Realistic future weapon effects

[Balrog]

Often times in Science Fiction a weapon is described as being one thing, i.e. a laser, but the weapon acts in a totally different way then its description. Sometimes it's simply using dramatic lisence to make a scene more entertaining, but more often then not it's simple ignorance about the technology involved. After all, it's easy to know what a projectile gun's going to do to you since they're so familiar, but a neutron gun?

So, are there any resources that do accurately describe such futuristic weapons? For example take the above neutron gun: would it make a noise when you fire it? Could you see the beam, and if so what would it look like? What kind of damage could it do to a brick wall, a sheet of metal, a human body? Would it have recoil?

The above questions and more apply to a host of other futuristic weapons: particle beam weapons, hypervelocity coil guns, lasers and all their varients (gamma, x-ray, ect.), and anything else that's feasible.

[Adrian Laguna]

Quite frankly I think the first question one should ask when making a futuristic weapon is what purpose it serves. Many sci-fi universes have futuristic weapons merely for the sake of having futuristic weapons. There's no point in a hand-held particle beam weapon if a .45 semi-auto will do the job just fine.

[Singular Intellect]

Quite frankly I think the first question one should ask when making a futuristic weapon is what purpose it serves. Many sci-fi universes have futuristic weapons merely for the sake of having futuristic weapons. There's no point in a hand-held particle beam weapon if a .45 semi-auto will do the job just fine.

Ammunition capacity?

[Winston Blake]

Quite frankly I think the first question one should ask when making a futuristic weapon is what purpose it serves. Many sci-fi universes have futuristic weapons merely for the sake of having futuristic weapons. There's no point in a hand-held particle beam weapon if a .45 semi-auto will do the job just fine.

Ammunition capacity?

Brainbug. Sure it doesn't have cartridges, but it needs to get its destructive energy from somewhere. Why would electrical storage have greater energy density than chemical explosives? Not to mention the need for pulsed power and the problems of waste heat, since directed energy weapons are so inefficient.

As for the OP, this should get you on the right track. It sounds like you're aiming for realism, but if you've got neutron guns, describing the effects accurately is just one small step forward. For it to be realistic you'd need some kind of reason for their existence and a design that would be feasible.

[Molyneux]

Quite frankly I think the first question one should ask when making a futuristic weapon is what purpose it serves. Many sci-fi universes have futuristic weapons merely for the sake of having futuristic weapons. There's no point in a hand-held particle beam weapon if a .45 semi-auto will do the job just fine.

Ammunition capacity?

Brainbug. Sure it doesn't have cartridges, but it needs to get its destructive energy from somewhere. Why would electrical storage have greater energy density than chemical explosives? Not to mention the need for pulsed power and the problems of waste heat, since directed energy weapons are so inefficient.

As for the OP, this should get you on the right track. It sounds like you're aiming for realism, but if you've got neutron guns, describing the effects accurately is just one small step forward. For it to be realistic you'd need some kind of reason for their existence and a design that would be feasible.

How about the advance of personal defense systems (armor), and the increase of firepower to match?

[Winston Blake]

How about the advance of personal defense systems (armor), and the increase of firepower to match?

Why would a directed energy rifle have greater firepower than a conventional assault rifle? (All other things equal, weight etc).

Also to the OP, I forgot about this site, and also this page. Resources galore.

[Molyneux]

How about the advance of personal defense systems (armor), and the increase of firepower to match?

Why would a directed energy rifle have greater firepower than a conventional assault rifle? (All other things equal, weight etc).

Also to the OP, I forgot about this site, and also this page. Resources galore.

An assault rifle only imparts force, the plasma rifle would require anti-heat measures?

[Covenant]

How about the advance of personal defense systems (armor), and the increase of firepower to match?

Why would a directed energy rifle have greater firepower than a conventional assault rifle? (All other things equal, weight etc).

Also to the OP, I forgot about this site, and also this page. Resources galore.

An assault rifle only imparts force, the plasma rifle would require anti-heat measures?

Don't even think about plasma weapons.

Seriously, no. Bullets kill you dead. They aren't advanced, or fancy, but they kill you dead nice and easy without much fuss at all. I'd look into smaller caliburs with interesting bullet characteristics fired by plastic explosives and electric 'hammers'. It's much easier to invent a weapon that looks like a rifle, fires BB's that can penetrate 2 feet of concrete but explode inside of a person, and carry 800 rounds in a single drum magazine... than it is to invent a highly feasible energy weapon alternative to a handgun.

[Darth Wong]

How about the advance of personal defense systems (armor), and the increase of firepower to match?

Why would a directed energy rifle have greater firepower than a conventional assault rifle? (All other things equal, weight etc).

Also to the OP, I forgot about this site, and also this page. Resources galore.

