So, it appears that Boeing finally shot something with its laser, although I would argue it is much more like a plasma gun. I imagine it is only a matter of time before they reduce the size to make it man-portable.

12,000 pounds. I think it is more than a matter of time before they reduce it to man-portable size.

The COIL laser operates in the megawatt range... You only need something in the kilowatt range (I'm thinking 50 to 100 kW) to kill a human. This of course makes any possible weapon much lighter.

First: this one's a real laser, not a plasma weapon; the beam contains only photons.

Second: it's not just about weight, it's about VOLUME. There's a reason they're using a 747 to get this thing off the ground: because they NEED that much space. As I mentioned in another thread (or a couple by now, knowing me) this thing is NOT a solid-state device, and the reactant chemicals have to be stored and piped to the lasing chamber. Worse, they're nasty both before and AFTER firing.

Third: you have other barriers to miniturization. Even if you could get a weapon-class laser emitter which was solid state, and if you could get that miniturized enough, you have other problems. How efficient is the lasing component? Every joule of energy not converted to collimated light is going to become heat. Then you have more efficiency concerns in the focusing aparatus, which itself isn't small. Then you need to be able to store enough energy for (multiple) killing shots. THEN you need to be able to draw that energy down from your storage device FAST ENOUGH to be useful on a battlefield without making your storage device explode. Then to be militarily useful, you have to be able to RECHARGE the power supply quickly (and repeatedly) without making it explode or lose a significant percentage of its storage capacity. Then you have a number of other minor concerns: how are you going to get your power from the (presumably backpack mounted) power supply to the weapon itself? We're talking large voltages and amperages, and inefficiency in the cable will be a problem. Oh, and all the heat you generated in lasing, focusing and power supply needs to be dumped somehow; no infantryman is going to appreciate having the thermal signature of an Abrams tank. Then on top of ALL of that, you need to find a way to make ALL of that gear soldier-proof. That means it needs to survive brief immersion of the weapon in water at the least, drops onto hard surfaces from more than two meters, the ability to keep the lensing clear of particulates, resistance to foriegn contaminant ingress, and ease of operation/maintenance a novice can understand and handle.

Oh, and fourth, if it's going to be militarily viable, you have to make it cheap enough to deploy in useful numbers.

That's a pretty tall order these days. They're not too far from a deployable solid-state weapon designed to be fitted into the weapon bays of low-observables aircraft (read: the F35), but that's a clean, fixed, professionally maintained and properly sealed bay being directly powered by a multi-thousand shaft-horsepower turbine generator (the aircraft's powerful jet engine). By not too far, I mean it's within technological and engineering reach at least conceptually. But a laser rifle? That's a long way off. I'd be highly surprised if we actually saw one by 2050 (just like Simsense and true DNI seem to be behind the 6^th World timeline).

For all intents and purposes, with the exception of the ABL mentioned in the OP, we're really just starting to move from the theoretical to the applied engineering stages, and the test rigs are far from being deployable main-line weapons. Even the ABL, if deployed, would be a highly specialized and restricted-use device, and between you and me, I would ecpect the beast to be a bit of a hanger-queen. That being said, I hope the thing sees IOC.

Man, I wish I knew more chicks into guns and physics like you, kerenshara.
But yeah, thermo laws are tough to break/bend.
Anyway, I think it is easier we see actual "Akira beam satellites" then man-portable laser weapons in the near future.

Thats what they said about computers too.

One thing that I think people forget is that technology moves constantly. The computer you bought 6 months ago is either obsolete or a bargain deal. Data storage, processing systems, power systems, all are getting smaller or better. I don't see why lasers should be any different over the course of 60+ years. We are trying to apply modern understanding to technology to tech that's 60 years ahead of us.

We don't know what kind of breakthroughs we'll have in materials science, optics, and electronics. They may allow us to create small Solid state lasers of weapons grade, improve efficiency of components and minimizing energy loss, and improvements in focusing methodologies and technologies.

Final Note: The Eniac was 30 tons and only had the processing power of calculator. It was finished in 1947, just over 60 years ago...you draw the parallels.

The thing is, Lasers have been around for quite a long time now; they aren't something new. The fact that it's C-130H size is a huge step, so sudden man portable versions aren't a sudden step, it's still a long ways away.

