This magical thing called "recoil"....

I am insisting that you continue to call an apple an orange and accuse me of being wrong. Like saying im trolling ( by definition means to purposely provoke or disrupt, NOT disagree with you), which you call one thing when its actually another, see the pattern here?

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/time-warp-gauss-gun.htm

Nice clear image and super slow motion.
NOTE:
-The magnets (methoid of propulsion) are not attached tot he rail (barrel or weapon frame).
-Newtons 1st law The projectile when first placed does does not move because no force is acting upon it, only moving once he moves the projectile within the range of the first magnets field.
-Newtons 2nd law is seen in the direction and acceleration of the projectiles moved by the magnets
-Newton's 3rd law is not broken, as one magnets pull exerts the next magnets push counters it, thus NEGATING recoil.

So if you were to hold the rail in your hands, and let the projectile loose, you would feel no recoil, it has nothing to do with Newton's 3rd law. Recoil in a firearm is felt because the reaction of the gases expanding against the wepon and weight of the weapon and projectile. Which is why we have things like recoil less weapons and reduced recoil (Vektor and TDI Weapons) weapons.

The magnetic fields are the force acting on the projectile, the projectiles movement is the reaction, action, reaction, no laws broken. Newton's law was not for every action there is equal and opposite recoil. You are calling it one thing, when its actually another.

BONUS:


Because the Lorentz force (action) being perpendicular to the magnetic field it creates, the recoil is minimal. Think putting a slick ball into your balled and and squeezing hard, once enough pressure is exerted the ball will launch out of your hand, but you would have very little recoil.

Regarding the Discover link.

One: you're an idiot. That is not how a militarized gauss rifle would work, and it isn't even an electromagnetic setup. To fire successive shots with a weaponized version of that, you'd have to literally deconstruct the gun every time to replace components. You could theoretically put a magnet in the butt to pull everything back into alignment, but it would still be a horribly stupid design.

Two: at the speeds that setup achieves, recoil would be relatively low.

Three: if you watch the very video you posted, you can clearly see, starting at 1:12, each set moving backwards, with the effect diminishing as the shot(s) move along.

Regarding your other two videos, see my earlier point about recoil not being observable when you bolt a rail gun to something too heavy for the recoil to visible affect.

You are too stupid to continue this conversation with. Again, video evidence of recoil from coil guns and rail guns. You've even provided some of it yourself. Just stop. Continuing to insist that black is white, when there is in fact indisputable evidence that black is black, is by its nature trolling. You may be doing it unintentionally, but that just makes you stupid, instead of a troll. Either way, you lose.

Edit - just to make something clear here, my opinion of your intelligence has dropped low enough that I'm fully expecting your next response to contain a video clip from the movie Eraser with Arnold dual wielding gauss rifles and claiming it's proof of no recoil.

Original statement "Ya know whats funny, and i'm assuming you are NC, our weapons are Gauss based, which would mean they are magnetic coil propelled, which would mean there would be little recoil."

I made a statement about something fictional based on factual concepts. I've provided countless proof of the concept that you continue to call into question, when you can't you insult me like a child. There is no such thing as a man portable magnetic based military weapon, are you seriously telling me you know better? Fine, shut up and build it. Otherwise the scientific concept still stands true.

Two and Three: As I already pointed out, explained and provided factual evidence.. The example is using low power ferrous magnets, someday when the technology is perfected that is already in proof status (the tech already exists) more powerful electromagnets will achieve higher velocities of the projectile. No magical physics law will change to make you right, its simply a fact of applying more action to achieve more reaction. The frame or weapon STILL will not move or recoil.

Recoil is not Reaction, two different words, two different meanings. Insulting someone or calling them names to make yourself feel better is not a conversation friend.

I insult adults who insist on clinging to ignorance even when they've been provided with evidence that should clear up said ignorance. You have proven you are ignorant and remain intent on staying that way. Hence I insult you. The statement marked in red pretty much sums up why I'm calling you stupid. Recoil is the term for the reaction a weapon exhibits when fired. It is, at its essence, a type of reaction. Trying to split hairs between the two is a desperate attempt to not look stupid.

