detention of the gas accumulated behind the projectile; but there is no advantage in passing certain limits.” “Quite so,” said the major. “What is the rule in such a case?” “Ordinarily the length of a gun is twenty to twenty-five times the diameter of the shot, and its weight two hundred and thirty-five to two hundred and forty times that of the shot.” “That is not enough,” cried J. T. Maston impetuously. “I agree with you, my good friend; and, in fact, following this proportion for a projectile nine feet in diameter, weighing 30,000 pounds, the gun would only have a length of two hundred and twenty- five feet, and a weight of 7,200,000 pounds.” “Ridiculous!” rejoined Maston. “As well take a pistol.” “I think so too,” replied Barbicane; “that is why I propose to quadruple that length, and to construct a gun of nine hundred feet.” The general and the major offered some objections; nevertheless, the proposition, actively supported by the secretary, was definitely adopted. “But,” said Elphinstone, “what thickness must we give it?” “A thickness of six feet,” replied Barbicane. “You surely don’t think of mounting a mass like that upon a carriage?” asked the major. “It would be a superb idea, though,” said Maston. “But impracticable,” replied Barbicane. “No, I think of sinking this engine in the earth alone, binding it with hoops of wrought iron, and finally surrounding it with a thick mass of masonry of stone and cement. The piece once cast, it must be bored with great precision, so as to preclude any possible windage. So there will be no loss whatever of gas, and all the expansive force of the powder will be employed in the propulsion.” “One simple question,” said Elphinstone: “is our gun to be rifled?” “No, certainly not,” replied Barbicane; “we require an enormous initial velocity; and you are well aware that a shot quits a rifled gun less rapidly than it does a smooth-bore.” “True,” rejoined the major. The committee here adjourned for a few minutes to tea
Prev.
Back
Top