Re: GEVs/Grav

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:56:15 -0500, kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca writes:
>Allan wrote:
>
>Chemical propellent is still pretty efficient. You launch a load into
>the air
>and let gravity drop it where you want it. I think you'll always be
>able to
>launch heavier warheads using chemical (or mass driver) propellent. In
>fact,
>mass driver artillery may be a better bet for grav vehicles,
>particularly if
>they are already using fusion power for the anti-grav units. Recoil
>won't be a
>problem.
>
>** Pardon? Unless you eject a counterbalancing projectile, you'll
>still have recoil. The only time that might change (and this changes
>ALL the rules) is if tech is advanced far enough to make intertial
>compensators for guns AND power cheap enough in mass and cost to make
>this practical. Otherwise, and MDC gets no better than a CPR gun
>(well, not much anyway) as a launcher. Newton still applies.
>

If I have anti-grav technology, I can make a perfect recoil adjuster.
Just make a gravity field in front of the vechical that will pull it
with the same force as the gun generates.  Forces will cancel.	This
assumes pretty fine control of the gravity fields as I need to make
the field appear and disappear pretty fast, and fine tune it some, but
thats fine.

Also, the recoil from most tank guns just isn't that large compared to
the acceleration of an 80 ton tank.

Take a 1kg projectile, moving at 10000 km/hr (~9x the speed of sound).
That would push the 80,000 kg tank backwards at 0.125 km/hr.  If the
round was 10kg, and we fired 10 of them a minute, it would still only
be 12.5 km/hr.	If the tanks internal engines can't counteract that
much acceleration, they have a problem.

-=- Matthew L. Seidl		email: seidl@cs.colorado.edu		
   =-=
=-= Graduate Student			Project . . . What Project?	
   -=-
-=- http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~seidl/Home.html 	 -Morrow Quotes 
   =-=
=-= http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~seidl/lawsuit				
   -=-