|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
12130
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 18:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
So, a large railgun shot is 80GJ?
Well. Considering how fast a railgun can charge up, that indicates that the power output of a large railgun is in excess of 140 GW.
140 Gigawatts. That's... somewhat concerning.
Consider, for example, the peak power consumption of Britain on record: approximately 60 GW. Then consider the power consumption of France: 100 GW.
That means that every time you fire a large railgun, you are consuming as much power for that shot as the peak power consumption of Britain and France combined.
Pretty wimpy railguns for 80GJ. Not that I actually want them to raze the entire battlefield automatically when they fire. This does beg the question of where the power is coming from as well. It's not coming from the tank's power grid, considering that's measured in megawatts.
Also, a small 20GJ railgun on my LAV might have a little problem with destroying the entire map if it really outputted its full power.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
EUrobro
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
12130
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 18:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Railgun is UP
I should be able to nuke the entire map and win the game in 1 shot Oh, you.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
EUrobro
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
12132
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 18:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
Joseph Ridgeson wrote:This topic has been discussed before."Just the thing being fired would pretty much kill anything around it. 80 GJ is a hell of a lot of force. 1 ton (2,000 pounds / 907.185 kilos) of TNT gives off 4.184 GJ of energy. Even the puny side blasters give off over four and a half tons of TNT, with a rate of fire of 857.1 rounds a minute. "
So it has, so it has. It's quite amusing, nonetheless.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
EUrobro
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
12134
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 19:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Izlare Lenix wrote:20,000 years in the future they probably have watch batteries with 80gj of juice.
Just look at how far cell phone batteries have progressed. They have gone from large and weak to very strong and very small.
20,000 years is a long time to improve batteries and power generation.
If I had a watch battery with the energy storage of a small nuclear weapon I would be terrified. Also, that doesn't mean matter magically became much more resistant to vast quantities of energy being chucked at it. Firing one of these things, if it truly threw out 80GJ, would literally vaporise the battlefield.
A 1kg thorium round with 80GJ of energy would be millions of degrees centigrade and travel at many times the speed of sound.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
EUrobro
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
12135
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 19:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Joseph Ridgeson wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Izlare Lenix wrote:20,000 years in the future they probably have watch batteries with 80gj of juice.
Just look at how far cell phone batteries have progressed. They have gone from large and weak to very strong and very small.
20,000 years is a long time to improve batteries and power generation. If I had a watch battery with the energy storage of a small nuclear weapon I would be terrified. Also, that doesn't mean matter magically became much more resistant to vast quantities of energy being chucked at it. Firing one of these things, if it truly threw out 80GJ, would literally vaporise the battlefield. A 1kg thorium round with 80GJ of energy would be millions of degrees centigrade and travel at many times the speed of sound. The main thing isn't so much the amount of energy consumed but what the end result would be. Let's say that the 80gj is the amount of force that the round has. Whatever it hit would have been hit with the same amount of energy released in 19 tons of TnT. It wouldn't so much be a projectile 'bullet' at that time but rather a 'force missile.' Would basically cause an explosion everywhere it hit. MythBuster detonates a 1,000 pound bomb.. It wouldn't work quite like that as would more likely pierce and not release all of its power but the energy level is terrifying.
The energy lost as heat from an 80GJ round would be enough to sublimate the environment around it.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
EUrobro
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
12135
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 20:11:00 -
[6] - Quote
Leonid Tybalt wrote:
Also I have to say I'd share your fears about a 20 GJ watch battery. Your average watchbattery weighs what, a couple of grams give or take? Any substance containing 20 GJ of chemical energy in only a couple of grams would most likely be quite volatile and not something I'd like to wear around my wrist.
Frankly, I'd rather throw these watch batteries at my enemy as grenades than throw the grenades we have.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
EUrobro
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
12135
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 20:15:00 -
[7] - Quote
Leonid Tybalt wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:
Also I have to say I'd share your fears about a 20 GJ watch battery. Your average watchbattery weighs what, a couple of grams give or take? Any substance containing 20 GJ of chemical energy in only a couple of grams would most likely be quite volatile and not something I'd like to wear around my wrist.
Frankly, I'd rather throw these watch batteries at my enemy as grenades than throw the grenades we have. Hehehe, you trustq your throwing arm that well? Once it hits it might well enough take you with it in the blast.
No. I don't.
That's why I plan to have an uplink... oh, about a kilometre away.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
EUrobro
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
12137
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 20:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:Cat Merc wrote:Who knew, CCP actually made Caldari less powerful than they're supposed to be, for once. In dust everyone knows that Caldari sucks . Gal Amarr Caladri / Minmatar running neck and neck and you know that a Mimi is faster .
Right, Caldari sucks, sure... That's why rail rifles account for 40% of all light weapon sales and Caldari sidearms account for over 50% of all sidearms. Yeah. Right.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
EUrobro
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
12142
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 21:19:00 -
[9] - Quote
Henchmen21 wrote:Then consider the handheld forge gun fires around just as powerful while only being fed from the suits power source. I guess that's why it never actually fires!
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
EUrobro
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
12146
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 21:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
KaTaLy5t-87 wrote: Does the 80GJ refer to the energy output of the railgun or does it refer to the kinetic energy delivered by the shell when it impacts a target? Momentum is equal to mass multiplied by velocity and by firing a shell with a large mass at an extremely high velocity it would deliver a massive amount of energy on impact.
It is also conceivable that electronics and superconductor technology would have advanced to a stage where a relatively small power source could deliver a massive amount of energy. I have an electrical installation tester that is powered by 6 1.5V AA batteries, while performing an insulation resistance test the tester outputs 1000VDC. If that is possible with some basic enough electronics then it is conceivable that electronics in the future would be advanced enough to convert small power sources into massive sources of energy for the likes of railguns.
Take an electricity distribution system as an example. High-tension transmission lines have relatively low energy loss which is why they are favoured for transmitting electricity over long distances. If you stand under a 400kV transmission line and stick a standard 5ft fluorescent tube into the ground it will light up in the dark. This is because of the massive magnetic field produced by the 400kV lines. A massive magnetic field is produced with almost no energy loss from the transmission lines.
Now imagine what would happen if you took all of the energy in that transmission line and focused it in superconductors and large coils in the barrel of a railgun. It is possible to create massive magnetic fields without even meaning to so I think if someone put a some futuristic technology into it they would indeed be able to deliver 80GJ of energy.
I don't think you quite realise how much 80 GJ is.
Consider a 1 kilogram block of titanium. 80 GJ would heat that to 60,000,000 degrees centigrade. That's completely absurd. The surrounding mile would sublimate.
Also, the first part of your post is... dubious. Momentum is not the specific quantity you're looking at here - you're looking at the kinetic energy, for which the equation is 1/2mv^2. You're quite correct - a shell of large mass travelling at a very high speed would have a lot of kinetic energy. A 1 kg shell would travel at 400,000 metres per second.
You can't just 'create' energy. Those magnetic fields aren't causing the power lines to lose much energy - but exactly the same amount of energy that's used to light that tube up is drawn from the power lines.
A core principle of physics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted to different forms. It's simply not possibly that a small power source could mysteriously power a vastly more energetic function.
Voltage is not necessarily equal to power. That depends on the current you have in a material, which is further reliant on the resistance. P = VI, and I = V/R. That means that putting a high voltage through a material with a high resistance will give you a low current, which in turn will affect the power.
A 20W source will only provide 20W. There is no way to change this.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
EUrobro
|
|
|
|
|