12-03-2015, 08:48 PM | #21 |
Custom User Title
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
Re: Do Antiparticle Beams Inflict Rad Damage?
The AM warhead's rad damage is linked to the mass of the antimatter. The pulsar produces radiation when the anti-particles annihilate just as the AM warhead does. So the pulsar's rad damage should vary by the mass of the anti-particles. I think the question needs to be asked - what is the relationship between .1 micrograms/6DX4 burning ex surge and X mass/6DX4 crush ex surge?
__________________
Joseph Paul |
12-04-2015, 06:11 PM | #22 | |
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Topeka, Kansas
|
Re: Do Antiparticle Beams Inflict Rad Damage?
Quote:
__________________
Cleopatra: Whenever she assigned me to the switch, was that Voice, or was Raina influencing her thinking? Because, I mean, if it was Raina, she got inside my head and decided that I would screw it up. |
|
12-04-2015, 10:57 PM | #23 | |
Custom User Title
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
Re: Do Antiparticle Beams Inflict Rad Damage?
Quote:
Well AM in UT seems to be getting different treatments. As a lab accident it is 6dx9 cr ex for a microgram UT pp80-81. As a warhead a microgram does 6dx12 burn ex sur and has a linked tox rad attack 6dx 100,000 rads that falls of as the square of the distance from the explosion. At .1 microgram the warhead is 6dx4 burn ex sur with a tox rad 6dx 10,000 rad attack UT p 157 which I will use for comparison later. As an antiparticle beam from a semi portable pulsar it is 6dx4(3) cr ex rad sur So there seems to be some variability in how AM going boom is modeled in UT. I think there is enough variability in the descriptions of the three instances of AM being destructive that you could write your own ticket for it. Questions I have - why is AM as a warhead burn ex sur with a linked tox rad (rolled as separate not innate damage) and from a (failed) trap it is cr ex (no rad OR sur)? They are essentially the same thing. Why does a microgram of AM in a warhead produce a greater amount of damage (even if it is burn?) compared to a release of a microgram of AM in a lab? 6dx12 vs 6dx9. Why no cr ex for a warhead of AM? Why no burn for the pulsar? The other charged particle weapons seem to do so and the AM warhead does. Is the pulsar's cr damage from the speed of impact of the antiparticles or the cratering they do to the target when they interact with terrene matter? If it is the impact speed than I can see that it is an infinitesimal amount of AM that is being projected and the tiny amount of rad damage that results would be in line with the pulsar description. However the other charged particle blaster is supposed to be a near light speed weapon as well and it produces burn damage rather than cr. Why? On the other hand we don't know how large an amount of AM is being projected by the pulsar. If the damage is mostly from the AM annihilating with terrene matter does that mean that the 6dx4 semi-portable pulsar is throwing close to a tenth of a microgram of antiparticles and there is no reason to not rewrite the rad damage to be larger? I am pretty sure that some of the real world answers lie in the saying - "speed kills" - but there is still something a little rough in these different applications of AM.
__________________
Joseph Paul |
|
12-04-2015, 11:26 PM | #24 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: Do Antiparticle Beams Inflict Rad Damage?
I would not only expect, but demand, purpose built warheads to result in more damage than lab accidental explosions.
Also I think radiation damage would be negated/lessened by atmosphere as it absorbs and turns it into a heat/shock wave. But don't quote me on that as I'm a barely educated layman.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
12-05-2015, 12:24 AM | #25 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Do Antiparticle Beams Inflict Rad Damage?
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
12-05-2015, 02:47 AM | #26 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Do Antiparticle Beams Inflict Rad Damage?
Realistically, antimatter is a really cruddy way to deliver blast effects on a scale smaller than nuclear weapons, and a great way to kill people with radiation. That's because the vast majority of the energy release from antimatter annihilation is in the form of penetrating radiation, and at small enough scales the energy is too diffuse to produce a shockwave at all.
|
12-05-2015, 01:44 PM | #27 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Do Antiparticle Beams Inflict Rad Damage?
As Anthony hints at, atmospheric absorption of the relevant gamma rays happens at about 750 yards on average.. when that ionizes enough of a percentage of the atmosphere to that distance you get a relatively conventional blast wave. Obviously in the heavy strategic AM bomb class.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
12-05-2015, 04:20 PM | #28 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Do Antiparticle Beams Inflict Rad Damage?
Quote:
|
|
12-05-2015, 06:46 PM | #29 | |
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The plutonium rich regions of Washington State
|
Re: Do Antiparticle Beams Inflict Rad Damage?
Quote:
Luke |
|
Tags |
antiparticle beams, radiation, surge, ultra-tech, weapons |
|
|