It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# New Weapon- check it out

page: 3
0
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 12:44 PM
Newton's 3rd law is a given, assume the weapon is in space, assume the weapon spins the ball inside some type of round tube and then upon reaching a given speed it opens a small trap door and releases the ball in a certain direction, I wonder how the inertia affects the craft? Wouldn't it have a gyroscopic effect? The force pushing the ball around would be partly taken up by the walls of the tube, prior to the release. Perhaps the answer would be two weapons firing at the same time but with the balls spinning in opposite directions. The gyroscopic effect would be counter-balanced. I don't see why the force would be necessarily pushing in the exact opposite direction from the end of the barrel/tube. The force comes from a centrifuge.

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 04:18 PM
Doesnt really matter where the force comes from, its still energy..I'm not saying this weapon is unfeasible, but I see too many problems related to it being space based...any idea what MOST (not all) things do when they hit our atmosphere traveling 8000 fps?...so what next, heat shielding on projectiles or cooling systems?

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 04:23 PM
Cyberpilot

In the video of the Dread, it looked like the ability to use this in
space, could be used to attack missles or other objects that are in space.

I don't think that the Dread would be space based to use against terrestrial objects.

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 04:58 PM
Ah, good point, however I still dont see them getting around Newton very efficiently.....

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by cyberpilot
Ah, good point, however I still dont see them getting around Newton very efficiently.....

Why there IS an opposite reaction.

Brief description of Newton's Trilogy of Motion.

Also 8000 fps (roughly 1.51 Mps) is not a velocity that will compromise a spherical projectile.

As to EMP vulnerability, there may be some, the discharge points within the centrifuge would have to be computer controlled as well as the speed control for lethal/non-lethal modes.

There is definite merit to the weapon concept, but I see no near term replacement of conventional military artillery and support weapons, much less infantry shoulder fired weapons.

[edit on 5/7/2004 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 05:38 PM
Why wouldn't this replace some field weaponry systems it is good and can fire a lot of projectiles so there has to be some use for it.

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by cyberpilot
Ah, good point, however I still dont see them getting around Newton very efficiently.....

Why there IS an opposite reaction.

Brief description of Newton's Trilogy of Motion.

Also 8000 fps (roughly 1.51 Mps) is not a velocity that will compromise a spherical projectile.

As to EMP vulnerability, there may be some, the discharge points within the centrifuge would have to be computer controlled as well as the speed control for lethal/non-lethal modes.

There is definite merit to the weapon concept, but I see no near term replacement of conventional military artillery and support weapons, much less infantry shoulder fired weapons.

[edit on 5/7/2004 by Mirthful Me]

I dont think we are on the same page...the centrifugal/centripetal forces are for my point moot, its the release of the submunition that causes the problem...the equal and opposite reaction takes place thereby pushing against the satellite...

I never said 8000fps would compromise a spherical object, I was talking about its burning upon reentry...steel burns, diamonds even burn...Most things burn....but someone pointed out that it would not be practically used against terrestrial objects.

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 10:33 PM
I don't think so. If the object is spinning inside a tube and is flung off there will not be a opposing force from the barrel. The force is built up in the spherical tube. The equal and opposite reaction is from the energy expended to propel the object from nil to the desired speed( not just the projectile leaving the end of the barrel) in this case, it is in a circle. Think of being on a merry go round and flung off. If the force from pushing the projectile in a circle is expended in a gyroscopic way then, an opposing force may counter balance it. We need a physicist to give a good explanation. Anyone know a good physics professor we can email?

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 01:23 PM
Has anyone actually computed the energy requirements necessary to produce the results that are quoted? Namely, typical .308 round at about 160 grains at only 6000 ft/sec firing at just 10 rounds/sec requires about 250 hp. Oh, yea, the centripetal force required to contain only one round assuming a 48" diameter centrifuge type dispelling apparatus calculates to about 13,000 lbs. It certainly possible to create an effective device such as the one described but absolutely not feasible to produce the quoted results using conventional constuction materials. Most likely, the upper values are quoted for disinformation to keep the actual results classified. The consequences of such a device however, are rather extensive; even at the more realistic values. Don't belive everything you read.

posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 07:27 AM
Yeah, dont read everything you read... it was probally just a website put up to scare the Iraqies that can both read and have a computer.

posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 07:43 AM
sounds good but it s like something from judge dredd or sumthing could be possible. y dont these intelligent inventors invent something thats usefull to all of us for once!!!!!

top topics

0