|
Post by Sam. on Mar 15, 2022 13:57:24 GMT
Roger that.
I will have some time on the weekend to redesign the test ship per your material suggestions, crew modeule PE or UHMWPE fiber probably unless I can get a satisfactory shape with plain PE. The game simulates the atmospheric pressure inside so certain shapes (wide and flat) are unusable with weaker materials. I have a spreadsheet setup to record it all and do the calculations, as well as redesigned the railgun to fire quicker to make the tests as short as possible. I will try PE or UHMWPE fiber for the bulk layer but I do worry that the poor temperature resistance may make it insignificant against the superheated plasma remains of the projectile after it impacts the shipple. but we shall see. maybe it will result in a more definitive test as opposed to testing how many shots on average it takes the gun to hit the same spot 2/3 times.
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Mar 15, 2022 14:15:05 GMT
Oh yeah I never posted anything on the workshop and I never downloaded anyone elses designs either, just used information from the threads here and on steam.
My laser designs start at 15MW, I use the near UV from Ruby/Liquid Holmium, generally to not be quite so ridiculous of the the extreme UV from Cerellium/Liquid Gold. Mirror sizes range from 2'8" to 8'4" (81.28cm to 2.54m) diameter. The Ruby/Holmium designs go up to 150MW at the biggest, the Cerellium/Gold up to 75MW and are just insane.
The current smallest of my ships weigh + cost under half the Gunship, have 3x 25MW Ruby Holmium lasers and 5x turrets. With a little micro weapon management 1 of those frigates can defeat 10x Gunships, though they use a missile firing coilgun to soak the Gunships lasers while I spend a few minutes melting off all their mirror turrets at about 500km. After that I can carry on melting everything else off, or core them one at a time with the unhindered missiles, throw a missile bus at them and swat several in one missile swarm, or quite often let them get close and see if my limited number of kinetics can pick them off before their large numbers of kinetics overwhelm my 1 small vessel.
Invariably I lose if do that, though my armour scheme does hold up pretty well for a time, just my limited number of weapons are quite quickly destroyed, plus radiators etc. After that it's just a matter of time before the armour fails and internal modules are rapidly destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by cipherpunks on Mar 16, 2022 12:25:59 GMT
Guys, it may be that I misclicked & erroneously deleted 1 good post from this thread while deleting robot spam posts. If that is so - please excuse me, was not intentional.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Mar 16, 2022 23:41:55 GMT
Guys, it may be that I misclicked & erroneously deleted 1 good post from this thread while deleting robot spam posts. If that is so - please excuse me, was not intentional. That was my post about body armor
|
|
|
Post by sage on Mar 17, 2022 0:25:58 GMT
Yeah I have alternated PBO fiber and Spider Silk and from playing (not testing) found no discernable difference. PBO fiber probably has better cost to weight ratio, just a little heavier. Echos upgraded 30mm heavy coil slow 5kg slugs appear to be excellent at causing catastrophic spalling on hard bulk layers, and making massive holes in anything else. The hard bulk layer is obviously a mass concern so making it much thicker isn't really viable, but I think that would be the only way to really protect against heavy slow projectiles. Perhaps the spall liner should be a lot thicker? I use the UHWMPE fiber light bulk because of an assumption it's roughly analagous to contemporary body armour against small arms. As good as a much thinner steel plate but a lot lighter. I might well be wrong, in body armour the fiber is probably a substrate with some sort of resin filler? I don't really know - but the high yield and ultimate tensile 3.9 GPa seems to suggest it is similar. I do struggle to intuitively visualise what the various structural properties mean when combined. Nickel Phosphorous Micro Lattice is an intriguing material. The very low density worries me for bulk armour, but it may work better than my UHMWPE fiber. The mass saving would be very significant. I was looking more into PBO fiber and found the following on wiki. Zylon "generic usage, the fiber is referred to as PBO" But one of it use is body armor see in the link. Now I have always used it a spall liner. But after talking to you, I think we should us it as bulk armor, as you use UHWMPE fiber as bulk armor. UHWMPE fiber density is 970 kg/m 3 and has a price of 332 c/kg with a yield strength of 3.90 GPa and ultimate tensile strength of 3.90 GPa. Because the yield strength and the ultimate tensile strength are the same, the material does not bend, but does break when it its 3.90Ga. Material that do not bend, do not absorb kinetic energy, which leads to spalling. PBO fiber density is 1540 kg/m3 and has a price of 94.7 c/kg with a yield strength of 550 MPa and ultimate tensile strength of 5.80 GPa. The high difference between yield strength and the ultimate tensile strength, will