54 replies to this topic

[meteorol]

Grek Green, on 20 January 2016 - 09:05 PM, said:

Almost seven years...

Almost seven years... and people still keep posting threads with this video over and over and over and over and over again.

[Lily from animove]

Yeonne Greene, on 21 January 2016 - 07:15 AM, said:

It could also be an ablating laser. The damage mechanism is not the same.

that is still the same "laser" in the background its just a different method how concentration of the beam is used. and what you describe is what the lasers in Batteltech do, they heta up what they hit (this si what both alsers do) and then stuff melts and vaporizes. Thats why pulse lasers, by lore do more damage, because they pulse to give the varporised gas a chance to dissipate so that the next pulse is less diffused.

So basically lasers and pulse lasers are vaporizing the surface while the regular laser by not pulsing gets a lesser efficiency due to diffusion by the vaporised gas.

[1Grimbane]

maybe it's to remind pgi the direction the fanbase wants things to go futile as it may be

[adamts01]

1Grimbane, on 21 January 2016 - 07:12 AM, said:

anyone ever see the solid state laser the navy just put into service.... nothing gets rocked back by a focused beam of heat-light... it just catches on fire and explodes sorry. tell me the day turning on your bathroom lights knocks you off your feet lol... as much as i'd like to see lasers "blast" things they do kinda a boring job in terms of entertainment considering what they are..


although it has been proven that light doesn't just carry waves it does carry particles so a physical force could possibly be present in the "future" if only the original TT and lore designers could have seen past the 80's and 90's tech lol

They have bound 2 photons together and bounced them off other groups of bound photons. That's a huge 180 to how light has always behaved. Plus, light is effected by gravity and so acts like it has mass, or has it, I haven't taken physics for a while. If it has mass and bound photons bounce off stuff, why can't a "adamts01 future laser" have recoil?

[1Grimbane]

they haven't been able to pin down exactly why the mass having particles in light don't react like solid physical matter, i'm no physicist at all so i couldn't say one way or the other just that all solid state lasers i've seen used so far none knock their targets around... they simply catch fire and splode. not sure though as you do raise a good point about mass affecting it can we get stephen hawking to weigh in please.. someone give him a ring



so since i've started playing mwo in 2013 i've had to look at more graphs and charts than a cartographer and do more math and stats than in college.... wtf mwo mechanics why you strain my brain

Edited by 1Grimbane, 21 January 2016 - 07:34 AM.

[Lily from animove]

adamts01, on 21 January 2016 - 07:26 AM, said:

They have bound 2 photons together and bounced them off other groups of bound photons. That's a huge 180 to how light has always behaved. Plus, light is effected by gravity and so acts like it has mass, or has it, I haven't taken physics for a while. If it has mass and bound photons bounce off stuff, why can't a "adamts01 future laser" have recoil?

funnily this reminds me of the thread where someone said when you fire a gun in space due to lack of mass by no gravity you would travel the same speed backwards as the bullet. If that would apply, switching a light on would mean you go backwards with alf the speed of light and your light would go half the speed of light LOL.

Well not sure if recent science changed it, but it is always said a photon is not havign mass, which always was an issue with explainign how it then cna be influenced by gravity. Thats the issue wiht the recoil, since it has no mass, yet a photon transferring its energy into another medium means increasing its mass it gets quite theoretically stuff. And from mechanical physics F = m*a and with 0m there will be no Force to the mech even when the photon hits the mech going from SoL to 0.

and I am not sure if the effect of the vaporisation and extention of that gas actually causes a proper physical recoil. probably not since it seems to be very small in its amount and armor may even buffer this small force unlike that one of a AC bullet impact.

Edited by Lily from animove, 21 January 2016 - 08:14 AM.

[1Grimbane]

yeah again way to much real learning for a mecwarrior game lol imagine our grandchildren plotting theoretical quantum mechanics just to figure out the latest game

[Lily from animove]

1Grimbane, on 21 January 2016 - 07:48 AM, said:

yeah again way to much real learning for a mecwarrior game lol imagine our grandchildren plotting theoretical quantum mechanics just to figure out the latest game

wouldn't make me wonder when time continues and society and technology rises instead of collapsing they may by regular school exceed our knowledge already. But this probably would take a few more generations.

Edited by Lily from animove, 21 January 2016 - 07:55 AM.

[Rizzelbizzeg]

We got the uav with the exact model from this video, what more could you want?!

