Energy Weapons and Knockdown

[Alrik Vas]

Would it in real life? Maybe. If the energy is sufficient to explosively vaporize the material it was shot at... and since we don't have MDC material or MD capable (portable) lasers the point it moot IMO.

Should it do it in game? NO! Not in my opinion. As was mentioned already combat takes long enough even when you are not getting knocked down and losing attacks and initiative.

I've found that by making combat dangerous and gritty, you spend much less time resolving combat since the players look for other options.

--flatline

I try to spend more time preparing a successful ambush than depend on silly amounts of armor to save me, yah. Knocking people on their bum ends a fight faster in my experience.

[Bladesplint]

Allow me to paint this picture, simpy by way of game flavor. For those who think this washes, cool. But for me, this simply doesn't. Here goes:

Player One has a Headhunter armed with an MDC shotgun, loaded with something the equivalent of Rifts slugs or heavy shot (#5 or less).
Player Two has a CS Commando armed with a laser carbine - say one of their pulse lasers with a folding stock.

These two go at it. Shotgunner takes a laser burst but his armor holds. He is being hit by super concentrated light. Does this knock him down? I don't see it. Burnt, maybe some melted craters in his armor, and an audible or visible warning to indicate - hey, moron ... don't stand in the line of fire like that again. He returns fire and blasts the Commando with a slug from say ... 30 yards.

Commando gets hit and while the kinetics don't melt his armor with little craters, he gets nailed with something that feels like a freight train to his ribcage. He goes sprawling. Ever fire a shotgun? Let me assure you, the recoil on a 12 gauge is nothing to joke about; and the business end? In my neck of the woods IRL, we use shotguns loaded with slugs to take out bears. No way any normal human in Rifts would remain standing, even in MDC body armor.

I can see energy weapons causing a body to vaporize, but not explode like a grenade. I can see body armor being hit with energy weapons and being peppered with molten craters or scar lines that give off insane heat sigs. But I cannot see energy transfering the knockdown kinetics of a good old fashioned lead spitter.

BUT -
I totally can dig it if other GM's want to make it so in their game worlds. It's what is so cool about Rifts; each game has something to offer that might or might not be in the books, and players never can really be sure how far their meta knowledge will carry them. I personally think that this rule might be good for something like keeping the players on their toes - for example - they are suddenly faced with an alien or DB enemy or squad of them, armed with alien tech. The players are getting hit by something that looks like spiraling energy beams, or whatever, only when it connects, WHAM! Sends one of the players flying.

What? Alien tech that has knockdown? Oh man, we gotta get ourselves some of THAT.

Just a rant, hehehe sorry.

[Alrik Vas]

I think what people have been saying is that with the amount of power needed to inflict megadamage with a laser in any reasonable amount of time (less than a second on target) you're going to get an explosive reaction from contact with armor. Said explosion is going to chuck a human being to the ground. If you want it to just be BRRRAAAAARRRRRRRRZZZZZZZZZ laser, not plasma-ish pew-pew, then go for it.

[Slight001]

I think what people have been saying is that with the amount of power needed to inflict megadamage with a laser in any reasonable amount of time (less than a second on target) you're going to get an explosive reaction from contact with armor. Said explosion is going to chuck a human being to the ground. If you want it to just be BRRRAAAAARRRRRRRRZZZZZZZZZ laser, not plasma-ish pew-pew, then go for it.

... I suppose I should chime in and add in the consideration that appears to be being ignored... there is in my opinion no reason to assume that the armor hasn't been designed to overcome/counter the sudden explosive application of energy's debilitating effect (knockback/down) upon the average soldier. Perhaps, the armor was crafted such that it ablates in a more controlled manner, slowing the energy release and perhaps in the process reducing the knockback effect?

[Alrik Vas]

I proposed something like that, but didn't know how it would work. Of course, you could then just say, "Oh, armor has a grav field because of MDC supermaterials and rail guns can't knock you down either."

It's really up to us.

[Slight001]

I proposed something like that, but didn't know how it would work. Of course, you could then just say, "Oh, armor has a grav field because of MDC supermaterials and rail guns can't knock you down either."

It's really up to us.

Personally I was thinking about how mechwarrior armor is ablative and when hit with energy weaponry it liquefies and melts off. That exact system wouldn't work well for Rifts armor, but something similar might be possible.

[Alrik Vas]

Well, weapon defeating qualities of armor vs armor defeating qualities of weapons isn't something Palladium concerns themselves with...so we'll have to be satisfied with chewing the fat and then doing how we want to anyway.

[Smooth Operator]

I suppose you could design armor so that when it ablates the resulting cloud scatters the beam.

[flatline]

I suppose you could design armor so that when it ablates the resulting cloud scatters the beam.

In my game, you can purchase aerosols that scatter lasers making laser weapons ineffective in the area of effect. Tanks typically have these aerosol dispensers as standard equipment and infantry can use grenades that do the same thing.

Similarly, ion beams are dispersed by strong magnetic fields. Tanks can carry field generators and infantry can set up semi-portable field generators, but there's nothing small enough to be built into infantry armor.

Obviously, this makes other weapon types far more valuable in my setting. Laser and Ion weapons are pretty useless against targets who have deployed the proper countermeasures.

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

I've read that particle beams are similar to ion weapons in the past. If it's correct, would the mag-field be effective agains them too?

[flatline]

I've read that particle beams are similar to ion weapons in the past. If it's correct, would the mag-field be effective agains them too?

In the real world, ion beams are a sub-set of particle beams where the particles in the beam retain electrical charge. This means that they can be deflected by magnetic fields.

Particle beams whose particles are not charged (aka neutral) are not deflected by magnetic fields.

In my setting, ion weapons are relatively low energy particle beams that shoot charged particles. As such, they are deflected by sufficiently strong magnetic fields. Military grade particle beams are higher energy and typically neutral, so magnetic fields typically do not impact them. Of course, none of these particle beam weapons are small enough to be man portable.

Plasmas are also made of ions, but in my setting plasma weapons use ammunition that explodes/converts to plasma at the target, so unless it explodes before it strikes the target, a magnetic field will not deflect the resulting plasma meaningfully.

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

I like the idea of that. I make particle beams rare (perhaps rarer than they seem) and man-portable versions are extremely rare. A PC has a rifle (that is extremely powerful, has an overcharge mode that kicks for 1d4x10+30 at the cost of 3 normal shots) but on Rifts it's a near-unique item because its from another dimension and even the Naruni would love to get their hands on it.

