Slashdot Mirror


Rail Guns Closer to Reality

emtboy9 writes "Yahoo News is reporting that scientists at Sandia National Labs have created a magnetic pulse gun (rail gun) that can accelerate small aluminum plates at 34 kilometers per second, faster than the Earth travels through space. The accelerated plates strike a target after traveling only five millimeters, or less than a quarter-inch. The impact generates a shock wave -- in some cases, reaching 15 million times atmospheric pressure -- that passes through the target material turning matter into various states almost instantly (solids into liquids, liquids into gas, and even gas into plasma)."

475 comments

  1. Shitty weapon in Counterstrike by CyberBill · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think the knife has a longer range than this thing.

    They should use some of the technology for cold fusion to accelerate small metal plates into things... That would be hella fun!

    --
    -Bill
    1. Re:Shitty weapon in Counterstrike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you talking to me?

    2. Re:Shitty weapon in Counterstrike by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      I imagine they mean it only moves vertically that amount while in projectile motion :P

    3. Re:Shitty weapon in Counterstrike by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      They should use some of the technology for cold fusion to accelerate small metal plates into things... That would be hella fun!

      Or turn it around and try to use railgun technology to produce warm fusion. I'm not really sure if it would work (effective confinement is one *bleeping* hard thing to do), but it might offer the possibility of fusing a large amount of matter. Now how can we extract energy from the extreme neutron flux without losing the machine in the process?

    4. Re:Shitty weapon in Counterstrike by momerath2003 · · Score: 1

      The Z machine and other magnetic pinch devices already can create fusion (not thermonuclear, though).

      --
      I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
    5. Re:Shitty weapon in Counterstrike by Bullfish · · Score: 1

      The mighty chain gun was born of the the original gatling gun. Ultimately, this will be very scary.

    6. Re:Shitty weapon in Counterstrike by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Indeed. As can a Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor. The trick is to find a method for building a machine that creates energy-positive fusion. Something other than a thermonuclear warhead, that is.

      (Unless someone has got a good idea for using such weapons for power generation. Anyone?)

    7. Re:Shitty weapon in Counterstrike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Point them at a country and demand their oil for power generation? :o

    8. Re:Shitty weapon in Counterstrike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1, Sadly true

    9. Re:Shitty weapon in Counterstrike by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      You can have a railgun in Counterstrike? Please tell me how.

    10. Re:Shitty weapon in Counterstrike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is not being designed as a weapon. more sort of a particle accelerator (the 'bullet' is only a few hundred microns thick) It's being used to provide data about nuclear reactions. From the site it was a bit unclear though whether they are actually aiming to create sustainable fusion or not.

    11. Re:Shitty weapon in Counterstrike by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      And how close to reality do you have to get before it's real? I saw magnetic pulse guns demonstrated in my physics class in college- with the 555 timer turned down of course so that you could actually see the induction pull the projectile through the stages.

      But yes- 15 mm between gun and target is awfully short range...any knife with at least a 15mm blade could beat it.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  2. Yeehaw! by gbulmash · · Score: 4, Funny
    One of them, a jug of whiskey, and a bunch of squirrels, and you got yourself a party!

    1. Re:Yeehaw! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of them, a jug of whiskey, and a bunch of squirrels, and you got yourself a party!

      Here with a Loaf of Bread beneath the Bough,
      A Flask of Wine, a Z Machine -- and Thou
      Beside me singing in the Wilderness --
      And Wilderness is Paradise enow.

    2. Re:Yeehaw! by Rii · · Score: 1

      Too bad it's hard to stuff a vaporized squirrel.

    3. Re:Yeehaw! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You sir, are sick. Getting innocent squirrels drunk! Honestly, what is the world coming to?

    4. Re:Yeehaw! by pegasustonans · · Score: 3, Funny

      Come with me and be my Z Machine
      And we will plasma pleasures scream
      That hills and valleys, dale and field,
      And all the craggy mountains yield.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    5. Re:Yeehaw! by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or you could rig up a I.R. tracker, clock/timer and noise detector and if the that f**king dog next door went nuts at 5am in the morning again, it would be the last time he did it! Yippy Kay Ay, motherf**ker!

      --
      "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
    6. Re:Yeehaw! by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      We couldn't stuff them the old way either, though we could hang bits of fur on the den wall...

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    7. Re:Yeehaw! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      Too bad it's hard to stuff a vaporized squirrel.

      Oh, they'd be stuffed all right.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    8. Re:Yeehaw! by tod_miller · · Score: 1

      *checks notepad* is this some new meme I am unaware of?

      If so, I like it.

      WTF that 'you're not a script' test is back on /., this time it is so hard, I am questioning if I am in fact, not a script.

      Or should I say: http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza-cgi-bin/eliza_script

      You: One of them, a jug of whiskey, and a bunch of squirrels, and you got yourself a party!
      Eliza: Oh, i got myself a party.
      You: with whiskey and squirrels!
      Eliza: Please go on.
      You: aren't you excited by squirrels?
      Eliza: Oh, i excited by squirrels.
      You: why not say, you mentioned before you like squirrels
      Eliza: Oh, i mentioned before i like squirrels.
      You: why not say, you like goaste, and wish you could live inside his cavernous orifice
      Eliza: Oh, i like goaste and wish i could live inside his cavernous orifice.

      From: http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza-cgi-bin/eliza_script

      --
      #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
    9. Re:Yeehaw! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Or you could rig up a I.R. tracker, clock/timer and noise detector and if the that f**king dog next door went nuts at 5am in the morning again, it would be the last time he did it! Yippy Kay Ay, motherf**ker!

      Or you could invest in proper soundproofing, and not blame the dog for your own miserly.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:Yeehaw! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      And for this, you get modded... insightful. *sigh*

    11. Re:Yeehaw! by Tekzel · · Score: 1

      And what kind of morons modded the parent insightful?

    12. Re:Yeehaw! by MegaFur · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on that. I really like that idea a lot more than I ought to. I don't have a problem with neighbor-dog right because of where I live, but I have in the past. Right then, when the dog's barking and you're trying to sleep, many, many forms of dog torture and murder seem like good ones.

      --
      Furry cows moo and decompress.
    13. Re:Yeehaw! by WeblionX · · Score: 1

      I supposed I could soundproof two and a half walls, but with two large windows, I fail to see how that would help. Not to mention I'd like to know what you would use to soundproof the walls without using eggcrate foam, turning the room into an even more piss-poor looking living area.

      --
      (\(\
      (=_=) Bani!
      (")")
  3. Quake by YOystick · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sounds like we have our Quake 4 in real life before it is released...

    1. Re:Quake by bizitch · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for the "Mr Pant's Excessive" version of this hits the streets!

      --
      ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
  4. faster than huuuu... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "faster than the Earth travels through space". Always cracks me up.

  5. got link? by conduit8675 · · Score: 1

    What does the "magnetic pulse gun" link have to do with a "magnetic pulse gun?"

    1. Re:got link? by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 1

      RBFA

      The second link is a short description of the machine used to produce the nifty effect talked about in the first link.

    2. Re:got link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, it's the machine the article talks about. I discerned this by comparing the caption of the image, "The Z Machine", to the first paragraph of the linked article.

      I can see why this could be confusing.

  6. faster, how? by Speare · · Score: 3, Insightful
    faster than the Earth travels through space

    Faster, measured against what frame of reference? A marker on the equator versus the center of mass? As seen from the moon? Sol? Alpha Proxima? Vega? The center of Andromeda's galactic core?

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:faster, how? by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

      Please read the first linked article. Answered in second paragraph.

    2. Re:faster, how? by js7a · · Score: 4, Informative
      Obligatory Monty Python answer:
      Just remember that you're standing on a planet
      That's evolving
      And revolving
      At nine thousand miles an hour.
      It's orbiting at nineteen miles a second,
      so it's reckoned,
      'Round the sun that is the source of all our power.
      Now the sun, and you and me,
      and all the stars that we can see,
      Are moving at a million miles a day,
      In the outer spiral arm,
      at fourteen thousand miles an hour,
      Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.

      Our galaxy itself contains a hundred million stars;
      It's a hundred thousand light-years side to side;
      It bulges in the middle
      sixteen thousand light-years thick,
      But out by us
      it's just three thousand light-years wide.
      We're thirty thousand light-years
      From Galactic Central Point,
      We go 'round every two hundred million years;
      And our galaxy itself is one of millions of billions
      In this amazing and expanding universe.

      Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,
      In all of the directions it can whiz;
      As fast as it can go,
      that's the speed of light, you know,
      Twelve million miles a minute
      And that's the fastest speed there is.
      So remember,
      when you're feeling very small and insecure,
      How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
      And pray that there's intelligent life
      Somewhere out in space,
      'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
      The Sun circles the center of our Galaxy at about 250 km/s, but the Local Group of galaxies moves at about 600 kilometers per second relative to the primordial radiation of the big bang.
    3. Re:faster, how? by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Clearly a solar centric frame of refernce, as (1 AU * 2 * pi) / (1 year) is roughly 29,700 m/s. Which is close to, but less than, the speed quoted.

    4. Re:faster, how? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Faster, measured against what frame of reference? A marker on the equator versus the center of mass? As seen from the moon? Sol? Alpha Proxima? Vega? The center of Andromeda's galactic core?

      Probably the Earth's orbital speed around the Sun.

      It's far too small to be in reference to the cosmic microwave background radiation. The temperature of the CMBR varies as a dipole across the sky, with a temperature difference of 7.7 mK, because the Sun is traveling toward the Leo constellation at about 370 km/s relative to the CMBR radiation itself. It would be traveling faster but the galaxy as a whole is moving at about 600 km/s in the direction of Centaurus.

    5. Re:faster, how? by OO7david · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is unneed pendantry. If you are not only able to list off these places as frames of referrence but also think of them in the first place, odds are you already know the answer.

      Most sensible people would take it as being the sun spinning around the sun, and leave it there.

      Since there is no pleasing you therein, the earth is more or less 149,668,992 km from the sun, which gives a circumfrence of around 940,398,011 km which over 365 days gives 29.8 km/second.

      So, there you go, it's around the sun.

    6. Re:faster, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not fucking obligatory you redundant asshat. God damn it this is not Fark, and we do not have to reuse EVERY single catchphrase in every post.

    7. Re:faster, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is unneed pendantry.

      I'm sure you can sell all your extra pendants on ebay or something, make a good lump of money.

      Most sensible people would take it as being the sun spinning around the sun, and leave it there.

      In the spirit of unneeded pedantry, what binary solar system do all these sensible people live in?

    8. Re:faster, how? by thegoofeedude · · Score: 0

      I need better measurement! How fast is that in Libraries of Congress/GHZ?

    9. Re:faster, how? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      As some have noted, the speed mentioned in this case is that of rotation about the sun. There is, however, a more universal method to measure our speed through the universe. You can do this by looking at the cosmic microwave background. Just because relativity says there's no preferred frame of reference, doesn't mean we can't choose sensible ones based on the things we see around us.

    10. Re:faster, how? by Ruie · · Score: 1
      ...sun spinning around the sun..

      Ok, which planet are you from ?

    11. Re:faster, how? by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 1
      Faster, measured against what frame of reference?

      Don't pretend to be clever when you're not. Obviously it is against the frame of reference in which the firing device exists, in the case of the gun, and against the frame of reference of the sun (or even the frame of reference of the motion of the center of gravity of the solar system, to be a complete pedant), in the case of earth.

      Mod parent down. Insightful != dumb.

    12. Re:faster, how? by AoT · · Score: 1

      Have you even READ the terms of use?

    13. Re:faster, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Organ Collector: So, can I have your liver?
      Androgenous person: Allright, you've talked me into it.

    14. Re:faster, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem with that is that the earth doesn't quite travel at a constant speed, so... well you get the idea.

    15. Re:faster, how? by mboverload · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked all the galaxies were moving away from eachother?

    16. Re:faster, how? by thomasa · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course it slows down for leap years.

    17. Re:faster, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We revolve around the sun, not rotate. Rotate is spin on an axis.

    18. Re:faster, how? by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Not only is this untrue, but it also doesn't go against GP in any way... (please do remember that, while the Sun moves towards the Leo constellation the constellation itself may very well move away from the sun...)

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    19. Re:faster, how? by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with being pedantic, it's about accurate reporting. If you're going to give a speed of a celestial object then you should give a frame of reference. Especially in this case, "... faster than the Earth travels through space." You absolutely need a frame of reference with this sentence otherwise I might think you're talking about the velocity at which our planet spins around the sun which spins around the galactic center etc... I'm not just going to assume that it's around the sun or do the math because the reporter was to damn lazy to replace, "through space", with "around the sun".

      The second part of your post is informative, the first part is unnecessary.

    20. Re:faster, how? by Sam+Ritchie · · Score: 1

      No, unneeded pedantry would be pointing out that the earth's velocity wrt the sun is roughly constant, therefore it's accelerating at 0 km/second/second. Not hard to 'accelerate' something faster than that.

      --
      This sig is false.
    21. Re:faster, how? by g_arumilli · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, unneeded pedantry would be pointing out that the earth's velocity wrt the sun is roughly constant, therefore it's accelerating at 0 km/second/second. Not hard to 'accelerate' something faster than that.

      That's false. There's an acceleration because the velocity is changing in direction, even if it isn't changing in magnitude. This should be obvious from the fact that there's a force (the sun's gravitational force) acting on it. Basic physics, F = ma, yada yada yada.

      Although the article summary is wrong in saying that the plate was accelerated "at" 34 km/sec, perhaps accelerated "to" 34 km/sec may have been more accurate.

    22. Re:faster, how? by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      Changing direction is acceleration too, you know. Assuming the earth's orbit is circular (close enough) it is accelerating towards the sun at v^2/r, which I can't be bothered to work out.

    23. Re:faster, how? by cahiha · · Score: 1

      The statement is simply wrong, rather than incomplete. The absolute motion (i.e., the motion of earth relative to all other mass in the universe) of earth through space is at least several hundred km/sec, far too high for this analogy. Obviously, the reporter meant "around the sun" and just got it wrong.

    24. Re:faster, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faster, measured against what frame of reference? A marker on the equator versus the center of mass? As seen from the moon? Sol? Alpha Proxima? Vega? The center of Andromeda's galactic core?

      Hmmmm, geek equivalent of a jock flexing his muscles in the locker room.
      "Ooooh, look at these babies. Ooooh yeah. I'm so hot"

    25. Re:faster, how? by halleluja · · Score: 1

      OK, but where do I find a barrel wide enough to fit the earth?

    26. Re:faster, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because "sensible" people "know" that the sun is the "center" of the universe, right?

    27. Re:faster, how? by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

      I prefer (CarrierPigeons/LibraryOfCongress) * SpeedOfUnLadenAfricanCarrierPigeon. Though to be pedantic, if a carrier pigeon is carrying its share of a LoC, then it is not actually unladen.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    28. Re:faster, how? by MPHellwig · · Score: 1

      What! You are reading slashdot AND you are from earth?! ;-)

    29. Re:faster, how? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      the article summary is wrong in saying that the plate was accelerated "at" 34 km/sec, perhaps accelerated "to" 34 km/sec may have been more accurate
      Agreed, not just the wrong units but the wrong dimensions. Acceleration is length over time squared, anybody knows that.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    30. Re:faster, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acceleration is change in velocity. Velocity is not the same as speed; velocity is a vector, that's to say it has direction. Does the earth change direction as it moves in orbit? Yes. By coincidence, that's the same as the answer to "are you a stupid fucktard who failed elementary physics?".

    31. Re:faster, how? by fhmiv · · Score: 1

      RTFA. From the second paragraph of the short article: "The Z Machine is now able to propel small plates at 34 kilometers a second, faster than the 30 kilometers per second that Earth travels through space in its orbit about the Sun. That's 50 times faster than a rifle bullet, and three times the velocity needed to escape Earth's gravitational field."

    32. Re:faster, how? by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      While the slashdot summary may not have been perfect (the horror!), in TFA the frame of refrance was specified.

