Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper

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.

You should have better luck with keywords like recoil in railguns. In
Arindam's 2013 paper there are references which are mentioned in another
post in this thread.

>
If the lack of recoil in rail guns has long been noted, it has long
been noted by very few people.

Wrong, US Navy engineers have noted this. Ref. Lt Schroeder and Lt
Putnam. Their theses are or were online.
Some people are just chronically

wrong, and their persistence is not evidence that they're right.

All Einsteinians are absurdly wrong, and their dominance does not prove
them correct.