|
|
Post by teeth on May 4, 2017 19:44:58 GMT
I notice that graphite aerogel is far better than boron despite boron having a massively higher strength to weight ratio (it was about 18 kpa per kg for graphogel, 1500 kpa per kg for boron). Switching from boron to graphogel only lets me shave off one or two centimeters of thickness to get the same accuracy despite adding massively to cost and weight. Additionally, the armor thickness greatly effects reload time. With the gun I'm currently looking at, 1 cm of barrel armor takes 11.5 kw to gets 250 ms reload time, whereas the 4.7 cm I use for it needs 40 kw. I think the boron vs graphite think might be due to the insane thickness helping it a lot, if that's the case I say we should get an option to make our supporting structure partially hollow by breaking it up into trusses. I'm pretty sure the reload time thing is a bug and that needs to be looked at.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on May 4, 2017 20:17:10 GMT
I notice that graphite aerogel is far better than boron despite boron having a massively higher strength to weight ratio (it was about 18 kpa per kg for graphogel, 1500 kpa per kg for boron). Switching from boron to graphogel only lets me shave off one or two centimeters of thickness to get the same accuracy despite adding massively to cost and weight. Additionally, the armor thickness greatly effects reload time. With the gun I'm currently looking at, 1 cm of barrel armor takes 11.5 kw to gets 250 ms reload time, whereas the 4.7 cm I use for it needs 40 kw. I think the boron vs graphite think might be due to the insane thickness helping it a lot, if that's the case I say we should get an option to make our supporting structure partially hollow by breaking it up into trusses. I'm pretty sure the reload time thing is a bug and that needs to be looked at. The center of volume/mass of the graphite aerogel is further away from the barrel than the center of volume/mass of the boron from the barrel. Thus, greater help against beam deflection stress. This is exactly why we need barrel fins: not for heat management, but as a more weight-effective means to battle beam deflection stress and get a more rigid barrel. |
|
|
|
Post by teeth on May 4, 2017 21:01:08 GMT
The center of volume/mass of the graphite aerogel is further away from the barrel than the center of volume/mass of the boron from the barrel. Thus, greater help against beam deflection stress. This is exactly why we need barrel fins: not for heat management, but as a more weight-effective means to battle beam deflection stress and get a more rigid barrel. I say we get a 3 layer composite barrel system, the rail, the armor that we have now, and finally the fins. That way the armor can be thick enough to stop the barrel from rupturing while the fins deal with deflection stress. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on May 5, 2017 4:43:00 GMT
The center of volume/mass of the graphite aerogel is further away from the barrel than the center of volume/mass of the boron from the barrel. Thus, greater help against beam deflection stress. This is exactly why we need barrel fins: not for heat management, but as a more weight-effective means to battle beam deflection stress and get a more rigid barrel. I say we get a 3 layer composite barrel system, the rail, the armor that we have now, and finally the fins. That way the armor can be thick enough to stop the barrel from rupturing while the fins deal with deflection stress. I proposed a thread for this. |
|