    33. Re:faster, how? by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Well I'm glad you asked.

      The construction on the intergalactic super highway has already begun. Since the architect of this fantastic piece of engineering is a bit of a mad genius he decided to bypass the tradtional demolition method used in public works projects and instead created the guide rails of the a material that super-conducts at the ambient inter-planetary temperature. These (guide) rails run close to and trangent to the earth, and a the gap will be spanned with a large piece of a traditionally conductive metal (possibly a copper astroid belt.) Then a large voltage will be applied to the (guide) rails. The astroid belt will complete the cicuit and liquify due to ohmic heating. The former astroid belt will then rapidly accelerate due to the magnetic field created by the high voltage present on the (guide) rails and propel the earth forward at tremendous speed.

      Now while this will prevent the total destuction of the planet and will succeed in moving the earth from its (unfortunate) position clearing the way for the highway I wouldn't get to excited.
      The massive acceleration will cause anyone or anything on the the side of the direction of accelration to be flattened into the crust of the earth, and anyone on the opposite side to be accelerated into space.

    34. Re:faster, how? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      Is it really worth being a dick about semantics when the reality is we don't rotate OR revolve about the sun, but we travel in a straight line through curved spacetime? As a physics person, I think in terms of frames of reference, and rotational frame of reference makes sense - revolutionary does not.

    35. Re:faster, how? by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      the whats of what now?

      --
      music lover since 1969
    36. Re:faster, how? by Retric · · Score: 1

      Is it really worth being a dick about semantics when the reality is we don't rotate OR revolve about the sun, but we travel in a straight line through curved spacetime? As a physics person, I think in terms of frames of reference, and rotational frame of reference makes sense - revolutionary does not.

      I think your missing the point space / time is only curved in relation to light. If space / time where curved such that the earth where moving in a straight line around the sun then light would also do the same thing.

    37. Re:faster, how? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      No, you are missing the point. Light DOES get deflected by the sun. There are many physical reasons why this isn't immediately obvious from staring at the sky, but it is very much true. Gravity affects light EXACTLY the same way it affets matter. Both move through spacetime in a straight line. When you look at a galaxy and see gravitational lensing, it is due to the deformation of spacetime. When you look at the starts spinning around the black hole at the center of that galaxy, it is due to deformation of spacetime. There is no seperate gravity for light and a different one for matter. It's all the same.

    38. Re:faster, how? by alschroeder · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Life is always better with a dose of Monty Python in the morning.---Al

      --
      MINDMISTRESS ---the greatest super
    39. Re:faster, how? by Retric · · Score: 1

      Space is bent around the sun. (TRUE)

      When you look at a galaxy and see gravitational lensing, it is due to the deformation of spacetime.(TRUE)

      But what your missing is a straiht line is a straight line independent of speed. An extra solar object that fly's straight to the sun is going in a staight line. BUT, a high velocity object that passes by the sun is deflected by difrent amounts based on it's velocity. With gravitational lensing light is following a straight line based on the curature of space time but a slower object is not going to follow that same line even if it's passing though the same space.

    40. Re:faster, how? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the most fundamental point of relativity. The term relative should give it away to you. Velocity DOES matter. In the frame of reference of the light, time is distorted relative to that of the frame of reference of the earth, so the light "feels" a different curvature. A straight line is a straight line in your OWN frame of reference. The details of said frame does in fact depend on your speed.

    41. Re:faster, how? by Retric · · Score: 1

      Ok, for the most part I understand relativity but it's so far outside what we deal with in day-to-day life it's hard to "think about" on some level. So let's do what most scientists would do under these circumstances lets build an experiment.

      Take a large space ship ~1km long or longer. Place it in empty space and have 2 free floating objects a laser and a target. Now with minor calibration you have a laser floating in your ship hitting a target in your ship. At this point talking about how fast the ship is moving is pointless because everything is moving in the same frame of reference.

      Now let's have the ship move by a star. The laser is going to keep going more or less strait to the target but the target will have moved. Now are we going to define a "straight line" in terms of the laser or the target? How about if the laser is aiming a gun?

      Clearly you see the same things on earth but a straight line is defined in terms of the laser and it's path not the target or bullet. You fire a gun on the earth or the moon and the bullet falls but the laser falls less and you define space in terms of light not the objects and their paths.

    42. Re:faster, how? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      The confusion is a subtle one, and one that tripped me up for a long time when I was studying relativity a few years ago. The crux of it is, you CAN'T define space in terms of any one reference. Spacetime "looks" different from different frames of reference. Much like quantum mechanics, it's incredibly counter-intuitive, and the only way to REALLY believe in it is to be forced to trudge through the math yourself. Unfortunatly, the math for general relativity is even more difficult to understand than the underlying concepts (at least for me it was!).

    43. Re:faster, how? by pbaer · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it's based on how long it takes earth to orbit the sun. Of course it assumes earth travels the same speed throughout all points of the orbit.

      --
      There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
    44. Re:faster, how? by Retric · · Score: 1

      The crux of it is, you CAN'T define space in terms of any one reference.

      No, you can define space time in terms of ANY reference but you can't compare data from difrent references. If you had two fleets of ship's going past eachother at .5c then every one of the ship's in each fleet would all agree that the other ship's where going at .5c that they all had Y mass ect. Relitivity means that fleet A can't say to fleet B look that star has a mass of X * 10^10 grams without fleet B saying not it's X * 1.3 * 10 ^ 10 grams.

      The other point you seem to be forgeting is relitivity only realy shows up when you want to get extreamly accurate data or are dealing with reasonable fractions of C. The earth and the Sun are in slightly difrent frames of reference but the difrence is TINY. Saying the earth goes around the SUN because the SUN bends space time so that the earth's path is a straigt line is missing the fact that the "bends" in space time are TINY. Yes clocks on Pluto and Earth are not going to agree to the date over time but the diffrence in way to small for a human to notice. Hi my twin is 100 years old but HAHA I am 99.9999999 years old which is so important... err well he was born 7min after I was but still it's .00000001 seconds it's still important.

      PS: I can do the math and find out the real numbers on this stuff but you get my point.

    45. Re:faster, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia catchphrase reuses YOU!

  7. Plates don't liquify people by cheesebikini · · Score: 5, Funny

    Plates don't liquify people. People liquify people.

    1. Re:Plates don't liquify people by rtaylor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Try the new Soylent Green Energy Drink!

      --
      Rod Taylor
    2. Re:Plates don't liquify people by kfg · · Score: 1

      "Excuse me sir, but would you please give me all your dough, or I shall shoot. Ummmm, if you'll just stand over here. No, a bit more to the left. Too much, come back just a hair. Now, step closer, closer, closer. . .Hey! Where ya goin'?"

      KFG

    3. Re:Plates don't liquify people by eluusive · · Score: 1

      Have you seen "The Jackal?" This reminds me of that poor soul who made the Jackal a gun mount out of carbon fiber.

    4. Re:Plates don't liquify people by kfg · · Score: 1

      Nah. I've read the book and seen the previous movie version and didn't want to spoil them, both particular favorites of mine.

      The book is one of those rare works that stands alone. There was nothing quite like it before, and there has been nothing quite like it since either. Quite extraordinary when you consider it was a first novel knocked out in a matter of weeks. And the key to the whole thing is the way Forsyth makes the bad guy the protagonist, without ever in any way making him an empathic character, makes it work, and all with a gritty, matter of fact realism. Quite remarkable.

      If you haven't read it, do so. Soon. Then watch the '73 movie version and marvel at how a difficult book really can be translated to the screen if the people involved give a shit to do so.

      KFG

    5. Re:Plates don't liquify people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In sovet russia plates liquify you!

    6. Re:Plates don't liquify people by kc32 · · Score: 1

      Whoa. The thought of somebody having a gun like that really does scare me, unlike "assault weapons and military weapons like that. Anybody remember the FarSight XR-20 from Perfect Dark? That's downright scary.

    7. Re:Plates don't liquify people by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      If the plates act like frisbee's when fired, that means when one passes a dog, the dog will try to catch it by jumping up. This may be an indirect way to track the trajectory by looking at the line of jumping dogs. Of course if one sees a line of jumping coming toward you, you would have time to duck, or try and catch the frisbee yourself?

  8. To what ? by RedVortex · · Score: 0, Redundant

    34 kilometers per second, faster than the Earth travels through space.

    Compared to what, relative to what ? The moon ? Saturn ? Space is quite big you know...

    RedVortex

    1. Re:To what ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't everything on earth move through space faster than the earth does? As long as it's travelling in the same direction the earth is.

    2. Re:To what ? by anonymous+lion · · Score: 1
      RTFA
      The Z Machine is now able to propel small plates at 34 kilometers a second, faster than the 30 kilometers per second that Earth travels through space in its orbit about the Sun. That's 50 times faster than a rifle bullet, and three times the velocity needed to escape Earth's gravitational field.
      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    3. Re:To what ? by everphilski · · Score: 1

      Relative to the sun. We move about 30 km/sec around the sun. The moon orbits the earth at about 1 km/sec.

      IAAAE (I Am An Aerospace Engineer)[not that you'd have to be one to figure it out... governing laws are basically geometry...]

      -everphilski-

    4. Re:To what ? by RedVortex · · Score: 1

      Men... this is deep... ;-)

      RedVortex

    5. Re:To what ? by Goeland86 · · Score: 1

      good question. Earth travels at 300 km/s relative to the inside edge of the galaxy. That's a bunch of velocities combined. Not to mention that earth's speed varies depending on where it is in it's elliptical orbit.

      --
      ---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
    6. Re:To what ? by Barny · · Score: 1

      My guess would be its refering to the rate at which the earth moves in relation to our nearest star, it being the centre of this little bit of the galaxy ;)

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
  9. I for one... by Atmchicago · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new cybernetic, rail-gun bearing overlords.

    --

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    1. Re:I for one... by Sicarii · · Score: 1

      am gunna get me one,then head over to Redmond...

  10. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, you could maybe launch non-mil payloads into space, or perhaps use the technology in terrestrial transportation... Or make a really bitchin' chicken gun.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  11. Railguns, Exactly What We Need by Adrilla · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yep, this is exactly what we need floating around the streets, the ability to turn organs into fluids. Giving the victim no chance of survival nor the ability to donate organs. Wonderful.

    --

    "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    1. Re:Railguns, Exactly What We Need by kiljoy001 · · Score: 1

      No but the prospect of vaporizing people seems intresting...wait...

    2. Re:Railguns, Exactly What We Need by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you can't get out of the way of the guy carrying a gun bigger than my house, I think it's probably best if your slow-ass organs die with you.

    3. Re:Railguns, Exactly What We Need by Rii · · Score: 1

      As far as projectile wounds go, this is a pretty merciful instant death. I'd much rather be vaporized in a second than slowly bleed to death after getting shot in the stomach. True, the chance for survival goes down, but police are trained to shoot to kill anyway.

    4. Re:Railguns, Exactly What We Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may been the case before but not anymore. Police are trained to stop the threat. The result of stopping the threat may be death but that is not the primary consideration. Any officer that ever admits shooting to kill instead of shooting to stop the threat faces the distinct possibility of being charged with murder.

  12. Rail gun + Japan's robot suit = by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    LAQ (Live Action Quake)?

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    1. Re:Rail gun + Japan's robot suit = by Erbo · · Score: 1
      LAQ (Live Action Quake)?

      I bet the respawns are gonna be pretty hard...

      --
      Be who you are...and be it in style!
    2. Re:Rail gun + Japan's robot suit = by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      I bet the respawns are gonna be pretty hard...

      That would be taken care of through uploading your brain (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/ 23/1652222&from=rss/).

      The n00bs would still spawn camp though... and still get their ass kicked anyways.

    3. Re:Rail gun + Japan's robot suit = by Megaslow · · Score: 1

      Obligatory link: Romand Candle Quake

  13. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    RTFA. It's only 6 paragraphs. That's not too taxing, is it? Or do you prefer to post a dumb question and end up looking like an idiot in the hope that maybe you'll get an "insightful" mod and maybe even a first post?

    Second paragraph:

    Housed at Sandia National Laboratories, the Z machine attracted a lot of attention eight years ago when its energy output more than quadrupled - raising hopes that the reactions in the Z could provide a new source of clean, abundant power. To help further progress towards this end, the machine is getting a $61.7 million upgrade, officials announced recently.

  14. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

    if it's cheap and can bring down walls with ease, i think demolition crews would use it quite a bit. plus, liquifying stuff is cool.

  15. Can someone please explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...how a magnetic pulse accelerates an aluminum plate? I don't remember aluminum being particularly responsive to (simple, speaker-type) magnets, perhaps the scale of energy involved changes things?

    1. Re:Can someone please explain by sydres · · Score: 0, Troll

      aluminum is diamagnetic under a strong, read thousands of guass, it is repeledas opposed to being attracted

    2. Re:Can someone please explain by NewNole2001 · · Score: 1

      Magic, my friend. Magic, and nothing else. Well, that.. and the force.

    3. Re:Can someone please explain by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      I used to work ( at the corp office ) for a company that did MRI. Story I heard was that a doctor allowed a patient into the chamber with an aluminum pin in the arm. Wasnt steel, so it should be no problem, right? Well, that patient ended up with the flesh around the pin cooked. Aluminum conducts current very well. Move a conductor thru a magnetic field will induce a current ( and a magnetic field ) ( and the resistance will generate heat ).

      ( Another story, the B-36 I think it was was spec'ed with aluminum wiring since it was lighter than copper and a better conductor. Didnt work out well, due to the mechanical properties of aluminum. )

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    4. Re:Can someone please explain by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't the magnetic field that induced a current in and heated the Al. It was the RF pulse used to align the proton spin in the patient. The Al pin acted like an antenna and absorbed the RF from the MRI which then heated ohmically.....Not that it matters much to the person with a partly cooked arm... :-(

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    5. Re:Can someone please explain by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Very interesting.

      Thanks for explaining better. I had always wondered how the little bit of movement done in the chamber induced enough current to cook. I had figured it was the intensity of the field ( we were warned not to cross the ( I think ) 10 gauss line ( painted on the floor ) with credit or atm cards ( not that I let that stop me... ) )

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    6. Re:Can someone please explain by mwburden · · Score: 1

      Aluminum might be lighter than copper, but last I knew copper was a better conductor.

    7. Re:Can someone please explain by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      I had thought my source had stated that, but I was wrong.

      XB-36 Article

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  16. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by nrlightfoot · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a non-military use. They are using it to simulate conditions deep within giant planets. Also this isn't really a rail gun. For one it doesn't use rails, and the whole aim of this experiment is unrelated to rail guns.

    --
    what sig?
  17. ITS ABOUT TIME! by inteller · · Score: 1

    My mech has been waiting to get outfitted with one of these for a while!

  18. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by kiveol · · Score: 1
    From the article:
    One purpose of these very rapid flights is to help understand the extreme conditions found within the interiors of giant planets in our solar system. By creating states of matter extremely difficult to achieve on Earth, the flyer plates provide hard data to astrophysicists speculating on the structure and even the formation of planets like Jupiter and Saturn.

    Didier Saumon, an astrophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, noted that the internal structures of Jupiter and Saturn are composed mostly of hydrogen. So knowing its equation of state -- how hydrogen and its isotopes behave at pressures from one to 50 million atmospheres -- is highly relevant to how scientists infer the interior properties of these planets.

  19. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by OmegaBlac · · Score: 2, Informative
    are there any non-military uses for this?
    Sure is. Check the Wikipedia link posted in the summary or right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gun
  20. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like you watched Real Genius. Anyways, the real concern for something like this is the fact that a device accelerating matter like this on the surface of the Earth is going to affect the planet's orbit around the Sun. Not a good thing to be playing with.

  21. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by JavaGeek7654 · · Score: 1

    Either you invent it first and use it against them.

    Or they invent it first and use it against you.

    Next they can design sheild technology to protect themselves from their weapons.

  22. mmmm... by zenneth · · Score: 1

    I'll take two, please.

    --
    The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
  23. Did you not do basic physics at school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "a magnetic pulse gun (rail gun) that can accelerate small aluminum plates at 34 kilometers per second"

    We were taught this at the age of 14 - what were you doing?

    Acceleration is measured in distance per second per second. 34 km/s is a velocity. So did you mean it accelerates it to 34 km/s? Or did you actually mean it accelerates at 34 km/s/s? This is /. were pedantic nerds with nothing better to do hang out, not CNN.

    1. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's accelerate to 34 km/s. I forget what the actual acceleration is, but I figured out that the flyer plate goes from 0 to 60 (mph) in something like 0.002 nanoseconds.

    2. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      34 km/s is a speed, not a velocity. Velocity is a vector and needs a direction component as well as a magnitude. What where you doing at 14?

    3. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you consider 34 km/s a speed, it lacks a direction component. If we call it a vector, though, we can say the sign is the direction component. Have you forgotten high school physics? Did you expect him to rattle off some three dimensional polar vector?

    4. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by digitalunity · · Score: 2, Informative

      Only if the aluminum slug accelerates linearly, which is almost surely not the case. Like any other inductor, the rails will need time to build up their magnetic field. This hysteresis combined with the potentially non-linear response from the capacitor bank they are likely using to power this thing, I'd imagine you could be off by just a hair.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    5. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is /. were pedantic nerds with nothing better to do hang out, not CNN.

      And as one such, I can't help pointing out that "were" should be "where".

    6. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by Tet · · Score: 2, Informative
      0 to 60 (mph) in something like 0.002 nanoseconds.

      Or in SI units, 2 picoseconds.

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    7. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the direction is forward...

    8. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by mallardtheduck · · Score: 1

      Then that would be 0 to 26.8224 m/s then...

    9. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by johnw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, if we're going to be pedantic, 34 km/s is a speed, not a velocity.

      John

    10. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was only joining in with the overly pedantic comments:) You are correct that when talking about acceleration and velocity it is common to consider only a single dimension, where a sign is all that is required for the direction component.

      Although actually I do get a bit irked by people using velocity when they mean speed. The two that bug me the most are:

      1.) Orbital Velocity - Objects in orbit are continually accelerating, so their velocities are continually changing. What stays constant is the speed (for a circular orbit), it is the direction component that changes. For example, saying "the velocity of objects in geostationary orbit is about 3000m/s" is incorrect. They have a constant speed and an ever changing velocity.

      2.) Escape Velocity - The speed required to escape the gravitational attraction of a body is the same in every direction (assuming the resultant parabolic orbit doesn't actually intersect the body in question!), so this should really be "escape speed".

      (Insert dig at your school physics here)

    11. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, for velocity you also need to state the direction...

    12. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since we are being pedantic and, as you pointed out, this is not CNN, perhaps correct diction and/or spelling of common words would be in order. "This is /. w[h]ere pedantic nerds"...etc. Personally, I wasn't learning even basic physics at 14, but I had certainly learned correct language skills by then! Ah, the anonymity of being a coward makes for being such an ass... ;)

    13. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by mockm · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "This is /. where pedantic nerds with nothing better to do hang out, not CNN."

      lol! that should replace slashdot's current slogan.

      --
      "Ever have your heart shot out of season and strapped to the hood of a car?" -- Chopper Harley
    14. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by panic_smooth · · Score: 3, Informative

      inspection of the 'scientists' link in TFA reveals that the plate is accelerated at 1010g, taking the speed (sic) from zero to the reported 34 km/s.

      --
    15. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The velocity is assumed - since it's on slashdot it's a well known fact that the direction is 'downhill.'

    16. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so pedantic that I have to mention that you misspelt a word:

      This is /. where pedantic nerds with nothing better do to hang out, not CNN.

    17. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      We were taught this at the age of 14 - what were you doing?

      drinking beer & chasing girls.

    18. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by bre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Acceleration is measured in distance per second per second. 34 km/s is a velocity. So did you mean it accelerates it to 34 km/s? Or did you actually mean it accelerates at 34 km/s/s? This is /. were pedantic nerds with nothing better to do hang out, not CNN.

      Shouldn't this be (34 km/s)/s or 34 km/(s*s) or 34 km/(s^2)?

    19. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ah, the anonymity of being a coward makes for being such an ass... ;)
      Cut it out, you're making the rest of us look bad!
    20. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      34 km/s is a velocity

      34 km/s alone is not a velocity. It is the magnitude of a velocity, or "speed", but without a direction, it is not a velocity.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    21. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by ThrasherTT · · Score: 1

      From TFA: The ultra-tiny aluminum plates, just 850 microns thick, are accelerated at 1010 g.

      --

      All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
    22. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ, no wonder you nerds can't get laid.

    23. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I understand your point, in both cases you mention, the term velocity is correct.

      For orbital velocity, the vector of motion is tangential to the surface. For escape velocity, the vector of motion is perpendicular to the surface. The direction vector is essential to both terms. For instance, you are not at escape velocity if your speed is directed towards the surface, or even tangential to it. A velocity can be specified with a polar vector.

    24. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      No, the divisions are done in order. Therefore km/s/s means taking the km, dividing by the first s, then dividing by the second s. The original poster is techically correct, although not using a very common notation.

    25. Re:Did you not do basic physics at school? by jazman · · Score: 1

      This is /. were pedantic nerds with...

      Did you mean where?

  24. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by AviN456 · · Score: 1

    quit jacking my sig :p

    --
    - Just because we CAN do a thing, does not mean we SHOULD do that thing.
  25. Meanwhile in Iraq... by aenima0886 · · Score: 1

    American: pwned Iraqi: stfu camper

  26. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by Vorondil28 · · Score: 1

    Oh, do tell me what kind of uesful payload you'd put into space that could withstand the acceleration of being shot out of one of these. ;-)

    On the other hand, a chicken gun sounds like good times.

    --
    This sig rocks the casbah.
  27. Re:How about a love gun by dex22 · · Score: 1

    I don't think you understand the intent of the international treaties.

    They don't want weapons that leave injured bodies and people screaming. That's "cruel"

    Which is why you have to shatter the bodies, and kill the people outright. No suffering that way...

    Hope this clears that up for you...

  28. So uncivilized! by Ray+Alloc · · Score: 0

    To the blast with rayguns!

    How long will we have to wait until they start to make lightsabers, which are civilized weapons of a civilized world?

    1. Re:So uncivilized! by mister_tim · · Score: 1

      About the same time that people develop who can use them to block laser fire without thinking and who have super-human reflexes.

      In the meantime, an army with guns would certainly defeat people with swords, even if they were laser-swords, because it is just not humanly possible to deflect so many bullets (or blaster fire).

      Which now makes me wonder - which came first: the jedi or the lightsabre? Did the jedi develop and invent lightsabres as a weapon that was matched to their abilities, or did people invent lightsabres which led to the discovery (or development) of people with the skills to use them?

    2. Re:So uncivilized! by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      It's, bad, science fiction - it's not supposed to be real. Jedi and Lightsabers appeared at the same time in the first Star Wars film !

  29. Practical use for a rail gun by netrangerrr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Call it a "rail launcher" and fire satellite payloads into orbit. Of course you'll have to slow down the velocity or the payload will ionize in the atmosphere upon launch. Rail launchers are more practical in a vacuum, as there is no atmosphere to interfere with hypervolocity launches. Perfect for chunking mined ore from the Moon to Earth?

    I'll bet this railgun on fires a few millimeters because they have problems with longer magnetic "barrels" exploding from the shockwave produced by an object moving "at the speed the Earth moves through space".

    --
    "As for the future, your task is not to foresee it, but to enable it." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
    1. Re:Practical use for a rail gun by YeEntrancemperium · · Score: 1

      I doubt we'd start mining the Moon anytime soon, what with the ancient glass structures found there and all...

    2. Re:Practical use for a rail gun by Tofuy · · Score: 1


      fire satellite payloads into orbit.

      Even better, attach it TO the satellite and liquify stuff down on Earth! It's so James Bond! :-D

  30. Faster then the Earth? by OmegaBlac · · Score: 0
    From the article/summary:
    ...scientists at Sandia National Labs have created a magnetic pulse gun (rail gun) that can accelerate small aluminum plates at 34 kilometers per second, faster than the Earth travels through space.
    Now was the Earth going through hyperspace when they made this conclusion or did hyperdrive brake down again?
    1. Re:Faster then the Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck are you talking about? That didn't even make sense...

    2. Re:Faster then the Earth? by Bill+Currie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      what's your problem? Earth's orbital velocity is ~29.8km/s (thus Earth travels though space at 29.8km/s relative to the sun). those plates are travelling at 34km/s. is 34km/s not faster than 29.8km/s?

      That said, that's significantly slower than Earth's `orbital' velocity around the center of the galaxy: 300km/s (yes, 0.1% c) assuming the sun is 100000 ly from the center of the galaxy and it takes 100 millioin years to go complete an orbit.

      --

      Bill - aka taniwha
      --
      Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak

  31. Re:How about a love gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Your a freakin hippie, don't lie

    If you were a veteran you'd know there are some people who will **never** become your friend.

    The current batch think all Americans are SATAN.

    fergetaboutit! make glowing sand!

  32. Space travel by kf6auf · · Score: 1

    I refer you to the article:
    One purpose of these very rapid flights is to help understand the extreme conditions found within the interiors of giant planets in our solar system. By creating states of matter extremely difficult to achieve on Earth, the flyer plates provide hard data to astrophysicists speculating on the structure and even the formation of planets like Jupiter and Saturn.

    What's more, this is 3 times Earth escape velocity and so if one had a huge heat sheild it would be a good way to help launch things using less fuel - one could start the rocket launch using this rail gun and then fire up the conventional rockets once the rocket has a bunch of inertia and some significant initial altitude. If you're only trying to put it in Low Earth Orbit this should be a huge help since LEO is still pretty far in the Earth gravitational field (so that the velocity require to put something into LEO is well below this speed).

    1. Re:Space travel by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So many people here are saying things like this because of the stupid, erroneous "rail gun" description Slashdot gave it.

      This is not some projectile launcher. It's a massively expensive device that creates immense magnetic fields in a tiny region for fusion and shock wave experiments, of which one thing that you can do is propel miniscule items over short distances. It doesn't "scale" to rail gun applications, and it's not designed to - it's already a monstrously large device. Besides - when it operates, it produces the greatest source of X-rays on Earth. You want to scale that *up*? Next, the G forces in this thing are just plain ridiculous. Last, Earth's escape velocity is not the only thing you have to achieve - did you forget about Earth's atmosphere?

      Far, far, far more realistic is Gerald Bull's monstrous barbados gun, which actually would have been launching things to orbit given a few more months. However, using a crazy-expensive device designed for fusion and shock research with crazy levels of X-ray generation to propel projectiles to space an is a ludicrous idea. Why not just propose converting your average nuclear waste storage pool into a rocket because the radiation it emits is very high ISP?

      --
      Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
    2. Re:Space travel by Pooua · · Score: 1

      You are correct in all that.

      I would like to point out that Sandia Labs is working--at a different facility--on magnetic accelerators that are geared towards launching large-scale objects through the atmosphere. A decade ago, they could launch a 30-kg object at greater than the speed of sound from their big coil gun (which was pointed at the side of a mountain). That device has only the basic physics to do with the device in the original article.

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    3. Re:Space travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but if you design a gun that could be pointed at Jews, your life just ended.

  33. Re:How about a love gun by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 2

    I am a hippie. Voted against Bush and everything. But it ain't the science that does the killing.

  34. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by urmensch · · Score: 1

    That reminds me of a Pink Floyd song

  35. Tighten your tinfoil hat by StarCharter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because it's called a "railgun" doesn't mean it has military uses. The power supplies and support equipment necessary to power the Z-machine take up several rooms. It's far easier to kill with existing weapons design that it is to reduce the requirements for imparting vast amounts of energy to low mass objects. The chance to study high energy transformations in other-than-nuclear reactions open several potential basic science appliations. The article clearly cites some potential applications that aren't military.

  36. Re:How about a love gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >How about a love gun

    How about RTFA, blockhead? The "gun" is part of a system that is designed to study behavior of matter at ultrahigh pressure for the understanding of planetary formation by astrophysicists.

  37. someone said plasma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have heard plasma?

    this guys should talk with ITER (www.iter.org) to do not spend billions building their reactor and convince them to build a gun factory...

  38. Re:How about a love gun by Adrilla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Call me crazy, but I'd rather make a friend than kill an enemy.

    Unfortunately, not every enemy feels the same way.

    --

    "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
  39. Look at the possibilities! by H_Fisher · · Score: 3, Funny
    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those ... no ...

    How about this: In Soviet Russia the Railgun ... ummmmm ...

    No, I can't really see any easy beneficial (which is, I guess, to say "non-military") applications for this tech, unless you can tell me how this could aid in space exploration (a means of launching spacecraft, maybe?) ... or how it might help in the advancement of processing or data storage technology...

    Wait! I've got it:

    Railgun confirms: Tank crew is dying.

    Ahh, that's more like it. Now I can sleep. :-)

    1. Re:Look at the possibilities! by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      Should have stuck with Soviet Russia:

      In Soviet Russia, the railgun liquifies you.

      Seems pretty accurate to me.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    2. Re:Look at the possibilities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually there's no military applications for it really. It's to ionise matter that's extremely close to the (uhem) "gun", pretty much nothing else. It's not a railgun. You won't be able to do some sniping with it no.

    3. Re:Look at the possibilities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Railgun use considered harmful.

    4. Re:Look at the possibilities! by IO+ERROR · · Score: 4, Interesting
      No, I can't really see any easy beneficial (which is, I guess, to say "non-military") applications for this tech, unless you can tell me how this could aid in space exploration (a means of launching spacecraft, maybe?)

      Powering spacecraft or launching cargo or many other things...

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    5. Re:Look at the possibilities! by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      The real question is, will these scientists use their new-found railgun powers for good, or for awesome?

    6. Re:Look at the possibilities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Might be handy at Gitmo just to liquify people a "little"?

    7. Re:Look at the possibilities! by clintp · · Score: 1

      They'd like to use their new railgun powers for picking up chicks. Although in practice this rarely works.

      --
      Get off my lawn.
    8. Re:Look at the possibilities! by matyas47 · · Score: 1

      How about this: I, for one, welcome our new railgun-wielding overlords!

    9. Re:Look at the possibilities! by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      It could conceivably be used to propel spacecraft. Or even comets, see Greg Benford's book _The_Heart_of_the_Comet_, which didn't use railguns per se, but did use large mass-guns to alter the comet's orbit at perihelion.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    10. Re:Look at the possibilities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about mining?

    11. Re:Look at the possibilities! by dbIII · · Score: 1
      No, I can't really see any easy beneficial (which is, I guess, to say "non-military") applications for this tech
      That's simply because you haven't thought of other applications - for example there are plenty of nonviolent applications for explosives (and even class four weapons like telephones if you want something to crow about).

      Making little diamonds out of various forms of carbon isn't difficult, making big diamonds or sticking the little ones together is. Hitting a quantity of small diamonds with a very fast projectile should fuse them together, it's just difficult to hit them fast enough. Another application is making a composite material out of such bizare mismatched materials as iron and PVC plastic (made about twenty year ago I think) - you mix the powdered materials and hit the mixture with a fast moving projectile/piston. where the iron particles come in contact they are fused together, but the PVC has not vaporised like it would with other ways of getting the iron to stick together. Doing this with explosives would be tricky to do in bulk, but with a rail gun it probably would be more repeatable.

      Then there's the obvious stuff like making an incredible cutting tool out of a stream of really fast iron filings.

    12. Re:Look at the possibilities! by DoctorStarks · · Score: 1

      One useful thing may be simulating the impacts of hypervelocity debris on orbiting or interplanetary spacecraft. This is something that is very difficult to do in a controlled manner, and the topic of lots of interest for those who design, build and operate spacecraft.

  40. not a rail gun, fer cripes sake by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative
    "Yahoo News is reporting that scientists at Sandia National Labs have created a magnetic pulse gun (rail gun)

    Let's hear it for reading comprehension! Between yahoo news and he submitter, we're somehow left with the impression that this is a rail gun. It's nothing of the kind. It's an implosion machine. As described in the LiveScience.com article linked: "The Z uses a short burst of intense electricity - only a few 10 billionths of a second long - that forces an ionized gas to implode." So we can stop the handwringing over the morality of this "weapon", as to use it as such would require luring the enemy into a chamber the size of a soup can and asking him to hold still while you blast him.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    1. Re:not a rail gun, fer cripes sake by Rii · · Score: 1

      But he only has to be hiding in the soup can for a few 10 billionths of a second!!! Think of the applications!!

    2. Re:not a rail gun, fer cripes sake by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      Yes, Campbell's will be all over this.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    3. Re:not a rail gun, fer cripes sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The complete wrongness of the article summary just makes all the idiotic discussions based off it even more funny. Generating bullshit from bullshit has a nice symmetry to it.

      Slashdot should stop pretending to post real articles and just make stuff up that pushes people's buttons. (Technology? Check. Game/Sci-Fi reference? Check. Tangentially related to something that can start flamewars? Hell yeah, check! We got the military industrial complex and the ethics of weapons design to revisit for the 16 billionth time.)

    4. Re:not a rail gun, fer cripes sake by TGK · · Score: 1

      How can you think that way? Don't you know that our Brave Fighting Men and Women in Uniform need weapons like this one to defend our great country from the evil terrorist agressors? Armed with Soup Can Implosion Guns, our glorious military could wipe the evil Jihadists from the face of the earth and finaly bring lots of little American Flags, Big Macs, and Apple Pie to the middle east.

      Why do you hate freedom?

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    5. Re:not a rail gun, fer cripes sake by squiretalen · · Score: 1

      And where do you suppose they are getting the $61 million to fund their little upgrade? PETA?

      Somehow I the the Defense department is involved in this in some way.

    6. Re:not a rail gun, fer cripes sake by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      And where do you suppose they are getting the $61 million to fund their little upgrade? PETA? Somehow I the the Defense department is involved in this in some way.

      Of course it is. Sandia National Labs is a DOE installation, and the DOE does a shitload of nuclear weapons research. One of the purposes of the Z device is to verify the accuracy of nuclear warhead computer simulations by producing small fusion reactions for analysis. No one said it was a device designed to expose feed poor children or grant all of us on earth instant transcendent elightenment. But regardless of who funded it, it ain't a frickin' rail gun. It's not even a weapon at all. It a piece of frickin' lab equipment.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  41. possible use by zenneth · · Score: 1

    If tuned correctly, perhaps exterminators will have a new technology that will not only kill the bugs in the walls, but also vaporize them without destroying the surrounding building.

    --
    The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
    1. Re:possible use by joetheappleguy · · Score: 1

      A 10 million dollar roach zapper?

      I'd hate to pick up that exterminator tab.

  42. Re:How about a love gun by Repton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is nothing to do with rail guns. It's just a silly inflamatory headline (or maybe railguns are cool 'cause they're in Quake).

    This is all about generating massive shockwaves to examine the properties of matter in extreme conditions (without having to heat it up to enormous temperatures).

    --
    Repton.
    They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
  43. Re:How about a love gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A dead friend can't stab you in the back.

  44. Re:How about a love gun by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

    An eye for an eye leaves us all toothless.

  45. The Railgun of Omar Khayyam (Second Edition) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    A Bunch of Squirrels beneath the Bough,
    A Jug of Wine, a Z Machine, -- and Thou
    Beside me singing in the Wilderness --
    Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow!

    (Moderators: Yes, this is a bit redundant. But if Edward FitzGerald can get away with publishing five or six different translations of Khayyam's Rubáiyát, surely I should be allowed to post just two!)

  46. Relativity ---- Oh yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean, if we shoot a slug into the path that the Earth is orbitting, it'll go RelativeOrbit+Xthousand miles per hour? Gee, why can't NASA think of these ahhem Great ideas?

    Oh! Here comes another Great idea! Chang that, my Great(TM) idea. What if NASA just launches a space shuttle in the direction the Earth is orbitting away from? You know, shoot the shuttle aft-ward? I'm sure NASA wouldn't need as much rocket fuel -- you know.

    1. Re:Relativity ---- Oh yes! by ilyanep · · Score: 1

      only if you shot it with the purpose of getting as far away from earth as possible. Otherwise it doesn't help as you would be going in a totally random direction.

      --
      ~Ilyanep
      To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
  47. Sweet by systemofadown · · Score: 0

    Forget paintball me and my friends can now play Quake in real life.

    --
    Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity. -Nikola Telsa
    1. Re:Sweet by Rii · · Score: 1

      ...well, for one round.

  48. Re:How about a love gun by Rii · · Score: 1

    I agree. Weapons are tools, they're only as good or evil as the one that holds them.

    On the other hand, if you get a new hammer, you'll be on the lookout for nails.

  49. I'm already real. by RailGunner · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh - you said RailGun. I guess my brain just saw the additional three letters.

    1. Re:I'm already real. by m50d · · Score: 1

      Railguns are already real though. I built one a couple of months ago.

      --
      I am trolling
  50. Curious as to the value by jd · · Score: 1
    If you've a plate travelling at 34 kilometers per second, how are you going to keep the peas from rolling off?


    On a serious note, this seems a useless device for most purposes. It MAY have implications for nuclear fusion, especially if used in any future space-based drives, as you can't exactly place the JET fusion laboratory in space - it's rather big.


    It MAY also have implications for subway systems built along similar lines as the Japanese Bullet Train. What I am picturing here is a subway system that is kept in a partial vaccuum, with stations providing airlocks the train can connect to. Instead of having a moving magnetic field pulling the train, as with the Bullet Train, you'd have more of a fixed magnetic field to suspend the train, then a rail-gun to "fire" the train from station to station.


    (You'd need the acceleration to be kept below 2g - if you want passengers to return. Or even be walking off, as opposed to scraped off, if you scaled the existing rail-gun systems to this kind of level. I'm thinking something that would be closer to a fairground ride or the catapult on an aircraft carrier, in terms of acceleration, only using magnetism and for long enough to get the train to a decent speed.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Curious as to the value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It MAY also have implications for subway systems built along similar lines as the Japanese Bullet Train.
      snip
      Instead of having a moving magnetic field pulling the train, as with the Bullet Train...

      The Japanese bullet train is just an ordinary train. You're speaking of the Linear Motor Train project that's been around for ages and doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

      It's off topic, but what the hell... The linear motor train does approx. 500Km/h. Impressive. However, the latest bullet train (again, just a normal train) starting tests does 405Km/h. That's pretty impressive too, and runs on existing rails. Turns out that air drag was a much, much bigger problem than originally suspected, and the means of propelling the vehicle may not be as important.

    2. Re:Curious as to the value by jd · · Score: 1
      Turns out that air drag was a much, much bigger problem than originally suspected, and the means of propelling the vehicle may not be as important.


      Which is exactly why I've always thought it best to use a near-vaccuum in a subway setting, as then you have next to zero air resistance.


      And how on earth could they not consider air resistance THE major problem? It increases with the square of the velocity, so doubling the velocity quadruples the air resistance. In other words, let's take two trains - one going at 2 Km/h, the other going at 512 Km/h. We have 256 times the velocity (which means the velocity has doubled eight times, or 2^8). which gives us an air resistance of 65,536 times that of the slower train (4^8).


      This is even before you factor in the compressibility of air. Although gasses compress well, they don't compress infinitely. Even at 500 Km/h, it shouldn't be too much of a problem, but it will mean that the simple calculation above is going to give you a much lower value than you'll actually get.


      The airflow is also important, but the speeds are less than half of what you'd need to get any kind of transsonic airflows. All you're going to get is a massive vaccuum immediately behind every section of the train, and some really nasty turbulence. Using microscopic grooves, along the length of the train, to break the vortices up, would be sufficient to minimise those. Some racing yaughts have a slightly porus hull, to do exactly this.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Curious as to the value by zambuka · · Score: 1
      If you've a plate travelling at 34 kilometers per second, how are you going to keep the peas from rolling off?

      Why with honey of course.
      Haven't you ever heard.

      I eat my peas with honey,
      I've done it all my life.
      It make the peas taste funny,
      But it keeps them on the knife.


      If it keeps the peas on the knife then it's sure to keep them on the plate.
    4. Re:Curious as to the value by patches · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiousity because I don't know much about particle accelerators, but couldn't this kind of replace the hugh cyclotron loops?

      --
      The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
    5. Re:Curious as to the value by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      you can't exactly place the JET fusion laboratory in space - it's rather big.

      Why not? Who cares how big your spaceship is?

      OK, you have to pay to lift the parts into orbit, but other than the cost issue (say we have a space elevator), if your interplanetary propulsion system has to be 900 feet across, what's the big deal? There's lots of space to go around.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  51. Re:How about a love gun by yhetti · · Score: 1

    Just to be the devil's advocate, what happens when you can't befriend them? The US has been trying to make friends in various ways (by being friendly, by fighting for them, by buying them off, by helping in emergency situations) for decades.

    The question is: who do we trust, and after what time period? How long are we to be 'friends' with, say, North Korea, until we're actually *friends* with them?

    Until we have 'friends' that we're sure have no long-term goals of conquest against *us*, we have to stay ahead of the military curve.

    I'm all for extending the olive branch, but keep the .44 mag behind your back just in case.

    Also, just to stay on topic, the practical non-military use of this is as a development step towards a cheap payload launcher (putting 'stuff' into orbit w/out massive booster burns).

  52. Too late by Mantus · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Too late by pyros · · Score: 1

      My guys beat your guys by over a decade.

  53. Re:How about a love gun by froschmann · · Score: 1

    I hate to say it, but the only way to get peace is with a knife. Men must continue to die in order to preserve peace.

  54. Re:How about a love gun by image77 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Housed at Sandia National Laboratories, the Z machine attracted a lot of attention eight years ago when its energy output more than quadrupled - raising hopes that the reactions in the Z could provide a new source of clean, abundant power. To help further progress towards this end, the machine is getting a $61.7 million upgrade, officials announced recently.

    The fact that several mods decided that you post was insightful makes me very uncomfortable with the quality of mods lately. If you read ANY of the TFAs linked, you would see that in this case the gun in question has nothing to do with "maim and kill." In this case, the "rail gun" (it's not really even a rail gun, but that's a whole different issue,) has more in common with a staple gun than my trusty .45 ACP.

  55. better link by Evil+Willow · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe this link better describes what the Z Machine has to do with rails guns.

  56. Wake me... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    ... when a Love Gun can fire love at 34 kilometeres/second!

    I mean, love is great and all but that's just cool.

    I'm sure it has some practical non-war mongering use like ridding the world of used car salesmen.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  57. Re:How about a love gun by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
    I'm not a hippie, far from it. Grizzled veteran of several wars is more like it. But I hate guns. I hate war. I hate all these things that are designed to kill and maim (contrary to international treaties, in fact). How about concentrating on global cooperation instead of global conquest? There are only two ways of eliminating an enemy: Kill him or make him a friend. Call me crazy, but I'd rather make a friend than kill an enemy. Designing these weapons can only lead to more killing. I find that terribly sad.

    How about reading the linked article at LiveScience.com where they explain the actual purpose of the device: it's not a rail gun, it's an implosion machine designed to investigate the properties of nuclear fusion. It's not a weapon.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  58. I wish you'd just stop your name calling ... by jasonhamilton · · Score: 3, Funny

    and think of the children for once.

    --
    SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
  59. Re:How about a love gun by Vorondil28 · · Score: 1

    RTFA, man. They're using this for atom-smashing and the like. The nearest you'll ever come to a rail-weapon is your copy of Quake.

    Seriously, this is a /. supper-happy-fun-times scientific article, not CSPAN.

    --
    This sig rocks the casbah.
  60. As the definitions of physics break down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that can accelerate small aluminum plates at 34 kilometers per second

    34 km/s is not an accelration...

    1. Re:As the definitions of physics break down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may be good at physics but they suck at Maths, the acceration should be 122284 m/s/s

  61. Re:How about a love gun by eluusive · · Score: 1

    Knifes only keep men in place until the person wielding the knife is gone. True peace must come from inside every man. That can only be obtained through emotional education and understanding.

  62. Wrong by brian0918 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work at Sandia, on this very topic. These are just flyer plate experiments, using the Z-machine's Marx Generators to isentropically accelerate small aluminum flyer plates up to high velocities, in order to better understand the behavior of metals at high pressures/densities/temperatures. This has been around for a while now. The only difference is they've recently attained these higher velocities by having the Marx Generators switch at slightly different times, rather than all at once.

    Nothing to see here, move along. (and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain)

    1. Re:Wrong by dnaboy · · Score: 4, Funny

      And to think I thought Marx generators only transferred energy from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat...

    2. Re:Wrong by pegasustonans · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, Marx energies appear to transfer energy to the proleteriat, but, in fact, they only spread noise among elite intellectuals. Lenin energies then convert the noise into energy useable by the proleteriat and Stalin energies then destroy all other particles in the vicinity.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    3. Re:Wrong by StandardDeviant · · Score: 1

      I've heard they also make a mean duck soup. :)

    4. Re:Wrong by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      hello brian from wikipedia! Do you know if they used beamlet to backlight shock propagation? :o) just curious!

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    5. Re:Wrong by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      ...but how the proletariat got in my pajamas I'll never know

    6. Re:Wrong by Pogue+Mahone · · Score: 4, Funny
      ... and Marx energies, as any fule kno, are transferred by elementary particles called chicions, harpions, grouchions, gummions and zeppions.

      Sorry, couldn't resist. So mod me down.

      --
      Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
    7. Re:Wrong by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 2, Funny
      Are you saying that In Soviet Russia energy converts YOU?

      Anyway, nice one, you should elaborate that into a treatise on marxistic-leninistic high energy physics.

      --
      This comment does not exist.
    8. Re:Wrong by cahiha · · Score: 1

      using the Z-machine's Marx Generators

      Are those Groucho Marx Generators or Karl Marx Generators? It makes a difference, you know.

    9. Re:Wrong by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      I wish to reveal the results of my private research in this field. By eating a mixture of iron particles, Mexican food, and beer, then holding a plate behind me, I've demonstrated that no human underwear can withstand a 1010 G acceleration, and that it is suicidal to stand behind a scientist in this field of research. And my dog Rex is now somewhere in orbit around Titan, if he survived the initial blast.

    10. Re:Wrong by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen them use it, but I'm not sure. I'm on the simulation part of research, not the experimental.

    11. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He destroyed (or comsumed) all the energy, including the one from the proletariat.

      He destroyed all attempts to build an alternative socialism (i.e. not totalitarian) around the world, including Spain during the civil war.

    12. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was one of his brothers.

    13. Re:Wrong by Ira+Sponsible · · Score: 1

      Most of the work has already been done in the field of Quantum Bogodynamics. These could be an entirely new class of exotic bogodynamic particles.

      --
      1.Netcraft confirms:In Soviet Russia all your base welcomes a beowolf cluster of CowboyNeal overlords. 2.? 3.Profit!!1!
    14. Re:Wrong by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 1
      Doh., yes, of course. Still, some elaboration could be helpful. I mean, just imagine the bogon flux patterns that would emerge from a setup of a marxist, a trozkyist and a maoist in the same room. Hell, to make it even more interesting, put an additional free-marktet randroid in there...
      Is there something like a critical bogon mass, or a critical bogon flux density?
      Even better, put a sensible non-ideologue into that room - someone able to emit anti-bogons. What is the result of bogon-antibogon annihilation?

      You see, though QBD sets the framework for this kind of research, there is still a lot of work to be done. I'd suggest, however, to conduct these experiments in a secure location, far away from settlements, just to be on the safe side.

      --
      This comment does not exist.
  63. I think I know how that sequence ends... by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    solids into liquids, liquids into gas, and even gas into plasma

    Let me guess - it then turns plasmas into solids.

    So the war of the future will be an evere more complex version of Liquid, Gas, Plasma, Solid - far more sophisticated than the three state method of old including Rock and Paper.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I think I know how that sequence ends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but can it turn lead into gold?

      Alchemy, baby!

