It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Please this IS a serious weaponry thread

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Im sure this subject has been touched. However,getting into a serious discussion on this "theoretical" weapon, is rather difficult. I am truly hoping to make progress into this endeavor.
I love swordplay...have since childbirth practically. But I also love Science.
So in one word...LIGHTSABER.
I am interested because of the advantages of a weightless "blade" weapon...as well as the incredible amount of skill it would take to wield such a weapon.
I have heard many things..."who needs it when youve got a gun" "its not possible in physics"...and an endless barrage at my interest in this weapon of the future....I know that on these boards I can find people who will understand my yearning. Maybe here I may find direction.
Thank you....my open minded friends.



8th

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
For such a SERIOUS thread, I would imagine the thread creator would have been just as serious. A simple search resulted in a couple thread which have already talked about the subject.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is also another on "beam weapons"
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I understand your yurning, trust me, i want a 9 second street car that gets unlimited gas milage and still passes smog, but it is pretty much not going to happen (yet?
)
Good luck with your search



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Ok you want serious weapon discussion, yet you seem to know little of science. I am no scientist and i know "light sabers" are impossible, if the blade is made of a high denisty laser where would it end? It is light, it would go on for along time untill it dispates or it hits something. You would need some type of technology to levitate a receiver end for the laser, or form some type of new science which could produce something capable of what is required to make a real "light saber".

Dude im sure your new here, but do alittle bit of research befor making wild threads that are "serious weaponary thread" better to make it a skunkworks thread.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
You could in theory make something that would work like a "Light saber" but wouldnt have anything to do with Light. It would really have to be more of a super hot plasma torch focused into say with a 3 foot flame. You would need fuel and lots of it though so expect something like a back pack for fuel and a limited run time.

I wont say LS are impossible who knows in a few hundred years if we mastered force fields, new super compact energy sources and lasers maybe something like it could be made.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Jah Il,

>>
I'm sure this subject has been touched. However,getting into a serious discussion on this "theoretical" weapon, is rather difficult. I am truly hoping to make progress into this endeavor.
>>

The basics of weapon use has always been oriented around creating 'an edge' in something which serves as an evener for the less capable opponent. And an overwhelming advantage to the strong.

Without necessarily requiring skill to offset lack of physical ability.

The progression of measure-countermeasure being that which determines less 'how lethal' than 'who hits' these systems are.

Swordwork probably falls under this category in that a heavy blade can kill a man in an instant and is largely unstoppable by the musculature and skeletal strength of a smaller opponent trying to deflect or capture it with a dueling weapon.

Yet if he sacrifices everything for 'that ONE moment' he can step through his enemy's (OODA loop) circle to land a penetrating blow on a spot the size of a dime which kills the heart or brain and ends the fight.

At which point the sword-as-club wielder asks himself how much of his already lagging speed he would sacrifice to wear armor sufficient to stop the light blade. As a function of whether the smaller opponent can afford to wait (stroke after stroke, 'void' miss or be crippled and/or killed) tiring him out.

And the light blade wielder looks in his grinning-mountain opponent's gleaming eyes and screams "Run Awaaaay!".

At least until he can build a gun.

Lightsabers, because they do not magnify their wielder's kineticism through mass-inertia, turn all this on it's head. Whereby the small man can choose the biomechanical blocking angles and blade-lock capture points (leverage as a point /along/ your opponent's blade) which lets him beat ONLY the physical power of a larger opponent. Since armor does him no good.

While the larger opponent can shift to dual wield or dual-grip to compensate for his own large=slower mass in beating him off before swinging his own weapon 'around the outside' to tap junior from behind at the limits of his arms arcing reach.

9 times out of 10, the big man will still win, if he fights dirty. But even so, the lightsaber represents one of the more 'honorable' (evenly balanced) weapons designs created to encourage opponents to, if not refrain from slaughtering each other. Then at least to not involve others.

I have often wondered if every man who felt the urge was freely given a lightsaber to magnify his manhood with the _sole condition_ that he could only kill or be killed (no bullying or intimidation) another saber wielder might not feel more at home with his base instincts.

Indeed, they are also discrete enough to not be overtly intimidating for carriage which is also a source of "I can, you can't" envy and conflict start.

For these notions alone, Mr. Lucas has my admiration 'as a philosopher'.

OTOH, he blew great bloody chunks when he tried to intimate that a sword could block great bloody barrages of blaster bolts 'from all angles' and ended up with firefights that looked like they belonged in the bolt action if not muzzle loader eras.

Use The Force Luke! Snicker. KPl.

Having said that, these are the places I would begin in a search for 'how to make a lightsaber'...


LINKS-
Star Wars Technical Commentaries,
www.theforce.net...

I can't find it but Mr. Saxton once pointed me to a section on blaster weapons and some of the problems with 'solid plasma'. This would likely apply to Lightsabers that use similar energy sources

Can A Lightsaber Be Made
www.exn.ca...
www.exn.ca...

Duality. A Reminder of Mortalities Waste In Combat
www.alienryderflex.com...

And How To Look Like What You Will Never Be.
www.amazon.com...
www.angelfire.com...

P.S. I know the above doesn't really help much. Given what I now know about plasma as a weaponizable 'solid', I must confess that my belief is more towards something like a Klein Bottle which somehow (string theory?) 'dumps' energy from the same spatial interstice as involves FTL travel. i.e. An energy which comes 'up' the geometric twist of a superluminal space-time, stable in it's own existence, only to _terminate_ (self annihilate, unable to accomodate this-world physics) around the outer edge radius of bottle field.
In such a scenario. the 'light' produced is more a side effect like the event horizon radiation around a blackhole.
It is convenient for not having to name much less /contain/ any particular particle-mass (tachyon, neutrino, take your pick) while at the same time creating a cutting edge that conveniently disappeared back into alternate-whatever as soon as it stabilized.
The closest I can theorize an image to would be some kind of chain saw like effect wherein the blade bent back in upon itself as both the source and the return point of the teeth in the spinning blade.

alem3d.obidos.org...
www.math.uu.se...


KPl.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Ahhh...thank you. Thank you so much. I now feel as is I have found a place to truly discuss this!!! I am very happy!

To Wang: You are astute in your observations my friend. And while I do not posess a "higher learning" of science per se, I have spent years searching for answers. I must admit, some of the subject matter I have come across have completly baffled me!!! But despite that I DO have a vast number of theories(although I will admit that out of those maybe 5-6 could possibly hold direction) that may be the answer.

To 8th: I too would like a 9 second steet car with those amenities. They are not possible(yet
) how ever I saw an interesting "today in science" on the learning channel that had a car that ran on compressed air and got to 75 mph!!! No where near the looks of a mclaren F1 unfortunately
!!! But I meant what I said about this thread....I am serious. And I will soon come into the position to start serious r&d on this....that is the serious part. Please forgive my vagueness of my thread title. I do wish to hear more from you...I do enjoy people with a humorous viewpoint!!!

to ch1466: Thank you so much....it is nice to hear someone with knowledge of swordfighting.I have viewed your links, to find many of them to be places Ive already see and read...however many thanks for the link to Amazon...I will be aquiring that book very soon, and the article on choreography will be an immence help, especially for better understanding the many complex movements needed to attain that fighting style.

All those thank yous being said...I do have several theoretical concepts I would like to share with you....

I came across an article at one point(i will search for and post that link a little later; i have work tomorrow!) that mentioned something known in Quantum related physics as the "treacle effect". from what I gathered from this article , it spoke of the speed of light; but more importantly it spoke of how light DOES NOT remain constant, and can be slowed just by going thru a pane of ordinary home-rated glass. It went on to say that, if the calculations were right: that light, when STOPPED - gained mass. I suppose that would mean that the actual photon would gain " a detectable mass beyond that of a non-stationary photon". As it became more technical, I admit again, I became lost
!!! But never the less up until that point I found it to be quite interesting. Not just for the matters of building a theoretical weapon, but imagine the possibilities for computers!!!
Is it possible that light itself, when in this state, could do the same things as a lightsaber does? Probably not....but if the proper manipulation were to occur....much like the"chainsaw" effect that the last postee provived as theory, except take that effect and turn it into more of a "cyclonic" action, it may be possible to not rely so much on being able to pull the energy "beam" back to the hilt. And because of the rapid and yet very efficiant movement or the energy beam, the friction that it may be able to create may perform some of its most notable attributes(movie-wisethat is), ie; cutting through metals fairly fast, balance from the ALMOST weightless blade, cause by centifugal force, and some more Im sure.
It may be as simple as finding a polarity(though having a magnetic field as a part of this weapon would be useless, due to the constant interferance with almost anything, including another weapon of negating polarity), or a substance, material, maybe even a frequency; that not attracts, rather sympathizes or harmonizes with said blades composition.
As I understand, there are few if any things in the universe that dont react somehow when exposed to light. It may not be so impossible. And it just maybe that this technology might be a lot closer to our grasp than we are accustomed to believing.

If you still feel this thread belongs elsewhere, i willremove it and move to another board...that will not discourage me in any way. I am new, and thought naturally that since this was a weaponry forum, this would be the logical choice for it. Thank you again for your posts, and I eagerly await replies of any nature....


8th

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jah Il
To 8th: I too would like a 9 second steet car with those amenities. They are not possible(yet
) how ever I saw an interesting "today in science" on the learning channel that had a car that ran on compressed air and got to 75 mph!!! No where near the looks of a mclaren F1 unfortunately
!!! But I meant what I said about this thread....I am serious. And I will soon come into the position to start serious r&d on this....that is the serious part. Please forgive my vagueness of my thread title. I do wish to hear more from you...I do enjoy people with a humorous viewpoint!!!


Thanks


I've said in the past that I really dont like to discreadit or discourage anybody, even if I dont see eye to eye with them. Everybody has hopes/dreams/projects ect.. And I still try to stick with doing that today, and maybe add a little twist of humor lol. Allthough I think that current science cannot produce a light saber, it dosent mean that down the road it wont happen or be attempted. More power to you man, keep on truckin



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join