Пікірлер

• 
  @housemana3 минут бұрын

  Your personality comes off so well in the script. it is so refreshing. material/military lore and history challenges struggle the most with this, given the subject matter and niches.

• 
  @nunyabisnass114112 минут бұрын

  "mach rounds, in atmosphere!?"

• 
  @durandol12 минут бұрын

  Man, I *hate* whenever something small pokes my critical systems.

• 
  @jaymikevillanueva121215 минут бұрын

  So, a MAC gun from Halo? The UNSC Navy's capital ships utilized that.

• 
  @haelww124 минут бұрын

  I personnaly love light gas cannons. They exist and are never mentionned in fiction, despite a muzzel velocity of 30km/s !!!

• 
  @commanderknight931424 минут бұрын

  Did I just see a clip from one of Captain Jack's videos in here?!

• 
  @DerpsWithWolves39 минут бұрын

  I'm personally a big fan of combination chemical / magnetic weapons. There's nothing stopping a coilgun from being installed around a conventional cannon, with something like an Electro-Thermal Chemical (plasma) ignition system to provide as consistent a muzzle velocity as possible. That way, if your ship's power system isn't running at full, or you need the power for something else like a laser system at any given moment, you can still use the coilgun as a conventional cannon to fire things like flak shells for missile defence. But, when you need it, you can spool up both systems and pull a much higher muzzle velocity out of your main gun for offensive use. To my understanding, the initial acceleration for both coil and railguns is a bit more electrically intensive than the rest, so it could also save you a tiny bit of electrical production (and thus heat generation), in exchange for small propellant charges. The helical railguns are also fascinating - I've not heard of those before - and though they're obviously a lot more logistically intensive with regards to ammunition, that sort of logistical burden wouldn't matter as much in orbit of an industrialized planet, or on the surface of an airless moon. There, they'd be able to rely on local production to keep up with demand in a way a fleet away from port just can't do, and it's also a situation where having the longest-ranged, hardest hitting railguns is very, very important. It's not like the Earth or Mars is going to be dodging much - so 'the only defence is point defence'. A third thing, which could benefit literally any kind of gun-type weapon in space, is if the projectile has some amount of onboard Delta V for course corrections. An target at extreme ranges can just dodge a regular railgun round, but if the armature is a miniaturized missile that can keep up with say... 3G maneuvers for a 60 second burn time, then they'd need to be that much faster, or that much farther away to be out of the weapon's effective range. The first major downside is you need rocket systems that can handle the acceleration of being fired - so you're probably stuck with non-throttleable solid-state propellants and dozens of single-use maneuvering thrusters, like the PAC-3 interceptor - but the plus side is we already know that stuff works. To match speed with the target, you just alter the angle of the projectile between perpendicular and parallel, while keeping it on the same heading for proportional navigation. The second downside is the rounds will be a lot lighter, and depending on how much fuel you give them, essentially hollow, but at rail or coilgun velocities in space, even getting smacked with a crumpled up wad of paper would leave serious damage, so this is easily the lesser of the two issues. In fact, firing what is basically a fuel tank at the enemy might be *more* effective against lighter targets, since the ammo is more likely to crumple, deform, and dump its kinetic energy into the target, instead of over-penetrate and waste all the left-over energy it kept going with. Results may vary depending on how hard or soft the setting is... Literally; I mean the armour.

• 
  @Swindle198442 минут бұрын

  I'm curious what you think of MARAUDER and Shiva Star, or MAHEM projectiles that consist of superheated metal.

• 
  @TempestCrown45 минут бұрын

  I thoroughly enjoy the scientific use of "yeet" on this channel.

• 
  @blazeshellz147549 минут бұрын

  Finally someone has talked about this one. Helical Railguns I mean.

• 
  @zanorakdaggorath622852 минут бұрын

  6:29 well of course to blow up the mothership how else are you planning to destroy it from the inside?

• 
  @gbode244354 минут бұрын

  Are there any major scifi that use actual gauss guns that arent just rail/coil guns in disguise? Newton's cradle demans blood

• 
  @kingghidorah10255 минут бұрын

  You should talk about hover vehicles in science fiction

• 
  @ashtiboy55 минут бұрын

  4:43 hey this is exactly bascly how battletech's gauss weapons work under the hood by the way. so why you no cover battletech your missing out on so much fun stuff.

