A rail gun is a weapon the uses electromagnetism to fire a projectile, rather than gunpowder. The advantages of such a weapons are numerous and significant. First, with far fewer moving parts, there is less chance that the gun shall jam, and, in theory, it could have a far faster firing rate than a gunpowder firearm, if the technology were sufficiently advanced. Second, with no ignition of gunpowder, a rail gun generates less noise, heat, and recoil than a traditional firearm (obviously, there will still be some noise, heat, and recoil, due to the laws of physics, but they shall not be as great as those in a gunpowder firearm). Third, the velocity, and thus force, of a projectile fired by a rail gun can potentially be far greater than that of a bullet from a gunpowder firearm, and, even better, the velocity can be adjusted to suit the needs of the user.
Of course, there are some problems with rail guns, however. First, the amount of electric voltage and current required to power them is so great that they are not yet feasible as commonplace weapons. Second, they are very large, and thus can fit on only massive vehicles, again limiting their use as handheld or otherwise portable weapons. Third, they still are very expensive, but that, plus the first two problems, may eventually be solved as time passes and the technology improves.
What does everyone else say about this? Will rail guns ever replace gunpowder firearms?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
I doubt it. The US Navy recently released video footage of success fully firing a laser weapon which destroys the target. You'd have to Google the link. On youtube. Lasers are cheaper to make and require even less moving parts and have better applications. Maybe rail guns will commonplace someday but I think it's a weak technology that will probably never see the light of day
If I remember right rail guns actually generate a ton of heat from the friction of the projectile riding down the rails and one of the issues they face is it's hard/expensive to make rails that can can handle being used more than a few times before warping/melting.
I doubt it. The US Navy recently released video footage of success fully firing a laser weapon which destroys the target. You'd have to Google the link. On youtube. Lasers are cheaper to make and require even less moving parts and have better applications. Maybe rail guns will commonplace someday but I think it's a weak technology that will probably never see the light of day
There are a few issues with lasers as weapons. Firstly: they are forbidden by the Geneva convention (although the USA is one of the few countries who conveniently did not sign that addition. Secondly: due to atmospheric distortions, the weapons become both weaker and less accurate at longer ranges. Thirdly: even if you got around the issue of losses due to atmospheric interference, you still have the issue that high-powered lasers turn the air into plasma, which scatters the laser coming through it. And lastly, even when you get around that, when you hit the target, you vaporize the top layer of what you're shooting at, which created a cloud of gas which absorbs most, if not all, energy coming from further photons (process called ablative shielding).
If I remember right rail guns actually generate a ton of heat from the friction of the projectile riding down the rails and one of the issues they face is it's hard/expensive to make rails that can can handle being used more than a few times before warping/melting.
This is a bigger issue indeed. I therefore think that coilguns make a lot more sense.
Further issues with railguns:
You need a fairly strong current to generate enough lorentz force to make the projectile go fast enough to do damage. This means you have two options.
1: you need a portable generator which generates the power when needed
2: you need a very good battery pack
The first option is right out for man-carried weapons, but is doable for structure-mounted weapons. The second is potentially usable by soldiers. However, let's look at a slightly unconventional measure: energy density per kilogram. This is about 3MJoules for gunpowder. Even for the best Li/Ion batteries, this is no higher than 2MJoules than gunpowder. So even disregarding monetary issues (those batteries are really expensive), you'd have to carry half again as much batteries to get about the same amount of energy for your bullets*. Even more so: throwing away empty 'magazines' would suddenly become wasteful. While a soldier using a regular firearm sheds weight over the course of a battle, one carrying a rail/coilgun would not.**
*: I disregarded energy transfer efficiency in this. I could quickly google these for firearms (30-40%, for those interested), but I didn't really feel like doing the calculations (more like guesstimations) for railguns and coilguns. I figure they're higher than most people expect, since both rely on high-Amperage currents, which causes high energy losses due to electrical resistance.***
**: Yes, technically, the batteries get lighter when they lose energy, but this is such a minute fraction that for all intents and purposes we can discard this information.
***: Unless you want to supercool the coils/rails, which brings forth a whole new world of weight-associated problems.
Second, with no ignition of gunpowder, a rail gun generates less noise, heat, and recoil than a traditional firearm (obviously, there will still be some noise, heat, and recoil, due to the laws of physics, but they shall not be as great as those in a gunpowder firearm).
I don't know. A hypersonic shockwave makes a tremendous amount of sound. Furthermore: reduced recoil? Why would that be the case?
EDIT2: might as well try to answer the question that's being asked, right?
Eh. I don't know. As mentioned: railguns have some issues with warping of the rails after an X amount of shots. Coilguns don't suffer from this problem, but are generally more complex, making field-repairs all but impossible without a soldering kit and an electrical degree and much more prone to damage by the rough handling that soldiering brings with it. Furthermore, both have all the issues that other electrical appliances have: a large capability for accidental harm. A damaged coil/railgun wouldn't be like a jamming gun, but might very well fry the user. I don't think we'll see man-sized weapons of either sort being used any time soon.
As for vehicle-mounted weapons: I think this is more likely. If they get around the issue of the warping of the rails, it'd make the vehicles a lot safer.
A gun uses a hammer mechanism to fire bullets preloaded with gunpowder.
The mechanism is so simplistic and so efficient, it's really hard to beat. We have had nearly 7 centuries of engineering work put into this.
Some of the guns we use today, example the M1911, are more than a hundred years old. The M1911 is still in wide use today. 104 years of modern technology
have not improved substantially on this basic design.
A railgun uses a magnetic field powered by current to accelerate a solid slug to lethal speeds.
This is theoretically simpler than a gun.
But there are huge issues. We have no easy way of storing large amounts of electricity needed to power such a device. Where are you going to
get that kind of electricity? A battery right? The use of the battery would immediately place the device out of contention with ever making a gun obsolete.
If a weapon needs a battery to fire, that means the battery itself is a point of failure.
I dont even have to get into the issue that the acceleration of the slug often melts the slug, the rails used to accelerate, or both.
Of course, there are some problems with rail guns, however. First, the amount of electric voltage and current required to power them is so great that they are not yet feasible as commonplace weapons. Second, they are very large, and thus can fit on only massive vehicles, again limiting their use as handheld or otherwise portable weapons. Third, they still are very expensive, but that, plus the first two problems, may eventually be solved as time passes and the technology improves.
What does everyone else say about this? Will rail guns ever replace gunpowder firearms?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
-Made By PortalWish Studios-
There are a few issues with lasers as weapons. Firstly: they are forbidden by the Geneva convention (although the USA is one of the few countries who conveniently did not sign that addition. Secondly: due to atmospheric distortions, the weapons become both weaker and less accurate at longer ranges. Thirdly: even if you got around the issue of losses due to atmospheric interference, you still have the issue that high-powered lasers turn the air into plasma, which scatters the laser coming through it. And lastly, even when you get around that, when you hit the target, you vaporize the top layer of what you're shooting at, which created a cloud of gas which absorbs most, if not all, energy coming from further photons (process called ablative shielding).
This is a bigger issue indeed. I therefore think that coilguns make a lot more sense.
Further issues with railguns:
You need a fairly strong current to generate enough lorentz force to make the projectile go fast enough to do damage. This means you have two options.
1: you need a portable generator which generates the power when needed
2: you need a very good battery pack
The first option is right out for man-carried weapons, but is doable for structure-mounted weapons. The second is potentially usable by soldiers. However, let's look at a slightly unconventional measure: energy density per kilogram. This is about 3MJoules for gunpowder. Even for the best Li/Ion batteries, this is no higher than 2MJoules than gunpowder. So even disregarding monetary issues (those batteries are really expensive), you'd have to carry half again as much batteries to get about the same amount of energy for your bullets*. Even more so: throwing away empty 'magazines' would suddenly become wasteful. While a soldier using a regular firearm sheds weight over the course of a battle, one carrying a rail/coilgun would not.**
*: I disregarded energy transfer efficiency in this. I could quickly google these for firearms (30-40%, for those interested), but I didn't really feel like doing the calculations (more like guesstimations) for railguns and coilguns. I figure they're higher than most people expect, since both rely on high-Amperage currents, which causes high energy losses due to electrical resistance.***
**: Yes, technically, the batteries get lighter when they lose energy, but this is such a minute fraction that for all intents and purposes we can discard this information.
***: Unless you want to supercool the coils/rails, which brings forth a whole new world of weight-associated problems.
EDIT:
I don't know. A hypersonic shockwave makes a tremendous amount of sound. Furthermore: reduced recoil? Why would that be the case?
EDIT2: might as well try to answer the question that's being asked, right?
Eh. I don't know. As mentioned: railguns have some issues with warping of the rails after an X amount of shots. Coilguns don't suffer from this problem, but are generally more complex, making field-repairs all but impossible without a soldering kit and an electrical degree and much more prone to damage by the rough handling that soldiering brings with it. Furthermore, both have all the issues that other electrical appliances have: a large capability for accidental harm. A damaged coil/railgun wouldn't be like a jamming gun, but might very well fry the user. I don't think we'll see man-sized weapons of either sort being used any time soon.
As for vehicle-mounted weapons: I think this is more likely. If they get around the issue of the warping of the rails, it'd make the vehicles a lot safer.
A gun uses a hammer mechanism to fire bullets preloaded with gunpowder.
The mechanism is so simplistic and so efficient, it's really hard to beat. We have had nearly 7 centuries of engineering work put into this.
Some of the guns we use today, example the M1911, are more than a hundred years old. The M1911 is still in wide use today. 104 years of modern technology
have not improved substantially on this basic design.
A railgun uses a magnetic field powered by current to accelerate a solid slug to lethal speeds.
This is theoretically simpler than a gun.
But there are huge issues. We have no easy way of storing large amounts of electricity needed to power such a device. Where are you going to
get that kind of electricity? A battery right? The use of the battery would immediately place the device out of contention with ever making a gun obsolete.
If a weapon needs a battery to fire, that means the battery itself is a point of failure.
I dont even have to get into the issue that the acceleration of the slug often melts the slug, the rails used to accelerate, or both.
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