Just because you seen some history channel shows and internet articles don't make you a gun expert. I love how none of you are the engineers behind these weapons (aircraft included), yet you go around correcting ppl like ur the top designer. U ain't tuff cuz u fill ur head with useless facts that you'll only be able to express on utube
I love how theres arguments abot ppl saying theyll kill eachothwr with sum gun or nife wit a really complicated name just so that they can show off wat dey no bou weapons n stuff :L
@8LocKDowN8 Its a machine composed of two rails connected to a common energy source. The two rails have opposite electrical charges that exerts a Lorentz force on the conductive projectile that rests between the rails. This force propels the projectile up the rails... very, very fast. The projectile is launched so fast it produces a plume of plasma behind it.
@JJA118 Thats amizing! is the bullet it self hot inaf to make the gas bihind it plasma or is it the frictoin with the air that makes the plasma ? please reply! thnx!
@8LocKDowN8 your welcome and it's the friction between the projectile and the air that makes the plasma. Kind of like when a spaceship reenters the atmosphere.
@marek0086 The "flames" are actually plasma. The air gets so hot around the projectile that the O2 (Oxygen/Air) ionizes into free radicals or O. As for the exothermic explosive propellant, it doesn't really need any... the Lorentz force provides enough energy to propel it.
@JJA118~ so how come the plasma thats trailing right behind the projectile is white/blue in color, but the big plumes coming out of the gun are yellowish and look alot like fire?!
"Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a b*tch in space"
@ChStapeler One rail gun enthusiast had problems because his aluminium projectiles were ignited from the heat of the electricity, perhaps this is another part of why the projectiles seem to be on fire.
I don't think a lot of people realize the ludicrous amount of recoil a rail gun generates, its the primary reasons it's being developed by the Navy, so they can just mount it on a battleship and not have to care about it. Also, a battleship or carrier could easily carry a generator and capacitor of the size needed.
...And the "fire" is plasma created by the air friction on the surface of the projectile, as it's traveling at 5,400 MPH.
@corky2002 :O Only problem is they would have to build a completely new warship. The USS Zumwalt was supposed to be the first with this weapon but due to budget cuts :( I dont know if they will finish it. The old Iowa class ships would need some serious refits, also uneconomical. The recoil of this gun would tear the bow off a Arleigh or a Ticonderoga, not to mention the stress fractures to the hull from it. Though if there is a will there is a way and the USN always finds one.
@laidesman215 It's an electromagnetic weapon the same way modern firearms are chemical weapons. The name doesn't refer to the charge fired but the means used to accelerate the round.
Weapons that don't use solid rounds (kinetic or explosive) to do damage are usually called "Directed Energy Weapons"
@Cain3697 idiot, that is an electromagnetic weapon. but standard firearms are not chemical weapons, or excuse me, Chem. warfare missiles. rather they are direct energy rounds due to no explosives IN THE ROUND FIRED! I know this because of a man in the army. I ask him about this kind of stuff all the time.
@granturismoman170 Wow, you're an idiot, simply for calling someone an idiot for absolutely no reason. If you think that makes' no sense, go look up the definition.
@laidesman215 they use the metal round charged - and the gun charges +, this launches the round a +4,000 MPH. this enables that round to penetrate anything.
I wonder. If you capped the barrel with a hemispherical ceramic cap, and pumped all the air out of it, would it have a significant effect on the speed attainable for projectiles?
@Maxables Otherwise, you'd have it forcing the slug back into the clip, which would cause utter catastrophy... Do you think that it's possible to make one that would not corrode the rails but would still be lethal???
@Maxables I could imagine that the vacuum would allow less friction... but it may form a sort of suction that could hold the slug. Possibly resulting in an explosion. Maybe if the gun was made of highly durable alloys and was packed tight enough, the explosion would propel the slug at much higher velocities. I could see how this is possible, but i imagine it's extremely dangerous.
@Almost32Nuns The biggest problem with the handheld idea is, how are you going to supply enough power to the gun without a huge battery pack? It would either be a 5-shot weapon, or an extremely cumbersome one.
the problem with railguns is the fact that they generate so much heat, it melts and warps the rails. Another problem is that with every action, there is always a reaction. I bet the recoil of that thing is tremendous.
@Almost32Nuns I'm sorry, you're right. There is recoil, but it's not exerting force on the breech of the gun. It's exerting force along the length of the rails.
@Maxables That makes sense actually... you think it would be possible to eventually create a handgun or a light, mobile firearm that's based on railgun technology? I was thinking possibly using a sort of thermal clip to direct the majority of heat generated. and then making an expandable chamber that would move with the rails to reduce recoil from the sides and also to help release energy to help reduce heat generated. The chamber would have to have a cut off if it where clip loaded....
@Maxables There is always recoil, if something goes forwards the thing that made it move must go backwards. If not we live in a frictionless world, have fun XD
@republicofsocialismZ you couldn't have a railgun firing something like a rocket or satellite from the shuttle cos the size difference isn't enough. Kinetic theory means the smaller thing would fire but the shuttle would be fired backwards uncontrollably. It would work on a ship though, perhaps for launching drones/missiles?
@lostmywings123 You could do this from a large object if firing a small object. There is also technology that allows you to greatly reduce recoil, it has been found on some large guns for about a century. But the real problem is lifting all that mass (danger and recoil aside). When it comes to rockets, you are far better off lifting 10 tons of fuel than 10 tons of rail gun and capacitor bank. 10 tons of efficient fuel will impart rail gun velocity on an object the size of a refrigerator.
It is propelled on a massive current of electricity once it leaves the weapon - wonder if there's a possibility of creating or testing a rail drive (not driver) as a propolsion system for ships - maybe even rockets. launch a rocket that holds the driver and within that another rocket that needs laucnhed into deeps space. once the primary runs out of fuel the raild driver launches the last rocket.
@RepublicofSocialismZ I don't think there are batteries that could hold enough charge to remotely power a rail gun, at least not light enough to make it workable in a rocket.
@RepublicofSocialismZ Heatflash is probably right. Anyway, the beginning of a launch is the important part. The most efficient rocket would be one that gets up to speed almost instantly and then lets the momentum carry it (assuming you could ignite fuel fast enough, & the rocket could withstand the acceleration forces, which is why they don't do it that way now). The rail gun should be land-based. I believe there is research going on in this field, though you'd probably need a beefy rocket.
"The most efficient rocket would be one that gets up to speed almost instantly and then lets the momentum carry it "
No actually they don't do that now because it is NOT the most efficient way at all. You are forgetting drag in the atmosphere. The most efficient rocket is one that accelerates at close to 1 g to start and slowly builds up speed, most of it at high altitude. That is why no one is doing what you describe.
@r0ck3tsm0k3 Really? Huh. Well now I don't know if I was taught wrong, misinterpreted it, or just remembered it wrong (sounding rockets were what I was talking about, by the way). :/ Wish I could check my propulsion notes, but they're a few thousand miles away.
BTW, do you happen to know any good online resources on rocket theory, where one could look up things like this?
@RepublicofSocialismZ Rail guns very heavy, far better to just carry more rocket fuel. Rockets are much more efficient than rail guns are likely to be. Rockets can move thousands of KG to rail gun velocities, say 5 km/sec, using less fuel mass than the mass of any realistic rail gun design. Rail guns need capacitor banks and wires and mounts and massive metal rails. And they dont launch large objects, and the objects they launch have to be very strong (not mass efficient, mostly structure.)
@r0ck3tsm0k3 but railgun projectiles can't be shot down, they can't be counter measured unless your armor is like thicker than thick itself, when railguns hit you didn't even know it happened, the railguns don't need to be big to make a bang and the chemicals either or the compounds and gunpowder and all that shit which missiles and rockets use to have their explosive power, you just need force and a projectile the size of your fist you get a mach 18!? in around one sec for 5km/sec
@ZOCKER1001 Haha. No. Not at all. The weapon, the projectiles, and the energy used to fire it all, alone, cost more than any rocket-launcher, and especially, any "gun."
People make small railguns, but unless they can get a LOT of energy, they wont be as strong, a railgun is merely a projectile (usually non-explosive) that is put across two highly energized rails. Some force with a name i can't remember causes it to accellerate - a LOT
A coilgun (electromagnetic pulse accelerator) is a type of projectile accelerator that consists of one or more coils used as electromagnets in the configuration of a synchronous linear electric motor which accelerate a magnetic projectile to high velocity.
@666wrathofheaven666 well, i guess technically *air quotes* they have rails, but the coil gun uses them to guide the projectile, a railgun applies energy to the rails themselves.
@666wrathofheaven666 actually, i view it as an advantage, becasue not only does it punch a hole in whatever is in its path (similar to the bullet in one indiana jones movie that went through like 4 people, only its buildings, tanks, people) but it heats the air so it burns and ignites everything it dosent punch a hole in, the only disadvantage of a railgun is becasue of the speed that the bullet travels, the rails need frequent (1 per 10 or less shots) changing
You will still have the recoil due to the Newton's 3rd law. I second the question about the "gasoline" type explosion when leaving the barrel and impacting with the target.. What's going on there?
@DAIadvisor Ah but recoil is proportional to momentum, damage at target is proportional to kinetic energy. So you fire a lighter projectile faster, you get more damage for the same or less recoil.
isnt a rail gun expose to produce zero recoil and zero explosive shot due to its being accelerated down 2-4 tracks of electricity? so why is there backblast?
Yeah, but i'm not talking about the fire im talking about the recoil and sound...
Maybee by backblast you meant the fire, i thought you were talking about the recoil.
But the fire is pretty "strange". I mean there is no gunpowder to expand or create fire perhaps the lubrication was flammable and ignited because of friction?
LOL. You do not need an education to use a computer, all you need is someone to open the web page for you and say "Have at it." and with your horrific grammar you obviously do not have an education, or you have had an extremely poor one.
