thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances - Page 4

Fyron · #31 December 6th, 2002, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimbob:

quote:
A destroyer is also not a very stable firing platform, which would mean that even if you could fire without capsizing (or even sail without capsizing)

But can one actually capsize in space?

He was talking about WWII ships, not space ships.

PvK · #32 December 6th, 2002, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:
Originally posted by jimbob:

quote:
A destroyer is also not a very stable firing platform, which would mean that even if you could fire without capsizing (or even sail without capsizing)

But can one actually capsize in space?
He was talking about WWII ships, not space ships.

Ya, I was, but while you couldn't capsize per se, you could have other problems if you apply a large force off-center - the ship could spin and tumble, which could be quite a problem for the people and equipment inside. Your stabilizer system would also be more challenged to deal with such. But, as I said a couple of times, the engineering problems and trade-offs might be somewhat different in space from those faced by sea vessels, but there would undoubtedly still be major effects of deploying massive weapons on small ships. It would be more interesting to model the effects rather than just disallow them, at least as far as they are still practical and not just a model of a bad idea.

It would be nice though to be able to mark unit sizes and mounts as obsolete, and filter the view. Otherwise, if you mod many interesting new types in, it can start to clutter the interface.

PvK

Phoenix-D · #33 December 6th, 2002, 11:36 PM

"It would be nice though to be able to mark unit sizes and mounts as obsolete, and filter the view. Otherwise, if you mod many interesting new types in, it can start to clutter the interface."

Same with mounts.

Phoenix-D

Gryphin · #34 December 7th, 2002, 06:20 AM

In terms of WWII
I have no idea how the enginerring would work. since they did not do it, I'm sure there was a reason.

In terms of Sci Fi
DUCs I imagined were using Linear Induction to propel the objects. I think it is also reffered to as GAUS weapon. I don't think there would be significant recoil from that. Nothing a ships systems could not adjust for. The same for "Light" based weapons.
When all is said and done, < insert Sci Fi explanation > and it works because the author said it works.

oleg · #35 December 7th, 2002, 04:42 PM

It does not matter how would you propell a shell - by expanding gases or EM field, recoil will be exactly the same. Nobody yet cancel Newton' third law.

Suicide Junkie · #36 December 7th, 2002, 05:54 PM

Oleg, your gun could fire two shells in opposite directions and end up recoilless.

Or it could have a really quick-acting thruster on the back to counteract the recoil, maybe along with a sliding mount to give the thruster more time to complete its job.

The trick is to dump the recoil force into some throwaway matter.

Gryphin · #37 December 8th, 2002, 12:25 AM

I don't understand.
I thought Linear Induction is where a string of magnets get turned on in sequeance and off pulling an object with them.
This accelerates the object.
I don't see how that could have a recoil.

Kamog · #38 December 8th, 2002, 12:41 AM

Regardless of how the object is propelled, whether it be with a string of magnets, or whatever, a force was applied to it in order to cause the acceleration. Whenever there is a force acting on an object, there exists a reaction force of equal magnitude in the opposite direction.

Suppose that you have a strong electromagnet in the launcher, which you power on. An iron projectile is attracted towards the magnet, and starts accelerating in that direction. The force of attraction does not occur in just the single direction - from the magnet to the projectile; the force is equally strong in the opposite direction - from the projectile to the magnet. The reason that the magnet doesn't seem to move much is because it has a much larger mass (and attached to a support that is also a large mass), and therefore the same magnitude of force causes only a minor acceleration backwards. The projectile, having a small mass, is accelerated faster with the same magnitude of force.

You can't pull an object towards you without the object also pulling you towards it. You can't push an object without that object pushing back on you.

jimbob · #39 December 8th, 2002, 01:30 AM

Alright, so as long as you're dealing with a mass projectile (DUCs especially) then we'd observe this type of recoil. But once we start to employ non-mass weapons (esp. lasers, phased-polaron beams, probably anti-proton beams) where the mass is negligible and the damage is due to the underlying principle of the "ray" on physical objects, we should lose the recoil problem, right?

Wanderer · #40 December 8th, 2002, 02:26 AM

A photon in a laser-bLast (for example) may not have any mass but it still has momentum. Beacuse of conservation of momentum you'll get recoil.

EDIT: For example, consider how a comet's tail always faces away from the sun because of the solar wind (i.e. light) pushing the recently-melted ice particles directly away from the sun.

This page might or might not help:
Link

[ December 08, 2002, 01:31: Message edited by: Wanderer ]