Posting mode: Reply
[Return] [Bottom]
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Verification
reCAPTCHA challenge image
Get a new challenge Get an audio challengeGet a visual challenge Help
File
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3072 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • このサイトについて - 翻訳


  • File: 1330452193.jpg-(44 KB, 525x396, tech0604magnet_730x550.jpg)
    44 KB Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:03 No.10944532  
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uV1SbEuzFU&feature=player_embedded

    It's... Beautiful.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:06 No.10944552
    >BAE

    Obviously its beautiful
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:12 No.10944598
    Wow, they've really reduced the size of it.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:12 No.10944599
    Oh god that BZZZZTTT. The sound of progress.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:18 No.10944646
         File: 1330453118.jpg-(124 KB, 328x495, 1270094087658.jpg)
    124 KB
    >yfw you put railgun into a youtube search...
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:20 No.10944659
    >>10944646
    Good thing the weaboo shit doesn't show up in the top of the search.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:20 No.10944660
    Fuck yeah, SCIENCE!
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:27 No.10944696
         File: 1330453628.png-(286 KB, 624x352, 1272919445037.png)
    286 KB
    >Dat air distortion
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:30 No.10944722
    I thought BAE were only the subcontractor?

    What other company is working on this?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:33 No.10944748
    >>10944722

    BAE is the main developer anyway.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:39 No.10944783
    How's the wear issue coming along?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:43 No.10944817
    i thought rail gun was just magnetic fields and shit
    why is there a trial of fire
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:45 No.10944826
    >>10944646
    That battleship's gonna be one of a kind.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:45 No.10944829
    how the doom of humanity will go down:
    -batteries with incredible capacity and output will be produced and miniaturized to incredibly small power sources
    -AI will get just sophisticated enough to become autonomous
    -they take this rail gun and make it autonomous as well, that is it loads itself and it's cycle rate gets ramped up to thousands of rounds per second
    -take all of above, incorporate it into those quadcopters and attach a kinect to them
    -they go from country to country, city to city, house to house, eliminating us

    we're fucked people.


    On a more serious note, this this is a true thing of beauty. MAC cannons, here we come. Up next, a shaw-fujikawa engine. Then mjolnir suits...and super soldiers to wear them.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:46 No.10944835
    >>10944817
    I wondered the same thing but I think it could just be the absurd amount of friction going on. If I am wrong, please enlighten me
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:46 No.10944837
    >>10944817
    physics, how do they work.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:49 No.10944856
    >>10944817
    >>10944835
    friction is super heating the air and causing it to produce a flame plume

    they need to combine this with the ROD of GOD or whatever that shit was called...then send of few of these into the middle east.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:50 No.10944861
    >>10944835
    >>10944817
    Basically it is the round moving so fast it breaks apart and begins to disintegrate. Those tiny particles then ignite from the massive amount of friction against the air.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:50 No.10944863
    >>10944829

    >mechs

    go be retarded elsewhere.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:54 No.10944890
    wouldnt this make for a terrible weapon?
    sure it could put a big hole in something
    but i would rather have your ship in little peaces and with a big hole
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:57 No.10944911
    >>10944863
    mechs? what the fuck are you talking about?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:58 No.10944922
    >>10944890
    a well placed shot that drives a hole through a ship...that's not a horrible weapon. Still, did you not see what it does when it goes through something. It disintegrates it.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)13:59 No.10944925
    >>10944890
    Well railguns can fire projectiles at much longer distances that traditional firearms. Also since you don't need a propellant you save on cost and weight for the rounds. Plus once they get a prototype that functions well enough to be considered "done" they can start playing with different types of projectiles to be fired. Like explosive kinds.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:00 No.10944933
    >>10944817
    Cause it's moving so fast it lights the air on fire.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:01 No.10944939
    >>10944925

    Actual retard itt.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:02 No.10944945
    >>10944925
    >Like explosive kinds
    No, a projectile fired by a railgun that has an explosive package is just redundant. Thats what makes railguns so attactive; all you need is solid pointy rods, just add kinetic energy.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:02 No.10944947
    >>10944890
    they sure would make horrible weapons. Just like sniper rifles. Those things are soooo shitty no one uses them

    /sarcasm just in case
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:07 No.10944973
    would love to see one of the ballistic slugs hitting a boat on it's bow/stern...
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:15 No.10945032
    on a railgun destroyer:

    >takes a direct hit to the magazine
    >not a single fuck was given
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:17 No.10945037
    >>10944890
    A railgun isn't really meant to be an anti-ship weapon.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:18 No.10945045
    >>10945037
    why not?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:20 No.10945059
    >>10945032
    Even the picture in the OP isn't accurate as the Zumwalt class has it's VLS along the edge of the hull in armored pods. The thinking is that if a VLS cell gets hit while they're all separated, you just lose the cell and get what is essentially cosmetic damage to the exterior of the hull in that spot. Whereas if a cell gets hit with the current design where they're clustered together, you end up losing the entire half of the ship.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:21 No.10945070
    >>10945037
    then what are you gonna do with it
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:22 No.10945080
    ITT: Some anons who can't into physics

    It's not a sniper rifle, and explosive railgun rounds are pants-on-head retarded.

    The idea is to get a projectile with enough mass moving fast enough to cause some serious damage when it impacts. If you can get these numbers high enough, the energy output makes tradition munitions look like babby's first pop gun.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:22 No.10945081
    >>10944947
    holes in people stop people
    holes in war ships, not so much
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:22 No.10945086
    >>10945070
    Shore bombardment.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:24 No.10945096
    >>10945045
    Simple really.

    Modern warships outside of carriers are very thin skinned. When you fire a large metal rod at one, it'll go straight through and only do relatively minor damage.

