|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Basic Training |
Now for the BIG question. If you have a metal disk weighing, say 2.5 Kilos and say .5 Meters in diameter. You spin that disk at say 3000 rpm (really slow for the proposed rate of fire) you would generate a gyroscopic effect of about 2400 Lbs. Such force would prevent a vehile the size of a duce and a half from turning. Aiming such a weapon would pose even greater problems. If the disk is rotating on a horizontal axis, it would prevent the weapon from elevating or declining. If the disk is rotating in the vertical axis, the weapon would be incapable of moving laterally. Remember, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Unfortunately for Mr. Charles, physics ALWAYS wins out. Too bad; if these issues were to be eliminated (say by moving to a universe where such inconvenient laws of physics didn't exist) this WOULD be a real leap forward in weapons technology.
|
|||
|
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma |
Wow! All very excellent theories! However IMHO this is how it works. Remember its IMO as I am no expert:
If I were to categorize this weapon system into something it would be a KINETIC WEAPON SYSTEM like the kinetic missles. BTW - Jules Verne thought of the moon landing and NASA did it? Yup, that's right but a man in 1837-8 built one of these guns and about 10-20 (+-) other guys since then did too with the last one in 1998 before Charlie did in 2000-2001. Charlie's is unique in its design infrastructure but still works almost the same as the others. His is much more destructive. BTW this thing might be used by your local PD one day for riot control since it can be set to "non-lethal" like stun on a Star Trek phaser. Will give you such a bruise or knock you silly... All of the above was just IMO so don't flame me over this OK?   -QDouble-oh-Q PS - For you non-believers THERE IS actually a working prototype built and sitting in the lab. BTW the video is not ALL cartoon. The last half of it is REAL. See my next post. They are working on a bigger and better one with more bells and whistles to impress their new buyer, probably, but I am pretty sure the whole thing is quite classified now since the Dod is involved. The "new" buyer is already like Fort Knox so I think I am correct about that... This message has been edited. Last edited by: 00Q, |
|||
|
|
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma |
Oh and BTW I forgot to mention this:
-00Q- P.S. - Want to see the DREAD video? You will need Apple QuickTime and a fast connection as it is big. Took a few minutes even for DSL. Kinda' worth the wait but I must admit it is kinda' hokey. I could have done better: http://defensereview.com/dad/dread.mov This message has been edited. Last edited by: 00Q, |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Just another rehash of an old idea. an almost identical device was proposed for use in WW1. It was rejected for its short range and its inacuracy.
|
|||
|
|
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma |
GhostCat2: You are correct! Here is the list of 25 +- inventors who did it already:
Patent# / Date / Nam ----------------------------- 1049 Dec., 1838 McCarty 15529 Aug., 1856 Smith et al 1201626 Oct., 1916 Reynolds 1223069 Apr., 1917 Porter 1240815 Sep., 1917 Brown 1284999 Nov., 1918 Blair 1309129 Jul., 1919 Gannoe 1332992 Mar., 1920 Moore et al 1357028 Oct., 1920 Case 1404378 Jan., 1922 Czegka 1408137 Feb., 1922 Parsons 1420660 Jun., 1922 Lombard 1472080 Oct., 1923 McNaier 1662629 Mar., 1928 Baden-Powell 1986836 Jan., 1935 MacNeille 2043117 Jun., 1936 Baden-Powell 2391636 Dec., 1945 McArthur 2684062 Jul., 1954 Rose 3177862 Apr., 1965 Allemann 3613655 Oct., 1971 Tobin et al 4463745 Aug., 1984 Acker 4607605 Aug., 1986 Rutten 4632086 Dec., 1986 Rutten 5819715 Oct., 1998 Haneda et al Foreign Patent Documents 635947 Sep., 1937 DE. 329550 Sep., 1935 However, none of them has the MASS TO TARGET destructive potential St. George's has. Plus most of them use some sort of gas. The one by Haneda in 1998 looks like a small James Bond pistol with a scope and a centifuge bearing thrower mounted sideways. It also has no "its clobbering time" power of the DREAD! Here's the abstract description of the invention: United States Patent 6,520,169 St. George February 18, 2003 Weapon for centrifugal propulsion of projectiles Abstract A weapon for centrifugally discharging projectiles at a rapid rate comprising a housing in which is rotatably mounted a disc having a multiplicity of feed channels extending radially therein. Each of the feed channels receives a multiplicity of projectiles and is configured to orient the projectiles in a single file adjacent the disc periphery of the disc projectile locking means. Each of the channels has located adjacent the periphery disc a multiplicity of stops movable between a first position within the channel to preclude movement of the outermost projectile outwardly of the channel and a second position removed from the channel to permit movement of a projectile thereby. Locking cams move the stops between the first and second positions, and other came actuate the locking cams as the disc rotates to move the outermost stop into the second position and release the outermost projectile while the adjacent stop restrains the adjacent projectile, which is thereafter released to move outwardly until restricted by the first stop. The projectiles are released into a guide rail extending substantially about the periphery of the disc and the guide having a discharge opening therein.  |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
|
|||
|
|
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma |
mdfisher12180: OK thanks for reposting my long post brother... but what was your comment? FYI - When QUOTING you can actually edit out all of the extra junk I typed in by just highlighting the stuff you don't want and hit delete on your keyboard... OR... you could just copy and paste the stuff you want and paste it in between the qoute tags. Either way will make these fine folks here less pissed with us filling up the board... Maybe you could RE-EDIT your post to help out?
