This One is for Harvey

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: What you're talking about involves tritium which is 3H. Basic science says hydrogen which is H has a proton with 11 quarks. Neutrons have 12. The electron orbiting a hydrogen element is a quark. Just basic stuff.
Tritium is 3H. Helium is 2/4He. Helium has 2 electrons, 2 protons and 2 neutrons.
The question is, can a combination of 3H allow for hydrogen with an electron being released? With (2)3H, close to 1/3rd of it might be released as electrons minus the energy to create the interaction.
Some say the Sun uses a similar process to generate its solar wind.

But this gets into quantum biogeochemistry run by AI on a quantum computer. Basic stuff. The quarks are traveling at 10 million times the speed of light. How do you not know this. The problem is that AI might decide to not allow it.

How's the Bessler wheel coming along? Have you fixed the back-oscillation problem?

How's the Bessler wheel coming along? Have you fixed the back-oscillation problem?

Yep, it might be another 2 or 3 weeks. With the design you showed, I think I can get that working by simply using tapered roller bearings. Since I still have that frame and the discs, it'll only need a stand and it's pulleys made for use with the tapered roller bearings. That'd get into different ways to interpret Bessler's clues.

Why?

So I can move out of the U.S. As I've been told, being a disabled Veteran does not mean I deserve a life in the U.S. Then again, Americans tell me that Mexicans are better. I hear it's called the "Roman Syndrome".
I think I'll be able to have a better life in another country.

America only gives you rights and freedom. America doesn't seem to care if you use them to live in the street, crapping on sidewalks. It's your life, and you are free to make what you want of it. If you want the government to make choices for you, try some third-world, socialist, rat-infested shithole country. You would be entitled to the same life everyone else has. Probably shorter, since Americans are easy money. You'd be kidnapped, held for ransom, likely killed, since America doesn't care.

James_ wrote:
You'll understand once I finish my builds, I have 2 that I am working on. You'll need to consider if my science experiment

James_ wrote:
and other research I want to pursue are legitimate I'll be able to move where ever I want to.

James_ wrote:
I'll be the All American Reject.

James_ wrote:
What Americans like you do not understand is that Rome itself and not the Roman Empire fell because it needed water.

James_ wrote:
About all of the aquifers west of the Mississippi River are going dry.

James_ wrote:
40% of the U.S. agricultural production comes from west of the Mississippi River.

James_ wrote:
And yet do you care? You don't. You support the wars like Iraq, Afghanistan and now the proxy war with Russia to support Israeli national security instead of supporting U.N.
Resolution 181's intentions which the Zionist leadership (the Jewish anti-defamation league's words and not mine) reluctantly agreed to.

James_ wrote:
And Rome fighting wars led to the downfall of the Roman Empire.

James_ wrote:
As for myself, I've consider what should be important issues in the U.S. which is supporting farmers and ranchers. Without support, food prices will keep going up and that will trigger inflation and then a recession.

James_ wrote:
And with Bessler's Wheel, I have a friend in the Netherlands who has a copy of an original Johann Bessler book circa 1715. A showing at his university, well before that would get Saxony, Germany to like me because it's their history.

James_ wrote:
And since Americans do not like me, Norway would welcome me. I used to live there (I lived with family). And yet I'm going to work with a Romanian on an invention in Romania. If that is successful then I think Romania would offer me sanctuary. After all, I'd be successful but not welcomed in the U.S. even though I was born here and served in its military. Did you serve?

James_ wrote:
And for fun, my experiment and interest in atmospheric chemistry

James_ wrote:
probably actually started when I worked in an engine room while serving on board the USS Kitty Hawk (aircraft carrier) stationed in San Diego, Ca.

James_ wrote:
I'm from Dayton, Ohio, home of the Wright Bros.

James_ wrote:
and then lived in Seattle and worked for Boeing.

James_ wrote:
And Democracy means I should have the right to live my own life.

James_ wrote:
And if people are unhappy then they should vote for who they like and accept the results.

James_ wrote:
Jan. 6th showed that Trump's supporters do not support democracy.

James_ wrote:
That showed no respect for the U.S. Constitution which is the guiding doctrine regarding elections in the U.S.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Swan,
The submarine was running silently so as not to give away its location. But because a P-3 Orion could track it, its speed could be accounted for. On the part of Captain Woodward who was the commanding officer, that is an act of war if not murder as well. It's like riding in car and then you find out it's a drive by shooting,
you're in the car, right?
And as someone who is hated for being 1/2 Norwegian in America, I might feel like the Russians in that submarine. I'm simply in harm's way. Even my own family hated me for having a Norwegian accent like our father. Everyone else was a "pure" Englisher (learned only English when learning to talk).

That's a cool picture of your father-in-law.

There is no such thing as running silently if you are actively steering and maintaining speed to intercept and crash another ship. Nope physics prevents this, not that government shrinks necessarily understand marine physics. So tell us how many people lost their jobs after that? Not that anyone would tell you

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Swan,
The submarine was running silently so as not to give away its location. But because a P-3 Orion could track it, its speed could be accounted for. On the part of Captain Woodward who was the commanding officer, that is an act of war if not murder as well. It's like riding in car and then you find out it's a drive by shooting,
you're in the car, right?
And as someone who is hated for being 1/2 Norwegian in America, I might feel like the Russians in that submarine. I'm simply in harm's way. Even my own family hated me for having a Norwegian accent like our father. Everyone else was a "pure" Englisher (learned only English when learning to talk).

That's a cool picture of your father-in-law.

There is no such thing as running silently if you are actively steering and maintaining speed to intercept and crash another ship. Nope physics prevents this, not that government shrinks necessarily understand marine physics. So tell us how many people lost their jobs after that? Not that anyone would tell you

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust

HarveyH55 wrote: No thanks. Looks too similar to a quantum computer. Didn't watch the video yet. The image took a long time loading. Not even a possible fusion reactor. Don't know who the fool thought he might sell to.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: No thanks. Looks too similar to a quantum computer. Didn't watch the video yet. The image took a long time loading. Not even a possible fusion reactor. Don't know who the fool thought he might sell to.

I think that this thing is exactly what the Navy needs to get the railgun back on track. Instead of a large nuclear reactor, they just power the railgun with a portable, "made-for-the-Navy" fusion reactor. Just think about the power that America could project tomorrow if only the Navy would sign up for one of these babies. Of course, they might need two to meet the energy requirements of a railgun. What do you think?

Swan wrote: Power is not the railguns issue;

Swan wrote: ... the problem is that a kinetic projectile can never hit a target at over 100 miles away

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Power is not the railguns issue;

Power, and maintenance, are the railgun issues, not inability to navigate using GPS. Whereas you believe that Navy ships are engineered without any constraints whatsoever, the truth is that every cubic inch of every Navy vessel is considered against a host of physical and financial tradeoffs. Integrating a railgun onto a ship is a bit more complicated than the simple waving of a magic wand that you believe is all that is required.

The Navy found that the logistical and operational "cons" outweighed the "pros" and thus decided to go with eliminating the "cons" and put the program on hold.

Swan wrote: ... the problem is that a kinetic projectile can never hit a target at over 100 miles away

Once again, you believe this because you strangely believe that GPS doesn't work. GPS guides many weapons, to include hypersonic weapons. Your belief is silly.

Electromagnetic accelerators can vaporize targets 200 nm away. GPS navigation is sufficiently accurate.

Swan wrote: Railgun projectiles did not navigate using GPS

Swan wrote: they were fire and forget,

Swan wrote: that is until the military gave up on the useless waste of money idea

Swan wrote: that never even once hit a target [in the past] at 100 miles as designed.

