railgun

This is the rail gun, its projectile is launched by electro-magnetic force, so it would work in space. I think this should replace Nuclear weapons entirely. launched from space as earth it could destroy as much of a city as a Nuke could but without the fallout. Plus if we build one on the moon every nation we hate can tremble in fear if they ever look up the night sky and can see the moon. if you see the moon, you can be targeted by the railgun.

Yeah it's cool, until Russia wants one...

At 5/14/2010 10:26:22 AM, Marauder wrote:

This is the rail gun, its projectile is launched by electro-magnetic force

Why is there an exhaust flame?

At 5/15/2010 5:31:41 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:

At 5/15/2010 5:01:28 PM, Puck wrote:

At 5/14/2010 10:26:22 AM, Marauder wrote:

This is the rail gun, its projectile is launched by electro-magnetic force

Why is there an exhaust flame?

THE AIR IS ON FAIYA

HOLY FVCKING SH!T. WE IS ALL GONNA DIIIIEEE

Railgun sounds cool.

I hope countries like Israel and other Christians countries get to buy it from US.

Interesting but how practical is it really, and how much more effective is it than the conventional weaponry currently used?

It's not guided is it, so it best to place it on 2 or 3 space stations. In any case it is still next to worthless due to the prevailing doctrine of MAD.

At 5/16/2010 10:01:00 AM, lastrequest691 wrote:
Railgun sounds cool.

I hope countries like Israel and other Christians countries get to buy it from US.

<facepalm>

At 5/14/2010 10:26:22 AM, Marauder wrote:


This is the rail gun, its projectile is launched by electromagnetic force, so it would work in space. I think this should replace Nuclear weapons entirely. launched from space as earth it could destroy as much of a city as a Nuke could but without the fallout. Plus if we build one on the moon every nation we hate can tremble in fear if they ever look up the night sky and can see the moon. if you see the moon, you can be targeted by the railgun.

You should take physics. You would like it.
A rail gun propels a minuscule particle at near light-speed velocity using electromagnetic forces. This eliminates the necessity of an atmosphere in which to fire it, and it negates the friction that counters all most all forces except for electromagnetism. There are some problems though. For one, such a shot would immediately ignite the earth's atmosphere when the projectile entered it. Also, when such a speedy object hits the earth, the planet would either incinerate, shatter, have a large hole in it, or the object would phase through all of this and render the whole idea rather useless. Lastly, the energy needed to do this is equivalent to the TOTAL amount of energy produced by the WHOLE sun in one day. We also do not have the technology to store such a massive amount of energy, nor does the material exist that can funnel that energy completely and instantaneously into the devise. Thus the railgun is impractical. Sustained fusion is closer to scientific possibility than that. Imagine a fusion bomb rather than a fission bomb. Instead of releasing monumental amounts of energy into the area, you would suck all energy out of it and cause the next ice age. That sounds much more fun!

By the way, Transformers 2 had it wrong as well.

METAL GEAR?!?

Also LIQUIIIIIIIID!

At 6/28/2010 7:23:49 PM, Veridas wrote:
METAL GEAR?!?

Also LIQUIIIIIIIID!

Snake? Snake!? SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!?!?!?!?

At 5/20/2010 7:38:22 AM, resolutionsmasher wrote:

At 5/14/2010 10:26:22 AM, Marauder wrote:

A rail gun propels a minuscule particle at near light-speed velocity using electromagnetic forces.

Well, that is one possibility, but EM can also be used to launch large objects at lower speeds. The Navy uses electromagnetic catapults to launch aircraft.

>This eliminates the necessity of an atmosphere in which to fire it,

Neither rockets nor conventional guns require an atmosphere. the oxidizer is in the propellant.

>and it negates the friction that counters all most all forces except for electromagnetism.

I suppose a gun barrel has some friction, but the main friction on a projectile is from the atmosphere. That remains the same regardless of how the projectile is launched.

>There are some problems though. For one, such a shot would immediately ignite the earth's atmosphere when the projectile entered it.

This is impossible because there is no fuel in the atmospheric mix of gases. If there was fuel in the atmosphere, any fire would ignite it.

>Also, when such a speedy object hits the earth, the planet would either incinerate, shatter, have a large hole in it, or the object would phase through all of this and render the whole idea rather useless.

Muons strike the earth at near light speed all the time. Some make it all the way through the earth. It is not how fast they go, it is how much energy they have and how much is transferred to the earth.

>Lastly, the energy needed to do this is equivalent to the TOTAL amount of energy produced by the WHOLE sun in one day.

To do what? Obviously rail guns work at low energy. That's been demonstrated. If a railgun were energized with, say, the energy from a small nuclear device, then the projectile would have at most that energy. Friction from the earth's atmosphere protects against all but the most energetic meteors. it would do the same for rail gun projectiles.

>We also do not have the technology to store such a massive amount of energy, nor does the material exist that can funnel that energy completely and instantaneously into the devise. Thus the railgun is impractical.

I don't know. There was talk of pumping a laser with a nuclear weapon. The laser used a metal rod. The rod was pumped with the nuclear device, producing a large pulse before the rod evaporated. The light pulse does not suffer from atmospheric friction. It's probably possible to design a rail gun that uses the EM pulse from a nuclear device. There is a treaty against putting weapons in space, so it's probably not being studied. Besides, the nuclear pumped laser sounds more efficient.

>Sustained fusion is closer to scientific possibility than that. Imagine a fusion bomb rather than a fission bomb.

The second bomb dropped in WWII was a fusion device. It releases energy, it definitely does not absorb it.

>Instead of releasing monumental amounts of energy into the area, you would suck all energy out of it and cause the next ice age. That sounds much more fun!

No such thing is possible with an explosion. Explosions release energy rather than absorb energy.

Rail guns have potential uses as weapons for very high velocity projectiles, and potentially the propelling force is more convenient than conventional explosives. A turbine powered with conventional fuel might be used to charge a capacitor. Also, rail guns might be used for launching satellites or space probes from the moon. A nuclear power plant on the moon might be used as the power source, or maybe solar power. Wind is out.

At 6/28/2010 7:23:49 PM, Veridas wrote:
METAL GEAR?!?

Also LIQUIIIIIIIID!

Just saw this. Lol. I also thought of Fortuna (?) from MGS2.

At 7/16/2010 12:49:47 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The second bomb dropped in WWII was a fusion device. It releases energy, it definitely does not absorb it.

The Fat Man? That was definitely a fission bomb.