|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 15, 2017 10:50:05 GMT
How did you get a 111 MW/m² at 1000km laser for only 13.3 kc and 2.29 t? Frequency quadrupling, mirror, tiny spot size. The issue with his design is that it deals damage in a tiny area; usually compensated by the face he'll just make 20 drones each armed with 20 of these babies.
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Jan 15, 2017 10:50:37 GMT
All of the stock laser designs are terrible:
How did you get a 111 MW/m² at 1000km laser for only 13.3 kc and 2.29 t? Space magic, obviously. In truth, looking at it I suspect that he went with lower power (and therefore smaller cavity and a greatly reduced mass), cheap armor (diamond maybe?) and aluminium for some of his mirrors, which cuts into efficiency a little but usually shaves a few hundred kilograms off. EDIT: yeah, and frequency quadrupling, which is amazing when it comes to shrinking aperture size.
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Jan 15, 2017 10:53:54 GMT
How did you get a 111 MW/m² at 1000km laser for only 13.3 kc and 2.29 t? Space magic, obviously. In truth, looking at it I suspect that he went with lower power (and therefore smaller cavity and a greatly reduced mass), cheap armor (diamond maybe?) and aluminium for some of his mirrors, which cuts into efficiency a little but usually shaves a few hundred kilograms off. EDIT: yeah, and frequency quadrupling, which is amazing when it comes to shrinking aperture size. This laser is no trade secret I've pasted it all over the place (and had it called horrible before, which is still kind of funny to me).
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Jan 15, 2017 10:58:19 GMT
I've actually shaved it down to 12.0 kc since I just took another look at it and realized my turbo pump was wrong *yay*
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 15, 2017 11:07:08 GMT
It's not actually a good laser, imho. It's a few thousand times better than stock, which isn't saying much ;p
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 15, 2017 11:07:20 GMT
Yeah this was my thought exactly! Am I the only one who used to read those Honorverse books? Laser pumped missiles baby! Heh, I was actually talking about the means of producing the photons you are capturing and aligning. Currently the game only simulates arc lamps, which a really good and practical, but I want more power. Back in the 70s we did research on nuclear pumped lasers to focus photons (gamma and x-rays mainly) generated from nuclear detonations into a laser. Imagine being able to beam a nuclear detonation directly onto a ship without the messy wasteful AoE detonation *drool* I think we are talking about the same thing. In the Honor Harrington books they had these Missiles that had Nuclear warheads that directed their energy into a powerful laser when they exploded instead of in all directions. Come to find out it is a real life thing. www.kerberos-productions.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=13655
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jan 15, 2017 11:09:50 GMT
I haven't been able to make railguns cost-effective compared to coilguns, for the same speed. So, as far as I can see, railguns are fully outclassed by coilguns below 50 km/s. I'm surprised that railguns are getting as many votes as they do in this poll. In case you haven't seen it in the Stinger drone improvement thread, here's a cost-effective sandblaster: Mass is 836 kg, cost is 23 kc (and about a third of that cost is ammo). You can see that each shot is slightly over 1 MJ of energy.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 15, 2017 11:11:09 GMT
I've actually shaved it down to 12.0 kc since I just took another look at it and realized my turbo pump was wrong *yay* This is great! Thanks. Can you show a zoom in on the intensity output chart so we can see how much it deals at 1m, 10m, 100m and 1000m please?
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Jan 15, 2017 11:12:41 GMT
Heh, I was actually talking about the means of producing the photons you are capturing and aligning. Currently the game only simulates arc lamps, which a really good and practical, but I want more power. Back in the 70s we did research on nuclear pumped lasers to focus photons (gamma and x-rays mainly) generated from nuclear detonations into a laser. Imagine being able to beam a nuclear detonation directly onto a ship without the messy wasteful AoE detonation *drool* I think we are talking about the same thing. In the Honor Harrington books they had these Missiles that had Nuclear warheads that directed their energy into a powerful laser when they exploded instead of in all directions. Come to find out it is a real life thing. www.kerberos-productions.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=13655oh, heh, I was thinking pumped missiles was the missile being propelled by the laser not detonating into a laser, my bad. Laser propelled craft is another thing that keeps cropping up as proposed ideas for space travel, and if you had a powerful laser array already it might make sense to use...
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Jan 15, 2017 11:14:06 GMT
I should probably read the Honor Harrington books though they sound like the kind of thing I would be into heh.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 15, 2017 11:17:36 GMT
I should probably read the Honor Harrington books though they sound like the kind of thing I would be into heh. Ludicrous fantasy 'science', but at least the internal consistency is OK. The biggest turnoff for me though, is the constant wanking of it's Mary Sues. God, I can't believe I was once a David Weber fan.
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Jan 15, 2017 11:20:11 GMT
I've actually shaved it down to 12.0 kc since I just took another look at it and realized my turbo pump was wrong *yay* This is great! Thanks. Can you show a zoom in on the intensity output chart so we can see how much it deals at 1m, 10m, 100m and 1000m please? Sure thing
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Jan 15, 2017 11:20:46 GMT
It's not actually a good laser, imho. It's a few thousand times better than stock, which isn't saying much ;p Still waiting on your submission to the laser drill challenge ;P
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 15, 2017 12:23:32 GMT
This is great! Thanks. Can you show a zoom in on the intensity output chart so we can see how much it deals at 1m, 10m, 100m and 1000m please? Sure thing This is exactly what I've been looking for. How do I find out how much energy is needed to run it?
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Jan 15, 2017 12:38:53 GMT
This is exactly what I've been looking for. How do I find out how much energy is needed to run it? On the other screenshot there is the "Power supplied" stat; it drains 25 MW of energy. The laser is 3.12% efficient so the total power output is 779kw that actually make it out to go burninate things. The next question is probably going to be about the spot size, since the intensity of the beam/m^2 appears to be much greater than both the power in and power out. It is just a really concentrated 779kw. The spot size at 1,000km is ~7mm (which is where the inverse square law comes into effect). My laser is 36m wide because it has a really large aperture to focus the beam to the point that the photons stay packed together enough to deliver that tiny of a spot size at 1,000km. There are arguments for and against tiny spot size vs larger spot size lasers. It takes longer for lasers to work together to cut meaningful holes as it scrapes across a ~2.5m radius area even when targeted as of 2.0.8, pre 2.0.8 the lasers had 100% accuracy and 100% precision so it didn't even matter how tiny your laser was you could just poke a milimeter hole through a ship in a few seconds destroying it, now they wander around a bit so there could be some merit to larger spot sizes... That was why I made the laser drill challenge (hopefully to get some other ideas on spot size mainly since the 2.0.8 patch).
|
|