Re: [OT]Stupid question about sloped armour

As a matter of fact you got what I was saying exactly.	It's a bit
late for me to work out the math (I'm doing an emergency restore
of on of my unix servers that croaked) but it should be just as
thick as it would if sloped if you use an equivalent mass of armour.

On  1-May-02 at 02:26, Edward Lipsett (translation@intercomltd.com)
wrote:
> I think what he was saying (putting words in his mouth) was that at an
> angle you have to cover a lot of area with a sloped plate. If you take
the
> same volume (not area, volume!) of steel, you can make a very thick
front
> plate standing vertically.
> Your point remains true, of course.
> 
> 
> on 02.5.1 3:14 PM, Brian Burger at yh728@victoria.tc.ca wrote:
> > 
> >> If I take the same mass of sloped armour and make armour
perpendicular
> >> to the ground I gain the same thickness you would gain from the
> >> slope.  Space would remain the same (If I pivot the slope about
> >> the center everything I lose from the bottom reappears on the
> >> top.)
> > 
> > Nope, you're just reduced the *effective* thickness of your armour
by the
> > percentage (roughly) that it used to be sloped. Do a bit of
scribbling on
> > scrap paper, and you'll see what I mean. Draw two parallel lines for
the
> > inner & outer surfaces of your hypothetical armour plate, and then
> > measure lines passing thru at differing angles - non-perpendicular
lines
> > are naturally going to be longer, equalling 'thicker' armour when
it's
> > sloped. 
> 
> --
> In some respects the better a book is, the less it demands from the
> binding. - Charles Lamb
> -- 
> Edward Lipsett
> Fukuoka, Japan
> Tel: 092-712-9120
> Fax: 092-712-9220
> translation@intercomltd.com
> http://www.intercomltd.com
>