 |
|
|
|
Next: Question: Ruins of Alteric and the Leather Book
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 32
|
(Msg. 76) Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Lasers Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: aus>games>roleplay, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Unobtrusive wrote:
> Simple enough; do without the rangefinder. If the laser can adjust it's
> range on the fly by moving mirrors & such, have the focus move quickly from
> just in front of your weapon to it's theoretical max-range and back again,
> therefore slicing neatly through everything between here and there.
> Invisible or not, you'll still hurt it if it can be hit.
This wastes a lot of energy. If you can kill a person with 1 kilojoule
of energy, you can pack a fair number of shots into a battery and with
reasonable rates of fire you don't need to worry about your weapon
overheating. Now if you need to focus 1 kilojoule (to ensure killing
your target) into each linear meter between the aperture of the laser
and the maximum range (say 500 meters) you use 500 times as much energy
and your weapon heats 500 times as fast. A fairly reasonable
extrapolation is that advanced weapons grade lasers could be about 50%
efficient - for every kJ of laser light, they generate one kJ of heat.
There is a technical term for devices that produce 500 kJ of heat
energy in about a millisecond - we call them bombs.
This is a rather inexact way of looking at things - for one thing, it
ignores depth of field effects (the furter away a beam is focused, the
longer the distance over which it stays focused. Likewise, when
focused at short distances, the beam will only stay in focus over a
very short distance), but it illustrates the problems with trying to
zap everything between the aperture and the maximum range.
Luke |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 32
|
(Msg. 77) Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Lasers Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Unobtrusive wrote:
> Simple enough; do without the rangefinder. If the laser can adjust it's
> range on the fly by moving mirrors & such, have the focus move quickly from
> just in front of your weapon to it's theoretical max-range and back again,
> therefore slicing neatly through everything between here and there.
> Invisible or not, you'll still hurt it if it can be hit.
This wastes a lot of energy. If you can kill a person with 1 kilojoule
of energy, you can pack a fair number of shots into a battery and with
reasonable rates of fire you don't need to worry about your weapon
overheating. Now if you need to focus 1 kilojoule (to ensure killing
your target) into each linear meter between the aperture of the laser
and the maximum range (say 500 meters) you use 500 times as much energy
and your weapon heats 500 times as fast. A fairly reasonable
extrapolation is that advanced weapons grade lasers could be about 50%
efficient - for every kJ of laser light, they generate one kJ of heat.
There is a technical term for devices that produce 500 kJ of heat
energy in about a millisecond - we call them bombs.
This is a rather inexact way of looking at things - for one thing, it
ignores depth of field effects (the furter away a beam is focused, the
longer the distance over which it stays focused. Likewise, when
focused at short distances, the beam will only stay in focus over a
very short distance), but it illustrates the problems with trying to
zap everything between the aperture and the maximum range.
Luke |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 32
|
(Msg. 78) Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Lasers Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Unobtrusive wrote:
> Simple enough; do without the rangefinder. If the laser can adjust it's
> range on the fly by moving mirrors & such, have the focus move quickly from
> just in front of your weapon to it's theoretical max-range and back again,
> therefore slicing neatly through everything between here and there.
> Invisible or not, you'll still hurt it if it can be hit.
This wastes a lot of energy. If you can kill a person with 1 kilojoule
of energy, you can pack a fair number of shots into a battery and with
reasonable rates of fire you don't need to worry about your weapon
overheating. Now if you need to focus 1 kilojoule (to ensure killing
your target) into each linear meter between the aperture of the laser
and the maximum range (say 500 meters) you use 500 times as much energy
and your weapon heats 500 times as fast. A fairly reasonable
extrapolation is that advanced weapons grade lasers could be about 50%
efficient - for every kJ of laser light, they generate one kJ of heat.
There is a technical term for devices that produce 500 kJ of heat
energy in about a millisecond - we call them bombs.
This is a rather inexact way of looking at things - for one thing, it
ignores depth of field effects (the furter away a beam is focused, the
longer the distance over which it stays focused. Likewise, when
focused at short distances, the beam will only stay in focus over a
very short distance), but it illustrates the problems with trying to
zap everything between the aperture and the maximum range.
Luke >> Stay informed about: Lasers Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 32
|
(Msg. 79) Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Lasers Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Unobtrusive wrote:
> Simple enough; do without the rangefinder. If the laser can adjust it's
> range on the fly by moving mirrors & such, have the focus move quickly from
> just in front of your weapon to it's theoretical max-range and back again,
> therefore slicing neatly through everything between here and there.
> Invisible or not, you'll still hurt it if it can be hit.
