Except for one thing.
I asked for the math to show that high velocity autocannons EXCEED the ability of the gyro to COMPENSATE. The very fact that a mech can remain standing after it been hit by a gauss rifle means that it can withstand that kind of recoil.
You're just choosing to take the debate personally, as opposed to arguing the point.
You offered compensation values. I exceeded them. You respond by saying that clearly this shows that the compensation values are higher. This is called moving the goalposts. We know that there are repeatable events that can and WILL knock a mech over. If those are shown to be lower than the events of recoil or impact, then clearly the recoil and impact values are in error and need to be reworked to a more reasonable number. Unless you're seriously going to claim that a force that could launch a mech into the air wouldn't realistically knock it over.
Also, we KNOW that mechs can be launched into the air, because they consistantly do it themselves thanks to the jumpjets mounted on many mechs, so there's no excuse for saying that some force or another keeps them anchored to the ground.
As I said before, even an inelastic collision is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER in force. We're talking launch the fucking mech into orbit forces here.
So fucking what?
I'm leaving my original remark intact in this case for posterity. This clearly shows how far gone you are.
So, you're arguing that momentum is not conserved?
Fine. Then pray tell why the fuck are you saying that Mechs can fire a gauss rifle and remain staninding....... b ut the recoil will force them to fall down?
Acceleration of a shell occurs through the length of the barrel. We'll say 2 meters for your average mech (they seem to range between 1-3 most commonly, with a few 4-6 meter barrels every so often). Over the course of the barrel, they undergo an average acceleration. This acceleration times the mass equals the force required to accelerate the bullet to the said speed.
In an impact, the acceleration process happens in reverse, over a much shorter distance (I was using one centimeter to give you an extra zero in your favor, but since mech armor is in millimeters and rarely centimeters, well use 0.002 meters (2mm) for the deceleration distance). The amount of force required to accelerate an object moving at a given velocity is much greater in this case, because it is undergoing acceleration over the course of a much shorter distance.
By the way, the test of this very basic principle can be done with a simple egg toss. When you throw the egg, it doesn't break. When it hits a soft surface, it decelerates at a much lower rate, preventing it from breaking. When it hits a hard surface with very little "give", it undergoes very rapid deceleration, and the shell breaks, causing quite a mess.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you, as I am not being paid to do so as your tutor. By the way, as far as conservation of momentum is concerned, nothing is violated here. The entire system is contained:
m1v1+m2v2+m3v3+.....mnvn=P (constant). All that's considered in conservation of momentum is relative velocities, not the forces required to accelerate a given object to a given velocity.
As has been stated numerous times before, your physics is wretched, and you need to take a college level mechanics course. One with a lab. One where you have to do work.
Guess fucking what? Where has I constantly preached that mech armour don't follow physics in? Yup. This fucking particular example!
"Gee, regular physics doesn't like my example, so I'm going to make up bullshit to explain it away, never mind that physics CAN come up with a better model, I'm too lazy to do it myself so here's some more bullshit for you to play with!"
Again you dipshit. Override the canonical example of the 50mm autocannon first. Not to mention MGs scattergun example, ignoring the physical calcs and other examples that are teased out through logic.
It's hit the point where I don't need to override any of your canon values, but rather where you need to show that my physical equations of your values is incorrect. You have repeatedly refused to do that (largely through ignorance of physics). I'm perfectly willing to accept that you've found sources that say one thing, but I'm also perfectly within my rights to say such incredible variation on one part but no variation on the other is inconsistant and that the incredible variation you cite is unrealistic and improbable, and quite possibly an outlier. By the way, I will point out that you did cite 80mm AC/2s.
By the way, no comments on the ballistics equations I worked out, or would you still like to claim that a 20mm cannon, a 50mm cannon, and an 80mm cannon all share similar ballistic properties?
Then pray tell, if no work is done, what do you call it?
So far, I see me as the only one doing any work on these equations. Your own values are full of shit, and the only use you have right now is pulling up bits and pieces of canon that support your position (badly, I should add) and ignoring everything else.
Nope, I'm talking about an actual instance where someone fired his autocannon so many times that it actually warped the barrel. I forget the book, but I'm sure I can find another instance somewhere. Unfortunately, all my books are an hour away, so I can't check. All I can do, really, is show just how pathetically wrong your calculations are.
That will be odd, because we're discussing laser and other energy weapons. Can I say red herring?
Nope. Because YOU specifically brought up badass heat dissipation technology in the armor. If that is the case, the barrel (which is armored) should not have deformed, even after repeated firings, unless the thermal dissipation factor is rather low.
Your ability to see the larger picture is almost as bad as your grasp of science. I'm surprised more threads with you haven't been shoved in the HoS.
The source you're talking about is the Enforcer TR 3025 rev, where the commander orders his troops to fire their weapons until it explodes. His did.
That's one example, thank you, though I was specifically going for one where the barrels deformed, I think it's in a book somewhere, but sadly, the last time I read a BTech book I was still in high school. See, we can work together on this, in fact it's what I've been trying to get across for some time now. Now, if you could just find a few examples of mechs being knocked down, I can move on to the next part.
In that case. Show me why the medium lasers, that can engage in 6km in AT, can't be applied to HG.
AT? Aerotech? Fact that Aircraft tend to have much lower respective armor values in order to stay airborne might have something to do with it. Heck, for all we know they're a specific frequency of light that is designed to be more effiecient in atmosphere, but for some reason costs more. Or you could explain it that as you increase altitude, the atmosphere gets thinner (weaker, but plausible) or that the dust and particulates kicked up by ground units moving (especially mechs) causes additional attenuation of the beam. If you wanted to have increased range lasers to fire at aircraft in HG, that's fine, there are similar conversions for ground-based anti-aircraft guns in HG, both laser and kinetic. However, when used against ground-level targets, face normal ground-based range limitations.
No. THe entire Solaris duel is 5s. Movement is a complex action, that takes 2-3 s to accomplish.
Wait, they actually cut up what you could do in a turn into seconds? Wow, that's a bad abstraction if I ever saw one, especially given that no mech battle I've ever heard of is move, then fire, or fire, then move, but rather moving while firing.
Now, you're trying to preach upper limits, when you don't understand it?
An upper limit is one where it cannot, possibly, be higher. Explain why the fuck that a mech can still remain standing sometimes, even when hit by energies above your upper limit.
Are you seriously unable to understand that if a mech can remain standing sometimes, the figure you give isn't the upper limit of the gyro compensatory ability?
Yes, clearly, I'm the one who doesn't understand upper limits. When force X RELIABLY knocks a mech on to the ground, and force 10X NEVER knocks a mech on to the ground, clearly, this means that forces below 10X (and some above) cannot possible knock a mech on to the ground, and the instances of reliably knocking a mech onto the ground with force X are abberations.
Wow. That's fucking brilliant.
1. Since the Mech can fire a Gauss Rifle, it can handle any forces below that without any concern whatsoever, using the Gauss Rifle as the upper limit of forces it can handle.
As Mike Wong has said on turbolasers, that's a lower limit.
Great. So why do they reliably fall down when presented with a lower force?
2. Since a Mech can fire a Gauss Rifle, the Gauss Rifle must be under the limit of forces a mech can safely handle. This limit can be derived by looking at other instances and determining how much force is canonically required to topple a mech.
Good. However, can you show a single example where a force is so great, that mechs MUST fall over?
I don't have the sources, and you do. However, it should be noted that the force required to cause a mech to SOMETIMES fall over MUST be GREATER than a force that NEVER causes a mech to fall over.
Never < Sometimes < Always
All I have to do, ALL I have to do, the ONLY thing I have to do, is show a force that SOMETIMES knocks a mech over, without any other major mitigating circumstances (unstable ground/footing, for example). Any greater force would logically knock a mech clearly on its ass, no question. If you can't understand that very simple concept, you sir, are truly beyond salvation.
The only known example are the use of nukes on mechs...... and even then, its still questionable considering the example of the Royal Black Watch and the Court of the Star League.
Nukes would almost certainly annihilate mechs. I don't think that a Mech surviving a nuke is really a viable consideration here.
Occam's razor is nice and all, but it requires you to explain all the observations. In this case, you fail one primary clause.
If the figures you give are an upper limit, why on earth can the mech remain standing sometimes when this upper limit was hit?
Look, the primary thing in contention here is the firepower calculations, right? We know, for a fact, that the designers fudged a lot of numbers when it came to firepower. As a result, we have to try and work from the ground up to get a good idea of what's realistic and what's not. So we take values that aren't in contention, size, mass, and so on, and work from there. We make a few basic assumptions:
-Movement works as is described, with some variance allowed as an aberration of the simulation
-Firing a weapon does not cause noticable instability (with some rare exeptions), and can be done perpendicularly to the direction of movement.
-Only the largest kinetic weapons can cause a mech to stagger and maybe fall due to the force of impact
-Weapons do not overpenetrate armor, collisions must either be elastic or inelastic as a result
-Gyros can provide some addition force, but are not perfect, as mechs do fall. However, without Gyro support, a Mech cannot effectively stand up, and falls to the ground (this is canon).
Given all of these factors, we can calculate given collisions between mechs that have caused toppling, figure out the rough force required, and establish a rough limit. Impacts need to be around this limit in order to be believable, and recoil should be, for the most part, considerably lower.
This method makes the fewest assumptions and works within the canon, only making changes to unrealistic values that would destroy continuity.