Originally by: Ioci

---

Welcome to the bustedness of EVE.

1 guy can disband a 2000 man alliance and wipe out trillions, that's cool.
Give back a noob 10 mill? No, that's game breaking.

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

just don't reply guys

---

Originally by: Ioci

---

Welcome to the bustedness of EVE.

1 guy can disband a 2000 man alliance and wipe out trillions, that's cool.
Give back a noob 10 mill? No, that's game breaking.

---

Originally by: Slajov Zizek

---

Maybe the energy required to focus a beam across kilometers can kick it back? Ion propulsion works this way.

---

Originally by: Ioci

---

Welcome to the bustedness of EVE.

1 guy can disband a 2000 man alliance and wipe out trillions, that's cool.
Give back a noob 10 mill? No, that's game breaking.

---

Originally by: CCP Zymurgist

---

Downtime is now extended to 19:00 for patch file verification. This is a very important step that must be done to make sure clients are being corrupted.

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

Actually, if you think about it any magnetic delivery system *I.E. Railguns* wouldn't have recoil either. There are no moving parts save for the ammunition.

nb4flame: I've actually been working on several railgun designs in the past couple of months.

---

Originally by: Ioci

---

Welcome to the bustedness of EVE.

1 guy can disband a 2000 man alliance and wipe out trillions, that's cool.
Give back a noob 10 mill? No, that's game breaking.

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

Actually, if you think about it any magnetic delivery system *I.E. Railguns* wouldn't have recoil either. There are no moving parts save for the ammunition.

nb4flame: I've actually been working on several railgun designs in the past couple of months.

---

Originally by: Ghoest

---

Im fairly certain railguns would have recoil. They impart directed kinetic energy you would get an opposite direction force.

---

Originally by: Christopher AET

---

Or possibly that on the fanfest video the only turrets ready to be shown were projectile turrets and blasters. Just because they were strapped to an amarr ship does not mean they were lasers.

---

Originally by: Ioci

---

Welcome to the bustedness of EVE.

1 guy can disband a 2000 man alliance and wipe out trillions, that's cool.
Give back a noob 10 mill? No, that's game breaking.

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

Actually, if you think about it any magnetic delivery system *I.E. Railguns* wouldn't have recoil either. There are no moving parts save for the ammunition.

nb4flame: I've actually been working on several railgun designs in the past couple of months.

---

Originally by: Astroka

---

EDIT: Maybe it could be a way to vent excess heat?

---

Originally by: Culmen

---

Possible, but we don't see any gas being vented.

If anything lasers should be recoiling backwards as a means of heat dissipation.
IE the barrel should EXTEND while firing.

Suppose we put gas in the barrel. Expansion causes vaporization, immediately cooling the contents of the barrel, while the longer barrel aids in radiative cooling of the entire system.

---

Originally by: Astroka

---

Originally by: Christopher AET

---

Or possibly that on the fanfest video the only turrets ready to be shown were projectile turrets and blasters. Just because they were strapped to an amarr ship does not mean they were lasers.

---

Lasers with recoil.

---

Originally by: Mister Smithington

---

Edit: Obviously the sac, and not the maller, since the maller is ****. I wonder why they chose to remodel a hull that nobody flies. Unless they intend to revamp it stat-wise as well?

---

Originally by: Calathea Sata

---

Edited by: Calathea Sata on 26/05/2011 21:38:28

Originally by: Ghoest

---

Im fairly certain railguns would have recoil. They impart directed kinetic energy you would get an opposite direction force.

---

Hahahahahahaha.

---

Originally by: Ghoest

---

Originally by: Calathea Sata

---

Edited by: Calathea Sata on 26/05/2011 21:38:28

Originally by: Ghoest

---

Im fairly certain railguns would have recoil. They impart directed kinetic energy you would get an opposite direction force.

---

Hahahahahahaha.

---

Were you laughing at yourself or at me or the OP(whom you had agreed with)?

---

Originally by: Astroka

---

Originally by: Christopher AET

---

Or possibly that on the fanfest video the only turrets ready to be shown were projectile turrets and blasters. Just because they were strapped to an amarr ship does not mean they were lasers.

---

Lasers with recoil.

---

Originally by: CCP Veritas

---

In other words, I believe Dogma is doing stupid things, and I intend to beat the stupid out of it before considering giving it rocket boots.

---

Originally by: lore made up on the spot

---

laser based weapons do not have recoil per say, when firing 2 sets of focusing crystals are moved into position for optimal focus for the target at the range.

Between firing cycles the two crystals are moved away for each other to increase the surface area and bleed away the excessive heat produce when firing laser based weapons.

---

Originally by: Calathea Sata

---

I agree with OP, laser turrets shouldn't have any recoil simply because they shouldn't. I guess common sense isn't a requirement when CCP hires people.

---

Originally by: Calathea Sata

---

I agree with OP, laser turrets shouldn't have any recoil simply because they shouldn't. I guess common sense isn't a requirement when CCP hires people.

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

Actually, if you think about it any magnetic delivery system *I.E. Railguns* wouldn't have recoil either. There are no moving parts save for the ammunition.

nb4flame: I've actually been working on several railgun designs in the past couple of months.

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

Let me just repeat that: lasers do have recoil.

The only fancy explanation required is why it would be so large as to be noticeable and why the turrets would have to soak it up, but that's largely a function of how much energy you're pouring out of them.

---

Originally by: Jada Maroo

---

Edited by: Jada Maroo on 27/05/2011 05:50:31

First, looks fantastic.

Second, I don't even think the barrels are recoiling. I think what you're seeing is an optical illusion created by the expansion of a light flare.

---

Originally by: Mister Smithington

---

When the Amarrian engineers were designing the laser systems for their ships, they realized they would look so much cooler with a "recoil" effect. So they built them with a mechanism that pulls the barrel back to make it look like it's recoiling. Because, I mean, God damn! Look at it. It's awesome.

---

Quote:

---

Photons has mass

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

Actually, if you think about it any magnetic delivery system *I.E. Railguns* wouldn't have recoil either. There are no moving parts save for the ammunition.

---

Originally by: cordy

---

Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.

---

Originally by: Yumar Almasy

---

Are you people blind?!

There is absolutely no recoil in that video. It looks like the laser is overheating/flaring for some reason, and simply lighting up the lower half. It might give the illusion of recoil, but it definitely is not.

Put the resolution to 1080, and put your face right up to it if you still aren't sure.

---

Originally by: Yumar Almasy

---

Are you people blind?!

There is absolutely no recoil in that video. It looks like the laser is overheating/flaring for some reason, and simply lighting up the lower half. It might give the illusion of recoil, but it definitely is not.

Put the resolution to 1080, and put your face right up to it if you still aren't sure.

---

Quote:

---

The other question this begs is why can I see the laser beam?

---

Originally by: CCP Spitfire

---

Good question, actually. I'll check with the storyline team and get back to you; meanwhile a quick search (but please do not take it as an "official" answer) suggests that sci-fi laser weapons may indeed have recoil according to the conventional laws of physics.

---

Originally by: Tish Magev

---

Quote:

---

Photons has mass

---

Wrong, photons have zero mass if they had mass they wouldn't travel at the speed of light.

It can have relativistic mass as it has energy but a massless object can't, or at least shouldn't, cause recoil.

Stop treating photons like particles, they aren't true particles they are quantums.

---

Originally by: Calathea Sata

---

I agree with OP, laser turrets shouldn't have any recoil simply because they shouldn't. I guess common sense isn't a requirement when CCP hires people.

---

Originally by: Paukinra

---

Sorry, I didnt write that clearly.

They have no rest mass, when accelerated they do have mass.

ANd anyway there is no proof they dont have mass (although I do agree it is unlikly they do)

---

Originally by: CCP Spitfire

---

Good question, actually. I'll check with the storyline team and get back to you; meanwhile a quick search (but please do not take it as an "official" answer) suggests that sci-fi laser weapons may indeed have recoil according to the conventional laws of physics.

---

Originally by: Calathea Sata

---

Accord to that article: Pulsing lasers which fire for very short amount of time (30 nanoseconds) might have a kick similar to a .22.

But the beam lasers in EVE are no where as "pulsey" as that... it's a slowwwwww stream of energy (the laser beams last at least HALF A SECOND) so they shouldn't have any recoil.

TLDR: Beam lasers shouldn't have recoil. Pulse lasers might have.

---

Originally by: Culerrta McNab

---

Originally by: Calathea Sata

---

Accord to that article: Pulsing lasers which fire for very short amount of time (30 nanoseconds) might have a kick similar to a .22.

But the beam lasers in EVE are no where as "pulsey" as that... it's a slowwwwww stream of energy (the laser beams last at least HALF A SECOND) so they shouldn't have any recoil.

TLDR: Beam lasers shouldn't have recoil. Pulse lasers might have.

---

You're going on the assumption that the lasers in EVE have the stopping power of a .22, which is clearly not the case. Otherwise fleet fights would take aaaaaaaaaaages.

---

Originally by: Astroka

---

The new turret models and animations look absolutely incredible. I'm excited to see these in-game and just watch them shoot forever. 'Cause they're that cool.

However, I am a little put off by the fact that the new laser turrets show recoil when they fire. It's obviously not game-breaking and I'll live, but it is honestly a little off-putting. I suppose it would be a lot less visually appealing for them not to show recoil when all the other ones do, but I looked at it and immediately thought, wtf? It's not a big deal, but in this case I prefer realism over aesthetics. It just looks weird.

Let the trolling commence. And if there is already a thread on this, my apologies. I didn't find it.

---

Originally by: Calathea Sata

---

Edited by: Calathea Sata on 27/05/2011 11:27:02

Originally by: Culerrta McNab

---

Originally by: Calathea Sata

---

Accord to that article: Pulsing lasers which fire for very short amount of time (30 nanoseconds) might have a kick similar to a .22.

But the beam lasers in EVE are no where as "pulsey" as that... it's a slowwwwww stream of energy (the laser beams last at least HALF A SECOND) so they shouldn't have any recoil.

TLDR: Beam lasers shouldn't have recoil. Pulse lasers might have.

---

You're going on the assumption that the lasers in EVE have the stopping power of a .22, which is clearly not the case. Otherwise fleet fights would take aaaaaaaaaaages.

---

My bad, shouldn't have mentioned the .22.

The calculations were done using the assumption "Laser power = Gun firing a bullet". It should scale up and down just fine.

edited to explain: a laser with the power of a gun will have a recoil like a gun. A laser with the power of a cannon will have the recoil of a cannon.

---

Originally by: Ghoest

---

While it is true that a rapidly pulseing laser could have recoil, it is false that a a laser with energy like given gun will in turn have recoil comparable to that gun.

---

Originally by: CCP Tuxford

---

bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function

---

Originally by: Stitcher

---

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. a Railgun accelerates a projectile by applying electromagnetic force to it. There MUST be an equal and opposite reaction force, you can't escape that. Therefore, Railguns experience recoil. Anybody who claims otherwise is an idiot.

if the gun experiences recoil, then it might have a mechanism for compensating for that recoil - say, compressed-gas shock absorbers, with the barrel and loading mechanism being free-floating and able to recoil into the gas, which translates kinetic energy into heat by compressing and heating up in accordance with Boyle's Law.

Just because the railguns YOU claim to have been involved in designing don't have moving parts to handle recoil does not mean that future railguns won't need or use them.

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

Originally by: CCP Spitfire

---

Good question, actually. I'll check with the storyline team and get back to you; meanwhile a quick search (but please do not take it as an "official" answer) suggests that sci-fi laser weapons may indeed have recoil according to the conventional laws of physics.

---

Minus that there a pulse time on a nanosecond scale is used, beam lasers have pulses of several seconds, so you can divide that by about a billion.

---

Originally by: Calathea Sata

---

Accord to that article: Pulsing lasers which fire for very short amount of time (30 nanoseconds) might have a kick similar to a .22.

But the beam lasers in EVE are no where as "pulsey" as that... it's a slowwwwww stream of energy (the laser beams last at least HALF A SECOND) so they shouldn't have any recoil.

TLDR: Beam lasers shouldn't have recoil. Pulse lasers might have.

---

Originally by: Skippermonkey

---

Who cares if internet space-submarines have rayguns that recoil, it looks good!

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

Of course it will. Just like a bullet (or, rather, the exploding propellant) pushes equally on the bullet itself and on the gun that encloses that explosion in all other directions, the magnetic field used to push the slug along the rails will also push the rails back in the opposite direction. The momentum the magnetic field impart on the slug must also be imparted on the rails.

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

So you're telling me that you believe a metal slug travelling along a magnetic rail track, not creating a backblow as standard cased ammo does, would cause recoil? The only way I can see it causing recoil is if it produced enough shock after leaving the barrel to push it back. Now of course, I'm thinking of current applications and not suspended plasma as it is in EVE. You're correct in that aspect at least, the suspended plasma charges -could- be producing recoil from gas ventilation.

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

So you're telling me that you believe a metal slug travelling along a magnetic rail track, not creating a backblow as standard cased ammo does, would cause recoil?

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

So you're telling me that you believe a metal slug travelling along a magnetic rail track, not creating a backblow as standard cased ammo does, would cause recoil?

---

Originally by: Calathea Sata

---

Originally by: Ghoest

---

While it is true that a rapidly pulseing laser could have recoil, it is false that a a laser with energy like given gun will in turn have recoil comparable to that gun.

---

Depends on the laser firing time. Hence the difference between beam lasers (a slow long-lasting stream of energy) and pulse lasers (a burst in a very small time).

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

So you're telling me that you believe a metal slug travelling along a magnetic rail track, not creating a backblow as standard cased ammo does, would cause recoil? The only way I can see it causing recoil is if it produced enough shock after leaving the barrel to push it back.

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

Recoil on a mounted turret (like on a ship) is only needed if the mechanical construction couldnt handle the forced without having space for recoil.

---

Originally by: Ana Vyr

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

So you're telling me that you believe a metal slug travelling along a magnetic rail track, not creating a backblow as standard cased ammo does, would cause recoil?

---

Newton says yes it would. In fact, the recoil would be equal and opposite to the force imparted to the projectile.

---

Originally by: Virtue Maulerant

---

The new turrets including what you like to call "recoil" are great. Who gives a **** about physics and realism.

---

Originally by: Astroka

---

I am a little put off by the fact that the new laser turrets show recoil when they fire.

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

Actually, if you think about it any magnetic delivery system *I.E. Railguns* wouldn't have recoil either. There are no moving parts save for the ammunition.

---

Originally by: NinjaSpud

---

You're correct, newton states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You're only mistake is the word "recoil"

Recoil from a gun is caused by the explosion of the powder, not the bullet traveling along the barrel. Guns still kick when there's a blank inside. When it detonates, the energy from the explosion needs an exit, it finds the path of least resistance and exits out the barrel, pushing the bullet along with it.

Again, with the equal and opposite reaction thing, you get a massive force leaving out the end of the barrel -----> and as a result, it pushes the bullet but also propels the gun in the opposite direction <-----

The amount of energy lost when you fire a bullet is staggering.

Railguns on the other hand, have no explosion, therefore have no recoil. I'm not saying they don't produce kinetic energy, but I am saying that the kinetic energy is conserved in the projectile until impact. The result is the projectile has way more kinetic energy, more because the energy is conserved, or focused in the projectile and does not release until impact.


True story here, my uncle was in the army in the late 80's. he had top secret clearance (computer nerd for spec ops) and one day, they went to a 'new weapons demo'. the army was testing one of its first rail guns.

They took an aluminum casing (non magnetic material) about 500MM. If I remember, that's the size of a football...American not European. In the very center of that casing, was a single steel BB (magnetic material), the same kind you shot birds with as a child.

The loaded this casing into a rail gun, and shot it at an old tank, 5 miles away. He said the gun didn't make a single noise or movement. the only noise they heard was the 500MM casing breaking the sound barrier.

when they inspected the tank, it had a perfect football sized hole clean threw it.

kewl **** eh?

---

Originally by: Ghoest

---

Your lack of perception or vision has no bearing on physics.

---

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue

---

Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 27/05/2011 15:17:45

Originally by: Virtue Maulerant

---

The new turrets including what you like to call "recoil" are great. Who gives a **** about physics and realism.

---

Nerds care and most of them propably care just because they like arguing about it.

Quote:

---

Railguns on the other hand, have no explosion, therefore have no recoil.

---

Also because people keep posting stupid **** like this.

---

Originally by: NinjaSpud

---

You're correct, newton states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You're only mistake is the word "recoil"

Recoil from a gun is caused by the explosion of the powder, not the bullet traveling along the barrel. Guns still kick when there's a blank inside. When it detonates, the energy from the explosion needs an exit, it finds the path of least resistance and exits out the barrel, pushing the bullet along with it.

Again, with the equal and opposite reaction thing, you get a massive force leaving out the end of the barrel -----> and as a result, it pushes the bullet but also propels the gun in the opposite direction <-----

The amount of energy lost when you fire a bullet is staggering.

Railguns on the other hand, have no explosion, therefore have no recoil. I'm not saying they don't produce kinetic energy (they produce a **** load), but I am saying that the kinetic energy is conserved in the projectile instead of wasted in the explosion. The result is the projectile has way more kinetic energy then a bullet, more because the energy is conserved (or focused in the projectile) and does not release until impact.


True story here, my uncle was in the army in the late 80's. he had top secret clearance (computer nerd for spec ops) and one day, they went to a 'new weapons demo'. the army was testing one of its first rail guns.

They took an aluminum casing (non magnetic material) about 500MM. If I remember, that's the size of a football...American not European. In the very center of that casing, was a single steel BB (magnetic material), the same kind you shot birds with as a child.

The loaded this casing into a rail gun, and shot it at an old tank, 5 miles away. He said the gun didn't make a single noise or movement. the only noise they heard was the 500MM casing breaking the sound barrier.

when they inspected the tank, it had a perfect football sized hole clean threw it.

kewl **** eh?.

Edits:sloppy grammer

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

Thank you! I knew I wasn't crazy.

---

Originally by: CCP Spitfire

---

Good question, actually. I'll check with the storyline team and get back to you; meanwhile a quick search (but please do not take it as an "official" answer) suggests that sci-fi laser weapons may indeed have recoil according to the conventional laws of physics.

---

Originally by: NinjaSpud

---

<Snip>Recoil from a gun is caused by the explosion of the powder, not the bullet traveling along the barrel. Guns still kick when there's a blank inside.

---

Originally by: cordy

---

Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.

---

Originally by: Jacob Holland

---

Railguns theoretically waste less, friction between the rails and the projectile, heat in the movement of electrons in every electrical component and so forth but while the wasted energy will generate forces those forces are not recoil.

---

Originally by: cordy

---

Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.

---

Originally by: Mara Rinn

---

I didn't see any significant recoil on the ship in the title scene. The bright ball of over-saturated-camera-sensor does cover up a lot of the turret, so it might look like the turret is recoiling, but I didn't see any other movement. Looks right to me.

---

Originally by: Lost Greybeard

---

Edited by: Lost Greybeard on 27/05/2011 05:32:10

Originally by: Calathea Sata

---

I agree with OP, laser turrets shouldn't have any recoil simply because they shouldn't. I guess common sense isn't a requirement when CCP hires people.

---

Depends on your energy load. Despite not having mass, photons do have momentum (hbar*k, i.e. h/wavelength). 500nm is around what the average of the spectrum is (assuming it falls into the visible), so that's 1.32 e-27 N/photon.

Number of photons can likewise be derived from energy consumption. Grabbing a random laser i see a cost of 4.76 e9 J, again assuming 500nm the energy per photon is 3.97 e-19 J/photon. So something on the order of 1.2e28 photons emitted. Given their momentum individually, conservation principles state that a force of about 10N will be exerted on your laser turret in the opposite direction.

This of course assumes optimum efficiency, but still, if the parts of the laser are some ultra-light future material that's a non-trivial quantity of force. So even ignoring the "it's probably a mechanical reset rather than real recoil" aspect, a recoil animation could theoretically be justified.

//Sorry if my arithmetic is off. It's late.

(EDIT: oh, ****, I think I just out-nerded a forum thread about internet spaceships. I mean "hurr, durr, laser no recoil, what mean ug by 'momentum'?")

---

Originally by: Jaari Val'Dara

---

Photons might not have a huge kinetic energy each, but solar sails is a real possibility. So I would assume that if the laser was strong enough, there might be some recoil.

---

Originally by: Lost Greybeard

---

[Given their momentum individually, conservation principles state that a force of about 10N will be exerted on your laser turret in the opposite direction.

---

Originally by: Kate Rygel

---

Why is anyone even trying to apply real physics to this game when there is next to zero real physics in this universe?

---

Originally by: FeralShadow

---

This is why I like this game.
The average populace appears to have the knowledge base of an individual with a bachelors degree at the very least. I highly doubt you'd ever find these kinds of discussions on the WoW boards, and while there are the trolls and the flamers and what-not, it's way better than other communities.

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

Actually, if you think about it any magnetic delivery system *I.E. Railguns* wouldn't have recoil either. There are no moving parts save for the ammunition.

nb4flame: I've actually been working on several railgun designs in the past couple of months.

---

Originally by: Sirinda

---

Of course, lasers don't have recoil. That is, they actually do produce infinitesimally small recoil, since even photons have a certain mass, but that is of no consequence, except maybe to physicists.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Sirinda

---

Of course, lasers don't have recoil. That is, they actually do produce infinitesimally small recoil, since even photons have a certain mass, but that is of no consequence, except maybe to physicists.

---

If you ramp up the energies high enough, that recoil becomes quite noticeable. See my post above

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

They don't have REST mass, but they have impulse, so they sort of almost behave as if they had mass in collisions.

---

Originally by: Sirinda

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

They don't have REST mass, but they have impulse, so they sort of almost behave as if they had mass in collisions.

---

I admit I have trouble wrapping my mind around a massless particle, whereas according to Einstein's "E = m * c^2" formula, it should have some mass, since "m = 0" would mean that "E = 0". And a laser that emits zero energy would be pretty moot.

Then again, I'm a chemist. Make me kill people with blister/nerve/lung/blood agent instead. >.<

---

Originally by: Sirinda

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

They don't have REST mass, but they have impulse, so they sort of almost behave as if they had mass in collisions.

---

I admit I have trouble wrapping my mind around a massless particle, whereas according to Einstein's "E = m * c^2" formula, it should have some mass, since "m = 0" would mean that "E = 0". And a laser that emits zero energy would be pretty moot.

Then again, I'm a chemist. Make me kill people with blister/nerve/lung/blood agent instead. >.<

---

Originally by: Sirinda

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

They don't have REST mass, but they have impulse, so they sort of almost behave as if they had mass in collisions.

---

I admit I have trouble wrapping my mind around a massless particle, whereas according to Einstein's "E = m * c^2" formula, it should have some mass, since "m = 0" would mean that "E = 0". And a laser that emits zero energy would be pretty moot.
Then again, I'm a chemist. Make me kill people with blister/nerve/lung/blood agent instead. >.<

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 27/05/2011 18:28:00

Originally by: Sirinda

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

They don't have REST mass, but they have impulse, so they sort of almost behave as if they had mass in collisions.

---

I admit I have trouble wrapping my mind around a massless particle, whereas according to Einstein's "E = m * c^2" formula, it should have some mass, since "m = 0" would mean that "E = 0". And a laser that emits zero energy would be pretty moot.
Then again, I'm a chemist. Make me kill people with blister/nerve/lung/blood agent instead. >.<

---

Mass increases with speed, but you only see a noticeable increase as you approach the speed of light.
A single electron accelerated to exactly the speed of light would theoretically have INFINITE mass
Then again, you can never accelerate anything to the speed of light, as it would also require an infinite amount of thrust (or energy, or whatever).
Matter can't move at the speed of light, photons can't move at anything but the speed of light (in the medium they're moving through).

Photons "sort of" have mass, but only when moving at the speed of light, and their "equivalent mass" depends on their frequency (or, if you prefer, energy).
If you try to decelerate a photon, it STILL moves at the speed of light, but it will have a lower frequency, and therefore lower energy.
If you try to decelerate it below the speed of light, it ceases to exist, it has a "zero REST mass".

P.S. Obviously, the above is an oversimplification. In reality, things are far, far more complicated than that.

---

Originally by: Mister Smithington

---

Edited by: Mister Smithington on 27/05/2011 18:29:53

Originally by: Sirinda

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

They don't have REST mass, but they have impulse, so they sort of almost behave as if they had mass in collisions.

---

I admit I have trouble wrapping my mind around a massless particle, whereas according to Einstein's "E = m * c^2" formula, it should have some mass, since "m = 0" would mean that "E = 0". And a laser that emits zero energy would be pretty moot.

Then again, I'm a chemist. Make me kill people with blister/nerve/lung/blood agent instead. >.<

---

...

Originally by: Kate Rygel

---

The laser beam doesn't need to have the mass. The mass in the E=MC^2 equation would exist at the source where the energy is created (i.e. the laser gun). The beam itself is just projecting that energy onto the destination (i.e. your target)

---

Let's be clear here, you're not breaking down the matter of the laser turret to release energy. The energy comes from the electricity that you pour into the gas chamber of the laser to excite the molecules into releasing photons. In other words, we're not creating energy here. Depending on how a ships capacitor works, we're converting potentially nuclear energy (maybe even chemical energy if we're running a cap booster) into electrical energy and then into electromagnetic radiation, suffering energy loss to heat due to efficiency issues at every stage.

---

Originally by: NinjaSpud

---

*reads entire thread from front to back*

......


..........

*Head explodes*

---

Originally by: Mister Smithington

---

Originally by: NinjaSpud

---

*reads entire thread from front to back*

......


..........

*Head explodes*

---

tl;dr version

Cross train amarr. The new lasers are awesome, and the new maller is going to be the top dog of station spinning.

---

Originally by: Calathea Sata

---

I agree with OP, laser turrets shouldn't have any recoil simply because they shouldn't. I guess common sense isn't a requirement when CCP hires people.

