Partical cannon (only a idea probably wrong) need opinions

Might be a powerful weapon for inducing skin cancer OP.

Electron litography is already a thing you know? Thats how transistors are made, electrons destroy the micrometer-thick photolayers and structure your wafer.

I think we would be much better off developing high pulsed laser guns, or rail guns if we had better energy storage.

Charged particles repel each other, brainlet

We have had particle cannons for several hundred years now, OP. A medieval cannon is a particle cannon accelerating large iron particles.

I think it'd do just as much damage to the person holding the weapon, in the form of radiation damage, as someone who's hit by it.

>>9159863
>protons or electrons as ammo
Heard about electrostatic repulsion? Or electromotive force?

The person isn't actually it's a spectate machine far away from human contact

>>9159912
i mildly keked at this

>>9159863
Particle weapons were investigated for shooting down missiles and were found to be impractical. It was found that earth's magnetic field would put it too far off target.

>>9160103
but what would happen when we use antiparticle? wouldn't this solve the problem with earths magnetic field?

>>9159863
Here's an idea for you. Build your particle cannon, but do some little changes for efficiency and effectiveness.

1) Don't shot the particles separately. They have too little mass on their own, and even air can stop them. Pack them together for maximum penetration and energy delivery.

2)While we are at it, use the heaviest atomic nuclei you can get your hands on. They are the most massive stable form of matter (that we can deal with), and some of them can still be accelerated by magnetic forces.

3) forgot about the plasma part, at non-relativistic speeds you want your force deliverers to be packed together. Solid matter works best at that. If you want a relativistic cannon, however, go nuts.

4)As for energy control, alternating current can impart very large amounts of energy and speed to your stream (more like a projectile now) if you time it correctly. You will need serious capacitators, though.

There is another alternative though, if you want speed and multiple particles over kinetic damage. Instead of using fermions, use photons. They are harder to "accelerate" (more like produce), but they are the fastest there is and can transmit energy to any surface.

OP here is the idea possible or just bullshit

Btw I mean smashing proton together like the lhc in the machine then control the current of concentrated energy.

>>9160239
You can use the LCL to perforate lead, if that counts for something.

It's just that 3 different accelerating rings and 27 Km of main accelerator, magnets and what-have-you to make a hole the width of a marker on a couple meters of dirt is not the most practical of weapons.

Also, the LCL does control the protons, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to smash them together at those speeds. It also controls them before, and not after smashing them.

File: 9335362.jpg (91KB, 879x854px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 879x854px

>>9160254 OP hereBut wait how big were computer when they when they were starting too develop and look at them now same thing here with particle colliders. They will get to a size when they can be put into a machine like a particle cannon

>>9160254 i mean control the energy realised after impact in a certain direction without losing energy

>>9160292
Some things escalate better than others. Basic physics care not for science and progress.

Conservation of momentum means it will always be the same energy if you throw a bunch of particles, or one very big piece of matter. Electromagnetism means that you will always want neutral plasma, unless you want to make a particle shower machine.

If you are talking about a hypothetical future when a concentrated ionic corridor can be made so the protonic plasma can impact the target and, I don't know, dissolve them as an acid would, it is you and not us who have to justify why would that be a better use of energy and weapon space than to just blast the thing with a very fast lump of uranium.

>>9160300
That energy is not significantly bigger than the energy contained by the stream of particles themselves.

Or are you talking about making the target generate fusion with the sheer momentum of the beam? Because I suspect the effect of that would be insignificant compared to the relativistic stream of particles irradiating the ever-loving crap of the target's internals.

>>9159863
Anyone else really hate these retarded idea men?
Before an idiot would get high, read a wiki article and start spewing bs but now it seems the wiki article has been replaced by a youtube video
absolute cancer.

>>9160292
you could fire a beam of negatively charged particles with the positively charged particles "orbiting" it

>>9160220
>non-relativistic speeds
Why even bother?