[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 14 KB, 500x262, 1287160598955.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1934523 No.1934523 [Reply] [Original]

Pic unrelated.

/sci/, I want to make a steam weapon.
No; I'm not a fan of steampunk, victorian style or whatever it is called.

I would like the weapon to be capable of HORRIBLY BURNING PEOPLE WITH THE POWER OF STEAM. Kind of like a flamethrower, but with hot water instead of napalm.
Propelling projectiles with steam pressure would be fine too.

Is this feasible? Would the weapon be efficient? How much so?

>> No.1934540

The problem with steam is that it loses cohesion and temperature very quickly without enormous amounts of pressure.

Anything smaller than a truck-sized unit would be horribly impractical, and still lack the efficiency of a flame-based unit.

Not to mention the energy needed to heat that much water to boiling point would be a massive power-drain.

>> No.1934574
File: 31 KB, 257x283, Active_Denial_System_Humvee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1934574

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

Use microwaves to turn the water in a human body into steam.

>> No.1934591

>>1934540
Uhhh... And how about just really hot air?

>> No.1934603

>>1934591
A pellet with a small quantity of plasma which breaks open on impact would accomplish something similar I think.

>> No.1934654

>>1934603
Yes, you can make a powerful weapon buy putting a magnet in your toaster.

>> No.1934673
File: 92 KB, 485x655, tesla 02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1934673

Yet another technology made possible by Tesla
Seriously when will the military make a death beam
Tesla made it like 90 years ago
You can even find the diagrams on the internet

>> No.1934682

Would it be possible to shock people/stuff from a distance by ionizing air with a laser and then putting a capacitor near the ionized air?

>> No.1934687

>>1934682
you can't ionize air with lasers
Atleast I don't think you can

>> No.1934690

>>1934682
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Electrolaser

>> No.1934693
File: 10 KB, 176x287, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1934693

>>1934673

He also made a machine that mass produced Hugh Jackman's.

>> No.1934696

>>1934690
>https
>faggot detected

>> No.1934711

>>1934696
I'm paranoid, so what?
Enjoy people being able to read all of your HTTP traffic in plain text.

>> No.1934715

>>1934711
Wat. Who the fuck cares about the content of a wikipedia page? + the page adress isn't encrypted, so the same people can still know what you've read

>> No.1934717

>>1934715
The page address IS encrypted, the only part that can be seen is the server name (secure.wikimedia.org)

>> No.1934718

>>1934717
i dont think u should let ppl know u went to a wiki either

>> No.1934735
File: 90 KB, 500x642, stop it.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1934735

>>1934717
>mfw >https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Electrolaser

>> No.1934749

>>1934715
>>1934718
>>1934735
Why do you guys care? I just don't like the idea of people being able to see everything I'm looking at, what's wrong with that?

>> No.1934797

So long as https is not ubiquitous, using https is a sure sign of sensitive data. It is an excellent target for an overzealous government/law enforcement/intelligence person to risk/bother obtaining permission (or doing without) and going after you. That could be surveillance (planting backdoors on your computer or bugs in your house when you are away) or other things.

The same goes for criminals: When they see an https, they have good reason to invest a lot of time and effort into finding out what's in it.

If https was ubiquitous, this would not be the case. Any malicious person would find it very difficult to convince himself to go after the content of a secure transfer- there's just such a high chance it will turn out to be nothing.

>> No.1934807

>>1934797
Before you say it is a waste of resources: Google says it's a 1% difference. See eff.org's https everywhere project for details.

There is one problem with https- it's kind of easy to buy certificates nowadays. But that's no reason to abandon the protocol.