[Bladesplint]

I dunno fellas. Energy weapons don't blow things up. They burn holes in material, even MDC materials. There is zero kinetic transfer. It's a beam of light (or plasma, etc), and the vaporizing of a portion of body armor being hit by an energy burst doesn't translate into kinetics IMO. I can understand a small cloud of ionized dust, or even a molten gush of melted armor splashing on the ground and causing a brush fire. I can get the body armor's environmental system kicking on, keeping the wearer cool despite the spike of heat which the laser surely would transfer into the suit. Definitely.

Now, having said that - I'm gonna throw out a tangential matter: Rifts South America 2. The Arkhons (sp) use a type of tech which is quite naassssstaaay, and each weapon fires three beams which intertwine in a spiraling bolt. I think there are three different barrels per weapon. This is so outside the box, that I would agree to use the KD rules on these guys, if my PC's went up against say .... an Arkhon scouting party with one or two Specral Hunter borgs on point. That'd be a very wicked wakeup call for any bored or jaded players, huh?

[Blue_Lion]

This is just a rehash of another debate.

Here is what I would rule on the topic based on.

1 a knock back down/back causes the loss of next action.
2 this would allow who ever hits fist to lock out the other person.
3 Getting stun locked until you die by a person with a L20 is no fun.
4 This is a game enjoyment should be more important than the science.

So I conclude that as people are not constantly getting knocked down in any combat examples, or most games that rifts armor by default has some undefined way of dealing with it. The reason is not listed because the writers are not top tear scantest and if they did create a hard fact on how this happens then some one with a science back ground would shoot it down. So it is a undefined quality of MDC that stops the knock down.

[Tor]

For comparison, a modern hand grenade releases 400kJ - 800kJ (based on an unscientific google search). That means that the explosion caused by our laser blast is roughly equivalent to 10 modern hand grenades.

Do lasers create explosions when they hit? If they exploded by superheating air then this would cause problems when they exited the gun for the shooter.

I can see something like water exploding if it, or a destroyed SDC target, not sure if non-destroyed MDC would explode though.

[flatline]

For comparison, a modern hand grenade releases 400kJ - 800kJ (based on an unscientific google search). That means that the explosion caused by our laser blast is roughly equivalent to 10 modern hand grenades.

Do lasers create explosions when they hit?

To quote the Wikipedia article "Explosion":

Code: Select all

An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases.

To quote the Wikipedia article "Explosive material":

Code: Select all

In addition to chemical explosives, there are a number of more exotic explosive materials, and exotic methods of causing explosions. Examples include nuclear explosives, and abruptly heating a substance to a plasma state with a high-intensity laser or electric arc.

If MD lasers are as powerful as we think the author intends, then MD lasers ABSOLUTELY cause explosions when they hit a solid target that absorbs their energy. That energy has to go somewhere.

If they exploded by superheating air then this would cause problems when they exited the gun for the shooter.

The shooter is safe unless the weapon designer chose a frequency of laser that air is not transparent to. If the air is transparent to the laser, then the laser will pass through it without transferring significant amounts of energy to it. The transition from a gas to a plasma, while potentially violent, is orders of magnitude less violent than the transition from a solid to a plasma and it occurs over a longer distance since air is significantly less dense than solid matter, so if the air was not transparent to the laser, there might be some danger to the shooter, but it would be greatly reduced.

--flatline

[Greyaxe]

Wow! Very interesting insight into real-life laser stuff. But as far as I'm concerned I'm happy to go with sci-fi over sci-fact every time. Lasers go zap and bad guys die. That's all I need to know! If you are looking for knock down (and stun and damage inside armour) effects they are on page 356 of the main book. They are technically only for explosions and rail guns, but just have them apply to all M.D. attacks, including lasers. That's what I do anyway. Hope that helps!

This is great. I am going to use it.

[Blue_Lion]

I am not sure that wiki is a good first choice for proven a fact as it is not always correct or creditable.

We are talking about is not a traditional chemical bomb but a sudden and loud release of energy to air by super heating the air in electricity this is called arc blast.

http://www.lbl.gov/ehs/pub3000/CH08/CH8_AppC.html
Arc Blast. Explosive release of molten material from equipment caused by high-amperage arcs.

The closet current military application of heat to create detestation explosions is thermobaric bombs or bunker busters. These work by super heating the air in a area to cause a pressure wave. For reference you can check out http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/lud.pdf.

The arc blast proves that high energy can create a explosive release of molten material. How ever the affect of the energy to cause such affects can be adjusted by material involved. Arc Rating changes the amount of energy to achieve a second degree burn so it is changing the amount of heat released relative to the amount of energy that is involved.

http://www.lbl.gov/ehs/pub3000/CH08/CH8_AppC.html
Arc Rating. The maximum incident energy resistance demonstrated by a material (or a layered system of materials) prior to breakopen or at the onset of a second-degree skin burn. Arc rating is normally expressed in calories per centimeter squared (cal/cm2). Breakopen is a material response evidenced by the formation of one or more holes in the innermost layer of flame-resistant material that would allow flame to pass through the material.

So although there is potential for high levels of energy to form explosions, how the material handles the energy may change weather or not there is a explosion. If MDC material contains the sudden heat source and slowly releases it into the air there will not be a explosion. Just because something suddenly takes in large amounts of energy does not mean it will pass the energy on at the same rate.

[guardiandashi]

this gets into a discussion I saw on another forum IE burn vs blast lasers
a "burn" laser takes an appreciable amount of time to transfer its energy payload
for the sake of argument if we say our example laser weapon takes 1-3 seconds to transfer its energy payload it would be a "burn laser" if we say the transferred energy is ~5-6mj per shot, 1 5mj over 1 second is a 5mj/s laser, if it does the 6mj over 2-3 seconds it is either a 3mj/s or a 2mj/s laser

a "blast" laser transfers the energy in a significantly shorter period of time usually measured in 10ths hundredth's or thousandths of seconds (or less)
so a laser that transfers 5mj of energy in 0.1 seconds is actually ... a 50mj laser. a laser that transfers 5mj in 0.01s is actually a 500mj laser etc and if you can dump that much energy into something in that short of an amount of time yes the reaction IS going to be energetic enough that "explosion" is a really good way of describing it.

[Alrik Vas]

pew-pew kablooie

[Dog_O_War]

Okay so your microwave. Put a can of pop in there and boom! Explosion.

Same deal with your stove, though on a far slower scale.

But what if that can were shaped differently? Like, what if that can was designed to act as a heat sink in addition to a container?

What happens if you use a fabric in place of metal?

What happens when you advance society 300 years into the future from today and that society creates a material that is as light as a labourer's work clothes but can withstand multiple impacts from a 140mm cannon at point blank range?

That said, I think it's safe to assume that given the truly incomprehensible strength MDC materials hold, it's also safe to assume that no explosions are taking place from instantaneous heat exchanges. I mean, for all we know, MDC might react to such things like fabric would; a localized burn with minimal transfer. In addition to being ablative, flexible, etc.

What I'm getting at is that using modern science in an attempt to explain future fantasy will always leave you wanting.

On a personal note though, I've been reading the Gaunt's Ghosts series by Dan Abnett (a Warhammer 40K bookline - I have found myself enthralled by his writing style) and he uses a "lasers have a kinetic effect", which I've come to enjoy.

But it has also given me something to consider; it would depend on whether that laser were a "bar" (a broken beam of light) or a line.
A line being a beam of light that travels from the tip of your gun to the target, unbroken. This type of attack would be fundamentally different from a bar.
A bar being a beam of light that "leaves" (no longer touches) the gun before it has reached its target; this would require some kind of field for the light to be contained in, which might lend a kind of "sci-fi" credibility to a kinetic laser.

But I would then note that within the Warhammer 40K video games, all the lasers are lines. Not that they're any more official than a writer's fiat, but it's something to contemplate.

[eliakon]

But it has also given me something to consider; it would depend on whether that laser were a "bar" (a broken beam of light) or a line.
A line being a beam of light that travels from the tip of your gun to the target, unbroken. This type of attack would be fundamentally different from a bar.
A bar being a beam of light that "leaves" (no longer touches) the gun before it has reached its target; this would require some kind of field for the light to be contained in, which might lend a kind of "sci-fi" credibility to a kinetic laser.

But I would then note that within the Warhammer 40K video games, all the lasers are lines. Not that they're any more official than a writer's fiat, but it's something to contemplate.

Uhhhh...Wha?
A laser is a bunch of photons moving. It doesn't need to be 'contained in' anything anymore than a bunch of bullets do.
a 'bar' would just be a short burst of light, like a bullet. A 'line' would just be a bunch of bars that overlap.....

[Alrik Vas]

In scifi there seems to be a difference between a ray and a blast. I think he's getting on that, but not sure.

[Svartalf]

Not that such a difference is obvious is Rifts rules

[Dog_O_War]

But it has also given me something to consider; it would depend on whether that laser were a "bar" (a broken beam of light) or a line.
A line being a beam of light that travels from the tip of your gun to the target, unbroken. This type of attack would be fundamentally different from a bar.
A bar being a beam of light that "leaves" (no longer touches) the gun before it has reached its target; this would require some kind of field for the light to be contained in, which might lend a kind of "sci-fi" credibility to a kinetic laser.

But I would then note that within the Warhammer 40K video games, all the lasers are lines. Not that they're any more official than a writer's fiat, but it's something to contemplate.

Uhhhh...Wha?
A laser is a bunch of photons moving. It doesn't need to be 'contained in' anything anymore than a bunch of bullets do.
a 'bar' would just be a short burst of light, like a bullet. A 'line' would just be a bunch of bars that overlap.....

Try including the whole context; what you've thrown out their is not necessarily true in the described universe. For instance, in the book series described above, the laser weapons produce kick, noise, and impact when firing.
In Rifts, they don't.
And why is that? If a laser in either of these two universes were truly just "a bunch of photons moving", then there would need to be a tremendous amount of energy required for them to produce an actual kinetic effect - in Rifts there is not one, though there seems to be a requirement for a higher level of energy, while in the 40K fiction, these lasers are little better than modern bullets, yet they're the ones with kinetic force.

So I recommend using a context - because what you've responded with to the quoted portion of me is what is not making sense here.

[glitterboy2098]

40k is not exactly known for scientific accuracy.. i mean, bolter rounds with "depleted deuterium penetrators"?

[Dog_O_War]

40k is not exactly known for scientific accuracy.. i mean, bolter rounds with "depleted deuterium penetrators"?

It's a little arrogant to state what is and is not scientifically accurate 40,000 years from now, especially given in that universe, it's scientifically accurate to say aliens exist, where as today, it's just hearsay.

[glitterboy2098]

do you know what deuterium is?

[Svartalf]

Depleted deuterium? Do they mean metallic hydrogen?

[glitterboy2098]

warhammer 40k fluff:

The standard Bolt Round consists of:
Standard Bolter Slug
A solid-fuel rocket propellant base
An outer casing containing conventional charge
Gyrostabilizer
Mass-reactive fuse. Has a split-second timer to delay detonation upon impact until after the shot penetrates the target.
Hardened diamantine penetrating tip. This allows for the bolt to penetrate most armor before detonation.
Main Explosive Charge
Depleted uranium core. This is a very dense material, adding weight and thus momentum to the round when in flight. This aids in the bolt's penetration of the target.

how you can define deuterium, one of the lightest and least dense materials in the universe, in all its phases, as a very dense material leaves me wondering what kind of grades their writers got in science class...


and its not a case of "well maybe in the future'.. sorry, the basic laws of reality don't change.. they just decided "dueterium" sounds fancier than "uranium" or something stupid like that. and if theycan screw up basic chemistry, what makes you think their descriptions of energy weapons are in any way accurate?

[eliakon]

But it has also given me something to consider; it would depend on whether that laser were a "bar" (a broken beam of light) or a line.
A line being a beam of light that travels from the tip of your gun to the target, unbroken. This type of attack would be fundamentally different from a bar.
A bar being a beam of light that "leaves" (no longer touches) the gun before it has reached its target; this would require some kind of field for the light to be contained in, which might lend a kind of "sci-fi" credibility to a kinetic laser.

But I would then note that within the Warhammer 40K video games, all the lasers are lines. Not that they're any more official than a writer's fiat, but it's something to contemplate.

Uhhhh...Wha?
A laser is a bunch of photons moving. It doesn't need to be 'contained in' anything anymore than a bunch of bullets do.
a 'bar' would just be a short burst of light, like a bullet. A 'line' would just be a bunch of bars that overlap.....

Try including the whole context; what you've thrown out their is not necessarily true in the described universe. For instance, in the book series described above, the laser weapons produce kick, noise, and impact when firing.
In Rifts, they don't.
And why is that? If a laser in either of these two universes were truly just "a bunch of photons moving", then there would need to be a tremendous amount of energy required for them to produce an actual kinetic effect - in Rifts there is not one, though there seems to be a requirement for a higher level of energy, while in the 40K fiction, these lasers are little better than modern bullets, yet they're the ones with kinetic force.

So I recommend using a context - because what you've responded with to the quoted portion of me is what is not making sense here.

