The Particle Projection Cannons
#41
Posted 23 April 2012 - 10:58 AM
Anyway this is only successful and does not cause a massive uncontrollable explosion because the particles are lined up and detonated in a very controlled environment. The explosion cannot get out of controll because there is an incredibly limited amount of fuel, bang and done basically.
The question would be, if you accelerate particles fast enough to split apart atoms of other matter, but the release that energy against the incredibly dense and matter filled armor of say a mech, wouldn't it basically just chain react when the beam hits the mech, as each small explosion blows out particles at speeds high enough to blow apart other particles and so on and so forth basically just causing a cascading failure chain reaction that turn the entire mech into a bomb and possibly causing the spread of the explosion to encompass any nearby matter (i.e. the planet): making the weapon into a 1 shot planet buster!?
Kinda like that last sentence.
#42
Posted 23 April 2012 - 01:53 PM
Lt muffins, on 22 April 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:
The piece of technology that has enticed me the most is the Particle Projection Cannon (PPC), Since I am the one that wants to know how everything works I have done some research in to find out the orgin of this weapon concept and it has led me to Nickola Telsa.
http://www.tfcbooks..../1935-00-00.htm (one of the documents mentioning a device similar to a PPC)
I have learned a bit from reading some of his writings, but they have been a bit vague for my taste.
So I ask if anyone else shared my curiosity in this matter and found out anything else other than what i have found.
(I promise I wont build one in my back yard.)
I assume you're referring to something like this:
Granted, this is one rather short range, but only because UV lasers are disgustingly expensive.
#43
Posted 23 April 2012 - 02:12 PM
Knt.Maverick, on 23 April 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:
as was stated... i think... the US is close to deploying Rail Technology. In-fact i'm pretty sure that some Naval battleships are already refitted to housing 1 or 2 "Rail Hybrid" cannons... using a standard "powder-based" round for initial acceloration and increasing the acceloration via the rail system in the barrel.
The US Navy doesn't plan on doing ship-based testing until 2017, but they're getting there.
Grrzoot, on 23 April 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:
Anyway this is only successful and does not cause a massive uncontrollable explosion because the particles are lined up and detonated in a very controlled environment. The explosion cannot get out of controll because there is an incredibly limited amount of fuel, bang and done basically.
The question would be, if you accelerate particles fast enough to split apart atoms of other matter, but the release that energy against the incredibly dense and matter filled armor of say a mech, wouldn't it basically just chain react when the beam hits the mech, as each small explosion blows out particles at speeds high enough to blow apart other particles and so on and so forth basically just causing a cascading failure chain reaction that turn the entire mech into a bomb and possibly causing the spread of the explosion to encompass any nearby matter (i.e. the planet): making the weapon into a 1 shot planet buster!?
Kinda like that last sentence.
The LHC doesn't cause little nuclear explosions like an atom bomb. It actually uses the kinetic energy and the collision of the particles to produce extremely heavy exotic particles. Remember, e=mc^2. These exotic particles decay quickly and by watching how they decay, physicists can determine a lot about both the interactions of quarks (the innards of proton and neutrons and all those exotics) as well as the structure of space-time.
I remember a long time ago reading some fluff on the PPC and it was described a lot like the laser guided lightning you guys pointed me to. The only problem with this system as it applies to Battletech is that it requires air to fire through, so PPC's on spaceships would be useless. At some point I think we're all going to have to push the "I Believe" button and just sit back and enjoy blowing each other up.
Edit: lol Fixed my poor English.
Edited by Midgie, 23 April 2012 - 02:39 PM.
#44
Posted 23 April 2012 - 02:37 PM
Midgie, on 23 April 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:
I actually remember an episode of Numb3rs (A TV science/cop drama here in America that actually was on for 4 or more seasons) that had a flying "Remote Drone" with a laser guided lighting device used to kill people. In the story, it was supposed to be a prototype for the military or something...
Try this link for more details: http://www.tv.com/sh...amland-1302663/
#45
Posted 23 April 2012 - 09:30 PM
Volthorne, on 22 April 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:
ya well, you try making a clear and cohesive thought after not getting sleep for 100 hours. Well, more than 20-30 min at a time.
#46
Posted 23 April 2012 - 09:41 PM
2. Liquid nitrogen to cool conductor
3. Pocket of dense gas
4. Heat gas into plasma to strip it of electrons
5. Discharge energy through magnetic coils
6. Bolt of protons and ions hits target at relativistic speed
In BTech terms, it does about 450MJ of damage (measured). There is no laser-guiding involved, and protons repulse eachother, eventually disepating... disapating... whatever over long distance.
#47
Posted 23 April 2012 - 10:57 PM
Midgie, on 23 April 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:
PPCs are even better in space - there is hardly anything to dissipate the energy of your particles in space. This makes the laser part unnecessary.
#48
Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:24 PM
Edited by Gigaton, 24 April 2012 - 02:55 AM.
#49
Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:33 PM
TeaL3af, on 23 April 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:
Why not just put that armour on a tank?
can a tank step over another tank, or step on another tank?
can a tank ignite reactor plasma and jump 120 meters?
can a tank be a walking fortress that inspires fear and terrifies your enemies infantry into surrendering at the mere sight of it?
no no and hell no. mechs have the manuverability edge by a long shot. and ranges are restricted to very short (under 2km) due to particle saturation blocking long range radars.
#50
Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:36 PM
Oh. and wasn't the topic PPC's
#51
Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:40 AM
Lancehead, on 23 April 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:
PPCs are even better in space - there is hardly anything to dissipate the energy of your particles in space. This makes the laser part unnecessary.
For a proton or alpha beam you're right. For electrons like are used in the laser guided lightning, probably not. Electrons are so light that their electrical charge might cause the beam to dissipate too quickly for any practical use. In air, you can force them down a conductive channel. The problem with a proton beam is that protons won't travel very far through air and you can't use conduction to solve that like you can the electrons. Neutrons would but they probably wouldn't interact with many of the substances in the mech, therefore little damage done. And alphas would make it about an inch or two.
Edited by Midgie, 24 April 2012 - 01:41 AM.
#52
Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:50 AM
LordDeathStrike, on 23 April 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:
can a tank ignite reactor plasma and jump 120 meters?
can a tank be a walking fortress that inspires fear and terrifies your enemies infantry into surrendering at the mere sight of it?
no no and hell no. mechs have the manuverability edge by a long shot. and ranges are restricted to very short (under 2km) due to particle saturation blocking long range radars.
1. No, a tanks can't step over another tank, but so far every bit of evidence we have suggests that a tank will be faster than a mech, and more stable. We overlook this jump in logic the BT universe makes, because mechs are cool.
2. Jump jets are ridiculous, and mechs are not areo-dynamically designed to realistically do controlled jumping. We overlook this because mechs are cool.
3. No, a tank couldn't be a walking fortress that yadda yadda yadda. However, tanks already are rolling fortresses that inspire fear in enemy infantry and cause them to surrender/flee at the sight of it.
4. Again, if you are arguing real world physics, a treaded/wheeled vehicle would always have superior speed than a legged vehicle. Legged vehicles may gain an edge in extremely rough terrain, but at that point I think a Hovering vehicle would win out. Also, with the tonnage we're talking about extremely rough terrain becomes silly again. In the real world, a 50 ton mech wouldn't be able to walk up most steep inclines, because it's weight would cause the ground to give way under it. We overlook these numerous facts, because mechs are cool.
Okay, okay, calm down. I think we can all admit that mechs are silly. Even if we reach the sort of technology that is used in BT, we probably wouldn't make mechs. For example: There's no reason why vehicles are more fragile in BT than mechs besides "We want mechs to be viable so we gave vehicles a gameplay penalty" In the real world, a relatively simple craft (like a tank) would be far less susceptible to critical damage than a ridiculously complicated mech. It doesn't matter, though, because mechs are cooler than tanks, so we pretend not to notice the silly bits and play our game.
Don't try to explain how BattleTech (or mechs) realistically works, because BattleTech (and mechs) doesn't realistically work. BattleTech is silly and we love it because it's silly.
Edit:And this goes both ways. People who say, "Our current military tech would super-pwn BattleTech-tech," are just as silly, because BattleTech-tech doesn't even work in the universe as we know it. In the end, we're dealing with Science Fiction after all. It's about as silly as arguing who would win in a fight between a Abrams Tank and Cthulhu. (btw Cthulhu would obviously win )
Edited by LackofCertainty, 24 April 2012 - 03:05 AM.
