Interesting Plasma Weapon Concept

[Adrian Laguna]

Why even try to make a plasma weapon? What possible advantage is there in a weapon which pisses away its energy constantly by radiating it away in all directions as it flies through space and which must be contained in an incredibly powerful super-tech forcefield in order to achieve sufficient density to do any damage?

From and engineering and military standpoint there's obviously little. The horrific effects described in the OP could be attained with an automatic grenade launcher, which would be well within the technological capabilities of the aliens.

However, from a storytelling standpoint, super-heated ionized gas is a cool. As are glowy balls of energy for those (pretty much all) occasions where weapon effects don't look like a container of really hot, highly pressurized gas suddenly breaking open.

[Darth Wong]

Why even try to make a plasma weapon? What possible advantage is there in a weapon which pisses away its energy constantly by radiating it away in all directions as it flies through space and which must be contained in an incredibly powerful super-tech forcefield in order to achieve sufficient density to do any damage?

From and engineering and military standpoint there's obviously little. The horrific effects described in the OP could be attained with an automatic grenade launcher, which would be well within the technological capabilities of the aliens.

More to the point, those horrific effects would not be produced by the plasma weapon. Gases are lousy heat conductors compared to liquids and solids, and if the pellet bursts and sprays out a lot of super-heated gas, you won't get spray effects at any appreciable distance from the pellet. Sure, you might burn the actual point of impact, but the idea of splash damage is ludicrous.

Here's an exercise: imagine sticking your hand on a heating element. Pretty horrific, right? How about shoving your hand in lava? OMG!! Pain! Now try sticking your hand in an oven that's been pre-heated to 600 degrees Farenheit. Ouch, that's kind of hot. If I left my hand in there for a long time, it would get burned really badly! But for a half-second ... meh. I won't even need any NeoSporin. Gases are shitty heat conductors. Combine that with rapid dispersal, and you'll really only burn the guy at the point where the pellet hits him. Splash damage from a plasma weapon is a totally absurd concept unless it contains a truly vast amount of energy, which takes us back to the problem of why the fuck you don't use this incredibly compact super high-energy device to make a far more efficient weapon using a more direct heat transfer mechanism.

However, from a storytelling standpoint, super-heated ionized gas is a cool.

How? How the fuck are sci-fi stories enhanced by lavish descriptions of the operating mechanism of a hand weapon, never mind a mechanism that makes no sense?

As are glowy balls of energy for those (pretty much all) occasions where weapon effects don't look like a container of really hot, highly pressurized gas suddenly breaking open.

Read: that's what we're used to seeing, therefore we want to write it. I see no purpose being served by this.

[Adrian Laguna]

However, from a storytelling standpoint, super-heated ionized gas is a cool.

How? How the fuck are sci-fi stories enhanced by lavish descriptions of the operating mechanism of a hand weapon, never mind a mechanism that makes no sense?

I didn't mean a lavish description, in fact I didn't really mean actual ionized gas. In sci-fi plasma is often described as a very dense super-heated liquid. This is probably because of the following:


You know what that looks like?



I'm well aware that plasma is nothing like lava, but the concept, erroneous though it may be, is immensely appealing. I very much like those types of weapons, they're... cool.

Read: that's what we're used to seeing, therefore we want to write it. I see no purpose being served by this.

I think glowing balls flying around are cool, and their prevalence through different media suggests that many other people agree with me. You even see them applied in fantasy settings, with wizards throwing lighting/frost/fire/magic balls around. If it entertains the audience it serves a purpose. I think this is fine so long as they don't pretend it's real. Which is precisely why I created this thread, I wanted to know if the plasma weapons in UFO:AI, which they do pretend are realistic, really are. The answer is no, and that's that.

[Ford Prefect]

Frankly, when it comes to cool, more 'realistic' ideas tend to outdo the classic 'plasma weapon'. I mean, projectile weapons. You know, seems pretty ordinary really - just a piece of metal (or whatever) being tossed about. But when you get higher velocities, it's fun for the whole family. I mean, look at this picture, culled from Wikipedia. That's all the plasma I need - the stuff that come from high velocity impacts of solid ammunition.

When it comes to showing the effects of any weapon, kinetic weapons are more lavish then you'd think; and for the piece of mind of your readers, make more sense.

[Patrick Degan]

Indeed. Take the "high-energy plasma" weapon the Romulans use in the TOS episode "Balance Of Terror". Substitute a cloud of debris moving at high sublight velocities (or even supralight if you want to wank it a bit) instead. You get a rather devestating effect without having to deal with the idea of "forced implosion" from a dissipiating ball of gas.

[Darth Wong]

In sci-fi plasma is often described as a very dense super-heated liquid.

Doesn't that make the situation even worse?

I'm well aware that plasma is nothing like lava, but the concept, erroneous though it may be, is immensely appealing. I very much like those types of weapons, they're... cool.

Because they hark back to the flaming projectiles of the Roman era?

I think glowing balls flying around are cool, and their prevalence through different media suggests that many other people agree with me.

In all of the treatises I've seen on the popularity of (for example) Star Wars, not once do I recall ever seeing anyone say that a big selling point of the series is its use of sublight glowing projectiles. I don't think it makes any difference; it's just an arbitrary convention: a legacy of the way special effects were done in the past.

You even see them applied in fantasy settings, with wizards throwing lighting/frost/fire/magic balls around.

I don't see what any of those have to do with the "plasma weapon" convention in sci-fi. Lightning travels much faster than "plasma weapons" typically do. Cold effects typically look nothing like a plasma weapon. Fire typically looks like a flamethrower. And I don't even want to know what magic balls are.

If it entertains the audience it serves a purpose.

I have serious doubts about the idea that the stereotypical "plasma weapon" visual effect or description has any effect on the entertainment value of any sci-fi series.

[Patrick Degan]

I think glowing balls flying around are cool, and their prevalence through different media suggests that many other people agree with me.

Appeal to Popularity Fallacy, which says nothing of whether or not the idea is stupid.

[Ford Prefect]

I have serious doubts about the idea that the stereotypical "plasma weapon" visual effect or description has any effect on the entertainment value of any sci-fi series.

While I must admit I thought that Farscape's 'bouncy balls of light' were rather novel and entertaining when they showed up in the first episode, for the most part I find the glowy balls of energy thing tired. It's classic in some cases, but it reeks of laziness and missed oppurtunities. I think of Babylon 5 and its (very) thin veneer of scientific realism, and they had stuff like 'PPGs'. Why not a laser? Pull the trigger and crack there's a burst of steam coming out of the target!

[Adrian Laguna]

In sci-fi plasma is often described as a very dense super-heated liquid.

Doesn't that make the situation even worse?

*shrug* The lasers in Star Wars don't behave at all like coherent light.

I'm well aware that plasma is nothing like lava, but the concept, erroneous though it may be, is immensely appealing. I very much like those types of weapons, they're... cool.

Because they hark back to the flaming projectiles of the Roman era?

I dunno, maybe, it's all flamie and stuff.

I think glowing balls flying around are cool, and their prevalence through different media suggests that many other people agree with me.

In all of the treatises I've seen on the popularity of (for example) Star Wars, not once do I recall ever seeing anyone say that a big selling point of the series is its use of sublight glowing projectiles. I don't think it makes any difference; it's just an arbitrary convention: a legacy of the way special effects were done in the past.

You even see them applied in fantasy settings, with wizards throwing lighting/frost/fire/magic balls around.

I don't see what any of those have to do with the "plasma weapon" convention in sci-fi. Lightning travels much faster than "plasma weapons" typically do. Cold effects typically look nothing like a plasma weapon. Fire typically looks like a flamethrower. And I don't even want to know what magic balls are.

You apparently are not very familiar with sword and sorcery conventions. Elemental magic spells often do look a lot like sci-fi "plasma weapons". A roughly spherical object that travels at subsonic speeds to their target.
To illustrate:


That could be a cold spell.

If it entertains the audience it serves a purpose.

I have serious doubts about the idea that the stereotypical "plasma weapon" visual effect or description has any effect on the entertainment value of any sci-fi series.

I never argued it was integral to the story, it's just a nice-looking special effect that's widely liked.

I think glowing balls flying around are cool, and their prevalence through different media suggests that many other people agree with me.

Appeal to Popularity Fallacy, which says nothing of whether or not the idea is stupid.

The "are plasma weapons stupid" part of the discussion is over. Indeed, most of it was over before the thread even started, as the question asked was "is this a workable solution?", the answer was "no". At this point we are discussion the artistic merits of using something with no basis on reality or logic that is not intergral to the story simply becaues some people think it looks spiffy.

The entire point of that sentence is that "plasma weapons" are popular, and I cited their prevalence as evidence. If I bring-up some thing's wide use in order to illustrate that it is popular, how is that fallacious? The very definition of popular implies wide use. If there is a fallacy here it's leap in logic, as I'm assuming that popularity implies people liking it. However this is not a particularly unreasonable assumption.

While I must admit I thought that Farscape's 'bouncy balls of light' were rather novel and entertaining when they showed up in the first episode, for the most part I find the glowy balls of energy thing tired. It's classic in some cases, but it reeks of laziness and missed oppurtunities. I think of Babylon 5 and its (very) thin veneer of scientific realism, and they had stuff like 'PPGs'. Why not a laser? Pull the trigger and crack there's a burst of steam coming out of the target!

For me it's not the same across all TV shows. I liked Farscape's glowy balls*, I did not like B5's. I liked Stargate's glowy balls*, I did not like Star Trek's. And yeah, a laser would have been cool in B5, I liked them a lot in B7.

*Yay gay innuendo!

[Starglider]

More to the point, those horrific effects would not be produced by the plasma weapon. Gases are lousy heat conductors compared to liquids and solids, and if the pellet bursts and sprays out a lot of super-heated gas, you won't get spray effects at any appreciable distance from the pellet.

How about just shooting blobs of liquid tungsten at 5000 degrees centigrade? I make that about 230 KJ of thermal energy in a 100g projectile, plus the trivial 125J of kinetic energy you'd get from shooting it at 50 m/s out of a grenade launcher style weapon. It should glow very brightly and splatter pretty nicely.

[His Divine Shadow]

Plasma weapons in sci-fi are kind of like a religious belief: when you argue with people about them, they keep trying to find a convoluted way back to the same outcome, just like a creationist will always twist and break logic and science in order to find his way back to the same conclusion he started with. In both cases, there is a powerful desire to accomodate that conclusion, regardless of how stupid it is.

Why not just give up on the whole fucking "plasma weapon" idea? I'm so sick of even hearing the word "plasma" in a sci-fi setting.

How about a weapon that fires a stream of blood plasma that carries infectious diseases?

[Admiral Valdemar]

How about just shooting blobs of liquid tungsten at 5000 degrees centigrade? I make that about 230 KJ of thermal energy in a 100g projectile, plus the trivial 125J of kinetic energy you'd get from shooting it at 50 m/s out of a grenade launcher style weapon. It should glow very brightly and splatter pretty nicely.

Like the Gatling mounts in I-War? They were big rotary barrelled weapons that fired molten metal at high cyclic rates and velocities. All other "plasma" weapons were essentially particle beams.

[brianeyci]

The problem with projectile weapons, at least in television science fiction, is they tend to be rather uncreative. Projectile weapon, especially for ground troops, usually means modifying real life weapons or in some cases not modifying them at all and slapping on a different name. Like the modern Battlestar Galactica, modifying real life weapons, or just using them outright like Stargate. It works sometimes, but sometimes it doesn't.

As for blasters in Star Wars, I don't think Star Wars would be Star Wars without blasters. The visible beam of light is more than just a weapon. It's a Jedi's antithesis, a visible medium for the audience to see the struggle between a Jedi and his foes in glaring reality. A Jedi putting up a force wall and stormtroopers using projectile weapons would just not be Star Wars. I like the visualization of the life or death struggle between a Jedi and his enemies. Lack of blasters for projectile weapons would not make the story better either. A directed energy weapon is a signal to the fans that this society is so advanced that its personal weapons can use ridiculous amounts of power and complexity (even waste, since when does the military always purchase or develop the most optimal weapons?)

In short what I'm saying is just because you use more realistic weapons, that doesn't mean you have a better story. I realize this is SLAM so it's more discussing whether weapons are stupid or not, but changing the Romulan's plasma weapon to something more conventional adds nothing to Balance of Terror's story. Logical violations such as Karen Travis's low troop numbers are one thing, but if one culture chooses to use a less than optimal weapon for warfare, that does not necessarily mean bad story to me.

[Darth Wong]

As for blasters in Star Wars, I don't think Star Wars would be Star Wars without blasters. The visible beam of light is more than just a weapon. It's a Jedi's antithesis, a visible medium for the audience to see the struggle between a Jedi and his foes in glaring reality.

Simply making all of the bullets look like tracer rounds (like the Replay bullets in The Fifth Element) would duplicate that visual and solve that problem.

[Stark]

Most video games with projectile weapons simply exaggerate the tracer effect Micheal Bay style. Saying 'visible projectiles = better story' is nuts: WotW is awesome in part due to the invisible but deadly heat rays.

[Ford Prefect]

And higher end projectile weapons are actually visible. If anything, the effect of such projectiles, with the lingering blue trail bouncing off a Jedi's guard at sharp angles would be rather impressive looking.

[brianeyci]

Before I talk I would like to say this is drifting into a literary discussion rather than a scientific discussion. I already gave my opinion on the scientific viability of plasma weapons, that is not at all.

Simply making all of the bullets look like tracer rounds (like the Replay bullets in The Fifth Element) would duplicate that visual and solve that problem.

Maybe, maybe not. But the blaster serves another purpose in Star Wars as well, to differentiate the primitives like Jawas from elite forces. It works in Star Wars because it's a galaxy spanning setting. A lightsaber lights up in blue, red and all colors of the rainbow, and each blaster bolt is like a minature lightsaber tossed at the Jedi, so if he fucks up the Jedi's history. Each blaster bolt is like a ranged lightsaber, tossed without skill but still dangerous enough to kill at a single mistake. If you change blasters, you'd have to change lightsabers. Or else blasters would not be as bright or as deadly seeming.

The main purpose of energy weapons wielded by aliens against projectile wielding human forces (in the case of XCOM) is to differentiate human forces from aliens. The aliens are supposed to be so advanced that they use weapons that cannot in any way be confused with terrestrial counterparts. In this game he's mentioning, in the original at least, you can't manufacture these guns without salvaging alien resources.

That doesn't change the idea that plasma weapons are overused. But it wasn't around Star Wars, and it wasn't around 1993 when XCOM was made.

As for the appeal to tradition, there are certain tropes which science fiction fans use to recognize science fiction. It's not an appeal to tradition or appeal to popularity more than a novum, or new thing. It is a literary device. The novum always will be a part of science fiction, and if plasma weapons are overused now, fine, but twenty years from now they'll make a comeback, precisely because they're so exotic. Laser weapons are just as unrealistic. The US can't even make a laser with the room of an entire 747 to shoot down missiles, so the minaturization to make a handheld laser is ridiculous.

Fantasy has swords. Westerns have guns. Science fiction has energy weapons. That's not to say all science fiction has to have energy weapons, just that in general science fiction fans can point to something with energy weapons and say, that's science fiction. Part of why Westerns died was because it couldn't adapt to people's needs and wants. If energy weapons are going out of vogue, don't you worry. Science fiction will adapt, or it will die (and it will not). Look at the hit series now. Stargate, Battlestar Galactica, all realistic weapons. But energy weapons will come back, just you wait. I expect them to come back once our society's energy goes to total shit (haha there comes that Peak Oil again) and people want fantastic stories about energy utopias.

[Darth Wong]

Oh come on, are you telling me that science fiction fans were confused or skeptical of the sci-fi credentials of James Cameron's Aliens because it used projectile weapons? Sci-fi is recognized by spaceships, not glowy energy bolts.

[Stark]

Yeah, viewers work on 'scifi gun'/'not scifigun', not how many special effects accompany it. Indeed, the Jawas had guns that had BETTER special effects, so surely this means audiences will wonder why they don't rule the galaxy? Oh wait they're desert scavengers.

Science fiction = energy weapons is an absurd simplification.

[brianeyci]

Glowing energy bolts probably implies science fiction, but that doesn't mean science fiction implies glowing energy bolts.

It's an important distinction. A lot of science fiction doesn't have any spaceships in it at all, but if it does have a spaceship I can say it's science fiction.

