Railguns do not shoot laser beams. Quick believing every thing you see in a video game. A railgun is an entirely electrical gun that accelerates a conductive projectile along a pair of metal rails using the same principles as the homopolar motor. Railguns use two sliding or rolling
contacts [1] that permit a large electric current to pass through the projectile. This current interacts with the strong magnetic fields generated by the rails and this accelerates the projectile.
I believe the est range of this weapon is around 400 miles, but looking a the round and the flakes of metal being ripped off it, I doubt there would even be a round past a mile.
@TrollingWithFlames I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. What do you think is impossible? There's nothing impossible about propelling a 2g slug at 12km/sec, but it seems that it there may be a theoretical limit to how fast a railgun can propel a projectile. According to my source it seems 6km/sec is the limit for a railgun.
Because this is earth, and you have to overcome things like friction and gravity.
2g (of anything) doesn't have the mass, and therefore weight, to overcome those limitations to the degree of 12 km/s. Sure, you could theoretically get a muzzle velocity of 12kms. But a realistic weapon is impossible. The real thing requires upward of 20lb projectiles just to a) have enough volume to accelerate that fast, and b) overcome resistance and maintain velocity. VERY basic physics here...
@TrollingWithFlames Not quite. A 5.56mm bullet fired from an M16 is only 4g, and it's plenty lethal, with good range and accuracy, and it only moves at around 980 m/s. There's nothing in the laws of physics that makes it impossible to accelerate a 2g projectile to 12km/sec. Air resistance factors in more than just mass, it factors in shape, volume as well as mass. In other words, if the 2g projectile is made out of a more dense material like tungsten, then it would be...
smaller than a 2g projectile made out of lead. As such it would encounter less air resistance and have greater range, accuracy, and lethality. The less massive an object is, the less momentum it has, but if the volume is less, and is aerodynamically shaped, then air resistance is mitigated.
@EnigmaHood Ok, there's a HUGE difference between 980m/s and 12,000m/s. There's also the factor of how a railgun fires. The projectile has to have the surface area to be accelerated along the two rails, which was my second point above. 2g or anything does not have that. Denser materials only reduce this area, making it less probable. It's the extreme speed that makes this idea so completely impossible. Consider one more thing...
@Enigma Ok... 2g at 12,000m/s. Look at the 20-ish-lb projectile they are firing above. How much of that projectile is burning off? How long do you thing 2g (half of your 5.56 round) would last under that heat? Removing all other physics problems aside, it would be gone before it even hit the target. And how do you compensate for accuracy with 2g at 12,000m/s? there's too much force. it would, if it fired at all, rocket off in a random direction.
@TrollingWithFlames Do you even bother to read what I write? Didn't I already tell you that the theoretical limit for a railgun firing a projectile is 6km/sec? My issue with what you wrote is that you seem to think that it's impossible for a projectile to move that fast. Don't use the word "impossible", because it's a false statement. But now you're making more incorrect statements. A railgun can potentially fire anything as long as it's conductive, that includes...
small projectiles, liquids, and even plasmas. You also seem to think that the more massive an object is, the more heat resistant it is. That's also untrue. The less volume an object has, the less air resistance it encounters. If you have a 20lb projectile and a 2g projectile made of the same material fired at 12,000m/s, the 20lb projectile heats up faster because it has greater surface area. Firing a 20lb slug at 12,000m/s generates even more recoil, what's your point?
Now with all of that said, I never said a railgun could fire a projectile that fast. My issue is that you think it's impossible because of the projectile's mass. You're wrong, it has nothing to do with that. A railgun can't fire a projectile that fast, because it can't fire anything that fast, it's a theoretical limitation on how it works.But how would a 2g projectile behave if fired at 12km/sec? That all depends on a number of things. The material, the shape, the volume, the density
I think what you are getting hung up on is you are mixing up what is theoretically possible and what is possible with our currently level of technology. Like I said, there's nothing in physics that makes it impossible to propel a 2g object to 12km/sec. With our technology? That's a different story. With lead, probably not, but with more advanced materials you could have a super dense, super hard, super heat resistant projectile that is perfectly capable of moving at 12km/sec in air.
So really, you should only say something is impossible if it violates the laws of physics. If it's something not achievable with modern day technology it's either infeasible or impractical, but not impossible.
It was never a question of "theory". If it's theory you want, then why even bother?
First off, there is no recoil on a railgun. That right there show me you have no idea how this works, which means you cannot possibly argue the physics of this. You obviously don't understand acceleration over a plane. You have no concept of realistic consequences of resistance, force, gravity, planar rotation, or any of the other factors here. Hell, you don't even know what PLASMA is. I'm done.
@TrollingWithFlames You're an idiot, I never said there's no recoil on a railgun. Of course there's recoil on a railgun. I apparently know a lot more about physics than you do dumb boy. I even posted a video response to this video explaining what plasma is. You aren't too bright it seems.
@TheNightlithium He seemed sincere with his posts in that he actually believed the bullshit he was saying was true. *shrugs* Dono if he was trolling here, but he's a complete idiot, I know that much.
@dyraisverykooel Careful with your terms. Fire specifically refers to a rapid oxidation reaction due to combustion. That's not what's going on here. Flame is the visible portion of fire, and flame is produced whenever air is hot enough to emit black body radiation. So basically friction is super heating the air and causing it to produce a flame plume.
@EnigmaHood well I do realise its not 'real' fire but its that the projectile literally ionizes the air turning it into a plasma...but to the naked eye it kinda looks like a flame but thanks for reminding me :)
@dyraisverykooel It's not ionizing the air. Pieces of the projectile are breaking off and burning in the air creating flame. It's a flame plume, not plasma.
that is really a scary weapon..when the air becomes ionized like that...if the weapon was big enough..i am afraid of accidental ignition of the oxygen in the air causing total atomic reversal....a big ass-bomb....the earth as a whole......it would have to be a HUGE gun.. impossible...... but highly probable.....
cmon, really? That was the scare tactic used when they were testing the atomic and nuclear bombs. If those bombs didnt create enough heat to cause the catastrophic event you are describing, then do you truly believe that a railgun would be able to?
@appa609 That is correct, but just like any gas, it can become hot due to fiction, and produce black body radiation as a result. That's what's happening here.
Please don't degrade the species anymore. Use logic and persuasion instead of harsh words. And btw, most high speed railguns (not this particular instance), are explosively fed.
@marek0086 It's not a plasma, it's just flame produced from pieces of the projectile disintegrating and burning up. Imagine a meteor burning up in the atmosphere. Same deal.
Oh, and you can make low temp plasma (about 500F). I run a UV laser lab and we make the stuff all the time. We do some pretty fun experiments. If you want the temp of the plasma coming off this thing, use ram pressure equation followed by ideal gas law. Oh, and combustion is a chemical process, not to be confused with super heating. Happy trails all.
OK, since i'm the only one here with a masters in physics, and a phD thesis in the works, I will put a rest to all this. First, it is ram pressure, not friction, that causes the air and in turn the projectile to heat. LMAO, when you light a match, it is the wood that is being oxidized, producing a flame. Second, any element can produce a plasma, including everything in air and the projectile. As for flame color and intensity, think meteor. It's pretty much the same thing.
@pman0312 Isn't PhD capitalized...well the way I did it? And sure you have a masters in physics...I have a bullshit detector and it's going off like crazy
No one here actually understands how this thing works, except possibly in highly abstract, "I-watch-Michael-Bay-movies-and-read-Wikipedia-sometimes" type terms. Admire it, its fucking sick, but don't belittle other people for being slower to Google search than you are. We ain't physicists, myself included, and if you are, go build one and post some vids! You probably have enough volunteers on this page alone to make it happen.
In recent years, those tests have generally been conducted at a 1.5 megajoule launch energy, which the Navy puts into perspective by noting that "a one-ton vehicle moving at 100 mph has approximately one megajoule of kinetic energy.
The biggest problem with railgun technology is that the force of the launch is soo massive that causes damage to the launcher itself. Still a long way to go....
Just to give some basic info. That projectile is going at mach 17. It impacts with the same force as an ICBM - warhead (just the rocket). The reason you get bubbles comming from submarine propellers is because the proeller spins so fast that the water behind gets to such low presure that it boils. A similar effect is igniting the air behind the projectile.
I wonder, in the statistics quite a large amount of Koreans have watched this video. They don't give a damn about other American videos just military ones.
Surprisingly this doesn't use too much electricity, only about half the average households energy drawn per day. The difference is that the power is released in only 10 miliseconds. or 0.001 of a second.
I just had an idea. The biggest problem with railguns is the wear and tear of two metal surfaces rubbing against each other at high velocity. Tell me if this would work. Instead of using a slug, two disks or wheels that roll against the rails and each other. It could reduce friction on the rails and you're firing a pair of spinning disks at high speed.
I almost thought the flag at the end said NASA and I laughed my ass off, but then I reread it and shrugged. NASA's too good for that treatment, but that would have been funny as hell.
Lets be honest here. Your a fucking retard. A Gauss/Railgun weapon uses electromagnets to propel a projectile (No gunpowder or fuel) at high speeds. The "plasma power" you see coming from the projectile is simply ionized air. To dumb it down for you: Its not a plasma rocket genius, its just going so fast that its fucking the air up too.
@NJP695 yes it is better the gunpowder because the damage comes from the kinetic energy, the projectile hits a target with so much more force then a bullet. As of right now its not cost-effective to replace maybe 10-20 years.
@NJP695 1. It's firing a 5kg block of metal at Mach 17. It's designed to hit a 5 metre target at 200 miles. If this hits any kind of man-made structure it will completely destroy it.
2) The navy doesn't really use a lot of propellant based cannons anymore so there's nothing much to replace, most of them are already gone anyway. The idea of the weapon is to deliver the damage and range of a cruise missile with something that is MUCH cheaper.
@HelmutVillam Yea I heard about that as well. Even though this project is ahead of schedule and made more advancements than anyone else (working on projects of similar nature). This weapon system would have been 10 times more powerful (given we overcome the energy problem) than any other naval gun system. I guess outstanding performance isn't enough to get money... Why does congress still get paid so much then?
@marek0086 When you light a match, it is burning the oxygen present in the air as a fuel for the flame ergo the air can combust. Same here except some of the fire may also be plasma (not the sci fi version, the 4th state of matter found at extremely high temperatures like the ones caused by this gun's round rubbing against the air)
@SinDawg030~ At what temperature does air combust??
Besides, i just found out that thats not the true color of the "flame". It looks like fire (yellow) because they darkened the camera lens because the plasma is so bright.
