Forerunners Vs. the Galactic Empire

[Norade]

Make it funny next time and I might not mistake it for an admission of your retardation.

It was a star wars reference. Considering how vehemently you support the empire, I thought you would get it.

Sorry, a bad Star Wars joke is still a bad joke.

Either way it makes very little difference as a railgun/coilgun rounds aren't the same as a meteor. Even you should be able to understand this.

I think it is you who doesn't understand fluid dynamics very well. Something traveling at mach 382 is going to produce a noticeable release of energy during flight and upon impact.

Flames out the end of the gun and explosions when we know MAC rounds are solid aren't visible now... Could have fooled me.

Assuming that it is the mass of pure tungsten you only need about a 31 square meter projectile. If it was shaped as a rough cylinder this could mean a roughly 1.5m by 5m object compared to the space shuttle which is 376 times larger than the projectile and likely far less aerodynamic.

First of all, 31 square meters is a measure of area, not volume, so unless your think MAC rounds are 2 dimensional, use the correct units. Secondly, I think its better to use iron, because after doing some research, I found that high speed steel, a steel (which is mostly iron) tungsten alloy has 18% or less tungsten. The density of iron is 7830kg/m^3, so to get a mass of 600 tons (544310.844 kg), we need a volume of 69.52m^3. For the meteor in the previous link, we have a mass of 15 tons. The density of rock is approximately 2.7ton/m^3. So, the volume of our meteor would be around 5.56m^3. So, with your estimate the MAC round is 5.58X the volume of the meteor and with mine it is 12.5X the volume. It is also moving 5X as fast. Do you still think there will be no visible effects?

No shit square is for 2d stuff ass munch, I made a fucking typo because I was so overwhelmed by your level of stupid.

Now, why would we assume a lighter mix besides your say so? The game doesn't say hi speed steel anywhere in it now does it? No, that's what I though.

As for the difference is size and aerodynamics, once again I ask you to show me the difference in flight mechanics and heat transfer between a mac round and a meteor. I think we'll both find that the meteor disturbs much more air and is far less resistant to heat transfer.

The meteor you posted info about would also be far less aerodynamic than a round designed to have low drag. Given this data we can assume that there were effects caused by the projectile, but due to aerodynamic mitigation they were to minor to see.

MACs are designed to be fired in space. Even in game, during the level the ark, the marines were worried if the dawn, a frigate like the ones in the storm, was rated for atmosphere. As such, MAC rounds do not have to be aerodynamic, since they were not designed to be fired in atmosphere. In fact, if you want to pack the most ammo you can in one ship, it might make sense to make the rounds spherical. So is it more aerodynamic than a meteor? Yes, probably a little due to the fact that it is machined, but I doubt it will matter considering it is larger and moves faster than the meteor.

Even so, to best puncture and damage a ship you would want a conventional cylindrical shape. This shape would also allow for easier storage and handling of the rounds in addition to better penetration against an enemy vessel. It would also make the weapon better for engaging ground targets.

Given this data we can assume that there were effects caused by the projectile, but due to aerodynamic mitigation they were to minor to see.

See above

See what, your baseless assumptions.

This resolves the issue nicely and doesn't force us to disregard anything making the point I am snipping from below irrelevant unless you intend to prove, with math and not suppositions that a tungsten slug would cause atmospheric effects that would be visible to the naked eye.

Your welcome

I see no modeling no math to prove the fluid dynamics of a cone or cylinder versus a pocked and pitted spheroid. You have proven nothing except that you will use any assumption to throw out evidence you dislike.

This is all fucking pointless as I showed earlier a subgigaton level shot going through the hull of a Covenant warship. So even with nitpicks the Covenant still suck ass.

If you mean the supposed flood pod, we don't have enough information to make that claim. The shadow of intent had just left a space battle where its fleet was outnumbered 3 to 1. It was also the elite's flagship and most likely the enemy's primary target. It stands to reason that it may have lost its shields and even taken hull damage before the thing hit.

You mean the pod that looked exactly like the other pods we see in that scene? Keep grasping at those straws...

Again, you're trying to make assumptions without anything to back them up. Shields must be down because there was a battle and Jake says so? I have already showed a scene from Halo Wars that shows that Covenant ships don't always have glowing shield interactions. We will also note that there were no interactions in the scene with the key ship which had no reason to be unshielded.

[Jake]

Sorry, a bad Star Wars joke is still a bad joke.

Whatever

Flames out the end of the gun and explosions when we know MAC rounds are solid aren't visible now... Could have fooled me.

? Rephrase this please.

Now, why would we assume a lighter mix besides your say so? The game doesn't say hi speed steel anywhere in it now does it? No, that's what I though.

Because the only real life tungsten steel alloy that I could find has these properties. Find me an alloy that has more tungsten than iron, or even >20% tungsten. Until you do, the current evidence points to iron being the main metal in the alloy.

As for the difference is size and aerodynamics, once again I ask you to show me the difference in flight mechanics and heat transfer between a mac round and a meteor. I think we'll both find that the meteor disturbs much more air and is far less resistant to heat transfer.

I am saying that any difference in aerodynamic properties will be negated by the fact that the mac round is 5x as fast and has 12.5x the volume.

Even so, to best puncture and damage a ship you would want a conventional cylindrical shape. This shape would also allow for easier storage and handling of the rounds in addition to better penetration against an enemy vessel. It would also make the weapon better for engaging ground targets.

Ok, we will assume a cylinder.

I see no modeling no math to prove the fluid dynamics of a cone or cylinder versus a pocked and pitted spheroid. You have proven nothing except that you will use any assumption to throw out evidence you dislike.

Hypersonic fluid dynamics and thermodynamics for the space shuttle at mach 25 is a senior or graduate level aerospace engineering topic, and your asking me to analyze a generic volume that goes 15x faster? Is it so much to expect that an object that is larger, more massive, and moving faster than a meteor will produce a more noticeable effect than said meteor? If this doesn't convince you, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_heating. It specifically says that objects traveling at re-entry level speeds (>mach 25) are designed to transfer heat to the air as opposed to a meteor, which tears itself apart thereby wasting some of that energy. So, a MAC round, which like a reentry vehicle doesn't break up in the atmosphere, is transferring all of its energy to the air, which should mean even more pronounced visual effects than the meteor.

Shields must be down because there was a battle and Jake says so?

This is a stretch how? Considering the ship would be the primary target of a fleet that outnumbers its own 3 to 1, it would surprise me if its shields were not drained in the process. The fact that they even won is surprising.

I have already showed a scene from Halo Wars that shows that Covenant ships don't always have glowing shield interactions. We will also note that there were no interactions in the scene with the key ship which had no reason to be unshielded.

When did I ever mention glowing?

[Norade]

Flames out the end of the gun and explosions when we know MAC rounds are solid aren't visible now... Could have fooled me.

? Rephrase this please.

You claimed that the weapon produced no visible effects. Explosions shooting from the end of the weapons barrel and the rounds causing explosions on impact are effects that a round the isn't propelled by explosives and doesn't contain an explosive shouldn't normally have.

Now, why would we assume a lighter mix besides your say so? The game doesn't say hi speed steel anywhere in it now does it? No, that's what I though.

Because the only real life tungsten steel alloy that I could find has these properties. Find me an alloy that has more tungsten than iron, or even >20% tungsten. Until you do, the current evidence points to iron being the main metal in the alloy.

How about tungsten carbide the alloy actually used as a kinetic penetration? High speed steel is a tool steel and has no applications as a munition.

Thus we shall now use the mass of tungsten carbide (15,800kg/m3) that means that a 600 ton projectile would need to have a volume of 38 m3 that is pretty close to the volume of a rod 1.5m by 5m cylinder. However after doing some research into kinetic penetrators it should have a diameter of closer to 1/20th its length so I would put forward a 0.65m radius by 30m round instead, such a round would have a volume of 39.8 m3 leaving some mass to shave off for tapering to a more effective point.

As for the difference is size and aerodynamics, once again I ask you to show me the difference in flight mechanics and heat transfer between a mac round and a meteor. I think we'll both find that the meteor disturbs much more air and is far less resistant to heat transfer.

I am saying that any difference in aerodynamic properties will be negated by the fact that the mac round is 5x as fast and has 12.5x the volume.

Your assumption of volume is bullshit as I have shown above and wind resistance by volume is heavily effected by the shape of the object. For example a sheet of paper that is flat versus a crumpled ball or a rolled and twisted tube. A craggy unworked mass of rock versus a tooled and aerodynamic penetrator is much the same.

Even so, to best puncture and damage a ship you would want a conventional cylindrical shape. This shape would also allow for easier storage and handling of the rounds in addition to better penetration against an enemy vessel. It would also make the weapon better for engaging ground targets.

Ok, we will assume a cylinder.

Actually more like an arrow, an example of such a round in modern form is here.

I see no modeling no math to prove the fluid dynamics of a cone or cylinder versus a pocked and pitted spheroid. You have proven nothing except that you will use any assumption to throw out evidence you dislike.

Hypersonic fluid dynamics and thermodynamics for the space shuttle at mach 25 is a senior or graduate level aerospace engineering topic, and your asking me to analyze a generic volume that goes 15x faster? Is it so much to expect that an object that is larger, more massive, and moving faster than a meteor will produce a more noticeable effect than said meteor? If this doesn't convince you, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_heating. It specifically says that objects traveling at re-entry level speeds (>mach 25) are designed to transfer heat to the air as opposed to a meteor, which tears itself apart thereby wasting some of that energy. So, a MAC round, which like a reentry vehicle doesn't break up in the atmosphere, is transferring all of its energy to the air, which should mean even more pronounced visual effects than the meteor.

You're assuming that enough heat is built up due to friction over a one second flight to be readily visible. That is an assumption that I would challenge without any math to back it up.

Also while a Meteor with a density of 2.7g/cm[super3[/super] masses less, it has a radius of roughly 1m which is nearly twice that of our hypothetical MAC round. It also has a longer travel time and thus builds up far more heat over that time.

Shields must be down because there was a battle and Jake says so?

This is a stretch how? Considering the ship would be the primary target of a fleet that outnumbers its own 3 to 1, it would surprise me if its shields were not drained in the process. The fact that they even won is surprising.

Please provide actual proof and not speculation, the fact of the matter is that we do not know how long it takes for shields to recharge, and thus have no reason to assume that they are down in the scene.

[quote

]I have already showed a scene from Halo Wars that shows that Covenant ships don't always have glowing shield interactions. We will also note that there were no interactions in the scene with the key ship which had no reason to be unshielded.

When did I ever mention glowing?[/quote]

I simply brought it up as proof that not having visible shield interactions doesn't show that shields aren't up.

[Jake]

You claimed that the weapon produced no visible effects. Explosions shooting from the end of the weapons barrel and the rounds causing explosions on impact are effects that a round the isn't propelled by explosives and doesn't contain an explosive shouldn't normally have.

If these effects were caused by the projectile’s interaction with the air, why would they end so rapidly (you literally have to pause the scene at the correct half second to see them) and why don’t they continue with the projectile (you can also notice that the effect only occurs around the ship)? There is an obvious answer to this. A MAC is a coilgun. If you look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun, you ca see that there are many parts of coilgun operation that would account for the release of heat and light, including the ionization of gases when power is switched through the coils, the resistance to current of the coils, and heat dissipated by diodes in the system. All of these account for the visible energy release while also explaining why it dissipates rapidly and is local to the barrel of the weapon. As for the impact, you don’t have to have explosives to cause an explosion. Look up the Tunguska event.

How about tungsten carbide the alloy actually used as a kinetic penetration? High speed steel is a tool steel and has no applications as a munition.

Thus we shall now use the mass of tungsten carbide (15,800kg/m3) that means that a 600 ton projectile would need to have a volume of 38 m3 that is pretty close to the volume of a rod 1.5m by 5m cylinder. However after doing some research into kinetic penetrators it should have a diameter of closer to 1/20th its length so I would put forward a 0.65m radius by 30m round instead, such a round would have a volume of 39.8 m3 leaving some mass to shave off for tapering to a more effective point.

Remember, the MAC gun is made of a ferric tungsten alloy. Ferric implies iron, the 3+ oxidation state to be exact. The chemical formula for tungsten carbide is W2C, hence, no iron. My challenge stands. Find me a tungsten, iron, possibly carbon alloy that has more than 20% tungsten.

As I have just shown, your volume calculation does not fit the design criteria. Wind resistance is also heavily affected by the mass of the object. Take a crumpled up piece of paper and a standard college notebook, rolled into a cylinder and see which hits the ground first.

Your proposed experiment is flawed in multiple ways.
1. A rolled up cylinder of paper allows air to pass through the center. We need a uniform cylinder, like our mac round.
2. Our MAC round is 40X more massive than our meteor. In ideal conditions (equal aerodynamic properties) this shouldn’t matter, but that is exactly what we are trying to test.
3. We are dealing with re-entry speed compressible flows, which behave differently than the subsonic situation you are describing (you need a graduate degree in aerospace engineering to understand these flows)
So, I devised my own experiment. It does not take 3 into account, but discounts your post anyway. I took a cylindrical, relatively uniform container of Jif peanut butter, weighing 793g, and a bag of sun chips with a mass of 28.3g. The experiment isn’t perfect since the peanut butter only weighs 28X as much as the chips and the bag of chips is at least half air and therefore more buoyant , but any advantage derived from this would go to you. So, I took the two objects to the top of my staircase to a ledge overlooking the bottom floor (about 15 ft), crumpled up the bag of chips to make it more meteor like, then dropped them. Guess what happened… They hit at (almost) the exact same time. No aerodynamic difference between our MAC round and meteor substitutes. Your argument is invalid. If you don’t believe me, try it yourself. I invite anyone else in this board to try it as well. You will get my result. We should note this tells us nothing about the real situation, which occurs at re-entry speeds. I was just giving experimental proof of your stupidity.

Actually more like an arrow, an example of such a round in modern form is here.

Once again, these things are fired in space. They have no need to go through the overly expensive process of making it look like a missile, because missiles are designed to be aerodynamic.

You're assuming that enough heat is built up due to friction over a one second flight to be readily visible. That is an assumption that I would challenge without any math to back it up.

By this logic, if the round was traveling at .4c, we see no effect either as the round takes far less than a second to cover its path.

Also while a Meteor with a density of 2.7g/cm[super3[/super] masses less, it has a radius of roughly 1m which is nearly twice that of our hypothetical MAC round. It also has a longer travel time and thus builds up far more heat over that time.

Also, this is like the 8th time that you have proven yourself either illiterate or a liar. The density is 2.7ton/m^3, not 2.7g/cm^3.

Please provide actual proof and not speculation, the fact of the matter is that we do not know how long it takes for shields to recharge, and thus have no reason to assume that they are down in the scene.

Please provide proof for your assumption that the covenant ship had full shields and was undamaged. At least my assumption is supported by in game facts, while yours is just ass pulling.

I simply brought it up as proof that not having visible shield interactions doesn't show that shields aren't up.

I’m pretty sure this was part of Taz’s argument, not mine.

[Xess]

Also, this is like the 8th time that you have proven yourself either illiterate or a liar. The density is 2.7ton/m^3, not 2.7g/cm^3.

Those are actually equivalent. 2.7 tons is 2700 kg, to convert g/cm^3 to kg/m^3 you mulitply the g/cm^3 value by 1000. In this case getting surprisingly enough 2700 kg/m^3 from 2.7 g/cm^3.

Also Norade there really should be very visible effects from a 100+ km/s projectile in an atmosphere. If I recall the rounds do glow white hot, although they leave no trail of superheated air. We could rationalize it by saying the UNSC has special atmospheric rounds, that reduce secondary effects to a minimum and the effects we should have seen had already dissipated by the time we see the explosions.

[Norade]

You claimed that the weapon produced no visible effects. Explosions shooting from the end of the weapons barrel and the rounds causing explosions on impact are effects that a round the isn't propelled by explosives and doesn't contain an explosive shouldn't normally have.

If these effects were caused by the projectile’s interaction with the air, why would they end so rapidly (you literally have to pause the scene at the correct half second to see them) and why don’t they continue with the projectile (you can also notice that the effect only occurs around the ship)? There is an obvious answer to this. A MAC is a coilgun. If you look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun, you ca see that there are many parts of coilgun operation that would account for the release of heat and light, including the ionization of gases when power is switched through the coils, the resistance to current of the coils, and heat dissipated by diodes in the system. All of these account for the visible energy release while also explaining why it dissipates rapidly and is local to the barrel of the weapon. As for the impact, you don’t have to have explosives to cause an explosion. Look up the Tunguska event.

Then we have a coligun that fires a projectile aerodynamic enough that we don't see any effects that carries enough energy to explode on impact. I see no issue.

How about tungsten carbide the alloy actually used as a kinetic penetration? High speed steel is a tool steel and has no applications as a munition.

Thus we shall now use the mass of tungsten carbide (15,800kg/m3) that means that a 600 ton projectile would need to have a volume of 38 m3 that is pretty close to the volume of a rod 1.5m by 5m cylinder. However after doing some research into kinetic penetrators it should have a diameter of closer to 1/20th its length so I would put forward a 0.65m radius by 30m round instead, such a round would have a volume of 39.8 m3 leaving some mass to shave off for tapering to a more effective point.

Remember, the MAC gun is made of a ferric tungsten alloy. Ferric implies iron, the 3+ oxidation state to be exact. The chemical formula for tungsten carbide is W2C, hence, no iron. My challenge stands. Find me a tungsten, iron, possibly carbon alloy that has more than 20% tungsten. [/quote]

That can be explained by a ferrous jacket that allows it to be fired. The fact that tool steel would never be used as a weapon shows your idea to be retarded.

As I have just shown, your volume calculation does not fit the design criteria. Wind resistance is also heavily affected by the mass of the object. Take a crumpled up piece of paper and a standard college notebook, rolled into a cylinder and see which hits the ground first.

Your proposed experiment is flawed in multiple ways.
1. A rolled up cylinder of paper allows air to pass through the center. We need a uniform cylinder, like our mac round.

First, nice misquote above. Also, you will note that I mention you should twist the ends to make it point. Not that it really matters as we all know that a sheet is less aerodynamic than a ball or a tube.

2. Our MAC round is 40X more massive than our meteor. In ideal conditions (equal aerodynamic properties) this shouldn’t matter, but that is exactly what we are trying to test.

40x more massive, but having only about 7.2x as much volume while also being more aerodynamic. You keep using mass as if it means something to aerodynamics...

3. We are dealing with re-entry speed compressible flows, which behave differently than the subsonic situation you are describing (you need a graduate degree in aerospace engineering to understand these flows)

Yes, but it is a simplification of the truth. A mac round will obviously be designed to pass through objects be they ships or atmospheres at high hypersonic speeds.

So, I devised my own experiment. It does not take 3 into account, but discounts your post anyway. I took a cylindrical, relatively uniform container of Jif peanut butter, weighing 793g, and a bag of sun chips with a mass of 28.3g. The experiment isn’t perfect since the peanut butter only weighs 28X as much as the chips and the bag of chips is at least half air and therefore more buoyant , but any advantage derived from this would go to you. So, I took the two objects to the top of my staircase to a ledge overlooking the bottom floor (about 15 ft), crumpled up the bag of chips to make it more meteor like, then dropped them. Guess what happened… They hit at (almost) the exact same time. No aerodynamic difference between our MAC round and meteor substitutes. Your argument is invalid. If you don’t believe me, try it yourself. I invite anyone else in this board to try it as well. You will get my result. We should note this tells us nothing about the real situation, which occurs at re-entry speeds. I was just giving experimental proof of your stupidity.

Umm, it's common knowledge the two objects dropped from an equal height will hit the ground at the same time. Your experiment was simply too slow to show the effects of drag and didn't have enough height to allow each to reach a terminal velocity. Try the same test with a sheet of paper, versus a loose ball, versus a rolled and tapered tube and you should note a difference between each.

This is basic highschool physics.

Actually more like an arrow, an example of such a round in modern form is here.

Once again, these things are fired in space. They have no need to go through the overly expensive process of making it look like a missile, because missiles are designed to be aerodynamic.

Except that such a shape will also pierce a ship well and cut through atmosphere for ground bombardment. But please, do show why they would be roughly formed cylinders...

You're assuming that enough heat is built up due to friction over a one second flight to be readily visible. That is an assumption that I would challenge without any math to back it up.

By this logic, if the round was traveling at .4c, we see no effect either as the round takes far less than a second to cover its path.

Not really, by that stage the energies would be many times higher and the round would likely explode the moment it left the barrel and encountered air. Just because you do not know the difference doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Also while a Meteor with a density of 2.7g/cm[super3[/super] masses less, it has a radius of roughly 1m which is nearly twice that of our hypothetical MAC round. It also has a longer travel time and thus builds up far more heat over that time.

Also, this is like the 8th time that you have proven yourself either illiterate or a liar. The density is 2.7ton/m^3, not 2.7g/cm^3.

2.7kg/m3 = 2.7g/cm3 you ass clown. Go learn some basic fucking math you ignorant man child.

Please provide actual proof and not speculation, the fact of the matter is that we do not know how long it takes for shields to recharge, and thus have no reason to assume that they are down in the scene.

Please provide proof for your assumption that the covenant ship had full shields and was undamaged. At least my assumption is supported by in game facts, while yours is just ass pulling.

I'm sorry, but we have no reason to assume that this ship was unshielded and other scenes show shots of roughly similar energies being fired at Covenant vessels and expected to do damage. Covenant ships by default have shields up so you must prove that this was not the case.

I simply brought it up as proof that not having visible shield interactions doesn't show that shields aren't up.

I’m pretty sure this was part of Taz’s argument, not mine.

You're arguing for shields down now so it became prudent to cut off that avenue again.

[Norade]

Also, this is like the 8th time that you have proven yourself either illiterate or a liar. The density is 2.7ton/m^3, not 2.7g/cm^3.

Those are actually equivalent. 2.7 tons is 2700 kg, to convert g/cm^3 to kg/m^3 you mulitply the g/cm^3 value by 1000. In this case getting surprisingly enough 2700 kg/m^3 from 2.7 g/cm^3.

Also Norade there really should be very visible effects from a 100+ km/s projectile in an atmosphere. If I recall the rounds do glow white hot, although they leave no trail of superheated air. We could rationalize it by saying the UNSC has special atmospheric rounds, that reduce secondary effects to a minimum and the effects we should have seen had already dissipated by the time we see the explosions.

First off thanks for showing that I can indeed do basic math and that Jake can't. I always worry about moving a decimal or something in a debate and you confirmed that I didn't fuck that up.

Second, I agree that we might see some effects with modern projectiles, but Jake is too dumb to make that point you just made and had he made it I then would have argued exactly what you just stated.

[Jake]

Those are actually equivalent. 2.7 tons is 2700 kg, to convert g/cm^3 to kg/m^3 you mulitply the g/cm^3 value by 1000. In this case getting surprisingly enough 2700 kg/m^3 from 2.7 g/cm^3.

My bad

We could rationalize it by saying the UNSC has special atmospheric rounds, that reduce secondary effects to a minimum and the effects we should have seen had already dissipated by the time we see the explosions.

We could also use this rationalization for .4c velocity though, if we are giving them a technology not understandable to modern science.

[Norade]

We could rationalize it by saying the UNSC has special atmospheric rounds, that reduce secondary effects to a minimum and the effects we should have seen had already dissipated by the time we see the explosions.

We could also use this rationalization for .4c velocity though, if we are giving them a technology not understandable to modern science.

Not really because a round that stores energy created by friction and releases it at the end could be done with large areas connected to a central heat sink, something tungsten is already good at being due to density and conductivity. Thus simply by virtue of being a huge brick of tungsten it may absorb a ton of heat.

[Xess]

We could also use this rationalization for .4c velocity though, if we are giving them a technology not understandable to modern science.

Even assuming that the MAC gun creates a vacuum channel to shoot the round through we'd still have the problem of the explosions we see not being anywhere close 1 teraton in yield. If they were Master Chief would have been vapourized along with Voi and a lot of Africa. Besides we've already been through whole maybe they lowered the yield bit argument, lets not go through it again.

[Jake]

Then we have a coligun that fires a projectile aerodynamic enough that we don't see any effects that carries enough energy to explode on impact. I see no issue.

I was simply explaining this new evidence you brought into the debate. My arguments about aerodynamics are already known.

That can be explained by a ferrous jacket that allows it to be fired. The fact that tool steel would never be used as a weapon shows your idea to be retarded.

Yet tool steel is the only known iron tungsten alloy.

First, nice misquote above. Also, you will note that I mention you should twist the ends to make it point. Not that it really matters as we all know that a sheet is less aerodynamic than a ball or a tube.

No, you just said rolled and twisted tube. I thought that you were just repeating yourself. Either way, it won't make a difference, as your design is not aerodynamic for the low speeds in your experiment.

40x more massive, but having only about 7.2x as much volume while also being more aerodynamic. You keep using mass as if it means something to aerodynamics...

I was trying to account for all variables. In my experiment, the volume difference is much less, which would help your case anyway. And only 7.2X...

Yes, but it is a simplification of the truth. A mac round will obviously be designed to pass through objects be they ships or atmospheres at high hypersonic speeds.

Passing through a ship has nothing to do with passing through atmosphere. And no, they are designed to pass through SPACE.

Umm, it's common knowledge the two objects dropped from an equal height will hit the ground at the same time. Your experiment was simply too slow to show the effects of drag and didn't have enough height to allow each to reach a terminal velocity. Try the same test with a sheet of paper, versus a loose ball, versus a rolled and tapered tube and you should note a difference between each.

This is basic highschool physics.

As I said, with very subsonic speeds, objects with similar aerodynamic properties will land at similar times. A sheet of paper and a ball of paper do not have similar aerodynamic properties. A ball of paper and a uniform cylinder of paper do have similar aerodynamic properties at subsonic speeds. And as you seem to further promote your stupidity by ignoring, terminal velocity is mass dependent.

Except that such a shape will also pierce a ship well and cut through atmosphere for ground bombardment. But please, do show why they would be roughly formed cylinders...

I did not say they had to be roughly formed cylinders, there just easier to do basic calculations with. If you want to assume this, that's fine but it still doesn't change the fact that there will be visual effects from the round, as I have said earlier.

Not really, by that stage the energies would be many times higher and the round would likely explode the moment it left the barrel and encountered air. Just because you do not know the difference doesn't mean that it isn't there.

No, I distinctly remember you associating flight time with energy dissipated. And the fact that it would explode upon encountering air would prove my earlier point that they would have to fire the MAC slower than its maximum velocity. Thanks for supporting my old arguement.

2.7kg/m3 = 2.7g/cm3 you ass clown. Go learn some basic fucking math you ignorant man child.

Mistakes happen for both of us.

You're arguing for shields down now so it became prudent to cut off that avenue again.

You didn't answer the first part of the post.

[Jake]

Not really because a round that stores energy created by friction and releases it at the end could be done with large areas connected to a central heat sink, something tungsten is already good at being due to density and conductivity. Thus simply by virtue of being a huge brick of tungsten it may absorb a ton of heat.

Source please?

Even assuming that the MAC gun creates a vacuum channel to shoot the round through we'd still have the problem of the explosions we see not being anywhere close 1 teraton in yield. If they were Master Chief would have been vapourized along with Voi and a lot of Africa. Besides we've already been through whole maybe they lowered the yield bit argument, lets not go through it again.

Norade has just added, which I kind of agree, that firing a projectile at .4c in atmosphere would probably wreck the projectile. This is a new arguement for firing at lower power that I hadn't thought of. If there was some kind of vacuum channel, this would explain it, but I have never heard of anything like that used by the UNSC, or if its even remotely possible. In other words, how would they create this thing using their (or our) technology?

[Jake]

I posted a question about the projectile compared to the meteor in the science forum, to try and get a clear answer.

[Norade]

That can be explained by a ferrous jacket that allows it to be fired. The fact that tool steel would never be used as a weapon shows your idea to be retarded.

Yet tool steel is the only known iron tungsten alloy.

That jacket need not be alloyed with the tungsten to be effective. You are asserting something that needn't be the case.

First, nice misquote above. Also, you will note that I mention you should twist the ends to make it point. Not that it really matters as we all know that a sheet is less aerodynamic than a ball or a tube.

No, you just said rolled and twisted tube. I thought that you were just repeating yourself. Either way, it won't make a difference, as your design is not aerodynamic for the low speeds in your experiment.

A long narrow tube twisted shut at one end isn't more aerodynamic than a loose paper ball now? Sure...

40x more massive, but having only about 7.2x as much volume while also being more aerodynamic. You keep using mass as if it means something to aerodynamics...

I was trying to account for all variables. In my experiment, the volume difference is much less, which would help your case anyway. And only 7.2X...

Look at the difference in aerodynamic properties between a high powered modern sports car and a car massing about the same from the 50's. That will be less of a difference than that between a machined and aerodynamic penetrator.

Yes, but it is a simplification of the truth. A mac round will obviously be designed to pass through objects be they ships or atmospheres at high hypersonic speeds.

Passing through a ship has nothing to do with passing through atmosphere. And no, they are designed to pass through SPACE.

Actually a pointed long thin design is the best way to defeat shields and armor as well because the most mass is applied to the smallest area. Though you have already shown yourself to be a moron in other areas so not knowing this doesn't surprise me.

Umm, it's common knowledge the two objects dropped from an equal height will hit the ground at the same time. Your experiment was simply too slow to show the effects of drag and didn't have enough height to allow each to reach a terminal velocity. Try the same test with a sheet of paper, versus a loose ball, versus a rolled and tapered tube and you should note a difference between each.

This is basic highschool physics.

As I said, with very subsonic speeds, objects with similar aerodynamic properties will land at similar times. A sheet of paper and a ball of paper do not have similar aerodynamic properties. A ball of paper and a uniform cylinder of paper do have similar aerodynamic properties at subsonic speeds. And as you seem to further promote your stupidity by ignoring, terminal velocity is mass dependent.

No shit, everybody already knows that two objects dropped from equal height in a vacuum will reach the ground at the same time... Also a loose ball and a pointed sphere do no have roughly the same physical properties just as a musket ball and a modern bullet do not fly in the same manner (this is a bit simply, but the one that comes first to mind.) Also, mass doesn't effect terminal velocity, it would be surface area among other factors. A higher mass may equal a higher drag, but a human with arms to his sides and a human with arms out with have far different properties as well and equal mass of aerodynamic tungsten.

Except that such a shape will also pierce a ship well and cut through atmosphere for ground bombardment. But please, do show why they would be roughly formed cylinders...

I did not say they had to be roughly formed cylinders, there just easier to do basic calculations with. If you want to assume this, that's fine but it still doesn't change the fact that there will be visual effects from the round, as I have said earlier.

You're trying to claim that they could not be made into highly aerodynamic penetrators even though that design would be the best for many reasons aside from traveling through air better.

Not really, by that stage the energies would be many times higher and the round would likely explode the moment it left the barrel and encountered air. Just because you do not know the difference doesn't mean that it isn't there.

No, I distinctly remember you associating flight time with energy dissipated. And the fact that it would explode upon encountering air would prove my earlier point that they would have to fire the MAC slower than its maximum velocity. Thanks for supporting my old arguement.

Yes, flight time and energy released are linked however a slower speed one second flight will release less energy than a sub microsecond flight time at over 2000x greater speed. As for your argument, that does have merit, but such a fireball would still be less destructive than the rings firing so there was no reason not to close the gap and fire all out. A continent is a small price to pay when you think all life everywhere is about to be ended.

You're arguing for shields down now so it became prudent to cut off that avenue again.

You didn't answer the first part of the post.

It would be vary hard to prove that the shields were either up or down based on that scene. As the default state of shields on a warship is up that is the state that should be used unless we are given hard evidence otherwise.

Not really because a round that stores energy created by friction and releases it at the end could be done with large areas connected to a central heat sink, something tungsten is already good at being due to density and conductivity. Thus simply by virtue of being a huge brick of tungsten it may absorb a ton of heat.

Source please?

You want a source for tungsten as a heat sink?

Link One
Lin Two
Link Three

Given that it does make a good heat sink that and other future composite coatings could account for the lack of thermal effects we see. It also may be, as Xess suggested, that they have disipated before we get to see them.

Even assuming that the MAC gun creates a vacuum channel to shoot the round through we'd still have the problem of the explosions we see not being anywhere close 1 teraton in yield. If they were Master Chief would have been vapourized along with Voi and a lot of Africa. Besides we've already been through whole maybe they lowered the yield bit argument, lets not go through it again.

Norade has just added, which I kind of agree, that firing a projectile at .4c in atmosphere would probably wreck the projectile. This is a new arguement for firing at lower power that I hadn't thought of. If there was some kind of vacuum channel, this would explain it, but I have never heard of anything like that used by the UNSC, or if its even remotely possible. In other words, how would they create this thing using their (or our) technology?

A vacuum channel would generally just be a vacuum followed by a positive pressure flow near the end of the weapon keeping the tube in a near vacuum state by forcing air away from the end of the barrel. That would keep the barrel in near vacuum when in atmosphere. Creating a longer channel could be done with a laser of sufficient power at the right frequency.

[Norade]

Thanks to the thread in SLAM we find out some things about the projectile. It would be very, very, hot and glow bright as a noon day sun while giving off a ton of UV radiation; not what I was hoping to hear for my argument, but not the worst thing ever either. Next we find out that it would make a very powerful shock wave, which is something we knew already, what I am asking about is how long such a shock wave would take to get back to its start point.

That isn't the only work that was done though, looking at the nuclear effects calculator done by Mike we can find that certain things about the blast fit at certain yields. The first thing I looked at was fireball duration. The best rough estimate I can get is ~8 seconds, that works out to a value to 3.6 megatons. The issue with this is that we see fireballs that are about 3.5 kilometers wide in the cut scene and a 3.6 megaton blast should only produce a fireball 1.2 kilometers in diameters. To get a blast 3.6 kilometers in diameter we would need a yield of around 60 megatons. Added to this the known power of a shot massing 600 tons and moving at 131 kilometers per second would be 1.2 megatons. This is within an order of magnitude of what we expect based on the speed and mass of the projectile and we would only need to increase the speed by 1.7x to get the fireball duration we expect. The issue with doing this is that we know that the shots take closer to one second that a quarter of a second by watching the scene from 33 seconds to 34 seconds and looking at the last shot to the last blossoming fireball. The fireball and time issues aren't the only one though. The other issue is the lack of a blast wave in the cut scene.

In light of the evidence we're left with two possible explanations for these discrepancies, interaction with the slip stream portal though to our knowledge it hasn't been opened yet, or that the shield releases energy as part of its damage mitigation. I obviously favor the second reason as it fits with what we might expect from shields made up of pure energy and/or exotic particles. Admittedly it does make it more difficult to accurately calculate the scene though.

Things we do know for sure is that we have bounds on how fast the shots moved and that is between about 1,310km/s and 65.5km/s. The highest end gives us a yield of 123 megatons, a fireball size of 4.8 km and a duration of 39.2 seconds. The lowest bound gives us a yield of 307 kilotons a fireball of 430 m and a duration of 2.6 seconds. Both are similar in one aspect of the observed explosion, yet only the weaker blast fits well with the best estimates of the travel time of the shots so we know our blast is closer to that end bringing us to the 1 to 5 megaton range as our best estimate of the firepower of these shots. While even a power of 123 megatons is good for a projectile weapon, it begs the question, why not just lob nukes at the keyship? We could build a 100 megaton device in the early stages of the cold war in reality, so why doesn't halo have better nukes as munitions aboard their last best hope for survival?

The answer to the last question could simply be that they used them all earlier and had no chance to resupply, or that they ran out and due to the devastation couldn't build more however that means that the MAC guns should really be secondary batteries. This is especially glaring when we look at the size and mass of the Tsar Bomb and find a 2.1 m diameter, length of 8 meters and a mass of only 27,000 kilograms as opposed to 600,000 kilograms for a MAC round. Now, one could argue that in space they can fire the MAC gun faster thus releasing more energy, the issue with that is if it were truly the case then firing the shots they did simply damages the area around the portal to no effect thus we should assume that multiple shots between 130 and 1 megaton have a chance to destroy a Covenant vessel. We also know that the cost of blasting a continent off of the Earth is a small one compared to all life in the galaxy being wiped away by the rings so we should assume that the UNSC fired with all they had.

Taking all of these factors together we can take away the following conclusions. Assuming that each UNSC vessel fired five times over the span of two seconds and that each shot delivered 123 megatons we know that the keyship can survive roughly a gigaton per second with unknown shield drain and internal damage. We should also expect this same amount of energy to kill a Covenant vessel or else these shots likely wouldn't have been fired. Based on this scene it is impossible to determine what would kill a halo keyship expect that it would likely take more than a gigaton per second. It does however give us an estimate of less than 1 gigaton per second for feats preformed by drones against Covenant ships in other sources.

[Jake]

From what I read in SLAM, Feil's post says this thing will glow a violet white hue brighter than the noon day sun. We are shown the ships firing in the scene (pretty much ground zero) and we see nothing like this. This is why I resurrected this thread, because I thought something to this nature would happen and since it doesn't, the scene violates conservation of energy.

[Norade]

From what I read in SLAM, Feil's post says this thing will glow a violet white hue brighter than the noon day sun. We are shown the ships firing in the scene (pretty much ground zero) and we see nothing like this. This is why I resurrected this thread, because I thought something to this nature would happen and since it doesn't, the scene violates conservation of energy.

Yes, because the scene isn't exactly as expected we must just throw it out discarding all of the information that does fit instead of using the simplest means of correcting the issue. You do not analyze things by throwing out scenes you do not like. You watch as if you were an outside observer at the scene and based on that you figure out what it would take to replicate the feats shown.

Not that I would expect a retard who didn't know that 2.7g/cm3 was different from 2.7ton/m3 and then tried to claim that his mistake was the same as typing squared when it was obvious that cubed was meant.

[Jake]

Yes, because the scene isn't exactly as expected we must just throw it out discarding all of the information that does fit instead of using the simplest means of correcting the issue.

The scene violates a LAW OF NATURE. This has just been fucking proven to you by myself and the participators of the SLAM forum. The effects can not simply be made to disappear. If were going to pick and choose which laws of physics we obey then we can't even have a debate because it can go as fast or slow as you want it to.

You do not analyze things by throwing out scenes you do not like.

You do not analyze things by throwing out laws of physics you don't like.

You watch as if you were an outside observer at the scene and based on that you figure out what it would take to replicate the feats shown.

A detailed proof that conservation of energy is incorrect.

Not that I would expect a retard who didn't know that 2.7g/cm3 was different from 2.7ton/m3 and then tried to claim that his mistake was the same as typing squared when it was obvious that cubed was meant.

I'm not even going to bother listing all of your mistakes, but if you want a good example go back to the SLAM thread, where you proved yourself an idiot, even after I explained to you that aerodynamics don't matter in space.

[Norade]

Yes, because the scene isn't exactly as expected we must just throw it out discarding all of the information that does fit instead of using the simplest means of correcting the issue.

The scene violates a LAW OF NATURE. This has just been fucking proven to you by myself and the participators of the SLAM forum. The effects can not simply be made to disappear. If were going to pick and choose which laws of physics we obey then we can't even have a debate because it can go as fast or slow as you want it to.

You keep repeating this as if there are no ways to further mitigate the atmospheric effects. Also, arguing that it could be moving at any speed is blatantly false due to the fact that we get the camera moving from looking at the ships to a shot of the keyship being hit. We see a fresh explosion blossoming around a second after this putting a pretty hard bound on how long those rounds took to travel.

You do not analyze things by throwing out scenes you do not like.

You do not analyze things by throwing out laws of physics you don't like.

In that case shields, faster than light drives, and slip space can't be analyzed as they all ass rape physics as we know them.

You watch as if you were an outside observer at the scene and based on that you figure out what it would take to replicate the feats shown.

A detailed proof that conservation of energy is incorrect.

Faster than light travel violates know physical laws as well therefore they must not actually be able to break the light speed barrier. Magic energy fields that soak damage are damn near impossible to make and wouldn't work anything like the way we see shields work in the games. Honestly, sci-fi shits on physics all the time and we accept it.

Not that I would expect a retard who didn't know that 2.7g/cm3 was different from 2.7ton/m3 and then tried to claim that his mistake was the same as typing squared when it was obvious that cubed was meant.

I'm not even going to bother listing all of your mistakes, but if you want a good example go back to the SLAM thread, where you proved yourself an idiot, even after I explained to you that aerodynamics don't matter in space.

Aerodynamics do matter for space to ground bombardment if your round can survive the journey in one form but not with another less efficient shape.

[Jake]

You keep repeating this as if there are no ways to further mitigate the atmospheric effects.

The SLAM thread just showed that even with optimal aerodynamics (which it will not have) your still going to get a hell of a flash.

Also, arguing that it could be moving at any speed is blatantly false due to the fact that we get the camera moving from looking at the ships to a shot of the keyship being hit. We see a fresh explosion blossoming around a second after this putting a pretty hard bound on how long those rounds took to travel.

Uh, we see an explosion that is starting to recede less than a half second after the last round is fired, and since we can't see the round, there really is no bound we can use.

In that case shields, faster than light drives, and slip space can't be analyzed as they all ass rape physics as we know them.

Modern science is already looking into shields using plasma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field). As I have said at least twice in this thread you illiterate numbskull, faster than light is not literal. Even Einstein believed that wormholes, for example, are possible. Slip space is a form of non literal ftl.

Faster than light travel violates know physical laws as well therefore they must not actually be able to break the light speed barrier. Magic energy fields that soak damage are damn near impossible to make and wouldn't work anything like the way we see shields work in the games. Honestly, sci-fi shits on physics all the time and we accept it.

Actually, modern science is researching much of this 'shit' as we speak.

Aerodynamics do matter for space to ground bombardment if your round can survive the journey in one form but not with another less efficient shape.

MACs are not used for this. They are space based weapons meant to engage other capital ships in space.

[Norade]

You keep repeating this as if there are no ways to further mitigate the atmospheric effects.

The SLAM thread just showed that even with optimal aerodynamics (which it will not have) your still going to get a hell of a flash.

Yes, and that is the only effect we're missing from that scene so the simple explanation is not, this scene can't be used, but rather what could ensure that the round doesn't glow brighter than the sun.

Also, arguing that it could be moving at any speed is blatantly false due to the fact that we get the camera moving from looking at the ships to a shot of the keyship being hit. We see a fresh explosion blossoming around a second after this putting a pretty hard bound on how long those rounds took to travel.

Uh, we see an explosion that is starting to recede less than a half second after the last round is fired, and since we can't see the round, there really is no bound we can use.

Actually the last shot we see is fired at around the 31 second mark, shortly after around 32 seconds in we see a fireball just starting to bloom giving us a bound of about 0.1 of a second, which is way too short a span of time, to a full second.

In that case shields, faster than light drives, and slip space can't be analyzed as they all ass rape physics as we know them.

Modern science is already looking into shields using plasma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field). As I have said at least twice in this thread you illiterate numbskull, faster than light is not literal. Even Einstein believed that wormholes, for example, are possible. Slip space is a form of non literal ftl.[/quote]

Yes, I know about these plasma shields intended to stop radiation, but please explain to me how such a field could stop a 600 ton round moving at any speed? Not to mention that at such a density it would be nigh impossible to see through the layers of plasma.

Yes, wormholes may indeed allow for faster than light travel by shortening the distance traveled. However there is no way currently know to physics to create one, stabilize it, and ensure that the other end comes out where you want it too. The theories saying that such things may be possible are themselves propped up be theories that are no where close to being readily testable. Thus, by physics as we currently understand them the creation of a targeted wormhole is impossible. This is without the other effects that are said to be associated with slip stream according to the encyclopedia.

Faster than light travel violates know physical laws as well therefore they must not actually be able to break the light speed barrier. Magic energy fields that soak damage are damn near impossible to make and wouldn't work anything like the way we see shields work in the games. Honestly, sci-fi shits on physics all the time and we accept it.

Actually, modern science is researching much of this 'shit' as we speak.

Please do show how modern research into quantum foam and the theories built upon that prove that slip stream is physically possible. Also, the plasma shields are designed to stop radiation and the shields we see in the games lack the conductive mesh needed to contain this plasma, can stop projectiles as well as radiation, and generally act nothing like the research you linked me to.

Aerodynamics do matter for space to ground bombardment if your round can survive the journey in one form but not with another less efficient shape.

MACs are not used for this. They are space based weapons meant to engage other capital ships in space.

While I can't ask you to prove a negative the idea that no thought was ever put into the idea of firing a MAC round at a world through atmosphere at any point between the deployment of practical magnetic accelerators and the scene in question is laughable. Surely the military could see the value in a round that could survive the trip through the atmosphere and penetrate a target as opposed to bursting in the air above the target.

[Jake]

While we debate about the plausibility of the storm scene in the SLAM forum, I have another plane of attack to discuss here.

While I can't ask you to prove a negative the idea that no thought was ever put into the idea of firing a MAC round at a world through atmosphere at any point between the deployment of practical magnetic accelerators and the scene in question is laughable. Surely the military could see the value in a round that could survive the trip through the atmosphere and penetrate a target as opposed to bursting in the air above the target.

For this path of discussion I will assume that the storm scene is physically possible, and that a laser/heatsink prevents the round traveling at 131 km/sec from disintegrating. What I propose is that they did fire at 131km/sec in the scene, delivering some megaton value of energy. However, I stand by my assumption that they can fire at .4c. Why didn't they do it in the storm, when the survival of all sentient species was at stake? Very simply, they couldn't. The SLAM debate may be ambiguous for 131km/sec, but I think even you would agree that if they fired in atmosphere, at .4c, the round would disintegrate, releasing over a teraton of energy into the atmosphere, laser channel or no. They most they would do is likely destroy themselves. Maybe 131km/sec is the maximum speed they can pull of in atmosphere without destroying the round. This would also explain the fighters. The explosions caused by the fighters in the scene were just as large as the MAC rounds, so they were likely hurling nukes, or at least a shit ton of archer missiles. Remember, the humans have had no previous experience with the forerunner ship, so firing 100+ megatons of MACs and 100+ megatons of missiles is better than nothing, especially if the fate of humanity is at stake. Also, this allows for your assertion that the UNSC would have atmospheric macs while reconciling the game with the books.

[Icehawk]

*sigh* I see the .4c Super MAC brainfart has reared its head again. Time to whip out Fall of Reach....

If anything were to attack it the battle would be a short one. There were twenty Super MAC guns in orbit. They could accelerate a three-thousand ton projectile to POINT FOUR-TENTHS the speed of light and place that projectile with pinpoint accuracy.

.

It's .04c people, NOT .4c. I honestly don't know why so many people mess that up. It should be apparent that something is wrong when ships are only firing them at 15-30 kilometers per second. Given the tech level of the UNSC, 0.04c (almost 12000 km/sec) for a heavily scaled up version of the weapon makes far more sense.

[Jake]

No, its .4c. I just drove to borders and took a look at the halo encyclopedia. A ship based system fires a 600 tun ferric tungsten round at .4c and an orbital super mac fires a 3000 ton depleted uranium round at .5c. The encyclopedia is newer than the fall of reach so by canon policy it takes precedence. If you want to reconcile the two, the ship from the fall of reach may have just been an older model. Also, they spelled out forty percent, and there was no point or decimal, so no, I didn't overlook one.

[Icehawk]

Wow, the Halo Encyclopedia is inconsistant with just about every other piece of material then. Thats an insane amount of power boost.

All the other books as well as the game manual atleast (for Halo 3 iirc) maintained ship mounted MACs as being in the tens of km/sec range. Hell in Halo 3 itself, their are ship mounted MACS being fired at that Forrunner artifact on earth which only produce explosive effects that are at best kiloton range which is also consistant with the tens of km/sec range from the books. I would say that the Encyclopedia is at the very least wrong about the shipmounted weapons given what we can visually see in Halo 3 cutscenes.