Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:


Missing Code




[ ]
[ ]
Online
  • Guests: 63
  • Members: 0
  • Newest Member: omjtest
  • Most ever online: 396
    Guests: 396, Members: 0 on 12 Jan : 12:51
Members Birthdays:
All today's birthdays', congrats!
Ed (49)
JC1 (49)


Next birthdays
06/17 Th3_uN1Qu3 (33)
06/19 sio2 (50)
06/20 Sparrow338 (35)
Contact
If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.


Special Thanks To:
  • Aaron Holmes
  • Aaron Wheeler
  • Adam Horden
  • Alan Scrimgeour
  • Andre
  • Andrew Haynes
  • Anonymous000
  • asabase
  • Austin Weil
  • barney
  • Barry
  • Bert Hickman
  • Bill Kukowski
  • Blitzorn
  • Brandon Paradelas
  • Bruce Bowling
  • BubeeMike
  • Byong Park
  • Cesiumsponge
  • Chris F.
  • Chris Hooper
  • Corey Worthington
  • Derek Woodroffe
  • Dalus
  • Dan Strother
  • Daniel Davis
  • Daniel Uhrenholt
  • datasheetarchive
  • Dave Billington
  • Dave Marshall
  • David F.
  • Dennis Rogers
  • drelectrix
  • Dr. John Gudenas
  • Dr. Spark
  • E.TexasTesla
  • eastvoltresearch
  • Eirik Taylor
  • Erik Dyakov
  • Erlend^SE
  • Finn Hammer
  • Firebug24k
  • GalliumMan
  • Gary Peterson
  • George Slade
  • GhostNull
  • Gordon Mcknight
  • Graham Armitage
  • Grant
  • GreySoul
  • Henry H
  • IamSmooth
  • In memory of Leo Powning
  • Jacob Cash
  • James Howells
  • James Pawson
  • Jeff Greenfield
  • Jeff Thomas
  • Jesse Frost
  • Jim Mitchell
  • jlr134
  • Joe Mastroianni
  • John Forcina
  • John Oberg
  • John Willcutt
  • Jon Newcomb
  • klugesmith
  • Leslie Wright
  • Lutz Hoffman
  • Mads Barnkob
  • Martin King
  • Mats Karlsson
  • Matt Gibson
  • Matthew Guidry
  • mbd
  • Michael D'Angelo
  • Mikkel
  • mileswaldron
  • mister_rf
  • Neil Foster
  • Nick de Smith
  • Nick Soroka
  • nicklenorp
  • Nik
  • Norman Stanley
  • Patrick Coleman
  • Paul Brodie
  • Paul Jordan
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Ped
  • Peter Krogen
  • Peter Terren
  • PhilGood
  • Richard Feldman
  • Robert Bush
  • Royce Bailey
  • Scott Fusare
  • Scott Newman
  • smiffy
  • Stella
  • Steven Busic
  • Steve Conner
  • Steve Jones
  • Steve Ward
  • Sulaiman
  • Thomas Coyle
  • Thomas A. Wallace
  • Thomas W
  • Timo
  • Torch
  • Ulf Jonsson
  • vasil
  • Vaxian
  • vladi mazzilli
  • wastehl
  • Weston
  • William Kim
  • William N.
  • William Stehl
  • Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Forums
4hv.org :: Forums :: Electromagnetic Projectile Accelerators
« Previous topic | Next topic »   

DREAD(perhaps BS, probably exaggeration)

1 2 3 
Move Thread LAN_403
Ben
Fri Dec 29 2006, 05:28PM Print
Ben Vigilatny
Registered Member #17 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 02:47PM
Location: NL
Posts: 158
Some links:

Article
video
Some people poking the "inventor" in the eye about the "problems" with his claims


I'm going to call total BS on recoilless...the law of conservation of momentum still applies, especially in space. The jerk will be less maybe. Also There are going to be tremendous, and unequal, forces on the acceleration mechanism; I find it hard to believe there will be no wear though perhaps less than a conventional firearm.

Nevertheless I'm pretty sure somebody around here already built one, they should torpedo their patents with prior art...
Back to top
Steve Conner
Fri Dec 29 2006, 06:33PM
Steve Conner Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
It does stink of BS. As other posters on the defense review forum mentioned, it would need a 600 horsepower motor drive to achieve the rates of fire claimed. If they used a combustion engine, then it would be no different to an ordinary gun, except for a bunch of extra bits in between the fire and the bullet that add weight and lower reliability. If they used an electric motor, well I can't think of many military vehicles smaller than a battleship whose electrical system could support the load.

And while it might not recoil in the strictest sense of the word, I'd rather not try to accurately aim something with a madly revving and vibrating 600hp engine strapped to it suprised

Someone on this forum built a mini version with an electric motor from an RC car, that fired airsoft pellets. I can't remember who, though.

<edit> I found a good discussion of the weapon here. I don't think I'll be throwing away my .50 BMG minigun yet wink

PS: Check this out Link2 it looks to me like the inventor is guilty of massive sock puppetry and non-existent photoshop skillz!
Back to top
Marko
Fri Dec 29 2006, 07:40PM
Marko Registered Member #89 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 02:40PM
Location: Zadar, Croatia
Posts: 3145
Here is the thread Steve mentioned: Link2

These are exact words from article:
Get any regular 3 speed fan and switch it on. You'll be able to rotate, twist and in fact do any movement with the fan. Now attach a 1/2 inch dia ball to the end of each fan blade with some masking tape and swith the fan on. At the high speed RPM. the G-Forces will tear away the balls from the masking tape and sling the balls in any direction. There will be NO RECOIL generated by the departuring balls.

I don't think anybody will be fooling conservation of momentum so readily.

Try picking a large, heavy log or something, spin around yourself as fast as you can and then drop it. Obivously you are going to fall on your ass, so will this DREAD have recoil just like any other gun.

The only actual way to make a 'recoilles' rifle is to project some mass from the rear end, with same momentum as launched projectile. Existing recoilles rifles simply let the rocket exhaust out on the other side, transferring only insignificant forces to shooter.


Another problem is, that weights on that disk need to be perfectly balanced all the time (wich is hard considering those balls need to be very rapidly shot and reloaded) or the thing would become enormous unbalanced wheel, being impossible to wield, putting enormous mechanical stress on itself and being inherently dangerous for shooter if it fails apart.

Final nail in the coffin, already figured by Steve, is enormous power needed to be fed into the weapon in order to get rifle-like velocities with it.

Aparature would definitely be way too large, heavy, vibrating and dangerous to be used by person.
For wehicle mount, I would still prefer some large cannons over it.

It would be interesting to see how they battle all of these if a working prototype is ever made.






Back to top
Simon
Sat Dec 30 2006, 06:27AM
Simon Registered Member #32 Joined: Sat Feb 04 2006, 08:58AM
Location: Australia
Posts: 549
This device doesn't kill recoil at all, all it can do is average it out. Instead of an impulsive jerk, you'd get a constant lighter force. Basic physics.

There's a real problem I don't think anyone's thought of yet. (I haven't read the review, though.) This thing will act like a great gyroscope. Try aiming it and it'll kick all over the place.
Back to top
Electroholic
Sun Dec 31 2006, 02:27AM
Electroholic Registered Member #191 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 02:01AM
Location: Esbjerg Denmark
Posts: 720
Link2
Back to top
badastronaut
Tue Jan 02 2007, 05:52PM
badastronaut Registered Member #222 Joined: Mon Feb 20 2006, 05:49PM
Location:
Posts: 96
It will not produce recoil in the same way a normal gun has recoil. If you sit the thing in space and let it fire, what will happen is the gun will start to rotate faster and faster.

This is because the action of firing the balls produces a net angular momentum transfer on the gun since the exit barrel is some radius away from where ever the gun is held.

I suppose it is feasible to move the muzzle of the gun some radius such that it is centered to where it is being held, but then that will translate into a recoiling force.

It is also possible to use counter rotating disks to fire two balls equidistant from where it is being held to cancel out rotation, but it will still result in a net recoil and rotational vibration.

By the looks of the device in the concept videos, it seems that it uses the simplest configuration, which will produce torque recoil.

BTW most normal guns also have a torque recoil which tends to makes the gun to shoot upwards, which is one reason that makes machine guns more inaccurate.
Back to top
AndrewM
Wed Jan 03 2007, 05:54AM
AndrewM Registered Member #49 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 04:05AM
Location: Bigass Pile of Penguins
Posts: 362
badastronaut wrote ...

It will not produce recoil in the same way a normal gun has recoil. If you sit the thing in space and let it fire, what will happen is the gun will start to rotate faster and faster.

...and also recoil 'conventionally' and begin to translate.
Back to top
Carbon_Rod
Wed Jan 03 2007, 06:53AM
Carbon_Rod Registered Member #65 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:43AM
Location:
Posts: 1155
There are some funny patents that get approved. Key part protection is often all the filer wants.

As for the design it sounds a little too impractical to take seriously. With out a doubt that thing is inaccurate (no rifle), heavy, and likely will not work in rain or sand.

Reminiscent of the exploding bat strategy.
Back to top
Simon
Thu Jan 04 2007, 01:15AM
Simon Registered Member #32 Joined: Sat Feb 04 2006, 08:58AM
Location: Australia
Posts: 549
Andrew wrote ...

...and also recoil 'conventionally' and begin to translate.
Yes. The LoCoM is very simple. Initially a DREAD sitting in space is going nowhere. No net linear momentum. If something leaves the DREAD and goes off one way, the rest of the DREAD must go off in the opposite direction or else there would then be a net momentum.

wrote ...

There are some funny patents that get approved. Key part protection is often all the filer wants.
Quacks will often brag about having patents but this doesn't mean much more than that they are 1) original (perhaps) and 2) have plenty of money. Patent offices aren't for building and testing the brainwaves of morons.
Back to top
Bored Chemist
Tue Feb 06 2007, 01:08PM
Bored Chemist Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022
Well, I guess if you got 2 of these pointing in oposite directions and counter rotating you might be able to use it provided that you didn't mind shooting the hell out of whatever's behind you and you had a really, really, big battery in your pocket. cheesey
Back to top
1 2 3 

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
 
Legal Information
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.