Energy Weapons VS Ballistic Weapons
- Thread starter Ralts Bloodthorne
- Start date
hobgoblin
First Post
ah, ballistic as in the warhead, not the delivery.
still, a area effect microwaregenerator anyone?
for one thing it can keep sending for as long as the powercell it got deliverd with works. area denial at its finest
still, plasma-like effects would be best for area effect weapons. but thats hardly energy based. more like matter in a very energetic state or something.
still, one never knows...
still, a area effect microwaregenerator anyone?
for one thing it can keep sending for as long as the powercell it got deliverd with works. area denial at its finest
still, plasma-like effects would be best for area effect weapons. but thats hardly energy based. more like matter in a very energetic state or something.
still, one never knows...
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Plasma weapons sound nice, but plasma is basically hot gas, and it is difficult to control gas in a free enviroment - inside the weapon, you can contain it, but how do you deliver it to your target? With capsules that destroy themselves on impact (back to ballistics)?hobgoblin said:ah, ballistic as in the warhead, not the delivery.
still, a area effect microwaregenerator anyone?
for one thing it can keep sending for as long as the powercell it got deliverd with works. area denial at its finest
still, plasma-like effects would be best for area effect weapons. but thats hardly energy based. more like matter in a very energetic state or something.
still, one never knows...
I a m not certain that area effect plasma weapons are better to use then existing weapons - they would probably have the same risks as nerve gas if neither side has (working) protection gear...
hobgoblin
First Post
any kind of ballistic delivery will be with canisters, that is unless we manage to discover some kind of magnetic or gravitational way of making things stay inside a globe or similar that will rupture on impact and so on...
so yes, artillery and similar indirect weapons will most likely be based around container trowed in a ballistic arc over the battlefield. question is what will these containers be filled with and what will be used as a propellant++...
im starting to see that energy based weapon-systems sounds fine on paper often but when one starts to investigate the physics of it we basicly cant deliver the damage vs cost that matter based one can at the moment. if that will change in the future, only discoverys in physics will tell. both in what kinds of energys one can try to use, and in the area of production and storage.
still, it seems more realistic that it will not be pure energy (as in the electro-magnetic spectrum or something like that) but more in a kind of particle stream. but then we are more or less talking about a new kind of matter weapon.
maybe its not so silly that blue planet still have matter based weapons as the firearm of choice. but with electric trigger and new chemical propellants thats seperate from the bullets. this then allow for some very flexible firearm systems, and gives the revolver a revival. now as a multi-ammo system that rotate into place as needed.
so yes, artillery and similar indirect weapons will most likely be based around container trowed in a ballistic arc over the battlefield. question is what will these containers be filled with and what will be used as a propellant++...
im starting to see that energy based weapon-systems sounds fine on paper often but when one starts to investigate the physics of it we basicly cant deliver the damage vs cost that matter based one can at the moment. if that will change in the future, only discoverys in physics will tell. both in what kinds of energys one can try to use, and in the area of production and storage.
still, it seems more realistic that it will not be pure energy (as in the electro-magnetic spectrum or something like that) but more in a kind of particle stream. but then we are more or less talking about a new kind of matter weapon.
maybe its not so silly that blue planet still have matter based weapons as the firearm of choice. but with electric trigger and new chemical propellants thats seperate from the bullets. this then allow for some very flexible firearm systems, and gives the revolver a revival. now as a multi-ammo system that rotate into place as needed.
Last edited:
hobgoblin said:
That's a ballistic weapon.
You also need an absurdly powerful laser.
As you will recall from freshman (or maybe sophomore--I don't know the curriculum at your university) physics, the energy and momentum of any photon are related by the equation E = pc. Given perfect reflection you get an impulse from each photon of 2p, which is to say I = 2 E/c. Now F = I/t, so the force the laser beam exerts on the grenade is 2 E / ct, and E/t is average power. So F = 2 P/c, or if we re-arrange, P = Fc/2.
Supposing that a useful grenade has a mass of at least 0.2 kg and given that gravity is approximately 10 m/s^2, you need at least 2 N to hold it up against gravity, and more to give it any upward acceleration. c = 300 000 000 m/s, so the minimum power required of a laser grenade launcher would be 300 Megawatts. That is about the power output of a commercial power station.
"All you need is a reflective mirror." Nope. You also need two power stations and a lot of high-voltage transmission lines. And a laser that I can't describe without offending Eric's grandmother.
