Realistic future weapon effects

[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.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Really, I figure we're better off sticking to just advancing projectile weaponry to make it more effective. The purpose of a weapon is to kill, so the weapon that kills the fastest and the most efficiently is the best one. Railguns and Coilguns are probably the way to go, really. Energy-based weapons don't really offer much of anything that regular projectile weapons can't.

Although, if we could ever make something somewhat similar to the zat gun from Stargate SG-1, that'd be cool. It's fairly silent, one shot stuns, second shot kills outright, and it doesn't require precise aiming. A shot in the leg is just as effective as a shot in the face (although I imagine getting shot in the face by a zat would hurt like all fuck).

[Arrow]

Although, if we could ever make something somewhat similar to the zat gun from Stargate SG-1, that'd be cool. It's fairly silent, one shot stuns, second shot kills outright, and it doesn't require precise aiming. A shot in the leg is just as effective as a shot in the face (although I imagine getting shot in the face by a zat would hurt like all fuck).

What about a weapon that uses a laser to ionize the air between the gun and the target, and then conducts electricity down that path? I've heard that design tossed around as a long range tazer, and you could problem make one with a "kill setting". I not sure if that's a realistic idea or not.

[Patrick Degan]

About the most realistic depiction of personal energy weapons seen in SF was in the BBC series Blake's 7. The Federation blasters, both pistol and rifle version, never produced a visible beam but did produce a clear exothermic effect upon the victim. Same for the sidearms carried by the Liberator crew. Those had a focussing tube which lit when the weapon was fired, but again, you never saw a visible beam. None of the weapons disintegrated people —they killed, and most times by some sort of explosive effect or burning. The B7 universe also had slug-throwers. The result of a cheap budget but one which actually produced a far more realistic set of weapons and their killing effects than in most series or movies.

[Darth Wong]

Sounds like Logan's Run.

[Vympel]

Sounds like Logan's Run.

I was about to say that until I scrolled down. I saw it for the first time the other day when I bought it at a store for only 5AUD. Best bargain of the year so far.

[Winston Blake]

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.

OK fair enough. I don't think I can be of much more help, but I can try to clarify what I think you're asking others for.

I.e. What are the effects at the muzzle, in transit, and on impact of a shot from a rifle-like weapon of each type below? Effects are minimum sufficient to kill an adult without armour or anything. Ignore energy storage, efficiency, cost and actual mechanism for beam weapons (e.g. gamma laser, neutron beam).

Railguns/Coilguns - high velocity projectile, probably low mass and high energy, recoil probably limited to that of modern anti-materiel rifles. Projectile vaporising unless correct shape, material, etc.

Lasers - microwave, infrared, visible range, ultraviolet, X-ray, gamma ray. Induction heating of conductive materials, melting, vaporisation, mechanical effects of vaporisation, penetration, radiation poisoning.

Particle beams - electrons, neutrons, protons, other nuclei, antiparticles. Secondary radiation (spalling, bremsstrahlung). IIRC I worked out once that the annihiliation energy from an anti-proton in a weaponised particle beam would be insignificant compared to its kinetic energy (i.e. thermal energy), so they're not much better than proton PBWs. Also recoil is negligible.

What about a weapon that uses a laser to ionize the air between the gun and the target, and then conducts electricity down that path? I've heard that design tossed around as a long range tazer, and you could problem make one with a "kill setting". I not sure if that's a realistic idea or not.

It's realistic. People who study lightning use lasers to provide a controlled path for lightning bolts, rather than consuming an expensive rocket trailing a wire. IIRC the idea's been around since Tesla's day - it's just a matter of actually making the things and convincing police departments that the extra cost/etc is worth the range advantage. Using tetanisation to seize up people's muscles is well known from current tazers; sufficient strength to interfere with the heart would just be a matter of scaling up modern tech.

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.

Yes, if you want lasers and particle beams, a situation similar to real-world ballistic missile defence (like space combat) is plausible.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Sounds like Logan's Run.

I was about to say that until I scrolled down. I saw it for the first time the other day when I bought it at a store for only 5AUD. Best bargain of the year so far.

That you two evidently didn't know of B7 until today shocks me. For shame.

I will say that you won't find a more intriguing ending to a sci-fi series though. But anyway, the weaponry and ships were all decent with the very minimal amount of useless technobabble ST and the like produced in bulk. The aforementioned weapons effects are duller to the random beam or brightly coloured light of a phaser or a bolt from a blaster, though the realism trumps aesthetics in my book. A small, charred hole in a body appearing with a crack from some invisible force is far more disorienting than an obvious trace back to the enemy and the person just vanishing with not even a breeze.

[Molyneux]

Sounds like Logan's Run.

I was about to say that until I scrolled down. I saw it for the first time the other day when I bought it at a store for only 5AUD. Best bargain of the year so far.

That you two evidently didn't know of B7 until today shocks me. For shame.

Was it ever shown outside of Great Britain?

[wolveraptor]

What about a weapon that uses a laser to ionize the air between the gun and the target, and then conducts electricity down that path? I've heard that design tossed around as a long range tazer, and you could problem make one with a "kill setting". I not sure if that's a realistic idea or not.

I remember asking about this. Someone pointed out that a gust of wind would disrupt the path to the target with ease, unless you plan on ionizing an inefficiently large volume of air.

[Zor]

Howabout Gyrojet guns, weapons that are like WH-40k bolters that fire rocket assisted shells?

Zor

[QueerIngo]

A neutron weapon, if you could get it to actually work, would be a nice terror weapon: you make it through the battle, and then two days later you drop dead of radiation poisoning. It would also work through body armor, and even if you had a gadolinium flak vest it would still irradiate all your other body parts.

[Teleros]

What about a weapon that uses a laser to ionize the air between the gun and the target, and then conducts electricity down that path? I've heard that design tossed around as a long range tazer, and you could problem make one with a "kill setting". I not sure if that's a realistic idea or not.

New Scientist reported on it a while back as a sort of short ranged area-effect taser being worked on. Handy for crowd control, although lots of safety issues involved. The short range should help minimise the whole wind issue, but makes it kinda pointless on a battlefield.

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.

I think your best bet for a a plasma weapon would be akin to a beam or flamethrower weapon - the fancy plasma projectiles you so often see would surely require a magnetic field guiding / moving each one. I suppose they might be safer than more traditional flamethrowers if the gas requires a high voltage current or something to turn it into plasma (xenon, used in plasma globes, is a noble gas for example - assuming you could use it for this mind you ), so a shot to the canister wouldn't ignite it (or not much of it) but frankly for long range stuff I can't see why a laser or projectile weapon couldn't do the trick more efficiently. And if you're using plasma as a sort of beam weapon just get a particle beam and be done with it .

A neutron weapon, if you could get it to actually work, would be a nice terror weapon

I'd rather drop neutron bombs or similar before the battle and save lives on my side .

Although, if we could ever make something somewhat similar to the zat gun from Stargate SG-1, that'd be cool.

Not to mention I can never remember anyone having to change the battery, and the technology seems small enough to be used as an attachment to a more traditional weapon.

The effect when it hits someone would be an explosion of flesh. The actual laser impact would be small, but it would deliver a lot of thermal energy to that small area, which causes it to expand and rip. It would bleed - the ripped flesh from the heating would leave a whole.

Have a look around for "pulsed energy projectile" weaponry - the idea is that the laser vaporises a tiny portion of the target, doing minimal damage but generating a significant kick - again as a possible crowd control weapon. Of course we're on about something more powerful, but just a little food for thought .

[QueerIngo]

the idea is that the laser vaporises a tiny portion of the target, doing minimal damage but generating a significant kick - again as a possible crowd control weapon.

Minimal damage? How does a small explosion on the surface of the skin do "minimal damage"? And not to mention that if the thing hits your eyes (or is reflected off something into them), you'll instantly go blind.

[Patrick Degan]

I was about to say that until I scrolled down. I saw it for the first time the other day when I bought it at a store for only 5AUD. Best bargain of the year so far.

That you two evidently didn't know of B7 until today shocks me. For shame.

Was it ever shown outside of Great Britain?

PBS syndication in the late 80s. I had the whole series but lost the tapes to the New Orleans flood.

[Adrian Laguna]

Segment from Channel 4's Top Ten Sci Fi programme dedicated to 1978 BBC show Blake's 7.

Stop at the 6 minute mark if you don't want to spoil yourself about the details of the ending.

[Elheru Aran]

Howabout Gyrojet guns, weapons that are like WH-40k bolters that fire rocket assisted shells?

Zor

Biggest problem with gyrojets is their initial muzzle velocity is *very* slow, to the point where it was theoretically possible to catch them as they exited the muzzle. This is obviously not a good thing.

40K bolters, I believe, use a conventional load underneath the rocket bullet; this has the dual effect of firing the bullet normally and igniting the rocket. This way, not only do you have decent muzzle velocity, but you also have some punch right at the muzzle (essential given the apparent close ranges 40K fighting tends to be at). It also explains the guns ejecting cases (which you don't get with gyrojets, as they're technically caseless) and also why bolters seem to be more or less identical to ordinary guns aside from the whole explosive rocket round thing.

[Molyneux]

That you two evidently didn't know of B7 until today shocks me. For shame.

Was it ever shown outside of Great Britain?

PBS syndication in the late 80s. I had the whole series but lost the tapes to the New Orleans flood.

My problem, then, would be that I was six years old in 1990.

[Teleros]

Minimal damage? How does a small explosion on the surface of the skin do "minimal damage"? And not to mention that if the thing hits your eyes (or is reflected off something into them), you'll instantly go blind.

Yep blindness is a problem. As for the intended effects, the full blurb from Global Security...

The object of the Pulsed Energy Projectile (PEP) program is to develop and demonstrate the technology necessary to produce a crew served, counter personnel non-lethal directed energy weapon providing controllable bio-effects to deter, disable, and distract individuals. The device directs an invisible induced plasma pulse at a target that will create a flash-bang near the intended target

This counterpersonnel capability projects a beam that creates a plasma pulse at the target. When the plasma pulse strikes an individual, it results in a flash-bang effect that startles and distracts, and it also has a kinetic effect on the individual's nerve sensors. US government budgets show that it received $3,173,000 in research funding. It vaporises the first thing it hits. This creates a plasma that heats the surrounding air so fast that, basically, the air explodes. The resulting shock wave will knock you to the floor. The PEP is now in the late stages of development and, judging from JNLWD documents, should hit the streets by 2006. The current plan is to mount the laser on a truck, plane or helicopter, fire it from a safe distance, and stop rioters, snipers or soldiers without risking harm to military personnel. The good news is that it works. The bad news is that, right now, it weighs 500 pounds.

[Stark]

Although, if we could ever make something somewhat similar to the zat gun from Stargate SG-1, that'd be cool. It's fairly silent, one shot stuns, second shot kills outright, and it doesn't require precise aiming. A shot in the leg is just as effective as a shot in the face (although I imagine getting shot in the face by a zat would hurt like all fuck).

That weapon strikes me as totally unrealistic and illogical. One shot stuns... somehow, then the next shot kills the immobile enemy... somehow, then the third shot MAKES THEM DISAPPEAR. All with one firemode, and each shot apparently carries the same energy, and you can't vanish people with the first shot. The first time I saw it I thought 'RPG mechanics lol'.

The Blake's 7 guns were all pretty neat, and managed to communicate 'primitive' versus 'advanced' through the lack of muzzle flashes and obvious trauma on the victim. They even had sights!

[Junghalli]

About plasma weapons. Couldn't you force a large quantity of inert gas and a comparitively tiny quantity of superheated plasma through the barrel at high pressure at the same time, basically using the plasma as a heating element for the inert gas, and then having it work like a pressurized gas flamethrower? Would that work?

I guess it would be more of a hot gas thrower than a plasma gun per se, but it seems about as close as you could get w/out trashing physics.

[Covenant]

About plasma weapons. Couldn't you force a large quantity of inert gas and a comparitively tiny quantity of superheated plasma through the barrel at high pressure at the same time, basically using the plasma as a heating element for the inert gas, and then having it work like a pressurized gas flamethrower? Would that work?

I guess it would be more of a hot gas thrower than a plasma gun per se, but it seems about as close as you could get w/out trashing physics.

You may as well try to shoot a super-soaker through concrete. Plasma's low density makes it splatter against air the same way the water would. Really, if you want a flamethrower that burns extra hot and aggressively you should just change the fuel element and not try to create a massive, heavy, unwieldy and even-more-dangerous weapon that won't work as well.

A flamethrower that shoots jellied gas jets or thermite mixtures or something has a lot of mass to it, so not only does it go through air just great, but you can arc it. It also sticks to shit, and burns. It's not just hot, it actually keeps burning. This lets it damage components that plasma wouldn't, even in a magically ideal version of the weapon.

Plasma just doesn't do shit. It can't. There's so many extremely cool advanced weapon systems that it's silly to focus on the one 'fancy sounding' sci-fi weapon (plasma) which is also utterly impossible.

[Lancer]

Plasma does "do shit". Read the article Teleros quoted.

The only problem with calling the device described in that article a plasma weapon is that the plasma is being generated on the recieving end, not the sending end.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The plasma based weapons (or fusion beams, for another term) that do work are usually found doing damage via their KE more than their thermal capacity. When you get a slither of fusing hydrogen hitting you at a good fraction of lightspeed, it doesn't matter how good your armour is against flamethrowers. It's really then just a variation of a particle beam, but with no net charge due to the plasma content. Another variation would be a boser, more analogous to a laser given the use of Bose-Einstein condensates as ammunition.