Would this work? Also please use your advanced math and physics knowledge to explain why or why not.
Maybe provide a new design idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTWk4pu9m8I
>>8115891
H-holy shit anon...
>>8115891
>Centrifugal force meme
It's not a real force bro. Projectile velocity would be tangential to the magazine, so at least you must put the barrel to the side, not the front.
Also imagine this thing rotating with 10000 rpm; what happens when you release a projectile and the whole thing goes to imbalance? Big fucking crash.
>>8115891
>Would this work?
Someone did a short calculation and realized it needs something like ten megawatt to provide those figures.
>>8115891
how the fuck would it work? after release, the balls would basically have a tangential trajectory (basically perpendicular to the cannon). It would explode in your fucking face
>>8115909
>what happens when you release a projectile and the whole thing goes to imbalance? Big fucking crash.
with a big enough inertia and the ammo typically used in high ROF applications (5.56 NATO or 5mm) that may not be a problem. Presumably this would be mounted onto a vehicle not as a carry weapon for infantry.
>Projectile velocity would be tangential to the magazine
according to the animation, the description on the pic is misleading. it's not actually being launched through centrifugal force, they're being fired while in rotation. this is probably why it will fail, any misalignment, which is highly likely given 20,000 rounds a second, would destroy the barrel and/or internals.
>balance changes as rounds are fired
Ever seen a centrifuge accident, anon?
>>8115910
It could be mounted to a nuclear powered ship though
>>8115891
Have you ever seen someone with a flywheel trying to turn?
>>8115891
Well, that was retarded.
>>8115891
>https://youtu.be/r_0zNhQHL1I?t=51
Y'all niggaz retarded.
>>8115891
theretically, yes
aside from fact even a pre-WWI machinegun would be better in all ways possible
and that thing would have to even more over-engineered than it already is
>>8115938
>with a big enough inertia
inertia is PRECISELY why it will fail you dipshit
>>8115891
Could it work? Maybe... It would never be done for a simple practical reason, all those moving parts guarantee that it will break and be useless.
>>8115891
Ever seen a trebuchet?
It's like /x/ and /k/ had a baby.
>>8115891
In addition to all the stupidity pointed out by others, OP's video looks like the magazine holds about 30 shots.
Who would you reload that thing without disassembling it?
>>8115891
>Using centrifugal force
Trust me, it won't work. The guy who designed this is a complete idiot
Seems like it would just explode and kill you if you tried to put enough energy into it to be useful as a weapon.
>120 000 rounds per minute = 2000 rounds per second.
>2.4 km/second muzzle velocity.
so we have 2000*(0.5*(m*2400^2)) with m being the bullet weight in kilograms. For a 1 gram bullet you get 5.7 meganewtons force output, so not only do you need this in electric power to keep the gun firing, the recoil from this thing would be equivalent to 6 merlin rocket engines.
If you mounted this under a 50 tonne battle tank, pointed it into the ground and held the trigger down the tank would fly.
>>8117254
Muzzle loaded.
>>8115891
There are no materials capable of retaining the projectiles that would not be damaged when releasing the projectile.
>>8117323
>If you mounted this under a 50 tonne battle tank, pointed it into the ground and held the trigger down the tank would fly.
>>8117323
Anon did you just invent flying tanks.
>>8117323
You could do the same thing with a GAU-8
http://what-if.xkcd.com/21/
>>8115891
They stole the idea from The Poor Man's James Bond.
Hey, be nice you guys.
He may have the scientific literacy of the average /k/ommando, but he's a foreigner on our shores.
>>8118391
>He may have the scientific literacy of the average /k/ommando
yeah, no
the average /k/ommando knows what is and what isn't a realistic firerate/muzzle velocity and will call bullshit when ridiculous shit like this presented to him
spring loaded is basically the same thing but better
Forget about imbalance, imagine trying to aim fighting the gyroscopic force on that thing.
Pretty amusing OP
>>8117323
The best weapons are also the best propulsion systems.
Truth is, as many anons here are saying, you need megawatts to power a gun like this. Only a fission plant can provide that power. But to do that, you have to convert the heat into electricity, which is wasteful.
A fission reactor can be used to produce heat, and then you pump the heat into a vast capilary system. The 'blood' is a solid with a low melting point, which undergoes the most expansion in volume when heated.
As the 'blood' is heated, it turns to gas. This increases the pressure, and you have a series of small holes for thrust vectoring, and two large holes for propulsion.
Water could work. No radioactive materials would enter the water, so your water plumb would be safe enough to use on Earth. We've had this technology since the 70's.
Mythbusters already did this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKhLgPyymfU
>>8115891
>Centrifugal force weaponry
>Would this work.
I like the way that video doesn't actually show the firing action, because synching a rotational velocity of any centrifigul significance to affect muzzel velocity would introduce severe structural and proper projectile transfer problems into the firing and reloading of the weapon system, not to mention that you have just introduced about a 60 ton magazine into the equation for no reason.
>>8115909
This.
The video of OP was made by someone who knows CAD well, but apparently knows nothing about physics, and/or it's a joke.
>>8117453
>>8117323
A WEAPON TO SURPASS METAL GEAR
>>8117754
>http://what-if.xkcd.com/21/
>As far as I know, this steak question originally came up in a lengthy 4chan thread, which quickly disintegrated into poorly-informed physics tirades intermixed with homophobic slurs. There was no clear conclusion.
top kek
