I do like how there's this huge distinction between blasters and their power, but at the end of the day it pretty much just always boils down to "if glowy line hit you you die"
Almost. Remember at the battle for Hoth? “That armor’s too strong for blasters!” The medium blaster cannons mounted to the snowspeeders were unable to penetrate an AT-AT’s armor, which has been seen to shrug off anything less than the heavy laser cannons mounted on another AT-AT.
My interpretation for blasters has always been that the damaging part of the bolt is contained in the laser light, but the delivery mechanism is the ionized tibanna gas. Light only travels at c through a vacuum. Ionized tibanna gas causes the laser light to have its group velocity slowed down to near zero. The key (magic) marvel of tibanna is how little you have to use to get the slowing effect and the relatively inexotic temperatures and pressures involved. On earth we've slowed light to 38 mph but the conditions are ... extreme. The gas cloud is then electromagnetically propelled towards the target as the bolt. When the cloud hits the target, it disperses, and the laser light transfers its energy into the target. Ray shields (known to be effective against lasers) are still consistent, since they absorb the light (and most of the energy) from the bolt while ignoring the otherwise harmless tibanna cloud. The lore concept is that (earth-style) lasers have a continuous energy output and (like on earth) are very hard to scale up to damaging levels without huge power sources. If you could collect laser light from a lower power source (like a capacitor for light) and deliver it to the target all at once, this would be the breakthrough that would distinguish blasters as a better (although still laser-based) technology. Since the tibanna cloud causes some diffusion/scattering (this is how the bolt is visible) and has to stay in shape over long distances (to stay at the density required to keep the light moving slow enough), a major characteristic of the range and power of the device is gas handling. The other two main characteristics are how long is spent lasing into the gas before release (fire rate) and the size of the input power source. A lot of the complicated and chunky technology around large blasters and turbolasers would be consistent with handling these aspects. I'm not really sure of what onscreen and in-fiction aspects wouldn't be consistent with this interpretation, but I'm sure there are plenty. It does seem to work well with what I can remember.
This is exactly how I believe that blasters work and explains the "laser/particle beam/charged particles coupled with light" bits, and it reconciles the distinction between laser cannons and ion cannons: ion cannons are just blasters without the damaging laser component. This is also how I believe that lightsabers work: the old lore actually describes lightsabers as being based on blaster technology.
Fantastic video! I like the idea that "laser" being used in terminology is just a remaining colloquialism from a time in which "true" laser weaponry was commonplace - The Essential Guide to Warfare establishes that super ancient starships had reflective panels all over to reflect laser attacks. Said book also goes with the particle beam explanation for what's being fired from blasters.
In reference to "I cant think of any sci-fi universe that uses electrolasers as weaponry" at 21:00, the Shock Rifle from Halo is explicitly referred to as an electrolaser
Unreal Tournament also has the lighting sniper rifle that basically has the same discription of laser ionisong a path for the lighting to travel along.
There is a possible explanation for the laser/plasma hybridization. There is a physically possible energy weapon called a "laser coupled particle beam" in which through physics a bit heavyhanded for youtube comments, photon pressure from a laser helps "squeeze" a particle beam on all sides, effectively keeping it focused while normally the particles (all sharing a strong charge) would want to repel each-other. This weapon would be both a particle beam and laser, a stream of heavy charged particles encapsulated within a laser. These beams can travel anywhere from 5-20% the speed of light, and would impart both significant physical impact to the target as well as ablatively drilling into it, and causing explosive secondary effects as some of the target is vaporized by the transfer of energy.
The particle shield and ray shield issue isn’t actually an issue. I’m gonna assume an explanation for how ray shields work, but if they block lasers via an electromagnetic field of some kind, that would also affect a particle beam or plasma, as both of those are also electromagnetic. A particle shield not blocking them would make sense if it affected everything that wasn’t electrically charged, so it doesn’t block lasers, particle beams, or plasma
I read long ago another explanation, and I seem to recall it being from an official source, but I can’t remember where. Anyway, it was very unique and still the most fascinating directed energy weapon design I’ve ever heard. The blaster is both a plasma weapon and a laser weapon. The blaster bolt is a plasma projectile, but it carries within it a ricocheting laser pulse. When the bolt impacts an object, it ruptures, freeing the laser to double down into the target. I loved this explanation because the plasma decides the weapon’s limitations and the laser decides its strength, as indicated in the blaster>laser>turbolaser ladder of power. As to ray shields, I think it’s a matter of mass. The small, light blaster bolt is not blocked by a particle shield which is made to guard against meteors and block fighters from flying into your Death Star II.
This explanation could very well be from the Star Wars Technical Journal that was published in the Starlog magazine: it describes blasters as firing intense pulses of light combined with packets of accelerated high-energy particles.
Another defining feature of blasters that was not mentioned in the video is that all of them must be able to be deflected by a lightsaber. I find that this requirement disincentivizes lasers as an explanation. Although I can see why this wouldn't be mentioned as it would also require an understanding of what exactly a lightsaber is.
This is the kind of stuff that I think about constantly. This video was cathartic. The next question to consider is what Jedi are doing when blocking blaster bolts. In ANH & ROTJ, Luke seems to predict where to block before the blast is fired, but in all subsequent media, it seems that Jedi are just really good at blocking after they see it coming.
In the comics they can even block regular solid bullets with the help of the force (the lightsaber melts the bullets)but once blocked the melted projectile hits them and when shot at full auto thy have trouble
This would make a lot more sense if the "galvan"/focus was behind the blaster module, as the thing that excited and directed the gas. The fact that the gas is excited in the first place, definitely implies plasma, unless the "crystal" somehow only lets ions through... Maybe the blast itself is some combination of particle beam and plasma exhaust created by the left over tibana gas, focused through the front like that by the barrel to prevent venting in unfortunate directions. Perhaps the gas itself is excited by some kind of laser technology that heats it, too, which would explain the "zeroing" mechanism described of disabling the blaster and pulling the trigger to only get a single dot of light
Good point, the low-power laser sight modification could still work with other blaster types. The Cracken blaster sight is old enough it was intended as laser, but could be updated for other types. Technically that bit of lore lines up with electrolaser best, but a laser could also be the first stage of firing a plasma blaster. -DZ
In WW2 the Allie’s found that if they added tracer rounds to their AA guns on their ships it made them more effective because it scared enemy pilots into messing up or being scared. I could see a similar scenario coming up for why colored lasers are added to an invisible weapon.
This is quite the interesting argument of a video, I quite like how open ended the answer is. For me, Im personally Team Plasma. Many of the properties of blasters, from their appearance, to how they interact with defenses and the legendary lightsaber scream plasma (atleast to me). The mention of the laser generation within the weapon could be explained as a method of rapidly exciting the tibanna gas which becomes the actual bolt itself, for example. The question of ray vs particle shields could be explained by ray shields being some form of electromagnetic barrier - as charged particles, such a barrier could interact with the plasma and block/disperse it - if not the bolts particles itself, perhaps the magnetic bottle that holds the energized gas particles in place, which would cause the bolt to disappate rather suddenly on contact instead of carrying through to the hull. Meanwhile particle shields would work against larger, generally uncharged targets like say a proton torpedo but not really what is essentially angry gas - particle shields can be set to ignore gasses and seem to do so regularly (ie hangar containment fields). Since plasma is technically just a soup of highly energized particles one could also squeeze the "laser/particle" noncommittal answers into this aswell Dont forget legendary lightsaber vs blaster bolt clashes - saber seem to be near universally accepted as plasma blades, and it would make sense if they could deflect a moving plasma bolt due to their containment fields disagreeing one another. This could possible explain how stuff like ion weapons (highly charged plasma bolt?) and stun weapons (a lower charge, rather dispersed bolt used more as a carry wave for a stunning shock) operate aswell. But that's just me, I appreciate you going over the multiple popular angles.
I’m inclined to agree, for whatever it’s worth. I would also add that another issue with jedi using lightsabers to deflect them if they’re some sort of laser is that that would mean they’d literally have to move at the speed of light to deflect consecutive beams, which doesn’t make a lot of sense, even with the help of the force.
Let me make this even more complicated. There's new research on using lasers and jets of plasma to accelerate electrons. So now we have the possibility of all three options in one.
Before watching this video my head cannon was that blasters were plasma because of the gas and charge pack. A laser was used to ignite the gas so blasters were called lasers for the same reason a gun that uses a flint to ignite black powder is called a flintlock instead of a bulletgun.
What the hell is a "bulletgun"... Weapons that use flintlock are still called "pistol" and "rifle". flintlock is just used to define it. Like how there are "revolver pistols" and "autoloading pistols" or "single shot" and "semiautomatic" or again "single action" and "double action".. We could be here all day....
Laser is focused via a crystal to efficiently heat tibanna gas into its plasma state, which is magnetically accelerated out the barrel at a speed slow enough that air drag doesn't disrupt the "coherence" of the plasma bolt (laminar flow). Blasters are laser-ignited plasma throwers. On Earth we haven't the exotic gas nor crystals to make it feasible for a handheld power pack to accomplish that ignition process. Side note: this same tech would make compact clean fusion reactors possible.
I always thought the difference between the two shield types is if they block slow or fast projectiles. Particle beams are pretty close to the speed of light so they get blocked, while torpedos are very slow comparatively and this get through. Same with a walking droid or a rolling grenade
@@711desmond That doesn't disagree with my argument... There reason they might block different, is because the speed of the projectile might be different.
My view is that blaster weapons do fire streams of particles. More specifically these particles are tibanna gas molecules that have converted first into an ionized state by the XCiter (step one). These particles are then pumped into the firing chamber where they are heated up by the defraction of a laser beam through a prismatic crystal (step two). These ionized and heated particles are also compressed by the electromagnetic field generated by the galven circuitry until they are emitted as a stream of particles down the barrel called a bolt (step three). The bolt's muzzle velocity is extremely low with hand held weapons, often only achieving around 70 m/s or so. Damage results are primarily from thermal and electrical effects on the target. Vehicle lasers use a multistage firing chamber and higher end lasers to greatly increase the muzzle velocity to around 2 km/s or so. This higher muzzle velocity allows for more secondary effects from the tibanna gas molecules being compressed by the impact, including occasional fusion of fusionable material contained within the lattice of a tibanna gas molecule. Turbolasers increase muzzle velocity even further, using a multistage firing chamber and a turbine to further heat and ionized the beam. This allows turbolasers to achieve muzzle velocities as high as 15 km/s and are almost guaranteed to cause secondary fusion effects from the tibanna gas molecule impacting at such high velocities and energy states. Tibanna gas is described as being produced by organisms in gas giants, it is essentially a hydrocarbon that traps fusionable material, allowing it to be used as a convenient means of fueling fusion power systems. This means it is also highly dense but can also cause minuscule fusion reactions when individual molecules are compressed by extreme heat, pressure, and even impacts at extreme velocities. This is why some high power blaster bolts seem to explode on impact, in extreme cases they may be delivering a thermal burst from a handful of fusionable atoms fusing from the extreme impact of the tibanna gas molecule impacting with the target.
I have guessed that ‘laser’ in TGFFA has similar meaning to how early 20th century products would often put ‘radio’, ‘radar’, or ‘jet’ or ‘rocket’ as part of their name to seem futuristic and cool, like Radio Flyer wagons. Those wagons had nothing to do with radio, but there you have it. Kinda like how moms and dads would call any video game system a ‘Nintendo’ (or an ‘Atari’ if you go back far enough). Blasters reminded the people of that galaxy of early more primitive laser technology and the term stuck.
5:50 - One of my favorite minor scenes from TNG is when the Enterprise is locked onto by a small ship. Worf reports that the ship is locking lasers onto them, and everyone is just confused about it. Even the weak "shields" that protects the Enterprise from getting ripped apart by pieces of dust while traveling at warp speed would be enough to protect them from lasers.
I know exactly the one you mean. In the pilot episode of Star Trek TOS, they use quite a different model of ray gun. As I recall, the dialogue calls these lasers instead of phasers. In canon, I think they would have been an earlier model of phaser. - DZ
20:55 Fallout has electro laser weapons, the LAER (Laser Assisted Electric Rifle) and several Tesla weapons (don't know if they count as I am not sure if they use lasers to guide the electricity)
Ok, I'm gonna throw a wrench In the works. Ion cannon, turbo laser, etc. These are translation issues. Nobody speaks English. They only seem to speak English like Tolkien characters do. They speak galactic standard, in d and they'd speak common. We don't know what language that is, but it's not English. So the English names for things are not necessary to be accurate, they are only be required to be consistent in use. Same for shielding. It's an attempt in English to convey to the audience that this thing protects against that thing. It's name is potentially rubbish .
I agree somewhat. These things might work with slightly different rules of nature, and thus. there won't be a perfect translation into English. And it's just easy to call a parallel long stripe of light laser. Even though they are not the same thing. Sometimes we lack words and use the closed to what we know. Like how the new aptera 3 wheel electric vehicle is still called a car, even though there are many reasons to claim it's not
I've always had a personal explanation for the technology of blasters: The weapon uses both energy and gas packs, initially the gas particles are superheated by a laser, then as the energized beam is accelerated through the barrel, a form of rayshield technology is applied to it to prevent the beam from dispersing. This explanation solves most of the problems: -Explains the projectile speed -Explains the impact detonation -Explains at least some recoil -Explains why laser cannons and turbolasers are called laser weapons -Explains why lightsabers deflect blaster bolts, as it uses the same kind of shield that contains the saber's plasma blade This pretty much covers all of the information about blasters that we know from the movies.
I've always thought that Star Wars is after all, fiction. It has proven time and time again to defy our laws of physics i.e. the force, lightsabers, hyperspace, general space travel etc. Blasters operate using Star Wars physics, so you just can't compare it to ours and expect it to make sense (like comparing lightsabers combat to sword combat, they just aren't the same). Great video though, we will watch your career with great interest!
I want to believe it’s a hybrid between lasers, plasma, and sci-fi space magic, which when combined is referred to as lasers despite being different from traditional lasers. Same name different beast.
Same as Terminator. The laser both superheat the gas and the air to provide a path for the magnetically encased bolt to travel. Scifi nonsense explanation but an explanation nonetheless.
When there are multiple competing theories on how something works but has never been definitively answered, such as how a snake slithers or how a bicyclist stays upright, the answer usually lies in some combination of the most accurate theories. I take this approach with Star Wars tech. Many layers of technological innovation have yielded the devices used onscreen
I like to think that blasters are not any one of the 4 things mentioned, but rather a *mysterious advanced substance that us 21st century monkeys wouldnt understand with our limited knowledge of technology* and that we should treat them like speeder tech or hyperspace: Very advanced technology we would never understand Something else to note about star wars is that the physics in star wars may not be same as ours, for eg. spcae ships experience resistance, as they have a max speed and cant go faster and faster in space, plus ppl have been shown with bare skin in space all the time in the EU and canon, so how i interoperate that is bc star wars takes place billions of years ago, physics as we know it was different, like it just changes over time or smth, so in a sense, everything in star wars is physically logical, as how do we know how the universe was billions of years ago, earth isnt there to ground the universe to real physics, humans exist but id chalk it up to coincidence
One fantastic bit of tech from our world is the "MASER" or microwave amplified by stimulated emission. It's a predecessor of the modern laser. It's not very powerful or useful due to its age and limitations. However, the neat thing is that unlike a laser, a maser can pass through objects. But, more relevant to the video, my head cannon for blasters was that they used a tabana gas catalyst laser to forcibly ignite more tabana gas to produce plasma. The blaster then "electrifies" the plasma, because it's conductive, before magnetically accelerating it out the end of the blaster. While in flight, the electro laser from the blaster maintains the plasma reaction. The trouble is that normal plasma would immediately dissipate. So tabana gas would have to have a special property which somehow maintains the coherence of a plasma bolt. I always figured that the tabana gas had magnetic qualities. However, remember the maser from above and consider this weird bit of science: magnetic fields are technically made out of photons. It's not too far fetched, in terms of sci fi, to imagine that in addition to the electro laser, a secondary maser is able to project through and around the emitted plasma bolt in such a way that it could guide it like a rail road. At this point, things start getting into particle and quantum physics. But that's good enough for me.
Tibanna gas is also used in repulsortech, as fuel for hyperdrives, and can solidify into blocks of solid carbonite, as we've seen. Given its seemingly impossible properties, tibanna could conceivably be used to condense a laser beam into a bolt. Or how about the idea that the blaster can fire a laser beam sheathed in tibanna, which provides the combustible atmosphere for an electrolaser to work (think arc welders)? Most blasters also appear to have a stun mode, which seems to utilize an electric shock. It would also explain the limited range of blaster weapons in the vacuum of space. And what about deflecting blaster bolts with a lightsaber? That heavily supports the projectile visualization of blaster bolts. If we take the Bad Batch as canon, they have to be lasers. Crosshair's signature trick is using tiny mirror pucks to deflect blasts at tricky angles.
In “Star Wars: Complete Vehicles Incredible Cross Sections” (2020) blasters are specifically referred to as particle weapons (Page 11 under energy weapons) I quote “Laser cannons and turbo lasers are based on the same principle as handheld blasters: Energy-rich gas is converted into a glowing particle beam that can melt through targets”
The closest thing to a turbolaser I can think of irl is a synchrotron particle accelerator. By using powerful magnets in a circular configuration you can continuously accelerate particles trough them allowing for a more stable and powerful beam over longer distances, unlike linear accelerators wich can only accelerate particles a single time, while also being less eficient regarding their length compared with the circular accelerators. It would also make even more sense if we stick with the particle beam explanation for blasters in general. The funny thing with star wars is that very in spite of using terms and elements in a seemingly wrong way you can always find parallels in the real world to make them work anyways.
My head canon is that all of these weapons are plasma based. The blasters use an electric charge to ignite the gas fuel (I suppose you could say that it creates a small blast) then that ignited gas gets compressed into a small, super-heated plasma ball that gets propelled with electromagnetic force. The "laser cannons" use lasers instead of electric charge to achieve the same result, just being bigger and therefor more powerful. The "turbo lasers" are even bigger. The laser part is the same, the "turbo" part can mean turbines that keep the system relatively cool, considering the amount energy being involved. The "bolt" part can be explained in a somewhat meta way. The reason why holograms are noisy and always have specifically horizontal lines is because the camera exists. The hologram's interference is essentially the same as when you turn your camera towards an old CRT screen. The plasma bolt is just a motion blur artifact, caused by the extremely hot ball of plasma that emits light. The length of the bolt is the distance the plasma ball traveled during a single frame. The continuous beams we see during the clone war era are either rapid fire plasma cannons or particle streams - a completely different technology. The ray shields that stop these weapons are high frequency magnetic fields that tear the atoms apart. But the atoms of solids, liquids and even gases are too stable, so only plasma is affected. If you accidentally hit the shield in just the right angle, the plasma ball may bounce off, otherwise it turns into a mostly harmless flash with some EM feedback, that disrupts and eventually disables the shield emitter. And since these plasma balls are both unstable and lose their energy relatively fast, that means they are powerful but short range weapons, which explains why the ships are shooting each other from an extremely close range, instead of hundreds of kilometers.
Despite changing to a Lamborghini tractor, I am still the tf2 avatar guy. Fair enough, that is the sort of thing that follows you around for life, like driving infractions, or saying something awkward in front of the girl you liked and her friends in high school. Wonderful work as always, lads, yet more proof it's money well spent.
We will record new lines for the next video. We were really pressed for time, and just ended a 8 day crunch. I promise you that your Lamborghini Tractor will be properly acknowledged then. -ED-1TA
There's a legends story I remember off the top of my head that actually describes a blaster using laser mechanics. In an attempt to frame Han Solo for murder, an imperial sabateur uses a specialized stealth blaster that can fire an invisible bolt. He fired the invisible blaster at a dissassembled blaster barrel with its focusing crystal exposed, which caught the invisible bolt and refracted it into a visible one down the makeshift barrel so it would look like his shot came from a Solo's direction. Needless to say, a plasma thrower would not have been able to achieve this.
About blasters not firing a solid projectile...What about a Wookie Bowcaster? Lore is that it fires a projectile from a magazine (bolts)(the boxes on Chewie's bandoleer) surrounded by blaster/plasma beam. Could it be possible a blasters magazine is the same way. As far as it getting past the emitter on a regular blaster,, the projectile could be a ring that slips past the crystal, covered with the tibanna gas, which is then ignited by the beam, forms the blaster bolt, then as it speeds to the target, is stretched out? Or could it just be this is a Good Sci-fi movie, and we're overthinking it trying to compare it to 20th/21st century Earth technology? Still a good channel...
I personally prefer the particle beam explanation the best, especially since it also makes the most sense with turbolasers. I believe that laser is a holdover from older weapons, similar to modern cannons being completely different from original cannons. One of the nice things about Star Wars taking place far far away, long long ago is that it is more than possible that language evolved slightly differently
My headcanon has always been that blasters/lasers/turbolasers are plasma guns. Given that they consume gas and must eject something with mass out the front to produce recoil. I've also always thought of tibanna gas as sort of a slow-burn nuclear fusion fuel. Like deuterium/tritium, except it "burns" in a matter of seconds, not milliseconds. Blasters are essentially very thin ion engines, exciting gas into plasma in the back and then accelerating it forwards with a strong electric field applied to the crystal, which is full of tiny holes to let the gas through. This is how electrostatic ion engines work irl too. Longer blasters could have several ion-grid crystals, so the bolt travels faster or a longer excitement chamber, so they are more powerful. "Lasers" as in the medium size anti-vehicle turrets are more like electromagnetic ion engines. Not using grids and electric fields, but a powerful, forward moving magnetic field to focus and propel the plasma forward, perhaps also using Lorentz force to propel it forward. Turbolasers sort of have it in their name, that what accelerates the gas is a turbine. With a big gun this makes sense, a huge turbine can move massive amount of gas very quickly. A turbine accelerates the gas doen the barrel, which is then excited into plasma and focused with a magnetic field. The sound of the turbolasers even sound kind of like a pre-spun turbine being quickly slowed down as gas is suddenly injected into it. The disc shaped blasters/lasers on the homing spider droid and LAAT gunship in my head was like a regular blaster/laser, but where the gas is first accelerated to very high speed by a dedicated module, before being injected from several sides with very high energy blaster beams. The collision of the beams adds extra energy, perhaps causing the tibanna gas to burn faster? In a sense its like a tiny Project Daedalus, using tibanna gas instead of deuterium/tritium fuel. This means that ray/particle shields make sense too. Ray shields are electromagnetic or electrostatic in nature, reacting to the magnetic or electric field of the incoming plasma. Particle shields might quite literally be shields made out of particles. Like a cloud of sand hovering around a ship. This would mean that a high-energy and very thin bolt of plasma could pierce through, like a needle through a sandstorm, but anything with more surface area, like a ship, missile or torpedo, would hit too many particles and be stopped/shredded as if hit by buckshot, except the ship/torpedo is flying into the buckshot and not the other way around. Though you could continously push slowly through, if you've got something to push off of. This kind of shield could also protect against the heat of athmopheric reentry.
The solid ammunition block idea was also used in the 40k verse with the shuriken weapons used by the space elves, and arguably by their dark kin as well (In old lore they both used the same tech, in newer lore the Dark Eldar use their proprietary "splinter" weapon technology which basically does the same thing but gets its ammunition by shattering a crystal instead.) Since this comes from Warhammer I immediately assume this means the technology was featured in some sci-fi book or movie before then, since GW has a track record of treating other people's IP in the same way a Skaven would.
The blaster shoots watermelon seeds at hyper hyperspace speeds. The seed travels through all of space and time so fast that it's in noticeable except in the places where the seed resonates with itself. That location moves forward at a relatively slow pace, but it's the only place where the seed which is moving faster than possible can affect the universe. Once this resonance bolt reaches its target the seed delivers a small fraction of its energy to kill the target.
In quantum mechanics, photons necessarily have a spin; their spin can be either +1 or -1. This *spin* determines whether the *electric-field* component of the *electromagnetic* wave is _precessing clockwise or counter-clockwise with respect to the vector that is the direction of travel. In less verbosity,, a spin of +1 means that the electric field of a photon heading towards you is precessing counter-clockwise. A spin of -1 means that the electric field of a photon heading towards you is precessing clockwise.
One thing I think needs to be accepted is that Lucas was not a physicist, nor was he affiliated with anyone to assist him in making equipment that was physically possible. All you need to do to understand this is look at how Jedi can just deflect blaster bolts. If they were lasers, the only way to do this is with precognition. While Jedi do have precognitive abilities, the very first scene with blasters shows people dodging them. The only way that makes sense is if Blasters are either Plasma or Particle weapons. The most likely explanation is that Lucas wanted the same effect as Tracer ammunition in normal guns, and just called them lasers. When it came time to make diagrams, the designers just used what knowledge they had to make something that fit what Lucas told them. Fast forward to the Prequel Era, and the people in charge of penning the lore realize that what they previously wrote was impossible; you can't make lasers that behave the way you see on screen. So, they fix their mistake. While not all new lore trumps old lore, corrections and fixes to the lore can not be ignored. The only time lore trumps what is on screen is for obvious mistakes in production.
This video made one thing clear to me, even the creators dont know what theh created so they have been doing damage control since. Plasma weapons sounds the most plausible and maybe the crystals create some kind of special quantum state which teleports the plasma through it. It's clear that it was meant to be laser originally because it was the coolest thing at the time the science of it wasnt properly understood. Sure, I really liked all the other cool possibilities you raised like electric beam, particle beam, and phase arrays. But these are all too sciency and star wars is more cowboy western style and just plasma bolts fits it better. Also, in universe, I can claim that their meaning of the word "laser" is different from ours. Our meaning is an acronym, as you mentioned, so maybe their "laser" just comes from a different origin
TLDR: I think blaster bolts are packets of charged antimatter particles encased in a cloud of charged regular matter. That creates the visible trail of light as the two types of matter mix over the course of the bolt's trajectory creating a sort of plasma, explains why they're so destructive upon impact, shields work by deflecting charged particles, etc. Original comment: I consider myself about as much of a star wars nerd as imaginable and I never knew that the lethal part of a blaster bolt hits before the visible part! Suddenly I'm questioning everything from blaster reflection by a lightsaber to even the death star beam itself. Mind actually blown! Especially since it makes a lot of sense. Edit: Shielding should be renamed. Blasters make the most sense as particle beams and so does their shielding/deflection. Since to deflect a particle beam you just need a magnetic field like our planet has. Both likely components of star wars shielding and lightsaber design. So ray shields are just magnetic fields, while particle shields are more of a physical barrier. Imo the two names should be reversed and that does appear to be the case given that Anakin, Obiwan, and Sidious get trapped aboard the invisible hand with a ray shield and not a particle shield. Similarly, we know that lightsabers can defend against actual projectile weapons by melting the projectile. Alternatively, I suspect Force sensitives can easily dodge (or use the Force to deflect) projectiles. Since otherwise standard buckshot would be the absolute bane of both Jedi and Sith. Edit 2, cause I just thought of something else. I recently learned about a scientist that accidentally placed his hands in a particle beam. (Kyle Hill's video on the Hanoi Incident) The interesting thing of note is that it was a beam of xrays. Yet Kyle (and the sources he went through) referred to it as a particle beam. Which is correct, since photons are as much particles as electrons, protons, etc. are. They're just different kind of particles. Star Wars particle beams could even be composed of antimatter particles, and it'd still technically be a particle beam, although that probably wouldn't work too well in an atmosphere. Unless something was pushing air out of the way or it was somehow not getting destroyed by it in sufficient enough quantities to kill the user. Edit 3: I'm increasingly convinced they're antimatter particle beams. The energies involved definitely support that too. A single star destroyer turbolaser blast has nuke levels of destructive power. The most efficient way of getting that would be with antimatter. Also until recently, we weren't even sure if antimatter fell down so it's plausible to say that's how repulsors and maybe even artificial gravity work too. Edit 4: Woah, what if the light comes from matter antimatter collisions! Only issue is that wouldn't work in space but in atmospheres it'd do a pretty decent job of explaining the bolt of light. Maybe space has enough dust floating around from battles, exhausts, etc for the effect to still work even though it's mostly a vacuum. The main issue with this would be if it's hitting enough junk in space to make a visible beam then it'd hit enough air to be lethal for the shooter, while if it's safe for the shooter it shouldn't cause light in space. Still an interesting idea... Maybe there's regular matter surrounding the antimatter beam to push air out of the way and it mixes just enough to cause a visible beam. Who knows! Let's build it in a few millennia and find out. This comment got so much longer than I expected.
The 'coupled light and matter' detail could actually give another explanation that is somewhat distinct from blasters being either particle or light emitters. In the very early universe, light was actually "coupled" to matter (the cosmic microwave background is a result of the moment when the universe cooled enough for light to decouple from matter). So while very sci-fi, it could be that these blasters recouple light to matter before emitting it as a blaster bolt. We know so little about what this coupled material would act like that you could sci-fi away just about any weird behavior that you want, though I imagine you wouldn't be able to focus it with a crystal.
Just a small point, but when you're talking about turbo-lasers you show an onion shaped cannon from The Empire Strikes Back. That's not a turbo-laser that's an Ion Cannon. Which fires a concentrated ions thar act like an EMP if they hit a ship. In the film the troop transports fly away from Hoth and the Ion Cannons are fired along the transports flight path towards the awaiting Empires Star Destroyers to temporarily disabled them so the Rebel ships can escape.
Quite right, the Hoth ion cannon is not a standard blaster. The main idea is the scale of it: the v-150 planetary ion cannon from Hoth, and the diagram of the w-165 planetary turbolaser. These two are some of the largest energy weapons in Star Wars. -DZ
Regardless of what technological explanation one uses for blasters, I wonder why they mostly replaced firearms/slugthrowers. It's a lot easier to hit a moving target with a fast-moving bullet than a slow-moving blaster bolt.
The best explanation I’ve ever heard was that the word laser got diluted over time. Think the real world. The word rifle simply means “a barrel with twisted grooves to spin a projectile” but now, rifle means a lot of things. Assault rifle, hunting rifle, etc etc. but a carbine is also a rifle by technicalities due to having a rifled barrel, but in modern terms it can’t be a rifle because the barrel is shorter then 20 inches, but legally it’s still a rifle. The idea is that beam tubes were originally laser weapons, and over time blasters became plasma weapons but the laser name stuck. I mean, hell in our own world people say “pump you full of lead” when lead ammuntion isn’t just lead anymore, and even then most serious ammunitions are steel and copper, yet we still refer to common bullets being lead. I think it’s something like that
There's a 5th theoretical model. Like maybe it's basically a shiny ball of energy that travels at roughly the speed of sound. The speed and luminescence is what causes it to look like Glowpaintball/Tracerball rounds in real life - except the mass of the tracerballs causes a downward arc. So basically, the power has no mass, but the energy can still dissipate over distances. We may never know what such a thing is, but it's best to use game physics to describe it. Using game physics you can theorize what it is and how much power it loses over time and distance in air, water and vacuums. "if glowy line hit you you die" works fine as well as well as it's whatever space fantasy writers need it to be.
Honestly a completely fictional explanation I thought up during the video and kind of like is 'particle+photon fusion' It makes no real-life sense, but it would explain how shields can work on them, be invisible, and be permeable to physical matter. 10:37 "a beam comprised of intense energy particles coupled with light" A blaster bolt is neither a laser or a plasma, but instead what happens when an atom and a photon are merged into one thing. It shares some properties of the constituent parts, but isnt either. This is why shields block them, they break the bonds keeping them fused releasing the photon from the small amount of Tibana Gas. The bolt, being partly light, can be focused through a crystal. The bolt, being partly physical matter, has mass and thus travels slower than light. Some photons do escape the bolt over time, causing the radiating visible light as it basically evaporates, but this is an unimportant byproduct that does not reduce the power much, since its a tiny amount of visible light.
Small correction Laser/light/photons do have "Recoil" that is the reason solar sails work but to create the amount of recoil you see blasters having you would need an astronomical amount of energy
Awesome video. Adds something new to a very stale and muddled discussion. I know you focus on Star Wars, but if you are a fan then maybe discuss some Warhammer topics.
I have just told myself over the years that the lasers in Star Wars are made up of photons like our lasers, but those photons have been arranged or compressed (excited?) in such a way that makes them behave as if they have physical mass, and when they collide with an object with enough mass to sufficiently disrupt their momentum, that lightning-in-bottle effect is transferred into raw energy, I.e. tons of heat and a little explosion. I see lightsabers as an even more “stable” version of this effect, where the beam is flowing in some sort of contained magnetic loop and never explodes, just transfers heat very very quickly on contact. Obviously this isn’t scientific but it does kind of make all the lore and terminology work for me.
there is actually one sci-fi universe I can think of that uses electro-laser weaponry. Or rather one video game set in said universe. Fallout New Vegas. In one of the DLC missions there's this extremely powerful laser rifle that fires lightning along a laser down range to burn and shock enemies. Unlike the regular laser rifles that shoot red beams, this rifle shoots blue beams and do much more damage. The rifle is called the LAER which stands for Laser Assisted Electrical Rifle. Does good damage against robots and organics alike, but the weapon is high maintenance and extremely rare to come across as there are only a few of them in the entire game. The magnetic laser keeps the lightning steady like a laser and it's even descried as such.
During the prequel era, I would say that's beyond a doubt. Halo's plasma weapons will have been made to look something like a Star Wars blaster. Then in turn, Halo's plasma influenced the newer Star Wars. However! The first mention I see of plasma blasters was in a book from 1998. A wiki tells me Halo was first released in 2001, so SW was already angling toward plasma by then. And to be fair, there is room to interpret a 1997 description of a beamdrill to support plasma blasters. -DZ
I thought that a low energy laser-light passed through the crystal which focused it and caused it to turn the tibanna (or other gas) into a plasma when it passed through it. With it the resulting ball of highly energized gas (and light) being electromagnetically propelled. The electromagnetic propulsion also causing the outermost layer to be externally neutrally charged but internally positively charged and bonded. This makes a sort of casing around the blast so as it travels the gas does not diffuse. Then upon impact this layer is breached and the high energy atoms of the gas burn a hole in the target and/or burn in, cauterize the wound and then cook the targets insides.
Might be easier to work backwards- figure out what deflector shields are and what they would deflect. You're right that its less important to have a firm, definitive explanation for how blasters work and more important to have consistent grasp of what they do- I skew more toward 'the visible bolt is the energy that deals the damage' because that tracks more intuitively. That explanation can be wrong, but it doesn't change what blasters are or how they are used. Moreover, it doesn't matter for the operator in the slightest, they are interested in putting red lines on target, not what kind of compressor the gas tube uses or the polarity of the Xciter chamber. Its great how blaster is such a broad term to cover any and all handheld energy weapon (like Ork Shoota is umbrella term covering slug throwers, bolters etc) with a specific group of exceptions like beamtubes and ioncannons. That's far more realistic than characters talking at length about the models and properties of their gear for the audience sake, even though some of us might prefer more concrete data
Really good video. Personally I do think Plasma fits best, and I do not think that shields pose a problem. As we know, magnetic fields can curve or deflect plasma, so as long as ray shields have some kind of magnetic force field (which sounds very plausible) the plasma bolts could plausibly be deflected.
This might be a shot in the dark but at 8:41 what is the name/issue of the graphic novel in the background. I read it a long time ago and I completely forgot about it until now
Turbochargers used to be called turbosuperchargers, and were classified as superchargers. They're the same thing, really. The only difference is in how the action is driven. Belt, or exhaust. The funny part is that I picked it because I knew we'd get comments like this, and that is good for engagement. -ED-1TA
I always thought Ray Shields were named as such in reference to how they were emitted. With Ray Shielding having those wavy projections that stabilize into a glowing boundary and particle shields (invisible as they don’t interfere with light - or are not supposed to under ideal (non-battle) circumstances) being more of a field based boundary
I work with plasma cutter everyday and the thing about this technology is that the plasma stream IS somewhat focused. It's done partly by the torch nozzles and partly by rotating inert gas around the plasma stream. We only can't take the flame and fling it at someone. But the thing has 20K degrees! Even lightsabers should be based around plasma instead of crystals.
I would prefer to think of Star Wars weapons as plasma laser launchers. Therefore, the blasters launch plasma beams which decay, generating a laser which damages the target in front of it, as well as waste light. Therefore, within a certain range blasters damage things with plasma, after that range, their damage is due to the laser emitted from the plasma. The whole turbo thing still makes sense to stabilize the plasma laser packet, and sheilds also still make sense, if one considers them to be electromagnetic barriers, they would block the laser and disrupt the generating plasma component, dissipating the energy somewhat safely.
Just to take a shot off of this off the top of my head, what if the blasters used plasma, superheated Tibanna or other gas, to apply energy to the beam of light as it exited? The hole at the front of weapons would be for exhaust, given the energized beam would exit so quickly it might pull the plasma out with it by force or behind it by pressure… then the plasma follows the path of the energized beam, the beam strikes first at the speed of light, the light show remains, the focusing crystal is used, and the plasma part of the projectile works in vacuum due to momentum, while the light beam works because it needs no atmosphere. Does that cover everything? The weakest point is likely that the light beam would push/pull anything along with it; light gains energy by raising in frequency (wave), but still remains active as both a wave and a particle, and its activity as a particle might push/pull the plasma as it exits. I’m not sure if photons can behave as waves and particles simultaneously, or even proximally in a small period of time, so that remains the weakest point
An interesting point is that the novelization of Star Wars (which was written before the movie script was finalized) the effects of blasters are described as far more destructive and gruesome. There are some pretty graphic descriptions of heads exploding and so forth.
I do like how there's this huge distinction between blasters and their power, but at the end of the day it pretty much just always boils down to "if glowy line hit you you die"
Almost. Remember at the battle for Hoth? “That armor’s too strong for blasters!” The medium blaster cannons mounted to the snowspeeders were unable to penetrate an AT-AT’s armor, which has been seen to shrug off anything less than the heavy laser cannons mounted on another AT-AT.
Kind of like real life bullets.
Against soft bodies? The caliber hardly matters. Against hard armor? I's kind of a big deal.
@@polishscribe674Even the midspec steel core armor hole punchers can't deal with ceramic plate after all.
My interpretation for blasters has always been that the damaging part of the bolt is contained in the laser light, but the delivery mechanism is the ionized tibanna gas. Light only travels at c through a vacuum. Ionized tibanna gas causes the laser light to have its group velocity slowed down to near zero. The key (magic) marvel of tibanna is how little you have to use to get the slowing effect and the relatively inexotic temperatures and pressures involved. On earth we've slowed light to 38 mph but the conditions are ... extreme.
The gas cloud is then electromagnetically propelled towards the target as the bolt. When the cloud hits the target, it disperses, and the laser light transfers its energy into the target. Ray shields (known to be effective against lasers) are still consistent, since they absorb the light (and most of the energy) from the bolt while ignoring the otherwise harmless tibanna cloud.
The lore concept is that (earth-style) lasers have a continuous energy output and (like on earth) are very hard to scale up to damaging levels without huge power sources. If you could collect laser light from a lower power source (like a capacitor for light) and deliver it to the target all at once, this would be the breakthrough that would distinguish blasters as a better (although still laser-based) technology.
Since the tibanna cloud causes some diffusion/scattering (this is how the bolt is visible) and has to stay in shape over long distances (to stay at the density required to keep the light moving slow enough), a major characteristic of the range and power of the device is gas handling. The other two main characteristics are how long is spent lasing into the gas before release (fire rate) and the size of the input power source. A lot of the complicated and chunky technology around large blasters and turbolasers would be consistent with handling these aspects.
I'm not really sure of what onscreen and in-fiction aspects wouldn't be consistent with this interpretation, but I'm sure there are plenty. It does seem to work well with what I can remember.
Massive block of text, but also YEAH!!
I mean it’s 5 paragraphs lol. I agree tho, this makes some sense. It’s fun too, if this actually would work semi realistically.
This is exactly how I believe that blasters work and explains the "laser/particle beam/charged particles coupled with light" bits, and it reconciles the distinction between laser cannons and ion cannons: ion cannons are just blasters without the damaging laser component. This is also how I believe that lightsabers work: the old lore actually describes lightsabers as being based on blaster technology.
Fantastic video!
I like the idea that "laser" being used in terminology is just a remaining colloquialism from a time in which "true" laser weaponry was commonplace - The Essential Guide to Warfare establishes that super ancient starships had reflective panels all over to reflect laser attacks.
