Talk:Gundam Universal Century technology

First header

There are a few mistakes/misconception of wordings and missing points. I have added in a few official settings and such into the article.

THE first Gundam technology guide book

Gundam Century was the first Gundam technology guide book published as an unofficial fan book. Later, Bandai and Sunrise used a really odd way to approve the book to be official by using the discussion and settings within the book (and no one knows with or without authorization from the publisher) Some of the main cooperators that helped in creating the book have became Bandai workers and that might have helped in the endorsement of the book. However, after a few variation of the official settings was made, Gundam Century became inaccurate and is now a semi-official guide book. Which some of the facts are still true but most are not.

Most notable difference is the Minovsky Particle technology. In Gundam Century, it claims the Mega Particle Cannon fires heavy metal particles instead of Mega particles later announced in many instruction manuals.

While now we use the definition from Gundam Officials and mainly from the instruction manual of Perfect Grade RX-78-2 Gundam, we should still be grateful to the people that originally created the guide book and made everything possible. If Gundam Century had not been published, the Gundam series would be less successful and technology discussion would just be like the Super Robot series aired before First Gundam.

MythSearcher 19:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Minovski Drive Technology

Don't forget to include the Minovski Drive, which was built into the V2 Gundam. It functions as a drive (giving the V2 unparalled acceleration without fuel, up to 20Gs if I remember right), a weapon, and a shield. If we were to see any post-Victory Gundam stories, I bet that most would have included the Minovski Drive.

To be fair, that technology is a bit older than Victory Gundam. In fact, it was incorperated into much larger units even as early as the OYW. The White Base and Apsalus are prime examples of Minovski Drive systems allowing otherwise arodynamicaly challenged vehicles to operate in atmosphere.

You have mixed up the two different tech. Minovski Drive is different from Minovski Craft, what you are talking about here, The drive allows propulsionary forces but the craft only work to lift the unit. Minovski Drive is a little older than V2, it has been in service since UC0133 on Mother Vangaurd, which is the first unit equiping this tech. However, V2 is the first MS that have this installed. MythSearcher 02:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Minovski Craft Technology

Wasn't there a Mobile Suit in Hathaway Flash (novelization) that had a Minovski Craft unit for take off and landing? And, all version of the Victory Gundam had a Core Fighter fitted with Minovski Craft-more than powerful enough to keep the Mobile Suit in the air.

Drive/Craft

Yes, the V2 Gundam contains a Minovsky Drive that can virtually propel the unit to sub light speed. The Minovsky Craft system is installed in both RX-104FF and RX-105. MythSearcher

From the edit, it seems like the 14 days is an official number. However, it is just a number I have derived from the official numbers 80% speed of light and 20G. Maybe we should delete it or say something about it is estimated to have at least 14 days of propellant?

MythSearcher 14:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Miscellany

How exactly is AMBAC similar to a modern-day EVA? I think that needs to be explained or justified.

And I hope you can appreciate the humor of referring to American English as "Proper" English in my edit description... nevertheless, it was my understanding that both spellings are valid in England - whereas on this side of the pond it seems like the word manoeuveurue might have a few extraneous vowels.  :) But I did at least take the time to look it up and discover that it was a valid alternate spelling.

63.106.93.177 17:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I think the section already describes how AMBAC is similar to EVA maneuvers fairly well in the first two or three sentences. Virogtheconq 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I didn't get it. It seemed like a stretch to me, but rather than throw it out I did my best to justify it in the article. If the similarity is clear from the first two or three sentences, why introduce the analogy explicitly later on? One could say it's very similar to the way mountain-climbers keep their balance, for all it would mean to me as someone who doesn't climb mountains. Or what is the importance of saying that it's similar to how astronauts work during EVA? What does that tell us about AMBAC? Is the way an astronaut works in space without a thruster pack somehow relevant to the way an imaginary giant robot (which incidentally packs a mighty reactor and a bunch of perfectly functional thrusters) might work in space? (Actually I would have thought they mostly just relied on things like the MMU thruster pack or the robot arm to keep them where they need to be while in EVA.)

But really all my explanation comes down to is "it's similar to astronaut EVA because they're both humanoid and they can both move around a little bit without propellant." But that has no relevance to AMBAC, really.

Tilde Tilde Tilde.

