Slashdot Mirror


67-Kilowatt Laser Unveiled

s31523 writes "Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has announced they have working in the lab a Solid State Heat Capacity Laser that averages 67 kW. It is being developed for the military. The chief scientist Dr. Yamamoto is quoted: 'I know of no other solid state laser that has achieved 67 kW of average output power.' Although many lasers have peaked at higher capacities, getting the average sustained power to remain high is the tricky part. The article says that hitting the 100-kW level, at which point it would become interesting as a battlefield weapon, could be less than a year away."

33 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory by Sneakernets · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cue the frickin' lasers jokes in 3...2...1...

    --
    "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Obligatory by servoled · · Score: 4, Funny

      Two frickin' lasers walked into a bar... the third one ducked.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    2. Re:Obligatory by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Funny

      That Yamamoto guy is trying to take credit for others' work. The "laser" is actually Alan Parsons' project!

    3. Re:Obligatory by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

      A priest, a rabbi, and a horse walk into a bar. The bartender says "What is this, a joke?"

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  2. Eleven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    But my laser goes all the way up to 11 ...

  3. official name... by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...will be the "Yamamoto Cannon".

    (damn, why couldn't he have been Dr. Yamato)

  4. Rumsfeld Already Wants One by SRA8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let me guess -- the Pentagon now has everything it needs to proceed with the Death Star?

    1. Re:Rumsfeld Already Wants One by aristotle-dude · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everything is proceeding just as I've foreseen. - The Emperor

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  5. Not good enough by volpe · · Score: 4, Funny

    I want five megawatts by mid-May.

    1. Re:Not good enough by volpe · · Score: 3, Funny

      I want five megawatts. By mid-may.

  6. May cause som collateral damage by viking2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article does not mention that any reflection off whatever the laser is aiming at is many kW as well. A small polished piece of steel would reflect 80% in some random direction, and the beam will go until it reaches something. Only a few milli Watts would be sufficient to damage the eyes of civilian spectators, so a reflection could easily permanently blind everyone in a football stadium of 50000 people.

    1. Re:May cause som collateral damage by Wicko · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would be one hell of a light show.

    2. Re:May cause som collateral damage by viking2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      1 micron is 1000nm, and will penetrate the eyeball just fine. It will not focus fully on the retina. 400-1400nm radiation will penetrate the eye ball and may cause heating of the retina, whereas exposure to laser radiation with wavelengths less than 400 nm and greater than 1400 nm are largely absorbed by the cornea and lens, leading to the development of cataracts or burn injuries.

    3. Re:May cause som collateral damage by Khashishi · · Score: 3, Funny

      When the head is vaporized by a 67 kW laser, it's a safe assumption that there will be some retinal damage. I think cataracts are the least of your worries.

  7. Re:So will this give me bionic eyesight by Kjella · · Score: 3, Funny

    You know, I think you should try it. I hear you can get a scientific award for experiments like that, though I hear it's named after someone who is controversial in US schools.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  8. Tough decision... by crankyspice · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do I make a Real Genius joke, or a StarCraft joke?

    --
    geek. lawyer.
  9. Yanks developing more weapons by vandan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can't say I'm surprised really. The funny thing is that no other nation sees the need to spend anything like the US military budget. I suppose the argument goes that there are people around the world who hate freedom, and since the US is the 'most free' nation on Earth, well, they're prime targets. Problem is that the US isn't the 'most free' nation on Earth - not by a long shot. Scratch that theory. The alternate argument goes that there are a lot of people around the world who hate US foreign police. This argument seems far more sensible. So for US citizens, the correct path would be to change foreign policy, right? Problem is, US citizens don't live in a democracy, so can't affect the foreign policy of their ruling class. Think I'm wrong? Think again. They just voted out the Republicans in an absolute landslide which is largely recognised as being a rejection of Republican foreign policy, but you watch just how much that policy changes, both now AND when they get rid of Emperor Dubya.

    For those who see these laser protecting them from the terrorists' attacks on their homes, I think this is being a bit naive. This laser is to protect military equipment on the battlefield, and the ruling class at home. Just look at how the military didn't lift a finger to stop 9/11, even though they had precise warnings from multiple credible sources. The only thing the US government did was to protect Bin Laden's family after 9/11, flying them back home to safety.

    1. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by vandan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In fact, 25 nations spend a higher percent of their GDP on the militairy than the US does.

      This is wrong for a number of reasons.

      Firstly, I didn't mention spending as a percentage of GDP; I was talking about absolute spending.

      Next, comparing spending / GDP with other nations with incredibly low GDPs isn't really giving a clear picture of what's going on. For example, who the hell is Eritrea, the so-called No 1 in military spending in the world? You see, if these countries have a very small GDP, the figures are going to look distorted even if they only buy a couple of grenades.

      Next, the US hides massive amounts of its military spending. The figure they used in that CIA table was the official maintenance cost of the US military. This is the amount that would be required just to keep the military at home. But they're never at home! Things like the wars aren't counted by the US, for some reason. These are 'extra' costs. The trillion dollars that Dubya has asked for to cover the next year in Iraq, well that's not counted. The budget of the CIA, with their military coupes against democratically elected governments and such, well that's not counted. And research on weapons such as this laser. That's not counted either. So you see, if all these things were counted, then the US would be at the top of the list in terms of GDP as well. They're already at the top of the list in absolute terms, which is the point I was originally making.

      Really? Where did you read this? I thought it was a big conspiracy by the tin foil companies.

      That's because you're either in denial, or you'e completely fooled by the propaganda. It's YOU who needs a tin foil hat :)
    2. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by vandan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey. At least I know about it. I'm an Australian ... and I know about things happening in other people's countries, because I'm interested in the world I live in. The fact that I don't remember exactly what they called the 9/11 commission ( and I do believe I had it right, I was just not 100% sure ), is proof that the media has tried to bury the findings of an extremely importing investigation. But if you want to know exactly what it's called, why don't you go look for yourself? You're not exactly denying anything I'm saying, are you? Is that because you don't know, or because you DO, know ... ie know that I'm correct?

      I find that people are throwing these mindless 1-line responses around as AC a lot recently ... surely the 'coward' part of 'anonymous coward' rings true. A question to all the ACs out there: if you disagree with me enough to respond, why not actually take me up on some of my points? Perhaps it would require a brain and some understanding.

    3. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by iPaul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As I said, your yardstick may differ. For example, being able to own a gun is more important to you than not having your phone calls tapped without warrants, or having a "sneak and peak" search conducted on your house, or being detained indefinitely and without the right to challenge the detention in court (habeas corpus) because of an arbitrary designation that you are an enenmy combatant*. According to your definition, the Swiss are the freest people on Earth, since they get to keep their military weapons (I'm talkin' full fledged machine guns - none of this semi-auto crap) after they leave their service.

      Jose Padilla is US citizen picked up in Chicago.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    4. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by vandan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fucknut? Jesus, the ACs are really raising the bar today. Terrorists in Somalia? I heard it was an Islamic independence movement ... which is of course terrorism in US-speak.

      China? Sorry, the US military budgets dwarfs them incredibly. The official US military budget accounts for 50% of the world's military budget. So they are outclassing you, but not in the way that you mean.

  10. So close by Stephen+Tennant · · Score: 4, Funny

    Soon, America will wield the power to project an annoying red dot into any room in North Korea or Iran, disturbing and agitating ANY and ALL cats, and, if the resident is so foolish as to investigate... his very eyes may be irritated, and possibly damaged, after prolonged exposure!

    --
    I spend most of my time in bed, darling.
  11. WARNING by istartedi · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do not stare into laser with remaining co-worker.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  12. Worse by LordEd · · Score: 4, Funny

    The RIAA is terrified that it will be used to burn DVDs at a range of 500 meters. Drive-by piracy is here: hide your children, lock your doors, hire your lawyers!

  13. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It says that the laser wavelength is 1 micron (into the infrared). Since glass isn't transparent to that wavelength, you can't reflect it with a mirror.

    You need to put the reflective surface on the intercept side of the substrate, glass or otherwise. That way, it is the first thing the laser hits. And of course, you'd better make sure that the efficiency is high enough that the laser doesn't manage to ablate the coating. Maybe coatings aren't that good an idea in the first place. Maybe thick, mirror-polished armor that can direct heat away from the surface really quickly is more what you want. Of course, a little dirt on there, you have a localized heat event, and all of a sudden things aren't as reflective as they should be, and zonk, you have a hole right through the armor.

    100 KW for a battlefield laser, eh? Personally, I'm thinking being in front of one of these is a very, very bad idea.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  14. Blind Soldiers by MrSteveSD · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If such weapons make their way onto the battlefield, you're going to end up with a lot of blinded soldiers. Any beam powerful enough to be useful will be capable of blinding everyone near the target with the reflected light. In fact, if you put some kind of corner cube reflective coating on the target, there might be enough light sent back to the source to blind the people firing the beam.

  15. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by evanbd · · Score: 5, Informative

    If your mirror is 99% reflective (which would be very, very good -- and it won't stay that way in a dusty dirty battlefield), you'd still be absorbing 1kW of power. Which might be very easy or very hard to dissipate, depending on the beam diameter and how well the targeting system can keep it on the same piece of armor. And, as soon as your armor starts to heat up more than a little, the reflectivity will drop and it will fail.

    Everyone always thinks mirrors are an easy answer to laser weapons, but it's not really that simple; sure they're worth considering, but they're not obviously a winning strategy.

    A better armor might actually be an ablative -- eg a phenolic or graphite plate that absorbs all the heat at the very surface, and vaporizes into a cloud of gas that then takes the majority of the heating while the armor continues ablating from conducted heat and laser heating that gets through -- meanwhile the targeting system frantically tries to keep the laser on the same spot long enough to punch all the way through, and the tank driver tries to conduct evasive action. Modern ablative technology for rocket engines can take 1kW/cm^2 of heating and last for minutes of service; ablatives derived from such technologies might make very effective armors.

  16. Re:Shortly after introduction 100kW battlefield la by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Insightful how? Making mirrors that can withstand 100+kW of energy you can't exactly go down to your hardware store. Insurgents have nowhere near the facilities or technology to create anything close to withstanding 100kW.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  17. Need: Sharks, duct tape by Graymalkin · · Score: 4, Informative

    The fact the SSHCL is able to get 67kW out of a solid state system is very impressive. Most solid state lasers of this sort have been stuck below 10kW and are only about 1% efficient, a 1kW laser needs 1MW of input power 99% of which needs to be shed by a cooling system. Solid state lasers have a definite advantage over chemical ones like the THEL and ABL because their "ammunition" supply is essentially only limited by the amount of electricity they've got available. Chemical lasers consumer reactants in the lasing process and have a finite number of shots before those reactants are exhausted. Those reactants take up a lot of space as well, Isreal's THEL system requires four semi trailers worth of equipment to shoot down small katyusha rockets and mortar rounds.

    The Air Force has a real hard on for laser systems. Though it doesn't say specifically in the article it appears this lab was awarded the AFRL's contract to produce a solid state equivalent to the ATL system being developed largely by Boeing. The ATL is a smaller cousin of the ABL weighing in at about 70kW. It's an order of magnitude lower power than the roughly 1MW ABL but is also quite a bit smaller. The ABL requires a 747, the ATL is being developed to be mounted on a C-130 or V-22 Osprey. A solid state ATL would be far more useful for the Air Force than a chemical one. A solid state laser system on an aircraft could be powered by generators hooked to the engines and fired an indefinite number of times in flight.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  18. Re:two things by Linker3000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    1) You could deliver your PowerPoint presentation in Paris from your office in San Francisco via videophone and STILL point out the interesting bits to the audience.

    2) Later that night you could pick out a cinema in Paris and really piss off the audience by squiggling on the screen.

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
  19. Re:two things by pla · · Score: 5, Informative

    there is little to no physical force behind it; the destructive energy is heat. Things won't explode like they do in Star Wars and other sci fi/fantasy movies and shows.

    The satellite-based lasers for Star Wars (Reagan's wet dream, not the Movie) primarily worked by kinetic activity.

    A cutting laser doesn't take anywhere near 67kW, but they work fairly slowly (slow enough for an armored target to take countermeasures). Instead, you want to basically vaporize a few nm of the surface, resulting in exactly the sort of explosion you say doesn't happen.

    Search Google for "arc flash"... Though a much more mundane effect, it gives the general idea... Basically, if you vaporize copper bus bar by shorting it out, it produces a pretty impressive "explosion" due to the copper suddenly occupying 67,000 (no connection to the laser from the FP, just a coincidence) times its original volume.

  20. Re:Get real by vandan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First, don't complain about weapons research!

    Good to see you're starting out from a defensible position ... NOT! You then go on to make the point that weapons research leads to non-weapons technology. Sure. But that in no way validates weapons research. You can create new technology, indeed the SAME technology, while not researching and creating new weapons. For example Japan's government also pumps an incredible amount of money into high-tech R&D, including developing lasers, but they don't do it via the military-industrial complex. They invest directly into consumer technology. This is much more efficient in coming up with your consumer technology, as well as not creating new weapons. So I'll complain all I want about weapons research, thankyou very much.

    After the cold war the US generally started to influence clients to become democracies where it is not against their direct interests.

    BULLSHIT! You mean like in Vietnam? Or Iraq? Or Afghanistan ( while they were setting up the Taliban, and now )? Or when they assassinated the democratically elected leader of Chille in 9/11, 1973? Don't give me this 'America support democracy' crap please. I didn't come down in the last shower.

    We earn more money because the economy of a democracy isn't so likely to be sh.t and they become better customers

    It's true that the economy of a bourgeois democracy under a capitalist system will grow the fastest out of all the organisations structures that we know. That isn't necessarily a good thing, but this is a topic for another discussion. The cold hard truth about the US economy is that it's not exactly riding the wave of exports at the moment. The US economy owes a lot more to its imports than it does to its exports . For example, the US is unbelievably dependent on China for a source of cheap labour. You don't see them pushing China towards a democracy, do you? The only places where the US mentions the word 'democracy' is where they have a natural research worth stealing, and then you can bet it's not democracy that will eventuate, but exactly the opposite. You see, democracy isn't something that is handed down from on high. It's something that people have to struggle for. It's a process. You can't bomb a country into democracy. And I'll say it again: the day when the US pushes for democratic reform in China ( and not via bombing, mind you ), is the day that I reconsider my statement that the US hates democracy.

    You US bashers are as boring as the McCarty communist scare or Mid West brimstone preachers -- you just think another group is responsible for everything bad.

    Well, the thing is that there are plenty of US-bashers around at the moment. It goes without saying that the Arab world thinks as I do. Europe is no different ... when asked to choose the biggest threat to world peace, they choose the US first, and Israel 2nd. The simple fact is that the US, by virtue of its postion as the No 1 imperialist power in the world, is responsible for a great deal of what's wrong in the world. That's why they need more lasers and chemical weapons and nuclear weapons and cluster bombs and immunity from prosecution in the World Court.
  21. Germany (and other civilized countries) by k2r · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >> Problem is that the US isn't the 'most free' nation on Earth - not by a long shot.
    > Name one,
    Germany.

    > and explain how it's more free (not "a better place to live" or "more friendly to the environment").

    If I'm a 17yo guy I can make pictures of my 15yo girlfriend and send them to my email-account
    without both of us getting sued for posession and production of child pornography and being
    trialed as adults and jailed for my own good.

    Of course, I can't yell "Heil Hitler" on the street in Germany without getting into legal trouble but frankly,
    I prefer to live in a country with people taking dirty pictures of themselves than in a country where
    people feel the urge to yell "Heil Hitler" on the street.

    Or being 17yo and getting a blowjob by a 15yo and 10years in jail?
    (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page =wilson)
    Or being 15yo and being charged with sexually abusing YOURSELF?
    (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlif e/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm)
    Or just google about your sodomy-laws?

    You are only free if it comes to destroying and consuming.

    (and yes, there are a lot of things wrong in Germany, too.)