“Respond or be destroyed” Hmmm Nothing at all ominous or threatening about that. I don’t recall. Is the CP at red alert/battle stations yet?
OT: Catman, some of your.emails and comments here kind of sound like you’re working from an existing body of knowledge regarding wormhole physics. Is that so? And if so would you send me a.link? I’d like to have hard numbers before trying to design ships. If you’re not working from a common, existing body of knowledge, would you please email me the numbers you do have or are working from?
It occurs to me that ‘respond or be destroyed’ could be a ploy to get the CP to show their hand. If the CP has no aggressive intentions, then they would not power up their weapons…. on the other hand, they could be pi-rats…..
Sorry, Gary but in the universe in which I live the command “respond (heave to) or be destroyed” admits of NO innocuous interpretations. Friendly people do not go around sticking a gun in.peop?e’s faces. The prudent interpretation is that the CP is experiencing the space equivalent of being mugged. In this scenario, were I I the CP’s Captain, I would shoot first (to disable if possible) and ask questions afterward.
umm .. in the old navies. ships of the line (HMS) would do just like this,, spot you, chase you down, issue heave too orders, if you don’t, try an sink you.. privateers an pirates would do the same.
so till now (i don’t about the next page.. o.0 ) every thing is going like the old navy,. including the show of force
I think I agree with Rob AND Bill. Time for diplomacy (Saying “nice doggie” until you get your hand on a stick.) Ready shields and weapons to the last point where they leave no energy signatures. Raise them before the probable hostiles get close enough there wouldn’t be time to ready them completely, while answering their questions and asking your own, judging from their answers how much real information to give. These newcomers remind me heavily of the confrontation way back when with Chirk’s pursuers, with a few differences (like the CP is broadcasting its identity and mission, and there IS a treaty in place.) I wonder if these could be human interlopers, maybe from the Southern Worlds.
.. show of force.! in the old navies,, you put a round across the bow, an told em to heave too.. anything less, they would either talk you to death (why,why,why,why,.) or tell you f off an leave..
it was the mind set of ,, if a good guy, then no problem , they check you out , an you go on your way.. if you are a bad guy, you resist , we blow you out of the water,. dun!!
Yeah, back in the day, all nations participated in some form of piracy, and that only really ceased in Western Nations in the late 1800’s and very early 1900’s.
Hence the Merchant Navy.
The history of the East India Company and it’s competitors applies, as does the history of Privateers and Pirates, which at the best of times, were all very hard to tell apart.
From a tactical and Military point of view, anybody who isn’t a lawfully registered and recognized Customs or Coastal Naval vessel, operating in close proximity to their home planets or territory, is fair game, and should be treated as a belligerent hostile.
Initially, and historically, best practice was to outpace them.
Given no other alternative, and knowing you are away from hostile territory’s, any potential witness’s and/or recording systems, you would sink them. Leaving no, or little, trace.
Space is a bit harder, you will leave wreckage and critical evidence.
So you would want to be well outside of normal territorial space, well away from where you entered their space, and the evidence of wreckage would need to be ambiguous, at best. This would include the total destruction of their on-board recording systems.
Thanks for the heads-up. With it I won’t be expecting any responses any time soon. No biggie. I’m kind of doing my own thing regarding modelling. See below for my current “project”.
Hello, all. I’ve been noodling in my freebie 3D modeller (Anim8or) trying to see if I could figure out how to do some things. Had an idea for a wheeled Light Armored Vehicle similar to the USMC’s LAV-25 or the U.S. Army’s Stryker. I think I have figured out how to model a realistic tire and wheel assembly. Here is a quick render on my DA page. https://www.deviantart.com/bmullins3/art/LAV-wheel-1-884137926
Please feel free to comment there or (if it’s okay with the mods) here.
