Cell phones and cars were practically nothing budgetary-wise. And weaponized versions of this stuff? Practically nothing.

I used and maintained an Army-Air Force ancestor of the Internet in
the early 70's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Digital_Network
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automa...ations_Network

Can you understand this description of WW2 tech?

A lot of it wasn't even pioneered in the USA. So maybe militaries of other nations had higher budgetary devotion, but certainly not here in the United States.

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 7:28:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Well you are looking at baby lasers.

In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate
like butter.

Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than
the
table top lasers used to study lenses.

All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or
snag.
A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive
friction
burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV.

This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot
an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself.

Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch
rocket is
out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry
vehicles, each
of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to
survive
reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield.

Joe Gwinn

The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers
that were
pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a
continuous 1
MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons.
They
just aren't practical.

The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly
diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and
welding lasers.

There are other types of lasers under development that hold
promise
for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for
high-power
direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now.
They could
make extremely compact weapons.

Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too
critical
to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of
megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all
but
reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by
then).

These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to
time.

Joe Gwinn

Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do.
Right
now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are
able to
shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can
shoot
down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at
Israel.
The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast.

At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll
have
that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor.

For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a
matter of
focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is
focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams
themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a
steady
laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down,
but
that's what the shipboard systems can already do.

Star Wars is still a ways off.

Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of
Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and
chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil
fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military
electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production.

You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if
they
just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance.

As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you
do
if it rains?

--
Ed Huntress

When I was closely involved with that stuff, before the push toward
COTS, military electronics were about 20 years ahead of civilian use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf

Remember the comment that the missing Malaysian airliner could have
been tracked if it carried the right technology? I built prototypes of
it in ~1995.

-jsw

DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades.

That's beside the point. The military has always devoted the lion's share of resources to other areas. Fighters, bombers, infantry, self-propelled armor, etc. Weaponized electrophysics got hardly any comparable financing.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:50:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 7:28:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Well you are looking at baby lasers.

In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate
like butter.

Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than
the
table top lasers used to study lenses.

All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or
snag.
A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive
friction
burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV.

This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot
an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself.

Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch
rocket is
out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry
vehicles, each
of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to
survive
reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield.

Joe Gwinn

The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers
that were
pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a
continuous 1
MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons.
They
just aren't practical.

The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly
diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and
welding lasers.

There are other types of lasers under development that hold
promise
for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for
high-power
direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now.
They could
make extremely compact weapons.

Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too
critical
to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of
megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all
but
reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by
then).

These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to
time.

Joe Gwinn

Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do.
Right
now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are
able to
shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can
shoot
down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at
Israel.
The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast.

At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll
have
that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor.

For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a
matter of
focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is
focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams
themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a
steady
laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down,
but
that's what the shipboard systems can already do.

Star Wars is still a ways off.

Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of
Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and
chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil
fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military
electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production.

You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if
they
just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance.

As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you
do
if it rains?

--
Ed Huntress

When I was closely involved with that stuff, before the push toward
COTS, military electronics were about 20 years ahead of civilian use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf

Remember the comment that the missing Malaysian airliner could have
been tracked if it carried the right technology? I built prototypes of
it in ~1995.

-jsw

DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades.

That's beside the point. The military has always devoted the lion's share of resources to other areas. Fighters, bombers, infantry, self-propelled armor, etc. Weaponized electrophysics got hardly any comparable financing.

I don't think you're right about that. The government has funded a lot
of laser research. During Star Wars, it was a huge amount.

The understanding of laser physics took some time. If you look at the
earlier books on lasers versus what it known today, it's startling.
I'm having a heck of a time keeping up just with the industrial
developments.

Research sometimes takes time and coming up with ideas more than just
money.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:54:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:50:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 7:28:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Well you are looking at baby lasers.

In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate
like butter.

Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than
the
table top lasers used to study lenses.

All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or
snag.
A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive
friction
burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV.

This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot
an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself.

Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch
rocket is
out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry
vehicles, each
of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to
survive
reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield.

Joe Gwinn

The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers
that were
pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a
continuous 1
MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons..
They
just aren't practical.

The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly
diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and
welding lasers.

There are other types of lasers under development that hold
promise
for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for
high-power
direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now.
They could
make extremely compact weapons.

Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too
critical
to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of
megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all
but
reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by
then).

These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to
time.

Joe Gwinn

Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do.
Right
now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are
able to
shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can
shoot
down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at
Israel.
The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast.

At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll
have
that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor.

For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a
matter of
focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is
focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams
themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a
steady
laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down,
but
that's what the shipboard systems can already do.

Star Wars is still a ways off.

Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of
Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and
chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil
fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military
electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production.

You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if
they
just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance.

As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you
do
if it rains?

--
Ed Huntress

When I was closely involved with that stuff, before the push toward
COTS, military electronics were about 20 years ahead of civilian use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf

Remember the comment that the missing Malaysian airliner could have
been tracked if it carried the right technology? I built prototypes of
it in ~1995.

-jsw

DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades.

That's beside the point. The military has always devoted the lion's share of resources to other areas. Fighters, bombers, infantry, self-propelled armor, etc. Weaponized electrophysics got hardly any comparable financing..

I don't think you're right about that. The government has funded a lot
of laser research.

Hell. Ronald Reagan even ignored treaties with the Russians to limit stuff like cruise missiles. Though, House Speaker Tip O'Neill and the democrats were tougher on Star Wars related research than the republicans at that time, but still. Electromagnetic and laser research, development and production always get next to nothing in funding compared to stuff like
F-15s, Stealth Bombers, A-10s and M-1 tanks and munitions.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:02:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:54:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:50:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 7:28:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Well you are looking at baby lasers.

In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate
like butter.

Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than
the
table top lasers used to study lenses.

All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or
snag.
A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive
friction
burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV.

This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot
an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself.

Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch
rocket is
out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry
vehicles, each
of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to
survive
reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield.

Joe Gwinn

The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers
that were
pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a
continuous 1
MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons.
They
just aren't practical.

The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly
diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and
welding lasers.

There are other types of lasers under development that hold
promise
for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for
high-power
direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now.
They could
make extremely compact weapons.

Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too
critical
to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of
megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all
but
reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by
then).

These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to
time.

Joe Gwinn

Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do.
Right
now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are
able to
shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can
shoot
down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at
Israel.
The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast.

At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll
have
that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor.

For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a
matter of
focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is
focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams
themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a
steady
laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down,
but
that's what the shipboard systems can already do.

Star Wars is still a ways off.

Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of
Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and
chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil
fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military
electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production.

You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if
they
just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance.

As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you
do
if it rains?

--
Ed Huntress

When I was closely involved with that stuff, before the push toward
COTS, military electronics were about 20 years ahead of civilian use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf

Remember the comment that the missing Malaysian airliner could have
been tracked if it carried the right technology? I built prototypes of
it in ~1995.

-jsw

DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades.

That's beside the point. The military has always devoted the lion's share of resources to other areas. Fighters, bombers, infantry, self-propelled armor, etc. Weaponized electrophysics got hardly any comparable financing.

I don't think you're right about that. The government has funded a lot
of laser research.

Hell. Ronald Reagan even ignored treaties with the Russians to limit stuff like cruise missiles. Though, House Speaker Tip O'Neill and the democrats were tougher on Star Wars related research than the republicans at that time, but still. Electromagnetic and laser research, development and production always get next to nothing in funding compared to stuff like
F-15s, Stealth Bombers, A-10s and M-1 tanks and munitions.

Where do you get this information? Stories about new DARPA grants for
laser research pop up in the technical literature every week. The big
things now are the liquid laser weapons and high-power diode lasers.

Do you have some dollar amounts that back up what you're saying?

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 6:38:53 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Well you are looking at baby lasers.

In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate
like butter.

Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than
the
table top lasers used to study lenses.

All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or
snag.
A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive
friction
burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV.

This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot
an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself.

Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch
rocket is
out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry
vehicles,
each
of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to
survive
reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield.

Joe Gwinn

The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers
that
were
pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a
continuous 1
MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons.
They
just aren't practical.

The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly
diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and
welding lasers.

There are other types of lasers under development that hold
promise
for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for
high-power
direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now.
They
could
make extremely compact weapons.

Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too
critical
to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of
megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all
but
reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by
then).

These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to
time.

Joe Gwinn

Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do.
Right
now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are
able
to
shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can
shoot
down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at
Israel.
The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast.

At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll
have
that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor.

For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a
matter
of
focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is
focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams
themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a
steady
laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down,
but
that's what the shipboard systems can already do.

Star Wars is still a ways off.

Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of
Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and
chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil
fuel
concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics
or electromagnetic research and production.

============

How can you use a computer yet be so ignorant? Have you heard of
Radar, a highly theory-dependent military invention of the mid 30's?
We ...

We? Who the hell are you talking about "we". Radar was invented by a
Scot (Robert Alexander Watson-Watt). Honestly, I don't even know if
he ever even visited the United States. Radar like research was going
on in several countries. The US was not a pioneer in this area.

tested torpedos that sensed the target ship's magnetic field in
1928.

The budget devoted toward this field was still practically nothing
relatively speaking.

The Navy developed the electromechanical drive used in modern hybrid
cars a century ago for battleships and submarines.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-038.htm

Cell phone technology arose from military research during WW2, as
did
computers themselves.

Cell phones and cars were practically nothing budgetary-wise. And
weaponized versions of this stuff? Practically nothing.

I used and maintained an Army-Air Force ancestor of the Internet in
the early 70's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Digital_Network
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automa...ations_Network

Can you understand this description of WW2 tech?

A lot of it wasn't even pioneered in the USA. So maybe militaries of
other nations had higher budgetary devotion, but certainly not here in
the United States.

=============

The Great War had ended all major wars, remember? We wouldn't be
needing a military for more than minor police actions. Pacifists
controlled Depression spending.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radar
Actually it was Watson Watt's assistant Arnold Wilkins who invented,
built and demonstrated the first British radar in February of 1935.

The US Navy beat them, although since radar was kept top secret by all
of its nearly simultaneous inventors it wasn't known to be a race.

"In December 1934, the apparatus was used to detect a plane at a
distance of one mile (1.6 km) flying up and down the Potomac. Although
the detection range was small and the indications on the oscilloscope
monitor were almost indistinct, it demonstrated the basic concept of a
pulsed radar system. Based on this, Page, Taylor, and Young are
usually credited with building and demonstrating the world's first
true radar."

The British system transmitted a continuous wave and inferred
direction to the target by measuring the return's phase difference at
two antennas, the same way our ears tell the direction but not
distance of a sound source. A second receiver and antenna pair
elsewhere gave an intersecting vector and crude estimate of range. The
Germans investigated it and concluded it was something other than a
radar, since it didn't work like theirs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizard_Mission
"...the British disclosed the technical details of the Chain Home
early warning radar stations. The British thought the Americans did
not have anything like this, but found it was virtually identical to
the US Navy's longwave CXAM radar."

The British didn't invent computers all by themselves either.

At Mitre I had a working replica of a ~1932 German microwave aircraft
detection radar on my desk. I haven't found any mention of it online.

US jet engine development began earlier than is generally known, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_J37
"Price started work on his own turbojet design in 1938,..."

-jsw

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:54:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:50:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 7:28:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Martin
Eastburn
wrote:




DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades.

That's beside the point. The military has always devoted the lion's
share of resources to other areas. Fighters, bombers, infantry,
self-propelled armor, etc. Weaponized electrophysics got hardly
any comparable financing.

I don't think you're right about that. The government has funded a
lot
of laser research.

Hell. Ronald Reagan even ignored treaties with the Russians to limit
stuff like cruise missiles. Though, House Speaker Tip O'Neill and the
democrats were tougher on Star Wars related research than the
republicans at that time, but still. Electromagnetic and laser
research, development and production always get next to nothing in
funding compared to stuff like
F-15s, Stealth Bombers, A-10s and M-1 tanks and munitions.

============================

It got all the funding its promise justified at the time. Sufficiently
powerful ruggedized miniature computers needed to control it weren't
available back then, and what was available took a very long time to
qualify to the necessary reliability and extreme environmental
conditions military gear experiences, like hanging quietly from a wing
at -60 in the stratosphere, then suddenly being temperature-shocked
between a burning rocket motor and the friction-heated outer casing.

The RCA CDP1802 microprocessor from 1976 is still available because
it -did- qualify for the extreme conditions in space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA_1802
"It is currently being manufactured by Intersil Corporation as a
high-reliability microprocessor."

-jsw

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:50:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 7:28:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Well you are looking at baby lasers.

In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate
like butter.

Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than
the
table top lasers used to study lenses.

All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or
snag.
A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive
friction
burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV.

This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot
an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself.

Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch
rocket is
out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry
vehicles, each
of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to
survive
reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield.

Joe Gwinn

The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers
that were
pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a
continuous 1
MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons.
They
just aren't practical.

The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly
diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and
welding lasers.

There are other types of lasers under development that hold
promise
for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for
high-power
direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now.
They could
make extremely compact weapons.

Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too
critical
to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of
megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all
but
reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by
then).

These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to
time.

Joe Gwinn

Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do.
Right
now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are
able to
shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can
shoot
down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at
Israel.
The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast.

At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll
have
that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor.

For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a
matter of
focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is
focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams
themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a
steady
laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down,
but
that's what the shipboard systems can already do.

Star Wars is still a ways off.

Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of
Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and
chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil
fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military
electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production.

You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if
they
just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance.

As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you
do
if it rains?

--
Ed Huntress

When I was closely involved with that stuff, before the push toward
COTS, military electronics were about 20 years ahead of civilian use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf

Remember the comment that the missing Malaysian airliner could have
been tracked if it carried the right technology? I built prototypes of
it in ~1995.

-jsw

DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades.

That's beside the point. The military has always devoted the lion's share of resources to other areas. Fighters, bombers, infantry, self-propelled armor, etc. Weaponized electrophysics got hardly any comparable financing.

Well, yes. Are you arguing that the military should devote the bulk of
their research on some "pie-in-the-sky" scheme that no one knows if it
will ever prove practical?

Or something like a Tank, that has proved an asset on the battlefield
days for the past hundred years?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:50:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 7:28:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Well you are looking at baby lasers.

In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate
like butter.

Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than
the
table top lasers used to study lenses.

All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or
snag.
A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive
friction
burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV.

This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot
an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself.

Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch
rocket is
out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry
vehicles, each
of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to
survive
reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield.

Joe Gwinn

The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers
that were
pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a
continuous 1
MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons.
They
just aren't practical.

The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly
diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and
welding lasers.

There are other types of lasers under development that hold
promise
for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for
high-power
direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now.
They could
make extremely compact weapons.

Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too
critical
to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of
megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all
but
reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by
then).

These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to
time.

Joe Gwinn

Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do.
Right
now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are
able to
shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can
shoot
down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at
Israel.
The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast.

At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll
have
that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor.

For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a
matter of
focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is
focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams
themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a
steady
laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down,
but
that's what the shipboard systems can already do.

Star Wars is still a ways off.

Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of
Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and
chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil
fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military
electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production.

You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if
they
just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance.

As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you
do
if it rains?

--
Ed Huntress

When I was closely involved with that stuff, before the push toward
COTS, military electronics were about 20 years ahead of civilian use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf

Remember the comment that the missing Malaysian airliner could have
been tracked if it carried the right technology? I built prototypes of
it in ~1995.

-jsw

DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades.

That's beside the point. The military has always devoted the lion's share of resources to other areas. Fighters, bombers, infantry, self-propelled armor, etc. Weaponized electrophysics got hardly any comparable financing.

Well, of course. Or do you feel that the bulk of the funds should be
spent on some "pie in the sky" scheme that may never prove possible?

Or something like a tank, that has proved an asset on the battlefield
for the past 100 years?
--
cheers,

John B.

And years afterwards as well.
Money money and more money. A lot of good information has been
generated however so some of it is worth the cost. Always like that.

Martin

On 9/30/2015 4:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:50:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 7:28:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Well you are looking at baby lasers.

In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate
like butter.

Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than
the
table top lasers used to study lenses.

All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or
snag.
A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive
friction
burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV.

This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot
an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself.

Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch
rocket is
out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry
vehicles, each
of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to
survive
reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield.

Joe Gwinn

The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers
that were
pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a
continuous 1
MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons.
They
just aren't practical.

The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly
diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and
welding lasers.

There are other types of lasers under development that hold
promise
for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for
high-power
direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now.
They could
make extremely compact weapons.

Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too
critical
to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of
megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all
but
reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by
then).

These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to
time.

Joe Gwinn

Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do.
Right
now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are
able to
shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can
shoot
down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at
Israel.
The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast.

At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll
have
that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor.

For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a
matter of
focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is
focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams
themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a
steady
laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down,
but
that's what the shipboard systems can already do.

Star Wars is still a ways off.

Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of
Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and
chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil
fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military
electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production.

You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if
they
just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance.

As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you
do
if it rains?

--
Ed Huntress

When I was closely involved with that stuff, before the push toward
COTS, military electronics were about 20 years ahead of civilian use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf

Remember the comment that the missing Malaysian airliner could have
been tracked if it carried the right technology? I built prototypes of
it in ~1995.

-jsw

DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades.

That's beside the point. The military has always devoted the lion's share of resources to other areas. Fighters, bombers, infantry, self-propelled armor, etc. Weaponized electrophysics got hardly any comparable financing.

I don't think you're right about that. The government has funded a lot
of laser research. During Star Wars, it was a huge amount.

The understanding of laser physics took some time. If you look at the
earlier books on lasers versus what it known today, it's startling.
I'm having a heck of a time keeping up just with the industrial
developments.

Research sometimes takes time and coming up with ideas more than just
money.

I don't know where you work, but I used RF grade PCB material for
hand test boards of telecom IC's. When the frequency of the square wave
is or exceeds 12GHz, the Fourier frequencies of the rise and fall time
determine the bandwidth of the traces and scopes used...

Electrical trade depending on the location in the industry of Calculus
or better. Most doesn't require much more than arithmetic.

If you don't work in some fields, don't speak across all fields.
Engineers do math based on the job and use what they can in doing it.

My dad was into n-dimensional space at work. And he could calculate in
it. After-all Over 100 years ago Maxwell worked on advanced mathematics
for electronics and others.

I just completed a paper on advanced mathematics. Most of which is over
100 years old. The two Geometries that were used by Einstein in writing
his two major Theories. He wrote one for sub-atomic and another for the
cosmos.

Martin

On 9/30/2015 11:30 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:27:15 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

Pseudoscience explanations intentionally spare the poorly educated
from those confusing numbers, such as the temperature of combustion
and the melting points of metals.

So, people are poorly educated until they have been taught these?

Set Theory
Group Theory
Algebra (linear, abstract, etc.)
Differential and integral calculus of a single variable
Differential and integral calculus of several variables
Ordinary differential equations
Partial differential equations
Real Analysis
Complex Analysis
Topology
Discrete mathematics (combinatorics, graph theory, etc.)
Number Theory
Geometry (projective, differential, etc.)
Probability theory
Statistics (statistics is often taught as a discipline in its own
right, rather than as part of a maths course).

You have a high bar, sir.

I never suggested that people should have my education, or that small
subset of it, unless they intend to work in aerospace electronic R&D.
I frequently post simplified explanations that don't require even
introductory calculus.

This is an example of the mathematics of digital communications:
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrica...F12_chap07.pdf

-jsw

What you don't understand is the patent is filed under a name.
I have one under mine.
The company 'bought' it from me for a 100 dollars and made 100 Million
dollars. I got 100 smacks and they got all of the other. They owned
the patent even though my name is on it. They owned me and they owned
my work.... Slavery of sorts.

So finding a patent in the name of Joe Blo doesn't mean he will get a
penny. The owner of that will.

Martin

On 9/30/2015 12:47 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:27:15 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

Pseudoscience explanations intentionally spare the poorly educated
from those confusing numbers, such as the temperature of combustion
and the melting points of metals.

So, people are poorly educated until they have been taught these?

Set Theory
Group Theory
Algebra (linear, abstract, etc.)
Differential and integral calculus of a single variable
Differential and integral calculus of several variables
Ordinary differential equations
Partial differential equations
Real Analysis
Complex Analysis
Topology
Discrete mathematics (combinatorics, graph theory, etc.)
Number Theory
Geometry (projective, differential, etc.)
Probability theory
Statistics (statistics is often taught as a discipline in its own
right, rather than as part of a maths course).

You have a high bar, sir.

--
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

Here is the patent for the "200 mpg carburetor", so you can build one
and tell us how well it works:
https://www.google.com/patents/US1750354

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Nelson_Pogue
"...there is no evidence that the patents were ever suppressed or that
the rights were bought up by the oil industry, the motor industry or
the government."

-jsw

Radar hardware of one design and a good one was developed in the UK.
Western Electric was assigned to take it and make Ship radar and then
Air radar. The design team was in Bell Labs, my dad was on that team.
He later went to Carolina to put it into production. He retired as a
director of R&D in Field Engineering and had a heavy dotted line back
to Bell Labs. He spent his last 6 months in the Labs completing his
design documentation on his last monster Radar.

The US worked on radar at the same time, but didn't have a working model
as clean as the UK. The UK design went to both Naval bodies of the UK
and USA. It was critical for the shipping between the US and the UK.
Later it was shown to be instrumental in many a battle in the Pacific.

The Magnetron tube that was provided was an R&D design by the UK. It put
both of us ahead in shipboard radar to fight planes and subs.

Martin

On 9/30/2015 4:46 PM, wrote:
On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 6:38:53 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Well you are looking at baby lasers.

In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate
like butter.

Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than the
table top lasers used to study lenses.

All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or
snag.
A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive
friction
burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV.

This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot
an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself.

Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch
rocket is
out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry vehicles,
each
of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to survive
reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield.

Joe Gwinn

The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers that
were
pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a
continuous 1
MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons.
They
just aren't practical.

The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly
diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and
welding lasers.

There are other types of lasers under development that hold
promise
for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for
high-power
direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now. They
could
make extremely compact weapons.

Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too
critical
to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of
megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all
but
reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by
then).

These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to
time.

Joe Gwinn

Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do.
Right
now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are able
to
shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can shoot
down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at
Israel.
The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast.

At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll have
that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor.

For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a matter
of
focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is
focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams
themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a
steady
laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down,
but
that's what the shipboard systems can already do.

Star Wars is still a ways off.

Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of
Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and
chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil fuel
concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military electrophysics
or electromagnetic research and production.

============

How can you use a computer yet be so ignorant? Have you heard of
Radar, a highly theory-dependent military invention of the mid 30's?
We ...

We? Who the hell are you talking about "we". Radar was invented by a Scot (Robert Alexander Watson-Watt). Honestly, I don't even know if he ever even visited the United States. Radar like research was going on in several countries. The US was not a pioneer in this area.

tested torpedos that sensed the target ship's magnetic field in
1928.

The budget devoted toward this field was still practically nothing relatively speaking.

The Navy developed the electromechanical drive used in modern hybrid
cars a century ago for battleships and submarines.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-038.htm

Cell phone technology arose from military research during WW2, as did
computers themselves.

