Solid state laser sustains 67-kilowatts, approaching battlefield status
By Darren Murph 
posted Feb 26th 2007 5:31AM
posted Feb 26th 2007 5:31AM
We know what you're thinking: when you've got eight-Megajoule railguns, aircraft-mounted tactical lasers, and xenon-based paralysis inducers, what good is a feeble solid state laser blaster? Presumably hoping to see a Star Wars-esque warzone in the not too distant future, a team of researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California have crafted a Solid State Heat Capacity Laser (SSHCL) that can sustain 67-kilowatts of average power in testing, besting their previous record of just 45-kilowatts. Chemically powered lasers, on the other hand, have been able to achieve megawatts of power for some time now, but the solid state variety is much less burdensome and could be used on the battlefield without a constant source of chemical fuel flanking the soldier's belt. The SSHCL is said to generate a "pulsed beam which fires 200 times a second at a wavelength of one micron," and the "magic 100-kilowatt mark" that would enable it to become a satisfactory weapon could purportedly be reached within the year. While we're down with giving our troops crates of real-world rayguns to beam down the baddies, we've got a sneaking suspicion that someone's going to put an eye out while oohing and aahing at the light show these things emit.[Via Slashdot]
Last week's news.
Ooh and aah to the 1 micron light that is not visible to the human eye?
Which makes is much, MUCH more dangerous, because you don't know if it is on.
And knowing is half the battle.
GIIIJOOOE!
"Last week's news"
Yep. Engadget, where you at?
Ye, and they already use IR lasers. Invisible light is dangerous. 2 seconds of exposure to a medium powered IR laser and you are blind.
Anyways, always fun to see the laser and rail guns of Doom become real and usable.
This is illegal by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. How the hell do you expect a country burnt by war to care for blinded soldiers??? Like the comment I reply to, this is bad if given to non-medical trained personel. This is why engineering isnt taught in low level schools, because people always want to invent the flame thrower, how about a flash bang or tear gas?!?
"the solid state variety is much less burdensome and could be used on the battlefield without a constant source of chemical fuel flanking the soldier's belt. "
Instead they need one hell of a battery...
This kind of device could make a nice active shield. Have a high speed radar scan the area around the vehicle and use 100Kw diodes to vaporize any bullets, shrapnel, missiles, etc that come in too fast and too close.
You'd still need a 100KW+ power source though. A bank of ultra-super-capacitors maybe? 100KW/second is 28W/hour. Easy.
This kind of device could make a nice active shield. Have a high speed radar scan the area around the vehicle and use 100Kw diodes to vaporize any bullets, shrapnel, missiles, etc that come in too fast and too close.
You'd still need a 100KW+ power source though. A bank of ultra-super-capacitors maybe? 100KW/second is 28W/hour. Easy.
Funny how all technology coming out of the US is in some way linked to military use. Is this just to get funding or is the US really concentrating it's research power on weapons development?
Hey Mike, how is all tech coming out of the U.S. linked to military use? Last time I checked the Marines didn't use iPods to bombard their enemies with 80's music.
While a good portion of bleeding-edge tech in the USA is developed for the DoD, not all is. And who cares anyway, we wanna stay a military super power and protect our borders and you don't get to do that by sitting on your ass and not innovating. Thank the USA for whatever democracy you read this blog from...
Thank the UK for your "democracy", you arrogant shit. Surely it should be "thank the USA if you live in a despotic dictatorship or warzone, since that's all we really make"?
Oh wait, you're stupid. Sorry.
Thank you.
no thanks, your country's government has and is doing far too much damage at this time for it to be worthy of such statement.
@Mike Duce - "Thank the USA for whatever democracy you read this blog from..."
Is Canada a democracy? Aren't they a constitutional fiefdom of the US?
@Mike
It's not a sin that much of our development is funded by military dollars. DARPA (look it up) created much of the tech that makes your life easier -- including the much-heralded Internet you've probably heard of. The military is a driving force of innovation: much of that innovation is intended to keep us and our allies safe.
It's interesting how dim a view most of the world takes toward the US until they want us to save their ass...