@marek0086 It's called friction. Kinetic energy from the projectile's debris imparts kinetic energy to the air molecules, creates heat. Heat creates flame, hence the flame plume. Imagine a meteor falling through the atmosphere and burns up, same deal.
@marek0086 It's not ionized. Maybe a few air particles are ionized, but the vast majority is not, it's just hot. Therefore it's a flame, not a plasma.
@marek0086 Geeze you're such an idiot. Oxygen doesn't undergo combustion unless there's a fuel to be oxidized. There's a difference between fire (combustion) and flame. Fire produces flames, but not all flames are produced by fire. Flame is produced whenever the air becomes hot, which can occur due to redox reactions (fire), friction (like in this video or a meteor falling from outerspace), or electro-magnetic radiation.
@marek0086 No, I said electro-magnetic RADIATION not fields. That means photons of light of various frequencies. You don't seem to know what the difference between fire and flames. Fire is a chemical reaction, flame is just a hot gas that emits blackbody radiation. Flame wake is behind the projectile because the air is super heated by the projectile and trails behind it. The air in front of the projectile is still cool.
@marek0086 If the projectile was moving fast enough there would be a visible glow in front of the projectile as well. The projectile is just not moving fast enough for that to happen in this case, although you can see it in meteors or even spacecraft that re-enter the atmosphere.
@marek0086 If they moved faster they would eventually. That's exactly what a railgun does actually. It fires projectiles faster than propellant based guns can. There's a physical limitation to how fast a propellant gun can shoot a projectile, electromagnetic weapons like railguns can overcome this limitation.
@marek0086 It's 2520 meters per second for this prototype. The final version will have an even higher muzzle velocity. This weapon only uses about 10 megajoules, the final one should use 64 megajoules.
Railguns are, currently, only available on a battleship because of the power draw and size. They can accurately nail a target 7 miles away with the damned thing. Just wait til we hook that bitch up to something on air/land...
I'm saying that I don't think a railgun of the same kind of basic design could be effectively employed on an aircraft. The only real merits of this kind of rail gun are the power and range. To scale this down for use on an aircraft would probably remove these benefits. Though I have had another thought, perhaps with some more refinement of the technology it could potentially be used on an AC130 style airborne weapons platform...
Justin Bieber's penis is the size of the dislike bar. In Soviet Russia, the ground falls on you. Chuck Norris is somehow related to this incident. Rebecca Black sucks. Thumbs up if *insert obvious bullshit here*. My parents thought I was watching porn. 310 views and thousands of likes!? press 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 or 9 and thumbs up. I hate ads and I'm thankful that porno doesn't have them. I pee in the side of the bowl to make less noise!
@Ruzmanga Could we build one that could shoot chocolate sprinkles. Imagine a kid eating an ice cream cone in China. We shoot it with chocolate sprinkles from thousands of miles distant.
first of all I dont understand this, a guy I work with was in the marines and worked security for the demonstration of the rail gun to the navy. then he did 15 years in prison and worked where we work for 3 years. so that had to be atleast 18 years ago. and I only hear this thing is recent. something doesn't add up
@titykaka1 what?... China doesn't own us... and China won't collect America's debt... they are making far to much in the interest we pay... the longer it takes us to pay the more they make... so China doesn't own America... and besides... America owes everyone just like everyone owes America...... (you would think that some of these debts would cancel out, like srsly how many fucking countries have we helped out when a disaster comes along...) lol
@idevidedbyzero blah blah everyone owes someone some Money, the Question is when everyone is in Debt there must be someone who gave all the Money. But Money is just a virtualization Technology and it ran out of Control several Years ago. It's just another Idea of some clever Mind to enslave us without even getting noticed.
The fact that the chinese owns the US economy doesn't mean anything except that they're too invested in the US to go to war with them. Why would you go to war with a country that you rely on to support your economy?
If this is the unclassified video footage, who knows how big the classified ones are!
Lucky777Yo 1 day ago
@Lucky777Yo you whore
FoxhoundDS 1 day ago
@FoxhoundDS Somone's in a bad mood...
Lucky777Yo 1 day ago
No top comment? THIS IS MY CHANCE!!!
Lucky777Yo 1 day ago
Though they have experimented with plasma.
twleo1975 3 days ago
Railguns do not shoot laser beams. Quick believing every thing you see in a video game. A railgun is an entirely electrical gun that accelerates a conductive projectile along a pair of metal rails using the same principles as the homopolar motor. Railguns use two sliding or rolling
contacts [1] that permit a large electric current to pass through the projectile. This current interacts with the strong magnetic fields generated by the rails and this accelerates the projectile.
twleo1975 3 days ago
Supposed to be a laser not a piece of fucking metal
NightMare5O4 1 week ago
@NightMare5O4 no.... a railgun uses magnets to propel an object at extremely high speeds....
Tico2858 1 week ago
...so fake...and a really bad one...
dougspair 3 weeks ago
@dougspair its obviously a real video, maybe not a real rail gun
Boo28706 3 weeks ago
@dougspair Funny considering it's video of an official test done by DARPA
ThatAdelaideGuy 2 weeks ago
I believe the est range of this weapon is around 400 miles, but looking a the round and the flakes of metal being ripped off it, I doubt there would even be a round past a mile.
rodney0008 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
L188188 1 month ago
I keep one of these under my pillow, and I sleep very soundly because of it.
sunac 1 month ago
Thumbs up for this Mac cannon!
icefire4114 1 month ago
wow, that gun really destroyed the fuck out of thatiece of cardboard.
TheRagman95 1 month ago 2
There is another Russian railgun video where the scientist says about up to 12km/sec speed of a 2gram projectile possible.
MadYarMadYar 1 month ago
@MadYarMadYar bah,russian?
I would believe it if it was chinese because they are good at stealing technology.
Vosbraka 1 month ago
@Vosbraka and making work it better
LVSWTZ 1 week ago
@MadYarMadYar
That's impossible. 2grams doesn't have the mass for that, no less to sustain it in flight.
There's a REASON why the finished projectile for this will weight between 20-30lbs, and not just for destructive force.
TrollingWithFlames 1 month ago
@TrollingWithFlames I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. What do you think is impossible? There's nothing impossible about propelling a 2g slug at 12km/sec, but it seems that it there may be a theoretical limit to how fast a railgun can propel a projectile. According to my source it seems 6km/sec is the limit for a railgun.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@EnigmaHood
Because this is earth, and you have to overcome things like friction and gravity.
2g (of anything) doesn't have the mass, and therefore weight, to overcome those limitations to the degree of 12 km/s. Sure, you could theoretically get a muzzle velocity of 12kms. But a realistic weapon is impossible. The real thing requires upward of 20lb projectiles just to a) have enough volume to accelerate that fast, and b) overcome resistance and maintain velocity. VERY basic physics here...
TrollingWithFlames 1 month ago
@TrollingWithFlames Not quite. A 5.56mm bullet fired from an M16 is only 4g, and it's plenty lethal, with good range and accuracy, and it only moves at around 980 m/s. There's nothing in the laws of physics that makes it impossible to accelerate a 2g projectile to 12km/sec. Air resistance factors in more than just mass, it factors in shape, volume as well as mass. In other words, if the 2g projectile is made out of a more dense material like tungsten, then it would be...
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
smaller than a 2g projectile made out of lead. As such it would encounter less air resistance and have greater range, accuracy, and lethality. The less massive an object is, the less momentum it has, but if the volume is less, and is aerodynamically shaped, then air resistance is mitigated.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@EnigmaHood Ok, there's a HUGE difference between 980m/s and 12,000m/s. There's also the factor of how a railgun fires. The projectile has to have the surface area to be accelerated along the two rails, which was my second point above. 2g or anything does not have that. Denser materials only reduce this area, making it less probable. It's the extreme speed that makes this idea so completely impossible. Consider one more thing...
TrollingWithFlames 1 month ago
@Enigma Ok... 2g at 12,000m/s. Look at the 20-ish-lb projectile they are firing above. How much of that projectile is burning off? How long do you thing 2g (half of your 5.56 round) would last under that heat? Removing all other physics problems aside, it would be gone before it even hit the target. And how do you compensate for accuracy with 2g at 12,000m/s? there's too much force. it would, if it fired at all, rocket off in a random direction.
TrollingWithFlames 1 month ago
@TrollingWithFlames Do you even bother to read what I write? Didn't I already tell you that the theoretical limit for a railgun firing a projectile is 6km/sec? My issue with what you wrote is that you seem to think that it's impossible for a projectile to move that fast. Don't use the word "impossible", because it's a false statement. But now you're making more incorrect statements. A railgun can potentially fire anything as long as it's conductive, that includes...
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
small projectiles, liquids, and even plasmas. You also seem to think that the more massive an object is, the more heat resistant it is. That's also untrue. The less volume an object has, the less air resistance it encounters. If you have a 20lb projectile and a 2g projectile made of the same material fired at 12,000m/s, the 20lb projectile heats up faster because it has greater surface area. Firing a 20lb slug at 12,000m/s generates even more recoil, what's your point?
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
Now with all of that said, I never said a railgun could fire a projectile that fast. My issue is that you think it's impossible because of the projectile's mass. You're wrong, it has nothing to do with that. A railgun can't fire a projectile that fast, because it can't fire anything that fast, it's a theoretical limitation on how it works.But how would a 2g projectile behave if fired at 12km/sec? That all depends on a number of things. The material, the shape, the volume, the density
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
I think what you are getting hung up on is you are mixing up what is theoretically possible and what is possible with our currently level of technology. Like I said, there's nothing in physics that makes it impossible to propel a 2g object to 12km/sec. With our technology? That's a different story. With lead, probably not, but with more advanced materials you could have a super dense, super hard, super heat resistant projectile that is perfectly capable of moving at 12km/sec in air.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
So really, you should only say something is impossible if it violates the laws of physics. If it's something not achievable with modern day technology it's either infeasible or impractical, but not impossible.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@Enigma
It was never a question of "theory". If it's theory you want, then why even bother?
First off, there is no recoil on a railgun. That right there show me you have no idea how this works, which means you cannot possibly argue the physics of this. You obviously don't understand acceleration over a plane. You have no concept of realistic consequences of resistance, force, gravity, planar rotation, or any of the other factors here. Hell, you don't even know what PLASMA is. I'm done.
TrollingWithFlames 1 month ago
@TrollingWithFlames You're an idiot, I never said there's no recoil on a railgun. Of course there's recoil on a railgun. I apparently know a lot more about physics than you do dumb boy. I even posted a video response to this video explaining what plasma is. You aren't too bright it seems.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@EnigmaHood *responds to user named 'TrollingWithFlames' with anger*
Hm.
TheNightlithium 1 month ago
@TheNightlithium He seemed sincere with his posts in that he actually believed the bullshit he was saying was true. *shrugs* Dono if he was trolling here, but he's a complete idiot, I know that much.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@EnigmaHood Successful troll is successful :|
lajakl 1 month ago
@lajakl Stupid troll is stupid. :)
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
Now all they need to do is build Broadside Battlesuits and fit two of these puppies on them.
1000thVoice 2 months ago
mach 20 gives enough friction to set air on fire...now to all 'rocket believers here' you just got owned
dyraisverykooel 2 months ago
@dyraisverykooel Careful with your terms. Fire specifically refers to a rapid oxidation reaction due to combustion. That's not what's going on here. Flame is the visible portion of fire, and flame is produced whenever air is hot enough to emit black body radiation. So basically friction is super heating the air and causing it to produce a flame plume.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@EnigmaHood well I do realise its not 'real' fire but its that the projectile literally ionizes the air turning it into a plasma...but to the naked eye it kinda looks like a flame but thanks for reminding me :)
dyraisverykooel 1 month ago
@dyraisverykooel It's not ionizing the air. Pieces of the projectile are breaking off and burning in the air creating flame. It's a flame plume, not plasma.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@EnigmaHood and I originally meant my comments to people that may believe this projectile uses a combustible fuel source, my bad
dyraisverykooel 1 month ago
You haven't taken high school chemistry and THATS why you don't think it can self-ignite. Lrn2Chemistry.
Ryhnhart 2 months ago
railguns are pretty awesome... but too bad they have yet to become practical for any real use
tannersword1 2 months ago
that is really a scary weapon..when the air becomes ionized like that...if the weapon was big enough..i am afraid of accidental ignition of the oxygen in the air causing total atomic reversal....a big ass-bomb....the earth as a whole......it would have to be a HUGE gun.. impossible...... but highly probable.....
etornel79 2 months ago
@etornel79
cmon, really? That was the scare tactic used when they were testing the atomic and nuclear bombs. If those bombs didnt create enough heat to cause the catastrophic event you are describing, then do you truly believe that a railgun would be able to?
85superHamster 2 months ago
@85superHamster
well no..i just wanted to sound like i knew what the hell i was saying.....thats all....
etornel79 2 months ago
@etornel79 I haven't even taken High School chemistry, and I can tell you that oxygen can't ignite by itself. It must act to oxidize some fuel.
appa609 2 months ago
@appa609
hmmm...curious...
etornel79 2 months ago
@appa609 That is correct, but just like any gas, it can become hot due to fiction, and produce black body radiation as a result. That's what's happening here.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
now all we have to do now is enlarge that by 10000X and put it in space XD
delarakyle 2 months ago
@marek0086~ No... think meteors
pman0312 2 months ago
...I self com-bust when my e-wife calls...sorry...
jpnagle59 2 months ago
@ PaxusJKL
Please don't degrade the species anymore. Use logic and persuasion instead of harsh words. And btw, most high speed railguns (not this particular instance), are explosively fed.
pman0312 2 months ago
@pman0312~ i read that the plasma is caused by the high magnetic field.
marek0086 2 months ago
@marek0086 It's not a plasma, it's just flame produced from pieces of the projectile disintegrating and burning up. Imagine a meteor burning up in the atmosphere. Same deal.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
Oh, and you can make low temp plasma (about 500F). I run a UV laser lab and we make the stuff all the time. We do some pretty fun experiments. If you want the temp of the plasma coming off this thing, use ram pressure equation followed by ideal gas law. Oh, and combustion is a chemical process, not to be confused with super heating. Happy trails all.
pman0312 2 months ago
OK, since i'm the only one here with a masters in physics, and a phD thesis in the works, I will put a rest to all this. First, it is ram pressure, not friction, that causes the air and in turn the projectile to heat. LMAO, when you light a match, it is the wood that is being oxidized, producing a flame. Second, any element can produce a plasma, including everything in air and the projectile. As for flame color and intensity, think meteor. It's pretty much the same thing.
pman0312 2 months ago
@pman0312 Isn't PhD capitalized...well the way I did it? And sure you have a masters in physics...I have a bullshit detector and it's going off like crazy
LittlePikachu 1 month ago
RAMZA FTW!!!!
matalac100 2 months ago
oh! thank god no sound! my computer volume was on max! my heart stoped when i realized this and i clicked on the video
TheMinecraftAG 2 months ago
shit, whats the speed of that holy fuck??
Lenangreal 2 months ago
No one here actually understands how this thing works, except possibly in highly abstract, "I-watch-Michael-Bay-movies-and-read-Wikipedia-sometimes" type terms. Admire it, its fucking sick, but don't belittle other people for being slower to Google search than you are. We ain't physicists, myself included, and if you are, go build one and post some vids! You probably have enough volunteers on this page alone to make it happen.
brazzaka 2 months ago
In recent years, those tests have generally been conducted at a 1.5 megajoule launch energy, which the Navy puts into perspective by noting that "a one-ton vehicle moving at 100 mph has approximately one megajoule of kinetic energy.
ftown 2 months ago
Little known fact railgun's shoot metal projectiles with electromagnets no combustion is used to propel the projectile.
roamerreed 2 months ago
only my railgun can shoot it etc etc...
