harry_balzac@lemmy.world to Chevron 7@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoMay I say that this my first post on this community?lemmy.worldimagemessage-square12fedilinkarrow-up1420arrow-down15file-text
arrow-up1415arrow-down1imageMay I say that this my first post on this community?lemmy.worldharry_balzac@lemmy.world to Chevron 7@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square12fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareDr. Bluefall@toast.ooolinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·1 year agoWasn’t this commenting on specifically propelling kinetic projectiles with explosives?
minus-squareBarqsHasBite@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·edit-21 year agoGunpowder. Yes in most cases you have to propel the object. What I’m saying is the physics of kinetics are there, that really can’t be forgotten.
minus-squareLandless2029@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·edit-21 year agoEven if they made some kinda super condensed handheld railgun it would’ve also worked the same. The propellant doesn’t matter. The payload does. Idk why they didn’t think of kinetic force vs energy. Since they absorbed energy. Hell they could’ve done some kinda sound based shockwave.
Wasn’t this commenting on specifically propelling kinetic projectiles with explosives?
Gunpowder. Yes in most cases you have to propel the object. What I’m saying is the physics of kinetics are there, that really can’t be forgotten.
Even if they made some kinda super condensed handheld railgun it would’ve also worked the same.
The propellant doesn’t matter. The payload does. Idk why they didn’t think of kinetic force vs energy. Since they absorbed energy.
Hell they could’ve done some kinda sound based shockwave.