    However, if that same round hits something hard that it can transfer it's energy to, like a building or ground, the result can be akin to a 500lb bomb go off.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:24 No.10945100
    >>10945081
    you sure about that? Hitting a way ship in the right spot at a safe distance...telling me it's not going to stop it? you dumb.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:24 No.10945102
    >>10945086
    what u gonna hit on a shore with a fast metal pole
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:25 No.10945113
    >>10945081
    suddenly the slug was aimed at an angle that has its exit going under the water line...oh look at that the ship is fucked.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:26 No.10945116
    >>10945102
    buildings. duh.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:26 No.10945118
    >>10945102
    Anything you want. Fire control handles accuracy, and the speed of the slug will fuck up just about anything it hits.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:26 No.10945119
    >>10945100
    sure it might sink, but thats a lot easier to stop then putting a boat back together.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:26 No.10945122
    >>10945102
    That annoying bunker
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:27 No.10945125
    >>10945102
    I know I shouldn't be surprised that someone on 4chan cant into physics but I am.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:27 No.10945130
    Just re-iterating: It's NOT a sniper rifle. It's artillery.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:28 No.10945134
    >>10945119
    sounds like sinking it with a couple of good shots is faster than trying to blow it to smithereens with thousands of pounds of ordinance
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:28 No.10945136
    >>10945130
    are you saying it's not going to be accurate?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:28 No.10945138
    >>10945113
    You are aware it's quite possible to stay afloat with a hole below the waterline, right?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:29 No.10945148
    >>10945138
    one hole on the side, sure. A few holes all the way through...I doubt it.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:29 No.10945149
    >>10945125
    and the correlation between physics and what to shoot is?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:30 No.10945155
    >>10945136
    As accurate as artillery can be.

    One of the first things planned to be put into development once the railgun itself is working are fairly simple GPS guided rounds.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:31 No.10945162
    >>10945136
    No, it is accurate, but using it that way is a total fucking waste of the massive amount of energy it takes to charge the weapon. Like I said above, the main goal here is exploiting mass and velocity to cause explosions that make traditional ordinance seem pitiful.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:31 No.10945166
    >>10945148
    Actually, one of the oldest ways of keeping a ship afloat when it has a hole in the side of the hull is to cut another hole in the opposite side of the hull so that you end up letting a compartment have water in it, but since it's not confined to one side you won't list and run a risk of sinking.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:33 No.10945179
    >>10945162
    and if your goal is to just put holes in ships, missiles are just as effective and about a bajillion times easier to fire.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:35 No.10945190
    >>10945149
    when you hit a piece of land with a large and heavy object, traveling at an extremely high speed, the result is akin to an explosion, not just sticking a pole in the ground.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:37 No.10945206
    >>10945190
    why would you shoot the ground? are you retarded?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:38 No.10945211
         File: 1330457916.jpg-(61 KB, 393x600, 1283572459402.jpg)
    61 KB
    >>10945206
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:38 No.10945213
    >>10945206
    Because something that you want to destroy is on the ground?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:40 No.10945228
    >>10945213
    so you would shoot the ground and not the object?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:42 No.10945248
    >>10945155
    something tells me they'll be able to hit a dime miles away somewhere down the line.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:42 No.10945256
         File: 1330458163.jpg-(20 KB, 422x347, 1300634374864.jpg)
    20 KB
    I thought naval railgun is mainly designed as a point defense system.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:43 No.10945261
    >>10945248
    unlikely, if u are off by a little that shit would land a jillion miles away
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:44 No.10945270
    >>10945228
    Because the ground could be a middle point between several installations you want to take out with one huge is explosion, which is what this can do when it's up and working the way it's supposed to.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:44 No.10945275
    >>10945206

    Yes, yes he's retarded.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:47 No.10945290
    >>10945270
    so you have an earthquake simulator

    I dont know how big of a bang you are expecting to get. Let alone get something moving that fast to arc.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:48 No.10945300
    >>10945206
    Just think of it this way: it's like a meteor hitting earth and killing off the dinosaurs...only on a much much smaller scale.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:49 No.10945304
         File: 1330458556.jpg-(42 KB, 421x359, 1330130860484.jpg)
    42 KB
    >>10945290
    the projectile would fire in a very predictable arc, it certainly wouldnt be hard to calculate to a high degree of accuracy exactly where it's going to land.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:49 No.10945306
    >>10945228
    Well obviously you would aim at the building unless there where multiple buildings around a central point. Hitting the ground was just a example, it doesn't matter what you hit as long as its solid so that the energy transfers from the slug.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:49 No.10945307
    Look, idiots...
    Watch the video again. Notice how their test rounds have giant blunted ends like fists? Thats by design. Penetration is not a main goal with a weapon like this. No armor on earth can withstand several types of traditional munitions.

    No, the blunted tip is designed to impart that maximum amount of kinetic energy on impact. It's all about explosive-less explosions. Man, this thread is so full of physics fail it's not even funny.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:50 No.10945314
    >>10945290
    What about this is confusing you? When you pump enough energy into something to make it move this fast its mass is in effect higher than it would be if it were stationary. When it strikes something moving this fast its energy has to go somewhere and it terms of getting it to arc they are looking at a range of 300-400 miles or more so arcing will happen.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:50 No.10945315
    >>10945307
    the slug is shaped that way right now to slow it down...
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:51 No.10945321
    >>10945300
    a meteor comes down at an angle, you cant do that with this weapon.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:54 No.10945351
    >>10945321
    you think this thing flies in a straight line? are you the same retard that posted asking how ballistics work for like two weeks straight?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:54 No.10945352
    >>10945321
    Uhhhh yes you can. It's called 'trajectory'.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:55 No.10945353
         File: 1330458905.png-(167 KB, 306x273, 1327035594901.png)
    167 KB
    >>10945321
    and why not?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:55 No.10945358
    >>10945321
    No, not straight down like a meteor. But you CAN get it angled enough to where a substantial portion of it's energy is transferred to the target.

    I don't know why I'm suprised /k/ is full of faggots who see something in anime and think that's how it actually works.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)14:58 No.10945368
    >>10945321
    it seems to me that they can fit this railgun in a plane....
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:01 No.10945384
    >>10945368
    Not really. What they don't show you is the massive bank of capacitors it takes to power this thing. It's kind of why they're wanting to put it on ships. That's the only way this thing is going to mobile in the forseeable future.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:02 No.10945391
    >>10945368

    The ship turns all power to the railgun when charging and firing, would be hard to do on a plane, plus heavy as shit.

    and fucking lol at "it shoots strate line!" So much stupidity.
    >> XTX-Horus !!eHizE29qEFJ 02/28/12(Tue)15:02 No.10945395
    >>10944532

    That sound!

    Why isnt this mounted on a ship allready? Its fucking awesome.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:03 No.10945404
    9/11 truther style physics in here.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:04 No.10945408
    >>10945321

    Yes because all projectiles fire in a perfectly straight line that goes on for infinity.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:04 No.10945411
    Quite the aerodynamic projectile you have there chief
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:05 No.10945421
    >>10945411
    see
    >>10945315
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:07 No.10945428
    >>10945421
    I thought they made it that way so they can have better contact with the rails
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:08 No.10945433
    I made a rail gun once.

    Bad ass shit.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:09 No.10945440
    >>10945395
    BRRRRRAAAPPPP
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:09 No.10945443
    >>10945411
    "The rounds we are firing currently are non-aerodynamic slugs," Ellis said of the testing. "They match the interior ballistics of what the launcher is expected to see but are intended to slow down quickly."

    they don't want to send rounds into neighboring cities while testing them.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:11 No.10945450
    >>10945408
    >>10945368
    >>10945351
    >>10945304
    >>10945352
    >>10945353
    Put it in realistic terms. Yes this weapon obeys the law of physics, im not arguing that it doesnt. My point is that you would have to be so far away to get to weapon to arc its drastically impractical.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:12 No.10945458
    >>10945450
    you're still fucking retarded. You think they're going to be aiming at targets yards away? This is ultimately intended to be shot at targets that are hundreds of miles away.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:13 No.10945460
    http://gizmodo.com/5889004/the-militarys-shipwrecking-railgun-just-got-really-real
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:13 No.10945463
    >>10945395
    Because the Navy is asking a 64MJ gun. Right now, BAE has only given them a 32MJ gun for testing. A lot of things need to be refined, like power management, and issues with durability.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:14 No.10945469
    >>10945443
    imagine what happened to the mythbusters, only instead of putting a cannonball through a house, they kinetically bombard it into smithereens.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:14 No.10945470
    What sort of targets are they supposed to be used on? Kinda dumfounded on the use of stationary objects
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:15 No.10945472
    >>10945450
    The ability to putting rounds on target from extremely far away is one of the reasons the Navy really likes this.
    >>  02/28/12(Tue)15:15 No.10945474
    Kill the Jippies and Burn The Dead
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:15 No.10945476
    >>10945472
    The navy loves anything that makes them less obsolete.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:16 No.10945479
    >>10945450

    Or just shoot it at an extremely high or low angle. Remember, when using a weapon whose projectile velocity is proportional to the amount of charge you put through the rails, dialing that charge up or down will also increase or decrease the velocity of the projectile respectively. If you can't hit the target with a direct fire flat trajectory, why not dial the velocity down a couple of Mach factors in order to be able to use it as a ballistic weapon?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:16 No.10945481
    >>10945470
    People. DUH.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:16 No.10945487
    >>10945470
    learn into google buddy...

    "The Navy envisions using railguns to destroy enemy ships, defend against enemy missiles, or bombard land targets in support of Marines hitting the beaches. "
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:17 No.10945488
    >>10945307
    Watch their other videos, they have pointed shell designs.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:17 No.10945492
    >>10945458
    With projectile weapons like this the further away the target is, the less effective the weapon is. Since you wont arc it you have to hit a target that is more or less standing, like shooting a target. Buildings like that arent military.
    >> Turtle (MELINOVAMARE) !a7gb5XrrY2 02/28/12(Tue)15:18 No.10945496
         File: 1330460309.jpg-(184 KB, 433x500, plough062.jpg)
    184 KB
    THEY FINALLY MADE A PRACTICAL RAILGUN


    HERE WE GO
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:19 No.10945499
    >>10945487
    >destroy enemy ships

    pointless in this day and age

    >defend against enemy missiles

    i dont see that happening soon

    >bombard land targets

    Kinda pointless when you have air strikes as a better choice
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:19 No.10945503
    >>10945492
    what the fuck are you talking about?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:19 No.10945506
    >>10945472
    Now picture a Zumwalt with these motherfuckers.
    >> Turtle (MELINOVAMARE) !a7gb5XrrY2 02/28/12(Tue)15:20 No.10945514
    >>10945499
    >pointless in this day and age


    Not when the American/Chinese War happens
    >> Blackadder !hDddafoU.A 02/28/12(Tue)15:21 No.10945520
    >>10945499
    >i dont see that happening soon

    It's kind of a big deal for warships to defend themselves from missiles
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:21 No.10945521
    >>10945499
    This is cheaper than an airstrike.
    >>10945492
    But it does arc. It still follows ballistic trajectories.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:21 No.10945524
    >>10945499
    that's a direct quote from the article.

    airstrikes won't be a better choice when this is faster and much cheaper. And of course it won't be happening soon, they don't expect this thing to be ready until 2020. Is /k/ really this stupid? it's britfags hour, isn't it?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:22 No.10945525
         File: 1330460524.jpg-(99 KB, 605x650, 1305753661298.jpg)
    99 KB
    >railgun projectiles rely on KINETIC ENERGY to do damage
    >HURR LETS MAEK IT ARC SO IT HIT LIKE MEE TEE URRR
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:24 No.10945542
    >>10945524
    to add to this, there isn;t only going to be one railgun design. Article mentions that BAE and the other compnay making their own railgun will be making railguns of varying sizes. I imagine the anti missile ones will be a lot smaller.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:24 No.10945543
    >>10945470

    it's NAVAL. Anti ship battery. Would put a hole through an enemy ship. a 64MegaJoule gun is what the military wants. 1 MJ is like a 1 ton object impacting at 100mph. the friction of the impact alone would generate enough energy to blast part of the ship to peices.
    >> Turtle (MELINOVAMARE) !a7gb5XrrY2 02/28/12(Tue)15:24 No.10945544
    >>10945525
    Why did I fucking laugh so much at that
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:25 No.10945548
    >>10945525
    i point to v of x. L2physics.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:25 No.10945552
         File: 1330460748.jpg-(146 KB, 750x600, ROZ.jpg)
    146 KB
    >>10945458

    Exactly. Once you have enough kinetic energy to get into the stratosphere where the atmosphere is a fraction of the density you can get some awesome range increases.

