Commentary on Spock v. Thanatos

[Mike DiCenso]

Speaking of "jumping the gun", don't you think it rather rash of Thanatos for getting himself into this in the first place when was suffering from all these problems, rather than waiting long enough to sort things out for himself before he got into the debate with JMS?

Real life issues cropped up after I made the challenge (and the biggest ones during the debate), and I'm not one to back out when I make a dare. I'd rather lose horribly (hypothetically in case this gets misquoted) than quit something.

That still does not make it a wise course of action, and no one said anything about backing out. Just hold off things long enough for you to get everything together, then come back. JMS is reasonable enough that he'd allow you that time. If anyone here really wanted to get mean with you, they'd just point out what an incredible coincidence it is that you just happened to have a life-crisis near the start of the debate. Some even could go as far as to say you are doing it to cover for your obvious lack of BT knowledge. Hell, you could have really put JMS to the test to see how far his patience and tolerance goes by asking for much more time to sort out your RL troubles, and prepare for the debate.

So playing the Sympathy Card isn't going to get you very far here.

Who's playing the Sympathy Card? I'm saying that I didn't do as well as I should have.
Who the hell is

You haven't. But that's the way Consequences can seen to be playing up your troubles.
-Mike

[Jedi Master Spock]

I suppose now - while my memory is still fresh - would be a good time to ask about any other loose ends that you were curious about, but Thanatos and I didn't explore in detail. Actually, there were some odds and ends that I prepared for that didn't come up at all, so if you have any questions about the ground combat technology of either universe, now is a very good time to ask them, too.

[consequences]

A few inconsistencies in B-tech heat generation:

Ballistic weaponry causes heat in mechs but not in vehicles.

Movement causes heat in mechs but not in vehicles.

A mech moving at 10 kph generates precisely the same heat as it moving up to its maximum rated walking speed(upwards of 100 km per hour in some cases. Likewise for running speed, from minimum to maximum. For jumping, moving 1 hex generates the same heat as moving three, then it scales linearly with distance moved. By your model, this means a 20 ton mech moving at ten kph generates a gigajoule of waste heat by the way(unless it's an ICE driven mech, in which case it generates no heat from moving). Oh, and the four hundred rating engine on a Marauder 2 going flat out generates exactly the same waste heat as the 60 rating engine on an Urbanmech doing the same, for moving 3.34 times the tonnage twice as fast, while still generating the same heat as it if they both move at 10 kph. This despite a 400 rating engine being 50.5 tons(25.25 if XL), and a 60 rating engine being maybe a ton and a half.

Being submerged in water only increases the efficiency of a certain arbitrary number of submerged heat sinks(currently three doubles or six singles), however much of the mech is submerged, and however many heat sinks in excess of that number may be in submerged locations.

Infernos and external fires have arbitrary effects upon vehicles, regardless of how many heat sinks they may have in excess of the heat they are enduring, or whether the vehicle has been through extensive structural redesign so as to be able to operate entirely sealed in a vacuum.

Outside heat sources can only inflict 15 points of heat on a target per turn, regardless of how much heat is applied.

This isn't exactly difficult to determine, and it isn't like b-tech isn't pretty much notorious for arbitrary physics changes and retcons in the name of game balance. But have fun trying to handwave the facts away in order to support your fatally flawed model. Although how you could even begin to imagine that a system that doesn't allow for probabilities of less than 2.78% can accurately reflect any physical reality is completely beyond me.

[Jedi Master Spock]

A few inconsistencies in B-tech heat generation:

Ballistic weaponry causes heat in mechs but not in vehicles.

I mentioned this already - which is why I didn't include ballistic weapons in my original analysis. Within the game, there are explanations offered, albeit flimsy ones, for this quirk. I'm not going to say everything about BTech heat generation is consistent.

Movement causes heat in mechs but not in vehicles.

A mech moving at 10 kph generates precisely the same heat as it moving up to its maximum rated walking speed(upwards of 100 km per hour in some cases. Likewise for running speed, from minimum to maximum. For jumping, moving 1 hex generates the same heat as moving three, then it scales linearly with distance moved. By your model, this means a 20 ton mech moving at ten kph generates a gigajoule of waste heat by the way(unless it's an ICE driven mech, in which case it generates no heat from moving). Oh, and the four hundred rating engine on a Marauder 2 going flat out generates exactly the same waste heat as the 60 rating engine on an Urbanmech doing the same, for moving 3.34 times the tonnage twice as fast, while still generating the same heat as it if they both move at 10 kph. This despite a 400 rating engine being 50.5 tons(25.25 if XL), and a 60 rating engine being maybe a ton and a half.

See the caveats about resolution. Also, have you considered that the enormously larger engines/heavier musculature might also be more efficient?

Nevertheless, somewhere in the general neighborhood of a gigajoule is not a terribly bad ballpark for the waste heat generated by the "muscles" of the BattleMech in ten seconds of working hard.

Being submerged in water only increases the efficiency of a certain arbitrary number of submerged heat sinks(currently three doubles or six singles), however much of the mech is submerged, and however many heat sinks in excess of that number may be in submerged locations.

And? As a figure that has varied in different editions of the rules, it's one of the clearest examples of something that we can't derive quantitative information from.

Infernos and external fires have arbitrary effects upon vehicles, regardless of how many heat sinks they may have in excess of the heat they are enduring, or whether the vehicle has been through extensive structural redesign so as to be able to operate entirely sealed in a vacuum.

Which has varied widely from edition to edition of the rules, yes.

Outside heat sources can only inflict 15 points of heat on a target per turn, regardless of how much heat is applied.

Note, actually, that additional effects are in play for extremely hot items. They actually deal damage to BattleMechs.

This isn't exactly difficult to determine, and it isn't like b-tech isn't pretty much notorious for arbitrary physics changes and retcons in the name of game balance.

Some are fairly arbitrary.

But have fun trying to handwave the facts away in order to support your fatally flawed model.

Since I only am willing to use the handful of pieces that are consistent in constructing it, you're not really addressing my argument.

Although how you could even begin to imagine that a system that doesn't allow for probabilities of less than 2.78% can accurately reflect any physical reality is completely beyond me.

And here you demonstrate that you haven't actually read my debate with Thanatos. I recommend you go back and read it, and also my earlier discussion in the Battle of Tukayyid 40,000 thread.

Pay particular attention to the parts where I say "to within the resolution of the system." This applies even more heavily to Warhammer 40,000, which has coarser resolution in general.

So in BattleTech, we don't really know, even from the game system, that a small laser does exactly 30% of the damage of a PPC; instead, we should estimate that it does 2.5 to 3.5 divided by 9.5 to 10.5 (~24-37%) as much damage, and in truth, we could justify saying 2-4/9-11 if we want to include a margin for all kinds of "behind the scenes" rounding. The game system is only an approximation at best, but often a highly useful approximation.

[PainRack]

Its odd. I noticed several of my Wh40k adverseries and Btech adverseries from SB here on SFJ, and since I can't stand the Wh40k or the SF guys here massacaring my genre anymore, I thought I jump in and take over from where consequences and Thanatos left off.

I mentioned this already - which is why I didn't include ballistic weapons in my original analysis. Within the game, there are explanations offered, albeit flimsy ones, for this quirk. I'm not going to say everything about BTech heat generation is consistent.

Actually, its one of the MORE consistent bits. You see, the problem is, you assumed that heat scale= entire mech. There is NO evidence to suggest so.
Once you ignore that non-sequiter, ballistic weaponery is easily explained. Gases are vented, and the heatscale isn't reflected because unlike mechs, the vehicle fusion reactor is "open".

The heat scale in itself is present solely to represent the heat affecting the MHD, the magnetic fields that govern the plasma in the engine.

Nevertheless, somewhere in the general neighborhood of a gigajoule is not a terribly bad ballpark for the waste heat generated by the "muscles" of the BattleMech in ten seconds of working hard.

Actually, its very bad, considering that the small laser which generates 3 point of heat doesn't dump 3 gigajoules of waste heat into the hands of the crew serving the weapon when its used as an infantry gun. Similarly, that means that Battletech weapons are so inefficient that they're create more waste heat than useful energy, as small lasers don't carry gigajoule firepower. High examples of small laser firepower include melting/vapourisation of a human person, but the majority of firepower actually rests well in the low MJ range such as setting buildings on fire. The best standard is to simply assume the armour=steel technique, which yields MJ firepower.

And? As a figure that has varied in different editions of the rules, it's one of the clearest examples of something that we can't derive quantitative information from.

No it hasn't. 6 heat sinks max, if said heatsinks are submerged. Alternately, we CAN use the description of a Masakari hidden behind steam, but since we don't know how overheated the Masakari is, or indeed, whether popular depiction contained as a verbal quip in the Wizkid CCG and in some light lit is an actual incident.

Which has varied widely from edition to edition of the rules, yes.

No it has not. Unless you're referring to insta kill vehicles, infernos plus fire= the same heat point then as now. That and the fact that they remove the limitation that it could only be mounted on SSRM2 and SRM2.

The explaination has also remained the same. Mechs are optimised to operate at certain temperatures, change the external conditions and their cooling systems get ovewrhelmed. Retcon that with physics and what that means is that their cooling systems require a cooler exterior so as to dump their heated coolant effectively.

Note, actually, that additional effects are in play for extremely hot items. They actually deal damage to BattleMechs.

Really? Pray tell, which rules you get this from? Steel Viper units can move around freaking lava and simply get a higher heat scale........

[Jedi Master Spock]

Its odd. I noticed several of my Wh40k adverseries and Btech adverseries from SB here on SFJ, and since I can't stand the Wh40k or the SF guys here massacaring my genre anymore, I thought I jump in and take over from where consequences and Thanatos left off.

I mentioned this already - which is why I didn't include ballistic weapons in my original analysis. Within the game, there are explanations offered, albeit flimsy ones, for this quirk. I'm not going to say everything about BTech heat generation is consistent.

Actually, its one of the MORE consistent bits. You see, the problem is, you assumed that heat scale= entire mech. There is NO evidence to suggest so.
Once you ignore that non-sequiter, ballistic weaponery is easily explained. Gases are vented, and the heatscale isn't reflected because unlike mechs, the vehicle fusion reactor is "open".

The heat scale in itself is present solely to represent the heat affecting the MHD, the magnetic fields that govern the plasma in the engine.