63.106.93.177

Well, that's just it. The AMBAC is (from my understanding) entirely thrusterless, so it relies on moving the mech's humanoid geometry to change the attitude of the mech. It does not change the suit's velocity in any way (the center of mass still moves exactly as without any AMBAC control), but it allows the suit to change the way it is facing, etc. by moving its limbs and other parts around. For a simple example, just try sitting in rotating chair and changing the way you face without bracing against anything other than the chair. That being said, as far as I know there's no real documentation on how the AMBAC actually works (with regard to moving the suit's limbs and the like), but instead there's only this simple control theory. Virogtheconq

The description could be found in Gundam Century and presumably migrated itself to Gundam Officials stating AMBAC movement could be compare to EVA (though in Japanese). I don't think the first few sentences are enough because it does not provide a link to the EVA article. There are a lot more description than you think in these books, but also quite unorganized in Gundam Officials. I have also gone through the dictionary to check for the spelling of manouevre the stupid MS word keep changing back to English (U.S.) even though I keep setting it to English (U.K.) or any other English forms. MythSearcher 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  I'm dubious about the section on AMBAC because, although possible, it isn't capable of achieving the results that seem to be ascribed to it. For example, a mech could not go from a starting position to facing in the opposite direction in the same attitude. The example Virog gave earlier, of rotating a chair without external bracing, actually depends on the non-linear friction of the chair's bearing.

  That said, I don't know whether AMBAC is actually credited with being able to achieve major changes in orientation in the anime. If it is only used for minor, temporary changes in attitude, that's fine. If not, there should be a comment in the article about its implausibility. Could someone with a knowledge of both physics and Gundam please amend it if necessary? --Random wikipedia user. (3 February 2006)

---

Well, there's actually a significant amount of internal mechanics that can be used to compensate for introduced angular momentum. The angular moment created by turning the mech one way can be offset by a reaction wheel with high moment of inertia turning in the other direction. Granted, that's not exactly the most efficient way to do it, since there'd basically be a lot of dead mass not doing anything except rotating on the mech, but it is possible. That being said, as far as I known AMBAC was never really described too thoroughly in any of the productions, so most likely the adjustments made by AMBAC are of small order (shifting limb positions and the like), and not large enough to turn the entire mech around. Virogtheconq

There is , actually, a great amount of AMBAC related articles in books published. AMBAC system was never designed to be used alone in turning the unit. It is designed to assist the propulsion systems to achieve greater turning speed at first. with the turning of the limbs, the propulsion systems can extend to greater distance from the body and the mass could be drawn back towards the centre of mass after the short impulse of propulsion. This is where the AMBAC can help in the manouevring of the units. Most of the limbs, including tail and wing binders have apogee propellors mounted in them. Another use of the AMBAC system comes to shifting the mass of the body around to move the main body away from harm. The centre of mass and the orientation of the overall mass is never changed, but the body and the limbs if seen as different bodies will have a change in their centre of mass and their orientation. In the chair example, if the chair does not have any friction, after your arm stopped, the rotation of your body will also stop. However, you will be facing a slightly different direction since your arm is extend outwards. (do not do this at 180 degrees angles, do something like 30, 75, 90 degrees and you will understand), it even works if you simple hold out your arm instead of swinging it out. With heavier weights attached to your arm, the result will be more clear. The third use of AMBAC is mainly on aiming. Since the AMBAC system can turn the unit by a little when the unit is at a differnt pose (more extreme case will be something like a Yoga pose), due to the shifting of mass. Mobile suits can use it for precision shooting. It decreases the damping time. MythSearcher 05:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't read any of the tech books - I just go by what I've seen in the productions. But yes, those uses are primarly what a system of limbs would be able to do - however, I'm a little confused as to whether the wing/tail binders really would count as part of the AMBAC system, since they achieve control via propulsion. Virogtheconq

They do, because they can do almost the same thing limbs can. (only less because normally they have less mass) Their description could be found in the Hyakushiki settings and some of the Project Zeta related articles. Limbs are also used as a supportive system for the propulsion, therefore binders are just the same. MythSearcher 09:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

should the article be seperated into smaller ones?

Currently the article is very long, and is quite hard to find specific paragraph for people who do not know anything about Gundam Universe. MythSearcher 09:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I-Fields and Beam Shields

Correct me if I am wrong, I do believe that the V2 Gundam's Mega Beam Shield emitted a beam shields and not an I-Fields. My reasoning is that I-Fields, alone, only deflect beam weaponry, while beam shields block all types of ammunition.