    This is why the Paris Gun could get such insane ranges way back in WW I without technologies like rocket assist or base bleed.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:27 No.10945555
    >>10945524
    >>10945524

    you realize they're working on ones that operate like an artillery piece right? The cost of operating that will be far less than the fuel, maintenance, ordnance, and manpower of delivering a strike via plane. not to mention the public will eat that shit up because it "puts less american lives at risk"
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:30 No.10945573
         File: 1330461035.jpg-(80 KB, 595x394, 1324099733214.jpg)
    80 KB
    >>10945548
    >>10945552
    A bigger arc means spending more kinetic energy in flight. The more kinetic energy you conserve, the more damage you inflict.
    Railgun projectiles aren't ballistic missiles with warheads you retards. YOU RETARDS
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:31 No.10945576
    >>10945573
    You really know nothing about physics do you?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:33 No.10945580
    >>10945543
    Are those genuine muzzle energies or the energy expended per shot? What will the terminal energy be?
    >> discipulus nex alea 02/28/12(Tue)15:34 No.10945581
         File: 1330461288.png-(217 KB, 571x332, 1329804074141.png)
    217 KB
    >>10945573
    Do you know nothing of ballistic flight trajectories or artilery?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:35 No.10945585
    >>10945573
    you know no matter how fast you shoot it horizontally, it will never escape gravity's grasp. It will always drop 9.81 m/s^2
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:36 No.10945592
    >>10945555
    yes...I do know that. Why are you quoting me and then expounding on what I said?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:37 No.10945595
    >>10945576
    For a projectile that completely relies on kinetic energy to do damage it is a waste of energy to make it travel in a ballistic trajectory. Prove me wrong with your "physics" retard
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:38 No.10945602
    >>10945595
    >uses the term ballistic trajectory
    >doesn't understand what it means
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:39 No.10945604
    >>10945595
    they're not making it fly in a ballistics trajectory...it does it on it's own. How are you not getting this? The second it leaves the gun, the slug is dropping. The slug is just a giant piece of metal. It doesn't have anything that'll keep it in flight. Gravity is going to pull it down the second it starts flying.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:42 No.10945622
    >>10945573
    if you're being sarcastic, I like the subtlety of your pic. Using tom cruise who considers himself an authority one whatever he's talking about, goes around calling people glib when he himself in fact is glib.

    If you're not being sarcastic...then how ironic. So stupid.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:42 No.10945624
    MOAR I WANT MOAR 14 YEAR OLD SPERG RAGE
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:42 No.10945625
    >>10945604
    The difference is beyond insignificant.

    OH NO OUR 64 MEGAJOULE PROJECTILE WILL ONLY HIT WITH 62 MEGAJOULES OF KINETIC ENERGY BECAUSE OF AIR RESISTANCE A BLOO BLOO BLOO
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:45 No.10945638
    >>10945604
    I know this. I am mainly answering to this guy >>10945552 who talks about getting it to the stratosphere and having 'awesome range increases'. It doesn't matter because it will hit with the force of a 50km free fall - air resistance instead of the railgun propulsion force - air resistance in a as short as possible trajectory.

    >>10945602
    Ballistic trajectory means getting it as high as possible so it starts to freefall you fucking retard. I know very well what I'm talking about
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:47 No.10945648
         File: 1330462023.jpg-(19 KB, 385x383, 1323956734713.jpg)
    19 KB
    >>10945638
    excuse me...

    GAGAGAAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

    no, you don't know what ballistic means.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:47 No.10945653
    >>10945638
    >Ballistic trajectory means getting it as high as possible so it starts to freefall you fucking retard. I know very well what I'm talking about
    yeah..nope.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:48 No.10945658
    That is the biggest fart simulator I have ever seen.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:50 No.10945672
         File: 1330462206.jpg-(42 KB, 300x322, 361320-tom-bradys-pontytail-62(...).jpg)
    42 KB
    here's another macro to draw attention to this enormous retardation.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:51 No.10945679
         File: 1330462270.jpg-(38 KB, 400x400, 1298421467794.jpg)
    38 KB
    >>10945638
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:51 No.10945684
         File: 1330462315.jpg-(28 KB, 600x450, 1273603293952.jpg)
    28 KB
    >>10945492
    >>10945499
    you are literally the dumbest niggers I have ever encountered
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:52 No.10945688
    >>10945648
    >>10945653
    >ballistic trajectory
    >(DOD, NATO) The trajectory traced after the propulsive force is terminated and the body is acted upon only by gravity and aerodynamic drag.
    http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/b/00611.html

    You best be trolling redguards. You best be trolling
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:55 No.10945710
    >can't fire while moving
    So what, it's an artillery ship rather than a surface ship?
    >>10945525
    conservation of energy states that if the object was travelling in a vacuum, it'll hit with the same amount of force as it is launched (64MJ). There is no loss of energy/momentum unless external forces are involved - an object in motion stays in the same motion.
    In reality, the only loss of energy from a trajectory is from drag/air friction.
    Whatever energy is "lost" from sending the object upwards is recovered on the way down from the earth pulling it (unless the target you're trying to hit has a higher/lower elevation or something then it hits harder or softer, but usually not enough to matter)
    And there's no actual loss of energy from the size of the arc itself that's not drag/external forces related (being exposed to drag longer via a larger arch/more airtime means more net drag), and that's drop in the bucket when you're talking 64MJ.
    >>10944532
    Aye. Can't wait to see the face of the fucker getting hit with it. Bet it'll go through bunkers too. The idea is to make the iowa look like a pop-gun, iirc.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:56 No.10945715
         File: 1330462574.jpg-(87 KB, 469x428, trollface_The_Flying_Machine_A(...).jpg)
    87 KB
    >>10945688
    >>10945672
    You seriously have to be trolling.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:56 No.10945716
    >>10945688
    >that definition doesn't say anything about getting the projectile "as high as possible"
    >can't understand that a projectile can still fly upward after propulsive force is terminated
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:57 No.10945723
    >>10945710
    Well not exactly. You won't regain all the energy because of air resistance.

    If your trajectory was long enough, you could end up decelerating to terminal velocity.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:58 No.10945726
         File: 1330462714.gif-(296 KB, 500x411, 1273024034747.gif)
    296 KB
    >>10945688
    You dumbass piece of shit. This:
    >The trajectory traced after the propulsive force is terminated and the body is acted upon only by gravity and aerodynamic drag
    Is very different from this:
    >Ballistic trajectory means getting it as high as possible so it starts to freefall

    Just because the only forces acting on an object are gravity and drag does not nullify it's existing momentum. An object will remain in motion until acted on by an outside force, all that etc. You are literally retarded.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:59 No.10945732
    >>10945726
    Wait for. It'll get better.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)15:59 No.10945737
    >>10945080
    Uh...getting things moving at relatavistic velocities is pretty difficult.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:00 No.10945745
         File: 1330462858.png-(12 KB, 446x412, 1273592264444.png)
    12 KB
    mfw itt
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:01 No.10945749
    >>10945737
    wow.

    This thread attracted retards like flypaper.

    The only reason car crashes are dangerous is because I can drive my smartcar at relativistic speeds.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:01 No.10945750
    >>10945638
    yup, because when I shoot my firearms, it's always about getting the bullets as high as possible at the right angle so I can hit targets 100 yards away
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:02 No.10945756
         File: 1330462975.jpg-(105 KB, 494x640, Cherry_picker_starts_up.jpg)
    105 KB
    >>10945750
    Did you hear about the new superweapon the US is developing? Pic related.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:04 No.10945761
    >>10945723
    He acknowledged that. The drag force is tiny compared to the kinetic energy of the projectile and would have effectively zero effect over the ranges involved.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:05 No.10945764
    >>10945761

    Still, you're not conserving all kinetic energy. Just being pedantic.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:06 No.10945773
    I want more. More retards. Show yourselves.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:09 No.10945788
    >>10945764
    Did you read his post? He said kinetic energy is conserved in an ideal vacuum and not in reality.

    You corrected him by saying that kinetic energy is not conserved in reality.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:11 No.10945803
         File: 1330463462.jpg-(21 KB, 160x160, 1294615927671.jpg)
    21 KB
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:11 No.10945804
    >>10945716
    If you get it as high as possible then the propulsive force is zero just before the freefall, mouthbreather. Do you also need precise instructions to use a fork? Also, how does it move upwards if the propulsive force is zero asswipe?

    >>10945726
    P= m*v so momentum is zero at the top. It is acted by an outside force it's when it leaves the barrel and gravity starts acting actively.

    >>10945715
    I feel like this thread is a den of trolls, including you.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:11 No.10945807
    >>10945788
    And he claims that you recover the energy lost to gravitational potential. You don't recover all of it. That's pedantry.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:12 No.10945815
    >>10945804
    Cannot into vector based physics.

    Come back after you get out of middle-school.
    >> XTX-Horus !!eHizE29qEFJ 02/28/12(Tue)16:13 No.10945821
    >>10945773

    Me too The stupidity/trolling and the following rage is so delicious.

    >>10945440

    I replayed that bit a lot of times just to listen to the awesome sound. It sounds... Like the future.

    >>10945463

    Aaah, so thats how it is. Thanks for that tidbit of info.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:13 No.10945823
    >>10945804
    Seriously though, when did you disembark from the short bus?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:13 No.10945824
    >Does not know what momentum is
    >Does not know what force is

    How is middle school treating you bro? Not well, sounds like.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:16 No.10945847
         File: 1330463774.jpg-(32 KB, 496x384, 1320832553242.jpg)
    32 KB
    bumping for great lulz.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:17 No.10945865
         File: 1330463875.jpg-(337 KB, 1024x683, 1324115964900.jpg)
    337 KB
    lol
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:18 No.10945871
    >>10945804
    >>10945804
    >does not understand the difference between force and acceleration

    >does not realize that horozontal momentum is conserved

    Seriously, just kills yourself.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:18 No.10945876
         File: 1330463937.jpg-(22 KB, 450x301, 1328950975404.jpg)
    22 KB
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:21 No.10945892
    > getting flashbacks to the T-90 thread from last week that had that one anon banging on about using ERA plates as claymores

    Oh lawdy lawd.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:21 No.10945899
    >>10945892
    I'm holding out hope for more replies.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:22 No.10945912
    Looks small enough to be fit onto a tank, where it would be useful than on a ship
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:23 No.10945914
    >>10945892
    Oh boy, I remember that one. He was an amusing troll.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:23 No.10945915
    >>10945804
    at first I thought you were some kind of troll...but now I'm completely convinced you are just plain o'retarded.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:23 No.10945925
    >>10945815
    >>10945823
    >>10945871
    >Herp derp derp
    More retards claiming claims. I know what these things are. You are telling me force is zero and object still moves? I thought this kind of retards couldnt use computers.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:24 No.10945927
    >>10945912
    you're not seeing to the massive power supply all those cables are connected to.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:25 No.10945940
    >>10945925
    I betting the original retard left and now we just have failtrolls.
    >> anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:26 No.10945952
    we could..... just........ make normal guns bigger
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:26 No.10945954
    >>10945912
    Question: how are we supposed to fit a nuclear reactor into a MBT? Anything less wouldn't be able to power an accelerator weapon, at least in the foreseeable future. You need a lot of power to run something like this.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:27 No.10945957
         File: 1330464420.jpg-(47 KB, 783x546, 1293622435501.jpg)
    47 KB
    >>10945892
    mfw that was me just having a grand old time.

    Seriously this is the first time anyone has remembered me on the internet.
    >> JOKER 02/28/12(Tue)16:27 No.10945962
         File: 1330464459.jpg-(26 KB, 469x255, scramjet.jpg)
    26 KB
    lol rail guns...
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:27 No.10945965
    >>10945954
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery
    Maybe this or a Thorium reactor.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:27 No.10945966
    Why are they shooting this weirdly shaped thing and not something more... bullet-y?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:27 No.10945967
    >>10945952
    Well, until you come up with supersteel, we can't really.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:28 No.10945975
    >>10945966
    Because bullets aren't shaped well to be fired from a railgun.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:29 No.10945980
         File: 1330464546.gif-(129 KB, 300x168, Right+_72da06dd6f252e47d607924(...).gif)
    129 KB
    >>10945957
    Your welcome, I guess?

    In all seriousness that thread was one of the most hilarious things I've seen in a while.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:29 No.10945981
    >>10945925
    >You are telling me force is zero and object still moves?

    >Newton's First Law of Motion
    >An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

    I am not the one telling you. The universe is.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:30 No.10945990
    >>10945966
    They aren't doing range tests yet. No point in making a projectile that is just more likely to punch holes in the side of the test facility.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:30 No.10945991
    The thing about this thread is that the majority of you, save for a few very misinformed individuals, are saying the same things. You're just:

    A) Explaining it poorly
    B) Not understanding each others arguments or
    C) Attacking the problem from different lines of reasoning that lead to the same conclusion, and thinking that that constitutes a contradiction.

