The Steampunk Forum at Brass Goggles
October 18, 2017, 04:58:50 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Brassgoggles.co.uk - The Lighter Side Of Steampunk, follow @brasstech for forum technical problems & updates.
 
   Home   Blog Help Rules Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Aren't 'steam punk' items that don't work a betrayal of the genre?  (Read 3987 times)
Dr.B.Goodall
Gunner
**
United Kingdom United Kingdom

Be Good All! ;)


« Reply #125 on: April 14, 2016, 08:04:53 pm »

And to add to Madasasteamfish's comment, the wheels on the cannons were not fitted with nice smooth-running bearings, they were pretty crude (normally wooden wheels against a wooden axle) - thus there would be a lot of friction, would would impart some of the force to the ship before the restraints came into force (which would also have a bit of stretch in them).  Therefore, quite a lot of force was wasted / distributed before it would become a big impact to a sea / air ship's attitude Wink

As far as river rat's post goes, I totally agree - it doesn't have to work, as long as it has the implication that it could work, either in a real, fantasy (or both) world.

From my short time in Steampunk, I've come up with a fast and simple rule...  Make it believable (whatever "it" is), and have fun with it. Cheesy
Logged

"People call me a "Doctor", but only for my skills.  I know nothing of healing the flesh.  Metal, steam, and what I discover in the wastelands are the tools and techniques for my creations in the new world." - Dr.B.Goodall, Wasteland Explorer
Madasasteamfish
A clanger waiting to be dropped......
Moderator
Rogue Ætherlord
*
United Kingdom United Kingdom


09madasafish
« Reply #126 on: April 14, 2016, 08:47:55 pm »

And to add to Madasasteamfish's comment, the wheels on the cannons were not fitted with nice smooth-running bearings, they were pretty crude (normally wooden wheels against a wooden axle) - thus there would be a lot of friction, would would impart some of the force to the ship before the restraints came into force (which would also have a bit of stretch in them).  Therefore, quite a lot of force was wasted / distributed before it would become a big impact to a sea / air ship's attitude Wink

Well that really depends on a) when you're talking and b) what you mean by crude/nice smooth-running.

I mean there were proposals as far back as (what is referred to by Naval historians as) the Nelsonic era (approx. 1790-1815) for guns with a type of floating breech (as found on most modern artillery pieces) which would almost totally eliminate the force of the recoil, and by the mid 19th century the idea was well established.
And although the wheels found on even a mid 19th century warship's gun carriages were primitive (usually awooden wheel with an iron/steel tyre) they would offer surprisingly smooth rotation and would presumably be lubricated to do so for purely practical reasons (given that we're talking about at most 5 or 6 men manhandling about half a ton of iron, plus about another quarter of a ton of wood and iron with the carriage for several hours at a time exhaustion could set in quite rapidly).

But, I think you are overestimating the power of the recoil of naval guns since even something like a dreadnought could fire all its' batteries at once without untoward motion, and even a ship like Warrior or Victory would only roll by a few degrees when unleashing a broadside (often less than the roll imparted by the ocean).
Logged

I made a note in my diary on the way over here. Simply says; "Bugger!"

"DON'T THINK OF IT AS DYING, JUST THINK OF IT AS LEAVING EARLY TO AVOID THE RUSH."
Dr Fidelius
Zeppelin Admiral
******
United States United States


Professor of Applied Paleontology, Miskatonic U.


« Reply #127 on: April 15, 2016, 01:44:38 pm »

So the trick is to make the airship massive enough that the force of the cannonade does not impart a significant change to its inertia?
Logged

The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
Dr.B.Goodall
Gunner
**
United Kingdom United Kingdom

Be Good All! ;)


« Reply #128 on: April 16, 2016, 02:32:51 am »

You're right Madasasteamfish - I was only doing a quick scan through the technologies of the era (as I was quite tired at the time), and was looking a BIT too early in the timeline Roll Eyes

Plus ... I was missing a key point regarding the forces involved.  I forgot to factor in the mass of the cannon VS the mass of the projectile.  Inertia dictates that the majority of the force in this case will be imparted to the projectile due to the large difference in mass between the two Roll Eyes

I shall remember to get some sleep before tackling the next "technical" topic Grin
Logged
river rat
Gunner
**
United States United States

Gambler. Grave Robber. All around fun guy.


« Reply #129 on: April 16, 2016, 10:57:44 pm »

This is all well and good. But a wooden ship sits down in the water. Giving it a buffer and extra friction against the recoil of a cannon. The cannons are also at or around the center of gravity. An airships cabin is below the center of gravity and has noting but air around it. If the center of gravity runs threw the center of the balloon it will act like the top bar of a swing set to any force applied to it from below. This is my guess anyway.

Perhaps it is best to only use death rays from an airship anyway. The thought of having fine china hitting the deck after each cannon fire is a bit ghastly. Grin
Logged

I'm not all bad. I rob graves. I don't add to their numbers.
Dr.B.Goodall
Gunner
**
United Kingdom United Kingdom

Be Good All! ;)


« Reply #130 on: April 17, 2016, 04:12:33 am »

Death Rays! - Now that's a decent solution to this situation Grin

I've done a little research (and some very crude calculations), and to be honest, the resultant speed of the cannon is small compared to the cannon ball, due to the mass of the cannon.

Apparently on old ships, a cannon ball weighed about 15kg, and the cannon weighed about 1500kg.  This put's the weight ratio at roughly 1:100 (Cannon ball : Cannon).  Thus re-jigging the F=ma (Force = mass x acceleration) formula, and if I say the force created by the explosion of the gunpowder was 100N (just an example - I have no idea how much force it would actually have applied), the acceleration of the cannon ball would be 100 m/s^2, and the cannon would experience a 1 m/s^2 acceleration (about the same acceleration as you falling just over 1 metre ["meter" in the US]).  Combine that small acceleration with friction in the wheels and restraints for the cannon stretching a little, and you will loose a lot of the force from the cannon body before it affects the ship, be it in air or water. Wink

Anyway - Death Rays are definitely the way forward ... especially as they'll probably weigh a LOT less than a cannon, which would be more practical for lift in an airship. Smiley
Logged
Madasasteamfish
A clanger waiting to be dropped......
Moderator
Rogue Ætherlord
*
United Kingdom United Kingdom


09madasafish
« Reply #131 on: April 17, 2016, 01:21:29 pm »

Apparently on old ships, a cannon ball weighed about 15kg, and the cannon weighed about 1500kg.  This put's the weight ratio at roughly 1:100 (Cannon ball : Cannon).  Thus re-jigging the F=ma (Force = mass x acceleration) formula, and if I say the force created by the explosion of the gunpowder was 100N (just an example - I have no idea how much force it would actually have applied), the acceleration of the cannon ball would be 100 m/s^2, and the cannon would experience a 1 m/s^2 acceleration (about the same acceleration as you falling just over 1 metre ["meter" in the US]).  Combine that small acceleration with friction in the wheels and restraints for the cannon stretching a little, and you will loose a lot of the force from the cannon body before it affects the ship, be it in air or water. Wink

Don't forget the initial inertia of the ship itself, as even if it's positively buoyant, it will still retain all of its' mass and therefore its' inertia. And I'm not physicist, but I daresay there's very little chance a cannon could impart enough force to affect the motion of an object with several dozen times its' mass.
Logged
Maets
Immortal
**
United States United States

Gravatar

Airship Builder


WWW
« Reply #132 on: April 17, 2016, 01:38:44 pm »

Airplanes fire big guns all the time.

You can always use rocket propelled weaponry as well.
Logged

Inflatable Friend
Zeppelin Admiral
******
Italy Italy



« Reply #133 on: April 17, 2016, 04:30:42 pm »

I seem to remember reading about the R.23 having a 2lb autocanon fired from the top of its envelope as a test, just that was enough to wobble and flex the frame.

Aircraft do fire guns and so on, but they tend to be near to the aircraft's centre of mass, rather than hanging way down below it. Even then, depending on the aircraft firing its guns can do all sorts to its handling.
Logged
river rat
Gunner
**
United States United States

Gambler. Grave Robber. All around fun guy.


« Reply #134 on: April 17, 2016, 05:34:56 pm »

Thanks folks. This is awesome. Even if it's rather derailed this thread.
Perhaps we can convince the 'MythBusters' to do one more show. May take a bit of persuasion. Their last test with a cannon ball bounced over a hill. Went way off coarse. Plowed threw a house and ended up in a mini van. No one was hurt. 

http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/mythbusters-cannonball-accident-will-not-air-on-show
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.11 seconds with 16 queries.