43 replies to this topic

[Suicidal Idiot]

Fusion has been 20 years away for the last 30 years. I predict it will be for the next 20 as well.

[Shredhead]

Yeah, maybe fusion comes, but why would anyone be so stupid and make mechs? It's more likely to see fusion powered tanks, warships, planes and semiautonomous drones than such giant walking targets. The only use for a walking machine would be as a lifter.

[Suicidal Idiot]

For those lost on the earlier page about reactors:
The Japanese reactors are FISSION, not fusion. The not yet invented Mech powerplants are fusion reactors.

----------------------------
Fission:
Fission (breaking up) = very HEAVY atoms breaking up and giving off energy. Even worse oversimplification, Uranium --> lots of radioactive daughters + energy.

Fission is easy; uranium fissions spontaneously. Put more uranium together, and the breaking up and flying apart pieces can hit other uranium and kick it off too. Get enough together, and it will get noticeably hotter. Refine it and put it together, and it will get very hot. Use it to boil water, and it becomes a nuclear power plant. Let the reaction get out of control, and you get Chernyobl. All nuclear power plants, including the Japanese one affected by the tsunami, are fission.

Really super refine it, put a bunch together by smacking it with enough explosives, and if you do it right, fission bomb, as in Hiroshima.
-------------
Fusion (combining) = very LIGHT atoms getting squished together, and giving off energy. Oversimplifying terribly, In the sun, it's Hydrogen + Hydrogen = Helium + energy.
It takes lots and lots of energy to get the hydrogen close enough to fuse into Helium. Once it fuses, though, it gives off lots more energy that you put in. In the sun, it's gravity + heat squishing hydrogen at the core. Currently, we have achieved self sustaining fusion reactions in fusion bombs, but they run out of Hydrogen in nanoseconds (fortunately). Like dynamite needs blasting caps, Fusion bombs need Fission bombs to act as the trigger. It takes that much ooomph to get fusion going.

We've fused atoms by blasting them from all sides at once with big lasers, and there are other ways to do it, but so far, we haven't gotten it efficient enough to get more energy out than we've put in.

As a very rough rule of thumb, fusion is about 1000 times as powerful as fission.

I hope this helps. If anyone is still interested, there's lots and lots of info available through google.

[Suicidal Idiot]

Shredhead, on 17 June 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

Yeah, maybe fusion comes, but why would anyone be so stupid and make mechs? It's more likely to see fusion powered tanks, warships, planes and semiautonomous drones than such giant walking targets. The only use for a walking machine would be as a lifter.

True. However, there are a very few things that mechs could excel at. Legs are very, very good for uneven terrain. Horses and mules are walkers, and there are several places where they are better than wheels. Anywhere that disadvantages wheels and flying is a possible niche for walkers. extremely heavy loads make flying a problem. Rocks more than half the height of tires are problematical. Extremely steep terrain. Wheels simply cannot go where mountain goats can. It can be too windy for flyers of any type.

In the modern era, we've pretty much just ignored terrain that isn't wheel friendly. Anyone developing good, efficient walkers will have lots of lightly touched real estate available. Mostly mountains.

[Nightborn]

There you go Suicidal, this might be interesting to you.

[BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON]

If you guys have a subscription to Scientific America, this article is a good read:

http://www.scientifi...problems&page=1

It highlights developmental problems of major fusion power projects over the past few decades and how politics, poor collaboration and very difficult science continue to impede progress in this field.

Fusion power while a conceptual possibility is incredibly problematic to realise, I think if the project could first be reorganised like CERN and if backers stayed out politically then that could then reduce wastage and obstacles when carrying out the science. All in all, I think we're still very far off from achieving practical fusion power - perhaps in 50 years we'll have a plant that induces stable fusion over long periods but still not have enough scale or output to work as an energy source.

Also, take what Kaku says with a pinch of salt... he can get a bit off the wall when it comes to topics outside his field of study, and that's understating it.

[Renan Ruivo]

Nightborn, on 17 June 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

The thing to remember about Michio Kaku, is that he is a theoretical​ physicist. Meaning everything he says, while it may be true, is just theoretical.

So if what he says is "true theory", then i guess you have created a "false theory" right there.



Woaah dude....

[Praying Mantis]

Nightborn, on 17 June 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

The thing to remember about Michio Kaku, is that he is a theoretical​ physicist. Meaning everything he says, while it may be true, is just theoretical.

and yet, so many people forget what theoretical means..........

[BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON]

Before the scientifically illiterate hop on here let's get one thing clear:

Theory in the popular culture sense, which is to describe a hunch or a guess is not a valid description in a scientific context.

Theories include tested and falsifiable hypothesis that can be shown to make predictions of a given phenomenon but also form models to show how something works. Therefore the theory of gravity isn't "just a guess" about why things fall down, nor is germ theory "just a guess" about why we sometimes become sick. Theories need to have explanative powers backed up by evidence.

Edited by BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON, 18 June 2012 - 07:48 AM.

[BlindProphet]

Shredhead, on 17 June 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

Yeah, maybe fusion comes, but why would anyone be so stupid and make mechs? It's more likely to see fusion powered tanks, warships, planes and semiautonomous drones than such giant walking targets. The only use for a walking machine would be as a lifter.

Maneuverability. Walking mechs can go places that tanks can not, and in others are far more capable at navigating the terrain (urban environments for example). Will they end up being battlemechs? I doubt that. Probably closer to gears from heavy gear.

[Xenois Shalashaska]

Yep once they start to develope small fusion reactors with a jump start from little battery box fission jumper leads we can look to the known unviverse for the battle grounds of decades of warfare & total annihilation of our innerphere the milky way.

[Zalikar]

Nightborn, on 17 June 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

The thing to remember about Michio Kaku, is that he is a theoretical​ physicist. Meaning everything he says, while it may be true, is just theoretical.

Far more science than most people realize is theoretical. Such as the Theory of Relativity. It's generally accepted as fact these days, but it still has yet to be proven. I find it quite interesting how many theoretical scientists/physicists are sitting around in labs getting paid to pretty much make educated guesses about how the universe works.

[BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON]

Zalikar, on 18 June 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

Far more science than most people realize is theoretical. Such as the Theory of Relativity. It's generally accepted as fact these days, but it still has yet to be proven. I find it quite interesting how many theoretical scientists/physicists are sitting around in labs getting paid to pretty much make educated guesses about how the universe works.

You clearly have no idea what a theory is.

[Zalikar]

People like to use big words and go into long winded discussions, but when it comes down to the long as short of it, a scientific theory is really nothing more than a guess based on available data. Those that want to feel intellectually superior to others just want to make it seem like they're doing more. Would it be more in your box if I used hypothisis instead? Boils down to the same thing. Ultimately, a theory IS a guess that has at least some data that supports it, but there is still enough variance to keep it from being a law.

[Vandal]

blindprophet, on 18 June 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:

Maneuverability. Walking mechs can go places that tanks can not, and in others are far more capable at navigating the terrain (urban environments for example). Will they end up being battlemechs? I doubt that. Probably closer to gears from heavy gear.

You would be surprised at the kinds of terrain that tracks are perfectly fine at traversing. That said it's pretty laughable that any sort of walking mecha would be superior to low profile tanks and IFV's. The biggest design focus right now when planning an armored combat vehicle is keeping it's profile as low as possible so that it can go hull-down and return fire while remaining the smallest target possible. Making your profile exponentially larger to get a small return in nebulously defined "maneuverability" will reveal itself as the huge mistake it is when enemy armored units start laying down HEAT rounds from a mile away.

The other big problem with any kind of walky robot is the placement of armor. Tanks are shaped the way they are because it is very easy to add extra armor to something that is for all purposes just a big box with low surface area. Along with the increased profile of walky robots comes increased surface area, any potential walkybot would have to be lightly armored compared to any dedicated armored unit, and survivability is definitely important when you start getting hit by infantry fielded rockets.

Even the giants that are the MBT are starting to be rethought in light of the major advances that man portable anti-armor weaponry has made. It's much easier and cheaper to build a lighter vehicle that has a system of AT Missles and a smaller caliber gun for infantry support than it is to engineer a massive beast of war that uses a large caliber gun to accomplish the same task. The missile is more expensive than the big round, but it works just as well and is cheaper than the tank it knocks out.

For an interesting look at the sort of unit that current armored combat doctrine supports check out the BMP-T 'Terminator'.

Edited by Vandal, 18 June 2012 - 07:08 AM.

[Zalikar]

Vandal, on 18 June 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

You would be surprised at the kinds of terrain that tracks are perfectly fine at traversing. That said it's pretty laughable that any sort of walking mecha would be superior to low profile tanks and IFV's. The biggest design focus right now when planning an armored combat vehicle is keeping it's profile as low as possible so that it can go hull-down and return fire while remaining the smallest target possible. Making your profile exponentially larger to get a small return in nebulously defined "maneuverability" will reveal itself as the huge mistake it is when enemy armored units start laying down HEAT rounds from a mile away.

The other big problem with any kind of walky robot is the placement of armor. Tanks are shaped the way they are because it is very easy to add extra armor to something that is for all purposes just a big box with low surface area. Along with the increased profile of walky robots comes increased surface area, any potential walkybot would have to be lightly armored compared to any dedicated armored unit, and survivability is definitely important when you start getting hit by infantry fielded rockets.

Even the giants that are the MBT are starting to be rethought in light of the major advances that man portable anti-armor weaponry has made. It's much easier and cheaper to build a lighter vehicle that has a system of AT Missles and a smaller caliber gun for infantry support than it is to engineer a massive beast of war that uses a large caliber gun to accomplish the same task. The missile is more expensive than the big round, but it works just as well and is cheaper than the tank it knocks out.

For an interesting look at the sort of unit that current armored combat doctrine supports check out the BMP-T 'Terminator'.

Very valid points, and I agree. However, the advantage two bipedal unit would be in heavy forests. Even the most manuverable modern tanks still have a pretty big turn radius and can end "stuck" in heavy forest. Another advantage of a biped could be in crossing some bodies of water. Ultimately, no vehicle is going to be perfect for all situations/environments.

[OperationExodus]

Not mechs. Power armor. The military has been looking at it for a long time but still doesn't have a power source suitable. Where will they get th- oh. wait. .

[Ipecac]

Elsior, on 17 June 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

Galileo Galilei was also ridiculed when he said the Earth revolved around the sun.

That was Copernicus, damnit!

I really enjoy listening to Dr. Kaku. Dreaming big is probably the only thing that we have going for us.
I agree with Adrienne. In a capitalist system, the money is going to decide what we do. We're going to suck every last drop of money out of the system the way it is, and we'll only switch over to a new, renewable energy source when it becomes profitable.

[BlindProphet]

Vandal, on 18 June 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

You would be surprised at the kinds of terrain that tracks are perfectly fine at traversing. That said it's pretty laughable that any sort of walking mecha would be superior to low profile tanks and IFV's. The biggest design focus right now when planning an armored combat vehicle is keeping it's profile as low as possible so that it can go hull-down and return fire while remaining the smallest target possible. Making your profile exponentially larger to get a small return in nebulously defined "maneuverability" will reveal itself as the huge mistake it is when enemy armored units start laying down HEAT rounds from a mile away.

I'm well aware of the terrain that tracked vehicles are capable of traversing. I'm also aware that tracked vehicles, while they can cross certain terrain, are not ideal in those areas. They are also not quick to change direction and speed. Now once again I'm going to reference Heavy Gear as the direction I think we'll likely head. Note in heavy gear tanks are f-ing deadly, and that Gears do not rule the battlefield, but are simply far more versitile than a tank.

Gears have several major advantages. First is maneuverability. Its not nebulous. I bet you can turn around 180 degrees faster than a turret or a tank chasis. This allows you to respond to flanking threats far more easily. Second Gears, aside from rocket packs/mortars/guided missiles, do not have mounted weapons. Their weapons are generally rifle based. This means the pilot is going to have a fairly natural time aiming and firing, not to mention the ability to easily switch weapons in the field should the situation warrant it.

Quote

The other big problem with any kind of walky robot is the placement of armor. Tanks are shaped the way they are because it is very easy to add extra armor to something that is for all purposes just a big box with low surface area. Along with the increased profile of walky robots comes increased surface area, any potential walkybot would have to be lightly armored compared to any dedicated armored unit, and survivability is definitely important when you start getting hit by infantry fielded rockets.

Even the giants that are the MBT are starting to be rethought in light of the major advances that man portable anti-armor weaponry has made. It's much easier and cheaper to build a lighter vehicle that has a system of AT Missles and a smaller caliber gun for infantry support than it is to engineer a massive beast of war that uses a large caliber gun to accomplish the same task. The missile is more expensive than the big round, but it works just as well and is cheaper than the tank it knocks out.

For an interesting look at the sort of unit that current armored combat doctrine supports check out the BMP-T 'Terminator'.

I'll just point you again to heavy gear....

[BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON]

Zalikar, on 18 June 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

People like to use big words and go into long winded discussions, but when it comes down to the long as short of it, a scientific theory is really nothing more than a guess based on available data. Those that want to feel intellectually superior to others just want to make it seem like they're doing more. Would it be more in your box if I used hypothisis instead? Boils down to the same thing. Ultimately, a theory IS a guess that has at least some data that supports it, but there is still enough variance to keep it from being a law.

This will be my last post regarding what a theory is because I do not want to drag this off-topic, but please feel free to PM me if you want to continue on with the discussion.

If you're going to "boil" something down to a conclusion make sure it's right. What you're describing is an observation when you say:

Quote

Ultimately, a theory IS a guess that has at least some data that supports it

A theory is NOT a hypothesis! Any hypothesis or guess will have "some data" that supports it no matter how absurd, a theory must work as a tested model that predicts and explain.

What you're doing here is discrediting the scientific method by dismissing everything as mere guesses that have no merit over a layman's, this is a display of ignorance rather than insight because you are then left without support for your own claim when the question of application, explainative and predictive power is begged. A theory is not invalid because it is not "proven" because there is always uncertainty in science, in the same way scientific laws are DIFFERENT from scientific theories and cannot be become exchanged.

There's a great misconception about how the scientific method works, I would like to be clear: hypothesis do not get upgraded into theories which then become upgraded into law - THIS IS WRONG! Hypothesis, theories and laws may be related by do not follow a hierarchical tier system, they are not promoted or demoted from one to another.

I'm leaving it off at that in order not to pull the topic further off-course, if you want to continue discussing you can PM me.

Edited by BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON, 18 June 2012 - 07:43 AM.