42 replies to this topic

[razenWing]

kesmai, on 13 September 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

So what?
Is that new?
Look at the first images of locusts from early/mid 80's. Guess what fasa used to determined the height, etc of mechs.
Also guess why they completely abandoned the idea. After a short time.
It's someone reinventing the wheel all over here, but not delving deeper than half an inch into the matter.
Using flat formula for pure geometries falls so flat on it's face when the to determine object is not a cube or a sphere.
At least we know now that you are capable of 7th grade maths.

Wow, sour much?

People can't throw out ideas without being insulted?

Root Cube analysis is used by biologists, archaeologists, engineers, and countless other disciplines across the spectrum to determine various construct. I am glad that you have no respect to any of them, and that they are just doing 7th grade math.

"I don't have the imagination to come up with new perspective, so anything different than mine is automatically stupid."

Seriously bro, what are you, 5? I know we got a 5 year old in the White House, dun mean you gotta emulate him. And shall we review the log of existence to see what creative ideas you have come up with for the community other than vile and flame? Cause everytime I see you, in my threads or others, you have a remarkable record of being an online d-bag. Shall we go there, genius? Don't criticize less you can create. Let's see you come up with some good topics other than b7tch about everything you see, then we can talk on the same level.

But just to humor your one little semi intelligent point, cause others before you have raised it...

The reason Cube Root Analysis is still meaningful despite "things come in different shapes" is because at the core of things, there are consistent and constant mass. By your logic, all irregular objects can never be estimated because we as a human race can't figure out how to reshuffle things. You can easily estimate objects of irregular shapes because unless Atlas' have wings that weight 30%, at the core, everything's got 2 legs, 2 arms, a body, and a mid section.

A 295 engine is the same weight across the board, in care you didn't notice.

It's because of these constants, we know that even if things are in different shape, they can roughly be estimated because we can shuffle 20% of the shape there, 20% there, 10% here, 5% there, and bam... before long, everything is not that different as a geometric shape. I figured at post 1 that someone would take this bait, I just hoped that I didn't have to respond to your vitriol, but to someone more resemblance of contribution and intelligence.

---------

Just to shift gear, cause you're stupidity is unbearable. Someone mentioned earlier about larger heatsinks and how that will effect density. Maybe, but just like engines, heatsink sizes and volumes are consistent across machines. The size of 1 heatsink on an Atlas is not different than the same of the same 1 heatsink on a locust. Besides, that might affect structural density, but I was more interested in material density. Meaning, we don't have to apply a second scale to scale the legs of Atlas', for example, just because Atlas' are bigger. Cause, material, regardless of whether it's future metal or just metal as of now, for the range of 20-100 tons, do not exceed the material threshhold that we see on screen.

That's a negligible unless we are assuming Atlas is the size of Godzilla, weighing 20,000 metric tons. In which case, you do have to scale to be more bottom heavy, or the structure would collapse on itself. That's why buildings tend to have a foundation the larger, the taller the bigger the building is.

But again, that's a moot point. We don't need a denser metal to build an Atlas as opposed to a locust because the material strength is not at the level to be tested. That's all I was saying with that first statement.

Edited by razenWing, 13 September 2017 - 04:26 PM.

[qS Sachiel]

If an engine of the same rating can fit in a locust vs fit in an atlas (or any other mechs of significant difference in scale) it must either be larger in the larger mech (reducing the density of the unit) or will occupy less of the total volume within the engine bay of the larger mech (reducing the density of that component).

I also don't think that heatsinks would be the same size. There are different manufacturers making different models of weapon / other items specific for that chassis or weight group. Each will have a different size, different weight, density, and will be mounted more in / out of a unit depending on how it fits.

Also, again, i stand by that the legs of smaller mechs with thinner legs and more capsule-cockpits (bulk of mech is chest suspended very high up) that the legs would have a far greater density than the rest of the body. Don't need to test it, barring space magic, like you said, you need to maintain low centre of gravity, structural integrity, and even in comparison between mechs within the same weight where one has significantly thicker legs than the other: weight is either distributed equally and total bulk density goes up, or the legs are denser than the rest of the unit, where a unit has thinner legs than an equally weighted mech of similar volume.

[vandalhooch]

razenWing, on 13 September 2017 - 04:12 PM, said:

Wow, sour much?

People can't throw out ideas without being insulted?

Root Cube analysis is used by biologists, archaeologists, engineers, and countless other disciplines across the spectrum to determine various construct.

Then why does a Google search for "root cube analysis" bring up zero hits for that term?

Quote

I am glad that you have no respect to any of them, and that they are just doing 7th grade math.

No. You are doing 7th grade math . . . cube roots.

Quote

"I don't have the imagination to come up with new perspective, so anything different than mine is automatically stupid."

Seriously bro, what are you, 5? I know we got a 5 year old in the White House, dun mean you gotta emulate him. And shall we review the log of existence to see what creative ideas you have come up with for the community other than vile and flame? Cause everytime I see you, in my threads or others, you have a remarkable record of being an online d-bag. Shall we go there, genius? Don't criticize less you can create. Let's see you come up with some good topics other than b7tch about everything you see, then we can talk on the same level.

"Get your herring here! Get your fresh, red herring here!"

Quote

But just to humor your one little semi intelligent point, cause others before you have raised it...

The reason Cube Root Analysis is still meaningful despite "things come in different shapes" is because at the core of things, there are consistent and constant mass.

Capitalizing the words doesn't make it a thing. Maybe you should go back and actually figure out what you did is actually called.

Edit: It's called allometry.

From your description, it sounds like you are trying to talk about scaling issues between masses of living things that scale by the cube of height or length and strength of muscles or bones that scale by the square due to cross-sectional area.

In other words, show us exactly how you calculated those values in your second column. Then there might be a discussion to be had about whether your assumptions are or are not justified.

Quote

By your logic, all irregular objects can never be estimated because we as a human race can't figure out how to reshuffle things. You can easily estimate objects of irregular shapes because unless Atlas' have wings that weight 30%, at the core, everything's got 2 legs, 2 arms, a body, and a mid section.

A 295 engine is the same weight across the board, in care you didn't notice.

It's because of these constants, we know that even if things are in different shape, they can roughly be estimated because we can shuffle 20% of the shape there, 20% there, 10% here, 5% there, and bam... before long, everything is not that different as a geometric shape.

Doing things in the way you suggest, it becomes very easy to manipulate your assumptions in order to arrive at the answer you always wanted to get in the first place. It's a form statistical fraud.

Quote

I figured at post 1 that someone would take this bait, I just hoped that I didn't have to respond to your vitriol, but to someone more resemblance of contribution and intelligence.

Just to shift gear, cause you're stupidity is unbearable. Someone mentioned earlier about larger heatsinks and how that will effect density. Maybe, but just like engines, heatsink sizes and volumes are consistent across machines. The size of 1 heatsink on an Atlas is not different than the same of the same 1 heatsink on a locust.

That's an assumption on your part and I think you are misunderstanding what the poster was actually saying.

Here's an analogy. If you've ever done engine work on a modern compact car you realize how tightly packed the volume under the hood is. Now, go work on a large diesel tractor and see how much unfilled space there is to facilitate access to the larger parts. The tractor has far more mass but its overall density will be much lower than the small car. Your initial assumption that mechs of every size will be uniform in density is not supported by real life vehicles.

Quote

Besides, that might affect structural density, but I was more interested in material density. Meaning, we don't have to apply a second scale to scale the legs of Atlas', for example, just because Atlas' are bigger. Cause, material, regardless of whether it's future metal or just metal as of now, for the range of 20-100 tons, do not exceed the material threshhold that we see on screen.

In other words you completely ignored how real vehicles are put together because it blows your idea apart . . . statistical fraud.

Quote

That's a negligible unless we are assuming Atlas is the size of Godzilla, weighing 20,000 metric tons. In which case, you do have to scale to be more bottom heavy, or the structure would collapse on itself. That's why buildings tend to have a foundation the larger, the taller the bigger the building is.

But again, that's a moot point. We don't need a denser metal to build an Atlas as opposed to a locust because the material strength is not at the level to be tested. That's all I was saying with that first statement.

Edited by vandalhooch, 15 September 2017 - 07:34 AM.