(HUMOR) Furries vs Humans Deathmatch! Part II
Luis Edgar Flores Gutierrez
The Albedo girls (Erma, Toki, Teka, etc.) vs The Gundam Wing boys
(Heero, Trowa, Duo, Quatre, etc.)
Usagi Yojimbo vs Jubei Yagyu (Ninja Scroll)
The Samurai Pizza Cats vs The Ronin Warriors
The Extinctioners vs GEN 13
Cheetah vs Wolverine
The Sabrina Online team vs The Beverly Hills 90210 team
The Tai-Pan vs The Yamato (Space Cruiser Yamato/Starblazers)
AND THE MAIN MATCHES:
Albedo (EDF, ILR, Enchawah) vs Gundam Wing (Colony Rebels, OZ,
Romfeller)
Akira vs any furry series with psychic powers
--
Edgar Flores
Aguascalientes, Mexico
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
TedSchller
>Who could win in a battle between:
(snip)
Deathmatch?
Julia Digger vs. Britanny Digger
"_BRITANNY_, You get this mess cleaned up _Now_ or you're _DEAD_."
::grins::
Ted
Remove "ReBoot" in my address if you wish to send me e-mail.
Ebony Leopard
> (Heero, Trowa, Duo, Quatre, etc.)
>
> Usagi Yojimbo vs Jubei Yagyu (Ninja Scroll)
>
> The Samurai Pizza Cats vs The Ronin Warriors
>
> The Extinctioners vs GEN 13
The Extinctioners, they got the numbers.
Ebony Leopard
http://www.geocities.com/xenif/extinctioners.html
http://www.yerf.com/howashaw
http://www.redpanda.com/howart
ilr
> The Samurai Pizza Cats vs The Ronin Warriors
>
hard time getting away with it.
Speaking of which, How about "White-Blaze"(their white tiger) against Sigfreid and Roy?
> The Extinctioners vs GEN 13
>
Hmm, I'd better go with the Extinctioners on this one
> Cheetah vs Wolverine
Which "Cheetah"? There's like some sorta Super-hero/villain Franchise on that name
>
> The Sabrina Online team vs The Beverly Hills 90210 team
Richard and Amy would likely be of little use, but I'm sure if Sabrina
was properly motivated she could roll through their whole crew.
Zig Zag could probably kick some but too.
> AND THE MAIN MATCHES:
>
> Albedo (EDF, ILR, Enchawah) vs Gundam Wing (Colony Rebels, OZ,
> Romfeller)
Dunno, never saw either one. But I'll go with the Gundam just cuz I know
they have 'Mechs'.
> Akira vs any furry series with psychic powers
>
Sorry, but Akira's just a Demigod IMO. Not even Intangibility could save you
from him.
-Iller
bevnsag
> > AND THE MAIN MATCHES:
> >
> > Albedo (EDF, ILR, Enchawah) vs Gundam Wing (Colony Rebels, OZ,
> > Romfeller)
>
> Dunno, never saw either one. But I'll go with the Gundam just cuz I know
> they have 'Mechs'.
>
systems would get seriously wooped. With humans in the key function
loops (and I won't rant about the idiocy of ghoddamngiantrobots) and
fairly "dumb" weapons, they would be severely handicapped against the
highly integrated AI weapons of the EDF. And I get the impression that
they don't use hyperkinetics or nukes all that much, while such are the
primary weapons of the EDF.
Martin Evans
How about Minerva Mink versus Anna Nicole Smith?
They kill each other and everybody wins.
When a sig just isn't enough: http://www.Litterbox.eboard.com
DishRoom1
>How about Minerva Mink versus Anna Nicole Smith?
> They kill each other and everybody wins.
Anna Nicole maght try to choke Minerva between her Cup-L silicone beanbags of
hers (sorry for the unpleasant mental image, folks), but not unless Minerva
pops those breasts with a pin. :x)
J. Shughart
aka Jetstone Tigre
Luis Edgar Flores Gutierrez
Unless Heero and his Wing Gundam Zero use the famous "Buster Rifle" or
someone drops a colony against some EDF, ILR or Enchawah planet
--
Edgar Flores
Aguascalientes, Mexico
Cerulean
>Richard and Amy would likely be of little use, but I'm sure if Sabrina
>was properly motivated she could roll through their whole crew.
>Zig Zag could probably kick some but too.
Amy has the guts. She's tangled with an Imperial Walker.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( hjjnp - ,,h+!7eaJ uo ad!J6 wJ!j e,,
Nebulous
Cerulean wrote
> Quoth ilr:
>
> >Richard and Amy would likely be of little use, but I'm sure if Sabrina
> >was properly motivated she could roll through their whole crew.
> >Zig Zag could probably kick some but too.
>
> Amy has the guts. She's tangled with an Imperial Walker.
>
--
Nebulous Rikulau
My furcode
FFCs4a A- C* D H+ M- P++ R+ T+++ W Z+ Sm RLRB/AT a+ cn++ d-- e+ f h+ i+ j+
p+ sm-
ilr
bevnsag <bev...@home.com> wrote in message news:39EBC9A5...@home.com...
>
>
> > > AND THE MAIN MATCHES:
> > >
> > > Albedo (EDF, ILR, Enchawah) vs Gundam Wing (Colony Rebels, OZ,
> > > Romfeller)
> >
> > Dunno, never saw either one. But I'll go with the Gundam just cuz I know
> > they have 'Mechs'.
> >
> I don't know about the details, but would suspect that the Gundam type
> systems would get seriously wooped. With humans in the key function
> loops (and I won't rant about the idiocy of ghoddamngiantrobots) and
Bah, so the likelyhood of 'em being used efficiently as war-machines ain't
that good, they'd still be a kick in the ass to drive though. *Ppphhhbbt*
> fairly "dumb" weapons, they would be severely handicapped against the
> highly integrated AI weapons of the EDF. And I get the impression that
> they don't use hyperkinetics or nukes all that much, while such are the
> primary weapons of the EDF.
Might have to change my vote, Nukes are a cheapshot, but "hyperkinetics"
whatever they are sounds promising.
-Ilr
Martin Evans
No, big fighting robots are not dumb. Our government says so! Look at
this (Warning: Long!):
EXOSKELETONS FOR HUMAN PERFORMANCE AUGMENTATION (EHPA) SOL BAA00-34 DUE
063000 POC Dr. Ephrahim Garcia, Fax (703) 696-3999 EXOSKELETONS FOR
HUMAN PERFORMANCE AUGMENTATION (EHPA)PROGRAM; SOL: BAA#00-34; DUE:
30JUN00; POC: Dr. Ephrahim Garcia, DARPA/DSO;FAX: (703) 696-3999; EMAIL:
BAA0...@DARPA.MIL;URL: http://www.darpa.mil/baa/baa00-34.htm PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE AND DESCRIPTION: The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) is soliciting innovative research proposals on Exoskeletons for
Human Performance Augmentation (EHPA). The overall goal of this program
is to develop devices and machines that will increase the speed,
strength, and endurance of soldiers in combat environments. Projects
will lead to self-powered, controllable, wearable exoskeletal devices
and/or machines. The technological challenges that must be addressed are
energy sources, power by generation, haptic interfaces, control
algorithm development, as well as integration of actuation systems and
all previously mentioned subsystems into a machine with an
anthropomorphic architecture. Highly efficient actuators must be
developed that can utilize a high density, man-wearable energy source in
both a safe and quiet manner. The power provided to the EPHA system must
support the exoskeleton for a duration of military significance,
initially estimated to be 4-24 hours. Control approaches must be devised
that enable direct and seamless interaction between human and machine.
Finally, these devices and machines will be demonstrated in order to
evaluate their utility to various military operations. EHPA will enable
new capabilities for ground forces. Inclusion of exoskeleton technology
into land based operations will extend the mission payload and/or
mission range of the soldier. Exoskeletons will also increase the
lethality and survivability of ground troops for short range and special
operations. The enhanced mobility and load carrying capability provided
by the exoskeleton will allow soldiers to carry more ballistic
protection and heavy weaponry. To meet the challenges set forth, DARPA
is soliciting devices and machines that accomplish one or more of the
following: 1) assist pack-loaded locomotion, 2) prolong locomotive
endurance, 3) increase locomotive speed, 4) augment human strength, and
5) leap extraordinary heights and/or distances. These machines should be
anthropomorphic and capable of bearing distributed loads, such as that
generated by extensive armor protection, as well as typical pack loads.
Other concepts for EHPA will also be considered in this solicitation.
Methods of transforming high-energy dense power sources to actuation
power for these machines should be developed. Energy sources must be
integrated with compact, man-wearable power generators and, possibly,
new types of actuators that would allow long endurance missions.
Concepts and designs that fail to address the full integration of energy
sources, power converters and actuators into a complete exoskeleton
system are generally not of interest. However, development of enabling
technologies of extraordinary promise may be considered for support but
are best melded into a larger effort of realizing a complete system.
WHITE PAPERS: All white paper submissions will be evaluated for
responsiveness to the stated goals and objectives of this BAA. Those
best meeting the criteria of this BAA will be asked to submit a full
proposal. Proposers must submit an original and seven (7) copies of the
white paper to DARPA/DSO, ATTN: BAA00-34, 3701 North Fairfax Drive,
Arlington, VA 22203-1714 on or before 4:00 PM ET, April 21, 2000. White
papers submitted by email or fax will be disregarded. White papers must
meet the objective and format guidelines as described in the Proposer
Information Pamphlet (PIP) in order to be considered. White papers are
limited to seven (7) 1.5-spaced pages including cover sheet and should
contain: 1) concepts for addressing the technical goals of EHPA; 2)
program plan with technical milestones for developing components and
critical subsystems; 3) integration approach and expected performance
for an EHPA device or machine for DoD applications; 4) projected impact
of developments on DoD applications; 5) proposed funding level for the
effort; and 6) descriptions of experience and expertise of the
performer(s) and sub-contractors. Appendices will be NOT considered in
the evaluation of white papers. DARPA will acknowledge receipt of white
papers within ten (10) business days and assign a control number that
should be used in all further correspondence. Recommendations for full
proposal submission will be made within approximately thirty (30) days
of the submission deadline. All full proposals will be evaluated
regardless of the disposition of the white paper. FULL PROPOSALS: The
proposed effort should be in two phases with an additional option at the
end of the second phase, for a total not to exceed 60 months. The Phase
I and Phase II periods will be conducted for up to 42 months and consist
of an initial base effort that demonstrates proof-of-concept for key
technologies, followed by an effort to complete the development of the
individual projects. In addition to this 42-month period, a Phase II
Option may be included that will proceed for an additional 18-month
period to achieve end of program requirements as outlined in the PIP.
