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.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Fictional metals have always confused me, since it's not possible for us to not know of some magical element not on the periodic table- we would have made it already. Now special ceramic-metal compounds I could see, but there's a point when your magical metal just makes no sense.

Well, there's the possibility of stable trans-uranic metals that we haven't discovered yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability

Or known metals could be combined into a new alloy with amazing properties (unlikely) or formed in new molecular structures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_metal

In the context of 40k though, I think the most likely explanation is that many of the 'wonder materials' are simply well known things with sci-fi names. Just as in 40k they call radio 'vox', they probably call tungsten 'adamantium'.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 bocatt wrote:
That wasn't the question though, because in the fluff (to use your example) every bladed weapon is Damascus steel. I understand that it makes it sound cooler and more deadly for it to be "ohohohoho macromolecular" but it just doesn't make any sense. I'm not asking you to explain why one weapon is better than the other, I'm asking you why every author working for GW or BL describes them as the SAME.

It's because monomolecular weapons aren't all the same material. You cannot get a material called 'monomolecular', you get a material that is then reduced to only a single molecule. A single molecule of iron is monomolecular; a single molecule of of steel is molomolecular; but they are not the same material.

Actually, when you get down to an edge 1 atom wide steel and iron are effectively the same thing

The carbon in the steel is more likely to have abraded away leaving a pure iron edge. I think that Animus also has it spot on if the materials involved are simple metals, unless corrosion has set in.

Excepting that a molecule is not an atom, so that mono-molecular edge is not one single atom of Iron (which is going to be subject to near-instant oxidization in the atmosphere), but one single molecule of Iron-plus-whatever-else-its-alloyed-with... and a more-efficient material, like steel or titanium or adamantine or insert-other-space-metal may be far sharper and far more efficient at the single-molecule thickness than other metals. It may be that its atomic structure is such that it causes molecules of other materials to break down (on an atomic level) much more easily, thus making it appear to cut more cleanly.

 Wyzilla wrote:

It's still weird considering a monomolecular blade only stays monomolecular for a small amount of time during use. We have them in real life, and there's a reason why Surgeons chuck them out after one use.

They're clearly nothing like real monomolecular blades and should just be called something different all-together.

Offtopic - in one russian SF series there is even ATOMAR swords (CCW inside damper field and status weapon of nobles and professionals) - there it's justified by powerfield used to SHARPEN it periodically (read: seconds/after even single swing in atmosphere), and blade itself (unlike hilt) is expendable part (1500 refreshes) so it can be spent to nothing even during single prolonged duel (and pieces can be hacked off by opponent's 'atomar' weapon too - if it's sharper/just refreshed/in constant refresh cycle ).

Ferros wrote:
The answer is the material:

Fire a solid-iron slug at a tank.
PLINK

Fire a depleted-uranium sabot - RIGHT THROUGH.

Or for a more blatantly similar comparison:

What cuts better and retains an edge better:
A blade of copper, or Damascus steel?

Uranium is a lot heavier than Iron, the more useful comparison is pressed Tungsten.
Also Cast Iron is brittle, so a large enough shell going fast enough will indeed go through armor like a Uranium shell.
Steel and Tungsten are ductile, and will thus mushroom on impact. Plink isnt the right word for it. Going a the same speed and mass as a Uranium shell that would go clear through a tank, a tungsten shell will do immense damage, generate a ton of heat, and possible knock the vehicle over. From the outside it will actually look like the Tungsten round did more damage than the Uranium round, because all of the energy was transformed into damage. On the inside though, what really matters is did the shell fully penetrate the armor, and if the Tungsten didnt but the Uranium did, then the Uranium obviously wins.

Also it need not be depleted. The US only uses depleted uranium because it has large stocks of the otherwise useless metal sitting around from decades of nuclear enrichment activities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bocatt wrote:
If you've bought a knife, you'd know that the metal used in it's making does not determine it's sharpness. It's the width of the edge. That's why a knife sharpener, which narrows the edge, makes knives sharper. If it was the metal that mattered, I'd just buy a titanium or whatever the sharpest metal knife was and be done, but that's not how it works. A knife blunts with use, making a flatter and wider edge to cut with. The grade of the metal, iron, steel, whatever, only dictates how durable the knife is and how long it will hold it's edge before needing to be sharpened again.

this is exactly it. Most knives can be taken down to a near monomolecular edge, but as soon as they are used, that edge dulls considerably. A knife that has a near monomolecular edge, that did not appreciably dull with use would appear by our standards very sharp. It would not be any sharper, but it would retain it's sharpness through more rigorous work. The writers should describe the material, or at least it's durability, rather than how sharp it is.

 Exergy wrote:


Also it need not be depleted. The US only uses depleted uranium because it has large stocks of the otherwise useless metal sitting around from decades of nuclear enrichment activities.

BTW this - and that uranium is more pyroforic than tungsten - is only it's advantage as afaik current tungsten "alloys" are said to also be tweaked not to mushroom.

Though given advances in MOX fuels and overall nuclear tech using uranium in common weapons becoming more silly than using real gold in field uniform's badges anyway.

The modern munitions use some sort of tungsten-nylon alloy? Something like that, I forget, but it was some oddball-sounding mix that, apparently, works well.

 Arcsquad12 wrote:
And here I was thinking this would just be a request to stop using one word to describe everything. A chainsword doesn't need to be "monomolecular" to cut through something. Leave the ultra thin and sharp blades to the Space Pansies. Monomolecular sounds too precise to fit with the brute force approach of the Imperium.

This was the original intention. It's just been diluted and the waters muddied.

 bocatt wrote:

 Arcsquad12 wrote:
And here I was thinking this would just be a request to stop using one word to describe everything. A chainsword doesn't need to be "monomolecular" to cut through something. Leave the ultra thin and sharp blades to the Space Pansies. Monomolecular sounds too precise to fit with the brute force approach of the Imperium.

This was the original intention. It's just been diluted and the waters muddied.

Welcome to forum discussion.

 Psienesis wrote:
Excepting that a molecule is not an atom, so that mono-molecular edge is not one single atom of Iron (which is going to be subject to near-instant oxidization in the atmosphere), but one single molecule of Iron-plus-whatever-else-its-alloyed-with... and a more-efficient material, like steel or titanium or adamantine or insert-other-space-metal may be far sharper and far more efficient at the single-molecule thickness than other metals. It may be that its atomic structure is such that it causes molecules of other materials to break down (on an atomic level) much more easily, thus making it appear to cut more cleanly.

Alloys are mixtures, so you end up with lots of different kinds of atoms. You'd only end up with molecules on the edge if the metal has oxidised (or similar) or if the metal is alloyed with a molecular material rather than apure atomic material. I guess plasteel could have a monomolecular edge depending on what is added to the steel (or if it is even steel as we know it rather than something that has been called plasteel for other reasons). Single atom thick diamond films have been popular in various fiction for adding a decent edge to things.

I believe "plasteel" is defined as a plastic with the tensile strength and durability of high-carbon steel... but that might be a definition from another scifi IP that I've simply mixed up.

And while alloys are mixtures... so are molecules. A molecule of water, of course, is two atoms of hydrogen attached to an atom of oxygen. Obviously, they're not making weapons out of water, but more-advanced alloys can, with an edge being only one molecule wide, have stronger atomic bonds than lesser materials, which will present a superior cutting edge, basically as it forces apart the lesser material on an atomic level (as it breaks the molecules of those materials apart).

Bearing in mind this is also the same company that depicts Boltguns as "caseless" weapons, yet every single boltgun has a receiver and ejector and in some cases empty cartridges on the bases.. GW doesn't really read much into the actual science behind things really.

 sierra 1247 wrote:
Bearing in mind this is also the same company that depicts Boltguns as "caseless" weapons, yet every single boltgun has a receiver and ejector and in some cases empty cartridges on the bases.. GW doesn't really read much into the actual science behind things really.

This. 100% this

I always wondered what Ferrosteel was. Ferrum is the latin term for iron so from that one can infer that Ferrosteel is an iron-steel alloy. Meaning its crappier steel. That explains so much about leman russ tanks.

 sierra 1247 wrote:
Bearing in mind this is also the same company that depicts Boltguns as "caseless" weapons, yet every single boltgun has a receiver and ejector and in some cases empty cartridges on the bases.. GW doesn't really read much into the actual science behind things really.

Well... yes.

Ferrosteel is.... I forget. It didn't make sense to me then, either.

I know that ferrocrete is a cement-like mixture that, after solidifying, becomes metallic and some crazy number of times stronger than granite or something. It's the best of both worlds between metal and concrete. It's also apparently cheap as hell to produce, because it seems the Imperium is built entirely out of it. Ferrocrete and flakboard. I wonder if it's skulls that are the primary component of ferrocrete? Would certainly explain a lot.

Psienesis wrote:I believe "plasteel" is defined as a plastic with the tensile strength and durability of high-carbon steel... but that might be a definition from another scifi IP that I've simply mixed up.

And while alloys are mixtures... so are molecules. A molecule of water, of course, is two atoms of hydrogen attached to an atom of oxygen. Obviously, they're not making weapons out of water, but more-advanced alloys can, with an edge being only one molecule wide, have stronger atomic bonds than lesser materials, which will present a superior cutting edge, basically as it forces apart the lesser material on an atomic level (as it breaks the molecules of those materials apart).

In chemistry, a mixture is where different atoms are mixed together but do not bond at the atomic level. You only get molecules where atoms bond into compounds. Fair point on the plasteel though

sierra 1247 wrote:Bearing in mind this is also the same company that depicts Boltguns as "caseless" weapons, yet every single boltgun has a receiver and ejector and in some cases empty cartridges on the bases.. GW doesn't really read much into the actual science behind things really.

Boltguns haven't been referred to as caseless since the earliest incarnation of the weapon. Everything since 2nd edition (and most of the stuff before) has shown bolters with shell casings.

Also Ferrocrete is just reinforced concrete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrocement

 Flinty wrote:

Also Ferrocrete is just reinforced concrete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrocement

It looks like GW can't make anything without copying.

Not even reinforced concrete. Plain, ordinary cement (Granted it's a brand name)

http://www.lafarge.co.uk/CementDatasheet/Ferrocrete.pdf

A really, REALLY old brand name.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/semmytrailer/9306208148/

Also mentioned in the Stainless Steel Rat. And Star Wars. And Judge Dredd. I suspect this is less of a case of "copying" and more "blindingly obvious catchy word, let's use that."

But can it be monomolecular?

Graphite wrote:
Not even reinforced concrete. Plain, ordinary cement (Granted it's a brand name)

http://www.lafarge.co.uk/CementDatasheet/Ferrocrete.pdf

A really, REALLY old brand name.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/semmytrailer/9306208148/

Also mentioned in the Stainless Steel Rat. And Star Wars. And Judge Dredd. I suspect this is less of a case of "copying" and more "blindingly obvious catchy word, let's use that."

But can it be monomolecular?

Isn't everything that GW has created? They really like that phrase.

referring to the OP's gripe: rulebooks and codexes are written by creative guys--i mean, when you think about the amount of stuff GW has pumped out over the years, it's pretty impressive--but these guys writing RULES aren't fiction (or non-fiction) writers. they aren't trying to tell a story (i know the rulebooks and codexes all have snippets of story, but i am referring to the writing that actually relates to the RULES of the game)--they are trying to convey a specific point using evocative (if trite) details. they latch onto terms that sound cool ("monomolecular", in this case) and flog that horse to death.

these writers are obviously not infallible (see every instance of errata, and the volumes of thread traffic discussing said errata, as well as proposed rule changes/additional rules/etc).
It may be that they are lazy--they found one technobabble word they liked and stuck with it.
it may be on purpose that they call everything "monomolecluar", to create a blanket semblance of evenness across a wide range of races and their indigenous technologies.

if i had a golf ball, tennis ball, baseball, basketball, football, rugby ball and a soccer ball, i could call them all "game balls" and would technically be correct. you know that all of those balls are for games. they have some characteristics in common, but each is unique. same deal with GW's "monomolecular" blanket title.

if it really bothers you, do what i do: read that a chainsword has a monomolecular edge, pick up a space marine model, look at how fat the blade is in comparison to all the other tiny details, and say to yourself, "those dumb are so wrong. obviously this weapon's face is too large for it's destructive power to be based on sharpness--obviously it is based on brute force. those sorry don't know their a$$ from a hole in the ground", and then move on with your life, knowing you are smarter than GW writers, and WRITE YOUR OWN STUFF, SEND IT GW, AND WAIT FOR THEM TO TELL YOU IF YOU HAVE A JOB OR NOT.

 GawdamSumbish wrote:
referring to the OP's gripe: rulebooks and codexes are written by creative guys--i mean, when you think about the amount of stuff GW has pumped out over the years, it's pretty impressive--but these guys writing RULES aren't fiction (or non-fiction) writers. they aren't trying to tell a story (i know the rulebooks and codexes all have snippets of story, but i am referring to the writing that actually relates to the RULES of the game)--they are trying to convey a specific point using evocative (if trite) details. they latch onto terms that sound cool ("monomolecular", in this case) and flog that horse to death.

these writers are obviously not infallible (see every instance of errata, and the volumes of thread traffic discussing said errata, as well as proposed rule changes/additional rules/etc).
It may be that they are lazy--they found one technobabble word they liked and stuck with it.
it may be on purpose that they call everything "monomolecluar", to create a blanket semblance of evenness across a wide range of races and their indigenous technologies.

if i had a golf ball, tennis ball, baseball, basketball, football, rugby ball and a soccer ball, i could call them all "game balls" and would technically be correct. you know that all of those balls are for games. they have some characteristics in common, but each is unique. same deal with GW's "monomolecular" blanket title.

if it really bothers you, do what i do: read that a chainsword has a monomolecular edge, pick up a space marine model, look at how fat the blade is in comparison to all the other tiny details, and say to yourself, "those dumb are so wrong. obviously this weapon's face is too large for it's destructive power to be based on sharpness--obviously it is based on brute force. those sorry don't know their a$$ from a hole in the ground", and then move on with your life, knowing you are smarter than GW writers, and WRITE YOUR OWN STUFF, SEND IT GW, AND WAIT FOR THEM TO TELL YOU IF YOU HAVE A JOB OR NOT.

Well they did hire Matt Ward, and a brain-dead monkey could write better fluff than him.

Well they did hire Matt Ward, and a brain-dead monkey could write better fluff than him.

strange, because i am a better writer than a brain dead monkey (and therefore, apparently, better than Matt Ward)...yet i still don't work for GW!

 GawdamSumbish wrote:

Well they did hire Matt Ward, and a brain-dead monkey could write better fluff than him.

strange, because i am a better writer than a brain dead monkey (and therefore, apparently, better than Matt Ward)...yet i still don't work for GW!

Of course. If they hired you, they'd have to pay you. Which means Kirby gets less money

Subjective opinion is subjective.

From a material perspective, a properly 'forged' (they would have to use laser cutting equipment to do it right) monomolecular edged blade would never need to be sharpened, as the single line of molecules would have to force themselves back through the atoms behind them. In this sense, if your mono-edged blade gets slightly dull, merely cut through something, and it will literally sharpen itself, due to the nature and arrangement of the atoms.

If chainswords/combat knives/etc really were mono, they would ALL be AP2, and everyone's "armor" saves would quite literally do nothing. If you lack an invuln, you are dead when the 30 pound, 5-6 foot long chainsaw sword filled with dozens of hyper-sharp cutting teeth being forced through [insert poor shlub here] by something strong enough to lift a modern day APC off the ground (not completely, using leverage from one side).

That being said, aside form astartes stuff, MOST weapons in the imperium are generally made of one sort of stainless steel, or some other equially durable corrosive resistant metal. Because the imperium has nearly an entire galaxy's worth of planets/moons/asteroids/planetoids to harvest raw materials from.

And on the whole magic-space-elf-totally-not-bone projectiles, given their mass (negigable) , they would need to be traveling ABSURDLY fast to be able to penetrate between the atoms of the adamantium plating that is power armor, let alone terminator. And I mean something like .8c (~80% of the speed of light). Honestly it all comes down to the fact that the author wanted his special flower space elves to win at everything forever. If their ROF really is that high, why not simply have them be assault 3/4/5 to represent the fast firing of the weapon, rather than a 1/6 change to penetrate the most rediculously powerful armor known in the galaxy. And considering that most TDA's invulnerable save is from how completely rediculous the armor itself is, rather than some sort of powerfield generation... yeah.

As to the reason for 'AND CHAPLAIN SUMGAI FLAILED HIS CROZIUS, THE LEADING WING COVERED IN SPIKES SHARPENED TO A MONOMOLECULAR EDGE SO THEY POKE BETTER"... its flavor text. It's kind of like most popular media throwing the word 'epic' around like they know what it means. Was the ground meat sandwich that your company produced truly worthy of a novel similar in nature to the ODYSSEY, the ILLIAD, or the LoTR series (all of which are by definition literary epics), or of such a significant size/scope that the true scale is beyond the mental comprehension of the average individual to understand??