Navy’s Railgun Now Undergoing Tests In New Mexico, Could Deploy On Ship In Northwest

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

from Google (yeah I know):
An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases.

I'm not so sure on needing a central point to be considered an explosion, a fuel air explosion emanates from an irregular shape. A shaped charge can direct the force of an explosion primarily in one direction.

An electrical arc explosion? Is a meteor strike and it's accompanying shockwave considered an explosion?

A meteor strike I would consider an explosion because of the increase in volume of gasses. The shockwave itself would not be considered an explosion however. It would be a product of the explosion.

What is the difference between a meteor strike and the impact of a rail gun projectile that vaporizes on impact?

What makes you think a rail gun projectile vaporizes on impact?

 

[westwall]

from Google (yeah I know):
An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases.

I'm not so sure on needing a central point to be considered an explosion, a fuel air explosion emanates from an irregular shape. A shaped charge can direct the force of an explosion primarily in one direction.

An electrical arc explosion? Is a meteor strike and it's accompanying shockwave considered an explosion?

A meteor strike I would consider an explosion because of the increase in volume of gasses. The shockwave itself would not be considered an explosion however. It would be a product of the explosion.

What is the difference between a meteor strike and the impact of a rail gun projectile that vaporizes on impact?

Mass, the impact of a asteroid is hundreds of orders of magnitude larger, and the impact interaction with the country rock (the actual region of impact) is greatly magnified.

Like I said I would consider it an explosion, a physicist might not.

 

[alang1216]

from Google (yeah I know):
An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases.

I'm not so sure on needing a central point to be considered an explosion, a fuel air explosion emanates from an irregular shape. A shaped charge can direct the force of an explosion primarily in one direction.

An electrical arc explosion? Is a meteor strike and it's accompanying shockwave considered an explosion?

A meteor strike I would consider an explosion because of the increase in volume of gasses. The shockwave itself would not be considered an explosion however. It would be a product of the explosion.

What is the difference between a meteor strike and the impact of a rail gun projectile that vaporizes on impact?

What makes you think a rail gun projectile vaporizes on impact?

You forget, I'm uneducated. Do you know different?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

from Google (yeah I know):
An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases.

I'm not so sure on needing a central point to be considered an explosion, a fuel air explosion emanates from an irregular shape. A shaped charge can direct the force of an explosion primarily in one direction.

An electrical arc explosion? Is a meteor strike and it's accompanying shockwave considered an explosion?

A meteor strike I would consider an explosion because of the increase in volume of gasses. The shockwave itself would not be considered an explosion however. It would be a product of the explosion.

What is the difference between a meteor strike and the impact of a rail gun projectile that vaporizes on impact?

What makes you think a rail gun projectile vaporizes on impact?

You forget, I'm uneducated. Do you know different?

Yes. Because I am educated! A rail run produces kinetic energy in the projectile's velocity.

 

[alang1216]

from Google (yeah I know):
An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases.

I'm not so sure on needing a central point to be considered an explosion, a fuel air explosion emanates from an irregular shape. A shaped charge can direct the force of an explosion primarily in one direction.

An electrical arc explosion? Is a meteor strike and it's accompanying shockwave considered an explosion?

A meteor strike I would consider an explosion because of the increase in volume of gasses. The shockwave itself would not be considered an explosion however. It would be a product of the explosion.

What is the difference between a meteor strike and the impact of a rail gun projectile that vaporizes on impact?

What makes you think a rail gun projectile vaporizes on impact?

You forget, I'm uneducated. Do you know different?

Yes. Because I am educated! A rail run produces kinetic energy in the projectile's velocity.

Please share your knowledge then. How much heat is generated by the impact of the projectile with the steel plates? Is that heat sufficient to vaporize all or part of the projectile?

 

[alang1216]

What is the difference between a meteor strike and the impact of a rail gun projectile that vaporizes on impact?

Mass, the impact of a asteroid is hundreds of orders of magnitude larger, and the impact interaction with the country rock (the actual region of impact) is greatly magnified.

Like I said I would consider it an explosion, a physicist might not.

Sure the magnitude is very different but is the essential physics different too? The meteor is traveling much faster but the projectile is much denser. Seems to me, they both produce an explosion or neither does.

Or are we back to semantics?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A meteor strike I would consider an explosion because of the increase in volume of gasses. The shockwave itself would not be considered an explosion however. It would be a product of the explosion.

What is the difference between a meteor strike and the impact of a rail gun projectile that vaporizes on impact?

What makes you think a rail gun projectile vaporizes on impact?

You forget, I'm uneducated. Do you know different?

Yes. Because I am educated! A rail run produces kinetic energy in the projectile's velocity.

Please share your knowledge then. How much heat is generated by the impact of the projectile with the steel plates? Is that heat sufficient to vaporize all or part of the projectile?

You use the laymen's term "vaporize" which indicates you have do not understand the law of conservation of mass.

 

[alang1216]

Please share your knowledge then. How much heat is generated by the impact of the projectile with the steel plates? Is that heat sufficient to vaporize all or part of the projectile?

You use the laymen's term "vaporize" which indicates you have do not understand the law of conservation of mass.

Really now, did you think I meant a Flash Gordan ray gun that makes things disappear?

 

[westwall]

What is the difference between a meteor strike and the impact of a rail gun projectile that vaporizes on impact?

Mass, the impact of a asteroid is hundreds of orders of magnitude larger, and the impact interaction with the country rock (the actual region of impact) is greatly magnified.

Like I said I would consider it an explosion, a physicist might not.

Sure the magnitude is very different but is the essential physics different too? The meteor is traveling much faster but the projectile is much denser. Seems to me, they both produce an explosion or neither does.

Or are we back to semantics?

No, it isn't semantics, it is the transmutation of potential energy into actual energy. An explosion in the physical meaning is taking a chemical agent, like an explosive, and upon detonation taking all of that mass, and causing it to expand rapidly from that origin point. A impact, of any kind, is not an explosion. It might cause effects that are similar to an explosion, but it is still not an explosion.

The asteroid impact though, I might be able to make a good argument for it transcending mere impact effects, to being classified as an explosion.

 

[Vastator]

I’m a huge proponent of the rail guns. Conventional shells need to go boom to fire, requiring storage and handling requirements in the ship and as we saw on the USS Iowa the boom can sometimes go the wrong way. If someone had not closed a hatch per requirements the Iowa and her crew would be with Davy Jones.

Rail gun shells are just overgrown steel paperweights and can be stored anywhere with no safety concerns other than securing them in place.

Navy’s Railgun Now Undergoing Tests In New Mexico, Could Deploy On Ship In Northwest.

I read about this a few years back. It can be fired in space and could very easily be mounted on a space vehicle. By using certain metal configurations and explosives it can be far more accurate than many of our smart weapons and the energy it can hit with from outer space could destroy whole buildings, city blocks, and more. This thing is wild. No need for ICBM's in the US any more as it can be operated in space and fires at hyper-sonic speeds.

Look up Star Wars Defense System > Strategic Defense Initiative | Description, History, & Facts

On board a ship a smaller version of this gun can defeat any hypersoinc weapon/missile as its systems can not detect the small projectile at such high speeds. It should be capable of taking out surface to ground and air to air missiles in less than about 3 seconds as it approaches the target. This has a lot of potential uses.

Putting weapons in space is a VERY BAD idea.

It’s even worse if the other guy beats you to it...

 

[alang1216]

No, it isn't semantics, it is the transmutation of potential energy into actual energy. An explosion in the physical meaning is taking a chemical agent, like an explosive, and upon detonation taking all of that mass, and causing it to expand rapidly from that origin point. A impact, of any kind, is not an explosion. It might cause effects that are similar to an explosion, but it is still not an explosion.

The asteroid impact though, I might be able to make a good argument for it transcending mere impact effects, to being classified as an explosion.

OK but where is the potential energy of the system, or do you just refer to the capacitor that powers the rail gun?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Please share your knowledge then. How much heat is generated by the impact of the projectile with the steel plates? Is that heat sufficient to vaporize all or part of the projectile?

You use the laymen's term "vaporize" which indicates you have do not understand the law of conservation of mass.

