Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?!

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Tech Support >> Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! - 3/5/2021 9:03:49 PM   
newageofpower


Posts: 261
Joined: 12/3/2020
Status: online
I was participating in a debate with competitive MP players about whether Fusion Engines were worth the cost, compared to investing their Radioactives into Atomic Weapons and going after the opponent's cities, but one player stated "Fusion engine/energy weapon tanks don't need food or fuel or energy so you can go much further off your logistical paths and even do deep strike tactics with a high Survival OHQ commander"


It was also implied somewhere in Reports/Military Council

So of course I decided to take a look at the other guy's theorycrafting and made researching it a big priority. First thing I noticed, I couldn't fit it onto Medium Tanks, only Heavy. Then I found out nuclear engines do not recharge onboard power reserves which means they still require supply lines, even with Laser/Beam/Plasma Weapons.

This is pretty unintuitive, imho, and either the description needs to change to clarify Nuclear Engines only power propulsion or they need to be buffed to remove dependence of onboard energy weapons from your grid.
Post #: 1
RE: Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! - 3/5/2021 10:02:33 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 2944
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
I think they do not need Energy as fuel. They do still need energy/ammo for the gun, just like any infantry unit would.
Adittionally, the crew would need food anyway. Unless you can feed them via the Survival Skill from the OHQ Commander, you are going to need to keep them in supply either way. So even if it no longer needs to get Ammo, it would still be limited how far and long off-road it oculd go.

(in reply to newageofpower)
Post #: 2
RE: Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! - 3/6/2021 4:15:06 AM   
newageofpower


Posts: 261
Joined: 12/3/2020
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

I think they do not need Energy as fuel. They do still need energy/ammo for the gun, just like any infantry unit would.
Adittionally, the crew would need food anyway. Unless you can feed them via the Survival Skill from the OHQ Commander, you are going to need to keep them in supply either way. So even if it no longer needs to get Ammo, it would still be limited how far and long off-road it oculd go.
Food Logistics stretches twice as far as normal logistics, and Survival/Economize exist too.

Dunno, nuclear engines don't feel great considering their extreme tech level, non-cheap material/industrial cost, and the fact that you could be using those Radioactives to shoot nuclear missiles at the opponent instead.

Giving them the ability to self-charge energy weapons doesn't seem unrealistic; in fact non-nuclear tanks could incorporate a larger alternator and just burn fuel to recharge their lasers.

IRL the M1 Abrams tank's propulsion generates 1.12 MW mechanical. Assuming a 99% efficient alternator and a 99% efficient graphene ultracapacitor or CNT compulsator, you'd get a charge rate of over 1 MW.

(A crappy 90% efficient alternator you find in IRL junkyards and a 85% efficient last-generation battery gives a effective charge rate of 856 kw, but I dunno how energy weapons would be viable with last/current electrical batteries, so we'll assume something at least halfway; 95% efficiency per stage)

Estimating (by firepower ratio) energy weapons output roughly double that of a 120mm conventional gun (M829A3 yields ~12.1MJ) the Abrams engine would need ~25 seconds of running the engine without moving or ~50 seconds of driving slowly to add a single "shot" worth of juice for a weapon with twice the yield of a modern 120mm.

Assuming a magazine capacity double that of the modern tank (Abrams carries 40 shots) you could refill your an 80 shot 'magazine' in under 33 minutes! Course you only have fuel for about 6 hours and change, but energy weapons could definitely be run off a modern tank's propulsion system, nevermind a futuristic tank's Nuclear Fusion engine.

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 3
RE: Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! - 3/6/2021 10:13:10 AM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 2944
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

Giving them the ability to self-charge energy weapons doesn't seem unrealistic; in fact non-nuclear tanks could incorporate a larger alternator and just burn fuel to recharge their lasers.

IRL the M1 Abrams tank's propulsion generates 1.12 MW mechanical. Assuming a 99% efficient alternator and a 99% efficient graphene ultracapacitor or CNT compulsator, you'd get a charge rate of over 1 MW.

(A crappy 90% efficient alternator you find in IRL junkyards and a 85% efficient last-generation battery gives a effective charge rate of 856 kw, but I dunno how energy weapons would be viable with last/current electrical batteries, so we'll assume something at least halfway; 95% efficiency per stage)

I do you one better :)
If you got a Electrical Transmission that means you already have the generator right there.

Diesel/Electrical propulsion was very common in WW2, for submarines. Indeed the Electrical Transmission of the Panzer VIII Maus could be used as a generator. The "plan" for getting them across rivers was (they were way to heavy for bridges):
2 Tanks
One the shore, operates as generator
One driving along the bottom of the river using a snorkel for the crew, powered via cable by the one on the shore.
When both are at opposing sides of the river, just swap the generator and d(r)iver around.

The M1 Abrams, other modern tanks and the average Airplane (passenger liner included) come with a Auxiliary Power Unit - a simple Motor/Generator combination - for powering all the non-propulsion systems.
It is not tied to the main engine(s), because it could be problematic to have the engines running just to have power (Tanks) or all engines might fail (Airplane), at wich point you need a seperate generator.

But that does not nessesarily mean you do get to use it to recover energy based ammo:
You do not just need enough energy to fire a laser or railgun, but enough energy density.
And it is possible that whatever you use to store the energy in, can only be restored using industrial grade power generation (easy to provide by the power grid, hard to provide even by a huge group of tanks).

Take the Aluminion-Air battery. It is technically only a battery. But you can replace - and then recycle - the Aluminium Electrodes. So it is a sort-off recharable battery. So it is actually in the consideration for electrical cars, given the easy to replace and then "recharge" the electrodes for use in another vehicle.

And depending on the process, cutting the energy you have by a factor 1000 does not increase the time for the recharge by 1000 - but might make the recharge entirely impossible.

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 3/6/2021 10:14:07 AM >

(in reply to newageofpower)
Post #: 4
RE: Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! - 3/6/2021 6:11:03 PM   
newageofpower


Posts: 261
Joined: 12/3/2020
Status: online
We're already at the point where the IRL military is deploying battery-run solid state lasers - lithium ion batteries that are rechargeable in-field from generators/apus/main engines hooked up to a large alternator.

Aluminum-Air batteries have lower energy density than Carbon Fiber flywheels and lower peak power density than Carbon Fiber Compulsators, nevermind something made from Carbon Nanotubes, so I really don't see the military adopting these "needs to be industrially remanufactured" type batteries.

Rotational kinetic energy storage is volatile, but less so than existing ammunition. If vacuum sealed are effectively eternal machines that have mechanical lifespan measured millennia+, compared to chemical batteries that start degrading the first time you use them (pretty impractical to purge all the O2 from an Aluminum Air cell, especially one designed to optimize volumetric power density for military use)

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 5
RE: Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! - 3/6/2021 7:37:53 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 2944
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

We're already at the point where the IRL military is deploying battery-run solid state lasers - lithium ion batteries that are rechargeable in-field from generators/apus/main engines hooked up to a large alternator.

I am going to guess those lasers have some serious tradeoffs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: newageofpower

Aluminum-Air batteries have lower energy density than Carbon Fiber flywheels and lower peak power density than Carbon Fiber Compulsators, nevermind something made from Carbon Nanotubes, so I really don't see the military adopting these "needs to be industrially remanufactured" type batteries.

To my knowledge Metal-air batteries are already wildly used in Military applications. And the tech for the Aluminum Variant we have since the 1960's.
Zinc-Air ones seem to be used mostly right now, but the metal is pretty exchangeable.
And they mostly beat Li-Ion batteries in energy density by an order of magnitude, even if you include the Oxygen!

Carbon Fibre and Nanotubes have to my knowledge not produced any mass produced power cell. And Li-Ion batteries have abysmal capacities/kg when comapred to Metal-Air ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal%E2%80%93air_electrochemical_cell
Even compared to Li-air

(in reply to newageofpower)
Post #: 6
RE: Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! - 3/6/2021 9:45:34 PM   
BlueTemplar


Posts: 879
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: newageofpower
Rotational kinetic energy storage is volatile, but less so than existing ammunition. If vacuum sealed are effectively eternal machines that have mechanical lifespan measured millennia+

Since they will still have some friction with the shaft, I doubt they can even last weeks ? (Hmm, unless maybe if the bearings are magnetic ones ?)

Another fun form of energy storage is burning iron powder for heat (and potentially steam power). The resulting rust can then with energy input be recycled back into iron powder. The overall cycle is about as (in)effective as hydrogen fuel cells, but with very different constraints. What surprised me the most however, is that the energy/mass ratio is not as bad as one might expect !

(in reply to newageofpower)
Post #: 7
RE: Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! - 3/6/2021 10:35:41 PM   
newageofpower


Posts: 261
Joined: 12/3/2020
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar
Since they will still have some friction with the shaft, I doubt they can even last weeks ? (Hmm, unless maybe if the bearings are magnetic ones ?)

Magnetic bearings have been standard on high-efficiency flywheels since like, the 1990s.

(in reply to BlueTemplar)
Post #: 8
RE: Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! - 3/6/2021 11:15:05 PM   
shabowie

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 2/12/2021
Status: offline
The current Shield pod program for the USAF is working for a laser that can shoot down attacking missiles and other aircraft inside visual range and several articles claim the power supply from the aircraft carrying the system in an external pod would be "infinite" (they don't define how many shots in whatever time would deplete the on-pod capacitors, so humor me) so what tech level are we?

That's just off a jet engine, I'd imagine a fusion power plant would have more power, but I guess with a really high tech level a fusion plant just generates the power you want and could be super small.

< Message edited by shabowie -- 3/6/2021 11:16:59 PM >

(in reply to newageofpower)
Post #: 9
RE: Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! - 3/6/2021 11:23:39 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 2944
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

The current Shield pod program for the USAF is working for a laser that can shoot down attacking missiles and other aircraft inside visual range and several articles claim the power supply from the aircraft carrying the system in an external pod would be "infinite" (they don't define how many shots in whatever time would deplete the on-pod capacitors, so humor me) so what tech level are we?

I tell you after we have actual data on this thing, rather then american military hype/secrecy.

(in reply to shabowie)
Post #: 10
RE: Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! - 3/7/2021 3:00:03 PM   
BlueTemplar


Posts: 879
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: newageofpower
quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar
Since they will still have some friction with the shaft, I doubt they can even last weeks ? (Hmm, unless maybe if the bearings are magnetic ones ?)

Magnetic bearings have been standard on high-efficiency flywheels since like, the 1990s.

Wow, nice !
Millennia, really ? That's incredible !

(in reply to newageofpower)
Post #: 11
RE: Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! - 3/7/2021 6:44:43 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 2944
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

quote:

ORIGINAL: newageofpower
quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar
Since they will still have some friction with the shaft, I doubt they can even last weeks ? (Hmm, unless maybe if the bearings are magnetic ones ?)

Magnetic bearings have been standard on high-efficiency flywheels since like, the 1990s.

Wow, nice !
Millennia, really ? That's incredible !

Not "Millennia" (plural) - unless I am realy missing soemthing here

But we are using it since "last Millenium".
And I love being able to say that :)
But if I want less hyperbole I usually say "since last century".

(in reply to BlueTemplar)
Post #: 12
RE: Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! - 3/8/2021 4:02:51 AM   
newageofpower


Posts: 261
Joined: 12/3/2020
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Not "Millennia" (plural) - unless I am realy missing soemthing here

Flywheels with vacuum containment and magnetic bearings have been spun for years with negligible losses; it's possible to build one to last centuries or millennia with no mechanical degradation, though unless you shielded it from radiation the electronics would probably be toast far sooner.


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

To my knowledge Metal-air batteries are already wildly used in Military applications. And the tech for the Aluminum Variant we have since the 1960's.
Zinc-Air ones seem to be used mostly right now, but the metal is pretty exchangeable.
And they mostly beat Li-Ion batteries in energy density by an order of magnitude, even if you include the Oxygen!

Carbon Fiber flywheel energy storage have been used on spacecraft before.

Metal-air batteries are less widespread than Lithium-ion cells in military application despite the lower power density; some non-nuclear submarines use dozens of tons of lithium-ion cells, whereas a few kilograms of Zinc-air fuel cells are mostly for infantry-portable radios.

Existing aluminum air fuel cells are nowhere near their theoretical efficiencies...

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Tech Support >> Nuclear Laser/Plasma Tanks still Require Energy?! Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.180