I'm not assuming "present tech". I'm assuming common sense. The stuff I'm talking about is pretty much a no-brainer that should be apparent to even middle school students in our present day frequently mocked US educational system. You take something and fill it up with fiddly bits and pockets of air (i.e. the stuff you need to make manipulators capable of manipulation), and it's generally a lot weaker than something that's not filled up with fiddley bits and air.
Bolt-cutters and teeth - not really manipulators. They can "move things around", but so can a swift kick or a ramming attack. And I find it rather hard to visualize a situation in which combat mecha would frequently need to break through bars - particularly bars that are as heavily armored as a military afv or warship.
Rescue mecha might need that equipment. But probably not combat mecha.
Finally, you're completely ignoring the primary gist of my argument, which is that all of those systems you described are an utter waste of money. By their very nature, melee weapons are outdated. Which means that by putting a simple, cheap vibro knife on the end of one of the limbs of my ground combat mecha instead of a flashy beam saber, I can cut costs by (to pick a number at random) 10%, which means that by spending the exact same amount of money as you, I can afford a lot more mecha than you can. All that, just because I didn't go for the snazziest version of a weapon that will rarely be used.
junior
---------[ Received Mail Content ]----------
Subject : Re: MS Designs - RE: [gundam] WTF: Gundam 00?
Date : Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:20:17 -0700
From : Alfred Urrutia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To : [email protected]
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
