|
Post by lawson on Dec 22, 2016 16:11:06 GMT
Inner 3mm osmium 3m graphite aerogel 3cm boron 1m gap 3cm amorphous carbon 2cm diamond Outer This should work, at least for a bit. I have seen boule thick layers of these take hits from NEFP and come out fine. That's a nice armor layering! It's the first practical armor layering that's held up under fire from my best "practical" needle gun. The ship I'm using the armor on will hold up long enough to reach 100km but needs more dV. (though it's usually lost the crew and running on remotes by 100Km) Holds up fairly well versus lasers but it's best to have ~5 missiles ahead of you to take the laser fire instead. ( needle gun it survives. 76.6Km/s, pin-point accuracy, and death incarnate with 300mg radiation shield or flak needles) I think I need to turn it into a drone
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Dec 22, 2016 17:12:58 GMT
Inner 3mm osmium 3m graphite aerogel 3cm boron 1m gap 3cm amorphous carbon 2cm diamond Outer This should work, at least for a bit. I have seen boule thick layers of these take hits from NEFP and come out fine. That's a nice armor layering! It's the first practical armor layering that's held up under fire from my best "practical" needle gun. The ship I'm using the armor on will hold up long enough to reach 100km but needs more dV. (though it's usually lost the crew and running on remotes by 100Km) Holds up fairly well versus lasers but it's best to have ~5 missiles ahead of you to take the laser fire instead. ( needle gun it survives. 76.6Km/s, pin-point accuracy, and death incarnate with 300mg radiation shield or flak needles) I think I need to turn it into a drone Nice gun and nice armor! Amimai, I really like the idea of a osmium underlayer, should solve the spalling problems. And I really like the aluminium zinc magneisum barrel of your gun, Lawson. I'll definitely try it , my current railguns are ridiculously heavy, I hope this will help. Btw the best protection I found against needle guns and frankly almost everything was always redundancy...
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 22, 2016 17:48:39 GMT
The osmium spall liner doesn't work for me. On tests with this layout against drone swarms all kills were from spall ripping through crew compartments.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Dec 22, 2016 17:52:26 GMT
either way!
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 22, 2016 19:06:27 GMT
The osmium spall liner doesn't work for me. On tests with this layout against drone swarms all kills were from spall ripping through crew compartments. Osmium is a better spall liner then boron. it's not the best spall liner (that UHEPE) but it is better at actually stopping heavy kinetics... the best spall liners are unfortunately not that good as actual armour. Also if your drones are actually getting through the armour I would like to see the guns they have, most drone guns take a long time to do sufficient accumulated damage to actually get kills. It's one of those issues where a better spall liner would make a worse armour overall because instead of spall you would get outright penetrated by the same weapon.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 22, 2016 19:21:16 GMT
On mobile right now but if I recall they're firing a 1g slug with a max range of about 40km.
I think you're armor is better suited for thermal damage like nuclear and laser, don't remember if you said that or not, but a double layer stuffed Whipple usually is impervious to most light slugs, and halfway decent at anti armor slugs.
If I remember right osmium fractures with impacts, contributing it's own spalls. Better materials would be a fibrous material like Para or aramid.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 22, 2016 21:43:51 GMT
Ok so this is the scenario that's going on. For putting armors through real world situations/field testing I use a modified gunless Gunship. The ship has three times the required radiators, and is flown in a sort of defensive position where incoming shells hit the broadside of the vessel at a 30-45 degree slope, thus increasing armor effectiveness and blocking the non-redundant radiators from fire. Also in peer reviewed articles, a lot of NASA and 3M tests for whipple shields are conducted at 45 degree impacts. A personal Supercarrier design of mine is then flown by a balanced AI, who launches squadrons of 15 drones who fire a 1g VandChromeSteel slug at 4.33 km/s who engage at 31km/1000m^2 and 5.52km/1m^2. The drones don't focus fire and impact along the vessel, the majority of impacts do seem to be around the radiators however. At about 30 seconds of sustained fire, a portion of the bow turns orange -which if I recall means all layers of armor are damaged?- then following shortly after is a penetration of the osmium layer with punctures to the front 25 crew module and neighboring 1kt Methane tank. Nifty imgur album of the engagement here.Now I'm thinking it's probably due to the right angle of the ships frontal plate, and the ship not turning into its 30-45 angle of attack before the impacts. I'll have to work with it more to see if I can get other instances of internal damage in other scenarios such as broadsides or other weapons. On a side note, ship kills tend to be from a spin induced by the punctures from Methane and Crew tanks, flipping the ship around and exposing the engine bay to projectiles. Other than that I seem to have exaggerated this was causing ship kills, and not just internal damages. Also I could have mixed up they way the armor is laid out and mixed up inner outer materials and where that meter gap is located. I tried to highlight where I put the meter gap, so if you could take a look and make sure I got that right, that would be neat-o. Broadside tests look ok, good times between orange and black armor patches, but still it's only about a minute before penetrations and it can lead to powerplant KO's misplaced Methane and dead crews. Not entire ship-kills but more really crippled-and-lost-the-will-to-live kind of ships. No damage from spalling however.
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 22, 2016 22:12:06 GMT
Ok, ftom what I gather when armour turns red(glowing) that actually means it's melting. That is not surprising considering each of those drones is armed with a reality breaking 4000% efficiency rail gun...
You should rather be praising it for surviving such a hail of bullets for 30 seconds, most wiple shields would outright get shredded in less then 10. Those drones are putting 1700 rounds into the targets hull every second...
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 22, 2016 22:14:29 GMT
Double bumper stuffed whipple's last just fine against them, no internal damages. Just radiator kills. Also I meant the orange from the Armor Visualizer not the actual materials themselves. I've yet to see an armor that doesn't start glowing from penetrations.
Also could you share what equations you use for rail gun efficiency, because I came up with 21.64 kw out
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Dec 22, 2016 23:54:57 GMT
Well, power is energy per second. So just use good old (mv^2)/2 to get your muzzle energy, and divide by your reload time in seconds.
It's pretty much caused by the fact that the game calculates power draw without considering fire rate at all, which of course is an obvious problem when you notice that fire rate is one of the variables in power *out*.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 23, 2016 0:01:11 GMT
I don't see how following shots change the power out.
Since the loader and gun are separate systems, wouldn't the power be separate values?
|
|
|
Post by shurugal on Dec 23, 2016 0:28:03 GMT
I don't see how following shots change the power out. Since the loader and gun are separate systems, wouldn't the power be separate values? the problem isn't the amount of power that the load draws, the problem is the power needed to accelerate each shot. If you'll hang in with me on some math, i'll try to do this as painlessly as possible: 76.6km/s railgun firing 1g slug muzzle energy J (joules) = (kg * m 2) / s 2 (.001kg*76,600m 2) / 1s 2 = 5.868 MJ reload time of 10.8ms 92.593 rounds per second = 543.336 MJ / s convert to watts: 1 J = 1W * 1s, therefore the total power output of this weapon is 543.336 MW.Hmm, looks like this particular gun does not break physics. Someone please sanity check my numbers. I've done it three times now and I keep getting the same answer. Is this needlegun actually not a physics breaker?
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 23, 2016 0:40:58 GMT
So what's wrong with calculating the power to accelerate the shot along the barrel?
You could use the equation for acceleration from wikipedia's article on railguns which is a = (inductance * amperage^2)/(2*mass of projectile) amperage = sqrt(Power in/ resistance of rails) then use Newtons = mass * acceleration to find the force force * length to get joules time = 2*barrel length/final velocity assuming initial = 0
then joules/time to get watts.
So for my particular weapon it would be
amperage = sqrt(25000W/442Ohm) = 7.52A a = (372 micro H/m * 7.52A^2)/ 2*1g = 10,518.3744 m/s^2 F = 1g * 10,518.3744 m/s^2 = 10.52N J = 10.52N * 0.69m = 7.26J time = (2*0.69m)/4330m/s = 0.000318707s P = 7.26J/0.000318707s = 22,779.54W or 22.77954kW
This should be for one shot with no loading mechanism. Even if there were a second shot, it wouldn't influence this number as they're separate instances of the same system of equations. Also its assuming the cross section of the barrel is a perfect circle, maybe that's where I'm going wrong?
|
|
|
Post by shurugal on Dec 23, 2016 1:41:25 GMT
So what's wrong with calculating the power to accelerate the shot along the barrel? You could use the equation for acceleration from wikipedia's article on railguns which is a = (inductance * amperage^2)/(2*mass of projectile) amperage = sqrt(Power in/ resistance of rails) then use Newtons = mass * acceleration to find the force force * length to get joules time = 2*barrel length/final velocity assuming initial = 0 then joules/time to get watts. So for my particular weapon it would be amperage = sqrt(25000W/442Ohm) = 7.52A a = (372 micro H/m * 7.52A^2)/ 2*1g = 10,518.3744 m/s^2 F = 1g * 10,518.3744 m/s^2 = 10.52N J = 10.52N * 0.69m = 7.26J time = (2*0.69m)/4330m/s = 0.000318707s P = 7.26J/0.000318707s = 22,779.54W or 22.77954kWThis should be for one shot with no loading mechanism. Even if there were a second shot, it wouldn't influence this number as they're separate instances of the same system of equations. Also its assuming the cross section of the barrel is a perfect circle, maybe that's where I'm going wrong? where you're going wrong is that a shot is not a point event. Power output is a function of mass and velocity, velocity being a function of distance and time, and mass being a function of projectile weight and rate of fire. I'm going to simplify your math a little bit here, you're working with a few bits that are irrelevant, and you've come up with some invalid numbers as a result. MUZZLE ENERGY OF THE WEAPON: to calculate this, we only need the muzzle velocity and the mass of the shot. your final velocity (V) is 4330 m /s you mass per shot (M s) is 1g (.001 kq) Joules = (kg * m 2) / s 2
.001 kg * 4330m 2 / 1 s 2 gives us a muzzle energy of 18.748 kJ POWER REQUIREMENT OF THE RAILSWe need here the muzzle energy, and the time it took to get there. Muzzle energy == 18.8 kJ acceleration time == .0003187 seconds Watts = Joules / seconds power required for a single shot is 58.99 MW Now, if we stopped here, you could theoretically supply this power by capacitor bank, charging it up over any length of time you wished. The shot is so short, that you could store the energy needed to sustain 59 MW for 319 microseconds by charging a capacitor bank at 18.75 kW for one second. but what if you wish to fire two shots per second? well, now we need to store the same energy, twice as fast, so we have to crank in 37.5kW for a duration of 1 second to sustain 2 shots per second. 100 shots per second? 1.875 MW charge rate. The rails still need the same peak of 59MW per shot, but the power inlet of the whole system must rise as the mass going downrange increases. The problem with the system was previously that it was possible to have the loader stuffing rounds into the gun so fast that the output in joules-per-second was greater than the power draw of the rails, which is impossible. As near as i can tell, this was fixed several updates ago. I have yet to work the math on a gun and come up with a systems who's muzzle energy over time exceeded its input power.
|
|
khenderson
New Member
my god, it's full of missiles
Posts: 40
|
Post by khenderson on Dec 23, 2016 1:51:08 GMT
I don't see how following shots change the power out. Since the loader and gun are separate systems, wouldn't the power be separate values? the problem isn't the amount of power that the load draws, the problem is the power needed to accelerate each shot. If you'll hang in with me on some math, i'll try to do this as painlessly as possible: 76.6km/s railgun firing 1g slug muzzle energy J (joules) = (kg * m 2) / s 2 (.001kg*76,600m 2) / 1s 2 = 5.868 MJ reload time of 10.8ms 92.593 rounds per second = 543.336 MJ / s convert to watts: 1 J = 1W * 1s, therefore the total power output of this weapon is 543.336 MW.Hmm, looks like this particular gun does not break physics. Someone please sanity check my numbers. I've done it three times now and I keep getting the same answer. Is this needlegun actually not a physics breaker?If the weapon were firing a 1g slug, it would actually be half what you calculated, as you forgot the 1/2 constant in the equation for muzzle energy. In this case the projectile appears to be 1.3g (a 1g armature and 300mg payload), so I come out with ~353.14 MW.
|
|