Is it possible to develope shields like in star-trek??

Weapons expert, eh? I guess you haven't been reading up in the right areas then. Seekerof's recommendaton is a good start. Again, Tesla's had some good ideas in that area. The biggest hurdle to date is the power output needed for such a device. I agree it's not entirely practical now, but neither was aircraft usage 100 yrs. ago.

when suitable why not use a nuclear reactor as a power souce ? or would the reactor not supply enough power?

look at the size of a reactor and reconsider your statement. No way infantry is gonna get a reactor even half that size strapted to their backs.

I am offended by everyone that discredits other peoples ideas or visions with the argument of cost! I dont see people wondering if things can be afforded, I see them wondering if things can be done. Just because something isnt practical, doesnt mean it isnt plausible!

I personally think we would have had the technology long ago,had it been funded! Scientists have known for decades how to manipulate EM, but the Nuke programs deemed to be, ignorantly, more important than the more useful things they could have used nuclear science for (such as power sources for shields,etc.). A radiation shield would have been much more useful to the planet for preservation,than the nukes designed to destroy it!

"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up."

�Thomas A. Edison

(thank you to JustMe16** for lending me your signature!)

[edit on 1/1/05 by c00ster]

Originally posted by ZetaGundam007
look at the size of a reactor and reconsider your statement. No way infantry is gonna get a reactor even half that size strapted to their backs.

In time we will be able to get them smaller , they didnt think they could get rifles as small as they are now but hey! look at them now.

you really think the US would spend money on this kind of equiptment when they cant even be bothered putting armour on the hummes?

in the USA the cheapest thing is life.. sadly the lost lives are everywhere but the USA

Originally posted by P Amaru
you really think the US would spend money on this kind of equiptment when they cant even be bothered putting armour on the hummes?

in the USA the cheapest thing is life.. sadly the lost lives are everywhere but the USA

Armouring a reacon jeep is not really top of the list on the DOD's list.
You realise although the US military in my eyes is questionable on its choices it has to look at the broader scope.
A new fleet of jets is worth the life of a few men, in thier eyes.

look at the size of a reactor and reconsider your statement. No way infantry is gonna get a reactor even half that size strapted to their backs.
My fault for not making my point more clear there is no reason why a reactor cant be used in a ship and buildings or any suitable target.

Originally posted by xpert11
look at the size of a reactor and reconsider your statement. No way infantry is gonna get a reactor even half that size strapted to their backs.
My fault for not making my point more clear there is no reason why a reactor cant be used in a ship and buildings or any suitable target.

No, what i say is eventually they will make it smaller, smaller than a quarter of the size.
This might not happen now or in 50 years but it will happen.

I don't see why a power source as small as a backpack would be a negative. Especially when the Military has already thought up nuke mortars and grenades. Granted, they weren't used or issued, but still........

Nuke grenade?
If your meaning anything like the old nuke cannon stuff they fire from about 5 miles away and are rather dangerous.
If you mean a dirty bomb then i suppose there are many ways to do it, use a grenade with a gamma particle in it or an alpha particle gas or water based agent OR my exspensive approach to nuke replacement.

Put a rail gun in orbit and fire reactor rods and control rods instead of shells.
Not to mention the kinetic speed, the radiation will be immense.

Hey, I never said a nuke grenade was a good idea. The mortar was discontinued because the mortar team was well within the nuke's blast radius. I tink the grenade was never seriously considered, just considered.

I think a whopper of a power source as portable as a backpack would be a benificial piece of equipment. We are going to have to get a lot more understanding of nuclear reactions before I'd carry one around though.

Originally posted by Der Kapitan
Hey, I never said a nuke grenade was a good idea.

The mortar was discontinued because the mortar team was well within the nuke's blast radius. I tink the grenade was never seriously considered, just considered.

LOL

I think a whopper of a power source as portable as a backpack would be a benificial piece of equipment. We are going to have to get a lot more understanding of nuclear reactions before I'd carry one around though.

yeah.....lol the whole ghost buster elevator scene.

No, what i say is eventually they will make it smaller, smaller than a quarter of the size.
This might not happen now or in 50 years but it will happen.
I agree with you but in the mean time if possiable why not use current nuclear reactors ? Why not use what we have today ? Why wait for tomorrow ?

Originally posted by xpert11
I agree with you but in the mean time if possiable why not use current nuclear reactors ? Why not use what we have today ? Why wait for tomorrow ?

Well unfortunatly the sea and space seem to be the only 2 fields of combat a fully sized nuclear reactor could really be practical in.
Army and marines are no use, they are constantly moveing.
AF is possible but still always on the move.

Well unfortunatly the sea and space seem to be the only 2 fields of combat a fully sized nuclear reactor could really be practical in.
Army and marines are no use, they are constantly moveing.
AF is possible but still always on the move.

Hang on a sec there is no reason why we cant put a reactor in a building or underground
for example in the green zone in Iraq.

Originally posted by xpert11
Hang on a sec there is no reason why we cant put a reactor in a building or underground
for example in the green zone in Iraq.

Hmm, yeah but remember we dont know fully what the physics of this would be like.

a few things. i work with plasma beams for a living. they only work in a vacuum. with a 3million volt equivilant, in a vacuum, the beam will.. get ready... burn tape. there is no way we could produce a plasma sheild on a ground troop and make it effective, in space it would be possible but not plausible.

as far as that power source, it is total garbage. it takes a flow of 6,250,000,000,000,000,000 electrons to make one amp of current . the air in the ionosphere has one million free electrons per square cm. that means it would use 6,250,000,000,000 cubic centimeters of air per second to keep a charge of one amp. thats in the ionosphere, which is 45 miles up. at sea level the amount of free electrons in the air is much less. if someone did see this thing 'working', i beleive that, it just doesent work on the principals they said it does. i would guess it was big lead acid or lithium ion battery if it was 'observed'.

Wow, createing a shield of plasma.
Cooool.....stealthly as well.
We where talking about using magnets and stuff, i think...

Do you guys think its possible to bend light with magnets?

i suppose it could be possible to bend light with magnets but it would take an extremely powerful magnet to cause such an effect.