#53
Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:09 AM
Lt muffins, on 22 April 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:
That is pretty clever
EDIT: Fixed spelling (thx Rejarial Galatanand and Alaric Wolf Kerensky)
Not exactly. It creates an ionized path which will conduct current, and then add the current, a lot of it.
#54
Posted 24 April 2012 - 09:00 AM
LordDeathStrike, on 23 April 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:
can a tank be a walking fortress that inspires fear and terrifies your enemies infantry into surrendering at the mere sight of it?
l
Yes, coming from someone who has been rolled over by t-72 and Leopard 2 in tank terror training
Zakataks explanation about ppc is so far the best hybrid between BT and physics.
#55
Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:11 AM
Mechs are supreme because they can STEP over lengths of ground. A tank or a hover is cheaper and faster than a mech UNTIL they hit a strip of land they can not roll or hover over. Think along the lines of a hidden pit, or a wall of sufficient height. At that point the ability of a mech to step, jump, or less realistically, JJ over the obstacle establishes the logic of a mech. Tanks amd hovers can have their progress stopped fairly cheaply and easily. Battlemechs with their legs are harder to stop.
In your mind construct a nssty strecth of land with rough terrain with rolling angles, sharp changes in heigth, throw in some railroad tracks, ditches, trenches, use your imagination. Now, would you be better rolling over all that at speed? Trying to fly over it with the ground pushing back at your hover? Or is the logic of Battletech proving itself by being able to RUN over that ground?
#56
Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:15 AM
#58
Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:41 PM
As much as I despise using Wiki links I find using these would help us get back toward the original topic. (even though i love these broad techtalk topics)
http://en.wikipedia....cle_beam_weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleforce (this one is specificaly for Telsa's device)
EDIT: typo
Edited by Lt muffins, 24 April 2012 - 01:44 PM.
#60
Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:53 PM
3Xtr3m3, on 24 April 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:
Mechs are supreme because they can STEP over lengths of ground. A tank or a hover is cheaper and faster than a mech UNTIL they hit a strip of land they can not roll or hover over. Think along the lines of a hidden pit, or a wall of sufficient height. At that point the ability of a mech to step, jump, or less realistically, JJ over the obstacle establishes the logic of a mech. Tanks amd hovers can have their progress stopped fairly cheaply and easily. Battlemechs with their legs are harder to stop.
In your mind construct a nssty strecth of land with rough terrain with rolling angles, sharp changes in heigth, throw in some railroad tracks, ditches, trenches, use your imagination. Now, would you be better rolling over all that at speed? Trying to fly over it with the ground pushing back at your hover? Or is the logic of Battletech proving itself by being able to RUN over that ground?
That makes sense right up until you consider the amount of weight that a mech has compared to the area covered by it's feet. walking means that as the mech moves it has moments where it's entire weight is focused on the area covered by one foot. With mechs ranging from 20-100 tons, a lot of terrain isn't going to put up with that sort of punishment. steep inclines, ditches, and trenches probably wouldn't hold up under that sort of pressure. It'd be kinda like when a person tries to run up a steep incline, the ground just gives way under your feet and you have to drop to all fours and crawl if you want to actually continue.
If we consider muddy/wet terrain it becomes even more silly. Compare how easy it is to sink in and get stuck in a swamp as a human. Now multiply your weight by a factor of at least 200. (comparing a very heavy human to the lightest of mech) You may say "Well they have gyros and a neuro helmet interface for balance," to which I reply, "Hovercraft still would out-manuver mechs in those conditions without needing that sort of tech." There's a reason why we've invented air boat or hovercraft for dealing with that sort of terrain. They're damn near ideal in those conditions.
We invented treads, because they were a very efficient way of getting something ridiculously heavy to move over relatively soft ground. Mechs don't have an advantage there. In fact, walking might be the worst form of locomotion in those conditions, because it concentrates all of a creature/vehicle's weight onto one spot during motion.
Edit: We overlook all these facts, because mechs are cool. There's no need to pretend that they are practical, because they aren't. Accepting that mechs are somehow superior to standard military vehicles is the one big suspension of disbelief that BattleTech asks you to make in exchange for getting badass mech combat. That's a leap in logic that I'm willing to make.
Edited by LackofCertainty, 24 April 2012 - 01:57 PM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users