>Right off he says a huge problem is divergence. This is completely false in context. Divergence is only a concern if you want to fire a beam over an unknown distance and therefore cannot focus the beam to converge at a given distance. Right off, in context, his statement is factually wrong. From a DEW perspective, it's idiotic to believe that a non-convergent beam would be the objective. Especially as convergence increases power per square unit of measure. Lasers do not have a uniform distribution of power in the cross section of their beams. The light power is distributed in a Gaussian Distribution which puts the majority of the power output at the top of the Bell Curve which is in the centerline of the beam, provided the laser is operating in the prime transverse emission mode (TEM^00 ) which is a single radial beam configuration. Things get complicated with higher order transverse emission modes of output but I don't think that's in scope here. Anyway... All other energy distribution in any radial direction off that centerline will decrease exponentially. The outer rays of the beam are essentially useless for any purpose. Divergence on the centerline beam energy will cause the high energy, top of the Bell Curve rays to distribute into a Gaussian Distribution where the Inverse Square Law again makes them exponentially decrease in power density as the beam diverges wider and wider. All your energy output will be spread out across a large area on the distant surface(s) which will render the energy unable to start a fire or ablate materials. You'll just be illuminating that surface with too little energy to do any harm to it. >To put this into perspective, WWII fighters used multiple machine guns. With his logic, WWII fighters don't exist because obviously their non-convergent points of impact would make it extremely difficult to shoot down another aircraft. Therefore, obviously, they wouldn't do it. In reality, the specs provided a standard convergent distance, from which some pilots diverged (greater/shorter). Regardless, this is why they were so effective - convergence. For example, the Thunderbolt's 8-.50 cal machine guns jacks crap up. A hopeful stream from one, not so much. You're comparing particles to waves. Bullets themselves do not diverge or get affected by the Inverse Square Law. They also do not have a Gaussian distribution of energy. The outside of the bullet is travelling at the same velocity as the inside of the bullet. A wave front does not travel like a particle and it behaves differently than classical Newtonian physics defines. Bullets are also not absorbed by the medium in which they travel. Light and EMF radiation are absorbed and/or re-radiated by the mediums in which they travel. They are also reflected and diffracted which lowers their energy density and direction of travel. All these phenomenon combined make the bullet analogy completely off base and therefore irrelevant to radiant energy weapons discussion. >The short of this is (ya, too late), all effective DEWs use a focusing aperture of some type. In addition to this, not all DEWs are light (which he mentions). 3d printed antennas and alloys have gone a long way toward creating effective microwave (as an example) DEWs, which focus and (effectively) prevent divergence. Technologies like beam steering (part of this technology) also helps a ton. Microwaves can use waveguides to direct them and sort-of-kind-of focus them, but once the wave front leaves the waveguide, the "beam" will diverge like crazy. The same thing happens with laser light through an optical fiber. This is why we don't rely simply on waveguides for terrestrial and extraterrestrial microwave communication applications. Parabolic dishes have always been used for long range point-to-point microwave links because that helps keep your signal losses down but not make them perfect. All the same physics phenomenon that affects light applies to microwaves and other EMF radiation because in actuality all of it is light. You just can't get perfect (((hollyweird))) beams of any EMF radiation and that's what most people have as their only reference for such things. It just doesn't work that way. >This is an area where he speaks to generalized physics but clearly lacks domain specific knowledge. As such, his content falls short on this topic. Self awareness much?