Energy Weapons and Knockdown

[Blue_Lion]

Whereas I see no reason to assume that what science that applies today will be applicable in the described 300+ years from now. And I justify such a viewpoint by looking at our very own history in equal increments; 300 years in the past it was deemed a scientific fact that man would never fly. 300 years before that, it was possible to sail off the edge of the Earth. 300 years before that, Royalty was given their position by divinity. etc.

This is the viewpoint I take; that our own science constantly and consistently redefines what is and is not possible, so I don't find it useful to state that something is factually wrong when it is both fictional in nature, and from the future.
I just see it the same as both stating the obvious (yes, we know that it would work differently using today's physics), as well as making an assumption (so you can see into the future, can you?)

That makes anything said as "fact" on the matter both redundant and wrong.

Wow. That hurt to read.

Historical: 300 years ago human flight was largely a matter of opinion because there was no scientific understanding of the principles involved. 300 years before that, the people who thought you could "sail off the edge of the earth" where the scientificially ignorant, because the reality of a spherical (ish) Earth has been a scientific fact longer than Christianity has existed. 300 years before that, as now, the divine nature of Royalty was not in any way a subject on which science had a position.

Nature of Science: Every year, we nail down the science on a little bit more of the universe. While it is certainly valid to point to the unknown parts (whether it be far-off planets or the quarks that make up our own hadrons) and make conjectures, it is a completely different thing to point at existing science, which has been proven over and over and over again, and say "this will be wrong". That is what you are doing with your discussion of photons - while there are things about photons we don't understand, the parts you are changing are the parts we DO understand and have proven over and over and over again. That tells me you either do not understand the science of what you are discussing OR that you think of science as just another religion.

You missed his points.
1 That to say X will happen means you say there are no unknown variables, however MDC is a unknown type of material with unknown variables.
2 By being a work of fiction rifts does not have to be scientifically accurate.

Example: If the nature of MDC allows it to safely absorb and dissipate 99% of energy that it comes into contact with then only 1% of the energy applied has an affect. That would explain the 100 to 1 conversion of MDC, and reduce the force on the object significantly.

Example: If the heat from the laser does not transfer to the air quickly there will be no explosion. MDC could have an ability to absorb large amounts of heat faster than the air and slowly transfer the heat to the air. (Like how a road in the middle of the Death valley during the summer can still be warm hours after the sun, a source of light based heat, went down.)

We may know how light works but we do not know how MDC works. It is a unknown material with unknown properties so it may not be possible to predict the results. (MDC is a setting mechanic of fiction not based on hard rules of science about amount of energy, this is proven by some energy weapons from AU becoming MDC just by going to rifts.)

[Blue_Lion]

Not sure why you say the knock down on the target can not be greater than the affect on the shooter. Most military fire arms have a way built in to reduce the affect of recoil. I have seen people get hit in body IBA or knocked down by fire from a AK 47 witch does not knock down the shooter.

The change in momentum at the shooter is m x v + M x V where m is the mass of the projectile, v is the muzzle velocity of the projectile, M is the mass of the propellant and V is the muzzle velocity of the propellant.

The change in momentum that the target is m x v. Even if we assume that the projectile doesn't lose any velocity during flight, m x v must always be less than m x v + M x V since all values are positive.

--flatline

What about how the affect of recoil reduction such as a partly compressed spring Appling force opposite of the bolt. So when the bolt moves back as part of cycle of the weapon does that not take away the force?

Knock down from a weapon is not only about the amount of force applied but how the body reacts and the situation.
Example: Shooting some one in the groin with a 40mm smurf round (non explosive training round that shatters to release colored power.) will likely knock him to even if the force in itself is not sufficient force to make him go fling.
Example: shooting some one on a tight rope in the knee with a 9mm will likely knock them down.

[cosmicfish]

1 That to say X will happen means you say there are no unknown variables, however MDC is a unknown type of material with unknown variables.

The specific issue to which I was replying was in the operation of a laser and propagation of the beam with regards to anything that might be generously be called a "containment field", and there are no relevant unknowns in that scenario. Where relevant unknowns DO exist, I give the authors full leeway.

2 By being a work of fiction rifts does not have to be scientifically accurate.

It does not HAVE to be, but one measure of its quality is by how scientifically accurate it is, outside of deliberate excursions. Put another way: if you want to say that in this universe, gold is fissionable, then say so - it is perfectly acceptable fiction to change the rules, it is BAD fiction to ignore them when (a) they are relevant and (b) the truth is easily attainable.

Example: If the heat from the laser does not transfer to the air quickly there will be no explosion. MDC could have an ability to absorb large amounts of heat faster than the air and slowly transfer the heat to the air. (Like how a road in the middle of the Death valley during the summer can still be warm hours after the sun, a source of light based heat went down.)

That is not how it would work anyway. You seem to think the laser heats the armor, then the armor heats the air, then the air pushes on the armor. What would really happen is that the laser vaporizes the surface layer(s) of the armor and turns them into a hot plasma state, the hot plasma then expands at a high (possibly supersonic) speed and thereby pushes on the armor.

As a side note, if the armor absorbs the heat and slowly reradiates, then the immediate tactic is to use the laser essentially as a marking device - hit each target, then launch some IR-seeking missiles from over the hill and let them do the rest.

We may know how light works but we do not know how MDC works. It is a unknown material with unknown properties so it may not be possible to predict the results. (MDC is a setting mechanic of fiction not based on hard rules of science about amount of energy, this is proven by some energy weapons from AU becoming MDC just by going to rifts.)

Which is why I have not been arguing about MDC armor.

[Blue_Lion]

1 That to say X will happen means you say there are no unknown variables, however MDC is a unknown type of material with unknown variables.

The specific issue to which I was replying was in the operation of a laser and propagation of the beam with regards to anything that might be generously be called a "containment field", and there are no relevant unknowns in that scenario. Where relevant unknowns DO exist, I give the authors full leeway.

2 By being a work of fiction rifts does not have to be scientifically accurate.

It does not HAVE to be, but one measure of its quality is by how scientifically accurate it is, outside of deliberate excursions. Put another way: if you want to say that in this universe, gold is fissionable, then say so - it is perfectly acceptable fiction to change the rules, it is BAD fiction to ignore them when (a) they are relevant and (b) the truth is easily attainable.

Example: If the heat from the laser does not transfer to the air quickly there will be no explosion. MDC could have an ability to absorb large amounts of heat faster than the air and slowly transfer the heat to the air. (Like how a road in the middle of the Death valley during the summer can still be warm hours after the sun, a source of light based heat went down.)

That is not how it would work anyway. You seem to think the laser heats the armor, then the armor heats the air, then the air pushes on the armor. What would really happen is that the laser vaporizes the surface layer(s) of the armor and turns them into a hot plasma state, the hot plasma then expands at a high (possibly supersonic) speed and thereby pushes on the armor.

As a side note, if the armor absorbs the heat and slowly reradiates, then the immediate tactic is to use the laser essentially as a marking device - hit each target, then launch some IR-seeking missiles from over the hill and let them do the rest.

We may know how light works but we do not know how MDC works. It is a unknown material with unknown properties so it may not be possible to predict the results. (MDC is a setting mechanic of fiction not based on hard rules of science about amount of energy, this is proven by some energy weapons from AU becoming MDC just by going to rifts.)

