Rail Gun

Rail guns arent that cool, Ive built a few before (though really small ones that could shoot through a soda can but that was about it.) In order to have a Rail gun that could shoot through heavily fortified tanks and armor you would need a massive rail and probably Uranium for the projectile. While it doesnt sound that difficult its more about cost and efficiency than anything else.

However I am looking into coil gun/rifle technology, which is basically a gauss gun that fires out projectiles, iron darts or bullets would probably be best. It may not be much more powerfull than a normal semi-auto rifle but it would be highly accurate and silent.

the newest generation of "rail guns" is not going to be used in the gun way instead they are making them into the catuplts on aircraft carriers. the first carreir with this new cat system will be the CVX it is now being built at the Northup Grumman Ship Yard in Newport News Va. i have been contacted to fit this carrier 4 cats. able to launch the JSF and the F-18 the F-14 is being fazed out.

A railgun is two homopolar rails, connected to an AC current which pulses at a set frequency and voltage, as to accelerate a particle to extremely high speed. Having built one, I can say that they require HUGE amounts of energy to power. And as for nobody, for pity's sake, if you're going to try and pretend to be an area 51 resaercher, TRY HARDER. stupid head.

Wrong again buddy, rail guns are not particle accelerators, they simply use a strong EM field to accelerate the projectile (which is usually a heavy metal)..and they require enormous amounts of energy which is why a homopolar GENERATOR (don't know where the hell you got the idea of a homopolar rail from?) is a good high current low voltage energy source. Oh and if YOU'RE going to pretend like you know what you are talking about, I suggest YOU try harder as well.

I just read his post as projectile... I didnt even notice he said particle...

Sorry, I made a mistake. Is it a shooting offence to get terminology wrong?

bsides, particle/projectile in this sense, they essentially the same thing.

[Edited on 29-12-2003 by FoxRaider]

They are essentially completely different, and you got a lot more wrong than that.

Personally, I enjoyed reading your past thread about creating a super weapon that could "induce" radioactive decay on non-radioactive materials

I heard a rumour
I was in the process og getting more information when it was deleted. What have you got against me anyway? It seems like the only things you ever say about my posts is that something is wrong with them. stopn nitpicking and look at the bigger picture.

I wouldn't have a problem with you if you would just admit that you want to learn more about something, instead of trying to play the role as an expert and spread incorrect information around the board.

That's true....I am appropriatley chastised......

NASA was also considering a similair system to launch ships, supplies, etc.... into space. As far as a weapon goes though I dont see the point in using a Rail "Gun" when we already have plenty of effective weapons.

Some people just beg to be flamed....

Let's review your posts thus far:


Ok.. IF you Worked at Area 51, you would know the real name of the facility and not need to "Find it's real name".... Duh #1

Next quote ....


Area 51 is government owned land... IF you worked there, or had even a minute knowledge of the military industry or the ability to read any number of web sites with A51 info, you would have known that... Duh #2

Next quote...


So let me see if I've got this right... you work at Area 51 and you think Lockheed and URS own the facility... no wait! Some General owns the facility... no wait.... EG&G owns the place...
PLEASE!
Once again, IF you worked at Area 51 you would know that no individual or corporate entity owns the facility... it is on US Government land. Duh #3
(and the Duh's just keep on coming...)

Next Quote...


Ah yes, the ole "i'll make people think I have knowledge of secret stuff going on and thereby make myself feel better about my pitiful Walter Mitty existence... Duh #4

Next quote... and my personal fave....


One of the leading researchers, huh? Remind us that you work at A51? You really know how to stick your head on the chopping block don't you.

First off IF you were a leading researcher one would think that you would have exceptional grammatic and spelling abilities as well as demonstrating a much larger vocabulary. You said in one post in your defense that you didn't do well in spelling - just good in math and science.

IF you were a leading researcher you would have a doctorate or at least a masters... both of which require a thesis or doctoral disertation.

Grammatic errors in doctoral disertations, etc don't get you the kind of academic accolades that would put you in amongst the "leading researchers".

Additionally IF you were a leading researcher or even a janitor at Area 51 and came on this web site spewing about it the NSA, DIA or OSI would drag you off to Levenworth so fast you'd be some big muscular freak named Maurice's mop boy over in cell block 13 by suppertime tonight...

Ok, I'm done with my PMS rant... off to take some tylenol...




[Edited on 31-12-2003 by intelgurl]

Intelgurl that was absolutly beautiful. Earlier in this post he said that the people at Area 51 can talk about everything that goes on at Area 51 other than the super top secret stuff. I thought to myself, Why is it that this is the only guy talking. But hey who am I to judge maybe he does work at Area 51 as a Test Subject for the brain destroyer project.

Haha, nice job cleaning up the trash on this forum intelgurl...I hate it so much when people act like they are experts on something and don't even know what they are talking about. Especially claiming he works at area 51, give me a break.

Yeah, just give me a broom and a dust pan and I'll take care of crap like that....

Great post intelgurl!.. If I'f like to offer you an honorary position in my Fraternal Order of Reverse Engineering of Alien Technology. Of which I'm the president.

How much energy would you need?

Here is what I was able to gather on the "rail gun":

"Electromagnetic Railgun Successfully Tested"
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...

"Hypersonic Cannonballs"
Link:
pub165.ezboard.com...

external image

external image


Will try to find more.


regards
seekerof

Metal Storm... www.metalstorm.com i think the site is. has a contract with US army

Rail Gun and Gauss Guns are two different things. A rail gun does not use electromagnetic forces but Lorenz (static) forces to propel the projectile, as a matter of fact, the projectile in the rail gun can not be magnetic.
A Gauss Guns is a long tube with silenoids(coil) that pull the magnetic peice of metal into the center of them and turn off, letting the metal pass to the next one. They both take ungodly amounts of force to use at the current time, Mega or Gigga watts, then again right now they are only hitting like 1-3%(gauss Guns) efficency transfer. Rail guns waist too much power turning the armature and rails into plasma because the (very high) current is passing through a slipping conducter causing arcing and loss of power throught heat production.

Neutron bombs were "banned" in the ABM treaty in the 70's, due to our forward deployment of them in europe and other neiboring regions to USSR. Neutron bombs are sweat though, for thoes who don't know, they are like regular atomic bombs without the hard casing, which makes them have a very small conventional blast radius (100-300M) with a super powerful radion burst, that can go kill anything not behind 2m of concrete. Which means that these were too easy to use because of the low fall out and overall destruction with the same or more killing power. I think I heard somewhere that the fallout only lasts 2 days with thoes too. When people refer to "tactial warheads" they are usualy talking about thoes.