|
Post by apophys on Nov 4, 2016 9:57:04 GMT
I'm glad you like it. At the time, I didn't think it would become so popular, since the 1GW reactor I also made has similar mass efficiency with quite a bit less volume for 10 of them. Apparently the convenience of the bundle (and fewer crew) is important.
|
|
|
Lasers
Dec 29, 2016 0:02:53 GMT
Post by inbrainsane on Dec 29, 2016 0:02:53 GMT
Is this the king of the hill or has someone a better one? *Edit* I am a fool. This thing is not even good. *Edit*
|
|
|
Lasers
Dec 29, 2016 0:50:51 GMT
Post by newageofpower on Dec 29, 2016 0:50:51 GMT
Better for what? Aperture size? Efficiency?
|
|
|
Lasers
Dec 29, 2016 1:21:36 GMT
Post by inbrainsane on Dec 29, 2016 1:21:36 GMT
Better in Output Power and Intensity than all others of comparable power consumption, price, mass.
|
|
|
Lasers
Dec 29, 2016 1:26:27 GMT
Post by deskjetser on Dec 29, 2016 1:26:27 GMT
inbrainsane i'm not entirely sure that an overly large aperture is a good thing though. Can you show how effective it is at actually killing different modules? AFAIK lasers with large apertures tend to be very good at cutting, but not very good at heating up lots of mass. Can anyone confirm this?
|
|
|
Lasers
Dec 29, 2016 1:48:55 GMT
Post by amimai on Dec 29, 2016 1:48:55 GMT
Better in Output Power and Intensity than all others of comparable power consumption, price, mass. no its not... for any single laser system+reactor the ideal power output is around 500-700MW for that you get around: 8t laser weapon 13t laser radiators 10t reactor 10t reactor radiators a happy balance, the natural laser ship in its element
|
|
|
Lasers
Dec 29, 2016 2:07:12 GMT
Post by inbrainsane on Dec 29, 2016 2:07:12 GMT
Can you post that single laser weapon of that system you just described? Screenshot maybe? Because I would really like to compare them at 1 Mm.
|
|
|
Lasers
Dec 29, 2016 2:57:53 GMT
Post by fenrin49 on Dec 29, 2016 2:57:53 GMT
that intesity is prety crazy for the size but not realy practical - your have a tiny spot size but not much power for the weight example- i have a 1gw laser that outputs 30MW of power but is only 600kg much better ability to put more heat on target for less weight to get that system to get comparable intensity to your design i would need to make a lens that weighs about 200 tons - you want energy on target you still need density but its mostly to extend range - it wont help you defeat armor faster sure you can engage at vastly farther distance but IMO its much better to put that weight into some anti laser armor to close the gap. i can give my laser a whole freaking meter of aramid fiber anti laser armour and be 1/10 the weight and still have the same raw power output.
|
|
|
Lasers
Dec 29, 2016 5:07:55 GMT
Post by apophys on Dec 29, 2016 5:07:55 GMT
3.4% efficiency? You can do better with Nd:YAG + krypton (with frequency quadrupling nowadays, I see little reason to use anything else). Your spot size is ~9cm wide. You'd probably do better with less intensity. Might want to add a little aramid armor on the turret to help with mirror matches. Otherwise you can cut some mass from the reaction wheels; your traverse speed is overkill for a 1Mm sniper.
|
|
|
Lasers
Dec 29, 2016 5:14:04 GMT
Post by fenrin49 on Dec 29, 2016 5:14:04 GMT
yag krypton? ive been using xenon titanium sapphire. any idea how they compare?
i mean im geting almost double the efficiency and that sweet 198mm wave length compared to yag krypton designs but i havnt messed with weight optimizing on both nvm did some testing that combo does work better on lower power more optimized designs
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Dec 29, 2016 5:24:47 GMT
yag krypton? ive been using xenon titanium sapphire. any idea how they compare? i mean im geting almost double the efficiency and that sweet 198mm wave length compared to yag krypton designs but i havnt messed with weight optimizing on both An older post of mine, which has been copied into the standards thread: You have effectively 2 choices for your laser medium: green (Nd:YAG + krypton) or purple (Ti:Sapphire + xenon). Green is more raw power (higher efficiency), but requires larger apertures to make up for its lesser intensity (green is lower frequency than purple). Purple has somewhat improved efficiency at low power, but still not more than green. Green gets its best pumping when arc lamp radius is small. Purple gets its best pumping when arc lamp radius is large. This makes purple slightly more expensive when optimized, in my experience. For Nd:YAG + krypton, efficiency is normally 4.4% or so.
|
|
|
Lasers
Dec 29, 2016 5:40:24 GMT
Post by fenrin49 on Dec 29, 2016 5:40:24 GMT
ahh thank you wish we had diferent orientations might be posible to get my xenon designs down in weight - on the large end they can be very eficent with energy overall i dont think the advantages of the 198mm wave length (many materials have a sharp drop in reflectance in the 198 range) offset that efficiency difference
|
|
|
Lasers
Dec 29, 2016 5:47:58 GMT
Post by newageofpower on Dec 29, 2016 5:47:58 GMT
Better in Output Power and Intensity than all others of comparable power consumption, price, mass. no its not... for any single laser system+reactor the ideal power output is around 500-700MW for that you get around: 8t laser weapon 13t laser radiators 10t reactor 10t reactor radiators a happy balance, the natural laser ship in its element Depends on what your target is armored with. A 10GW death laser with a 5m^2 mirror (over 18 GW/sqm, depending on pre-doubling lasertype) takes awhile to cut through thick composite at long range, so anything less would be even slower! EDIT: Xenon/Titanium Sapphire used to be my own go-to composition, but with frequency quadrupling most large scale lasers are ablation-limited, meaning you want to increase spot size (and accept a small penalty in beam intensity) if possible.
|
|
|
Lasers
Dec 29, 2016 6:30:23 GMT
Post by inbrainsane on Dec 29, 2016 6:30:23 GMT
3.4% efficiency? You can do better with Nd:YAG + krypton (with frequency quadrupling nowadays, I see little reason to use anything else). Your spot size is ~9cm wide. You'd probably do better with less intensity. Might want to add a little aramid armor on the turret to help with mirror matches. Otherwise you can cut some mass from the reaction wheels; your traverse speed is overkill for a 1Mm sniper. I played around some more. I posted my results in the standardisation thread. childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/post/8744/threadMy design above was flawed.
|
|
|
Lasers
Dec 29, 2016 6:41:15 GMT
Post by midnightdreary on Dec 29, 2016 6:41:15 GMT
Does anyone have very cost effective designs for drone lasers (~100kw - 1 MW), point defense lasers (~10-100 MW), main battle lasers (~100-500 MW), and then mega death lasers (~500+ MW)?
A lot of what I am seeing are just the most crazy and no-expense-spared designs, which are cool, but I find those sorts of designs impractical. If I can't afford to equip a fleet with something, then it's just a novelty. (Like building a multi million dollar infantry rifle that is the best rifle ever made... and then only able to equip one soldier with it.)
I mean, I could completely understand a planet having an orbital defense laser that is truly insane, but not a fleet that is expected to move about in any reasonable fashion.
|
|