DUST Search - Have any of you considered how much power 80GJ is?

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.

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2680	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:12:00 - [31] - Quote Hey guys, I just worked out why DUST has no green anywhere! ak.0 4 LYFE je ne regrette rien
Henchmen21 Planet Express LLC 887	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:17:00 - [32] - Quote Then consider the handheld forge gun fires around just as powerful while only being fed from the suits power source. 1.8 because nothing says fun like getting shotgunned in the back. Henchmen21: Infantry Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12142	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:19:00 - [33] - 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
KaTaLy5t-87 Shadow Company HQ Lokun Listamenn 157	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:33:00 - [34] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: 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. 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.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12146	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:45:00 - [35] - 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
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 671	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:55:00 - [36] - Quote Interesting fact : the United States Navy invented an actual railgun. The slug travels at mach 7, and can achieve a distance of 200 miles. It's awesome seeing science fiction become reality.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 26	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:56:00 - [37] - Quote Along the same line of thought...The 425mm railgun I I space-side has an activation cost of 21GJ...just over 1/4 the listed power of the tank mounted railgun. I want whatever capacitor they're using in a gunloggi in my rokh...(I'm assuming that 80GJ is the activation cost of all HAV railguns, since they're all described as 80GJ, but do different amounts of damage. It could be that they are terrible at converting the 80GJ input to a noticeable output...but I find that unlikely due to Calder is proficiency with railgun technology).
1pawn dust Algintal Core Gallente Federation 123	Posted - 2014.04.08 22:26:00 - [38] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Who knew, CCP actually made Caldari less powerful than they're supposed to be, for once. Caldari has been getting the CCP shaft since 2004 wtf you talking about?
Scheneighnay McBob Nova Corps Marines Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 4707	Posted - 2014.04.08 22:56:00 - [39] - Quote Everything in game is a toned-down version of how they are IRL. Even things as simple as range. A real version of the combat rifle would definitely have the range of the sniper rifles in game. I'm from the weird side of the internet
Argent Mordred DUST University Ivy League 56	Posted - 2014.04.08 23:02:00 - [40] - Quote Anyone tried to read the weapon descriptions. Mainly it is just the Minmatar weapons. Apparently Trijicon is still making their trademarked ACOGs for the Caldari and Minmatar rifles 20,000 years in the future or whatever. Guess Trijicon can't think of an original name, even though their optics no longer use the light-gathering fiber optic or glow-dark tritium to light up the reticle, don't have the bullet drop marks, or any other feature of an ACOG. "A gas-operated, short-barreled weapon, the combat rifle is a semi-automatic weapon... Classified as a light support weapon... most standard assault rifles." Wait, which is it? Semi-auto or burst (this same mistake is made in the burst ar description)? A light support weapon (i.e. a light machine gun or a dedicated grenade launcher at the squad level) or an assault rifle? What next? A pump action light machine gun shotgun? "Favouring function over form, the SMG is a lightweight, semi-automatic weapon designed for close-quarters combat... similar sub-automatic weapons..." What is sub-automatic? Also the smg is clearly full auto, and being fully automatic or select-fire is in the definition of an smg. The semi-auto/burst confusion is even more funny because on some weapons like the mass driver and the regular scrambler pistol they get it right. I am not annoyed at the lack of poor terminology, but it is odd that they are inconsistent. I can almost see making the 80 GJ error, though a common sense check should have made someone stop and think whether that large a number was at likely to make sense, but the firearms terminology should be easily verifiable. Especially since if you know enough to try and use a word, you should know what it means. Oh well, here's to CCP Shanghai. Writing nonsense descriptions and coding bugs since 2006.

VicBoss Militaires-Sans-Frontieres 441	Posted - 2014.04.09 00:18:00 - [41] - 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. " Topic Cred > "It aint no petting zoo out there! Peeps be getting deep sixed!" -Daxter
ishtellian SAM-MIK General Tso's Alliance 20	Posted - 2014.04.09 01:44:00 - [42] - Quote First one to spawn get in the railgun installation and shoot the other mcc wins. My Heavy Never Dies. Logibro In training.
Zaaeed Massani RisingSuns Dark Taboo 116	Posted - 2014.04.09 01:57:00 - [43] - Quote Atiim wrote: The power of CCP's Nerf Bat far exceeds 80GJ. Quote of the month. Sig'd Atiim: The power of CCP's Nerf Bat far exceeds 80GJ. Proud Federal Marine on loan to the Republic Commandos.


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page