neven
01/14/04 12:37 AM
64.12.96.206
|
Look at the tech advances of today, yesterday we used computers, today, we have labtops, and the new mini computers, and what's with the jumpships, they too should be more advanced,
Q: Why do we still use missiles in the 31st century?
Q: Whats with fusion power, some dudes in the US already managed to create a fusion reactor.
Q: Why do they still use fuel?
Q: why do the producers of btech use real alloys and materials, rather than inventing ones?
try to answer that...
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
phoenix
01/14/04 12:56 AM
67.37.132.99
|
Quote:
Look at the tech advances of today, yesterday we used computers, today, we have labtops, and the new mini computers, and what's with the jumpships, they too should be more advanced
A lot of this is usually attributed to the loss of technology during the Succession Wars. The other thing is supposedly that the weaponry we have now would barely scratch the armor used in the 31st century. You need high powered short ranged weapons to punch through it.
Quote:
Q: Whats with fusion power, some dudes in the US already managed to create a fusion reactor.
The only man-made fusion I can think of is at the center of a large H-Bomb. Cold fusion has not yet been achieved by man. There was a group that said they had done it, but it ended up being a hoax.
Phoenix
|
neven
01/14/04 01:04 AM
64.12.96.206
|
come on, this stuff is 31st century tech, we even should have better technology than those assfaced wussies in "star trek", get what i say?
btech is one of the most futuristic-based sci-fi thrillers, (except warhammer, that crap is based in 40 000 ad, how my friend sez), so we should have better tech than all those other wuss-crap sci-fi franchises, and a shot from a main gun than comes from an m1-a2 abrams tank, has the strength of an Autocannon 20, well, just one shell, i know a lot of crap about global military, and those tanks carry a 120mm supergun, mechs carry a 120mm autocannon, still better! 
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
Nightward
01/14/04 03:33 AM
203.134.104.66
|
It could, but remember how BattleTech works. Sure, you could alter how afr weapon ranges reach...but then movement would have no effect. You could change how much damage weapons do...but then everyone would die in one hit. You could change the odds of hitting your opponent...but then you'd never miss.
Really, you might as well be playing Draughts in those circumstances.
The rules might not make all that much sense, but BT is still a fun game any way. With the suspension of disbelief reuired to believe that the govenments of the future would rather have one 'Mech than a bazillion infantrymen armed with machine guns, the extra little bit of effort required to say "Hey. It makes no sense, but what do I care? EAT GUASS RIFLE! BWAHAHA!" really isn't all that great.
And JumpShips aren't really "tech'. The operate in ways that no-one understands, by ripping a hole in reality and instantaneously hurling you 30 light years away. Personally, I'd be happy I got there in one piece rather than complain about the "low tech" of the ship...
And in any case, during the Succession Wars, the Great Houses beat each other almost back to the stone age. ComStar waged a hidden war that assassinated many of the IS' best and brightest scientists. Only recent advances from the Gray Death Memory Core have allowed for the kind of gear they do have.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Cray
01/14/04 06:30 AM
68.200.106.169
|
Let's run a fairly realistic extrapolation of modern weaponry into the 23rd century; let's not bother with the 31st just yet:
1) Missiles are useless because point defense lasers not only shoot down them in an instant, but also destroy most primitive bullets and projectiles
2) Lasers and other energy weapons are effective for tens of kilometers in the atmosphere, and have pinpoint accuracy out to thousands of kilometers in space. If you're seen, you die.
3) Kinetic kill weapons (railguns, mostly) are only useful against targets that cannot retaliate (orbital bombardment of civilians/low tech guerillas), or as short range space area denial - pump out clouds of tungsten BBs to ruin a fighter's day
4) Sensors see through anything
5) AIs run all battlefield issues - human reflexes are too slow
6) etc etc. Read GURPS Transhuman Space and extrapolate another 2 centuries.
This is how a typical planetary invasion works:
1) Hostile jumpships jump in system
2) They die
Sometimes, if they're sneaky and use pirate points and avoid fixed defenses, it goes like this:
1) Hostile Jumpships jump in system, very near a planet
2) Dropships deploy
3) They die
During rebellions and civil wars, where both sides are already deployed on the ground, games could be run like this:
1) Mechs leave bunkers
2) They die
Woo, that's some fun. I want to play that game. 
Anyone care to imagine battlefields with out-of-control "gray goo" nanotech and hyper-advanced technology?
*************************************************
The reasons BT is so "primitive" are manifold
1) It's a playable game. Do you want to imagine a mapboard with 30m hexes and modern weapon ranges (3000m autocannons, 5000m missiles, 40000m artillery, etc.)? The ranges might be short and weapon accuracy laughable by 20th century standards, but you're not going to have high profile, thin-skinned giant robots on a realistic battlefield, not unless you don't mind wasting money on vulnerable units easily killed by conventional tanks. The original BT writers shortened ranges deliberately - IIRC, there were supposed to be 2 more range bands beyond "long range," which were cut for space and playability reasons.
