Lightning guns

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2006-03-17 05:19am

Darth Wong wrote: Vibrant descriptions of what's happening to the people and/or their vehicles are what draws in readers. Vibrant descriptions of how certain technologies or weapons work are not.

I would agree that few people would want to read about how a weapon actually works; however if they have a noticable visual effect (in the case of this so-called lightning gun), or an effect on the enviroment (such as with more powerful lasers or high-velocity projectiles), I'm pretty sure that it could be used for the entertainment factor.

Sonnenburg · Post by **Sonnenburg** » 2006-03-17 08:29am

But it's important that the weapon also have a logical purpose for existence. It might be cool to describe a weapon that fires poisonous spiders at people, but even if the reader thinks it sounds cool, they'll also know it's completely ridiculous.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-03-17 02:07pm

This weapon's purpose would be a non-lethal incapacitator at close range. I could use it to conduct electricity along metal floors, so anyone touching it would be knocked unconscious, but then one would have to be far enough away that they're not on the same surface as everyone else.

Sonnenburg · Post by **Sonnenburg** » 2006-03-17 07:06pm

Okay, well, thirty perent of people who are hit by lightning die, and three quarters of the survivors suffer permanent injuries. Those aren't good statistics for a weapon designed to incapacitate.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-17 07:25pm

wolveraptor wrote:This weapon's purpose would be a non-lethal incapacitator at close range. I could use it to conduct electricity along metal floors, so anyone touching it would be knocked unconscious, but then one would have to be far enough away that they're not on the same surface as everyone else.

Do you understand how little current it actually takes to stun someone, or even kill him?

SVPD · Post by **SVPD** » 2006-03-18 01:10pm

Darth Wong wrote:
wolveraptor wrote:This weapon's purpose would be a non-lethal incapacitator at close range. I could use it to conduct electricity along metal floors, so anyone touching it would be knocked unconscious, but then one would have to be far enough away that they're not on the same surface as everyone else.
Do you understand how little current it actually takes to stun someone, or even kill him?

Less than 1 amp, correct?

IIRC, the TASERs we carry run at 50,000 volts, but only about 0.013 amps.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-03-18 01:14pm

This was what I was talking about. It was linked to on page 2. Mine would basically be a perfected version.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2006-03-18 02:18pm

SVPD wrote:
Less than 1 amp, correct?

IIRC, the TASERs we carry run at 50,000 volts, but only about 0.013 amps.

Its more like .16 amps, peak power is about 25 watts.

nickolay1 · Post by **nickolay1** » 2006-03-18 02:59pm

.16 A at 50kV would be 8000 watts. If the peak power is actually 25 watts, then the peak current would only be approximately (25 W / 50000 V) = .5 mA.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-18 03:01pm

wolveraptor wrote:This was what I was talking about. It was linked to on page 2. Mine would basically be a perfected version.

How would you "perfect" the fact that an electrically non-conductive layer of clothing would make it useless?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-03-18 03:40pm

brianeyci wrote:
I personally like the idea of a 12 mm gun with a HEAT bullet, fins and rockets. Yum yum, for elite soldiers only though .

Brian

Yeah, the Cobra Assult Cannon from RoboCop come to mind. The prop was a suped up M82 (which warms my heart) and pretty much had ammo capable of blowing up cars.

There is also the gun in the 1984 movie *runaway* that Gene Simmons used. Heat seaker from a suped up .357 auto (I think, can't remember).

The movie Eraser was kind of tacky, yet the EMP gun is pretty cool. Also, who can forget the Battlestar Galactica S1 survival pistol.

All good examples of sci fi projectile weapons.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-03-18 03:47pm

Darth Wong wrote:
wolveraptor wrote:This was what I was talking about. It was linked to on page 2. Mine would basically be a perfected version.
How would you "perfect" the fact that an electrically non-conductive layer of clothing would make it useless?

Well, shit, there goes that. Screw this idea, I'll stick to conventional weapons.

AMX · Post by **AMX** » 2006-03-18 04:01pm

Darth Wong wrote:
wolveraptor wrote:This was what I was talking about. It was linked to on page 2. Mine would basically be a perfected version.
How would you "perfect" the fact that an electrically non-conductive layer of clothing would make it useless?

Either
a) aim for the face,
or
b) increase laser output to burn a hole through the clothing.

But not both. That would be ugly.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-03-18 04:30pm

If someone is forced to aim for the face just to incapacitate someone, it's not exactly practical. Ask any gun-owner if it's easy to get a head-shot on a moving target when you yourself are in motion.

b is more practical, but I don't know if it would severely burn the person inside the clothing or not.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2006-03-18 07:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:How would you "perfect" the fact that an electrically non-conductive layer of clothing would make it useless?

A ugly solution would be to shoot metal barbs beforehand which pierce the clothing, more like a normal taser.

wolveraptor wrote:b is more practical, but I don't know if it would severely burn the person inside the clothing or not.

It's probably preferable to being hit with a bullet.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-03-18 07:59pm

Or you could just use an acoustic weapon to screw with a person's mental ability or balance at ultrasonic, or use infrasonic to knock them down. Failing that, use a maser to shift people by stimulating pain receptors imitating burning, but not physically damaging them.

Or there's the good ol' watercannon, which you could alter to be a hydrocutter too (though a several thousand atmosphere jet of water at over 100 degrees C shooting out at supersonic speed wouldn't be non-lethal given it'd cut steel plate).

nickolay1 · Post by **nickolay1** » 2006-03-18 10:42pm

If the dielectric strength of the non-conductive layer of clothing is low enough, then the charge may penetrate it if sufficiently large voltages are used. However, if this clothing is specialized to protect against such weapons, then it's possible that it would be easier for the electricity to simply arc back to the weapon and/or its wielder (assuming such large voltages are used, of course).