Sure, but unless you get a breakthrough in laser technology similar to what transistors did for computers, you won't be reducing the size of lasers anytime soon. I know that whenever you try to predict the near future, you ALWAYS miss something, so it is a 50/50 chance that one of us is wrong.

But they havn't really made any significant changes to the way lasers are operated. They've largely seen little progress because they havn't had a broad set of applications that make them economically or militarily viable. Now that we are seeing a militarily viable laser system, we may see gradual miniturization. And when the someone can find an viable use for high energy lasers in the corporate world, suddenly there's a bottom line. Then you'll see major breakthroughs. Breakthroughs in other areas may have an impact on how the technology progresses also. As I said, energy efficiency and materials science breakthroughs from other fields could have impacts on the technology. A completely new method of creating the laser may be implemented, come about due to the use of a new currently undeveloped technology. The Eniac used vacuum tubes, we don't use those anymore for a reason. It was the only thing we knew for a while so thats what was used, but once a better alternative came about, we jumped on it. Similar breakthroughs may be made in the use of Gain Mediums or other LASER components.

No, this isn't the ABM ABL, this is much smaller. It's on a C130.

The problem is that a laser is a great way to convert 85-90% of the input power into heat. So a 100KW laser outputs the better part of a megawatt as heat. In order to not melt you need all sorts of clever and heavy systems around it for heat rejection.

Which means they are currently extremely inefficient. Which means new systems that improve the efficiency of lasers would do the most good to reducing their size.

What's fundamentally needed to make a man-portable collimated-light weapon (read: laser rifle) is going to be a couple key breakthroughs, all of them essentially in the materials-science realm.

1) Power Storage - for military applications, these are going to need to be super-capacitors, not batteries.

2) Power Transfer - high temperature (and durable and flexible) super-conductors, think +150 Farenheit / 65 C as opposed to th cryogenic or highly refrigerated ones now available.

3) Laser Diode - a high-output ultra-high-efficiency solid-state compact laser emitting diode

4) Lensing - a very high-efficiency lensing and focusing aparatus durable enough to stand up to battlefield stress including high-gee shocks and foreign contaminant ingress.

5) Heat Dissipation - some method of reliably dissipating whatever heat is generated through system ineffeciencies and that is proof against dust and mud and other foreign contaminants while being compact and light enough to fit into a soldier's kit and durable enough to stand up to the pounding items of kit inevitable withstand in storage, training, transport and combat.

Give me all five of those, and I'll hand you a working laser rifle. Until then, we're looking at big relatively fixed installations and emplacements. The comparison to computer development from ENIAC to modern hand-held devices has some parallel, but compare separately the development of battery technology during the same era, and that will amply demonstrate some of the other complexities inherent in such an inter-disciplinary and multi-industry dependent weapon as a high-energy-laser. You have to have ALL the pieces advance and come together in order to get your desired result, not just one or a couple.

I was making speciffic reference to the ABL, which is probably the closest to deployment of the current "real and aplicable" battlefield high-energy weapons.

Plasma weapons have their own problems, especially in atmosphere.

Isn't Plasma super Heated gas?
Does that even work outside of an Athmosphere?

Plasma is technically an ionized or partially ionized gas. It doesn't HAVE to be super-heated: flourescent & neon lights are full of plasma when they're on.

How does it work in space? Well, Suns are made of plasma, as are some nebulae.

Plasma weaponry is largely a pipe dream, because in order to get plasma to adhere enough to do damage, you'd have to generate enough power for one insane-o magnetic bottle, and it'd be more efficient to deliver that energy another way, such as through a laser.

Actually, plasma weapons are easier to use outside of an atmosphere. By definition, plasmas have a charge to them, and that means they are going to be affected by all kinds of things in an atmosphere.

I'm with Kerenshara on this (echo the guy on the top: Chick + Guns + Physics = Total Win ). And by the way, the develepment in power sources does NOT follow the normal tech curve we generally apply to gadgets. No Moore's law here. That's one of the main problemas we have with portable computing nowadays, is that we kinda have reached the limit on tech about portable energy storage, on various fields. We NEED a breakthrough, or else we will be cramping this laser on planes for a LONG time indeed....

