Technology Stats Help

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1293423088' post='2554970']
The 140mm was ditched because currently, there is no need for better guns. The ETC project was ditched because it could not be made more powerful than the L55 EVEN when the caliber was the same. Don't mix things up.
[/quote]

Could you provide links to support this particular argument of yours that a 120mm ETC cannon is not more powerful than the 120mm extended barrel length cannon, ie Rheinmetal L55?

[Kankou]

ETC can be considered as a realistic replacement for current solid propellant guns [i]only[/i] when


@ Cochin: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Files/tanks.140mm-gun.kruse.pdf (check slide 12)

Of course this was from 10 years ago, but that was why Rheinmetall did not continue on with the program. Basically, even with a 120mm ETC, you're most likely only going to have the same power as a regular 120mm unless we can eitehr change the chemicals or find a better firing method.

[HHAYD]

Would it be a bad idea to use ceramic in tank barrels? I know they have higher heat and friction resistance, but a determined enemy machine gunner or sniper could shatter the barrel, greatly harming the tank's accuracy and muzzle velocity.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1293424183' post='2554983']
ETC can be considered as a realistic replacement for current solid propellant guns [i]only[/i] when


@ Cochin: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Files/tanks.140mm-gun.kruse.pdf (check slide 12)

Of course this was from 10 years ago, but that was why Rheinmetall did not continue on with the program. Basically, even with a 120mm ETC, you're most likely only going to have the same power as a regular 120mm unless we can eitehr change the chemicals or find a better firing method.
[/quote]
According to that:
>>ETC
>>offers a medium-risk option dependent on technologies
>>that will mature within the next ten years.
It's 2010 now.
Edit: 15th slide.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Lynneth

[Kankou]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1293425155' post='2554998']
According to that:
>>ETC
>>offers a medium-risk option dependent on technologies
>>that will mature within the next ten years.
It's 2010 now.
Edit: 15th slide.
[/quote]
Two points:

1. Slide 12 says ~2017.

2. That was assuming development was not stopped. It's like the US railgun: Because of little funding, what was supposed to be ready by 2020 has been put at ~2025.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1293424183' post='2554983']
ETC can be considered as a realistic replacement for current solid propellant guns [i]only[/i] when


@ Cochin: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Files/tanks.140mm-gun.kruse.pdf (check slide 12)

Of course this was from 10 years ago, but that was why Rheinmetall did not continue on with the program. Basically, even with a 120mm ETC, you're most likely only going to have the same power as a regular 120mm unless we can eitehr change the chemicals or find a better firing method.
[/quote]

@Kankou

Did you completely miss the very simple point that the comparison was between a 120mm ETC gun and a 140mm conventional gun? Those slides you have shown do not show comparison between a 120mm ETC powered gun versus [u][b]any[/b][/u] 120mm conventional gun, even an extended barrel version like Rheinmetal L55. Of course if you increase the calibre from 140 to 120 there would be significant advantages.

So please read better and provide better sources to substantiate your argument.

[Kankou]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1293427353' post='2555031']
@Kankou

Did you completely miss the very simple point that the comparison was between a 120mm ETC gun and a 140mm conventional gun? Those slides you have shown do not show comparison between a 120mm ETC powered gun versus [u][b]any[/b][/u] 120mm conventional gun, even an extended barrel version like Rheinmetal L55. Of course if you increase the calibre from 140 to 120 there would be significant advantages.

So please read better and provide better sources to substantiate your argument.
[/quote]

Estimated muzzle kinetic energy of the L55, firing the APFSDS DM 53 (LKE II) round, is around 18-20 megajoules (MJ). Link: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

I admit, I just remember the numbers and calculate. But then, you might just simply calculate the power of the L55: Given that a 120mm shell would be about 63% the weight of a 140mm shell, the muzzle energy would be around 16 MJ (25 MJ x 63% = 15.75 MJ).

