
   Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 08:54:29 -0700
   From: Scott Swigart <sms@plaza.ds.adp.com>
Subject: [gworld] Laser question

I'm curious as to how most of you deal with laser type weapons.  Do
these weapons make any noise?  Is there any visible beam?  Is there any
recoil?

Almost by definition, lasers are invisible and silent, but how play
them?

Thanks,
sms

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 07:48:43 +0000
   From: zodgrod@netxn.com
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question

> I'm curious as to how most of you deal with laser type weapons.

I run lasers as a very straight, shoot-em-up weapon (I don't even use
the IR and UV lasers). A big, bright beam of light, and a sizzling
sound. Remember, this isn't your dainty surgical laser, or the little
retina-burner inside a CD player, this is a WEAPON.  I also let them
be stopped by force fields (Which in my game shimmer visibly, and
refract the laser harmlessly but with a lot of showy light).

Nobody's ever experimented with a laser of weapon strength, so it's
another thing we're free to take creative liberty with.

Brandon

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: "Dale McKee" <dalemckee@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question
   Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 02:27:56 -0700

Heck, in my campaign I make lasers pretty much like Star Wars blasters, but
then I give them VL (visible light) lasers... if I wanna give them a
special bonus, I give them one of the "invisible" kind.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 05:30:58 -0700
   From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question

> I'm curious as to how most of you deal with laser type weapons.

My lasers have a visible beam, they have a barely perceptable ultrasonic
whine, and they have ZERO recoil.

--
The J-Man
GOC Systems
j-man@iname.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 15:34:51 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Kveldulf@aol.com
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question

In a message dated 97-10-04 05:06:11 EDT, you write:

> I'm curious as to how most of you deal with laser type weapons.

Standard lasers I consider to be visible-light (by sci-fi convention);
their beams are very obvious to any observer, but completely silent
(except at the target's end, which can be heard to explosively vaporize,
melt, boil etc). Visible spectrum lasers are susceptible to being blocked
by fog, smoke and aerosols (airborne particles).

Non-standard lasers (which are featured in 4th ed Treasures of the Ancients)
include UV-spectrum, infrared and X- or gamma ray spectrum, none of which
are visible unless you have UV or IR goggles for those types;  I don't
think radiation goggles exist to see the other types.  These would be
invisible and silent as you described above.

Lasers have been proposed that would fire a low-strength particle or
electrical beam to ionize a path through the air, keeping the laser beam
from diffusing too much and improving range and penetration.  These might
make a noise of some sort created by the ionizing beam.

Any other ideas on them out there?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 15:45:59 -0400
   From: bigfella@bbs2.rmrc.net (Barclay Johnson)
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question

> I'm curious as to how most of you deal with laser type weapons.

        In my campaign there are two types of portable lasers, the
M.P.A.L.(Man Portable Assault Laser) and the H.P.A.L. (Heavy Portable
Assault Lasers). The M.P.A.L. and H.P.A.L. are based ruleswise on the
laser pistol and laser rifle in the 1st. and 2nd. editions, with these
differences. They are both larger, heavier units, the M.P.A.L. being
about the size of a trumpet case and the H.P.A.L. being like a rocket
launcher attached to a saxophone case, and both with attached power
generator/amplifier's worn on the belt or backpack. They reduce the
armor class of targets wearing armor of recent manufacture to 9. Artifact
armor (including Plastic Armor and Riot Gear) are unaffected because I
assume that they were built taking this sort of weapon into account. On
a critical hit (natural 20), beyond the double damage the laser has the
additional affect of blinding the target for 1d20 minutes.

        In terms of special effects, both emit a flash beam ranging from
red to white depending on the power of the laser, as the air molecules
are burned (see, I can do pseudoscience too.) The neat thing about laser
weapons that we came up with is that they can make their own targeting
sight. The device runs a low power beam thru the focusing chamber at all
times, projecting a red dot on potential targets. Firing the weapon
consists of suddenly switching the beam to full, lethal power after
aquiring the target.

        There's no sound short of the hum of the power amplifier (which
would be built in if it didn't happen naturally, since the operator
should have both visual and auditory signals that the device is
working.) and what ever sizzling the target chooses to do. There is
absolutely no recoil, since it's not a projectile being fired so much
as the molecules between the target and the gun being stimulated to dump
energy in the victim's direction (I think that's how a laser works. I
could be wrong.)

        An experienced laser operator knows to jiggle the weapon a little
as they fire, or move it in a quick, short stroke, putting a bigger hole
or slice into the victim. This does more damage than the pinpoint beam a
steady hand would put thru a target. Of course, even that dumps a lot of
heat into the enemy, cooking them a bit, but it's good to burn 'em a
little with a shaky shot.

(all facts verified by "Lasers and Power Packs" magazine.)

B.J. "zap-gun" Johnson

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Moses Wildermuth <wolf1@ecity.net>
   Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 20:44:25 -0600
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question


In GW4 they encourage invisible and silent lasers, but do include less
powerful VL lasers as well.
--
Wolfy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Sun, 5 Oct 97 11:49:06 EDT
   From: David Baisley <david@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question

> I'm curious as to how most of you deal with laser type weapons.

Lasers!!!

I like to think that they are so powerful that they oxidize the air as
they pass through it hence the starwars type of colored line passing
through the air.  The neat thiing of course is that the lazer being
light  goes so fast that the light bit is trailing it.

