PDA

View Full Version : Technological Advances



Herr Trigger
10th Sep 2008, 14:22
I remember seeing a thread a while back dealing with dark matter, nuclear fusion, and other technologies that are dealth with in DX and conspiracies found in DX.

Although you may have seen this already, this is a pretty impressive peice of machinery that has a very DX look to it. Its exciting to think that futuristic technology keeps getting closer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26439957/

imported_van_HellSing
10th Sep 2008, 14:25
So everyone was going on lately about how this LHC will be the end of us all, but I just wasn't convinced.


Until I saw this:

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/09/largehadron.jpg



Yup, we're doomed.

Herr Trigger
10th Sep 2008, 14:34
So everyone was going on lately about how this LHC will be the end of us all, but I just wasn't convinced.


Until I saw this:

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/09/largehadron.jpg



Yup, we're doomed.


I didn't hear anything about that. Why do they think it will be the end of the world?

Also, in true Gordon Freeman fashion, that man is not doing ANY sort of work. He's leaning on the the machine. I have serious doubts about Mr. Freeman's credentials and have yet to see any results from him in the field of quantum physics .

imported_van_HellSing
10th Sep 2008, 14:41
It ranges from supposedly serious physicists ranting about how it could create a black hole and get us all sucked into the event horizon to crazies who think it's SATAN'S STARGATE (http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt1Yo610lG0&feature=related).

Herr Trigger
10th Sep 2008, 14:42
It ranges from supposedly serious physicists ranting about how it could create a black hole and get us all sucked into the event horizon to crazies who think it's SATAN'S STARGATE (http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt1Yo610lG0&feature=related).

Ah, well everyone needs a little spice in life.

jordan_a
10th Sep 2008, 14:43
Interesting.

By the way I think it's time to have a thread about all the newest technologies and advances since we already have four or five of them.

JerichoMccoy
10th Sep 2008, 15:07
So everyone was going on lately about how this LHC will be the end of us all, but I just wasn't convinced.


Until I saw this:

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/09/largehadron.jpg



Yup, we're doomed.

"Great job, Gordon! Throwing that switch and all, I can see your MIT education really pays for itself. "

foxberg
10th Sep 2008, 17:47
It ranges from supposedly serious physicists ranting about how it could create a black hole and get us all sucked into the event horizon to crazies who think it's SATAN'S STARGATE (http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt1Yo610lG0&feature=related).

Yes! Doom is finally becoming a reality! Has anyone heard yet about Union Aerospace Corporation being formed?

K^2
10th Sep 2008, 17:53
Well, there is a tiny chance that a network of collapsing black holes can be used for super-luminous communication. (Tunneling, etc.) So while I don't think LHC will be directly destructive, nor do I think it will open any sort of a gateway, maybe, just maybe, it will start causing static in some interstellar cable, and someone will send Vogon Constructor Fleet to "fix" the problem.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
11th Sep 2008, 00:30
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/09/largehadron.jpg


LMAO, well-spotted, the likeness is uncanny! :eek:

:D

minus0ne
11th Sep 2008, 06:42
ROFLMAO, and he's far from the only scientist at CERN to have a likeness to Gordon Freeman :D

In fact some blog sent the scientists over at CERN a crowbar (http://blog.reddit.com/2008/09/crowbar-headcrab-and-half-life-strategy.html) to protect themselves from the extra-dimensional onslaught that might ensue :p

That MSNBC link is hardly the way to go about getting information about the LHC though, the BBC website is much more informative. Also make sure to see:

Horizon: The Six Billion Dollar Experiment
Lost Horizons: The Big Bang
The Big Bang Machine
(all three widely available across the web)

Also, in the "Where do you want to go in DX3?" (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=73575)-thread me and some others suggested the LHC would be a great location for DX3 to cover.

ewanlaing
11th Sep 2008, 08:18
I wish I could be the scientist to throw the switch on that machine.

"HAHAHAHAHA! YOU'RE PLANET IS DOOMED!" *cue lightning*

minus0ne
12th Sep 2008, 01:41
I wish I could be the scientist to throw the switch on that machine.

"HAHAHAHAHA! YOU'RE PLANET IS DOOMED!" *cue lightning*
As the CERN scientists have been trying to tell stubborn journalists for years now, there's no such switch :p

Romeo
12th Sep 2008, 01:57
Sorry to disrupt your little Morgan Freeman chat, but I found an emerging technology that sounds like something MJ12 could be interested in: http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=O-j7n0AnIGM&feature=related

JerichoMccoy
12th Sep 2008, 03:41
...Holy Athena's nips.

Remember this: Anything that is released to the public is like ten or twenty years behind of what the government really has going on...

But since he's not Government, I think that's awesome!

And I guess those security bots will not be so far behind either...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4suDII5_50

imported_van_HellSing
12th Sep 2008, 05:05
http://i35.tinypic.com/256fu4g.jpg

DXeXodus
12th Sep 2008, 05:33
^^ Haha! :lol:
Nice find

Romeo
12th Sep 2008, 06:11
...Holy Athena's nips.

Remember this: Anything that is released to the public is like ten or twenty years behind of what the government really has going on...

But since he's not Government, I think that's awesome!

And I guess those security bots will not be so far behind either...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4suDII5_50
Dude, that is severely awesome.

JerichoMccoy
12th Sep 2008, 15:09
Dude, that is severely awesome.

If you can imagine it, it can happen...

So Imagine... METAL GEARS... :cool:

K^2
12th Sep 2008, 16:02
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/09/largehadron.jpg
http://i35.tinypic.com/256fu4g.jpg
That's it. I'm going to the hardware store to get a crowbar.

Romeo
12th Sep 2008, 19:29
I'm going to the hardware store because they always have good hotdogs just outside, you ever notice that?

El_Bel
13th Sep 2008, 10:16
A greek hacker team hacked the CERN network, and they said its security was design by a bunch of school kids :0 No damage done though.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/09/12/scicern312.xml


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1540/screeynshot2yy6.png

JerichoMccoy
13th Sep 2008, 15:23
A greek hacker team hacked the CERN network, and they said its security was design by a bunch of school kids :0 No damage done though.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/09/12/scicern312.xml


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1540/screeynshot2yy6.png

Well call me a Kitty Washer, ain't that something?

