Talk:Electrothermal-chemical technology

message: Can somebody double check those numbers?  My number for mass for the DM63 has to be wrong; I got it through the KE equation, assuming a KE of 9 MJ for the penetrator, and 12 MJ for the entire round.  I would appreciate it, thanks. JonCatalan 18:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But as I understand it the 12 MJ of the M829A3 is of the complete projectile too?--MWAK 12:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's most probable that this is the case.  My information is based off this site which says it accelerates a 10kg projectile at a velocity of 1,555m/sec.  The entire cartridge weighs 22.3kg.  At 10kg I get 12,000 joules. JonCatalan 15:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But then the chart compares the projectile weight of the M829A3 with the penetrator weight of the DM63, which is rather confusing.--MWAK 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the projectile weight of the M289A3 is said to be 10kg on that site, while the entire projectile weighs 22.3kg.  My weight for the DM63 is based off 12MJ for the entire projectile, and 9MJ for the projectile - the difference in mass might be because dU is denser than the tungsten alloy used in newer German ammunition, although I'm not completely sure.  Hopes this clears things up. Regards.  JonCatalan 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  The M829A3 has a 22.3kg complete cartridge and a 10kg projectile. I think the actual penetrator is 6-7kg, but ATK doesn't say. Ergbert 00:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dropped a message at TankNet, but nobody has responded yet. JonCatalan 15:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun Comparison Chart 

message: Wouldn't it be exponentially given that the relationship is the square of the muzzle velocity? JonCatalan 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, exponential functions are of the form cx, with c being the constant and x the variable. The quadratic function is of the form xc — with the constant in this case of course having the value 2. It's a polynomial. For some reason people never speak about polynomial ratios ;o)--MWAK 12:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muzzle Velocity to KE 

message: I've know I've seen it in many locations, including some books I deeply respect, but I'm wondering if the "lead the chapter/section with a quote" style is all that appropriate for Wikipedia. I can't recall any other article using it, including any of the links in the first paragraph. My own personal feeling is that while fine for general non-fiction use, the leading quote is not appropriate for a reference work like an encyclopedia, because it lacks nessassary context and analysis. That said, I'm unaware of any prohibition in the Manual of Style as to its use. -- 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The leading quote idea is taken from the T-34 article, which received featured article status, so I don't think there is any problem with it.  The leading quote is within the context of itself, to be honest.  The context of the article the quote is taken from is the same context of this article; future gun technology - it simply states that solid propellants are no longer the most effective medium of gun propulsion for the future threat, given that the ability to expand on a solid propellant gun is limited and doesn't yield the dramatic increase in muzzle energy, as explained by this article.  JonCatalan 15:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Question 

message: The first part of this article, above the list of contents, describes: what ETC is supposed to do, how promising the results are, who's going to be using it in the near future, where it's being researched, and what some of the alternatives are.  What it does not do, however, is to say what ETC *is*.
If there were a single sentence saying, perhaps, "ETC is a technology in which electrically-produced plasma is used to moderate the rate of combustion of propellants in a gun", it would be more useful than everything that is currently there.  I'm not confident enough that I understand it to be willing to insert this myself, however - the article even mentions 'eliminating the necessity for an outside electrical source', which I can't reconcile with my understanding of the concept.
The lack of basic encyclopedic content and abundance of, to put it bluntly, hype in the article was enough to make me suspect it as a hoax.  An attempt by some company to boost their stock price by promoting their technobabble, perhaps.  It wasn't until I searched for other sources on the net that I grew fairly confident that the subject of this article actually exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.186.48 (talk • contribs) 06:17, Nov 17, 2006 (UTC)
I will try to edit the article, now that I have access to MUCH more information, and make it more encyclopedic - first thing is first; I must get rid of the quotes.  JonCatalan 01:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on the Summary 

message: This article seems to be lacking in worldview, its written almost entirely from a NATO perspective.
:  I have found no information on the development of similar weapons in Russia or the Ukraine, and although there were rumors that the Merkava IV was to mount a 135mm ETC gun, these rumors turned out to be false and there's no information that I have on the Israeli ETC program.  In any case, it should be noted that ETC technology was developed by NATO, and IMO solely by NATO, until recently. JonCatalan (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldview Issues 

message: why there's no 140mm gun for comparison? manufacturer estimates a muzzle energy of 14 MJ (pdf). With a guessed penetrator weight of about 7 Kg the muzzle velocity is about 2000m/s -84.57.154.108 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no use guessing penetrator weight, which is the issue. JonCatalan (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muzzle energy comparison chart 

message: Is it feasible that the ETC technology could be put foreword into infantry weapons?  In the article I could only find references to tank, artillery etc. guns.  Is there some major disadvantage to using ETC for a rifle or pistol, such as the plasma cartridge taking up so much room that only a 15 round magazine would work?  Thanks 213.78.183.91 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: well, the problem would be the same as in every energy weapon: the weight of the energy source -84.57.170.25 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibility as a hand held weapon? 

message: Which is better, electothermal-chemical, electro-thermal chemical, or electro-thermal-chemical?
Keith Galveston (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the majority of my papers(especially ones published more recently) it's refered to as electrothermal-chemical. JonCatalán (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've followed that line and made two changes in the leading section. Keith Galveston (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on hyphenation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electrothermal-chemical technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623132304/http://www.emlsymposium.org/ to http://www.emlsymposium.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified