ewilen

One set of explanations: http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/rms_tips/rmsfaq.3.html Look down the page a bit to Why are there so many different scales? Where did they all come from?

I think you kind of have your answer. Another way of posing the question would be, if Kawamori had created Macross in 2004 instead of 1982, what would Valks look like? Answer: something like the VF-17, VF-19, or VF-22. Or maybe the SV-51. Swing wings are passé. And would it incorporate stealth? Of course, at least in fighter mode. Not sure how stealthy you could make a gerwalk or battroid. I'll bet that Kawamori would have incorporated active stealth from the getgo. For one thing, it makes hand-hand combat easier to believe. The idea of the Valk was to take a cutting edge jet at the time and merge it with a transforming robot concept, yielding something that made the sci-fi feel "real". The F-22 or maybe YF-23 would be the likeliest candidate, followed by various other hot jets like the EF-2000, Su-37, and Su-47.

Yes, it's been argued that the VF-1 should be less capable than a destroid in ground combat, because it's not specialized. But against that is the fact that the VF-1 has stronger engines, which gives it more agility, and SWAG armor, which lets it convert its excess power into tougness. Beyond that, tactical/operational mobility counts for a lot--battles often go to whoever gets there fastest with the mostest. So even if destroids were stronger than valks, they wouldn't be as useful in a fluid combat situation. E.g., if two groups of Regults are attacking from different directions, you'd have to split your destroids to hold them off. With Valks, you could fly your entire force over to interdict one group, then turn around and fight the second group. Anyway, of course it's impossible to make a transforming jet fighter with real-world technology. Even a giant bipedal robot (destroid or Armored Core) would probably be heavy, slow, and underprotected. Which is why we build tanks and attack helicopters, not destroids.

Sneh.

http://macross.anime.net/fallacies/errata/...aq/5/index.html (re: reflex) And about reaction technology... http://macross.anime.net/story/encyclopedi...apon/index.html http://macross.anime.net/story/encyclopedi...tion/index.html Welcome to MW, K1_saotome.

Actually, the F-14 is being phased out in favor of the Super Hornet, period. The F-22 is a US Air Force plane and there's no plan whatsoever to make a naval version of it. You'll find some people talking about making a naval version of the YF-23, but that's just as farfetched. The Navy will eventually adopt the F-35C to supplement the Super Hornet, primarily in a strike role.

Okay, some of us might want to continue this thread but regardless of any residual commentary, the main point has been dealt with. Unless and until the mods step in with an official ruling.

(Nevermind--posted before ChristopherB edited his post.)

Last I heard, he was suing Best Buy for using a digitally-altered version of a fight scene from Rocky III in one of their commercials. And he had cancer, but got better.

Okay, a problem with all the speculation about vasimr, magnetohydrodynamic/magnetoplasmadynamic engines and/or various other plasma or ion drives is that from what I've glearned on the net, it looks like they're all great ways powering a spacecraft that accelerates slowly but steadily over a long period, ultimately reaching a very high velocity. But I'm not sure any of those technologies gives you an engine that produces a whole lot of thrust all at once. The kind of thrust you'd need to get off the ground, overcome air resistance on Earth, or engage in rapid maneuvers. In short, those technologies are fine for long-range space exploration, but I don't think they'd be very effective on the Valkyrie.

Meh.

Still not clear to me if any of the Hobby Handbook is official (maybe Egan can clear that up). Some of it definitely isn't. See Egan's comments starting March 2, 2004 in this thread: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...opic=1837&st=40 Anyway, it does have a lot of good stuff in it.

Hmmm. Problem is, there's some stuff that borders on political, like some of the comments that come up when we're talking about military aircraft procurement and such. I'd hate to see that go. And for that matter, I don't think there's a problem with occasional airing of opinions, not to argue, but just to say where you stand. It's more of an issue when people make political claims or assertions in a fashion that invites or provokes a response. Hate to say it, because it's such a subjective standard, but maybe the litmus test in borderline cases should indeed be whether someone is offended enough to complain. I mean, if I put a link to the ASPCA web site...it seems pretty innocuous, but there are people who consider the ASPCA to be a radical "animal rights" organization equivalent to PETA. Regardless of what I think of people who see things that way, I'd have to admit that (a) since they do, it's a political issue, and (b) it has nothing to do with Macross, sci-fi, or anime. So I think it'd be appropriate for a mod to tell me to get rid of the link if there was a complaint. Thinking about all this, I've got to say, I don't want to be a mod.

Very nice. Thanks.

That WaPo link on isomer reactions is interesting, thanks. Yes, I've also read that a supernova can fuse elements beyond iron, and I believe that's the standard explanation of how such elements came into existence. However, when you fuse iron, or any element with a greater atomic number than iron, there's a loss of energy. Similarly, fissioning an atom with atomic number less than or equal to iron causes energy to be absorbed rather than released. On plasma and flame, to my surprise, I've found enough references on the net to make me believe that a candle flame does have some plasma in it, or at least ions--enough to produce effects such as conducting electricity. But the amount of ions in an everyday flame, even the flame in a conventional jet engine, is small. A full-fledged plasma requires at least thousands of degrees, or an electrical current run through a gas at low pressure (as in a neon light). The various plasma engines (VASIMR, Hall thruster, Magnetoplasmadynamic) and the related ion drive all seem to me to be so radically different from the likely atmospheric operation of the Valkyrie's engine that (IMO) they'd be a completely distinct drive. What I've suggested is essentially a nuclear jet engine that doubles as a nuclear thermal rocket ("nuclear thermal propulsion", "NERVA" are also good search terms). E.g., look at the diagram at the bottom of this page and compare the nuclear-powered engine here. In both cases, a nuclear reactor is coupled to a heat exchanger, which heats a propellant. This causes it to expand and flow out the rear of the engine. The fundamental difference is that the jet's "propellant" is air, while the rocket's propellant is carried onboard. About "pair annihilation", I doubt that it has anything to do with Valk engines. I assume that the term refers to matter-antimatter reaction; if that were going on in the Valks' engines, then "thermonuclear reaction" would be a poor term for it. The compendium refers to "pair-annihilation" in reference to post-2045 weaponry, not directly in connection with thermonuclear reaction as used in VF engines and pre-2045 weaponry. Matter-antimatter reaction is really quite different from a fusion reaction. In the former, the problem is keeping the matter and antimatter separate; the latter, the problem is keeping the plasma together. In the former, the matter can be in any form (including subnuclear particles) prior to reacting; in the latter, the reaction specifically comes from combining atomic nuclei. I wouldn't say that "pair annihilation" is similar to fusion reaction. The fact that "thermonuclear reaction" is contrasted with fusion as an excellent energy source doesn't support the notion that the former uses pair annihilation. The reason that fusion isn't (yet) an excellent energy source (except indirectly in the form of solar energy ) is because it's hard to contain the plasma under sufficient temperature/pressure to bring about fusion. If OT solves that problem, fusion becomes an excellent energy source. In my opinion, "thermonuclear reaction" is just fusion enabled by OT, as described by "easily maintained in plasma state with the use of super dimension spatial theory." I don't see any reason to believe that antimatter is involved in thermonuclear reaction either as an ingredient or as a catalyst. If I'm mistaken, and there's evidence of antimatter being involved, I'd appreciate a reference to a source(s).

Who said the F-4 was in the Final Countdown? The F-4 is used as a MiG in the second Iron Eagle movie. My apologies. I was confused by your post. I've never seen Iron Eagle II (or I or III...etc.). Is it any good either as a movie or as airplane porn?

Bad referrer. I think you need to get to that link from elsewhere on the host site.

Yup, that's a major reason I don't look at sigs. I don't want to be goaded into posting something, or creating a counter-sig of my own. This isn't the place. (Good post, Hurin.) As for what to do, I agree with those who say that political content in sigs should be banned. The Presidential race is heating up and it's going to be very polarizing. As for how to distinguish between political content or not: I'd say that if there's any doubt, the mods can consider whether there's a link or reference to a group which contributes to a party or candidate, or which sponsors ads specificially endorsing or attacking a party/candidate/ballot measure. This site could be a guide: http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/types.asp This might also help: http://www.commoncause.org/laundromat/ Basically, I think that 527 committees and PACs should probably be off-limits, maybe some other groups. That would mean that both MoveOn and the Swift Boats group would be excluded since they're both 527's. The NRA has PAC, the PVF. So do NRLC and NARAL. The mods are also equipped with common sense. A simple test is, if you talk to someone about their sig and they start crying about political censorship, chances are it was political. Whatever people see on Macross World isn't going to affect the fate of the Republic; there are plenty of other venues for political discussion and advertising elsewhere on the net, on editorial pages, at the water cooler, talk radio, etc. Let's try to focus on Macross. There's no great need for anyone to grind their political ax here.

I don't notice political stuff in sigs because I turned off viewing signatures long ago. Most of the stuff in sigs is worthless, annoying, and a waste of viewing space anyway.

There are no F-4's in Final Countdown. The movie stars the F-14. I don't know if there are any movies where the F-4 figures prominently other than The Great Santini, and even there it's far from central to the action. I agree that The Final Coundown is much better fare for plane geeks (especially Naval ops geeks) than Top Gun, although Top Gun does have some spectacular cinematography. As for the story...Top Gun is probably a better story for mass audiences (i.e., cheesy romance and watching the hero go through highs and lows), while The Final Coundown is somewhere between very good and excellent as a sci-fi/time travel movie before the final copout of an ending. (At the risk of posting a spoiler, let's just say that whoever scripted the Star Trek episode "City on the Edge of Forever" had more guts.) In the Final Coundown DVD bonus material, I enjoyed watching the Navy pilots who worked on it rag on the sillier elements of Top Gun.

imacross is another option. There's a pinned thread about the imacross servers here.

Yup, it's known as "keyword spamming" and it's against eBay rules.. But this guy doesn't seem to do much or any of it, from looking at his other auctions.

The guy is a Transformers geek, sells hundreds of Transformers toys in his eBay shop, yet he thinks a hovertank looks like a Jetfire? Please read the thread title and get back to me, mmkay?

First of all, Final Vegeta is either pulling my leg or using a different definition of "plasma" from what physicists mean. Fire is just incandescent gas, or a rapid chemical reaction producing incandescent gas. Anyway, on to Nanashi's comments... A bit vague here but I gather that the OT "thermonuclear reaction" is still a form of fusion power (i.e., releasing energy by fusing the nuclei of light elements to turn them into heavier elements). What makes it different from the kinds of fusion we know about is that it requires neither a solar mass nor a fission reaction to generate the heat and pressure necessary to cause atomic nuclei to fuse. What does "not nuclear" mean? Do you mean, it doesn't need unstable isotopes of heavy elements? What David said. Thanks for the info, Nanashi. Where did the official info come from?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...=ADME:B:SS:US:1 Uh....okay....