Directed energy weapons

[avianmosquito]

If you've read my first thread, you know what this is about. Simply put, this is a place for writers to discuss original ideas within a category, in this case, directed energy weapons. If you wish to present an idea, please give somebody else feedback first. I'll start us off.


The first idea: The oxidation blaster. (Don't like that name much, if anybody has a better one, PLEASE tell me.)

Category: incendiary/directed energy weapon
Projectile: O2, 2000-20000k, 10g-10kg
Damage type(s): thermal
Secondary effect: rapid oxidation of target material (burning/rusting/etc.)
Range: dependent on atmosphere (technically infinite in vacuum)
Notes: faster movement results in shorter range

This weapon is simple in theory, complicated in practice. It projects a blast of superheated oxygen, which reacts with the target material upon contact. (Very quickly, due to its high temperature. The higher the temperature, the faster the reaction.) Since most oxidation reactions are exothermic, particularly when it comes to organic matter, this releases more energy, which causes a chain reaction.

This can be particularly violent. A single gram of fat contains 37kj of energy, and even the smallest blaster burns a minimum of a gram after burning through skin, so that's a decent estimate for a lower limit. A fighter's cannons might incinerate an entire human body. 30kg of fat for the typical adult male, that's over a gigajoule (the equivalent of 239kg of TNT) from fat alone in an instant. Even though most of that is thermal (which fuels more reactions) it's still like a bomb (and not a small one) going off.

The thing that makes this most impressive is that most of the weapon's energy is obtained from the target, so very little energy is required to work the weapon. (As efficient as it gets.)

The weapon's mechanism is as such: oxygen moves from a storage tank into a chamber where it is heated and ionized by electrical arcs, then it is propelled out of the barrel and contained within a magnetic bottle until it reaches the target. The bolt itself is rather incandescent, but can only be seen from the front. Gases tend to leak off due to imperfections in the bottle and air resistance (which even the magnetic bottle can't compensate for perfectly) and oxidises with particulates in the air, creating a trail of flame coming off of the bolt, making the bolt look like a comet-shaped fireball. This is rather frightening, and allows it to double as a psychological weapon.

The weapon has a few known issues:

1. The faster the paltform is moving (especially if it is supersonic) the faster oxygen is lost to the atmosphere. This increase is exponential, not linear, (Due to the relationship between velocity and kinetic energy) is therefore not balanced out by the increased speed, and range is therefore significantly increased.
2. The weapon looses its psychological effect in space, as well as some of its power. (Additional oxidation once the bolt's oxygen is used up, no air in space.) Furthermore, the bolt stretches out in a vacuum, lessening power (energy stays the same, but this is a moot point) and making it harder to place the entire bolt on-target. (But easier to land at least some of it.)
3. The weapon is only truly effective against flammable targets. It's fairly ineffective against stone and similar materials, and if you plan on taking down, say, a brick wall, this might be a more effective stategy:

Any feedback? Any weaknesses I missed? Anything interesting you thought of but I didn't? Any ideas of your own? (directed energy weapons only)

[Removed 'Science fiction forum: ' from the title ~NL]

[Mayabird]

It's not in a current story, so it goes here. Unless you're going to actually post these stories you've been talking about.
[line 2]

[avianmosquito]

It's not in a current story, so it goes here. Unless you're going to actually post these stories you've been talking about.
[line 2]

I will post a few short ones here in a while, but I'd have to write a new one that has more than a passing mention of an oxidation weapon of any form. (Although most of them do mention it.)

~~~~

[avianmosquito]

It's not in a current story, so it goes here. Unless you're going to actually post these stories you've been talking about.
[line 2]

I will post a few short ones here in a while, but I'd have to write a new one that has more than a passing mention of an oxidation weapon of any form. (Although most of them do mention it.)

~~~~

Where would I post that, by the way?

[Dark Hellion]

I'll bite...

