Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Xoon last won the day on September 21 2016

Xoon had the most liked content!

About Xoon

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

325 profile views
  1. The Leopard 2 Thread

    The idea would be to use the space for extra ammunition. Meaning, adding for example 15 more rounds. By separating them with a firewall into 2-3 sections, you could avoid heavily armoring the bustle and losing all your ready ammunition. This would weight up for the lost rounds in the mine protection kit. I think I was a bit unclear about that, I meant that because the hydraulics and old ballistic computer was removed, we had a lot of empty space. Couldn't the radio be moved somewhere else, or placed in a separate compartment from the ammunition? For example to the left in the bustle (as seen from the inside), with the ammunition on the right. When it comes to saving weight, the only reasonable thing I could think about is replacing the current composite armor modules with lighter ones, and using more reactive armor/APS. Since armor is all or nothing, it could be beneficial to reduce the armor, if it fails to defeat the current threat, and is overkill for the next threat. One example could be the King Tiger from WWII. When AP rounds managed to reliably penetrate the tank, it would make more sense the reduce the frontal armor to something that stops AC or medium caliber rounds. All the extra armor being dead weight. This was impossible with RHA/CHA tanks because it required a new tank, but with modular/semi-modular armor, it is entirely possible. For example if it turns out to be too expensive or makes the tank too heavy to deal with long rod penetrators from 125mm guns, you could reduce the KE protection to stop something like a CTAS 40mm, this would be protection decrees from 600mm vs KE to 200mm roughly. This way the tank focus on more protection against ATGMs and RPGs, or mines. Alternatively you could discard it for weight savings. Same goes for CE, though less likely. Makes sense to discard useless armor for more mobility, both strategically and tactically, fuel economy, reliability and wear.
  2. The Leopard 2 Thread

    You could also use the large space taken up earlier by the ballistic computer and hydraulic aggregate. The hydraulic traverse and elevation mechanism is replaced by electric motors, and the ballistic computer is digitized and miniaturized to the size of a laptop. Removing it and removing the firewall dividing it in two. Restructure the inside so that you essentially has a bustle rack similar to the M1.
  3. General AFV Thread

    " Riley-Amos said February 25, 2017 at 4:03 am 42° is quite good, although for indirect fire an 89° maximum will always be preferable. Yes the CTA cannon will add some complexity but current British trials are quite promising, and the ammunition footprint is better than standard cannon ammunition – whilst offering more firepower. I mention a 200 round capacity, which is not a huge amount but it should definitely fit inside the turret. I explored having a saboted shell fired from the cannon to get some half-decent velocity but the round would be quite large (about the size of a 200 rounds 40mm CTA drum), and it wouldn’t be all that useful against heavy armour, only really for anti-helicopter use. There will definitely be mounting options for Hydra-70 pods (and hopefully CKEM) on the outside of the turret." Mounting Hydra-70 pods and a 200 rounds capacity. And some talk about CAS planes being better than light tanks, what?
  4. It should be noted that the right party is Liberal Conservative, the left party is Social Liberal, The Progressives are classic liberal and Christian party is, the Christian party, nobody cares, people just vote for them since they are THE Christian party. So the coalition could be called a Liberal coalition. The opposing group was the Labor-Center-Socialistic-environmentalist-communist Coalition. With the labor party being unionist, workers rights, socialist and for more wealthfare. Center party is basically social democratic agricultural party, previously called the farmers party. Socialists are socialist, not really much new there. The environmentalists are basically communist hippies detached from reality. They wanted to remove all diesel vehicles by 2040, want us to stop expanding hydropower, and instead invest in wind and solar, very rational for country with periods with only 4 hours of sunlight a day, and further north, zero for 3 months. The Reds, is basically a communist party (they identify as communist, though call themselves socialist is public), take everything related to communism and slap it together, and you have the Reds. Which makes this a socialist coalition. Norway is for the most part, just ignoring Russia's complaint and trying not to make a big fuzz out of it, so that the environmentalists don't catch wind of it. Only thing I have seen through the Norwegian media and heard from oil industry is that Norway opened 3 new zones in the Barents sea for oil drilling. Simply going with the Barents sea treaty. The small line stretching out of Norway up to Svalbard is the product of that treaty. The only opposition internally to drilling oil in the arctics is from environmentalists, who are afraid it will hurt the environment. And some that feel we should seek to grow other sectors instead.
  5. http://medcraveonline.com/JNSK/JNSK-01-00023.php Here is one source. When I said "set in stone" I meant that there was no reliable way of permanently increasing your IQ past small amounts. You could of course malnutrition, poison and damage a baby to make it's IQ drop. Just so that is clear. Well, the big question is, what is intelligence?
  6. Norway's current strategy is to invest the oil money in the Sovereign wealth fund, which then is used to diversely invest in the stock market, which the country can live on in the future. The New government, the Right-left-Progressive-christian coalition has a new strategy, investing in the industry and growing other sectors and making Norway more entrepreneur friendly. But the Dutch disease is still very real. The oil crisis hit the Norwegian economy pretty hard. 50 000 people lost their jobs in the oil sector, and many more from the sectors living off the oil sector ( shipping, supply). This caused a lot of ships to be decommissioned. On the other hand, the fishing industry boomed, with some fishers making up to 600 USD a day. This also helped along the automation industry. But Norway has no automotive industry, no aircraft industry, a agricultural sector that lives on subsidies, and in general very little industry outside exceptions ones like furniture, ammunition, missiles, and aluminum. The previous governmental decisions are completely to blame for it, like shooting down any attempts at a automotive industry. At least we are good at making millionaires, we are however, bad at keeping them around and taxing them. Oh and, the reason Norway began handing out licences in the Barents sea is because our current oil deposits are running out. @LoooSeR Not a war, maybe sanctions or sour relations.
  7. Yeah, try to look past the propaganda parts. I posted them since they gave neat graphics on claims, oil deposits and talked about trade.
  8. Because of climate change, new trade routes to Asia is opening up over the arctics. To top this off, it is estimated that 30% of the world oil reserves is there 13% around Svalbard. Russia and Norway are working on grabbing as much as the arctic as they can, while Canada and Denmark is currently having their new borders reviewed by the UN. Same applies to Russia, but they top it off with military presence. Svalbard is a peculiar thing in the north however. Because of the Svalbard treaty, any signers can exploit its resources at the islands or sea and it is a demilitarized zone. Also, you can freely immigrate to Svalbard, without ID, passport or whatever, as long as you come from a participant country. Funny enough, Afghanistan is one of them. What causes conflict is the overlapping claims in the Arctic between the Canadians, Danes and Russians, all claiming the North pole. On top of this, because of the Svalbard treaty and the larger amounts of oil there, Russia wants to get in. However, Norway claims that the Svalbard treaty does not include the resources below the sea, and has laid claimed to the Continental shelf around Svalbard. This has angered the Russians, accusing Norway of violating the treaty. The dispute is if "exploiting the ocean" counts as exploiting the hydrocarbon deposits below it. If not, then the Barents sea treaty states that Norway owns it, because of a line drawn between Norway and Russia in 2010, which states that Norway own the continental shelf on it's side of the border, which includes Svalbard. The only exception is deposits that cross the border, in which case close cooperation between the two parties must the done. This is a lot of money. They claim this could make Norway the next Saudi Arabia. Adding to this, china is currently in the process of buying land in Svalbard. I wonder what the US will, say, if they support Russia, so that they can drill oil themselves or if they support Norway and is allocated drilling rights by the Norwegian government. This is a huge deal of Norway, as we have the closets warm water ports to the arctic. Relevant documents: http://www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/01/1-11/svalbard-treaty.xml https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/ud/vedlegg/folkerett/avtale_engelsk.pdf
  9. General news thread

    All of this is a bit confusing the me, so this is how I understood the points: Ulric's point: Fundamental rights are innate to human beings, and can not be removed. Practical rights are worthless unless you have power to enforce it, but still exist in the absent of power. One can for example theoretically act in opposition to the wishes of the one in power at a cost, and the only way to stop this is to take their life. Sturgeon's point: The concept of rights originates from power. Without power, one can be subjugated. One can be broken and rebuilt to never oppose their master, unless conditioned to do so. First of, be sure to correct me so that I don't accidentally strawman someone. Secondly, the only thing I can see you to disagreeing about is if we can count theoretical rights as rights. Rights than can be acted upon, but in situations not practically possible, not being worth the cost.
  10. Transmissions and final drives

    Forgot that a big metal plate works as a conductor. Still, the air gap should not be too bad if something like ceramic are used. Alternatively, a composite sandwich of conductors and isolators could be used, like NERA.
  11. Maybe doing it in a selected exclusion zone so that it can be directly compared. I am thinking about cases like renovating the school. Instead of keeping it for later, they spend it all, because or else the government takes it back.
  12. Well, you have to do it properly and in such a way that people will not feel superior and discriminate against the lower IQ people.
  13. I believe social mobility is important too, but no more than 20%. Though, there are a lot of big socialist parties in the west, we have 3 in Norway. IQ is the best indicator of success we have found. Meaning, that it has the biggest impact on your life, and is set in stone from birth. But yes, it should not be the only indicator, as we still we people high in IQ that do nothing in their life or even worse than the average person. It would be interesting to do a experiment where private school got free reign in a limited region or education class. This is quite normal in Norway too. The religious studies here however are main subjects and pretty bad. And most students hate them since they don't really provide a good insight into religions and do no serve any purpose for the average student. The rule that unspent money goes back to the state is a very stupid rule I have found. What actually happens is that the school aims to use up all the money, often buying useless things or spending them carelessly. The middle school in my area is a great example of that. Pardon me for the very late response, but I have been very busy lately and have not found the time to create a new thread.
  14. This is a thread for discussing education. Created to avoid derailing the Post election thread. Keep it civil and be high in openness.
  15. Transmissions and final drives

    I found this quite interesting, and I would like people to share their opinion on this: In short, magnetic gearing. Zero contact between the two "gears" meaning "no friction", no need for lubricant, very reliable and claimed efficiency of 99% at high speeds and "much higher at lower speeds compared to conventional gearing. What this means is that you can have a final drive with almost no wear and a very long lifespan, if we do no count the bearings. It also has a side effect of slipping when the torque goes past the rated torque. This means that the drive would disengage instead of breaking itself. I think this works well with electric motors, considering their long lifespan, which often needs a gearbox to optimize the torque. The company realized this and apparently made a Psuedo-direct drive, integrating it into the motor and claim a much better torque density. I think this would be quite useful for AFVs to reduce the size of the engine bay. They also made a magnetic CVT: Should be self explanatory for anyone that knows what a CVT is. Claims to be 32% more efficient that a conventional gearbox. The only disadvantages I can think of is higher price and needing to keep the magnets below their Curie point. And we have magnetic bearings too: Simply, they are like magnetic gears, only as bearings. They can support a theoretically infinite RPM, with no friction. They can operate in a vacuum and in very hostile environments. They come in two types, active and passive. Active bearings use sensors and electromagnets in a feedback loop does a "tug of war" to keep the object in the center. A passive system uses permanent magnets. Some include a backup bearing in case of a failure. Same disadvantages as above. This could make for a system with almost zero friction, no lubricant and a very long lifespan. In theory, non of these parts would ever need to be replaced, some maintenance would be needed to remove pill up of dirt and dust. With a magnetic coupling, you could also have a sprocket that does need to compromise the armor, as it can transfer the power through it magnetically. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearing http://www.magnomatics.com/pages/technology/pseudo-direct-drive.htm http://www.magnomatics.com/pages/technology/low-ratio-magnetic-gears.htm http://www.magnomatics.com/pages/technology/magsplit.htm http://www.magnomatics.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_coupling