Your countless "proof of concept" examples in some cases actually damaged the claim you're trying to make, and in others were irrelevant to the discussion at hand due to being about non-rail gun and non-coil gun examples or were invalidated due to external factors (such as being bolted down) preventing the recoil from being observed with the naked eye.

Whether a man-portable militarized railgun exists is irrelevant - civilian prototypes exist and exhibit recoil characteristics similar to firearms. Militarized prototypes for battleships exist and exhibit recoil characteristics similar to firearms. There is no evidence, theoretical or actual, to believe that a man-portable version of such a weapon would magically cease to exhibit recoil characteristics similar to firearms, and an abundance of evidence, both theoretical and actual, to demonstrate that they not only exhibit similar recoil characteristics, but that the recoil is typically more harsh due to the acceleration such weapons provide.

There is no scientific concept that states that a rail gun or coil gun would not exhibit recoil characteristics similar to firearms. The only reason you believe otherwise is because you're ignorant, and apparently not intelligent enough to understand the physics involved. Which is sort of sad, as they aren't particularly hard to grasp.

You have been proven wrong, repeatedly, in this thread. Not by opinion, or theory, but by actual video evidence of physical demonstrations of the principles involved. That is the end. You are done. You can continue flailing around, but in the end, you will still be wrong, and nothing you can do short of teleporting yourself into an alternate dimension where other physics apply will change that fact.

I realize it's trendy on the internet, and on forums in general, to never admit you were wrong, no matter how effectively someone proves that you are, but you're taking this to an extreme. You're wrong, you don't understand basic concepts inherent to rail and coil guns, and that's the end of the story. You can take this as a learning opportunity, or you can persist in your ignorance. If you continue to take the latter route, don't be surprised if people call you an idiot.

Edit - nope, I'm wrong. A man portable coil gun exists. Behold.



Oh and HEY LOOK. Near the end of the video when it does an over the shoulder view of him firing it, he has to steady the weapon and it clearly recoils when firing. And that's with it firing with nowhere near the power of a regular firearm.

Now shut up.

Reaction - resistance or opposition to a force, influence, or movement. As pertaining to your Newton's 3rd law, every action has a reaction, never argued.
Recoil - to fall back under pressure. All weapons do not have recoil as I have already shown, you again call one thing another and are wrong in two instances this time.

At no time did I ever say there would be little to no reaction, I said little to no recoil. At no time did I say Newton's 3rd law doesn't apply, I said it was negated by the same physics. If I fire a round from one of my pistols I will feel the recoil in the frame. If I remove the frame and hold the barrel and fire off the same round the barrel will not recoil as the energy will be expended against the friction of the atmosphere propelling the round. This is exactly how a recoil less weapon works by not expending its energy against the weapon.

I'll be damned, while not successive firing or militarized, you are right that is a man portable magnetic weapon. At 3:29 and 3:45 it shows him firing the weapon with recoil you are correct. You would call firing that 32.8g projectile more than "little recoil"? I can't see at the 3:45 one but the 3:29 mark looks his finger causes as much movement as the recoil.

*edit* misread the projectile weight and corrected

The point, which you missed, is that recoil is a type of reaction. Your attempt to differentiate between the two is no different than stating that a Honda Accord is not a car. Recoil is reaction. Just as a Honda Accord is a car. Your statement that recoil is not reaction is correct only on a purely, and very loosely interpreted, semantic level.

Also: recoil (n): the act or action of recoiling; especially : the kickback of a gun upon firing

^^^ note, that the kickback of a gun upon firing is the reaction of the weapon to the act of firing. Hence, the reaction is to recoil.

If you're going to fall back on quoting dictionary definitions, try not to exclude ones that are relevant.

Again, physics. Per his own estimation it's not hitting with much more force than a BB gun. It's not solely about the weight of the projectile. Also, why did it take the weapon being specifically shaped like a gun to make you finally realize that yes, they do indeed recoil?

I had no idea people were building this in workshops, found some more.