I agree, ripping out glowing bolts doesn't make it not science fiction. But they will make a comeback, if only because they're so exotic as to always be a novum, unless people get sick of it that it's not really new (and that's what's happening with all the grit series with more "real" weapons.)

[Darth Wong]

Glowing energy bolts probably implies science fiction, but that doesn't mean science fiction implies glowing energy bolts.

It's an important distinction. A lot of science fiction doesn't have any spaceships in it at all, but if it does have a spaceship I can say it's science fiction.

I agree, ripping out glowing bolts doesn't make it not science fiction. But they will make a comeback, if only because they're so exotic as to always be a novum, unless people get sick of it that it's not really new (and that's what's happening with all the grit series with more "real" weapons.)

But there's no reason for them to look the way they currently look. In fact, if anything, recent sci-fi shows have demonstrated that people are trying to do variations upon the classic look, because the classic look has been done to death.

Personally, I like the way it's done in Logan's Run. Invisible beam, and a brief burst of flame shoots out the vents at the end of the gun, presumably to expel waste heat and whatever it uses as a charge.

[Patrick Degan]

Glowing energy bolts probably implies science fiction, but that doesn't mean science fiction implies glowing energy bolts.

It's an important distinction. A lot of science fiction doesn't have any spaceships in it at all, but if it does have a spaceship I can say it's science fiction.

I agree, ripping out glowing bolts doesn't make it not science fiction. But they will make a comeback, if only because they're so exotic as to always be a novum, unless people get sick of it that it's not really new (and that's what's happening with all the grit series with more "real" weapons.)

But there's no reason for them to look the way they currently look. In fact, if anything, recent sci-fi shows have demonstrated that people are trying to do variations upon the classic look, because the classic look has been done to death.

Personally, I like the way it's done in Logan's Run. Invisible beam, and a brief burst of flame shoots out the vents at the end of the gun, presumably to expel waste heat and whatever it uses as a charge.

Alternatively, there was the way phasers (hand, not ship-mounted) were depicted in the third season of Star Trek: you didn't see a visible beam (except in two episodes) but rather the effect of the phaser shot on a person which was a sudden point-burst at the impact spot and a flash of light.

The guns in Blake's 7 never had any sort of visible beam; you only saw a small little burst and a wisp of smoke off the victim —that is when the characters weren't using slug-throwers. Those got used on Doctor Who a lot as well.

[brianeyci]

You talking about Scotty's phaser with no beam? That was retconned.

If you're going to make less visible energy weapons, the end effect had better be specatular to make up for the lack of strong visualization. Or you'll end up with Demolition Man kind weapons (I think, one of that guy's awful movies might have been Judge Dredd) where the weapon fires and the end effect is much like a spray of bullets. Then it's not really an energy weapon, but just a machine pistol like Robocop. I am thinking of Eraser. And even then there's still the itch in the mind that if only modern day technology was good enough, if only the military industrial complex got its shit together, they could make an Eraser kind of gun (the whole premise behind the movie) while visible energy weapons are just completely exotic. At least until every tom dick and halfass science fiction franchise uses them to death so everybody wants more real guns.

[Ariphaos]

I never thought Blake's 7 was any less cool for its invisible beams (not counting the Liberator's guns, which were silly). In fact, even as a ten-year old I knew better, and found that to be simply awesome. Hell, the only reason I kept watching Dr. Who was because B7 was on afterwards.

[Patrick Degan]

You talking about Scotty's phaser with no beam? That was retconned.

Quite stupidly. They took the one aspect of "The Naked Time" which actually did make scientific sense. But no, I refer to how phasers are seen to operate in the third season. As I believe I mentioned.

If you're going to make less visible energy weapons, the end effect had better be specatular to make up for the lack of strong visualization.

Why? Granted that most audiences really aren't up to thinking through the science but they aren't all such brainless sheep that they must have that "strong visual" or they don't get that they're watching a science fiction movie or that they'll walk away disappointed with what they've seen. It's usually when the film is a generally crappy one to start with that you get any serious bitching about "cheap" SFX on top of the other criticisms. If it's compelling on every other aspect, however, people either don't notice or they forgive it.