Directed energy weapons

[avianmosquito]

For example, they are an excellent counter to depleted uranium armor (which is flammable), though since depleted uranium is typically layered with ceramics, the effect may be rather limited.

Not really. All tanks with depleted uranium armour have a sheet of metal on the outside, which is hard to penetrate with this kind of weapon. I imagine the larger ones might be able to. (think artillery)

I might be able to see it as a special support weapon in certain conditions.

You've got it.

In the infantry, this weapon was supposed to be used as a secondary weapon mounted underneath the primary, similar in usage to a grenade launcher. It's not a decent weapon in its own right, but it's not supposed to be. It stops inafantry, it stops large living creatures, no effect against most human vehicles. (It'll kill a humvee, but that's because there is so much plastic in the damn things.)

~~~~

[avianmosquito]

This has all the usual problems with plasma weapons; specifically, the whole 'magnetic bottle' concept is bullshit. Even if it was possible to make the bottle, which as far as we know it isn't, the amount of energy contributed by the oxidisation reaction is so small compared to the kinetic and thermal energy of the bolt as to not be worth the hassle. You are definitely not going to get all the chemical potential energy in the target, because oxide layers will quickly form and limit the reactive surface. If you have the technology to make ridiculous magnetic bottles, you can simply shoot a shell filled with nano-thermite or some similar incendiary at very high velocity. Such a weapon would be easier to build, more reliable (doesn't rely on reacting with target), much longer ranged and have the option of shooting standard tungsten penetrators to deal with armored targets.

I suppose I should adress the issues.

1. Magnetic bottles are bullshit? No arguement about them being difficult and impractical, but I don't think they're bullshit.

2. The kinetic and thermal energy is nothing before the target burns. Fired from the basic underslung launcher, you have 100g moving at 225m/s. That's only 2500j. The momentum is only 22.5n*s. The bolt is heated to 3500k, which equates to 321kj. There is also an electrical discharge, but that's more or less irrelevent as well. The oxidation, in "ideal conditions" (fancy coalition way of saying "never goanna fucking happen") is combustion of 40g of fat before the target is destroyed by the force of explosion. This comes to 1.48mj of energy, the equivalent of 353g of tnt. This creates to a small explosion that might stun the surrounding soldiers (or civilians, but that never happens, right?) while it sends a blast of steam and burning grease out onto the surrounding area.

In actual combat expect maybe 10g, but that's still 370kj. That kind of blast is not lethal, (unless you're the person hit) but it will be enough to hurt, and still spray burning grease on the target's squadmates.

3. I understand it isn't going to get all of the potential energy, or, more accurately, isn't going to get all the potential energy fast enough for it to matter. The larger cannons, while technically capable of incinerating a body, tend to take a while to do so, as they burn maybe 25% of their potential and send the rest flying just from the force of the blast. (Which prevents the oxidation layers from forming, by the way, as oxidized tissue is ASH.)

4. The problem with projectile weapons is recoil. If you're going to have an infantry weapon firing large enough incendiary shells to match the effect of this weapon, you're going to get a much stronger impulse than the 22.5n*s this is rated for, and therefore it may be out of the limitations of the soldier firing it. Also, ammunition&reloading might be an issue, as the weapon will almost certainly be single-shot, and therefore leave vulnerable periods while the soldier reloads. More to the point, you probably won't be able to carry very many rounds, compared to the large number that an energy weapon can (theoretically) carry on a single charge. (5 for the underslung-weapon I'm using as an example, with a spare magazine.) Carrying multiple types of ammunition would only complicate the issue.

[avianmosquito]

Does it matter to the plot how it accomplishes its effect? Can't you just say, "This here gun kills people right the fuck dead by making them burn and/or explode. The soldiers call it a Klinke; the brass call it a Klineag Keonusiga; the human brass calls it an Oxidization Blaster, and the human soldiers call it an O Blaster or just a Big O. It doesn't work against stuff not susceptible to a redox reaction."

A small side-note, it would be "keonusiga klineag." object-adjective, not adjective-object. (Furthermore, and totally off-topic, their language is also verb-subject-object instead of subject-verb-object.)

[avianmosquito]

No new ideas? I'm a little dissapointed, but at least I've gotten a lot of feedback on mine.

I'll put up another here in a minute, this time on a species, but I'm going to go through a few finishing details on this beforehand.

~~~~

[Simon_Jester]

Skeet, do you think you could consolidate your posts into one-reply-to-several, instead of several replies to one each? It would be a bit easier on the eye.

1. What about in space? Flourine is an oxidising agent, it needs oxygen to work. (Though I do suppose you could mix the two, but that would be something only useable in atmosphere.)

This is objectively not true; fluorine (yes, that is how it's spelled) can react with nearly anything in the absence of oxygen. It attacks materials the same way oxygen does, only more so; it is a better oxidizer than oxygen itself.

2. The kinetic and thermal energy is nothing before the target burns. Fired from the basic underslung launcher, you have 100g moving at 225m/s. That's only 2500j. The momentum is only 22.5n*s. The bolt is heated to 3500k, which equates to 321kj.

Skeet, you're missing something. What is the average thermal velocity of an oxygen atom in a gas/plasma* that's been heated to 3500 Kelvin? Compare that speed to the speed of the shot fired from the launcher...

*Not sure which, at that temperature.

[PeZook]

Well, it is a secondary weapon, (in the infantry) so it shouldn't have to be used out of ideal contexts. You wouldn't see a soldier firing his grenade launcher indoors when he/she's got a perfectly good assault rifle, now would you?

That does make more sense, though you didn't indicate that in the OP.

Also, my other objection stands: why should the weapon be ineffective against brick walls? It's still a superheated plasma blast. While it probably won't penetrate, it will most certainly crater the wall and create fragmentation. The thermal energy alone is about 1/3rd of a hand grenade, if we take your calcs at face value.

4. The problem with projectile weapons is recoil. If you're going to have an infantry weapon firing large enough incendiary shells to match the effect of this weapon, you're going to get a much stronger impulse than the 22.5n*s this is rated for, and therefore it may be out of the limitations of the soldier firing it. Also, ammunition&reloading might be an issue, as the weapon will almost certainly be single-shot, and therefore leave vulnerable periods while the soldier reloads. More to the point, you probably won't be able to carry very many rounds, compared to the large number that an energy weapon can (theoretically) carry on a single charge. (5 for the underslung-weapon I'm using as an example, with a spare magazine.) Carrying multiple types of ammunition would only complicate the issue.

None of this is true, actually. See the XM-25 grenade launcher for a projectile weapon that can be easily fired by a single person, kill people in a large radius with fragmentation, penetrate cover and carry many dozens of rounds. Vulernability during reloading isn't an issue if the soldier is part of a squad, and thus enjoys the benefit of riflemen covering him while he destroys the targets. Same as with the O-Blaster, since you said yourself it's an underslung weapon anyway, so the soldier will still have his rifle to fight with if he runs out of power cells for the blaster.

[avianmosquito]

Thank you all for your input, I really appreciate it. Although I might not let onto it, you guys do have an effect on the finished version, I don't just ignore you and move on. Changes that have been made due to feedback on this page:

I now have a better name for this weapon. "Redox cannon," thank you Feil, although I know it wasn't your intent.

New slang terms sparked as well! Infantry might call it a fireball, tankers would call it a "rust gun" because that's all it does to them. (That can be a nuisance, but it's hardle a threat.) Thank you Dark Hellion.

The notion of shoulder-mounted versions has been scrapped.

The notion of pistols remains, but pistols used as practical weapons has been realized as hopeless.

Space applications... have remained the same. No comments on that? Really?

Bombardment more common, anti-tank usage less common.