cause most of the kinetic energy to be absorbed. I see what you are trying to do here. You are using the nitrile Rubber as Non-explosive reactive armor, in which you use the thermal expansion of a material to make it thicker when it becomes heated. Which is the same ideal used in explosive reactive armour in which a explosive plate is set off by heat and it expansion make the plate thicker. But I see a problem with your set up. Think of a Whipple shield as Spaced armour in space. And you can think of stuffed Whipple shield as Spaced armor with ballistic gel in the space between the plate and the hull. Now based on your set up think of the hull of the tank having Non-explosive reactive armor on it. So the set up would be outer plate, then ballistic gel, then Non-explosive reactive armor, and finally hull of the tank. So now here the problem, where does the Non-explosive reactive armor have to expansion in to? There is nowhere for it to expansion as it is between the hull and the ballistic gel. Also, the Non-explosive reactive armor would have to be heated by something. And a lot of the heat would be absorbed by the ballistic gel, with very little left to use for thermal expansion of the Non-explosive reactive armor. So it may be that the game does model it correctly, but you set up has issues. It ingenious ideal as Rubber is used in Non-explosive reactive armor . There are two ways to solve it though. One is to add the nitrile Rubber to the outside of the Whipple shield where it would have room to thermal expanded. The second is have it replace Graphite aerogel, as stuffing material. Which would turn the armor in our ships into one big Non-explosive reactive armor plate. Base on this we should add two more material to our test list. Here is our test list updated Aluminum (base line as last test had an Mean - 33.12 ) Aluminum Tempered (base line check as last test had an Mean - 33.33 ) Magnesium (to see difference between Magnesium and Magnesium Aluminum Zinc) Titanium (to see difference between Titanium and Alpha-2 Titanium Aluminide) Copper Tempered (do it Mean being 36.12 as it is as high a Magnesium, Mean - 36.47) nitrile Rubber (use as Non-explosive reactive armor) Alpha-2 Titanium Aluminide (based on the paper I noted before. by the way does anyone know why only Alpha-2 shows up and not any other TiAl?) Magnesium Aluminum Zinc (base on player feed back, and the paper I noted before, which I would like to know why we are using MgAlZn and not MgAl) Titanium Carbide (As I have been working on a new armoring ideal, and we both came to the same answer) Zirconium Carbide (to see if Echo is on to something) Titanium Dioxide (I need to double check something that will result form this test)
|
|
sammi79
New Member
I'll get it done now, in a minute.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sammi79 on Mar 19, 2022 10:17:02 GMT
OK gonna try to do some testing. I have changed the basic setup as follows;
The bulk layer will be UHMWPE fiber 10mm, as the densest form of PE available. I'm not sure about fiber modelling in game nor radiation shielding properties, but the extra density theoretically should improve that a little. This will be the no whipple baseline.
I am going to try 2 different baselines first. First the crew module made from Silicon Carbide 10mm (minimum thickness). It is strong enough to hold the 1 atmosphere pressure in the wide flat shape, has good temperature resistance and is weak enough to be immediately defeated by unvapourised projectiles. It also glows nicely when heated up. Second I will try PE as per your comments regarding the radiation shielding properties and then compare the 2 before deciding on the combined crew module material and bulk layer baseline with no whipple moving forward.
Some interesting points regarding the different materials I have tried without any armour layers at all; the crew module cannot be thinner than 10mm, and anything with very low temperature resistance annoyingly doesn't seem to be particularly affected by the vapourised projectile plasma at that thickness. A rough pattern patch appears that would be equivalent to the glowing patch on a more heat resistant material, but it doesn't appear to get defeated any easier. This is only testable with PET variants at minimum thickness as fibers are not useable for sealed modules, and PE or UHMWPE do not have the physical strength to contain the 1 atmosphere at the minimum thickness, but they both do at exactly 6.52cm - At this thickness and at practically perpendicular impact angle, PE is defeated in 1 hit from my 11.8g 7.62x11.43mm projectile, but UHMWPE always takes 2, even though it almost never hits the same spot.
Which is just weird.
Another oddity is that I already made the fuel tank from PE, it can have a much more rounded shape than the crew module and the fuel is D²0 though I do not know what the minimum thickness is, since it only allows to specify 'extra' armour thickness. I have a feeling the minimum thickness is variable set by how much is required to contain the fuel at standard (whatever that is) pressure, because that thing stands up to well in excess of 10 hits with these projectiles every time.
