Lightning guns

[wolveraptor]

I've been trying hard to think up a sci fi weapon that didn't resort to the usual cliches of plasma and lasers, but weren't as boring as plain old bullets and missiles.

So I stole a weapons from UT 2K3 (get ready to cringe). It paints a "proton patch" on the target, and then the gun itself generates an incredible negative charge, and you get an effect similar to lightning: the charges try to meet.

Plausible?

[Admiral Valdemar]

So you've just given a charged particle beam a fancier name? OK.

[nickolay1]

Wouldn't a "proton patch" of sufficient strength to attract a similar negative charge at a sufficient distance quickly fly apart due to internal repulsion?

[wolveraptor]

So you've just given a charged particle beam a fancier name? OK.

For your information, "particle beam" sounds way cooler than "lightning gun". But is that all it is? I was under the impression that this involved beams of energy rather than particles.

Wouldn't a "proton patch" of sufficient strength to attract a similar negative charge at a sufficient distance quickly fly apart due to internal repulsion?

Protons bond in real-life nuclear reactions: couldn't they do so in this case?

[nickolay1]

Protons bond in real-life nuclear reactions: couldn't they do so in this case?

Doesn't that happen only when their charges are neutralized by electrons in their proximity?

[wolveraptor]

Hydrogen bonds in the Sun. The Sun is made of plasma, which is basically a mix of ionized particles and their detached electrons. If ionized hydrogen can bond, I'm guessing it doesn't require the presence of electrons.

[Sea Skimmer]

I've been trying hard to think up a sci fi weapon that didn't resort to the usual cliches of plasma and lasers, but weren't as boring as plain old bullets and missiles.

Missiles and bullets and shells are boring? Really? So your saying that a single magic weapon which shoots one type of magic pulse of energy is more interesting then a device like a cannon, which can fire a crap load and a half of different kinds of ammunition?

HE, AP, APCR, APFSDS, HEAT, HEP, AHEAD, APCBC, DPICM, APERS, STAFF Concrete Piercing, Smart Submuntion Dispensing, Flechette, Frangible, Shrapnel, Canister, Smoke, Chemical Warfare, Binary Chemical Warfare, Illuminating, Radio Jamming, Propaganda.. there are even more then this but it gives you a good idea of the range of different kinds ammunition which could be fired by a single piece of artillery. Never mind the multpul variations most of these types have.

To this you can add the fact that any of those types of warheads could potentially be combined with several different kinds of shell guidance systems, and with rocket assist, basebleed, or potentially scramjet assist for longer range. Any warhead could also have a tracer and or incendiary element added. Then we have fuses. Do you want impact? Impact short delay, long delay, perhaps a simple time fuse set at the moment of firing and if so is it electronically or mechanically set? Cant forget instantaneous fuses, radar proximity, infrared proximity, smart fuses which can tell the difference between steel, concrete, earth and air while penetrating.

Missiles are even more flexible, since the warhead doesn’t need to be strong enough to survive being accelerated at 50,000gs out of a gun. Even if you’re limited to a plain old rifle bullet sized projectile I could still name at least a dozen different types of ammo.

Then we have all the different types of missiles and guns which exist…

So in conclusion, with the amount of time you spend trying to think up impossible sci fi weapons, you could make up a very interesting arsenal using real working practical ideas.

[wolveraptor]

So there are fifty different types of ammunition for ballistic weapons. Do they actually appear any different? How does an armor piecing round, for all intents and purposes, look different from a concrete piercing round? The entire point of this thread is for me to understand why this:

impossible

is true.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Forgive me if you already know this, but you can project a "lightning beam" by using a laser to ionize a path through the air, and releasing a powerful electric charge into it.

[Sonnenburg]

So there are fifty different types of ammunition for ballistic weapons. Do they actually appear any different? How does an armor piecing round, for all intents and purposes, look different from a concrete piercing round? The entire point of this thread is for me to understand why this:

impossible

is true.

You need to get the protons up to a sufficient temperature for the strong nuclear force to overcome the electromagnetic attraction. So, your proton patch doesn't really need the lightning bolt, you'll be burning a hole through the target.

[wolveraptor]

Forgive me if you already know this, but you can project a "lightning beam" by using a laser to ionize a path through the air, and releasing a powerful electric charge into it.

Okay, that's even cooler than what I originally had in mind. Is it (or could it be) in any way practical?

