100kW hitting w/ "pinpoint accuracy"... what kind of heatsinkage would be necessary to dissipate all this? Assuming "pinpoint accuracy" is a figure of speech, really more on the scale of.01 m^2, says you need to dissipate 1 megawatt/m^2 to prevent the burnout. If you're partially reflective (50%), and spinning (divide power by circumference/.1m if theta=>inf) you need less heat dissipation. A small missile, C=pi m, semireflective is down to 1/63 (.016) the heat sinkage necessary. Quality CPU heatsinks dissipate, what, on the scale of 10kW/m^2?
Clearly, if it really is pinpoint accurate, even if only down to the.01m range, all that is moot. But that's one hell of a fire control system,.01m error over 10km. I dont do optics, but that sounds pretty fantastically accurate to me, at least in atmospehere.
Liquid nitro cooling could help sink even more.
Oh, and if it wasn't the most obvious solution: the optical countermeasure. How bout a smoke trailer a few meters in front of the missile, opaque to whatever the necessary frequency was?
As an American that spends long hours working hard, I find it reprehensible that First-Worlders claim that only they work long and hard. There are entrepreneurial geniuses from every culture that work 90 hr weeks doing what you can't. The problem is that the country itself is usually racked by corruption of some form and the efforts of an individual are not likely to benefit that individual.
The one thing Americans have that many countries don't is true independence - most Americans can create and spend their money in an almost completely free way to maximize their own benefit. In Third World countries where it takes up to 17 years to just complete the paperwork to legally own your house, people cannot be expected to stay within the legal limits established by the rich in the country attempting to stay rich.
'Extralegality' is a very risky business, because unenforceable contracts can ruin a business very fast. That's why Japan has been stumbling for the last decade - no one wants to admit that half their accounts receivable will never be recieved. And the Chinese Government has a long way to go before logical businessmen decide that it doesn't pose a risk to their interests.
18th and 19th century England promulgated its economic policies on all those whom it conquered or traded with, making their affiliates wealthy - until some upstart Americans decided they wanted to be independant of other peoples economic policies, and have the right to fight for what was better for them. They grew up, and fought for what was better for them, and because they were usually civil about it, unlike most of the rest of the world, they inspired revolutions, and made their adherents wealthy in trade as Americans pursued their own interests.
Now most of the world is still oppressed or unorganized. Why? Because of rampant corruption and violence in these areas because leaders their are only motivated by their interests, and their progenitors complain that America pursues its own interests.
These arent the roots of all their problems, nor a solution to them. But America was a third world country in 1776.
Isn't it funny that 'socialists' tend to use anti-trust theory to say that a government should monopolize production? And that 'leftists' advocate government spending on subsidization to invoke the Multiplier, then complain about unfair trade practices? And that 'free market' proponents claim, simultaneously, that the free market will give them profits and that it creates a level playing field for the underdeveloped? Either it's 'fair' or some one makes a profit. Either there is equality, or incentive.
Economics is the science of scarcity and value - if there is no reason to do something, people won't. And being 'unfair' is inherently more 'attractive' - if you don't like the way people value things, change their values, not their prices.
Medical science is inherently evil. We should stop knowing the reasons for things and just pray or bleed or something to treat people, right?
This is just a better way of picking which diseases you might get and which you might _not_ get - and giving you the edge in your lifestyle and medical treatment.
As any actuary can tell you, the biggest killers are nurture: smoking, poor eating, drinking, drugs, and recklessness. (CAUTION: arbitrary numbers) A 5% larger liklihood of developing 'bad behavior' genetically, while statistically significant, is nowhere near a, say, 50% larger liklihood of 'bad behavior' from a poor upbringing. But do insurance companies screen how your parents treated you or the community you grew up in?
Also, insurance premiums will never go up 400% - just enough more than the other guy to make you switch to a competitor - who will then take your money at your marginally increased risk.
Slashdot Mirror
100kW hitting w/ "pinpoint accuracy"... what kind of heatsinkage would be necessary to dissipate all this? Assuming "pinpoint accuracy" is a figure of speech, really more on the scale of .01 m^2, says you need to dissipate 1 megawatt/m^2 to prevent the burnout. If you're partially reflective (50%), and spinning (divide power by circumference/.1m if theta=>inf) you need less heat dissipation. A small missile, C=pi m, semireflective is down to 1/63 (.016) the heat sinkage necessary. Quality CPU heatsinks dissipate, what, on the scale of 10kW/m^2?
Clearly, if it really is pinpoint accurate, even if only down to the .01m range, all that is moot. But that's one hell of a fire control system, .01m error over 10km. I dont do optics, but that sounds pretty fantastically accurate to me, at least in atmospehere.
Liquid nitro cooling could help sink even more.
Oh, and if it wasn't the most obvious solution: the optical countermeasure. How bout a smoke trailer a few meters in front of the missile, opaque to whatever the necessary frequency was?
As an American that spends long hours working hard, I find it reprehensible that First-Worlders claim that only they work long and hard. There are entrepreneurial geniuses from every culture that work 90 hr weeks doing what you can't. The problem is that the country itself is usually racked by corruption of some form and the efforts of an individual are not likely to benefit that individual. The one thing Americans have that many countries don't is true independence - most Americans can create and spend their money in an almost completely free way to maximize their own benefit. In Third World countries where it takes up to 17 years to just complete the paperwork to legally own your house, people cannot be expected to stay within the legal limits established by the rich in the country attempting to stay rich. 'Extralegality' is a very risky business, because unenforceable contracts can ruin a business very fast. That's why Japan has been stumbling for the last decade - no one wants to admit that half their accounts receivable will never be recieved. And the Chinese Government has a long way to go before logical businessmen decide that it doesn't pose a risk to their interests.
18th and 19th century England promulgated its economic policies on all those whom it conquered or traded with, making their affiliates wealthy - until some upstart Americans decided they wanted to be independant of other peoples economic policies, and have the right to fight for what was better for them. They grew up, and fought for what was better for them, and because they were usually civil about it, unlike most of the rest of the world, they inspired revolutions, and made their adherents wealthy in trade as Americans pursued their own interests. Now most of the world is still oppressed or unorganized. Why? Because of rampant corruption and violence in these areas because leaders their are only motivated by their interests, and their progenitors complain that America pursues its own interests. These arent the roots of all their problems, nor a solution to them. But America was a third world country in 1776.
Isn't it funny that 'socialists' tend to use anti-trust theory to say that a government should monopolize production? And that 'leftists' advocate government spending on subsidization to invoke the Multiplier, then complain about unfair trade practices? And that 'free market' proponents claim, simultaneously, that the free market will give them profits and that it creates a level playing field for the underdeveloped? Either it's 'fair' or some one makes a profit. Either there is equality, or incentive. Economics is the science of scarcity and value - if there is no reason to do something, people won't. And being 'unfair' is inherently more 'attractive' - if you don't like the way people value things, change their values, not their prices.
But on the plus side, a ULF transmitter in the Great Lakes can talk to a ship in New Zealand
The media is 120GHz broadcast. TV and radio are media also, and they travel through air.
Medical science is inherently evil. We should stop knowing the reasons for things and just pray or bleed or something to treat people, right? This is just a better way of picking which diseases you might get and which you might _not_ get - and giving you the edge in your lifestyle and medical treatment.
As any actuary can tell you, the biggest killers are nurture: smoking, poor eating, drinking, drugs, and recklessness. (CAUTION: arbitrary numbers) A 5% larger liklihood of developing 'bad behavior' genetically, while statistically significant, is nowhere near a, say, 50% larger liklihood of 'bad behavior' from a poor upbringing. But do insurance companies screen how your parents treated you or the community you grew up in?
Also, insurance premiums will never go up 400% - just enough more than the other guy to make you switch to a competitor - who will then take your money at your marginally increased risk.