Impressive; but note this is 'pulsed', which is easier to do than 'continuous' lasers. We've been on-top of a company doing 'semiconductor lasers' which are 'continuous', and from a CalTech/MIT team that is working with the military too.. QPC Lasers. So we'll see how this goes; though no argument that DEW (Directed Energy Weapons) will use solid-state rather than chemical-based lasers... our main point in our 2 years of our ingerletter.com review on this subject; starting with Ionatron, Northrop and now QPC.
regards,
gene
www.ingerletter.com
@Jason
The only problem with your conversion is that you would only have to charge for 28W/hr... if the laser were used for ONE SECOND per hour. Every additional second of use multiplies that total, so to use it for any significant period will still require huge reserves.
I second the ultracapacitor idea; that's probably the only way to get this into effective use. It's still going to need a really beefy power supply, but that would at least bring it into the realm of feasibility. Also, to transport that much energy per second is pretty much going to require superconductors, which will require large cryogenic systems (liquid helium, probably), which will require more power, etc. Because of this, it'll probably be ground based for a while.
Nevertheless, it would probably be a better missile 'shield' than the current flaw-prone idea of having one missile meet another in midair...
snafle: If it wasn't for the USA you'd probably be chanting "Hail Hitler" at sporting events instead of hearing your national anthem. I have every right to be cocky about what my country has sacrificed to give most of Europe and North America freedom and security.
Prick.
Mike Duce, I'm assuming you're a native american indian who's first language isnt ENGLISH then, correct?
There is no point in being cocky like that, and that is pretty off topic. It is true howether that technology is or has stemmed from military research. Its what countries spend their money on.
Oh yeah, it was definitely america nuking Japan that won the western front. Thanks mate.
America "gave" the UK arms and money, on the condition that they'd get more back (conflict investment, very moral!), and only entered the war because it got bombed by the Japanese. Germany had already made some really bad tactical decisions and was getting owned by the Russians. America was useful, but not in anyway necesary. And saying "We won your freedom by our deaths" is really fucking arrogant, since (a) America suffered virtually no domestic destruction and american casulaties made up a tiny percentage of the total and (b) France and Britain were far worse off.
But why am I arguing. You are clearly american, and given what I remember from when I lived there, america is the always good and always holy bringer of light and freedom. It's not your fault you're ignorant, it's your country's god awful school system and religious mania.
By the way. You didn't invent the internet either.
For the sake of historical accuracy, the USA didn't join the war to defend the UK, but because it was attacked by the Japanese. The UK had already fended off a German invasion attempt and been at war for two years at that point. By the way all, the Greeks invented democracy.
The Obilisk of Light is now Posible (Kane FTW)
though our government might not make the right decisions all of the time, most of the time for that matter, but im still glad im on us soil.
im sure you guys 'fending' off german attacks were going to take care of all those troops in normandy too? wait, that was our thousands of soldiers storming the beaches.
when will the rest of the world realize that the Bush administration does not represent the US as a whole. our government is not comprised by the opinion of our people, and dont say you 'voted for them' its politics, they are all corrupt, even yours.
"This is illegal by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons."
Like that matters in a world where douchebags in Iraq that are bombing markets and mosques.
Throw the solid-state laser into F-35A and you have a have a great weapon system. You would throw it in where the square tank is in the center of the aircraft which is also where the shaft-driven lift fan in the model F-35B. Can you say X-WING?
all you ingrateful euro bastards need to step out of denial, and recognize. the US saved your asses, plain and simple. if not for the russians AND americans who died fighting, all you pricks would be speaking german right now, yeah even the brits. if the russiand and americans didn't get involved, it would have been a matter of time before britain would be invaded or destroyed by the germans. who is more wrong...the americans who hold this over your head, or you euros who want to downplay the importance of what the US did to save your hides so you can try to convince yourselves you didn't need us?? if y'all weren't so fuckin wimpy and taken care of yourselves, then the US wouldn't have gotten involved. we probably would have taken care of japan much faster if we didn't have troops in europe saving your necks.
Soon to be published: The day a mirror defeated the US Army.
In a bookstore near you.