_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> In one Trav ship in a campaign I was, part of the defenses were that
That's just evil.
I hate to say this but you may not doing them as much harm as
you think you are doing.
The equation to use is d = ViT + 1/2*AT*T (T squared)
FIRST PART OF CYCLE (1/8 of second)
T (time) =.125 second (4cycles per second means grav changes 8 times
per second)
Vi(velocity initial) = 0
A(acceleration) = 32ft per second per second * 6(Gs) = 192ft per sec per sec
d = 1/2 * 192ft per sec per sec * .125 seconds * .125 seconds
d = 1.5 ft
Vf = Vi + A * T = 192ft per sec * .125 sec = 24 ft per sec
SECOND PART OF CYCLE (1/8 of second)
T (time) =.125 second (4cycles per second means grav changes 8 times
per second)
Vi(velocity initial) = 24 ft per sec
A(acceleration) = -32ft per second per second * 6(Gs) = -192ft per
second per second
d = 24 ft per second * .125 sec + 1/2 * (-192ft per sec per sec )* .125
seconds *.125 seconds
= 1.5 ft.
Vf = 24 ft per sec - 24 ft per sec = 0
So they went up 3 ft in 1/4 second and then will continue to rise till
ceiling
stops them. Then over the next 3/4 to 1 second (8 to 12 ft high
ceilings)
they will be comming down at the rate of 3 ft every 1/4 second. They
will
repeat this cycle with the 6G field being felt only when pinned against the
floor or ceiling and then for less then 1/8 of a second.
It would be more deadly to use 2G with a cycle time of 1 second. A
6G with a cycle time of 1 second would kill them but might also
turn them into a battering ram against the floor and ceiling.
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Scott Siebold wrote:
> > In one Trav ship in a campaign I was, part of the defenses were that
*Math snipped*
> It would be more deadly to use 2G with a cycle time of 1 second. A
Ok, so in terms of impact damage, it isn't that great of a system. What about
in terms of physiologically harmfull?
Do we have any pilots on the list? What's average G tolerance for an untrained
(non pilot) person? 6g? I know with proper training a pilot can make 9g
without a problem. I'd like to know how the body responds to taking g's over
time but don't know what to google for.
And the swing from +6g to -6g is a *really* ugly rollercoaster to
ride in combat gear or full vac gear. You might vomit, pass out and then check
out.
Quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gee_force
One often hears the term being applied to the limits that the human body can
withstand without blacking out, sometimes referred to as g-loc (loc
stands for loss of consciousness). A typical person can handle about 5 g (50
m/s²)
before this occurs, but through the combination of special g-suits and
efforts to strain muscles -both of which act to force blood back into
the
brain- modern pilots can typically handle 9 g (90 m/s²). Resistance to
"negative" or upward gees, which drive blood to the head, is much less;
typically in the 2-3 g (20 to 30 m/s²) range the vision goes red,
probably due to capillaries in the eyes bursting under the increased blood
pressure.
Fred
[quoted original message omitted]
> I wrote:
That campaign was 23 years ago, so I may be mis-remembering the cycle
time -- might have been 2ce a second.
Apparently Scott wrote, in a post that I received as blank:
> > It would be more deadly to use 2G with a cycle time of 1 second. A
"Would kill them" is the effect we were looking for. If UNBOSS agents had ever
made it onto the ship, keeping the decks and overheads intact would have been
a very low priority.
> A typical person can handle about 5 g (50 m/s²) before this occurs,
A typically physically fit person can do 5G for a few seconds if he knows what
he is doing. A well trained Fighter Pilot who is fit, and wearing a G suit
doing a strain manuever, can do 9G for a few seconds. That comes under the
heading of "being lucky". Constantly pulling G's is a very tireing, exausting
thing.
The average civilian can pass out at 2 G's
Lateral G's - or transverse G's are much easier to take. That is why the
current crop of fighter planes have the pilot nearly reclining.
Negative G's are also very bad for motion sickness. Trust me - this I
know. If strapped to a chair, your lunch isn't.
My aircraft was the mighty BUFF. While the B-52 didn't pull alot of
G's, it vibrated, was very loud, smelled like a heated urinal, and was
uncomfortable as hell. Really bad for airsickness. Being a Nav, I didn't even
get a window seat.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 10/9/05, Mike
> Hillsgrove <mikeah@cablespeed.com> wrote:
Of course, a pilot knows he is going to pull Gs and is seated, strapped down
into a chair. A Marine going down a hallway when the gravity suddenly changes
direction is not going to be able to handle the same stress. Hell, he's likely
to break something on the first trip to the ceiling just from landing at an
awkward angle. If you want entertainment, just ramp the Gs up to 6 and have
"down" be what used to be the ceiling. Even if he doesn't break something,
he's effectively pinned to the ceiling until you decide to cut him loose or
evacuate the air in the passageway.
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Mike Stanczyk wrote:
> Do we have any pilots on the list? What's average G tolerance for
A lot less than that, if you expect to remain awake and not vomiting thru
the proceedings. 2-3g applied suddenly can do ugly things.
I've about 10hrs of aerobatic training, in a plane that's legal from
+7 to -2g; my personal maximums so far have been +3.5 and -1.5 or so.
+3.5 is OK; you're just heavy, tensing all the muscles in your trunk,
neck and legs.
True negative G - below around -0.5 or so - is very, very odd,
especially
if you enter it abruptly from a +G situation. I did that once, blew a
spin exit and went from +2 down to around -1 -- your eyeballs feel like
they've just flipped inverted somehow, and all of a sudden you're tensed in
the wrong direction.
Accelerating into a negative G situation like that feels much different
from ordinary inverted flight, where you are of course subjected to -1G
while upside down.
Humans have a much, much lower tolerance for true negative
G/acceleration
than they do for positive G. -6G could probably kill even a healthy
person
- blood pressure going odd, especially inside the skull, and nasties
like that.
And if local acceleration suddenly switches from +6 to -6, that's TWELVE
G of acceleration, which strikes me as very ugly indeed.
(Remembering for the above the maxim that acceleration is locally
indistigushable from gravity...)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lHe's not going to
feel the G's. Think of it this way, a person orbitting earth is in a 1G field.
However, she is falling continuosly so feels as if she has no acceleration. Gs
pulled are only felt when there is something resisting the change.
Roger
*Well, tidal forces can kill you, but I don't want to go there.
> On 10/8/05, Mike Stanczyk <stanczyk@pcisys.net> wrote:
> If you want entertainment, just ramp the Gs up to 6 and have "down" be
> what used to be the ceiling. Even if he doesn't break something, he's
> effectively pinned to the ceiling until you decide to cut him loose or
> evacuate the air in the passageway.
Of course, if the boarders have PA suits, you could have these equipped like a
pilot's pressure suit to at least partly compensate for G forces.
Built-in thrusters, magnetic boots, gravitic modules etc. could also
reduce the threat from such a defence system. And these add-on would not
be of use just against such a gravity trap, but also would help when
fighting on high-gravity planets, during athmospheric entry maneuvers,
etc.
Greetings Karl Heinz
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> It would be more deadly to use 2G with a cycle time of 1 second. A
> Ok, so in terms of impact damage, it isn't that great of a system.
> Do we have any pilots on the list? What's average G tolerance for
> And the swing from +6g to -6g is a *really* ugly rollercoaster to
Although it may sound a bit strange, when not on the floor or ceiling the
bouncers will be in ZERO G. When on floor or ceiling the G force would be 0G
or 6G but the duration would be for less then
1/8 of a second followed by 1/2 to 1 second of zero G. The
damage will be mostly caused by the impact on the floor and ceiling. So I ran
it through the equation I gave and:
for 8 ft traveled (and air resistance not counted) As given:
+6G/-6G cycle time .25 seconds is velocity on impact 0 to
24 ft per second with average velocity being 12 ft per second
optimized for 8 ft and reverse grav just at impact:
+6G/-6G cycle time .576 seconds is velocity on impact of 55 ft per
second
+2G/-2G cycle time 1.0 seconds is velocity on impact of 32 ft per second
> If you want entertainment, just ramp the Gs up to 6 and have "down" be
> what used to be the ceiling. Even if he doesn't break something, he's
> effectively pinned to the ceiling until you decide to cut him loose or
> evacuate the air in the passageway.
Of course, if the boarders have PA suits, you could have these equipped like a
pilot's pressure suit to at least partly compensate for G forces.
Built-in thrusters, magnetic boots, gravitic modules etc. could also
reduce the threat from such a defence system. And these add-on would not
be of use just against such a gravity trap, but also would help when
fighting on high-gravity planets, during athmospheric entry maneuvers,
etc.
Greetings Karl Heinz
Well, the good news is, it ain't just Gmail....
[quoted original message omitted]
> Mike Hillsgrove wrote:
Cool!
My father was a radar-nav bombardier on a B-52.
Go to http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3p.html#astrogation
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> Roger Books wrote:
> http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3l.html
The Gyrojet pistol was a disaster and it was DOA (Dead on Arrival). Ammunition
was expensive due to extremely tight tolerances for the rocket nozzles, the
bullet was underpowered, and it wasn't all that accurate. The lack of recoil
could be offset by having the rocket propellant shooting right back at you.
If you are in a spacesuit with some intelligence built in why not let the suit
handle the recoil. Have the suit detect the recoil (have the suits user put
the suit in recoil compensation mode?) and as your weapon recoils the suit
will fire retro jets to counter the recoil. In this way standard weapons could
be used and no special weapons are needed.
The M203 (M79 grenade launcher + M16 rifle) grenade was just a shotgun
shell with an attitude. The advantage is that the warhead of this weapon could
be anything you'd want. An AP round with a perpetrator that goes off on
contact (explosive charge goes off on contact driving a high density
perpetrator round into target) should be able to go through any suit armor. If
you want a rocket round (as Gyrojet) then the warhead could fire the rocket
after round leaves barrel.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAnd as an added
bonus it solves that whole prison overpopulation problem..and.. the
psycholigical effects of having convicted felons splattered all over your
armor would be devastating.
Best idea since the pachyderm rail gun!
Chuk
The M203 (M79 grenade launcher + M16 rifle) grenade was just a shotgun
shell with an attitude. The advantage is that the warhead of this weapon could
be anything you'd want. An AP round with a perpetrator that goes off on
contact (explosive charge goes off on contact driving a high density
perpetrator round into target) should be able to go through any suit armor. If
you want a rocket round (as Gyrojet) then the warhead could fire the rocket
after round leaves barrel.
Scott
> On 10/20/05, Scott Siebold <gamers@ameritech.net> wrote:
> The M203 (M79 grenade launcher + M16 rifle) grenade was just a shotgun
Ever fired one? I wouldn't want that in low gravity. It will rock a 160lb
soldier.
And what you really need for armor piercing in such a low velocity weapon is a
HEDP round.
> On 10/19/05, Scott Siebold <gamers@ameritech.net> wrote:
> If you are in a spacesuit with some intelligence built in why not let
IIRC I already suggested that.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> The M203 (M79 grenade launcher + M16 rifle) grenade was just a
I actually taught a class on it. Having just passed the Primary NCO Class
(PNOC) I got volunteered to give a class on the M203 and LAW
(Light Anti-Tank Weapon). At PNOC I fired 1 live LAW and five rounds
from the M203. At the class I gave, each of the students got to fire three
grenades out of the M203 and three simulator rounds out of the LAW (and if
they wouldn't have killed anyone) one live LAW. I fired the leftover rounds
but had to share them with one other instructor, the range officer and range
NCO. The kick on the M203 was noticeable but not that bad, no kick on the LAW
but the noise was bad (wore earplugs).
The advantage of firing a grenade launcher (shotgun with attitude) is
that with no or low gravity you can reduce the propellent charge and/or
ignite a rocket motor after the round has cleared the barrel. The idea
is that you have a mix of rounds to handle power armor, non-armored
vacuum suits or unfriendly BEMs. An AP or HE round may make a good door
opener from a distance and some form of combo thermal/smoke round may
block the bad guys thermal/visual sights.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThe M203 is a
projectile (albeit with a grenade sticky-taped to the front), while the
LAW is, I think, a rocket, and self propelled; hence no kick from the LAW.
Open to corrections mind.
CJ
[quoted original message omitted]