World's Most Powerful Rail Gun Delivered to US Navy 615
An anonymous reader writes "The world's most powerful functional rail gun capable of accelerating projectiles up to Mach 8 has been delivered to the Navy. The new rail gun is a 32-megajoule Electro-Magnetic Laboratory Rail Gun. The Navy eventually hopes to have 64-megajoule ship mounted rail guns. 'The lab version doesn't look particularly menacing -- more like a long, belt-fed airport screening device than like a futuristic cannon -- but the system will fire rounds at up to Mach 8, drawing on tremendous amounts of electricity to generate the current for each test shot. That, of course, is the problem with rail guns: Like lasers, they're out of step with modern-day generators and capacitors. Eight and 9-megajoule rail guns have been fired before, but providing 3 million amps of power per shot has been a limitation.'"
How silly (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait...
whatcouldpossiblygowrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:whatcouldpossiblygowrong (Score:5, Informative)
Re:whatcouldpossiblygowrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I find that one extraordinarily large genetically modified mosquito works as well.
Re:whatcouldpossiblygowrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How silly (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How silly (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, the Nimtz reactors are a bit more advanced than the Enterprise (lessons learned and all that), so that has a lot to do with the reduction in the number of reactors.
Everything beyond that is classified. I could tell you, but then I'd have to shoot you. (Assuming that I already knew and therefore had been shot.
Re:How silly (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How silly (Score:4, Funny)
You have it backwards! Shoot them first, then tell them.
And to optimize this, you can remove the 'nop', and just shoot them.
I mean, telling them and shooting them is not good, unless they
support transactions. ACID and all that.
Re:How silly (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How silly (Score:4, Informative)
Hydrogen is hard to store. You end up either with heavy high-pressure tanks, or with metal hydrides. Both take up much more volume than the equivalent amount of energy in oil-based fuel. It might be possible, but space and weight for carrier aircraft are always at a premium: making them all 50% larger to accomodate hydrogen tanks would halve the number of aircraft on the carrier, which would make the carrier only 30% as effective as it is now.
Also, you'd need a huge plant to keep up with demand.
The A4W used in the Nimitz class can supply some 100 MW.
Hydrogen contains 37 kWh/kg, let's say hydrolysis is 50% efficient so you need 74 kWh to make 1 kg. 100 MW will get you 1351 kg of hydrogen per hour. That's 31 tons per day.
The Nimitz carries about 11,000 metric tons of aviation fuel. Every aircraft takes off with 5-10 tons of fuel on board, you've got 85 aircraft, so you're looking at using (2 sorties *85*7 tons average) ~1200 tons of fuel per day. You need a reactor 40 times as large as the A4W to keep up with demand.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
*cough* harbor... *cough*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, mate, but that's just sick.
17 crew members died, and another 39 were injured.
The explosion knocked a 40 ft hole in the ship, and your dismissal of it is disgusting.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree it's silly.
With all that excess reactor power they should just run a really long extension cord to the destroyer.
Hmmmm.... I intended that just as a silly joke, but the more I think about it the more I realize some sort of variation on that concept might actually be viable. Plenty of engineering headaches (probably the main difficulty being ships generally not equippe
Re:How silly (Score:5, Informative)
The whole naming and classification of surface vessels is also weird. Frigate is a name held over from the age of sail. Back then, heavy fighting was done with ships of the line, frigates were used for the free-wheeling missions of escort and raiding and scouting and what have you. Line ships were too important to risk being lost on mundane missions like that. Destroyers were originally called torpedo boat destroyers, ships capable of keeping up with the fleet while screening against torpedo boat attack. A cruiser was not a class but a job description, with frigates operating as cruisers in the age of sail.
