These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

weapon name congruence
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Shelom Severasse
The Disney World Federation
Fraternity.
#1 - 2014-06-14 11:09:06 UTC
this isnt anything pressing, but it kind of irks me

concerning hybrid blasters, the names dont really match up

for example, with projectiles (we will use small ACs as lasers still apply but are more subjective), the names go as such in order of smallest to largest:
- 125mm
- 150mm
- 200mm

these names indicate the size of the turret and therefore alludes to which has more range and most dps, and also which has the least dps but best tracking, respective to bore sizes

however

with blasters you have:
- electron
- ion
- neutron

these indicate the same thing as the previous list, but the names dont make sense. electron blasters are in their proper place, as they are the smallest "bore" of the blasters, but the wrong part is with the ion/neutron blasters.

lets bring back nuclear chem from highschool, you should all know what an ion is and also what a neutron is. for those of you that dont however, an ion is a charged atom and a neutron is a part of an atoms nucleus.

this being the case, the larger particle here is in fact the ion.

the list should read as follows:
- electron
- neutron
- ion

to help exemplify understanding of science, ccp ought to rename these weapons.. (:

also as a side note, the myrm model needs to lose one of the circle things on the top portion. it no longer has 6 high slots :s
Phoenix4264
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#2 - 2014-06-14 13:05:10 UTC
Unless the ion being fired is a 1H+ hydrogen ion (i.e. a proton). In this single case the current order is correct.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#3 - 2014-06-14 13:05:45 UTC
Blasters are microscopic weapons firing microscopic rounds.

Oh god.
Shelom Severasse
The Disney World Federation
Fraternity.
#4 - 2014-06-14 18:41:10 UTC
Phoenix4264 wrote:
Unless the ion being fired is a 1H+ hydrogen ion (i.e. a proton). In this single case the current order is correct.

lol. you are correct :P
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5 - 2014-06-14 18:50:07 UTC
It requires more powerful weapons to fire neutrons than to fire ions due to the science involved in isolating the neutrons.

Duh.


Thus those are the large weapons.
Rubishod
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2014-06-15 16:07:26 UTC
It's alphabetical. That is a naming convention that makes sense.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#7 - 2014-06-15 18:34:47 UTC
"Neutron Blaster" just sounds cooler and beefier than "Ion Blaster."

That is good enough for me.

Besides... misnomers in weapon naming is an age old tradition!!

How did you Veterans start?
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#8 - 2014-06-15 21:20:04 UTC
If you're going to complain about names it should be about lasers.. Small Focused Modal Pulse Laser I <-- waht?

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Kaaeliaa
Tyrannos Sunset
#9 - 2014-06-15 23:04:06 UTC
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
It requires more powerful weapons to fire neutrons than to fire ions due to the science involved in isolating the neutrons.

Duh.


Thus those are the large weapons.


Also, neutron radiation vs alpha particles? No contest. Neutron radiation is bad news.

"Do not lift the veil. Do not show the door. Do not split the dream."
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#10 - 2014-06-16 17:01:28 UTC
While most ions are indeed more massive than a neutron, implying that an ion blaster is inherently more powerful than a neutron blaster overlooks several key points:

1. You seem to be assuming that a blaster only fires one of each particle every time it fires. If this was true, you may well be correct. However, given that these weapons do immediate damage to large, space-faring vessels over the range of several kilometers, it's much more likely that each firing produces a large quantity of particles. There is nothing to say that a neutron blaster doesn't fire more neutrons per shot than an ion blaster does ions.

2. Neutron radiation is generally far more dangerous than ion radiation. Taking a common ion, alpha particles (2x protons and 2x neutrons bonded together. Basically a Helium atom without electrons), as an example, they can generally be stopped by shielding that is bordering on the trivial: often times a piece of paper or a layer of clothes will stop them. Shielding against neutrons is considerably harder because they lack an electric charge; they have to actually bounce off of nuclei in order to slow down.

3. Neutrons can much more readily induce radioactivity in the materials they interact with than free ions can. This secondary radiation further increases the risk and potential damage of neutron radiation.


All of the above is based on real-world science.


4. Neutron Blaster looks and sounds so much cooler than Ion Blaster so it definitely warrants being the most powerful. If anything, Ion Blasters should be the weakest blaster and Electron Blasters should be the middle of the pack.


#4 is based purely on my own personal silliness.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Shelom Severasse
The Disney World Federation
Fraternity.
#11 - 2014-06-17 11:33:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Shelom Severasse
Bronson Hughes wrote:
While most ions are indeed more massive than a neutron, implying that an ion blaster is inherently more powerful than a neutron blaster overlooks several key points:

1. You seem to be assuming that a blaster only fires one of each particle every time it fires. If this was true, you may well be correct. However, given that these weapons do immediate damage to large, space-faring vessels over the range of several kilometers, it's much more likely that each firing produces a large quantity of particles. There is nothing to say that a neutron blaster doesn't fire more neutrons per shot than an ion blaster does ions.

2. Neutron radiation is generally far more dangerous than ion radiation. Taking a common ion, alpha particles (2x protons and 2x neutrons bonded together. Basically a Helium atom without electrons), as an example, they can generally be stopped by shielding that is bordering on the trivial: often times a piece of paper or a layer of clothes will stop them. Shielding against neutrons is considerably harder because they lack an electric charge; they have to actually bounce off of nuclei in order to slow down.

