|
Post by Philip on Aug 11, 2004 13:37:07 GMT -5
=Star Ship Engines=Sub-light Engines are based on 'Bubble tech', a series of powerfields utilised to form a propulsion system. Each massive engine exhaust is in fact a 'bubble' field mount. Plasma is feed into the bubble were the laws a physics are shifted to enable the atoms within the plasma to break down completely and to be totally converted to pure q-energy which travels at near the speed of light. The q-energy can only exist inside the bubble but can't be contained by the bubble, so upon leaving the bubble the q-energy partially recombines to form sub atomic particles which are travelling as fast as light. This q-energy escapes the bubble field and is in turn deflected by the engine 'forcefield dish' to provide propulsion. As the recombined sub-atomic particles are travelling near the speed of light, so the ship can theoretically reach near light speed. A far less powerful version of bubble tech which demonstrates similar properties is the 'conversion field' which converts kinetic energy to light. If anyone can come up with a better name than 'bubble tech' I'd be more than happy to change it
|
|
|
Post by ErnestBorgnine on Aug 11, 2004 19:36:17 GMT -5
Blah blah handwaving blah blah, plasma fed in and out the back you get plasma. You've restated the basic principle for the plasma/fusion-torch engine, but in effect gratuitously invented a whole bunch of additional technology to do it.
The proposed engine solves one problem of torchdrives, trying to figure out how to contain the heat of the exhaust without melting the exhaust system, but altering the physics of local space seems a bit extravagant to achieve that end.
Kinetic conversion fields, not so much. Unless the field generates somesort of sideways or reversed vector, that is no defence at all.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 11, 2004 21:45:34 GMT -5
Blah blah handwaving blah blah, plasma fed in and out the back you get plasma. You've restated the basic principle for the plasma/fusion-torch engine, but in effect gratuitously invented a whole bunch of additional technology to do it. Yep, I'm a designer! As GW hasn't fully detailed the technology of 40K, its fun to come up with plausible ideas that match the look and feel of 40K. It's not a Plasma/ fusion-torch engine. The energy isn't released via fusion. I included 'plasma' simply because it sounded good. This 'bubble tech engine' uses direct conversion field technology so any old matter will do, even water or blocks of iron, hell you could chuck all the ships rubbish through it and it would work! The proposed engine solves one problem of torchdrives, trying to figure out how to contain the heat of the exhaust without melting the exhaust system, but altering the physics of local space seems a bit extravagant to achieve that end. It solves a lot of design issues in one fell swoop. Kinetic conversion fields, not so much. Unless the field generates somesort of sideways or reversed vector, that is no defence at all. =Conversion field=The conversion field is (or was) part of 40K. If it got hit, it released a photon flare blinding people. If they had the technology to do this, why not apply it in other things? If I was an STC designer and had the technology to directly convert one energy type to another (so efficiently that it can be used as protection) I would actively seek to use it elsewhere, rather that limiting it to just a 'defence shield'. It's reasonable to assume that the technological understanding that produced the 'conversion field' was based on a far larger body of science that affected a whole range of other systems. =Powerfield=Powerfields on weapons 'disrupt matter' to the point they are ready to fall apart. Move the weapon away and the matter returns to normal. =Questions, questions, questions...=Isn't both of these fields (conversion/ power) examples of 'altering the laws of physics'? Why does it always have to be Star Trek / Starwars/ Traveller etc. when dealing with 40K. Aren't they are all hand waving too when you get to higher technological levels? The conversion field converted kinetic energy to light, how the hell did it do that, without some serious 'hand waving' All I've done is taken what was already there and played around with it. =Design/ matching the artwork=It would also suit the artwork of Imperial ships with all those huge engine exhausts, but not much room for actual engine. This way most of the serious stuff is 'outback'. I also like the fact that all the dangerous parts of the propulsion system are outside, it seems safer in some way. Also with all those forcefields etc. it would mean they are quite tough, and less vulnerable to attack. =Convention=Altering physics is something sci-fi, all of sci-fi, does really well. People get so used to 'conventions' and applying those conventions in a certain way, that they forget that in the beginning a writer sat down and deliberately twisted science just to 'make it sound possible' so s/he could get a good story out of it (and the story isn't usually about the technology, its about the people). Normally writers use fancy names to slip the BS under your radar, my fav is still Star Trek's Heisenberg Compensators. And they did that how exactly? Makes great Sci-fi though. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 12, 2004 4:43:43 GMT -5
For me? No. I hate it, pure and simple... But then again I'm not fond of your premise of predicating advanced 'physics' on the creations of a bunch of robots who utilise said technology to become indestructible... As you've said elsewhere, much of your imagery is inter-related and, well, I'm not keen on the glue that holds it all together. To be fair, however, hand-waving is one of those things that is necessary in the 40k universe... the line that has to be walked is the 'gratuitous' hand waving (above, regarding "bubble physics") and that which is more grounding in science. Problem is if you go too far you end up with some of the arguments advanced by Destecado, e.g. where everything is described in "modern" scientific terms. Bubble physics is plausible insofar as it is circular... it exists only because you say it does, and you say it does only becuase you like it. I don't, ergo it doesn't... Yes, but so do "reactionless thrusters"... Or even "total uncertain energy motion vector thrust plasma drives". Not necessarily so. Yes, they are. It is an inescapable part of sci-fi. You will note, however, that they remain within the boundaries of what might be broadly defined as physics. Yes, there are certain assumptions which move it away from hard sci-fi into soft-sci, even space opera at times, but there is always that 'sci' component. By inventing a new theory and applying it to everything you're merely shifting 40k further into the fantasy realms. Which is fine, but not something that is going to show up here... 40k forcefields were always a bit pants... Remember that in case of the Lord Solar Macharius the engines/fuel/both/whatever were actually at least 1km long and an unspecified volume/thickness/width... And Heisenberg Compensators and the like are one of the more lamented parts of that particular show. There will be no "bubble physics" showing up in the ASP. At all. None... I'm really sorry but despite your claims I personally do not think that it suits. While technology high enough appears to be magic, I do not advocate merely replacing all high technology with magic.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 12, 2004 6:10:11 GMT -5
While technology high enough appears to be magic, I do not advocate merely replacing all high technology with magic. That's the point I am making: It appears to be magic, but I'm not saying it really is 'magic like D&D etc.' but that it has 'magical effects' in the same sense that the warp bubble on Star Trek is 'magic', or Data's brain is 'magic', or force fields etc. Just because it's cloaked in pseudo-science doesn't mean it actually has any relation to real science. I'm just being up front about how unreal it really is. If the ideas or concepts hold up, then I can invent a whole bunch a scientific names for how it is done and 'cloak it'. I don't think the name 'bubble tech' is suitable for 40K (as I'm sure you don't) unless used as a derogative term by IG. *spits coffee on monitor screen* Are you serious? Yes, they are. It is an inescapable part of sci-fi. You will note, however, that they remain within the boundaries of what might be broadly defined as physics. Yes, there are certain assumptions which move it away from hard sci-fi into soft-sci, even space opera at times, but there is always that 'sci' component. By inventing a new theory and applying it to everything you're merely shifting 40k further into the fantasy realms. Which is fine, but not something that is going to show up here... 'boundaries of what might be broadly defined as physics' (!) No it's not! Even the 'might' in that sentence is going way too far. Star Trek has as much real science as the power puff girls or scooby-doo. It is all one huge fantasy Perhaps I being to harsh 40k forcefields were always a bit pants... They're part of 40K, so they must be based on something other the modern day physics. There will be no "bubble physics" showing up in the ASP. At all. None... I'm really sorry but despite your claims I personally do not think that it suits. Bubble tech is 'in essence' already in 40K, it just not referred to as such.
|
|
|
Post by Minister on Aug 12, 2004 7:06:52 GMT -5
On the pants fields, I belive that Kage was trying to indicate that the efectivness of Imperial force field design is severley limited.
I agree on the hand-waving bit. If we're not going to base it on something reasonably plausable, let's just black box it and call it a plasma drive.
|
|
|
Post by ErnestBorgnine on Aug 12, 2004 7:07:08 GMT -5
Phillip, your point about using any sort of matter is exactly my point. What you're describing is, as mass is injected into the engine assembly and [bubble tech explanation here] emerges astern of the ship at great velocity. Withdraw the [bubble tech] and you've just described every rocket engine ever built or designed. The difference between them is what they throw out the back and how they accelerate it (magnets, electric charges, nuclear fusion or fission, chemical reaction, etc.) without requiring the alteration of local laws of physics.
Your later post implies you view the engine design as a total conversion drive, which is a somewhat different prospect. However, if there's an exhaust at all (even subatomic particles) you're not actually converting the the potential energy of the fuel's mass into kinetic energy, rather, you're still just shooting it out the back side of the ship, albeit at nearly c, which is still a rocket engine, and it means we can do some math on your proposed engine.
Since you're still accelerating by exhausting propellant, normal conventional rocket equations still hold and your maximum delta v is limited to how much fuel you expend and the speed of the exhaust. With light speed exhaust (okay, .99999c, but let's express things as a proportion of c, it's easier to deal with the numbers) total delta V is c times the natural log of the total-mass to fuel-mass ratio (ln[R]) where R= (Mempty+Mfuel)/Mempty. So, if half the mass of the ship is fuel, you have a total delta-V of .7c (i.e. you can accel on a straight line course to .35c and then decelerate back to a stop). If only ten percent of the mass is fuel, your total delta-V is only .105c, or in other words, on a straight line course, you can accel to .05c and then decelerate back down to zero again, but you've got dry tanks when you get there.
However, I have concerns about the engine design you propose because you're releasing light speed (nearly) subatomic particles through a reactor assembly which controls their exhaust direction with forcefields. with fairly simple common sense alterations to the engine field geometry, doesn't that turn every 40k ship's drive into the mother of all particle beam cannons?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 13, 2004 0:03:43 GMT -5
It appears to be magic, but I'm not saying it really is 'magic like D&D etc.' but that it has 'magical effects' in the same sense that the warp bubble on Star Trek is 'magic', or Data's brain is 'magic', or force fields etc. It is the extent of those 'magical effects', e.g. the field creates a volume where iron has eight covalent bonds... or carbon has twelve! Yes, 'warp buble' is wishy wash and, while the "positron brain" is a tad on the ST 'pseudo-science name convention' it is based on a fairly sound principle: androids. He isn't made out of, say, neutronium thus making him immune to all forms of attack without any other form of collateral effects... I don't think the name 'bubble tech' is suitable for 40K (as I'm sure you don't) unless used as a derogative term by IG. I would say that it is not suitable at all... But that's jsut me. Even the 'might' in that sentence is going way too far. Star Trek has as much real science as the power puff girls or scooby-doo. It is all one huge fantasy Yes, it was overtly harsh. It is not 'hard sci fi' but 'soft sci fi', more as in the process of thought rather than necessarily the specific objects in question. For the most part technologies are 'caricatures' of those present in the modern world, abstractions or extensions and less frequently completely made up. Only problem here, of course, is that much of the "silly" technologies are part of what make it so 'soft', and are well acknowledged as such. (And indeed laughing references were made to such things in later series, or so I was told...) With that said I'm not arguing the scientific verisimilitude of ST merely using it as an example... Your entire theory is, for me, basically a "Heisenberg Uncertainty" principle. They're part of 40K, so they must be based on something other the modern day physics. They're a common part of many game universes, but that doesn't mean that you have to invent a technology which such ludicrous properties and then use it for everything else. Bubble tech is 'in essence' already in 40K, it just not referred to as such. No, it's not. As Minister later refers to it if you're going to 'black box' things but them in the same little black boxes as GW does... 'plasma engines', 'plasma drives' and whatnot. I'm really sorry but there will, again, be no bubble tech in ASP at least how you're describing it. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly and more subjectively, I just don't like it. Short and simple. The idea of creating technological stable warp fields is fine and (by my definition, despite you trying to sell it as otherwise) it is the technological manipulation of warp/psyker/magic and, ergo, technomancy. Merely saying that it is 'not magic' because it 'is physics' doesn't quite cut the mustard. (More so because it's created by nRobots in your universe and, therefore, needs to be "non-pyschic" so that they can integrate with the eldar as the 'flip side' of their coin.) Secondly, attributing powerfield as described in the 40k universe to 'technomantic fields' (e.g. the utilisation of warp energy to create a specific non-rational effect) is a reasonable approach to forcefields. But then extending it to all technologically (pratically) is not, at least for me. Thirdly, factory threads are about modelling vehicles, weapons and armour (etc.) in the 40k universe using a system. Doesn't matter what the system is, ultimately, though I personally use GURPS merely because I like it and it is one of the few games around which has a 'factory' book (e.g. a book which lets you 'build' vehicles, not just a list of equipment). This means that while it is interesting to debate the relative types of sublight engines the ultimate goal is to model things within any given system. It's more of an RPG thing since, at least with the example of a starship, it is ultimately not necessary for the 'fluff' or wargame side of things, e.g. the 'fluff' describes and the BFG offers an interpretation of how it works (if not necessarily consistently)... In fact, even that's pushing things. It is consistent given the assumptions of the 40k universe and the non-presence of the 'sci' component of 'sci-fantasy'... Thus the thread grew out of a requirement to model sublight engines and for that to have a subsequent effect upon just how we might look at things in the 'fluff' and the ASP in general. We might know that a cruiser has a BFG 'acceleration' (or speed) of '6cm' (or whatever), but what does that actually mean? How long would it take that cruiser to get from the warp zone to, say, Castellan or Massil with rapidly needed supplies, troops or what-not? Now the same cruiser