How Far From Phasers?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Well, not phasers specifically...

How far are we away from the technology necessary to create man-portable energy weapons such as those in SW or ST? Is such technology even theoretically possible? What would it look like/how would it work?

[Sektor31]

Even if we could do it, would it be that much of a step from metal projectiles?

[Howedar]

We're a long damn way.

[Darth Wong]

Well, not phasers specifically...

How far are we away from the technology necessary to create man-portable energy weapons such as those in SW or ST? Is such technology even theoretically possible? What would it look like/how would it work?

They would be lasers, and the big problem is size, both of the weapon and of the power-generation system.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Well, not phasers specifically...

How far are we away from the technology necessary to create man-portable energy weapons such as those in SW or ST? Is such technology even theoretically possible? What would it look like/how would it work?

They would be lasers, and the big problem is size, both of the weapon and of the power-generation system.

Yeah, that's been my understanding for the last several years. I was hoping that had changed while I wasn't looking.

Just throwing this out here, but what about something like an X-Ray laser? Or is that complete fucking nonsense?

EDIT: I realize the same problems of size apply, but if something like that is possible, would it increase lethality?

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, that's been my understanding for the last several years. I was hoping that had changed while I wasn't looking.

The only real development is a laser-ionization stun-gun, but I don't know where they are in terms of research on that project.

Just throwing this out here, but what about something like an X-Ray laser? Or is that complete fucking nonsense?

An X-ray laser would have more energetic individual photons, but for any given power source, it would have fewer photons. It's not magic; you still have to supply the power, so you still have the same problem. I suppose the ideal frequency for a laser would be the one which is least interactive with atmosphere.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Okay, I get what you're saying about lasers. What about other forms of non-projectile weaponry? I remember seeing something about sonic weaponry that could supposedly disrupt electrical systems and even create some pretty interesting physical effects.

[Kuroneko]

I remember seeing something about sonic weaponry...

What a coincidence you should mention sonic weaponry and phasers. There is a boson quasiparticle called a "phonon", which is a quantum of vibrational (sound) energy. There is already something sometimes called "phaser"--a phonon laser, though more commonly called a "saser", for firing highly focused "beams" of sound.

Unfortunately, the current "phasers" need cryogenic temperatures, and are highly dependent on the structure of the target (then again, so are ST phasers, but those are comparatively less picky). But even if those limitations are removed, it will still be much, much easier to just blow up the target. Stick with normal lasers instead of phasers if you want beam weaponry.

As for weapons with effects like ST phasers? Never.

[Kuroneko]

An X-ray laser would have more energetic individual photons, but for any given power source, it would have fewer photons. It's not magic; you still have to supply the power, so you still have the same problem. I suppose the ideal frequency for a laser would be the one which is least interactive with atmosphere.

That would be a good thing to consider, but I think the properties of the target against which the weapon will be used are more important. Reflectivity of the target at the given frequency would be important, but also consideration of the extremes: a xaser could have too much penetration, so less photons would actually deliver their energy to the target. A maser would probably be more lethal than a xaser against a person at the same energy levels, humans having lots of water and lipids.

[Sokar]

Without a massive revolution in the nature of power production and portability , I highly doubt man pack energy weapons will become widespread. In order for them to be competitive with projectile weapons they must a) be signifigantly cheaper to produce and maintain or b) offer such a massive advantage combat wise that they reder projectiles obsolescent.

IMHO Projectile weapons, tough the form and nature of which may change(move to caseless ammo, exotic materials ect....) are here to stay for a very long time.

[Peregrin Toker]

How far are we away from the technology necessary to create man-portable energy weapons such as those in SW or ST?

What about a "taser gun" like those in GTA2??

[Arrow]

If you could power a man portable laser, why not use that same power source for a railgun. Wouldn't be a simpler a design? And high velocity slugs don't have to worry about whether or not a material is reflective. This assumes that the railgun could achieve much higher velocities than current guns.

[Darth Wong]

If you could power a man portable laser, why not use that same power source for a railgun. Wouldn't be a simpler a design? And high velocity slugs don't have to worry about whether or not a material is reflective. This assumes that the railgun could achieve much higher velocities than current guns.

Two problems with that:

1) Recoil. Contrary to popular belief, railguns do not magically eliminate recoil.

2) No intrinsic superiority in velocity. A railgun can theoretically achieve higher velocities if it is extremely long, because there is continual acceleration over its length. This is, however, irrelevant for the tank-sized and man-portable varieties.

If you had enough portable power for a railgun, you'd be better off with a laser. A laser has very little recoil and so is much more suitable for an infantry weapon. Its long-range accuracy will be superb, either for semi-automatic or automatic fire. Rangefinding is irrelevant; there is zero gravity drop, so you just line up the target in the scope and pull the trigger.

[Queeb Salaron]

What I'm waiting for is lasers that fire red bolts you can actually see without airborn dust particles, and that travel considerably slower than the speed of light, considering in all the movies and stuff you can see them moving about as fast (if not slower) than a bullet would travel.

::Smiles:: Ah, the shortcomings of sci-fi weaponry.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

What I'm waiting for is lasers that fire red bolts you can actually see without airborn dust particles, and that travel considerably slower than the speed of light, considering in all the movies and stuff you can see them moving about as fast (if not slower) than a bullet would travel.

::Smiles:: Ah, the shortcomings of sci-fi weaponry.

This might sound kinda stupid, but what about ionized bullets? Wouldn't they do that? Is ionizing projectile ammunition even possible? If this sounds exceedingly brainless, it is because I have not yet consumed my allotted quantity of Wheaties.

