Print

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

[Dorsidwarf]

Don't forget that pure uranium isn't magnetic enough, so you have to add lighter arsenic, and are still something like 9% less magnetic than iron.

[Toaster]

The suits- even the higher Mk suits- aren't perfect rad insulators, or even exceptionally good ones.  The Battlesuit is about the best we have without something purpose-built.

[Radio Controlled]

Don't forget that pure uranium isn't magnetic enough, so you have to add lighter arsenic, and are still something like 9% less magnetic than iron.

And there are better materials available than iron. For example, a quick googling tells me that neodymium (also known as NdFeB, NIB or Neo magnet) is a very powerful one.

[NAV]

Don't forget about blackshot.

[PyroDesu]

Ammunition - could make a version for our bog-standard Gauss rifles, and a heavier version/shotgun version for the Brisant (if it even gets approved). And no, it would hinder the acceleration by virtue of mass - the only time more mass is a good thing is when it's mass hitting the target. Otherwise, it's wasted energy. And if you know a good physics forum, go right on ahead.

Brisant is the name of that grenade launcher, right?

((See, that's what happens when weapons get non-descriptive names!))

Also, I'm not following your logic, but I think I might see why. The sabot, in your idea, is it discarded after launch or not? Because if it is, then it doesn't matter how much heavier it is after the shell has been shedded, does it?

Say you have three shells (=the outer shell, not the full projectile), one lightweight non ferromagnetic (eg plastic), one heavier non ferromagnetic, and one heavier ferromagnetic. The second one obviously loses out to the first one, because it is heavier and doesn't add anything. It's also inferior to the third one, because there the core payload gains extra speed due to a higher acceleration (due to the ferromagnetic shell also being pushed away by the applied magnetic field). Even without an uranium core, the third one would still be able to be fired from the gauss gun.

So now, is it now possible that the loss in velocity from the extra weight is offset by the extra velocity gained from the extra push from the ferromagnetic shell? Or is there some reason as to why the ferromagnetic shell would not add a (significant) increase in speed to the projectile? Hell, imagine for a second we made the shell out of a ridiculously expensive material that gains maximal possible thrust for the same 'amount of magnetic field' (tesla). Would that still slow down rather than speed up the core?

If there is some reason that there would be no speed increase (eg there is an upper attainable speed limit somehow, and if the uranium core can achieve that on its own, the shell cannot make it faster, thus warranting a shell that's as light as possible) then I could agree, but I con't know of any reasonable reason for such a limit.


If you want it not to lose it's shell, that's a slightly different story (though again, if it adds more sped than it takes away it should still help) but then I'd wonder why you'd want that, seeing as how there's good reasons for going for a smaller diameter projectile (better sectional density for one, I think).

We have suits with radiation shielding. Most of them do not.

Ah yes, the magical radiation shielding material. Hmm, it might work, but still, we'd have to assess if the increased difficulty in handling is worth the added damage potential (after all, in the military, they often use things that are reliable, safe and easy to use, not just the most powerful).

It's not nearly as funky (though it is a lot more funky visually), but have you ever seen an example of fluorescence thermochromism? Temperatures changing properties is always cool, even if sometimes it's not so extreme.

Youtube is our friend.

Nothing earthshaking, but interesting nonetheless.

Brisance: the shattering capability of a high explosive. French Brisant - Breaking (Brisance derived from verb form - briser). German Brisant - Explosive. Yes, it's the (actually fairly descriptive) name of the grenade launcher.

Sabots are by definition discarded after launch. And it does matter because while the sabot is attached (within the barrel), it is extra mass to accelerate. Acceleration equals force divided by mass, it's Newton's second law. Add more mass, and to get the same acceleration, you must use more force. And I'm not sure whether the presence of additional magnetic mass will affect the force on the projectile - it's not like adding on a booster, more like spreading out the force (remember, the force is static, generated by the weapon's coils).

Also, I was wrong about using enriched uranium - it's just as radioactive as depleted (both emit alpha particles (which will fuck things up quite badly, if they get in contact with them. They normally don't) at around the same energy). The only way it would be better is if you somehow introduced free neutrons.

That was the exact video I was thinking of.

Don't forget that pure uranium isn't magnetic enough, so you have to add lighter arsenic, and are still something like 9% less magnetic than iron.

I can't find the density of uranium arsenide, but I suspect that it will still be denser than iron (uranium is seriously dense). And the 9% difference is not enough to severely affect the properties of the projectile , I don't think (might be wrong - it will be slightly slower than one of pure iron because of it, but no idea how much, and the increased mass should more than compensate).

