PDA

View Full Version : Why isn't there any anti-matter weapons?



lethalfang
April 23rd, 2005, 08:33 PM
Anti-matter weapons will blow up pretty much everything it touches, or at least everything that I can think of at this point.
As a big honking anti-matter space gun, why don't you have an anti-matter core, say, positively-charged positron, that is to be surrounded by negatively-charged electron (confine the electrons on fixed objects do they do not fall apart themselves), so it would stay this way for a while.
Upon engagement, you make that above mentioned object and you shoot that sucker toward the enemy ship. Even if if they have a big shield, the impact on the shield will bounce the positrons and electrons together, and KAAAAAAAA-BOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMM! :eek:

_Owen_
April 23rd, 2005, 08:49 PM
Theoretically an antimatter weapon would be the most effective weapon, I have thought of this but never got around to posting it. However an antimatter weapon would also be higly unstable and would be a lot more work to maintain than any other weapon.

If you were to have a weapon that fired antimatter, the firing mechanism and the weapon itself would also have to be made of antimatter. This entire weapon would then have to be encased in a forcefield, like a protective skin, it would never be able to tough anything except other antimatter and forcefields. This force field would have to be constant, the antimatter that it would fire would have to be encassed in an antimatter container that would then be encased in another force field, when the container of antimatter is inserted into the weapon it the forcefield would need to be deactivated, releasing the antimatter into the weapon, then the forcefield would have to be reactivated to remove the case. Having the weapon cased in a force field indefinetly would be extremly dangerous because if the force field was deactivated, by accident or on purpose, it would have the reverse effect than the one you were looking for. The weapon could also be constantly in an oribt around Earth, but then it would be incredibly hard to reload, and incredibly easy to destroy, a quick burst of momentum in the wrong direction, the orbit decays, BOOM goes the Earth. The weapon could have thrusters though, but the thrusters would also have to be antimatter. The idea of the weapon is a good one, but it would also be a lot of work, however there are some situation were it would be worth it.

Sorry about the writing guys.

Owen Macri

6thMonolith
April 24th, 2005, 05:12 PM
Anti-matter weapons will blow up pretty much everything it touches, or at least everything that I can think of at this point.
As a big honking anti-matter space gun, why don't you have an anti-matter core, say, positively-charged positron, that is to be surrounded by negatively-charged electron (confine the electrons on fixed objects do they do not fall apart themselves), so it would stay this way for a while.
Upon engagement, you make that above mentioned object and you shoot that sucker toward the enemy ship. Even if if they have a big shield, the impact on the shield will bounce the positrons and electrons together, and KAAAAAAAA-BOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMM! :eek:

Good point. There would be a huge Kabooooooooommmmmmmmmmmm!, so it does make sense for Anti-matter to be used. I have two guesses to why its not used: Shields may protect against it magnetically, and its way too expensive.

I dont think that making an anti-matter weapon would be hard, if you had the anti-matter. All you need to do is contain a (fairly large)pellet of Anti-matter in a magnetic field, and use the field to fire it so it doesn't hit anything else. But then you have the problem of creating the pellets, but it is a TV show after all.;)

_Owen_
April 24th, 2005, 07:05 PM
it is possible please read my previous post, but it would be hard, and much more trouble than it is worth.

Owen Macri

Macilnar
April 24th, 2005, 07:41 PM
it is possible please read my previous post, but it would be hard, and much more trouble than it is worth.

Owen Macri

Read the "Angels&Demons" it has a way to store anti-matter rather easly, I don't know if it would really work though because I haven't got any anti-matter.

_Owen_
April 24th, 2005, 07:50 PM
I assume that Angels and Demons is a book? If so I probably won't have time to read it. Could you possibly tell me how they stored antimatter, I am curious to know what they came up with.

An antimater gun would be more trouble than it's worth, however, an antimatter bomb, now there are some possibilities.

Owen Macri

Macilnar
April 24th, 2005, 08:03 PM
I assume that Angels and Demons is a book? If so I probably won't have time to read it. Could you possibly tell me how they stored antimatter, I am curious to know what they came up with.

An antimater gun would be more trouble than it's worth, however, an antimatter bomb, now there are some possibilities.

Owen Macri

In the book a "reverse polarity vacuum to pull the antimatter positrons out of the accelerator before they decay...applied a magnetic field. Matter arced right, and antimatter arced left...(the antimatter is stored using) two intersecting magnetic fields..."

I hope that exsplanes it if not than just read pages 75 to 76. of the book I would type them but I really don't feel like doing that right now (It is 11:00pm after all).

_Owen_
April 24th, 2005, 08:33 PM
Thank you that does help. I believe that has much potential of working, that is pretty much what I was getting at with the forcefields. It is possible, and it would be a kick-ass weapon, but a gun to fire antimatter would be a lot of work to mainatain. However as I said before, anti-matter bombs have a lot of potential.

I think I will read the book anyways, it sounds good, thank you.

Owen Macri

Macilnar
April 24th, 2005, 08:35 PM
Hope you like it.

mindgamez
April 24th, 2005, 11:14 PM
I see 2 simple reasons most would never deploy anti-matter weapons.

First it is a finite resource where most races in the Stargate universe use energy weapons with more longevity. It may be very powerful but it is still ammo.

Second either each ship or base would have to have some device to create, package and store the anti-matter or there would be complex and lengthy supply lines to keep their weapons armed while away from the production area.

Jarnin
April 25th, 2005, 12:09 AM
Antimatter Weaponry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weaponry)

As for why they don't use it in the shows, I don't know. I'm guessing most of the races are still getting around using fission and fusion. The ancients are way beyond Antimatter though, with their ZPM system.

Here's the reason why we don't have antimatter weapons right now (from Wikipedia):
There are two major obstacles on the way to the creation of antimatter weapons. First of all, creation of antimatter requires enormous amounts of energy. Even if it was possible to convert energy directly into particle/antiparticle pairs without any loss, a large-scale power plant generating 2000 MWe would take 25 hours to produce just one gram of antimatter. Given the average price of electric power around $50 per megawatt hour, this puts a lower limit on the cost of antimatter at $2.5 million per gram. Quantities measured in grams or even kilograms would be required to achieve destructive effect comparable with conventional nuclear weapons: one gram of antimatter is equivalent to 43 kilotons of TNT. In reality, all known technologies involve particle accelerators and they are highly inefficient, making the production of antimatter much more expensive. It is estimated that an antimatter factory could be operated at a cost of $25 billion per gram.

The second problem is the containment of antimatter. Antimatter annihilates with regular matter on contact, so it would be necessary to prevent contact, for example by producing antimatter in the form of solid charged or magnetized particles, and suspending them using electromagnetic fields in near-perfect vacuum. Another, more hypothetical method is the storage of antimatter inside a buckyball. Because of the repulsion of all the carbon atoms, the antimatter would never combine with its opposite and no energy release will occur.

In order to achieve compactness given macroscopic weight, the overall electric charge of the antimatter weapon core would have to be very small compared to the number of particles. For example, it's not feasible to construct the weapon using positrons only because of their mutual repulsion. The antimatter weapon core would have to consist primarily of neutral antiatoms. Antihydrogen is easiest to produce, but it has gaseous form at room temperature, making it hard to contain. Heavier atoms are easier to contain but harder to manufacture.

Crazedwraith
April 25th, 2005, 10:12 AM
naquadah enchanced nukes are much more effective and less dangerous to use.

We haven't the tech to build antimatter weapons at all. We'd need strong reliable forcefiled tech.

_Owen_
April 25th, 2005, 01:19 PM
As for the wikipedia quote, it is only not practical on Earth, now, in our universe, in the stargate universe, energy costs nothing, there are billions of planets, tons of them don't have currency, pick one. Plus we have more advanced technology in the stargate universe. Actually an antimatter weapon would be much more effective, antimatter destroys any matter that it comes in contact with, they anhilate each other, and the residual explosion would be tremendous.

Owen Macri

Mr Prophet
April 25th, 2005, 01:34 PM
As for the wikipedia quote, it is only not practical on Earth, now, in our universe, in the stargate universe, energy costs nothing, there are billions of planets, tons of them don't have currency, pick one.

Money does not equal cost.

Even if you have no monetary price on energy generation, you still have to mine or acquire fuel, build and maintain a power station, transfer the energy to your antimatter production facility (which you must also build and maintain), create and maintain your containment units and connect them to your projector. All of this costs, in terms of labour, materials and research if not in hard currency.

_Owen_
April 25th, 2005, 01:51 PM
No I agree with that, that it does "cost" several things to generate antimatter, on another planet, currency would not be one of them. I am sure that the asgard or someone have a more effiecient way of generating antimatter, even if they don't use it.

Owen Macri

Jarnin
April 25th, 2005, 05:15 PM
No I agree with that, that it does "cost" several things to generate antimatter, on another planet, currency would not be one of them. I am sure that the asgard or someone have a more effiecient way of generating antimatter, even if they don't use it.

Owen Macri
Time = Money. It doesn't matter what planet you're on, or if you use currency or not, when a person invests time into a project, they're investing something that has value.

Like Mr. Prophet said, you still have to design, build, and maintain a means to produce the antimatter in the first place, which takes time. It's cost prohibitive to produce antimatter for us, as I pointed out. Sure, aliens might be able to produce antimatter in a cheaper manner, but it's still going to cost them time, which is valuable.

_Owen_
April 25th, 2005, 05:29 PM
I understand that, however it is possible that there is a way of producing antimatter that does not require one to sacrifice said time.

Also if the need was great enough I think people, at least people involved in whatever event is, has, or will cause the need for the antimatter, will sacrifice thier time, if it will help in the event that is, has, or will cause the need.

Owen Macri

Jarnin
April 25th, 2005, 06:25 PM
I understand that, however it is possible that there is a way of producing antimatter that does not require one to sacrifice said time.

Also if the need was great enough I think people, at least people involved in whatever event is, has, or will cause the need for the antimatter, will sacrifice thier time, if it will help in the event that is, has, or will cause the need.

Owen Macri
You're totally missing the point: You cannot generate antimatter without spending time and energy. You might be able to lessen the time and energy with better technology, but the fact is, you still have to spend time and energy.

I suggest you do some reading on the subject before dismissing what is being said here.

Mr Prophet
April 26th, 2005, 10:10 AM
I understand that, however it is possible that there is a way of producing antimatter that does not require one to sacrifice said time.

Also if the need was great enough I think people, at least people involved in whatever event is, has, or will cause the need for the antimatter, will sacrifice thier time, if it will help in the event that is, has, or will cause the need.

The real question would be, if you can create the energy to do that so easily, why piddle about with unstable antimatter as a middleman? Just build broadcast-energy death rays, accelerated particle cannons or the like. Antimatter isn't magical and every conversion loses energy.

Actually, that last isn't necessarily true, since there are transfers in Stargate with efficiencies of above 100%.

aAnubiSs
April 26th, 2005, 10:27 AM
Why use positrons? Much better to use Anti-Protons. Personally I'd pref. not use Anti-Matter as a power source due to it's unstable nature, however as weaponary it's a totally different thing.

Containment and energy is the biggest problem with Anti-matter in real life. However in SG1-verse we've got anti-gravity tech and combined with magnetic currents containment would be easy. With sofisticated energy fields(mostly anti-gravity) there wouldn't be a problem accelerating the particles(or plasma if you want plasma based weapons). The energy part is probably mostly due to our primitive conversion methods (proton beam into argon gas I believe).

If alien races also have problems converting M->AM then a missile based weapon system would be the best since they could store the AM for a long time and they wouldn't risk a force field collapse.

Personally I'd prefer an AM-based unmanned weapon system, a sattelite or something, both offensive and defensive. They would stay in orbit(defensive) and fly around and target stuff(offensive) and slowly converting M->AM and after a fire fight collect the debris and start converting back to full storage capacity if AM.

My guess as to why they don't use AM in SG1 is because it's too powerful compared to everything else we've seen.

Macilnar
April 26th, 2005, 12:32 PM
You're totally missing the point: You cannot generate antimatter without spending time and energy. You might be able to lessen the time and energy with better technology, but the fact is, you still have to spend time and energy.

I suggest you do some reading on the subject before dismissing what is being said here.

I think you miss your own point. EVERY thing requires one to spend time and energy; just typing a post requires time and energy, so to us that as an argument against the practibility of producing antimatter is pointless and obscured. As for the "cost" of making antimatter; I recommend that you do a little more reading. One does not need to make antimatter because it occurs naturally; this is called “Zero Point Fluctuations”. The only problem is that when the antimatter "pops" into existence it does so with its counterpart and they annihilate each other, so all one has to do is find a way to isolate the antimatter before it has time to annihilate its self along with its counterpart.

I am sorry if I seam like a jack *** here but I cannot stand it when people are telling some one off when it seams as though they them self’s don’t take their own advice first. I don’t clam to know every thing about this, or anything for that matter, but I do not go tell people off when I have not done my research first. And I am not saying that you don’t know what your talking about, for all I know you’re a Quantum Physicists (although I doubt it), but you should check and see if the person you are telling off might be right.

_Owen_
April 26th, 2005, 02:01 PM
You're totally missing the point: You cannot generate antimatter without spending time and energy. You might be able to lessen the time and energy with better technology, but the fact is, you still have to spend time and energy.

I suggest you do some reading on the subject before dismissing what is being said here.

I am aware that it will take time and energy, and Macilnar took the words right out of my mouth, everything takes time and energy. Normally it would be difficult to make anti-matter, with our methods, and yes it would take a lot of time and energy, however if you were in the middle of a war and faced with two options, a little extra work, or complete and total anhilation. Now I admit, the complete and total anhilation would be cool because it would probably be gory, or include some special effects, but personaly I would take the little extra work option.

As for me reading up on the subject before I dismiss what is being said, I would not dismiss anything without having the proper facts, or unless I overlooked something and did not notice. I might only be in grade 8 but I still know what is needed to argue a point in this subject and many, many others.