The technical portion of the proposal is restricted to 40 pages
(including figures). A suggested outline for full proposal follows: 1)
an executive summary describing the concept(s), impetus, approach, and
target application; 2) introduction with a statement of the perceived
technical challenges and the concepts to be exploited to satisfy the
requirements of the PIP; (3) detailed technical discussion of the
implementation of the proposed concept, technical risks, a set of
metrics, and programmed milestones for evaluating progress; (4) the
overall management plan and a list of participating organizations, their
relevant expertise, and tasks to be performed by each team member; (5) a
detailed Statement of Work with technical milestones and deliverables,
including performance metrics and programmatic decision points; (6) a
summary cost and implementation schedule; and (7) a plan for
transitioning and commercializing the technology to industry and/or
Government applications. References, resumes, or other supporting
documentation may be included as appendices to the main body of the
proposal, but will be included in the 40-page limit. A detailed cost and
implementation schedule should also be included in a separate cost
proposal. Further details are available in the PIP. The total amount of
funding available for this BAA is approximately $50M; it is anticipated
that there will be multiple awards. The most important part of the full
proposal will be the technical concepts proposed for the successful
production of a human performance enhancing exoskeleton machine or
device. The goal of the program is the development and demonstration of
novel, self-powered exoskeleton machines that can be implemented to
augment the performance and extend the mission capability of the ground
combatant. The end products of this solicitation will be deliverable
hardware demonstrating the approach achievedtoward meeting the goals and
objectives listed in the PIP. Proposals that are considered less than
satisfactory in terms of Scientific and Technical Merit will not be
evaluated further. Proposers must submit an original and nine (9) copies
of the full proposal to DARPA/DSO, 3701 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington,
VA 22203-1714 (Attn.: BAA00-34) on or before 4:00 PM, ET, June 30, 2000.
Proposals must meet the objective and format guidelines as described in
the PIP to be considered. Proposal identified for funding may result in
a contract, grant cooperative agreement, or other transaction, depending
upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction
between parties, and other factors. If warranted, portions of resulting
awards may be segregated into pre-priced options. TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS:
Teaming is encouraged to ensure that advances in technology can be
rapidly integrated into useable military devices. To assist the teaming
process an interactive web site has been established at URL:
www.sainc.com/DARPA/EHPA. Individual researchers and organizations with
specific, relevant expertise and/or capabilities may provide
non-proprietary descriptions of their capabilities and interests. The
web site will remain active from the date of issuance of this BAA until
proposals are due. More information on teaming can be found in the PIP.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION: Proposals will be evaluated according to the
following criteria in decreasing order of importance: (1) scientific and
technological merit of the proposed program; (2) impact of the
successful development on defense systems; (3) ability of the
proposer(s) to achieve goals and execute project management plan (4)
cost realism. All proposals will be reviewed by Government officials
only. Input on technical aspects of the proposals may be solicited by
DARPA from non-Government consultants and/or experts who are bound by
appropriate non-disclosure requirements. Non-Government technical
consultants will not have access to proposals that are labeled by the
offerors as "GOVERNMENT ONLY." Restrictive notices notwithstanding,
proposals may be handled, for administrative purposes only, by a support
contractor. This contractor is bound by appropriate non-disclosure
requirements. The Government reserves the right to select for award all,
some, or none of the proposals received. Cost sharing is encouraged, but
not required. All responsible sources capable of satisfying the
Government's needs may submit a proposal that shall be considered by
DARPA. GENERAL INFORMATION: Proposers must obtain the pamphlet entitled
"BAA00-34, Exoskeleton for Human Performance Enhancement (EHPA) Proposer
Information Pamphlet (PIP)," which provides detailed information on
program objectives, areas of interest, the submission, evaluation, and
funding processes, proposal formats, and other program information. This
pamphlet may be requested from the World Wide Web (WWW), fax, electronic
mail (e-mail), or mail requests through the administrative contact
information given below. This announcement and the PIP may be retrieved
via the WWW at URL http://www.darpa.mil/DSO/ in the solicitation area.
Proposals not meeting the format described in the pamphlet may not be
reviewed. All administrative correspondence and questions on this
solicitation, including requests for information on how to submit a
proposal to this BAA, should be directed to DARPA/DSO, BAA00-34, fax:
(703) 696-3999, electronic mail (e-mail): BAA0...@darpa.mil, or mail:
DARPA/DSO, ATTN: BAA00-34, 3701 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA
22203-1714 (e-mail or fax is preferred). DARPA intends to use electronic
mail and fax for correspondence regarding BAA00-34. Proposals submitted
by fax or e-mail will be disregarded. DARPA encourages use of the WWW
for retrieving the PIP and any other related information that may
subsequently be provided. This notice, in conjunction with the BAA00-34
PIP, constitutes the total BAA. No additional information is available,
nor will a formal RFP or other solicitation regarding this announcement
be issued. Requests for the same will be disregarded. Minority
Institutions and Historically Black Colleges and Universities are
encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals.
However, due to the technical nature of the hardware demonstration, no
portion of this BAA will be set aside specifically for these entities.
Posted 03/17/00 (W-SN435499). (0077)
Jaqrabbit
> > > >
> > > > Albedo (EDF, ILR, Enchawah) vs Gundam Wing (Colony Rebels, OZ,
> > > > Romfeller)
> > >
> > > Dunno, never saw either one. But I'll go with the Gundam just cuz I
know
> > > they have 'Mechs'.
> > >
> > I don't know about the details, but would suspect that the Gundam type
> > systems would get seriously wooped. With humans in the key function
> > loops (and I won't rant about the idiocy of ghoddamngiantrobots) and
>
> that good, they'd still be a kick in the ass to drive though. *Ppphhhbbt*
On a related topic, there's a team of engineers in Bakersfield, CA actually
working on a functioning Mech(a) design ( http://www.mechaps.com/ ). They
estimate 21 months until they have "the true beginnings of Mecha ready to
show". Whether or not this should be taken seriously is up to you.
--
Jaqrabbit
jaqrabbit@SPAMME&DIEhotmail.com
eBay: Jaqrabbit
ICQ: 15482527
==========================
Should is the single most
frightening word in the english
language!
==========================
Weston Firerunner
> > fairly "dumb" weapons, they would be severely handicapped against the
> > highly integrated AI weapons of the EDF. And I get the impression that
> > they don't use hyperkinetics or nukes all that much, while such are the
> > primary weapons of the EDF.
>
> Might have to change my vote, Nukes are a cheapshot, but "hyperkinetics"
> whatever they are sounds promising.
> -Ilr
Hyperkinetics are much like what the word implies - a very very fast moving
object. Take a large metal slug and move it so fast that it obliterates anything
in its path in space, and you have something much more effective than laser beams
and the stuff of space opera. Even if you manage to hit the object with
something, the velocity of the particles would be just as awesome, and just as
dangerous to the target. These concepts are why I enjoy Albedo so much, and why
I'm always impressed with the amount of research and thought that goes into each
event.
- Weston Firerunner
http://www.furnation.com/firerunner/
miertam(at)aa.net
<led...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The Tai-Pan vs The Yamato (Space Cruiser Yamato/Starblazers)
>
Oh the Yamato most defiantly the Tai-Pan is a merchant ship (and a small one at
that) with just a couple of popguns for defense. But the Yamato is a full
fledged battle ship with a crew of hundreds. The Tai-Pan would be able to out
run her though. another scenario that might work out in the Tai-Pan's favor is
if she is boarded the crew of the Tai-Pan are very dangerous on their home turf.
------------------------------------------
Mier'Tam
The most important thing about magic is how you don't use it.
Esk
Wonder Enis Gheen Wonder
Simon Stevin
bevnsag
Martin Evans wrote:
>
> No, big fighting robots are not dumb. Our government says so! Look at
> this (Warning: Long!):
>
> EXOSKELETONS FOR HUMAN PERFORMANCE AUGMENTATION (EHPA) SOL BAA00-34 DUE
> 063000 POC Dr. Ephrahim Garcia, Fax (703) 696-3999 EXOSKELETONS FOR
That is not a giant robot program, but an individual powersuit project.
Giant robots are simply big erect targets.
Matthew
> whatever they are sounds promising.
> -Ilr
>
>
they're moving fast enough they don't need to be armor peircing or have
explosive warheads.
ilr
Matthew <rix...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:8skksh$2dd$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
"tank killer"-A10's main nose-cannon. I've seen them demonstrated and
their speed actually causes a massive kinetic explosion upon impact.