Which is why I have not been arguing about MDC armor.

1. So you are saying there are no unknown factors in knock back of MDC because we understand how current lasers work? His point was there where unknowns and there are.

2. Accuracy may be one of the ways fictions is judged but is by no means always an important part of the quality. You must first determine what the intent is to determine what is important. The intent of rifts is to produce a source of recreational fun. It can be achieve that without being scientifically accurate so that means I would prioritize it low as have the writers. Fiction is not bad because it is scientifically incorrect it is bad if it fails to achieve its purpose. By your standard any piece of fiction that includes magic would be bad because it is scientifically incorrect.

What if the MDC material is not vaporized but melts instead. (note flesh does get vaporized but MDC material may be different.) Or if the amount that is vaporized does not displace air to cause significant explosion.

Your IR seeking missile assumes that the armor is giving off sufficient heat to make it stand out from the back ground. That may not always be the case, if say the road is giving off more heat the armor then the road would have a bigger heat foot print. You are also forgetting missiles are expensive and need to be replaced. Athol your idea is similar to what spotters or forward observers do so is an valid tactic regardless.

[Dog_O_War]

Whereas I see no reason to assume that what science that applies today will be applicable in the described 300+ years from now. And I justify such a viewpoint by looking at our very own history in equal increments; 300 years in the past it was deemed a scientific fact that man would never fly. 300 years before that, it was possible to sail off the edge of the Earth. 300 years before that, Royalty was given their position by divinity. etc.

This is the viewpoint I take; that our own science constantly and consistently redefines what is and is not possible, so I don't find it useful to state that something is factually wrong when it is both fictional in nature, and from the future.
I just see it the same as both stating the obvious (yes, we know that it would work differently using today's physics), as well as making an assumption (so you can see into the future, can you?)

That makes anything said as "fact" on the matter both redundant and wrong.

Wow. That hurt to read.

Historical: 300 years ago human flight was largely a matter of opinion because there was no scientific understanding of the principles involved. 300 years before that, the people who thought you could "sail off the edge of the earth" where the scientificially ignorant, because the reality of a spherical (ish) Earth has been a scientific fact longer than Christianity has existed. 300 years before that, as now, the divine nature of Royalty was not in any way a subject on which science had a position.

Nature of Science: Every year, we nail down the science on a little bit more of the universe. While it is certainly valid to point to the unknown parts (whether it be far-off planets or the quarks that make up our own hadrons) and make conjectures, it is a completely different thing to point at existing science, which has been proven over and over and over again, and say "this will be wrong". That is what you are doing with your discussion of photons - while there are things about photons we don't understand, the parts you are changing are the parts we DO understand and have proven over and over and over again. That tells me you either do not understand the science of what you are discussing OR that you think of science as just another religion.

You missed his points.
1 That to say X will happen means you say there are no unknown variables, however MDC is a unknown type of material with unknown variables.
2 By being a work of fiction rifts does not have to be scientifically accurate.

Example: If the nature of MDC allows it to safely absorb and dissipate 99% of energy that it comes into contact with then only 1% of the energy applied has an affect. That would explain the 100 to 1 conversion of MDC, and reduce the force on the object significantly.

Example: If the heat from the laser does not transfer to the air quickly there will be no explosion. MDC could have an ability to absorb large amounts of heat faster than the air and slowly transfer the heat to the air. (Like how a road in the middle of the Death valley during the summer can still be warm hours after the sun, a source of light based heat, went down.)

We may know how light works but we do not know how MDC works. It is a unknown material with unknown properties so it may not be possible to predict the results. (MDC is a setting mechanic of fiction not based on hard rules of science about amount of energy, this is proven by some energy weapons from AU becoming MDC just by going to rifts.)

Yes this; all this. I'm glad someone else could say it because I often have a hard time expressing these things clearly.

[cosmicfish]

1. So you are saying there are no unknown factors in knock back of MDC because we understand how current lasers work? His point was there where unknowns and there are.

I am saying that the unknown factors in knockback of MDC armors do not lay in how we understand how light works. He was not asserting something about current laser design, nor was he making an assertion that focused on knockback, he was making statements that contradict hundreds of years of established and repeatable physics in the area of light propagation. Of course there are unknowns, and of course the authors are more than free to toy with those unknowns, but he is focused on something that is most definitely known.

2. Accuracy may be one of the ways fictions is judged but is by no means always an important part of the quality. You must first determine what the intent is to determine what is important. The intent of rifts is to produce a source of recreational fun. It can be achieve that without being scientifically accurate so that means I would prioritize it low as have the writers. Fiction is not bad because it is scientifically incorrect it is bad if it fails to achieve its purpose. By your standard any piece of fiction that includes magic would be bad because it is scientifically incorrect.

First, I should have specified "science fiction" - any fiction will suffer in perceived quality when it makes mistakes that the reader notices, science fiction in particular has the onus of an audience that is more than usually scientifically savvy.

Second, I agree that scientific accuracy is low on the priority list of the authors - indeed, I have said so myself a few times on here. They choose to simply ignore the science, and I cannot and do not argue with that decision. I will however argue against someone who incorrectly uses real science to justify a fictional point, not because I object to the fictional point but because I object ot the mischaracterization of science.

Third, magic implicitly or explicitly lies in the category of "unknowns" so I would have no cause to argue against the inclusion of magic for violating anything in science. It is the same reason science cannot disprove God - if you start off with the assumption of "something that lies outside of scientific knowledge" then you can hardly use scientific knowledge to prove OR disprove it!

What if the MDC material is not vaporized bus melts instead. (note flesh does get vaporized but MDC material may be different.) Or if the amount that is vaporized does not displace air to cause significant explosion.

These are two forms of the same question - it comes down to two factors, the light absorbance of the material and the heat capacity of the material. In both cases you describe, some amount of light is absorbed but not enough plasma is generated to cause knockback. This could be because too much light is reflected, or because the amount of energy needed to vaporize the material is more than was absorbed, or a combination of both. Both would be a valid explanation for why there is not knockback when lasers are used against MDC armor, because both rely on material properties of a thoroughly fictional material.

[Dog_O_War]

1 That to say X will happen means you say there are no unknown variables, however MDC is a unknown type of material with unknown variables.

The specific issue to which I was replying was in the operation of a laser and propagation of the beam with regards to anything that might be generously be called a "containment field", and there are no relevant unknowns in that scenario. Where relevant unknowns DO exist, I give the authors full leeway.

So remember how I said that we do not know whether an elementary particle like light photons do or do not need a containment field, to which you answered that "yes we DO"?
The text between the lines here is that in those universes, unknown elements, quantities, etc. exist, and we - even in our own reality do not know everything that exists (to put it simply), so we cannot say whether or not such a thing is actually fielded by something we may not yet have discovered.

That would be one of those unknowns.

[Dog_O_War]

1. So you are saying there are no unknown factors in knock back of MDC because we understand how current lasers work? His point was there where unknowns and there are.

I am saying that the unknown factors in knockback of MDC armors do not lay in how we understand how light works. He was not asserting something about current laser design, nor was he making an assertion that focused on knockback, he was making statements that contradict hundreds of years of established and repeatable physics in the area of light propagation. Of course there are unknowns, and of course the authors are more than free to toy with those unknowns, but he is focused on something that is most definitely known.

"Hundreds of years"
Kinda like, 300 years from now ("Hundreds"), we know for a fact that our understanding of lasers and light will not change?

Please see my reference previously in this thread about factual accuracy regarding the future.

And my statement was regarding facts today and facts in the future; it did not contradict anything. The statement made was that you, I, anyone, and everyone cannot state emphatically that our understanding of these things will be the same in the future as it is today or yesterday. It may likely be the same, but that is speculation.

And speculation is not fact.

[Blue_Lion]

2. Accuracy may be one of the ways fictions is judged but is by no means always an important part of the quality. You must first determine what the intent is to determine what is important. The intent of rifts is to produce a source of recreational fun. It can be achieve that without being scientifically accurate so that means I would prioritize it low as have the writers. Fiction is not bad because it is scientifically incorrect it is bad if it fails to achieve its purpose. By your standard any piece of fiction that includes magic would be bad because it is scientifically incorrect.

First, I should have specified "science fiction" - any fiction will suffer in perceived quality when it makes mistakes that the reader notices, science fiction in particular has the onus of an audience that is more than usually scientifically savvy.

Second, I agree that scientific accuracy is low on the priority list of the authors - indeed, I have said so myself a few times on here. They choose to simply ignore the science, and I cannot and do not argue with that decision. I will however argue against someone who incorrectly uses real science to justify a fictional point, not because I object to the fictional point but because I object ot the mischaracterization of science.

Third, magic implicitly or explicitly lies in the category of "unknowns" so I would have no cause to argue against the inclusion of magic for violating anything in science. It is the same reason science cannot disprove God - if you start off with the assumption of "something that lies outside of scientific knowledge" then you can hardly use scientific knowledge to prove OR disprove it!

Actually the term science fiction is to broad to apply a standard of accuracy to.
Star wars is a work of science fiction.
Star wars contains many scientific inaccuracies.
Star wars is not considered bad.

[Blue_Lion]

1. So you are saying there are no unknown factors in knock back of MDC because we understand how current lasers work? His point was there where unknowns and there are.

I am saying that the unknown factors in knockback of MDC armors do not lay in how we understand how light works. He was not asserting something about current laser design, nor was he making an assertion that focused on knockback, he was making statements that contradict hundreds of years of established and repeatable physics in the area of light propagation. Of course there are unknowns, and of course the authors are more than free to toy with those unknowns, but he is focused on something that is most definitely known.

"Hundreds of years"
Kinda like, 300 years from now ("Hundreds"), we know for a fact that our understanding of lasers and light will not change?

Please see my reference previously in this thread about factual accuracy regarding the future.

And my statement was regarding facts today and facts in the future; it did not contradict anything. The statement made was that you, I, anyone, and everyone cannot state emphatically that our understanding of these things will be the same in the future as it is today or yesterday. It may likely be the same, but that is speculation.

And speculation is not fact.

Umm. that is kind of a trick question.
The educated response is that it will not change unless some unforeseen break threw changing our perception of the topic. So there is no reason to think current understanding will change but there is always the possibility of some unknown factor being added later. Meaning with current understanding his response is more plausible but nothing can ever be ruled out as long as there is a unknown factor.

[Dog_O_War]

Umm. that is kind of a trick question.
The educated response is that it will not change unless some unforeseen break threw changing our perception of the topic. So there is no reason to think current understanding will change but there is always the possibility of some unknown factor being added later. Meaning with current understanding his response is more plausible but nothing can ever be ruled out as long as there is a unknown factor.

Actually, it's a deceptively straight-forward statement (if such a thing can exist).

See, both Rifts and Warhammer 40K actually build off of modern day. That means that if lasers somehow work differently in those futures, then (and cosmicfish himself stated as much) it is reasonable to assume that our modern-day physics are involved (and now my part), it is evidently clear that in those universes, our modern understanding of these things is incomplete based on how these things work mechanically within those games.

That is as direct a reason as there can be to know that factually our modern-day science is not applicable regardless of how many current day facts are applied. These games are set in our fictional future, therefore to posit that "they're doing it wrong" is a straight-up denial of the facts by the poster saying such.

[cosmicfish]

So remember how I said that we do not know whether an elementary particle like light photons do or do not need a containment field, to which you answered that "yes we DO"?
The text between the lines here is that in those universes, unknown elements, quantities, etc. exist, and we - even in our own reality do not know everything that exists (to put it simply), so we cannot say whether or not such a thing is actually fielded by something we may not yet have discovered.

That would be one of those unknowns.

No, that would be magic, or possibly religion, I am not sure which.

What you are describing has no observable evidence despite relating to something that is a constant and pervasive presence. It has no connection to any explained or unexplained phenomena, or any grounding in any field of science discovered, investigated, or even conceived.

Yours isn't a scientific explanation, it is a magical one.

[cosmicfish]

Actually the term science fiction is to broad to apply a standard of accuracy to.
Star wars is a work of science fiction.
Star wars contains many scientific inaccuracies.
Star wars is not considered bad.

Star Wars is a work of science fiction.

Star Wars contains relatively few scientific inaccuracies, simply because it contains no scientific explanations. For example, we see Han Solo shoot a "blaster" which emits a packet of energy which travels at subsonic speeds. We are not told "this is a laser" or "this is how it works", we are presented with a minimum of observations and given no scientific underpinning - this a large part of the reason that Star Wars is often relegated to that subgenre known as Science Fantasy or Space Opera. Is it possible to create something that would work like a blaster? Possibly. Would it be a laser? Nooooooo.

Star Wars is indeed not considered bad. That is in part because it does not try to present scientific knowledge that counters what is actually and definitely known by the audience.

[cosmicfish]

Umm. that is kind of a trick question.
The educated response is that it will not change unless some unforeseen break threw changing our perception of the topic. So there is no reason to think current understanding will change but there is always the possibility of some unknown factor being added later. Meaning with current understanding his response is more plausible but nothing can ever be ruled out as long as there is a unknown factor.

Actually, it's a deceptively straight-forward statement (if such a thing can exist).

See, both Rifts and Warhammer 40K actually build off of modern day. That means that if lasers somehow work differently in those futures, then (and cosmicfish himself stated as much) it is reasonable to assume that our modern-day physics are involved (and now my part), it is evidently clear that in those universes, our modern understanding of these things is incomplete based on how these things work mechanically within those games.

First of all, outside some of your assertions, I have not seen any real evidence that lasers work differently in Rifts (and I will not comment on 40K, with which I have no experience). The notion of a laser using a containment field to travel slower than normal and multiply power is an assertion made in this thread, not in any Palladium publication that I have seen.

Second, to the extent that lasers might work differently, it is probable that there is no possible scientific explanation for why that is so. I am not saying this in regard to current scientific knowledge, but in regards to science as system of testable rules. The authors wrote for effect, whereas science always starts with causes - if they disagree, reconciliation is not likely to be possible. That is to say, if you write a scientific theory that would explain some particular Rifts phenomena, it is all but certain that it would contradict one or more other parts of the Rifts universe, because that is what happens when you write for effect and then try to create underlying scientific causes.

Third, Blue Lion is more or less correct in his description of the way that science evolves - observable, testable, repeatable theories are not overturned, they are refined.

