Real.. life... MECHA?!

[Lord Khyron]

Right here, this company made a real life mech that can walk with 40 points of articulation and a flamethrower!<p>It's being auctioned on Ebay..<p>http://www.neogentronyx.com/<p>And the Auction..<p>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=88433&item=5593908816&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

[GroG]

Marvelous...toobad for them that I am also working on a mech, and its almost done ^^ It's a mech with the ability to transform itself into a fighter plane !!! and it got a half-track mode which I have named guardian-mode...terrific isn't it? It's a 3 in 1 WAR MACHINE !

[LaconianShot]

Wow, that's incredible. And by incredible, I mean incredibly inefficient. The amount of energy that it would take to run such a thing would far outweigh any use for it. The thing seems to be rigged up to make use of hydraulics. I wonder if the inventors have any idea how slow hydraulic lifts typically move. Essentially, if this was made for battle (zomfg robotek) it would be useless; slow, weak and easy to knock over. Why anyone would make a bipedal combat engine is beyond me; nice way to get knocked over and crush the pilot.<br>I think these people should stop indulging their fantasies.

[KexMex]

Let's use it for Evil!

[Tails99]

And only for the light price of <b>$39,100.00, and a shipping cost of $5,000.00, and weighs 1.5 tonnes!</b><p>Ah, it's <i>that</i> guy. He was on Ripley's Believe it or Not. I still think he is foolish selling that thing. Making war machines are illegal, aren't they?<br><p>[size=small][Edit by Tails99 on [TIME]1120884646[/TIME]][/size]

[LaconianShot]

Don't worry, nobody would be stupid enough to actually use it for war. While its hydraulic lifts are struggling to turn it around, one would sneak around back and topple its poorly distributed weight with a weak kick.<br>........<br>Wait a sec. Would anybody else feel like a tool walking around in that thing? Because I would.

[Lord Khyron]

Feel like a tool? I though the machine was the tool... LOL<p>Still, it's a step in the right direction. Maybe instead of that heavy armor, the person who bought it will adopt a lower weight ceramic alloy or even use Chobham, which comes on the Abram and the Apache helicopters..<p>Add a Quadruple battery system, utilizing 2 to work, and 2 to charge via solar power or water turbines in a condensed form..<p>Of course it will need retractable talons to stabilize it, and cockpit protection..<p>

[Siren]

<blockquote>Of course it will need retractable talons to stabilize it, and cockpit protection..</blockquote> <p>Retractable claws, eh? Too bad this mech is neither mobile enough nor strong enough to use these.<p>Bipedal war machines are an engineer's worst nightmare. In the essence (and the point of having in the first place) of making them as mobile as a human, you would need a vastly complex system of hydrolics to make the legs move...something that is so inefficient as compared to tracks or wheels. It's a waste for this kind of movement. <p>Our human bodies are inefficient, especially compared to creatures who use all fours for movement. Bipedal movement causes alot of problems. The underlying point it that jets are faster and more agile, and tanks are more sturdy and stable. Not to mention that, say you could produce them in the manner that they show in the shows, they would still be ridiculously expensive to make, and the only contries that would be able to probably already have a Nuclear weapons program...

[Lord Khyron]

Tanks are stopped by water though, and severe height elevations, forests and cities.<p>At one time, People thought tanks would be too heavy to do anything.<p>Just like ironclad ships were thought to be too HEAVY to float on the water.<p>Tanks worked, Ironclads worked..<p>Bipedal mechs could work.<p>As for a Human pushing it over? Two words: Two small, and it's too heavy. <p>All a mech needs to do is be able to take damage, and wipe out contingents of tanks and such.<p>Even if it's slow as hell, that power makes it great. It could also be used for construction, welding, etc.

[LaconianShot]

<blockquote>Tanks are stopped by water though, and severe height elevations, forests and cities.</blockquote> <br>And of course <i>none</i> of these would hinder a "mech" that has 5 seperate hydraulic lifts to operate one leg, huh? The severe lack of mobility imposed on a so-called "mech" through aforementioned bipedal motion would not only encounter the same obstacles, but would add to them. You forget that a mechanized bipedal creation would lack a sense of balance and any way to apply grip where it is needed. Both of those are essential to humans as bipedals, and even a human pilot could not act for it. <p><blockquote>At one time, People thought tanks would be too heavy to do anything.</blockquote> <br>I don't know what you base this claim on. The reason why tanks were manufactured was because of their surpising amount of mobility for the armor and firepower that they carried. Mobility was the key issue... not severe firepower. Don't tell me that Rommel's tanks in South Africa lacked mobility. <p><blockquote>As for a Human pushing it over? Two words: Two small, and it's too heavy.</blockquote> <br>I was mocking the lack of balance that said "mech" would surely have. Whether or not a human could push it over is not a central point... it was used to illustrate that quadripeds are more steady in general. The bigger the base the more steady, and the surface area of two small bases is not big at all.<p><blockquote>All a mech needs to do is be able to take damage, and wipe out contingents of tanks and such.</blockquote> <br>You assume that one would stick with conventional tactics in that situation. A severe lack of mobility is just asking for guerilla warfare. <p><blockquote>It could also be used for construction, welding, etc.</blockquote> <br>Don't you think that's overkill? Robots that are simpler in design are already used in mass production of cars, etc. and yes, carry out tasks such as welding and construction.<p>Essentially, any usefulness a mech would possess if far beyond our means to carry out. Costly, energy gobbling, unsteady, slow and trumped by other military applicants, a "mech" would ultimately be useless as it is right now. I can never see there being any practicality to it.<p>... I feel like such a nerd now. :p

[Lord Khyron]

It doesn't need a sense of balance, it isn't human. Gyroscope could work.<p>People thought helicopters wouldn't be of any benefit, Gatling lasers are called useless when the gatling gun was revolutionary.. Balance is a matter of placing the feet correctly and the center of balance<p>Those who think something isn't practical, ultimately seen it created and eat their words. Just like those who thought the M1a1 Abrahm's tank was too armored, and the depleted uranium would be dangerous.. But look at it. Near impossible to penetrate..<p>Info on the tank..<p> <blockquote><br>http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/<br></blockquote> <p>Now imagine all that, on a bipedal machine, not stopped by water.<p>It's overkill to begin with, those tanks! Yet they are practical. Those tanks can take more punishment than any other military vehicle. Imagine a mech with that.

[Redeemer]

I personally, love the idea of a mech, to me they are just awesome. But in the real sense, with technology nowadays, look at the factors.<p>Not only is a tank a mobile artillery turtle, but it is also low profile ,this is something that a 15 foot tall behemoth really, really lacks. While bipedals can have a lot more traction, be able to traverse certain terrain with little difficulty, and be excellent support weapons platforms, they are just dying to be nailed by enemy cannons, and no not even depleted U-238 backed by chobham armor will save it from constant abuse, ansd the leg actuators can't hold everything.<p>While I thought of a powerful magnetic track for actuator movement, with current technology the energy consumed is too much

[LaconianShot]

<blockquote>People thought helicopters wouldn't be of any benefit,</blockquote> <br>Where do you get this impression? The helicopter was built on the basis of neccessity for a airborne vehicle that could hover in place, something that most types of planes/jets are incapable of. If it was viewed as a waste it wouldn't have been built. <p><blockquote>Those who think something isn't practical, ultimately seen it created and eat their words.</blockquote> <br>Tell that to the amphibeous tank, glider-towed light tank and trench-digging tank projects (and if you want names and model numbers I can give them to you) that were scrapped in WWII because a lack of practicality. <p><blockquote>Those tanks can take more punishment than any other military vehicle. Imagine a mech with that.</blockquote> <br>The reason why those tanks can take so much punishment is because they are sturdy and mobile. First of all, a mech with two legs, which can never be armored enough, would offer an undenyable weak point... bombard the legs enough and the thing would tip over or collapse. Furthermore, if we're talking about mounting a many-tonned tank being mounted on a pair of legs, the amount of hydraulics required to make even <i>one</i> leg move would be obscene, not to mention slow. <p>If you're going to bother making a mech because of it's <i>idea</i>l terrain advantages, you would be far better off trying to change the current model of heavy tank then you would trying to negotiate the many, many problems of bipedal movements, and coordinating limbs in general. A better step in the right direction would be to first construct quadripedal machines first... after all, quadripeds are far more sturdy then bipeds, and have a higher capacity for speed. But I digress... two limbs would be a nightmare, let alone four. <p><blockquote> While bipedals can have a lot more traction, be able to traverse certain terrain with little difficulty</blockquote> <br>Ideally, yes. Right now? Not at all. Like I said, advancing a tank's engineering to make it able to negotiate difficult terrain better would be resources spent better then making a bipedal war machine.<p>Practical and efficient mechs right now are defenitely not a possibility. In the distant future, perhaps, but by then I expect technology to be so far advanced that a mech would be useless. After all, if you have a warhead that can independantly seek out targets with greater mobility then a jet, helicopter or tank, why would you need a mech?

[gm2987]

They are selling it for the advancement of science but you know in Japan I can remember seeing a few mechs that can move already, sure they are slow as hell but think, in 100 years who knows what could happen. It's very interesting.

[Lord Khyron]

Remember Laco..<p>Engineers said the Osprey was ridiculous and would never work.<p>http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/V22_osprey/<p>That right there was thought to be impossible and impractical. But it worked!<p>So therefore, Bipedal mecha can work, if it is done right.<p>Tanks require more than one person to operate, mecha would only require one. So if you lose that mech, you lose 1 person, not the 3-4 needed for a tank. Tanks go 30 mph to 50 mph.. Walking mechs can do more..<p>Tanks are slow! When you get down to it. <br><p>[size=small][Edit by Lord Khyron on [TIME]1121040305[/TIME]][/size]