Swan wrote: GPS navigation requires a satellite link and at the very least active control fins,

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Railgun projectiles did not navigate using GPS

Both Pete Rogers and you obviously failed English grammar and don't know the difference between the past tense and the future tense. Hypersonic shells certainly can be fitted with GPS navigation. Your belief that they cannot be is silly. Your belief that GPS doesn't work is silly.

Swan wrote: they were fire and forget,

No Presidential Executive Order was signed mandating all future electromagnetic accelerators be "fire and forget."

Swan wrote: that is until the military gave up on the useless waste of money idea

Why do you refer to precision, GPS-guided hypersonic shells as a "useless waste of money idea"? Oh, that's right, you think that GPS doesn't work and that all future electromagnetic accelerators will be required to be "fire and forget."

Your misconceptions are silly.

Swan wrote: that never even once hit a target [in the past] at 100 miles as designed.

Well, the GPS guidance had not been fitted. There was no need since they weren't going to be integrating the railgun, which would be required in order to perform all operational testing.

Swan wrote: GPS navigation requires a satellite link and at the very least active control fins,

Yes. All that would result in hypersonic shells costing a few thousand dollars apiece. Well worth the price considering the $millions normally spent to take out a building or other structural target.

Swan wrote:The military railgun was cancelled, get over it.

Swan wrote: But you feel free to invent a GPS guided shell for a weapon that does not exist

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:The military railgun was cancelled, get over it.

Are you saying that I shouldn't have introduced railguns into this discussion in the first place? Oh, that's right, you were the one who hijacked my mention of electromagnetic accelerators to drone on and on and on about the Navy suspending its railgun program ... and look, you're still going on and on about it. You apparently can't drop it, even though I requested you learn your grammar and remain focused on future electromagnetic accelerators instead of past occurrences within the Navy.

The railgun was cancelled. Get over it.

Swan wrote: But you feel free to invent a GPS guided shell for a weapon that does not exist

This is the second time you have said this, having completely ignored my mention that the Navy already had developed such. While railgun development was occurring, GPS-guidance for munitions was being developed in parallel with the AGS (which is where you got confused and injected the erroneous 100 nm figure). Railguns can deliver hypersonic shells to target 200 nm away (by firing into the mesosphere and allowing the shells to coast at mach 6 without any substantive wind resistance). The plan was to use the GPS guidance (that was being developed on the AGS) to deliver the hypersonic shells with accuracy to within 50 meters of target. The fact that this was not done in the past tense prior to the suspension of the railgun program does not equate to "GPS will not work in the future".

.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:The military railgun was cancelled, get over it.

Are you saying that I shouldn't have introduced railguns into this discussion in the first place? Oh, that's right, you were the one who hijacked my mention of electromagnetic accelerators to drone on and on and on about the Navy suspending its railgun program ... and look, you're still going on and on about it. You apparently can't drop it, even though I requested you learn your grammar and remain focused on future electromagnetic accelerators instead of past occurrences within the Navy.

The railgun was cancelled. Get over it.

Swan wrote: But you feel free to invent a GPS guided shell for a weapon that does not exist

This is the second time you have said this, having completely ignored my mention that the Navy already had developed such. While railgun development was occurring, GPS-guidance for munitions was being developed in parallel with the AGS (which is where you got confused and injected the erroneous 100 nm figure). Railguns can deliver hypersonic shells to target 200 nm away (by firing into the mesosphere and allowing the shells to coast at mach 6 without any substantive wind resistance). The plan was to use the GPS guidance (that was being developed on the AGS) to deliver the hypersonic shells with accuracy to within 50 meters of target. The fact that this was not done in the past tense prior to the suspension of the railgun program does not equate to "GPS will not work in the future".

.

The Navy never developed a railgun, BAE systems was the primary contractor doing that, but all that they produced was a failed engineering concept that was never implemented and never hit the target, so the entire concept was cancelled. Until you resurrected the failed concept in your mind and created GPS projectiles in your mind that no one else could achieve and then made them real in your defective mind.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:The military railgun was cancelled, get over it.