[Korvan]

What I'm waiting for is lasers that fire red bolts you can actually see without airborn dust particles, and that travel considerably slower than the speed of light, considering in all the movies and stuff you can see them moving about as fast (if not slower) than a bullet would travel.

::Smiles:: Ah, the shortcomings of sci-fi weaponry.

I've had an idea for a star wars type blaster gun. Its ammo is a shotgun shell containing a metal hydride and three capaciters. The first capaciter heats up a filament that causes the metal hydride to decompose releasing an amount of hydrogen gas.

The second capaciter then fires a high voltage arc through the gas, creating a high temperature plasma. The third capaciter then powers an electromagnetic coil which shoots the plasma towards your target.

Of course, once the plasma leaves the barrel, it'll immediatly expand into the air creating a pretty flash, but doing no damage to the target, unless it is pressed up against the barrel.

[Arrow]

If you could power a man portable laser, why not use that same power source for a railgun. Wouldn't be a simpler a design? And high velocity slugs don't have to worry about whether or not a material is reflective. This assumes that the railgun could achieve much higher velocities than current guns.

Two problems with that:

1) Recoil. Contrary to popular belief, railguns do not magically eliminate recoil.

2) No intrinsic superiority in velocity. A railgun can theoretically achieve higher velocities if it is extremely long, because there is continual acceleration over its length. This is, however, irrelevant for the tank-sized and man-portable varieties.

If you had enough portable power for a railgun, you'd be better off with a laser. A laser has very little recoil and so is much more suitable for an infantry weapon. Its long-range accuracy will be superb, either for semi-automatic or automatic fire. Rangefinding is irrelevant; there is zero gravity drop, so you just line up the target in the scope and pull the trigger.

In current projectile guns, does the bullet's acceleration come solely from gun powder's explosion or does it include gas expansion? If its just the former, wouldn't the railgun be able to achieve higher velocities with similar recoil as it applies acceleration down the entire barrel instead of just at the breech?

[Kuroneko]

In current projectile guns, does the bullet's acceleration come solely from gun powder's explosion or does it include gas expansion? If its just the former, wouldn't the railgun be able to achieve higher velocities with similar recoil as it applies acceleration down the entire barrel instead of just at the breech?

Recoil is due to the slug's acceleration, and it makes absolutely no difference how it gets accelerated. The gun exerts a force to get it accelerated, and it just doesn't come from nowhere. If a railgun with 20cm rails accelerates a 100g slug to 3.00km/s (at muzzle), then it clears the rails in 0.133ms, making the average acceleration (2.00km/s)/(0.133ms) = 1.50e7 m/s^2, and the recoil force F = ma = 1.50e6 N, which is about 337,000 pounds!

[Arrow]

Ok, scrap that idea.

[Death from the Sea]

here try this
http://people.howstuffworks.com/pain-beam.htm

it is not man portable, but a step in that direction

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

How about:

A: A CO2 Pulse Laser or

B: A He/Ne Laser with a Q-Spoiling Device?

[Sokar]

In current projectile guns, does the bullet's acceleration come solely from gun powder's explosion or does it include gas expansion? If its just the former, wouldn't the railgun be able to achieve higher velocities with similar recoil as it applies acceleration down the entire barrel instead of just at the breech?

Recoil is due to the slug's acceleration, and it makes absolutely no difference how it gets accelerated. The gun exerts a force to get it accelerated, and it just doesn't come from nowhere. If a railgun with 20cm rails accelerates a 100g slug to 3.00km/s (at muzzle), then it clears the rails in 0.133ms, making the average acceleration (2.00km/s)/(0.133ms) = 1.50e7 m/s^2, and the recoil force F = ma = 1.50e6 N, which is about 337,000 pounds!

However , if you have something that could absorb that force, that 100g slug would bow an M1 into metal confetti....

[Kuroneko]

True, but it underscores the futility of man-portable railguns. On a battleship, where one can have large rails and a lots of power, a railgun could be an advantage--the extreme speed translate to better accuracy and superior range. The ability to essentially sniper enemy ships from a range where their guns have no chance of getting you would be pretty nice.

[kojikun]

Microwaves don't interact with atmosphere very well (or much of anything nonmetal, for that matter) so they would be ideal for anti-aircraft and anti-ship weaponry, tho not antipersonel. For that you'd best stick with either highly focused visible laser or bullets.

Whats a Q Spoiling Device?

[Howedar]

In current projectile guns, does the bullet's acceleration come solely from gun powder's explosion or does it include gas expansion? If its just the former, wouldn't the railgun be able to achieve higher velocities with similar recoil as it applies acceleration down the entire barrel instead of just at the breech?

Recoil is due to the slug's acceleration, and it makes absolutely no difference how it gets accelerated. The gun exerts a force to get it accelerated, and it just doesn't come from nowhere. If a railgun with 20cm rails accelerates a 100g slug to 3.00km/s (at muzzle), then it clears the rails in 0.133ms, making the average acceleration (2.00km/s)/(0.133ms) = 1.50e7 m/s^2, and the recoil force F = ma = 1.50e6 N, which is about 337,000 pounds!

However, the time over which the recoil is expressed does make a difference. For the sake of argument, if you had a gun that recoiled a continuous 10N over 5 seconds, one could easily compensate for it and get a feeling for how much recoil there was, and correct for it, before the bullet left the barrel. If its over a hundredth of a second, not only is the instantaneous recoil much higher, but one cannot compensate for it.