To conclude, I accpet the fact that it takes time and energy, but who is to say that time and energy aren't worth it in the end.

Owen Macri

Mr Prophet
April 26th, 2005, 02:17 PM
I wonder if there isn't a more relevant question on this topic:

Why should there be antimatter weapons?

_Owen_
April 26th, 2005, 02:22 PM
Yes I believe that would be a more relevant discussion than the one sided argument we are curently fighting.

Owen Macri

6thMonolith
April 26th, 2005, 04:43 PM
--


Why should there be antimatter weapons?


KAAAAAAAA-BOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMM! :eek:
:D

_Owen_
April 26th, 2005, 05:35 PM
Lmao, That pretty much explains it!!!

Macilnar
April 26th, 2005, 08:08 PM
I wonder if there isn't a more relevant question on this topic:

Why should there be antimatter weapons?

There shouldn't be an antimatter weapon.

_Owen_
April 26th, 2005, 08:11 PM
Please elaborate, I am already interested, lol.

Owen Macri

Mr Prophet
April 27th, 2005, 09:32 AM
--
:D

As opposed to the perfectly good kabooming weapons they've had so far.

Stargate just isn't hard enough SF for it to matter if they have or haven't got antimatter weapons. They have big space guns that go boom; isn't that enough? If they wanted a bigger space gun that went extra boom with fries, they'd just have a bigger spacegun; no antimatter need apply.

So the question of whether they could extract enough antimatter or not is redundant. As Owen says, maybe the aliens can, and that's the size of the debate. It's fiction. If they wanted it so, the aliens could make enough antimatter and they'd have antimatter guns. Therefore, the question is not 'why no antimatter howitzers?' since the answer to that is just 'because'. The question is, 'is there any compelling reason to have antimatter weapons as opposed to ill-defined boomy space guns that make a noise in vacuum?'

_Owen_
April 27th, 2005, 01:30 PM
I personnaly think it would be cool to have antimatter weapons, however when you think about it, they are not practical in many situations. For example most ships have shields, the antimatter won't be effected by the shield and it will just float in space, it wouldn't even blow up. If the ship didn't have shields they could just use normal weapons.

If they were making a large scale attack on people who didn't have shields, perhaps they were on a planet, they wouldn't need antimatter because there weapons are just as powerful. The antimatter explosion probably won't effect our new enemy (see seaon 9).

There would be a time and a place where antimatter would be extremly useful, and would come in handy, however, in stargate, at present there is no need for it.

While I maintain my original point, that antimatter weapons would be cool to have, I also agree with Mr. Prophet, in saying that there is no need for them. However, the need could arise.

Owen Macri

lethalfang
April 27th, 2005, 03:29 PM
I personnaly think it would be cool to have antimatter weapons, however when you think about it, they are not practical in many situations. For example most ships have shields, the antimatter won't be effected by the shield and it will just float in space, it wouldn't even blow up. If the ship didn't have shields they could just use normal weapons.

If they were making a large scale attack on people who didn't have shields, perhaps they were on a planet, they wouldn't need antimatter because there weapons are just as powerful. The antimatter explosion probably won't effect our new enemy (see seaon 9).

There would be a time and a place where antimatter would be extremly useful, and would come in handy, however, in stargate, at present there is no need for it.

While I maintain my original point, that antimatter weapons would be cool to have, I also agree with Mr. Prophet, in saying that there is no need for them. However, the need could arise.

Owen Macri
Why can shields stop anti-matter weapons?
If you have a positron core plus an electron outer container with protons in between, the impact on the shield should bounce them together, and the energy created should overwhelm any reasonable shield strength.
The one reason I can think of to be against it, is that it's a big-time weapon of mass destruction. It just creates one big BOOM and wipes out everything in its path.

_Owen_
April 27th, 2005, 06:22 PM
Allright yes, that is true, and I agree, antimatter is a powerful weapon, however without a need for it I don't see a point to using it instead of our regular weapons, they can overwhelm many shields as well, it would also be difficult to transport.

Owen Macri

Gregorius
April 28th, 2005, 08:56 AM
Why can shields stop anti-matter weapons?

Because it would stop the matterp container with Anti-Matter in it, and must likely breach it. The Anti-Matter inside would then react with the matter outside the shields creating an explosion. This explosion could be easily absorbed by good shields.

What most of you are forgetting is that anti-matter can't be fired upon a ship/vehicle/person without a container (Most of you seem to think it's like an energy blast). If shot without a container it would directly react with matter. This is why it is a very unpredictable and almost useless weapon. The enemy would only have to breach the container to stop it. Furthermore could the enemy, by breaching the container just after it has fired, destroy or at least decimate your troops.

aAnubiSs
April 28th, 2005, 09:11 AM
Gregorius: What you want with AM-weapons is for it to react with normal matter.

Shields probably use a particle field, and AM would take down the shields faster then normal matter would, then it would move on the the hull and do massive damage.

This is of course about space warfare. AM in an atmosphere would be useless.

Supreme Thor
April 28th, 2005, 09:58 AM
I think the best way that an AM weapon would be most effective is if we could somehow adjust its frequency to match the shield's. That way, we wouldn't have to worry about the shields, and it would hopefully send a chain reaction.

It would be quick and clean as they say.

_Owen_
April 28th, 2005, 03:37 PM
A way of making the antimatter go through the shields would be to have the container slightly out of phase, and then "rephase" it with the same phase as the ship is in, the antimatter would have to be encased in an antimatter container, encased in a forcefiled, however, when the antimatter leaves the ship the forcefield can be dropped. This would just be a precautionary measure so that it didn't destroy your ship by accident.

Owen Macri

Supreme Thor
April 29th, 2005, 10:57 AM
If the AM missile/weapon/whatever needed a shield in order to get through the other shield, could there be some way to match the missile's shield frequency with that of the ship? Just as long as the missile stays intact.

The out and in of phase thing would probably another Reetou project...

lethalfang
April 29th, 2005, 11:10 AM
I think the energy alone from matter and anti-matter explosion will simply be too much for any force shield to handle. You cannot simply "absorb the energy." The amount of energy and power will overwhelm your shield.

Mr Prophet
April 29th, 2005, 11:20 AM
I think the energy alone from matter and anti-matter explosion will simply be too much for any force shield to handle. You cannot simply "absorb the energy." The amount of energy and power will overwhelm your shield.

Depends how much antimatter. A fairly basic Goa'uld shield can suck a naquadah enhanced nuke with barely a flicker and Apophis' tech is far behind the current curve. Given that SGverse technology works on the 'what do we need it to do' principle, shields could easily shrug off an antimatter blast if it had to.

_Owen_
April 29th, 2005, 12:51 PM
Don't forget, if you are going to release the antimatter into space you would have to include an equal amount of matter, otherwise the antimatter would have no effect.

Owen Macri

Jprime
April 29th, 2005, 02:58 PM
The big problem is that antimatter production is really hard. It takes years to make a few particles of the stuff, last I heard.

aAnubiSs
April 29th, 2005, 03:31 PM
Yes but that's because Earth is primitive :) Earth currently produces Anti-Protons by using a protron accelerator(could be neutron accelerator, i dont remember) into Argon gas(Again can't remember which gas)

6thMonolith
April 29th, 2005, 03:55 PM
Don't forget, if you are going to release the antimatter into space you would have to include an equal amount of matter, otherwise the antimatter would have no effect.

Owen Macri

(disregarding sheilds)
Isn't the point to send the Antimatter into the hull of the enemy ship? It would take out what it hit, through anhilation, and the energy released would cause even more damage when there is no hull to breach. It actually might have more of an effect.

Supreme Thor
April 29th, 2005, 03:58 PM
There's another covert mission for SG-1 or Atlantis. Carry an AM bomb onto a wraith ship...

aAnubiSs
April 29th, 2005, 04:22 PM
Almost everything in an M/AM-conversion is Gamma radiation.

lethalfang
April 29th, 2005, 04:27 PM
Don't forget, if you are going to release the antimatter into space you would have to include an equal amount of matter, otherwise the antimatter would have no effect.

Owen Macri
Equal amount of ordinary matter is not a problem.
Naively, I'm thinking of a 3-layer system.
Inner core: positrons, or anti-electrons. They are positively charged.
Intermediate layer: protons. They are positively charged, so they will keep the positrons from leaking out. I may be wrong, but I think positrons do not annilate protons, so this layer also acts as a buffer.
Outer layer: electrons.

Upon impact, whether it is a hall or a force field, the result is that the stuff will mix due to collision, and there goes your power release.

Nuclear fission or fusion only convert some tiny amount of subatomic particles into energy. This thing will convert it's whole mass into energy. The power will be enormous.

Supreme Thor
April 29th, 2005, 04:29 PM
So would you create something like the A-bomb, where two atoms split, making the expected reaction? I mean, if I'm not mistaken, the atoms split on contact...

Mr Prophet
April 29th, 2005, 04:33 PM
So would you create something like the A-bomb, where two atoms split, making the expected reaction? I mean, if I'm not mistaken, the atoms split on contact...

In a matter/antimatter reaction, the atoms annihilate; atom and anti-atom (or subatomic particle and subatomic anti-particle) meet, cancel and cease to be, converting all of their mass to energy. Pound for pound, antimatter makes plutonium look like swiss cheese in the detonation stakes.

The question that remains, however, is: Since we're assuming a whole mess of technological leaps to get to a workable mass of antimatter, what makes an antimatter weapon better than a directed broadcast energy death-ray? Or better yet, in Stargate terms, a big, honking space gun.

aAnubiSs
April 29th, 2005, 04:34 PM
They could use Ambiplasma.

I still like the raw method. Fire AM bolts and they'll impact the shield doing much more damage then a regular matter bolt. The shield will fast fail and then the bolts will tear up the hull.

I don't understand why you're still talking about nuclear explosions in space. "Ooooh my shields are being attacked by gamma radiation".

If you still want to use a missle have it pass through the shield then eject the anti-matter. That way you take a part of the hull with you, instead of detonating in space and attacking your enemy with gamma rays.

lethalfang
April 29th, 2005, 04:41 PM
What's wrong with gamma rays? The resulting gamma rays from a matter/anti-matter annilation will produce photons with massive energy. They will easily destroy the atomic structure of any spaceship and evaporate everything in its path.
Getting anti-matter directly onto the enemy ship is of course much more effective and destructive, but more difficult. So it needs to be good enough to destroy the target even if it does not penetrate the shield. That's why it's better to have ordinary matter as well so it does not have to impact the enemy ship to detonate the explosion.
The reason I thought of the anti-matter weapon is that, it seems easy in concept.

Supreme Thor
April 29th, 2005, 04:47 PM
Now, having an "On" switch would work. LOL

I don't think gamma rays would work much either. It would sort of be like radiation on a shielded mothership. Doesn't affect the ship until the radiation's powerful enough to bridge the shields.

Mr Prophet
April 30th, 2005, 12:24 AM
The reason I thought of the anti-matter weapon is that, it seems easy in concept.

Conceptually easier than 'big, honking space gun'?

lethalfang
April 30th, 2005, 01:31 AM
Conceptually easier than 'big, honking space gun'?
Theoratically speaking, a space gun is conceptually easy. However, a big honking space gun can be very confusing. Our miniscule brains are not developed enough to comprehend the bigness :rolleyes: and the honkingness :eek: of such a gun.

Mr Prophet
April 30th, 2005, 03:03 AM
Theoratically speaking, a space gun is conceptually easy. However, a big honking space gun can be very confusing. Our miniscule brains are not developed enough to comprehend the bigness :rolleyes: and the honkingness :eek: of such a gun.

Whereas the complete mutual annihilation of matter and antimatter is just pips to visualise? :rolleyes:

lethalfang
April 30th, 2005, 03:14 AM
Whereas the complete mutual annihilation of matter and antimatter is just pips to visualise? :rolleyes:
That's easy. Just snap your fingers and say, "poof!" The next thing you know the matter and anti-matter are gone. :D

Mr Prophet
April 30th, 2005, 03:23 AM
That's easy. Just snap your fingers and go "poof!" The next thing you know the matter and anti-matter are gone. :D

If you're snapping your fingers around antimatter you really will go poof!

Supreme Thor
April 30th, 2005, 04:12 AM
If you're snapping your fingers around antimatter you really will go poof!
Then you've really solved nothing at all and then the conversation ends right here because you've just blown your theories (not to mention yourself) away with anti-matter. :D

_Owen_
April 30th, 2005, 09:26 AM
I agree, antimatter would be a cool and usefull weapon in some situations. However it would be difficult to produce. However, it is possible that there are easier ways of producing antimatter, than the ones we currently use.

Theoretically you could just fire antimatter at the shield of the ship but you would also need an equal amount of matter that is carried along with the antimatter, to cuase anhilation and a big explosion, if you aren't counting on it to go through the shields and actually touch the ship. This way one "antimatter charge" (I think that is a good name for an antimatter weapon) would overwhelm the shields, unless you hade a shield system in which, the shield absorbs energy that it encounters, passes it through into the ship, there it is passed through a buffer, which pases only a safe amount of energy (so that you don't blow up your dhip by accident) into the power source that is powering the shields. If the energy being input into the buffer was to great, the buffer will filter out only the necesary "dangerous" energy into space, so that the buffer(s) doesn't (don't) blow up.

In that case I beleive that your shield could withstand any energy weapon, however Earth ships would have a great advantage over those ships because they don't use energy weapons... wait a minute scratch that, when the bullet hits the shield the kinetic energy will be converted into heat energy and will be transfered into the buffer and into the powersource, and into the shields. It would be pretty ironic, you are helping the people that you are trying to kill.

Sorry a little off topic, anyways, I don't beleive that Gamma Rays would be able to penetrate the shields, however this brings up an idea for another weapon...

How about a Neutrino (or Nintendo) Launcher, it would be an even more difficult concept but who says we can't figure it out.