Are you saying that I shouldn't have introduced railguns into this discussion in the first place? Oh, that's right, you were the one who hijacked my mention of electromagnetic accelerators to drone on and on and on about the Navy suspending its railgun program ... and look, you're still going on and on about it. You apparently can't drop it, even though I requested you learn your grammar and remain focused on future electromagnetic accelerators instead of past occurrences within the Navy.

The railgun was cancelled. Get over it.

Swan wrote: But you feel free to invent a GPS guided shell for a weapon that does not exist

This is the second time you have said this, having completely ignored my mention that the Navy already had developed such. While railgun development was occurring, GPS-guidance for munitions was being developed in parallel with the AGS (which is where you got confused and injected the erroneous 100 nm figure). Railguns can deliver hypersonic shells to target 200 nm away (by firing into the mesosphere and allowing the shells to coast at mach 6 without any substantive wind resistance). The plan was to use the GPS guidance (that was being developed on the AGS) to deliver the hypersonic shells with accuracy to within 50 meters of target. The fact that this was not done in the past tense prior to the suspension of the railgun program does not equate to "GPS will not work in the future".

.

The Navy never developed a railgun, BAE systems was the primary contractor doing that, but all that they produced was a failed engineering concept that was never implemented and never hit the target, so the entire concept was cancelled. Until you resurrected the failed concept in your mind and created GPS projectiles in your mind that no one else could achieve and then made them real in your defective mind.

Here is your stupidity. If the concept was never implemented/built, how would you know it could never hit a target? Even somebody who has never shot any kind of gun, can still occasionally hit the target... The navy does have functional railguns, they never achieved the project range, velocity, or accuracy goals to deploy. It was a research project that didn't produce the desired result, like many other wasted tax dollars. The key point is the Navy did install a railgun on a ship, and test fired it many times. The concept implement, when it was constructed, and test fired. Like many concepts, it failed to produce the desired results. Your stupidity lies in that when you see something on paper, it can only be one way. You have no awareness that there is a long journey between concept, and completed. You are incapable of learning from past mistakes. Like, conceptually, you believe you can race through park on your bike, and everyone will simple dive out of your way. It doesn't click, that not everyone can, or will move out of your way. Fatman knocked you off your bike, assaulted you while bent over fixing your bike chain. You probably still race through the same park, with the same concept, everyone is going to clear the path for you. You don't get that if anyone get seriously injured by you, or enough complaints, you, or bikes in general will be banned from the park.

The Navy stopped funding, doesn't mean completely abandoned, or stopped working with what they already have.

HarveyH55 wrote:
You do know that computers can do a whole lot of calculations really fast. There are some pretty cheap sensors that can measure pitch and roll of the ship. They can measure the distance, and rate the projectile must travel, before it's airborne. Very few projectile weapons shoot precisely straight and level. Ever heard of trajectory? Wouldn't be that hard to have a computer correct for all of your delusional nonsense. Simple math and timing. Before guided missiles, how did the Navy ever hit a target? Even before electronics, there was the Navy, and the could still hit a target.

Swan wrote: I know that the railgun could never hit a target from a ship

Swan wrote: because if the aim was off by even 1mm, and the intended target was 100 or miles away that the target would be missed as the 1mm error would be magnified by a variety of factors.

Swan wrote: That said all ships heave by a factor of feet not mm so a miss is mathematically guaranteed.

The Navy announced on Friday that the service has "decided to pause" research and development of the much-hyped electromagnetic railgun (or EMRG) at the end of 2021 in light of "fiscal constraints, combat system integration challenges and the prospective technology maturation of other weapon concepts," according to a statement provided to Military.com.

Swan wrote: It is also not clear what the speed of the projectile would be after 100 or more miles of atmospheric interference

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: I know that the railgun could never hit a target from a ship

You do not know this. You mistakenly believe this because you think GPS will never work.

Swan wrote: because if the aim was off by even 1mm, and the intended target was 100 or miles away that the target would be missed as the 1mm error would be magnified by a variety of factors.

