|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 12, 2017 19:01:44 GMT
It won't work in a practical sense because it won't go off without a 1kg computer package. I have made a thread complaining about just that.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 12, 2017 11:48:18 GMT
Ok, this discussion strayed from its initial topic and I am sorry about that. I have a question though: since most of the stock materials, including boron filament you mention in the title are dielectric, is the purpose of this thread to use some modded porous materials as railgun armatures? No, rather to allow the use of such materials that are already in the game. I see no point in adding a duplicate boron filament material because the game won't let me use the normal one. The thread is meant to point this out and ask if there are any issues with the idea. As such you were completely right to point out your concerns and even if the conclusion wasn't on topic the discussion most certainly was. As for materials being dielectric: all materials are inevitably dielectric (save for vacuum and perhaps neutron degenerate matter). This should of course be modeled in game. Gating materials to avoid the problem is not a solution and railguns should certainly check if the voltage across rails and projectile is large enough for either to decompose.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 12, 2017 8:58:40 GMT
shiolle very true, but as you said this has nothing to do with the material. As such it's not really relevant, because my point is that there is no reason to exclude fibrous/porous materials from railguns because all relevant properties are given. The problems you bring up are relevant to railguns in general, not microstructured materials specifically.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 12, 2017 8:31:57 GMT
As for the picture: If that is the entirety of the armature, the complex shape of the armature will of course cause different heating across the armature. This is due to the shape of the armature however, not the material. Heating across a microstructured material will be almost uniform, if one regards a conducter that is large in scale compared to the micro structure. Isn't there a reason why they prefer this shape of the armature when they construct railguns? It seems like both General Atomics and these guys chose similar shapes. Why is that if they could increase efficiency by choosing a different shape? If you have an aerogel with a pore size of ~1nm a cube of side length of 1mm with a voltage applied across to opposing sides so that a current flows the resistive heating will be pretty uniform. I don't think it will. There are things like surface effect for example that causes uneven flow of current across the material and thus uneven heating. I gave you two articles and in neither of them current running through a material that was, as you like to say, "large in scale compared to the micro structure", caused even heating. Now I would like to see some proof of what you are saying. 1. Yes, there is a very good reason why armatrure shapes akin to this are chosen. The strakes at the side are to prevent arking as far as I'm aware (see this site). As for the curved design see this thread. This has nothing to do with the material an armature is made of however. 2. In the artical about the electric heater, the current is aplied form a central to an outer conducter, and travels outward from the center to the edge of the foam cylinder. This means the volume the current travels through as it nears the edge of the cylinder is much larger than at the center. For materials that heat up homogunously from resistive heating, heating is dependant on current per volume. This means one would expect significantly less heating as one aproaches the edge of the cylinder, which is exactly the results found in the paper. The high temperatrures at the center of the element have nothing to do with the material, but rather with the design of the heater.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 11, 2017 19:45:58 GMT
Please gieve context to that image, I can't tell what it is, or properly read the scale. Also note that I stated that the structure of the material needs to be sufficiently small compared to the projectile itself. The image does not seem to show a sub structure that is small compared to the overall size. The image shows a 3d model; the original armature they were modeling was a made of solid metal. On the diagram max temperature is three times higher than min temperature. Full articleAs for "the projectile will crush the armature": first off, few people use projectiles infront of the armature in CoaDE. In most cases the armature is the projectile. As for the "crushability" of a material: I'll say it again, the game uses material constants to define how a material reacts under stress. These will tell you how a material reacts to a compressive force provided the scale of the compression is sufficiently larger than the micro structure of the material. This is true for polycrystaline materials as well: the in game constants are only true, given forces applied on a large enough scale so that many crystal boundries are within the effective volume. Nobody argued that you can't simulate porous materials with existing tools. I compared their properties to bulk materials. For example, this article says that electrical properties of porous Fe-Cr-Al alloy are very different from this same bulk material. Moreover, these properties change non-linearly with the size of pores. While at it, also note the pattern of heating of their lattice. As for the picture: If that is the entirety of the armature, the complex shape of the armature will of course cause different heating across the armature. This is due to the shape of the armature however, not the material. Heating across a microstructured material will be almost uniform, if one regards a conducter that is large in scale compared to the micro structure. If you have an aerogel with a pore size of ~1nm a cube of side length of 1mm with a voltage applied across to opposing sides so that a current flows the resistive heating will be pretty uniform. As for the way the properties of a material change with changing microstructure: That is perfectly true, however most of these properties are well defined in the game, thus giving us these properties for a given microstructure. As long as the properties given are all for the same microstructure there would be no problem using them in railguns, since the properties are accurate.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 11, 2017 10:31:46 GMT
Please gieve context to that image, I can't tell what it is, or properly read the scale. Also note that I stated that the structure of the material needs to be sufficiently small compared to the projectile itself. The image does not seem to show a sub structure that is small compared to the overall size.
As for "the projectile will crush the armature": first off, few people use projectiles infront of the armature in CoaDE. In most cases the armature is the projectile. As for the "crushability" of a material: I'll say it again, the game uses material constants to define how a material reacts under stress. These will tell you how a material reacts to a compressive force provided the scale of the compression is sufficiently larger than the micro structure of the material. This is true for polycrystaline materials as well: the in game constants are only true, given forces applied on a large enough scale so that many crystal boundries are within the effective volume.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 11, 2017 8:34:38 GMT
The concern to electrical continuity is expressed in the resistance, for materials, where the microstructure is significantly smaller than the projectile size. Similarily, heating from resistance would occur uniformly, as it would in metal projectiles. The fact that most fibrous/porous materials have a high resistance is no reason to exclude them from potential use.
As for the ability to hold up to acceleration, the materials ability to withstand high g accelerations is ultimately given by its ultimate tensile strength. This property is already in the game, so I see no problem there.
Don't forget that all of the materials in game have a microstructure, even the alloys and pure metals, as none are expresly monocrystalin. The difference in this case is mostly one of scale. As long as the scale of the projectile is sufficiently larger than the scale of a materials microstucture, it can be treated as we treat projectiles now.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 10, 2017 17:52:56 GMT
Boron and silica aren't electrically conductive, at least to the point where the game will let you use them in railguns. Would a fibrous armature behave like chain-shot? Fancy that for some radiator shredding. The exact way it reacts depend on the actuall composition of the projectile. The difference this makes is, however, encapsulated by the material properities given, provided the structure of the material is significantly smaller thant the bore radius. This is an assumption that is made with alloys and ceramics as well, though, so it's not a real argument agains allowing them.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 10, 2017 13:48:11 GMT
The idea to run a battle and record the outcome is an interesting proposition. It would allow for a much higher fidelity in simulation over all. It might be worth implementing it as an option.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 10, 2017 10:30:58 GMT
Or any fibrous material for that matter? I see no reason, that would make a graphite aerogel or boron filament projectile infeasible. Though I suspect aerogel armatures to be highly inefficient, boron filament may be of use. At the very least I don't see why they shouldn't be an option.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 9, 2017 10:02:22 GMT
IRL coilguns have no reason to be as horridly inefficient as COADE coils, though; COADE coils are artificially constrained by the requirement for each capacitor stage to be identical. We're basically using rails as the model EM weapon until coils get fixed. Multi-stage coilguns do run into the high-speed inductive load switching problem though, as velocity increases and the time each stage acts on the projectile goes down. Yes, but the way that acceleration drops across all stages when a new stage is added is rediculous. If the switching problems are igonered, multi stage coilguns should be more efficient than single staged ones, which clearly isn't the case in CoaDE
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 9, 2017 9:59:20 GMT
Is this the activation and hard ranges for payloads? I'm unsure what is meant by joint warhead, and I don't understand how it affects blast launcher missiles to any meaningful extent without requiring very large ships at very low intercept velocities. By hard range, I mean the hard range setting on payloads that forcibly detonates them that distance form the target, or more specifically from the full diameter of the target. by engagement range, I meant the engagement range on weapons, such as blast launchers. The only case this can have some adverse effect, is when a missile uses both blast launchers and warheads that need to go off in a specific, well timed, order. Take my M1 Thor AP missiles: it well be travelling at something between 5-6km/s relative to the target at time of detonation. It initialy releases 5 mini nukes with blast launchers, that detonate 10ms after launch, which is meant to be just as the main flak payload detonates. The blast launchers have an engagement range set to 550m, and the hard range on the flak payload is 200m. These ranges work for ships with <100m total diameter, but on ships with significantly higher total diameter, the flak payload detonates to early, stoping the blast launchers from launching or destroying the nukes before they detonate.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 5, 2017 17:22:00 GMT
The designs as text: The M1 Thor AP: ExplosiveModule 50.1 g TNT Flak Bomb UsesCustomName false Length_m 0.025 ExplosiveMass_kg 0.0001 ExplosiveComposition TNT ShrapnelMass_kg 0.05 ShrapnelComposition Lead Detonator HardRange_km 0.005 ActivationRange_km 4.8 MinimumRange_km 0 OverrideTimer_s 0.01 TargetsShips true TargetsShots true
NuclearPayloadModule 150 t Boosted Fission Nuke Bursting Shredder UsesCustomName true CoreComposition U-233 ReflectorComposition Diamond SlowExplosive CombustionReaction Nitroglycerin DelayComposition Calcium DelayCompositionMassFraction 0.902 FastExplosive Octogen CoreMass_kg 0.016 Enrichment_Percent 0.97 HollowCoreRadius_m 0.04 InnerExplosiveWidth_m 0.00137 FusionBoost Deuterium Tritium FusionFuelDensity_kg__m3 32 Detonator HardRange_km 0 ActivationRange_km 1 MinimumRange_km 0 OverrideTimer_s 0.01 DelayedTrigger false TargetsShips true TargetsShots true
RemoteControlModule Swarm test UsesCustomName true AspectRatio 8 HomingBehavior PropellantForBoostPhase_Percent 0.14 BoostPhase GuidanceLaw Augmented Proportional Navigation Accelerate true DampingEngineMultiplier 1.04 MidcoursePhase GuidanceLaw Augmented Proportional Navigation Accelerate false DampingEngineMultiplier 2.55 TerminalPhase GuidanceLaw Augmented Proportional Navigation Accelerate true DampingEngineMultiplier 0.94 IrradianceCutoff_Percent 0.16
ExplosiveModule 1kg Osmium Explosive Shredder AP XL UsesCustomName true Length_m 0.12 ExplosiveMass_kg 0.00018 ExplosiveComposition Octogen ShrapnelMass_kg 1 ShrapnelComposition Osmium Detonator HardRange_km 0.2 ActivationRange_km 0.21 MinimumRange_km 0 OverrideTimer_s 0 TargetsShips true TargetsShots true
CombustionRocketModule CLRM-F18.8/H1 M5 "Accelerator 2" Mk1 52.9KN 4.93 km/s UsesCustomName true Reaction Fluorine Hydrogen StoichiometricMixtureRatio 1 ThermalRocket ChamberComposition Diamond ThroatRadius_m 0.016 ChamberWallThickness_m 0.0011 ChamberContractionRatio 12 NozzleExpansionRatio 76 NozzleExpansionAngle_degrees 13 RegenerativeCooling_Percent 1 Injector Composition Diamond PumpRadius_m 0.08 RotationalSpeed_RPM 150 Gimbal InnerRadius_m 0.115 ArmorComposition Diamond ArmorThickness_m 0.0001 MomentumWheels Composition Diamond RotationalSpeed_RPM 89000 GimbalAngle_degrees 0.5
PropellantTankModule 141 kg Fluorine Tank UsesCustomName false Propellant Fluorine StructureComposition Diamond ReactionMass_kg 141 HeightToRadiusRatio 7.1 AdditionalArmorThickness_m 0
PropellantTankModule 7.50 kg Hydrogen Tank UsesCustomName false Propellant Hydrogen StructureComposition Diamond ReactionMass_kg 7.5 HeightToRadiusRatio 1.7 AdditionalArmorThickness_m 0
SpacerModule 5.00 cm x 0 m Spacer UsesCustomName false Dimensions_m 0 0.05
SpacerModule 10.0 cm x 0 m Spacer UsesCustomName false Dimensions_m 0 0.1
CraftBlueprint SM-BFN M01D9/17 Mk2A1 Bursting Description Submunition Boosted fision nuke model 1 dimensions 9x17cm mark 1 Modules 50.1 g TNT Flak Bomb 20 0.16842 null 0 150 t Boosted Fission Nuke Bursting Shredder 1 0.026 null 0 Armor
BlastLauncherModule 1x SM-BFN M01D9/17 Mk2A1 Bursting Blast Launcher UsesCustomName false Payload SM-BFN M01D9/17 Mk2A1 Bursting PayloadRows 1 PayloadColumns 1 ExplosiveMaterial Octogen ExplosiveMass_kg 0.00054 ArmorMaterial Boron Filament ArmorThickness_m 0.001 EngagementRange_km 0.55 TargetsShips true TargetsShots true LaunchCountCap 0
CraftBlueprint NB-HKF M1 Thor AP SteamWorkshopID 964884405 Modules Swarm test 1 0 null 0 1kg Osmium Explosive Shredder AP XL 10 1 null 0 CLRM-F18.8/H1 M5 "Accelerator 2" Mk1 52.9KN 4.93 km/s 4 0 null 0 141 kg Fluorine Tank 1 -0.5 null 0 7.50 kg Hydrogen Tank 1 -0.75 null 0 5.00 cm x 0 m Spacer 1 2.5513 null 0 1x SM-BFN M01D9/17 Mk2A1 Bursting Blast Launcher 5 1.6899 null 0 10.0 cm x 0 m Spacer 1 -0.625 null 0 10.0 cm x 0 m Spacer 1 -0.5625 null 0 Armor ArmorLayers Boron Filament 0.001 0 0 1 1 Graphite Aerogel 0.01 0 0 1 1
The M2 Atlas: ExplosiveModule 50.1 g TNT Flak Bomb UsesCustomName false Length_m 0.025 ExplosiveMass_kg 0.0001 ExplosiveComposition TNT ShrapnelMass_kg 0.05 ShrapnelComposition Lead Detonator HardRange_km 0.005 ActivationRange_km 4.8 MinimumRange_km 0 OverrideTimer_s 0.01 TargetsShips true TargetsShots true
NuclearPayloadModule 150 t Boosted Fission Nuke Bursting Shredder UsesCustomName true CoreComposition U-233 ReflectorComposition Diamond SlowExplosive CombustionReaction Nitroglycerin DelayComposition Calcium DelayCompositionMassFraction 0.902 FastExplosive Octogen CoreMass_kg 0.016 Enrichment_Percent 0.97 HollowCoreRadius_m 0.04 InnerExplosiveWidth_m 0.00137 FusionBoost Deuterium Tritium FusionFuelDensity_kg__m3 32 Detonator HardRange_km 0 ActivationRange_km 1 MinimumRange_km 0 OverrideTimer_s 0.01 DelayedTrigger false TargetsShips true TargetsShots true
RemoteControlModule Swarm test UsesCustomName true AspectRatio 8 HomingBehavior PropellantForBoostPhase_Percent 0.14 BoostPhase GuidanceLaw Augmented Proportional Navigation Accelerate true DampingEngineMultiplier 1.04 MidcoursePhase GuidanceLaw Augmented Proportional Navigation Accelerate false DampingEngineMultiplier 2.55 TerminalPhase GuidanceLaw Augmented Proportional Navigation Accelerate true DampingEngineMultiplier 0.94 IrradianceCutoff_Percent 0.16
ExplosiveModule 1kg Osmium Explosive Shredder XL UsesCustomName true Length_m 0.12 ExplosiveMass_kg 0.00018 ExplosiveComposition Octogen ShrapnelMass_kg 1 ShrapnelComposition Osmium Detonator HardRange_km 0.45 ActivationRange_km 0.6 MinimumRange_km 0 OverrideTimer_s 0 TargetsShips true TargetsShots true
CombustionRocketModule CLRM-F18.8/H1 M5 "Accelerator 2" Mk1 52.9KN 4.93 km/s UsesCustomName true Reaction Fluorine Hydrogen StoichiometricMixtureRatio 1 ThermalRocket ChamberComposition Diamond ThroatRadius_m 0.016 ChamberWallThickness_m 0.0011 ChamberContractionRatio 12 NozzleExpansionRatio 76 NozzleExpansionAngle_degrees 13 RegenerativeCooling_Percent 1 Injector Composition Diamond PumpRadius_m 0.08 RotationalSpeed_RPM 150 Gimbal InnerRadius_m 0.115 ArmorComposition Diamond ArmorThickness_m 0.0001 MomentumWheels Composition Diamond RotationalSpeed_RPM 89000 GimbalAngle_degrees 0.5
PropellantTankModule 940 kg Fluorine Tank UsesCustomName false Propellant Fluorine StructureComposition Diamond ReactionMass_kg 940 HeightToRadiusRatio 12 AdditionalArmorThickness_m 0
PropellantTankModule 50.0 kg Hydrogen Tank UsesCustomName false Propellant Hydrogen StructureComposition Diamond ReactionMass_kg 50 HeightToRadiusRatio 3.5 AdditionalArmorThickness_m 0
SpacerModule 10.0 cm x 0 m Spacer UsesCustomName false Dimensions_m 0 0.1
CraftBlueprint SM-BFN M01D9/17 Mk2A1 Bursting Description Submunition Boosted fision nuke model 1 dimensions 9x17cm mark 1 Modules 50.1 g TNT Flak Bomb 20 0.16842 null 0 150 t Boosted Fission Nuke Bursting Shredder 1 0.026 null 0 Armor
BlastLauncherModule 1x SM-BFN M01D9/17 Mk2A1 Bursting Blast Launcher 2 UsesCustomName true Payload SM-BFN M01D9/17 Mk2A1 Bursting PayloadRows 1 PayloadColumns 1 ExplosiveMaterial Octogen ExplosiveMass_kg 0.001 ArmorMaterial Boron Filament ArmorThickness_m 0.001 EngagementRange_km 0.75 TargetsShips true TargetsShots true LaunchCountCap 0
CraftBlueprint NB-HKF M2 Atlas SteamWorkshopID 964884581 Modules Swarm test 1 0 null 0 1kg Osmium Explosive Shredder XL 20 1 null 0 CLRM-F18.8/H1 M5 "Accelerator 2" Mk1 52.9KN 4.93 km/s 12 0 null 0 940 kg Fluorine Tank 1 -0.5 null 0 50.0 kg Hydrogen Tank 1 -0.75 null 0 1x SM-BFN M01D9/17 Mk2A1 Bursting Blast Launcher 2 18 2.8225 null 0 10.0 cm x 0 m Spacer 1 2.5 null 0 1kg Osmium Explosive Shredder XL 20 2 null 0 1kg Osmium Explosive Shredder XL 20 2.25 null 0 1kg Osmium Explosive Shredder XL 20 2.375 null 0 1kg Osmium Explosive Shredder XL 20 2.4375 null 0 1kg Osmium Explosive Shredder XL 20 2.4688 null 0 1kg Osmium Explosive Shredder XL 20 2.4844 null 0 1kg Osmium Explosive Shredder XL 20 2.4922 null 0 1x SM-BFN M01D9/17 Mk2A1 Bursting Blast Launcher 2 18 2.914 null 0.18 1x SM-BFN M01D9/17 Mk2A1 Bursting Blast Launcher 2 18 3.0141 null 0 Armor ArmorLayers Boron Filament 0.001 0 0 1 1 Graphite Aerogel 0.02 0 0 1 1
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 5, 2017 14:12:04 GMT
Can you post the design files for those ? That kind of firepower might convince me to use missiles again. Links to steam page are on the designs. I can't seem to export to text files, the game just tells me "unable to export design".
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 5, 2017 7:30:43 GMT
I made two missile designs, which I personally designate as my first combat capable designs (be warned, these rely on warhead blaster timeings,so they will be less effective against targets with a large difference between hull and total diameter): NB-HKF M1 "Thor AP": The Nuclear Boosted High Kinetic Fragmentation missile Model 1 "Thor AP" is a fragmentation missiles, designed to punch throw heavy armor, devestating modules behind it. The principle of its function is this (note: this isn't how it works in game, it just makes a pretty pattern, but the principle behind the design): The missile accelerates to 5km/s and 5 small 150t nuclear warheads with fragmentation payloads attached to them are launched at 450m. Shortly after, the main 10kg osmium fragmentation payload in missile detonates, the nukes detonate just after (10ms after launch). (In theory) the deotonating nukes accelerate the main shrapnel wave further, while expelling their own lead fragments in circular disks. The lead fragments from the 5 nukes are faster than the main osmium fragments, carving a pentagram shape into the targets armor at least and hopefully the internal structure (in practice, slicing completely through the ship). Shortly after this the main shrapnel cloud hits, punching through the weakend pentagon of armor and structure, idealy spreading it evenely across the intirior of the target.
The missile itself (link):
The damage profile on a Gunship:
NB-HKF M2 "Atlas": The Nuclear Boosted High Kinetic Fragmentation missile Model 2 "Atlas" designed to tear asunder enemy ships. Its principle of function is akin to that of the M1 "Thor AP". The missile accelerates to roughly 4km/s, then releases 54 150t nuclear warheads with lead fragmentation payloads that detonate 10ms after launch. Just before the nuclear warheads detonate, the main 160kg osmium fragmentation payload detonates, in theory being boosted by the nuclear explosion. The detonating nuclear warheads themselves release their payload of a total of 54kg of lead. The lead fragments travel faster and hit first slicing a weaving pattern into the hull, if it doesn't dissever the ship in the process. The instant after, the main shrapnel wave hits, at the very least spliting the target in twain, if it hasen't been segmented already, and causing the fragments to spread a part rapidly.
The missile itself (link):
The damage profile on a Gunshio:
Some notes: - The missiles have very tight dV alotments, meaning that very little is left to make intercept ( ~500m/s dV max for the M1, no more than ~1.5km/s on the M2). This isn't an issue in in combat use or around astroids, but for longer ranges I use varients with drop tanks for the transit.
- The missiles are designed to start combat with low relative velocity to target and the blaster/warhead timings are based off of this. Similarily, the dV is designed so that it will be used up in the time to impact.
- High angles of incident can prevent proper penetration or stop fragments from penetrating entirely. For the M2 this isn't really an issue, since it will probably destroy all weapons systems in the impact area and take out all radiators that are in line of sight to its aproach.
- Since these missiles are based on timings between blaster launchers and warheads, targets with a large difference between hull diameter and total diameter as well as large ships in general will cause the warhead to detonate before the warheads are launched. This will reduce effectiveness significantly, but both weapons are still fairly devestating with only the primary fragmentation payload.
|
|