Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper

Liste des GroupesRevenir à physics 
Sujet : Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper
De : jimp (at) *nospam* gonzo.specsol.net (Jim Pennino)
Groupes : sci.physics
Date : 07. Dec 2024, 05:27:10
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <sdvc2l-i1402.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : tin/2.6.2-20220130 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.0-126-lowlatency (x86_64))
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 19:35:48 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
 
Recently Arin... er... Bertie Taylor posted the following:
>
| Concluding lines from a peer-reviewed 2013 paper by Arindam Banerjee
| (related to his PhD work)
|
| The current literature does not  satisfactorily resolve theoretical
and
| experimental results as regards the recoil in rail guns.  This is an
| important issue to resolve as there are new and valuable applications
| possible if recoil does not occur.
| In the past, rail gun research was used for military purposes, and
this
| trend continues. The stress was on making very high velocity
| projectiles, for such purposes as knocking out incoming enemy
missiles.
| The lack of recoil in rail guns, as opposed to coil guns, has long
been
| noted.
>
I did a Google search for "lack of recoil in rail guns" and found
three hits.  One in groups.google.com, one in archive.org, and one
in alixus.wordpress.com.  None of these sites appear to require
peer review before they publish.  I tried the same search in Google
Scholar and got nothing.
 
Try searching with Arindam Banerjee rail gun recoil ICEMS 2013

All your "papers" babble on about a static case where the projectile, or
whatever you want to call it, does not move.

Of course there is no recoil in that case and such is blazingly obvious
to anyone that knows anything about the laws of motion.

Recoil occurs in a gun of any type because the projectile is ejected
from the launching mechanize, whatever it may be.

Your device doesn't have recoil because it doesn't launch anything, the
projectile, or pipe in your case, simply rolls off the end of your
device hence there is no recoil.

You also babble on about the friction of the projectile on the launching
device, which is just nonsense. Any friction between the projectile and
the launcher results in a force on the laucher that acts in the same
direction as the projectile, while recoil is a force on the launcher
that acts in the opposite direction of the projectile.

To observer recoil, hold a garden hose pointing away from you and turn
on the water. Observe that a force occurs that is pushing back at you.



Date Sujet#  Auteur
6 Dec 24 * Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper35David Canzi
6 Dec 24 +* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper3Jim Pennino
7 Dec 24 i`* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper2bertietaylor
7 Dec 24 i `- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Jim Pennino
7 Dec 24 +* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper20Bertietaylor
7 Dec 24 i+- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Jim Pennino
8 Dec 24 i+* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper12David Canzi
9 Dec 24 ii+* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper10Bertietaylor
9 Dec 24 iii+* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper5Jim Pennino
9 Dec 24 iiii`* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper4bertietaylor
9 Dec 24 iiii `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper3Jim Pennino
10 Dec 24 iiii  `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper2Bertietaylor
10 Dec 24 iiii   `- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Jim Pennino
12 Dec 24 iii`* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper4David Canzi
12 Dec 24 iii `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper3Bertietaylor
12 Dec 24 iii  +- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Bertietaylor
12 Dec 24 iii  `- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Bertietaylor
9 Dec 24 ii`- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1bertietaylor
9 Dec 24 i`* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper6bertietaylor
9 Dec 24 i `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper5Jim Pennino
10 Dec 24 i  `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper4Bertietaylor
10 Dec 24 i   `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper3Jim Pennino
11 Dec 24 i    `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper2Bertietaylor
11 Dec 24 i     `- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Jim Pennino
7 Dec 24 +* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper4Bertietaylor
7 Dec 24 i`* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper3Jim Pennino
7 Dec 24 i `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper2Bertietaylor
7 Dec 24 i  `- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Jim Pennino
7 Dec 24 +* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper4bertietaylor
7 Dec 24 i`* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper3Jim Pennino
7 Dec 24 i `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper2Bertietaylor
7 Dec 24 i  `- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Jim Pennino
9 Dec 24 +- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Bertietaylor
14 Dec 24 `* Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper2bertietaylor
18 Dec07:53  `- Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper1Bertietaylor

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal