Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 22:07:49 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:

David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> 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.
>
If the lack of recoil in rail guns has long been noted, it has long
been noted by very few people.  Some people are just chronically
wrong, and their persistence is not evidence that they're right.

>
The US Army has spent over $150 million and the US Navy has spent over
$500 million on railguns and all of them had LOTS of recoil.

They spent lots more and even equipped some ships with rail guns. Then
they found the barrels wore out, and it needed too much power.  Their
design was bad, Arindam's design is roughly 100 times better looked at
all ways.  See, how the ape-mind works: they could not get out of the
cylindrical barrel shape!!!!
No, it was a matter of research for the US Navy to check out recoil.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6754516
Get that paper and check out the references.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor