Its closer than you think. Much, much closer. How long do you think it will be before humanity invents laser tech, plasma tech or even weapons that can harness quantum mechanics? My answer is: not that long. I'd say somewhere in the region of the next dozen decades or so at the most.
For example, let's take plasma technology. This is an experimental and still theoretical weapon I have thought up whilst brooding during my GCSE physics lesson (which is incredibly boring): Yes, this is the Deus Ex: Human Revolution Hi-NRG Plasma Lance, but it is exactly how I would picture a hand-held plasma weapon. The general theory for this weapon is relatively simple for physics-minded people (NOT insinuating anyone is stupid here: just saying that people who read up on their physics may find it easier to get their head around) and is also multi-faceted: 1. Ammunition. Obviously. You're not going to shoot anything without ammunition. For this particular weapon I think that hydrogen isotope gas (namely deuterium and tritium) are loaded into a cartridge that could be any shape, but for aesthetic purposes (and for the sake of my OCD) we'll say it's a small, cylindrical cartridge with rounded ends. It could be any size, but should be practical for transportation and easy to load into the weapon's ammunition port. I'd say a couple of inches at most, to be sensible. 2. Plasma generation The general idea of this is a small, millisecond plasma fusion reactor that utilises strong magnets and high-energy electrodes to confine and superheat the gas to conditions where nuclear fusion is imminent; e.g. plasma begins to form. Plasma can be manipulated through use of magnetic fields, provided they are strong enough to contain the reaction. The reaction itself releases ionized, superheated helium plasma, spare neutrons and a gak ton of energy, specifically heat. 3. Firing process Stage 2 is involved in this stage. When the user pulls the trigger, a small amount of trit/deuter gas is siphoned from the cartridge, ionized in the aforementioned fusion reactor and then propelled out of the barrel by powerful electromagnets in the sides of the barrel, creating a large, albeit possibly slightly inaccurate shot. This shot is deadly for two reasons: A. It is heated to high enough temperatures to vaporise most known matter (tank armour included) and B. Ionization would cause massive structural damage to cell DNA strands, possibly causing long-term health effects that could kill the target long after the shot has been fired. 4. Venting Let's face it: we have to obey the laws of physics, Hell, even 40k does to a high degree, which I respect. It doesn't create weapons of mass destruction for apparently no reason: most are theoretically achievable, if not extremely expensive or difficult to produce. And a fusion reaction produces a hell of a lot of heat, not to mention some leftover radiation and spare electrons. So what are we going to do with it? That's right: vent it. But where exactly do we vent? Two places: the barrel and the fusion chamber. The fusion chamber is pretty obvious. If temperatures build up to critical, then we could be facing a miniature meltdown going off in your hands, probably annihilating both you and your gun in a spectacular fireball that will immolate pretty much everything within a 10 metre radius of you and maybe leave a crater in the floor. Doesn't sound good, does it? So, venting would have to occur in the chamber. How this would be achieved is most likely through external vents, tungsten alloy heat sinks and - if you wanted to - supercooled liquid nitrogen. The external vents would have to incorporate lead lining to block incoming radiation, but would have to be discarded after a while as they would become contaminated and radioactive. Discardable vents? Not really a problem. The barrel would also incorporate the same venting systems as the fusion chamber. 5. Maintenance This weapon is going to need it. A lot of it. It must be constantly disassembled and checked for inconsistencies to keep it safe, and key components such as the tungsten sinks and the venting caps would have to be disposed of properly to avoid nuclear contamination.
Now that that's over with, we now have to consider the advantages and disadvantages of this weapon. Let's start off with a list of disadvantages: 1. Will be expensive and difficult to produce. 2. Will require extensive training to use. 3. Produces radioactive by-products. 4. Must be checked and components replaced regularly to ensure maximum safety. 5. Can be as dangerous to the user as to the victim if something goes wrong. 6. Radiation after-effects can be considered inhumane. 7. Could be inaccurate. 8. Blooming effect renders the weapon useless at extreme ranges. No plasma sniper rifles, I'm afraid. And here are the advantages: 1. Ammunition is virtually unlimited (we can get it from seawater). 2. You are basically firing miniature suns at someone. Radiation included. It's going to kill them if you hit them square on. And that heavy armour you're wearing? Forget it. 3. Can be made non-lethal or have an effective EMP setting. This one is important. 4. Large plasma globe increases chance of hit.
So, we have 8 disadvantages vs 4 advantages. I personally think that plasma rifles could be used as main firearms due to their massive damage and ability to kill virtually anything, but also because they can be used for non-lethal takedowns. For example, you could take advantage of the blooming effect and superheat the air to the target, then discharge an electric bolt (provided by the spare electrons) that has the potential to wreck electrical devices and incapacitate living targets without much damage apart from mild burns. Ergo, it could be used for crowd control.
So I'm going to round this off by saying two things: 1. Your opinion on this? 2. What tech would you like to see in future weaponry?
Note: this thread is not meant to endorse warfare or production of dangerous weaponry. It is simply for theoretical and creative purposes only
Aaaaw come on... portable nuclear fusion power plants - near future technology??? Not in 120 years, not even in 250! How long are they tinkering around with the Tomanak reactor now? And do you even have a slight idea about the weight of radiation shielding? And do you recognize plasma is actually so hot they have to harness it with magnetic fields to keep it away from the reactor chamber sides? You see, there is a difference between theory and practical application, and that's the word "practical".
in the end it always comes down to the question how much energy you can apply to the target. You have to provide and store this energy. In this area, nothing will beat chemical combustion for a looooong while.
1. Ammunition. Obviously. You're not going to shoot anything without ammunition. For this particular weapon I think that hydrogen isotope gas (namely deuterium and tritium) are loaded into a cartridge that could be any shape, but for aesthetic purposes (and for the sake of my OCD) we'll say it's a small, cylindrical cartridge with rounded ends. It could be any size, but should be practical for transportation and easy to load into the weapon's ammunition port. I'd say a couple of inches at most, to be sensible. 2. Plasma generation The general idea of this is a small, millisecond fusion reactor that utilises strong magnets and high-energy electrodes to confine and superheat the gas to conditions where nuclear fusion is imminent; e.g. plasma begins to form. Plasma can be manipulated through use of magnetic fields, provided they are strong enough to contain the reaction. The reaction itself releases ionized, superheated helium plasma, spare neutrons and a gak ton of energy, specifically heat. 3. Firing process Stage 2 is involved in this stage. When the user pulls the trigger, a small amount of trit/deuter gas is siphoned from the cartridge, ionized in the aforementioned fusion reactor and then propelled out of the barrel by powerful electromagnets in the sides of the barrel, creating a large, albeit possibly slightly inaccurate shot. This shot is deadly for two reasons: A. It is heated to high enough temperatures to vaporise most known matter (tank armour included) and B. Ionization would cause massive structural damage to cell DNA strands, possibly causing long-term health effects that could kill the target long after the shot has been fired. 4. Venting Let's face it: we have to obey the laws of physics, Hell, even 40k does to a high degree, which I respect. It doesn't create weapons of mass destruction for apparently no reason: most are theoretically achievable, if not extremely expensive or difficult to produce. And a fusion reaction produces a hell of a lot of heat, not to mention some leftover radiation and spare electrons. So what are we going to do with it? That's right: vent it. But where exactly do we vent? Two places: the barrel and the fusion chamber. The fusion chamber is pretty obvious. If temperatures build up to critical, then we could be facing a miniature meltdown going off in your hands, probably annihilating both you and your gun in a spectacular fireball that will immolate pretty much everything within a 10 metre radius of you and maybe leave a crater in the floor. Doesn't sound good, does it? So, venting would have to occur in the chamber. How this would be achieved is most likely through external vents, tungsten alloy heat sinks and - if you wanted to - supercooled liquid nitrogen. The external vents would have to incorporate lead lining to block incoming radiation, but would have to be discarded after a while as they would become contaminated and radioactive. Discardable vents? Not really a problem. The barrel would also incorporate the same venting systems as the fusion chamber. 5. Maintenance This weapon is going to need it. A lot of it. It must be constantly disassembled and checked for inconsistencies to keep it safe, and key components such as the tungsten sinks and the venting caps would have to be disposed of properly to avoid nuclear contamination.
In you second step you say that this plasma weapon simply uses a miniaturized fusion reactor, we don't have functioning fusion reactors let alone tiny ones that would fit into a rifle sized weapon. Besides, you'd have to pre-ionise the deuterium or tritium if you were going to use electromagnets to compress the gas and where would the energy needed to start the reaction come from? You'd need a huge powerpack just to run it.
Most of those technologies are in the prototype stage already, if not deployed in limited numbers. Nuclear fusion, even in complex size, let alone handheld size, is only now being explored.
Heck, with civilian drone spaceships already active, we're probably even closer to planting thrust systems on asteroids to fashion clean, kinetic weapons of mass destruction than handheld plasma guns.
1. Ammunition. Obviously. You're not going to shoot anything without ammunition. For this particular weapon I think that hydrogen isotope gas (namely deuterium and tritium) are loaded into a cartridge that could be any shape, but for aesthetic purposes (and for the sake of my OCD) we'll say it's a small, cylindrical cartridge with rounded ends. It could be any size, but should be practical for transportation and easy to load into the weapon's ammunition port. I'd say a couple of inches at most, to be sensible. 2. Plasma generation The general idea of this is a small, millisecond fusion reactor that utilises strong magnets and high-energy electrodes to confine and superheat the gas to conditions where nuclear fusion is imminent; e.g. plasma begins to form. Plasma can be manipulated through use of magnetic fields, provided they are strong enough to contain the reaction. The reaction itself releases ionized, superheated helium plasma, spare neutrons and a gak ton of energy, specifically heat. 3. Firing process Stage 2 is involved in this stage. When the user pulls the trigger, a small amount of trit/deuter gas is siphoned from the cartridge, ionized in the aforementioned fusion reactor and then propelled out of the barrel by powerful electromagnets in the sides of the barrel, creating a large, albeit possibly slightly inaccurate shot. This shot is deadly for two reasons: A. It is heated to high enough temperatures to vaporise most known matter (tank armour included) and B. Ionization would cause massive structural damage to cell DNA strands, possibly causing long-term health effects that could kill the target long after the shot has been fired. 4. Venting Let's face it: we have to obey the laws of physics, Hell, even 40k does to a high degree, which I respect. It doesn't create weapons of mass destruction for apparently no reason: most are theoretically achievable, if not extremely expensive or difficult to produce. And a fusion reaction produces a hell of a lot of heat, not to mention some leftover radiation and spare electrons. So what are we going to do with it? That's right: vent it. But where exactly do we vent? Two places: the barrel and the fusion chamber. The fusion chamber is pretty obvious. If temperatures build up to critical, then we could be facing a miniature meltdown going off in your hands, probably annihilating both you and your gun in a spectacular fireball that will immolate pretty much everything within a 10 metre radius of you and maybe leave a crater in the floor. Doesn't sound good, does it? So, venting would have to occur in the chamber. How this would be achieved is most likely through external vents, tungsten alloy heat sinks and - if you wanted to - supercooled liquid nitrogen. The external vents would have to incorporate lead lining to block incoming radiation, but would have to be discarded after a while as they would become contaminated and radioactive. Discardable vents? Not really a problem. The barrel would also incorporate the same venting systems as the fusion chamber. 5. Maintenance This weapon is going to need it. A lot of it. It must be constantly disassembled and checked for inconsistencies to keep it safe, and key components such as the tungsten sinks and the venting caps would have to be disposed of properly to avoid nuclear contamination.
In you second step you say that this plasma weapon simply uses a miniaturized fusion reactor, we don't have functioning fusion reactors let alone tiny ones that would fit into a rifle sized weapon. Besides, you'd have to pre-ionise the deuterium or tritium if you were going to use electromagnets to compress the gas and where would the energy needed to start the reaction come from? You'd need a huge powerpack just to run it.
We have nuclear fusion reactors that fit into garages. That work. And produce enough energy to easily power 1000 homes effectively. We have it in a garage. It's not long before we shrink it down to fist-size. Just want to make a point: One of the first computers weighed 27 tons and was larger than a house. Nowadays they weigh less then a couple of kilograms and pack untold millions of times more processing power. It's really not that long before we invent reactors that you could hold in your hand.
Also, pre-ionizing? Not necessary. Part of nuclear fusion involves heating the gas to such temperatures where the electrons are forcefully torn from their atoms. Hence, ionization.
The most advanced reactors in the most prestigious research facilities in the world currently do not produce a net output of energy and can only run for a few seconds at a time... They also take just a very large garages worth of space.
Most of those technologies are in the prototype stage already, if not deployed in limited numbers. Nuclear fusion, even in complex size, let alone handheld size, is only now being explored.
Heck, with civilian drone spaceships already active, we're probably even closer to planting thrust systems on asteroids to fashion clean, kinetic weapons of mass destruction than handheld plasma guns.
Sonic weaponry is now very effective (hell, we have ultrasound weapons that are capable of exploding heads from the frequency), and railguns use relatively basic magnetic linear acceleration. Yeah, steel projectiles at mach 7. That's going to do a lot of damage.
1. Ammunition. Obviously. You're not going to shoot anything without ammunition.
For this particular weapon I think that hydrogen isotope gas (namely deuterium and tritium) are loaded into a cartridge that could be any shape, but for aesthetic purposes (and for the sake of my OCD) we'll say it's a small, cylindrical cartridge with rounded ends. It could be any size, but should be practical for transportation and easy to load into the weapon's ammunition port. I'd say a couple of inches at most, to be sensible.
2. Plasma generation
The general idea of this is a small, millisecond fusion reactor that utilises strong magnets and high-energy electrodes to confine and superheat the gas to conditions where nuclear fusion is imminent; e.g. plasma begins to form. Plasma can be manipulated through use of magnetic fields, provided they are strong enough to contain the reaction. The reaction itself releases ionized, superheated helium plasma, spare neutrons and a gak ton of energy, specifically heat.
3. Firing process
Stage 2 is involved in this stage. When the user pulls the trigger, a small amount of trit/deuter gas is siphoned from the cartridge, ionized in the aforementioned fusion reactor and then propelled out of the barrel by powerful electromagnets in the sides of the barrel, creating a large, albeit possibly slightly inaccurate shot. This shot is deadly for two reasons:
A. It is heated to high enough temperatures to vaporise most known matter (tank armour included) and
B. Ionization would cause massive structural damage to cell DNA strands, possibly causing long-term health effects that could kill the target long after the shot has been fired.
4. Venting
Let's face it: we have to obey the laws of physics, Hell, even 40k does to a high degree, which I respect. It doesn't create weapons of mass destruction for apparently no reason: most are theoretically achievable, if not extremely expensive or difficult to produce. And a fusion reaction produces a hell of a lot of heat, not to mention some leftover radiation and spare electrons. So what are we going to do with it?
That's right: vent it. But where exactly do we vent?
Two places: the barrel and the fusion chamber.
The fusion chamber is pretty obvious. If temperatures build up to critical, then we could be facing a miniature meltdown going off in your hands, probably annihilating both you and your gun in a spectacular fireball that will immolate pretty much everything within a 10 metre radius of you and maybe leave a crater in the floor. Doesn't sound good, does it?
So, venting would have to occur in the chamber. How this would be achieved is most likely through external vents, tungsten alloy heat sinks and - if you wanted to - supercooled liquid nitrogen. The external vents would have to incorporate lead lining to block incoming radiation, but would have to be discarded after a while as they would become contaminated and radioactive. Discardable vents? Not really a problem. The barrel would also incorporate the same venting systems as the fusion chamber.
5. Maintenance
This weapon is going to need it. A lot of it. It must be constantly disassembled and checked for inconsistencies to keep it safe, and key components such as the tungsten sinks and the venting caps would have to be disposed of properly to avoid nuclear contamination.
In you second step you say that this plasma weapon simply uses a miniaturized fusion reactor, we don't have functioning fusion reactors let alone tiny ones that would fit into a rifle sized weapon. Besides, you'd have to pre-ionise the deuterium or tritium if you were going to use electromagnets to compress the gas and where would the energy needed to start the reaction come from? You'd need a huge powerpack just to run it.
We have nuclear fusion reactors that fit into garages. That work. And produce enough energy to easily power 1000 homes effectively.
We have it in a garage.
It's not long before we shrink it down to fist-size.
Just want to make a point:
One of the first computers weighed 27 tons and was larger than a house.
Nowadays they weigh less then a couple of kilograms and pack untold millions of times more processing power. It's really not that long before we invent reactors that you could hold in your hand.
Also, pre-ionizing? Not necessary. Part of nuclear fusion involves heating the gas to such temperatures where the electrons are forcefully torn from their atoms. Hence, ionization.
Err, I'll believe *that* when I see it. My original point was going to be that you don't need a fully functioning fusion reactor to make this weapon work, simply one that gets close and can just about make plasma. The main problem with our current fusion experiments is that they aren't self sustaining and only work for a couple of seconds, if that. This would be applicable to the weapon though, if it could be miniaturised, as you're not looking to create a self sustaining power plant inside your gun.
However, your claim that we have working fusion power at all, I'm afraid is complete bogus, let alone saying it's small enough to fit in your garage. We would have heard about it by now if this was the case. Fusion technology is a *long* way from being feasible as a power source at the current time however. I'm fairly confident we'll be able to achieve it before long though.
Corpsesarefun wrote: The most advanced reactors in the most prestigious research facilities in the world currently do not produce a net output of energy and can only run for a few seconds at a time... They also take just a very large garages worth of space.
"We have achieved an extremely high temperature using fusion fuel"
I.E: We haven't actually managed to initiate fusion at all yet, we're just burning the fuel until it's very hot.
It's still very clever mind, just nothing near the scale of other fusion experiments, which have in fact managed to initiate fusion for a couple of seconds. In addition, no-one mentioned anything about the actual power output of the device itself.
If you actually listen to that video you'd notice that their generator is nowhere near operational... It's also an aneutronic fusion generator which is far less effective than a standard neutronic fusion generator.
But obviously as a GCSE student you're far more knowledgeable in this subject than someone at university studying physics.
Corpsesarefun wrote: If you actually listen to that video you'd notice that their generator is nowhere near operational... It's also an aneutronic fusion generator which is far less effective than a standard neutronic fusion generator.
But obviously as a GCSE student you're far more knowledgeable in this subject than someone at university studying physics.
I find GCSE boring. I do like quantum physics and physics in general; I tend to read about it whenever possible, that's all. You ever had that thing where people nag asking you "how do you know all this stuff" etc.? I just say I read. It's really all you need, isn't it?
Just reading is nowhere near sufficient to have a practical knowledge of physics, you need to back that reading up with comprehension of the idea's behind whatever you're reading and a solid mathematical background.
I work harder than most of my fellow classmates in practically every school I've been to. I care about my future. Though I do have an affinity with physics, I'm more thinking about a career in ICT. EDIT: I've changed the OP. By one word. Don't look for it, or rather don't bother. It's kind of pointless but it substantially alters the entire gun.
Corpsesarefun wrote: If you actually listen to that video you'd notice that their generator is nowhere near operational... It's also an aneutronic fusion generator which is far less effective than a standard neutronic fusion generator.
But obviously as a GCSE student you're far more knowledgeable in this subject than someone at university studying physics.
I find GCSE boring. I do like quantum physics and physics in general; I tend to read about it whenever possible, that's all. You ever had that thing where people nag asking you "how do you know all this stuff" etc.? I just say I read. It's really all you need, isn't it?
Not really. You also need a solid grounding in the principles of the subject, and someone to tell you when you're wrong. By all means, keep reading and learning - it's extremely worthwhile. But listen to the people with experience and background in the subject too.
That said, just because you have a higher level of education than someone doesn't make you automatically right, it just means you're more likely to be, and shows you have a bit of background knowledge. But we're going off topic anyway, the weapon is a cool idea, and probably possible once fusion tech has advanced sufficiently. It's not nearly at that stage yet though... .
Corpsesarefun wrote: If you actually listen to that video you'd notice that their generator is nowhere near operational... It's also an aneutronic fusion generator which is far less effective than a standard neutronic fusion generator.
But obviously as a GCSE student you're far more knowledgeable in this subject than someone at university studying physics.
I find GCSE boring. I do like quantum physics and physics in general; I tend to read about it whenever possible, that's all. You ever had that thing where people nag asking you "how do you know all this stuff" etc.? I just say I read. It's really all you need, isn't it?
Not really. You also need a solid grounding in the principles of the subject, and someone to tell you when you're wrong. By all means, keep reading and learning - it's extremely worthwhile. But listen to the people with experience and background in the subject too.
That said, just because you have a higher level of education than someone doesn't make you automatically right, it just means you're more likely to be, and shows you have a bit of background knowledge. But we're going off topic anyway, the weapon is a cool idea, and probably possible once fusion tech has advanced sufficiently. It's not nearly at that stage yet though... .
Hellz yeah is is. The early prototypes would obviously be bulky and such, but aesthetics could wait. I don't think you'd need supercooling, but more likely you'd need the tungsten alloy heat sinks for spare heat.
Oh, I just found something out as well; you can have cold plasma. It sounds really odd, but take oxygen, ionize it then supercool it. You still have oxygen plasma. Cool.
University physics students tend to have a better grasp of physics than GCSE physics students. Though if what your saying is "A student studying spanish at university doesn't necessarily have a better grasp of physics than a GCSE student" then I'd obviously agree with you.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Laser cannons that can punch through tank armor are being tested now. Much closer then plasma weapons.
Already done it. Well, sort of. We have lasers that can annihilate ICBMs. Which is pretty awesome.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Corpsesarefun wrote: University physics students tend to have a better grasp of physics than GCSE physics students. Though if what your saying is "A student studying spanish at university doesn't necessarily have a better grasp of physics than a GCSE student" then I'd obviously agree with you.
Railguns are probably gonna be the weapon of choice for a while once they're finished.
It's hard to go wrong with a large chunk of metal going really fast.
purplefood wrote: Railguns are probably gonna be the weapon of choice for a while once they're finished.
It's hard to go wrong with a large chunk of metal going really fast.
Uuuunless of course they magnetise it the wrong way...
purplefood wrote: Railguns are probably gonna be the weapon of choice for a while once they're finished.
It's hard to go wrong with a large chunk of metal going really fast.
Uuuunless of course they magnetise it the wrong way...
That's like saying we'd have problems with guns if we shot ourselves in the head...
Stun gun seemed to be more common on the first mission. At first I wanted to do pacifist, but got bored of that a quarter of the way through.
Deus Ex also needs a free-roam mission mode. That would make it more interesting to play...
Corpsesarefun wrote: Setting off flying bombs with lasers is pretty easy, blowing up non-explosive things with lasers is far harder...
It's easy because of aerodynamic stress on the missile, not because it's a bomb (the laser doesn't set off the warhead or anything). All you need to do is damage the outer shell a bit and let the extreme forces from moving through the air at ICBM speeds exploit that damaged spot and tear the missile apart. Or, alternatively, get enough radiation to fry the guidance electronics.
Railguns are where it's at in weapons tech at the moment.
Well, maybe for vehicles, if they can ever fix that pesky problem of friction eroding the barrel away after the first shot. It's a nice theory, but I prefer guns that can shoot more than once before I have to replace them.
Yeah. Let's ignore the power requirement issue and just focus on the problem that plasma is a gas. Congratulations, after spending obscene amounts of money on developing a portable fusion reactor you've managed to create a really expensive flamethrower, except it probably has even shorter range and a higher chance of burning the user to death.
Edit: wait, you want to get it hot enough to burn through tank armor. Make that 100% chance of burning the user to death with the waste heat (it doesn't take much in efficiency losses to cook a person at that point). You might as well just admit it's a suicide weapon and give everyone nuclear hand grenades.
What I think would be a good idea is basically a directed, powered up microwave. The device would blast the same radiation used by microwaves, only much more of it and all in one direction. Result: crispy fried terrorist.
Yeah, energy and plasma weapons aren't really possible, until you figured out what to do with all that heat, how to produce the energy required in the first place to kill something, how to focus the plasma in such a way that it goes further than 3 feet, ect.
Now on a ship or a weapons platform it may be feasible. Rail or coil weapons (or sonic even!) are still more economic choices, however.
Squigsquasher wrote: What I think would be a good idea is basically a directed, powered up microwave. The device would blast the same radiation used by microwaves, only much more of it and all in one direction. Result: crispy fried terrorist.
They have that already...only, it's non-lethal now.
Squigsquasher wrote: What I think would be a good idea is basically a directed, powered up microwave. The device would blast the same radiation used by microwaves, only much more of it and all in one direction. Result: crispy fried terrorist.
Since when has a microwave ever made anything crispy? You'd just boil the target alive.
Not really instant either, you'd have to cook him on a lower wattage for longer if you wanted him to really pop. High wattage for a short time would just cook the outside.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Just shoot him in the head with a normal gun... there is a very good reason we use those instead of microwaves.
Very true. Projectile fire arms are the best thing we've got right now. They're cheap, easy to maintain, and easy to train on, and effective.
A laser/microwave/plasma based weapon would be a nightmare to handle in the field. Get some dirt in the wrong spot, a battery goes dead in a firefight, etc... they'd just be horrible. Now, having the know how to create them in the event of an alien invasion in which our standard weapons wouldn't work, I'm all for that, but for now I'll stick to the M-4.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Just shoot him in the head with a normal gun... there is a very good reason we use those instead of microwaves.
Uhhh... nope, we kill people with microwaves all the time. Probably more than with guns actually. I skimmed the title of a bizarre news article from a sketchy news site, so I know what I'm saying is true.
From Dayton Daily News -Montgomery County Prosecutor Mathias Heck Jr. said Friday afternoon he will ask an appeals court to reconsider its reversal of the murder conviction of China Arnold for the death of her infant daughter in a microwave oven.
“We are astonished that the Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction,” Heck said is a prepared statement issued shortly before 4 p.m. “The (prosecution) will file a motion asking the Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision …”
Arnold, who has been in jail and prison for nearly 4 years, could be back in Montgomery County in a few days, Rion said. Her release depends on how fast an order can be sent to the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville. Once she returns, Arnold will be held in the Montgomery County Jail, pending a bail hearing.
The ruling Friday morning by the Second District Court of Appeals reversed Arnold’s conviction for the death of her infant daughter, Paris Talley. Arnold was serving a prison sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Just shoot him in the head with a normal gun... there is a very good reason we use those instead of microwaves.
Uhhh... nope, we kill people with microwaves all the time. Probably more than with guns actually. I skimmed the title of a bizarre news article from a sketchy news site, so I know what I'm saying is true.
More people have been killed with directed microwaves than bullets?
Squigsquasher wrote: What I think would be a good idea is basically a directed, powered up microwave. The device would blast the same radiation used by microwaves, only much more of it and all in one direction. Result: crispy fried terrorist.
I always thought they would "pop" rather than crisp. And we thought flame-throwers were bad.
Plasma works about as well as shooting hot steam at someone. In other words, you're going to scald yourself to death.
In all seriousness though, what happened to Tesla's non-lethal particle gun, why are we not working toward that end?
For the most part, Tesla was a kook towards the end of his life. Mind you, we have microwave emitters that work similarly I suppose. Nonlethal, and make targets feel like their skin is on fire. Downside, is that it eats juice like crazy and is nowhere near man portable.
In all seriousness though, what happened to Tesla's non-lethal particle gun, why are we not working toward that end?
For the most part, Tesla was a kook towards the end of his life. Mind you, we have microwave emitters that work similarly I suppose. Nonlethal, and make targets feel like their skin is on fire. Downside, is that it eats juice like crazy and is nowhere near man portable.
I'm still pretty sure sentient luminescent pidgeons don't decide to adopt people, and am equally confident in dismissing most of his other later "discoveries."
Laughing Man wrote: I'm still pretty sure sentient luminescent pidgeons don't decide to adopt people, and am equally confident in dismissing most of his other later "discoveries."
I think the best way one could expel the plasma out of the barrel is as a compact toroid. I'm not sure how to extend the time the plasma stays stable, but firing it at very high speeds or with a small shot would give the plasma time to actually hit the target. I've also had a bit of a mess around and have managed to draw up a basic diagram of a plasma-based weapon, more specifically the rifle version. Granted, it's man-portable, we don't have the tech etc. but that's what this thread is about. Inventing your own weapons technology that could be feasible, not whether it would fit a good budget or anything like that. Besides, the pistol would have to be even smaller still and I don't want to think about scaling down a plasma fusion reactor to that size.
Toroids of plasma are only stable when they have a magnetic core, the most stable plasma projectile would be a heavy plasma (such as iron) launched in a sphere. You have not got a working diagram of a plasma gun, you have a teenagers doodle of a plasma.
I'm really not certain we need any deadlier a weapon, at least not yet. Bullets are pretty much going to take you out of the battle, and we've pretty much sorted guns out already. Sure, there's some drawbacks and at some point in the future we'll end up needing more powerful weaponry, but we've already got some fairly good lasers on the way, and I'm really not sure that we'll ever perfect plasma weaponry into a single-man weapon.
I can see them possibly being effective if the plasma were created when it got to the enemy. However trying to create it then throw it at the enemy can only end in disaster as far as I can see.
Uhhh... nope, we kill people with microwaves all the time. Probably more than with guns actually. I skimmed the title of a bizarre news article from a sketchy news site, so I know what I'm saying is true.
More people have been killed with directed microwaves than bullets?
We have nuclear fusion reactors that fit into garages. That work. And produce enough energy to easily power 1000 homes effectively.
We have it in a garage.
It's not long before we shrink it down to fist-size.
Just want to make a point:
One of the first computers weighed 27 tons and was larger than a house.
Nowadays they weigh less then a couple of kilograms and pack untold millions of times more processing power. It's really not that long before we invent reactors that you could hold in your hand.
Ah... I'm gonna require a citation on that. Because to the best of my knowledge, we're talking more like warehouse size... and they still take more energy to run than they generate.
We have nuclear fusion reactors that fit into garages. That work. And produce enough energy to easily power 1000 homes effectively.
We have it in a garage.
It's not long before we shrink it down to fist-size.
Just want to make a point:
One of the first computers weighed 27 tons and was larger than a house.
Nowadays they weigh less then a couple of kilograms and pack untold millions of times more processing power. It's really not that long before we invent reactors that you could hold in your hand.
Ah... I'm gonna require a citation on that. Because to the best of my knowledge, we're talking more like warehouse size... and they still take more energy to run than they generate.
He put a video on the first page. According to Corpsesarefun, it's a far worse type of fusion, so doesn't count.
While I cannot go into details, I can most assuredly tell you from first hand accounts, that there is no more than ONE decade before you will see MORE of these weapons on the battle fields.
I did a job for a company developing a thing. It was pretty damn cool let me tell you.
.. guess you don't want to buy these beans that'll grow you London Bridge then ? They're 100% genuine because income tax is against the constitution -- just like it prevents police from being able to arrest you -- and anyway if you knock a policeman's hat off then they can't arrest you as they're not in uniform and sucking pennies foils breathalyzers.
Yeah...
I still do think the plasma rifle may be conceivable with current technology. We don't necessarily need fusion, just high-energy plasma. We can solve the distance problem by ejecting the plasma out of the barrel at a very high speed (rail cannons can make mach 7, and this plasma weapon uses the same sort of propulsion, albeit with toroid magnets to focus the plasma into a compact toroid), which should give it a decent range.
Granted, it will be very bulky and heavy, but with a bit of refinement I can see it in an experienced soldier's hands in the next 15 years or so.
Mynameisalie wrote: Yeah...
I still do think the plasma rifle may be conceivable with current technology. We don't necessarily need fusion, just high-energy plasma. We can solve the distance problem by ejecting the plasma out of the barrel at a very high speed (rail cannons can make mach 7, and this plasma weapon uses the same sort of propulsion, albeit with toroid magnets to focus the plasma into a compact toroid), which should give it a decent range.
Granted, it will be very bulky and heavy, but with a bit of refinement I can see it in an experienced soldier's hands in the next 15 years or so.
This achieves what exactly? Sticking metal into people has worked for 1000s of years and still works just fine today.
Mynameisalie wrote: Yeah...
I still do think the plasma rifle may be conceivable with current technology. We don't necessarily need fusion, just high-energy plasma. We can solve the distance problem by ejecting the plasma out of the barrel at a very high speed (rail cannons can make mach 7, and this plasma weapon uses the same sort of propulsion, albeit with toroid magnets to focus the plasma into a compact toroid), which should give it a decent range.
Granted, it will be very bulky and heavy, but with a bit of refinement I can see it in an experienced soldier's hands in the next 15 years or so.
-sigh-
I'm not a physics guy, but I do come from an engineering background. The whole concept of weaponized projectile plasma is so ridiculously impractical to me that I don't see anyone pursuing it. The main issues that I see is that every technology that is required to enable a "plasma gun" has superior applications in more efficient (conventional AND safer) technologies!
1. Energy needed to generate high energy plasma is better put towards high energy lasers - as lasers, by their nature, are more accurate, and have for all intents, instantaneous travel time and presumably, less energy loss via massive heat bloom. The need for heavy shielding, massive heat venting and magnetic assembly is removed.
