Questions and Ideas

Principle of stabilized equilibrum can help tanks and cars when they shoot. Like a ball in a semi sferic glass vase (bowl).

I finally understanded something from physics. The principle of couples of forces says that bigger a steering wheel is easyer is to steer. That concept for example can be applied from tank turrets to tracks of tanks, to aircraft flapses , to wheels for different mecanisms.

actually that works in the opposite direction... a steering wheel that is larger is just like wider handle bars or a longer crowbar that allows the person using it to apply more leverage to the central steering column.

A larger tank turret applies more stress on the turret turning mechanism because it is the opposite of the steering wheel... it is like the control column trying to spin the wheel... as the wheel gets bigger turning it requires more force....

GarryB wrote:

I finally understanded something from physics. The principle of couples of forces says that bigger a steering wheel is easyer is to steer. That concept for example can be applied from tank turrets to tracks of tanks, to aircraft flapses , to wheels for different mecanisms.

actually that works in the opposite direction... a steering wheel that is larger is just like wider handle bars or a longer crowbar that allows the person using it to apply more leverage to the central steering column.

A larger tank turret applies more stress on the turret turning mechanism because it is the opposite of the steering wheel... it is like the control column trying to spin the wheel... as the wheel gets bigger turning it requires more force....

GarryB... Are you even human? I swear you know some of the most random crap out there. +1 for you

Mike E wrote:

GarryB wrote:

I finally understanded something from physics. The principle of couples of forces says that bigger a steering wheel is easyer is to steer. That concept for example can be applied from tank turrets to tracks of tanks, to aircraft flapses , to wheels for different mecanisms.

actually that works in the opposite direction... a steering wheel that is larger is just like wider handle bars or a longer crowbar that allows the person using it to apply more leverage to the central steering column.

A larger tank turret applies more stress on the turret turning mechanism because it is the opposite of the steering wheel... it is like the control column trying to spin the wheel... as the wheel gets bigger turning it requires more force....

GarryB... Are you even human? I swear you know some of the most random crap out there. +1 for you

Actually that was basic physics.

Even kids learn that a longer stick is better as leverage to turn up stones when looking for snakes, salamandars etc.

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:

GarryB wrote:

I finally understanded something from physics. The principle of couples of forces says that bigger a steering wheel is easyer is to steer. That concept for example can be applied from tank turrets to tracks of tanks, to aircraft flapses , to wheels for different mecanisms.

actually that works in the opposite direction... a steering wheel that is larger is just like wider handle bars or a longer crowbar that allows the person using it to apply more leverage to the central steering column.

A larger tank turret applies more stress on the turret turning mechanism because it is the opposite of the steering wheel... it is like the control column trying to spin the wheel... as the wheel gets bigger turning it requires more force....

GarryB... Are you even human? I swear you know some of the most random crap out there. +1 for you

Actually that was basic physics.

Even kids learn that a longer stick is better as leverage to turn up stones when looking for snakes, salamandars etc.

Yeah yeah yeah... But the whole point is that he's been answering every question here. I wouldn't have the patience nor time nor motivation to do so.

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:

GarryB wrote:

I finally understanded something from physics. The principle of couples of forces says that bigger a steering wheel is easyer is to steer. That concept for example can be applied from tank turrets to tracks of tanks, to aircraft flapses , to wheels for different mecanisms.

actually that works in the opposite direction... a steering wheel that is larger is just like wider handle bars or a longer crowbar that allows the person using it to apply more leverage to the central steering column.

A larger tank turret applies more stress on the turret turning mechanism because it is the opposite of the steering wheel... it is like the control column trying to spin the wheel... as the wheel gets bigger turning it requires more force....

GarryB... Are you even human? I swear you know some of the most random crap out there. +1 for you

Actually that was basic physics.

Even kids learn that a longer stick is better as leverage to turn up stones when looking for snakes, salamandars etc.

Yeah yeah yeah... But the whole point is that he's been answering every question here. I wouldn't have the patience nor time nor motivation to do so.

Well GarryB is the most patient person on this forum with quite aload of knowledge and i picture him just like that.

Point is in order to know some physics you must ask and ask and ask....and read books.....and learn how objects interact.....even basics must be learned....its not like you can guess the answer.

Close but my eyebrows are much bushier than that... I like to keep them braided so it looks tidier...

GarryB wrote:

I finally understanded something from physics. The principle of couples of forces says that bigger a steering wheel is easyer is to steer. That concept for example can be applied from tank turrets to tracks of tanks, to aircraft flapses , to wheels for different mecanisms.

actually that works in the opposite direction... a steering wheel that is larger is just like wider handle bars or a longer crowbar that allows the person using it to apply more leverage to the central steering column.

