Beneath the Armor

[Mimeblade]

My question in this topic is this... what exactly IS a Psychoframe MADE of and how exactly do they implement it in building a Mobile Suit? In a suit like Unicorn, they had to pack a ton of things on the inside to accomodate the frame which seems mostly on the outside packed in part of the armor itself, and that doesn't even begin to explain how "normal" materials and elements that make up the body can "keep up" with the Psychoframe itself. Unless it's all Magnet-Coating related?

Also there's a lot of materials and elements I've heard about but haven't really heard an explanation for.

E-Carbon (or the usefulness of regular Carbon for that matter)
Chobham
Ganda-Potassium? (Gundanium-Potassium?)
Ceramic-mixed materials (why would you mix Ceramic in Armor?)

[Seto Kaiba]

My question in this topic is this... what exactly IS a Psychoframe MADE of and how exactly do they implement it in building a Mobile Suit?

I've not seen anything that describes the actual material that a psycoframe's discrete psycommu units are made from, but AFAIK a psychoframe integrates an uncountably vast number of atomic-scale psycommu units into the structural frame of a mobile suit.

E-Carbon (or the usefulness of regular Carbon for that matter)

E-Carbon is a synthetic, metallic allotrope of elemental carbon that is significantly stronger than today's best carbon composites and allotropes like carbon nanotubes. This sort of thing is fairly common in mecha anime... Macross's setting has been using a similar material as its own Luna Titanium substitute, called hypercarbon, since 1984.

(Naturally occurring allotropes of carbon include graphite and diamond.)

EDIT: E-carbon in Gundam 00 is also apparently useful in two other ways. The gaps in its atomic structure can apparently be used to store hydrogen fuel for flying mobile suits such as the Union Flag or Enact, and mobile suits with GN Drive systems can reinforce it by running a GN field through the armor material to structurally reinforce it.

Chobham

Chobham armor is a real-world composite armor technology whose basic principles were first laid down in 1918... and has been used extensively in armored fighting vehicles since the 1970's. The details of its construction are a closely guarded secret, but the gist of it is that it's composed of a number of layered ceramic tiles embedded in metal and backed with metal and elastic layers. A thoughtful and reasonably clear explanation of how this technology works can be found on Wikipedia.

Ganda-Potassium? (Gundanium-Potassium?)

Where's this one from?

Ceramic-mixed materials (why would you mix Ceramic in Armor?)

Because ceramics can be manufactured to be extremely hard and extremely heat-resistant... an ideal combination for defense against conventional anti-tank weaponry. Suitably tough ceramic stops kinetic energy penetrators by shattering them, and foils shaped charges by cracking in an assortment of asymmetric ways, causing asymmetric pressures that can essentially bounce the shaped-charge right off the armor with its own pressurized jet of molten metal.

[E08]

E-carbon in Gundam 00 is also apparently useful in two other ways. The gaps in its atomic structure can apparently be used to store hydrogen fuel for flying mobile suits such as the Union Flag or Enact, and mobile suits with GN Drive systems can reinforce it by running a GN field through the armor material to structurally reinforce it.

The second use mention here is known as GN composite armor, it is basically a GN Field generated within the gaps of the armor. The purpose of this armor is to solve the flaw of the GN Field system in 2292, the GN Field does not really reinforced the armor structure. At that time, the GN Field generated is easily affected by external factors and hence unstable. Having the GN Field in the armor gap thus overcome the problem. And this armor is only known to be used by Gundam Plutone and Full armor 0 Gundam.

About the Gundam's E-Carbon armor, if i did not read the relevant part in this scan wrongly (http://www.gundamgallery.com/img-great- ... -48099.htm), it seems to imply that Gundam's E-carbon armor is better than other MS due to the use of better materials.

[balofo]

E-carbon in Gundam 00 is also apparently useful in two other ways. The gaps in its atomic structure can apparently be used to store hydrogen fuel for flying mobile suits such as the Union Flag or Enact, and mobile suits with GN Drive systems can reinforce it by running a GN field through the armor material to structurally reinforce it.

The second use mention here is known as GN composite armor, it is basically a GN Field generated within the gaps of the armor. The purpose of this armor is to solve the flaw of the GN Field system in 2292, the GN Field does not really reinforced the armor structure. At that time, the GN Field generated is easily affected by external factors and hence unstable. Having the GN Field in the armor gap thus overcome the problem. And this armor is only known to be used by Gundam Plutone and Full armor 0 Gundam.

About the Gundam's E-Carbon armor, if i did not read the relevant part in this scan wrongly (http://www.gundamgallery.com/img-great- ... -48099.htm), it seems to imply that Gundam's E-carbon armor is better than other MS due to the use of better materials.

Yeah it says the Gundam's one uses more refined materials and has higher defense than the conventional MS one.

These 00 books were so good...

[MythSearcher]

I remembered the Rick Dias' "Block Build Up", which was also mentioned as rather similar to the moveable frame, but developed from Zeon technology and similar to the Gaza's.

[toysdream]

Just thought of another example of a Zeon mobile suit whose armor can be removed to reveal an internal frame: The Kaempfer! So that's at least three suits (Gelgoog, Zeong, and Kaempfer) whose armor can be partly or entirely removed to reveal a functional, load-bearing frame and internal mechanics.

On the other hand, I really can't think of any OYW-era Federation suit for which the same can be said. The closest I can think of is the RX-79(G), which takes a bit of damage at various points and whose inner structure seems to resemble that of the Zakus from the same series. Perhaps the RX-79 is constructed differently from the RX-78? That would actually help explain why it's heavier - frame construction is supposed to be heavier than monocoque.

-- Mark

[Mimeblade]

Ganda-Potassium? (Gundanium-Potassium?)

Where's this one from?

Sorry about that, turns out I was going based on some badly translated materials from Google translate.

ガンダリウム (Gundarium) > came out "Ganda-potassium"
ガンダニュウム (Gundanium) > came out "Ganda-nu-time"

WHOOPS!

[J-Lead]

I actually really like the idea of monocoque building blocks of arms, legs, and torso interconnected through joints, because it helps expain how the Federation came out with 30+ variations of the Gundam/GM in the span of three months. As opposed to Zeon, who had to create an entirely new frame to to make a new mobile suit, or modify/rebuild an entire existing frame to accomodate newer parts for variations, the Federation was merely replacing individual forearms/legs/torsos/backpacks with slightly modified versions without having to worry about the frame being able to bear the load as a whole, since the load bearing structure is the armor itself. At worst, they would merely have to reinforce the joints to handle interconnection with heavier parts, which they never went into excess with anyway. In other words, as opposed to Zeon, they were never truly building a entirely new mobile suit, or even modifying an existing frame; instead, they were literally just playing an extensive IRL version of Armored Core.

To expand on a point Mark made earlier in the thread, that construction method also makes sense when you take the core-block system into account, since the torso would have to forgo any kind of internal frame for it to work like that, meaning the shell of the torso was a structure capable of holding itself together without internals. The old RGM-79 kit continues this trend because while officially the GM forgoes the core block system, it still have a cockpit block much in the shape of the core fighter while it's docked in RX-78-2, as does the RGM-79C kit. Being that a number of GM variants had higher reactor outputs, all they had to do to achieve this was simply use a cockpit block with a different reactor, so internal real estate was probably never much of a concern either. All the engineering staff had to do was make sure the new cockpit block fit into the current standard. This monocoque approach also allowed MS to better house weapons inside the individual structures if need be, like NT-1's gatling cannons in the arms, for example.

It also helps explain why such vast numbers of variations weren't as much of a thing in later years in spite of having far more time to make them, since with the widespread adoption of the movable frame, the mobile suit's load bearing structure was all proprietary, much like Zeon mobile suits. You can see very clearly that on the GM Custom's arms, the joint works like an interlocking mechanism between two separate pieces that can likely be switched out with new ones provided they conform to the same interlocking mechanism (much like gunpla, actually) with the point of articulation being the joint itself, with the necessary cables and such being the only structure that continues through the bicep to the forearm, not to mention said mechanism seems to be connected to the inner layer of the armor rather than simply continuing through to the hand, whereas with the GM Quel, the arm joint seems more like part of a mechanism flowing directly through the bicep and forearm, and the armor is built in a more separate, segmented fashion to accomodate a different means of articulation that continues from the tricep into the arm, actually moving the segmented armor with it.

The proprietary nature of this construction would probably be a bitch to modify if you were planning on making a variant of a mobile suit that uses it, since you can't just swap out parts or willy-nilly like you could with RX-78 derivatives.

Interestingly, the Real Grade line seems imply that this function is something all mobile suits had in the thigh/knee, meaning the movable frame might actually be an more extensive application of a then-rudamentary version of technology mobile suits had from the get-go, only this time ensuring the entire mobile suit follows that design philosephy. That might explain why the majority of Kyoshi Takegawa's takes on the GM family all share the same thighs; it's basically similar to the movable frame; difficult to swap out for something different, and it served it's purpose well enough in all variants that the Federation just didn't feel a need to change anything with it.

On a side note, an Anaheim official suddenly having to explain to a Titans officer that your multi-trillion dollar civilian corporation has has a new mobile suit ready for them that just happens to use strictly military technology used extensively in their high-end mobile suits, all three of them stolen a few months back, must have been hilarious to watch.

[Amion]

That's true. I didn't know realize that's how the Marasai came to be.

Seeing all this makes me think a monocoque design has some significant advantages over a skeletal frame, especially the joints seeming to be more well protected.

[Mimeblade]

In relation to that, I have a question. If they really did use a Monocoque design for the frame, how do you explain highly flexible frames like Gundam Exia? They were supposed to be designed to be as close to 'human movement' as possible you might say.

Furthermore, with respect to all that how would someone pilot something with that many joints and areas of movement?

[toysdream]

Can't have a "monocoque frame" - those are opposite concepts, like an exoskeletal skeleton or a vegetarian steak. Obviously most mobile suits, from Zeta Gundam onwards, use a frame instead.

And how to control it? Computer automation, the miracle of the modern age!

-- Mark

[Dark Duel]

IIRC, monocoque construction's only been mentioned in the case of pre-Gryps War EF mobile suits. Everything else I assume uses an internal frame with the armor mounted on top.

[SonicSP]

E-carbon in Gundam 00 is also apparently useful in two other ways. The gaps in its atomic structure can apparently be used to store hydrogen fuel for flying mobile suits such as the Union Flag or Enact, and mobile suits with GN Drive systems can reinforce it by running a GN field through the armor material to structurally reinforce it.

The second use mention here is known as GN composite armor, it is basically a GN Field generated within the gaps of the armor. The purpose of this armor is to solve the flaw of the GN Field system in 2292, the GN Field does not really reinforced the armor structure. At that time, the GN Field generated is easily affected by external factors and hence unstable. Having the GN Field in the armor gap thus overcome the problem. And this armor is only known to be used by Gundam Plutone and Full armor 0 Gundam.

About the Gundam's E-Carbon armor, if i did not read the relevant part in this scan wrongly (http://www.gundamgallery.com/img-great- ... -48099.htm), it seems to imply that Gundam's E-carbon armor is better than other MS due to the use of better materials.

I think the Master Grade Exia manual also implies that the Gundams starting with Exia also started using a GN Field layer applied on the surface of their armor, basically the same mechanism that was used in the solid GN Shields (and to some extent the GN Sword for cutting) where a GN Field is applied on the surface to produce a powerful defense effect.

I always thought that the GN Composite Armor never really made much sense to me by itself as it still doesn't protect the surface unlike the effect I'm talking above. I feel it's best supporting the above "surface system" but not in place of it. The test example where they fired Astraea's beam launcher towards Plutone's armor illustrates this as the GN Composite Armor protected the internals but not the top surface. Perhaps it was fine as a test prototype but it "was" supposed to be applied for combat use purposes on the 0 Gundam. It becomes worse when you consider that the 0 Gundam's GN Shield uses the same system as described in my first paragraph where the GN Field is applied to the surface of the shield.

It's totally possible that they were just testing various systems before deciding what to use for the final combat units. Afterall the First and Second Generation Gundams existed mostly for testing things and the full body surface layer was never achieved until the Third Generation. The 0 Gundam's GN Shield also apparently required a heavy GN Field deployment device on it that made it heavier than later GN Shields so it's possible that they went with the internal GN Field first because it was technically easier.

=======

Also, I think the RG 00 Raiser manual mentioned that E-Carbon is ten times stronger than carbon nanotubes. Just feel like that info would give us a more specific idea of its specific strength. It was talking about 00's GN Shields though so maybe the normal E-Carbon was weaker but there was also an article in a Japanese newspaper (I guess it was the sci fi section) that also cited the ten times thing. I presume it wasn't talking about after the GN Field is applied because I *think* that one sentence was referring to just the material itself.

[E08]

I always thought that the GN Composite Armor never really made much sense to me by itself as it still doesn't protect the surface unlike the effect I'm talking above. I feel it's best supporting the above "surface system" but not in place of it. The test example where they fired Astraea's beam launcher towards Plutone's armor illustrates this as the GN Composite Armor protected the internals but not the top surface. Perhaps it was fine as a test prototype but it "was" supposed to be applied for combat use purposes on the 0 Gundam. It becomes worse when you consider that the 0 Gundam's GN Shield uses the same system as described in my first paragraph where the GN Field is applied to the surface of the shield.

It's totally possible that they were just testing various systems before deciding what to use for the final combat units. Afterall the First and Second Generation Gundams existed mostly for testing things and the full body surface layer was never achieved until the Third Generation. The 0 Gundam's GN Shield also apparently required a heavy GN Field deployment device on it that made it heavier than later GN Shields so it's possible that they went with the internal GN Field first because it was technically easier.

I haven't think or speculate so far ahead. The GN Composite armor has always been said to be the 'Second Plan', with the 'First Plan' being implied as the external 360 degree GN Field barrier. So, I see this as simply meaning that the GN Composite armor was always a backup plan/fall back that CB will rely on or even use if the external 360 degree barrier design fail after modifications. Hence, i don't think it was ever a replacement for the GN Field deployment device in the shield, the problem there only seems to making the device lighter. As for whether it was good enough to be applied for combat use purposes on the 0 Gundam, that we will never know. The relevant information on the GN Composite armor never say it was supposed to be applied on all Gundams, which kinda make sense since even after they succeeded with the external 360 degree GN Field barrier, that particular system was not installed on all Gundams AFAIK.

[J-Lead]

On the other hand, building a transformable mobile suit out of movable blocks seems more like a monocoque concept.

I just had a thought on this; it's probably worth noting that some modern mobile suits with a movable frame never truly abandoned the monocoque concept, at least for certain parts. Zeta Gundam, for example, had rocket thrusters in the rear skirt armor that can't possibly be part of the internal frame since the rear skirt armor is a separate piece attached via a joint unlike Zeon mobile suits, where the armor is placed on top of them, meaning the thrusters are likely held there by the armor itself and connected to the propellant tanks through the same kind of plumbing used on monocoque Feddie mobile suits like the GP03S (and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Pale Rider/Pale Rider Cavalry has something like that too...)

In fact, the arms, legs, and torso on the Zeta seems to be completely separate movable frames that work together in tandem through joints during transformation rather than a single movable frame, meaning that even though the parts use the movable frame concept, they aren't a singular skeleton structure like the Mark II is (after all, it's articulation isn't nearly as advanced as the Mark II, at least in the Gunpla) with the addition of monocoque armor structures that are separate from the actual frame so as to provide extra armor/thrusters while not getting in the way of the transformation system (the Wing Binders and tail binder might also be monocoque structures containing thrusters.) This is probably more evident by the fact that the Zeta plus forgoes some of the extra armor/thrusters mounted on the Zeta Gundam with little change in the transformation.

This also helps justify how mobile suits like the GM III can have individual parts built with the movable frame concept while the rest of the mobile suits maintains a monocoque structure, although, as I mentioned in my earlier post that the legs of mobile suits might be built using a concept similar to a rudimentary movable frame to begin with, at least according to the Real Grades, that might be redundant...

[MythSearcher]

Can't have a "monocoque frame" - those are opposite concepts, like an exoskeletal skeleton or a vegetarian steak. Obviously most mobile suits, from Zeta Gundam onwards, use a frame instead.

And how to control it? Computer automation, the miracle of the modern age!

-- Mark

Yes, you can have a monocoque frame, its just that the outer shell is the frame itself.

Movable frame and monocoque can actually be integrated, again, its just that the armour itself has to be the frame.

IRL this is really bad design, at least for a war machine like an MS. Scratching the armour will render the whole part unstable and almost unusable. The torque on the field motors will be extremely high since it has a really short moment arm. Pneumatic actuators are a bit better.

Come to think of it, the Zeon MS uses a fluid impulse system, how on Earth do they do a block build? This system is supposed to have a bunch of pipes going all over the body to transfer the pressure of the fluid.

In fact, the arms, legs, and torso on the Zeta seems to be completely separate movable frames that work together in tandem through joints during transformation rather than a single movable frame, meaning that even though the parts use the movable frame concept, they aren't a singular skeleton structure like the Mark II is (after all, it's articulation isn't nearly as advanced as the Mark II, at least in the Gunpla) with the addition of monocoque armor structures that are separate from the actual frame so as to provide extra armor/thrusters while not getting in the way of the transformation system (the Wing Binders and tail binder might also be monocoque structures containing thrusters.) This is probably more evident by the fact that the Zeta plus forgoes some of the extra armor/thrusters mounted on the Zeta Gundam with little change in the transformation.

This led me to think about the whole movable frame concept in UC. Given the connection of the S Gundam waist with the Beam Smart Gun is also called a movable frame, the idea that the movable frame isn't a single frame but simple connecting parts might be the truth, and we are getting it incorrectly to think of it as a bare skeleton.

[Brave Fencer Kirby]

Yes, you can have a monocoque frame, its just that the outer shell is the frame itself.

Movable frame and monocoque can actually be integrated, again, its just that the armour itself has to be the fram

That's literally not what those words mean. A "monocoque" design means that the other shell is the load-bearing body, a "frame" design means that an internal structure is the load-bearing body. The idea of a "monocoque frame" is self-contradictory. There are "semi-monocoque" designs, where the outer shell is reinforced by internal structures, but that's not what you're talking about.

[MythSearcher]

That's literally not what those words mean. A "monocoque" design means that the other shell is the load-bearing body, a "frame" design means that an internal structure is the load-bearing body. The idea of a "monocoque frame" is self-contradictory. There are "semi-monocoque" designs, where the outer shell is reinforced by internal structures, but that's not what you're talking about.

At least from what I understand the word to be, frame is the load bearing system of the body, it does not have to be internal.
The term "monocoque frame" is actually used IRL.

at least some patterns used this term.
http://ejje.weblio.jp/sentence/content/monocoque+frame
https://www.kawasaki-cp.khi.co.jp/techn ... que_e.html

It's not just Japanese Engrish either:
http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/9 ... cleish.pdf
http://www.canplastics.com/features/awa ... que-frame/

Think of a picture frame, window frame, or any bicycle frame, you don't enclose the frame in an outer shell.

Dictionary definition also includes this:
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio ... lish/frame
an open structure that gives shape and support to something, such as the transverse stiffening ribs of a ship's hull or an aircraft's fuselage or the skeletal beams and uprights of a building
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... rner/frame
the supporting structure of a piece of furniture, a building, a vehicle, etc. that gives it its shape

Aircraft fuselage can be monocoque and thus you can have a monocoque frame.
And we even have the specific term for this, the "airframe".
Ship's hull is also not internal.

[toysdream]

In the context of bicycles, at least, the "frame" is the central structure that the wheels, pedals, seat, etc are attached to. So a "monocoque frame" in this case means the main body of the bicycle is made with a monocoque construction.

We can play semantics games if you like, but the original question was about things like the Gundam Exia which clearly have a skeletal frame and are in no sense using monocoque construction. If you have an internal, articulated skeleton that holds together without the armor, you are definitely Not Monocoque.

-- Mark

[MythSearcher]

In the context of bicycles, at least, the "frame" is the central structure that the wheels, pedals, seat, etc are attached to. So a "monocoque frame" in this case means the main body of the bicycle is made with a monocoque construction.

We can play semantics games if you like, but the original question was about things like the Gundam Exia which clearly have a skeletal frame and are in no sense using monocoque construction. If you have an internal, articulated skeleton that holds together without the armor, you are definitely Not Monocoque.

-- Mark

Sorry, kinda missed the Exia part. True, if you have a skeletal frame where you put armour on, it cannot be monocoque. Maybe only if the skeleton itself is not load bearing and we are deceived by the model, which the whole skeleton is the load and you need the armour to bear this load(with the exception of joints where they are used for transmitting the load to other armour parts), pretty impossible design given what we are shown. The armour needs to have a lot more contact with the joints and somehow more be connected to the ground to do so.

What I thought up there was more in the UC terms. Which then lead to my question up there, using a hydrallic/pneumatic system that had power transmission started in the centre body part, how do Zeon MSs use a monocoque structure? The load is supported by the hydrallic system, not the armour.