h a l f b a k e r yNaturally low in facts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
I think you are badly underestimating how much energy it would take to stop a projectile I suspect by at least a power of ten likely a hundred. |
|
| |
Bad science... REALLY bad science. |
|
| |
just thinking air defenses are pretty good these days and this idea is not very efficient in air anyways. You could still use it under water as it's better at transferring sound energy.
As for underestimating power usage very likely but I was thinking this system could be mounted onto nuclear powered ships and subs and the entire output of the reactor coupled with a capacitor bank could provide the required power long enough to destroy the torpedo.
[UB] If you are going to post that something is bad why don't you also post why it is bad so that I at least know that you understand the concept of the idea. |
|
| |
Standing waves *are* used to trap or repel things, but mostly we're talking dust particles here, or things the size of dust particles. Larger things are a little more intractable. |
|
| |
Such a system would be huge Spiff. It would only work over very small distances making it a poor defence against explosives (power requirement more than squaring with distance). Furthermore in air even a massive standing wave would not be able to stop a missile. It might damage it or send it off coarse but at the distances we are talking about (less than 10 feet) that wouldn't help much. In water you cannot impart enough energy due to a property called cavitation the same property that limits prop speed. I'm not sure what purpose trying to muffle the system would serve in either medium. That sort of thing works in the lab and in headphones but not on the scale that you are imagining.
Systems like this are far better at putting people out of commision than weapons due to our tender inner bits. |
|
| |