A Real Railgun

[TheAdmantArchvile]

I had no idea one of these actually exisists. Granted it's not portable like in quake 2, but it's still cool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OqlTXwLG40

[Binary Cake]

That's sick, but boy, those comments below the video made me lose a few IQ points.

[Snarboo]

Youtub is known for the stupidity of its comments. Pretty much any video will devolve into a racist tirade or contempt for the Bush administration.

Very cool tech, though. I'm wondering if a hybrid approach of standard ballistics with a smaller rail or coil (gauss) to aid in propulsion would be better. The amount of energy required to fire one of those things is massive.

[Steeveeo]

Saw it on Future Weapons about 6 months ago, and I am still wondering where exactly that flame is coming from if the thing is completely electrical, friction with the air perhaps?

[Chow Yun Thin]

The description of the projectile staying intact or fragmenting made me think of the Flak Cannon from UT.

Thirded on the stupidity of youtube comments.

[Snarboo]

Steeveeo said:

Saw it on Future Weapons about 6 months ago, and I am still wondering where exactly that flame is coming from if the thing is completely electrical, friction with the air perhaps?

That and kinetic energy. There is so much energy behind the projectile it turns into a molten ball and basically "explodes" on contact. I've heard that with enough energy the projectile will turn into plasma, but I'm not sure if our tech is there yet.

[deathbringer]

Fourthted on Youtube comments, people that have commented on there shouldnt be allowed to vote. No ifs, no buts, just bundled out of the polling station

That said, never seen Eraser?
"It's like a portable railgun"
"The smallest one i've heard of before was mounted on a ship!"

[Inferno]

Very interesting. The protoype they are working with is so heavily reinforced so that the weapon doesen't combust when firing. It's a ton of kinetic energy being used since it would replace warheads, the friction from mach 8 speed is incredible.

Oh yeah fifthed on youtube comments, bunch of losers.

[40oz]

Snarboo said:

I've heard that with enough energy the projectile will turn into plasma, but I'm not sure if our tech is there yet.

You mean plasma as in...

you don't say...

plasma GUN??

[AirRaid]

Somehow I don't see that thing firing 400 rounds per minute or whatever the plasma gun can do.

[Nightmare Doom]

Snarboo said:

Youtub is known for the stupidity of its comments. Pretty much any video will devolve into a racist tirade or contempt for the Bush administration.

Not only that but sexist and homophobic tirades which is the worst of them all especially if you visit any videos involving women, homosexuality, and feminism on youtube.

[Enjay]

The retarded comments on Youtube seriously undermine the credibility and usability of the site for a number of purposes. eg, around here, it's filtered in most schools so that you can't even access it, despite the fact that some of the videos could have legitimate educational value.

[GreyGhost]

The US Navy's concept of a super-gun for it's carrier battlegroups is unlikely to produce a practical weapon. Atmospheric friction decelerates the projectiles as soon as they leave the muzzle, so at the hoped for range of 220 miles they'll be mostly ineffectual without warheads.
The technology's better suited to the vacuum of outer space where - apart from the influence of gravity - velocity doesn't diminish with distance.

Couldn't care less about the comments on YouTube - they're mostly irrelevant.

[deathbringer]

You mean plasma as in...

you don't say...

plasma GUN??

Protip: know the difference between real plasma and sci-fi generic glowing balls "plasma"

[myk]

Some comments on the YouTube thread do make sense, such as "Man is it just me or is this show seriously disturbing, and the host also?" I don't really think it's just him.

The Discovery channel and its means of presenting information (including its objects of choice) is pretty much crap itself. This piece comes out more like a nerdy commercial than as something capable of inspiring interest in a relatively intelligent and perceptive person.

Get back to me when they start creating an arachnotron (at least it's really in DOOM II, unlike the railgun). Talking about railguns, the one in Jedi Knight made more sense than the one in Quake 2 (which seemed more like a strange laser weapon).

[Snarboo]

Future Weapons' audience mostly consists of gun-nuts and military enthusiasts, of which I am one. They do glorify weaponry and the host seems giddy to pick up a new gun, which is hard to understand if you're not interested or disturbed by weapons. It just sort of comes with the territory.

I like weapons, and new developements in firearms and weapon technology interest me, even if the intended use is horrifying. It's basically like you said, Myk: it's the equivalent of a nerdy car show, only with guns.

[Chow Yun Thin]

I think the host was a Navy SEAL, so his enthusiasm for weapons is well-founded.

[printz]

myk said:

The Discovery channel and its means of presenting information (including its objects of choice) is pretty much crap itself. This piece comes out more like a nerdy commercial than as something capable of inspiring interest in a relatively intelligent and perceptive person.

Crap? So far I'm catching on my cable only one science/tech channel, which comes from Discovery, so I hate what you said.

[Steeveeo]

I agree with everyone who said that the Discovery channel has crappy presentations, the only show on any of their channels that I actually like watching is Mythbusters, even though they do miss the point of the myth a bit of the time and not accounting for exaggerations in the stories, they end off with a giant explosion a lot of the time, and exactly who doesnt like explosions? :)

[Sharessa]

I always liked the show Nature (on PBS) better than anything on the Discovery channel. I even had a bunch of VHS tapes of it when I was a kid. It's probably been off the TV for years now, though.

History Channel and History International are good channels when they aren't showing stuff about World War II, the most boring war in history (actually, all modern wars bore me, but the network execs on those channels have some kind of hard-on for WWII).

[exp(x)]

Danarchy said:

History Channel and History International are good channels when they aren't showing stuff about World War II, the most boring war in history (actually, all modern wars bore me, but the network execs on those channels have some kind of hard-on for WWII).

I'm of the opinion that they should rename the History Channel to the War Channel.

[chungy]

When the History Channel isn't showing WWII stuff, they're just doing stupid conspiracy/UFO/ghost crap.

[Butts]

i like the history channel, discovery channel, science channel, all of those channels for some strange reason. the railgun was pretty cool.

i dont like how some of you bash on these channels...

"those channels suck because i hate it and its for nerds and looks like a dumbass would watch this crappy bullshit haha im an intellectual"

[Sharessa]

MikeRS said:

When the History Channel isn't showing WWII stuff, they're just doing stupid conspiracy/UFO/ghost crap.

I dunno, they have a ton of pretty cool stuff on there. I like History's Mysteries, Modern Marvels, Time Team (on History International), and they've had some really awesome miniseries. Like Russia: Land of the Tzars, the history of sex one, and the history of comic books one.

[Kira]

It's still interesting to watch...
This railgun is kick ass, but who know how many guys would die with this crap if it's used in a battlefield D:

[Creaphis]

GreyGhost said:

The US Navy's concept of a super-gun for it's carrier battlegroups is unlikely to produce a practical weapon. Atmospheric friction decelerates the projectiles as soon as they leave the muzzle, so at the hoped for range of 220 miles they'll be mostly ineffectual without warheads.
The technology's better suited to the vacuum of outer space where - apart from the influence of gravity - velocity doesn't diminish with distance.

Good point. This technology really is better suited for space combat. Hopefully we can make some enemies in space so we get to use this.

[deathbringer]

This railgun is kick ass, but who know how many guys would die with this crap if it's used in a battlefield D:

Judging by the video if they decided to make a land-based battlefield variant it'd be almost as dangerous for it's operators as the target. Like old Bronze cannon in the days of the Spanish armada. I think one of the main Spanish ships did more damage to itself than the enemy when a cannon exploded near to a powder magazine. I think one of Spains better tacticians was also caught in the blast and taken out of the battle