Talk:Chemical laser

Broadening the Industrial Base

The stub article seemed extremely centric to The Aerospace Corporation and its former parent company, TRW. I tried to balance the article a little bit with some mention of the work at General Electric, United Technologies and Rocketdyne. In fact, despite what is in the article, I recall Don Spencer and Jack Hinchen each giving credit to the other for the invention of the lab scale chemical laser. Several patents were awarded about that time regarding the chemical laser, including to United Aircraft, so I believe it is misleading to give the impression that The Aerospace Corporation was the sole inventor of the chemical laser. Another thing that bothers me is that the description of this laser is of supersonic flow, when in fact the cited references are for sub-sonic flow, and indeed the version built at the University of Alabama in Huntsville by Jim Harrington and Ben Ferguson, an advanced adaptation of the Hinchen and Spencer laser, was subsonic. A short-lived company, called HELIOS, tried to commercialize this technology and sold a number of low power (1-25 watts) chemical lasers during its existence. Also, no mention was made of the COIL laser, which is the chemical laser of most current interest. Rocket Laser Man 19:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional work to be done with article would be to includ a few diagrams and explain in more detail how a chemical laser works. Reference the the Handbook of Chemical lasers would be nice. Links to THEL, ABL and other militar program websites would be hepful, but because a lot of the work is classified at the collateral SECRET level, these military websites tend to be short lived.Rocket Laser Man 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What about Pimentel's work?
One blatant omission from this article is any mention of the work of George C. Pimentel, often mentioned by chemists as the inventor of the chemical laser. At the moment the earliest reference given is the 1969 paper by Spencer et al. "Continuous-Wave Chemical Laser". However Pimentel published earlier papers on both the HCl laser (JVV Kasper and GC Pimentel, Phys Rev Letters 14, 352 (1965)) and the HF laser (KL Kompa and GC Pimentel, J Chem Phys 47, 857 (1967)). Given Spencer's title, I assume that Pimentel's lasers were not continuous-wave, but they still should be mentioned as the first chemical lasers.

I would add the Pimentel references myself, but I don't know enough about the subject to correctly explain the relation between his work and the other work already mentioned. Could someone please integrate Pimentel's work into the article? Dirac66 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think the Nov.28 edits by Rocket Laser Man have answered my request very well. Thanks. Dirac66 02:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Article confounds two different topics without stating that it is doing so.
The article begins by describing a chemical laser as a beam of light which derives it's source from a chemical reaction at it's based. At the end of the article in the section "Future Variants," a high energy spray of gas or liquid, in essence a water canon or flame thrower except for it's laser like intensity, is by the title "Future Variants" confounded with "Chemical Laser," previously in the article depicted as a beam of light. In the first part of the article, that the topic is beams of light rather than beams of liquid or gas is further more defined by the fact that chemicals are mentioned in a particular way, as the source of the light beam. The article needs a "segue" such as "other uses of the term "chemical laser" in order to not constitue "Pop Science."T.Mc (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) For my part, I spoke strongly: just the title is mis-labeled, without explanatory note, in relation to the stated topic at hand, is what I could have simply said.

I agree with the above. I have been in the center of chemical lasers for over 35 years. The last paragraph of this article strikes me as very misguided at best (it has nothing to do with lasers, but may be regarded as a chemical weapon) and is pure fantasy at its worst. I would be inclined to delete it since there is no reference to support any of the assertions, and it would be unusual if I had not heard something about it....The only non-incestuous reference on the entire web seems to be a lone entry in a spacebattles chat forum. It also indicates a complete lack of chemical understanding. You don't compress liquid nitroden and you can't ignite it under any normal conditions that have any practical value. 1000 psi makes no physical sense since liquids are mostly incompressible. This forum entry seems like poppycock. Rocket Laser Man (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Speculation Section Removed
I understand why it may be felt that the deleted section was speculative. However, it does not try to predict the future of chemical lasers. It merely states that at present their future is very uncertain, and that there is no government sponsor for any further research. From my point of view, that is very factual information, but if it is not compatible with wiki standards, so be it.

I also understand that it is difficult to verify the statements, because the government rarely makes public statements about such matters. Probably the biggest verification that chemical lasers are gone for the forseeable future is that THEL has been cancelled. ATL has been cancelled. SBL was cancelled. ABL has been turned into a testbed with strong pressure on the participants to find an electrically pumped laser as a replacement for the chemical laser. It does seem to me that wiki should indicate that something is obsolete. I mean the chemical laser is like using a CRT to build a 19 inch color television. You just won't find one anymore except at a garage sale. Having said that, I still maintain that from a practical point of view, a chemical laser solves the problem of generating large amounts of power and disipating large amounts of waste heat. Rocket Laser Man (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Non Aerospace Corp/TRW Works Removed
All reference to work at United Technologies, General Electric and other companies has been removed, leaving the impression that chemical lasers are the sole invention of one company. Apart from factually flawed, this places the article in danger of being partial, written to promote commercial interests. 130.76.96.144 (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)