Er, need I say anything more?
Recent Comments
 | Smarty Pants on For all of my technological wi… |
 | Viper Pilot on For all of my technological wi… |
| Smarty Pants on For all of my technological wi… |
| Smarty Pants on For all of my technological wi… |
 | Nicholls on For all of my technological wi… |
Bootie Brisbane
Subscribe via Feedburner
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 5, 2009 at 03:52
Coyote
That thing is pretty weak. He needs to amp up to juice a little bit. Other than that, GIMMIE!!
BTW, your mash up poster features someone truely talented (Annie Lennox) with that stupid useless cunt Lady Gaga, who is the epitomy of talentless hack who is only famous because she acts like a cheap whore.
Make it go away!!
June 5, 2009 at 07:36
Viper Pilot
I didn’t know who it was, so I’m going to pretend you didn’t tell me and remain blissfully ignorant.
And to be fair, while I’ve not heard anything by the talentless hack in question, surely Paris Hilton is the epitome in that category.
June 5, 2009 at 10:02
James
It’s pretty cool but I think you could probably do more effective damage with a sharpened stick….
June 6, 2009 at 01:37
Smarty Pants
Geez, give a Germanic dude some free time and some capacitors…
Perhaps something rifle sized would be better? You’d have the physical space for more / bigger batteries and capacitors?
42 grain projectiles are already pretty light weight…I use 150 grain in my .308. Would a more pointed projectile penetrate better at 400 ft/s?
Speaking of which, isn’t that paintball speed?
I’m with James – I’ll take a pointy stick over this one. For now.
June 6, 2009 at 03:25
Coyote
300 ft/s is the standard for outdoor paintball fields. With that speed and a paintball projectile you can kill a human with an eye shot within 20 ft, break skin within about 50 ft, and with enough projectiles hitting the same target cause their body to lie down due to a minor type of ‘wound shock’ from about the same distance. I know I’ve had it happen.
I think 450 is about what the average is for airsoft, but I’m not positive. And yeah, the projectiles were fairly small but I think that has to do with how much can be pushed and how fast. You could still make someone’s day a little less happy with that thing.
June 6, 2009 at 16:58
Fred R.
I think it is mostly proof-of concept. Making the gun standard assault rifle size would give more room for capacitators, and heavier ammo. Add a battery backpack, and multiply everything by 3 due to mil-spec equipment, and its an impressive weapon. Plus it is quiet! No tell-tale gunshots to give away your position.
June 6, 2009 at 23:27
Coyote
Oh and Paris Hilton is the epitomy of a talentless hack who is only famous for acting like a rich princess whore.
Lady Gaga is in the cheap whore catigory.
Two different whores.
June 9, 2009 at 10:06
Viper Pilot
I gotta back Fred up here – that guy doesn’t exactly look like the Netherlands’ Minister of Defence.
If you wanted to build that thing with Military-Industrial Complex levels of cash, you could probably shoot a much heavier and much more aerodynamic piece of metal a lot faster and a lot harder.
The problem with a sharpened stick is that your R&D path is relatively short…
June 9, 2009 at 13:16
Fred R.
Hey, the sharpened stick has made great advances thanks to chemistry and material science. Teflon Coat that stick, and it ain’t gonna catch on any organs or gristle. Or deposit a coating of Rhodium on the end, and it’ll even go through calloused skin. Stick a rocket on the end, and you are the envy of North Korea.
June 10, 2009 at 05:06
Smarty Pants
OK…so if we MIComplex the thing, then you run into cost vs benefit. Aside from the “uber cool” factor, it’s a huge expense to solve a problem that’s already been solved cheaply and effectively with gunpowder. And pointy stix. What problem does a Gauss rifle solve that justifies the expense and the switch over to an entirely new (probably not idiot proof) tech?
Just spit-ballin’ here…
June 11, 2009 at 08:05
James
“The problem with a sharpened stick is that your R&D path is relatively short…” – VP
Which means you are out and about stabbing and poking a lot sooner with less time cooped up in the lab R’ing and D’ing!
Also if for some reason teh enemy attacked whilst you were still at the stick stage (perhaps pondering the best sharpening technique) you could still give them a hefty clout. Unsharpened sticks being a staple of head breaking for many centuries. If teh enemy attacks a half finished rail gun, who knows?
June 11, 2009 at 10:30
Viper Pilot
I’ll see your spit-ball and see you a mucusy lump of swine flu.
I think that something being currently less effective isn’t a reason to mothball the R&D, Smarty. Pretty much everything starts off more expensive and bulkier than existing tools. Early rockets were way less useful than, say, propellers, but look where modern air travel is now. I wouldn’t have wanted to be a Russian test pilot in the 50s, let me tell you.
Also, I’m sure you’ll find a treehugging wanker somewhere who’ll say that the gauss cannon releases less carbon emissions than gunpowder.
June 12, 2009 at 03:24
Smarty Pants
I dig what you’re saying, Viper…but I submit that jets / rocketry solved a problem the propeller could not, ie MACH speeds, travel outside of atmosphere, etc.
Does the Gauss Cannon solve a problem that gun powder cannot? And if there is one, is the problem one that’s big enough to warrant the expense and time of R&D?
I mean, I’m with ya on the R&D to “see what this f*cker can do”…but if I was looking for true advancement (over explosives) I’d invest in plasma weapons.
June 12, 2009 at 11:00
Viper Pilot
My preference is for railguns over plasma weapons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
I suspect a gauss cannon, properly waterproofed, would work for underwater operations where gunpowder is useless. Hrm, I seem to recall there were gauss guns in X-Com. Thank you, video games, for paving the way to the future!
I’m going to install X-Com tonight…
June 13, 2009 at 01:53
Smarty Pants
Underwater, pointy sticks work quite well.