Um, excuse me. But. This article was supposed to be published on April 1, right....?
Update:
phanatic, a poster on the
guns thread, calculated the power requirements of this weapon from the specs claimed by the
crank inventor and assuming perfect 100% efficiency. Using those assumptions, he came up with a sustained power consumption of 100MW -- approximately 134,000 horsepower.
Noiseless? Heatless? Portable?  .... Yeah, RIGHT.
no subject
No it won't, because the new ball you're adding isn't up to speed yet. So in addition to the reaction from the ball you've just released, there's the rotational drag of getting the new ball spun up.
From a single ball, you might not notice it. But it's still there. With a weapon firing as many as 2,000 balls per second, you most definitely will. Trust me on this, there WILL be a recoil force, and it won't be small. You can't just "account for" conservation of momentum through a clever design. The inventor is a crank, and his claims for this weapon are every bit as bogus, if perhaps slightly less obviously so, than those for every "perpetual motion machine" ever invented. There's ways to cheat recoil and not pass it on to the firer or mount point by ejecting a countermass (be it gas, as in a recoilless rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle), or plastic strips as in the Armbrust 300 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armbrust)), but there's no way to construct a projectile weapon that does not produce any recoil forces in the first place that doesn't require obtaining an exemption from compliance with the physical laws of this Universe. Even the sling you mentioned earlier has recoil.