Bill Pragnell wrote:

> Agreed - all of it. Maybe I read too much into realism, but I just can't 
> take most action films seriously.

Are you kidding?

There's 300 enemy troops with SMGs, grenades and rocket launchers, not 
to mention 3 helicopters, and yet 1 lone commando manages to shoot them 
all down without dying?

Need I explain further? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:03:36 +0200, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> There's 300 enemy troops with SMGs, grenades and rocket launchers, not
  

> to mention 3 helicopters, and yet 1 lone commando manages to shoot the
m  

> all down without dying?

Not a problem, as long as there are enough RPG rounds conveniently lying
  

around.

http://www.wasabi.nu/filmklipp_visa.asp?id=771 (Flash required)


-- 

FE

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> (The railguns in the story actually had to fire for a few thousand
>> rounds to punch a hole in the atmosphere so the needles wouldn't just
>> vaporize.)
> 
> That's pretty cool. Relativistic weapons would only really be as useful
> as nukes - to cause almost-total destruction.
> 
>>> But anyway, even without relativity, the recoil would be absurd.
>> Yep. If it can go thru a concrete wall coming out the front, the stock
>> can certainly break your shoulder.
> 
> It would do more than that. I can't be bothered with the sums right now
> but I imagine the recoil from a relativistic projectile gun would smash
> you to bits. You'd have to design any such gun to be recoilless somehow.
> <insert inertia-absorbing machinery here>
> 
> :)

I think it would depend on the mass of the projectile, otherwise
headlights on cars would be pretty useless. Well, except maybe as
propulsion.

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:03:36 +0200, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> There's 300 enemy troops with SMGs, grenades and rocket launchers, not 
>> to mention 3 helicopters, and yet 1 lone commando manages to shoot 
>> them all down without dying?
> 
> Not a problem, as long as there are enough RPG rounds conveniently lying 
> around.
> 
> http://www.wasabi.nu/filmklipp_visa.asp?id=771 (Flash required)
> 
> 

it wasn't a fair fight
he had a plunger!


Tom

Post a reply to this message

scott nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/10/25 03:11:
>> Well, in an atmosphere, it would be like being hit by an explosion, as 
>> you pile up all the air in front of it.
> 
> Wouldn't something going that fast vaporize immediately when it hit the 
> air going that fast?  Doesn't stuff that going only a fraction of that 
> speed burn up in the outer atmosphere?
> 
>> Plus, don't forget all that nice gamma-burst radiation. (The railguns 
>> in the story actually had to fire for a few thousand rounds to punch a 
>> hole in the atmosphere so the needles wouldn't just vaporize.)
> 
> Ah yes, ok :-)
> 
>>> Well... technically a railgun (not to be confused with a coilgun) 
>>> fires projectiles using electrical propolsion. There's nothing in the 
>>> definition about how fast. ;-)
>>
>> True. But to get the electrical propultion to work, the projectile 
>> needs to be pretty small, which means it needs to go pretty fast. 
>> Otherwise it's more of a thrower than a firearm. :-)
> 
> In one of our lectures at university the dude had this rail-gun.  It was 
> about 2 metres long and plugged into the 420V 3-phase power supply.  He 
> loaded it with a brass (I think) solid lump of metal that was in a 
> pointy bullet shape.  It wasn't small, about 10cm diameter and 30cm 
> long.  When he flicked the switch it punched through (and got stuck in) 
> a big bit of wood just off the end of the bench he was using.  Rig up 10 
> or 20 metres of that baby and it would be interesting :-)
> 
> 
The bullet would have been hypersonic, not relativistic! Anyway, beter protect 
your ears when it fires... and don't stand anywhere close to that thing!

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Lutheran: If shit happens, don't talk about it.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/10/25 06:28:
> Darren New wrote:
>> True. But to get the electrical propultion to work, the projectile 
>> needs to be pretty small, which means it needs to go pretty fast. 
>> Otherwise it's more of a thrower than a firearm. :-)
> 
> A railgun is exactly that - a thrower. A firearm uses chemical reactions 
> to provide impulse.
> 
> You would never use one as a portable antipersonnel weapon anyway, it's 
> probably more useful as a large scale space-based anti-ship or 
> planet-busting weapon.
Or as a satelite thrower.
Dig a large tunnel up some mountain near the equator, from about sea level to 
near the summit, line it up with proper circuitry. Load a specialy designed 
single stage rocket. Launch a 1000 tons payload into stationary orbit for less 
than $1 000 000.00! And you could do that every few hours.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you're starting to find these 
quotes more unsettling than funny.
     -- Alex McLeod a.k.a. Giant Robot Messiah

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Well, in an atmosphere, it would be like being hit by an explosion, as 
>> you pile up all the air in front of it.
> 
> Wouldn't something going that fast vaporize immediately when it hit the 
> air going that fast? 

Yes. That's why it's like an explosion. :-)

> Doesn't stuff that going only a fraction of that 
> speed burn up in the outer atmosphere?

Pretty much.

>> Plus, don't forget all that nice gamma-burst radiation. (The railguns 
>> in the story actually had to fire for a few thousand rounds to punch a 
>> hole in the atmosphere so the needles wouldn't just vaporize.)
> 
> Ah yes, ok :-)

Of course, it was fun when they were sitting out on the airless moon, 
trying to shoot down the device orbiting the sun, or at least firing at 
the sun to see if they could get enough radiation to shut down the 
electronics on the thing orbiting the sun....

  --
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> (The railguns in the story actually had to fire for a few thousand 
>> rounds to punch a hole in the atmosphere so the needles wouldn't just 
>> vaporize.)
> 
> That's pretty cool. Relativistic weapons would only really be as useful 
> as nukes - to cause almost-total destruction.

I've seen that too - drop stuff from orbit. These were basically 
anti-armor weapons. Attacking buildings and planes and satellites (from 
ground) and tanks and stuff like that. They felt bad when they got 
attacked indoors and had to shoot at the attacker with a bunch of 
unarmored enemy support troops about, because they all got smeared to 
red goo. :-)

Fun books.

> You'd have to design any such gun to be recoilless somehow. 

Generally by firing something out the back at a similar momentum. Kind 
of like the open back on a shoulder-launched rocket/bazooka thing.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Yep. If it can go thru a concrete wall coming out the front, the stock
>>> can certainly break your shoulder.

> I think it would depend on the mass of the projectile, otherwise
> headlights on cars would be pretty useless.

Well, they don't go through concrete, do they? Certainly mine dont!


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>> or the dubious claim that it can fire projectiles at near lightspeed 
>>
>> That's what a railgun is for.
> 
> No it's not. A railgun accelerates a projectile with something like a 
> linear accelerator. You get a fast-moving slug but I don't think 
> anyone's under the illusion that it could be relativistic.

I think it's more that it's the only technology that's likely to be able 
to accelerate something to relativistic speeds in a reasonable "barrel 
length."  Certainly an explosives-based lump-in-a-tube cannon won't.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message