Which is why it also affect myomer muscles throughout the body of the mech, ammunition throughout the body of the mech, and cockpit temperatures?

My heat figures can easily be underestimates, but they rely upon the fact that if the heavily insulated cockpit reaches sauna-like temperatures, so, too, should most of the rest of the mech. The cockpits are being heated to dangerous levels. Note, please, the world sauna championships taking place at 110 degrees Celsius. To get someone to pass out within seconds, or outright die in a timescale of several tens of seconds, requires the cockpit become a bit of an oven.

If stray "hot spots" potentially reach flash points to ignite flammables, that's more in the neighborhood of localized hot spots exceeding 200 degrees Celsius.

Actually, its very bad, considering that the small laser which generates 3 point of heat doesn't dump 3 gigajoules of waste heat into the hands of the crew serving the weapon when its used as an infantry gun.

Actually, the standard small laser generates 1 heat (to within the resolution of the system, 0.5-1.5 heat). I'm not sure how much you know about BattleTech if you think a small laser generates 3 heat points on the standard combat scale that I'm referring to. Accounting for error due to the resolution of the system, the small laser has an efficiency between 62.5 and 87.5 percent assuming absolute parity of heat and damage points.

We may note this is a several hundred kg support weapon, and parts of it are heated to incandescent temperatures when firing - so no, somewhere near a gigajoule of waste heat for something that is rarely seen even as a crew-served weapon is not excessive.

Similarly, that means that Battletech weapons are so inefficient that they're create more waste heat than useful energy, as small lasers don't carry gigajoule firepower.

They do, actually, and the new Tech Manual explicitly states that some large energy weapons on the low end of the heat efficiency scale do generate more waste heat energy than they deliver energy to the target:

A heavy laser or PPC can thus create more waste heat than energy going into the target.

Note these are the least efficient weapons, with a heat:damage ratio ranging from 1-1.5:1 within the primary game mechanics.

High examples of small laser firepower include melting/vapourisation of a human person, but the majority of firepower actually rests well in the low MJ range such as setting buildings on fire. The best standard is to simply assume the armour=steel technique, which yields MJ firepower.

A so-called "majority" which I will believe when I see. Most probably are compatible with a wide range of energies; some may be gravely mis-estimated as well. By all means, feel free to start whipping out quoted incidents.

The latter technique I am familiar with. It's what I started with before I read actual descriptions, and it puts the small laser at ~200 megajoules. Thanatos objected heavily to BT weapons being this powerful, so I looked more carefully.

Most of our descriptions of target damage from laser weapons include substantial overheat from the minimal melting level. Many include vaporization, in fact, of armor. See the BT quotes thread for a number of examples of laser weapons boiling away armor or heating it to yellow, white, or in one case blue-white, temperatures.

This is further weakened by the uncertainties about BT armor, its ability to conduct heat safely away from the site of impact, and its actual thermal resistance. Thus, yes, assuming parity of heat and damage points for lasers is actually a superior technique to the "minimal melting of steel" metric, which provides a "minimal" estimate, which could easily miss by an order of magnitude. Not that waste heat was the only technique I used. I also ballparked based on novel/fluff descriptions, which in most cases agreed with or exceeded the above estimates.

For example, the Aung house incident in Close Quarters generally exceeds the waste heat estimates, with glass melting a substantial distance from the site of impact; that, I think, is the highest-energy example to date. It's also the sort of estimate traditionally used within the VS debate in analyzing fiction.

No it hasn't. 6 heat sinks max, if said heatsinks are submerged. Alternately, we CAN use the description of a Masakari hidden behind steam, but since we don't know how overheated the Masakari is, or indeed, whether popular depiction contained as a verbal quip in the Wizkid CCG and in some light lit is an actual incident.

No it has not. Unless you're referring to insta kill vehicles, infernos plus fire= the same heat point then as now. That and the fact that they remove the limitation that it could only be mounted on SSRM2 and SRM2.

The effects of heat weapons on non-BattleMech units has substantially changed from that.

The explaination has also remained the same. Mechs are optimised to operate at certain temperatures, change the external conditions and their cooling systems get ovewrhelmed. Retcon that with physics and what that means is that their cooling systems require a cooler exterior so as to dump their heated coolant effectively.

And at "standard" conditions, this results in a ten second "turn" cycle. Examine actual cooling mechanics (i.e., refrigeration cycles) and you'll find the linear delta-T term present in the extreme temperature rules is actually quite logical.

Note, actually, that additional effects are in play for extremely hot items. They actually deal damage to BattleMechs.

Really? Pray tell, which rules you get this from? Steel Viper units can move around freaking lava and simply get a higher heat scale........

It's funny you should mention magma. Explorer Corps introduced rules for magma on page 66:

BattleMechs that start their movement or pass through molten magma during a Movement Phase take 2d6 points of damage to each exposed location upon entering the magma.

So, yes, sufficient quantity of sufficiently hot material causes damage.

[PainRack]

Which is why it also affect myomer muscles throughout the body of the mech, ammunition throughout the body of the mech, and cockpit temperatures?

Which has balls to do with your heat scale/entire mech calc. Again, the reflection of 10degree per heat point on the mech does not reflect the heat capacity of the entire mech.

My heat figures can easily be underestimates, but they rely upon the fact that if the heavily insulated cockpit reaches sauna-like temperatures, so, too, should most of the rest of the mech.

Except that once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with your heat scale 1 point= ten degree=entire mech capacity calcs.

The very fact that Mech cockpits reach the temperature of 40 degree celsius argues against this if the scale increase by 1 heat point, the entire mech temperature increase by 10 degree celsius, and thus, using the entire mech heat capacity to calculate temperature and from there, waste energy for weapons is accurate.

Actually, the standard small laser generates 1 heat (to within the resolution of the system, 0.5-1.5 heat). I'm not sure how much you know about BattleTech if you think a small laser generates 3 heat points on the standard combat scale that I'm referring to.

Oops. Was thinking of the ER small laser and the crew served weapon in turret form. But still, point remains the same. Crew weapons for small lasers don't dump 1 gigajoule of waste heat into the environment.

We may note this is a several hundred kg support weapon, and parts of it are heated to incandescent temperatures when firing - so no, somewhere near a gigajoule of waste heat for something that is rarely seen even as a crew-served weapon is not excessive.

Because you have no evidence for small laser generating anything like gigajoules worth of damage?

They do, actually, and the new Tech Manual explicitly states that some large energy weapons on the low end of the heat efficiency scale do generate more waste heat energy than they deliver energy to the target:

Which again, fails to address the point that small lasers and even large lasers don't carry gigajoule worth of energy.

A so-called "majority" which I will believe when I see. Most probably are compatible with a wide range of energies; some may be gravely mis-estimated as well. By all means, feel free to start whipping out quoted incidents.

Angels heaven= Avanti Angels Clantech ERPPC melts nearly a ton of armour.
DItto for Endgame which duplicates the same quote.

Most of our descriptions of target damage from laser weapons include substantial overheat from the minimal melting level. Many include vaporization, in fact, of armor. See the BT quotes thread for a number of examples of laser weapons boiling away armor or heating it to yellow, white, or in one case blue-white, temperatures.

True. Indeed, the higher end calcs do go into Gigajoules worth of energy for PPC and Clantech ER Lasers.......... its just that they don't go into the tens of gigajoules you seem to assume from using the waste heat calcs. And small lasers definitely don't reach this end.

For example, the Aung house incident in Close Quarters generally exceeds the waste heat estimates, with glass melting a substantial distance from the site of impact; that, I think, is the highest-energy example to date. It's also the sort of estimate traditionally used within the VS debate in analyzing fiction.

No. THat's show melted glass a distance from the impact. Its an AOE weapon and more importantly, glass can shatter!
Frankly, the highest end would be to use electrons/protons rest mass and use the House Steiner Manual incident where a PPC tossed a Wasp 30meters away.........

The effects of heat weapons on non-BattleMech units has substantially changed from that.

Which has precious to do with the calcs involved.

And at "standard" conditions, this results in a ten second "turn" cycle. Examine actual cooling mechanics (i.e., refrigeration cycles) and you'll find the linear delta-T term present in the extreme temperature rules is actually quite logical.

And your rebuttal somehow support the "entire mech can be used to calculate heat capacity in heat scale"........... how?

So, yes, sufficient quantity of sufficiently hot material causes damage.

Lol. Conceded.

[PainRack]

Errr. edit the highest energy bit: Use the twenty ton mass of the Wasp to calculate Kinetic energy, and plug in rest mass of protons/electrons to derive the heat value......

[Mr. Oragahn]

Errr. edit the highest energy bit: Use the twenty ton mass of the Wasp to calculate Kinetic energy, and plug in rest mass of protons/electrons to derive the heat value......

This is not SDN. You can edit your posts here.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Which is why it also affect myomer muscles throughout the body of the mech, ammunition throughout the body of the mech, and cockpit temperatures?

Which has balls to do with your heat scale/entire mech calc. Again, the reflection of 10degree per heat point on the mech does not reflect the heat capacity of the entire mech.

Sure it does. No matter where in the mech these items are, they are equally affected by heat.

Except that once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with your heat scale 1 point= ten degree=entire mech capacity calcs.

The very fact that Mech cockpits reach the temperature of 40 degree celsius argues against this if the scale increase by 1 heat point, the entire mech temperature increase by 10 degree celsius, and thus, using the entire mech heat capacity to calculate temperature and from there, waste energy for weapons is accurate.

40 C? Someone's not reading carefully.

Yes, BT mech cockpits regularly reach 40 degrees C... with the air conditioning functioning and good insulation.

Sauna-like temperatures are not 40 degrees. Steam bath temperatures, ok, but what happens with too-hot steam is scalding, not baking.

Brief tens-of-seconds temperature spikes that cause healthy people to pass out (or even die, as is threatened in the Techmanual and in Star Lord) are not 40 degree C spikes - nor do consoles explode at 40 degrees.

To cause perfectly fit (even athletic) people to pass out in less than a minute, we're talking temperatures noticeably in excess of 110 C (very hot sauna temperatures) for those cases when the cockpit air conditioning isn't working optimally - or the extreme heat cases where it isn't enough.

This agrees pretty well with the 10 degrees per heat point figure when we consider both the heat scale effects in the event of life support failure, and also the Star Lord incident, where alpha striking in an older Warhammer is considered lethal for pilots without cooling jackets - and even firing with the cockpit open to the air, one of them passes out briefly.

Oops. Was thinking of the ER small laser and the crew served weapon in turret form. But still, point remains the same. Crew weapons for small lasers don't dump 1 gigajoule of waste heat into the environment.

ER small laser would be even more remarkably rare. A regular infantry version of the of the small laser is exceptionally rare, and quite large even for a crew served weapon.

And you would still be wrong on it being a 3 heat weapon. All versions of ER small lasers generate 2, not 3, heat. I seriously doubt any mech-grade light laser recycled as an infantry weapon can fire very quickly without overheating severely.

Because you have no evidence for small laser generating anything like gigajoules worth of damage?

Aside from that already presented, no.

However, some of the evidence already presented does so. So. Re-read it, and pay particular attention to the part where I point out that even if the amount of rock being melted by a small laser in the Trial case were proportionately about the size of a banana relative to a man, compared to those mechs, we're talking about the gigajoule neighborhood.

That is, incidentally, an ER small laser, while we're being specific about our varieties of small laser.

Which again, fails to address the point that small lasers and even large lasers don't carry gigajoule worth of energy.

They most certainly do.

Angels heaven= Avanti Angels Clantech ERPPC melts nearly a ton of armour.
DItto for Endgame which duplicates the same quote.

A family of evidence that I've already addressed. Melting does not mean minimal melting, and BT armor does not necessarily match steel in melting energy requirements.

This is why the armor melting range is a weaker line of evidence. We are better off looking at "normal" materials and waste heat.

True. Indeed, the higher end calcs do go into Gigajoules worth of energy for PPC and Clantech ER Lasers.......... its just that they don't go into the tens of gigajoules you seem to assume from using the waste heat calcs. And small lasers definitely don't reach this end.

They most certainly do.

No. THat's show melted glass a distance from the impact. Its an AOE weapon and more importantly, glass can shatter!

Glass can, but did not. It melted. That requires a lot of thermal energy from across the street. It requires, in fact, much more energy than shattering the glass does, and calcs for the incident can easily top a hundred gigajoules.

Frankly, the highest end would be to use electrons/protons rest mass and use the House Steiner Manual incident where a PPC tossed a Wasp 30meters away.........

Which has precious to do with the calcs involved.

Performing calcs, no. Decision to use calcs based on the strength of the evidence available, yes.

And your rebuttal somehow support the "entire mech can be used to calculate heat capacity in heat scale"........... how?

As far as the entire mech's average temperature, see above about heating occurring throughout the mech. As far as the delta-T term, see an intro thermo textbook.

[PainRack]

Sure it does. No matter where in the mech these items are, they are equally affected by heat.

Ahem. You were suggesting that based on the heat scale adjustment, a ten degree rise in kelvin based on the entire mech heat capacity can then be used as an energy point value conversion to waste heat.

It simply doesn't matter, because there is no evidence WHATSOEVER that the heat scale uses the entire heat capacity of the mech to gain its heat scale readings.

40 C? Someone's not reading carefully.

Yes, BT mech cockpits regularly reach 40 degrees C... with the air conditioning functioning and good insulation.

Sauna-like temperatures are not 40 degrees. Steam bath temperatures, ok, but what happens with too-hot steam is scalding, not baking.

Sauna like temperatures are subjective. The sourcebook definitive definition that cockpits reach 40 degrees plus is NOT.

There is simply no evidence whatsoever that you can use the entire mech heat capacity to calculate gains in heat scale. And this is ignoring the complication brought in by different tonnage and variances in localised heat.(glowing barrels vs the heat scale of 10 for example.)

Brief tens-of-seconds temperature spikes that cause healthy people to pass out (or even die, as is threatened in the Techmanual and in Star Lord) are not 40 degree C spikes - nor do consoles explode at 40 degrees.

God.... How do I deal with this absurdity? Ok. Let's start with the basic wrong facts first.
Sparking of consoles occurs at all temperatures. Its a valid concern in tropical countries, or even Silicon valley which require servers to be in climate controlled areas.
Pass out or dying? Heat stroke. Its a significant problem for soldiers on parade at temperatures of 30 degrees. Same for dehydration.

Then let's start with how this contradicts your stance. If the heat scale is to be accurate represented as an average temperature for the entire mech, then that would mean the cockpit should be actually in the 200 degree temperature range routinely for non freezer equipped mechs. There's also the problem that increase in temperature outside doesn't correlate with heat scale inside, even for mechs that have been exposed to significantly hot environs for a long time such as the Hot Springs encountered by Natasha Kerensky forces in the Refusal War.

This agrees pretty well with the 10 degrees per heat point figure when we consider both the heat scale effects in the event of life support failure, and also the Star Lord incident, where alpha striking in an older Warhammer is considered lethal for pilots without cooling jackets - and even firing with the cockpit open to the air, one of them passes out briefly.

Star Lord is significantly inaccurate in its depiction. The most probable reason is that the Warhammer simply doesn't have any coolant whatsoever, since the standard temperature rise from firing two PPCs is only 2 waste heat.
Life Support is talking about constant exposure.

LASTLY. NONE OF THIS SUPPORTS THE HEAT SCALE MEASURES ENTIRE MECH TEMPERATURE!
The fact that localised temperatures should reach thousands of degrees celsisus based on glowing barrels and this isn't reflected in the heat scale should had been FREAKING obvious. Not to mention that core reactor temperature is significantly different from the cockpit and other outlying areas.
Again, what evidence is there to suggest that waste heat correspond to a 100 ton battlemech heat capacity? What happens if its a twenty tonner? Or an aerospace fighter which goes through atmospheric re-entry and sheds said heat rapidly without such a drastic rise in heat scale, which thus once again supports the Heat scale/Environment/Heat activity regulation and heat dissipation link which is actually explictly stated in the sourcebook?

ER small laser would be even more remarkably rare. A regular infantry version of the of the small laser is exceptionally rare, and quite large even for a crew served weapon.

Its called the Support laser actually.

However, some of the evidence already presented does so. So. Re-read it, and pay particular attention to the part where I point out that even if the amount of rock being melted by a small laser in the Trial case were proportionately about the size of a banana relative to a man, compared to those mechs, we're talking about the gigajoule neighborhood.

Alternatively, I can simply plug in power point values as derived from fossial fuel reactors(with explict mention of gasoline and amount of gasoline used to refuel powerpacks), or used an estimated value for solar recharges vis a vis powerpacks to get KJ levels.

A family of evidence that I've already addressed. Melting does not mean minimal melting, and BT armor does not necessarily match steel in melting energy requirements.

Except that these are the most consistent, non subjective values represented throughout the universe. Explicit mentions of melting half a ton, nearly a ton of armour is representative and not subjective. Frankly, it appears you have no idea of the concept lower limit, which is represented by the melting values seen here. An upper limit can similarly be derived from simply vapourising armour and adding in an augmentation value for distortion represented by alloys and armour.

This is why the armor melting range is a weaker line of evidence. We are better off looking at "normal" materials and waste heat.

Except that you have no representives effects whatsoever. Battletech firepower is significant. We know that their weapons blasted mansions to nothing and brought down two 65 storey buildings. But its a fine line to argue that they have significantly higher firepower than WH40k tanks, which can reach GJ levels for their support weapons.

Glass can, but did not. It melted. That requires a lot of thermal energy from across the street. It requires, in fact, much more energy than shattering the glass does, and calcs for the incident can easily top a hundred gigajoules.

And your interpretation is UTTERLY wrong. Glass shattered and melted, across the street. It hit the house, the glass flew across the street and melted along the way. Your interpretation that the blast melted glass across the street is simply not represnetative of PPC firepower.

Performing calcs, no. Decision to use calcs based on the strength of the evidence available, yes.

Say what? I was replying to how your arguing that heat rules have changed significantly and insta kill affects your calcs. It doesn't.

As far as the entire mech's average temperature, see above about heating occurring throughout the mech. As far as the delta-T term, see an intro thermo textbook.

Except that you have NO evidence whatsoever that the heat scale uses the entire mech capacity.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Ahem. You were suggesting that based on the heat scale adjustment, a ten degree rise in kelvin based on the entire mech heat capacity can then be used as an energy point value conversion to waste heat.

It simply doesn't matter, because there is no evidence WHATSOEVER that the heat scale uses the entire heat capacity of the mech to gain its heat scale readings.

It does. Fringe areas of the mech, which display heating about on the tune of the above, are expected to be at or below the average temperature of the 'mech.

40 C? Someone's not reading carefully.

Yes, BT mech cockpits regularly reach 40 degrees C... with the air conditioning functioning and good insulation.

Sauna-like temperatures are not 40 degrees. Steam bath temperatures, ok, but what happens with too-hot steam is scalding, not baking.

Sauna like temperatures are subjective. The sourcebook definitive definition that cockpits reach 40 degrees plus is NOT.

There is simply no evidence whatsoever that you can use the entire mech heat capacity to calculate gains in heat scale. And this is ignoring the complication brought in by different tonnage and variances in localised heat.(glowing barrels vs the heat scale of 10 for example.)

That reach 40 degrees with functioning cooling systems is perfectly compatible with reaching lethal temperatures under more extreme circumstances, or with cooling systems non-functional.

God.... How do I deal with this absurdity? Ok. Let's start with the basic wrong facts first.
Sparking of consoles occurs at all temperatures. Its a valid concern in tropical countries, or even Silicon valley which require servers to be in climate controlled areas
Pass out or dying? Heat stroke. Its a significant problem for soldiers on parade at temperatures of 30 degrees. Same for dehydration.

At temperatures of 30 degrees for periods of time close to the hour order of magnitude. Not ten seconds.

Then let's start with how this contradicts your stance. If the heat scale is to be accurate represented as an average temperature for the entire mech, then that would mean the cockpit should be actually in the 200 degree temperature range routinely for non freezer equipped mechs. There's also the problem that increase in temperature outside doesn't correlate with heat scale inside, even for mechs that have been exposed to significantly hot environs for a long time such as the Hot Springs encountered by Natasha Kerensky forces in the Refusal War.

It does. See extreme temperature rules and activity setting levels. Temperature outside does affect temperature inside.

Star Lord is significantly inaccurate in its depiction. The most probable reason is that the Warhammer simply doesn't have any coolant whatsoever, since the standard temperature rise from firing two PPCs is only 2 waste heat.
Life Support is talking about constant exposure.

It does have coolant; what it doesn't have is a cooling jacket.

LASTLY. NONE OF THIS SUPPORTS THE HEAT SCALE MEASURES ENTIRE MECH TEMPERATURE!
The fact that localised temperatures should reach thousands of degrees celsisus based on glowing barrels and this isn't reflected in the heat scale should had been FREAKING obvious. Not to mention that core reactor temperature is significantly different from the cockpit and other outlying areas.

Average temperature. What about that is hard to grasp?

If anything, as I've said, the cockpit should be below average temperature.

Again, what evidence is there to suggest that waste heat correspond to a 100 ton battlemech heat capacity?

The fact that it does.

What happens if its a twenty tonner?

We assume, for the sake of consistency, that more of its heat is radiated into the environment directly, and that the heat sinks are more efficient. Assuming all the waste heat winds up in the mech, rather than, say, the air immediately surrounding the laser, is a generous assumption on my part.

Or an aerospace fighter which goes through atmospheric re-entry and sheds said heat rapidly without such a drastic rise in heat scale, which thus once again supports the Heat scale/Environment/Heat activity regulation and heat dissipation link which is actually explictly stated in the sourcebook?

Aerospace fighters are well beyond the scope of the analysis I've given.

Its called the Support laser actually.

Alternatively, I can simply plug in power point values as derived from fossial fuel reactors(with explict mention of gasoline and amount of gasoline used to refuel powerpacks), or used an estimated value for solar recharges vis a vis powerpacks to get KJ levels.

You say you can, but yet you haven't. I doubt you - and further, this is a stronger line of evidence. Actual effect.

Except that these are the most consistent, non subjective values represented throughout the universe.

Nope. Read the descriptions carefully. They aren't consistent. We have red-hot armor, yellow-hot molten armor, blue-hot vapor, etc. That's not consistent.

Explicit mentions of melting half a ton, nearly a ton of armour is representative and not subjective. Frankly, it appears you have no idea of the concept lower limit, which is represented by the melting values seen here. An upper limit can similarly be derived from simply vapourising armour and adding in an augmentation value for distortion represented by alloys and armour.

A very fuzzy uncertain upper limit... which is much higher than you claimed, since you seem to have made some mistakes in your math.

Except that you have no representives effects whatsoever.

We do.

And your interpretation is UTTERLY wrong. Glass shattered and melted, across the street. It hit the house, the glass flew across the street and melted along the way. Your interpretation that the blast melted glass across the street is simply not represnetative of PPC firepower.

Did you even read the incident I posted? it has nothing in common with your claim.

The PPC strike hit the front yard of one house. That house was set on fire via thermal radiation.

In the house across the street, with no blast effects or shrapnel whatsoever, the front windows melted. Not even in a very violent fashion. A small child watched them melt and wasn't harmed.

Say what? I was replying to how your arguing that heat rules have changed significantly and insta kill affects your calcs. It doesn't.

The question of consistency arises, which is why my analysis was limited in scope.

Except that you have NO evidence whatsoever that the heat scale uses the entire mech capacity.

Except that the entire mech is heated. Which is sufficient evidence to make use of that in ballparking it.

Is it precise? No. Is it within a half order of magnitude of right? Almost certainly.

[PainRack]

Did you even read the incident I posted? it has nothing in common with your claim.

The PPC strike hit the front yard of one house. That house was set on fire via thermal radiation.

In the house across the street, with no blast effects or shrapnel whatsoever, the front windows melted. Not even in a very violent fashion. A small child watched them melt and wasn't harmed.

You ASSUMED there was no blast effect or sharpnel.


As for the heat scale calcs, again, the contention is in your calculation of GJ per heat point, by simply assigning the heat scale to measure the entire heat capacity of the battlemech. This although the heat scale is actually used to measure the reactor temperature and the effects of waste heat on reactor operation, and that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that waste heat of 1 point=entire heat capacity of battlemech being raised by ten degree celsisus.

Your cockpit contention is also a mishmash of absurdity with gamerules. To put it simply, mechwarriors don't suffer from heat effects within ten seconds. Its not reflected for in the gamerules or in the RPGs(well, for mechs with life support that is). With life support disabled, you also don't get an insta faint. You get a steady hit to the pilot consitution, combined with neurofeedback, falling and etc to disable the 6 slots to remain consiciousness. And of course, none of this utterly matters, because it doesn't address the heat capacity of entire mech=capacity used to measure waste heat in the heat scale.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Did you even read the incident I posted? it has nothing in common with your claim.

The PPC strike hit the front yard of one house. That house was set on fire via thermal radiation.

In the house across the street, with no blast effects or shrapnel whatsoever, the front windows melted. Not even in a very violent fashion. A small child watched them melt and wasn't harmed.

You ASSUMED there was no blast effect or sharpnel.

I read the actual description of the event. Here is the quote that I posted earlier:

What cut off her words was a bolt of blue fire hitting the ground in front of the Aung house, the blue fire momentarily blanking Cassie's vision. Through great maroon clouds of afterimage, she saw the big front window shimmer and simple melt away, felt a rush of heat on her face like the hot breath of air when she squatted too near while her mother slid her baking in and out of the oven... In the Aung yard, men were on fire.... The burning men had fallen to the ground. The whole Aung house was ablaze with flames.

The front window of her house shimmers and melts. This is not the result of the blast effect (pretty minimal when it's a "hot breath of air") but a result of transmitted heat (pretty steep if it melted the glass, but not much in excess of melting the glass given that Cassie wasn't burnt).

The description is crystal clear. There are a lot of odd bits to it. Obviously little Cassie wasn't sitting right next to the window, but some distance back from it.

And the PPC didn't even hit the house across the street. It hit ground in the front yard. You demonstrated a complete failure to even read the example we were talking about.

So far, I'm not impressed with your arguments. You slipped up by around an order of magnitude in calculating the energy required to melt iron, messed up the heat of a small laser, and have argued back and forth at length about the details of a novel passage that you don't seem to have even read the available quotes of.

As for the heat scale calcs, again, the contention is in your calculation of GJ per heat point, by simply assigning the heat scale to measure the entire heat capacity of the battlemech. This although the heat scale is actually used to measure the reactor temperature

By what standard? The heat scale measures effects on myomer, cockpits, and ammunition held well outside the core, with randomized heat effects.

Average temperature hits that box pretty well. Reactor core temperature doesn't, nor is it as easy to calculate energies for.

and the effects of waste heat on reactor operation, and that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that waste heat of 1 point=entire heat capacity of battlemech being raised by ten degree celsisus.

No evidence? We have the evidence of the heat scale and the effect on pilots and ammunition (game mechanics pure and simple). We have the extreme heat rules, which explicitly relate "extreme" temperatures and the heat scale in a linear fashion beyond the activity setting limits commonly in place.

We further have incidents describing incredible cockpit temperatures as easily possible, which as I've mentioned, strongly suggest average BattleMech temperatures rising by at least 10 degrees per heat points.

We have the calculable order of magnitude of firepower of energy weapons (gigajoules to tens of gigajoules for various mech-scale energy weapons) and the information that this is on a close order of magnitude with the heat scale.

We have, in other words, all kinds of evidence, which adds up remarkably well to support my claim that a heat point from an energy weapon represents somewhere around a gigajoule of waste energy.

[PainRack]

The front window of her house shimmers and melts. This is not the result of the blast effect (pretty minimal when it's a "hot breath of air") but a result of transmitted heat (pretty steep if it melted the glass, but not much in excess of melting the glass given that Cassie wasn't burnt).

The description is crystal clear. There are a lot of odd bits to it. Obviously little Cassie wasn't sitting right next to the window, but some distance back from it.

To put it simply, in order for that quote to MAKE sense, what happens is that as I said, glass or any hot material shattered, hit the glass and melted it. I misfudged the statement a bit by saying that it must had been glass that hit the window plane, but nevertheless, it the one that makes more sense.

And the PPC didn't even hit the house across the street. It hit ground in the front yard. You demonstrated a complete failure to even read the example we were talking about.

No. I arguing that in order for the incident to actually MAKE sense, it wasn't done through thermal radiation like you argued, but rather through conduction of heat .

By what standard? The heat scale measures effects on myomer, cockpits, and ammunition held well outside the core, with randomized heat effects.

Because how hot the mech is does affect all these things. The contention, repeat, the contention is that 1 heat point= 10 degrees delta change * heat capacity of entire battlemech.

No evidence? We have the evidence of the heat scale and the effect on pilots and ammunition (game mechanics pure and simple). We have the extreme heat rules, which explicitly relate "extreme" temperatures and the heat scale in a linear fashion beyond the activity setting limits commonly in place.

Except that the evidence doesn't work.
1. Heat capacity vis a vis tonnage. Non-existence. Similarly, the fact that heatscale only jumps 1 heat point per ten degree is proof AGAINST the linking of mech capacity, as different mechs of different tonnage would had been affected differently.
2. If heat scale is linked to the entire battlemech, then lighter mechs would suffer higher heat from weapons waste heat. I doubt you're arguing this interpretation, but rather, you're simply plugging in the heat a specific tonnage, getting the heat capacity from there and then calculating the value for 10 degree external=10 degree internal change and = 1 heat point.
Of course, that would never work since plasma rifles, infernos, and plasma or conventional flamers already affect the heat scale, thus showing that heat capacity is not linked directly to the heat scale. The limitation of mech activity in high temperature or increased activity in low temperature climate only further shows the link between heat scale and its counterpart, heat generation and heat dissipation. Indeed, its already EXPLICTLY stated that heat scale is affected significantly by heat dissipation, in particularly, how forest fires would overwhelm mechs ability to cool itself. The heat scale jump here is not linked to the increased heat from the forest, but rather, to the DECREASED ability for mechs to cool themselves. Its not as simple as you assume it to be.

To put it simply, you're arguing ass backwards. There is simply no evidence to suggest that the heat capacity required to move the heat scale by 1 point is 1 GJ. That heat capacity is something you artificially put in place. Its common sense to show that external heat would affect the mech, and thus its measurement of temperature at the core. But again, where is the evidence to link 1GJ to 1 heat point?

We further have incidents describing incredible cockpit temperatures as easily possible, which as I've mentioned, strongly suggest average BattleMech temperatures rising by at least 10 degrees per heat points.

The contention is not Battlemech temperatures rise with external temperature!