Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Particle Bomb

  1. #1 Particle Bomb 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8
    theoretically speaking. we know how particles are kept together and what keeps them together. why havnt we made any kind of bomb or small explosive that only targets the mechanical or chemical particles. if you were to condense a massive amount of particles into a small container and heat them extremely high before detonating the container then theoretically the heated particles would disperse spreading an immense amount of heat causing other particles in the vicinity to heat up and disconnect from each other. so if that theory were to be correct then it could cause metals and other mechanical objects to change forms right?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Particle Bomb 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by XIII REAPER
    theoretically speaking. we know how particles are kept together and what keeps them together. why havnt we made any kind of bomb or small explosive that only targets the mechanical or chemical particles.
    I don't understand what you mean by a mechanical or chemical particle. All solids are made of chemicals. We don't normally refer to any particles as mechanical. You need to define your terms so I can understand what you are trying to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by XIII REAPER
    why havnt we made any kind of bomb or small explosive that only targets the mechanical or chemical particles.
    Once you have defined what a chemical or mechanical particle would you tell me how we can selectively target only these particles? What characteristic do they have that differs from non-chemical and non-mechanical particles that would let us effect one and not the other?

    Quote Originally Posted by XIII REAPER
    if you were to condense a massive amount of particles into a small container and heat them extremely high
    How do you intend to do this heating? Immediately before the bomb is dropped? If not how do you transport an extremely hot bomb? How hot were you thinking of making it? 500 deg C, 1,000, 10,0000?

    Quote Originally Posted by XIII REAPER
    then theoretically the heated particles would disperse spreading an immense amount of heat causing other particles in the vicinity to heat up and disconnect from each other. so if that theory were to be correct then it could cause metals and other mechanical objects to change forms right?
    You don't think it would be more efficient to explode a nuclear bomb, since one of its principal effects is to generate extreme heat?

    I'm afraid your idea doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Perhaps some further work on it is in order.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8
    first off, I was thinking without limitations, hoping someone like you would come along to help me create the limitations so thank you. and hopefully youll point out my weak points continually.

    second, i kind of worded that wrong so it doesnt get my thought across. let me try it again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8
    mechanical forces can hold particles together by friction or interlocking edges. my idea was to heat the particles to a point where the mechanical force would no longer be able to contain the particles due to excessive movement (so im not speaking about the particles directly but what contains the particles) so maybe you could target select particles by selecting the object made up of the particles such as metal, maybe using super heated magnetic particles. movement causes friction which causes heat right? so in order to heat something to a very high temperature maybe you could use something like a ring with hundreds of magnets lining the inner side of the ring while using some kind of system that regulates the order in which the magnets are activated and deactivated and at what speed they are switched on and off causing the shelling of the whatever the magnetic particles are kept in to move rapidly in a circle causing friction and heating them. no, a nuclear bomb is not what im going for, im thinking of something that would instead of killing everyone, make all their weapons and any other metallic objects they might have about them dissipate by making the movement of the particles to great to withstand.

    please continue to point out my errors, it helps a lot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by XIII REAPER
    mechanical forces can hold particles together by friction or interlocking edges. my idea was to heat the particles to a point where the mechanical force would no longer be able to contain the particles due to excessive movement (so im not speaking about the particles directly but what contains the particles) so maybe you could target select particles by selecting the object made up of the particles such as metal, maybe using super heated magnetic particles. movement causes friction which causes heat right? so in order to heat something to a very high temperature maybe you could use something like a ring with hundreds of magnets lining the inner side of the ring while using some kind of system that regulates the order in which the magnets are activated and deactivated and at what speed they are switched on and off causing the shelling of the whatever the magnetic particles are kept in to move rapidly in a circle causing friction and heating them. no, a nuclear bomb is not what im going for, im thinking of something that would instead of killing everyone, make all their weapons and any other metallic objects they might have about them dissipate by making the movement of the particles to great to withstand.

    please continue to point out my errors, it helps a lot.
    Alright, your first problem is that you can't just go from zero kelvin to 10000 degrees C in a micro-second. It takes time to heat things up. The outer walls of your bomb will burst as soon as their threshold for heat tolerance is met. So, basically there is an upper limit on how hot you can get your bomb before it goes off.