This reasoning is valid and reasonable, but wiki's policy is "no original reseach"(WP:NOT, WP:OR). If the official setting(MS encyclopedia and V2 Assault model instruction manual says so) says I-Field, then it is an I-Field. Your argument is quite correct in the earlier UC timeline (say, before UC 0093), I-Fields should just diversify and/or deflect beam weaponry, Beam shields "destroys" solid ammunition and absorbs beam weaponry. However, from another effect of Minovsky particles, if the I-Field is strong and the Minovsky particles in it is dense enough, it can act as a Minovsky craft cushion and block soild ammunition. Technical terms of I-Field and Beam Shield are as follow:

Beam shields are constructed like a Beam sabre, the outmost layer is an Electro-magnetic field contraining a certain amount of Minovsky particle in it to form an I-Field, inside the I-Field, Minovsky particle is superheated and becomes a plasma form, which loses its latice structure, and is used to destroy all incoming ammunition. Because of the thin layer of I-Field outside, Mega particles in beam weaponry will face resistance and loss its pressure, releasing +ve and -ve Minovsky particle and is absorbed into the Beam shield. Beam sabre will simply be blocked due to the 2 I-Field blocking each other.

I-Field barriers is simply a huge Electro-magnetic field forming a small area which Minovsky particles stop difusing into the vacuum and keep its latice form in a certain density. Mega particles in the beam weaponry will hit the Minovsky particles and diversed (or deflected, if the I-Field barrier specially forms a path way for it to go, which will take up more energy for the I-Field generator).

Above taken and translated from Gundam Officials and various manual.

Notice the differce is that Beam Shields' Minovsky particles are high energy plasma but I-Fields' Minovsky particles are still in latice format. This is why ν Gundam's FF-Field cannot be considered a I-Field barrier since the Minovsky particle inside is in a plasma state and not latice.

Technically, the second outermost layer of a Beam Shield(and all beam sabres) is an I-Field, but not as powerful as an I-Field Barrier.

Hope this can clarify the problem we face here. You are not wrong by simple inspection from the series, but there are certain things behind where the settings get quite complicated.

MythSearcher 05:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand, and, while I understood that a Beam Shield is basically a shield shaped saber, and was also aware of the Nu Gundam's I-Field barrier's ability to block non-beam weaponry, I made the mistake of assuming that Beam Shields are always stronger than I-Fields. Thanks for clearing that up. AEUG 10:21, 31 March 2006

Fin Funnels

Now, to my understanding, Nu's Fin Funnels are actually bits with their own generators. It would amke sense that they ahd generators since the funnels also hold the barrier on Nu. The article contradicts this, however. http://mahq.net/mecha/gundam/cca/rx-93.htm

24.15.243.244 23:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The official sources contradicts themselves... In MS Encyclopedia, it says that the FFs cannot be recharged. In the series, the FFs are used and then discarded without reuse. However, in the model instruction page 9, has written about the small generator in it twice.

If you ask me, I'd say use the newest sources(which should be the model instruction) until further prove could be found.

I will change the article now. MythSearcher 02:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait... where did the article contradics the generator part? the recharge means the propellent, not the energy. MythSearcher 02:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mike:

although in the anime gundams usually have 3 to 40 mW beam rifles. If they were real they'd probably range in the Terrawatt range. This is because they are so large and advanced. some lasers today have terrawatt power. Though if they were that powerful it would disintigrate anything in it's way and produce an emense amount of heat and light.

A common consenses in the Japanese and chinese gundam community is that the given output of the Beam weapons in UC is the required energy to trigger the compressed minovsky particles in the e-caps & e-packs. Therefore, the ones not using e-caps do not state their output power. However, of course it is never explicitly mentioned in any official source and therefore it is not going into the article.

Also notice official sources (MS encyclopedia 2003 and PG RX-78-2 instructions) stated the power of the Mega particle cannon having 4 times the power of the Laser in the same time frame.