A larger tank turret applies more stress on the turret turning mechanism because it is the opposite of the steering wheel... it is like the control column trying to spin the wheel... as the wheel gets bigger turning it requires more force....

This is the proof that in a tank or car everything matters. Even size of wheels , size of thoots from gears, size of piston , fuel used , friction and so on. For every of these is a physics formula that must be known and applied corectly. Some results may be obtained by random tryes and by elimination of all causes of problems but better is to know formulas.

Theory makes the design process easier... having enormous tires spreads the weight of a vehicle and allows it to drive over terrain with large obstacles but it also requires a much larger more powerful engine to drive those wheels.

When designing something that will operate on a farm in wet soil conditions then a large rear wheel gives good mobility and traction with small front wheels for steering. For a racing car you wont have huge tires with heavy treads.

Of course sometimes you don't know because you have no experience... for instance at the end of WWII as aircraft got faster and faster they started having problems at very high speeds.

It wasn't just the straight wings, but design and manufacturing tollerances needed to be rather higher... a wing that was 5mm out of alignment would cause serious vibration at very high speed.

High speed wind tunnels and lots of models and they worked out what worked and what didn't so they looked at what worked and what didn't and tried to work out why... create some theories and then test them with new shapes and ideas. If the theory worked and the new shapes did what the theory suggested they would then you have a theory to base future designs upon.

Problem is that now we are looking at aircraft designs that operate at subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic speeds so new materials and new designs are needed as well as new engines.

Very important statement regarding guessing... Mythbusters is a popular TV show largely testing assumptions and guesses, and the results in the real world are not always obvious common sense.

Science is all about learning things by experimentation.... you might start with beliefs and theories but to check they are true you have to experiment and test and be prepared to change your beliefs and theories based on those results.

The basic laws of physics as we know them have been heavily tested and remain laws because they seem to stand up.

So i have a question: why is so hard to make best weapons in today computer era? Supercomputers can simulate all: trajectory of missiles, components, laws of physics can be simulated, weight and shape simulation in a word all can be simulated on computers. Even all elements from periodic table whit all their properties can be simulated. I see for example indian aircraft they took 20 years to finish their first home made aircraft tejas. Arjun tank is a crap and took also so many time. They didnt heard about computer simulation and physics laws ? Isee some armies like iranians : they are at level where urss was in the 65. Or worse. I read this days some physics and chemistry books. There are formulas that applied corectly can give best results. Those armies are simply stupid or what? Some physics formulas and laws are very simple in my opinion.

victor1985 wrote:So i have a question: why is so hard to make best weapons in today computer era? Supercomputers can simulate all: trajectory of missiles, components, laws of physics can be simulated, weight and shape simulation in a word all can be simulated on computers.

The point is, we have bullets which we know, use and procude since hundreds of years and still till this date at the peak of technological advance of military hardware we still can not
manage to produce bullets that never have duds. The problem are various, this is not a simulation and in real life you can have unpredicteble causes for something to not work. When
ammunition is stored wrong, be it bullets or missile, that can lower the quality of propellant or guidance of a missile, which lowers its hit probability. A Worker can have a bad day and
be occupied with personal issues and therefore can make mistakes which can lower the quality of entire series of weapons, such things are unpredictable but they exist...of course not
in simulations. There hundreds more of situations that are unpredictable people maybe would never think about before they start a research and analysis what was the cause.

Even all elements from periodic table whit all their properties can be simulated. I see for example indian aircraft they took 20 years to finish their first home made aircraft tejas. Arjun tank is a crap and took also so many time. They didnt heard about computer simulation and physics laws ?

India is the biggest weapons impoteur, that comes due the lack of overall a big functioning Military Industrial Complex. The projects such as Tejas and Arjun or LCH LAH, are projects
to further build up an own industrial complex, to test it and of course trying to get independend. If it would be so easy every country would just build up a huge MIC, however reality
still shows that there are much more countries that do not have the resources to build it up in a short time and rely therefore on other countries to build up armies. India is one of the
biggest populated countries and they have already issues to solve, nothing is just that simple like in a video game where you just build up a MIC and then start being superpower
within 10 years. Different countries have different resources, problems, culture, politics and that all influences everything in daily life like in politics. In peace time everything runs in
snail pace, those who expect war are those who try to hush everything into production to be prepared.

Isee some armies like iranians : they are at level where urss was in the 65. Or worse. I read this days some physics and chemistry books. There are formulas that applied corectly can give best results.

Iran is a sanctioned country that is isolated from most military hardware but still they are advancing fast with their MIC, i can show you several other countries that are "rich" and had
once big MIC's and are today at pathetic levels that make money with fire arms, that would be germany. Germany doesn't produce much anymore, they hold up on weapons
exporteur 3rd place mainly with Fire arms and everything else is on pathetic levels with dependancy on other EU countries since they can not produce a single aircraft without i
nvolvement of other countries, which brings Germany into very dangerous positions as being incapable to defend itself in case other countries decide not to give them the parts they
need to build aircrafts. We know sanctions from west are a weapon and they are very likely to use it against anybody.

Those armies are simply stupid or what? Some physics formulas and laws are very simple in my opinion.

I think you greatly underestimate the knowledge, physics and resources needed to even design a WW2 standard tank, i can ensure you, you wouldn't be capable to do that despite thinking those formulas and laws are very simple. Not to mention what knowledge you will need to design a tank from current standards. There is a reason why countries establish specified jobs like engineers and even more specified universities that teach and study war and war machinery. I understand the concept of lot of things about how things work, but i for sure lack the knowledge to produce a guidance system or even high accurate optical target sights from WW2. Nothing is that simple.

First of all i see you wrote about storing ammunition. Well this kind of mistakes depends of army discipline and importance given by regular soldiers even to minor events and small details. Is about how serious are the armies. A serious army would take serious studies about weapon affecting in time , about storing , about condition in which they work and so on. Scientist have duty to put a warning on sensibility of different weapons in different environments. If he does not do that is not a true scientist that can see causes of failure. Another example is letw say a training program for regular soldierw so that they know all details of storing and others. A army that does not have such a program is a no carefully one.

Now.... if you do test over and over again you can cover at least 90% of problems. That may give you a total of 90% of weapons that are fully functional. And is enough. But my opinion is that such countries lack at all what ive said.

For example did you know that the T 72 armour formula was stolen from a bribed indian officer by the usa? So training and carefully choose of members of team is a must.

Ofcourse fomplex things get unpredictible problems and i eidnt say is easy. Specially when a country like usa and europe put sanctions on you. And also you had a complex past that didnt let you entirelly make things like you wanted. There is a theory called geographic determinism that say for example weather and spread of resources are esential in a country development. For russians for example is hard to work , make weapons , deposit them carefully , take maintenance , and even walk in free air. But i believe the reasons for that countryes like those are where they are are part of what you said and part of what ive said. Cant say who has more right but i can say that everything is complex and that it is they are where they are.

So i have a question: why is so hard to make best weapons in today computer era? Supercomputers can simulate all: trajectory of missiles, components, laws of physics can be simulated, weight and shape simulation in a word all can be simulated on computers.

even with the best design tools and the most experience design is basically about compromise.

For instance a rifle is a combination of power and accuracy, range, weight, comfort, ease of use.

the ideal rifle is accurate to an infinite range, that weighs nothing, has low recoil but is deadly to the target is easy to carry and use. Obviously a rifle that weighs nothing is impossible and would recoil heavily. Ammo is generally standardised so you have to use 5.56 or 5.45mm rounds, which locks you into certain designs and choices.

I see for example indian aircraft they took 20 years to finish their first home made aircraft tejas.

At the start of the aircraft era the first planes like the SPAD and the various Fokkers were made by only a few countries (France and Germany in these cases)... looking back now they were rubbish, but at the time they were the best available.

Part of the reason the Tegas and the Arjun took so long is politics and constant changes in direction of design and planning... which is never good for the design process. Another factor was the demand for local input... when you force constraints like that on a design often that undermines the cohesion of the development and results in bad choices and massive delays... when you delay a design 10 years all of a sudden all the components that used to be brand new are now outdated.

Just look at the Su-27M compared with the Su-35S... technically the same design... both called Super Flankers... but the Su-35S had the added input of experience with the Su-30MKI, the Su-30MKK and of course most importantly the work done to develope the PAK FA which all contributed to making the final aircraft vastly more capable than the aircraft developed 20 odd years before. (The Su-27M flew in 1988, while the Su-35 flew after 2000).

They didnt heard about computer simulation and physics laws ? Isee some armies like iranians : they are at level where urss was in the 65. Or worse. I read this days some physics and chemistry books. There are formulas that applied corectly can give best results. Those armies are simply stupid or what? Some physics formulas and laws are very simple in my opinion.

Physics are the same for everyone but different levels of design capability in different technologies means different options for different countries, and of course different design demands from the different militaries is also relevant too.

For instance Israel is focused on protecting its crews and is not so interested in strategic mobility.

They don't care that their Merkavas can't be flown around the world easily, but they want the best frontal armour they can manage.

the US also wants to have max protection for its crews and doesn't care about the weight or the fuel consumption.

In the past the Soviets... contrary to popular belief did care about their crews, but thought giving them better mobility and other protection technologies like APS and ERA and soft kill systems like Shtora would allow them to keep the weight down below 50 tons so they could be mobile in theatre and strategic operations.

Now their focus has moved to emphasise crew protection and they are applying it across their armoured fleet from scout vehicle and ambulance right up to heavy tank.

There hundreds more of situations that are unpredictable people maybe would never think about before they start a research and analysis what was the cause.

Good point... even the most advanced and powerful super computer uses models to simulate the real world. Errors in its model of the real world will result in errors in the conclusions and results of the simulation.

First of all i see you wrote about storing ammunition. Well this kind of mistakes depends of army discipline and importance given by regular soldiers even to minor events and small details.

Sometimes problems are out of your control... flooding, or fires can result in problems you can't do much about...

Now.... if you do test over and over again you can cover at least 90% of problems. That may give you a total of 90% of weapons that are fully functional. And is enough. But my opinion is that such countries lack at all what ive said.

Most of the time problems are found by experience... not by computer model.

For example did you know that the T 72 armour formula was stolen from a bribed indian officer by the usa? So training and carefully choose of members of team is a must.

I rather doubt that Indian officer actually took a core sample of the armour and analysed the content by himself. He might have copied a power point presentation slide that showed the armour composition... but who knows how accurate that was... or for that matter whether it bore any similarities with the armour used in contemporary Soviet tanks...

If it was the correct composition of the Indian T-72s then fitting ERA can completely change the penetration requirements needed to defeat the armour.

Equally the most effective use of such information would be to provide Pakistan with ammunition designed specifically to defeat that armour structure. If the information was false that would lead to an incorrect design choice for new ammo for Pakistan...

Another issue is that you might have mastered certain technologies and not mastered others so your design options are also limited in that way too.

For instance the Russians never fully developed a steam catapult for their aircraft carriers.

They are planning new carriers in the future and would benefit from catapults to allow heavier aircraft to operate from smaller carriers... the ability to carry an AWACS aircraft for example is very useful but it is a very heavy aircraft requiring assistance to get airborne.

Developing a technology it took the west 20-30 years to develop into an effective system is a real challenge, but why waste their time developing a steam powered system when EM cats would take just as much or less effort and result in a more capable and sophisticated system.

If they were designing a new sniper rifle they wouldn't start by making a muzzle loaded musket...

Well floodingbandbfire are rarely ocuring. Most of problems come from imperfeft production lines that give for example shape errors for missiles so their path to target is different. Here comes the precise tehnology. When you have machines that cut steel whit precision of microns then for sure your weapons will work. That means is not only to manufacture a miseile in a factory but manage and manufacture the factory itself. Here ofcourse skills of workers come into play.

As far as i remember the officer let the american spy to make tests on T 72. This is the best wqy to know infos are real.

Most of problems come from imperfeft production lines that give for example shape errors for missiles so their path to target is different.

Imperfect shapes are normally picked up quickly because the parts wont assemble properly if they are the wrong shape.

As far as i remember the officer let the american spy to make tests on T 72. This is the best wqy to know infos are real.

Changes are continuously made to tank designs... tanks built early on wont be the same as later models.

So the advantage is limited.

Or the parts fit into their location but they will have a gap that make them move a bit. That could affect overall behaviour in flight for example. Plus that the joint part could be weell made and other parts that arent use to connect anything could be a bit larger for example. Blades from a jet engine could be larger at approach of one extremity and correct to the other extremity. Wings could have same mistake. Once produced in series you wake up having 300 aircrafts bought and all whit poor performance.


The stolen formula could help if war begins at that moment.

A wrong number could change all. For example a wrong number could show a better behaviour but in reality will perform worse. Ofcourse once saw the difference between the two sets of numbers you will concentrate to the affected behaviour. But the time you were working whit the wrong numbers is lost. Also some parts are maked according to the wrong number and all must be changed. That means another time lost whit the making of aircraft. That is why nations whose armies dont have experience whit data colect and calculus must lewrn from errors. Now point complex the project complex the job making if is a wrong number.

Would a periodic table be usefull for all materials including combining of 2 3 4 5..... ? Grouping in rows and collumns upon their electrons would group them in similar properties. So you will know that once you go futher a specific element some properties that you want are seen. In this you will concentrate tho those are giving the right properties. You could combine one from one column whit other from other column to give unique properties. That would help if you have not imagination to find yourself a new material. Computers could make that simulation.

Question: a bubble of air surrounded by water till top in a ermetic bod can somehow be a guidance sistem? Also i think to the example in which a man stay on a car and when car change direction or stop the man falls befause of newtons first law. This kind of guidance could be cheaper

How a ball connected to 6 stretched wires in front and back left right up down of the ball would behaviour on acceleration movement and deceleration?

Or having a stick pinned on roof and measuring the angle between stick and roof when moving

And a stick tied in the middle by a rope pinned in roof could give movement from left to right

A sensor would give the movement of sticks