It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America's Beam Weapons

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I apologize if this has been discussed. I was reading this article,

www.msnbc.msn.com...

talking about how the US will start using beam weapons but it is "only a tool and not an end all for weapons developments". It seems pretty interesting nonetheless.




posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Something like this was bound to come along eventualy, might have already if you believe some stories about Area 51 and other facilities



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Or, how about something smaller


....to disable people or vehicles...... to replace guns as the weapon of choice in close-range defense. Lethal configurations are also available......



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   
i'll never understand why mankind try to keep comeing up with bigger and better ways to destroy eachother



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
well, this "coming up with bigger and better ways to destroy each other" is how we got almost all of our technology we see around us today.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Well, if you want a laser (or beam) you'll need a good power source. So what we should do is invest into a good power source, then we can zap and kill people.
Just wanna point that out.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
All of these current (and currently being developed) directed energy weapons sound a whole lot like something that is already patented, and has been patented since the early 1900s.

Created by a man named Nikola Tesla (some of you may have heard of him), the "Death Ray" was a directed energy weapon, said to be able to shoot at a line of sight effective range of up to 300 miles, and able to destroy entire battalions of enemy troops and hardware. It is initial testing of this device which is thought to be responsible for the Tunguska Event. What was the power source? A giant Tesla Coil (Tesla's Wardenclyffe coil), using wireless energy transmission to get the power from the coil to the ray (energy output from the tower at Wardenclyffe was thought to be nearing the 1GW range).

The only real difference between these new beam weapons and the Tesla Death Ray is that the new weapons are using chemically charged beams, where the Death Ray operated off of a directed, high intensity electrical arc, which essentially superheated and liquified the air around it, creating plasma.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by annoyingzhang
Well, if you want a laser (or beam) you'll need a good power source. So what we should do is invest into a good power source, then we can zap and kill people.
Just wanna point that out.
Lol wealready do and these lasers have ebeen demonstrated long before most people even realize.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Created by a man named Nikola Tesla (some of you may have heard of him), the "Death Ray" was a directed energy weapon, said to be able to shoot at a line of sight effective range of up to 300 miles, and able to destroy entire battalions of enemy troops and hardware.


Yet, upon his death, the "death ray" in his safe was a simple resistor decade box. He was also feeding pigeons with "rays of white light" coming out of their heads during this period, and was probably nuts. His patent has been examined by the best, and won't work as depicted, but it seems to have been intended to be some sort of charged particle beam.


What was the power source? A giant Tesla Coil (Tesla's Wardenclyffe coil), using wireless energy transmission to get the power from the coil to the ray (energy output from the tower at Wardenclyffe was thought to be nearing the 1GW range).


As far as I know, Tesla never claimed that the Wardenclyffe device "created power", it was a transport mechanism. I'm not sure the entire generation capacity of the world at that time would have been that much, nor have I ever heard a power output cited by Tesla in his published writings. Do you think it's possible that the 1GW number was sort of a WAG by a Tesla groupie? For the time, that would be an unbelievable amount of power. From the descriptions and drawings I've seen of the equipment in Wardenclyffe, 1GW input power would make a nice bang as the wiring vaporized.



The only real difference between these new beam weapons and the Tesla Death Ray is that the new weapons are using chemically charged beams, where the Death Ray operated off of a directed, high intensity electrical arc, which essentially superheated and liquified the air around it, creating plasma.


Plasma and liquified air are pretty much self-exclusive states. A high-intensity arc will form plasma, but it isn't going to liquify a gas, quite the opposite. If by "chemically charged" you mean that a lot of lasers are chemically powered, true, because short of nuclear power it's about as energy dense as you can get, and it's a lot easier to lug around. Even then it's pretty awful; THEL takes several truckloads of reactants. Zeus, on the other hand, is electrically powered.

I'm not sure why the power source is a significant difference here. CARMs and FELs are electrical also, I know that the AF has a pretty much unmentionable superconductive HPM emitter, it's electrical also.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
If i may say so
im goin on some foggy memory but i remeber reading about how Tesla said that it was impossible to make a Supposed "Death Ray". I believe i read this in the Antigravity handbook(Good book read it.)

Now things like Direct energy and Particle Accelerations are possible for Quantum Deconstruction that would be cagetorized as "Vaporized" leaving only a burnt patch of Ground. In fact my vison of what this Superweapon would look like would be something out of Command and Conquer Generals USA Particle Cannon.

What annoyinzhang said actually posses the biggest of hurdles.Power. the Point Defense Laser has astonding abilities except that it can fir, correct if im wrong 6 times, i think and then its out of battery. So Unless Duracell gets some new Bunnies, lasers in generals will Need vast faciluties to operate one like the Particle Cannon of Generals



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Lasers a good and all, and will continue to become increasingly popular on the battlefield....But...It seems like all you have to do to counter it is have your missile be surrounded by a mirror and the lasers beam will simply be reflected elsewhere.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
yeah i guess that's right, or you can just direct a missle at the power facility....



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
to Murcielago

A missile with a mirror on it is an alright idea but i think that if the laser could shoot down a missile, itll probaly be able to burn through a mirror. I think that if you could sustain a Thick gas Field around the Projectile it would break up the beam, destroying the beams focus and,thereby, its Destructive capablities.

But nevertheless its a good thought



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
2nd:

Ho, ho, ho NO that's not what you want at all.

That's one reason why they aren't putting as much effort into orbital laser intercept as they are with ascent phase intercept.

There's multiple ways to destroy a complex load with a laser. One is to disrupt the missile's guidance (or the payload's electronics) with the e-field from the laser.

Obviously you can just heat the thing like a THEL does a mortar shell, but that's hard to do due to dwell times and the possibility that the thing packs an ablative heat shield, dielectric mirror coating or some other trick.

A great way to knock the thing down is by using plasma bloom detonation on the side of the rocket in the ascent phase. You don't get anywhere near the effect if you wait for it to be out of the atmosphere. Pop a bunch of dents on it and knock the boost shield loose on the payload, watch the aerodynamic stresses tear it up.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by The 2nd Gunman
A missile with a mirror on it is an alright idea but i think that if the laser could shoot down a missile, itll probaly be able to burn through a mirror.

The ABL uses a mirror at the front of the craft to direct the laser...and its a powerfull megawat class laser.
Also, Boeing just demonstrated a relay mirror...which is a mirror they plan on attaching to the HAA, which would be near 70,000ft, this would increase the lasers range.

So it seems that theres an easy counter to lasers....just use a mirror.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
There's mirrors, then there's mirrors.

A laser mirror is a different critter than a nice polished chrome job on a metal casing.

They're rated in terms of heat rise per watt per sq cm. The mirror, no matter how good, absorbs some degree of energy from the beam. Really good ones don't absorb much and have cooling or some form of heat dissipation.

So-so mirrors degrade and burn.

Here's a link to a laser mirror spec:
www.thorlabs.com...


Note that laser mirrors have power ratings ("damage thresholds") such as 1kW/cm^2, CW. At that level, the mirror will go 'bang' and stuff will break real bad.

That's a GOOD mirror. A missile casing won't be anywhere near that good. So yes, a mirror finish will make the dwell time have to be longer but it's not a defense.

Also, mirrors have frequency ratings, that is, what's a good mirror for green light may not be worth a poot in near IR.

edit: let's try that again with the url...

[edit on 8-8-2006 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
yeah, I know you cant just go to wal-mart and pick up a mirror that can reflect a megawat laser.

But theres nothing stoping a nation from modifying some ICBM's with a high quality and very expensive mirror surrounding them.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
If you've got a big honkin' FEL, you can probe that mirror with a wavelength chirp, then come back with a big pulse at a wavelength it's not a good mirror for.

Frequency agile medium power lasers are a big new deal. The low to medium power lasers aren't FELs but the frequency agility is used to bypass laser goggles or optical filters.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
It can't look like that and it don't do waves it must shoot particles.
All lies.
Los Alamos can't get Tesla technology right so why bother to
make press releases. MIT said a GRIDKEEPER object may be their
star wars project.
They can't tell the truth and eliminate more Tesla awareness.

One Tesla lab is still up:
www.teslasociety.com...

Soon to be condos, something worthwhile.

Enjoy perhaps the last youtube visit:
www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join