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.
Anyway, the Japanese and Chinese are making 600km/hr trains,
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.
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.
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
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
Following are the references for Arindam's paper in ICEMS2013
Arindam’s new design rail gun working model launches a projectile
with more momentum than most rifle bullets.
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 15:57:01 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Following are the references for Arindam's paper in ICEMS2013
Where is the raw data, data analysis, and math for your device,
crackpot?
Fools like you, Penisnino, are very many and they are hopeless being
rude dumbfucks.
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Following are the references for Arindam's paper in ICEMS2013
Where is the raw data, data analysis, and math for your device,
crackpot?
Lousy research skills by Einsteinians on display!
True that Arindam's 2013 conference paper was rejected by Europeans but
was accepted by the Chinese, Koreans and the Japanese reviewers. In 2016 Arindam did realise the experiment he had described in the 2013 paper. However the faculty at RMIT stabbed him in the back. They denied that
Arindam had made a working model of a new design rail gun, and failed
Arindam at his final PhD viva. Arindam then continued entirely on his
own and in 2017 posted online a full set of YouTube videos with complete details. In later years he made more powerful guns and developed the new theory, got more powerful capacitors to show inertia violation very
clearly. This proving his new physics started back in 1998.
Quite an East-West thingy, that!
Anyway, the Japanese and Chinese are making 600km/hr trains,
On 12/6/24 19:12, Bertietaylor wrote:
Lousy research skills by Einsteinians on display!
For some reason, you edited out everything I said, so it is not on
display. Maybe you don't really want it to be on display, hmm?
True that Arindam's 2013 conference paper was rejected by Europeans but
was accepted by the Chinese, Koreans and the Japanese reviewers. In 2016
Arindam did realise the experiment he had described in the 2013 paper.
However the faculty at RMIT stabbed him in the back. They denied that
Arindam had made a working model of a new design rail gun, and failed
Arindam at his final PhD viva. Arindam then continued entirely on his
own and in 2017 posted online a full set of YouTube videos with complete
details. In later years he made more powerful guns and developed the new
theory, got more powerful capacitors to show inertia violation very
clearly. This proving his new physics started back in 1998.
I was responding to the claim that rail guns don't recoil.
reading your response to me would know that because you edited out
what I said.
A rail gun can be seen clearly recoiling in the video at this URL:
https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/350814810783223
Quite an East-West thingy, that!
Anyway, the Japanese and Chinese are making 600km/hr trains,
Do these marvelous trains break conservation of momentum? If not,
then how are they relevant?
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:20 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 12/6/24 19:12, Bertietaylor wrote:
Lousy research skills by Einsteinians on display!
For some reason, you edited out everything I said, so it is not on
display. Maybe you don't really want it to be on display, hmm?
It is not necessary to repost what has already been posted. Anyone can
follow a thread to see what was written earlier.
True that Arindam's 2013 conference paper was rejected by Europeans but
was accepted by the Chinese, Koreans and the Japanese reviewers. In 2016 >>> Arindam did realise the experiment he had described in the 2013 paper.
However the faculty at RMIT stabbed him in the back. They denied that
Arindam had made a working model of a new design rail gun, and failed
Arindam at his final PhD viva. Arindam then continued entirely on his
own and in 2017 posted online a full set of YouTube videos with complete >>> details. In later years he made more powerful guns and developed the new >>> theory, got more powerful capacitors to show inertia violation very
clearly. This proving his new physics started back in 1998.
I was responding to the claim that rail guns don't recoil.
That is not entirely correct. The claim is that the electromagnetic
force accelerating the armature - under certain conditions - does NOT
have an equal and opposite reaction. Now mechanical force is needed to
launch the projectile upon the rails. That force has a reaction of
course. The recoil seen on videos is the reaction from the mechanical component.
But the fun starts after that. The em force accelerates the armature and
to begin with the rolling friction on the rails keep on pushing the gun
back. Had it been sliding this would not happen.
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.
wrong, and their persistence is not evidence that they're right.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:20 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 12/6/24 19:12, Bertietaylor wrote:
Lousy research skills by Einsteinians on display!
For some reason, you edited out everything I said, so it is not on
display. Maybe you don't really want it to be on display, hmm?
It is not necessary to repost what has already been posted. Anyone can
follow a thread to see what was written earlier.
