On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:29 AM, <gzg-l-request@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
wrote:
> When you run, you are moving up and down--and tiny variations in the
> He's talking future weapons, not contemporary. Take into consideration
Yup, in the far future, physics will change. Yes, we will be able to
accurately stabilize hand-held weapons precisely the same way that
tank guns are stabilized.
You see, the way that tank armament is stabilized has nothing to do with heavy
equipment which moves the turret and the gun around. It's actually the
technology fairies that magically improve things over time.
Powered armor could have stabilization systems. Anything else (unpowered
armor) definitionally means that you are relying on human muscles to hold the
weapon in place. Stabilizing your arms is a
non-trivial exercise that will not magically become easier over the
passage of time.
Some days I despair.
> I say it's all relative. Gotta be open-minded about some stuff. :-)
We have
> image-stabilized cameras, no? What's to say that that technology won't
You don't have to be so open-minded your frickin' brain falls out onto
the floor and oozes around for the rest of us to use as a kickball.
> From the Wikipedia article on image stabilization:
> An optical image stabilizer, often abbreviated OIS, IS, or OS, is a
Not applicable--weapons aren't receiving information they are sending
things (bullets, lasers, whatever) so there is no optical path to sensor to
move to compensate.
> In Nikon and Canon's implementation, it works by using a floating lens
Same argument in reverse. You'd have to have the barrel in a
self-powered mount which moves the weapon around. Which means it's no
longer a hand-held weapon carried by unpowered armor. This line of
thinking works fine for a weapon mounted on a powered armor suit.
> The sensor capturing the image can be moved in such a way as to
See counter-argument to the optical image stabilizer, modified in the
obvious manner.
> Real digital image stabilization is used in some video cameras. This
If I need to explain why this concept doesn't apply to a rifle, you don't need
to be involved in this conversation.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAh, John John
John. It's too bad neither of us will be around long enough to
see this discussion become moot by advances in technology. :-D
Mk
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:38 PM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:29 AM,
We
> have
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Wed, Jul 7,
> 2010 at 3:46 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, John John John. It's too bad neither of us will be around long
John is also discounting Transhumanist elements where human bodies are
augmented with non-organic structures and artificial intelligence, or
where minds are shifted into artificial bodies. The Tuffleyverse doesn't
specifically cover these elements, but SG2 and DS2 are technically generic
rule sets.
Are such Transhumanist elements realistic? *shrug* Maybe, but probably not.
Are they staples of 21st century sci-fi genre emulation? Yep.
Should they appear in a sci-fi toy soldier game? Yep, if you're trying
to emulate a particular genre.
Or maybe we should do away with genre emulation entirely and *only *go with
what's realistic. We can start by taking away FTL travel and plasma
guns...
With rapid advances in medical technology, my hope is that John lives a life
happy and long enough to prove him wrong on this.
WRT the substance of his argument, I think I'll start by pointing out that the
links he quoted for optical image stabilization directly support
autostabilized lasers, since you could move either the emitter or the laser in
whatever manner was most efficient. Recoil for a laser isn't an issue,
obviously.
For mini-missiles and plasma weapons, these are sufficiently
speculative that they're largely PSB to begin with. Additional PSB to justify
stabilization isn't that much of a stretch once you've accepted the weapon
itself.
OK so that leaves conventional firearms. I'm proposing two possible forms of
autostabilization. First, allowing the barrel to be moved slightly within the
body of the rifle, then controlling this by computer to maintain or alleviate
instability. John, you say this isn't physically possible even in science
fiction, which is a pretty wild claim. Certainly nothing I've seen in physics
suggests it. The computers and sensor systems already exist, as evidenced
above. The only question is whether mechanical controls small, strong and
agile enough can be fabricated. It's been a few years since I took physics,
but I don't see why this isn't a possibility. As you point out, even a few
degrees makes a big difference downrange.
The other strategy is what I'd call "fire-by-wire", where you
de-couple the mechanical connection between trigger and firearm. The
gun is free to fire when the trigger is depressed, but will only actually fire
at the moment when the barrel is aimed at the selected target. Computers that
fast and compact are already in use, though the image recognition isn't there
yet. Presumably countermeasures might be invented, but those would have
nothing to do with the shooter's motion and everything to do with the target's
countermeasures.
The two strategies are complementary. As the soldier runs, his gun bouncing
around, the computer is watching the cone of possible shots (defined by the
freedom of movement of the barrel) bounce around as well. When it sees a shot
coming, it moves the barrel. When it sees the opportunity, it fires. The
result would be an irregular, staccato pattern of single shots. The rifleman
might actually be better off letting the gun wave around in the general
direction of his target on purpose to give his battle computer more chances to
fire.
While I'm typing this, Allan's email came in, and he's right to point out that
this is very plausible and mundane compared to such staples
of the setting such as grav, FTL and out-of-the-box habitable worlds,
neither of which are remotely possible according to physics as we know them.
Rob
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Robert Mayberry
> <robert.mayberry@gmail.com> wrote:
> The two strategies are complementary. As the soldier runs, his gun
If I was a trooper on the ground this would make me a bit queasy. The last
thing I want is a piece of technology going "not gonna
fire...sorry."
I have the book packed away but in the Aliens universe I believe the smart
guns are are gyroscopically stabalized and computerized allowing the gunners
to do wonders on the move (at least in the text). The
downside to this is that the non-Aliens baddies probably have the same
damn technology.
D.