p1t1o
-
Posts
2,870 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by p1t1o
-
-
2 hours ago, richfiles said:
Be careful going TOO cold with the AC direct cooling. If certain parts of the laptop chill too low, you can get condensation inside the machine. YouTuber Louis Rossmann does repair videos, and showed an e-currency ASIC mining rig that was run next to an AC all the time. It was so corroded inside that there was no possibility for him to fix it, and this is a guy who has brought machines back to life that have burned holes through their motherboards! Just cause it might seem to make sense, doesn't always make it the actually the right course of action, even if the immediate results seem to be beneficial.
I make no guarantees that what you are doing is good or bad, just that you should be aware of the possibility of the issue.
On the plus side, conditioned air is by necessity dried, so you can run the cooled air through your system without too much worry, the danger comes when the AC shuts off and humid air from outside enters the machine and condenses on the cold surfaces.
But what you really want to do is immerse the whole thing in oil and run the oil through a heat exchanger
-
11 minutes ago, mrfox said:
These would be belts used for power transmission/timing/sync applications - similar to the belts you find in a car engine.
Fastest conveyer belt is apparently 'only' 15m/s (30 knots) at a german mine
lol well that certainly makes more sense!
***
This question about conveyors is exactly analogous to taking off with a tailwind - which is done, in practice, every. single. day. Can a plane take off in a tailwind of any speed? Of course not, that would be insane, there's obviously a limit. But can it be done? Yes its a normal everyday thing.
***
The video below is NOT that, but I think it will catalyse some extra talk on the subject:
-
18 minutes ago, mrfox said:
Quick google search shows max rated belt speeds today to be around 100m/s - around 200 knots - so it seems for high speed airplanes (most large airliners today have rated max tire speeds around 230 knots) both the belt and the wheels would fail around the same time.
The belt would heat up just as much as the tires would due to the mechanical deformation of the material as it bends around the rollers.
What on Earth does one use a 200kt belt for?!
-
6 hours ago, TheSaint said:
Spent the day at Wet 'n' Wild with my family. So. Many. Stairs.
Thats funny, I wonder if its related to https://www.wetnwild.co.uk/ all the way over here in sunny South Shields!
-
10 because 7 does not support the latest hardware. No brainer.
I had XP for the longest time, then 7 for a bit, honestly 10 is the best out of the bunch for me so far (mainly because it has stayed completely out of my way and everything works) though I've only had it for a few months. I've not noticed any glitches or update problems.
Games break themselves with updates more often if you ask me. *COUGH* *KSP* <HARD GLARE>
-
On 4/16/2018 at 2:03 AM, Bill Phil said:
And also, that fusion drive has some problems of its own...
Its a classic black-box McGuffin, I actually quite like the way they did it, they just go with "someone invented a torch drive" and dont bother with trying to shoehorn it into any science - because of course that would ruin it. The whole point is "What would the solar system look like if we had this thing?" how "the thing" works is not relevant to the idea of the story.
It is a bit jarring though when they talk about how it (the Epstein drive) gave them the solar system but not the stars - because being able to accelerate at 1g for long periods of time (apparently the inventors drive is still running and can still be seen running in deep space) most certainly would give you the stars, time dilation would even make it a trip doable in one lifetime. Heck if you can accelerate at 1g for a mere 100years, it would give you the universe.
IMO The Expanse is the best Sci-Fi show to turn up in a very long time, I just started reading the books.
-
1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:
Lol!
US taxpayers should know: they will pay for osmium penetrators after this idea appeared on KSP forum.Regarding osmium. Density is not the only factor. Uranium and tungsten are of roughly similar densities and hardness, but uranium projectiles can penetrate thicker armour.
This is because of the structural chemistry of uranium (something to do with a concept called "adiabatic shear bands") means that when the point "mushrooms" on impact with the armor surface, it forms a narrower "mushroom", boring a narrower hole, naturally, meaning that with a similar amount of kinetic energy, a deeper hole can be dug.
You will sometimes see this termed "self-sharpening" but be aware, "sharpness" is irrelevant at these energies, neither projectile retains a "sharp" point, but the uranium does not "spread" so much. This is not a trivial property of uranium merely being "stronger" or "harder" but a more involved combination of physical factors.
See page 20 of this document:
-
22 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:
So, I was under the impression that most antitank missiles are just penetrators; they punch through the armor and fill the inside of the tank with molten metal. There will be a chunk missing from the side of the tank and the insides will be shredded, but it's more or less intact.
Then I watched this:
Holy crap.
