Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 29, 2018 at 8:39 comment added Ruadhan Ah, I think I understand, I see your reasoning now. Not a bad idea either. The ultimate expression of this is probably a particle-beam weapon, virtually recoilless but packing enormous energy on impact. But either way, a railgun or a particle beam both require huge amounts of energy to fire, vs a more conventional weapon which has far better energy density. But assuming future-tech it'd answer the question I think. I've upvoted your answer accordingly
Jun 28, 2018 at 17:08 comment added Demigan @Ruadhan2300 exactly the opposite. Lets say a bullet goes 360km/h. You reduce the bullets mass by half and double its velocity to increase the kinetic energy, this adds velocity. But if you want to keep the kinetic energy the same despite reducing the mass you need to ADD LESS velocity compared to doubling it. IE anywhere between 361 and 719km/h. I'll write up an example of the given formulas when I'm not on a Phone.
Jun 28, 2018 at 14:15 comment added Ruadhan So your answer boils down to "use low velocity bullets"?
Jun 28, 2018 at 12:57 comment added Demigan @Ruadhan2300 I said "add less velocity", not substract velocity. You want to add less velocity to make sure you dont increase the recoil despite having reduced the weight. But try to read the reference, or try to make sense of this one that contains the same formula's: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil
Jun 28, 2018 at 11:32 comment added Ruadhan I feel like either your math is off or your conclusion is. A big heavy object moving slowly can produce the same recoil as a small object moving fast, but by reducing velocity and mass, all you get is less recoil and less impact-damage. So not ultimately very helpful. you might as well take a low-calibre pistol and call it a day.
Jun 28, 2018 at 10:03 history answered Demigan CC BY-SA 4.0