It might be fired like a rail gun, but the projectile is a rocket. Pause on 5 seconds as it punches through the paper and you will see the tail end of it
Its not a rocket, its just a fin stabilized projectile. The heat generated by the rails combined with the extremely high velocity generating friction against the air causes air particles around it to disperse rapidly. The super heated air expands into a plasma like state.
In laymans terms, the projectile is moving so fast the air around it is catching fire.
@Advisedblock so your saying it's doing the same thing as a shuttle entering the atmosphere? This is clearly a rocket and is propelled by a fuel. if it was doing what you say it was doing... the 'flaming air' would be in front of it, not behind it. In Layman's terms you suck at math and physic and are truthfully stupid for pretending you know what your talking about. Even more so if you believe what you are saying.
@spyderfang actually he is not.... this IS a railgun. i thought roughly the same thing u did. but if u can find the original video, an i think it was from the military channel, it explained why it was flaming. An if i remember properly its becasue the air ignites, not the projectile. the projectile is completely solid. the air ignites because of the friction caused by a projectile movin at 5 miles a second.
becuase a rail gun wouldnt, it is just a magnetically accelerted projectile, it shouldnt generate too much heatr, and produce anytihng like a rocket trail like some on here suggest it must have.
Also...it is generating its own jet trail so..it is not a rail gun, also if you pause the video you will see there are no flames over the front of the projectile like there would if it was air friction.
Also 9000fps is way too fast for even the worlds most advanced slow motion cameras.
You're wrong on the 9kfps part. There is a version of the Phantom HD that will shoot at over 1 million fps. Also, I'm guessing this video was shot around 30k frames per second based on videos of bullets I've seen at that framerate.
Guys, this is not a rail gun, a rail gun fires at abut 8 times the speed of sound, that is 9000FPS....also air itself cannot ignite to friction...there is too much nitrogen in it.
What might be happening is the friction, of air on the projectile is heating it up but I doubt it as it is not traveling fast enough...Also whoever said that the friction would wear the rails...I dont think so, its held with magnetic energy. I think it is a small rocket if you had my guess.
Earths atmosphere is NOT an inert gas combination. Any projectile entering our atmosphere ignites from friction and burns up - take asteroids as a good example.
The blue trail you see behind the projectile is actually from friction due to the extreme speed.
As far as the 'fire' you see as soon as the projectile leaves the barrel, that's superheated plasma. This railgun was tested at the Naval Surface Warfare Center. Check out their press release.
If you believe friction only depend on the speed a particle travels, I can't even see why I should bother continuing this discussion.
Read up on what friction is, and how it occur, then check out the 32 MJ Railgun, and take some time reading about the MAJOR problems with heating due to friction. When you're done, come back here and we can talk about how neat this video really is.
@Panzervagon it actuallt turns the air to plasma which is way cooler.
Nonchalants8 1 week ago
i cant velive this
darkcaterpie 1 week ago
That's freakin amazing
for once video games just don't do it justice.
Video game railgun are under powered beyond words
MrMrsirr 2 weeks ago
What has been seen cannot be unseen....thing fires over 5000mph O.o ide love to see neo stop this one
narutofoxfan9 2 weeks ago
@narutofoxfan9 xD
FXD609 4 days ago
Just because you seen some history channel shows and internet articles don't make you a gun expert. I love how none of you are the engineers behind these weapons (aircraft included), yet you go around correcting ppl like ur the top designer. U ain't tuff cuz u fill ur head with useless facts that you'll only be able to express on utube
halluci444 4 months ago
@halluci444 At least they can spell!
eckfloor 2 months ago
I love how theres arguments abot ppl saying theyll kill eachothwr with sum gun or nife wit a really complicated name just so that they can show off wat dey no bou weapons n stuff :L
splashers4evar 5 months ago
Is there supposed to be some irony in them using their own logo as the target?
chitoryu12 5 months ago
Can someone expline what is a "rail gun "please ?
8LocKDowN8 5 months ago
@8LocKDowN8 Its a machine composed of two rails connected to a common energy source. The two rails have opposite electrical charges that exerts a Lorentz force on the conductive projectile that rests between the rails. This force propels the projectile up the rails... very, very fast. The projectile is launched so fast it produces a plume of plasma behind it.
JJA118 5 months ago
@JJA118 Thats amizing! is the bullet it self hot inaf to make the gas bihind it plasma or is it the frictoin with the air that makes the plasma ? please reply! thnx!
8LocKDowN8 5 months ago
@8LocKDowN8 your welcome and it's the friction between the projectile and the air that makes the plasma. Kind of like when a spaceship reenters the atmosphere.
JJA118 5 months ago
@JJA118~ so whats with all the fire??.... they must be using some kind of exothermic explosive propellant. Air doesnt burn like that!
marek0086 3 months ago
@marek0086 The "flames" are actually plasma. The air gets so hot around the projectile that the O2 (Oxygen/Air) ionizes into free radicals or O. As for the exothermic explosive propellant, it doesn't really need any... the Lorentz force provides enough energy to propel it.