Nope. If the aim is off by a country mile, the expected GPS navigation will nonetheless bring it to within 50 meters, which will provide, at a minimum, the most amazing indirect fire ev-ah. Buildings evaporated. Entire airports turned into craters, as opposed to just runways being cratered. If fired directly at another ship just a few miles away, goodbye ship, and no GPS needed. In fact, it would take a hypersonic shell traveling at mach 7.1 only 3.4 seconds to evaporate the entire midsection of an enemy ship that is 10 nautical miles away.

Swan wrote: That said all ships heave by a factor of feet not mm so a miss is mathematically guaranteed.

Railguns are very accurate. The idea that they might miss something was not the reason for the suspension of the research. Integration issues and the almighty financial constraints led to the decision to "pause" the research, and not to kill the program. Railgun is not dead.

The Navy announced on Friday that the service has "decided to pause" research and development of the much-hyped electromagnetic railgun (or EMRG) at the end of 2021 in light of "fiscal constraints, combat system integration challenges and the prospective technology maturation of other weapon concepts," according to a statement provided to Military.com.

The US Army and the US Air Force are both looking at continuing the Navy's research. Due to the railgun's accuracy, the Air Force is considering using hypersonic shells to take out incoming hypersonic cruise missiles.

Swan wrote: It is also not clear what the speed of the projectile would be after 100 or more miles of atmospheric interference

Now you are being totally brain-dead. You are intentionally ignoring what I am telling you because you are too stupid to learn.

Hypersonic shells are fired high into the atmosphere at mach 7.2 or thereabouts, specificially into the mesosphere where there is no substantive atmosphere, where the hypersonic shells cruise for about 150 nautical miles, and reenter to hit their 200 nautical mile targets at about mach 5.4.

Good bye target.

GPS has already been developed and tested for hypersonic weapons. Your belief to the contrary is silly.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The projectile was kept basic, simple and cheap for test firing. They wanted to get the launcher perfected on consistent size weight. Other types of projectiles, after would be a different research project. The railgun dumps a hell of a lot of current instantly across the projectile, lot of heat generated. Need to make sure an exploding projectile, doesn't explode on the ship. Not sure what the effect of the high energy would have on sensitive electronics, or what kind of shield they could use to protect, but also allow for a GPS signal. Maybe just use the metal casing as an antenna. Anyway, wasn't a big concern, until the got close to the goal velocity and range.

Sort of ignored, that the Navy used weapons that relied entirely on kinetic energy for a century or more. The railgun replaces gunpowder as the propellant... Your tiny mind can only handle so much at a time. Are you sure you aren't missing a few parts? You seem to malfunction frequently. Factory defect?

Swan wrote: The railgun was a complete failure, get over it.

Swan wrote: The Navy sides with me, not you!

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: The railgun was a complete failure, get over it.

The railgun research was merely paused, get over it. You cannot specify any railgun failure because, as far as you know, it never failed.

Swan wrote: The Navy sides with me, not you!

Nope. The Navy sides with me. I gave you their press release. You lose. If you think they should more actively agree with you, you need to take it up with the Navy ... and the Air Force and the Army. They never saw any failures either.

.

A tanker believed to hold sanctioned Iran oil starts offloading near Texas despite Tehran's threats
By JON GAMBRELL
Associated Press
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — An American-owned oil tanker long suspected of carrying sanctioned Iranian crude oil offloaded its cargo near Texas on Sunday, tracking data showed, even as Tehran has threatened to target shipping in the Persian Gulf over it.

Ship-tracking data analyzed by The Associated Press showed the Marshall Islands-flagged Suez Rajan began the hourslong ship-to-ship transfer of its oil to another tanker, the MR Euphrates, near Galveston, some 70 kilometers (45 miles) southeast of Houston.

