Talk:Force field (technology)

Why is there that little tidbit about frogs levitating? What does that have to do with force fields? Benkaplan42 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

why nothing about telsa in this article? i'm not a wikipedian but it seems to me certainly worth a mention, even if a disclaimer of some sort. I'd rather read about tesla than lame list of pop culture sci-fi references. maybe this is a good starting point http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/antigravityworldgrid/ciencia_antigravityworldgrid09.htm (notice newspaper article etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.146.10 (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know who the first author to use a force field in fiction was, or if they have an original in mythology or fairy tales? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.185 (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good question. We don't know who first used the phrase.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

We do know, if we read what we write and cite:-) Staszek Lem (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wow, when I click the "John Slough" link, it takes me to the page of a Civil War commander... No wonder the Union won: they had force fields! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.229.20 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fixed! Sukael \o/ 20:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

In Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, there are instances when a player has to shut down a force-field, either by using a control system or destroying the emmitters. I thought it was relevant, since it's an example of a force field that can remain operational indefinitely.Thunderflame (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Numerous styles of force fields are used. Some are one-way, some protect against high-speed objects only, some maintain atmosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.79.126 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Examples need cleaning up, without some anon reverting it all. Under the 1RR I can't clean this up anymore.--Ryudo (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think this article is useless. Science fiction is more prominent in the wiki then the actual development in reality... --macro312 (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Pretty useless, but it has potential. In the fiction section, it's nothing but group of examples, and needs significant cleanup. Both sections would benefit from a clearer view of history. 70.247.169.197 (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've trimmed a lot of the article down, removing the in-depth explanation of the origins of force fields in different video games (Christ, but there was a lot of crufty garbage there), and simply noting that the games employed the concept of force fields. Furthermore, I tidied up and sorted the different references to ff by type of media.
As was mentioned before, a hell of a lot more information needs to be added to this article about real world research into actual experiments into force fields. Not only Tesla's work, but the close-to-reality microwave defensive fields (also called "Active Denial Systems") currently in development by the US military alone.
I think that, outside of video game applications, there appears to be a lack of focus on what, precisely a force field is supposed to be defined as. Is it a thing that blocks other things? Is it an invisibility shield? Is it a weapon? Until we address this lack of focus - or real world research into the concept - this article is going to suffer mightily. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I typed "force field" and was redirected to the article entitled Force Shield (which, as a lifelong lover of sci-fi, is a term I don't think I've ever heard used). The article immediately contradicts its own name: "a force field, sometimes known as a force shield". I'd change it, but no doubt some genius who thinks they own Wikipedia would simply switch it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.101.143 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's warranted that among all other meanings, especially the one in physics, this mostly fictional topic defaults as the "Force field" article. The most important meaning of this phrase is Force field (physics), so I propose that this article is moved to another title, and the Force field either redirect to the physics article, or to the disambiguation. I'm not sure how this article should be named then, perhaps something like "Force field (fiction)" or "...(speculated)" etc... Arny (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

This shouldn't be at "Force shield" either -- force field is a more common usage. It should be at Force field (TOPIC), though I have no idea what topic would be best fitted. --67.141.24.73 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Force field (fiction). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105175408/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/star-trek-style-starship-shields-could-become-reality/ to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/star-trek-style-starship-shields-could-become-reality/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130420044528/http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC2004_946/PV2004_3706.pdf to http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC2004_946/PV2004_3706.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Fel Laser driven with Gas are in close future a terrible High Energy Weapon and it look like nearly unshieldable. Mostly a pendant to fictional Phaser Beam. Forcing de/compressed Gases/Plasma as PseudoFree Electron Beam/Stream, energy can inducted throw thermo-kinetic cycles(Motor-Rot), as well as directly fusions driven with Magnetic Optical Tweezers. Depending on the compatibily of the wave lengths with the gas-contiuum stability during fusion process.

On of the last remaining options to prevent against the energy pike of such weapon is a HE-plasmic cage, build in static magnetic field or a rotating. til high frequencies.

loading reactively on pre-impact with Plasma by a Ion-Cannon, leads frequently to a insulated Lense Thirring MF Bubble and this is under some (regular) circumstance a Clause in Timespace(Cooper pairs Time Graph cycles), near to a Wormhole.(some form of Ball Lightning or Solar MF Bubbles are similar phenomens.)

Unless this is more fictional(10-30 years development during a great War), it results in amazing CGI Balances for Movies. Not only Lightwalls penetrated like a Hymen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.255.140.155 (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply