Why don't Valks have beam sabres

[VF-19]

P-61! 4 x 20mm and 4 x 12.7mm.

P-39s' had 5 guns too.

IIRC the B-25 takes up to 8 in the nose and 4 more in sidepacks. Excluding the turrets.

And that funny JV-44 Me-262 1a-U1 with the 2 x MG151, 2 x Mk108 and 2 x Mk103. Wierd combination if u ask me. But hits harder then anything else in the sky at that time. 6 x MG151 or 4 x Mk103 would have made more sense if that was possible.

That's the later P-39s, like the early Q series. The N series of P-39s have 7 guns. 2 .50 cal in the nose, 4 .30 cal (I think, not sure on the cal) in the wings, and a nasty 37 mm cannon in the nose, firing through the propeller hub. But, due to the design of the airplane, it was very prone to flat spins...

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Exactly.  The upper wing surface is more important, aerodynamically.  That's why engines and weapons are generally underslung, not overslung.  If you want to see a plane with its engines mounted above the wing, see the VFW-614.

There's also a small airliner made by Fokker (is it 2 Ks or a C for the company?)that has the engines over the wings. Or is that the plane your talking about?

That's this Macross bird (the cargo jet) with the engines over the wings too.

IIRC, just about every early multiengined seaplane has the engines over the wings.

[David Hingtgen]

That's different. Prop planes use the propwash to increase the effectiveness of the wings. Much like blown flaps. But a simple pylon, with say a missile on it, (like the Jaguar) only disturbs the flow. Even with the engine itself above the wings, the *prop* on a plane like that is still in FRONT of the wings. Designing an aircraft to purposely use the propwash is rather different than just sticking a pylon in the way. Any plane that uses propwash usually depends on it for both lift and control.

The VFW-614 is that little Fokker airliner with engines over the wings.

[Graham]

Actually, I've been meaning to ask for a while now why more fighters don't use overwing pylons? It seems a good way to carry extra missiles.

The only planes I recall seeing with overwing pylons are the Jaguar and maybe the English Electric Lightning.

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

1. It's a heck of a lot harder to load! 99% of your standard bomb/missile lifts, etc wouldn't work. A few guys can easily hoist an AMRAAM up onto an underwing pylon, takes a lot more to get one up and over the wing. Physical reason, rather than aerodynamic. Also, you can't "drop" anything from an overwing pylon. No bombs, period. No Sparrows, Phoenixes, or HARM's either. Only rail-fired missiles would work, which pretty much limits it to Sidewinders or AMRAAM's. That's probably the single best thing about AMRAAM---can be rail-fired or dropped. Only missile I can think of that can do both (Matra Magic possibly?). If you want more missiles, just use twin-launchers. (I want to do a Hornet with 2 twin AMRAAM launchers, but nobody makes that part in 1/72 scale--might do 1/48 just to have it, because it looks SOOOOO cool). Usually, aircraft weapon amounts are weight-limited, not "number of pylons" limited.

2. The airflow on the upper surface is generally more important than the lower surface. A minor reason, but everything helps.

[Skull Leader]

Damn, I'm glad we have you here to tell us these sorts of things, David

[Druna Skass]

I guess doing a bombing run upside down is harder than it sounds...

[Kin]

I think a sabre looks lame... however... a blade on the gun, like on rifles nowadays could look appealing. Just don't make them waiste their guns if they are out of ammo

Edited May 17, 2004 by Kin

[Zentrandude]

I guess doing a bombing run upside down is harder than it sounds...

you might have to ask those vietnam vet pilots who used those bombing tactics of flying upside down release the bombs then turn right side up so all the bombs drop in unison.

[David Hingtgen]

Sure you've got that right? I really don't think that'd work, for many reasons. It is really common to do the following however:

Pull up, roll inverted, then pull up into a dive (think about it), roll upright, then release the bombs. That is your standard modern dive-bomb run.

[Knight26]

you might have to ask those vietnam vet pilots who used those bombing tactics of flying upside down release the bombs then turn right side up so all the bombs drop in unison.

Who told you that? I know many vietnam veteran pilots and none of them said anything about doing something so blatantly stupid. Once a bomb is pickled off there is nothing holding it there, and with some ejector racks a plunger actually fires to push it away just in case one of the hooks fails to disengage. Releasing a bobm upside down would result in it falling off its rack onto the plane immediately. I think that what you are quoting is an urban legend based on observations by ground forces who didn't know what they were seeing.

[Zentrandude]

i don't remember. proly one of my dad's retired navy pilots who was in that war in the time and also i think I saw it on one of the war pbs shows in the middle of the late night.

[David Hingtgen]

Re-read my reply 3 posts up. Yes, it's pretty standard to be flying upside down in a dive for a bombing run, but you roll right-side up to release them. Bombs are usually explosively fired off the racks or pushed--they usually don't just "fall". (Doesn't look like it, but they are) You can't fire a bomb upwards while upside down. Also, they'd probably roll to the side and straight through the wing. And finally, how would letting go while upside down, then rolling upright give simultaneous release? It wouldn't, as they'd start rolling off to the side as the plane came upright. (Assuming they had divine balance and could stay on the pylon after being let go) They wouldn't all hover in place and wait until the plane was perfectly upright, then start falling all together.

Yeesh, the Super Hornet had to have its pylon re-located because it couldn't drop bombs right while flying straight and level. I seriously doubt any plane could do it upside down without destroying itself.

It could easily be a 1-minute inverted dive to a target, then a last-second roll to upright and release then pull away. But you don't drop them when inverted. That's your standard dive-and-toss profile, everything from Harriers to F-15E's to Bombcats. You can do the almost whole attack inverted, but you do roll upright for a split second to release the bombs and pull out of the dive. They usually roll upright as soon as the proper dive angle is achieved while inverted, however. (Modern dive bombing is much more complex than simply nosing-over into a dive)

Edited May 17, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

IIRC, one of the prototype F-14s got hit by its own Sparrow which nosed up because the cartridge wasn't strong enough to push it far enough.

How does the plunger work? Is it an explosive cartridge or compressed air or just some hydraulics?

[Knight26]

It's a pirotechnic charge, fires once to throw the round out and again after it is released to pull the rod back. Rail fired missiles do the same in reverse with their hold back latch.

Edited May 19, 2004 by Knight26

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

It's a pirotechnic charge, fires once to throw the round out and again after it is released to pull the rod back. Rail fired missiles do the same in reverse with their hold back latch.

I see, thanks.

I've never seen a pic of a missile launch showing a small flame or whatever around the pylon representing the pyrotechnic charge. Is it visible?

[Knight26]

No, it basically just uses blasting caps, all internal.

[F-ZeroOne]

Actually, I've been meaning to ask for a while now why more fighters don't use overwing pylons? It seems a good way to carry extra missiles.

The only planes I recall seeing with overwing pylons are the Jaguar and maybe the English Electric Lightning.

Graham

Graham, I've just remembered - the EE Lightning used overwing drop tanks.

Great aircraft, extremely fast, but also very, very, very thristy...

[Final Vegeta]

So do some 3/4s of all sci-fi programs.

But only anime could think matching the technology of FTL travels with that of a super energy cannon.

Did you notice that one of the displays on the Macross' birdge is running the computer game "Trek"?

Yup. Maybe I was the first here to find AnimEigo's site with Macross' linear notes

Message-ID: <ugs99u0lsolj7jra7e8joq6kpce14kbbje@4ax.com>

17 March 2002, more than two years ago

Star Trek's shields also degrade with damage, just like Macross. And the shield generators explode when the shields take too much damage, just like Macross.

But AFAIK in Star Trek alien spaceships don't have toilets This is the proof of the lack of relations between Macross and Star Trek, really

And there's talking vending machines in Red Dwarf, just like Macross.

I like thinking of the Macross's ones like Philip Dick's homeostatic machines

Actually, you WILL see a turbine. The fusion reaction is contained internally. All that gets out of the reactor and into the turbine is heat.

But all the turbines are before the fusion reactor, plasma is expelled magnetically. Visual of the turbines from behind is impaired. You can see this from the schematics of the VF-1. I think we can't go on without pics, so I'll paste one.

I am not sure the thing below the main compressor was not supposed to spin, though, but I trust the power of plasma.

And in the first episodes of Macross, plasma wasn't the problem. This can be determined by thinking for a moment.

No, WAIT! I think you were supposed to point out some scientific sites about nuke effects proving your assertions

Plasma would, lacking a massive gravitational field(just so you don't whine about stars, I will state the obvious qualifier), dissipate and cool almost instantantaneously in space.

Near the Earth plasma can be found in the form of solar wind, magnetosphere and ionosphere. I should check better, though.

Anyway, "cooling" obviously means one of the two possible methods of getting rid of excessive heat in space: rubbing against something (possible, but very unlikely in space) or emetting IR waves. I even knew that plasma found in stars is mildly hot compared to that inside a fusion reactor, because since we can't use massive pressure due to gravity like stars do, we increase heat (actually, cold fusion is possible, but the theory is not still affirmed enough).

But I admit this has nothing to do with radar. The only thing I thought is that concealing a nuclear reactor in space is troublesome.

The area was full of heavy atoms that were rapidly degrading and sending out more particles.

Right where I wanted you. What are these particles, exactly? Electrons? Protons? In nature there aren't many particle types you can choose from (physics often sounds like a mystic thing with particles sprouting everywhere, but it's not). Stripping a proton of its electron is called "ionization". When someone is talking about "particlized" matter, usually he means plasma (I don't really know if other options can be real, but I doubt the extents of my physics knowledge).

Add a nice confetti of spaceship to that, and you have an incredibly nasty environment to be sending radio waves through. Hell, the confetti alone would be problematic, as it works like the famous low-tech anti-radar tool known as chaff(the outer skin may be made of radar-absorbant materials, but the majority of the mass is INSIDE that skin, and made of something lighter, less exotic, and far more reflective).

If there is one thing we can be absolutely sure, is that authors for Macross TV didn't know any scientific or sci-fi theories following 1982. So far, no spaceship was nuked. Your supposition about radar disturbing confetti is very well reasoned, but authors surely only thinked of standard known nuke effects. Now I'll point out a scientific site:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowland...project155.html

Electromagnetic Effects (of nuclear weapons) The high temperatures and energetic radiation produced by nuclear explosions also produce large amounts of ionized (electrically charged) matter which is present immediately after the explosion. Under the right conditions, intense currents and electromagnetic fields can be produced, generically called EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse), that are felt at long distances. Living organisms are impervious to these effects, but electrical and electronic equipment can be temporarily or permanently disabled by them. Ionized gases can also block short wavelength radio and radar signals (fireball blackout) for extended periods.

Ionized gas is just another word for plasma.

Real world istance: for a couple of minutes during reentry, the base loses radio communication and radio tracking with the shuttle. Did you know it? I will tell you this is still the usual plasma magic, but thinking for a moment you could determine it.

I should also point out that plasma stealth relies upon tightly controlled and regulated amounts. Otherwise, you just light yourself up like the 4th of July for anyone that isn't deaf, dumb, and blind.

Btw, I have even heard plasma stealth could actually reduce atmospheric drag, even if maybe it's just a rumour spred from Russia. Here they talk about Mach 50, though. And mind the "magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) propulsion". Where have I heard it before?

This site also mention some neat informations about space combat:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/04/SpaceNavies2.shtml

Just HAVING a fusion generator doesn't mean you have plasma stealth. You need that plasma to GENERATE POWER. It stays in the reactor untill it cools below useful levels. At which point it is no longer plasma. And if it was being sprayed out the exhaust like you believe, it would be a giant "shoot me" sign, NOT a stealth mechanism.

It is actually sprayed out the exhaust, like I believe, and is. No turbines after the thermonuclear reactor whatsoever.

Maybe authors knew something you don't. I never said active stealth system worked on plasma stealth principle. We (I too) got side-tracked during this debate, and the fact I am replying after a month doesn't help (well, I was helped. I discovered a lot of new things and changed my minds on others), but this thing now can end.

I don't know if it is needed, but just in case I will give you a brief (maybe actually not so brief) lecture of physics:

Photons are the "vehicle" of electromagnetic waves, therefore ALL electromagnetic waves travel at light speed, whether they are actually mentioned as "light" or not. The difference is not in speed, but in frequency. From lowest to highest energy wave, the electromagnetic spectrum is: radio waves, microwaves, IR, visible light, UV, X-rays, gamma rays. The atmosphere though impairs almost every EM waves except radio and visible light, so we use these mostly.

In another thread someone said X-rays weapons are technically lasers. This is true, because both X-rays and light are made of photons.

I am sure you remember YF-21's avionics and flying controls check-up. It's a neat scene because YF-21's technology looks weird doing the same things all planes do, at least for flying controls (in Macross there is basically the same scene with VF-1 and F-14. Actually, Macross Zero's angle shots were recycled). Anyway, there was a scene where YF-21's sensors "watch" a technician over the nose. First there is TV vision, then there is radar vision, then IR vision.

This is just another proof Valkyries use a lot of IR sensors.

Nevertheless, the radar vision looked a lot like an X-ray photograph. This is natural, because X-rays are EM waves like radio waves, so they behave almost in the same way.

Radar is short for RAdio Detection And Ranging. Most radars use radio waves, but you can possibly do a radar device with all EM waves, including visibile light (they are called "ladar" or "lidar", basing on your choice of the word laser over light). I think results may be different, though, because of the frequency used.

Now, Valkyrie's active stealth surely disrupts radio waves, like ionized gases do. Very likely it disrupts even microwaves. I think it goes as far as disrupting slightly even IR waves, so IR signature of plasma exhausts (or at least nuclear engines') is kinda reduced. I think this is what Compendium means when it says some Valkyrie has an active stealth more powerful than others. The power output difference is how it can affect IR waves. Maybe next generation Valkyries will be able to affect even visible light, becoming quite invisible.

Trust me, OT could be really able to do it. It is THAT powerful.

After thinking this maybe laser coating was not really needed. It was a supposition, I've changed my mind.

Now, let's end the debate with the crystal clear point of question: what type of guidance did Guld's micro-missiles unleashed on Isamu have? This is what we were debating.

My answer: assuming Macross' authors knew physics, surely it can't be radar because plasma exhausts easily disrupt radio waves, so a VF's six is totally radar stealth (with the possible exception of Macross Zero's VFs). My bet is on IR guidance, since Macross Zero's micro-missiles have it, and they are well likely having kept that (btw, small missiles probably don't have any active stealth, while maybe huge missiles need it).

What is your answer on the point?

My other theory I developed, which I think now proved enough for myself, is that you don't exactly know how Valkyries reactors work. The main proof is the fact you talked about "fusion generator". You don't have read Compendium lately (btw, NOW COMPENDIUM UPDATES ARE BACK! YESSS!!!).

<a href='http://www.anime.net/macross/story/encyclopedia/t/thermonuclear_reaction/index.htmlThermonuclear Reaction</a>

A type of Overtechnology similar to nuclear fusion. Unlike nuclear fusion however, this energy reaction became an excellent power source of extreme efficiency, since the fuel does not necessarily have to be nuclear material and is also easily maintained in plasma state with the use of super dimension spatial theory.

Production Notes: The intentionally vague "reaction" concept was used as an euphemism to avoid mentioning the words "nuclear weaponry" on-screen. According to Kawamori Shoji, the use of nuclear weaponry by the "good guys" was considered taboo by Japanese television stations. (It was not considered "taboo" to use "thermonuclear" in the context of power systems and engines.) When it was noted to him that pair-annihilation reaction ("currently" being used in the Macross universe) is even more destructive than thermonuclear reaction, Kawamori observed that since pair-annihilation weapons don't exist (yet), there are no protestors.

This energy source is NOT nuclear fusion. Two words. Pair. Annihilation. Is it me or this thing remembers another two words? Anti. Matter. We didn't have the grasp of how OT is advanced. Well, now we do. Once we started talking about anti-matter powered jets we can say everything.

Did you mention the part about minovsky particles being generated spontaneously by He3 fusion and scrambling EM radiation? You know, the RELEVANT part?

It's a sci-fi theory, and he knew it. It's not true, but it's kinda grounded. Real world physics too invented lot of useless and not totally founded particles like bosons or gluons to understand the universe Minowsky particles are just a weird explanation for plasma radio disrupting effects.

Anyway, Minowsky particles help Gundam's reactors going on, so you need a powerful generator to scatter them, like the ones found in spaceships or mobil armor. Scattering Minowsky particles to produce plasma-like effects is a deliberate act.

This is why it's not said Minowsky particles can't exist in Macross. It is just nobody has still exploited them (and actually, Macross has alternative ways)

I never argued that you couldn't do neat things with microfusion, or that certain EFFECTS of Gundam's physics model weren't plausable . Just that MINOVSKY PARTICLES AREN'T REAL.

I thought you already knew it, and I was right

Shall we continue this idiocy, or acknowledge that one show's gimmick can't be interpolated into all shows on a whim?

Have you ever read Alan Moore's works? He like estrapolating characters from various sources and collecting them in a single comics (ie: League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or Watchmen). I haven't actually read him, but that is what they told me. Narratively, it is indeed possible, and you can also remain faithful to originals if you are good

There are no minovsky particles in Macross untill such time as it is stated in a canon source. Or any similar plot device.

Active stealth is canon, as you pointed out. Official words about how it works has not yet reached my ears, though

Because it wasted time that they wanted to spend doing other stuff. Time in a movie is at a premium. You don't waste it on unimportant or less-important things.

This is right, but it lasted only few seconds. They could cut something else.

If a Star Trek movie doesn't use the transporter, that doesn't mean the transporter doesn't exist, just that it was not absolutely needed for the tale being told, and would have taken valuble seconds from other scenes.

But if anime Yamato were destroyed in a movie, that doesn't mean Yamato was really destroyed at all in the sequels Continuity is kinda troublesome: how was Isamu injured? But I am just kidding.

We do not exactly know what active stealth affects, so we do not know what Isamu meant with "neat trick". I portend YF-21's active stealth largely affects even IR.

So, here we come with theories:

• either active stealth is so common (actually, it is) that Isamu in the "real" timeline of the movie wasn't really amazed by YF-21's active stealth, so the OVAs inserted a "fake" scene
  
• or Isamu was following the YF-21 on its sensors, and then Guld turned on the active stealth and it disappeared totally for the antiquated sensors of VF-11, without even the possibility of a IR backup.
  

The latter may be the right answer.

The third item is "Active stealth system."

I know, but if you look even YF-19 has active stealth system. So how came radar guided missiles could detect it?

Anyway, I admit I was wrong on the plane guns thing. My military knowledge fail me another time I should have guessed better, since Yamato has a strong WWII overtone. As for the 55 mm caliber... now that I have watched Compendium, I think I read it on Nanashi, so it should be Studio MAT's stat. Nobody said beams, though

However, over-all I think military knowledge, more than the lack of it, impairs total understanding of Macross. This is also a proof authors did a good work

FV

Edited May 30, 2004 by Final Vegeta

[Final Vegeta]

New logical expansion of my theory:

The VA-3C had something called "Moris diverting expanding pair" or whatever.

Assuming "pair" is related to matter and antimatter, as in Macross' thermonuclear reactors, I think "Morris" could be a mis-translation of "Maurice". Searching for Maurice and antimatter I found that the discoverer of antimatter was called "Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac".

Maybe with Moris and antimatter you could find info about some another scientist related to antimatter, but I think Dirac is enough.

EDIT:

No, now that I watched my Macross Design Works, I saw it's "mori's", not "moris", and "spare", not "pair". It's a spare harpoon. It's such a disappointment...

FV

Edited May 31, 2004 by Final Vegeta

[JB0]

Did you notice that one of the displays on the Macross' birdge is running the computer game "Trek"?

Yup. Maybe I was the first here to find AnimEigo's site with Macross' linear notes

Message-ID: <ugs99u0lsolj7jra7e8joq6kpce14kbbje@4ax.com>

17 March 2002, more than two years ago

Funny, I've owned the DVDs since January 2002(my shipment didn't QUITE make it in time for Christmas 2k1).

Anyways, my point was that there were Trek references as well as anything else.

And as you're the person saying the entire Macross universe can be extrapolated from a few references(references you're really reaching to formulate, BTW, as many seem to be simple coincidence)...

Star Trek's shields also degrade with damage, just like Macross. And the shield generators explode when the shields take too much damage, just like Macross.

But AFAIK in Star Trek alien spaceships don't have toilets This is the proof of the lack of relations between Macross and Star Trek, really

Ummm, no.

And just because Trek doesn't show toilets doesn't mean they don't exist.

Heck, they've never shown HUMAN toilets in Star Trek.

And there's talking vending machines in Red Dwarf, just like Macross.

I like thinking of the Macross's ones like Philip Dick's homeostatic machines

Tough. I say they're a Red Dwarf reference, which means that the Megaroad 1 fell into a time vortex and wound up in a future where everything happens backwards.

Actually, you WILL see a turbine. The fusion reaction is contained internally. All that gets out of the reactor and into the turbine is heat.

But all the turbines are before the fusion reactor, plasma is expelled magnetically. Visual of the turbines from behind is impaired. You can see this from the schematics of the VF-1. I think we can't go on without pics, so I'll paste one.

No.

If plasma is expelled, the reactor ceases to funciton. It HAS to be contained for a fusion reactor to work. What you describe is something akin to a plane spraying jet fuel out of it's engine, or an automobile that blows gasoline out it's exhaust pipe insetad of exhaust gases.

I am not sure the thing below the main compressor was not supposed to spin, though, but I trust the power of plasma.

Must be easy when you have no idea how stuff works.

And in the first episodes of Macross, plasma wasn't the problem. This can be determined by thinking for a moment.

No, WAIT! I think you were supposed to point out some scientific sites about nuke effects proving your assertions

Tough.

Plasma would, lacking a massive gravitational field(just so you don't whine about stars, I will state the obvious qualifier), dissipate and cool almost instantantaneously in space.

Near the Earth plasma can be found in the form of solar wind, magnetosphere and ionosphere. I should check better, though.

In such low densities as to be insignifigant.

Anyway, "cooling" obviously means one of the two possible methods of getting rid of excessive heat in space: rubbing against something (possible, but very unlikely in space) or emetting IR waves. I even knew that plasma found in stars is mildly hot compared to that inside a fusion reactor, because since we can't use massive pressure due to gravity like stars do, we increase heat (actually, cold fusion is possible, but the theory is not still affirmed enough).

There is, as of yet, no serious evidence of cold fusion. And we use a wide variety of techniques to induce fusion. Including simple electromagnetic charges.

But I admit this has nothing to do with radar. The only thing I thought is that concealing a nuclear reactor in space is troublesome.

You would be wrong. It's concealed by the same shielding that protects the pilot from deadly radiation.

The area was full of heavy atoms that were rapidly degrading and sending out more particles.

Right where I wanted you. What are these particles, exactly? Electrons? Protons? In nature there aren't many particle types you can choose from (physics often sounds like a mystic thing with particles sprouting everywhere, but it's not). Stripping a proton of its electron is called "ionization". When someone is talking about "particlized" matter, usually he means plasma (I don't really know if other options can be real, but I doubt the extents of my physics knowledge).

We're concerned with photons, actually. Gamma rays.

Though there's also protons, neutrons, electrons, even positrons.

This is pretty basic fission effects here. If you don't know this, why are you chattering about the workings of a fusion powerplant?

Add a nice confetti of spaceship to that, and you have an incredibly nasty environment to be sending radio waves through. Hell, the confetti alone would be problematic, as it works like the famous low-tech anti-radar tool known as chaff(the outer skin may be made of radar-absorbant materials, but the majority of the mass is INSIDE that skin, and made of something lighter, less exotic, and far more reflective).

If there is one thing we can be absolutely sure, is that authors for Macross TV didn't know any scientific or sci-fi theories following 1982. So far, no spaceship was nuked. Your supposition about radar disturbing confetti is very well reasoned, but authors surely only thinked of standard known nuke effects. Now I'll point out a scientific site:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowland...project155.html

A. I'm not discussiong EMP.

B. They DID know what chaff was. It's not an exotic material created by nuking spaceships. It's just metallic shards. It would be only LOGICAL to assume that destruction of s aspaceship would fill the area with debris that would impede radar detection.

Electromagnetic Effects (of nuclear weapons) The high temperatures and energetic radiation produced by nuclear explosions also produce large amounts of ionized (electrically charged) matter which is present immediately after the explosion. Under the right conditions, intense currents and electromagnetic fields can be produced, generically called EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse), that are felt at long distances. Living organisms are impervious to these effects, but electrical and electronic equipment can be temporarily or permanently disabled by them. Ionized gases can also block short wavelength radio and radar signals (fireball blackout) for extended periods.

Ionized gas is just another word for plasma.

Again, I'm not TALKING about that.

Real world istance: for a couple of minutes during reentry, the base loses radio communication and radio tracking with the shuttle. Did you know it? I will tell you this is still the usual plasma magic, but thinking for a moment you could determine it.

Yes, I did know that. I also knew it was irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Just HAVING a fusion generator doesn't mean you have plasma stealth. You need that plasma to GENERATE POWER. It stays in the reactor untill it cools below useful levels. At which point it is no longer plasma. And if it was being sprayed out the exhaust like you believe, it would be a giant "shoot me" sign, NOT a stealth mechanism.

It is actually sprayed out the exhaust, like I believe, and is. No turbines after the thermonuclear reactor whatsoever.

It doesn't matter. The principle behind a fusion engine is you use heat exchangers to get excess heat from your fusion reactor into the combustion chamber equivalent of an otherwise normal jet engine. The diffrence is heat is provided by a fusion reactor, not burning of chemicals. No transfer of matter takes place.

Now go look at a central air-conditioning system. The heat exchanger is outside. And yet it still cools the indoor parts. Same concept, only with lower temeperatures. The air conditioner in the house is the equivalent of the valkyrie's fusion reactor(yes, AC units generate heat). The part outside is the heat exchanger. The air outside is the "combustion chamber".

Maybe authors knew something you don't.

Or you.

I never said active stealth system worked on plasma stealth principle.

You implied it.

I don't know if it is needed, but just in case I will give you a brief (maybe actually not so brief) lecture of physics:

OH BOY!

Photons are the "vehicle" of electromagnetic waves, therefore ALL electromagnetic waves travel at light speed, whether they are actually mentioned as "light" or not. The difference is not in speed, but in frequency.

Speed of light is only constant within a vacuum. Speed of various forms of "light" DOES vary within an atmosphere.

From lowest to highest energy wave, the electromagnetic spectrum is: radio waves, microwaves, IR, visible light, UV, X-rays, gamma rays. The atmosphere though impairs almost every EM waves except radio and visible light, so we use these mostly.

And before you nitpick that gamma rays won't impact radar because they're diffrent wavelengths, they WILL interfere, because as you politely demonstrate, they are the same form of radiation. That's why you can't have a white laser. The various wavelengths interfere with each other, and the beam breaks up. Radio waves in an area full of gamma waves WILL be scrambled.

In another thread someone said X-rays weapons are technically lasers. This is true, because both X-rays and light are made of photons.

It's debatable, as XRays are not in the portion of the spectrum known as light, and laser stands for Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation(radiation meaning EM radiation, not the particle radiation people think of when they hear the term).

I'd grant it, though it should properly be XASER.

MASERs(micorwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) are debatably a form of laser, too.

I am sure you remember YF-21's avionics and flying controls check-up. It's a neat scene because YF-21's technology looks weird doing the same things all planes do, at least for flying controls (in Macross there is basically the same scene with VF-1 and F-14. Actually, Macross Zero's angle shots were recycled).

Actually, the flight controls were rather unique. The deformable wing surface, at least.

Anyway, there was a scene where YF-21's sensors "watch" a technician over the nose. First there is TV vision, then there is radar vision, then IR vision.

XRay vision, not RADAR.

This is just another proof Valkyries use a lot of IR sensors.

I don't see the relevance.

Nevertheless, the radar vision looked a lot like an X-ray photograph. This is natural, because X-rays are EM waves like radio waves, so they behave almost in the same way.

No, they don't.

You don't get that kind of detail from radar, because rather than going through someone and letting you see their skeleton, a radar wave will, for hte most part, go AROUND them. You'll get a very fuzzy image from radar, because the wavelength isn't enough for high resolution. Furthermore, radio waves don't have the penetrating power of XRays and gamma rays.

And by your argument, the visible wavelength and IR pics should've all 3 looked hte same, as they're all taken with EM radiation.

Radar is short for RAdio Detection And Ranging. Most radars use radio waves, but you can possibly do a radar device with all EM waves, including visibile light (they are called "ladar" or "lidar", basing on your choice of the word laser over light). I think results may be different, though, because of the frequency used.

Very diffrent. Diffrent EM waves behave diffrently for a given type of matter.

And radar that doesn't use radio isn't radar, as you so politely demonstrated.

BTW, I prefer the term LIDAR, as it isn't stacking acronyms. LADAR would be Light Amplification Detection And Ranging, as you drop part of LASER to make LADAR. Hence why LIDAR is the more commonly used term.

Now, Valkyrie's active stealth surely disrupts radio waves, like ionized gases do. Very likely it disrupts even microwaves. I think it goes as far as disrupting slightly even IR waves, so IR signature of plasma exhausts (or at least nuclear engines') is kinda reduced.

The funny thing?

It's all doable today.

Electronic CounterMeasures, or ECM, planes are specially equipped to scramble radio. Though not precisely enough to really function as stealth.

Reducing IR is done passively with creative exhaust manifolds that disperse the gasses(and mix cooler outside air with it, but that's not plausable for a space fighter).

I think this is what Compendium means when it says some Valkyrie has an active stealth more powerful than others. The power output difference is how it can affect IR waves. Maybe next generation Valkyries will be able to affect even visible light, becoming quite invisible.

I think that's just hilarious.

There's experimental active visible stealth systems, but they don't do what you think.

Just match brightness on one side of a vehicle(above) to the other(below). Greatly reduces the distance they can be seen at.

Sadly, our modern stealth planes are quite lousy in terms of visible stealth due to a retarded decision to paint them black so they'd look cool.

Trust me, OT could be really able to do it. It is THAT powerful.

There is no evidence of it. Bending light around you just isn't possible. And the sort of hologram emitters we're talking about would just be absurd.

Simpler to paint them black for space combat, and a more conventional color for planetary combat(see the low-vis VF-1 toy).

After thinking this maybe laser coating was not really needed. It was a supposition, I've changed my mind.

No, it's needed. You want to blunt the lasers, as you can't warp them around you.

Now, let's end the debate with the crystal clear point of question: what type of guidance did Guld's micro-missiles unleashed on Isamu have? This is what we were debating.

IR. Hence why killing the engines worked(remember, the reactor had to remain online to provide electricity).

My answer: assuming Macross' authors knew physics, surely it can't be radar because plasma exhausts easily disrupt radio waves, so a VF's six is totally radar stealth (with the possible exception of Macross Zero's VFs).

But discharging plasma would totally destroy your reactor's ability to generate electricity, as well as lighting you up across all EM ranges, since plasma spews EM radiation like crazy(hence why plasma stealth requires A SMALL CAREFULLY CONTROLLED AMOUNT).

My bet is on IR guidance, since Macross Zero's micro-missiles have it, and they are well likely having kept that (btw, small missiles probably don't have any active stealth, while maybe huge missiles need it).

IR guidance is good because it's simple. Lot cheaper than RADAR weapons, which require a transmitter AND reciever. Of course, flares confuse IR.

Visible wavelength guidance is probably the best, especially given the high-visibility paint schemes of most Macross mecha, but it requires a lot more processing power. Though I suppose a flash grenade-type device could blind them, similar to a flare for IR guidance.

My other theory I developed, which I think now proved enough for myself, is that you don't exactly know how Valkyries reactors work. The main proof is the fact you talked about "fusion generator". You don't have read Compendium lately (btw, NOW COMPENDIUM UPDATES ARE BACK! YESSS!!!).

<a href='http://www.anime.net/macross/story/encyclopedia/t/thermonuclear_reaction/index.htmlThermonuclear Reaction</a>

A type of Overtechnology similar to nuclear fusion. Unlike nuclear fusion however, this energy reaction became an excellent power source of extreme efficiency, since the fuel does not necessarily have to be nuclear material and is also easily maintained in plasma state with the use of super dimension spatial theory.

Heaven forbid I miss something stuffed into a glossary, especially when it's a term I already know from the real-world.

Hence, I was using the MODERN REAL-WORLD definition of thermonuclear reaction, which is a fusion reaction(specifically a hot fusion reaction). So .

Though it should be noted that modern fusion reactions do not require nuclear materials. Hydrogen is a favored fuel, as it's easy to do.

For the record, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...nuclear&x=0&y=0

Either they use sub-atomic particles for fuel(p[rohibitelvy expensive), or they use no fuel, as a thermonuclear reaction is still a nuclear reaction, and thus any fuel used in it becomes nuclear fuel. Yay for random technobabble.

I assume the INTENDED meaning was that it used non-radioactive substances. Also quite doable with real-world fusion reactions.

In fact, radioactive fuels are disliked, as they're too heavy. The preferred fuel currently is hydrogen, as it's easy to work with. Helium is the most promising fuel, as using the right isotope creates no radioactive byproducts.

I thereby propose that "uses non-nuclear materials" is self-contradictory gibberish and should be clarified, or struck from the record.

The big diffrence between Macross fusion and real-world fusion is how they got it above break-even(Dimensional rift! Cheaters!).

Production Notes: The intentionally vague "reaction" concept was used as an euphemism to avoid mentioning the words "nuclear weaponry" on-screen. According to Kawamori Shoji, the use of nuclear weaponry by the "good guys" was considered taboo by Japanese television stations. (It was not considered "taboo" to use "thermonuclear" in the context of power systems and engines.) When it was noted to him that pair-annihilation reaction ("currently" being used in the Macross universe) is even more destructive than thermonuclear reaction, Kawamori observed that since pair-annihilation weapons don't exist (yet), there are no protestors.

This energy source is NOT nuclear fusion.

It is a thermonuclear reaction. Which IS fusion.

Two words. Pair. Annihilation. Is it me or this thing remembers another two words? Anti. Matter.

Note that that is only mentioned with regard to weaponry.

We didn't have the grasp of how OT is advanced. Well, now we do. Once we started talking about anti-matter powered jets we can say everything.

But valkyries are powered by thermonuclear reactions, not pair-annihilation.

Did you mention the part about minovsky particles being generated spontaneously by He3 fusion and scrambling EM radiation? You know, the RELEVANT part?

It's a sci-fi theory, and he knew it. It's not true, but it's kinda grounded. Real world physics too invented lot of useless and not totally founded particles like bosons or gluons to understand the universe Minowsky particles are just a weird explanation for plasma radio disrupting effects.

An un-needed one, as plasma emits EM radiation. And one with unrealistic effects like being able to me constructed into a containment vessel.

So you acknowledge that that particular chink of text was totally irrelevant?

This is why it's not said Minowsky particles can't exist in Macross. It is just nobody has still exploited them (and actually, Macross has alternative ways)

They can't exist in Macross because MACROSS IS NOT GUNDAM!

I never argued that you couldn't do neat things with microfusion, or that certain EFFECTS of Gundam's physics model weren't plausable . Just that MINOVSKY PARTICLES AREN'T REAL.

I thought you already knew it, and I was right

No, you're wrong.

Shall we continue this idiocy, or acknowledge that one show's gimmick can't be interpolated into all shows on a whim?

Have you ever read Alan Moore's works? He like estrapolating characters from various sources and collecting them in a single comics (ie: League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or Watchmen). I haven't actually read him, but that is what they told me. Narratively, it is indeed possible, and you can also remain faithful to originals if you are good

You know what else?

No one insists characters he hasn't "borrowed" are in his stories.

There are no minovsky particles in Macross untill such time as it is stated in a canon source. Or any similar plot device.

Active stealth is canon, as you pointed out. Official words about how it works has not yet reached my ears, though

Yes. And as it can be done without minovsky particles, it is not an indication of the existince of minovsky particles. In fact, the necessity of implementing it is an indicator that said particles DO NOT exist.

Because it wasted time that they wanted to spend doing other stuff. Time in a movie is at a premium. You don't waste it on unimportant or less-important things.

This is right, but it lasted only few seconds. They could cut something else.

Why should htey HAVE included it?

If a Star Trek movie doesn't use the transporter, that doesn't mean the transporter doesn't exist, just that it was not absolutely needed for the tale being told, and would have taken valuble seconds from other scenes.

But if anime Yamato were destroyed in a movie, that doesn't mean Yamato was really destroyed at all in the sequels Continuity is kinda troublesome: how was Isamu injured? But I am just kidding.

Star Trek has it's own continuioty problems. But they don't include having alternate and conflicting retellings of the same story.

We do not exactly know what active stealth affects, so we do not know what Isamu meant with "neat trick". I portend YF-21's active stealth largely affects even IR.

I propose that it is RADAR only.

So, here we come with theories:

• either active stealth is so common (actually, it is) that Isamu in the "real" timeline of the movie wasn't really amazed by YF-21's active stealth, so the OVAs inserted a "fake" scene
  
• or Isamu was following the YF-21 on its sensors, and then Guld turned on the active stealth and it disappeared totally for the antiquated sensors of VF-11, without even the possibility of a IR backup.
  

The latter may be the right answer.

Or C. it dropped off the radar, and IR isn't detailed enough data to render a decent picture, so they don't show it on the display.

The third item is "Active stealth system."

I know, but if you look even YF-19 has active stealth system. So how came radar guided missiles could detect it?

What radar-guided missiles?

However, over-all I think military knowledge, more than the lack of it, impairs total understanding of Macross. This is also a proof authors did a good work

How? It's a show ABOUT the military.

And I think that everyone I've ever met that used a DragonBall Z name is a raging moron. You're no exception.

[Final Vegeta]

Funny, I've owned the DVDs since January 2002(my shipment didn't QUITE make it in time for Christmas 2k1).

This would have a meaning if this discussion was held two years ago.

Btw, that was just the date I posted linear notes on usenet, not the date I came to know them. Obviously I can't have read them before someone put them on the website. The "I knew them before you" talk is childish, though, so I'll stop

Anyways, my point was that there were Trek references as well as anything else.

The accomplishments Yamato was most famous for:

-From orbit the tip of the Wave Motion Gun hit the moon

-It destroyed a small continent floating around Jupiter

-It destroyed a big asteroid

SDF-1 instead:

-Destroyed enemies who have just entered lunar orbit

-It destroyed Ontario

-It destroyed Bodolza's fortress

The series intended to show SDF-1 had the same power capabilities of Yamato (at least).

And as you're the person saying the entire Macross universe can be extrapolated from a few references(references you're really reaching to formulate, BTW, as many seem to be simple coincidence)...

I am not talking about the entire Macross universe, only the one of the 1982 period.

And just because Trek doesn't show toilets doesn't mean they don't exist. Heck, they've never shown HUMAN toilets in Star Trek.

Who knows, maybe they drain you of your urine with apposite machines, without even the need of taking off your pants. OT has its limits compared to Star Trek's science

And there's talking vending machines in Red Dwarf, just like Macross.

I like thinking of the Macross's ones like Philip Dick's homeostatic machines

Tough. I say they're a Red Dwarf reference, which means that the Megaroad 1 fell into a time vortex and wound up in a future where everything happens backwards.

I've said Dick because when I have watched Macross 7 I thought the use of technology was so weird but coherent that only him could have pulled something like that

Maybe Macross it's like another famous anime. A lot of things happened far and far away and long and long time ago, lots of mecha and spaceships came and went, then civilization was reborn and we got Valkyries

No.

If plasma is expelled, the reactor ceases to funciton. It HAS to be contained for a fusion reactor to work. What you describe is something akin to a plane spraying jet fuel out of it's engine, or an automobile that blows gasoline out it's exhaust pipe insetad of exhaust gases.

This is a pair-annihilation reaction, maybe it works in a different way. I assume fusion and fission require a minimal critical mass to trigger the reaction, and also heat (in lieu of greater pressure) which means plasma. Maybe pair-annihilation doesn't nead anything like this.

I've heard you could exploit Hafnium isomers to produce energy (in form of gamma rays) without the need of critical mass. Maybe such a work around is indeed possible.

I assume a MHD (magnetohydrodynamic) which controls the flow of plasma is useful in a reactor, but that is not the only thing MHD can do. MHD propulsion is another useful application which maybe is better known as "Electric Propulsion" or "Ion Drive".

Electric propulsion devices do not suffer from the same limitations as chemical rockets. There is not such a strict limit to their ue {ue = exhaust velocity relative to rocket}, and there is no heating of the engine walls. They do have limitations, fundamentally different from chemical rockets. These limitations will be discussed in a later section of this paper.

Ion drives are a subfield of the larger electric propulsion device group. In a nutshell, ion drives work by ionizing a gaseous {a ionized gas is plasma} fuel such as Xenon and then accelerating it in an electric field and ejecting it out the back of the spaceship. One scheme, called the electron-bombardment method, ionizes the Xenon by bombarding it with energetic (~40eV) electrons. The ions and electrons are then accelerated, in different directions, through a potential difference. The accelerated ions leaving the unit provide the thrust. To keep the exhaust neutral, electrons need to be added to the exhaust stream shortly after leaving the thruster. This can be done by placing a thermionic cathode on the periphery of the ion beam. The thrust available using this method depends only on the exhaust speed, on the mass of the ion, and on the total ion flux that can be accommodated by the source-accelerator-neutralizer system.

Ion drives are a good idea because they can provide high specific impulse and very low thrust. With the ion drives high it can obtain the same or greater total impulse as a chemical rocket by thrusting for a longer period of time. The ion drives small allows it to obtain this velocity with a small amount of propellant mass ejected. This can translate into smaller, lighter propulsion systems. From a business point of view ion drives are cost-effective because with less space being taken up by engines there is more room for commercial payloads and thus more profit.

Two things you can learn from this article:

1.Thrusting can take a longer period of time. In animation we see Valkyries in space have their engines almost always on.

2.Only a tiny fraction of plasma needs to be ejected at time, so there should always be enough plasma around the reactor, which is refueled when needed (in space you will always need some reaction mass).

Valkyries' lasers use gamma rays, not visible light.

Valkyries' reactors use pair-annihilation, not fusion.

OT is not "near future". It's one step beyond near future. There are no real reasons Valkyries shouldn't have Ion Drive, considering it's better than conventional thrusting.

The exhaust velocity of a chemical rocket is limited by several factors: (1) the total amount of energy available from a chemical reaction, (2) how much thermal stress the engine itself can withstand, and (3) the energy lost in internal modes. With all of these intrinsic limiting factors working against you, {missing pic, it contained a symbol}[/i] has to be very large to obtain large total impulse. Correspondingly their specific impulse is small. Typical values are on the order of a few kilograms/sec. Having large[/i] {missing pic, it contained a symbol} is very disadvantageous because the spacecraft will have to carry a large amount of fuel. With a larger mi the rocket will have to expend more fuel to escape earth's gravity well and there will be less available space for payload. Conventional rockets change their velocity by having a very large amount of thrust over a short time. What if you could really increase ue? If ue could be made large enough then would not have to be very large and you avoid the large penalties. You could build a spacecraft that can be smaller and lighter and obtain a higher final velocity.

Valkyries are small and light, indeed. The VF-0 is larger because it needs space to house conventional engines and fuel. The VF-1 is really more efficient in space than the VF-0. The smallness of the VF-1 is irrilevant, though.

Another important thing: in Macross we see that in space missiles ALWAYS have smoke trails, but NO Valkyrie (or Regult, or Queadlunn Rau, or whatever) EVER left a single smoke trail, you can see only glowing balls. Production constraints hampered the series creating animation errors, but this thing happens even in DYRL? which is free from animation errors (except colour checking, maybe). This is talking about Ion Drive. Maybe you hate the word "plasma", so Ion Drive should sound better.

Must be easy when you have no idea how stuff works.

We will see what you do know.

It's funny we have yet crossed on the arguement of the topic: I was saying maybe Valkyries have a magnetic field which repels beam sabre's plasma, and you said beam sabres contained plasma using Minowsky particles and it wouldn't have worked, thus denying magnetohydrodynamics.

Near the Earth plasma can be found in the form of solar wind, magnetosphere and ionosphere. I should check better, though.

In such low densities as to be insignifigant.

True, but you agree there can be plasma even in open space. Plasma is just ionized gas, the fact usually it's created by heat is just a detail. Plasma does not need to be extremely hot, as plasma displays show.

Cold Plasma for space shields

Ambient-temperature, you can touch it! (it stings only)

Obviously, in that article it says it mentions cloaking spaceships from radar, but it can even protect them from MASERs, and I should have know that. Anyway, obviously you need to tune the frequency of that plasma so that it can withstand stronger EM waves.

There is, as of yet, no serious evidence of cold fusion.

Wave Theory of the Field

There is even the English page, but it's too bad you can't read his discussion against close-mindend quantum mechanicists. This is what made me accept his theories. Even I though haven't read all. Have fun. Anyway, we are talking about really modern physics (not sixty years old physics), you are very likely not to find it in your school books.

But I admit this has nothing to do with radar. The only thing I thought is that concealing a nuclear reactor in space is troublesome.

You would be wrong. It's concealed by the same shielding that protects the pilot from deadly radiation.

You didn't follow me. On Earth, you can use air and water to cool down the reactor. Out of space, what can you use to convect heat? You can't, you emit lots and lots of IR waves. If you shield them all inside, your reactor will over-heat (how do you call it in English? "glasshouse effect"?) and explode.

After the Shuttle launches and achieves orbit, it has to open its cargo bay doors, and they stay open until just before it returns. That's because the inner surface of the doors are covered with panels which radiate heat away into space. A coolant circulates between those panels and areas in the ship where energy is being used (and therefore where heat is being created). If the cargo doors cannot be opened, the Shuttle has to land again almost immediately.

The Shuttle is not a very energy-intensive system; it powers itself using fuel cells burning hydrogen and oxygen, at power levels of at most a few kilowatts. Active warships will have nuclear power plants similar to but much larger than the ones used in nuclear submarines, and will often operate at multi-megawatt levels, especially while they are using energy weapons. And a lot of the energy systems I will discuss will utilize energy inefficiently, with almost all the energy applied turning into waste heat which must somehow be dealt with.

Nor is this something which can be solved by better design. Even if every energy mechanism on the ship operates near the theoretical limit of efficiency, there will still be a lot of heat generated. It is physically impossible for any device to utilize energy 100% efficiently without producing any waste heat at all. The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't permit it. And as a practical matter, human engineering rarely comes even close. In many systems, 30% efficiency is considered superb, and in some systems it can be as bad as a couple of percent. All the rest of the energy becomes waste heat.

Therefore, warships will require large radiators, and since they will potentially have to dissipate megawatts they'll be very hot during intense operations, likely glowing in visible frequencies.

We're concerned with photons, actually. Gamma rays.

This implies something according to the physics you want to follow. Quantum physics considers photons "half" particles because indeed they interact with atoms (they can carry kinetic energy), someone thinks this is an error and points another resolution.

For classical electrodynamics EM waves pass through each other without any interference. So, a gamma ray (photon) won't have effects on radio (photon) any more than visible light (photon) will. A particle on the way is another matter, though.

Let's see the role of a gamma ray in a nuke:

The formation EMP begins with the very intense, but very short burst of gamma rays caused by the nuclear reactions in the bomb. About 0.3% of the bomb's energy is in this pulse, but it lasts for only 10 nanoseconds or so. These gamma rays collide with electrons in air molecules, and eject the electrons at high energies through a process called Compton scattering. These energetic electrons in turn knock other electrons loose, and create a cascade effect that produces some 30,000 electrons for every original gamma ray.

We can see there are a lot of free electrons, which means somewhere there must be atoms without electrons.

Another source:

These Compton-recoil electrons travel outward at a faster rate than the remaining heavier, positively charged ions. This separation of charges produces a strong electric field. The lower-energy electrons produced by collisions with the Compton electrons are attracted to the positive ions. These ions produce a conduction current. This current is directly related to the strength of the Compton effect. Also, this conduction current flows in a direction opposite to the electrical field produced by the Compton effect. Because of this, the conduction current limits the electrical field and stops it from increasing.

Positively charged ions and free electrons attract each other again, forming plasma, which won't disappear for some time.

This is also why the altitude of the explosion is important for the EMP: the more the asimmetry of the field when ground or low density atmosphere is involved the more powerful the magnetic field produced is. With higher atmosphere the gamma rays are allowed to travel something more before being absorbed, so the EMP area would be larger.

Maybe in space there would be little EMP, but nucked things would always turn into plasma because of gamma rays.

Though there's also protons, neutrons, electrons, even positrons.

I see charged particles up there. Ions. Plasma.

A. I'm not discussiong EMP.

Neither I. You miss the chain: gamma ray -> EMP -> plasma.

B. They DID know what chaff was. It's not an exotic material created by nuking spaceships. It's just metallic shards. It would be only LOGICAL to assume that destruction of spaceship would fill the area with debris that would impede radar detection.

There will be a big difference, though.

Maybe the outside of spaceship was supposed to be radar absorbant (like chaff), but I don't think even the interior was (and when the spaceship is blowed up, the interior is exposed, unlike chaff which remains intact during use). Given "Macross Broadcasting System" (the Miss Macross contest) was perceived from the outside (the Quel-Quallie), I don't think we are talking about radar absorbant materials at all (at least for spaceships miles long, which can't be hidden so easily, especially if you have mass detectors).

I can assume a lot of metallic debris will scatter radio waves, but it's impossible some of them couldn't bounce back to Earth, especially if you think the SDF-1's crew were not the only ones on Earth interested in what happened.

Plasma ABSORBS radio waves. Plasma BLOCKS radio waves. A nuke NULLIFIES radar and radio communications. Silence. BLACKOUT. Nothing comes back. You can easily tell if there has been a nuke or not.

A shuttle, technically speaking, is a spaceship, right? So, if a shuttle blows up during reentry, there would be a lot of "spaceship confetti", right? Well, you can follow all these spaceship confetti on radar. You will know there is something out there; the same ain't true with nukes.

Ionized gas is just another word for plasma.

Again, I'm not TALKING about that.

Because you were wrong.

I'll requote:

Ionized gases can also block short wavelength radio and radar signals (fireball blackout) for extended periods.

This is not EMP. We are talking about radio waves' disruption, not electronics'.

Real world istance: for a couple of minutes during reentry, the base loses radio communication and radio tracking with the shuttle. Did you know it? I will tell you this is still the usual plasma magic, but thinking for a moment you could determine it.

Yes, I did know that. I also knew it was irrelevant to the topic at hand.

What was the topic? Plasma block radio waves, nullifying radars. Do you agree? Do you still insist the culprit is gamma rays, even during reentry?

Or maybe it's because that shuttle is in fact spaceship confetti and it doesn't know of it

It doesn't matter. The principle behind a fusion engine is you use heat exchangers to get excess heat from your fusion reactor into the combustion chamber equivalent of an otherwise normal jet engine.

What if the propulsion wasn't a normal jet engine but a Ion Drive? The reactor may work in the same way, releasing a gamma-ray energy burst of 511 keV per pair-annihilation, but the Ion Drive allows you a more efficient propulsion. I would take Ion Drive any day.

I never said active stealth system worked on plasma stealth principle.

You implied it.

I will be honest, for the moment I think it's the most reasonable solution. One of the reason is that plasma stealth is properly "active stealth". Since Macross' authors have chosen all kind of exotic and innovative solutions, it would fit. I will go as far as to say if Kawamori didn't thought or know plasma stealth back in 1982, he now knows it and he meant it for Macross Zero's SV-51 (the antennae are right before the nose, they won't interphere with the radar but they will cloak everything else).

Even if they didn't intended plasma, I still think you can't easily conceal a working reactor in space. In all of Macross, the active stealth is something which is as if it weren't there. Missiles don't have any problem finding a target. I think the best you could do is a little active jamming of IR waves, so enemies will knew something it coming, but they won't know what or how many, reducing combat at sight range where sensors can lock a target. Not surprising, that's how things work in Gundam. I assume Minowsky particles' physics was taken from nukes, so IR should be slightly affected, too, maybe meant like a diffused heat.

I think in Macross there is not any example of spaceship sneaking by. The best effort was during operation Stargazer, and they were immediately found. Especially in space, there is a limit at how much stealth you can be.

Speed of light is only constant within a vacuum. Speed of various forms of "light" DOES vary within an atmosphere.

Minor nitpicking. Electromagnetic radiation is light, so it will follow its rules.

And before you nitpick that gamma rays won't impact radar because they're diffrent wavelengths, they WILL interfere, because as you politely demonstrate, they are the same form of radiation.

Some physics believe photons don't interphere with each others right because they are the same form of radiation. Some physics doesn't believe this, though, but two photons collisions require special machinery... and the same range of wavelengths, otherwise one would penetrate the other.

Anyway, from what I've heard it's the atmosphere (the ozone layer and such) that stops most dangerous UV, X and gamma rays, not the radios and TVs of all the world (that's a lot of radio waves) bouncing them back. Every 150m of air gamma rays' intensity is reduced by 50%. Radio waves are not as impaired as gamma rays, though.

That's why you can't have a white laser. The various wavelengths interfere with each other, and the beam breaks up.

And where have you heard this?

The innovative white-light laser that breaks new ground in the commercial marketplace. The YT 500 utilises 3 laser diodes to produce 500 mW of white-light, yet is efficient enough to operate from a standard 13 Amp socket and requires no water cooling.

The briefcase-sized YT 500 offers portability the price is much lower than less efficient small-frame gas lasers. It features 160 mW of red (630 nm); 160 mW of green (512 nm) and 180 mW of blue (473 nm). The beam diameter is about 4 mm, with all beams matched for diameter and divergence. The beam fits on Cambridge Scanners using 5mm mirrors. The beam divergence is rated at less than 1 mrad.

I am sure you could find white-light lasers with e-bay, if Google fails.

Radio waves in an area full of gamma waves WILL be scrambled.

Because the energy is so high most particles will be ionized by the gamma rays. There are some particles even in space.

This debate looks a lot like the egg and the chicken. Who was born first? What interpheres most with radio waves?

Actually, the flight controls were rather unique. The deformable wing surface, at least.

But he checked his version of flaps, spoilers and ailerons like every pilot in the world does. At least, if Macross didn't foolish me

XRay vision, not RADAR.

We will see that. I assume the only images of a radar scan you have seen are taken from metallic objects like planes.

The VF-1 used VHF and UHF frequencies, I think for the YF-21 they could have used microwaves.

This is just another proof Valkyries use a lot of IR sensors.

I don't see the relevance.

I've said Valkyries use a lot of IR sensors because of active stealth. It was one of my ideas. The examples are scattered everywhere. The red things on the nose of the YF-19 and the VF-0 should be IR sensors.

No, they don't.

You don't get that kind of detail from radar, because rather than going through someone and letting you see their skeleton, a radar wave will, for hte most part, go AROUND them. You'll get a very fuzzy image from radar, because the wavelength isn't enough for high resolution. Furthermore, radio waves don't have the penetrating power of XRays and gamma rays.

It's true that the penetration power of light does vary with frequency, but surprisingly enough radio waves are still very good at it, even more than light.

Subject: Why can radio waves go where light cannot?

Text: Visible light is more energetic than electromagnetic radiation in the radio part of the spectrum (say, 1 MgH). Therefore, visible light should be able to penetrate to where radio waves cannot. And yet, the reverse seems to be the case - I can keep out light with plastic or wood, even though less energetic radio waves have not problem penetrating these materials. Why is that?

Response #: 1 of 1

Text: The interaction of EM radiation with matter is really a complex process. There is an oscillating electric field associated with an EM wave; the electrons (and to some extent the protons) in the material on which the radiation falls move in response to that electric field. An electron bound to an atom, or atoms bound together in a molecule, act a bit like a mass attached to a spring. If you wiggle the "free" end of the spring periodically, the mass will oscillate. If the wiggle rate is near the "natural" frequency of the spring, the mass will strongly respond (this is called resonance); however, if the wiggle rate is much less or much more than the "natural" frequency, the mass will not respond much. Depending on the nature of the electronic or interatomic bonds, a given frequency of radiation may be transmitted, absorbed, or reflected. So radio waves penetrate most substances because their frequency is too low to excite the electrons or atoms. Metals reflect them because their outer electrons are virtually free to move around, so they respond almost instantly and reflect the wave. There is a limit to this; for high enough frequency, these "free" electrons cannot keep up with the electric field: most metals transmit ultraviolet light. And in general, for high enough frequency, the electrons and atoms of most materials respond weakly. Since a photon's energy is proportional to its frequency, it is true that high-energy stuff penetrates matter more readily, but it is because of its being high-frequency, not because of the energy.

It is useful for a wheather forecast radar and a control tower being able to distinguish between planes and rainshowers, since they both can bounce radio waves.

And by your argument, the visible wavelength and IR pics should've all 3 looked hte same, as they're all taken with EM radiation.

Remember that light we can't perceive it's shown through sensors as "reconstructed image", using false colours.

Bodies usually emits spontaneously thermal IR waves because they are hot, so a IR sensor doesn't need to be active. It would be likely to receive unwanted waves (thermal noise) even if active.

The radar has a higher penetration than visible light, but the principle of transmission, absorption or reflection is always true, even if the "sensible" things differ.

In the Macross Plus' shot, we could see the heart because the IR waves have traveled through the skin. The skin is considered "soft". The radar also considered soft the skin and everything else aside the bones. Maybe that picture was just a show-off exagerating details, but the principle is right.

Very diffrent. Diffrent EM waves behave diffrently for a given type of matter.

And radar that doesn't use radio isn't radar, as you so politely demonstrated.

BTW, I prefer the term LIDAR, as it isn't stacking acronyms. LADAR would be Light Amplification Detection And Ranging, as you drop part of LASER to make LADAR. Hence why LIDAR is the more commonly used term.

So if it uses microwaves it's MIDAR? Just curious, I still heard it called radar.

The funny thing?

It's all doable today.

Electronic CounterMeasures, or ECM, planes are specially equipped to scramble radio. Though not precisely enough to really function as stealth.

It's not "doable", it's "established", mainly in cost effectiveness mas production nad public understanding of the physical principle. Doable things today are cold plasma shield, plasma stealth, ion drive, liquid metal, isomer bomb and who know what else.

And ECM is not active stealth like plasma stealth is (there is even another active stealth, "Fibre RadioOptical ARCS", if you want to know. It is fabled the F-22 has it, as it's so costly).

I think that's just hilarious.

There's experimental active visible stealth systems, but they don't do what you think.

Just match brightness on one side of a vehicle(above) to the other(below). Greatly reduces the distance they can be seen at.

They don't work on the same physical principle, it's natural they don't do what I think. It's like the difference between plasma stealth and ECM jamming.

Light can actually be polarized, so I think it could be bent, even though it may be really hard doing it (especially for visible light, maybe something less for radar). It's irrilevant so I will drop it, though.

There was this novel of Asimov where there was an absolute barrier. It looked like a mirror when it was given enough power, and it was supposed to block a nuke. The difference in this case is that radiation is totally reflected, not blocked. Still neat though.

Btw, obviously your sensors should remain uncovered, otherwise you will be blind.

After thinking this maybe laser coating was not really needed. It was a supposition, I've changed my mind.

No, it's needed. You want to blunt the lasers, as you can't warp them around you.

Assuming the weapons used in Macross are xasers things are different, but maybe there was an afterthought on older weapons, just for caution. Isamu mirrored on his YF-19, so there was a kind of reflection which should mitigate a laser. And then there must be some heat shielding for reentry. Not only Isamu didn't need a heat shield over the cockpit, he also was jolting a lot but was not damaged unlike a shuttle which is protected only in the belly.

Now, let's end the debate with the crystal clear point of question: what type of guidance did Guld's micro-missiles unleashed on Isamu have? This is what we were debating.

IR. Hence why killing the engines worked

Great.

But discharging plasma would totally destroy your reactor's ability to generate electricity

Now you know how Ion Drive works, so that is settled.

as well as lighting you up across all EM ranges, since plasma spews EM radiation like crazy(hence why plasma stealth requires A SMALL CAREFULLY CONTROLLED AMOUNT).

Wait, at first I trusted you, but now I am sure you are mined by misinformation.

I don't have read all the sites about plasma stealth, but I don't recall "small carefully controlled amount". The plasma stealth works like B-2's paint, the plane must be totally covered with plasma all the time (except maybe your sensors). There are some drawbacks (like some glowing in the dark), but if you consider radar your main enemy it will work. Btw, in 1982 stealth as reflective shapes was not yet unveiled. When Kawamori came to know stealth bombers his designs reflected it. Anyway, it's funny how the YF-21 is "stealth" even for older standards, as plane so fast it couldn't get locked.

Keep in mind that the following words are uttered from someone who maintains an interest in physics ... not a dedicated understanding. If it were possible to surround a plane with plasma, or anything else that claims radar reducing capability, you are probably dealing with a chemical application of the two basic signature reducing methods --- dispersion and dissipation. Plasma is ionized gas, which means that it's atoms have so much kinetic energy that valence electrons have been freed through atomic-level collisions. I suppose a radio signal encountering a plasma stream would easily be subject to dispersion. The electromagnetic radio wave encountering the plasma would become highly energized and change directions. This would cause it not to be reflected back to the radar station, and thus the radar station would have no knowledge of the aircraft's presence. It could be possible (and this is complete speculation on my part) that plasma could also entrap and dissipate the energy of the radio wave. This is what radar-absorbent materials currently do, like "IronBall," which is the nickname for the radar-absorbent paint used on planes like the F-22. They use ferro-magnetic (permanently magnetized) materials to try bounce the signal around until it dies, so that it can't reflect back to the radar station. Having a plasma stream do this would increase stealthiness without sacrificing aerodynamics and it may be more weight-effective."

He knows more things on military than me, but he trusts plasma. And actually plasma would also enhance aerodynamics.

IR guidance is good because it's simple. Lot cheaper than RADAR weapons, which require a transmitter AND reciever. Of course, flares confuse IR.

Isamu used some flares in that scene.

Visible wavelength guidance is probably the best, especially given the high-visibility paint schemes of most Macross mecha, but it requires a lot more processing power. Though I suppose a flash grenade-type device could blind them, similar to a flare for IR guidance.

True, but maybe your own sensors and your own eyes would be affected, and you will be fighting at close ranges. It's a double edge.

Anyway, I've already said only the AMMs have ALH guidance.

Though it should be noted that modern fusion reactions do not require nuclear materials. Hydrogen is a favored fuel, as it's easy to do.

True. Maybe, and just maybe (I agree with you on this definition) they intended hydrogen was a favored "nuclear material" (though not radiactive) for fusion, like uranium is (or was?) for fission. That would shed new light on the underwater capabilities of the VF-1. No more electrolysis, just throw it all in, it's all good

So maybe both uranium and hydrogenum could work in the same reaction. Cranials would not save mechanicians sucked in anymore

The big diffrence between Macross fusion and real-world fusion is how they got it above break-even(Dimensional rift! Cheaters!).

It should be expected. Yamato uses tachions for all things, Gundam uses Minowsky particles and Macross uses superdimension. Once you started with a sci-fi concept, you will stick to it inserting it in all things. I still don't think active stealth was explained with superdimension though.

This energy source is NOT nuclear fusion.

It is a thermonuclear reaction. Which IS fusion.

We are having doubts about the terms chosen by authors here. I wouldn't reject the hypothesis the word "thermo" was wrong.

Note that that is only mentioned with regard to weaponry.

...and...

But valkyries are powered by thermonuclear reactions, not pair-annihilation.

If you could read better, this discussion would be easier.

A type of Overtechnology similar to nuclear fusion. Unlike nuclear fusion however, this energy reaction became an excellent power source of extreme efficiency, since the fuel does not necessarily have to be nuclear material and is also easily maintained in plasma state with the use of super dimension spatial theory.

On the Compendium there is a "Thermonuclear Reaction" page and a "Reaction Weapon" page. The production note is always the same, why making two pages out of it? Maybe authors have chosen the wrong word, but they were coherent.

Reaction Weapon

System which diverts the enormous energy produced by Overtechnology-based thermonuclear reaction for use as a weapon.

For use as a weapon. Nobody says you can't use as a power source (which is indeed mentioned). Also, every other nuclear reaction can be used both as a weapon and as a power source, ie: hafnium isomer.

Minowsky particles are just a weird explanation for plasma radio disrupting effects.

An un-needed one, as plasma emits EM radiation.

Maybe they couldn't fill the whole battlefield with plasma, do they?

And what if that plasma which emits EM radiation is travelling far from you, still emitting EM radiation? Wouldn't be something like flares or chaff spread all over the battlefield?

And one with unrealistic effects like being able to me constructed into a containment vessel.

Minowsky particles have an electrical charge, so I suppose you could "manoeuvre" them like with ions.

So you acknowledge that that particular chink of text was totally irrelevant?

I don't know what was the point of it anymore, however I think it was indeed unrelated to what I perceive as the main point (other than the reference one), I'll say yes just to make you happy.

You know what else?

No one insists characters he hasn't "borrowed" are in his stories.

With Watchmen Moor chose Charlton Comics' characters (Blue Beetle, The Question, Captain Atom etc..), but since there were trouble of copyrights he changed slightly names and appearances. But you will recognize them.

Anyway, this may be just another of our misunderstanding. I am not saying Macross is Yamato&Gundam under cover. Macross is Macross covered with Yamato&Gundam. This was done with a style many others lack.

Active stealth is canon, as you pointed out. Official words about how it works has not yet reached my ears, though

Yes. And as it can be done without minovsky particles, it is not an indication of the existince of minovsky particles. In fact, the necessity of implementing it is an indicator that said particles DO NOT exist.

Another misunderstanding. I am just joking when I say Minowsky particles exist in Macross. Indeed there are no evidence of the contrary, though Macross' authors joked about it inserting a Ionesco City.

Why should htey HAVE included it?

Why should they have included it? Why should they have cut it? What's the difference between the two questions?

Star Trek has it's own continuioty problems. But they don't include having alternate and conflicting retellings of the same story.

Like DYRL? has been, until years later they justified it.

We do not exactly know what active stealth affects, so we do not know what Isamu meant with "neat trick". I portend YF-21's active stealth largely affects even IR.

I propose that it is RADAR only.

Maybe thermal IR is spread from something like a large cloud of plasma, limitating the understanding of the correct shape of the target (and also the number of targets) by altering the background. In space it would be useful.

Or C. it dropped off the radar, and IR isn't detailed enough data to render a decent picture, so they don't show it on the display.

Maybe he was just not using IR sensors at all. To be honest, I think that image was simply the radar.

I know, but if you look even YF-19 has active stealth system. So how came radar guided missiles could detect it?

What radar-guided missiles?

The ones Guld should have unleashed on him if you initial suppositions were true.

How? It's a show ABOUT the military.

A sci-fi military anime. I you need to know sci-fi, military and also anime. You can't explain all the choices of Macross with military. "High-Viz" colours are just an anime thing, which impose colours like black, green, purple and orange to the bad guys, like it's done in Macross.

Also, there is a lot of Japanese culture involved.

And I think that everyone I've ever met that used a DragonBall Z name is a raging moron. You're no exception.

I read DragonBall as a kid. I've changed tastes since then, but I kept the nick for dignity. Someone has already told me I should change it because it's not a serious nick.

And I block your flame bait with my plasma shield

FV

PS: why is the quote not working?

Edited June 4, 2004 by Final Vegeta

[Anubis]

OMFG what happened to this thread

The post limit is longer than I thought it was.

[justvinnie]

Holy mericful crap! You guys could write my thesis if you want.

vinnie

[Myersjessee]

everyone is missing the obvious....no beam sabers because beam sabers are not real...Macross is. Im going home to Minmei now.

[hevangel2]

The funny thing is that if Anti-UN managed to get its hand on the AFOS, UN-Spacy would use the Cyclops to follow them everywhere on the planet

In ep3, DD and Nora was going to AFOS,

I'm wondering, what's the plan exactly?

How can they carry AFOS away from Asuka?

That thing is so big that it can't be move by 2 SV-51,

I even doubt it will fit inside the submarine.

[JB0]

Holy mericful crap! You guys could write my thesis if you want.

vinnie

Your thesis is about Macross and possible references to other animes?

[Zentrandude]

wow my eyes hurt reading all that.

k to kill all fusion technogarbin.

Unless man can create a stable fusion reaction for minimum of a year. no one knows jack about it. right now we still makes fusion reaction for very little time, be like lighting a match and saying your an expert on how wild fires work.

the plasma thing well i couldnt read all of it else ill hang myself from the info overload. i say it like my grandparents thought about how microwaves worked when they first came out. its magic!!.

better off deleting this thread.

[Druna Skass]

This thing has mutated into something just way out of hand...

I'm stating to see this company's logo all over it...

[Raptor One]

If valks are supposed to approximate infantry in modern warfare..

Yup, cuz most infantry in modern warfare use SINGING as a weapon.

[Dies Irae]

If valks are supposed to approximate infantry in modern warfare..

Yup, cuz most infantry in modern warfare use SINGING as a weapon.

[Mr March]

Definitely time for a blue interrupt

[Ignacio Ocamica]

JBO and Final Vegeta: your posts are insanely cool

You redefined the art of quoting!!!

[CoryHolmes]

Definitely time for a blue interrupt

Bah. Red elemental blast!

[F-ZeroOne]

If valks are supposed to approximate infantry in modern warfare..

Yup, cuz most infantry in modern warfare use SINGING as a weapon.

Er... sorry to intrude, but pyschological warfare involving loud rock music has been used as a tactic for flushing people out of boltholes in a couple of recent conflicts.

And, though it doesn't really count as singing - or, some would claim, music - bagpipes famously followed at least one British division ashore to Normandy, a tactic that, despite numerous attempts, has yet to be banned by the Geneva Convention...