The US Navy spent 15 years and $500,000,000 and came to the conclusion
that railguns are not practical.

Heh-heh, given half that sum I would have made not only a rail gun firing heavy missiles that would reach hypersonic speeds, but a ship to the Moon with my internal force engines.
But what to say, the whodumbos rule!

God bless the USNavy, and Lt. Schroder of the US Navy whose work on rail gun recoil was the basis for my failed PhD.
Their design was based on conventional artillery. Mine is not.

Maybe you should send them a proposal for your wonderous invention.

Good idea. Think I owe them that. As things are, I am more interested in revising the basics of physics for better morality and technology.

Of course, they will want to see a working railgun and a full analysis...

For which they only need to see my 2017 and 2022 videos available on youtube.

Like I said, a WORKING railgun and a FULL analysis with data readings, graphs, equations, etc., NOT some half assed video with no analysis.

Those videos are not for fools.
Understanding those videos calls for far superior intelligence, breadth of view, and knowledge than what I have found in Usenet.
Very very few in the viewing public may meet that criteria. But I have no doubt that a brilliant person with some knowledge of calculas and electrical engineering will understand, if that person has an open mind.
My scientific works presented in a new and original medium (incontrovertible video with explanations) are for trained and established professionals, successful in their own disciplines, for further development; not for those who call themselves
physicists, among whom some may pretend to be engineers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 14:37:17 UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

The US Navy spent 15 years and $500,000,000 and came to the conclusion >> that railguns are not practical.

Heh-heh, given half that sum I would have made not only a rail gun firing heavy missiles that would reach hypersonic speeds, but a ship to the Moon with my internal force engines.
But what to say, the whodumbos rule!

God bless the USNavy, and Lt. Schroder of the US Navy whose work on rail gun recoil was the basis for my failed PhD.
Their design was based on conventional artillery. Mine is not.

Maybe you should send them a proposal for your wonderous invention.

Good idea. Think I owe them that. As things are, I am more interested in revising the basics of physics for better morality and technology.

Of course, they will want to see a working railgun and a full analysis...

For which they only need to see my 2017 and 2022 videos available on youtube.

Like I said, a WORKING railgun and a FULL analysis with data readings, graphs, equations, etc., NOT some half assed video with no analysis.

Those videos are not for fools.
Understanding those videos calls for far superior intelligence, breadth of view, and knowledge than what I have found in Usenet.
Very very few in the viewing public may meet that criteria. But I have no doubt that a brilliant person with some knowledge of calculas and electrical engineering will understand, if that person has an open mind.
My scientific works presented in a new and original medium (incontrovertible video with explanations) are for trained and established professionals, successful in their own disciplines, for further development; not for those who call themselves

physicists, among whom some may pretend to be engineers.

Video evidence is crucial in court cases. So my videos overturn all the nonsense that goes for modern physics, and revises conventional physics.
Such is the power of a new invention!
The low voltage heavy armature rail gun?
Which is now one of my hobbies.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 14:37:17 UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

The US Navy spent 15 years and $500,000,000 and came to the conclusion >> that railguns are not practical.

Heh-heh, given half that sum I would have made not only a rail gun firing heavy missiles that would reach hypersonic speeds, but a ship to the Moon with my internal force engines.
But what to say, the whodumbos rule!

God bless the USNavy, and Lt. Schroder of the US Navy whose work on rail gun recoil was the basis for my failed PhD.
Their design was based on conventional artillery. Mine is not.

Maybe you should send them a proposal for your wonderous invention.

Good idea. Think I owe them that. As things are, I am more interested in revising the basics of physics for better morality and technology.

Of course, they will want to see a working railgun and a full analysis...

For which they only need to see my 2017 and 2022 videos available on youtube.

Like I said, a WORKING railgun and a FULL analysis with data readings, graphs, equations, etc., NOT some half assed video with no analysis.

Those videos are not for fools.
Understanding those videos calls for far superior intelligence, breadth of view, and knowledge than what I have found in Usenet.
Very very few in the viewing public may meet that criteria. But I have no doubt that a brilliant person with some knowledge of calculas and electrical engineering will understand, if that person has an open mind.
My scientific works presented in a new and original medium (incontrovertible video with explanations) are for trained and established professionals, successful in their own disciplines, for further development; not for those who call themselves

physicists, among whom some may pretend to be engineers.

A bit about my professional work... https://groups.google.com/g/alt.philosophy/c/2mf9CCfE9Rg/m/8_jjpZ0UBgAJ

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)