Talk:Plasma weapon

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2019. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plasma weapon redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Bad Comment

To the user who keeps adding, "This is VERY untrue. go to www.hsvt.org" (IP: 216.120.170.5), please do not discuss the article's content within the article itself. Wikipedia has discussion pages for a reason. 9 February 2006 User:69.95.171.100

Headline text

Hey, here is something for you to ponder, get a laser, and a photonic electro inducer to emit electons into the laser beam. With the laser emitting to one direction, your target. The electrons emittied "if charged" will electrocute it destination. This is highly simular to a thasr that lots of scifi movies use. 00:56, 7 September 2004 User:209.80.76.5
This is called an electrolaser. Anthony Appleyard 09:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The plasma rifle....umh need to add a bio sphere shell that breaks unpon contact to another bio substance then you can have it not dissipate while it is in transition to destroy its target. 00:56, 7 September 2004 User:209.80.76.5
The railgun .... All it is... Is an directional magnetic generator that can move the metallic matter at the speed of light to one direction. With no kick back. 00:56, 7 September 2004 User:209.80.76.5
The spider land mind "Unreal 2004" ... Just a robotic eight legged, that can find it emenies the KA BOOM.... 00:56, 7 September 2004 User:209.80.76.5
Plus Phasers.... The ammo of this weapon is more interesting. Just imagine the smallest yet powerful electrodynamic generator. When the ammo is shot out, the barrel being another electro charger charges the ammo round, as the round moves in the air, the outter shell spins turning yet another electrical charge that once it hits it target it shocks the shit out of them, yet to get it to glow to show off what round was fired, it has the elements which makes the fireworks colorful or it would have very power leds on it. 00:56, 7 September 2004 User:209.80.76.5

Where were plasma rifles in Star Wars: Episode II?-LtNOWIS 21:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See Blaster (Star Wars). They convert blaster gas into light, not plasma. Wizrdwarts (T|C) 21:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question... A Plasma rifle isn't really a rifle in the true sense of the word, as they would not have rifling in the barrel, correct? 23:22, 27 December 2004 User:24.151.32.218 (Talk)
I thought about that today. I guess the modern colloquial use for words in Sci-fi is just that any 2-handed ranged weapon counts as a rifle, if it looks vaguely like one. I guess terms like "blaster musket" just wouldn't be the same. On a related note, if nobody points out the plasma rifles in Episode II, I just might have to remove that reference-LtNOWIS 05:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Pretty much. Words can change meaning from their original definition anyway. For example the word, "decimate" used to mean killing every tenth person, hence the prefix "deci". Today it just means killing or destroying something. 65.40.239.254 16:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with that is that the Babylon 5 PPG links here from the PPG disambig. Two-handed versions(two different ones that I can remember) are seen in the series, but much, much, much more common was the smaller pistol variant. -Graptor 07:31, 18 October 2005 User:66.42.149.254
I think a rifle is generally considered to be a medium to long range light two-handed weapon. If you can have Plasma 'guns' then theoretically you could have plasma rifles, shotguns, SMG's, gatling guns, etc... The idea being that the weapon would have a similar strategic use as the gun its named after, with the difference that it fires Plasma instead of bullets. Sahuagin 13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the plasma weapon in Deus ex wasn't really a rifle, it was more of a bit of heavy equipment, it took up the same amount of inventory space as the GEP gun (rocket launcher) and flamethrower, so should be considered in the same category. 00:21, 19 April 2005 User:Pitt2

Removed

I removed Star Wars: Episode 2 from the list. I don't recall any ranged weapons unique to that movie, and regular blasters, despite their use of plasma, aren't called that.-LtNOWIS 03:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Removed the plasma rifle cross-referencing of the movie Darkman and the game Deus Ex. Last time I checked Darkman featured a Rivet Gun, not a Plasma Cannon. Needs proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.111.134 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning is plasma, so...

Wouldn't a 'lightning gun' like some kind of van de graaf generator be a plasma gun by definition? It wouldn't have the limits described here, as we're very good at generating lightning and it travels vast distances.. just hard to control at present. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Magnetic Confinement Bottle

How do the weapons in Halo use them? I can't think of a way, unless I'm not understanding the containment bottles correctly. 20:42, 25 April 2007 User:75.57.147.185
If you look at the plasma weapons in Halo they all have a spark gap near the front. This converts the surrounding atmosphere into plasma which is fired with magnets or something. These guns do not use a containment bottle which is probably the reason why you never have reload them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorY71 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economics

Economics is also an element of practicality. Unless the gain in weapon performance outweighs the additional cost, both in terms of pure cash and in terms of time, maintenance, safety, reliability, and so on, then plasma-based weaponry will never be used even if 'scientifically' feasible. 14:30, 24 May 2007 User:81.86.122.174

Phase Pistol

Is there any proof that phase pistols from Star Trek are supposed to fire plasma?
No, in fact it is strongly implied that phase cannons are improvements over older plasma cannons, such as when Travis's brother states that the Horizon has two plasma cannons and in the same episode states that he thought that a technique used to improve Enterprise's weapons wouldn't work because his ship didn't have phase cannons. That and the fact that Archer tells Hoshi that phase pistols don't need to compensate for particle drift like older weapons suggest that the weapons are not plasma based. 24.99.167.17 21:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to fiction

I don't know that references to fiction in the Practicality of Plasma Rifles section is appropriate for an article that describes something that is not necessarily fictional (though it is for the most part hypothetical). There is a seperate section for fiction that includes plasma rifles which would be more appropriate. Does anyone wish to comment on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.200.200 (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scifi fan speculation party

I think this article really needs to try to be more encylopedic. Rather than struggling to show how these weapons may hypothetically be possible, and doing so with no reputable references, I think it'd be better to just explain what various scifi authors have stated in their own works, and cite any reputable authorities (scientists, researchers in the field of directed energy weapons, etc.). As it is, this article reeks of Stridex pads and pocket protectors.
I wish I could be helpful, but I just don't read that much of the stuff. Maybe someone with wider knowledge of cite-worthy science fiction sources can come along and make this a little more respectable. Matt S. (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title Change?

Shouldn't the title really be Plasma Gun instead of Plasma Rifle? It would make more sense I think, not to mention that plasma cannons, pistols, rifles, machine guns and whatever else would be automatically included. Just throwing it out there. Fallenangei (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To most people the meaning of "rifle" here is "weapon of rifle-like size and power and accuracy". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to plasma weapon

This page is just an unsourced, fancruftier version of plasma weapon. It should be merged there. Robo37 (talk · contribs) just undid such an action without a rationale; if there isn't a practical reason to maintain two articles for this subject then it should be re-done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is much difference between real or practicable plasma-based weaponry and the totally impossible conventional science-fiction plasma rifle. Leave them separate. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. The plasma-based weaponry page is superficial speculation on non-existent systems. For that matter, about half the page space is devoted to a list of plasma weapons in science-fiction. The content is too similar to justify seperate pages, and I second the idea of merging them together.--Woerkilt (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "half of the body text", not the literal size of the page.--Woerkilt (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plasma rifles are such a common feature of science fiction that they need a page about them. As regards "fancruft" (in 10:16, 26 September 2009 message), often cruftimess is relative :: one man's cruft is another man's relevant important matter. E.g. I have no interest in football, and to me most football text is footballcruft, but I do not go round deleting it, as I know that many others consider it to be important. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology of Rifle Versus Carbine

This article currently states the following: "The terminology 'plasma rifle' is usually a misnomer, as a rifle is a firearm with a rifled barrel. A rifled barrel would not typically be thought necessary to fire a beam or bolt of plasma, making most shoulder-arm plasma weapons actually plasma carbines" (emphasis in source). A carbine, by Wikipedia's own article, is simply a short-barreled rifle. Pistols, for that matter, are also rifled, and muskets and shotguns can be rifled too. Therefore, a plasma carbine is equally a misnomer under the current usage. A solution would be to state that terms like "rifle" or "carbine" have a colloquial meaning, or refer to the overall length and ergonomics of the plasma weapon, rather than being scientific descriptors of operation.--Woerkilt (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section moved

I moved the section on practicality of plasma weapons to Plasma weapon, where it belongs. If anybody has a gripe with this, feel free to respond. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 21:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting gurren lagann superconducting plasma rife (really?)

I don't know with you, but I think she is using either coilgun or electrothermal gun, because she can use another projectile, such as arrow202.137.25.53 (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]