Lim Jyue (lim_jyue@pacific.net.sg)
Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:11:16 +0800


At 14:38 11/12/2000 EST, Chaos025@aol.com wrote:
>Actually, you're wrong. When a laser hits a surface(any surface), that
>surface is vaporized, producing a cloud that defuses the laser, weakening it.

        Right, but if you sweep across an area, won't you lose penetration
power? I feel that penetrative power is more important here, since you want
to get into the innards of the ship rather than sand off armour.

>I would think that the reason beam weapons are so damaging is from the fact
>that they aren't block by simple aerosols like lasers are.

        Good point!

At 15:11 11/12/2000 EST, Chaos025@aol.com wrote:
>My point was that you are either going to fire inert crowbars or active
>missiles, not some hybrid of the two.

        Can you fire active missiles out of a railgun? I don't think that
using a missile made up of connected components in a railgun is a good idea,
especially with the increase possibility of failure of munitions.

>Surprisingly, not really. You can burn most explosive with little to no
>harmful effects (other than the release of a few toxic gases).

        Interesting, and good to know. But won't the material underneath be
melted/ burnt too, due to the heat of the plasma?

>I would say that high energy Electro-Magnetic Pluses will be in the most
>inconveinent portion of the EM spectrum, as seen for a military point of view.

        Right, but won't Minovsky particles also block out the
lower-frequency EMP?

-------------
Lim Jyue
ICQ: 24737555

I am careful not to confuse excellence with perfection.
Excellence I can reach for; perfection is God's business.

-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Nov 15 2000 - 15:56:12 JST