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.

Sounds a bit like the Little Doctor from Ender's Game

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concepts_in_the_Ender%27s_Game_series#Molecular_Disruption_Device

 Flinty wrote:
Sounds a bit like the Little Doctor from Ender's Game

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concepts_in_the_Ender%27s_Game_series#Molecular_Disruption_Device

The MDD from Ender's Game to me sounds more like how a Conversion Beamer would.

 Enigwolf wrote:

artofwaaagh wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:[quote=Arcsquad12 533251 5731379 87fd75236e1045464c18d84f31c091ba.jpg

Just because Mk 19s don't have air-cooling holes doesn't mean that they don't heat up. I know for a fact that the 40mm AGLs on M113s get their barrels replaced after a certain number of shots in one engagement to prevent overheating warping the barrel.

false the barrels are not removed from the MK 19. They do not remove from the MK 19 and you should not even break the weapon down that far unless you are a qualified armorer for that weapon.

I wasn't talking about Mk 19 AGLs. There are more 40mm AGLs that fire on the same principle as the Mk 19. And I double-checked with my colleague in Armour, I was slightly mistaken. It's the front subassembly that gets swapped out (including the barrel).

dementedwombat wrote:The fact that what GW calls a "gauss gun" and what everyone else calls a "gauss gun" (which can be further subdivided into railguns and coilguns) are completely different in concept, while at the same time still using magnetism, is very frustrating to me.

I think I'll have to admit GW screwed the metaphorical pooch on this one. I just can't see magnetism being strong enough to strip electrons, let alone pull the nucleus of an atom apart.

I love it how someone sarcastically mentioned gauss guns as being something GW made up, and we suddenly start trying to scientifically justify them.

GW actually terms it as "Gauss flayer" in fluff, which better describes it than "gauss rifle".

We never carried spare barrels, front assemblies, etc. for any of our grenade launchers. Every .50, MAG, or Negev got a spare barrel. They heat up but not nearly as badly as the traditional machineguns. Lots less friction when we're talking <25% of the muzzle velocity. I've never heard of a Mk19 overheating.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=5

"The barrel is air-cooled so overheating is an issue with continuous fire."

Someone obviously thinks it can happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although interestingly, the actual army field manual disagrees

https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog/view/100.ATSC/D14A432E-F1B9-4018-BE50-E0DE09EB670D-1274301412383/3-22.27/ch1.htm

Bolters are so big because:

A.) They shoot .75 Caliber rocket projectiles
B.) The enormous recoil they generate
And the most important: C.) They fit the ascetic for the weapons that GW wants. All of these things about barrel heating and comparison to real-life weapons are ultimately moot.

Warpig1815 wrote:I must say though Flinty, I read the links, but for all it can strip electrons easily enough, what I meant, and perhaps I should have clarified this, is that as far as I know it cannot de-atomise a target - as in literally annihilate the target. Many substances strip, remove or deflect electrons - Beta radiation itself is a free electron that has been de-localised from atoms, but the remaining part of the atom doesn't simply disappear, it turns into a positively charged ion - of course causing extreme damage to a body, but not annihilating it in the manner suggested by the 40K Gauss Gun. For that, Dark Matter is required and we don't have too much of that lying around...

As usual, feel free to disprove me, I'm a former Physics student, and have an interest in physics theory, but I'm by no means a professional Physicist so please feel free to disprove my theories becuase they are probably flawed!

Necron Gauss weapons don't annihilate things, they strip them down layer by layer (hence the 'flayer' designation of the basic gun).

Really, you're over-complicating things talking about annihilating ions. Atoms stick together because of electron sharing interactions. What happens to electron sharing interactions when you take the electrons away? They stop. Strip the electrons from something and you just end up with a bunch of free-floating ions, which do not a solid object make.

Warpig1815 wrote:

dementedwombat wrote:I just can't see magnetism being strong enough to strip electrons, let alone pull the nucleus of an atom apart.

Well magnetism in it self, at least electromagnetism, is the movement of electrons throughout an object in an electrical current, however yo're right in the sense that magnetism cannot strip electrons away from an atom. Try to avoid talking about the nucleus of an atom though because, as I'm sure you already know, the electrons are not situated in the nucleus, but in outer shells. This is the crux of why the GW Gauss 'flayer' wouldn't destroy an atom just by stripping it of electrons. It would turn it into an ion, and cause it to be extremely unstable, but it wouldn't miraculously annihilate it.

Oh, and I don't think we're trying to scientifically justify it in the sense of supporting or attacking GW, rather we're just having a scholarly debate over scientific principles and if building this weapon is feasible.

I'm trying to understand the part where a strong positively charged object won't pull a negatively charged electron towards it. Surely the difficult bit is making sure the protons inside the electron shell don't come too?

Should we perhaps start a different thread for the Gauss discussion?

Enigwolf wrote:Oh, and I completely love debating the nuances of possibility of GW tech, especially since we may very well see it ourselves in the future!

I'll second that!

Enigwolf wrote:What then if there was something inside the Gauss Flayer that then destabilizes the ions?

Not sure if there is a way to destabalise ions, as usually, as soon as they are introduced to another element they tend to bond to them provided the electron shell has a free space, and the other element has a free electron. <-- (Put simply). This makes them revert to being more stable, not unstable. :(

Enigwolf wrote:Should we perhaps start a different thread for the Gauss discussion?

Probably a good idea!

Furyou Miko wrote:Necron Gauss weapons don't annihilate things, they strip them down layer by layer (hence the 'flayer' designation of the basic gun).

Really, you're over-complicating things talking about annihilating ions. Atoms stick together because of electron sharing interactions. What happens to electron sharing interactions when you take the electrons away? They stop. Strip the electrons from something and you just end up with a bunch of free-floating ions, which do not a solid object make.

You're probably right - like I say, I'm only an amateur at this, a former student, so I'm going to be wrong here and there. However, the reason I mentioned annihilation is because how else would the flayer physically destroy, not just de-bond, each layer of atoms?

I am aware of the covalent or ionic bonds between atoms via their electrons (Funnily enough I was also once a Chemistry student - though never a particularly good one ), and I am aware that without the electrons and their bonds the object wouldn't be solid. However that's not what my above post was disputing, my post was disputing how exactly one simply 'strips' electrons away from the body via a beam of some sort.

Furyou Miko wrote:I'm trying to understand the part where a strong positively charged object won't pull a negatively charged electron towards it. Surely the difficult bit is making sure the protons inside the electron shell don't come too?

I'm not sure I wrote that, but if it's in reference to the magnetism not stripping electrons again, I mean although it attracts electrons, the magnetic flux density (Fancy way of saying field strength) is strong enough to attract them, but not enough to physically remove electrons - at least as far as I know.

You probably know more about physics than I do, Warpig. I think that's the problem.

Surely if you have a magnetic field, it will pull the electrons towards it as long as the field strength is powerful enough?

The reason magnets don't strip objects of their electrons and make everything fall apart is because the electrons drag the rest of the atom they're attached to with them, or the field is too weak to move the mass of the whole object.

The art of the science becomes finding the exact magnetic flux density (which may be impossible) to attract the Electrons strongly enough to pull them towards the field source away from the protons they surround, but weak enough that it can't pull the whole object closer, protons and all.

Could it be a magnetic field that repels electrons and pulls atomic nuclei towards the gun?

Furyou Miko wrote:You probably know more about physics than I do, Warpig. I think that's the problem.

Gods no, that's certainly not it! I'm sure your knowledge is superior to mine. I'm just disputing or supporting theories based on my own knowledge, which I'm not prepared to say is superior to anybody else - like I say, i'm only an amateur at physics!

You are right that a Magnetic field will pull an atom towards it via the attractional force on an electron, and provided the Flux Density is strong enough it will pull in electrons however the strong nuclear bonds between the electrons and the nucleus are going to be far greater than the magnetic flux density, hence it couldn't strip them. If it was the other way around, with the Magnetic flux density being stronger, then matter probably couldn't from, because as soon as it did it would overcome the bonds holding the matter together - kind of a paradox. At least, that's how I understand it...

Just to help, as my posts are a bit physics jargon heavy:

Magnetic Flux Density - just the Physics term for how strong a magnetic field is.
Strong Nuclear Bonds - The bonds that hold an atoms parts together (No matter how I phrased that - bits, parts, things - it sounds dirty )
Nucleus - Centre of an atom containing Protons and Neutrons.

I felt I had to insult your good Dakkanauts intelligence or people would just think I'm spewing rubbish to sound good - which is probably a better idea considering I'm just a sub-par Physicist :(

Do Necron weapons still absorb the target? It seems with this RL reasoning that they would just... shake?... an object apart. Wouldn't that cause a lot of heat?

I have honestly no idea how they would store all the atoms even if they did absorb the target! Imagine 'absorbing' your way through the side of a Land Raider, and probably a good few sets of SM armour... and then carrying it around for the day inside your weapon. You're going to need a hell of a lot of strength to carry that, assuming that's the way it works.

Thats easily solved by phasing technology.

the matter is either stored in a pocket dimension or immediately sent to a waste port on the tomb world designed to receive the discharge from the gauss weaponry.


Sort of how eldar D-weaponry works by opening small portals to the warp and sucking stuff inside.

It's not been said anywhere that Gauss weapons absorb matter. They just pull it towards themselves.

Anyway, as we know, Necron Technology breaks physics to work, so that's probably how the Gauss Gun functions - it inverts the relationship between Strong Nuclear Bonds and Magnetic Flux Strength.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats easily solved by phasing technology.

the matter is either stored in a pocket dimension or immediately sent to a waste port on the tomb world designed to receive the discharge from the gauss weaponry.


Sort of how eldar D-weaponry works by opening small portals to the warp and sucking stuff inside.

I can only imagine them needing to build entire planets just to receive the waste from all their battles. Must be some pretty cool stuff floating around there too.

Enigwolf wrote:Must be some pretty cool stuff floating around there too.

Great theory, but assuming they strip it layer by layer and then phase it to said world, it'd just arrive as a shapeless heap of molten slag I'm guessing - which is a bit grimdark I guess... :(

 Warpig1815 wrote:

Enigwolf wrote:Must be some pretty cool stuff floating around there too.

Great theory, but assuming they strip it layer by layer and then phase it to said world, it'd just arrive as a shapeless heap of molten slag I'm guessing - which is a bit grimdark I guess... :(

But... But... then that means that there's some super-rich mineral world out there now which can be mined to hell and back for ores and stuff. That's just as good!

They probably dump it into the heart of a star or a black hole, if they dump it at all.

The technology the Necrons wield is akin to magic. They are the faction that exemplifies Clarke's Third Law. What they do through hyper-sciences and mastery of the physical laws of reality might as well be sorcery.

Hahaha, I've never heard of Clarke's Third Law, but I like it - yeah the Necrons definitely fit into that category!

I suppose dumping it in a black hole is a decent idea, if one could get close enough without being snared by it themselves, but I guess unmanned vessels are a way of doing that.

Enigwolf wrote:But... But... then that means that there's some super-rich mineral world out there now which can be mined to hell and back for ores and stuff. That's just as good!

Yup, assuming the flayed ones don't catch you.

I wouldn't be surprised if electronics provided a good deal of bulk and weight. I know most people are looking at weapons and what might be needed in a weapon, but why not look at cars?

It wasn't that long ago that cars were mostly mechanical, but now you can do a lot of tuning just from an ECU. And you've got stuff like HUDs, self driving vehicles, cameras and so on.

It would be pretty likely that the gun is sending data to the suit which relays info back to the soldier telling them ammo count, heat levels, potential failures, repairs, trajectory calculations, and who knows what other sci-fi stuff.

And most importantly, those electronics need to be protected. Guns have mini explosions going on inside of them, imagine a circuit board just screwed in to a panel, it would break in no time. Those electronics would have to be housed in some crazy impact resistant/absorbing cases which I imagine would be bulky.

Virgil wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if electronics provided a good deal of bulk and weight. I know most people are looking at weapons and what might be needed in a weapon, but why not look at cars?

It wasn't that long ago that cars were mostly mechanical, but now you can do a lot of tuning just from an ECU. And you've got stuff like HUDs, self driving vehicles, cameras and so on.

It would be pretty likely that the gun is sending data to the suit which relays info back to the soldier telling them ammo count, heat levels, potential failures, repairs, trajectory calculations, and who knows what other sci-fi stuff.

And most importantly, those electronics need to be protected. Guns have mini explosions going on inside of them, imagine a circuit board just screwed in to a panel, it would break in no time. Those electronics would have to be housed in some crazy impact resistant/absorbing cases which I imagine would be bulky.

Dead thread was dead... Hope you read it before you posted. Oh wait, you're repeating a lot of what was already said, nevermind.

 Enigwolf wrote:


Dead thread was dead... Hope you read it before you posted. Oh wait, you're repeating a lot of what was already said, nevermind.

Didn't know that posting in a 6 day old thread was considered necroposting. According to the site rules it's 3-4 weeks since the last post to be considered as such. And yes, I did read the thread, thanks.

Hopefully people like you aren't too common on dakka, internet already has enough them.

Welcome to the Internets Virgil

From the 3rd edition rule book;