The fate of the cargo aboard the Suez Rajan has become mired in the wider tensions between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic, even as Tehran and Washington work toward a trade of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets in South Korea for the release of five Iranian-Americans held in Tehran. Iran has been trying to evade sanctions and continue selling its oil abroad, while the U.S. and its allies have been seizing cargoes since 2019 after the country's nuclear deal allowing the trade collapsed.

Already, Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard has warned that those involved in offloading the Suez Rajan's cargo "should expect to be struck back." The U.S. Navy has increased its presence steadily in recent weeks in the Mideast, sending the troop-and-aircraft-carrying USS Bataan through the Strait of Hormuz in recent days and considering putting armed personnel on commercial ships traveling through the strait to stop Iran from seizing additional ships.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Stopped funding, and cancelled are two different things. Stopped funding means they need the money for other things right now.

Biden got busted smuggling Iranian oil. Iran is a little upset about sanctions, and Biden scamming some cheap Iranian oil. Threatening to seize ships. There was another weird thing in the article, about a billion dollars of frozen assets. Could have sworn Obama gave up all the frozen cash on pallets, in the middle of the night...

link

A tanker believed to hold sanctioned Iran oil starts offloading near Texas despite Tehran's threats
By JON GAMBRELL
Associated Press
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — An American-owned oil tanker long suspected of carrying sanctioned Iranian crude oil offloaded its cargo near Texas on Sunday, tracking data showed, even as Tehran has threatened to target shipping in the Persian Gulf over it.

Ship-tracking data analyzed by The Associated Press showed the Marshall Islands-flagged Suez Rajan began the hourslong ship-to-ship transfer of its oil to another tanker, the MR Euphrates, near Galveston, some 70 kilometers (45 miles) southeast of Houston.

The fate of the cargo aboard the Suez Rajan has become mired in the wider tensions between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic, even as Tehran and Washington work toward a trade of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets in South Korea for the release of five Iranian-Americans held in Tehran. Iran has been trying to evade sanctions and continue selling its oil abroad, while the U.S. and its allies have been seizing cargoes since 2019 after the country's nuclear deal allowing the trade collapsed.

Already, Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard has warned that those involved in offloading the Suez Rajan's cargo "should expect to be struck back." The U.S. Navy has increased its presence steadily in recent weeks in the Mideast, sending the troop-and-aircraft-carrying USS Bataan through the Strait of Hormuz in recent days and considering putting armed personnel on commercial ships traveling through the strait to stop Iran from seizing additional ships.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Not to far up the thread, you were repeating, post, after post, there was never a railgun. Pretty sure you can get more than 10 shots out of it... They would have notice from the table-top, 'toy' model, before going large. Don't remember a railgun with a barrel either. Just a pair of rails. But, the Navy project was just a quick look, years ago, no real interest in following.

Swan wrote: Indeed, there never was a railgun that went beyond testing,

Swan wrote: meaning that there never was a practical railgun that was a real weapons system, because.

Swan wrote: Reasons that the railgun failed and was cancelled

Swan wrote: 1. The railgun barrels wear out in 2 to 10 firings,

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Indeed, there never was a railgun that went beyond testing,

... ergo, there was a fully functional railgun that was tested, and you are not aware of any testing in which it failed ...

... ergo, say it with me "Indeed, there was a fully functional railgun."

Swan wrote: meaning that there never was a practical railgun that was a real weapons system, because.

You are now contradicting yourself. You are admitting here that it was fully functional, but that it wasn't practical. You are contradicting your previous statements that the fully operational and field-tested railgun was somehow a total failure by now saying that, although it never failed, it just couldn't be integrated onto Navy platforms within fiscal constraints, which is what the Navy stated in its press release. This makes one wonder why you were insisting that 1. there never was any railgun, and 2. there was a railgun but that was a total failure, and 3. there was a railgun that never failed but simply wasn't practical.

What will be #4? That the railgun existed and exceeded all expectations, so now the Air Force and Army want to jump in and claim ownership? ... or that Japan wants to be part of the show and get their name stamped on the development as well?

We'll refer to this as the "Swan shuffle."

