I'm surprised no-one else picked up on this. I find it interesting that they believe it will be as effective as a missile: I would have thought the lack of guidance and non-splody-boom-ness would be a big draw back.
Because they've been on the drawing board for such a long time. And with high accuracy, you don't need guidance. Let's just hope that they don't abandon their more 'conventional' cannons, in case of an EMP attack.
Check out 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' for non-splody projectiles in action.
Check out 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' for non-splody projectiles in action.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-01-18 03:42:35)
You do if the target moves erratically.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Because they've been on the drawing board for such a long time. And with high accuracy, you don't need guidance.
I suspect that these would be just as reliant as railguns on computer systems.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Let's just hope that they don't abandon their more 'conventional' cannons, in case of an EMP attack.
Great. Whilst we're at it, you can check out "Battletech" for information on FTL travel.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Check out 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' for non-splody projectiles in action.
Two words of advice to future Navy gunners:
Tinfoil underwear.
Tinfoil underwear.
For anybody who understands more about technology, physics, electronics and weaponry than me...
What are the chances of the technology being made handheld and being used by footsoldiers practically?
What are the chances of the technology being made handheld and being used by footsoldiers practically?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
They pretty much need a battery back on their backs. I bet it will still take time for it to be an Infantry weapon. But I would doubt, no matter how fast a bullet, it can't really do much damage to a ship.Flecco wrote:
For anybody who understands more about technology, physics, electronics and weaponry than me...
What are the chances of the technology being made handheld and being used by footsoldiers practically?
Have you seen Ghostbusters? LOLcyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
They pretty much need a battery back on their backs. I bet it will still take time for it to be an Infantry weapon. But I would doubt, no matter how fast a bullet, it can't really do much damage to a ship.
Very little it uses 35 kilojoules instead of 9 kilojoules used by Battleship artillery. Such a weapon would blow any soldier back and possibly kill them. Not to mention its weight. In a few years if we can advance the tech its very probable.Flecco wrote:
For anybody who understands more about technology, physics, electronics and weaponry than me...
What are the chances of the technology being made handheld and being used by footsoldiers practically?
1.21 Jiggawatts! We need a Flux Capacitor Marty!!!
Realistically, the only systems capable of powering rail guns exist in laboratories or on the decks of a US naval vessel outfitted with Nuclear reactors, at present. To scale down to an infantry-usuable weapon would take immense work, however, the gun would have no recoil like traditional cartridge-based rounds (correct me if I've interpreted the physics wrong), so it would be very interesting to tote about.
Realistically, the only systems capable of powering rail guns exist in laboratories or on the decks of a US naval vessel outfitted with Nuclear reactors, at present. To scale down to an infantry-usuable weapon would take immense work, however, the gun would have no recoil like traditional cartridge-based rounds (correct me if I've interpreted the physics wrong), so it would be very interesting to tote about.
I raised the question because I remember a debate about .50 cal shells on here and whether it was humane to use them and should they be used on battlefields against infantry (I was in agreement, all conventional weaponry should be allowed... including large caliber shells). If this technology became man portable, would the damage it would do to a person raise the same amount of controversy? Because I imagine it would have a similar affect to a .50 cal rifle/cannon.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
to fix the problem for infantry you could use high power capacitors that would be charged at a powerful energy source... these would then be used as ammunition in the portable railgun ... and to fix the recoil you could have the armature "blow back" when it reached the end of the "barrel" instead of stopping, causing an opposite force reducing the recoil greatly...spray_and_pray wrote:
Very little it uses 35 kilojoules instead of 9 kilojoules used by Battleship artillery. Such a weapon would blow any soldier back and possibly kill them. Not to mention its weight. In a few years if we can advance the tech its very probable.wrote:
For anybody who understands more about technology, physics, electronics and weaponry than me...
What are the chances of the technology being made and being used by practically?
anybody catch my idea?
btw- railguns have a slightly parabolic range of fire... like a sniper rifle, exept way more powerfull...
Last edited by IsaacLeavitt (2007-01-18 08:56:20)
Thats well cool, so lets say they fire it from a navy ship or whatever. Do they fire the projectile into the sky to rain down on the enemy or directly at the enemy?
The should make special boots so troops can bunny hop instead.
I could imagine the projectile entering and leaving your body so fast that it would create a vacuum effect on the exit wound making your insides follow the projectile outside the wound.Flecco wrote:
I raised the question because I remember a debate about .50 cal shells on here and whether it was humane to use them and should they be used on battlefields against infantry (I was in agreement, all conventional weaponry should be allowed... including large caliber shells). If this technology became man portable, would the damage it would do to a person raise the same amount of controversy? Because I imagine it would have a similar affect to a .50 cal rifle/cannon.
no way man are you crazy... the amount of kinetic energy behind this shell is so massive that the affect of impact would be comparable to an explosion... lol there wouldn't be an exit wound., nothing left to exit...rawls2 wrote:
I could imagine the projectile entering and leaving your body so fast that it would create a vacuum effect on the exit wound making your insides follow the projectile outside the wound.Flecco wrote:
I raised the question because I remember a debate about .50 cal shells on here and whether it was humane to use them and should they be used on battlefields against infantry (I was in agreement, all conventional weaponry should be allowed... including large caliber shells). If this technology became man portable, would the damage it would do to a person raise the same amount of controversy? Because I imagine it would have a similar affect to a .50 cal rifle/cannon.
Imagine it person here o now imagine this guy getting hit by a bullet which can travel 200 kilometres at high speed
-I-
---
This is what's left of the person .......... a bullet travelling as fast as these are supposed to wont leave anything. The whole entire body would be ripped to shreds and spread over a giant area. One the bullet hits him it would send a ripple breaking all his bones shattering all his internal organs.
-I-
---
This is what's left of the person .......... a bullet travelling as fast as these are supposed to wont leave anything. The whole entire body would be ripped to shreds and spread over a giant area. One the bullet hits him it would send a ripple breaking all his bones shattering all his internal organs.
Doesn't that depend on the size of the projectile though? Say they only used needles/thin razor blades... (Yes, did take the idea from somewhere else)spray_and_pray wrote:
Imagine it person here o now imagine this guy getting hit by a bullet which can travel 200 kilometres at high speed
-I-
---
This is what's left of the person .......... a bullet travelling as fast as these are supposed to wont leave anything. The whole entire body would be ripped to shreds and spread over a giant area. One the bullet hits him it would send a ripple breaking all his bones shattering all his internal organs.
In any case, somebody will try to ban it...
Last edited by Flecco (2007-01-18 09:43:58)
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
This is where physics gets involved e=mc2 can do that calculation say you have a small rock and it hits a car travelling at 200 kilometres per hour it will pretty much destroy it. Now a larger brick hitting a car at lets say 50 kilometres per hour. It can do less or the same amount of damage to the car as the rock. In e=mc2 it uses 2 things to figure out the energy. Mass and Speed, SpeedxMass=energy. If you have enough speed to counter a small mass it will do the job. I also beleive the bullets will be sized like .50 cal rounds 7.62mm or 5.56mm I doubt they would use anything smaller.Flecco wrote:
Doesn't that depend on the size of the projectile though? Say they only used needles/thin razor blades... (Yes, did take the idea from somewhere else)spray_and_pray wrote:
Imagine it person here o now imagine this guy getting hit by a bullet which can travel 200 kilometres at high speed
-I-
---
This is what's left of the person .......... a bullet travelling as fast as these are supposed to wont leave anything. The whole entire body would be ripped to shreds and spread over a giant area. One the bullet hits him it would send a ripple breaking all his bones shattering all his internal organs.
In any case, somebody will try to ban it...
Warhammer 40K Eldar guns?Flecco wrote:
Doesn't that depend on the size of the projectile though? Say they only used needles/thin razor blades... (Yes, did take the idea from somewhere else)In any case, somebody will try to ban it...
Nope, it's all amount mass and velocity.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
But I would doubt, no matter how fast a bullet, it can't really do much damage to a ship.
Last edited by Ilocano (2007-01-18 10:38:21)
Yeah, because I always thought they would hurt.... Alot.Ilocano wrote:
Warhammer 40K Eldar guns?Flecco wrote:
Doesn't that depend on the size of the projectile though? Say they only used needles/thin razor blades... (Yes, did take the idea from somewhere else)In any case, somebody will try to ban it...
Spray and pray, I know basic physics... I didn't sleep through all my physics classes last year.... I am pretty hopeless when it comes to applying it though.
Wonder what those dastardly commies will come up with to defend against this...
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
sorry to tell you but you are wrong. c = speed of light. relativistic effects dont really start until about 0.8 speed of light. nothing humans ever build goes nearly as fast as this. what you where thinking about was momentum (=speed x mass). something completely different.spray_and_pray wrote:
This is where physics gets involved e=mc2 can do that calculation say you have a small rock and it hits a car travelling at 200 kilometres per hour it will pretty much destroy it. Now a larger brick hitting a car at lets say 50 kilometres per hour. It can do less or the same amount of damage to the car as the rock. In e=mc2 it uses 2 things to figure out the energy. Mass and Speed, SpeedxMass=energy. If you have enough speed to counter a small mass it will do the job. I also beleive the bullets will be sized like .50 cal rounds 7.62mm or 5.56mm I doubt they would use anything smaller.Flecco wrote:
Doesn't that depend on the size of the projectile though? Say they only used needles/thin razor blades... (Yes, did take the idea from somewhere else)spray_and_pray wrote:
Imagine it person here o now imagine this guy getting hit by a bullet which can travel 200 kilometres at high speed
-I-
---
This is what's left of the person .......... a bullet travelling as fast as these are supposed to wont leave anything. The whole entire body would be ripped to shreds and spread over a giant area. One the bullet hits him it would send a ripple breaking all his bones shattering all his internal organs.
