Elerium


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#21 Zombie

Zombie

    Mr. Grognard of X-COM

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin, USA

Posted 16 March 2004 - 11:31 PM

EclipseDog - without diving too deep into an intense discussion of theoretical physics and celestial mechanics I think we should take a look at what the good ol' UFOpaedia has to say about the UFO Power Source. Here is a direct quote:

"The power source of an alien craft is an anti-matter reactor which uses Elerium (element 115) to generate powerful gravity waves as well as other forms of energy. The conversion of matter to energy is an incredible 99% efficient, therefore tiny amounts of Elerium can produce a huge amount power. This unit can be reproduced easily using alien alloys."

Truth be told, the aliens are NOT relying on gravity and anti-gravity propulsion. The description does mention gravity waves though. What is the difference you may ask? Like you said, an anti-gravity propulsion system requires actual gravity to interact with to produce thrust (or motion). However, the description never mentions anti-gravity, only gravity waves.

Ok, so how does the UFO move? This is my take on the subject: The Power Source combines Elerium-115 (matter) with anti-matter (don't ask me where the aliens get a huge supply of anti-matter - maybe the spontaneous decay of Elerium?), which annihilate when they meet. The result of this annihilation is the production of various subatomic particles at a high speed. This explosion is non-directional in nature meaning the particles fly every which way producing very inefficient thrust.

In order to align these particles so they all move in the same direction, the Power Source again uses Elerium-115 to produce gravity waves to "channel" these particles out of an orifice in a fine stream. By aligning these particles, they exit the "nozzle" almost single-file, and at a high rate of speed, producing very efficient thrust.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so every particle that exits the nozzle will move the spacecraft forward with a force equal to its mass times its acceleration: F=ma. Granted, the mass of a subatomic particle is miniscule, but this is multiplied by the particle's acceleration (which is very fast). The force produced (which is not very much) gets added to the spacecraft's current speed. Add this force many times in a row and you get a slow, but steady, increase in velocity. The only drawback - it takes a while to get up to speed, and to slow down!

So yes, I did think this through!  ;)

Take no offence in my explanation EclipseDog, your questions keep us all honest!  :angel:

My X-COM Patch Kit For UFO Defense | Emergency XCOM Meeting spoof on YouTube




JellyfishGreen said:

Zombie: Empirical data's your only man, when formulating a research plan.
A soldier's death is never in vain if it makes the formula more plain.
A few dozen make a better case for refining that third decimal place.
They call me Zombie because I don't sleep, as I slowly struggle to climb this heap,
of corpses, data points, and trials, but from the top - I'll see for miles!

#22 EclipseDog

EclipseDog

    Wagging the Dog

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts

Posted 17 March 2004 - 02:00 PM

No offense taken, to the contrary I'm glad to see people who I can freely exchange ideas and possibilities with, without being mired by peers who simply cannot 'see'.

*smiles* I love how easily this board can become very thought provoking with this group. Zombie, I thought about your response and it did strike a chord since it does make for a more sensible solution to propulsion since your description sounds close to something already in the drawingboard process, "The Ion Drive". Since your theoretical application has its roots in an already established future tech by earth's scientists I could easily imagine it or a system similar in design to it being produced by an intellectual species of aliens.

However, where your theory loses me is where everyone went in response to my query about fuel usage and distance travelled per fuel unit.

With the example you just gave the aliens would quickly exhaust even the biggest of fuel cell stockpiles. First they would need to create the anti-matter and for that process they would use the Elerium. Second they'd need an untapped Elerium unit to clash with the anti-matter unit. And third they'd need a third unit of Elerium just to control the directional thrust and strength.

Thus you'd need 3 units of elerium for each momentary instant of thrust (no matter how great that thrust would be during that instant), which I think would lead to needing sporadic re-bursts in order to maintain a set rate of speed and direction.

And that is just with a single engine craft... each additional engine would require its own massive stockpile or else the craft could easily be sent off-course or spinning wildly enough as to make life within such a craft impossible.

NKF is right though in that all of this is purely fiction... but then again so was Jules Verne's submarine and many other prophetic fictionary elements. It seems a waste if minds such as ours can conceive of something that should be theoretically possible, come up with all the roadblocks to its conception, and then find a logical solution to make something work... only to let it waste away after labelling it pure fantasy.

PS: This whole subject of thrust and gravity have led me to several perhaps profound thoughts that I'd like to share with everyone.

Imagine if we or an alien race ever came up with a way to synthesize gravity to the level of making the galaxy's own inate gravitational pulls of planets and suns do the work of travel for us. Such a feat would require the ability to temporarily remake your craft's gravitational pull to the equivalent of a small planet or in some cases even a large one, thus causing it to be dragged into the pull of the pre-existing gravity fields surrounding all celestial objects. Sounds like a wonderful concept at first glance... until you realize the frailty of the gravitational balance throughout our system. Imagine if your brief 'pull' was enough to nudge ever so slightly a single moon or planet off its regular orbit. This would in turn minutely change anything else effected by the pull from that object, until all would be affected in a giant house of cards or dominoes.

But let's leave the theoretical and move to things that are already occurring. I'm sure you all are aware of the large chunks of a much larger meteorite which slammed into Jupiter's atmosphere a year or more back now. All of the scientists at the time were thrilled and amazed to be able to witness firsthand what an impact of such a large body could do to a planet... but they never even stopped to think of the bigger picture. A main part of this fuel usage thread has been thrust, so I'm sure many of you are aware where I am already going with this considerring my last real world 'what-if' scenario and that theme. What if those rocks sped up the planet's orbit or alterred it? What if it nudged it slightly off-axis so the gravity of the planet no longer is aligned to stay in its planetary orbit? What if the extra mass caused by these rocks has caused the gravitational pull to become stronger?

Have I got your gears whirling yet? Well how about another bit of theoretical disertion towards events that are already in motion... Taking the same theme we've been working with all along, 'Thrust', and applying it to something that is so commonplace in our own world that it rarely even ever makes the international news any longer. What I am speaking of is volcanic eruptions. An extreme amount of force can be released in these eruptions, and unlike a space travel experiment gone awry or a freak meteor strike that may never truly affect life on planet Earth... volcanic eruptions are much closer to home and a constant source for disruption to the natural balance. Each 'blast' must alter the path our planet takes, if ever so slightly. This is incredibly bad since volcanoes do not erupt at the same time on opposite sides of the planet and so they never can be cancelled out.

These observations of real events and their possible consequences leads me to my next theoretical observation... is it possible that 'Global Warming' if real is in fact caused by the earth's orbit being shifted closer to the sun by the change caused by any of these things? Jupiter is a very big planet after all and a shift of its gravity could easily also affect us in small ways, similar to how the sun when it gives off solar flares and storms affects us. And let us not forget the thrusts of our own volcanoes releasing their power to the surface.

I leave you all with one last thought... humans often mess with things they do not fully understand until after its too late. Centuries after the whale hunting trade was banned and we're still seeing the effects from it. And everyone has heard the repercussions we shall be facing in the coming years due to deforesting and air pollution... but has anyone or any government or private organization ever done research on the aftereffects of the blasts caused by the A-bombs and others like it? Does anyone have any clue whether those blasts went off while facing one direction or another and whether it had any affect on our planetary orbit? Can it actually be possible that the mysterious cause of global warming if true be in fact this overlooked matter? Have we humans managed to move our own home closer to the sun perhaps..? Personally, I'd really be interrested to see these possibilities and more researched even if in the end it turned out my worries were for naught. And considering all of the things we humans waste time, money, and effort upon it seems foolhardy not to adequately research qualms which may indeed prove legitimate fears.

#23 Zager

Zager

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 391 posts

Posted 17 March 2004 - 02:58 PM

Quote

Does anyone have any clue whether those blasts went off while facing one direction or another and whether it had any affect on our planetary orbit?

The Earth is so incredibly massive that atomic bombs would have no affect on its orbit.

Quote

Can it actually be possible that the mysterious cause of global warming if true be in fact this overlooked matter?

Astrophysicists would know if this had happened.

#24 Zombie

Zombie

    Mr. Grognard of X-COM

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin, USA

Posted 17 March 2004 - 09:45 PM

It is true that the domino effect changes things we could not possibly forsee. The meteorite that slammed into Jupiter probably had no effect on it's mass, inertial rotation or elliptical path though. Why? Point One: Many scientists believe that Jupiter does not have an actual "surface", or if it does, only a very small core of solid metallic hydrogen. The meteroite would never cause an impact because it would simply "burn up" in Jupiter's very dense (and deep) atmosphere. Point Two: It was not really a meteorite but rather a comet that met its demise (Shoemaker-Levy). Comets are loosly compacted objects consisting mostly of empty space, dust and ice with hardly any mass. When this comet encountered Jupiter's gravitational pull, it broke apart into many smaller pieces. Point Three: The mass of this comet was miniscule compared to Jupiter's mass. Even an object the size of our moon would have little or no effect.

Explosions (such as volcanoes or atomic bombs) that happen on a planets surface do nothing to change it's orbit. The atmosphere will absorb most of the kinetic energy as friction, dissipating any "thrust" it could produce. An explosion in space could possibly change an orbit or cause a planet to "wobble", but most scientists agree that this would have to be a pretty big blast to cause any serious damage, especially with a planetary-sized object.

As for the thrust of UFO's, my explanation was theoretical in nature due to the description of the Power Source. The OFOpaedia description of Elerium-115 clears up some questions regarding anti-matter production. Here is a direct quote:
"This element has the unusual property of generating anti-matter when bombarded with certain particles. This creates gravity waves and other forms of energy. It is not naturally found in our solar system and cannot be reproduced."

So actually, gravity waves AND anti-matter is produced simultaneously from the bombardment of E-115. In addition, the definition claims "certain particles" are used in the bombardment - NOT Elerium-115. Therefore, one bombardment only uses one unit of this rare element, not 3 as I guessed.

With bombardments, we are talking about interactions between these "certain particles" and an atom of Elerium-115. What I would like to propose is that one "UNIT" of Elerium-115 does not equal one atom. Even one mole of Elerium (6*10^23 atoms) is a fairly small quantity to even handle! For now, let us just assume that one mole of E-115 = 1 "UNIT".

What this means is that one bombardment of E-115 by one particle produces one unit of anti-matter, gravity waves, and energy. The destruction of this anti-matter may produce 100 subatomic particles (just a guess). The equation of this reaction would be:
1 "Particle" + 1 atom Elerium -> 100 subatomic particles + Energy (including gravity waves). The weight of these subatomic particles would have to be less than the original weight of the E-115 due to conservation of mass and energy. The energy produced can be converted into a weight (or mass) by Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2.

More importantly, those 100 particles are moving at a high rate of speed each adding a small amount of thrust to the craft. Because these bombardments occur atom-by-atom the spacecraft should remain maneuverable even with many per second. Two, three, or even four engine spacecraft could fly easily by synchronizing the bombardments to occur at the same time.

So in short (yeah, right!) your supply of Elerium would not be depleted too fast if you think of the Units as moles. My Avenger used 3 units of Elerium for 2 hours of flight. If you convert this ratio to bombardments per second, the result is 2.5*10^20! Seems a little high for me, so my assumption that 1unit = 1mole must be too high. Anyhow, even if 1unit = .00000005mole you are still looking at a fairly high number. Let's say 10,000 atoms per second can be bombarded. If this is true than 1 Unit of Elerium = 24,000,000 atoms (or 2.4*10^7)! If everyone agrees that this rate is possible, then logically, you have to also agree that 1 unit = 24,000,000 atoms (ratios do not lie). This explains why craft do not suddnly run out of fuel in mid-flight!  ;)

My X-COM Patch Kit For UFO Defense | Emergency XCOM Meeting spoof on YouTube




JellyfishGreen said:

Zombie: Empirical data's your only man, when formulating a research plan.
A soldier's death is never in vain if it makes the formula more plain.
A few dozen make a better case for refining that third decimal place.
They call me Zombie because I don't sleep, as I slowly struggle to climb this heap,
of corpses, data points, and trials, but from the top - I'll see for miles!

#25 Pumpkinhead

Pumpkinhead

    Vengeance: The Demon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 515 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 March 2004 - 01:50 AM

One thing that I think proves the UFOs can go faster than their stats say is the fact that the Earth's escape velocity is 21,693 knots (mach 34)!! That's 9x faster than a Medium Scout or 4x faster than a Battleship, proving that if they want to leave our atmosphere they'd need to be faster than they are rated at ;)

NOTE #2 -- Mach Speeds:

Skyranger:    1.2
Interceptor:  3.3
Lightning:    4.8
Firestorm:    6.5
Avenger:      8.4

Small Scout:  3.4
Medium Scout: 3.7
Large Scout:  4.2
Supply Ship:  5.0
Harvester:    6.2
Abductor:     6.7
Terror Ship:  7.5
Battleship:   7.8

"The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO; Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and refracted the light from Venus."
-- K, Men In Black

#26 Zombie

Zombie

    Mr. Grognard of X-COM

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin, USA

Posted 18 March 2004 - 02:02 AM

Very interesting, Pumpkinhead! That is a very cool point! By the way, my Mach numbers are a little off - what is your conversion factor?

My X-COM Patch Kit For UFO Defense | Emergency XCOM Meeting spoof on YouTube




JellyfishGreen said:

Zombie: Empirical data's your only man, when formulating a research plan.
A soldier's death is never in vain if it makes the formula more plain.
A few dozen make a better case for refining that third decimal place.
They call me Zombie because I don't sleep, as I slowly struggle to climb this heap,
of corpses, data points, and trials, but from the top - I'll see for miles!

#27 Pumpkinhead

Pumpkinhead

    Vengeance: The Demon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 515 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 March 2004 - 02:11 AM

This was my conversion... with a little bit of working out in between ;)

Mach 1 = 331.4 m/s = 1193 km/h = 643 knots

Even Mars' escape velocity is 9,740 knots (mach 15)...
"The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO; Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and refracted the light from Venus."
-- K, Men In Black

#28 Zombie

Zombie

    Mr. Grognard of X-COM

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin, USA

Posted 18 March 2004 - 03:02 AM

Ahh that's why! The numbers I have are a little different due to the conversion factor. At www.onlineconversion.com their numbers correspond pretty close to mine. 1 Mach = 1,225 km/h = 661 knots.

While it is true that the escape velocity of Mars is 9740 knots, it is not Mach 15! Mach numbers depend upon the speed of sound at a certain planet. The speed of sound is also dependant upon the temperature at that altitude. The latest news about this says that the atmosphere of Mars is 1/10 that of Earth! Therefore the true speed of sound is roughly 1/10 of 15 or Mach 1.5! For a fascinating discussion about flying on Mars visit www.x-plane.com/mars.html!

My X-COM Patch Kit For UFO Defense | Emergency XCOM Meeting spoof on YouTube




JellyfishGreen said:

Zombie: Empirical data's your only man, when formulating a research plan.
A soldier's death is never in vain if it makes the formula more plain.
A few dozen make a better case for refining that third decimal place.
They call me Zombie because I don't sleep, as I slowly struggle to climb this heap,
of corpses, data points, and trials, but from the top - I'll see for miles!