That missile doesn't even impact; it's designed to do that much damage simply by exploding directly over the target. It produced a shockwave so severe that it ripped the turret off the tank and sent it bouncing onto the ground in a ball of flames.
It's not entirely out of the question to imagine a miniaturized version, equipped with a depleted uranium or even osmium tip at the front to improve penetration. Even an explosion 1/10th as strong would absolutely obliterate a tank if it exploded partly inside.
(For reference, I was previously thinking of a HEAT missile, which would look more like this:)
A shaped charge missile could probably be made smaller than a TOW.
Those explosions...they are doing exactly what you said in the first part of your comment.
The missile that explodes above...it is a shaped charge too, projecting downwards to attack the weaker top armour.
The tank "brews up" not because the missile is so overpowered tha it can literally blast it apart, but because once you've punched a hole in the top, you dont have to pump much gas into a tank to flip off the turret.
Dont forget that shaped charges are kinetic weapons, the spike that they project penetrates armour in exactly the same way as a long rod penetrator.
-
I hate this question so much. Not the OP, nor the people having intelligent discussion. But I hate the question and questions like it.
The conveyor is merely a source of resistance to movement, and since its not a physical object, it can have properties such as arbitrary speed without any limitations.
The fact that the question usually says something like it "matching" the "speed" of the wheels is moot, effectively its a source of friction that can be scaled to any amount.
If the conveyor is moving a shade under the speed of light backwards, no, no plane will be able to successfully take off.
If the conveyor is moving backwards at only a few cm/s than off course the plane can take off.
Obviously there is a turning point at which the speed of the conveyor completely precludes its use as a runway.
Whether or not the conveyor running at "the speed of the planes wheels" is before or after this limit is just a case of knowing the values of the various physical characteristics of the system, like friction coefficients of all the various wheel-and-axle components, the surface of the conveyor etc.
It is possible to construct cases which match the question, and match both versions of the answer "yes it will" and "no it cant". But it sounds like there should be a definite and single answer, hence its possible for the discussion to go on to infinity.
So the next time someone smugly asks this, just challenge them "You KNOW this question is unanswerable without knowing the coefficient of friction in the planes main wheel and nosewheel bearings,...and you havnt even told us what the conveyor is made of and what its power limitations are! Stop asking silly questions and get your facts straight! What is the static and dynamic thrust curve of the engines? What is the breakaway resistance?"
-
How big can a ball of iron get before it stops being a ball of iron (and starts being something like liquid iron, or neutronium?)
And how long would it last if we flung it into the sun (with a probe at the very centre)?
Tungsten is fine, but it might start fissioning at some point in its journey.
-
11 minutes ago, Scotius said:
Same here. I used to think a laser cannon would be weapon of choice in space battles. I mean - virtually instant hit, perfect tracking etc. And then i realised that hitting something is not the same as destroying\disabling your target. And heating probles on your own ship. And brutal energy losses with distance. Ugh. Kinetic weapons (railguns, coilguns etc.) looks more favourable now. Or directed nuclear weapons like Masada Howitzers.
(Its "Casaba"
) Im sceptical about those too, if you dig a bit you can find information on some nuclear tests designed to investigate the principles (accelerating projectiles with nukes) and whilst there were some results that resembled the popular picture of the weapon (ultra-high velocity shrapnel, long range), it was judged to be ineffective at long distances (the angular spread is quite tight, just not tight enough to make probability-of-kill a useful value) and there have been some order-of-magnitude errors between the published results (what little has been published) and what has made it into popular knowledge.
Its very difficult to beat a fast moving mass for moving energy from one place to another without dissipation proportional to distance.
(I wish I had the documents to back all that up to hand, all I can really say for now is that Im sceptical)
-
10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:
Kingdom of the bored = Boredom
I'm bored.
I'm the chairman of the board.
I'm a Lincoln monologue, I'm livin' like a God,
I'm bored.I bore myself to sleep at night, I bore myself in broad daylight, 'cause I'm bored.
Just another slimy bore.I'm free to bore my well-bought friends,
And spend my cash until the end,
'cause I'm bored!
I'm bored!
I'm the chairman of the board.I'm sick.
I'm sick of all my kicks.
I'm sick of all the stiffs, I'm sick of all the dips, I'm bored.I bore myself to sleep at night, I bore myself in broad daylight,
'cause I'm bored!
I'm bored!
Just another dirty bore!
Alright now, face, come out and bore me!I am sick!
I am sick of all my kicks!
I'm sick of all the stiffs, I'm sick of all the dips, I'm sick!I'm sick when I go to sleep at night, I'm still sick in the broad daylight,
'Cause I'm bored!
I'm bored!
I'm the chairman of the board!- Iggy Pop -
Im the chairman of the bored.
-
What I'd really like to see is a treatment of what would the distances really be like in a "realistic" space battle/war.
Lasers may be great at 10,000km but what if the average distances are 100,000km+? Then lasers are useless, or you have to multiply power (and related issues) by some significant amount.
Or what if the analysis turns out that distances rapidly close to <1000km? Then other weapons may have advantages over lasers.
I'd like to see how lasers stack up against various other types of weapon (kinetic [small & large], nuclear, particle, radiation etc) up against an analysis of how distances would vary in a space battle with near-future tech level.
I used to think lasers were the weapon of the future too, when I was small, but it hasnt quite turned out that way. Their effects can be awesome, but they have a lot of drawbacks.
-
1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:
An osmium penetrator is even more stylish than a golden pistol.
FunFactTM: Some nuclear warheads have solid gold outer radiation casings which can be several centimetres thick (I think it maximises X-ray emissions for exo-atmospheric use...or something)
-
14 hours ago, sh1pman said:
I can see the military being interested in stable super heavy elements. Tank armor, anti-armor shells with immense kinetic energy, AP rounds, that sort of things. Maybe radiation protection as well?
Super-heavy elements are not always super-dense - eg: Osmium is the densest element, but not the heaviest atom.
Density is what makes good penetrators or armour.
For interest, the reason Osmium is not used in military applications is likely due to cost.
-
7 hours ago, Nuke said:
i really miss the shareware era. it was a very consumer friendly approach to software publishing. i played so many great shareware games and i kind of regret not buying many of them (which is likely why it isnt as popular as it used to be).
It was cool right? Remember getting like 20 games with PC magazines?
Shareware games is how I learned computers.
-
Do me! Do me!
-
26 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:
On Titan, you can fly with wings strapped to your arms.
0_0
Thats the best fact I've read in a long time.
-
47 minutes ago, VaPaL said:
Yep, Inconel is a great alloy, but very hard to work with. It consumes machining tools like crazy and it's not the most easy one to cast either. Let alone the problems of casting a turbine disk due to it's complex geometry.
But some turbopump turbine blades have to deal with temperatures reaching 1000K+ in a oxidizer rich environment and are made of inconel, so it should do the work.
EDIT:
There's also an alloy on Tungsten-Rhenium-Hafnium-Carbon that is very resistant at high temperatures and I found a Tantalum-Hafnium Carbide (another paper) ceramic that is also very resistant to heat and somewhat more resistant to oxidation than Tantalum Carbide or Hafnium Carbide alone, but as a ceramic it's problably to brittle for this application (still interesting though).
Thats a good point actually, should have thought about LOx turbopumps straightaway.
1 hour ago, wumpus said:Which means that the boundary temperature gets nasty, and if your fluorine/ozone mix gets any hotter the blades are in big trouble.
Its not like a fluorine/ozone turbojet will always run hotter than a conventional one, just that the chemical environment inside will be much more harsh.
1 hour ago, wumpus said:Do any of the moons of Jupiter (or Titan) have atmospheres (at least more than Mars)?
Yes, definitely, I cant remember off the top of my head which one has what, but there are various ones. I have a vague memory of one of them even having an atmospheric pressure similar to Earth, I forget which. I think it might be Titan. *googlygoogle* Yep, Titan has a surface pressure of 1.45atm, mostly nitrogen, and with a surface gravity of around 0.1-0.2G, flying there would be easy as pie. If you get propulsion to work.
-
Noice
***
Ooops, made the classic mistake up there ^^^, typed "fluoride" instead of "fluorine".
Thats the chemist version of accidentally calling your teacher "mum".
And the dentist version of really, really screwing up at work.
**edit**
Heh, look at that, turns out turbine blades are already made of inconel...
-
13 minutes ago, razark said:
Is the plane painted blue and black, or white and gold?
Its hard to say, whenever I look directly at it, it disappears.
-
If the plane does ever take off, does it sound more like someone saying "Yanny" or someone saying "Laurel"?
-
What if its a tank, which has pre-installed wheel-speed-matching conveyors on both sides?
On a conveyor.
Going uphill.
Underwater.
At the North Pole.
Now where is your riddle god?
Windows 10 or 7? Which is better?
in The Lounge
Posted
Hahaha! I'll have to respectfully disagree with that one, plus Im not just talking about RAM, CPUs & GPUs.
Though I would agree that if you buy a new computer today, it will stay current for a lot longer than they used to, in terms of performance.