Forums of the Megaverse®

I would say, given the flechette description, that it does not use standard railgun ammunition. But I don't think that it's expensive to manufacture by a qualified Operator. I can't recall which book talks about the costs of that.

It uses special ammo, but any tech oriented area should have enough manufacturing capability to produce the ammo for the right price. There are multiple prices listed in various books, but Free Quebec would have an abundance of the ammunition and should be able to provide it at a reasonable cost.

As far as we know, there is no 'standard' ammunition type that applies to all or even most railguns, and the Boom Gun is no different in that regard. We do however know exactly what it's ammo is like, unlike other railguns, as it's been described as far back as the RMB. As for how much it costs, although my memory is hazy I am pretty sure that prices for railgun ammo of all kinds were notoriously difficult to track down, but I am sure that it is listed somewhere in the library now.

Lets just hope it's listed for the price of what it is, small MD pieces of metal, and not given Blackmarket prices of 1 Billion CR/box or some such.

zombietots wrote:How hard is it to find Boom gun ammo for a Glitter Boy. Does it use railgun ammo or is it something all together different?

It has a railgun, therefore the ammo would be 'railgun ammo', but as far as I've read, various manufacturers create ammo based on their own weapons. For instance, the SAMAS railgun and its (superior) predecessor use the same ammo.

That said, and even despite the relative "rarity" of boomguns simply lying around, getting ammo for it should be relatively easy given that in all my years of playing, I've never seen all the Glitterboy players use up even 1,000 rounds combined, and that is with 10 different Glitterboys through various games I've played/ran.

So I figure that, given the rate of ammo use and the relatively higher rate of Glitterboy destruction, I figure that there is simply a lot of salvaged ammo out there in addition to black-market, knock-off, and legitimate "from the source" ammo available at any given time.

They use different ammo than standard rail guns. Standard rail guns throw slugs in rapid succession. Boom Guns fire flechette rounds, which is like a shotgun firing all its pellets all at once. Shemerian rail guns also fire the flechette rounds, but they are not interchangeable.

Dog_O_War wrote:

zombietots wrote:How hard is it to find Boom gun ammo for a Glitter Boy. Does it use railgun ammo or is it something all together different?

It has a railgun, therefore the ammo would be 'railgun ammo', but as far as I've read, various manufacturers create ammo based on their own weapons. For instance, the SAMAS railgun and its (superior) predecessor use the same ammo.

That said, and even despite the relative "rarity" of boomguns simply lying around, getting ammo for it should be relatively easy given that in all my years of playing, I've never seen all the Glitterboy players use up even 1,000 rounds combined, and that is with 10 different Glitterboys through various games I've played/ran.

So I figure that, given the rate of ammo use and the relatively higher rate of Glitterboy destruction, I figure that there is simply a lot of salvaged ammo out there in addition to black-market, knock-off, and legitimate "from the source" ammo available at any given time.

With the old ammo loads of gb holding 100 rounds ammo was an issue but the new 1000 round payload means you can go a long time before worrying about reloading. Glitterboy ammo is not normal rail gun ammo but given glitterboys have been around for so long most tech nations/settlements should have at least moderate supply of GB ammo.

kaid wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

zombietots wrote:How hard is it to find Boom gun ammo for a Glitter Boy. Does it use railgun ammo or is it something all together different?

It has a railgun, therefore the ammo would be 'railgun ammo', but as far as I've read, various manufacturers create ammo based on their own weapons. For instance, the SAMAS railgun and its (superior) predecessor use the same ammo.

That said, and even despite the relative "rarity" of boomguns simply lying around, getting ammo for it should be relatively easy given that in all my years of playing, I've never seen all the Glitterboy players use up even 1,000 rounds combined, and that is with 10 different Glitterboys through various games I've played/ran.

So I figure that, given the rate of ammo use and the relatively higher rate of Glitterboy destruction, I figure that there is simply a lot of salvaged ammo out there in addition to black-market, knock-off, and legitimate "from the source" ammo available at any given time.

With the old ammo loads of gb holding 100 rounds ammo was an issue but the new 1000 round payload means you can go a long time before worrying about reloading. Glitterboy ammo is not normal rail gun ammo but given glitterboys have been around for so long most tech nations/settlements should have at least moderate supply of GB ammo.

glitterboy (boom gun) ammo is I believe fairly easy to get and fairly inexpensive in the grand scheme of things it is extensively described as a Flechette style round basically think of shotgun ammo, but instead of little pellets, its little ~1 inch long metal rods (a whole bunch of them) 200 actually in 4 layers of 50 loaded into each "shell" with that said each round is described as somewhere between 10 and ~1000 credits per shot with that said it shouldn't be too insanely expensive as literally 1-3 shots (hits) will make most individual opponents go away abruptly. on the other hand something like a ng or samas rail gun if you think about it is a "rail boosted machine gun" even if their individual rounds are ~1cr each, they fire bursts of 40-60 with every pull of the trigger, so all of a sudden that samas rail gun @ 1cr /round is firing 40 cr every time you squeeze off a burst.

its one of the economies most people don't think of as they are "playing" the game

Dog_O_War wrote:

zombietots wrote:How hard is it to find Boom gun ammo for a Glitter Boy. Does it use railgun ammo or is it something all together different?

It has a railgun, therefore the ammo would be 'railgun ammo', but as far as I've read, various manufacturers create ammo based on their own weapons. For instance, the SAMAS railgun and its (superior) predecessor use the same ammo.

That said, and even despite the relative "rarity" of boomguns simply lying around, getting ammo for it should be relatively easy given that in all my years of playing, I've never seen all the Glitterboy players use up even 1,000 rounds combined, and that is with 10 different Glitterboys through various games I've played/ran.

So I figure that, given the rate of ammo use and the relatively higher rate of Glitterboy destruction, I figure that there is simply a lot of salvaged ammo out there in addition to black-market, knock-off, and legitimate "from the source" ammo available at any given time.

I don't disagree with the overall statements of the post...but what do you mean by "relatively higher rate of Glitterboy destruction?"

Just power creep of the game making buffer stuff so the old G-10 isn't cutting it, or is it based on your own game experience?

Alrik Vas wrote:Just power creep of the game making buffer stuff so the old G-10 isn't cutting it, or is it based on your own game experience?

Any properly supported GB should more than ok.

Alrik Vas wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

zombietots wrote:How hard is it to find Boom gun ammo for a Glitter Boy. Does it use railgun ammo or is it something all together different?

It has a railgun, therefore the ammo would be 'railgun ammo', but as far as I've read, various manufacturers create ammo based on their own weapons. For instance, the SAMAS railgun and its (superior) predecessor use the same ammo.

That said, and even despite the relative "rarity" of boomguns simply lying around, getting ammo for it should be relatively easy given that in all my years of playing, I've never seen all the Glitterboy players use up even 1,000 rounds combined, and that is with 10 different Glitterboys through various games I've played/ran.

So I figure that, given the rate of ammo use and the relatively higher rate of Glitterboy destruction, I figure that there is simply a lot of salvaged ammo out there in addition to black-market, knock-off, and legitimate "from the source" ammo available at any given time.

I don't disagree with the overall statements of the post...but what do you mean by "relatively higher rate of Glitterboy destruction?"

The amount of times a Glitterboy has to reload its boomgun payload is typically less than the amount of times a Glitterboy is scrapped (brought to a non-functional amount of MDC). Meaning that your "average Glitterboy" in a given game is still working off of its initial ammo load, barring 'target practice sessions' and the like.

Meanwhile, I've personally cycled off 100+ e-clips. And have emptied maybe a dozen other (SAMAS, SAMSON) railguns. Or fired more than 100 mini-missiles.

Alrik Vas wrote:Just power creep of the game making buffer stuff so the old G-10 isn't cutting it, or is it based on your own game experience?

I can't say it is purely my own experience, but that of the gamers I know too. And, given that I know their stories intimately, I can say with certainty that very few of the campaigns they've participated in were considered "low-powered". I believe that the over-all Glitterboy numbers I and they have played/played with/encountered number in the 50s over more than a decade of gaming each.

It's a low number (I/they never did a Coalition War campaign), so Glitterboy encounters were typically rendered as elite/"boss" fights. Meanwhile, I can say for certain that I have personally seen the destruction of 8 out of the 10 Glitterboys I've played/adventured with, and not a single one has ever emptied its payload. I don't think I even crested 100 shots for the one Glitterboy Pilot I played.

I can see it. I've been against a GB or two myself (well...more like 12, but I've only solo'd 2) and I can say that most of them die to poor tactics and positioning.

If you're a smart GB pilot, your target never gets a chance to engage you, and you'll need to reload before you get taken out. When you can tag targets from a 2+ miles away and your shots can clear hills...all you need is a good spotter and to change position from time to time so the enemy can't find you. That and maybe a few infantry guys with close support weapons in case the enemy does find you...or a SAMAS to back you up. Either way, a GB isn't ever meant to be alone.

Though very few GM's ever take this into account.

Smart GB who is 'ware of Naruni will make some mercm oney and get a force field ASAP so he doesn't have to spend so much money on repairs and is limited solely by ammo/food costs.

Having a laser/vibro like the Triax variant are also good cost savers.

Also need to save up for nuke power replacements every decade or so.

Alrik Vas wrote:I can see it. I've been against a GB or two myself (well...more like 12, but I've only solo'd 2) and I can say that most of them die to poor tactics and positioning.

If you're a smart GB pilot, your target never gets a chance to engage you, and you'll need to reload before you get taken out. When you can tag targets from a 2+ miles away and your shots can clear hills...all you need is a good spotter and to change position from time to time so the enemy can't find you. That and maybe a few infantry guys with close support weapons in case the enemy does find you...or a SAMAS to back you up. Either way, a GB isn't ever meant to be alone.

Though very few GM's ever take this into account.

No Power Armor with a nuclear reactor in it stays hidden AT ALL to anyone who has IR or thermal detection capabilities unless they're standing with the sun behind them...in which case the silhouette should give them away easily.

Also, I'm not aware that the boomgun can be used for indirect fire.

--flatline

Actually, indirect fire would disperse the flechettes that the boom gun uses for ammo and significantly reduce the damage ability of the gun.

That's why i say the flechettes are good for anti-infantry. I give them AP-solid slugs for anti-armor. Get a fire select on your ammo-hopper and engage both types.

and flatline, i understand the issue with indirect fire on a boom gun. The weapon deals damage via velocity and you lose a lot with arcing fire, but for the purposes of the game and the use of the machine i like the idea.

Also, if you're behind a hill, thick armor, or just out of range of thermal sensors, they won't see you. That's what positioning is all about.

flatline wrote:No Power Armor with a nuclear reactor in it stays hidden AT ALL to anyone who has IR or thermal detection capabilities unless they're standing with the sun behind them...in which case the silhouette should give them away easily.

Heat can't be insulated?

Tor wrote:

flatline wrote:No Power Armor with a nuclear reactor in it stays hidden AT ALL to anyone who has IR or thermal detection capabilities unless they're standing with the sun behind them...in which case the silhouette should give them away easily.

Heat can't be insulated?

Heat must be expelled from the suit somehow or else the internal temperature will rise until something is overwhelmed by heat (like the pilot).

If you're standing in water, you could pump cool water in and expel heated water. To a much lesser extent, you could do the same with air (like a car's radiator), but typically the only option would be to radiate the heat away which would make you a "light source", if you will, for anyone sensitive to IR radiation.

--flatline

Alrik Vas wrote:Also, if you're behind a hill, thick armor, or just out of range of thermal sensors, they won't see you. That's what positioning is all about.

Being "out of range" of IR sensitivity is nonsensical if you're a "light source" for IR.

That's like saying that since my character has 180' night vision, I can't see the full moon since it's thousands of miles away.

--flatline

You're saying a GB will be giving off so much heat that it would bleed into your range from much further away? I'm not certain that would be the case. Even if it were, you might get a moon-sized target, which doesn't help you on accuracy.

If you've got some info on this I don't, please share. Totally okay with being wrong.

Alrik Vas wrote:You're saying a GB will be giving off so much heat that it would bleed into your range from much further away? I'm not certain that would be the case. Even if it were, you might get a moon-sized target, which doesn't help you on accuracy.

If you've got some info on this I don't, please share. Totally okay with being wrong.

Photons travel until they are absorbed by something. Detection gear have varying levels of sensitivity, but to say that something has a 300' detection range only makes sense if you know the context ("can detect a 0.1% variance from ambient up to 300'...").

If a light is visible at a particular distance, then a brighter light will be visible from a longer distance. The moon is hundreds of thousands of miles away, but the amount of reflected sunlight that gets to us is so much greater than the ambient light at night that the moon is clearly visible to us even at such a distance.

--flatline

Alrik Vas wrote:That's why i say the flechettes are good for anti-infantry. I give them AP-solid slugs for anti-armor. Get a fire select on your ammo-hopper and engage both types.

and flatline, i understand the issue with indirect fire on a boom gun. The weapon deals damage via velocity and you lose a lot with arcing fire, but for the purposes of the game and the use of the machine i like the idea.

Also, if you're behind a hill, thick armor, or just out of range of thermal sensors, they won't see you. That's what positioning is all about.

Good lord. PB describing Mach 5 flechettes as 'Anti-Armor' is purely Rule of Cool. Seriously. The reason large, high-density slugs are used in tanks instead of grapeshot is that the massive slug has the mass to be armor piercing, whereas flechettes lack that mass, best used for anti-personnel. In fact, 12 Gauge flechettes at 50 feet (that's a 3" Magnum round loaded with 20 flechettes) have a spread the size of a trash can lid (about 2 1/2 feet). Against a 3/4" thick plywood panel, about 1/4 of the flechettes bounce off, and half of the ones that don't strike the panel sideways. Conversely, a deer slug fired from the same shell will punch a 3/4" wide hole in the board.

The grand majority of rail guns are essentially machine guns. The two that come to mind that aren't are the Boom Gun and the NG-R50 Mini-Rail Gun (Merc Ops, p.93). It states in the NG-R50 description that it uses a heavier single round to achive the damage listed.

There really need to be canon rules for different loads for the Boom Gun.

flatline wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:You're saying a GB will be giving off so much heat that it would bleed into your range from much further away? I'm not certain that would be the case. Even if it were, you might get a moon-sized target, which doesn't help you on accuracy.

If you've got some info on this I don't, please share. Totally okay with being wrong.

Photons travel until they are absorbed by something. Detection gear have varying levels of sensitivity, but to say that something has a 300' detection range only makes sense if you know the context ("can detect a 0.1% variance from ambient up to 300'...").

If a light is visible at a particular distance, then a brighter light will be visible from a longer distance. The moon is hundreds of thousands of miles away, but the amount of reflected sunlight that gets to us is so much greater than the ambient light at night that the moon is clearly visible to us even at such a distance.

--flatline

It makes as much sense as saying that a gun can only shoot 500'. And that the gun does the same damage at 1' as 500'. Or pretty much any of the 'assumptions' that the game uses. Its not a physics simulator, and its not meant to be realistic, its meant to try and have 'range bands' for combat or some such. *shrugs*

And to be fair the sensor rules are unrealistic in their permissibility. If I have IR, I see people perfectly clearly at 300' even through brush....unless they are trying to make prowl rolls.....

flatline wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:You're saying a GB will be giving off so much heat that it would bleed into your range from much further away? I'm not certain that would be the case. Even if it were, you might get a moon-sized target, which doesn't help you on accuracy.

If you've got some info on this I don't, please share. Totally okay with being wrong.

Photons travel until they are absorbed by something. Detection gear have varying levels of sensitivity, but to say that something has a 300' detection range only makes sense if you know the context ("can detect a 0.1% variance from ambient up to 300'...").

If a light is visible at a particular distance, then a brighter light will be visible from a longer distance. The moon is hundreds of thousands of miles away, but the amount of reflected sunlight that gets to us is so much greater than the ambient light at night that the moon is clearly visible to us even at such a distance.

--flatline

The modern FLIR system has a 2km range in most circumstances. If something is giving off a lot of heat, I can understand why you'd be able to see that from further than the listed range. However I think my statement still stands, wouldn't it? You can see the massive flare of "light" but it's coming from an object that's much smaller. At a long distance (more than 2 miles) I think it would just be a large fuzz of light. There'd be grades, focusing down to the target, but they'd only become more apparent when you got much closer.

Japan has stealth variants. And a variety of stealth power armor. Its a game real-world rules dont apply. As much as we all have specific real world knowledge of things. Do we argue with the blackops creators for a SAW not having enough recoil in game. Jussayin.

Alrik Vas wrote:

flatline wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:You're saying a GB will be giving off so much heat that it would bleed into your range from much further away? I'm not certain that would be the case. Even if it were, you might get a moon-sized target, which doesn't help you on accuracy.

If you've got some info on this I don't, please share. Totally okay with being wrong.

Photons travel until they are absorbed by something. Detection gear have varying levels of sensitivity, but to say that something has a 300' detection range only makes sense if you know the context ("can detect a 0.1% variance from ambient up to 300'...").

If a light is visible at a particular distance, then a brighter light will be visible from a longer distance. The moon is hundreds of thousands of miles away, but the amount of reflected sunlight that gets to us is so much greater than the ambient light at night that the moon is clearly visible to us even at such a distance.

--flatline

The modern FLIR system has a 2km range in most circumstances. If something is giving off a lot of heat, I can understand why you'd be able to see that from further than the listed range. However I think my statement still stands, wouldn't it? You can see the massive flare of "light" but it's coming from an object that's much smaller. At a long distance (more than 2 miles) I think it would just be a large fuzz of light. There'd be grades, focusing down to the target, but they'd only become more apparent when you got much closer.

I'm not saying that anyone who can detect IR is going to say "oh look, there's a GB two miles yonder...", but they will say "Get down! There's something hot over there. Bobby, get your scope on it and tell us what it is. Everyone else, look around for anything suspicious"

Now to be fair, I assume a healthy level of paranoia for anyone traveling across Rifts Earth. If they have the means, I expect them to be constantly scanning IR and UV and listening for any active radar or other radio signals. I also expect them to try to keep a low profile (no active radar, no unnecessary radio chatter, no flying unnecessarily above the tree line without precautions like invisibility, etc).

I assume this because most Rifts games I've played in have been brutal and unforgiving. If your game isn't like that, then perhaps a lower alert level would be appropriate.

--flatline

That's a fair statement. Just makin' sure we're on the same page.

out of curiosity, if you can't detect anything reliably at 2 miles range, how is the glitter boy tracking a target in the first place?

Boom gun rounds are super common on the black market and inexpensive. 200 credits each.

Yes, BG ammo is unique ammo (as in, not the same as standard railgun ammo).

Edit: Welcome to Rifts, man. Have fun!

Shark_Force wrote:out of curiosity, if you can't detect anything reliably at 2 miles range, how is the glitter boy tracking a target in the first place?

Probably with spotters if it's that far. But thanks for being cheeky.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

zombietots wrote:How hard is it to find Boom gun ammo for a Glitter Boy. Does it use railgun ammo or is it something all together different?

It has a railgun, therefore the ammo would be 'railgun ammo', but as far as I've read, various manufacturers create ammo based on their own weapons. For instance, the SAMAS railgun and its (superior) predecessor use the same ammo.

That said, and even despite the relative "rarity" of boomguns simply lying around, getting ammo for it should be relatively easy given that in all my years of playing, I've never seen all the Glitterboy players use up even 1,000 rounds combined, and that is with 10 different Glitterboys through various games I've played/ran.

So I figure that, given the rate of ammo use and the relatively higher rate of Glitterboy destruction, I figure that there is simply a lot of salvaged ammo out there in addition to black-market, knock-off, and legitimate "from the source" ammo available at any given time.

I don't disagree with the overall statements of the post...but what do you mean by "relatively higher rate of Glitterboy destruction?"

The amount of times a Glitterboy has to reload its boomgun payload is typically less than the amount of times a Glitterboy is scrapped (brought to a non-functional amount of MDC). Meaning that your "average Glitterboy" in a given game is still working off of its initial ammo load, barring 'target practice sessions' and the like.

Meanwhile, I've personally cycled off 100+ e-clips. And have emptied maybe a dozen other (SAMAS, SAMSON) railguns. Or fired more than 100 mini-missiles.

Alrik Vas wrote:Just power creep of the game making buffer stuff so the old G-10 isn't cutting it, or is it based on your own game experience?

I can't say it is purely my own experience, but that of the gamers I know too. And, given that I know their stories intimately, I can say with certainty that very few of the campaigns they've participated in were considered "low-powered". I believe that the over-all Glitterboy numbers I and they have played/played with/encountered number in the 50s over more than a decade of gaming each.

It's a low number (I/they never did a Coalition War campaign), so Glitterboy encounters were typically rendered as elite/"boss" fights. Meanwhile, I can say for certain that I have personally seen the destruction of 8 out of the 10 Glitterboys I've played/adventured with, and not a single one has ever emptied its payload. I don't think I even crested 100 shots for the one Glitterboy Pilot I played.

That sounds about what I have seen too. The boom gun is darn near one shot one kill on many things so it is pretty amazingly ammo efficient. The bane of glitter boys in my experienced is large scale missile strikes. People know how deadly glitterboys are and will tend to unleash all missiles they have available at the glitterboy to try to punch it out as fast as possible.

This is not meaning the glitterboy is weak as it is head and shoulders the most durable power armor in the game with 2-3 times more armor than most other suits of power armor in the game and almost as many robot vehicles. The problem is it is just such a recognized powerhouse that people will just ignore everything else in the fight to kill the GB as fast as possible.

This tends to be the weakness of robot vehicles as well things that are big enough to be psychologically very threatening tend to wind up being missile magnets. It is one reason a lot of my power armor characters tended to like things like terrain hoppers good survivability but not something that gets that gut reflex KILL IT WITH FIRE response.

kaid wrote:That sounds about what I have seen too. The boom gun is darn near one shot one kill on many things so it is pretty amazingly ammo efficient. The bane of glitter boys in my experienced is large scale missile strikes. People know how deadly glitterboys are and will tend to unleash all missiles they have available at the glitterboy to try to punch it out as fast as possible.

This is not meaning the glitterboy is weak as it is head and shoulders the most durable power armor in the game with 2-3 times more armor than most other suits of power armor in the game and almost as many robot vehicles. The problem is it is just such a recognized powerhouse that people will just ignore everything else in the fight to kill the GB as fast as possible.

This tends to be the weakness of robot vehicles as well things that are big enough to be psychologically very threatening tend to wind up being missile magnets. It is one reason a lot of my power armor characters tended to like things like terrain hoppers good survivability but not something that gets that gut reflex KILL IT WITH FIRE response.

This exactly; it's too threatening a target to not make it a priority to disable or destroy.

If you don't address it, its killing power will quickly wipe you out faster than anything else. To put it into perspective, your average MD laser rifle does 3d6. Which means that you'd need a squad of 10 guys to deal the boomgun equivalent of 3d6x10. Except that as a powered armour, and because Glitterboy Pilots are a specialty class, they tend to have about twice the number of attacks as the average grunt (eight versus four), meaning that you'd need at around 20 guys with laser rifles to be the boomgun equivalent.

So yeah - it only makes sense to put priority on the giant, gleaming, boomgun-wielding monster and ignore the other 20ish guys that make up the equivalent threat; they're easy to deal with in comparison.

Which is why you're gonna find a lot more boomgun ammo than you are Glitterboys with a need for it.

Shark_Force wrote:out of curiosity, if you can't detect anything reliably at 2 miles range, how is the glitter boy tracking a target in the first place?

Glitterboy's do get Radar (Robot level, 30miles IINM, but even the PA has 10miles IIRC). So provided there is sufficient terrain clearance, they should be able to target and track targets with the radar, even those on the ground (airborne targets are easier of course). Radar technology is slowly coming into automobiles as a sensor to reduce accidents, and police have been using Radar even longer to determine speed, so the idea of the Glitterboy using Radar as part of its sensors to engage at 2mile ranges isn't impossible depending on the radars actual qualities as envision by the writers.

GB ammo is also pretty common in that it was the main power armor of america prior to the rifts and they were some of the few suits that was in continual use until the current day so there has been some production of ammo for them for hundreds of years and its not like rail gun ammo would go bad over time as its all just MDC metal so any ammo stocks looted from old army bases/facilities would last until used.

flatline wrote:Heat must be expelled from the suit somehow or else the internal temperature will rise until something is overwhelmed by heat (like the pilot).

Do we know nuclear reactions in Rifts work the same way ours do and generate heat? Could they possibly have created a process that directly converts everything into electrical energy so there's no need for exhaust?

Tor wrote:

flatline wrote:Heat must be expelled from the suit somehow or else the internal temperature will rise until something is overwhelmed by heat (like the pilot).

Do we know nuclear reactions in Rifts work the same way ours do and generate heat? Could they possibly have created a process that directly converts everything into electrical energy so there's no need for exhaust?

well, based on our current understanding of physics, no. 50% efficiency is considered to be theoretically achievable, iirc, but not practical. not just for nuclear reactors... that's pretty much for anything we can think of right now. you're going to have waste heat, it's just the nature of the beast, so far as we understand it today.

but for a moment, let's suppose that wasn't even a concern. *poof*, magic physics-erasing wand, the power source somehow doesn't have any waste heat generated whatsoever.

you'd still have a problem, because the human inside the armour will still generate heat. very quickly, it will get uncomfortable. i mean, consider, when you lie underneath a blanket, your body is the heat source. and that blanket isn't stopping even remotely close to 100% of the heat from escaping. heck, most people won't even go completely under the blanket. so think of how quick that builds up, then understand, this theoretical suit we've proposed is basically like an almost skintight blanket that never reaches equilibrium. there's never a point where heat escapes as fast as it is generated. you always keep generating more and more and more heat.

what you would need is some sort of device that transmits heat from point A to point B without traveling to all the points between. essentially, you would need a dimensional rift inside the suit to exhaust heat out in some other location. or at least, with our current understanding, that's what you would need.

having said that, the writers of this game are clearly not physics majors, and there are in fact technological suits which somehow manage to achieve this effect. how they do it is anyone's guess, but like i said, you're going to need a way to exhaust heat without actually exhausting the heat to pull it off, because even with a completely efficient power supply and completely efficient power transfer, you've still got that annoying mouthbreathing fleshbag on the inside that just ruins everything.

Shark_Force wrote:you'd still have a problem, because the human inside the armour will still generate heat. very quickly, it will get uncomfortable. i mean, consider, when you lie underneath a blanket, your body is the heat source. and that blanket isn't stopping even remotely close to 100% of the heat from escaping. heck, most people won't even go completely under the blanket. so think of how quick that builds up, then understand, this theoretical suit we've proposed is basically like an almost skintight blanket that never reaches equilibrium. there's never a point where heat escapes as fast as it is generated. you always keep generating more and more and more heat.

The inside of the suit is climate controlled.

The Galactus Kid wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:you'd still have a problem, because the human inside the armour will still generate heat. very quickly, it will get uncomfortable. i mean, consider, when you lie underneath a blanket, your body is the heat source. and that blanket isn't stopping even remotely close to 100% of the heat from escaping. heck, most people won't even go completely under the blanket. so think of how quick that builds up, then understand, this theoretical suit we've proposed is basically like an almost skintight blanket that never reaches equilibrium. there's never a point where heat escapes as fast as it is generated. you always keep generating more and more and more heat.

The inside of the suit is climate controlled.

Which means the heat from inside the suit must be expelled from the suit. That's what climate control does to prevent the pilot from cooking in his own body heat.

Which is the point that Shark Force was making.

--flatline

The Galactus Kid wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:you'd still have a problem, because the human inside the armour will still generate heat. very quickly, it will get uncomfortable. i mean, consider, when you lie underneath a blanket, your body is the heat source. and that blanket isn't stopping even remotely close to 100% of the heat from escaping. heck, most people won't even go completely under the blanket. so think of how quick that builds up, then understand, this theoretical suit we've proposed is basically like an almost skintight blanket that never reaches equilibrium. there's never a point where heat escapes as fast as it is generated. you always keep generating more and more and more heat.

The inside of the suit is climate controlled.

Maybe, but the evacuated heat makes you a beacon for thermo imaging.

Perhaps the suit converts the heat generated inside by the pilot to additional electrical energy

Tor wrote:

flatline wrote:Heat must be expelled from the suit somehow or else the internal temperature will rise until something is overwhelmed by heat (like the pilot).

Do we know nuclear reactions in Rifts work the same way ours do and generate heat? Could they possibly have created a process that directly converts everything into electrical energy so there's no need for exhaust?

Honestly given the size of the robots we have to assume they either work probably more like a nuclear battery than any current reactor.

It is still going to generate a fair amount of heat but there simply is no room in these suits for any kind of steam turbine system or anything that would cause much in the way of exhaust. I would guess they are more similar to some of our "nuclear" space probes.

As with anything that is generating lots of energy one would have to assume it generates at least a reasonable amount of heat and the body heat of the pilot would also require a radiator of some sort to keep from just cooking them in their own body heat.

yeah, as pointed out, climate control does not (and, based on our current understanding of science, cannot) destroy heat energy. it has to move it somewhere.

your refrigerator doesn't just blast heat out at the bottom because the company thought it would be nice to make it double as a footwarmer. it blasts heat out at the bottom because the heat has to be displaced to *somewhere* and that's where they decided the somewhere was gonna be (note: if yours doesn't blast heat out at the bottom, it probably radiates heat out in the back. main point being, that heat has to go somewhere).

Shark_Force wrote:yeah, as pointed out, climate control does not (and, based on our current understanding of science, cannot) destroy heat energy. it has to move it somewhere.

your refrigerator doesn't just blast heat out at the bottom because the company thought it would be nice to make it double as a footwarmer. it blasts heat out at the bottom because the heat has to be displaced to *somewhere* and that's where they decided the somewhere was gonna be (note: if yours doesn't blast heat out at the bottom, it probably radiates heat out in the back. main point being, that heat has to go somewhere).

I understand that. I'm not saying that the suit doesn't expel heat, I'm just saying that the statement made about the pilot getting superhot based on body heat as mentioned is a moot point because of the climate control. Personally, I see any machine in the setting venting ALOT of heat.

The Galactus Kid wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:yeah, as pointed out, climate control does not (and, based on our current understanding of science, cannot) destroy heat energy. it has to move it somewhere.

your refrigerator doesn't just blast heat out at the bottom because the company thought it would be nice to make it double as a footwarmer. it blasts heat out at the bottom because the heat has to be displaced to *somewhere* and that's where they decided the somewhere was gonna be (note: if yours doesn't blast heat out at the bottom, it probably radiates heat out in the back. main point being, that heat has to go somewhere).

I understand that. I'm not saying that the suit doesn't expel heat, I'm just saying that the statement made about the pilot getting superhot based on body heat as mentioned is a moot point because of the climate control. Personally, I see any machine in the setting venting ALOT of heat.

the question was asked whether the machine itself generating no heat would negate the issue of heat buildup.

the answer was that it doesn't, because the pilot generates heat, therefore you must still vent heat, therefore it would still be visible to thermal detection.

climate control doesn't fix that problem in the slightest. it isn't a moot point at all, it's completely relevant and valid to the question that was asked.

flatline wrote:Heat must be expelled from the suit somehow or else the internal temperature will rise until something is overwhelmed by heat (like the pilot).

I do not disagree with this. As i said (quoted below) the GB will be generating a cast ammount of heat.

Shark_Force wrote:

The Galactus Kid wrote: I understand that. I'm not saying that the suit doesn't expel heat, I'm just saying that the statement made about the pilot getting superhot based on body heat as mentioned is a moot point because of the climate control. Personally, I see any machine in the setting venting ALOT of heat.

the question was asked whether the machine itself generating no heat would negate the issue of heat buildup.

the answer was that it doesn't, because the pilot generates heat, therefore you must still vent heat, therefore it would still be visible to thermal detection.

climate control doesn't fix that problem in the slightest. it isn't a moot point at all, it's completely relevant and valid to the question that was asked.

It's a moot point to the setting. I'm not saying that I disagree with you at all. That heat has to be vented somehow. I like your refrigerator analogy. Or like a radiator in your car. Your heat pump for your home. Plate and frame heat exchangers in power plants or other large industrial settings. Now, if somehow that climate control is copmprimised (telemechanics, or some other means) then that pilot is going to have a bad day.

The Galactus Kid wrote:

flatline wrote:Heat must be expelled from the suit somehow or else the internal temperature will rise until something is overwhelmed by heat (like the pilot).

I do not disagree with this. As i said (quoted below) the GB will be generating a cast ammount of heat.

Shark_Force wrote:

The Galactus Kid wrote: I understand that. I'm not saying that the suit doesn't expel heat, I'm just saying that the statement made about the pilot getting superhot based on body heat as mentioned is a moot point because of the climate control. Personally, I see any machine in the setting venting ALOT of heat.

the question was asked whether the machine itself generating no heat would negate the issue of heat buildup.

the answer was that it doesn't, because the pilot generates heat, therefore you must still vent heat, therefore it would still be visible to thermal detection.

climate control doesn't fix that problem in the slightest. it isn't a moot point at all, it's completely relevant and valid to the question that was asked.

It's a moot point to the setting. I'm not saying that I disagree with you at all. That heat has to be vented somehow. I like your refrigerator analogy. Or like a radiator in your car. Your heat pump for your home. Plate and frame heat exchangers in power plants or other large industrial settings. Now, if somehow that climate control is copmprimised (telemechanics, or some other means) then that pilot is going to have a bad day.

Aren't the 'horns' on the GB supposed to be heat radiators?

Nightmask wrote:Aren't the 'horns' on the GB supposed to be heat radiators?

Seems like a poor design if true. Piping the heat up to the head seems like a bad idea, especially if that's where your sensors are. I would expect the radiators to be in the back as close to the reactor as possible.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Aren't the 'horns' on the GB supposed to be heat radiators?

Seems like a poor design if true. Piping the heat up to the heat seems like a bad idea, especially if that's where your sensors are. I would expect the radiators to be in the back as close to the reactor as possible.

--flatline

I can't speak for the other types of GB but I know the Tarantula type has head mounted heat radiators. I believe these are related to the use of the Shaker channon as it is noted to generate a lot of waste heat.

I believe they are supposed to be

Shark_Force wrote:you'd still have a problem, because the human inside the armour will still generate heat. very quickly, it will get uncomfortable.

If we assume the PA/Bot has systems in place to convert the head produced by the nuclear reactions into electricity, we could assume those systems also convert heat produced by the body into energy too. The 'must expel heat' thing only applies if we assume heat has to be expelled to be removed, rather than converted into usable electric energy.

Eashamahel wrote:Perhaps the suit converts the heat generated inside by the pilot to additional electrical energy

Yes, this.

kaid wrote:there simply is no room in these suits for any kind of steam turbine system or anything that would cause much in the way of exhaust.

Perhaps they have means of converting the heat besides turbines which are beyond our understanding but were invented in the golden age.

Shark_Force wrote:yeah, as pointed out, climate control does not (and, based on our current understanding of science, cannot) destroy heat energy. it has to move it somewhere.

Yeah but there's the option of converting energy into an alternate form rather than destroying it or expelling it.

Tor wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:you'd still have a problem, because the human inside the armour will still generate heat. very quickly, it will get uncomfortable.

If we assume the PA/Bot has systems in place to convert the head produced by the nuclear reactions into electricity, we could assume those systems also convert heat produced by the body into energy too. The 'must expel heat' thing only applies if we assume heat has to be expelled to be removed, rather than converted into usable electric energy.

Eashamahel wrote:Perhaps the suit converts the heat generated inside by the pilot to additional electrical energy

Yes, this.

kaid wrote:there simply is no room in these suits for any kind of steam turbine system or anything that would cause much in the way of exhaust.

Perhaps they have means of converting the heat besides turbines which are beyond our understanding but were invented in the golden age.

Shark_Force wrote:yeah, as pointed out, climate control does not (and, based on our current understanding of science, cannot) destroy heat energy. it has to move it somewhere.

Yeah but there's the option of converting energy into an alternate form rather than destroying it or expelling it.

You can't generate electricity directly from a heat source.

You need a heat differential to create electricity from a heat source. As heat is transferred from the hot side to the cold side, the cold side must get rid of the heat or else it will cease to be cold and you will cease generating electricity. This heat that is radiated away is what makes you visible to anyone who can see in the lower spectrum.

--flatline