An assault rifle only imparts force, the plasma rifle would require anti-heat measures?

The plasma rifle would require anti-laughter measures, as the intended target busts a gut laughing at the stupid asshole who just produced a cloud of hot plasma at the end of his rifle.

[Winston Blake]

An assault rifle only imparts force, the plasma rifle would require anti-heat measures?

Anti-heat measures can be countered with WWI technology:



Note that a plasma rifle would look like a hot blowtorch at best, whereas a familiar old flamethrower has the ability to project a hot jet of burning fuel for far longer distances.

You can come up with any rationalisation for a story, such as personal shields that only allow antimatter through (and would hence require positron rifles). But a rationalisation of an unrealistic idea doesn't change the fact that it was essentially unrealistic.

[Molyneux]

Why would a directed energy rifle have greater firepower than a conventional assault rifle? (All other things equal, weight etc).

Also to the OP, I forgot about this site, and also this page. Resources galore.

An assault rifle only imparts force, the plasma rifle would require anti-heat measures?

The plasma rifle would require anti-laughter measures, as the intended target busts a gut laughing at the stupid asshole who just produced a cloud of hot plasma at the end of his rifle.

Yes, yes, I've read this before; still, plasma weapons in fiction are pretty.

I've always liked the idea of explosive bullets as an advance in weapons technology, myself. Something along the lines of the Perfect Dark "Phoenix"...

[Gunhead]

Explosive bullets do suffer from a couple of problems. First is the fusing. You'd need to have a mechanism that tells the bullet when to explode. If the idea is to have the bullet explode after penetration you don't want it to go completely through the target, but if the bullet is not travelling fast enough it will not penetrate bodyarmor and would really be effective against unarmored targets. Explosive filling and fuses all take space, so combining APHE with compactness could be a challenge.

Really small HEAT rounds could work, but tiny metal jets would have a limited capacity to do damage to the target, even if armor is penetrated.

-Gunhead

[Sarevok]

Question if you want a cool looking gun that fires bolts like SW blasters what hypothetical technology is there to create it ? Obviously laser bolt guns are not possible, plasma bolts guns would result in an assault rifle that is really a blow torch.... so are there any realistic ways to create the cool "energy" weapons we often see in scifi shows, movies and games ?

[Arrow]

Question if you want a cool looking gun that fires bolts like SW blasters what hypothetical technology is there to create it ? Obviously laser bolt guns are not possible, plasma bolts guns would result in an assault rifle that is really a blow torch.... so are there any realistic ways to create the cool "energy" weapons we often see in scifi shows, movies and games ?

Yeah, use tracers.

[General Zod]

I could see railguns being useful weapons to overcome the need for a chemical propellant on projectile weapons. . .if we ever manage to work around the heat buildup problem. Other than that. . .eh.

[Shroom Man 777]

How about wonky artificial ball lightning?

[Arrow]

I could see railguns being useful weapons to overcome the need for a chemical propellant on projectile weapons. . .if we ever manage to work around the heat buildup problem. Other than that. . .eh.

You could use a coil/Gauss gun instead, and trade heat for complexity.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Yes, yes, I've read this before; still, plasma weapons in fiction are pretty.

Only if the plasma is doing relativistic velocities, else, forget it.

I've always liked the idea of explosive bullets as an advance in weapons technology, myself. Something along the lines of the Perfect Dark "Phoenix"...

This, like caseless, is hard to pull off due to limitations on such a small, disposable piece of ammo. If you could make safe, MEMS controlled rounds for a standard rifle, you'd be okay. For anything short of decent ack-ack rounds, such fusing and sensor equipped rounds are infeasible.

[Adrian Laguna]

The plasma rifle would require anti-laughter measures, as the intended target busts a gut laughing at the stupid asshole who just produced a cloud of hot plasma at the end of his rifle.

Note that a plasma rifle would look like a hot blowtorch at best, whereas a familiar old flamethrower has the ability to project a hot jet of burning fuel for far longer distances.

Yes, yes, I've read this before; still, plasma weapons in fiction are pretty.

Only if the plasma is doing relativistic velocities, else, forget it.

I don't think a plasma weapon would look like a blowtorch, rather it'd be more like hotter, and shorter ranged, flame-thrower. Some real life flame-throwers use burning gas rather than burning liquid, though granted most of them are civilian not military. A plasma weapon would be justified if it is superior to conventional flame-throwers.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think a plasma weapon would look like a blowtorch, rather it'd be more like hotter, and shorter ranged, flame-thrower. Some real life flame-throwers use burning gas rather than burning liquid, though granted most of them are civilian not military. A plasma weapon would be justified if it is superior to conventional flame-throwers.

Can you provide even a shred of reasoning for your declaration that a plasma weapon would look totally unlike a real-life plasma torch, despite the fact that its output gas has extremely low density unlike the liquid fuel of a flamethrower? Or is this one of those "Duuuh, I make scientific prediction based on gut instinct" things?

[Adrian Laguna]

Can you provide even a shred of reasoning for your declaration that a plasma weapon would look totally unlike a real-life plasma torch, despite the fact that its output gas has extremely low density unlike the liquid fuel of a flamethrower? Or is this one of those "Duuuh, I make scientific prediction based on gut instinct" things?

Excuse me, why are you bringing-up liquid fuel flame-throwers when I specifically said that I'm basing this on the existence of gas fuel flame-throwers?

Now if burning gas behaves significantly different from really hot gas, then that's another issue entirely. I admit that I assumed there wouldn't be a significant difference, especially if your plasma is compressed and shot at high speed. If there is a difference, then please tell me what it is so I can drop the matter.

[Darth Wong]

Can you provide even a shred of reasoning for your declaration that a plasma weapon would look totally unlike a real-life plasma torch, despite the fact that its output gas has extremely low density unlike the liquid fuel of a flamethrower? Or is this one of those "Duuuh, I make scientific prediction based on gut instinct" things?

Excuse me, why are you bringing-up liquid fuel flame-throwers when I specifically said that I'm basing this on the existence of gas fuel flame-throwers?

Now if burning gas behaves significantly different from really hot gas, then that's another issue entirely. I admit that I assumed there wouldn't be a significant difference, especially if your plasma is compressed and shot at high speed. If there is a difference, then please tell me what it is so I can drop the matter.

Plasma is absurdly low-density. Look at the figures I've posted on my side for the density of nuclear reactor plasma.

Consider a real-life example of incredibly dense plasma: a nuclear explosion. Even with incredible pressures and energies, it still doesn't move through air too well.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Anything that uses plasma will simply see that material exit the barrel and scatter faster than any steam. The more energetic the plasma, the less you'll see it before it vanishes. There's simply nothing that will contain it like the way a far denser, higher pressure gas or liquid flamer will. That is why the plasma particles would have to be accelerated like that of a Hellbore cannon on a Bolo where the bolt comes out at .6 c and is far denser given the large slither of cyro-hydrogen vaped for it.

As for lasers, forget it if you want to replace the standard slug thrower without an absurdly good power cell (minuscule AM quantities most likely). Lasers are highly inefficient in atmosphere depending on frequency and any armour will require tonnes of input from even a finely tuned pulsed UV beam (though IR tends to work best in air). An armour piercing flechette or heavier explosive round is far better because KE is a bitch. You make a laser with that output for a man, I can make a far more deadly railgun with better range. Bosers and particle beams are similar in problem.

[Balrog]

As for the OP, this should get you on the right track. It sounds like you're aiming for realism, but if you've got neutron guns, describing the effects accurately is just one small step forward. For it to be realistic you'd need some kind of reason for their existence and a design that would be feasible.

The neutron gun was just an example, for what I have in mind will use more down-to-earth weapons, supplimented by a few cool things. While the article was nice, it only describes how it works and what it does in nonspecific terms (unless it does otherwise, I've been pretty slow lately). This was what I had in mind, since it goes to describe how a laser pistol would sound like, what you might see, the kind of damage it would do to a 'space pirate', ect. But I'd like to see the same done for other weapons.

[Adrian Laguna]

Plasma is absurdly low-density.

Anything that uses plasma will simply see that material exit the barrel and scatter faster than any steam. The more energetic the plasma, the less you'll see it before it vanishes.

It might be possible to use a magnetic field projecting from the weapon to contain the plasma for a few tens of metres. But if you can do that it's probably more effective to just weaponize the magnetic field technology.

As for lasers, forget it if you want to replace the standard slug thrower without an absurdly good power cell (minuscule AM quantities most likely). Lasers are highly inefficient in atmosphere depending on frequency and any armour will require tonnes of input from even a finely tuned pulsed UV beam (though IR tends to work best in air). An armour piercing flechette or heavier explosive round is far better because KE is a bitch. You make a laser with that output for a man, I can make a far more deadly railgun with better range. Bosers and particle beams are similar in problem.

I think Atomic Rocket lays a good case for the viability of laser small arms. Check this page out. It should be about half way down, but it's a bit hard to find so I'd just run a search for "colonial laser pistol".

It addresses some of the concerns you raise. Most notably the power source, which doesn't have to be something as ridiculous as anti-matter. In the end it's probably best to stick with the ol' slug thrower, but lasers handguns are not as unrealistic as you make them sound.

However, lasers are undeniably good for space combat between warships. It's a point and shoot weapon for tens of thousands of kilometres, and can still be hard to dodge out to the low hundreds of thousands.