Hacked Gadgets Forum

June 15, 2006

DIY Coil Hand Gun

at 5:43 am. Filed under Complex Hacks, DIY Hacks, Electronic Hacks

Check out the cool coil gun projects at Another Coilgun Site. Near the end of the video you will see the coil hand gun! This thing is computer controlled using a microcontroller for enhanced operation.

“At last!! A functioning example of the combined wants in a coilgun pistol. You always see posts for this and that, read how if it could do such and such and the inevitable plans on doing whatever.
The wish list follows.—
“Fast Charger and be small enough to fit in a pistol”, yep. “Charger automatically charges upto the voltage I want, stops, then regulates”, yep. “Controllable fire sequence, I want to use a computer to test by adjusting on/off times to the microsecond”, yep. “Holds a magazine and is retractable along with a retractable battery power source”, I say yes to this too. “Dual energy shot levels, full power and partial power, by charging to a lower voltage and loading a different timing sequence”, yes and you need but to flip a switch the pistol will handle the rest. —These concepts have now evolved into a physical reality.”



 

Buy online low from an facilitator dysfunction when you cialis . Is selective of guanosine phosphodiesterase 5...


Related Posts

Rapid Fire Coil Gun
DIY Solid State Tesla Coil Build
1.25kJ Coilgun
Tesla Coil from a 15,000 Volt Neon Transformer
100psi Hand Held Self Contained Air Cannon
Small Tesla Coil Overview
DIY Spark Gap Tesla Coil
Coil Gun

 


 

104 Responses to “DIY Coil Hand Gun”

  1. Madocchi Says:

    damn sweet piece u got there bud :)

  2. Madocchi Says:

    It doesn’t look to have very much recoil relative to the impressive groundbreaking fire power.

    However it still lacks a spiral inducement method so as to produce accuracy for long range targets.

  3. asdasdasd Says:

    That is so lame — how dare you call it a coil gun.

  4. david Says:

    Because it is a coilgun. Coilguns energize a series of coils in sequence to accelerate a projectile, like a solenoid. That is what these do. Hence, coilgun.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun
    http://www.coilgun.eclipse.co.uk/coilgun_basics_1.html
    http://www.powerlabs.org/coilguns.htm

    You sir, are wrong.

  5. Justaguye Says:

    It’s a HANDGUN, over just how long a range are you expecting it to be used?

  6. blaine Says:

    There is a reason why nobody cares……the kickback on the gun would be HUGE to fire a fatal blast. When in the vid, you see the person use the handgun u notice there is a “skip” where the gun is probaly anchored down.

  7. Mike Says:

    the “kickback” would be the same as a gun that fires with the same speed and power using gunpowder. look up Newton;s laws

  8. KC Says:

    Its not anchored. you see him swaying? And thatlooks pretty lethal. That or it would be painful getatemple shot on that.You won’t be wakingup for a few days.

  9. Aud Says:

    you could add a back section, create a nice clip. With a few modifications you could make a nice SMG coilgun. (i wonder if that’s legal?)

  10. r.3volved Says:

    Why don’t you noobs go research electromagnetic projectiles, coil guns and rail guns before making retarded comments.
    Nicely done man, what kind of fps are you getting and what’s your efficiency like?

  11. blaine Says:

    ok, if u don’t belive me watch the clip at about 22 sec. the gun flys back….. it is true taht for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction, a normal gun uses tiny light bullets while a rale gun uses a heavy (most likely iron) magnet….. to creat a sucessfull rail gun the gun itself would have to be VERY heavy in order to counterbalance the forced produced by the projectile.

  12. blaine Says:

    straight from wiki

    “Man-portable railguns will not be revolutionary weapons; if power supply technology ever allows a railgun small enough to be carried then rail-handguns will probably only be able to fire projectiles at speeds similar to those currently achieved with chemical propellants. The simple reason is that the destructive power of a handgun or long gun is limited as much by recoil as anything else; it is quite possible to build a handgun that fires 20 mm cannon shells, but the recoil would make it impossible to aim or fire safely.”

  13. ulyssesdraco Says:

    Man-portable weapons “may” be revolutionary weapons. Actually they probably will be. While it is true that they may only become as powerfull as current guns, there is still a good reason to research gauss weapons. Magnetic force as propellent = no gunpowder = no jacket = more ammo per magazine = less pressure to get more ammo on the field. Notice how the jacket takes way more space in a magazine than the actual slug. This brings changes in logistics, manufacturing of weapons(obviously) and ammunition(cheaper), and combat(more ammo = good).

  14. evgen Says:

    An additional point in favor of electromagnetic weapons is that the impulse force used to propel the projectile can be spread out along the time it takes the projectile to travel the length of the sequence of coils.

    In a traditional gun the fast burn of the powder has a hard recoil at the start and then tapers off, while a coil gun could spread the recoil out for a longer stretch of time.

    For a man-portable weapon the difference between the two is probably going to be fairly insignificant, but for a vehicle-mounted weapon that can use a longer barrel this difference could end up being significant.

  15. AstralSin Says:

    In coilguns such as this, bigger projectiles are not always better or necessary. A smaller projectile would be both more aerodynamic and sharper, making it more suitable to use a smaller iron slug than a larger one thus reducing the weight and recoil factors

  16. Jerry Says:

    There are a few things you need for a deployable coil gun to be considered effective (IMO).

    1. fast charge capacitors – he doesn’t say whether he has that yet, but microprocessor control of your charging (the regulation he mentions) can take current hardware a lot further than just applying current to it. And, perhaps a series of capacitors (ala six shooter) or With two or three of acceptably fast recharge rate you could probably loose some weight and have a good refire rate, though a bit more mass will go a long way towards dampening recoil.

    2. enough power to move a bullet size projectile (just a 1 inch x 3/8 inch metal rod would suffice) at greater than 600 fps (about the speed of a .38 ~620fps). He doesn’t make a specific claim, but based on the ballistic evidence provided in the video, I’m gonna guess the pistol is pushing 250 fps, the single coil prototype is doing about 350 and the mulitcoil prototype shown at the end is either using a much heavier slug or is closer to 500 fps. Knocking over a phone book is not trivial. Poping holes in an emty cardboard box isn’t too stuning (or lethal, though it sure would put a hurt on you at close range – a shot to the head could concievably kill.)

    3. a mechanical reload for quick reloading and a suply of uniform munitions or slugs. This poses a minor machining challenge, but I’d say this guy appears to be up to it. Just about any 5 or 10 round rifle clip (for rounds above .22 calibur.. M 14, SKS, FN-FAL…) would be a good starting point. Spring fed clips have proven to be very reliable.

    4. rifling for accuracy. Without rifling his laser pointer sight (probably a 550nm presentation style pointer) is not going to be accurate past about 150 feet since he’s essentially firing a low velocity carbine. The slugs will tumble and veer without aerodynamics but longer slugs might help this. The projectile or the sleeve of the coil can be rifled (though it’s considerably much less effort to rifle the bore of the sleeve… if he is using one, which I would guess yes to keep the coil from clamping down on the slug under peak voltage) and the slugs pointed like traditional bullets to take care of a lot of that. These are not significant technological challenges.

    5. Cost efficiency and reliability. The problem with electronic weapons is water penetration. You need a sealed unit, which means difficult field servicable fittings. a bit of dirt in a seal and it isn’t. Cost is going to come down to how much money you save over conventional combustion projectile weapons. Centuries of refinement means bullets and guns are cheap and reliable as is.

    Over all, I am very impressed. I sure wouldn’t want to get tagged with one of those. Make for a nice bruise or broken bone in the right place.

  17. Treoinmypocket Says:

    “straight from wiki” You are KIDDING right? WIKI?!?! Helloooo! If you rely on WIKI for facts you are a complete moron and ANYTHING that comes out of your mouth – or in this case FINGERS – afterwards is to be discounted in its entirety.

    Try not to be so stupid.

  18. yo Says:

    Damn dude, that shit is hardcore!

  19. Leap_of_faith Says:

    One refinement would be to let groups of coils flex backwards as they provide motive force forward, reducing the shock to the grip by spreading it out linearly. The overall force could be the same, but it would be dramatically easier to hold. Perhaps this could allow greater total force to the projectile versus the highest power controllable handgun. This would feel like a vibration or series of moderate shocks to the hand or shoulder instead of one big kick.

  20. Aaron Says:

    What makes a railgun better than a regular gun is that explosive rounds will not go off in the barrel. This makes armor piercing rounds loaded into every infantry weapon feasable. Also, railguns are much quieter and don’t require the use of lead as a projectile.

  21. Another CoilGun Says:

    “This is just the beginning.” Be a pioneer and not just a poster.

  22. Mike Says:

    Very impressive prototypes, especially considering I really don’t see much in way of corporate sponsorship here (could be wrong though).

    WTG guys.

  23. Neo Says:

    To blaine and Aaron – this is a coilgun, not a railgun. They are two different concepts. It is entirely possible to have lethal (errr… “effective”) man-portable coilguns in the near future (as we see from this little demonstration). Railguns do require a lot more power, but then, they can concievably propel a much heavier slug over a greater distance. I like to think of them as more akin to the sort of guns you would find on a warship… ;-)

  24. Quagmire Says:

    @Treoinmypocket

    According to the well respected science journal Nature, Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, which has a long history of having high standards for accuracy.

    This link talks about the study and the cause for it. And no, it’s not *always* accurate, as the cause for the study shows. ‘mostly accurate’ seems to be an appropriate term though.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

    Here’s a link to the original Nature article –

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

    Since those were published last December, Wikipedia has implemented public locks in quite a few more entries to further improve its’ accuracy.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html?ei=5058&en=ac58d5b599db55dc&ex=1151208000&adxnnl=1&partner=IWON&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1150731077-wwXE6qW9AILoijsPIxhqPQ

    Hope that wasn’t too stupid for you. ;-)

  25. justin Says:

    quagmire just coilgunned your ass with accuracy

  26. JEFF K Says:

    THIS IS TIME FOR SHOOTING JEERY IN THE ASS WITH PENNIES ONCE ND FOR ALLS!

  27. billy Says:

    What happens on the battlefield when the enemy uses EMP? Is the coil gun effected?

  28. sagabona Says:

    you guys are great. this is a lovely piece of work you got there. congrats and good luck with the development.

  29. coil gun lover Says:

    wtf is with sucrity crap that a new trist but nice. just wiat a few yrs an bam. hey just wondering have thought abut flexible solar cells. to help out with the recharging of the batteries. but that would lead better systems.wired in siries /plaruar srry abut the spelling.

  30. eagle Says:

    Hmm. It might be interesting to make a Bolt-Action Piston clip loading system for the coil gun. But it seems that the recoil is enormous but if penetrates a wall, you can consider it a “weapon”. That handgun version seems dangerous because of magnetic coils inside. A malfunction can seriously screw that expensive piece of stuff and possibly you. Imagine the magnetic affect was reversed, the handgun’s case breaks from the shot and what will hapen to you???
    LOL LOL LOL

  31. Calm-down Says:

    Oh mY gOD!1! iM GoNna FrEAk OUt cUZ it”S nO cURe 4 CANCER!!!

    Guys, just leave it alone, it’s bad ass and just a cool toy. Just as usefull as a barbie USB…
    I think it would be cool to see a smaller version on it. With something the size or a pencil shooting out, or even a needle. It would cut the kickback down also.

  32. eagle Says:

    A smaller version would bemore dangerous. A small cell battery wouldnt be enough and a AAA battery has enough for 10 shots but imagine such a small weapon(metal tube, DONT THINK about that, you are going to get shocked.)
    Plastic? Good thing to have a nice blast sheild and rubber armor cause FRAG, ELETRICITY, METAL PARTS. Metal and then rubber insulated carbon fiber. Also put mini I beams to hold it together. Also, 1 round at a time.

  33. silver Says:

    this is a great design. i am currently working on a similer design with a solonoid. have you ever thought of a smaller projectile (needle sized)? also mabey a way to make it automatic? great job!

  34. travis Says:

    how to make the rapid fire coil gun

  35. Alan Parekh Says:

    Hi Travis,

    Have a look at this article.
    http://hackedgadgets.com/2006/07/08/rapid-fire-coil-gun/

  36. james Says:

    im interested in building one of these coil guns. im wondering what material the projectile is and what voltage is needed.

  37. Cleankill47 Says:

    First off, I can’t believe how dumb a lot of you are acting. I’m sure a lot of you know how big the first coilguns were, so the
    fact that this pistol is only about the size of a Desert Eagle .50 is great!

    I think that it will only be a matter of time until someone figures out that a slight spin could be easily generated by the use
    of rifling, maybe three to five microgrooves, and the use of a teflon coating on the projectiles would allow use of the grooves
    to the fullest possible use. Of course, this technique would only work (at first) on longer barreled rifles, not so much for pistols.

    For those of you wondering, the reason that needle-sized projectiles won’t work is that they are simply not heavy enough.
    Even if you did manage to make a dense metal sliver, the kinetic energy at the point of impact wouldn’t be enough to
    cause actual damage, it would just sting a lot. If this weren’t true, you would be able to use a .22 to get a heart
    shot on a bull moose at 250 yards and drop him in his tracks. It just won’t work.

    Aaron (#20 above), I have never had an explosive round detonate in the barrel of anything, and truthfully, I haven’t heard of it
    ever happening, either. Also, armor-piercing rounds are being used RIGHT NOW in almost all infantry weapons,
    and don’t involve the use of any explosives. The rounds you are probably thinking of are called Raufus rounds, and they are
    armor-piercing incendiary rounds. They pierce armor, and then burn furiously at 3,000-5,000 degrees (Depending on what
    kind you have)for a few minutes. They are not in use by anyone right now, because they are extremely expensive.

    Last thing, Aaron, lead projectiles are not used for any kind of combat. They are purchased by civilians and hunters because they
    fragment and expand, thereby imparting stopping power. The type of round used for combat besides armor-piercing rounds are
    full metal jacketed rounds. They don’t expand, they don’t fragment, and they aren’t lead, they’re copper or bronze. They are
    designed to penetrate and wound, keeping the wounded soldier from firing upon the shooter. It is done that way because of a
    specific treaty, but I can’t remember it off the top of my head.

    I don’t really think that the railgun/coilgun trend will catch on in the military, for the simple fact that it’s too much
    maintenance. Soldiers are all taught to take care of their own rifle in the field, and you can’t repair electronics in the rain
    or in the desert with sand everywhere. It would require a bunch of specialists, and the soldiers whose rifles were damaged,
    waiting for repairs, would become useless in combat.

    Lastly, all that is needed to counter the heavy recoil is the use of a counterweight at the base of the barrel, or, even better,
    a vertical forend grip like those seen on many of the M-16s and MP-5s.

    Hope this helps you guys. I will reply to further comments and answer any questions you have.

  38. Abraxsis Says:

    Cleankill47 (#37)

    OK, first of all a full metal jacket bullet is still made of lead. It is only a “JACKET” of copper/brove/steel alloy. This is done for several reasons. First and foremost the Hague Convention of 1899 which outlawed expanding/fragmenting bullets in warfare. (As you mentioned) This would be exemplified in your usual hollow point round that “mushrooms” upon firing and does a much greater amount of damage when it his flesh. Or a standard lead .22 which fragments upon entering someone’s body. Secondly, metal jacket ammo has a longer lethal distance because it doesn’t slow down as much due to less wind resistance. Lastly, jacketed ammo allows for a large powder charge because the ammo isn’t leaving lead deposits on the rifling inside the barrel thus allowing a higher velocity and a longer barrel life.

  39. Thoog Says:

    Lots of people have commented on the recoil problems. They can be solved. At one time, it was “obvious” that a .50-caliber rifle was “impossible” because the recoil would break the shooter’s shoulder. But the designers managed to get around it.

    Rail guns will eventually enter service. They could be used in aircraft and armored vehicle turrets, where the siting of the weapon inside the fuselage takes care of some concerns about weather and dust. They can also be designed in modules so that maintenance can be simple “pull and replace” – field maintenance would be nothing but swapout and any real repair work needed would be done at depot level.

  40. Joey Says:

    Abraxsis (#38),

    I know that most FMJ bullets have a lead core, but the fact that you have no contact with the lead while handling the
    ammunition makes it irrelevant. Now that that’s been covered, what is the point you were making? My purpose in the post that
    I made was to inform those that were misinformed, not to ridicule or spite. Nothing I stated was covered in your
    counter-explanation, so I don’t know exactly what you were trying to get at.
    It seems that your point was nothing more than clarification of the ammunition specifications,
    and if that is true, then good, we’ve done well. My purpose in my post was to present information that may or may not be
    readily available to everyone, as a helpful source of information.

    Speaking of a helpful cause; Thoog, (#39), the reason there is so much trouble with recoil on a railgun or coilgun is that
    there aren’t very many ways to reduce it. With a regular gun, a muzzle brake vents the gas, either backwards or off
    to the side, thereby reducing the amount of pressure that must be absorbed by the shooter, or you make the gun heavier, to
    help absorb the recoil. With railguns, there is no gas to vent for an advantage, just a heavy, solid iron or steel
    projectile with all the force that would normally be spread evenly through the air in the barrel and out the front of
    the muzzle.

    I hope this clears some things up.

  41. Joey (cleankill47) Says:

    Sorry if the name change messed with anyone, I figured I’d go ahead and use my actual name instead of my screen name, but I didn’t put that information in my last post….

  42. M16 Says:

    #40
    Joey (cleankill47)
    “My purpose in my post was to present information that may or may not be
    readily available to everyone, as a helpful source of information.”

    Well, then the information that you present should be correct, and that is what Abraxsis was doing. He was just correcting the incorrect information that you were presenting.

    “Last thing, Aaron, lead projectiles are not used for any kind of combat. They are purchased by civilians and hunters because they fragment and expand, thereby imparting stopping power. The type of round used for combat besides armor-piercing rounds are
    full metal jacketed rounds. They don’t expand, they don’t fragment, and they aren’t lead, they’re copper or bronze. They are designed to penetrate and wound, keeping the wounded soldier from firing upon the shooter. It is done that way because of a
    specific treaty, but I can’t remember it off the top of my head.”

    Some of these statements are not true, and misinform potential readers. Again, if you want to present information then it should be correct.

    For starters, the “treaty” you are thinking about is the Hague Convention.

    Next it does make a difference what the internal composition of the round is regardless of whether you make contact with it or not. The composition of the round makes a significant difference in the bullets performance, and ALL military ball ammo is made with a lead core.

    The expansion of the bullet is not only on account of the material you use, it is the creation of a proper hollowpoint that determines the expansion of a round. The Hague Convention outlawed hollowpoints, not lead.

    The copper core bullets you speak of are not copper “cores”, they are simply compacted copper that does not have a jacket on them. They are cheap frangible ammo that indoor ranges use to prevent target carrier and ceiling damage that an inexperienced shooter might cause.

    It is good that you want to help with information, but it would do all of the readers a lot of good if the information is correct. Don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not bashing your post, I just think that you dismissed Abraxis’ post when it was relavent.

  43. ACG Says:

    The hack is about a small sized coilgun. It shows a few vids from the source site.
    Perhaps you should visit the site and view what the builder has done and see the degree of effort
    and advancement just a single person has done and has inspired through out the world wide web of
    electronics hobbiest and enthusiest.

    Equally, you should shut the hell up about wars, weapon performance, ammo composition and degree
    of damage. Stay on topic. Show respect for the presentation of the hack and for the designer of the
    hack. Every word typed on the source site had its own importance in being instrumental to the
    continueing advancement of an electronics/physics artwork of timing, testing, and implementation
    of study and will. None of the bull shit you type were does a damn thing. If you multiply the time
    consumed for each paragraph wasted in ignorance here and convert such time into focus, you might have,
    just maybe a little bit raised you use as a persom from it current negative number to a slightly
    less negative number.

  44. Cleankill47 Says:

    Alright, before anyone else decides that I’m not being ‘correct’, or ‘on topic’, I am going to clear up everything that has
    been pointed out.

    First off, yes, from the way he worded it, it sounded to me like Aaron thought that bullets used for war were solid lead,
    not jacketed bullets. All I was trying to do was give him some information (or at least a direction) from what I thought he said.