#29 Pumpkinhead

Pumpkinhead

    Vengeance: The Demon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 515 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 March 2004 - 04:12 AM

According to their conversion, 1 mach = 340.29 m/s, which is true only at 14.58 deg C... I was basing mine off 0 deg C to try and make it standardised B)
"The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO; Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and refracted the light from Venus."
-- K, Men In Black

#30 Pumpkinhead

Pumpkinhead

    Vengeance: The Demon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 515 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 March 2004 - 04:14 AM

Zombie, on Mar 18 2004, 01:02 PM, said:

While it is true that the escape velocity of Mars is 9740 knots, it is not Mach 15! Mach numbers depend upon the speed of sound at a certain planet. The speed of sound is also dependant upon the temperature at that altitude.
Does this mean that Mach numbers cannot be used in space as sound cannot travel there?
"The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO; Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and refracted the light from Venus."
-- K, Men In Black

#31 Pumpkinhead

Pumpkinhead

    Vengeance: The Demon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 515 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 March 2004 - 04:32 AM

Just a fun little fact:

Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea is a novel concept considering that 20,000 leagues = 111,120km, meaning that Jules Verne had his adventurers travelling through the Earth and almost 8x out the other side!... They'd be a quarter of the way to the moon!! ;)
"The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO; Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and refracted the light from Venus."
-- K, Men In Black

#32 NKF

NKF

    Mr. Badger in disguise

  • Site Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In my mind

Posted 18 March 2004 - 07:01 AM

There's fiction for you. It doesn't necessarily move in straight lines.

I guess it also depends on how the title translates in your mind. 20, 000 leagues under the sea could mean having moved 20, 000 leagues while under the sea rather than descending through the sea, into the mantle, then the core, and out the other side. Or, Mr. Verne really did mean straight down and just made up the number. ;)

Speaking of Jules Verne it's amazing at how many of Mr. Verne's ideas have become a reality today when nothing like that existed during his time.

I suppose seeds of realty can be found in fiction.

- NKF
NKF, narrow minded fuddy duddy who refuses to let go of the past and will not accept anything newer than 1979.

#33 EclipseDog

EclipseDog

    Wagging the Dog

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts

Posted 18 March 2004 - 09:12 AM

*nods* I always went with the travelling the globe for 20k leagues myself but I can easily see someone without a concept of the ocean's depth making that kind of a mistake in their title back then. Then again... Mr. Verne did seem to be far-advanced for his time.

As for the rest... eh I'll go along with most of the rebuttals but I'll disagree with the comment about the astrophysicists knowing if such was the case. Scientists can only research what their brains conceive of. Air pollution can be seen easily which is why such a large emphasis has been put into researching that. The orbital paths of our planet and the others within our system are not so easily spotted though.

Since we still have 365 & 1/4 (ap.) day years with the winter and summer solstices occurring at the same time it is obvious that if there is a change thus far it is minute at best when it comes to our orbit. However even a few minutes difference in the orbit could mean enough miles closer to the sun to explain an excess of heat blanketting the earth and we just have not botherred to keep track of the total time spent from one soltstice to the next under the mistaken belief that it would never change. Actually for that matter I'm personally not even sure the solstices are actually the high and low points anymore since I seem to recall last year's being off.

#34 Zombie

Zombie

    Mr. Grognard of X-COM

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin, USA

Posted 21 March 2004 - 07:40 AM

Pumpkinhead - concerning Mach numbers:

The speed of sound (Mach 1) is defined as the following equation: a=sqrt(g*R*T)
where a is the speed of sound, g is the ratio of the specific heat, R is the gas constant, and T is the temperature in Kelvin. The gas constant ( R ) in space is roughly 0 (my back-of-the-matchbook calculation is 3 E-33). The temperature of space is almost a constant at 2.73K due to cosmic background microwave radiation. The ratio of specific heat is also about 0. Plugging these values into the above equation you get the square root of a very small number which is also a very small number. Therefore the speed of sound in space is essentially zero - so Mach numbers do not apply there! :)

Back to the Elerium thread: I just read a very interesting article in the April 2004 edition of Scientific American magazine pertaining to Elerium-115 (element 115).  In a joint venture between Russian scientists at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna and scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, element 115 was successfully created! They made element 115 by colliding calcium 48 (20 protons) with americium 243 (95 protons). 95+20=115! Element 115 has a somewhat short lifespan of 90 milliseconds and spontaneously decays into element 113 by releasing a helium nucleus (2 protons).

Element 113 is the most stable of the two elements with a lifespan of 1.2 seconds. Late last year, scientists also created element 116! The next elements with a plateau of stability are hypothesized to lie at 120 or 126 protons. So "Elerium" really does exist, even though it's lifespan is only 90 milliseconds!

Kinda tough to explain why those piles of E-115 at your base do not turn into element 113 after 90 milliseconds - then, 1.2 seconds later, your E-113 is also gone! Eventually the only thing left is lead 208.
Engineer: "Hey, what happened to our Elerium supply?"
Soldier: "I dunno, we just laid it over there in a pile."
Engineer: "Well, I only see a pile of some grey metal instead of yellow crystals"
Scientist: "Yeah, that stuff is actually lead now so we need to get some more..." !!!  ;)

My X-COM Patch Kit For UFO Defense | Emergency XCOM Meeting spoof on YouTube




JellyfishGreen said:

Zombie: Empirical data's your only man, when formulating a research plan.
A soldier's death is never in vain if it makes the formula more plain.
A few dozen make a better case for refining that third decimal place.
They call me Zombie because I don't sleep, as I slowly struggle to climb this heap,
of corpses, data points, and trials, but from the top - I'll see for miles!

#35 Bomb Bloke

Bomb Bloke

    The Smily Admin

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tasmania (AU)

Posted 24 March 2004 - 03:31 AM

It'd keep your field squads busy anyway...

Posted Image : We need more Elerium... this lot has dissolved already...

Posted Image : What?... Again?!
BB's X-Com Projects Page - X-Com Games At GamersGate
You're just jealous 'cause the voices only talk to me :P
We love Tammy! :)

#36 BladeFireLight

BladeFireLight

    Xcomutil Developer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 665 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Joplin, Missouri, USA

Posted 24 March 2004 - 04:27 AM

I thought by adjusting the number on nutrons it was posible to have a stable atom.. like depleted uranium

-Blade FireLight
QUOTE
Combat is very simple, there is a first place and second place, second place is laying face down in the mud, sometimes, so is first place.

#37 JellyfishGreen

JellyfishGreen

    Tentacle Pentacle

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts

Posted 30 March 2004 - 11:36 AM

No, more neutrons won't always help - a big ball of round magnets will eventually fall apart under its own weight once it gets big enough (he bluffs and handwaves). The best way to stabilize E115 is to accelerate it to a percentage of lightspeed so that time slows down for the particle - the 1.5 seconds to it lasts a few months to us.  Only then is it safe to coax it into producing antigravity waves.
The deadly Lobsterman threat was finally countered by melee combat with power tools. -ufopaedia.org

#38 Bomb Bloke

Bomb Bloke

    The Smily Admin

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tasmania (AU)

Posted 30 March 2004 - 11:29 PM

However, given that you'd really want to use those gravity waves to create the speed, that could create a bit of a vicious circle...
BB's X-Com Projects Page - X-Com Games At GamersGate
You're just jealous 'cause the voices only talk to me :P
We love Tammy! :)

#39 Sgt. Strike

Sgt. Strike

    Seeker of truth, and also to kick some alien butt!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 March 2004 - 06:27 PM

Actually, a league is a measurement of distance, I don't think H.G. Welles meant going down, but rather across, not even in a straight line, but going through most of the oceans and seans, etc.
When all else fails, CHEAT!!!

#40 Bomb Bloke

Bomb Bloke

    The Smily Admin

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tasmania (AU)

Posted 01 April 2004 - 12:32 AM

That might be valid for a title such as "20,000 Leagues: Under The Sea", but that's not it...
BB's X-Com Projects Page - X-Com Games At GamersGate
You're just jealous 'cause the voices only talk to me :P
We love Tammy! :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users