Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Michael Orion Jackson <orion@****.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Lasers (sights on th em and visibility thereof)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 09:12:36 -0500
Thoughts about the subject:

1) Sighting: Theoretically, lasers would be even easier to
smartlin/lasersight that projectile firearms. Lasr beams travel in
perfectly straight lines unaffected by wind, gravity, etc. Thus, where
the laser beam lands (for a laser sight) or where the dot in your vision
is projected (by a smartlink) is _exactly_ where the beam will go. At
close ranges, this won't be _that_ much off from a firearm, but at long
range (say, greater than 100 meters) teh difference in precision will be
significant because wind, gravity, microimperfections in the bullet and
barrel, etc. will have added up to a greater degree. From a realism stand
point, lasers ought to get a +1 to any other targeting modifier ( i.e., +2
laser sight, +3 smartlink) because of this heightened precision. But from
a game balance standpoint, they're disgustingly deadly already, so... :)

2) Visibility: You can't see laser beams. The photons in the beam are
perfectly coherent (all of the same frequency and and travel in parallel
lines to infinity (theoretically true, some wayward sheep may leave the
flock, but not very many)). In other words, the photons (represented by
dots, would look like this: (laser>):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .
So called "visible" lasers merely use light frequencies in the visible
spectrum of the human eye. The most you could see in that case would be
the dot of the laser's impact point, which wouldn't be around long for a
(non-targeting type) laser (weapon lasers have very short discharge times,
becauyse they put _som much_ energy into the lasing element to reach
damage-inflicting thresholds that a discharge time higher than a fraction
of a second would melt the element). This does assume no particulate
matter in the atmosphere. :) In the presence of an aerosol (smoke, fog,
whatever) the photons bounce off of the particles, causing some to be
visible along the path of the laser (if an eye is there to catch the
wayward photons and they are in the visible spectrum). That's why laser
shows typically involve a fog machine and visible spectrum frequency
lases. This scattering will also negatively impact the energy imparted to
the target, thus decreasing damage. ( Want to protect yourself from the
evil secguards firing MP lasers? Pop a non-thermal smoke charge in your
midst. Using IR sight, you can still target them, but their lasers won't
work as well or at all on you. They can still see you with their IR
sights, but nothing is perfect. :) Just hope they don't have any frag
grenades...).

Happy Lasing! ;)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Orion Jackson~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TAMS Class of 1996/UT Class of 199?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~2112 Guadalupe, Rm. 409; Austin, Tx 78705 (The Goodall-Wooten)~~~~~~~
------------------<"Love kills the demon."~Mickey
Knox>--------------------
I agree. It seems to have killed most of mine, or at least cowed them into
temporary submission. For the first time in my life I feel a reason to go
forward, other than inertia. Now my only worry is that I'll fuck it up...
Message no. 2
From: Lorden <westln@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lasers (sights on th em and visibility thereof)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:57:33 -0400
On Jun 3, 9:12, Michael Orion Jackson wrote:
> Subject: Lasers (sights on th em and visibility thereof)
> Thoughts about the subject:

> 2) Visibility: You can't see laser beams...
> So called "visible" lasers merely use light frequencies in the visible
> spectrum of the human eye. The most you could see in that case would be
> the dot of the laser's impact point, which wouldn't be around long for a
> (non-targeting type) laser (weapon lasers have very short discharge times,
> becauyse they put _som much_ energy into the lasing element to reach
> damage-inflicting thresholds that a discharge time higher than a fraction
> of a second would melt the element). This does assume no particulate
> matter in the atmosphere. :) In the presence of an aerosol (smoke, fog,
> whatever) the photons bounce off of the particles, causing some to be
> visible along the path of the laser (if an eye is there to catch the
> wayward photons and they are in the visible spectrum).
> Happy Lasing! ;)
>
>-- End of excerpt from Michael Orion Jackson

For targeting lasers which are so weak you are correct about them
not being easily visible. Once you crank them up to anything above
targeting they become quite visible just from the ambient dust.
I base this on the die lasers I used back in 87 at Vanderbilt.

Even fairly short pulses can be quite visible.

--
Nigel westln@***.edu
AKA C. Yossarrian, UPAC Projectionist
AKA Lorden
Speaking for myself, and no one else.
Message no. 3
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Lasers (sights on th em and visibility thereof)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 10:08:19 +0100
Michael Orion Jackson said on 9:12/ 3 Jun 97...

> Thoughts about the subject:
>
> 1) Sighting: Theoretically, lasers would be even easier to
> smartlin/lasersight that projectile firearms. Lasr beams travel in
> perfectly straight lines unaffected by wind, gravity, etc. Thus, where
> the laser beam lands (for a laser sight) or where the dot in your vision
> is projected (by a smartlink) is _exactly_ where the beam will go.
[snip]

Don't forget you don't have to lead (aim in front of) a moving target to
cope with the projectile's time of flight. If you fire a gun straight at a
moving target, it's very likely the bullet will only reach the target's
range when the target has moved on already. But with its near-300,000,000
m/s beam, a laser allows you to hit the moving target by aiming at it
directly.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
People always talk about long-distance phonecalls as if they had to walk
all the way.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 4
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Lasers (sights on th em and visibility thereof)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:24:16 +0000
> Michael Orion Jackson said on 9:12/ 3 Jun 97...
>
> > Thoughts about the subject:
> >
> > 1) Sighting: Theoretically, lasers would be even easier to
> > smartlin/lasersight that projectile firearms. Lasr beams travel in
> > perfectly straight lines unaffected by wind, gravity, etc. Thus, where
> > the laser beam lands (for a laser sight) or where the dot in your vision
> > is projected (by a smartlink) is _exactly_ where the beam will go.
> [snip]
>
> Don't forget you don't have to lead (aim in front of) a moving target to
> cope with the projectile's time of flight. If you fire a gun straight at a
> moving target, it's very likely the bullet will only reach the target's
> range when the target has moved on already. But with its near-300,000,000
> m/s beam, a laser allows you to hit the moving target by aiming at it
> directly.
That's one of the biggest, and totally ignored, advantages of laser
weapons. For military purposes, it's the perfect anti-missile defence
system, for instance. (Not used alone, of course - all sytems has a
weakness).
Reducing to hit penalties on moving targets, perhaps?

BTW, a laser is a very good sniper weapon in daylight. Its main
advantage.. it's completely silent. No moving parts; with good enough
conductive materials, not even a hum as it fires. (No moving parts
equals extreme durability and low maintenance). (Why in daylight?
It's harder to notice the trail of fried air particles).
--
Rune Fostervoll

"But the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we no not of."
Message no. 5
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Lasers (sights on th em and visibility thereof)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 00:16:49 +0100
In message <199706041227.OAA02170@***.uio.no>, Rune Fostervoll
<runefo@***.UIO.NO> writes
>BTW, a laser is a very good sniper weapon in daylight. Its main
>advantage.. it's completely silent. No moving parts; with good enough
>conductive materials, not even a hum as it fires. (No moving parts
>equals extreme durability and low maintenance). (Why in daylight?
>It's harder to notice the trail of fried air particles).

I'd expect some noise from the ionised air expanding out of the beam
path, at least.

And if these are pulsed lasers, the steam explosion on the target won't
be quiet :)


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Lasers (sights on th em and visibility thereof), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.