[Y E O N N E]

Lily from animove, on 21 January 2016 - 07:23 AM, said:

that is still the same "laser" in the background its just a different method how concentration of the beam is used. and what you describe is what the lasers in Batteltech do, they heta up what they hit (this si what both alsers do) and then stuff melts and vaporizes. Thats why pulse lasers, by lore do more damage, because they pulse to give the varporised gas a chance to dissipate so that the next pulse is less diffused.

So basically lasers and pulse lasers are vaporizing the surface while the regular laser by not pulsing gets a lesser efficiency due to diffusion by the vaporised gas.

I know the difference between lasers and how they work.

The difference is that one melts and maybe evaporates the target material and the other sublimates and then ionizes the target material because the intensity is that much higher. It's the difference between gradually exciting the particles of the target to the point where they change phases versus immediately shattering the bonds holding them together and forcefully ejecting them clear in the process. Ablation is much cleaner, with little opportunity for heat transfer from the impact site.

TL;DR: Ablation doesn't melt the target, it sublimates it.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 21 January 2016 - 08:05 AM.

[Crazed Marsupial]

Quote

and I am not sure if the effect of the vaporisation and extention of that gas actually causes a proper physical recoil. probably not since it seems to be very small in its amount and armor may even buffer this small force unlike that one of a AC bullet impact.

You'd be surprised. There was talk a while ago of using a laser to burn and vaporise an asteroid surface - the resulting jet of gases and vapour expelled would be enough to push the object from it's course and potentially avoid hitting the planet (or America at least - all alien invasions and asteroids in film/sci-fi seem to hit America. They avoid the UK because of the weather probably).

If that is possible with a whacking great iron/nickel cored rock flying through space at many times the speed of sound with our current laser tech (which is probably quite pitiful compared to battletech's universe) - you could argue that a much higher powered laser or thermal effect on the ablative armour of a mech (much lower mass than an asteroid) would be enough to expel quite a strong force as the material is cooked off.

That's just my limited know-how of physics anyway. Interesting thought nonetheless.

[Metus regem]

Yeonne Greene, on 20 January 2016 - 09:55 PM, said:

Yeah, how about that PPC spool up?

Suck it, lore nerds.

I'd be in favor of it actually, it makes sense as it would need to draw energy to fire. If it was stored in capacitors, before firing, then why is it that it doesn't explode when crit? Same for the Gauss, it should only explode when there is power in the capacitors, hence the charging mechanic it currently has, that being said, I'd be perfectly okay with it (the Gauss) not exploding when it is not charged.

[Lily from animove]

Yeonne Greene, on 21 January 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

I know the difference between lasers and how they work.

The difference is that one melts and maybe evaporates the target material and the other sublimates and then ionizes the target material because the intensity is that much higher. It's the difference between gradually exciting the particles of the target to the point where they change phases versus immediately shattering the bonds holding them together and forcefully ejecting them clear in the process. Ablation is much cleaner, with little opportunity for heat transfer from the impact site.

TL;DR: Ablation doesn't melt the target, it sublimates it.

well we don't know the exact differences of the lore, as far as sarna gives us, it speaks of melting and also vaporised effects. So it is probably just such a high intense laser on a big scale that it melts and also vaporises emltet material, so probably no direct sublimation or a mix of both depening where the hit is able to do both. Because they are guns and not tools, so one may not cre if additional material next to the sublimation also melts. It's just putting laods of heats into the opponent to make things break.

Metus regem, on 21 January 2016 - 08:13 AM, said:

I'd be in favor of it actually, it makes sense as it would need to draw energy to fire. If it was stored in capacitors, before firing, then why is it that it doesn't explode when crit? Same for the Gauss, it should only explode when there is power in the capacitors, hence the charging mechanic it currently has, that being said, I'd be perfectly okay with it (the Gauss) not exploding when it is not charged.

Why would it explode? not everythign that si stored energy would automatically explode. A gauss is more diffcult, a damage at it may cause the entire charged magnetic field to an uncontolled acceleration of various parts into all directions ripping the rest of the gauss apart and maybe some parts of the mech. Yet i doubt it would be such a HUGE thing in explosion. While a PPC may have a capacitor which is shielded enough to either break and not work anymore (PPC destroyed, energy discharges detroying the rest of the gun.

But I guess by 80's science people haven't fully unerstand how a gauss works, because a real gauss is actually very hot unlike our ingame counterpart.

[adamts01]

adamts01, on 21 January 2016 - 02:50 AM, said:

Or the superheated air around the impact expands so quickly it pushes the mech back.

Tugunska, on 21 January 2016 - 08:06 AM, said:

You'd be surprised. There was talk a while ago of using a laser to burn and vaporise an asteroid surface - the resulting jet of gases and vapour expelled would be enough to push the object from it's course and potentially avoid hitting the planet

Bam, I came to the same conclusion after 2 liters of beer! #SmarterThanNASA

Lily from animove, on 21 January 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

funnily this reminds me of the thread where someone said when you fire a gun in space due to lack of mass by no gravity you would travel the same speed backwards as the bullet. If that would apply, switching a light on would mean you go backwards with alf the speed of light and your light would go half the speed of light LOL.

That's some 1st grade **** right there. You still have mass in space, just no weight. More mass = harder to move. Like, everywhere.

Edited by adamts01, 21 January 2016 - 08:42 AM.

[Metus regem]

Lily from animove, on 21 January 2016 - 08:26 AM, said:

well we don't know the exact differences of the lore, as far as sarna gives us, it speaks of melting and also vaporised effects. So it is probably just such a high intense laser on a big scale that it melts and also vaporises emltet material, so probably no direct sublimation or a mix of both depening where the hit is able to do both. Because they are guns and not tools, so one may not cre if additional material next to the sublimation also melts. It's just putting laods of heats into the opponent to make things break.


Why would it explode? not everythign that si stored energy would automatically explode. A gauss is more diffcult, a damage at it may cause the entire charged magnetic field to an uncontolled acceleration of various parts into all directions ripping the rest of the gauss apart and maybe some parts of the mech. Yet i doubt it would be such a HUGE thing in explosion. While a PPC may have a capacitor which is shielded enough to either break and not work anymore (PPC destroyed, energy discharges detroying the rest of the gun.

But I guess by 80's science people haven't fully unerstand how a gauss works, because a real gauss is actually very hot unlike our ingame counterpart.

True, at the same time a PPC is a Charged Particle Projectile Cannon, if it is charged, and you brake the containment field, those charged particles are going to escape out of that breach and cause damage. Either to the target with a controlled breach in the magnetic field (firing it normally), or to the unit housing it through an uncontrolled breach.

[Y E O N N E]

Metus regem, on 21 January 2016 - 08:13 AM, said:

I'd be in favor of it actually, it makes sense as it would need to draw energy to fire. If it was stored in capacitors, before firing, then why is it that it doesn't explode when crit? Same for the Gauss, it should only explode when there is power in the capacitors, hence the charging mechanic it currently has, that being said, I'd be perfectly okay with it (the Gauss) not exploding when it is not charged.

Exactly! Finally, somebody else who understands!

The complaining over charge mechanic has nothing to do with lore in the vast majority of cases, it's just people not able or willing to figure it out. At worst, charge just adds flavor. I'm all for removing exploding weapons if they are uncharged (and in favor of making lasers have a chance explode for tiny damage when destroyed since they are charged all the time).

Lily from animove, on 21 January 2016 - 08:26 AM, said:

well we don't know the exact differences of the lore, as far as sarna gives us, it speaks of melting and also vaporised effects. So it is probably just such a high intense laser on a big scale that it melts and also vaporises emltet material, so probably no direct sublimation or a mix of both depening where the hit is able to do both. Because they are guns and not tools, so one may not cre if additional material next to the sublimation also melts. It's just putting laods of heats into the opponent to make things break.

All I'm trying to say is that, as a weapon, ablation is superior to melting, full-stop. It's more energy efficient, it's faster, and it has lower collateral (which you want when salvaging 'Mechs is a big deal).

Honestly, I wouldn't put too much stock in Sarna or the books when there are now better understood physics to work with under the given premises.

Quote

Why would it explode? not everythign that si stored energy would automatically explode. A gauss is more diffcult, a damage at it may cause the entire charged magnetic field to an uncontolled acceleration of various parts into all directions ripping the rest of the gauss apart and maybe some parts of the mech. Yet i doubt it would be such a HUGE thing in explosion. While a PPC may have a capacitor which is shielded enough to either break and not work anymore (PPC destroyed, energy discharges detroying the rest of the gun.

But I guess by 80's science people haven't fully unerstand how a gauss works, because a real gauss is actually very hot unlike our ingame counterpart.

Despite what I just said above, Sarna explicitly states that in the Gauss it's the capacitors exploding from stored energy. Lasers and PPCs are just as energy intensive, and if you treat the damage dealing component as a black box and look at the power supply components only, all three weapon systems look remarkably the same. They all need power, supplied at a constant rate from the reactor, to juice up some capacitors over time that can then discharge in one sudden burst.

If we're going to say the caps have a chance to explode on one weapon when charged and ready to fire, they should have a chance to explode on all of them when charged and ready to fire.

Also, the nature of Gauss is that the magnets are only magnets when they need to be. That is, they are not energized at all until the projectile has reached that stage. There is no chance of flying apart there. A particle accelerator is actually much the same principle, just applied to tiny molecular-level projectiles.

[Lily from animove]

adamts01, on 21 January 2016 - 08:30 AM, said:

That's some 1st grade **** right there. You still have mass in space, just no weight. More mass = harder to move. Like, everywhere.

I know I was not the oen who made that claim in this weird thread

Yeonne Greene, on 21 January 2016 - 08:36 AM, said:

Exactly! Finally, somebody else who understands!

The complaining over charge mechanic has nothing to do with lore in the vast majority of cases, it's just people not able or willing to figure it out. At worst, charge just adds flavor. I'm all for removing exploding weapons if they are uncharged (and in favor of making lasers have a chance explode for tiny damage when destroyed since they are charged all the time).




All I'm trying to say is that, as a weapon, ablation is superior to melting, full-stop. It's more energy efficient, it's faster, and it has lower collateral (which you want when salvaging 'Mechs is a big deal).

Honestly, I wouldn't put too much stock in Sarna or the books when there are now better understood physics to work with under the given premises.



Despite what I just said above, Sarna explicitly states that in the Gauss it's the capacitors exploding from stored energy. Lasers and PPCs are just as energy intensive, and if you treat the damage dealing component as a black box and look at the power supply components only, all three weapon systems look remarkably the same. They all need power, supplied at a constant rate from the reactor, to juice up some capacitors over time that can then discharge in one sudden burst.

If we're going to say the caps have a chance to explode on one weapon when charged and ready to fire, they should have a chance to explode on all of them when charged and ready to fire.

Also, the nature of Gauss is that the magnets are only magnets when they need to be. That is, they are not energized at all until the projectile has reached that stage. There is no chance of flying apart there. A particle accelerator is actually much the same principle, just applied to tiny molecular-level projectiles.

There is a difference between an electomagnet and a cpacitor, and why an exploding capacitor will be a lot less danegrous than an exploding capacitor. (have you ever blew up a capacitor by overcharging it?). There is morelikely more shrapnells flying aroudn by a possible electomagnet exploding and its components interferring with the other electro magnetic fields in the gauss. yes in both cases capacitors explode, but in the PPC the electricity spreads and thats all. In the gauss the electricity of a destroyed and charged capacitor probably spreads amongst the electomagents which causes them ro randomly do stuff and probably cause a giant f*ck to happen. Because large electro magnets are very powerful. this is the main difference between both weapon systems. Just electricity flaoting around may not even be a issue for the mech because its made of mostly metal which acts to ground a sudden discharge as such of the PPC keeping its explosion local. But the random magentic fields probably throwing metal fractures around under the armor of your mech through its components, thats some totally different level of additional damage.

Edited by Lily from animove, 21 January 2016 - 09:04 AM.

[Admiral_Korean_Jesus]

Lasers can and do produce a recoil when focused. We already have done it using lasers to propel objects into the air.

https://m.youtube.co...h?v=LAdj6vpYppA

[Lily from animove]

Mikato Soul, on 21 January 2016 - 09:08 AM, said:

Lasers can and do produce a recoil when focused. We already have done it using lasers to propel objects into the air.

https://m.youtube.co...h?v=LAdj6vpYppA

interesting, but then I doubt on MWO scale of the lasers and masses we speak of that recoil is in any form relevant to affect something.

[Y E O N N E]

Lily from animove, on 21 January 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

There is a difference between an electomagnet and a cpacitor,

What do you think is accelerating the projectile in a PPC (yes, it is a projectile)?

Electromagnets.


An electromagnet, by definition, requires power to be a magnet. What do you think is supplying the power to that electromagnet?

Capacitors.

It's that simple. That's all there is to it. In both cases we are dealing with extreme energies being released in really short intervals.

Mikato Soul, on 21 January 2016 - 09:08 AM, said:

Lasers can and do produce a recoil when focused. We already have done it using lasers to propel objects into the air.

https://m.youtube.co...h?v=LAdj6vpYppA

The jet of hot air propels heated by the laser propels the vessel, not the laser itself. Direct laser propulsion is much, much slower and is only really useful over vast distances. The ship in James Cameron's Avatar used terrawatt-scale lasers to push the spacecraft away from Earth to relativistic velocities. It then used anti-matter rockets to slow down the space-craft after the mid-point. The return journey worked in reverse.