Difference Laser/Graser

Roguevictory wrote:Interesting.

Don't ask me how they work. The guy who wrote that has some general ideas, but it's really all hand waving.

Weber was actually learning from our discussions of diffraction limitations!?!?!?

I would expect that lasers at shorter wavelengths would be more efficient at converting ship power into beam energy.

Grasers which I assume are gamma Ray wavelength lasers could be focused into a narrower beam allowing higher energy densities at longer ranges. The gamma rays would also pentane deeper into a ship's armor, vaporizing more mass per unit area and thus generating more impulse loading for a given energy.

Grasers would probably overpentrate a target as small as a missile and thus inflict less damagefora given amount of energy.

I would note that the RMN and GSN ships mount far more PDLCs that seem to be more powerful than earlier systems. These would negate the advantage that lasers have over grasers for missile defense and thus make an all Graser armament more practical.

kzt wrote:

Roguevictory wrote:The lasers on ships probably aren't x-ray weapons because x-ray lasers are depicted as requiring a nuclear detonation to generate them So I believe that the only way the shipborne lasers could be x-ray lasers is if they were detonating a nuke on board the ship than channeling the x-rays out the gunports every time they fired and I doubt that the navies in Honorverse are crazy enough to do that regularly.

Nope.

An Introduction to Modern Starship Armor Design
...
"Early space energy weapons used photons in the ultraviolet, visible, infrared, and even the radio range. These wavelengths are impractical to focus at contemporary combat ranges so modern weapons use shorter wavelength photons in the X-ray to gamma ray range. Indeed, modern space weapon lasers are so commonly X-ray lasers that the term “laser” is generally synonymous with “xraser” in naval parlance. Their rarer gamma emitting cousins are called “grasers.”"

namelessfly wrote:Weber was actually learning from our discussions of diffraction limitations!?!?!?

RFC does indeed pay attention to what we come up with, examples being The Great Resizing and modifying how the Grav-Pulse Comm works.

Of course, occasionally he can't help but have some fun at our expense, especially when we try to poke fun at him first.

runsforcelery wrote:That's

runsforcelery wrote:silly,

runsforcelery wrote:Michael.

See what I mean?
(For explanation of above, see this page of posts)

Hopefully RFC will respond to my input by providing us with another shower scene featuring Abby Hearnes.

Michael Everett wrote:

namelessfly wrote:Weber was actually learning from our discussions of diffraction limitations!?!?!?

RFC does indeed pay attention to what we come up with, examples being The Great Resizing and modifying how the Grav-Pulse Comm works.

Of course, occasionally he can't help but have some fun at our expense, especially when we try to poke fun at him first.

runsforcelery wrote:That's

runsforcelery wrote:silly,

runsforcelery wrote:Michael.

See what I mean?
(For explanation of above, see this page of posts)

namelessfly wrote:Hopefully RFC will respond to my input by providing us with another shower scene featuring Abby Hearnes.

Only in your dreams Nameless. Only in your dreams.

KNick wrote:

namelessfly wrote:Hopefully RFC will respond to my input by providing us with another shower scene featuring Abby Hearnes.

Only in your dreams Nameless. Only in your dreams.

But if he does, I want video footage of your reaction. Not a selfie. Not a couple of seconds. I want a full two minutes of you with your jaw on the floor with your tongue hanging out.

KNick wrote:

namelessfly wrote:Hopefully RFC will respond to my input by providing us with another shower scene featuring Abby Hearnes.

But if he does, I want video footage of your reaction. Not a selfie. Not a couple of seconds. I want a full two minutes of you with your jaw on the floor with your tongue hanging out.

...And then I want 10 seconds of video after Mateo arrives at his door.

dreamrider

namelessfly wrote:Weber was actually learning from our discussions of diffraction limitations!?!?!?

I would expect that lasers at shorter wavelengths would be more efficient at converting ship power into beam energy.

Grasers which I assume are gamma Ray wavelength lasers could be focused into a narrower beam allowing higher energy densities at longer ranges. The gamma rays would also pentane deeper into a ship's armor, vaporizing more mass per unit area and thus generating more impulse loading for a given energy.

Grasers would probably overpentrate a target as small as a missile and thus inflict less damagefora given amount of energy.

I would note that the RMN and GSN ships mount far more PDLCs that seem to be more powerful than earlier systems. These would negate the advantage that lasers have over grasers for missile defense and thus make an all Graser armament more practical.

This! Certainly!

It may be useful to note that at the scales, speeds, and the defensive / resistive technologies of the HV, beam fire is essentially light speed 'bullets', made of photons/other sub-a particles, smashing into armoring systems. Grasers provide a higher energy 'bullet', therefore more energy transfer per time unit of beam contact.

dreamrider

namelessfly wrote:Weber was actually learning from our discussions of diffraction limitations!?!?!?

IIRC, the authors comment was something to the effect that that little article was quite possibly the most difficult thing he had ever written, just do to the complexity of the subject matter and the paucity of info on this subject.

kzt wrote:

namelessfly wrote:Weber was actually learning from our discussions of diffraction limitations!?!?!?

IIRC, the authors comment was something to the effect that that little article was quite possibly the most difficult thing he had ever written, just do to the complexity of the subject matter and the paucity of info on this subject.

Actually; Weber got more than a few details correct.