And finally, to GrandMasterTerwynn... thanks for nothing, numbnuts. (Really, if you can't keep civil, how about you just keep silent?)

[avianmosquito]

Skeet, do you think you could consolidate your posts into one-reply-to-several, instead of several replies to one each? It would be a bit easier on the eye.

Maybe. I'm used to youtube comment debates, so this format is just natural to me. (I suppose I could try to follow the format of my friend on wikia, but that isn't much better.)

It attacks materials the same way oxygen does, only more so; it is a better oxidizer than oxygen itself.

I understand this, I had a brain lapse, saru mo ki kara ochiru, moving on.

fluorine (yes, that is how it's spelled)

Forget the typo, will ya?

Skeet, you're missing something. What is the average thermal velocity of an oxygen atom in a gas/plasma* that's been heated to 3500 Kelvin? Compare that speed to the speed of the shot fired from the launcher...

Smaller weapons, it's a gas, larger weapons, it's a plasma. (The difference is an order of magnitude.) The thermal velocity is next to irrelevent, although it will effect the spread of the gas, and the rate at which it reacts, it does little to effect the actual damage in any way that cannot be expressed by the damage caused by dumping that much thermal energy into the target.

[avianmosquito]

Well, it is a secondary weapon, (in the infantry) so it shouldn't have to be used out of ideal contexts. You wouldn't see a soldier firing his grenade launcher indoors when he/she's got a perfectly good assault rifle, now would you?

That does make more sense, though you didn't indicate that in the OP.

No, I didn't mention that, but that's because it's used in several forms, the underslung just being the most common infantry weapon.

Also, my other objection stands: why should the weapon be ineffective against brick walls? It's still a superheated plasma blast. While it probably won't penetrate, it will most certainly crater the wall and create fragmentation. The thermal energy alone is about 1/3rd of a hand grenade, if we take your calcs at face value.

I was thinking of an infantry weapon, and it was an exaggeration. What it will do is crack the brick it hits, and cause minor causmetic damage to the rest of the wall.

4. The problem with projectile weapons is recoil. If you're going to have an infantry weapon firing large enough incendiary shells to match the effect of this weapon, you're going to get a much stronger impulse than the 22.5n*s this is rated for, and therefore it may be out of the limitations of the soldier firing it. Also, ammunition&reloading might be an issue, as the weapon will almost certainly be single-shot, and therefore leave vulnerable periods while the soldier reloads. More to the point, you probably won't be able to carry very many rounds, compared to the large number that an energy weapon can (theoretically) carry on a single charge. (5 for the underslung-weapon I'm using as an example, with a spare magazine.) Carrying multiple types of ammunition would only complicate the issue.

None of this is true, actually. See the XM-25 grenade launcher for a projectile weapon that can be easily fired by a single person, kill people in a large radius with fragmentation, penetrate cover and carry many dozens of rounds. Vulernability during reloading isn't an issue if the soldier is part of a squad, and thus enjoys the benefit of riflemen covering him while he destroys the targets. Same as with the O-Blaster, since you said yourself it's an underslung weapon anyway, so the soldier will still have his rifle to fight with if he runs out of power cells for the blaster.

The xm-25 is grossly overrated. The kill radius is 2m, the casualty radius is 6m, that's nothing. A hand grenade scores 5/15m. Even the redox cannon (new name for it) has a kill radius of 2.5m (at that range, enough grease is splattered onto you to cause your own fat to begin burning.) It also has a casualty radius of nearly 8m, where you will still catch enough grease from your squadmate to cause significant injury.

As for redox-underslung, you're right, its underslung nature does nullify the issue of being caught reloading, but did I ever list reloading as an issue for the weapon?

[Starglider]

1. Magnetic bottles are bullshit? No arguement about them being difficult and impractical, but I don't think they're bullshit.

Ok, explain to me how you are going to contain oxygen ions at extremely high pressure, experiencing intense aerodynamic drag, without any enclosing field coils. I look forward to your novel solution that will revolutionise the field of plasma physics.

In actual combat expect maybe 10g, but that's still 370kj.

Which you estimate how? This is a hot gas impacting on a solid surface, which will deform and tear but not atomise. The moment the physically impossible magentic bottle disintigrates the oxygen will explode outwards in all directions; the pressure will actually force the target away. As I've said, the char layer will block heat transfer for the tiny fractions of a second it will take most of the hot oxygen to disperse into the surroundings. You will set anything flammable in the area on fire, but as I said a conventional incendiary round will do that much better (and be actually possible to build).

If you're going to have an infantry weapon firing large enough incendiary shells to match the effect of this weapon, you're going to get a much stronger impulse than the 22.5n*s this is rated for

It isn't clear why you need a high velocity to start with. Even if you could contain a plasma blob (which you can't) it would lose energy via simple radiation, leakage and dispersal of the outer layer into the atmosphere very fast, which would also disrupt whatever magic impossible plasma currents you are trying to contain it with. Thus a high velocity is mandated (.23 km/s is actually much too low for any viable plasma weapon). However for a simple incendiary round, grenade launcher velocities (~80 m/s) are perfectly adequate. For longer ranges you use a thermobaric RPG (in a futuristic setting, guided and minaturised). Of course your weapon cannot be guided at all, and I suspect that even assuming a magic containment bottle accuracy would be poor due to the horrible inherent instability of the plasma.

Also, ammunition&reloading might be an issue, as the weapon will almost certainly be single-shot, and therefore leave vulnerable periods while the soldier reloads. More to the point, you probably won't be able to carry very many rounds, compared to the large number that an energy weapon can (theoretically) carry on a single charge.

You are talking about 100g of LOX per shot, plus the magic magnetic bubble generator (however that works, presumably lots of superconducting coils), plus the heating system to turn the oxygen into plasma, plus the power generator for that, plus the insulated LOX tanks, plus the waste heat rejection... a simple belt fed thermite grenade launcher (of the same mass) would probably carry twice as many rounds as your 'DEW' has shots.

[[R_H]]

None of this is true, actually. See the XM-25 grenade launcher for a projectile weapon that can be easily fired by a single person, kill people in a large radius with fragmentation, penetrate cover and carry many dozens of rounds. Vulernability during reloading isn't an issue if the soldier is part of a squad, and thus enjoys the benefit of riflemen covering him while he destroys the targets. Same as with the O-Blaster, since you said yourself it's an underslung weapon anyway, so the soldier will still have his rifle to fight with if he runs out of power cells for the blaster.

The xm-25 is grossly overrated. The kill radius is 2m, the casualty radius is 6m, that's nothing. A hand grenade scores 5/15m. Even the redox cannon (new name for it) has a kill radius of 2.5m (at that range, enough grease is splattered onto you to cause your own fat to begin burning.) It also has a casualty radius of nearly 8m, where you will still catch enough grease from your squadmate to cause significant injury.

As for redox-underslung, you're right, its underslung nature does nullify the issue of being caught reloading, but did I ever list reloading as an issue for the weapon?

You understand that handgrenades are heavier and contain more explosives/have heavier fragmentation sleeves than the XM25's projectiles?

[PeZook]

The xm-25 is grossly overrated. The kill radius is 2m, the casualty radius is 6m, that's nothing. A hand grenade scores 5/15m. Even the redox cannon (new name for it) has a kill radius of 2.5m (at that range, enough grease is splattered onto you to cause your own fat to begin burning.) It also has a casualty radius of nearly 8m, where you will still catch enough grease from your squadmate to cause significant injury.

Apples to oranges. An 800mm rail gun shell will shred everything within 100 metres, too, but it's not a valid comparison to an infantry-level grenade launcher.

I used the XM-25 precisely because it's a comparable weapon to yours and uses projectiles ; As an added bonus, it is being built by XXIth century Earthlings, yet its performance is almost equal to the redox cannon

It's also more precise, meaning the grenades will end up where they can do the most good, and can engage point targets at a whooping 500metres.

Additionally, 25mm shell fragments have the added advantage of being able to defeat the advanced defensive system known as "heavy clothing". Frankly, burning grease is a lousy incendiary: issuing plastic masks should make troops decently protected from splash effects of their comrades blowing up, since a modern soldier has most exposed skin covered already.

As for redox-underslung, you're right, its underslung nature does nullify the issue of being caught reloading, but did I ever list reloading as an issue for the weapon?

You mentioned it would be an issue with grenade launchers in general,

[avianmosquito]

Apples to oranges. An 800mm rail gun shell will shred everything within 100 metres, too, but it's not a valid comparison to an infantry-level grenade launcher.

Yes, but an 800mm rail gun is not an infantry weapon, both hand grenades and the redox-underslung are. It's a perfectly good comparison.

I used the XM-25 precisely because it's a comparable weapon to yours and uses projectiles ; As an added bonus, it is being built by XXIth century Earthlings, yet its performance is almost equal to the redox cannon

Almost, but not quite. It has no effect on most buildings, the redox does. (Then again, an xm-25 incendiary would do about as well, but that's beside the point.) Also, the casualty radius, (the radius at which you can expect sufficient 3rd-degree burns/shrapel wounds to render somebody inoperable) is 2m greater, and the redox holds more ammunition. Nonetheless, you have a fine point.

It's also more precise, meaning the grenades will end up where they can do the most good, and can engage point targets at a whooping 500metres.

Wrong. When the military tells you something's range, divide it by 5. That'll be the real effective range. Conveniently, it coincides almost perfectly with the range of the redox underslung, (100m) meaning that yes, they are almost perfectly comparable.

Additionally, 25mm shell fragments have the added advantage of being able to defeat the advanced defensive system known as "heavy clothing". Frankly, burning grease is a lousy incendiary: issuing plastic masks should make troops decently protected from splash effects of their comrades blowing up, since a modern soldier has most exposed skin covered already.

While this is one of the funniest lines I've read all day, it simply doesn't work that way. It isn't like we're dealing with a drop or two or grease at 500k, we're dealing with several grams of grease at upwards of 800k. This means that it will immediatally set fire to anything it lands on. If it lands on your clothing, you will need to remove whatever article of clothing you are wearing, and even as fast as you can go, you'll still have 2nd or even 3rd degree burns. Armour is a different story, of course, but keep in mind that kevlar sublimates at 700k. That's a lower temperature than the grease is burning at, and the product is toxic.

Translation: if the flame doesn't kill you, your own armour will. Also, a plastic mask would have the same issue, except more so because plastic burns and the product is more toxic.

Also, if you're within the 2.5m kill radius, expect to catch upwards of 5 grams and expect it to top 1000k. Not only that, the blast should be enough to stun in and of itself. Finally, the person who fired isn't going to leave it there, he'll shoot another soldier, then another and another until he runs out of clear shots or runs out of ammunition. That's as many as 5 people splattered, and one mess of a greasefire.