2) It's the future as partly envisioned in the 1980s, when the composition of Chobham armor was unknown and when the examples of tank cannon accuracy were limited. See "Traveller" for other failed extrapolations of technology; as I understand it, ship's computers with performance comparable to RL desktops approach a ton or more.
3) It's supposed to be a future where technology has been lost. Unfortunately, that theory makes it kind of hard to explain why Star League and Clan tech is so sad, but...
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.
|
Cray
01/14/04 06:44 AM
68.200.106.169
|
Quote:
Q: Why do we still use missiles in the 31st century?
See my last post.
Quote:
Q: Whats with fusion power, some dudes in the US already managed to create a fusion reactor.
No. There are literally dozens of fusion reactors in the world, either in test labs or on the scrap heap. NOT ONE of them has produced more electrical power than they consumed. ONE has released more heat than was pumped into them. The ITER project (google for ITER) is the "next to last step" before creating a power generating fusion reactor, which should take place in the 2030s. I'll be in the nursing home when, somewhere, sometime, a light bulb is powered by a fusion reactor. In the mean time, no, there are no power-producing fusion reactors. It took about two decades to go from the discovery of the neutron to fission bombs and fission power plants; it'll take about a century to do the same with fusion power.
Quote:
Q: Why do they still use fuel?
Because most of the factories that build fusion power plants got blowed to hell in the Succession Wars. Fusion reactors use rare knowledge, rare spare parts, and come from rare factories. On the other hand, anyone with a 19th Century knowledge of mechanical engineering can build a piston engine - and there's a lot more primitives like that than there are fusion reactor techs. You know the basic premise of BT has been technology loss during warfare, right? Or it was before 3030.
Quote:
Q: why do the producers of btech use real alloys and materials, rather than inventing ones?
try to answer that...
What real alloys and materials? I wrote the latest description of mechs in the CBT:Companion, and I used no real materials.
Consider the armor of a battlemech: "radiation treated steel over diamond-reinforced boron nitride." The 1-centimeter (0.4 inches) of armor on an Atlas's or Daishi's center torso can stop two bursts from a Hetzer's AC/20. The Hetzer's AC/20 is a 150mm weapon (what's the Abrams' main gun? That's right: 120mm). The Hetzer's AC/20 fires 10 rounds with each "shot." The Atlas's and Daishi's CT armor can stop that twice and still have armor to spare, even though their CT armor is about a centimeter thick. Do you know of ANY real world material 1cm thick that can stop twenty rounds from an Abram's main gun, let alone a bigger gun?
Look at the components of 'mech armor:
1) You cannot produce diamond reinforced boron nitride today, let alone the diamond fibers to do the reinforcing.
2) You cannot produce steel of the effectiveness in battlemech armor today. In foil gages, it takes more punishment than the thick DU and maraging steel and ceramics of Chobham armor.
So, no, battlemechs do not use "real" materials. They might as well be "duralloy" or "tritanium" or some other make believe sci-fi material. However, rather than resorting to cheesy Star Trekkian made-up material names, BT uses realistic material names, even if the materials are not at all realistic.
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.
Edited by Cray (01/14/04 06:46 AM)
|
Diablo
01/14/04 10:31 AM
66.207.113.110
|
Wouldn't advances in weaponry be countered by advances in armour and defensive measures? (shields)
|
Cray
01/14/04 11:43 AM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
Wouldn't advances in weaponry be countered by advances in armour and defensive measures? (shields)
Force fields? No basis for them in BT or RL physics, unless you're going to wave gravity control into existance.
As a rule, armor has a hard time keeping up with weaponry. Note for how many centuries that Western armies basically did without body armor after the introduction of firearms. It doesn't take much of an advance in weaponry to render an uber-armor obsolete, or so heavy as to be impractical. Western tanks are butting heads with this problem now, despite the wonders of laminate armors and ERA.
So, no, I don't think armor will do much for vehicles in the future. Sure, it'll help'em survive guerillas and rebels with $7 RPGs, but that only goes so far. Given realistic targeting equipment, lasers in space will not miss. It would also be easy to scale them to the point where they will evaporate any target; just put a set of big fusion-powered lasers in orbit and evaporate jumpships from 100000km away. Put them around primary jump points and zap the jumpships as they appear in system. The question of who wins a space battle is "who brought more lasers, and who started firing first." Then count the seconds until one side or the other is ashes. I suppose armor matters in that situation, it just won't be much fun to play.
Alternately, realistic particle beams would give the crews lethal doses of radiation in quick bursts unless many meters of massive shielding were used (emphasis on mass - armor composition matters little to high energy protons and neutrons, just the areal density, tons per square meter). It's feasible for spaceships to mount that kind of armor (especially on one location, like the front), but it won't matter to a battlemech, fighter, or tank. Aw, don't have 100 tons of armor on the cockpit? Well, your mechwarrior or pilot just got a 100,000 rad dose. He doesn't know that because that dose was actually also enough energy to boil his blood, and about 100 times the lethal minimum dose. All the hardened optical computers that measured radiation are also garbage, their nanometer-scale circuits look like swiss cheese from holes blown in them by the protons or neutrons.
