Alfred Urrutia (Alfred.Urrutia@disney.com)
Fri, 1 Oct 1999 19:20:00 -0700 (PDT)


On Oct 1, 5:58pm, Edward Ju wasted bandwidth discussing:
> Subject: Re: [gundam] Turn-A
>

> My original statement stated that one's talent for industrial design does
> not equate to the ability for mechanical designs, and I believe this does
> not preclude it entirely as you've interpreted it to be so. If one's
> knack in industrial design gives him similar degree of ability in mechanical
> design, then I fail to see the need for two labels if they are essentially
> the same thing, which seems to be the case you are making.
>

I see your point. Does not equate. But similar degree is subjective from
the standpoint that we don't know what was asked of Mead and what he was
thinking when he drew them up.

> You know, the last time I backed something up, I was flamed for being
> rude and underestimating one's IQ...
>

Not by me.

> This is going to sound like "Aw, come on, just look at it," but it doesn't
> take a rocket scientist to see that for the same amount of mass/weight,
> having a bigger ground-contacting surface means less stress and gravitational
> force is being applied to the ground on which the object rests. This is
> what I learned in junior high, I thought it'd be obvious. The best example
> I can think of now is, say, you wrestle with a girl from the office who's
> wearing high heels and you are wearing your sneakers. I don't care how
> physically built she is (analogous to the stats of the MS), the simple fact
> that she's wearing high heels puts her at a major disadvantage which you can
> exploit. And no engineer in their right mind would design something with
> such a critical flaw that'd directly interefere with the unit's primary
> purpose, which is combat.
>

You mean like the forward swept wings of the X-29? Ya, that's nuts if you
don't have the 3 computers it has to make sure the wings don't shear off,
but it flies fine and seems "obvious" now because our technology makes what
a Korean War era designer would consider insane.

> Well... they do need to dock on the carrier ship's deck, don't they?
> Would landing gears make you happy instead? And am I being rude or
> sarcastic for making this statement? Just a random thought...
>

No, you're bringing up the obvious. There's no actual need for legs at
all with a space environment suit. And a moon environment suit would only
have to deal with 1/10th the gravity. Not even landing gear. It's zero-g.
They only need thrusters and a docking collar in space.

> So the Flat is now an environment-specific unit, not a general purpose suit
> like most MS should be? "What? We're fighting in the city today? Just
> drop some Flats there, since they are no good in the swamps!" Even limiting
> the flat to fighting in the city, on the cement and asphalt surface within a
> city (and this is in the low-tech, 19-century-like world in which the Flat
> appears in, not the high-tech future of Zeta where you have all kinds of
> hyper durable alloys) having 22.3 ton (the Flat's weight as cited on the
> Bandai kit's box - there's the data you've been asking for) concentrated
> on a single point while the suit is in combat (which will add dramatically
> to the 22.3 ton upon contact with the surface because of the acceleration
> from moving limbs/body and action/reaction from fighting) is enough to crack
> any known street surface.
>
> Now it's my turn to ask you to back up your argument. Show me a street in
> today's world, in the 20th century, where having over 22.3 tons of stress
> being slammed upon its surface, in the form of two tiny squares and two lines
> (the only ground-contacting surface on the Flat), or even less (if the Flat
> touches the ground with only one of its two feet or the toes section of one
> foot) will not crack or even destroy it. And those are some tougher-than-
> diamond alloy the Flat is using not to deform its fragile heels while the
> suit is in action.
>

I don't know. You made the initial claim, I was expecting you to say, "See,
when X weight is applied to Y surface, it fails to a Z degree," style
statement. I expect the streets to crack. Hell, they shred like crazy
when tanks roll over them. So what.

> Now I am really beginning to wonder if you've seen the Flat at all (the
> apparitions of the Richie Ramos chogokin Kado Senshi fiasco rearing its
> ugly head...), because the way the two-pronged foot the Zeta suits sport
> are
> mostly modeled after eagles and other inspirations from nature (which are
> time-tested, hint hint), as opposed to the Flat's foot, which bears no
> resemblance the above other than being two-pronged.
>

Time tested? I don't believe a 22 ton eagle, with the feet you describe,
could walk easily across a field without its feet sinking into the ground.
I mean, bugs can walk across water because of water tension. Even a 10
pound droid, with the same feet, couldn't do that because the water tension
doesn't change just because the size of the thing changed.

Alfred.

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Christopher Reeve recently said that while he was recovering from his
 accident in the hospital, the comedy of Robin Williams convinced him to
 go on living.  However, the comedy of Pauly Shore made him long for the
 sweet release of death."				- Norm MacDonald

Alfred Urrutia - Disney FA - 818.526.3338 - Alfred.Urrutia@disney.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

- Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 02 1999 - 11:20:21 JST