Comparison of UC and AD Tech

The future is now. This is the place for mecha and science.
strike_zero
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:22 am

Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by strike_zero » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:32 am

This is sort of a friendly debate that I have been having with some friends, and despite what the theme might entail, I'm hoping this isn't going to evolve into a versus debate. Moving on, the main reason I am here is because I frequently lurk these boards and find interesting tidbits on technology in Gundam, and I think if there's anywhere to find credible opinions, it would be here.

So the question is this: If one were to compare the technology in UC with AD, what are the similarities and differences, and what would be the advantages and disadvantages for each universe's tech compared to the other? In particular, regarding things like mobile suit tech (weapons, armor, etc) but also technology in general (space colonization, theories of physics, etc).

I'm personally interested in knowing how GN based beam weaponry compare to Mega Particle based weapons in UC, since there seems to be a popular conception that GN particles are much more powerful than Minovsky particles.

Anyway, this is purely technical, and I hope this doesn't go in the way of fanboyism clashes.

User avatar
Seraphic
Posts: 1436
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:56 am
Location: Inside the barrel of Wing Zero's left Buster Rifle.
Contact:

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by Seraphic » Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:25 pm

I guess I may as well break the ice.

Before this thread takes off, do you mind describing what you and your friends already know? (So that we don't end up retreading ground, or so that MechaTalk doesn't end up doing all the work, lol.) It would help to bring up specific parts of comparison so we could have more focus on what to talk about. Otherwise, everyone would collectively have to completely divulge their entire understanding of Minovsky and GN physics, and to me that sounds like a lot more work than this debate is really worth. Personally, I know some Minovsky physics, but I don't really know jack about 00 technology, so I don't know how helpful I will be.

In regards to the one aspect you specified, I can't see how it's possible to compare the strength of MP beams against GN beams. They both apparently produce 1-shot kills against mobile suits, so what's the difference that is observed?

Anyway, welcome to the forums. I hope you find your time here helpful and informative, and that you'll run into more of the friendly members rather than the grumpy ones. I'm kind of half and half, lol. And you know, I have a friend here that has the same username, but he has the space instead of the underscore. Would you mind if I just called you Underscore? :P
"Red particles are bad, they mutate you into... dead? But green/blue particles are good, apparently, for reasons and for purposes yet to be determined. Isn't science sometimes nicely color-coded?"
-Antares

GW: The Sword . Sera's Art . Gameplay . The Lost Citadel

User avatar
blind_dead_mcjones
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:19 am
Location: South Australia

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by blind_dead_mcjones » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:43 am

ehhh, personally i feel the comparison seems kinda moot, as GN particles are for all intents and purposes an expy of minovsky particles
Flag Fighter for life!

User avatar
PowerdGNFlag
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by PowerdGNFlag » Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:04 am

Regarding this, can anyone clarify me on this matter? I read somewhere that 00 was supposed to be a UC story, yet along the way diverged to become the 00 we know today. That is why we have GN Particles=Minovsky particle and such and such. Is this true or whatever? Or is it discussed already, and if it is, can anyone point me to the relevant thread?
Well, I guess I'm a nobody...

Kuruni
Posts: 2913
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:43 am
Location: sitting next to a yandere loli
Contact:

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by Kuruni » Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:55 am

Sound like some mad fan made-up rumor to me.

Not UC, but one should note that GN drive's ability to reduce MS's mass is very similar to Turn A's Discontinuous Hyperoscillation Gauge Collapsing Pile powerplant.
My girlfriend was a loli.

User avatar
quasadra
Posts: 1644
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:31 am

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by quasadra » Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:59 am

there are also crazy talks about AD being UC's prequel... so yeah...

that said, what exactly are we trying to quantified here? are we to discuss which universe is more advanced? or you just want to know about the differences of each universe?

AD dips into quantum theory(not it is accurate in everything though, but hell even experts cant seems to decide what is accurate), while UC have an entire fictional physic invented for it. but you can say the minosky reactor is sort of like a gn drive. but thats is stretching it...
SD Gundam Capsule Fighter Online SEA IGN: 8bitNPC

strike_zero
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:22 am

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by strike_zero » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:46 am

Hi everyone, thanks a lot for your replies. I apologize for not clarifying, as I thought an open discussion would have been nice, but I'm aware that the topic is a bit too broad. So anyway, there are four main topics that I have sort of been discussing with some friends. I should start off by saying that we're trying to consider only the stuff before the 0100s, since the UC era is quite large.

