Blasters, Plasma Torpedoes, and Magnetic Monopoles

[Khas 12,158]

There are several theories as to how blasters work. The first is that they're lasers. The second, that they're particle beams. The third, is that they're plasma weapons. This will work under the assumption that they're plasma weapons. As well as somethings about the mind-bendingly powerful plasma torpedo from Star Trek "Balance of Terror". Seriously, any weapon that can completely pulverize a two-mile wide solid iron shielded asteroid in just two shots is nothing to sneeze at. But let's begin.

 

Plasma's inefficiency as a weapon.

 

You see, even in space, plasma makes for terrible weapons. Why? Because plasma likes to dissipate, spread out and cool. And it does so after just a few meters as well. The only reason that stars don't do this is because of their tremendous mass, meaning that their gravitational fields hold them together. Plasma dissipation is true in both vacuums and atmospheres. So then, how are plasma beams stable in sci-fi? Well, aside from absurd mass, there is another theory. Magnetic monopoles.

 

What are "magnetic monopoles" you ask? Magnetic monopoles are subatomic particles with just one magnetic pole, as opposed to two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

 

Given that plasma can be contained with magnetic fields, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine mixing these with the plasma to create a magnetic field with which to contain the plasma. Also, it explains how you can have one without having to project it.

 

Another thing. Magnetic monopoles are theorized to be massive -but stable- particles, as no other particle is predicted to actually have a magnetic field. It could be that the times we see things blowing up before the turbolaser bolt hits them is in fact a wave of monopoles, as they are more massive than protons or neutrons, and are travelling at the same speed. Makes more sense than the visible part of a turbolaser being a "tracer". How do you even have a tracer for an energy weapon, anyway?

[Vince 520]

Acording to ISD the flaw is that the energy required to sustain magnetic bottles makes the energy output of most plasma weapons moot. Maybe the sheer energy (gigas-terras tons) yields of TL's actually makes such magnetic confinement more feasible.

[Khas 12,158]

Or, magnetic monopoles were never considered.

[T'lonak 500]

After looking at what I could find, Magnetic Monopoles only exist as a hypothetical quasi-particle resulting from a hypothetical calculation applied to a hypothetical branch of science, for the purpose of explaining unproven hypotheticals.

 

In any case, it simply cannot be applied: even the experts themselves have absolutely no idea what they are talking about here: at all.

 

The Plasma Torpedo is large and powerful, and can easily be explained as requiring a large expendeture of power to maintain: it was stated to be a massive draw on the ship's engines in it's first appearance in TOS.

 

I can's say anything for turbolasers or blasters at all: they act like every other "laser gun" effect I've ever seen in fiction, and in Star Wars 3 you need actual, physical ammunition to fire them.

 

 

This leans towards an odd possibility of turbolasers (in particular) being tracer-projectiles. Still have nothing on blasters.

[Khas 12,158]

Or, those could just be run-of-the-mill flak cannons.

[scvn2812 504]

Its not perfect but I think the short lived exotic particle beam theory fits the visuals of the movies best with regards to turbolasers. It may also fit blasters, since blasters don't generally show damage effects before the glow arrives, just assume a hand gun designed to hit targets within a dozen meters can't push a particle beam as fast as a ship mounted artillery piece designed to hit targets from many kilometers away.

[Khas 12,158]

Except that magnetic monopoles are theorized to be stable. But yeah, this is the best I've got.

[scvn2812 504]

In the case of plasma torpedoes, might it be possible that the containment field is generated and continuously supported by the firing ship or is warp based and does not decay immediately when the power is cut off?

 

Figuring out B5 beam weapons might be trickier, especially for Earth Force.

[Khas 12,158]

Yeah. Well, they're said to be "particle lasers", whatever the flying fuck that means. Considering that a particle beam is a kinetic weapon, and lasers are light-based, we're left with the conclusion that this was either a screw-up, or no one knows what they're talking about.

[scvn2812 504]

I've never heard the term particle laser used on screen. For that matter, I'm not sure I've even heard "laser" used on screen. B5Wars labels most of the beam weapons lasers but unless the visible beams are a contrivance for the audience (which works for fanon but not so well for objective analysis) then its hard to pin down what they are.

[Airlocke 12,014]

Particle laser. Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft

[Khas 12,158]

That's what B5Tech said their weapons were.

[Airlocke 12,014]

pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

[Khas 12,158]

And Wikipedia.

[T'lonak 500]

Or, those could just be run-of-the-mill flak cannons.

 

I've heard that before. The problem is they are shooting Turbolasers and not "flak" of any kind. I don't remember flak being a single red-glowing projectile... thing. Flak usually results in flak. We even see a few shots pass right through openings on the Venator, ans shots from the Venator do the same to the Invisible Hand. Both had the same effect: blowing up a turbolaser, and tossing people/droids around the room.

 

Why would I believe that they are "flak" guns when they are placed like Turbolasers and shoot Turbolaser rounds?

[Khas 12,158]

Or, it could be as the EU says, and they're canisters of Tibanna gas.

[T'lonak 500]

Or, it could be as the EU says, and they're canisters of Tibanna gas.

 

That makes more sense. So 'Turbolasers' load containers of compressed gas, ionize the gas, force it into a projectile-like bolt, and shoot it towards the target. It also explains why 'turbolasers' are built in such a conventional gun-like fashion: they load in the containers like cannon shells.

 

 

 

[Khas 12,158]

And to keep the plasma from dissipating, magnetic monopoles fired out alongside the plasma bolt generate a magnetic field to keep it together.

[T'lonak 500]

I must admit, I have no idea what that would do. Wouldn't it make the bolts much to easy to deflect? For example: a turbolaser with a positive charge would easily deflect from a shield (or armor) with the same charge.

[Khas 12,158]

Well considering magnetic monopoles come in both north and south polar varieties, we'd get a magnetic field with tons of poles going every which way pretty much. So, there would be no distinct magnetic polarity to the bolt.

[T'lonak 500]

Then how is it coherent enough to form a bolt?

[Khas 12,158]

Bolt, beam, pulse, same difference.

[T'lonak 500]

What I meant was, if the monopoles are all over the place, giving the weapon no distinct charge, how it it coherent enough to be a weapon?

[Khas 12,158]

Oh. It's that their magnetic field keeps the plasma in place.

[Airlocke 12,014]

I must admit' date=' I have no idea what that would do. Wouldn't it make the bolts much to easy to deflect? For example: a turbolaser with a positive charge would easily deflect from a shield (or armor) with the same charge.[/quote']

 

Well considering magnetic monopoles come in both north and south polar varieties, we'd get a magnetic field with tons of poles going every which way pretty much. So, there would be no distinct magnetic polarity to the bolt.

 

Or you could have both positively AND negatively charged bolts, insuring that some shots are ALWAYS bleeding through the shields........I dunno, though.