[HN Gopher] Scientists Guide Lightning Bolts with Lasers for the...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Scientists Guide Lightning Bolts with Lasers for the First Time
        
       Author : neom
       Score  : 32 points
       Date   : 2023-06-07 20:07 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
        
       | sfink wrote:
       | Apparently you can ionize water with a laser. In theory you could
       | float something on the surface of the ocean with an upward laser
       | to collect lightning and a downward laser to direct it to, oh,
       | undersea cables or submarines or whatever. Then you'd just need
       | to miniaturize it all enough to be mounted on a shark...
        
       | kelseyfrog wrote:
       | On the small scale, adding an additional laser and an electricity
       | source turns this into a wireless taser.
        
       | htag wrote:
       | A few questions come to mind:
       | 
       | 1. Does the protection extend to allowing airplanes to
       | takeoff/land during a storm?
       | 
       | 2. Can this be weaponized?
       | 
       | 3. Can this protect forests from lightning initiated forest
       | fires?
        
         | CoastalCoder wrote:
         | > Can this be weaponized?
         | 
         | I expect the only limit here is human imagination. E.g., Hitler
         | weaponized a microphone.
        
       | wolfram74 wrote:
       | I hope this means we can improve our study of lightening, it's a
       | very exotic phenomenon. When you're first starting out studying
       | plasma physics, you make some assumptions that make it easier to
       | work the math, things like EM fields matter more than collisions
       | do, it's generally low density, it's cold, it's relatively steady
       | state. None of these things apply to lightening, an even so
       | energetic and intense it makes antimatter[0] in our very own
       | atmosphere. Obviously we've been able to study it, but if we can
       | aim it we can use much more focused, higher resolution
       | instruments.
       | 
       | [0]https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-
       | nasa/2011/1...
        
         | jcrawfordor wrote:
         | The Langmuir Laboratory uses small rockets trailing wires to
         | induce lightning for easier observation. It's a really
         | fascinating process to see... a laser solution would be easier
         | but I suspect the capital cost would take a long time to break
         | even with the rockets.
        
       | dragontamer wrote:
       | If I remember my physics classes correctly, this is a
       | surprisingly easy phenomenon to understand.
       | 
       | 1. Lasers heat things up. In this case, they're heating up air.
       | 
       | 2. Hot air has lower-resistance than cool air. This is why
       | lightning happens at all: as lightning goes through its path, it
       | heats up the air hotter-and-hotter, which allows for more and
       | more electricity to flow. That is, lightning itself heats up the
       | air which makes the lightning more powerful.
       | 
       | 3. This article talks about a device that uses lasers to heat up
       | air ahead-of-time, where you heat up the air along pre-designated
       | "safe" paths to provide a virtual lightning rod composed of this
       | narrow stream of hot air... rather than a metal rod.
        
       | nightowl_games wrote:
       | Seems powerful. Can we cloud seed, collect static electricity
       | then harvest it for energy?
        
         | htag wrote:
         | No, there isn't enough lightning. Global lightning output is
         | around 1% (or less) of global energy consumption. There is
         | nothing about the technology that unlocks lightning bolt
         | harvesting as a new feasible power source. We could do really
         | similar things with simple lightning rods that have been around
         | for centuries.
        
         | CoastalCoder wrote:
         | I'm curious if there are any unappreciated benefits of
         | _uncontrolled_ lightning.
         | 
         | (I can'think of any, but doesn't doesn't mean much.)
        
           | goda90 wrote:
           | Nitrogen fixation maybe? Lightning breaks N2 so it bonds with
           | O2 into NO2. Rain then brings it to the soil to be taken up
           | by plants. But lightning does this at a much smaller scale
           | than microorganisms do, so maybe not too important.
        
         | oh_sigh wrote:
         | I think many people over-estimate how much energy exists in a
         | bolt of lightning. They're incredibly _powerful_ because they
         | transfer the energy in a millisecond or less, but there are
         | only about a billion joules in an average lightning strike. For
         | reference, that means you would need to get your home lightning
         | collector struck by lightning at least once a week in order to
         | satisfy your home energy needs.
         | 
         | https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/05/could-we-harne...
         | 
         | Also, an important component in lightning is an upward
         | convective current bringing warm and cooler air together, which
         | cloud seeding would not affect. Clouds or rainclouds themselves
         | don't cause lightning, which is why not all clouds/raincloud
         | types are associated with lightning.
        
       | MilStdJunkie wrote:
       | Applied Energetics tried to sell a weaponized electrolaser as a
       | sort of medium-range taser, right around 1st Fallujah, when
       | things were really going into the thunder pot with great brown
       | velocity[1]. I don't think they really had a working product in
       | terms of "thing you can predictably make and which works most of
       | the time". The idea itself is extremely compelling as a Less Than
       | Lethal technology, though, and I'm always sort of curious why it
       | hasn't been re-approached with newer laser tech.
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolaser
       | 
       | [1] The whole Iraq adventure was a pointless slurry, but I
       | remember 2004 was when even the Rah Rah people finally quieted
       | the hell down. It seemed like that was when every military unit
       | in theatre was panic buying whatever wacky technology they could
       | find.
        
         | ftxbro wrote:
         | > "Iraq adventure was a pointless slurry"
         | 
         | I wonder where 'pointless slurry' is meant on the scale of
         | justifications or rationalizations of war? Maybe more favorably
         | than 'quagmire' but less than 'good shoot'?
        
         | generalizations wrote:
         | I imagine they discovered that a laser powerful enough to
         | create a plasma channel was also powerful enough to burn the
         | person it was pointed at.
        
       | RajT88 wrote:
       | Is there anything you can't do with lasers? I mean really!
        
       | bob1029 wrote:
       | I wonder if you could use some sort of multi-laser / DLP-style
       | system to rapidly focus+scan+heat the vertical space above the
       | target.
       | 
       | The axial design clearly has a disadvantage with needing to be
       | near the action on one side or the other.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-06-07 23:00 UTC)