Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
hi guys
i posted two pics up in my old post "i know 3d or starting" i will re-post them and put up two new onessame engine but a couple differences
tell me if u like engine 1 or engine 1.0.2 better okay
this is engine 1
This post has been edited by Lucky7Ac : 17 January 2008 - 03:33 PM
Engine 1.0.2
pic 1= front pic 2= back
I like the second one, but the back of it looks a bit plain. Maybe you could try embellishing it a bit.
They look very nice though. Good work!
I'm going to agree with Archon. Looks good, can't wait for the finished product.
I like them, though I strongly recommend splitting smooth groups (is that what it's called?) with Edge-Split. Such a round model should not be faceted.
And I don't really understand what the volcanoes on top are good for
@phlogios, on Jan 17 2008, 11:28 PM, said in you want to see:
Exhaust vents? :huh:
lol vents in space
I'm guessing space at -400 F would keep those engines nice and cool.
This post has been edited by Swithich : 18 January 2008 - 10:30 PM
Well if space really were -400 degree Celsius, it would be a good 137 degrees below absolute zero, which is a meaningless temperature, at least I hope it's meaningless because mathematically speaking, something with a truly negative temperature should try to radiate heat away from itself. In fact you'd probably need a really good cooling system to travel through -400 C space.
This post has been edited by Keldor Sarn : 18 January 2008 - 06:15 AM
Swithich: Due to the laws of physics, a medium is required for heat to transfer. Vents would do nothing without air streaming inside. This is why every heat-producing instrument needs a cooling fan in space stations/rockets. There is no air outside the thruster. PLUS, negative kelvin degrees are impossible. The absolute zero is when nothing moves in the molecules/atoms.
@phlogios, on Jan 18 2008, 03:30 PM, said in you want to see:
PLUS, negative kelvin degrees are impossible. The absolute zero is when nothing moves in the molecules/atoms.
Well, maybe sub-absolute-zero, molecules move BACKWARDS!
@archon, on Jan 18 2008, 03:53 PM, said in you want to see:
Ahh, like ducks.
Motion is relative.
The second law of thermodynamics, however, is not.
This post has been edited by UE_Research & Development: 18 January 2008 - 09:59 PM
@ue_research---development, on Jan 18 2008, 06:58 PM, said in you want to see:
Thanks for letting me know I'm glad to see you have been to the edge of the universe to test that and understand all properties of the universe such that you can make that assumption as an authoritative argument. Obviously I made a mistake and meant Fahrenheit...edited.
(It is funny to see after the first post how everyone jumps on the bandwagon to prove they know something...like a lions den or something.)
Oh, I'm thinking a fan wouldn't be needed as space is near a vacuum. Assuming some sort of matter being heated was expellable, it would be sucked out of vents because of the difference in pressures.
Vents wouldn't work in space without expelling something, true, since there'd be (next to) nothing in space, but radiative heat transfer works fine, just get something with high emissivity (really black) and a high surface area, and run coolant behind it.
And yes, negative Kelvin temperatures are indeed impossible (I hope), as having a negative temperature object and a positive temperature object touching would result in them being polarized infinitely hot/infinitely "cold" which would mean Bad Things for any universe in which that was taking place.
Of course you could have some sort of alternate universe where temperature is upside down... like an "anti-energy" universe instead of an "anti-matter" one. Of course going from the normal universe to either would be a really really bad idea.
Quote
Oh, I'm thinking a fan wouldn't be needed as space is near a vacuum.
I'm glad to see that you've physically been in space to test that and understand all properties of the universe such that you can make that assumption as an authoritative argument. How do you know those scientists aren't all lying to you? It's a conspiracy, like fluorinated water and polio vaccines, to undermine the sovereignty of the United States and set up a one-world government. Better put on your tinfoil hat, you never know what types of mind-control rays they've developed since NASA faked the moon landings.
Just don't make assertions you can't back up, and things will be fine. It's perfectly fine if you don't know anything- as long as you keep your hands off your keyboard, nobody will ever know! Seriously, now, do you really believe you know more than every single scientist who's done an experiment on thermodynamics? Or are they all conspiring to hide the truth from you? The burden of proof is on you. You give me proof that either all those scientists I mentioned are incompetent and you know better than them, or that you have evidence that they're hiding the truth in a massive conspiracy. Then let's talk.
This post has been edited by UE_Research & Development: 19 January 2008 - 12:14 AM
@ue_research---development, on Jan 18 2008, 09:09 PM, said in you want to see:
Any experiment only applies to the area tested, as well as the fact that any experiment is inherently flawed via the limitations of the human mind and limitations on the time at which the human mind exists in reference to the history of the universe.
Thus, you can't extrapolate a give "law" or quality of life here on earth to the rest of the universe because no one has ever been beyond the moon. Therefore, no human can account for things that exist outside the biosphere or at least the primary gravitational pull of this planet.
What a pompous race we have become to actually think we have a monopoly on the properties of the universe. There is no reason to assume the properties that exist near Earth are indeed uniform or exclusive throughout the universe. Einstein's theorems and indeed all human thought are limited to the very mind and environment in which they were conceived. How can you argue that something is absolutely true, if you are indeed incapable of accounting for all effects and properties of the universe?
This post has been edited by Swithich : 19 January 2008 - 03:16 AM
Of course they move backwards! It is possible that I may or may not have seen what may be it myself (or not).
Thus, you can't interpolate a give "law" or quality of life here on earth to the rest of the universe because no one has ever been beyond the moon. Therefore, no human can account for things that exist outside the biosphere or at least the primary gravitational pull of this planet.
But you make your own assertions about the nature of space- heat flow in vacuum and all sorts of different things. Do you know those things are true in space, let alone millions of light-years away? Have you ever been to space? Have you tested every single point in the space-time continuum that might count as space? If you actually believed what you were saying, you wouldn't be making those assertions!
Also, I did not mean that the 2nd law was 'absolutely true', I just meant that it wasn't 'relative' in the way that motion is 'relative'- defined in relation to an arbitrary point. Don't read so much into the posts- they weren't meant as some sort of weird personal attack. They weren't even directed towards you! Sheesh.
This post has been edited by UE_Research & Development: 19 January 2008 - 01:16 AM