Rifts MDC weapon mods

[lather]

Finally got around to reading Lorentz force on wikipedia. I see why the electric component is doing the work and the magnetic component is not, but doesn't this mean the magnetic component could damage the rails?

[Natasha]

Finally got around to reading Lorentz force on wikipedia. I see why the electric component is doing the work and the magnetic component is not, but doesn't this mean the magnetic component could damage the rails?

It's possible, yes.

Other challenges are resistive and frictional heat build up, which I expect are the reasons for the Gatling configuration. However, if the rails were somehow superconducting, then there would be no resistive heating.

[glitterboy2098]

the biggest problem with rail systems is friction. since the projectile must be in contact with the rails, it is going to create a lot of friction as it moves. tends to strip bits of the rails off (this is why the US Navy's railgun prototype has that big muzzle blast.. it's incandescent bits of the rails)
with current IRL tech, you can only really hope to get a couple dozen shots from a set of rails.
presumably win RIFTS, MDC materials tech would give rails longer lifespan, but coilguns generally are going to last a lot longer. (with coil guns, the coils are seperate from the barrel. so much like explosive propellant based weapons, once the barrel is worn out from firing lots of shots though, you can just replace the barrel. you don't have to dismantle the whole weapon to do it either)

[Blue_Lion]

the biggest problem with rail systems is friction. since the projectile must be in contact with the rails, it is going to create a lot of friction as it moves. tends to strip bits of the rails off (this is why the US Navy's railgun prototype has that big muzzle blast.. it's incandescent bits of the rails)
with current IRL tech, you can only really hope to get a couple dozen shots from a set of rails.
presumably win RIFTS, MDC materials tech would give rails longer lifespan, but coilguns generally are going to last a lot longer. (with coil guns, the coils are seperate from the barrel. so much like explosive propellant based weapons, once the barrel is worn out from firing lots of shots though, you can just replace the barrel. you don't have to dismantle the whole weapon to do it either)

If it was only friction I would think you would get more than a couple dozen shots. Typically the groves of rifiling are in contact with the bullet the whole way through the barrel and you get way more shots than a couple dozen before the barrel is shot out. Perhaps there is some arc going on as well.

[glitterboy2098]

we're talking constant contact, and accelleration up to mach 5+ speeds in the span of 5-6 feet. with electrical currents strong enough to light up half a city. there are a lot of factors involved, but there is also the fact that the ideal rail materials for conductivity and such are generally not the toughest materials. they've have had to invent some new alloys just to get the combination of conductivity and durability they need to get this far.

[Natasha]

the biggest problem with rail systems is friction. since the projectile must be in contact with the rails, it is going to create a lot of friction as it moves. tends to strip bits of the rails off (this is why the US Navy's railgun prototype has that big muzzle blast.. it's incandescent bits of the rails)
with current IRL tech, you can only really hope to get a couple dozen shots from a set of rails.
presumably win RIFTS, MDC materials tech would give rails longer lifespan, but coilguns generally are going to last a lot longer. (with coil guns, the coils are seperate from the barrel. so much like explosive propellant based weapons, once the barrel is worn out from firing lots of shots though, you can just replace the barrel. you don't have to dismantle the whole weapon to do it either)

If it was only friction I would think you would get more than a couple dozen shots. Typically the groves of rifiling are in contact with the bullet the whole way through the barrel and you get way more shots than a couple dozen before the barrel is shot out. Perhaps there is some arc going on as well.

Yes, resistive heating is something all electrical engineering must contend with. The current required in rail gun is immense; I expect room-sized capacitor banks to be required. And the calculation of resistive heating, derived from Ohm's law P = I²R, is dominated by the current.

I can see where friction is 'the biggest problem'.

But then it is also true that even with rails that can survive the friction heating observed in the muzzle blast that resistive heating would still impose limits on the gun's practical rate of fire before the rails (and/or other gun components) melt or deform (unless resistive heating were eliminated altogether).

[Blue_Lion]

we're talking constant contact, and accelleration up to mach 5+ speeds in the span of 5-6 feet. with electrical currents strong enough to light up half a city. there are a lot of factors involved, but there is also the fact that the ideal rail materials for conductivity and such are generally not the toughest materials. they've have had to invent some new alloys just to get the combination of conductivity and durability they need to get this far.

