TransformerRobot

21 minutes ago, Bender said:

We first need a material strong enough to make a cable that can support its own weight at that distance. Nanotubes are a candidate.

Then we need to put an asteroid in geostationary orbit to attach the cable to.

We also need superconductors to transport the electricity to the surface without the losses rendering the whole thing useless.

Could we just collect the solar energy in batteries and then transport them back to Earth?

Hey, sorry that it's been years since I last spoke to any of you, but I thought of something that would be best discussed with any physicists and/or engineers around here.

There was this science fiction story I remember hearing about, where a long megastructure worked as a sort of train between Earth and an orbital space station. At some point I also heard that the megastructure would not fall down, because it was kept stable by Earth's rotation.

I was thinking that maybe, by applying the same physics and engineering factors, people could make gigantic solar panel that reached out into space, allowing for even more energy collecting than solar panels we have today.

Would it work? If so, how? If not, why not? Are there certain hurdles we'd have to cross first?

What is it that gives raptor birds, like hawks or eagles, such excellent sense of vision?

Does it have to do with the placement of their eyes, or is it something much deeper?

 

 

I happen to be a big fan of thick chicks, curvy girls, fat bottom girls, big legs I have given it some real thought I think it had to do with my grandmother. We lived out in the boonies, no running water, minimal electricity, baths were taken by standing in a wash tub and pouring water over someone to rinse off after soaping up. I have a clear memory of sitting on the floor watching my grandmother bathe, I had to be a toddler, but she was a heavy woman and when I hit puberty memories of seeing her with he very long black hair standing in the wash tub were very clear. I'm not sure how but I think those memories had some influence on my choice of women.

 

 

Where I went to high school most of the girls were either thick or athletic and still a bit thick, so much so that skinny girls were made fun of.

 

 

Pregnant women are beautiful, they smell wonderful, they glow, the pheromones they give off makes a man want to protect them, be around them and yes they are sexy.

 

 

See above!

 

 

I always thought my wife was at her best when pregnant, I really think it's the pheromones...

I've never thought about those because I haven't been around enough pregnant women, besides my physiotherapist.

The grandmother thing wouldn't be my reason because I didn't have experiences like that with my grandmother. My mother isn't a factor either because she didn't become heavy until I was at least a teenager.

I think it was your early exposure to Renaissance paintings. When a bit of shapeliness wasn't considered shameful.

Could it also relate to my attraction to pregnant women? *braces to be stoned for being weird* I talked to my mother about it once, and she reminded me about how it's because sex is REQUIRED to get pregnant.

Its upto personal prospective as what you find attractive in women

 

i saw a documentary about a year ago on discovery channel and they said that women with big bottom are preferred by our subconscious mind as they make healthier babies

 

so maybe this can be one of the reasons

Is it also because there's more on heavier women to enjoy? Men usually like big breasts, and heavier girls have bigger breasts.

Why does it matter?

It shouldn't matter, but I don't know why I feel this way. Is it because I'm tired of seeing anorexic-looking supermodels that put pressure on impressionable young girls?

I find myself attracted to heavier girls more than most.

But I don't understand why?

Is there a way to fully explain why I'm attracted to them? I figured there were people here who knew enough to tell me why.

Goodness gracious! Had I realized how complex this was, I'd have settled for just making the toys like an updated version of Rock'em Sock'em Robots. XD

Regardless, thank you for all the information.

I was thinking more of having the robots operated by remote control, letting competitors themselves worry about recognizing opponents.

Do they really need a certain software to stay on two feet though? I thought it was a matter of design.

Okay, seems cost is a bigger problem than I realized.

What if instead of 12 inches the robots were 6 inches tall, made of recycled aluminum (which is plentiful), and used foam-based projectiles like Nerf blasters?

I recently had an idea for a toy line of fighting robots for kids, kind of like these robots from Japan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufOz00oYzZM

There are a few problems I've thought of, so I figured there would be people here, with enough engineering knowledge, to tell me how it would work.

How much would it cost to make fully functioning robots like we see in the robots? I was hoping each robot would cost within the realm of $30-40 USD.

What about projectile weapons? What would the projectiles be made out of, what size would they be, and how fast would they travel?

What would be the sturdiest metal(s) to make these robots out of? Would something in the way of aluminum work, or is there a better metal to use?

If there are other factors I didn't consider, please tell me what they are.

Well, as long as the 2 millimetre steel skin is strong then I'm all for it.

I was also thinking that maybe giving it special jet lifters in certain body parts for when it needs to regain balance.

I had already thought of the longer feet thing, I just neglected to show it in the sketch. XD I've seen Power Rangers do it lots of times, with the Megazord's feet usually enormous compared to it's hands.

I know those designs would work for extra balance, but I'm still trying to figure out how a biped like the Megazords would play out.

To be fair, Power Rangers is full of things that defy our current understanding of physics, like turning into costumed heroes at the press of a button or trapping the heroes in a storybook (see "Storybook Rangers" from season 2).

Even more baffling is that, at least according to the Power Rangers wiki, the original Megazord weighed 570 tons while standing 134 feet tall, yet it could move easily enough to fight each episode's monster of the week. Purely TV physics, or could a more scientific approach have been used to get around this?

Yes, but I was thinking more about recreating the whole "giant robots fighting giant monsters" scenario that made Power Rangers famous.

 

You asked if this concept was believable, not "possible". It's a Hollywood concept, one that looks cool and will probably play well, but engineering-wise it's a bust. A 72 foot tall bipedal robot has a poor center of gravity for a walking machine. Four legs, like the Imperial Walkers from Star Wars is much more practical.

 

There are great reasons to build a humanoid robot. If we want our machine to hand wash the dishes, walk up the stairs, mow the lawn with our lawnmower, run a race against humans, or drive a regular car, you build it to emulate the human form. Scaling the robot up twelve times normal removes this utility.

 

Of course, all you need to do is come up with a believable reason why it needed to be built this way. Since it's not practical mechanically, perhaps there's a symbolic reason for it to look like a huge person. I guess if it scares the enemy witless (for a time, at least) because it looks that way, it might justify the limitations the design enforces.

Well what about the AT-ST? Surely that's at least possible in real life too? It's not even as big as most giant robots in fiction anyway.

What reason is there to emulate the human form if you can't use it to access human structure? If we make a humanoid robot, isn't it because we want it to interact with everything we've built?

I'm speaking strictly for entertainment value, and to see what's possible in our lifetime with our current knowledge and technology. Isn't that one of the reasons we flew to the moon?

With mass in mind then, what about this?

In this quick concept I did a second ago I have the robot's head and upper chest hollow to make room for a crew of 5 people, and the robot is only 72 feet tall.

With modern technology or tech in the near future would this be believable? I know it's not as exciting looking as Power Rangers or Pacific Rim, but still.

Ah, mass is equal to weight, right? (I'm terrible with physics)

What if the robot had partly hollowed limbs made of steel, and was 200 feet tall? Would it be able to move easily without falling down? What kind of supports would it need?

Then what would be the cubic mass of a 120 foot tall bipedal robot made primarily of aluminum, able to travel a max of 100 km/h, and weighing 10 tonnes minumum?

(BTW I previously meant to say Argentinosaurus weighed 170,000 pounds)

I have read from an article that said Godzilla, as he is depicted, would not exist in real life because of the strains he'd have on his body from being 350 feet tall (150 in the original 1954 Godzilla).

Keeping that in mind, I looked into what the tallest dinosaur ever was, and it was Sauroposeidon at 18.5 meters (60.7 feet). The heaviest dinosaur, however, was Argentinosaurus at 77 tonnes (that's less than 17,000 pounds).

So what would be the tallest a giant monster could be in order for it to stand at 300 feet tall without collapsing? How would it be able to stay that way in real life?

That doesn't sound like much, because isn't it a lot higher at the very bottom of the ocean?

What is the strongest diving suit available?

How much PSI can it take under the sea?

What I mean is would they be able to be separated by only 20 million kilometres without any disastrous effects on each other?

 

The force of attraction is GmM/r²

 

r is the distance from the center of each object. The size of the object does not enter into the equation. The two object will orbit the center of mass of the system.

 

Density only comes into play if you measure the distance from the surface. Yes, it's possible that one object would orbit within the the other object. The distance between their surfaces can be zero . If it becomes negative, the mass of the diffuse system is effectively reduced, because the force of attraction only depends on the mass inside of the sphere at your distance from the center (Gauss's law, aka the shell theorem) The mass outside makes no contribution.

Then what would be the safest distance to have two planets of the same mass, of close to the same size, only 20 million kilometres apart? Yes, I understand that we're going by the cosmic scale, but surely, 20 million kilometres can't be too small a distance by which to separate to similar planets or other celestial bodies.