Infantry are SOL. Even BT lasers pump out the equivalent of hundreds of kilograms of TNT in energy releases. Even if the infantryman's body armor could survive that, the surface explosion probably pulped him.
And then there's nanites and all that fun.
Wee, realistic future warfare.
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.
|
marlin
01/14/04 12:46 PM
62.104.208.76
|
Neven: please take this mantra and tell it to you everytime you think about logic in Battletech:
"Battletech is not logitech.." again and again.
Then you will one day be free of trying to get logic in Battletech. 
And the universe developed from a tabletop game.
No one of those inventors (cool guys) could imagine, that some fans would ask about the bore of ACs ore the range of missiles or the inhabitants of some planets in the Periphery.
So i think.
Frederic Walden
driver of "Sir Scan-a-L.o.T." (A Savannah Master, for neven <img src="http://www.sarna.net/w3t/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )
with the "Lords of Thunder"
and proud of it.
watch out for www.clanwatch.com |
Diablo
01/14/04 05:07 PM
24.114.50.190
|
u keep talking about lasers. which can be bounced by simple refration if my last physics class tought me right.
|
Hellbringer
01/14/04 06:16 PM
192.195.234.26
|
Quote:
Only recent advances from the Gray Death Memory Core have allowed for the kind of gear they do have.
Don't forget the return of the Clans. They brought a lot of stuff with them. It would have taken a lot longer for the IS to make advances with the Memory Core if it hadn't been for the Clans and help from the Wolf's Dragoons.
"But it SHOULD be a spectacle! It should be grand and exciting to us all! I'd hate to think that we've become so jaded that we find even our greatest tiumph, resurrecting the Star League, simply one more obligation."
-General Victor Steiner-Davion (First Prince and Archon in exile) 3064
|
neven
01/14/04 08:53 PM
205.188.209.103
|
jumpships tear a hole in the fabric of space, but before that they phase out of, space, time, everything, and then hurl themselves toward a point.
and herez my point, i still would say, mech technology is still way more advanced, i hate star trek, its all clean, mechwarrior, is gritty, its my style of scifi, and what the hell is with jumpships, i think they should all all have atleast 2 fusion-lithium cores, and an hpg link, without using those damn solar sails, those suk!
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
Nightward
01/15/04 03:08 AM
211.26.66.18
|
Solar Sails are great, IMO. Cheap, renewable source of energy. Yeah, you're screwed if you get attacked whilst the Jump Sail is unfurled, but then, that's what Batchalls and the Ares Conventions are for.
LF batteries are quite heavy and insanely expensive. They're reserved for WarShips and Fleet Flag vesself for exactly those reasons.
And finally, the secrets of HPG manufacture and usage are solely in the hands of the Word of Blake and ComStar. ComStar won't allow their monopoly to be broken, and the WoB see it as their sacred, mystical charge to keep it to themselves.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Cray
01/15/04 06:46 AM
68.200.106.169
|
Quote:
which can be bounced by simple refration if my last physics class tought me right.
Simple refraction does not move a gigajoule energy beam. The refractor deviates a bit of the energy, absorbs a small percentage, with a small percentage equalling many megawatts, and thus it evaporates, and the beam continues along its original path.
Trying to refract and reflect weapon grade lasers is like trying to take a drink from a fire hose.
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.
|
Cray
01/15/04 06:53 AM
68.200.106.169
|
Quote:
jumpships tear a hole in the fabric of space, but before that they phase out of, space, time, everything, and then hurl themselves toward a point.
There's no hurling, except among passengers with Transit Disorientation Syndrome. The jumpship phases out of one spot and phases into another.
Quote:
what the hell is with jumpships, i think they should all all have atleast 2 fusion-lithium cores, and an hpg link, without using those damn solar sails, those suk!
Solar sails, slow recharge times, and limited numbers of jumps were what helped make Battletech different from all the other zip-zoom super-warp sci-fi space settings like Star Trek. In Battletech, you do not simply skip across the galaxy at warp 9. FTL travel in BT is cheap and possible, but it takes time. The jumpships are big, magestic, and ponderous. They take long times to recharge; they don't just turn on the fusion engines and make three jumps just like that.
Personally, I always found jumpships to be one of the key factors in making BT so "gritty." They did not offer fast, reliable, easy travel to the stars like Star Trek, Star Wars, and so many other settings. Jumpships demanded thought and consideration for proper use; you could only jump once (or twice, with Li-F batteries) per week, and recharging required a delicate, majestic sail. Cool stuff, IMO.
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.
|
Cray
01/15/04 06:56 AM
68.200.106.169
|
The Ares Conventions say nothing about jumpships. The Conventions were written (c2400) when jumpships were a dime a dozen and easily replaceable. Heck, the Ares Conventions say it's acceptable to use nukes against space targets, if the target is over 75000km from an inhabitable planet.
It was peace treaties and armastices (sp) that ended the Second Succession War that introduced the notion of not attacking jumpships. The Clans independently developed the idea for different reasons.
(The Clans can also manufacture HPGs but, like WoB and Comstar, they aren't sharing.)
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.
|
Nightward
01/16/04 03:21 AM
202.138.42.39
|
"The Ares Conventions say nothing about jumpships. The Conventions were written (c2400) when jumpships were a dime a dozen and easily replaceable. Heck, the Ares Conventions say it's acceptable to use nukes against space targets, if the target is over 75000km from an inhabitable planet."
Ah. I've never actually seen a copy of the Ares Conventions. All the novels talk about not attacking JumpShips as though it was enshrined in law, so...
"It was peace treaties and armastices (sp) that ended the Second Succession War that introduced the notion of not attacking jumpships. The Clans independently developed the idea for different reasons."
Batchall, batchall, batchall! Although, things like the Odysseus-Class (I believe i is the Odysseus that carries the ASF Cluster) muddy the waters a bit 
"The Clans can also manufacture HPGs but, like WoB and Comstar, they aren't sharing."
Another thought also occurs: ComStar/WoB controls all the HPGs in Inner Sphere space. The Clans control their own. Even groups like the Wolf Dragoons that can manufacture and use HPG technology...have no-one but themselves to talk to with it!
It'd only really be of use to the military, but the cost of manufacturing your own HPGs wouldbe exorbitant. Probably almost as much as WarShips, and that's assuming ComStar/WoB ROM don't simply assassinate everyone working on the program, their family, friends, pets, and anyone bearing a faint physical resemblance...
Oh, wait. This is ROM, not SAFE
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Gangrene
01/19/04 09:59 PM
24.6.228.14
|
Quote:
Look at the tech advances of today, yesterday we used computers, today, we have labtops, and the new mini computers, and what's with the jumpships, they too should be more advanced,
try to answer that...
The technology level of Btech is pretty pathetic. It was made so for playability reasons, because making more realistic would result in a game far from what Battletech is.
Quote:
Q: Why do we still use missiles in the 31st century?
And added to that should be why do the missiles usck so bad? Missiles as delivery vehicles are here to stay, IMO. They will surely evolve, but I don't think they are going away.
Quote:
Q: Whats with fusion power, some dudes in the US already managed to create a fusion reactor.
"What's with . . . ?" is sort of an open-ended question. There are also fusion reactors in Europe, yet they cannot produce nearly the power of a hydro-electric dam or a nuclear reactor. Fusion has a ways to go before it takes the spot of best energy source.
Quote:
Q: Why do they still use fuel?
Because energy does not come from nowhere. Fuel of some sort will always be required (no, I don't buy into ZPE).
Quote:
Q: why do the producers of btech use real alloys and materials, rather than inventing ones?
I am not sure how real the materials are. I have always thought that mech armor and such was fictitious in its chemical description.
Gangrene
|
neven
01/22/04 11:54 AM
142.22.16.52
|
First: There is logic in everything, combat, politics, etc.
Second: Fusion will be one of the most plentiful power sources, but like whatever that dude sed, i think it was cray, or gangrene, that fusion is already in europe.
Third: i know everything requires somethin', but still, WHY DO WE STILL USE FUEL!
I mean what the hell! We should have coll tech in the 31st century, or 32nd, whatever, its all the same to me!
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
Cray
01/22/04 12:48 PM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
Second: Fusion will be one of the most plentiful power sources, but like whatever that dude sed, i think it was cray, or gangrene, that fusion is already in europe.
Hold it, now. There's fusion reactors everywhere, several dozen of them in universities and other research establishments. However, they are not fusion power plants. Not one single watt of electricity flowing anywhere on Earth comes from manmade fusion power plants. Please understand, the only manmade fusion reactors are research reactors that do not generate electricity. Only one of them has generated more power (in the form of heat) than has been put into it, and it was completely incapable of generating electricity or sustaining its fusion reactions for more than a few seconds. The ITER project figures we'll have fusion power plants in another 25-50 years.
Here's two of the fusion reactors in Europe:
ITER, which has not been built yet
JET, one of ITER's predecessors
Neither are true power plants, they're just test reactors.
The only fusion power plant used by man to generate electricity is the Sun, and power is harnessed from it by solar cells (directly), and quite a few indirect methods (wind, waves, coal, oil, etc.)
Quote:
Third: i know everything requires somethin', but still, WHY DO WE STILL USE FUEL!
Because most of the factories that build fusion power plants got blowed to hell in the Succession Wars. Fusion reactors use rare knowledge, rare spare parts, and come from rare factories. On the other hand, anyone with a 19th Century knowledge of mechanical engineering can build a piston engine - and there's a lot more primitives like that than there are fusion reactor techs. You know the basic premise of BT has been technology loss during warfare, right? Or it was before 3030.
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.
|
Spartan
01/22/04 01:00 PM
67.64.144.115
|
You still need fuel to provide propulsion. Even a nuclear propulsion system needs some kind of fuel to expel from the ship. It's just physics. If you want to accelerate your vessel you have to apply a force to it. F=ma is the governing equation. If you want a ship with mass m, to have acceleration a, then you must apply force F. To apply said force you expel something out the back of it, i.e. fuel.
If nothing else you would use a fuel of some kind to make course changes much like the shuttle would today (if it were operating) and just like the capsules did before the shuttle. A small burst of gas is released from a nozzle and the ship changes it's facing.
And at any rate how many civilians or, more relevantly, militias would have the knowhow or even the money to spend to repair and operate a nuclear reactor? For a battlemech, fighter craft or tank? They wouldn't and it would be far cheaper in material, construction and training costs to provide them with ICE engines.
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Silenced_Sonix
01/23/04 04:53 PM
168.209.97.34
|
Yeah, nothing like cooking off a few thousand gallons of diesel when you revv that 35-ton IndustrialMech...
Evolve or Die
|
Spartan
01/23/04 04:56 PM
67.64.144.115
|
To say nothing of the transport or recovery trucks. Why would you want to put a fusion engine in one of those?
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Silenced_Sonix
01/24/04 04:42 AM
168.209.97.34
|
To show you can 
I see your point, although the obvious use for fusion engines (and I am talking CBT now) would be for units that utilize energy weapons, and that do not have the tonnage available for an ICE and the power magnifiers that go with it. ICE's are cheaper, granted, but also much, much more bulky than a fusion engine of comparitive size.
Evolve or Die
|
neven
01/25/04 02:48 AM
64.12.96.206
|
Wht can't fuel cells be self sustaining,
get it "to be or not to be, that is the question" 
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
Spartan
01/25/04 08:43 AM
66.142.175.138
|
Because when you eject something out the back of the ship that piece of material goes away forever. You can't throw a piece of material out the back of the ship for propulsion and expect not to lose it. Even the most efficient propulsion system like a fuel cell would at somepoint need 'recharging.'
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Cray
01/25/04 09:07 AM
68.200.106.169
|
Quote:
Wht can't fuel cells be self sustaining
Because fuel cells need fuel. Typically, they combine hydrogen with oxygen, producing water and electricity. When you're out of hydrogen and oxygen, the reaction stops.
Variants can use methanol and certain other fuels.
A discussion of methanol fuel cells
"[These] Fuel cells work by converting hydrogen found in methanol into electricity through an electro-chemical reaction. No recharging is needed, just a refill of fuel."
The space shuttle's endurance in orbit is limited by how much hydrogen and oxygen it carries for its fuel cells, among other consumables.
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.
|
tgsofgc
01/25/04 04:05 PM
67.4.201.251
|
Hehe it'd be nice to see some specialized 'mechs with atmosphic intake vents (ment to operate in particularly rich: read as hazardous atmospheres) namely they run off of converting some organic gas into methan or such, something that doesn't blow them up.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
|
Cray
01/25/04 04:19 PM
68.200.106.169
|
tgsofgc, You're on HMPro forums. Read my Aethra setting. Many of the ICE's there actually run very fuel rich on Aethra. Rather than carrying fuel, vehicles carry oxidizers.
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.
|
Silenced_Sonix
01/26/04 01:39 PM
168.209.97.34
|
Correct me if I am wrong here, but would fighting in a methane-rich enviroment not be potentailly dangerous the moment someone fires off a weapon that generates a flame or excessive heat? Sort of a Double Boom effect - first the autocannon goes "Boom", and then the atmosphere goes "Boom"... along with everything in it, right?
Evolve or Die
|
Cray
01/26/04 02:22 PM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong here, but would fighting in a methane-rich enviroment not be potentailly dangerous the moment someone fires off a weapon that generates a flame or excessive heat? Sort of a Double Boom effect - first the autocannon goes "Boom", and then the atmosphere goes "Boom"... along with everything in it, right?
Remember the three things you need for a fire:
1) Fuel (paper, gasoline, coal, hydrogen, methane...)
2) Heat (spark, glowplug, spark plug, muzzle flash...)
3) Oxidizer (oxygen, hydrogen peroxide, some permanganates, fluorine, chlorine, etc.)
Just two of those is not enough. You need all three together.
Now, if you're in a habitable, oxidizer-rich environment...yes, there's a fire/explosion hazard. This kind of environment is what you find when some methane source just ruptured. Maybe a pipeline, maybe a burst well, maybe a fuel tank. The methane will not last long and will, in fact, probably oxidize rapidly and vigorously (it'll burn). If not, it will disperse to harmless, non-flammable levels.
However, methane-rich environments (like those of Uranus...so many jokes, so little time...Neptune, and Saturn's moon Titan) are quite stable - you won't have planet-sized fireballs - because while you might have fuel (methane) and heat (muzzle flash), you don't have free oxygen or other oxidizers. If a sealed, air-filled chamber ruptured, the oxygen would support combustion in the immediate area, at least until the oxygen supply ran out. The situation would be very much like a ruptured gas tank.
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.
|
Silenced_Sonix
01/26/04 02:59 PM
168.209.97.34
|
So ejecting from the BattleMech's cockpit would ignite the methane, right? You would have the methane, the air from the cockpit, and the flames from the ejection seat...
Hmmm, that would be an interesting predicament... Burn up inside your 'Mech, or eject and burn up outside your 'Mech.
Evolve or Die
|
Cray
01/26/04 04:12 PM
147.160.1.5
|
Ejection will probably outpace the flame front - the flames will mostly be in the cockpit, or near it. The limiting factor is how long it takes for the air in the cockpit and methane outside to mix. At equal pressure, they won't mix fast. You'll get a puff of flame as the ejection seat leaves, then a slower, erratic, "puffing" burn around the open hatch as the volumes of gas mix.
The mechwarrior should worry about suffocation more than anything. Light environmental suits might not be adequate for many methane environments. Titan is cryogenic, for example, and its very thick nitrogen-methane atmosphere would require a full space suit, which mechwarriors cannot wear in mech cockpits.
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.
|
neven
01/26/04 10:11 PM
205.188.209.103
|
OK......
umm, why are we talking about ejection from a battlemech's cockpit
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
Nightward
01/27/04 12:55 AM
203.134.42.195
|
Awh. Damn you, cold, hard physics! Damn you!
C'mon. The image is so cool.
MW: "Die!"
*Fires SRM Launcher*
MW: "Oh, crap..."
*DEAFENING BOOM*
Certainly better than, say, Fusion Engine Explosions or the "I am Jade Falcon" attack...
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
tgsofgc
01/27/04 01:41 AM
67.4.199.85
|
You copuld still do some impressive things though. For instance in one such environement suppose there is oxygen bound with in Rocks/Water/Ice that can be released by something as simple as a Laser hit. Now you have spot fires, that may be able to spread to some extent (though they will use up the oxidizer).
Now lets suppose that the planet with a methane rich atmosphere is cold (very cold) and has extremely deep oceans, and high preasure that makes it so only the tops freeze solid (just enough to support some mechs). Now lets suppose that the oxygen in this frozen water is tied up till shot. Now the mechs exchange fire and hit some of the ice releasing enough oxygen to ignite on the ice for a small amount of time. Now lets suppose the fire is hot enough to vaporize the nearby Ice, also igniting. Meaning each shot starts flare ups and slowly carves up the ice the mechs are fighting on, and may cause it to become unstable allowing them to fall in. Talk about danger.
Of course, I suck at chemistry and don't know just how free the oxygen in such a situation would have to be to react. It may be that something like this could never arise as the methan and oxygen would already react. If not it might be fun to have an ice ship crash into one such methane rich atmosphere planets.
just brainstor...er something
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
|
Cray
01/27/04 06:20 AM
68.200.106.169
|
Quote:
You copuld still do some impressive things though. For instance in one such environement suppose there is oxygen bound with in Rocks/Water/Ice that can be released by something as simple as a Laser hit. Now you have spot fires, that may be able to spread to some extent (though they will use up the oxidizer).
Pure oxygen, or readily heat-released oxygen, does not exist in nature. If you found a "deposit" of oxygen ice, you're probably near some manmade release, like an old research base on a Kuiper belt object. That won't last long.
Even in ultra-cold environments, oxygen is mostly found in water or silicates (silicon-oxygen compounds: rocks, space dust). For example, the ultra-cold environments of Sol's gas giants' moons tend to see a lot of water, whole moons made out of it (see: Europa, Enceladus, Titan, etc). Neptune and Uranus have been referred to as "ice giants" because most of their mass is in the form of water rather than hydrogen. Both water and silicates are very chemically stable.
The problem with finding free oxygen is that it's SO reactive. If a planet had a layer of free oxygen ice (or easily released oxygen) some meteor, geological activity, or lightning strike would've lit it off long ago. Even without humans around, the universe is a very violent place.
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.
|
Cray
01/27/04 06:25 AM
68.200.106.169
|
Quote:
umm, why are we talking about ejection from a battlemech's cockpit
Because thread drift brought up the topic of methane-rich atmospheres (not necessarily at the local chili cook off), and the risk of ejecting in them.
Let's see...
*I mentioned fuel cells.
*Somehow methane came up from the discussion of fuel cells.
*I mentioned that in a methane (or hydrogen) atmosphere, an ICE would need to carry oxidizer rather than fuel, because the atmosphere would have the fuel.
*Speculation turned to the risk of getting oxygen into the atmosphere and igniting it.
*The example someone thought of was a mechwarrior ejecting from a cockpit and releasing the cockpit's oxygen into the methane atmosphere with the flames of the ejection seat, creating a fireball around the luckless mechwarrior.
A classic case of thread drift. Neven, are you reading the thread in "threaded" or "flat" mode?
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.
|
Gnome76
01/27/04 04:29 PM
24.117.83.31
|
Quote:
Q: Why do we still use missiles in the 31st century?
Because they get a separate hit location roll for each missile (SRMs) or group of 5 (L/MRMs, rockets, etc.)
which means more chances for a crit or head shot.
|
neven
01/28/04 12:41 AM
24.81.43.163
|
What the hell is Sol?
what about something else, we could use fusion materials, like deuterium as fuels for dropships, aircraft, and jumpships, since deuterium is easily acquired from water (we could even do this in the present!) then we get a source of fuel that never runs dry, water is so abundant in MW, except on planets like proserpina, liezen etc.
