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.

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.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:

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?

I thought he was clearly sarcastic...

What? I thought that was how everyone at dakka got their info! I've been lied to!

I've been on this site far too long to assume people are joking.

Huh. That was your 10,000th post. And I can understand what you mean.

 Mynameisalie wrote:

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.

[EDIT] I see this has already been addressed.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Mynameisalie wrote:

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.

Cool story bro, needs more lasers and gak.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/radioactive-boy-scout
This is what I need to recreate, with an electromagnetic accelerator attached.
And I've found out how to do it.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/

Dubious instructions are dubious.

 dæl wrote:
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?

Think bigger !

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/11/haarp-unleashes-tesla-death-ray-2498644.html

 reds8n wrote:

 dæl wrote:
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?

Think bigger !

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/11/haarp-unleashes-tesla-death-ray-2498644.html

For some reason, I don't trust that site.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Dubious instructions are dubious.

I'm still nuts enough to try it.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

 dæl wrote:
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?

Think bigger !

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/11/haarp-unleashes-tesla-death-ray-2498644.html

For some reason, I don't trust that site.

.. 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.

Pfft that's ridiculous.
I'm really worried about that Alien Merc though. Sounds like trouble.

It's the gravitational handgun that can destroy anything that has me worried.

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/11/gravitational-shockwave-weapons-patented-handgun-that-can-destroy-anything-2498892.html

The NRA will be all over any day now I'm sure.

Damn, looks like Dr. Insano has been busy again.

This is all proof that weapons are advancing.
Incredibly fast.

 Mynameisalie wrote:
This is all proof that weapons are advancing.
Incredibly fast.

Yet still slower than 60 or 70 years ago. Sucks to be modern, huh?

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.

Well, for one it melts tank armour (yay meltas! (not really)), and two it just would be about 500 times more awesome.

 Mynameisalie wrote:
Well, for one it melts tank armour (yay meltas! (not really)), and two it just would be about 500 times more awesome.

So does thermite. And we have that now.

 Mynameisalie wrote:
Well, for one it melts tank armour (yay meltas! (not really)), and two it just would be about 500 times more awesome.

It will melt tank armour until they develop an armour that counters it.

War.

War never changes.

 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.

But...plasma is so pwetty!
And won't plasma really tear up organics? It may not be necessary against humans, but against giant mutant lizards...

Yeah. Rule of Cool and all that. That's why it's such a staple of Science FICTION

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.