MythSearcher 03:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That is true. although, if you look on a gundam encyclopedia such as MAHQ it will state most of the mobile suits' beam rifles' power. For ex. Nu has a 3.8

Yes, I understand that and another good example is S's Beam Smart Gun is 56MW (12MW+ in machine gun mode). However, never in any official sources stated what the number is. Normally, it is just attached in front of the Beam rifle. Another note, Beam Rifle is a specific type of mega beam cannon, just minimized it's size using e-cap technology. MythSearcher 14:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Incoms

According to M-MSV, the first incom equiped unit should be MRX-011 and went on battle on 20th November, UC0087. Which proves the change of first battle on UC0088 by Mk-V and S incorrect. Psycommu system is needed on funnel equiped mobile weapons, and the NZ series equiped both incom and funnel, and thus they are the perfect proof of incom partnering with psycommu systems. MythSearcher 07:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In-universe

Yes, the article is written in in-universe style, if you ignore the header. Articles are written that way because the official sources are written that way, it is quoted and translated from the sources directly, and thus not altered. The header provides a means of telling people that the following article is written such that it tells the reader that it is in-universe, and should be viewed as such. However, I highly doubt the in-universe tag should be used since there is no way to change it unless making the article extremely stupid sounding, just like what I did to the article. As long as the artcile is sourced from the same sources, it should not be required that every single paragraph contains the sourced material name. Such repeated information is not making the article easier to read, it is making it harder instead. The in-universe tag is just a guideline, not an official policy and should NOT be enforced on every single article if there are sources of the article written in that style. I move to revert the article back to the original one without the tag and without all the obvious and stupid statement about all the stuff is quoted from Gundam Century, Gundam Officials and Ms encyclopedia, where all of them is written in the Reference section. Maybe the header should be changed so that people know it is quoted from those sources, but I oppose the overall article having in line reference stating all the source over and over again. MythSearcher 03:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article does need something at the beginning stating that everything contained therein is fictional. Most articles about fictional things in the Wiki tend to have an introductory paragraph which includes the statement, but as this doesn't, the header should suffice. The last sentence is a bit superfluous, though. Virogtheconq 07:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have added one, but whoever added the in-universe tag reverted it saying a header is not enough. I guess we should discuss about how to get a better header.

The following article deals with the technologies present in the fictional anime metaseries Mobile Suit Gundam's Universal Century timeline, as stated in the Gundam Century, Gundam Officials and MS encyclopedia. Unless stated otherwise, please do not view it as real life technology.

I'd say something like this is sufficient. MythSearcher 09:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just wonder what kind of person looking for article of anything with words Universal Century without knowledge about what Gundam is. Header is more than enough if you ask me. But for someone else, it look like they will be please only if we put quote in every paragraph, or like Mythsearcher's sarcasm edit, mention the source repeatly (it's more than stupidity if you ask me, it's pure idiocy combine with ultra-moronic). L-Zwei 11:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I will leave it as it is for 5 days(just like any other wikipedia votes), if the person who added the in-universe tag did not pay any more attention and have no additional thought, I will revert it back. The guideline is fine for a lot of articles, but as I have said, for these kind of article with everything coming from the same few sources, having everything inline is plain stupidity, and I agree, it is also idiotic and moronic. MythSearcher 13:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

When asking who doesn't know that "Universal Century" is fiction you have forgetten about the random article function and also the power of linking that can drop you anywhere into the middle of an article. The guideline is there for a reason. GraemeLeggett 13:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly how I got here. If this article is only using a few sources, why does it exist? We're not here to be an encyclopedia of everything someone ever made up in the gundam universe, so the things that we include should be ones that have more to them than a single description in a fictional technical manual somewhere, or fanon speculation filling in behind a appearance that doesn't tell you technical details. It's not important to include every piece of technobabble; real-world information and importance to the plot are more useful. "such and such a device enables X; Z and Y used it to blah." Which is more important to hear about the transporter from star trek, the technobabble on what it's made of or the fact that it was an important plot device to get the crew to the surface? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly why the article is in the current format, I do not know how much you have paid attention into the article itself, the article deals with the technologies used in the series, referenced from said sources, which the anime itself not having the details. Each technology has basically "how it works, why it works, what is it used for" in the original anime. All the linkings to the middle of this page are from articles of fictional characters, machines, timelines, anime series pages and such. How on earth do people not understand that they are linking to a fictional technology page? If they got here by random, they will be able to see the header, which originally states that this article is about the fictional technologies of the Universal Century timeline of the Gundam Series. Adding a tag that suggests people to come and edit the page is not going to help, in fact, it introduces people with minimal knowledge about the page and most of the time will increase the confusion and sometimes end up with strange edits that strays away from the official sources.

