Mecha : 1236


Building / Mecha / 1236

Re: Bridget —Mark Sandlin

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 —Joseph Myers

(...) 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 —Paul Baulch

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 —Mark Sandlin

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 —James Powell

(...) 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 —Karim Nassar

(...) 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 —Paul Baulch

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 —Karim Nassar

(...) 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)

Re: Bridget —James Powell

(...) 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 —Karim Nassar

(...) 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 —James Powell

(...) 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 —Karim Nassar

(...) 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 —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) 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 —James Powell

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 —Joel Jacobsen

(...) 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 —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) 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)

Re: Bridget —Paul Baulch

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 —Mark Sandlin

Bah. Bullets are so Last Century. ~M (24 years ago, 17-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)

(canceled) —Karim Nassar

Re: Bridget —Stephen F. Roberts

(...) ...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)