Mass drivers/MAC cannons

Avenger_7 wrote:

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Burnttoaster wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

In the mod I'm betting on using rail guns, as a coil gun is stupidly difficult to make with 1m^3 blocks.

hm.. I thought the turrets would be entities, cause if there made of blocks then they would be, 1 very large, and 2 harder to make.

I think small turrets will be 1x1x1 entities, but I'm also hoping for massive 40-meter batteries, like the ones on an ImpStar, to use against capital ships. Those might be blocks.

I think this is about the massive, ship-length accelerators that are in Halo, Mass Effect et al.

Burntoaster asked about turrets, not MACs.

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Burnttoaster wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

In the mod I'm betting on using rail guns, as a coil gun is stupidly difficult to make with 1m^3 blocks.

hm.. I thought the turrets would be entities, cause if there made of blocks then they would be, 1 very large, and 2 harder to make.

I think small turrets will be 1x1x1 entities, but I'm also hoping for massive 40-meter batteries, like the ones on an ImpStar, to use against capital ships. Those might be blocks.

I think this is about the massive, ship-length accelerators that are in Halo, Mass Effect et al.

Burntoaster asked about turrets, not MACs.

Yes, but it was in reference to my post, which was about large scale mass drivers.

Avenger_7 wrote:

In the mod I'm betting on using rail guns, as a coil gun is stupidly difficult to make with 1m^3 blocks. And although the efficiency of a rail gun decreases with length (largely due to friction), with a sufficient current the round can be accelerated infinitely. Gaussian guns are a pain because you have to recalibrate the coils after every shot, since the recoil puts them out of alignment. Explains why Garrus spends all that time calibrating.

A railgun would also require recalibration to maintain accuracy with the huge distances we would be working with in space. With the mass of a 10,000 kilogram projectile, the rails would be under immense stress by the heat created by the electricity, the friction created by the projectile on the rails, the recoil from making a huge mass move so quickly, and force made by the magnetic fields. Each coil from in the accelerator would have to be realigned for each firing, but this could be easily accomplished by the future technology we would be using and would be (presumably) pretty fast, faster than it would take for the capacitor to charge. a coilgun has a longer lifespan than a railgun.

Small turrets are entities, correct. Other turrets are made with blocks: they have a projector, amplifiers, and an emitter. These form the barrel, and you can therefor make the turrets as large as you want.

So, in total there will be:


1x1x1 entity laser turret.

Plasma weapon emitter, amplifier and projector blocks. These will work similar to lasers in the laser mod

Missile launcher blocks. Similar to dispensers, but only hold 1 missile each. They can be reached via wireless, so you can have them in otherwise hard-to-connect places.

A magnetic accelerator panel which can be placed on blocks and will cause any magnetic block placed on top of it to slide along it, doubling speed (and therefore power) every 4 panels it passes, starting at 1 block/s. Of course, the panels require power.

I still think there needs to be a wiki for this information

Mackeroth? wrote:

Small turrets are entities, correct. Other turrets are made with blocks: they have a projector, amplifiers, and an emitter. These form the barrel, and you can therefor make the turrets as large as you want.

So, in total there will be:


1x1x1 entity laser turret.

Plasma weapon emitter, amplifier and projector blocks. These will work similar to lasers in the laser mod

Missile launcher blocks. Similar to dispensers, but only hold 1 missile each. They can be reached via wireless, so you can have them in otherwise hard-to-connect places.

A magnetic accelerator panel which can be placed on blocks and will cause any magnetic block placed on top of it to slide along it, doubling speed (and therefore power) every 4 panels it passes, starting at 1 block/s. Of course, the panels require power.

1. Will these larger weapons be able to rotate? Think about the cannons on a WWII-era battleship.
2. I thought missile launchers would be 1x1x9. Is that wrong? It seems much more reasonable than a single block. A 1x1x9 launcher could hold a single large anti-frigate missile, and a 1x1x1 launcher could hold a small cluster (say 5) smaller anti-fighter missiles. That way the missiles are long, and not spherical.

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Mackeroth? wrote:

Small turrets are entities, correct. Other turrets are made with blocks: they have a projector, amplifiers, and an emitter. These form the barrel, and you can therefor make the turrets as large as you want.

So, in total there will be:


1x1x1 entity laser turret.

Plasma weapon emitter, amplifier and projector blocks. These will work similar to lasers in the laser mod

Missile launcher blocks. Similar to dispensers, but only hold 1 missile each. They can be reached via wireless, so you can have them in otherwise hard-to-connect places.

A magnetic accelerator panel which can be placed on blocks and will cause any magnetic block placed on top of it to slide along it, doubling speed (and therefore power) every 4 panels it passes, starting at 1 block/s. Of course, the panels require power.

1. Will these larger weapons be able to rotate? Think about the cannons on a WWII-era battleship.
2. I thought missile launchers would be 1x1x9. Is that wrong? It seems much more reasonable than a single block. A 1x1x9 launcher could hold a single large anti-frigate missile, and a 1x1x1 launcher could hold a small cluster (say 5) smaller anti-fighter missiles. That way the missiles are long, and not spherical.

It would be nice if you could make a missile pod, maybe 5x7x10 that could hold 20 or so missiles that were less powerful than tnt. or larger, more powerful missiles that need their own launcher. add some variation so that someone can develop their own their own strategy.

Could it be possible to have two MACs on a warship? I want to build a ship from Halo, but I'm trying to figure out if I want to build a UNSC destroyer or a frigate. destroyers have two MACs, frigates have one.

catsonmeth wrote:

Could it be possible to have two MACs on a warship? I want to build a ship from Halo, but I'm trying to figure out if I want to build a UNSC destroyer or a frigate. destroyers have two MACs, frigates have one.

That depends on how outdated the information on the summary is.

catsonmeth wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

In the mod I'm betting on using rail guns, as a coil gun is stupidly difficult to make with 1m^3 blocks. And although the efficiency of a rail gun decreases with length (largely due to friction), with a sufficient current the round can be accelerated infinitely. Gaussian guns are a pain because you have to recalibrate the coils after every shot, since the recoil puts them out of alignment. Explains why Garrus spends all that time calibrating.

A railgun would also require recalibration to maintain accuracy with the huge distances we would be working with in space. With the mass of a 10,000 kilogram projectile, the rails would be under immense stress by the heat created by the electricity, the friction created by the projectile on the rails, the recoil from making a huge mass move so quickly, and force made by the magnetic fields. Each coil from in the accelerator would have to be realigned for each firing, but this could be easily accomplished by the future technology we would be using and would be (presumably) pretty fast, faster than it would take for the capacitor to charge. a coilgun has a longer lifespan than a railgun.

10,000 Kg is not a feasible size for a projectile. An average human has a mass of about 7 Kg. Accelerator rounds in Mass Effect and Halo have a mass of 2-3Kg. Also, a round with higher mass and lower velocity carries significantly less kinetic energy than a low-mass round with a high velocity. Although railguns do have a shorter lifespan, they do not require recalibration after each shot, since each rail will bow in an identical way. This means that they stay parallel to each other and therefore ensure a straight flight path. Rails are also incredibly easy to brace, where coils are not. In a superconducting system, all resistance in a railgun is in the round being fired. By using a low-resistance projectile on a long track, a railgun can be easily tweaked to melt the projectile at its moment of release, vastly increasing its energy transfer upon impact (it is less likely to simply pass right through its target than it is to obliterate it entirely).

Do not debate physics with me. I can guarantee I know it better than you.

Avenger_7 wrote:

catsonmeth wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

In the mod I'm betting on using rail guns, as a coil gun is stupidly difficult to make with 1m^3 blocks. And although the efficiency of a rail gun decreases with length (largely due to friction), with a sufficient current the round can be accelerated infinitely. Gaussian guns are a pain because you have to recalibrate the coils after every shot, since the recoil puts them out of alignment. Explains why Garrus spends all that time calibrating.

