Rush Rayment
   |
Posted - 2010.06.02 03:40:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Rush Rayment on 02/06/2010 03:41:15
Okay. Time for real insight.
AC Ammo would actually be smaller than the 42.5cm barrel diameter. At a guess, perhaps 42cm, in order to actually leave the barrel. Due to the now much reduced size, less propellent would be needed to fire, and therefore, less damage to the ship firing it. In addition to this, 42 cm diameter fits the bill for impactive ammuntion, rather than penetrative. That is, is designed to smash the object apart, instead of going through it. All projectile weaponry is designed to do this. You'll find that it scales with weapon size, ofc.
Hybrid weapons. I assume you understand the basic principles of electromagnetic acceleration, yes? The round is either fired by pulling a negative (or positive) round to a base plate with reverse polarity, causing attraction. Then, by flipping the polarity, you effectively propel the round away with the sheer repulsion of the polarities. Or, the round is accelerated through an electromagnetic polarity gradient, and the resultant speed between the polarities is the induced round velocity. Thus, with immense speeds such as these, even simple steel would have the penetrative power to punch through the armour of a ship. Of course, we aren't taking into account what the armour is made of.
Blasters. Here, you use so much incorrect particle physics, it's untrue. You are somewhat correct about the electrons stripping away the outer electrons, however, no such thing as an 'electron ball' would be formed, only that the armour plating would then be ionised with a positive charge, and to be honest, i have no idea what effect that could have on the armour plating of a ship. Perhaps then, that you could fire another shell, containing a reducing or oxidising agent at the same spot, which would cause the electron configuration to change, resulting in a totally different alloy/element for the armour, meaning it may have a lower resistance to penetration, or w/e. In addition to this, free moving electrons are never unstable, unless in the same space as an anti-electron, in which case, yes, an explosion would occur, but to create this, you would need to create the anti-electron first, which, by the way, is bloody hard to do.
Lasers. Firstly, yes, lasers could be used. Microwaves would work, as provided the frequency is high enough, you could, theoretically, burn through the armour of a ship. The only way that you could 'fry the humans inside' is if you were to microwave the entirety of the ship in question, which would require significant amounts of energy, not to mention a focusing prism of enough size to create a microave of that size. Multifrequency is just multiple lasers firing at once, yes? Well, if you diffract light, you get a diffraction grating, which, is the same as a rainbow. Now, who's to say that you couldnt fire gamma rays through a multi-grated diffraction plate, which would then produce multiple wavelengths, and thus frequencies of EM radiation. Lastly, visible light can cut through objects, as that is what modern day cutting lasers do. I believe that it is carbon boring lasers that are used, I might need to check on that.
Lastly. Lasers are instantaneous, yes. However, railguns also fire shells at speeds of over 5000mp/h, which, to something 30km away, would seem like instant. Insofar, there is no such thing as a nuclear fusion reactor, as this tech could be used for instant, totally renewable energy, also known as cold fusion. Infact, the water vapour in the air, if hydrogen was taken out of it, could be used to fuel the ENTIRE world, for, well, a bloody long time. Protons could never directly power your ship, unless they undergo the photoelectric effect, but, even then, would not provide enough power for everything on your ship. And the neutrons would simply annihilate everything.
Yeh, I study physics. And some of this may be wrong, it's 4:38 at time of posting :P
Just nit-picking. :)
|