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.

 

Fusion Guns, a viable prospect?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 01:16 AM
link   
i Know we allready have thermonuclear bobms, but what about using the forcess of fusion as a cannon, i mean, 40000000 degrees celsius of hydregen-helium plasma could definatley do some dammage. It would have to work like a bazzoka though, both ends open, or you won't be on earth anymore.

Or even better, a space engin.




posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 01:44 AM
link   
could you like, shoot through the earth with that or totally hit the moon, but why would ne1 wanna shoot da moon... i think we have dangerious enuf weapons already esp. in the hands of, well you know



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 02:11 AM
link   

There will be no such thing as cannon, simply because there is no such thing able to withstand such temperatures.


Thermonuclear space engines are researched and could be VERY effective (from teoretically achievable propulsion systems only photon/anihilation engines could be more powerfull), but firstly it is necessary to achieve CONTROLLED fusion. Temonuclear ship could make the distance from Earth to Mars in 60 days (could be also faster, but needs to slow down and accelerate with 1G )



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   
that's what phasers are from star trek


theoretically, u can accelerate some really dense amount of hydrogen in a magnetic coil so the H is suspended in valum and light it with laser at couple hundred million degrees. Then accelerate the plasmatic stuff really really fast and project this beam out at close to speed of light. The damage this thing does is probably massive.

By the time such technology becomes available, wars probably wont be fought on planets anymore tho. It would be stupid to use stuff this powerful on a planet's surface (too many civilian deaths...).

[edit on 2-11-2004 by white_raven0]



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 03:13 AM
link   
unless concentraited into a more focused beam, and reflecting it towards the earth, and using relay could instantaniously hit a target on the other side of the world, yup this is kinda power we need


[edit on 2-11-2004 by Franki]



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 03:18 AM
link   
.....

You play too much Half-Life and watch too much Star Trek


Its not a viable prospect at all,it will be too hot or something,and imagine a terrorist getting his hands on that thing



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 03:26 AM
link   
lol... thats all, just lol b/c i was thinkimg that... talkin about him right



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I am not sure some of you really have a handle on your nuclear physics.


Not that I know much more



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I think you could make a fusion cannon that wouldnt melt from its own heat. You would have to use magnetic shields around the inside of the cannon just as they do when they run test with fusion.

Granted this has been described as trying to hold jelly with rubber bands but it could be done.

But I really think rail guns or lasers would be a better use of all that energy



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Ok then, lets do what the fusion reactors are going to do.

1 use it in vacuum, no air, no condiction of heat, and conduction is the mosti efficient distributin method.

2
magnettic bottle, if there is a way out, the matter will take it, so we make the way out the bottle, the way we want it to go

3
to fire we use lasers, and then it produces its own ennergy
4
guide with ellectron beams, they like to follow that stuff
5 Scince it produces its own energy, it would have a higher efficency than both

6 Yes i do watch to mutch star treck and play too mutch HL, but there are more fusion in Warhammer



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kayaroyu
3
to fire we use lasers, and then it produces its own ennergy
4
guide with ellectron beams, they like to follow that stuff


Vacuum? the inside of vessel is vacuum or used in space?
Is this supposed to shoot a fusion reaction out to a distance? It'll really just dissipate before it gets there, there would be no magnetic fields or electric fields to keep it at a high pressure.

electron beams to guide it? why do you like to think electron beams are so useful? they don't do that stuff you say in other threads.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Magnettic tracer shell?
it firsed fires a high powered magnetic slug to emmbed inside the intended target, and we can keep vacuum inside the chamber with a plastic cap that would be blown off by the reaction when fired, and hiroshima was atleased a 3Km radius, And ellectron beams and ions are high school chemistry, a ion will want to normalize its charge, therby seeking ellectrons



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kayaroyu
Ok then, lets do what the fusion reactors are going to do.

1 use it in vacuum, no air, no condiction of heat, and conduction is the mosti efficient distributin method.


and radiation? how you think the Sun's heat come to us ? >P



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   
this concept is known to me, but this mode of energy tranceferance is far less efficient than conduction, and in a vacuum, there is less heat going into the outer-skin

You must understand that heat conduction and heat radiation are two different things, and you loose heat when radiation is involved, whereas conduction is far more efficcient than radiation, losing a fraction of it's total energy in the prosses.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by Kayaroyu]



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Kayaroyu , the electron beam will not hold anything in place. Sure, a positive ion will be attracted to a negative charge, but the electron beam won't "hold it in place"
Really, when did you come up with the damage figures? I see no way you could have figured out how this sorta thng would do. Even if your idea to use electron beams worked, the power would vary based on the fusionable material in the beam or whatever? Also, if you wanted to fire a shell, why not use a normal nuke, or normal thermonuclear bomb? What would be the point?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join