    You are right that heat causes chemical bonds holding solid objects together to weaken. I don't understand how your idea differs from any number of other kinds of heat bombs, though. Is it because you are suggesting that it transfer the heat to a bunch of bits of metal before going off, so instead of the heat just traveling through the air directly to reach nearby objects, they're getting bombarded with super-hot shrapnel?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore biohazard87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    181
    It seems to me that you are talking about a bomb, that would, when exploded, generate a kind of "heat wave" that would cause all metal objects to essentially crumble so as to avoid hurting people. One obvious problem with that idea is if there is anyone with metal in there body, such as a plate in their head or a stint in the leg, in the blast range then they would suffer a lot of damage and possibly death.

    Next, I think that a bomb with that kind of power is still largely a science fiction bomb, at least at the moment. It might be just an imagintion bomb, as the amount of heat you would need in the shockwave to do what your talking about is more than enough to kill humans. What you would need to do to make this bomb possible is to find a way to destabilize a particular substance with out the use of heat. What I mean is to find a way to "dissipate" something specific such as the particular metal in your targets guns, or the lead in their bullets. Then find a way to make a bomb that recreates this meathod of dissipation. And I think this kind of thing is years and years away.
    Noodles happen when you kiss a stranger in the alps.

    Mi padre tiene un impala.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by biohazard87
    It seems to me that you are talking about a bomb, that would, when exploded, generate a kind of "heat wave" that would cause all metal objects to essentially crumble so as to avoid hurting people. One obvious problem with that idea is if there is anyone with metal in there body, such as a plate in their head or a stint in the leg, in the blast range then they would suffer a lot of damage and possibly death.

    Next, I think that a bomb with that kind of power is still largely a science fiction bomb, at least at the moment. It might be just an imagintion bomb, as the amount of heat you would need in the shockwave to do what your talking about is more than enough to kill humans. What you would need to do to make this bomb possible is to find a way to destabilize a particular substance with out the use of heat. What I mean is to find a way to "dissipate" something specific such as the particular metal in your targets guns, or the lead in their bullets. Then find a way to make a bomb that recreates this meathod of dissipation. And I think this kind of thing is years and years away.
    yes, that is exactly what im talking about. im seeing it as a way to use against enemy forces in small numbers to disarm and disarmor them for capture and interrogation.

    yes, it is still largely science fiction but you see, the faster we can grasp ways of making science fiction, fiction, the faster were on the way to advanced technology. and if we dont start thinking of things now, it could be a GREAT while before anyone else does. which means the time it will take for them to actually create the technology would be even greater.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8
    Alright, your first problem is that you can't just go from zero kelvin to 10000 degrees C in a micro-second. It takes time to heat things up. The outer walls of your bomb will burst as soon as their threshold for heat tolerance is met. So, basically there is an upper limit on how hot you can get your bomb before it goes off.

    You are right that heat causes chemical bonds holding solid objects together to weaken. I don't understand how your idea differs from any number of other kinds of heat bombs, though. Is it because you are suggesting that it transfer the heat to a bunch of bits of metal before going off, so instead of the heat just traveling through the air directly to reach nearby objects, they're getting bombarded with super-hot shrapnel?
    the bomb will be dispensed at a time of our choosing, therefore we have as much time as we need to heat the bomb. it is only thought of for use against small enemy forces do disarm and disarmor them for capture and interrogation. the bomb will not bombard anyone with anything except the enemies metals with extremely hot particles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by XIII REAPER
    the bomb will be dispensed at a time of our choosing, therefore we have as much time as we need to heat the bomb.
    My point is that you only have so much ability to choose it. Once it reaches too high a temperature you won't be able to contain it any longer. It will break the container.