Refiling is always in constant contact with the round until the barrel is shot out.
There are riffles that have rounds getting up to almost mach 4 in less than 3 feet.
Heck the 120mm main gun of a abrams shoots at mach 5 and has rounds in constant contact. So sorry but the speed just not impressive for the guns short life.
Even with two objects in contact there would be some risk arc from the currant jumping between the two as one moves along the other and leaves the rails upon firing. that can heat and fuse surface material together. The risk of arc related damage goes up at higher curant and as they are pumping up the currant to such high level that would cause some arc and heat from the currant would further soften the material.
Friction is only part of the problem with the life of the barrels.

[drewkitty ~..~]

*wonders what the stats for a shot canister would be, opposed to the normal flechette stats*

[Natasha]

we're talking constant contact, and accelleration up to mach 5+ speeds in the span of 5-6 feet. with electrical currents strong enough to light up half a city. there are a lot of factors involved, but there is also the fact that the ideal rail materials for conductivity and such are generally not the toughest materials. they've have had to invent some new alloys just to get the combination of conductivity and durability they need to get this far.

Refiling is always in constant contact with the round until the barrel is shot out.
There are riffles that have rounds getting up to almost mach 4 in less than 3 feet.
Heck the 120mm main gun of a abrams shoots at mach 5 and has rounds in constant contact. So sorry but the speed just not impressive for the guns short life.
Even with two objects in contact there would be some risk arc from the currant jumping between the two as one moves along the other and leaves the rails upon firing. that can heat and fuse surface material together. The risk of arc related damage goes up at higher curant and as they are pumping up the currant to such high level that would cause some arc and heat from the currant would further soften the material.
Friction is only part of the problem with the life of the barrels.

Just a couple of things to consider.

The current does not leave the rails; it's a closed circuit. The current goes up one rail, through a conductor to the other rail.

Rail materials are different from tank gun barrels.

[Blue_Lion]

we're talking constant contact, and accelleration up to mach 5+ speeds in the span of 5-6 feet. with electrical currents strong enough to light up half a city. there are a lot of factors involved, but there is also the fact that the ideal rail materials for conductivity and such are generally not the toughest materials. they've have had to invent some new alloys just to get the combination of conductivity and durability they need to get this far.

Refiling is always in constant contact with the round until the barrel is shot out.
There are riffles that have rounds getting up to almost mach 4 in less than 3 feet.
Heck the 120mm main gun of a abrams shoots at mach 5 and has rounds in constant contact. So sorry but the speed just not impressive for the guns short life.
Even with two objects in contact there would be some risk arc from the currant jumping between the two as one moves along the other and leaves the rails upon firing. that can heat and fuse surface material together. The risk of arc related damage goes up at higher curant and as they are pumping up the currant to such high level that would cause some arc and heat from the currant would further soften the material.
Friction is only part of the problem with the life of the barrels.

Just a couple of things to consider.

The current does not leave the rails; it's a closed circuit. The current goes up one rail, through a conductor to the other rail.

Rail materials are different from tank gun barrels.

So it does not leave the rails but you just described it going across a conductor to the other rail.
So by your own description it leaves the rails to travel along a conductor to the other rail, meaning it does leave the rails.

[guardiandashi]

we're talking constant contact, and accelleration up to mach 5+ speeds in the span of 5-6 feet. with electrical currents strong enough to light up half a city. there are a lot of factors involved, but there is also the fact that the ideal rail materials for conductivity and such are generally not the toughest materials. they've have had to invent some new alloys just to get the combination of conductivity and durability they need to get this far.

Refiling is always in constant contact with the round until the barrel is shot out.
There are riffles that have rounds getting up to almost mach 4 in less than 3 feet.
Heck the 120mm main gun of a abrams shoots at mach 5 and has rounds in constant contact. So sorry but the speed just not impressive for the guns short life.
Even with two objects in contact there would be some risk arc from the currant jumping between the two as one moves along the other and leaves the rails upon firing. that can heat and fuse surface material together. The risk of arc related damage goes up at higher curant and as they are pumping up the currant to such high level that would cause some arc and heat from the currant would further soften the material.
Friction is only part of the problem with the life of the barrels.

Just a couple of things to consider.

The current does not leave the rails; it's a closed circuit. The current goes up one rail, through a conductor to the other rail.

Rail materials are different from tank gun barrels.

So it does not leave the rails but you just described it going across a conductor to the other rail.
So by your own description it leaves the rails to travel along a conductor to the other rail, meaning it does leave the rails.

sort of. in a "true railgun" not a coilgun its operation is really similar to a "Jacobs ladder"
http://wonders.physics.wisc.edu/jacob-s-ladder.htm note I disagree with their "explanation" in the detail not the effect.
you can see "Jacobs ladders" in lots of the old scifi movies like Frankenstein etc.

basically it consists of a pair of conductors (typically wires) connected to a transformer. the wires are NOT parallel link in the description but close togather at the base and further away at the top, it generates enough voltage differential that it can generate an arc between the two conductors and it climbs because the ionized air (between the conductors) yes climbs, but also lowers the resistance between the conductors enough that the arc can keep crossing further and further up.

a railgun works by similar principles however the "slug" completes the circuit path rather than "air."
Because of a number of factors I don't completely understand, the projectile gets rapidly accelerated down the path of the accelerator and eventually leaves the "barrel" (typically at high velocity) along with some vaporized material because of the fact that due to the energies needed if there is not constant and "perfect" contact all the way down the accelerator, you will eventually be getting an arc between the conductors (rails) and the projectile. also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver

its just different aspects of the same principle.

[Blue_Lion]

we're talking constant contact, and accelleration up to mach 5+ speeds in the span of 5-6 feet. with electrical currents strong enough to light up half a city. there are a lot of factors involved, but there is also the fact that the ideal rail materials for conductivity and such are generally not the toughest materials. they've have had to invent some new alloys just to get the combination of conductivity and durability they need to get this far.

Refiling is always in constant contact with the round until the barrel is shot out.
There are riffles that have rounds getting up to almost mach 4 in less than 3 feet.
Heck the 120mm main gun of a abrams shoots at mach 5 and has rounds in constant contact. So sorry but the speed just not impressive for the guns short life.
Even with two objects in contact there would be some risk arc from the currant jumping between the two as one moves along the other and leaves the rails upon firing. that can heat and fuse surface material together. The risk of arc related damage goes up at higher curant and as they are pumping up the currant to such high level that would cause some arc and heat from the currant would further soften the material.
Friction is only part of the problem with the life of the barrels.

Just a couple of things to consider.

The current does not leave the rails; it's a closed circuit. The current goes up one rail, through a conductor to the other rail.

Rail materials are different from tank gun barrels.

So it does not leave the rails but you just described it going across a conductor to the other rail.
So by your own description it leaves the rails to travel along a conductor to the other rail, meaning it does leave the rails.

sort of. in a "true railgun" not a coilgun its operation is really similar to a "Jacobs ladder"
http://wonders.physics.wisc.edu/jacob-s-ladder.htm note I disagree with their "explanation" in the detail not the effect.
you can see "Jacobs ladders" in lots of the old scifi movies like Frankenstein etc.

basically it consists of a pair of conductors (typically wires) connected to a transformer. the wires are NOT parallel link in the description but close togather at the base and further away at the top, it generates enough voltage differential that it can generate an arc between the two conductors and it climbs because the ionized air (between the conductors) yes climbs, but also lowers the resistance between the conductors enough that the arc can keep crossing further and further up.

a railgun works by similar principles however the "slug" completes the circuit path rather than "air."
Because of a number of factors I don't completely understand, the projectile gets rapidly accelerated down the path of the accelerator and eventually leaves the "barrel" (typically at high velocity) along with some vaporized material because of the fact that due to the energies needed if there is not constant and "perfect" contact all the way down the accelerator, you will eventually be getting an arc between the conductors (rails) and the projectile. also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver

its just different aspects of the same principle.

So the claim that there was no arc was blatantly false.

