|
Post by Jaymz on Apr 15, 2014 16:49:01 GMT
In regards to how ECA affects the Vfs
Yeah I know it would take some extra work....it's more of a side project than anything else. Though I have to ask, does that mean ECA is not automatically running all the time?
as for hacking it....unlikely but minutely possible then? LOL If not oh well but a neat thought....
|
|
|
Post by MacrossMike on Apr 15, 2014 18:12:03 GMT
In regards to how ECA affects the Vfs Yeah I know it would take some extra work....it's more of a side project than anything else. Though I have to ask, does that mean ECA is not automatically running all the time? Oh boy, now there's a short question with a long answer. Barring the use of special capacitor systems like those found on certain VF-0 variants, the VF-1P Freya Valkyrie, etc., a Valkyrie's energy conversion armor is usually [disabled/not powered] in fighter mode. The system comes online when the fighter transforms to GERWALK or Battroid mode. On the VF-0, it seemed to take a second for the energy conversion armor to come up to power after transformation (this was seen in Macross Zero), but that seems to have been the exception. The system uses excess generator output from the engines, so once the bulk of the engine output isn't going to thrust, the surplus needed to operate the armor is available because actuators are a lot more energy-efficient than flash-heating intake air. Certain VFs have the means to cheat the system, by using internal capacitor banks or nuclear/thermonuclear reaction batteries to power their energy conversion armor for short periods in fighter mode. The VF-0A and VF-1P Freya Valkyrie both used this approach, as did the VF-25's APS-25A/MF25 Armored Pack. With the introduction of Stage II thermonuclear reaction engines in the 5th Generation VFs (all of the YF-24 derivatives), VFs now have enough surplus output even in fighter mode that they can run their energy conversion armor in low power mode to provide extra protection for the engines and cockpit. The VF-27's four engines produce enough excess that it can run its energy conversion armor AND pinpoint barrier in fighter mode, and the YF-29 and YF-30 can use similar means (either four engines, a fold wave system, or both) to operate their energy conversion armor at full power in fighter mode on demand. as for hacking it....unlikely but minutely possible then? LOL If not oh well but a neat thought.... Unlikely in the extreme... but on many later fighters, you'd need to bring something like the A-10A's GAU-8 30mm rotary cannon to even have a hope of threatening one with its armor switched off. (Combined with special ammo, the VF-0's 35mm GPU-9 was said to be "acceptable" in terms of stopping power against a foe equipping a VF-0-grade energy conversion armor system. The GPU-9 was firing 35mm slugs at 1,100m/s, giving it a little more stopping power than what a modern A-10 brings to the party. It only goes UP from there. The GU-11A/D was lobbing 55mm rounds downrange at 2,000m/s.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 18:38:18 GMT
Actually it's exactly like the sun, the sun is a fusion furnace that generates light and heat as a byprodcut of its' own fusion reation. It's contained by a elctromagnetic skin and the fusion is produced by its own gravity. So what we do is generate a magnetic soliton with the plasma so the plasma effedctively becomes a standing wave. Also Othe translation otes describe the power systems of Macross vessels as an "auto heat pile system" which is effectively a plasma induction furnace. I assure you the physics works, at least according to the math, as no one has currently perfected a fusion plant IRL we're still kinda unsure. The design was created by a friend of mine and I'm just "borrowing" it as I like it better than the "thermnonuclear" systems you describe. I looked up the ECA online, interesting stuff, but I stiil fail to see how well it would work against solid rounds as it doesn't actually make the armor any stronger. The electric charge generated is supposed to disperse the plasma jet created from explosive rounds and according to frinds of mine who are M1 Abrams crew members and have seen the tech in action, it doesn't always work. Now if the craft are able to generate a skin tight PPB system that might make more sense (at least to me). Or are you refering to this: EMA uses high voltages and currents to defeat shaped charge warheads such as those from Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs). www.worldaffairsboard.com/ground-warfare/5220-electromagnetic-armor-print.htmlAnyway, Shoji Kawamori's concepts are interesting, but often times I disregard his "science" in favor of other science that works better in my estimation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 18:57:27 GMT
Ok, this is flat BS. There is NO WAY (outside of anime handwavium) that 35 mm rounds could ever exceed the "stopping power" of the M1's 120mm sabot. I can accept that they wanted the OT to be "awesome" and all that, but 35mm rounds w/ more stopping power than the 120mm sabot is just ridiculous. Just the pressure from it firing could kill a person if they're stupid enough to be too close. I'm fine with trying to figure out how the Macross tech would actualy work IRL but let's get a little real here, currently the 120mm sabot of the M1 Abrams is THE most powerful tank cannon. PERIOD.