By WWII, you had frigates, destroyers, and destroyer escorts operating as small ships working in various roles. Destroyers carried torpedoes to threaten larger ships, 5 inch guns to use against other destroyers and merchantmen, AAA for use against planes and depth charges for subs. The cruiser was intended to be a heavy combatant that could catch anything it could sink and flee from anything that could sink it. You then ended up with all the weird categories of light and heavy cruisers, battle-cruisers, etc. Then you had your battleships, slow sluggers that could not control the range of the fight. Then improvement in propulsion technology created fast battleships that could keep up with the cruisers. Carriers then pissed in everyone's cheerios because the battleship admirals didn't know what to do with them. Concerted air attack could take out a battleship with minimal loss of air crews but the formations the Americans put together towards the end of the Pacific war would have made conventional air attack suicidal for a well-trained and well-provisioned air force, let alone the Japanese. If two US-style fleets faced off, they'd likely run out of planes and pilots before running out of ships, thus forcing the engagement into a gun battle. The rapid development of technology changes everything.
Since the Cold War, the US has dicked around with cruisers and battleships but now the only large surface combatants left are carriers. Even the Aegis cruisers are running on hulls more comparable to destroyers and the arleigh burkes are using the same aegis. With the hitting power of modern anti-ship missiles, it's seen as impossible to armor a ship sufficiently to survive a strike. Then again, US naval thinking is still shaped by the Cold War and the idea that incoming weapons are going to be nuclear so you have to knock them down or else be incinerated, there's no such thing as armoring against a nuke fireball. Since we haven't had a proper naval engagement since WWII, all we're operating under is a bunch of theory that has not been put to the test in a very long time.
Correction... (Score:4, Informative)
CategoryArleigh BurkeKing George V>
Displacement9000 tons23,400 tons
Length509 feet598 feet
Beam60 feet89 feet
Propulsion100,000shp31,000shp
Crew320/td>870
So, the Arleigh Burke is nearly as long, has three times the engine power as a World War I era top of the line British Battleship. In terms of firepower, there's really no comparison. If you plopped an Alreigh Burke and a KGV into the same ocean, the Burke is going to have missiles away before the KGV can even make visual contact.
The moral of the story is that you really have to think about what the Navy has evolved into. It's not that there are no more battleships, per se, it is more like every combatant the navy has is a capital ship in its own right.
I must also digress about armor. It's also a bit of a gap to say that American ships aren't armoured. Yes, it is true that American warships do not have thick steel armour belts in the past, but its also true that thick armour belts can't resist modern shaped charges, its also true that they only were really thick at areas of a ship where designers anticipated the firing arcs of other shells would be. Have a look at the now declassified maps of the USS New Jersey's armor belts. You could theoretically program missiles to hit other parts of the ship. Against a range of threats, from bombs to torpedos, or even missiles that can be programmed to hit a ship from any angle, it is simply impossible to provide passive armor protection on all surfaces.
So, what designers do do is local armoring. They might not armour the entire hull, but they'll wrap critical equipment with some kevlar jackets, and that's not too shabby. That does come from combat experience, in a weird way. During vietnam, they did nothing to protect combat aircraft, but, they realized that putting a little bit of armor around a few critical things would save a lot of planes. These things were incorporated, among other things, into the highly successful A-10, which is a very survivable plane, and, to some extent, that sort of thinking has found itself into US Navy ships as well.
Re:How silly (Score:4, Informative)
Different missions.
Submarines are supposed to stay hidden for long periods of time, and they can't do that if they have to pop up ever few days at the local fuel depot. The carriers are supposed to be out there doing the whole power-projection thing, but (again) it's hard to be out there projecting power when your planes spend a few days every month pwning the airspace around Ye Olde Coaling Station. Really, there's nothing interesting going on at Diego Garcia.
As for the not-so-capital capital ships (at least those not tied to a carrier battlegroup), their job is more or less to fly the flag, preferably in places where people can see it, and people have a tendency to live on land. So your frigates and your destroyers have a bit of a diplomatic role to play when they come to a port, disgorging the crew to partake of the local breweries and sex workers, as a way of telling everybody "Yeah, we're still here. And this is our boom stick." And if you're going to be hanging out anyway, why invest in a technology meant to help you avoid doing so? And on top of that, there are people like the Kiwis still squeamish about the whole "nukular" thing.
