'the red to green wavelengths are dispersed with the same tendencies as glass, but the green to blue wavelengths are dispersed more than glass. Using a convex fluorite lens element alongside a high-dispersion glass concave lens element therefore eliminates residual chromatic aberration'
I thought the reason underlying that is that fluorite is not a glass, technically. It is a crystal. But I’m not a MatSci person so that doesn’t leave me any bit more informed.
There's a minimum size of vehicle you can mount a gun on.
The mount needs to absorb the recoil without breaking or getting pushed around too much.
The Swiss have been experimenting with recoilless chain-guns to try and reduce that footprint. Which might be interesting, but recoilless weapons are extremely unpleasant to be near due to the backblast. It still might make sense to mount such a weapon on a remote automated station, and stick it on the roof of any available truck or APC/IFV.
The hype around hypersonic missiles is overcooked. Ballistic missiles are faster. The hypersonic's advantage is supposed to be its manoeuvrability, expecting an heavy anti-ship missile to be more agile than an interceptor is just silly.
And It'd take way more than 10 missiles to overwhelm a carrier groups air defence. The combat system on an American destroyer can track "100+" targets. The carrier group has several destroyers.
In order to overwhelm the systems, you'd be getting close to the point of exhausting their interceptors. So why even bother with the fancy missiles?
The link I put there has a phalanx mounted on a vehicle.
So it's doable and that fact is orthogonal to your reasoning. There are tons of AA vehicles that hold missiles and tons that have guns as well. These are real and they already exist.
>The combat system on an American destroyer can track "100+" targets. The carrier group has several destroyers.
Uncharitable response. Obviously tracking targets is easy. Knocking out 100 incoming targets that are simultaneously converging on the same position is a different story. What do these ships have 100 phalanxes or does that thing have to turn and shoot to pick things off one by one. Let's be real. I've seen these things even hitting one missile takes a bit. 10 missiles can overwhelm one carrier, they need a fleet of destroyers to make it work and in that case 10 would still be a high risk scenario.
Heck bump it to 20 and they can pick off the destroyers one by one with salvos of 20 cheap china made hypersonics.
Look it's not about whether it's faster than an ballistic. You just need something cheap and efficient to take out a carrier. That's all I'm saying here.
The carrier model is obsolete, it's easy to destroy. It's basically a painted target. Anduril is going in the right direction here but the company is nowhere near china. Anduril is trying to operate technologically from the same perspective as china. Speed and hacking everything together for cheap is the mantra and compared to china and they are building things that are lower quality for a higher price and taking longer to it.
Yeah welding 30K rings would probably quadruple the cost because welding titanium is a bitch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1wJlySEgHg and I don't think Bim does any welding anyway.
New Zealand has a scheme (soon to expire with the change in government) for this.
Low efficiency vehicles are taxed on import, and the money raised is returned as rebates on high efficiency vehicles.
A Ford Ranger might attract the full fee, a new t Nissan leaf would get the full credit.
A small ICE car attracts a smaller fee. Hybrids are given a smaller credit.
The exact amount of credit varied over time as the fees gathered changed.
Well, yes, but you can also sense which ones are turning slower and just increase the torque to those. Locking diffs simply provide torque to the wheels with grip, which is exactly what one motor per wheel can do too. There’s no difference in the real world, and in fact performance is even better because there’s no turning circle penalty from having a locked diff.
> Well, yes, but you can also sense which ones are turning slower and just increase the torque to those.
From the link:
> If the axles are not physically tied, there is no way for any of the four wheels to know how much traction it actually has until it breaks free. Then, of course, it knows "too much" torque and it can apply traction control. But the damage is done. It has broken free, and any negative consequences have already happened prior to the computer being able to make any further calculations.
> Again, if physically locked together with large gears and drive shafts, there is no possible way for one wheel to break free in that manner, unless of course something is broken.
I mean, doesn't the set of computer controlled individual motors completely and totally contain all scenarios presented by a locked differential?
Specifically, wouldn't one line of code that says "never ever ever turn this wheel faster than this other wheel" be totally and completely indistinguishable from having the wheels on the same axle, as far as the physical world is concerned?
You can measure the speed and adjust the power going to the motor if you go over or under that speed. The lower latency that this cycle has, the better, but it can never go to zero like with physically connected wheels.
Maybe so but what does that have to do with anything?
A physical axle can have both wheels break free too can't it?
Comparing apples to apples the only scenario you're concerned with is where one wheel breaks traction and the other doesn't. Why is a logically driven exact speed match between wheels inferior to a physically linked speed match between the wheels. Explain the difference practically speaking.
You said "totally and completely indistinguishable".
Practically, electric motors can't generally transfer torque from one wheel to another like you can with locked hubs. (The only exception would be where your battery is underrated to provide sufficient power to both motor to maximize their torque)
Pedantry: The speed of sound in steel is about 5100m/s, so a solid 2m axel will still take about 4µs for interactions to propagate from one end to the other.
> If the axles are not physically tied, there is no way for any of the four wheels to know how much traction it actually has until it breaks free. Then, of course, it knows "too much" torque and it can apply traction control. But the damage is done. It has broken free, and any negative consequences have already happened prior to the computer being able to make any further calculations.
> Again, if physically locked together with large gears and drive shafts, there is no possible way for one wheel to break free in that manner, unless of course something is broken.
All four wheels rotating at the same speed is the normal case: straight line driving on good pavement.
The real question is can all the wheels go to zero traction at the same moment and thus the computer thinks all is well. I think the odds of that are low enough to not worry about.
So I'd expect you to see the weight go up faster than the part count.
Not sure if that would confound or exagerate the trend.