Joseph Riggs wrote:
Basic physics tells us that a manipulator, composed of fine motor
components sheathed in a stronger alloy of some sort, will not be as
strong as a solid piece of that alloy. Or multiple levels of layered
alloys. The point is that manipulators require not-so-strong
components in order to operate properly (i.e. gears, wires, or
whatever you're using to allow the "fingers" to have precision
movements), and those components are probably going to reduce the
overall materials strength of whatever is on the end of your arm.
What? Have you never seen the jaws of life tear open a car or seen
pressure tests done with metal teeth and hydraulic pressure to mimic the
bite strength of a sabertooth cat? Leverage? You saying bolt cutters
are less capable of removing a lock than a crowbar?
Look, you are again assuming present day tech. Sure, right now it would
be mostly a waste of time given the strength of present day servos and
motors to make a large manipulator hand with the intent to attach it to
the limb of a fighting mech. Insanity, almost. Now. But that also
depends on what you want that manipulator for. To punch through armor?
Ya, probably a waste of time. To grab something or hold something? Why
not? Whose is to say, though, what future science holds in terms of
new, stronger, lighter materials and more powerful power sources. And
uses for machinery we haven't actually gotten to yet.
As for your "Gee Whiz Aren't I So Smart to Evolve This Design
Into Beam Blade!!1!" argument - I think I'll save the expense on a
piece of equipment that will be rarely used (barring, once again, the
development of a MacGuffin like Minovsky Particles), and save it for
something useful like more mobile suits - maybe with mecha-sized
sniper rifles. Even your "Gee, I can switch weapons!" argument fails
to carry water. Unlike Gundams, real-world mobile suits don't need to
all be right-handed.. You've got two arms. Might as well make use of
both of them. Cannon goes in one arm,
piledriver/retractable-spring-mounted-blade/cheap-melee-weapon-of-your-choice
goes in the other. Cannons that require two limbs to steady can't be
stowed properly in the event that you've got a sudden melee on your
hands. And you can just as easily mount them over the shoulder on the
odd chance that you for some reason need to keep a free "end of limb"
! o! n your hypothetical unit.
Ya, I can count, too. I mentioned more than 4 possible weapons for two
hands, remember? One of *each*? So, you have two hands for two
weapons. But you have more than two possibilities for weapons. Along
with the rare possibility of the bare manipulator hand using anything
nearby as a makeshift weapon. Or to hold something together or tear it
apart. I'm not getting this lack of imagination or contingency plans.
Is it pretty?
Probably not.
But it gets the job done, and it costs less than a bunch of fancy
stuff that probably won't be used very often.
Probably. So you're saying you don't know whether it would or wouldn't
be used very often? I agree, you don't. Nobody does.
I mean, seriously, what was the point of putting arms and hands on a
Guntank? I like the design. But did the arms and hands do ANYTHING
that justified the expense of putting them there?
There I certainly agree, the Guntank was sort of wasting its time with
having arms. Unless they were ther efor some sort of self maintenance
or to re-load or I don't know what.
Alfred.
--
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Success is not no violence."
- President Bush, on trying to find a way to be able to claim future
progress and success in Iraq without having to achieve the
complete victory he used to state as the only acceptable goal.
Alfred Urrutia - Digital Domain - 310.314.2800 x2267 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