    And, as I said in my VERY FIRST post, I could not name the Hague Convention off of the top of my head, I was merely pointing
    Aaron in the right direction. So stop naming it already! I know! I remember! Jeez!

    M16, I appreciate the tone conveyed in your post. Not too much, but you got your point across.

    I did not mean to imply that the core was copper or bronze, what I meant to say was that the jacket (copper) or sometimes even
    the entire bullet (bronze) was a metal other than lead.

    If any of the information I state is incorrect, or an update on my info is available, by all means, alert me and our fellow
    readers/posters and keep the knowledge going.

    As for you, ACG, I think you are the one that needs to shut up. I think that Alan has done incredible work, and I know what
    kinds of time and effort went into his research and development. I, unlike you, have presented my insight into this project
    in hopes of furthering Alan’s research and everyone else in this field. You say that nothing I have said is relevant? You, who
    have done nothing but sully this very good thread with your poor grammar and poorer argument points obviously do not
    understand basic principles of physics pertaining to weaponry. You want me to shut up about war? What do you think this
    concept was devised for? I need to shut up about weapon performance, projectile composition, and impact damage? The very fact that
    this is a GUN means that the same principles apply in varying environments. If you change a projectile’s composition, you
    change it’s velocity, change the velocity, you change the trajectory, and so forth. Everything is this field applies to every
    other aspect of it in some way that affects the end result. You can’t tell me that it wouldn’t be cool to learn a simple
    adjustment that would make you able to shoot something you built yourself from a little further away. So I suggest that you
    know what the hell you are talking about before bashing someone else’s post on an open online thread. I hold everything you have
    said to be null, and therefore useless. You have presented nothing for this project, and until you do, I see you as beneath notice.

    For everone else, anyone interested in how the principles of railguns and coilguns are affecting current weaponry, you should
    check out this link:

    http://www.fnherstal.com/html/Index.htm

    Notice how the cross section of the bullet is an almost identical miniaturized version of the projectiles used in coilguns…

    Again, you see that everything in the weaponry field affects everything else…

    Good work, Alan, keep it up.

  45. Cleankill47 Says:

    At the drop-down menu at the top of the screen once you get to the link above, go to ‘small arms’, then ‘5.7 X 28mm’, then
    go to the ‘five-Seven’, and that that is the handgun I was trying to show in the link in the first place.

  46. justin Says:

    Cleankill47, you are still completely clueless. ACG is the reason for the thread, moron.
    What ACG said is outside the reach of your inept short boundries.
    Just for starters, your endless typing mainly steems around you, what you said or did not
    say, what you meant or did not mean, the clearing up of ambiquity, and that you were or were not correct among other things.
    What part of “this is not about Cleankill47″ do you not understand? Do you not understand the “not about”
    or do you not understand the “not about Cleankill47″?

    The thread is neither very good nor good, hence the intervention of ACG’s post. Again, an understanding beyond you limited boundry.
    “I think that it will only be a matter of time until someone figures out that a slight spin could be easily generated by the use
    of rifling.” That “time” has long since passed, but we thank you anyway our gracious Muse Angel-47.

    What part of “5.7 X 28mm five-Seven handgun” has to do with the original coilgun post? What is the “project” to which you
    keep referring? What does Alan or any of Alan’s work have to do with anything and where did anyone question the works of Alan?

    Do not confuse one or two typing mistakes for poor grammer. Here is your poor grammer.
    Change:
    “As for you, ACG, I think you are the one that needs to shut up.”
    To:
    “As for you, ACG, I think you are the one who needs to shut up.”

    Change:
    “You, who have done nothing but sully this very good thread with your poor grammar and poorer argument
    points obviously do not understand basic principles of physics pertaining to weaponry.”
    To:
    “You, who have done nothing but sully this very good thread with your poor grammar and poorer argument
    points, obviously do not understand basic principles of physics pertaining to weaponry.”

    Change:
    “And, as I said in my VERY FIRST post, I could not name the Hague Convention off of the top of my head, I was merely pointing
    Aaron in the right direction.”
    To:
    “And, as I said in my VERY FIRST post, I could not name the Hague Convention off the top of my head. I was merely pointing
    Aaron in the right direction.”

    Change:
    “I did not mean to imply that the core was copper or bronze, what I meant to say was that the jacket (copper) or sometimes even
    the entire bullet (bronze) was a metal other than lead.”
    To:
    “I did not mean to imply that the core was copper or bronze. I meant to say was that the jacket (copper)
    or sometimes even the entire bullet (bronze) was a metal other than lead.”

    Change:
    “If any of the information I state is incorrect, or an update on my info is available, by all means,
    alert me and our fellow readers/posters and keep the knowledge going.”
    To:
    “If any of the information I state is incorrect or an update on my info is available, by all means,
    alert our fellow readers/posters and I to keep the knowledge going.”

    Change:
    “I hold everything you have said to be null, and therefore useless.”
    To:
    “I hold everything you have said to be null and therefore useless.”

    Change:
    “They pierce armor, and then burn furiously at 3,000-5,000 degrees (Depending on what
    kind you have)for a few minutes.”
    To:
    “They pierce armor and then burn furiously at 3,000-5,000 degrees (Depending on what
    kind you have) for a few minutes.”

    Change:
    “Also, armor-piercing rounds are being used RIGHT NOW in almost all infantry weapons,
    and don’t involve the use of any explosives.”
    To:
    “Also, armor-piercing rounds are being used RIGHT NOW in almost all infantry weapons
    and don’t involve the use of any explosives.”

    Change:
    “They are not in use by anyone right now, because they are extremely expensive.”
    To:
    “They are not in use by anyone right now because they are extremely expensive.”
    Or:
    “Because they are extremely expensive, they are not in use by anyone right now.”

  47. Cleankill47 Says:

    You know what? To hell with you guys. I am not commenting on or reading this thread any longer, so go have fun with your little toys.

    Justin, you need to get yourself together and learn differential grammatical analysis. The usage of… You know what? I don’t
    even care to explain anymore. I thought the people involved in this thread were intelligent, but I see I’ll just have to go into
    Iraq with no hope for the thought processes of online humanity. You haven’t actually said a damn thing on here that’s useful to anyone,
    and your so-called “corrections” on my posts are nothing but attempts at showing my ineptitude when yours clearly outranks
    me, which is easily shown by reading the first part of your last post; and they fail miserably when you take into account the rules of
    advanced grammatical usage and writing.

    My so-called mistakes are very good ways of showing inflection, pause, and the conveyance of tone, which you cannot do on a
    thread which has no italics, bold, or underlining options. As you’ll see if you ever grow up, the rules change after junior high,
    so go out and learn the stuff before you jump on me.

    As a matter of fact, go out on a limb and actually try to post something on here besides the crap that you have said in both of
    your posts, like “quagmire just coilgunned your ass with accuracy.” You don’t contribute anything, so learn, and then you can talk. Until then, shut your mouth and let the rest of the hobyists continue on with their work, or play, or whatever it is.

  48. ACG Says:

    Glad to see you leave. Get! Still clueless and wrong.

    By the way, change: (one is enough for now)
    “Your so-called “corrections” on my posts are nothing but attempts at showing my ineptitude when yours clearly outranks
    me..”
    To:
    “Your so-called “corrections” on my posts are nothing but attempts at showing my ineptitude when yours clearly outranks
    mine…”

    I truely do not think you “get it”. This does not suprise me. Hypocrites do not know that they are hypocrites. I am the thread you stupid mental moron.

  49. ML Says:

    This is damn cool.I’ve read all the comments,and it had became a english lesson.o.O haha.chill guys.(Curious) can i know how does this thing works and where to get the information?i would like to have the concept of coil guns.Thanks alot guys.

  50. treefrog Says:

    I think it is hilarious how everyone who is technically minded(myself included)is stubborn. I can’t tell you how many threads I have read where people go so far out on tangents and yelling at each other that more than half of the comments are completely off subject and are refering to one of the people posting.
    Coilguns are a fairly recent technology and of course need a lot of tinkering with to perfect. Modern firearms took a few hundred years to develope and there still are some drawbacks. If you need to, think of today’s coilguns as muskets. Their design will of course progress and improve with time.

    I found some interesting links that are helped me with my coilgun project, ML, here:

    http://www.coilgun.ru which is the World’s Coilgun Arsenal, as it calls itself.
    http://www.jeffhove.com/robots/coilgun.html which tells how to build a simple one from parts of a disposable camera.
    http://www.coilgun.eclipse.co.uk/ this site has an awesome coilgun pistol. If you don’t wanna look through his site for it, just go here: http://www.coilgun.eclipse.co.uk/electromagnetic_pistol.html at first you will see a 3D generated pic, but there are some actual pics on the site.

    I found these through some web-surfing and there are tons more out there. Good Luck!

  51. treefrog Says:

    Sorry about the typo. Long day for me. Should be, “I found some interesting links that have helped me with my coilgun project….etc etc etc”

  52. Ben Says:

    there would actually not be any kickback do to newtons law because newtons law says that “every action has a reaction” in a regular gun it is caused by gun powder exploding which creates a burst of expanding gases out of the tube, but in a coil gun there is not expanding air only electromagnetism that is dispersed out of the end of a wire after the projectile has been fired, it is also extremely feesable in the sense that it makes very little sound, you don’t have to worry about gunpowder being wet or even having to carry the extra weight of it, also it can create more power, it can have greater range and as i said earlier, very little kick back

  53. ACG Says:

    Ben:
    Nice words but unfortunately none are true.

  54. Ben Says:

    ive actually found that out haha, i still find it hard to understand, but could you explain it again?

  55. Errant Says:

    Hi Ben,

    yes it’s an easy concept to grab a hold of and assume – unfortunately recoil is a bad problem :)

    Have you done much on electromagnetism? That’s not a dig :) just a question. You see it isn’t so much that the projectile has a force applied by the electric field as the coil and the projectile repel each other. By holding the coil fairly still you make the projectile take the ‘brunt’ of the force.

    As in a normal handgun the gas pressure forces the gun and the projectile apart – this creates a recoil or a force backwards which you have to steady.

    So unfortunately altho physically the electromagnetic waves do not give us recoil they force the coil itself back – which does :(

    I am working on a project now with a friend from university to get some kind of ‘blow back’ action similar to that of a normal handgun. It is an interesting Engineering problem :)

  56. Ben Says:

    ah, haha, im still trying to get up the time and money and to convince my friend to work on it with me… btw can anyone tell me what is the best to use for a capacitor? and battery?

  57. Scott Malensek Says:

    Why use the magnetic coil to move a projectile from one end of the coil all the way to the other? Why not just move it from the back of the coil to the center of a magnet? Instead of having the projective go all the way through, it could be used to push a non-magnetic sabot which would continue past the magnetic center point and zip out at full power? Much better penetration as well, and no need for tricky wiring to make sure one coil shuts off then another on, then off, then another on, then off, then another on, and so forth. So, instead of using large projectiles as in the video, treat them as bolts pushing non-magnetic projectiles. In this case, a longer electromagnet would be used, but the required force could be halved as would the power needed. Just an idea.

  58. Ville Says:

    Um, if i might butt in, there would be some problems with using the impact of one projectile to propel another… as far as i know there ain’t no known material on this planet to withstand such an impact many times..

    as to the coil timing, if people weren’t so stubborn with the insane voltages, there would be cheap MOSFETs that can deliver a 30V 1000A pulse (IRF3703 for example).. i have had great achievements with a 15V system, shot energy was at best 5.2J, whereas the consumed electrical energy was 28,6J… (the capacitor pack contains about 400J total)
    However this result is from a gun with extremely ill-optimized coils, i hope to rewind and re-connect it (my electrical circuit has fundamental f*@k-ups in it :-) )..

    after the rewinding i hope to shoot a 14mm socket (i think it’s called a socket?) weighing 40g at a speed of 40m/s! that would be enough to give a concussion at least ;-)

    and about the caliber.. a smaller projectile gives a smaller increase in inductance, so it can be fired faster, and the coils can contain more coilwire ..loops, hence a better efficiency, ever consider that? i am right now planning a serial-fire rifle that would shoot about 1X40mm nails (with the heads cut off)… it would even make them rotate for a better accuracy, i hope i can pull it off :-P

  59. Ben Says:

    Hey just wondering would a round with internal spirals help? where you make four holes and make them twist through the insides so when the air passes through them it forces the round to spin? Also, does anybody know the amount of volts it takes to fire a round at about 340m/s? i know it’s quite out of range at the moment, but 340m/s is my goal and i want to know how to find the voltage necessary. Also in a copper foil rolled capacitor, what is a good dielectric? also about the one round hitting another, yea that’s pretty unfeasible, there’s one site that has done something like that, and the results arent nearly as good as straight electromagnetism on the round. This idea is also like the Gauss gun which uses 2 magnets, a stationary one, and a round one, and when you place a round where the stationary one is, and have a rail for the ball to go on, it can launch (if w/ good magnets) at fairly high speeds, not practical just cool. Btw has anyone heard of a gun that uses electric pulse to increase propellant pressures? i saw this one guy who used salt water, a capacitor bank, and a spark plug, and got a pretty good launch.

  60. Ville Says:

    This is just mu opinion and i could be wrong, but i would say it’s not the voltage, it’s how you use it :-) the higher your speed gets the more essential it becomes that the coil is turned on and, especially, OFF. This sadly excludes the ever-popular SCR as a swiching device, since it tends to stay on until the capacitor is depleted.

    This is, in my opinion, the factor that limits the speed of most coilguns i see on the net.
    Now bear with me, my mother tongue is Finnish, so the following can get interesting to read :-D

    What happens when a capacitor is connected to a coil during firing is this:
    1) voltage over the coil goes to full instantly, but the current follows with a slight delay

    2) when the current starts to flow, it will start pulling down the voltage partly because of inner resistance in the parts, partly because the capacitor starts to discharge

    3) when the projectile enters the coil, it must be magnetically saturated (as i have understood it, it simply starts conducting the magnetic field of the coil), and this takes a little time (yes, very little, but the bigger the projectile, the longer the saturation time) and during that time the current is slightly “choked” since the inductance suddenly changes

    4a) this is hopefully the last nail in the SCR’s coffin, when the voltage drops low, (don’t ask, i don’t know numbers) the current trails off, and when the current trails off the capacitor discharges more slowly. This results in one out of 2 things; either there will be a magnetic field long after the projectile has passed the point where the magnetic field should turn off, or you get a coil with insanely low inductance to counter this and end up with a ridiculous efficiency. (i have 20% now, and hope to get even better.. you dont get that with SCR’s)

    4b) the coil current is cut off leaving some 25-50% of capacitor VOLTAGE left, and leaves the projectile slightly magnetized. This is the reason NOT to short out the leftover magnetic field of the coil e.g. with a diode that “reversely short-circuits” the coil and thus takes away the lashback you get when disconnecting a coil from a power supply. I’m not sure about this now, but i would put a diode-zehnerdiode connection there in stead, so it would only take away the peak of the spike to protect the swich.

  61. Ville Says:

    interesting, it cut off what i said!

    well, Ben, the air thread system sounds like it could work …were you thinking drill bits by any chance?

    as to the blowing up water with electricity, sounds like a buttload of suicidal fun :-P

  62. Ville Says:

    oh yeah, you probably shouldn’t use electrically conducting barrel material for hi-speed shooting, the projectile is temporarily a magnet during firing and the eddy retardation would be quite significant.. as to stainless steel i have no idea, it behaves a bit oddly.

  63. Ben Says:

    no i dont mean drill bits, it would be like the opposite of a drill bit, instead of having the grooves on the outside it would be enclosed. I actually stole that from the plans of other things i want to do, if you control the air when its “condensed” because of the inner grooves, you can easily use it to force it to spin.. i think, i have yet to take a more advanced physics course, but using a kind of rough knowledge i believe that it should work.. idk im probly wrong

  64. Ville Says:

    sounds like it could work :-)

    i planned to use drill bits that would be shot backwards.. but then i came to the conclusion that nails are cheaper. And the grooves might be too …steep.

  65. Tony Says:

    Is there a way to modify the barrel to be rifled or the projectile to be spread?

  66. Ville Says:

    Did i speak before knowing again? I just remembered someone saying you can turn off some SCR’s by grounding the signal pin, is this true? In that case, sorry for putting down the SCR! :-O
    as to Tony, it probably would, but then your projectile should obviously fit into the grooves without any deformation, otherwise it wouldn’t really go anywhere.. and that kind of projectile can be hard to find? I would say, try to make it spin some other way, but then again, that’s just me.

  67. James Says:

    sweet coil gun. im trying to build one just like that at the moment. however i am having problems with the capacitator discharging enough power. im using a disposable camera as my craging circut. any suggestions?

  68. CP1 Says:

    Hi guys, Im new to all this stuff but have been reading alot. I was just thinking today about making one of these in a rifle form, started poking around tonight and saw this. Where can I find out more info on this and also I saw that some of you were talking about a rifled barrel…. Could not the same effect be generated by a rotating magnetic field, (moving coil)? Just asking and sorry if this sounds stupid but like I said Im brand new to this.

  69. Alan Parekh Says:

    Hi CP1 (68),

    Have a look at this article (and click on the links), you should get a good head start from that.
    http://hackedgadgets.com/2007/01/27/top-5-coil-guns/

  70. Ville Says:

    Hi James,
    how do you mean not discharging enough power? what voltage do you charge the capacitor to, and what’s the voltage after firing? Or is the capacitor not big enough?

    Maby it could help to put a small power resistor (10-100 ohms??) between the charger and one of the capacitor legs? i had an electrical fly swat cirquit to charge a small flash capacitor, and it just didn’t want to get going until it (VERY slowly) reached 250V, after that it charged up to 400 real fast…

    have you tried making a boost converter (see wikipedia)? i got the same cap charged to 200V faster than the digital voltmeter could react… with more coilwire around the toroid it could go higher, i think (don’t know, just a thought!!)..

    that probably didnt help at all, as usual :-)

  71. Ben Says:

    hey guys jus wonderin can you reduce magnetic suck back by putting resistor next to capacitor, and having the suck back point put under water and have the rest of the coil in the water to release the charge?

  72. Coilgun - Featured on Hacked Gadgets · Orbit Blog Says:

    […] Coilgun – Featured on Hacked Gadgetsabbtech39 sec – Jun 15, 2006Featured on Hacked Gadgets http://hackedgadgets.com http://hackedgadgets.com/2006/06/15/diy-coil-hand-gun/ digg_url=’http://www.orbitforum.com/2007/05/02/coilgun-featured-on-hacked-gadgets/'; digg_skin = ‘button'; digg_bgcolor = ‘#FFFFFF'; digg_title = ‘Coilgun – Featured on Hacked Gadgets'; digg_bodytext = ”; digg_topic = ”; Powered by Gregarious (41) Share This If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! […]

  73. Concrete Says:

    Hey guys, if I may butt in.
    I’ll be the first one to tell you that I’m completely ignorant about the electronics/gadget part of a coil gun, but here’s some thoughts that might be useful.

    A gun has several methods of damping the recoil, let’s look at them:
    Muzzle Compensators: Since there’s no expanding gases here, might as well drop this.
    Weight: I’m sure you know the old formula m*v=M*V. Try to find a good balance between the weight of your coil gun and the weight of your projectile.
    Counter-action: In semi-auto and auto guns you find either a slide or a lock mechanism. In mass-lock guns the part that does the reloading (slide/lock) is also the part that absorbs a significant amount of the recoil against its own mass and a reloading spring.

    Is it possible to mount the coil system on some kind of a rail inside the gun, to make it mobile?
    Whenever the projectile is fired, the counter-action would propel the higher mass coil/barrel system (“lock”) in the opposite direction within the gun at a lower speed, thus reducing the recoil.
    A spring mounted inside the butt-end of the gun case would then return the moving part to its initial position.
    That would cut down on the initial velocity of the projectile, but it would drastically reduce recoil, so you could start with higher velocities to the projectile.
    Of course we’re talking at least submachine gun-size railgun here, possibly the mechanism could not be built into a pistol size gun. Well, maybe, one never knows.

    I hope I made sense. :D
    Oh, and great work!

  74. Ben Says:

    umm that’s already been done in very powerful sniper rifles like the 50 cal M82 and the sniper the marines use, it may be the M24. its called a free floating barrel and it looks like it isnt really touching the rest of the gun. the 50 cal has actually been improved to almost no recoil. its fucking amazing

  75. Concrete Says:

    I know the technology exists, Ben. What I was trying to say is they could maybe implement it into coil guns.
    ———————————————
    Actually you confuse a couple of things here (no offense meant).
    The “free floating barrel” means that the barrel is only attached to the weapon at the receiver, here’s some stuff from Wiki, which describes it accurately:

    1.
    “A free-floating barrel is one in which the barrel and stock are designed to not touch at any point along the barrel’s length. The barrel is attached to its receiver, which is attached to the stock, but the barrel “floats freely” without any contact with other gun parts, other than the rifle’s sights. This minimizes the possible mechanical pressure distortions of the barrel alignment.”

    2.
    The “recoil-thing” that I was referring to is called a long-recoil system in firearms, and it’s not a new concept, and they don’t only use it in sniper rifles (esp. not in the M-24 since it’s bolt-action, not a semi-auto), but it was first introduced by Sir Hiram Maxim in his gas operated machine gun in the end of the 1800’s.

    In a short, crude explanation, in “long recoil” bolt and barrel recoil together until they reach the end of travel at the back of the receiver. Their mass is relatively large, so these guns have longer cycle times, thus slower, smoother operation.

    This gave me the idea of the coil mechanism recoiling against a spring inside a coil gun thus reducing kickback.

    Sorry for the OFF stuff people, but eventually it had a sentence at the end that was ON. :D

  76. Ben Says:

    sry i guess i was unclear in what i said.

  77. Alex Says:

    Just in browsing the comments, I’d like to make a few points:
    A) “Kickback” : Recoil is probably a better term (especially when referencing Wikipedia results in being labeled a moron *Reply #17*)
    Bear in mind that felt recoil in conventional weapons is a result of movement of the action and decompression of gases at the end of the barrel (“Muzzle” or “Crown”, s.v.p.). Since this weapon has (by my observation) no movement in the action, and does not rely on gaseous expansion as a propellant, the recoil would be essentially minimal. If one attempted to build an effective-at-range weapon capable of firing a more massive projectile, yes, recoil might become an option. And this could, as with conventional weapons, be minimized (vis a vis gas operated recoil compensation, mercury compensation, or even simple spring cushioning).
    B) Reply # 17, is there a problem with Wikipedia? An intelligent person would not rely on it solely, but it has been my experience as a research professional that it is perfectly fine for obtaining elementary understandings of subjects without extensive labour. Furthermore, calling someone a moron on the internet is a bit like kicking a puppy: if it makes you feel better, good for you, but none of the rest of us care.
    C) I agree wholeheartedly with 49: damn cool.
    Incidentally, I wouldn’t suggest the air-rifling methods…rifling is best with a standard barrel so one can control the number of revolutions, and frequency of rotation. For accuracy, it’s important.

  78. Ville Says:

    Well, might as well give a couple of cents to the recoil conversation :-)

    as far as i know recoil is when an equal force is applied to the bullet in one direction and to the gun in the opposite one? It really doesn’t matter if it’s accelerated magnetically, with exhaust fumes of gunpowder, or by a little green man that throws it, the recoil itself is still, more or less, the same.

    Then again i sometimes wonder about this whole recoil obsession, the gun as made with todays methods either weighs 10 kg minimum or has insane power losses, if you wish to have a decent muzzle energy. Its own weight is already enough to absorb a lot of the recoil..

    As to the rifling, i have a motor with a flywheel with a thick O-ring around it to get the thing turning. Well, it hasn’t been tested with the coils yet but so far seems to work. Problem is of course to rifle a barrel that is made of a softer material than the bullet itself..

    ..and Alex, you’re absolutely right about the puppy-kicking, that’s kinda sad.

  79. Ben Says:

    umm 1st recoil is always apparent. I forget the exact mathematical equation tho. also rifling in a regular weapon works by heating up the round to take the rifling. Seeing as nothing would heat the round the rifling would do minimal amounts of spiraling whereas inner round rifling would let air pressure through instead of building up on the nose of the round as well as create a faster spin rate and therefor a further shooting more accurate round.

  80. websuspect Says:

    You need like 3 small rubber wheels in the back in a traingle configuration so spin the pin at about 5000 RPMs. This will you you georoscopic geo stabilization at long range. If you cut a very small say 1/32 groove in the back that should hold it in place while its spinning and with the small wheels use foam rubber or rubber wheels.

  81. Kyle Says:

    What’s all this obsession with recoil? A 9mm round 20mm long will only weigh about 10 grams when made of steel. Even at 600ft/sec (well out of the range of current coilguns), the recoil would only be similar to a 22 rifle. If you’ve ever fired a 22, you know how insignificant this recoil is.
    The recoil in this case recoil would be the same as that of a 2.5 gram lead round at 1200ft/sec. The speed of standard high speed 22 rounds is 1250ft/sec and each round has a mass of just under 2 grams.

  82. Newb Says:

    Hey guys. I am rather new to all this, and i am only just learning about the physics behind this tech, so my question is, how is the recoil created seeing as there are no expanding gasses, no moving parts (apart from projectile) and nothing collidong with anything else. seeing as the projectile is just accelerated by magnetic attraction wouldn’t there be no recoil? like i said, im just learning this stuff, so im almost definately wrong. anyone who could help me understand would be much appreciated. thanks

  83. Greg Says:

    Recoil is created because of Newton’s 3rd law of motion. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. A firearm doesn’t recoil because of expanding gases, it recoils because a small amount of weight is accelerated extremely fast out the end of the barrel.

  84. Newb Says:

    Thanks Greg

  85. Malincar Says:

    It seems to me that any rifling would cause problems with residual electromagnetic currents, in that distortion of the barrel would cause unequal dampening of the electromagnetic current keeping the bullet in the centre of the barrel (unless the barrel were made fairly thin and with a material that didn’t significantly dampen the output from the coils). Ideally the barrel would be made from some nonconductive ceramic material, but it seems like that sort of thing would act as a magnetic insulator, so I don’t know.
    Correct me if I’m wrong here, but that’s how I understand it.

  86. jart Says:

    FIRE!
    FIRE!
    FIRE!
    That rocks.
    Being utterly clueless I can’t but think well out of the box.
    can u accelerate liquid?

  87. Coilgun - Featured on Hacked Gadgets | FindVideoToday.com - Free search and download videos Says:

    […] WWE Smackdown Vs. Raw 2008: Hacked Sandman Entrance (PS2) (February 4th, 2008) […]

  88. Starter Says:

    Thats a great piece of work. Pretty impressive rate of fire and power. Gotta make me one of those (better than my current one anyways >.<) In response to jart, I don’t think its possible to fire liquid considering that the poles (if any) wouldn’t line up like in a solid. And also in response to others comments on railguns, they are not silent at all, unlike coilguns which are completely silent unless of course the trigger is a spark gap. The only advantage a railgun offers is the ability to accerlerate projectiles to simply amazing speeds without having to worry about saturization of the projectile (and that you don’t have to use a ferrous material for ammo).

  89. Mguelle Says:

    If you took the two seconds it takes to think about the magnetic coil pulling the bullet to the high rate of speed (its not pushing it) you’d understand that if there were to be recoil it’d be straight backward rather than a kick like a gunpowder gun.

  90. Build you own CoilGun | Hack N Mod - Amazingly Cool Hacks, Mods, and Projects Says:

    […] to Build your own, view the Top 5 CoilGuns. google_ad_client = “pub-0459061829475753″; /* HacknMod New – 468×60 */ […]

  91. josh Says:

    What would happen if you connected the wires directly to a battery? Would there be a loss in performance, and if so how much of a loss?

  92. chas Says:

    what i do know is that, yes – newtons laws apply, however – what people aren’t realizing about the recoil issue is this: in a regular gun, the force propelling the projectile is being pushed nearly instantly (ok, “explosively”). using multiple coils, the same amount of force (actually, much more) can be spread out over a longer amount of time, thus making recoil feel virtually irrelevant.

    now here’s what i’m wondering… why hasn’t anyone used this multi-coil method, using existing technology (3 phase brushless motor controllers come to mind) to…. instead of accelerating an iron, steel, or other ferrous metal, accelerate a rod shaped rare earth magnet (the likes of which are in every harddrive out there). 3 phase brushless controllers already incorporate the sensing necessary to detect the magnet approaching the coil, and when to switch the field polarity to gain maximum effect from pulling the magnetic slug, to pushing the magnetic slug (then next coil switches on to pull, then push, then next coil pulls, then pushes). i know that rare earth magnets would be considerably more expensive to use, but – the fact that you could use each coil with FAR more efficiency, since you’d not only get more power due to the strong magnetic field of the rare earth magnet, but you’re able to double each coils duty cycle since it’s both pulling AND pushing (thus using its full potential). it was just a thought…. there are rare earth magnet suppliers on the web…. just a thought guys.

  93. chas Says:

    http://www.rare-earth-magnets.com/SearchResult-CategoryID-34.html

    there’s some rare earth magnets that would be ideal (or at very least a good starting point).

  94. Ville Says:

    Hi!

    Sorry to rain on your parade but the recoils of each coil still come so fast that to your hand it feels like a single recoil… and it’s only dampened a little bit because the mass of a coil gun is always a lot more than that of a normal gun… (anyone with a handheld one will say the same or have a VERY slow shooting gun :-))

    But the rare earth magnets are actually a very good idea, even if you don’t use the push-pull method. The thing with iron projectiles is that you can only excert a certain force on it with a magnetic field. That force is reached when the projectile is magnetically saturated. I could be wrong but i think the max magnetic field that iron can conduct is around 1 Tesla… what i’m trying to say is that it doesn’t matter if you have a 1 T field or a 10 T field, on iron the pulling force is more or less the same.

    (Take this as you wish, it is what i believe to be the truth)

    However magnets are a different story altogether. The greater the field the more the force. Of course there are limits i assume, but i don’t think any of us could conjure up the circumstances to find those limits :-)

    Also, if you use only the repulsion effect to propel the projectiles, you could use the SCR:s without having to worry about discharging the caps before the projectile gets past the middle of the coil..

    so go ahead! If you try please let us know how it went! I am also personally interested because i found a really cheap magnet shop in China :-)

  95. JUAN CORTES Says:

    nesesito saber a que personas le gusta la electronica para intentar aser barias cosas electronicas como robots pistolas experimentos etc… como casado de mitos mi correo es mialdj@hotmail.com mi nombre es JUAN CORTES

  96. Ville Says:

    joo no kai määkin rupeen sitten kirjottaan kaiken Suomeks, mitä tässä turhaan Englantia puhuun kun ei kai sitä kukaan kumminkaan ymmärrä. Puhutaan ny perkele kaikki mitä kieltä sattuu :-)

    (being sarcastic here…)

  97. nabeelib007 Says:

    cool thing i am working on similar project can u sen me the circuits

  98. nabeelib007 Says:

    cool thing i am working on similar project can u send me the circuits
    mail the circuits to nabeelib007@gmail.com

  99. zan Says:

    u people who doubt the coil gun forget that if we were to use a higgs field to reduce the mass of the projectile while it was in the chamber to essentially zero we could accelerate it to extremely high speeds and in F=MA if M is 0 obviously F is zero so the recoil will be zero. But upon leaving the chamber with the manipulated higgs field it would regain mass and have a very high impact force, this is how we can overcome the recoil problem

  100. Ville Says:

    I checked out that Higgs field thing… well, went far over my head :-P but if you’re right i guess it could also be used to make a perpetum mobile and all sorts’a crazy shit.

    Anyway i still dont get this whole recoil problem, when you fire a hunting rifle with around 2 kJ kinetic energy at the muzzle, it’s not the recoil that kills you it’s the damn sound :-D so, when someone presents a coilgun firing at over 2 kJ kinetic, i lift my hat and join the discussion.

  101. aaron Says:

    wow, way to take 3 cuts of shooting the pistol and jam them together so it looks like u actually can shoot fast

  102. Wayne Says:

    Just my two cents on the recoil subject. I’m an engineering student so I have taken a few physics type classes.

    F = Ma – Force(recoil you will feel) = Mass*Acceleration.

    a = dv/dt – acceleration equals the derivative of velocity.

    F= M(dv/dt) – Substitute.

    F(dt) = m(dv) – rearrange and integrate.

    I’m assuming that you will know the mass of the projectile and speed you want to obtain. So for this I’m going to pick a mass of 10g and a speed of 100m/s. From the video shown it takes no time at all for the projectile to be brought up to speed so lets assume that the time is 0.1s.

    So the limits of integration for dt are 0 to 0.1(s) and for dv 0 to 100(m/s)

    After integration you get
    F(0.1(s) – 0) = 0.01Kg(100(m/s) – 0)
    F(0.1s) = 1Kg*m/s^2
    F = 10Kg*m/s^2 or 10N – Its not alot and its been a long time since I have done this type of math so I might be wrong, and if I am please correct me. If you know the mass of the projectile and time it takes to accelerate the projectile you can find the recoil.

    Hope that helps – Now I gotta start building one of these.

  103. dylan Says:

    how did you make the first one?

  104. Markku Says:

    How meny volts/amps that coil is using on that video and i mean
    just that coil not the gun !?

Leave a Reply

Internal Links:

Categories:

Search:

Google
Hacked Gadgets
Web

Site Sponsors:

Nuts and Volts Electronic Labs Trossen Robotics Free Technical Publications Blue LED

 

Recent Comments:

Site Rating:

More RSS Feed Options

Site Sponsors:

 

Interesting Sites:

Site Videos:

Incoming Links: