Hey Colt! Check this out...

[Kizarvexis]

DREAD WEAPON SYSTEM: Devastating, Jam-Proof, and Silent

By David Crane
Editor, DefenseReview.com

Imagine a gun with no recoil, no sound, no heat, no gunpowder, no visible firing signature (muzzle flash), and no stoppages or jams of any kind. Now imagine that this gun could fire .308 caliber and .50 caliber metal projectiles accurately at up to 8,000 fps (feet-per-second), featured an infinitely variable/programmable cyclic rate-of-fire (as high as 120,000 rounds-per-minute), and were capable of laying down a 360-degree field of fire. What if you could mount this weapon on any military Humvee (HMMWV), any helicopter/gunship, any armored personnel carrier (APC), and any other vehicle for which the technology were applicable?

Click here for the rest (http://tracking.military.com/cgi-bin/outlog.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emilitary%2Ecom%2 Fsoldiertech%2F0%2C14632%2CSoldiertech%5FDREAD%2C% 2C00%2Ehtml%3FESRC%3Dsoldiertech%2Enl&code=050502S TH01)


If it works half as well as advertised, then it would be awesome (on your side ;) ).

Kizarvexis

[Captain Kidd]

I'm not Colt, but wow, now that's a BB gun.

[Humphrey]

That is very, very cool. But reading the article, i was left wondering, How does it aim vertically?

[teddyv]

Would not the projectiles at that speed cause mini sonic-booms? I've no experience in this. Is it still silent then?

[JMV]

The DREAD's complete lack of recoil will allow it to be fired from space-based platforms, i.e. satellites, without knocking them off of their respective orbital paths.
How is this possible? Wouldn't this violate the conservation of momentum, unless the projectiles are self-propelled?

[Nicolas]

DREAD WEAPON SYSTEM: Devastating, Jam-Proof, and Silent

By David Crane
Editor, DefenseReview.com

Imagine a gun with no recoil, no sound, no heat, no gunpowder, no visible firing signature (muzzle flash), and no stoppages or jams of any kind. Now imagine that this gun could fire .308 caliber and .50 caliber metal projectiles accurately at up to 8,000 fps (feet-per-second), featured an infinitely variable/programmable cyclic rate-of-fire (as high as 120,000 rounds-per-minute), and were capable of laying down a 360-degree field of fire. What if you could mount this weapon on any military Humvee (HMMWV), any helicopter/gunship, any armored personnel carrier (APC), and any other vehicle for which the technology were applicable?

Click here for the rest (http://tracking.military.com/cgi-bin/outlog.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emilitary%2Ecom%2 Fsoldiertech%2F0%2C14632%2CSoldiertech%5FDREAD%2C% 2C00%2Ehtml%3FESRC%3Dsoldiertech%2Enl&code=050502S TH01)


If it works half as well as advertised, then it would be awesome (on your side ;) ).

Kizarvexis

And in this case your side is...? :lol:

[Maha Vailo]

I'm not Colt, but wow, now that's a BB gun.

Yeah. You could really shoot your eye out with that.

- Maha (but will Santa give it to you for Christmas?) Vailo

[sts60]

The thing sure as heck will have some kind of recoil - they're talking about a significant amount of mass exiting the system at high speed. That's a lot of angular momentum, which could be counteracted with additional stuff (read bigger, more weight, more power). It will get hot - thousands and thousands of rounds whipping through the system in seconds; it's not frictionless. It will be noisy - the whining of the centrifuge and the sound of the motion of the rounds through the system, in addition to the sonic boomlets of the rounds themselves. And it will eat up a lot of electricity.

So, it's not quite the stealthy magic bullet-thrower they make it out to be. The guy who wrote their article seems to be awfully credulous.

That said, it could still be an impressively lethal gizmo.

