der bastler 0 Posted December 29, 2002 Found this site some time ago: www.powerlabs.org Quite interesting and imho worth to be posted in an ofp-offtopic-but-military-ontopic-topic. What do you think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Necromancer- 0 Posted December 29, 2002 Seriously..... Rail guns are inefficientive weapons with our current technology. Rail guns require: -enormously large power supply -a lot of cooling, because of the amount of current needed. 60 Ampere isn't even enough to move and object of 1 cmł and 60 Ampere even heats up the power cable with a minimal temperature of >100 C . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
red oct 2 Posted December 29, 2002 the rail gun is still in the prototype phases. cant remember what the TV show was it was on discovery, but the plan is that the power generator will be compacted small enough to fit onto a tank. just another question, isn't the rail gun dead acurate? wonder if rail guns could be fitted on a battle ship Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Necromancer- 0 Posted December 29, 2002 yes, that is true.... rail guns dont have recoil. Rail guns mounted on tanks.... brilliant idea. No risk of ammunition explotion when the tank gets hit by anti-tank weaponry. Fun though... the tank would be able to fire a tin can with a velocity of 1000 m/s. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
red oct 2 Posted December 29, 2002 aluminium? ware did you hear that from? rail guns are supposed to fire a heavy alloy rod made of Tungsten. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted December 29, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Dec. 30 2002,03:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Rail guns are inefficientive weapons with our current technology.<span id='postcolor'> Looks like we got another George W. Bush on our hands. j/k man Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ex-RoNiN 0 Posted December 29, 2002 There is an experimental Railgun mounted on a WW2 battleship to do some practical testing, I remmeber reading about that some time agao. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
red oct 2 Posted December 29, 2002 but the rail guns than arn't the same as what they are today. weren't the rail guns of of WWII given their name because they were transported on RailRoad cars pulled by military trains? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ex-RoNiN 0 Posted December 29, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Dec. 29 2002,23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but the rail guns than arn't the same as what they are today. weren't the rail guns of of WWII given their name because they were transported on RailRoad cars pulled by military trains?<span id='postcolor'> What I am talking about a real railgun, mounted on a WW2 battle ship for testing purposes They took the large artillery turrets off and put that railgun thingy there instead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted December 30, 2002 Okay, before any more confusion occurs, let's make some seperation of terms. Red Oct is thinking of railguns in terms of large artillery cannon transported via railroad. Ronin is thinking of an electro-magnetic railgun, as seen in Quake lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
red oct 2 Posted December 30, 2002 ok i see what your saying (i think) i though when you said WWII battle ship you meant a battle ship IN WWII. what ship was it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Necromancer- 0 Posted December 30, 2002 Hmn... the rail gun is named after the rails used for generating a magnetic field thrusting the projectile. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
second_draw 0 Posted December 30, 2002 Personally i don't understand how anyone can name the gun becuase it doesn't really exist. but ignoring the obvious, these electronic guns are all magnetic along with the generators so you will could see anti magnetic tanks too! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eh remraf 0 Posted December 30, 2002 Anti-Magnetic tanks? I doubt those would be very effective. If they were they would simply switch to another high velocity projectile gun that works off propelling a round with explosive gas. Kind of like a rail gun in a since. As the round travels down the barrel more gas is pumped behind the shell at key points thusly accelerating it even more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frizbee 0 Posted December 30, 2002 Actually, prototype (and small) rail guns (The electro-magnetic weapon so named because it fires the round along the "Rails" that generate the magnetic charge) have been created. They can operate on a standard 240volt charge, though the round fired (obviously) doesn't fire that fast, and can't be more than a set size. For military purposes however, a Rail gun would require a high electrical charge, as the magnetic field would require a large round to be fired as a speed great enough to penetrate armor. Thus, the type of weapons from Quake, where 1 round vapourizes a target, are a very long way off yet. First we need more efficient power systems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Necromancer- 0 Posted December 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Dec. 30 2002,11:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, prototype (and small) rail guns (The electro-magnetic weapon so named because it fires the round along the "Rails" that generate the magnetic charge) have been created. They can operate on a standard 240volt charge, though the round fired (obviously) doesn't fire that fast, and can't be more than a set size. For military purposes however, a Rail gun would require a high electrical charge, as the magnetic field would require a large round to be fired as a speed great enough to penetrate armor. Thus, the type of weapons from Quake, where 1 round vapourizes a target, are a very long way off yet. First we need more efficient power systems.<span id='postcolor'> Not to mention cooling systems. Large power = more heat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
der bastler 0 Posted December 30, 2002 Some equations: capacity = charge / voltage current = charge / time Take a very big capacitor ("capacitors for real men!"), charge it (can take long), and short-circuit it. Because you've minimized the time to de-charge it, the current is very high (big charge / minimum time). In our x-mas lecture two years ago our physicists used this effect to crush a can (in center of toroidal coil) and to shoot a chocolate santa clause (needle in solenoid)... Solution for portable EM-weapons: you have a constant-power generator (diesel or turbine) charging several capacitors and for each shot you cycle through them -like rechargeable magazines. Disadvantage (as mentioned on linked page): very complex. Advantage: high velocity, AP ammunition (use a depleted uranium dart, put it in an aluminium case and see it cutting through nearly every armour). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
red oct 2 Posted December 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Dec. 30 2002,13:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Dec. 30 2002,116)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, prototype (and small) rail guns (The electro-magnetic weapon so named because it fires the round along the "Rails" that generate the magnetic charge) have been created. They can operate on a standard 240volt charge, though the round fired (obviously) doesn't fire that fast, and can't be more than a set size. For military purposes however, a Rail gun would require a high electrical charge, as the magnetic field would require a large round to be fired as a speed great enough to penetrate armor. Thus, the type of weapons from Quake, where 1 round vapourizes a target, are a very long way off yet. First we need more efficient power systems.<span id='postcolor'> Not to mention cooling systems. Large power = more heat.<span id='postcolor'> blah, thats not a problem just piss on it what they will probaly do is some how make the rails not conduct heat very well or something i duno. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eh remraf 0 Posted December 31, 2002 They'd probably use a resevoir of LN to cool it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted December 31, 2002 hopefully there are some peaceful use for the technology. it is an irony that good deal of human inventions are made during process of researching for better killing of each other Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eh remraf 0 Posted December 31, 2002 Well, war triggers an increased rate of new technology. Computers are just one of the products from war. Anyways, em technology can be used to send things such as shuttles into space (Going slower than hypersonic speeds ofcourse). I think Nasa has looked into this and came up with a 2-3 mile long accelerator. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted December 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (eh remraf @ Dec. 31 2002,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, war triggers an increased rate of new technology. Computers are just one of the products from war. Anyways, em technology can be used to send things such as shuttles into space (Going slower than hypersonic speeds ofcourse). I think Nasa has looked into this and came up with a 2-3 mile long accelerator.<span id='postcolor'> You mean superconductor technology? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites