User talk:Plasmic Physics

--Dragonc laws (talk ) 06:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

343's qoute
It is a qoute. It is not to be changed. -- A J  06:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition
Is my addition to Portal accurate? And what about Tsavo Highway (Location)?
 * Yes. -- A J [[Image:ArmyJROTC.jpg|20px]] 06:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, for future reference how do I identify a quote in an aticle, that shouldn't be edited?--Plasmic Physics 21:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sierra 117
Through carefull analysis of the scenery of the level, like the shape of the river, the relative orientation of Kilimanjaro and the vegetation, I found the coordinates. The coordinates of the first river area. I cross check google earth and this map: to find them as accurate as possible. Plasmic Physics 08:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

UN/UEG
Hi Plastic Physics, could you please add a source for the "Post-War" section of the UN article? From what we know, the UN was never mentioned of being transformed into the UEG, although it still exists. --User:UNSC Trooper (Talk)

UNSC Organization
It's mentioned in Contact Harvest that the UN still exists, so we don't know for sure if the UN was transformed into the UEG. -- UNSC Trooper  TalkMy Work 20:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Arrow
It never exactly says in Ghosts of Onyx that Kurt was using the Bloody Arrow to discourage allies and/or potential rescuers from coming to his aid. Indeed, when he sent the code, he meant for Dr Halsey to find the technologies and the SPARTAN-IIIs and then get rescued by the UNSC Fleet and go home. I suppose you and I are both right. — Lt.   Commander   Kouger  10:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Plasma Weapons Post
Good. I'm also glad that other people are aware of the problems with this topic. By all means, tell me your ideas, I'd like to see them.

As I pointed out on that talk page, the way in which plasma weapons are depicted is not only physically absurd, but also nonsensical and inefficient. It'd be like firing a bullet at something and it takes the projectile half an hour to hit its target.

Doesn't sound functional, does it? From one of the links I posted, even if the plasma bolt/blob held together, it apparently would have the aerodynamic efficiency of a balloon, and due to its low pressure etc., it would be buoyant, and could potentially float up instead of going forward.

It would need sufficient momentum, density, and speed in order to push through the atmosphere (hypersonic to relativistic) and even then, it would suffer from friciton, particle interactions with the air molecules, and black-body radiation (heat) losses, robbing it of its energy. To top that off, the way sci-fi depicts such weapons, even if it does hit, the plasma bolt is a largely randomized entity, with the particles barely contained, and when it hits, they will mostly splash against the surface of a target. There would be little to no penetration, which makes the weapon largely useless; in a projectile weapon, the density, momentum, etc. of a bullet, which makes such a weapon so useful.

In order for a plasma weapon to work, you'd need to compensate for friction, momentum, heat and energy losses, etc., and you'd need to have the plasma be relatively dense and most importantly, the particles all need to be moving in the same direction at the same high speed. If they are, then that means that they will all slam into the target, which will be subject to incredible heat, friction, and mechanical stresses.

In that case, it becomes more like a particle beam, except it is much thicker, denser, and far larger; in other words, it is a weaponized, coherent, rocket exhaust stream. The reason it would need to be dense is that plasmas are generally low density and sparse, so for the weapon to work, you'd need to convert a solid mass into plasma and prevent it from dispersing as it goes through the weapon. Another issue to be concerned about is the atmosphere.

One way to deal with this is to create an ionized channel of air via lasers or strong EM pulses, as well as making sure that the plasma stream is at a similar pressure to the surrounding atmosphere. This can be accomplished, it seems, by utilizing rocket nozzle techniques, which are designed to deal with similar problems. So basically this plasma weapon is a combination of rocket engine, laser, magnetic acceleration, and a bit of particle beam tech put into one nasty package.

The recoil from such a device depends on the speed of the stream/beam, density, etc., but for a gun or pistol, it would definitely not be negligible. It'd probably kick like a high caliber pistol or a shotgun, so recoil compensation would be a must. Unlike the whimpy plasma weapons in Halo and other sources, this would be a loud, bright, and downright terrifying weapon, easily able to burn and punch holes into targets just as well if not better than bullet weapons do.

Of course, I could be wrong.

--Exalted Obliteration 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are different varieties of plasmas: coulomb plasma, nuclear plasma, quantum plasma. Coulomb plasma is a substance where some electrons are energetically ejected from their parent atoms, this requires a signiture quantum of energy from their surroundings. Sometimes the ejected electrons recombine with the ionised atoms and releases the absorbed energy back to their surroundings, most often in the form of light. A coulomb plasma can appear as a candle flame, a inferno, a spark or a lightning bolt, even metals qualify to an extent as a plasma due to the nature of the bonding.
 * I'd like to point out that the purpose of a plasma shot is not to transfer momentum or penetrate the target, its purpose is to incinerate its target, this in effect makes it a long-range welding torch.
 * The behaviour of a plasma shot indicates that it is akin to a controled example of ball lightning, which is in it self poorly understood by today's standards.


 * I appologise if this seems a bit short, but I will have to reply in parts.

Not a problem. I should do that myself. Good points, especially about the way plasma weapons are presented. An incineration weapon, eh? It would be much simpler, cheaper, and less energy intensive to employ advanced versions of incendiaries like white phosphorous etc., sort of like the Jiralhanae do (Spikers, Flame Grenades, etc.).

In order for a plasma weapon to be an efficient incineration tool, it will have to be dense, hot, and incredibly fast. While your description likens it to a welding torch, don't forget that such things do their work over time, not nigh-instantaneously.

If you look closely at plasma shot impacts, the plasma has penetrated the target via burning into a target, so while the welding analogy is applicable, burning phosphorus or thermite is a better one.

Remember, with directed energy weapons, the transfer of energy into the target will create heat, and in the case of powerful lasers and particle beams, their high energy content will be transferred into the atoms of their target. If done via powerful near-instaneous pulses, this will not only superheat, but if done properly, will also expand viciously, carving out a crater into the target. In short, you have an explosion of superheated material, usually plasma, breaking into the target via strong mechanical and thermal stress. This can be likened to rocket exhaust applying "thrust" against something, which in this case, is solid matter.

As for ball lightning, good point. It would seem that the Forerunner (and by extension the Covenant) solved the problems I mentioned by applying some sort of quantum-based stabilization of plasma particles that mimics ball lightning.

--Exalted Obliteration 05:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal size
I was under the impression that you intended to revert edits by Jugus in the Battle of Earth section and accidentally undid my size part too, but I'll explain that anyway.


 * "hardly a credible" -> "pan-cam" : the size can be verified using pan-cam (comparing diameter to the length of the battlecruiser, which is undersized in WUs)
 * 118.62->100 : I have no idea where the old diameter came from, and the highway distance between Voi and New Mombasa is 97km, so 100 is a good approximation.
 * "actually is" -> "some have estimated it to be" : the 14km is an approximation by Stephen Loftus of HBO, a source as credible as the overhead image approximation. Source referenced. Mutoid Chief 00:43, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Scientific Inaccuracies
I respectfully decline your offer for a private discussion. I would prefer we keep this debate public, so that everyone can see all sides of the argument.Spartan999 19:48, November 26, 2009 (UTC)