MAN OF IRON model...could it be

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.

**Delvarus Centurion**

Aelyn wrote:
Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Well when using the square cube law you don't assume that everything is a cube with the dimensions 2 by 2 by 2, which is what you's have all done. Saying that if you increase any objects dimensions by a multiple of 2 its not always going to be 8, just because the multiplayer is 2 doesn't mean the whole dimensions are 2, so it isn't going to automatically be 8. You's have all been saying that if you increase any object by a multiple of 2 its volume is going to be 8 times its original lol If you said it increases its volume cubed I'd agree, to say it increases its volume by 8 is just silly...

You would have said 'I was just trying to explain it simply' when I told you you were wrong, rather than saying I didn't know math because you were talking about a cube. If you said if you 'take a cube' then... but you didn't you thought everything goes up in 8 times the volume lol

Um.

You seem to be confused about the difference between a measurement - such as a ship being 7km long - and a multiplier - such one ship being twice as big as another.

We're only talking about multipliers here. If one ship is twice as long as another and is exactly the same shape just scaled up... then yeah, the bigger one has eight time the volume of the smaller one. That's because 8 is the third power of 2; the fact that 8 is called the cube of 2 doesn't mean we're talking about literal cube shapes necessarily.

It doesn't matter what shape you apply this to - spheres, cubes, cones, or a much more complicated design such as an Imperial starship, the relationship between how much each dimension increases and how much the volume increases is exactly the same.

By the same principle, if you scaled each dimension up by a factor of 3 while maintaining the same shape, the object would have 27 times the overall volume.

No its not, its x to the power of 3 bigger, not 8 times bigger. If its dimensions where 3 by 3 by 3 it isn't going to increase in volume by 8, by simple extrapolation we know you are talking about a cube that is 2 by 2 by 2. If the shape is increased cubed then it is the same as for all objects not matter the shape, it isn't increased 8 times like you are all saying and the shape 'dimensions' matter with the overall calculation, it will increase cubed, it won't be 8 though, what are you even talking about, seriously.

Its volume is increased by a factor of 3 yes but that's not what you were all saying, you were saying it was increased 8 times. I mean that isn't cubed, its just 'times by 8' Even in the case of the cube, its increased 2 cubed, which happens to be 8, its not increased by 8 in any way.

**Aelyn**

Delvarus Centurion wrote:

No its not, its x to the power of 3 bigger, not 8 times bigger. If its dimensions where 3 by 3 by 3 it isn't going to increase in volume by 8, by simple extrapolation we know you are talking about a cube that is 2 by 2 by 2. If the shape is increased cubed then it is the same as for all objects not matter the shape, it isn't increased 8 times like you are all saying and the shape 'dimensions' matter with the overall calculation, it will increase cubed, it won't be 8 though, what are you even talking about, seriously.

Its volume is increased by a factor of 3 yes but that's not what you were all saying, you were saying it was increased 8 times. I mean that isn't cubed, its just 'times by 8'

Again, we're not talking about 2 as a measurement, but a multiplicative factor.

Let's take another example, with specific measurements - a cylinder. Imagine, for the sake of example, that a ship is a cylinder with base radius 100m and length 1000m. The volume of a cylinder is pi*(r^2)*l, which in this case is equal to pi*(100^2)*1000 or (approximating pi as 3.14) 31,400,000 m^3. Now double each dimension, so it has base radius 200m and length 2000m, and the overall volume becomes pi*(200^2)*2000 or approximately 251,200,000 m^3.

The second ship, with each dimension doubled, has a total volume eight times that of the first - in other words, increasing each dimension by a factor of 2 has increased the total volume by a factor of 8.

Does this make sense to you? If not, what are you having trouble with? Rather than cluttering up this thread, I'm happy to take this to PM if you need help.

**Delvarus Centurion**

Aelyn wrote:
Delvarus Centurion wrote:

No its not, its x to the power of 3 bigger, not 8 times bigger. If its dimensions where 3 by 3 by 3 it isn't going to increase in volume by 8, by simple extrapolation we know you are talking about a cube that is 2 by 2 by 2. If the shape is increased cubed then it is the same as for all objects not matter the shape, it isn't increased 8 times like you are all saying and the shape 'dimensions' matter with the overall calculation, it will increase cubed, it won't be 8 though, what are you even talking about, seriously.

Its volume is increased by a factor of 3 yes but that's not what you were all saying, you were saying it was increased 8 times. I mean that isn't cubed, its just 'times by 8'

Again, we're not talking about 2 as a measurement, but a multiplicative factor.

Let's take another example, with specific measurements - a cylinder. Imagine, for the sake of example, that a ship is a cylinder with base radius 100m and length 1000m. The volume of a cylinder is pi*(r^2)*l, which in this case is equal to pi*(100^2)*1000 or (approximating pi as 3.14) 31,400,000 m^3. Now double each dimension, so it has base radius 200m and length 2000m, and the overall volume becomes pi*(200^2)*2000 or approximately 251,200,000 m^3.

The second ship, with each dimension doubled, has a total volume eight times that of the first - in other words, increasing each dimension by a factor of 2 has increased the total volume by a factor of 8.

Does this make sense to you? If not, what are you having trouble with? Rather than cluttering up this thread, I'm happy to take this to PM if you need help.

No he is comparing two different ships, hang on I'll PM you.

**Racerguy180**

Duskweaver wrote:OK, so back at the actual topic (which is not the square-cube law), here's a cool thing. UR-025's totally-real-and-not-at-all-made-up boss has the previously unknown title of 'Magos-Ethereum'. If you do a Google search for 'Magos Ethereum', you will discover that this is a clever fourth-wall-breaking joke.

I can dig UR-025 and the possibilities that it brings to the tabletop/fluff. Nobody knows what size/shape a MOI requires for its conscience to operate (who knows, it might just all be cloud computing/skynet). just remember that the processing power of your cell phone by itself is greater than the sum total of processing power on the planet 40 years ago. its perfectly reasonable to imagine that the size/power MOI needs do not fit a modern metric.

If we were to get more background or "facts"(term used extremely loosly) it might make some of humanities paranoia justified. While DAOT should remain mysterious, they should keep dropping hints and snippets just to pique everybodies interest.

**Delvarus Centurion**

BOLS say that it is a confirmed man of iron but, its BOLS. I expected it to look so much cooler, rather than a dorky, clunky, goofy machine.

**insaniak**

Delvarus Centurion wrote:
BOLS say that it is a confirmed man of iron but, its BOLS. I expected it to look so much cooler, rather than a dorky, clunky, goofy machine.

The fluff from Blackstone Fortress says that he's a Man of Iron, so I'm not sure why you're still questioning it.

Regardless though, this thread appears to have veered well and truly off from the original topic, which appears to have been resolved anyway, so I think it's time to move on.