Hey All,
The DREAD gun sounds very Star Trekie... in a good way. However, if its electric it must have power - #1, and #2, what about EMP.
An EMP device would be the logical counter device to this weapon.
R/
T

EMP damages electronics, ie things with computer chips in them. Electrical devices, like mom's mixmaster and dad's electric drill, will continue to operate. The Soviets designed against EMP by using old-fashioned tube electronics in their aircraft. Apparently EMP is a threat to the very small circuits of computer chips, bulkier devices can withstand them.

Whether EMP is a threat to this weapon or not is not known to me at this point.

The concept of recoil-less is interesting, but doesn't make sense. It can only be discussed in the terms of the reaction generated by a conventional weapon's impulse that is used to **** the weapon and chamber the next round. The recoil you feel is dependent on the weapon design but can never be less than the energy of the round. Every action has a equal reaction. If you expel mass the recoil is equal to the mass expelled times the square of its velocity.

5180776, you are thinking in terms of a propellant type firing. This uses a centerfuge, not propellant. Think of a rotary engine over a piston engine...

I would imagine that an EMP device could take out this device because the article talked about it being programmable. It also talked about setting it up in an automatic mode. EMP could take out the sensors.
Unless they put in hardended chips - which is not that hard to do, just more research time and more cost...

quote:

Originally posted by 5751706:
Hey All,
The DREAD gun sounds very Star Trekie...

My first reaction. It looks kinda like a Federation starship. This could be really farking cool, though - a weapon you don't have to clean.

You may not run out of ammo very often... but what about batteries? I'm betting this system is pretty demanding on power. Setting up a base defense or putting the Dread on a vehicle is great... until the base generator gets knocked out or the vehicle battery goes flat.

Interesting points raised. As I understand the devise, there IS RECOIL but not in the conventional sense. As the (already energized projectiles) depart the weapon, the opposite reaction is transmitted to the power driving unit which would exhibit a rotational reduction (recoil) for the exact moment of the departure.Which is so small as to be insignificant. As the the Electronics, they can be BYPASSED at anytime and allow manual operation. The motor, well that would not be effected by an EMP.

Good questions. The DREAD does have recoil but not in the conventional sense. Prior to the projectiles being released, they are already energized and once departed, the opposite force is transmitted to the rotational power drive which exhibits a minute rotational reduction.
Totally insignificant.
The programmable fire control system can be disabled anytime and the weapon operated manually. The Electric motor is not effected by any EMP saturation.
The rates of fire mentioned, must be put into context, like the M16 for example, which has a rate of fire of 700/800 rounds per minute but does not necessarily mean the soldier is going to accomplish that. His magazine capacity is only 30 rounds. Should he fire and empty the entire clip, the rate of discharge is measured
in rounds per minute, meaning the weapon's cyclic rate.

Did a Google Search on "Centrifugal Gun". It's mentioned in the 1880 edition of "Knight's Mechanical Dictionary". It even mentions ball projectiles being expelled at high velocities by a high speed rotating mechanical device.

So, this is not a new idea.

Also, the sling, as in David and Goliath is, in effect, a much older version of a Centrifugal Weapon.

As for EMP, if a Nuke was set off in the neighborhood, I don't believe whether the Centrifugal Weapon kept working or not would be a high priority concern.

No not a new idea. Jules Verne had the IDEA of putting a MAN on the moon. But it took enegineers from NASA to accomplish the task.

quote:

Originally posted by 5180776:
The concept of recoil-less is interesting, but doesn't make sense. It can only be discussed in the terms of the reaction generated by a conventional weapon's impulse that is used to **** the weapon and chamber the next round. The recoil you feel is dependent on the weapon design but can never be less than the energy of the round. Every action has a equal reaction. If you expel mass the recoil is equal to the mass expelled times the square of its velocity.

How much recoil does a sling have? This weapon works the same way, sling.

quote:

Originally posted by wattle1999:
You may not run out of ammo very often... but what about batteries? I'm betting this system is pretty demanding on power. Setting up a base defense or putting the Dread on a vehicle is great... until the base generator gets knocked out or the vehicle battery goes flat.

THen you would call in the pink bunny.

I notice that the DREAD video consists of an old photo of Hiram Maxim plus a cartoon video
That's it. Like the name of its alleged inventor,George St Charles,it's a phony. Hugh Long

This is a very interesting concept of a weapon. However it simply isn't possible according to physics. My first question was same as 5180776's. How can a 50 cal. weapon fired at 8,000 fps. not have recoil? As, explained it must according to science. Also, no heat due to no friction, yet more accurate than today's sniper rifles? A projectile must spin through the air and be tapered to be accurate, not lobbed and shaped like a golfball. This is why your BB gun shot where it wanted to and grandpa didn't make thousand yard shots with his musket.

Those are diffrent principils... As this gun dosnt have a charge to project the projectile. Like smittytm said, how much recoil does a sling have?

Anyways... is this gun a plazable reality?

Here is how this gun must work. If you recall basic physics, angular velocity, w = linear velocity, v divided by the radius of moment, r. Also, angular velocity w = 2 x pi x f (revolutions/second = rps). Then velocity = w x r = 2 x pi x f x r. Thus, a projectile launched from the rim of a rotor of 1 foot in radius, rotating at 24,000 rpm = 400 rps will have a launch speed = 2 x pi x 400 rps x 1 ft/r = 2513 feet/second. This assumes zero friction losses. So the rotor inside the gun must have a counter-balancing rotor (one that spins in the opposite direction) that neutralizes the recoil, and the angular moment of the projectile. As this weapon employs two triggers, it is likely that the scheme involves two counter-rotating/balanced rotors, each rotating at 24,000 to 29,000 rpm, as the advertised projectile velocity is in the 2,500 fps to 3,000 fps range. Their angular momentum and torque effectively cancels each other out, making the gun recoiless, or so the claim would be.

You know the style of writing of "imasoldier2" sounds suspiciously like Charles St. George himself if you compare the comments by StGeorge in the DREAD stories on defensereview.com.

Anyway, the DREAD has a number of major shortcomings which may relegate it
to the rubbish heap of history ... *grin*

(1) Poor ballistic coefficient of round balls
Lets say the DREAD can stay intact and fire 7.62mm diameter (0.308 cal)
steel balls at 1000 m/s (3280 ft/sec) as the inventor claims. Plugging this into a ballistics program yields the following chart of velocity and foot-pounds of kinetic energy as a function of range:


0 Yds: FPS/fpe = 3280/668.1
5 Yds: FPS/fpe = 3081/589.4
10 Yds: FPS/fpe = 2859/507.6
15 Yds: FPS/fpe = 2626/428.3
20 Yds: FPS/fpe = 2423/364.5
25 Yds: FPS/fpe = 2242/312.2
30 Yds: FPS/fpe = 2056/262.4
35 Yds: FPS/fpe = 1871/217.4
40 Yds: FPS/fpe = 1714/182.5
45 Yds: FPS/fpe = 1564/151.9
50 Yds: FPS/fpe = 1423/125.8
60 Yds: FPS/fpe = 1192/ 88.3
70 Yds: FPS/fpe = 1061/ 69.9
80 Yds: FPS/fpe = 974/ 59.0
90 Yds: FPS/fpe = 903/ 50.6
100 Yds: FPS/fpe = 841/ 44.0
120 Yds: FPS/fpe = 730/ 33.1
140 Yds: FPS/fpe = 629/ 24.6
160 Yds: FPS/fpe = 537/ 17.9
180 Yds: FPS/fpe = 453/ 12.8
200 Yds: FPS/fpe = 378/ 8.9

Note that at 200 yards, the kinetic energy in foot pounds in only 8.9 ft-lbs
which is less powerful than a typical spring piston air rifle!
In contrast, even a 55 gr bullet from the older M193 type of 5.56x45mm ammo still delivers 600+ ft-lbs of KE at 200 yards.

In addition, do we really want to litter the battlefield with thousands of nice hard steel or tungsten balls that can be either sold for cash by the enemy or packed into improvised explosive devices and used by the enemy?


(2) Large power requirements

The inventor has made claims of fire rates of 30000 rpm (500 shots per second).If each bullet has a muzzle energy of say 900 J (664 ft-lbs approx the muzzle energy in the table above), the delivered mechanical power is 900J/(1/500 shots per second) = 450kW or 603 horsepower. To maintain this fire rate and muzzle kinetic energy from burst to burst, the DREADS's electric motor must supply the same amount of power - 450kW or 603 HP. That is a large motor! A typical car engine is only in the range of 100-200HP. If the DREAD cannot supply this power, the rotor will gradually slow down as balls are launched.

(3) Poor accuracy

Since the disk is spinning so rapidly, the balls must be released very
precisely to get any sort of accuracy. This is very difficult to achieve.
For example the patent indicates the rotor diameter is 762 mm (for 0.30 caliber steel balls). To fire balls at say 1000 m/s requires a rotational speed of 1000/(.762/2)/(2*pi)*60 = 25063 rpm.
If you want the DREAD to have a 3 MOA angular spread of the balls (about the same as a typ assault rifle), the balls have to be released with a positional accuracy on the edge of the disk of (3/60*pi/180*(762/2))=0.33mm or about 13 thousandths of an inch positional accuracy. That's pretty tight tolerances for the cam release mechanism esp since you want it to be immume to dirt. Also there will be vibrations due to the motor, air turbulance and imbalances while launching - all these can make the release position vary by more than .013".

Check out the US Patent for the Charles W. St. George of Trinamic Technologies' DREAD gun:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Se...,169&RS=PN/6,520,169
http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=06520169&homeurl=ht...=&idkey=E16497728098

Yes, I've looked at the patent. Funny thing, at the site:
http://www.digitalwebbing.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-72343.html

Charles StGeorge is quoted as saying:
The current patent drawings available to the public should not be used to attempt to determine how the new Generation Dread operates. It is in fact designed to confuse those who wish to either copy or steal the technology

If he is so concerned about keeping the technology secret why bother filing any patent in the first place and making all sorts of wild claims on web forums?

Here's another data point on how dangerous the DREAD is to the operator if the rotor ever ruptures due to hits from enemy fire.

The patent shows a rotor with 20 spokes each containing 50 balls (1000 balls total). If we assume 7.62mm diam steel balls are the projectile and the rotor is spinning at 25000 rpm (see my post above). If you do the calculation, you'll see the rotational kinetic energy of *just* the 1000 balls in the rotor is about 300kJ - that about 220000 ft-pounds of KE!
If the rotor ruptures, the total kinetic energy released from the 1000 balls is equivalent to about 200 slugs from an M16, or about 600+ 9mm Parabellum bullets.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be in a vehicle with the DREAD - its sort of like carrying a flamethrower into combat. The range is short and everyone will start shooting at you in the hopes of seeing something spectacular...