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Besides which, plasmas are very hot, and therefore they radiate heat (see the Sun for an example). Unless that have an enormous volume to surface area ratio, or unless their energy is constantly replenished (eg. by fusion) they cool down. Very quickly. And a cooled-down plasma is essentially a puff of hot air.
hobgoblin
First Post
agemegos, im fully aware of the cost of power. thats why i repetedly bring that topic up in the end of my posts.
before we start talking about any kind of energy based weapon we have to find new and more effective ways of making/storing said energy. under current technology this impossible.
this is the real problem. ones we can pump enough energy into the weapon then we can start looking into the other problems.
in star trek they have this warp core that creates enough energy to enable a whole ship to bypass einstein. and im guessing that the power source of their phasors where based on a similar system.
iirc, the powersource for the laser powerd transport was described as a megawatt laser. and it was able to propell a item 10 cm by 10 cm craft about 20-40 meters into the air.
so yes, its not practical by a longshot but the theory works. the question is how to generate and deliver the needed amounts of energy for it to become a way of delivering artillery shells and similar.
as for the plasma thing. sure its a hot gas. but so is a explosive. the thing is to have that hot gas spread over a large enough area before it cools to be effective as a weapon or in the case of a explosive, create a shockwave from the generation of said hot gasses.
in many ways plasma can be seen as a kind of napalm rather then a conventional artillery grenade. the question is, what is the task you want performed.
in the end the discussion of energy based weapons stop at energy production and storage. right now we cant produce and store high enough amounts of energy for a energy based weapon system to be effective. maybe we can do so in the future, maybe not. but one can dream, right?
before we start talking about any kind of energy based weapon we have to find new and more effective ways of making/storing said energy. under current technology this impossible.
this is the real problem. ones we can pump enough energy into the weapon then we can start looking into the other problems.
in star trek they have this warp core that creates enough energy to enable a whole ship to bypass einstein. and im guessing that the power source of their phasors where based on a similar system.
iirc, the powersource for the laser powerd transport was described as a megawatt laser. and it was able to propell a item 10 cm by 10 cm craft about 20-40 meters into the air.
so yes, its not practical by a longshot but the theory works. the question is how to generate and deliver the needed amounts of energy for it to become a way of delivering artillery shells and similar.
as for the plasma thing. sure its a hot gas. but so is a explosive. the thing is to have that hot gas spread over a large enough area before it cools to be effective as a weapon
or in the case of a explosive, create a shockwave from the generation of said hot gasses.in many ways plasma can be seen as a kind of napalm rather then a conventional artillery grenade. the question is, what is the task you want performed.
in the end the discussion of energy based weapons stop at energy production and storage. right now we cant produce and store high enough amounts of energy for a energy based weapon system to be effective. maybe we can do so in the future, maybe not. but one can dream, right?
hobgoblin said:
Maybe, but cost is far from being the only issue. The sheer practical difficulties of generating and transmitting it are a constraint that makes some of your suggestions absurdly impractical. Another issue is that you don't seem to have given any thought at all to the other things you would be able to do is you had the gigawatt laser that would be needed to make a laser greanade launcher such as you suggest.
No, not at all. They also stop at collimation, diffraction limits diffusion, thermal interactions with the atmosphere, interactions with smoke, fog, and cover, waste heat, side glow, and weight and delicacy of the apparatus. You have to think about what happens to the weapon and the user if it gets a splash of mud on the collimating lens or any neutral filter protecting the lens, and how you might prevent this from happening in a practical battlefield weapon.
Last edited:
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
To return to an example I mentioned earlier on, David Drakes 'Hammers Slammers' short stories have an interesting take on energy weapons.
Their 'power guns' don't rely upon generators, they rely upon ammunition which is expended to create their energy beam.
They are deadly, powerful, line of sight weapons which can be spoiled by even the lightest of cover - even a small bush will take the full energy of a blast if it is in between you and your target.
- and in his future vision there are, indeed, material as well as energy weapons in use (e.g. howitzers on the battlefield, plus some mercenary groups use ballistic weapons rather than powerguns).
In one of his essays Drake shows that he has thought through some of the implications and necessary foundations to allow for workable energy weapons.
Cheers
Their 'power guns' don't rely upon generators, they rely upon ammunition which is expended to create their energy beam.
They are deadly, powerful, line of sight weapons which can be spoiled by even the lightest of cover - even a small bush will take the full energy of a blast if it is in between you and your target.
- and in his future vision there are, indeed, material as well as energy weapons in use (e.g. howitzers on the battlefield, plus some mercenary groups use ballistic weapons rather than powerguns).
In one of his essays Drake shows that he has thought through some of the implications and necessary foundations to allow for workable energy weapons.
Cheers
Similar Threads
