Posted on 05/11/2005 1:07:57 PM PDT by LibWhacker
I'd probably be better with a gun than I would a screwdriver anyway. Though I prefer margaritas. Oh wait!, that's another subject...
LOL
Molon Labe!
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
The patent is probably for a specific type of this device. There are number of ways to build something that uses this principle.
The recoil you have on a normal weapon occurs as the mass you are projecting (i.e. bullet) is sped up. I would guess that the recoil in this weapon also happens as the mass is sped up. As the disc begins rotating, the force pushing back against the direction of rotation is equivalent of the force pushing back against the gun when it is fired. If the rounds were dropped into the disc after rotation has already started, the disc would experience a force opposite to its direction of rotation for each added round. This is the equivalent of recoil.
The problem with a weapon of this sort is that it has a large rotational momentum. If you tried to fire it while driving over bumps which change the axis of rotation, the top of the vehicle could be ripped entirely off if the system were not well reinforced.
This is a very revolutionary weapon. Ammunition would be lighter and cheaper because explosives would be unnecessary. The electrical power source is already built into many tanks. Accuracy is better without recoil and the speed at which mass is projected is simply incredible. One of the best advantages is that you have immediate 360 degree coverage because the ammunition can be released programmatically at any point in rotation. This means that you could give 4 gunners 4 scopes and have them all fire at a degree of rotation using the same weapon.
The "recoil" is angular, a torque impulse, in the opposite direction of the spin. Also, as Tom says, it occurs at load or spin-up, separated in time from the release. There would be little or no recoil at the moment of release.
There could be considerable vibration when loading, but if the projectiles distributed evenly in chambers around the circumference, there need not be a lot of vibration when loaded but not firing.
Cool! I believe you guys if you've seen the math. I certainly haven't. What is the velocity of the tip of the scoop and what is the velocity of the ball as it leaves the scoop? Is it double? Or just some small percentage faster?
At the moment of release, momentum is perserved by virture of the fact that neither the wheel or the ball change their momentum. The only change in momentum would come from the constant spinning of the wheel.
He's right, you've got to rememeber that the ball moves in the scoop. The ball leaves the scoop faster than the tip of the scoop is moving.
Okay, cool . . . That's PERFECTLY clear! Interesting, guys, thanks.
And then the wheel is instantly out of balance, causing the device to recoil in the opposite direction of the released projectile.
Voila! The laws of physics are obeyed!
Yes, conservation of momentum always applies but a 'traditional' recoil is not based on F=MA and not conservation of momentum. So there is a reactive force it is just unlike a normal gun's recoil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.