
FINALLY! All done. This took far more effort to complete than ever before. This commission was asked for by
kraz. Get you one, man!
The idea behind this one was that there is always somebody like you. Eventually, you will come across him. The 'Mech on the left, a BHKU-O Black Hawk-Ku is an independent mercenary. The Nova (the original Black Hawk) on the right, whom I have drawn for once before, is a Clan Coyote MechWarrior. They meet in mortal combat, only one will stand!
Both 'Mechs are © Topps, Inc.

The idea behind this one was that there is always somebody like you. Eventually, you will come across him. The 'Mech on the left, a BHKU-O Black Hawk-Ku is an independent mercenary. The Nova (the original Black Hawk) on the right, whom I have drawn for once before, is a Clan Coyote MechWarrior. They meet in mortal combat, only one will stand!
Both 'Mechs are © Topps, Inc.
Category Artwork (Traditional) / Fanart
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1100 x 784px
File Size 387.5 kB
Heh, you ever try hitting that small of a target with a gun big enough to smash it WHILE the mech is shaking around you?
Hell, I tried playing Mechwarrior with the force feedback on my joystick, talk about a rattling experience, the damn thing tried to walk off my desk firing a UAC-5.
Hell, I tried playing Mechwarrior with the force feedback on my joystick, talk about a rattling experience, the damn thing tried to walk off my desk firing a UAC-5.
Okay, first and foremost, PPCs are charged PARTICLE beams, an ion is an ATOM. A variation of an element with more or fewer neutrons than is normal.
PPCS fire either electrons or protons.
Secondly, I have my doubts about your boasts. It may not be braggin' if it's true, but...you lack credibility. See you.
PPCS fire either electrons or protons.
Secondly, I have my doubts about your boasts. It may not be braggin' if it's true, but...you lack credibility. See you.
The first definition of the Particle Projector Cannon described it as a magnetic accelerator in a weapon form firing highly charged proton or ion bolts that inflict damage by both high temperatures and an enormous force of impact. And the official Tech Manual decribes the PPC as the energy-based equivalent to the Gauss Rifle, basically firing a very intense burst of static (if you get your hands on a copy of the book, look at page 233, where the book still claims the PPC to fire powerful proton or ion bolts).
Interesting ... and what do you get if you take a hydrogen atom, and remove the electron? An ion, which is nothing but a single proton in this case.
And just for the record: ions are treated as particles both in physics and chemistry, as they are just a very small part of a larger system (which automatically qualifies something as a particle, no matter what scale you use).
And if you search Wikipedia for "particle accelerator", the very first sentence of the article defines them as:
<QUOTE=Wikipedia>"A particle accelerator (or atom smasher, in the early 20th century) is a device that uses electric fields to propel ions or charged subatomic particles to high speeds and to contain them in well-defined beams. </QUOTE>
So much for ions not being particles. ;]
And just for the record: ions are treated as particles both in physics and chemistry, as they are just a very small part of a larger system (which automatically qualifies something as a particle, no matter what scale you use).
And if you search Wikipedia for "particle accelerator", the very first sentence of the article defines them as:
<QUOTE=Wikipedia>"A particle accelerator (or atom smasher, in the early 20th century) is a device that uses electric fields to propel ions or charged subatomic particles to high speeds and to contain them in well-defined beams. </QUOTE>
So much for ions not being particles. ;]
No, wrong. Wrong. WRONG. Ions only differ from other atoms of the same element in the number of NEUTRONS. A proton does not an ion make.
Tritium and deuterium are ions of hydrogen because they have more neutrons, not differing numbers of electrons. Try looking it up in something that is more reliable than wikipedia.
Tritium and deuterium are ions of hydrogen because they have more neutrons, not differing numbers of electrons. Try looking it up in something that is more reliable than wikipedia.
You know that you are talking about ISOTOPES now, and not IONS, right?
Isotope: A variation of an atom that has the same number of elemental parts in the nuclide, but a different proton-to-neutron ratio.
Ion: A charged atom or molecule that lacks (Kation) or has too many (Anion) electrons in the electron hull to compensate the positive charge of the protons in the core.
You find that in EVERY chemistry book available out there (except for the ones probably written by a bunch of creationists who declare science a work of the devil by default).
Isotope: A variation of an atom that has the same number of elemental parts in the nuclide, but a different proton-to-neutron ratio.
Ion: A charged atom or molecule that lacks (Kation) or has too many (Anion) electrons in the electron hull to compensate the positive charge of the protons in the core.
You find that in EVERY chemistry book available out there (except for the ones probably written by a bunch of creationists who declare science a work of the devil by default).
Ummm... only extremists go that far, my friend...
Science is merely our attempt as humans to piece the way our world works together. Their isn't anything wrong there.
It's when we try to say that something happened, but there is no friggin' gosh darn way we can prove it is where science takes a dive off the deep end...
Can you actually prove that life came from atoms splitting? If it was that simple, wouldn't we be producing actual living creatures by more advanced means than cloning? I have not seen any "new" information ever created in a living cell, either. Even mutations, which are a rise to evolution, are a loss of information.
Where did that information come from? Only one source claims to know: The Christian Bible.
Only the writers of the bible had any "theoretical" way to know what happened: God told them so.
That's better than any of our scientists came do.
Science is merely our attempt as humans to piece the way our world works together. Their isn't anything wrong there.
It's when we try to say that something happened, but there is no friggin' gosh darn way we can prove it is where science takes a dive off the deep end...
Can you actually prove that life came from atoms splitting? If it was that simple, wouldn't we be producing actual living creatures by more advanced means than cloning? I have not seen any "new" information ever created in a living cell, either. Even mutations, which are a rise to evolution, are a loss of information.
Where did that information come from? Only one source claims to know: The Christian Bible.
Only the writers of the bible had any "theoretical" way to know what happened: God told them so.
That's better than any of our scientists came do.
Comments