# Sci-Fi Swords



## Rojack79 (Jan 7, 2016)

Hey everyone. I have been dong some research into verious science fiction weaponry and have hit a brick wall. I have come across several differnt sci-fi sword ideas and i am wandering which of them is the most plossible sword design. The blades in question are as follow's, 

Heat Blades: These weapons used exstreme heat combined with the weapons mass to slice through just about any material.

Vibro-Blades: These weapons use a ludacrisly sharp edged blade that vibrates at ultra high frequency's thus destabalizing the targets maleculer steucter thus makeing it easier to cut through.

Plasma Sword: These energy weapons utilize a high intensity EM field to catch a stream of plasma that is being injected into the feild and stabalize it in the shape of a blade. When the blade make's contact with the target the feild is disrupted allowing the super hot plasma to flow through the disturbence  in the feild and the blade then melt's/cut's through what ever is in the way.

There are several other kinds of sci fi swords out there but i cant remember them at the moment. So out of these three weapons which one is the most reallistic and what other sci fi swords are out there that i missed?


----------



## Bishop (Jan 7, 2016)

Rojack79 said:


> So out of these three weapons which one is the most _*reallistic *_and what other sci fi swords are out there that i missed?



None of them, unfortunately. The reality is that blades are obsolete; there's an old saying: Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Cool as Star Wars makes it look, lightsabers are very unrealistic, impractical, and just plain suicidal. I would urge you not to fall into this trope, simply because it's very video-gamey or anime-y.

But, if you're going to go for it, I'd much more believe a sword made of a hitherto undiscovered element that is a basic metal which can cut through just about anything--like Wolverine's adamantium. It's far more realistic, to me, that there's a dense and potentially sharp metal out in the cosmos than to believe that a researcher or corporation put time, funding, manpower, and marketing into making what would be highly complex, expensive and impractical plasma swords. You have to remember, technology in our world exists because of research and development done mostly by corporations trying to sell a product, or by the military who try to find the most efficient way to eliminate threats and prevent casualties. For me to believe it would exist, I'd have to believe someone thought it would have great profit in its creation, basically. You could argue artistic endeavors, but I'd have a hard time believing they'd be used in battle if that were the case.


----------



## popsprocket (Jan 7, 2016)

Well it'd be improbable that you could create a sword with a stable blade which could melt through anything in the time it takes to swing it. You really just can't impart that kind of heat easily.

The amount of energy and consumables that a plasma sword created and contained with an EM field also makes it a bit ridiculous. "Hold on, bad guy, I need to change out the gas tank!"

Which leaves vibrating weapons. Which I suppose work well enough in theory.


But hey, it's science fiction. Do whatever you want and invent an explanation.


----------



## JustRob (Jan 7, 2016)

Bishop said:


> None of them, unfortunately. The reality is that blades are obsolete; there's an old saying: Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Cool as Star Wars makes it look, lightsabers are very unrealistic, impractical, and just plain suicidal. I would urge you not to fall into this trope, simply because it's very video-gamey or anime-y.



I agree. Sci-fi swordplay is a weird cross-genre thing. Your hero will most likely get killed by a DNA-guided nanotechnology cruise missile, the sci-fi equivalent of a bullet. Think about the hunter-seeker device in the film _Dune_ and add far more technology to that.

Sci-fi technology in films needs to be audio-visual. It's amazing how easily sounds carry across space in them, for example. That's a real mystery to me. Even the hunter-seeker was far bigger and slower than it needed to be so that it could be seen in the film. People just dying without any cause being apparent would not make a very good story, but that's closer to the sci-fi truth. In the Star Wars spoof film _Spaceballs_ there's a scene where Dark Helmet is discovered in his room playing with his dolls like a child, pretending that he is fighting his opponents. If the force were any good he could have used these as voodoo dolls and wiped them all out for real. In _Spaceballs_ with its surreal spoof style they then could simply have rerun the scene so that the second time that didn't happen and the good guys won. _Spaceballs _could lampoon Star Wars because the latter made it possible.

In a written story one can describe things that would not show up well in an audio-visual medium, so play to the strengths of the medium that you are using and don't write literature that simply describes audio-visual scenes. Do that and all sorts of other technology becomes viable. I mean, what does a mathematical improbability field actually _look_ like anyway?


----------



## Sam (Jan 7, 2016)

Bishop said:


> None of them, unfortunately. The reality is that blades are obsolete; there's an old saying: Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Cool as Star Wars makes it look, lightsabers are very unrealistic, impractical, and just plain suicidal. I would urge you not to fall into this trope, simply because it's very video-gamey or anime-y.
> 
> But, if you're going to go for it, I'd much more believe a sword made of a hitherto undiscovered element that is a basic metal which can cut through just about anything--like Wolverine's adamantium. It's far more realistic, to me, that there's a dense and potentially sharp metal out in the cosmos than to believe that a researcher or corporation put time, funding, manpower, and marketing into making what would be highly complex, expensive and impractical plasma swords. You have to remember, technology in our world exists because of research and development done mostly by corporations trying to sell a product, or by the military who try to find the most efficient way to eliminate threats and prevent casualties. For me to believe it would exist, I'd have to believe someone thought it would have great profit in its creation, basically. You could argue artistic endeavors, but I'd have a hard time believing they'd be used in battle if that were the case.



There are Japanese martial arts based around sword-fighting, and they look pretty badass, but if you watch a video of an instructor teaching on YT, you'll most likely hear him say that the discipline has next to zero real-world application, with good reason. 

Swords are clunky, awkward, and impossible to conceal. And how exactly do you sheathe a blade made of plasma, one that can slice through human bone and destabilise matter, and not take a huge chunk out of your back? They're an impractical weapon. 

Knives have much more real-world application. A karambit fits snug in a human hand, remains invisible until the last second, and is the most deadly blade in the world.


----------



## Cran (Jan 7, 2016)

E.E."Doc" Smith rationalised a return to non-projectile close combat weapons in space, although he chose the battleaxe or smaller hand war axe as the model. The space axe was made of dureum, a dense artificial material, and the only material that retained its physical properties in hyperspace. He argued that defensive armor (often also made of dureum) and personal screens (energy shields) rendered most portable weapons useless in close quarters combat, especially in microgravity (or "zero g") environments. At best, firing upon an enemy would push the target away if not anchored. 

So, his lensmen and his space marines trained with this hand weapon in high, normal and microgravity situations, and they used the space axe whenever beam or slug weapons would not quickly disable or kill the enemy. Close in, grapple, and use the pick point or the full blade to breach the armour between the plates. A critical blow was not necessary in a vacuum then (although self-sealant technologies have improved now), but vital in the enemy's normal atmosphere. 

It wouldn't be too difficult to take that argument but choose a different model, such as Sam's suggestion of the karambit knife (a mean-looking beak or claw once revealed) or some sort of switch-blade or extendable blade to suit, with a high density mono-filament edge to point and vibro-blade option if desired. 

The light sabre, or any sort of laser or plasma weapon, requires some way to limit the extent of the beam, otherwise it is simply another laser that continues on until it hits something or dissipates over distance. The only way I could see that would be a folded mono-filament that extends when the energy flows through it - out to the fold and back to the processor. That would recycle most, but not all, of the energy expended, thereby extending the life of the charge pack. Switching off the energy beam would also trigger a high-speed auto-reel to pull in the filament.


----------



## JustRob (Jan 7, 2016)

Cran said:


> The light sabre, or any sort of laser or plasma weapon, requires some way to limit the extent of the beam, otherwise it is simply another laser that continues on until it hits something or dissipates over distance.



I've never studied atomic physics, but I recollect that some subatomic particles have relatively (Do I actually mean that?) short lives and then disintegrate. Within an atmosphere this is even more likely probably. If the beam were an exotic combination of such particles which happened to emit light while travelling along its limited path then it would look very much like a light sabre, the light being just a side-effect and not the actual weapon. No doubt adjustments of the particle beam composition could be made so that all its components disintegrated at the same point. It may even be that the beam would not be homogenous but contain several layers of different particles which interacted at their boundaries to form the cutting device, just as in a flame there are different regions. There is an assumption that "light sabre" means a laser-based device, but devices often get misleading names in reality.  This may not have any foundation in science, but as a pseudo-science explanation it sounds reasonably convincing and that's all that matters, isn't it?

On the subject of materials for swords, I mentioned elsewhere that a friend of mine, a retired chemistry tutor at Oxford, has assured me that carbon five, which can only exist in four dimensions, would be an extremely inert and stable substance suitable for lining wormholes, so I suspect that it would also be good for making swords, being a 4D superior form of diamond in effect. He is currently considering larger six-dimensional molecular structures, such as large 6D boranes. He said that he's retired because research into them isn't practical. I'm not sure what the ramifications are of using a carbon-fibre sword with four-dimensional characteristics. Certainly if the carbon fibres were _woven_ in four dimensions along the lines of the best traditional metal swords, then they could have enormous strength ... and probably could be rolled up and put in a pocket when not in use as well! 

Let's not be too conservative in our thinking.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jan 7, 2016)

popsprocket said:


> Well it'd be improbable that you could create a sword with a stable blade which could melt through anything in the time it takes to swing it. You really just can't impart that kind of heat easily.
> 
> The amount of energy and consumables that a plasma sword created and contained with an EM field also makes it a bit ridiculous. "Hold on, bad guy, I need to change out the gas tank!"
> 
> ...


Well the explanation in my story for the rebirth of the sword is that sometime in the future the world gets hit with an apocalyptic event and the only way for humanity to survive said event is to go back to living in the medieval age. Gun's are still around but they are impractical and pretty much useless dew to the fact that I've nerfed the hell out of them.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jan 7, 2016)

JustRob said:


> I've never studied atomic physics, but I recollect that some subatomic particles have relatively (Do I actually mean that?) short lives and then disintegrate. Within an atmosphere this is even more likely probably. If the beam were an exotic combination of such particles which happened to emit light while travelling along its limited path then it would look very much like a light sabre, the light being just a side-effect and not the actual weapon. No doubt adjustments of the particle beam composition could be made so that all its components disintegrated at the same point. It may even be that the beam would not be homogenous but contain several layers of different particles which interacted at their boundaries to form the cutting device, just as in a flame there are different regions. There is an assumption that "light sabre" means a laser-based device, but devices often get misleading names in reality.  This may not have any foundation in science, but as a pseudo-science explanation it sounds reasonably convincing and that's all that matters, isn't it?


In reality plasma would begin to dissipate the second the EM field holding it together is shut off. So if i were to use a plasma sword it would be pretty safe to use. Just turn the field off and no more blade. Then just put the handle in easy reach for emergency's.


----------



## Thaumiel (Jan 7, 2016)

If you choose plasma blades the please try to work sausage pinches and banana orbits into your story somehow.

Although a vibrating blade is more realistic and less harmful to the wielder.

A heat blade would require a very good heating and cooling system and protective gear.

A plasma blade, like you said would dissipate when you switched it off, but not very nicely. It wouldn't be a relatively cold plasma like what you see in plasma balls. It would be hot, as it is a confined gas of whatever happens to be trapped and heated from the atmosphere. (Unless you had to use gas charges to ensure a certain plasma was made? Ammo requirements for a sword seem silly if you can have guns.) Due to it being hot, when you turn of the confinement fields it would expand quickly. I'd say that has the potential to do some damage.


----------



## Bishop (Jan 7, 2016)

Rojack79 said:


> Well the explanation in my story for the rebirth of the sword is that sometime in the future the world gets hit with an apocalyptic event and the only way for humanity to survive said event is to go back to living in the medieval age. Gun's are still around but they are impractical and pretty much useless dew to the fact that I've nerfed the hell out of them.



How are they nerfed, exactly? In the end, physics is physics. Any firearm, even the most rudimentary of gunpowder weapons, dominated swords on the battlefield. It's how Cortes conquered the Americas (among other factors, like disease). If you're wanting to know more about it, I highly recommend the book _Guns, Germs, and Steel_, one of the best historical books out there, and focuses on the period shift.

Even in an apocalyptic event, survivors will still know how to make guns. And making a simple gun out of materials is far, far, _far_, easier than making plasma or vibration swords. Simple projectile weapons, particularly ballistic weapons, came about because they're superior. So it stands to reason that even after the apocalypse, the people would work to regain the technologies they had before the event.

I understand what you're trying to do, and don't let me stop you from writing your story the way you want to. I'm just offering this so that you can consider plausibility as well.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jan 7, 2016)

Bishop said:


> How are they nerfed, exactly?