First off, regarding the overall technology of each universe, which one is more advanced? I know that the Universal Century has vast stretches of space colonies and things like Minovsky fusion generators. However, the 00-verse seems to be more advanced on smaller scale tech such as nanotechnology and regenerative medicine (none of which exist in UC from what I know). Although one has to wonder how they manage things like enhanced humans/cyber-newtypes and preventing muscular atrophy from prolonged exposure to zero gees, would it be safe to say that AD is technically more advanced all things considered?

Second, regarding MS. I think that pre-GN drive machines in AD are probably similar to those of 0079 and the early 0080s, but once GN drives come into play, how do the mobile suits compare? And I don't mean this in a sense of "who would win in a fight", but rather a utilitarian comparison. For example, if as representatives we took the GN-X and the Marasai, and divided them into certain categories, how would they compare in terms of armor (and other defenses), beam weaponry (yield and output) , mobility, and ease of operation? Admittedly, this is something I am interested in also because of a fanfic I'm writing, which I want to be as technically accurate and true-to-the-animation as possible.

Third, how does space travel compare? I suppose UC has its jupiter energy fleet that also led to the formation of the jupiter empire, while there's at least one ship we see in AD that has travelled to Jupiter (although I know there is evidence that the Ptolemy and its successor are quite capable of making the trip). So in terms of actually traveling across vast stretches of space, how would standard ships in UC compare to those of AD, and how would they compare to more specialized ones like the Ptolemy?

Lastly, I guess the argument goes to questioning how exactly GN particles and M-particles are similar and different. I know that both can act as anti-radar tech, and both can be theoretically inifinte sources of energy, but what other similarities and differences are there? For example, I know that the way Minovsky particles behave also causes them to damage electronics. Do GN particles have a similar effect? Likewise I believe that GN particles have some sort of anti-gravity effect while the closest M-particles come is through Minovsky drive/craft systems.

Anyway, that was a mouthful. I hope it's a bit more concise than my original statement. I'm aware that there are a lot of factors that need to be considered - strictly speaking, different universes = different physics. However, I think it's still interesting to discuss, especially since 00 has provided us with the most technical stuff in a while.

User avatar
Genocide
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: In your water stealing your fish
Contact:

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by Genocide » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:36 pm

Comparing technology between Gundam time lines never goes well, as it involves a heavy amount of hypothetical reasoning and making wild assumptions.
strike_zero wrote:First off, regarding the overall technology of each universe, which one is more advanced?
It's hard to say that either is more advanced because of the reasons you listed. Having vast stretches of space colonies and other quantitative measurements simply show that more resources are available to them. Similarly, just because we don't hear about things like nano-technology and advanced medicine doesn't mean they don't exist in UC. The Psyco-frame for example, is supposed to be made of numerous micro-Psycommu receptors, which would likely require a certain degree of nano-technology in their construction. Similarly, medical advances are constantly happening in the real world so it can only be assumed, logically, that medicine is a lot more advanced in UC even if we don't hear about it. Afterall, they can create things like Cyber Newtypes and clones, who's to say that the technology required can't be applied for less devious purposes?
Second, regarding MS. I think that pre-GN drive machines in AD are probably similar to those of 0079 and the early 0080s, but once GN drives come into play, how do the mobile suits compare?
I would say that standard, non-prototype/special use mobile suits in their respective universes regardless of which Gundam series would have the same utility. It's all relative - if a GN-X fulfills its purpose as well as a Marasai, then that's that. If you want to quantify the performance and firepower of these mobile suits using the animation, then you are likely to get nowhere. You also need to keep in mind that there are different advances in technology. Whereas 00 jumps from things like Tierens to Flags and Enacts, and then all of a sudden to something as advanced as the GN-X, MS development in UC tends to be a bit more progressive. I don't think you could effectively say one is better than the other, however. While animation has improved over time to give a better sense of speed and power, the truth is that if anyone attempted to quantify these features in the shows, they would find little difference between series (and ultimately realize a severe number of contradictions within the animation itself).
Third, how does space travel compare?
I would assume that capability is pretty similar in most Gundam shows. I don't think that "space travel" in general is ever a really big topic in Gundam, except perhaps with Stargazer and (possibly) Crossbone as exceptions.
Lastly, I guess the argument goes to questioning how exactly GN particles and M-particles are similar and different.
I'm rather uncertain about the pseudo-physics involved in both cases, so I can't say much here.

Majin Tenshi
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:00 am

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by Majin Tenshi » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:20 pm

From my understanding....
strike_zero wrote:First off, regarding the overall technology of each universe
I imagine that in UC, there may not be much talk about dealing with null gravity exposure because of how many artificial gravity colonies there are. Most people in space would be spending their time in artificial gravity.
strike_zero wrote:Second, regarding MS.
I think the biggest difference between UC and AD mechs that we can be certain of is that GN particles allow hovering. In UC, I don't know of any MS before the V2 that can hover, though I haven't seen any UC after char's counterattack. It at least doesn't come up untill after UC 100.

Neither universe seems to generate particles at the rate they use them, though I think AD comes a lot closer in many cases than UC does.

All but the weakest beam weaponry tends to make armor irrelevent.

GN mobile suits are easier/harder to operate than normal mobile suits. Manipulating the particles is very tricky, but can mostly be handled by a computer. I remember reading that the large X binders on the GN-X were to make it easier for pilots to adjust to how different a GN mobile suit handles.
strike_zero wrote:how exactly GN particles and M-particles are similar and different
M particles and GN particles have a few effects in common, but usualy on very different levels.

I think by 0079, M particles have gotten almost everywhere at some level. Thats enough to hinder some things, but that distribution of GN particles would probably kill communications entirely. I think GN particles might decay in a way that makes that nightmare impossible.

Only a true GN drive is a nearly infinite source of energy, and very difficult to make. Tau drives basicly turn power into particles. M reactors are a fusion reactor that produce M particles as a byproduct and can use them to catalyze the reaction. An M reactor needs fuel just like any other nuclear reactor.

GN particles are a medium for quantum brainwave telepathy, and I've heard theories that M particles are neccesary for newtype powers, though I don't know if that theory predates 00. The way GN particles saturate the whole area at times, I doubt they damage electronics. GN particles do have a weight/mass/inertia reducing property, but I've never heard of anything like that with M particles.

User avatar
Genocide
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: In your water stealing your fish
Contact:

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by Genocide » Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:20 pm

Majin Tenshi wrote:In UC, I don't know of any MS before the V2 that can hover, though I haven't seen any UC after char's counterattack.
I'm not sure about hovering, but aside from several transformable MS, the Byalant can maintain atmospheric flight thanks to its thermonuclear jet thrusters. The Dijeh has similar thrusters, but they seem to be more for supporting the MS when it's already flying with a Dodai Kai. Other than that, most machines can stay airborne for a reasonable amount of time using raw thrust, although for long durations it's not a very efficient use of propellant. Which probably arrives at what I think is the biggest advantage offered by GN drives, their potentially infinite operating time and their "mass reducing" properties.
GN particles are a medium for quantum brainwave telepathy, and I've heard theories that M particles are neccesary for newtype powers, though I don't know if that theory predates 00.
There's a piece from Gundam Century that Mark has up regarding how Minovsky Particles are used to act as a medium for controlling Psycommu weapons, but the idea that Newtype powers as a whole require Minovsky Particles doesn't seem to be supported by any official evidence. I think Mark also mentioned that Unicorn has tried to use the manipulation of Minovsky Particles by Newtypes as an explanation for several phenomenon we've seen, particularly the whole Axis ordeal in CCA.

User avatar
SonicSP
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:38 am
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by SonicSP » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:16 pm

I'm still a bit confused on whether GN Particles reduce mass or weight[As in gravity's effect on mass specifically] specifically.Of all the different text sources I've read,most of the translators has abbreviated it as weight [Some,such as Zeonic corp's 00F Volume 2,mentions mass.While I remember Mark made a switch correction from mass to weight in one of his translations a long time ago].Depending on which one it is,it makes a big difference in the functions of GN Particles in space,since reducing mass is much more better universally applied than reducing weight especially when it comes to their "floating" movement features that are not related to their propellant thrusters.Of course,they use GNP propellant in thrusters too but the feature I'm, referring to is different.[I think it was elaborated a bit in the 300 Years Later sourcebook paraphrased by C.A.,where its mention that the Gundams don't "fly",but they "float".It is this type of phenomena that directly relates to the GNP's [mass or weight] reduction abilities,and whether its mass or weight[gravity null] reduction would directly affect how it can be used to contribute to the movement of the Gundams in space.[If its weight,then I dont think it can be used since there's little gravity in space anyhow].

One example of the phenomena in the anime I'm referring to would be Exia's floaty movements in S107 at around 12:00 of the video.