[Blue_Lion]

Umm. that is kind of a trick question.
The educated response is that it will not change unless some unforeseen break threw changing our perception of the topic. So there is no reason to think current understanding will change but there is always the possibility of some unknown factor being added later. Meaning with current understanding his response is more plausible but nothing can ever be ruled out as long as there is a unknown factor.

Actually, it's a deceptively straight-forward statement (if such a thing can exist).

See, both Rifts and Warhammer 40K actually build off of modern day. That means that if lasers somehow work differently in those futures, then (and cosmicfish himself stated as much) it is reasonable to assume that our modern-day physics are involved (and now my part), it is evidently clear that in those universes, our modern understanding of these things is incomplete based on how these things work mechanically within those games.

That is as direct a reason as there can be to know that factually our modern-day science is not applicable regardless of how many current day facts are applied. These games are set in our fictional future, therefore to posit that "they're doing it wrong" is a straight-up denial of the facts by the poster saying such.

First off 40K is irrelevant to rifts. (40K applies magical properties to tech, and was originally designed as a joke.)

Second nothing in rifts says a laser works different than modern lasers but it does not say they have knock down. This can be explained by the unknown properties of the MDC material taking a hit as I have already proven.

Third you have just completely changed the context and meaning of the statement I was replying to.
So to that statement my response was correct, as you did not specify the criteria of in game X. You made a open blanket statement to science in general.

[Blue_Lion]

Actually the term science fiction is to broad to apply a standard of accuracy to.
Star wars is a work of science fiction.
Star wars contains many scientific inaccuracies.
Star wars is not considered bad.

Star Wars is a work of science fiction.

Star Wars contains relatively few scientific inaccuracies, simply because it contains no scientific explanations. For example, we see Han Solo shoot a "blaster" which emits a packet of energy which travels at subsonic speeds. We are not told "this is a laser" or "this is how it works", we are presented with a minimum of observations and given no scientific underpinning - this a large part of the reason that Star Wars is often relegated to that subgenre known as Science Fantasy or Space Opera. Is it possible to create something that would work like a blaster? Possibly. Would it be a laser? Nooooooo.

Star Wars is indeed not considered bad. That is in part because it does not try to present scientific knowledge that counters what is actually and definitely known by the audience.

I would have to disagree as some things they do are widely known to be scientifically inaccurate. Such as landing on a asteroid and going outside without any form of space suit just a oxygen mask.

[cosmicfish]

Second nothing in rifts says a laser works different than modern lasers but it does not say they have knock down. This can be explained by the unknown properties of the MDC material taking a hit as I have already proven.

Just as an observation, I do not think that it has been definitively shown in this thread that a Rifts laser weapon would necessarily cause knock down anyway. That is to say, while it is possible that it could, whether or not it actually would requires selecting and verifying a number of possible choices and then doing some math, and I do not think anyone (including the authors) has done that yet.

[Dog_O_War]

So remember how I said that we do not know whether an elementary particle like light photons do or do not need a containment field, to which you answered that "yes we DO"?
The text between the lines here is that in those universes, unknown elements, quantities, etc. exist, and we - even in our own reality do not know everything that exists (to put it simply), so we cannot say whether or not such a thing is actually fielded by something we may not yet have discovered.

That would be one of those unknowns.

No, that would be magic, or possibly religion, I am not sure which.

What you are describing has no observable evidence despite relating to something that is a constant and pervasive presence. It has no connection to any explained or unexplained phenomena, or any grounding in any field of science discovered, investigated, or even conceived.

Yours isn't a scientific explanation, it is a magical one.

No. I'll give you a link here for some background.
So looking at the timeline in the link, they have all these different subatomic particles, some of which were theorized, and then discovered, but there are some there that were never theorized and simply discovered by accident. All the discovered were [discovered] within the last 150 years.

Here is another link. This is a timeline of discovery regarding chemical elements.

Why am I posting these things? These things are the (currently) considered basic make-up of our known universe. But they existed before we discovered them; they were there whether we were seeing them or not. That isn't "magic".

And the purpose of me posting timelines and histories? To show evidence that the future holds discovery and new understanding of the "known" things today.

[cosmicfish]

I would have to disagree as some things they do are widely known to be scientifically inaccurate. Such as landing on a asteroid and going outside without any form of space suit just a oxygen mask.

I said "relatively few", not "none". But landing on an asteroid is not unreasonable, and they were not technically "outside", seeing as they were inside a space slug. We are also not given any explanation as to the ability of the Millennium Falcon to generate a breathable atmosphere - again, they show without explaining.

[Blue_Lion]

Second nothing in rifts says a laser works different than modern lasers but it does not say they have knock down. This can be explained by the unknown properties of the MDC material taking a hit as I have already proven.

Just as an observation, I do not think that it has been definitively shown in this thread that a Rifts laser weapon would necessarily cause knock down anyway. That is to say, while it is possible that it could, whether or not it actually would requires selecting and verifying a number of possible choices and then doing some math, and I do not think anyone (including the authors) has done that yet.

First I am confused on relevance of what you are saying. Nothing says rifts laser work differently.

Second some one has done math on it, what was his name Flateline in the first post. His math shows that barring some unknown factor lasers do have the potently to knock down. The system does not have them do so this can be explained by the unknown properties of MDC material. (see below.)

"A typical laser rifle gets 20 shots out of an e-clip, so if an e-clip contains 100MJ, then each shot consumes 5MJ. Since laser rifles don't melt when you shoot them, that means that they're impossibly efficient at converting that energy into a laser beam and since the atmosphere is mostly transparent to laser beams, the vast majority of energy in the beam will arrive at the target.

For comparison, a modern hand grenade releases 400kJ - 800kJ (based on an unscientific google search). That means that the explosion caused by our laser blast is roughly equivalent to 10 modern hand grenades. Good thing we're using a pessimistic estimate for our eclip capacity..."

[Dog_O_War]

Umm. that is kind of a trick question.
The educated response is that it will not change unless some unforeseen break threw changing our perception of the topic. So there is no reason to think current understanding will change but there is always the possibility of some unknown factor being added later. Meaning with current understanding his response is more plausible but nothing can ever be ruled out as long as there is a unknown factor.

Actually, it's a deceptively straight-forward statement (if such a thing can exist).

See, both Rifts and Warhammer 40K actually build off of modern day. That means that if lasers somehow work differently in those futures, then (and cosmicfish himself stated as much) it is reasonable to assume that our modern-day physics are involved (and now my part), it is evidently clear that in those universes, our modern understanding of these things is incomplete based on how these things work mechanically within those games.

That is as direct a reason as there can be to know that factually our modern-day science is not applicable regardless of how many current day facts are applied. These games are set in our fictional future, therefore to posit that "they're doing it wrong" is a straight-up denial of the facts by the poster saying such.

First off 40K is irrelevant to rifts. (40K applies magical properties to tech, and was originally designed as a joke.)

Before you simply disregard 40K as irrelevant, I cited it as an example of a laser with knock-back, which is entirely relevant to the thread.

Second nothing in rifts says a laser works different than modern lasers but it does not say they have knock down. This can be explained by the unknown properties of the MDC material taking a hit as I have already proven.

You forget; MDC lasers are not stated as doing this to SDC objects either.

Third you have just completely changed the context and meaning of the statement I was replying to.

You quoted me; you were replying to my statement. The context and meaning have remained the same.

What I have posted thus far are the facts and what is considered factually wrong because it falls into the category of speculation. Effectively, I have been pointing out the flaws in his argument because he keeps making the same mistake; he's making a statement about the future, which can be nothing but speculation. It may be an excellent educated guess, but that does not offer an emphatic truth. And beyond this, I have pointed out that Rifts is a fictional future, making his educated guess factually wrong because we know what this fictional future contains. And that is different from what he's saying.

I'm just gonna say that I am reasonably confident that you already knew that and where agreeing with it (for the most part), but I am not entirely sure where our wires are being crossed here.

[Alrik Vas]

I think they paired it down to about 1 modern grenade after the amount of power that would bleed off in various ways was adjusted.

Though still, being shot with a grenade for every pew-pew seems pretty mean. That kind of energy could cause an explosion, or at least, I like to think it does. Though I have no problem with higher technological armor (and some magic) absorbing this energy to a large degree, rather than just ablating it.

[Blue_Lion]

Umm. that is kind of a trick question.
The educated response is that it will not change unless some unforeseen break threw changing our perception of the topic. So there is no reason to think current understanding will change but there is always the possibility of some unknown factor being added later. Meaning with current understanding his response is more plausible but nothing can ever be ruled out as long as there is a unknown factor.

Actually, it's a deceptively straight-forward statement (if such a thing can exist).

See, both Rifts and Warhammer 40K actually build off of modern day. That means that if lasers somehow work differently in those futures, then (and cosmicfish himself stated as much) it is reasonable to assume that our modern-day physics are involved (and now my part), it is evidently clear that in those universes, our modern understanding of these things is incomplete based on how these things work mechanically within those games.

That is as direct a reason as there can be to know that factually our modern-day science is not applicable regardless of how many current day facts are applied. These games are set in our fictional future, therefore to posit that "they're doing it wrong" is a straight-up denial of the facts by the poster saying such.

First off 40K is irrelevant to rifts. (40K applies magical properties to tech, and was originally designed as a joke.)

Before you simply disregard 40K as irrelevant, I cited it as an example of a laser with knock-back, which is entirely relevant to the thread.

Second nothing in rifts says a laser works different than modern lasers but it does not say they have knock down. This can be explained by the unknown properties of the MDC material taking a hit as I have already proven.

You forget; MDC lasers are not stated as doing this to SDC objects either.

Third you have just completely changed the context and meaning of the statement I was replying to.

You quoted me; you were replying to my statement. The context and meaning have remained the same.

What I have posted thus far are the facts and what is considered factually wrong because it falls into the category of speculation. Effectively, I have been pointing out the flaws in his argument because he keeps making the same mistake; he's making a statement about the future, which can be nothing but speculation. It may be an excellent educated guess, but that does not offer an emphatic truth. And beyond this, I have pointed out that Rifts is a fictional future, making his educated guess factually wrong because we know what this fictional future contains. And that is different from what he's saying.

I'm just gonna say that I am reasonably confident that you already knew that and where agreeing with it (for the most part), but I am not entirely sure where our wires are being crossed here.

No where in the post I replied to did it mention the context you are bringing up. You made a blanket statement that is what I replied to. Perhaps if you where more specific.

The actually do talk about the laser vaporizing part of or all of a SDC target. As most SDC targets do not survive MDC laser knock down is often an mute point.

40K is irrelevant in this discussion because
1 it is not a work by PB so does not affect how PB products work.
2 40K applies mystical properties to machines (IE a tech priest can talk to any machine even if it does not have AI)
So an irrelevant uncreditable scientific source and it is not valid in any way to weather or not Rifts lasers can cause knock back.

[Dog_O_War]

Umm. that is kind of a trick question.
The educated response is that it will not change unless some unforeseen break threw changing our perception of the topic. So there is no reason to think current understanding will change but there is always the possibility of some unknown factor being added later. Meaning with current understanding his response is more plausible but nothing can ever be ruled out as long as there is a unknown factor.

Actually, it's a deceptively straight-forward statement (if such a thing can exist).

See, both Rifts and Warhammer 40K actually build off of modern day. That means that if lasers somehow work differently in those futures, then (and cosmicfish himself stated as much) it is reasonable to assume that our modern-day physics are involved (and now my part), it is evidently clear that in those universes, our modern understanding of these things is incomplete based on how these things work mechanically within those games.

First of all, outside some of your assertions, I have not seen any real evidence that lasers work differently in Rifts.

Sure you have, you might have not realized it though. For example, "blue-green lasers" work better in water. Certain lasers have an SDC setting which gives you more shots but does less damage. That damage can be placed over an otherwise real-world solid projectile (given stats in Rifts), which can be used to calculate how much energy there is within the attack. That in turn can give you an idea of how much energy is within an e-clip, which will ultimately give you an energy total for how much damage a particular MDC laser actually contains (eg: 30 shots of this laser is worth X energy; 1 shot is thus worth X/30).

I am giving you this example because this next fact has been stated under various entries; certain laser rifles have said SDC setting so as not to "vaporize" their SDC targets.
Rifts lasers have specifically stated as vaporizing the material.
So my question would then be; do our modern-day lasers exhibit this property?

The notion of a laser using a containment field to travel slower than normal and multiply power is an assertion made in this thread, not in any Palladium publication that I have seen.

Yeah no.
I stated that it was only a possible justification or possibility as to why such a thing might exist. I never asserted it as a fact nor implied that Palladium did either.

Second, to the extent that lasers might work differently, it is probable that there is no possible scientific explanation for why that is so. I am not saying this in regard to current scientific knowledge, but in regards to science as system of testable rules. The authors wrote for effect, whereas science always starts with causes - if they disagree, reconciliation is not likely to be possible. That is to say, if you write a scientific theory that would explain some particular Rifts phenomena, it is all but certain that it would contradict one or more other parts of the Rifts universe, because that is what happens when you write for effect and then try to create underlying scientific causes.

Yes, this is the truth.

Third, Blue Lion is more or less correct in his description of the way that science evolves - observable, testable, repeatable theories are not overturned, they are refined.

Yeah but he forgot accidental discovery, so I'm gonna have to take points away for that.

[Dog_O_War]

No where in the post I replied to did it mention the context you are bringing up. You made a blanket statement that is what I replied to. Perhaps if you where more specific.

Sorry, I'll attempt to clarify.
In the post you quoted, I asked that cosmicfish reference the earlier post I made regarding factual accuracy and the future. In that post I referenced Rifts Earth future (which is 300+ years from now). That was the context; that if we're discussing Rifts, and Rifts is in the future, then we know the future. So if we're applying modern-day physics, then we know that factually they do not apply, or have a definite unknown element to them that we know about because we're getting a purview of the [fictional] future.

40K is irrelevant in this discussion because
1 it is not a work by PB so does not affect how PB products work.
2 40K applies mystical properties to machines (IE a tech priest can talk to any machine even if it does not have AI)

So regardless what a irrelevant uncreditable scientific source says it is not valid in any way to weather or not Rifts lasers can cause knock back.

I only mentioned it because of similarities and merely as an example of how it's done outside the box that is Rifts.

[eliakon]

So we have managed to establish
1) that Rifts Physics in not RW Earth Physics
2) that 40k Physics is not RW Physics
3) That Rifts Physics is not 40K Physics

Great. Now to get back to the topic at hand. Do/Should energy weapons inflict knockback? If so why or why not.

[Blue_Lion]

"And my statement was regarding facts today and facts in the future; it did not contradict anything. The statement made was that you, I, anyone, and everyone cannot state emphatically that our understanding of these things will be the same in the future as it is today or yesterday. It may likely be the same, but that is speculation."

That is not a specific scenario statement, but one that covers all facts in the future the statement it is a broad and sweeping statement as you do not place a limit on it. You may have intended to limit it, but by the wording you used in the statement it is broad and sweeping. You made it a separate paragraph and used broad sweeping wording.

[Alrik Vas]

So we have managed to establish
1) that Rifts Physics in not RW Earth Physics
2) that 40k Physics is not RW Physics
3) That Rifts Physics is not 40K Physics

Great. Now to get back to the topic at hand. Do/Should energy weapons inflict knockback? If so why or why not.

I think they should against certain targets. I mean, a glitterboy will probably not care about your laser much. High tech armors might absorb and disperse the energy (taking MDC off, but not sending you flying) but armor made out of hide and other types of materials that aren't specially made and are just really hard (thusly MDC because of it) probably wouldn't protect you from the ensuing explosive power that I would include in a laser's effect on armor.

[Blue_Lion]

So we have managed to establish
1) that Rifts Physics in not RW Earth Physics
2) that 40k Physics is not RW Physics
3) That Rifts Physics is not 40K Physics

Great. Now to get back to the topic at hand. Do/Should energy weapons inflict knockback? If so why or why not.

I have already addressed that. Even if the potential energy to cause knock back exists witch mathematically it may be. The unknown properties of MDC material can prevent it. Given that the rules and examples do not have them causing knock back on MDC so that is the best explanation to fit the case. (SDC is usually a mute point as although it says part or all is misted/vaporized usually the target does not survive.)

[Daniel Stoker]

If we went around and called every idea that was dumb or at the very least poorly thought out, we'd clear out 90% of the material in all of the books.

What about the REALLY dumb ones like the original laser bow, 24 carat gold armor that is light and hard, or in this case ammo that’s made of deuterium? Because I admit yes you can nit pick almost anything but then you get some REALLY dumb stuff and that I think should at least be pointed out and in the case of the laser bow got revised.


Daniel Stoker

[Nightmask]

Wouldn't the properties to explain why you don't get knock-back from those laser blasts come under the heading of known rather than unknown properties? You'd have to have some idea what the armor must do in order to minimize or negate the laser shots from causing knock-back.

[wyrmraker]

Given the horrible physics represented in Rifts (Like a Boom Gun flechette round being armor-piercing, or that it easily does more damage than a 120mm tank cannon), discussing physics in Rifts is like shouting down a well.

In my opinion, most energy weapons should not produce knockback. Rail gun rounds and explosives definitely would cause knockback.

M.D. Energy weapons, as I have read about them as written up in the Rifts books, burns away or destabilizes material at the molecular level. In theory this could cause a secondary explosive effect, but not something that could be easily explained in the rules without innovative P.C.s finding ways around the effect.

As an extra point, it has been deinitively proven that standard bullets produce very little knockback. In testing, a man wearing military body armor was shot at point blank range with a 7.62mm H&K G3 rifle while standing on one leg. Nothing. It's the body's 'flinch factor' that causes that reaction.

[flatline]

I think they paired it down to about 1 modern grenade after the amount of power that would bleed off in various ways was adjusted.

In order to get the transferred energy down to about one modern hand grenade I had to make some very unrealistic assumptions, each of which would be dangerous, if not fatal, to the shooter.

I think the real conclusion here is that the amount of energy in an e-clip is orders of magnitude too high for any of this to be even remotely believable. Either that or energy weapons should get hundreds of shots out of an e-clip rather than just 20.

--flatline

[cosmicfish]

Sure you have, you might have not realized it though. For example, "blue-green lasers" work better in water. Certain lasers have an SDC setting which gives you more shots but does less damage. That damage can be placed over an otherwise real-world solid projectile (given stats in Rifts), which can be used to calculate how much energy there is within the attack. That in turn can give you an idea of how much energy is within an e-clip, which will ultimately give you an energy total for how much damage a particular MDC laser actually contains (eg: 30 shots of this laser is worth X energy; 1 shot is thus worth X/30).

Well, the absorption of visible light by water increases with wavelength, and when you combine this with the fact that low-wavelength lasers are more difficult to produce (for reasons I won't go into here), blue-green lasers actually DO work better under water - shorter wavelength lasers are too difficult to produce with significant power, and longer-wavelength lasers are too attenuated by the medium. As for lasers having multiple power settings, that is not a challenge at all, and many current high-power lasers have lower-power settings so that you can perform certain tasks without melting anything. As for using the equivalent damage of projectile to calculate the energy in a laser "burst", there are far too many variables and unknowns to make that calculation with even an order of magnitude's accuracy!

I am giving you this example because this next fact has been stated under various entries; certain laser rifles have said SDC setting so as not to "vaporize" their SDC targets.
Rifts lasers have specifically stated as vaporizing the material.
So my question would then be; do our modern-day lasers exhibit this property?

Yes. High-powered lasers can and do vaporize material. There are a number of industrial and even medical processes that utilize this fact. I am not aware of any such systems that produce concussion as a result of plasma expansion, however.

Yeah no.
I stated that it was only a possible justification or possibility as to why such a thing might exist. I never asserted it as a fact nor implied that Palladium did either.

You clearly stated that lasers worked differently in Rifts, I was trying to figure out where your evidence for such a statement came from.

[cosmicfish]

No. I'll give you a link here for some background.
So looking at the timeline in the link, they have all these different subatomic particles, some of which were theorized, and then discovered, but there are some there that were never theorized and simply discovered by accident. All the discovered were [discovered] within the last 150 years.

Here is another link. This is a timeline of discovery regarding chemical elements.

Why am I posting these things? These things are the (currently) considered basic make-up of our known universe. But they existed before we discovered them; they were there whether we were seeing them or not. That isn't "magic".

And the purpose of me posting timelines and histories? To show evidence that the future holds discovery and new understanding of the "known" things today.

Before I go any further on this line of discussion, do you mind if I ask the level of your scientific education? You are superficially correct that there is always a possibility that our current understanding of light is incorrect in a meaningful way... in the same way that there is a possibility that I am simultaneously God, Adolf Hitler, and a small rutabaga. The issue is simply that you are positing that the most pervasive and possibly most studied type of energy in the universe is nonetheless monumentally and fundamentally misunderstood, and you are offering it as an explanation without any supporting evidence for why it would be so.

[cosmicfish]

Second some one has done math on it, what was his name Flateline in the first post. His math shows that barring some unknown factor lasers do have the potently to knock down. The system does not have them do so this can be explained by the unknown properties of MDC material. (see below.)

"A typical laser rifle gets 20 shots out of an e-clip, so if an e-clip contains 100MJ, then each shot consumes 5MJ. Since laser rifles don't melt when you shoot them, that means that they're impossibly efficient at converting that energy into a laser beam and since the atmosphere is mostly transparent to laser beams, the vast majority of energy in the beam will arrive at the target.

For comparison, a modern hand grenade releases 400kJ - 800kJ (based on an unscientific google search). That means that the explosion caused by our laser blast is roughly equivalent to 10 modern hand grenades. Good thing we're using a pessimistic estimate for our eclip capacity..."