It is not important to you does not mean it is not important to others, they are people who wished to get their hands on such information, but cannot read the original source because it is not available to them and/or they cannot read Japanese.

Also, the in-universe tag is just not going to help people that some how unknowingly linked to the middle of this page, if they are so ignorant that they do not read the header, they are not going to care about the tag anyway. The in-universe guideline is just an overkill here, it does not provide better information, it just helps the article to become so lengthy and repeated so that it losses its readability. Yes, maybe there are those who can change the article into a better out-of-universe view, however, guidelines stay as guidelines and are not policies that should always be kept if the article itself already is helpful enough to normal viewers who actually come seeking for these information. It has a lot more meaning stating what happened inside the universe than stating when was it written in real life. Also, it is completely original research or speculation if anyone tries to write why these fictional technologies exsisted. No source have state why they were written, we only know that when, where, are they published by the company and what is written inside. And what is written inside is what you see in this article. If it is mentioned, it is important enough to be stated by the official source. I tried my best to delete any speculation and original research from this article and a lot of related ones, because these are wiki policies, but for the guidelines made up by users? Sorry, depending on how much it ruins the article, I do not think should be always entertained. MythSearcher 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

copyedit tag

This tag is not related to the in-universe/out-universe style question. I have tagged it because of the instances of poor grammar.GraemeLeggett 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. This is more constructive. MythSearcher 17:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Beam smart gun

I have added this due to its two page description and the advancement in the technology used in it. I move to seperate the page like the chinese wiki's entry. That way, it is easier to put inline reference and will look less stupid since the references will not be repeated too many times. MythSearcher 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the text you had dumped in had been rendered into an acceptable grammatical form first. GraemeLeggett 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor grammar, I am not a native speaker, I tried my best to fix the grammar. MythSearcher 06:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Minovsky Drive

I know it sounds ridiculous, for 20G, it takes 14 days to reach just 80% the speed of light. However, it is written specificly in more then one source. I hate to include it, too. The source I have now dated back to 1998. If I find any newer official sources doubting it, I will change it immediately. MythSearcher^talk 03:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC) :Ah, great, I found newer sources. I thought the info on MS encyclopedia 98 and 2003 are the same, they are not. The close to speed of light is a manga only description. It does not counter older sources, but at least I don't give much credit to the two volume extremely poorly written manga. The newer sources also added about the plasma itself reaching a speed close to the speed of light, which is also said in the mega particle weapons, and is more reasonable. MythSearcher^talk 14:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said in the edit summary of the main article. Sorry, I was hoping for a better source and that turn out I was too quick to act. I should not. MythSearcher^talk 14:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Tail Binders

I'm not entirely sure of this, but wasn't the first suit to use tail binders the GP03, several years before the Hyaku-Shiki? Shrumster 06:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the first is Hyakushiki. GP03S does not have tail binders(they do not serve as binders, they are just vector thrusters.) MythSearcher^talk 05:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Era011.jpg

Image:Era011.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

propose move back to Universal Century technology.

I propose moving this back to Universal Century technology and drop the lengthy in-universe descriptions. Keep but cleanup some of the more notable and related items like AMBAC and beam weaponry in which the series is heavily based upon. MythSearcher^talk 09:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sad to say, but I gotta agree with you here. We don't need a description of every single gizmo, after all. Just ones that are important in general. Jtrainor (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Edward321 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:RX-78GP01fb Gundam Zephyranthes Full Vernian (Gundam 0083).jpg

The image File:RX-78GP01fb Gundam Zephyranthes Full Vernian (Gundam 0083).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Found bit of outside referrence

Metal Gear 2 (found at TV Tropes). L-Zwei (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

AMBAC

I don't get it. According to the wikia: For example, if we place a person in a micro-gravity environment where friction is negligible (i.e. space), and ask him to place his left arm to his chest then swing it out to the side, the resulting inertia of the arm movement would result in the rest of his body turning the other direction in order to conserve angular momentum. Then when the motion of the arm stopped, the rotation of the body would also stop.

When he stopped the motion of the arm, wouldn't his body continue to turn unless acted on? Mytg8 (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)