FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages
 Forum Index      Log in  Register
HOW THE BLASTER WORKS - Some Theoretical Speculation

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Blade Runner General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 267
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:43 pm    Post subject: HOW THE BLASTER WORKS - Some Theoretical Speculation Reply with quote

This thread is about presenting a few possibly plausible theories about how the Blaster works, and the ensuing discussion. There are a few threads concerning the inner workings thereof, but none of them really fit, so instead of necroing one of them for this purpose, I'm starting a new one.


So: ever since I first saw BR and started looking closer at the blaster, I've been thinking about what it might actually be. In the heady days of playing Traveller and Space Opera (vintage pen-and-paper RPG's, for those not in the know), me and my mates decided to call it a "Gauss Pistol" ... mostly because nothing else seemed to fit.

Years have obviously passed, but I have sort of not become much wiser on this subject ... but let's see what we can come up with anyway.


Okay. What can we observe about the blaster, that any rationalisation will need to account for?

  • We all know the externally obvious parts — the barrel, the Steyr receiver, the magazine, the two triggers, and so on.
  • I am discounting the possibility that the weapon might "really" be a revolver, of any kind. In my eyes, the prop makers bent over backwards to hide the revolver in the prop, so whatever it is, a revolver isn't it.
  • While not a revolver, the weapon is obviously not a pistol with a magazine in the grip, either.
  • The weapon produces a muzzle flash and loud report when firing.
  • Whatever the weapon fires can produce an explosion on impact, but on other occasions, it seems not to.
  • It does not seem that the cocking handle is used for each shot.



All of this has in my mind boiled down to three theories.
In all three cases, I have the Steyr receiver assembly actually housing the magazine of the gun, storing projectiles (only — no propellant cartridges) in a linear tube, in a manner resembling an inverted shotgun. The ejector port is where you load the weapon, and the cocking handle is used to cock the weapon for the first shot only, and possibly to de-cock it.
Operating the cocking handle moves the hindmost projectile from the magazine down to the chamber at the back end of the barrel. For subsequent shots, the reloading action might be either recoil operated or done by electrical actuators.



Theory the First: The Binary Propellant Gun


This design injects two different chemicals into the chamber behind the projectile. These react hypergolically, and the resultant combustion propels the projectile.

In this case, the magazine houses the bottles for the two chemicals. The two LED's on the sides indicate the storage status of the two bottles. The bottom LED indicates that the magazine is safely engaged to the gun (you don't want the hypergolic liquids to leak and mix outside of the chamber).

The space that is filled by the part of the revolver drum in the prop not lined up with the barrel houses the system for controlling the injection of the liquids into the chamber.



Theory the Second: The Combustion Augmented Plasma Gun


This design also injects a fluid into the chamber behind the projectile. However, in this case the fluid itself is inert — it might even be water. The fluid is combusted as plasma by running a powerful current through it. The expanding gas and then plasma from this combustion propels the projectile.

In this case, the magazine houses the bottle for the fluid, and the battery for the current. The mechanism for injecting the fluid is much simpler than in the binary propellant system, but the revolver drum space is still needed, this time for the capacitors that feed the combustion.
The LED's indicate the status of the liquid bottle and the battery.



Theory the Third: Back to the Gauss Pistol


This one just won't go away. A Gauss Gun is a linear electromagnetic accelerator.

In this case, the magazine houses the battery, and the capacitors to drive the accelerator coils (embedded in the barrel) are housed in the revolver drum space.
The LED's indicate battery status.

The configuration of the accelerator would be such that the power to the coil is run through the projectile as it travels down the barrel (this is actually a viable design for an accelerator gun). The muzzle flash and report are products of the electrical arc that occurs when this circuit is broken as the projectile leaves the barrel.



So what is the secondary trigger for?


To my mind, the most sensible use for it would be to activate the explosive function in the projectile. For a police weapon, it would make sense for the projectile to be inert, in order to avoid collateral damage in a civilian environment.
On the other hand, when hunting Replicants, having the ability to enhance the effect of the projectile when you know that you have a clear shot would certainly be ... helpful.