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
Silpheed
01/28/04 12:59 AM
68.112.222.12
|
Sol is the name of our sun, hence the "Solar System". As for fusion reactors on aircraft and dropships, AFAIK many of these vehicles have them. However, as has been mentioned before, even a (relatively) inexhaustable power source such as fusion needs something to push out the back the ship for it to do anything in space. Of course, if you're only disputing the fuel, then I have no idea...
"War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale." - Clausewitz
Edited by Silpheed (01/28/04 01:02 AM)
|
tgsofgc
01/28/04 01:29 AM
67.4.200.70
|
Neven don't know if you go to any other btech forums but believe me this is mild thread drift... especially with sarnas nice threaded mode. Just try HMP or Battletechuniverse if you don't believe me.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
|
tgsofgc
01/28/04 01:42 AM
67.4.200.70
|
Quote:
Pure oxygen, or readily heat-released oxygen, does not exist in nature. If you found a "deposit" of oxygen ice, you're probably near some manmade release, like an old research base on a Kuiper belt object. That won't last long.
I guess that puts an end to that, but maybe you know the answer to this... I know you can electrolize water:
Quote:
Passing an electric current through acidified water (such as diluted sulphuric acid) breaks down the water into its constituent elements hydrogen and oxygen
but the question is can/water effect would Lasers have on liquid water, does it simply evaporate it? Similarly what effect does Particle based weapondry have on the water?
Would these effects change based on the atate of the Water, especially the chrystaline structure of ice?
Also what affect would the plasma based mech flamer have in such an environment, and on things like water/ice that may be present.
What about a frozen rock with a methane atmosphere with floating (suspension) algae like life that produces Oxygen. Would these bubbles cause little surface flames. Similarly if this all under Ice sheets accumulating beneath them, woulld/could these cause massive booms when the ice sheets crack and the oxygen is released. Also is such an environment feasible at all, even if temporary?
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
|
Cray
01/28/04 07:45 AM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
but the question is can/water effect would Lasers have on liquid water, does it simply evaporate it?
Evaporate it, or cause it to explode simply due to rapid heating, not any chemical effects.
Quote:
Similarly what effect does Particle based weapondry have on the water?
The same as lasers. You'll see some decomposition of water, but even a few kilograms of water converted to oxygen and hydrogen won't make much of a bang compared to the explosion of superheated matter where the beam hit.
Also note that electrolysis of water is a zero-sum game. If you sink X amount of energy into splitting water, you get X amount of energy back out when the hydrogen and oxygen recombine. Therefore, whatever a laser or PPC does with water won't be anymore spectacular than what they would do with rock or armor.
Quote:
What about a frozen rock with a methane atmosphere with floating (suspension) algae like life that produces Oxygen. Would these bubbles cause little surface flames. Similarly if this all under Ice sheets accumulating beneath them, woulld/could these cause massive booms when the ice sheets crack and the oxygen is released. Also is such an environment feasible at all, even if temporary?
Actually, you're working your way toward a real world issue, "methane calthrates." Under high pressure (i.e., deep underwater), methane mixes with water in a funny way to form methane-laced water ice. This is called a "methane calthrate" (calthrate means cage or something: the water cages the methane). It's also called, "the ice that burns." There's a LOT of it on the floor of Earth's oceans, and it's not terribly stable. A good shock (underwater nuke test, a big sea quake, etc.) can release the methane, causing a chain reaction release over a large area of the seafloor.
Then you get a lot of methane bubbling to the surface, where billions of years of effort by terrestrial plants have supplied an oxygen rich atmosphere. This sucks for three reasons:
1) For boats in the immediate vicinity, the dense water they were floating on suddenly turns to a frothing mix of gas and water - a lot of ships will sink, because they were designed with buoyancy to float on water, not on methane bubbles.
2) For boats in the immediate vicinity, you know some dumbass will be smoking a cigarette and will light off those gigatons of methane.
3) For everyone else on the planet, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and a large scale release can warm the planet several degrees. (You're better off burning the stuff than letting it release.)
Speaking of calthrates, this reminds me. One of the planets wrecked in the Jihad had a lot of methane calthrate rocks that flash-warmed the environment. I'll have to ask Warner which one that was. He wrote it and asked for my input, but I don't recall which planet it was.
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.
|
Cray
01/28/04 07:58 AM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
What the hell is Sol?
Step outside your home today and look at the big fusion explosion warming your face. Many speakers of Romance languages (Roman, Romanian, Latin, Spanish, French, etc.) use variations of "Sol" to describe it, while Americans usually call it "the Sun."
Quote:
what about something else, we could use fusion materials, like deuterium as fuels for dropships, aircraft, and jumpships, since deuterium is easily acquired from water (we could even do this in the present!)
Do you know that deuterium is just hydrogen (with an extra neutron)?
There are two ways to get power from deuterium:
1) Use it like normal hydrogen (protium) and burn it in a combustion engine or combine it with oxygen in a fuel cell.
2) Fuse it in a fusion reactor.
As I've said several times in this thread, humans can NOT currently generate power with fusion, and using deuterium in a combustion engine or fuel cell is criminally expensive. (A typical hydrogen powered car would cost about $14.50 per mile driven if it used deuterium. Using normal hydrogen, you could drive about 300 miles for $14.50.)
Quote:
then we get a source of fuel that never runs dry, water is so abundant in MW, except on planets like proserpina, liezen etc.
One of the defining themes of BT is that water is rare. Many planets suffered in the Succession Wars simply because their filtration systems broke down and spare parts were not available. The Ryan Ice Cartel Iceships enabled an explosion in colonization because the many, many water-poor worlds could finally be settled.
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.
|
Cray
01/28/04 07:59 AM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
As for fusion reactors on aircraft and dropships, AFAIK many of these vehicles have them. However, as has been mentioned before, even a (relatively) inexhaustable power source such as fusion needs something to push out the back the ship for it to do anything in space. Of course, if you're only disputing the fuel, then I have no idea...
Battletech's fusion reactors actually just use plain hydrogen, not deuterium, for fuel.
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.
|
Silenced_Sonix
01/28/04 02:48 PM
168.209.97.34
|
To skip back to something that Cray said about lasers hitting water: last time I checked my chemistry, steam had an energy level approximately seven times that of liquid water. Since these lasers are supposed to be nothing more than very, very warm light, would firing a laser into water not just simply create one gigantic cloud of steam? After all, the beam's energy would essentailly be weakend to one seventh of its previous power, and would there fore take about seven times as much time to inflict the same amount of damage - would that not just make a nice buuble-bath instead of exploding or doing something spectacular like that?
Yes, off-thread and all, but still curious...
Evolve or Die
|
Cray
01/28/04 03:27 PM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
After all, the beam's energy would essentailly be weakend to one seventh of its previous power, and would there fore take about seven times as much time to inflict the same amount of damage -
Hmm. Thinking.
No. The relation of steam's energy to water's energy has nothing to do with lasers. It just says "steam has this much X times more energy than liquid water."
To figure out how much water reduced a laser beam's energy, you'd need to know some value describing, like, how much laser light was absorbed by water per meter or hex traveled. Even after getting that, the relation of water's energy to steam's energy doesn't really apply. It then might be helpful to know how much laser energy a given amount of water could absorb before boiling, but that'd probably just factor into determining how much weapon-grade laser energy would be absorbed by the water.
If you knew how much laser energy that water absorbed per hex or meter, you could eventually find out where the laser's energy was reduced to 1/7 it's original strength, but that calculation would just be a coincidental match to the figure you provided. Closer to the barrel, the beam would be stronger. Further from the barrel, the beam would be weaker. It wouldn't always have 1/7th the normal beam strength.
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.
|
neven
01/29/04 12:09 AM
152.163.253.5
|
Ok, umm, hmm,...
cant lasers, ppcs, and all those other wholesome weapons be more powerful, and what about mech armor, does it also use titanium, or some other stuff.
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
neven
01/29/04 12:31 AM
152.163.253.5
|
you now whats cool about this post, there are so many questions, when one is answered, almost 10 more come up, cool eh?
uh oh here come the Kool aid spokesman, oh no! oh no!
Kool aid dude: Oh Yeah!!! LOL!
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
Cray
01/29/04 07:41 AM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
cant lasers, ppcs, and all those other wholesome weapons be more powerful
Sure. Look at how Clan lasers and PPCs improved over Inner Sphere/Star League models, and the new Clan "Heavy" lasers.
Quote:
and what about mech armor, does it also use titanium, or some other stuff.
Mech armor is described in several books, starting with the c1986 "Battletech 2nd edition" rule book, then the Mechwarrior 1 RPG, and most recently the "Classic Battletech Companion."
Fortunately, none of them describe mech armor as using titanium in the protective layers, a metal that (as a materials engineer) I can tell you is very over-rated. Only recently (late 1990s) have the best titanium alloys been able to match the best steels' strength on a strength-for-weight basis (one pound of titanium alloy is as strong as a pound of steel alloys available since the 1960s). Titanium alloys remain weaker than the best steels on an absolute strength scale. In fact, the best titanium alloys (yield strength 200000 pounds per square inch) are about half as strong as the best steel alloys (yield strength 350000psi).
The CBT:Companion (like earlier works) describes mech armor as essentially having two layers: a super-steel outer layer and a boron nitride (ceramic) inner layer that's reinforced with diamond fibers.
When I was revising that part of the CBT:Companion draft, I was told to include two additional layers that (apparently) had been described in some sourcebook or novel that I hadn't read. These included a plastic sealant (not to be confused with harjel) and a titanium honeycomb backing that provided structural support to the steel and ceramic layers. The titanium honeycomb is a lightweight, foil-gage layer that offers no armor value by itself.
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.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 89 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 21311
|
|
|
|
|
|
|