 |
 |
||||
|
|
||||
Mark Simmons (scorpio@best.com)
Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:19:51 -0800
Lim Jyue writes,
> As for whether I-fields coming into contact with each other will
>fuse or bounce off -- well, I'll wait for expert (nudge nudge Mark or -Z- or
>any other expert...) advice. But I think studying the behaviour of the beam
>saber I-fields should give us some clues, even though the beam saber fields
>are of lesser density.
Definitely. That's supposedly why beam sabers repel each other (and why
beam shields deflect beam sabers) - the two I-fields block each other, or
at least keep out the contents of each others' blade. Though a
sufficiently powerful saber can muscle its way through another one, as in
0083 and Crossbone Gundam. Here, the stronger saber wins.
> As for whether an I-field defense bubble can absolutely protect
>against all mega-particle weapons...
All I said is that we've never seen an I-field barrier pierced, even by
a huge cannon like the Dendrobium's. Beam shields & barriers, on the
other hand, collapse all the time.
> An defensive I-field, by nature, has a limit, because when you
>crunch the particles within the I-field too close, they will fuse and become
>mega-particles (as I understand from Mark's site). So there's a finite limit
>on how "powerful" a I-field is.
Theoretically so, although this fusion occurs at incredibly high
densities - that's why you need special "energy condensors" to compress
the Minovsky particles to this point. It would be hard to replicate these
conditions in open space, just as it's hard to create nuclear fusion
reactions in open space.
I suspect that the ability of the I-field barrier to deflect beam
weapons may, in fact, be due to incoming beam attacks triggering fusion
among the particles that make up the barrier - creating an equal and
opposite blast in the other direction. Never found confirmation of this,
though. (As per your speculation elsewhere - yes, it seems possible for
incoming attacks to trigger this fusion, but that may be part of the
usual functioning rather than an anomaly that collapses the barrier.)
> No, the I-fields are the same, it's just that the density of the
>I-field is different, according to how I interpreted the data on Mark's
>site. A defensive I-field will have a very high density of Minovsky
>particle, whereas a beam saber will just have enough to keep the plasma
>within the field.
Exactly right. And then we have all the other variants of the I-field -
the type that holds a ship or mobile armor aloft (the Minovsky craft
system), the type that moves the joints of a Federation mobile suit (the
field motor), the type that forms inside a Minovsky fusion reactor (where
Minovsky particles help catalyze fusion reactions). Obviously most of
these aren't impervious to beam weapons, or the GM would be
indestructible. There must be a sliding scale of density and defensive
ability, with the I-field barrier at the extreme end.
By the way, the Minovsky craft system is also at the extreme end. The
tech material for Gaia Gear says that these two systems - I-field barrier
and Minovsky craft system - are functionally very similar, since both
create high-density external I-fields, and a mobile weapon that supports
one system can theoretically be adapted to support the other (or even
have one system that does both, like the Gaia Gear mecha). Thus, the Byg
Zam should be capable of housing a Minovsky craft system instead, or the
Apsaras an I-field barrier.
Since, in the second century UC, almost every ship has a Minovsky craft
system, it's theoretically possible that - with a little more work - they
could have I-field barriers instead, or even as well. So either it's been
ruled out for economic or tactical reasons... or they _do_ have I-field
barriers! I'm pretty sure we see ships getting taken out by beam attacks
in F91 and V Gundam, but it's still possible that the system is usually
turned off for power reasons. Maybe this would explain the heavy use of
physical attacks like V Gundam limb-bombing, the Rafflesia's tentacles,
and shot lancers. Anyone wanna scrutinize F91 and V Gundam fleet battles
for supporting evidence?
As you'll note, we're way out on a limb when it comes to the workings of
I-field barriers. The best explanation I've found for the workings of
Minovsky physics are the essays in the back of Gundam The Movies I and
II, but even they throw up their hands when they get to this part of the
puzzle. Here's the last paragraph from the Minovsky physics essay in
Gundam The Movies II...
"...The ECAP's containment ability suggests that, theoretically, it's
possible to deflect even a mega particle beam. At the very end of the One
Year War, mobile weapons with beam deflection capabilities begin to
appear. In the later series, the I-field seems to become something like a
science-fictional all-purpose barrier."
So there you have it. :-)
-- Mark
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Simmons / scorpio@best.com / http://www.gundamproject.com/
"If you can kill it, it's not a god, just a good old-fashioned monster."
-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 04 2000 - 04:07:48 JST