|
Post by shurugal on Feb 21, 2019 1:42:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by airc777 on Feb 21, 2019 9:02:48 GMT
Ummm, cool? But I have so many questions.
Why Osmium rails and not Zirconium Copper or Ferritic Stainless Steel for efficiency? Or Vanadium Chromium Steel for strength? Or Amorphous Carbon or Reinforced Carbon Carbon for mass?
Why Osmium barrel armor and not Graphite Aerogel for mass? Or Boron Filament or S-Glass Composite for strength? Or Ceramic Oxide Fiber or Diamond for thermal diffusivity?
Why Copper armature and not Osmium or Vanadium Chromium Steel for strength? Or Silver for conductivity? Or maybe Iron for a balance of strength and conductivity?
Why non capacitor and low power draw when the reactor and radiator mass would be just a tiny fraction of the weapons mass?
What kind of armor penetration does 505 joules projectile energy have?
Can you fit it in a 'reasonable' turret? Can you fit it on a ship? Can you fit it on a ship that could actually bring it to bear on a target?
Attached is why I'm asking above questions:
|
|
|
Post by shurugal on Feb 21, 2019 18:31:46 GMT
Why Osmium rails and not Zirconium Copper or Ferritic Stainless Steel for efficiency? Or Vanadium Chromium Steel for strength? Or Amorphous Carbon or Reinforced Carbon Carbon for mass? Why Osmium barrel armor and not Graphite Aerogel for mass? Or Boron Filament or S-Glass Composite for strength? Or Ceramic Oxide Fiber or Diamond for thermal diffusivity? Osmium for rails and armor because anything else I used wanted to burst or bend under the firing load Why Copper armature and not Osmium or Vanadium Chromium Steel for strength? Or Silver for conductivity? Or maybe Iron for a balance of strength and conductivity? Copper was the highest conductivity material which wouldn't complain about melting. Osmium didn't really make a difference as far as impact on target went. Why non capacitor and low power draw when the reactor and radiator mass would be just a tiny fraction of the weapons mass? Putting a cap on it slowed the projectile down to the 10 km/s range What kind of armor penetration does 505 joules projectile energy have? damn nearly none, but it is pretty funny to garden hose a stock carrier to death from the opposite side of orbit. Can you fit it in a 'reasonable' turret? Can you fit it on a ship? Can you fit it on a ship that could actually bring it to bear on a target? I originally tried it as an internal mount - the thrusters i needed to aim it were so huge that it kept overshooting until it ran out of fuel. Set it up on a 10 MW actuator and it works that way. really only practical as a station mounted weapon, though. Attached is why I'm asking above questions: I will play around with that design and see what I can get it to do. I really want to get a microgram (or nanogram, or femtogram) projectile to as a high a faction of c as I can. I was really disappointed that the barrel wanted to burst at anything more than 1.01 Mm/s I want a particle cannon, damnit.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 21, 2019 18:54:12 GMT
How much do you trust your results when going 6 orders of magnitude outside of "model should more or less work here" bounds? Ummm, cool? But I have so many questions. Why Osmium rails and not Zirconium Copper or Ferritic Stainless Steel for efficiency? Or Vanadium Chromium Steel for strength? Or Amorphous Carbon or Reinforced Carbon Carbon for mass? AC works poorly for rails, even in CW railguns. Osmium is a good mixture of stiffness and strength, sometimes worth the mass hit. Or amorphous carbon for relatively lightweight stiffness. Osmium seems positively awful for any applications where you can't avoid having substantial volumes of material. I would try Amorphous Carbon, it seems to work really well for very heavy (0.5-10kg range) as well as many CW railguns. Maybe it's gentler on the barrel/projectile? Attached exploits simulation deficiencies for payload physics, this here likely exploits simulation deficiencies outside of model's reasonable fidelity range (as declared by the author). Pick your poison.
|
|
|
Post by shurugal on Feb 21, 2019 19:36:22 GMT
I did say it was silly.
|
|
|
Post by dragon on Feb 21, 2019 19:52:13 GMT
Funnily enough, it only carries energy comparable to an average pistol bullet. And it's still only 1/300th of c. And its reload speed is below the framerate limit (33ms). So yeah, pretty silly.
|
|
|
Post by doctorsquared on Feb 21, 2019 23:56:37 GMT
- 9x19mm Parabellum (NATO Standard pistol round, 8.05g projectile @ 380m/s) puts out 588J of kinetic energy.
- .45 ACP (Most well-known for use in the Colt 1911 pistol, 15g projectile @ 255m/s) puts out 483J of kinetic energy
- 5.56x45mm NATO (Intermediate cartridge for automatic rifles, 3.56g projectile @ 993m/s) puts out 1,755J of kinetic energy
So you've got a beam of copper particles with the effectiveness of a handgun round flying at the target. The rounds per the simulation will probably shatter and be less effective than heavier projectiles, but IRL I'd assume that impacting at that speed would convert the projectile to plasma in which case you'd be dealing more thermal damage than kinetic effects.
|
|