ghostrider
01/24/15 05:55 PM
75.80.239.165
|
Why a transmission on a tank with a fusion engine is half the weight of that engine, yet it changes when you use an xl or other lighter engine.
The power output is the same for the normal weight, as with the lighter engine.
It should use the same transmission. Otherwise, why not use the lighter transmission all the time?
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/26/15 12:41 PM
172.56.7.248
|
I would think that the game developers where looking for something to use as the reason for the extra weight they wanted to add to a tank so a fusion engine would weigh more in a tank than in a mech and someone said the transmission and no one wanted to take the time to think of something better so it was left at that.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
ghostrider
01/26/15 06:43 PM
75.80.238.47
|
Just weird that when the xl came out, they threw alot of the arguments out the window for tank weights.
Take the chevy small blocks. The 305, 307, 350, and 400 all use the same transmission standard. Now if you got aluminum heads or even an aluminim block, like the cadilac 4100/4500, why would the transmission change?
You can get a heavy duty transmission that would change the weight.
And still we get told there is no xl engine for tanks.
|
GiovanniBlasini
01/27/15 09:23 PM
208.54.39.254
|
Huh? Several canon tanks use XLs. Also, I thought the extra mass for fusion engines in vehicles was shielding to protect the crew compartment from radiation, which the lid support and cockpit systems do in a 'Mech.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
ghostrider
01/28/15 02:21 AM
75.80.238.47
|
Ice style engines, not fusion.
And the transmissions weight was reduced since it is based on the current engine weight, which means xl is lighter so the transmission is lighter.
This is what I want to know how or why this is true.
Mass isn't the issue for the developers. The xl engine takes up additional equipment space, but the transmission is lighter.
It just doesn't make sense they can lighten a transmission because the engine weighs less, but puts out the same power, yet they can not make a lighter ice.
I would think the transmission is an electric motor used to propel the tank from the power put out by the engine.
Otherwise I don't see how you could convert the energy from a reactor into circular motion to drive a drive shaft or turn axles.
|
GiovanniBlasini
01/28/15 01:44 PM
75.80.176.62
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Ice style engines, not fusion.
Yeah... still not following.
Quote:
And the transmissions weight was reduced since it is based on the current engine weight, which means xl is lighter so the transmission is lighter.
Tech Manual has the word "transmission" appear three times:
1. On page 91 in the section intro, where it says combat vehicles have military-grade transmissions
2. On page 126, where it says support vehicle final engine weight includes transmission weight.
3. On page 214, talking about communications equipment.
On the contrary, page 101 clearly says:
Quote:
Combat Vehicles must select their engines from the Master Engine Table (see p. 49), which lists the tonnage taken up by engines of various types and ratings. Combat Vehicles may only use ICE and Fusion engine types. Furthermore, when installing any form of fusion engine (including Compact, Standard, Light or XL engines), the listed weight must be increased by 50 percent (multiply the engine’s weight on the table by 1.5, rounding up to the nearest half-ton). This refl ects the weight of additional shielding and such.
As I said, added shielding, not transmissions.
Quote:
This is what I want to know how or why this is true.
Mass isn't the issue for the developers. The xl engine takes up additional equipment space, but the transmission is lighter.
It just doesn't make sense they can lighten a transmission because the engine weighs less, but puts out the same power, yet they can not make a lighter ice.
I would think the transmission is an electric motor used to propel the tank from the power put out by the engine.
Otherwise I don't see how you could convert the energy from a reactor into circular motion to drive a drive shaft or turn axles.
Still not sure why you're hung up on transmissions, as they have no bearing on the discussion. And XL engines are lighter because their radiation shielding is lighter, though bulkier.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
ghostrider
01/28/15 03:00 PM
75.80.238.47
|
This whole discussion was asking why the transmissions of tanks change weights from simply changing from an normal fusion engine to an xl fusion engine.
Half the weight of the engine, yet if you half the engine weight with an xl of the SAME size, the transmission drops the weight as well.
WHY?
Not why the engine is lighter, but why does the transmission weight get lighter?
|
GiovanniBlasini
01/28/15 05:12 PM
76.243.24.89
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
This whole discussion was asking why the transmissions of tanks change weights from simply changing from an normal fusion engine to an xl fusion engine.
Answer: they don't. At all. The transmission weight is not changed at all in any way, shape or form on a combat vehicle when changing from standard fusion to XL fusion.
Quote:
Half the weight of the engine, yet if you half the engine weight with an xl of the SAME size, the transmission drops the weight as well.
WHY?
Answer: it doesn't. At all. The transmission weight is not changed at all in any way, shape or form on a combat vehicle when changing from standard fusion to XL fusion.
Quote:
Not why the engine is lighter, but why does the transmission weight get lighter?
Answer: it doesn't. At all. The transmission weight is not changed at all in any way, shape or form on a combat vehicle when changing from standard fusion to XL fusion.
Again, you still appear to be under the mistaken impression that the 50% additional engine weight for fusion engines (be they standard or XL) on a combat vehicle is the transmission. It's not at all. Tech Manual page 101 makes this expressly clear, stating that the extra weight is in the form of additional shielding.
Let me break it down for you with an example:
70-ton tracked 4/6 tank.
300 Vlar standard engine: 19.0 tons + 9.5 tons "additional shielding" = 28.5 tons
300 XL engine: 9.5 tons + 5 tons "additional shielding" = 14.5 tons
Nowhere in the construction rules does it describe that additional mass as being part of a transmission. It *only* describes it as being "additional shielding and such", which, again, is a direct quote from Tech Manual's construction rules.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
skiltao
01/28/15 06:00 PM
108.88.167.164
|
EDIT: nevermind, covered by Gio's post. (Guess I should've refreshed the page before posting.)
Edited by skiltao (01/28/15 06:02 PM)
|
ghostrider
01/28/15 07:22 PM
75.80.238.47
|
Which tech manual?
The "and such" reads "and transmission equipment." This is out of the compendium page 123. Master rules say the same thing on page 119.
Now why would the xl extra shielding, if you want to go that route, weigh half of the normal engine shielding?
|
ghostrider
01/28/15 07:26 PM
75.80.238.47
|
Next question.
Why not use the better lighter weight shielding instead of the normal shielding for the normal fusion engine?
It is supposed to shield the crew just the same.
There is something completely wrong about this. I would like to know why a lighter engine uses lighter components when using the same equipment to move a vehicle.
And that is not using the engine is lighter as the reason.
|
GiovanniBlasini
01/28/15 08:25 PM
76.243.24.89
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Which tech manual?
Classic Battletech TechManual
Published by Catalyst Game Labs
ISBN-10: 0-9792047-2-0
ISBN-13: 978-0-9792047-2-2
Product code: 35002
My particular PDF is named CAT35002.TechManual.pdf
For kicks, I also checked my older FanPro one (product code 35103 - I couldn't find the ISBN) and, on the same page, it says the exact same thing.
Quote:
The "and such" reads "and transmission equipment." This is out of the compendium page 123. Master rules say the same thing on page 119.
And Aerotech 1 had a fighter able to pull 368.48 Gs per thrust point.
Fortunately, the Compendium, Master Rules, and Aerotech 1 are no longer the current rules set.
Quote:
Now why would the xl extra shielding, if you want to go that route, weigh half of the normal engine shielding?
Because that's kind of the definition of an XL engine?
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
ghostrider
01/28/15 10:14 PM
75.80.238.47
|
Then why don't they use the 'superior' shielding for normal fusion engines and save some weight?
The definition seems to have missed this issue, though I was hoping for something a little more substantial then 'because it says so'.
I guess they removed the reference to the transmission to avoid people asking this type of question.
Still. If I were to be designing a tank, using the best products I could should mean using the lighter shielding on normal fusion engines. And it also make me wonder about the light fusion engine.
Is it's shielding 'and such' weight different from the other 2?
|
skiltao
01/28/15 10:58 PM
108.88.167.164
|
Why not assume that the XL weight savings come completely from the shielding mass, and that vehicles with XL engines *still* have the full, heavier transmission mass?
|
ghostrider
01/29/15 12:24 AM
75.80.238.47
|
even with that, skiltao, why is it the xl can have the lighter shielding, but not the normal fusion?
Consistency is the key. A lighter engine putting out the same power should not mean a lighter shielding or motive system should work when you can not use it in a normal engine. The xl is lighter, but bulkier.
And that is supposed to be the shielding on the engine.
Put it in a vehicle and it requires more shielding?
This would mean working on an engine would fry techs working on mechs if this is true. Not all work can be done with it shut down.
Why use the heavier shielding for a normal fusion engine? Use the lighter stuff.. oh wait, it is based on engine weight.
If not for the developers changing yet more definitions, this would still be (and still is, as such) transmission issues as well.
|
GiovanniBlasini
01/29/15 01:06 PM
75.80.176.62
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
even with that, skiltao, why is it the xl can have the lighter shielding, but not the normal fusion?
Yes, because then that "standard" engine would be using the lighter, bulkier, more expensive shielding used in XL engines.
In other words, it's no longer a standard engine. It's an XL engine.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
skiltao
01/29/15 03:40 PM
108.88.167.164
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
This would mean working on an engine would fry techs working on mechs if this is true.
That's one reason that engine repairs require use of a "repair platform." They're environmentally sealed and shield the technicians from radiation.
|
ghostrider
01/29/15 07:35 PM
75.80.238.47
|
It seems you are confusing the xl extra shielding on engines for the sheilding on the motive systems for the tank. They are 2 different shielding units. Which also need to ask why you need the extra shielding for the motive system if the fusion materials don't leave the engine.
Remove an xl engine from a tank. It should come off the motive systems leaving the xl engines 'shielding and such'.
Why can't I use that lighter shielding with a normal fusion engine and not have as much weight for the 'shielding and such'?
It would not turn the normal fusion engine into an xl engine. If it did, you could change over engine types in the field.
The shielding on the xl engine itself is not in question. It is what moves the tank that makes me question how come it is lighter, but yet you can't use that lighter set up with a normal fusion engine.
The bias against vehicles seems to be the answer that comes up. It could mount more stuff using the 'transmission/extra shielding and such' which might actually counter some of the problems with criticals.
Now with extra bulk from your extra shielding thoughts, wouldn't that change how often the drive train would take a move critical?
|
GiovanniBlasini
01/29/15 09:29 PM
76.243.24.89
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
It seems you are confusing the xl extra shielding on engines for the sheilding on the motive systems for the tank. They are 2 different shielding units. Which also need to ask why you need the extra shielding for the motive system if the fusion materials don't leave the engine.
No, we're really not.
Quote:
Remove an xl engine from a tank. It should come off the motive systems leaving the xl engines 'shielding and such'.
Why can't I use that lighter shielding with a normal fusion engine and not have as much weight for the 'shielding and such'?
Because it's presumably using the same materials as an XL engine, and the additional cost, with the changed geometry, resulting in additional bulk.
But, let's set that aside for a second, and look at it this way: the XL engine takes up more volume, but uses lighter radiation shielding. Presumably, then, this radiation shielding is of lower density. The end result of this is you lose weapons slots on a tank and critical slots on a BattleMech.
Now, you take your tank, and you build the additional radiation shielding around the engine needed to protect the crew compartment which, potentially, is closer to the tank and doesn't have the same kind of life support setup the 3-ton BattleMech cockpit system has.
With a standard fusion engine, you've got a denser package than the XL engine. You could try wrapping this in the less-dense, less massive shielding used by the XL engines. If you make it the same thickness as the denser shielding used with standard engines, the shielding is inadequate, and your vehicle crew dies of radiation poisoning from neutron bombardment. Oops.
So, OK, you need to use more of the less-dense shielding. This has two potential results:
1. You end up having to tack thick enough shielding onto the engine that, all of a sudden, you're taking up extra space in the vehicle, kind of like an XL engine does. The additional modifications you need to make this shielding work with the original reactor's shielding, and to the original reactor's shielding, means that you're somewhere in between the weight of a standard engine and an XL engine. Congratulations, you now have a light fusion reactor.
2. You end up having to tack such a significant weight of shielding around the standard fusion reactor that you've saved no mass, and still have a standard fusion reactor setup.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
ghostrider
01/30/15 01:40 AM
75.80.238.47
|
First off, if the engine shielding for a fusion reactor isn't enough to protect those around it, wouldn't you end up killing all personnel that is around any units including and infantry tech or even the mech warriors themselves when they board a running mech?
And if you can't be around the fusion engine while it's running outside the 'enviroment/radiation' suit, then parading mechs down main street to crowds would be in a sense, killing them all.
Why can't you use the extra light shielding and build it so it fits to a standard engine?
If you take an extra equipment slot, who cares? Save several tons worth of what ever you want to call it and use it for say extra armor or another ton or 3 of ammo.
It might cost a little more, but that extra weapon or electronics piece you didn't have the weight to use before now become available because you have used it.
Now think about what you said with Congratulations, you now have a light fusion reactor.
You are saying that by changing the shielding that is NOT part of the engine would change the engine by adding it to the unit? That is like saying you can change the entire mech from normal internal structure to use endo steel with just changing an arm.
The engine is xl because of the shielding on just it. The engine is part of the shielding, or else you could change a normal fusion engine into an xl by changing the shielding.
If this is so, why are there no refit kits to do this?
2. You end up having to tack such a significant weight of shielding around the standard fusion reactor that you've saved no mass, and still have a standard fusion reactor setup.
This is what I am talking about. You are NOT adding shielding to the engine to use the motive systems. The motive system is completely different from the engine. You should be able to drop any engine into the unit and make it go.
And you can mold the material to fit a normal engine, not just the xl.
|
GiovanniBlasini
01/30/15 12:43 PM
75.80.176.62
|
Skiltao, you want first crack this time?
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
ghostrider
01/30/15 01:44 PM
75.80.238.47
|
Now as for the cockpit having some radiation shielding. It is not for protecting the warrior from the engine, but from background radiation, UNLESS there is damage to the engines shielding. If you want to argue that, I want to say one of the gray death books had him worry about losing his cockpit's protection. He thinks since he is in a non toxic atmosphere, he is safe.
It does help when the shielding is damaged.
Now, you seem to be saying that you can not take the xl shielding used for the motive system and build it to fit a normal reactor. So that would mean that things like upgrade kits for muscle cars are not available now. You can not stick a 351 cleveland head on a 302 ford block since they are for different engines. Hate to tell you this, but that is a boss 302.
Can't stick a 460 ford in a mustang because it doesn't come stock with it... or a 454 in a camero. There is no such thing as parts to do so.
And that would also mean you could not swap fusion engines out in mechs. Like the upgraded banshee did. They dropped the large engine for something smaller as well as the charger did as well.
Even weapon swaps wouldn't be done because there is not kits or ways to modify the area to accept the new weapon and all the hook up.
You are making it sound like it is not possible.
And technically, putting a different sized engine in the unit would not work, since your 'sheilding and such' would not be set up to fit another sized engine, which is not even saying they use the same brackets to hook them up. Even a different manufacturer shouldn't hook up. Refer to ice engines of today.
