Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi, Dakkanaughts

Lets talk plasma.

Firstly, I know it is ultimately pointless to try and explain science fiction technology in terms of real world applications, but we're nerds, so that's what we do, right?

Ok, so, plasma weaponry, It is something that I cannot 'get' in my mind's eye. The WH40K fluff describes Imperium plasma weaponry as a direct-energy weapon that compresses hydrogen gas and super heats it, before containing it in a magnetic-field before discharging it from the weapon's muzzle via magnets.

In the fiction of WH40K, the plasma bolts seem to consist of either beams of energy (which I would argue is a laser), or bolts of magnetised super-headed gas. These bolts are described as miniature suns, which makes sense, if they're bolts of super-headed gas.

Ok, what I can't really get, though, is both the damage caused when the bolts hits its target, and the magnet part.

If these bolts are minature suns, then surely when the bolt hits its target it causes a minature supernova? The target, and probably the surrounding areas vaporise, and whatever's left, burns. However, there isn't any fiction I can find, with maybe the exception of the new Baneblade novel, where the plasma bolt is described as a sun, and its actual heat properties are discussed.
Seems in most fluff the plasma just punches through its target, or just melts it.

I mean, a supernova isn't something to sneeze at, and surely that would mean that the plasma weaponry on Titans are large enough, and produce enough heat to ignite the damn atmosphere.

Also, wouldn't a plasma bolt be bright enough to blind most people, especially when the bolt looses containment upon impact?

It seems that 'my' understanding of plasma conflicts with the stories, but ultimately though, I guess it's whatever's in our heads. What is plasma to your 'minds eye'?

Secondly; the magnet bit. How can you magnetise gas? Just seems odd to me.

Regardless of the above, I love plasma weaponry in scifi, I just like to try and 'understand' the tech every now and then.

Anyway, views?

In the fiction of WH40K, the plasma bolts seem to consist of either beams of energy (which I would argue is a laser), or bolts of magnetised super-headed gas.

I'v only seen it as Bolts.

f these bolts are minature suns, then surely when the bolt hits its target it causes a minature supernova?

Just because they Described it as a Mini-sun doesn't mean it actually is one.

Seems in most fluff the plasma just punches through its target, or just melts it.

Well, Plasma is Super heated, so as soon as the " Bolt" leaves the Weapon is begins to cool instantly. as it strikes a Target, the "Bolt" would rely on the Alpha Damage caused by the Heat to Melt they target.

Also, wouldn't a plasma bolt be bright enough to blind most people

It has been described in many books that the plasma Weapons are bright when fired.

Secondly; the magnet bit. How can you magnetise gas? Just seems odd to me.

Even in this day and age we use Magnetic Fields to hold plasma In its place.

Anyway, views?

http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=5820

Well science e and m physics can apply chagre magentic or electrical through conduction or induction. Induction be the method I suppose the imperium uses. Secondly a charge does just diapear it sticks around until the air leeches it or it collapses due to external forces like hitting something. And by definition plasma is just heated gas to the point where electrons are free flowing. They may look like a sun but they don't have the gravity field of a sun to super nova nor are they dense to have significant impact. They would just be hot and formed. Hense the melting. There would only be the push of a impact of plasma equal to a water ballon. Replace water with super heated gas.

Going by what Cormadepanda says above you can see a very good plasma hit in the Fire Warrior game. Plasma in that was blue and whilst there was a distinct ball or bolt of plasma there was also a trail of the stuff, a bit like a comet which fits I suppose, a shooting star. Anyway, in the game, upon impact the plasma would burst over the target (much like a water balloon as mentioned above) and the enemy would be set alight and burn to death rather horribly.

I always imagine plasma in 40K to be somewhat gooey when it hits, splashing over the target area.

Could it also appear a bit like the proton packs in Ghost Busters though?

As I understand it a plasma gun is baisicly a miniature fusion reactor which can accelerate the plasma inside toward the enemy in "bolts". Accelerating the plasma (and keeping it away from the "sides" of the gun) would not be too much of an issue as the heavily ionised hydrogen would respond to electromagnets. However the difficulty (where the "space magic" comes in) is stopping the plasma bolt from venting all its heat/reacting with the air as soon as it leaves the barrel. I think it is described as somehow being contained in some kind of electromagnetic "bubble" which "bursts" when the bolt hits the target. Otherwise all the heat would be vented instantly when fired (also known as a melta gun).