In case anybody is wondering if somebody is gonna' do this... I am developing a interactive demo web site with plenty of multimedia bells & whistles on how I THINK this gadget works - the spinning is slowed down too. Actually it is done as I used to do this for a living before offshore outsourcing "clipped" me - but dats' anudder' story brother!. I just need to find a quickie throw-away web hoster to host it. If anyone's interested in playing with it or has suggestions, just let me know... |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
mdfisher12180: Sorry for the previous waste of space... But, No, it would double the effect. Were not talking about torque, we're talking about gyroscopic effect (the result of a mass spinning at a given rate and the forces generated as a result of conservation of angular momentum.) A helicopter flies not by gyroscopic effect but by manipulation of aerodynamic forces. A helicopters ability to pitch up and down is a result of the airfoils of the rotor changing their angle of attack while in specific positions within the arc of their movement. The tail rotor (what I am assuming you are referring to as the counter rotating disk) provides lateral thrust or counter-yaw to compensate for the torque generated by the rotor. I am not talking about the ability of the weapon to be turned from side to side but to incline and decline. If a disk is spinning in a horizontal axis as is shown in the patent write up, it creates a gyroscopic effect that would resist pitch or roll. Adding a disk spinning in the opposite direction would not counter the gyroscopic effect (it would in fact double it) but would counter act any torque effect. A disk spinning in the vertical plane (like the helicopters tail rotor) would impart a gyroscopic effect that would act to prevent the weapon from rotating either. Go to a toy store and buy a child's top. Spin it as fast as possible. What keeps it upright while it is spinning? Gyroscopic effect. |
|||
|
|
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma |
MDFISHER: ...and therefore that's why I said you were "right". I am very impressed with your knowledge of physics. However, what "I" meant by helos is just like what "you" said about tail rotors, torque, and stuff. I just didn't explain my POV correctly. The old Sikorsky gyrocopter had two contra-rotating main rotors and was highly stable. BUT I still agree with you 100% that IF there is contra-rotating DREAD flywheels (or not) this weapon system would be problematic in a mobile environment. Whomever said that operating this thing in a moving HMMWV or an airborne platform like an Apache or BlackHawk has another thing coming to the if (s)he thinks they will be able to maintain evasive manuverabilty while this thing is spinning up...
Forget pitching, yaw, tilting, evasive serpentine shlaloms, etc. while the DREAD is up to full speed. However, the DREAD operator would still enjoy a smooth azimuth target-positioning. But you are right (s)he would have a real BEAR on their hands with elevation to engage aerial or tower targets. Notice carefully how "Charlie St. George" (incidently a psuedonym) doesn't depict an AZ-EL gimbal-mount in his mobile configuration (look at the brochure)... A hydraulic elevator or tilt-lifter would probably be indicated. Sounds like a great idea for a robot or tank which they have already mentioned... But we are on the same channel bro! I hope you agree? -Q- PS - MDFISHER can you do me a big favor? Can you delete your Tue 26 July 2005 05:01 posting by clicking the  EDIT/Delete button and then clicking on Delete Message...? Its nothing but another of my long posts of just my words and none of your own...PPS - Eureka! Read this from Defense Review posted July 2nd 2005. It now makes sense to me. There's no G-effect due to the possible fact that the flywheel disk is spinning on nothing at all! The only "temporary" contact with flywheel disk turntable is probably the motor armature - until spin-up speed is achieved it must release contact as flywheel angular interial momentum keeps it going for a long time. That probably means superconductor mag-lev! So that means no counter-rotating flywheel needed. No physical contact with outer shroud or infrastructure! Even tilting isn't impeded in a tilt up/down as the SC magnets hold it in place with no contact with base! That still means it still needs liquid HE or N to supercool the Ba-Yt magnets to go to SC mode. The 21st century high-technology means you have to rethink conventional baby-boomer high school physics. The high-tech world of super-magnetics changes EVERYTHING! This message has been edited. Last edited by: 00Q, |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
OOq - nice try, but you still sound a lot like
Charles St. George. Here's some comments:
That was not propellant based - its based simply on the initial velocity and the ballistic coefficient of round balls. Getting hit by 12 balls with 8.9 foot pounds is much less destructive than a single projectile of 12*8.9 = 106 ft-lbs. For one thing, a KE of 8.9 ft-lb or even a 106 ft-lb is easily stopped by body armor. So the DREAD is worthless at 200 yards.
