Talk:Particle Projector Cannon

This article is within the scope of the Project Technology, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of Technology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been flagged for review by the Technology WikiProject team. If you have reviewed this article, please remove the tr parameter from this template.

I am curious about the statement regarding the PPC being a unique weapon in the Battletech Universe. There are a range of different PPC's now available (ER, Snub-Nose, Heavy). Do you mean that the weapon is unique to this universe, as in it doesn't exist in other games? If so, I would like to point out that in Robotech, there is a weapon called PBC (Partical Beam Cannon). These were installed on the Excaliber mechs (Unseen Warhammer in CBT).

I think "unique" this case refers to PPCs not existing in other fictional universes. I'm not sure how true that is, but I'm sure that is what the statement in the article is supposed to mean. Particle weapons do exist, but I've not heard any other series use the term "PPC" for their weapons. Haruspex 13:16, 6 October 2008 (CDT)

I also confirm that the PPC is really the Battletech Universe's signature --FIVE-one 09:16, 7 October 2008 (CDT)

We might be missing the point is. Is statement this verifiable? --Scaletail 20:04, 7 October 2008 (CDT)

Newbie here, but PPCs are not unique weapon, though it might be a unique name. It's basically just an ion/particle cannon. Of course, ion/particle cannons function differently depending on the fictional universe, but it's also a real weapon at least in principle. 76.25.193.14 16:46, 9 June 2009 (PDT)

Agreed - particle cannons are not new, although the name is unique. Tesla proposed similar ideas and DARPA floated the idea in 1958 with experiments going on for decades. It's possible that the game may have helped popularize them, though. Since the line is wrong either IC or OOC, it really needs to go. Moonsword 18:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Recoil

Do PPC's have recoil? In one of the campaigns I've done, a Panther got knocked into space and was using its PPC to attack the enemy aerospace units. If it had recoil it would have rapidly gone into a spin and been unable to aim.--DragonoftheRust 19:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As energy weapons, they should be recoilless. --Scaletail 01:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally not unique. Not to be too wikish, but no sources, just where are we getting that, cause lots of universes use some kind of particle projection technology. Largely because its real, like most BattleTech tech, its based on real theoretical, but as of yet unfeasible, technology, patented in this case by Nikola Tesla in the 30s. As for recoil, not to be combative, but you should think. It causes impact damage as well as thermal, therefor conservation of momentum tells us it must possess recoil, although that could be dampened or out and out countered (as there are many ballistic recoilless weapons in existance). True energy weapons cause only thermal and so lack recoil because the lack impact or mechanical kinetic energy. The PPC projects particles from itself against the target, this is infact essiantially the same process as is used for ion engines, which project Xenon particles to push themselves through space, as the lack something other than themselves to push against (as is the case with tires on a road or rotor blades on the air). Infact, I believe Tesla's designs called for Xenon to be used, a brilliant, crazy man. Friend of man, lover of pigeons. — The preceding unsigned comment was posted by 174.112.16.133 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 4 January 2010.

Not intending to be rude, but I'm not sure why it matters. BTW is intended to be an in-universe collection of data and if recoil is or is not a factor in the fictional weapons, then that is what should be represented in the articles. If the source materials contradict each other, then a ==Notes== section could/should be added to the article, to inform on the issue in an out-of-universe perspective. If recoil is never mentioned in any way, then it doeswn't belong in the article. In any case, canon statements regarding recoil (or lack thereof) should be referenced. I'll add the "cite needed" tag now. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The PPC is a particle weapon, which means in crude terms it shoots particles at the target until it's dead, like a conventional firearm shoots bullets. Those particles are matter and have mass, which means they fall under Newton's laws, especially the third one about equal and opposite reactions. So just like a gun that shoots a bullet, it would naturally have recoil when it fires. Even then, the recoil generated by firing a PPC might not be enough to cause the Panther to spin around in space, or not noticeably enough, depending on exact technical specifications and whatnot. I removed the citation tag on that basis, if a canon BT source is required I apologize and will find one when I am able.66.51.147.57 20:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As Revanche pointed out above, BattleTech is not real, so its weapons don't always follow real-world physics. All statements must reference an official source or risk being removed. --Scaletail 22:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

fusion engine requirement

Umm...just wondering, do PPCs require a Fusion powerplant? I know that Lasers do, but am not quite clear on PPCs. --Porty1119 18:40, 27 August 2010 (EST)

yes, all energy weapons require fusion engines or power amplifiers (or batteries on the infantry scale). The sole exception are "vehicle flamers" that are fuel based rather than fusion based... Trivia: the firestarter was originally fluffed to have an explosion hazard and was drawn with fuel tanks but had the stats for the fusion engine based flamers--Cameron 09:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Projector vs. Projection

At what point did the full name of the weapon become Particle Projector Cannon? All of the older references I've seen (including the 3025 and 3050 Technical Readouts) list it as a Particle Projection Cannon. Is this an official change, or a glitch?--ArgentLA 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. I don't know when it changed, but it did. The new rulebook set (specifically TechManual) uses "projector". --Scaletail 00:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this across the board from infantry to capitol ships or is it just for the combat vehicle / battlemech weapon?--Cameron 19:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Tactical Operations says Naval Particle Projector Cannon, so the WarShip version is the same as the 'Mech weapon. In addition TechManual uses the same term for the infantry variants. So it appears that Projector Cannon is the new name.--Mbear 19:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

wow... At least they are consistent--Cameron 08:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)