The Scientific Principle Of The Railgun

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 22 тра 2024
  • Let's take a look at the scientific principles behind how railguns work.
    Thank you for watching this video.
    #military #weapons #railgun #mscope
  • Фільми й анімація

КОМЕНТАРІ • 89

  • @kino_61
    @kino_61 Рік тому +69

    0:20
    This is a coil gun (Gauss cannon), it's very different because it uses the single force vector created by the coil you'll show later in the video. It's easy: if it has wire going around the barrel it's a coil gun, if it has wire on the back only, and a hollow rectangular barrel section (formed by the rails and the bullet containment) it's a rail gun

  • @fredsmith4134
    @fredsmith4134 Рік тому +90

    forgot to mention the barrel quickly tears it's self apart and you cant use it repeatedly without changing the barrel internals ?

    • @soujemn5
      @soujemn5 Рік тому +13

      you would need to replace the rails every few shots. not particularly difficult, but still an additional limitation.

    • @processingunit5321
      @processingunit5321 Рік тому

      Yup, it's too strong for itself

    • @noneyaaa6288
      @noneyaaa6288 Рік тому

      Not the new ones

    • @3elements623
      @3elements623 15 днів тому

      This is a end it all weapon

  • @Omario94
    @Omario94 9 місяців тому +14

    In 00:30 the gun shown is a Gauss gun aka coil gun not a rail gun. Its a completely different system, gauss gun uses a series of electromagnetic coils that activate in a syncronize order do propel the projectile. In a rail gun the projectile completes the circuit in between two rails, one rail being + and the other being - and the positive rail is fed by capacitors. This generates a huge magnetic force that pushes the projectile. Two completely different systems.

    • @Popzin101
      @Popzin101 Місяць тому

      Still electro magnetic….

  • @hackmedia7755
    @hackmedia7755 2 місяці тому +2

    Rail Gun and Gauss Gun are two completely different types.
    Rail gun uses high voltage and two rails, with the projectile being conductive.
    Gauss gun uses magnetism to pull the projectile through the center of each coil.

  • @Graywolf116
    @Graywolf116 Рік тому +22

    I wonder if we'll see more of the coilgun start to overtake railgun interest. IMO the main issue of the coilgun (synchronized switching and stabilizing the round in the magnetic field) is a *lot* easier to overcome than the rail ablation issue in railguns. Apparently the Chinese Navy has gone down the coilgun route and is test-fielding a naval gun? Research follows funding, so I guess we'll find out once the check-writers recover from the failure of the US Navy's railgun program.

  • @mxcollin95
    @mxcollin95 Рік тому +3

    Dude your content is awesome! 👍

  • @xl000
    @xl000 Рік тому +12

    Cool. I found one on craigslist and I wasn’t sure what it was

  • @gabedarrett1301
    @gabedarrett1301 Рік тому +17

    2:30 This could easily be improved by using an electromagnet to establish an external magnetic field acting on the projectile

  • @johndobb8239
    @johndobb8239 Рік тому +1

    Great channel, glad i found it

  • @mxcollin95
    @mxcollin95 Рік тому +8

    From my research, they haven’t been able to create a rail gun that doesn’t tear it’s self apart after shooting just a handful of rounds. That’s why it was created awhile ago but is still not in service.

    • @MrElgate
      @MrElgate Рік тому +1

      Which makes sense. The projectile need to be touching both side at all time, for the current, providing a lot of friction.

  • @pietrogarcia8648
    @pietrogarcia8648 Рік тому +3

    Very nice, it explains a lot

  •  Рік тому +3

    0:22 - coilgun...

  • @gopiveall4907
    @gopiveall4907 2 роки тому +2

    Excellent

  • @michaelfoye1135
    @michaelfoye1135 6 місяців тому +1

    Looks like the guy in the video doing the pointing, the guy with three arms, needs a bit more time in the cloning tanks. He doesn't appear to be quite done.

  • @nillchen
    @nillchen Рік тому +1

    25 MW are only needed for a brief time (during acceleration) and can be provided by large capacitors.

  • @meverick666
    @meverick666 Рік тому +7

    the picture from around 00:17 to 00:25 shows a gauss gun not a rail gun... just saying

  • @malcolmliang
    @malcolmliang Рік тому +3

    Certainly a certain scientific railgun

  • @nilalohitadey9246
    @nilalohitadey9246 Рік тому +1

    And thank you

  • @mzamroni
    @mzamroni Рік тому +6

    It should have 2 separate adjacent barrels.
    1 barrel for the projectile and 1 barrel for linear motor, so that heat from linear motor barrel doesn't affect projectile and its barrel.
    Both barrel has lateral opening.
    Linear motor pushes metal that has leg in projectile barrel to propel the projectile.
    This will be fine as there is no explosive propulsion in projectile barrel.
    Projectile barrel can have holes to dissipate friction heat

    • @squartbotai1383
      @squartbotai1383 Рік тому

      Draw this. Can't picture what your saying

    • @randompeople7595
      @randompeople7595 Рік тому

      I am picturing a barrel inside of a barrel in which the first one inside holds the projectile and the latter outside accelerates the projectile?

    • @mzamroni
      @mzamroni Рік тому

      @@randompeople7595 barrel inside barrel is too complex and expensive.
      It's simply 2 adjacent barrels with lateral openings to allow leg of moving conductor in conductor barrel to push projectile in the adjacent barrel.
      (*===+>
      ( : propulsion barrel
      * : metal conductor in propulsion barrel
      === : the leg of metal conductor
      + : the projectile
      > : the projectile barrel

    • @randompeople7595
      @randompeople7595 Рік тому

      @@mzamroni thanks now I can picture it

    • @chuckaddison5134
      @chuckaddison5134 Рік тому +3

      It's not friction that's destroying the barrels. It's the dead short created when 25 MW are applied to the conductors with the projectile contacts closing the circuit. The (nearly) instantaneous surge melts and vaporizes portions of the rails.

  • @AcapellaNutella6
    @AcapellaNutella6 26 днів тому

    25MW? GREAT SCOTT!

  • @zilla8783
    @zilla8783 Рік тому +2

    Holy shit this thing op

  • @threethousandbees7260
    @threethousandbees7260 4 місяці тому

    If only we knew how magnets work

  • @Recoverys
    @Recoverys 10 місяців тому +5

    I'm fascinated with the idea of railguns. Not just in sector of warfare but multiple other applications such as launching rockets for space exploration or like powering trains using railguns so it can get to it's destination faster

    • @altide8784
      @altide8784 8 місяців тому

      Future trains?

    • @KK-ygh
      @KK-ygh 8 місяців тому

      Yep

    • @ledocteur7701
      @ledocteur7701 8 місяців тому +1

      The maglev system used in Changai is essentially a giant coilgun, different principle that a railgun.
      but if we can solve the ablation problem of railguns then a railgun train would be far cheaper to build than a maglev.

  • @alcross2003
    @alcross2003 11 місяців тому +1

    He just showed us how to make one lol

  • @Jasmohan
    @Jasmohan 19 днів тому

    Batteries are the main limiting factor as always

  • @shao6981
    @shao6981 Рік тому +2

    funny physical Experiment。

  • @aamiddel8646
    @aamiddel8646 Рік тому +3

    Railgun uses 25MW as much as a lot of households uses.. Yeah in a split second.
    And the principle used in the past was different then used today. In the past they used coils, now rails. Only the magnetism is the same as being the propellant force.. So..

    • @kino_61
      @kino_61 Рік тому

      A MW is a 1 000 000 J/s, time is already in the equation

    • @maalikserebryakov
      @maalikserebryakov Рік тому

      @@kino_61we know, whats your point?

    • @kino_61
      @kino_61 Рік тому

      @@maalikserebryakov he said "yeah, in a split second" as if the houses used the same power in less time, which has no sense since as I said power has time in itself. He might wanted to say energy but no one talked about that

    • @nillchen
      @nillchen Рік тому

      @@kino_61 25 MW can be provided by caps. When they contain 1 kWh=3.6 MJ of energy, discharging them in 1/8 s will roughly amount to 25 MW during that time. Just a couple of cents worth. I think we all agree on that.

  • @dominus3858
    @dominus3858 Рік тому +2

    I would like to know more about the rail gun project from Germany, does anyone know the name of the project?

  • @Zuconja
    @Zuconja Рік тому +2

    The problems Germans had in WW2 with railguns didn't get solved.

  • @sithlordmaster181
    @sithlordmaster181 Рік тому +1

    Actually, electrons flow from - to + in a battery. You’ve got it backwards.

    • @just.someguy5145
      @just.someguy5145 Рік тому

      He's talking about current which moves + to - so he's right

  • @lelgame1
    @lelgame1 Місяць тому

    The gun that you show about in the beginning looks like a Coil Gun, or Gauss cannon, not a Rail Gun

  • @thomashawaii
    @thomashawaii Рік тому +2

    1:25is a mistake. It should be the left hand.

    • @fredsmith4134
      @fredsmith4134 Рік тому +2

      i thought it was the right hand rule ?

  • @sallom531
    @sallom531 9 місяців тому +1

    umm, soo, which country are you invading with it?

  • @sorce5350
    @sorce5350 2 місяці тому

    "Do you know what could penetrate this armor?"
    sorry guys idk really know about a railgun

  • @1greekpride
    @1greekpride 7 місяців тому +2

    How do railguns taken consider curvature of Earth when you do your your math where's the to go when it doesn't account for

    • @gulfy09
      @gulfy09 5 місяців тому

      That's why I came here for. Flat earth

  • @jianbruce6774
    @jianbruce6774 Рік тому +2

    Like what is the rail gun for is it more powerful than gunpowder?

    • @shariqhasan6220
      @shariqhasan6220 Рік тому +3

      It fires a projectile at very high speed much faster than a conventional artillery gun. At that speed, you don't even need gunpowder as the velocity of the projectile is enough to obliterate the target. This also gives it a high range. Only issue is that the heat produced literally destroys the barrel and cannot be re-used anymore.

    • @israelCommitsGenocide
      @israelCommitsGenocide 11 місяців тому

      it makes some guy rich and takes money from the slave class so it served its purpose.

  • @thibs2837
    @thibs2837 Рік тому +1

    Zumvalt destroyers are taken out of use, no ?

    • @night8285
      @night8285 Рік тому +2

      they stopped the production at 3 ships, since it's too costly to make. So they've designed a new destroyer.

  • @derekpierkowski7641
    @derekpierkowski7641 Рік тому +1

    Ya lost me when ya said it fired shells.

    • @ddxinthehouse
      @ddxinthehouse Рік тому

      you do realize that all artillery use shells, right? my guy out here thinking shells only apply to shotgun ammo.

    • @derekpierkowski7641
      @derekpierkowski7641 Рік тому

      @@ddxinthehouse
      Well that's not true smarty pants.
      Some use projectiles with different loads of powder packs for distance.

    • @ddxinthehouse
      @ddxinthehouse Рік тому

      ​@@derekpierkowski7641 you really had what i said fly over your head huh? also dynamic powder charges are still in the shells class. the "shells" in terms of artiliery refer to the projectile its self, not the casing. its why dynamic powder charged ammo is still called a shell when it has no case and is instead fired raw in the barrel...
      5iq...

    • @derekpierkowski7641
      @derekpierkowski7641 Рік тому

      @@ddxinthehouse
      Ya wanna suck my WHAT!?

    • @ddxinthehouse
      @ddxinthehouse Рік тому

      hell, even explosive cannon balls were called shells...

  • @alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723

    Guys, chill, the USS Montana will have rail guns, were not butchering the Iowa sisters,.. ..again,

  • @atmacm
    @atmacm Рік тому +5

    Good video, but current flows negative to positive in a DC circuit.

    • @twertas
      @twertas Рік тому +4

      It doesn't. Electrons do "flow" from - to +, but the direction of current flow is the opposite in physics

    • @qewqeqeqwew3977
      @qewqeqeqwew3977 Рік тому +3

      That is a big misconception. Current flows from positive to negative, always. Electric current is not the same as "electron flow". It can be a flow of electrons, positrons, ions or any other charged objects.

    • @atmacm
      @atmacm Рік тому +1

      @@qewqeqeqwew3977 DC current absolutely flows from negative to positive.

    • @qewqeqeqwew3977
      @qewqeqeqwew3977 Рік тому +3

      @@atmacm It absolutely does not. You either did not read what I wrote or have reading comprehension problems. Repeating same false statement and adding "absolutely" does not make it true.

    • @atmacm
      @atmacm Рік тому +1

      @@qewqeqeqwew3977 I read your response, but it’s wrong. Did you not read my comment where I told you accurate information that you could learn from? Apparently you didn’t. Current flows negative to positive but it’s mostly taught to be the opposite to not confuse people…. Like you

  • @satisfyingvideos2112
    @satisfyingvideos2112 Рік тому +1

    🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

  • @Alex-xh9kv
    @Alex-xh9kv 10 місяців тому +2

    The mechanical voice is a turn off & the script excludes important details. For example, the voice says to use a hand to determine what direction the magnetic field follows the around a wire but not which hand. Thankfully, the video shows the right hand.

  • @kingdomkhmer9862
    @kingdomkhmer9862 2 роки тому +1

    KINGDOM Khmer love😍🙏

  • @jaikendrickmanaloto
    @jaikendrickmanaloto Рік тому +1

    𝕀𝕥 𝕙𝕒𝕤 𝟝𝟘% 𝕠𝕗 𝕒 𝕥𝕤𝕒𝕣 𝕓𝕠𝕞𝕓𝕒