Swan wrote: Reasons that the railgun failed and was cancelled

The railgun wasn't cancelled and now you're regressing back to the railgun having failed, except that you aren't aware of any failure. This is an integral part of the Swan shuffle.

Swan wrote: 1. The railgun barrels wear out in 2 to 10 firings,

The current ones used for development do. These aren't the barrels that will be used in the final design because the barrels themselves are being developed as well. Ergo, they use cheaper materials for each version being tested. Once the barrel design is finalized they will use the intended final materials.

This is not a failure, by the way.

.

Swan wrote:LOL, then you can name the navy ship that ...

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL, then you can name the navy ship that ...

Nope, you get to explain your contention that electromagnetic accelerators somehow do not provide superior acceleration over expanding gases due to GPS not working and financial decisions equating to testing failures of things that never existed to be tested.

Or you cannot and will just resume jerking off into your delusions of grandeur

.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL, then you can name the navy ship that ...

Nope, you get to explain your contention that electromagnetic accelerators somehow do not provide superior acceleration over expanding gases due to GPS not working and financial decisions equating to testing failures of things that never existed to be tested.

Or you cannot and will just resume jerking off into your delusions of grandeur

.

So you agree that the railgun was cancelled, for a variety of reasons, one being that the barrels will all wear out in 2 to 10 firings, before the crew can learn to fire the weapon properly forcing the ship to return to port.

Railgun cancelled; you may now resume wanking your pud

Now take your meds already

Swan wrote: So you agree that the railgun was cancelled, for a variety of reasons,

Swan wrote: ... one being that the barrels will all wear out in 2 to 10 firings,

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: So you agree that the railgun was cancelled, for a variety of reasons,

No, I do not. The railgun was not cancelled, get over it. The research was paused and no funding was applied to the research in the current FYDP, get over it.

Swan wrote: ... one being that the barrels will all wear out in 2 to 10 firings,

So, by ignoring my explanation for this in deference to chanting this one aspect of the development, you implicitly recognize that you have run out of distractions for your absurd position that conventional weapons are somehow superior to electromagnetic accelerators because GPS doesn't work.

Given ample opportunity, you have nonetheless remained unable to address the technology, relegating yourself to obsess over a budget decision that you must equate with performance failure, and to twist logic in order to deny that the reailgun actually existed.

As for as the railgun specifically, it doesn't matter that the Navy has decided to not continue pursuing its integration into their platforms; many others, to include the US Air Force, the US Army and Japan are interested in continuing the development if the Navy ever drops it. We should keep an eye on it and see if the Joint Staff makes it a Joint program.

As for electromagnetic accelerators, I presume you agree that they are the future of military weapons.

.

Swan wrote:But Hypersonic Missiles Are Still On. They had a limited range of 110 miles.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Badass looking gun... They'll keep it, just because it looks really cool. So, can you point out that barrel that wears out so quick? There never was a barrel to wear out. The projectile travels down conductive rails. Get it? Railgun, rails... The 'wear' likely has something to do with the rails and projectile trying to weld together.

Wonder how expensive a much small version. Maybe 20-30 yards range. Just enough to shoot the tomatoes in the neighbors garden... Shouldn't make much noise either.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Badass looking gun... They'll keep it, just because it looks really cool. So, can you point out that barrel that wears out so quick? There never was a barrel to wear out. The projectile travels down conductive rails. Get it? Railgun, rails... The 'wear' likely has something to do with the rails and projectile trying to weld together.

Wonder how expensive a much small version. Maybe 20-30 yards range. Just enough to shoot the tomatoes in the neighbors garden... Shouldn't make much noise either.

That gun is not real, it is a digital superimposition, and you are a clown.

A normal gun can be fired about 600 times before the barrel has to be refurbished. But the barrel on tested railguns, Clark said, had to be replaced after about 12 to 24 shots were fired

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/us-navy-cancels-development-of-high-tech-railgun-weapon/5951475.html