You cood use less powerful invisible lazers too.  Things that cause
mild burns and are only first detected when a person gets hit.  Do
people take account for a lazer hitting a characters eyes?

David Baisley
david@columbia.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:08:05 -0400
   From: bigfella@bbs2.rmrc.net (Barclay Johnson)
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question
   Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:08:05 -0400

>Heck, in my campaign I make lasers pretty much like Star Wars blasters, but
>then I give them VL (visible light) lasers... if I wanna give them a
>special bonus, I give them one of the "invisible" kind.
>
>> I'm curious as to how most of you deal with laser type weapons.  Do
>> these weapons make any noise?  Is there any visible beam?  Is there any
>> recoil?
>>
>> Almost by definition, lasers are invisible and silent, but how play
>> them?

Ooh, think about the trap value of invisible lasers! What a way to sow
terror in a party, when someone's arm suddenly gets sliced cleanly off from
a hidden laser defense system, with no sign of where it came from or what
just happened. Just 'plop', off goes the limb. I shudder to think about it.

        If you approach laser weapons from a human interface standpoint, it
would probably behoove the designers to put visual and auditory cues that
the weapon was firing, for the sake of safety (unless you wanted to use
them as a sniper). We know guns fire because of the noise, recoil, and
smoke, or on a more abstract level, the only reason we know a computer is
working is because of the sounds or little clocks or hourglasses that pop
on the screen. Humans need clues that their devices are functioning.
        To point up the danger of this weren't the case, I have a friend
who served on an aircraft carrier, and when a high pressure pipe sprang a
pinpoint leak, it would force the fluid out in an invisble stream that
could cut a man in half if he blundered into it. Whenever the pressure
dropped on the guages, everyone had to freeze in place where they were, and
the rescue crews would walk the access aisles waving a broomstick in front
of them. If the broomstick suddenly shortened itself several inches, that's
where the leak was. This example points up the dangers of invisible,
soundless lasers, I think (and also may generate some ideas of the dangers
inherent in ancient industrial complexes). Just a thought.

B.J. Johnson

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:50:20 -0400
   From: Reginald Blue <rvb@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>
Subject: RE: [gworld] Laser question

Depends on the laser weapon in question:

-Firstly though, they are all silent (except for the "hissing"
sound when they hit flesh.  ;-).

-Second they are all recoilless.

IR Laser
  Invisibile to normal sight.
  Easily visible to IR Sensors/IR Goggles
  (may "blind" sensors if aimed at them).

UV Laser
  Invisible to normal sight.
  Easily visible to UV Sensors/UV Goggles
  (may "blind" sensors if aimed at them).

VL Laser
  Visible to normal sight.
  May "blind" VL sensors if aimed at them.

Maser
  Invisible to normal sight.
  Certain (GM's call) radar systems may be able to detect this
  weapon.
  May "blind" said radar systems as well.

How's that?

Reggie

----------
   From: 	Scott Swigart[SMTP:sms@plaza.ds.adp.com]
Subject: 	[gworld] Laser question

I'm curious as to how most of you deal with laser type weapons.  Do
these weapons make any noise?  Is there any visible beam?  Is there any
recoil?

Almost by definition, lasers are invisible and silent, but how play
them?

Thanks,
sms

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 08:33:47 PDT
   From: "John Fox" <walnut_@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question

I treat them as a few other ppl. i know and that is as Visible Light.
They have no recoil but they do make a sound as light leaves the barrel
.  it is caused my the light breaking the sound barrier as light travels
faster than sound

>From: "Dale McKee" <dalemckee@worldnet.att.net>
>Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question
>Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 02:27:56 -0700
>
>Heck, in my campaign I make lasers pretty much like Star Wars blasters,
but
>then I give them VL (visible light) lasers... if I wanna give them a
>special bonus, I give them one of the "invisible" kind.
>
>> I'm curious as to how most of you deal with laser type weapons.  Do
>> these weapons make any noise?  Is there any visible beam?  Is there
any
>> recoil?
>>
>> Almost by definition, lasers are invisible and silent, but how play
>> them?
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 14:52:16 +1000 (EST)
   From: PATRICK BURKE <p1.burke@student.qut.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question

On Sat, 4 Oct 1997 zodgrod@netxn.com wrote:
>
>
> > I'm curious as to how most of you deal with laser type weapons.  Do
> > these weapons make any noise?  Is there any visible beam?  Is there any
> > recoil?
> >
> > Almost by definition, lasers are invisible and silent, but how play
> > them?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > sms
> >
> I run lasers as a very straight, shoot-em-up weapon (I don't even use
> the IR and UV lasers). A big, bright beam of light, and a sizzling
> sound. Remember, this isn't your dainty surgical laser, or the little
> retina-burner inside a CD player, this is a WEAPON.  I also let them
> be stopped by force fields (Which in my game shimmer visibly, and
> refract the laser harmlessly but with a lot of showy light).
>
> Nobody's ever experimented with a laser of weapon strength, so it's
> another thing we're free to take creative liberty with.

Hey isn't the big-bad US government experementing with a laser that they
are going to blast an old satalite with in the next few months???  I
remember this from the news, but it could have just been a hoax.

Patrick

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:41:29 +0100
   From: Mark_Warren@pafec.co.uk
Subject: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff

Just a quick note on the laser thread.

While I do like a bit of wackiness in my games I also like to stick to
'Real Life' where possible. My lasers are like 'real' lasers, silent
and unseen death. The perfect sniper weapon. But I also like the Idea
of Star Wars type blasters. So if I want that sort of weapon I go for
a different idea. My blasters are devices that throw packets of
material that give out loads of energy, making them glow, this leaves
a 'light' trail that makes the effect of a Star Wars style blaster.
The idea is similar to the Star Trek photon torpedo. That is a solid
projectile that glows when it is shot out.

What do you guys think?

Regards,

Mark W.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:47:12 +0000
   From: zodgrod@netxn.com
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question


> Hey isn't the big-bad US government experementing with a laser that
> they are going to blast an old satalite with in the next few months?
> I remember this from the news, but it could have just been a hoax.

I don't know, but it sounds like fun. If you see anything else about
it, let me know. Misguided orbital lasers in Gamma World could be the
equivalent of Godly bolts from heaven.

Brandon

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:07:04 -0400
   From: bigfella@bbs2.rmrc.net (Barclay Johnson)
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question

>Lasers!!!
>
>I like to think that they are so powerful that they oxidize the air
>as they pass through it hence the starwars type of colored line
>passing through the air.  The neat thiing of course is that the
>laser being light  goes so fast that the light bit is trailing it.
>
>You cood use less powerful invisible lazers too.  Things that cause
>mild burns and are only first detected when a person gets hit.  Do
>people take account for a lazer hitting a characters eyes?

Actually from stuff I've seen on military developments of the near
future, blinding the enemy is one of the main purposes of up and
coming laser weapons, more so than causing damage.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 16:50:25 -0600
   From: Moses Wildermuth <wolf1@ecity.net>
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question

This laser issue really points out "house rules" in a way.  I agree
in theory with someone else who said man needs an indication that
his devices are working. Accidental, friendly fire comes to mind
very easily as well as the mysterious death of any examiner that
came near one.  People might even think the item was cursed (in a
primitive or multiple-genre campaign).  My groups were also more into
assault weapons, slicers, and blasters than they were lasers(especially
in GW3) and with GW4 I usually used FIR's and VL's just to make things
easier. However, if it can be considered that light and noise were added
in to the gun for safety sake. there should be a way to shut it off (to
convert to sniper rifle,etc.) I think that if, as has been suggested,
that light and noise can be considered to be "byproducts" of the high
speed/temperature or whatever of the beam, then that is cool too. , but
you would not be able to turn it off so easily (think "anti-noise" and/or
"anti-light" like they use to make planes less noisy)....  But hey
(instant flash of insight),  Anti-light could be used to make most
anything invisible, like the cloaker medallion in one of the early
modules.

Well, I'm exhausted, L8TR,
Wolfy

On 06-Oct-97, John Fox wrote:
>I treat them as a few other ppl. i know and that is as Visible Light.
>They have no recoil but they do make a sound as light leaves the barrel
>.  it is caused my the light breaking the sound barrier as light travels
>faster than sound


>>Heck, in my campaign I make lasers pretty much like Star Wars blasters,
>but
>>then I give them VL (visible light) lasers... if I wanna give them a
>>special bonus, I give them one of the "invisible" kind.
>>
>>> I'm curious as to how most of you deal with laser type weapons.  Do
>>> these weapons make any noise?  Is there any visible beam?  Is there
>any
>>> recoil?
>>>
>>> Almost by definition, lasers are invisible and silent, but how play
>>> them?

--
:{>  Wolfy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 21:01:38 -0700
   From: David Wheeler <wyldfyre@ns1.uconect.net>
Subject: Re: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff

Mark_Warren@pafec.co.uk wrote:
>
>Just a quick note on the laser thread.
>
>While I do like a bit of wackiness in my games I also like to stick to
>'Real Life' where possible. My lasers are like 'real' lasers, silent
>and unseen death. The perfect sniper weapon. But I also like the Idea
>of Star Wars type blasters. So if I want that sort of weapon I go for
>a different idea. My blasters are devices that throw packets of
>material that give out loads of energy, making them glow, this leaves
>a 'light' trail that makes the effect of a Star Wars style blaster.
>The idea is similar to the Star Trek photon torpedo. That is a solid
>projectile that glows when it is shot out.
>
>What do you guys think?
>
>Mark W.

	Interesting... but how common are the "projectiles" for your blasters
and when they are found how many are burned out and how many can still
be used?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:44:58 -0400
   From: bigfella@bbs2.rmrc.net (Barclay Johnson)
Subject: Re: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff

  >Just a quick note on the laser thread.
  >
  >While I do like a bit of wackiness in my games I also like to stick to
  >'Real Life' where possible. My lasers are like 'real' lasers, silent
  >and unseen death. The perfect sniper weapon. But I also like the Idea
  >of Star Wars type blasters. So if I want that sort of weapon I go for
  >a different idea. My blasters are devices that throw packets of
  >material that give out loads of energy, making them glow, this leaves
  >a 'light' trail that makes the effect of a Star Wars style blaster.
  >The idea is similar to the Star Trek photon torpedo. That is a solid
  >projectile that glows when it is shot out.
  >
  >What do you guys think?

What sort of material? Could it be superheated plasma? Something similar in
effect to ball lightning? That could be an interesting weapon system. Or
maybe it could be something more prosaic, like phosphor or a napalm like
material. A silenced conventional gun firing all tracer bullets could act
like a Star Wars blaster too, but this is getting out of the realm of
energy weapons.
        I agree with you that an invisible laser would make a great
sniper's weapon. Along that thread, maybe vehicles for dignitaries in the
future would be equipped with special refractive glass that would break up
the laser beam before it could kill it's target. Laserproof glass. Could be
as valuable a material as duralloy. Is it true that mirrors deflect lasers,
or was that just something they made up for Jonny Quest?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:13:31 +0000
   From: zodgrod@netxn.com
Subject: Re: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff

  >         I agree with you that an invisible laser would make a great
  > sniper's weapon. Along that thread, maybe vehicles for dignitaries in the
  > future would be equipped with special refractive glass that would break up
  > the laser beam before it could kill it's target. Laserproof glass. Could be
  > as valuable a material as duralloy. Is it true that mirrors deflect lasers,
  > or was that just something they made up for Jonny Quest?

I always wondered that myself.  I thought the damage done from a
laser was from the heat of the concentrated light beam, so a mirror
would probably diffuse the beam some, but would still get a
good-sized hole melted in it.

Brandon

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:26:05 +0100
   From: Mark_Warren@pafec.co.uk
Subject: Re[2]: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff

Wolfy,
     The 'packets' sort of explode on impact, giving up their energy
in a big burst, so it's not exactly disintegration, though a bit of
that might go on. Second, I'm not really sure what category it would
go into, it's just my way of having a Star Wars style blaster where
you can see those neat beams shooting all over the place in a
firefight.

Mark W.

P.S. Maybe someone can suggest what category this type of weapon would
be in.

>I like the basic idea behind the idea, but I have two questions.
>Does it also cause disintegration, like traditional GW blasters
>and should it still be called a blaster or is a whole nother
>category of weapon, more akin to the slicer?
>
>Wolfy


On 08-Oct-97, Mark_Warren@pafec.co.uk wrote:
>Just a quick note on the laser thread.
>
>While I do like a bit of wackiness in my games I also like to stick to
>'Real Life' where possible. My lasers are like 'real' lasers, silent
>and unseen death. The perfect sniper weapon. But I also like the Idea
>of Star Wars type blasters. So if I want that sort of weapon I go for
>a different idea. My blasters are devices that throw packets of
>material that give out loads of energy, making them glow, this leaves
>a 'light' trail that makes the effect of a Star Wars style blaster.
>The idea is similar to the Star Trek photon torpedo. That is a solid
>projectile that glows when it is shot out.
>
>What do you guys think?
>
>Regards,
>
>Mark W.
--
:{>  Wolfy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:31:37 -0500
   From: Donovan Colbert <dcolbert@campus.mci.net>
Subject: Re: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff

 I've always thought the answer lies in "Plasma" blasters, if you want
visable "light" beam weapons.

At 10:41 AM 10/8/97 +0100, you wrote:
>Just a quick note on the laser thread.
>
>While I do like a bit of wackiness in my games I also like to stick to
>'Real Life' where possible. My lasers are like 'real' lasers, silent
>and unseen death. The perfect sniper weapon. But I also like the Idea
>of Star Wars type blasters. So if I want that sort of weapon I go for
>a different idea. My blasters are devices that throw packets of
>material that give out loads of energy, making them glow, this leaves
>a 'light' trail that makes the effect of a Star Wars style blaster.
>The idea is similar to the Star Trek photon torpedo. That is a solid
>projectile that glows when it is shot out.
>
>What do you guys think?
>
>Mark W.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:37:56 -0700
   From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff

Mark_Warren@pafec.co.uk wrote:
>
>Wolfy,
>     The 'packets' sort of explode on impact, giving up their energy
>in a big burst, so it's not exactly disintegration, though a bit of
>that might go on. Second, I'm not really sure what category it would
>go into, it's just my way of having a Star Wars style blaster where
>you can see those neat beams shooting all over the place in a
>firefight.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mark W.
>
>P.S. Maybe someone can suggest what category this type of weapon would
>be in.
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff
> Author:  Moses Wildermuth <wolf1@ecity.net> at internet
> Date:    09/10/97 20:09
>
> I like the basic idea behind the idea, but I have two questions.  Does it also
> cause disintegration, like traditional GW blasters and should it still be
> called a blaster or is a whole nother categoery of weapon, more akin to the
> slicer?
>
> Wolfy
>
>
>
>
> On 08-Oct-97, Mark_Warren@pafec.co.uk wrote:
> >Just a quick note on the laser thread.
> >
> >While I do like a bit of wackiness in my games I also like to stick to
> >'Real Life' where possible. My lasers are like 'real' lasers, silent
> >and unseen death. The perfect sniper weapon. But I also like the Idea
> >of Star Wars type blasters. So if I want that sort of weapon I go for
> >a different idea. My blasters are devices that throw packets of
> >material that give out loads of energy, making them glow, this leaves
> >a 'light' trail that makes the effect of a Star Wars style blaster.
> >The idea is similar to the Star Trek photon torpedo. That is a solid
> >projectile that glows when it is shot out.
> >
> >What do you guys think?
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Mark W.
> --
> :{>  Wolfy
>

Technically, you are referring to a "projectile" weapon, in effect, a
weapon which fires a shelled round to deliver it's payload to a remote
target, the impact of which releases the energy in the payload of the
projectile.

The J-Man
GOC Systems
j-man@iname.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:24:20 -0400
   From: Reginald Blue <rvb@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>
Subject: RE: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff

It works for me.  Why don't you write it up?  I might include it in my
list of treasure items...

Reggie

----------
>   From:   Mark_Warren@pafec.co.uk[SMTP:Mark_Warren@pafec.co.uk]
>   Sent:   Wednesday, October 08, 1997 5:41 AM
>Subject:   [gworld] Lasers and Stuff
>
>Just a quick note on the laser thread.
>
>While I do like a bit of wackiness in my games I also like to stick to
>'Real Life' where possible. My lasers are like 'real' lasers, silent
>and unseen death. The perfect sniper weapon. But I also like the Idea
>of Star Wars type blasters. So if I want that sort of weapon I go for
>a different idea. My blasters are devices that throw packets of
>material that give out loads of energy, making them glow, this leaves
>a 'light' trail that makes the effect of a Star Wars style blaster.
>The idea is similar to the Star Trek photon torpedo. That is a solid
>projectile that glows when it is shot out.
>
>What do you guys think?
>
>Mark W.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:09:29 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Kveldulf@aol.com
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question

In a message dated 97-10-10 03:17:09 EDT, you write:

>Very thorough research, is it staight from GW4 or is some
>extrapolated? My books are on the floor behind me but I'm
>being lazy :{>
>Wolfy

>>On 06-Oct-97, Reginald Blue wrote:
>>Depends on the laser weapon in question:
>>Firstly though, they are all silent (except for the "hissing"
>>sound when they hit flesh.  ;-).  Second they are all recoilless.
>
>>IR Laser... >>

I'd guess from extrapolation.

Recoil in firearms is caused by the force of gunpowder and gases igniting in
the barrel and producing force in the opposite direction the bullet is fired.
 In a laser, you flip a switch (most lasers use some combination of
electricity, magnets, gases and lenses to create the beam) and the beam is
created.  Thus a laser would no more cause recoil than would a high-powered
flashlight.  Only if the laser expelled some sort of waste gas during firing
would it have any recoil, and even then it would be minimal.

Firearms create noise because the bullet travels fast enough to break the
sound barrier.  Lasers project a beam of energy which, although it travels
far faster than the speed of sound, either travels through or is reflected by
matter and therefore creates no noise in and of itself, unless the energy is
absorbed by some matter (ie.  the ant your kid's focussing that magnifying
glass on) and boils, ignites, etc.  The only sound a laser weapon would
produce would probably be due to the charging mechanism - a slight whine as
the capacitors built up charge or something similar.  Such sound would be
eliminated in later models so as not to give away the shooter.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:21:50 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Kveldulf@aol.com
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question

In a message dated 97-10-10 03:32:55 EDT, you write:

>>Lasers!!!
>>
>>I like to think that they are so powerful that they oxidize the air as
>>they pass through it hence the starwars type of colored line passing
>>through the air.  The neat thiing of course is that the lazer being
>>light  goes so fast that the light bit is trailing it.
>>
>>You cood use less powerful invisible lazers too.  Things that cause
>>mild burns and are only first detected when a person gets hit.  Do
>>people take account for a lazer hitting a characters eyes?
>
>Actually from stuff I've seen on military developments of the near future,
>blinding the enemy is one of the main purposes of up and coming laser
>weapons, more so than causing damage. >>

Actually blinding is hot right now since its a lot easier to blind a fighter
pilot (for instance) using an off-the-shelf laser than develop a more
powerful one (spending millions or billions of dollars) which could actually
shoot the plane down.  Though there's been news stories to the effect that
blinding lasers will soon be added to the Geneva Convention of prohibited
wepons (such as mustard gas) for being inhumane.

As far as laser colors go, it'd depend on the type of lens used (diamond'd
probably be clear or off-yellow, ruby'd be reddish, sapphire'd be bluish,
etc.) and the dust in the air.  The laser'd only be visible of dust or vapor
/ mist were present in the air to scatter the light - otherwise it'd probably
be invisible regardless of the color (like those reddish-colored laser
pointers used in sales presentations or the gunsights so popular in Hollywood
films).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:10:14 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Kveldulf@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff

In a message dated 97-10-11 04:31:10 EDT, you write:
>Wolfy,
>      The 'packets' sort of explode on impact, giving up their energy
> in a big burst, so it's not exactly disintegration, though a bit of
> that might go on. Second, I'm not really sure what category it would
> go into, it's just my way of having a Star Wars style blaster where
> you can see those neat beams shooting all over the place in a
> firefight.
>
> Mark W.
>
> P.S. Maybe someone can suggest what category this type of weapon would
> be in.

Sounds like a Traveller-style plasma weapon (ie. PGMP or FGMP) to me.  You
create a magnetic bottle of hydrogen and superheat the hydrogen to a plasma;
 then you open up the bottle at one end and the plasma is ejected out the gun
muzzle.  Nothing like some superheated plasma to ruin your enemies' day.  To
answer the next question, they would probably produce both noise and
recoil...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:01:47 -0400
   From: bigfella@bbs2.rmrc.net (Barclay Johnson)
Subject: [gworld] Invisibility

>This laser issue really points out "house rules" in a way.  I agree in theory
>with someone else who said man needs an indication that his devices are
>working. Accidental, friendly fire comes to mind very easily as well as the
>mysterious death of any examiner that came near one.  People might even think
>the item was cursed(in a primitive or multiple-genre campaign).  My groups
>were also more into assault weapons, slicers, and blasters than they were
>lasers(especially in GW3) and with GW4 I usually used FIR's and VL's just to
>make things easier. However, if it can be considered that light and noise were
>added in to the gun for safety sake. there should be a way to shut it off (to
>convert to sniper rifle,etc.)

