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
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.
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.
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.
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?
Or amorphous carbon for relatively lightweight stiffness. Osmium seems positively awful for any applications where you can't avoid having substantial volumes of material.
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?
I would try Amorphous Carbon, it seems to work really well for very heavy (0.5-10kg range) as well as many CW railguns.
Why non capacitor and low power draw when the reactor and radiator mass would be just a tiny fraction of the weapons mass?
Maybe it's gentler on the barrel/projectile?
Attached is why I'm asking above questions:
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 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.