Said book also goes with the particle beam explanation for what's being fired from blasters.
Nerd
You're in a star wars video@@roflchiefmcjoflchief1791
I wonder if the reflective panels are what influenced Naboo ship design
In reference to "I cant think of any sci-fi universe that uses electrolasers as weaponry" at 21:00, the Shock Rifle from Halo is explicitly referred to as an electrolaser
Destiny universe also has shock weapons used by the Fallen, like the Shank, the Pike, the forward gatling gun on the Spider Tank, and the Wire Rifle
Fallout New Vegas also introduces these with the Old World Blues expansion.
@@Reddotzebra and Lonesome Road's Arc Welder weapon is basically an electroshock flamethrower.
Unreal Tournament also has the lighting sniper rifle that basically has the same discription of laser ionisong a path for the lighting to travel along.
There is a possible explanation for the laser/plasma hybridization. There is a physically possible energy weapon called a "laser coupled particle beam" in which through physics a bit heavyhanded for youtube comments, photon pressure from a laser helps "squeeze" a particle beam on all sides, effectively keeping it focused while normally the particles (all sharing a strong charge) would want to repel each-other. This weapon would be both a particle beam and laser, a stream of heavy charged particles encapsulated within a laser. These beams can travel anywhere from 5-20% the speed of light, and would impart both significant physical impact to the target as well as ablatively drilling into it, and causing explosive secondary effects as some of the target is vaporized by the transfer of energy.
Hands down the best new star wars channel. We needed this kind of content. (Also Atomic Heart into music goes hard)
100%
What kinda pokemon are you? (Yeahhh) best part
This ain’t a Star Wars channel, buddy. This is a channel about the breads and the circuses, buddy.
@@urthofthenewsun8465 it literally is but ok
The particle shield and ray shield issue isn’t actually an issue. I’m gonna assume an explanation for how ray shields work, but if they block lasers via an electromagnetic field of some kind, that would also affect a particle beam or plasma, as both of those are also electromagnetic. A particle shield not blocking them would make sense if it affected everything that wasn’t electrically charged, so it doesn’t block lasers, particle beams, or plasma
Maybe you should charge some fingers on some grass instead :)
That is exactly it. IIRC particle shields are effectively repulsors that push neutral matter away.
Nerd
@@roflchiefmcjoflchief1791wtf you doing here then?
@@chamberlane2899 chill I gave him a like
I read long ago another explanation, and I seem to recall it being from an official source, but I can’t remember where. Anyway, it was very unique and still the most fascinating directed energy weapon design I’ve ever heard. The blaster is both a plasma weapon and a laser weapon. The blaster bolt is a plasma projectile, but it carries within it a ricocheting laser pulse. When the bolt impacts an object, it ruptures, freeing the laser to double down into the target. I loved this explanation because the plasma decides the weapon’s limitations and the laser decides its strength, as indicated in the blaster>laser>turbolaser ladder of power.
As to ray shields, I think it’s a matter of mass. The small, light blaster bolt is not blocked by a particle shield which is made to guard against meteors and block fighters from flying into your Death Star II.
Nerd
This explanation could very well be from the Star Wars Technical Journal that was published in the Starlog magazine: it describes blasters as firing intense pulses of light combined with packets of accelerated high-energy particles.
Another defining feature of blasters that was not mentioned in the video is that all of them must be able to be deflected by a lightsaber. I find that this requirement disincentivizes lasers as an explanation. Although I can see why this wouldn't be mentioned as it would also require an understanding of what exactly a lightsaber is.
This is the kind of stuff that I think about constantly. This video was cathartic.
The next question to consider is what Jedi are doing when blocking blaster bolts. In ANH & ROTJ, Luke seems to predict where to block before the blast is fired, but in all subsequent media, it seems that Jedi are just really good at blocking after they see it coming.
In the comics they can even block regular solid bullets with the help of the force (the lightsaber melts the bullets)but once blocked the melted projectile hits them and when shot at full auto thy have trouble
This would make a lot more sense if the "galvan"/focus was behind the blaster module, as the thing that excited and directed the gas.
The fact that the gas is excited in the first place, definitely implies plasma, unless the "crystal" somehow only lets ions through...
Maybe the blast itself is some combination of particle beam and plasma exhaust created by the left over tibana gas, focused through the front like that by the barrel to prevent venting in unfortunate directions.
Perhaps the gas itself is excited by some kind of laser technology that heats it, too, which would explain the "zeroing" mechanism described of disabling the blaster and pulling the trigger to only get a single dot of light
Good point, the low-power laser sight modification could still work with other blaster types. The Cracken blaster sight is old enough it was intended as laser, but could be updated for other types. Technically that bit of lore lines up with electrolaser best, but a laser could also be the first stage of firing a plasma blaster. -DZ
Nerd
@@thebreadcircus nerd
In WW2 the Allie’s found that if they added tracer rounds to their AA guns on their ships it made them more effective because it scared enemy pilots into messing up or being scared. I could see a similar scenario coming up for why colored lasers are added to an invisible weapon.
Nerd
This channel is faaaar to underrated. Everything about every video if fucking god tier
This is quite the interesting argument of a video, I quite like how open ended the answer is.
For me, Im personally Team Plasma.
Many of the properties of blasters, from their appearance, to how they interact with defenses and the legendary lightsaber scream plasma (atleast to me). The mention of the laser generation within the weapon could be explained as a method of rapidly exciting the tibanna gas which becomes the actual bolt itself, for example. The question of ray vs particle shields could be explained by ray shields being some form of electromagnetic barrier - as charged particles, such a barrier could interact with the plasma and block/disperse it - if not the bolts particles itself, perhaps the magnetic bottle that holds the energized gas particles in place, which would cause the bolt to disappate rather suddenly on contact instead of carrying through to the hull. Meanwhile particle shields would work against larger, generally uncharged targets like say a proton torpedo but not really what is essentially angry gas - particle shields can be set to ignore gasses and seem to do so regularly (ie hangar containment fields).
Since plasma is technically just a soup of highly energized particles one could also squeeze the "laser/particle" noncommittal answers into this aswell
Dont forget legendary lightsaber vs blaster bolt clashes - saber seem to be near universally accepted as plasma blades, and it would make sense if they could deflect a moving plasma bolt due to their containment fields disagreeing one another.
This could possible explain how stuff like ion weapons (highly charged plasma bolt?) and stun weapons (a lower charge, rather dispersed bolt used more as a carry wave for a stunning shock) operate aswell.
But that's just me, I appreciate you going over the multiple popular angles.
I’m inclined to agree, for whatever it’s worth. I would also add that another issue with jedi using lightsabers to deflect them if they’re some sort of laser is that that would mean they’d literally have to move at the speed of light to deflect consecutive beams, which doesn’t make a lot of sense, even with the help of the force.
Let me make this even more complicated. There's new research on using lasers and jets of plasma to accelerate electrons. So now we have the possibility of all three options in one.
Great video. A similar one covering lightsabers would be awesome too!
A video that fully lives up to it's title.
Before watching this video my head cannon was that blasters were plasma because of the gas and charge pack. A laser was used to ignite the gas so blasters were called lasers for the same reason a gun that uses a flint to ignite black powder is called a flintlock instead of a bulletgun.
What the hell is a "bulletgun"...
Weapons that use flintlock are still called "pistol" and "rifle". flintlock is just used to define it. Like how there are "revolver pistols" and "autoloading pistols" or "single shot" and "semiautomatic" or again "single action" and "double action".. We could be here all day....
@@RedTail1-1 you missed his point
At last! Someone who can tell the difference between compose and comprise! Thank you.
"Arlekin"! What a (old) classic!!!! Nice version 🙂
Laser is focused via a crystal to efficiently heat tibanna gas into its plasma state, which is magnetically accelerated out the barrel at a speed slow enough that air drag doesn't disrupt the "coherence" of the plasma bolt (laminar flow).
Blasters are laser-ignited plasma throwers. On Earth we haven't the exotic gas nor crystals to make it feasible for a handheld power pack to accomplish that ignition process.
Side note: this same tech would make compact clean fusion reactors possible.
I always thought the difference between the two shield types is if they block slow or fast projectiles. Particle beams are pretty close to the speed of light so they get blocked, while torpedos are very slow comparatively and this get through.
Same with a walking droid or a rolling grenade
There are to types of shields one blocks energy weapons like blasters and such and the other block’s physical projectiles as in missiles or bullets
@@711desmond That doesn't disagree with my argument... There reason they might block different, is because the speed of the projectile might be different.
@@DrTheRich it’s literally the official lore
@@711desmond so, my explanation WHY that is the case doesn't contradict that lore. That lore doesn't explain WHY, hence my explanation
@@DrTheRich it’s a good theory I’ll give it that
My view is that blaster weapons do fire streams of particles. More specifically these particles are tibanna gas molecules that have converted first into an ionized state by the XCiter (step one). These particles are then pumped into the firing chamber where they are heated up by the defraction of a laser beam through a prismatic crystal (step two). These ionized and heated particles are also compressed by the electromagnetic field generated by the galven circuitry until they are emitted as a stream of particles down the barrel called a bolt (step three).
The bolt's muzzle velocity is extremely low with hand held weapons, often only achieving around 70 m/s or so. Damage results are primarily from thermal and electrical effects on the target. Vehicle lasers use a multistage firing chamber and higher end lasers to greatly increase the muzzle velocity to around 2 km/s or so. This higher muzzle velocity allows for more secondary effects from the tibanna gas molecules being compressed by the impact, including occasional fusion of fusionable material contained within the lattice of a tibanna gas molecule. Turbolasers increase muzzle velocity even further, using a multistage firing chamber and a turbine to further heat and ionized the beam. This allows turbolasers to achieve muzzle velocities as high as 15 km/s and are almost guaranteed to cause secondary fusion effects from the tibanna gas molecule impacting at such high velocities and energy states.
Tibanna gas is described as being produced by organisms in gas giants, it is essentially a hydrocarbon that traps fusionable material, allowing it to be used as a convenient means of fueling fusion power systems. This means it is also highly dense but can also cause minuscule fusion reactions when individual molecules are compressed by extreme heat, pressure, and even impacts at extreme velocities. This is why some high power blaster bolts seem to explode on impact, in extreme cases they may be delivering a thermal burst from a handful of fusionable atoms fusing from the extreme impact of the tibanna gas molecule impacting with the target.