• 
  @markbutler403358 минут бұрын

  What if you made a rail gun but instead of straight rails you made them a helix to add rotation to the projectile like a rifle. I know most your your stuff is for space combat and that wouldn't be need but anything in atmo would get a rage/accuracy boost from a stable hyper sonic round

• 
  @wilomicaСағат бұрын

  You are correct today. I knew the basic railgun and gauss gun. Helical Railguns were news to me.

• 
  @thinaphonpetsiri9907Сағат бұрын

  Kinda thinking, can railgun be used to fire other ammunition that are not physical? Like a railgun that fire a highly compressed plasma or particles.

• 
  @rowangallagher4579Сағат бұрын

  Surprised quench guns didn’t get some sort of honorable mention

• 
  @davesnothere.Сағат бұрын

  Fun Fact: in some airgun circles, adding petroleum jelly or variations to the back of the pellet skirt is used to create Dieseling.

• 
  @JustinVanginkel-ch4vpСағат бұрын

  Can you do Destroyer video

• 
  @mr.tweatyСағат бұрын

  6:04 excuse me w h a t

• 
  @TeraQuadСағат бұрын

  What about Electro-Thermal Chemical (ETC) Weapons?

• 
  @johncage5368Сағат бұрын

  The helical ... is obviously a bad idea as it adds something very complicated in production, maintenance, and especially in ammo cost to a rail gun. ... and would it work reasonably well?: Very likely not, because a) the helix is one object, not separate coils, so what do you think the magnetic field will look like? b) how do you think the magnetic field of the rails and the helix combined look like and is that an improvement?, c) what do you think the enormous magnetic field does with the cute coils and rings and rails inside that complicated projectile?, d) if you think a rail gun likes to self destruct a lot (*) wait until you see that contraption. *: which they do, the friction is rather secondary, the primary reason is that the rails want to bend really hard, that's why real rail guns have a massive closed wall barrel similar to a tank gun (... please don't imagine / design rail guns with open space between the rails, if you want to create realistic science fiction). A big advantage of a rail gun (compared to something more "conventional" with equal or better punch): very cheap ammo, something conductive with the correct measurements that's it (typically a very conductive cheap sabot enclosing a very hard "arrow" projectile). (The cost of that special projectile of the helical idea would be much much higher, and if the stuff in there has a problem it'll weld your gun together and you can melt down the whole weapon system and try again.) Big disadvantage of all presented types / ideas (as of today): The energy cost per shot is high (that will not change) and the number of shots you get out of a barrel is lower than you would want (that might improve). The last idea of adding some extra oompf with an added integrated gas based rocket comes with problems, as getting any type of combustion to be perfectly symmetrically shaped and directed as you want is a problem. And if you don't get this little rocket engine output perfect, it will send your deadly long range high speed projectile off course. ... and as you know "... If you pull the trigger on this, you're ruining someone's day somewhere and sometime. ... ". ;) (... and you can't really put steerable fins and electronics on that projectile (which would then be a $$$ missile ...) in that environment, because: super fast, small, and intense magnetic field ... doesn't go well together.) If you want to add more oompf to a rail gun the easiest way is to make the field stronger (and make the barrel more sturdy to compensate) or the rails longer. Yes, there are limits, especially on a planet. In the vacuum of space however: Do you really need more oompf? How much speed do you think your very hard let's say 23 pound projectile (to take what they currently often use) needs to put a channel of holes through an enemy ship, space station, ...? The "what it hits" part is a bit more important there. If it's just open space: the crew might be able to fix that before they're out of oxygen. A ships reactor or weapons magazine: jackpot. The coffee machine: That really p*sses them off. ;)

• 
  @corsayr9629Сағат бұрын

  What makes you think I have never heard of this?? I expect better from Stardock than BS video titles and like this, very disappointed.

• 
  @dariusathanatosskysabergam2827Сағат бұрын

  Im surprised that we dont see space engineers more often on this channel

• 
  @STB-jh7odСағат бұрын

  I love the idea of rocket assisted rail gun projectile. Rocket assisted artillery shells have been around for decades.

• 
  @marrowfilms6187Сағат бұрын

  Its funny that this versions jusy takes all the problmes from each and combines it into one. You still have timing problems as you accelerate, friction is still at play, your projectile is massivly complicated.

• 
  @matthewkeeling886Сағат бұрын

  I would say that for a near-future setting Electro-Thermal Chemical weapons (which use a plasma charge to ignite a relatively conventional but high energy propellant) for light vehicle and personal weapons make more sense, they simply need less power generation/storage and fewer support structures. Naval ships, large spacecraft and static installations can still use the more exotic weapons.

• 
  @enoktheewok4821Сағат бұрын

  The main problem with coil guns is you need significant current and inductance to get a similar force on the projectile. Normally that wouldn't be an issue, but you then need to turn the coil OFF as the projectile reaches the center. The voltage across an ideal coil(inductor) is V=L(di/dt), the change in coil current over a given period in time generates a gigantic voltage. As another consequence of this, the rate at which it proportional to the inductance of the coil and the voltage, (V/L)*(delta t)=delta i or (1/L)*v(t)=i(t). Remember how more turns increases inductance and how increasing inductance and/or current increases the magnetic field? Thats all well and good if your coil is a super conductor, sure it looks slow on paper but its not actually that slow, the main problem is the high voltages involved to do it quickly and also... in a real system, resistance and resistive loses. When your coil isn't an ideal superconductor you need to take into account the resistance of the coil(modeled as a resistance in series) and the voltage across it as the current at any given moment in time, giving the differential V=L(di/dt)+(R*i(t)). Rearranging this as V-(R*i(t))=L(di/dt) makes it a little easier to see that as coil resistance goes up(like adding more turns to increase the magnetic field or heating the coils from use) it will reduce how quickly an opposing voltage can discharge the coil, cause a larger discharge voltage if the circuit is opened, through ohms law V=IR it will limit the maximum current of the rails and through the power equation P=V(t)I(t) it will dissipate power that could have went to the projectile. Now granted, R is usually small... but it will still be higher than railgun rails and slow the system down. that i(t)=(1/L)*v(t) now becomes i(t)=(V/R)*(1-e^(-r*t/L)) because R both limits the current and that voltage "lost" across the R slows the charge/discharge down. Railguns technically have to contend with these issues too, but the resistance of the rails a lot smaller and the Lorentz force is too complicated to break down in a comment this long thats probably making your head explode from info overload or anger because i am wrong about something. The helical railguns are a good middle ground though. They would likely need to be longer than a rail gun but could be shorter than a coil gun but adding capacitors would allow the energy to be more efficiently harvested and put back into the same projectile both electrically and kinetically so it could further reduce arcing for much lesser versions of the coilgun inconveniences.

• 
  @44R0NdinСағат бұрын

  This is why you don't use an iron/ferromagnetic armature in the barrel of a coilgun. All that does is raise the inductance, which like you said causes problems when it's time to turn off the coil. Some coilgun designers have proposed a system of diodes that is normally reverse-biased (nonconducting) when the coil is energized by the capacitor, and when the coil is disconnected from the capacitor these diodes would conduct the (opposite polarity) back-EMF and direct it right back into the same capacitor that energized the coil to start with, supposedly this does a lot to increase efficiency. I guess it sort of ends up working a little like a Flyback or Forward converter (circuit topology wise) but each pulse is primarily intended to fling a projectile not convert power from one voltage and/or polarity to another.

• 
  @areed2000Сағат бұрын

  At these energy levels can't they just use liquified metal at the edges (similar tech to aluminum smelting)?

• 
  @michaelwinter742Сағат бұрын

  For the helical, you could have an armature that recycles itself - turning it into a sort of magnetic sling-pult

• 
  @44R0NdinСағат бұрын

  That specifically would be a great way to make a "Grenade Launcher" railgun. Hybrid railgun with CAPTIVE launching armature. Bonus points it doesn't care if it's a grenade that goes in the launch cup. Just that it has the right mass (so that the armature doesn't reach a damaging velocity). Actually, I have a different and I think more fitting name for this than "EM Grenade Launcher". I'd much rather call it a BlunderGauss. Blunderbuss + Gauss cannon (another common name for railguns). What do you think?

• 
  @kerbalairforce8802Сағат бұрын

  USN moved away from railguns for another reason. At a certain speed, a projectiles arc is flatter than the surface of the earth. Meaning, a threat just beyond visual range can use the horizon as cover.

• 
  @travislewis5058Сағат бұрын

  Being able to shoot both ends would be great for a gun that runs down the whole ship in space applications