ThePandaCoco 2 months ago
The biggest problem with railgun technology is that the force of the launch is soo massive that causes damage to the launcher itself. Still a long way to go....
1wibble2 3 months ago
wow. wonder how much that cost america -_-
soulflare365 3 months ago
@soulflare365 in the long run very cheap..
Dogmeat1950 2 months ago
Epicness and nothing less
airsoftmanx 3 months ago
Just to give some basic info. That projectile is going at mach 17. It impacts with the same force as an ICBM - warhead (just the rocket). The reason you get bubbles comming from submarine propellers is because the proeller spins so fast that the water behind gets to such low presure that it boils. A similar effect is igniting the air behind the projectile.
MoonlightWolfSpore 3 months ago
I wonder, in the statistics quite a large amount of Koreans have watched this video. They don't give a damn about other American videos just military ones.
MrEduardKhil 3 months ago
Surprisingly this doesn't use too much electricity, only about half the average households energy drawn per day. The difference is that the power is released in only 10 miliseconds. or 0.001 of a second.
NigelGriff 3 months ago
US Navy aint nothin to fuck with
jerzy862 3 months ago
Uses nazi haunebu + bell tech, bell was used as dimensionalgate by accident i think but similar charging etc....
88Phobos 3 months ago
Uhh... Railguns don't use explosive charges.....
DamagedF0X 3 months ago
I just had an idea. The biggest problem with railguns is the wear and tear of two metal surfaces rubbing against each other at high velocity. Tell me if this would work. Instead of using a slug, two disks or wheels that roll against the rails and each other. It could reduce friction on the rails and you're firing a pair of spinning disks at high speed.
InsidiakMFWA 3 months ago
....Holy FUCK!
TheFireHawk7 3 months ago
I almost thought the flag at the end said NASA and I laughed my ass off, but then I reread it and shrugged. NASA's too good for that treatment, but that would have been funny as hell.
DamonandSky 3 months ago
@Pgnspire
Lets be honest here. Your a fucking retard. A Gauss/Railgun weapon uses electromagnets to propel a projectile (No gunpowder or fuel) at high speeds. The "plasma power" you see coming from the projectile is simply ionized air. To dumb it down for you: Its not a plasma rocket genius, its just going so fast that its fucking the air up too.
PaxusJKL 3 months ago 69
@PaxusJKL But the question is:
1) Is it any better (Faster, More penetrating, e.t.c) then gunpowder?
2) If so, would it cost-effective to replace Gunpowder with Railgun tech?
NJP695 3 months ago
@NJP695 yes it is better the gunpowder because the damage comes from the kinetic energy, the projectile hits a target with so much more force then a bullet. As of right now its not cost-effective to replace maybe 10-20 years.
adamca12 3 months ago
@NJP695 1. It's firing a 5kg block of metal at Mach 17. It's designed to hit a 5 metre target at 200 miles. If this hits any kind of man-made structure it will completely destroy it.
DoctorMelon 2 months ago
@NJP695 1) Yes obviously
2) The navy doesn't really use a lot of propellant based cannons anymore so there's nothing much to replace, most of them are already gone anyway. The idea of the weapon is to deliver the damage and range of a cruise missile with something that is MUCH cheaper.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@PaxusJKL It's "You're a fucking retard", not "Your a fucking retard." English, Yo.
Tergyman 2 months ago
@PaxusJKL Must suck being the highest-rated comment; you've probably been corrected for that 'your' a dozen times...
Genereaver 2 months ago
@PaxusJKLure right... xD
hristijank2 2 months ago
@PaxusJKL Riiiiiiiight. because everyone who doesn't study physics is obvoiusly a complete and utter moron.
stickflux 2 months ago
@stickflux That 's why you know your shit or stay quiet.
vline09 2 months ago
@PaxusJKL It's actually not a plasma trail, it's flame produced from fragments burning off of the projectile.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
Anyone want to get in a fight with the USA now. :D
ghost2075 3 months ago 4
IMPRESSIVE. EXCELLENT
leileilol 3 months ago
@leileilol So few of us, there are. D:
Lioyd1rving 1 month ago
@Lioyd1rving some wise who talks, finally.
benopolly 1 month ago
Ahem - CGI.
chrisjarram 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't fuck with the US
nAthaNkco 3 months ago
I machine the projectiles for these guns!!!
HitIndustries 3 months ago
Shoryuuuken !
BestOfOldskoolHipHop 3 months ago
I was under the impression that this project was terminated along with the Free Electron Laser by the Senate?
HelmutVillam 3 months ago
@HelmutVillam Yea I heard about that as well. Even though this project is ahead of schedule and made more advancements than anyone else (working on projects of similar nature). This weapon system would have been 10 times more powerful (given we overcome the energy problem) than any other naval gun system. I guess outstanding performance isn't enough to get money... Why does congress still get paid so much then?
GyudeJohnson 3 months ago
Dear Lucifer...
Shad0wLucky 3 months ago
I think this is a clip from national Geographics When aliens attack special
codytdwt 3 months ago
Fun fact: That isn't fire from propellant. That is from the air combusting with the friction the round is generating.
