But still negligible when you consider the weight ratio of the projectile versus the railgun. Now, if you introduced superconductor projectiles into this equation, how much less recoil would there be?LaidBackNinja wrote:
Sorry to say funk, but you are wrong.
Every action causes an opposite reaction. If you and I are both on ice, and I give you a push, not only would I push you back, but I would also move in the opposite direction. Same with any kind of projectile weapon. The weapon 'pushes' the projectile forward, and the projectile 'pushes' the weapon backwards. Hence, recoil.
This is all quite basic physics here. Friction and air resistance and whatnot have nothing to do with this.
It all depends on how much you would have to change all the other factors to get the superconductor projectiles point being it would still create recoil.Ilocano wrote:
But still negligible when you consider the weight ratio of the projectile versus the railgun. Now, if you introduced superconductor projectiles into this equation, how much less recoil would there be?LaidBackNinja wrote:
Sorry to say funk, but you are wrong.
Every action causes an opposite reaction. If you and I are both on ice, and I give you a push, not only would I push you back, but I would also move in the opposite direction. Same with any kind of projectile weapon. The weapon 'pushes' the projectile forward, and the projectile 'pushes' the weapon backwards. Hence, recoil.
This is all quite basic physics here. Friction and air resistance and whatnot have nothing to do with this.
Now here is a thing to think about is it possible to create a weapon that can kill a person without it having to obey newtons 3rd law? It would have to be like some sort of a laser beam thingo. Heh too much thinking for 5 in the morning.
Ilocano is right. I do have a grasp on basic and even advanced physics. I have taken 2 years of basic physics in HS, Physics 1,2, and 3 in college, which includes electromagnetism. And I have also taken electromagnetic field theory, the principle by which railguns operate.Ilocano wrote:
But still negligible when you consider the weight ratio of the projectile versus the railgun. Now, if you introduced superconductor projectiles into this equation, how much less recoil would there be?LaidBackNinja wrote:
Sorry to say funk, but you are wrong.
Every action causes an opposite reaction. If you and I are both on ice, and I give you a push, not only would I push you back, but I would also move in the opposite direction. Same with any kind of projectile weapon. The weapon 'pushes' the projectile forward, and the projectile 'pushes' the weapon backwards. Hence, recoil.
This is all quite basic physics here. Friction and air resistance and whatnot have nothing to do with this.
So, like I said, there IS recoil, but it is VERY small, to the point where you could consider it nonexistant. The rails do not physically push the projectile, the electromagnetic field created by the rails does. This electromagnetic field travels with the projectile until it leaves the rails. Therefore, if the projectile would try to resist the electromagnetic field, it would only do so for a miniscule amount of time until it is switched off again and turned on further down the rails. The amount that the projectile would push back against the field is tiny. Now, if were talkign about warships firign railguns, the mass of the rails and ship would FAR exceed the projectile, even at tremendous speeds, hence, the recoil is negligable.
Do not confuse newtonian physics with electromagnetism. While the same basic concepts apply, there are many other factors at work
You already said it. A laser beam is 100% accurate, gives no recoil. Downside is the range, because if the range doubles, the power becomes four times as small. That would only work for short range. Then there is also that awesome destructive sound-wave thing, but I'm not sure if that could ever become portable.spray_and_pray wrote:
It all depends on how much you would have to change all the other factors to get the superconductor projectiles point being it would still create recoil.Ilocano wrote:
But still negligible when you consider the weight ratio of the projectile versus the railgun. Now, if you introduced superconductor projectiles into this equation, how much less recoil would there be?LaidBackNinja wrote:
Sorry to say funk, but you are wrong.
Every action causes an opposite reaction. If you and I are both on ice, and I give you a push, not only would I push you back, but I would also move in the opposite direction. Same with any kind of projectile weapon. The weapon 'pushes' the projectile forward, and the projectile 'pushes' the weapon backwards. Hence, recoil.
This is all quite basic physics here. Friction and air resistance and whatnot have nothing to do with this.
Now here is a thing to think about is it possible to create a weapon that can kill a person without it having to obey newtons 3rd law? It would have to be like some sort of a laser beam thingo. Heh too much thinking for 5 in the morning.
Wait. I got it.
A KNIFE.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
Just remember that:
Force 1 = - Force 2
Force 1 = - Force 2
Regarding personal damage:
In order for that 8Kg slug to actually cause that massive amount of damage onto a person, all of its energy needs to be transfered into the person. A Person is not dense enough to stop an object traveling at that high a speed. Haven't you ever noticed how a "normal" bullet explodes inside a person, where as an armored piercing round punches right through them? Its the same way, the slug would pass through the person, burn them from the friction generated, and create a vacuum as it exits.
The Slug would only strike one person as well, and it would pass through the entire body of the person before it strikes the ground, as the weapon is designed to fire like artillery, straight up then come crashing down.
In order for that 8Kg slug to actually cause that massive amount of damage onto a person, all of its energy needs to be transfered into the person. A Person is not dense enough to stop an object traveling at that high a speed. Haven't you ever noticed how a "normal" bullet explodes inside a person, where as an armored piercing round punches right through them? Its the same way, the slug would pass through the person, burn them from the friction generated, and create a vacuum as it exits.
The Slug would only strike one person as well, and it would pass through the entire body of the person before it strikes the ground, as the weapon is designed to fire like artillery, straight up then come crashing down.
Here's a site where someone made a railgun: http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun2.htmAt the peak of its ballistic trajectory, the projectile will reach an altitude of 500,000 feet, or about 95 miles, actually exiting the Earth's atmosphere.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about a portable version of the weapon. Certainly, the mass of a such a weapon system and the ship would nullify the recoil.Eugefunk84 wrote:
Ilocano is right. I do have a grasp on basic and even advanced physics. I have taken 2 years of basic physics in HS, Physics 1,2, and 3 in college, which includes electromagnetism. And I have also taken electromagnetic field theory, the principle by which railguns operate.Ilocano wrote:
But still negligible when you consider the weight ratio of the projectile versus the railgun. Now, if you introduced superconductor projectiles into this equation, how much less recoil would there be?LaidBackNinja wrote:
Sorry to say funk, but you are wrong.
Every action causes an opposite reaction. If you and I are both on ice, and I give you a push, not only would I push you back, but I would also move in the opposite direction. Same with any kind of projectile weapon. The weapon 'pushes' the projectile forward, and the projectile 'pushes' the weapon backwards. Hence, recoil.
This is all quite basic physics here. Friction and air resistance and whatnot have nothing to do with this.
So, like I said, there IS recoil, but it is VERY small, to the point where you could consider it nonexistant. The rails do not physically push the projectile, the electromagnetic field created by the rails does. This electromagnetic field travels with the projectile until it leaves the rails. Therefore, if the projectile would try to resist the electromagnetic field, it would only do so for a miniscule amount of time until it is switched off again and turned on further down the rails. The amount that the projectile would push back against the field is tiny. Now, if were talkign about warships firign railguns, the mass of the rails and ship would FAR exceed the projectile, even at tremendous speeds, hence, the recoil is negligable.
Do not confuse newtonian physics with electromagnetism. While the same basic concepts apply, there are many other factors at work
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
It is possible. Quantum mechanics overturned newtonian physics. Newtonian physics no longer apply when things become either extremely small, or extremely light. When it comes to lasers, which basically form a coherent beam of electrons of the same exact frequency/wavelength, you are dealing with photons. Photons are both very very small in terms physical size and are completely massless. Yes, PHOTONS HAVE ZERO MASS. This has been proven through calculation of string theory, and if you dont believe me, pick up a book called "The Elegant Universe". That said, lasers do not adhere to newtonian physics, so a laser woudl never be "pushed back" by the photons it emits.spray_and_pray wrote:
It all depends on how much you would have to change all the other factors to get the superconductor projectiles point being it would still create recoil.Ilocano wrote:
But still negligible when you consider the weight ratio of the projectile versus the railgun. Now, if you introduced superconductor projectiles into this equation, how much less recoil would there be?LaidBackNinja wrote:
Sorry to say funk, but you are wrong.
Every action causes an opposite reaction. If you and I are both on ice, and I give you a push, not only would I push you back, but I would also move in the opposite direction. Same with any kind of projectile weapon. The weapon 'pushes' the projectile forward, and the projectile 'pushes' the weapon backwards. Hence, recoil.
This is all quite basic physics here. Friction and air resistance and whatnot have nothing to do with this.
Now here is a thing to think about is it possible to create a weapon that can kill a person without it having to obey newtons 3rd law? It would have to be like some sort of a laser beam thingo. Heh too much thinking for 5 in the morning.
NP broLaidBackNinja wrote:
Sorry, I thought we were talking about a portable version of the weapon. Certainly, the mass of a such a weapon system and the ship would nullify the recoil.Eugefunk84 wrote:
Ilocano is right. I do have a grasp on basic and even advanced physics. I have taken 2 years of basic physics in HS, Physics 1,2, and 3 in college, which includes electromagnetism. And I have also taken electromagnetic field theory, the principle by which railguns operate.Ilocano wrote:
But still negligible when you consider the weight ratio of the projectile versus the railgun. Now, if you introduced superconductor projectiles into this equation, how much less recoil would there be?
So, like I said, there IS recoil, but it is VERY small, to the point where you could consider it nonexistant. The rails do not physically push the projectile, the electromagnetic field created by the rails does. This electromagnetic field travels with the projectile until it leaves the rails. Therefore, if the projectile would try to resist the electromagnetic field, it would only do so for a miniscule amount of time until it is switched off again and turned on further down the rails. The amount that the projectile would push back against the field is tiny. Now, if were talkign about warships firign railguns, the mass of the rails and ship would FAR exceed the projectile, even at tremendous speeds, hence, the recoil is negligable.
Do not confuse newtonian physics with electromagnetism. While the same basic concepts apply, there are many other factors at work
we already established that a portable railgun is both extremely big/heavy and impractical, and would likely never be put into use.
I remember some car industry bigshot who said something along the lines of "I believe that we've reached the peak of car technology" sometimes in the 1920's.Eugefunk84 wrote:
we already established that a portable railgun is both extremely big/heavy and impractical, and would likely never be put into use.
Nothing's impossible, we just need to learn to exploit the natural laws a bit more .
By the way, could I pester you with physics-related questions if I need them? I'm going to study physics after high school, so you know, cha-ching.
PPL thought we'd be living on the moon by 2000 also, haha. But I understand your point, you never know where technology will take us. From a current perspective, portable railguns are almost impossible, but who knows what kind of scientific progress will happen in the next few decades.Janysc wrote:
I remember some car industry bigshot who said something along the lines of "I believe that we've reached the peak of car technology" sometimes in the 1920's.Eugefunk84 wrote:
we already established that a portable railgun is both extremely big/heavy and impractical, and would likely never be put into use.
Nothing's impossible, we just need to learn to exploit the natural laws a bit more .
By the way, could I pester you with physics-related questions if I need them? I'm going to study physics after high school, so you know, cha-ching.
As far as pestering me with physics, go right ahead. I'm an electrical engineer, I thrive on physics and math, haha, so I'd be happy to help you out or lend an opinion on something. Just PM me or IM me on AIM. my SN is TheSpinsVelvet, my DJ and 2142 name.
Haha, don't. I studied Advanced Technology at university for a year, (which included all the Physics that the people who study theoretical physics get), and the numbers broke my brain. I had to switch to a linguistic study instead.Janysc wrote:
I remember some car industry bigshot who said something along the lines of "I believe that we've reached the peak of car technology" sometimes in the 1920's.Eugefunk84 wrote:
we already established that a portable railgun is both extremely big/heavy and impractical, and would likely never be put into use.
Nothing's impossible, we just need to learn to exploit the natural laws a bit more .
By the way, could I pester you with physics-related questions if I need them? I'm going to study physics after high school, so you know, cha-ching.
Last edited by LaidBackNinja (2007-01-18 12:35:14)
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
Consider Chemical Engineering or Chemistry in general. Pays more and more job prospects. But then again, by the time you graduate and gain sufficient experience, the space-race must just be in full swing again.Janysc wrote:
By the way, could I pester you with physics-related questions if I need them? I'm going to study physics after high school, so you know, cha-ching.
That armor-piercing round isn't going fast enough, unlike railgun projectiles.vpyroman wrote:
Regarding personal damage:
In order for that 8Kg slug to actually cause that massive amount of damage onto a person, all of its energy needs to be transfered into the person. A Person is not dense enough to stop an object traveling at that high a speed. Haven't you ever noticed how a "normal" bullet explodes inside a person, where as an armored piercing round punches right through them? Its the same way, the slug would pass through the person, burn them from the friction generated, and create a vacuum as it exits.
Last edited by Ilocano (2007-01-18 12:44:38)
1. You don't use 5 inch guns on jeeps, you use them on hard targets and stationary pockets of enemy resistance. Hell, cruise missiles don't even go after vehicles.Bubbalo wrote:
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.
2. True, which is why I would suspect such systems are and will be shielded in case of such an occurrence. Remember, a lot of naval hardware is designed to operate under the guise of a nuclear war, which implies EMP resistance.
3. ...
to whomever asked about portable rail guns: The rail gun would not be an effective weapon against infantry because in a hand held version the ammunition would have to be very tiny, and the resulting damage to a body would be small. The projectile would just go right through, which isn't very effective for killing people. Most modern bullets either fragment or cavitate once they enter the body, causing all sorts of internal damage. Now it might be a good idea to try and mount it on a tank.
" Garnett compared that force to hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph. "It will take out a building," he said. Warheads aren't needed because of the massive force of impact."Bubbalo wrote:
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.
i saw this the other day on /. The main thing i am interested in is how they are going to harden the guidance packages for the launch velocities. Such a weapon cannot be fired from a ship over 200 nm without guidance...unless its a nuke. And even with nukes you have an optimal detonating spot. As far as them being made hand held for infantry use...science need to come a long way to generate the power. And to create materials that don't need the maintenance between shots like current implementations do. So its still has some issues to be worked out but hot damn talk about savings. These rounds are waaaay cheaper than the cruise missle.
What about the DREAD?iamangry wrote:
3. ...
to whomever asked about portable rail guns: The rail gun would not be an effective weapon against infantry because in a hand held version the ammunition would have to be very tiny, and the resulting damage to a body would be small. The projectile would just go right through, which isn't very effective for killing people. Most modern bullets either fragment or cavitate once they enter the body, causing all sorts of internal damage. Now it might be a good idea to try and mount it on a tank.
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1 … D,,00.html
(edit: reduce post side)
Last edited by UON (2007-01-18 14:35:34)
just a fleshwound !
Any one know what a Glitter Boy is...........
Rifts
Here is a pic link for a Glitter Boy holding the rail gun that they are famous for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glitterboy.JPG
Rifts
Here is a pic link for a Glitter Boy holding the rail gun that they are famous for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glitterboy.JPG
Last edited by SmkenRez (2007-01-18 19:23:36)
Just like the DREAD centrifuge weapon or a modern rocket launcher. Basically, since a regular gun uses the explosive charge to "push" the bullet out of the barrel, there will be an equal force pushing the other way.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Actually you are wrong, a rail gun is recoilless.LaidBackNinja wrote:
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.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … illess.htm
edit: but actually, thinking about it a railgun won't be recoilless, although my examples of recoilless weapons are valid.
edit: the way to think about it is to imagine the weapon being fired in space... then you understand why railguns are not recoilless.
edit: found an explanation in the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gun#T … nstruction
Last edited by UON (2007-01-18 15:07:42)
Of course a railgun isn't recoilless.
Come on people, ever heard of Newtons 3rd law?
3.2Kg at about 1Km/sec - that'll produce some serious recoil.
All recoilless weapons require the projectile to have its own propulsion source. In fact no weapon is truely recoilless, because if the projectile leaves the weapon it is fired from it will generate some recoil. Recoilless is just a nicer term for low recoil weapons.
Come on people, ever heard of Newtons 3rd law?
3.2Kg at about 1Km/sec - that'll produce some serious recoil.
All recoilless weapons require the projectile to have its own propulsion source. In fact no weapon is truely recoilless, because if the projectile leaves the weapon it is fired from it will generate some recoil. Recoilless is just a nicer term for low recoil weapons.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-18 15:24:06)
I was thinking that the force would act outwards not backwards.... which it does, but they don't move so it pushes the railheads back onto the breach...Bertster7 wrote:
Of course a railgun isn't recoilless.
Come on people, ever heard of Newtons 3rd law?
I was just going to comment on that.SmkenRez wrote:
Any one know what a Glitter Boy is...........
Rifts
+1 for you.
The force will act in the opposite direction to the direction the projectile is fired in.UON wrote:
I was thinking that the force would act outwards not backwards.... which it does, but they don't move so it pushes the railheads back onto the breach...Bertster7 wrote:
Of course a railgun isn't recoilless.
Come on people, ever heard of Newtons 3rd law?
Yes, in practice. But it's not a direct relationship. If the sides weren't braced the rails would explode outwards and the projectile wouldn't move.Bertster7 wrote:
The force will act in the opposite direction to the direction the projectile is fired in.UON wrote:
I was thinking that the force would act outwards not backwards.... which it does, but they don't move so it pushes the railheads back onto the breach...Bertster7 wrote:
Of course a railgun isn't recoilless.
Come on people, ever heard of Newtons 3rd law?