Ford will not hook up with chevy stuff.
|
GiovanniBlasini
01/30/15 03:14 PM
76.243.24.89
|
Quote:
Now, you seem to be saying that you can not take the xl shielding used for the motive system and build it to fit a normal reactor. So that would mean that things like upgrade kits for muscle cars are not available now. You can not stick a 351 cleveland head on a 302 ford block since they are for different engines. Hate to tell you this, but that is a boss 302.
Can't stick a 460 ford in a mustang because it doesn't come stock with it... or a 454 in a camero. There is no such thing as parts to do so.
I own a VW Beetle with a motor that started out as a 1600 Type 1 motor (actually 1584 cc: 69mm stroke on 85.5mm pistons, bored out to 74mm with 94mm pistons and custom heads that my friends and I built a garage, that produces nearly three times the original engine's horsepower (the 1600 was officially a 48 HP to 57 HP engine, depending on emissions gear, while mine comes in around 140 HP).
I've driven a Porsche 550 replica with a 2733 cc engine built off a 1.7 liter VW Type 4 engine, of the type used in the later-model Bus and early Vanagon, the Type 411, and the Porsche 914. That one actually had Chevy 350 pistons in it. We will not speak of the other customizations made (it's my guru's car, the guy who helped me build my engine).
Neither his car nor mine fuses hydrogen to helium, nor do they emit neutrons.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
ghostrider
01/30/15 06:20 PM
75.80.238.47
|
No they do not. Yet the engines can be swapped around by changing brackets and such.
I get the feeling you are not separating the engine from the rest of the drive train when dealing with this question. Yet, there were parts made or fabricated to make it work. Yet you are saying it is not possible to do so with something like a tank.
My understanding about fusion reactors is that only power, maybe in the form of electricity, comes out of the reactor core. There is no plasma or anything else that comes out of a running engine. There is nothing to worry about exchanging radio active materials between engine and drive train, otherwise a mech would need the additional shielding as well.
This would be like a nuclear submarine. What is the difference between using an ice and the nuke? The nuke runs the electric motor, not running something else to turn the drive screws. There is not additional shielding needed for the electric drive unit. It sure doesn't send the uranium and such into the drive core. Why would a fusion reactor do so?
How would the plasma or what ever turn a shaft to move the unit?
Side note, most people don't know several porsches used vw engines.
|
GiovanniBlasini
01/30/15 08:30 PM
76.243.24.89
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
No they do not. Yet the engines can be swapped around by changing brackets and such.
I get the feeling you are not separating the engine from the rest of the drive train when dealing with this question. Yet, there were parts made or fabricated to make it work. Yet you are saying it is not possible to do so with something like a tank.
I'm saying the rules do not permit that, in no small part because they're not that granular. Because of that, one should probably look for in-universe explanations as to why.
I'm also saying that fusion engines are more complicated than internal combustion engines, and you can't assume what works for one will work for others.
Quote:
My understanding about fusion reactors is that only power, maybe in the form of electricity, comes out of the reactor core. There is no plasma or anything else that comes out of a running engine.
Actually, they don't even directly produce electricity: thermocouples or steam generators are needed to produce the electricity.
Quote:
Side note, most people don't know several porsches used vw engines.
That depends strongly upon what you define as a "VW engine":
The Porsche 914 used the same aircooled 4-cylinder boxer engine that the Type 411s and the '72-82 Bus/Vanagon used. The 1976 Porsche 912 used the same engine, while the '60s 912s used the Porsche 356 engine.
The Porsche 356 used a flat-4 derived from the Beetle engine, but there are notable differences, from the crankcase on out.
The Porsche 924 used an Audi (owned by VW) inline-4, one that, amusingly, also was an option in the AMC Gremlin, Concorde and Spirit.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
ghostrider
01/31/15 02:51 AM
75.80.238.47
|
Actually, they don't even directly produce electricity: thermocouples or steam generators are needed to produce the electricity.
Is this not contained in the engine itself? If not, then mechs need to have extra shielding and such added to their units as well. There are many times a tanks fusion core was installed on in a mech without modifying it.