And I'm pretty sure they said it used magnetic propulsion.
But I'm sure lasers and other energy weapons will be a much more
devastating should the dream of practical fusion ever be attained.
Though that's interesting that Albedo would have such an advanced
and practical weapon like that how ever many years ago it was written.
ilr
> On a related topic, there's a team of engineers in Bakersfield, CA actually
> working on a functioning Mech(a) design ( http://www.mechaps.com/ ). They
> estimate 21 months until they have "the true beginnings of Mecha ready to
> show". Whether or not this should be taken seriously is up to you.
>
Cool!
Of course it should be taken seriously. I'm not sure how seriously they're
taking it with all the convention stuff, but Their potential for terra-forming and
other construction uses would more-than validate their use despite the ludicrous
all-to-fictional concepts that most hold of them. I live near the continental divide
here in Colorado and there's a lot of potential for construction and other projects
with heavy machinery but I don't dare pursue such a career as the terrain is so
foreboding. Wheeled vehicles just don't cut it around here. 50% of the population
still has atleast one horse. Advanced robotic transportation like that would
really alter the ways and that people settle without leaving tire-ruts everywhere.
(This area is so environmentally conservative that the ski areas of all things are
the main target of the tree-huggers as they're the only major industry left)
-Ilr
Doug Winger
> Matthew <rix...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:8skksh$2dd$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> >
> Ah yes, those. The military currently uses depleted uranium "Rails" in
> it's
> "tank killer"-A10's main nose-cannon. I've seen them demonstrated and
> their speed actually causes a massive kinetic explosion upon impact.
> And I'm pretty sure they said it used magnetic propulsion.
> But I'm sure lasers and other energy weapons will be a much more
> devastating should the dream of practical fusion ever be attained.
>
> Though that's interesting that Albedo would have such an advanced
> and practical weapon like that how ever many years ago it was written.
>
GAU-30 cannon. The gun itself is a six-barrel gatling design, with the
shells being carried along a flexible link belt from the storage drum, to the
business end, and then back into the drum, so there's no casings being flung
out to get sucked into the engines.
The shells are of a relatively standard design, no fancy physics involved.
In fact, one of the problems of the thing is that the 'smoke' of the
discharging shells tends to choke the engines when it's fired- and the recoil
_can_ stall the thing if sustained long enough if the aircraft is in level
flight. Even in a dive, the aircraft can lose 30 knots of speed during a long,
high rate burst.
The shells for the thing are the size of a small milk bottle, and look
remarkly like some giant's version of a 7.62 mm Nato round- only the shell is
3 centimeters in diameter. They do pack a wallop, though: kinetic energy was
best described as a big-block chevy engine hitting whatever at around several
hundred MPH- only with a lot smaller area of impact. Now, multiply that by a
firing rate that can reach 60 rounds a second...
The depleted uranium is used for two reasons: it's heavier then lead, so
kinetic energy level- high mass, y'see- isn't cut by drag in the air and that
it will _burn_ like you wouldn't believe, penetration of armor forming a
near-plasma jet of flame and sparks that does horrible things to the interior
of a tank. I saw what it did to a T-80 up close and personal (though long
after the fireworks). One shell had punched through the barrel of tank's gun,
leaving a double-fist sized hole through it, and the rest of thing looked like
swiss cheese. Nasty ass weapon: don't ever be on the wrong end of one.
Sorry, no high tech involved in this case. Just good old-fashioned Big Bang
Boom.
- Doug, Fairchild Republic Aviation Alumnus
-"A PDAR is a molehill that wants to become a mountain."
- Phrase overhead quite often in Repubic's main plant at Farmingdale.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> The military currently uses depleted uranium "Rails" in it's "tank
> killer"-A10's main nose-cannon.
No, the A-10's Vulcan cannon uses ordinary shells, not a "Gauss" cannon.
