I can agree with these staments but I think you are limiting your thought process too much here. Power need not be a constant. In fact for a weapon it wouldn't be the constant don't you think. Discharge time would be. So the purple laser blast would last just as long as the red on but would do considerably more damage.
In general, I would agree, power input is a variable, never a constant. However, when you do a study into how one variable effects an outcome (here's where my knowledge of research from my work at the hospital comes in), you change ONLY that ONE variable, and you need to keep EVERY other variable the same. If you ignore the power requirement, you can fire a red laser, and a purple laser, for the same duration, and say "look, purple did more damage". But is that because of the frequency increase, or the power increase?
So, when that video said "purple lasers are more damaging than red ones", my initial answer was meant more like "Not necessarily. You can have red "heavy lasers" and purple "light lasers". It's the amount of power you put in that determines the damage."
Plus, we are talking about tin cans in space, with whatever kind of reactor, energy is always at a premium. Especially with smaller craft. You can't just ignore how much energy a weapon uses up, when looking at it's damage, and its effectiveness.
Obviously there are other factors, and they all affect each other. For example, the width of the beam. If the beam is narrower (and power input is constant), the frequency will increase (due to same amount of energy transfer but in a smaller cross-section).
Your not understanding the fundamental and concepts infact have most of them backwards from the get go and want to argue about it. this is why I ask sub jested that you take a class in it was not a Sly pithy comment toward you. I do think that you need to go back and do some reading and study on the matter before you engage in a debate is all.
I agree I don't understand some of the concepts here, but my point was (and has always been) that you've been talking quantum mechanics and laser microscopy, when the solution has been in simple mathematics. I've tried to explain it your way, using the technical stuff, but I don't quite grasp it so it hasn't worked. I've tried explaining it using simple mathematics but have been ignored every time.
My initial post stated that damage was based on "energy input", and it seemed that you were arguing against that, as if it had no real relevance because purple is more powerful than red. I may have misjudged that, so if that's the case, I apologies.
I understand now that purple lasers transmit more energy per second (more photons per second, hence higher wavelength (something I learned from your posts, so yes I was listening)). So, keeping energy constant, and knowing it isn't "sum damage" that is affected, it must be a DIFFERENT variable that is affected. And that variable is "duration of beam/pulse".
A 1 gigawatt red laser does 1 gigawatt of damage.
A 1 gigawatt purple laser does 1 gigawatt of damage, but in a shorter time.
Of course, the other reason for keeping energy input constant is due to my grasp of electrics. Weapons in sci-fi seem to have a relatively long charge time, followed by a short discharge time. That to me sounds like it uses capacitors. Capacitors have a power storage limit, so energy input is not a variable you can just ignore.
Now, the bit about sliceyness was not based on real physics as such, more based on observation of Babylon 5; the idea of some kind of resonance effect was a technobabble/theory.
I would prefer that we move away from this argument at this point, as it's been both solved and done to death. I'll go back to my initial post and ask what my initial discussion point was meant to be:
What difference would the frequency change make upon hitting the target hull (leaving raw damage the same; I'm on about OTHER effects)? Obviously, as there's more energy in a shorter time, it'll be a more intense "blast", but would there be any other effects?
" Given I have broke it down to terms that that my five year-old understands and she gets it .
"
But I did not No offense was meant
Ok good. Well I'm glad you didn't say that. I'm already annoyed at how most kids now are getting better grades than I did only 10 years ago (and I was one of the top in my school); if you've been teaching your five-year-old quantum mechanics, and she gets it, that would REALLY brass me off.