I have no idea on how the science would work out, but I've always seen it as working like the BFG in the Doom movie. That is - it's a bolt of sorts, and it just straight up melts the ever-living crap out of whatever of hits. It's not really the kind of matter that would have an explosion, though I suppose if you incorporate a bubble "burst" like vodo40k was talking about then there'll be some minor collateral damage.

This is a god-awful quality clip, but it's the best I could find, about the 1:43 mark - mind you I see this size of shot being more the plasma cannon's territory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_L8E9_vDqE

Being highly ionized, the plasma would tend to repel itself as soon as it left the magnetic field of the weapon, thus spreading rapidly and inhibiting range. This applies to particle weapons as well, yet I've heard they already have theoretical methods of keeping the energized mass together longer so it's not beyond the realm of probability. Possibly as the plasma loses energy the atoms recombine into gas molecules thus losing the ionization. I wouldn't expect much of a kinetic effect as a thermal one where the heat would be so intense it melt/burn things almost instantly. Since most targets would be cold and not the right kind of fuel to sustain a fusion reaction, I don't see the weapon creating any nuclear explosion.

If these bolts are minature suns, then surely when the bolt hits its target it causes a minature supernova? The target, and probably the surrounding areas vaporise, and whatever's left, burns. However, there isn't any fiction I can find, with maybe the exception of the new Baneblade novel, where the plasma bolt is described as a sun, and its actual heat properties are discussed.
Seems in most fluff the plasma just punches through its target, or just melts it.

In the armory in Necromunda shots from Plasma Cannons are described as burning like miniature suns when they explode on the target. There is actually a mechanic in that game where the explosion doesn't disappear after the shot hits- in successive turns you roll to see if it expands to an even larger template, or contracts and eventually collapses into nothing.

All the way back in the 2nd edition wargear book they are described as "boiling spheres of nuclear energy".

Needless to say that Plasma Cannons were even nastier in the older days when they used to be "Heavy Plasma Guns". Back then they could do even more points of damage than they do now (D10).

Anti-everything superhot bolt of doom.
The greater question is actually what the hell do Volkite weapons do. IIRC in BoTS they were described as shooting beams of light.

Plasma is ionized gas, so it has a charge. Thus, if you could create some sort of magnetic field you could theoretically channel it to a target. As far as the heat, plasma is used in welding today.

 kinratha wrote:

In the fiction of WH40K, the plasma bolts seem to consist of either beams of energy (which I would argue is a laser), or bolts of magnetised super-headed gas.

I'v only seen it as Bolts.

It's descripbed in the Gaunt's Ghost books as a beam of red plasma. I think one of the Commissars has a plasma pistol like that. Hark, maybe?

Cheers for the replies, guys.

The charged gas and magnets makes more sense now. I've never thought about the bolts as water-balloons before. Sort of makes sense.

So, when the bolt looses containment, the taget get covered in super-heated gas and simply goes poof. I assume, within that concept then, a pistol would splatter you with gas, or 'goo', and burn right through you while setting you on fire. A plasma gun would probably take your torso off, while setting your legs on fire, and anything bigger then a plasma cannon would replace you with a burning hole in the ground.

The only way you could get your explosion would be if the heat is big enough to set the atmosphere on fire (at least a classical violent chemical reaction, beeing highly energetic the plasma would try to disperse in a explosion as well (think bursting gas tank)).

 greyknight12 wrote:
Plasma is ionized gas, so it has a charge. Thus, if you could create some sort of magnetic field you could theoretically channel it to a target. As far as the heat, plasma is used in welding today.

even chargeless atoms and molecules can be constrained by magnetic fields, if they are strong enough as even if they dont have their electrons stripped some parts of the atom have charge one way or the other.

but you are right, it is a plasma so it is highly charged and would be easy to manipulate with a magnetic field as we do today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tower75 wrote:

Lets talk plasma.
Firstly, I know it is ultimately pointless to try and explain science fiction technology in terms of real world applications, but we're nerds, so that's what we do, right?

Ok, so, plasma weaponry, It is something that I cannot 'get' in my mind's eye. The WH40K fluff describes Imperium plasma weaponry as a direct-energy weapon that compresses hydrogen gas and super heats it, before containing it in a magnetic-field before discharging it from the weapon's muzzle via magnets.
In the fiction of WH40K, the plasma bolts seem to consist of either beams of energy (which I would argue is a laser), or bolts of magnetised super-headed gas. These bolts are described as miniature suns, which makes sense, if they're bolts of super-headed gas.
Ok, what I can't really get, though, is both the damage caused when the bolts hits its target, and the magnet part.
If these bolts are minature suns, then surely when the bolt hits its target it causes a minature supernova? The target, and probably the surrounding areas vaporise, and whatever's left, burns. However, there isn't any fiction I can find, with maybe the exception of the new Baneblade novel, where the plasma bolt is described as a sun, and its actual heat properties are discussed.
Seems in most fluff the plasma just punches through its target, or just melts it.
I mean, a supernova isn't something to sneeze at, and surely that would mean that the plasma weaponry on Titans are large enough, and produce enough heat to ignite the damn atmosphere.
Also, wouldn't a plasma bolt be bright enough to blind most people, especially when the bolt looses containment upon impact?
It seems that 'my' understanding of plasma conflicts with the stories, but ultimately though, I guess it's whatever's in our heads. What is plasma to your 'minds eye'?
Secondly; the magnet bit. How can you magnetise gas? Just seems odd to me.

You might want to brush up on your physics. Your description of lasers, supernovas, and magnets could use some clarification. Also you might want to look at the definition of plasma. It is the 4th state of matter: not solid, liquid or gas.

Lasers are light, photons traveling in phase with each other. There are plenty of other forms of projecting energy that are not lasers.

Supernovas are stellar explosions of a particular type. Nothing about a plasma rifle suggests a supernova to me.

Magnetic fields can be used to manipulate any matter. For ground state, neutral charge, atoms with lots of in sync half filled D orbitals(like iron) react strongly, but everything reacts to a strong enough field. In a plasma, things are so hot that the electrons have been stripped from the nucleai and everything is highly charged and highly reactive to magnets.

A "plasma gun" would superheat some matter until it is in a plasma state. It would use magnetic fields to constrain that matter from melting the gun. It would then open the field on the side point out the barrel and the plasma would come out in a beam. To make a bolt, the magnetic fields would need to continue to constrain the bolt as it leaves the barrel and would also need to start to force the remaining plasma out of the barrel.

The plasma would very quickly escape the magnetic field and start to spread in all directions. Yes it would be very bright, yes it would heat things up and burn them. All of those stray electrons and protons would make a mess of any armor or target it found. It would rapidly cool though and it would rapidly spread out in all directions, more so in an atmosphere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The way I have always thought of it
It must have some sort of containment device that goes out the barrel with it. A "shell" casing or something. It super heats the matter into a plasma and is contained in a shell that has magnets that will continue to contain the plasma as it goes out the barrel. The shell that gets fired need not be very durable, it only has to last a few seconds. It need not have the strongest magnets, again it only need last a few seconds. The shell exits the barrel as some speed and is immidiately in the state of breaking down, melting and letting the plasma out. This makes the bolt appear to be a small sun leaking material as it travels through the air but not being completely consumed and spreading out. When the shell reaches its target, it shatters, if it doesnt it finishes melting. Either way the plasma is fully unleased on it's target causing the burning and the melting.
Now a plasma gun might carry a number of "shells" or it might create them as it is heating the matter. Either way it will consume a lot of energy to heat the matter and the RoF will be fairly low.

 Tower75 wrote:


Ok, so, plasma weaponry, It is something that I cannot 'get' in my mind's eye. The WH40K fluff describes Imperium plasma weaponry as a direct-energy weapon that compresses hydrogen gas and super heats it, before containing it in a magnetic-field before discharging it from the weapon's muzzle via magnets.

In the fiction of WH40K, the plasma bolts seem to consist of either beams of energy (which I would argue is a laser), or bolts of magnetised super-headed gas. These bolts are described as miniature suns, which makes sense, if they're bolts of super-headed gas.

Ok, what I can't really get, though, is both the damage caused when the bolts hits its target, and the magnet part.

If these bolts are minature suns, then surely when the bolt hits its target it causes a minature supernova? The target, and probably the surrounding areas vaporise, and whatever's left, burns. However, there isn't any fiction I can find, with maybe the exception of the new Baneblade novel, where the plasma bolt is described as a sun, and its actual heat properties are discussed.
Seems in most fluff the plasma just punches through its target, or just melts it.

I mean, a supernova isn't something to sneeze at, and surely that would mean that the plasma weaponry on Titans are large enough, and produce enough heat to ignite the damn atmosphere.

Also, wouldn't a plasma bolt be bright enough to blind most people, especially when the bolt looses containment upon impact?

Secondly; the magnet bit. How can you magnetise gas? Just seems odd to me.

Compressing hydrogen gas to the point where it starts producing energy is known as nuclear fusion. However, I don't think plasma weaponry should be confused with nuclear fusion in 40k mostly because fusion weapons are already present (Master of the Forge's Conversion Beamer I believe is a fusion weaponry judging from the brief descriptions).

I believe you are correct in saying that Plasma weaponry is either beams of energy or magnetized super-heated gas. And agreeing with you, I believe that its not the former because beams of energy (light energy to be precise) would be laser. From the fluff descriptions, it would have to be some form of magnetized gas.

Lets take a step back and analyse things and proceed. We are fairly sure that plasma "bolts" are globs of super-heated gas that is held in its "bolt" shape using magnetized fields. The production of these plasma "bolts" would technically be possible with the right vectors and powerful electromagnets. Of course, using today's physics we know that we currently do not have a power source with enough density to make a plasma gun. It would be like trying to shrink a nuclear power station into a size of a car battery. Not to mention that plasma guns seem to operate on pre-charged power since I don't think they house power-generators - with the possible exceptions of Titans, Leman Russ, etc.

Unlike what you think, I don't think these plasma guns would cause supernova. Supernova happens when a star of sufficient mass runs out of hydrogen fuel and "explodes" outward, releasing all the heavy elements created through its fusion process. Plasma guns are merely globs of heated gas. I think the fluff descriptions mainly reference plasma discharges to suns due to its intense brightness and high power. Also, in order to light a breathable atmosphere on fire, the temperature required would be way beyond what plasma "bolts" could offer, even on a Titan scale. Again, these "bolts" are held in shape by magnetized fields and the energy in them only gets released when the magnetic field is broken upon impact with the target, at which point it will receive and disperse all the energy the "bolt" has been holding.

And yes, getting back to magnetizing gas. I believe it is possible to magnetize gas in order to create desired shapes. Gas molecules could easily have magnetic charges (covalent bonding of water molecules for example) and while aligning gas molecules using powerful magnets seems rather difficult to me, it shouldn't be theoretically impossible to do so.


Thats all.... for now me thinks.

 Exergy wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Plasma is ionized gas, so it has a charge. Thus, if you could create some sort of magnetic field you could theoretically channel it to a target. As far as the heat, plasma is used in welding today.

even chargeless atoms and molecules can be constrained by magnetic fields, if they are strong enough as even if they dont have their electrons stripped some parts of the atom have charge one way or the other.

but you are right, it is a plasma so it is highly charged and would be easy to manipulate with a magnetic field as we do today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tower75 wrote:

Lets talk plasma.
Firstly, I know it is ultimately pointless to try and explain science fiction technology in terms of real world applications, but we're nerds, so that's what we do, right?

Ok, so, plasma weaponry, It is something that I cannot 'get' in my mind's eye. The WH40K fluff describes Imperium plasma weaponry as a direct-energy weapon that compresses hydrogen gas and super heats it, before containing it in a magnetic-field before discharging it from the weapon's muzzle via magnets.
In the fiction of WH40K, the plasma bolts seem to consist of either beams of energy (which I would argue is a laser), or bolts of magnetised super-headed gas. These bolts are described as miniature suns, which makes sense, if they're bolts of super-headed gas.
Ok, what I can't really get, though, is both the damage caused when the bolts hits its target, and the magnet part.
If these bolts are minature suns, then surely when the bolt hits its target it causes a minature supernova? The target, and probably the surrounding areas vaporise, and whatever's left, burns. However, there isn't any fiction I can find, with maybe the exception of the new Baneblade novel, where the plasma bolt is described as a sun, and its actual heat properties are discussed.
Seems in most fluff the plasma just punches through its target, or just melts it.
I mean, a supernova isn't something to sneeze at, and surely that would mean that the plasma weaponry on Titans are large enough, and produce enough heat to ignite the damn atmosphere.
Also, wouldn't a plasma bolt be bright enough to blind most people, especially when the bolt looses containment upon impact?
It seems that 'my' understanding of plasma conflicts with the stories, but ultimately though, I guess it's whatever's in our heads. What is plasma to your 'minds eye'?
Secondly; the magnet bit. How can you magnetise gas? Just seems odd to me.

You might want to brush up on your physics. Your description of lasers, supernovas, and magnets could use some clarification. Also you might want to look at the definition of plasma. It is the 4th state of matter: not solid, liquid or gas.

Lasers are light, photons traveling in phase with each other. There are plenty of other forms of projecting energy that are not lasers.

Supernovas are stellar explosions of a particular type. Nothing about a plasma rifle suggests a supernova to me.

Magnetic fields can be used to manipulate any matter. For ground state, neutral charge, atoms with lots of in sync half filled D orbitals(like iron) react strongly, but everything reacts to a strong enough field. In a plasma, things are so hot that the electrons have been stripped from the nucleai and everything is highly charged and highly reactive to magnets.

A "plasma gun" would superheat some matter until it is in a plasma state. It would use magnetic fields to constrain that matter from melting the gun. It would then open the field on the side point out the barrel and the plasma would come out in a beam. To make a bolt, the magnetic fields would need to continue to constrain the bolt as it leaves the barrel and would also need to start to force the remaining plasma out of the barrel.

The plasma would very quickly escape the magnetic field and start to spread in all directions. Yes it would be very bright, yes it would heat things up and burn them. All of those stray electrons and protons would make a mess of any armor or target it found. It would rapidly cool though and it would rapidly spread out in all directions, more so in an atmosphere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The way I have always thought of it
It must have some sort of containment device that goes out the barrel with it. A "shell" casing or something. It super heats the matter into a plasma and is contained in a shell that has magnets that will continue to contain the plasma as it goes out the barrel. The shell that gets fired need not be very durable, it only has to last a few seconds. It need not have the strongest magnets, again it only need last a few seconds. The shell exits the barrel as some speed and is immidiately in the state of breaking down, melting and letting the plasma out. This makes the bolt appear to be a small sun leaking material as it travels through the air but not being completely consumed and spreading out. When the shell reaches its target, it shatters, if it doesnt it finishes melting. Either way the plasma is fully unleased on it's target causing the burning and the melting.
Now a plasma gun might carry a number of "shells" or it might create them as it is heating the matter. Either way it will consume a lot of energy to heat the matter and the RoF will be fairly low.

exalted for sounding smart, even if someone comes along and says this is wrong.

Lol, that's how the internet seems to work these days.
I've noticed something interesting... one can draw lines of similarity between the standard plasma gun and the blasters of star wars. They both use some form of bubble to hold together a blob of superheated material together long enough to ruin someone's day.

I'm liking the explaintations. Cheers, guys.

Out of interest, then. What's your take on the damage these plasma thingies cause? Do the "bolts", or beams, explode their target? Do they cover their taget in heat, and the target catches fire and melts? Do they disintegrate their target in a fancy show of light and smoke?

The reason I ask is that I assume that plasma would have to have an advantage over more conventional, cheaper, and simpler ballistic "hard round" weaponry. After all, why field a plasma gun when you can get the same result with a simplar and cheaper Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot round? Maybe fielding a plasma gun gives its user the power of a tank's main gun, without having to have an actual tank present... sort of. You know what I mean.

Plasma weapons are mainly used as terror weapons. Indeed, their effectiveness is insufficient to be used as a main armor-piercing weaponary. Also, they are perfect weapons for far too advanced or expensive battle armor used. Like for example power armor or even more superior- tactical Dreadnought Armour and it's a perfect support weapon against monstrious creatures of tyranids or massivelly durable nobs. Basically it's meant to take anything that is above killing power of infantry's standard weaponary.


Descriptions of plasma behaving after launch may be direct result of strength and settings of weapon's magnetic fields. If for example one has very strong magnetic field which focus all plasma into tiny ball, I think that a shot from it would have increased piercing power, lower disperse values, it would be harder to notice and it would be less deadly (similarly to all armor-piercing weaponary). Or in other case, if plasma is focused incompletely, it might ''explode'' or splash on contact due to low density and even to leave a small trail behind it. Also, the force which magnetic field propels plasma from its chamber might influence how short ranged it will be with increased possibility to not even overcome the first obstacle it hits due to splash.
Color of the plasma might be result of different gas being used.
About a shell, I'm not sure that I'm following you. Why it should have a shell? Maybe plasma chamber are resistant to that kind of heat and plasma cells are merely gas and energy cell for that charge?

 Ernestas wrote:
About a shell, I'm not sure that I'm following you. Why it should have a shell? Maybe plasma chamber are resistant to that kind of heat and plasma cells are merely gas and energy cell for that charge?

Because plasma won't stay focused in a beam/bolt without something acting on it. If you have no shell or magnetic field keeping it together it will disperse very fast, making a plasma gun basically a fancy flame thrower.

TheSGC wrote:

exalted for sounding smart, even if someone comes along and says this is wrong.

it's not what you know, it's what other people think you know!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Ernestas wrote:
About a shell, I'm not sure that I'm following you. Why it should have a shell? Maybe plasma chamber are resistant to that kind of heat and plasma cells are merely gas and energy cell for that charge?

Because plasma won't stay focused in a beam/bolt without something acting on it. If you have no shell or magnetic field keeping it together it will disperse very fast, making a plasma gun basically a fancy flame thrower.

exactly. If you compress a gas and heat it to the point where it becomes a plasma, and then you shoot it out of a magnetic coil as soon as it is free it is going to expand in all direction. Unless the magnectic containment field goes from the barrel all the way to the target the dispersion is going to make it more of a cone of warm gas rather than a bolt of plasma.

The shell could be just material that melts on it's way there. It could be set up with its own magnetic containment field to keep it from melting so quickly. It could be some unknown 40k technology that produces the effect of the plasma having a shell around it. For my understanding, something has to keep the plasma contained outside the barrel on its way to its target. Functionally I know what it does but I do not know how.

It works because the Techpriest said it does.

 Tower75 wrote:
I'm liking the explaintations. Cheers, guys.

Out of interest, then. What's your take on the damage these plasma thingies cause? Do the "bolts", or beams, explode their target? Do they cover their taget in heat, and the target catches fire and melts? Do they disintegrate their target in a fancy show of light and smoke?

The reason I ask is that I assume that plasma would have to have an advantage over more conventional, cheaper, and simpler ballistic "hard round" weaponry. After all, why field a plasma gun when you can get the same result with a simplar and cheaper Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot round? Maybe fielding a plasma gun gives its user the power of a tank's main gun, without having to have an actual tank present... sort of. You know what I mean.

The damage will be caused by intense heat. The plasma itself will expand outward once the field collapses, causing what would be described as a small explosion. Although unlikely to be lethal unless you are way too close.

The advantage is that its powerful enough to burn through any body armor it encounters. To have armor thick enough you need to be dealing with a vehicle. Its a weapon that can hurt just about anything very badly. A man sized creature is going to be killed instantly, and anything larger is going to be seriously injured.


Heat may seem like a slow process, but if matter is heated very rapidly it does different things. Its the difference between putting a pot of water over a burner and bringing it to a boil and having a frying pan thats already hot and pouring water directly into it.

The water in the targets body will flash boil, instantly turning into steam. This rapid expansion will blow the targets body apart with as much force as any explosive, as well as causing massive burns to anything that isn't heated as fast. This all would happen within a few milliseconds.


Imperial Plasma is strong enough to harm vehicles, but not as effective as against living flesh. Against a vehicle, you would be looking to either directly damage the crew or ignite the ammunition or engine.

Plasma might not have great penetration power. It would eventually burn through most things, but it would take longer than a focused beam weapon like a Meltagun.

