View Thread
Page 2 of 2: 12
|
 Anti-DEW DFG Proposal
|
|
| JustinWick |
Posted on 24-09-2005 03:15
|
 Posts: 18 Joined: September 24 2005 |
Some posts above are indeed correct in saying that it would be exceptionally difficult to alter the path of a relativistic ion beam. I believe this to be rather correct, with some minor modifations. Essentially the question must be answered - in what way would a relativistic ion beam cause damage to a target? I would suggest that the primary method of damage would be in the penetration of a target's armor, due to the immense concentration of momentum involved in a reletivistic ion burst. This concentration is both spatial and temperal in nature - forcing a small cross section of armor to dissapate a large amount of energy over a very small time. So the question then becomes how to stop this? Well relativistic particle flows create a magnetic field around themselves (not exactly a containment field, in fact there is no way to contain the particles without introducing something else into the mix, such as some kind of electromagnetic pulse that they "ride" along with). The ions are, of course, quite succeptable to magnetic fields, however there remains issues involving time scales. The truth is that the amount of time during which a relativistic ion beam would be interacting with a defense shield would be extremely small. Speed of light is 3x10^8 m/s, so if the barrier field were, say, 10 meters thick, the interaction time would be on the order of 30 nanoseconds. The field strength required to make a significant alteration in velocity during this time would be incredibly enormous. So I would suggest that the best strategy would be to employ a disruptive "screen" that would tend to spread the pulse out in both space and time. Unfortunately we are still talking about energies on the order of a tenth of the energy required to fire such a blast. There is good news, however. Electromagnetic fields can hold extremely large amounts of energy in them. If one were to, say, use a very strong magnetic field powered by a superconducting energy ring, one could disrupt incoming ion pulses significantly. Another interesting tidbit is that the energy required to maintain this may actually conceivably be sapped directly from the particles themselves - their relative motion is an incredible source of energy. THerefore I would propose a mechanism similar to a Magnetohydrodynamic Energy Generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_gene..._generator), in which a magnetically confined field of plasma surrounds a ship, with enough density that the ion pulses impact it, transferring some of their momentum to the plasma, which inducts current into the shield coils, adding energy into the system. I would say that this type of system would allow for effective REDUCTION in the amount of damage an ion pulse would cause, however I doubt it would be much more than half (this depends greatly on the strength of the field etc). I would also suggest that if one were implementing this in real life, that the density of the shield be variable over space, where it would be denser in areas more likely to be hit by the enemy. ALso bear in mind that the angle of incidence on the field would have a profound effect on its effectiveness. Perpendicular impacts would have the least interaction time/depth and therefore be reduced/absorbed the least. Near misses would be absorbed much more strongly, possibly completely. Another limiting factor of this system could be that the impacts cause significant amounts of the plasma to escape the system and into space. That would mean the plasma needs regularly replenshed. In the long term this may not be a problem but a lot of pounding in the short run could reduce the effectiveness of the screens considerably. A secondary method of stopping this type of weapon would be to have floating "plates" that were somehow held in place outside of the ship. If the weapon impacted one of these plates, it would pierce through it, but would be scattered heavily. The plates could possibly be constructed so as to only develop holes over time, rather than degrading completely... This method is dubious because I'm not certain how you could possibly hold these plates in place while maintaining large accellerations. These plates could be replaced with some kind of liquid (mercury?) if necessary. Another note - photonic weapons (lasers, EM pulses, etc) could possibly be deflected through similar means. A plasma with a significant amount of turbulence and a high enough optical density (and strong nonlinear interaction coefficients) could also conceivably defeat incoming high energy EM weapons by reflecting, refracting, scattering, or absorbing (via ionization processes, etc) incoming EM pulses. The "plate" idea could also be used. Disclaimer - I do research involving magnetic field interactions with relativistic ion beams 
===================================
Who would sup with the mighty must climb the path of daggers. |
|
|
|
| yasotay |
Posted on 24-09-2005 05:43
|
 Posts: 637 Joined: September 09 2005 |
um.... yeah. 
