In article <01c044f0$1483ddc0$727889d0@daysix>, "H. E. Day" 
<Pov### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> There is only one drawback to this weapon, which is it's inability to 
> function in a vacuum. 

In that case, at short range you can just thrust backwards until your 
enemy follows you into the trail of ions your thrusters leave behind. 
You would quickly run out of fuel that way though...and this looks like 
a ground-based vehicle.
Or fire rockets which leave a relatively dense trail of ions. Or just 
use the lasers themselves...if they can ionize air to a high enough 
degree to carry and direct an electrical current, they are probably 
pretty powerful. (what portions of the spectrum are best absorbed by 
air?)

Faraday cages might be a problem, you would probably want *some* kinetic 
energy weapons. Bullets, high velocity rockets, something a bit more 
effective than your beak.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

In article <3A01A8B7.FD4DD154@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg 
wrote:

> No. If the object being attacked is well shielded or grounded the weapon
> is useless because the energy is shunted away doing no damage. Commercial
> airlines, for example, are specifically designed to take several direct
> lightning strikes throught the life of the aircraft which causes no damage
> to them.

Lightning doesn't have a powerful laser ionizing the air between it's 
origin and it's target...insulative shielding would have to be some kind 
of ceramic to block the laser as well. And grounding can be a bit 
difficult in mid air.
The best defense against this weapon would probably be a Faraday cage 
with highly reflective ceramic armor, with a very good ground. It might 
work well on large numbers of people, though. Mob control drones? Royal 
guard?
It now looks about human-height, still far too small for someone to be 
inside in my opinion.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

How about very large feathers trailing off from the back of each wing
section. Feathers much larger ( like 2 or 3 times the length of the wing
sections) would give the wings the proportion that they seem to need,
provide better balance, and look really cool. :)

Jay Raney

Post a reply to this message

> Or fire rockets which leave a relatively dense trail of ions. Or just
Doubtful, since rocket exhaust would be pretty hot, and with no surrounding
air it just sprays off and diffuses into the void. That wouldn't leave
enough atoms to ionize.

> pretty powerful. (what portions of the spectrum are best absorbed by
> air?)
You would have to take a flouride excimer laser at 150nm. That would be
ultra violet and not visible anymore. One day people might even be able to
build them smaller than the size of three
refrigerators :) (sure would look kind of clumsy on H.E's mech)

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a01ba7e$1@news.povray.org>, "Daniel Schwen" 
<sch### [at] geocitiescom> wrote:

> Doubtful, since rocket exhaust would be pretty hot, and with no 
> surrounding air it just sprays off and diffuses into the void. That 
> wouldn't leave enough atoms to ionize.

I meant fire special rockets which leave a trail dense enough to carry 
the current for a short time before dissipating. The entire goal of the 
rockets would be to get to the target as fast as possible and leave a 
relatively dense ion trail, they wouldn't even need a payload. The range 
would still be limited though. Or they could trail a fine wire that 
would be vaporized to produce the needed channel.
Or you could confine ions with magnetic fields, but if you can get 
magnetic fields that powerful and that well controlled you probably have 
much better ways to blast your prey.(spray them with antimatter?)


> You would have to take a flouride excimer laser at 150nm. That would 
> be ultra violet and not visible anymore. One day people might even be 
> able to build them smaller than the size of three refrigerators :) 
> (sure would look kind of clumsy on H.E's mech)

I was thinking of some kind of ultraviolet laser...but three 
refrigerators? This thing looks like it's slightly smaller than one 
kitchen refrigerator...and it has two lasers. Maybe some kind of 
one-shot laser...a high-power chemical laser. Oh, well...if this 
civilization has the ability to generate the power in a package that 
small, they can probably make a smaller laser too. :-)
As for the visibility thing, you would probably see a bright white flash 
before the actual charge is released as the laser ionizes the air. Those 
red lines must be targeting lasers. :-)
Of course, with the wire rockets idea(and possibly with the rockets 
alone), you don't even need a laser.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

| Mob control drones? Royal guard?
Angels.  Don't worry, I'll explain, just not here. :)

| It now looks about human-height, still far too small for someone to be 
| inside in my opinion.
Correct.  They are around 10-12 feet tall.  They are full automated.  And
quite smart.

H.E. Day
<><

Post a reply to this message

| No. 

Aww, Ken, can't you just play along?  :-)

H.E. Day
<><

Post a reply to this message

"H. E. Day" wrote:
> 
> | No.
> 
> Aww, Ken, can't you just play along?  :-)

Bzzzzzt....

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

In article <01c04525$17655fc0$727889d0@daysix>, "H. E. Day" 
<Pov### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> | Mob control drones? Royal guard?
> Angels.  Don't worry, I'll explain, just not here. :)

Ok...


> Correct.  They are around 10-12 feet tall.  They are full automated.  And
> quite smart.

They look around 6 feet to me...maybe a smaller, wingless or folded 
winged, 4-6 foot version, with some feathers the same size as the ones 
on the big version, and a few smaller feathers that are of the same type 
as the big ones. I think that will make the feathers on the large one 
look larger, making the whole thing look the proper size.
Ok, that wasn't very clear: make smaller feathers that look the same as 
the large feathers to make the large feathers look larger.

They could operate in threes, one large one assisted by two smaller 
ones. In battle, the smaller ones could scout ahead, go areas too small 
for the large one, do repairs, etc.

They could also serve as "police" in cities. Their size and lack of 
wings would make them more able to maneuver through crowded streets, 
relatively open buildings, and other tight areas.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote:

> Ok, that wasn't very clear: make smaller feathers that look the same as
> the large feathers to make the large feathers look larger.

Huh?

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message