124 réponses à ce sujet

[Commisar_V]

ArcanistLibram wrote...

Unless I heard completely wrong, it's not a mass effect gun. It's a mass accelerator.

^This. I think it was a railgun (In more common Sci-Fi terms), but it might have been a coilgun. Either way, feasible.

[KBGeller]

Oh, also. If you wanna talk physics. 1 ton of TNT has the energy of 4.6 megajoules. So, to generate that same amount of energy, you would have to only launch a .03066 kilogram object, or should I say a 30.66 gram object at the speed of light.

A nuclear weapon has the energy of 500 kilotons of TNT, so to have a full on nuclear strike, you would need something only 500 times heavier or 15.33 kilograms or about 33.7 pounds. And that is assuming SoL, if it is ME gun it likely will be going faster.... so... yeah...

Epic fail on math. KE= .5 mv^2.

So, redoing the math.

To have the energy of 1 ton of TNT you only would need to launch a 1.022e-8 kg mass at the speed of light. To get the energy of a nuclear weapon, you would only need to launch 5.11e-6 kg object at the SoL.

So, it would work really really well actually.

Modifié par KBGeller, 02 février 2010 - 11:51 .

[raptor113]

No thats not how the weapons work in ME. They work the same way rail guns do. Only instead of using electric fields they use Mass Effect fields to fire the projectile.

In order for them to reduce the mass of a projectile it would need its own mini eezo core. that would be to expensive and pointless. (disruptor?) torpedoes have there own core and its used to increase their mass to cause more damage.

[IceColdFulcrum]

Okay, lets try it this way, I will try and keep it simple....

The formula for Kinetic Energy is this:
Energy = (mass*0.5)*(Velocity*Velocity)

Now if you look at it, you will see that the velocity of the projectile is far far more important than the mass of it, which is halved anyway for the formula.

So reducing the mass of a projectile so you can jack up the velocity is really useful.

Take a 0.05kg projectile at 1000 m/s and you get 25 kilojoules of energy
Reduce the mass by 10% and increase the velocity by 10%, you have the same amount of force (mass x velocity) but your kinetic energy has jumped to 27.225 kj.

So velocity is important....

Now we can get into flamewars about overpenetration, hydraulic shock and whatnot....

Modifié par IceColdFulcrum, 02 février 2010 - 11:43 .

[KBGeller]

IceColdFulcrum wrote...

Okay, lets try it this way, I will try and keep it simple....

The formula for Kinetic Energy is this:
Energy = (mass*0.5)*(Velocity*Velocity)

Now if you look at it, you will see that the velocity of the projectile is far far more important than the mass of it, which is halved anyway for the formula.

So reducing the mass of a projectile so you can jack up the velocity is really useful.

Take a 0.5kg projectile at 1000 m/s and you get 25 kilojoules of energy
Reduce the mass by 10% and increase the velocity by 10%, you have the same amount of force (mass x velocity) but your kinetic energy has jumped to 27.225 kj.

So velocity is important....

Now we can get into flamewars about overpenetration, hydraulic shock and whatnot....

Heheh, i epic failed, I wrote it down right, but didnt do that math right. Epic fail... Let me recalculate on my post above.

[Commisar_V]

raptor113 wrote...

No thats not how the weapons work in ME. They work the same way rail guns do. Only instead of using electric fields they use Mass Effect fields to fire the projectile.

Ehh, then it's not like a Railgun. The entire point of the railgun is that it uses a magnetic force through two electrified metal 'rails'.

[Myrmedus]

This isn't the same as a railgun because that actually increases the kinetic energy of the projectile by a **** load due to utilizing electromagnetic fields.

It's possible bullet regains its natural mass by utilizing exterior energy rather than naturally converting its own kinetic energy back into mass, or that it doesn't regain its natural mass at all.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 02 février 2010 - 11:44 .

[IceColdFulcrum]

Ghetto edit



0.05kg projectile at 1000m/s

[IceColdFulcrum]

Stop talking about force, this is irrelevant. Kinetic energy is the forumla you need because you are using that to determine how much energy is available to break chemical bonds and what not.



Force is only useful to see how far back the projectile pushes the target, if at all.

[Guaritor]

Myrmedus wrote...

This isn't the same as a railgun because that actually increases the kinetic energy of the projectile by a **** load due to utilizing electromagnetic fields.

It's possible bullet regains its natural mass by utilizing exterior energy rather than naturally converting its own kinetic energy back into mass, or that it doesn't regain its natural mass at all.

I think hes suggesting that it uses the same technology as the normandy uses to move in stealth... creating small gravitational wells in front of it to pull it forward... instead of all this physics and math having to do with reducing mass etc,

[Commisar_V]

IceColdFulcrum wrote...

Stop talking about force, this is irrelevant. Kinetic energy is the forumla you need because you are using that to determine how much energy is available to break chemical bonds and what not.

Force is only useful to see how far back the projectile pushes the target, if at all.

I thought it was velocity that was the part you needed with railguns?

[KBGeller]

IceColdFulcrum wrote...

Stop talking about force, this is irrelevant. Kinetic energy is the forumla you need because you are using that to determine how much energy is available to break chemical bonds and what not.

Force is only useful to see how far back the projectile pushes the target, if at all.

Indeed... see my post above.

Commisar_V wrote...

IceColdFulcrum wrote...

Stop
talking about force, this is irrelevant. Kinetic energy is the forumla
you need because you are using that to determine how much energy is
available to break chemical bonds and what not.

Force is only
useful to see how far back the projectile pushes the target, if at
all.

I thought it was velocity that was the part you needed
with railguns?

Both mass and velocity matter. See my post above.

Modifié par KBGeller, 02 février 2010 - 11:49 .

[Chris2112534566]

one word....... Codex

[KalosCast]

Velocity has a larger effect on KE than mass. It's not how big it is, it's how fast it goes. You COULD argue that the rounds would be at such a high velocity that they would blow right through their targets without causing significant damage, unless they hit a vital organ.. But then you're getting into "shut up, nobody cares" territory.

[ERJAK2]

Raezaiel wrote...

uh as soon as the mass returns to the object it loses its velocity. Doesn't matter how fast its going at low mass, it retains its kinetic energy.

It's spontaneously "generating" for lack of a better term, mass in mid flight, it doesn't lose velocity. It's essentially a free energy physics loophole, which I imagine is why earth's powergrid can maintain 11.4 billion technologically active people.

[ERJAK2]

KalosCast wrote...

Velocity has a larger effect on KE than mass. It's not how big it is, it's how fast it goes. You COULD argue that the rounds would be at such a high velocity that they would blow right through their targets without causing significant damage, unless they hit a vital organ.. But then you're getting into "shut up, nobody cares" territory.

Actually, that's "it splats" territory.

[KBGeller]

KalosCast wrote...

Velocity has a larger effect on KE than mass. It's not how big it is, it's how fast it goes. You COULD argue that the rounds would be at such a high velocity that they would blow right through their targets without causing significant damage, unless they hit a vital organ.. But then you're getting into "shut up, nobody cares" territory.

Yeah, if you wanna see the math, I did it above. But you are right that it wouldnt just explode. It would likely just tear right through whatever it hit.

[IceColdFulcrum]

Yes mass is important but velocity is much much more important.



Railguns are just another way of accelerating a projectile, and the reason they are useful is that when you burn gunpowder the powder burns at a certain speed, and you really can't accelerate the projectile beyond that limit. Modern tank-rounds are running into this issue today.



Railguns side step the speed limit of chemical propellant, they have a theoretical limitation of only how much energy you put into them.

[Commisar_V]

KalosCast wrote...

Velocity has a larger effect on KE than mass. It's not how big it is, it's how fast it goes. You COULD argue that the rounds would be at such a high velocity that they would blow right through their targets without causing significant damage, unless they hit a vital organ.. But then you're getting into "shut up, nobody cares" territory.

Navy Railgun sez... t2.gstatic.com/images

[WrexShepard]

Conservation of Momentum and Energy still apply, but since Mass Effect reduces mass in an unconventional manner, you can not apply standard laws of physics to particles acted on by it.



When a Mass Accelerator lowers the mass of a particle, it's not done using conventional methods.



So therefore, when the mass effect field no longer affects the slug, it is as if the slug was accelerated to its velocity at its current mass, with a standard mass accelerator, except it has taken much less energy to do so.

[KBGeller]

WrexShepard wrote...

Conservation of Momentum and Energy still apply, but since Mass Effect reduces mass in an unconventional manner, you can not apply standard laws of physics to particles acted on by it.

When a Mass Accelerator lowers the mass of a particle, it's not done using conventional methods.

So therefore, when the mass effect field no longer affects the slug, it is as if the slug was accelerated to its velocity at its current mass, with a standard mass accelerator, except it has taken much less energy to do so.

Uh... what do you mean? Of course the laws of physics still apply. Because they wouldn't be laws if there were exceptions.

And mass accelerators do not EVER lower the mass of particles. They actually increase the mass of particles. Because you CANNOT EVER go faster than the speed of light and so when you approach the SoL and keep adding energy, mass increases.

Modifié par KBGeller, 03 février 2010 - 12:09 .

[Commisar_V]

KBGeller wrote...

Uh... what do you mean? Of course the laws of physics still apply. Because they wouldn't be laws if there were exceptions.

The laws of physics are imperfect and being changed, or at least adjusted, every half century or so due to new knowledge about the way physics work. I see no reason why two centuries in the future this would be different.

Modifié par Commisar_V, 03 février 2010 - 12:11 .

[Lukertin]

KBGeller wrote...
Uh... what do you mean? Of course the laws of physics still apply. Because they wouldn't be laws if there were exceptions.

And mass accelerators do not EVER lower the mass of particles. They actually increase the mass of particles. Because you CANNOT EVER go faster than the speed of light and so when you approach the SoL and keep adding energy, mass increases.

Cool story bro.
If you're going to base arguments on fake science, at least get your fake science right.
From the codex on element zero:

Element zero, also known as 'eezo', is a substance that, when subjected to an electrical current, releases dark energy which can be manipulated into a mass effect field,
raising or lowering the mass of all objects within that field. A
positive current increases mass, a negative current decreases it. This
'mass effect' is used in countless ways, from generating artificial
gravity to manufacturing high-strength construction materials. It is
most prominently used to enable faster-than-light space travel.
Fail more.
Now shut up, you are wrong.

Modifié par Lukertin, 03 février 2010 - 12:13 .

[KBGeller]

Commisar_V wrote...

KBGeller wrote...

Uh... what do you mean? Of course the laws of physics still apply. Because they wouldn't be laws if there were exceptions.

The laws of physics are imperfect and being changed, or at least adjusted, every half century or so due to new knowledge about the way physics work. I see no reason why two centuries in the future this would be different.

Um, not true at all. The laws of physics have stayed mostly the same for the past 2 or 3 hundred years. Some new ones have come about for sure, especially with new findings that people could not have known about until now. But yes, they very likely could be/are wrong. Well, some of them.

Irregardless, I believe Einstein is correct and the SoL cannot ever be breached. The only way to travel more distance than light in the same time (thus "appearing" to go faster than light) is to travel at near SoL while warping/modifying/punching through space-time.

Edit:

Lukertin wrote...

KBGeller wrote...
Uh... what
do you mean? Of course the laws of physics still apply. Because they
wouldn't be laws if there were exceptions.

And mass accelerators
do not EVER lower the mass of particles. They actually increase the
mass of particles. Because you CANNOT EVER go faster than the speed of
light and so when you approach the SoL and keep adding energy, mass
increases.

Cool story bro.
If you're going to base
arguments on fake science, at least get your fake science right.
From
the codex on element zero:

Element zero, also known as 'eezo',
is a substance that, when subjected to an electrical current, releases
dark energy which can be manipulated into a mass effect field,
raising
or lowering the mass of all objects within that field. A
positive
current increases mass, a negative current decreases it. This
'mass
effect' is used in countless ways, from generating artificial
gravity
to manufacturing high-strength construction materials. It is
most
prominently used to enable faster-than-light space travel.
Fail
more.
Now shut up, you are wrong.

I know what the game says, I was stating the reality statement. Yes, it is fiction. I know that. I was not arguing the IG methods.

Modifié par KBGeller, 03 février 2010 - 12:15 .

[Commisar_V]

KBGeller wrote...

Um, not true at all. The laws of physics have stayed mostly the same for the past 2 or 3 hundred years. Some new ones have come about for sure, especially with new findings that people could not have known about until now. But yes, they very likely could be/are wrong. Well, some of them.

See: Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation vs. The General Theory of Relativity.