Slashdot Mirror


User: data.angel.one

data.angel.one's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
2
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 2

  1. Re:Unlikely on Hijacking Airplanes With an Android Phone · · Score: 1

    Too bad that humans hold the record for flaws, vulnerabilities, exploits, bugs and errors... http://www.lewisandtompkins.com/library/pilot-error-the-most-common-cause-of-airplane-crashes.cfm

  2. Re:Modular systems on Navy ships on Navy To Deploy Lasers On Ship In 2014 · · Score: 3, Informative

    A Nimtz class aircraft carrier is rated to deliver a total of ~194 Megawatts. All that is simply for the ships systems and electrical expenditures by the computer systems and living conditions. However, this energy is being delivered over time to the entire ship. You don't need 10kW neigh instantly to power a weapon. Now introduce a small, but (mostly) effective, LaWS into the mix and suddenly you need to be able to expend 10-50kW a SECOND from your total ship generation. The most obvious way to store for this energy is in batteries or super-capacitors. Now storing such large amounts of energy WILL require large banks of batteries/capacitors to contain until needed. Ultimately this becomes stored energy, or rather potential energy. Swillden is correct in saying that the stored energy may not explode in the same catastrophic manner as gunpowder or other conventional explosives might. That does not negate the high risk of storing such large amounts of power. As they are now, the electrical weapons do not pose the same kind of threat to its hosting ship as the conventional propellants and fuels. However, as the technology increases to the point where you're talking about storing 250-500kW of energy into banks of caps and batts, the risk of a catastrophic explosion increases. The risk would not be from being able to generate the energy, but from the storage of such energy to be ready for immediate combat expenditure.