I am thinking about making the vehicle skid steer rather than some sort of front wheel steering. I am postulating 8 wheels directly driven by small grav based motors like what Jon Walker had installed in (IIRC) his jeep a while back. Using direct drive at each wheel frees up internal volume which would otherwise be taken up by some sort of motor and transmission. Doing skid steer simplifies the suspension enormously. Instead of having something like a macpherson strut or double wishbone assembly I can make a much simpler trapezoidal suspension such as is on real world vehicles such as (I know because I found a free model of a Russian BTR-80) as used on real world LAVs. I plan on making the thing as realistic as possible. The main armament would be a grav-based projectile weapon throwing a 10lb chunk of cast concrete with a grav emitter on the nose. The gunner would sight in on the target and hit the “fire” button. The grav emitter would “lock onto” the target and pull the projectile to the target at several thousand gravities of acceleration continuously until the projectile impacted the target. No explosives needed; pure kenetic kill. 10,000 Gs over a quarter mile would result in energies equivalent to a WHOLE LOT of TNT. Continuous acceleration would mean velocities at the target several times the muzzle velocity of any existing weapon including a rail gun. The only drawback would be that this would only be a direct-fire/line-of-sight weapon since it can only attack what is visible. I believe that such a weapon would be effective against fortified positions including earthen berms.
What do you guys think? BTW, I am going to continue developing my LAV simply to see if I can figure out how to pull it off with the modelling software I have. I have had to figure out a lot just to get to the point of making that tire and wheel assembly pictured. I know there will be a lot more to figure out.to make the thing realistic looking enough. I am also thinking about an assault/cargo VTOL aircraft that would be related to a Locust similar to how a CH-47 or CH-53 is related to a CH-64 assuming I can model the fuselage.
just a thought.. if you have all wheel independent drive.. all wheel independent steering..
and,, since the LAV’s have excessive drivetrain road wear.. (on road & highway speeds..) the four center wheels lift up for road/highway,.
then for indirect fire.. a missile pod, or maybe a grav mortar cannon…
Rob, the problem with your mortar idea is that PC won’t let me have negative (i.e. repulsive) grav. For a direct fire weapon that is okay. Rifles are line of.sight as are field guns (assuming I understand the difference between howitzers and field guns). For such a weapon you would hang a strong grav emitter on the front of a projectile, point it at the target and turn on the emitter. Essentially the projectile would pull itself to the target; accelerating all the way. Such a.weapon would be purely line-of-sight. The grav rifles we saw the Marines use to take over that first Bashear starship were.like that. Just a tube with a powerful grav emitter down the barrel. Catman even showed a portion of Daddy Bashear’s chest bulging out. To my mind that would be less effective than a high frenquency pulsed beam. Between the very steep gravity gradient across the beam and the rapid pulsing I believe that the result would be to essentially liquify flesh and reduce harder substances – metals or ceramics – to a powder. I also believe that the limited time for application and the intermittent nature of such a beam would result in material destruction without appreciable acceleration of target material back towards the emitter. In the case of hand held weapons, a direct grav beam weapon would require the beam to be held on the target for an appreciable amount of time thus precluding a snap shot.
Note: I have tried more.than once to convince PC to let me have negative grav. The universe is filled with symmetres thus I have argued that if the universe somehow allows the creation of an artificial gravity beam at all then it should allow for the generation of both positive (attractive which we have in the TGW universe now) and negative (repulsive) fields.to be generated. I even argued that the symmetry could be asymmetrical in some ways; such that while the attractive field seems to have unlimited range (one would not expect a wormhole to form in an area of.space with a lot of mass nearby) the repulive field could fall off steeply. If such a field.were postulated, I imagine it falling off in density rapidly, for example 3 or 4 feet. Thus it could be utilized to lift masses a short way off the ground but not be used to propell a vehicle. A very powerful directed negative grav field could act as a propellant in a way analogous to the way the propellant in firearms works. Unfortunately PC refuses to budge on this point. Perhaps if someone other than me were to bring up the idea . . .
Yes, I have given the whole artificial gravity thing a bit of thought. Being retired, I have a lot of time kn my hands and imagineering and thought experiments come naturally to me. It is merely one of my many failings.
the big issue is, this is PC’s comic.!! i may throw ideas an offer suggestions,. but at no time tell him to do it this way.!! IE: reversing the grav gun to make it like a railgun,. still in PC’s realm,,. the negative grav is not,, he said way back when the scientists were trying to figure it out,. that it was not possible..
to redefine , the grav motor is not focused (wide beam) , and the grav gun is focused Narrow beam,, but what they both do is, pull towards whatever focused on,. now the wide beam , since your mass is less than, pulls you.. and in the narrow beam you mass is greater (only grabs a little) pulls towards you (hence the chest bulge.)..
an pulsed… NO,, what you would have is, multiple grav waves condensing on one spot very quickly .. suicide by squick..