[SKY]

What the heck does the holster for that thing look like. :o

PS. Not sure if anyone noticed, but it looks like the Starship Enterprise. 8-[

[Van Rijn]

The thing sure as heck will have some kind of recoil -

[snip]

So, it's not quite the stealthy magic bullet-thrower they make it out to be. The guy who wrote their article seems to be awfully credulous.


That was my first thought when I looked at this. There are going to be impressive recoil, torque and gyroscopic effects. That's basic physics. What with all the "gee whiz" claims I am EXTREMELY skeptical. Could you build a centrifuge gun? Sure. But could it do everything claimed here? No.

[Nicolas]

The only way I see to avoid any net recoil with passive ammo is firing 2 bullets in opposite directions at the smae time. Wouldn't make for a nice handgun that way... :D.

[sidmel]

Would not the projectiles at that speed cause mini sonic-booms? I've no experience in this. Is it still silent then?

Yes there is. According to the article, there is no noise from the weapon firing (no ignition of explosives), but you will hear a sonic boom from the bullet as it passes. Just like a jet flying overhead, you'll hear the sonic boom but can be difficult to impossible identify where the sound came from.

[Gullible Jones]

Jesus. :o I sincerely hope that nobody ever gets to use that thing...

[Van Rijn]

Don't worry. I seriously doubt they will.

[Captain Kidd]

Maybe a couple field trials. But yeah, my **-o-meter was dancing a bit. The author was a bit too excited for one thing.

[Gullible Jones]

As a stealth weapon, the thing would be absolutely useless. However, as a replacement for heavy, stationary machine guns, it would be pretty deadly.

(Granted, I don't think it quite matches the Metal Storm...)

[Jpax2003]

Would not the projectiles at that speed cause mini sonic-booms? I've no experience in this. Is it still silent then?Most guns fire supersonic projectiles. Some silencer designs work by slowing the bullet to subsonic speeds, or so I have read.

[Colt]

I'm not sure where to begin. This thing would, as state above, have lots of gyro problems and this crap about it not being able to jam is pure fantasy. Any machine can jam. I'm pretty sure I know how it works but if this thing ever comes to be, it will probably only be in special applications much like the vaunted Metal Storm system.

Also, 5,000 RPM? That's an insane rate of fire unless the projectiles are very small. The MG 42 in WWII had a rate of fire just over 1000 RPM and it was very hard to control in short bursts and ate ammo like no other.

Putting dimples on a ball doese help keep it stable in flight but it's not going to be as good as spinning it and having it shaped like a spitzer round (pointed at one end and slightly curned at the other). There's a reason why we switched from musket balls to conical projectiles. 30 parts is also a pretty fai r number of things that can break, especially on something that's going to be spinning insanely fast. - Colt

[Russ]

This sounds like a hoax to me. The engineering requirements, in my opinion, are too extreme to make the wepon practical.

1) Extreme Tensile Strength: The article says that the system works on centrifigal force. That means that it must have a rotating wheel of some kind that is capable of staying in one piece while the outer edge has the angular momentum of 5,000 fps or faster. I haven't run the numbers but intuition tells me that there ain't no sitch thang.

2) Impractical Logistics: One minute's worth of 50 cal. ammo would weigh 62,500 pounds. That's about 1.5 semi trailer loads.

3) Meteor Effect: Being ball shaped, the drag coefficient on this ammo from the atmosphere would be VERY HIGH. You would not need a "tracer" version of this ammo. It'd be glowing like a meteor just a few feet from the muzzle.

4) Extreme Compressional Strenth: The launching mechanism would have to be fantastically strong to direct the projectiles with that much angular momentum.

5) Mechanical Heat Disipation: Accelerating a projectile from relative zero velocity, to 5,000+ fps, is going to generate huge amounts of heat that would have to be disipated somehow.

I could go on but.... :roll: This Bravo Sierra anit worth it. ;)

[Gullible Jones]

Wait a minute... I thought this thing was supposed to be the nonlinear equivalent of a rail gun - a circular mass driver?