Once you decide nuclear isn't worth it on these vessels, the only question remaining is whether to pay money to build a whole separate class of nuclear fun-sized ships for escorting the CVNs (and there's only so many), or to pay money to throw a tanker or two into the mix of a battlegroup.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How well do Ram accellerators scale? (Score:3, Informative)
Ram Accellerators may be cheaper in terms of raw dollars, but I wonder how well they scale relative to Rail guns? Specifically, economies of scale for mass production, and for the mass per projectile.
Once the technology is figured out for Railguns, I suspect the primary cost will be the power generation. The projectiles themselves will probably be very cheap, and be easier to manufacture than those used by a Ram Acceller
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Add on a few nuke reactors, and/or a nice capacitor bank, and you're suddenly only restricted by how many projectiles you can carry. As you mention, these are going to be simple - basically just metal slugs. There's no more powder or fuel required for the task, which is in sharp contrast to conventional weaponry.
Re:How silly (Score:5, Interesting)
At any rate, the reactor plant of the Enterprise was originally sized on the need to launch full (Vigilante) sized aircraft while steaming at maximum speed. Plus some additional capacity for operational reserve, in case one or more reactors were down, plus a fudge factor for future growth and to cover against concerns about reactor performance. There was also a general concern in the Navy at the time over the profliferation of electronic systems and their increasing demands for power.
Since the reactors ended up performing reliably and more-or-less to spec, and big aircraft didn't become common in the fleet - Enterprise ended up considerably overpowered, much more so than follow on CVN's. The follow on CVN's carry fewer reactors partly because of this, and partly because the individual reactors are so much more powerful and specifically designed for carriers. (The A2W reactor used by Enterprise is actually a slightly uprated C1W reactor - originally intended to be used in pairs for cruisers.)
In fact, Enterprise ended up with so much excess steam capacity - that (IIRC) half the steam recievers (a sort of capacitor to hold steam for the catapults) she was built with have subsequently been removed. Off-and-on there has been discussion of mothballing a pair of her reactors in place.
Re:How silly (Score:5, Funny)
uh, wrong. please check your math. (Score:2)
Re:uh, wrong. please check your math. (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of the features:
Navy Fact File [navy.mil]
As I recall, the original list of superweapons was much more impressive. It just got pared back a smidge when Congress balked at the price tag.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:uh, wrong. please check your math. (Score:5, Funny)
These go to 11.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On large ships, other kinds of weapons are preferable.
This will be more like a traditional gunboat, carrying only one primary gun. Also, as it says in the article, the recoil makes it unlikely that this gun will fire many shots in one battle.
I think this will be a bit like a naval sniper, aiming to destroy major vessels command center before its even detected, and then leave the area quickly and let the big ships take over.
So we won't see many ships with this configuration, but in cer
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wave Motion Gun (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How silly (Score:5, Informative)
A Megajoule class railgun is powered by a Compulsator, a type of modified alternator ( compensated for low inductance to provide enormous current pulses )...the rotor is spun up by a large engine, and the rotational energy in the rotor is turned into multiple high current pulses...in earlier test systems ( still megajoule class ), they can fire a burst of 10 shots on one spinup. These things can be scaled to fit in a modern tank, or up to naval gun size.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Arcing actually replaces the abrasion problem with an ablation problem (and a conductivity problem). Unless you mean arcing between the rails themselves, which shouldn't happen, as the solution is the same as the contact-are
Fusion Power...here we come (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fusion Power...here we come (Score:5, Funny)
Non-solar fusion won't produce that much energy any time soon. What we need is serious solar energy collection; I'm talking about solar powered orbital microwave death rays. That's how to properly power your death dealing toys. With a proper number of death rays, you should be able to fry any acre of land on the globe fairly easily. It's assumed that frying the land will kill off all enemy soldiers, peasants, and nature lovers that may be hiding there.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever we get a new energy source, we set something on fire with it, or blow something up.
