Giannis

I just decided to begin doing some DIY projects. I'm mesmerised by the things people have built as DIY projects, and as a future engineer, might as well begin early. However, I find out that not only do I not have the necessary tools and materials to start out, I also have no idea what exactly I need, or where to find it (I live in Greece, so please don't use American workshop suppliers- just the general kind of store I can find them at), or how I can acquire them at an affordable price (as a 17 year old, I am obviously in a shoestring budget)

I do realise that each project needs different tools, but there have to be some must-have components that are used in most projects, or generally come in handy in some way. So, what do I need to make a respectable amateur workshop?

I mean, I know that bullets in free fall can and have killed people. I also know that air guns can and have killed people. However, the question is: can BB pellets in ree fall also kill or injure people in any way? My money is in that it can t, but I m planning to fire in the air in a carnival, and I want to be sure.

Around 4 years ago, I expressed the desire to learn how to play an acoustic guitar. My parents then gave me the guitar of my deceased uncle, a nice piece around 30 years old. It was not preserved the best way, though, and being left unattended as wall decoration all this time, it now sounded like crap -even after changing the strings. I then stopped playing for various reasons, but now I really want to use it again. I'll have to change the strings again, fo course, but is there any way I can salvage the rest of that thing? It is made completely out of wood.

From what I have sen in tango, the leader is not only the one who decides the actions done, but also the one who drives the follower through them. The follower mostly seems to try to mirror the leader's legs, with a few unique moves. Because of that, I feel like the experience of them is an inverse ratio of sorts: the better the leader is, the less experienced the follower has to be.

Which lead me think of this extreme example: in the occasion an experienced tango dancer wants to have a dance with someone who has almost never danced tango ever, but is good at learning quickly, could the leader learn the follower some basic steps on the heat of the dance? Of course, the leader will have to give orders at the follower continuously during the song, and the follower would have to execute them perfectly for the dance to be harmonic. However, if those requirements are loosely met, is it possible for the follower to learn basic tango while dancing for the first time?

I was searching for the possibility of a plasma barrier in real life. From what I found, such a barrier would absorb and distribute energy weapons such as lasers, but would attract metallic objects because of its ionised particles.

However, making some quick Google research in ferromagnetic physics, this doesn't seem like the case to me. On contact with the plasma, a metallic object's nuclei would capture some ions, making the object charged at the same frequency at the plasma. As a result, the metallic object would be then repelled with great force away from it because of polar similarity. And even if it isn't enough, let's take into account the electromagnetic fields, in front and behind of the plasma, that would be needed to safely contain it into a giant bubble. How will they do that? By each repelling it towards the other, centering it -which means that they have to be at the same charge type the plasma is, strengthening its total charge amount even more. And even with the electromagnetic fields, some charged particles may escape, giving off their own electromagnetic radiation that would slow down the object before actually coming into contact with the shield.

In my rough estimations, a 14-centimeter wide plasma barrier with around an inch of electromagnetic barriers at each side should be able to knock back a 500-kilogram purely ferromagnetic projectile at speeds of Mach 2.8.

Am I right?

In many games (mostly Battlefield), I have seen C4 being used against armor, with almost ridiculous efficiency; approach tank, throw C4, kaboom.

However, judging from the yield of the plactic explosives, it does sem like a viable technique. So, are tactics like stealthily approaching a tank and then deploying C4 on it used during batle? (while the tank is moving)

I have seen both being used in similar contexts. However, when the term "ballistic rocket" is used instead of "ballistic missile", the latter has nada chances of being used at the same page.

From my personal knowledge, rockets are projectiles with a propulsion system without guidance systems, while missiles have both. However, I don't find it logical to use an unguided projectile for a ballistic approach - it would be too inaccurate for its expense, even for short ranges.

Therefore, is there an actual difference between the two terms.

When I first heard about the railgun being planned to use kinetic shells, I though it would do so mostly for explosives use reduction. However, as I did some more research (found out that the current muzzle velocity is Mach 7) and saw a railgun firing video, I found out this: at launch, extreme temperatures are generated, along with a series of intense shock waves that start before the projectile is even completely ejected from the barrel. Judging from the fact that those are the exact -and only- conditions under which C4 plastic explosives detonate, I quessed that an insensitive explosives shell would immediately detonate on launch, possibly even damaging the railgun itself. (By know, I can be sure that normal explosives would detonate by the moment the trigger was pulled)

Am I right on that, or is there a type of explosive that could withstand such forces and still be able to detonate on contact?

I want this information for a game idea I'm having.

Some of the proposed should be guided with GPS, laser designation and fundamental semi-active radar systems (all in the same shell) Some would be armed with nuclear warheads, most likely of the thermonuclear kind.

1)Approximately how much would each shell weight

a)loaded with conventional explosives

b)loaded with a thermobaric design

c)loaded with a pure fission warhead

d)loaded with a fission-fusion-fission warhead

e)loaded with a thermonuclear warhead

f)made of pure tungsten core

g)loaded with a depleted uranium armor-piercing

and

i)with the guidance systems?

ii)without them?

2)How much would be the approximate maximum TNT yield for a shell with any of the aforementioned weapons?

(imagine that numbers f and g are launched at speeds of Mach 6.5. The rest are fired in a speed of Mach 2.3)

I know this is a biggie, so I thank you all in advance.

I have an idea for a modern kind of battleship, that I would like to show you. It is different in enough ways to be considered a type of vessel of its own, but its resemblance to a battleship is enough to consider it as such.

The Excalibur-class is a battleship of gigantic proportions, with a length of approximately 200 meters. Its armor would consist of around 15 centimeters of aluminum and 3 centimeters of steel. Its power needs can be achieved by an A2W nuclear reactor, while two more emergency reactors can be activated to provide the railguns with their insane power needs when firing, or for high speeds.

The main arms of the battleship would be 2 14-inch guns, with a railgun mounted on top of each. The whole weapons system rotates as a whole, but each weapon can angle individually up to 50 degrees, allowing for maximum range. Most shells will be guided to maximize effectiveness. Also, some boosted fission -or even thermonuclear- guided shells could be developed for that gun size as tactical nuclear weapons.

Also, another main piece of weaponry of the Excalibur-class is a double missile launcher located at the middle of the ship. A wide variety of cruise missiles -or possibly some small SRBMs- can be launched from them. The launchers can be toggled to launch their payload with free ejection of the missile, soft launch, or even hard launch, depending on the situation. The soft launch also allows the battleship to launch small SUAVs for surveillance.

If -if- battleships had to be re-activated for whatever reason, or new battleships were designed with similar designs to the old ones, would they retain their old glory and efficiency over more modern vessels, or it would just be easily counteracted?

I want to know how much ammo an AC-130J can carry when loaded with:

1)Solely the Gau-12 Equaliser

2)Solely the 40mm Bofors cannon.

3)Solely the 105mm Howitzer cannon.

4)Solely the AIM-92 Stingers.

5) A balanced combination of all.

Also, I would appreciate if you could provide me with the maximum ammo weight it can carry, and the weight of one round of each weapon. This will make it easier for me to make combinations.

Maybe I wasn't very clear at what I mean, so I'll explain it better: I tried to use a pair of headphones with my ZTE, and it seems it wasn't supposed to work with it. The sound was like the main layer of the song got removed, and now I was hearing the sounds which were adding to the main song: in some parts it was like the instrumental version of the song, in other parts the main voice was absent, and an echoed-like version of it, and it other parts some instruments were missing. However, I did like it in some parts. Anyone knows what exactly happened, and how I can make it happen on purpose, edit it and place it in the song?