I didn't use a context since
1) there wasn't one provided
2) I didn't think that anything that was world specific to 40k was relevant

A laser NEVER needs a 'containment field' so I don't get what your trying to say here.
I guess the FIRST question is what do you mean by laser? Since I suspect that what your calling a laser might not be what the rest of us are calling a laser.
A laser beam is pretty much a really REALLY powerful flashlight. a 'line' laser would keep the beam on longer and a 'bar' laser just flickers it on and off.....neither has any sort of other fields involved.

The question of 'do they/should they make noise' is related of course.
The question of impact is sort of the POINT of this thread
The question of kick when fired would first require an indepth knowledge of the laser system (there are prototype lasers that get their energy from chemical reactions, a high enough power version could create kick)

But in general I would not say that the particular rubber physics of one game would have much relevance to the rubber physics of another game....

[Daniel Stoker]

warhammer 40k fluff:

The standard Bolt Round consists of:
Standard Bolter Slug
A solid-fuel rocket propellant base
An outer casing containing conventional charge
Gyrostabilizer
Mass-reactive fuse. Has a split-second timer to delay detonation upon impact until after the shot penetrates the target.
Hardened diamantine penetrating tip. This allows for the bolt to penetrate most armor before detonation.
Main Explosive Charge
Depleted uranium core. This is a very dense material, adding weight and thus momentum to the round when in flight. This aids in the bolt's penetration of the target.

how you can define deuterium, one of the lightest and least dense materials in the universe, in all its phases, as a very dense material leaves me wondering what kind of grades their writers got in science class...


and its not a case of "well maybe in the future'.. sorry, the basic laws of reality don't change.. they just decided "dueterium" sounds fancier than "uranium" or something stupid like that. and if theycan screw up basic chemistry, what makes you think their descriptions of energy weapons are in any way accurate?

I think I'm missing that, I see diamantine mentioned there but where is dueterium?


Daniel Stoker

[guardiandashi]

most lasers the "kick" is so minuscule that you can't feel it that's not to say it doesn't exist.... but its on the scale of micro grams or less.

energy weapons that would have an appreciable "kick" would be a high energy particle or plasma weapon anything that accelerates "noticeable amounts of mass" IE railguns etc.

the reason it would take an INSANELY powerful laser to generate a "kick" is 2fold 1st ask yourself how much "thrust" constitutes a kick that you personally can feel (equal and opposite reaction rule applies) now look up the mass of a photon, and decide approximately how MANY photons you would need to be shooting to get that amount of "thrust" have fun I will be waiting for you to come back with those numbers.

[flatline]

I'm trying to understand where this side discussion is going.

Are we conflating recoil of the weapon (aka "kick") with knockdown effects at the target? If so, I think that's a dead end. Recoil is caused by conservation of momentum between the weapon and any particles leaving the weapon. Knockdown effects are largely secondary effects caused by energy transfer to the target (at least at the crazy high energy levels proposed by the setting).

For example, the amount of kick I feel when I launch a grenade is insufficient to knock me down when I fire the weapon. When the grenade hits the target, it can not, by definition, change the momentum of the target more than it did my own momentum. However, when it explodes, it is very likely to throw the target away from the point of impact. The resulting momentum change in the target had nothing to do with the momentum of the grenade and everything to do with the energy released by the grenade.

I understand that it can be difficult to decouple these concepts. Our uninformed intuitions fail us when asked to consider energy levels beyond anything we're likely to encounter in the real world. That was the whole point of starting this thread.

--flatline

[Dog_O_War]

do you know what deuterium is?

Do you know what psychic powers, dark-age science, and the Imperium of Man are?

Given that, in the 40K universe, they can make machines that make sentient machines, do you really, honestly believe that what you're saying might have changed - just possibly, scientifically?

Or will the world always be flat to you? (to draw a parallel).

I didn't use a context since
1) there wasn't one provided
2) I didn't think that anything that was world specific to 40k was relevant

I provided two different contexts.

As to the relevance of 40K, it's one science [fiction] versus another; it is just as relevant as Rifts science when compared to a real-world example, which is what was being done here.

A laser NEVER needs a 'containment field' so I don't get what your trying to say here.

Oh, I hadn't realized I was speaking to the leader of the scientific community regarding what an elementary particle does and does not need.
My bad.

I guess the FIRST question is what do you mean by laser? Since I suspect that what your calling a laser might not be what the rest of us are calling a laser.

A damaging beam of light.

A laser beam is pretty much a really REALLY powerful flashlight.

Yeah, thanks for dumbing it down for me; I definitely needed someone to do that.

a 'line' laser would keep the beam on longer and a 'bar' laser just flickers it on and off.....neither has any sort of other fields involved.

Okay, I'll dispose of the sarcasm and just be direct; the reason a laser would typically appear as a beam is because there is no visible distance we or anyone else can see that is further than the speed light travels at. That is what I mean by "line".

Meanwhile a "bar" would instead be a concentrated and captured grouping of light [photons] that, while still light, is travelling slower than [light] for the sole purpose of concentrated containment.

Do you now understand?

The question of 'do they/should they make noise' is related of course.
The question of impact is sort of the POINT of this thread
The question of kick when fired would first require an indepth knowledge of the laser system (there are prototype lasers that get their energy from chemical reactions, a high enough power version could create kick)

So my question would then be; how does this actually apply to either the Rifts setting or my previously mentioned 40K setting, given that we know certain scientifically 'impossible' facts (currently) that these two realms exhibit?

But in general I would not say that the particular rubber physics of one game would have much relevance to the rubber physics of another game....

I never really questioned that; I only pointed out that trying to explain (your term of) "rubber physics" with real-world physics is an exercise in futility.

[Blue_Lion]

I'm trying to understand where this side discussion is going.

Are we conflating recoil of the weapon (aka "kick") with knockdown effects at the target? If so, I think that's a dead end. Recoil is caused by conservation of momentum between the weapon and any particles leaving the weapon. Knockdown effects are largely secondary effects caused by energy transfer to the target (at least at the crazy high energy levels proposed by the setting).

For example, the amount of kick I feel when I launch a grenade is insufficient to knock me down when I fire the weapon. When the grenade hits the target, it can not, by definition, change the momentum of the target more than it did my own momentum. However, when it explodes, it is very likely to throw the target away from the point of impact. The resulting momentum change in the target had nothing to do with the momentum of the grenade and everything to do with the energy released by the grenade.

I understand that it can be difficult to decouple these concepts. Our uninformed intuitions fail us when asked to consider energy levels beyond anything we're likely to encounter in the real world. That was the whole point of starting this thread.

--flatline

Actually if you make the mistake of shooting a MK19 grenade from a M203 it will knock down and will likely break a bone. The MK 19 uses a larger charge to shoot the grenade than the M203 despite both using 4omm round.

Not sure why you say the knock down on the target can not be greater than the affect on the shooter. Most military fire arms have a way built in to reduce the affect of recoil. I have seen people get hit in body IBA or knocked down by fire from a AK 47 witch does not knock down the shooter.

Buy as I understand it there is no recoil from a laser. Nothing creating any form of back pressure at the source.

[cosmicfish]

do you know what deuterium is?

Do you know what psychic powers, dark-age science, and the Imperium of Man are?

The difference being that deuterium actually exists, and while I know next to nothing about 40K I can state that using deuterium in this manner makes no more sense than saying that your gun shoots fluffy pillows which nonetheless (and without further explanation or differentiation from the pillows we are all familiar with) are explosive and acidic.

Given that, in the 40K universe, they can make machines that make sentient machines, do you really, honestly believe that what you're saying might have changed - just possibly, scientifically?

Sure. But presenting it without explanation and expecting it to be accepted is either misunderstanding the way language works or grossly underestimating the intelligence of your audience.

A laser NEVER needs a 'containment field' so I don't get what your trying to say here.

Oh, I hadn't realized I was speaking to the leader of the scientific community regarding what an elementary particle does and does not need.
My bad.

If you HAD spoken to a "leader of the scientific community" (not sure who this means - Neil DeGrasse Tyson?) they would probably ask you what you were hoping to contain, and why? Lasers do not currently use any kind of containment field (nor is one generated by nature) and one does not seem necessary to any operation I can think of, so I am not sure why one would be needed.

I guess the FIRST question is what do you mean by laser? Since I suspect that what your calling a laser might not be what the rest of us are calling a laser.

A damaging beam of light.

That is not the normal definition

A laser beam is pretty much a really REALLY powerful flashlight.

Yeah, thanks for dumbing it down for me; I definitely needed someone to do that.

Which is fine, because it is really quite different than a really REALLY powerful flashlight. The primary characteristics of a laser are that it is Light Amplified by Stimulated Emissions of Radiation as opposed to light generated by thermal or other processes, that it has an extremely narrow bandwidth (to the point where it is often approximated as having zero bandwidth - i.e., a single precise color), and that the emitted light is temporally and spatially coherent (meaning the phase of all the photons is the same).

Also, please note that most lasers are much less powerful than a flashlight in terms of actual light produced. Lasers are about quality of light, not quantity.

a 'line' laser would keep the beam on longer and a 'bar' laser just flickers it on and off.....neither has any sort of other fields involved.

Okay, I'll dispose of the sarcasm and just be direct; the reason a laser would typically appear as a beam is because there is no visible distance we or anyone else can see that is further than the speed light travels at. That is what I mean by "line".

Meanwhile a "bar" would instead be a concentrated and captured grouping of light [photons] that, while still light, is travelling slower than [light] for the sole purpose of concentrated containment.

Do you now understand?

I think so.

In reality, there are two general types of lasers: continual wave (or CW) and pulsed. CW lasers emit a steady-ish stream of photons without interruption, while pulsed lasers alternate between bursts of photons and periods without emission. It is rather like the difference between constantly pushing something and intermittently punching it. The pulse rate is usually so much higher than human visual rates that pulsed lasers appear the same as CW without high-speed instrumentation. My laser pulses 10,000 times a second - looks like a solid beam. Both types emit photons at the speed of light.

Your description of a "bar-type laser" is basically a special effect thought up by George Lucas rather than any desirable system. Assuming that it was possible to lower the speed of light, it would not be desirable - you can "bundle" photons with any single or set of pulsed lasers without any containment, and slowing the "bar" would not incidentally spread the energy across time, eliminating any advantage in the bundling whilst simultaneously wasting a lot of time and effort.

The question of 'do they/should they make noise' is related of course.
The question of impact is sort of the POINT of this thread
The question of kick when fired would first require an indepth knowledge of the laser system (there are prototype lasers that get their energy from chemical reactions, a high enough power version could create kick)

So my question would then be; how does this actually apply to either the Rifts setting or my previously mentioned 40K setting, given that we know certain scientifically 'impossible' facts (currently) that these two realms exhibit?

It is worthwhile to note that there is a general assumption in fiction that the imagined world is the same as the existing world outside of those areas where differences are explicitly told or illustrated. Otherwise, it would be impossible to know anything about the world at all. We know that Rifts Earth is different in some ways than the real world, but we still assume that people breathe, that things fall down, that iron is hard. If you can support your idea of Rifts physics by showing where it is described in canon, then please do so - otherwise you are just making things up.

But in general I would not say that the particular rubber physics of one game would have much relevance to the rubber physics of another game....

I never really questioned that; I only pointed out that trying to explain (your term of) "rubber physics" with real-world physics is an exercise in futility.

To a certain extent I agree, but you have to have a starting point! As I noted before, the vast majority of "rules" in Rifts appear to be the same as they are in reality, and the exceptions are noted as being, well, exceptions. Some things are explicitly different. Some things must be different to account for other observed effects. I see no reason to assume that anything else is different, and lots of reasons NOT to do so.

[cosmicfish]

Not sure why you say the knock down on the target can not be greater than the affect on the shooter. Most military fire arms have a way built in to reduce the affect of recoil. I have seen people get hit in body IBA or knocked down by fire from a AK 47 witch does not knock down the shooter.

The effect on the target can be different, but the energy cannot be. When you fire a gun, the energy is spread out over the area of the butt and/or grip, and if there is any recoil-absorber then it is also spread across time. Conversely, the bullet delivers less energy to the actual target (having lost some energy in transit) but it delivers it over a small area and very short period of time. So even though there is less energy, the target experiences a substantially greater effect.

As to people getting knocked down, when it happens (relatively rare) what you see is the result of their body responding to the damage rather than any energy transfer. The energy delivered by the bullet is small compared to the energy needed to push a human backwards with any noticeable speed, especially since most of that energy is expended (ideally) in shredding muscle, bone, and organ.

I would note that it is possible to cause knockdown by use of explosive rounds or such, but that is a separate source of energy.

Buy as I understand it there is no recoil from a laser. Nothing creating any form of back pressure at the source.

No, there is no recoil per se - photons have no mass, so neither conservation of momentum nor of energy permit recoil. It is possible that a high-powered laser system could heat air enough to produce some type of thermally-induced pressure wave, but it would not feel like recoil.