A large part of my job is estimating the performance and requirements of laser systems, and I would not warrant that estimate to be within a country mile of the answer, simply because there are too many unknowns. For example, one of the fundamental questions (that is in no way answered or even hinted at in Rifts) is the pulse repetition rate of the laser - if it was fast enough, there would be very little vaporization despite the energy delivered, while a true single pulse per "blast" might indeed produce tangible concussion... with enough delivered energy, which may not be happening.

And please note that the source reference for the energy in an e-clip (the number that is at the foundation of the estimate) is itself stated in nonsensical units (not as bad as the infamous "Kessel Run", but still) so from the beginning we are trying to infer what the author really meant. Not a good start for coming up with hard numbers.

[cosmicfish]

Wouldn't the properties to explain why you don't get knock-back from those laser blasts come under the heading of known rather than unknown properties? You'd have to have some idea what the armor must do in order to minimize or negate the laser shots from causing knock-back.

No, because it would be a function of several different variables - the energy per pulse (a shot may contain a single pulse or thousands), the response of the air to that energy density (will the air break down, for example), and the properties of the armor material. Creating a laser system that would produce significant concussion would require threading the needle on all of those issues, and several more besides.

[Blue_Lion]

Wouldn't the properties to explain why you don't get knock-back from those laser blasts come under the heading of known rather than unknown properties? You'd have to have some idea what the armor must do in order to minimize or negate the laser shots from causing knock-back.

No it is unknown because we are not told how it can stop such large amount of damage just that it does. All we have is a educated guess that can not be confirmed as correct.

[flatline]

Wouldn't the properties to explain why you don't get knock-back from those laser blasts come under the heading of known rather than unknown properties? You'd have to have some idea what the armor must do in order to minimize or negate the laser shots from causing knock-back.

No, because it would be a function of several different variables - the energy per pulse (a shot may contain a single pulse or thousands), the response of the air to that energy density (will the air break down, for example), and the properties of the armor material. Creating a laser system that would produce significant concussion would require threading the needle on all of those issues, and several more besides.

Then where does the energy go?

You've got 5MJ to account for that "disappears" in a fraction of a second without destroying the gun or the (potentially unarmored) man holding it. 15MJ if you want to address pulse laser weapons.

If you're willing to give it a go, I'll help you as best I can. I recommend starting with the things that must be true at all for the game to be playable (e.g. the gun not self-destructing the first time it's fired).

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

Maybe it does, and the magic of Rifts lets us constantly get new weapons after each shot with one 15MJ depeleted from the e-clip? It's clearly a seamless transfer from another dimension, the same one that keeps bringing us new bodies to go with the laser rifle.

[Blue_Lion]

Second some one has done math on it, what was his name Flateline in the first post. His math shows that barring some unknown factor lasers do have the potently to knock down. The system does not have them do so this can be explained by the unknown properties of MDC material. (see below.)

"A typical laser rifle gets 20 shots out of an e-clip, so if an e-clip contains 100MJ, then each shot consumes 5MJ. Since laser rifles don't melt when you shoot them, that means that they're impossibly efficient at converting that energy into a laser beam and since the atmosphere is mostly transparent to laser beams, the vast majority of energy in the beam will arrive at the target.

For comparison, a modern hand grenade releases 400kJ - 800kJ (based on an unscientific google search). That means that the explosion caused by our laser blast is roughly equivalent to 10 modern hand grenades. Good thing we're using a pessimistic estimate for our eclip capacity..."

A large part of my job is estimating the performance and requirements of laser systems, and I would not warrant that estimate to be within a country mile of the answer, simply because there are too many unknowns. For example, one of the fundamental questions (that is in no way answered or even hinted at in Rifts) is the pulse repetition rate of the laser - if it was fast enough, there would be very little vaporization despite the energy delivered, while a true single pulse per "blast" might indeed produce tangible concussion... with enough delivered energy, which may not be happening.

And please note that the source reference for the energy in an e-clip (the number that is at the foundation of the estimate) is itself stated in nonsensical units (not as bad as the infamous "Kessel Run", but still) so from the beginning we are trying to infer what the author really meant. Not a good start for coming up with hard numbers.

Flatline got the number by using average amount of energy in 1 car battery and the fact that the books list a e-clip as having X amount of car batteries worth of power. If you question his math you could look it up and do it. (off the top of my head I believe the amount of energy is was listed as 1 megawatt or 10000 car batteries, not sure what books they have the stats in.)


PG 358 of Rue last sentence under lasers they say that manufactures made is so they make sound with every blast or pulse. Under the L20 we can find pulse is 3 simultaneous shots from a laser-In other words the book says they are burst weapons with pulse lasers firing 3 burst at the same time. So your claim that it is not clarified is in direct contradiction with the book.

[Blue_Lion]

Umm. that is kind of a trick question.
The educated response is that it will not change unless some unforeseen break threw changing our perception of the topic. So there is no reason to think current understanding will change but there is always the possibility of some unknown factor being added later. Meaning with current understanding his response is more plausible but nothing can ever be ruled out as long as there is a unknown factor.

Third, Blue Lion is more or less correct in his description of the way that science evolves - observable, testable, repeatable theories are not overturned, they are refined.

Yeah but he forgot accidental discovery, so I'm gonna have to take points away for that.

Wait I took into account for discovery of some unknown property changing the way things work and you are taking points away for not taking into account accidental discovery? Would that not be covered under some unknown factor added later?

[Zenvis]

For my house rules, its simple. No knock down for energy weapons, just kinetic. I also touch on it on my blog.

[cosmicfish]

Under the L20 we can find pulse is 3 simultaneous shots from a laser-In other words the book says they are burst weapons with pulse lasers firing 3 burst at the same time. So your claim that it is not clarified is in direct contradiction with the book.

I disagree - in my opinion, the book is vague in the use of "pulse". The term can refer to the high-frequency operational mode of the laser OR the low-frequency functional mode of the weapon. Believe it or not, this same inconsistency exists in the real world, as much of the language for radiating systems originated with radio-frequency systems whose sources did not have any kind of higher-frequency core process.

Functionally, any radiating system has a desired pulse rate - you want to turn the system on, shape the amplitude and/or frequency of the underlying wave, and then leave it on long enough to perform your desired effect on the target (including but not limited to hitting it). If your pulse is too short then (among other things) it is quite difficult to even hit your intended target, as the jitter in your system (especially one that is handheld) changes your statistical broadening across your target plane into a statistical selection, and generally that is a bad thing.

But the laser itself may have an entirely different pulse rate, where the lasing medium requires (or prefers) that the laser cavity switch between "population" and "lasing" modes. The goal is simply optimizing power extraction, and some lasers will operate in a continuous mode while others will pulse, rarely at less than kHz frequencies and often at MHz or higher!

So here's the thing - a weapon laser will want pulses on the scale of tenths of a second, and the pulse lasers described in Rifts are consistent with this kind of time scale. Such a pulse may be a single constant beam (if the laser is CW) or it may be composed of hundreds or even millions of much faster pulses.

[Blue_Lion]

Under the L20 we can find pulse is 3 simultaneous shots from a laser-In other words the book says they are burst weapons with pulse lasers firing 3 burst at the same time. So your claim that it is not clarified is in direct contradiction with the book.

I disagree - in my opinion, the book is vague in the use of "pulse". The term can refer to the high-frequency operational mode of the laser OR the low-frequency functional mode of the weapon. Believe it or not, this same inconsistency exists in the real world, as much of the language for radiating systems originated with radio-frequency systems whose sources did not have any kind of higher-frequency core process.

Functionally, any radiating system has a desired pulse rate - you want to turn the system on, shape the amplitude and/or frequency of the underlying wave, and then leave it on long enough to perform your desired effect on the target (including but not limited to hitting it). If your pulse is too short then (among other things) it is quite difficult to even hit your intended target, as the jitter in your system (especially one that is handheld) changes your statistical broadening across your target plane into a statistical selection, and generally that is a bad thing.

But the laser itself may have an entirely different pulse rate, where the lasing medium requires (or prefers) that the laser cavity switch between "population" and "lasing" modes. The goal is simply optimizing power extraction, and some lasers will operate in a continuous mode while others will pulse, rarely at less than kHz frequencies and often at MHz or higher!

So here's the thing - a weapon laser will want pulses on the scale of tenths of a second, and the pulse lasers described in Rifts are consistent with this kind of time scale. Such a pulse may be a single constant beam (if the laser is CW) or it may be composed of hundreds or even millions of much faster pulses.

Good job on editing out the most relevant part to support your case.

Now then the part you left out.
PG 358 of Rue last sentence under lasers they say that manufactures made is so they make sound with every blast or pulse.

The L-20 was to clarify what they meant to by pulse on laser rifles. As it says the pulse is 3 shots at the same time. So it is clear what they mean by pulse in this case.

In other words it is saying normal lasers fire bursts of energy while pulse lasers fire 3 burst of energy. That is fairly self evident by the text.

[cosmicfish]

Good job on editing out the most relevant part to support your case.

Now then the part you left out.
PG 358 of Rue last sentence under lasers they say that manufactures made is so they make sound with every blast or pulse.

I ignored it because that was actually the least relevant part. It is a sound effect. You know how they added sounds to cell phone cameras and electric cars, because people want those things to make sounds when they work? That is what this is describing - a silent laser with a separate sound generator. There is a speaker on the gun that goes "pew-pew!", and it has no impact on the damage the weapon causes.

Although now that you point it out, that does provide another data point in figuring out the power of a laser. High energy densities actually break down air, which creates an audible noise - see this video, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HHJhpStza0

This happens with all kinds of lasers, but the energy density required to hit this is dependent on the pulse duration (the "fast" time scale I mentioned above), and is a non-linear process. It makes this an academically interesting problem...

The L-20 was to clarify what they meant to by pulse on laser rifles. As it says the pulse is 3 shots at the same time. So it is clear what they mean by pulse in this case.

In other words it is saying normal lasers fire bursts of energy while pulse lasers fire 3 burst of energy. That is fairly self evident by the text.

As someone who works with lasers professionally, I consider this ambiguous. If someone came up to me and gave me the L-20 description, I would not consider the "CW vs pulsed" decision to be at all settled, because the time scale addressed in the description is not the time scale at which the laser itself is operating. I could build the L-20 with a CW laser or a pulsed laser and still deliver the same operating modes you just cited.

[Blue_Lion]

Good job on editing out the most relevant part to support your case.

Now then the part you left out.
PG 358 of Rue last sentence under lasers they say that manufactures made is so they make sound with every blast or pulse.

I ignored it because that was actually the least relevant part. It is a sound effect. You know how they added sounds to cell phone cameras and electric cars, because people want those things to make sounds when they work? That is what this is describing. There is a speaker on the gun that goes "pew-pew!", and it has no impact on the damage the weapon causes.

The L-20 was to clarify what they meant to by pulse on laser rifles. As it says the pulse is 3 shots at the same time. So it is clear what they mean by pulse in this case.

In other words it is saying normal lasers fire bursts of energy while pulse lasers fire 3 burst of energy. That is fairly self evident by the text.

As someone who works with lasers professionally, I consider this ambiguous. If someone came up to me and gave me the L-20 description, I would not consider the "CW vs pulsed" decision to be at all settled, because the time scale addressed in the description is not the time scale at which the laser itself is operating. I could build the L-20 with a CW laser or a pulsed laser and still deliver the same operating modes you just cited.

Page 111 GMG-
"Most lasers fire a short light beam or blast"
Rapid fire "pulse lasers are latest in laser technology typycaly fire two or three super fast, high powered lsers beams in a mater of...."

By The way I am calling BS on your laser back ground until you can prove other wise. You are using it as a crutch in your debate to add legitimacy. (Truth is you are tiring to set up a situation where you can claim expertise and under mine intent because the writers are not experts in the field.) The clearly state in many books that a shot from a laser is a blast rather than one long, continues beam and a pulse is 3 shots from a laser.

[cosmicfish]

Then where does the energy go?

You've got 5MJ to account for that "disappears" in a fraction of a second without destroying the gun or the (potentially unarmored) man holding it. 15MJ if you want to address pulse laser weapons.

If you're willing to give it a go, I'll help you as best I can. I recommend starting with the things that must be true at all for the game to be playable (e.g. the gun not self-destructing the first time it's fired).

--flatline

I am really not willing to give it a go right now, the last laser system I modeled required more than 20 variables and a fair amount of multi-variable calculus just to get an estimate that was within an order of magnitude of truth. Is it possible to produce knockdown? Possibly, if you design the system for it and have the right atmosphere and right target. Would Rifts lasers do it? No idea, and not enough time to model it well enough to say.

[cosmicfish]

Page 111 GMG-
"Most lasers fire a short light beam or blast"
Rapid fire "pulse lasers are latest in laser technology typycaly fire two or three super fast, high powered lsers beams in a mater of...."

Great - what is "super fast"? The last time I saw that in an infantry weapons context it was referring to a firing rate on the order of 10-100 "shots" per second. I am talking about lasers that have "slow" pulse rates hundreds or thousands or millions of times faster.

By The way I am calling BS on your laser back ground until you can prove other wise.

What manner of proof do you propose? And what will your response be to the truth?

Let me put it another way: you show me yours and I will show you mine.

[Blue_Lion]

Page 111 GMG-
"Most lasers fire a short light beam or blast"
Rapid fire "pulse lasers are latest in laser technology typycaly fire two or three super fast, high powered lsers beams in a mater of...."

Great - what is "super fast"? The last time I saw that in an infantry weapons context it was referring to a firing rate on the order of 10-100 "shots" per second. I am talking about lasers that have "slow" pulse rates hundreds or thousands or millions of times faster.

By The way I am calling BS on your laser back ground until you can prove other wise.

What manner of proof do you propose? And what will your response be to the truth?

Let me put it another way: you show me yours and I will show you mine.

You are using your claimed expertise in the field to add credibility to you arguments as I am not claiming such a thing I have no reason to show prove my expertise.

Until such time as your claims are proven on the sight stop using it as a crutch in your argument as no one can with ease validate them they have no place in a debate.

Now then what is fast may be relative but the as they say most lasers are firing blasts, and most text fire 3 simultaneous shots then the implied meaning to most people is three blast. But you claim they did not clarify if it was a CW or blast laser but they refer to lasers shots as blast in multiple books. You also are making impossible demands on numbers for people to validate claims as it is outside of what was needed to make the game or commonly available when the game was originally made.