3. Neutrons can much more readily induce radioactivity in the materials they interact with than free ions can. This secondary radiation further increases the risk and potential damage of neutron radiation.


All of the above is based on real-world science.


4. Neutron Blaster looks and sounds so much cooler than Ion Blaster so it definitely warrants being the most powerful. If anything, Ion Blasters should be the weakest blaster and Electron Blasters should be the middle of the pack.


#4 is based purely on my own personal silliness.

sure, all of what you said is true, however, have you ever heard of neutron radiation, or any radiation for that matter, destroying something of significance? not counting things such as nuclear bombs and reactors as those are different than just radiation. irradiating something, sure, but not physically dismantling an object.

also, i was using the parallel in eve that "bigger is better", which is why i said ions ought to do more damage than neutrons,, sorta one foot in the real world and the other in internet spaceships lol

as for #3, i dont remember anything about neutron radiation "inducing" radioactivity in other materials (though i could be wrong), however they can split other atoms (see: fission, nuclear bomb, nuclear reactor) but that is not inherent radioactivity

and #4 doesnt make any sense to me. electricity, which is what the electron blaster is essentially shooting at things, will definitely do harm to most of anything, but it will not pop a spaceship... but maybe if it forced more electrons into the orbitals of the material that makes up a spaceship it could induce a massive thermal increase (due to electrons moving up and down and shooting off quanta at an accelerating rate), resulting in the breaking of bonds and the disintegration of the ships hull #theorycrafting

EDIT: your last line blended in with my own text so i didnt actually see it till i replied lol
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#12 - 2014-06-17 15:45:42 UTC
Shelom Severasse wrote:
sure, all of what you said is true, however, have you ever heard of neutron radiation, or any radiation for that matter, destroying something of significance?

Nope. But I've never heard of warp drives, jump clones, shields, etc. either outside of EvE or other SciFi either.

Shelom Severasse wrote:
as for #3, i dont remember anything about neutron radiation "inducing" radioactivity in other materials (though i could be wrong), however they can split other atoms (see: fission, nuclear bomb, nuclear reactor) but that is not inherent radioactivity


Aside from it's ability to penetrate shielding, the main danger of neutron radiation is neutron activation. Basically, when a neutron interacts with an atomic nucleus (which is more likely than with ions because it has no charge) it can either knock a particle out of it or merge with it, both of which effectively transmute the atom in question into a different element. Most likely, this new element is radioactive, and a lot of elements created by neutron activation have a short half-life so they are very dangerous. Over time, this will actually corrode the material being exposed to neutrons (the transmuted element is less likely to remain in the crystalline structure of a metallic solid for example), and is one of the main reasons why nuclear engineering is so difficult.



In case you're wondering, I'm a physicist in real life, and nuclear/radiation physics is kind of a hobby of mine. (Theoretical only, I'm not building death rays in my garage. Yet.... Cool) Does it grant my views on naming conventions any more weight? Nope, but I didn't want you to think I was just pulling this stuff out of my behind either.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Shelom Severasse
The Disney World Federation
Fraternity.
#13 - 2014-06-17 16:22:30 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Shelom Severasse wrote:
sure, all of what you said is true, however, have you ever heard of neutron radiation, or any radiation for that matter, destroying something of significance?

Nope. But I've never heard of warp drives, jump clones, shields, etc. either outside of EvE or other SciFi either.

Shelom Severasse wrote:
as for #3, i dont remember anything about neutron radiation "inducing" radioactivity in other materials (though i could be wrong), however they can split other atoms (see: fission, nuclear bomb, nuclear reactor) but that is not inherent radioactivity


Aside from it's ability to penetrate shielding, the main danger of neutron radiation is neutron activation. Basically, when a neutron interacts with an atomic nucleus (which is more likely than with ions because it has no charge) it can either knock a particle out of it or merge with it, both of which effectively transmute the atom in question into a different element. Most likely, this new element is radioactive, and a lot of elements created by neutron activation have a short half-life so they are very dangerous. Over time, this will actually corrode the material being exposed to neutrons (the transmuted element is less likely to remain in the crystalline structure of a metallic solid for example), and is one of the main reasons why nuclear engineering is so difficult.



In case you're wondering, I'm a physicist in real life, and nuclear/radiation physics is kind of a hobby of mine. (Theoretical only, I'm not building death rays in my garage. Yet.... Cool) Does it grant my views on naming conventions any more weight? Nope, but I didn't want you to think I was just pulling this stuff out of my behind either.


haha nice ! im currently studying applied physics.

and no worries mate, its just internet spaceships (: just made the thread cuz i dont like the present naming convention.
Cyniac
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2014-06-17 22:38:38 UTC
Shelom Severasse wrote:
however, have you ever heard of neutron radiation, or any radiation for that matter, destroying something of significance?


Your blasters might be some kind of wimpy radiation devices, that kinda go pooft...

My blasters belch out streams of plasma that melt through hulls like they were made of butter.

This whole electron-ion-neutron discussion is a bit silly. All of my blasters eject plasma which is a friggin mix of it all. The electron/ion/neutron labels apply to the methods used for calibrating my blasters it has nothing to do with what comes out the business end (which I can say once more is pure face-melting destruction).

So enjoy your blasters, I'll enjoy mine Big smile