[glitterboy2098]

actually in a properly designed one thire is no arcing. arcing occurs when the current jumps a gap between the contacts. in a railgun there is no gap, the projectile makes a direct circuit between the rails. if there is a gap it expends a lot of energy to do very little.

and no, a railgun is not equivalent to a jacob's ladder.

and the issue of Rail wear makes a lot more sense when you consider this. for a railgun to get the best results, you need rails that are highly conductive. all the highly conductive materials (gold, copper, etc) are soft. easily stripped and worn from friction. all the highly durable materials (aluminum, titanium, etc) that wouldn't be worn away as fast? have terrible conductivity. so you either have to accept that the rails get ruined quickly but you get great performance while it works.. or accept sucky performance but have rails that last awhile. the design being built for the navy tries to find a balance between the two, but they are still running into issues.

[Blue_Lion]

actually in a properly designed one thire is no arcing. arcing occurs when the current jumps a gap between the contacts. in a railgun there is no gap, the projectile makes a direct circuit between the rails. if there is a gap it expends a lot of energy to do very little.

and no, a railgun is not equivalent to a jacob's ladder.

and the issue of Rail wear makes a lot more sense when you consider this. for a railgun to get the best results, you need rails that are highly conductive. all the highly conductive materials (gold, copper, etc) are soft. easily stripped and worn from friction. all the highly durable materials (aluminum, titanium, etc) that wouldn't be worn away as fast? have terrible conductivity. so you either have to accept that the rails get ruined quickly but you get great performance while it works.. or accept sucky performance but have rails that last awhile. the design being built for the navy tries to find a balance between the two, but they are still running into issues.

As I said it is an impractical design(concept with modern tech).
You can get similar speed from chemical propelled rounds with many more rounds through the barrel. While the rounds would require more space you do not need a capacitor bank to power them and they do not wear out quick so would be cheaper to maintain.

The real issue is not friction as that is present in all projectile weapons (even a rifle maintains contact with the round through the whole barrel) but with the material needed to make it work. So the bigest problem is the material not friction.

[drewkitty ~..~]

snip...

and no, a railgun is not equivalent to a jacob's ladder.

…snip

Yep it is not a rail gun, but it does start to educate those without any science in their background about the IDEA that rail-guns involve electricity and two rails. And maybe lead them into educating themselves about the real world science behind rail-guns.

--------
I thought the Al had a pretty good e conductivity……the electric companies do use Al wires/cables as transmission lines. (working from memory so is not 100% sure.)

I do know the Al sheet metal pieces are hard to spot weld due to their high e conductivity. *work related knowledge*

[glitterboy2098]

Aluminum is better than most.. but it also has the problem that at the level of friction involved, it bursts into flame. *shrug*

it is not as good as gold or the like, but is certainly better conductivity than titanium, steel, etc.

IIRC the main reason power lines and the like use aluminum is it has better tensile strength at lighter weight than the steel and copper wire combination traditionally used.

[guardiandashi]

http://www.tpub.com/neets/book4/11e.htm

basically aluminum for the same "size" conductor can only handle about 60% of the electricity of copper.

[Natasha]

snip...

and no, a railgun is not equivalent to a jacob's ladder.

…snip

Yep it is not a rail gun, but it does start to educate those without any science in their background about the IDEA that rail-guns involve electricity and two rails. And maybe lead them into educating themselves about the real world science behind rail-guns.

--------
I thought the Al had a pretty good e conductivity……the electric companies do use Al wires/cables as transmission lines. (working from memory so is not 100% sure.)

I do know the Al sheet metal pieces are hard to spot weld due to their high e conductivity. *work related knowledge*

The simplest model for a rail gun is parallel current carrying wires which are the rails. The ammo connects the wires/rails. You put + on one wire/rail and - on the other. This creates the closed circuit. The Lorentz force which creates the acceleration on the ammo is more complicated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtD6NEmhEwk is a simple demonstration of the force.

[Alrik Vas]

I like the idea of GB scheduled, daily maintenance that involves changing the rails after every practice run and having to slag a million or two credits just to keep it up and running.

Then again, I also like the idea of the boom gun dealing x30 damage instead of x10. so whatever.

As far as weapon mods? I like the stuff mentioned earlier, I think it all pretty much works and is fair as long as the GM sees it as useful to his game.