JJA118 3 months ago
@JJA118~ so how come the plasma thats trailing right behind the projectile is white/blue in color, but the big plumes coming out of the gun are yellowish and look alot like fire?!
marek0086 3 months ago
@JJA118~ Also, whats the muzzle velocity of this thing?.... and at what temperature does our air ionize??
marek0086 3 months ago
@JJA118~ the strong magnetic field thats used for the propulsion is whats mainly responsible for creating all that plasma. I just figured out.
marek0086 3 months ago
dear santa...
Jabbakhieu 5 months ago
America Fuck yeah
XMETALGEARS59X 6 months ago
I like how it's moving so fast that it sets the air on fire.
Panzervagon 7 months ago 23
@Panzervagon
Worse. It's plasma. It's basically trailing star.
chitoryu12 5 months ago
put it on a tank
TheTeddyIsALiar 7 months ago
That would be cool if it looked like lightning >.> (NO, I DO NOT watch To Aru Kagaku no Railgun!!!....... Okay, yes I do :P)
iSTOLEyoSharpie 7 months ago
hey I thought this was slow motion...oh wait
JtiksPies 8 months ago
The fire behind the missle is there because of the air friction. The projectile is so fast it creates a plasma just by that.
Robi1295 8 months ago
Why the hell is there fire???
ColdmirrowF4ke 8 months ago
@ColdmirrowF4ke It's not fire, it's superheated plasma, I believe.
ChStapeler 8 months ago
"Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a b*tch in space"
@ChStapeler One rail gun enthusiast had problems because his aluminium projectiles were ignited from the heat of the electricity, perhaps this is another part of why the projectiles seem to be on fire.
HeaanLasai 8 months ago
@HeaanLasai I suppose it's possible, yes. I'm no expert, I just got curious and read that info about the plasma somewhere else...
ChStapeler 7 months ago
@ColdmirrowF4ke It is plasma.
drewsisely 7 months ago
i want an portable version! :D
jeppewie1206 8 months ago
@jeppewie1206 portable version of cannon is easy to made, but power source is your problem :D
shtirlic76tube 8 months ago
Because spectacularly executed overkill is underrated.
crazypizza 9 months ago
Does that woman keep escaping from the kitchen?
Does your pistol move just too slow?
Use a railgun, show her your way with words. Set the air ablaze with your anger!
hateman454 10 months ago 22
I don't think a lot of people realize the ludicrous amount of recoil a rail gun generates, its the primary reasons it's being developed by the Navy, so they can just mount it on a battleship and not have to care about it. Also, a battleship or carrier could easily carry a generator and capacitor of the size needed.
...And the "fire" is plasma created by the air friction on the surface of the projectile, as it's traveling at 5,400 MPH.
corky2002 10 months ago
@corky2002 :O Only problem is they would have to build a completely new warship. The USS Zumwalt was supposed to be the first with this weapon but due to budget cuts :( I dont know if they will finish it. The old Iowa class ships would need some serious refits, also uneconomical. The recoil of this gun would tear the bow off a Arleigh or a Ticonderoga, not to mention the stress fractures to the hull from it. Though if there is a will there is a way and the USN always finds one.
SamTheDragon31 9 months ago
this makes no sense the rail gun is a electromagnetic weapon there fore there would be no solid round. why is there a projectile tell me this.
laidesman215 10 months ago
@laidesman215 It's an electromagnetic weapon the same way modern firearms are chemical weapons. The name doesn't refer to the charge fired but the means used to accelerate the round.
Weapons that don't use solid rounds (kinetic or explosive) to do damage are usually called "Directed Energy Weapons"
Cain3697 10 months ago 2
@Cain3697 idiot, that is an electromagnetic weapon. but standard firearms are not chemical weapons, or excuse me, Chem. warfare missiles. rather they are direct energy rounds due to no explosives IN THE ROUND FIRED! I know this because of a man in the army. I ask him about this kind of stuff all the time.
granturismoman170 8 months ago
@granturismoman170 Wow, you're an idiot, simply for calling someone an idiot for absolutely no reason. If you think that makes' no sense, go look up the definition.
shimigami30 8 months ago
@laidesman215 they use the metal round charged - and the gun charges +, this launches the round a +4,000 MPH. this enables that round to penetrate anything.
granturismoman170 8 months ago
You wouldn't be firing that rail gun after I knocked your ass out with my right hook, bitch.
ajax420336 10 months ago
Comment removed
Almost32Nuns 10 months ago
@ajax420336 grow up.
Almost32Nuns 10 months ago
@ajax420336 You wouldn't be throwing punches after I stabbed through your kidney with my tanto knife, betch.
divinegod102 10 months ago
@divinegod102 You've never stabbed anyone in your life.
ajax420336 10 months ago 2
@ajax420336 You've never understood the meaning of sarcasm.
divinegod102 10 months ago
I wonder. If you capped the barrel with a hemispherical ceramic cap, and pumped all the air out of it, would it have a significant effect on the speed attainable for projectiles?