|
|
|
Post by Jaymz on Apr 15, 2014 19:13:22 GMT
Dude he compared it to the a-10s gau-8......
|
|
|
Post by MacrossMike on Apr 15, 2014 23:35:53 GMT
Actually it's exactly like the sun, [...] Not really, no... a fusion reactor is almost exactly unlike an actual star, since the force initiating fusion is an outside introduction of energy rather than natural gravitation. They're only alike on the most basic level. Also Othe translation otes describe the power systems of Macross vessels as an "auto heat pile system" which is effectively a plasma induction furnace. [...] Eh... I thought we'd already established pretty definitively that Palladium's so-called "translation notes" are mostly horseshit assumptions and crap Palladium's writers made up. Just for your future reference, the actual, official explanation of the thermonuclear reaction overtechnology has not changed since it was first given over 30 years ago. It has never been anything like that "plasma induction furnace" thing. (As an aside, have you noticed that EVERY time you start a sentence with "the translation notes say..." it ends with me correcting a lie they told you? This is so consistent it could get ISO 9000 certified, if they certified horseshit!) I assure you the physics works, at least according to the math, as no one has currently perfected a fusion plant IRL we're still kinda unsure. No, they really don't... because in order for that to work, you'd have to be violating conservation of energy. I looked up the ECA online, interesting stuff, but I stiil fail to see how well it would work against solid rounds as it doesn't actually make the armor any stronger. Eh... in what seems to be an emerging theme, I don't think you checked your facts here. "Energy conversion armor" is fictional, but based on real-world technologies including electromagnetically active ceramic composites and electric reactive armor. The latter is designed for use against SOLID projectiles, because it depends on the projectile being the object that closes a circuit between the differently-charged outer and inner armor sleeves, vaporizing the whole thing via arc flash. I don't have a clue what you're thinking of, but it's not what I mentioned. (If you want a ERA explanation in very simple terms, consult Wikipedia.) Anyway, Shoji Kawamori's concepts are interesting, but often times I disregard his "science" in favor of other science that works better in my estimation. The recurring problem being that a lot of the "science" you quote here is nonsense... either because of a lack of fact checking, as in your above example, or simply appalling physics, as in the plasma induction furnace. Kawamori's science, on the other hand, is disturbingly sound... NASA's official position paper on fusion turbine technology posits a method very, VERY similar to what Kawamori and Chiba published in the first VF-1 tech manual 20 years earlier. Ok, this is flat BS. There is NO WAY (outside of anime handwavium) that 35 mm rounds could ever exceed the "stopping power" of the M1's 120mm sabot. Stop.Go back. Read that statement you quoted again, because it doesn't say what you seem to think it does.
What the VF-0 Phoenix's GPU-9 was compared to was the GAU-8/A Avenger rotary cannon most commonly associated with the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II... not the Rheinmetall M256 smoothbore from the M1A1 and A2 Abrams main battle tank. See your mistake? Just for reference, the GAU-8/A Avenger rotary cannon fires a 30mm round at a hair over 1,070m/s... while the Howard GPU-9 which the VF-0 Phoenix uses is firing a 35mm round at 1,100m/s. You have a larger round, with more mass, going downrange faster. Force equals mass times acceleration, and the GPU-9's 35mm round has the edge in both. Therefore, it has more stopping power. As VF gunpods go, the GPU-9 is kind of a weenie one. The VF-1's Howard GU-11 is firing a 55mm round at 2,000m/s... that's pushing close to a megajoule per bullet. Now, while your mistargeted objection is sound, the M256 has had several different APDS rounds, which average about 5.7 megajoules in muzzle energy, there ARE VF-carried weapons which massively outclass it. The SSL-9B Dragunov designated marksman rifle used by the VF-25 is one such example, with conservative estimates placing the muzzle energy at over 22 megajoules (it 55mm round is moving at a velocity of 7.49km/s). EDIT: Just for yuks, I think I should also point out that it's actually perfectly possible to give a 35mm round more stopping power than an Abrams' APDS-DU round. You can't add mass to the round, but you CAN add speed. Given the mass of the average 35mm round, it'd just have to be moving at around 4km/s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 2:43:08 GMT
Yeah well we both know that I've disagreed with your assertions regarding the Japanese descriptions and your other assertions regarding technology which I've had contradicted by people closer to the source and much more experienced in the fields, hells I've even had lay people contradict your assertions. I just disregard the concept of thermonuclear BECAUSE it was originally written back when fusion power was still closer to fiction than reality and railguns (while actively being pursued by the military for over 40 yrs) were the stuff of legend. As for your assertion that the plasma induction furnace doesn't work, well once again it seems your info is more than a bit off, it creates a soliton inside a magnetic bubble. So it becomes a standing wave of plasma energy, which can then be harnessed as I mentioned earlier. As for the 35 mm, Yes I realize you were referencing the A10's gun, and yes, technically, you're correct that there are ways to get the round to do that kind of damage but at that point you might as well use a railgun instead. Besdies if the Protoculture race was so advanced then they could have easily found alternate means to disperse or offset the recoil from a railgun. My information on the electro reactive armor and the electromagentic armor is current from a U.S. Army M1 crewman, so yeah I'm pretty sure he knows more about it at this point. I respect the fact that this all comes "from the source" but "the source" is just pulling it outta his rear end most of the time to make it all sound good. He's a decent story teller (in some respects) but he's got no clue as to the reality of it all (y'know like the efficacy of missiles in space, sh'yeah right). Hells in some cases he's worse than Kevin and HE at least has read some books on the various military equipment , and while it's all watered down for public consumption it's better than nothing. I've tried not to get into arguements because I'm here for fun, and I REALLY don't care one fig about what/how much is actual canon or whatnot, I JUST wanted to hear people's ideas on how they might pull things off. I enjoyed the series for the story it told and the the fact that it was new and unique at that time, nowadays it's "old hat" and more than a bit resemblling Palladium Books in it's constant desire to retcon stuff and pull off handwavium.
|
|
|
Post by MacrossMike on Apr 16, 2014 4:01:59 GMT
Yeah well we both know that I've disagreed with your assertions regarding the Japanese descriptions and your other assertions regarding technology which I've had contradicted by people closer to the source and much more experienced in the fields, [...] All of which seem to be rather suspect, since you've asserted that electric reaction armor works in a way rather different from the way it actually does. Most of what you've cited as "expert evidence" doesn't pass the Google "bullshit sniff test". I just disregard the concept of thermonuclear BECAUSE it was originally written back when fusion power was still closer to fiction than reality and railguns (while actively being pursued by the military for over 40 yrs) were the stuff of legend. At the risk of pointing out a significant flaw in your reasoning, the subject of thermonuclear fusion is actually older than Macross by a few decades. It has not been the stuff of fiction for a very long time. Experiments into fusion power started back in the 1950s, and the first successful hydrogen fusion experiments in laboratory conditions were carried out by Mark Oliphant in 1932. Russia's first prototype fusion reactor, the T-1 Tokamak, went online in 1968 on an experimental basis. The United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and Japan have all been carrying out experiments in fusion power generation since the 1950s.* Your objection is invalid, because it is motivated purely by ignorance of the facts. It's a common misconception that nuclear fusion power is a new or revolutionary idea. It's something we've been working on from a practical standpoint for sixty-plus years. * Coincidence, I wonder, that these six are also the founding nations behind OTEC, the Overtechnology research institute responsible for reconstructing Alien Starship One, in the Macross universe?As for your assertion that the plasma induction furnace doesn't work, well once again it seems your info is more than a bit off, it creates a soliton inside a magnetic bubble. That's not going to produce more energy than the nuclear fusion event that created the plasma in the first place, unless you're failing to actually harness any energy from the reaction directly and trying to obtain it ALL from the plasma waste. As for the 35 mm, Yes I realize you were referencing the A10's gun, and yes, technically, you're correct that there are ways to get the round to do that kind of damage but at that point you might as well use a railgun instead. Yeah, but if you're going to build a railgun capable of velocities like that you might as well go for the gusto and make it a heavy weapon, maximize the stopping power. (An example of this in Macross would be the SSL-9B Dragunov 55mm marksman rifle, which puts that 55mm round downrange at close to 7,500m/s using a mixture of chemical propellants and railgun technology.) Besdies if the Protoculture race was so advanced then they could have easily found alternate means to disperse or offset the recoil from a railgun. Actually, the Protoculture didn't use projectile weapons... all known examples of their weapons technology are energy weapons, be they lasers, particle beam cannons, or the more exotic dimension weapons that are the gold standard of energy weapons in Macross. Railgun technology is an exclusively human thing in Macross... sort of an application of overtechnology materials to improve technology that we already had. (There is evidence of significant recoil compensation technology in the series... though sometimes it's just not enough to compensate for everything, as in the cases where we've seen the recoil of the massive fusion beams fired by super dimension energy weapons sometimes are enough to push a ship backwards slightly.) My information on the electro reactive armor and the electromagentic armor is current from a U.S. Army M1 crewman, so yeah I'm pretty sure he knows more about it at this point. And I'll cheerfully call bullshit on it, both because my cousin Rob IS also a M1 crewman... and, more importantly, because I can cite that I'm correct from such reputable sources as the UK Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, and the US Patent and Trademark Office filing for the technology, and news coverage in reputable sources such as the Telegraph and the Guardian. The electric reactive armor is usable against both shaped charges and solid projectiles because it works by using the projectile to create electrical current between two layers of armor carrying a charge, basically flash-vaporizing the penetrator via arc flash. (I've seen what arc flash can do to metal up close and personal, in my day job as a BEV/PHEV test engineer... it's freaking terrifying.) I respect the fact that this all comes "from the source" but "the source" is just pulling it outta his rear end most of the time to make it all sound good. He's a decent story teller (in some respects) but he's got no clue as to the reality of it all (y'know like the efficacy of missiles in space, sh'yeah right). NASA and a couple other organizations beg to differ... because, if you actually know what you're talking about, you'll discover very quickly that Kawamori is an extremely well-informed military buff and someone who bases his in-series advancements on real world technology. In this case, "the source" is spot on... the problem is you're either ignorant or misinformed, seemingly both. (Then again, NASA might also be in a position to say something for the efficacy of missiles in space... considering what they do for a living. They would likely call bullshit on your dismissal very swiftly and point out that with the appropriate verniers and other fittings, which are visibly present on Macross missiles, missiles can be quite an effective delivery system in space, being that "a missile with verniers" is pretty much every spacecraft except the shuttle.) You're also clearly not familiar with Kawamori's credentials, and have never read a Macross art book. If you had, you would know that he goes into some frankly excessive detail about exactly what he's based his in-universe developments on. He's got considerable experience with the field of aerospace engineering, and it shows in his work. He's also evidenced extraordinary familiarity with the ins and outs of all manner of military affairs in his work, right on down to fiddly details like international standard safety markings. Naturally, there are some aspects that are not absolutely realistic, and are done purely for the sake of cinema and a sci-fi setting, but those are nowhere near as common as your ill-informed statements suggest you mistakenly believe. That you speak from ignorance in an attempt to appear to be an expert on a subject you've previously admitted you know nothing about isn't exactly wise, you realize?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 13:15:03 GMT
I NEVER said I was an expert merely that others (some of whom ARE experts) have contradicted your assertions. If you cannot accept that then that is your concern, not mine. I'm done arguing pointless BS.
|
|
|
Post by MacrossMike on Apr 16, 2014 14:08:43 GMT
I NEVER said I was an expert merely that others (some of whom ARE experts) have contradicted your assertions. If you cannot accept that then that is your concern, not mine. I'm done arguing pointless BS. Yet you have attempted to present yourself as such, making declarative statements about the way the Macross's creators are "pulling it out of [their] rear" despite your own earlier admission in this same thread that you know virtually nothing of their work and have never seen their official publications. Those two assertions are mutually exclusive... you can't simultaneously know nothing about their creative process, and the inspirations for their designs, and ALSO know that their work isn't grounded in real technologies. As it so happens, the paper trail that proves that your latter assertion - that Kawamori and co. are "pulling it out of [their] rear" - is totally, completely, and hilariously incorrect is over three decades long and extraordinarily well-documented. Even some of Macross's more visually "out-there" technologies like the YF-21's variable camber wing are based on VERY REAL technologies that existed before those series were produced. As far as the alleged reliability of your "experts", whose claims contradict everything from Wikipedia right on up to the very public reports on new and emerging technologies by the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defense's Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (and the patents filed on the technology in the US in 2006)... you're up sh*t creek in a leaky canoe without a paddle, my friend. Your "experts" are playing you false.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 19:19:14 GMT
I am VERY well aware that many of the Valkyries are copies of actual fighter planes and I've long standing appreciation for the early work they did from Macross to Macross Plus. While my knowledge of Macross is not as indepth as you present yours it does not mean I am completely ignorant of where some of their inspiration comes from. Yes I have made declarative statements BASED UPON MY OWN OPINION and based upon the information and experiences and knowledge of those who know better than I on those subjects. You site the UK as a source, and that's fine as far as the UK is concerned, yet the UK has LESS than nothing to do with AMERICAN military tank development. I've been on some of those UK sites and it's funny when they state info on the Abrams for example, which is incorrect based on the open and public documents that the US Military provides. Granted like any military there is false information, but when they are completely different from each other, a foriegn source done by enthuisiasts is probably less correct than the US Military documents, since at least those have oversight. As I stated earlier I am NOT an expert, but I highly doubt you are either. I LIVE with experts in those fields and associate with others on a near daily basis. I SINCERELY doubt I'm being played false. The other reason I find the two different armors suspect is the info on them is not congruant between sources, one source says that they stop all incoming rounds w/ no damage, while yet another source says they don't stop squat. So which is it? I ask and am told that it's basically BS which fits with what I've read and so I call it as I see it. I am DONE arguing ths bullshit with you and I'd appreciate it if you'd STOP. NOW.
|
|
|
Post by MacrossMike on Apr 16, 2014 20:15:03 GMT
I am VERY well aware that many of the Valkyries are copies of actual fighter planes and I've long standing appreciation for the early work they did from Macross to Macross Plus. While my knowledge of Macross is not as indepth as you present yours it does not mean I am completely ignorant of where some of their inspiration comes from. I'm not just talking about the inspiration for the large-scale designs... I'm talking about the appearances of very specific pieces of technology and so on. Fusion power systems, for instance... the technology was not unknown to us back when these shows were being made, and while Macross presents a much more advanced iteration of a fusion power system, that doesn't mean that they're making it up as they go. (That NASA's concept for a fusion turbine mirrors Studio Nue's almost perfectly speaks extremely well of their work.) You site the UK as a source, and that's fine as far as the UK is concerned, yet the UK has LESS than nothing to do with AMERICAN military tank development. You DO realize that, like many military advancements, electric reaction armor isn't something that's exclusively being used by the Americans, right? You might also find it interesting to know that the technology was developed by BAE... a company that just so happens to be British and headquartered in London. BAE is actively involved in a number of defense development projects here in the US... including the F-35 Lightning II. You would, of course, know this if your "experts" were worth anything. Granted like any military there is false information, but when they are completely different from each other, a foriegn source done by enthuisiasts is probably less correct than the US Military documents, since at least those have oversight. Oh, I'll grant you that... but as the system was developed by BAE and, as a defense contractor, is under the purview of the UK's Ministry of Defense, the information published by the Ministry's own research laboratories are a pretty reliable source. You also overlooked the OTHER source I cited... the patent on the ERA technology filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office. You might recognize that the USPTO is an organ of the United States Government. As I stated earlier I am NOT an expert, but I highly doubt you are either. I LIVE with experts in those fields and associate with others on a near daily basis. I SINCERELY doubt I'm being played false. ... and yet, your "experts" are not providing you with correct information. The stuff they're telling you is easily disproven with five minutes and Google. The stuff you've said about ERA takes even less time. The other reason I find the two different armors suspect is the info on them is not congruant between sources, one source says that they stop all incoming rounds w/ no damage, while yet another source says they don't stop squat. Considering the quality of your supposed sources, this is not entirely surprising...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 21:44:24 GMT
I'm very well aware of BAE's presence in the U.S., my father works for them out in Conn. I have been cautioned numerous times by COLLEGE professors to not trust one's "Google Fu" and Wikipedia IS NOT allowed as a quotable source, therefore ANYTHING one finds on Google is potentially suspect. What part of the following statement are you missing? I am DONE arguing ths bullshit with you and I'd appreciate it if you'd STOP. NOW.
|
|
|
Post by MacrossMike on Apr 16, 2014 23:14:03 GMT
I'm very well aware of BAE's presence in the U.S., my father works for them out in Conn. ... y'see, this is why what you say just gets more and more suspect. You don't actually know about any of this shit until I tell you, but you somehow have conveniently placed family and friends who are "experts" on these subjects you've demonstrated you don't understand. It's just getting silly, man... I mean, you get all huffy and try to say it's ridiculous for the UK Ministry of Defense to know about this technology and comment on it from an informed standpoint, yet you claim you've talked to all kinds of "experts" about this technology, none of whom'd bothered to mention who was doing the research and development on this? I have been cautioned numerous times by COLLEGE professors to not trust one's "Google Fu" and Wikipedia IS NOT allowed as a quotable source, therefore ANYTHING one finds on Google is potentially suspect. What part of the following statement are you missing? I am DONE arguing ths bullshit with you and I'd appreciate it if you'd STOP. NOW. I'd ask if you knew why college professors don't permit students to cite Wikipedia articles in scholarly papers, but it's probably simpler and will involve less nonsense if I simply point out that it's because Wikipedia is not a stringently reviewed publication because anyone can do edits and sources cited many not always be reliable. What that same professor would also tell you is that, when it comes to the credibility and reliability of sources, official publications by the government tend to rank pretty damn high. My source is the patent disclosure filed by BAE with the USPTO, and the UK Defense Ministry official articles about the technology. Since the illogic in your argument continues to elude you, and you keep trying to bullshit your way out of the hole you've dug, let me point out your last significant error: If you keep trying to have the last word while bullshitting, you're not going to get the last word. Especially if you keep replying after you get called on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 0:36:25 GMT
It's not convenience my father worked for Tracor in Groton, CT. for many years before it was bought out by BAE. I do not ask him about his work, much, as I'm not qualified (or perhaps even cleared) to know about it. All I know is that his field is not ground vehicles, his background is as a Coast Guard Captain with degrees in Marine Architecture and electronics. As I am a current college student , Yes, I'm very well aware of the reasons why Wikipedia is not considered a credible source.
Once again: I am DONE arguing this bullshit with you and I'd appreciate it if you'd STOP. NOW.
|
|
|
Post by Jaymz on Apr 17, 2014 1:37:01 GMT
I think it is time for you both to walk away so to speak.
|
|