A railgun would also require recalibration to maintain accuracy with the huge distances we would be working with in space. With the mass of a 10,000 kilogram projectile, the rails would be under immense stress by the heat created by the electricity, the friction created by the projectile on the rails, the recoil from making a huge mass move so quickly, and force made by the magnetic fields. Each coil from in the accelerator would have to be realigned for each firing, but this could be easily accomplished by the future technology we would be using and would be (presumably) pretty fast, faster than it would take for the capacitor to charge. a coilgun has a longer lifespan than a railgun.

10,000 Kg is not a feasible size for a projectile. An average human has a mass of about 7 Kg. Accelerator rounds in Mass Effect and Halo have a mass of 2-3Kg. Also, a round with higher mass and lower velocity carries significantly less kinetic energy than a low-mass round with a high velocity. Although railguns do have a shorter lifespan, they do not require recalibration after each shot, since each rail will bow in an identical way. This means that they stay parallel to each other and therefore ensure a straight flight path. Rails are also incredibly easy to brace, where coils are not. In a superconducting system, all resistance in a railgun is in the round being fired. By using a low-resistance projectile on a long track, a railgun can be easily tweaked to melt the projectile at its moment of release, vastly increasing its energy transfer upon impact (it is less likely to simply pass right through its target than it is to obliterate it entirely).

Do not debate physics with me. I can guarantee I know it better than you.

A 5x5x5 meter cube of iron would be closer to 1,000,000 kilograms. I am roughly 75 kg (165 lbs.). A MAC round in Halo is approx. 600 tons (3000 tons in an ODP). A railgun's rails would be destroyed pretty quickly by the friction alone, unless they were made of some super-epic-strong-conductive-alloy-of-epicness. For a 1-100 kg projectile, a railgun would have many advantages over a coilgun, but when you get into the scale we are working with, a coilgun comes out ahead.

catsonmeth wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

catsonmeth wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

In the mod I'm betting on using rail guns, as a coil gun is stupidly difficult to make with 1m^3 blocks. And although the efficiency of a rail gun decreases with length (largely due to friction), with a sufficient current the round can be accelerated infinitely. Gaussian guns are a pain because you have to recalibrate the coils after every shot, since the recoil puts them out of alignment. Explains why Garrus spends all that time calibrating.

A railgun would also require recalibration to maintain accuracy with the huge distances we would be working with in space. With the mass of a 10,000 kilogram projectile, the rails would be under immense stress by the heat created by the electricity, the friction created by the projectile on the rails, the recoil from making a huge mass move so quickly, and force made by the magnetic fields. Each coil from in the accelerator would have to be realigned for each firing, but this could be easily accomplished by the future technology we would be using and would be (presumably) pretty fast, faster than it would take for the capacitor to charge. a coilgun has a longer lifespan than a railgun.

10,000 Kg is not a feasible size for a projectile. An average human has a mass of about 7 Kg. Accelerator rounds in Mass Effect and Halo have a mass of 2-3Kg. Also, a round with higher mass and lower velocity carries significantly less kinetic energy than a low-mass round with a high velocity. Although railguns do have a shorter lifespan, they do not require recalibration after each shot, since each rail will bow in an identical way. This means that they stay parallel to each other and therefore ensure a straight flight path. Rails are also incredibly easy to brace, where coils are not. In a superconducting system, all resistance in a railgun is in the round being fired. By using a low-resistance projectile on a long track, a railgun can be easily tweaked to melt the projectile at its moment of release, vastly increasing its energy transfer upon impact (it is less likely to simply pass right through its target than it is to obliterate it entirely).

Do not debate physics with me. I can guarantee I know it better than you.

A 5x5x5 meter cube of iron would be closer to 1,000,000 kilograms. I am roughly 75 kg (165 lbs.). A MAC round in Halo is approx. 600 tons (3000 tons in an ODP). A railgun's rails would be destroyed pretty quickly by the friction alone, unless they were made of some super-epic-strong-conductive-alloy-of-epicness. For a 1-100 kg projectile, a railgun would have many advantages over a coilgun, but when you get into the scale we are working with, a coilgun comes out ahead.

You're talking about weight, not mass. Divide by 9.8 metres/second/second.

catsonmeth wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

catsonmeth wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

In the mod I'm betting on using rail guns, as a coil gun is stupidly difficult to make with 1m^3 blocks. And although the efficiency of a rail gun decreases with length (largely due to friction), with a sufficient current the round can be accelerated infinitely. Gaussian guns are a pain because you have to recalibrate the coils after every shot, since the recoil puts them out of alignment. Explains why Garrus spends all that time calibrating.

A railgun would also require recalibration to maintain accuracy with the huge distances we would be working with in space. With the mass of a 10,000 kilogram projectile, the rails would be under immense stress by the heat created by the electricity, the friction created by the projectile on the rails, the recoil from making a huge mass move so quickly, and force made by the magnetic fields. Each coil from in the accelerator would have to be realigned for each firing, but this could be easily accomplished by the future technology we would be using and would be (presumably) pretty fast, faster than it would take for the capacitor to charge. a coilgun has a longer lifespan than a railgun.

10,000 Kg is not a feasible size for a projectile. An average human has a mass of about 7 Kg. Accelerator rounds in Mass Effect and Halo have a mass of 2-3Kg. Also, a round with higher mass and lower velocity carries significantly less kinetic energy than a low-mass round with a high velocity. Although railguns do have a shorter lifespan, they do not require recalibration after each shot, since each rail will bow in an identical way. This means that they stay parallel to each other and therefore ensure a straight flight path. Rails are also incredibly easy to brace, where coils are not. In a superconducting system, all resistance in a railgun is in the round being fired. By using a low-resistance projectile on a long track, a railgun can be easily tweaked to melt the projectile at its moment of release, vastly increasing its energy transfer upon impact (it is less likely to simply pass right through its target than it is to obliterate it entirely).

Do not debate physics with me. I can guarantee I know it better than you.

A 5x5x5 meter cube of iron would be closer to 1,000,000 kilograms. I am roughly 75 kg (165 lbs.). A MAC round in Halo is approx. 600 tons (3000 tons in an ODP). A railgun's rails would be destroyed pretty quickly by the friction alone, unless they were made of some super-epic-strong-conductive-alloy-of-epicness. For a 1-100 kg projectile, a railgun would have many advantages over a coilgun, but when you get into the scale we are working with, a coilgun comes out ahead.

Mass and weight are 2 different things. Take the weight in Kg and divide it by 9.8. I guess I was wrong about the mass of the Halo projectiles, but that's a number I don't particularly like. It makes sense though, since MAC guns have a much shorter effective range (and therefore a lower velocity) than their ME counterparts. It is also worth noting that the math behind both of these series is so far wrong that it isn't even in the right ballpark. HOWEVER, ME's accelerators have a little more than half the yield of that on a UNSC ship with an exponentially smaller energy usage, enabling them to fire at a much higher rate. Even disregarding the boost ME gets from the use of Eezo, their accelerators are still much more effective with the sole exception being 'super' MAC cannons, which are in an entirely different league because of their reliance on ground generated power. My point is, large mass<small mass<ferrofluidic accelerators.

As far as large scale deployment of rail weaponry goes, I've only seen it in use by the Tau in Warhammer 40k where there are no hard numbers to work with. The assumption, though, is that is you evolve rail technology far enough you will develope more efficient materials/designs that overcome the basic limitations.

Avenger_7 wrote:

catsonmeth wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

catsonmeth wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

In the mod I'm betting on using rail guns, as a coil gun is stupidly difficult to make with 1m^3 blocks. And although the efficiency of a rail gun decreases with length (largely due to friction), with a sufficient current the round can be accelerated infinitely. Gaussian guns are a pain because you have to recalibrate the coils after every shot, since the recoil puts them out of alignment. Explains why Garrus spends all that time calibrating.

A railgun would also require recalibration to maintain accuracy with the huge distances we would be working with in space. With the mass of a 10,000 kilogram projectile, the rails would be under immense stress by the heat created by the electricity, the friction created by the projectile on the rails, the recoil from making a huge mass move so quickly, and force made by the magnetic fields. Each coil from in the accelerator would have to be realigned for each firing, but this could be easily accomplished by the future technology we would be using and would be (presumably) pretty fast, faster than it would take for the capacitor to charge. a coilgun has a longer lifespan than a railgun.

10,000 Kg is not a feasible size for a projectile. An average human has a mass of about 7 Kg. Accelerator rounds in Mass Effect and Halo have a mass of 2-3Kg. Also, a round with higher mass and lower velocity carries significantly less kinetic energy than a low-mass round with a high velocity. Although railguns do have a shorter lifespan, they do not require recalibration after each shot, since each rail will bow in an identical way. This means that they stay parallel to each other and therefore ensure a straight flight path. Rails are also incredibly easy to brace, where coils are not. In a superconducting system, all resistance in a railgun is in the round being fired. By using a low-resistance projectile on a long track, a railgun can be easily tweaked to melt the projectile at its moment of release, vastly increasing its energy transfer upon impact (it is less likely to simply pass right through its target than it is to obliterate it entirely).

Do not debate physics with me. I can guarantee I know it better than you.

A 5x5x5 meter cube of iron would be closer to 1,000,000 kilograms. I am roughly 75 kg (165 lbs.). A MAC round in Halo is approx. 600 tons (3000 tons in an ODP). A railgun's rails would be destroyed pretty quickly by the friction alone, unless they were made of some super-epic-strong-conductive-alloy-of-epicness. For a 1-100 kg projectile, a railgun would have many advantages over a coilgun, but when you get into the scale we are working with, a coilgun comes out ahead.

Mass and weight are 2 different things. Take the weight in Kg and divide it by 9.8. I guess I was wrong about the mass of the Halo projectiles, but that's a number I don't particularly like. It makes sense though, since MAC guns have a much shorter effective range (and therefore a lower velocity) than their ME counterparts. It is also worth noting that the math behind both of these series is so far wrong that it isn't even in the right ballpark. HOWEVER, ME's accelerators have a little more than half the yield of that on a UNSC ship with an exponentially smaller energy usage, enabling them to fire at a much higher rate. Even disregarding the boost ME gets from the use of Eezo, their accelerators are still much more effective with the sole exception being 'super' MAC cannons, which are in an entirely different league because of their reliance on ground generated power. My point is, large mass<small mass<ferrofluidic accelerators.

As far as large scale deployment of rail weaponry goes, I've only seen it in use by the Tau in Warhammer 40k where there are no hard numbers to work with. The assumption, though, is that is you evolve rail technology far enough you will develope more efficient materials/designs that overcome the basic limitations.

Please excuse my ignorance, i just learned more on wikipedia reading about inertial mass than in any science class I've taken (i knew that weight and mass were different, but not the math involved). If the materials and technology of railguns advances, so would those used in coilguns.

catsonmeth wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

catsonmeth wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

catsonmeth wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

In the mod I'm betting on using rail guns, as a coil gun is stupidly difficult to make with 1m^3 blocks. And although the efficiency of a rail gun decreases with length (largely due to friction), with a sufficient current the round can be accelerated infinitely. Gaussian guns are a pain because you have to recalibrate the coils after every shot, since the recoil puts them out of alignment. Explains why Garrus spends all that time calibrating.

A railgun would also require recalibration to maintain accuracy with the huge distances we would be working with in space. With the mass of a 10,000 kilogram projectile, the rails would be under immense stress by the heat created by the electricity, the friction created by the projectile on the rails, the recoil from making a huge mass move so quickly, and force made by the magnetic fields. Each coil from in the accelerator would have to be realigned for each firing, but this could be easily accomplished by the future technology we would be using and would be (presumably) pretty fast, faster than it would take for the capacitor to charge. a coilgun has a longer lifespan than a railgun.

10,000 Kg is not a feasible size for a projectile. An average human has a mass of about 7 Kg. Accelerator rounds in Mass Effect and Halo have a mass of 2-3Kg. Also, a round with higher mass and lower velocity carries significantly less kinetic energy than a low-mass round with a high velocity. Although railguns do have a shorter lifespan, they do not require recalibration after each shot, since each rail will bow in an identical way. This means that they stay parallel to each other and therefore ensure a straight flight path. Rails are also incredibly easy to brace, where coils are not. In a superconducting system, all resistance in a railgun is in the round being fired. By using a low-resistance projectile on a long track, a railgun can be easily tweaked to melt the projectile at its moment of release, vastly increasing its energy transfer upon impact (it is less likely to simply pass right through its target than it is to obliterate it entirely).

Do not debate physics with me. I can guarantee I know it better than you.

A 5x5x5 meter cube of iron would be closer to 1,000,000 kilograms. I am roughly 75 kg (165 lbs.). A MAC round in Halo is approx. 600 tons (3000 tons in an ODP). A railgun's rails would be destroyed pretty quickly by the friction alone, unless they were made of some super-epic-strong-conductive-alloy-of-epicness. For a 1-100 kg projectile, a railgun would have many advantages over a coilgun, but when you get into the scale we are working with, a coilgun comes out ahead.

Mass and weight are 2 different things. Take the weight in Kg and divide it by 9.8. I guess I was wrong about the mass of the Halo projectiles, but that's a number I don't particularly like. It makes sense though, since MAC guns have a much shorter effective range (and therefore a lower velocity) than their ME counterparts. It is also worth noting that the math behind both of these series is so far wrong that it isn't even in the right ballpark. HOWEVER, ME's accelerators have a little more than half the yield of that on a UNSC ship with an exponentially smaller energy usage, enabling them to fire at a much higher rate. Even disregarding the boost ME gets from the use of Eezo, their accelerators are still much more effective with the sole exception being 'super' MAC cannons, which are in an entirely different league because of their reliance on ground generated power. My point is, large mass<small mass<ferrofluidic accelerators.

As far as large scale deployment of rail weaponry goes, I've only seen it in use by the Tau in Warhammer 40k where there are no hard numbers to work with. The assumption, though, is that is you evolve rail technology far enough you will develope more efficient materials/designs that overcome the basic limitations.

Please excuse my ignorance, i just learned more on wikipedia reading about inertial mass than in any science class I've taken (i knew that weight and mass were different, but not the math involved). If the materials and technology of railguns advances, so would those used in coilguns.

Yes, but the energy they have to absorb is equal to the energy of the projectile. Having 40KT of energy pushing them backwards will always make some slip out of alignment, and due to the size and tight winding of the required coils it takes an incredible amount of tweaking to get them aligned straight again.

Basically what this comes down to is that they both have their advantages. Rail guns are more energy efficient and easier to operate, but coil guns are more durable and can accelerate plasma or ferrofluid.

Please though, don't try to argue a point if you don't know the science behind it. I am a physics major at UBC. Arguing physics with me as a 15 year old with little to no physics experience would be like me arguing with one of my profs.

Avenger_7 wrote:

Yes, but the energy they have to absorb is equal to the energy of the projectile. Having 40KT of energy pushing them backwards will always make some slip out of alignment, and due to the size and tight winding of the required coils it takes an incredible amount of tweaking to get them aligned straight again.

Basically what this comes down to is that they both have their advantages. Rail guns are more energy efficient and easier to operate, but coil guns are more durable and can accelerate plasma or ferrofluid.

Please though, don't try to argue a point if you don't know the science behind it. I am a physics major at UBC. Arguing physics with me as a 15 year old with little to no physics experience would be like me arguing with one of my profs.

Well again, I apologize for my lack of knowledge. At least I learned something today.

catsonmeth wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

Yes, but the energy they have to absorb is equal to the energy of the projectile. Having 40KT of energy pushing them backwards will always make some slip out of alignment, and due to the size and tight winding of the required coils it takes an incredible amount of tweaking to get them aligned straight again.

Basically what this comes down to is that they both have their advantages. Rail guns are more energy efficient and easier to operate, but coil guns are more durable and can accelerate plasma or ferrofluid.

Please though, don't try to argue a point if you don't know the science behind it. I am a physics major at UBC. Arguing physics with me as a 15 year old with little to no physics experience would be like me arguing with one of my profs.

Well again, I apologize for my lack of knowledge. At least I learned something today.

It's all good, you're still 15, and electromagnetism isn't normally taught in-depth until your final year of high school or first year university physics, depending where you live. Next time, though, please consult a living person before you try to argue a point, it helps if you really understand what you're talking about.

Ah, good old college physics. The ability to derive the required velocity of block A rotating around a hole in a table while attached via string to block B suspended beneath the hole in order to keep the entire system in equilibrium (assuming a frictionless vacuum, of course) has proven quite useful in my daily life.

Sig'd

cool vid that guy had.

fr0stbyte124 wrote:

Ah, good old college physics. The ability to derive the required velocity of block A rotating around a hole in a table while attached via string to block B suspended beneath the hole in order to keep the entire system in equilibrium (assuming a frictionless vacuum, of course) has proven quite useful in my daily life.

You're right, that stuff is useless, and so incredibly tame compared to what I have to do now...

Being a computer scientist, I have no idea why I was required to take it at all. There's always the cop-out excuse that it teaches you problem-solving skills, but it really doesn't. We learn problem-solving skills by writing algorithms and debugging code. Spent two semesters learning how to solve an assortment of very specific, equally hypothetical and impractical scenarios that were provably (thanks to our mandatory labs) incapable of describing reality to any satisfactory degree. Such a waste of time and money. Might be different for you, Avenger, but there was no point to most of us taking those intro courses.

So can theses mac's be the length of a ship, and be rotatable, or are they locked in place, and you have to angle your ship to aim.

We'll find out how well this stuff works in reality when i start gertting my hands on some government grants for the airforce weapons projects. Im thinking something that uses a the energy of the sun through an intense series of mrrors positioned at the perfect angle to magnify the intensity of the heat and light so that they can melt straight bthrough the hull of a Navy Cruiser. It will be a large device, but if it works it will revelutionise the expendibility of weaponry and ammunition. Only problem is that it wont work at night or on a rainy day, unlss i develope a merthod of storing sunlight through a constant loop of 100% reflectivity or industrially transport massivequantities of stored energy via satelite which tthen sends down a beam of highly volotile microparticles that act as microconductors when a stream of energy is launched through them creating an magnetic pulse as it electrifies anything within its radius.

If any of these work ,you will see them on the local new in the future when a privately owned aerospace corporation backed by the UN invades SOmalia and restores the government for the first time in decades.

scout37 wrote:

We'll find out how well this stuff works in reality when i start gertting my hands on some government grants for the airforce weapons projects. Im thinking something that uses a the energy of the sun through an intense series of mrrors positioned at the perfect angle to magnify the intensity of the heat and light so that they can melt straight bthrough the hull of a Navy Cruiser. It will be a large device, but if it works it will revelutionise the expendibility of weaponry and ammunition. Only problem is that it wont work at night or on a rainy day, unlss i develope a merthod of storing sunlight through a constant loop of 100% reflectivity or industrially transport massivequantities of stored energy via satelite which tthen sends down a beam of highly volotile microparticles that act as microconductors when a stream of energy is launched through them creating an magnetic pulse as it electrifies anything within its radius.

If any of these work ,you will see them on the local new in the future when a privately owned aerospace corporation backed by the UN invades SOmalia and restores the government for the first time in decades.

wow i didn't understand any of that but it sounds really hard. anyway, keep up the good work!