quote:

1847108 ...good for close in heavy urban combat...

1847108,
I concur. One application, if the rotational speed stays low enough to keep the rounds velocity under subsonic, is its silent & deadly. Better than any silencer. The only noise, if subsonic, is the noise of impact to target. I heard it was adjustable.

OK latest guess work: I think he just made a major deal with a Waltham Mass robot maker to mount his contraption on. Its called a Talon/SWORDS robot. It's been deployed to Iraq. Of all of the high-tech stuff it can do they are also talking about "invisibilty" or active camoflauge. Thier Web Site Of course you probably won't find anything about that there.

That was data I pieced together from Defense Review articles last year. HINT: The Talon's Barrett 50-caliber rifle. St. George worked for Barret Rifles and was the head engineer there.

-00Q-

Even better than before! And invisible too Laser-Lips!

Invisible one is behind the Sarge...
Johnny-5

Looks like after all the massive hype and talk about a prototype, St. George hasn't shown a single thing. I wonder if the DREAD is gone for good.

I pass the CT plant every now and again and nothing is happening. Just sundry workers hanging about. If Talon hasn't bought one or Colt hasn't asked for a protoype I think it will be a dead/dread issue. No more hype on the internet either... If anybody knows any ground pounders ask them have they seen one in operation yet in SWASIA. The dead/dread silence may just be that it went classified or something. Who knows... I would think Janes or DefenseTech would have mentioned something...

Some notes and questions:

- The balls definitely can't fly behind each other. Even if they didn't have tumbling problems in air, the resistance alone would cause them to jumble up, as the lead ball slows down faster than the second, etc.

- You don't need superconducting magnets to achieve maglev, only super-efficient maglev.

- Even though a maglev bearing doesn't touch any surfaces while spinning in a static housing, if you try to move the housing, it *will* apply force/torque to the flywheel, so you don't get any benefit for counteracting the gyroscopic effects.

- As I think was mentioned, a vacuum was indicated for a situation where the flywheel was being used for kinetic energy storage, where air resistance is a major factor.

- Why can't it fire aerodynamic bullets? I'm not real sure how it would affect the speed out of the barrel, but it seems like you could have a release mechanism which would even allow rifling. I probably don't have a good visualization of proposed release mechanism.

Grapeshot, buckshot and fleshettes have range/accuracy limitations too... but are lethal within' the tactical application of the weapon employed. So... lets say you have several of these gadgets embedded along the hull of a vehicle or small naval combatant blind-sides. You wanna keep bad guys off your vehicle or discourage swimmers. (Whizzzz-whack-whack-whack). Done deal. 'Could have possibilities against mines/IED's in your path using DU balls. Perhaps this is why you won't see it in Janes or any of the Defense rags. 'Could also be used in the same application as a Claymore in static defense. I dunno if it'll work... but there's been all sorts of advances in weapons technology that were still in the 'gee whiz' stage when I retired.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RoofRatOrdie,

D'ang it RoofRat I think you have something there (for real)! Use on IED's... D'ang I never thought of that... Maybe that could be funneled to the inventor or DoD somehow. That's a helluva' good brainstorm! I was thinking that Lord Montbatten's mine-buster ideas from WW2 could be used too. [Maybe they are doing it already too... you knows?]

Canetoad: "super-efficient maglev" another good analysis... maybe true... nobody knows what the inventor is up too these days.

I think the aerodynamics are impacted by the dimpled golfball design on the rounds. There is no barrel only an release orifice.

I would think you were right about the tumbling due to ball co-turbulence but it might be a "who cares" factor if the shooter wants to just get maximum mass to target and doesn't care too much about accuracy.

The concept is that 12 balls are queued up on the outer edge of a circular spinning plate held down in place by something. When the trigger is pulled by the shooter some sort of cam comes up from the bottom static base and whatever was holding the balls in place is momentarily moved out of the way as it hits the cam. The ball(s) has inertia now, right?, so it goes forward away from the Dread orifice. But it is all so fast. 12 balls come out in rapid succession and pretty much silently if set to subsonic. There are more than 12 balls in the magazine. 12 more balls queue up instantly after release. Its like a giant David & Goliath sling-shot from hell (not a Dennis the Menace type). I imagine that it sounds like a giant pinball machine with all of those balls clacking into place on spin up mode from full stop.

With all of the centrepigal (sp?) force the balls are pushed to the outer edge (the valence). It also holds the valence (12) balls against the release gate too. If they put this on a Talon robot the this would be so awesome. BTW it is already spun up to speed BEFORE it fires the dimpled balls (armed mode). It doesn't just spin up and fire when the trigger is pulled like some here IMO still think.

quote:

Even though a maglev bearing doesn't touch any surfaces while spinning in a static housing, if you try to move the housing, it *will* apply force/torque to the flywheel, so you don't get any benefit for counteracting the gyroscopic effects.

I think you are talking about the OTHER problem the gyroscopic effect causes to the Dread spinning surface(s) other than the problem of counter-rotation mainly discussed here. Namely the gyrocompass effect. Very good...

Are you into science or something?

quote:

Originally posted by 00q:
[QUOTE]1847108 ...good for close in heavy urban combat...

1847108,
I concur. One application, if the rotational speed stays low enough to keep the rounds velocity under subsonic, is its silent & deadly. Better than any silencer. The only noise, if subsonic, is the noise of impact to target. I heard it was adjustable.

OK latest guess work: I think he just made a major deal with a Waltham Mass robot maker to mount his contraption on. Its called a Talon/SWORDS robot. It's been deployed to Iraq. Of all of the high-tech stuff it can do they are also talking about "invisibilty" or active camoflauge. Thier Web Site Of course you probably won't find anything about that there.

QUOTE]

Originally -1847108- changed name to INFIERNO777, sucks now I have to be in basic-training again, with only 4 posts! What the hell!

Good links 00q
That is what I was thinking too!

quote:

Originally posted by INFIERNO777:

quote:

Originally posted by 00q:

quote:

1847108 ...good for close in heavy urban combat...

1847108,
I concur. One application, if the rotational speed stays low enough to keep the rounds velocity under subsonic, is its silent & deadly. Better than any silencer. The only noise, if subsonic, is the noise of impact to target. I heard it was adjustable.

OK latest guess work: I think he just made a major deal with a Waltham Mass robot maker to mount his contraption on. Its called a Talon/SWORDS robot. It's been deployed to Iraq. Of all of the high-tech stuff it can do they are also talking about "invisibilty" or active camoflauge. Thier Web Site Of course you probably won't find anything about that there.

i was-1847108- changed name to INFIERNO777, Sucks now I have to be in basic-training again, with only 4 posts! What the hell!

Good links 00q
That is what I was thinking too![/QUOTE]

ok look at it this way
your not trying to hit the bull at 1000 yards
your trying to fill the air with stuff
can you say rpg,exoset ect
any inbound threat that is thin skined and moving fast
do the math what is the total impact energy
on a inbound missle running in to a hand full of 30 cal balls
think in might mess it up?
just a thought think this might work well from fixed positions as a croud modifier

in response to the gyroscopic effect issue, I found the following on wikipedia regarding flywheels:

"When used in vehicles, flywheels also act as gyroscopes, since their angular momentum is typically of a similar order of magnitude as the forces acting on the moving vehicle. This property may be detrimental to the vehicle's handling characteristics while turning. On the other hand, this property could be utilised to improve stability in curves. Two externally joined flywheels spinning synchronously in opposite directions would have a total angular momentum of zero and no gyroscopic effect."

The last sentence would indicate that a contra-rotating flywheel would eliminate the gyroscopic effect.

how long does this thing take to spin up, and
how is it powered in the field?

I guess the closest thing that I've seen is a turbomolecular pump. Those take about 5 minutes to spin up to full speed (~60,000 rpm) and are very delicately balanced, to the point that they can't even be moved while in operation.

It's likely that if the disk became damaged or bent as might happen in a war zone, the motor would no longer be turning the disk about the principal axes and the machine would rapidly shake itself to pieces.

also, it's not going to be exactly silent when idling due to the whine of rotating bearings and motor.

It's hard to think of a situation in which the Dread gun would out-perform a regular rifle or hand gun. -- possibly you could use it to set up an ambush. You'd have to be ready and waiting for the target to walk into the line of fire, I don't think you could conceivably run around with one of these things.

eg. it's going to be delicate, difficult to align or repair in the field, and would take at least a minute to become ready for firing.

If BOC Edwards or Varian, or one of the companies who make the Gas Centrifuges was suggesting this, I'd listen carefully, as it is I think a pinch of salt is required. I am sure the DoD can find impartial advice about the true feasibility or otherwise of this weapon.

In the "Poor Man's James Bond" book, they show how to make a centrifugal gun. It shoots bb's. It's the same concept as the dread system. So I'm not sure how the creator of dread can claim to have invented something new, the idea has been around for quite a while and I know that backyard inventors have made them years ago. I've even built one when I was in high school.

Any "engine" that emits mass at a given velocity ( velocity implies a direction ) over a given period of time is generating a force and that force is subject to an equal and opposite force. When that "engine" is a rocket the opposing force is called thrust. When that "engine" is a weapon, the opposing force is called recoil. Unless the DREAD fires an additional equivalent amount of mass at the same velocity over the same period of time but in the opposite direction, the DREAD cannot escape recoil.

This whole thing is a dread-ful hoax (pun intended), cleverly disguised to sound plausable. Senior high-school physics shoots the DREAD out of the water in no-time.

First the recoil statement. There will always be recoil. Anyone having issues with that can take it up with Sir Isaac Newton and tell him his laws of motions are wrong. You cannot escape recoil and that is final.

So where does the recoil happen in the DREAD? It actually happens in ways worse than with a convetional gun. First you have to spin the turntable and the ammunition up to its relese speed. They create a counter-torque. For each ball you want to release, you have to get it up to speed and that generates torque, i.e a sort of recoil.

Some may say that this is not so bad because the rev-up may happen over a longer period of time which means that the impulse of the recoil is spread out over time and thus the forces are much less. This may be true... but that makes me wonder about response times and sustained fire rates for this weapon. If you do not have the turntable up to speed when you want to discharge, how long time will it take to spin up and be ready to fire? For sustained firing, and rapid response times, you will get conciderable torque acting on whatever this weapon is mounted on.

Now comes the moment of firing. Right before you fire, you have a finely balanced flywheel. Then you release one ball of ammuition. What happens? Now you have an unbalanced flywheel rotating at fenomenal speed. The centrifugal force of the ball that counterbalanced the ball you just fired will be in effect until you release the counterbalacing ball. And unless you intend to fire at your own belly, you have to let that ball stay on the turntable for at least half a revolution. So not only do you get a "recoil"... you get one that acts in 180 degrees instead just one direction. Try to use a recoil dampener on that!

Then there is the issue of energy. How much power is needed for this thing? On the original defencereview.com article's comments section there is a calculation that uses basic Newtonian physics calculations, using the "kindest" of values.

quote:

Weight of caliber 0.308 spherical steel round.

Volume = 4 / 3 * pi * radius ^ 3
Weight = volume * density
Radius = caliber 0.308 = 0.308 inches = 7.82 mm.
Density = 7.8 grams / cm^3 (iron)

Weight: approx 2 grams per round.

Using a kind muzzle velocity let's say 1000 m/s (that's 3333 fps).

Kinetic energy per round: E = m * v^2 / 2 = 1 kJ.

1 kJ per round. And the lowest claimed firing rate is 30 000 rounds per minute, i.e. 500 rounds per second. 500 rounds per second * 1 kJ per round = 500 kJ per second = 0.5 MW, half a megawatt. One horsepower is 735 W, meaning that this weapon has a peak power supply requirement of 680 horsepower at the moment of firing. And this is counting only ideal conditions, not counting friction loss, loss in the electrical generator, loss in the electrial motor driving the turntable or the energy required by the turntable. Again this raises the question about response times and sustained fire rate, and also about concealment when you have to hide a one-thousand horsepower power-generator.

Speaking of that... the hoaxter claims that this weapon is alot safer because there is no gunpowder. True that there is no explosive powder, but what you have instead is a flywheel at tremendous rotational speed, with a bunch of ammunition already moving at muzzle velocity. Take a hit on this weapon where you fracture the wheel and you'll have an omnidirectional claymore going off in your face. (Side-note: Look up United Airlines Flight 232 that crashed in Sioux City in 1989 to see what happens when you fracture a rotating disk... or YouTube videos of fan blade detatchment tests). It is not safer. Plus you have to have fuel to drive the motor that drives the generator that drives the motor on the flywheel. Hmm... looking at the last statement, what was it that the hoaxter said about complexity? Ah yes, that this would be simpler and less failure prone than a convetional weapon system. Hogwash I say.

Back to physics. As has been concluded, the flywheel has a great deal of angular momentum. This means you cannot turn it freely because of the gyroscopic forces acting on it. You cannot use a counter-rotational flywheel attached to the rotational axis because the only thing this will do is to make sure you cannot rotate the wheels at all. The forces are still there but acting in different directions, effectively locking the wheel up to only one plane of rotation. Also, on defencereview.com, the hoaxter tried to claim that there will be no gyroscopic forces since the flywheel is solid and not a gyroscopic in the convetional sense with no mass in the middle. This is a load of bull dung on his part and it's insulting that he even expects us to fall for it. There is not less angular momentum because you fill out the middle... there is more.

Then there is ballistics. As has been concluded: a spherical projectil has lousy ballistic properties, making it lose energy quickly to air friction. At only a few hundred meters the projectiles will be of such poor stopping-power that the weapon is useless. And with this we also strike down the outlandish suggestion that projectiles can be fired very close to each other, within fractions of the ammunition's diameter. The slipstreaming effect (known from motor- and bicycle racing) means that the first ball will slow down faster than those following immediately behind it. The balls will collide with eachother if fired that close together and you will get a buckshot effect instead of the claimed precision shot.

This weapon sounds too good to be true... and it is. David Crane of defencereview.com is either in league with the hoaxter, or he has been taken for a ride. Do note - if you Google for the Dread Weapon System - that all stories about this weapon stem from the same source: the defencereview.com article, or the hoaxter himself. There is no verifiability at all. This, ladies and gentlemen is nothing but a big fat lie. Do not fall for it.

/S

Marvelous concept, so I decided to build one. My first machine used a 15 hp electric motor spinning a 10 inch diameter steel wheel at 35,000 rpm. This provides a projectile velocity of a bit over 1000 FPS. This is just subsonic so the machine is relatively quiet. Recoil is acceptable, about the same as a .22 long rifle for each shot. Accuracy is poor due to the use of spherical projectiles. I am now designing an upgrade using cylindrical bullets instead of balls and firing them through a rotating barrel to provide greater accuracy with spin. Also the magnetic release will be controlled by a microprocessor to improve accuracy. When I get this version working I will post the results.

ProfChuck