my e sides
Hey the first guns made weren’t great either
Just give the tech time to develop, I’m interested in this shit because when you can control the power of how fast and far a bullet can travel directly based off energy input this offers new opportunities for combat along with the lack of sound produced
gunpowder is superior in every way
I'm laughing at the ridiculous name "e gun".
that is true, but until tech develops to match gunpowder then it's just a project.
This is a stupid argument. We more or less know the limit of directed energy systems and other such junk. It's a mature technology and some technology just plain isn't possible.
>>989>gunpowder is superior in every way
no it has a limited rate of expansion, which limits the ejection velocity of a projectile.
To add more speed, it might be useful to add an "e-gun" stage after the expanding gases stage.
the e-gun stage could be powered by converting recoil energy into an electricity pulse.
Gunpowder's rate of expansion is actually well above what most firearms get and there's certain ways to get them faster.
That's an interesting idea, but I am fairly certain that the recoil of most components will happen well after the bullet leaves the barrel.
MANPADs cannot shoot down aircraft at 30,000'. They're only useful for shooting down helicopters close to the ground.
Vietnamese farmers with aks have shot down actual fighter jets
Stfu burger army equipment is overpriced trash just like every other product that’s ever been made in this shithole of a country
The point is an air force faced with an army with MANPADs will just fly higher than MANPADs or AKs can shoot them down.>Stfu burger army equipment is overpriced trash just like every other product that’s ever been made in this shithole of a country
Burgerstan isn't the only country to make MANPADs.
>>1072>Vietnamese farmers with aks have shot down actual fighter jets
But not at the rate needed to make fighter jets obsolete, yeah SAMs work well, but thye aren't precise enough to just destroy air forces, especially if the air force has radar jammers, decoys, and anti-radiation missiles. >>1073
MANPAD units would idealy be in communication with SAM forces and interceptor aircraft to create an integrated air defense system, perhaps allowing a fighter jet to control the direction of manpad missiles to direct them to enemy aircraft. This idea would be ideal in high altitude environments such as mountains.
I always wanted to make an electrolaser but I don't know how.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolaser
electrical engineer here. are you aware what pissant amounts of energy are stored in those caps compared to the powder load in even a 9mm cartridge?
the only "e guns" of any use are rail guns, and they're huge for a reason>>988>you can control the power
congrats anon you've reinvented artillery>the lack of sound produced
air guns give you this too and are much simpler, cheaper and more powerful
I thought that at first, but here are some back of the envelope calculations.
Here is a comparison with a 9mm parabellum, Let's say you have a carbine with a 0.5m barrel, muzzle velocity 400m/s, energy700 J.
Average velocity in the barrel is 200m/s, so it takes 1/400 second from firing to exiting the barrel. It puts 700J into the bullet in that time. Energy / time = power, so 700J / (1/400)s = 280000W. So a carbine puts out 280kW when firing.
Wikipedia says supercapacitors have specific power of 10W/g, so they're not powerful enough. Electrolytic capacitors are up to 100W/g, which means you need 2.8kg of electrolytic capacitors for the e-carbine. That sounds reasonable. 2.8kg of electrolytic capacitors can give up to 3000J according to Wikipedia. So if your e-carbine is only 23% efficient, this is doable.
If you want a full auto e-SMG, the capacitors can be recharged from a battery. If it does 600 rounds per minute, then the battery needs to put out 3000 x 10 = 30kW. This is also doable with a backpack size battery.
pulse power applications typically use film caps, not electrolytics. but maybe this is just slow enough for electrolytics to work>backpack size battery
practical! but actually you don't need that large a battery to store the required energy I think
I see Gun Jesus just released a video on just this topic. 3 kJ Gauss/coil rifle. unsurprisingly this thing is big. also>muzzle velocity: 75 m/s>2 oz projectile
meaning 175 J muzzle energy or just under 6% efficiency
I think the guy is way too optimistic on the progress possible in power electronics. there are fundamental physical limits to this stuff. chemical energy is just superior in every way. fun toy though
the one use-case I can see is making clandestine guns without having to involve energetic chemistry in any way
I would point out that it's almost certainly possible to make an electrically fired gun that uses, ironically, gunpowder to provide the electrical power>but why would you use gunpowder to power a motor
because gunpowder has certain limitations to velocity that you can get. The bullet cannot move faster than the speed of sound of the expanding gas directly propelling it and will approach that limit asymptotically. a railgun or coilgun does not have this same limitation.
Why are they so inefficient compared to electric motors?