[Van Rijn]

Wait a minute... I thought this thing was supposed to be the nonlinear equivalent of a rail gun - a circular mass driver?

It doesn't look like it. Improbable research (the Ig nobel prize guys) have a (rather dry) entry on it:

http://improbable.typepad.com/improbable_research_whats/2005/05/dread_weapon.html

A patent is mentioned. (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,520,169.WKU.&OS=PN/6,520,169&RS=PN/6,520,169) Reading the patent, it talks about a spinning disk and a motor to turn it.

The improbable research entry doesn't actually get into the issue too much but it does say:


The inventor is Charles St. George, a Connecticut resident who once lived in Australia, and who so far has succeeded at weathering the glare of mega-publicity. [snip]. The company, like Leader Propulsion Systems (and of course like Mr. Charles himself), has so far been spared the withering effects of focused attention from the press.

Anyway, I was betting on this being a hoax when I read the "no recoil" bit. Nothing like breaking physical laws to make a person a mite suspicious.

[Gullible Jones]

No recoil? Yes, that is quite impossible. :o

A circular railgun, on the other hand, could work...

[Van Rijn]

Sure, and you could build a "centrifuge gun." But would it be practical? Or would it have an advantage over conventional weapons? I seriously doubt that. After all, no new or unobvious principles are involved, so I'm sure the concept has been explored before.

This looks a lot like some of the perpetual motion machine claims. There is a prototype, but it can't come close to the claims for what the "production" model would supposedly be capable of.

[Captain Kidd]

Hmm, after reading that patent, I think there might be a serious flaw there, among all the other serious flaws pointed out so far. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but if he's spinning up a fairly large disk to 5000 fpm at the edge, in effect you've got a decent sized gyroscope. Turning that thing's going to be a bit tough. Unless there's some sort of powered assist, it's not going to want to budge. If the humvee makes a sudden turn, whoever's holding those pistol grips is going to get a surprise.

[Maksutov]

The golf ball look to the ammo made me think about the rotation of the ammo. The direction of rotation will be critical, since if it is in one particular direction, the ammo will have a trajectory that, in golf, is called a slice. In another direction, it will be what's called a hook. Neither of these (as golfers well know) help with hitting the target. Plus what's called the "magnus effect" will preclude ballistic trajectories, making the aiming of this thing a nightmare. Here's an interesting discussion of the subject. (http://www.golf-simulators.com/physics.htm)

[Van Rijn]

Hmm, after reading that patent, I think there might be a serious flaw there, among all the other serious flaws pointed out so far. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but if he's spinning up a fairly large disk to 5000 fpm at the edge, in effect you've got a decent sized gyroscope. Turning that thing's going to be a bit tough. Unless there's some sort of powered assist, it's not going to want to budge. If the humvee makes a sudden turn, whoever's holding those pistol grips is going to get a surprise.

Yes, as I mentioned, you'd have torque and gyroscopic effects. Unless you had a counterrotating mass, you'd need to anchor the thing well when you spun it up. If the bearings are really good and you aren't applying power to the motor, you could rotate the shell of the gun about the axis without great difficulty. But any time you are applying power to the motor, the shell will want to turn in the opposite direction.

Because of gyroscopic effects, the disk is not going to want to change its plane of rotation, which is going to be fun in a vehicle, and would put significant stress on the bearings. You would probably need a power assisted gimbal scheme to use this thing.

[Kizarvexis]

:oops:

Well, that was embarassing. I should have thought it through before posting.

:oops:

Kizarvexis

[Van Rijn]

Oh, but this is the perfect place to post that, and I enjoyed seeing the different viewpoints on the subject. Thanks for the post.

[SKY]

Here's another one that seems interesting:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281426.html

[mwill]

Most guns fire supersonic projectiles. Some silencer designs work by slowing the bullet to subsonic speeds, or so I have read. Actually for guns that normally fire rounds at supersonic speeds, special subsonic rounds can be used in conjunction with the silencer to make it completly silent. Those rounds are much less range of course.

