Cool new Traveller tech in production Grimmund (08 May 2014 18:48 UTC)
Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production Kurt Feltenberger (08 May 2014 18:55 UTC)
Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production Jeffrey Schwartz (08 May 2014 20:09 UTC)
Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production Bruce Johnson (08 May 2014 21:33 UTC)
Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production Ian Whitchurch (08 May 2014 21:59 UTC)
Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production Phil Pugliese (08 May 2014 22:34 UTC)
Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production Bruce Johnson (08 May 2014 23:05 UTC)
Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production Richard Aiken (09 May 2014 04:00 UTC)
Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production Richard Aiken (09 May 2014 04:03 UTC)
Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production Richard Aiken (09 May 2014 04:36 UTC)
Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production Jeffrey Schwartz (09 May 2014 13:00 UTC)
Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production Knapp (09 May 2014 20:19 UTC)
Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production W. Hopper (10 May 2014 16:15 UTC)
Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production Knapp (10 May 2014 21:06 UTC)
Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production Phil Pugliese (09 May 2014 10:28 UTC)

Re: [TML] Cool new Traveller tech in production Jeffrey Schwartz 09 May 2014 13:00 UTC

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Richard Aiken <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Bruce Johnson <xxxxxx@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
> wrote:
>>
>> I rather think that firing a FGMP or PGMP kinda fubars wireless radio
>> comms anyway.
>

Hmm... I'd agree that triggering an FGMP or PGMP would have a massive
RF signature.

I've now got this mental image of a thing like a "HARM" missile, but
in a mine form.
You'd stick it on  the corner of a rooftop, with a view of the street,
and when it picked up the indicated RF pulse, it would launch the
attached RPG. The rest of the time, it'd just sit there, passive.

>
> Although it would still be fubared by the FGMP/PGMP, maybe an infrared link?
> Particularly given that the distance involved would normally be conveniently
> measured in single-digit inches.

I could see something that interfaced to the armor's comm laser.

>
> Of course, a cord would be more secure, but also more difficult in use. I've
> never been in combat, but I have been in combat training. Tying my *head* to
> my weapon strikes me as a rather awkward bit of rigging . . .
>

Put the plug in the forearm of the suit :)