And there are better materials available than iron. For example, a quick googling tells me that neodymium (also known as NdFeB, NIB or Neo magnet) is a very powerful one.

Neodymium magnets are of comparable density to iron, and you would probably have issues getting them to launch at all, since they'd probably be stuck to a part of the weapon (I have some - those things are insanely strong) - there's a reason we don't use magnetized iron, though firing it does leave it magnetized. And, of course, still have the issue that the force imparted on the projectile is static.

Don't forget about blackshot.

What is blackshot, again? I mean, specifically, I know what it is in general.

[Empiricist]

What is blackshot, again? I mean, specifically, I know what it is in general.

The blackshots are something like buckshot, but packed with oblong and mildly sharp black pellets which weigh far more then they should. They tend to fill targets with lots of pencil thin holes.

[PyroDesu]

What is blackshot, again? I mean, specifically, I know what it is in general.

The blackshots are something like buckshot, but packed with oblong and mildly sharp black pellets which weigh far more then they should. They tend to fill targets with lots of pencil thin holes.

If one were to take blackshot material (if it is denser than what is proposed) and make a saboted flechette with it, then it might be good anti-armor. As it is, no.

[Radio Controlled]

Brisance: the shattering capability of a high explosive. French Brisant - Breaking (Brisance derived from verb form - briser). German Brisant - Explosive. Yes, it's the (actually fairly descriptive) name of the grenade launcher.

Fair enough. But if neither me, nor pw, nor anyone on the council (all people who follow the appropriate threads) immediately knew what the 'brisant' was even after having reviewed it before, can you still claim it's a very descriptive name?

Sabots are by definition discarded after launch. And it does matter because while the sabot is attached (within the barrel), it is extra mass to accelerate. Acceleration equals force divided by mass, it's Newton's second law. Add more mass, and to get the same acceleration, you must use more force.

I know Newton's laws, and I never doubted this particular bit.

And I'm not sure whether the presence of additional magnetic mass will affect the force on the projectile - it's not like adding on a booster, more like spreading out the force (remember, the force is static, generated by the weapon's coils).

This, however, is where our opinions diverge. If the uranium is sufficiently magnetic enough so that it can use all of the force generated by the coils, and using a better suited material doesn't help, then I would agree to go for a light-weight shell. However, I seriously doubt if that would be the case. But because it seems neither of us is knowledgeable enough to say for sure, I made an account on the physics forum where I will ask the question.

Neodymium magnets are of comparable density to iron, and you would probably have issues getting them to launch at all, since they'd probably be stuck to a part of the weapon (I have some - those things are insanely strong) - there's a reason we don't use magnetized iron, though firing it does leave it magnetized. And, of course, still have the issue that the force imparted on the projectile is static.

If that particular thing is too magnetic to be practical, we could just use the next best thing that's still usable.

Still, you agree with me that certain materials would be more appropriate than others if you want to fire a solid slug of them at maximum speed, no? Plastic is worse than a very slightly magnetic materials, which in turn is worse than iron. So, the question is, is uranium sufficiently good enough that it would have nothing to gain from a magnetic shell, and if not, if that is a more efficient solution that using a denser (non-magnetic if need be) core and a specially designed shell.

[PyroDesu]

Brisance: the shattering capability of a high explosive. French Brisant - Breaking (Brisance derived from verb form - briser). German Brisant - Explosive. Yes, it's the (actually fairly descriptive) name of the grenade launcher.

Fair enough. But if neither me, nor pw, nor anyone on the council (all people who follow the appropriate threads) immediately knew what the 'brisant' was even after having reviewed it before, can you still claim it's a very descriptive name?

Sabots are by definition discarded after launch. And it does matter because while the sabot is attached (within the barrel), it is extra mass to accelerate. Acceleration equals force divided by mass, it's Newton's second law. Add more mass, and to get the same acceleration, you must use more force.

I know Newton's laws, and I never doubted this particular bit.

And I'm not sure whether the presence of additional magnetic mass will affect the force on the projectile - it's not like adding on a booster, more like spreading out the force (remember, the force is static, generated by the weapon's coils).

This, however, is where our opinions diverge. If the uranium is sufficiently magnetic enough so that it can use all of the force generated by the coils, and using a better suited material doesn't help, then I would agree to go for a light-weight shell. However, I seriously doubt if that would be the case. But because it seems neither of us is knowledgeable enough to say for sure, I made an account on the physics forum where I will ask the question.

Neodymium magnets are of comparable density to iron, and you would probably have issues getting them to launch at all, since they'd probably be stuck to a part of the weapon (I have some - those things are insanely strong) - there's a reason we don't use magnetized iron, though firing it does leave it magnetized. And, of course, still have the issue that the force imparted on the projectile is static.

If that particular thing is too magnetic to be practical, we could just use the next best thing that's still usable.

Still, you agree with me that certain materials would be more appropriate than others if you want to fire a solid slug of them at maximum speed, no? Plastic is worse than a very slightly magnetic materials, which in turn is worse than iron. So, the question is, is uranium sufficiently good enough that it would have nothing to gain from a magnetic shell, and if not, if that is a more efficient solution that using a denser (non-magnetic if need be) core and a specially designed shell.

The name is descriptive to the weapon, at least - no name except a very plain one is descriptive to anyone until it's been used sufficiently - look at the FEL lasers Sean made, the name of the smaller version of which I can't remember (The bigger one is Raduga, right?), or the Sibilus. Besides, much like the Testament and all the other named weapons (some of which the name has become very descriptive for to players and PW), it's not the full name, and the latter part is much more descriptive.

Ask away, I'll follow it myself. (And by the way - Titanium is worse than iron in that regard. Its main feature is that it's roughly as strong for less mass - it's not as dense, which is a bad thing for using it as a projectile) Also, maybe they'll discover one flaw in the idea nobody here has picked up on (but is somewhat easily mitigated).

And we don't want any permanent magnets - we want things that respond to magnetic fields. Ferro-, Para-, flip the current in the coil and use Dia-... What we use depends on how much it responds and how much of the static force they can take.

[Radio Controlled]

Woops, meant tungsten, not titanium.

And I didn't meant to use permanent magnets, though I guess 'magnetic materials' is somewhat ambigous in that regard.

Also, what is that problem you're thinking of?

look at the FEL lasers Sean made, the name of the smaller version of which I can't remember (The bigger one is Raduga, right?)

Kinda proving my point here, heh.

[Harry Baldman]

I have to agree that Tinker projects are plagued by completely terrible names for things. Makes it difficult to figure out what's what at a glance. Somebody should do a little renaming, really, or at least back off on the proper names a bit in the future.

[Hapah]

I never understood why the projects got the non-descriptive names in the first place.

[Harry Baldman]

I never understood why the projects got the non-descriptive names in the first place.

Because it sounds cooler and more flavorful that way, first of all. A secondary purpose would be to distinguish one version of a weapon from another (however, since we usually only have one version of a weapon to begin with - such as the Laser Rifle rather than two minutely different laser rifles dubbed Meltmaster K13 and Beamblaster L51 to distinguish them - this is a bit unnecessary to say the least). The third would be to provide similarities to real life with its non-indicative military tech names (such as M16 or TALOS). The fourth would be to obscure the true nature of the weapon from any unknowing people, though since nobody who didn't take part or observe the designing process knows what they are in the first place, this is counterproductive.

EDIT: And also to provide a convenient shorthand to refer to it, I suppose, though the confusing names don't really help there, either.

[Sean Mirrsen]

As far as the names, I think so far Saint's and Anton's followed a similar pattern. A "flavor" name, followed by an acronym of the actual name. The SS "Testament" Light Shard Weapon, the "Spektr" Variable Laser Weapon, the "Raduga" Variable Heavy Laser. In the end, whatever name is most easy to use will end up the one being used. Nobody calls the HEP by its full name nowadays.

[Harry Baldman]

As far as the names, I think so far Saint's and Anton's followed a similar pattern. A "flavor" name, followed by an acronym of the actual name. The SS "Testament" Light Shard Weapon, the "Spektr" Variable Laser Weapon, the "Raduga" Variable Heavy Laser. In the end, whatever name is most easy to use will end up the one being used. Nobody calls the HEP by its full name nowadays.

The example names in this case are a non-indicative name that's awkward to use and an overly diplomatic, even more awkward to use name. For instance, a crystal shard you whack somebody over the head with is still technically a "Light Shard Weapon", and a hand laser with a diffusion dial is still technically a "Variable Laser Weapon". It's all very vague and non-descriptive, and having multiple names for the same thing only further muddles the issue. Why not call them, for instance, a Shard Machine Gun (or a Shard SMG, if that's what it actually is - I'm still not perfectly clear on that from the name and general description), a Multiwave Laser (though this is probably a violently anti-technical name, perhaps a Multi-Wavelength Laser?) and a Heavy Multiwave Laser instead and leave it at that?