Ammunition - could make a version for our bog-standard Gauss rifles, and a heavier version/shotgun version for the Brisant (if it even gets approved). And no, it would hinder the acceleration by virtue of mass - the only time more mass is a good thing is when it's mass hitting the target. Otherwise, it's wasted energy. And if you know a good physics forum, go right on ahead.
Brisant is the name of that grenade launcher, right?
((See, that's what happens when weapons get non-descriptive names!))
Also, I'm not following your logic, but I think I might see why. The sabot, in your idea, is it discarded after launch or not? Because if it is, then it doesn't matter how much heavier it is after the shell has been shedded, does it?
Say you have three shells (=the outer shell, not the full projectile), one lightweight non ferromagnetic (eg plastic), one heavier non ferromagnetic, and one heavier ferromagnetic. The second one obviously loses out to the first one, because it is heavier and doesn't add anything. It's also inferior to the third one, because there the core payload gains extra speed due to a higher acceleration (due to the ferromagnetic shell also being pushed away by the applied magnetic field). Even without an uranium core, the third one would still be able to be fired from the gauss gun.
So now, is it now possible that the loss in velocity from the extra weight is offset by the extra velocity gained from the extra push from the ferromagnetic shell? Or is there some reason as to why the ferromagnetic shell would
not add a (significant) increase in speed to the projectile? Hell, imagine for a second we made the shell out of a ridiculously expensive material that gains maximal possible thrust for the same 'amount of magnetic field' (tesla). Would that still slow down rather than speed up the core?
If there is some reason that there would be no speed increase (eg there is an upper attainable speed limit somehow, and if the uranium core can achieve that on its own, the shell cannot make it faster, thus warranting a shell that's as light as possible) then I could agree, but I con't know of any reasonable reason for such a limit.
If you want it not to lose it's shell, that's a slightly different story (though again, if it adds more sped than it takes away it should still help) but then I'd wonder why you'd want that, seeing as how there's good reasons for going for a smaller diameter projectile (better sectional density for one, I think).
We have suits with radiation shielding. Most of them do not.
Ah yes, the magical radiation shielding material. Hmm, it might work, but still, we'd have to assess if the increased difficulty in handling is worth the added damage potential (after all, in the military, they often use things that are reliable, safe and easy to use, not just the most powerful).
It's not nearly as funky (though it is a lot more funky visually), but have you ever seen an example of fluorescence thermochromism? Temperatures changing properties is always cool, even if sometimes it's not so extreme.
Youtube is our friend.Nothing earthshaking, but interesting nonetheless.