    it is only thought of for use against small enemy forces do disarm and disarmor them for capture and interrogation. the bomb will not bombard anyone with anything except the enemies metals with extremely hot particles.
    I think perhaps you could achieve the effect you are looking for using microwaves. A microwave oven works by emitting a frequency of radio wave that resonates with water, but leaves almost all the rest of the material in your food alone. If you could find a radio frequency that only affects objects made of metal, but doesn't affect any of the materials found in the human body, then you might have a chance of doing it. I don't know if any such radio frequency exists, though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8
    i see what your getting at about the amount of time being limited but it really isnt that hard to do trial and error practices to find the correct amount of time needed to heat the bomb to the right temperature. then all you would have to do is factor in the distance of your target and you should be able to set up a simple equation. i have not heard of any frequency of that nature yet but its definitely something i will look into.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore biohazard87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    181
    I think the microwave idea sounds viable. With this meathod however, I think it would be easier to make a cannon than a "bomb." It would still be possible to make a bomb with this kind of technology, but I feel a generally directed "ray" from a cannon would be the first step. I might be wrong, but I think with a wave it would be eaiser to originate from a single point, in a single direction.

    The United States Army currently has a sound cannon. It can be aimed at a single person from a pretty good distance away (I think like 500 yards). With this cannon you could send covert messages, as the only one that would hear it is the target, but one could also destroy the targets ear drums without the person next to them even knowing what happend. Again this is like a speaker so it uses sound, but I think your idea could be the future of this technology. This or resonace.

    What do you think?
    Noodles happen when you kiss a stranger in the alps.

    Mi padre tiene un impala.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8
    well a canon could certainly work, with or without the wave. it could actually take time away from the entire process. heat the bomb stick it in a break away shell, launch it from the canon to the desired point in about three seconds, with friction caused by flight the heat would not decrease at all.
    about the destroying of the ear drums, im not going for something that will hurt the enemy just yet this idea is solely for the gathering of enemy intelligence. the next step is to take what we have just created and turn it into a multifunctional weapon of mass targeted destruction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore biohazard87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by XIII REAPER
    about the destroying of the ear drums, im not going for something that will hurt the enemy just yet this idea is solely for the gathering of enemy intelligence. the next step is to take what we have just created and turn it into a multifunctional weapon of mass targeted destruction.
    I wasn't saying that your idea would or could be used for this purpose. Only that the sound cannon thing the US military has can. But again, it works with sound, not heat. Also if its just a blast of heat that melts metal, its going to kill everyone in the blast range. I think kojax was onto something with the microwave thing. If you could find the right radio waves, then you could make a "bomb" that emmits that wave but it wouldn't need any time to build heat, as the waves would do the heating. If you make it a "bomb" then you also run into trouble as it could destroy what ever launched it.

    My idea was a cannon like mechanisim. The end would look like a satilite dish, and it would "shoot" the radio waves that would only heat metal. That way is could destroy weapons. It could probably destroy armor too, but if it heats it up till it melts then it still present the problem of killing anyone wearing armor, as well as anyone with medical metal. However, finding any kind or weapon that doesn't hurt people but still incapacitates them, I think, is pretty much impossible.

    I feel that no matter what kind of weapon you invent with the idea of incapacitating someone without hurting them, you will always find that its impossible. Right now knock out gas is the closest thing, but with it there is a chance someone could die from hitting their head on a rock, or an allergic reaction to the gas.
    Noodles happen when you kiss a stranger in the alps.

    Mi padre tiene un impala.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by biohazard87
    My idea was a cannon like mechanisim. The end would look like a satilite dish, and it would "shoot" the radio waves that would only heat metal. That way is could destroy weapons. It could probably destroy armor too, but if it heats it up till it melts then it still present the problem of killing anyone wearing armor, as well as anyone with medical metal.
    Contemporary fighting forces use lots of metal besides their weapons. In particular, lots of vehicles - if those are made to melt with people in them, you can't avoid nasty damage to human life and limb. Especially melting a plane in mid-air or a ship at sea would prove very unhealthy to crew and passengers. Not to mention a submarine.

    A civillian all my life, and a friendly one for most of it, I still carry lots of metal on me - my wedding ring, parts of my pen, small parts in my shoes, the zipper in my trousers, coins, keys, parts of my mobile phone... having them suddenly melt, all at the same time, would also cause some injuries.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by biohazard87

    My idea was a cannon like mechanisim. The end would look like a satilite dish, and it would "shoot" the radio waves that would only heat metal. That way is could destroy weapons. It could probably destroy armor too, but if it heats it up till it melts then it still present the problem of killing anyone wearing armor, as well as anyone with medical metal. However, finding any kind or weapon that doesn't hurt people but still incapacitates them, I think, is pretty much impossible.

    I feel that no matter what kind of weapon you invent with the idea of incapacitating someone without hurting them, you will always find that its impossible. Right now knock out gas is the closest thing, but with it there is a chance someone could die from hitting their head on a rock, or an allergic reaction to the gas.
    Maybe instead of destroying the weapons, you should focus on merely making them too hot to handle. Then the worst you'll do to people is give them a few second or third degree burns. Lezsek would probably still lose his ring finger, though, unless you kept the temperatures low.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore biohazard87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    Contemporary fighting forces use lots of metal besides their weapons. In particular, lots of vehicles - if those are made to melt with people in them, you can't avoid nasty damage to human life and limb. Especially melting a plane in mid-air or a ship at sea would prove very unhealthy to crew and passengers. Not to mention a submarine.

    A civillian all my life, and a friendly one for most of it, I still carry lots of metal on me - my wedding ring, parts of my pen, small parts in my shoes, the zipper in my trousers, coins, keys, parts of my mobile phone... having them suddenly melt, all at the same time, would also cause some injuries.

    It wasn't my idea to make it non-leathal. I was simply trying to help with a general idea. If one were attempting to make a leathal weapon from this idea it would be much easier, obviously as was already pointed out that the nuke alredy exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Maybe instead of destroying the weapons, you should focus on merely making them too hot to handle. Then the worst you'll do to people is give them a few second or third degree burns. Lezsek would probably still lose his ring finger, though, unless you kept the temperatures low.
    That could work. Another idea, also based on yours, is that maybe one could find a radio wave, which affects only lead so as to melt their bullets. Most people don't keep lead close enough to their bodies to do any real damage, so as to avoid lead poisoning. Even soldiers don't keep their bullets actually on them, usually in a pack.
    Noodles happen when you kiss a stranger in the alps.

    Mi padre tiene un impala.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by biohazard87

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Maybe instead of destroying the weapons, you should focus on merely making them too hot to handle. Then the worst you'll do to people is give them a few second or third degree burns. Lezsek would probably still lose his ring finger, though, unless you kept the temperatures low.
    That could work. Another idea, also based on yours, is that maybe one could find a radio wave, which affects only lead so as to melt their bullets. Most people don't keep lead close enough to their bodies to do any real damage, so as to avoid lead poisoning. Even soldiers don't keep their bullets actually on them, usually in a pack.
    That is very good thinking, except there is one problem: metal reflects or absorbs microwaves, depending on what kind of metal and what frequency of wave. For example: if you put a metal dish in your microwave oven, it will shoot off sparks. This means the microwaves wouldn't be able to reach the lead inside of a metal gun or metal magazine, at least not directly enough to melt them without first electrifying the rest of the gun also in the process, but I think you're on the right track.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore biohazard87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That is very good thinking, except there is one problem: metal reflects or absorbs microwaves, depending on what kind of metal and what frequency of wave. For example: if you put a metal dish in your microwave oven, it will shoot off sparks. This means the microwaves wouldn't be able to reach the lead inside of a metal gun or metal magazine, at least not directly enough to melt them without first electrifying the rest of the gun also in the process, but I think you're on the right track.

    Well based on what you were saying though this is because the radio waves on which a microwave works pretty much only affect water. So if we could find a wave which specifically effects only lead, then we have a solution. If we could only find one that effects metal in general then we would have to keep the temperatures low so as not to kill/torture the desired targets.

    If all of that is impossible then I suppose most people would drop their guns when they stated sparking in their hands. So i guess that would also be a way to disarm the enemy, and ultimately capture them for interrogation. As long as you didn't leave the weapon on for too long then they would all be unharmed, for the most part, as well.

    Also sorry if I am wrong about the radio wave thing, as I have a very limited understading of them and how they are used.
    Noodles happen when you kiss a stranger in the alps.

    Mi padre tiene un impala.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8
    BIOHAZARD

    its not emitting heat, its emitting super heated magnetic particles which will only be attracted to metals, hence "magnetic particles"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by biohazard87
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That is very good thinking, except there is one problem: metal reflects or absorbs microwaves, depending on what kind of metal and what frequency of wave. For example: if you put a metal dish in your microwave oven, it will shoot off sparks. This means the microwaves wouldn't be able to reach the lead inside of a metal gun or metal magazine, at least not directly enough to melt them without first electrifying the rest of the gun also in the process, but I think you're on the right track.

    Well based on what you were saying though this is because the radio waves on which a microwave works pretty much only affect water. So if we could find a wave which specifically effects only lead, then we have a solution. If we could only find one that effects metal in general then we would have to keep the temperatures low so as not to kill/torture the desired targets.
    I think I need to be more clear about Microwaves then. There are three things a material can do to a wave: reflect, absorb, or transmit.

    So, microwaves are designed to only be absorbed by water, but many other materials can reflect or transmit them. If you want to the wave to pass through metal (be transmitted by it), then it would have to be a very low frequency, and if it's a very low frequency then it won't be absorbed by water, or gun powder, or lead, unfortunately.

    All this means is you can't target the interior of any metal objects. You can still target materials on the interior of a backpack, or holster, or possibly even the inside of a human body.


    If all of that is impossible then I suppose most people would drop their guns when they stated sparking in their hands. So i guess that would also be a way to disarm the enemy, and ultimately capture them for interrogation. As long as you didn't leave the weapon on for too long then they would all be unharmed, for the most part, as well.

    Also sorry if I am wrong about the radio wave thing, as I have a very limited understading of them and how they are used.
    This part is definitely right. You could totally electrify their guns. I don't know how much energy it would take, or how safe it is, but I'd be interested to know if this has been tried before. It seems like a really novel way to win a battle without casualties.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore biohazard87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    181
    although, I think it would also be interesting to see what kind of effect this technology would have on explosives, such as a grenade attached to an enemy's belt. I wonder if it would cause the mechanisim to activate? If so, then the death toll rises again, significantly.
    Noodles happen when you kiss a stranger in the alps.

    Mi padre tiene un impala.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by biohazard87
    although, I think it would also be interesting to see what kind of effect this technology would have on explosives, such as a grenade attached to an enemy's belt. I wonder if it would cause the mechanisim to activate? If so, then the death toll rises again, significantly.
    Good point.

    Quote Originally Posted by XIII REAPER
    BIOHAZARD

    its not emitting heat, its emitting super heated magnetic particles which will only be attracted to metals, hence "magnetic particles"
    The question is how much force is there behind them? If they're hurled fast enough, then the magnetism is only going to slightly change their course as they fly through the air. If you don't hurl them fast at all, then they'd have to be really really magnetic in order to be pulled by metal that was more than a few feet away. And also the particles will be attracted to each other, tending to align their north and south poles, and clump together.

    Also, there is the problem of human beings that might be standing between a given particle and the metal object it is attracted to. It will tear right through them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore biohazard87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    181
    I'm still a little confused by this as I thought we changed the original idea, to maintain the concept, from heated particles to microwaves.

    Anyway, I am sure the particles would have no noticable effect from passing through people as they are so small. At least no immediate effects. Depending on the kind of particle used, though, there could be numerous long term and very unwanted side effects.
    Noodles happen when you kiss a stranger in the alps.

    Mi padre tiene un impala.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    The "science' behind these schemes is highly suspect. Do you ralise what kind of energy density you would need at the source to be able to melt, electrify, etc., at a distance? Microwaves or any kind of electromagnetic radiation loses intensity with the square of the distance, making the effect on the source much more destructive than on the target. Unless you have a tightly focussed beam like a laser or particle beam, the energy delivered to the target is miniscule. The "ray guns' of science-fiction don't work for this reason.

    Targetting specific materials or elements is also impossible, you do realise that the red in your blood rust, or oxidised iron, along with all sorts of other metals.

    I remember watching an episode of STAR TREK, the original series, where two worlds were at war using computer generated bombs and damage, and the people within the 'blast radius' had to report to disintegration chambers. J.T. Kirk destroyed their computers and re-introduced actual war, arguing that if war is not messy, destructive and murderous, there is no incentive to end it or avoid it ( this particular war between two worlds had been going on for 800 yrs. ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •