Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How The Latest in High Tech Works

Posted by Zonk on from the all-done-with-mirrors dept.

Popular Science has up a feature looking at "how it works", examining the innards of several new technology-based innovations. We've talked about the Sayaka endoscope in a pill, but did you know it captures images in 360 degrees? We've discussed the adorable little Pleo dino-bot, but did you know how adaptive it is to stimuli? And what about the tank-burning laser that can be fired from an airplane? Well, we haven't discussed that but I'm at a loss as to explain why. "A kind of reverse telescope called the beam expander inside a retractable, swiveling pod called the turret widens the beam to 20 inches and aims it. The laser's computer determines the distance to the target and adjusts the beam so it condenses into a focused point at just the right spot. Tracking computers help make microscopic adjustments to compensate for both the airplane's and the target's movement. A burst of a few seconds' duration will burn a several-inch-wide hole in whatever it hits."

93 comments

  1. Anti-personnel weapon by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The laser would make a great assassination weapon. Though I find the idea of assassinating enemy leaders remotely somewhat distasteful it would be better if they could just take them out, and not them together with their family and next-door neighbours as seems to happen sometimes with the drone missiles.

    1. Re:Anti-personnel weapon by hitmark · · Score: 3, Informative

      hmm, a few seconds sounds like a nasty long time if you want to assassinate someone...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    2. Re:Anti-personnel weapon by citizenr · · Score: 0, Troll

      >The laser would make a great assassination weapon.
      >Though I find the idea of assassinating enemy leaders remotely somewhat distasteful it would be better if they could
      >just take them out, and not them together with their family and

      I agree, lets start with Your President.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    3. Re:Anti-personnel weapon by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      I'm betting that something that takes a few seconds to go through armor would go through flesh like nobody's business.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    4. Re:Anti-personnel weapon by hitmark · · Score: 1

      heh, you may well have a point there.

      also, whats the temp in C that blood boils?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    5. Re:Anti-personnel weapon by Chrisq · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      >I agree, lets start with Your President.

      I don't have a president, but I think our prime minister should be second.

    6. Re:Anti-personnel weapon by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If there is a storm cloud at a convenient location you could fire the laser to create an ionized path from cloud to target and make it look like lightning did it. Problem is lightning is not very good at killing so if people are nearby the target could be resuscitated.

      --
    7. Re:Anti-personnel weapon by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      bin Laden: Achmed, is it hot in here?
      Achmed: No hotter than usual, my Sheikh.
      bin Laden: Pass me water!
      Achmed: [passes glass]
      bin Laden: No! Bring me the bucket! [Grabs it an empties if over himself, runs outside and explodes]

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    8. Re:Anti-personnel weapon by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      Not after being hit with MW-range laser beam miliseconds prior to lightning strike...

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    9. Re:Anti-personnel weapon by nametaken · · Score: 1

      But then we wouldn't need to use all those other crazy new weapons we're always making, and wars wouldn't last long enough to subvert civil rights back home.

    10. Re:Anti-personnel weapon by amh131 · · Score: 1

      Just a guess, but probably pretty close to 100 C. Maybe a bit more what with all the salts and stuff in solution. 100 is a good ballpark though.

    11. Re:Anti-personnel weapon by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      Yea, until you notice the HOLE that it made.

      Please take note that people hit by lightning typically not only survive, but are burned. They don't get giant holes in their heads.

      Really, check it out yourself: http://www.getreadygear.com/index.asp?ID=36&PageAction=Custom
      "However, only ten percent of persons struck by lightning die, with cardiac arrest essentially being the only immediate cause, other than from a secondary cause such as a fall or collision with a rock after being struck first. The surprising low percentage of deaths is explainable by the extremely short time lightning is in contact with a human body - milliseconds."

    12. Re:Anti-personnel weapon by aszaidi · · Score: 1
      Have you tried mkstemp()? Something like this should do:

      fd = mkstemp(poor_sod);
      blood_boil(fd);
  2. I know of... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know of a worthwhile house to target, if someone can come up with enough popcorn.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  3. Lasers in war? by IRGlover · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I thought that the use of lasers was outlawed by international conventions. Though perhaps that is only against direct use on people (such as pilots) and not on materiel.

    1. Re:Lasers in war? by arachnoprobe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Laser to blind people or have other longtime effects (except death, "normal injury" comparable to bullets) on enemy soldiers are outlawed. http://www.potomacinstitute.org/publications/waypoint/Laser%20Waypoint%20Issue.pdf

    2. Re:Lasers in war? by Sterrance · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thank god, cause I'd much rather be dead than blind.

    3. Re:Lasers in war? by IRGlover · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But if you are burning holes in vehicles there is the possiblity that you end up maiming someone inside when the beam penetrates. I think that a few issues are being side-stepped here!

    4. Re:Lasers in war? by The_Angry_Canadian · · Score: 1

      Laser to blind people or have other longtime effects (except death, "normal injury" comparable to bullets) on enemy soldiers are outlawed. http://www.potomacinstitute.org/publications/waypoint/Laser%20Waypoint%20Issue.pdf [potomacinstitute.org]
    5. Re:Lasers in war? by Enleth · · Score: 1

      Somehow I get this weird feeling that this is exactly the point of this thing being there at all. And, honestly, I can imagine a missle maiming someone inside the target vehicle just as happily as this contraption and I don't think a soldier will give a crap wether his leg was torn off by decompression of high-pressue gas or burnt off by a focused beam of photons. Either way it's a leg off. Actually, the latter is a bit better, because it gives a higher chance of surviving a not-quite-direct hit - the laser burns only the 50.8-cm area it hits, an explosion will generate an extreme pressure inside the whole vehicle, ripping the crew apart anyway.

      --
      This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
    6. Re:Lasers in war? by IRGlover · · Score: 1

      I don't see your point in highlighting that part of the post. Maiming is not killing, by its very definition! In this case, the laser could burn off a crew member's leg (which would have a comparable long-term effect to being shot and losing the use of the leg).

    7. Re:Lasers in war? by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      If you lose a limb by having a focused beam cut it off, will the wound be cauterized? The sounds much better than a sabot round or a grenade. If I'm using laser-precise weapons on a tank, though, I'm not aiming at the people inside. I'm aiming at the fuel, the engine, the main gun, or the munitions.

    8. Re:Lasers in war? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Laser to blind people or have other longtime effects (except death, "normal injury" comparable to bullets) on enemy soldiers are outlawed. If that is their only effect. They can deploy lasers designed to destroy the optics of surveillance equipment (cameras, scopes) even if they also destroy eyes.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    9. Re:Lasers in war? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      For the most part, you would.

      When the conventions on using lasers and so on was created, the types of lasers available where mostly one that would take a long time to do much damage. It would be like going blind by having your eyes melted from your head which is something I would rather not experience. In battle, if you injure a person to a point he can't fight you, it take two or three people to attend to him. This is why this is important. Using a laser to sweep a column of advancing troops to burn they eyes out of their sockets just to tie up the other half of the advancing force would be inhumane treatment.

      In war, you never want it to become acceptable to maim someone as a strategy. At least with death, you won't have to suffer as much and there is a little more moral connection to taking a life compared to take an arm or a leg or someone's sight. That's why cops don't shoot to wound, they wait until it is absolutely necessary and then shoot to remove the threat which usually means shoot to kill.

    10. Re:Lasers in war? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Using a laser to sweep a column of advancing troops to burn they eyes out of their sockets just to tie up the other half of the advancing force would be inhumane treatment."

      this statement seems silly, equally so does this one:

      "Using a gun to sweep a column of advancing troops to wound them just to tie up the other half of the advancing force would not be inhumane treatment."

      i don't see how either statement makes much sense, although war in general makes little sense to me as well.

    11. Re:Lasers in war? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "If you lose a limb by having a focused beam cut it off, will the wound be cauterized?"

      Yes, lasers don't "cut" as you traditionally use the word, a more precise term would be vaporize.

      When i worked at a laser company the tech would often get burned by the CO2 lasers (because the beam is invisible) and the skin that had burned had literally turned to ash.

    12. Re:Lasers in war? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The sense is the intent. If you intent to maim someone so they live a life of misery, it is like you are dealing out punishment. If you intent to kill them, you are fighting a war.

      It is probably the idea that war in itself doesn't make much sense to you that has you confuses. But think of it this way, which is worse, someone who regardless of how they justify it, goes around cutting the legs and eyes off of people for whatever reason or a someone who shoots someone and kills them for the same reason. You might think that still being alive is desirable for you if you were ever subjected to something like this, But I would have to say that the monster who gets off on making you a blind cripple is far worse then someone who would just kill you.

      In other words, it is more of a statement about the person causing the injury then the person being injured. Would it be more humane for you to shoot a sick god and kill them outright or blow each paw off first, kick it a couple of times, smack it with a base ball bat and then walk away to let it die in it's own if no one comes back to help it? In war, you have made the decision that you have to put the dog down. The way you do it is paramount to how humane you treat the person/animal. You really have to segment the decision to kill a person (going to war) from the way you kill them. If they don't get help they would die a slow and painful death. While this is sometimes unavoidable, you don't want it to be the norm.

    13. Re:Lasers in war? by Iron+Condor · · Score: 1

      the laser burns only the 50.8-cm area it hits

      If the laser energy was spread over 50cm+ it wouldn't do a whole lot of damage.

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    14. Re:Lasers in war? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "The sense is the intent. "

      and in war the intent is to disable the other side moreso than killing them outright, as it takes up more resources and makes the other side more willing to give up if their soldiers are wounded rather than dead (morale and so).

      so blinding the regiment (or whatever) WOULD be more effective by using lasers than conventional bullets.

      "Would it be more humane for you to shoot a sick god "

      freudian slip? i think you meant dog, but in this example if your intent is to kill the animal, you would just kill the animal, if you intended to get your jolly through torture then you'd torture.

      War's purpose is to force someone to agree to your terms, via force.. why does it matter how this is done?

      Can you make war suck more?

    15. Re:Lasers in war? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      and in war the intent is to disable the other side moreso than killing them outright, as it takes up more resources and makes the other side more willing to give up if their soldiers are wounded rather than dead (morale and so).
      In modern war, the civilized nations have created rules. they are called the ruled of war. The intent of these rules is to minimize inhumane treatment of prisoners, soldiers, civilians and so on. They outlawed chemical weapons for the same reasons as lasers a long time ago.

      so blinding the regiment (or whatever) WOULD be more effective by using lasers than conventional bullets.
      if that was an acceptable thing to do, you would be right. But it isn't. And BTW, did you know that there are specific bullet calibers and shape (no hollow points) that an army can use on the battle field because of this same concern? So even using the wrong kind of bullets in war can be considered inhumane. But anyways, the Geneva convention's first revision clearly prohibits in section 2 chapter 1 article 23 "To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury". Later versions specifically name types of munitions.

      freudian slip? i think you meant dog, but in this example if your intent is to kill the animal, you would just kill the animal, if you intended to get your jolly through torture then you'd torture.
      Actually, it was a slip of the AutoComplete in the spell checker I used at the time.

      It is the same intent, one just takes a more human way of doing it. That is actually required by international law, to take a reasonable human way to kill another belligerent. They accept that some soldiers will simply be injured instead, but you can go out with the intent of injuring and maiming people. That was the point of the dog example, to show that one way is worse then another.

      War's purpose is to force someone to agree to your terms, via force.. why does it matter how this is done?
      Somewhere along the lines, man has decided to put limits on what it considered a violent and ugly but necessary act. My guess it is so that they can hold some sort of honor in death and destruction but it is clear that they are attempting to limit the more sadistic acts.

      Can you make war suck more?
      Yes, Yes you can make war suck more. You start by ignoring the rules and start purposely maiming people. You indiscriminately start targeting civilians as your primary targets, you can commit genocide in real terms, not just hyperbolic terms designed to get a rise out of people. There are many ways to make war suck more. The reason this is possible is because countries have attempted over the years to make it less inhumane.
    16. Re:Lasers in war? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In war, you never want it to become acceptable to maim someone as a strategy. At least with death, you won't have to suffer as much

      A wise man (well, a character) once said something I find truly compelling. Here it is: "When you're dead, you're fucking dead."

      When you're dead, you wouldn't rather anything. Because you're dead.

      That's why cops don't shoot to wound, they wait until it is absolutely necessary and then shoot to remove the threat which usually means shoot to kill.

      Cops don't shoot to wound because someone who has been shot can sue you.

      That is very inconvenient. So it is best to only shoot people if you plan to kill them.

      Incidentally, you should never point a gun at anyone or any animal you don't intend to kill. This is one of those firearm rules that one learns early on if one has a responsible teacher.

      Then again, since kids get shot for holding a candy bar, I guess there's plenty of irresponsible cops out there, eh?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Lasers in war? by sumdumass · · Score: 1
      seriously, would you rather be dead or laying "consious" in a field with your eyes melted out of your skull and third degree burns over a good portion of your body with flys and other bugs feasting on your remains until someone decides it is safe enough to come get you? There are some things, most people wouldn't want to live through.

      Cops don't shoot to wound because someone who has been shot can sue you.

      That is very inconvenient. So it is best to only shoot people if you plan to kill them.
      It has only been recently that cops can be sued. And when they are sued, it is for the same reasons I mentioned. This probably means that cops have started to forget this and people are reminding them.

      Read the original Geneva conventions and what it says on this. I think it is section 2 paragraph 1 or article 23 or something like that. It will make my position a little better understood.

      Incidentally, you should never point a gun at anyone or any animal you don't intend to kill. This is one of those firearm rules that one learns early on if one has a responsible teacher.
      I understand this but the topic was using lasers to maim someone instead of killing them. If everyone followed that rule, we wouldn't be have this conversation. I am pretty much in agreement with you except maybe for the reason why cops don't shoot to wound.

      Then again, since kids get shot for holding a candy bar, I guess there's plenty of irresponsible cops out there, eh?
      Yes, there are. And there are a lot of cops that should never have been on the force too. At the same time, there are a lot of competent cops who never make the headlines. I somehow wish we lived in a world where we heard about their tales on the news and not kids being shot for holding a candybar or a cellphone, or when the cops smash a window out of a car thinking it is the best way to wake someone in the back seat up and then shoot them dead when their first reaction is to show a knife to whoever is blinding her with the flashlight. There are a lot of idiot cops out there, we hear about them the most.
    18. Re:Lasers in war? by lessthan · · Score: 1

      Can you make war suck more?
      A specific example that leaps to mind is glass. Glass weapons of any kind are forbidden. You can't find glass on a x-ray.
      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    19. Re:Lasers in war? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It has only been recently that cops can be sued. And when they are sued, it is for the same reasons I mentioned. This probably means that cops have started to forget this and people are reminding them.

      You could always take cops to civil court. They could always be tried for their crimes, although they seldom are. (For instance, one here in my town repeatedly caught poking underage girls while both were under the influence of meth that he provided has never been tried or even arrested and was still working on the force last I heard, although basically everyone knows about it straight from other cops.) But what I was talking about was people suing the county, city or municipality. The Federal government gets to decide if you're allowed to sue the feds, but smaller entities have to see you in court (pending the approval of the judge of course.)

      Yes, there are. And there are a lot of cops that should never have been on the force too. At the same time, there are a lot of competent cops who never make the headlines. I somehow wish we lived in a world where we heard about their tales on the news and not kids being shot for holding a candybar or a cellphone, or when the cops smash a window out of a car thinking it is the best way to wake someone in the back seat up and then shoot them dead when their first reaction is to show a knife to whoever is blinding her with the flashlight. There are a lot of idiot cops out there, we hear about them the most.

      It's not news when a cop does their job. Their job sucks, so what? They signed on the line, not me.

      If a cop actually saves someone, I want to hear about that. But I also want to hear about when they do something inappropriate. The media is there to help us get justice.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. That's cool and all.... by loafula · · Score: 0, Redundant

    but can you mount it on a shark?

    --
    FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
    1. Re:That's cool and all.... by mikael · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's mounted on an airplane, so we could paint a shark onto the side of the airplane if you like. Otherwise, we are all out of sharks at the moment.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  5. Airborne Laser Cannon by timotten · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man, if I had some popcorn for everytime some nutty defense department flunky suggested an airborne laser cannon, I would... have a whole lot of popcorn. I mean, a lot. I couldn't even fit it all in my house. It would be a lot.

    1. Re:Airborne Laser Cannon by interactive_civilian · · Score: 3, Funny

      I bet you don't even like popcorn. In fact, I'd go so far as to say you hate it, don't you?

      --
      "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    2. Re:Airborne Laser Cannon by cpricejones · · Score: 1

      You might have even more popcorn if they actually build the laser ...

      previous discussion:

      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/13/0315230

    3. Re:Airborne Laser Cannon by misterthirsty · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a Maser be more appropriate for this task?

    4. Re:Airborne Laser Cannon by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Airborne laser-popped corn: fat free! (Replacement roofs sold separately.)

    5. Re:Airborne Laser Cannon by marquis111 · · Score: 3, Funny

      So...it's both immoral AND unethical, right?

    6. Re:Airborne Laser Cannon by interactive_civilian · · Score: 3, Funny
      In fact, I would say that it is a moral imperative.

      .

      .

      *sigh* I've watched that movie way too many times, I think.

      --
      "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    7. Re:Airborne Laser Cannon by Wavebreak · · Score: 1

      Doesn't really matter, nobody (in the media, at least) uses the word 'maser' anymore. It's a microwave laser. Might even omit the word 'microwave'. Makes no sense, but there you go.

      --
      Nobody expects the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
    8. Re:Airborne Laser Cannon by pergamon · · Score: 1

      I have to agree, especially after we caught you naked with that bowl of Jell-O.

  6. Not previously talked about? by hazzey · · Score: 2, Informative
    And what about the tank-burning laser that can be fired from an airplane? Well, we haven't discussed that but I'm at a loss as to explain why.

    How about actually searching for something as simple as "laser"? This previous article appears on the first page:
    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/13/0315230

    1. Re:Not previously talked about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm kind of curious who's pushing the idea that the ATL can burn a tank. As far as I can find out, it's a smaller version of the Airborne laser currently being installed for testing on a 747. The airborne laser can bring down ballistic missiles by weakening their aluminum body during their boost phase, so that they collapse under the loads from launch.

      I very seriously doubt a laser smaller than one that can't quite melt lightweight aluminum structures is going to do much more than singe the paint on a tank. As I understand it, the ATL is intended more to damage communications equipment, and perhaps detonate artillery shells in flight (the Israeli's have already shown this is possible), or perform precision attacks on exposed personel, although the latter case has already prompted concerns about inhumane warfighting methods (which I personally think is a somewhat misguided concern).

  7. Bilko by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

    Has anyone told Sgt Bilko about this?

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  8. For next weeks news.. by Sheen · · Score: 1

    For next weeks news; China develops anti-satelite missiles with anti-laser skin.

  9. What's with the beam expander? by ianalis · · Score: 1

    I really don't understand the need to emphasize the part about the beam expander and turret. It's just a beam expander. The easiest way to build one is to simply use two converging lenses separated by a distance equal to the sum of their focal lengths. Heck. I even remembered assembling one as part of a "game" in one of my undergrad physics (majors') class. What I am more interested is in how they managed to created such a powerful beam, etc. (I didn't RTFA).

    Perhaps, this is the reason why I can't explain my research to laypeople. :)

    P.S. I am a member of a research lab whose research topics include optics.

    1. Re:What's with the beam expander? by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1
      From the article:

      [...] inside a retractable, swiveling pod called the turret [...] This makes it sound like most people don't know what a turret is. I mean, it's just a fairly ordinary gun turret. Except it fires a laser instead of machine gun rounds of course.

      Plus Firefox's spell-checker insists that it should be spelt "swivelling".
    2. Re:What's with the beam expander? by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      It's called popular science for a reason.

  10. Stop beating around the Bush! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead, hit him straight on the head.

    1. Re:Stop beating around the Bush! by Archades54 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Instead, hit him straight on the head.
      Why? Nothing there.
      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
  11. this won't work... by pointbeing · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...where are you gonna find a shark big enough to carry the thing?

    --
    we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
    -- anais nin
    1. Re:this won't work... by einnar2000 · · Score: 1

      Okay, it's hard enough to be evil with the shortage of sharks with laser beams on their heads, but requiring me to teach them how to fly is just too damn much.

      (Can I use ballistae, and just be a short range evil overlord?)

    2. Re:this won't work... by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      You merely need a Beowulf cluster of sharks with green laser pointers. You then paint the target with a sardine beam to get their attention.

    3. Re:this won't work... by LaTechTech · · Score: 1

      This shark may be big enough.

      --
      I want my! I want my! I want my Eee PC!
  12. Re:Sad, isn't it? by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but your parent post had "offtopic" included right in it, so quitcher whining.

  13. Re:Source Article by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nice. I didn't believe the link should be considered a "troll" (love the asshole mods on here), but in this case, it really is. Link contains a trojan. Don't go clicky-clicky.

  14. Back at you by pppppppman · · Score: 1

    What would be funny is if they coated a tank (or at least the top of it) in the reflective stuff on traffic signs.

    The plane would shoot itself down..

  15. Next story on /. by slashname3 · · Score: 1

    New mirror surface tank deployed to defeat anti-tank laser system. One surprise found with the highly polished mirror surfaced tanks is that from a distance they looked like the surrounding surfaces. One unexpected side effect however is when a laser was fired at such a tank the beam was reflected hitting infantry in the area causing severe burns.

    Next story: kinetic energy weapon developed to take out mirrored surface tanks. They are like little anvils placed in low orbit. When called on they drop from orbit onto the tanks at terminal velocity. A swarm of these weapons can take out a battalion of vehicles in just a few seconds.

    1. Re:Next story on /. by clbyjack81 · · Score: 1
      They are like little anvils placed in low orbit. When called on they drop from orbit onto the tanks at terminal velocity. A swarm of these weapons can take out a battalion of vehicles in just a few seconds.

      The CBU-97 is basically what you describe. Instead of being deployed in orbit, it is a cluster munition delivered by an aircraft. It is quite effective at taking out large groups of tanks without the pilot having to target an individual vehicle. The weapon is simply aimed at a cluster of tanks and each individual submunition seeks out the vehicles based on their IR signature.

      Tom Clancy readers may recognize this description from The Bear and the Dragon. This weapon was used in his account to take out large Chinese tank forces in eastern Russia.

      --
      Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing.
  16. Traumatic experiences by Gwyn_232 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pleo, from California start-up Ugobe, is a baby dinosaur robot that acts and learns like a real animal, remembering traumatic experiences and friendly owners. We peeled off its skin Gee, I wonder which category it uses to remember the PopSci editors?
  17. Do the math, folks by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
    Re burning a hole in a tank.

    it's unfortunate but it's trivially easy to do the math on this one:

    • Lasers are rather expensive (xx million) and inefficient, like 15%
    • White paint and/or titanium foil is very cheap (a million times cheaper) and very ( > 70%) efficient at reflecting incident energy.
    • Ablative material that can generate smoke when heated and block a laser beam is REALLY cheap. Like free, as in branches and sod.

    It makes absolutely no economic sense to use a xx million dollar laser of 15% efficiency to try to burn through a tank that can be effectively protected for a millionth the cost of the laser.

    1. Re:Do the math, folks by AJWM · · Score: 1

      It's not as simple as that. Lasers aren't like really powerful flashlights, there are qualitatively different effects when something is hit by an intense laser beam vs just being hit by an intense beam of incoherent light.

      Look up "laser supported detonation", for one example. And white paint or foil reflecting 70% of the energy doesn't help much if the other 30% burns/boils/detonates that layer in a fraction of a second.

      But tell you what, we'll let you build a wall out of branches and sod and then you stand behind it while someone fires a multi-megawatt laser at it. Nothing to worry about, right?

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:Do the math, folks by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Well 2 thoughts:

      * First off, your solutions would leave a battlefield covered with bright white tanks covered with a layer of dirt and branches on top. Presumably covering the sides with dirt won't work so well, and assuming that it means we have a host of highly visable targets (ie a bright white horizontal stripe) that can be shot using standard tank weapons :P

      * It doesn't really matter that the laser costs millions of time more than a specific defense. The tank can't shoot back at the aircraft attacking it, and if the laser can be used to take out a few tanks (each of which also costs millions) the cost of the laser will quickly be recouped.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    3. Re:Do the math, folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although the "paint an tin foil defense" has its flaws, I'm not so sure the tank is unable to shoot at the plane. There is nothing stealthy or high-performance about a C-130. And if the range of the laser is 5 miles, that puts it within striking distance of all kinds of air defense weapons.

      Get the laser package mounted on an A-10, F-16, or F-117 and it gives new meaning to the term "Shake and Bake".

    4. Re:Do the math, folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am tired of the misinformation being spread about laser weapon systems.

      * Yes, the initial costs are expensive because laser weaponry is in the prototype stage. Nuclear weapons in the 1940s were expensive too, but now every country whose name the average American can't spell has access to them. Efficiencies are actually at 20% right now on modern laser weapon systems.

      * 70% is worthless when a pulsed laser is used. That 30% absorption rate when getting hit with impulses every 3ns will vaporize your paint or foil very quickly. If you really want to "shield" an object from a weapons grade laser, you would need a mirror whose optical quality rivals that of many large telescopes.

      * Military lasers being developed for aircraft are effective *because* of ablation. They don't use a continuous beam to melt targets, they vaporize small layers of material with every pulse. Your branches and sod will be vaporized. Quickly.

      FWIW, I am an aerospace engineer who specialized in directed energy weapons system integration on a project incorporating LLNL's SSHCL weapon. Those who think that they can MacGyver up a reflective material and shoot down an attacking aircraft with its own laser are seriously deluded. Most of the people commenting along these lines don't have a clue.

    5. Re:Do the math, folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will take this opportunity to remind you that many high-tech systems have been defeated by trivial workarounds. One of the notorious DRM systems was defeated with the shift key, another with a sharpie marker. I would not be so quick to dismiss every low-tech countermeasure. But I will admit the ones mentioned so far have some serious flaws.

      The people who invented RADAR never planned on chaff.

    6. Re:Do the math, folks by Urkki · · Score: 1

      You talk about uselessnes of reflection.

      But what about the smoke? Automatic smoke screen simulataneously from all tanks in a group should limit the usefulnes of the laser greatly. If laser weapons come common enough, maybe even have just a thin layer of some kind of smoke or dust flake release system (smoke, very fine reflective metal flakes, very fine black coal/graphite powder) as part of standard armouring. When the first laser pulse hits, a localized smoke screen is immediately generated, reducing the effect of the laser to the first pulse.

      And about layered armor, like those branches, doesn't that force the focal point to be "off". If laser is focused on the tree branches or camouflage net covering the tank, it won't be as focused when it meets the tank hull. If it isn't focused at the camouflage layer, then it won't hit anything with enough intensity to get the desired effect? Or is the focal poin "longer" than, say, 50cm?

    7. Re:Do the math, folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no focal point with a weapons grade pulsed laser. The beam expander on the aircraft helps assure collimation of the beam and minimal divergence. The weapon does not work by focusing energy on a single point, rather the collimated beam front impacts a defined area. When the weapon is used, there is quite a fireworks show on whatever it hits because of ablated material released from the target staying within the beam.

  18. The "Windex and Bounty" defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Not all parts of a tank are appropriate for your twigs, sod, tin foil and white paint defense. For example, what about the tracks (or tires for that matter)? Sooner or later, the laser would hit something that was important and not easily made shiny.

    I suppose the vehicles could travel underneath giant mirrors, but that would create a new set of problems. At that point, all you have to do is can cut off the enemy's supply of Windex and paper towels. Seriously, I think the reflective surfaces would have to be kept clean and shiny -- not so easy in a war zone.

  19. Re:how everything 'works'/we're all in this togeth by bdwebb · · Score: 1

    Fucking what the fuck???

    I am almost positive that my brain is now bleeding for having read any portion of your idiotic, mindless hyperbole. You are the societal equivalent of a transient who talks to himself because of his complete loss of comprehension of reality. The only difference between you and this guy that you have somehow maintained enough of your faculties to barely drag yourself through your day-to-day. Your mind operates on the same type of logic abortion that Scientology uses to ensnare its victims.

    life0cide?? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU???!?!?1111!! (ones added for emphasis)

    I just posted this in the face of removing all of my other moderations because I am so astounded. I don't think I'm ever going to moderate again after happening across this drivel reading through the lower threshold. I think this is literally the worst possible way to wake up in the morning. How am I supposed to maintain a good outlook for the day having been reminded that people like this exist? FUCK.

  20. Plane Lasers: Your Tax Dollars At Work by BigBlueOx · · Score: 1

    Every time I see one of these fool "future weapons", like the Tank Destroying Laser, that solve battlefield problems that don't exist, my immediate thought is "what tard has his stars riding on this turkey?"

    Is this woo laser supposed to destroy materiel? And this beam thingy is better than a missile how? For that matter, it's better good-ol depleted uranium rounds how? Pfraf.

    Is it supposed to destroy people? If you want to destroy people you can't beat little jagged pieces of metal flying around at supersonic speeds. What does this thing offer other than lots and lots of initial cost and logistical headaches? Pfraf.

    Tards.

    1. Re:Plane Lasers: Your Tax Dollars At Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DoD likes it:

      1.) Because it sounds freakin' cool, and

      2.) Because a laser like this affects a spot of about 2 feet diameter, with extremely high precision and accuracy and low risk of collateral. Note to mention...

      3.) They already spent hundreds of millions to develop the laser for the Airborne Laser anti-ballistic missile system (for which a laser supposedly provides a long-range, fast response capability no other technology can offer). Trying out different applications for the same technology potentially gives them more return on the investment.

      4.) If shards of metal flying around is the best way to destroy people, then how come both Star Trek and Star Wars use laser-type thingies? Yeah...didn't think you'd have an answer for that one.

    2. Re:Plane Lasers: Your Tax Dollars At Work by BigBlueOx · · Score: 1

      If shards of metal flying around is the best way to destroy people, then how come both Star Trek and Star Wars use laser-type thingies? Yeah...didn't think you'd have an answer for that one.

      Oh yeah? Oh yeah?

      Well ... um ...

      Well, we'll see how your laser-type thingies work when the replicators show up! Ha! Not so clever now, are you, Mr. Smarty?

  21. It'll get lost and forgotten by marquis111 · · Score: 1

    After all, they'll file it under 'X' for 'Laser cannon'. Right next to the air pump filed under 'H' for 'toy'.

  22. $5.99 defense against airborne lasers by He+Who+Waits · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It's easy for ground troops to defend their tanks against airborne laser cannons.

    Just shining a laser pointer at the pilot is apparently enough to cause the plane to crash.

  23. tank-burning laser by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    And what about the tank-burning laser that can be fired from an airplane? Well, we haven't discussed that but I'm at a loss as to explain why.

    If everyone had tank-burning lasers what could CmdrTaco drive to work?

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  24. Endoscope camera in a pilll... by goatpunch · · Score: 1

    ... I wouldn't want to be the second person to try out the prototype.

    --
    Worst BBC News Stories
  25. Re:how everything 'works'/we're all in this togeth by Kuroji · · Score: 1

    Now I know why they call them anonymous cowards.