Okay, Rob. I give. Uncle. No more suggestions. No more comments. No more me obviously here. Will that satisfy you? We see the operation of a focused gravity beam differently. But you win. I would never tell PC how to run his universe. Okay? I’m still gonna build what I want to build and post pix on my DA page if that is all right with you.
Ian, I am quite familiar with the operation of both a coil (gauss) gun and a rail gun. I have always considered a rail gun as being more of a brute force approach while a coil gun was more elegant. Certainly an annular grav emitter would work very like a solenoid coil. probably the biggest hurdle would be the switching electronics. But it won’t be me making anything anymore. Some people here appear not to like me posting. I will bow to their wishes.
no no you and i miss understood.!! i saw “Note: I have tried more.than once to convince PC to let me have negative grav.” so I saw as telling how to do comic…
all i was trying to say was,, PC’s grav works his way…. you want to run one your way GREAT.! would love to see it.!!
now then
my comments on your art.. as i told PC ,, I go off real world “stuff”. so my comment may have NO bearing in your art (his comic)..
IE: there has been at least 3 of my comments that would NOT work in your art ( doors on cargo pod,, armored ejection seats,, camera windows on pods… ) if any thing,, i should be the one “NOT” commenting..
The physics of Coil weapons and Rail Gun technology is basically the same theory as Gravity weapons. In the current Cannon, PC has invented the large scale model and theory of the Gravity (anti Gravity) technology.
However, unless there are story arc or arc’s that have yet to released, currently, PC hasn’t really defined the technology down to weapons grade scale for field combat use.
Nor has PC expanded the technology, at this time, much beyond the original use for general weapons technology. Which is basically an offshoot of the side effects of it’s intend original use.
However, without preempting any yet to be released story arc, only war and/or the requirement for such weapons, will lead to the development of such weapons and the related technology.
To achieve this, firstly you would need weapons engineers, with combat field weapon expertise, who at the least, would be familiar with the principals of Rail Gun and Coil weapon technology.
Currently that’s the US navy and any as yet unclassified Army technology based on Heavy vehicle mounted Rail/Coil weapon technology.
That’s Military off-road Truck mounted or LAV mounted and similar platforms.
Also, that’s current now, as is the rather long history of many governments and their military’s already studying Anti Gravity technology.
To put this in simple terms, again without preempting anything PC has already in the works, consider this, based on Coil Gun physics.
You have a one foot long, or three foot long tube or similar structure. You have anti-gravity technology embedded into this tube, say every two to six inches apart, in much the same as Coil Gun magnets.
You insert a projectile in to one end of the tube, again, in much the same fashion as a Coil Gun.
Using slightly more sophisticated technology, you power up the first anti GRAV coil, which starts the forward motion of the projectile.
Before it reaches the first coil, you disable that coil and power the second coil, further down the tube. Alternatively, you simply increase the output strength of each coil, say by a factor of two?
By the time the projectile is sucked along the tube, in either fashion, it should be at ballistic speeds at the end of that tube length, but without the barrel pressure of a normal Gun Powder style weapon.
The behavior should mimic a Rail Gun in design.
This, while theoretical, is doable, albeit with the right skill set. From that point on, it’s a matter of scaling, testing, and power requirements.
The big question is that would any power-cell energy weapon, specifically a hand held weapon, be useful beyond 100 yards. Secondly, would it need to be?
This is based on the power requirement to switch on and off the Anti GRAV feature, and how many anti GRAV projectiles you could fire, using a power-cell design, before needing to recharge the power-cell?
However, vehicle mounted, any ship mounted and other mounted versions, and their size, wouldn’t have the power-cell limitations.
The only limiting factors for mounted weapons are distance and punch, based on the projectile composition and the velocity.
Gravity would become a factor where gravity applies, however, again, you would expect at least similar fire power outcomes to current rail gun technology.
Rob, I just noticed your comment about LAVs having drivetrain wear. With some sort of “motivator” at.each wheel providing torque where it is needed, there would BE no “drivetrain” – at least not in the conventional sense. The need to.transmt torque through a swivelling joint has been the problem with front wheel.drive automobiles from the get go. Constant velocity joints are complex, (thus) expensive and not terribly robust. I replaced a set on my 2nd Plymouth Reliant back in 82. Damned things were NOT cheap! They were also a bit of a.pain to work on. Thank goodnes for Moral Welfare & Recreation’s well equipped auto shop on Bergstrom AFB. Considering how heavy even a “LIGHT” armored vehicle would perforce be, I can see how drivetrain might be a problem. Add in the necessity for a transmission/transfer case (unless you went with hydraulic.fkuid drive motors.at the driven wheels) and there is a major failure point. With grav type motots at.each wheel, the suspension would only need to travel up and down and could be made very robust. Aside from the suspension itself, the only connection between the vehicle.and the wheel would be the electrical cable to control the motor itself. Those would constitute a failure point but could easily be engineered to be field replacable. In the event of running out of spare cables, the individual engines would be designed to freewneel when not lowered and the master drive train controller, upon sensing a wheel fault would automatically cut power to the opposite wheel. Over all vehicle performace would be degraded but loss of a.wheel’s drive would not stop the vehicle.
What do you think? Have I addressed the reliability and maintainability issues? Conceivably whole drive wheel assemblies could be.swapped out in the field given some sort of mobile tender.
Nots: I.also want to see if I can construct a track such as would be found on a tank or BFV. I can visualize the way to construct the track where it goes over the wheels.at each end of the vehicle I simply have not tried to implement something like that. The individual track segment would not pose much of a problem and I have found many pictures of tracks to use as models but making it mesh properly with the drive wheel and idler wheel.at the front could prove.a.challenge. LOL I spent most of a day figuring out how to model a tire and still cannot see quite how to model some of.the tires I’ve seen pictured on real world vehicles.
in LAV’s , having 8 wheels on the ground is great, ie; load bearing, traction, ect.. but, when on road, and a centralized motor , any deviation from straight , causes problems at all the joints..
having the motor(s) in the wheel negates most of that,, you still have the tire an joint wear on the inner 4 tires..
electric cables ,, how bout ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6-qEAl7pkE .. you could actually imbed like a motherboard, and run it though the connecting frame.. (under the armor. or put a protective coating over..)
Interesting idea and it would have been nice back when I was a tech in R&D engineering for prototyping but it I would not trust the stuff’s durability. I’m starting on building the LAV and I’m gonna go with cables. They would be short and pretty darned rugged. I will build a version with the middle 2 sets of wheels raised off the roadway. I was planning on specifying active suspension anyhow.Based upon research I’m planning on giving the thing a full 24″ ground clearance (Stryker has 21″ and I could not find data for the LAV-25). Just grabbing numbers out of the air, the outside diameter of the tires is 50″. I’m planning a bare bonse hull and a couple of variants with reactive armor tiles and the cute slatted anti-RPG armor. With the tire tread pattern I made it should be able to swim so I figure it is going to be amphibious at least for fresh watter crossings. Not sure what the specs would need to be for an ocean amphibious vehicle.
Anyhow, I’m going to build it and offer it to the Catman. I plan to make sure it will fit in the multi-mode cargo/pax module I sent to the Catman a few weeks back. It will depend upon how wide I can make the hull and still have room for the wheels. It may only fit in the oversized cargo module I built for the Locust II. That thing is 50% wider and 1/3rd longer than the standard Locust cargo module. I just did it to see if I could.
hum.?? that bar seems familiar…
Yes it is and I feel Jami is getting setup.
you saw the setup too.? ,, but what or how,, Angel is not one to trifle with..
“Respond or be destroyed” Hmmm Nothing at all ominous or threatening about that. I don’t recall. Is the CP at red alert/battle stations yet?
OT: Catman, some of your.emails and comments here kind of sound like you’re working from an existing body of knowledge regarding wormhole physics. Is that so? And if so would you send me a.link? I’d like to have hard numbers before trying to design ships. If you’re not working from a common, existing body of knowledge, would you please email me the numbers you do have or are working from?
It occurs to me that ‘respond or be destroyed’ could be a ploy to get the CP to show their hand. If the CP has no aggressive intentions, then they would not power up their weapons…. on the other hand, they could be pi-rats…..
Sorry, Gary but in the universe in which I live the command “respond (heave to) or be destroyed” admits of NO innocuous interpretations. Friendly people do not go around sticking a gun in.peop?e’s faces. The prudent interpretation is that the CP is experiencing the space equivalent of being mugged. In this scenario, were I I the CP’s Captain, I would shoot first (to disable if possible) and ask questions afterward.
umm .. in the old navies. ships of the line (HMS) would do just like this,, spot you, chase you down, issue heave too orders, if you don’t, try an sink you.. privateers an pirates would do the same.
so till now (i don’t about the next page.. o.0 ) every thing is going like the old navy,. including the show of force
I think I agree with Rob AND Bill. Time for diplomacy (Saying “nice doggie” until you get your hand on a stick.) Ready shields and weapons to the last point where they leave no energy signatures. Raise them before the probable hostiles get close enough there wouldn’t be time to ready them completely, while answering their questions and asking your own, judging from their answers how much real information to give. These newcomers remind me heavily of the confrontation way back when with Chirk’s pursuers, with a few differences (like the CP is broadcasting its identity and mission, and there IS a treaty in place.) I wonder if these could be human interlopers, maybe from the Southern Worlds.
What Jochi said….
“….or be destroyed” does not sound of friendly intent
.. show of force.! in the old navies,, you put a round across the bow, an told em to heave too.. anything less, they would either talk you to death (why,why,why,why,.) or tell you f off an leave..
it was the mind set of ,, if a good guy, then no problem , they check you out , an you go on your way.. if you are a bad guy, you resist , we blow you out of the water,. dun!!
ROBNOT,
Yeah, back in the day, all nations participated in some form of piracy, and that only really ceased in Western Nations in the late 1800’s and very early 1900’s.
Hence the Merchant Navy.
The history of the East India Company and it’s competitors applies, as does the history of Privateers and Pirates, which at the best of times, were all very hard to tell apart.
From a tactical and Military point of view, anybody who isn’t a lawfully registered and recognized Customs or Coastal Naval vessel, operating in close proximity to their home planets or territory, is fair game, and should be treated as a belligerent hostile.
Initially, and historically, best practice was to outpace them.
Given no other alternative, and knowing you are away from hostile territory’s, any potential witness’s and/or recording systems, you would sink them. Leaving no, or little, trace.
Space is a bit harder, you will leave wreckage and critical evidence.
So you would want to be well outside of normal territorial space, well away from where you entered their space, and the evidence of wreckage would need to be ambiguous, at best. This would include the total destruction of their on-board recording systems.
also.. it seems PC is out,. (ride) he posted a large buffer.. so 🙂
Thanks for the heads-up. With it I won’t be expecting any responses any time soon. No biggie. I’m kind of doing my own thing regarding modelling. See below for my current “project”.
Hello, all. I’ve been noodling in my freebie 3D modeller (Anim8or) trying to see if I could figure out how to do some things. Had an idea for a wheeled Light Armored Vehicle similar to the USMC’s LAV-25 or the U.S. Army’s Stryker. I think I have figured out how to model a realistic tire and wheel assembly. Here is a quick render on my DA page. https://www.deviantart.com/bmullins3/art/LAV-wheel-1-884137926
Please feel free to comment there or (if it’s okay with the mods) here.
I am thinking about making the vehicle skid steer rather than some sort of front wheel steering. I am postulating 8 wheels directly driven by small grav based motors like what Jon Walker had installed in (IIRC) his jeep a while back. Using direct drive at each wheel frees up internal volume which would otherwise be taken up by some sort of motor and transmission. Doing skid steer simplifies the suspension enormously. Instead of having something like a macpherson strut or double wishbone assembly I can make a much simpler trapezoidal suspension such as is on real world vehicles such as (I know because I found a free model of a Russian BTR-80) as used on real world LAVs. I plan on making the thing as realistic as possible. The main armament would be a grav-based projectile weapon throwing a 10lb chunk of cast concrete with a grav emitter on the nose. The gunner would sight in on the target and hit the “fire” button. The grav emitter would “lock onto” the target and pull the projectile to the target at several thousand gravities of acceleration continuously until the projectile impacted the target. No explosives needed; pure kenetic kill. 10,000 Gs over a quarter mile would result in energies equivalent to a WHOLE LOT of TNT. Continuous acceleration would mean velocities at the target several times the muzzle velocity of any existing weapon including a rail gun. The only drawback would be that this would only be a direct-fire/line-of-sight weapon since it can only attack what is visible. I believe that such a weapon would be effective against fortified positions including earthen berms.
What do you guys think? BTW, I am going to continue developing my LAV simply to see if I can figure out how to pull it off with the modelling software I have. I have had to figure out a lot just to get to the point of making that tire and wheel assembly pictured. I know there will be a lot more to figure out.to make the thing realistic looking enough. I am also thinking about an assault/cargo VTOL aircraft that would be related to a Locust similar to how a CH-47 or CH-53 is related to a CH-64 assuming I can model the fuselage.
just a thought.. if you have all wheel independent drive.. all wheel independent steering..
and,, since the LAV’s have excessive drivetrain road wear.. (on road & highway speeds..) the four center wheels lift up for road/highway,.
then for indirect fire.. a missile pod, or maybe a grav mortar cannon…
Rob, the problem with your mortar idea is that PC won’t let me have negative (i.e. repulsive) grav. For a direct fire weapon that is okay. Rifles are line of.sight as are field guns (assuming I understand the difference between howitzers and field guns). For such a weapon you would hang a strong grav emitter on the front of a projectile, point it at the target and turn on the emitter. Essentially the projectile would pull itself to the target; accelerating all the way. Such a.weapon would be purely line-of-sight. The grav rifles we saw the Marines use to take over that first Bashear starship were.like that. Just a tube with a powerful grav emitter down the barrel. Catman even showed a portion of Daddy Bashear’s chest bulging out. To my mind that would be less effective than a high frenquency pulsed beam. Between the very steep gravity gradient across the beam and the rapid pulsing I believe that the result would be to essentially liquify flesh and reduce harder substances – metals or ceramics – to a powder. I also believe that the limited time for application and the intermittent nature of such a beam would result in material destruction without appreciable acceleration of target material back towards the emitter. In the case of hand held weapons, a direct grav beam weapon would require the beam to be held on the target for an appreciable amount of time thus precluding a snap shot.
Note: I have tried more.than once to convince PC to let me have negative grav. The universe is filled with symmetres thus I have argued that if the universe somehow allows the creation of an artificial gravity beam at all then it should allow for the generation of both positive (attractive which we have in the TGW universe now) and negative (repulsive) fields.to be generated. I even argued that the symmetry could be asymmetrical in some ways; such that while the attractive field seems to have unlimited range (one would not expect a wormhole to form in an area of.space with a lot of mass nearby) the repulive field could fall off steeply. If such a field.were postulated, I imagine it falling off in density rapidly, for example 3 or 4 feet. Thus it could be utilized to lift masses a short way off the ground but not be used to propell a vehicle. A very powerful directed negative grav field could act as a propellant in a way analogous to the way the propellant in firearms works. Unfortunately PC refuses to budge on this point. Perhaps if someone other than me were to bring up the idea . . .
Yes, I have given the whole artificial gravity thing a bit of thought. Being retired, I have a lot of time kn my hands and imagineering and thought experiments come naturally to me. It is merely one of my many failings.
the big issue is, this is PC’s comic.!! i may throw ideas an offer suggestions,. but at no time tell him to do it this way.!! IE: reversing the grav gun to make it like a railgun,. still in PC’s realm,,. the negative grav is not,, he said way back when the scientists were trying to figure it out,. that it was not possible..
to redefine , the grav motor is not focused (wide beam) , and the grav gun is focused Narrow beam,, but what they both do is, pull towards whatever focused on,. now the wide beam , since your mass is less than, pulls you.. and in the narrow beam you mass is greater (only grabs a little) pulls towards you (hence the chest bulge.)..
an pulsed… NO,, what you would have is, multiple grav waves condensing on one spot very quickly .. suicide by squick..
