#131
|
|||
|
|||
OT little tommy; the name dropper Growth of voting
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 09:45:22 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote: Most heavy cruisers are now outfitted with ultra long range guns that could fire a cannon for 1,000 miles. Ummm... most of the US Navy big gun cruisers have been replaced by guided missile and cruise missile carriers. One does not fire a cannon 1,000 miles. One fires a shell 1,000 miles. It might be rather amusing to see the gun flying down range, but that's rather improbable. The current technology for the Army is 43 miles range: https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/12/21/army-long-range-cannon-gets-direct-hit-on-target-43-miles-away/ The 1,000 mile gun is a possibility, but does not currently exist: "Army developing 'high-rate-of-fire' breakthrough 1,000-mile range cannon" https://www.foxnews.com/tech/army-builds-never-before-seen-breakthrough-1000-mile-range-cannon The long-range cannon could be a possibility by 2023 "Leaked Photos Reveal the U.S. Army Wants a 1,000-Mile Range 'Cannon'" https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/leaked-photos-reveal-us-army-wants-1000-mile-range-cannon-130212 I couldn't find anything for such a Navy cannon. The arch on this sort of cannot puts it into space. Space starts at an altitude of 60 miles. I don't know if the 1,000 mile shell skips off the atmosphere, or has wings to provide lift and thus extend it's range. If it skips, then it has gone into space. -- Jeff Liebermann PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272 Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Ads |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
OT little tommy; the name dropper Growth of voting
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:35:30 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 09:45:22 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich wrote: Most heavy cruisers are now outfitted with ultra long range guns that could fire a cannon for 1,000 miles. Ummm... most of the US Navy big gun cruisers have been replaced by guided missile and cruise missile carriers. One does not fire a cannon 1,000 miles. One fires a shell 1,000 miles. It might be rather amusing to see the gun flying down range, but that's rather improbable. The current technology for the Army is 43 miles range: https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/12/21/army-long-range-cannon-gets-direct-hit-on-target-43-miles-away/ The 1,000 mile gun is a possibility, but does not currently exist: "Army developing 'high-rate-of-fire' breakthrough 1,000-mile range cannon" https://www.foxnews.com/tech/army-builds-never-before-seen-breakthrough-1000-mile-range-cannon The long-range cannon could be a possibility by 2023 "Leaked Photos Reveal the U.S. Army Wants a 1,000-Mile Range 'Cannon'" https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/leaked-photos-reveal-us-army-wants-1000-mile-range-cannon-130212 I couldn't find anything for such a Navy cannon. The arch on this sort of cannot puts it into space. Space starts at an altitude of 60 miles. I don't know if the 1,000 mile shell skips off the atmosphere, or has wings to provide lift and thus extend it's range. If it skips, then it has gone into space. The HARP project's 16-inch HARP gun currently holds the world record for the highest altitude (180 km) a gun-fired projectile had achieved. 1966 I believe. -- Cheers, John B. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
OT little tommy; the name dropper Growth of voting
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 14:04:27 +0700, John B.
wrote: The HARP project's 16-inch HARP gun currently holds the world record for the highest altitude (180 km) a gun-fired projectile had achieved. 1966 I believe. That's 112 miles up, which is well into space. However, it was fired pointing almost straight up, which is useful for altitude records, but is not going to deliver a 1,000 mile range artillery shell. Almost straight up means the gun has to be fired slighly toward the east, so that earth's rotation (west to east) will allow the shell to land near to where the gun was located. I couldn't find a number for the time of flight. -- Jeff Liebermann PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272 Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
OT little tommy; the name dropper Growth of voting
jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 8:47:49 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote: AMuzi wrote: On 1/29/2021 8:17 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: jbeattie wrote: On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 12:57:19 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote: AMuzi wrote: On 1/29/2021 11:45 AM, Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/28/2021 6:11 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 14:54:19 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:53:17 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich wrote: On the news this morning we were told that you and the entire town was washed away or drowned in mudslides with boulders the side of a car washing down the street. No link to the source? I would call that plagiarism. What actually happened was a piece of Boulder Creek Drive got washed away: https://www.facebook.com/BoulderCreekFireDepartment/videos/1088883534571509 The word "Drive" seems to have disappeared and morphed into the town of Boulder Creek washing away. Congratulations for having expanded that to the "entire town". Webcam and graphs of the San Lorenzo River at the entrance to Henry Cowell State Park: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/webcams/bigtrees/ 16ft gauge height is considered flooding. At 9.0ft, we have a long way to go. Far more data than you probably want: http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/slv-wx-fire/SLV%20Weather%20Links.htm (Yes, I know it needs work). My apologies for ignoring your recent rants in R.B.T. I took the opportunity presented by the ongoing "atmospheric river" and the evacuation of some distracting customers to work on my collection of chain saws, generators, leaf blowers, and string trimmers. I'm about halfway done and should be back shortly to provide you with something to complain about. Also, after a judiciously applied regimen of 2 gallons of wet patch, for the first time in 45 years, my roof doesn't leak. I believe that the resident ghosts have finally been appeased. This is the world you seem to find very appealing. It's the only world we've got. If you fail to appreciate this world, I can introduce you to an inventor who wants to resurrect the WWII Hochdruckpumpe for launching orbital payloads. I believe you will make a perfect candidate for the first astronut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-3_cannon Didn't a Canadian Chap,Gerald Bull, develop a giant cannon for launching super sonic projectiles as a cheap way of researching supersonic flight? I don't know about that, but I'm sure a gun capable of reaching orbit (or the moon, a la Jules Verne) would impose enormous accelerations on the payload. I imagine any astronaut would be turned to soup. Come on Frank, you know the difference between speed and acceleration. Most heavy cruisers are now outfitted with ultra long range guns that could fire a cannon for 1,000 miles. The arch on this sort of cannot puts it into space. The Army has similar artillery. We have rail guns that spread the acceleration over a much longer period etc. Theoretically we could use a long railgun to launch space ships all of the way to the Moon without accelerations too high for the human body to sustain. Not that I'm volunteering mind you. Naval guns top out at under twenty miles range. (16 IIRC) For propelled munitions (rocket, missile) you're outside of 'artillery'. Railguns are sui generis. Let’s throw some math at this. Escape velocity is a little over 11,000 m/s. Assuming 5g acceleration, and a 20% margin (probably not enough) to account for frictional slowdown after you leave the cannon, we would need to be accelerating for t = v/a = 11000*1.2 / 5*9.8 = 270 seconds, which gives us a barrel length of d = 0.5*a*t^2 = 0.5*5*9.8*270^2 = 1786 km. That brings a whole new meaning to the phrase “long gun” If we try again at 10 g acceleration, we cut the time in half and the barrel length by a factor of four to 135 seconds and 446 km respectively. Being shot out of a cannon into space appears to be reserved for objects that aren’t quite as squishy as humans. The numbers seem higher than even I expected, so please point out the error if you can find one. Escape velocity is about .1 m/s with my space ladder. The cannon thing gave me a headache. -- Jay Beattie. How many rungs are on that ladder of yours? All of them. Good thing. If you fell off 2/3 of the way up, it would hurt like the dickens, plus you’d probably run out of breath screaming on the way down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZOc...ohnsotherstuff Heinous. -- Jay Beattie. I was trying to find a clip of the Simpsons episode where Bart gets thrown off a dam face by Sideshow Bob’s brother, and like in the Bill and Ted clip, he has to take a breath halfway down. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
OT little tommy; the name dropper Growth of voting
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 00:12:47 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 14:04:27 +0700, John B. wrote: The HARP project's 16-inch HARP gun currently holds the world record for the highest altitude (180 km) a gun-fired projectile had achieved. 1966 I believe. That's 112 miles up, which is well into space. However, it was fired pointing almost straight up, which is useful for altitude records, but is not going to deliver a 1,000 mile range artillery shell. Almost straight up means the gun has to be fired slighly toward the east, so that earth's rotation (west to east) will allow the shell to land near to where the gun was located. I couldn't find a number for the time of flight. The HARP project was a "High Altitude Research Project" :-) But, from what I can find out the projectile that went 180 km Up was somewhere in the 800 - 1200 lb range at a velocity between 6500 - 7000 ft/sec. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...ch_gun_systems So launch a, say 900 lb, projectile at, again say 6.500 ft/sec at 45 degrees and see how far it will go :-) The ""Baby Babylon", the canon built as a prototype for test purposes for Iraq was test fired horizontally and then set up at a 45 degree angle and expected to have a range of some 750 km. . It had a bore of 350 mm (13.8 inches), and a barrel length of 46 metres (151 feet),. -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicycle growth. | Tom Kunich[_2_] | Techniques | 8 | October 6th 20 11:09 PM |
So much fr a growth in bicycle riding from the pandemic. | news18 | Techniques | 125 | June 6th 20 04:31 PM |
growth in rbr | Crescentius Vespasianus | Racing | 1 | April 21st 07 12:02 PM |
HUGE GROWTH WITH THESE TWO GUYS TOO! | ed_dolan_jimmy_macnamara | General | 0 | October 24th 06 08:25 PM |
Armstrong Prompts Huge Growth in Cycling | Garrison Hilliard | General | 0 | July 24th 05 06:28 AM |