Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[C27]

Suppose you could build corkscrews the same way you can build axles right now, in vertical or horizontal columns. When building them, you'd need to set a direction of movement (up or down, north or south, east or west depending on orientation); when the corkscrew array has power provided to it, anything placed on the receiving end will be pulled along to the other end of the column. This would allow not only automatic horizontal movement similar to a powered minecart loop (but without the minecart/track and with its own setup cost), but gentle non-falling downward transport as well as upward transport for your items, which is something minecarts take a lot more room to replicate. Essentially, it's a lot more compact than powered minecart tracks, but requires more work to construct (one corkscrew per tile) and much less flexible.
Dwarves probably shouldn't be able to ride them, either, unless you can set things up so they ride a minecart into the corkscrew somehow. That could possibly function as an elevator system, if it could be done, but I doubt pathfinding would let that happen.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The Russians tried this.
It didn't work very well...

Anyways, moving fortress pieces are planned.

[pisskop]

In Soviet Russia, they also tried spring loaded knife-guns.  Imagine how that looked.

[GreatWyrmGold]

On the subject of crazy Soviet inventions, have you heard of the Anotov An-225?

[C27]

On the subject of crazy Soviet inventions, have you heard of the Anotov An-225?

I've seen it in person, actually.

[GreatWyrmGold]

On the subject of crazy Soviet inventions, have you heard of the Anotov An-225?

I've seen it in person, actually.

Does it look as crazy as it sounds?

[C27]

If it works, it's not crazy. 

[Jetman123]

It's an oversized conventional aircraft that carries another aircraft. The US did the same concept with the X-15 spaceplane and were even considering it as a manned launch method. If an aircraft can carry you to 35,000 feet, that's 35,000 feet less you have to climb to get into space, and without expending rocket fuel either - and the aircraft can be reused.

In the An-225's case, it was a method of moving the Buran orbiter, which, like the space shuttle it's based on, can only glide, not take off. So once it's on the ground, before it can be maintained and used for another launch, it has to be flown somewhere. And this might shock you, but the Russians didn't come up with the idea of moving it on the back of a plane.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/q-how-do-you-move-a-space-shuttle-from-florida-to-the-smithsonian/253871/

NASA simply used a 747, since their shuttle was smaller. It's not crazy in the slightest.

[AutomataKittay]

It's an oversized conventional aircraft that carries another aircraft. The US did the same concept with the X-15 spaceplane and were even considering it as a manned launch method. If an aircraft can carry you to 35,000 feet, that's 35,000 feet less you have to climb to get into space, and without expending rocket fuel either - and the aircraft can be reused.

In the An-225's case, it was a method of moving the Buran orbiter, which, like the space shuttle it's based on, can only glide, not take off. So once it's on the ground, before it can be maintained and used for another launch, it has to be flown somewhere. And this might shock you, but the Russians didn't come up with the idea of moving it on the back of a plane.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/q-how-do-you-move-a-space-shuttle-from-florida-to-the-smithsonian/253871/

NASA simply used a 747, since their shuttle was smaller. It's not crazy in the slightest.

There're also speed bonus for airplane carrying a rocket up, in addition to much less altitude to punch through, it's pretty much how a couple of current non-government launchers are working. And was considered fairly often for more advanced launch platform.

For the op, it sounds like an oddball conveyor belt with corkscrew instead of cloth/leather belts. It'd be an interesting idea, but probably better for just vertical transportation

[GreatWyrmGold]

I must have been thinking of one of Russia's other airborne aircraft carriers.

Conveyor belts seem more useful than screws for horizontal transport, yes. Can we get back to crazy Russian inventions?

[10ebbor10]

I must have been thinking of one of Russia's other airborne aircraft carriers.

Conveyor belts seem more useful than screws for horizontal transport, yes. Can we get back to crazy Russian inventions?

There was the open top APC

[GreatWyrmGold]

...Did it at least have a convertible top?

[AutomataKittay]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw-propelled_vehicle



It seems like good idea for swamps or snowy area, though! Whenever there're vehicles implemented.

[10ebbor10]

...Did it at least have a convertible top?

How did you guess. They included a plastic top to keep out the rain.

[GreatWyrmGold]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw-propelled_vehicle



It seems like good idea for swamps or snowy area, though! Whenever there're vehicles implemented.

Not good for much else, though...
#7 is a pretty good explainer of big problems with corkscrew-based vehicles.

...Did it at least have a convertible top?

How did you guess. They included a plastic top to keep out the rain.

Lucky, I guess.
Not the craziest Russian military vehicle I've heard of. Right below the corkscrew tank in the above link is another Russian tank which had two huge wheels that made great targets and two really puny wheels. Why?