First, naming convention; if this weapon has been in use for any appreciable period of time by common soldiers someone along the way will probably have thought to themselves "screw that oxidization bullshit, I am going to call it a blaster and be done with it!" If other 'blasters' exist in universe they might call it an oxy blaster or an O blaster (which sounds like a sexual move and may be a humorous reference as well).

Secondly, I have a more technical issue to bring up. Well, a lot of technical issues which I suggest you just root around wikipedia for a while and look up more information on the processes of combustion, oxidization, magnetism and diffusion. From your description of some of the tech involved in the weapon I have to wonder why you don't just remove the oxygen component all together, shove a bigger power source in, and shoot magnetic bottles of atmospheric gases heated into a plasma state. You mention no forms of shielding and if you get the plasma hot enough it doesn't matter what you hit. No armour provides very good defense against taking several million Kelvin in a small, fast-moving, directed packed.

Remember that people don't build weapons as novel demonstrations of physics or chemistry. They build them to murder the fuck out of the opponents. Psychological effects are kinda cool and all, but a scary looking fireball that is stopped by galvanization is no where near as frightening as a boring projectile that blows your buddy into mushy person goop.

[avianmosquito]

I'll bite...

First, naming convention; if this weapon has been in use for any appreciable period of time by common soldiers someone along the way will probably have thought to themselves "screw that oxidization bullshit, I am going to call it a blaster and be done with it!" If other 'blasters' exist in universe they might call it an oxy blaster or an O blaster (which sounds like a sexual move and may be a humorous reference as well).

Secondly, I have a more technical issue to bring up. Well, a lot of technical issues which I suggest you just root around wikipedia for a while and look up more information on the processes of combustion, oxidization, magnetism and diffusion. From your description of some of the tech involved in the weapon I have to wonder why you don't just remove the oxygen component all together, shove a bigger power source in, and shoot magnetic bottles of atmospheric gases heated into a plasma state. You mention no forms of shielding and if you get the plasma hot enough it doesn't matter what you hit. No armour provides very good defense against taking several million Kelvin in a small, fast-moving, directed packed.

Remember that people don't build weapons as novel demonstrations of physics or chemistry. They build them to murder the fuck out of the opponents. Psychological effects are kinda cool and all, but a scary looking fireball that is stopped by galvanization is no where near as frightening as a boring projectile that blows your buddy into mushy person goop.

Thank you for your opinion. I wish to discuss it with you.

1. This is an extratessetrial weapon, and in the language used, "oxidation" (klineag) is a much shorter word than "blaster," (keonusiga) whether written or spoken. I therefore find it unlikely that they would choose "blaster" as a nickname. As for english-speaking peoples, they were never given a name for it, so more likely nicknames are fireball gun/cannon. (Or just "fireball" for the sake of brevity.)

2. I've already done my research.

3. Their are three problems with using atmospheric gases.
A. The weapon sees a good 60% of its usage in space. No gases in space, or at least not enough to work with. What use would this system be there?
B. Atmospheric gases tend to react with themselves at sufficiently high temperatures, and therefore loose some their energy before the opportune moment. We want the weapon to release this potential later, preferably AFTER it leaves the barrel.
C. Most planet's atmospheres do not contain a sufficient amount of reactive gases, such as oxygen, to fuel the secondary reaction that does the vast majority of the damage here.

4. The shielding is provided by the magnetic bottle, which keeps the oxygen from touching the barrel as well as from diffusing and even reduces contact with the air.

5. Technological limitations leave the practical limit to this weapon's temperature to 2000k in a sidearm, 5000k in a larger, handheld-device, 10000k in a cannon, and 20000k for the largest oxidation weapons in existence. (Which can be found on the underside of coalition battleships in significant numbers.) Since the most gas used is 10kg, that comes to... 183mj. (The secondaries from much smaller cannons can get several orders of magnitude higher than that.) I'm not sure whether or not that'll be enough to significantly damage an abrams, but I doubt it.

6. This thing turns enemies into bombs, what more savage killing tool is there? What could be more effective at killing people than a weapon that has a yield a thousand times larger than the energy put into it? Is there anything frightening than explosions, fire and the thought of being burned to death... when you aren't even the one that got hit?

7. Novel? Burning things really fast is a "novel demonstration of physics or chemistry?" Wouldn't that put thermite in the same boat?

[Simon_Jester]

1. This is an extratessetrial weapon, and in the language used, "oxidation" (klineag) is a much shorter word than "blaster," (keonusiga) whether written or spoken. I therefore find it unlikely that they would choose "blaster" as a nickname. As for english-speaking peoples, they were never given a name for it, so more likely nicknames are fireball gun/cannon. (Or just "fireball" for the sake of brevity.)

The point being, they WILL give it a name for brevity.

2. I've already done my research.

What's your background in chemistry and physics? It's quite possible that you think you've done your research, but are mistaken because you don't know just how large the subject is. That's happened to me quite a few times.

3. Their are three problems with using atmospheric gases.
A. The weapon sees a good 60% of its usage in space. No gases in space, or at least not enough to work with. What use would this system be there?
B. Atmospheric gases tend to react with themselves at sufficiently high temperatures, and therefore loose some their energy before the opportune moment. We want the weapon to release this potential later, preferably AFTER it leaves the barrel.
C. Most planet's atmospheres do not contain a sufficient amount of reactive gases, such as oxygen, to fuel the secondary reaction that does the vast majority of the damage here.

The essential problem I see here is making sure that the oxygen hits the target at all. This is going to be a painfully short-ranged weapon, because the extremely high temperature of the oxygen spray means that individual atoms* will have relatively high transverse velocities. You wind up with a spritz of oxygen plasma instead of a concentrated stream, which limits the effect of the weapon.

Also, how do you heat the oxygen inside the gun? If you use a weapon made out of atoms, you're going to have considerable problems with the gun itself getting vaporized at your operating temperatures.

*Or ions? You're up into a temperature high enough to ionize many kinds of atoms...

4. The shielding is provided by the magnetic bottle, which keeps the oxygen from touching the barrel as well as from diffusing and even reduces contact with the air.

Does the magnetic bottle extend outside the gun? How? Does it play a role in preventing your blob of oxygen from dispersing? Remember that average molecular speeds in a gas at thousands of kelvin are on the order of a thousand meters per second. What holds your shots together as they travel to the target? And what keeps them from just stopping dead in air as they lose energy to the surrounding atmosphere?

[Dark Hellion]

Okay, lets try again. Simon covered some and I'll hit the rest.

Please lay out the mechanisms you are using and the assumptions you are making for how this weapon will damage the opposition. It is very hard to judge what it is actually doing without real technical details.

As for the idea of novel, that is exactly what this weapon is. You don't need to turn people into bombs and cremate them with massive chain-reactions. Putting a chunk of metal through them at high speeds works plenty well. Your thermite example really isn't good. Thermite is pretty much just an extension of the generic idea of "fire bad!" and uses chemistry to burn hotter. It isn't trying to do anything fancy, just burn hot as fuck. For the 183mj you are using to power the weapon you can chuck a 10kg spike at hypersonic speeds or heat a couple of mol of helium to a few million Kelvin. And both of these will work against anodized aluminum... you probably need to rethink a weapon that can be defeated by coating your battleship in kitchenware.

[PeZook]

If the thing can't penetrate stone and brick walls, it's going to be a really, really lousy infantry weapon and the Army will drop it quickly in favor of ones that can. Not that it's a reasonable drawback: why would super-hot plasma be ineffective against pottery?

[Shroom Man 777]

Personally, my preferred direct energy weapons are those rayguns from Mars Attacks! Clearly, turning people into colorful skellingtons is superior to the weapon proposed in the OP.

