100 replies to this topic

[Jamestown86]

Dragonslayer Ornstein, on 30 January 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

As nice as pyrotechnic displays are, the mechs were never supposed to go critical. The mechs aren't supposed to go critical like they have in certain recent Mechwarrior games, and the exploding fusion reactor myth has also been nicknamed "the Stackpole" after the particular novel author who loved making his mechs go critical every time they were destroyed. Catalyst game labs went through the effort of writing a rather humorous multipage explanation of why the fusion reactor explosions don't actually happen in the Tech Manual in the section on the engines. The only time mechs exploded in that manner in the tabletop source material was from ammunition explosions, which are already in the game and already blow apart mechs. And they never did splash damage around them.

Edit: Source is page 36-37 in the Tech Manual, for those who are interested. The bit entitled "Fusion Engine Explosions: The Great Myth."

I actually really enjoy the novels, but to also to give more credit to the fact that mechs do have fussion reactor explosions. Blaine lee Pardoe had a reactor explode. The pilot of the mech initiated the explosion and it ended up sending out an emp to all of the surrounding mechs within close proximity. Twighlight Saga Book one "Exodus Road" Toward the end of the book if I remember. So it was not just Stackpole who wrote on the explosions but multiple authors. Which I know could start a debate on Tabletop Vs Novel....to forstall that I'm just saying Fussion explosions would be a great addition to the game b/c not only is it another strategy to be mindful of but also it's freaking cool : )

[Roadbuster]

I like the idea of cored mechs dealing damage to nearby mechs (I mean really close mechs, like 50m or so), but it would also encourage people to run into opponent groups when they are about to get cored to deal damage...hmm.
Still doesn't sound bad, I like it.

[CG Oglethorpe Kerensky]

Fusion =/= Fission

Fusion reactors DO NOT EXPLODE!

It takes a great deal of effort to keep a fusion reaction going and if it is disrupted the reaction stops, it doesn't go out of control and explode.

[HRR Mary]

CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, on 31 January 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

Fusion =/= Fission

Fusion reactors DO NOT EXPLODE!

It takes a great deal of effort to keep a fusion reaction going and if it is disrupted the reaction stops, it doesn't go out of control and explode.

Actually, they could on the stricter sense of the world "explosion", but never on the level that is thought by the general public. Given the small amount of "fuel" used in the fusion reactor (as opposed to massive fuel rods in fission reactor), the most impressive effect would be a short expanding plasma, that would break down quickly as soon as it's out of the magnetic/laser confinement, leaving only a heat wave, quickly absorbed by the air surrounding the reactor (Air is one of the best insulant).

Mainly, the Fusion reactor would vent Heat in the atmosphere... a mech's fart, if you'd like. It could melt some of the armor of the afflicted mech, but since the mech is made to resist exactly those kind of damage (PPC, Laser), the result would be anti-climatic.

[The Basilisk]

Since in my opinion toe to toe 'brawling' in a mech isn't just a clear sign of a general lack of skill and situative awareness but also a hazard to your team I would welcome every encouragement to get the hell into a sane distance to an enemy that is about to go down.
It would also punish the group cuddling and camping in one "defensive" position some people prefare to genuine creative and fast paced mobile warfare that mechs are made for.

-- punish brawlers (at least a little bit)

-- punish campers (nothing like a nice chainreaktion in the enemy team )

-- MOAR explosions

[canned wolf]

CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, on 31 January 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

Fusion =/= Fission

Fusion reactors DO NOT EXPLODE!

It takes a great deal of effort to keep a fusion reaction going and if it is disrupted the reaction stops, it doesn't go out of control and explode.

This has been covered, read the thread and stop trying to turn it into a fusion argument.

[focuspark]

Lol - the fission vs fusion argument is kind of funny because H-Bombs (the big scary ones) are a combination of fission and fusion, with fusion being the big source of the energy that... well, nukes everything.

Anyways, the points being is that reactors are not designed to react fast enough to generate bomb like explostions, at least not those of a nuclear sort. So there would be no EMP generated, no mushroom cloud, and likely no splash damage. If there was an explosion cause by the reactor failing spectacularly it'd most likely because by the hot plasma rapidly gassing out. Best I could image that'd do is roughly a small laser against all facing sections of any nearby mech; and by near by I mean with in 50m.

That's ***** about low explosions, they're pressure based - so they're not all that damaging unless you count shrapnel and Mechs have thick armor, so we're not counting shrapnel.

