Gedankenspiel (Weapons Discussion)

[ShadowDragon8685]

Oh.. new question.. what is the usual standard ground trooper weapon a Umiak would be issued? I know that Umiak disdain standardization and manufacture from what is locally available in the worlds they control. But it would be nice to know if they prefer energy weapons over slug-throwers or flamers or needlers with neuro-toxin....

I think most ground troops will favor slugthrowers as standard weapons, as they are simple, reliable and effective. But of course the Umiak will use a wide variety of weapons, including a variety of heavy mounts on the hardtroops.

When you say "slugthrower," do you mean "propellant-actuated bullet," or "railgun"? I presume probably the latter?

[Arioch]

When you say "slugthrower," do you mean "propellant-actuated bullet," or "railgun"? I presume probably the latter?

"Slugthrower" doesn't specify the method of acceleration. I think most ultra-tech slugthrowers would probably be electromagnetic, but I wouldn't rule out high-tech chemical propellants. A chemical slugthrower is a robust, reliable weapon.

[ShadowDragon8685]

When you say "slugthrower," do you mean "propellant-actuated bullet," or "railgun"? I presume probably the latter?

"Slugthrower" doesn't specify the method of acceleration. I think most ultra-tech slugthrowers would probably be electromagnetic, but I wouldn't rule out high-tech chemical propellants. A chemical slugthrower is a robust, reliable weapon.

Thanks for that, now I have in my head an image of Russian Federation Space Marines going into battle with AK-2147s.

[icekatze]

hi hi

I would wager that if someone can carry a nuclear reactor of some sort on their person, than a railgun would be a good choice for a weapon. When it comes to energy density, chemical fuels tend to outperform batteries, but other forms of electricity generation might prove more efficient.

[ShadowDragon8685]

hi hi

I would wager that if someone can carry a nuclear reactor of some sort on their person, than a railgun would be a good choice for a weapon. When it comes to energy density, chemical fuels tend to outperform batteries, but other forms of electricity generation might prove more efficient.

I feel safe in saying that by the 2160s, even humanity almost certainly have effective accumulators which can suffice as small arms railgun power supplies. Remember, they have accumulators that can store enough juice for a hyperspace jump, after all.

[Suederwind]

I feel safe in saying that by the 2160s, even humanity almost certainly have effective accumulators which can suffice as small arms railgun power supplies. Remember, they have accumulators that can store enough juice for a hyperspace jump, after all.

I could imagine that they use ammunition made of a capacitor and a projectile, like we use ammunition made of a chemical propellant and a bullet. Accumulators would take too long to discharge, I assume.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I feel safe in saying that by the 2160s, even humanity almost certainly have effective accumulators which can suffice as small arms railgun power supplies. Remember, they have accumulators that can store enough juice for a hyperspace jump, after all.

I could imagine that they use ammunition made of a capacitor and a projectile, like we use ammunition made of a chemical propellant and a bullet. Accumulators would take too long to discharge, I assume.

I'd more expect that it would be part of the magazine. Using a capacitor as "brass" requires separate power for the brass extraction, it also means more moving parts and more things to go wrong.

[Suederwind]

I'd more expect that it would be part of the magazine. Using a capacitor as "brass" requires separate power for the brass extraction, it also means more moving parts and more things to go wrong.

Thats a possibility, yes. However, if the magazine gets damaged, you would use a lot of shots.
Using capacitors as "brass" would indeed use more moving parts. However, current firearms have a lot of moving parts, too and can still be very reliable.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I'd more expect that it would be part of the magazine. Using a capacitor as "brass" requires separate power for the brass extraction, it also means more moving parts and more things to go wrong.

Thats a possibility, yes. However, if the magazine gets damaged, you would use a lot of shots.

I think you mean "lose"?
If your magazine gets damaged, you duck behind cover/concealment, toss your mag and load a new one. Each mag's battery would probably be capable of fully accelerating something like 25-50% more ammo than it can physically hold, just to ensure each projectile gets a fully-charged shot, so the ages-old practice of hot-reloading would work just fine.

Using capacitors as "brass" would indeed use more moving parts. However, current firearms have a lot of moving parts, too and can still be very reliable.

Sure, but the fewer moving parts, the better. This truism will remain true whether your name is Mikhail Kalashnikov and it's 1947, or if your name is Last Shadow and it's 2160 and you're in charge of engineering the Loroi Union's new ground combat battle rifle, or if your name is freaking unpronounceable and abbreviates to Armorer-871 and you're trying to build a new torpedo launcher.

So between using "capacitor brass" and a super-accumulator battery in each magazine, I would go with the latter, personally.

[Suederwind]

I think you mean "lose"?

Yes, stupid typo. Sorry!

If your magazine gets damaged, you duck behind cover/concealment, toss your mag and load a new one. Each mag's battery would probably be capable of fully accelerating something like 25-50% more ammo than it can physically hold, just to ensure each projectile gets a fully-charged shot, so the ages-old practice of hot-reloading would work just fine.

Yes, you could do that. However, a magazine like that would possibly more complicated and heavier. That also means more expensive. A soldier would most likely only carry two or three of those and if one of those gets damaged, he could be into trouble.

Sure, but the fewer moving parts, the better.

Never doubted that.
The question is what is more pratical and economical.
A high power capacitor, capable of delivering one shot into the target would (I assume) be cheap, already developed magazins firing mechanisms, etc... could be adapted for it as well and if one of those capacitors fails, one could simply reload and would not need to toss away an entire magazine with its expensive battery.
However, its just a "Gedankenspiel", so to speak.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Yes, you could do that. However, a magazine like that would possibly more complicated and heavier. That also means more expensive. A soldier would most likely only carry two or three of those and if one of those gets damaged, he could be into trouble.

Not really, you're carrying the battery either way, whether it's built into the magazine or built into the projectiles.
And if the mag gets damaged, you lose the shots anyway. A damaged magazine is not something you want attached to your rifle, because it's not going to feed properl. Ditch that sumbitch immediately, slap in a new one, proceed to rock and/or roll.

Anyway, they'd probably be carrying about in the ballpark of 7x30 round magazines, which is the standard U.S. load today - plus however many spare mags he can find a way to sneak, scrape, steal and/or borrow, because soldiers are like that.

Never doubted that.
The question is what is more pratical and economical.
A high power capacitor, capable of delivering one shot into the target would (I assume) be cheap, already developed magazine firing mechanisms, etc... could be adapted for it as well and if one of those capacitors fails, one could simply reload and would not need to toss away an entire magazine with its expensive battery.
However, its just a "Gedankenspiel", so to speak.

You're assuming incorrectly here. A single-shot capacitor is not going to remotely be as cheap as one shot's worth of propellant. Each one will need to be electrically verified before being taken into combat - has it shorted at some point, has it started to go flat, etc, etc. That would be a logistical nightmare. If you're going to go that far, just use propellant, which doesn't have the same problems.

Plus, a partial shot from a capacitor is likely to weld the projectile to the rails. You're not clearing that with rack-tap-bang. Whereas accumulators in the batteries will be far more reliable.

[Suederwind]

Okay, back to our "Gedankenspiel" (seriously, I could not find a fitting translation for that one, mind game, maybe?):

A single-shot capacitor is not going to remotely be as cheap as one shot's worth of propellant.

Thats true. However, a magazine with a build in "super-accumulator battery" wouldn't be cheap either.

Each one will need to be electrically verified before being taken into combat - has it shorted at some point, has it started to go flat, etc, etc. That would be a logistical nightmare.

Well, chemical propellants needed to be keept dry in the age of blackpowder and guncotton. It was problematic, yes, but not that hard to handle. If those things are massproduced I assume such problems could be solved easily. For example: they could be charged before issued to the soldiers (or imagine a box of this kind of ammunition going off by accident or is shortened on its way to them).

Plus, a partial shot from a capacitor is likely to weld the projectile to the rails. You're not clearing that with rack-tap-bang. Whereas accumulators in the batteries will be far more reliable.

And what happens if a bullet is welded to the rails in your model? Most likely the same, I assume.
But, why would accumulators in the magazine be more reliable? The energy from those would need to charge a capacitor in the rifle anyway, if the railgun should work. On the other side, I have to admit, that I have no idea how big the capacity of such an capacitor should be for a railgun to work.

[icekatze]

hi hi

There are some basic materials science considerations when dealing with the energy density of an object, based on the inherent energy available in molecular bonds, in chemical reactions, and an the nuclear bonds in nuclear reactions. (the wikipedia article on energy density provides a decent overview.)

One can say that we will devise a super battery at some point, but it is just as likely that we will devise a super propellant at some point as well. Beyond that, it is up to the author of a work of fiction to decide what looks cooler and go by the rule of cool.

[ShadowDragon8685]

A single-shot capacitor is not going to remotely be as cheap as one shot's worth of propellant.

Thats true. However, a magazine with a build in "super-accumulator battery" wouldn't be cheap either.

It has the advantage of being reusable, however, where yours does not.

Each one will need to be electrically verified before being taken into combat - has it shorted at some point, has it started to go flat, etc, etc. That would be a logistical nightmare.

Well, chemical propellants needed to be kept dry in the age of blackpowder and guncotton. It was problematic, yes, but not that hard to handle. If those things are massproduced I assume such problems could be solved easily. For example: they could be charged before issued to the soldiers (or imagine a box of this kind of ammunition going off by accident or is shortened on its way to them).

It's a lot easier to keep bulk guncutton dry than it is to verify the integrity of each and every capacitor on the backside of each and every projectile. You're also suggesting not-remotely-easily "solutions" - charging them before issuing them?
With my proposal, a soldier/the armory has to charge and verify seven devices before use. With yours, they need to verify two-hundred and ten. That's literally thirty times more workload, and it's going to be an annoying, fiddly workload, that's going to slow ammunition loading down to a crawl. With an accumulator built into the magazine, it's simple - the projectiles are completely inert, and as long as they don't get bent, they're absolutely fine to use.

Plus, a partial shot from a capacitor is likely to weld the projectile to the rails. You're not clearing that with rack-tap-bang. Whereas accumulators in the batteries will be far more reliable.

And what happens if a bullet is welded to the rails in your model? Most likely the same, I assume.

Yes, but it's orders of magnitude more likely in your scenario than in mine, because each of your disposable tiny little accumulators is only going to fire once, meaning they're manufactured to be as cheap as possible. In mine, the power source is not disposable, meaning that it is held to a much higher standard, and will be storing enough juice to fire its entire magazine and change to ensure that the whole mag's worth gets a full-charge acceleration.

But, why would accumulators in the magazine be more reliable? The energy from those would need to charge a capacitor in the rifle anyway, if the railgun should work. On the other side, I have to admit, that I have no idea how big the capacity of such an capacitor should be for a railgun to work.

Why? You're assuming that the accumulator in the accumulator, and the rifle, wouldn't be capable of discharging a full shot's worth of juice straight from the accumulator, I am positing that they can do that very thing.

[Absalom]

I feel safe in saying that by the 2160s, even humanity almost certainly have effective accumulators which can suffice as small arms railgun power supplies. Remember, they have accumulators that can store enough juice for a hyperspace jump, after all.

I could imagine that they use ammunition made of a capacitor and a projectile, like we use ammunition made of a chemical propellant and a bullet. Accumulators would take too long to discharge, I assume.

The nice thing about the chemical propellants is that they last longer than a capacitor charge. Regardless of whether it's in the bullet or the magazine.

I could imagine that they use ammunition made of a capacitor and a projectile, like we use ammunition made of a chemical propellant and a bullet. Accumulators would take too long to discharge, I assume.

I'd more expect that it would be part of the magazine. Using a capacitor as "brass" requires separate power for the brass extraction, it also means more moving parts and more things to go wrong.

It would probably just use the current extraction technology, which is tried & true.

Each one will need to be electrically verified before being taken into combat - has it shorted at some point, has it started to go flat, etc, etc. That would be a logistical nightmare.

Well, chemical propellants needed to be keept dry in the age of blackpowder and guncotton. It was problematic, yes, but not that hard to handle. If those things are massproduced I assume such problems could be solved easily. For example: they could be charged before issued to the soldiers (or imagine a box of this kind of ammunition going off by accident or is shortened on its way to them).

That's not how capacitors work, if you want them to keep a usable charge then you need to keep them charging because they always leak a little. It's really just the huge ones that keep an impressive charge, and even for a magazine those would probably be too large.

Plus, a partial shot from a capacitor is likely to weld the projectile to the rails. You're not clearing that with rack-tap-bang. Whereas accumulators in the batteries will be far more reliable.

And what happens if a bullet is welded to the rails in your model? Most likely the same, I assume.
But, why would accumulators in the magazine be more reliable? The energy from those would need to charge a capacitor in the rifle anyway, if the railgun should work. On the other side, I have to admit, that I have no idea how big the capacity of such an capacitor should be for a railgun to work.

Depends on the projectile & speed. Take a look at this Instructable. You can probably get the volume down a bit by using supercaps, but every electric gun project I've seen involved huge capacitors: you might be able to justify this sort of thing for the gun itself, but you want higher energy density for either bullets or magazines. Here's a Hackaday article that touches on one project's cost for the capacitors involved: several thousands of dollars worth.

At any rate, I imagine that a coil-gun system will (weight aside) be more practical: less rail erosion, the one eroding piece (innermost barrel) can always just be a replacable disposable part, and tack-welding need not be a credible concern (whereas it always will be for all of the current designs that I know of: you'd have to use single-use disposable wire rails to avoid it).


Anyways, trying to stick a capacitor in either the bullets or the magazine is a mistake: you want to use a Flow Battery or MHD or similar technology to use a "fuel" stored in the bullets or magazine, in conjunction with a electrode pair (or comparable) in the gun, to charge up capacitors that are also in the gun. That way you only have to deal with one set of heavy & bulky capacitors (instead of a seperate set per bullet or magazine), leaving longer-term energy storage to a system better suited to it (batteries or equivalent).

[ShadowDragon8685]

I feel safe in saying that by the 2160s, even humanity almost certainly have effective accumulators which can suffice as small arms railgun power supplies. Remember, they have accumulators that can store enough juice for a hyperspace jump, after all.

I could imagine that they use ammunition made of a capacitor and a projectile, like we use ammunition made of a chemical propellant and a bullet. Accumulators would take too long to discharge, I assume.

The nice thing about the chemical propellants is that they last longer than a capacitor charge. Regardless of whether it's in the bullet or the magazine.

Yes, but the battery in the magazine can be left on a charger storage rack between issuing. Capacitor-caps on the end of each projectile could not, at least, not remotely as simply.

I could imagine that they use ammunition made of a capacitor and a projectile, like we use ammunition made of a chemical propellant and a bullet. Accumulators would take too long to discharge, I assume.

I'd more expect that it would be part of the magazine. Using a capacitor as "brass" requires separate power for the brass extraction, it also means more moving parts and more things to go wrong.

It would probably just use the current extraction technology, which is tried & true.

It would not, because current extraction technology requires gas actuation of a piston. You would need to either have a separate battery source on the weapon to electrically actuate the brass extractor, or siphon part of the capacitor discharge from the capacitor-cap. I do not consider either of these options as acceptable as simply not needing to extract brass in the first place.

Obviously, you would still need some kind of manually-actuated lever to extract a projectile you did not want in the chamber that was in there, but except for that one purpose - and the purpose of rendering the weapon visibly safe by jamming a safe flag in the chamber and sticking out the extraction port - you wont need to use it.

Each one will need to be electrically verified before being taken into combat - has it shorted at some point, has it started to go flat, etc, etc. That would be a logistical nightmare.

Well, chemical propellants needed to be keept dry in the age of blackpowder and guncotton. It was problematic, yes, but not that hard to handle. If those things are massproduced I assume such problems could be solved easily. For example: they could be charged before issued to the soldiers (or imagine a box of this kind of ammunition going off by accident or is shortened on its way to them).

That's not how capacitors work, if you want them to keep a usable charge then you need to keep them charging because they always leak a little. It's really just the huge ones that keep an impressive charge, and even for a magazine those would probably be too large.

That's why you store the mags on some kind of charger rack that keeps them fed before you send them into combat. With sufficiently advanced technology, the leak should be so small that in any reasonable extended operation, the ammunition should be exhausted before accumulator charge remotely becomes an issue.

Plus, a partial shot from a capacitor is likely to weld the projectile to the rails. You're not clearing that with rack-tap-bang. Whereas accumulators in the batteries will be far more reliable.

And what happens if a bullet is welded to the rails in your model? Most likely the same, I assume.

Yes, but my way is much less likely to result in a projectile welded to the rails. A magazine-sized battery will have room and budget for more diagnostic electronics than capacitor-caps will have, which means it will be better able to warn the user/prevent discharge if it is damaged. You'll also be analyzing the entire magazine's battery the moment you slot it in, rather than analyzing each cap-cap as it gets to the chamber

But, why would accumulators in the magazine be more reliable? The energy from those would need to charge a capacitor in the rifle anyway, if the railgun should work. On the other side, I have to admit, that I have no idea how big the capacity of such an capacitor should be for a railgun to work.

Depends on the projectile & speed. Take a look at this Instructable. You can probably get the volume down a bit by using supercaps, but every electric gun project I've seen involved huge capacitors: you might be able to justify this sort of thing for the gun itself, but you want higher energy density for either bullets or magazines. Here's a Hackaday article that touches on one project's cost for the capacitors involved: several thousands of dollars worth.

Remember, those are 2016 costs and tech, not 2160 costs and tech. Having super-duper awesome accumulator technology is a prerequisite for hyperspace jumps, since not even the Loroi using fullerened antimatter (or something similar,) can produce enough peak output with two xboxheug reactors to do a hyperspace jump without charging the accumulators.

If you have accumulators that can fuel a hyperspace jump, you have accumulators that can fuel a railgun rifle.

At any rate, I imagine that a coil-gun system will (weight aside) be more practical: less rail erosion, the one eroding piece (innermost barrel) can always just be a replacable disposable part, and tack-welding need not be a credible concern (whereas it always will be for all of the current designs that I know of: you'd have to use single-use disposable wire rails to avoid it).

Whether it's rail or coil (and I believe it will be rail by 2160; erosion is a mechanical problem that can be overcome,) the point is that when you go into a ground battle in the 2160s with a projectile weapon, it's as likely to be magnetically accelerated as propellant. And I think that the most optimal way to make a mag-rifle is going to be with a magazine-length battery in front of a stack of ferrous projectiles. (In front so you have that tiny bit more barrel length, because for a projectile weapon, an extra inch does matter. (That's what she said.))

Anyways, trying to stick a capacitor in either the bullets or the magazine is a mistake: you want to use a Flow Battery or MHD or similar technology to use a "fuel" stored in the bullets or magazine, in conjunction with a electrode pair (or comparable) in the gun, to charge up capacitors that are also in the gun. That way you only have to deal with one set of heavy & bulky capacitors (instead of a seperate set per bullet or magazine), leaving longer-term energy storage to a system better suited to it (batteries or equivalent).

The exact nature of the electrical equipment in question is probably not understood, or is only theorized, at present. I'm basing my understanding on that of Eclipse Phase: battery + projectile goes in = bullet goes out, very very fast. Propellant bullets are less damaging, but have more wizz-bang options available to them because there's not huge EMF to fry any wizz-bang option electronics.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Although I quite enjoy Eclipse Phase, they are probably not the best source for scientific accuracy. When it comes to propelling a projectile, remember (force = mass * acceleration) is at the heart of it. While there are lots of technical details for various types of weapons, they all have to produce force to reach a certain acceleration. The main benefit of railguns over chemical propellants is when you can hook them up to a massive power plant.

Also, I think it has been stated that jump drives are kinda big. At least, that is my impression with the lack of jump capable small craft.

[dragoongfa]

Big jumpdrives and big enough inertial dumpers in order for the ship not to get torn apart from the force of the jump.

[Krulle]

big enough inertial dumpers

How to they work?
They dump inertia somewhere?
Handy... Preferably into any ejected propellation mass....

[dragoongfa]

Autocorrewk...