Maxables 10 months ago
@Maxables Otherwise, you'd have it forcing the slug back into the clip, which would cause utter catastrophy... Do you think that it's possible to make one that would not corrode the rails but would still be lethal???
Almost32Nuns 10 months ago
@Maxables I could imagine that the vacuum would allow less friction... but it may form a sort of suction that could hold the slug. Possibly resulting in an explosion. Maybe if the gun was made of highly durable alloys and was packed tight enough, the explosion would propel the slug at much higher velocities. I could see how this is possible, but i imagine it's extremely dangerous.
Almost32Nuns 10 months ago
@Almost32Nuns The biggest problem with the handheld idea is, how are you going to supply enough power to the gun without a huge battery pack? It would either be a 5-shot weapon, or an extremely cumbersome one.
It takes a lot of electricity to fire these
Maxables 10 months ago
@Maxables hmm... maybe a sort of backpack. I would have to be a scientist lol.
Almost32Nuns 10 months ago
the problem with railguns is the fact that they generate so much heat, it melts and warps the rails. Another problem is that with every action, there is always a reaction. I bet the recoil of that thing is tremendous.
Almost32Nuns 11 months ago
@Almost32Nuns There's no recoil at all, actually. But yes, heat, and arcing between the projectile and barrel are both big problems.
Maxables 10 months ago
@Maxables Thats interesting. Im not trying to question you're intellect, but if it does generate such an amount of force, how is there no recoil?
Almost32Nuns 10 months ago
@Almost32Nuns I'm sorry, you're right. There is recoil, but it's not exerting force on the breech of the gun. It's exerting force along the length of the rails.
Maxables 10 months ago
@Maxables That makes sense actually... you think it would be possible to eventually create a handgun or a light, mobile firearm that's based on railgun technology? I was thinking possibly using a sort of thermal clip to direct the majority of heat generated. and then making an expandable chamber that would move with the rails to reduce recoil from the sides and also to help release energy to help reduce heat generated. The chamber would have to have a cut off if it where clip loaded....
Almost32Nuns 10 months ago
@Maxables There is always recoil, if something goes forwards the thing that made it move must go backwards. If not we live in a frictionless world, have fun XD
charbladex 10 months ago
good ol American technology at work what would we do without you?
runningwithforks 11 months ago
@republicofsocialismZ you couldn't have a railgun firing something like a rocket or satellite from the shuttle cos the size difference isn't enough. Kinetic theory means the smaller thing would fire but the shuttle would be fired backwards uncontrollably. It would work on a ship though, perhaps for launching drones/missiles?
lostmywings123 1 year ago
@lostmywings123 You could do this from a large object if firing a small object. There is also technology that allows you to greatly reduce recoil, it has been found on some large guns for about a century. But the real problem is lifting all that mass (danger and recoil aside). When it comes to rockets, you are far better off lifting 10 tons of fuel than 10 tons of rail gun and capacitor bank. 10 tons of efficient fuel will impart rail gun velocity on an object the size of a refrigerator.
r0ck3tsm0k3 11 months ago
Spyderfang take 11th grade physics then comment
Skunbunnys 1 year ago
its plasma behind it
TheHardflipKidd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
?hi everyone 33 mj how many farad and volts
slanw 1 year ago
how?
mr0loki0jr 1 year ago
It is propelled on a massive current of electricity once it leaves the weapon - wonder if there's a possibility of creating or testing a rail drive (not driver) as a propolsion system for ships - maybe even rockets. launch a rocket that holds the driver and within that another rocket that needs laucnhed into deeps space. once the primary runs out of fuel the raild driver launches the last rocket.
RepublicofSocialismZ 1 year ago
@RepublicofSocialismZ I don't think there are batteries that could hold enough charge to remotely power a rail gun, at least not light enough to make it workable in a rocket.
heatflash888 1 year ago
@RepublicofSocialismZ Heatflash is probably right. Anyway, the beginning of a launch is the important part. The most efficient rocket would be one that gets up to speed almost instantly and then lets the momentum carry it (assuming you could ignite fuel fast enough, & the rocket could withstand the acceleration forces, which is why they don't do it that way now). The rail gun should be land-based. I believe there is research going on in this field, though you'd probably need a beefy rocket.
eamonnwalker 1 year ago
@eamonnwalker
"The most efficient rocket would be one that gets up to speed almost instantly and then lets the momentum carry it "
No actually they don't do that now because it is NOT the most efficient way at all. You are forgetting drag in the atmosphere. The most efficient rocket is one that accelerates at close to 1 g to start and slowly builds up speed, most of it at high altitude. That is why no one is doing what you describe.
r0ck3tsm0k3 11 months ago
@r0ck3tsm0k3 Really? Huh. Well now I don't know if I was taught wrong, misinterpreted it, or just remembered it wrong (sounding rockets were what I was talking about, by the way). :/ Wish I could check my propulsion notes, but they're a few thousand miles away.
BTW, do you happen to know any good online resources on rocket theory, where one could look up things like this?
eamonnwalker 11 months ago
@RepublicofSocialismZ Rail guns very heavy, far better to just carry more rocket fuel. Rockets are much more efficient than rail guns are likely to be. Rockets can move thousands of KG to rail gun velocities, say 5 km/sec, using less fuel mass than the mass of any realistic rail gun design. Rail guns need capacitor banks and wires and mounts and massive metal rails. And they dont launch large objects, and the objects they launch have to be very strong (not mass efficient, mostly structure.)
r0ck3tsm0k3 11 months ago
@r0ck3tsm0k3 but railgun projectiles can't be shot down, they can't be counter measured unless your armor is like thicker than thick itself, when railguns hit you didn't even know it happened, the railguns don't need to be big to make a bang and the chemicals either or the compounds and gunpowder and all that shit which missiles and rockets use to have their explosive power, you just need force and a projectile the size of your fist you get a mach 18!? in around one sec for 5km/sec
thundersaver 11 months ago
I wanna see that thing hitting a tank, if anyone knows a video, please do share ;)
GmodMegaHelp 1 year ago
@GordonFreeMANness lol cuz tiny pieces of plastic burn up from being super sonic from the back huh? Take a physics class :P This is ion propulsion.
spyderfang 1 year ago
This is fking scary....If someone Owned by that "thing"
tingsh321 1 year ago
is it just me, or is this the reaction else everyone gets from watching this rail-gun video:
watch?v=fd7l36md-uU
roidroid 1 year ago
HAX!
MagnusRulerHardt 1 year ago
NowThats the Git Er Done American attitude I know and live
keyedyourcar55 1 year ago
@keyedyourcar55 Hard werkin Armericans in der hard werking chobs
roidroid 1 year ago
rail guns r nice like rocket with the cost of a bullet
ZOCKER1001 1 year ago
@ZOCKER1001 Haha. No. Not at all. The weapon, the projectiles, and the energy used to fire it all, alone, cost more than any rocket-launcher, and especially, any "gun."
n1b3luNg 1 year ago
@n1b3luNg i just mean the materials used fr the projectile so errr yeh u r right
ZOCKER1001 1 year ago
oh fuck were all fucked.........unless aliens attack atleast we got this
methking321 1 year ago
@methking321 we'll fuck the fucking alien fucks
roidroid 1 year ago
thats FRIGGEN crazy!!!
Gojira689 1 year ago
Railguns - Because sometimes you just need to launch a .22LR at your enemy with 900 kilotons of force behind it.
TheCommunistBastard 1 year ago 138
@TheCommunistBastard i use it for threatening the dog that keeps pooping on my lawn :D
DM4717 1 year ago
@TheCommunistBastard cant you shoot anything out of a rail gun? id say lets put hamsters in there......
tevinm14 10 months ago
@TheCommunistBastard the bullet is bigger than a .22, i dont know what caliber a 5 inch bullet is.
anusalltheway 10 months ago
is that the speed of a bullet?
Neton16 1 year ago
@Neton16 The speed of ths Railgun Shot was 9072 km/h
A bullet has between 668-5400 km/h, depends on the type of bullet, weapon, etc.
chiemseefischer 1 year ago
@chiemseefischer
holy shit man HAHA
Neton16 1 year ago
@Neton16 ... a railgun is made so it is much faster than a regular bullet
TedMan55 1 year ago
@TedMan55
but nothing is faster than chuck norris!
Neton16 1 year ago
People make small railguns, but unless they can get a LOT of energy, they wont be as strong, a railgun is merely a projectile (usually non-explosive) that is put across two highly energized rails. Some force with a name i can't remember causes it to accellerate - a LOT
MaxXimumPain 1 year ago
@MaxXimumPain - Wrong, the rails are electro magnets that fire the projectile by opposing eachothers force.
666wrathofheaven666 1 year ago
@666wrathofheaven666 i think thats a coil gun: (Wikipedia)
A coilgun (electromagnetic pulse accelerator) is a type of projectile accelerator that consists of one or more coils used as electromagnets in the configuration of a synchronous linear electric motor which accelerate a magnetic projectile to high velocity.
MaxXimumPain 1 year ago
@MaxXimumPain - Technically both of them are rail-guns.
666wrathofheaven666 1 year ago
@666wrathofheaven666 well, i guess technically *air quotes* they have rails, but the coil gun uses them to guide the projectile, a railgun applies energy to the rails themselves.
MaxXimumPain 1 year ago
@MaxXimumPain - In terms of where the rail-gun was actually invented(games and movies), it's pretty much what the military call the "coil-gun".
This video is probably why they keep failing their experiments.
A rail-gun(coil-gun), which shouldn't ignite the air, as the projectile is magnetically shot out with such a force that it can pierce most armour.
The experiment here is a complete failure if you ask me, it's not a true rail-gun, the projectile isn't supposed to be a magnet, the rails are.
666wrathofheaven666 1 year ago
@666wrathofheaven666 actually, i view it as an advantage, becasue not only does it punch a hole in whatever is in its path (similar to the bullet in one indiana jones movie that went through like 4 people, only its buildings, tanks, people) but it heats the air so it burns and ignites everything it dosent punch a hole in, the only disadvantage of a railgun is becasue of the speed that the bullet travels, the rails need frequent (1 per 10 or less shots) changing
MaxXimumPain 1 year ago
@666wrathofheaven666 i would hazard a guess that it's easier to make highpowered railguns, than to make highpowered coilguns.
Otherwise this would probably be a coilgun video we'd all be talking about - instead of a railgun video.
roidroid 1 year ago
how fast is it going? or how fast can they go?
TheHardMoneyMan 1 year ago
@TheHardMoneyMan faster then a army jet going as fast as it can
slyfox43 1 year ago
What is the purpose of a rail gun?
mybluebelly 1 year ago
@mybluebelly To find something 100 miles away. Then fuck it up so you can't recognise anything within a mile of it.
FlubberGhost 1 year ago 16
@mybluebelly To makes ships safer while fighting cheaper.
GHollandESQ 1 year ago
@GHollandESQ well... safer for those on the ship maybe.
But less safe for everyone not on the ship: who are potential targets
roidroid 1 year ago
It is flaming because of the friction between the projectile and the air. The same effect happens with spacecraft returning from orbit.
TheJojo45678 1 year ago
hahaha wow that is an amazing shot. (both camera and weapon)
henik9 1 year ago
You will still have the recoil due to the Newton's 3rd law. I second the question about the "gasoline" type explosion when leaving the barrel and impacting with the target.. What's going on there?
DAIadvisor 1 year ago
@DAIadvisor Ah but recoil is proportional to momentum, damage at target is proportional to kinetic energy. So you fire a lighter projectile faster, you get more damage for the same or less recoil.
spudd86 1 year ago
isnt a rail gun expose to produce zero recoil and zero explosive shot due to its being accelerated down 2-4 tracks of electricity? so why is there backblast?
BloodyPolarBear 2 years ago
The air compressing and decompressing...
solitajre222 2 years ago
air compressing does not make it lite on fire dude.
BloodyPolarBear 1 year ago
Yeah, but i'm not talking about the fire im talking about the recoil and sound...
Maybee by backblast you meant the fire, i thought you were talking about the recoil.
But the fire is pretty "strange". I mean there is no gunpowder to expand or create fire perhaps the lubrication was flammable and ignited because of friction?
Not to sure about thet one =P
solitajre222 1 year ago
@solitajre222 It's the friction of the air, like spacecraft penetrating the atmosphere.
burt2800 1 year ago
@burt2800 Oh! ofcourse! I wonder why i didn't think of that... =P
solitajre222 1 year ago
@solitajre222 I also had to read another comment before I thought of it ^^
burt2800 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@burt2800 >"It's the friction of the air, like spacecraft penetrating the atmosphere."
Sounds pretty sexy.
roidroid 1 year ago
Man its cool how it flies through the air on fire!
marineninga 2 years ago
Is that a scene from Eraser? No but seriously, that is bad ass.
AjQ2891 2 years ago
hahahahahahaha too right mate :D
sensesfail2435 2 years ago
I spit watermelon seeds faster than that.
thatsmyaudi 2 years ago
@headphones222
LOL. You do not need an education to use a computer, all you need is someone to open the web page for you and say "Have at it." and with your horrific grammar you obviously do not have an education, or you have had an extremely poor one.
Good day sir.
bba234 2 years ago 12
@bba234 lol educated bitch slap...awesome
metal2acid 11 months ago
"do not click" links are lame.
biporio 2 years ago
If you click a girl dancing comes.
TheSkillNewb 2 years ago
actually its plasma thats produced not fire, just a super heated form of gas
Iamasterchieflololol 2 years ago 4
It would have to reach about 6,500 centegrade before that happened, and if it didnt burn up.
headphones222 2 years ago
i heard that it goes faster than Mach 7
whick is the SPEED OF SOUND X 7
it would go so fast you wouldn't see it
mariopianist 2 years ago
omfg that is so damn cool
SkullKing11841 2 years ago
Good weapon!!!
Ilgrandecigo 2 years ago
Wow... So the navy has a railgun, which obviously has a huge charge...
They wouldn't want to boat to sink, zap.
ifurn0 2 years ago
well i clicked and it was worth it!!!!!!
gamersed94 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And also, how come there is a trail behind the projectile?
A rail gun wouldnt have this.
headphones222 2 years ago
It might be fired like a rail gun, but the projectile is a rocket. Pause on 5 seconds as it punches through the paper and you will see the tail end of it
zyxonm 2 years ago
Its not a rocket, its just a fin stabilized projectile. The heat generated by the rails combined with the extremely high velocity generating friction against the air causes air particles around it to disperse rapidly. The super heated air expands into a plasma like state.
In laymans terms, the projectile is moving so fast the air around it is catching fire.
Advisedblock 2 years ago 41
that is exactly correct, i couldn't have said it better myself
SkullKing11841 2 years ago
@Advisedblock How does air catch on fire? That doesn't really make sense.
0102josh 1 year ago
@0102josh *stares at spaceshuttles, meteorites and asteroids*
Helge129 1 year ago
@Helge129 Yeah, I didn't even think about that, until after I commented. So is that just a result of friction basically?
0102josh 1 year ago
@0102josh : Mostly, yes.
Helge129 1 year ago
@Advisedblock My dick also catch fire when I jerk off.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser AHAHAHAHHA I LOVE IT WHEN People make stupidly funny comments like this. Nice one dude, ahahahah
shadowhunter388 1 year ago
@Advisedblock Similar to a space shuttle entering the atmosphere.
imortaldonkey 1 year ago
@Advisedblock so your saying it's doing the same thing as a shuttle entering the atmosphere? This is clearly a rocket and is propelled by a fuel. if it was doing what you say it was doing... the 'flaming air' would be in front of it, not behind it. In Layman's terms you suck at math and physic and are truthfully stupid for pretending you know what your talking about. Even more so if you believe what you are saying.
spyderfang 1 year ago
@spyderfang That was just a tiny round piece of plastic! You sure don't know a shit!
GordonFreeMANness 1 year ago
@GordonFreeMANness
fitbmxseries1 1 year ago
@fitbmxseries1 You deny facts.
GordonFreeMANness 1 year ago
@spyderfang actually he is not.... this IS a railgun. i thought roughly the same thing u did. but if u can find the original video, an i think it was from the military channel, it explained why it was flaming. An if i remember properly its becasue the air ignites, not the projectile. the projectile is completely solid. the air ignites because of the friction caused by a projectile movin at 5 miles a second.
RealisticSigma 1 year ago
That's VAPORIZED METAL. That is how fast it is going.
vp21ct 2 years ago
Enormous amount of heat = flames.
WILLTHECANADIAN 2 years ago 2
no actually flames just shows combustion of material particularly with oxygen.
Combustion can happen at -20.C
it is relative to temperature, if what you say is true then how come your oven isnt on fire all the time.
Just because of alot of heat doesant mean flames are nessecary.
headphones222 2 years ago
how do u no it wouldnt have that???
SkullKing11841 2 years ago
becuase a rail gun wouldnt, it is just a magnetically accelerted projectile, it shouldnt generate too much heatr, and produce anytihng like a rocket trail like some on here suggest it must have.
headphones222 2 years ago
Lol...and how much does this 1 million framerate camera cost????
quite abit I expect...:P
Also a tiny percentage of military invoations actually make it onto the battlefield.
first they have to create one more powerful and then on top of that they have to scale this one down.
headphones222 2 years ago
All I have to say is "I want one"
Madmann135 2 years ago
Also...it is generating its own jet trail so..it is not a rail gun, also if you pause the video you will see there are no flames over the front of the projectile like there would if it was air friction.
Also 9000fps is way too fast for even the worlds most advanced slow motion cameras.
headphones222 2 years ago
You're wrong on the 9kfps part. There is a version of the Phantom HD that will shoot at over 1 million fps. Also, I'm guessing this video was shot around 30k frames per second based on videos of bullets I've seen at that framerate.
jeremiahjw 2 years ago
Guys, this is not a rail gun, a rail gun fires at abut 8 times the speed of sound, that is 9000FPS....also air itself cannot ignite to friction...there is too much nitrogen in it.
What might be happening is the friction, of air on the projectile is heating it up but I doubt it as it is not traveling fast enough...Also whoever said that the friction would wear the rails...I dont think so, its held with magnetic energy. I think it is a small rocket if you had my guess.
headphones222 2 years ago
Earths atmosphere is NOT an inert gas combination. Any projectile entering our atmosphere ignites from friction and burns up - take asteroids as a good example.
Athaeus 2 years ago
That is just because of the presence of oxygen.
headphones222 2 years ago
My point exactly - yet you previously stated that there is too much nitrogen in the air for friction ignition to occur.
Athaeus 2 years ago
I stand corrected obviously atmospheric oxygen can cause combustion.
However what would be burning, this is not a rail gun, some sort of rocket.
headphones222 2 years ago
The blue trail you see behind the projectile is actually from friction due to the extreme speed.
As far as the 'fire' you see as soon as the projectile leaves the barrel, that's superheated plasma. This railgun was tested at the Naval Surface Warfare Center. Check out their press release.
Athaeus 2 years ago
These guns only fire to Mack 8.
And air resistance friction heating occurs at like 25 times the speed of sound!!!
Which is around shuttle re-entry speeds, so I dont see how that could be projectile air friction?????
Also, do you have any idea how hot gas plasma is??
headphones222 2 years ago
If you believe friction only depend on the speed a particle travels, I can't even see why I should bother continuing this discussion.
Read up on what friction is, and how it occur, then check out the 32 MJ Railgun, and take some time reading about the MAJOR problems with heating due to friction. When you're done, come back here and we can talk about how neat this video really is.
Athaeus 2 years ago
Its shit, I happens through lots of others, as well as grip and pressure and load sof other physical things.
But this is, shit sorry I am a non believer.
headphones222 2 years ago