Energy Weapons VS Ballistic Weapons

Krieg

First Post
Agemegos said:
But laser weapons in space don't replace ballistic weapons--we aren't using ballistic weapons in space.

lol Splitting hairs a bit dontcha think?

Regardless... I'd say that the USAF's ASM-135 and the 23mm Canon the Soviets mounted on Salyut-3 would qualify as ballistic weapons used in space...but that's just me. ;)

Private eyes will be packing railgun-pistols that fire shards of antimatter-doped silicon before they pack a practical laser-pistol.

Agreed.

I can see a day when a flashlight laser ala Ringworld would be feasible..it's just that I would question it's suitability as a weapon.

Agemegos said:
I am referring to the full EM spectrum, as it happens (sorry, I did not make that clear). All wavelengths are subject to diffraction, though the effects are larger with short wavelengths.

Take a look at project HAARP. :)
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Agemegos

Explorer
Krieg said:
lol Splitting hairs a bit dontcha think?

No. Addressing the OP.

"A common fallacy I see in many sci-fi games is the thought that beam weapons would eventually replace ballistic weapons completely." -- Warlord Ralts (emphasis added).
 
Last edited:

Agemegos

Explorer
Krieg said:
Take a look at project HAARP. :)

Case in point. To focus a microwave beam tightly enough to attack an area thirty miles across, HAARP needs an emitter consisting of 72 towers 360 feet tall spread out over four acres. Good luck getting that into a hip holster.
 

Agemegos

Explorer
C. Baize said:
Didn't they also prove that bumblebees can't fly with physics, too?

No, they didn't. That is a common misrepresentation. The truth is that someone showed that bumblebees would not be able to fly if their wings were rigid.
 

hobgoblin

First Post
Agemegos said:
Case in point. To focus a microwave beam tightly enough to attack an area thirty miles across, HAARP needs an emitter consisting of 72 towers 360 feet tall spread out over four acres. Good luck getting that into a hip holster.

just a silly question, but can one make a laser out of microwaves?
im guessing that one can, in theory.

next question then becomes, can it have the same effect as normal microwaves?
 

John Q. Mayhem

Explorer
Warlord Ralts said:
Sounds like the makers of XCom ripped off the Sten series there.

The Sten series used AM2 (an alterante form of Anti-Matter, the location of which it came from was undisclosed until the final book of the series) for everything from heating fuel to energy to starship to hand held weapons.

First, you had the AM2, just a few grains, wrapped in a shell of Imperium X, the shell had a small fault in it that would "pop" open upon hitting something. A laser pump was used to fire the pellet. (You can use laser pumping to move objects according to theorum, don't know if it's been proven)

So, the guy pulls the trigger, the laser pump would fire the pellet. Pellet hits, cracks open, AM2 detonates, blows a hold about 8" across in the person.

Ouch.

Sniper weapons had a linear accellerator add on that "spun" the round at a certain speed, literally allowing the weapon to shoot around corners.

The Sten series is a good series, if you get a shot at picking up all 6 books, give it a shot.

I bought the first one based on your recommendation, and wasn't dissapointed at all. Lots of fun!
 

Agemegos

Explorer
hobgoblin said:
just a silly question, but can one make a laser out of microwaves?
im guessing that one can, in theory.

And in practice. In fact, masers were demonstrated before lasers.

next question then becomes, can it have the same effect as normal microwaves?

Yes, of course.
 

Krieg

First Post
Agemegos said:
Case in point. To focus a microwave beam tightly enough to attack an area thirty miles across, HAARP needs an emitter consisting of 72 towers 360 feet tall spread out over four acres. Good luck getting that into a hip holster.

Because of course we know that technology at it's infancy is representative of what it will look like when it is mature.

pictures edited out - you're not adding something substantive to the discussion, just knocking someone else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Agemegos

Explorer
Krieg said:
Because of course we know that technology at it's infancy is representative of what it will look like when it is mature...

No, not for that reason at all. For the reason that diffraction places a fundamental limit on the minimum width to which a beam can be focussed, which is related to the ratio of the wavelength used divided by the diameter of the emitter. Microwaves are 'micro' by the standards of radio waves, but they are huge by comparision to visible light, and it is fundamentally impossible to focus them tightly without a huge emitter or emitter array.
 

JamesDJarvis

First Post
Warlord Ralts said:
I've seen this arguement go round and round, but let's move onto sci-fi.

A magnetic accellerator weapon, using a chunk of ferrous coated (for launching) duranium alloy that weighs 8 ounces accellerated to .75 C.

That hits someone in armor, the armor withstands the blow.

He's still got a chance of being blown off his feet. Sure, it won't hurt him, only lead to armor degredation, but still batter around.
.

huh? That is amazingly good armor. That projectile is whipping out of its weapon with 16 BILLION times as much energy as a 44 cal bullet.
 

Remove ads

Top