I'm also very skeptical of this DREAD thing. Maybe if i saw some design details

Another page http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=539


Some of our readers, after reading my article on the DREAD Centrifuge Weapon (Centrifuge Gun), titled World Exclusive Video! DREAD Weapon System: Devastating, Jam-Proof, and Silent., are under the impression that the DREAD creates a gyroscopic effect, or somehow acts like a gyroscope.

According to Charles St. George, the DREAD's inventor, the DREAD does NOT create/cause ANY gyroscopic forces or effects, whatsoever. To put it another way, the DREAD does NOT act like a gyroscope. So, the DREAD will NOT have ANY adverse effect on the mounting vehicle's maneuverability, even while the DREAD is being fired on its highest rpm and velocity settings. NO adverse effect. None, whatsoever. I can't make it any clearer than that.

Unlike a gyroscope, the DREAD has no...

spinning outer ring. Also, the DREAD's housing (top and bottom) is heavier than the internal spinning/rotating mechanism itself. That's all I will say about it, for now.

Over the last few days, Defense Review has received several emails from Mr. St. George. Here's one of them, describing the DREAD's method of operation (re: firing):

"I think this explanation will describe how the DREAD works:

Get any regular 3 speed fan and switch it on. You'll be able to rotate, twist and in fact do any movement with the fan. Now attach a 1/2 inch dia ball to the end of each fan blade with some masking tape and swith the fan on. At the high speed RPM. the G-Forces will tear away the balls from the masking tape and sling the balls in any direction. There will be NO RECOIL generated by the departuring balls.

The only drawback is the balls will fly in any un-controlled 360 degreee direction. The DREAD system controls the balls departure and ensures their release in a straight line, one hehind the other as per the video.

Regards,

Charles."


Ugh. I really wish I could find actual patent so I could know what the funk this guy is talking about.

[Van Rijn]

That page is great. I loved the comments (people definitely aren't buying it). This quote of the inventor is especially telling:



"Good evening, David. Read the comments from the individuals. Interesting that we show a video that shows 50 rounds being let loose and the weapon shows no evidence of recoiling rearwards. Unfortunately, they confuse the laws of physics. Your answer was correct. The recoil is actually totally absorbed by the weapon's rotational system and as such, does not transfer any felt recoil to the user/operator."

Yes, that certainly is a proper and scientific test: Watch the video. Now, just what did the strain gages and other instruments report? Surely there was instrumentation? Right? Right? And about that video ... I assume he is talking about the 18 MB file available at the DefenseReview site. I finally got around to watching it. Almost all of it is stock footage and computer graphics with voiceover. Near the end there are a few seconds showing part of SOMETHING (presumably part of the prototype) and another shot of holes appearing in a wall - in three well spread out areas (presumably BBs going into the wall). There is absolutely no way to tell what is actually happening - if the machine actually made the holes in the wall, distance to the wall, how the machine is mounted or what the wall is made of. Whatever made the holes looked to have terrible accuracy.

The video constantly repeats the "no recoil" bit. I could imagine that you could put something like this on a tank and not have too much trouble, but they had a real jaw dropper:

THEY SUGGESTED THAT THIS COULD BE PUT ON A SATELLITE TO ATTACK MISSILES! #-o :o

This reminds me of perpetual motion machine demonstrations. As one commenter put it:



there will be gyroscopic and recoil effects and if you refuse to admit that either 1) you're a liar or 2) I have a perpetual motion machine and a faster than light radio I'd like to sell you.

Heh. If the inventor is honest and doesn't actually realize it can't work the way he says it does, I suspect he will run into problems when he tries to move out of the prototype stage to a system with a higher continuous rate of fire and/or more massive projectiles.

I have a link to a related patent in this post:


http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=469988#469988

Here's a link to a short article about it in New Scientist. At the start of the article, it seems to take it at face value, but there are qualifications later.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7365