I really like those Knights of the Old Republic comics used as background, my favorite star wars
I have guessed that ‘laser’ in TGFFA has similar meaning to how early 20th century products would often put ‘radio’, ‘radar’, or ‘jet’ or ‘rocket’ as part of their name to seem futuristic and cool, like Radio Flyer wagons. Those wagons had nothing to do with radio, but there you have it. Kinda like how moms and dads would call any video game system a ‘Nintendo’ (or an ‘Atari’ if you go back far enough).
Blasters reminded the people of that galaxy of early more primitive laser technology and the term stuck.
I am such a fricken Star Wars nerd that when I saw this video was uploaded 9 hours ago, I thought I was late . . .
The Bread Circus is a gift I never knew I wanted.
5:50 - One of my favorite minor scenes from TNG is when the Enterprise is locked onto by a small ship. Worf reports that the ship is locking lasers onto them, and everyone is just confused about it. Even the weak "shields" that protects the Enterprise from getting ripped apart by pieces of dust while traveling at warp speed would be enough to protect them from lasers.
I know exactly the one you mean. In the pilot episode of Star Trek TOS, they use quite a different model of ray gun. As I recall, the dialogue calls these lasers instead of phasers. In canon, I think they would have been an earlier model of phaser. - DZ
Nerd
@@thebreadcircus nerd
And thus the no laser myth was born with Trekkie s insisting that this means they can tank any laser no matter how powerful
I liked all the booms💥 and the zaps⚡️. Thank you
20:55 Fallout has electro laser weapons, the LAER (Laser Assisted Electric Rifle) and several Tesla weapons (don't know if they count as I am not sure if they use lasers to guide the electricity)
Ok, I'm gonna throw a wrench In the works. Ion cannon, turbo laser, etc. These are translation issues. Nobody speaks English. They only seem to speak English like Tolkien characters do. They speak galactic standard, in d and they'd speak common. We don't know what language that is, but it's not English. So the English names for things are not necessary to be accurate, they are only be required to be consistent in use. Same for shielding. It's an attempt in English to convey to the audience that this thing protects against that thing. It's name is potentially rubbish .
I agree somewhat.
These things might work with slightly different rules of nature, and thus. there won't be a perfect translation into English.
And it's just easy to call a parallel long stripe of light laser. Even though they are not the same thing.
Sometimes we lack words and use the closed to what we know. Like how the new aptera 3 wheel electric vehicle is still called a car, even though there are many reasons to claim it's not
What you think about High Galactic alphabet lore 😂
So “dwarfs” in English becomes “dwarves” in Tolkienglish. Right on. 👍🏻
I've always had a personal explanation for the technology of blasters:
The weapon uses both energy and gas packs, initially the gas particles are superheated by a laser, then as the energized beam is accelerated through the barrel, a form of rayshield technology is applied to it to prevent the beam from dispersing.
This explanation solves most of the problems:
-Explains the projectile speed
-Explains the impact detonation
-Explains at least some recoil
-Explains why laser cannons and turbolasers are called laser weapons
-Explains why lightsabers deflect blaster bolts, as it uses the same kind of shield that contains the saber's plasma blade
This pretty much covers all of the information about blasters that we know from the movies.
Nothing like a little cannon canon.
I've always thought that Star Wars is after all, fiction. It has proven time and time again to defy our laws of physics i.e. the force, lightsabers, hyperspace, general space travel etc. Blasters operate using Star Wars physics, so you just can't compare it to ours and expect it to make sense (like comparing lightsabers combat to sword combat, they just aren't the same). Great video though, we will watch your career with great interest!
I want to believe it’s a hybrid between lasers, plasma, and sci-fi space magic, which when combined is referred to as lasers despite being different from traditional lasers. Same name different beast.
Same as Terminator. The laser both superheat the gas and the air to provide a path for the magnetically encased bolt to travel. Scifi nonsense explanation but an explanation nonetheless.
When there are multiple competing theories on how something works but has never been definitively answered, such as how a snake slithers or how a bicyclist stays upright, the answer usually lies in some combination of the most accurate theories. I take this approach with Star Wars tech. Many layers of technological innovation have yielded the devices used onscreen
I like to think that blasters are not any one of the 4 things mentioned, but rather a *mysterious advanced substance that us 21st century monkeys wouldnt understand with our limited knowledge of technology* and that we should treat them like speeder tech or hyperspace: Very advanced technology we would never understand
Something else to note about star wars is that the physics in star wars may not be same as ours, for eg. spcae ships experience resistance, as they have a max speed and cant go faster and faster in space, plus ppl have been shown with bare skin in space all the time in the EU and canon, so how i interoperate that is bc star wars takes place billions of years ago, physics as we know it was different, like it just changes over time or smth, so in a sense, everything in star wars is physically logical, as how do we know how the universe was billions of years ago, earth isnt there to ground the universe to real physics, humans exist but id chalk it up to coincidence
Nerd
@@roflchiefmcjoflchief1791 🤓
Fallout New Vegas's LAER might be a good example of an electrolaser give ln it litterally stands for laser assisted electrical rifle.
One fantastic bit of tech from our world is the "MASER" or microwave amplified by stimulated emission. It's a predecessor of the modern laser. It's not very powerful or useful due to its age and limitations. However, the neat thing is that unlike a laser, a maser can pass through objects.
But, more relevant to the video, my head cannon for blasters was that they used a tabana gas catalyst laser to forcibly ignite more tabana gas to produce plasma. The blaster then "electrifies" the plasma, because it's conductive, before magnetically accelerating it out the end of the blaster. While in flight, the electro laser from the blaster maintains the plasma reaction.
The trouble is that normal plasma would immediately dissipate. So tabana gas would have to have a special property which somehow maintains the coherence of a plasma bolt. I always figured that the tabana gas had magnetic qualities. However, remember the maser from above and consider this weird bit of science: magnetic fields are technically made out of photons. It's not too far fetched, in terms of sci fi, to imagine that in addition to the electro laser, a secondary maser is able to project through and around the emitted plasma bolt in such a way that it could guide it like a rail road. At this point, things start getting into particle and quantum physics. But that's good enough for me.
Tibanna gas is also used in repulsortech, as fuel for hyperdrives, and can solidify into blocks of solid carbonite, as we've seen. Given its seemingly impossible properties, tibanna could conceivably be used to condense a laser beam into a bolt. Or how about the idea that the blaster can fire a laser beam sheathed in tibanna, which provides the combustible atmosphere for an electrolaser to work (think arc welders)? Most blasters also appear to have a stun mode, which seems to utilize an electric shock. It would also explain the limited range of blaster weapons in the vacuum of space. And what about deflecting blaster bolts with a lightsaber? That heavily supports the projectile visualization of blaster bolts. If we take the Bad Batch as canon, they have to be lasers. Crosshair's signature trick is using tiny mirror pucks to deflect blasts at tricky angles.
i would love to see a video on shielding
A video composed of detailed analysis of the grammar of Star Wars is all I want for Christmas.
In “Star Wars: Complete Vehicles Incredible Cross Sections” (2020)
blasters are specifically referred to as particle weapons (Page 11 under energy weapons)
I quote “Laser cannons and turbo lasers are based on the same principle as handheld blasters: Energy-rich gas is converted into a glowing particle beam that can melt through targets”
13:01 It's also how hitscan weapons in video games work in tandem with visible particle effects.
top tier sw videos right there 35:54 perfection
Fantastic video. This is the content that makes me happy, and I LOVE the Portal reference, yeah, the one about the based robot bondage mommy lmao
The closest thing to a turbolaser I can think of irl is a synchrotron particle accelerator.
By using powerful magnets in a circular configuration you can continuously accelerate particles trough them allowing for a more stable and powerful beam over longer distances, unlike linear accelerators wich can only accelerate particles a single time, while also being less eficient regarding their length compared with the circular accelerators. It would also make even more sense if we stick with the particle beam explanation for blasters in general.
The funny thing with star wars is that very in spite of using terms and elements in a seemingly wrong way you can always find parallels in the real world to make them work anyways.
Nerd
My head canon is that all of these weapons are plasma based.
The blasters use an electric charge to ignite the gas fuel (I suppose you could say that it creates a small blast) then that ignited gas gets compressed into a small, super-heated plasma ball that gets propelled with electromagnetic force.
The "laser cannons" use lasers instead of electric charge to achieve the same result, just being bigger and therefor more powerful.
The "turbo lasers" are even bigger. The laser part is the same, the "turbo" part can mean turbines that keep the system relatively cool, considering the amount energy being involved.
The "bolt" part can be explained in a somewhat meta way. The reason why holograms are noisy and always have specifically horizontal lines is because the camera exists. The hologram's interference is essentially the same as when you turn your camera towards an old CRT screen. The plasma bolt is just a motion blur artifact, caused by the extremely hot ball of plasma that emits light. The length of the bolt is the distance the plasma ball traveled during a single frame.
The continuous beams we see during the clone war era are either rapid fire plasma cannons or particle streams - a completely different technology.
The ray shields that stop these weapons are high frequency magnetic fields that tear the atoms apart. But the atoms of solids, liquids and even gases are too stable, so only plasma is affected. If you accidentally hit the shield in just the right angle, the plasma ball may bounce off, otherwise it turns into a mostly harmless flash with some EM feedback, that disrupts and eventually disables the shield emitter.
And since these plasma balls are both unstable and lose their energy relatively fast, that means they are powerful but short range weapons, which explains why the ships are shooting each other from an extremely close range, instead of hundreds of kilometers.
12:41 Yeah, just like Terminator plasma weapons. Even better you have a scene from T2. ❤😂 🔥
"Vader was in the Amazon with my mom when she was researching spiders right before she died"
Despite changing to a Lamborghini tractor, I am still the tf2 avatar guy.
Fair enough, that is the sort of thing that follows you around for life, like driving infractions, or saying something awkward in front of the girl you liked and her friends in high school.
Wonderful work as always, lads, yet more proof it's money well spent.
We will record new lines for the next video. We were really pressed for time, and just ended a 8 day crunch. I promise you that your Lamborghini Tractor will be properly acknowledged then. -ED-1TA
7:25 yes! Finally someone else uses my exact logic!