Okay, Rob. I give. Uncle. No more suggestions. No more comments. No more me obviously here. Will that satisfy you? We see the operation of a focused gravity beam differently. But you win. I would never tell PC how to run his universe. Okay? I’m still gonna build what I want to build and post pix on my DA page if that is all right with you.
Ian, I am quite familiar with the operation of both a coil (gauss) gun and a rail gun. I have always considered a rail gun as being more of a brute force approach while a coil gun was more elegant. Certainly an annular grav emitter would work very like a solenoid coil. probably the biggest hurdle would be the switching electronics. But it won’t be me making anything anymore. Some people here appear not to like me posting. I will bow to their wishes.
no no you and i miss understood.!! i saw “Note: I have tried more.than once to convince PC to let me have negative grav.” so I saw as telling how to do comic…
all i was trying to say was,, PC’s grav works his way…. you want to run one your way GREAT.! would love to see it.!!
now then
my comments on your art.. as i told PC ,, I go off real world “stuff”. so my comment may have NO bearing in your art (his comic)..
IE: there has been at least 3 of my comments that would NOT work in your art ( doors on cargo pod,, armored ejection seats,, camera windows on pods… ) if any thing,, i should be the one “NOT” commenting..
Bill, you don’t need negative GRAV.
The physics of Coil weapons and Rail Gun technology is basically the same theory as Gravity weapons. In the current Cannon, PC has invented the large scale model and theory of the Gravity (anti Gravity) technology.
However, unless there are story arc or arc’s that have yet to released, currently, PC hasn’t really defined the technology down to weapons grade scale for field combat use.
Nor has PC expanded the technology, at this time, much beyond the original use for general weapons technology. Which is basically an offshoot of the side effects of it’s intend original use.
However, without preempting any yet to be released story arc, only war and/or the requirement for such weapons, will lead to the development of such weapons and the related technology.
To achieve this, firstly you would need weapons engineers, with combat field weapon expertise, who at the least, would be familiar with the principals of Rail Gun and Coil weapon technology.
Currently that’s the US navy and any as yet unclassified Army technology based on Heavy vehicle mounted Rail/Coil weapon technology.
That’s Military off-road Truck mounted or LAV mounted and similar platforms.
Also, that’s current now, as is the rather long history of many governments and their military’s already studying Anti Gravity technology.
To put this in simple terms, again without preempting anything PC has already in the works, consider this, based on Coil Gun physics.
You have a one foot long, or three foot long tube or similar structure. You have anti-gravity technology embedded into this tube, say every two to six inches apart, in much the same as Coil Gun magnets.
You insert a projectile in to one end of the tube, again, in much the same fashion as a Coil Gun.
Using slightly more sophisticated technology, you power up the first anti GRAV coil, which starts the forward motion of the projectile.
Before it reaches the first coil, you disable that coil and power the second coil, further down the tube. Alternatively, you simply increase the output strength of each coil, say by a factor of two?
By the time the projectile is sucked along the tube, in either fashion, it should be at ballistic speeds at the end of that tube length, but without the barrel pressure of a normal Gun Powder style weapon.
The behavior should mimic a Rail Gun in design.
This, while theoretical, is doable, albeit with the right skill set. From that point on, it’s a matter of scaling, testing, and power requirements.
The big question is that would any power-cell energy weapon, specifically a hand held weapon, be useful beyond 100 yards. Secondly, would it need to be?
This is based on the power requirement to switch on and off the Anti GRAV feature, and how many anti GRAV projectiles you could fire, using a power-cell design, before needing to recharge the power-cell?
However, vehicle mounted, any ship mounted and other mounted versions, and their size, wouldn’t have the power-cell limitations.
The only limiting factors for mounted weapons are distance and punch, based on the projectile composition and the velocity.
Gravity would become a factor where gravity applies, however, again, you would expect at least similar fire power outcomes to current rail gun technology.
Your thoughts?
Rob, I just noticed your comment about LAVs having drivetrain wear. With some sort of “motivator” at.each wheel providing torque where it is needed, there would BE no “drivetrain” – at least not in the conventional sense. The need to.transmt torque through a swivelling joint has been the problem with front wheel.drive automobiles from the get go. Constant velocity joints are complex, (thus) expensive and not terribly robust. I replaced a set on my 2nd Plymouth Reliant back in 82. Damned things were NOT cheap! They were also a bit of a.pain to work on. Thank goodnes for Moral Welfare & Recreation’s well equipped auto shop on Bergstrom AFB. Considering how heavy even a “LIGHT” armored vehicle would perforce be, I can see how drivetrain might be a problem. Add in the necessity for a transmission/transfer case (unless you went with hydraulic.fkuid drive motors.at the driven wheels) and there is a major failure point. With grav type motots at.each wheel, the suspension would only need to travel up and down and could be made very robust. Aside from the suspension itself, the only connection between the vehicle.and the wheel would be the electrical cable to control the motor itself. Those would constitute a failure point but could easily be engineered to be field replacable. In the event of running out of spare cables, the individual engines would be designed to freewneel when not lowered and the master drive train controller, upon sensing a wheel fault would automatically cut power to the opposite wheel. Over all vehicle performace would be degraded but loss of a.wheel’s drive would not stop the vehicle.
What do you think? Have I addressed the reliability and maintainability issues? Conceivably whole drive wheel assemblies could be.swapped out in the field given some sort of mobile tender.
Nots: I.also want to see if I can construct a track such as would be found on a tank or BFV. I can visualize the way to construct the track where it goes over the wheels.at each end of the vehicle I simply have not tried to implement something like that. The individual track segment would not pose much of a problem and I have found many pictures of tracks to use as models but making it mesh properly with the drive wheel and idler wheel.at the front could prove.a.challenge. LOL I spent most of a day figuring out how to model a tire and still cannot see quite how to model some of.the tires I’ve seen pictured on real world vehicles.
in LAV’s , having 8 wheels on the ground is great, ie; load bearing, traction, ect.. but, when on road, and a centralized motor , any deviation from straight , causes problems at all the joints..
having the motor(s) in the wheel negates most of that,, you still have the tire an joint wear on the inner 4 tires..
electric cables ,, how bout ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6-qEAl7pkE .. you could actually imbed like a motherboard, and run it though the connecting frame.. (under the armor. or put a protective coating over..)
Interesting idea and it would have been nice back when I was a tech in R&D engineering for prototyping but it I would not trust the stuff’s durability. I’m starting on building the LAV and I’m gonna go with cables. They would be short and pretty darned rugged. I will build a version with the middle 2 sets of wheels raised off the roadway. I was planning on specifying active suspension anyhow.Based upon research I’m planning on giving the thing a full 24″ ground clearance (Stryker has 21″ and I could not find data for the LAV-25). Just grabbing numbers out of the air, the outside diameter of the tires is 50″. I’m planning a bare bonse hull and a couple of variants with reactive armor tiles and the cute slatted anti-RPG armor. With the tire tread pattern I made it should be able to swim so I figure it is going to be amphibious at least for fresh watter crossings. Not sure what the specs would need to be for an ocean amphibious vehicle.
Anyhow, I’m going to build it and offer it to the Catman. I plan to make sure it will fit in the multi-mode cargo/pax module I sent to the Catman a few weeks back. It will depend upon how wide I can make the hull and still have room for the wheels. It may only fit in the oversized cargo module I built for the Locust II. That thing is 50% wider and 1/3rd longer than the standard Locust cargo module. I just did it to see if I could.
Light Armored Vehicle, 25mm 1-5
LAV-25: Dimensions
Combat weight 28,400lbs 12,900kg Height over turret
Length 252.6″ 641.6cm Width
Tread Front: 85.8″ Rear: 86.8″ Front: 218cm Rear: 220cm Wheelbase
Ground clearance 14.9″ 37.8cm Fire Height
Apr 2, 2021
My English’s not good enough to tell …
if pirates claim to be on a “piracy patrol” are they even lying?
heh.