Owen Macri

6thMonolith
April 30th, 2005, 10:54 AM
How about a Neutrino (or Nintendo) Launcher, it would be an even more difficult concept but who says we can't figure it out.

Owen Macri

The Nutrino launcher would be difficult. You could just chuck a strawberry at the ship and say that worked, because something like a million nutrinos just passed through you(or the ship) in the time you were reading this. At least, thats what I got out of Crystal Skull. I'm looking it up in a minute.

in Crystal Skull, there was a substance that slowed down(or stopped) nutrino's. I forget whether it was Naquadah or not. Now a Nintendo launcher, on the other hand, would be quite effective. Who doesn't want to play Super Mario?:p

_Owen_
April 30th, 2005, 12:59 PM
I did not mean something that just fired neutrinos, I don't remeber the epsiode "Crystal Skull" very clearly, but there was something that made it dangerous to be on the planet, or in the pyrimid to long. If someone has seen this episode recently could you clear this up for me please.

Owen Macri

Jarnin
April 30th, 2005, 10:06 PM
I did not mean something that just fired neutrinos, I don't remeber the epsiode "Crystal Skull" very clearly, but there was something that made it dangerous to be on the planet, or in the pyrimid to long. If someone has seen this episode recently could you clear this up for me please.

Owen Macri
It was muon radiation that had the team concerned.

_Owen_
May 1st, 2005, 08:11 PM
Oh, thank you Jarnin, please disregard my previous post the idea that I was suggesting was a Muon Radiation Launcher, or for that fact any other kind of radiation that will effect a biological organsim at that rate.

Owen Macri

Mr Prophet
May 2nd, 2005, 03:13 AM
Oh, thank you Jarnin, please disregard my previous post the idea that I was suggesting was a Muon Radiation Launcher, or for that fact any other kind of radiation that will effect a biological organsim at that rate.

Owen Macri

Only problem is that to get the muon radiation they have to a) either generate or focus, b) direct and c) slow down neutrinos. Assuming they could get c) from the giiiant aliens, you still need a way to direct something that passes through anything.

Supreme Thor
May 2nd, 2005, 03:52 AM
I believe the out-of-phase theory is out of the question by now for that problem.

Crazedwraith
May 3rd, 2005, 08:29 AM
Just read the entire thread again. Everyones been yapping on but no one has adressed to simple points.

1) Naquadah enchanced weapons are more effective than AM warheads in eveyrway. They're more destructive, they're less volitile, the materials are much easier to finds and use.

2) Disregarding above the SG verse Earth doesn't have the required to safely contain antimatter. You would need forcefields or some sort of gravity trap. Neither of which SG earth has shown the capabillity to have. We have to run off to the tok'ra to get Forcefields (Ref: Evolution) and they've never demonstrated artificial gravity in a more complicated use that simpyl keeping people on the deck of the prommie.

Supreme Thor
May 3rd, 2005, 10:36 AM
Man...not meaning to be rude...that's a convo-killer...

lethalfang
May 4th, 2005, 12:21 AM
Just read the entire thread again. Everyones been yapping on but no one has adressed to simple points.

1) Naquadah enchanced weapons are more effective than AM warheads in eveyrway. They're more destructive, they're less volitile, the materials are much easier to finds and use.

2) Disregarding above the SG verse Earth doesn't have the required to safely contain antimatter. You would need forcefields or some sort of gravity trap. Neither of which SG earth has shown the capabillity to have. We have to run off to the tok'ra to get Forcefields (Ref: Evolution) and they've never demonstrated artificial gravity in a more complicated use that simpyl keeping people on the deck of the prommie.
Ugh, what makes you think Naquadah is more destructive? Does it release more energy or more power per unit weight? I'd say anti-matter/matter reaction is the theoratical upper limit for energy release.
Another thing is, I still haven't the slightest idea what Naquadah really is.

Supreme Thor
May 4th, 2005, 04:13 AM
Ugh, what makes you think Naquadah is more destructive? Does it release more energy or more power per unit weight? I'd say anti-matter/matter reaction is the theoratical upper limit for energy release.
Another thing is, I still haven't the slightest idea what Naquadah really is.
Well, we're not really sure how destructive anti-matter is either. Apparently a Naquadah enhanced what was it...Mark II? Anyways, a naquadah enhanced war head was enough to destroy a Goa'uld mothership. A Mark IV enhanced with Naquadah and multiplied by a million times destroyed an entire planet.

Now my opinion is: if you made a warhead that was built with some force field or gravity trap to hold in the matter required to release that amount of energy, I would say you would have a more powerful weapon than anything we've previously come up against (except perhaps Anubis' really big gun and the Ancient outpost weapon fully loaded).

Crazedwraith
May 5th, 2005, 09:19 AM
Man...not meaning to be rude...that's a convo-killer...
the Question was asked. Why no antimatter weapons? That was the answer.

Anyhoo just to make sure I wasn't making a fool of myself I toddled over to SDnet to check my facts (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=68001). Here was an Answer i was given:



Matter/antimatter annihilation = 9E16 J/kg
Deuterium fusion = 6.2E14 J/kg
Naquadah Enhanced Deuterium fusion = between 6.2E16 J/kg and 1.86E17 J/kg
Naquadriah Enhanced Duterium Fusion = More.


This means that anitmatter weapons are better per kg of reactant for low end naquadah enchanced weapons but worse for higher end naq weapons.

So it would appear to depend on what grade of naquadah you use.

Regards naq nukes are much safer and use freindly than AM/M weapons.

Mr Prophet
May 5th, 2005, 09:40 AM
You might want to ask NecronLord to cite his sources on that one, CW.

Not that I'm saying I don't agree with you. The reason antimatter/matter reactions are so destructive is that you get a 100% mass-energy conversion; naquadah energy interactions are known to operate at >100% efficiency. Basically, in the SGverse, naquadah is trumps.

Now, anti-naquadah...

_Owen_
May 6th, 2005, 11:41 AM
Only problem is that to get the muon radiation they have to a) either generate or focus, b) direct and c) slow down neutrinos. Assuming they could get c) from the giiiant aliens, you still need a way to direct something that passes through anything.
All you would need to do to direct the muon radiation is to have whatever material that slowed down the neutrinos on an angle which it would be pointing right at whoever you wanted to kil, then just generate neutrinos behind it, the material that slowed the neutrinos could move around so you could change who or what you were firing at, then it wouldn't matter were the neutrinos go. the regular neutrinos would just penetrate the ship and the people on it an keep going causeing no harm to anyone except the people that you wanted to hurt.

Owen Macri

P.S. Sorry about the lateness of the post.

lethalfang
May 7th, 2005, 12:36 AM
naquadah energy interactions are known to operate at >100% efficiency.

Porcess that works greater than 100% are impossible.
It violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics has survived the discovery of atoms, the introduction of relativity, the concept of quantum mechancis, as well as the Ancients' Zero-Point-Module (maximum entropy means the ZPM is running dry).
Introduction of these kind of things (>100% efficiency) makes bad science fictions in my opinon. It takes away the believablility.

Mr Prophet
May 7th, 2005, 04:25 AM
Porcess that works greater than 100% are impossible.

Quite.


It violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Well, probably, yes.


Thermodynamics has survived the discovery of atoms, the introduction of relativity, the concept of quantum mechancis, as well as the Ancients' Zero-Point-Module (maximum entropy means the ZPM is running dry).

More cooling down, surely?


Introduction of these kind of things (>100% efficiency) makes bad science fictions in my opinon. It takes away the believablility.

Nothing is sacred in science. Even the laws of thermodynamics are more guidelines, albeit good guidelines.

If it helps, assume that >100% efficiency is only putting it in crude terms and that naquadah works by existing simultaneously in subspace and normal space, thus creating a bridge across which subspace energy flows at a rate proportional to the energy applied to the naquadah, thus only seeming to create energy from nowhere.

_Owen_
May 7th, 2005, 11:19 AM
I believe the out-of-phase theory is out of the question by now for that problem.
I believe that you are reffering to phasing out a weapon to allow it to pass through the shields. If you are it is not out of the question, the Tollan had phasing technology it would not be difficult to modify it for this use. Also I believve that the Asgard would have the knowledge of phasing technology, even if they don't use it.

So it is not that far out of the question.

Owen Macri

Jarnin
May 7th, 2005, 05:40 PM
I believe that you are reffering to phasing out a weapon to allow it to pass through the shields. If you are it is not out of the question, the Tollan had phasing technology it would not be difficult to modify it for this use. Also I believve that the Asgard would have the knowledge of phasing technology, even if they don't use it.

So it is not that far out of the question.

Owen Macri
The Tollans were using their phase technology to by-pass the iris on the SGC's stargate.

If you're going for shield penetration, it'd probably be easier to use a hyperdrive to get you through, like they did with the F-302 and Anubis's shields.

_Owen_
May 7th, 2005, 06:48 PM
That is a good idea, however it would be extremly complicated. You would have to have everything perfectly timed down to a nanosecond. If you just phased out your warhead immediatly after launch and have it set to automatically phase back in, you could have everything pretty much work by itself. The hyperdrive idea is a good idea, but extremly complicated, however if it came down to it, and they needed to do this, it would be possible.

Owen Macri

Jarnin
May 7th, 2005, 07:14 PM
That is a good idea, however it would be extremly complicated. You would have to have everything perfectly timed down to a nanosecond. If you just phased out your warhead immediatly after launch and have it set to automatically phase back in, you could have everything pretty much work by itself. The hyperdrive idea is a good idea, but extremly complicated, however if it came down to it, and they needed to do this, it would be possible.

Owen Macri
I think your phasing idea is far more complicated than using a hyperdrive. The SGC doesn't even have Tollan phase technology, but they do have hyperdrives.
Anyway, the end result is the same: You transport a nuke through the shields to detonate either within proximity, or inside, the target. You could use either method, but the hyperdrive method is proven, and we have the technology on hand.

_Owen_
May 7th, 2005, 08:42 PM
I think your phasing idea is far more complicated than using a hyperdrive. The SGC doesn't even have Tollan phase technology, but they do have hyperdrives.
Anyway, the end result is the same: You transport a nuke through the shields to detonate either within proximity, or inside, the target. You could use either method, but the hyperdrive method is proven, and we have the technology on hand.
It is true, we don't have phasing technology, and it is also true, we do have hyperdrive technology, but the warhead would have to be huge to hold a hyperspace window generator, not to mention, as I said before everything would have to be perfectly timed.

Since we can't put a hyperspace window generator in a device of useable size, we don't have the technology on hand.

Owen Macri

Supreme Thor
May 8th, 2005, 05:26 AM
Well, for right now, disregarding phasing in and out of shields and using the hyperdrive. If we had a timed AM weapon that was set to go off at least a second or two before reaching the shields, could it possibly have a powerful enough blast to at least knock out the shields? If I'm not mistaken, anti-matter uses the powerful mass of matter to destroy matter in range. That would include shields, wouldn't it? I believe energy consists of matter...

Mr Prophet
May 8th, 2005, 05:56 AM
Well, for right now, disregarding phasing in and out of shields and using the hyperdrive. If we had a timed AM weapon that was set to go off at least a second or two before reaching the shields, could it possibly have a powerful enough blast to at least knock out the shields? If I'm not mistaken, anti-matter uses the powerful mass of matter to destroy matter in range. That would include shields, wouldn't it? I believe energy consists of matter...

When matter and antimatter meet, they mutually annihilate; an equal mass of each is converted into energy, which is not the same as matter. If the shield is pure energy, the AM wouldn't get through.

Supreme Thor
May 8th, 2005, 07:49 AM
So it's basically an ex/implosion of pure energy...?

_Owen_
May 8th, 2005, 11:10 AM
Are you asking if an antimatter/matter reaction is an ex/implosion of pure energy? It is more like a conversion to energy.

Owen Macri

Supreme Thor
May 8th, 2005, 02:51 PM
So then, what causes the ex/implosion?

_Owen_
May 8th, 2005, 03:00 PM
By nature, matter and antimatter destroy each other, that is why there are no large concentrations of antimatter in the universe, that we know of.

It is like two magnets, if you put the north sides (matter and matter) together, they hold onto eachother, they don't mind eachother. If you put the north side (matter) and the south side (antimatter) together, they will push away, in reality, the pushing away is 100% percent anhilation of both parts. That was the best analogy I can think of, if anyone has a better one, please post.

Owen Macri

lethalfang
May 8th, 2005, 05:04 PM
Basically, if an ordinary particle is charged, its anti-particle is oppositely charged. By this nature, they will attract to each other at long distances, and annilate each other once they meet. ALL of their mass will be converted to energy. Matter/anti-matter energy/power release makes nuclear explosion look like a child's matchbox.
I cannot think of any reasonable shield withstanding this amount of power being released. Even without antimatter directly touching your spaceship, if you will, the photons generated from the antimatter reaction alone will be SO ENERGETIC that, they will rip off all the electrons from the atoms making up your ship, and even split the nuclei of the atoms making up your spaceship and make your ship a nuclear bomb.
If your shield is made of a force field, the power generated from this anti-matter reaction will easily overwhelm its capability, and easily penetrate and destroy it.

Supreme Thor
May 8th, 2005, 05:08 PM
So we're talking about a bomb the size of 100+ A-bombs? That is a pretty powerful weapon. I know that in an A-bomb that the atoms are split rather than collided or ripped apart, but the mass and potency of the AM weapon seems like a naquadah enhanced A-bomb, and that's a pretty big @$$ explosion for anything.

_Owen_
May 8th, 2005, 05:18 PM
A matter/antimatter reaction the size that you are thinking of would deffinetly be significantly larger than 100 A-bombs, it has the potential to be more powerful than any of us can imagine. A matter/antimatter reaction of just 50 grams of each would be incredibly larger than any naquadah enhanced nuke.

There is one way that your shield could withstand a blast like that, I have posted this idea before.

The shield could absorb energy that hits it, route the energy into a buffer, which converts the raw power into useable energy, then routes the energy to the ships systems at a reasonable level safe for the ship. If to much energy is input into the buffer, a portion of it, enough to bring energy levels in the buffer back to acceptable, would simply be routed into space, as some sort of electrical disgarge.

Owen Macri

Supreme Thor
May 8th, 2005, 05:29 PM
I take it there's a way to overoload the ship's buffer? If that's the case, then it shouldn't be all that hard to create an AM weapon that could destroy an entire mothership. Even if it doesn't completely take out the shields, it would do massive damage to the ship itself.

_Owen_
May 8th, 2005, 05:35 PM
That is true, but most shipd don't route the energy into some sort of buffer. And with my idea, the buffer would route power out into space when levels got too high.

Owen Macri

Supreme Thor
May 8th, 2005, 05:46 PM
Like a filter?

_Owen_
May 8th, 2005, 05:55 PM
exactly

lethalfang
May 8th, 2005, 07:54 PM
So we're talking about a bomb the size of 100+ A-bombs? That is a pretty powerful weapon. I know that in an A-bomb that the atoms are split rather than collided or ripped apart, but the mass and potency of the AM weapon seems like a naquadah enhanced A-bomb, and that's a pretty big @$$ explosion for anything.
The atomic bomb over Hiroshima was a pretty big object. The B-29 bomber, the largest and most advanced aircraft in its day, could barely carry it. It released on the order of 10^13 joules of energy as I found on the internet (from 1.8 x 10^13 to 6.4 x 10^13 joule).
A reaction between 0.5 kg of matter and 0.5 kg of anti-matter (E=mc^2, where m=1kg), or about 2 lb. of material, will yield 9 x 10^16 joules of energy.
A kilogram of anti-matter/matter explosion equals to roughly 5000 times the energy of the Hiroshima atomic bomb.
That's a lot of bang for the mass!
If US somehow made half kilogram of anti-matter and dropped it instead of the atomic bomb, the entire country of Japan would've gone "puff." :eek:

_Owen_
May 8th, 2005, 08:08 PM
That sounds about right. Now with that being such a small reaction, imagine just the reaction the size of a naquadah reactor. It would be an incredibly effective weapon, I believe it would be most useful to wipe out things on a plentary scale, one bomb, and the entire planet would be wiped out.

Owen Macri

Supreme Thor
May 9th, 2005, 03:53 AM
That sounds about right. Now with that being such a small reaction, imagine just the reaction the size of a naquadah reactor. It would be an incredibly effective weapon, I believe it would be most useful to wipe out things on a plentary scale, one bomb, and the entire planet would be wiped out.

Owen Macri
Jeez, can you imagine the problems the SGC would have with NID, Pentagon, other aliens, etc. if we made something that powerful? It would turn into a planetary (and/or galactic) civil war... :D :eek:

_Owen_
May 11th, 2005, 04:03 PM
If we used technology gathered off-world, I think the pentagon would be happy, I can picture it now...

(bald military guy siting in his office reading a piece of paper)

"Nine years and over 64.8 billion dollars later, The SGC finaly did something useful..."
"WHERE'S MY COFFEE, I ASKED FOR IT TEN FREAKING MINUTES AGO!!!"

lol

Owen Macri

6thMonolith
May 11th, 2005, 04:13 PM
"WHERE'S MY COFFEE, I ASKED FOR IT TEN FREAKING MINUTES AGO!!!"


::Gets Coffee::
"I asked for a nice coffe, not an iced coffee! You're fired!"

As for the bomb, wasn't there an episode where one went off(besides Scortched Earth)? I'll go check

_Owen_
May 11th, 2005, 04:37 PM
I actually can't remember an episode like that, but check it out, I could be wrong.

Nice continuation to my joke!!


::Gets Coffee::
"I asked for a nice coffe, not an iced coffee! You're fired!"

You can't fire me, I'm the president!

Since when!

Epsiode 7:20, "Innauguration!"

*mumbles* 7:21 was better.

Owen Macri

6thMonolith
May 11th, 2005, 04:46 PM
I think I found the episode. Chain Reaction, season 4. http://www.gateworld.net/sg1/s4/415.shtml

Supreme Thor
May 11th, 2005, 05:17 PM
I actually can't remember an episode like that, but check it out, I could be wrong.

Nice continuation to my joke!!



You can't fire me, I'm the president!

Since when!

Epsiode 7:20, "Innauguration!"

*mumbles* 7:21 was better.

Owen Macri
Sorry, sir have to disagree with you. Episode 722 was the best one. Oh, and Supreme Lord Ba'al would like to discuss the destruction of the Tau'ri.

He has a 2:00 appointment.

_Owen_
May 11th, 2005, 05:42 PM
move it to four tell him my wife needs me to go grocery shopping, ask him if he needs anything.

Owen Macri

Seastallion
May 16th, 2005, 04:09 AM
Well, this has been quite a thread... :p At some parts my eyes started to glaze over, but then it got funny by the end, so all is well... :) One thing about WMD, is you want to make sure you don't destroy yourself in the process (unless your suicidal, then it doesn't matter)... With A/M weapons, the problem isn't that they're destructive it is the delivery system. Also, if it is too destructive you run into that pesky destroying yourself thing again... :p

In terms of 'production' in stargate, I guess perhaps they don't use A/M because it would make Stargate to trekish or something. Gotta represent... :p Anywho, if your shield-buffer thing could work Owen, maybe you could rechannel some of that energy back into the shields, to at least negate some of the recieved blast. Also, since you've gotta use the extra power somewhere, I can't think of a better place to put it, than the tech that is keeping your butt safe... ;) Unless there is some technical reason why you can't... there always seem to be those.

I think the best solution (no matter what your using) is to find a way to maximize the 'direction' of said explosion or destructive force where it will do the most good, without it coming back to bite you in the A$$. A colossal bang might not be a good thing, because it could overwhelm your shields potentially, and no matter how good your buffer it might just blow the whole freakin thing up. Super-explosions are good, only if your not there to see it up close. ;)

So... the bigger and badder weapon may not be the best thing... Remember "Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars"??? Everyone said, "Please, Chriton make us a wormhole weapon..!" And when he finally does it turns into this monster black hole that threatens to destory the entire galaxy... Where is the fun in that??? :eek: So, in the end both sides say... "you know what?... this sucks..!! I give up, lets have peace". For the record... we DO know that there are black holes that exist that are bigger and badder than many galaxies combined... Thank God, they are very very very very very very very very very very very very very very (*winks* at Owen... :p ) very very very very very very, etc. etc. etc. ...Far Away...! :D ROFL

Sometimes, grace is better than brawn. Your delivery system can be just as important as the power of your punch. :) Sort of like Martial Arts... the bigger stronger guy isn't necessarily going to win. That little guy that can literally run up walls and kick stuff twice as high as your head is from your feet..? HE could really ruin your day... :p Bigger, isn't necessarily better. But, it can be... IF you use it right. ;) (delivery, again.. :D )

:eek:

_Owen_
May 16th, 2005, 01:28 PM
Those are all really good points, especially all of the "verys" lol.

The redundant shields could definetly save your ship from any energy or matter discharge. If too much energy is input onto the shields it will simply be routed into the ship and then back out into space in the form of an energy discharge, only some power will be saved and routed through the ship to power systems.

Not only could the redundant shields power the shields, they could also power everything else on the ship, weapons, sensors, comminucations, toilets, everything. In time of conflict routing the input power to suport the shields at 100% of efficiency, which would work, and also supply power to energy weapons you would deffinetly win, you would never run out of energy as long as the other guys keep hitting you with stuff, and they would nevver be able to take you down, the shields would constantly stay at 100%.

Owen Macri

Seastallion
May 16th, 2005, 06:29 PM
Those are all really good points, especially all of the "verys" lol.

The redundant shields could definetly save your ship from any energy or matter discharge. If too much energy is input onto the shields it will simply be routed into the ship and then back out into space in the form of an energy discharge, only some power will be saved and routed through the ship to power systems.

Not only could the redundant shields power the shields, they could also power everything else on the ship, weapons, sensors, comminucations, toilets, everything. In time of conflict routing the input power to suport the shields at 100% of efficiency, which would work, and also supply power to energy weapons you would deffinetly win, you would never run out of energy as long as the other guys keep hitting you with stuff, and they would nevver be able to take you down, the shields would constantly stay at 100%.

Owen Macri

I'm talking about a huge fire ball explosion of really scary proportions expanding at near the speed of light,that no matter how good your shields, how excellent your buffer... it would overwhelm your ship and totally obliterate you... :eek: There is only so much punishment any ship can take no matter how advanced. An explosion, like the one that took out Apophis fleet would do the trick on ANY ship. Even the Asgard or the Ancients couldn't survive that. Even Atlantis shields would never hold up against that kind of punishment. I doubt anything could... :( A ship might be able to withstand incredible amounts of ship to ship fire, but not an all out WMD attack of the type like that exploding sun... :eek: Any ship that could... I would run like hell... Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You would have to be an utter fool, or suicidally brave to go up against anything like that. :( Now matter how much your buffer was pumping back into the ship systems, it would engulf the ship so fast, and so furiously the ship's shields and buffer would never keep up. The ship would be destroyed nearly the instant it was caught in the explosion... :eek: No amount of technology could save you unless you jumped out of the way... but that is different than just standing there and taking the punishment. Yikes...!

_Owen_
May 16th, 2005, 07:10 PM
I would have to disagree with you here. On the ship there would probably be more than one buffer, that buffer can only hold so much energy at a time, so any extra energy will vent out through what you could call an "exhaust." Any extra input energy, even that of a supernova would in theory mostly be absorbed by the shield and vented directly out of the ship. With a supernova only an extremly small fraction of the energy would be used to power the shields so that they would not fail, all of the extra energy from the supernova would be imediatly vented out of ship. So as big and powerful the released energy from the exploding star is, it would not damage the ship because it would use the energy that would normally harm the ship to its advantage. In theory the ship would hold up, and not sustain any damage at all.

For example, if the stars explosion released 1000 of energy that would have an effect on the ship, and the shield strength went down 10% a second, the supernova lasted 10 seconds, 100 of energy would hit the ship each second 100 of energy would hit the ship per second. Now the ship has 50 buffers, each can hold 1 of energy. Each second the buffers transfer 50 of energy to the shields, and 50 of energy into space. Therefore the shields will only drop 5% a second, therefore when the supernova finished the shields would be at 50%, and the ship would ahve been able to withstand the supernova. Of course, this is only an example, the buffers should be able to hold more.

A supernova or event with the same energy dicharge is the only event that would compromise the shields of the ship and cause them to lower. In this example it takes the buffers a second to transfer energy to other functions of the ship, since the energy is being input in the same amount of time that it is being utilised the shield strength will go down. However in reality the buffers would transfer the enrgy faster than it is being input, allowing for the shield strength to be increased to 100%.

What I would really be worried about is distance the explosion would throw the ship. The engines would not be able to counteract that force, even if you routed energy from the input energy from the supernova to them they still would not be able to drive the ship against it.

Owen Macri

Seastallion
May 16th, 2005, 07:29 PM
My friend... you could have a hundred shield layers and a thousand buffers of the most advanced sort. With a massive fireball like I mentioned above... you simply wouldn't be able to survive it. Your shields couldn't shunt power into the buffers fast enough, and every square inch of your shield would be absorbing the worst possible concentration of attack possible. Those shields would simply collapse under the awesome power. It would be like me putting an egg inside a trash compactor... The sheer power, would simply overwhelm and destroy the ship. We're not talking about a simple absorption of a normal attack from one or a few angles... were talking about a complete and total attack of the worst sort on every square inch of your shields. You simply couldn't withstand such colossal power... nothing could. Remember that wormhole weapon from Farscape I mentioned?? Do you honestly think any ship no matter how well shielded could survive that??? NO FRICKEN WAY... Never in a billion, billion, billion years. That explosion would've swallowed the entire galaxy... everything would just go kaput...! :eek:

_Owen_
May 16th, 2005, 08:37 PM
Basically what it comes down to is the speed of the transfer. The speed could be increased faster and faster, new technology could and will provide faster energy transfers, there is the possibility that technology will be increase to transfer energy a billion times the fastest transfer now.

Owen Macri

Seastallion
May 17th, 2005, 08:22 AM
Basically what it comes down to is the speed of the transfer. The speed could be increased faster and faster, new technology could and will provide faster energy transfers, there is the possibility that technology will be increase to transfer energy a billion times the fastest transfer now.

Owen Macri

Well, just be careful that you keep fantasy seperate from science fiction. In a fantasy, what your saying might be possible. Or if you could somehow take yourself out of normal space, you might survive it. However, to be in normal space with crazy advanced shields, against the type of destructive force I was referring to... not happening. No matter how fast you could transfer energy, that kind of destruction would likely disrupt everything in normal space as well as higher dimensions. Any tech that could somehow violate 'normal' laws would have to involve higher dimensions that would likely be just as disrupted by such an awesome release of raw power as 'normal' space would. There is only so much any physical object, shielded or not, can withstand. That is why one would generally avoid super-novas and black holes altogether.

Even Thor's ship couldn't survive that Black Hole, and the Replicators wouldn't have either except that they had that time dilation device to save themselves. I suppose that could be one possibility... if you could generate a time dilation field that would allow you to alter the amount of time you could survive... that might work... but it wouldn't just be your shields... you'd literally be altering the temporal make-up of the immediate space around you. That is the only possibility I could think of... even then you would want to get the hell out of there as fast as possible. If the black hole had been much larger, I doubt even the time dilation device would've saved the Replicators. Even that would have its limits. ;)

_Owen_
May 17th, 2005, 03:24 PM
That is true, however anything is possible in T.V. and I believe that an incredibly fast rate of energy transfer could be possible in reality, we are still very far away.

Owen Macri