I'm saying the rules do not permit that, in no small part because they're not that granular. Because of that, one should probably look for in-universe explanations as to why.
That should have been your opening statement if you didn't want to get into the discussion.
Now if you want to continue this, the generators do what? Make electricity.
That would mean a tank needs to change that into circular force to turn the axles.
Best way we do that now is with an electric motor.
Now if it is one motor or each wheel has a motor for it, that is up for debate.
But there is no reason the xl engine should have a lighter motive system while you can not use the same thing for a normal fusion engine. Both engines put out the same amount of power.
This would be like saying a 305 chevy could not use the same transmission as a 350 or vise versa. They are smaller in size then the stuff we are discussing, but it fits.
And to that extent, why not just use power amps on a normal ice engine to generate power with a smaller engine. But that's another argument.
Another question would be how the fuel cell works.
Vw engine is one that goes in a vw. Most people do not understand their overpriced sports car uses the same engine, and spend lots of money on parts that are the same thing as the cheap vw, but doesn't have the porsche name on it. Machine shop experience with ordering parts teaches you things like this. Not every thing is, but thats life.
|
Cray
01/31/15 12:49 PM
67.8.171.23
|
Quote:
GiovanniBlasini writes:
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
My understanding about fusion reactors is that only power, maybe in the form of electricity, comes out of the reactor core. There is no plasma or anything else that comes out of a running engine.
Actually, they don't even directly produce electricity: thermocouples or steam generators are needed to produce the electricity.
BattleTech's fusion reactors use magnetohydrodynamics to generate electricity. The flowing plasma in the reactor is able to act like a dynamo for surrounding coils. See p. 35 Tech Manual.
Secondary, regenerative power systems (addressing the "heat sinks in engines") use turbines, thermocouples, steam, or whatever to make use of lower quality heat.
In aerospace units, plasma is vented directly from the reactor for thrust. Electricity generation is secondary.
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.
|
ghostrider
01/31/15 03:40 PM
75.80.238.47
|
So as I was thinking, the engine contains all the shielding needed to run without causing harm to anyone standing next to it, barring and shielding damage. The coolant is more of a danger then an undamaged reactor would.
My little knowledge of fusion reactors had always said they used magnetic fields to circulate the plasma to induce electricity.
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.
|
skiltao
01/31/15 04:43 PM
75.7.193.101
|
As to why vehicles would require more reactor shielding than 'Mechs...
-Option 1: vehicles use lower quality (more dangerous) reactors
-Option 2: vehicles use lower quality (less effective) reactor shielding
-Option 3: vehicle crews are closer to (and less compartmentalized from) their reactors than MechWarriors are
-Option 4: redundancy to stave off the effects of lower quality maintenance
-Option 5: vehicle operations (being closer to ground dust?) inflicts different wear on reactor shielding, which changes how it's designed
ghostrider, what do you think of this diagram?
Quote:
ghostrider writes: You should be able to drop any engine into the unit and make it go.
What if the reactor shielding is built into the reactor, and the shielding constitutes a large part of the vehicle/'Mech's frame? You couldn't change the reactor without rebuilding the entire torso (at a factory, like was done with the Banshees and Chargers).
I do think it would be nice to work out just how much mass each engine component (the reactor, reactor shielding, transmission, etc) are, to allow players more flexibility in unit design. It can't be more complicated than the current system of half a dozen engine types and three or so turbo add-ons.
Quote:
GiovanniBlasini writes: Skiltao, you want first crack this time?
Ah! I was out, sorry.
|
ghostrider
01/31/15 06:07 PM
75.80.238.47
|
-Option 1: vehicles use lower quality (more dangerous) reactors
Then they would have to rebuild the engine to use in mechs.
-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.
-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?
-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.
-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.
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)
It is when it is missing the engine shielding that your health hazards come out, such as a damaged shielding.
|
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?
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 61 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: 15419
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