You mentioned it would be an issue with grenade launchers in general,

Yes, but the redox-underslung is not a grenade launcher.

~~~~

[PeZook]

Yes, but an 800mm rail gun is not an infantry weapon, both hand grenades and the redox-underslung are. It's a perfectly good comparison.

A pistol is also an infantry weapon too, and so is an 85mm mortar. Show me a soldier who can consistently throw a hand grenade into a window at 500 meters (or 100, whatever), and then we can compare both systems.

Wrong. When the military tells you something's range, divide it by 5. That'll be the real effective range. Conveniently, it coincides almost perfectly with the range of the redox underslung, (100m) meaning that yes, they are almost perfectly comparable.

Why? Is there a reason for this ridiculous rule?

This means that it will immediatally set fire to anything it lands on. If it lands on your clothing, you will need to remove whatever article of clothing you are wearing, and even as fast as you can go, you'll still have 2nd or even 3rd degree burns. Armour is a different story, of course, but keep in mind that kevlar sublimates at 700k. That's a lower temperature than the grease is burning at, and the product is toxic.

Just how did you arrive at those temperatures, and why do you think the grease will stay at 800 kelvin until it lands on somebody?

Translation: if the flame doesn't kill you, your own armour will. Also, a plastic mask would have the same issue, except more so because plastic burns and the product is more toxic.

Obviously I meant something more advanced than literally plastic: something like nomex, which doesn't melt or burn but simply starts to decompose at 650 kelvin. Space-age societies could probably produce something even better.

Also, if you're within the 2.5m kill radius, expect to catch upwards of 5 grams and expect it to top 1000k. Not only that, the blast should be enough to stun in and of itself. Finally, the person who fired isn't going to leave it there, he'll shoot another soldier, then another and another until he runs out of clear shots or runs out of ammunition. That's as many as 5 people splattered, and one mess of a greasefire.

Uh...are you seriously saying the grease will burn at close to the melting point of steel?

And I wouldn't count on being able to hit five people in close succession at any kind of range, unless this thing is also an automatic weapon.

[Korto]

It isn't like we're dealing with a drop or two or grease at 500k, we're dealing with several grams of grease at upwards of 800k. This means that it will immediatally set fire to anything it lands on. If it lands on your clothing, you will need to remove whatever article of clothing you are wearing, and even as fast as you can go, you'll still have 2nd or even 3rd degree burns. Armour is a different story, of course, but keep in mind that kevlar sublimates at 700k. That's a lower temperature than the grease is burning at, and the product is toxic.

Translation: if the flame doesn't kill you, your own armour will. Also, a plastic mask would have the same issue, except more so because plastic burns and the product is more toxic.

Also, if you're within the 2.5m kill radius, expect to catch upwards of 5 grams and expect it to top 1000k.

Several grams at 800k? That's pathetic. We haven't even reached the melting point of bloody aluminium yet. (933k, approxiately. Depending upon the alloy). I've stood in molten aluminium. It causes your boots to smoke, but they certainly don't burst into flame, and they're still perfectly usable (and I still use them). Cheap thin leather work-gloves stop molten aluminium. Cotton work gear stops molten aluminium; it may ignite (several grams likely to cause it to do so), but it will stop the spatter hitting the skin, and it has the lovely quality of smouldering slowly, giving you all the fucking time in the world to either pat it out or remove it. While we're at it, thin plastic facemasks stop molten aluminium too.

5 grams at 1000k? Wooo! We've reached the melting point of aluminium! And at that, still too cold to pour (like that stuff I poured last night ) Look, go away and dream up some numbers that are actually hot.
OK, yeah, if the grease hit the skin, the burns will be bad, requiring hospitalisation, but quite unlikely to be life-threatening. It will just hurt a fucking lot. A bit of water, some pain-killer, and they'll probably be able to keep on fighting. You want something immune to your grease? Look in any shop that sells welding gear.

And Pezook? The melting point of steel is more like 1773k, depending upon alloy.

[PeZook]

And Pezook? The melting point of steel is more like 1773k, depending upon alloy.

Yeah, good point. For whatever reason I confused Fahrenheit with Kelvins, and got a ridiculous statement out of it.

[Dark Hellion]

So, doing a bit of super-quick calcs, the 10g projectile size will (if I remembered my chem right) cause a total of ~8 cm^3 of rust to form, assuming 100% efficiencies. This is what several dozen kj managed to do.