[Slight001]

warhammer 40k fluff:

The standard Bolt Round consists of:
Standard Bolter Slug
A solid-fuel rocket propellant base
An outer casing containing conventional charge
Gyrostabilizer
Mass-reactive fuse. Has a split-second timer to delay detonation upon impact until after the shot penetrates the target.
Hardened diamantine penetrating tip. This allows for the bolt to penetrate most armor before detonation.
Main Explosive Charge
Depleted uranium core. This is a very dense material, adding weight and thus momentum to the round when in flight. This aids in the bolt's penetration of the target.

how you can define deuterium, one of the lightest and least dense materials in the universe, in all its phases, as a very dense material leaves me wondering what kind of grades their writers got in science class...


and its not a case of "well maybe in the future'.. sorry, the basic laws of reality don't change.. they just decided "dueterium" sounds fancier than "uranium" or something stupid like that. and if theycan screw up basic chemistry, what makes you think their descriptions of energy weapons are in any way accurate?

I think I'm missing that, I see diamantine mentioned there but where is dueterium?


Daniel Stoker

I even checked his source and I'm not seeing a reference to dueterium anywhere in it.

[flatline]

Not sure why you say the knock down on the target can not be greater than the affect on the shooter. Most military fire arms have a way built in to reduce the affect of recoil. I have seen people get hit in body IBA or knocked down by fire from a AK 47 witch does not knock down the shooter.

The change in momentum at the shooter is m x v + M x V where m is the mass of the projectile, v is the muzzle velocity of the projectile, M is the mass of the propellant and V is the muzzle velocity of the propellant.

The change in momentum that the target is m x v. Even if we assume that the projectile doesn't lose any velocity during flight, m x v must always be less than m x v + M x V since all values are positive.

--flatline

[Daniel Stoker]

I even checked his source and I'm not seeing a reference to dueterium anywhere in it.

I think he might have had the wrong link:

Godwyn pattern

The model currently used by most Space Marines is designated the Astartes MK Vb Godwyn pattern. The Godwyn-pattern bolter has a built-in ammo counter and uses a Sinister/Dexter locking mechanism with a sickle-shaped magazine carrying 30 rounds.[7b] It fires the standard Astartes .75 calibre bolt, composed of a diamantine tip, [b]depleted deuterium core and mass-reactive detonator, typically in bursts of four rounds.[7a] Other features include a palm-print sensor for genetic identification,[15] as well as an integral targeter that links with the autosenses in the Marine's helmet for superior accuracy.[22] It can also be upgraded with weapon accessories such as the M40 Targeting System.

Other Godwyn patterns include the Astartes Mk IIIa Godwyn Pattern, an older version, still used by the Dark Angels Chapter.[5]

Daniel Stoker

[Dog_O_War]

do you know what deuterium is?

Do you know what psychic powers, dark-age science, and the Imperium of Man are?

The difference being that deuterium actually exists, and while I know next to nothing about 40K I can state that using deuterium in this manner makes no more sense than saying that your gun shoots fluffy pillows which nonetheless (and without further explanation or differentiation from the pillows we are all familiar with) are explosive and acidic.

Kind of the point everyone seems to be missing here; Rifts Earth and Rifts Earth physics (and 40K and 40K physics) do not exist. So if a fictional universe happens to mention something that exists in our own real life, it is not safe to assume that it is in all ways exactly as it is in the fictional universe as it is in real life.

Given that, in the 40K universe, they can make machines that make sentient machines, do you really, honestly believe that what you're saying might have changed - just possibly, scientifically?

Sure. But presenting it without explanation and expecting it to be accepted is either misunderstanding the way language works or grossly underestimating the intelligence of your audience.

Glitterboys' a smart guy; I am confident that he understood the response.

A laser NEVER needs a 'containment field' so I don't get what your trying to say here.

Oh, I hadn't realized I was speaking to the leader of the scientific community regarding what an elementary particle does and does not need.
My bad.

If you HAD spoken to a "leader of the scientific community" (not sure who this means - Neil DeGrasse Tyson?) they would probably ask you what you were hoping to contain, and why? Lasers do not currently use any kind of containment field (nor is one generated by nature) and one does not seem necessary to any operation I can think of, so I am not sure why one would be needed.

Okay, I'll explain it to you; photons are elementary particles; that is what "light" particles are. We do not know whether they do or do not need to be contained, if at all, in anything. That is a fact. So when someone states emphatically that "a laser NEVER needs a 'containment field'", they're positing opinion and not fact because the foremost scientists in every field cannot say what said particles do or do not need.

Beyond that, if a poster (such as myself) is just riffing with an idea and happens to call something a 'containment field', it's safe to assume that - and this is especially important - that when used in the context of fictional physics, that maybe, just maybe, 'containment field' was used in a more figurative tone than a science-factual one.
You know, just maybe.

I guess the FIRST question is what do you mean by laser? Since I suspect that what your calling a laser might not be what the rest of us are calling a laser.

A damaging beam of light.

That is not the normal definition

It's the contextual one; the conversation was about fictional laser weapons - that would be decidedly accurate in definition.

In reality, there are two general types of lasers: continual wave (or CW) and pulsed. CW lasers emit a steady-ish stream of photons without interruption, while pulsed lasers alternate between bursts of photons and periods without emission. It is rather like the difference between constantly pushing something and intermittently punching it. The pulse rate is usually so much higher than human visual rates that pulsed lasers appear the same as CW without high-speed instrumentation. My laser pulses 10,000 times a second - looks like a solid beam. Both types emit photons at the speed of light.

Your description of a "bar-type laser" is basically a special effect thought up by George Lucas rather than any desirable system. Assuming that it was possible to lower the speed of light, it would not be desirable - you can "bundle" photons with any single or set of pulsed lasers without any containment, and slowing the "bar" would not incidentally spread the energy across time, eliminating any advantage in the bundling whilst simultaneously wasting a lot of time and effort.

Yes, Star Wars 'blasters' is the visual cue is was aiming at; my thought process to justify such a thing would be that the 'containment field' exists in actuality to take a set amount of photons and actually speed them up beyond the speed of light; a 'hypervelocity light'.

Now, imagine if you could taking say 1000 photons as the laser (this is just a number without any meaning beyond the purposes of the example). They, when used in a direct line, are as efficient as 1000 photons. But imagine now that you could place them inside a limited space that in effect sped them up to the point that they began to exist in two places at once; all of a sudden you're getting 2000 photons' worth of efficiency out of 1000 photons. Now imagine that you're not so much as firing a laser anymore, but firing the field these photons are contained within; that would be a more efficient, more damaging weapon than a single beam would otherwise provide.

Of course, this is all speculation, but then again, so is applying real-world physics to either fictional realm previously discussed. All I'm doing here is placing a justification on why something would be on an otherwise physically impossible/improbable/inefficient situation.

It is worthwhile to note that there is a general assumption in fiction that the imagined world is the same as the existing world outside of those areas where differences are explicitly told or illustrated. Otherwise, it would be impossible to know anything about the world at all. We know that Rifts Earth is different in some ways than the real world, but we still assume that people breathe, that things fall down, that iron is hard. If you can support your idea of Rifts physics by showing where it is described in canon, then please do so - otherwise you are just making things up.

I can; no "explosive effects" are described as taking place, no knock-down effect and no impact effect is described on any kind of damaging laser attack. This would be Rifts physics if such a thing would otherwise occur in our own reality.
That is, the evidence is that when such a thing occurs, it is described as doing so. Lasers are not described as doing so.

But in general I would not say that the particular rubber physics of one game would have much relevance to the rubber physics of another game....

I never really questioned that; I only pointed out that trying to explain (your term of) "rubber physics" with real-world physics is an exercise in futility.

To a certain extent I agree, but you have to have a starting point! As I noted before, the vast majority of "rules" in Rifts appear to be the same as they are in reality, and the exceptions are noted as being, well, exceptions. Some things are explicitly different. Some things must be different to account for other observed effects. I see no reason to assume that anything else is different, and lots of reasons NOT to do so.

Whereas I see no reason to assume that what science that applies today will be applicable in the described 300+ years from now. And I justify such a viewpoint by looking at our very own history in equal increments; 300 years in the past it was deemed a scientific fact that man would never fly. 300 years before that, it was possible to sail off the edge of the Earth. 300 years before that, Royalty was given their position by divinity. etc.

This is the viewpoint I take; that our own science constantly and consistently redefines what is and is not possible, so I don't find it useful to state that something is factually wrong when it is both fictional in nature, and from the future.
I just see it the same as both stating the obvious (yes, we know that it would work differently using today's physics), as well as making an assumption (so you can see into the future, can you?)

That makes anything said as "fact" on the matter both redundant and wrong.

[Daniel Stoker]

So if we have armor made out of 24 carat gold and we're told it's super light and super hard we should just shrug and assume physics is different for that too and not that the idea is dumb like the original Spirit West Laser bow?


Daniel Stoker

[Dog_O_War]

I even checked his source and I'm not seeing a reference to dueterium anywhere in it.

I think he might have had the wrong link:

Godwyn pattern

The model currently used by most Space Marines is designated the Astartes MK Vb Godwyn pattern. The Godwyn-pattern bolter has a built-in ammo counter and uses a Sinister/Dexter locking mechanism with a sickle-shaped magazine carrying 30 rounds.[7b] It fires the standard Astartes .75 calibre bolt, composed of a diamantine tip, [b]depleted deuterium core and mass-reactive detonator, typically in bursts of four rounds.[7a] Other features include a palm-print sensor for genetic identification,[15] as well as an integral targeter that links with the autosenses in the Marine's helmet for superior accuracy.[22] It can also be upgraded with weapon accessories such as the M40 Targeting System.

Other Godwyn patterns include the Astartes Mk IIIa Godwyn Pattern, an older version, still used by the Dark Angels Chapter.[5]

Daniel Stoker

I think one of the biggest parts missed here though is that someone prayed it would work in the manner that it works. And that prayer in all its surreality, is causing it to otherwise act in a manner our real-world physics would state is 'impossible'.

Or did everyone forget that Tech-Priests pray to the Machine God for their devices to work?

Just sayin'

[cosmicfish]

So if we have armor made out of 24 carat gold and we're told it's super light and super hard we should just shrug and assume physics is different for that too and not that the idea is dumb like the original Spirit West Laser bow?


Daniel Stoker

I think we can also assume that it is both edible (in a pinch) and that when heated to 400 degrees it triples in volume, glows purple, and emits an odor of rancid yak butter.

[Daniel Stoker]

I think one of the biggest parts missed here though is that someone prayed it would work in the manner that it works. And that prayer in all its surreality, is causing it to otherwise act in a manner our real-world physics would state is 'impossible'.

Or did everyone forget that Tech-Priests pray to the Machine God for their devices to work?

Just sayin'

Does that change the nature of objects? I thought it was done to keep things working not 'transmute lead to gold' kinda thing.


Daniel Stoker

[Nightmask]

I suppose since I failed to see it mentioned that the reason 'depleted' and 'deuterium' don't go together being that there is no way to have something like that occur since deuterium is just a specialized word to denote an isotope of Hydrogen. You can't 'deplete' it like the context actually used for 'depleted uranium', so it's just two words put together to sound cool but otherwise is a nonsense kind of thing.

[cosmicfish]

Kind of the point everyone seems to be missing here; Rifts Earth and Rifts Earth physics (and 40K and 40K physics) do not exist. So if a fictional universe happens to mention something that exists in our own real life, it is not safe to assume that it is in all ways exactly as it is in the fictional universe as it is in real life.

Sure they do - they are described in the rules, and in the text as well. The fact that the description is not complete is a function of the fact that it is a game and not a treatise on the physics of a fictional setting. But I will say it again: If the laws of physics are not directly or indirectly described as different than reality, then assuming that they are different means that the authors have utterly failed to communicate with the audience. And I see neither reason nor justification for assuming that.

Glitterboys' a smart guy; I am confident that he understood the response.

Really? So if I said "gold" and meant "a lightweight and hard metal", YOU would be the idiot for thinking I meant "a dense and relatively soft metal"?

Okay, I'll explain it to you; photons are elementary particles; that is what "light" particles are. We do not know whether they do or do not need to be contained, if at all, in anything. That is a fact. So when someone states emphatically that "a laser NEVER needs a 'containment field'", they're positing opinion and not fact because the foremost scientists in every field cannot say what said particles do or do not need.

Yes, they are elementary particles. No, we DO know that they do not need to be contained in anything - unlike most elementary particules, photons interact with us on a constant basis and have been extensively studied. We generate them and use them every second of every day, and we do so without any kind of containment field - when I say "a laser NEVER needs a "containment field"" I am referring to the fact that lasers as built today are not built with any such containment field and that in and of itself proves that no containment field is necessary.

Beyond that, if a poster (such as myself) is just riffing with an idea and happens to call something a 'containment field', it's safe to assume that - and this is especially important - that when used in the context of fictional physics, that maybe, just maybe, 'containment field' was used in a more figurative tone than a science-factual one.
You know, just maybe.

Well, I would suggest that if you are going to use a "more figurative tone" right smack in the middle of a discussion comparing real-world physics with a system of fictional physics, then maybe you should not assume that anyone else is going to know what you are saying.