Well done.
20:45 Battletech uses electrolasers. The PPC (Particle Projection Cannon) is such a weapon.
Oh wow, what a genuinely nice way of talking 'bout Arch!
A nice surprise.
There's a legends story I remember off the top of my head that actually describes a blaster using laser mechanics. In an attempt to frame Han Solo for murder, an imperial sabateur uses a specialized stealth blaster that can fire an invisible bolt. He fired the invisible blaster at a dissassembled blaster barrel with its focusing crystal exposed, which caught the invisible bolt and refracted it into a visible one down the makeshift barrel so it would look like his shot came from a Solo's direction. Needless to say, a plasma thrower would not have been able to achieve this.
About blasters not firing a solid projectile...What about a Wookie Bowcaster? Lore is that it fires a projectile from a magazine (bolts)(the boxes on Chewie's bandoleer)
surrounded by blaster/plasma beam. Could it be possible a blasters magazine is the same way. As far as it getting past the emitter on a regular blaster,, the projectile could be a ring that slips past the crystal, covered with the tibanna gas, which is then ignited by the beam, forms the blaster bolt, then as it speeds to the target, is stretched out?
Or could it just be this is a Good Sci-fi movie, and we're overthinking it trying to compare it to 20th/21st century Earth technology?
Still a good channel...
I personally prefer the particle beam explanation the best, especially since it also makes the most sense with turbolasers. I believe that laser is a holdover from older weapons, similar to modern cannons being completely different from original cannons. One of the nice things about Star Wars taking place far far away, long long ago is that it is more than possible that language evolved slightly differently
My headcanon has always been that blasters/lasers/turbolasers are plasma guns. Given that they consume gas and must eject something with mass out the front to produce recoil. I've also always thought of tibanna gas as sort of a slow-burn nuclear fusion fuel. Like deuterium/tritium, except it "burns" in a matter of seconds, not milliseconds.
Blasters are essentially very thin ion engines, exciting gas into plasma in the back and then accelerating it forwards with a strong electric field applied to the crystal, which is full of tiny holes to let the gas through. This is how electrostatic ion engines work irl too. Longer blasters could have several ion-grid crystals, so the bolt travels faster or a longer excitement chamber, so they are more powerful.
"Lasers" as in the medium size anti-vehicle turrets are more like electromagnetic ion engines. Not using grids and electric fields, but a powerful, forward moving magnetic field to focus and propel the plasma forward, perhaps also using Lorentz force to propel it forward.
Turbolasers sort of have it in their name, that what accelerates the gas is a turbine. With a big gun this makes sense, a huge turbine can move massive amount of gas very quickly. A turbine accelerates the gas doen the barrel, which is then excited into plasma and focused with a magnetic field. The sound of the turbolasers even sound kind of like a pre-spun turbine being quickly slowed down as gas is suddenly injected into it.
The disc shaped blasters/lasers on the homing spider droid and LAAT gunship in my head was like a regular blaster/laser, but where the gas is first accelerated to very high speed by a dedicated module, before being injected from several sides with very high energy blaster beams. The collision of the beams adds extra energy, perhaps causing the tibanna gas to burn faster? In a sense its like a tiny Project Daedalus, using tibanna gas instead of deuterium/tritium fuel.
This means that ray/particle shields make sense too. Ray shields are electromagnetic or electrostatic in nature, reacting to the magnetic or electric field of the incoming plasma.
Particle shields might quite literally be shields made out of particles. Like a cloud of sand hovering around a ship. This would mean that a high-energy and very thin bolt of plasma could pierce through, like a needle through a sandstorm, but anything with more surface area, like a ship, missile or torpedo, would hit too many particles and be stopped/shredded as if hit by buckshot, except the ship/torpedo is flying into the buckshot and not the other way around. Though you could continously push slowly through, if you've got something to push off of. This kind of shield could also protect against the heat of athmopheric reentry.
20:58 in the Fallyout: New Vegas addon Old World Blues, they added the LAER or Laser Assisted Electrical Rifle
So glad I couldn't sleep so I could watch this. Thank you.
And after you still can't sleep trying to decide between lasers, particle beams and plasma
@Matthijs de Rijk I wish you were not absolutely correct lol Still awake even now
The solid ammunition block idea was also used in the 40k verse with the shuriken weapons used by the space elves, and arguably by their dark kin as well (In old lore they both used the same tech, in newer lore the Dark Eldar use their proprietary "splinter" weapon technology which basically does the same thing but gets its ammunition by shattering a crystal instead.)
Since this comes from Warhammer I immediately assume this means the technology was featured in some sci-fi book or movie before then, since GW has a track record of treating other people's IP in the same way a Skaven would.
The blaster shoots watermelon seeds at hyper hyperspace speeds. The seed travels through all of space and time so fast that it's in noticeable except in the places where the seed resonates with itself. That location moves forward at a relatively slow pace, but it's the only place where the seed which is moving faster than possible can affect the universe. Once this resonance bolt reaches its target the seed delivers a small fraction of its energy to kill the target.
In quantum mechanics, photons necessarily have a spin; their spin can be either +1 or -1. This *spin* determines whether the *electric-field* component of the *electromagnetic* wave is _precessing clockwise or counter-clockwise with respect to the vector that is the direction of travel.
In less verbosity,, a spin of +1 means that the electric field of a photon heading towards you is precessing counter-clockwise. A spin of -1 means that the electric field of a photon heading towards you is precessing clockwise.
One thing I think needs to be accepted is that Lucas was not a physicist, nor was he affiliated with anyone to assist him in making equipment that was physically possible.
All you need to do to understand this is look at how Jedi can just deflect blaster bolts. If they were lasers, the only way to do this is with precognition. While Jedi do have precognitive abilities, the very first scene with blasters shows people dodging them.
The only way that makes sense is if Blasters are either Plasma or Particle weapons.
The most likely explanation is that Lucas wanted the same effect as Tracer ammunition in normal guns, and just called them lasers. When it came time to make diagrams, the designers just used what knowledge they had to make something that fit what Lucas told them.
Fast forward to the Prequel Era, and the people in charge of penning the lore realize that what they previously wrote was impossible; you can't make lasers that behave the way you see on screen.
So, they fix their mistake.
While not all new lore trumps old lore, corrections and fixes to the lore can not be ignored.
The only time lore trumps what is on screen is for obvious mistakes in production.
This video made one thing clear to me, even the creators dont know what theh created so they have been doing damage control since.
Plasma weapons sounds the most plausible and maybe the crystals create some kind of special quantum state which teleports the plasma through it.
It's clear that it was meant to be laser originally because it was the coolest thing at the time the science of it wasnt properly understood.
Sure, I really liked all the other cool possibilities you raised like electric beam, particle beam, and phase arrays. But these are all too sciency and star wars is more cowboy western style and just plasma bolts fits it better.
Also, in universe, I can claim that their meaning of the word "laser" is different from ours. Our meaning is an acronym, as you mentioned, so maybe their "laser" just comes from a different origin
TLDR: I think blaster bolts are packets of charged antimatter particles encased in a cloud of charged regular matter. That creates the visible trail of light as the two types of matter mix over the course of the bolt's trajectory creating a sort of plasma, explains why they're so destructive upon impact, shields work by deflecting charged particles, etc.
Original comment: I consider myself about as much of a star wars nerd as imaginable and I never knew that the lethal part of a blaster bolt hits before the visible part! Suddenly I'm questioning everything from blaster reflection by a lightsaber to even the death star beam itself. Mind actually blown! Especially since it makes a lot of sense.
Edit: Shielding should be renamed. Blasters make the most sense as particle beams and so does their shielding/deflection. Since to deflect a particle beam you just need a magnetic field like our planet has. Both likely components of star wars shielding and lightsaber design. So ray shields are just magnetic fields, while particle shields are more of a physical barrier.
Imo the two names should be reversed and that does appear to be the case given that Anakin, Obiwan, and Sidious get trapped aboard the invisible hand with a ray shield and not a particle shield. Similarly, we know that lightsabers can defend against actual projectile weapons by melting the projectile. Alternatively, I suspect Force sensitives can easily dodge (or use the Force to deflect) projectiles. Since otherwise standard buckshot would be the absolute bane of both Jedi and Sith.
Edit 2, cause I just thought of something else. I recently learned about a scientist that accidentally placed his hands in a particle beam. (Kyle Hill's video on the Hanoi Incident) The interesting thing of note is that it was a beam of xrays. Yet Kyle (and the sources he went through) referred to it as a particle beam. Which is correct, since photons are as much particles as electrons, protons, etc. are. They're just different kind of particles. Star Wars particle beams could even be composed of antimatter particles, and it'd still technically be a particle beam, although that probably wouldn't work too well in an atmosphere. Unless something was pushing air out of the way or it was somehow not getting destroyed by it in sufficient enough quantities to kill the user.
Edit 3: I'm increasingly convinced they're antimatter particle beams. The energies involved definitely support that too. A single star destroyer turbolaser blast has nuke levels of destructive power. The most efficient way of getting that would be with antimatter. Also until recently, we weren't even sure if antimatter fell down so it's plausible to say that's how repulsors and maybe even artificial gravity work too.
Edit 4: Woah, what if the light comes from matter antimatter collisions! Only issue is that wouldn't work in space but in atmospheres it'd do a pretty decent job of explaining the bolt of light. Maybe space has enough dust floating around from battles, exhausts, etc for the effect to still work even though it's mostly a vacuum. The main issue with this would be if it's hitting enough junk in space to make a visible beam then it'd hit enough air to be lethal for the shooter, while if it's safe for the shooter it shouldn't cause light in space. Still an interesting idea... Maybe there's regular matter surrounding the antimatter beam to push air out of the way and it mixes just enough to cause a visible beam. Who knows! Let's build it in a few millennia and find out.
This comment got so much longer than I expected.
The 'coupled light and matter' detail could actually give another explanation that is somewhat distinct from blasters being either particle or light emitters. In the very early universe, light was actually "coupled" to matter (the cosmic microwave background is a result of the moment when the universe cooled enough for light to decouple from matter). So while very sci-fi, it could be that these blasters recouple light to matter before emitting it as a blaster bolt. We know so little about what this coupled material would act like that you could sci-fi away just about any weird behavior that you want, though I imagine you wouldn't be able to focus it with a crystal.