    You are mostly just very bad at communicating rather than bad at kinematics.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:30 No.10945994
    >>10945966
    It's in the link. They don't want to kill anyone so they made it as non-aerodynamic as possible.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:30 No.10945996
    BAE can't into aerodynamics
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:31 No.10945999
    >>10945991
    Because I really care about educating someone who is literally short bus retarded or trolling.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:31 No.10946001
    >>10945925
    > You are telling me force is zero and object still moves?

    Yeah uh, that's kind of a law of physics.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:32 No.10946012
    the point he is trying to make is that with air resistance has horrendous effects on this weapon. furthermore, you have to reach the target with kinetic energy left over, while guided missiles dont exactly care to much about the speed, just as long as they get there.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:34 No.10946023
         File: 1330464851.jpg-(307 KB, 1680x1050, 1313482136076.jpg)
    307 KB
    I wonder if this thing could launch satellites supercheap? I know there would be launch shock on the satellite but wouldn't that be cheaper than arranging a rocket? Damn that would be cool.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:34 No.10946028
    >>10946012
    I don't give a shit what point he's trying to make. He doesn't understand the first thing about physics, so I don't really think he's a good source for issues, relative to actual engineers.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:34 No.10946030
         File: 1330464876.jpg-(35 KB, 576x362, _8596895896789.jpg)
    35 KB
    Holy shit you people are fucking idiots.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:35 No.10946035
    >>10946012
    But it doesn't?

    We already have guns that can shoot for miles and do fucktons of impact damage from kinetic energy alone. Air resistance will take at most a few percentage points off the kinetic energy.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:35 No.10946037
    >>10946023
    There were programs to launch satellites using artillery.

    Course, the guy doing it decided to work for Hussein, so he bought it.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:36 No.10946039
    >>10945996
    Electrical Engineer here. I think it's shaped the say it is to allow currents to be induced in the projectile, aiding the production of a net force, or possible to impart a spin on the projectile (it's too late in the day for me to resolve the vectors in my head). Much like the rotor in a squirrel cage motor.

    tl;dr it's shaped that way for electrical reasons rather than mechanical.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:37 No.10946045
    >>10945638
    >>10945688
    >>10945804

    you are seriously retarded. I would suggest having your parents talk to your principal now so you can get to the special ed class asap.

    I'm going to try to contain my rage and explain it to you as simply as I can. Ballistic trajectory is simply the flight path of an object once it has been propelled by an outside force. We'll use a rifle and a round to explain this as close as possible to the railgun. When a rifle strike the primer and ignites the gunpowder, the propulsive force is the gasses expanding and working their way out the barrel. The bullet is in front of these forces so it gets pushed out at amazing speeds. But once it exits the barrel and the gasses escape, the propulsive force stops. The bullet is flying on it's own towards it's intended target. At this point, it's not about getting the bullet as high as it'll possibly go to enter free fall, it's about sending it at the right angle so that at the distance of the target, it would have fought gravity just enough to hit the target. It's not about shooting it into the air, letting it go as high as possible, and then little it free fall into the target. For the railgun, it'll be the same except no gases are involved in propelling it. THe propulsive force is the magnetic charge or whatever that sends it out of the barrel. Once it leaves the barrel, it's flying on it's own, it's entered it's ballistic trajectory. If the barrel is angled up even a little bit, it exits the barrel and goes upwards, even after the propulsive force that pushed it out of the barrel is terminated. Now stop calling people names when you're the only idiot here that has indicated that they need explicit instructions on how to use forks.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:37 No.10946047
    >>10946023
    The huge electromagnetic fields that the projectile are subjected too are a bigger problem than the acceleration of the launch.

    You'd be better off with a big conventional gun for that sort of thing.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:38 No.10946059
    >>10946045
    Brevity and spacing bro.

    No one is going to read that fucking brick.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:38 No.10946061
    >>10945966
    they're intentionally shooting those to slow down the slugs rapidly. They don't want to fire one of those and not be able to stop it before it causes serious damage
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:39 No.10946062
    If you tried to get a high ballistic trajectory with this (like a meteor), you'd probably end up putting shit into orbit.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:40 No.10946073
    >>10946059
    Well, no one who doesn't already understand it.

    >>10946047
    If it's actually a 'rail gun', then there's the issue of wear on the rails. Unless they're doing something differently from the last time I was looking at EM propulsion guns.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:40 No.10946079
    This is my final post in this thread because my blood pressure is very high with all these retarded trolls around. You have to shoot projectile as straight as possible because energy is lost otherwise and you cant get it back from gravity. You either agree with this and go on your life like a sensible person or you keep arguing like a retard that it doesnt matter. Of course it matters you inbred dumbfucks
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:41 No.10946088
    >>10946047
    But could a regular gun achieve escape velocity like this thing? Just harden against electromagnetics too?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:41 No.10946089
    >>10946039
    nope. Read the article.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:41 No.10946091
    >>10946035
    the faster something goes, the more air resistance.

    Most KE weapons we have today are tank rounds which arent designed to travel far by design.

    some guns have the issue where they tend to leave a whole so they lack stopping power. This weapon could be named Hole Maker 2000
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:41 No.10946092
    >>10946073
    I don't see the problem of wear on the rails, considering they are going to be hitting the enemy at mach 10.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:42 No.10946094
    >>10946045
    Stop trying to sound smart. F=ma dumbass, that is just a FACT. m is mass which is the mass of the projectile, and the shell is accelerating upwards, so the force is by necessity non-zero. That's just science, I don't know what you're trying to prove other than your own stupidity.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:42 No.10946095
    >>10946079
    More posts, I want someone to have a heart attack over this thread.

    Honestly, I'm going to believe some engineers over a random motherfucker who doesn't understand physics.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:43 No.10946102
    >>10946079
    nope. Not with the energy this thing is putting out. You're dumb
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:43 No.10946105
    >>10946092
    >rails
    >projectile

    You can see yourself out.

    >>10946094
    It's a fact that it's accelerating inside the barrel.
    But you're a troll anyway.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:43 No.10946107
    >>10946045
    Whatever your wall of text is very tl;dr
    Read >>10946079
    and go die if you dont agree.
    Remember always grab the fork from the other side of the pointy spikes so your mommy doesnt have to get you into speshul hospital
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:43 No.10946109
    >>10946079
    You are overestimating the effects of air resistance. One Megajoule either way doesn't matter when you are still hitting the target with enough energy to pulverize everything in a twenty foot radius.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:44 No.10946122
    >>10946094
    yup, just like I thought. You're retarded. Enroll into the special ed class you stupid fuck.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:45 No.10946128
    >>10946094
    lol that guy is right, you really are retarded.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:45 No.10946130
         File: 1330465540.jpg-(63 KB, 480x587, 1277677744009.jpg)
    63 KB
    this is now a weeabo thread
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:46 No.10946134
    >>10946105
    my bad, I was thinking of a coil gun.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:46 No.10946136
    >>10946094
    So theres a force pulling the bullet skywards? I think you can ignore the moon in this problem.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:46 No.10946138
         File: 1330465589.jpg-(41 KB, 473x360, 10.jpg)
    41 KB
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:46 No.10946140
    >>10946088
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP

    We made it halfway there in the '60s. A longer gun with multiple staged ignition chambers along the length of the barrel could conceivably pull it off.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:47 No.10946142
         File: 1330465636.jpg-(128 KB, 600x897, howitzer.jpg)
    128 KB
    >People are killed by celebratory bullets fired into the air following ballistic trajectories.
    >Firing a bullet precisely straight up and it will hit like a small stone.

    Derp.

    So how do think they will extract the energy required to fire a slug with 64 MJ of KE in production cannon? Are massive banks of batteries feasible, or would you want something more durable like banks of ultracapacitors or some flywheels?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:47 No.10946148
    >>10946094
    >Doesn't know the difference between acceleration and velocity
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:47 No.10946151
         File: 1330465677.jpg-(717 KB, 1920x1080, 4e3f066c2288b1891bc36344c3801b(...).jpg)
    717 KB
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:48 No.10946153
    >>10946107
    I'll summarize for you since you're too stupid. Like a bullet, you'll have to angle the barrel up to hit a target far away. The little energy you lose in it traveling doesn't matter at the ranges this thing will be shot at. You're dumb, go kill yourself and make this world a better place
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:48 No.10946154
    >>10945756

    LOL

    >Muhreen Launcher
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:48 No.10946155
    >>10946142
    How about a bigass room of capacitors and a nuclear reactor?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:49 No.10946165
    >>10946142
    Flywheels are too fragile and too slow to extract energy from.

    Giant banks of (ultra)capacitors are the only way to go.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:49 No.10946167
         File: 1330465793.jpg-(1.65 MB, 2560x1600, 55a202e6be4a11cb5979afe1d393b0(...).jpg)
    1.65 MB
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:50 No.10946171
    >>10946151
    Is Spice and Wolf worth watching for someone who isn't big into the animes?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:50 No.10946178
         File: 1330465858.jpg-(227 KB, 1920x1200, 12893.jpg)
    227 KB
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:51 No.10946180
    >>10946136
    It's called the magnus effect. Stop pretending you're a troll like everyone else in here.

    Listen, retards. You cant make an object fly down at mach10 from gravity alone. You would have to strap a small jet engine on each projectile and fire it up when momentum is zero at the top to reach mach 10 on the down trajectory. I think we're done here
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:53 No.10946189
    >>10946180
    Or shoot it out a cannon on a ballistic trajectory.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:53 No.10946193
    >>10946180
    Momentum is only zero in the vertical dimension at the top. Shit is still moving laterally.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:53 No.10946194
    >>10946094
    >and the shell is accelerating upwards

    Far too obvious. You've blown your cover. 9/10 for causing so much rage in so many replies.

    I remember someone putting their hand up in a mechanics lecture and trying to argue this point against the lecturer in front of 150 people. It went down in infamy, the dumbass still thought he was right after that and ended up failing the year. Don't turn into that guy.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:55 No.10946201
    >>10946153
    Read >>10946180 to understand how it is in reality and not in your imaginationland in your head.

    If it was like you say they would fly planes 60km up and bomb from there. It would look like an airplane shitting small metal turds. No need for expensive railguns and retard trajectories
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:57 No.10946218
    >>10946201
    You really need to stop posting.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:57 No.10946219
    >>10946201
    ...except that you are completely ignoring the horizontal axis here.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:59 No.10946232
    >>10946180
    you still fail to understand what ballistics trajectory is. That's why people think you're retarded, because they're arguing with you assuming you know what it is, but you're a retarded stupid shit who thinks it's about going straight up and then into free fall.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)16:59 No.10946236
    >>10946201
    Bombers dont drop kinetic weapons and they never will.

    If a bomber was going to drop a kinetic weapon in a vacuum, it would make sense to go high as possible. This fails in the real world because of air resistance.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:02 No.10946249
    >>10946194
    Are you accusing me of trolling? Lol this whole thread is filled with trolls and I'm trying to let some sensible people know the reality. This guy >>10946094 tried to impersonate me like I'm trolling but failed hard as someone like you could spot him.

    >>10946189
    >>10946193
    You dont get that ballistic trajectory means that object will freefall and lose all the energy from going up. Then it will reach terminal velocity which is much more less than mach 10.

    I thought /k/ had smart people in it.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:02 No.10946251
         File: 1330466558.jpg-(31 KB, 500x375, stop-posting.jpg)
    31 KB
    everyone itt
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:02 No.10946252
    A ballistic trajectory is a nonlifting trajectory; i.e. where the only external forces on the projectile are gravity and drag.

    There, now shut the fuck up.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:02 No.10946255
    >>10946236
    http://defensetech.org/2011/04/29/france-using-concrete-bombs-in-libya/

    They actually do, but not for any good reason.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:02 No.10946257
    >>10946236
    that's not quite true
    concrete bomb shapes HAVE been dropped in combat, most recently in Lybia
    but I'm just confusing the issue here.
    Yes, there is such a thing as terminal velocity
    unsurprisingly, the terminal velocity of anything at all is subsonic
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:03 No.10946262
    >>10946249
    >still doesn't understand that horozontal momentum is conserved
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:04 No.10946265
    >>10946236
    >Bombers dont drop kinetic weapons and they never will.
    Someone wasn't paying attention during the Libyan conflict...
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:04 No.10946266
    >>10946249
    You do not know what a ballistic trajectory is. It is an ARC. There are horizontal components to the velocity and momentum that at no time equal zero.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:04 No.10946276
    >>10946262
    It isn't, when drag is a factor.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:05 No.10946286
    >>10946276
    hurrrrrrrr I guess we should stop using projectile weapons and just use swords.

    oh shit drag affects swords.

    World peace!
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:06 No.10946289
    >>10946276
    Drag is not a large enough factor to make a significant difference. For all intents and purposes, one can consider horizontal momentum conserved for the sake of simplicity.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:07 No.10946297
         File: 1330466843.jpg-(45 KB, 719x466, Railgun schematic.jpg)
    45 KB
    Hey guys...
    You DO know that they have no intention of using ballistic trajectories with this railgun, right?

    They intend to use guided projectiles that glide through the upper atmosphere to their target.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:08 No.10946305
    >>10946236
    Let me introduce you to the MOP, now on active duty.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordinance_Penetrator

    >Dropped from a bomber
    >Penetrates 200 feet of reinforced concrete
    >Only then does it explode
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:08 No.10946306
    >>10946297
    Look closely at that image. What is the phrase on the left under the path of the projectile?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:08 No.10946312
    >>10946249
    You're absolutely right that it will have shit y velocity because of air resistance, its all about that x velocity.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:09 No.10946313
         File: 1330466952.jpg-(282 KB, 1342x708, A perfect storm of reaction fa(...).jpg)
    282 KB
    >>10946289
    >Drag is not a large enough factor to make a significant difference.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:10 No.10946321
    >>10946306
    NYAH NYUAH SHUT UP SHUT UP
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:10 No.10946324
    >>10946313
    Not in the horizontal dimension.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:11 No.10946330
    >>10946306
    Ballistic trajectory. Top of the arc is 500k feet. Velocity at top of arc is zero
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:12 No.10946336
    >>10946330
    >Velocity at the top of the arc is zero.

    In the vertical dimension only. In the horizontal direction it is fuckhuge.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:12 No.10946337
         File: 1330467155.jpg-(2.22 MB, 3508x4961, Successful_troll_is_succesful_(...).jpg)
    2.22 MB
    itt
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:13 No.10946344
    >>10946330
    Right, like how rounds fired from a rifle at a long range target stop in midair.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:13 No.10946349
         File: 1330467225.jpg-(1.97 MB, 1880x2100, final_pic.jpg)
    1.97 MB
    >>10946330
    Upward Velocity == 0, sure.
    Horizontal Velocity =/= 0
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:14 No.10946354
    >>10946306
    It's ballistic until it reaches gliding altitude. Just like, say, LRLAP, which achieved a range of over 50 nautical miles out of a fairly conventional gun.

    There is simply NO WAY a fully-ballistic gun, even a railgun, could achieve 200 mile ranges without gliding. Which, by the way, is the biggest reason this whole program is horseshit; they claim they're going to have "missile bang for artillery buck" when in fact each fancy guided projectile will cost about as much as a missile.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:15 No.10946364
    Sometime in the future, will this rail gun technology be seen in rifles and such, maybe an antimaterial rifle?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:15 No.10946365
         File: 1330467354.jpg-(43 KB, 255x191, 121234123411.jpg)
    43 KB
    >>10946354
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:16 No.10946373
    >>10946336
    No since you spend so much energy to go up the energy to go straight is much less if you just go straight. You also need guidance since air fucks accuracy up

    This is so easy people, shoot something up with mac10 speed and it wont come down at mac10. Only acceleration is going to be mac10 at the start then it drops to 0 and then to 9,81. I swear /k/ is full of high school dropouts
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:16 No.10946374
    >>10946364
    not without significant advances in energy storage technology. Like, seriouisly significant.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:17 No.10946379
    >>10946354
    It uses gliding to extend the apex portion of the ballistic arc certainly, but when it goes up and comes down, it does so ballistically (not that there would even be another way)
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:18 No.10946384
    >>10946344
    I lol'd.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:19 No.10946395
    >>10946373
    You cannot make the projectile not follow a ballistic arc. A shallow arc at 20 degrees or so is still an arc.

    Also you still don't seem to grasp the difference between the horizontal and vertical components of vectors, or the difference between acceleration and velocity.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:21 No.10946416
    I give up. You can't make a retard understand he's retarded. Best you can hope for is that he'll call himself retarded but he'll still be retarded.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:22 No.10946423
    >>10946373
    Um bro..... acceleration in the x direction is always zero and acceleration in the y direction is always -9.8 meters per second^2, here on earth here anyway. ignoring air resistance.

    You are correct that the further you need the weapon to go, the lower the amount of energy it has at the end.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:23 No.10946440
    I'm just going to call him the triple derivative of position with respect to time, that's right - Jerk!
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:24 No.10946445
    >in a vacuum this would have a range of about 400 miles
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:24 No.10946449
    >>10946440
    Oh man physics puns are the worst.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:26 No.10946467
         File: 1330467986.png-(350 KB, 1379x1329, 1324705251367.png)
    350 KB
    >>10946395
    >>10946416
    >>10946423
    Anyway, time to sleep. My bed under the bridge is waiting.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:27 No.10946472
    >>10946467
    Peace yo
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:33 No.10946550
         File: 1330468413.jpg-(120 KB, 474x357, o my.jpg)
    120 KB
    >mfw this entire thread
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:35 No.10946572
    you guys take something so amazing and beautiful and YOU FUCKING RUIN IT!!! this is why we can't have nice things.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:40 No.10946622
         File: 1330468824.jpg-(58 KB, 455x428, sgt-johnson.jpg)
    58 KB
    With coordinated fire from the Athens and the Malta, nothing's getting past this battle cluster in one piece.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)17:59 No.10946779
    Why is there a red dot on the thigh of the guy loading the rail gun?
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)18:00 No.10946794
    >>10946779
    Hes being held hostage by the US gov
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)18:04 No.10946829
    >>10946423
    So your car never moves?

    Tell me about the perpetual motion machine you've perfected with your magical physics.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)18:08 No.10946860
    >>10946572
    Take it up with Newton, dumbfag.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)18:08 No.10946862
    >>10946829
    My car moves because of friction.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)18:13 No.10946906
    ITT: daytime /k/ attempts to be /sci/
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)18:46 No.10947173
    This thread has been glorious. Been cecking it all day for the lulz. So much daytime /k/.

    Someone should repost this for nighttime /k/ to handle.
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)19:13 No.10947392
    >>10947173
    yup. where is nighttime /k/ when you need it?

    capcha: specific nothere
    >> Anonymous 02/28/12(Tue)20:06 No.10947839
    >>10944835

    No, You're right. The air around the projectile is stripped of its electrons, and becomes plasma.



    [Return] [Top]
    Delete Post [File Only]
    Password
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]