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1293453387' post='2555221']
Estimated muzzle kinetic energy of the L55, firing the APFSDS DM 53 (LKE II) round, is around 18-20 megajoules (MJ). Link: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

I admit, I just remember the numbers and calculate. But then, you might just simply calculate the power of the L55: Given that a 120mm shell would be about 63% the weight of a 140mm shell, the muzzle energy would be around 16 MJ (25 MJ x 63% = 15.75 MJ).
[/quote]

Again you have kept on arguing why a 140mm gun is better than 120mm but not how an 120mm ETC gun is not better than an 120mm L55 gun or a 140mm ETC gun is not better than a 140mm conventional cannon.

Numbers and calculations are good, but they also need appropriate context. Still waiting to hear/see you prove how ETC gun of a caliber is not better than a conventionally fired gun of the same caliber.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='Margrave' timestamp='1293406119' post='2554729']
I need advice on small crafts that could be used in lieu of a naval force until I get the tech level for one. I'm talking about boats; sea-worthy, deployed in masse, perhaps even submersibles of some kind. I need something to fill that gap for rp purposes; and I'm sitting at 58 tech. Anyone got ideas?
[/quote]
PT Boats

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Margrave' timestamp='1293406119' post='2554729']
I need advice on small crafts that could be used in lieu of a naval force until I get the tech level for one. I'm talking about boats; sea-worthy, deployed in masse, perhaps even submersibles of some kind. I need something to fill that gap for rp purposes; and I'm sitting at 58 tech. Anyone got ideas?
[/quote]

[url="http://cnrp.wikia.com/wiki/Selenarctos_Naval_Force#Cyclone-class_Patrol_Ship"]Patrol Ship armed with exocets[/url], conveniently sold by Selenarctos

[SpacingOutMan]

Plasma ignition problems? There are a slew of methods to creating plasma with relative ease. Hell, you can make it in a microwave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Ptrwzj10M

Likewise, using a simple oxygenated (injected gaseous O[sub]2[/sub]) agar solution (agar being a suitable gradient to keep the non-conductive gas contained), and a radio transmitter, you can achieve [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating"]ohmic and stochastic heating[/url] via bombarding the solid solution (agar can be microwaved and set to cool, which solidifies after a relatively short amount of time depending on the volume) with the radio waves, which are a form of electromagnetic waves.

The reason why you use agar in this instance is that it is not a superconductor of heat, so it does [i]not[/i] defeat [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law"]Ohm's Law[/url], where excess energy in the form of heat is released via ohmic (resistive) heating, which is in line with the properties regarding stochastic heating. This electromagnetic wave has to be confined via a resonator cavity, but it allows the plasma to not exceed the critical density (this non-excess being known as the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonator_mode"]resonator mode[/url]), which allows it to be contained with better ease (e.g., the introduction of electricity will not create as much of an instability disturbance within the plasma).

Of course the application of an oxygenated-agar solution for the plasma required in an ETC cannon is unlikely, so I'll address the other key points of this.

First and foremost, the 140 mm cannon is hardly effective-proven. Why? First and foremost the 140 mm cannon, first implemented as a hard NATO counter to the rising Soviet threat during the 1980's, did not show any appreciable increase in muzzle velocity ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrothermal-chemical_technology#cite_note-3"]Ogorkiewicz, Future tank guns, p.1378[/url]). By the same coin, the increased weight was entirely disproportionate to the gains made, hence why ETC is, in almost every way, shape, and form, a better alternative to the 140 mm turret. And to bring up the German tank argument: the L55 for the German MBTs has been considered an interim weapon that is well-known to be incapable of handling future-technology tanks (Sharoni, The Future Combat System, p. 29). Likewise, for some reason it was completely disregarded that the 120 mm ETC gun tested by the U.S military yielded a 17 MJ of muzzle energy (Diamond, Electro Thermal Chemical Gun Technology Study, p.5). So yes, it [b]can[/b] be implied that this is a successful venture; just because (at the time of the test) the actual materials required weren't well understood for mass production (obviously they understood some sort of ignition system if they actually tested it...). And to boot, even Rheinmetall admitted that ETC cannons will, in fact, be the gun of the future for obvious reasons (Sauerwein, Rheinmetall's NPzK).

And there are no appreciable plasma ignition methods currently available for ETC technology? Look at the [url="http://www.emlsymposium.org/agenda.html"]EML symposium (May 2010)[/url] and look up the notes on the key speakers regarding plasma armature and ignition methods. You'll be quaintly surprised. [url="http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/etcgun.pdf"]The concepts have been known for more than a decade now[/url], where the Flashboard Large Area Emitter (FLARE) and radiative heating are deemed the optimal methods of plasma ignition. The "what is known" is very deceiving in that they are still experimenting with different gas gradients (noble gases and halogens as opposed to pressurized air). And I quote:

[center][quote]The major contributions to the ¯eld of electrothermal chemical gun modeling outlined in this work include: the development of a plasma-air chemistry model for electrothermal chemical gun application; simulations demonstrating the importance of plasma-air chemistry in electrothermal chemical gun experimental geometries; the development of a plasma-propellant interaction model for determination of the total heat °ux reaching the propellant bed; and the development of a collisional plasma sheath model for determination of the convective heat °ux reaching the propellant bed.[/quote][/center]
[sup]Source: [url="http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/60771"]Abstract, Porwitzky 2008[/url][/sup]

In the same [url="http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/60771/1/aporwitz_1.pdf"]dissertation (funded by the U.S Army)[/url], the reasons why ETC triumphs over conventional propellants becomes abundantly clear using the laws of physics. And with [url="http://www.ae.utexas.edu/~lraja/RajaVargheseWilson_Electrogun_model_IEEEMag_1997.pdf"]recent research[/url], the actual "materials" required for plasma ignition have been optimized when looking at SPETC modeled systems. The idea of using metals such as Aluminum or Copper have been further refined by other bits of r[url="https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/4010"]esearch [b]and[/b] comprehensive computer modeling and analysis[/url].

[url="http://www.powerlabs.org/electrothermal.htm"]Even PowerLabs managed to convert a 11.22 mm gun (.50 caliber rifle) into an ETC gun[/url]. [url="http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-04y.html"]And looking at the actual results of the 2004 U.S ARDEC experiment with their ETC guns[/url], I quote:

[center][quote]According to industry experts, ETC technology can significantly enhance accuracy of direct fire weapons, using pulsed power in conjunction with modified, fielded weapon systems and ammunition. The modification to the ammunition requires replacing the conventional igniter within the round with a plasma igniter. Plasma ignition significantly reduces the variations in projectile exit times. This increase in ignition control allows plasma ignition to become the critical element of an advanced fire control capability called “precision aiming.” Precision aiming uses gun muzzle position sensors, advanced fire control algorithms, and plasma ignition to virtually eliminate gun-pointing error. Reduction in pointing error increases accuracy, especially when the vehicle is moving and the pointing errors dominate.[/quote][/center]

And further advancements from [url="http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007gun_missile/GMTuePM2/SmithPresentation.pdf"]ARDEC have yielded even greater results with the XM325 ETC cannon as of 2007[/url], which include (as reported) the following headlining results:
[quote]
– ALLOWS LOADING OF ALL CURRENT 120 MM MORTAR AMMO WITHOUT
MODIFICATION
– PROVIDES ROUND POSITIONING AND FALLBACK PREVENTION
– HAS A SAFE, RELIABLE ROBUST IGNITION SYSTEM
– FEATURES A CAM PLATE FOR COUNTER RECOIL OPENING
– HAS BEEN TESTED WITH ELECTRICAL ACTUATOR
– HAS BEEN DESIGNED AND TESTED FOR HIGH RATES OF FIRE[/quote]

Just to note: there has been further research looking at the effectiveness of post-120 mm ETC cannon sizes, all of which have proved to be incredibly efficient ([url="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1398102"]one being a notable 155 mm looked at by QinetiQ Ltd. in the U.K[/url]).

So looking at the recent scientific evidence,

ETC > Conventional any day of the week.

Edited December 27, 2010 by SpacingOutMan

[Uberstein]

My only issue with ETC is the room needed for batteries and capacitors. ITDA knows more about that then I do though.

Edited December 27, 2010 by BaronUberstein

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' timestamp='1293487188' post='2555520']
My only issue with ETC is the room needed for batteries and capacitors. ITDA knows more about that then I do though.
[/quote]

I actually had a talk with Lynneth about something similar (not sure if you remember Lynneth?). Nanobatteries could, in theory, solve this problem in terms of the power generation. The main problem is that you need ultracapacitors that can provide such a high burst of electrical energy (assuming you are using electricity-based plasma ignition). In terms of energy density, capacitors pale in comparison to batteries, but in terms of power density, the opposite is true.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1293492910' post='2555599']
I actually had a talk with Lynneth about something similar (not sure if you remember Lynneth?). Nanobatteries could, in theory, solve this problem in terms of the power generation. The main problem is that you need ultracapacitors that can provide such a high burst of electrical energy (assuming you are using electricity-based plasma ignition). In terms of energy density, capacitors pale in comparison to batteries, but in terms of power density, the opposite is true.
[/quote]
Yeah, I remember. I'd shown you some stuff about them when I was the GDR, I think? Don't remember the details.

[Kankou]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1293459158' post='2555257']
Again you have kept on arguing why a 140mm gun is better than 120mm but not how an 120mm ETC gun is not better than an 120mm L55 gun or a 140mm ETC gun is not better than a 140mm conventional cannon.

Numbers and calculations are good, but they also need appropriate context. Still waiting to hear/see you prove how ETC gun of a caliber is not better than a conventionally fired gun of the same caliber.
[/quote]

Seems like you're misunderstanding me. My main point was that ETC is not some superweapon that will completely change the scales of war as Lynneth describes it. The most ETC will be doing is making the gun at most 1.5 times more powerful, and even then, the projects were cancelled because the best combination of chemicals and igniting systems have not been found. So basically, calling out Lynneth for his uber imagination.

Personally, I wouldn't mind strong ETCs, but I do mind when people make it stronger than it is possible or ignore the science behind it and say they just developed the best ETC technology.

[Kankou]

A personal question: How much of an explosion is needed to cause nuclear fusion? Would 50 tons of TNT worth of radiation be enough?

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1293510991' post='2555942']
Seems like you're misunderstanding me. My main point was that ETC is not some superweapon that will completely change the scales of war as Lynneth describes it. The most ETC will be doing is making the gun at most 1.5 times more powerful, and even then, the projects were cancelled because the best combination of chemicals and igniting systems have not been found. So basically, calling out Lynneth for his uber imagination.

Personally, I wouldn't mind strong ETCs, but I do mind when people make it stronger than it is possible or ignore the science behind it and say they just developed the best ETC technology.
[/quote]

Making a gun 1.5 times more powerful in terms of range and impact momentum indeed makes a weapon a super weapon. Can you imagine the battlefield implications of a weapon which with not much changes to existing logistics and support infrastructure increases the range and effectiveness of a weapons system by 50%???

As Lynneth has rightly said and Spacingoutman has substantiated upon, ETC is indeed a marvelous technology.

Revolutions in weapons technology need not present advancements of 200% or higher. 10% and 20% are cherished, 50% is simply awesome!!

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1293511042' post='2555944']
A personal question: How much of an explosion is needed to cause nuclear fusion? Would 50 tons of TNT worth of radiation be enough?
[/quote]


Nuclear fusion can be triggered by heat and/or pressure. It usually requires around 10[sup15][/sup] Joules of energy (if I am not wrong). For that sort of energy you would need upwards of hundreds of Kilotons of TNT of explosive power. 50 tons of TNT would not produce the heat/pressure to trigger nuclear fusion.

Also to trigger nuclear fusion you do not need radiation. Just heat and pressure.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1293514605' post='2555990']
Nuclear fusion can be triggered by heat and/or pressure. It usually requires around 10[sup15][/sup] Joules of energy (if I am not wrong). For that sort of energy you would need upwards of hundreds of Kilotons of TNT of explosive power. 50 tons of TNT would not produce the heat/pressure to trigger nuclear fusion.

Also to trigger nuclear fusion you do not need radiation. Just heat and pressure.
[/quote]

[i]Technically[/i] you do need radiation to trigger modernized thermonuclear warheads as they aren't solely fusion bombs; they are a fission-fusion-fission hybrid warhead that utilizes a 3-step process (more or less). A pure fusion nuclear trigger isn't nearly as effective last I checked (especially with a modified hydrogen isotope core such as tritium as opposed to deuterium). Anyways (side-tangent is irrelevant, but I just thought I'd share), you do need radiative heat and pressure.

As for the tonnage required to initiate the warhead, it largely depends on the initiator, tamper, and the type of ignition material you are using. But I can tell you, without a doubt, that 50 tons won't cut it at all. You are looking, at a minimum, tens of kilotons, if not the hundreds of kilotons Cochin mentioned (and yes, ~10^15 is around the amount of energy (J) required to initiate fusion of most conventional fusion materials; some require less energy, though, as they are far more reactive and yield a much greater exothermic reaction).

[king of cochin]

Fission Fusion Fission being a effective weapon design, is fission and radiation really necessary for fusion in so far as a laboratory fusion is concerned? If you have an alternate method for generating the heat and pressure for fusion without fission, is radiation needed?

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1293515531' post='2556002']
Fission Fusion Fission being a effective weapon design, is fission and radiation really necessary for fusion in so far as a laboratory fusion is concerned? If you have an alternate method for generating the heat and pressure for fusion without fission, is radiation needed?
[/quote]

Yea, I was just speaking out of technicality for the sake of weapons design. Obviously fusion in general doesn't require fission or radiation (since radiation is the due product of fission).

[HHAYD]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1293513695' post='2555982']
Making a gun 1.5 times more powerful in terms of range and impact momentum indeed makes a weapon a super weapon. Can you imagine the battlefield implications of a weapon which with not much changes to existing logistics and support infrastructure increases the range and effectiveness of a weapons system by 50%???

As Lynneth has rightly said and Spacingoutman has substantiated upon, ETC is indeed a marvelous technology.

Revolutions in weapons technology need not present advancements of 200% or higher. 10% and 20% are cherished, 50% is simply awesome!!
[/quote]
The question is, whats the installation and maintenance costs of a ETC cannon? I'm fine with an upgraded cannon, but I don't pay for one that will rival the cost of the tank itself and/or 50% monthly failure rates.

Edited December 28, 2010 by HHAYD

[Kankou]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1293513695' post='2555982']
Making a gun 1.5 times more powerful in terms of range and impact momentum indeed makes a weapon a super weapon. Can you imagine the battlefield implications of a weapon which with not much changes to existing logistics and support infrastructure increases the range and effectiveness of a weapons system by 50%???

As Lynneth has rightly said and Spacingoutman has substantiated upon, ETC is indeed a marvelous technology.

Revolutions in weapons technology need not present advancements of 200% or higher. 10% and 20% are cherished, 50% is simply awesome!!
[/quote]

Well, from what Lynneth usually makes, I usually think he's trying to make some 200% more powerful stuff. So yeah, seems we're on the same brainwaves. Now, to get my own ETC


[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1293514605' post='2555990']
Nuclear fusion can be triggered by heat and/or pressure. It usually requires around 10[sup15][/sup] Joules of energy (if I am not wrong). For that sort of energy you would need upwards of hundreds of Kilotons of TNT of explosive power. 50 tons of TNT would not produce the heat/pressure to trigger nuclear fusion.

Also to trigger nuclear fusion you do not need radiation. Just heat and pressure.
[/quote]

Heat is a form or radiation (IR)

Anyway, thanks. I've been trying to develop a non-nuclear fusion bomb, but seems like it's impossible.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1293517871' post='2556028']
Heat is a form or radiation (IR)

Anyway, thanks. I've been trying to develop a non-nuclear fusion bomb, but seems like it's impossible.
[/quote]

It depends on context; radiation can either be infrared heat or nuclear radiation, which is the sudden release of nucleons from the nucleus (generally neutrons). And yes, non-nuclear fusion is, indeed, impractical.

[Uberstein]

What's with the nanotechnology in CNRP as of late? I remember when people laughed at the the word Nano around here.

Maybe I'm just tired and confused, but it would be great if the boundaries were cleared up for me.