Just a small point, but when you're talking about turbo-lasers you show an onion shaped cannon from The Empire Strikes Back. That's not a turbo-laser that's an Ion Cannon. Which fires a concentrated ions thar act like an EMP if they hit a ship. In the film the troop transports fly away from Hoth and the Ion Cannons are fired along the transports flight path towards the awaiting Empires Star Destroyers to temporarily disabled them so the Rebel ships can escape.
Quite right, the Hoth ion cannon is not a standard blaster. The main idea is the scale of it: the v-150 planetary ion cannon from Hoth, and the diagram of the w-165 planetary turbolaser. These two are some of the largest energy weapons in Star Wars. -DZ
I would personally classify blasters as D.E.W. guns.
D.E.W. = Directed Energy Weapon.
Regardless of what technological explanation one uses for blasters, I wonder why they mostly replaced firearms/slugthrowers. It's a lot easier to hit a moving target with a fast-moving bullet than a slow-moving blaster bolt.
The best explanation I’ve ever heard was that the word laser got diluted over time. Think the real world. The word rifle simply means “a barrel with twisted grooves to spin a projectile” but now, rifle means a lot of things. Assault rifle, hunting rifle, etc etc. but a carbine is also a rifle by technicalities due to having a rifled barrel, but in modern terms it can’t be a rifle because the barrel is shorter then 20 inches, but legally it’s still a rifle. The idea is that beam tubes were originally laser weapons, and over time blasters became plasma weapons but the laser name stuck. I mean, hell in our own world people say “pump you full of lead” when lead ammuntion isn’t just lead anymore, and even then most serious ammunitions are steel and copper, yet we still refer to common bullets being lead. I think it’s something like that
Alla Pugacheva song in the intro really took me off guard
There's a 5th theoretical model. Like maybe it's basically a shiny ball of energy that travels at roughly the speed of sound. The speed and luminescence is what causes it to look like Glowpaintball/Tracerball rounds in real life - except the mass of the tracerballs causes a downward arc. So basically, the power has no mass, but the energy can still dissipate over distances. We may never know what such a thing is, but it's best to use game physics to describe it. Using game physics you can theorize what it is and how much power it loses over time and distance in air, water and vacuums. "if glowy line hit you you die" works fine as well as well as it's whatever space fantasy writers need it to be.
Honestly a completely fictional explanation I thought up during the video and kind of like is 'particle+photon fusion'
It makes no real-life sense, but it would explain how shields can work on them, be invisible, and be permeable to physical matter.
10:37 "a beam comprised of intense energy particles coupled with light"
A blaster bolt is neither a laser or a plasma, but instead what happens when an atom and a photon are merged into one thing. It shares some properties of the constituent parts, but isnt either. This is why shields block them, they break the bonds keeping them fused releasing the photon from the small amount of Tibana Gas. The bolt, being partly light, can be focused through a crystal. The bolt, being partly physical matter, has mass and thus travels slower than light. Some photons do escape the bolt over time, causing the radiating visible light as it basically evaporates, but this is an unimportant byproduct that does not reduce the power much, since its a tiny amount of visible light.
Wonderfullly informative video!
Small correction Laser/light/photons do have "Recoil" that is the reason solar sails work but to create the amount of recoil you see blasters having you would need an astronomical amount of energy
Awesome video. Adds something new to a very stale and muddled discussion. I know you focus on Star Wars, but if you are a fan then maybe discuss some Warhammer topics.
So freeze light particles into a solid state then use them as projectiles.
You can’t
light is weird but it has properties of both a particle and wave, it also has no mass at all
I have just told myself over the years that the lasers in Star Wars are made up of photons like our lasers, but those photons have been arranged or compressed (excited?) in such a way that makes them behave as if they have physical mass, and when they collide with an object with enough mass to sufficiently disrupt their momentum, that lightning-in-bottle effect is transferred into raw energy, I.e. tons of heat and a little explosion. I see lightsabers as an even more “stable” version of this effect, where the beam is flowing in some sort of contained magnetic loop and never explodes, just transfers heat very very quickly on contact. Obviously this isn’t scientific but it does kind of make all the lore and terminology work for me.
there is actually one sci-fi universe I can think of that uses electro-laser weaponry. Or rather one video game set in said universe. Fallout New Vegas. In one of the DLC missions there's this extremely powerful laser rifle that fires lightning along a laser down range to burn and shock enemies. Unlike the regular laser rifles that shoot red beams, this rifle shoots blue beams and do much more damage. The rifle is called the LAER which stands for Laser Assisted Electrical Rifle. Does good damage against robots and organics alike, but the weapon is high maintenance and extremely rare to come across as there are only a few of them in the entire game. The magnetic laser keeps the lightning steady like a laser and it's even descried as such.
Wait what about stun setting though?
Shhhhh, we don’t talk about the blue donuts of doom.
Or the Jawa ion blasters.
I think one factor that influenced the plasma argument was the Halo franchise.
During the prequel era, I would say that's beyond a doubt. Halo's plasma weapons will have been made to look something like a Star Wars blaster. Then in turn, Halo's plasma influenced the newer Star Wars. However!
The first mention I see of plasma blasters was in a book from 1998. A wiki tells me Halo was first released in 2001, so SW was already angling toward plasma by then. And to be fair, there is room to interpret a 1997 description of a beamdrill to support plasma blasters. -DZ
what music is that intro its pretty good
I thought that a low energy laser-light passed through the crystal which focused it and caused it to turn the tibanna (or other gas) into a plasma when it passed through it. With it the resulting ball of highly energized gas (and light) being electromagnetically propelled. The electromagnetic propulsion also causing the outermost layer to be externally neutrally charged but internally positively charged and bonded. This makes a sort of casing around the blast so as it travels the gas does not diffuse. Then upon impact this layer is breached and the high energy atoms of the gas burn a hole in the target and/or burn in, cauterize the wound and then cook the targets insides.
Might be easier to work backwards- figure out what deflector shields are and what they would deflect. You're right that its less important to have a firm, definitive explanation for how blasters work and more important to have consistent grasp of what they do- I skew more toward 'the visible bolt is the energy that deals the damage' because that tracks more intuitively. That explanation can be wrong, but it doesn't change what blasters are or how they are used. Moreover, it doesn't matter for the operator in the slightest, they are interested in putting red lines on target, not what kind of compressor the gas tube uses or the polarity of the Xciter chamber.
Its great how blaster is such a broad term to cover any and all handheld energy weapon (like Ork Shoota is umbrella term covering slug throwers, bolters etc) with a specific group of exceptions like beamtubes and ioncannons. That's far more realistic than characters talking at length about the models and properties of their gear for the audience sake, even though some of us might prefer more concrete data
fallout uses electro lasers in some of it's laser weapons but normal lasers are more common
Really good video. Personally I do think Plasma fits best, and I do not think that shields pose a problem. As we know, magnetic fields can curve or deflect plasma, so as long as ray shields have some kind of magnetic force field (which sounds very plausible) the plasma bolts could plausibly be deflected.
This might be a shot in the dark but at 8:41 what is the name/issue of the graphic novel in the background. I read it a long time ago and I completely forgot about it until now
Star Wars Legends: The Old Republic - Epic Collection, Volume 2. Just search the name and 'read comic online' in Google. -ED-TA
@@thebreadcircus thank you for answering xD. Im definitely going to give it read thank you
charged rifle in apex legends seems to be electro laser, the initial beam causes very little damage until the pulse which deals a lot more damage
12:26, that definition first came forward in the 50s/60s/70s, i.e., it predates Star Wars...
The clip from Mad Max shows a supercharger not a turbo charger. Who's the nerd now?
Me, I am.
Turbochargers used to be called turbosuperchargers, and were classified as superchargers. They're the same thing, really. The only difference is in how the action is driven. Belt, or exhaust. The funny part is that I picked it because I knew we'd get comments like this, and that is good for engagement. -ED-1TA
@@thebreadcircus well played, you sir, can have a sub
whats the song from intro?
I always thought Ray Shields were named as such in reference to how they were emitted. With Ray Shielding having those wavy projections that stabilize into a glowing boundary and particle shields (invisible as they don’t interfere with light - or are not supposed to under ideal (non-battle) circumstances) being more of a field based boundary
You're insane in a good way. Brilliant video and please keep it up!
I work with plasma cutter everyday and the thing about this technology is that the plasma stream IS somewhat focused. It's done partly by the torch nozzles and partly by rotating inert gas around the plasma stream. We only can't take the flame and fling it at someone. But the thing has 20K degrees! Even lightsabers should be based around plasma instead of crystals.
I would prefer to think of Star Wars weapons as plasma laser launchers. Therefore, the blasters launch plasma beams which decay, generating a laser which damages the target in front of it, as well as waste light. Therefore, within a certain range blasters damage things with plasma, after that range, their damage is due to the laser emitted from the plasma. The whole turbo thing still makes sense to stabilize the plasma laser packet, and sheilds also still make sense, if one considers them to be electromagnetic barriers, they would block the laser and disrupt the generating plasma component, dissipating the energy somewhat safely.
Just to take a shot off of this off the top of my head, what if the blasters used plasma, superheated Tibanna or other gas, to apply energy to the beam of light as it exited? The hole at the front of weapons would be for exhaust, given the energized beam would exit so quickly it might pull the plasma out with it by force or behind it by pressure… then the plasma follows the path of the energized beam, the beam strikes first at the speed of light, the light show remains, the focusing crystal is used, and the plasma part of the projectile works in vacuum due to momentum, while the light beam works because it needs no atmosphere. Does that cover everything? The weakest point is likely that the light beam would push/pull anything along with it; light gains energy by raising in frequency (wave), but still remains active as both a wave and a particle, and its activity as a particle might push/pull the plasma as it exits. I’m not sure if photons can behave as waves and particles simultaneously, or even proximally in a small period of time, so that remains the weakest point
An interesting point is that the novelization of Star Wars (which was written before the movie script was finalized) the effects of blasters are described as far more destructive and gruesome. There are some pretty graphic descriptions of heads exploding and so forth.
Not to mention that Anakin Skywalker calls Qui-Gon's lightsaber as a "Laser Sword".