is in combat with an eldar wraithship? What are their relative movement characteristics? Well, we already know what they're like in BFG, but we also know that solar sails as currently described just don't work without the 'hand waving' and statement that they do work because they are described in the 'fluff' as working. Okay, but how do we model this in the game without merely going, "Erm, for some reason every m 2 of sail material actually produced 50kg of thrust... Erm, yes, that's what we'll do." The goal is further to increase the contribution to the universe, to make things more interesting. This is one of the reasons that I like 'bubble tech', since it is an attempt to 'codify' and explain some aspects (it just goes to far and falls down the route found in GW, i.e. when introducing one feature you explain everything around that feature). Arguably 'contragrav' and 'reactionless thrusters' could all be manifestations of what you call bubblefield technology, although I personally prefer a more physical and non-warp related approach. Okay, I've rambled for long enough now.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 13, 2004 11:19:18 GMT -5
I'm actually going to do something 'bad' here: I'm going to double post. I'm going to let myself off with a stern warning since there is a reason for this... I've been thinking over what I wrote above and realised that, in some cases, it might be a tad on the harsh side. (And was also thinking about the Titan imagery from Titan A.E. and for some reason that swayed me away from such a strict stance.) Anyway if a better name was given and some of the 'sell' was changed, "bubble tech" - and, yes, it really does need a new name - could be extremely useful. However, and this is a big one, it must not be over-used. That, I feel, is one of the biggest problems with the idea that is being presented... The fact that it has been forwarded as the solution to power fields, warp drive, sublight drive, robot technologies, and so forth, are all examples of this over-use. Not that it is entirely inappropriate since it would be like saying that metallurgy is over-used in the 40k universe! Rather than advocating this as 'magical physics' when physics and magic already exist (and the 'high tech that we don't know how it works') and given the original premise, 'bubble tech' as originally described would be far more interesting as the first stumbling blocks to blended technology and magic: technomancy. Anyway, enough on that. Let us not hijack this thread even more than it has already been done with the digression into 'bubble tech'...
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on Aug 17, 2004 10:23:18 GMT -5
Problem is if you go too far you end up with some of the arguments advanced by Destecado, e.g. where everything is described in "modern" scientific terms. I knew some one was talking about me, I could feel my ears burning. Not to take this off into a completely different direction, but I was just wondering what were peoples views on the Imperium's use of artificial gravity? Now before you say this should be in a different thread, hear me out. One of the problems that has arisen in this discussion has been tryong to find an engine system that not only provides sufficient thrust, but also fuel efficiency. The amount of thrust need versus the mass of the ship seems to be a sticking point. This is where the concept of artificial gravity comes in. Now from many of the pictures that I have seen, it appears that there is gravity within Imperial shps. Looking at the design, this gravity is not produced from centrifigal force (spin). This leaves either gravity caused by the thrust of the ship, but based on the fluff and artwork this does not seem to be the case either. This leaves the possibility of artificial gravity being generated by deck plating or some other means. If this is the case and it can be used to create gravity inside the ship, could it not then be used to reduce the overall weight of the ship for propulsion? I'm not saying that the Imperial ships should use gravity drives, but the reduction in weight might make them easier to move. As for the engines, I thnk that the Imperials should use a varient of an ion drive or Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. As a side note (because I always have to put my "real tech" spin on things) there is actually some interesting research being done now on generating ions using magnets and microwaves. More information on Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters (MPD Thrusters) is available through the following links. www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT2000/5000/5430lapointe.htmlwww.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/RESEARCH/EL_PROP/AFMPD/e_af-mpd.htmlAs to eldar propulsion, the solar sail might not be as dumb as was once beleived. there is theoretical data for what is termed a differential sail. The differential sail is a concept that would utilize cosmic background radiation as a source of varying energy to create a gradient in pressure in space. If a field could be generated in front of the sails, apressure gradient could be created. The energy density of the impinging space radiation is raised behind the sail and lowered in front to create a net difference in radiation pressure across the sail. This would increase the efficiency and thrust potential of the sail. If the Wave Serpent is used as an example, such fields should not be beyond the technology of the Eldar to construct. Unfortunately I don't think you'll care for it too much Kage. The theory draws upon the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as well as the concept of the Zero Point Energy Field.
|
|
|
Post by ErnestBorgnine on Aug 17, 2004 10:54:29 GMT -5
My main concern about using gravitic tech to reduce the effective mass of the imperial ship is that that sounds somewhat like the Necron Inertialess drive.
Perhaps in this case a sufficient difference in degree is a difference in kind - reducing the mass by 90% allows a smaller thrust to have a much greater effect while a 100% reduction in mass allows instant acceleration to light speed. That's a fairly big difference. How it allows FTL travel is not entirely clear, but since we can't conceive of how you break the mass-inertia linkage, that's not really important right now.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 17, 2004 11:36:07 GMT -5
I have no trouble with someone coming up with a scientific explanation for something... I do have a problem of them coming up with something that is in 'contravention' to the 'fluff' and saying that "That's how it must work according to science". Again, there is a fine line between using modern scientific theories to explain bits of the 40k universe (it is meant to be 'sci-fantasy' after all) and then explaining everything in those terms. The reactionless thrusters with the 'gravity proximity' mechanic is merely a means of representing just how it works without reference to either solar sails (implausibe) or your cosmic background radiation idea (which is something to do with residual energy from the big bang, or something like that?)... It's one of those little ironies. Just as some wargamers are willing to accept the 'fluff' merely because it is the 'fluff', I tend to want to model how it works in my games and be damned with how some of the science works... But if you want to explain it with sufficient hand-waving, then feel free. I'm at the moment 'convinced' on the ease of reactionless thrusters with the gravity link since it creates some interesting scenario potentials and more consistently represents 'reality' given certain suspensions of disbelief. Model it using 'realistic' theories and I would be included to include them so long as they were easy enough to apply in game without randomly determining 'hot spots', or whatever. Contra-grav... A rather standard piece of RPG technology to reduce the 'mass' of a vehicle in a gravitational field. But as Ernest Borgning mentioned, it comes perilously close to Necron tech and one of the reasons that I favour the 'gravity' explanation of reactionless thrusters for eldar at the moment. It's nearly there, but not quite there... they haven't taken that final step of integration. Ion drive/MPD... First only if you reduce the mass significantly and also reduces the 'roving capacity' of Imperium ships. LOL... MPD was a term that I made up ages ago when I stole the basic concept of HEPlaR and integrated it into another game system.
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Aug 17, 2004 11:36:20 GMT -5
Yes plasma drive, we know, its going to be used for the forth coming man'd mission to mars isn't it. those links remind me of impulse engines..are they... remember because of the mechanicus magnetic impulsion is not allowed, that would be naughty tau technology tut tut ion drive is alive and well, nasa has a space probe DS1, powered by ion drive right now, but you know that already, but for those that dont...there you go Isn't that what i said about, Inertialess drive
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on Aug 18, 2004 3:59:04 GMT -5
I have no trouble with someone coming up with a scientific explanation for something... I do have a problem of them coming up with something that is in 'contravention' to the 'fluff' and saying that "That's how it must work according to science". Again, there is a fine line between using modern scientific theories to explain bits of the 40k universe (it is meant to be 'sci-fantasy' after all) and then explaining everything in those terms. Is this directed at me or elsewhere. I never said that this was an over reaching concept and much of what I put forward was framed in the form of a question to the plausability of artificial gravity in order to address the fuel consumption problems. I'm sorry if you are uncomfortable or disagree with the theories that some of the ideas I have put forward are based upon, but to say that I am not trying to mantain "fluff transparancy" as you view it is a little off base. the entirety of the Differential sail concept may not be to your liking, but there are parts of it that can be adapted to explain the efficiency of the eldar solar sails. Several concepts have been put forward to try to make the solar sail concept "work". If you are not satisfied with any of these, then perhaps you can explain what you are looking for in more detail. As to the viabilty of Zero Point Power, has it occured to you what we call zero point my actually be tapping directly into the warp to collect energy. Does not the fluff say that the wraithbone gathers or stores energy from the warp? This was an attempt to make this power generation transparant in the write up. Just because we call it Zero Point Power today does not mean that this is what it actually is. Without a concept of the Warp, modern theories might be at a loss to explain where the energy is coming from. I'm not trying to base everything around this one theory or tie it into every race, but as a means for generating power I felt it was appropriate for the eldar based on how the fluff describes wraithbone. It's one of those little ironies. Just as some wargamers are willing to accept the 'fluff' merely because it is the 'fluff', I tend to want to model how it works in my games and be damned with how some of the science works... That is your perogative, but please don't get upset with those of us who wish a more concrete setting or explanation of how a piece of technology works. Understanding or even having a basic idea of how a race's technology works tells more about a culture than one might realize.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 18, 2004 10:18:32 GMT -5
Erm, I was actually inviting you to post more information (as in here, not URLs) since while I have a nice way of modelling it the explanation is not there. Sorry if you took it any other way... I'm just wary of a tendency just to announce something without any attempt at modelling it in some form of system. That's all.
I think I should just go and write the thesis...
|
|