Railguns, Plasma, Black Holes and all manner of nonsense.

Discussion in 'Discussions' started by OmniaNigrum, May 3, 2012.

  1. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    Many people think only iron and other ferrous metals are reactive to magnetism. But the current best prototype railguns use a plastic slug as the projectile. Yes you read that right. Plastic is reactive enough for a railgun to fire. They send the plastic out at such velocity that it is not matter at all by the time it hits the target. It is plasma.

    But fear not, railcuns/coilguns/liner accelerators of all types are single shot only. They destroy their own circuitry by firing. They cost a fortune to make, require a lot of work and time, and cannot begin to compete with traditional projectile weapons. (Except when price, size and crew concerns are entirely negated.)

    By the way, Magnetars are a hypothesis. Not even a theory. The article states that explicitly.

    This says everything we need to know about the hypothesis: "The density of a magnetar is such that a thimblefull of its substance, sometimes referred to as neutronium, would have a mass of over 100 million tons"...

  2. DavidB1111

    DavidB1111 Member

    To be fair, a railgun is powerful enough to basically fire anything ever from it and cause it to ruin the day at what it hits. They also use Tungsten in most tests.
    Speaking of railguns... :) U.S. Navy's railgun record of 5,400 Miles per second.
    Not plastic. :)

    And that was 4 years ago. They've got a lot more advanced than this by now. And I'm sure they can be fired more that once with only a small amount of repairing. I think. Also, it doesn't really convert the matter into plasma, it shoots plasma out the back. Here's the pic from the above vid. That trail behind it is plasma. Not the entire thing, I don't think. But green fire? WTF.

    By the way, the Sun is not a giant ball of hot gas, it's a giant ball of hot plasma. :)
    Solar Physics is weird.

    Also, other than the Neutronium, which is of course, the most non-scientific name for the material a neutron star is made out of, that article isn't that bad.
    Besides, that thing about mass is actually correct. A normal Neutron star has around the same mass as well. I admit it should be changed to say weight on Earth.
    Because every source I've ever read in my life on Neutron stars states that they would have a weight of 100 million tons per thimblefull on the earth.

    To be fair, the hyperdense iron at the core of the Earth if made into a sword, even though it can't be melted by any temperature known to man due to the density, would weigh easily over a thousand pounds. :)
    Seriously, the core is so dense a nuclear bomb detonated right on top of it wouldn't even scratch it.
  3. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    The US military plainly lies. There is no magical material that can conduct that much current and make a magnetic field strong enough for what they are doing that can be repaired. Plainly said, the wires themselves are no longer able to transfer current. The whole damned thing is shorted out after one single shot. They can say what they want about the projectiles and repeated use, but that is nonsense they feed to the media so that others cannot rely upon any of that information to make their own weapons.

    If that is an energy weapon that does not rely upon combustion, and the matter of the projectile is mostly intact, then please explain what the hell the fireball came from? The projectile is mostly burned up by friction with the atmosphere. That is where it came from. The matter that is not entirely burned up is converted to the mysterious state known as plasma. Neither energy, nor matter. Somewhere in between the two.

    The plasma retains a significant portion of it's inertia and can punch through armor without expending more than a fraction of the total mass and energy that it had. THAT is why they use plastic. They do not want to fire a slug of metal. They want to encourage it to disintegrate into plasma.

    Think of it like this. Tungsten is awesome in that it can endure amazing heat. But plasma is not capable of quite as much endurance. Yet at it's relative velocity and energy, a gram of plastic fired from a railgun can and will penetrate inches of ceramic armor without much resistance. (Literally some of the plasma does not interact with the matter of the material it impacts. It just passes through while retaining it's energy and inertia.)

    A lead projectile would be a matter of looking at how thick the armor was and what inertia it had at impact. Nothing more. Plasma is a way to sometimes bypass a portion of any defense. It may not always be better, but it certainly is for knocking down an ICBM or other high velocity projectile that relies upon the heat shield remaining stable.

    Do not believe the lies. Nothing they can tell you can be relied upon. They could cough up blueprints for the damned thing and I bet if you built it you would die in an explosion the second you powered it on. They have a vested interest in *NOT* disclosing factual information.

    Doubt me? In the early fifties the schools taught basic information about how nuclear arms worked. Now days they include false information that absolutely will make you kill yourself if you are enough of a moron to follow it. (And can get the materials.) I have read the revised information and I note the parts that they have changed. (Luckily I never had anything more than scientific curiosity about that sort of thing.)

    All you need to destroy an ICBM is a highly accurate means of heating up the heat shield on the nose until it breaks apart. Then the whole thing breaks apart. Conventional projectiles are all but worthless for this due to the extreme speed. But Railguns are not. They only need to hit it one time. If the heat shield survives, then the plasma that penetrated it may just destroy it from the inside.

