|
Post by amimai on Dec 4, 2016 11:58:14 GMT
i have just made a 1MW laser that outputs 2GW/m^2 at 200km... can anyone explain this physics defying machine? and its actually fairly easy to mount on a normal ship
|
|
|
Post by kelarkir on Dec 4, 2016 12:06:52 GMT
That just means the effective area your laser is lasing is A = 1020000Wm²/2000000000W
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on Dec 4, 2016 12:09:39 GMT
That laser won't do much, you'll be hitting the size of a coin, pretty much impossible to hit the same spot consistently and break through the armor.
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 4, 2016 12:13:10 GMT
That laser won't do much, you'll be hitting the size of a coin, pretty much impossible to hit the same spot consistently and break through the armor. considering this cut apart a stock gunship in around 10 seconds by killing the crew and reactor while set to un-concentrated fire...
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Dec 4, 2016 13:35:44 GMT
That turret weighs over 300 tons and only has a 45 degree arc. That tells me the aperture is huge, which means a really tiny spot size.
So it's not breaking physics, the displayed number is a density, not a power total. You're delivering about 1MW to a roughly 0.0005m^2 circle. If you expanded that circle to 1m^2 at the same density you'd need 2GW, but you're not doing that so you don't.
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 4, 2016 14:27:00 GMT
That turret weighs over 300 tons and only has a 45 degree arc. That tells me the aperture is huge, which means a really tiny spot size. So it's not breaking physics, the displayed number is a density, not a power total. You're delivering about 1MW to a roughly 0.0005m^2 circle. If you expanded that circle to 1m^2 at the same density you'd need 2GW, but you're not doing that so you don't. that turret is a 16m aperture, 68m wide turret yes... but the theoretical spot would be 3cm across not whatever silliness you speak of the firs problem is the damage... in tests this took out something like 100kt of boron(5x3m spaced layers) in less then a minute leaving a giant holes in armour under the first layer, while a similar beam with a spot of 1m does not even dent the surface layer of armour
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on Dec 4, 2016 15:21:20 GMT
hmm, looks like the laws of physics have changed yet again
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Dec 4, 2016 17:33:32 GMT
That laser won't do much, you'll be hitting the size of a coin, pretty much impossible to hit the same spot consistently and break through the armor. With a turn speed like this, there is absolutely no problem with targeting. Most targets won't be engineered to spin for damage spreading.
|
|
|
Post by cutterjohn on Dec 4, 2016 18:28:54 GMT
MW/m^2 is a measurement like PSI. If I have a tiny 1/4x1/4 inch surface with 1000 PSI being applied to it, there's not 1000 lb of force being applied to the surface, but instead 62.5 lbs of force.
|
|
|
Post by oprean on Dec 4, 2016 19:12:27 GMT
Can you calculate the neck of the beam at a certain distance?
|
|
|
Post by shurugal on Dec 4, 2016 19:18:44 GMT
MW/m^2 is a measurement like PSI. If I have a tiny 1/4x1/4 inch surface with 1000 PSI being applied to it, there's not 1000 lb of force being applied to the surface, but instead 62.5 lbs of force. your example is backwards. It should be that if you have a 1/4x1/4 inch surface with a 1000lb weight resting on it, then that area experiences 16,129 PSI of pressure. This matches with our laser scenario of "X MW focused onto Y area yields Z MW/SI"
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Dec 4, 2016 19:35:52 GMT
Huge mirrors = good
*Shrug* nothing new to see here, boys.
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Dec 4, 2016 22:37:41 GMT
That turret weighs over 300 tons and only has a 45 degree arc. That tells me the aperture is huge, which means a really tiny spot size. So it's not breaking physics, the displayed number is a density, not a power total. You're delivering about 1MW to a roughly 0.0005m^2 circle. If you expanded that circle to 1m^2 at the same density you'd need 2GW, but you're not doing that so you don't. that turret is a 16m aperture, 68m wide turret yes... but the theoretical spot would be 3cm across not whatever silliness you speak of the firs problem is the damage... in tests this took out something like 100kt of boron(5x3m spaced layers) in less then a minute leaving a giant holes in armour under the first layer, while a similar beam with a spot of 1m does not even dent the surface layer of armour Area and diameter are related, but not identical. A 3cm diameter results in an area of about 0.0007m^2 (which is still 7cm^2, because the conversion between m^2 and cm^2 is also squared). So as you can see, the example numbers are a very close approximation. Laser damage is (mostly) a function of energy density rather than total energy, because technically you're delivering a tiny bit of energy to each individual molecule on the surface (although the game doesn't model that level of detail, it can use some fancy math to approximate it) in an attempt to vaporize it. Higher density means each molecule hit will receive more energy even if less total energy is delivered. It just means the molecules you're hitting will get vaporized with extreme prejudice, but their neighbors will be more or less fine. Good for drilling tiny holes. Or cutting things in half, since a cut can be made by a series of overlapping tiny holes that happen to go all the way through the ship. Spread the same energy over a large area, and the low density means you'll gently warm the surface while the ship uses all that surface area to radiate the heat away. Different materials can react in different ways though: a metal hit with a tight cutting beam might suffer from spalling due to part of it being flash-boiled, the resulting debris would punch large holes in the armor layers below it. But that same metal, if being gently warmed by a wide-beam, would conduct and radiate the heat away without ever starting to melt. A strong insulating fiber like silica aerogel on the other hand, might only vaporize a tiny pocket of itself and prove surprisingly resistant due to the vapor carrying heat away for it. However, because aerogel has a low melting point and can't conduct built-up heat away, it can be easily "scrubbed" by having its surface gently warmed by a wide beam. So in general, metals are vulnerable to tight beams and highly resistant to wide beams, fibers/gels are slightly/moderately resistant to tight beams and vulnerable to wide beams. Against a combination of both, a tight beam will generally be better overall since fiber or gel can only delay it, not stop it.
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on Dec 5, 2016 5:51:53 GMT
IRL using only large mirror lasers would be good enough, since with a large mirror you could still choose to not focus the beam to its tightest.
Also you could fire at longer range, burning away fibre armor at 10,000km, before closing in to cut the metal underneath.
I wish there were an option to control the laser beam waist depending so that it holds constant depending on target range, rather than going for the tightest focus all the time.
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 5, 2016 7:37:11 GMT
If you want to further mass (and cost) reduce your laser enter numbers manually for the turret size so it is the smallest possible and/or bump your aperture size (shrink/raise it by .001 increments; you can do less but it doesn't always save out properly though it works for your current session) max turret size (100m x 100m x 100m) lasers can get down to about 22 tons. My guess is you have a huge amount of mass wasted into reaction wheels. I was doing the same thing when I first got into designing lasers by just using the sliders.
|
|