LibriumArcana.Games

Question: How would a directed anti-matter weapon act? What would be the effects on the target?

BAD: distroys all matter it hits provided enough anti mater, converts all matter it comes in contact with to its equivilant mass worth of energy, so not only do you not want to be hit with it you do not want to be standing near someone who is hit with it.

Depends where it's used.

In an atmosphere, the mass of antimatter would explode before it left the barrel. Which is why antimatter weaponry would probably be best for space-combat, and it would convert any physically touched object into energy with a 100% efficiency rate.

Similar to Dark Silver's use of WoD spells and magic to make a person blow up like a nuke, and apply that to everything the antimatter touches.

The Sten series had antimatter guns. Its been years since I read the books, but a small amount of antimatter was sealed into a small pellet without it exploding and then the pellets were fired out of a gun. The pellets burst on impact and blew very large holes in people.

Would be a bad idea. As soon as it contacts matter, it's an omnidirectional burst.

Better to have a directed fusion blast. You can direct that with magnetics.

So you're saying it's more of an artillery weapon?

frigidmagi wrote:So you're saying it's more of an artillery weapon?

It's more of a bomb.

but what can contain anit-matter....the premise its self of what matter would hold it is the first obstical. then with that we could determine the smallest possible - practical application based on container to anti-matter ratio. but my best guess would be bomb or missle application.

antimatter can be suspended in magnetic fields, which is about the only thing that can hold them without causing the big kaboom.

As for weaponized Antimatter? A small amount causes a big kaboom. I'd shudder to think what the full potential of a gram of the stuff could do (if we could even produce that much, as it stands we are only producing molecules of the stuff). A hand gernade giving off full yield (100% of the payload meeting with 100% equivilant matter) would be horrifying, I'd think at least on par with the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (If I'm over estimating the destructive potential, please correct me).

How heavy is a hand grenade's explosive charge? 1.5 kg of AM with 1.5 kg of M with 100% efficiency produces 64 MT of destructive energies.

so in other words.....hand grenade bad......for everyones health

SirNitram wrote:How heavy is a hand grenade's explosive charge? 1.5 kg of AM with 1.5 kg of M with 100% efficiency produces 64 MT of destructive energies.

mmmm...so I was vastly underestimating the destructive force.

Go me...

thing is all of this assumes a 100% reaction which might go weird depending on explosion and speed and such no one has successfully detonated that much antimater so dont think we know exact effects.

How would a gravity-well based AM/M explosion be anything but 100%? If the remaining matter isn't launched into orbit, it MUST react with something, and will fall due to gravity.

its a question of how the antimater reacts inside the explosion, by nature explosions dont happen througout the material all at once nore do chemical reactions my thought is simply that the act of exploding may change the un detonated antimater i do not know how it would react so its actual yeild might be slightly lower but probably not significantly so

The Village Idiot wrote:so in other words.....hand grenade bad......for everyones health

The explosion releases deadly (as opposed to the warm and fuzzy variety) gamma radiation.

Antimatter bombs are the nightmare of sci-fi civilisations. Asteroids are what poor people use, AM PKers are what you use when you want to get 'serious'.

SD.net has hashed this through before. Getting an antimatter explosion to consume more than 25% of the reactant in the initial blast would be very hard. Remember, air is mostly empty space. The remaining 75% of the AM will get scattered by the explosion in every direction and then react again when it encounters matter. In atmosphere that means nasty secondary explosions, but a lot of it being wasted by say detonating in the upper atmosphere.

The Profiteer series by S. Andrew Swann had antimatter grenades, but they were only used by terrorists. Very portable, very high explosions. Only showed up in last book, despite all the military hardware in the first two because you don't want to be anywhere near a soldier carrying one.

The problem is, Cleric, is you assume 100% efficiency at the blastzone, not overall when it comes to gravity Antimatter bombs.

Sure, EVENTUALLY it'll all come down and detonate in gravity thus giving 100% over time, but at point of detonation, you can't assume 100% efficiency in explosion. You may only get 10%, or even 1% at time of detonation because the initial force will "throw" some out there.


And as Stofsk has pointed out, poor men use asteroids, slightly richer men use Rail Cannons (or whatever you want to call Magnetically Assisted projectile cannons) launching iron-nickle asteroids at rediculous(sp?) speeds.

Filthy rich genocidal men use antimatter bombs and missles to bath the surface gamma and other assorted nasty radiations.

Doesn't that render the planet useless?

Thus, why only flthy rich genocidal men use it.

what do they care about the planet's surface?

Does not follow. Genocidal indicates the wish to do away with an entire race or species, NOT indifference towards leave alone refusal to making use of the resources said race/species had at their disposal. See the Nazi's treatment of the Jews during WW2.

Good point Detective.

Ok, so batshit insane madmen who want to render a planet uninhabitable for the forseeable future use antimatter weaponry.

Notice how my post made no statement as to the effective blast zone .