130 replies to this topic

[Feindfeuer]

It has been stated already, but it seems to get lost (or ingored), so i'll repeat it. The assumption in the OP of the limited range of modern flamethrowers is wrong, it might be true for handheld devices, but even WW2 era vehicular based weapons were able to reach a lot further than what is stated in the OP as an effective range. Though Flamethrowers are not used in service anymore, cause thermobaric and incendiary rockets do the job better, vehicle based flamethrowers outperformed the MW:O weapons in range.

Let's take a look at one of the last vehicle based designs in the US Inventory, the M132 Armored Flamethrower.

to quote the Wikipedia article:
"The 200 gallon fuel capacity enabled it to fire for 32 seconds, and the pressure unit enabled it to reach targets at a range of 200 meters."

But here you have a nice, old grainy video to verify that impressive range yourself:


So like every other weapon system, the ranges for flamethrowers in MW:O are actually too short.

Edited by Feindfeuer, 11 August 2012 - 01:42 AM.

[Dantiger]

why instead of Searching for a scientific fact that can prove the functionality of the flamethrower, why dont we search for the necessary tecnology (using the knowledge of our era or a good fictional tecnology) to make the flamethrower work ?
everyone here know that nobody can think about every technical detail of a scenery without make a mistake... then lets "help then" searching for something that can improve our BT world

Edited by Dantiger, 11 August 2012 - 01:23 AM.

[Drakkith]

Blaze32, on 10 August 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

The fusion reactor is proven to not work with todays tech, scientist made one and it lasted less than 1 second before it melted because it was as hot as the sun so the entire idea of a mech is unrealalistic and the fact it weighs so little (the mech) you just need to trust in the game and not real life science. Look at the atlas for example it is said to be the king of the battlefeild while it is 20 m high although it is powerful you can see it from miles away and should be able to kill it before it gets into its effective range. The ranges for all the weapons also proves that this is not relatable to real life Machine guns taht only go 90 meters, long range missiles only going 640 meters.


I'm not flaming just stating the facts battletech and realworld are not supposed to mix.
About the fusion reactor im talking about the most recent made one. --->http://en.wikipedia...._European_Torus

I'm sorry but your knowledge on fusion power is zero. Fusion reactors of the type used in battlemechs contain their plasma using magnetic fields from magnets and the plasma itself to keep it away from the reactor walls. The plasma is hot, but it is not touching the walls so nothing is melting. And we haven't proven that fusion power cannot work. In fact it is quite the opposite. We are very close to proving it CAN work.

Edited by Drakkith, 11 August 2012 - 02:59 AM.

[Iron Avenger]

Drakkith, that's not the post I am talking about, also guys, we have already found our answer, I am gonna try to find some way to close this thread. Also, Drakkith, If you are having trouble finding it, its not my problem.

[PlagueChampion]

seriously, is that a real question or are you just messing with us?

[Iron Avenger]

Ummmm... Yes everyone that is still followingthis thread, the REAL nerds have already found out their answers, Its on page 3-4 If you wanna look for it.

[Woska]

Why, in the name of all things crispy would you want to even try to apply real world physics to this game? It is a science fiction game, so real world physics has only a honorary place here. The flamers work as they're intended to. Also, notice that the weapon is called a "flamer" as opposed to a "flame thrower"?

If you don't like flamers, don't mount any on your mech.

[Jetfire]

Ok, so granting that in BT FTL travel and Hot Fusion reactors are proven working technology we have some basis for addressing the issue.

1. Air can turn to plasma with enough energy, that is what the visible portion of lightning is.
2. Plasma must be directed and contained with magnetice fields.
3. BT lore indicates the flamer is core plasma fueled weapon.
4. Fusion cores must carry an excess of fuel to replace spent fuel over time.
5. A plasma torch would be a shorter range weapon than a pressurized fuel flame thrower.

All signs point to a core plasma vent being used as a weapon, the mag fields should not be an issue as the reactor core should supply ample power. If you can move a gigantic mech without having to worry about running out of power capacity, a small mag cone projection is no big deal. The mechs should have plenty of replacement plasma fuel and the venting should only consume a minute about as the vented plasma would also turn surrounding air into plasma.


Also, because I love Star Wars so.
http://starwars.wiki...wiki/Superlaser

It's a matter beam, so the individually focused beams converge. If it was actually a SUPER LASER the beams would not interact. Instead it's more of a gigantic tachyon beam.

Edited by Jetfire, 11 August 2012 - 07:31 AM.

[Drakkith]

Woska, on 11 August 2012 - 07:25 AM, said:

Why, in the name of all things crispy would you want to even try to apply real world physics to this game? It is a science fiction game, so real world physics has only a honorary place here. The flamers work as they're intended to. Also, notice that the weapon is called a "flamer" as opposed to a "flame thrower"?

If you don't like flamers, don't mount any on your mech.

Battletech, and by extension Mechwarrior, are considered to be "Hard Science Fiction", meaning that the physics and technology are very similar to real world. The physics is actually a big deal.

Iron Avenger, on 11 August 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

Drakkith, that's not the post I am talking about, also guys, we have already found our answer, I am gonna try to find some way to close this thread. Also, Drakkith, If you are having trouble finding it, its not my problem.

I'm sorry, if you want me to read a particular post please tell me which one. I'm not here to play "find the thread I waved in the general direction of".

[Iron Avenger]

Drakkith, I am not trying to inconvenience you, I am just so bored of this thread, that by this point, if anyone still reading the thread has questions, I will ignore them and tell them the thread is done, we already have the answer. As I have already told you.

[verybad]

Iron Avenger, on 10 August 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Ok waldwolf, I will answer all of your problems with my theories in about 4-5 sentences...here goes...

1st. Yes I know that a battlemech has a fusion reactor and that fusion reactors require magnetic bottles to function.

2nd. How is it that you NEED a reactor for a mech flamer? I just recently produced a video that shows my closest version of a Mech flamer THAT USES FUEL.

3rd. I know that you can put a magnetic bottle over piping plasma but that still doesn't change anything plasma is still just that, an electrically charged gas, basically the same as fuel, but is less efficient to pump out of your mechs reactor than to just use fuel tanks.

And 4th. What you are talking about is using magnetic fields(bottles) to move around plasma. (bravo, we figured that out actually like a page and a half ago)(actually, I have known for a lot longer that that)

You don't need a reactor for a mech (plasma) flamer. It'd just more efficient that way. With an Internal Combustion based engine you need extra heat sinks and a Capacitor to make a Flamer work. That akes it less efficient than the old fuel based flamers.

So, Fusion based units (All mechs, some tanks) get along better running plasma based flamers, other units work better with fuel based flamers.

Iron Avenger, on 11 August 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

Drakkith, I am not trying to inconvenience you, I am just so bored of this thread, that by this point, if anyone still reading the thread has questions, I will ignore them and tell them the thread is done, we already have the answer. As I have already told you.

How wonderful of you.

Oh, by the way, the internet doens't shut off when you go outside.

Drakkith, on 11 August 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

Battletech, and by extension Mechwarrior, are considered to be "Hard Science Fiction", meaning that the physics and technology are very similar to real world. The physics is actually a big deal.

Actually, Battletech is ANYTHING but a hard science fiction game. It's very soft. Try Traveller for Hard Science based games.

[CocoaJin]

Drakkith, on 11 August 2012 - 02:54 AM, said:

We are very close to proving it CAN work.

A few years back, Lawerence-Livermore labs felt they were 6 years away from making it work. In last few years I believe a team was able to get one to work for a split second, in that split second, it was capable of powering New York City.

[Iron Avenger]

verybad, on 11 August 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

How wonderful of you.

Oh, by the way, the internet doens't shut off when you go outside.

That entire spiel was pointless, as in, your point was lost in what you were saying. Yes, I know the internet doesn't shut off, but what does that have to do with ANYTHING? I mean, if it did shut off, how would that change anything, I am still bored of this thread, and I will direct anyone with questions to pages 3-4 because that's where the nerds have found our answers. Cocoajin, there's no more point replying to this topic, there's no one here but the skeptics trying to find their own answers.

[Kamikazi Zero]

Iron Avenger, on 11 August 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

Ummmm... Yes everyone that is still followingthis thread, the REAL nerds have already found out their answers, Its on page 3-4 If you wanna look for it.

Ok, you all have read the guy, move around ppl, there's nothing to do around anymore, go away!

I mean, serious man? You have finded a aswer that sound good enogh for you so let's close the topic and go on?
I'll not deny that around pages 3/4 really have some good theories about how would that work, it's truth, but you can't just say "it's good for me so there's nothign else to be said", you can indeed be bored of the topic and don't follow it anymore, you can even (I would even recomend) say in the initial post that around page 3/4 ppl has get some valid aswers about the topic question, but if anyone want to keep the topic going and give new ideas and whatever, let them go! Who knows? They can maybe even get some better ideas than the ones apointed before.

Let's keep in mind that this or any topic don't go just around just one person ideas.

EDIT: Is around new ideas and opinions that science go around, if we got stuck to the first idea someone liked the earth would still be square and the center of universe.

Edited by Kamikazi Zero, 11 August 2012 - 03:27 PM.

[Scorpioneldar]

of course you could also look at the first post on page six (which i think is this page)
where they actually show a flamethrower that has a longer max range than the one in the game
170meters
so we have right now better flamers, missiles,and are working on a better Gauss than in the game somehow i see the weapons of the game not just possible but out of date (at least these we are kinda behind on lasers but as my earlier post stated we are getting there) we have proven to that fusion reactions work we just have yet to find a way to properly contain them there are many theories as to how you might and in over 1000 years you don't think they could find one that worked?

Edited by Scorpioneldar, 11 August 2012 - 04:06 PM.

[Xeven]

I always thought of Flamers as a Gel that is super heated by the reactor and splatered at an enemy mech. I think Cresant Hawks revenge flamer acted in this way. This is game I thought of a Flamer as a torch rahter than a super hot gel used to coat mechs and make them run hot.

[Drakkith]

Iron Avenger, on 11 August 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

Drakkith, I am not trying to inconvenience you, I am just so bored of this thread, that by this point, if anyone still reading the thread has questions, I will ignore them and tell them the thread is done, we already have the answer. As I have already told you.

And those answers are incorrect. This thread is a mess of sciency-sounding words and terms thrown together by people who know practically nothing about how a Fusion reactor works. The fact is that it makes zero sense for a flamer to tap into the plasma in the reactor when it would be much easier and safer for the mech to generate plasma in the flamer itself. All you need to generate plasma in the flamer is a high electric current, something we know the mech is easily capable of. A fusion reactor is VERY VERY sensitive to changes in it's plasma, and simply venting plasma would lead to various instabilities. I can dig out my Concepts of Fusion Power book and name a few if you'd like. Even accounting for hundreds of years of advances in fusion reactor design doesn't change the fact that having magnetically confined plasma being vented from the reactor through tubes, which also need to be magnetically confined, is a very very bad idea when you can do it much easier at the flamer itself. (Yes, I know the books say the flamer gets it's fuel from the engine. You can either accept it even though it makes no sense from an engineering standpoint, or just think of the flamer generating the plasma another way)

But of course, if you aren't interested in real physics, then I can understand if you want to ignore these issues. But then what would this thread be for?

[Ducks Guts]

Iron Avenger, on 10 August 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Alphakale, flamethrowers aren't jets, they don't pull in air, they are water cannons that use fuel instead of water that then set the fuel on fire. What you are suggesting is a steam cannon that uses heat from the reactor to heat air. As far as I know, air isn't flammable. And you are right, flamethrowers don't use thrust, they use pressure to pump out fuel.

DrThunder, I believe that the death star uses a focal lens that bends the light to all point in the same direction

Fuel wont burn without oxygen. Consider the theories instead of instantly gunning them down...minus the haters. My theory, kind of like human life, it is because it is. I'll call Steven Hawking in the morning and get back to this thread later. Hugs and kisses.

[Death Knell]

Jokerman, on 10 August 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Flamer

This might help

Less of a bottled fuel being ignited and more of a direct venting of plasma from the battlemech's fusion reactor

I'm no physicist, but I would assume that the amount of plasma vented is negligible compared to what is contained within the reactor.

How does venting heat build up your mech's heat even more? If anything, shouldn't venting plasma from the reactor reduce your mech's heat?

[Drakkith]

Death Knell, on 11 August 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

How does venting heat build up your mech's heat even more? If anything, shouldn't venting plasma from the reactor reduce your mech's heat?

What do you mean? Heat isn't being vented, plasma is according to the link.