12-08-2004, 07:33 AM | #51 |
Symbol of Cyric
Join Date: October 21, 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Age: 35
Posts: 1,143
|
Of course, pretty much anyone could take them apart with a handgun...
__________________
[img]\"http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4763/callumavataranimated4ff.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> |
12-08-2004, 10:35 AM | #52 |
Horus - Egyptian Sky God
|
Bah, a Jedi wouldn't even need a weapon, at all. "The Force is his ally."
|
12-08-2004, 11:33 PM | #53 | ||
Symbol of Cyric
Join Date: September 15, 2002
Location: Peterborough, ON, CANADA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,394
|
Quote:
Quote:
mass = kg v^2 = m^2/sec^2 therefore f = mv^2 f = (kg) * (m^2/sec^2) f = (kg*m*m)/(sec*sec) not kg*m/sec*sec [ 12-08-2004, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]
__________________
If I say \"Eject!\" and you say \"Huh?\" - you\'ll be talking to yourself! - Maj. Bannister, <b>Steel Tiger</b> |
||
12-09-2004, 02:24 AM | #54 |
Horus - Egyptian Sky God
|
I think we've already covered that, bud.
|
12-09-2004, 12:33 PM | #55 | ||
Galvatron
Join Date: January 10, 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 56
Posts: 2,109
|
Quote:
Quote:
mass = kg v^2 = m^2/sec^2 therefore f = mv^2 f = (kg) * (m^2/sec^2) f = (kg*m*m)/(sec*sec) not kg*m/sec*sec [/QUOTE]I have not paid attention to the 'formula debate' sideline of the thread, but your above forumla is incorrect. Units for Position : meters Velocity is the first derivative of position over time (typically represented as dx/dt) which has metric units of: m/s Acceleration is the second derivitave of position of time (d^2x/dt^2), or the first derivative of velocity over time (dv/dt) Units for Acceleration : meters per second squared (m/s^2) Force = mass (kg) * acceleration (m/s^2) so units for force are kg*m/s^2 EDIT AFTER REVIEWING THE PHYSICS SIDELINE: Malthaussen the textbook you're quoting has a typo... happens all the time. As Scotty would say, "You cannot change the laws of physics Jim!" You could calculate average force if you have mass, starting and ending velocities and the amount of time elapsed. The formula would look something like this: Force = mass * (final velocity - starting velocity) / (elapsed time) note that this is just another way of saying F = mass * dv/dt = mass * accel. I'm still not exacly sure why this is relevant to the topic. If you're talking about blade force applied when striking an object than you'd LOTS of information to use this equation (either that or you'd need to make a lot of assumptions). [ 12-09-2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ] |
||
12-09-2004, 05:34 PM | #56 | |
Symbol of Cyric
Join Date: September 15, 2002
Location: Peterborough, ON, CANADA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,394
|
Quote:
I was trying to remember the two formulas myself (force and k.e. - I was fairly certain he was misquoting the formula for k.e.) force: f=ma k.e : k=mv^2/2
__________________
If I say \"Eject!\" and you say \"Huh?\" - you\'ll be talking to yourself! - Maj. Bannister, <b>Steel Tiger</b> |
|
12-09-2004, 05:52 PM | #57 |
20th Level Warrior
Join Date: December 28, 2003
Location: Kentucky
Age: 38
Posts: 2,820
|
I am happy that there are some Physics-minded people here! I wonder how many actual physicists we have as members of this forum...
The clear answer is "not enough," but you all should have seen that one coming! Either way, I would have to say that I hope you all are learning something from this thread...really, being proven wrong often gives us more knowledge in the physics community than being "proven" right. After all, no answer is a final answer---such is the nature of the universe and our limited knowledge of it. Even the "Law" I adamantly defended is wrong under certain circumstances, typically involving gargantuan masses, and/or infinitesimal spaces. So, we really learn more from knowing where the model ceases to apply than from knowing where it does, even if we do not know what may happen beyond our initial model! I HEART PHYSICS!
__________________
Is that what you really want to say? |
12-09-2004, 06:46 PM | #58 |
Galvatron
Join Date: January 10, 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 56
Posts: 2,109
|
Well I'm not a physicist, as much as I enjoyed Statics and Dynamics, Quantum Physics, and Thermodynamics in college. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm just a lowly Project Engineer, BSEE/MSIE. Working with precision motion however means having a pretty deep understanding of the aforementioned calculus.
|
12-10-2004, 10:21 AM | #59 |
Fzoul Chembryl
Join Date: August 30, 2001
Location: somewhere
Age: 54
Posts: 1,785
|
It is not so simple as this is being made to be. It's like asking which is a better tool, a screwdriver or a wrench? The answer is that it depends upon what you want to use it for.
Swords in general were ineffective against good full plate armor, but then again, good full plate armor was a relative rarity. Only the wealthy could afford such a luxury. Most men would be lucky to posses a chain shirt, metal helmet, and wooden shield. Most commoners wore boiled leather and used rags as padding. At any rate, the weapon of choice against full plate is a piercing and/or hacking weapon such as a flanged mace or narrow axe. Something that concentrates the force of the blow on a smaller area. Other effective weapons were spikes and long thin spearheads that could fit through the joints of the armor. Samurai wore armor made from wood and cloth. Their combat style was fast and agile. Their weapons were designed to defeat such armor and accent the combat style. Rapiers are not designed to pierce armor. They are designed to be light and agile, and are meant to defeat others similarly armed. Certainly a heavily armored foe would easily overpower the swordsman, but that's what the flint-lock pistol was for! Each tool is meant to do a certain job. Though full plate may seem the ultimate, it's not good to wear for long periods. Heat and cumberance will take their toll before long. It's also very expensive to make and high maintenance. Remember the weapons that made metal armor obselete? Ranged weapons! In comparison, they are cheap, light, easier to make, and are VERY effective. Archers guarded by pikes were deadly opponents, regardless of their armor. Combat style also makes or breaks the war. Remember the Mongols? Light cavalry armed with good short bows. Their tactics were ultimately even more deadly than their weapons.
__________________
Master Barbsman and wielder of the razor wit!<br /><br />There are dark angels among us. They present themselves in shining raiment but there is, in their hearts, the blackness of the abyss. |
12-10-2004, 01:02 PM | #60 |
Galvatron
Join Date: January 10, 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 56
Posts: 2,109
|
The Mongols were very effective, but I think no small part of that was due to the fractured nature of the enemy they faced. In Europe they faced an adversary subdivided into kingdoms... each unwilling to come to the aid of his neighbors. It's like plywood, together they might have been very strong, but the Mongols peeled off layer by layer and broke them like so much kindling.
It also didn't hurt that the Mongols had superior organization and tactics. While individual combat was big in Europe, there was a distinct lack of true military competence during the middle ages. Sad to say but it's possible that Roman Legions would have fared better against the Mongols than Europeans a century later did. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A katana needs help... seriously! | Annatar | Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal | 45 | 04-12-2003 12:26 PM |
katana fight | tower | Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal | 3 | 03-19-2003 02:11 PM |
Best Katana | Willard | Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2 Also SoU & HotU Forum | 4 | 08-05-2002 08:15 PM |
Does anyone get a magical katana? | mannukio | Baldurs Gate II Archives | 4 | 10-09-2001 05:54 AM |
Magic Katana(s) | Neal | Baldurs Gate II Archives | 3 | 11-13-2000 10:08 PM |