Not all hackers are bad, just making sure an experiment does not replicate a "resonance cascade"... whatever that is.

ewanlaing
13th Sep 2008, 23:57
As the CERN scientists have been trying to tell stubborn journalists for years now, there's no such switch :p
Yeah, but they're the same scientists who made a RAP VIDEO on youtube to explain the machine to the public.

We're all gonnna die.

minus0ne
14th Sep 2008, 04:09
Yeah, but they're the same scientists who made a RAP VIDEO on youtube to explain the machine to the public.

We're all gonnna die.
Oh admit it, that "rap" video was severely awesome, and I do mean severely :D


Well call me a Kitty Washer, ain't that something?

Not all hackers are bad, just making sure an experiment does not replicate a "resonance cascade"... whatever that is.
Kitty Washer.

Actually I'd argue that they're probably just a bunch of frustrated g(r)eeks who were craving attention. Also, it wasn't much of a feat to hack the website (not the actual systems) of the ATLAS. I'll bet you there isn't one single website related to scientific research that can't be relatively easily hacked, as the scientists simply aren't that preoccupied with the state of their research department's website.

Oh well, when the last collider was activated for the first time, someone put two empty beer bottles inside the actual ring, I guess this is at least a somewhat less harmful act of sabotage.

As for them claiming they did to show how poorly protected the website was, I'd say go pick on NASA instead, leaving the poor astronauts out there in the ISS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7612790.stm) due to systematic poor decision making. Oh no wait, then they'd get extradited to the US and sent to Gitmo, or some such :p

JerichoMccoy
16th Sep 2008, 02:00
As for them claiming they did to show how poorly protected the website was, I'd say go pick on NASA instead, leaving the poor astronauts out there in the ISS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7612790.stm) due to systematic poor decision making. Oh no wait, then they'd get extradited to the US and sent to Gitmo, or some such :p

:mad2:

No words to express my anger to that. Damnit, this is one of the many reasons why wars do humanity no good.

Instead, we'll be creating these THINGS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww) and give them sophisticated A.I. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRZ5Lj1InBQ).

Soon, we'll be over run with machines and we'll have no where to run because of these... nice, courteous, honorable, and hard-working individuals in the U.S. Government.

K^2
17th Sep 2008, 03:38
No words to express my anger to that. Damnit, this is one of the many reasons why wars do humanity no good.
May I remind you that if it wasn't for wars, we wouldn't have space programs at all. Soviets built Vostok to demonstrate capability of delivering nuclear warheads via ICBM. US spent its billions on Mercury, and subsequently Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle, so as not to fall behind.

The development of powerful computers, of course, was originally used for computing artillery tables, and later to program the ICBMs. So that ties nicely into the arms race as well.

And of course, both US and Soviet rocket propulsion programs were based on German V2 technology used to rain bombs on London during the WWII. WWII also had a rise of jet propulsion and rotor flight. Concepts for all 3 existed since WWI, at least, and with virtually no development until WWII, when suddenly, in just a little over 5 years, we got transonic flight, ballistic missiles, and many other things that were thought to be impossible in the late 30's.

Speaking of aircrafts. Until WWI, the aviation was a hobby, partially sponsored by military because they wanted planes for reconnaissance. During WWI, these slow, delicate machines built of cloth have transformed into what very nearly resembles a modern prop plane. Besides which, the auto industry got a very big boost. Tanks and planes required light but powerful engines, and again, WWI had saw more progress on that than decades prior to it.

Just about any piece of technology you use today has military roots. Even small silly things. Did you know that you have wars to thank for the safe razor and M&Ms?

The problem of space program today is not that military hogs the money. It is that military needs have changed. There are no serious nuclear threats. Beyond that, US only cares about GPS satellites, and these are out of harms way as well. The needs are now for AI and remote controlled systems. That's where military budget is flowing. I find that short sighted, of course, but such are the economic and politic pressures right now. And maybe I'll feel better about it when I'll have a robot butler around.

Romeo
17th Sep 2008, 05:08
Yeah, and the Radio. Still, I'd be so much happier if we could advance beyond the point where we're only motivated to create technology to help kill ourselves with.


I cannot tell you what weapons will be used in world war three, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones.

minus0ne
17th Sep 2008, 05:39
May I remind you that if it wasn't for wars, we wouldn't have space programs at all. Soviets built Vostok to demonstrate capability of delivering nuclear warheads via ICBM. US spent its billions on Mercury, and subsequently Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle, so as not to fall behind.
It's true wars have driven technological progress for a long time, but that doesn't mean it always has to be that way. That, in my opinion, would be short-sighted. Ironically you're saying this in the thread about the LHC, which is, in fact, a uniquely big experiment entirely not driven by war or any kind of arms-race, but rather is motivated by curiosity and instigated in the spirit of cooperation.

imported_van_HellSing
17th Sep 2008, 10:17
It's true wars have driven technological progress for a long time, but that doesn't mean it always has to be that way. That, in my opinion, would be short-sighted. Ironically you're saying this in the thread about the LHC, which is, in fact, a uniquely big experiment entirely not driven by war or any kind of arms-race, but rather is motivated by curiosity and instigated in the spirit of cooperation.

That's what they're telling you. In reality, they want to destroy the Nihilanth and conquer Xen.

JerichoMccoy
17th Sep 2008, 11:29
That's what they're telling you. In reality, they want to destroy the Nihilanth and conquer Xen.

I like minus0ne's answer but to reply to Hellsing..

Only those involved would know that! YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!

(Gosh, I'm sorry. I just had to make it the proper "your/you're".)

K^2
17th Sep 2008, 16:26
That's what they're telling you. In reality, they want to destroy the Nihilanth and conquer Xen.
As a quantum physicist, I have to admit that if I wanted a trans-dimensional or even interstellar teleportation system, my first step would be building a colider big enough to make tiny black holes.

Still, I'd be so much happier if we could advance beyond the point where we're only motivated to create technology to help kill ourselves with.

It's true wars have driven technological progress for a long time, but that doesn't mean it always has to be that way.
I agree. And you have to admit that even the cold war was at least incrementally better. Yeah, we still ended up with a few smaller wars, like Korea and Vietnam, but there was no worldwide devastation like in WWII, and yet, the rate of technological progress was almost as good, lasting nearly 2 decades. No real war could do all that.

I do hope that eventually we manage to find a better way. Unfortunately, human nature is to relax when things are good, and relaxed people don't build space colonies. There needs to be a threat, or at least, a conviction that a threat exists.

gamer0004
17th Sep 2008, 18:22
or at least, a conviction that a threat exists.

Al Gore's already working on it.

Romeo
18th Sep 2008, 02:16
Yes, we will always find some reason to convince ourselves we need to act or die (Food shortage, global warming, overpopulation, ozone depletion, asteroid strikes, solar storms, lack of oils, etc...). We don't really need to apply more pressure to act. Remember, the more you push, the more someone else will push back.

JerichoMccoy
18th Sep 2008, 02:36
Hey Hey! This is about technological advances! Not philosophy!

I just showed you a robot-insect thing that can balance itself over any terrain... it looks like it came from Silent Hill!

Oh and Romeo, I understand about the edit. No worries about it, mate.

K^2
18th Sep 2008, 02:36
These things are good to scare the general population, but most of the people with top-level education, ones who actually drive progress, don't buy into most of that.

I don't buy into Global Warming. I know how small the odds of a major asteroid strike during my life time are. Oil worries me a little, but it's not the kind of thing that keeps me up at nights. Now, a war with China, that might get me motivated to stop wasting my time here, and compute that damn integral my boss needs to test a model. But since things are quiet, I'll probably leave it off 'till tomorrow. Or Friday. Friday sounds good.

Romeo
18th Sep 2008, 02:47
These things are good to scare the general population, but most of the people with top-level education, ones who actually drive progress, don't buy into most of that.

I don't buy into Global Warming. I know how small the odds of a major asteroid strike during my life time are. Oil worries me a little, but it's not the kind of thing that keeps me up at nights. Now, a war with China, that might get me motivated to stop wasting my time here, and compute that damn integral my boss needs to test a model. But since things are quiet, I'll probably leave it off 'till tomorrow. Or Friday. Friday sounds good.
Yeah, sorry Mccoy, I'm like OCD about that particular pair of words. lol

I do buy into global warming, what I don't buy into is that humans can stop it by abandoning fossil fuels, based upon the statistics I've seen. Oil does worry me, because a complete overhaul of the transportation system will cripple all the major countries on Earth. There is a war, if memory serves. But it should never be the motivation to do something great.

imported_van_HellSing
18th Sep 2008, 06:08
I like minus0ne's answer but to reply to Hellsing..

Only those involved would know that! YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!

(Gosh, I'm sorry. I just had to make it the proper "your/you're".)

So now that my secret is revealed, I have to kill you all.


And I'm going to enjoy it.

ThatDeadDude
18th Sep 2008, 10:06
So now that my secret is revealed, I have to kill you all.


And I'm going to enjoy it.

Good luck. From what I've read too many people have already stocked up on crowbars...

imported_van_HellSing
18th Sep 2008, 12:45
See? The previous poster is a dead dude already. Who's next?

Jerion
18th Sep 2008, 13:08
See? The previous poster is a dead dude already. Who's next?

Well I dunno about the rest of you lot, but I've decided to drive to Alaska and use Grif as bait when the crowbar-wielding zombies come knocking.

Romeo
18th Sep 2008, 15:03
But what happens when the 36 plans involve using Grif as bait don't work because he's already dead? Or the 37th still doesn't, because you planned on letting yourself getting infected so you could devour him?

Myself, I plan on hiding up in my attic, I have two weeks of food up there. Then I pull up the ladder with me.

(For those who are confused as hell, please observe the following: http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Nddzf7kzjhI )

Mindmute
18th Sep 2008, 21:46
(For those who are confused as hell, please observe the following: http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Nddzf7kzjhI )

I was going to, but your avatar says you like universal ammo... Because of that I won't watch and I'm staying confused! Hah!

Romeo
19th Sep 2008, 04:12
You're loss. It's hilarious. And educational. =P

Romeo
20th Sep 2008, 06:06
While BullPup technology is nothing new (it's been around since the 1940's) it's what this gun fires that I find interesting.

Jerion
20th Sep 2008, 08:54
While BullPup technology is nothing new (it's been around since the 1940's) it's what this gun fires that I find interesting.

Exactly. I don't know about you, but that seems like damn effective ammo to me.

minus0ne
20th Sep 2008, 09:47
Well I dunno about the rest of you lot, but I've decided to drive to Alaska and use Grif as bait when the crowbar-wielding zombies come knocking.
Zombies can't wield crowbars! That's what separates them from us, you see. Also, they don't knock, they just swarm in ever growing numbers and thump and claw their way into what we thought were zombie-proof attic panic rooms :D

Romeo
20th Sep 2008, 20:01
They could weild crowbars if they were from Half-Life 2. Besides, whether they weild them or not, you can still use Grif as bait in 36 out of 37 zombie survival plans.

imported_van_HellSing
20th Sep 2008, 20:36
They could weild crowbars if they were from Half-Life 2.

Pics or it didn't happen. And I'm not talking about gmod.

JerichoMccoy
20th Sep 2008, 23:11
Pics or it didn't happen. And I'm not talking about gmod.

Click here for your proof. (http://pub32.bravenet.com/photocenter/remote/2724789253/C186E89051.jpg)

Behind the gas attendant guy, you can see the zombie wielding something like a crowbar, or a tool of some sort.

Of coarse, seeing the Zombie Gas Attendant with that drill will sort of make any thought of zombies not being able to be resourceful mute.

Enjoy your afterlife.

Romeo
21st Sep 2008, 05:35
Hahaha, SCORE.

Larington
21st Sep 2008, 08:14
In addition to having standard crowd control weapons (Shotguns, maybe a few grenades) I'd make sure that I have some form of silenced weapon, the reasoning being that loud noises are sure to attract more zombies which creates an ammo scarcity issue.

The other part is to go for the standard attic panic room plan and acquire some form of extendable ladder with which I can (in conjunction with a some form of tool for bashing in roofs) access neighbouring abandoned houses in order to get any food that keeps for a while.


I've also considered the 'remote walled hide-away' idea, but there are risks, having people who are green fingered (In a gardening way, not decompositional) and various animals to live by (With the potential concern the noises of said animals could cause issues) and then you've got the difficulty of finding a suitably walled & secured location from which to base yourself in the first place. But if money isn't a problem, I suppose you could build the place in advance and use it as a getaway retreat during non-zombie time.

imported_van_HellSing
21st Sep 2008, 08:38
Click here for your proof. (http://pub32.bravenet.com/photocenter/remote/2724789253/C186E89051.jpg)

Behind the gas attendant guy, you can see the zombie wielding something like a crowbar, or a tool of some sort.

Of coarse, seeing the Zombie Gas Attendant with that drill will sort of make any thought of zombies not being able to be resourceful mute.

Enjoy your afterlife.

I was specifically asking for proof of crowbar-wielding zombies in Half-Life 2

That's not Half-Life 2, is it?

ThatDeadDude
21st Sep 2008, 16:28
I say live on an island in the middle of a lava lake. So long as it's one that is big enough to set up a greenhouse or something (I mention greenhouse to avoid the complications of toxic fumes) you'd be sorted. Zombies can probably walk across lake beds, but I'm pretty sure they can't walk through lava :D

Of course, this does raise the question of how many large lava lakes there are, but hey, in times of crisis I'm sure we can build large drills.

Jerion
21st Sep 2008, 19:19
I was specifically asking for proof of crowbar-wielding zombies in Half-Life 2

That's not Half-Life 2, is it?

If it is then Half-Life 2 wen through some serious graphics improvements. :nut:

JerichoMccoy
21st Sep 2008, 23:16
I was specifically asking for proof of crowbar-wielding zombies in Half-Life 2

That's not Half-Life 2, is it?

Your right it is not...
But while your searching for Crowbar wielding zombies in your computer, they are out there, in this world, looking for your flesh.

Good thing I showed you what they are capable of. You'll thank me later.

Now back to the Technological Advancements!

imported_van_HellSing
21st Sep 2008, 23:25
So about zombies and technological advancement, one of my favourite books is Czarne Oceany ("Black Oceans") by Jacek Dukaj (if someone doesn't translate Dukaj's books into English, I swear I'll do it myself, at least Czarne Oceany).

In the last third of the book, the protagonist gets his hands on a top-secret mind-control weapon, which he uses on a crowd of basically brain-dead people in an apocalyptic New York (long story) and turns them into his own makeshift zombie army, a futuristic necromancer.

Romeo
22nd Sep 2008, 01:23
One of my favorite books is the Zombie Survival Guide, or World War Z (which stands for World War Zombie). Both are by the same auther, pretty hilarious reads too.

But on topic... I'm sorry, I really haven't heard anything new to contribute, but really, those are two pretty good books.

JerichoMccoy
22nd Sep 2008, 02:02
Click here for EMP Segment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48lsiZR9TZs)

I didn't want this to become a YouTube thread, but since this looked intriguing, I just had to take it up.

Has anyone heard if they put that sort of technology in a grenade format? :cool:

But is America really that vulnerable to an EMP blast? Or at least, is that America's greatest weakness?

Romeo
22nd Sep 2008, 02:41
Yeah, that was brought y=up already, and yes, it can be made into a grenade format. In fact, there's do-it-yourself tips online involving a battery and a disposable camera, among other things.

K^2
22nd Sep 2008, 05:46
The "EMP" device from a camera will only take out RFID tags. It might also damage some CMOS chips, if you place an antenna right over the plastic covering. Any amount of metal will shield from such "EMP" generator.

There are only two known ways to build good EMP devices. First, for portable EMP, what you need is a klystron tube and a very powerful generator. Pretty much, you are limited to MHD Generator for the later. If you direct it well, it will have a range of a few meters.

Second, of course, is a nuclear bomb specifically designed to generate maximum EMP blast. These can be pretty small, but not exactly portable. For good effect, just like that video explains, it needs to be detonated pretty high above ground. That way, it does very little in terms of destruction, and a lot in terms of EMP damage.

We are still very far away from anything like an EMP grenade.

Romeo
23rd Sep 2008, 18:08
Bah, at the moment. Humans always find new and intriguing ways of killing ourselves. I say, wait five years. If we can make ourselves invisible, EMP technology can't be too far off.

JerichoMccoy
24th Sep 2008, 00:52
Bah, at the moment. Humans always find new and intriguing ways of killing ourselves. I say, wait five years. If we can make ourselves invisible, EMP technology can't be too far off.

Invisibility Report from NBC News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0-kUEiLWPU&feature=related)

...You know, all this talk about technology is really giving me ideas to work on with my own video thingy...

But what about alternate fuel sources? Sure, Wind and Solar are fun, but what about Water? Or Corn Starch? <Shrugs>

minus0ne
24th Sep 2008, 04:31
Japan set to build space elevator (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4799369.ece)

;) Now let's not fight and bicker over whether or not it should be included in the game, since we can now scrap the argument that it's not realistically going to be there by the time DX3 takes place.

Romeo
24th Sep 2008, 04:54
Invisibility Report from NBC News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0-kUEiLWPU&feature=related)

...You know, all this talk about technology is really giving me ideas to work on with my own video thingy...

But what about alternate fuel sources? Sure, Wind and Solar are fun, but what about Water? Or Corn Starch? <Shrugs>
We're currently finding a way to get algae to provide an ample source of fuel. That's sorta like using water (which I've also heard has been done as well). No idea on the corn starch though.

Japan set to build space elevator (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4799369.ece)

;) Now let's not fight and bicker over whether or not it should be included in the game, since we can now scrap the argument that it's not realistically going to be there by the time DX3 takes place.
I personally think it would be cool. But it seemed like much of the community was against the idea.

minus0ne
24th Sep 2008, 05:38
We're currently finding a way to get algae to provide an ample source of fuel. That's sorta like using water (which I've also heard has been done as well). No idea on the corn starch though.
Actually there are numerous different applications for algae with regards to energy production (some produce biofuels or hydrogen gas when exposed to sunlight for instance). I don't see us putting actual water in our tanks, EVER, though. Water is just too precious to use as a fuel even if we could distill our own hydrogen gas from for example solar or wind energy.

http://www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html

I personally think it would be cool. But it seemed like much of the community was against the idea.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. I think most oppose the idea of extensive 'StarTrekification', but personally I think it should certainly be possible to have at least one space based level, if done carefully and not gratuitously.

The beauty of the space elevator here is that it's essentially still an Earth-based structure :p Albeit a very, very tall one. Just keep in mind it's only a few kilometers higher than a Blade Runner-esque cyberpunk skyscraper :D

JerichoMccoy
24th Sep 2008, 11:17
The beauty of the space elevator here is that it's essentially still an Earth-based structure :p Albeit a very, very tall one. Just keep in mind it's only a few kilometers higher than a Blade Runner-esque cyberpunk skyscraper :D

So I guess the Towers from UT are not going to happen?

http://ut.orda.dk/stats/images/maps/dm-morpheus.jpg

K^2
24th Sep 2008, 20:12
I don't see us putting actual water in our tanks, EVER, though. Water is just too precious to use as a fuel even if we could distill our own hydrogen gas from for example solar or wind energy.
First of all, if you produce hydrogen from water and use hydrogen for fuel, you don't actually use up water. It is released back into atmosphere the moment you start burning hydrogen.

Secondly, if we ever put actual water into our tanks, it will be for hydrogen fusion. Likelihood of that can be discussed separately. Seeing how hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, I don't see how it would be classified as "precious resource".

Romeo
24th Sep 2008, 22:11
Actually there are numerous different applications for algae with regards to energy production (some produce biofuels or hydrogen gas when exposed to sunlight for instance). I don't see us putting actual water in our tanks, EVER, though. Water is just too precious to use as a fuel even if we could distill our own hydrogen gas from for example solar or wind energy.

http://www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html

I'm not sure that's entirely true. I think most oppose the idea of extensive 'StarTrekification', but personally I think it should certainly be possible to have at least one space based level, if done carefully and not gratuitously.

The beauty of the space elevator here is that it's essentially still an Earth-based structure :p Albeit a very, very tall one. Just keep in mind it's only a few kilometers higher than a Blade Runner-esque cyberpunk skyscraper :D
Yeah, the algae I had been hearing had been as a replacement for ethanol. And there is a water powered vehicle, I read it in Popular Mechanics.

First of all, if you produce hydrogen from water and use hydrogen for fuel, you don't actually use up water. It is released back into atmosphere the moment you start burning hydrogen.

Secondly, if we ever put actual water into our tanks, it will be for hydrogen fusion. Likelihood of that can be discussed separately. Seeing how hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, I don't see how it would be classified as "precious resource".
Yeah, if memory serves, that is indeed how it used it's water.

minus0ne
25th Sep 2008, 02:06
First of all, if you produce hydrogen from water and use hydrogen for fuel, you don't actually use up water. It is released back into atmosphere the moment you start burning hydrogen.
Obviously, yes. But to produce hydrogen gas you must first produce it from fresh water by electrolyses, as getting it from seawater is much more difficult and would involve an electrochemical process. The point being you don't want to replace all the world's fuel by all the world's drinkable water until that problem is solved.

Secondly, if we ever put actual water into our tanks, it will be for hydrogen fusion. Likelihood of that can be discussed separately.
Actually that was my point in the previous post. Or we could put hydrogen gas in, but we've not yet reached a point where the car itself can turn the water into hydrogen gas for use in a fuel cell (perhaps when solar cell efficiency gets at an advanced point we could talk). For that matter, fuel cells still cost more than a 10-bedroom house so there's that problem too.

Seeing how hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, I don't see how it would be classified as "precious resource".
Fresh water is a precious resource ;) You know, here on Earth.

K^2
25th Sep 2008, 06:38
You don't need fresh water for electrolysis. In fact, it works much better with highly ionized water. Sea water would work great. You'd have to filter it, of course, and get rid of salt deposits every once in a while, but if anything, it simplifies the process.

Solar power peaks at 1kW per m^2. That is a little over 1HP. Area of a typical car is about 6m^2. So with 100% efficient solar panels (which are physically impossible), 100% efficient electrolysis (impossible) 100% efficient solar cells (impossible) 100% efficient motors (yep, you guessed it) and a perfect sunny day (possible, but not that common) you are still going to get less than 10HP.

But of course, the suggestion is silly in the first place. To get hydrogen gas from water, you need electricity. Hydrogen cell produces electricity. So why the heck would you waste all that energy to get electricity back in the end? Just run whatever electric source you got straight to motors.

And as for your final comment, by the time we'll be using thermonuclear power, and a flask of water won't be enough fuel to last you a few years, the "Here on Earth" won't be a question anymore. A gallon of water can get you to the Moon and back if you can harvest the H-synthesis energy with even 10% efficiency.

imported_van_HellSing
25th Sep 2008, 06:49
So I mentioned "Czarne Oceany" here a'propos zombies, but there are a lot of other insane ideas in the book. Take for instance the "efes" - the futuroscope. It's a chemical substance allowing the user to see the future, and multiple versions of it. The most probable futures are clear, the less probable are harder to see. The range is also limited, and depending on one's potential - one pill of efes usually allows the user to see a few minutes into the future. However, there's an unexpected side effect: the user sometimes not only sees his possible futures, but his possible pasts! Consider the implications. I'll just say that some of the novel revolves around the uncertainty principle and the Schrödinger's cat paradox.

How something like this could figure into a DX game, I have no idea. But it's awesome.

K^2
25th Sep 2008, 08:21
Quantum Mechanics directly implies existence of multiple futures and pasts. In fact, the entire history is a network of infinite number intersecting timelines. And yes, nothing strictly forbids looking into the futures. Multiple timelines prevent any paradoxes associated with that. Also, the more likely future will be easier to observe, but the fact of observation changes the odds, limiting the actual usefulness of such operation.

Note: There is no way to "Change" the future. Under QM, the set of all possible futures, pasts, and present states is pre-defined. All you can do is "chose" one of the alternatives. Of course, that choice, in itself, is in its root probabilistic, but there is no difference, mathematically, between that and true "free will" choice. Hence the ability to make choices in a fully pre-determined system.

El_Bel
25th Sep 2008, 10:15
Oh i love determinism :D

What about this. MIT have combined a liquid catalyst with photovoltaic cells to achieve a super efficient (nearly 100%) electrolysis.

This becomes a very effective storage system. One obvious extension of this would be the cost-effective storage of daytime solar energy for night-time use. Excess capacity during the day could be stored as hydrogen and oxygen, then used in fuel cells at night when needed.

"Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon." -- Daniel Nocera

K^2 can you check it out and give me an opinion? I am quite interested in going of the grid and this sounds pretty cool! Nearly 80-100% efficiency in storage!!

gamer0004
25th Sep 2008, 14:24
You don't need fresh water for electrolysis. In fact, it works much better with highly ionized water. Sea water would work great. You'd have to filter it, of course, and get rid of salt deposits every once in a while, but if anything, it simplifies the process.


And here we have the solution for the rising sea levels so us Dutchies can survive too :D

K^2
25th Sep 2008, 17:03
Oh i love determinism :D

What about this. MIT have combined a liquid catalyst with photovoltaic cells to achieve a super efficient (nearly 100%) electrolysis.

This becomes a very effective storage system. One obvious extension of this would be the cost-effective storage of daytime solar energy for night-time use. Excess capacity during the day could be stored as hydrogen and oxygen, then used in fuel cells at night when needed.

"Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon." -- Daniel Nocera

K^2 can you check it out and give me an opinion? I am quite interested in going of the grid and this sounds pretty cool! Nearly 80-100% efficiency in storage!!
There is a thermodynamic limit, but it might be pretty high. Sun light corresponds to roughly 6000K, while ambient temperature, one at which you'd have your panels at, is roughly 300K. So 1-300K/6000K should be the absolute limit here. That's 95%. So they might have gotten up to that. I'm not sure if there are other limiting factors.

Now, the biggest problem I see is the fact that a) Hydrogen has very low density, so you'll need big storage tanks, and b) it is ridiculously flammable. I talked to a guy who was selling diesel backup generators. His number one argument over gasoline was flammability. For almost everyone that was a deciding factor: do we live by a big tank of volatile gasoline or relatively safe diesel. Hydrogen gas can be ignited by the kinds of things that would be perfectly safe around a tank full of gasoline fumes.

I'll have to take a look at some article on the matter before I can say anything else.

minus0ne
25th Sep 2008, 17:19
You don't need fresh water for electrolysis. In fact, it works much better with highly ionized water. Sea water would work great. You'd have to filter it, of course, and get rid of salt deposits every once in a while, but if anything, it simplifies the process.
I guess the BBC was wrong on that point then, I stand corrected.

Solar power peaks at 1kW per m^2. That is a little over 1HP. Area of a typical car is about 6m^2. So with 100% efficient solar panels (which are physically impossible), 100% efficient electrolysis (impossible) 100% efficient solar cells (impossible) 100% efficient motors (yep, you guessed it) and a perfect sunny day (possible, but not that common) you are still going to get less than 10HP.
I wasn't referring to solar power directly powering the engine, but rather collecting energy for electrolyses in the car itself, which was what my hypothetical was about. Theoretically, if you could outfit a lightweight vehicle with that (which would seem problematic), it'd be more than enough power for occasional drivers. And again, I was arguing against the likelihood of that happening, anytime soon, or ever.

But of course, the suggestion is silly in the first place. To get hydrogen gas from water, you need electricity. Hydrogen cell produces electricity. So why the heck would you waste all that energy to get electricity back in the end? Just run whatever electric source you got straight to motors.
Exactly. We've got the battery technology, but all there's is to buy for consumers in the US is a Chevy Volt which has just enough batteries for 60km, or half that of the electric car they built over a decade ago (the EV1). Progress, in reverse! :p

And as for your final comment, by the time we'll be using thermonuclear power, and a flask of water won't be enough fuel to last you a few years, the "Here on Earth" won't be a question anymore. A gallon of water can get you to the Moon and back if you can harvest the H-synthesis energy with even 10% efficiency.
See, what I hate about statements like that is the "by the time" part ;) I was talking about the now. My parents' generation was promised a future of jetpacks and trips to Mars, I'm not going to be fooled until I actually set foot on another heavenly body! At which point I'll pinch myself and jump a football field's length into the sky, local gravity and conditions permitting :D

Speaking of, by the time trips to the Moon and back become routine, I seriously doubt mankind will be able to resist all that delicious Helium-3 just sitting there on the Moon, not being used for nuclear fusion :p

Romeo
26th Sep 2008, 03:44
Chevy Volt is actually 60 miles, not 60 kilometres. And that's because they ran studies from over 200 cities in America, and found that people typically commute less 60 miles per day, so the car would be perfect for them.

minus0ne
26th Sep 2008, 04:24
Chevy Volt is actually 60 miles, not 60 kilometres. And that's because they ran studies from over 200 cities in America, and found that people typically commute less 60 miles per day, so the car would be perfect for them.
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=2&docid=48589


The Volt uses electricity to move the wheels at all times and speeds. For trips up to 40 miles, the Volt is powered only by electricity stored in its 16-kWh, lithium-ion battery. When the battery's energy is depleted, a gasoline/E85-powered engine generator seamlessly provides electricity to power the Volt's electric drive unit while simultaneously sustaining the charge of the battery. This mode of operation extends the range of the Volt for several hundred additional miles, until the vehicle's battery can be charged. Unlike a conventional battery-electric vehicle, the Volt eliminates "range anxiety," giving the confidence and peace of mind that the driver will not be stranded by a depleted battery.

Or just below what Americans commute on average daily :p And, again, half the range of the EV1, an electric vehicle over a decade old (battery technology has improved in the meantime). But I'm sure GM did its absolute best to make this as efficient as possible :rolleyes:

Romeo
26th Sep 2008, 04:53
Well, that's interesting, the vice-chair of Chevy said it was 60 miles in the interveiw, which is where I also got the stat about the 60 mile commute. Must have been an honest mistake on his behalf.

minus0ne
26th Sep 2008, 06:05
Well, that's interesting, the vice-chair of Chevy said it was 60 miles in the interveiw, which is where I also got the stat about the 60 mile commute. Must have been an honest mistake on his behalf.
If you're talking about The Colbert Report, I remember him saying that (which is when I looked up the Volt). I also remember him saying buying that car would get you lots of environmental tree-hugging hippie chicks (which was somewhat funny, although creepily I don't think he was joking there) and generally just saying a load of crap and doing his best not to promote the car. Hearing him speak it's suddenly not so much of a mystery why GM is doing so horrible.

Yes.... an 'honest' mistake, indeed ;)

Romeo
26th Sep 2008, 07:03
I JUST FINISHED WATCHING THAT!

