Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests
Re: Comparing weapons | |
---|---|
by 6L6 » Thu Nov 19, 2015 12:34 am | |
6L6
Posts: 165
|
An example I would use, Merlin droped a 500 lb bomb on the ship that Thirsks family was on, it seems to me that in 400 years a 1 lb bomb should do the same job. evilauthor reread my post, you will see that I was talking about bridging the gap between chemical and nuclear wepons.
|
Top |
Re: Comparing weapons | |
---|---|
by n7axw » Thu Nov 19, 2015 12:50 am | |
n7axw
Posts: 5997
|
One of the reasons for that 500 pound bomb was that it wasn't up to TF tech. The thought was that by equiping the skimmer to use more primitive tech, one could avoid the attention of the OBS. Don - When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
|
Top |
Re: Comparing weapons | |
---|---|
by Expert snuggler » Thu Nov 19, 2015 2:32 am | |
Expert snuggler
Posts: 491
|
We don't know whether the OBS could detect duodecylplylatomate or other technically exotic explosives. It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations if you live near one. Old-style chemical high explosives are good enough for the next few years of warfare at least.
That said I can imagine some profitable covert ops that could be done with hafnium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafnium_controversy). |
Top |
Re: Comparing weapons | |
---|---|
by evilauthor » Thu Nov 19, 2015 2:42 am | |
evilauthor
Posts: 724
|
Exactly. The bomb had chemical explosives more powerful than anything Charis had yet developed, but they weren't anything nuclear. Because you know, nukes - even tiny ones - will be giving off all kinds of distinctive radiation when they blow.
How would you bridge the gap? Conventional chemical explosives rely on releasing the energy in chemical bonds, ie, the electron bonds that bind atoms to each other. Nukes release energy by splitting/fusing atomic nuclei. There's not much in between. I suppose you could use whatever high density power cell technology the Federation used to explosively release their stored charge, but that starts running into the "distinctive signature" problem. |
Top |
Re: Comparing weapons | |
---|---|
by Expert snuggler » Thu Nov 19, 2015 4:04 am | |
Expert snuggler
Posts: 491
|
>How would you bridge the gap?
Speculatively, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gamma_emission. Science fictionally, with the invention of the handwavium device which weighs a pound but can convert only one milligram of matter into antimatter. |
Top |
Re: Comparing weapons | |
---|---|
by isaac_newton » Thu Nov 19, 2015 7:10 am | |
isaac_newton
Posts: 1182
|
'Duodec' eh - now there's a blast from the past |
Top |
Re: Comparing weapons | |
---|---|
by USMA74 » Thu Nov 19, 2015 9:36 am | |
USMA74
Posts: 238
|
I wonder if those young whippersnappers playing on my lawn and posting here have even read Doc E.E. Smith's Lensman Series to understand the reference. |
Top |
Re: Comparing weapons | |
---|---|
by isaac_newton » Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:25 am | |
isaac_newton
Posts: 1182
|
I thought that was a requirement of being permitted entry to these forumns by Drak... Now there was real space opera for you!! |
Top |
Re: Comparing weapons | |
---|---|
by Jonathan_S » Thu Nov 19, 2015 11:52 am | |
Jonathan_S
Posts: 8791
|
I don't have the text in front of me. Did it say the bomb literally weight 500 lbs (or even that the explosive filler weighed 500 lbs)? It's possible that by the 24th century the "megatons" style designation had worked it's way down to conventional explosives - so unless you're talking about carry weight explosives are talked about in terms of their equivalent tons (or pounds) of TNT. But that's just off the cuff speculation on my part and might be flat out contradicted by the actual text... |
Top |
Re: Comparing weapons | |
---|---|
by thinkstoomuch » Thu Nov 19, 2015 12:28 pm | |
thinkstoomuch
Posts: 2727
|
As more than a month has passed.
Have fun, T2M Last edited by thinkstoomuch on Thu Nov 19, 2015 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------
Q: “How can something be worth more than it costs? Isn’t everything ‘worth’ what it costs?” A: “No. That’s just the price. ... Christopher Anvil from Top Line in "War Games" |
Top |