|
Post by caiaphas on Feb 24, 2017 3:02:57 GMT
Sorry, what do you mean that the jury is still out? The link pretty much definitely states that plasma weapons are not going to be practical in any sufficiently hard scifi setting.
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Feb 24, 2017 3:59:03 GMT
While I doubt that a plasma impactor would be worthwhile at long ranges, the armature which propels a payload is frequently partially or completely converted to a plasma during high energy firing events, and close in the entire armature/payload exits together whatever it's condition.
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Feb 24, 2017 7:27:00 GMT
And why do you want plasma, anyway? I don't. My initial comment was just for amusement, akin to "a cat is fine too". A gun that's supposed to shoot osmium discs at 100km/s shooting plasma rings instead would still be cool even if it's useless.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Feb 24, 2017 9:28:13 GMT
And why do you want plasma, anyway? I don't. My initial comment was just for amusement, akin to "a cat is fine too". A gun that's supposed to shoot osmium discs at 100km/s shooting plasma rings instead would still be cool even if it's useless. I will have no talk of cats and magneto-hydrodynamic rail drives, weaponized or otherwise on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 24, 2017 14:36:21 GMT
I don't. My initial comment was just for amusement, akin to "a cat is fine too". A gun that's supposed to shoot osmium discs at 100km/s shooting plasma rings instead would still be cool even if it's useless. I will have no talk of cats and magneto-hydrodynamic rail drives, weaponized or otherwise on this forum. Cats are amazing!
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Feb 24, 2017 17:38:18 GMT
I will have no talk of cats and magneto-hydrodynamic rail drives, weaponized or otherwise on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Feb 24, 2017 18:01:22 GMT
I will have no talk of cats and magneto-hydrodynamic rail drives, weaponized or otherwise on this forum. In before American Pigeon Bombs and Russian Dog Mines. Don't mind me just shit posting my way to godhood.
|
|
|
Post by theholyinquisition on Feb 24, 2017 22:43:54 GMT
Sorry, what do you mean that the jury is still out? The link pretty much definitely states that plasma weapons are not going to be practical in any sufficiently hard scifi setting. Because of this, this, another article, you get it by now, and all of these, which the Atomic Rockets link does not mention/
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Feb 24, 2017 23:52:20 GMT
Sorry, what do you mean that the jury is still out? The link pretty much definitely states that plasma weapons are not going to be practical in any sufficiently hard scifi setting. Because of this, this, another article, you get it by now, and all of these, which the Atomic Rockets link does not mention/ The first one makes plasma toroids with masses in the single-digit milligram range and fires them at 400 km/s max (80 kJ of kinetic energy), the second is talking about plasma jets containing at most only several hundred joules of thermal energy and in fact only tested jets of up to 200 J, the third is accelerating only 5·10 13 protons or in other words less than 1·10-10 grams at 150 km/s (less than a joule of kinetic energy), the fourth doesn't discuss the masses they're accelerating as far as I can see but does mention that for the plasma gun to maintain "efficient energy transfer" e.g. the thing doesn't heat excessively or melt itself to with thermal transfer they need to "[maintain] a low plasma density", which is the exact opposite of what you want with a weapon, the fifth is actually pretty promising in terms of raw kinetic energy (in the tens of MJ) but doesn't address other general issues which I'll address below, the sixth discusses toroids with masses in the 0.1 mg range and velocities of around 140 km/s (around 1 kJ of kinetic energy), and the seventh gives me zero information that is useful for the purposes of this discussion. None of them, insofar as I can tell, discuss the issue of containing what is basically a very hot ideal gas without it dispersing over ranges of well over 1 Mm and transit times more than several microseconds, or three to four orders of magnitude less than they'd take to cross a 1 Mm gap. All of these also discuss the acceleration of frankly ridiculously small amounts of mass (the second paper, for instance, states in their conclusion that "The clean hydrogen plasma jet with a density >2·10 22m-3, total number of accelerated particles (1-5)·10 19 and a flow velocity >200 km/s" which after some basic math gives me a mass of around 8.3·10 -2 milligrams and a frankly pathetic kinetic energy of around 2 kJ) and are all discussing the injection of fuel into a fusion reactor, which the Atomic Rockets link does mention. Given the masses they're accelerating the resulting plasma toroids, if you can magically stop them acting like a very hot gas and dispersing into nothingness by the time they hit the target, are also going to have next to zero armor penetration capabilities, since that's much more dependent on momentum transfer and the stress that process exerts on a surface (or in other words, even a Whipple shield would laugh at it). There is nothing here that indicates to me that these will be at all practical as weapons, and in fact a lot of what they are saying, such as, again "we need to keep plasma density low" which is the exact opposite of what you want for a weapon, indicates that it might be physically impossible for that to happen. There's a better, more general explanation of why plasma weapons won't work here, which the Atomic Rockets page also links to. EDIT: apologies, the Atomic Rockets page doesn't mention the use of plasma guns to inject fuel into tokomak reactors. The StarDestroyer.net page I linked above does, however.