And that got me thinking about what we are filling the fuel tanks with as we pump out the fuel, or deflating bladder type tanks etc. (but that's for another thread I think)
And one more oddity although this is probably somehwat sensible; when I put a thin (5-10mm) single layer of armour on, the crew module becomes a nice visible disc to catch the remains of whatever passes through the armour layer. at the 30° angle I have chosen (most of my regular designs have a much shallower 10-20° slope anyway) the armour refracts nearly every vapourised projectile to a different side of the 'disc' although not without some significant random variation. The bizarre thing is that it appears to mostly refract in a symmetrical fashion, but not straightforward opposite more like in quadrants or hexagonal symmetry. I guess this is a quirk of the simulation mathematical simplification.
Also with this one armour layer, UHMWPE fiber produces a really impressive spread of the projectile plasma, compared to most of the other things we are testing, and so far Boron Carbide is the only thing I've found that produces the same spread - nearly a whole radius of the crew module disc (bearing in mind the point of the cone is 25 meters from the flat disc of the crew module)
Anyway I'm going to test the 2 baselines today I will report the results later on, then tomorrow we can decide which would be better for the new set of whipple tests.
|
|
sammi79
New Member
I'll get it done now, in a minute.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sammi79 on Mar 19, 2022 13:05:41 GMT
Ok so the preliminary baseline tests are complete. UHMWPE fiber 10mm bulk layer no whipple. # Shots to destroy Crew module. Crew Module - Silicon Carbide 10mm 101 samples / Range (42-2) - 40 / Mean - 16.46 / Median - 15 Crew Module - Polyethylene 6.52cm 101 samples / Range (39-2) - 37 / Mean - 15.91 / Median - 15 Polyethylene 6.52cm is ~ 16% heavier and ~ 2% more expensive than Silicon Carbide 10mm as well as seemingly just slightly worse overall but it's so close after 101 samples, I don't think it really would make much difference. So I'll probably go with Silicon Carbide for the rest of the tests, just for the visual indicator of heat damage. I don't mind though so if you really want me to go with PE or UHMWPE for the crew module then let me know, it will take roughly twice as long to do 101 whipple tests per material so it won't be much of a bind to restart them if I haven't done too many already. Of course changing the bulk layer would mean doing the baseline again but that is relatively quick now 45 - 60 minutes or so.
[edit] there is Titanium Aluminium Zinc, Titanium Aluminium Tin and Gamma Titanium Aluminde for other possible TiAl alloys tests.
[edit 2] While testing just had a thought about the visible hot patches, could it be caused by fine spalling ? like nothing big enough to puncture the layer but enough particles with energy to heat it up, which is worrying me because if so there's no real way to tell whether the heat came from plasma or spalling, it could also mean a bigger patch doesn't necessarily mean a better spread of plasma, just more spalling particles ><
[edit 3] OK this setup doesn't work properly. Alpha-2 Titanium Aluminide gave decent results, but eveything else I've tried after that is almost no better than no whipple, including Aluminium which we know works pretty well. This is a pain as I've run about 400 tests that are now wasted >< OK, time to change the base layer. I will make the crew module UHMWPE 6.52cm and the base bulk will be Silicon Carbide. Standby for new baseline.
|
|
sammi79
New Member
I'll get it done now, in a minute.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sammi79 on Mar 19, 2022 20:39:34 GMT
Right, new baseline Crew Module is UHMWPE 6.52cm, bulk layer is Silicon Carbide 10mm, no whipple. This setup has produced the most consistent baseline with the smallest range yet. Hopefully this will mean the materials tests won't be getting thrown off.
101 samples / Range (35-4) = 31 / Mean - 16.70 / Median - 16
I've spent long enough on this today, I might record one more set tonight but I'll dig in to the rest tomorrow.