Again avian, provide a more detailed technical description of how you think this guns damage mechanism works because from looking at what you have provided us I see a lot of spherical cows.

[Teleros]

1. Magnetic bottles are bullshit? No arguement about them being difficult and impractical, but I don't think they're bullshit.

Problems with plasma weapons & the containment they require are explained at length HERE. In short, it's possible to make plasma weapons, but they're more likely to resemble beams or hypersonic bolts, and if you have a plasma rifle you can have a personal forcefield designed to protect you very well from said plasma rifle fire too...

Translation: if the flame doesn't kill you, your own armour will.

Not really. See, the technology to build this thing indicates, among other things, that you have powerful miniature forcefield generators, and that you have superb power sources. So I'm going to combine them with some modern and near-future technology into outfitting my future army with powered armour and personal forcefields that'll disrupt the containment of your redox shots before they hit the armour itself. Hell, maybe the Mk 2 will come with scanners & an AI designed to actively seek out incoming redox shots / redox weapons and disperse them with forcefields once they leave the barrel . Plus of course, such power armour will likely do nicely against conventional weapons, and you could doubtless use the forcefields to turn aside bullets too. To shoot back I'll use a combination of lasers (those nice power sources remember) and perhaps good old grenades and RPGs (possibly even guided ones), if you don't use forcefields to defend much.

[Sky Captain]

What if instead of nuclear shells you fired a canister containing hundreds of ball bearings 20 km/s like supersized birdshot at the enemy spacecraft. Then at predetermined distance the canister would explode and produce an expanding cone of fragments some of which would hit enemy ship. Although unlikely to completely destroy the ship if enough of those fragments hit he will be in trouble because all sorts of soft exposed systems will get damaged probably mission killing the enemy ship.

[Connor MacLeod]

This weapon is simple in theory, complicated in practice. It projects a blast of superheated oxygen, which reacts with the target material upon contact. (Very quickly, due to its high temperature. The higher the temperature, the faster the reaction.) Since most oxidation reactions are exothermic, particularly when it comes to organic matter, this releases more energy, which causes a chain reaction.

This weapon sounds needlessly complicated and technobabbly for what its supposed to accomplish. Starglider's grenade launcher idea is much more practical. At best, it sounds like you just have a very complicated flamethrower, which is going to lack the range and precision (and indirect fire/guidance capabilities) of the aforementioned sci fi grenade launcher.

This can be particularly violent. A single gram of fat contains 37kj of energy, and even the smallest blaster burns a minimum of a gram after burning through skin, so that's a decent estimate for a lower limit. A fighter's cannons might incinerate an entire human body. 30kg of fat for the typical adult male, that's over a gigajoule (the equivalent of 239kg of TNT) from fat alone in an instant. Even though most of that is thermal (which fuels more reactions) it's still like a bomb (and not a small one) going off.

Ugh. First off, that 37 kilojoules/gram is assuming at or near 100% efficiency. Secondly, where did you get 30 kg of fat for the human body? what mass are you assuming? Most figures I've seen have between maybe 15-20% fat for males and a bit more for females, but still less than 30% for either. Assuming a 70 kg human male you're going to have 12-14 kg of fat, tops.

Another thing I'm not noticing is any attention paid to the water content in the body. You do realize the human body (including the fat) is 70% water and has to be boiled off before you can actually ignite or combust the body (or even part of it) right? Frankly if you're going to be boiling large amounts of flesh like that you're better off using a more conventional means of damage dealing (laser beam, say) and exploding parts of the body rather than using this chain reaction.

fourth, how the fuck do you figure this is going to be like a bomb? Explosive effects rely on far more than just dumping large amounts of energy into a target. Gasoline has far greater energy density than TNT yet isn't more explosive as a rule. There's alot more involved in that. And even if we assume this technobabble reaction turns significant parts of human flesh into bombs, then the pressure and blast effects implied are going to far outstrip any thermal ones (human bodies are going to be blown apart and anyone nearby is going to be injured from mechanical rathre than thermal damage.)