---

Originally by: Skinny Vickers

---

So to save my brain from melt down I've decided that the lasers don't actually recoil in the traditional sense but the action we see is a result of a forced gas active cooling system.

---

Quote:

---

Now wasn't that simpler?

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

Originally by: Skinny Vickers

---

So to save my brain from melt down I've decided that the lasers don't actually recoil in the traditional sense but the action we see is a result of a forced gas active cooling system.

---

Wouldn't it be simpler to say that the lasers do recoil in the traditional senseà becauseà you know, they actually do?

Quote:

---

Now wasn't that simpler?

---

Not really.

---

Originally by: Ayieka

---

Do you even know what a laser IS, little dog?

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

So you're telling me that you believe a metal slug travelling along a magnetic rail track, not creating a backblow as standard cased ammo does, would cause recoil? The only way I can see it causing recoil is if it produced enough shock after leaving the barrel to push it back. Now of course, I'm thinking of current applications and not suspended plasma as it is in EVE. You're correct in that aspect at least, the suspended plasma charges -could- be producing recoil from gas ventilation.

---

Originally by: CCP Tuxford

---

bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function

---

Originally by: Mister Smithington

---

tl;dr version

Cross train amarr. The new lasers are awesome, and the new maller is going to be the top dog of station spinning.

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

Originally by: NinjaSpud

---

You're correct, newton states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You're only mistake is the word "recoil"

Recoil from a gun is caused by the explosion of the powder, not the bullet traveling along the barrel. Guns still kick when there's a blank inside. When it detonates, the energy from the explosion needs an exit, it finds the path of least resistance and exits out the barrel, pushing the bullet along with it.

Again, with the equal and opposite reaction thing, you get a massive force leaving out the end of the barrel -----> and as a result, it pushes the bullet but also propels the gun in the opposite direction <-----

The amount of energy lost when you fire a bullet is staggering.

Railguns on the other hand, have no explosion, therefore have no recoil. I'm not saying they don't produce kinetic energy, but I am saying that the kinetic energy is conserved in the projectile until impact. The result is the projectile has way more kinetic energy, more because the energy is conserved, or focused in the projectile and does not release until impact.


True story here, my uncle was in the army in the late 80's. he had top secret clearance (computer nerd for spec ops) and one day, they went to a 'new weapons demo'. the army was testing one of its first rail guns.

They took an aluminum casing (non magnetic material) about 500MM. If I remember, that's the size of a football...American not European. In the very center of that casing, was a single steel BB (magnetic material), the same kind you shot birds with as a child.

The loaded this casing into a rail gun, and shot it at an old tank, 5 miles away. He said the gun didn't make a single noise or movement. the only noise they heard was the 500MM casing breaking the sound barrier.

when they inspected the tank, it had a perfect football sized hole clean threw it.

kewl **** eh?

---

Thank you! I knew I wasn't crazy.

Originally by: Ghoest

---

Your lack of perception or vision has no bearing on physics.

---

I'm currently searching my braille keyboard for an appropriate retort.

---

Originally by: CCP Tuxford

---

bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

They don't have REST mass, but they have impulse, so they sort of almost behave as if they had mass in collisions.

---

Originally by: CCP Tuxford

---

bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function

---

Originally by: Soden Rah

---

no the magnetic force acting on the 'slug' is ALSO acting on the rails. the rails experience a force equal and opposite to the one acting on the projectile.
however as the rails are much bigger/heavier than the projectile and hopefully also anchored to something big and heavy its the projectile that goes shooting off and the rail gun stays where it is. if that wasn't the case you could attach the projectile to the back of the gun with a piece of string, and create a reaction-less drive system.

---

Originally by: Cpt Arareb

---

then I saw the recoil in the laser turrets (boner off and in need of reanimation)

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Cpt Arareb

---

then I saw the recoil in the laser turrets (boner off and in need of reanimation)

---

You might want to read the thread to see why it might very well be JUSTIFIED.

---

Originally by: CCP Tuxford

---

bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Cpt Arareb

---

then I saw the recoil in the laser turrets (boner off and in need of reanimation)

---

You might want to read the thread to see why it might very well be JUSTIFIED.

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

*reads thread*

and you guys wonder why girls don't want to come anywhere near this game.

---

Originally by: CCP Tuxford

---

bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function

---

Originally by: Soden Rah

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

*reads thread*

and you guys wonder why girls don't want to come anywhere near this game.

---

you implying girls, can't understand physics?

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

Originally by: Soden Rah

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

*reads thread*

and you guys wonder why girls don't want to come anywhere near this game.

---

you implying girls, can't understand physics?

---

It's ok man if you don't understand what I'm talking about, you never will.

it's painful to watch though.

---

Originally by: CCP Tuxford

---

bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function

---

Originally by: Soden Rah

---

heh, sorry didn't edit my post fast enough.
I was also going to suggest we DO know... we just don't care ;-)

---

Originally by: Ioci

---

Welcome to the bustedness of EVE.

1 guy can disband a 2000 man alliance and wipe out trillions, that's cool.
Give back a noob 10 mill? No, that's game breaking.

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

Actually, if you think about it any magnetic delivery system *I.E. Railguns* wouldn't have recoil either. There are no moving parts save for the ammunition.

nb4flame: I've actually been working on several railgun designs in the past couple of months.

---

Originally by: Novee InFeldspar

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

Actually, if you think about it any magnetic delivery system *I.E. Railguns* wouldn't have recoil either. There are no moving parts save for the ammunition.

nb4flame: I've actually been working on several railgun designs in the past couple of months.

---

Rubbish. Read up on simple Newtonian physics; "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

Throwing the slug out magnetically has the same effect as throwing it out using a chemical explosive propellant. The slug moves one way, the gun moves the other way.

The recoil may or may not be as violent as a conventional gun, but the energies involved are the same.

---

Originally by: Ioci

---

Welcome to the bustedness of EVE.

1 guy can disband a 2000 man alliance and wipe out trillions, that's cool.
Give back a noob 10 mill? No, that's game breaking.

---

Originally by: Astroka

---

Not sure you completely understand that law. When the projectile strikes its target, it delivers forward kinetic energy, and an equal amount of kinetic energy is delivered in the opposite direction the projectile was traveling.

Think of it this way - there's no explosion or any other physical reaction inside the railgun, and effectively, it's a magnetic tube. If a bullet were fired from a weapon and traveled through a tube as it went along its path, would the tube be propelled backward (experience "recoil")? No, the bullet would not affect it.

Bullets don't kick the gun back, the explosion from the propellant inside the gun kick it back. Railguns/coilguns don't have this explosion and experience no recoil. In conventional guns, most of the energy is wasted and not present in the bullet at all.

Edited for clarity and redundancy removal.

---

Quote:

---

Materials Used The rails and projectiles must be built from strong conductive materials; the rails need to survive the violence of an accelerating projectile, and heating due to the large currents and friction involved. The recoil force exerted on the rails is equal and opposite to the force propelling the projectile. The seat of the recoil force is still debated. The traditional equations predict that the recoil force acts on the breech of the railgun.

---

Originally by: Culmen

---

Edited by: Culmen on 28/05/2011 03:50:11

Originally by: Astroka

---

Not sure you completely understand that law. When the projectile strikes its target, it delivers forward kinetic energy, and an equal amount of kinetic energy is delivered in the opposite direction the projectile was traveling.

Think of it this way - there's no explosion or any other physical reaction inside the railgun, and effectively, it's a magnetic tube. If a bullet were fired from a weapon and traveled through a tube as it went along its path, would the tube be propelled backward (experience "recoil")? No, the bullet would not affect it.

Bullets don't kick the gun back, the explosion from the propellant inside the gun kick it back. Railguns/coilguns don't have this explosion and experience no recoil. In conventional guns, most of the energy is wasted and not present in the bullet at all.

Edited for clarity and redundancy removal.

---

Bullets and coil guns do not experience any explosions.
They do experience kick back comes from the magnetic force.

Ever try to push a magnet with another magnet? You're feeling that.
In the case of the railgun or gauss gun, the force is imparted along the entire barrel rather than at a single point.
But it is force none the less.


This is a rough sketch of what the force would look like

[t]
=================

=================


<================
>
<================


=========<=======
>
=========<=======

================<
>
================<

[/t]

Anyways heres a quote from wikipedia on railguns

Quote:

---

Materials Used The rails and projectiles must be built from strong conductive materials; the rails need to survive the violence of an accelerating projectile, and heating due to the large currents and friction involved. The recoil force exerted on the rails is equal and opposite to the force propelling the projectile. The seat of the recoil force is still debated. The traditional equations predict that the recoil force acts on the breech of the railgun.

---

---

Originally by: Ioci

---

Welcome to the bustedness of EVE.

1 guy can disband a 2000 man alliance and wipe out trillions, that's cool.
Give back a noob 10 mill? No, that's game breaking.

---

Originally by: Astroka

---

Originally by: Culmen

---

Edited by: Culmen on 28/05/2011 03:50:11

Originally by: Astroka

---

Not sure you completely understand that law. When the projectile strikes its target, it delivers forward kinetic energy, and an equal amount of kinetic energy is delivered in the opposite direction the projectile was traveling.

Think of it this way - there's no explosion or any other physical reaction inside the railgun, and effectively, it's a magnetic tube. If a bullet were fired from a weapon and traveled through a tube as it went along its path, would the tube be propelled backward (experience "recoil")? No, the bullet would not affect it.

Bullets don't kick the gun back, the explosion from the propellant inside the gun kick it back. Railguns/coilguns don't have this explosion and experience no recoil. In conventional guns, most of the energy is wasted and not present in the bullet at all.

Edited for clarity and redundancy removal.

---

Bullets and coil guns do not experience any explosions.
They do experience kick back comes from the magnetic force.

Ever try to push a magnet with another magnet? You're feeling that.
In the case of the railgun or gauss gun, the force is imparted along the entire barrel rather than at a single point.
But it is force none the less.


This is a rough sketch of what the force would look like

[t]
=================

=================


<================
>
<================


=========<=======
>
=========<=======

================<
>
================<

[/t]

Anyways heres a quote from wikipedia on railguns

Quote:

---

Materials Used The rails and projectiles must be built from strong conductive materials; the rails need to survive the violence of an accelerating projectile, and heating due to the large currents and friction involved. The recoil force exerted on the rails is equal and opposite to the force propelling the projectile. The seat of the recoil force is still debated. The traditional equations predict that the recoil force acts on the breech of the railgun.

---

---

Hmm...when the bullet is pulled forward by magnetic force, the gun would also be pulled backward towards the bullet with equal force.

---

Originally by: Astroka

---

Not sure you completely understand that law. When the projectile strikes its target, it delivers forward kinetic energy, and an equal amount of kinetic energy is delivered in the opposite direction the projectile was traveling.

Think of it this way - there's no explosion or any other physical reaction inside the railgun, and effectively, it's a magnetic tube. If a bullet were fired from a weapon and traveled through a tube as it went along its path, would the tube be propelled backward (experience "recoil")? No, the bullet would not affect it.

---

Originally by: Glyken Touchon

---

Originally by: Astroka

---

Originally by: Christopher AET

---

Or possibly that on the fanfest video the only turrets ready to be shown were projectile turrets and blasters. Just because they were strapped to an amarr ship does not mean they were lasers.

---

Lasers with recoil.

---

Are you sure the guns are actually recoiling?

looks like a flare from the beam itself that fades to me

---

Originally by: OverlordY

---

Edited by: OverlordY on 28/05/2011 08:15:59
XL have recoil at least

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-8NXxC93Es

---

Originally by: CCP Veritas

---

In other words, I believe Dogma is doing stupid things, and I intend to beat the stupid out of it before considering giving it rocket boots.

---

Originally by: Astroka

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

Actually, if you think about it any magnetic delivery system *I.E. Railguns* wouldn't have recoil either. There are no moving parts save for the ammunition.

nb4flame: I've actually been working on several railgun designs in the past couple of months.

---

I hadn't thought about that and I spent a few months being obsessed with railguns and their design.

In theory, only projectile turrets should have recoil, which I guess would make for rather boring animations on the other two major categories.

---

Originally by: Culmen

---

Edited by: Culmen on 28/05/2011 03:57:59

Originally by: Astroka

---

Hmm...when the bullet is pulled forward by magnetic force, the gun would also be pulled backward towards the bullet with equal force.

---

Boy did i have to edit that paragraph.
But yeah, that's the general gist.

---

Originally by: Jada Maroo

---

Like I said on about the first page of this thread, the barrels aren't moving. It's an optical illusion. Download the Duality client and just watch the glowy tips of the models and don't get distracted by the bright shiney lens flare.

---

Originally by: Astroka

---

Not sure you completely understand that law. When the projectile strikes its target, it delivers forward kinetic energy, and an equal amount of kinetic energy is delivered in the opposite direction the projectile was traveling.

---

Quote:

---

Think of it this way - there's no explosion or any other physical reaction inside the railgun, and effectively, it's a magnetic tube.

---

Quote:

---

If a bullet were fired from a weapon and traveled through a tube as it went along its path, would the tube be propelled backward (experience "recoil")?

---

Quote:

---

Bullets don't kick the gun back, the explosion from the propellant inside the gun kick it back. Railguns/coilguns don't have this explosion and experience no recoil.

---

Quote:

---

àand instead of an explosion, there's a magnetic field that pushes the slug along the barrel. The same magnetic field will also push the barrel along the slug in the opposite direction. Unless you've made some serious errors in your design, the slug is much lighter than the barrel and shoots offà if not, the barrel will shoot off and the slug will remain largely stationary. àbut either way: the same force that pushes the slug forward will also push the barrel back. Which of the two moves the most is merely a matter of mass ratios (and you can always cheat by bolting the railgun to the ground and make Mass|Barrel = Mass|Earth+ε).

---

Originally by: Novee InFeldspar

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

Actually, if you think about it any magnetic delivery system *I.E. Railguns* wouldn't have recoil either. There are no moving parts save for the ammunition.

nb4flame: I've actually been working on several railgun designs in the past couple of months.

---

Rubbish. Read up on simple Newtonian physics; "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

Throwing the slug out magnetically has the same effect as throwing it out using a chemical explosive propellant. The slug moves one way, the gun moves the other way.

The recoil may or may not be as violent as a conventional gun, but the energies involved are the same.

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

Quote:

---

àand instead of an explosion, there's a magnetic field that pushes the slug along the barrel. The same magnetic field will also push the barrel along the slug in the opposite direction. Unless you've made some serious errors in your design, the slug is much lighter than the barrel and shoots offà if not, the barrel will shoot off and the slug will remain largely stationary. àbut either way: the same force that pushes the slug forward will also push the barrel back. Which of the two moves the most is merely a matter of mass ratios (and you can always cheat by bolting the railgun to the ground and make Mass|Barrel = Mass|Earth+ε).

---

Your 100% correct.

So the real question is, if yo took a rail gun, and put it in space. Like 100% in space, not tied down to ANYTHING. Would the rail gun and the buttle both move it separate directions at full speed since there is no gravity to give any of the objects weight?

When on earth the cannon of a rail gun does not recoil becuase the cannons is stuck there more than the slug is. But what about in space?

Now take that outcome, and bolt the rail gun cannon to a ship. Now the slug obviously has less "attraction" to the surface the cannon is bolted too.



So yeah I think the fact that space is weightless might effect recoil.

---

Originally by: Astroka

---

Not sure you completely understand that law. When the projectile strikes its target, it delivers forward kinetic energy, and an equal amount of kinetic energy is delivered in the opposite direction the projectile was traveling.

---

Originally by: Thuul'Khalat

---

WHY YOU VIOLENCE MY BOAT?!

---

Originally by: Astroka

---

Edited by: Astroka on 28/05/2011 03:31:29

Originally by: Novee InFeldspar

---

Originally by: Shiera Kuni

---

Actually, if you think about it any magnetic delivery system *I.E. Railguns* wouldn't have recoil either. There are no moving parts save for the ammunition.

nb4flame: I've actually been working on several railgun designs in the past couple of months.

---

Rubbish. Read up on simple Newtonian physics; "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

Throwing the slug out magnetically has the same effect as throwing it out using a chemical explosive propellant. The slug moves one way, the gun moves the other way.

The recoil may or may not be as violent as a conventional gun, but the energies involved are the same.

---

Not sure you completely understand that law. When the projectile strikes its target, it delivers forward kinetic energy, and an equal amount of kinetic energy is delivered in the opposite direction the projectile was travelling.

Think of it this way - there's no explosion or any other physical reaction inside the railgun, and effectively, it's a magnetic tube. If a bullet were fired from a weapon and travelled through a tube as it went along its path, would the tube be propelled backward (experience "recoil")? No, the bullet would not affect it.

Bullets don't kick the gun back, the explosion from the propellant inside the gun kick it back. Railguns/coilguns don't have this explosion and experience no recoil. In conventional guns, most of the energy is wasted and not present in the bullet at all.

Edited for clarity and redundancy removal.

---

Originally by: CCP Tuxford

---

bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function

---

Originally by: Jada Maroo

---

Edited by: Jada Maroo on 28/05/2011 08:07:52
Like I said on about the first page of this thread, the barrels aren't moving. It's an optical illusion. Download the Duality client and just watch the glowy tips of the models and don't get distracted by the bright shiney lens flare. Seriously, six pages of the most anal QQ for nothing.

---

Originally by: CCP Tuxford

---

bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function

---

Originally by: Rashmika Clavain

---

Originally by: Culmen

---

Edited by: Culmen on 28/05/2011 03:57:59

Originally by: Astroka

---

Hmm...when the bullet is pulled forward by magnetic force, the gun would also be pulled backward towards the bullet with equal force.

---

Boy did i have to edit that paragraph.
But yeah, that's the general gist.

---

This is why railguns do **** dps in game. It's realistic... if they did large amounts of DPS, the turrets would rip themselves from the ship's hull.

---

Originally by: CCP Tuxford

---

bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

Would the rail gun and the buttle both move it separate directions at full speed since there is no gravity to give any of the objects weight?

---

Quote:

---

When on earth the cannon of a rail gun does not recoil becuase the cannons is stuck there more than the slug is. But what about in space?

---

Quote:

---

Now take that outcome, and bolt the rail gun cannon to a ship. Now the slug obviously has less "attraction" to the surface the cannon is bolted too.

---

Quote:

---

So yeah I think the fact that space is weightless might effect recoil.

---

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

Quote:

---

àand instead of an explosion, there's a magnetic field that pushes the slug along the barrel. The same magnetic field will also push the barrel along the slug in the opposite direction. Unless you've made some serious errors in your design, the slug is much lighter than the barrel and shoots offà if not, the barrel will shoot off and the slug will remain largely stationary. àbut either way: the same force that pushes the slug forward will also push the barrel back. Which of the two moves the most is merely a matter of mass ratios (and you can always cheat by bolting the railgun to the ground and make Mass|Barrel = Mass|Earth+ε).

---

Your 100% correct.

So the real question is, if yo took a rail gun, and put it in space. Like 100% in space, not tied down to ANYTHING. Would the rail gun and the buttle both move it separate directions at full speed since there is no gravity to give any of the objects weight?

When on earth the cannon of a rail gun does not recoil becuase the cannons is stuck there more than the slug is. But what about in space?

Now take that outcome, and bolt the rail gun cannon to a ship. Now the slug obviously has less "attraction" to the surface the cannon is bolted too.



So yeah I think the fact that space is weightless might effect recoil.

---

I'm not sure why this is so complicated to some people. Both the projectile and the gun just get equal force applied to them. That means if you hurl something out of the weapon there will be recoil. Depending on the weapon it just alters on how and where that force gets applied to, but the force is always there.

In space, because of the bigger mass the rail gun, it will accelerate less than the projectile and will end up moving at a lower velocity than the projectile. The same amount of force on the small projectile will accelerate it much more and it will end up with a much higher end velocity. It's the mass of the objects that is relevant here and mass doesn't change just because you enter a weightless environment. Weight =/= mass in physics.

---

Quote:

---

Nope. Weightless or not, the two parts still have the same mass (wellà the slug might not, if we manage to accelerate it to near c, but let's not go there), and mass is all that that matters.

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

of course weight matters wen it comes to some of the recoil. If you had a rail gun on planet with huge gravity, you would have to put more force on it to make it move. The gun wouldn't recoil much. If you put it in weightless environment the gun would start to move backward and never stop moving. The more weight the faster the recoil would stop.

right?

---

Quote:

---

Also I was commenting not on the gravitys effect o the slug but the fact that if you tie something down there is less recoil.

---

Quote:

---

Those giant guns can and used to be built with ZERO RECOIL. In fact the whole battleship would move backwards when the guns fired due to this.

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

[
So the real question is, if yo took a rail gun, and put it in space. Like 100% in space, not tied down to ANYTHING. Would the rail gun and the slug both move in separate directions at full speed since there is no gravity to give any of the objects weight?

---

Originally by: Paukinra

---

Photons has mass so will show recoil in large neough energy.

The other question this begs is why can I see the laser beam?

If the photons are moving away from me and there is no particles in the way (aka in space) then I wouldnt see them as there is nothing for them to reflect of off. I might/would see the ship Im shooting at light up or occasional little bits of light from scraps of metal of particles from the ships but I wouldn't see the whole laser fully.

Again, something put in to look cool rainbow Abbadons FTW :P

---

Originally by: Fearless M0F0

---

I guess OP missed physics lab where they show you photons have mass , but then that lab was in college so

---

Originally by: Tonto Auri

---

You can't see anything in space, you're enclosed in your POD deep into your ship.
All you "seeing", "hearing" or in other way perseiving is just a reconstruction of your POD computer to translate millions of data sources into comprehensive scenery for your brain.

---

Originally by: CCP Zymurgist

---

Revenge is a dish best served with auto-cannons.

---

Originally by: Illwill Bill

---

<lolrp>
The turrets don't "fire" a laser; they use an extremely high-energy laser to accellerate and focus electron plasma in a tight beam that can be projected onto a target. The recoil isn't from the laser, but from the plasma emission.
</lolrp>

---

Originally by: Illwill Bill

---

<lolrp>
The turrets don't "fire" a laser; they use an extremely high-energy laser to accellerate and focus electron plasma in a tight beam that can be projected onto a target. The recoil isn't from the laser, but from the plasma emission.
</lolrp>

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

stuff

---

Originally by: Ghoest

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

stuff

---

According to your own calculations lasers would only have a tiny fraction of the recoil that comparable projectile/rail guns would have.
I think that should be the key point.

---

Originally by: Tippia

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

of course weight matters wen it comes to some of the recoil. If you had a rail gun on planet with huge gravity, you would have to put more force on it to make it move. The gun wouldn't recoil much. If you put it in weightless environment the gun would start to move backward and never stop moving. The more weight the faster the recoil would stop.

right?

---

What you're talking about is drag and friction, which can happen in outer space as well if you have something nearby to rub up against.

Quote:

---

Also I was commenting not on the gravitys effect o the slug but the fact that if you tie something down there is less recoil.

---

There's not less recoil ù you're just coupling the gun to a larger mass, forcing the recoil to move that mass instead (the navy railgun in the video above, for instance, accelerates the earth at .00000000000000000022m/s¦ when fired). But sure, I guess that depends on how you define "recoil" ù the force itself or the movement it causes.

Quote:

---

Those giant guns can and used to be built with ZERO RECOIL. In fact the whole battleship would move backwards when the guns fired due to this.

---

àfor instance, I wouldn't say that a gun that causes an entire battleship to move backwards is recoilless. Quite the opposite.

---

Originally by: Ghoest

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

[
So the real question is, if yo took a rail gun, and put it in space. Like 100% in space, not tied down to ANYTHING. Would the rail gun and the slug both move in separate directions at full speed since there is no gravity to give any of the objects weight?

---

PLEASE PLEASE tell me you are actually a small child with an unusually good vocabulary.

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

I guess what I meant by recoil.... Is turret recoil. As in, a pistol doesn't have "recoil" However battleship cannons do. The action where the gun it's self has recoil animation. What word should I be using instead of recoil?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

I said "least" recoil. That doesn't mean "negligible" recoil.
Also, if you want to go by my actual calculations, use those already posted on page #4 : Linkage
Or, to put it ever so slightly differently : if you have a railgun slug and a laser beam dealing roughly the same amount of damage (but through different mechanics), the recoil would be of comparable magnitudes for both.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 28/05/2011 20:45:34

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

I guess what I meant by recoil.... Is turret recoil. As in, a pistol doesn't have "recoil" However battleship cannons do. The action where the gun it's self has recoil animation. What word should I be using instead of recoil?

---

It's still recoil, but it's applied to a different part of the turret+ship system with different timings, depending on how rigid/elastic all the connections of the firing assembly to the ship itself are.

The IMPULSE granted by the "shooting" of anything that does a specific amount of a specific type of damage is basically always the same.
The "visibleness" of recoil depends on how much MASS that impulse is being applied to (and on the timescale involved, but that's yet another story - and ALL of that impulse eventually gets applied to the entire ship anyway).

The more mass is moved, the less visible the recoil.
The more elastic the connection, the more visible the recoil on the earlier parts is and less on the later ones in the chain.
The faster the shot happens, the more visible the recoil.
_

Going from most visible to least visible (lowest mass initially moved to highest mass initially moved):

You can have barrel section recoil (if separate sections of the barrel can "telescope").
You can have full barrel recoil (if it's rigid and can only move backwards as a whole).
You can have partial turret recoil (the barrel PLUS something else attached to the barrel moving backwards).
You can have full turret recoil (if the entire turret is "solid" but placed on a springy platform).
You can have ship recoil (if the turret is "solid" and the mounting to the ship is rigid).
_

P.S. The only weapon you can even begin to call "recoilless" is something that "shoots" something backwards that has the same impulse as the stuff shot forwards, canceling out the forces exerted on the weapon itself.

---

Originally by: Lumy

---

Note: you could simply use "Activation Cost" attribute of laser turret. E.g. Tachyons II use 95 GJ .
Assume just 1% effectivity, you still have about 1 GJ energy released per shot.

---