A few century's after this event the whole world has gone back to using ancient technology to survive because there are no more resource's to power modern and futuristic technology's. That being said the gun's in my book usually have to be really big to kill most of the creature's that i have inhabiting the world at this point in time. Most of them have very small amounts of ammunition to conserve the remaining resource's that are left. Any ammunition left in the ruin's is extremely hard to find and usually not worth the risk. I've also made the armor in my book pretty much immune to bullet's by the amount of armor and other protective measure's the armor give's the people of this new world.



Bishop said:


> In the end, physics is physics. Any firearm, even the most rudimentary of gunpowder weapons, dominated swords on the battlefield. It's how Cortes conquered the Americas (among other factors, like disease). If you're wanting to know more about it, I highly recommend the book _Guns, Germs, and Steel_, one of the best historical books out there, and focuses on the period shift.



I will certainly look this book up.



Bishop said:


> Even in an apocalyptic event, survivors will still know how to make guns. And making a simple gun out of materials is far, far, _far_, easier than making plasma or vibration swords. Simple projectile weapons, particularly ballistic weapons, came about because they're superior. So it stands to reason that even after the apocalypse, the people would work to regain the technologies they had before the event.



In my book I've made it to were the people of the world have moved on from the disaster. The whole world is stuck in a medieval stasis and the world is happy with that. Some people still have technology from before the event but a vast majority of people don't have the know how to make or use most of the leftover technology.



Bishop said:


> I understand what you're trying to do, and don't let me stop you from writing your story the way you want to. I'm just offering this so that you can consider plausibility as well.



Honestly i'm trying to find a plausible way to do this book as well so thanks for the advice and constructive criticism.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jan 7, 2016)

James 剣 斧 血 said:


> If you choose plasma blades the please try to work sausage pinches and banana orbits into your story somehow.



???? ok?



James 剣 斧 血 said:


> Although a vibrating blade is more realistic and less harmful to the wielder.



How is it more realistic?



James 剣 斧 血 said:


> A heat blade would require a very good heating and cooling system and protective gear.



Heating the blade up wouldn't be an issue but you wouldn't want to cool the blade of unless it would need to be stored away for a long time.



James 剣 斧 血 said:


> A plasma blade, like you said would dissipate when you switched it off, but not very nicely. It wouldn't be a relatively cold plasma like what you see in plasma balls. It would be hot, as it is a confined gas of whatever happens to be trapped and heated from the atmosphere. (Unless you had to use gas charges to ensure a certain plasma was made? Ammo requirements for a sword seem silly if you can have guns.) Due to it being hot, when you turn of the confinement fields it would expand quickly. I'd say that has the potential to do some damage.


I thought of that to but from what I've read plasma literally just dissipates a few inch's from it's source. Do to the fact that the blade is formed by a strong EM field if the plasma is shut off first then the EM field there's no danger of any plasma damaging you or anyone else. The plasma would just fissile out like a flame.


----------



## Thaumiel (Jan 7, 2016)

Rojack79 said:


> ???? ok?



Nevermind



Rojack79 said:


> How is it more realistic?



You'll be able to find more materials that can withstand vibration at the right frequencies than you can find materials that can hold the temperature you'd be looking at for a heat blade while maintaining shape on impact. Also, finding powerful enough electromagnets for plasma confinement that would be small enough to fit in a sword is going to be dodgy. I grant you're writing sci-fi and you want it to be interesting, so of course you can write solutions in, but in terms of realism, I'd say vibration is best choice.



Rojack79 said:


> Heating the blade up wouldn't be an issue but you wouldn't want to cool the blade of unless it would need to be stored away for a long time.



So you'd keep the blade permanently hot? I guess you could make a heat resistant sheathe but you'd be using a lot of energy when your character isn't actually using the sword. 



Rojack79 said:


> I thought of that to but from what I've read plasma literally just dissipates a few inch's from it's source. Do to the fact that the blade is formed by a strong EM field if the plasma is shut off first then the EM field there's no danger of any plasma damaging you or anyone else. The plasma would just fissile out like a flame.



If the plasma is hot enough and you turned it straight off, even a few inches is enough to reach your hand but I'll give you that it could be cooled before you switch off confinement. It would even make a nice flash as electrons and ions pair and release radiation.

The main thing that's bugging me, you've said  "there are no more resource's to power modern and futuristic technology's" in a previous post but it doesn't really make sense that these people who are experiencing a technological dark age would be capable of making swords like these, or armour impervious to ballistics, if they can't make a handgun out of some scrap metal and a minor explosive as gunpowder. More importantly, unless someone is in the military or raided some pre-war tech why would they have this stuff? Surely standard ballistic, even a well thrown rock, would still be useful unless everyone has managed to get a hold of this stuff?

Not trying to be a massive downer btw, the weapons are cool but in terms of realism they're always going to be difficult to justify.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jan 7, 2016)

James 剣 斧 血 said:


> You'll be able to find more materials that can withstand vibration at the right frequencies than you can find materials that can hold the temperature you'd be looking at for a heat blade while maintaining shape on impact. Also, finding powerful enough electromagnets for plasma confinement that would be small enough to fit in a sword is going to be dodgy. I grant you're writing sci-fi and you want it to be interesting, so of course you can write solutions in, but in terms of realism, I'd say vibration is best choice.


I have to admit for me Vibro-Blade's really aren't my cup of tea. I can understand how they are more realistic but i just don't see the MC using one of them.



James 剣 斧 血 said:


> So you'd keep the blade permanently hot? I guess you could make a heat resistant sheathe but you'd be using a lot of energy when your character isn't actually using the sword.


I actually came up with a sheath idea that used thermal induction to heat up the sword and keep it hot while using very little energy a while ago. But sadly i didn't write the idea down so its kind of lost to me right now. 




James 剣 斧 血 said:


> If the plasma is hot enough and you turned it straight off, even a few inches is enough to reach your hand but I'll give you that it could be cooled before you switch off confinement. It would even make a nice flash as electrons and ions pair and release radiation.


Yup that's what i like about the plasma blade rout just flashy enough to catch people's attention.



James 剣 斧 血 said:


> The main thing that's bugging me, you've said  "there are no more resource's to power modern and futuristic technology's" in a previous post but it doesn't really make sense that these people who are experiencing a technological dark age would be capable of making swords like these, or armour impervious to ballistics, if they can't make a handgun out of some scrap metal and a minor explosive as gunpowder. More importantly, unless someone is in the military or raided some pre-war tech why would they have this stuff? Surely standard ballistic, even a well thrown rock, would still be useful unless everyone has managed to get a hold of this stuff?



A yes i shall elaborate more on my master plan. MWAAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

Ahem ok so the long and short of it is that all of this technology that they have come's from the previous era. So the armor and weapon's are all from a few century's ago. And just like that wallah no more gun's.




James 剣 斧 血 said:


> Not trying to be a massive downer btw, the weapons are cool but in terms of realism they're always going to be difficult to justify.


Hey i'm fine with the critique. All it does is make me a better writer by taking your advice and making the proper change's to make the story work.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jan 7, 2016)

Oh i should also mention that the plasma sword is hooked up to a suit of powered armor. Is is fed plasma through a tube that connects the hilt of the blade to the on board plasma reactor that power's the suit. This specific suit's name is EXcalibur. just FYI.


----------



## Cran (Jan 7, 2016)

If it's a return to the middle or dark ages, then basic black powder (early gunpowder) is still the winner. The recipes, said to be originally from China, were known in the Middle East by the 13th Century, in Europe by the 14th, and in military use by the 15th. Saltpetre (potassium nitrate) and sulfur were easy to find and refine, and charcoal can be made anywhere there is wood.

Before then, other incendiaries were known and used, going all the way back to the classical Greeks and their contemporaries.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jan 7, 2016)

Cran said:


> If it's a return to the middle or dark ages, then basic black powder (early gunpowder) is still the winner.



Not really. We have modern day body armor that's bullet proof. So futuristic powered armor would render any 15th century firearm or modern and futuristic firearm useless.


----------



## JustRob (Jan 8, 2016)

Rojack79 said:


> Not really. We have modern day body armor that's bullet proof. So futuristic powered armor would render any 15th century firearm or modern and futuristic firearm useless.



Simple passive body armour has limited capabilities. It merely distributes the energy of a bullet across a wider area of the target to prevent any severe local damage, but the wearer is still thrown back by the aggregate effect. The human skull is passive armour for the brain. It similarly distributes any blow but the brain can still suffer inertial damage from a simple punch. The passive armour does not itself render kinetic weapons useless. That is achieved by active strategy as demonstrated in martial arts, where the kinetic energy is deflected or adapted to another purpose. Futuristic powered armour would no doubt contain integrated strategic intelligence which would enable it to protect the wearer more effectively. This implies that it would operate autonomously. In that case, where does the sword fit in? Is it a weapon used solely at the discretion of the armour wearer for a purpose other than self-defence? That seems likely as if it were defensive it would be a component of the integrated mechanism of the armour and not a weapon consciously controlled by the holder. Think in terms of a shield with a spike set in the centre endowed with intelligence.

In traditional swords and sorcery stories great swords are considered to have their own spirits and motives, sometimes acting almost of their own volition to fulfil these. An integrated futuristic personal defence system would have similar characteristics and can almost be considered to be a separate character from the one using it. In your situation I would give some thought to the relationship between the technology and its user and their respective motivations, but then I am a computer systems designer and see even our present world in those terms. Even now the idea that any powered device would lack its own built-in intelligence is becoming unthinkable.


----------



## Cran (Jan 8, 2016)

Rojack79 said:


> Not really. We have modern day body armor that's bullet proof. So futuristic powered armor would render any 15th century firearm or modern and futuristic firearm useless.


Only until they get their hands on and manufacture tubes and projectiles of the same materials as your swords and armor. A tube-directed explosive delivers a blow further, faster, and harder, than any arm swing or thrust.


----------



## JustRob (Jan 8, 2016)

Cran said:


> Only until they get their hands on and manufacture tubes and projectiles of the same materials as your swords and armor. A tube-directed explosive delivers a blow further, faster, and harder, than any arm swing or thrust.



Exactly. That is why the armour must have integrated intelligence to counter such an attack. Simple passive properties are not enough.

By the way, I am warming to my proposed sword made of four dimensional carbon five fibres. If the sheath were also four dimensional then when sheathed the sword blade would apparently disappear from our three dimensions. Very handy, that. Also, by using the flat of the blade one could very well knock someone into the middle of next week, quite literally. That would put them out of action for a few days. Oh, don't get me going on this.


----------



## Bishop (Jan 8, 2016)

Rojack79 said:


> Not really. We have modern day body armor that's bullet proof. So futuristic powered armor would render any 15th century firearm or modern and futuristic firearm useless.



I'm really confused. If their tech level is plasma swords and power armor, you're not in the middle ages. You just can't be. Most historical ages are at the very least partially defined by their technology level. So if there's power armor of that level, and they've mastered that type of plasma technology, I have a very hard time believing everyone shrugged their shoulders and never tried to invent a gun.

Part of the major appeal of firearms is not just superiority, but the lack of need for training. An army can be trained to shoot even rudimentary firearms in a fraction of the time it takes to learn how to wield a sword effectively. So it seems in a post apocalyptic setting, where every minute is an attempt to survive, the people wouldn't be taking two years out of their life to become effective swordsmen.

Historically speaking, the colonial era speaks to the effectiveness as well. When Europeans with single-shot, powder load guns would invade a more primitive society to colonize it, there was no contest. This is why, in real life, the Ewoks would have been slaughtered by the Empire, and the Navi would have been exterminated by the marines. Film, video games, and other mediums have given us a skewed impression of these kinds of events--partly because we want the good guy to win, and the guy killing natives is usually the bad guy. There's a reason General Custer's fall remains so famous: He was one of the very few from an advanced society to be bested by a more primitive force.

But focusing again on what you're saying for your work: the society has highly advanced swords and power armor. That means, they have a way to store large amounts of energy (to power the suits) and the ability to harness plasma for offensive purposes. The next logical step (if we're looking at ONLY those two technologies in this case) is someone would easily invent a way to shoot that plasma. Firing it even a short distance gives the shooter a massive advantage over a foe with a sword. So it stands to reason that if they are able to harness that level of energy, with that engineering capability, they can make some type of projectile out of it. To me, this is like saying they've invented motorcycles, but car technology is out of the question.

Also, if the power armor is so strong that it can stop bullets/lasers/superheated plasma projectiles/phasers... how the hell is the sword cutting through it? Swords move a fraction of the speed of these projectiles, meaning it impacts with far, far less force. The sword's advantage is its capability to slice, but even the most primitive metals and rock can stop slicing. If it's a plasma sword, and that's why it gets through the armor, then you've got a very uphill battle convincing the reader that plasma shots from a gun would be stopped.

And, now that I'm rambling, I'll close things by saying: going against natural technological evolution, at least in what we as humanity have observed, is a dangerous game in world-building. For every one aspect you want to alter, there's ten explanations as to why it's illogically structured, and even then, you're risking getting caught up in your own logic.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jan 8, 2016)

Bishop said:


> I'm really confused. If their tech level is plasma swords and power armor, you're not in the middle ages. You just can't be. Most historical ages are at the very least partially defined by their technology level. So if there's power armor of that level, and they've mastered that type of plasma technology, I have a very hard time believing everyone shrugged their shoulders and never tried to invent a gun.


Ok i'm going to try and explain all of this confusion away. Sorry for the confusion in the first place. Also this idea just hit me like a ton of brick's so here is the reason the technology is all over the place. The story pick's up in the year 557 X.E. or 500+ years after the fall of humanity. Humanity has regressed back to a middle age's era. So they don't have any advanced tech other than maybe a few new metal's and other material's to experiment with for weapon's and armor. Now at this time the good ole U.S. of A. is split up into several different kingdom's. More on that later but suffice to say that they are all at the same technology level, middle age's. All of this High tech equipment is going to be buried in the ruins of long forgotten city's and in the ruble of military base's. So people will have to go out of the safety of there castle's to find this rare technology. 



Bishop said:


> Part of the major appeal of firearms is not just superiority, but the lack of need for training. An army can be trained to shoot even rudimentary firearms in a fraction of the time it takes to learn how to wield a sword effectively. So it seems in a post apocalyptic setting, where every minute is an attempt to survive, the people wouldn't be taking two years out of their life to become effective swordsmen.


Now i am going to subvert this by saying that gun's are still around but they aren't as useful to the people of this era for several reason's. 1. There simply is not enough ammo left in the post apocalyptic world. 2. The people of this era can't manufacturer more because the knowledge has been lost. There is a reason for this. 3. They don't have enough fire arm's to arm every single soldier they have with a gun so only high ranking official's will be aloud to wield gun's.



Bishop said:


> Historically speaking, the colonial era speaks to the effectiveness as well. When Europeans with single-shot, powder load guns would invade a more primitive society to colonize it, there was no contest. This is why, in real life, the Ewoks would have been slaughtered by the Empire, and the Navi would have been exterminated by the marines. Film, video games, and other mediums have given us a skewed impression of these kinds of events--partly because we want the good guy to win, and the guy killing natives is usually the bad guy. There's a reason General Custer's fall remains so famous: He was one of the very few from an advanced society to be bested by a more primitive force.


I have to point out that most of the "Native's" in my story can just shrug off a bullet like it is nothing. Mostly because they are super mutant's, robot's, and alien being's from mar's. 



Bishop said:


> But focusing again on what you're saying for your work: the society has highly advanced swords and power armor. That means, they have a way to store large amounts of energy (to power the suits) and the ability to harness plasma for offensive purposes. The next logical step (if we're looking at ONLY those two technologies in this case) is someone would easily invent a way to shoot that plasma. Firing it even a short distance gives the shooter a massive advantage over a foe with a sword. So it stands to reason that if they are able to harness that level of energy, with that engineering capability, they can make some type of projectile out of it. To me, this is like saying they've invented motorcycles, but car technology is out of the question.



Again sorry for the confusion. Hope the explanation above help's out.



Bishop said:


> Also, if the power armor is so strong that it can stop bullets/lasers/superheated plasma projectiles/phasers... how the hell is the sword cutting through it? Swords move a fraction of the speed of these projectiles, meaning it impacts with far, far less force. The sword's advantage is its capability to slice, but even the most primitive metals and rock can stop slicing. If it's a plasma sword, and that's why it gets through the armor, then you've got a very uphill battle convincing the reader that plasma shots from a gun would be stopped.


Ah yes. Ok so i can't remember if i said this before or not but the suit's of armor have an EM Field surrounding them that block high velocity damage like bullet's from harming the individual. Noe that being said i have a contradiction in my own logic. If the suit's are surrounded by an EM force field then how will a plasma sword get through? Answer it will have a tough time doing so dew to the blade's own EM Field. So in order to ret con this mistake i think i will go with saying that the EXcalibur Suit come's equipped with a heat sword. That way it will be able to bypass the other suit's EM shield's.



Bishop said:


> And, now that I'm rambling, I'll close things by saying: going against natural technological evolution, at least in what we as humanity have observed, is a dangerous game in world-building. For every one aspect you want to alter, there's ten explanations as to why it's illogically structured, and even then, you're risking getting caught up in your own logic.


Yes i am seeing that but hey thanks for the challenge of having to come up with way's to go against natural technological evolution. In the end i'll be a better writer for being able to come with way's of making my world stick. Clearing out all of the contradiction's and logic hole's will only make my story that much better and more complete.


----------



## Bishop (Jan 8, 2016)

Rojack79 said:


> Humanity has regressed back to a middle age's era. So they don't have any advanced tech other than maybe a few new metal's and other material's to experiment with for weapon's and armor. Now at this time the good ole U.S. of A. is split up into several different kingdom's. More on that later but suffice to say that they are all at the same technology level, middle age's. All of this High tech equipment is going to be buried in the ruins of long forgotten city's and in the ruble of military base's. So people will have to go out of the safety of there castle's to find this rare technology.



What caused the fall of humanity? Because even the most total of disasters would leave remnants of the old world behind. 500 years is not long enough for everything to naturally decay away (think about it, 500 year old guns and cannons still work). And if this tech is from a past (when humanity had this tech) then it stands to reason they had guns matching that technology. Even if not--if they knew of guns/had guns, then 500 years later, no one on Earth has cracked the design for a new gun? Think about it--in 500 years on Earth, humanity went from swords, bows, arrows, and castles to the digital age, globalization, nuclear weapons, and five-inch devices in your pocket that can access the whole of human knowledge and communication. You'd have to explain why society never rebuilt itself, why no one wanted to progress to make the world better.

It also forgoes all knowledge of the old world. Monarchy, as a concept, and middle ages serfdom/fealty systems of government are (mostly) eradicated for a reason. Regressing to it means that not a single historical record survived, and in a world where supercomputer data centers store the extent of human knowledge, that's hard to believe as well. I have a tough enough time swallowing it in Mad Max, and that has my girl Charlize Theron.



Rojack79 said:


> Now i am going to subvert this by saying that gun's are still around but they aren't as useful to the people of this era for several reason's. 1. There simply is not enough ammo left in the post apocalyptic world. 2. The people of this era can't manufacturer more because the knowledge has been lost. There is a reason for this. 3. They don't have enough fire arm's to arm every single soldier they have with a gun so only high ranking official's will be aloud to wield gun's.



Ammunition is actually remarkably easy to make. Trust me, if they had the knowledge of bullets and shell casings, they could recreate them with a forge and some gunpowder. BUT, you're talking about remnants from a society with weapons so advanced they can harness plasma and superheated materials, so the odds of them still using basic ballistics are low.

The real question you'd have to answer is why the old technology doesn't include advanced weaponry. That makes no sense, especially if they're looting military installations. No organized military after (around) the eighteenth century would prioritize swords over guns. None, nada, zilch. THAT'S why I don't believe it. You'd have to make it so that as we advance as people, we stop using guns and all switch to swords. All research in weapons technology goes from smart guns and homing bullets to swords. Right now, there's research for a gun called the *XM-25 Airburst*, which has a computer that detects the range of the enemy target, fires a projectile that then explodes when it is in proximity of the target. Why would I, as a military unit, put that down and pick up a katana? Why wouldn't I, in my weapons research, fill those rounds with superheat or plasma to explode on my enemy from hundreds of meters away? I'd have to stop working on that and instead begin designing a new sword to do far, far less with the same level of technology. Logically, no one would allocate resources to that.

This sort of logic is ignored in things like video games and anime because they're incredibly pulpy. I love video games, but they're not striving for realism. Their worldbuilding is entirely for the "cool" factor. That doesn't work in novels. Swordplay in movies, video games... it _looks _cool, so we like watching it. But in novels, that visual element is lost. We're left with only the logic. Logic dictates that the progression of weapons technology goes to the most efficient, deadliest, and safest for the user.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jan 8, 2016)

Bishop said:


> What caused the fall of humanity?


The fall of humanity is a long and complex process in my book. The simplest answer i can give with out doing an info dump is that several apocalyptic event's happened one after another to the earth within a 30 year span of time. Thank's to those event's humanity is no longer the dominate specie's on earth and all knowledge of previous civilization's has been lost. So no more technology or science to be had except for what's leftover from the previous inhabitant's.



Bishop said:


> Because even the most total of disasters would leave remnants of the old world behind. 500 years is not long enough for everything to naturally decay away (think about it, 500 year old guns and cannons still work). And if this tech is from a past (when humanity had this tech) then it stands to reason they had guns matching that technology. Even if not--if they knew of guns/had guns, then 500 years later, no one on Earth has cracked the design for a new gun? Think about it--in 500 years on Earth, humanity went from swords, bows, arrows, and castles to the digital age, globalization, nuclear weapons, and five-inch devices in your pocket that can access the whole of human knowledge and communication. You'd have to explain why society never rebuilt itself, why no one wanted to progress to make the world better.


Most of the energy weapon's in the story are going to be experimental weapon's. That's why there are no energy gun's. Humanity was still using basic firearms technology. The bullet's might have a different propellant from gunpowder but the method of delivery is still the same. There are no more electronic's. There's no power to run anything that use's electricity. Granted by the time the book take place there might be some way of powering electronic's but i would have to think real hard on how that would play into the story.



Bishop said:


> It also forgoes all knowledge of the old world. Monarchy, as a concept, and middle ages serfdom/fealty systems of government are (mostly) eradicated for a reason. Regressing to it means that not a single historical record survived, and in a world where supercomputer data centers store the extent of human knowledge, that's hard to believe as well. I have a tough enough time swallowing it in Mad Max, and that has my girl Charlize Theron.


There are super computer's in my book but there dead and even is the character's could get them working there's no more data on them. All technological data storage device's have been wiped clean.




Bishop said:


> Ammunition is actually remarkably easy to make. Trust me, if they had the knowledge of bullets and shell casings, they could recreate them with a forge and some gunpowder. BUT, you're talking about remnants from a society with weapons so advanced they can harness plasma and superheated materials, so the odds of them still using basic ballistics are low.


Huh i have to admit that i realy didn't know they were that easy to make. 



Bishop said:


> The real question you'd have to answer is why the old technology doesn't include advanced weaponry. That makes no sense, especially if they're looting military installations. No organized military after (around) the eighteenth century would prioritize swords over guns. None, nada, zilch. THAT'S why I don't believe it. You'd have to make it so that as we advance as people, we stop using guns and all switch to swords. All research in weapons technology goes from smart guns and homing bullets to swords. Right now, there's research for a gun called the *XM-25 Airburst*, which has a computer that detects the range of the enemy target, fires a projectile that then explodes when it is in proximity of the target. Why would I, as a military unit, put that down and pick up a katana? Why wouldn't I, in my weapons research, fill those rounds with superheat or plasma to explode on my enemy from hundreds of meters away? I'd have to stop working on that and instead begin designing a new sword to do far, far less with the same level of technology. Logically, no one would allocate resources to that.


The bladed weapon's are a practicality thought up during the Fall. The government thought it would be better to create a heat weapon that could be used over and over again instead of shooting a creature/robot with hundred's and hundred's of rounds of molten/explosive ammo. At least that's my hand wave for it. But this Pre Fall society didn't have the technology to create man portable ranged energy weapon's. They have a few experimental weapon's that could fit on some of there Giant Robot's but that's all they had in term's of portable energy weapon's. Now i did have an idea to give the Pre-Fall world thermite round's, bullet's that would be coated in a light layer of thermite that would ignite when the bullet left the barrel of the gun, but i figured these would be to ridicules to put in the book.



Bishop said:


> This sort of logic is ignored in things like video games and anime because they're incredibly pulpy. I love video games, but they're not striving for realism. Their worldbuilding is entirely for the "cool" factor. That doesn't work in novels. Swordplay in movies, video games... it _looks _cool, so we like watching it. But in novels, that visual element is lost. We're left with only the logic. Logic dictates that the progression of weapons technology goes to the most efficient, deadliest, and safest for the user.


Honestly i fail to see why a story can't have the cool factor and still be logical. And as for the visual element being lost in novel's i have to disagree on that statement. If one can write a story that is so descriptive as to make the reader feel like there right there with the character's that's pretty darn good in my opinion.


----------



## Bishop (Jan 8, 2016)

At this point, we're somewhat talking in circles; my advice moving forward would be to focus hard on the one key factor that really puts the weapon above guns, that it effectively has infinite ammunition. I still think a literary crowd will have a hard time swallowing it, but focusing there gives you some ground to stand on.

I would also carefully consider power and its place in your world. An _incredible _and I mean, almost planetary destruction levels of incredible, force or series of forces would be required to destroy all technology. Think about how much of the world is cities/buildings/bases/technology. Nature, nukes, or aliens? It still wouldn't wipe out everything, or even enough that societies afterward would have no knowledge of it.

And in 500 years, someone would have rediscovered and adapted electricity if there were any remnant of tech that used it. That's an inevitability of any technological progression.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jan 8, 2016)

Well i see the wisdom in your word's and will definitely put some thought into the world at large as i write this story. I just hope i can pull off writing something of this size, scope, and magnitude.


----------



## Cran (Jan 8, 2016)

All of this depends on how much you care about being realistic or logical. As Bishop said, video games and anime (and comics made movies, and most science fiction for that matter) don't care about that. If you want to write a Fallout type of world, then go for it. If you want to put Skyrim into Fallout, then that's your thing. Do it well enough and people will enjoy it.

But do avoid then trying to explain your history, because to write a future history of Earth, you really do need to know something about Earth's history. 

That does mean things like it's dead easy to make bullets or to deconstruct and reconstruct most common firearms; chemical bombs are easier still. But that also means knowing that the ancient Egyptians knew how to make chemical batteries and DC electricity (with flattened copper strips and vinegar or lemon juice in clay jars). Wind or water-generated electricity is a simple do from Dark Ages technology. Gas and steam technologies are also basic, so mechanical power and the means to generate electricity in just about any isolated community is very difficult to stamp out. Even Mad Max knew that.

It means knowing that the ancient Greeks had developed a chemical incendiary which which burned on water (we call it Greek fire). It means knowing the Chinese were studying and making fireworks and black powder recipes in the tenth century. It means knowing that the cutting edge of metallurgy was well ahead of its common use, that making iron and steel implements predated the Iron Age, for instance. It means knowing that chemical and biological warfare were going on long before we had names for them.

What you are wanting to do is recreate the historical collapses, falls to barbarism or dark ages, but the big difference between those times and ours is the spread of literacy and information, not to mention material. The recent estimate of 300 million firearms in the United States alone will be hard to eradicate, and still leave anyone alive to tell about it.

Even then, those historical collapses were never global, only regional. When Europe floundered with knowledge stagnated and restricted to the religious elite, the Middle East flourished. As each great civilisation collapsed, another was rising, and knowledge was retained and built upon overall. 

So, what you're looking for is a smaller scale reversion, or a _diabolus ex machina_ - a convenient catastrophe that wipes out just enough of anything that opens up plot holes in the path you want to travel - which is the usual for post-apocalyptic settings. Just be vague about explanations, and you'll be like everyone else.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jan 8, 2016)

Cran said:


> All of this depends on how much you care about being realistic or logical. As Bishop said, video games and anime (and comics made movies, and most science fiction for that matter) don't care about that. If you want to write a Fallout type of world, then go for it. If you want to put Skyrim into Fallout, then that's your thing. Do it well enough and people will enjoy it.


The genre of story that i'm going for is a Low Fantasy story with some sci-fi in it.



Cran said:


> But do avoid then trying to explain your history, because to write a future history of Earth, you really do need to know something about Earth's history.


 I actually know quite a bit about earths history. 



Cran said:


> That does mean things like it's dead easy to make bullets or to deconstruct and reconstruct most common firearms; chemical bombs are easier still. But that also means knowing that the ancient Egyptians knew how to make chemical batteries and DC electricity (with flattened copper strips and vinegar or lemon juice in clay jars). Wind or water-generated electricity is a simple do from Dark Ages technology. Gas and steam technologies are also basic, so mechanical power and the means to generate electricity in just about any isolated community is very difficult to stamp out. Even Mad Max knew that.


I have to admit that i didn't know about the Egyptians having electricity. 



Cran said:


> It means knowing that the ancient Greeks had developed a chemical incendiary which which burned on water (we call it Greek fire). It means knowing the Chinese were studying and making fireworks and black powder recipes in the tenth century. It means knowing that the cutting edge of metallurgy was well ahead of its common use, that making iron and steel implements predated the Iron Age, for instance. It means knowing that chemical and biological warfare were going on long before we had names for them.


Now this i knew about. Greek Fire is still a mystery. 



Cran said:


> What you are wanting to do is recreate the historical collapses, falls to barbarism or dark ages, but the big difference between those times and ours is the spread of literacy and information, not to mention material. The recent estimate of 300 million firearms in the United States alone will be hard to eradicate, and still leave anyone alive to tell about it.


Meaning that i would have to find some way of making all of those firearm's useless without completely eradicating humanity?



Cran said:


> Even then, those historical collapses were never global, only regional. When Europe floundered with knowledge stagnated and restricted to the religious elite, the Middle East flourished. As each great civilisation collapsed, another was rising, and knowledge was retained and built upon overall.


That make's sense. So if i had one half of the U.S. Fall into a new dark age's it would make more sense for the other to keep going as normal?



Cran said:


> So, what you're looking for is a smaller scale reversion, or a _diabolus ex machina_ - a convenient catastrophe that wipes out just enough of anything that opens up plot holes in the path you want to travel - which is the usual for post-apocalyptic settings. Just be vague about explanations, and you'll be like everyone else.


So if i set my story in some random point in the future and say that some event happened but don't explain what it was that would be ok? Man who knew that destroying the world would be so difficult.


----------



## Cran (Jan 9, 2016)

Rojack79 said:


> The genre of story that i'm going for is a Low Fantasy story with some sci-fi in it.
> 
> I actually know quite a bit about earths history.
> 
> ...


No, only the actual recipe used by the ancient Greeks is lost. Greek fire variants turned up again in Medieval Europe and even in the 20th Century. 

The ingredients which make the fuel and physical properties (able to float, able to stick to objects struck, able to burn in the presence of water) are a couple of naturally occurring or easily made petroleum (hydrocarbon) products (bitumen and pitch), plant resin (some contain heptanes - explosive when heated), powdered sulfur and saltpeter (potassium nitrate is best, but sodium nitrate will do); the igniter is quicklime (calcium oxide), a highly reactive exothermic compound when introduced to water.

Of the many variants found and made for war, the one many of us recall with horror is napalm. 

The Egyptians knew about and used chemical batteries, although it appeared to be more for show - magic! or the power of the gods - than for anything like modern practical applications. Much more useful was their ability to make ice in summer.



> Meaning that i would have to find some way of making all of those firearm's useless without completely eradicating humanity?


Not all, perhaps, but enough that it would very hard to find enough of any to make sense of them. That won't stop anyone coming up with the basic idea for projectile weapons, but it would slow things down. 



> That make's sense. So if i had one half of the U.S. Fall into a new dark age's it would make more sense for the other to keep going as normal?
> 
> So if i set my story in some random point in the future and say that some event happened but don't explain what it was that would be ok? Man who knew that destroying the world would be so difficult.


If it were easy, I'm afraid that someone would have done it by now. 

People might be fragile, but humanity is as resilient as any species we know. Abstract thought and imagination, with usable thumbs, set us apart and give us the edge.

Give people a reason to stay isolated, and you'll have a whole bunch of Robinson* micro-nations.

_*Originally refers to Defoe's Robinson Crusoe_


----------



## JustRob (Jan 9, 2016)

Rojack79 said:


> The genre of story that i'm going for is a Low Fantasy story with some sci-fi in it.



That remark prompts me to mention Anne McCaffrey's stories about Pern yet again. She was a science fiction writer and yet these, her best known works, apparently have no science fiction in them at all. Her stories are about a society that has lost _all_ its past technology through lack of suitable resources and regular encounters with an undefeatable adversary. It is a very long time before the fact is revealed that the fantastic dragons in the stories are actually genetically modified creatures that have been reproducing ever since they were devised using that lost technology. Her stories work because they are self-consistent. There are no anachronistic remnants of the past technology left except for the odd incomprehensible non-functioning artifact. Once there is a breakthrough in discovering the old technology society changes very quickly. 

This is the point that others have made here, that it may be plausible to lose all technology and start again with swords and knives _or _retain a substantial amount of technology, but the idea of just some items being retained _and staying functional _in isolation is incongruous. In the Pern stories power sources for the old technology could not be or simply were not maintained because eventually they were not the key to survival. It was a matter of priorities. To a great extent technology reflects the perceived needs of society. Just as with the dragons of Pern, the technology that most likely survives does so because it is reproductive in its own right and the key component of that is humanity itself and the human brain, which can reconstruct all the rest as the need arises. All that is needed are the appropriate resources, as the _Riverworld_ stories by P J Farmer demonstrate. There all the great minds from history are available but the resources to apply them are extremely limited.

Most stories with incongruities in them such as yours have short term explanations as to how they came about and equally short term resolutions because they are fundamentally unstable. Often the device used is a selective apocalypse which suddenly changes the balance of society radically, such as in John Wyndham's _The Day of the Triffids _where most of humanity suddenly go blind. In such stories a new stable state is reached relatively quickly. I don't see how the situation in your story could have remained stable for long, unlike the stories about Pern.

It looks to me as though the choice is between a long term stable society carefully thought out or a short term unstable one where anything could happen. In the short term scenario the evolution of the weapons is irrelevant as they evolved to meet a different purpose and any conflict could prove to be very one-sided. Usually in that situation the interest is in how the imbalance is resolved during the period covered by the story to provide a stable situation in the future.

In my _future_ novel (just for a change) someone has a very ornamental dagger which happens to conceal electric stun technology in its blade. However, these are people who want to confuse time travellers about the era into which they have arrived, so to all appearances they are medieval and only as a last resort would they reveal their hidden technology. The real weapon is not the dagger itself but the surprise and confusion that using it would produce, disorienting the victim in several ways at once. Even if a traveller had a gun they could only use it as a lethal weapon and not a threat because the threatened people would probably pretend not to comprehend what it was. Anyway, killing someone in a time travel context can be pretty pointless whereas giving them a nasty shock can be very effective. The devices in a story ought to be consistent with the context.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 9, 2016)

Speaking of unexplainable events that change technology and therefore society . . .

An author by the name of Steven Boyett wrote a novel called "Ariel" in 1983.  In his book all modern technology suddenly ceased functioning.  There was no explaination and no reason.  Society broke down.  Soon mythical creatures emerged and further changed the way society worked.

As a reasonably scientifically minded person I struggled with the concept behind the book.  Why would the emergence of mythological beings and magic cause technology to stop working?  All of our technology is based upon physics and chemistry (which also breaks down to physics).  If the basic concepts of physics still work (gravity, chemical reactions, and magnetism are all shown to work) then our technology should have worked.  It is, because of this oversight, one of the worst and most inconsistent books I have ever read.  I chalked it up to the author not understanding the way technology works. (I've avoided his work since mostly because, by his own admittance, he has a terrible ego but that's another story).

My point, which only reinforces Rob's, is that for a story to work there needs to be a reasonable suspension of belief.  Mr. Boyett's did not have a reasonable suspension of belief--he stretched it too far for me.

Give a believable reason why guns shouldn't work properly in your world and why these high-tech swords do and your readers will believe it.  Without that believable reason your readers will be disappointed and annoyed.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jan 9, 2016)

Ok let me get this thread back on track. If'll make a new one so we can continue our discussion there but for now the original question was "Which of these sci-fi sword's is the most realistic, a Heat Sword, Vibero-Blade, or a Plasma Sword. So far people have said that the Vibro-Blade is the most realistic sighting the fact that it is the easiest to build. P.S. Here's the link to the new thread were we can discuss the technology level of a post apocalyptic world.


----------



## JustRob (Jan 10, 2016)

amsawtell said:


> As a reasonably scientifically minded person I struggled with the concept behind the book.  Why would the emergence of mythological beings and magic cause technology to stop working?  All of our technology is based upon physics and chemistry (which also breaks down to physics).



If it were a universal failure of the underpinnings of technology at the root level then humans would also cease to work and they would die. To make any sense the failure has to be selective as in the film _The Day The Earth Stood Still _where no life-threatening failures happen because the event is only a warning. Magic is if anything technology selectively guided by intent rather than impartial universal rules, so one can only comprehend the underlying rules determining the course of events if one knows the intent behind it.

It seems unlikely that the continued existence of the high technology swords described here can be attributed to enchantment though.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jan 10, 2016)

JustRob said:


> It seems unlikely that the continued existence of the high technology swords described here can be attributed to enchantment though.



Nope. These weapons are 100% technological.


----------