I don't know what to make of the more powerful stationary one, at some points its jumping all around, others you clearly see it has little to no movement. I hate to point it out, but his portable ones show little to no recoil.

*edit* as to my reading and understanding the larger the projectile would actually produce less recoil. Perhaps this is why the smaller one i showed first and the discovery channel one used projectiles larger than the magnets that propelled them?

Come back to see how the thread is doing, find people going on a several page long debate about physics and how coilguns operate instead of the actual topic.

This is a game, if you're bringing reality into it...I don't know what else to say, really.

Also, I'd still like to know what guns the OP was seeing while playing against VS. You know, the ones that had no recoil. I just checked my Vanu character this morning, and his guns still have recoil. Did they add new no recoil guns to the store?

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/please-ban-auto-hotkey.73069/

Didn't even realize this was around. Poster makes it sound as if it's not a hack... especially if folks are posting about it in the forums.

Often now it feels like I can hold my 'principals' and get rolled consistently... or I can join the hackers and actually compete. Sad state of the Game.

While I think our discussion ended up being more about semantics or wording than the actual physics it still pertains to the topic, and to be honest far more interesting than trying to explain to someone that recoil is not something thats broken and needs patched, its a matter of physics.

Seryi this is why Flare and I have been discussing the science behind it, not fictional weapons. Arn't VS weapons beam based, thus light having no mass would have little to no recoil? =)

Ah, alright. Carry on then.

And yes. Not only that, but VS are kind of meant to be the 'range guys' of Planetside. That too.

The difference in movement on the stationary one is heavily dependent on what he's got it set on. In the ones where he's got the apparatus up on top of... what was that, some kind of shelving thing? it's very noticeable because of the weight and instability of what he's got it set on. In the ones where the apparatus is resting directly on the floor the recoil isn't as noticeable - that's because of the greater stability of the surface. In both cases, the weapon's channeling part of the recoil into what it's set on. It's the same reason why in the videos where they have it bolted down to a heavy table there's virtually no movement.

One of his other videos:



Need to keep in mind, just the main part of the rail gun itself, minus all of the other components, is fairly heavy. And he's not throwing particularly large projectiles, nor accelerating them all that high.

The recoil issue is a lot of why the Navy didn't start mounting rail guns on battleships a while back. The weapon itself is feasible, and power generation for the weapon isn't an issue on a battleship. Firing a projectile large enough, fast enough, to do serious damage, and compensating for the recoil at the same time, however, is.

I've never had a problem with our weapons, VS weapons seem appropriate for accuracy vs range, TR weapons due to the ROF are the only ones i've ever had a complaint about.

I read up on the Navy's rail gun after it was posted on this thread. From my understanding of what I read the problem is the damage to the weapon itself. Because the electromagnetic energy used to propel the round is turned in on itself to counter the recoil actually destroys it. I think I might like to see what would happen if only one magnet were used to fire it, nothing to counter the recoil. Now that would be some destruction.

They're plasma. If it's the traditional meaning of plasma, that's high energy ionized gas. As far as I know no one's even hit the prototype phase on these, so field test data is nonexistent. I've seen everything from "virtually no recoil" to "would kick hideously worse than a firearm" in regards to the recoil. It'd have some kind of recoil, though. Even a laser has recoil, although due to the momentum the recoil is negligible.

Vachek, if you're honestly not trolling then answer one question for yourself. Given a magnet and a ferrous object in a completely isolated system, which object is pulling on the other?

Something just struck me, largest pistol I own is a 500 S&W. A 400g round produces almost 2500J of muzzle energy. I would like to see a scale showing the energy curves between it and the 12.5kJ one you posted.

Not sure what you are asking me, but If I understand your question in a vacum they would pull be pulled to each other from movement of electrons from the magnetic field.

The math is real easy:



If you double the mass of the projectile you double the recoil, or if you double the velocity of the projectile you double the recoil.

The initial condition: The stuff on the left turns into (M1 + M2) V because the velocity of the bullet is the same as the velocity of the gun before the bullet is shot.

Notice how the equation doesn't discriminate between "shot out of a railgun" or "shot with gunpowder". It's all the same to God.