Than again,reducing mass is suppose to be theoretically harder.Although reducing mass should automatically reduce weight measurement as well,but it will not be because of nullifying or reducing gravity's effect on the object like some suspect.[Perhaps this is indeed the case,where the mention of weight reduction is a result of the GN Particles actually reducing the mass?]

Still thinking about which one its suppose to be,since this is both a science issue and a translational issue.Either that or the text writers were inconsistent in specifying it in all the sources,leading to the difference.Although if its indeed mass,then it should automatically means weight as well,just not due to gravity nullification,so perhaps thats indeed it.

User avatar
Genocide
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: In your water stealing your fish
Contact:

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by Genocide » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:56 pm

Probably not the best of comparisons...

But at least in the situations depicted, the Qubeley's beam launchers appear to be slightly more powerful than the GN-X's beam rifle. I wouldn't encourage anyone of trying to quantify the exact yield of the weapons or use these as standards for such comparisons. Nevertheless, keep in mind the GN-X's beam rifle probably isn't nearly as powerful as its successors in the second season, whereas the Qubeley's beam launcher appears to be quite comparable to standard beam rifles throughout 0087. There are other advantages with GN machines however, such as not having to reload and recharge ECAP/EPACs.

User avatar
GundamMaker01
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:34 am
Location: Charlotte, N.C.

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by GundamMaker01 » Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:21 pm

This is just speculation but, I'm more inclined to believe that GN particles reduce the overall weight of the mobile suit, rather than the mass. Since mass can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted to energy, the show doesn't seem to answer the question of how the MS's mass is converted to energy (and energy converted back to mass, if that happens.) It makes much more sense for the GN drive to reduce the overall weight of the MS by countering the acceleration of gravity.
I can't stand the weak; They're always nervous about when they'll be next attacked. They can't trust anybody and they never have an opinion of their own. I can't stand such people!

"Hey Nicol! Batter Up!!!" - Kira Yamato


User avatar
Dark Duel
Posts: 4773
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:39 pm
Location: A blue City in a red State

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by Dark Duel » Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:54 pm

That was always my take on it, and AFAIK we've gotten nothing that explicitly states whether it's one or the other.
// ART THREAD // NOT ACCEPTING REQUESTS
// GUNPLA THREAD //

"You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turn of the worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she ought to fall down. Tells you she's hurting before she keens. Makes her a home."

User avatar
Genocide
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: In your water stealing your fish
Contact:

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by Genocide » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:46 pm

GundamMaker01 wrote:This is just speculation but, I'm more inclined to believe that GN particles reduce the overall weight of the mobile suit, rather than the mass. Since mass can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted to energy, the show doesn't seem to answer the question of how the MS's mass is converted to energy (and energy converted back to mass, if that happens.) It makes much more sense for the GN drive to reduce the overall weight of the MS by countering the acceleration of gravity.
You know, that makes sense logically. But then we have things like the 00-Raiser's quantization, which seems to be a conversion of mass to energy and then back to mass. Of course, I don't think it's exactly emphasized on how the process occurs, nor do I honestly even know what "quantize" means.

User avatar
Dendrobium Stamen
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Armoury One, L4.
Contact:

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by Dendrobium Stamen » Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:28 pm

There's a Wikipedia article on Quantization, as far as the term is applied in quantum physics. Honestly, the whole thing is way beyond my level of scientific comprehension, but there is a line in one section on covariant canonical quantization (a variation on canonical quantization apparently) that tells us that "It turns out there is a way to perform a canonical quantization without having to resort to the noncovariant approach of foliating spacetime and choosing a Hamiltonian."

Quite what a Hamiltonian is, I have no clue, but the part about foliating space-time is quite curious, as regards what amounts to a teleportation effect...
"Trust me, I know what I'm doing." - Sledge Hammer.
A Wind Raging Through, a Destiny sidestory.

strike_zero
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:22 am

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by strike_zero » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:15 am

Thanks a lot for the input guys. I have been wondering about how the GN particles' anti-mass/weight works myself. Would it be similar to the function of minovsky craft/drive systems in UC?

Also, regarding beam yields, I can tell by the image Genocide posted that there probably isn't a great deal of difference between standard beam weapons, but what about higher-grade ones?

Majin Tenshi
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:00 am

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by Majin Tenshi » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:54 pm

strike_zero wrote:Thanks a lot for the input guys. I have been wondering about how the GN particles' anti-mass/weight works myself. Would it be similar to the function of minovsky craft/drive systems in UC?
As I understand it, they're nothing alike. From what I've read, a minovsky drive creates an I-Field cushion against the ground to keep something aloft. The GN Particles reduce the influence of gravity allowing the machine to be nearly weightless, and trivial to keep aloft.

Dean_the_Young
Posts: 1293
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:24 pm
Location: Near Rockets

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by Dean_the_Young » Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:13 pm

Majin Tenshi wrote:
strike_zero wrote:Thanks a lot for the input guys. I have been wondering about how the GN particles' anti-mass/weight works myself. Would it be similar to the function of minovsky craft/drive systems in UC?
As I understand it, they're nothing alike. From what I've read, a minovsky drive creates an I-Field cushion against the ground to keep something aloft. The GN Particles reduce the influence of gravity allowing the machine to be nearly weightless, and trivial to keep aloft.
As AD gundams have no thrusters, GN particles also provide propulsion. GN particles do everything for the Gundams: they alter mass easily (such as for the GN blades, in order to shape inertia of swings), strengthen armor, provide the 'muscle' of the mobile suits, power and are the weaponry, and that's not even talking about quantum brain waves. Even as beams, they can be penetrating shots or explode like bazookas.

In general, the biggest advantage of GN tech is that besides all the weaponry/armor boosting uses, GN mobility is superior to almost everything else in gundam. GN suits not only hover freely, but have omni-directional movement: they can drift laterally, forward AND backward, up or down, whichever. And it works regardless of environment. Movement is one of the reasons the Gundams outclassed all the other mobile suits of AD.

Most all other Gundam series go with the 'rocket on back to fly forward', and focus on that. Mobility is usually measured by how quickly a mobile suit can turn around and face it's back pact in the proper direction. Lateral drift, let alone flying backwards, is almost unheard of, and yet it's a staple of GN drives.

In general, the only regards I'd put Minonsky over GN is in beam rifle weaponry. Beam rifles have almost always been consistent in being absolute: if you hit, it's a one-shot penetration (and usually kill). The main exception is shields and barriers like the Big Zam and Psycho Gundam's, and those field barriers don't apply to solid projectiles. Even shields, however, give up to repeated beam rifle blasts sooner rather than later.

In AD, beam strength varies greatly. Against non-GN reinforced armor, it's pretty strong. Against GN-strengthened armor, the effects vary wildly. In season two, for example, the 00's first sortie sees it one-shotting an A-Head. But down on Earth, Setsuna shoots Mr. Bushido's A-HEAD custom in the back a couple of times, to no real damage. Granted, it was right at the GN vernier, which could have been producing an effective particle field to absorb the energy, but that's rather the point: GN beams are, if not easier to deal with, far more varied in power than the minonsky beam rifle shots, where the first hit was usually decisive.

Well, that's my thoughts at least. In general, GN matches/surpases most Minonsky in everything but firepower.
I'm sorry this letter is so long, but I did not have time to make it shorter. -Mark Twain

Official Jerid Fanboy

User avatar
Genocide
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: In your water stealing your fish
Contact:

Re: Comparison of UC and AD Tech

Post by Genocide » Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:07 pm

Dean_the_Young wrote:Most all other Gundam series go with the 'rocket on back to fly forward', and focus on that. Mobility is usually measured by how quickly a mobile suit can turn around and face it's back pact in the proper direction. Lateral drift, let alone flying backwards, is almost unheard of, and yet it's a staple of GN drives.
I think that's a pretty accurate assessment, at least of what differences exist between GN machines and "standard" mobile suits. Still, I have to question whether the difference is that much in favor of GN drives, since earlier episodes in 00 show that conventional means of propulsion on mobile suits can match or even surpass the mobility of the Gundams (Over Flag and Taozi, in particular). Despite having a broader range of movements available, I don't think it's sufficient to say that there's necessarily more thrust produced by GN drives than conventional means.

We also see machines in UC such as the Gundam Mk II and GP01fb that have movable thrusters for accelerating in multidimensional directions - perhaps more dominantly displayed with the Crossbone Gundams and Flints - and in general MS tend to be covered from head to toe with verniers and apogee motors. But I digress, the use of binders seems to be a much more common and economic means of increasing mobility, at least in UC, and in general I think the "freedom of movement" provided by GN drives is unmatched in this respect.

There is, of course, the Minovsky Drive used by the V2, but that seems to be quite a special case since it's one of the only official machines to use it.

Post Reply