And of course, there is a question about lenses and focusing, and how fragile they are. As a guy that works with pretty precise and powerful sets of lenses (professional photography and motion pictures) i cannot stress how SENSITIVE finely crafted lenses are to scratching, bumping and whatnot. And in a rifle, a minuscule mistake in alignment would a) make you miss badly, even creating a friendly fire in some situations (oopsie) if the target was surrounded b) increase the heat on a particular single area that was not designed to it and melt it.

Thank you for reinforcing both of those points for me. The issue with damage to the optics is incredibly important, and also with the whole issue of contamination boosting heat past tollerances. There IS one technology that MAY represent the energy storage breakthrough needed, but it's still labaratory stage, and still is just proving theoretical construction and implementation, it's not even to an actual one-off-prototype stage yet: the super-capacitor. Using nanotechnology to build nano-threads they have increased the effective "surface area" (the thing that actually stores the electrical potentials) of the capacitor by several orders of magnitude. If they get this to work, that will mean instantaneous charge/discharge and a loss of meaningful duty cycle lifetimes. Incorporate high-temperature superconductors down the line a ways when they become viable, and you just kicked the door open on energy. But again, we're still in theory, but it's closer than the flexible desert-sun-temperature super-conductor or that solid-state emitter.

I didn't mean it would be harder to use them outside of the atmosphere. I just meant it would be hard to use them in general.

until you perfect the Solar Scorcher, imma stick with bullets, thank you.

It's interesting how many Sci-Fi genres actually stick with physical projectiles for light and medium anti-personell weaponry, reserving things like plasma rifles for anti-materiel duty and heavy lasers for air- and space-borne applications. David Webber's Honorverse specifically sidesteps the whole lensing issue by using a gravitic (gravity focusing) lens assembly that is impervious to dirt and minor damage. His troopers carry gravity propelled slug throwers, and assault troops have plasma weapons to go after vehicles and emplacements.

Sure computers improve fast, but no where as fast as what your saying. In fact, we have been at the point for several years now where unless you are in one of a select few uses a computer you buy today will not be any noticeably faster then a computer you got three years ago.

As an aside...

So, you're handing out nuyen to charity cases, right? I'd settle for a MicroATX case/board with top-flight integrated graphics, three gigs of cheap RAM, a Core2Duo and a 7200 RPM WD Caviar as long as it had something I could get adapted to HDMI Video for my TV and a BluRay player. That would probably cost less net than your SLI video cards... Seriously, though: nice rig.

Actually, my tower weighs in at less than 20lbs and not counting the monitor, keyboard, or mouse I payed just under $2k shipped to my door.
Clicky for pics

If you paid less than 2K for that 6 months ago, I need to meet (and get friendly with) your suppliers.

Well, I am military. The company that built it for me gives a pretty big military discount, plus they bump stuff up for free. The paint job is free on all their computers (unless you want color change paint). I actually upgraded the case with UV lamps and UV reactive acrylic. Without the SSDs and the comped stuff (so you would get 6GiB of DDR3 1333Mhz and a 4870 video card), the cost is actually less than $1800 shipped for anyone.

Why is it impervious?

It uses gravity to keep out foreign contaminates.

I can't find it, but I remember hearing a couple months ago about a new storage system for energy, effectively twisting electrons into something using magnetism. Theoretically you could run a car for a couple months off of a string of hair with this system. The search continues, so don't get mad at me.

EDIT: vuala.

Invulnerable or unaffected by.

And it's not using gravity JUST to keep out the contaminants, it's actually using a REALLY strong gravitational field to focus/bend the beam so there is no physical lens to speak of, which is why the thing is impervious to contamination. Sorry, I assumed that would be obvious, and I shouldn't have, because to all but about 1% of the population (or even fewer) it SHOULDN'T be obvious.

OK, but why wouldn't a strong gravitational field also suck in dirt and other contaminants into the photon stream?

It's using the gravitational field as a bubble, pushing everything away. Then, when it needs to fire, it bends the focusing beam tighter than normal optics would allow.

