What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
116 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Homer Simpson quote: 'Lisa! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!'
This is utter crap.
1) Regardless of how the accelleration happens there MUST be recoil on the weapon. Ask Newton.
2) Round balls are VERY inaccurate. Which is why we haven't made round bullets for decades. Especially if they're spinning.
3) No heat? Yea right. See the laws of thermodynamics.
4) As an excercize to the reader try to calculate the amount of energy required to fire metal balls at those insane cycle rates. This thing won't even fit on a large tank with the energy source required.
I can't believe people actually believe ***** like this. - chubbyduck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wow someone has swallowed the Kool-Aid...
The one thing we need to do is to be able to separate people from the Middle East who are terrorists and people in the Middle East who are not. When I think about someone like Timothy McVeigh, I don't think all white christian New Yorkers are going to blow up government buildings, but if we bombed his sister's home in Florida and took down the people who lived near her tubejay would be up in arms. Strange how when you change the terrorist to someone white and change extremist Muslim to extremist christian (as the KKK considers itself to be a christian society) how different your perspective becomes. Would the US be better off if we got rid of the KKK? Absolutely. Is it worth bombing the places we know there are Klan groups. No not really. Yes we may be very effective at killing terrorist scum, but with around 30,000 (by GWB's own unofficial count) Iraqi/Afghani dead do you truly believe they are all terror scum?!? Is it possible that the collateral damage wasn't worth it? I understand that sacrifices have to be made for freedom, but it would be nice if people could CHOOSE to make that sacrifice like we Americans did in our Revolutionary War, or the French did in their revolution, etc.
But conservatism is all messed up. They find it extremely easy to dehumanize people different from themselves. They think torturing people is okay as long as we suspect that the person is bad. Once we suspect you of being a terrorist we can do whatever we want to you. The government that is representing us can break the laws we have agreed upon for no foreseeable benefit.
The right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, the right to live I guess some people just don't care as long as we are only taking them away from brown people... - SirSid, on 05/27/2009, -0/+3site slowing
heres the coral cache
http://www.defensereview.com.nyud.net:8090/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=526 - emperortomato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Let's stop innovating on weapons, and we'll China, Iran, and Russia do it all."
First of all (though you probably are aware) it looks like this weapon was developed by a private organization hoping to get a contract with the military. Second of all,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
We can cut military spending until the cows come home and we won't be in any danger of "letting China do it all"...
And come on man. "freedom and democracy are now evil" -- why do conservatives always pull this emotive bs? This has nothing to do with anything. Some people are concerned that we went into Iraq on faulty pretenses (blame aside) and have proceeded to (accidentally) kill civilians. Yes, there is generally more to it (and blame is placed) -- which is what makes you mad, I'm sure. Regardless of whether a democrat or a conservative is in the seat of power, I will always be outraged at the deaths of civilians (esp. when I do not feel the action was necessary) and at the mistreatment of POWs (a.k.a. enemy combatants). EACH OF WHICH reflects badly on the United States that you and I dearly love. Regardless of how the enemy may treat our soldiers, we should not disregard the "quaint" geneva convention, because we sink to their level. We are supposed to be a beacon of human rights, but we're quickly becoming the biggest hypocrite in the world.
"A majority of the so called Mideast people that we're "blowing up" think their country is better off now."
I'm glad to hear you think so.
"vague grand altruism" = see the constitution, amendments I-X - jaymz168, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3From : http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_DREAD,,00.html
Here's the kicker: because it's electrically powered and doesn't use any powdered propellant for it's operation, the DREAD Centrifuge Weapon is virtually silent (no sound signature), except for the supersonic "crack" of the metal balls breaking the sound barrier when they're launched. This makes the direction that the rounds are coming from, and their point of origin (firing source), very difficult for enemy forces to identify.
So it looks like the weapon is silent, but the projectiles are still supersonic thereby creating noise. - Plughead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3From TFA: "The DREAD's complete lack of recoil will allow it to be fired from space-based platforms, i.e. satellites, without knocking them off of their respective orbital paths."
In other words, it's absolute Bull Sh^t. Even if you're slinging pellets from some kind of centerfuge, you'd still have an action/reaction--unless this inventor is a *real* genius and has figured out some way of defying all known laws of physics... - kidgenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Cawpin said:
"devilboy - How are you sure you are right, and they are wrong?"
He's not.
1. If it is using centrifugal energy there would be no recoil beause recoil is just energy, the energy for moving the projectile. In this case the energy has already been built up INTO the projectile and then released.
2. "Especially if they're spnning." Projectiles MUST be spinning to be stable and accurate hence rifling, spinning of any sports ball.
3. Again, all the heat is already built up in the spinning so there is no heat used to fire the projectile.
4. That will be dificult, yes.
5. You're a turd.
CAWPIN posted by CAWPIN (1)
Wow....just wow. No wonder the state of science in America is declining.
Let's refute.
1. Repeate after me "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"
2. Aerodynamics of a round projectile are horrible. They generate lots of drag on the trailing "edge". What does drag do? It changes the how a fluid flows past a body. This drag will cause the round to be fairly innacurate. Notice how high velocity/highly accurate rounds taper on both ends. Spinning does nothing for a perfectly round ball because it won't "tumble" like a standard bullet will. You spin a bullet to keep the bullet from coming out end-over-end. And increase accuracy. Perfectly round objects don't tumble.
3. You must impart energy into the device. When you speed up an object it makes contact with the air. As it contacts the air, friction from the air will cause the object to heat up. Also, the motor, etc., will generate heat while it spins. You can mask some of this so it doesn't "give off" as much heat, but heat is generated nonetheless. Again....see the laws of thermodynamics.
4. Actually it's not that hard to generate numbers based off of efficiencies of motors, how fast you want the projectile to go, surface areas of the round, etc. But I will agree that this is something that will take longer than 30 seconds to do.
5. Nice ad hominem attack on the poster. - 0x2a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is utter *****
First of all, this violates several laws of physics. how can the gun launch projectiles with no recoil? If there are metal balls flying in one direction, then by newton's 3rd law the gun is experiencing equal momentum in the opposite direction, plain and simple. If the gun is mounted on a vehicle, this would be limited, but the recoil still would be no different from a conventional mounted weapon. How can the gun be 'frictionless'? Maybe there is low friction, but we do not live in an ideal universe, so the gun must produce some friction, some of which must be turned into heat. At the very least this part is an exaggeration. Second, these specs are ridiculous. 120,000 rounds per minute? Thats 2000 50-cal steel balls flying out EVERY SECOND. Give me a break. At that rate, even slight friction would quickly accumulate to produce heat, and the recoil produced by launching so many projectiles at such high velocities would be enormous. I did some calculations and at 120,000 rpm with steel 50-cal projectiles thats about 300 pounds of steel being pushed out each second. There were a lot of other reasons to be skeptical. With magazines of 50,000 rounds, that's almost 4 tons of steel. What kind of magazine is that? If you need more convincing, look at the brochures and see all the misspellings. You would think that some guy who has the money to develop this thing could hire an editor. The video is incredibly fake, as well. Finally, what do they mean by "non-lethal" mode? does it just shoot ball bearings gently at people, or what? seriously. Please don't digg this trash. - mikeyG9x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Mmmm, a centrifuge full of metal balls spinning at a speed that is fast enough to send said balls supersonic...K.
Imagine what happens when the centrifuge drum flys apart because of defects or just stress failure. Same reason we don't see centrifuge based energy storage devices replacing batteries, catastrophic failure and pretty lights. - ToadMcFrog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2kidgenius said:
Let's refute.
1. Repeate after me "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"
2. Aerodynamics of a round projectile are horrible. They generate lots of drag on the trailing "edge". What does drag do? It changes the how a fluid flows past a body. This drag will cause the round to be fairly innacurate. Notice how high velocity/highly accurate rounds taper on both ends. Spinning does nothing for a perfectly round ball because it won't "tumble" like a standard bullet will. You spin a bullet to keep the bullet from coming out end-over-end. And increase accuracy. Perfectly round objects don't tumble.
3. You must impart energy into the device. When you speed up an object it makes contact with the air. As it contacts the air, friction from the air will cause the object to heat up. Also, the motor, etc., will generate heat while it spins. You can mask some of this so it doesn't "give off" as much heat, but heat is generated nonetheless. Again....see the laws of thermodynamics.
4. Actually it's not that hard to generate numbers based off of efficiencies of motors, how fast you want the projectile to go, surface areas of the round, etc. But I will agree that this is something that will take longer than 30 seconds to do.
5. Nice ad hominem attack on the poster.
I am not going to argue on points 3, 4, and 5 (especially 5; good call on the fallacy). However, your rebuttals to points 1 and 2 could use some clarification:
1. You definitely have Newtonian physics down, but what you are failing to realize is that the projectiles are in motion before they are released by the operator. Because they are simply being released from their "orbit" within the centrifuge, there will be no "recoil" as is traditionally thought of in projectile weapons. However, because some of the weight will be leaving the centrifuge when the projectiles are released, there will be a weight/counterbalance issue which, through various means, can be controlled. Of course, just because it's being controlled doesn't mean it's not there, so technically Newton's 3rd law remains intact.