I like the idea of a sniper conversion for a laser rifle. I think I'll use
it in my campaign.

I think that if, as has been suggested, that
>light and noise can be considered to be "byproducts" of the high
>speed/temperature or whatever of the beam, then that is cool too. , but you
>would not be able to turn it off so easily (think "anti-noise" and/or
>"anti-light" like they use to make planes less noisy)....  But hey(instant
>flash of insight),  Anti-light could be used to make most anything invisible,
>like the cloaker medallion in one of the early modules.

I think the thing is that for anti sound to work, you have to project and
equal and opposite wavelength for it to cancel out the vibrations of the
noise. In other words, it has to be keyed specifically to a certain range
to work. (This is from what info I've seen on anti-sound technology.) Would
anti-light use the same principle? I'm not totally up on my physics, but I
thought light behaved differently than sound. I guess one wavelength of
light could cancel out the other, but wouldn't it be difficult to match the
wavelength in a chaotic, uncontrolled setting like a battlefield or urban
zone. I have an easier time believing in systems that are more
supereffective camoflage than ways of cancelling out light. Anti-light is
an interesting concept, tho.
        I dodge the issue of invisibility as a mutation by turning it into
a Mental Mutation. That instead of bending light rays around the mutant by
act of will, it telepathically clouds the minds of fellow sentients,
convincing them that they are not seeing or hearing the wielder of
invisibility. Of course the drawback is that it doesn't work on 'bots, but
it does make them invisible to infared and utraviolet systems worn by
living beings. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of mutants ?

Lamont Cranston

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:29:36 +0100
   From: Mark_Warren@pafec.co.uk
Subject: Re[2]: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff

     I hadn't really thought out what the packets were, but some sort of
     plasma would be a good idea. Its definitely not a napalm type device.
     No chemicals at all. Yes it is true that mirrors reflect lasers. Thats
     why reflective armour works. And I love the refractive glass idea but
     wouldn't it refract normal light too, making it look all foggy.
     Once I pull all these ideas together I will post the results.

     Mark W.


>   Date: 10/10/97 00:44
>   From: bigfella@bbs2.rmrc.net (Barclay Johnson) at internet
>Subject: Re: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff
>
>
>>Just a quick note on the laser thread.
>>
>>While I do like a bit of wackiness in my games I also like to stick to
>>'Real Life' where possible. My lasers are like 'real' lasers, silent
>>and unseen death. The perfect sniper weapon. But I also like the Idea
>>of Star Wars type blasters. So if I want that sort of weapon I go for
>>a different idea. My blasters are devices that throw packets of
>>material that give out loads of energy, making them glow, this leaves
>>a 'light' trail that makes the effect of a Star Wars style blaster.
>>The idea is similar to the Star Trek photon torpedo. That is a solid
>>projectile that glows when it is shot out.
>>
>>What do you guys think?
>
>What sort of material? Could it be superheated plasma? Something similar in
>effect to ball lightning? That could be an interesting weapon system. Or
>maybe it could be something more prosaic, like phosphor or a napalm like
>material. A silenced conventional gun firing all tracer bullets could act
>like a Star Wars blaster too, but this is getting out of the realm of
>energy weapons.
>        I agree with you that an invisible laser would make a great
>sniper's weapon. Along that thread, maybe vehicles for dignitaries in the
>future would be equipped with special refractive glass that would break up
>the laser beam before it could kill it's target. Laserproof glass. Could be
>as valuable a material as duralloy. Is it true that mirrors deflect lasers,
>or was that just something they made up for Jonny Quest?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:33:41 +0100
   From: Mark_Warren@pafec.co.uk
Subject: Re[2]: [gworld] 65Lasers and Stuff

I think the projectiles would be fairly inert substances, using the gun
to be activated. So there would be as many as any sort of ammo for
ancient guns. That would be up to the GM.

Mark W.

>   Date: 09/10/97 21:01
>   From: David Wheeler <wyldfyre@ns1.uconect.net> at internet
>Subject: Re: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff
>
>Mark_Warren@pafec.co.uk wrote:
>>      Just a quick note on the laser thread.
>>      While I do like a bit of wackiness in my games I also like to stick to
>>      'Real Life' where possible. My lasers are like 'real' lasers, silent
>>      and unseen death. The perfect sniper weapon. But I also like the Idea
>>      of Star Wars type blasters. So if I want that sort of weapon I go for
>>      a different idea. My blasters are devices that throw packets of
>>      material that give out loads of energy, making them glow, this leaves
>>      a 'light' trail that makes the effect of a Star Wars style blaster.
>>      The idea is similar to the Star Trek photon torpedo. That is a solid
>>      projectile that glows when it is shot out.
>>      What do you guys think?
>>      Regards,
>>      Mark W.
>
> Interesting... but how common are the "projectiles" for your blasters
>and when they are found how many are burned out and how many can still
>be used?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:57:13 -0400
   From: bigfella@bbs2.rmrc.net (Barclay Johnson)
Subject: [gworld] Protective glass

>>         I agree with you that an invisible laser would make a great
>> sniper's weapon. Along that thread, maybe vehicles for dignitaries in the
>> future would be equipped with special refractive glass that would break up
>> the laser beam before it could kill it's target. Laserproof glass. Could be
>> as valuable a material as duralloy. Is it true that mirrors deflect lasers,
>> or was that just something they made up for Jonny Quest?
>>
>I always wondered that myself.  I thought the damage done from a
>laser was from the heat of the concentrated light beam, so a mirror
>would probably diffuse the beam some, but would still get a
>good-sized hole melted in it.

