One noise source not to overlook is the motion of the high current components. Due to the magnetic fields involved, they do move in spite of heavy construction to limit their movement. In reality any high current conductor is a speaker.
Here is an example. Some wires are subject to a high current test. This is not nearly as high of a current in a rail gun. There are several noises in this shot. One is the breaker closing, the next is the wires responding to the magnetic fields generated, next is the arc as one of the whipped wires parts company, and last is the response of a car alarm to this silent test.
[youtube][/youtube]
Navy Railgun....
- Technician1002
- Captain
- Posts: 5189
- Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:10 am
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General
- Posts: 26203
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 569 times
- Been thanked: 344 times
[youtube][/youtube]
Flipping heck.
Flipping heck.
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
- sharpshooter11000
- Specialist 2
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:34 pm
- Location: UK
Is there a reason they use that shape of projectile? It doesn't seem to be very stable in flight.
- killerbanjo
- Specialist 2
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:56 pm
I think with rail guns its more towards the efficiency of it accelerating in the gun. Using other shapes would make it much less efficient energy wise
- Fnord
- First Sergeant 2
- Posts: 2239
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:20 pm
- Location: Pripyat
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Might be a mock-up of what the sabot will be shaped like, just not designed to separate. It would make sense from an analytical point of view. A sabot failure could potentially ruin the gun, so for initial testing you would want to eliminate that variable.
Edit;
Guess they weren't actually shooting anything with it yet. They probably wanted to examine the projectile afterwards.
Edit;
...From the news article."The rounds we are firing currently are non-aerodynamic slugs," Ellis said of the testing. "They match the interior ballistics of what the launcher is expected to see but are intended to slow down quickly."
Guess they weren't actually shooting anything with it yet. They probably wanted to examine the projectile afterwards.
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General
- Posts: 26203
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 569 times
- Been thanked: 344 times
Pretty much. Check out the sabot for this General Atomics mini-A4 style projectile: http://www.military.com/video/guns/nava ... 431955001/Fnord wrote:Might be a mock-up of what the sabot will be shaped like, just not designed to separate. It would make sense from an analytical point of view. A sabot failure could potentially ruin the gun, so for initial testing you would want to eliminate that variable.
Bloody hell...The sabot round went seven kilometers downrange after punching through a 1/8-inch thick steel plate
... or avoid accidentally hitting FranceGuess they weren't actually shooting anything with it yet. They probably wanted to examine the projectile afterwards.
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life