Cell phones and cars were practically nothing budgetary-wise. And weaponized versions of this stuff? Practically nothing.

I used and maintained an Army-Air Force ancestor of the Internet in
the early 70's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Digital_Network
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automa...ations_Network

Can you understand this description of WW2 tech?

A lot of it wasn't even pioneered in the USA. So maybe militaries of other nations had higher budgetary devotion, but certainly not here in the United States.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:30:57 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:27:15 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

Pseudoscience explanations intentionally spare the poorly educated
from those confusing numbers, such as the temperature of combustion
and the melting points of metals.

So, people are poorly educated until they have been taught these?

Set Theory
Group Theory
Algebra (linear, abstract, etc.)
Differential and integral calculus of a single variable
Differential and integral calculus of several variables
Ordinary differential equations
Partial differential equations
Real Analysis
Complex Analysis
Topology
Discrete mathematics (combinatorics, graph theory, etc.)
Number Theory
Geometry (projective, differential, etc.)
Probability theory
Statistics (statistics is often taught as a discipline in its own
right, rather than as part of a maths course).

You have a high bar, sir.

I never suggested that people should have my education, or that small
subset of it, unless they intend to work in aerospace electronic R&D.

No, but you were complaining of "poorly educated" folks here.


I frequently post simplified explanations that don't require even
introductory calculus.

And that's good.

--
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:47:46 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

Here is the patent for the "200 mpg carburetor", so you can build one
and tell us how well it works:
https://www.google.com/patents/US1750354

g Pass!

--
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Radar hardware of one design and a good one was developed in the UK.
Western Electric was assigned to take it and make Ship radar and
then Air radar. The design team was in Bell Labs, my dad was on
that team.
He later went to Carolina to put it into production. He retired as
a
director of R&D in Field Engineering and had a heavy dotted line
back
to Bell Labs. He spent his last 6 months in the Labs completing his
design documentation on his last monster Radar.

The US worked on radar at the same time, but didn't have a working
model
as clean as the UK. The UK design went to both Naval bodies of the
UK and USA. It was critical for the shipping between the US and the
UK. Later it was shown to be instrumental in many a battle in the
Pacific.

The Magnetron tube that was provided was an R&D design by the UK. It
put
both of us ahead in shipboard radar to fight planes and subs.

Martin


The magnetron tube was an American invention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Hull

The British contribution was to extend its frequency response into the
microwave range.
US experimental microwave radars of the late 1930's used Klystron
tubes, which took longer to fully develop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klystron

That article mentions that magnetrons had poor frequency stability.
British electronic genius R. V. Jones wrote that they could classify
unknown transmissions as British or German by observing their
frequency stability. Typically German field gear was as good as the
best British laboratory instruments.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wizard-War.../dp/0698108965

-jsw

In article , Jim Wilkins
wrote:

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Radar hardware of one design and a good one was developed in the UK.
Western Electric was assigned to take it and make Ship radar and
then Air radar. The design team was in Bell Labs, my dad was on
that team.
He later went to Carolina to put it into production. He retired as
a
director of R&D in Field Engineering and had a heavy dotted line
back
to Bell Labs. He spent his last 6 months in the Labs completing his
design documentation on his last monster Radar.

The US worked on radar at the same time, but didn't have a working
model
as clean as the UK. The UK design went to both Naval bodies of the
UK and USA. It was critical for the shipping between the US and the
UK. Later it was shown to be instrumental in many a battle in the
Pacific.

The Magnetron tube that was provided was an R&D design by the UK. It
put
both of us ahead in shipboard radar to fight planes and subs.

Martin


The magnetron tube was an American invention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Hull

The British contribution was to extend its frequency response into the
microwave range.
US experimental microwave radars of the late 1930's used Klystron
tubes, which took longer to fully develop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klystron

That article mentions that magnetrons had poor frequency stability.
British electronic genius R. V. Jones wrote that they could classify
unknown transmissions as British or German by observing their
frequency stability. Typically German field gear was as good as the
best British laboratory instruments.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wizard-War.../dp/0698108965

What's missing is that Raytheon invented the manufacturing process that
made it practical to make magnetrons by the tens of thousands. Without
this, radar would have remained a lab curio.

..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Spencer

Joe Gwinn

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:02:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:54:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:50:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 7:28:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Well you are looking at baby lasers.

In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate
like butter.

Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than
the
table top lasers used to study lenses.

All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or
snag.
A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive
friction
burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV.

This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot
an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself.

Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch
rocket is
out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry
vehicles, each
of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to
survive
reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield.

Joe Gwinn

The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers
that were
pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a
continuous 1
MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons.
They
just aren't practical.

The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly
diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and
welding lasers.

There are other types of lasers under development that hold
promise
for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for
high-power
direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now.
They could
make extremely compact weapons.

Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too
critical
to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of
megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all
but
reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by
then).

These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to
time.

Joe Gwinn

Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do.
Right
now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are
able to
shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can
shoot
down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at
Israel.
The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast.

At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll
have
that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor.

For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a
matter of
focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is
focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams
themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a
steady
laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down,
but
that's what the shipboard systems can already do.

Star Wars is still a ways off.

Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of
Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and
chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil
fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military
electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production.

You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if
they
just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance.

As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you
do
if it rains?

--
Ed Huntress

When I was closely involved with that stuff, before the push toward
COTS, military electronics were about 20 years ahead of civilian use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf

Remember the comment that the missing Malaysian airliner could have
been tracked if it carried the right technology? I built prototypes of
it in ~1995.

-jsw

DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades.

That's beside the point. The military has always devoted the lion's share of resources to other areas. Fighters, bombers, infantry, self-propelled armor, etc. Weaponized electrophysics got hardly any comparable financing.

I don't think you're right about that. The government has funded a lot
of laser research.

Hell. Ronald Reagan even ignored treaties with the Russians to limit stuff like cruise missiles. Though, House Speaker Tip O'Neill and the democrats were tougher on Star Wars related research than the republicans at that time, but still. Electromagnetic and laser research, development and production always get next to nothing in funding compared to stuff like
F-15s, Stealth Bombers, A-10s and M-1 tanks and munitions.

Here's a good layman's account of the history and status of laser
weapons:

http://www.nature.com/news/military-...t-real-1.17613

--
Ed Huntress

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 10:25:33 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:02:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:54:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:50:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 7:28:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:54:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:54 -0400, Joe Gwinn

wrote:

In article , Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Well you are looking at baby lasers.

In the 70's - late - I saw a 8 'barrel' cut 1/2" steel plate
like butter.

Lasers are for Engineering and Research are different than
the
table top lasers used to study lenses.

All it has to do on an ICBM or MIRV is to create a bump or
snag.
A high energy pulsed machine gun type would cause massive
friction
burns that melt down by friction any ICBM or MRV.

This isn't new technology. The magic in this stuff is shoot
an ICBM with a shotgun and it kills itself.

Unless one is well-placed over enemy territory, the launch
rocket is
out of reach. At the target end, it's raining reentry
vehicles, each
of which is equipped with a very good ablation shield to
survive
reentry. It takes a very large laser to drill that shield..

Joe Gwinn

The lasers Martin is talking about were the chemical lasers
that were
pumped with a chemical reaction, and that could put out a
continuous 1
MW beam. They've been abandoned as weapons for several reasons.
They
just aren't practical.

The laser types being developed now are solid-state, mostly
diode-pumped fiber lasers developed from industrial cutting and
welding lasers.

There are other types of lasers under development that hold
promise
for weapons. Right now, in industry, we're all waiting for
high-power
direct-diode lasers. There are some prototypes working now.
They could
make extremely compact weapons.

Yes, but megawatts are really not enough - everything is too
critical
to carry off under battlefield conditions. Needs to be tens of
megawatts, and a hundred would make this a duck shoot against all
but
reentry vehicles (which will spin and have mirror finishes by
then).

These issues and stories come up in Aviation Week from time to
time.

Joe Gwinn

Well, how much you need is a matter of what you're trying to do.
Right
now, fiber laser bundles putting out on the order of 30 kW are
able to
shoot down drones and disable speedboats. They apparently can
shoot
down small rockets, like the ones Hamas and Hezbollah shoot at
Israel.
The Israelis want a bunch of them, fast.

At 100 kW, you have a pretty useful battlefield weapon. They'll
have
that soon. At 1 MW, you're able to burn through some armor.

For the shorter ranges they're working with now, it's more a
matter of
focus (BPP, if you're into lasers) and tracking. The beam(s) is
focused with lenses; it doesn't depend on the parallel beams
themselves. The tracking must be absolutely amazing to place a
steady
laser spot on a flying drone for a few seconds and shoot it down,
but
that's what the shipboard systems can already do.

Star Wars is still a ways off.

Again, that's because since the Spanish American war and the time of
Nicola Tesla the US military has financially focused in on metal and
chemical fashioning side of the military (that benefitted fossil
fuel concerns) and relatively nothing went toward military
electrophysics or electromagnetic research and production.

You seem to have a belief that the military could create magic if
they
just knew what technologies would be available 50 years in advance.

As for long-range Star Wars lasers to knock out ICBMs, what do you
do
if it rains?

--
Ed Huntress

When I was closely involved with that stuff, before the push toward
COTS, military electronics were about 20 years ahead of civilian use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf

Remember the comment that the missing Malaysian airliner could have
been tracked if it carried the right technology? I built prototypes of
it in ~1995.

-jsw

DARPA has pushed laser technology for decades.

That's beside the point. The military has always devoted the lion's share of resources to other areas. Fighters, bombers, infantry, self-propelled armor, etc. Weaponized electrophysics got hardly any comparable financing.

I don't think you're right about that. The government has funded a lot
of laser research.

Hell. Ronald Reagan even ignored treaties with the Russians to limit stuff like cruise missiles. Though, House Speaker Tip O'Neill and the democrats were tougher on Star Wars related research than the republicans at that time, but still. Electromagnetic and laser research, development and production always get next to nothing in funding compared to stuff like
F-15s, Stealth Bombers, A-10s and M-1 tanks and munitions.

Here's a good layman's account of the history and status of laser
weapons:

http://www.nature.com/news/military-...t-real-1.17613

Ed, just so my point isn't lost: The US Military (along with most other industries) have been distorted to benefit fossil fuel producers. At any cost.

This isn't about anything else, OK? That was my point.

My dad used Klystrons you could unbolt a plate and climb inside (in a
RAD suit) change the filament climb out and pump down. They were 6
meters tall. Short ones :-)

Magnetrons, a high tech type, was / is used on a B-52. It has some
special features that isn't on the typical unit. About the size of a
boot box. I taught Semiconductor Electronics to the B-52 Design team
so they could design the F-111B. And they did. It was a bit weird to
be teaching someone twice ones age solid state devices. Thankfully I
knew tubes and related their place in the solid state designs. They
took to design faster that way and we got into the mathematics as well.
A long time ago.

Martin

On 10/1/2015 6:24 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Radar hardware of one design and a good one was developed in the UK.
Western Electric was assigned to take it and make Ship radar and
then Air radar. The design team was in Bell Labs, my dad was on
that team.
He later went to Carolina to put it into production. He retired as
a
director of R&D in Field Engineering and had a heavy dotted line
back
to Bell Labs. He spent his last 6 months in the Labs completing his
design documentation on his last monster Radar.

The US worked on radar at the same time, but didn't have a working
model
as clean as the UK. The UK design went to both Naval bodies of the
UK and USA. It was critical for the shipping between the US and the
UK. Later it was shown to be instrumental in many a battle in the
Pacific.

The Magnetron tube that was provided was an R&D design by the UK. It
put
both of us ahead in shipboard radar to fight planes and subs.

Martin


The magnetron tube was an American invention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Hull

The British contribution was to extend its frequency response into the
microwave range.
US experimental microwave radars of the late 1930's used Klystron
tubes, which took longer to fully develop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klystron

That article mentions that magnetrons had poor frequency stability.
British electronic genius R. V. Jones wrote that they could classify
unknown transmissions as British or German by observing their
frequency stability. Typically German field gear was as good as the
best British laboratory instruments.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wizard-War.../dp/0698108965

-jsw

Larry Jaques wrote:

OK, perhaps I am expecting too many explosions when a tank is taken
out. I thought that most anything which penetrated a tank would also
hit the stray munitions inside, causing a large explosion. Too many
movies?

Nope. That's exactly right for an operational (and armed) tanks and trucks.
Google for some ISIS/Taliban footage.

This is test range stuff. No fuel. No ammunition*.

*Putting a couple of shells in the target tanks would look cool. But imagine
the EOD effort that would have to follow every practice run.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Help stamp out philately.

Alert -

The A10 is in standby still active. The joint forces jump jet for the
services isn't cutting the mustard. The Joint Staff put a hold on the
demise.

Martin

On 10/6/2015 8:52 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

OK, perhaps I am expecting too many explosions when a tank is taken
out. I thought that most anything which penetrated a tank would also
hit the stray munitions inside, causing a large explosion. Too many
movies?

Nope. That's exactly right for an operational (and armed) tanks and trucks.
Google for some ISIS/Taliban footage.

This is test range stuff. No fuel. No ammunition*.

*Putting a couple of shells in the target tanks would look cool. But imagine
the EOD effort that would have to follow every practice run.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 22:16:31 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Alert -

The A10 is in standby still active. The joint forces jump jet for the
services isn't cutting the mustard. The Joint Staff put a hold on the
demise.

This is Most Excellent news!


On 10/6/2015 8:52 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

OK, perhaps I am expecting too many explosions when a tank is taken
out. I thought that most anything which penetrated a tank would also
hit the stray munitions inside, causing a large explosion. Too many
movies?

Nope. That's exactly right for an operational (and armed) tanks and trucks.
Google for some ISIS/Taliban footage.

Will do.


This is test range stuff. No fuel. No ammunition*.

*Putting a couple of shells in the target tanks would look cool. But imagine
the EOD effort that would have to follow every practice run.

Quite right, Paul. Thanks for the extra feedback.


--
Canadian: An unarmed American with healthcare.