SinDawg030 3 months ago 49
@SinDawg030~ all that fire is NOT the air combusting!. Air cant combust! it needs a fuel. Its obvious by the fire that some kind of fuel was used!
marek0086 2 months ago
@marek0086 When you light a match, it is burning the oxygen present in the air as a fuel for the flame ergo the air can combust. Same here except some of the fire may also be plasma (not the sci fi version, the 4th state of matter found at extremely high temperatures like the ones caused by this gun's round rubbing against the air)
SinDawg030 2 months ago
@SinDawg030~ At what temperature does air combust??
Besides, i just found out that thats not the true color of the "flame". It looks like fire (yellow) because they darkened the camera lens because the plasma is so bright.
marek0086 2 months ago
@marek0086 Anything can combust at a high enough temp.
valcan321 2 months ago
@marek0086 It's called friction. Kinetic energy from the projectile's debris imparts kinetic energy to the air molecules, creates heat. Heat creates flame, hence the flame plume. Imagine a meteor falling through the atmosphere and burns up, same deal.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@EnigmaHood~ Its PLASMA!!.... ionized air is PLASMA!
marek0086 1 month ago
@marek0086 It's not ionized. Maybe a few air particles are ionized, but the vast majority is not, it's just hot. Therefore it's a flame, not a plasma.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@EnigmaHood~ Look at the color of it!!!.... its plasma!
marek0086 1 month ago
@marek0086 I'm beginning to think you're just a troll but the color of it proves nothing. Both flames and plasma can come in various colors.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@EnigmaHood~ Ye?... well im beginning to think that YOU'RE just a troll!
At what temperature does air combust??
marek0086 1 month ago
@marek0086 Geeze you're such an idiot. Oxygen doesn't undergo combustion unless there's a fuel to be oxidized. There's a difference between fire (combustion) and flame. Fire produces flames, but not all flames are produced by fire. Flame is produced whenever the air becomes hot, which can occur due to redox reactions (fire), friction (like in this video or a meteor falling from outerspace), or electro-magnetic radiation.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@EnigmaHood~ Ye exactly, theres a very strong electro-magnetic field here. Why is only the back of the projectile on "fire"??
marek0086 1 month ago
@marek0086 No, I said electro-magnetic RADIATION not fields. That means photons of light of various frequencies. You don't seem to know what the difference between fire and flames. Fire is a chemical reaction, flame is just a hot gas that emits blackbody radiation. Flame wake is behind the projectile because the air is super heated by the projectile and trails behind it. The air in front of the projectile is still cool.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@EnigmaHood~ air in front is still cool?!.... no way!.... what about the huge air-pressure at the front on the projectile?
marek0086 1 month ago
@marek0086 If the projectile was moving fast enough there would be a visible glow in front of the projectile as well. The projectile is just not moving fast enough for that to happen in this case, although you can see it in meteors or even spacecraft that re-enter the atmosphere.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@EnigmaHood~ So why dont bullets produce this "flaming-air" effect?
marek0086 1 month ago
@marek0086 If they moved faster they would eventually. That's exactly what a railgun does actually. It fires projectiles faster than propellant based guns can. There's a physical limitation to how fast a propellant gun can shoot a projectile, electromagnetic weapons like railguns can overcome this limitation.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@EnigmaHood~ So whats the muzzle-velocity of this thing??
marek0086 1 month ago
@marek0086 It's 2520 meters per second for this prototype. The final version will have an even higher muzzle velocity. This weapon only uses about 10 megajoules, the final one should use 64 megajoules.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@EnigmaHood~ whats that... like Mach 7.5?
marek0086 1 month ago
@marek0086 Yeah around there. I got Mach 7.4 according to my calculations.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
@marek0086 I actually made a video response to this called fire flame and plasma, you should go watch it, it should answer most of your questions.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
stop it at 0:02 and you can see plasma ;)
DaColdFlash 3 months ago
Wow ppl, gauss is an electromagnetic projectile, railguns and gauss have one difference, railguns have a metal object within the charge
TheLordCronous 3 months ago
TAKE THIS NAVAL RAILGUN VELOCITAS ERADICO!!!
DornDaniel 4 months ago
I'm glad we know it can destroy a square sign!
smenezes11 4 months ago
What was the target made out of?
HalofreakinTnA 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
an electromagnetic railgun? try again dumb ass. railguns are plasma powered. and electromagnetic is a Gauss
Pgnspire 4 months ago
@Pgnspire No.....that is just completely incorrect, it leaves a trail of plasma but it is not powered by plasma
DudeOfManyNames 4 months ago
@Pgnspire plasma powered? wtf are you saying
Lenangreal 3 months ago
@Pgnspire lol, ur real smart eh. Gauss uses magnetic coils and rail uses magnetic rails...
jacob386 3 months ago
You cant really compact that into a rifle. If you did it'd blow your wrist clean off.
NeVeC10809 4 months ago
@NeVeC10809 unless it's some sort of vehicle or mounted weapon
Butt2Munch 3 months ago
Rofl. Railgun > No muzzleflash > leaves behind plasma > Umadbro?
superjel6 4 months ago
Railguns are, currently, only available on a battleship because of the power draw and size. They can accurately nail a target 7 miles away with the damned thing. Just wait til we hook that bitch up to something on air/land...
waldomademedoit 4 months ago
@waldomademedoit I think if you tried to attach it to an aircraft it would blow itself out of the sky. Newton's third is a bitch.
