Main Menu

News:

If you are having problems registering, please e-mail theconclaveforum at gmail.com

Plas Steel and Adamantium?

Started by Adlan, September 02, 2009, 10:44:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

MarcoSkoll

Quote from: Dosdamt on September 23, 2009, 02:21:58 PMYou reverse engineered information on a fictional weapon?
In a manner of speaking. There's enough numbers about them, as well as pictures to make it possible to estimate dimensions, mass and performance with some accuracy.

QuoteBut, can we be serious for a second - it's a fictional realm.
Of course, but when I originally posed the question in the other thread, I was setting it up to be assessed from the viewpoint of science as it's known today - mostly to avoid just what you talk about... people pulling out the "the canon says it just happens, okay?" arguments in place of the "Actually, if you look at it, it could possibly work like this..." arguments.
In other words, looking it at it from the perspective of science fact, rather than science fiction (or if you prefer, science fantasy).

So strictly, while you can say "Magical heatsinks that use unicorn tears and fairy dust for a heat transfer mechanism", that's outside the spirit of the discussion.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Dosdamt

I don't mean to be offensive, and please don't take it that way, but surely that is complete and utter nonsense. The pictures are drawn by artists and the numbers loosely made up to ensure the weapon could be used by an 8ft tall superhuman. If they were proposed technical diagrams drawn by some kind of mish-mash of a technical draftsman / ballistics expert / futurologist, then perhaps there'd be some credence.

Not only that, but if you're making calculations of any kind on this kind of stuff, surely you'd have to throw in a giant variable X, X being the gap between today's scientific knowledge + any general differences in the laws of physics. Accounting in those terms and quantifying the variable i.e. 'For this to feasibly work using what we know today and using our laws of physics, the weapons would have to x y z' is a different statement to 'This won't work according to our science and our laws of physics'.

Where do you draw a line? The ins and outs of warp travel? The Necron FTL engine? The Webway? 'Nid bio-titans? Idle speculation is fine, but surely there comes a point where you have to say 'Ok, that's a bit far fetched, but let's roll with it / 30 000 years of scientific advancement probably accounts for it'.

-Ben
It is never too late! - Mentirius

http://thementalmarine.proboards.com/index.cgi <- The Mind, for all your irreverent nonsense needs

Hadriel Caine

Quote from: Dosdamt on September 23, 2009, 10:59:27 PM
I don't mean to be offensive.

You aren't being. every one is so nice these days... whatever happend to Charax, he's being quite quiet :D I miss it!

I understand where Marco is coming from here. If you have, even a basic, understanding of a certain field of expertise which is then translated into fiction it is often difficult to accept. I like my 40k to be Grimdark and gritty like everyone else (generalising of course, excuse me mr Zoat/ squat fanboy...) but it is Science Fiction, rooted in fact (there are people, lots of war happens which is depressing... yadda yadda) but the Fiction part is important. Alien would have been a less good film without the aliens (hell even starship troopers would have been), we readily(ish) accept las technology and Warp Drive etc in Sci Fi, we can also only speculate on things that exist outside our world in reality.

This forum is about a game. and a game setting. Sometimes we all need to keep sight of that.

Bearing in mind of course we have to make concessions to every body else's interpretation of the game setting.

I wouldn't just say that /30 000 years of scientific advancement probably accounts for it. I'd say the fictional nature of the setting does and the fictional advancement of technology more than accounts for it and pales in comparison to the completely off the wall appearance of a Blood letter bursting through your plasteel wall and raping your warband to death. suddenly nobody cares what its made of....

yours sarcastically and lovingly

Adam
The Fall of Astraea
Astrean OOC- feedback thread

\'You have to lie to keep people happy\'

MarcoSkoll

Quote from: Dosdamt on September 23, 2009, 10:59:27 PMI don't mean to be offensive, and please don't take it that way, but surely that is complete and utter nonsense.
Nonsense? Well, if you want to believe that, but while the dimensions I have aren't millimetre perfect, they do at least possess some degree of accuracy. Enough to work with, at least.

