Discussion Forum: Sugestion for fluff of ballistic weaonry

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)

Page 1 of 2: 12

Sugestion for fluff of ballistic weaonry
Glacialis	#1 Posted on 14-02-2007 15:55
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma-powered_cannon Basically, creating a small plasma discharge in the barrel of a weapon to propel a slug. All this is, is a little bit of fluff we might add to ballistics in the PDSverse. Research into plasma weaponry and fusion reactors would have provided an ample amount of data on the most efficient plasma discharge, while superconducting materials and the near mastery of electricity available at the time should make this very feasible. Even as a personal sidearm. I don't know if this method or the magnetics involved in coil guns/railguns/gauss guns would be more efficient. Edited by Glacialis on 14-02-2007 15:56


Knare	#2 Posted on 15-02-2007 05:27
Posts: 75 Joined: December 31 2006	I would believe thats how they do it. I am not sure there is any other way to really have such control of unstable materials.


Glacialis	#3 Posted on 15-02-2007 16:35
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005	What?


prithvi19	#4 Posted on 15-02-2007 17:00
Posts: 59 Joined: November 28 2006	:lol: Knare you have be a little more specific. Anyways, plasma guns could feasibly only work outside of any atmosphere since the plasma bolt would be dissipated as it leaves the barrel otherwise. But then you run into the trouble of actually finding gas to ionize when you are in space. Sure there is ample hydrogen gas floating around but not nearly enough to even light a stove, so thats no good. So the way I always figured it is the Homeworld ships use some of the ships own atmosphere to actually create the plasma bolt. Then they can use electromagnets or otherwise to propel the bolt out where it meets no resistance, until of course it eviscerates the opposing ship's hull.


Glacialis	#5 Posted on 15-02-2007 17:08
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005	I'm refusing the urge to say "what the hell are you guys reading?", and will instead say, "Please read the article I linked to." This has nothing to do with weaponized plasma.


Ironwatsas	#6 Posted on 15-02-2007 19:59
Posts: 856 Joined: October 21 2005	Using electormagnets to shoot bullets is the best way to go, and existing canon clearlty states that most projectile weapons in use by the named canonical factions in the Homeworld universe and many of the non canonical ones use the Railgun or Coilgun principal to fire larger projectiles. Smaller projectiles are fired either by chemical propellant or the afformented plasma charge, though the former is generally easier to manage due to the complications of controlling energised gas. The main reason why smaller guns usually don't use magnets is because creating a fast cycling electromagnet that fires lots of projectiles taxes the powerplant far more then a much bigger gun firing once every couple seconds. Inversely, a large calabre chemically propelled gun versus a railgun of similar calibre would put much more wear and tear on the barrle and be far more dangerous and would result in a lower velocity, accuracy, and damage then a Railgun. With a small chemical projectile weapon, these deffeciencies are far easier to cope with and are even a boon to the weapons performance (The higher margin for error in the bullet spread against guided missiles and fighters). As for direct use of plasma as a weapon, there are several ways of doing this. The most obvious would be to take the drive energy created from a ships powerplant ans siphon it off through a heat exchanger system to a weapon port were it is focused into a beam, sphere, or toroid via magnetic fields and accellerated by venting it's own energy. Self contained plasma weapons would use some combustable cocktail of pressurised gases and again using magnets, fire them down a heating unit until they are ignited with a laser ignitor, wrapped in a magnetic field and launched downrange. Then there's the principal of heating a solid piece of metal to the point where it's outer surface hit's plasma state and as usual using magnets to launch it downrange. This can sometimes, depending on the materiel used, leave a semi-solid core which can casue additional damage from the kinetic energy of impact. Feel free to poke holes in my various theories, but there's some answers to play with.


Glacialis	#7 Posted on 15-02-2007 20:05
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005	There are already directed plasma weapons. This is not one of them. I beg to differ that creating plasma for ballistics purposes would in any way affect the reactor. All it requires is electricity. Controlling this "energized gas" poses zero problems. It's similar in concept to using a CO2 cartridge. Really, it's quite elegant.


Ironwatsas	#8 Posted on 15-02-2007 20:42
Posts: 856 Joined: October 21 2005	Some races in the Homeworld universe probably do use plasma propelled projectiles and some don't. It all comes down to the cost/efficiency/technology ratio of whoever's using the weapon system.


prithvi19	#9 Posted on 16-02-2007 02:22
Posts: 59 Joined: November 28 2006	my bad glacialis. I thought they were using the plasma itself as the weapon. I agree it does sound like the same theory as a co2 cartridge. I could see the hiigarans using plasma propelled projectiles since they are more technologically advanced so to say and seem to love to use expensive toys.


Knare	#10 Posted on 16-02-2007 02:39
Posts: 75 Joined: December 31 2006	Quote prithvi19 wrote: my bad glacialis. I thought they were using the plasma itself as the weapon. I agree it does sound like the same theory as a co2 cartridge. I could see the hiigarans using plasma propelled projectiles since they are more technologically advanced so to say and seem to love to use expensive toys. I thought the same thing, the plasma was the projectile, not the munition propellant.


Glacialis	#11 Posted on 16-02-2007 03:18
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005	Sorry I came off as snippy earlier, but I deal with people at work who don't read what I write them and then bring up my points in meetings that make me sound like an idiot then I have to correct them and... Blargh. Point is, I hate meetings. And electricity to create an expanding "puff" of plasma might be cheaper in terms of energy cost than using magnetic fields alone.


prithvi19	#12 Posted on 16-02-2007 05:51
Posts: 59 Joined: November 28 2006	Thats alright man. We all have to deal with idiots that are everywhere unfortunately. So bear with me while be one but consider the following. The electricity requirement overall is possibly going to be lower for the plasma creation at lower level guns but as you go up in caliber, the expansion required would be enormous to accelerate a slug = a high volume of matter in plasma state = massive amounts of required energy in one burst. May get to a point where its cost prohibitive. And you have to consider the gun itself because it has to be able to cope with the massive pressure increase and the plasma, which again, would be incredibly high in large caliber cannons on ships. Theres probably a sweet spot somewhere after which its cheaper to use electromagnets.


Glacialis	#13 Posted on 16-02-2007 13:23
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005	I'm not sure where that sweet spot is, but I got to thinking, for larger weapons why not use both? The extra push from plasmic expansion may be enough to add a little extra oomph if the components can handle it, and the energy cost isn't high. You're right though, it's probably better to use on smaller weapons that are accelerating lesser masses. Or, come to think of it, even larger ballistic platforms with extremely high rates of fire. No moving parts, or at least if there are any, there's not going to be as many as a railgun.


prithvi19	#14 Posted on 16-02-2007 15:59
Posts: 59 Joined: November 28 2006	Yeah for the larger caliber fast firing weapons weapons you could have a system like a cthode ray tube with a + terminal and a - one. It will function much like a combustion chamber in a car if you know what i mean. you could have numerous discharges of electricity in a given minute and that gun will be spitting out metal like theres no tomorrow. Which there wont be for the opposing ship . This system could also be used in the faster firing guns of interceptor class ships.


Knare	#15 Posted on 16-02-2007 20:32
Posts: 75 Joined: December 31 2006	Gauss cannons have no moving parts except the projectile. The plasma powered cannon would have to have some kind of valve to move the gases around.


Mostly harmless	#16 Posted on 16-02-2007 22:33
Posts: 141 Joined: September 15 2005	Not sure about the cheapness side. Essentially a well made gauss needs no maintenance and you have greater flexibility in the projectile shape. You shouldn't need to replace barrels.


Inert	#17 Posted on 17-02-2007 04:08
Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005	I don't see the difference between using a plasma-powered cannon as opposed to a normal mass driver.


Glacialis	#18 Posted on 17-02-2007 15:04
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005	What did we decide was the method of propulsion for mass drivers? Coilgun/gaussgun or railgun?


Ironwatsas	#19 Posted on 17-02-2007 17:19
Posts: 856 Joined: October 21 2005	All of the above.


Mostly harmless	#20 Posted on 17-02-2007 19:15
Posts: 141 Joined: September 15 2005	If your using a propellant you need to seal the projectile against the barrel as its the expansion of the gases that pushes the shell out. If a projectile is magnetically drawn down the barrel no seal is not needed. Gaps are an advantage.

Page 1 of 2: 12

Jump to Forum