ghostrider
01/31/15 06:19 PM
75.80.238.47
|
I have no problems with needing the motive systems, like an electric motor to change the output form, such as electricity, from the engine.
I like tanks, and really don't want them screwing them up.
But saying the whole motive systems weight changes because the engine weight is lighter without any supported reason, other then we said so, is bothering me.
And the improvements can NOT be used with a regular fusion engine makes no sense.
You want to use hook ups as a reason. Then why would a 100 rated engine be in the same housing as a 300 rated engine? The smaller engine should have a smaller profile. The make the housings to fit the engine. Yet, you can not custom make the housing for a normal fusion engine?
This would lead to needing SPECIFIC shielding for EVERY engine out there.
Different manufacturers would force buyers to use THEIR stuff. So custom parts are not unknown. They modify parts to fit the makers specs. What would be so hard to change it to fit a normal fusion engine, then the difference between a vox or vlar engine? Don't try to tell me once piece fits all. It doesn't.
|
Cray
01/31/15 07:13 PM
67.8.171.23
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Now as for the drive train. How do they turn that into circular motive force? I doubt it is like a steam pump like on a train. And not, I am not saying blowing steam thru it to force a piston back and forth to turn the wheels.
I keep thinking it is electric motors. Which leads to other questions.
Vehicles would use conventional electric motors. 'Mechs would use the electrically-powered myomers.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
01/31/15 08:52 PM
70.118.139.48
|
So every vehicle as an alternator and generator system system that is still in use in 32nd century? Nothing has been improved upon or change in that time, what happen to advances in one area allowed for other areas to gain?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
01/31/15 09:11 PM
75.80.238.47
|
Now can you answer why the electric drive train would be lighter for an xl engine over a standard fusion engine?
Part 2. Why can you not use the lighter drive train with a normal fusion engine?
It would figure they use the same motors.
I know this is a new argument, but it would also figure enough power amps would mean a small ice could power the same motors.
Karagin. It would seem they did not want to advance tanks much, since they have not found a way to use better materials to make a lighter ICE. Incase any newer people want to read that, it is in an older thread. It was said the military ICE is the lightest they could make it.
And yes, I do understand the rules don't deal with this.
|
Karagin
01/31/15 09:51 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I get the idea that they didn't want tanks being more powerful then the mechs, but yet again FASA dropped the ball and failed to have an in-game universe reason for why a tanks and other military vehicles would not make use of the same materials going into mech components.
And there is NOTHING light about the military grade ICE, which is funny because the engines used in all but the US military main battle tanks of today is nothing more then a diesel engine and the one in the Abrams is a turbine engine similar to the ones found in military helicopters which are the same engines civilian helicopters use. So how much lighter from the BT civilian ICE are the military one's?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
02/01/15 01:04 AM
75.80.238.47
|
With things like the internal structure of mechs, I would think they could come up with some alloys that would handle ice issues without a problem, and be lighter then normal steel.
Aluminum engines are a good start. I would say titanium, but I will allow the rarity of it to limit it's use. But with mech armor using monofiliment diamonds, I do not see why the engines are that heavy. I would think the force of a piston firing isn't as bad as say a guass slug slamming into armor. A laser would heat up the materials more then the combustion in an ice ever should. Yet no lighter ICE.
But there is a thread for this line of conversation. I am trying to get some sort of logic or idea on the weight differences in the miscellaneous materials for vehicles and fusion/xl fusion engines.
|
Karagin
02/01/15 01:17 AM
70.118.139.48
|
It call comes together Ghostrider, you can't say that it's just engines when the same argument can be made for all other parts of the vehicle.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
skiltao
02/03/15 11:45 PM
68.77.109.65
|
Quote:
Quote:
-Option 1: vehicles use lower quality (more dangerous) reactors
Then they would have to rebuild the engine to use in mechs.
Nope! If they pulled the reactor out of the vehicle to put in the 'Mech, they might just let the 'Mech have a more dangerous reactor. (This is, after all, the age of jury-rigged partial repairs.)
Quote:
Quote:
-Option 2: vehicles use lower quality (less effective) reactor shielding
Same as above with an added problem. Soldiers are more likely to be outside the unit or worse, civillians.
Either refurbish the engine with better shielding or, as above, just don't bother. 'Mechs did walk around with engine damage pretty regularly, after all.
Quote:
Quote:
-Option 3: vehicle crews are closer to (and less compartmentalized from) their reactors than MechWarriors are
The example of the cockpit was used to help negate that, but yet the same cockpit is used in the ice work mechs. Why waste the money for that?
I'm not talking about cockpit insulation. I mean having a gyro, myomers, and lots of other generic BattleMech equipment (various components of the 'Mech) in between the pilot and the reactor. Vehicle crews would have less "vehicle" in the way.
Quote:
Quote:
-Option 4: redundancy to stave off the effects of lower quality maintenance
This would cuase more people to neglect maintanence. Companies are not likely to give high quality crap for free.
Low quality maintenance (in this case) is due to improper/incomplete training, not neglect. What "high quality crap" do you think I'm saying is being given away for free?
Quote:
Quote:
-Option 5: vehicle operations (being closer to ground dust?) inflicts different wear on reactor shielding, which changes how it's designed
This should not mean a lower quality shielding. If it did, people would stop buying the tank since maintanence would INCREASE from the wear and tear.
Different design requirements mean the shielding is bigger without being lower quality.
Quote:
What if the reactor shielding is built into the reactor, and the shielding constitutes a large part of the vehicle/'Mech's frame?
From the little information they give out about mech construction, the shielding is very much part of the reactor engine. The engine, including the shielding is a set amount of space in the mech. Xl engines take more room, and the newer gyros screw with that as well. That is why they take the same critical space in the torsos no matter the size of the fusion engine. (Another issue)
My point is that it might be impossible to "swap" differently rated engines without significantly rebuilding the 'Mech.
Quote:
It is when it is missing the engine shielding that your health hazards come out, such as a damaged shielding.
Jog my memory? I don't remember unrepaired shielding being a considerable health hazard. To the best of my recollection, radiation was only a problem when you opened the shielding up for repairs.
Quote:
saying the whole motive systems weight changes because the engine weight is lighter
I don't think anyone (the rules especially) are saying the drive train gets lighter. (See my chart.)
Quote:
You want to use hook ups as a reason. Then why would a 100 rated engine be in the same housing as a 300 rated engine?
They're not in the same housing. Critical slots do not equate to volume. They especially do not equate to a specific shape of volume.
Quote:
Yet, you can not custom make the housing for a normal fusion engine?
This would lead to needing SPECIFIC shielding for EVERY engine out there.
...that's what "shielding is part of the reactor" should indicate, yes. However, if you look at the chart I posted, I think that swapping the reactors from a normal 300 rated engine and a 300 XL engine would not affect the engines' respective masses.
Edited by skiltao (02/03/15 11:50 PM)
|
ghostrider
02/04/15 12:03 AM
75.80.238.47
|
What does an xl engine do? Change the mass of the engine. You have a larger volume for a lighter weight. Now unless I am missing something, that is what mass is.
Cracked or damage shielding releases more heat directly into the unit it is in. That is part of why the extra heat builds. Unless they changed it in the newer editions. To my knowledge this is why a single hit on an engine in a tank removes it from play. Otherwise equipping vehicle crews with radiation suits would be standard.
If you would explain to me what the difference between a critical spot and the volume that is taken up by a unit, might help explain your definition of a critical. My understanding is critical space is the volume something takes up inside a unit. Otherwise, a double heat sink shouldn't take up more then a normal heatsink, nor should there be a difference between clan and innersphere.
I must have missed something in the rules.
a 300 fusion engine weighs 19 tons and uses 9.5 tons worth of weight for the drive train.
a 300 xl uses 9.5 tons and the drive train weighs 4.75, rounded up to 5 tons.
How is this not changing the weight of the drive train using a lighter engine?
Looks like it is 4.5 tons lighter for the drive train.
This is HOW the rules define the drive train.
And the last statement is part of the main question. Why do you have to use the heavier materials for the drive train, when you can just use the lighter stuff for both styles of fusion engines?
|
ghostrider
02/04/15 10:06 AM
75.80.238.47
|
Just thought of one thing that destroys the need for additional shielding on fusion/xl engines.
Towers.
They can use a fusion engine right out of the box, or even hooked up to the reactor in any unit that has one.
Yes, you need to hook up bracing and such, and no where does it say anything about requiring special precautions.
They bury them to avoid damage blowing them up. But that is not required.
You plug into the power outputs and go.
I would think you would need coolant hook ups, but there is nothing said about that either. I know they have some built in, but I would think they need airflow to transfer the heat to the outside air.
|
skiltao
02/08/15 02:23 PM
68.77.108.242
|
From this thread: critical slots are a compromise between surface area, silhouette, and fragility. Increasing the volume of an item (like a double heatsink) will generally increase its surface area and silhouette, but increasing surface area or silhouette (as with an umbrella) does not automatically increase volume. And fragility is not related to volume at all.
Quote:
ghostrider writes: Otherwise equipping vehicle crews with radiation suits would be standard.
Or (since radiation suits are bulky and would hinder the crew) extra shielding might be standard instead.
Quote:
ghostrider writes: a 300 fusion engine weighs 19 tons and uses 9.5 tons worth of weight for the drive train.
This (the bolded part) is not in the rules. An EXTRA 9.5 tons of mass are added for transmission equipment AND EXTRA SHIELDING. The rules do not say how much of the original mass is devoted to drive train (and other parts of the motive system), nor do they say how much of the extra mass is devoted to drive train.
Edited by skiltao (02/08/15 02:25 PM)
|
ghostrider
02/08/15 06:35 PM
75.80.238.47
|
Now finish the rest of that thought.
the xl engine is 9.5 tons and uses 4.5 tons for the same thing.
And saying you can not use the xl equipment to move the tank with a normal fusion engine is kinda like saying a coal plant produces different electricity then a nuclear plant does. We need different wires run for the power at the destination.
And this does not explain why extra shielding is NOT needed for towers or buildings wtih any fusion style engine.
Nor is there any thing in there about the xl materials using more space as the engine does.
Physics and logic would show if you use a bulkier material that is lighter, it should use the same ratio of space/unit as if you use it to build a shed, as it would a sky scrapper.
The argument that a mechs toros changes with the size of the mech, yet the banshee and charger modifications did NOT change how much room the smaller engines took in the same torso. They have the same amount of locations taken wiether it is the larger engine or the smaller one.
So does this mean that all engine ratings fit in the same housing for them?
|