The thing that makes this most impressive is that most of the weapon's energy is obtained from the target, so very little energy is required to work the weapon. (As efficient as it gets.)

This also makes your weapon hideously target-dependent. What happens when there is body armor, or your target is inorganic?

There are other aspects of this weapon that make me wonder about. It's going to be rather imprecise in terms of damage, given the way you described it. This isn't a weapon you will be using in all situations for risk of damaging something you don't want damaged (or someone). This is in fact a weapon that would be an ideal terror weapon - far more than a flamethrower (Can you imagine slowly, part by part, burning to death? Thta sounds alot like what might happen with this weapon.) Or being turned into a bomb. In fact, this weapon has tremendous value as a psychological/terrorist weapon in many ways. One could turn a willing (or unwilling but unknowing) individual into a walking bomb. Or large numbers of people. And I can't begin to worry at the problems of tracking such a weapon.

The weapon's mechanism is as such: oxygen moves from a storage tank into a chamber where it is heated and ionized by electrical arcs, then it is propelled out of the barrel and contained within a magnetic bottle until it reaches the target. The bolt itself is rather incandescent, but can only be seen from the front. Gases tend to leak off due to imperfections in the bottle and air resistance (which even the magnetic bottle can't compensate for perfectly) and oxidises with particulates in the air, creating a trail of flame coming off of the bolt, making the bolt look like a comet-shaped fireball. This is rather frightening, and allows it to double as a psychological weapon.

I'd say the fact you're proposing a weapon that turns them into living bombs and/or roasts them a live a bit at a time is far more horrifying. Or wondering if the preson next to you might be rigged to blow like that.

[Serafina]

Wait a minute, something just occured to me.

This weapon is supposed to work on oxidation.
Shouldn't it be possible to very effectively stop it by simply using a thin layer of stainless steel (or any other material that does not rust or otherwise oxidate)?

[Starglider]

Shouldn't it be possible to very effectively stop it by simply using a thin layer of stainless steel (or any other material that does not rust or otherwise oxidate)?

No; stainless steel works by forming an extremely thin layer of chromium oxide on the surface of the metal. This will be vaporised by a dense plasma. You'd have to use something fully oxidised, like sapphire. It's a moot point though, because even for a fairly combustible surface like hard plastic I doubt the oxidation reaction is going to produce much extra heat before the plasma explosively disperses into the atmosphere. Connor's objections are also valid and are further reasons why this is in no way a practical weapon.

[Connor MacLeod]

He'd be better off simply avoiding the complex explanations and going "magic technobabble fairies" did it the same way phasers and other "magic disintegration rays" in sci fi work. That's baiscally what this amounts to.

Another point I just realized is that how does this weapon stand up in terms of durability and reliability in combat? Ruggedness and ease of use or maintenance are NOT minor things. Ease of construction is also another one, as is ammo availability. A laser or other energy weapon or electromagnetic weapon can conceivably be powered (or adapted to be powered) in a number of ways, which isn't something you could say for this weapon. (And of course, while a bit harder to make "easy", its possible to make your own gun ammo, assuming materials are available or if you have a stockpile of materials on hand.)

[Jeremy]

Projectile: O2, 2000-20000k, 10g-10kg

But that is what we breathe. Captain, why are you throwing our air at the enemies? We need air to breathe. Captain?

Mutiny!

You sound like a real dick right now, thought I'd mention that.

You have been registered for three days and have already wanted your own forum created. Thought I'd mention that.

[Serafina]

You sound like a real dick right now, thought I'd mention that.

Hmm, i didn't see that.

avianmosquito, stop it right there!
You are posting your ideas here so that we can critizice them. So far you have been told that your ideas don't make sense. People have bothered to explain to you why that's the case and how some of it could be fixed.
If you are posting your ideas just so that we will applaud them, then you are in the wrong place.

Personally, i will continue to point out where your ideas are flawed. But if you are going to continue complaining about that, then i will stop immedeately. Others will propably do the same.
At that point, your threads will propably serve no further purpose.