|
|
sammi79
New Member
I'll get it done now, in a minute.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sammi79 on Mar 20, 2022 15:52:40 GMT
OK I have tested 5 materials now so I'll put the results in this post, these test are taking a fair bit longer, larger numbers and ranges which I'd hoped would tease out any differences in the specific material used for the whipple. As I have the time I will update this post with further sets as requested plus some more of my own up until a point, because it is becoming apparent that this is nearly impossible to reliably test. I'll explain afterwards. All results recorded from 101 individual samples. Monolithic Elements; Aluminium (Al) produces a small hotspot on the bulk layer ~ 2x1 panels Range (88 -14) = 74 / Mean - 49.22 / Median 49 Alloys; α2-Titanium Aluminide produces a very large hotspot on the bulk layer ~ 5x4 panels Range (91 -19) = 72 / Mean - 48.67 / Median 48 ß-Titanium (alloy ?) produces a very small hotspot on the bulk layer ~ 1x panel Range (99 -18) = 81 / Mean - 50.97 / Median 49 γ-Titanium Aluminide produces a large hotspot on the bulk layer ~ 3x3 panels Range (105-15) = 90 / Mean - 49.60 / Median 48 Titanium Aluminium Tin (TiAlSn) produces a small hotspot on the bulk layer ~ 2x1 panels Range (97 -16) = 91 / Mean - 50.41 / Median 51 Temporary conclusion and problems. All the numbers are very close, within a few percent which could be considered identical within a margin of error, either when counting each hit and ignoring misses etc. over 100+ separate shots, or when recording into the spreadsheet each time. I have done my best to be careful but it is certain I have made some mistakes. When the ranges are this large, to be really confident I'd have to double the sample size at least, which would of course double the time it takes. Now I will do 101 samples for more alloys, more monolitic elements as well as ceramics and possibly some hard fibers / organics / non metals as I find the time and I will update this post, I do expect some materials will perform significantly or slightly worse - but I really don't think anything will perform this sort of test any better. And here is the crux of the problem. When we ask, which material is best for a whipple, what are we testing for? because almost any material that is thin and ductile enough to avoid shattering or major spalling, that has some density; will vapourise a small high velocity projectile. In this test, the projectile has identical energy each time, (11.8g / 2) x (29.5km/s ^²) = 5.14 Mj - That energy is going to be transferred into the target every time, whether in kinetic impact or vapourised plasma heat, and ultimately what these test are showing me is something other than any specific property of the whipple material; namely how many shots on average does my gun take to hit the same armour panel (in this case) 4-5 times. The first hit holes the whipple, and abrasively heats up however many panels of the bulk behind it. the 2nd hit punctures the damaged bulk layer. The 3rd hit bounces off the UHMWPE 6.52cm wall of the crew module and the 4th - or any subsequent hit on the crew module destroys it. some times the bulk or the whipple manage to stop or vapourise an extra shot. I have watched this happen over again again exactly 505 times now. The only difference significant between the materials (so far) is how many panels of the bulk layer get damaged by the vapourised projectile and/or spalling & shattered fragments and this seems counter intuitive, like a bigger spread would be better, the energy dissapated over a larger area, unfortunatley there is no way to tell what sort of damage is occuring and I strongly suspect the much larger areas are taking significant damages from fragments or spalling, not the plasma from the projectile. This results in a sort of inverse proportion relationship where the more panels get damaged making failures more likely over a larger area, so that area then is less effective, even if individual panels take slightly less damage. End result? no difference as you can see from the results. Occasionally when multiple hits around the same area but not quite on the same panel with α2-Titanium Aluminide, subsequent hits have caused large and/or multiple sections of the armour to fail all at once in one hit.
It's also quite frustrating, for example Titanium Aluminium Tin had a mean of 52.5+ after about 75% samples complete. I try to remain objective but it was encouraging to hope that maybe some materials do perform better overall beyond a margin of error, even if just a small amount. Then the final 25 tests just dropped it all back in line with the rest. The Median is the only clue that maybe on a bigger sample size, it might be a little better? There are of course a lot more materials to test
So unless anyone can think of a better way of testing whipple materials that isn't just testing the spread on the gun, I am going to do a set 101 samples for each of maybe 10-15 more materials over the next couple weeks time allowing then call it a day.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Mar 23, 2022 19:50:15 GMT
Crew Module - Silicon Carbide 10mm 101 samples / Range (42-2) - 40 / Mean - 16.46 / Median - 15 Crew Module - Polyethylene 6.52cm 101 samples / Range (39-2) - 37 / Mean - 15.91 / Median - 15
Sorry for the late replay, there has been a lot of problems at work. So, when we changed the crew model's material, the average number of rounds that where needed to destroy the module increased. It was 11.73 before and is now 15. Or around 16 with UHMWPE 6.52cm. That almost a 50% increase in the number of rounds needed to destroy the crew module. Does that throw off the results you got earlier for just metal materials? Ok, now on to your results. There seems to be little difference between aluminum and any alloy that use it. Which does not match what I read in that NASA paper I showed you earlier. Material | Weight | Cost | Aluminum | 2700 kg/m3 | 4.24 c/kg | α2-Titanium Aluminide | 4200 kg/m3 | 18.8 c/kg | ß-Titanium | 4690 kg/m3 | 33.3 c/kg | γ-Titanium Aluminide | 3910 kg/m3 | 14.5 c/kg | Titanium Aluminum Tin | 4480 kg/m3 | 21.7 c/kg | Titanium Aluminum Zinc | Which mod are you using for this one? | Which mod are you using for this one? |
Wait where is Titanium Aluminum Zinc results? But based on these results, we would be better off with Aluminum as a whipple shield, based on weight and cost. By the way on there is a table function on the section as bullet point, and justify text left, right and center. When you create post it one of the tools between text control and links. I will add these 3 to some math I have been doing on my end.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Mar 23, 2022 20:13:21 GMT
And here is the crux of the problem. When we ask, which material is best for a whipple, what are we testing for? because almost any material that is thin and ductile enough to avoid shattering or major spalling, that has some density; will vapourise a small high velocity projectile. In this test, the projectile has identical energy each time, (11.8g / 2) x (29.5km/s ^²) = 5.14 Mj - That energy is going to be transferred into the target every time, whether in kinetic impact or vapourised plasma heat, and ultimately what these test are showing me is something other than any specific property of the whipple material; namely how many shots on average does my gun take to hit the same armour panel (in this case) 4-5 times.
Right now we are only testing against Sand Casters, or what everyone else calls Sand Blasters. Rail guns or coil guns that shot very small round that are about 1 gram in mass at hundred km ranges, at high velocity, with a very high rate of fire. Whipple shield were designed to stop these kinds of weapons. I was able to find and mod 3 Sand Casters, to have ranges from 100 km to 500 km. Laser have a set range, but they max out in both the game and real world around 1Mm or 1000km. Note that I call them Sand Casters, as it would be easier for new player to search for as a lot of pf wrong result return if you use Sand Blasters There is a second element to the best Whipple shield, and that it to stop flash nuke. Flash nuke are low yield nuclear weapons, a kiloton or less, that are designed to destroy Whipple shields, so they can attack the crew modules under the armor. Right now, I'm running the numbers on which material would work best against the Sand Casters flash nuke comb.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Mar 23, 2022 20:27:41 GMT
Oh yeah I never posted anything on the workshop and I never downloaded anyone elses designs either, just used information from the threads here and on steam. My laser designs start at 15MW, I use the near UV from Ruby/Liquid Holmium, generally to not be quite so ridiculous of the the extreme UV from Cerellium/Liquid Gold. Mirror sizes range from 2'8" to 8'4" (81.28cm to 2.54m) diameter. The Ruby/Holmium designs go up to 150MW at the biggest, the Cerellium/Gold up to 75MW and are just insane. The current smallest of my ships weigh + cost under half the Gunship, have 3x 25MW Ruby Holmium lasers and 5x turrets. With a little micro weapon management 1 of those frigates can defeat 10x Gunships, though they use a missile firing coilgun to soak the Gunships lasers while I spend a few minutes melting off all their mirror turrets at about 500km. After that I can carry on melting everything else off, or core them one at a time with the unhindered missiles, throw a missile bus at them and swat several in one missile swarm, or quite often let them get close and see if my limited number of kinetics can pick them off before their large numbers of kinetics overwhelm my 1 small vessel. Invariably I lose if do that, though my armour scheme does hold up pretty well for a time, just my limited number of weapons are quite quickly destroyed, plus radiators etc. After that it's just a matter of time before the armour fails and internal modules are rapidly destroyed. Based on what you told me your pumping Efficiency should be around 44.5%. Cerellium is that what they call CE:LLF? if you don't like Cerellium/Liquid Gold you could also try Cerellium/Molten Tin. Cerellium/Liquid Gold pumping Efficiency 54.4% Cerellium/Molten Tin pumping Efficiency 49.3% Ruby/Liquid Holmium pumping Efficiency 44.5% Alexandrite/Liquid Holmium 42% Cerellium/Liquid Bismuth 31.3%
|
|
|
Post by cipherpunks on Mar 23, 2022 21:34:47 GMT
All these materials have sufficiently different density. But in your tests, thickness is constant at 5mm. Wouldn't it be more useful to test with constant armor mass?
|
|
sammi79
New Member
I'll get it done now, in a minute.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sammi79 on Mar 25, 2022 18:59:04 GMT
Eyup folks.
Aha I just found the 'Reply' button thanks Sage. I was only using the quick reply at the bottom of the thread.
Yes, however this is mainly because I am using UHMWPE instead of plain PE. As I noted before the 6.52cm UHMWPE wall on the crew module with no armour layers at all always requires 2 hits to kill. Which is weird, because the gun is innacurate and rarely hits the same spot twice in a row. This is one of the troubles I am having regarding the accuracy of the simulation and the inability to properly observe damage. The same width of PE (required to contain the 1 atmosphere pressure) only requires 1, as does 10mm Silicon Carbide, Amorphous Carbon, or pretty much any other brittle material. But I choose UHMWPE because the density should theoretically make it a better radiation shield, and using Silicon Carbide as a bulk layer as otherwise the distance from the whipple is inconsistent plus it is even harder to assess damage on module 'armour'. Decided it doesn't make a lot of difference because it always gets killed in 2 hits, no matter what.
It's one of the reasons I used the unrealistic? AC originally, as I think proper testing requires specific individual metrics. If we are testing whipple effectiveness it doesn't matter what the crew module is made out of as long as it is reliably killed when the armour layers fail. Ultimately though trying to get a good baseline it is nice to at least attempt a realistic setup so, because the UHWPE requires consistently 2 hits, this is reliable, and since it increases the overall range and averages it should theoretically be more sensitive to minor differences in the tested whipple material. Huh that appears to be my mistake, I thought I saw it listed but it doesn't appear to exist.
Actually that's my mistake again. It's Cerellium doped Lutetium Lithium Flouride fiber?
But yeah my Ruby liquid Holmium designs have 44.5% pumping efficiency, overall about 35% The last improvement I made for them was making the cavity wall and internal mirror both Magnesium I think. I designed most of these a long while ago now, I had an intention to make a new campaign against a new standardised military fleet - I was concerned that if they used the CE:LLF/liquid Gold then their lasers simply wouldn't be beatable. Honestly a few of the big (75MW) CE:LLF designs can melt a gunship laser turret at 1000Km in a fraction of a second.
Possibly. I don't know, in principle I tried to make sure that the only change is in the whipple material to limit differences that would come from any other variables changing. But it seems it might be resonable next step to see if there is a better way to test.
I have some time this weekend, so I'll update with more results tomorrow.
|
|
sammi79
New Member
I'll get it done now, in a minute.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sammi79 on Mar 26, 2022 21:28:09 GMT
OK next set of results consolidated # hits to kill crew module -
Monolithic Elements 101 samples ;
Material 5mm @ 1m
| Hotspot # Panels
| Min | Max | Range
| Mean | Median | Aluminium (Al)
| ~2
| 14
| 88
| 74
| 49.22
| 49
| Aluminium Tempered
| ~2
| 17
| 78
| 61
| 48.90
| 49
| Copper Tempered (Cu)
| ~2
| 21
| 90
| 69
| 52.19
| 53
| Magnesium (Mg)
| ~1.5
| 12
| 88
| 76
| 46.92
| 46
| Titanium (Ti)
| ~2
| 18
| 81
| 63
| 49.72
| 49
|
Alloys 101 samples ; Material 5mm @ 1m | Hotspot # Panels | Min | Max
| Range
| Mean | Median
| α2-Titanium Aluminide
| ~15
| 19
| 91
| 72
| 48.67
| 48
| ß-Titanium
| ~1
| 18
| 99
| 81
| 50.97
| 49
| γ-Titanium Aluminide
| ~10
| 15
| 105
| 90
| 49.60
| 48
| Titanium Aluminium Tin
| ~2
| 16
| 97
| 91
| 50.41
| 51
| Aluminium Zinc Magnesium
| ~1.5
| 10
| 98
| 88
| 48.62
| 47
|
Hotspot # panels is just a rough average to compare the sizes of the spread material. For next steps I will make new a new table for Ceramics/non-metals, then I can just add to them as I go. I think maybe 10 materials total in each group would be a good number, and maybe a 4th table for hard Fibers/organics later. and then possibly increase sample sizes on anything that seems significantly better.
Tempered Copper is leading at the moment but it's heavy. Magnesium appears to be less effective in this setup which I think (hope) is pointing at fairly realistic results.
One thought I'm having now is that my .30" projectiles are pretty large for the test, It would be good to try the .20" which is 3.5g - as well as perhaps the 1 gram .132" although I would need to redesign the base armour to keep the counts down. I don't fancy counting past ~100 for each sample. As it stands now I can do 101 samples in about an hour if I work intensively. Which is just about the limit I'm willing to do in one go.
|
|