 | | Bridget
|
| Hey everyone. I'd like to dedicate this moment to my latest creation. Wow, that sounded cheesey, no? You can see her here: (URL) Space World is up and running, I hope to add her, with 2 other Charlie's Angels rip offs, to the page. But for now, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| Very nice! I know you don't like to sacrifice looks for articulation, but it would look cooler with more armour... Still, nice articulation, something my mecha lack... (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) I agree. (...) I agree. :) (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) Charlie's (...) female (...) That gatling gun looks familar...must have downloaded my weapons pack 1.0... now ready to mlcad the son of the water "shallow water" underwater mech at any moment, armed with 2 missiles and 4 flip out machine guns (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| Just a little nitpick... Bullets don't work very well underwater. "Lasers", perhaps? ;^) ~M (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) you see if they where specialized bullets then you have a problem when mine comes out of the water, its probalby bigger then 3/4 of yours then it got its pulse underwater laser and its missiles so you got a bigger problem not to menter the (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) Nope... never downloaded it as I have no CAD program, and I've not seen it either. I've been using that gun design for quite a while now. A coincidence I suppose. Greg "Yeah, we now know that having no arc sucks" Majewski (URL) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) Looked like some kinda' mutant man-machine thing. Other than that I liked it. Chef (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) Nathan Falslev nfalslev@netscape.net Exploria Main Interface (URL) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| Mark Sandlin wrote in message ... (...) That is, unless they are futuristic bullets designed to supercavitate. Finding out what the principle of supercavitation is, is left as an exercise to the reader... ;-) Cheers, Paul LUGNET member 164 (URL) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| I suppose, but wouldn't that be terribly inefficient? It would likely be simpler and cheaper to use a different type of weapon. And in the military, your weapon was made by the lowest bidder. ;^) ~M (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) Hmm...I know I have read a article on the whole idea of supercavitation (in relation to the USSR Rocket Torpedos) recently on the web...no idea where it is though. James (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) is (...) "Recent domestic and Ukrainian hydrodynamic research has explored the physics of a phenomenon labeled supercavitation. Proper design can minimize the drag on a submerged projectile, yielding "supercavitation drag reduction," which (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| Mark Sandlin wrote in message ... (...) exercise (...) Well, yes, but I'd thought you'd want to find out what supercavitation was all by yourself ;-) (...) Really? I thought that it was considered appropriate to spend an extra trillion on a weapon, (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) Seawater is moreor-less transparent to a properly tuned blue/green lasers, so there would be little/no attenuation. No moving parts to corrode in the saltwater, and no ejection ports to get gummed up by oceanic detritus. --Karim (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | (canceled)
|
| | | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) Nope. It is somewhat translucent to it, to a range of somewhat less than 500 ft. Otherwise, why do you think that we still work with SONAR for detection of subs? James (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) Because we can't get the laser technology to work properly yet, but the Navy is currently funding major research & development programs to figure out how to do just that. It's no more blue-sky than supercavitating machine-gun bullets. --Karim (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) is (...) do (...) Yes, but the russians have fielded torps that use supercavitation. Sorry, don't know the Nato code name or the russian project des. James (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) I realize that, but torpedoes are not bullets, they are not powered by small explosions of compressed gas & plasma, and they are not solid slugs of metal... They are very complicated computerized machines. Now, if you are talking about (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) ...Seawater may be transparent to it, but seems to me all the stuffe floating in the water from plankton to detritus would cause a problem. the dispersion from all the detritus would prolly use up a great deal of the energy put into the laser (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| Karim Nassar wrote in message ... (...) so (...) Well, the feasibility of each method may or may not be superior to the other, but I think that my supercavitating-bullets idea was a whole lot sexier. Lasers? Whoopee-doo ;-) Cheers, Paul LUGNET (...) (24 years ago, 17-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| Bah. Bullets are so Last Century. ~M (24 years ago, 17-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) You know, that's a great point--I think that when I'm back Stateside, it'll be time to produce something on this principle. Why wouldn't *sonic* weapons be ideal for a fluid medium? If you can work out the dynamics and the power, wave (...) (24 years ago, 4-Sep-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| Why wouldn't *sonic* weapons be ideal (...) Yes, except for one small problem. (...) Wave propigation (sp for both of us!). Even if you focus the energy more than present methods do, _off_ the transmitter, you will run into the limit of boiling (...) (24 years ago, 4-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) the (...) to (...) Heckler & Koch built the P11 - an underwater firing 5 shot pistol that fires darts to 10-15m effective range under water and 30m above. From the info on the page, there are a handful of national militaries using it, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Bridget
|
| (...) Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble? :( (...) Ack, I know this is .debate and I should be all defensive and contrary and throw chairs at you, but that would be very silly considering that you're right. ;) US active Sonar can and does do this, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