Edited by yasotay on 24-09-2005 05:43 |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 24-09-2005 09:10
|
 Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
Superconductors don't create energy of themselves. They could conceivably store a potion of energy without decay, but the energy they can store is by no means infinite. AN MHD generator might be of use in sustaining the field if you could set it up to draw power from the impacts on the plasma around the ship but it wouldn't help much in gathering the energy required to produce the field in the first place. You'd really need a continuous energy output of, well we'll go with a tenth of the energy from the weapon. Considering that the weapons are burst devices I think it is unlikely that you'll ever get that while you have a comparable level of technology to the threat force. Edited by Nemmerle on 24-09-2005 09:13 |
|
|
|
| JustinWick |
Posted on 24-09-2005 23:00
|
|
Posts: 18 Joined: September 24 2005 |
Superconductors don't create energy of themselves. They could conceivably store a potion of energy without decay, but the energy they can store is by no means infinite. -- SNIP -- You'd really need a continuous energy output of, well we'll go with a tenth of the energy from the weapon. Considering that the weapons are burst devices I think it is unlikely that you'll ever get that while you have a comparable level of technology to the threat force. See... that's the really beautiful thing about large electromagnetic fields. You can store *enormous* amounts of energy in a large field... so even if ion pulses tend to disrupt the field temporarily, the energy that's sustaining the field would NOT have to be bursted, you can think of the field itself acting like a capacitor. Because non-burst power is generally easier to create, this would give a huge advantage to defense in this situation. Combining this with MHD regeneration, and you're set (that's not to say this draws no energy, just that it draws more like a relatively constant amount of energy). Also bear in mind that superconductors can hold a large amount of current inside them and that individual shots are unlikely to disrupt the entire current (although I suppose if you oversaturated the superconductor it could transition into the nonsuperconducting phase, heat up and then explode from the collapsing magnetic field). ===================================
Who would sup with the mighty must climb the path of daggers. |
|
|
|
| Amur_Tiger |
Posted on 27-09-2005 07:49
|
|
Posts: 2 Joined: September 27 2005 |
Correct me if I'm wrong but essentially you're saying that magnetic fields don't expend any energy outside of the inefficiencies of their generation components unless they're interacting with something. |
|
|
|
| DeathReaperBob |
Posted on 27-09-2005 08:36
|
 Posts: 25 Joined: September 10 2005 |
two observations i wanted to note about ion beams. 1) dont they power up before they fire? i always see the glowing ball at the barrel about a second before the beam comes out 2) isnt the destructive power of an ion cannon really carried out in full because it is a duration based weapon. as in it sits there and grinds away at the hull. last time i checked ion cannons didnt fire a pulse, but it was a continuous beam. here are my conclusions 1) if we see it charging, wont that give us some indication of when its going to fire. granted we might not know what its targeting, but we could severly narrow the firing range simply by where the turret or gun is pointed. 2) even if its impossible for us to intercept a near light speed beam, because the ion cannon is depenent on continuous fire, even a disruption AFTER intial impact would still greatly reduce the effects. An ion cannon that burns your hull for half a second isnt going to deal nearly as much as a 1 second (or however long) duration ion cannon beam. to be honest, i dont think the first point is really that significant simply because you would still be playing a guessing game as to which ship in the firing range is going to get hit. thats my 2c. |
|
|
|
| MDD |
Posted on 28-09-2005 02:45
|
 Posts: 32 Joined: September 26 2005 |
I don't suppose a mirror type of armor would have much effect on particle weapons? Not that you could even protect a mirror finish with all the mass drivers plinking away at it. But perhaps some sort of prism effect? |
|
|
|
| DeathReaperBob |
Posted on 28-09-2005 03:42
|
|
Posts: 25 Joined: September 10 2005 |
ion beams (and hence ions) are not light particles. last time i checked, you couldn't bounce ions off mirrors nor difract them with prisms. as far as I can tell (and i could be wrong) the only way to effectively manipulate ions is with charged fields that would interfere with the charged nature of ions. |
|
|
|
| DeathReaperBob |
Posted on 28-09-2005 04:08
|
|
Posts: 25 Joined: September 10 2005 |
yes but the force of the initial kinetic impact is still no more than that of the followup beam. its like a getting sprayed by a fire hose. the initial blast of water, other than being a shocker, really has no more force than everything after that (i.e. the continous pounding stream). |
|
|
|
| MDD |
Posted on 28-09-2005 05:56
|
|
Posts: 32 Joined: September 26 2005 |
It could work against lasers. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 2: 12
| Jump to Forum |