DREAD weapon system, power requirements

  • Thread starter Thread starter SK
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Power System
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the DREAD weapon system, a centrifuge-based design that has raised skepticism due to its unrealistic assumptions, such as recoillessness. Calculations indicate that to achieve a bullet velocity of 800 m/s, the system requires an average power output of 0.81 Megawatts, which is considered excessively high. Concerns are raised about the mechanical stresses involved, particularly the extreme accelerations of 21,000 gravities, which may render the design impractical. The feasibility of sustained fire is questioned, as it would necessitate powerful motors and robust materials capable of handling significant forces. Overall, while the concept is intriguing, its practical implementation faces substantial engineering challenges.
  • #101
pervect said:
I agree, there has to be a recoil, if something shoots out the front, and nothing shoots out the back, conservation of momentum demands that there be a recoil.

I am studying physics in school, and I think that you are forgetting centripetal force, the reaction force happens before the projectile leaves the weapon. That force is the projectile pulling out away from the center of the centrifuge and when the projectile leaves the weapon the force goes with it. Have you ever spun around with a heavy object? the object pulls on your arms and if you release it it goes flying without pushing you back. But that doesn't mean that I believe that the weapon works as they say or even works at all there are many things that make me say it wouldn't work.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #102
I never even thought about a superconductor but that is about the only way the claims of the manufacturer can be true, but then you would not be able to use tungsten ammo and air resistance might melt the bullets.
 
  • #103
In WWII the air force (I can't remember whether British or American) needed bombs to destroy dams, so they decided on giant ball bombs spun to give backspin to keep them up next to the dam. Anyway they did tests and found that a dimpled ball flew further with more accuracy than a smooth ball.
 
  • #104
It is sad that the beauty of physics is clouded by advanced weaponry and destruction.
 
  • #105
I know i may be poking a dead post here, but i just saw the dread weapons system video on military.com, googled it, and found your forum. After reading some of the posts, I had some thoughts; firts, the 'no-recoil' thing, best guess? industry standard double speak. It is true, Newtonian physics and all that, but it is also true that given an electric propulsion coupled with proper mounting that this 'gun' would have a negligable amount of recoil; frictionless? doubtful given the rate of fire, but since the F117 can mask its thermal signature, i don't see why a gun can't; soundless? again highly doubtful, the rate of fire alone would produce *some* sort of sound, and unless theyre usingsubsonic munitions, there would be the breaking of the sound barrier, yet if they really are using subsonic munitions, then they have already defeated the purpose of the weapon. given that the spead of sound is 1125 ft/s and given that a projectile has a good chance to break skin (though not puncture) at around 200 ft/s, i suppose it's possible, but if the target were waering clothes, then the velocity of the projectile would need to be doubled; and forget about anything considered a 'soft' target ie-car door, house wall, person in body armor. This coupled with the shape of the projectiles tells me that all they have right now is a rapid fire BB gun; oh that and in the video they demonstrated their prototype against drywall
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top