2. You are correct that smooth, round, non-spinning objects are aerodynamically inefficient. However, a perusal of the site in question shows dimpled projectiles. Dimples improve the aerodynamic qualities of a sphere by decreasing its laminar flow characteristics (reducing pressure drag). Of course, the dimples also increase the Magnus effect of the projectile, which could cause increasing problems with spin about the vertical axis. Spins about the horizontal axis, however, could be used to increase or decrease the range/impact velocity of the projectile. I must say, though, that your supposition of spin on perfectly spherical objects is incorrect: Even a perfectly smooth sphere is more accurate if it is spinning in the manner provided by the rifling in a gun barrel, because the sphere is gyroscopically stabilized about the spin axis. This is why many who worked to perfect the rifle continued to use ball ammunition for some time before settling on the tapered shape that we see now (which is easier to seat in the rifling without deformation). - degree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2About the recoil thing:
There is no recoil because, like someone said, it is the exact same thing as if you were to throw a baseball with a swinging motion. The opposite action of the bullet is accounted for in the accelerating of it. When the ball is released, it doesn't push back on the launcher because it is just being released. It did all of its "work" pushing against it by increasing the amount of energy needed to accelerate the centrifuge. Think about it, hammer throwers in the Olympics do not fly back after they release the hammer even though they've generated enough energy to knock them well of their feet if an equal and opposite reaction occurred like you guys are stating. Ok, one more parallel..when a sky diver exits a plane, he does not put any recoil on the plane in the direction it is traveling. The plane is simply increasing the speed of the objects to be released.
about the bullet dynamics:
They look like golf balls and I really have no idea how they will get those to fly straight.
about the heat problem:
There will be no heat in releasing the projectile, but for the thing to launch the balls at 8000 fps its outer edge has to be spinning at 8000 fps, and that's really damn fast. I doubt it would act exactly like a plane or the space shuttle though, because it is simply spinning in the air rather than coursing through it. I have no idea how they can have bearings that are so friction free that they can stand such extreme rpms without melting though.
about the energy required:
If one wanted to figure out the amount of energy necessary to launch 100,000 .308 cal. balls all one would have to do (assuming the machine is perfect, which it definitely isn't..the actual value will be much more b/c it has to overcome friction, air resistance, etc) is determine how much 100,000 .308 cal. lead balls would weigh, and then figure out the energy necessary to accelerate that whole mass to 8000 fps. Or determine the amount needed for one .308 cal. ball and times it by 1000. I don't feel like figuring it out, but its going to be a hell of a lot.
and btw, kidgenius, change your god damned pompous name that you wish described yourself. Perhaps you know all of newton's laws, such as equal and opposite reactions, but you are horrible at understanding them. True intelligence lies in being able to UNDERSTAND a concept and not just being able to recite what you have learned without understanding any of it. I suggest you stop being such a dick, stop talking about what you don't know, and kill yourself.
GG, no re k? - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@tubejay - Very well said. I get so sick of hearing people blab on and on about how we need to stop developing weapons, as if that will somehow cause other, more belligerent nations to do the same. History has shown again and again that a weak nation is a nation in grave danger of being conquered. Do you think we made it through the Cold War by stopping our weapons development? No! We survived by keeping our military capabilities high enough that the Soviets knew attacking us would be too costly to be worthwhile....and many would say that the Soviets by making us attacking them equally unappealing (certainly kept us from intervening when Hungary tried to rebel against them). Do you people honestly think that we're the only ones who start wars?
- RMuffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That can't be possible.... there is no way to launch a bullet or 'metal ball' that fast without heat. If it can cycle that many projectiles per minute, there is bound to be some from of noise from the cycling into the barrel.
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"no recoil, no sound, no heat, no gunpowder, no visible firing signature (muzzle flash)"
And no adherance to the laws of physics or thermodynamics! - crapbox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4nice to see human creativity put to use creating new ways to kill each other. The people who are smart enough to come up with something like this need to adopt ethics, and base their research on areas that could qualify them for the nobel prize.
By the way, when you watch the video, why do they shoot a brick wall and cars? Cars I guess could be a target, but who is going to shoot a brick wall? Why don't they have an arab family being shot and give us some indication of what happens when you fire 1/3inch distance projectiles at them.
Another invention in a long line demonstrating american ingenuity. Nice reputation for a nation. - NtroP, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"Now imagine it being used to kill your loved ones while you watch helplessly. All of a sudden it seems less appealing."
The insinuation is that soldiers (read American soldiers) slaughter helpless innocents. Just FOR THE RECORD: American soldiers don't head out looking to kill innocent men, women and children. We attempt to avoid loss of life whenever possible. That is why each generation of weapon deployed has been more accurate and inflicts less collateral damage. That is why we are subjected rigorous training in how to identify targets and be mindful of non-combatants.
I agree - this weapon (if it is real) could be a really nasty customer, especially in the hands of terrorists (or !our-side). But, if a hideout/bunker can be breached/destroyed with a controlled line of lead instead of a large explosion, which could cause far greater collateral damage, - it's a Good Thing(TM).
I can tell you one thing, though, if this is being used to kill MY loved ones - I won't be watching helplessly. Freedom's never free. - pseudojd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1love the benjamin quote. the whole idea of a gun that can defy the laws of energy is funny.
- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"devilboy - How are you sure you are right, and they are wrong?"
He's not.
1. If it is using centrifugal energy there would be no recoil beause recoil is just energy, the energy for moving the projectile. In this case the energy has already been built up INTO the projectile and then released.
2. "Especially if they're spnning." Projectiles MUST be spinning to be stable and accurate hence rifling, spinning of any sports ball.
3. Again, all the heat is already built up in the spinning so there is no heat used to fire the projectile.
4. That will be dificult, yes.
5. You're a turd. - kidgenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Last thing about the "recoil". First, when you throw a baseball, your arm does not recoil. But, you ever think that maybe, just maybe you the force is being transferred through the rubber on the mound and into the earth? The reason there is no "recoil" is that the Earth's mass, relative to the force you applied, will cause the Earth to recoil, ever so slightly, but you won't see it. If you end up securing something well enough, no recoil will exist because of the high forces involved. To the person who mentioned jumping out of a plane. You are in fact altering the way the plane moves. You impart a force on the plane. The plane imparts a force on you. Difference being that in order for the plane to move significantly, you need to impart a higher force on the plane than is possible for you to do. Here's an excerise. Put on some ice-skates (fitting for this time of year) and stand on a skating rink (or frozen lake). Grab a basketball/baseball/football/whatever. Now, stand perfectly still. Just by moving your arms, throw said object and watch yourself glide backwards ever so slightly. If that is not considered "recoil" then I don't know what would be.
- nnonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Once again, digg comments go off-topic and into the political/rant. Please people, just STFU. Keeping comments on-topic and limited to the posted article makes digg a stronger resource.
- Pihkal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"Now imagine it being used to kill your loved ones while you watch helplessly. All of a sudden it seems less appealing."
- blakemara, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ tubejay
"any country which would give up a little liberty for a little security, will not get or derserve either"
~Benjamin Franklin
As relating to your last paragraph - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah I can imagine the magazine dissintegrating and little metal balls flying everywhere and killing everything in sight.
- 1337director, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i'm guessing why this is still in it's early development stages. So they got off on a few numbers by a few thousand. no big deal.
and just to add some gas to the dying embers of this ever fun political debate- call liberals weak? could you recall the number of republican presidents who've nuked other countries vs. democrat presidents? And if it wasn't for kennedy holding back on nuking, we'd all be f'ing dead. or red. Silly conservatives and your play-wars...just like the cavemen, can only solve things with a club... - 0x2a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was bored, so I did some more math on the specs just for kicks. Imagine for a second that the gun really was capable of firing 50 caliber steel balls at the rate of 120,000 rounds per minute. If the gun was mounted firmly on a 5-ton military humvee, and the gunner pulled the trigger for a 1-second burst at this rate of fire, not only would there be recoil, but the force of reaction from the 296 pounds of metal flying at 8000 feet per second would be the equivalent of a 6-ton African bull elephant ramming the humvee at a speed of about 135 mph. The humvee would be flipped over (probably sent spinning), or, more likely, the gun would be ripped to shreds.
Or, even more likely, the gun will only ever exist in the mind of some deluded idiot trying to get some media attention and the people who take him seriously.
I like how this has turned into a political forum, so I'll offer my two cents: I think we're pretty lucky weapons like this don't exist, because we're way too efficient at killing each other as it is. Then again, I probably know more about physics than politics, so whatever. - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Still waiting on the video, but I already have a major suspicion about the recoil claim. How can you have an action without an opposite reaction?
No matter how "great" the gun is, though, I don't see any one weapon changing the face of ground warfare, as the site claims. Simply put, weapons don't have nationalities. If we can get them, sooner or later, the enemy can too. - tellman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1un-freaking belivable... quiet death.. what an excitement! another wonderful inovation brought to you by Uncle Sam... paid by american tax payers.... i just want to puke...
- chubbyduck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not a rail gun but a centrifuge gun and these have been proposed before. It makes you wonder about the true muzzle velocity though since previous centrifuge guns have had very limited range and were proposed a scrowd control solutions.
- Truegod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1fjr1300, great forum link, lots of extremely insightful things were said.
- mcbarron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Old technology - been around for a long time (decades). A more rudimentary model was suggested for the trenches in WWI - though the diesel engine that drove it made it impractical for trench warfare.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2THE ULTUMATE QUESTION AMERICA FAILED TO ANSWER:
Question: America, when are you gonna stop developing new weapons and start feading the poor? The dread project is currently consuming atleast $600,000 USD to fund. Lets see, that could of fed about 2milion starvig children in Africa OR the poor people of america
America's Awer: Hmm lets see.. Weapons or feeding little brother? I think ill buy some weapons stfu-k thnx! - ConEEE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah I love how "interesting" weapons are. They're designed to kill other human beings, but DAMN I love 'em.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Smells like digg effect - I'm getting an estimate of over an hour to download the video.
- neverender, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0an emp or a nuclear explosion would "jam" that weapon pretty fast.
- wilsoniya, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0hahahah, that's some funny *****. That video was classic and reminded me heavily of the weapons promotional videos from Doom3. Also: If the weapon is spinning metallic objects obscenely fast, theres a good change you could detect it through magnetic means.
- darkwhisper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lol... digg effect big time
- Poppinfresh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0God what a load of bull, 2 seconds of actual footage and absoluley no actuall explanation of how it works, or how it somehow defies even the most basic laws of physics
- beelz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sounds like a star trek phaser
- mazer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Star Trek Phaser has some pretty massive mussel flash....don't think it would qualify....
- timtoews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sounds similar to the MetalStorm, its at least a variation on the concept. No moving parts to jam, and since there's no moving parts in the firing mechanism, and its all computer controlled, the rate of fire is completely up to you, and will stay that way until you run out of bullets or tell it otherwise.
- fusionnv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yo, to the dude that is worried about EMPs, it only effects semiconductors. If there is no semiconductors in the gun then there is no worry. The russians had special airplanes that had electricity. It used vacuum tubes instead. Or they can make it resistant to EMP with sheilding. Either way I think it be fine.
- JudgeDredd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I guess it uses magnets to spin a drum containing the little balls. The video was pretty lame, mostly animation, with only the briefest clip of the prototype.
- astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0
Eddie Muntz and Ray Kasternak are wanted for questioning on this gun. - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Can I have one made into a sniper rifle? Thanks.
- TheMJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0and btw, that is by far the ***** movie I have seen in a long time
(its like a south park infomercial with workout music) - do4600, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0He hasn't even released the technical specs or the inner workings of the damn thing yet! Who says it spins? It's power source may be potato chips for all we know! Saying this weapon is impossible is almost like accusing him of witchcraft. Another argument is that this has been around since World War II, but why would he resurrect a design from WWII that didn't work, again we haven't seen what makes it go, so this is all useless word throwing as far as if it works or not.
- Yoshi39, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Theree’s no gunpowder onboard to blow up. That just leaves the gas tank (vehicle’s). Nothing’s foolproof."
Themyth busterss tried to blow up a gas tank byfiringg at it and proved that it can't happen (or at least that it isextremelyyimprobablee) happen.
For the record I don'tbelievee themyth busterss to always be right but in this case they did someextremelyy thorough testing by firing multiple guns at itsimultaneouslyy and even shooting tracer rounds at it. - goodbyepolar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"sounds similar to the MetalStorm"
posted by timtoews
Yeah it does. Here's a vid of the metalstorm gun - http://media.spikedhumor.com/9605/ms_36barrel.mpg - ToadMcFrog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Very interesting concept. However, I wonder how the mass of the projectiles is accelerated around the weapon without creating sound...
- TheMJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Okay, all you losers who say a recoilless gun is impossible:
Yes, For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This happens when the balls are being spun up. as the motor tries to spin the balls, say, clockwise, the rest of the gun will want to spin counter clockwise.
However, once it is spun up, it will have no more recoil, and will use very little energy because of inertia. All that has to happen is for the machine to release a ball, and it'll go 5,000-8,000 feet every second.
It will take alot of power to spin up, and the ammo will weigh alot, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. -
Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is