|
|
|
Post by nerd1000 on Feb 27, 2017 6:15:38 GMT
Isn't coilgun projectile heating dependent on the length of said projectile? For that, pancakes actually make sense. Not sure if magnetic acceleration is equal enough on its surface to avoid shattering, though. I'm pretty sure that the coils would also try to shrink the projectile. That gun pretty much fires a sheet of metal foil-it's not going to shrink like a coin, instead it will buckle and scrunch up into a compacted mass.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 1, 2017 6:17:59 GMT
Ever since the update (1.10) all the stock gun stats have changed. Working on updating them... stay tuned... Type | km^2 | 10m^2 | m^2 | Velocity | Shot Mass | Rounds | Joules/shot | Joules/sec@100%hit | Rate_Fire | Pow.Draw | Cost |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nuke Turreted Cannon | 8 km | 2.5 km | 1.4km | 1.12km/s | 115,001 g | 100 | 10,200,000,000,000 | 12,240,000,000,000
| 1.20 rps | 1 MW | 19,300 kc | HE Turreted Cannon | 9 km | 2.9 km | 1.7km | 1.31km/s | 39,801 g | 250 | 114,200,000 | 121,052,000
| 1.06 rps | 1 MW | 4,160 kc | 22 mm Turreted Cannon | 10 km | 3.1 km | 1.7km | 1.37km/s | 10 g | 1000 | 9,388 | 143,050
| 20.66 rps | 0.194 MW | 8.09 kc | 120 mm Cannon | 11 km | 3.3 km | 1.9km | 1.47km/s | 10,000 g | 0 | 10,808,214 | 22,697,249
| 2.10 rps | 0.060 MW | 1,200 kc | 1200 mm Cannon | 12 km | 3.9 km | 2.2km | 1.73km/s | 1,000,000 g | 500 | 1,496,964,054
| 718,542,746
| 0.48 rps | 13 MW | 124,000 kc | 60 mm Turreted Cannon | 13 km | 4.1 km | 2.3km | 1.82km/s | 10 g | 5000 | 16,568 | 422,650
| 25.51 rps | 0.423 MW | 18.6 kc | 33 mm Cannon | 16 km | 5.1 km | 2.9km | 2.25km/s | 5 g | 5000 | 12,661 | 258,411
| 20.41 rps | 0.258 MW | 10.4 kc |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Flak Turrented Coilgun | 17 km | 1.9 km | 0.6km | 2.34km/s | 20,200 g | 1000 | 54,900,000
| 740,052,000
| 13.48 rps | 13 MW | 4,000 kc | 8mm Coilgun | 18 km | 5.8 km | 3.3km | 2.54km/s | 47.4 g | 1000 | 152,955 | 3,413,956
| 22.32 rps | 0.200 MW | 24.9 kc | Flak Coilgun | 33 km | 10.4km | 5.8km | 4.57km/s | 20,100 g
| 500 | 54,900,000
| 114,192,000
| 2.08 rps | 1 MW | 89,900 kc | 286mm Turreted Coilgun | 36 km | 7.7 km | 2.5km | 5.14km/s | 10,000 g | 1000 | 132,143,438 | 1,014,861,604
| 7.68 rps | 13 MW | 19,400 kc |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3mm Railgun | 36 km | 10.7km | 3.4km | 5.06km/s | 2.5 g | 10,000 | 32,015 | 586,195
| 18.31 rps | 0.200 MW | 60.4 kc | 11mm Turreted Railgun | 37 km | 4.9 km | 1.5km | 5.18km/s | 1 g | 10,000 | 13,421 | 1,947,924
| 145.14 rps | 13 MW | 380 kc | 8mm Turreted Railgun | 46 km | 5.9 km | 1.9km | 6.37km/s | 15 g | 10,000 | 304,431 | 11,315,700
| 37.17 rps | 29 MW | 1,160 kc |
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 15, 2017 9:13:37 GMT
Since 1.1, are Cannons esp relevant again?
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Mar 15, 2017 9:30:28 GMT
Cannon is still on the short range side of the armament but still really good for drone as they are dirt cheap compared to railgun and coilgun.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 15, 2017 14:03:44 GMT
its not that hard to mount a railgun on a drone though, my 38t drone has a 3Mw (capacitor) railgun
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Mar 15, 2017 14:10:11 GMT
Cumbustion guns: cheap, but I'm not going to lie but they are still damn useless against very generic lasers.
|
|