>>1188>cramming a ~1 MW generator into the size of a gun>still have the problem of acquiring and handling an explosive
anon I>>1192>Why are they so inefficient compared to electric motors?
good question. motors have had 200 years or so of development. we typically measure efficiency under constant load. most motors aren't very efficient under acceleration. easiest way to see why is to stall a motor. then it uses lots of electrical power but produces no mechanical power
I think the way to actually do an electrically powered gun is as an electrically powered air gun. have an air tank enough for a few shots and top it off with a small compressor. use a solenoid valve to fire. a bunch of motors or pneumatics to handle loading
quick calculation: 100 bar, 4.5 mm diameter 0.5 g air gun pellet, 1 meter barrel. pretend pressure is constant during firing
E = F*l = mv²
F = P*A = pi/4*d²
E = pi/4 P d² l = 160 J
v = sqrt(E/m) = 563 m/s
velocity is limited by speed of sound however, so a larger bullet is called for. let's take .50 BMG. GNU Octave:
P=100; d=12.7e-3; m=42e-3; l=1; E=P*100e3*pi/4*d^2*l, v=sqrt(E/m)
E = 1266.8
v = 173.67
to really get that .50 going you'd need a longer barrel or higher pressure. or increase d without increasing m
a sabot type system would maximize barrel diameter, possibly making it shorter. a 25 mm sabot holding a .50 could have a 25 cm barrel and still put out the same amount of muzzle energy
I know about EPFCGs anon. would you want one as part of a gun 5 cm from your eyes?
Is it a well-made gun?
anon the way EPFCGs operate are by literally exploding
So make it work with that.
anon why tf would you even do that when you could just use regular powder cartridges? this is so retarded
One word: Lasers
Good idea or just another bad pipe dream?
Even the Soviets dabbled into laser weaponization technology right before their fall. They even had a prototype going.
There's a (banned) lolbertarchist /pol/+etc. user who openly bragged and fedposted about using laser weapons.
You could probably do a ton of non-permanent or permanent damage with a laser gun.
great for taking someone's eyes out
at MW power levels they're also great for taking out missiles
maybe there's a way to make something inbetween?
Blinding laser grenade is way more dangerous than a laser gun in my opinion. Even modern aircraft still uses pilot visual. However it also violates dozens of war crimes.>>1202
That looks unwieldy as all hell. Probably even harder to maintain in the field compared to the labyrinthine contraption of the G11. However a coil flechette launcher… that’s another different thing entirely.
the guys is kind of a nutjob (someone going around blinding cops permanently with lasers kinda got to be) but I dont remember him posting any shit like that.
>>1211>>1211>Blinding laser grenade is way more dangerous than a laser gun
he posted some webm of his setup, it basically covered the whole area in front of him in blind grade lasers in a very wide angle. Kinda terrifying really.
>>1211>Probably even harder to maintain in the field compared to the labyrinthine contraption of the G11
doubtful, its pretty mechanically simple, theres almost no moving parts. its the high grade electrical/electronic components that would be impossible to fix yourself, but having a few spare might be enough. Depend on their reliability.
>That looks unwieldy as all hell
I mean thats an explicit part of the conversation. Its still a prototype vastly inferior in capability to a gun. but first guns were inferior to crossbow/bows on many fronts.
What I see as valuable in the concept :
- low recoil
- no sound
- adjustable muzzle velocity
- easily use various ammo
- ton of space in the ammo to add whatever you fancy
- heavy projectile, good stopping power
- you can use the on board computer to help you aim
- you could conceivably have an auto aiming flechette round
honestly I think a railgun anti tank or anti air weapon would have been useful sooner because very high speed projectile have inherent useful applications that regular guns cant do, but its demands such power its prolly not technologically viable yet (not mentioning the whole wear of everything).
Not only impossible to fix, but I suspect that during its early days the gun will not work out the important kinks like being weather proof or protection against the natural ruggedness of a modern battlefield. Hell to this day keeping something like an electronic watch completely water proof is difficult enough for simple diving.
A handheld or man-portable rail/coil gun won’t be viable in a long time. Due to the simple fact that our method of storing energy in batteries are just lacking in energy density adequate for such a weapon. However if rigged up to something like a ship nuclear reactor designed for long range artillery bombardment then it’s another story entirely. Even then you have to contend with the problem of insufficient materials used in the rails and coils that can burn out the gun itself trying to reach velocities that makes electronic guns superior to modern chemical propelled guns. Adjusting the speed to normal guns for naval weapons will see it be just a howitzer but finicky.
>>1188>The bullet cannot move faster than the speed of sound of the expanding gas directly propelling it and will approach that limit asymptotically.
You can go faster if you use hydrogen. These guns get 27500 fps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-gas_gun
What if the piston is pushed by a coilgun? That might make the coilgun more efficient because the piston doesn't have to move fast.>>1216>Due to the simple fact that our method of storing energy in batteries are just lacking in energy density adequate for such a weapon.
5.56mm NATO is about 1.8kJ/round. If an average soldier carries 180 rounds, that's 324kJ. That's the energy in a one pound battery. The problem is e-guns are inefficient and not powerful at the moment.
Explosives don't have that much energy, they just release it very fast. This is a comparison:
Nitroglycerin: 6.38 MJ/kg
TNT: 4.61 MJ/kg
Diesel: 43.1 MJ/kg
Best off the shelf lithium ion battery: 0.875 MJ/kg
Seems very inefficient
I had a bit more of a think on this and it's probably best to just have it function like a regular air gun but be self-cocking. a spring driven piston held by a sear is much simpler, safer and cheaper than a reservoir + solenoid valve
batteries hold more energy than pneumatic tanks do, and with BBs it's possible to use a hopper and dump out hundreds of shots quickly. the efficiency of the cocking mechanism could easily be in the 90% region. not sure what the pneumatic efficiency is. some energy would be lost to heating, and also due to excessive air use
Nitro piston air rifles might be what you need. They can get up to 1500 fps.
sure but they're not ~electrically powered~
unless you mean modding one so that it is. that would be interesting..
Heat dispersal might also become a problem. Traditional firearms get cooling from ejecting the spent brass case. These guns would need some kind of chamber cooling system to keep the temperatures manageable. There is no risk of ammo cookoff but the high temps might damage the structure of the gun.
As for molten metal, what about making the barrel and the ammo out of non-metal materials? Common graphite has a melting point comparable to tungsten and is super cheap. The ammo can be graphite or graphite sheathed lead (if pure graphite is not heavy enough).
oh yeah, electrothermal guns are pretty cool. I went and looked for the cheapest (J/$) capacitor with at least 450V and 10µF I could find, came up with this:https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/epcos-tdk-electronics/B43707A5109M600/11611173
water cooling maybe? why non-metal for the ammo?
I can see sputtering/fouling being a problem here
it also strikes me that it might not be necessary to heat stuff to plasma temperatures. compare to a 9mm. 2400 bar in a small "chamber" (base of cartridge). getting that pressure in such a small volume just from heating would require 720,000 K. hence plasma. but we can also use a much larger chamber. how much is necessary to accelerate using constant pressure?
say we want 350 J, roughly what a 9mm puts out. let's use a larger chamber and longer barrel. I come up with 50 bar, 1.1 m barrel -> 357 J. but that's still 15,000 K necessary in that chamber. damn
it's really the barrel volume that makes these high temperatures necessary. there's not enough air molecules in there. maybe it's possible to use water instead? flash boil -> steam -> great volume expansion
Water as propellant, instead of powder in the case, it's water. I like it.
What if we go back to something like >>1220
or an airgun, but on the back side of the piston, we have the electrically generated steam driving the piston?
yes that could work. you'd have to heat water to boiling, quickly
we should need about 1 g of water. 4.184 J/K plus 2257 J to vaporize it. 2.6 kJ total. dump this into a load with lots of surface area for the water to boil off of. maybe use steel wool
There's a higher powered model out now, the GR-1 Anvil. https://arcflashlabs.com/product/gr-1-anvil/
There's also this one from another manufacturer. https://www.northshoresportsclub.com/coil-accelerator
All of these coilguns are inefficient because they have large gaps between the coils and ferromagnetic projectiles. Induction coilguns are the future and I think the easiest induction coilgun to build is the lateral disc launcher on this page. http://www.coilgun.eclipse.co.uk/coilgun_basics_3.html
>>1558>There's a higher powered model out now, the GR-1 Anvil
if you look further up the thread you will see I posted the videos ian has done on that >>1222 >>1202>http://www.coilgun.eclipse.co.uk/coilgun_basics_3.html
the Thompson ring launcher looks like it would work best
one benefit of induction guns is that you don't have to shut off the coils
I know the muzzle velocity is shit, but can it do some damage? What if you sharpened the armature, could it kill someone?
>enemy uses a bunch of e-guns
>roll in with traditional firearms
seems like giving yourself an unnecessary weakness tbh
How much money do you have? >Scientists claim that antimatter is the costliest material to make. In 2006, Gerald Smith estimated $250 million could produce 10 milligrams of positrons (equivalent to $25 billion per gram); in 1999, NASA gave a figure of $62.5 trillion per gram of antihydrogen.[
You can make a particle accelerator at home. It's called a betatron. It's just everything else involved and making a practical weapon out of it that matters.
Unique IPs: 19