Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WillowLuman]

The issue with plasma weapons is, if pressure is high, you get an explosion. Otherwise, you just get a jet, which is basically just a flamethrower except less efficient and without the benefits of coating people in burning chemicals. It simply requires too many theoretical factors.

Except said jet moves much faster and further than a flamethrower. You're most likely dealing with a coilgun that fires superheated gas instead of metal. Not the subsonic glowy balls/lozenges of most space opera.

[Empiricist]

The issue with plasma weapons is, if pressure is high, you get an explosion. Otherwise, you just get a jet, which is basically just a flamethrower except less efficient and without the benefits of coating people in burning chemicals. It simply requires too many theoretical factors.

Except said jet moves much faster and further than a flamethrower. You're most likely dealing with a coilgun that fires superheated gas instead of metal.

You need approximately half a megajoule or so of energy to cause lethal burns. Assuming all of it hits. A bullet would be far more efficient. Also, real flamethrowers tend to have rather good range as well.

A pseudo-science lozenge would at least be useful in its world.

[WillowLuman]

This is all assuming that high-performance materials currently only theorized are totally impossible, or that high-density power sources cannot be miniaturized, etc. Such advances make them feasible. Efficiency is a non-issue: if there's a way for plasma weapons to work withing the laws of physics, then they're not to be treated as magic.

I'm saying the most likely form a plasma gun would take would be something that fires a beam/stream of plasma.

[Empiricist]

I'm saying the most likely form a plasma gun would take would be something that fires a beam/stream of plasma.

My point is that it wouldn't be very practical in that form. Possible, definitely. Practical, definitely not.

plasma rifle

My point about plasma rifles was about ones that fired high-pressure bolts. Yes, a plasma jet weapon would be possible in every world since it is indeed possible, but it would still run into efficiency issues and would raise questions about why it was developed in the first place. After all, if you had that much energy to use, you may as well just pump it into something more efficient (especially considering that power would still be limited by the fact that it would explode above a certain pressure, meaning it would likely have to be trained on its target for a while).

[WillowLuman]

Practicality is something the GM would have to deal with. In terms of rules for inter-world stuff, it's a non-issue. I'm just saying we shouldn't treat things like magic, unless they're doing very magic-like things for poorly explained reasons.

If used in-atmosphere, plasma weapons have the advantage of needing only energy, not matter to fling. Energy is something that advanced people with portable, high-density power supplies can most likely afford to waste.

[~Neri]

Plasma is a form of matter. It would require matter and energy. A Laser would require only energy.

A plasma gun that shoots a highpowered ionizing laser to create a temporary vacuum chamber air corridor to the target and then fires a bolt of plasma down the chamber would work better.

[Empiricist]

If used in-atmosphere, plasma weapons have the advantage of needing only energy, not matter to fling. Energy is something that advanced people with portable, high-density power supplies can most likely afford to waste.

Perhaps, but there are more efficient alternatives. Such as free-electron lasers.

Anyway, my very poorly communicated point is, soft-science fiction technology such as plasma rifles that fire high-pressure blobs should be treated as if it were fantasy. Whilst hard-science fiction technology like a regular firearm, or a plasma rifle that fires a stream of low-pressure plasma should face no such restrictions.

[WillowLuman]

Plasma is a form of matter. It would require matter and energy. A Laser would require only energy.

Hence the "when used in-atmosphere": a ready supply of gas.

Also, in terms of shooting balls/losenges of plasma, said bolt doesn't have to hold together very long. Exploding would be a desirable effect after going a long distance very, very fast.

But again, these are world specifics. We need to talk about the problem this raises, where 2 GMs with differing ideas on how a sci-fi thing could work could say the other's is "magic" and thus make it not work.

[Empiricist]

Plasma is a form of matter. It would require matter and energy. A Laser would require only energy.

Also, in terms of shooting balls/losenges of plasma, said bolt doesn't have to hold together very long. Exploding would be a desirable effect after going a long distance very, very fast.

When I said exploding, I meant near-immediately. As in, it damages itself and its user.

[WillowLuman]

Plasma is a form of matter. It would require matter and energy. A Laser would require only energy.

Also, in terms of shooting balls/losenges of plasma, said bolt doesn't have to hold together very long. Exploding would be a desirable effect after going a long distance very, very fast.

When I said exploding, I meant near-immediately. As in, it damages itself and its user.

Throw that bolt away at railgun speeds and no problem.

[Empiricist]

Plasma is a form of matter. It would require matter and energy. A Laser would require only energy.

Also, in terms of shooting balls/losenges of plasma, said bolt doesn't have to hold together very long. Exploding would be a desirable effect after going a long distance very, very fast.

When I said exploding, I meant near-immediately. As in, it damages itself and its user.

Throw that bolt away at railgun speeds and no problem.

It would still disperse near immediately. So even if it's propelled at such high speeds that it can't harm its user, its effective range rather abysmal since it would spread out and cool down. It isn't firing an explosive mass as much as it's firing an explosion. Not to mention how it probably isn't too easy to accelerate a mix of particles with opposite charges.

An FEL or Electro-laser would still perform much better with the same amount of energy.

[WillowLuman]

I agree that a laser would be a better use of energy, but you did say "explode," not disperse, previously. Plasma follows magnetic pathways extremely readily: it would not be difficult at all to propel with the aforementioned coil/rail method. The tricky part of the whole thing is making that dense bolt of plasma in the first place.

[Empiricist]

An explosion and dispersion is pretty much the same thing in terms of plasma (the former being a more violent case of the latter), I just used the latter in the hypersonic scenario since it wouldn't really pose a threat to the user (or their enemies at that point). The issue isn't just making it that dense, it's also a matter of stopping it from exploding from that point forth whilst being accelerated.

[WillowLuman]

As long as they're between the rails (the acceleration period) it should hold them together.

I'm going to be honest here: I'm not in much of a mood to argue about plasma weapons. I wasn't even planning on including them in my setting. I just want to establish that they are not, in fact, wizardry. You can give a hard sci-fi explanation for them, even the traditional space opera version of them (impractical as all hell as they may be.)

[Empiricist]

Having hot-plasma touching the weapon's rails sounds like it would be really dangerous. Space-opera variety is not possible since they'd probably just kill the user and won't remain cohesive, but a low-pressure streams are indeed possible realistically.

Anyway, let's get back on topic.