On Mar 17, 12:03 am, Bob Kolker <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
In the interest of complete fairness I must point out a couple of
things- first that Tesla's design included means to neutralize the
beam just before it was launched (and it wasn't the modern idea of a
particle beam; by "particles" he meant small pellets).
Second, from what I've been able to find out about that design it
wouldn't have worked because the beam couldn't have spent enough time
in the neutralizing part of the apparatus as designed to completely
neutralize them. Had he actually built a prototype that would have
been rapidly obvious. Of course he'd also have been forced to accept
Relativity, and many things might have worked out differently from
As for its potential range, AFAIK the last time anybody ran any
numbers it comes out to a couple dozen miles which was adequate at the
time to provide a perfect defense.
Ah, well, we can name plenty of people who would have gone down in
history as crackpots had they not been able to obtain funding to
realize their ideas, like (IMO) Tesla's greatest, the concept of
rotating a magnetic field without having to physically rotate the
magnet(s) generating it.
A electrically or magenetically driven rail gun? That idea has been
kicked around in sci fi stories. Basically it is a mass driver. But so
is an ordinary firearm. Ordinary artillary will do just as well and is
cheaper. Or a shot gun.
The German Paris Gun could shoot a round seventy five miles and it did
not need fancy electrodynamical propulsion other than the explosion of a
Sometime one hears Tesla's name in conjunction with the apochriphal
Philadelphia Experiment. It is all bogus.
Bob Kolker wrote:
The rail gun has a lot of advantages, not the least of which is the gun
doesn't have to carry around a lot of bulk in explosives and the pellets
go very fast. A two ounce uranium pellet hitting a tank at relativistic
speeds kills it dead. The follow-on to the M-1 Abrams was to be
turbo-electric with a 50 cal rail gun, but then the Soviet Union died.
Can you imagine the effect on WW-II if England or Germany had AA that
required 0 lead angles and could reach anything in the atmosphere?
On Mar 17, 12:45 pm, Bob Kolker <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
More of an overgrown electrostatic version of the cyclotron. Here's
a link to a partial description:
[Only registered users see links. ]
The documents Tesla presented as described have since been lost.
(The stated 250 mile range is overoptimistic; as I said people have
since run numbers giving a max range of several dozen miles as
designed which is still adequate for the intended purpose; with
tweaking several hundred miles is not unreasonable.)
Notice this is unrelated to wild-eyed conspiracy tales about "scalar
beams" etc. perpetuated by Bearden et. al. Tesla's habit of inventing
terms like "teleforce" gives them something to twist to fit their
It is quite feasible with some tweaking he couldn't have known was
necessary. But then remember he worked without instruments we consider
essentials, like oscilloscopes.
Yep, and large guns like that need gunpowder and other consumables,
a large crew and other materiel support like a prime mover (and its
crew and fuel etc., not to mention independent point defenses with
their needs) which Tesla's weapon would not have needed; all it needed
was a small crew, a steady supply of electricity and any pelletizable,
chargeable material for ammunition. Fine sand would have served.
It was intended as a strictly defensive (impractical to make
portable) weapon to be emplaced at strategic chokepoints on land and
sufficiently along coastlines for complete coverage; any enemy of the
era approaching America by land, sea, or air would have faced an
effective relativistic stream of BBs.
That certainly is, however one must not throw out the baby with the
bathwater. So much conspiracy-theory BS has been associated with him
that it's tempting to do the reverse association and dismiss him
completely. I prefer to try to separate fact from fantasy.
You don't think a generator (which can be bombed from the air) and lots
of transmissionlines is not elaborate/ Or how about a portable
generator? How much fuel would have to be at the gun site to produce the
power. An electromagnetic massdriver is non-feasible.
With high explosives you get a gigantic energy/mass ratio.
Wrong again. We have no way of generating the energy necessary to move a
bb to a speed of say 20,000 mph (barely relativistic). We do not have
the technology for launching a small payload into orbit (17,000 mph)
with explosives. Atmospheric resistance will kill the thing. The
resistance goes up as the 4-th power of the velocity.
Gerald Bull attempted to build a cannon for the Iraqis that could shoot
a hundred kg payload into orbit. The cannon would have to be a 1000 feet
long. We can push electrons near the speed of light, but not bb-s.
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org. com>, "[Only registered users see links. ]" <[Only registered users see links. ]> writes:
The Paris gun fired a shell of upwards of 100 kg at muzzle velocity of
2000m. That's 0.2 GJ of kinetic energy. As the acceleration took
about 20ms, the power delivered during this time was about 6 GW
(that's not a record, the largest battleship guns delivered something
in the vicinity of 20 GW). What do you think will be the size and
complexity of an alectrical installation capable of delivering such
powers. How many consumables will they need.
:-))) What do you think wouldbe the range of fine sand, even at very
high muzzle velocity. Mass counts. The muzzle velocity of an M16
rifle is comparable or higher than this of battleship big guns. The
Till this day we still de not have the ability to accelerate to
relativistic velocities anything larger than a heavy ion, and this
takes huge installations.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, [Only registered users see links. ] | chances are he is doing just the same"