I was thinking about Newton's laws. To be precise: object will move at the same speed in the same trajectory until there will be a force to change that. So, if plasma is launched with enough velocity then it will not scatter quick enough from atmosphere's influence. On the other hand, I imagine that plasma has minimal mass and if that mass is not sufficient then I think that almost anything can force trajectory deviation and scattering plasma. If that's a case and inertion isn't enough, then I think that artificial mass in shell form is necessary.

 Tower75 wrote:

Out of interest, then. What's your take on the damage these plasma thingies cause? Do the "bolts", or beams, explode their target? Do they cover their taget in heat, and the target catches fire and melts? Do they disintegrate their target in a fancy show of light and smoke?

The reason I ask is that I assume that plasma would have to have an advantage over more conventional, cheaper, and simpler ballistic "hard round" weaponry. After all, why field a plasma gun when you can get the same result with a simplar and cheaper Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot round? Maybe fielding a plasma gun gives its user the power of a tank's main gun, without having to have an actual tank present... sort of.

Once it hits its target the plasma is going to heat up the things around it and the gas is going to expand. I wouldnt describe it as exploding, because the rate of expansion will slow as it goes outward. Plasma is highly reactive, so as it cools and heats up whatever it hit I imagine there would be some burning, although it really depends on what you hit and likely wouldnt be very fast or signifigant.

We dont have plasma guns because with our current manufacturing techniques / armor / threats that kind of weapon is far inferior to kinetic energy weapons/shrapnel.

Heat in general is a pretty terrible weapon against flesh, as flesh contains so much water and water absorbs so much heat. Why spend the energy to completely burn and boil an enemies body when slicing it to bits with small shards of metal is so easy. Steel also has a high specific heat. Heat also is a form of Entropy, and it chaotically diffuses in all directions, rather than going where you want it to go. For going after flesh, shrapnel is simply so effective. For anti armor, brittle shot - kinetic energy weapons are very difficult to design against. Indeed today Heat is not used as the primary destructive method of nearly any weapon. Napeolm and Flame Throwers capitalize on the diffusive properties(the flame goes around corners, through windows and kills everything inside)

Now we might imagine that kinetic energy weapons either need large recoil in the case of a gun or to be fired from a long distance away in the case of a rocket or missile, so when there are limitations on the amount of recoil that can be tolerated / distance to target we often do find certain chemical weapons that employ heat to do their damage. A plasmagun sort of fits this. It is a short ranged weapon and the infantryman carrying it cannot stand the recoil of a large kinetic weapon.

A sniper rifle fires very small projectiles, which limits the momentun of the recoil and the kinetic energy. Unless it is very carefully aimed at something vunerable you arent going to do much. With a fin stabilized sabot round, you need a platform that can take the recoil of getting it up to speed or you need a rocket assist and some distance between the gun and the target to get up to speed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ernestas wrote:
I was thinking about Newton's laws. To be precise: object will move at the same speed in the same trajectory until there will be a force to change that. So, if plasma is launched with enough velocity then it will not scatter quick enough from atmosphere's influence. On the other hand, I imagine that plasma has minimal mass and if that mass is not sufficient then I think that almost anything can force trajectory deviation and scattering plasma. If that's a case and inertion isn't enough, then I think that artificial mass in shell form is necessary.

if you get it going fast enough, maybe. But at that pressure and heat, things are going to expand outwards at incredible speed.
Also if there is an atmosphere, viscus effects of friction on the boundary layer are going to create trailing vortexes that will quickly consume and disperse. Depending on the Reynolds Number (which depends on the speed, size, projectile, roughness, and properties of the fluid) the boundary layer will transition from Laminar to Turbulent at some point in it's flight path and when it does all hell will break loose.

If you want an example of this happening in real life. Think of a lit cigarette. The smoke flows upward in nice straight lines for a short time. About 5-15cm later, the flow changes to chaotic lines that flow every which way.

Oh goody, this is a fun nerd conversation.

The heat of a plasma weapon is actually the least worrying thing about it. The ionization of matter it comes into contact with would be much more damaging. That or the movement of the electrons similar to lightning. Think of plasma striking something as similar to sudden heating(like a very hot liquid splashing onto something)+super strong acid(ionization)+electric shock(sudden movement of electrons from the plasma when it impacts and rearranges and back to the anions when they begin to move toward equilibrium).

The primary reason we don't use plasma for weapons is the sheer complexity and energy it takes to use it versus the effect it produces. Currently this cost effectiveness is absolutely abysmal and would make a plasma weapon a joke. Imagine a gun that fires 1000 usd bullets with the effects of a 9mm and requires a PhD level scientist to upkeep, would you bother?

@Exergy
That was a very good description of plasma. I would like to add that there may actually only be 2 states of matter rather than the traditional 4. These being fluid and solid (or rigid) which is to say that something either has a rigid structure or a fluid structure. Plasma is by definition a fluid structure where the electrons move freely.

Note that while a star is largely composed of plasma this does not equate to star like reactions when it collapses. This would be similar to saying when I shoot a bullet it will act like a planet hitting an asteroid. The scale matters as even our pretty little sun will not go through supernova according to all the data.

I personally always envision an extremely strong magnetic field continuously applied in a single direction with great accuracy. This would keep the plasma from dispersing and push it into the target increasing penetration. I also always thought it would probably have a spin to it to help keep it centered in the field.

I have no idea how you would encapsulate it in a magnetic field. Perhaps some form of slowly decomposing particles that produce the magnetic field? Circular moving sub atomic particles with an opposite charge facing inward and a great deal of inertial motion to keep it from getting redirected by external forces? If I knew this I would be rather wealthy...alas no.

Another possible idea for maintaining a cohesive bolt would be for it to shoot a pellet with 2 magnetic fields, an inner (to keep the pellet form melting) and outer (to contain the plasma in a blot form). Obviously the plasma would be contained between these fields and the bolt would 'pop' when the pellet hit the target and shattered. The kinetic force needed would come from propelling the pellet via magnetic forces.

 ansacs wrote:

@Exergy
That was a very good description of plasma. I would like to add that there may actually only be 2 states of matter rather than the traditional 4. These being fluid and solid (or rigid) which is to say that something either has a rigid structure or a fluid structure. Plasma is by definition a fluid structure where the electrons move freely.

Sure there are fluids and solids but at certain states the difference between gas and liquid certainly appear very different. At other states they blur together into a big mix. Similarly there are some states where liquids and solids mix a bit. Matter is matter, and how you look at it really depends on what you want to do with it. One model works extremely well for one state/use and is completely useless in another state.

So, there is no physical phenomena that might be possible to use in order to mimic magnetic fields effects on plasma which is already fired? If not, then it's either plasma must have enough velocity and mass in order to keep itself in its form or shell for forcing it to remain in form long enough? Another question, what about pressure? As you said, plasma will expand just after its launched, so is its speed of expansion is great enough to be considered a factor in these weapons? Also, does plasma really needs to be that high density?


Btw: I hate my physics class in university. Despite our achievements in education, great parts of it is still left as archaic memory abuse. I wonder how people are so blind to a simple fact that students will forget almost all of it due to a simple fact of not being interested in that relentless information assault and as result from that, will pay little mind to understanding and making sense of new information. Also, why this fact is not utilized: any information is useless to human brains due to not having a need to remember that information.

As you've said 40k equipment is hard to understand for instance bolter weaponry. How do the bolts detonate inside their targets? Surely they detonate at a set point?

 Ernestas wrote:
So, there is no physical phenomena that might be possible to use in order to mimic magnetic fields effects on plasma which is already fired? If not, then it's either plasma must have enough velocity and mass in order to keep itself in its form or shell for forcing it to remain in form long enough? Another question, what about pressure? As you said, plasma will expand just after its launched, so is its speed of expansion is great enough to be considered a factor in these weapons? Also, does plasma really needs to be that high density?

The problem is not density, but energy. When you heat something up it expands as you might know (ignore ice, ice is strange like that), and Plasma is so incredibly hot, that in a stable form it would take up a really high amount of space (unless you got something holding it together, like for example gravity (sun)).

((Btw, if it is spread out like that it has allready cooled down again, since heat is energy per volume. ))

Or in short, yes you need to condense plasma to weaponize it.