Really now, did you think I meant a Flash Gordan ray gun that makes things disappear?

It is very hard to judge your level of ignorance.

 

[alang1216]

It is very hard to judge your level of ignorance.

I sympathize, I have the exact same problem.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It is very hard to judge your level of ignorance.

I sympathize, I have the exact same problem.

You find it hard to judge your own level of ignorance? That is so sad!

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The only draw back is recharge time. IF they can fix this problem and make it a fully automatic weapon then it could have serious uses.

Use a nuclear reactor as a power source.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The only draw back is recharge time. IF they can fix this problem and make it a fully automatic weapon then it could have serious uses.

Use a nuclear reactor as a power source.

Yeah. That will be cheap!

 

[DrainBamage]

Sure the magnitude is very different but is the essential physics different too? The meteor is traveling much faster but the projectile is much denser. Seems to me, they both produce an explosion or neither does.

Or are we back to semantics?

Agreed, calling a meteor strike an explosion and a projectile striking an object not an explosion because of some arbitrary volume of gases produced is semantics. What about a really tiny meteor? What about a really fast large projectile? Etc. All that meteor is, really, is a different type of projectile than the rail gun round.

 

[DrainBamage]

An explosion in the physical meaning is taking a chemical agent, like an explosive, and upon detonation taking all of that mass, and causing it to expand rapidly from that origin point. A impact, of any kind, is not an explosion. It might cause effects that are similar to an explosion, but it is still not an explosion.

Where are you getting the definition of explosion that it requires a chemical agent? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I sure do recall summaries of different types of explosions one of which included chemical.

For example continuing to pump air into a balloon until it bursts, from what I remember, is an explosion in physics despite not being generated by a chemical reaction. It's got a shock wave and it'll impart energy on to nearby objects, that's why they put big truck tires in those cages when they fill them with air. A physical explosion could be instigated by changes in pressure as well, i.e. a sealed container with sufficient change in altitude.

What about electrical explosions? If you've ever seen/heard a large arc blast it gives reason to think about definition of explosion as being strictly a chemical reaction because it definitely creates a outwardly expanding shock wave and a shit ton of heat, enough to vaporize metal and create a bang heard for miles.

The asteroid impact though, I might be able to make a good argument for it transcending mere impact effects, to being classified as an explosion.

So then no chemical agent required, just an arbitrary volume where this physical reaction which is (besides scale) basically same as the projectile hitting a solid mass passes the sniff test for explosion?

 

[westwall]

An explosion in the physical meaning is taking a chemical agent, like an explosive, and upon detonation taking all of that mass, and causing it to expand rapidly from that origin point. A impact, of any kind, is not an explosion. It might cause effects that are similar to an explosion, but it is still not an explosion.

Where are you getting the definition of explosion that it requires a chemical agent? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I sure do recall summaries of different types of explosions one of which included chemical.

For example continuing to pump air into a balloon until it bursts, from what I remember, is an explosion in physics despite not being generated by a chemical reaction. It's got a shock wave and it'll impart energy on to nearby objects, that's why they put big truck tires in those cages when they fill them with air. A physical explosion could be instigated by changes in pressure as well, i.e. a sealed container with sufficient change in altitude.

What about electrical explosions? If you've ever seen/heard a large arc blast it gives reason to think about definition of explosion as being strictly a chemical reaction because it definitely creates a outwardly expanding shock wave and a shit ton of heat, enough to vaporize metal and create a bang heard for miles.

The asteroid impact though, I might be able to make a good argument for it transcending mere impact effects, to being classified as an explosion.

So then no chemical agent required, just an arbitrary volume where this physical reaction which is (besides scale) basically same as the projectile hitting a solid mass passes the sniff test for explosion?

I didn't say it had to be a chemical agent. I just that is the most common source for an explosion.

 

[22lcidw]

The newer class ships are supposedly using/going to use new electrical systems that get up to 2 and a half times more power then the previous ones. The cancelled Zumwalts, the Ford Class Carriers are two of them. Also the modern military need for more power to run devices and use technology is taken care of also. How that is integrated into a rail gun I do not know.