Yeah, but in terms of the protective glass as long as it was the window and
not the dignitary behind it getting melted, it'd serve it's purpose. It
wouldn't be very pretty or useful for looking thru after a laser hit. I've
seen some stuff on bulletproof glass that's pretty amazing, special effects
wise.

B.J. Johnson

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:56:00 -0400
   From: Reginald Blue <rvb@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>
Subject: RE: [gworld] Laser question

No, however it will ionize air if it contains enough energy.
This may cause sound by itself.

----------
   From: Donovan Colbert[SMTP:dcolbert@campus.mci.net]
   Sent: Friday, October 10, 1997 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [gworld] Laser question

 Well, wouldn't it be a "sonic boom" that occurs only when the sound
barrier is  initially broken? Theoretically speaking, of course... Does
light displace air if it contains enough energy?

At 05:18 PM 10/8/97 EDT, you wrote:
>> I treat them as a few other ppl. i know and that is as Visible Light.
>> They have no recoil but they do make a sound as light leaves the barrel.
>> It is caused my the light breaking the sound barrier as light travels
>> faster than sound
>
>I don't mean to be critical but thats just silly. I mean if the above
>had any validitiy then the office I am sitting in right now should be
>filled with noise from all the lightbulbs giving off the faster than
>sound light!
>
>I mean really lets go back to Physics 101 folks. :)
>
>David Baisley
>david@columbia.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:35:52 -0400
   From: bigfella@bbs2.rmrc.net (Barclay Johnson)
Subject: Re[2]: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff

  >I hadn't really thought out what the packets were, but some sort of
  >plasma would be a good idea. Its definitely not a napalm type device.
  >No chemicals at all. Yes it is true that mirrors reflect lasers. Thats
  >why reflective armour works. And I love the refractive glass idea but
  >wouldn't it refract normal light too, making it look all foggy.
  >Once I pull all these ideas together I will post the results.

Maybe if it was polarized or something. Sort of a high tech , high speed
equivalent of light adjusting sunglasses. It'd definitely be a laminate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:21:57 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Kveldulf@aol.com
Subject: Re: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff

In a message dated 97-10-14 14:44:28 EDT, you write:
 >>future would be equipped with special refractive glass that would
 >>break up the laser beam before it could kill it's target. Laserproof
 >>glass. Could be as valuable a material as duralloy. Is it true that
 >>mirrors deflect lasers, or was that just something they made up for
 >>Jonny Quest?
 >
 > I always wondered that myself.  I thought the damage done from a
 > laser was from the heat of the concentrated light beam, so a mirror
 > would probably diffuse the beam some, but would still get a
 > good-sized hole melted in it.
 > Brandon

Unless the mirror was 100% reflective (VERY tough to do - nigh impossible at
today's - that is the 90's - tech level) the mirror would still melt
eventually;  even if the mirror was an impressive 90% reflective, that 10%
would still heat the mirror until it melted or the beam was turned off.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:12:10 -0400
   From: bigfella@bbs2.rmrc.net (Barclay Johnson)
Subject: Re: [gworld] Lasers and Stuff

>> I always wondered that myself.  I thought the damage done from a
>> laser was from the heat of the concentrated light beam, so a mirror
>> would probably diffuse the beam some, but would still get a
>> good-sized hole melted in it.
>   Brandon
>
>Unless the mirror was 100% reflective (VERY tough to do - nigh impossible at
>today's - that is the 90's - tech level) the mirror would still melt
>eventually;  even if the mirror was an impressive 90% reflective, that 10%
>would still heat the mirror until it melted or the beam was turned off.

Yeah, and in Gamma World that kind of precision is a lot to ask of all but
the most pristinely preserved technological installations. What about
methods to diffuse or radiate the heat. Some kind of laminate of refractive
and reflective glass combined with layers of ablative material and or heat
resistant material? Like that "starlight" material I've heard tell of,
thats supposed to be an amazing heat resistor. Of course, as far as I know
that stuff isn't transparent, but chalky white, so I guess it's out of the
running for laserproof glass.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 17:01:10 -0600
   From: Moses Wildermuth <wolf1@ecity.net>
Subject: [gworld] Military Lasers

I remembered our discussion of the US military use of satellite blasting
lasers one day when I was out on Dejanews and I found some stuff on
alt.conspiracies.  One guy thought the US was really shooting down 1-2 alien
ships or possibly probes with this weapon and another believed that the real
aliens are hiding behind the sun watching.  But after wading thru all that
crap I found some "substance".  I'll include it with this message but it's in
html so fire up your browsers and enjoy.

