Okay, I don't know if I should list this in weapons or movies.
In a pretty old anime, back in 1979, Mobile Suit Gundam, the director decided to reference the light saber in Star Wars, and the main hero's humanoid uses a "beam saber" which is made of plasma. Although I know it would be pretty hard to create one with nowadays technology, the enemy grunt units uses more conventional weapons like solid ammunition. When came close enough to a close combat, they can only rely on the heated weapons like Heat hawks or heat swords.
From the earlier episode, it is shown that swords cannot cut through other swords, but is it possible to heat up a blade and create more damage to the opposing sword?
A more accurate myth would be 1) Ceramic material for the heated sword to prevent the blade being softened by the heat. 2) The heated blade could be disposed of after heating a few times and does not have to be permanent. 3) The blade has to be used as a normal blade, this is, with normal slicing speed instead of a slow cutting speed. 4) The blade has to have cutting power without turning on the heat. 5) (not what you want to do) These humanoids are 18 metres tall and the heated weapons are, well, a few tons in weight, and heated up to a temperature where the surface contains a thin plasma layer.
So the main idea about this myth is to produce a ceramic heated blade and see if it cuts through a piece of metal(ideally military armour) deeper than a similar shaped and weight blade made of metal that is at normal temperatures.
A second part of this myth can test if a "high frequency vibrating blade" does more damage if it matches the natural vibration rate of the target.
If a third part is needed on heated weaponry, it would be if a heated armour can melt a lead bullet (melting point much lower than steel, titanium and some hard ceramic, which some could even have a melting point close to the boiling point of lead.) This could simulate the effects of a destructive power shield or something of that sort.
[quote]So the main idea about this myth is to produce a ceramic heated blade and see if it cuts through a piece of metal(ideally military armour) deeper than a similar shaped and weight blade made of metal that is at normal temperatures.[/quote]
Ceramics will not cut through iron, steel, copper, brass...Ceramics have many uses but practical swords isn't one of them. The blade would be too brittle and shatter if it hit anything.
[quote]A second part of this myth can test if a "high frequency vibrating blade" does more damage if it matches the natural vibration rate of the target.[/quote]
In theory yes, as MB showed in the voice shattering a wine glass myth a few years back. In practice, and as they showed, even identical glasses require slightly different frequencies and several seconds of exposure. This is just with an object that is made from a single substance. Anything you'd be likely to hit with a sword is going to be composed of several different materials or resting on something else - such as a human. This just adds to the complexity and makes discovering what frequency might work that much harder.
Unless your opponent helpfully stands there for an hour while you ran tests you'd have no way of even guessing what frequency might be effective against them. Practically this is impossible.
[quote]If a third part is needed on heated weaponry, it would be if a heated armour can melt a lead bullet (melting point much lower than steel, titanium and some hard ceramic, which some could even have a melting point close to the boiling point of lead.) This could simulate the effects of a destructive power shield or something of that sort.[/quote]
Leaving out the energy requirements, and hence the size of the power source, you'd need to do this there would be one rather serious flaw with such armour.
You'd cook who, or whatever the armour is meant to be protecting. Leads melting point may be a lot lower than steel, but that is still far above what humans could survive without added protection. Plus you'd have to make the temperature of the armour a LOT higher than leads melting point as the bullet is only going to be in contact with the armour for a fraction of a second, that or the armour has to be able to stop the round long enough to allow it to be heated up...and if it can do that you wouldn't have to melt the bullet anyway.
If you considered all the elements you'd need to make such a suit - heating elements, power supply, protection and cooling system for the person wearing such a suit - you'd end up with something the size of a small truck.
I'll stick with normal body armour thanks. Its cheaper, more effective, doesn't tag me as a target to every thermal imaging system within 20 miles, isn't going to prompt someone to call for artillery/air support and above all is something I could walk and run around in.
[quote]Ceramics will not cut through iron, steel, copper, brass...Ceramics have many uses but practical swords isn't one of them. The blade would be too brittle and shatter if it hit anything.[/quote]
The question is mainly about the heat. And the ceramic itself in the myth is dispensable, it does not have to stay as a weapon after the lethal hit, it would be best to be able to use it a few times, which could be designed so that something like the weapon is mainly metal, but only the blade part is a "hit and shatter" ceramic that uses heat as the cutting power.
[Quote]Unless your opponent helpfully stands there for an hour while you ran tests you'd have no way of even guessing what frequency might be effective against them. Practically this is impossible.[/quote]
I know the results of this one, it is just that the idea was used in so many places, it is worth busting.
[quote]Leaving out the energy requirements, and hence the size of the power source, you'd need to do this there would be one rather serious flaw with such armour.[/quote]
It is not going to be human body armour, sorry that I did not specify that I am used to the word "armour" being a vehicle armour, so yes, it would be a tank, if not a warship.
I did not even think about body armour when I wrote that, I guess it is my fault for not clearly stating this.
For the thermal sensors and such, guess why I did not use this as a separate myth. It is a make shift power shield/force field idea only, in which I would assume a fully busted result.
[quote]The question is mainly about the heat. And the ceramic itself in the myth is dispensable, it does not have to stay as a weapon after the lethal hit, it would be best to be able to use it a few times, which could be designed so that something like the weapon is mainly metal, but only the blade part is a "hit and shatter" ceramic that uses heat as the cutting power.[/quote]
Heated metal would just bend if it hit anything - rather like the machine gun barrel they heated up when testing if swords could cut through gun barrels. Even if it didn't the sword would have to be in contact with its target for a few seconds to heat it up.
To give an idea of why such a sword wouldn't work against armour consider how long it took MB to cut through the top of a safe using a thermal lance. The thickness of the metal on a safe is not as great as it is on all but the lightest of 'armoured' vehicles. Against another human it might work better, if only because the heat of the blade is likely to make them flinch a lot. But if they are unarmoured, or lightly armoured you'd be better off sticking to a normal sword (which would be just as effective and a lot lighter) or a firearm.
[quote]It is not going to be human body armour, sorry that I did not specify that I am used to the word "armour" being a vehicle armour, so yes, it would be a tank, if not a warship.[/quote]
In both cases such a system would just make it easier for targeting systems to lock onto them. It would also blind many of the sensors the ship/tank uses to detect hostile ships/tanks and incoming fire.
The of course there is the small detail that using such a system at night will light up your vehicle for all to see, and during the day it will set fire to anything within a couple of feet (including friendly troops) which will also give your position away.
Tanks couldn't fit such equipment as there are practical limits as to how heavy they can be made. (These limits are down to ground weight and transportation limits. If a tanks ground weight is too high it will be unable to move over some types of terrain without getting stuck. Transportation limits exist because tanks are moved close to the front lines by aircraft, rail, ships or trucks to save wear and tear on the tracks. There are practical limits to what weights such types of transportation can carry - rail transport is limited by how much weight the tracks can take, trucks are limited by how much weight roads can take without being damaged. This is why current Main Battle tanks weight anything between 65 and 80 tons at most, while some WW2 era German tanks weighted 100 tons. It was discovered that the really heavy tanks tore up the roads and rails and they had a nasty habit of getting stuck driving off road.)
Such armour would provide no protection anyway, or at least none that isn't provided by the armour on ships and tanks already. Anti-tank and anti-ship rounds don't use lead - they use Depleted Uranium or Tungsten and travel at higher speeds than rifle fire. The armour on ships and tanks is immune to small arms fire (which does use lead munitions) as is, and ships don't normally get close enough to targets for small arms fire to hit them anyway.
[quote]Heated metal would just bend if it hit anything[/quote]
That is why ceramic blade is suggested if you need a heated blade.
[quote]In both cases such a system would just make it easier for targeting systems to lock onto them. It would also blind many of the sensors the ship/tank uses to detect hostile ships/tanks and incoming fire.[/quote]
Sometimes, you really don't care if you will be a visible target or not.
Say, if you are familiar with "Hyper Velocity Impact" you would know that projectiles hitting a target with high speeds will generate a lot of heat, and would melt the projectile(as well as the armour, of course) which would be easier to block with a second, cool, armour plating. Therefore, the heat on the armour can be just up to a temperature that will make this effect easier to occur. The armour does not necessarily protect a war machine, it could be used to protect a spacecraft from slower relative velocity debris and such.
BTW, depleted uranium does not have a high melting point either. Tungsten would be much more likely to resist heat, but in military terms, firing an HEAT shell is all you need to penetrate the heated armour.
Like I said, it is just an idea for the Mythbusters, not that I believe it will work or anything. It would look and sound kinda cool while without clear predictions by normal people without a military background knowledge.
Heated armor is the last thing you want on a spacecraft. It doesn't mitigate the problem of cooking the people inside, and spacecraft get plenty hot as is. Space (atleast in a solar system) is just absolutely horrible at getting rid of heat. An object in space can only radiate its heat away, which is about the most inefficient way of disposing of it. Note the fact that those comets, etc. which are icy in space now took millions of years to get that way.
[quote]Heated armor is the last thing you want on a spacecraft. It doesn't mitigate the problem of cooking the people inside, and spacecraft get plenty hot as is. Space (atleast in a solar system) is just absolutely horrible at getting rid of heat. An object in space can only radiate its heat away, which is about the most inefficient way of disposing of it. Note the fact that those comets, etc. which are icy in space now took millions of years to get that way.[/quote]
Now, a spacecraft does not necessarily carry anyone in it, and since it is hard to loose heat, it would require much less power to maintain the heat, which would be much more efficient(if it does have some protective merits) than doing something like that in space than in the atmosphere, where heat is loss quickly by convection and conduction.
A blade heated to the point where it will instantly vaporize any projectiles the come into contact with it for a matter of microseconds will radiate heat quite efficiently, actually. You will lose a lot of that heat and will need a hefty power source to maintain it. That power source must be somewhere inside the spacecraft and that heat has to be dealt with.
We could design some kind unmanned flying heated sword and make all sorts of unreasonable compromises and such to try and make it feasible, but what's the point? Just to remain focused on heated armor? There is a lot of ongoing research on how to protect spacecraft from interstellar and orbiting debris, and none of it involved heated armor that I'm aware of. These people don't sit around all day playing video games and drinking beer and occasionally saying "Whoa dudes, I have a sweet idea for some armor that I saw in a cartoon."
Sorry if I am being rude, but it irritates me how little respect some people give others that are actually working on these problems - right now - and assuming that something they saw in a game or cartoon might actually be a workable idea that nobody else has thought of. Especially if the core reason for it is "It looks totally awesome," which is the case here...rationalizations aside.
This is a forum that gives idea to the MB team for their show, not a scientific research forum, and NOT a page that gives reasonable prediction on where it could be used.
I know how to reasonably stop space debris, and the method being used by NASA today. I studied that specific field during school. But there are myths in the cartoons and movies with other methods, and the show had done things like these before to bust those myths.
So shut up if you cannot understand suggesting a busted myth for the interest of the show is much more important on this forum than why it does not work.
[quote]This is a forum that gives idea to the MB team for their show, not a scientific research forum, and NOT a page that gives reasonable prediction on where it could be used.[/quote]
No, this is a forum here ideas/myths are discussed. Debate as to is something is possible or not is perfectly welcome, as is the input of members who may have first hand knowledge of topics myths relate to or be able to quote sources. All of this helps the MB production crews first to decide which myths have the most interest, and second where to start looking for more information.
Mtyhsearcher, while you are welcome (and encouraged) to have different opinions to other members, treating them with disrespect is not acceptable - it is against the terms of service you agreed to when you registered on the board if nothing else.
While I can fully understand your frustration, having felt the same way myself more than once, it is no excuse for disrespecting or insulting other members. Your post has been reported.
[quote]No, this is a forum here ideas/myths are discussed. Debate as to is something is possible or not is perfectly welcome, as is the input of members who may have first hand knowledge of topics myths relate to or be able to quote sources. All of this helps the MB production crews first to decide which myths have the most interest, and second where to start looking for more information.[/quote]
Listen, I did not say anything about discussing it is not welcomed, I simply said that if the myth is useful in the real world is irrelevant if it is a make shift idea of what is shown in a cartoon or anime or movie.
It would be perfectly fine to tell someone who is being rude to shut up, especially if he is misinterpreting show ideas and scientific discussion and admit he is rude himself.
No matter how I look at it, the post is much more disrespectful than mine.
A person that did not bother to understand a show idea is different from a suggestion of a new technology while my post states clearly about it being a device as a make shift idea for the MB to test on things that appear in the movies.
Accusing me of thinking it is an idea for real life machine is as disturbing as it can go, more so than direct insults.
[quote]Accusing me of thinking it is an idea for real life machine is as disturbing as it can go, more so than direct insults.[/quote]
There is a big difference there. The first can very much be a case of misunderstandings - we do get more than a few astonishingly stupid cartoon 'myths' posted. It can be very difficult to work out which posters are serious, in so far as they believe what they posted, which are just messing around and being stupid and which ones are just general ideas at the best of times.
The second, the direct insult is different in that it is deliberate and against the terms of service.
[quote]It would be perfectly fine to tell someone who is being rude to shut up, especially if he is misinterpreting show ideas and scientific discussion and admit he is rude himself.[/quote]
Please note that Sovietspyguy did include the following in his last paragraph; 'Sorry if I am being rude...' he then goes on to a general note about how far to many people post cartoon myths simply because they look cool, then adds that he feels this myth falls into that category.
I would totally agree with his comments in general, and I can fully understand why he would put this myth with other 'cartoon' myths.
If he misunderstood your intentions then you could have corrected him in a less aggressive manner. Telling him to 'shut up' is aggressive, insulting and not acceptable. If you feel someone is insulting you the correct way to deal with the matter is to say nothing and report the post. It is not to insult them back.
At least the OP put enough thought into this idea to type out more than one line then expect the MythBusters to jump right on it and get indignant when they don't.
lordfroggenhall - that was totally uncalled for. If you don't like an idea posted on the board, click the back button and ignore it.
No more name calling, insults or being rude. I don't have a problem shutting threads down or removing them completely. You senior members also know I don't have a problem suggesting to the powers that be that your posts end up in the modqueue.
Enough modsticking for today? I should not have to constantly remind senior members of this. Mtyhsearcher? This goes for you too. Got it?
Have any questions - email me - mythmod@gmail.com.
MythMod
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mythmod,
[quote]If he misunderstood your intentions then you could have corrected him in a less aggressive manner. Telling him to 'shut up' is aggressive, insulting and not acceptable. If you feel someone is insulting you the correct way to deal with the matter is to say nothing and report the post. It is not to insult them back.[/quote]
I have posted this piece of advice on another post, but I will do it again here.
A lot of senior members seem to make the presumption that anyone stating a myth means that they support it. In which I have stated in the OP that I give the idea because it could simulate power shields that appears in a lot of movies, in which is similar to the MB busting super hero myths. On my first reply, to yours, I stated very clearly that: "It is a make shift power shield/force field idea only, in which I would assume a fully busted result." On the second reply, I have stated this again.
And if someone can still make such a sarcastic reply, which obviously ignored all of my statements, sorry I became aggressive because I am being totally ignored, and put up as a figure of irritation by him. I offer my sincere apology on my post that offend people, and ask if the mod can help me delete it.
I must admit that a part of what he says is true. Yes, I like to watch MB because "It looks totally awesome". and no, I did not suggest the myth because the myth looks awesome in the original show, in fact, most power shields or heated weaponries looks pretty dull to me. However, I have faith that with the MB's presentation, it will still become a great show, even with a verdict saying it is busted, that is what I am here for.
How would they test it? Since it's anime, you should give some real life suggestions, perhaps some kind of methodology and materials, that would even approximate the images in the cartoon you're speaking of?
This is not like "Finger in a barrel" - The things you're talking about don't even exist.
How would they test it? Since it's anime, you should give some real life suggestions, perhaps some kind of methodology and materials, that would even approximate the images in the cartoon you're speaking of?
This is not like "Finger in a barrel" - The things you're talking about don't even exist.[/quote]
I have separated it to three parts, only the first part is from the anime, the other two are similar "idealized" and "fictional" weaponry.
I am sorry that I am not an expert on material and cannot suggest a specific ceramic to be used, but I view this myth as one that specifics on the heat instead of the material, so a ceramic with a high melting point and is moderately hard(at least enough to cut through a heated piece of metal) is preferred. I would suggest something like Boron carbide and Aluminium oxide(or "Alumina") but I have no idea if they are within budget or where to obtain these, and I don't know if the visual effect of these are good or not.(having a blade that glows when heated looks better than one that does not change when heated)
A thicker blade in the shape of a Tetrahedron(with one side about only half the length) could be made and mount on a handle made with something of a higher melting point but less conductivity with thermal insulating material between the handle and the ceramic.(looks like an axe)
For heating the blade, it would have to be separated from the handle, heated, and quickly mount on the handle and let a rig swing it towards a target piece of metal. Or if enough the MB can think of anyway to heat up the blade so fast that the heat will not immediately affect and soften or even melt the metal parts of the rig.
(Or simply get help from our gravity, the rig could be a device that holds the blade in position until it is heat enough, then drop it on a tilted target so the blade will not stay on the target and melt it)
The first part would be a simple device that swings a normal blade, not heated, with similar size and weight that is made of steel against a piece of metal, and then use the same force to test out a heated metal blade, thirdly the ceramic blade, at normal temperature and the final test of this part would be using the heated ceramic blade. My predictions would be if the ceramic did survive the impact(since these are body armour materials it might) the thing that give up will be the insulator between the handle and the blade.
The second part could be a continued version, if the first part didn't make the whole myth worthy of a show by itself. The piece of metal plate used as the target could be analysed on its nature frequency, and a blade made by a different material that is vibrating on that frequency could be swinged like the previous blades against the metal with a same force.
Measure the depth and length of the cut on each swing.(give each material 2 hits if possible, say, if the ceramic blade did not shatter on impact.)
Compare the results and see if anything is better than others.(Or if all of them cannot make a scratch noticeable)
The third part(which could be a separate myth) is the heated armour plate. Where two pieces of armour plate, one heated plate of a material with a high specific heat capacity and another plate that is at normal temperature(with a radiation shield in between) will provide more protection than a plate at normal temperature. I would suggest using a lead bullet since it is with a relatively lower melting point. The material used here could not possibly be the two ceramic suggested above since those are already used in body armour and lead bullet seems unlikely to puncture through to give good results.(The depth of the puncture could still be a good comparison though)
These myths could be stepped down and uses materials with lower melting points as target or bullet and higher melting point(with higher specific heat capacity) material as blade and armour. I doubt if a blade heated to around 150~200 degrees C can slice through a large block of ice with a normal human sword swing, that would already prove the myth busted. (Stepping up to using a blade at around 1200 degrees C on a block of ice should be quite fun, too)
Maybe the first thing they should do is run some high speed camera tests to see how long the average sword is likely to be in contact with a surface before it slides off - assuming it is being swung and not just pressed against the target.
If they know the length of time the edge of the blade is going to be in contact, they would then be able to work out how hot the blade would need to be to have any effect on the surface - it would help if they used something like mild steel. Which would be easy to get and is most often found on lighter armoured vehicles, and who's melting point is known. But they could do the same calculations for types of steel in swords.
Once they know what temperature the blade would have to be at, they can then work out the properties the blade needs to have to survive being heated - which is to say what material they'd have to use. Then they have figure out how to get it to that temperature - or if they can.
Heated armour would be similar - find out how long a bullet is likely to be in contact with the armour, figure out the temperature needed to melt the bullet in that time then they can start working out what materials could be used and ways to get the desired heat.
I'm guessing that MB could do these calculations based on filming done for prior myths without leaving the office. Add in the known melting points of lead and steel and they should be able to work out if it is even remotely possible to construct either the armour or the sword.
MythSearcher: Perhaps I was a bit harsh. Let's talk about it a different way.
I agree with you that Mythbusters is intended to entertain. The show would not exist if the things they did were dull and boring to watch. To that end, a heated blade would make an interesting segment.
However...the reason why it would not be very informative, and more likely that it would just be plain impossible for them to test, is that a lot of assumptions are being made about what the Mythbusters crew is able to do, and what current technology is able to do.
The first problem is the amount of heat required for the blade. The temperatures that would be required to turn a fast moving solid projectile into a gas (I would assume a gas...a liquid is still too dense and coherent and can still cause serious damage) would be truly insane. Reaching the melting point of the projectile is not a problem. The problem is heating the blade or what have you to such a degree that momentary contact with a projectile will transfer enough heat to melt or vaporize it.
This would require ridiculous temperatures, probably in the tens of thousands of degrees if not much higher. There are few materials that I am aware of that can withstand such temperatures. Even if you have a ceramic material that can, how will you heat it? How will it react with the gases in air at such high temperatures? How will it affect other parts of the assembly or machine it is supposed to protect, being at such a temperature and in such close proximity? A traditional resistive heating element is probably out as it will not withstand those temperatures. Once you heat it, you must continue to apply heat, or else the blade will cool very rapidly even from a momentary loss of power.
As far as the hardness of ceramic...ceramics can indeed be very hard, and there are some out there that are reasonably tough as well. Unfortunately none that exist yet that would serve to make an effective sword. A ceramic kitchen knife is one thing, but cutting tomatoes and bashing a sword against a hard metal object are very different, and will result in cracked, chipped, or broken ceramic blades. Ceramics are an exciting class of materials that hold a lot of promise, but as far as I am aware they are still too brittle for this kind of application.
As far as the armor goes, you have massively greater power requirements and a real problem insulating the crew...or keeping them from setting their surroundings ablaze. A tank, for example, heated to such high temperatures will melt the asphalt underneath it should the crew decide to travel on a paved roadway. This won't do it any good. Any sand the tank rolls over will probably turn to glass. Anything organic will burn.
Ignoring those problems though, heated armor will do very little to help. You probably could melt a lead bullet, but why? They aren't going to penetrate the armor anyhow. The heat probably won't do anything against shaped-charge explosives. It may help with kinetic energy penetrators, but these are not made of lead and would have to be melted before they make significant headway through the armor. Not physically impossible but again requiring massive amounts of power.
To even begin guessing about the idea of spacecraft protection you would need something capable of launching projectiles at very high speeds, assuming the heated blade/armor turns out to be at all workable even as a fun experiment. These are not easy to come by, nor cheap, nor possible to build quickly for a TV segment.
I'm not saying all of this to mock you and show that this is not a practical, real-life application. We can all figure out that it isn't. I'm saying this to demonstrate that the kind of equipment and tests you would need to perform to conclusively prove that to people who want to believe this idea would be out of the Mythbusters capab
