blue vs red

[dragonstar57]

does the color of a laser decide how powerful it is?

would a 1 MW red or IR laser be less powerful than a 1MW blue or violet laser or even ultraviolet laser?

Edited August 31, 2010 by cipher510

[Klaynos]

The individual photon energies will be different. But if they are the same power laser then the power of the beams would be the same, just the lower frequency laser would have more photons.

[swansont]

By definition, a 1 MW laser will be more powerful than a 1 NW laser. In the event that's a typo, I will reiterate what Klaynos said: that a 1 mW laser is always equal in power to another 1 mW laser.

 

 

However, a 1 mW green laser will appear brighter than a 1 mW blue or red laser, as the eye is more sensitive to green light.

[dragonstar57]

sorry it WAS a typo

would one require less energy to power?

is there any reason to use a violet laser over a red laser of equal power?

[Klaynos]

sorry it WAS a typo

would one require less energy to power?

 

Assuming they were identical designs (which isn't really possible) then no. In reality different systems have different losses, so yes.

 

is there any reason to use a violet laser over a red laser of equal power?

 

Yes, for functions where the photon power is important, so say photoelectric effect experiments, or the resolution limit. For photolithography you want to use the smallest wavelength you can as that means you can make smaller features.

[John Cuthber]

There are some things you can do with a violet laser that you can't do with a red one. For example, make holograms with dichromated gelatin.

With a violet laser you can pump a red laser; doing that the other way round is tricky- you need to cheat and use frequency multiplication or some such.

 

In general, because of the relationship between photon energy and lifetime of excited states, it is much easier to make lasers that emit at longer wavelengths.

By implication, IR lasers will generally be much more efficient than visible ones and visible lasers will be more efficient than UV ones.

Xray lasers are just plain difficult.

[dragonstar57]

what about a gamma ray laser or radio wave laser

and what effects would these have on the target?

[Klaynos]

Masers were developed before lasers, their effect depends on their power and frequency as you might expect, from nothing to boiling water... Radiowaves are within what is normally referred to as the microwave band....

 

We could not make something as energetic as gamma rays via current laser technologies...

[dragonstar57]

i could have sworn i had read something about a gamma ray leaser

but if a gamma ray laser was built and it was fired what would it do?

[Mr Skeptic]

Someone wanted the military to fund a gamma ray laser. Atoms are not chemically capable of reaching such energies, and the idea was to use a specific excited state of the nucleus of a particular isotope. It didn't work out.

[swansont]

Someone wanted the military to fund a gamma ray laser. Atoms are not chemically capable of reaching such energies, and the idea was to use a specific excited state of the nucleus of a particular isotope. It didn't work out.

 

They aren't semantically capable. In physics, a gamma comes from a nuclear interaction; atoms are therefore incapable of producing gammas — the distinction is not one of energy. (IIRC, this is not true in how astronomers use the term. For them, photons above 1 MeV are called gammas)

[Mr Skeptic]

Yeah, hence the need for a specific isotope.

 

http://www.hafniumisomer.org/cqeseg3.htm

[dragonstar57]

I rephrase my question to: what would a very high does of gamma radiation (coherent or otherwise)

do to its a target (not necessarily an organic structure) ie. a missile, aircraft, asteroid or

politicians

and the question about a radio/microwave laser still stands

"target" is not meant to mean it is being aimed I just mean whatever it winds up hitting

Edited September 1, 2010 by cipher510