;{>  Wolfy
http://george.ecity.net/~wolf1/
wolf1@ecity.net

Dejanews follows:

>Subject: Re: Military's Testing of New Laser =3D Misfired Mischief
>   From: Tommy the Terrorist <mayday@super.zippo.com>
>   Date: 1997/10/26
>Newsgroups:   alt.conspiracy
>
>
>In article <62lugm$du7$1@titan.globalserve.net> KillerG, kg@zambianet.zr
>writes:
>>Is there anyone who thinks our military's action of
>>shooting down incoming UFOs might have shot one
>>of our own satelites..?
>
>>I felt really odd about our military people saying they
>>are going to test our New Laser system to
>>break up our own satelites.. :-0
>
>I'm not familiar with what the Zambian military is up to with lasers
>(...could you tell us? ...) but certainly I'm suspicious about the U.S.
>military's intention for them.  A series of articles, including the U.S.
>air force's own Web sites, refer to development of a system for shooting
>an extremely powerful infrared laser beam with perfect accuracy through
>the atmosphere (countering air turbulence effects), bouncing it off
>several orbiting reflector satellites, and hitting a target on the ground=
>
>or in the air.  (YES, this is the plot from Real Genius - apparently the
>producers of the film consulted some Caltech professors on what a likely
>fiendish military plot might be).  The laser and satellite testing
>chambers were ready in 1991, and several rounds of "testing" have been
>done during the past year.
>
>Anyway, what I find interesting is that it seems like there are multiply
>initiated, massive forest fires showing up all over, most notably in
>Malaysia but also in Brazil and some other places.  From the point of
>view of the first possible aggressive use of a laser assassination
>weapon, this makes perfect sense - when used as an INCENDIARY, a laser
>can work at a comparatively low power setting; it can still have some
>deviations in the beam without vaporizing the reflector satellite; it is
>less likely to be detected during use or by forensic reconstruction.
>
>However, I'm not at all familiar with the effect, motive, or specifics of
>these fires, and so cannot be sure whether there's any overall scheme
>that can be deduced from them.  Remember, the beneficiary need not be
>"the U.S. government"; it might be a private entity of some sort with the
>right connection.  The whole idea of a reflector satellite assassination
>system like that is that only the guy with the crypto code for the last
>satellite on the list needs to have ANY idea of where the laser is really
>going ...
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: lasers again
>   From: "James Linn" <james_linn@nortel.com>
>   Date: 1997/12/02
>Newsgroups:   alt.folklore.urban
>
>Conrad Edwards <conrad@niuska_demon_co_uk> wrote in article
><3481cdbc.8512964@news.demon.co.uk>...
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 19:14:49 GMT, Malcolm@gribble.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>> >Is this a new one?
>> >"
>> >A Bexley Bus driver was back at work
>> >this week after being injured by a laser pen,
>> >
>> Laser pens are HOT news in the UK now.
>> Usually they are just low power, say 5mW, but some are being imported
>> that are much more powerful eg25mW and can do temporary damage to the
>> eyes.
>> Legislation IS being considered to outlaw these high power versions,
>> as several police officers and bus drivers have suffered injury.
>
>There was an incident a few months ago of a Canadian Coast Guard Helicopter
>(with an American exchange co-pilot)
>which intercepted a Russian trawler near the US/Canada border on the west
>coast. Said trawler was thought to be a spy ship which was waiting
>for a new US sub to go to sea.
>
>The Canadian helicopter, knowing full well why the Russian ship was there,
>decided to come in for  a closer look.
>At that point a high power laser "dazzled" both the pilot and co-pilot,
>who managed to limp back to base. Upon reporting the incident,
>the crew were sent to a US military hospital for treatment. Both the
>Canadian and US gov'ts protested. Eventually, an order went
>out to the USCG to search the vessel, but by the time the order was
>executed, there no longer was any device of that type on board.
>
>This was documented by most major Canadian news media at the time.
>
>James Linn

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:42:12 -0600
   From: Jason Bradley <JASONB@transportamerica.com>
Subject: RE: [gworld] Ogre vs DM and other bits

  >Rereading these messages on the O vs DM, I was thinking why are
  >the weapons on a DM so short in range. The lasers should be twice or
  >triple what they are (be that they are light, and light has a good range,
  >ie forever). The black rays, trek guns, and blasters might have trouble

Actually Lasers do not have infinite range as they are affected by
ambient light around them.  This means they are subject to attrition,
which is stronger in a more light intensive environment.  Lasers may
actually diffuse pretty quickly in the right environment, such as
infrared based lasers in non-ozone covered world.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:30:36 EST
   From: Kveldulf <Kveldulf@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [gworld] black ray weapons

In a message dated 98-02-25 14:41:40 EST, you write:

<< The thread regarding the death machine vs an ogre got me thinking about
 the 'this vs that' stuff, and I started thinking about a death machine
 vs a god soldier (from Miyazaki's 'Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind.').
 Ran it by Reg to see what he thought, and he brought up the black ray
 cannon(gun?) that the death machines are equipped with, seeing that the
 god soldiers are primarily biological in nature. This brought up the
 question, 'just how _does_ a black ray gun work anyway?!?' Sometimes
 they tell you the principles of how things work, but in this case, they
 pretty much don't, at least from what I understand. So my question to
 the list is, regardless of whether you allow your players these weapons
 in your campaign, has anyone given any thought/invented a reason as to
 how the black ray weapons operate? >>

My best bet is that "Black Ray" weapons would be x-ray lasers - refined
versions of fusion guns.  A heavy does of x-rays would kill an organic pretty
instantly, with minimal damage to non-organic targets.  Basically, the
Ancients liked the fusion rifle but found it had too many drawbacks, so they
engineered a "better mousetrap."

From a game standpoint, I think the black ray gun was put in since the
game is science fantasy, not hard sf, in the best tradition of Buck
Rogers and Flash Gordon "death rays", etc.