QuoteNot only that, but if you're making calculations of any kind on this kind of stuff, surely you'd have to throw in a giant variable X, X being the gap between today's scientific knowledge + any general differences in the laws of physics.
I have to take it that the laws of physics, at least before you throw in the warp, are as near to identical to ours as makes no difference, because any notable deviation from them would result in a universe where the existence of anything we could recognise as similar to our world would be preposterous.

This concept is better known as the anthropic principle. Anyway, for that reason, basic laws of motion, thermodynamics (obviously including the warp as part of the closed system for the 1st law) and whatnot would be things we could recognise. Physical constants might be a mite off, but not enough to throw off any calculations by an amount that would matter.

QuoteIdle speculation is fine, but surely there comes a point where you have to say 'Ok, that's a bit far fetched, but let's roll with it / 30 000 years of scientific advancement probably accounts for it'.
If there's a far-fetched point, personally I'd rather hear "There isn't really an explanation for it" than some attempt to rationalise it with pseudo-science. In other words, more or less what Adam said: "It's not the 'science' that's the answer, it's the fiction".

Obviously though, IMHO, I'd rather sit down and change the situation so that neither solution was necessary - seldom possible, but we can dream.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Dosdamt

I'm sorry, I might be backwards, but can you explain how an artistic rendering of anything could be a fundamental basis for a 'scientific reverse engineering' of anything!?! I'm genuinely struggling to get my head around it. It's not even an approximation, it's not based on sound assumptions, because it's a sketch by an artist. It probably doesn't work because it's not a technical drawing! If you believe you can do a sound scientific assessment of anything based on an artist's rendering then knock yourself out, but that doesn't sound like solid science to me.

How do you know the basic laws of physics are the actual laws of physics? Sure, I can prod my pen and it'll move - equal and opposite reaction and all that - but that's based on our current understanding of the universe. 1000 years ago the earth was flat etc etc etc. I'll not labour the point.

What you are doing *is* psuedo-science simply because trying to drag something (a) fictional or if we ignore that (b) we assume it is this universe, 38 000 years in the future, into our current understanding of physics / science is a nonsense simply because you have basically have a story / artistic renderings to go from.

I tell you what, go 38 000 years into the past, I'll explain the concept of a computer / gun / whatever mundane device we take for granted today to you, and let you explain why it simply wouldn't be possible with a rock, the basic ability to make fire and a club and their understanding of the laws of physics / science.

-Ben
It is never too late! - Mentirius

http://thementalmarine.proboards.com/index.cgi <- The Mind, for all your irreverent nonsense needs

precinctomega

If you start from the assumption that something is possible - time travel, say, or teleportation - then you can work backwards using known scientific principles to see how it might be done, even though those things are fictional devices.

Similarly, with the bolter, we know roughly what its effects are, how many rounds it can fire and approximately how large it must be.  If we start from those principles, using modern materials and ballistic technology, it is possible to work backwards from those assumptions to achieve some idea of how the weapon may operate or how it may be constructed.

"Reverse engineering" is, perhaps, not the perfect term as this usually describes taking something that already exists and working out its operating principles from that fact.  "Reverse fictioneering" might be a more appropriate term.  But it's still perfectly feasible.  Most inventions start from the "this should be possible" image before working backwards through the principles to determine how to build said thing.

There is nothing inherently impossible about a bolter.

R.

InquisitorHeidfeld

Plasma treated steel as Plasteel doesn't work...

Plasma treatment of metals is used today to improve surface properties - but while the plasma part of the process allows a very even treatment it offers nothing which would revolutionise the material.
Use Plasma as your heat source and you still get molten steel. Use it to introduce another material and you still get an alloy (to all intents and purposes), use it to heat treat the metal and it will perform in the same way as any other flame.
Either you may as well use steel formed or alloyed by some other method, or if plasma treatments offer cost benefits for example then all steel will use that method except on primative worlds - so it becomes simply steel.

We know from the known properties that Plasteel is cheap - which means that it's not akin to modern plasma treatments, simply because they add cost to components which could easily be simple steel.
The implication from the various other comtemporaneous sources has the prefix "Plas" used to indicate a polymer compound - and the way it is used in those senses tends to follow the same formula:

"Plas" + "Contraction of the material for which the compound substitutes"

This gives us primarily Plascrete - a polymer substitute for concrete & Plasteel - a polymer substitute for steel.
Note that these are both materials used in vast quantities in construction and fashionable materials at the time we're primarily considering.

Dosdamt

I still maintain you must include a huge variable in there i.e. the gap in knowledge. Stating that something couldn't realistically work according to our knowledge is a nonsense when you factor in that variable. Saying we don't have the current technology / know-how in that particular area is considerably more accurate.

I agree with the basic premise - start with an idea, state it must be possible, try and make it to that idea using current thinking - but then categorically stating something is not possible because my current knowledge says it isn't possible is silly.

That is what I assume scientists do you in your situation Robey - start with a problem i.e. faster than light travel, next step what do we know in the area i.e. laws of relativity and all that, what don't we know enough about i.e. generation of the huge amounts of energy etc etc required to make it work, next step advance knowledge in that area. They don't simply stop at 'it's not feasible because my laws of physics / knowledge of manufacture state they're not possible'.

This debate about a debate has reached a point of vicious circle so I'll poke my nose elsewhere.

-Ben
It is never too late! - Mentirius

http://thementalmarine.proboards.com/index.cgi <- The Mind, for all your irreverent nonsense needs

N01H3r3

Quote from: InquisitorHeidfeld on September 24, 2009, 01:14:04 PM
Plasma treated steel as Plasteel doesn't work...

Plasma treatment of metals is used today to improve surface properties
Which assumes that a hypothetical form of plasma heat treatment (or the processes it is used to enable) is identical to a real contemporary one, and ignores the fact that the Imperium demonstrably are far more able at utilising the practical applications of various plasma technologies than we are.

One particular desirable grain structure, from one particular alloy, most easily achievable by a specific (but undefined and hypothetical) process... that's all it would need to be.

The ever-present problem with treating 40k as if it were science fiction, rather than fantasy that happens to include starships and lasers alongside its swords, magic and orcs, is that it isn't intended for such scrutiny - 40k has about as much to do with science as the banana flavouring in milkshakes has with real bananas...
Contributing Writer for many Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay books, including Black Crusade

Professional Games Designer.

MarcoSkoll

Quote from: Dosdamt on September 24, 2009, 11:21:05 AM...but can you explain how an artistic rendering of anything could be a fundamental basis for a 'scientific reverse engineering' of anything!?!
I never said "scientific reverse engineering" - it's you who is adding the word "scientific". The words I used were more along the lines of "approximate".

If we take an image, and work from known dimensions, it is still possible to estimate the dimensions of at least that particular bolter within the image. If that doesn't agree with another bolter in another image... well, it's already set out in the canon that bolters are repaired for as long as it is feasible to do so. Hence, all bolters are actually unique anyway, so as I've already said, I'm not pretending the measurements are millimetre perfect.

I still maintain the numbers are enough to do some rough calculations by, at least.

Anyway, I think you're misunderstanding why I did the "reverse engineering". It was all part of a discussion on the last 'clave about bolter practicality and the issues related to normal humans lugging them around.
The point is nicely illustrated by the mock-up I did of a 20 round bolter magazine. For reference, the modern 20 and 30 round STANAG magazines are on the same scale. The bullets are 7.62x39mm (top) and 5.56x45mm (bottom), used in the AK47 and the AR15 (as well as most other modern assault rifles) respectively.

QuoteHow do you know the basic laws of physics are the actual laws of physics?
Lack of any evidence to the contrary, in the simplest form.

There are some things we know aren't quite right (parts of quantum physics for example), but given nothing has proven the "basics" wrong, they're considered to be the genuine article.

Quote from: N01H3r3 on September 24, 2009, 11:31:04 PM40k has about as much to do with science as the banana flavouring in milkshakes has with real bananas...
Banana flavouring and real bananas have at least one shared attribute - either makes me somewhat queasy. It's an odd but unfortunate situation - the thing is, other than that, I quite like bananas.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Koval

On the bolters debate, because quite frankly I didn't want to see this rise to the top of the bowl again:

If there's reason to suggest that it might work this way or [/i]that[/i] way, then we can just apply some general physics-y guff and leave it at that, surely. Same for things like meltaguns and other directed-energy weapons in the 40Kverse. We don't need exact specifics, because there are none (Marco, I'm sorry, but your numbers don't count, because you're still working from assumptions rather than hard data which still isn't available), so the best we can get -- and incidentally all we need -- is from just a casual and general application of physical laws as opposed to getting technical with diagrams and whatnot. The amount of time between now and the age of the Imperium will just iron out any problems.

Remember, the idea of mobile telephones was absolutely laughable less than half a century ago, and now we get things that I could quite easily break in my hands, because technology is better understood (and arguably a lot more fragile).

tl;dr version: just let it rest

MarcoSkoll

Quote from: Koval on September 25, 2009, 08:18:27 AMMarco, I'm sorry, but your numbers don't count, because you're still working from assumptions rather than hard data which still isn't available.
Again, when originally I did the numbers I didn't intend for them to be used in this fashion, and I never said they were any more than approximations.

I can't see why everyone is up in arms about the use of estimated numbers (in fact, only the suggestion of estimated numbers - I did the calculations with genuine AR15 data). There are, after all, such things as "rough calculations".

QuoteRemember, the idea of mobile telephones was absolutely laughable less than half a century ago, and now we get things that I could quite easily break in my hands, because technology is better understood (and arguably a lot more fragile)
I'd argue otherwise. While the technology to make a portable phone wasn't around yet, the science behind them was. The concept of "spread spectrum communication" (the core principle behind mobile phones) was first patented in 1942, although Nikola Tesla alluded to the the idea back in patents he filed in 1900 and 1903.

In many cases, the concept behind things very frequently proceeds the technology with which to do it by some dramatic amount of time. In other words "It's possible - it just isn't possible yet" is a very frequent answer.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

InquisitorHeidfeld

Quote from: N01H3r3 on September 24, 2009, 11:31:04 PM
Quote from: InquisitorHeidfeld on September 24, 2009, 01:14:04 PM
Plasma treated steel as Plasteel doesn't work...

Plasma treatment of metals is used today to improve surface properties
Which assumes that a hypothetical form of plasma heat treatment (or the processes it is used to enable) is identical to a real contemporary one, and ignores the fact that the Imperium demonstrably are far more able at utilising the practical applications of various plasma technologies than we are.

One particular desirable grain structure, from one particular alloy, most easily achievable by a specific (but undefined and hypothetical) process... that's all it would need to be.

Except that it is the grain structure or the alloying which is important in these examples.
We talk about Manganese steel or cast iron - how the alloy is arrived at or what fuel was used to heat the metal to its pouring point is not a concern.
We make no distinction between coal, gas or electric arc furnaces when dealing with the final product and it is counter intuative that the Imperium (or more specifically the Mechanicus) would in this way.
And if they do, where are the references to Costeel, Gasteel, Arsteel, Solasteel...etc.

In general terms a process would be referred to as an uncontracted prefix (cast, wrought, Drop forged, Plasma Nitrided).
The "corruption" here suggests something rather more like a trade name...

Before I get people telling me that trade names don't fit into the Mechanicus or something similar...
Kevlar is not a name descriptive of the polymer it represents - but even if you eliminate the DuPont corporation (who trademarked it) from your universe it is much easier to use the word Kelvar to describe similar materials than to either invent a new word which you would have to explain to the reader or (worse yet) to describe the chemical formulation or structure of the substance and completely confuse everyone.

N01H3r3

Quote from: InquisitorHeidfeld on September 25, 2009, 04:52:20 PMWe make no distinction between coal, gas or electric arc furnaces when dealing with the final product and it is counter intuative that the Imperium (or more specifically the Mechanicus) would in this way.
And if they do, where are the references to Costeel, Gasteel, Arsteel, Solasteel...etc.
And? I'm willing to accept inconsistency in fiction, given how inconsistent real life so frequently ends up being (as the saying goes, "truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense"). Considering that there's not only thirty millennia of technological development and decline, but also a similar amount of linguistic drift and cultural evolution, terms we might consider strange to describe something we would describe differently are not exactly an issue I find myself getting flustered about.
Contributing Writer for many Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay books, including Black Crusade

Professional Games Designer.

Simeon Blackstar

Just to add some confusion, remember that "plasteel" would presumably be the translation from High Gothic, in which language it would hopefully be clear whether the prefix referred to plasma or plastic.

Simply because of the existence of plascrete, I'd go with the polymer explanation.