    2. Re:I think I know how that sequence ends... by Archades · · Score: 0

      i think it's perfectally clear the shit will fuck u up less work for cleanup crews, finding the carbon dust thats left of ur body

    3. Re:I think I know how that sequence ends... by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      The rock, paper, scissors system is still being worked on, though. Between the moon and all the asteroids, bureaucrats agree that this could satisfy their near- to mid-term paper needs. Unfortunately, the paper-to-scissors reaction needs to be negated first, since it destroys paper twice as fast as it is created.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  64. The perfect non military use by dnaboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    This put's the Flux Capacitor to shame. No where did I park that Delorean?

    1. Re:The perfect non military use by iibagod · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be WHEN did I park that Delorean?

  65. Re:How about a love gun by Ian+Action · · Score: 1
    This is kinda OT, but I remember seeing a special on the weapons of vietnam. At one point a man who had been explaining various weapons on the show pulled out this nasty looking beast that fired flechettes, that once they hit, would fishook and travel to some almost random point in your body.

    The man then said "These were discontinued due to the fact they caused unneccasry suffering,[slight pause here] and also because they used non-standard amunition."

    --
    Why am I not rapping? I am rapping with you in a way.
  66. Nooklear Waste by KrackHouse · · Score: 1

    So this thing can fire stuff at many times the escape velocity of earths G pull. As soon as we can create a nuclear power plant that can launch its waste into space and have energy to spare we can switch all plants from fossil fuels to nuclear. Electricity might get a little more pricey but it'll solve that nasty C02 problem.

    --
    What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
    http://houndwire.com
    1. Re:Nooklear Waste by bobbyw · · Score: 1

      okay, but only get to shoot it out from your house. and you get to design the container that magically won't turn to liquid when it's hit. oh yeah, and we get to stay 50 miles from the radiatio--- your house.

    2. Re:Nooklear Waste by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Actually that's not such a dumb idea. With a sufficiently long railgun, you could accelerate a projectile slowly and still achieve escape velocity.

      The only fear would be a mishap on earth, but the nuclear material would have to be encased in something quite durable to withstand a railgun anyways. It's still 100 times more foolproof than any rocket designs.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    3. Re:Nooklear Waste by bobbyw · · Score: 1

      except that we have used rockets for years, and there is nothing close to what you guys are talking about ever built, or even being built that we know of... I think it's saver to stick to "dillution is the solution" either way.

    4. Re:Nooklear Waste by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      It's nothing new, just a much larger scale. Mass drivers have been proposed for quite some time now for use as orbital launchers.

      Really the only problem has been that they would probably destroy any electronics placed in them. Because of this, they're not multi-purpose enough to be a serious replacement for rockets unless they can be justified for some special-purpose use.

      And actually, that wikipedia article has a nice write-up about their usefulness in disposal of radioactive waste. It says a nuclear power plant could catapault it's waste into space using 10% of the electricity it produces.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    5. Re:Nooklear Waste by iGN97 · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's "Nookoolar", pal.

    6. Re:Nooklear Waste by iibagod · · Score: 1

      See Heinlein "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Lunar crops/metals were exported using a large magnetic railgun that accelerated each metallic canister to escape velocity. Retros were used to land said canister at acceptable speeds.

      This was perfectly fine until the Moon decided to start aiming the canisters at cities....

    7. Re:Nooklear Waste by dokkeri · · Score: 1

      That's no moon...

      (Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

      --
      This sig is funny.
  67. Re:How about a love gun by poopdeville · · Score: 1

    This is all about generating massive shockwaves to examine the properties of matter in extreme conditions (without having to heat it up to enormous temperatures).

    ...using strong magnetic fields to accelerate aluminum plates to incredibly high speeds in a contraption that has a strong resemblance to a rail gun.

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  68. These are not the rail guns you are looking for by Moiche · · Score: 5, Interesting
    True, the Z Machine is not a gun -- it's a giant magnetic field generator. I guess referring to a giant magnetic field generator as a "gun" works better from a journalistic prespective.

    However -- rail guns are on the cusp of military viability. The University of Texas at Austin's Institute of Advanced Technology got 10 million dollars to develop viable rail guns. Just a month ago Janes reported that a prototype of the military rail gun had been tested, and that it was nearing viability.

    UT-IAT has devised a common low-cost projectile concept for both naval surface-fire support and army non line-of-sight (NLOS) engagements using an EM gun launcher. It has a flight mass of 15 kg and contains either multiple kinetic-energy flechettes or a smaller number of sub penetrators made of tungsten. In its naval guise it has a muzzle energy of 64 MJ; a muzzle velocity of 2,500 m/s; a maximum range in excess of 500 km and an impact velocity of 1,600 m/s. From a more size-constrained land tactical platform it would be expected to have a muzzle energy of 20 MJ; a muzzle velocity of 1,400 m/s and an impact velocity of 700 m/s out to ranges in excess of 100 km.
    That article really made me wish I had a Jane's subscription. Apparently, the limiting factor is the size of the capacitor -- if they can get this down than naval applications within a few years are plausible.

    Incidentally, a fun game, if you're ever bored, is to imagine what would happen to the human body if one were to hold and fire a rail gun (even a wimpy one that shot at a mere 1,600m/s and not at "near the speed of light"), and the law of conservation of momentum actually worked. Really! Try at parties!

    Fond wishes,

    Moiche

    1. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That article really made me wish I had a Jane's subscription. Apparently, the limiting factor is the size of the capacitor -- if they can get this down than naval applications within a few years are plausible."

      Flywheel.

    2. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Last time I checked, they're more like alternators the size of a VW bug.

    3. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by Chirs · · Score: 1

      The recoil solution is to send a projectile out the back end as well. Just make sure there's nobody from your side behind you...

    4. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by hopethisnickisnottak · · Score: 1, Interesting

      From a more size-constrained land tactical platform it would be expected to have a muzzle energy of 20 MJ; a muzzle velocity of 1,400 m/s and an impact velocity of 700 m/s out to ranges in excess of 100 km.

      *Whips out his trusty old calculator

      E=0.5 * M * V * V

      Where E = 20 MJ
      M = ?
      V = 1400 m / s

      M = 20 Kg (What the fuck?)
      The momentum then becomes ...

      I = M * V
      I = 28000 Kg m /s
      Considering a 75 Kg (165 lbs) man firing this gun ..
      His velocity according to the law of conservation of momentum becomes ...
      Vo = 373.33 m / s
      Wow!! Now they can truly call themselves supermen... because they're gonna fly
      But seeing the mass of the projectile, I suppose this is some sort of light artillery in which case it will dig itself into the ground once fired and will require 50 stout men to dig it out.

      --
      -Shaunak
    5. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by ndansmith · · Score: 1
      Incidentally, a fun game, if you're ever bored, is to imagine what would happen to the human body if one were to hold and fire a rail gun (even a wimpy one that shot at a mere 1,600m/s and not at "near the speed of light"), and the law of conservation of momentum actually worked. Really! Try at parties!

      Yeah, but he is the Terminator! He is living flesh over a metal endoskeleton. That means he is heavy and strong enough to compensate for the kick on one of those rail-guns.

    6. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a railgun that fires .1 gram 6mm object to muzzle velocity of 16000 m/s has been built and according to the formula above, it has a recoil of near 2Nm. The only problem is that the power source is too big and bulky to be carried by humans.

    7. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by Barny · · Score: 1

      Hrmm, i would say an XV88 http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?d o=Individual&code=99140113005&orignav=10 should be sufficiant to carry at least 2 units, and of course a secondary weapons system... oh wait, my brains doing it again, damn it :/

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    8. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by blake3737 · · Score: 0

      Yeah I though you meant a supscription to "Jane". I could only imagine a bunch of painted up bimbos trying to understand the difference between velocity and acceleration.

    9. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many Libraries of Congress is that?

    10. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why artillery pieces all have systems called recoil dampers or recoil absorbtion. The amount of force imparted to the artillery piece by a 155mm shell dwarfs the forces you'd get out of this gun - simply due to the mass of the projectile. A simple gas shock absorbtion system along with a wide foot print and heavy vehicle body would be more than enough to absorb this load. Hell, if the recoil system is good enough you'd be able to mount one of these on a Humvee - although it is far more likeley that the M2 Bradley chassis or the M1 chassis would be used since you'd need to provide a prodigious amount of electircal generating power - and they have the space to accomodate the generation equipment. The monster power plant on the M1 would make for one heck of a generator.

    11. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by hopethisnickisnottak · · Score: 1

      Yes, but for an arty gun, a 20 kg shell is peanuts. You won't be able to fit enough HE into it to make it effective. It could go into a tank though. A shaped charge warhead needs considerably less HE than a frag warhead or a blast warhead (used by arty guns).

      --
      -Shaunak
    12. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by mikeee · · Score: 1

      At that velocity, no need to bother with HE. The antiarmor shell from an M1 is already just a depleted uranium (because it's dense) rod in a shell-sized casing.

      Yeah, a hybrid-power plant M1 would seem a natural fit for this. We can have a railgun and be environmentally conscious!

    13. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by hopethisnickisnottak · · Score: 1

      You would want a shaped charge if you wanted to DESTROY the tank as opposed to punching a hole through it (and hoping something explosive or inflammable lies in the shell's path).

      As for an arty shell, you would definitely need a lot of HE since the kill radius has to be large.

      I doubt it will find use as an arty gun. Shells leaving the earth's gravitational pull would not exactly suit the purpose would it?

      --
      -Shaunak
    14. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by mikeee · · Score: 1

      Note: we do not currently use explosives in tank-to-tank anti-armor shells! They have much less penetrating power than shaped charges, particularly against composite armor.

      At these velocities, it won't matter; the projectile will have more KE than the chemical energy of explosive would be, and it won't go through intact; most of that will be converted to heat.

      US Tank shells

    15. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by hopethisnickisnottak · · Score: 1

      Never said Blast warheads were used in anti-tank shells. But they're used in Arty shells. Rarely. But still used. Fragmentation warheads are most often used in arty shells.

      Anti tank shells are almost certainly shaped charges.

      --
      -Shaunak
    16. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by mikeee · · Score: 1

      Small anti-tank shells (eg, RPGs) are shaped charges. Large ones (eg, 120mm) are depleted uranium or tungsten sabots; they scale up better than shaped charges do, are aren't foiled by hacks like external cages or composite armor.

    17. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by hopethisnickisnottak · · Score: 1

      Hmm ...
      Completely forgotten about those.
      Thanks.

      Although a couple of grenades down the hatch do the job the best, I'd say.

      --
      -Shaunak
    18. Re:These are not the rail guns you are looking for by shreak · · Score: 1

      I can never get any good info out of Janes. Mainly because when I try and find it I stumble on Janes Guide instead (http://www.janesguide.com/frames.html)

      Then I lose interest in whatever I was looking for :)

      =Shreak

  69. Not quite that simple by Ranma21 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You may have also seen aluminium egg rings fired off older rail-gun devices. The actual material doesn't have to be magnetic, it moves forward because of its own magnetic field induced by current flowing through it. Aluminim is a GREAT conductor of electricity and so makes a similarly great magnetic field. This field, when interacting with the rail gun's, makes it move, NOT the fact that the material itself has (unenergized) magnetic properties. Pretty simple really.

  70. Wow... that's the first semi-relevant FP I've seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow, really, wow -- No GNAA, no "First Post!"... I've seen everything.

  71. Three times the velocity by Indianwells · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the huge tidbit that I haven't really seen discussed: "That's 50 times faster than a rifle bullet, and three times the velocity needed to escape Earth's gravitational field." A rail gun, of sufficient capacity to catapult raw materials into orbit, would be a gigantic breakthrough for the whole planet.

    1. Re:Three times the velocity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now [i]that[/i] would really anger the little green men when they run into our crap with their space ships.

      Really though, just launching our garbage into space couldn't really be a good idea though, can it? If I stuff a ton of garbage into my closet, eventually some of it is going to overflow back onto the floor, or is going to cause some other problems. Flooding our galaxy with trash could eventually become a problem in the future. Oh, and apparently you don't watch Futurama.

    2. Re:Three times the velocity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could completely consume, dismantle the planet and shoot it out in all directions and it would never ever be a problem for anyone (other than us not having a home). Space is really really big ya know?

    3. Re:Three times the velocity by Somegeek · · Score: 1

      Yep, the only issues left are figuring out how to pack your astronaut stuff onto a spaceship 850 microns thick,
      how to survive the 1010 g launch force, ...
      what was the idea again?

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    4. Re:Three times the velocity by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      A rail gun, of sufficient capacity to catapult raw materials into orbit, would be a gigantic breakthrough for the whole planet.

      Yeah, if anything could survive the acceleration.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    5. Re:Three times the velocity by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

      A rail gun, of sufficient capacity to catapult raw materials into orbit, would be a gigantic breakthrough for the whole planet.

      Unless there's some acceleration , atleast through the initial phase of flight when its passing through the dense lower atmosphere , i doubt the friction would let anything get away from earth.

      --
      Wanted : A Signature.
    6. Re:Three times the velocity by Peldor · · Score: 1
      A rail gun, of sufficient capacity to catapult raw materials into orbit, would be a gigantic breakthrough for the whole planet.

      Unless you pointed it the wrong way. Then it would be a gigantic break through the whole planet.

    7. Re:Three times the velocity by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      Did you miss where he said "RAW MATERIALS?" This would save on the amount of weight needed for the conventional launch and allow real manufacturing in space. It would still cost a fortune and be impracticle, but at least it would be raw material delivery.

    8. Re:Three times the velocity by cmsavage · · Score: 1

      Except that the material must either escape Earth's orbit or be in an orbit with sufficiently high ellipticity as to return to Earth (the launch point, barring the Earth's rotation, will be on the orbital path).

    9. Re:Three times the velocity by Furry*Hatchet · · Score: 1

      (sigh)...and assuming we had the patience to launch stuff into orbit one tiny piece at a time.

    10. Re:Three times the velocity by Indianwells · · Score: 1

      I thought that pushing raw materials up into orbit would be a great way for us to actually be able to start building larger machines in orbit. Thanks for the backup Charlie! ;-)

  72. Does not. by Larthallor · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article's title is extremely misleading.

    This does not bring rail guns any closer to reality, by which I mean it does not bring military rail guns any closer to reality.

    The Z-machine is a hanger-sized experimental device akin to a particle accelerator. This was an experiment designed to study extremely high pressures, such as those thought to have been important in Jovian planetary formation.

    Saying that this experiment brings rail guns closer to reality is like saying that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN brings PPCs closer to reality.

    1. Re:Does not. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Saying that this experiment brings rail guns closer to reality is like saying that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN brings PPCs closer to reality.

      Thanks to Steve Jobs, PPCs are now closer to unreality. :(

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  73. Purpose by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    The purpose of the device is to determine the equations of state for various metals at very high densities/pressures/temperatures.

    1. Re:Purpose by jd · · Score: 1
      I was going to make a crass comment about some States appearing to be the product of the extremely dense under pressure, but I'll be kind and resist the temptation.


      Seriously, though, the method seems awfully crude. The temperatures across an object will follow a Boltzman distribution, if I recall correctly, so the larger the object, the less well-defined the temperature at any given point on that object. However, interactions will be at the atomic level between only a handful of atoms, so you don't get the benefit of being able to average it out.


      It would seem more logical to use extremely small objects (a few molecules at most), and then use statistics to calculate the effect on larger objects (which you then use as a test of the theory), than to use large objects and potentially lose the data in the noise.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  74. Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Faster than the speed at which the earth travels around the sun??? Cmon, give me real units! I need to know how much faster this is than libraries of congress shot out of cannons.

  75. Ack! by modecx · · Score: 1

    Don't forget about the laywers!

    --
    Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    1. Re:Ack! by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      IAAL, you insensitive clod!

      10...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1...submit

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  76. An improvement by BCW2 · · Score: 1

    On something that was being developed at White Sands Missle Range in the early 90's. A friend of mine was working on a device that accelerated a small plastic pellet (about 3mm) to hypersonic speed. They shot them at 6 inch square aluminium plates an inch thick. 3mm entrance and a 3.5 inch exit hole, I saw some targets. Very little splatter of molten metal, most seemed to be vaporized, as I was told, some did become plasma. This was part of the "star wars" space weapons. The shots were fired in a vacuum because air resistance would vaporize the pellets. I don't know what happened to that program. It was just after my father in law left the High Energy Laser Test Facillity. There is still much research and testing going on out there, which is why they are close to Sandia and Los Alamos (300 miles in New Mexico's vast expanse is an easy trip on todays roads). This is besides every missle system under development or improvement.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  77. "Small aluminum plates" is highly misleading by Goldenhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The "small aluminum plates" are not just small... they're TINY. Others have already noted that "rail gun" is a big misstatement; the discs they're talking about here are merely 850 MICRONS thick. Let's get this thing in perspective, shall we? I know that "rail gun" makes many geeks twitch uncontrollably, but come on now, that's just karma whoring.

    Oh, and to link to a two-year-old image... with a caption of "have created" that implies it's brand new... PLEASE.

    Once again, the question must be asked: where's the moderation system for STORIES?

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

    1. Re:"Small aluminum plates" is highly misleading by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      850 microns is 0.85mm. Regular sheet metal often comes in thicknesses like that - house roofing for example. In Australia a 5 cent piece is probably not far off.

    2. Re:"Small aluminum plates" is highly misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good old Watson, I don't know where I would be without you.

    3. Re:"Small aluminum plates" is highly misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      850 microns is also ~0.033" which is ~1/32 of an inch...for those of us who refuse to use the metric system

    4. Re:"Small aluminum plates" is highly misleading by austad · · Score: 1

      Did anyone ask you for your two farthings? I think not.

      Now leave me alone so I can go drink my .0025 hogshead of beer before I drive 1600 furlongs to my parents house to stay for the next .5 fortnight.

      --
      Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
    5. Re:"Small aluminum plates" is highly misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      850 microns; thick ain't that small... (e.g. a 0.7mm pencil lead is 700 microns in diameter; a U.$. dime is only 1350 microns thick)...

      tiny is the 10 micron dia. platinum filament that i run current through to perform thermal analysis with a SPFM.
      tiny is a 35nm channel etched into a piece of silicon.
      tiny is the 50Å thick layer of Au that i coated some samples with before popping them into the vacuum chamber, to run SEM...

      tiny is... my paycheck.

      ya'll need a sense of perspective. :^)

  78. Theory of relativity by Bifurcati · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It's a minor point, but you need to specify the speed relative to something - in this case, it's the speed of relative to the sun. It's good old relativity - and I'm not talking about general or even special - just good old Galilean relativity! (Which says you can't know whether you're moving, or the object you're watching is moving...)

  79. Hokey Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    There is something weird going on with the math.
    First off 76,000 mph is about 38,000 m/s which agrees with the 34 km/s statement so I believe this number.

    They say that the pellet achieves this speed in less than a second.

    This implies an acceleration greater than or equal to 3400 g's.

    Assuming a constant acceleration it also implies a track length of 17km.

    Later the article states that the achieved acceleration is 1010 g! This implies an acceleration time of about 3.37 seconds and a track length of about 50km.

    These two statements do not agree.

  80. Draft dodger! by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well railguns are neat and all, but I'm still not joining the Army until they invent the respawn point.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Draft dodger! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm still not joining the Army until they invent the respawn point.

      Well...it's not so much the _point_ that's the hard part, but more the respawning mechanism itself.

    2. Re:Draft dodger! by RTFA · · Score: 0

      but I'm still not joining the Army until they invent the respawn point.

      Yeah but... wouldn't spawn-kill be VERY annoying?

      --
      This comment was written using 100% reused electrons.
    3. Re:Draft dodger! by Mechanik · · Score: 1

      I'm still not joining the Army until they invent the respawn point.

      Don't do it man! The last time I tried their prototype I came out all covered with black stuff...

    4. Re:Draft dodger! by TylerTheGreat · · Score: 0

      Do you think there will be treatsies against Spawn Camping?

    5. Re:Draft dodger! by cryptocom · · Score: 1

      yeah but before you know it the enemy will get wise and start camping the spawn points...

      --
      It takes just a moment and an action to destroy. It takes some time and thought to create.
    6. Re:Draft dodger! by wraith0x29a · · Score: 1

      Nah, just place the spawn points as far as possible from the nearest oil well.

      --
      ~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
  81. On a more serious note....30MPS! by jigyasubalak · · Score: 1

    Am I glad that our atmosphere doesn't excape the earth at that speed or what!

    --
    The best planning can be done after the project completes.
  82. That is not the vertical drop. by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

    It's a very small gun.

  83. Or Metal Gear Solid II. by game+kid · · Score: 1

    I was quite annoyed by Fortune and her freakin' rail at times. Dunno if it was real or even remotely realistic, but I wouldn't want to get my mass driven by that.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  84. Re:How about a love gun by Zeebs · · Score: 1

    Actually it's basicly the same thing if you are going to use some kind of "love gun" mind control ray deal. It just plays differently in the PR world.

    War is just the process of forceably making your enemy love you, current methods however involve the the death of the target individual.

    --

    Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
  85. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's just scientists fooling themselves. They know they're being paid for military research.

    Jesus, doesn't Sandia have better things to research? We'd have 10x more efficient energy consumption and cheap renewable energy if they were actually working on something to help the most people.

    But no, it's a military project ostensibly labeled as something else. You know they wouldn't have gotten funding if some military administrator didn't get wet dreams of super weapons from the grant proposal.

  86. Re:Just what we need. by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 2, Funny
    Another incredibly powerful weapon for world's largest loose cannon to be playing with. Go America!

    While it's theoretically possible that a weapon might be derived from this research someday, but for a moment think about what this is really talking about.

    It's a machine that can accelerate a tiny disc of metal very quickly, but only for a short distance, and AFAICT, it's all happening down inside of a big machine so about the biggest thing you could kill with it might be a cockroach.

    Right now, as far as killing things goes, it's not a weapon -- it's just a $6+ million bug exterminator!

    Hmm...bug extermination for only $6 millon or so. Maybe MS should buy a few dozen!

    --

    The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

    --
    The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
  87. Re:How about a love gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An eye for an eye is incorrect thinking;

    Far better to complete destroy the enemy who took your eye, his family, nation, dogs and goats.

    Then you live happy ever after, until the next bastard gets uppity...

    Why is this so hard to understand?

  88. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by Kimos · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up. Very good point...

    You can never un-invent weapons. There are somethings that should not be created. Look at atomic bombs. They were created, used, and now for the rest of our existence we have to deal with the repercussions. Knowing that a war could easily level most of the civilized world, or that a single weapon in the hands of the wrong people could kill millions. This is discussed in great detail in The Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin, 1968). If you haven't read it, then do.

  89. Re:How about a love gun by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

    Call me crazy, but I'd rather make a friend than kill an enemy.

    Well, I'd rather make an enemy than kill a friend.

    But what if your friend is also your enemy. Now, there is a true dilemma. Or in that case, maybe you just say, "fuck it," and kill him anyway. Or maybe you just both kill each other and that way it's even.

    --
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  90. Dude, you're totally off: by ChePibe · · Score: 1

    These aren't the clichés you're looking for... it's:

    "In Korea, only old people use railguns. Mostly to liquify noisy young people and their dag-nabbed rap music playin' machines."

    You were way off...

  91. I hate to reply to myself right now but... by Zeebs · · Score: 1

    Also it may be relevant that I could really go for a bag of potato chips right about now.

    --

    Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
  92. Re:How about a love gun by poopdeville · · Score: 1

    -1 Missed Simpsons Reference

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  93. How long till we hear... by Brad1138 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear rail guns!!!" Later followed by "Mommy... Johnny liquefied the cat again!"

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    1. Re:How long till we hear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      followed by a whole bunch of wankers yelling, we have the right to, its in the constitution.

    2. Re:How long till we hear... by Phleg · · Score: 1

      "Again"? Durable cat.

      --
      No comment.
    3. Re:How long till we hear... by GWTPict · · Score: 1

      Haven't you heard? They come with 9 lives.

    4. Re:How long till we hear... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      Later followed by "Mommy... Johnny liquefied the cat again!"
      RTFS. You cannot liquify something again once it's already liquified - as the summary says, "liquid turns into gas". So it'd be "gasified".
  94. The uses for this: by Hartree · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Z machine (and it's earlier configuration called PBFA 2) have been on Sandia for a long time.

    As said above, it's not a rail gun. It's not really even particularly useful for rail gun research.

    What it's for is to put small amounts of matter at tremendous temperatures and pressures.

    There are a lot of reasons to want to do this. Some of it is just basic research. i.e. What happens to matter and the laws governing it at these extreme conditions?

    Another application is fusion power research. You can compress deuturium and tritium to the point they will fuse in this machine. Though it's not made to generate power, you can learn about the details of the fusion reaction.

    That said, the main reason why this machine was built was indeed for military research. But even that is in a grey area. The US hasn't conducted a nuclear test detonation in quite some time. The reason it was able to do this is that computer simulations and other methods got good enough that they were able to be used instead of actually setting off a thermonuclear or nuclear device. Indeed, many of the Department of Energy's most powerful computers were created specifically to do that sort simulation (ASCII White, IIRC, for example).

    When running computer simulations, you have to have some way of calibrating the simulation and checking that it's getting the right answer.

    In the case of a supercomputer run simulating a car crash, you can validate it by conducting crash tests, and seeing how closely it agrees with them. Wrecking a few of a given car model is acceptable in return for it.

    But, when simulating nuclear weapons, you would often run into cases where to validate the code, you'd, at first glance, have to set one off. The conditions in a nuclear blast are so extreme, that it's difficult to put matter into that sort of state. If you're trying to maintain a test moratorium, that kinda undermines the whole idea.

    That's a big reason PBFA 2 and the follow on Z machine were made. They let DOE check the computer simulations and do basic research that would otherwise require nuclear testing. One of the biggest areas of interest is what happens when the materials in a bomb age. A lot of those weapons are getting quite old.

    They have many other basic research uses, but a big one is making it possible to keep the nuclear test moratorium.

    So, it's grey area. On the one hand, it's used for weapon research. On the other, it helps keep the test moratorium. It also has a lot of basic research uses. So, just like a supercomputer, you have to make your own decision about whether it, on the whole is a good or bad thing.

    1. Re:The uses for this: by typical · · Score: 1

      That's a big reason PBFA 2 and the follow on Z machine were made. They let DOE check the computer simulations and do basic research that would otherwise require nuclear testing. One of the biggest areas of interest is what happens when the materials in a bomb age. A lot of those weapons are getting quite old.

      Entropy -- facilitating nuclear disarmament since the dawn of time.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    2. Re:The uses for this: by cahiha · · Score: 1

      What it's for is to put small amounts of matter at tremendous temperatures and pressures. There are a lot of reasons to want to do this.

      Yeah, kids love to do that sort of thing, and the scientists at Sandia are still kids at heart, just with much bigger budgets.

  95. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the machine is getting a $61.7 million upgrade

    Now THAT'S overclocking.

  96. Bad link? by miquong · · Score: 4, Informative

    Uh, was I the only one who got the wrong article on the "magnetic pulse gun" link? It should be here.

    1. Re:Bad link? by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot. You're probably the only one who even clicked the link in the first place.

  97. I am working on a less ambitious project by elgee · · Score: 1

    Tepid fusion.

  98. Acceleration by eformo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Just need to do some thinking on the screen here...

    Accelrates at 34 km/s?? I thought that was a velocity. If .5 (at^2) = .005 m

    And at = 34000 m/s

    ...then that makes the time about 3e-7 s. That would be something like 11.8 billion g's.

    Not bad. Even for such a small projectile, that's an impressive impulse.

    -ex

    1. Re:Acceleration by flynns · · Score: 1

      Even for such a small projectile, that's an impressive impulse.

      Yeah, well, you should see my girlfriend at the mall. Now THAT'S impulse. *rimshot*

      Thanks, I'll be here 'till Sunday.

      --
      'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
  99. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

    This is so stupid. I fully concur with with nrlightfoot. There is NO WAY any scientist working on something like this would ever, EVER say this even has anything remotely to do with railguns. Firstly, if you used it as a weapon, the projectile would vaporize as soon as it encountered atmosphere!! Second, it is not at all capable of accelerating large (Kg scale) projectiles relevant to weaponry applications. This technique is only used for equation of state measurements and shockwave/fluid dynamics interaction experiments. Furthermore, the achieveable pressure regimes attainable by this method are not really groundbreaking. High power lasers for fusion research are also used to do the exact same thing except they accelerate the pusher plate not by magnetic induction but by initiating fast foam layer vaporization. The NOVA laser at LLNL attained about the same megabar pressures back in the 90's, though its nice to see there is another method now available to do this (that is, besides detonating nuclear weapons- the only other method I'm aware of). Now that I think of it, the reporting on this achievement is universally bad (no surprse there really) and I can't really tell how the pusher was accelerated in this experiment. It COULD be that since it was a metal plate they actually did use the magnetic field of the Z machine to directly accelerate it however, it was so small and thin I very strongly suspect that if in fact this method was used the current induced in the metal foil would've been so immense that it would've instantly vaporized. No, I rather think what they did was to use the Z-pinch of the machine to heat a plasma inside a hohlraum to very high temperature so that it emits a giant pulse of X-rays (this is the usual modus operandi of the Z-machine) which was then used to vaporize a metal or foam pusher which then accelerated the aluminum plate....

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  100. How Fast by Rac3r5 · · Score: 1

    122 400 km per hour or 76 055.8339 miles per hour thank u google calculator :) the impact of such a weapon reminds me of those dragonBall episodes.. lol

  101. Litter Solution! by spotmonk · · Score: 1

    landfills getting full? Let's start launching our trash in plasma form into space!

  102. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

    Oh! oops. They really did use the magnetic field of Z to directly accelerate the plate! Apparently the way they circumvented the problem of vaporizing the plate with a huge current pulse is by staggering Z's laser triggered spark gaps to elongate the current pulse from tens to hundreds of ns. Very neat trick.

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  103. Futurama, of course by Olaserov · · Score: 5, Funny

    Try the new Soylent Green Energy Drink!

    "How is it?"
    "Well, it varies from person to person."

    --
    * Olaserov is in the process of thinking up a signature.
    1. Re:Futurama, of course by Inzite · · Score: 1

      Why is this post at the moment labeled (Score:4, Insightful)? Really, I'm not making this up!!!

      You do realize the parent is joking, right?

  104. Try Prairie Dog Instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Using rail gun on a squirrel would result in too much meat damage. A .22 is almost too much. You're better off using a .17HM2 instead. However, using a railgun on prairie dog could provide a lot entertainment. Think about how flat the trajectory would be and how far out you could hit them. Perfect for the Lubbock area. For those that need help imagining it, try http://www.dogbegone.com/.

    1. Re:Try Prairie Dog Instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meat damage? Who cares about meat damage? If the damn squirrels weren't eating my garden to begin with then I would have food enough I wouldn't need to stoop to eating squirrel meat.

    2. Re:Try Prairie Dog Instead by deuterium · · Score: 1

      Good lord, it's so over the top. It's tragic, humorous, and fascinating all at once. I would never have guessed that people were spending their weekends blowing up prairie dogs to hard rock guitar.

    3. Re:Try Prairie Dog Instead by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      If the damn squirrels weren't eating my garden to begin with then I would have food enough I wouldn't need to stoop to eating squirrel meat.

      Stoop to eating squirrel meat? STOOP TO EATING SQUIRREL MEAT!?!?!

      Dude, the only thing wrong with squirrel meat is there isn't enough of it on a squirrel! Have you ever tried it fried?

      Mmmm, fried squirrel and gravy for breakfast...

  105. Re:How about a love gun by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 2, Informative
    This is all about generating massive shockwaves to examine the properties of matter in extreme conditions (without having to heat it up to enormous temperatures).
    ...using strong magnetic fields to accelerate aluminum plates to incredibly high speeds in a contraption that has a strong resemblance to a rail gun.
    The Z machine isn't a railgun at all.

    It doesn't accellerate the flyer plate linearly. A Z-pinch machine, which the Z-machine at Sandia is an example of, implodes a thin hollow cylinder of material, a fraction of a mm thick and about 1-2 cm in diameter and roughly 1-2 cm long. The Z-pinch effect causes the cylinder walls to collapse inwards at high speed, striking a target along the axis of the cylinder.

    See for example http://plasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il/ZP/

    High electrical current flows through the cylinder, which causes a magnetic field whose lines of force are circular around the wire. Basic electrical physics. Also basic physics, you get a force ExB (electrical field cross product with magnetic field). The sign of the force, from the direct electrical field and its induced magnetic field, is inwards towards the center of the cylinder.

    So at high enough currents, the cylinder implodes.

    There's no external magnetic field necessary. If you add one, then the implosion process is more even and stable, but that isn't necessary at all for the Z-pinch effect to work.

    You can even do fairly safe home experiments in Z-pinching. Take a bunch of thin wires and a couple of nonconductive disks. Put the disks on a pole, then string the wires from disk to disk so that they form a cylindrical array. Solder all the ends at the top to one electrial lead and all the ends at the bottom together. Connect up to a power source. Watch the wires move inwards.

    Z-pinch is just taking that effect, and putting the equivalent of the whole world's electrical power output through it instead of a small regulated power supply. A bit more force, eh?

    Calling the Z-machine a railgun is like calling a F-16 fighter a really cool drag racer. Just because they're both fast and burn hydrocarbons doesn't make them at all the same thing.

  106. Re:How about a love gun by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Actually, there was news of the US military trying to make weapons that don't kill, but rather pacify them. Do a search on "gay bomb" and see what kinda stuff you get. Rather funny, but interesting too.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Gay-bombs-US-secr et-weapon-plan/2005/01/14/1105582700951.html?onecl ick=true

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  107. In other news.... by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    Government officials are wondering if this can be used to used to discourage street skating...

  108. Luckily.. by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 1

    What he doesn't know is that I'm wearing a disintegration proof vest!

    1. Re:Luckily.. by NotPeteMcCabe · · Score: 1

      Whaddaya know... it disintegrated.

  109. Re:How about a love gun by 7Prime · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, not every enemy feels the same way.

    Sure they do, they just want you to listen to what they have to say... and you probably should...

    ...especially when they're pointing one of those things at your head and yelling in your ear.

    --
    Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
  110. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    what kind of useful payload you'd put into space that could withstand the acceleration of being shot out of one of these.

    As another poster pointed out, nuclear waste. It's not useful at all, but getting rid of it is.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  111. Re:How about a love gun by KillerCow · · Score: 1

    War is just the process of forceably making your enemy love you, current methods however involve the the death of the target individual.

    That sounds straight out of 1984.

    / War is peace.

  112. Second amendment by wpiman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does the second Amendment protect our right to turn matter into plasma?

    1. Re:Second amendment by Limburgher · · Score: 1

      Plasma IS matter. Perhaps you meant solids into plasma? :)

      --

      You are not the customer.

  113. Hey, come on... by Vthornheart · · Score: 1

    You have to admit, if you got someone to do it, you'd feel pretty damn proud of yourself though. ;)

    --
    -Vendal Thornheart
  114. And speaking of Quake... by TWX · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... if you're running around being chased by someone with one of these, chanting, "I refuse to be railed! I refuse to be railed!" repeatedly at high speed will cause them to lose their nerve and not be able to hit the broad side of a barn.

    At least, it worked that way in Quake II at LAN parties.

    Though it sometimes caused the person with the gun to drop out of the game, reboot into Linux, and start denial-of-service attacking the guy who was chanting...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:And speaking of Quake... by mallardtheduck · · Score: 1

      You mean you weren't running the Linux port?

  115. Re:How about a love gun by 7Prime · · Score: 2

    I hate to say it, but the only way to get peace is with a knife. Men must continue to die in order to preserve peace.

    What about women? I think a fair share of them should die too.

    --
    Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
  116. I'VE GOT TWO WORDS FOR YOU, SUCKA by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 1

    RAIL GUN.

  117. Must be an engineering student by nihilogos · · Score: 0, Redundant

    that can accelerate small aluminum plates at 34 kilometers per second

    They never get their SI units right.

    --
    :wq
  118. Equal and Opposite by PingPongBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction. Making something go from 0 to 34 in the distance of a gun must produce one major recoil.

    Now I foresee a human-carried model! Shoulder rocket launchers let the rocket go on its own - no recoil but don't stand behind the tube. Well, let's replace the burning rocket fuel with a rail gun. The rail shoots out the back in slow motion and the payload goes out the front much much faster. Right? But we're talking magnetic fields at work so....the rail can be curved!! What does that mean?

    North and south. Poles that is - double barrel shotgun. As long as both barrels shoot at once one side balances the other as long as the force should cancel at the back end.

    Just in case some entrepreneur wants to build one now, remember Equal and Opposite. The rail has to be flexed. In other words, think sawed off shotgun, and even think crossbow. The rail has to be horizontal for the most part until the ends where the ammo is turned by the electromagnetism to shoot forwards. Almost all the force should occur in the horizontal portion while the forward pointing portion doesn't give any more force than a normal gun.

    Kind of scary, espcially if the high speed projectile doesn't want to turn the corner at the end, not to mention the long lever arm will make the rails flap. Automatic fire will have to be timed.

    The only problem left? electric power for something like this must be pretty big. Kinetic energy = 1/2 mv^2 so even a small m will require a lot of car batteries. I don't see 007 running around with this weapon protecting ski bunnies while his batteries freeze.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    1. Re:Equal and Opposite by quantumfire.archon · · Score: 1

      Which all works perfectly, since change of direction is not an acceleration and therefore requires no force be imparted!
      Wait...

      Restated without the "haw haw": Initial vector is, say, right. Final vector is, say up. We require a force diagonally up and left on the projectile to achieve this. Therefore an equal an opposite force is directed down and right on the gun. If this were to happen simultaneously on two projectiles intially going in opposite directions, we can add the resultant forces exerted on the gun (down right plus down left) head to tail to get down. Lots of down. Which is just another way of saying that, no matter how many twists and turns the projectile goes through, if you end up sending it one way, it ends up sending you the other.

  119. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by tylernt · · Score: 1

    "You can never un-invent weapons"

    Be that as it may, I don't think you can stop them from being invented in the first place, any more than you can keep humans from making babies. The problem is what to do with the weapons (and babies) after they are created, and that's probably where we should concentrate our efforts.

    Besides, I think nuclear weapons were a good invention. By upping the ante, neither the US nor the USSR wanted to go down the road of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). Probably saved countless lives in the conventional wars that we didn't fight because nobody wanted to invite a nuclear strike.

    --
    DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
  120. Real Life Quake by elmartinos · · Score: 1

    It seems these guys have been evaluating this new technology.

  121. Re:How about a love gun by Deanalator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Call me crazy, but I'd rather make a friend than kill an enemy.

    Unfortunately, not every enemy feels the same way.


    So lets kill them before they kill us!..
    You realize how many conflicts could have been avoided if someone had stopped and realized that the other side is human too? Very few people actually want to kill, and even less people want to be killed. People kill out of fear, and killing people because you dont want them to kill you is the worst abuse of logic around.

    Im willing to bet that every enemy really does feel like they would rather make the friend. Don't get me wrong, I dont mind people running out and killing eachother, I just dont buy their justifications.

    Now that weve gone completely off topic (as the original article wasnt even about guns), heres a bash.org quote!

  122. Re:How about a love gun by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "That sounds straight out of 1984." - "Love gun"? Sounds more like Austin Powers to me baby.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  123. Re:Wrong units by ch3 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think it should read accelerate to 34km/s, not at

  124. WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

    a quick glance at all of the comments posted shows a clear contradiction to your insulting incrimination! are you suggesting that slashdot readers don't read the articles they comment on?!

  125. Re:How about a love gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got a rail-weapon for ya right here...

  126. This thing looks cool! by anubi · · Score: 1
    You know, I see this and I see a damn nice welder!

    I'm already beginning to think of yet more ways of getting dissimilar materials to bond with each other in such a manner they are gonna STAY that way until they are melted for recycle.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  127. Re:How about a love gun by LadyLucky · · Score: 1
    Whoah I went to school with you!

    10 points says you can't remember who was in your 3rd form year at Wellington College.

    --
    dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
  128. morality debate by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Funny

    So we can stop the handwringing over the morality of this "weapon", as to use it as such would require luring the enemy into a chamber the size of a soup can and asking him to hold still while you blast him.

    HEAR HEAR! I quite agree with the parent. This should be a discussion about the morality of lureing your enemies into soup can sized implosion chambers and asking him to hold still.

    (It doesn't sound cricket, if you ask me...)

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:morality debate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (It doesn't sound cricket, if you ask me...)

      No? That's odd. I thought I heard the sound of crickets right after reading your post.

    2. Re:morality debate by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 2, Funny

      It doesn't sound cricket, if you ask me...

      It does sound like Football , especially the kind a Arsenal Vs. Man United game is.

      --
      Wanted : A Signature.
    3. Re:morality debate by DannyO152 · · Score: 1

      I think that was Order 67.

    4. Re:morality debate by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      It sounds more like a game of chicken to me. At least, in that case you know what sort of soup can you should use.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  129. Eraser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't Arnold have one of these when he was fighting the Cyrix Corp that built em?

    I guess only now that he's in Gov. is it getting released :P

  130. Acceleration and velocity by Chris+Kamel · · Score: 0, Redundant

    that can accelerate small aluminum plates at 34 kilometers per second
    The phrase is just meaningless. Acceleration is measured in distance per time squared units. so it's either kilometer per second squared or accelerates small aluminum plates to speeds of 34 kilometers per second.

    --
    The following statement is true
    The preceding statement is false
  131. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by Pooua · · Score: 1

    Thank you for the link. I was wondering if someone would catch on that the original article's link is incorrect.

    About 12 years ago, I took a class in Pulsed Power from Albuquerque Technical-Vocational Institute. We met in a building off campus that houses a particle accelerator (not as powerful as the Z machine, but still powerful enough to make a military tank radioactive if hit in the target chamber). PBFA was cranking away back then (actually, when I was in high school, I was given a tour through the PBFA facility). So, I recognize the device.

    --
    Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
  132. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by masklinn · · Score: 1
    While moving technology forward is always a good thing, are there any non-military uses for this?
    Had you read TFA, you'd have seen that not only there are, but there are currently no military uses for the Z-Machine...

    I mean, having to bring your foes 5mm away from your gun is not *that* useful during warfare
    --
    "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  133. I'm only interested... by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1

    ...if it leaves that cool spiralling trail in the air.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  134. Re:How about a love gun by masklinn · · Score: 1
    The current batch think all Americans are SATAN.
    that's 5.8 billion people that won't become your friend...
    --
    "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  135. Duh! by hhghghghh · · Score: 1

    Yahoo News is reporting that scientists at Sandia National Labs have created a magnetic pulse gun (rail gun) that can accelerate small aluminum plates faster than the Earth travels through space. well Duh!! They're ON earth aren't they? Only if you fire them in the opposite direction of where the earth is moving they'd be going slower than earth!

  136. Galactic spin? by funkdancer · · Score: 1

    This may sound extremely stupid, but what about the sun's spinning action around the galactic core. How do you factor this in?

    --
    ISO certified == THX certified
    1. Re:Galactic spin? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      But dont forget that our galaxy is in chaotic movement within the local cluster, which is moving towards to Great Wall.

      But there is a simple way: Cosmic Background radiation Anisotrophy. If you look at the temperate of the background, there is an almost perfect doppler shift corresponding to a speed of (IIRC) about 600-700Km/s for earth. Absolute. Total.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  137. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by Lucractius · · Score: 1

    Nothing like Nuclear Fusion and High Speed Balistics coming from the same machine ... FUN !

    Anyone want to turn the peizo crystal from that last slashdot cold fusion story into a power source for a rail gun :)

    I have the strangest ideas lol. But hey that does sound like a good idea ... heats easy... adn that peizo crystal was pumping out a hellofa feild if it was creating fusion with in any way shape or form.

    *runs of to scraw some stuff down on paper*

    --
    XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.
  138. RE: by evil_marty · · Score: 1

    Whens the BFG coming?

  139. A Minute Late & 1B$ Short... by cmholm · · Score: 1

    I've checked out Powerlab's site, and it's great looking stuff. No sooner did I wonder how the DoD has been doing than a new engineer joined my lab. At her previous job, she was measuring muzzle velocities of 6km/s from a 1 meter long rail gun... about the same length as the Powerlabs device. I'm guessing the amateurs are a little short of power. ;-)

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  140. Railguns not for fusion by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Ages ago, I used to work on this sort of thing too. Railguns as weapons were experimented with in the fifties - perhaps earlier for all I know (some Tesla fan will probably tell me he had one). You cannot make a shell go faster than the propellant's natural velocity, and you only get so many joules per gram with chemicals. To get close to this limit you have to stick the bangy stuff (tm) not only at the bottom of the barrel but at various intervals along its length, as in the V4 supergun. Driving a projectile with a magnetic field (energy but no mass, hooray) seems to offer limitless muzzle velocities. However, they have a history of throwing their breech into the ground at mach 2, rather than putting a bullet in the air when anyone over the rank of major is watching (I forget who I have to thank for this matchless description, but they worked on these, not I).

    Rail guns are unlkely to be useful for driving implosions. It would be very hard to focus a symmetric implosion with a railgun. However, you could use the same pulsed power to drive an implosion like a plasma gun. Get a thin gold tube, fill it with DT, and whack in a pulse. The pulse goes up the outside of the tube. The gold outside goes directly to plasma, stops conducting, and so the current can move inward. If you can get the shockwave reaction from the expanding plasma to approximately match the speed of the current penetration, then a nice, cylindrically symmetrical implosion should be yours, and the small burst of annoying penetrative radiation and the hair loss that goes with it.

    There is another effect - the Z-pinch - that is a bit railgun-ish. This gets a lot of mention in the Sandia webpage. People used to have great hopes for that - it was quite the thing in the seventies, when people could still use phrases like 'everlasting power from seawater' without laughing - but it is hard to get a symmetrical pinch before instabilities run riot.

    Don't take my word for it. Maybe, I'm too old, and things have moved forward since I last was in this field. Sandia is a seriously cool place, even if the people who write their webpages are a bit too keen now and then.

    1. Re:Railguns not for fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It would be very hard to focus a symmetric implosion with a railgun. However, you could use
      >the same pulsed power to drive an implosion like a plasma gun. Get a thin gold tube, fill it with
      >DT, and whack in a pulse. The pulse goes up the outside
      >of the tube. The gold outside goes directly to plasma, stops conducting, and so the current
      >can move inward. If you can get the shockwave reaction from the expanding plasma to
      >approximately match the speed of the current penetration, then a nice, cylindrically symmetrical
      >implosion should be yours, and the small burst of annoying penetrative radiation and the
      >hair loss that goes with it.

      You nailed it, my thoughts exactly! I can only think of one minor problem. It's really just a matter of taste, but can I have that WITHOUT coffeinee? I know, it's nothing really... Sorry to bother.

    2. Re:Railguns not for fusion by fraudrogic · · Score: 1

      I was a Tesla fan until they came out with that song "Signs". "Signs" was overplayed so much I just couldn't stomach them anymore.

      oh. You mean Nikola Tesla. Yeah I'm a big fan. Those coils are rad!

      --
      I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...
    3. Re:Railguns not for fusion by jafac · · Score: 1

      It also strikes me as a clever way of imploding fissile material in order to achieve a critical mass for a nuclear detonation, perhaps with more control over some of the critical variables? Or maybe for more ease of long-term maintenance of the device. . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    4. Re:Railguns not for fusion by mattsucks · · Score: 1
      Ages ago, I used to work on this sort of thing too. Railguns as weapons were experimented with in the fifties - perhaps earlier for all I know (some Tesla fan will probably tell me he had one).
      I never had one, but I saw lots of signs for them.

      Signs.
      Signs.
      Everywhere the signs.
  141. Slashdot: Defining Nerds as technically clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    There once was a time when Slashdot was a gathering point for people with a technical clue. The editors would put a technical slant on some event or announcement, which would lead the /. masses into making at least semi-intelligent nerdy commentary.