Although the bullets really are Depleted Uranium.
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Kathmandu
"DishRoom1" <dish...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001017075136...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
Would never get close to each other, Mitch Beiro would fly into a furious rage
and rip Anna to shreds before Minerva mussed a single hair. I have seen the fire
in his eyes...
Rust
>
> In article <8skqiq$2mr$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "ilr" <i...@rof.net> writes:
> > The military currently uses depleted uranium "Rails" in it's "tank
> > killer"-A10's main nose-cannon.
>
> No, the A-10's Vulcan cannon uses ordinary shells, not a "Gauss" cannon.
> Although the bullets really are Depleted Uranium.
Also, rail guns do not fire rails, except possibly as a mad experiment
performed by a scientist with a dubious sense of humour. Rail guns use
electromagnetic fields to accelerate a conductive projectile between a
set of conductive rails.
-Rust
--
We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
Nebulous
bevnsag wrote
>
>
> ilr wrote:
> >
> > Ah yes, those. The military currently uses depleted uranium "Rails" in
it's
> > "tank killer"-A10's main nose-cannon. I've seen them demonstrated and
> > their speed actually causes a massive kinetic explosion upon impact.
>
> cannon, is a conventional externally driven "Gatling" type gun, with
> regular gunpowder propelled projectiles. The load mix includes uranium
> armor piercing rounds, of, AFAIK, the same ballistics as the other more
> conventional rounds, so are not particularly hyperkinetic. The DUAP
> rounds do not explode on impact, merely the fragments of uranium
> self-igniting as the bulk of the mass penetrates the target.
>
Several years back there was some testing of a hyperkinetic missle that
could be used by the A-10. It had no warhead, it was a rocket propelled
steel rod that hit the target at about Mach 5. A high powered rifle bullet
can hit about Mach 3, so imagine the increase in speed and mass. That
program was dropped.
I wonder if anyone has done a picture of a warthog in a Warthog. :)
James Hardiman
--JMH
bevnsag
ilr wrote:
>
> Matthew <rix...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:8skksh$2dd$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> >
> > "ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:8si4f4$sp6$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> > >
> > > Might have to change my vote, Nukes are a cheapshot, but "hyperkinetics"
> > > whatever they are sounds promising.
> > > -Ilr
> > >
> > >
> > I think it basically means a weapon using very fast moving projectiles. If
> > they're moving fast enough they don't need to be armor peircing or have
> > explosive warheads.
> >
> >
> Ah yes, those. The military currently uses depleted uranium "Rails" in it's
> "tank killer"-A10's main nose-cannon. I've seen them demonstrated and
> their speed actually causes a massive kinetic explosion upon impact.
> And I'm pretty sure they said it used magnetic propulsion.
> But I'm sure lasers and other energy weapons will be a much more
> devastating should the dream of practical fusion ever be attained.
Jeez, are you so wrong. The A-10's weapon, the GAU-8 multibarrel rotary
cannon, is a conventional externally driven "Gatling" type gun, with
regular gunpowder propelled projectiles. The load mix includes uranium
armor piercing rounds, of, AFAIK, the same ballistics as the other more
conventional rounds, so are not particularly hyperkinetic. The DUAP
rounds do not explode on impact, merely the fragments of uranium
self-igniting as the bulk of the mass penetrates the target.
Lasers have some odd limitations related to how the energy does or
doesn't work on targets.
>
> Though that's interesting that Albedo would have such an advanced
> and practical weapon like that how ever many years ago it was written.
The fundamentals of hyperkinetic weapons have been know since at least
before WWII, some of the considerations come from the time of Newton.
I'm old, but no where near THAT old.
DishRoom1
Martin Evans wrote --
>> >How about Minerva Mink versus Anna Nicole Smith?
>> > They kill each other and everybody wins.
I wrote --
>> Anna Nicole maght try to choke Minerva between her Cup-L silicone beanbags
>of
>> hers (sorry for the unpleasant mental image, folks), but not unless Minerva
>> pops those breasts with a pin. :x)
>
>
>Would never get close to each other, Mitch Beiro would fly into a furious
>rage
>and rip Anna to shreds before Minerva mussed a single hair. I have seen the
>fire
>in his eyes...
>
LOL!! :xD
Blakjak
wrote:
>Also, rail guns do not fire rails, except possibly as a mad experiment
>performed by a scientist with a dubious sense of humour. Rail guns use
>electromagnetic fields to accelerate a conductive projectile between a
>set of conductive rails.
Even that's not technically correct. A rail gun doesnt fire a single
projectile, it fires a burst of largish iron pieces, each weighing in
under 5 grams.
Rather than relying on momentum to carry it through, it eats its way
through with each successive bit of iron.
----------
The Blakjak, Resident of Aotearoa
----------
Rust
*sigh*
Been reading about Glitterboys and Mechs, hmm? No, real rail guns are a
means of accelerating conductive projectiles to high velocities using
electrical power. To date, no military model exists beyond primitive
prototype, though there's a promising new procedure in which a metallic
pellet is vapourized into a plasma state and accelerated, pushing a
ceramic projectile in front.
The power required to accelerate a projectile to high speed is enormous,
and rail guns require capacitor banks, or more recently, flywheels in
order to store sufficient energy for a single shot. The idea of
accelerating a stream of projectiles to even subsonic velocity is well
beyond our current technology. No pun intended.
Incidentally, "largish iron pieces" do not weigh "under 5 grams".
I have made a brief study of rail guns, and plan on building my own
small model some day. I do have some notion of what I'm talking about.
bevnsag
That depends entirely on the individual design. There are considerations
of units that shoot darts, slugs, or even smart munitions of various
sizes and rates of fire. Yours is just one type for a particular application.
M. Mitchell Marmel
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Also, rail guns do not fire rails, except possibly as a mad experiment
> > >performed by a scientist with a dubious sense of humour.
In a whimsical moment a few years back, I took an HO scale "General"
steam locomotive missing the front of the boiler and started fitting it
with a flash suppressor, intending to finish the job by mounting it on a
piece of track attached to a pistol grip. I never DID finish that
particular "rail gun"...
>bevnsag wrote:
> That depends entirely on the individual design. There are considerations
> of units that shoot darts, slugs, or even smart munitions of various
> sizes and rates of fire.
The classic SF examples being gausspistols and gaussrifles.
-MMM-
--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@dunx1.irt.drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
ICQ # 58305217
Martin Evans
There's this Mechanized Propulsion Group that's working on a 25 foot
Mech. I'll have more information for you guys as soon as I can get
through to their site (they're very, very busy).
I have to disagree that a Mech would be not much more than a big bomb
magnet. A bipedal (but not necessarily a humanoid shaped) vehicle would
have many more mobility advantages than a tracked or wheeled vehicle. We
have some of the technology already to build a BattleTech type OmniMech.
Some, but not all.
Another thing that I want to bring up is that onetime Wisconsin Senator
William Proxmire killed a government R&D program that was working on
quadrupedal and hexapedal walking machines in the early 1970s. If it
wasn't for that senile cheese-loving neo-Luddite, we might have had
walkers twenty years ago!
Jaqrabbit
http://www.mechaps.com/ Also, there is a brief (and I do mean BRIEF)
article on it in Wizard Magazine #108 (September 2000 issue) on page 100.
If anyone is interested, I can post the text of that article here.
--
Jaqrabbit
jaqrabbit@SPAMME&DIEhotmail.com
eBay: Jaqrabbit
ICQ: 15482527
==========================
"You're one freaky dude."
"Yeah, so?"
==========================
--
"Martin Evans" <Ogre...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20100-39...@storefull-266.iap.bryant.webtv.net...