[Feil]

Does it matter to the plot how it accomplishes its effect? Can't you just say, "This here gun kills people right the fuck dead by making them burn and/or explode. The soldiers call it a Klinke; the brass call it a Klineag Keonusiga; the human brass calls it an Oxidization Blaster, and the human soldiers call it an O Blaster or just a Big O. It doesn't work against stuff not susceptible to a redox reaction."

The moment you start to apply science to sci-fi, you are going to run into three problems.

1: Most new ideas are bad, because if they worked, or worked better than old ideas, they would be old ideas.
2: You aren't a physical scientist, and therefore you lack the toolset required to know which new ideas, or which parts of your new ideas, are the bad ones.
3: If this technology existed, it wouldn't be a new idea and it wouldn't be sci-fi. Therefore you're going to have to make it up. You're going to have to design it. That means that at some point along the line, you're going to either be blatantly wrong (because you aren't a professional engineer of the year 2410), or you're going to say, "This here part just works; here are its effects." It's just a question of whether you say that about individual parts or the technology as a whole.

[Starglider]

This has all the usual problems with plasma weapons; specifically, the whole 'magnetic bottle' concept is bullshit. Even if it was possible to make the bottle, which as far as we know it isn't, the amount of energy contributed by the oxidisation reaction is so small compared to the kinetic and thermal energy of the bolt as to not be worth the hassle. You are definitely not going to get all the chemical potential energy in the target, because oxide layers will quickly form and limit the reactive surface. If you have the technology to make ridiculous magnetic bottles, you can simply shoot a shell filled with nano-thermite or some similar incendiary at very high velocity. Such a weapon would be easier to build, more reliable (doesn't rely on reacting with target), much longer ranged and have the option of shooting standard tungsten penetrators to deal with armored targets.

A projector spraying superheated oxygen (explosively expanding from near-LOX densities) might have some merit as a replacement for a flamethrower. It would be a short range specialised weapon for clearing defended positions. Even there I can't see it being a viable option compared to all the other crazy advanced infantry weapons that a civilisation who could make those magic magnetic bottles should have (e.g. personal backpack VLS loaded with smart microscale cruise missiles).

Finally if you're going to ignore all sense and do it anyway, use fluorine instead of oxygen, more energy density, nastier byproducts, and it's just inherently cooler.

[Purple]

I agree with the above and also, call it the Oxygen or Fluorine Incinerator.
It just sounds cooler.

[Serafina]

Okay, general advice for all sci-fi technology:

Is it effective?

That seems to be a question that way to many sci-fi authors do not ask.
As an example, the typical ST handheld phaser is a lousy infantry weapon. It can't penetrate any kind of cover, modern body armor would be quite effective at stopping it, and the design of most of the handguns is just lousy.
It also lacks anything to compensate, with the possible exception of a great ammo capacity.

If you introduce any weapon (or indeed any piece of technology) you should ask yourself if it is actually more effective (or at least efficient) than modern equivalents.

It has already been pointed out how this weapon would be inefficient.
Furhtermore, you wouldn't actually want chain reactions from your handheld weapons, since they might endager your own soliers. If there is another option, a military force would go for controllable destruction (at least for ground warfare).

[PeZook]

Another thing: getting sprayed by your enemy's burning fat in CQB is a really, really bad thing - so that's another place this weapon is close to useless. If you shoot an enemy in a tight corridor or small room, you want him to fall down and quit being a threat, not explode violently. Even if your soldiers are Stormtroopers wearing fully-enclosed suits, it still threatens to set the building on fire.

[Purple]

I just thought of something, would a weapon like this not be right at home combined with a grenade launcher? You could presumably use variable compression to wary the amount of gas in a grenade and the weapon would be superb for things like lobing one through a window and watching the enemy burn.

Although that is already way outside of your original concept, I thought it would be nice to point it out as an option.

[Simon_Jester]

Okay, general advice for all sci-fi technology:

Is it effective?

That seems to be a question that way to many sci-fi authors do not ask.
As an example, the typical ST handheld phaser is a lousy infantry weapon. It can't penetrate any kind of cover, modern body armor would be quite effective at stopping it, and the design of most of the handguns is just lousy.
It also lacks anything to compensate, with the possible exception of a great ammo capacity.

