|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 22, 2013 19:51:41 GMT
wonder if they could get access to a maglev track with a safe backstop behind it... No, but that is something that they would be capable of making in small(ish) scale. As far as a gun on a hovercraft/gunboat goes I don't think any fully automatic weapon would be considered viable. Not because you couldn't get it to work, but because if anything goes wrong you're spraying bullets everywhere - and I don't think they make 'shotgun' type rounds in 7.62mm/5.56mm NATO. A semi-automatic shotgun would be the 'safest' option due to the rounds it takes, the limited amount of ammunition and because if anything goes wrong it will be after a shot rather than during a burst. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 22, 2013 20:07:37 GMT
wonder if they could get access to a maglev track with a safe backstop behind it... No, but that is something that they would be capable of making in small(ish) scale. As far as a gun on a hovercraft/gunboat goes I don't think any fully automatic weapon would be considered viable. Not because you couldn't get it to work, but because if anything goes wrong you're spraying bullets everywhere - and I don't think they make 'shotgun' type rounds in 7.62mm/5.56mm NATO. A semi-automatic shotgun would be the 'safest' option due to the rounds it takes, the limited amount of ammunition and because if anything goes wrong it will be after a shot rather than during a burst. I do not know of any rifle ammunition that will cycle reliably and have extremely limited range. that is why I suggested a gatling gun. it would be extremely simple to convert it to remote firing and very difficult for it to run away. (and by gatling gun I mean a replica of the original) although, of course, the over the top would have to be a minigun on the rocket sled track. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 22, 2013 20:11:02 GMT
why am I suddenly envisioning Jamie clutching his "pop gun" and giggling like a schoolgirl?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 23, 2013 8:08:36 GMT
Many of the worlds greatest inventions were by people who didnt know what they were doing, and, therefore, didnt know they couldnt do that.....
Which is why they have the desert....
OK, so desert for a water based plan is perhaps not a good place to start, but deserted quarries, bang on, or dig your own trench where you are aiming at nothing important, again, what could possibly go wrong....
And plan for it.
In the shows entire history, they lost one cannon ball, and sent one vehicle over a retaining wall.
Experience counts, I am sure on something like this they now know to aim at the cheapest part of the scenery?..
But still, approaching it from the "How do I make this work" angle is goina pay dividends, and then some....
Failure is an option.
My money is on the entire rig stepping back about six yards and slowing to a gentle bump, then oversize and the thing ends up upside down......
If we look at the entire thing being no more or less damaging as JATO car, and plan for that kind of destruction, what could possibly go wrong?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 23, 2013 17:06:39 GMT
Many of the worlds greatest inventions were by people who didnt know what they were doing, and, therefore, didnt know they couldnt do that..... Which is why they have the desert.... OK, so desert for a water based plan is perhaps not a good place to start, but deserted quarries, bang on, or dig your own trench where you are aiming at nothing important, again, what could possibly go wrong.... And plan for it. In the shows entire history, they lost one cannon ball, and sent one vehicle over a retaining wall. Experience counts, I am sure on something like this they now know to aim at the cheapest part of the scenery?.. But still, approaching it from the "How do I make this work" angle is goina pay dividends, and then some.... Failure is an option. My money is on the entire rig stepping back about six yards and slowing to a gentle bump, then oversize and the thing ends up upside down...... If we look at the entire thing being no more or less damaging as JATO car, and plan for that kind of destruction, what could possibly go wrong?... It is not so much a fear of failure as a determination TO fail that gets in the way of some things. there are some things that all of the laws of physics say are impossible; like over unity energy production - and some things that people have decided must be impossible, so they refuse any and all data that might prove them wrong - even if some of their refusals are mutually conflicting. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 24, 2013 8:10:06 GMT
The Impossible is only something no one has done before.
Miracles take a little longer.... please book in advance to avoid disappointment.
I think one of the reasons I like mythbusters is that they can enter the build with a 60/50 attitude of this is all going to end up in smoke, or its going to work, and not be biased either way.....(Maths inaccuracy there allowable because I gave room for error?...)....(Ok, its a typo, but what the heck...)
The fact they CAN build something to fail, or that they expect will fail, without argument, is mind-bendingly "Fresh", such as Concrete Glider, no one expected results....
Lead balloon.....
These are all things that ask the average joe, he will say "You cant do that"....
Or intone that it isnt supposed to be possible in some way or another.
"Everyone knows you cant do that"......
The world in general, who knew you could ride a bike over water that was deeper than the bikes height?...
To be honest, if you asked anyone last year to ride a bike over a lake, you would have expected the bike to sink.
Its just that that is why people dont ride bikes over deep water, the bike sinks.
Now we know that that is wrong.
But heck, they have been doing it with skiddo's for years now....
And in all honesty, its why they tested RUNNING on water.... just to see is the expected sinking was actuually true, or like riding a bike, just something "Everyone knows"
I still expect a six to the whole nine-yard backwards initial rush, if a rig can be built to withstand the shock.
Cyber.....
Can I ask on historical matters....
Firing a broadside.
All guns on one side of the ship fired, it created a "Roll" of the ship... yes?...
What, if any evidence, may we have that this also caused the whole ship to go sideways a little?....
I ask as this may be cited as proof of concept?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 24, 2013 10:48:05 GMT
No.
The roll was part of the normal movement of a sailing ship. The roll was something that (good) gunners/captains had to compensate for.
Re-read the post in question.
I said that ships DID NOT move sideways when they fired broadsides.
Any sideways movement of the ship would have been its normal leeway under those sailing conditions.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 24, 2013 15:11:18 GMT
No. The roll was part of the normal movement of a sailing ship. The roll was something that (good) gunners/captains had to compensate for. Re-read the post in question. I said that ships DID NOT move sideways when they fired broadsides. Any sideways movement of the ship would have been its normal leeway under those sailing conditions. and this was why warship builders had to be so conscious not to "overgun" the ship and to allow for controlled recoil. sailing 101: a boat cannot go faster than it can push the water out of the way. design elements can be made which will make it more efficient for the pushing, but sailboats are specifically designed to NOT be able to go sideways very easily. "hull speed" is a measurement of how fast a boat can go without taking extreme measures. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 25, 2013 6:55:49 GMT
Ok, so how about modern warships?... or maybe those up to 100 yrs old?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 25, 2013 10:53:53 GMT
Overgunning was usually down to Captains adding additional guns to the quarterdeck and forecastle rather than designers/shipwrights including too many in the design. This is one reason why the carronade was so well received by the British - they had a habit of adding so many guns to the weatherdeck they made the ship unstable. The lighter carronades allowed them to dramatically increase their firepower without having to sacrifice stability in the process.
Overgunning did have another problem beyond stability, in that the weight placed strain on the ships timbers and shortened its working life. Between wars it was usual for ships in service to be carrying fewer guns than their nominal rating (where as in wartime they usually carried more than their rating indicated), in order to reduce strain and increase working life. Some heavy frigates often had their main guns downgraded to save weight as well.
Allowing the guns to recoil seems to have been allowed purely to speed up loading and hence give a far higher rate of fire. Prior to that guns were fired without being allowed to recoil, and with no indication this was dangerous - although the guns of that period were not as powerful as they would become.
'Modern' ships, which could include any steam ship that had an iron or steel hull, roll far less than any sailing ship. The centre of gravity for such ships is a lot lower, partly due to the additional weight of the hull, partly due to the weight of the equipment/machinery below the waterline.
Turreted guns have recoil compensator's, and the turret itself passes down through several decks. Both of which mean that while the guns are FAR more powerful than anything (say) Nelson could have dreamed of the effect of the recoil on the ship is negligible.
The last point is the overall change in design of hulls.
The Leda class frigates from the early 1800's were 150 feet long and some 39 feet wide. The Arethusa class light cruisers of the 1930's were 506 feet long and 51 feet wide. The Leda class was, therefore, considerably wider for her length than modern warships are. The longer narrower hull provides more resistance to sideways motion.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 25, 2013 14:01:52 GMT
and less resistance to forward motion. and modern nukes harness massive quantities of brute force in order to overcome the limitations of hull speed.
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Oct 25, 2013 14:22:15 GMT
SD said
please elaborate
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Oct 25, 2013 14:38:15 GMT
Many of the worlds greatest inventions were by people who didnt know what they were doing, and, therefore, didnt know they couldnt do that..... Which is why they have the desert.... OK, so desert for a water based plan is perhaps not a good place to start, but deserted quarries, bang on, or dig your own trench where you are aiming at nothing important, again, what could possibly go wrong.... And plan for it. In the shows entire history, they lost one cannon ball, and sent one vehicle over a retaining wall. Experience counts, I am sure on something like this they now know to aim at the cheapest part of the scenery?.. But still, approaching it from the "How do I make this work" angle is goina pay dividends, and then some.... Failure is an option. My money is on the entire rig stepping back about six yards and slowing to a gentle bump, then oversize and the thing ends up upside down...... If we look at the entire thing being no more or less damaging as JATO car, and plan for that kind of destruction, what could possibly go wrong?... It is not so much a fear of failure as a determination TO fail that gets in the way of some things. there are some things that all of the laws of physics say are impossible; like over unity energy production - and some things that people have decided must be impossible, so they refuse any and all data that might prove them wrong - even if some of their refusals are mutually conflicting. Please elaborate, defining which area of physics with data you have provided that prove that you are correct while others are wrong. Because so far I find that Newtons laws of motion are not well understood let alone quoted correctly. We have forces that could possibly fold your poat boat in half and you don't want to consider it. Good eh bro |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 25, 2013 15:02:07 GMT