[defanatic]

So there are fifty different types of ammunition for ballistic weapons. Do they actually appear any different? How does an armor piecing round, for all intents and purposes, look different from a concrete piercing round? The entire point of this thread is for me to understand why this:

impossible

is true.

You need to get the protons up to a sufficient temperature for the strong nuclear force to overcome the electromagnetic attraction. So, your proton patch doesn't really need the lightning bolt, you'll be burning a hole through the target.

Yeah, but the lightning bolt looks cool, and clearly that counts more in sci-fi than anything else.

[wolveraptor]

I don't totally disregard feasibility. Otherwise I'd have people firing unlimited amounts of miniature homing missiles at each other ala Contra 3. Hell, I'd skip projectiles all together and have giant attachable claws that you could slice people with, and that also administer electric shots and fire nuclear energy. But none of that is practical.

[Sea Skimmer]

So there are fifty different types of ammunition for ballistic weapons/

Easily.

Do they actually appear any different?

Some do, some externally can only be told apart by the markings.

How does an armor piecing round, for all intents and purposes, look different from a concrete piercing round?

A concrete piercing shell uses a blunt cap on top of the shell body to avoid ricocheting, that looks much different then this cross sectioned APDSFS cartridge. The projectile if you don’t know is the big silver dart. The black stuff is the sabot which falls away after the shell leaves the muzzle. The blue pellets are the propellent and its all held by the shinny silver case which in the case of the M829 shell, is consumed by firing. Only the base cap, which is made of metal remains in the gun and is automatically ejected.



I don’t see why it matters though, while you can see some shells in flight with the naked eye, they are all going to look like black blobs. The effects on the target however, will look quite difference depending on what you shoot. This chart shows cross sections of some of the shot and shell types I’ve mentioned.

In any case, if your writting a story pretty visuals are the last thing that should drive your choice of weapons... If you ask me anyway.

[wolveraptor]

I don’t see why it matters though, while you can see some shells in flight with the naked eye, they are all going to look like black blobs.

My point exactly. You'll hardly see them, and there won't be much of a sight to describe. Evocative description is the cornerstone of writing I like.

[Sea Skimmer]

My point exactly. You'll hardly see them, and there won't be much of a sight to describe.

Except before loading and firing, it actual gives your characters a reason to you know, think, about what they need to shoot, and then you have the on target effects to deal with.

Evocative description is the cornerstone of writing I like.

So you’re going to describe the exact same thing every single time? Yeah that makes way more sense then have a whole pile of different ones to work with all of which can do different things. And certainly all writing concerning real life fighting is devoid of descriptions!

Your logic makes no sense at all to me.

[Darth Wong]

I don’t see why it matters though, while you can see some shells in flight with the naked eye, they are all going to look like black blobs.

My point exactly. You'll hardly see them, and there won't be much of a sight to describe. Evocative description is the cornerstone of writing I like.

You can "evocatively" describe what happens when it hits the target, dummy.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Forgive me if you already know this, but you can project a "lightning beam" by using a laser to ionize a path through the air, and releasing a powerful electric charge into it.

Okay, that's even cooler than what I originally had in mind. Is it (or could it be) in any way practical?

If they can shrink it down, yes; IIRC the "stunner" version fits on a table. I understand the military is looking into the technology for "nonlethal" purposes; I added the qutoes because you could obviously make it lethal just by upping the power.

I've seen pictures and it's really cool looking;a more or less straight electrical bolt with little bolts arcing away from it. Given that, I'd expect a fair amount of collateral damage.

As an aside, when i first saw an article on the idea it was orgininally intended for industrial/scientific purposes; as a means of delivering electricity to a spot without using a material anode or cathode; I've no idea if those applications ever worked.

[wolveraptor]

Except before loading and firing, it actual gives your characters a reason to you know, think, about what they need to shoot, and then you have the on target effects to deal with.

Who said I won't have other weapons to deal with? Besides, bullets have a limited repetoire of results on targets, unlike an array of rather unconventional weapons.

So you’re going to describe the exact same thing every single time?

Where did I say that? At least the first time I describe it, it'll be cool, and I'll have other weapons to work with, as well as different species which would ellicit different effects from the weapons.

Yeah that makes way more sense then have a whole pile of different ones to work with all of which can do different things.

Yeah, I'll use APHixVmk 2 bullets to punch through concrete and Mov3s B bullets to perforate human bodies, and S3mmH bullets to snipe, and 2mx93s bullets to illuminate and 45ko3km4 bullets to release gas...
Sorry, I find that kind of description tedious, mostly because I don't really give a shit about what the exact specifications of the weapons used to commit the act, unless it's used as a plot device. I just want to know if it's plausible, and it's effects. The minutiae of each bullet type are boring to me.

And certainly all writing concerning real life fighting is devoid of descriptions!

I never claimed that real-life fighting is devoid of descriptions. You assumed I thought that because I implied that my made up weapons would allow for more description.

I find the fact that you try to debate my subjective opinion that particle beams are cooler than bullets humorous.

[Sea Skimmer]

A lot of subjective opinions are based around an ignorant starting point, and given the questions you’ve asked I’d say I guessed correctly in you not being aware of how many different real projectiles actually exist or all the different things they do. But you if you don’t want help I don’t give a fuck, do what you want.

[Darth Wong]

I find the fact that you try to debate my subjective opinion that particle beams are cooler than bullets humorous.

Not quite as humourous as your utterly retarded idea for a particle beam that works by magically imparting a positive electrical charge to the target and then assuming that the only source of electrons within a kilometre in any direction would be your lightning gun.

[Agemegos]

Protons bond in real-life nuclear reactions: couldn't they do so in this case?

Protons bond (1) only when they are close enough to form nuclei, and (2) only when the nucleus involves a sufficiency of neutrons (which provide extra strong-force attraction without extra electrostatic repulsion. So you're talking about firing highly-ionised nuclei at people, rather than 'patches' of protons.

Now nuclei are only stable up to a very limited number of protons: maybe there is an 'island of stability' at around an atomic number 120-130, but if you ever tried assembling a billion protons into a nucleus who'd have something that would disintegrate damned smart, and spray its fission products all over the place rather than depositing them in a nice net patch. But the elementary charge is about 6.7E-19, so even a million-proton patch carries a charge of only 6.7E-13, or less than one microamp-microsecond.

So even if you assemble your protons into 'patches', you're going to have to fire a beam of 'patches', and the patches will repel one another by electrostatic force, and you're back in the fix you started with. You could limit electrostatic bloom by flinging the charged particles down-range so quickly that they don't have time to spread apart. But that takes a lot of energy. And it deposits that energy in the target. So what you have in that case is a proton beam weapon, and the 'lightning' effect adds only negligibly to its effectiveness.

Another problem is that high-speed protons and highly-ionised nuclei interact strongly with any atoms they pass by, so your proton beam is going to be heavily absorbed by the air.

[Stark]

Describing *how something works* is not evocative. It's boring, mastubatory bullshit. Do you enjoy the asides in Tom Clancy novels where he loses himself in the tech specs for some vehicle?

When *I* write, I describe *effects*. There is no emotional content in a stream of electrons, or graviton particles, or any of that nonsense. But everyone can relate to EXPLOSIONS and pretty beams and burning smells and flash and noise and EXPLOSIONS. Frankly, who the fuck cares where this stuff comes from? Describing how the weapons in scifi work strikes me as worthless narratively and simply 'lolz I know science words' masturbation.

[Patrick Degan]

So there are fifty different types of ammunition for ballistic weapons. Do they actually appear any different? How does an armor piecing round, for all intents and purposes, look different from a concrete piercing round?

Who cares? The only point that has to be made is that, in a given story situation, you're either shooting up concrete or armour plate. Nobody's going to read through a detailed description of exactly how the weapon is doing this and what it looks like.

Evocative description is the cornerstone of writing I like.

No, no, no, dear boy. Evocative description is for things like this:

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the Shoulder of Orion. C-beams glittering in the Tannhauser Gate. All those memories... will be lost now. Like tears... in the rain. Time. To Die...

While there are exceptions to every rule, it's few and far between the instances that, in a SF story, evocative descriptions for the function of a mere device is going to be remotely interesting to anybody above a junior high-school level of understanding.

[Darth Wong]

I love the idea of a weapon that has the fantastic ability to induce nuclear fusion in the target's atoms but only does this in order to attract a small electrical jolt

I hope he tries to define the size of the "proton patch". Wait till somebody explains to him how many electrons are in a single coulomb.