General > Discussion
Particle Beam Weapons: More Than Just Flashlights?
Aiki-Knight:
It's nice to see educated players really thinking about the game's concepts. I'm learning a lot. Please, science-majors, feel free to hash it out and maybe edit the UFOpaedia as required!
Darkpriest667:
the main problem ive encountered with particle "beam" weapons is the radiation created from the reaction and energy needed to force particles to near the speed of light
Even if you could hold the weapon and not be killed by the recoil the radioactive isotopes created by the initial reaction would kill most people. not immediately mind you. But depending on the distance from the reaction anywhere from a couple of hours to a couple of days .
the military similarly had a problem with what they called ETC weapons.. Electro thermal chemical projectiles..
Doctor J:
The great old tabletop RPG Traveller had a book called "Fire, Fusion and Steel", which walked the reader through the creation of weapons or vehicles to order. The writers did have to make some assumptions, but had quite a bit of hard research under their belts. Anyway to get to the point, the section on particle accelerators was quite informative as to the how and whys of charged particles [better in atmosphere] and neutral particles [better in vacuum]. Ions or subatomic particles can be accelerated to near light speeds, and at such speeds relativism kicks in and effectively increases the mass. The main problem in making a small particle accelerator is not the amount of energy required, but the length of the barrel [called a 'tunnel'] required to focus the beam. Keep in mind that in Traveller particle weapons were typically used as the spine of a battleship, though they were also seen as the main armament on some high-tech tanks. I tried designing a man-portable particle accelerator, but the effective range was only three meters - hardly worth it! Suffice to say that every game designer has to make their own assumptions.
DanielOR:
My degree is, indeed, in physics. This has potential to be seriously embarrassing - I know for a fact at least one more Ph D lurks here. Please, please correct me - it has been a while since I've taken relevant classes.
A particle's energy, the sort one gets in an accelerator, is on the order of a MeV - Mega electron Volt. That's an electron accelerated though a field of 1,000,000 Volts. The trouble here is "e" - the charge of an electron - 1.62 x 10^(-19) Coulombs - a very tiny number. Kinetic energy of a *single particle* in Joules is tiny.
By comparison, a 10 g (0.01 kg) bullet traveling at MAC 1 (134 m/s, close enough) has the kinetic energy E = m v^2 / 2 = just under 90 Joules
So, are particle guns doomed? Not quite... First, inside a particle accelerator particles travel in bunches (honest geek term), though I won't hazard a guess of how many (little help, my brethren?) Main point: it ain't the kinetic energy of a particle beam/bunch that kills - at least not by blunt force trauma. A particle beam flies through a target and all the particles have a great chance to hit the atoms that make up a target. Resulting in other particles, more collisions, creation of X-rays and all sorts of radiation. None of the above is healthy for breathing things. Imagine putting Fluffy in front of a strong beam. For starters, Fluffy gets a small-ish hole where the beam passes. I imagine the area around the hole also gets well heated. And if Fluffy is OK with that, the ionization (ripping away of electrons) of most of the tissue will do serious immediate damage to the nerves, and eventual death from radiation sickness.
What makes particle guns not useful as hand-held weapons today is
1) size - As Dr. J pointed out small particle accelerators don't do much (your microwave ain't no rifle) and the strong ones tend to need a very large room at least.
2) absorption by the atmosphere - the particle bunches travel (are stored) in accelerator rings that are pumped down to vacuum. Shoot them in the air and they particles start hitting the air molecules and the beam looses lethality pretty quick.
Applications: best bet is space-borne platforms that shoot particle beams at missiles, damaging them by burning holes and melting the electronics.
Limitations: simple dense cloud cover would be a limiting factor for effectiveness AND space weapon platforms are not too maneuverable, which means would be easy targets. A bit on the expensive side for a disposable weapon.
Sorry for the rent. Please, please check this for unintentional BS. I will do my best to look up details if there is interest.
Darkpriest667:
Daniel the USAF is testing particle weapons for ramjets and scramjets for OOA (out of atmosphere) use. they have been testing them for about 15 years. Why has no one mentioned the rail gun (guass cannon) technology really surprises me. Its much more developed and reliable in an atmosphere environment.
the problem i foresee with the bunches is that once the particles leave the tube their direction is not very controllable. Also again you guys are failing to address the energy issue.
How much energy are we talking about using to shoot 15 or 20 particles
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version