In the phaser's defense, at high power settings it does have truly amazing stopping power against unarmored targets. You don't get much more stopped than "completely disintegrated."

It has already been pointed out how this weapon would be inefficient.
Furhtermore, you wouldn't actually want chain reactions from your handheld weapons, since they might endager your own soliers. If there is another option, a military force would go for controllable destruction (at least for ground warfare).

This is mostly true for small arms. For antitank weapons or artillery, the rules change and it becomes acceptable to cause secondary explosions and such. If these "oxygen blasters" or whatever work as advertised, they do have certain useful applications. For example, they are an excellent counter to depleted uranium armor (which is flammable), though since depleted uranium is typically layered with ceramics, the effect may be rather limited.

I might be able to see it as a special support weapon in certain conditions.

[Shroom Man 777]

The "weakness" phaser has might be due to the fact that the firefight is happening indoors, maybe inside a spaceship, and so they just make their pew-pew phaser pulses more "anti-personnel", lethal to people only without causing damage to surrounding things. Seeing as how the Federation is a bunch of limp-dicked science majors, why not?

[avianmosquito]

I just thought of something, would a weapon like this not be right at home combined with a grenade launcher? You could presumably use variable compression to wary the amount of gas in a grenade and the weapon would be superb for things like lobing one through a window and watching the enemy burn.

Although that is already way outside of your original concept, I thought it would be nice to point it out as an option.