So, whatever the method of propelling the projectile, the projectile is inert by default, but engaging the secondary trigger turns the projectile in the chamber into a micro grenade.
Possible mechanisms for this might include injecting a chemical compound into a chamber in the bullet, or altering the composition of a material already there by introducing said chemical compound, and/or an electrical current.


Over to you.
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
joberg
Community Member


Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 9447

PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very good thinking Vader; I like the fact that you used the idea of the Steyr being used as an upside down shotgun.
The Gauss seems to me to be the more plausible explanation out of these 3 possible ones Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
"995"victor-d
Community Member


Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Posts: 53

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:27 am    Post subject: blaster Reply with quote

deleted

Last edited by "995"victor-d on Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:49 am; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Author Message
"995"victor-d
Community Member


Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Posts: 53

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:31 am    Post subject: Case less Ammo Reply with quote

http://www.caselessammunition.com/


Progress is being Made on this!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Author Message
joberg
Community Member


Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 9447

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TFS Vito; indeed caseless has made progress for sure and is bound to make some more tweaking along the way: welcome to the new world of weapon (more ammo less weight and less danger of jamming).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
"995"victor-d
Community Member


Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Posts: 53

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:40 am    Post subject: 2019 Reply with quote

deleted

Last edited by "995"victor-d on Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Author Message
"995"victor-d
Community Member


Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Posts: 53

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:18 am    Post subject: 2019 Reply with quote

deleted

Last edited by "995"victor-d on Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:50 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 267
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The astute observer will have noted that I have based all three of my proposals on 90's experimental artillery systems. The Rail Gun is only one of them.
But I agree with you all: the Gauss Gun is by far my favourite, too.


I think the Offworld guns merely used the "Caseless" buzzword (as it was, at the time) because it was cool. And this has obviously no bearing whatsoever on the movie, and what the Blaster "really" is or could be.

With the Pulse Rifle it's a different proposition altogether, because (a) caseless makes sense in the design, and (b) they clearly spell it out in the movie.


"995"victor-d wrote:
1. A double set trigger: FWD Trigger SETS the release mechanism, second trigger has a light pull for accuracy: don't JERK the trigger (competition rifles often have this).


As late as today, interestingly enough, I was looking at a collection of 17th and 18th century hunting weapons that sported this very feature.

Centuries past, you used to see it on hunting weapons, because the trigger action simply couldn't be made smooth and light enough, so the feature of "priming" the mechanism with one trigger and releasing it with the other was invented.
Today, this is used in certain classes of competition weapons, to chase that final tiny fraction of an arc second's inaccuracy due to variations in trigger pull.

To my recollection however, throughout firearms history, this feature has never been used in a tactical pistol (with the dubious exception of the H&K PSP/P7 police pistol and its versions).
With modern pistol designs, it isn't even necessary. Nowadays you can get amply light (even too light), single action-like trigger pull in modern double action pistols, such as the Glocks.

Bearing in mind however that in all my theoretical designs, the trigger's function is purely electronic, a priming trigger to provide mechanical trigger assist would hardly add value.


"995"victor-d wrote:
2. Safety/ENABLE : FWD Trigger Enables/ARMS the weapon Either Mechanically or "Spooling up/Charging" the power source or capacitors to power a Binary propellent, or a true GAUSS GUN. AFT trigger fires the weapon.


A more likely proposition. However, it would provide a tactical disadvantage. For my own part, I'd like a tactical weapon to be ready to fire once I've loaded it and chambered a round. To need to pull a separate trigger to then be able to fire it in a pressed situation seems to me ... risky.


"995"victor-d wrote:
3. To my Understanding...REP DETECTS do one thing , and one thing only: Retire Replicants, so, why have a selectively lethal/escalatable(enhanced) performance round...you want a 100% chance of lethality (one shot stop) every time. It would to me, be an un-warranted complication that could have disastrous results for the REP DETECT. REMEMBER FOLKS...Deck had to shoot both Zhora and Pris twice..( granted..totally different shots from the shooters point of view.....pursuing on foot at a distance for Zhora..Defending and at POINT BLANK RANGE for Pris).
Still...two shots a piece


Thing is, the shots fired at Zhora and Pris are fired in a relative hurry.
The shots fired at Zhora slightly less so, but they are fired in an environment with civilian bystanders.
Those shots also seem to have an effect akin to ordinary bullets.

