Real Railgun... do you have any idea what this means!?!?!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**The Bringer**

I have this great idea, howabout we wait till railguns are mounted on battleships and are used in action, and watch exactly what they can do.

Vladsimpaler wrote:
The Bringer wrote:And there are no counter-measures for a railgun

Displacer field? ; )

Dude, you are a genius. Tell me its not that easy, tell me it isn't!

**ShumaGorath**

youbedead wrote:
The Bringer wrote:
youbedead wrote:
The Bringer wrote:Too bad that 1.9 tons of TNT is directed in roughly a straight line. Just saying. There will be more than a straight line, but that much TNT would guarantee the ship to go down, not a single railgun shot.

That not how physics work, lets say this thing hits the ground. All of that kinetic energy is directed into the ground creating blast similar to an explosive. Lets say it hits a ship, it will vaporize large amounts of metal as it passes through a ship, creating a massive hole under the water line, or if they can hit the armory the ship goes up in a bang.

It would probably sink a ship... but it really depends where it inflicts the damage and how big a hole it creates.

On land, it hits whatever, but when it hits the dirt, it won't explode like 1.9 tons of TNT. It will create a minor "explosion" but it won't be anything like an explosive.

I just did a small scale test, very small scale.

I shot a rubber band at a pile of flour. The flour moved a little, but didn't do anything significant. Now, if the energy in the stretch rubber band were used to fling the flour, you would have had a larger amount go into the air.

The ground will just absorb most of the energy. The shot will probably leave a nice crater, create a nice little "explosion," but 1.9 tons of TNT will be way more effective.

okay you want to do this then a rubber band that weighs one gram flung at 10 mph is equivalent to 4 milligrams of tnt. I bet you the rubber band did more then 4 milligrams of tnt. also i was mistaken it was 11.19 tons of tnt meaning even if it only has one tenth of the power converted to a balst it would still be over 1 ton of tnt

Blast deflection significantly reduces the amount of damage non penetrating explosives deal to hard targets. A kinetic penetrator will do significantly more harm to a solid mass then a lump of tnt placed against it. What you're hitting them with is fairly irrelevant, what matters is where and how kinetic energy is applied to the subject.

**youbedead**

ShumaGorath wrote:
youbedead wrote:
The Bringer wrote:
youbedead wrote:
The Bringer wrote:Too bad that 1.9 tons of TNT is directed in roughly a straight line. Just saying. There will be more than a straight line, but that much TNT would guarantee the ship to go down, not a single railgun shot.

That not how physics work, lets say this thing hits the ground. All of that kinetic energy is directed into the ground creating blast similar to an explosive. Lets say it hits a ship, it will vaporize large amounts of metal as it passes through a ship, creating a massive hole under the water line, or if they can hit the armory the ship goes up in a bang.

It would probably sink a ship... but it really depends where it inflicts the damage and how big a hole it creates.

On land, it hits whatever, but when it hits the dirt, it won't explode like 1.9 tons of TNT. It will create a minor "explosion" but it won't be anything like an explosive.

I just did a small scale test, very small scale.

I shot a rubber band at a pile of flour. The flour moved a little, but didn't do anything significant. Now, if the energy in the stretch rubber band were used to fling the flour, you would have had a larger amount go into the air.

The ground will just absorb most of the energy. The shot will probably leave a nice crater, create a nice little "explosion," but 1.9 tons of TNT will be way more effective.

okay you want to do this then a rubber band that weighs one gram flung at 10 mph is equivalent to 4 milligrams of tnt. I bet you the rubber band did more then 4 milligrams of tnt. also i was mistaken it was 11.19 tons of tnt meaning even if it only has one tenth of the power converted to a balst it would still be over 1 ton of tnt

Blast deflection significantly reduces the amount of damage non penetrating explosives deal to hard targets. A kinetic penetrator will do significantly more harm to a solid mass then a lump of tnt placed against it. What you're hitting them with is fairly irrelevant, what matters is where and how kinetic energy is applied to the subject.

exactly

**The Bringer**

I'm not disagreeing with that, that is perfectly sound, I'm disagreeing with

youbedead wrote:
TAll of that kinetic energy is directed into the ground creating blast similar to an explosive.

**youbedead**

The Bringer wrote:I'm not disagreeing with that, that is perfectly sound, I'm disagreeing with

youbedead wrote:
TAll of that kinetic energy is directed into the ground creating blast similar to an explosive.

Where the bloody hell is the energy directed then, do you believe that a meteor doesn't create an explosion because its not explosive. This thing has 11 tons of tnt behind that, just think about that even if 1% is directed outward thats 220 pounds of tnt, the actuall energy realesed outwrad though is closer to 50% which is 5.6 tons of tnt directed outward. You can't put that much force behind something like that with out doing some serious damage

**dogma**

Yeah, youbedead is absolutely correct.

**youbedead**

dogma wrote:Yeah, youbedead is absolutely correct.

Physics is fun

**dogma**

youbedead wrote:
We never said it could escape atmosphere, terminal velocity is the maximum speed something can reach in free fall

Well, any set of conditions, not just free fall.

For example, bullet X can only reach speed Y given conditions Z.

**youbedead**

dogma wrote:
youbedead wrote:
We never said it could escape atmosphere, terminal velocity is the maximum speed something can reach in free fall

Well, any set of conditions, not just free fall.

For example, bullet X can only reach speed Y given conditions Z.

In the context of the argument though it was about free fall.

**dogma**

youbedead wrote:
Physics is fun

Before I decided on political science and philosophy I was going to double major in physics and math.

**youbedead**

dogma wrote:
youbedead wrote:
Physics is fun

Before I decided on political science and philosophy I was going to double major in physics and math.

See have to think about why we blow thing up, I just worry about how to blow them up the best.

speaking of which this thread needs more explosions

see the Russians knew how to name things, we need a better name for this thing

**dogma**

Well, I really just decided that politics was begging for legitimate mathematical modeling techniques.

I've met many roadblocks because my professors haven't understood things like Rossler attractors.

**Ahtman**

dogma wrote:Well, I really just decided that politics was begging for legitimate mathematical modeling techniques.

I've met many roadblocks because my professors haven't understood things like Rossler attractors.

But can you model the human heart with your so called science and math?

**youbedead**

Ahtman wrote:
dogma wrote:Well, I really just decided that politics was begging for legitimate mathematical modeling techniques.

I've met many roadblocks because my professors haven't understood things like Rossler attractors.

But can you model the human heart with your so called science and math?

sure you can

**Grakmar**

youbedead wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
dogma wrote:Well, I really just decided that politics was begging for legitimate mathematical modeling techniques.

I've met many roadblocks because my professors haven't understood things like Rossler attractors.

But can you model the human heart with your so called science and math?

sure you can

Congratulations!

You just won the thread!

**chaos0xomega**

youbedead wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
youbedead wrote:
dogma wrote:
youbedead wrote:
It is quite possible to fire past the horizon line and maintain a ballistic trajectory, depending on how far away the horizon is. at level ground thats is approximately 50 miles away.

Yes, I know. My point was that any ballistic that involves cresting the horizon also involves entering free fall.

Your image actually confirms my point.

Mach 5 is well above terminal velocity of something subject only to free fall. There seems to have been a misunderstanding all I am saying is that it will not be subject to only the force of gravity, and I assumed you were saying that it would only strike at the terminal velocity of gravitational free fall (well below mach 5), if I was mistaken I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

I do agree that at extreme ranges it will have serious issues with precise targeting, though if the shell weighs 100 pounds and hits the target at mach 5 it'll be equivalent to 1.9 tons of tnt. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+1+701.45^2+*45+359.237++joules+to+megatones

Escape velocity is 11.2 km/s. Mach 25 = 7.5km/s... Thats right, mach TWENTY-FIVE still is not escape velocity. Also, mach is a subjective measure of velocity. You could theoretically be travelling through a fluid at mach 10 and only be moving about 10 miles per hour. M=V/a, where V is the velocity, and a is the speed of sound through that medium. So, saying Mach 5 = escape velocity doesn't really mean very much.

We never said it could escape atmosphere, terminal velocity is the maximum speed something can reach in free fall

Yeah, sorry my bad, I was tired and misread your post.

**Frazzled**

youbedead wrote:
The Dreadnote wrote:
youbedead wrote:Good lord, will all of you go back to highschool physics please. It maintains a ballistic trajectory, therefore it comes down at almost the speed it was fired at, it how mortars and howitzers work
bs. Anything that's had it's upward motion arrested by gravity - like a mortar shell past the peak of it's arc - will be accelerated downwards by gravity alone, eventually reaching terminal velocity. It maintains it's horizontal velocity just fine, however. Gotta think about vectors.

Only if it it loses all energy on the way up and doesn't maintain a ballistic trajectory.

This is not a ballistic trajectory. notice that this is not a perfect parabolic curve

the missle lose the majority of energy at the apogee then falls to earth.

whereas the rail gun would use the trajectory of a projectile, which is a perfect parabolic curve

If the shell were to reach a speed of zero then fall it would only reach terminal velocity, but it still has forward motion form the firiing

OMG have I finally found a reason to know the area under the curve?

**The Bringer**

Lol frazzled. Yay integrals.

@ everyone who thinks all that energy will just create one huge explosion. That energy does go somewhere. I'm no professor, but I have taken both a highschool and college level physics course. When something with that much inertia hits something, the earth will absorb it. It doesn't disapeer, it pushes the earth one gazillionth of a millimeter, and in the process will create a rather little nice cloud.

Not to be completely contradictory, but there will be no grand explosion. None. The earth will take most of it, and there will be a minor explosion on impact with the ground. Though I don't know how minor.

The biggest "explosion" will be when it hits the target. It will most likely have a little cone effect, and it will send shrapnel everywhere and do more than just a clean hole of damage.

**dogma**

The Bringer wrote:@ everyone who thinks all that energy creates an explosion. That energy does go somewhere. I'm not professor, but I have taken both a highschool and college level physics course. When something with that much inertia hits something, the earth will absorb it. It doesn't disapeer, it pushes the earth one gazillionth of a millimeter, and in the process will create a rather little nice cloud.

Not to be completely contradictory, but there will be no grand explosion. None. The earth will take most of it, and there will be a minor explosion on impact with the ground. Though I don't know how minor.

The biggest "explosion" will be when it hits the target. It will most likely have a little cone effect, and it will send shrapnel everywhere and do more than just a clean hole of damage.

I'd imagine it would look like this:

................................................--------------------------------------------------------------
............................................................................................\ /
This is some boat or whatever:...........................................\ /
.............................................................................................\ /
.................................................----------------------------------\/----------------------------

I would correct you but, honestly, its too much effort for this format.

Suffice it to say, you're entirely wrong. That is not how objects beahve at extreme velocity.

**Gibbsey**

So how long until they accidently shoot a plane down...

**The Bringer**

Yeah... formatting never work

**Frazzled**

I think the essential question is, can I mount this baby in the back of a Ford 350?

**Grakmar**

Frazzled wrote:I think the essential question is, can I mount this baby in the back of a Ford 350?

You can certainly try!

Just remember Newton's 3rd law and compare the mass of your truck vs a battleship.

Now, don't blame me when your truck is nothing more than a small pile of twisted metal in a crater.

**Frazzled**

Grakmar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I think the essential question is, can I mount this baby in the back of a Ford 350?

You can certainly try!

Just remember Newton's 3rd law and compare the mass of your truck vs a battleship.

Now, don't blame me when your truck is nothing more than a small pile of twisted metal in a crater.

Battleship, Double dooley F350, I don't know they're about the same

**The Bringer**

Frazzled ones to be that first man to go to the moon on a ford.

Alternatively, you could mount a small-scale version on. Probably would be loads of fun for whatever you Texans do.

**chaos0xomega**

The Bringer wrote:Lol frazzled. Yay integrals.

@ everyone who thinks all that energy will just create one huge explosion. That energy does go somewhere. I'm no professor, but I have taken both a highschool and college level physics course. When something with that much inertia hits something, the earth will absorb it. It doesn't disapeer, it pushes the earth one gazillionth of a millimeter, and in the process will create a rather little nice cloud.

Not to be completely contradictory, but there will be no grand explosion. None. The earth will take most of it, and there will be a minor explosion on impact with the ground. Though I don't know how minor.

The biggest "explosion" will be when it hits the target. It will most likely have a little cone effect, and it will send shrapnel everywhere and do more than just a clean hole of damage.

I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to say, but this sounds completely wrong. Unless the object that the slug hits is the earth itself, the earth will absorb little, if any, energy. Even if it does hit the earth, the 'earth' as a whole receives very little of that energy. Most of it is transferred directly into the particles contacting the slug (I.E. - rocks, dirt, etc.), which are then sent flying every which way creating more than a 'rather little nice cloud'.

**ShumaGorath**

I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to say, but this sounds completely wrong. Unless the object that the slug hits is the earth itself, the earth will absorb little, if any, energy. Even if it does hit the earth, the 'earth' as a whole receives very little of that energy. Most of it is transferred directly into the particles contacting the slug (I.E. - rocks, dirt, etc.), which are then sent flying every which way creating more than a 'rather little nice cloud'.

The earth would absorb a significant portion of the impact, likely the majority of it. However that absorption still transfers into an incredible amount of kinetic and heat energy released which would result in a visible non chemical explosion (an explosion just being the general release of energy). I think the real question is, why are you shooting the ground? A rail gun is clearly not designed for inaccurate bombardment, that defeats the point of a kinetic round in general which is going to lose most of it's explosive force directly into the ground or directly into the sky.

**chaos0xomega**

ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to say, but this sounds completely wrong. Unless the object that the slug hits is the earth itself, the earth will absorb little, if any, energy. Even if it does hit the earth, the 'earth' as a whole receives very little of that energy. Most of it is transferred directly into the particles contacting the slug (I.E. - rocks, dirt, etc.), which are then sent flying every which way creating more than a 'rather little nice cloud'.

The earth would absorb a significant portion of the impact, likely the majority of it. However that absorption still transfers into an incredible amount of kinetic and heat energy released which would result in a visible non chemical explosion (an explosion just being the general release of energy). I think the real question is, why are you shooting the ground? A rail gun is clearly not designed for inaccurate bombardment, that defeats the point of a kinetic round in general which is going to lose most of it's explosive force directly into the ground or directly into the sky.

Again, saying the earth absorbs a significant portion of the impact is misleading. That implies that the entirety of this spinning ball of rock and water we call home will absorb what is, in comparison, a very small amount of energy. While that is what occurs (in the grand scheme of things), it doesn't begin to describe the observable and localized effects of this interaction.

**Soladrin**

Ok, so I suck at anything concerning math.... But I always figured that at a certain velocity things would just start ignoring obstacles other then a meter of steel and pass straight through (nonsense now that I think about it) But I always guessed the energy behind would just keep it going regardless.

**The Bringer**

As I said previously, lets just wait for more information. It's still completely experimental after all...

Until then... let's just look at those heart graphs.