True that Arindam's 2013 conference paper was rejected by Europeans but >>>> was accepted by the Chinese, Koreans and the Japanese reviewers. In 2016 >>>> Arindam did realise the experiment he had described in the 2013 paper. >>>> However the faculty at RMIT stabbed him in the back. They denied that
Arindam had made a working model of a new design rail gun, and failed
Arindam at his final PhD viva. Arindam then continued entirely on his
own and in 2017 posted online a full set of YouTube videos with complete >>>> details. In later years he made more powerful guns and developed the new >>>> theory, got more powerful capacitors to show inertia violation very
clearly. This proving his new physics started back in 1998.
I was responding to the claim that rail guns don't recoil.
That is not entirely correct. The claim is that the electromagnetic
force accelerating the armature - under certain conditions - does NOT
have an equal and opposite reaction. Now mechanical force is needed to
launch the projectile upon the rails. That force has a reaction of
course. The recoil seen on videos is the reaction from the mechanical
component.
There is no mechanical force in a railgun, all the force is
electromagnetic, crackpot.
<snip.
But the fun starts after that. The em force accelerates the armature and
to begin with the rolling friction on the rails keep on pushing the gun
back. Had it been sliding this would not happen.
Friction would pull the "gun" forward with the projectile, cracpot.
<snip remaining insane babble>
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 3:43:44 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:20 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 12/6/24 19:12, Bertietaylor wrote:
Lousy research skills by Einsteinians on display!
For some reason, you edited out everything I said, so it is not on
display. Maybe you don't really want it to be on display, hmm?
It is not necessary to repost what has already been posted. Anyone can
follow a thread to see what was written earlier.
True that Arindam's 2013 conference paper was rejected by Europeans but >>>>> was accepted by the Chinese, Koreans and the Japanese reviewers. In 2016 >>>>> Arindam did realise the experiment he had described in the 2013 paper. >>>>> However the faculty at RMIT stabbed him in the back. They denied that >>>>> Arindam had made a working model of a new design rail gun, and failed >>>>> Arindam at his final PhD viva. Arindam then continued entirely on his >>>>> own and in 2017 posted online a full set of YouTube videos with complete >>>>> details. In later years he made more powerful guns and developed the new >>>>> theory, got more powerful capacitors to show inertia violation very
clearly. This proving his new physics started back in 1998.
I was responding to the claim that rail guns don't recoil.
That is not entirely correct. The claim is that the electromagnetic
force accelerating the armature - under certain conditions - does NOT
have an equal and opposite reaction. Now mechanical force is needed to
launch the projectile upon the rails. That force has a reaction of
course. The recoil seen on videos is the reaction from the mechanical
component.
There is no mechanical force in a railgun, all the force is
electromagnetic, crackpot.
Not so, penisnono Penisnino. If you just put 1000000 amps through a
static bullet it will just weld, melt. You have to give it an initial velocity through mechanical or chemical or magnetic means, and all those
have the smallish recoil one can see in practical rail guns, including Arindam's.
Anyway, the Japanese and Chinese are making 600km/hr trains,
Do these marvelous trains break conservation of momentum?
Woof-woof, Arindam allowed me to post the background info. about rail
guns in his 2013 seminal paper on the rail gun.
Arindam Banerjee and Dr. P J Radcliffe
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
Abstract—Recent experimental work on model rail guns shows very little recoil upon the rails for the static case, where the armature or
projectile does not move.
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Woof-woof, Arindam allowed me to post the background info. about rail
guns in his 2013 seminal paper on the rail gun.
Arindam Banerjee and Dr. P J Radcliffe
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
Abstract—Recent experimental work on model rail guns shows very little
recoil upon the rails for the static case, where the armature or
projectile does not move.
Of course there is no recoil in this case because recoil requires
*MOTION*
as in Newton's laws of *MOTION*, crackpot.
It is clear you don't have a clue what Newton's laws mean, crackpot.
<snip remaining babble all based on ignorant nonsense>
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 3:43:44 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:20 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 12/6/24 19:12, Bertietaylor wrote:
Lousy research skills by Einsteinians on display!
For some reason, you edited out everything I said, so it is not on
display. Maybe you don't really want it to be on display, hmm?
It is not necessary to repost what has already been posted. Anyone can >>>> follow a thread to see what was written earlier.
True that Arindam's 2013 conference paper was rejected by Europeans but >>>>>> was accepted by the Chinese, Koreans and the Japanese reviewers. In 2016 >>>>>> Arindam did realise the experiment he had described in the 2013 paper. >>>>>> However the faculty at RMIT stabbed him in the back. They denied that >>>>>> Arindam had made a working model of a new design rail gun, and failed >>>>>> Arindam at his final PhD viva. Arindam then continued entirely on his >>>>>> own and in 2017 posted online a full set of YouTube videos with complete >>>>>> details. In later years he made more powerful guns and developed the new >>>>>> theory, got more powerful capacitors to show inertia violation very >>>>>> clearly. This proving his new physics started back in 1998.
I was responding to the claim that rail guns don't recoil.
That is not entirely correct. The claim is that the electromagnetic
force accelerating the armature - under certain conditions - does NOT
have an equal and opposite reaction. Now mechanical force is needed to >>>> launch the projectile upon the rails. That force has a reaction of
course. The recoil seen on videos is the reaction from the mechanical
component.
There is no mechanical force in a railgun, all the force is
electromagnetic, crackpot.
Not so, penisnono Penisnino. If you just put 1000000 amps through a
static bullet it will just weld, melt. You have to give it an initial
velocity through mechanical or chemical or magnetic means, and all those
have the smallish recoil one can see in practical rail guns, including
Arindam's.
Nonsense.
While there are hybrid railguns that use a plasma arc to fire
non-conducting projectiles, a pure railgun has a conducting projectile
and two or more conducting rails and ALL motion is due to
electromagnetics,
crackpot.
It appears you have no clue how a railgun actually works, crackpot.
<snip remaining utter nonsense>
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 14:58:47 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
While there are hybrid railguns that use a plasma arc to fire
non-conducting projectiles, a pure railgun has a conducting projectile
and two or more conducting rails and ALL motion is due to
electromagnetics,
crackpot.
It appears you have no clue how a railgun actually works, crackpot.
Silly penisnono Penisnino, Arindam's new design rail gun or reactionless motor follows far superior theory and practice than the stupid US
designs like those using plasma.
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 15:03:57 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Woof-woof, Arindam allowed me to post the background info. about rail
guns in his 2013 seminal paper on the rail gun.
Arindam Banerjee and Dr. P J Radcliffe
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
Abstract—Recent experimental work on model rail guns shows very little >>> recoil upon the rails for the static case, where the armature or
projectile does not move.
Of course there is no recoil in this case because recoil requires
*MOTION*
as in Newton's laws of *MOTION*, crackpot.
Not so, ridiculous fool. Motion relates to velocity and momentum whereas recoil is a force measured by mass and acceleration.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 15:03:57 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Woof-woof, Arindam allowed me to post the background info. about rail
guns in his 2013 seminal paper on the rail gun.
Arindam Banerjee and Dr. P J Radcliffe
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
Abstract—Recent experimental work on model rail guns shows very little >>>> recoil upon the rails for the static case, where the armature or
projectile does not move.
Of course there is no recoil in this case because recoil requires
*MOTION*
as in Newton's laws of *MOTION*, crackpot.
Not so, ridiculous fool. Motion relates to velocity and momentum whereas
recoil is a force measured by mass and acceleration.
And acceleration is the first derivative of velocity, crackpot!
You are utterly cluesless in everything you babble about, crackpot.
<snip remaining ignorant babble>
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 14:34:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 15:03:57 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Woof-woof, Arindam allowed me to post the background info. about rail >>>>> guns in his 2013 seminal paper on the rail gun.
Arindam Banerjee and Dr. P J Radcliffe
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
Abstract—Recent experimental work on model rail guns shows very little >>>>> recoil upon the rails for the static case, where the armature or
projectile does not move.
Of course there is no recoil in this case because recoil requires
*MOTION*
as in Newton's laws of *MOTION*, crackpot.
Not so, ridiculous fool. Motion relates to velocity and momentum whereas >>> recoil is a force measured by mass and acceleration.
And acceleration is the first derivative of velocity, crackpot!
Wow penisnino you have heard about derivatives but have no clue about
what they mean.
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:20 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 12/6/24 19:12, Bertietaylor wrote:
Lousy research skills by Einsteinians on display!
For some reason, you edited out everything I said, so it is not on
display. Maybe you don't really want it to be on display, hmm?
It is not necessary to repost what has already been posted. Anyone can
follow a thread to see what was written earlier.
True that Arindam's 2013 conference paper was rejected by Europeans but
was accepted by the Chinese, Koreans and the Japanese reviewers. In 2016 >>> Arindam did realise the experiment he had described in the 2013 paper.
However the faculty at RMIT stabbed him in the back. They denied that
Arindam had made a working model of a new design rail gun, and failed
Arindam at his final PhD viva. Arindam then continued entirely on his
own and in 2017 posted online a full set of YouTube videos with complete >>> details. In later years he made more powerful guns and developed the new >>> theory, got more powerful capacitors to show inertia violation very
clearly. This proving his new physics started back in 1998.
I was responding to the claim that rail guns don't recoil.
That is not entirely correct. The claim is that the electromagnetic
force accelerating the armature - under certain conditions - does NOT
have an equal and opposite reaction.
launch the projectile upon the rails. That force has a reaction of
course. The recoil seen on videos is the reaction from the mechanical component.
On 12/8/24 21:50, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:20 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 12/6/24 19:12, Bertietaylor wrote:
Lousy research skills by Einsteinians on display!
For some reason, you edited out everything I said, so it is not on
display. Maybe you don't really want it to be on display, hmm?
It is not necessary to repost what has already been posted. Anyone can
follow a thread to see what was written earlier.
It's easier for readers to judge the quality of your response if your response and what it is a response to are both on-screen at the same
time.
True that Arindam's 2013 conference paper was rejected by Europeans but >>>> was accepted by the Chinese, Koreans and the Japanese reviewers. In 2016 >>>> Arindam did realise the experiment he had described in the 2013 paper. >>>> However the faculty at RMIT stabbed him in the back. They denied that
Arindam had made a working model of a new design rail gun, and failed
Arindam at his final PhD viva. Arindam then continued entirely on his
own and in 2017 posted online a full set of YouTube videos with complete >>>> details. In later years he made more powerful guns and developed the new >>>> theory, got more powerful capacitors to show inertia violation very
clearly. This proving his new physics started back in 1998.
So did he get to present his paper at the conference?
ever get published in a journal?
Did he ever get his PhD?
was stabbed in the back. I say he was treated like a flat-Earther
trying to get a PhD in geology, and that treatment was probably
appropriate.
https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/350814810783223
The two-second video you posted a link to shows a railgun with flexible rails. At one point the rocking of the tower of batteries flexes the
rails so they lose contact with one of the rollers used to support the
rails. The projectile is a cylindrical roller that hits stops at the
end of the rails, and knocks some kind of bumper over the stops and onto
the floor. The railgun first moves rightward while the projectile is
being propelled leftward. After the projectile hits the stops at the
end of the rails, the railgun moves leftward, colliding with the
dislodged bumper, which could affect the end result.
If the tower of batteries is half-way between two of the rollers that
support the rails, and something moves the tower closer to one of those rollers than the other, on flexible rails there is a restoring force
that tends to move the tower back to half-way between the rollers.
If I wanted to test conservation of momentum with this kind of
apparatus, I would use rigid rails. I would not build a shaky tower
of 12 upright batteries, 3 layers high, narrow at the bottom and wide
at the top. They can be laid on their sides, 6 per rail, so that the
height of the pile is much lower, and widest at the bottom.
I would not accept the outcome of an experiment in which a piece of
the apparatus falls off.
The apparatus in the video doesn't look like it was designed to
detect a breakage of the conservation of momentum. It looks
like the product of prolonged tinkering, making the apparatus
more and more complicated until, finally, it produced a result
that could be interpreted as a breakage of conservation of
by somebody who doesn't think about it deeply enough.
I was responding to the claim that rail guns don't recoil.
That is not entirely correct. The claim is that the electromagnetic
force accelerating the armature - under certain conditions - does NOT
have an equal and opposite reaction.
Your direct quote from the 2013 paper described a lack of recoil.
I interpreted that as no recoil, and I expect that most native
English speakers would interpret it that way.
If you want to test conservation of momentum with this railgun
apparatus, use rigid rails, a compact arrangement of the batteries,
and a firmly attached bumper. Take video starting from the
moment power is applied to the rails and ending when the projectile
comes into contact with the bumper. If the distance the projectile
has moved multiplied by the projectile's mass is very different
from the distance the railgun has moved multiplied by the mass of
the railgun, then momentum was not conserved.
Conservation of momentum is very simple. You don't need an elaborate
and flimsy apparatus that wobbles and rocks to test it.
Now mechanical force is needed to
launch the projectile upon the rails. That force has a reaction of
course. The recoil seen on videos is the reaction from the mechanical
component.
I saw no mechanical device pushing the projectile to start
it moving. I saw a motion blur of a hand dipping down to
do something and then moving up again quickly. If I can't
see clearly what is happening, I have no reason to believe
that what is happening is what you say is happening.
Use a higher frame rate. Nowadays bits are cheap.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:49:50 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 12/8/24 21:50, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:20 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 12/6/24 19:12, Bertietaylor wrote:
Lousy research skills by Einsteinians on display!
