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.

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.

 Mynameisalie wrote:

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 are much closer to sonic weaponry(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18042528), railguns (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11991487), and autonomous robotic soldiers, which could simply be modified versions of the predator armed drone family.

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.

Gimme an assault rifle with caseless high velocity ammo and a smartlink and I'll be happy.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 Mynameisalie wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

Gitzbitah wrote:
We are much closer to sonic weaponry(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18042528), railguns (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11991487), and autonomous robotic soldiers, which could simply be modified versions of the predator armed drone family.

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.

 Mynameisalie wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 Mynameisalie wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

You stand corrected.

They haven't actually finished it...

I'm afraid he doesn't stand corrected.

"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.

 purplefood wrote:
They haven't actually finished it...

It works.
My point is proven.

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.

In other words you need to work hard in school.

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.

 Mynameisalie wrote:

 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... .

 Dastardly Dave wrote:

 Mynameisalie wrote:

 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.

Laser cannons that can punch through tank armor are being tested now. Much closer then plasma weapons.

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.

That's what I'm trying to say.

Setting off flying bombs with lasers is pretty easy, blowing up non-explosive things with lasers is far harder...

Railguns are where it's at in weapons tech at the moment.

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...

 Mynameisalie wrote:

 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...

It'd still be freaking hilarious.

I am not impressed. I am still waiting for there to be a portable shark launcher available on the market.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I am not impressed. I am still waiting for there to be a portable shark launcher available on the market.

A portal gun would be pretty good.

In all seriousness though, what happened to Tesla's non-lethal particle gun, why are we not working toward that end?