In any case, somebody will try to ban it...
EDIT: also that there is no recoil is also sort of wrong. there wouldnt be the usual kick because no exploded gases have to go anywhere, but newtonian physics still apply. there would be an equal (to the force exerted onto the "bullet" to make it accelerate) but opposite (direction) force pushing the gun backwards
Last edited by max (2007-01-18 10:47:45)
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
Nah, a railgun would have recoil. A projectile is still launched forward, pushing the gun itself backwards in reaction. There's no actual explosion in the gun however, so that might make the gun easier to control.Magius5.0 wrote:
1.21 Jiggawatts! We need a Flux Capacitor Marty!!!
Realistically, the only systems capable of powering rail guns exist in laboratories or on the decks of a US naval vessel outfitted with Nuclear reactors, at present. To scale down to an infantry-usuable weapon would take immense work, however, the gun would have no recoil like traditional cartridge-based rounds (correct me if I've interpreted the physics wrong), so it would be very interesting to tote about.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
C=speed of light squared thankyou very much the speed of light being the fastest speed anything can acheive http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/emc1.htm however you are correct I selected the wrong calculation I did only 4 years of Nutonian about 7 years ago and have forgotten most. Can you point me out to the correct calc?max wrote:
sorry to tell you but you are wrong. c = speed of light. relativistic effects dont really start until about 0.8 speed of light. nothing humans ever build goes nearly as fast as this. what you where thinking about was impulse (=speed x mass). something completely different.spray_and_pray wrote:
This is where physics gets involved e=mc2 can do that calculation say you have a small rock and it hits a car travelling at 200 kilometres per hour it will pretty much destroy it. Now a larger brick hitting a car at lets say 50 kilometres per hour. It can do less or the same amount of damage to the car as the rock. In e=mc2 it uses 2 things to figure out the energy. Mass and Speed, SpeedxMass=energy. If you have enough speed to counter a small mass it will do the job. I also beleive the bullets will be sized like .50 cal rounds 7.62mm or 5.56mm I doubt they would use anything smaller.Flecco wrote:
Doesn't that depend on the size of the projectile though? Say they only used needles/thin razor blades... (Yes, did take the idea from somewhere else)
In any case, somebody will try to ban it...
1 sec I think I have the correct calc ENERGY equals mass times the speed of light squared. researching. Let me get out my old books and ill be with you.
Momentum is mass times speed but energy is mass times speed squared. If I had 35 kilojoules of energy going at lets say 10 000 kilometres per hour the calc would be 35 X10 000 squared. Im quite sure my calculation is right.
Last edited by spray_and_pray (2007-01-18 10:45:45)
nope c = speed of lightspray_and_pray wrote:
C=speed of light squared thankyou very much the speed of light being the fastest speed anything can acheive http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/emc1.htm however you are correct I selected the wrong calculation I did only 4 years of Nutonian about 7 years ago and have forgotten most. Can you point me out to the correct calc?max wrote:
sorry to tell you but you are wrong. c = speed of light. relativistic effects dont really start until about 0.8 speed of light. nothing humans ever build goes nearly as fast as this. what you where thinking about was impulse (=speed x mass). something completely different.spray_and_pray wrote:
This is where physics gets involved e=mc2 can do that calculation say you have a small rock and it hits a car travelling at 200 kilometres per hour it will pretty much destroy it. Now a larger brick hitting a car at lets say 50 kilometres per hour. It can do less or the same amount of damage to the car as the rock. In e=mc2 it uses 2 things to figure out the energy. Mass and Speed, SpeedxMass=energy. If you have enough speed to counter a small mass it will do the job. I also beleive the bullets will be sized like .50 cal rounds 7.62mm or 5.56mm I doubt they would use anything smaller.
1 sec I think I have the correct calc ENERGY equals mass times the speed of light squared. researching. Let me get out my old books and ill be with you.
e= m x (c^2) not mass x speed of light ^4 as what you said would imply
_______________________________________
to calculate the force exerted my the soldier when fireing the weapon = mass bullet x acceleration of the bullet. the acceleration of the soldier when fireing the weapon when shooting (assuming no friction) = mass bullet x acceleration bullet / mass soldier
Last edited by max (2007-01-18 10:51:39)
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
Id have 750 000 kilojoules of energy if the projectile produced 35 kilojoules and travelled at 10 000 kmph I think this is also roughly the speed that a rail gun bullet would travel at. If anyone can get the amount of kilojoules a small arms rifle produces and times it by its speed then square it you will get the amount of energy it has and will be able to compare it. One second im looking through M82 statistics.