Talk:MIRACL

Most Powerful

If this is not the most powerful, please list the alternatives on the talk page. Several sources say "most powerful", but I'll admit they may mean, most powerful CW laser, most powerful chemical laser, or most powerful laser for missile testing. I think the key is that it is continuous wave making it more powerful than pulse lasers with higher peak power but lower average power than a CW laser. --Dual Freq 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most powerful lasers measure in petawatts, not megawatts. See chirped pulse amplification. Granted they are pulsed, but they clearly are more powerful. Give Peace A Chance 01:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using radar as an example, a 10 kilowatt CW radar system that had a much higher average power than a 5 megawatt pulsed radar because of the pulse width and pulse repetition rate. 5 MW sounds higher than 10 KW, but the 10 KW is there 100% of the time, but a pulsed radar is only there for a few milliseconds at a time on the pulsed system. You'd need to know the duration of the pulse and the repetition rate of the pulses to determine the duty cycle and the more powerful of the two. --Dual Freq 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- It looks to me like this is adequately clear in the current version. Peppergrower 03:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Range?

Is there any information about the effective range of the laser when fired inside Earth's atmosphere? - Zelaron 11:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added distance to the satellite that was disabled (432 km/268 mi). Peppergrower 03:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Cited' article contradicts supposed referenced information

The article currently claims that the satellite fired upon was disabled, using reference 5, a CNN article (http://web.archive.org/web/20071230052044/http://www.cnn.com/US/9710/20/pentagon.laser/)as a reference.
However, the article does not claim the satellite was disabled. In fact, it includes an explicit statement that '[a]s planned, "there was no permanent damage to the satellite or the (on-board) sensor,"' 77.100.157.213 (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MIRACL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808184605/http://helstf-www.wsmr.army.mil/miracl.htm to http://helstf-www.wsmr.army.mil/miracl.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/Factsheets/AirborneLaser.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aerotechnews.com/starc/120897/121197d.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Backronym

As it is MIRACL, and the 'IR' stems from infrared, would it make more sense to write "InfraRed", "Infra-Red" or to just leave it as is? Nir Koren (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]