Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tesla was nowhere near the super-popular super-scientist he is today when the Necrons were first created, as a faction, and it would have been impossible for GW to predict that he would become as he did when they did, so this is one thing that doesn't make me wonder how GW got caught off-guard by it. I'm not sure that *anyone* ever predicted that Tesla would ever be known by... anyone, really, in the 21st century.

And even still, he's just celebrated by hipsters who overblow his contributions.

Well, lets face it, everyone loves a good 'lost treasure' story, and tesla coils are visually very impressive.

And even still, he's just celebrated by hipsters who overblow his contributions.

A lot of anti-capitalists like a large section of his works, because they make public utilities available to the public, not a private energy-production company.

I had a discussion of this type with a brain box friend of mine not long ago, as I was thinking that Dreadnoughts might be possible with todays technology.

Apparently robotics are nowhere near good enough

All the moving parts would be feasible.

What we lack is the ability to hardwire the human nervous system into a machine. And/or the ability to make such a machine maintain its own balance.

 Grey Templar wrote:
All the moving parts would be feasible.

What we lack is the ability to hardwire the human nervous system into a machine. And/or the ability to make such a machine maintain its own balance.

I suspect it would be quite easy to do. It might even be as easy as making wire cables in mirror of nerves, and attaching them via the spinal cord. The main issue would be testing and approval.

Well just because you've hooked up a mirror of a nerve doesn't mean someone hooked up to it will be able to control it.

You're basically giving someone an appendage the human brain doesn't normally have.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well just because you've hooked up a mirror of a nerve doesn't mean someone hooked up to it will be able to control it.

You're basically giving someone an appendage the human brain doesn't normally have.

So you reconnect the ends of your fingers to interact with th large mechanical ones...nothing changes. Besides, I said maybe. Its unlikely to be as simple as wiring people up but I suspect it would be far easier to actually do than we might think.

People are also not factoring in the plethora of ethical issues accompanied with Dreadnaught technology. Generally speaking people don't like the ideas of their loved ones as monstrous robot death machines.

well Dreadnaughts have almost dead people in,now we cant even put them in a state like that and THEN conect them their nervoust system.
But older version had normal humans in so why not ? we just need a bit more neurosience

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
People are also not factoring in the plethora of ethical issues accompanied with Dreadnaught technology. Generally speaking people don't like the ideas of their loved ones as monstrous robot death machines.

pffttt... Speak for yourself!

But yeah, because of stupid hippies, testing that type of technology would be rather difficult to say the least. Personally I think if they did testing in animals first as pretty much any tech is required to do, and any human test subjects knew the potential dangers/damages before signing up and volunteered willingly, it might be possible to do said testing. Still, it might be difficult to get any actual volunteers. Then again, if one were able to do something that could allow a paraplegic/quadriplegic to move again, you might have those people willing to test it because of the possibility of moving again.

I definitely think that type of technology would warrant investigation though due to the potential benefits. Even if you're not making giant kickass robots [although any other application to me seems significantly less important than this], there are other ways you could utilize the technology to help people. If dreadnaughts ended up becoming possible, people could have in any life insurance policy or whatever that if they are severely injured, they wish to be interred in a dreadnaught. I know I would

I do think it'd be cool to make a functional set of power armor at least to the extent that it allows resistance to the same general elements such as toxic atmospheres, extreme heat/cold, that kinda stuff, and obviously protects against impact damage from incoming fire. While we may not have the technology to go all-out with neural integration or enhanced strength, it'd be the "first step" on the way. After all, the carriage was made before the car.

Dreadnought systems could allow paraplegics or indeed any human to manuever and lift heavy equipment with ease. Same with PA. PA could become highly specialised hazmat suits for soldiers working in quarantine zones. Not to mention the military implications.

Not only that, but it actually mean a price drop on GW products as IP cash rolls in.

Not only that, but it actually mean a price drop on GW products as IP cash rolls in.

Heinlein Estate holding on line one for you....

Trust me, for cybernetics research, all you have to do is ask for volunteers (and get an Ethical approval from the WHO).

You'll get hundreds of medical discharge ex-soldiers queueing out the door, not to mention the number of people with congenital physical disabilities, gathered amputees, and self-sacrificing Human Transcendentalists.

"I'd use my robotic hand for good"

I think at the level we're talking, its more "I'd use my robotic hand for normal".

It's from the IT crowd, I couldn't resist.

Ah. As with most pop culture references, it went straight over my head.

Well, it's not surprising, as it's hardly popular, or famous, but it is hilarious. It's an old UK "Channel 4" sitcom. It's one thing that I think everybody should check out. It's by the same guy who did Father Ted, and Black Books.

I know what the IT crowd is, I've just never watched it. ^^; I loathe sitcoms.

Most of them are pretty bad.

 lilgammer123 wrote:
We could do it but, its just not useful in todays warfare, scouts with cloaks will probably be more deadly in modern times. Remember that they use gentleman's warfare on a large scale in 40k. Power armor would be cool, but not useful, bolters are expensive, a leman russ tank would be good, gravity guns :/, but, I'd like to see how jump packs (how marines survive the drop) work and how gravity chutes work.

If you look at how technology is supposedly treated and not in fact understood, you could surmise that the "machine spirit" of the gun reacting badly is actually the fact that without the correct firing drill, the gun is likely to jam or kick back with sufficient force to break an arm. The placating of the machine spirit is in actuality the steps and processes to ensure the gun works and is braced properly.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"I'd use my robotic hand for good"

"I'd give my right arm for a cyber limb".....

 Psienesis wrote:

Not only that, but it actually mean a price drop on GW products as IP cash rolls in.

Heinlein Estate holding on line one for you....

heh yeah 40k doesn't have a claim to the orgin of power armor. that'd be Robert Heinlein,.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Not only that, but it actually mean a price drop on GW products as IP cash rolls in.

Heinlein Estate holding on line one for you....

heh yeah 40k doesn't have a claim to the orgin of power armor. that'd be Robert Heinlein,.

THE EMPRAH

BrianDavion wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Not only that, but it actually mean a price drop on GW products as IP cash rolls in.

Heinlein Estate holding on line one for you....

heh yeah 40k doesn't have a claim to the orgin of power armor. that'd be Robert Heinlein,.

The first powered exoskeleton was made in the 1890's by a Russian man and was powered by gas bags to passively assist movement. The first appearance in fiction was in the 1930's by Edward Elmer Smith.

Power Armor makes me think of Iron Man so much.

Gauss rifles for cron does not make sense as a guass rifle is a mini rail gun.

Laser guns need so much power to be deadly an many lenses to focus on a far away object.

Power weapons look like electrolyzed metal which is deadly to anything with a heart beat but does it do anything to hitting other objects thats not alive?

 Psienesis wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Quick note, FFG has hinted strongly slash outright confirmed that "machine spirits" (which is in fact a sort of primitive AI) does not exist in anything smaller than a Land Raider. Bolters are just that, bolters, not sacred vessels of a massive god of knowledge.

Uh, no? They specifically state that the war-spirit of an Astartes weapon becomes offended if a non-Astartes handles it, and will sometimes refuse to fire, gaining the Unreliable trait when wielded by a non-Astartes. A war-spirit is the Machine Spirit of an advanced, technological weapon.

Just because "the machine spirit becomes offended" does not mean it has an Artificial Intelligence. It could also be a signature reader of some kind which just prevents usage by simply locking the mechanism.
Even though many peoples phones are "smart" they are no AI either ...yet (thank god).

Bolt weapons: Very much possible. But as stated in this thread already, it'd be extremely overkill, and inefficient weapon in our current engagements.

Power Armour: Soon, but not quite. Suitable powersource is still to be invented.

Bionics: Possible, and in use. (Although not as sophisticated as in 40k 'verse.)

Rail-weapons (Magnetic accelerator weapons in general): Possible, but as with Power Armour, it lacks the efficient powersource. Also the rails lack efficient material. Currently limited to naval applications.

Anything more "primitive" we already have at our disposal, and anything more advanced is science fiction to us.

Edit:
Machine Spirit (any kind of AI in general): Research underway. Some primitive versions already exist.

MIU (Black Carapace/Human-Computer Interface in general): Very much true

A few musings on chain weaponry, which on the face of it is fairly ridiculous (if awesome!)

If the weapon weren't powered-up (i.e. moving), it's essentially got a blade with many small points of contact with the material being cut – and therefore applying more pressure at each point than a straight blade. In addition, the points of contact are at a sharper angle to the material being cut, resulting in an action that involves many small splits in the surface of the material being cut, which cumulatively serve to cut the material along the line of the blade.

That to me sounds like a more reliable way to deal with very thick armour than a straight blade, assuming you've got the raw strength behind it to force it in in the first place. So, assuming a marine on marine combat, a chainsword actually seems a better weapon than a combat blade; which, while very sharp, can become lodged in ceramite. If a chainsword gets stuck in your enemy's armour, you can quickly gun the blade to throw them off balance and free the blade.

In addition, the fracturing results of a chainsword blow might result in ceramite splintering (I think it's mentioned somewhere that ceramite armour chips like rock, rather than metal), which helps stop the blade getting stuck in the first place.

Finally, perhaps we accept that ceramite power armour is proof against things like blades and chainswords. In this case, you can aim to hit the opponent while in close, sending the spinning blades skittering across the plate armour towards vulnerable joints and cables. Basically; get it between you and the opponent and rely on your armour to protect you while you tear open vulnerable sections.

Not a perfect argument, I'm aware; but I see chainswords being used more like drills than like a traditional sword.