247
edits
User talk:Plasmic Physics: Difference between revisions
→Plasma Weapons Post
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
:Yes, sadly it was low density. (about 1.3 atm) Yes, a denser plasma of the same temperature has more energy, but it also requires more energy to be maintained. [[User talk:Plasmic Physics|Plasmic Physics]] 06:12, 2 May 2011 (EDT) | :Yes, sadly it was low density. (about 1.3 atm) Yes, a denser plasma of the same temperature has more energy, but it also requires more energy to be maintained. [[User talk:Plasmic Physics|Plasmic Physics]] 06:12, 2 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
:: 1.3 atm isn't too terribly... is there a word for not-dense? My mind's a blank. Anyway, the energy sword is able to cut through dense matter with great ease; if Halo Wars cinematics are credible, the blades can even gouge Forerunner metal with mere touches. And I agree that the blade would require more energy to maintain if it were more dense, however it would be more useful as well. A dense sword would be able to quickly cut through objects, and the percentage of waste heat would drop. I also assume that the gasses used are dense in their unenergized states; if one views a video of the energy sword activating, one notices that the blade flows from hilt to tip relatively slowly. A dense fluid to start with would mitigate potential complications of a restrained gas. I would assume a compund instead of an element; heavier, you see. Tungsten hexaflouride is the heaviest gas at STP, but others are heavier even if they're liquid. Whatever the case, a dense starting point would be easiest to work with. I hope this sparks a brainwave for you. --[[User talk:Bruce2401|Bruce2401]] 15:18, 3 May 2011 (EDT) | |||
== Portal size == | == Portal size == | ||