0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So what happened to George Constantinesco's bomb launcher? Sounds intriguing. And what was the apparatus or set up he used?
That article is very interesting. Although I guess that the high pressures involved would in most cases prevent it being cost effective. It is a good point about how much could be due to metal distortions.I can find no reference to x-ray guns used in WW1 or since. I doubt it is true as I wouldn't have thought they would detach tendons from bone, perhaps someone more biologically minded could confirm this. The only effect I can think of would be to cause cancer which doesn't seem like a very immediate or effective weapon. The only other possibility being a powerful laser, but these certainly weren't around in the first world war. If a treaty is top secret how would you know about it? Plus treaties can be ignored, the laws of physics not so much. Now that I stop to think about it a right to bear arms is actually an interesting issue. Bearing arms in a free country is counter productive, as the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. However if that country is on a world which isn't free then that country should be allowed to defend its self. It comes down to making it a level playing field, if one party has weapons and the other doesn't then one has an unfair advantage, if neither has weapons it is fair, and liberty should in most cases prevail as a more optimal solution, if both have weapons it is fairer but worse than if neither had any, as liberty is less effective at killing. In conclusion English democracy > American Democracy Got a little off topic there.
Where we grew up, this was just part of the history of the United States. America and Germany both used the most insidious weapons on each other. The gases they used are so painful so destructive so disgusting to watch work, you have to wonder what the actual point was. Because nobody was going to win after that exchange. This does not say that they used x-rays to hurt anyone on the battle field. However it mentions burns from X-rays. The technology existed at that time, and I was told by people that were in the war that, they did use such weapons, you name it, it was on that battle field, was their take on the war. It was so hideous that they actually tried to ban technology based warfare, after the war, with documents written to, ban such weapons on the battle field. The document from my understanding became top secret, because it listed all the weapons that you could use to create mass destruction. However the x-rays at short range are totally debilitating, almost instantly. It causes a cooking effect of the bones. Those that have had it happen claimed it was the most painful thing that had ever happened to them. Sincerely, William McCormick
As far as I know the only military uses of the compressibility of water are those that rely on sound travelling through it.
Having recently celebrated Turing's anniversary, one application of the compressibility of liquids was discussed - early computers stored their data as sonic pulses in mercury delay lines. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINSilent guns might sound attractive - but what silent source would produce sufficient power? Nitrogen-based explosives have a very high energy density, and so can be easily transported to the battlefield, and quickly reloaded. Powering a gun by a human-powered pressure pump would result in a very low firing rate. X-Ray tubes are pretty fragile, and require high-voltage power supplies. Because X-Rays go through most things, they are practically impossible to focus into a narrow beam; this would give them a very limited range. A conventional rifle with nitrate explosives would do far more damage at a greater distance, as well as being more transportable, rugged and reliable.