Yes, Star Wars 'blasters' is the visual cue is was aiming at; my thought process to justify such a thing would be that the 'containment field' exists in actuality to take a set amount of photons and actually speed them up beyond the speed of light; a 'hypervelocity light'.

Now, imagine if you could taking say 1000 photons as the laser (this is just a number without any meaning beyond the purposes of the example). They, when used in a direct line, are as efficient as 1000 photons. But imagine now that you could place them inside a limited space that in effect sped them up to the point that they began to exist in two places at once; all of a sudden you're getting 2000 photons' worth of efficiency out of 1000 photons. Now imagine that you're not so much as firing a laser anymore, but firing the field these photons are contained within; that would be a more efficient, more damaging weapon than a single beam would otherwise provide.

This is starting to sound like you read a paragraph on quantum theory and are now trying to apply it without understanding it. Let's say you can generate your containment field, and it doubles the energy of the contained photons somehow. If generating that field requires more energy than that of the "extra" photons then it makes no sense to use it - the downside to firing a slow field vs a fast beam is not worth it when you can double the energy far more easily by either doubling the laser output or just firing two at the same time. If generating the field requires LESS energy than that of those "extra" photons then you are creating energy out of nothing and have introduced a technology that immediately breaks the game.

I can; no "explosive effects" are described as taking place, no knock-down effect and no impact effect is described on any kind of damaging laser attack. This would be Rifts physics if such a thing would otherwise occur in our own reality.
That is, the evidence is that when such a thing occurs, it is described as doing so. Lasers are not described as doing so.

See, this part I can agree with, now please apply this to your other assertions.

Whereas I see no reason to assume that what science that applies today will be applicable in the described 300+ years from now. And I justify such a viewpoint by looking at our very own history in equal increments; 300 years in the past it was deemed a scientific fact that man would never fly. 300 years before that, it was possible to sail off the edge of the Earth. 300 years before that, Royalty was given their position by divinity. etc.

This is the viewpoint I take; that our own science constantly and consistently redefines what is and is not possible, so I don't find it useful to state that something is factually wrong when it is both fictional in nature, and from the future.
I just see it the same as both stating the obvious (yes, we know that it would work differently using today's physics), as well as making an assumption (so you can see into the future, can you?)

That makes anything said as "fact" on the matter both redundant and wrong.

Wow. That hurt to read.

Historical: 300 years ago human flight was largely a matter of opinion because there was no scientific understanding of the principles involved. 300 years before that, the people who thought you could "sail off the edge of the earth" where the scientificially ignorant, because the reality of a spherical (ish) Earth has been a scientific fact longer than Christianity has existed. 300 years before that, as now, the divine nature of Royalty was not in any way a subject on which science had a position.

Nature of Science: Every year, we nail down the science on a little bit more of the universe. While it is certainly valid to point to the unknown parts (whether it be far-off planets or the quarks that make up our own hadrons) and make conjectures, it is a completely different thing to point at existing science, which has been proven over and over and over again, and say "this will be wrong". That is what you are doing with your discussion of photons - while there are things about photons we don't understand, the parts you are changing are the parts we DO understand and have proven over and over and over again. That tells me you either do not understand the science of what you are discussing OR that you think of science as just another religion.

[Dog_O_War]

So if we have armor made out of 24 carat gold and we're told it's super light and super hard we should just shrug and assume physics is different for that too and not that the idea is dumb like the original Spirit West Laser bow?


Daniel Stoker

If we went around and called every idea that was dumb or at the very least poorly thought out, we'd clear out 90% of the material in all of the books.

For example, whichever guy thought it was a good idea to make a personal suit of body armour 12 pounds for 50 MDC didn't realize that players would then just buy enough of said suits and make their vehicles out of that since it's the lightest, strongest, most efficient MDC material in the known Rifts universe.

Or how Naruni thought that their plasma cartridge weapons would actually be a big hit, while the truth of the matter is that the ammunition is in itself better-suited to be used as explosives because it's more efficient than anything else anywhere ever.

Or how Wilk's thought that it would be possible to actually sell their CFT guns, even though you don't actually need a gun to fire them and they're better-used as self-contained laser weapons.

Or how the writers missed these points, as well as how dumb most of the alien races are, in addition to many other dumb things within Rifts.

I mean, why be subjective given that all these things exist, when really it's just one thing in particular might chap your ass?
It's just easier to let it slide, or to fix the problem mechanically from the game perspective rather than trying to piece together a solution from a real-world perspective.

[Dog_O_War]

I think one of the biggest parts missed here though is that someone prayed it would work in the manner that it works. And that prayer in all its surreality, is causing it to otherwise act in a manner our real-world physics would state is 'impossible'.

Or did everyone forget that Tech-Priests pray to the Machine God for their devices to work?

Just sayin'

Does that change the nature of objects? I thought it was done to keep things working not 'transmute lead to gold' kinda thing.


Daniel Stoker

Yes it changes the objects. That said, there are physical designs that the Adeptus Mechanicus don't use because somehow that pattern is or is easily Chaos-tainted.

A pattern. A bloody blueprint. A drawing that can infect you with the taint of the Dark Gods. Additionally, there are other examples, though they aren't Imperial-related. Ork technology for example is stated as not physically possible for a working object as far as the Imperium is concerned, but they know, and have used their technology - and it works (as long as you don't look too closely) for anyone. Simply because the Orks believe it will work.

And the Adeptus Mechanicus have stated emphatically that machines have "living spirits" which they coax and coddle and work with. It's really a ton of stuff that is a true work of fiction if held in comparison to real-world physics.

For example, did you know that you can recharge an Imperial lasgun clip by virtually any means? you can electrocute it, leave it in the sun, even throw it in a fire - and it will recharge!
I mention very specifically this last one because if left for more than a few seconds, the thing will explode (and beyond that, fire can damage the clip, which will result in summary execution). So given that we can calculate the amount of energy given off of fire (all the forms of energy), and that you can fully recharge a lasgun clip in but a few seconds by doing this (or was it minutes?

I don't exactly remember), and that we can calculate the energy from a standard 7.62mmx39mm round - of which it is stated that a lasgun offers a very slightly more powerful hit than this, we could then also calculate the amount of energy stored within a las-clip. This is important because then we can also calculate the required energy transfer needed to fill a las-clip in a set period of time, and we could also calculate how long said clip would actually need to sit in a fire to achieve that. And do you know what the result would be?
"physically impossible for the amount of time listed".

Which leaves prayer then as a viable answer as to why their stuff might work.