way behind on looking at the new sets. gonna hafta spend some time catching up. you'd think that i'd have lots of time to look since I'm still mostly flat on my back, but apparently not.
in any case, finished about 1/2 of the larry niven collection over the last couple days. is amusing just how much of 60s sci fi actually came true.
been working out the physics of magnetic field weapons (gauss guns/rail guns/etc), and it should be possible to fling a 500g projectile at roughly 3200m/s from a 3m barrel (technically, this is a rail system, but most people are more familiar with the term barrel, so i'll use it). needless to say, this wouldn't be shoulder fired (as it would remove the shoulder of the firer via recoil), and would actually require 3 rails, instead of the far more common 2 rail system. the problem with this design is that it would absolutely require muzzle loading, and therefore would be unsuitable for either tank mounting or automatic fire of any kind. the required projectile would probably work best as a titanium alloy of some kind, though i'm uncertain if titanium is magnetically inert, and i haven't bothered to look. (using a magnetically inert metal is required, as the source of magnetism is at the base of the barrel). due to this design, firing stresses shouldn't warp the barrel and since there is no current carried along the rails, it wouldn't arc through the shell, and thus would allow for multiple shots from a single barrel (current design attempts require service on the barrel after every shot). if the calculations are correct, it should be possible to build a servicable antitank weapon for under $1500, using parts available from most hardware stores. actually, the penetrators for the gun would cost about as much as the gun and would be much harder to produce. (you could use zinc with a titanium cap, but i'm uncertain if the zinc would survive the firing stresses.) potentially, if you were willing to accept a much lower muzzle velocity (1000-1500 m/s), the penetrator could be built of commercially avaliable washers, and while not useful for antitank purposes, would do a through and through on people in kevlar. (due to the high mass of the projectile, would potentially go through a second person as well.) even at this lower velocity, would be fatal to shoot from the shoulder. in addition to the rounds, would require power source. if the calculations are correct, would charge capacitors from a car battery. without an alternator of some kind, would drain a car battery pretty fast. (perhaps would work better to use high capacity cells from laptop batteries, but uncertain.) the use of a hollow penetrator would actually improve penetration against an armored target. (you can run the numbers on that yourself, but you'll hafta trust me on that) downs: ungainly, high weight, potentially limited to vehicular mount, potentially expensive ammo. ups: very high muzzle velocity, cheap to produce (the second one, the first one is always expensive), antiarmor capabilities. if it weren't vastly illegal and expensive to test the idea (not to mention probably producing sufficient magnetic flux to fry a pacemaker at 100m), i'd probably build one.
ahhh, well, gives me something to run my brain over when I can't get outta bed.
in any case, finished about 1/2 of the larry niven collection over the last couple days. is amusing just how much of 60s sci fi actually came true.
been working out the physics of magnetic field weapons (gauss guns/rail guns/etc), and it should be possible to fling a 500g projectile at roughly 3200m/s from a 3m barrel (technically, this is a rail system, but most people are more familiar with the term barrel, so i'll use it). needless to say, this wouldn't be shoulder fired (as it would remove the shoulder of the firer via recoil), and would actually require 3 rails, instead of the far more common 2 rail system. the problem with this design is that it would absolutely require muzzle loading, and therefore would be unsuitable for either tank mounting or automatic fire of any kind. the required projectile would probably work best as a titanium alloy of some kind, though i'm uncertain if titanium is magnetically inert, and i haven't bothered to look. (using a magnetically inert metal is required, as the source of magnetism is at the base of the barrel). due to this design, firing stresses shouldn't warp the barrel and since there is no current carried along the rails, it wouldn't arc through the shell, and thus would allow for multiple shots from a single barrel (current design attempts require service on the barrel after every shot). if the calculations are correct, it should be possible to build a servicable antitank weapon for under $1500, using parts available from most hardware stores. actually, the penetrators for the gun would cost about as much as the gun and would be much harder to produce. (you could use zinc with a titanium cap, but i'm uncertain if the zinc would survive the firing stresses.) potentially, if you were willing to accept a much lower muzzle velocity (1000-1500 m/s), the penetrator could be built of commercially avaliable washers, and while not useful for antitank purposes, would do a through and through on people in kevlar. (due to the high mass of the projectile, would potentially go through a second person as well.) even at this lower velocity, would be fatal to shoot from the shoulder. in addition to the rounds, would require power source. if the calculations are correct, would charge capacitors from a car battery. without an alternator of some kind, would drain a car battery pretty fast. (perhaps would work better to use high capacity cells from laptop batteries, but uncertain.) the use of a hollow penetrator would actually improve penetration against an armored target. (you can run the numbers on that yourself, but you'll hafta trust me on that) downs: ungainly, high weight, potentially limited to vehicular mount, potentially expensive ammo. ups: very high muzzle velocity, cheap to produce (the second one, the first one is always expensive), antiarmor capabilities. if it weren't vastly illegal and expensive to test the idea (not to mention probably producing sufficient magnetic flux to fry a pacemaker at 100m), i'd probably build one.
ahhh, well, gives me something to run my brain over when I can't get outta bed.
salome:
True! All work is a scam: "arbait mach frei"