The idea of an oxidation explosive? Yeah, we call that a fuel-air bomb, look it up.

~~~~

[avianmosquito]

Another thing: getting sprayed by your enemy's burning fat in CQB is a really, really bad thing - so that's another place this weapon is close to useless. If you shoot an enemy in a tight corridor or small room, you want him to fall down and quit being a threat, not explode violently. Even if your soldiers are Stormtroopers wearing fully-enclosed suits, it still threatens to set the building on fire.

Well, it is a secondary weapon, (in the infantry) so it shouldn't have to be used out of ideal contexts. You wouldn't see a soldier firing his grenade launcher indoors when he/she's got a perfectly good assault rifle, now would you?

[avianmosquito]

Okay, general advice for all sci-fi technology:

Is it effective?

That seems to be a question that way to many sci-fi authors do not ask.
As an example, the typical ST handheld phaser is a lousy infantry weapon. It can't penetrate any kind of cover, modern body armor would be quite effective at stopping it, and the design of most of the handguns is just lousy.
It also lacks anything to compensate, with the possible exception of a great ammo capacity.

If you introduce any weapon (or indeed any piece of technology) you should ask yourself if it is actually more effective (or at least efficient) than modern equivalents.

It has already been pointed out how this weapon would be inefficient.
Furhtermore, you wouldn't actually want chain reactions from your handheld weapons, since they might endager your own soliers. If there is another option, a military force would go for controllable destruction (at least for ground warfare).

A more efficient modern equivalent to a weapon small enough to fit on the bottom of your rifle, (which is where the smaller models belong, they aren't pistols) destroying an entire building (only if it's made of flammable materials, but hey, most are) and for wounding (or at least stunning) an entire infantry squad if you hit any one of them? I don't think so. Nonetheless, I do more or less agree with you, and it's not like this is an all-purpose weapon.

[avianmosquito]

This has all the usual problems with plasma weapons; specifically, the whole 'magnetic bottle' concept is bullshit. Even if it was possible to make the bottle, which as far as we know it isn't, the amount of energy contributed by the oxidisation reaction is so small compared to the kinetic and thermal energy of the bolt as to not be worth the hassle. You are definitely not going to get all the chemical potential energy in the target, because oxide layers will quickly form and limit the reactive surface. If you have the technology to make ridiculous magnetic bottles, you can simply shoot a shell filled with nano-thermite or some similar incendiary at very high velocity. Such a weapon would be easier to build, more reliable (doesn't rely on reacting with target), much longer ranged and have the option of shooting standard tungsten penetrators to deal with armored targets.

A projector spraying superheated oxygen (explosively expanding from near-LOX densities) might have some merit as a replacement for a flamethrower. It would be a short range specialised weapon for clearing defended positions. Even there I can't see it being a viable option compared to all the other crazy advanced infantry weapons that a civilisation who could make those magic magnetic bottles should have (e.g. personal backpack VLS loaded with smart microscale cruise missiles).

Finally if you're going to ignore all sense and do it anyway, use fluorine instead of oxygen, more energy density, nastier byproducts, and it's just inherently cooler.

Flourine? It'd work fairly well, and I'd imagine you could use both, but it needs oxygen anyway. But, a few questions regarding the idea.

1. What about in space? Flourine is an oxidising agent, it needs oxygen to work. (Though I do suppose you could mix the two, but that would be something only useable in atmosphere.)

2. Do we really want toxic gas being released, with all possibilities of us having to breath it if the wind blows in our direction, and the degredation of the planet's atmosphere due to their effects?

3. Wouldn't flourine be rarer, and therefore more expensive?

Interesting idea for terrestrial applications. It might make a good additive for atmospheric combat, increasing the burn rate and the amount of secondary damage. (Further increasing the grenade-like effect of the weapon.)

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

1. What about in space? Flourine is an oxidising agent, it needs oxygen to work. (Though I do suppose you could mix the two, but that would be something only useable in atmosphere.)

Did you fail high school chemistry? Have you even taken high school chemistry? I read this statement, and it makes me want to weep. Do you even know what "oxidation" means?

[avianmosquito]

Does it matter to the plot how it accomplishes its effect? Can't you just say, "This here gun kills people right the fuck dead by making them burn and/or explode. The soldiers call it a Klinke; the brass call it a Klineag Keonusiga; the human brass calls it an Oxidization Blaster, and the human soldiers call it an O Blaster or just a Big O. It doesn't work against stuff not susceptible to a redox reaction."

The moment you start to apply science to sci-fi, you are going to run into three problems.

1: Most new ideas are bad, because if they worked, or worked better than old ideas, they would be old ideas.
2: You aren't a physical scientist, and therefore you lack the toolset required to know which new ideas, or which parts of your new ideas, are the bad ones.
3: If this technology existed, it wouldn't be a new idea and it wouldn't be sci-fi. Therefore you're going to have to make it up. You're going to have to design it. That means that at some point along the line, you're going to either be blatantly wrong (because you aren't a professional engineer of the year 2410), or you're going to say, "This here part just works; here are its effects." It's just a question of whether you say that about individual parts or the technology as a whole.

I understand the limits of science fiction. When it comes down to it, I've already run across a few points where I've no explanation but "this just works." (Namely the magnetic bottle.) The effect is meaningless without knowing at least the basic mechanism of them, of course. (Big explosion when it hits a person, so without knowing the basic mechanism you might think it's a viable anti-tank weapon at this point.)

1. What about in space? Flourine is an oxidising agent, it needs oxygen to work. (Though I do suppose you could mix the two, but that would be something only useable in atmosphere.)

Did you fail high school chemistry? Have you even taken high school chemistry? I read this statement, and it makes me want to weep. Do you even know what "oxidation" means?

[avianmosquito]

1. What about in space? Flourine is an oxidising agent, it needs oxygen to work. (Though I do suppose you could mix the two, but that would be something only useable in atmosphere.)

Did you fail high school chemistry? Have you even taken high school chemistry? I read this statement, and it makes me want to weep. Do you even know what "oxidation" means?

You sound like a real dick right now, thought I'd mention that.

No, I quarantee you high school chemistry presented me no issues, and in hindsight I did have a brain lapse here because of the way I've always used flourine. (Just to get a fire started.) I screwed up and got application confused with properties, saru mo ki kara ochiru, not a big deal.

~~~~