And well GM isn't doing too spectacular, neither are essentially all of the NA and Europeen companies right now. Besides, GM is doing poorly, but Chevy and Pontiac are once again keeping them afloat, being the only two brands seeing a profit.

JerichoMccoy
26th Sep 2008, 15:40
Underwater Hotel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUbkQyZrpl4)

So... maybe we already have the technology to recreate that Underwater Base from DX now eh?

Fen
26th Sep 2008, 16:54
Underwater Hotel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUbkQyZrpl4)

So... maybe we already have the technology to recreate that Underwater Base from DX now eh?

Lol, weve had the technology for quite a while. Theres not many good reasons to spend huge amounts of money building an underwater building however. Novelty value seems to be worth it for that hotel.

K^2
26th Sep 2008, 19:53
Indeed. A nuclear sub is essentially a huge building with missile silos that can stay for a year underwater. Having something mounted to the sea bed would only make things easier.

By the way, note that the DX base would have had to be built at depths not exceeding depths you can reach with a scuba tank on nitrogen-based mixture. That is because the pressure of atmosphere inside the base was keeping the water out. That's the same pressure that would be fed to you by the scuba gear at that depth. At higher depths, nitrogen mixture becomes toxic, so helium mixture is needed. Again, note the lack of high-pitched noises in the DX base, implying a nitrogen-based mixture being used. And this implies that the DX base was located at most about 50 meters bellow the surface. And that's assuming an oxygen-rich mixture.

Note that the internal and external pressures in the above are equal. That would mean no crush depth. So the entire base could be built out of pretty much any materials that would be water-proof and air-tight. No structural strength beyond supporting the weight of the structure is needed.

imported_van_HellSing
26th Sep 2008, 20:48
HAHAHA, K^2, you own :D

However, you have to take into account that the developers might no have been as... thorough in their research as you. I mean, have you seen that analysis that proves Jock's helicopter is supersonic? :rasp:

Romeo
26th Sep 2008, 20:53
Lol, weve had the technology for quite a while. Theres not many good reasons to spend huge amounts of money building an underwater building however. Novelty value seems to be worth it for that hotel.
Well, sixty-some-odd percent of Earth's surface is water, so once we've exploited as much surface as we can while still sustaining ourselves, logically, extraplanetary colonization, building up (skyscrapers), building down (such as Bill Gates' Mansion) and building into water are the only alternatives, and the problem with building up, it that you still need vast amounts of land for farming to provide those masses with food. I remember writing about this for my International Baccalauriate final. lol

K^2
27th Sep 2008, 06:08
I mean, have you seen that analysis that proves Jock's helicopter is supersonic? :rasp:
No I haven't. If you have a link, I'd like to take a look at it.

But really, supersonic helicopter isn't a problem. Just like there are supersonic planes, you can build a rotor blade that works in supersonic regime. The problem is transonic helicopter, because invariably, one blade is moving supersonic, while the other remains subsonic. And of course, you can't get to supersonic speeds without passing through transonic ones on the way. But if you could solve the transonic problem, you might be able to build a supersonic helicopter.

There is also a problem with propulsion at supersonic speeds. Helicopter uses main rotor for that, and that simply won't work in the supersonic mode. But here the AirWolf solution, a jet engine-propelled helicopter, would work just fine.

Romeo
27th Sep 2008, 06:15
Yes, I was just about to ask if it would be possible with a heli-jet. Or what about those VTOLs with the large moving rotors (often seen in scifi, although the USMC use one as well). Could that thing theoretically achieve Mach1+ speeds?

K^2
27th Sep 2008, 20:09
I don't think so. You really ought to have a turbine to get to Mach 1+. Though, I'm not the best person to ask. I have had some hydrodynamics, so I have a descent understanding of how things work on subsonic speeds, but my understanding of how even a simple wing works at supersonic speeds is rather rudimentary.

As you might know, after the aerodynamics of the wing has been understood and lift formula derived, there have been doubts as to whether a wing can even operate at supersonic speeds. Because it certainly cannot produce lift the same way it does at subsonic speeds. And in transonic regions it has real problems with air flow being subsonic in some places and supersonic in others. In fact, the first Soviet rocket-plane, built near the end of WWII, has crashed because its control surfaces stopped working near the speed of sound.

Now, of course, the aerospace engineers know how to get around these things. And one of the people who works in that area might give you much better answers as to whether a tilt-rotor like the USMC's V-22 can even theoretically cross the sound barrier.

Personally, the way I'd go around it is thus. The V-22 is already built with collapsible rotor blades for compact storage on a carrier. Furthermore, its two engines are linked turboprops. If you disengage the gearbox, a turboprop can become a turbojet. So get up to a good speed, then go into a dive, disengage props, close them up, and switch over to turbojet. Finally, recover the altitude lost in a dive. Of course, it still probably wouldn't go supersonic with the wings it has. You'd probably have to build these with variable geometry. And I'm sure there'd be other problems that would require billions of dollars worth of research to fix. But from my limited perspective, I still see it as the best way to build an efficient VTOL supersonic transport.

imported_van_HellSing
27th Sep 2008, 20:10
No I haven't. If you have a link, I'd like to take a look at it.

http://offtopicproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1193


when escaping Unatco HQ the Walton Simons/Manderly conversation says your kill switch has been on an hour, after escapeing jock says your switch is 12 hours old.

This means it took less then 11 hours to get too Hong Kong

Hong Kong and Liberity Island are roughly 8,050 miles apart, divided by 11 that means the Black Helicopter goes roughly 731 MPH.

K^2
28th Sep 2008, 01:01
Nifty. Thanks.

Abram730
8th Oct 2008, 15:42
It ranges from supposedly serious physicists ranting about how it could create a black hole and get us all sucked into the event horizon to crazies who think it's SATAN'S STARGATE (http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt1Yo610lG0&feature=related).

A mini black hole would collapse at the speed of light. It would take another particle flying in before that collapse thus exploding to keep it open and again it starts to collapse at the speed of light until a skin is formed and that takes a lot of mass to form a skin considering how little mater is actually in an atom. Even with the skin it falls apart in time. I don't even think our sun is big enough to feed a black hole. Promise you wont tell the unibomber I said that?lol


Here is some relevant tech to give an idea of the direction of research.

Laser-driven Nanomotor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDYr72fYloQ&NR=1

Self-assembly of a DNA-carbon nanotube hybrid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz9zFRkBk88

direction
Alternate architecture of nano brain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD8MjDny6PA

Nanotech Assembler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spr5PWiuRaY

Nanotechnology - Age of Convergence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf6EGvl7nJo

nano technology is a key technology in Deus Ex so looking at it should help in understanding it's applications in the future.

Seth Lloyd's Quantum Computer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUMXe9gh7c

Seth Lloyd-Programming the Universe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asjF1ZwgcZo

Quantum Computer "Running"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzFTXYJ2J1I

So quantum computers are here and will in time be able compute faster then a computer the size of the universe. It's not truly understood how atoms are in many places doing many things and all at the same time but you can still put that to work.

Romeo
8th Oct 2008, 15:57
That Quantam Computer is from my home-town (well, actually, my town's next door neighbor). Those guys are on track to becoming some of the richest men on Earth, from what our newspapers say.

PS, I love the way the one guy couldn't find it in NASA's database, so he knows it's not true. What a moron...

minus0ne
8th Oct 2008, 19:34
Now, the biggest problem I see is the fact that a) Hydrogen has very low density, so you'll need big storage tanks, and b) it is ridiculously flammable. I talked to a guy who was selling diesel backup generators. His number one argument over gasoline was flammability. For almost everyone that was a deciding factor: do we live by a big tank of volatile gasoline or relatively safe diesel. Hydrogen gas can be ignited by the kinds of things that would be perfectly safe around a tank full of gasoline fumes.

I'll have to take a look at some article on the matter before I can say anything else.
Coming back to this: That's far from the only problem with hydrogen - I recently caught an interesting episode of Tegenlicht (Backlight), an award winning Dutch investigative documentary programme, where it's stated storing energy in hydrogen is one of the dumbest ideas we're pursuing, as it's literally the most inefficient ways of processing energy in existence. It was stated there was a huge loss in the electrolyses process (lots of excess heat) and a further considerable loss in compression.

Basically, storing solar generated power in hydrogen for use in fuel cells means throwing away roughly three-quarters of the energy you captured, but I guess it makes for some good oil company PR and "Trust us!"-commercials :p

Abram730
13th Oct 2008, 08:55
That Quantam Computer is from my home-town (well, actually, my town's next door neighbor). Those guys are on track to becoming some of the richest men on Earth, from what our newspapers say.

PS, I love the way the one guy couldn't find it in NASA's database, so he knows it's not true. What a moron...

:lol: yes that like saying I went to ford's website and found no mention of this Chevy Volt you speak of. Ford is a car maker and if you were telling the truth about there being some invention at this so called Chevy, It would be on Fords website. This Chevy Volt thing smells so bad of a scam it's ridiculous.:lmao:
sceptic TXRebelOK gets -1 for logic on that one.
Some people :lol:

That would make a funny threatening email in game, unibomber style.

here is another one with some logic problems.
Quantum Entanglement Computers Can Not Work****
(proven with wooden blocks):lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLLtKG1tv5Y

I'd love to see his face if he reads that you can affect the path a photon took in the past by reading the what-path of a photon that its entangled with. (Que popping noise from his head)

an ingame argument about that experiment would funny or an email or note.

Or would it be murder if you shot a person with a tachyon gun? Tachyons travel back in time so the person would be dead before you shot them. So they were legally dead before you actually pulled the trigger. So how could it be murder?

Lazarus Ledd
13th Oct 2008, 14:20
So everyone was going on lately about how this LHC will be the end of us all, but I just wasn't convinced.


Until I saw this:

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/09/largehadron.jpg



Yup, we're doomed.


Read This if you didn't. I LOLED
http://blog.reddit.com/2008/09/crowbar-headcrab-and-half-life-strategy.html

JCD
16th Oct 2008, 19:54
I know we already have a big topic about augmentations, but this is something...shall I say - different.

We have seen the Exosceletons in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (worderful game btw). These things are...100% real. These robotic aids help people (soldiers mostly) to carry really heavy weights, perform impossible human tasks and as their technology progress....well...we can see Halo's MasterChief on a battlefield really soon.

See these videos here:

Video #1 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EdK2y3lphmE)

Video #2 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SFXEFPco8l8&feature=related)

Wonderful technology, eh?

So - what's the connection with DX3? DX3 takes place in 2027, when tech like this would be certainly used imo. I think this would make a nice addiction to the game, even if AJ won't use it (that's up to the dev team to decide I guess).

I can imagine exploring labs where these Exoskeletons will be tested, or fighting against "modified" enemies, etc.

Share your thoughts on this / Even if this doesn't finally make it to the game, I believe it's an interesting topic :) :)

minus0ne
16th Oct 2008, 20:21
Technological Advances topic:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=80061

I believe it was already mentioned (in fact with all the recent real exoskeletons being tested I think there are already half a dozen topics like this). If you want to see one in action go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IacquWZwCr4
(and skip to around 4:00 minutes)

JCD
16th Oct 2008, 20:28
Oh no, it never crossed my mind to make a quick search in the forums...

too tired I guess (much work today)

Thanks for the links, I will look into them. It's rather interesting, I really want to see it at some point/aspect in DX3 :) :) :cool:

Abram730
16th Oct 2008, 21:37
In dx3 it's part of your body as in a mechanical Augmentation.

El_Bel
19th Oct 2008, 22:31
Nanotech exists today though, so i want to see some nanotechnology advancements in DX3...

Check this out!! :0
http://news.cnet.com/Nanotech-golf-ball-delayed/2100-11395_3-5889525.html

K^2
20th Oct 2008, 02:21
El_Bel, there is a huge difference between nanomaterials and nanomachinery. We have had capability of making some nanomaterials for decades. The past decade has brought many improvements in that area. We have nanomaterials with a lot of different properties, making them stronger, more durable, less sticky, more sticky. Whatever you need.

But our highest achievement in nanomachines is two linked nano-gears on two carbon tubes that serve as axles. Archemedes has built machines on normal scale that are far more complex than what we are doing now with nanotech. And look how long it took until we started building something really serious as far as machinery goes. Nanorobotics is still a very, very distant future for us. We are having enough trouble with microrobotics right now.