Electrolaser
douglas
ionize the air in a 20 foot path? I'd like to see if a functional,
portable electrolaser is possible.
I think I'll need to build a small KrF laser.
Helmut Wabnig
You will need to build a fairly large one.
w.
douglas
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:47:13 -0800 (PST), douglas
>
> >Would it be possible to build two small UV lasers with enough power to
> >ionize the air in a 20 foot path? I'd like to see if a functional,
> >portable electrolaser is possible.
>
> >I think I'll need to build a small KrF laser.
>
> You will need to build a fairly large one.
>
> w.
Yeah, I know
AES
<e1416138-de3f-4deb...@k19g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
douglas <protom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:40�am, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:47:13 -0800 (PST), douglas
> >
> > <protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Would it be possible to build two small UV lasers with enough power to
> > >ionize the air in a 20 foot path? I'd like to see if a functional,
> > >portable electrolaser is possible.
A better (but more expensive) tool might be an ultrashort-pulse
"terawatt" or "terabeam" laser.
douglas
> In article
> <e1416138-de3f-4deb-a771-f1ca0901c...@k19g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> douglas <protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 12:40 am, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:47:13 -0800 (PST), douglas
>
> > > <protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >Would it be possible to build two small UV lasers with enough power to
> > > >ionize the air in a 20 foot path? I'd like to see if a functional,
> > > >portable electrolaser is possible.
>
> A better (but more expensive) tool might be an ultrashort-pulse
> "terawatt" or "terabeam" laser.
How would that be better? Can you give me a link?
Why wouldn't a UV laser be good enough to ionize the air?
AES
<de0c9755-4adb-49a7...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
douglas <protom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A better (but more expensive) tool might be an ultrashort-pulse
> > "terawatt" or "terabeam" laser.
>
> How would that be better? Can you give me a link?
>
> Why wouldn't a UV laser be good enough to ionize the air?
http://www.wetter24.de/nc/de/home/wetter/wetter_news/news/ch/858f579d84/a
rticle/gewitterwolke_manipuliert.html
http://pclasim47.univ-lyon1.fr/
Google under "teramobile" or author "kasparian" in Scientific American.
UV lasers can certainly ionize air; ultrashort pulses with terawatt peak
power levels can do it beautifully over km distances because of a
self-trapping phenomena where the pulse traps itself in a narrow
filament.
douglas
>
> douglas <protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > A better (but more expensive) tool might be an ultrashort-pulse
> > > "terawatt" or "terabeam" laser.
>
> > How would that be better? Can you give me a link?
>
> > Why wouldn't a UV laser be good enough to ionize the air?
>
> rticle/gewitterwolke_manipuliert.html
>
> http://pclasim47.univ-lyon1.fr/
>
> Google under "teramobile" or author "kasparian" in Scientific American.
>
> UV lasers can certainly ionize air; ultrashort pulses with terawatt peak
> power levels can do it beautifully over km distances because of a
> self-trapping phenomena where the pulse traps itself in a narrow
> filament.
Well, my goal is to simply ionize the air over 20-50 feet. I'm not
trying to make an electrolaser Howitzer.
What frequency would I need? Let's say each 248 nm pulse has an energy
of 500 mW, and the frequency is 100 Hz. How could I power this?
Btw, which would cause a worse burn: a 500 mW pulse of a 248 nm UV
laser, or a 500 mW pulse of a 940 nm IR laser?
krokodyle
"douglas" <protom...@gmail.com> wrote
Btw, which would cause a worse burn: a 500 mW pulse of a 248 nm UV
laser, or a 500 mW pulse of a 940 nm IR laser?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it depends what you call burn, the 248 nm laser will cause a neat well
defined wound, the 940 nm may cause an actual burn.
Just a hunch... I could be wrong.
douglas
> "douglas" <protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> Btw, which would cause a worse burn: a 500 mW pulse of a 248 nm UV
> laser, or a 500 mW pulse of a 940 nm IR laser?
> it depends what you call burn, the 248 nm laser will cause a neat well
> defined wound, the 940 nm may cause an actual burn.
> Just a hunch... I could be wrong.
I bet the UV laser will cause worse after-effects, like skin
neoplasia.