open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Why some weapons wouldnt work.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Polymeric Jane
Posted - 2010.06.03 11:55:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Nerogk Shorn

X-rays are diffracted by the crystal lattice of a material. Meaning that the distance between atoms in a material is small enough to diffract x-rays. What exactly would you use to diffract a wavlength even smaller than that?



Here you go:
a) a piece of a neutron star would provide a lattice smaller than ordinary matter or
b) a black hole lens.
Both are easy obtainable ... problem solved. *g


The real Question is: how to produce such high energy wavelengths and prevent it from decomposing into particles like e- and e+ pairs.

Cyan Cure
Posted - 2010.06.03 12:03:00 - [32]
 

Posting in a LonTard 5 thread.

Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.06.03 13:14:00 - [33]
 

So... Much... Fail...

I can't be bothered to quote each and every fail, I'll just reply to those I remember...

1) "Impactive" ammo... Not that useful against modern armor, but very useful against building and other large targets. It exists, and it's still used nowadays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESH

2) Railguns: like somebody said, they're commonly based on a magnetic rail to accelerated a projectile. They already exists, though in an experimental state. In eve they are depicted slightly differently than from reality (especially ammo doesn't make that much sense in some cases). About the speed: "On January 31, 2008 the US Navy tested a railgun that fired a shell at 10.64 MJ with a muzzle velocity of 2,520 m/s.[15] Its expected performance is a muzzle velocity over 5,800 m/s, accurate enough to hit a 5 meter target over 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) away while firing at 10 shots per minute." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun ). which is only 6 times under the 30 km/s speed cited. Bear in mind that in space there won't be heating issues since they are caused by compression waves in the air due to the projectile moving through it. No air in space: no compression waves. Also, spaceship guns will be orders of magnitude bigger than current naval guns (maybe with frigate guns being around mid/large calibers nowadays), thus a longer barrel (and with it a longer acceleration time and thus an higher final speed) will be possible.

3) Blasters: If IIRC the fluff for blasters, they are basically large cyclotrons ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron ) with an open end (the gun barrel). They basically accelerate the projectile molecules to near-light speed, charging them up (and also raising their mass due to the Special Relativity effects on mass, which basically means that the closer an object travels to the speed of light, the higher its mass becomes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity ). This would probably work, up to a point. Two are the limiting factors: 1) Range is very limited since dispersion of the particles is quite great even in vacuum due to them having the same sign charge. 2) Being all charged particles, they are subject to electromagnetic fields: a field strong enough projected by a ship (something like our shields) would disperse the particles enough for them to have no effect.

5) "Projectile" weapons. The term is ofc misleading... We're talking about the modern equivalent of "gun powder" weapons. Like somebody said, given the bigger size of projectiles the amount of gun powder (or generic explosive) needed to propel the "bullet" would be prohibitive in weight and in explosive power (it'd damage any weapon). A railgun is the only sensible weapon to use in space at large distances: the projectile can be almost inexpensive and no propellant is needed. Higher impact speeds are also obtained, though explosively propelled projectiles could be used in fast firing weapons like some CIWS, but see point below.

Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.06.03 13:21:00 - [34]
 

6) Lasers: They would be perfect in space, in theory. The truth though is different. There are several problems with lasers in space. First one is heat. In space you can't efficiently remove heat since you can only remove it by radiation (or you could store it in some way for later removal, but you'd probably end up with a lot of space used just for the heat sinks, and if you overheated them you'd probably burn from the inside). This limits the overall power output of lasers to the amount of heat you can disperse/store. Second problem is blooming: even the best focusing instrument will just generate a very narrow cone of light, meaning that the surface of impact of the laser increases with the square of the distance, with its energy output at the target, per squared meter, decreases at the same rate (which is very fast). Third problem is ablative armor: since lasers work by heating the surface they hit, an ablative armor that releases an opaque (or reflective) gas after being hit would very quickly negate the laser hit, since it would cloud the target and the laser would be dispersed and scattered.
That said lasers would probably make sense for CIWS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIWS ) since the short range, the probable lack of armor of its targets and the lower power output needed would mean that they could be easily fit on a spaceship. "Instant" hit would mean also that high ROF weapons won't really be needed, as long as the tracking system is accurate enough.

Also... Please please please... Microwaves frying people inside an armored warship? No, really? I suppose that when you used a microwave you run away 2km to be able to withstand radiation? Dammit... TIN FOIL shields against microwaves... Don't believe me? Try it on your microwave oven and see what happens (HINT: it may break your oven.)

Nico Terces
Gallente
Posted - 2010.06.03 13:50:00 - [35]
 

I can't say that I agree with all of the physics in eve online, but to nitpick on muzzle velocity and barrel diameters in a game that has shields, perpetual motion devices, warpdrives, and tech 3 sleeper technology... It's all about playability.

Ruhige Schmerz
New Eden Scientific Association
Posted - 2010.06.03 16:04:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
Quote:
Me. I'm the one that says you can't do that, and your 3rd grade science teacher agrees with me. Diffraction gratings, prisms, and the rest of the nonsense you are talking about do not transform radiation from one frequency to another -- they split apart the frequencies already present in the source. Putting a red laser through a prism will just bend it off in another direction, and putting it into a diffraction grating will result in a red diffraction pattern.

Tbh read again what he wrote:

White light into a prism will result in rainbow pattern at other side.

So rainbow pattern at other side (with a bunch of lasers) would result in (semi) white output at the initial side.


Maybe you should read it again instead. It was right there, quoted and everything. He said "who's to say that you couldnt fire gamma rays through a multi-grated diffraction plate, which would then produce multiple wavelengths." That's nothing like what you're talking about.

Morikai Acler
Caldari
The Whitesands Consortium
Honourable Templum of Alcedonia
Posted - 2010.06.03 17:18:00 - [37]
 

Ok, just gonna throw a non scientific point of view at this. Since for a long time i've been and avid game, and had the brains to pay attention to things like the discovery channel. Forgot what the name of that show is about modern weapons, I know bout the future weapons one.

Lets see, on the projectile front, you are forgetting something. First time I heard of this was from cyberpunk, then I've seen it's been developed in reality too. Instead of using gunpowder as a propellant, it would make more since in a zero gravity. Therefor they would more than likely use an electrothermal propellant, basically a chemical that when hit with an electrical charge combust's/explodes. In reality electrothermal charges also propel the slug at a much higher rate of speed than standard gunpowder, even in the friction of the earths atmosphere, so imagine in a mostly frictionless environment such as space.

Railguns in eve if you pay attention basically fire a rough equivalent to a shotgun slug, suspended in a magnetic field, and accelerated to near the speed of light through a coil array. This is why hybrid shells are much smaller than equivalent projectile shells to get the same kinetic effect, due to the increase speed of the mass of the projectile. Blasters in theory take the same shell as the railguns, but apply extreme magnetic fields to the material causing it to turn into plasma state. Which is why in theory blasters would do more thermal dmg than kinetic, also the same reason they have such short range, as the material would either cool in a cloud of mostly harmless low mass pellets very quickly or dissipate over the distance.

Lasers are whole nother ballpark involving crystals, mirror reflection and depending in our time of what kind of gas is used to produce the type of laser. Incorrect on the microwave thing though for the one poster. Microwaves are extremely high frequency, low amplitude waves. They literally vibrate so quickly when concentrated on an object that the vibration agitates the molecules or atoms of the target so quickly, that it causes it to cook from the inside out.

GavinCapacitor
Posted - 2010.06.03 19:07:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Rush Rayment
Microwaves would work, as provided the frequency is high enough, you could, theoretically, burn through the armour of a ship.

Just nit-picking. :)


Since the name of the game in this thread seems to be 'just nit-picking', lets have a go, shall we?

What range given em radiation is in (ultraviolet, gamma, radio, microwave, etc.) is determined by frequency. So if you have microwaves where "the frequency is high enough", guess what? Their not microwaves any more! I hope you don't actually study physics.

"Just nit-picking. :)"

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2010.06.03 19:35:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/06/2010 19:58:09
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/06/2010 19:35:32
Originally by: Gecko O'Bac
We're talking about the modern equivalent of "gun powder" weapons. Like somebody said, given the bigger size of projectiles the amount of gun powder (or generic explosive) needed to propel the "bullet" would be prohibitive in weight and in explosive power (it'd damage any weapon)


Orly.

Look, pre-WW2 tech:
406mm gun works fine
460mm gun works fine too
Another 460mm gun, WWI

Also, lulz:
914mm mortar
MY TANK IS FIGHT

Also they did it in 1586, so Minmatar can probably do it too:
890mm, made in 1586

The OP who said 450mm guns don't work just doesn't have a clue, he thought it was 4.5 metres caliber and extrapolated from there. There's nothing even remotely problematic about putting a 450mm cannon with much more advanced technology then British had to work with in world war one to a ship which is far larger.

Of course, weapons in EVE are hardly realistic and so on, but it's a game, tries to have both balanced and non-cpu intensive mechanics.

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2010.06.03 19:46:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Gecko O'Bac
6) Lasers: They would be perfect in space, in theory. The truth though is different. There are several problems with lasers in space. First one is heat. In space you can't efficiently remove heat since you can only remove it by radiation (or you could store it in some way for later removal, but you'd probably end up with a lot of space used just for the heat sinks, and if you overheated them you'd probably burn from the inside).


Eve ships can sit in a star without overheating while somehow dissipating any internal heat generated from weapons, the engines, the shields, lights, or just plain old body heat. I think they've got the heat problem licked. =)

Why are lasers so short ranged in Eve?


Third problem is ablative armor:


Given that Eve ships can repair armor damage without actually having any raw materials on board, I doubt that Eve armor ablates.


Eve weapon physics are just weird. There's no way to draw parallels between Eve weapons and real world weapons or most science fiction weapons in general.


Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.06.03 20:40:00 - [41]
 

Yeah I know all of that, I wasn't speaking of eve physics, I was appalled by the overall fail in REAL physics :P Eve mechanics are fine like they are imho, it's all fluff.

Cpt. Branko: Yes I know all of those, but they are not exactly comparable... IIRC most explosives have issues where after a certain amount, adding more doesn't really add much in explosive power (IE: the relationship isn't linear anymore). The issue in space wouldn't be to just propel the bullet far enough, but with enough speed to make it very difficult to dodge by its designed target.
Conventional projectile weapons fail at that very quickly over big distances, since while they can have as much kinetic energy (speaking about KEP projectiles) as a railgun projectile, they do that with more mass and a lower velocity. Over long distances it's much better having a very high speed and a lower mass (makes it also much easier to store and manufacture ammo) projectile since the result on the target will be very similar, with the added bonus of a much higher precision.
Also, to withstand the explosion of a very high caliber round you do need a bigger and stronger chamber (and possibly mount for the gun) which increases the mass of the gun itself, which then becomes much more difficult to aim accurately.
Also recoil from a conventional round is less controllable than in a railgun since while the railgun accelerates the projectile evenly during all the time the projectile is in the barrell, a conventional round is subject to just an impulsive force which is much more difficult to control and puts the gun itself to more strain.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.06.03 22:26:00 - [42]
 

The OP is a weapon.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.06.03 23:08:00 - [43]
 

Eve has as much to do with realistic physics as Hollywood films have to do with real life. Eve is game. Enjoy it for what it is and use those grey cells for concentrating on getting better pew.

Reiaandra Ilin
Caldari
Hello Kitty Island Adventure Club
Posted - 2010.06.13 16:53:00 - [44]
 

There is an intense amount of Physics fail in this thread.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~hakim/301/electromagnetic-spectrum.jpg

microwaves are low frequency.

I'm not going to even bother beyond that.

Sphit Ker
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2010.06.13 17:02:00 - [45]
 

The word of the day is: convection. Many gigajoules of energy discharged every few seconds is a lot of heat to deal with. We are in space, therefore, the heat has nowhere to go but the ship itself. The entire ship would probably be glowing red hot before the first set of magazines gets depleted.

EVE is not real, man :P

LonTas 5
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.06.13 17:08:00 - [46]
 

Lolwhat is that? This is a two page troll?
Really guys. And how the heck did you find this? The original post was like a month ago....
Mepoints to THIS to show why you have been uber pwned.

Mr Peanut420
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.06.13 19:16:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Ruhige Schmerz

This is nonsense. Projectiles are always larger than the barrel they are fired through. The barrel compresses the projectile, creating an airtight seal for pressure to build in when the charge is lit. This is as true today as it was for the first cannons ever invented.


In the spirit of nitpicking, its not as true today as it was for the first cannons. For the first 300 years of cannons, projectiles were all subcaliber, using wadding to create a seal. By about 1860, the minie ball, breechloading, and superior metallurgy allowed the use of oversized projectiles to form a tight seal (though the minie ball is still technically subcaliber). Today, subcaliber rounds are all the rage again, like the popular depleted uranium, armor piercing, fin stabilized, disgarding sabot (du-apfsds) round we all know and love.

(As a physicist I have to back up the rest of what he says however)

Typhado3
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.06.14 00:45:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Zaron King
So how do you make a 1400mm diameter projectile that only takes up 0.025 m3 of volume? Is it the shape of a flat disk?


Best explanation I heard of for this was that the ammunition we buy off the market is only the warhead for the ammo not the whole bullet itself.

Eg. for the 1400 mm artillery cannon (AKA the volkswagen launcher) shooting EM charges they would just find a rusty volkswagen from somewhere else in the ship (what did you think those solar sails where made of) then add the warhead (a malfunctioning car radio) before firing.

Raven Nasa
Posted - 2010.06.14 15:07:00 - [49]
 

Quote:
In the spirit of nitpicking, its not as true today as it was for the first cannons. For the first 300 years of cannons, projectiles were all subcaliber, using wadding to create a seal. By about 1860, the minie ball, breechloading, and superior metallurgy allowed the use of oversized projectiles to form a tight seal (though the minie ball is still technically subcaliber). Today, subcaliber rounds are all the rage again, like the popular depleted uranium, armor piercing, fin stabilized, disgarding sabot (du-apfsds) round we all know and love.

(As a physicist I have to back up the rest of what he says however)


Crap, you beat me to it.


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only