For some reason, you edited out everything I said, so it is not on
display. Maybe you don't really want it to be on display, hmm?
It is not necessary to repost what has already been posted. Anyone can
follow a thread to see what was written earlier.
It's easier for readers to judge the quality of your response if your
response and what it is a response to are both on-screen at the same
time.
Since the only reader worthy of notice is just you in these ggexit days
that is not much of an issue. We did not think you had written anything
for specific attention.
True that Arindam's 2013 conference paper was rejected by Europeans but >>>>> was accepted by the Chinese, Koreans and the Japanese reviewers. In 2016 >>>>> Arindam did realise the experiment he had described in the 2013 paper. >>>>> However the faculty at RMIT stabbed him in the back. They denied that >>>>> Arindam had made a working model of a new design rail gun, and failed >>>>> Arindam at his final PhD viva. Arindam then continued entirely on his >>>>> own and in 2017 posted online a full set of YouTube videos with complete >>>>> details. In later years he made more powerful guns and developed the new >>>>> theory, got more powerful capacitors to show inertia violation very
clearly. This proving his new physics started back in 1998.
So did he get to present his paper at the conference?
Yes.
Did his paper
ever get published in a journal?
It was published online and we have given the link in this thread.
Did he ever get his PhD?
No.
You say he
was stabbed in the back. I say he was treated like a flat-Earther
trying to get a PhD in geology, and that treatment was probably
appropriate.
Actually he is the Galileo of our time getting persecuted by the church
that believed most strongly strongly that the Earth is still; the Sun
and the stars go around the Earth in moving crystal spheres - where the
stars are not suns but holes in the spheres that let in the light from Heaven.
His inertia violation experiment with his new design rail gun makes all
the physicists look like flat earthers.
Woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)
https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/350814810783223
The two-second video you posted a link to shows a railgun with flexible
rails.
rails so they lose contact with one of the rollers used to support the
rails.
end of the rails, and knocks some kind of bumper over the stops and onto
the floor. The railgun first moves rightward while the projectile is
being propelled leftward. After the projectile hits the stops at the
end of the rails, the railgun moves leftward, colliding with the
dislodged bumper, which could affect the end result.
If the tower of batteries is half-way between two of the rollers that
support the rails, and something moves the tower closer to one of those
rollers than the other, on flexible rails there is a restoring force
that tends to move the tower back to half-way between the rollers.
If I wanted to test conservation of momentum with this kind of
apparatus, I would use rigid rails.
of 12 upright batteries, 3 layers high, narrow at the bottom and wide
at the top. They can be laid on their sides, 6 per rail, so that the
height of the pile is much lower, and widest at the bottom.
I would not accept the outcome of an experiment in which a piece of
the apparatus falls off.
The apparatus in the video doesn't look like it was designed to
detect a breakage of the conservation of momentum.
like the product of prolonged tinkering, making the apparatus
more and more complicated until, finally, it produced a result
that could be interpreted as a breakage of conservation of
by somebody who doesn't think about it deeply enough.
I was responding to the claim that rail guns don't recoil.
That is not entirely correct. The claim is that the electromagnetic
force accelerating the armature - under certain conditions - does NOT
have an equal and opposite reaction.
Your direct quote from the 2013 paper described a lack of recoil.
I interpreted that as no recoil, and I expect that most native
English speakers would interpret it that way.
If you want to test conservation of momentum with this railgun
apparatus, use rigid rails, a compact arrangement of the batteries,
and a firmly attached bumper. Take video starting from the
moment power is applied to the rails and ending when the projectile
comes into contact with the bumper. If the distance the projectile
has moved multiplied by the projectile's mass is very different
from the distance the railgun has moved multiplied by the mass of
the railgun, then momentum was not conserved.
Conservation of momentum is very simple. You don't need an elaborate
and flimsy apparatus that wobbles and rocks to test it.
Now mechanical force is needed to
launch the projectile upon the rails. That force has a reaction of
course. The recoil seen on videos is the reaction from the mechanical
component.
I saw no mechanical device pushing the projectile to start
it moving. I saw a motion blur of a hand dipping down to
do something and then moving up again quickly. If I can't
see clearly what is happening, I have no reason to believe
that what is happening is what you say is happening.
Use a higher frame rate. Nowadays bits are cheap.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:49:50 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 12/8/24 21:50, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:20 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 12/6/24 19:12, Bertietaylor wrote:
Lousy research skills by Einsteinians on display!
