From: jimp@gonzo.specsol.net

David Canzi  wrote:
> Recently Arin... er... Bertie Taylor posted the following:
>
> | Concluding lines from a peer-reviewed 2013 paper by Arindam Banerjee
> | (related to his PhD work)
> |
> | The current literature does not  satisfactorily resolve theoretical and
> | experimental results as regards the recoil in rail guns.  This is an
> | important issue to resolve as there are new and valuable applications
> | possible if recoil does not occur.
> | In the past, rail gun research was used for military purposes, and this
> | trend continues. The stress was on making very high velocity
> | projectiles, for such purposes as knocking out incoming enemy missiles.
> | The lack of recoil in rail guns, as opposed to coil guns, has long been
> | noted.
>
> I did a Google search for "lack of recoil in rail guns" and found
> three hits.  One in groups.google.com, one in archive.org, and one
> in alixus.wordpress.com.  None of these sites appear to require
> peer review before they publish.  I tried the same search in Google
> Scholar and got nothing.
>
> If the lack of recoil in rail guns has long been noted, it has long
> been noted by very few people.  Some people are just chronically
> wrong, and their persistence is not evidence that they're right.

The US Army has spent over $150 million and the US Navy has spent over
$500 million on railguns and all of them had LOTS of recoil.

--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)