2. Magnetic field generation for plasma projectile control, containment and acceleration is better put towards conventional rail guns, as they are, by their nature, more accurate, and again, remove the need for heavy shielding, and massive heat venting.
3. Assuming that plasma weapons rely on magnetic containment to safely handle, one might extrapolate that charged plasma projectile might be defeated by charged armor, repelling the bolt.
-edit- Just because a technology is old, doesn't make it obsolete.
What about a railgun? as the ammunition has to be "rails" (metal poles to be exact) so the ammunition is easy to get BUT you would need a lot of energy to power the gun as it fires the rails at super-high velocity.
good points:it can penetrate though anything.
bad points:it need a LOT of energy. (nuclear reactor?)
keezus wrote: Yeah. Rule of Cool and all that. That's why it's such a staple of Science FICTION
You think I would put it on this thread if it was science-fiction? Read the thread title.
Anyway, I found this: The MARAUDER (Magnetically Accelerated Ring to Achieve Ultra-high Directed Energy and Radiation) used the Shiva Star project (a high energy capacitor bank which provided the means to test weapons and other devices requiring brief and extremely large amounts of energy) to accelerate a toroid of plasma at a significant percentage of the speed of light.
Speed of light? Sure, a significant percentage, but still. That's goddamn fast. Does anyone have a formula for how far plasma will go when shot at normal atmospheric conditions at different velocities? I can't find one. One thing I've noticed about plasma projection as well is that it uses a propulsion method similar to that of a rail gun. No joke. If plasma is made of positive ions then what it needs is a magnetic 'flux' along the barrel of the weapon it is fired from. If rail cannons can achieve mach 7, then compact toroids can be engineered in the chamber to simulate ball lightning, which stays stable for longer. Combined with speed, the charge has a decent chance of going far enough to actually damage something. The high-energy demands aren't exactly too much of a problem. Why? Ni45Co5Mn40Sn10 (So that's Nickel isotope 45, copper isotope 5, manganese isotope 40 and Tin isotope 10, right?) Apparently this little beauty does direct energy transfer to electricity. When you fire this thing, it's going to leave a lot of spare heat on the chamber. You can use heat sinks made of these to charge the weapon's internal battery, but my general perspective I'm getting (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that firing a very small, very hot spark will be enough to begin plasma synthesis as basic fusion takes hold, and coupled with density (which tends to increase temperature faster) it should be enough to generate the plasma we need for a... Ball compact toroid? That's my new pet name for it. So, it charges it's own energy from the shot. Every. Single. Time. Useful, no? DEWs are going to need complex computing systems to handle how they fire. Firing a laser or a bolt of plasma isn't like throwing a grenade and shouting "CATCH!", it's more like throwing a grenade whilst seeing what trajectory you're going to throw it on, whilst your friend knows he has to catch it very carefully to prevent it going off in his hands. That's the hard part.
orkdestroyer1 wrote: What about a railgun? as the ammunition has to be "rails" (metal poles to be exact) so the ammunition is easy to get BUT you would need a lot of energy to power the gun as it fires the rails at super-high velocity.
good points:it can penetrate though anything.
bad points:it need a LOT of energy. (nuclear reactor?)
Actually, they are called Railguns because of the magnetic rails that are used to fire the projectile. Which is a metal slug that can take on a variety of forms just like a missile warhead.
They don't require an impractical amount of energy. We actually have the technology right now. The only problem is the friction from the firing causes the barrel interior to vaporize, meaning it needs to get replaced every couple shots.
Once that problem is fixed the Railgun will become a staple of warfare. A direct fire and forget weapon that reaches its targets faster then a missile and just as accurate. Plus it will be a cheaper weapon to use compared to most missiles.
orkdestroyer1 wrote: What about a railgun? as the ammunition has to be "rails" (metal poles to be exact) so the ammunition is easy to get BUT you would need a lot of energy to power the gun as it fires the rails at super-high velocity.
good points:it can penetrate though anything.
bad points:it need a LOT of energy. (nuclear reactor?)
Actually, they are called Railguns because of the magnetic rails that are used to fire the projectile. Which is a metal slug that can take on a variety of forms just like a missile warhead.
They don't require an impractical amount of energy. We actually have the technology right now. The only problem is the friction from the firing causes the barrel interior to vaporize, meaning it needs to get replaced every couple shots.
Once that problem is fixed the Railgun will become a staple of warfare. A direct fire and forget weapon that reaches its targets faster then a missile and just as accurate. Plus it will be a cheaper weapon to use compared to most missiles.
Except if you stick a fusion reactor as the warhead...
Then we have 40k plasma torpedoes, scaled down. And we all know how destructive those are, right?
Now why didn't I think of this...use super compressed air to shoot the rails out of a smaller anti-personell rail gun known (as I call it) a rail driver.YES I have finally thought of a brilliant scientific theorem for weapons!
.
.
