Physics Theory

kaimera

Resonance:
The transfer of energy from one body to another vibrating at the same natural frequency.

feel free to correct the definition!

Well, in theory then, could a weapon be built based on that principal?

It would cause object to vibrate at their natural frequncy and hence they would start to all apart.
Handy when faced with a platoon o tanks and armoured vehicles.

They'd just fall in on themselves! No loss of lyfe, just collateral damage.

Anybody else think this could work or see faults?

This is a patented idea. (C) (TM)

Nietzschean

Look up ultra sonic weaponary, and the short answer is no not really...too hard to transmit enough energy focused on the target to cause such an effect with current technology

kaimera

So far I've only found references etc. to sonic gear used for riots - acoustic weapons used to disorientate rioters.

Chaos-Engine

Yes it is an idea that is under intense research the world over.

AS with the problems of energy efficientcy that are posted above there is one more.
Almost all military technology and teh human body itself have so many independent natural frequencies within them. Not like a pendulum which basically has a fix value.
You would have to emit numerous waves to resonate with the different natural frequencies within the body. Coherent sources and just out of phase cause another problem to crop its head. INterference...

The List goes on.

One application that is linked but not entirly assosicated with your Resonance Idea is That of Electro Magnetic Pulse technology....

kaimera

See I'm not too worried about the trying to use it against human bodies.
It's more to utilise against more soild objects -vehicles, buildings etc - where using the idea would destroy the building but without the loss of human lyfe.

Yes of course you will have the fools who will be caught beneath rubble but there isn't a weapon that is 100% safe.
This could be close tho...

Becos it wont be used against the human body, the number of frequencies that must be cycled through are limited.

You want EmP?
Detonate a nuke in the atmosphere and watch the chaos ensue!

Also, think of using it as a shield of some sort for major cities/key buildings etc.
A machine emmitting frequencies that cause weapons :guns etc: to destroy themselves once within range.

"The Trigger Effect" - Arthur C Clarke & Michael Kube-McDowell is deffo worth reading as it uses somewhat the idea put forward.

nesf

Hmm, the problems you run into are a) the definition is too simplistic, yet very difficult to elabourate on if not a specialist, and b) the freqeuncies for destroying buildings varies hugely on the type of material used. E.g in an earthquake alot of damaged is caused by the frequency of the quake matching the natural frequency of the buildings above.

Plus a huge problem is, how do you get that much energy to form in the correct frequency, and go along a directed path, for the correct distance, in such a way as to it not suffering any interference or diffusion?

The amount of energy you'd need to expend to do any real damage is crazy, and remember waves propagate along a spherical path. This makes it very very hard to direct, because if you deflect the wave away from yourself, it'll interfere with the original wave.

Plus have you much studied on the behaviour of waves? As in beyond LC?

irishguy

in theory it is possible [but in theory almost anything is possible] i saw on discovery [i think] that they had these new loud speakers about 12" round and about 10mm thick they could direct sound directly within about 2 foot of a target about 100foot away, the target was the only place you could hear the sound [or in the sound tunnel between the target and speaker].So if the sound could be focused more presicely into say a 5 or 10mm beam it would need less power.like an average woman with stelletos exerts the same force on the ground [on the heal]as an elephant does so if u use this principle you could use alot less power,but u would still alot of power

kaimera

Yea, tis obvious power usage is a major faction in it's viability.

Hey, if the have nuclear powerd subs...maybe nuclear powered but that raises probs with how to make it compact enough to use in the field.

I haven't studied waves, wave patterns, wave behaviour aside from what was on the LC course in Physics.

This is something that came to me from doing the course.

use a dish to focus the wave energy?
Seems obvious enough, connect the dish to a frequency jenny...

A lot o R&D will determine the natural frequency o the majority o common materials so you'll know before hand what to adjust the frequency to.

Nietzschean

i'm afraid Kaimera as stated above our understanding of wave nature is far too limited to even go into this debate fully really, look at the data on our physics course on any topic most of the definitions are so vague they don't even make full sence. Wait for college....if you are doing a related course let someone teach you somewhat of what u need to know - and for an artical on ultrasonic weaponary look at the forteen times webbie they had one

DeVore

It's more to utilise against more soild objects -vehicles, buildings etc - where using the idea would destroy the building but without the loss of human life.

Apart from the people in it and the people it falls on presumable

Also, why the concern about human life? usually in warfare the idea is the other way around. Kill the pesky humans (who you are at war with anyway!) and leave the colateral valuables (buildings, bridges,structures etc) in place for when you drive tanks in.

Hence germ warfare.

Most research in this area is in riot control or anti personnel stuff.

DeV.

bonkey

Originally posted by Kaimera
See I'm not too worried about the trying to use it against human bodies.
It's more to utilise against more soild objects -vehicles, buildings etc - where using the idea would destroy the building but without the loss of human lyfe.

Yes of course you will have the fools who will be caught beneath rubble but there isn't a weapon that is 100% safe.
This could be close tho...

Actually, no it wouldnt.

You're talking about using it to "safely" bring down a building which we must assume is evacuated. In this case, shaped explosive charges give the best approach because, quite simply, they allow you to control how the building collapses. Witness the destruction of oh-so-many high-rises by this approach - the lovely "downward crumpling" which can be controlled in many circumstances to even cause a vacuum to suck back in much of the dust.

There is no way in which sound waves could possibly approach this level of control, unless you were to afix multiple small sound generators to destruct the same weakpoints in a structure....at which point you have to ask what is wrong with the current technique, and what benefits would sound offer.

If you simply want to take a building out (i.e. an enemy structure) then air-dropped guided ordinance is a much safer option than a limited-range beam weapon.

Using sound-waves as a destructive mechanism is really the stuff of wild dreamers - people who have seen footage of various bridges collapsing under "nothing more" than the resonance frequency of the wind in the valley the bridge spans.

Of course, looking at the amount of energy needed to generate that amount of resonance artificially, you would quickly find that some shaped C4 would also bring the bridge down for a comparable energy cost, if not a lower one. As would "smart bombs".

The only advantage sound waves offer is their wave nature. It cannot be shot down, its reuseable, its "invisible".

Also, unlike light, sound waves can be destructive when not tightly focussed, so you can in theory have a wide-angle "beam" weapon which could cause largescale damage if it were perfected.

This is why it is interesting a a military weapon.

A focussed beam is of little interest - because a laser is more destructive for lower energy costs (and lasers lose less energy to the environment over distance, travel faster, etc. etc. etc.).

As for "shaking things apart with no loss of life" (like your tank platoon) - the idea is flawed for a number of reasons :

1) How do you avoid hitting resonance frequencies which do not shake apart the human body/brain?

2) How do you avoid hitting frequencies which do not cause the tanks fuel and/or ammunition to explode?

3) Why would you care about loss of life in an enemy unit? Tanks are easier to replace than crew.

In fact, taking point 3, it would be preferable to have a weapon which killed the people and left the structures intact. The only problem there is that the techniques to do that (microwave is a good choice) would all be in breach of the Geneva convention and would be as acceptable as the use of chemical or biological weaponry.

The best use of sound as a destructive tech which I have heard of to date is a road-smasher. Rather than using a jack hammer, a tiny pellet (about the size of a .22 air-gun pellet) is fired from about 30 cm at the road. It is fired at ultrasonic speeds, and the shock-wave it carries is enough to shatter about a 30cm x 30cm area of tarmac. However, because its so small, the sonic wave wont carry very far, so its not very noisy.

Build a grid of these and you can rip up an entire road in no time, with virtually no noise. Far better than a legion of jackhammers.

Sound waves will most likely never be used in an anti-building role. Possibly crowd control etc. but I doubt that they have a future in the military? Why? well, its simple.....the US are already experimenting with vehicles who *emit* soundwaves which are exactly out of phase with the noises being generated from their engines. Net effect - silent engines once youre outside the emitters (which are on the vehicles body.

Now - if you want to use sound waves to disrupt a building's integrity, you need to have its resonance frequency. All the building needs is a set of emitters to emit the same sound out of phase, and voila - resonance shielding.

jc