What is the furthest you can throw something?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AtomicJoe
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
68 replies · 12K views
Rail gun firing depleted uranium.

11km or so I think is how far they launch the projectile, not sure though. Google it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Curl said:
Rail gun firing depleted uranium.

11km or so I think is how far they launch the projectile, not sure though. Google it.

Thanks for that, I was thinking about it my self and could see problems with a 'fired' projection as in a cannon or shot gun. There must also be an answer of an 'explosive' fired projectile too.



Also I think there must be some sort of optimum size for the projectile in a rail gun, just off the top of my head it would see the heavier the better although I do not know if the sheer size would become a problem.

Also I am not 100% sure how a rail gun works, so I guess I had better google it!
 
20 km/s has been achieved with small projectiles explosively injected into the railgun. Although these speeds are possible theoretically, the heat generated from the propulsion of the object is enough to erode the rails rapidly. Such a railgun would require frequent replacement of the rails, or to use a heat resistant material that would be conductive enough to produce the same effect.

So there may be some physical limits on such a gun.
 
AtomicJoe said:
OK so what do you think is the furthest anyone could manage, using any 'throwing' (or fireing) method on earth?
Wait. That's a completely different question.

There have been experiments done to see of guns can be used to fire projectiles into orbit.
 
The power supply must be able to deliver large currents, sustained and controlled over a useful amount of time. The most important gauge of power supply effectiveness is the energy it can deliver. As of December 2010, the greatest known energy used to propel a projectile from a railgun was 33 megajoules.[6] The most common forms of power supplies used in railguns are capacitors and compulsators which are slowly charged from other continuous energy sources.
The rails need to withstand enormous repulsive forces during shooting, and these forces will tend to push them apart and away from the projectile. As rail/projectile clearances increase, arcing develops, which causes rapid vaporization and extensive damage to the rail surfaces and the insulator surfaces. This limited some early research railguns to one shot per service interval.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Wait. That's a completely different question.

There have been experiments done to see of guns can be used to fire projectiles into orbit.

It's basically the same question.

What did the experiments conclude.
 
AtomicJoe said:
It's basically the same question.
Next you're going to open it up to rockets...:rolleyes:
 
DaveC426913 said:
Next you're going to open it up to rockets...:rolleyes:

Rockets do not throw things, they carry a fuel/energy supply.

You can open it up to rockets if you like but I think it will be clear you can fire it a pretty much infinite distance.
 
AtomicJoe said:
Rockets do not throw things, they carry a fuel/energy supply.

You can open it up to rockets if you like but I think it will be clear you can fire it a pretty much infinite distance.

Funny place to draw the line. It's as big a leap from firing to rocketing as it is from throwing to firing.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Funny place to draw the line. It's as big a leap from firing to rocketing as it is from throwing to firing.

Depends on how you define throw, a throw implies release of the propulsion system.
 
As dave said there is no difference between a rocket and a rail gun from a propulsion point.

If I took a high speed camera view of the projectile inside a rail gun muzzle and slowed it down many thousands of times and played it back to you the sequence would look like a mass be propelled from a stationary start to a terminal speed.

The difference between the two events is the time to achieve both one looks like an explosive event the other doesn't simply based on our concept of timespan of the two events.

Have a look at the myth busters where they tried to pan cake a car it is done with a rocket sled but it looks like and explosive event (http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-compact-compact-rocket-sled-angle-3.html)

And as per dave's reasoning you could argue the LHC throw protons at almost the speed of light ... define throw please.
 
Last edited:
AtomicJoe said:
Question was misunderstood apparently.

Question is extremely poorly written.

Now you're assuming there's no mountains in the way? Non-sense. They are a factor in throwing far, even if it's unrealistic.

Here is how poorly formed your question is, when asking Guinness World Records for the "farthest throw", here is what it spits out:

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/Search/rdb.aspx?q=largest+OR+fastest+OR+smallest+OR+longest
Farthest throw of a playing card

Farthest throw of a person

Farthest washing machine throw - individual

Farthest hammer throw (female)

Farthest washing machine throw - pair

Farthest mobile phone throw by an individual (male)

Farthest light bulb throw

Farthest water balloon throw

Longest hammer throw on Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii)

Longest peanut throw

You can 'refine' the search with "longest", "farthest", "furthest" etc to get even more results.

You could also look up the olympic records as well.

There are so many factors involved that it's non-sense.

Personal strength, size, the object, the weather, the Earth's surface etc, etc, etc.
 
Just to add, didn't Sadam try to build a massive gun that could fire projectiles hundreds of km?

I went to museum in England that had a section of it on display. Customs caught it before they were able to dispatch it.
 
If you are in deep space, and you throw something in an appropriate direction, it will travel forevermore. Of course you will also travel indefinitely in the opposite direction.
 
Is this meant to be a biophysical question? I.e. what is the furthest a human being is capable of throwing X object based on the limitations of the human body?

Without disambiguation I can safely say things like this:
I once threw some saliva 200m (from the roof of a building)
I once threw a bullet at least 1km (from a gun)
I once threw in the towel (how far? all the way)
I once threw a hissy-fit (again, it went all the way)
I once threw my wallet into the future (it's still going)
I once threw a golf ball 200m (from the golf club)
I once threw a rock and hit France (from Paris)
I once threw a cricket ball 60m (I did)
I once threw someone miles away off guard (over the phone)

The question "what's the furthest you could throw something" needs to be defined so that we have
A something to measure by (baseball? feather?)
A method of throwing (why include guns?)
A place of throwing (of a bridge? mountain? ISS?)
Who are we talking bout (me? mankind?)
 
It's the furthest you can throw something on earth.
You can choose your object but I an interested in the one throw the furthest.

Hope that clear it up!
 
Uglybb said:
As dave said there is no difference between a rocket and a rail gun from a propulsion point.

If I took a high speed camera view of the projectile inside a rail gun muzzle and slowed it down many thousands of times and played it back to you the sequence would look like a mass be propelled from a stationary start to a terminal speed.

The difference between the two events is the time to achieve both one looks like an explosive event the other doesn't simply based on our concept of timespan of the two events.

Have a look at the myth busters where they tried to pan cake a car it is done with a rocket sled but it looks like and explosive event (http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-compact-compact-rocket-sled-angle-3.html)

And as per dave's reasoning you could argue the LHC throw protons at almost the speed of light ... define throw please.


No there is a clear and obvious difference between a rocket and a gun, a rocket carries it's own energy source or fuel supply a gun doesn't. A gun fires a projectile and relies on the kinetic energy of the projectile alone.
 
AtomicJoe said:
It's the furthest you can throw something on earth.
You can choose your object but I an interested in the one throw the furthest.

Hope that clear it up!

In that case I can throw a weather balloon thousands of km around the Earth. Or I could build a Lofstrom loop and throw a car into orbit. Or I could throw my mate 8km off of Mt Everest.

This really does seem a bizarre topic to be asking about. Without specific qualifiers to an outrageously ambiguous question this doesn't belong in this forum.
 
AtomicJoe said:
No there is a clear and obvious difference between a rocket and a gun,

Yes, just as there is a clear difference between throwing an object manually and firing it with technology, yet you include them in the same question as if they're the same.

How are we to judge where you decide to draw the line between what qualifies and what does not?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Yes, just as there is a clear difference between throwing an object manually and firing it with technology, yet you include them in the same question as if they're the same.

How are we to judge where you decide to draw the line between what qualifies and what does not?

Not to mention the clear differences between objects and the condition where you throw them! (Baseball off of a building or boomerang in a forest?)
 
i once saw a kid throw a temper tantrum that didn't stop for like 2 hours. must be a record
 
ryan_m_b said:
In that case I can throw a weather balloon thousands of km around the Earth. Or I could build a Lofstrom loop and throw a car into orbit. Or I could throw my mate 8km off of Mt Everest.

This really does seem a bizarre topic to be asking about. Without specific qualifiers to an outrageously ambiguous question this doesn't belong in this forum.

Not really you are using the weight of the atmosphere to power it so it is not a throw as such.



When you know the answer the question is not ambiguous.
 
ryan_m_b said:
In that case I can throw a weather balloon thousands of km around the Earth. Or I could build a Lofstrom loop and throw a car into orbit. Or I could throw my mate 8km off of Mt Everest.

This really does seem a bizarre topic to be asking about. Without specific qualifiers to an outrageously ambiguous question this doesn't belong in this forum.

It's only a bizarre topic if you choose to be awkward about it.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Yes, just as there is a clear difference between throwing an object manually and firing it with technology, yet you include them in the same question as if they're the same.

How are we to judge where you decide to draw the line between what qualifies and what does not?

No there is no real difference between throwing and firing it, a throw implies that the kinetic energy of the projectile is the only source of energy, so there is no difference between manually and using technology in reality, they are both throws.
If you choose to pick only manual throws then that is a poor effort on your part.
 
AtomicJoe, instead of answering all these individual posts trying to explain why they do / do not apply to your idea in your head, tell us the idea you have!

Give us a clear and precise question. It will save time and thread space. All you're doing now is boosting post counts.

Otherwise, this thread remains complete non-sense and I can't see it remaining open much longer.
 
AtomicJoe said:
Not really you are using the weight of the atmosphere to power it so it is not a throw as such.

When you know the answer the question is not ambiguous.

If I throw a paper airplane the atmosphere is helping "power" it.

You are clearly a troll who is just wasting the time of everybody involved, this thread should be locked.
 
ryan_m_b said:
If I throw a paper airplane the atmosphere is helping "power" it.

You are clearly a troll who is just wasting the time of everybody involved, this thread should be locked.

Seriously. I am really sick of such people.