New Category of Rifle Closer to Reality

[FaustianQ]

Don't throw too much hope into germanium TBH, we're just going to have to rethink how we do computer dies as silicon is going to hit a brickwall @ 7nm, and likely due to cost, will stop @ 10nm.

[xthetenth]

Don't throw too much hope into germanium TBH, we're just going to have to rethink how we do computer dies as silicon is going to hit a brickwall @ 7nm, and likely due to cost, will stop @ 10nm.

 

Germanium's been mentioned with regards to getting to 10, and I meant it in the not shuddering to a stop right now sense.

[Collimatrix]

I suspect guided projectiles will have certain hard limits, eventually, on what sort of sensor tech you can fit in a given caliber.  Sort of like how 3" was chosen for the secondary armament on USN ships post-war because it was the smallest shell a VT fuse could be crammed into.

[Virdea]

I suspect guided projectiles will have certain hard limits, eventually, on what sort of sensor tech you can fit in a given caliber.  Sort of like how 3" was chosen for the secondary armament on USN ships post-war because it was the smallest shell a VT fuse could be crammed into.

 

I agree with this.  The 11mm limit for smart projectiles is in part based on the surface area of the maneuver surfaces - you simply cannot bend wind any more.

[Collimatrix]

Actually, that seems backwards.  Smaller projectiles would have more control surface area for a given density than larger ones.

[Virdea]

Actually, that seems backwards.  Smaller projectiles would have more control surface area for a given density than larger ones.

 

I made the same complaint to my physics prof.  His explanation I am still trying to understand, but came in three parts.  One part was that atoms of air are a finite size.  The smaller the lifting surface the less efficient the lift generated from very small surfaces.  You get an advantage at that size only if you can make atoms in the air smaller to allow more pressure differential in a given area.

 

Lifting surfaces gain efficiency as they scale upward.  This is most noticeable in very small lifting  surfaces.

 

Second is parasitic control mass.  Human operated planes could only get so small before the parasitic mass of the human made it impossible to design them any smaller.  Small lifting surfaces need a small engine in them to distort the lifting surface and this machine imposes a physical limit.  If the smallest lifter you can make is 20 grains, then building smaller bullets is a greater challenge.

 

A third issue is cost.  My physics prof is an industrial engineer.  Micro-machines quadruple in cost as the halve in size.

 

I think the issue is the physics of air pressure more than anything else.