Hey, don't knock it (Score:5, Insightful)
So while you jest, there could be truth in the statement. Fusion is all well and fine, but there's only so much money going to be thrown at it. We have other cheap power sources in terms of commercial use, so not a lot of commercial dollars, and it just isn't sexy or pressing enough to get much government research dollars... However if there's a major military application, well that could get billions easily.
That's one reason I'm not always opposed to defense spending. Though it is very often wasteful and it seems there are better things to do with the money, it does seem to be one way for getting projects that just don't get built otherwise. A great many things come directly from defense research.
Hmm, my SI is fuzzy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Amps/watts (Score:5, Informative)
Beowulf? (Score:2, Funny)
I miss the days of gunpowder (Score:5, Insightful)
To be a bit mercenary about it... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The energy required to poke a hole in someone is somewhat higher.
The energy required to poke a hole in enemy armor is higher still.
This isn't for killing 'someone', it for poking big holes in things that are very hard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have that much energy, though, then surely lasers become a more practical alternative?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But a missile traveling at high speed a few feet above the water? Well thats gonna take a lot of power to stop. Also, this type of energy weapon limits the danger to the crew. No longer do they have to expose themselves to explosives. The dangerous levels of energy come from the power behind it. Since this is electricity and has been around for year, we know how to use it safely. Probably more safely that we could ever h
Re: (Score:2)
Really though, I would think that this would be something that you would use to, say, sink the enemy's ship, maybe shoot their nuclear reactors, or otherwise destroy infrastructure. It would have a really strong psychological factor too. I remember reading somewhere that they deliberately made the sound of the Apache attack helicopter distinctive to try and intimidate any enemy ground troops they were going up against. I don't know if it worked, but I doubt it (if it's true).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: I miss the days of gunpowder (Score:3, Insightful)
It makes me wonder, though -- they say 32 MJ per shot, but how much energy is in a normal-sized conventional weapon? They also say Mach 8, but how fast are normal rounds fired?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A 7.62mm round has a velocity of 2,756 ft/s [2], approximately Mach 2.4. Energy use is 3,352 J for a bullet weight of 9.50g.
The article doesn't specify, but I imagine the 32MJ rail gun uses projectiles a little larger than 9.5g.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound [wikipedia.org]
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The prototype fired at Dahlgren is only an 8-megajoule electromagnetic device, but the one to be used on Navy ships will generate a massive 64 megajoules. Current Navy guns generate about 9 megajoules of muzzle energy.
The same article talks about increasing range 'more than tenfold' to 200-250 nautical miles.
This article [navweaps.com] about proposals for guns on new destroyers for a talks about muzzle velocities of 800-900 metres per second, or about Mach 2.5. Wikipedia says that 1800 mps or about Mach 5 is 'close to the limit achievable with chemical propellants' [wikipedia.org]
So 64MJ and Mach 8 is pretty impressive. It would mean that US ships would have a profound advantage of h
Functional? They call this functional? (Score:2)
There might be some cool theoretical replacements to explosive propellants, but it is difficult to see them being deployed meaningfully any time soon.
Re:I miss the days of gunpowder (Score:5, Funny)
The US military measures the power of it's weapons (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Putting a bullet through someone's chest is the black-and-white-TV of fatality [wikipedia.org] moves.
-
Re:I miss the days of gunpowder (Score:5, Informative)
The railgun on the other hand currently has a range roughly 1/3rd the distance of a cruise missile and IIRC the 64MJ version has a range around 2/3 the range of a cruise missile. Not only that but the projectile cannot be shot down as no weapon could catch it, nor even if they could (fired head on) would the interceptor be able to stop it as the kinetic energy of the blob of metal would simply disintegrate anything that tried to stop it with almost no deflection of the weapon. Not only that but the railgun offers extremely high energy on impact, far in excess of the 500-2000lb bomb on cruise missiles. I've heard estimates that place the energy release on impact with that of around 15000lbs of TNT, the explosive energy release is huge but the big blob of metal becomes millions of small pieces of metal that fly in every direction along with rocks and dirt moving at ultra high velocities from the impact site. And above all this the railgun projectile is under $500 in comparison to the $1 million dollar tag for the cruise missile.
The railgun essentially allows the USN to toss moderately sized meteorites at enemies. Whenever a naval article comes up everyone likes to talk about how vulnerable the USN is because of Sunburn and other antiship missiles. What they fail to realize is that once the DDX destroyers come online the fleet wouldn't even need to get in sunburn range to absolutely destroy even fortified coastal positions. Take a couple DDX destroyers and the new CDX carriers and you have a fleet that can sit 400 miles off the coast and bombard all the coastal defenses into oblivion before moving further in to bombard the cities and fortifications further in from the coast. The railgun projectiles also have extreme penetration, they can cut through 10's of feet of reinforced concrete with ease, and even underground facilities become susceptible as 10 projectiles could likely cut a massive hole and penetrate buried facilities that could then be followed up with bombs dropped from planes. There is also another advantage, cruise missiles aren't effective against mobile targets because it takes so long for them to get there, at mach 8 the railgun projectiles flight time is extremely small, along with the no advanced warning (no sound preceding impact) gives the projectile a much better chance at hitting mobile targets without having to use manned aircraft.
The USN is also trying to find guidance systems that can survive the G forces in the hope of having some minimal guidance.
Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)
Headshot!
1.21 gigawatts (Score:5, Funny)
Potty joke... (Score:2)
Oblig (Score:5, Funny)
Newton (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Newton (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be one big bullet.
What are they launching again? (Score:5, Funny)
I may have found a clue:
"Installation of the laboratory launcher is currently under way"
Seems like a waste of some perfectly good laboratories!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Can it be carried in a backpack? (Score:3, Funny)
I've got Wood (Score:5, Funny)
Bill Gates was heard to comment... (Score:5, Funny)
Space Gun (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder whether coming generations of this gun could shoot unmanned exploration vehicles or satellites out into space. The Pentagon will probably try to use it just to shoot down spacecraft, but instead we could use their budgets to increase space industry and exploration.
Re:Space Gun (Score:4, Interesting)
This has been thought of (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What if the payload were also spiraled around its axis that's parallel to the circle, as it's accelerated along that axis. Wouldn't that neutralize the centripetal effect on the payload, so the total acceleration wouldn't damage the contents of the payload?
Of course a little turbulence in the barrel could really wreck things, and humans would get scrambled. But an evacuated barrel a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wonder whether coming generations of this gun could shoot unmanned exploration vehicles or satellites out into space.
This has been considered many times over the years and some startups are even working on some pie in the sky concepts, but basically there are two (2) major problems with the gun-type or single energy input launch mechanisms. First, the package being launched has to be hardy enough to survive the massive acceleration G forces and shock of hitting the atmosphere at orbital velocity right from the start (i.e. sea level) which brings up the second point. The package must also be able to survive a trip through
Re:Space Gun (Score:5, Informative)
Deploying twice the energy should only send the projectile 1.4 (the square root of two) times faster.
Looks nice (Score:5, Interesting)
Railguns today tend to melt after each shot, leaving one to replace the rails (the biggest, conducting the part of the gun, the bit in contact with the "bullet").
I wonder what the efficiency is. 32 megajoules come in, how many leave in the bullet. (Generally they only get about 2%-5% efficiency).
An alternative, easier and safer, is a coil gun. Here's a nice index of coilguns : World's coilgun arsenal [coilgun.ru]. But like their railgun brothers, they're not very efficient. The very best of them have the bullet speed of a mini handgun, but they're trivial to make, and rely only on batteries and metal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Looks nice (Score:4, Interesting)
Einstein on rail guns (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, no ... you got the quote all wrong.
"World War III will be fought with radioactive Monkey-Snake Hybrids, World War IV will be fought with watermelons and trebuchets, World War V will be fought with intelligent berzerker cheeses, and World War VI will be fought with sticks and stones ... the size of planets!"
It's all fun and games... (Score:2)
Re:It's all fun and games... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are some serious problems to mounting a nuclear munition on this sucker. First off, the weight of the round currently being fired is actually quite small. The weapon would need to be scaled up by many, many fold just to fire the nuclear munition.
Second, no existing type of warhead would survive the shock of launch. A gun-type device would detonate on launch. (NOT good.) An implosion device requires that the plates surrounding the charges that surround the plutonium core be carefully calibrated. A single charge or plate out of place and the bomb will fizzle out. Advanced hydrogen weapons are out as well, as they require an atomic explosion as a trigger. Plus, the cores of hydrogen bombs need to be kept even more precisely in place in relation to the uranium shell of the weapon.
All in all, the only thing you'd accomplish by combining a rail gun with a nuclear warhead is to either blow yourself up or damage your highly-expensive-bomb-that-could-have-been-more-easily-deployed-with-a-super-sonic-missile.
The military's been testing rail guns forever (Score:5, Interesting)
In evaluating it, they found that the internal air temperature flashed to something really high (like an oven) in the microsecond the ball travelled through, and that the vaporized steel from the first surface of the tank would kill everyone in the compartment.
It brings home what kind of speeds we're talking about here.
I'm waiting until they start listing the speeds of rail guns in terms of [decimal]c. Full of relativistic goodness. Of course, if they're only at Mach 8, they've got a way to go. The X-15 was near mach 7 and the scramjet tests have hit mach 10, and I'm sure those were more massive than the rail gun's projectiles.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How long will the barrel be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Vs Light Gas Gun? (Score:4, Informative)
Let me list the current advantages/disadvantages:
Rail Gun:
+ Simple firing mechanism (Two rails, one plug, massive juice)
+Very little muzzle flash
+Very rapid fire (Gatling configuration to spread out heat on rails)
*Acceleration limited by current carrying capability of rails.
- Complex/heavy electrical system (Banks of caps + power supply to charge them)
- Rail wear
-Heavy projectiles increases support structure significantly
Light Gas Gun:
+ Heavy projectiles scales up rather well.
* Medium complexity (More complicated than Gatling mechanism)
* Acceleration limited by maximum chamber pressure.
- Bore wear
- HUMONGOUS muzzle flash (hydrogen combusting)
- Medium rate of fire.
Bottom line: Flechettes: Rail gun; Sub Orbital or ship killer: Light Gas Gun
Currently light gas guns emit a huge fireball out the end of them, which may tend to limit their use for a shoulder fired weapon (anti-tank, anti-air). On the other hand it is a lot easier to store and release obscene amounts of energy in a gas or powder than in electrical form. I would imagine porting the barrel would allow recovery of some of the hydrogen.
One advantage the railgun might have is it might allow different projectile shapes like fins that would be difficult to achieve with a light gas gun.
We should be using light gas guns to ship fuel up to the bottom of a chain of a LEO space elevators.
Amps != Power (Score:5, Informative)
To put it this way, the European Spallation Source is a planned particle accelerator which is planned to have a proton-beam current in the range of a few milli-ampere. That is, comparable to the current drawn by your LCD monitor in standby. The catch is that ESS will be using proton energies up to a billion electron volts, thus making the power output of the accelerator comparable to a small nuclear reactor.
You can NOT quote power in terms of ampere without specifying the voltage. Conversely I've generated several thousands of volts using my bare hands and a piece of nylon, but because the current was rather small nobody noticed.
What is even more interesting is the time over which you can sustain a given power output. Over at our physics department we have lasers with power outputs beyond all the worlds nuclear reactors taken together. The pulse doesn't last very long however...
Watts! (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. This would be extremely hard to achieve since amp is a unit of current. The problem is not that but rather that in combination with the voltage required to drive it.
Respawn... (Score:4, Funny)
Interesting Facts (Score:5, Interesting)