    Ball lightening is plasma. People who have worked in a battery room can tell you about how ball lightening can sometimes interact with solid objects, and sometimes float through them without any observable interaction. Eventually they dissipate or explode.
  4. DavidB1111

    DavidB1111 Member

    Okay.This is going to be a long post. Please don't beat me up, Daynab.
    First thing: No, no, no, you misunderstood me. I never once said the U.S. military said it would magically not be destroyed by firing it.
    I said I simply thought that the U.S. Navy has made better ones since then.
    Second: I respect you, I really do, but your post above is filled with violent anger about the U.S. Military and their apparent lying. As someone who has had a ton of relatives serve in the U.S. Air Force alone, I find that insulting.
    Let's dissect what you said, calmly, to prove to you that I'm not so immature as to hold anything against you ever. :)
    First off, the plasma trail is behind the weapon. It's more than likely caused by the igniting of the atmosphere around the projectile traveling at 5,400 miles a second. Simple Physics. Nothing the U.S. Military can fake or manipulate. The U.S. Military is powerful, but they must obey all the laws of physics. :)
    That projectile is made of tungsten. You could google this experiment if you want. At least trust them to get the material they use right. :)

    Plasma does not really work that way. No, really, I'm not lying. Plasma is above all else easily made. Ever seen a neon sign? That's Plasma.
    Plasma can be hot, heck, it can be really hot.This is not debatable on my end. :)
    If a railgun was fired at a human sized target, wearing Ceramic Armor, and it fired a gram of plastic, assuming you could get electromagnetically charged plastic, said plastic would evaporate into nothingness before it got close to any target.
    There is a reason they use large objects as part of the test. Physics simply does not allow for very small objects to exist at 5000+ miles per hour and go any distance before vaporizing into nothingness.

    Please check out this link for more info. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
    A lead projectile from a railgun? Well, I think you could technically do that.
    But guess what, it would be overkill to use a lead projectile fired from a railgun at anything, even an ICBM.
    No armor in the world with our current technology, not even battleship armor is going to shrug off a single shot from a railgun using any of the current materials we use in them. None.
    The laws of physics as we know them would have to be altered on a fundamental level to allow them to shrug it off.
    I'm not saying we can make a railgun that when fired will cut through a Battleship, but it's projectile won't just smack into the armor and not going anywhere.

    I can't really respond to this. I don't even...
    Citation needed. :)
    In the fifties, no school taught how basic nuclear arms worked. They were still running the duck and cover tests.
    I'm not sure what you mean here. My mom was in school then, she never heard of such a thing.

    Er, you do know the laws of physics is what makes a railgun hit really hard, right?
    It fires a metal projectile, not plastic, at over 5,500 miles per second.
    E=MC2 is why it hits hard.
    Nothing to do with overexcited plasma. :)

    I can't say this any nicer, but You are simply incorrect. I mean no ill-will, I mean no insult, I simply am saying you are wrong.
    I have written what amounts to a dissertation to prove my point.
    I hope you will read it. :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning Go here and read some info. Also, if someone in a battery room saw Ball Lightning, they'd be freaking out. :)
    I'd say more but there's apparently a 10,000 character limit. :eek:
  5. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    Lol. Half my family is currently serving in the US military. I would have enlisted if my health allowed for it. I think you take my mistrust as dislike. That is not the case. I hate the lies, but I understand why they do it. I cannot and would not give any citation. You know the saying, "Loose Lips Sinks Ships". :)

    I will have to do some reading and make another thread for this. We both seem to enjoy this, but we can just make a thread to discuss Railguns and Plasma and other things.

    For the record, all my family in the military seems to believe that I hate the military too. I never intend to say things that sound like that, but I manage it against my own "Free Will" somehow. :)

    I am a patriot. I love my homeland like most people do, and despite all the things those in power choose to make the nation do.

    I have always been outspoken and relatively direct. That really rubs some the wrong way. Sorry if I insult you. I promise that is not my intention.
  6. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    As the topic says. Daynab, if you want to, please pull the posts that should be here in and we will continue. Otherwise we can probably muddle through just fine. Feel free to go way overboard too. I may even post another PokeCat image to illustrate. :)
  7. DavidB1111

    DavidB1111 Member

    No, not another pic! I kid.
    Well, if you can't give me any reason for your claims other than "I heard it from somewhere and I can't tell, because it's a secret." I'm going to have call shenanigans on that. :)
    You do realize Daynab is going to probably ban us or something if we keep doing this. :)

    Still though, I know my science, and I know my physics.
    And what citation do you mean, the one for the claim that they taught kids in school about nuclear weapons in the 50s? Besides the Duck and Cover drills. And that the things they taught kids have changed over the years? You're saying there's a massive conspiracy that has been going on for 50 years at least?
    That's not even possible. We couldn't keep the Philadelphia Experiment secret if it really happened. And that involved time Travel. :)
  8. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member


    Among other interesting theories about how to manage this, they include the following:

    "The plasma is somehow made self-sustaining over a much longer time period (as with ball lightning)."

    "It might also be possible to generate a laser beam "tunnel". High-energy lasers ionize the air around the beam, heating the atmosphere and providing the plasma bolt with an easy passage to the target (see electrolaser)."

    "Another laser-assisted plasma weapon approach for use in atmosphere is possible if the laser is powerful enough to blast the air out of the way, but having the plasma particles reach the target before the newly-created vacuum channel collapses in on itself is a problem unless the weapon possesses sufficient power to either sustain the channel or the aforementioned "plasma particle beam" approach is used."

    "It may also be possible to encase a bolt of plasma in a capsule of some material, possibly a polymer. This would allow the plasma to reach a medium distance before the capsule wears out."

    "With a railgun a 'plasma/particle thrower' similar to a long range natural gas flamethrower could possibly be made. Most railguns throw a trail of plasma (of the rail material and projectile material) out after or with the projectile: this is very short lived but extends over 3 to 30 feet. This is because of arcing of the rails and projectile. The plasma conducts and so is subject to the working force of all railguns (Lorentz force). The plasma thrower would use a rapid-fire small projectile and very thick rails spring/actuator mounted that move inwards with wear. A tungsten-aluminium-chromium alloy for both the rails and projectile would yield good results but the projectiles would have to be very small so they are fully disintegrated into the plasma"

    Interesting. This last part means we are both wrong about different parts in the other thread. :)
  9. DavidB1111

    DavidB1111 Member

    True. An interesting thing. I did not know of this.

    I still challenge you a nice gentlemanly game of Fisticuffs though.. :) I'm kidding.
    However, this is relevant. I also think Daynab is going to kill us.
  10. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    Daynab can nuke the thread if we get too out of hand. Although I hope he allows us to grab a copy of it for private discussion first.

    I never said they taught nuclear theory to children. I said schools. I should have said universities instead. Sorry for the confusion.

    There are times when you see behind the curtain and think about shouting for everyone to run over and look, but you realize quickly that something learned cannot be unlearned. Some things are best left mystifying. Real weapon manufacturing information is one such thing. Conventional arms work just fine for self defense. I have no need for plasma cannons nor railguns.

    I just call shenanigans on the pseudo-science being taught commonly these days. I do very much remember what I was taught decades ago and it is not what I can read on Wikipedia today. Some of the change is good. We learned new things and revised what was being taught. Some is erroneous.

    I have been told by supposedly honest and trustworthy people that marijuana causes addiction and withdrawal and even cancer. These things are just a common example of things that are taught that are damned lies. But if we must get on the subject of governments and law enforcement and such, we should start a PM about it. Daynab will surely nuke this if we argue about this particular part. I only mention it because I know from my own experiences that it is commonly taught and that any honest Medical Doctor will tell you it is nonsense.
    ***ON TOPIC AGAIN***

    Hell. I forget my next point to make...
  11. DavidB1111

    DavidB1111 Member

    I forget my next point to make a lot of times too. :)
    "universities" That works fine.

    I can understand that. The last time I was in high school was in 2001. Only had a year of college after that. I'm so glad for Community colleges.
    I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if some things have changed from what I knew then.
    For the better, or worse.

    I'm not sure what you mean by that.
  12. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    You said your family is in the military? Would you like it if any advanced gear they have to give them an edge were suddenly available to their respective enemies? Never pull back the curtain until you consider what it may cost.

    I said both that I have no citations to offer, and that I would not provide them if I did. Does that now make more sense?

    *Edit* Yes it is a cop out. I freely admit that. I cannot do something like that. I will think for a while and see if I can illustrate my point without betraying anyone. Until then, please feel free to presume I am literally making this up. :)
  13. DavidB1111

    DavidB1111 Member

    Okay. I got the point now. I don't think you're making things up per se, I just think you may be guilty of misremembering the facts. :)
    Considering none of my relatives are in the military currently, that's not much of a problem, per se.
    I mean, my grandfathers on both my mom and my dad's side were in WW2. I don't care if someone else had their medical tech, as one was a medic, I believe, and the other probably wouldn't care if anyone had better coal shoveling ability. :)
    My grandfather on my dad's side was a fireman. His job was to put coal in the fire.
    He also served on the Ship That Would Not Die.

    Sadly, my grandfather is not famous enough to be found via a google search. :(
  14. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    PM incoming David! :)
  15. Kazeto

    Kazeto Member

    As much as I find it amusing that you managed to derail a thread enough to create a new topic from it, with the derailed thread already being created because of the same reason, I think it would be better if you simply created a whole new thread for your discussion.
    If you named it "OmniNegro's and DavidB1111's random discussion thread" or something similar to that, people who aren't interested will be able to steer clear of it, and those who are will be able to easily find it and talk in it without worrying about derailing it (because it will be one giant mass of derails, seeing as you get derails after just one page of posts). And I think Daynab will understand the necessity of the existence of said thread, seeing as bits of the viewpoints you present in the discussion are too interesting to shoo you away to the PMs instead, and that way he won't have to worry about the other threads that much.

    Getting back to the topic (which is the nonsense that people are being taught at schools) - yes, it's sad that people aren't being taught things that are entirely accurate, but then again, it's better to first teach them something like that rather than not try to teach them anything (or try to teach them too much and thus scare them away), because those who become interested will be able to find correct informations on the topic, and those who don't become interested don't care either way (in which case it's better for them to have at least something that was in the vicinity of correct informations instead of knowing nothing at all).

    PS. Thanks for the reading material, guys. Walls of text are fun to climb, provided they're on an interesting topic (and physics counts as such for me).
    OmniNegro likes this.
  16. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member


    I find it hard to come up with a topic that will really be fair for a derail thread. I am not ego centric, and I think David is not either. But if we have our names in the topic it keeps people away that would otherwise contribute another valuable prospective to the conversation.

    Right now I am pondering how to respond to a PM with David. I never like to admit that I am wrong, but I may be on one or more parts of it. Yet it is a subject I cannot bring here for fear that Daynab will sigh and nuke the thread. (And rightly so, mind you.)

    At te same time as I say he may be right, I strongly believe that I am right. I know I examined much evidence on the subject and found what I consider undeniable proof of the theory I currently hold. So I feel somewhat cornered and unable to choose what dragon to slay. :)

    That said, I have had a few medical issues that really messed me up briefly a few years ago and it is certainly a possibility that I am remembering wrong. That sort of realization is half the reason I enjoy these public threads much more than PMs. It is not me and one or a few people arguing over things we have read that contradict what is being said, it is a boatload of people reading and making a choice to contribute or not to.

    (The PM David sent last night still needs to be researched by me to see if I can prove anything or not. I am halfway tempted to just say I was wrong to make it go away, but David deserves a well thought response based on my research of the data he submitted.)

    Daynab, what do you think about a literal derail thread to link to whenever we are unable to keep on topic? It would be a thread where we type what would derail the current thread and instead we just post a link to that thread. If I am not being clear enough I can give an example.
    Kazeto likes this.
  17. Daynab

    Daynab Community Moderator Staff Member

    Without wanting to sound harsh as it's not my intention, how about staying on topic? Looking at all the new threads made due to derails, you've made every one of them (or they've stemmed from your posts.)

    I welcome new subjects of discussions! If you find yourself wanting to talk about something in a thread that has no relation to what's currently being talked about, make a thread before it's derailed for 2 pages.

    I enjoyed some of the threads (like the physics one, that was really interesting) but if they were in one derail thread it would be a mess.
    OmniNegro likes this.
  18. DavidB1111

    DavidB1111 Member

    One of the reasons you are awesome, Daynab is that you haven't strangled us with piano wire. :)
    Yeah, we do tend to go off on tangents, and to be honest, that's probably more my fault because of how much I like to learn things, and consider myself a fountain of useless information.
    Kazeto likes this.
  19. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    Easier said than done...

    Usually it happens due to a minor derail that I and others think will be a post or two before it dies out. But we soon find some meat on the bones we are chewing on and persist.

    That is the point really. It would be a place where the chaos of contradictory ideas can thrive. But I suppose we can just make another thread every time we have a derail. The only reason I avoid this is that it usually means more work for you to drag the relevant content over. Your call though. I can spam out new threads like no-ones business! :)
    Kazeto likes this.
  20. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    Back to the topic, believe it or not...

    I think the closest thing to a useful repeatable railgun would undoubtedly be an electrolaser.

    It would require a chemical laser adequate to heat the gases it passes to the point of being partly plasmatic. From there all you need to do is arc a massive current through it. Easy to build, easy to replenish, and deadly with enough current.

    Deadly or stunning depends on the voltage when used against Humans and animals. It need not be lethal unless that is desired. Yet you cannot stun a machine. You simply put a billion or more volts at a tenth of an amp or so, into the least protected part of it with pinpoint accuracy.

    But note that making a potent enough laser that operates off of electricity is beyond the known ability of Humans at this time. It simply *MUST* be a chemical laser. And a strong one too. Strong enough to be damaging even on a graze. Otherwise your arc will find a path of lesser resistance.