    Look what we've descended to now ... the editors comment on highly technical news about a high-voltage instrument for physics experiments by misunderstanding it utterly and spouting total nonsense about progress on rail guns, which have absolutely no bearing on the subject matter.

    Notch one up for the meme of Nerds Are Technically Clueless.

    (The world already knows nerds can't code anyway, or they'd have put in dup detection long ago. Now they see we can't think either.)

    Thank you Slashdot editors. You are a real credit to the technical community.

  142. iraQuake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking of "Quake in real life," how long before the US Military -- extremely desperate for recruiting -- uses FPS games as a promotion tool?

    1. Re:iraQuake by joper90 · · Score: 1

      they already do.. that american army FPS game.

    2. Re:iraQuake by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      That sound you just heard was a tounge in cheek joke whizzing right over your head.

  143. The Russians already have man-portable rail guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and I suspect that is why the M-1 Abrams is considered obsolete, and its replacement lacks heavy armor. Nickel sized holes were found in three M-1 tanks in Iraq --- on both sides of the tank.

    The US is building naval destroyers with rail guns.

  144. Nothing to do with rail guns. by cryptocom · · Score: 1

    This is related to maintaining the nation's nuclear stockpile and studying the processes that go on inside giant planets in our solar system like Jupiter and Saturn. Rail guns have already been created by programs sponsored by the U.S. Navy and Army, but need further development to reach full operation. One of the major challenges is heat. The fact that the "rails" are not superconductors means that heat builds up over time, presenting an inherent problem in the whole idea. The challenge is to find a material that will either conduct better, or dissipate heat quicker. After the propulsion challenges are overcome, there will be the challenge of developing a projectile that is accurate over large distances. The dynamics of accuracy using an explosive start and an electromagnetic start are quite different. Once these challenges are overcome and testing is completed, the targeted applications will be for use in the Navy "Electric Ship", and an Army tank-style weapon system. Even though there has been work done on miniaturizing the power supply, there are no programs to turn this technology into a rifle-style personel weapon.

    --
    It takes just a moment and an action to destroy. It takes some time and thought to create.
  145. Another delay .... by filthy-raj · · Score: 1

    ... for the coders who now have to write this into Duke Nukem Forever!

  146. a new gun :( by JoneK · · Score: 0

    Yeah.. All this wolrd needs... Man that is one scary gun.

  147. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    why the fuck do you have an ad for intel in your sig

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  148. build your own! by Irashtar · · Score: 1

    http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun2.htm sure, it's a bit expenseive, but hey, it works!

  149. Angry Aliens... by HaydnH · · Score: 1

    That's 50 times faster than a rifle bullet, and three times the velocity needed to escape Earth's gravitational field.

    I can see the knock-on effect of this already: a group of Talibans fire their guns in the air celebrating, which accidentally kills 5000 aliens on a different planet, who then come and wipe out us nasty earthlings...

    ok perhaps not - it could wreak havoc on our satellite systems though!

    --
    Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
  150. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by polysylabic+psudonym · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the linked Wikipedia article: Peaceful uses of railguns There is interest in using railguns as mass drivers for space exploration and mining. They would be useful for launching bulk ores into space, particularly from low-gravity bodies such as moons and asteroids; electrically powered from solar panels, they would not require any consumables such as rocket fuels. Rail guns have been proposed for use in delivering projectiles to space, especially from bodies without atmospheres (such as the Moon). Its main competitors are coil guns and ram accelerators. Also, railguns may be used to initiate fusion reactions, by firing pellets of fusible material at each other. The impact would create immense temperatures and pressures, allowing nuclear fusion to occur. However current railguns are not yet sufficient to achieve the energies required.

  151. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by polysylabic+psudonym · · Score: 1

    Naturally I intended to put some carriage returns in that. Sorry. Second attempt:

    Peaceful uses of railguns

    There is interest in using railguns as mass drivers for space exploration and mining. They would be useful for launching bulk ores into space, particularly from low-gravity bodies such as moons and asteroids; electrically powered from solar panels, they would not require any consumables such as rocket fuels.

    Rail guns have been proposed for use in delivering projectiles to space, especially from bodies without atmospheres (such as the Moon). Its main competitors are coil guns and ram accelerators.

    Also, railguns may be used to initiate fusion reactions, by firing pellets of fusible material at each other. The impact would create immense temperatures and pressures, allowing nuclear fusion to occur. However current railguns are not yet sufficient to achieve the energies required.

  152. accelerate at ... kilometers per second by thebes · · Score: 1

    I think someone failed high school physics. People really need to learn how to write and interpret. Did anyone else notice this upon first reading?

    1. Re:accelerate at ... kilometers per second by slcdb · · Score: 1

      I also noticed it. I don't see how anybody who's taken any physics courses at or above high school level could not notice.

      I don't know why, but for some reason I always expect a higher level of intelligence here on Slashdot.

      Next thing you know, people will be measuring mass in pounds instead of slugs!

      -- Dan

      --
      Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
  153. Totally wrong! by BerntB · · Score: 1
    ... the other side is human too? Very few people actually want to kill, and even less people want to be killed. People kill out of fear, and killing people because you dont want them to kill you is the worst abuse of logic around.
    Not true. Let us consider clan societies.

    Traditionally, war has been very personal (village to village, family group to family group). Also, the bad old days were very personal; you often saw the eyes of the people you kill.

    Even clan societies are generally more laid back these days. (Compared to the continuous small warfare that existed a thousand years ago.)

    You apply the personal morals of a modern society on the situation between countries.

    In a modern society, with police, the state have a monopoly on violence and uphelds laws that you can trust.

    In a clan society, without police, the only safety is that a victim's relatives will revenge wrongs. The relatives do the work of the police and revenge often results in blood feuds.

    The situation between countries is more like a clan society -- because there is no world police force. Very big clans, lots of blood feuds...

    Also note that you have to do revenge in a clan society. If no relatives would revenge misdeeds, it would be like living in a bad area without police protection; very dangerous. (To change it, work for a modern society -- and keep on with the old until the new works.)

    Wow, one of most offtopic posts ever! :-)

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  154. Solid to Liquid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well ... our QA people have been asking questions for the last couple years now that turn my brain to liquid.

  155. Thought it was Nail Gun by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

    Anyway, nice to see new creative ways of killing people painlessly.

    Gangsta: "You're dust ( make that plasma ), you fucker!"

    --
    I don't feel like it...
  156. Zmachine by Ghostx13 · · Score: 1

    It's nothing new. It's the Z Machine (to lazy to post wikipedia link, if you complain your more lazy than I am) put to a new use.

  157. You need a squirrel launcher... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like this one

    But if you don't have any spare bungee cord or a cooking pot, you can always make do with a Clay Pigeon launcher

  158. Re:How about a love gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAha, sounds like you're just pissed off about something, are you a HPB perhaps?
    Rail is the most lethal weapon there is, when operated by someone with nerves and skill. You would think Quad + Amp + Rail is a painless way to end your life, but no, it HURTS.

  159. My love gun went off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on your mom's face!

  160. Re:How about a love gun by Oestergaard · · Score: 1

    Actually, Edward Telller claimed he did not feel bad about having invented the hydrogen bomb.

    Because, as he said, it is the first time in history that the most powerful weapon in existence had not been used in war.

    Sure, war's bad and all that, but I did find his take on this pretty darn interesting :)

  161. Re:How about a love gun by Trogre · · Score: 1, Troll

    Never met a jihad muslim, have you?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  162. No knowledge of physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, so we have 1010g which is about 10000m/s^2. We accelerate for "less than" a second and reach 30000m/s? That is too high by at least a factor of 3. And remarkably, after having accelerated for "less than a second" (which implies being close to a second, and indeed we could not use less to get this speed at this acceleration) at an average velocity of either 5000m/s or 15000m/s (according to the calculation), we just moved, no, not 5000m or 15000m, but rather 5 millimeters, which is off by a factor of at least a million.

    What nonsense. I suppose that what they want to be saying is that _after_ _exiting_ the contraption, the metal plate has to travel only 5 mm before hitting the target.

  163. PBFA ? by dJOEK · · Score: 1

    Pretty Big Fucking Accelerator?

    --
    Exercise caution when modding this message up: the author acts like a jerk when his karma is excellent.
  164. Here's an idea by Kookus · · Score: 0

    How about we make small rail guns that fire smaller rail guns that fire smaller packages...

    Now that would be fun!
    Put a squirrel on a mission to pluto in a day!

  165. What about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    plasma in to HOT MAG-MAH!

  166. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 1

    For something similar, "Rod's from God" about the tungsten rods dropped from space on targets- sort of crazy sounding. Check out this recent article: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/weeklysta ndard/20050608/cm_weeklystandard/therodsfromgod_1

    --
    And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
  167. It's Not An Interplanetary Frisbee Machine? by Cycloid+Torus · · Score: 0

    Darn. I had visions of massive mayhem games...

    --
    Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
  168. Medical Applications and Construction by willisbueller · · Score: 0

    Kidney stone smasher supreme. Worlds Best Hammer.

  169. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by bc90021 · · Score: 1

    I read the article. My question still stands. Or perhaps you're so hellbent on criticizing people that you don't stop to actually -understand- the question?

  170. This is a rail gun by cgenman · · Score: 1

    http://members.cox.net/johnahamill/armorodd.html

    I admit, "Rail Guns" have become common shorthand for all electromagnetic accelerator guns, but it's still taking an existing name in common usage and using it for something completely different. You can't just call a Building to Building weapon a B2Bomber, or an armored 18 wheeler a "battle-ship."

    Get a new name. The one you want was taken in WW2.

  171. Wake me when... by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

    they have my BFG-9000. Railgun. Bah.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  172. Military Railguns are not fiction by fusionsquared · · Score: 0

    http://www.ga.com/atg/railgun.php I'm not sure if the Z machine can really be termed a "railgun" but these things are in preliminary stages and can shoot projectiles.

  173. Railgun... by Baiken · · Score: 1

    look closely at the location of Sandia Labs...
    Albuquerque New Mexico...

    Thats Black Mesa in disguise to me...

    Whats next? resonance cascade?
    creepy...

  174. Faster Than the Earth... by trongey · · Score: 2, Funny

    Heck, I can throw a rock faster than the Earth travels through space - as long as I'm at the equator, the local time is near midnight, and I'm throwing the same direction as the Earth is traveling. And don't go trying to get relativistic on me.

    --
    You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  175. So the next tanks are hybrid? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    Methinks the ideal combo for powering a railgun or laser would be a diesel/omnifuel-electric hybrid.

    Or, how about some nucular Bolos? W00TT!

  176. Metal Gear Solid anyone? by Mizerable · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it said small alluminum plates, but what about lets say, nukes later on? Just a thought.

  177. Rail Gun tech.. by 80sguy · · Score: 1

    A rail gun weapon does not need to be near this fast(35km\sec) to ruin your whole day
    A projected naval rail gun with a 2.5km/sec muzzle velocity could deliver a guided projectile with an impact velocity of Mach 5 to targets at ranges of 250 miles, at a rate greater than 6 rounds per minute.
    A test demonstrated that a rail gun projectile's kinetic energy could create a 10-foot diameter crater, 10 feet deep in solid ground, and achieve projectile penetration to 40 feet - 3 to 5 times more effective than current guns.
    Rail gun projectiles are smaller and easier to store: a standard AGS magazine holds 1,500 rounds; a rail gun magazine could hold 10,000 rounds in the same amount of space.
    http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldie rtech_RailGuns,,00.html

  178. Somebody Call Casimir Radon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This all reminds me of Neal Stephenson's The Big U... still one of the funniest books I've ever read.

  179. Quarter-shrinker, not rail gun! by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    The famous Sandia Z-machine is more of a quarter shrinker than a rail gun.

    Sadly, the evolution of the English language nowadays seems to be directed by bad science fiction and gory video games. Real rail guns were projectile weapons so large they must be transported by rail - they can't be towed or moved with a truck without being disassembled because they are too heavy for roadbeds - and they have names like "Gustav", "Big Bertha" and "Schlanke Emma".

    If the Z-machine was a gun (which it's not) it oughta be called a capacitive discharge cannon, not a rail gun. But I guess that's too hard to spell for kids today?

    Those who ignore history are apparently in charge of revising the english language. Wikipedia and dictionary.com both use the "new" definition of railgun (although at least wiki has the grace to mention real railguns in passing).

    Future historians are going to hate us for this one.

  180. Re:Wow... that's the first semi-relevant FP I've s by CmdrObvious · · Score: 1

    yah, maybe all those loosers were afriad they would get vaporized by a rail gun!

  181. Feh by Mad+Ogre · · Score: 1

    The US Army has working prototypes of actual rail guns... or Guass Rifles if you are familiar with BattleTech. The Army guns are cranking out tungston penetrators at 22KPS, which is twice as fast as the Rhinmetal 120MM smooth bore used in our M1 Abrams MBTs. Unfortunately there are a great many problems with the guns... such as they tend to destroy themselves after a shot is fired and of course the power situation to charge a second shot. So really it's nothing more than a really really spendy zip gun.

    --
    MadOgre.com
  182. So it reaches the target after only 5 millimeters by kalirion · · Score: 1

    But can it do the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs?

  183. Re:How about a love gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen. Remember Theo Van Gogh and the Armenious family of New Jersey.

  184. Acceleration by non-poster · · Score: 1
    ...can accelerate small aluminum plates at 34 kilometers per second

    Well, that's nice. Except that "34 kilometers per second" is not a measure of acceleration. Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, according to Wikipedia. Velocity, of course, is the measurement of the rate and direction of motion.
  185. Size (distance) does matter by non-poster · · Score: 1
    The accelerated plates strike a target after traveling only five millimeters, or less than a quarter-inch.
    I don't feel threatened by a projectile that is deadly only at a 5 mm distance.
  186. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by Vorondil28 · · Score: 1

    ...nuclear waste. It's not useful at all, but getting rid of it is.

    Ah, makes sense, but AFAIK, the (US) government mandates that any nuclear material be kept in a place where it can be retrieved for some period of time. (I want to say 70 years, but I may be wrong.)

    --
    This sig rocks the casbah.
  187. good thing by QMO · · Score: 1

    I'm just glad that I'm fast enough to keep up.

    --
    Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  188. The Z-Machine has come a long way... by Prothonotar · · Score: 1

    since the days of Zork.

    --
    "Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
  189. Thank Good for Google Ads by rhkaloge · · Score: 1

    Why are all the Google ads for this page releated to Anger Management?

  190. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is /.: we're all above reading the articles! We're experts on everything. It being /., your answer too was entirely predictable.

  191. Walk, then run? by David+Gould · · Score: 1


    Driving a projectile with a magnetic field (energy but no mass, hooray) seems to offer limitless muzzle velocities. However, they have a history of throwing their breech into the ground at mach 2, rather than putting a bullet in the air when anyone over the rank of major is watching

    I keep hearing things like this -- that, being so much more powerful than regular guns, railguns present all sorts of new engineering challenges, like the sabot being either vaporized or spot-welded to the rails the instant the current starts, or the device flying apart from various internal forces, etc.

    So... anyone think to try making it a bit less powerful, at least at first? I know the physics only vaguely -- is there a minimum power level at which the effect will work? Or could you make one that was "only", say, 3x-10x more powerful than a conventional Howitzer, and work up from there?

    --
    David Gould
    main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
  192. They rocked in Tribes by infonography · · Score: 1

    I used them as sniper rifles. Long distance Headshot were fun.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  193. Brilliant! by jtgd · · Score: 1
    At last, the technology dream come true. We'll be able to sling that moon-mined ore 5 millimeters towards Earth!

    --J

    --
    J
  194. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

    Question: What happens to all the kinetic energy that the plate possesses? It's got to go somewhere.
    (Just wondering.)

    --
    SRSLY.
  195. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

    nothing special. the plate slams into a target and launches a shockwave into the material of interest. the KE is dissipated as heat and light within a short time.

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  196. Re:Just because we can do a thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're just trying to keep pace with the Europeans, who so far bear responsibility for all the really high-scoring wars.