Okay, let's say we solve the square cube law and build mecha. Are there any non-arbitrary reasons why tanks aren't better? If not, what are some bullsht reasons I can use for stories that aren't that absurd?
-
-
Replying to @BootlegGirl
(Maybe a good additional note here: I don't believe the square/cube law even needs solving. It's only applicable on solid objects, and any mecha you can build is going to be mostly hollow or filled with machinery, not a block of solid steel. Even PR's Jaegers were hollow.)
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @chton @BootlegGirl
...No, it applies to any physical object It applies *less* to a hollow object than a solid one but it still applies, it determines how thick the structural part of the machine needs to be to support its weight The whole point here is you can't make it arbitrarily thin
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl
There is no "less applying". The scaling between a hollow object and a solid one is entirely different. Structural elements will need to grow but not nearly at a square/cube rate. The hull, if you keep the same thickness, would scale at the square, not the cube.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
You need strong support beams to handle that too, yes, but those won't increase at a cubed rate either. If hollow structures were anywhere remotely at a cubed scaling, we wouldn't be able to build a building larger than a house. And we're not building mechs out of heavy concrete.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Objects that scale in even one dimension still have extra mass that needs to be supported. If you have a girder that you're trying to make longer, then the extra weight of one end will snap/crush the other end even if it's hollow at *some* point
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Yeah the point is there's a maximum size you can make a skyscraper no matter what you make it out of because every building material will snap and fall over at a certain point, no matter how thin you make the girders
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
There is? I didn't know there was a cap on stationary building size
3 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @arthur_affect and
You could get around that by building out around the base, right?
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
The Eiffel Tower when it was designed was specifically designed to be the tallest building possible using the materials available in those quantities then (wrought iron) and everything about its shape is determined by structural engineering factors, which is why many hated it
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
But yeah that's the kind of design you use to max out the strength of your building material, a big hollow base supporting a tapering structure The supertall skyscrapers today are about as high as you can get without a visible base like that
-
-
Right, but in the specific case of skyscrapers, can't we build a big low rise complex with a huge basement, with a high rise, slightly narrower, on top, and then a skyscraper on top of that and the a narrower skyscraper on top of that?
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Yes, this is how things like the Burj kalifa are essentially built, they taper in steps. A wider pyramidal structure can go even higher (think x-seed 4000). But it can't be infinitely tall.
0 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.