For some reason, you edited out everything I said, so it is not on
display. Maybe you don't really want it to be on display, hmm?
It is not necessary to repost what has already been posted. Anyone can
follow a thread to see what was written earlier.
It's easier for readers to judge the quality of your response if your
response and what it is a response to are both on-screen at the same
time.
Since the only reader worthy of notice is just you in these ggexit days
that is not much of an issue. We did not think you had written anything
for specific attention.
True that Arindam's 2013 conference paper was rejected by Europeans but >>>>> was accepted by the Chinese, Koreans and the Japanese reviewers. In 2016 >>>>> Arindam did realise the experiment he had described in the 2013 paper. >>>>> However the faculty at RMIT stabbed him in the back. They denied that >>>>> Arindam had made a working model of a new design rail gun, and failed >>>>> Arindam at his final PhD viva. Arindam then continued entirely on his >>>>> own and in 2017 posted online a full set of YouTube videos with complete >>>>> details. In later years he made more powerful guns and developed the new >>>>> theory, got more powerful capacitors to show inertia violation very
clearly. This proving his new physics started back in 1998.
So did he get to present his paper at the conference?
Yes.
Did his paper
ever get published in a journal?
It was published online and we have given the link in this thread.
Did he ever get his PhD?
No.
You say he
was stabbed in the back. I say he was treated like a flat-Earther
trying to get a PhD in geology, and that treatment was probably
appropriate.
Actually he is the Galileo of our time getting persecuted by the church
that believed most strongly strongly that the Earth is still; the Sun
and the stars go around the Earth in moving crystal spheres - where the
stars are not suns but holes in the spheres that let in the light from Heaven.
His inertia violation experiment with his new design rail gun makes all
the physicists look like flat earthers.
Woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)
https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/350814810783223
The two-second video you posted a link to shows a railgun with flexible
rails. At one point the rocking of the tower of batteries flexes the
rails so they lose contact with one of the rollers used to support the
rails. The projectile is a cylindrical roller that hits stops at the
end of the rails, and knocks some kind of bumper over the stops and onto
the floor. The railgun first moves rightward while the projectile is
being propelled leftward. After the projectile hits the stops at the
end of the rails, the railgun moves leftward, colliding with the
dislodged bumper, which could affect the end result.
If the tower of batteries is half-way between two of the rollers that
support the rails, and something moves the tower closer to one of those
rollers than the other, on flexible rails there is a restoring force
that tends to move the tower back to half-way between the rollers.
If I wanted to test conservation of momentum with this kind of
apparatus, I would use rigid rails. I would not build a shaky tower
of 12 upright batteries, 3 layers high, narrow at the bottom and wide
at the top. They can be laid on their sides, 6 per rail, so that the
height of the pile is much lower, and widest at the bottom.
I would not accept the outcome of an experiment in which a piece of
the apparatus falls off.
The apparatus in the video doesn't look like it was designed to
detect a breakage of the conservation of momentum. It looks
like the product of prolonged tinkering, making the apparatus
more and more complicated until, finally, it produced a result
that could be interpreted as a breakage of conservation of
by somebody who doesn't think about it deeply enough.
I was responding to the claim that rail guns don't recoil.
That is not entirely correct. The claim is that the electromagnetic
force accelerating the armature - under certain conditions - does NOT
have an equal and opposite reaction.
Your direct quote from the 2013 paper described a lack of recoil.
I interpreted that as no recoil, and I expect that most native
English speakers would interpret it that way.
If you want to test conservation of momentum with this railgun
apparatus, use rigid rails, a compact arrangement of the batteries,
and a firmly attached bumper.
moment power is applied to the rails and ending when the projectile
comes into contact with the bumper.
has moved multiplied by the projectile's mass is very different
from the distance the railgun has moved multiplied by the mass of
the railgun, then momentum was not conserved.
Conservation of momentum is very simple. You don't need an elaborate
and flimsy apparatus that wobbles and rocks to test it.
Now mechanical force is needed to
launch the projectile upon the rails. That force has a reaction of
course. The recoil seen on videos is the reaction from the mechanical
component.
I saw no mechanical device pushing the projectile to start
it moving. I saw a motion blur of a hand dipping down to
do something and then moving up again quickly.
see clearly what is happening, I have no reason to believe
that what is happening is what you say is happening.
Use a higher frame rate. Nowadays bits are cheap.
All happy now, we find.
woof-woof
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 475 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 150:15:01 |
| Calls: | 9,479 |
| Files: | 13,610 |
| Messages: | 6,120,953 |