Discussion Forum: Extended range DEW, and some terminology

Oh no! Where's the JavaScript?
Your Web browser does not have JavaScript enabled or does not support JavaScript. Please enable JavaScript on your Web browser to properly view this Web site, or upgrade to a Web browser that does support JavaScript.

View Thread

Point Defense Systems » Roleplay & Fluff » Port of Nalthor (Roleplay Forum)

Extended range DEW, and some terminology
Glacialis	#1 Posted on 29-09-2005 17:26
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005	All of the directed energy weaponry present in PDS is particle beam weaponry: a stream of particles that are themselves destructive or are energized to a state where they can be so, accompanied by a mechanism to maintain beam cohesiveness. In the HW universe, this is generally a stream of energized elementary particles. Technically, as soon as you have electrons, neutrons and protons ripped apart due to a highly energetic environment and existing in a cloud of like particles, you have a plasma. But we continue to use the term "ion cannon" because...well, I'm not sure. Perhaps an IC is more energized particles than a true plasma beam -- which indeed might be too energetic to control for long ranges. Witness, the Vagyr Crusader lance (plasma beam). Assault ion cannons (ICAs) rely on a newer matter-to-energy conversion process to produce the stream, while old-style ion cannons are simply giant particle accelerators, taking drive plasma and weaponizing it. A good deal of the energy in the resulting plasma is probably redirected towards velocity, since it's a near-lightspeed weapon. Regardless of whether the particle stream is generated by matter conversion or a reaction in the fusion torch chamber, the result is the same: a highly energized, chaotic mass of particles. Anyway. How do you direct particle beams? If the particles have an electric charge, then a magnetic field can do the job. If they don't...well, we don't use those as weapons in PDS for now. How do you get particle beams to go farther before dissipating? You get a stronger magnetic field. The problem is that they can only go so far from the field projector before field strength wanes, or entropy causes the stream being directed to be too chaotic to control. So if combatant governments were seeking to extend the range of particle beams, they would probably need to do one or more of the following: 1) Produce a stronger EMF. 2) Shape the field in a new way that grants better integrity. 3) Lessen the total energy being projected so that it can be more easily channelled. 4) Lessen the amount of entropy in the particle stream so that it can be more easily controlled. Right away, I'm not sure how to do 4. If the future of particle weaponry has matter conversion as the source of the particle stream, then long, expensive, dangerous conduits for drive plasma are unnecessary. Unfortunately, that space could also have been used to install magnetic field generators that shape the stream so that it is more easily weaponized. Of course, this may already be done! In fact, if this is so, then for reliable ICA beam direction you would need to find new and more efficient ways to manipulate the stream. Why? Because you don't have long plasma conduits that double as entropy-reduction chambers. This could spur development of improved magnetic field geometries. Since matter conversion is done local to the beam emitter, the conversion process itself could also generate the particle mass in a way that's easily weaponized. I don't think researchers would discard any possibility. Wow, nice stream of consciousness on a point I thought was improbable. 1 -- By stronger, I mean a stronger field energy, as in "thicker" magnetic walls. This overall effect may be accomplished with less fuss by 2. More efficient superconductors? This one seems less likely than new field geometries. Speaking of field geometries: Point 2. Heck, even in Star Trek warp fields were made more efficient just by altering their shape. Truth, that's where I first got the idea but I've been a Trek technobabble geek for many years. I think this is the most promising area for development, though it will certainly benefit from any other improvements. My final point, 3, ties much of this together. My initial thought was -- wouldn't it be cool to create a "sniper" ion cannon? I then set my brain to thinking about everything you see above. An extended/extreme range particle beam is going to be different from your average particle beam, or else we would have all particle weapons with this capability. Increase the integrity of the containment field so it can maintain the particle stream over longer distances, by increasing EMF output and using more efficient field geometries. This is great and all, but it occurs to me that sniper weapons aren't so much the weapon of choice in a knife fight, being a specialized distance weapon. Would the modifications necessary to make this an ER weapon make it less useful at standard engagement ranges? My intuition tells me yes, that there is a give and take in such things. What functional changes? Longer range is an obvious one. Less damage to make the beam more manageable out to such a long range, seems acceptable but may not be necessary. But is this total damage or damage per second, because I can see this weapon firing very intense, short bursts (ICA style, maybe even shorter), or a more stable beam firing for a long time but needing to focus on the target for longer to inflict a reasonable amount of damage. The former is the particle version of a .50 rifle, the latter a firehose (which can eventually kill you). I think I favor the .50, less time on target and possible to use against frigates -- even strikecraft. I imagine this weapon's particle stream being generated as an ICA, the Hiigaran equivalent to the Vagyr's use of cartridges for mighty beam weapons. I do not know what the rate of fire should be. Probably double that of an ICA of equivalent power. The intended initial mounting platform and what sparked the entire idea, is a new ship that you will all enjoy very much. The concept is sound, the look is stylish, and it will sneak up on you and kill you. Hopefully with my new gun here . If this starship does mount an ERICA/ERIC, then I can guarantee you it will still be dangerous in closer quarters. It's too pretty not to be. If I'm contradicting anything that doesn't need to be contradicted, please let me know. Discussion very welcome. Edited by Glacialis on 29-09-2005 17:26


Unkn0wn	#2 Posted on 29-09-2005 18:19
Posts: 29 Joined: September 08 2005	Quote 1) Produce a stronger EMF. 2) Shape the field in a new way that grants better integrity. 3) Lessen the total energy being projected so that it can be more easily channelled. 4) Lessen the amount of entropy in the particle stream so that it can be more easily controlled. Perhaps the next step will be to get rid of charged particles entirely and accelerate neutral particles, such as some sort of neutron cannon. They could be accelerated using some sort of artificial gravity system and due to them being uncharged would not lose beam cohesiveness over range. 0wn3d b0n3d unkn0wn3d


Glacialis	#3 Posted on 29-09-2005 18:36
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005	The problem with using electrically neutral particles is that there is no way to keep the beam together.


Nemmerle	#4 Posted on 29-09-2005 18:51
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005	As I see it you focus the beam at the emitter like a flashlight or a laser rather than along the entire length of the beam. It's actually rather misleading to think of it as a beam in that way, say I launch a cannonball at you in space, it's going to continue in that way until a force acts to counter it, a particle accelerator and focusing mechanism in my mind essentially does the same thing with billions upon billions of tiny cannonballs. Which brings to mind the question 'Why aren't all Ion cannons setup for extreme range engagements?' I think the answer is fairly simple, in a manner similar to the way world war 2 fighters had their guns set to converge at a certain distance the particles in the stream would be set to converge at a certain point so as to be most focused at standard engagement distances. Meh, just my two cents.


Glacialis	#5 Posted on 29-09-2005 20:03
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005	The cannonballs in this equation are very energetic. If even one is bumped out of line, it will trigger a cascade that will completely annihilate anything resembling a coherent beam. And quickly. Remember that focusing photons is much, much different than focusing particle streams. These have charges, positive and negative, which will act on other particles in close proximity. We keep them apart (and give the stream some of its damaging qualities) by energizing them so they remain in a near plasma state. Heck, even if we're still dealing with Lithium, Plutonium or whatever else ions, they have been given tremendous amounts of energy and will therefore beat the snot out of something that they impact. I believe that particle weapons in the HW universe do not act at longer ranges because the designers cannot get the beam to keep coherency past a certain distance.


Inert	#6 Posted on 29-09-2005 23:35
Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005	Ion beams are accelerated protons that move near light speed. There is no focusing magnetic field outside of accelerating the protons (which uses a magnetic field). You know the saying an object in motion stays in motion, and utilizing newtonian physics I believe that is still true. Even though the protons can repel each other, they are already slamming into the enemy hull by the time they will be able to get enough distance between themselves, which is why they're not infinite ranges. A set range is made so that the protons will not split apart like water on rock.


Glacialis	#7 Posted on 30-09-2005 00:29
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005	It's not just protons. An ion is simply an atom with one or more electrons added, or missing, compared to the number of protons it has. You have stripped electrons too for the near-plasma state, but still. I understand that a hydrogen ion cannon fires hydrogen atoms (protons) and accompanying electrons, but this isn't necessarily true for plutonium ion cannons or the mess of matter and energy the assault ion cannons output. Do we have any contradicting fluff, manual or otherwise, that says that there is no external magnetic field to help keep cohesiveness for a little bit longer? I believe the particle beams used so far are too energetic to stay together without any sort of assistance. Chaos in a tube.


TelQuessir	#8 Posted on 30-09-2005 01:02
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005	Negative points first. As usual. First, the looks of a ship does not affect its combat performance. Second, I believe that I did not authorise public proliferation of information related to WIP ship models. Especially a certain concept that requires conformity to HGN and HAF operational requirements. Third, there will be no new ships deployed until Apr '06, or until I'm satisfied with the amount of operational input from the combined modelling team. Now, the good points. The above proposal for a ER-IC is a nice read. From that, the practical way to proliferate such a system is to decrease damage while increasing reliability - this concept has already been executed for the Al-Mou'akar heavy cruiser's weapons, and derivative limited refits of Vagyr warships with Taiidani weapons technology. They are effective at both ranged combat (precision attack) and close quarters (multiple batteries of DEWs) - without need for "programming excuses" or other methods of non-technical justification. Thus, I will use a part of this document for background of Taiidani particle beam weaponry, with your permission. Edited by TelQuessir on 30-09-2005 01:03


Inert	#9 Posted on 30-09-2005 01:46
Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005	As long as it is an atom, you can fire it from an ion cannon, hydrogen being the most common material as it is abundantly created I believe from fusion reactors. As for contradicting fluff, no, but it wouldn't make sense. How would a magnetic field work outside the ship for over 10km of distance (10,000km real distance I believe)? The Turanic Raiders use a magnetic field outside their ship, but that's only to accelerate it, which requires magnetic arrays.


MDD	#10 Posted on 30-09-2005 02:05
Posts: 32 Joined: September 26 2005	I always thought those were energy collectors.


Glacialis	#11 Posted on 30-09-2005 03:02
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005	The earth's magnetic field is one vast particle accelerator. Once sufficient knowledge of EMFs has been gained, it should be fairly easy to manipulate them with knowledge of what shapes do what.

Jump to Forum