Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!att!cbnews!military From: djm@castle.ed.ac.uk (D Murphy) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Particle Beam Gun Message-ID: <10271@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 16 Oct 89 01:38:08 GMT References: <10149@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10233@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Edinburgh University Chemistry Lines: 64 Approved: military@att.att.com From: D Murphy In article <10233@cbnews.ATT.COM> cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu (Tim Miller) writes: > > >From: cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu (Tim Miller) > > >On 12 Oct 89 03:19:03 GMT, >10e@hpcvia.hp.com (Steven_Tenney) said: > >ST> A few months ago I read a short blurb on the feasability of using >ST> particle-beam technology as a form of future fire power. A particle >ST> beam gun would shoot proton energy pellets. Has anyone heard of this >ST> possibility? I really seriously doubt this. Not only do you have the problem of (see below) energy supplies, you're also trying to shoot a very small, highly charged particle through lots of big, neutral particles. No way - consider that beta-emissions are completely stopped by a few feet of air, even the very high energy ones. Protons wouldn't get very far. > > The thing that bothers me about the feasibility of battlefield >man-killing lasers or particle beams is one of power consumption. They >suck power like MAD. The problem also is linked to the fact that a laser >or particle beam hooked up to an inferior power source is of ZERO >effectiveness rather than reduced effectiveness; read that as useless >without an ideal power source operating perfectly in the field (and >everything fails sooner or later, though usually sooner). > Not only this, but even in vacuum there are feasability problems. On an article (a while ago, so I forget where) it was pointed out that charged- particle beam weapons were rejected for SDI because of the targetting difficulties associated with interference of the earth's magnetic field on the particles (you know how an electric motor works ?). Funny - IMHO that'd be obvious. > I rather like the idea brought up by some military s-f writers: >rather than a laser or other beam weapons, what about a small pellet moving >at .7c or some such insane velocity. They call this type of weapon a >'relativistic BB-gun.' > > Comments? > No chance - not in atmosphere. Maybe the Pentagon are wanting to go huntin' and shootin' bug eyed monsters now that the SU are supposed to be nice guys, but again there is the problem of firing in air. The pellet would have to be really small to be launched at such a speed from a weapon of usable size. Trouble is, air resistance goes up with velocity, so the more energy you put into the projectile, the less efficient it gets. > Timothy J. Miller > cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu IMHO, about the only offensive use of lasers (by offensive I mean not used for target designation and homing) is in blinding the opposition's optical targetting systems - anything from laser homing missiles to eyes. I saw an article (I think in the London Financial Times, or maybe the Economist) about just such a device being developed by the SU. Is this true ? Murff...