[Mechteric]

Mechwarrior 4's death system was a massive dose of grief, nothing more. I'm all for more fireworks, but stackpoling is completely unnecessary.

[blinkin]

focuspark, on 31 January 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

Lol - the fission vs fusion argument is kind of funny because H-Bombs (the big scary ones) are a combination of fission and fusion, with fusion being the big source of the energy that... well, nukes everything.

Anyways, the points being is that reactors are not designed to react fast enough to generate bomb like explostions, at least not those of a nuclear sort. So there would be no EMP generated, no mushroom cloud, and likely no splash damage. If there was an explosion cause by the reactor failing spectacularly it'd most likely because by the hot plasma rapidly gassing out. Best I could image that'd do is roughly a small laser against all facing sections of any nearby mech; and by near by I mean with in 50m.

That's ***** about low explosions, they're pressure based - so they're not all that damaging unless you count shrapnel and Mechs have thick armor, so we're not counting shrapnel.

they are not supposed to but when you shoot them full of holes it kind of voids the warranty. Chernoble wasn't designed to melt down.

explosions are energy based. i have seen capacitors explode. granted this is much smaller scale but the point still holds true.

massive release of energy superheats... everything causing large amounts of heat expansion and maybe some combustion (pressure) especially in fluids and gasses (hydrolics/coolant among other things). rapidly expanding gasses cause catastrophic failures in components that are weakened by extreme heat. SHRAPNEL! (oddly enough made of stuff that is the same hardness as the materials that your mech is made of.)

there is also the fact that containment failures run the risk of letting other materials (potential fuel) into the fusion reaction which (depending on the material) could increase the scale of the reaction. you ever see what happens when you pour gas on an already burning fire?

i will agree it is not a full scale hydrogen bomb type reaction, but no one is advocating destroying the entire field. there is still enormous amounts of energy to be released. have you ever had to worry about engine size when powering your weapons or other components?

[CG Oglethorpe Kerensky]

canned wolf, on 31 January 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

This has been covered, read the thread and stop trying to turn it into a fusion argument.

Stop trying to play pocket mod.

This thread is specifically about why mechs reactors don't "go critical". And the answer to that is that Stackpole didn't do his homework and created a Brain Bug. I would wager that even seeing a jet of plasma escaping the mech would be uncommon as damage to the exterior components of the reactor would halt the fusion reaction long before weapons fire penetrated the chamber.

[blinkin]

CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, on 31 January 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

Stop trying to play pocket mod.

This thread is specifically about why mechs reactors don't "go critical". And the answer to that is that Stackpole didn't do his homework and created a Brain Bug. I would wager that even seeing a jet of plasma escaping the mech would be uncommon as damage to the exterior components of the reactor would halt the fusion reaction long before weapons fire penetrated the chamber.

unless maybe... the containment was taken out with the reaction still going full blast.

some people get tired of having to repeat ourselves dozens of times to people who are too lazy to read any of the opposing arguments.

just for reference: 1 killogram = 2.20462 pounds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy :
"since is extremely large relative to ordinary human scales, the conversion of ordinary amount of matter (for example, 1 kg) to other forms of energy (such as heat, light, and other radiation) can liberate tremendous amounts of energy (~ joules = 21 megatons of TNT), as can be seen in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons."

tldr: it doesn't take much to make a big frigging explosion. 2.2 pounds can create the energy equivalent of 21,000,000 tons of TNT.

HIGH AMOUNTS OF ENERGY + SUDDEN RELEASE OF ENERGY = FRIGGING BIG EXPLOSION

Edited by blinkin, 31 January 2013 - 11:19 AM.

[canned wolf]

I'm not going to argue about how a fictional reactor would behave when shot with a fictional cannon. I'm tired of this argument. Some author said it would explode then some other author said that was stupid, it would never explode. And for some reason the second author is right?

But now you're arguing with me that a military vehicle packed full of weapons and explosives and the systems to power those weapons and explosives will never fail in such a way that it causes any major damage to its surroundings. To that I can only say... what? I was in the military, I worked with high energy systems. If you shoot them full of holes, sometimes they blow up, I promise.

Edited by canned wolf, 31 January 2013 - 02:15 PM.

[focuspark]

canned wolf, on 31 January 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

I'm not going to argue about how a fictional reactor would behave when shot with a fictional cannon. I'm tired of this argument. Some author said it would explode then some other author said that was stupid, it would never explode. And for some reason the second author is right?

But now you're arguing with me that a military vehicle packed full of weapons and explosives and the systems to power those weapons and explosives will never fail in such a way that it causes any major damage to its surroundings. To that I can only say... what? I was in the military, I worked with high energy systems. If you shoot them full of holes, sometimes they blow up, I promise.

I think we all agree there are things in a mech that will explode, what we're arguing about is generating a nuclear explosion.

Anyways, I'm with Garth - mechs going boom and damaging nearby mechs is an un-fun mechanic.

[Idgit Galoot]

I think this thread has been taken way too litterally. This game is based off of a fictional universe 1000 years into the future, and was written over 20 years ago. If we sat and picked apart every little detail about the game and compared it with our current technology, there would be much more to gripe about than a mechs power source. This is a game based off of the Battletech fiction, not reality. My point for starting this thread was whether or not other people would like to see that part of the game come back, or not. Not whether the fictional reactor could explode.

[Craftyman]

Fusion reactors do not explode, you are thinking of a fission (AKA what nuclear power TODAY is using/based upon) meltdown.

Source:
http://www.generalfu...com/safety.html
http://uk.answers.ya...29140138AA65a1m

Also it would be CoD levels of headslow if everyone had CoD's martyrdom. Worse an RNG version of it.

Also if it were just an effect it would just be cheesy b-grade science fiction level excrement. No no and 1000 times no.

Edited by Craftyman, 31 January 2013 - 06:34 PM.

[blinkin]

Craftyman, on 31 January 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

Fusion reactors do not explode, you are thinking of a fission (AKA what nuclear power TODAY is using/based upon) meltdown.

Source:
http://www.generalfu...com/safety.html
http://uk.answers.ya...29140138AA65a1m

Also it would be CoD levels of headslow if everyone had CoD's martyrdom. Worse an RNG version of it.

Also if it were just an effect it would just be cheesy b-grade science fiction level excrement. No no and 1000 times no.

the only ones suggesting that every mech is going to explode seem to be the people who hate the idea. everyone else who likes the idea is suggesting IT SHOULD BE RARE. less than a 5% chance over all. 1 in 20 mechs that die will explode. also NO ONE IS SUGGESTING FULL ON NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS. neither Chernoble nor Fukushima created full nuclear explosions, BUT they did release large amounts of energy when they failed.

not all explosions associated with fission or fusion are nuclear, in fact most aren't. these giant fighting machines utilize power sources that create vast quantities of energy. do you know what an uncontrolled release of energy is? IT'S A FRIGGING EXPLOSION.

all of the increased font sizes, bold, underline, and copius use of capslock are for those people who are refusing to look at this side of the argument and insist on making up absurd points that no one is actually proposing.

Edited by blinkin, 01 February 2013 - 12:50 AM.

[Nomonames2]

Idgit Galoot, on 29 January 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

I agree with it being rare, it could even be more prominent to certain models, or the way the player configured their heatsinks. The mech could even go through a cool animation of different pieces flying off warning everybody around that its going to blow, giving them time to get out of range. But I can understand where it could get frustrating, it would just half to be balanced like anything else.

i said something like this a while back.

it was along the lines of if you were on the purple flashing red like single digit hp on a L/R/CT and some one finishes you off with an alpha strike of 6 LLs or just some really large ammount of over kill then the reactor pops

now lets say its the same place same time but instead of the 5 LL 5 srm 6 barrage is a small laser that does you in... in that case the reactor detects the breach and seals/shuts down before anything bad happens

[canned wolf]

Craftyman, on 31 January 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

Fusion reactors do not explode, you are thinking of a fission (AKA what nuclear power TODAY is using/based upon) meltdown.

Source:
http://www.generalfu...com/safety.html
http://uk.answers.ya...29140138AA65a1m

Also it would be CoD levels of headslow if everyone had CoD's martyrdom. Worse an RNG version of it.

Also if it were just an effect it would just be cheesy b-grade science fiction level excrement. No no and 1000 times no.

Holy ****! THREE PAGES of discussion and noone brought up this obvious point. Good job Crafty, you win the internets.

Argueing in this thread has lowered my IQ. Thanks to everyone who contributed on both sides, but I think crafty has convinced me that I'm done. Good luck, don't sink to thier level.

Edited by canned wolf, 01 February 2013 - 07:35 AM.

[Volthorne]

blinkin, on 01 February 2013 - 12:47 AM, said:

the only ones suggesting that every mech is going to explode seem to be the people who hate the idea. everyone else who likes the idea is suggesting IT SHOULD BE RARE. less than a 5% chance over all. 1 in 20 mechs that die will explode. also NO ONE IS SUGGESTING FULL ON NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS. neither Chernoble nor Fukushima created full nuclear explosions, BUT they did release large amounts of energy when they failed.

not all explosions associated with fission or fusion are nuclear, in fact most aren't. these giant fighting machines utilize power sources that create vast quantities of energy. do you know what an uncontrolled release of energy is? IT'S A FRIGGING EXPLOSION.

all of the increased font sizes, bold, underline, and copius use of capslock are for those people who are refusing to look at this side of the argument and insist on making up absurd points that no one is actually proposing.

EXCEPT FUSION REACTORS DON'T CONVERT SOLID MATTER INTO ENERGY, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING HAPPEN. SOLID MATTER IS ANATHEMA TO FUSION REACTIONS, ESPECIALLY IF IT HAPPENS TO BE METAL. NOT TO MENTION THAT PLASMA, THE MAIN COMPONENT OF FUSION REACTIONS, CAN'T SURVIVE WITHIN AN ATMSOPHERE FOR MORE THAN A FEW MILLISECONDS.

IS THIS ENOUGH CAPS FOR YOU?!?!

Edit: EXPLOSIONS CAN ALSO BE CONTROLLED RELEASES OF ENERGY, SO YOUR POINT ABOUT UNCONTROLLED RELEASES OF ENERGY BEING EXPLOSIONS IS NULL AND VOID.

Edited by Volthorne, 01 February 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[blinkin]

Volthorne, on 01 February 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

EXCEPT FUSION REACTORS DON'T CONVERT SOLID MATTER INTO ENERGY, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING HAPPEN. plasma just means that enough energy has been added to strip electrons. the material can still be very dense, and is in fact required to be so for matter to overcome repelling forces and fuse. SOLID MATTER IS ANATHEMA TO FUSION REACTIONS, ESPECIALLY IF IT HAPPENS TO BE METAL. any matter is capable of fusion. past the point of iron however it requires more energy than it creates, this is known as "the iron peak". this is also why we have heavy elements like uranium or gold. NOT TO MENTION THAT PLASMA, THE MAIN COMPONENT OF FUSION REACTIONS, CAN'T SURVIVE WITHIN AN ATMSOPHERE FOR MORE THAN A FEW MILLISECONDS. plasma as is usually created on earth does not last long, but none of that plasma is at high enough pressures for a fusion reaction to occur. this is why lightning bolts do not level cities.

fusion happens at the center of stars. stars are frigging big. at the center of a star there is a lot of gravitational force pushing down. enough force that IT WILL compress hydrogen and helium into a "solid" state (it is still a plasma, but it is a harder substance than anything on earth) in all but the smallest of stars.

ok extra large stars also convect in the center, but that is due to having enough energy to force the "solid" to flow, but the outer shell will reamin in this "solid" state.

http://science.howst...on-reactor2.htm :
High temperature - The high temperature gives the hydrogen atoms enough energy to overcome the electrical repulsion between the protons.

• Fusion requires temperatures about 100 million Kelvin (approximately six times hotter than the sun's core).
  
• At these temperatures, hydrogen is a plasma, not a gas. Plasma is a high-energy state of matter in which all the electrons are stripped from atoms and move freely about.
  
• The sun achieves these temperatures by its large mass and the force of gravity compressing this mass in the core. We must use energy from microwaves, lasers and ion particles to achieve these temperatures.

High pressure - Pressure squeezes the hydrogen atoms together. They must be within 1x10^-15 meters of each other to fuse.

• The sun uses its mass and the force of gravity to squeeze hydrogen atoms together in its core.
  
• We must squeeze hydrogen atoms together by using intense magnetic fields, powerful lasers or ion beams.

IS THIS ENOUGH CAPS FOR YOU?!?!

apparently i didn't use enough for you.

Edit: EXPLOSIONS CAN ALSO BE CONTROLLED RELEASES OF ENERGY, SO YOUR POINT ABOUT UNCONTROLLED RELEASES OF ENERGY BEING EXPLOSIONS IS NULL AND VOID.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion
An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases.

my point is null and void because there are also other forms of explosion? this is an interesting perversion of logic.

hopefully this physics lecture will educate... someone, and end some of the absurd posts based on partial truths.

Edited by blinkin, 01 February 2013 - 11:07 AM.