Implications for Good

If polywell fusion is developed, in what ways will the world change for better or worse? Discuss.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

kunkmiester
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Postby kunkmiester » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:40 pm

I'm guessing that the problem with the phalanx system is that the radars track the target and the stream of bullets and bring them together in an itegratting fashion. That's hard to do with a very short engagement time.
I don't think even a government contractor would try such a convoluted mechanism. The computer knows the firing rate, bullet speed and dispersion, etc. It detects the missile, and tries to put a cloud of dense metal in the way. This segues into another advantage the missiles and bigger guns have--the heavier shell is more likely to penetrate the missile and make the warhead go off early.

The problem with Phalanx is with the supersonic missiles. You're taking at most a third of the time to cross the engagement area, this vastly reduces the ability of the weapon to engage the missile.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Postby Roger » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:18 am

kunkmiester wrote:
The problem with Phalanx is with the supersonic missiles..




D Tibbets wrote:
That's hard to do with a very short engagement time.


Yes, exactly, and the faster your incoming bogie is, the less time you have. I forget where, but I read that at mach 2.5 for the incoming bogie, Phalanx would have sub 3 second engagement time.

kunkmiester wrote:Phalanx is being replaced by RIM. Not sure just how effective it is, but it can engage at something like 20 miles, versus the Phalanx's two or three.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ns/ram.htm

utilizes SIDEWINDER technology for the warhead and rocket motor, and the STINGER missile’s seeker


A winner!

On paper I think the RIM should be fine. For me, I like having point defense and medium range defense, Phalanx and Rim together gives you 2 layers, nice!
Last edited by Roger on Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Postby Roger » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:32 am

D Tibbets wrote:
I suspect submarines remain the dominate threat to a carrier,


Dan Tibbets


I think the US Navy agrees with you. IIRC no US carrier deploys w/o at least one LA class sub for exactly that reason.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:46 am

Roger wrote:
D Tibbets wrote:
I suspect submarines remain the dominate threat to a carrier,

Dan Tibbets


I think the US Navy agrees with you. IIRC no US carrier deploys w/o at least one LA class sub for exactly that reason.


Carriers needed subs in WW2. The subs were not fast enough so they were strung out on the carrier's path.

It is not a new problem.

It doesn't negate the advantage of mobile airfields. Yet.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:01 pm

Rather disheartening. The thread starts out with a plea to think of ways to use the Polywell for good, and here it is, an argument over lethality/efficacy of aircraft carriers. Sigh!

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:38 pm

KitemanSA wrote:Rather disheartening. The thread starts out with a plea to think of ways to use the Polywell for good, and here it is, an argument over lethality/efficacy of aircraft carriers. Sigh!


Spite for the Peace For Our Time jokers.

BTW there are some of us who think that aircraft carriers in the hands of the US are overall forces for good.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... -fall.html

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... n-row.html

There is a very old saying (maybe 3,000 years old):

If you want peace prepare for war.

After I got back from Vietnam (never a shot fired in anger) I hated war. about a decade and a half later I decided that I needed to study war (and get at least good at it) in order to get the peace I was looking for.

Which is why I have come to the conclusion expounded on above.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Professor Science
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby Professor Science » Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:53 pm

Yes, but that doesn't prevent you from going over designs for electro-chemicals plants or viability of desalination via high energy alpha bombardment or something equally creative and unexpected that a polywell could be used for.
The pursuit of knowledge is in the best of interest of all mankind.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:11 pm

Professor Science wrote:Yes, but that doesn't prevent you from going over designs for electro-chemicals plants or viability of desalination via high energy alpha bombardment or something equally creative and unexpected that a polywell could be used for.


True. But I hate the smug attitude of "can't we all get along". I like to counter it with my own smug attitude. Plus the subjects you mentioned have been done to death (I've been here two years and have been following Polywell since Nov. 2006 - a few weeks after the Google Video).

It all depends on what the energy costs - and we will have no certain idea of that for at least 2 years and maybe 7.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.


Return to “Implications”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests