3
Khobai, on 07 September 2016 - 05:20 AM, said:
i apologize I didnt mean to lash out like that.
No worries, Khobai. Apology accepted. It's early
Khobai, on 07 September 2016 - 05:20 AM, said:
Ok now that youve used the word temperature I understand what you mean better.
Even though the assault mech and light mech overheat at the same temperature, it still requires more waste heat to bring an assault mech upto temperature than a light mech simply because it has more mass. So for an assault mech to overheat should require much more waste heat than for a light mech to overheat.
Even though the assault mech and light mech overheat at the same temperature, it still requires more waste heat to bring an assault mech upto temperature than a light mech simply because it has more mass. So for an assault mech to overheat should require much more waste heat than for a light mech to overheat.
Yes, this is true. What I am saying is that since the Assault 'mech requires more energy, it produces more waste (heat) since efficiency is assumed to be the same across all chassis.
Khobai, on 07 September 2016 - 05:20 AM, said:
Remember the heatscale in a mech isnt measuring temperature, its measuring heat capacity. Were just arguing that its the actual mass of the mech that would store the waste heat rather than the heatsinks. The heatsinks dissipate heat not store it.
Maximum temperature and heat capacity are basically the same thing in this context, because the temperature effects on components is a constant. The same metal fatigues, circuits burn, and coolant boils at the same temperature no matter what the size of the 'mech is.
Khobai, on 07 September 2016 - 05:20 AM, said:
Using your water analogy of 1000 liters of water as opposed to 1 liter of water. Both are 100 C but it requires much more energy to bring 1000 liters of water upto temperature than 1 liter. So the 1000 liters has a higher capacity for holding heat energy.
Correct in as far as more BTUs are necessary. But the Assault 'mech produces more BTUs. And the heat energy is stored as heat. meaning it would take longer to cool. Luckily it has more total surface area, so we can (for game purposes) call it a wash.
Khobai, on 07 September 2016 - 05:20 AM, said:
As for heat dissipation, the higher % surface area a mech has, the faster it should dissipate heat. heatsinks should basically just increase surface area; because thats how heatsinks work theyre shaped so they increase surface area and transfer heat more efficiently.
Technically more total surface area would dissipate more heat faster than less total surface area, the ratio of surface area to total mass would be efficiency. But in BattleTech, heat sinks aren't really heat sinks. They are radiators, or heat pumps.
Khobai, on 07 September 2016 - 05:20 AM, said:
lighter mechs in general would have more efficient base heat dissipation due to a higher % of surface area. although heavier mechs would be able to mount way more heat sinks which would give them a higher surface area.
We would have to calculate total surface area to mass to determine efficiency. It is much easier to compare constants (total surface area). This would allow for cooling quirks, especially for unfortunately wide or tall mechs like the Awesome or Grasshopper.
