Page 85

[fredgiblet]

That argument was so utterly disjointed from reality I didn't know where to start. Using the relative visual brightness of LCD and CRT monitors to judge the efficiency at focusing a particle beam?

Wait, is THAT what he was doing? I haven't been paying attention because I don't know enough about the material to contribute.

shouldn't this go in another thread?

Nah, this is the way threads work here.

[BattleRaptor]

Disjointed from reality?
What would that be.. that LCD screens only allow ~7% of the light that hits the back of the Pixels though?
Not the MASSIVE 33% that I assumed with a perfectly impossible LCD screen?

Electron flow route at phosphor screens in CRT Pages 144-150
Materials Chemistry and Physics, Volume 73, Issues 2-3, 15 January 2002.
I cant find a online version except if you are willing to buy sorry, it is however only 30 bucks for the entire issue.
Second
http://www.crysoptix.com/Publications/SID2009_P-113.pdf

Then compare efficiencies of Phosphor screens to that of LCD in the ammount of energy that actually is allowed to pass once the electrons/photons make it to the Screen/Film.

LCD have lower Efficenices.
Less visible light for the ammount of energy put in... Phosphor screens can be up to >20% LCD even expensive current gen <15%.

Yes my argument was very off center in what was favoured.. and it was favouring CRT by a massive margin.. and they STILL lose.
The REALITY of the matter is that LCD screens can have efficiencies of under 1% and yet they are STILL better then CRTs.
Use far less power.

This is also when I IGNORED
how increasing Pixel count reduces efficiencies further.
A colour CRT screen uses far more energy then a monochrome due to increased pixals and blocked light by cell walls.
Then take into account the colour CRT is only (320X200)*3 sub-pixels
compared to the at least (1280×720)*3 of LCD TV screens.

Which also suffer drop in brightness to pixel density, and while it is less.. its NOT much less.

Nemo
They are not arguing double the speed half the weight=double the energy is wrong.
That is correct.

However perfectly understandable, infact they gave me the same impression.
Turns out.
What they are aruging isnt the projectile at all, but the GUN that fires it.

They are arguing my intent was that the projectile is fired from the EXACT same railgun as the larger projectile and done so with no modifications.

They wanted to point out a railgun fireing the smaller projectile would be less efficient.
Which isnt actually the case, only probable.. it could be the railgun is more efficient with a lighter smaller projectile.
Such an argument about a unknown weapon based on unknown advanced human technogly.
Comes down to
Maybe or Maybe Not.

Despite being repeatedly told that I made a statement of fact, they keep arguing this is what I obviously DID mean and implied.

Funny too.. because humans are supposed to be immune to mind reading

[Nemo]

They are arguing my intent was that the projectile is fired from the EXACT same railgun as the larger projectile and done so with no modifications.

I quoted you directly, not them. You're back pedaling because your initial posit was faulty. The new one you're putting forward, different more powerful gun is more powerful because of its difference, is not at all what you started with. If that is what you meant to say to start with, plainly, you messed up, not everyone else in the world reading what you wrote. Stop trying to push that fault off on other people and you will find a much less combative response.

[Arioch]

Folks, let's argue the issue and not the other person.

If you've got a point to make, make it. If you don't think the other person is making a serious point, then just let it drop. I've had enough of the nitpicking and henpecking.

[fredgiblet]

@Battleraptor

Some clarity finally comes out of your posts. I do finally see what you've been saying all along and I apologize for my misinterpretation. Your post has finally become clear to me.

On the other hand, you are still dropping the idea that humans can simply build a mass driver that doubles the velocity of a 100kg slug as if it's a given. This simply isn't true. Even ignoring efficiency, basic physics makes the task you setting forth for the humans difficult at best and impossible at worst. More to the point mass drivers are a dead-end technology, basic physics dictates that, so even if it IS possible for humans to build the mass drivers you are suggesting it would be stupid of them to bother, the money would be better spent in pretty much any other weapon program.

They wanted to point out a railgun fireing the smaller projectile would be less efficient.
Which isnt actually the case, only probable.. it could be the railgun is more efficient with a lighter smaller projectile.

Certainly possible. ABSURDLY unlikely, but certainly possible. Of course our argument doesn't really rely on efficiency, basic physics provides plenty of obstacles for your idea, efficiency just multiplies them.

[Trantor]

Before WWI, Battleships' main armaments consisted mainly of small scale guns (6") while after actual combat it was shown that fewer large velocity guns were preferable.

Muzzle Velocity wasn´t that high, for the SK C/34 (Bismarck-class Main Battle Ship) it was 820m/s with Standardpowder and 800Kg shells.

The discussion concerning mass drivers and particle/laser weapons should be viewed in this context.

Well, Battleships didn´t make it long. From Dreadnoughts to the first sinking of a 50.000 ton capital ship caused by an aircraftcarrier based plane it was only 35 years.

PS: Can't wait till the next page...

Small hint: There´s a curse an anything pointing in this direction - the more you "want" or "ask", the longer updates "may" take...

...for new (less flamed) discussions.

You´ll get used to that here.

[BattleRaptor]

Lets take the assumption that they cant make faster railguns.

Why use them at all.

Why not just missiles.. and DO think very hard before you answer that.

[Trantor]

Why not just missiles..

Tolot Blisters FTW!

[dfacto]

Why not just missiles.. and DO think very hard before you answer that.

Same reason we're trying to develop railguns now: Missiles cost a shitload, take lots of space to store, aren't all that much faster, and go BANG when you shoot them.

[discord]

battleraptor: again, you are comparing monitors, who the *bleep* cares about generating visual light? it is not relevant to the question, period effing dot.

okey, i shall now calm down and refrain from this discussion before i blow a fuse and go crazy....and get myself yet another reprimand from arioch for bad language.

[BattleRaptor]

discord
Oh but it is.

However feel free point out where a major loss of electrons happen between leaving the Electron Emitter and hitting the screen.

[fredgiblet]

Lets take the assumption that they cant make faster railguns.

Can't make faster railguns that are comparable in price:performance ratio != can't make faster railguns.

Why use them at all.

Why not just missiles.. and DO think very hard before you answer that.

Cheap ammo, good enough for the enemies they actually face.

[Rosen_Ritter_1]

Lets take the assumption that they cant make faster railguns.

Why use them at all.

Why not just missiles.. and DO think very hard before you answer that.

I'd probably assume on account that humanity has zero practical experiance in space combat. So it's understandable why some of their weapon choices might not be optimal.

Also, railguns could also be rather effective for the small scale police actions the Terran fleet was designed to engage in. A railgun round is pretty destructive, but I don't think it's quite nuclear level destructive, and the ammo for it is cheap. So the Terran fleet figured it'd be a cheap way to destroy a static pirate base (or even all the military bases on a planet potentially) without having to worry to much about collateral damage.

So it's not like a railgun is entirely useless in this setting. It just has minimal utility in a star ship battle, baring freak close range encounters like in the prologue.

[dfacto]

The problem with torpedoes is that human drive tech sucks and acceleration is only 12 g. This means that closing torpedoes will be slow enough to shoot down with ease, and railguns and lasers are ideal for this sort of job. Next-gen CIWS systems will use lasers, and those of the far future will probably use them as well, especially in space.

So you pay lots of money for a torpedo, fire it, and watch it get intercepted far from the target. Money, and resources wasted for nothing.

Torpedoes in Outsider are only worthwhile when you can make a lot of them, like the Umiak, and use them to overwhelm defenses and provide time to close on target.

[BattleRaptor]

The size of missiles to the Railgun projectile for the same energy isnt very much larger.
With electric cells of sufficent density(we dont have) or a Nuclear heated exhaust(We can make) can be LESS then 200kg and be faster and have higher impact energy.

Using 1960s Hydrogen/Oxygen engine at 50%-60% nozzle efficiency only needs to be ~800kg total 700kg fuel.
Each missile would cost more then a slug, but whats the cost of the railgun?

Battleship guns not counting turrets mountings or breech could weigh over 100000kg
Then the ship itself which needs more structual strength to survive the gun mounts and force when fired.



Cheap slugs is all the Outsider railguns have going for them.