2009-05-25, 17:51 | Link #344 |
Ace Archer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Age: 36
|
Actuators have been used in a season of formula 1, banned quickly after,
by keeping the main body of the vehicle level air flow can be better controlled. They can work but i dont see how they are much less complicated than the current power generation in modern tanks. Linear actuators use electric motors, for different speeds on the actuators we will still need a gearbox for the electric motor. Then what will provide the electricity for the motors, this problem can be overcome by advancements in battery technology, but by that time we may have developed EMP weaponary and shutting down the mechs systems could be quite easy. Hydraulic actuators are horribly unreliable and arent very good for fast movements. could you specifiy what will provide power for your actuators Tri-Ring |
2009-05-25, 18:42 | Link #345 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
In any case I already wrote the outline for powering the actuators which is a internal combustion engine hooked to a battery and capacitors. Linear actuators have been in use in alot of modernday machines such as industrial robots, amusument park rides, and so on. Hydraulic actuators can be moved fast depending on circumference of the actuator and the pump it is hooked. Acuracy can be achieved by selecting fluid to be used as medium for transfering power. |
|
2009-05-26, 16:42 | Link #346 | |
Ace Archer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Age: 36
|
Quote:
ty for clearing that up now im just wondering what armour should be used, |
|
2009-05-26, 19:34 | Link #347 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
The empty cavity between the actuators will probably be filled with ballistic resistant fiber for added protection. |
|
2009-05-26, 21:16 | Link #348 |
Has a life IRL
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Anglo-Saxon Sphere
|
That's not going to make a significant difference for the same reasons that it doesn't work to make vehicles bulletproof. Moreover, vehicles can have more of the stuff thicker over a smaller area, so the mech is still going to have the exact same armor ratio problems as always.
|
2009-05-26, 23:19 | Link #349 | |
Defeater of Robot Masters
Artist
|
Quote:
What about the joints? Powerful armor is one thing, but it can't cover the entire length of the mech. You can't have much armor in joints or you reduce the unit's mobility and flexibility. Those would make prime targets for anyone with a rocket launcher. Also, how strong is the frame of the mech in question? Something able to withstand rigorous movement, hold heavy weapons, house numerous actuators and still resist the physical impact of heavy fire would have to be made of some incredibly strong stuff.
__________________
|
|
2009-05-27, 02:12 | Link #350 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
Second at joints, usage of detachable knee and ankle gaurd like attachement creating a 10~20cm bubble like cavity filled with heat resistant fiber acting as spaced armor between the carbon composite surface and actual joints. The frame should mainly be made of carbon composite pipes at the leg part and a complete carbon composite armored shell which will also act as the frame for torso. Spacer walls within torso should be made of reinforced honeycomb boards. |
|
2009-05-27, 06:22 | Link #351 |
Has a life IRL
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Anglo-Saxon Sphere
|
Contours alone won't be enough, and it's been stressed numerous times by all sides that this mech isn't going to have tank-strength armor anyway; anti-tank weapons, IE weapons designed to take out tank-strength armored vehicles, will still be more than enough.
Carbon isn't a miracle ingredient; it's about as over-hyped today steel was as the invicible metal a century ago. While spacer walls are a good idea, they tend to be wasted on light-armored vehicles, which you've made clear repeatedly you invision your mech to be equivalent to. |
2009-05-27, 07:23 | Link #352 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
Carbon composite material has superior heat resistant characteristics then metal. Ceramic is also the key component for Chobham armour. Contour shaping also helps offset focusing of Neumann effect which is the basis of how HEAT projectiles works. The design of the vehicle does not take in kinetic energy penetrators into consideration because due to the characteristics of this vehicle mainly operating in jungle and the fact that it is improbable that handheld kinetic energy penetrators weapons would be developed due to the projectile's fundemental principle. Weaponry of this vehicle is also based on operating enviorment where soft target will be primary and the need to target hard targets will be limited. |
|
2009-05-27, 15:45 | Link #353 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
|
Quote:
Problem #2: A humanoid robot will have problems mounting with mounting sufficiently thick armor and armor layout. Problem #3: At 6m x 2.5m x 2.5m, your mecha's too big to operate in a jungle. P.S. I'd like to congratulate you for dodging a lot of the valid points raised in your detractors' (myself included) previous posts. |
|
2009-05-27, 19:08 | Link #355 |
Serious Business
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Philippines
Age: 38
|
I like this guy. It's as if he's been developing mechas his whole life and all points his detractors make are just "baseless personal opinions".
__________________
Last edited by Keio; 2009-05-27 at 19:20. |
2009-05-27, 19:48 | Link #356 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That's great and all, but it's awfully hard to take your arguments seriously when you don't make a modicum of effort to address other people's points. If they're really all that baseless, then they should be a breeze to counter as well n'est-ce pas?
__________________
|
|||
2009-05-27, 23:07 | Link #357 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
Again making sweeping remakes like "it has may points of failure" without pointing out one is called a personal opinion. I at least pointed out how wheeled vehicle transmit motion and the points that could go wrong and I will say it again a singular actuator failure will not imobilize a bipedal vehicle. On the otherhand a wheel vehicle will become imobilized with any of the components I had pointed out fails. The timing of for each actuators are done through electronic relay, not gears so unless all the processors(main and back-up) goes out the chances of movement going out of scync is small. The other valnurable point would be the motion sensors and inclination sensors but it is easy to place back-up systems for these components as well. Quote:
As for AFV; Quote:
Quote:
Wheeled vehicles requires a relatively flat surface with obstacles smaller than it's ground clearance hieght. Observe picture; The ground clearance for the above vehicle is about 40Cm, a log, a medium size rock etc. hidden along the path may damage any of the vital component installed underneath rendering the vehicle useless. Wheeled and tracked vehicles also have problem climbing high incline ratio(10% or more) severly limiting it's speed(5Km or less). I don't make arguements when basis is not specified since it is meaningless at the end. |
||||
2009-05-28, 00:40 | Link #358 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
You can design all manner of object using CAD; that doesn't necessarily mean that it'll be easy to build so that it actually works properly.
Quote:
On top of that, your design would still have some sort of engine, a massive capacitor bank, and then all of the actuator equipment, and the electronic governance system, and the limb balancing system, and so on. There's no way in hell that this entire ensemble is going to be either lighter or less complicated than drivetrains that we've been using for a century. Or more accurately, it's a far-fetched claim, and as a far-fetched claim, it's going to require a lot of evidence before it's the least bit convincing. Quote:
As for AFV; Quote:
Quote:
Now there's no denying that there will be some obstacles that legged mecha will be able to navigate easier than tracked vehicles - giant stairs and tank traps come to mind. However, the converse goes as well, and of the terrains that mecha would be able to handle better, jungles are not a member. You've been ignoring perfectly legitimate arguments, so how does this apply?
__________________
|
||||
2009-05-28, 00:46 | Link #359 | |||||
Serious Business
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Philippines
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
From http://www.gdls.com/programs/abrams.html Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||
2009-05-28, 02:28 | Link #360 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
Unless you are implying that the bipedal vehicle steps on itself, the weight of a multi-ton vehicle does not come crashing down on itself. Now which parts? Quote:
The size will probably be smaller than a cooler box and the transfer will probably be no bigger then a ATX PC case with present day heavy electronics technology. Actuators will be mounted to the frame. Electronic systems will be stored in the torso with redundant system and relays. Limb balance is done by the actuators with electronic sensors. I don't see why you can't accept the fact that wheeled vehicles are driven by a heavy drivetrain system. Try studying car mechanics more. Quote:
What is your basis? Again baseless opinion stated as fact. Quote:
Quote:
Weight 41.5 tonnes (45.7 short tons) Length 9.53 m (31 ft 3 in) Width 3.59 m (11 ft 9 in) Height 2.23 m (7 ft 4 in) Now only if you can bring in a 40 tonne tank into the jungle and I will be impressed. Tanks also have ground clearance and any obstacle larger and the tank need to evade completely or choose a path(if there is one) so that atleast one of it's tracks will ride over that obstacle or the tank will hit the obstacle with it's underbelly. Quote:
LOL. |
||||||
|
|