search results matching tag: lasers

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (483)     Sift Talk (12)     Blogs (59)     Comments (1000)   

Lady Light Laser Girl

chicchorea (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

She stood up on her own this morning and "walked"...dragging her back feet, but not her belly! WOO HOO! Huge improvement. Another laser treatment around noon for her. They seem to be helping, but who knows? She might have gotten better just as fast without it, there's no way to know.

chicchorea said:

Is Izzy better today?

Lady Light Laser Girl

newtboy says...

Vertical Video Warning!
Neat, and nice idea. She does it well, and looks good doing it.
As for how she does it....simple....dual lasers in each glove, so she can fire one or both at any time, synced with the floor laser.
I really could have done without the 1:15 of dead video at the end, though.

Laserman Electronica 2011 show (Disney)

Homebuilt 200W LASER BAZOOKA!

Ghostly says...

Optical lasers produce non-ionising radiation, and do not use any radioactive materials to produce the laser light, so he cannot get "radiation poisoning." Only burns from direct contact with the beam or eye damage from direct or reflected light are possible. Also as I think he mentions, at these power levels, even diffuse reflections are likely to cause eye damage, in other words it doesn't take a mirror, almost any surface will do.

artician said:

Ignorant question of the day - Is it likely one could expose themselves to radiation poisoning or get cancer from these activities? I ask, because the radiation generated by these devices is actually ionizing; but that's about the extent of my knowledge on the subject.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Obama Talks About His Blackberry and Compromise

Payback says...

There is no negotiating with climate change. You can't outspend it developing space-based lasers (USSR), and you can't fix the problem by shooting at it (1942), so yes, it is more precarious.

dag said:

Quote hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

But honestly, do you think the world is in a more precarious situation than say 1942 or even 1962?

T H E Y L I V E

Drachen_Jager says...

Aliens with the tech to get here from another solar system would mop us up.

We simply couldn't fight that.

Back in the '70s scientists came up with a space weapon they called THOR, which is essentially a crowbar-sized bit of metal that has guidance fins at the back. Drop that from outer space and the simple energy of it falling creates an immense amount of damage at ground level.

Aliens who could get here from another solar system could simply throw chunks of asteroid at our cities until we capitulated. No space laser is going to stop that. Especially when they'd have space lasers of their OWN to target our space lasers.

This whole thing is pure fantasy. The same kind of diseased minds who believe in God, Ghosts, and Donald Trump's fitness to be President.

Olavsky - Korobeiniki (Tetris Theme)

How do vending machines figure out if coins are fake or not?

Mookal says...

Pretty sure the old ~'50s cigarette vending machines didn't have future lasers and space magnets.

Always keep a nickle with a string tied around it I say.

Clinton Uses LRAD To Hide Fundraiser Speech From Reporters

Fallout 4 – Wasteland Workshop Official Trailer

Payback says...

Really underwhelmed by Automatron. Although having a 'bot that can carry 750 wt, in addition to their laser mini-gun, missile launcher, electroshock body and Mesmertron head is kinda novel.

This doesn't look any better really. Almost seems to be for people with no real life friends.

REALLY hoping Far Harbor is worth the Season's Pass.

The Most Costly Joke in History

transmorpher says...

I have not agreed that my position is wrong on the performance and capability designs of the F-35 and modern air combat. Please read the rest of my post above.... I'm still saying that dogfights have ended with WW1. I've never said we don't need ANY dog fighting capabilities. I'm saying that it's never the primary design idea of a modern fighter jet. You still have a cannon for back up. Just like soldiers have a side arm and a knife. Just in case you do get caught with your pants down or the main weapon fails at a critical moment.

I have agreed on the waste of money aspect of course. I'll also agree that if test goals are being downsized to accommodate flaws, then that's just terrible. If it's not able to perform to it's design then it's useless.

The F-4 != F-35. I can see why people draw parallels. But that only works if you ignore that absolutely everything on the planes is different, the adversaries are different, and stealth is requirement for survivability. You don't use stealth planes in the way you use an non stealth plane. Have you ever heard of a sniper wearing a ghillie suit run across the open battlefield with a sword or pistol? There were so many tactical mistakes in Vietnam as well. The conditions in which that article talks about are also different. Those planes were flying low and slow for a bombing run. Because they didn't have laser, gps guided bombs, infrared fire and forget air to ground missiles or cruise missiles back in those days. You don't get fog at 40,000 feet. They had to fly that low to get a visual identification of their bombing target. That does not happen anymore either. You scream past at mach 1 above the clouds and the bomb hits where it was programmed to hit. Also the phantoms missiles were unrelaiable. That hasn't been the case since the 80s. And their training was poor. None of that is true these days, and has not been true since the 80s either. That's why every single fighter plane apart from the F-16 (which is made mostly as an export product anyway) has been created to fight at long range primarily. The F-15 which is the main air superiority fighter for the US, is heavy and has a worse maneuverability than any Russian plane. But it's still the most feared plane, with no loses in combat. The article you linked even says that. So it's basically contradicting itself. At the start it says, F-4's lost because they couldn't maneuver, and ends with therefore the US made the F-15 which has worse maneuverability than the Russian planes lol.



Edit: Cracked.com doesn't count as a reputable source for anything, including basic sentences, spelling and punctuation.

Edit2: Here is an article from an actual F-35 pilot that says the F-35 dog fights better than a F-16 since they keep tuning the fly-by-wire parameters. http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

So even if it came to a dogfighting encounter, the F-35 is still the best plane in the US arsenal for dogfighting.

newtboy said:

Well there YOU go.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but WW1 ended well over 25 years ago, so your repeated contention that 'dogfights ended in ww1' so we don't need any dogfighting capabilities is clearly 100% wrong. I hope you'll stop repeating it now, as it's ridiculously annoying to have a conversation with someone who agrees that their position is wrong, but continues to stand on that position nevertheless.
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/07/06/usaf_promised_the_f-4_and_f-35_would_never_dogfight_108180.html
and (the last one mentioned here is INSANE)
http://www.cracked.com/article_19396_5-aerial-battles-that-put-top-gun-to-shame.html

I hope you've also arrived at the position now that, if they have to change the testing parameters/minimum acceptable requirements to turn massive fails into 'success' that it fails miserably and can't possibly ever be prepared for real deployment and has become nothing but a massively expensive, poorly preforming jobs program.

The Most Costly Joke in History

transmorpher says...

For ground attack support absolutely drones are the way to go, and it can already be achieved with current technology. We just need more drones.

However drones can only fly if there is air superiority. Otherwise they are easy pickings for fighter planes. And that's where the F-35 comes in. The F-35 is supposed to guarantee air superiority and then also be able to help the drones out with ground support.

As for fighter plane style drones, I don't think the technology is quite there yet. Probably not the next plane, but the plane after that will be a fighter drone. Of course lasers might make the whole fighter concept obsolete. You can't dodge lasers like you can with missiles

ChaosEngine said:

The ultimate problem with this is that it's not really needed.

Let's assume that all the problem get sorted out and the F-35 magically becomes the fastest, deadliest, stealthiest manned plane in the sky. It's still hamstrung by the squishy meatbag in the front.

For the cost of one F-35, you could have 10 predator drones. Slower, less maneuverable, less stealthy.... but also cheaper and expendable. You shoot down an F-35, you not only destroy the plane, but you most likely take the pilot out of the equation as well (even if they eject, they're still not going to be flying another plane any time soon). Shoot down a predator? "Game over. Insert $10 million to continue"

Manned air superiority fighters are last century.

The Most Costly Joke in History

transmorpher says...

I'm saying that the F-35 doesn't need to do the job of the A-10 in the same style, because helicopters and drones already fill that loitering style of close air support. And they fill it better than the warthog. Drones loiter better and longer, and helicopters are less vulnerable while having just as much fire power, with the ability to keep enemies suppressed without stopping to turn around and run in again. Helicopters don't even fly that much slower than the A-10 and they have the advantage of being able to stay on the friendly side of the battle-line while firing at the enemy, as well as being able to use terrain as cover.
And fast movers do a better job of delivering bombs.

The warthog was created as a soviet tank killer and hasn't been used in the role ever, since the cold war never became a hot war. It was created in a time where high losses were acceptable. You could argue it was made to fight a war that didn't happen either. But it's been upgraded with all sorts of sensors that are already in helicopters and drones to extend it's role into something it wasn't really designed for in the first place.

I'm not beating up the warthog, it's my 2nd most favourite plane. I've logged some 400+ virtual flying hours in the A-10C in DCS World. I know what every single switch does in the cockpit. And I've dropped thousands of simulated laser and GPS guided bombs, launched thousands of mavericks, and strafed thousands of BMPs. I love the thing really
But it's duties are performed better by a range of modern aircraft now.

newtboy said:

So, you're saying it CAN'T do the job the A-10 does, but it's still going to replace it.
Fast moving screamers were not capable of doing the job we need, so we created the tank killer-Warthog. If this replaces the warthog, but can't do what it can, it makes us LESS capable. Fast runs with bombs simply don't do the job we need, and slow and low runs with bomblets or an auto cannon just won't work with this plane.
I'm pretty sure it's just as useless against some of the other enemies/situations it's supposed to take on, and even if I'm 100% wrong about that, it's so expensive it doesn't matter. We can't afford to lose one, so we can't afford to use them.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon