Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 35, Issue 10

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAh, John John
John. It's too bad neither of us will be around long enough to
see this discussion become moot by advances in technology. :-D

Mk

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:38 PM, John Atkinson
<johnmatkinson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:29 AM, 
<gzg-l-request@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >> When you run, you are moving up and down--and tiny variations in
the
> >> position of the muzzle translate into large deviations in the
position
> >> of the bullet 100m downrange.
> >>
> >> You can run and fire with lots of weapons, but you aren't going to
hit
> >> shit except by accident.
>
> > He's talking future weapons, not contemporary. Take into
consideration
> the
> > evolution of the tank. When it was first fielded, shooting while
moving
> > accuracy was pretty dismal. Nowadays, shooting while moving is
pretty
> > realistic. Who's to say in 50-100 years hence infantrymen won't have
the
> > same or similar technological capabilities? We're not trying to
model
> combat
> > in 2020 here (well, okay, maybe some are :-D ).
>
> Yup, in the far future, physics will change.	Yes, we will be able to
> accurately stabilize hand-held weapons precisely the same way that
> tank guns are stabilized.
>
> You see, the way that tank armament is stabilized has nothing to do
> with heavy equipment which moves the turret and the gun around.  It's
> actually the technology fairies that magically improve things over
> time.
>
> Powered armor could have stabilization systems.  Anything else
> (unpowered armor) definitionally means that you are relying on human
> muscles to hold the weapon in place.	Stabilizing your arms is a
> non-trivial exercise that will not magically become easier over the
> passage of time.
>
> Some days I despair.
>
> > I say it's all relative. Gotta be open-minded about some stuff. :-) 
We
> have
> > image-stabilized cameras, no? What's to say that that technology
won't
> some
> > year be married with an HUD targeting system for infantry weapons?
>
> You don't have to be so open-minded your frickin' brain falls out onto
> the floor and oozes around for the rest of us to use as a kickball.
>
> >From the Wikipedia article on image stabilization:
>
> >An optical image stabilizer, often abbreviated OIS, IS, or OS, is a
> mechanism used in a still camera or video camera that stabilizes the
> recorded image by varying the optical path to the sensor. This
technology is
> implemented in the lens itself, or by moving the sensor as the final
element
> in the optical path.
>
> Not applicable--weapons aren't receiving information they are sending
> things (bullets, lasers, whatever) so there is no optical path to
> sensor to move to compensate.
>
> >In Nikon and Canon's implementation, it works by using a floating
lens
> element that is moved orthogonally to the optical axis of the lens
using
> electromagnets.[3]  Vibration is detected using two piezoelectric
angular
> velocity sensors (often called gyroscopic  sensors), one to detect
> horizontal movement and the other to detect vertical movement.[4]
>
> Same argument in reverse.  You'd have to have the barrel in a
> self-powered mount which moves the weapon around.  Which means it's no
> longer a hand-held weapon carried by unpowered armor.  This line of
> thinking works fine for a weapon mounted on a powered armor suit.
>
> >The sensor capturing the image can be moved in such a way as to
counteract
> the motion of the camera, a technology often referred to as mechanical
image
> stabilization. When the camera rotates, causing angular error,
gyroscopes
> encode information to the actuator that moves the sensor.
>
> See counter-argument to the optical image stabilizer, modified in the
> obvious manner.
>
> >Real digital image stabilization is used in some video cameras. This
> technique shifts the electronic image from frame to frame of video,
enough
> to counteract the motion. It uses pixels outside the border of the
visible
> frame to provide a buffer for the motion. This technique reduces
distracting
> vibrations from videos or improves still image quality by allowing one
to
> increase the exposure time without blurring the image. This technique
does
> not affect the noise level of the image, except in the extreme borders
when
> the image is extrapolated.
>
> If I need to explain why this concept doesn't apply to a rifle, you
> don't need to be involved in this conversation.
>
> John
> --
> "Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
> and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
> --Vita Aureliani
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>