Talk:Particle-beam weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ion cannon)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


reference 5 leads to 'swiftmoney' now, its a dead link and spam. Rqpaine (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


Could a magnetic field disrupt an incoming particle beam?

I'm not able to find any evidence of this supposed "B.E.A.R. project" that's referenced in the article, either here or the internet at large. Aside from that, there are no references for this article whatsoever, and much of it (including BEAR) seems apocryphal. siafu 23:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I did. [1] Maybe you should put this as a reference? --Kyleca 00:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Or you could. The paper was published pre-launch, however, so we're still short on info beyond that. siafu 00:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This "B.E.A.R. Project" is tinfoil hat garbage. The only references I can find about it are from websites that discuss "chemtrails"and that kind of thing. I can't find anythng non-electronic, and non-batshit crazy. Suggest we remove the "B.E.A.R. Project" stuff completely. GodHead 06:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Found a pentagon report abstract, looks like the B.E.A.R. Project was real.[2] Bigshot 05:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea that you cannot shield a target from a particle beam is patent nonsense. To damage a target a weapon must interact with the materials it's composed of. If it will interact with the matter of the target, it will react with shielding. Think about it: if a weapon was totally immune to shielding, it would mean it passes through all matter unchanged, which would make a somewhat useless weapon since it would go right through the target without harming it in the slightest-- 12:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

Re: "An electron particle beam weapon works by disrupting electric circuits and electronic devices in its targets. If any living animals or persons were to be caught by the electric discharge of an electron beam weapon, they would most likely be electrocuted. An electron beam weapon can also damage or melt its target by the electrical resistance heating of the target" -- I suppose the energy resulting from the electric current is rather negligible compared with the contained kinetic energy (esp. if you're talking about 1000 MeV). Heat will probably mainly come from the kinetic energy, not the electric discharge current. In any case, large doses of gamma rays will be produced when the electrons hit the target, which constitutes an additional threat to living creatures. Note that electron accelerators (with or without a target for converting the electrons into gamma rays before hitting the patient) are being used for radiotherapy. The reports on the Therac-25 accidents mention what the patients felt when they were being hit by the electron beams. IIRC it was heat, and yes, electric shocks, but they seem to have been not that major, and that has been at "only" 25 MeV. (And a note to post from high energy particle beams seem to be able to go rather deep; and you'd also have to protect against the generated gamma rays.) Cjt2 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Plus, it seems to me that if you were building particle beam weapons in space, you have lots of vacuum available, so beam energies could be way up there. With beams in the GeV category, secondary particles become a larger hazard than the initial beam itself. With heaver particles (eg protons) it becomes very difficult to deflect the beam with reasonably sized magnets, and shielding of meters in depth is unwieldy to say the least. CERN has solid plans for a 4GeV linac, and while the machine will be large, it's not in any way difficult to make reliable. While all of this is still science fiction - it's not so very far from reality. Norm Reitzel (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


So, looking at the article, I've got a question about the verbs used. I see verbs in the present tense, indicative mood: ionizes, uses, damages. I also note that none of those are cited. I then see some cited sentences with conditional verbs: would negate, [if]... can be generated. And there's another section, where citations, at least one of questioned reliability, indicate that particle beam weapons in a non-fictional setting never proceeded beyond experimentation that ended by the late 1980s. Thus, I ask, are or were particle beam weapons ever real, and if not, why does the article describe how they work as though they were real? The Literate Engineer 06:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

References 4 and 5 are obviously tinfoil hat material[edit]

The Jed Margolin page claims his technology can do basically anything, including alter the flow of time. Is not a reliable reference. Come on, there are better references for particle beam technology than this. This page should be folded into the Particle beam page without any of the pseudoscience. 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

_________ [No, that's not what I said. I said to be alert to anomalies. The person above who mischaracterized what I said is full of sh*t. - JM] _________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla's Teleforce.[edit]

See Teleforce in the wikipedia page. This was a particle weapon, eh? Should this be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, it wasn't really a particle weapon since Telsa's idea of a "particle" was a microscopic object, not molecular or subatomic one like most actual particle weapons. He seems to have been using particle in the sense of a mathematical modelling particle rather than an elementary particle since he claimed they could be quite large. Herr Gruber (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
So we have a "History" section that is 90% Tesla (referenced to Tesla I might add) because? Just an open question, primary sourced material and off topic material should normally be trimmed back or simply deleted. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Because Tesla is to science as Nostradamus is to history: if Tesla made a statement X and any future development even remotely resembles X, Tesla predicted X. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Removed Tesla section per above, main points were primary sourced and a miss-interpertation of them to boot. 1930s/1940s newspaper articles would have no idea what Tesla had built and the material was simply being interpreted by Wikipedia editors. His Teleforce did not shoot subatomic particles nor was it a directed-energy weapon per description. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


In this article it mentions the power of the weapon. Wouldn't this change with size? Why list a figure at all? Where is this information coming from, it is uncited. I'm just asking.

Avian Mosquito. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

GREAT ARTICLE! No mention tesla Plans still in US Gov.Hands![edit]

Great article no mention that telsa particle beam Death ray plans stolen from his hotel room sfae by the FBI Jan 1943 at the time of tesla dath. Were part of the SDFI Star Wars Paticle beam Reseach the plans are still at the Lawrenece Livermore Lab Reserarch Library Livermore <calif. I understand see the boomk by Margret Cheny "Tesla Man out of Time" Thankjs! Dr. Edson Andre' J. Andreisme (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)am480921qstcentdecde.

Hypothetical scenario regarding the employment of particle beams in assassination attempts[edit]

The video is a very recent and controversial event . MUST watch entire video . solve . — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Charles Webb, Jr. (talkcontribs) 05:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


The word "neutral" should be removed in the first sentence of the second section. You can create a neutral beam, but that is not what is described. (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone clean the opening paragraphs of this article up.[edit]

For fuck's sake, it looks like a 5-year old wrote them. Or someone from China. Shit, man. -December 26th, 2012. 04:07, 27 December 2012‎ (UTC)