 |
 |
||||
|
|
||||
Leslie_R (trojan@atoka.net)
Fri, 03 Nov 2000 11:07:16 -0600
Lim Jyue wrote:
>
> At 15:09 11/02/2000 -0600, Leslie_R wrote:
> >no, i don't think so.. the I-fields used in beam shields work like those
> >that are used in beam sabers, not like those used to make
> >omni-directional anti Mega-Particle barriers
>
> The principle is still the same. If you can use I-fields to keep in
> mega-particles in the beam sabers and beam shields, you can use I-fields to
> keep *out* mega particle weapons.
I-fields don't keep in mega-particles in the beam-sabers, they hold
high-energy plasma, only ranged 'beam' weapons like the beam rifle or
Mega-Particle cannon or VSBR etc.. use Mega-Particles
>
> >i'm not talking about the forward pottion containing the core fighter
> >catapult, i'm talking about the entire section from the tip of the
> >fighter landing pad to just before the large disk that stores one of the
> >main gun batteries..
>
> I think you just over-inflated the generator. =)
maybe, maybe not
>
> Let's take a comparative look at the GP03 I-field generator. IIRC,
> the whole contraption could fit into the bridge of the Albion. Granted, it's
> design to throw an I-field around something as small (!) as the GP03, but
> even if we quadruple the generator size for an omni-directional barrier, one
> of the front section -- meaning only the fighter launch bay -- should be
> more than sufficient to contain the generator.
perhaps, perhaps not, i'm just looking for theories as to why this
hasn't ben done, diminishing returns in size of I-fild barrier in
relation to Generator size is one theory
>
> Now, that's assuming we use only a single generator for the whole
> ship. If we break the generator up into multiple small generators each
> supposed to cover a specific area of the ship. Assuming each small generator
> is about the size of GP03's generator, we can easily mount quite a number of
> generators on the Albion -- easily 4 to 6.
with all the headaches of maintaining an I-filed barrier generator times
4 to 6, MAs/MSs are designed to operate in combat or on short patrols
and then go back to thier base/mothership for refuel and repair.. a
warship is ment ot stay on-station for considerably longer and I-field
barrier technology especially in the early years was i think
tempermental at best, maintaining them away from dry-dock might have
been a problem the military planners thought would make it unfeasable to
incorporate this type of defense
>
> What's more, we don't know whether I-fields working in conjuction
> with each other will combine to add their field strengths together, or
> conflict with each other to reduce their field strengths. So the idea of
> multiple I-fields covering a single warship may be feasible -- and this
> would solve the problem of shooting out with beam weapons.
>
and as you said unfeasible as well, and we still don't know if there is
a problem of shooting out with beam weapons, i know the big zam didn't
seem to have any but then again i don't recall seeing it fire it's beam
weapons at the same time as it's takeing fire from outside beam weapons
either
> >miniaturized yes, smaller and smaller generators for relatively small
> >I-fields, we still don't know about generators neded for defensive
> >barriers for full-scale.
>
> Correct, but what if we don't aim for a single I-field? Granted, I
> don't know how multiple I-fields will react when brought in contact with
> each other, but beam saber duels should give us a good idea.
again i say, these are different kinds of I-fields
>
> >I-field barriers are invincable agaisnt Mega-particle weapons period..
> >look at the Big Zam, it shrugged off the combined firepower of at least
> >half of the Federation's space navy, Capital-ship class beam firepower!
>
> Actually, I think when the Gundam first came out with beam weaponry,
> the Zeon military repeatedly refer to the beam rifle as cruiser class
> weaponry. So any MS with a beam rifle is practically armed with a capital
> ship armament. =)
your point being? if beam-weapons is beam weapons then why aren't you
convinced that an I-field defense bubble can absolutley protect against
mega-particle weapons when Douzel Zabi can charge into the teeth of the
federation armada without even scratching the paint?
>
> >but it takes a specific configuration and intensity of I-field to make a
> >defensive bubble around an MS/MA that will divert any and all mega-particle
> >based weapony and useing the same small I-field generator that holds
> plasma in
> >a sword-blade shape for yor ubeam-saber and expecting it ot maek a full
> barrage >of beam-cannon fire from a warship go Around your mobile suit
>
> Well, you seemed to be fixated on the idea that to create a full
> I-field (as in the GP03 type) you need a single, big generator. So I'm
> asking, why not create multiple small generators to cover the entire ship in
> sections?
what era are we discussing? in the part of the timeline where we have
Crossbone Gundam X-3 with it's arm-mounted I-filds then maybe, depends
on how well the diffent barriers get along, but again and again i can't
stress this enough I-fields for beam sabers do not an I-field defense
bubble make, they just aren't made for swatting Mega-particles
>
> -------------
> Lim Jyue
> ICQ: 24737555
>
> I am careful not to confuse excellence with perfection.
> Excellence I can reach for; perfection is God's business.
>
> -
> Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
-Les
--
"Now we are so happy, we do the Dance of Joy!"
-Balki Bartokamouse
-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 04 2000 - 01:52:57 JST