Ruzmanga 4 months ago 6
@Ruzmanga "currently, only available on a battleship because of the power draw and SIZE."
waldomademedoit 4 months ago
@waldomademedoit
I'm saying that I don't think a railgun of the same kind of basic design could be effectively employed on an aircraft. The only real merits of this kind of rail gun are the power and range. To scale this down for use on an aircraft would probably remove these benefits. Though I have had another thought, perhaps with some more refinement of the technology it could potentially be used on an AC130 style airborne weapons platform...
Ruzmanga 4 months ago
@waldomademedoit so if they had it hooked up to something the size of the mother ship in District 9, it'd be fine, eh?
swosgs 2 months ago
@swosgs Yes, power draw and size probably wouldn't be a problem then lol
waldomademedoit 2 months ago
@Ruzmanga Thats so true ... I'm always lmao when I watch Arnie dual wielding railguns in Eraser.
klausjuergen 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Justin Bieber's penis is the size of the dislike bar. In Soviet Russia, the ground falls on you. Chuck Norris is somehow related to this incident. Rebecca Black sucks. Thumbs up if *insert obvious bullshit here*. My parents thought I was watching porn. 310 views and thousands of likes!? press 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 or 9 and thumbs up. I hate ads and I'm thankful that porno doesn't have them. I pee in the side of the bowl to make less noise!
There. Now you only have to read one comment
gavin0883 4 months ago
I wonder... could we build a railgun capable of taking out satellites? It wouldn't serve any real purpose, but it would be freakin' awesome.
Ruzmanga 4 months ago 5
@Ruzmanga Could we build one that could shoot chocolate sprinkles. Imagine a kid eating an ice cream cone in China. We shoot it with chocolate sprinkles from thousands of miles distant.
fjccommish 4 months ago
@fjccommish MY GOD!? ...your an american HERO :D
nickthepick120 4 months ago
@Ruzmanga
The chinese already have a missile that can, and has done that... A super-laser would probably be better!
ramboman88 4 months ago
@ramboman88
The U.S. also have a missile system capable of that. I just like Railguns.
Ruzmanga 4 months ago
russia, china you're fucked
chillaxer1993 5 months ago
@chillaxer1993
How?
MegaParker555 4 months ago
i can build some thing that with scare world leaders to death, just out from my back yard & some junk parts.. Never Underestimate an Aussie.
GayBoyRunning 5 months ago 4
u know they have a destroyer with a fucking insane railgun somewhere on this
planet.
BER2ERKER 5 months ago
I see the Navy is taking the threat of Cthulhu very seriously...
travisxxx23 5 months ago
first of all I dont understand this, a guy I work with was in the marines and worked security for the demonstration of the rail gun to the navy. then he did 15 years in prison and worked where we work for 3 years. so that had to be atleast 18 years ago. and I only hear this thing is recent. something doesn't add up
Tomsavini666 5 months ago
ONLY MY RAIL GUN CAN SHOOT IT IMA SUGU
tawseq 5 months ago
253 Al-Qaeda members saw the video :(
tomeehana 5 months ago
Imagine if the inventor of the railgun 'coughbiribiricough' invent this! ( ´ · ω · ` )
mingmaxson 5 months ago
damn im speech less
crbndecay22 5 months ago
W Quaku strzelał bez takiej rozpierduchy dookoła
Wujc10 5 months ago
A gun like that could shoot devastator off a pyramid
cyanman123 5 months ago 4
you can make a smaller one at home thats legal since it's improv weaponry.
jegsimmonsproduction 5 months ago
area 51 has one of these hidden under an abandoned airport except its 2km wide and comes out of the floor to shoot shit down
JamesonLB 5 months ago
A Certain Scientific Railgun [To aru Kagaku no Railgun]? :P
Mikoto's behind the metal. I'm sure of it.
YuTe3712 5 months ago
Comment removed
YuTe3712 5 months ago
@titykaka1 what?... China doesn't own us... and China won't collect America's debt... they are making far to much in the interest we pay... the longer it takes us to pay the more they make... so China doesn't own America... and besides... America owes everyone just like everyone owes America...... (you would think that some of these debts would cancel out, like srsly how many fucking countries have we helped out when a disaster comes along...) lol
idevidedbyzero 5 months ago
@idevidedbyzero blah blah everyone owes someone some Money, the Question is when everyone is in Debt there must be someone who gave all the Money. But Money is just a virtualization Technology and it ran out of Control several Years ago. It's just another Idea of some clever Mind to enslave us without even getting noticed.
smellcaster 5 months ago
0:06
Kendrakefull 5 months ago
Comment removed
Kendrakefull 5 months ago
in the future when this is commissioned to the navy....
captain: "arm the railgun!"
gunner: "arming.... sir we lost all power!"
captain: "how? this gun only uses about 1 city worth or power...."
jk this gun is hands down the best thing ive ever seen.
meetsouder 5 months ago
In stores in time for Christmas?
Maxid1 5 months ago
Why do I suddenly think of "To Aru Kagaku no Railgun" ?
Ingicrali 5 months ago
@Ingicrali because youre a virgin
Lenangreal 3 months ago
this is footage of chuck norris busting a nut
Pimpmastahanhduece 5 months ago 26
The fact that the chinese owns the US economy doesn't mean anything except that they're too invested in the US to go to war with them. Why would you go to war with a country that you rely on to support your economy?
derek96720 5 months ago