I doubt the DoD wants a launcher that delivers only 8.9 ft-lbs at 200yards, requires "superconducting bearings" (as you mention) and a large powerful motor. If they want high fire rate with low muzzle energy, a gatling type gun firing 22LR would be better.
A rotating flywheel has kinetic ENERGY, not entropy. Charles St. George had a summer job at Sharples Centrifuge when he was a kid - that's where he learned about how energy conservation laws can be violated.  Flywheels for energy storage spin in a vacuum to reduce air drag. The DREAD cannot do this since it has to launch balls - it needs an opening for the balls to escape - that means the vacuum will be gone whenever it fires unless you want to add another energy source for a vacuum pump (!)
So besides a large motor and power source the DREAD needs a reservoir of liquid N as well?! This thing is becoming quite a joke.
Who cares? Its not like you are firing a cruise missile and need to keep it stealthy to avoid interception. The range of the DREAD is so short you can probably see the launcher.
For someone who claims NOT to know Charles St. George you sure seem to have a lot of internal info.
Oh, Charles St. George is real all right, in the 1970's his company "Leader Dynamics" made the crappy "Leader T-2" rifle. A few were imported to the US, but it was very buggy and the company folded. Australian Automatic Arms took over but they could not get the kinks out and it folded as well. The Leader rifle was proposed to the Australian gov't as a service rifle - the Aussies were smart to reject it in favor of the Steyr AUG. The AUG became famous, the Leader rifle is ... all but forgotton. |
|||
|
|
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma |
I bow to your expertise EG2. I am no expert. You seem to know what you are talking about. I never once tried to deny that. I was just thinkin' out loud that this thing has some value to somebody in DoD for whatever reason they have come up with. I mean these guys considered (and rejected) the LTL (LESS-THAN-LETHAL) or NON-LETHAL research "Gay gas bomb" <sp?> - it is supposed to turn the enemy into gays! So maybe there is some validity to the rumors that a major arms manufacturer is considering this LTL gadget seriously. I don't want to say who I think it is as it might sour the deal to reveal them so soon in the negotiation process (however I gave a great clue earlier). I'm sure their engineers are thinking just like you might be and want to field trial the prototype up in the local deep woods against an old National Guard truck or tank or something.
Like I said Charlie is NOT his real name. He is originally from Malta* by way of UK and Australia. He has been into a lot of things exactly as you say. He lives near the ball bearing factory that is sponsoring his DREAD research. So he can visit the place easily and frequently. The place seems to have very minimal visitor control which just stymies me with so much DoD interest. The arms mfg. down the street is much higher-security. How do I know all of this if I am not Charlie or somehow connected at the hip? THIS STUFF IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN... I am a amatuer sleuth-Inspector Gadget style. I just GOOGLEd the heck out of Charlie and built my own private dossier on him. I also have access to the corporation database for his state govt. - as does everyone else on the Internet as it is free and wide open to the public. Charlie hides NOTHING not even his home address. So if any one were to approach him either by snailmail, email, or phone I'm relatively sure he MIGHT be open to talk about his invention. Some parts of it are, I guess, classified and I'm sure he won't talk about that part. Which parts? My guess?: magnetics, power source, and ball design. There may be others as I am only guessing... as I do a lot... Regarding FLYWHEELS: Yes kinetic energy, inertia, centrifigal force, and gravity. All are part of a flywheel's ability to do work in a chaotic energy system. I guess your absolutley right "entropy" is not the right phrase to use as that applies to thermodynamics and the disorder or chaos of energy and the LACK of the ability to work due to many negative factors like friction. Therefore, I probably should have said NEGATIVE entropy. I know some might argue that its not chaos but dispersion of energy... Like I said I am no expert. Obviously you are. However, I do not understand why you believe a flywheel has to be in a vacuum to be effective. The DREAD gun's flywheel, if it has one, would only assist in conservation of the vehicle's battery charge. A lack of flywheel chamber vacuum should not impact that adversely. In hindsight I think I agree with your assesment that there may be a lot of "hype" here rather than real science. But that may be due to the arguably classified nature of the product. Its not the first time the guberment' "dumbed down" a subject matter to throw folks off like "prime-number" math during the baby-boomer period. Its what they AIN'T saying is what is the interesting stuff - that's IMHO, that is... Trinamic LLC Brochure  * Carmel Joseph Giorgio was born in Mtarfa Malta.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: 00Q, |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Hi,
You are correct, a flywheel does not need to be in a vacuum to be effective, but it will reduce air drag significantly. I hope StGeorge gets his prototype working to prove (or disprove) his claims. He would not have no many detractors if the initial web stories were not filled with so much hype. |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Off another thread....
"First off, ball ammunition is highly inaccurate. The video showed a brief clip of the ammuntion hitting a target. The holes generated where highly dispersed and the target was most likely less then 50 yards away (most likely indoors). Kind of phases out the impression that these balls are one behind the other. Since enemy engagements many times exceed several hundred meters, it doesn't boad well for DREAD. However, accuracy is not my big concern. Dispersing huge quantities of ammo should make up for the inaccuracy . The thing that will stop this system dead lies in two words...BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT. Its all well and good that the DREAD can out ammo at 2500-3000fps, but how much of that energy actually reaches the target. I ran some computations using a ballistic analysis system. What I found was horrifying...to the Dread. My calculations for the ballistic coefficient of .308 dimpled tungsten balls arrived at roughly .055. A .308 smooth lead ball (44 gr.) has a ballistic coefficient of .043 (just for comparison). Obviously, the BC changes with velocity, but .055 is a good, and fair approximation of the BC. So a .308 tungsten dimpled ball would weigh about 50 grains and would have 999 or so ft/lbs muzzle energy when traveling at 3000 fps. Not bad until I saw the results under STP (Standard Temperature and Pressure). By the time it has reached 25 yards, its velocity was 2579 fps and ME in ft/lbs was 738. At 50 yards: 2195 fps and 535 ft/lbs. 100 yards: 1537 fps and 262 ft/bs. 200 yards: 914 fps and 93 ft/lbs. 300 yards: 711 fps and 56 ft/lbs. At 300 yards it has dropped 84 inches. those results are very telling. At 300 yards, the projectile would have as much stopping power as an airgun (albiet a VERY powerful one). The poor penetrating power of spheres (the USS Constitution and eary iron clads can attest to that) only adds insult to injury. Even if you boosted velocity to 5000 fps, the projectiles would only have 88 ft/lbs of KE at 300 yards. Do the math, and you will see the truth. The Dread is Dead. There is no way that the military is going to deploy a weapon sytem that is SO INEFFICIENT in ballistics test, and ultimately killing power. Muzzle Energy is one thing, but terminal energy is another." Couldnt you make the thing fire standard non ball ammo? |
|||
|
|
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma |
"Couldn't I make it..."
Huh? Is that directed to me? What have I to do with this thing? I just saw it on a weapons web site and researched (GOOGLED) the hell out of it and the inventor. I thought it was a cool weapon at first. I thought Colt Fire Arms in West Hartford CT was going to buy it. But I haven't heard anything yet (but then again why would I as I am not in their loop). Maybe you're right. It may be a dud for DoD. I think some of us here realized that he (whatever his name really is) is using superconducter mags to for mag bearings to achieve such high rotatation spin rates. That sounds very problematic as that means that lots of power is required from the vehicles power plant (28 vdc battery?) and a lot of liquid Helium or Nitrogen for cooling to SC temps. This thing is looking more and more like a Rube Goldberg gadget (i.e. better mousetrap?). I'm starting to think it is way too complicated to be cost effective. The terminal KE would be sufficent on soft targets or less than lethal applications like they mentioned. Another poster said that inventor has made inferior weapons before. IMHO I believe the poster. BTW Good work on the KE computations! |
|||
|
