I have to say very interesting points of view, but chill it's a game, why and how they work is irrelevant, even a Tech-priest couldn't tell you what they are, so trying to define them will be impossible. It's a game. I always saw las weaponary simlar to that of Star wars, a bolt of energy. As for spotting a sniper, it's the same rules in the DH book for spotting a sniper with an SP weapon.

Also, the Tech of the 40K has evolved over the last few years, Bolters in 2nd ed TT used to fire Duterium shell, otherwise known as Heavy Water, H2O2, in other words making the bolter a water gun, but GW simply said that it was merely a word they use because it sounded cool, now they are Adamantine tipped Mass Reactive Shells.

So to the GM in question, run it how ever you feel is right, discuss it with your group, you are their point of contact with the 40k Universe.

Preface: Valdek is right. It's a game, it doesn't matter how they work, just that they do, and if in your world they're lasers, that's quite alright. In mine, they're undefined until somebody makes a hell of a Forbidden Lore - Archaeotech check. However, I do appreciate the debate, it's a good mental exercise.

On string theory: You're right, I didn't explain this one in the post that went up (I had in one that for some reason errored out, but I didn't repost). Basically, as I understand string theory, one of the implications that physicists are starting to toy with is mass really being nothing more than dense packets of energy. Einstein's general relativity points to it, with E=mc^2, and the fact that a fission reaction converts mass to energy seems to bear it up. So, since (if) mass and energy are one and the same, just at different densities, then I can see the plausibility of a weapon that instead of ionizing an air column, ionizes a point-to-point column of the EM spectrum, and uses that to direct an energy stream. Is it incredibly high-energy? Maybe. We just don't know. After all, a fusion reactor was incredibly hard to invent, but I read in the news a while back about a high school kid building one in his shed. Maybe it's not hard once the scientific groundwork has been laid. Or maybe it's bunk.

On a short-circuiting lasgun: Lasguns are reliable, but they do jam occasionally Seriously, with an AC electric flow, you're not running both at the same time, the positive one is on and the negative is off, then vice versa. Is it perfect? No, but again, it makes sense to me.

On tasers and two wires: Because we don't have the technology for a nonlethal (or hell, even a lethal) wireless directed electricity weapon. The only electrolaser test I'm aware of was mounted on a Navy ship. But once the science is understood, one thing engineers are brilliant at is making things smaller.

On flesh being more resistant than metal: True, but I'm talking well over lightning bolt-level amperage here. The energy transfer is huge in a very short period of time. Conductivity only does so much.

On cauterization: I didn't mean that to be an electrolaser v laser point, I meant it to be "hey, this fluff fits with what I'm proposing." A positive argument rather than a negative one. I fully agree that a directed laser weapon would likely exhibit cauterization as well.

On what makes sense to me: I see bolts of lightning but not industrial laser beams. I hear thunder from lightning but not from cutting lasers. Thunder shakes the windows on my house but I've never seen a concussive force from a cutting laser. Different strengths, yes. But I hear a static shock and see a static shock, and concussive force is just a wave of displaced air, sound on steroids if you will.

On a spotter using IR goggles: Are you talking about for a bullet or a lasbeam? Because I don't think we have sensitive enough IR goggles for a modern spotter to pick up that kind of temp difference. On a lasbolt, sure, it's possible, but that requires more special equipment we don't ever hear about in the novels.

On electrocution: There you have me. I can't point to any electrocution effects. But I don't have to convince you, because I'm not trying to. I'm just trying to have some fun by showing what I think is the closest actual analog to a sci-fi weapon is, and why I think so. Like I said, if they're lasers to you, then they're lasers, and if I played in your game I'd not say a word against it.

On that note, if you have actual questions about my position, I'm happy to answer. But I'm not gonna play 'gotcha' over something that a) doesn't have a right or wrong, and b) doesn't matter anyway. Hell, I'm probably wrong anyway since I'm not a physicist, just a guy with a layman's interest in the field.

Valdek said:

Which is interesting as in 40k terms Star Wars 'blasters' are actually plasma guns.

Valdek said:

Indeed, GW runs on 'the rule of cool'.

That''s fine for tabletop games (putting fluff around a 'hits on 4+' mechanic) but for some at least it does need a little bit more explaining for an RPG - hence my own efforts above.

Valdek said:

Most sage advice sir.

It's YOUR 40k. Make of it what you will.

GW's 'technology as magic' approach is inspired from that perspective. 'How does this thing work?' is arguably a question that the average 40k citizen doesn't even know how to think. 'It just does' is the most likely response from a baffled tech priest.

This kind of goes to what i've been banging on about for years - understanding the culture of 40k; something i lament isn't really in any of the books and is essential in terms of actually ROLEplaying in that setting.

How does living in an empire where control/construction/maintenance of technology is the entire(?) concern of the AdMech affect people?

Consider modern cars. 10 years ago the average home mechanic could quite happily maintain their own vehicle on their driveway. Cars being released nowadays require diagnostics comupters, specialist kit, and are backed up by user agreements that invalidate warrantees if the engine is 'interfered with'. How long before the DIY car mechanic is a thing of the past?

Scale that up by 40,000 years and 'how does this lasgun work' is literally a question that most people won't be able to think.

It works.

When it stops working, give it to a tech priest to fix.

No tech priest about?

Discard it for a new one.

No new one about?

Use a rock.

This is the 40k way isn't it?

there's the alternate question of a GM understanding the 'nuts and bolts' of his universe of course, and that's a different issue. But i fear you're on your own in trying to come up with a rationale of this this stuff created under the 'rule of cool' actually works.

Arguing over real world physics seems a bit of a dead end to me...

Tyraxus said:

"Mass reactive" was the term given to bolter shells right from the beginning. Its not a recent introduction. I think the mention of Deuterium (technically "depleted deuterium", whatever that is) was only made in 3rd edition (lexicanum gives the 3rd edition rulebook as it's source). And technically it is heavy hydrogen, not heavy water (which is water in which the hydrogen atoms of the water molecules are deuterium).

Yup.

H2O2 is "oxygenated water" (translated from French, don't know the English word).

Deuterium is no H, it's marked as D, and it is an atom of Hydrogen (H) with an additional neutron.

"Heavy water" being D2O, it's used in some nuclear reactors in Canada (CANDU).

As for "Deuterium shells", it's mostly BS in today's science, but I tend to maximize my suspension of disbelief when it comes to 40k science. We're talking science-fantasy-fiction here, so I really don't care as long as it's remotely self coherent

Preface: Valdek is right. It's a game, it doesn't matter how they work, just that they do, and if in your world they're lasers, that's quite alright. In mine, they're undefined until somebody makes a hell of a Forbidden Lore - Archaeotech check. However, I do appreciate the debate, it's a good mental exercise.

Same here. When it comes down to it, the isn't going to be much in-game difference between electrolasers (I'll call them ELs from now) and lasers. Given how powerful both need to be, the second barrel might be the only difference.

ionizes a point-to-point column of the EM spectrum

What does this mean ?

Ionization is when an atom gains or loses an electron (or a molecule gains/loses an ion), altering its electric charge. Since a photon has no electric charge, and isn't made of components with their own charge, I can't see how ionization makes any sense in regards to photons.

On a short-circuiting lasgun: Lasguns are reliable, but they do jam occasionally Seriously, with an AC electric flow, you're not running both at the same time, the positive one is on and the negative is off, then vice versa. Is it perfect? No, but again, it makes sense to me.

Thing is, your single ion channel EL would short circuit every single time.

Imagine a simple circuit of a battery, a bulb, and two wires each connecting one terminal on the battery to one terminal on the light. The current flows from the battery*, down one wire, through the bulb, down the other wire, back into the battery.

For an EL with two ion channels, think of the target as the bulb, the gun as the battery and the ion channel as the wires.

A single ion channel EL is the equivalent of a circuit involving a battery, a bulb, a metal plate (same metal as the wires) and 4 wires. Each wire connects a terminal on the battery or bulb to the plate. The current will flow out of the battery, down one wire to the plate, through the plate, down the batteries other wire, then back to the battery. Since the current never goes through the bulb, the bulb stays dark. Replacing the battery with an AC power supply won't change that.

*The charge flows out of the negative terminal. This is because when Benjamin Franklin was doing his experiments regarding electricity, he defined one charge as positive, one as negative. Later it was discovered that electrons (which he defined as negative) were the particles that carried the charge. But Franklin's definitions had stuck and, since the difference doesn't matter in the majority of cases, he definitions remain.

On tasers and two wires: Because we don't have the technology for a nonlethal (or hell, even a lethal) wireless directed electricity weapon. The only electrolaser test I'm aware of was mounted on a Navy ship. But once the science is understood, one thing engineers are brilliant at is making things smaller.

My point is that if the EL could make do with a single ion channel, then a taser should be able to work with a single wire. The EL is basically a taser using the ion channels instead of wires.

On flesh being more resistant than metal: True, but I'm talking well over lightning bolt-level amperage here. The energy transfer is huge in a very short period of time. Conductivity only does so much.

High Conductivity causes a percentage of energy to be wasted*. Lets say that the effect you want requires 1000 units of power. If the target conducts 10% of that back to you, you need to get 1111 units of power to the target to have the effect you want. 20% conductivity, 1250 units. 50%, 2000 units. 90%, 10'000 units. While you will get the wasted energy back, meaning you should be able to pump most of it back into the battery, it still means more energy flowing through the ELs components. Meaning more heat builds up inside them. But the Imperium does know how to build things tough.

*By wasted I mean not used for it's intended purpose.

On what makes sense to me: I see bolts of lightning but not industrial laser beams. I hear thunder from lightning but not from cutting lasers. Thunder shakes the windows on my house but I've never seen a concussive force from a cutting laser. Different strengths, yes. But I hear a static shock and see a static shock, and concussive force is just a wave of displaced air, sound on steroids if you will.

That viewpoint is understandable, and is a good starting point. Two questions you should consider:

- Lightning is a massive electric discharge between clouds and the ground/other clouds. What interaction between the electric discharge and atmosphere causes the visible lightning bolt and thunder ?

- Can a laser of sufficient power do the same thing ?

Also, it seems that lasers can be used to trigger lightning . Thus, shooting a lasgun at a thunderstorm may be a very suicidal idea

On a spotter using IR goggles: Are you talking about for a bullet or a lasbeam? Because I don't think we have sensitive enough IR goggles for a modern spotter to pick up that kind of temp difference. On a lasbolt, sure, it's possible, but that requires more special equipment we don't ever hear about in the novels.

The IR goggles are for the lasbeam snipers spotter. You're right in that I don't know how sensitive the spotters IR goggles will need to be.

However, how often do you see a sniper with a spotter in 40k ?

This talk of diffraction does raise another question: If you have enough diffraction to noticeably affect a long-las, how much will the view through the snipers scope also be affected ?

On that note, if you have actual questions about my position, I'm happy to answer.

Two questions: What is the minimum possible width for the ion channels ?

How far apart do the ion channels need to be ?

If you could handwave it down to a small enough size, with them close enough, then an EL with two ion channels with a single visible barrel is possible.

Throw enough charge at the target and the thermal effects will be too violent to notice any electrocution effects.

So the only problem left with ELs is firing them in a vacuum or highly conductive atmosphere (think already ionized).

The Imperium has a wide range of models of almost everything. Mix in a low understanding of technology and I can easily see that some lasguns are lasers*, some are ELs. If I ever get to gm a game with players who use las weapons (I mainly play Rogue Trader, where lasweapons main advantages of low cost and cheap/free ammo doesn't matter), I think I'll let the players decide if their weapon is a laser or EL.

*I've seen a similar theory regarding melta weapons. When one STC was asked for a weapon to "melt tanks", that STC produced a melta that operated on one principle. At a different time, another STC was asked the same question with slightly different parameters, so the STC produced a melta that operated by a different principle. Since they both melt tanks with a similar looking effect, they got grouped into the same kind of weapon. And those within the Ad-Mech who know the difference are keeping it secret.

Stormast said:

Hydrogen Peroxide is the scientific name. The common name depends on how its used.

Luddite said:

The parts of SW that go into detail about the tech also describe them as plasma weapons.

I know an ionized particle is one with a nonneutral charge. However, I was under the impression that ionization was an imbalanced charge at all; as I said, if matter is just dense energy, it might be possible to create a charged pathway through the EM field that directs an energy discharge. That's not real science, though, just musings.

I think I understand what you're saying of the rest, especially the single-channel but, and it's a valid critique of what I wrote. I was trying to get at something akin to a Tesla device. I'll wholely admit that I don't understand exactly how they work, but I've seen handheld AC "Tesla Guns" made out of power drills and that's what I'm starting with as a concept: a very high-powered, directed, handheld Tesla device.

I really like the "different patterns have the same effect but do it different ways" idea.