Precisely. The level of gravitational control in that particular universe is just frightening. Gravity drives called "impellers" that position the ship between two inclined planes of gravitational force and then "squeeze" the ship's pocket of normal-space foward like shooting a watermellon seed from between your fingers. They are also impervious to all known weapons, so set off a 50 MT nuke on the other side of the wedge? No effect, other than displacing the wedge (and contained vessel) a bit. Their secondary defenses are gravitational sidewalls which attenuate and deflect incoming energy fire. Solid impacts generally are simply torn into very very tiny pieces by gravitational tidal forces. Onboard they have gravity plating which provides a referential "down" in space and can provide secondary acceleration compensation. Primary acceleration compensation is handled via a gravitational innertial sump effect of the impeller wedge itself. Finally, even the most ungainly vessel can make a planetary landing via counter-gravity, which coincidentally makes lifting and transporting even bulky cargoes like foodstuffs across interstellar distances profitable. Oh, and I almost forgot: their FTL detection systems are near-real-time (@64c) for detecting impeller wedges (a gravitic effect). Fusion plants use a gravitational "pinch" instead of lasers to initiate the fusion reaction. Gravitational drivers for slugthrowers, counter-gravity parachutes, coutergravity supported architecture (think one 500-story building with a million residents), and gravity lensing for optical needs.

Yeah, that's serious high-tech.

Sounds techno-magical! Thanks for the answers.

Always happy to stump for a favorite author.

Is SWEEPER the laser they wanted to replace the AC-130's myriad high-calibre guns and cannons with?

I could care less about man portable laser systems, since shooting pointy metal into juicy bits is fun, simple, and provides better auditory feedback for a job well done. Once we get them into fighters, though, man.. new world order. You've got the beyond-visual-range missiles for that initial "lance charge" attack, and then your laser for the knife fight work. Heh, the ranges are going to be ridiculous at the upper end of aircraft altitudes, where some of the environmental factors drop off. Can you imagine an F-45 being able to shoot down air-to-air missiles as part of it's basic strike package?

[Edit: Disregard the question, found the laser linked off of the YAL-1 wiki page. Laser gunships for the win. God bless America!]

Um I think it's obvious to anyone who has a more than passing interest in Star Trek. I just told this to my 74 year old grandmother (no science in her background at all, and she was only a minor Trekkie) and she understood it perfectly, she even attributed her understanding to concepts she picked up off ST: TNG. Not trying to pick a fight, just illustrating that knowledge of these concepts and understanding how they work (or would work) is fairly common nowadays. At least in my neck of the woods. *shrug*

Also expect computer tech to slow its rate even more. Their already having issues with quantum mechanics thats putting a major crimp in miniaturization. Unless they find another break through in the next 10-20 years were going to hit a major wall their. But if you want to talk cool future weapons I've always been a fan of gauss guns and rail guns. Not that either is terribly practical.

Also on a side note I believe when they put Hubble up originally one of the lenses was off by about a mm making the lens useless until they were able to get a corrective device up there.

While current generation silicon semi-conductor technology appears to be hitting something of a wall in certain areas, we're still improving our use of same. On the other hand, some other carbon-based technologies are starting to show promise. There's also some early work being done with electron state computing (that makes my head hurt to try to grok too closely) and molecular circuitry. Holographic storage is finally beginning to mature, and combining all of the above coule lead to interesting new developments leading to a whole new rush to ... wherever that winds up taking us. Neat stuff, but the aforementioned quantum mechanics might just wind up being not a problem but part of the ultimate sollution.

There's also the issue that making efficient lasers doesn't help us design more efficient lasers, whereas making faster CPUs helps us design even faster CPUs.

Of course, Asimov's Laws of Robotics need to be implemented, but that's another topic.

There is also the issue that faster CPUs can be designed to use less power, while more powerful lasers pretty much by definition have to use more power, which aggravates the heat issue.

*getting ready to go in to work way too gapping early on the holiday, since I drew the short straw*

Um, yes and no.

If I design an ineffecient battlefield laser weapon with 70% effeciency, 30% of my input energy is going to be lost as (probably) heat.

If, however, we were to get that same laser up to 90 effeciency, that would be a 14% increase in EFFECTIVE power output for no increase in power INPUT.