As you remark Vito, one such bullet seems insufficient to stop a Replicant.

However, the first shot Deckard fires at Roy is fired in an abandoned building, with ample time to prepare for the shot.
That projectile explodes. Those fired at Zhora and Pris do not do this.
It also seems that this projectile is noticeably slower than the standard one.
The second shot at Roy, fired in a hurry, grazes his ear ... obviously, once more, without exploding.

So it would seem a Blade Runner has built into his weapon the possibility to opt for greater lethality, as and when the situation allows him to use it.
For whatever reason, when shooting at Zhora and Pris, it does not. But when sniping at Roy, he does opt for the "one shot kill" ... but misses.

The slower projectile could be accounted for by an added mass due to injected explosive compounds, and/or a deliberately lowered acceleration to not risk the projectile exploding in the barrel.

And the most logical place for an actuator for this enhanced lethality option would to my mind be a secondary trigger. Which, just as it happens, the blaster actually has...


"995"victor-d wrote:
4. Capt. Bryant's remark: "if your not COP, your little people"...I don't think the FORCE had ANY concerns about inflicting collateral damage on the civilians. So, a ricochet, or Multiple Penetration (structure or life form) civilian casualty would NOT concern them at all. L.A. 2019 does not look like a "Warm and Fuzzy" place to be. As to a "Serve and Protect" ethos for the FORCE... "MAINTAIN ORDER" would probably be closer to the mark.


Even then, police will always need to be mindful of the risk of collateral damage. Sure, on your average street, it might not be a problem. But a Replicant running amuck in Police HQ, with the danger of getting shot by fellow officers...? Or a Replicant hunt in whatever Civilian power structure's building that the Police Chief answers to...?
Collateral damage in the wrong place can get very embarrassing, very fast...

And the thing here is: no matter what the rationale for its existence, as noted above, this dual lethality mode feature in the blaster is clearly evident in the movie.
Any other way of explaining the explosion (oh ... he just happens to hit a vial of nitroglycerine Sebastian had stashed just there!) will perforce get very contrived.
Avoiding collateral damage however fits as a rationale.
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
"995"victor-d
Community Member


Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Posts: 53

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:06 pm    Post subject: some final comments.. Reply with quote

deleted

Last edited by "995"victor-d on Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 267
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Vito. My own military background — comprising seven years altogether, the main part of it in the Army — is obviously no match for your years of Naval service!
But having added to that experience with studies in physics and engineering, studied military firearms design and tested out a variety of such weapons, and being today heavily involved in product design projects with the defence industry, I do hope I can with some credibility say a thing or two about firearms design and the tactical implications thereof...

BTW — if anyone happens to be visiting DSEi this year, I expect to be spending most of the week there. Let me know, and we'll meet up!
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
"995"victor-d
Community Member


Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Posts: 53

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:29 pm    Post subject: 2019 Reply with quote

deleted

Last edited by "995"victor-d on Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Author Message
nyreaper
Community Member


Joined: 19 Nov 2006
Posts: 108
Location: State Island NY

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hey vader, love your ideas.
especially the Gauss pistol idea!
actually had a question but then re-read your theory and found the answer lol
thanks for an interesting read.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
joberg
Community Member


Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 9447

PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems to me that Roy, beeing the main leader of that band of Reps, should be killed swiftly by using the full force of the blaster (shoot first, kill him and get out)...maybe Deck has a soft spot for the lasses; that's why he doesn't use the exploding ammo on them, even if it means shooting twice to apply the "coup the grâce" to make sure the're dead.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 267
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

joberg wrote:
Seems to me that Roy, beeing the main leader of that band of Reps, should be killed swiftly by using the full force of the blaster (shoot first, kill him and get out)...maybe Deck has a soft spot for the lasses; that's why he doesn't use the exploding ammo on them, even if it means shooting twice to apply the "coup the grâce" to make sure the're dead.

I'm thinking that Deckard, in the case of Zhora, doesn't have the freedom to use the explosive function, due to the danger of collateral damage. In the case of Pris, he doesn't have the time — with her bearing down on him, he has the time to press one trigger, once. Just like he only has the time to do that when he tries to shoot Roy through the wall.

Then there is another question: okay, I'm postulating that pressing the front trigger activates the loaded projectile's explosive function. But depending on which mechanism this employs, this activation might take a bit of time. An injection mechanism for instance might take a couple of seconds to cycle. In that case, Deckard might not have the time to use it on Zhora, even if he does have a clear shot.
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 267
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had another thought the other week: would it fit if the LED's, instead of being general status indicators, just were warning indicators that the chambered round was "explosive-active"?
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
The Loyalizer
Community Member


Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 742
Location: Down in 4th Sector, Chinatown

PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The whole notion of the explosive round. I never found it very convincing myself. Logistics aside, what would happen if the explosive round was used when there could by bystanders (Deckard's retirement of Zhora comes to mind), and what if the round missed? It just doesn't seem like a practical application in terms of law enforcement. Bad enough you should retire a human by mistake, but an explosive round hitting a civillian....

Regardless, I never felt that the blaster fired off an explosive round. What I think happened is that when Deckard fires at Roy and misses, the round hits something in the background, that causes the explosive effect. Who knows what sort of chemicals or volatile materials JF may have had in his place?

Just my 2 cents tho
_________________


"We began to recognize in them a strange obsession..."

http://fcomin.cgsociety.org/gallery/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
joberg
Community Member


Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 9447

PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure it goes of and bounces back on something, hitting Roy on the side of his head...I kind of like the explosive round theory: fits into that world and a violent society in general (electrified park-meters ), overpopulation, pollution, etc. If the "life" of a Replicant is worth nothing, I don't think that a human life is worth much more in that BR society.
Collateral damage?..so what, we just killed a Rep that, according to the official corporate line, is a dangerous threat to the society at large Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 267
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, that's just the gist of my theory, and I go on about it at some length in the posts above, beginning with the very first post on this thread: the explosive round is an option that can be activated, on a round-by-round basis -- that's what the secondary trigger is for.

  • Risk for collateral damage? Don't activate it. (Shooting at Zhora in street)

  • Critical shot in safe environment? Activate it. (Shooting at Roy in apartment)


IMHO, the concept that that one round just by extreme coincidence happens to hit the vial of nitroglycerin (or whatever) that Sebastian had left lying around in his bedroom ... is just a tiny bit too far fetched to support my suspension of disbelief.
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Gero
Community Member


Joined: 05 Apr 2012
Posts: 106
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have over time a very unusual theory about the working of the Steyr-developed receivers.
As more of "sonic-shock ammunition" is spoken, does the receiver to my mind like a sonic weapon in movies like "Tek War" and "GI Joe". The cinematic representation but in my opinion could be implemented yet in "Blade Runner" lack of technical possibilities. Therefore, one only sees as the conventional barrel is used.
The scene in Sebastian's apartment where the ammunition exploded but did not fit my theory.
Nevertheless, it pleases me very well.
_________________
"...ist sie teuer?" "Außerordentlich!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Tom Southwell
Community Member


Joined: 01 Mar 2013
Posts: 241
Location: Southern California

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vader, forgive me for not reading all the replies, so I can jump in now , though late to the party.
The first scripts described the gun as something that would hurl a black beam at a target and blow a hole in someone like cartoonist Al Capp's Fearless Fosdick. And thus "air him out".( Think Swiss Cheese.) . Syd Mead designed one that was a cross between a white Ray gun and a white hair drier, which Mr Scott thought he'd use as a phone instead. By this time a retro noir Sam Spade feeling was developing strong in the art department under the firm hand of both Mr Scott and production designer Lawrence G Paull. Assistant art director Steven Dane was asked to sketch a small gun that was a cross between an old gun and a future gun. (You can see these sketches in "the Illustrated Blade Runner". Dane went to a gun prop house and found a real gun with two triggers and discussed the possibility of adding metal parts and electronic parts to a gun that could fire a big loud blank that would flash a long traditional flame. Turns out that this gun exercise perfectly describes the overall concept of the design of BR. "Old yet future". Or as aptly stated by BR biographer Paul Sammon:
"Future Noir!"
_________________
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Blade Runner General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
BBTech Template by © 2003-04 MDesign

Problems Registering Contact: help@propsummit.com