This wastes a lot of energy. If you can kill a person with 1 kilojoule
of energy, you can pack a fair number of shots into a battery and with
reasonable rates of fire you don't need to worry about your weapon
overheating. Now if you need to focus 1 kilojoule (to ensure killing
your target) into each linear meter between the aperture of the laser
and the maximum range (say 500 meters) you use 500 times as much energy
and your weapon heats 500 times as fast. A fairly reasonable
extrapolation is that advanced weapons grade lasers could be about 50%
efficient - for every kJ of laser light, they generate one kJ of heat.
There is a technical term for devices that produce 500 kJ of heat
energy in about a millisecond - we call them bombs.
This is a rather inexact way of looking at things - for one thing, it
ignores depth of field effects (the furter away a beam is focused, the
longer the distance over which it stays focused. Likewise, when
focused at short distances, the beam will only stay in focus over a
very short distance), but it illustrates the problems with trying to
zap everything between the aperture and the maximum range.
Luke >> Stay informed about: Lasers Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 32
|
(Msg. 80) Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Lasers Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Unobtrusive wrote:
> Simple enough; do without the rangefinder. If the laser can adjust it's
> range on the fly by moving mirrors & such, have the focus move quickly from
> just in front of your weapon to it's theoretical max-range and back again,
> therefore slicing neatly through everything between here and there.
> Invisible or not, you'll still hurt it if it can be hit.
This wastes a lot of energy. If you can kill a person with 1 kilojoule
of energy, you can pack a fair number of shots into a battery and with
reasonable rates of fire you don't need to worry about your weapon
overheating. Now if you need to focus 1 kilojoule (to ensure killing
your target) into each linear meter between the aperture of the laser
and the maximum range (say 500 meters) you use 500 times as much energy
and your weapon heats 500 times as fast. A fairly reasonable
extrapolation is that advanced weapons grade lasers could be about 50%
efficient - for every kJ of laser light, they generate one kJ of heat.
There is a technical term for devices that produce 500 kJ of heat
energy in about a millisecond - we call them bombs.
This is a rather inexact way of looking at things - for one thing, it
ignores depth of field effects (the furter away a beam is focused, the
longer the distance over which it stays focused. Likewise, when
focused at short distances, the beam will only stay in focus over a
very short distance), but it illustrates the problems with trying to
zap everything between the aperture and the maximum range.
Luke >> Stay informed about: Lasers Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 32
|
(Msg. 81) Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Lasers Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Unobtrusive wrote:
> Simple enough; do without the rangefinder. If the laser can adjust it's
> range on the fly by moving mirrors & such, have the focus move quickly from
> just in front of your weapon to it's theoretical max-range and back again,
> therefore slicing neatly through everything between here and there.
> Invisible or not, you'll still hurt it if it can be hit.
This wastes a lot of energy. If you can kill a person with 1 kilojoule
of energy, you can pack a fair number of shots into a battery and with
reasonable rates of fire you don't need to worry about your weapon
overheating. Now if you need to focus 1 kilojoule (to ensure killing
your target) into each linear meter between the aperture of the laser
and the maximum range (say 500 meters) you use 500 times as much energy
and your weapon heats 500 times as fast. A fairly reasonable
extrapolation is that advanced weapons grade lasers could be about 50%
efficient - for every kJ of laser light, they generate one kJ of heat.
There is a technical term for devices that produce 500 kJ of heat
energy in about a millisecond - we call them bombs.
This is a rather inexact way of looking at things - for one thing, it
ignores depth of field effects (the furter away a beam is focused, the
longer the distance over which it stays focused. Likewise, when
focused at short distances, the beam will only stay in focus over a
very short distance), but it illustrates the problems with trying to
zap everything between the aperture and the maximum range.
Luke >> Stay informed about: Lasers Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 32
|
(Msg. 82) Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Lasers Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Unobtrusive wrote:
> Simple enough; do without the rangefinder. If the laser can adjust it's
> range on the fly by moving mirrors & such, have the focus move quickly from
> just in front of your weapon to it's theoretical max-range and back again,
> therefore slicing neatly through everything between here and there.
> Invisible or not, you'll still hurt it if it can be hit.
This wastes a lot of energy. If you can kill a person with 1 kilojoule
of energy, you can pack a fair number of shots into a battery and with
reasonable rates of fire you don't need to worry about your weapon
overheating. Now if you need to focus 1 kilojoule (to ensure killing
your target) into each linear meter between the aperture of the laser
and the maximum range (say 500 meters) you use 500 times as much energy
and your weapon heats 500 times as fast. A fairly reasonable
extrapolation is that advanced weapons grade lasers could be about 50%
efficient - for every kJ of laser light, they generate one kJ of heat.
There is a technical term for devices that produce 500 kJ of heat
energy in about a millisecond - we call them bombs.
This is a rather inexact way of looking at things - for one thing, it
ignores depth of field effects (the furter away a beam is focused, the
longer the distance over which it stays focused. Likewise, when
focused at short distances, the beam will only stay in focus over a
very short distance), but it illustrates the problems with trying to
zap everything between the aperture and the maximum range.
Luke >> Stay informed about: Lasers Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 32
|
(Msg. 83) Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Lasers Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Unobtrusive wrote:
> Simple enough; do without the rangefinder. If the laser can adjust it's
> range on the fly by moving mirrors & such, have the focus move quickly from
> just in front of your weapon to it's theoretical max-range and back again,
> therefore slicing neatly through everything between here and there.
> Invisible or not, you'll still hurt it if it can be hit.
This wastes a lot of energy. If you can kill a person with 1 kilojoule
of energy, you can pack a fair number of shots into a battery and with
reasonable rates of fire you don't need to worry about your weapon
overheating. Now if you need to focus 1 kilojoule (to ensure killing
your target) into each linear meter between the aperture of the laser
and the maximum range (say 500 meters) you use 500 times as much energy
and your weapon heats 500 times as fast. A fairly reasonable
extrapolation is that advanced weapons grade lasers could be about 50%
efficient - for every kJ of laser light, they generate one kJ of heat.
There is a technical term for devices that produce 500 kJ of heat
energy in about a millisecond - we call them bombs.
This is a rather inexact way of looking at things - for one thing, it
ignores depth of field effects (the furter away a beam is focused, the
longer the distance over which it stays focused. Likewise, when
focused at short distances, the beam will only stay in focus over a
very short distance), but it illustrates the problems with trying to
zap everything between the aperture and the maximum range.
Luke >> Stay informed about: Lasers Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 32
|
(Msg. 84) Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Lasers Question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Unobtrusive wrote:
> Simple enough; do without the rangefinder. If the laser can adjust it's
> range on the fly by moving mirrors & such, have the focus move quickly from
> just in front of your weapon to it's theoretical max-range and back again,
> therefore slicing neatly through everything between here and there.
> Invisible or not, you'll still hurt it if it can be hit.
This wastes a lot of energy. If you can kill a person with 1 kilojoule
of energy, you can pack a fair number of shots into a battery and with
reasonable rates of fire you don't need to worry about your weapon
overheating. Now if you need to focus 1 kilojoule (to ensure killing
your target) into each linear meter between the aperture of the laser
and the maximum range (say 500 meters) you use 500 times as much energy
and your weapon heats 500 times as fast. A fairly reasonable
extrapolation is that advanced weapons grade lasers could be about 50%
efficient - for every kJ of laser light, they generate one kJ of heat.
There is a technical term for devices that produce 500 kJ of heat
energy in about a millisecond - we call them bombs.
This is a rather inexact way of looking at things - for one thing, it
ignores depth of field effects (the furter away a beam is focused, the
longer the distance over which it stays focused. Likewise, when
focused at short distances, the beam will only stay in focus over a
very short distance), but it illustrates the problems with trying to
zap everything between the aperture and the maximum range.
Luke >> Stay informed about: Lasers Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 79
|
(Msg. 85) Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:37 am
Post subject: No Mana question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>games>frp>gurps (more info?)
|
|
|
An interesting question came up with my group this weekend.
If you have a no mana zone of small area - say a 2 hex radius and 2
hexes high, if you are striking from the area with a magical weapon,
such that part is within the no mana zone, and part is outside the no
mana zone, is the part outside the no mana zone "magically" operational?
My immediate ruling was that it depended upon both the weapon, and the
enchantment on the weapon. Thus, a staff would not be magical, capable
of extending the Mages touch, casting spells through the staff, etc. As
Puissance however, would be effectively on the edge/poll of an axe with
the handle only extending into the no mana zone, or the point of a
spear, with the shaft being held, I would rule the "magic" active.
Other ideas, comments?
Roger >> Stay informed about: Lasers Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 79
|
(Msg. 86) Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:37 am
Post subject: No Mana question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
An interesting question came up with my group this weekend.
If you have a no mana zone of small area - say a 2 hex radius and 2
hexes high, if you are striking from the area with a magical weapon,
such that part is within the no mana zone, and part is outside the no
mana zone, is the part outside the no mana zone "magically" operational?
My immediate ruling was that it depended upon both the weapon, and the
enchantment on the weapon. Thus, a staff would not be magical, capable
of extending the Mages touch, casting spells through the staff, etc. As
Puissance however, would be effectively on the edge/poll of an axe with
the handle only extending into the no mana zone, or the point of a
spear, with the shaft being held, I would rule the "magic" active.
Other ideas, comments?
Roger >> Stay informed about: Lasers Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 79
|
(Msg. 87) Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:37 am
Post subject: No Mana question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
An interesting question came up with my group this weekend.
If you have a no mana zone of small area - say a 2 hex radius and 2
hexes high, if you are striking from the area with a magical weapon,
such that part is within the no mana zone, and part is outside the no
mana zone, is the part outside the no mana zone "magically" operational?
My immediate ruling was that it depended upon both the weapon, and the
enchantment on the weapon. Thus, a staff would not be magical, capable
of extending the Mages touch, casting spells through the staff, etc. As
Puissance however, would be effectively on the edge/poll of an axe with
the handle only extending into the no mana zone, or the point of a
spear, with the shaft being held, I would rule the "magic" active.
Other ideas, comments?
Roger >> Stay informed about: Lasers Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 79
|
(Msg. 88) Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:37 am
Post subject: No Mana question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
An interesting question came up with my group this weekend.
If you have a no mana zone of small area - say a 2 hex radius and 2
hexes high, if you are striking from the area with a magical weapon,
such that part is within the no mana zone, and part is outside the no
mana zone, is the part outside the no mana zone "magically" operational?
My immediate ruling was that it depended upon both the weapon, and the
enchantment on the weapon. Thus, a staff would not be magical, capable
of extending the Mages touch, casting spells through the staff, etc. As
Puissance however, would be effectively on the edge/poll of an axe with
the handle only extending into the no mana zone, or the point of a
spear, with the shaft being held, I would rule the "magic" active.
Other ideas, comments?
Roger >> Stay informed about: Lasers Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 79
|
(Msg. 89) Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:37 am
Post subject: No Mana question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
An interesting question came up with my group this weekend.
If you have a no mana zone of small area - say a 2 hex radius and 2
hexes high, if you are striking from the area with a magical weapon,
such that part is within the no mana zone, and part is outside the no
mana zone, is the part outside the no mana zone "magically" operational?
My immediate ruling was that it depended upon both the weapon, and the
enchantment on the weapon. Thus, a staff would not be magical, capable
of extending the Mages touch, casting spells through the staff, etc. As
Puissance however, would be effectively on the edge/poll of an axe with
the handle only extending into the no mana zone, or the point of a
spear, with the shaft being held, I would rule the "magic" active.
Other ideas, comments?
Roger >> Stay informed about: Lasers Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 79
|
(Msg. 90) Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:37 am
Post subject: No Mana question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
An interesting question came up with my group this weekend.
If you have a no mana zone of small area - say a 2 hex radius and 2
hexes high, if you are striking from the area with a magical weapon,
such that part is within the no mana zone, and part is outside the no
mana zone, is the part outside the no mana zone "magically" operational?
My immediate ruling was that it depended upon both the weapon, and the
enchantment on the weapon. Thus, a staff would not be magical, capable
of extending the Mages touch, casting spells through the staff, etc. As
Puissance however, would be effectively on the edge/poll of an axe with
the handle only extending into the no mana zone, or the point of a
spear, with the shaft being held, I would rule the "magic" active.
Other ideas, comments?
Roger >> Stay informed about: Lasers Question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Traveller & Hi TL: Lasers / silencer ? - HI! How would a Silencer work on a Laser beam given that in Traveller & Hi TL campaigns it's the passage of a powerful Laser beam going through the air that causes the sound. Perhaps Lasers are IMPOSSIBLE to silence??
[3rd ed] Question about psionic healing. - How long does an attempt of psionic healing take ? one second, minute, 10 minutes, an hour? If it can cure diseases, regenerate broken but set bones etc. As far as i can tell it's not spesified anywere (or it's in too obsivious place.) .../mika
A newbie question regarding combat - My experience with GURPS is almost ten years old, though I kept looking at it every few months. Now I'm playing in a campaign, but not one of us has any meaty experience with the rules, and we're kind of throwing ourselves in the deep end here. (I poste...
A tricky legal question about GURPS. - Let's suppose I created an alien race for a comic. Let's suppose I wanted to advertise the comic series via some promotional material, including statistics for building that race in some popular RPG. Then, about d20 System, I can do this because of OGL...
Gurps traveller refuelling question - Just read the news article on our new brown dwarf neighbor and it got me wondering: Can a Traveller ship with fuel scoops refuel from a brown dwarf? The article indicated the dwarf had a temp of about 750 degrees cent, but I would imagine it would be.. |
|
Game Forums (Home) -> GURPS |
All times are: Ekaterinburg, Islamabad, Karachi, Tashkent (change)
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
|
| Page 6 of 9 |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