It is not so much a fear of failure as a determination TO fail that gets in the way of some things. there are some things that all of the laws of physics say are impossible; like over unity energy production - and some things that people have decided must be impossible, so they refuse any and all data that might prove them wrong - even if some of their refusals are mutually conflicting. Please elaborate, defining which area of physics with data you have provided that prove that you are correct while others are wrong. Because so far I find that Newtons laws of motion are not well understood let alone quoted correctly. We have forces that could possibly fold your poat boat in half and you don't want to consider it. Good eh bro well, for example: If you put a field gun on dry land, and fire it, it will slide/roll backwards. if you put the same field gun on a boat, it will rotate around the axle, and most definitely NOT go backwards. so why did the punt gun push the punt backwards instead of rotating around the rest and punching a hole in the bottom of the punt? |
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Oct 25, 2013 15:16:28 GMT
Please elaborate, defining which area of physics with data you have provided that prove that you are correct while others are wrong. Because so far I find that Newtons laws of motion are not well understood let alone quoted correctly. We have forces that could possibly fold your poat boat in half and you don't want to consider it. Good eh bro well, for example: If you put a field gun on dry land, and fire it, it will slide/roll backwards. if you put the same field gun on a boat, it will rotate around the axle, and most definitely NOT go backwards. It is locked in position on your poat boat wheels locked can't roll backward trail locked in position on the deck axle is not locked and a pivot point for resultant forces. Pistol 9mm 45 cal fired with arms extended in the horizontal plane, lifts as it is fired. Take the same weapon incline your arms 30 degrees to the horizontal plane, vertical weapon to the horizontal plane more movement or less. Gun on a carriage where the trail is locked to the ground do the wheels lift off the ground or not. If all the forces are locked physically in place in your poat there are 3 points of contact and you have not even identified numerical what the force is. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 25, 2013 15:27:53 GMT
Because the punt gun is bolted to a support bracket that is located in front of the guns centre of gravity. So the recoil force is passed to the rest and through that to the reinforced structural elements and hence to the boat.
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Oct 25, 2013 15:33:48 GMT
Because the punt gun is bolted to a support bracket that is located in front of the guns centre of gravity. So the recoil force is passed to the rest and through that to the reinforced structural elements and hence to the boat. Cyber this is tlw big chance to put pp away for good, lets just see how he goes, I hasten to add without help. Course you may disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 25, 2013 15:34:10 GMT
well, for example: If you put a field gun on dry land, and fire it, it will slide/roll backwards. if you put the same field gun on a boat, it will rotate around the axle, and most definitely NOT go backwards. It is locked in position on your poat boat wheels locked can't roll backward trail locked in position on the deck axle is not locked and a pivot point for resultant forces. Pistol 9mm 45 cal fired with arms extended in the horizontal plane, lifts as it is fired. Take the same weapon incline your arms 30 degrees to the horizontal plane, vertical weapon to the horizontal plane more movement or less. Gun on a carriage where the trail is locked to the ground do the wheels lift off the ground or not. If all the forces are locked physically in place in your poat there are 3 points of contact and you have not even identified numerical what the force is. well, if I take my 9mm .45 caliber pistol and hold it in the horizontal plane, then elevate my arms 30 degrees, to the horizontal plane, then fire my vertical weapon on a horizontal plane, there will definitely be more movement, because damn, dude; that takes, like, four dimensional movement or something. but, now, if I take my 10 bore shotgun, and compare firing it from the hip to shoulder firing it, well, no, there's not a whole lot of difference in the amount of movement of the shotgun, and it never rotates around the foregrip; and it wouldn't even if I braced the buttstock against a tree. - though if I braced the buttstock against a tree, it would try to pivot at the buttstock. see, I'm no physics homosexual, but I have burned a couple hundred rounds of shot through a heavy shotgun. I know a thing or two about what recoil does. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 25, 2013 15:36:01 GMT
well, for example: If you put a field gun on dry land, and fire it, it will slide/roll backwards. if you put the same field gun on a boat, it will rotate around the axle, and most definitely NOT go backwards. It is locked in position on your poat boat wheels locked can't roll backward trail locked in position on the deck axle is not locked and a pivot point for resultant forces. Pistol 9mm 45 cal fired with arms extended in the horizontal plane, lifts as it is fired. Take the same weapon incline your arms 30 degrees to the horizontal plane, vertical weapon to the horizontal plane more movement or less. Gun on a carriage where the trail is locked to the ground do the wheels lift off the ground or not. If all the forces are locked physically in place in your poat there are 3 points of contact and you have not even identified numerical what the force is. and the really strange thing about triangles... if two of the angles are fixed, the third angle doesn't wobble around all that much. it's almost like it becomes a rigid structure. and they said taking geometry was a waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 25, 2013 15:37:17 GMT
Because the punt gun is bolted to a support bracket that is located in front of the guns centre of gravity. So the recoil force is passed to the rest and through that to the reinforced structural elements and hence to the boat. no, that should be completely irrelevant. by putting the gun on the boat, you have immobilized the gun and shifted the center of force from the recoil to the balance point of the gun. so says PP. |
|
