Traveller-digest     Thursday, August 26 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1021



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: 101 Starships
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Another look at aliens [long]
Re: USL ships landing (was Thrust effects)
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Apologies for mulitple messages
[www] Freelance Traveller Announcement
Re: 101 Starships
OT but related: More art
Marc Miller's website?
Re: Apologies for mulitple messages
Re: OT but related: More art
Re: Strephon and IRIS
Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft
Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft
OT : Dennis Ashelford
Re: Streamlining
Re: Streamlining
Re: Streamlining
Re: Streamlining
Re: 101 Starships
Re: GT Weapons Question

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:46:58 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: 101 Starships

At 01:20 AM 8/26/99 -0700, you wrote:
>From: The Roc <roc@kewl.com.au>
>Subject: Re: 101 Starships
>
> >I read this and read this tender thing, and liked the idea greatly.
>
>
>     Thank you.
>
> >Benefits?
> >
> >1)  Ideal for convoys, all vessels in the convoy would be assured of
> >reaching a given system at the same time.
snip

Isn't this essentially an upgrade on the LASH ship from Far Trader?

Rob: that's actually a good Idea in general - do you have any Really Big 
freighter?  I'm talking 50kdt+ here....

           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)

- --
jg42@cornell.edu        "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will
                          defend to the death your right to say it."
                                              -- Francois Marie Voltaire
#include <disclaimer.h> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
                          			     -- Albert Einstein
for PGP public-key and
more quotes, finger: jg42@gerfalcon.tzo.com
WWW Page: http://www.cadif.cornell.edu/~falcon/                

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:45:02 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

At 12:24 AM 8/26/99 -0800, you wrote:
>In mail you write:
>
> > I don't think that analogy holds.  An aircraft carrier isn't designed to
> > take a single point thrust, but a space ship is.  A better analogy 
> would be
> > a modern fighter jet, which, given the right birth , could sit on the
> > ground on it's tailpipe all day long
>
>Actually, without special supports, you'd *ruin* the plane. It'd
>designed to have "push" applied from the location of the engine(s), as
>well as various aerodynamicd streses.
>
>Balance it on its tail, and the tail will crush (it wasn't design to
>support the weight of the plane).
That's what I meant when I said "right berth."


> > Instinctively, I have to agree with you.  If a vessel isn't designed for
> > atmosphere, it shouldn't be able to handle atmosphere.  But I want to know
> > _why_.  I'm really looking for specific problems the ship would
> > experience.  I don't think that internal bracing is an issue, as it's
> > already in place to survive the multi-G thrust of the ship.  (a ship rated
> > for .01G OTOH, _would_ get torn apart by a planet....)
>
>Aerodynamic forces occur in locations and directions that result in
>*different* stresses than engine thrust does. That's *the* most basic
>difference.

I don't see that.  IMHO, with the standard equipment on any spaceship this 
can be avoided.

           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)

- --
jg42@cornell.edu        "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will
                          defend to the death your right to say it."
                                              -- Francois Marie Voltaire
#include <disclaimer.h> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
                          			     -- Albert Einstein
for PGP public-key and
more quotes, finger: jg42@gerfalcon.tzo.com
WWW Page: http://www.cadif.cornell.edu/~falcon/                

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:48:32 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Another look at aliens [long]

At 02:17 AM 8/26/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Also check out "Columbus Was a Dope." I can't recall

That's an awesome story.  You are right, highly suitable for Traveller..

           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)

- --
jg42@cornell.edu        "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will
                          defend to the death your right to say it."
                                              -- Francois Marie Voltaire
#include <disclaimer.h> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
                          			     -- Albert Einstein
for PGP public-key and
more quotes, finger: jg42@gerfalcon.tzo.com
WWW Page: http://www.cadif.cornell.edu/~falcon/                

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:50:46 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: USL ships landing (was Thrust effects)

At 02:20 AM 8/26/99 -0800, you wrote:
>In mail you write:
>
> > One of the things that came up last time we debated this topic (it was
> > _mostly_ pretty civil :-) was that in CT it mentions somewhere that USL
> > ships can land on worlds with no atmosphere.  They therefore must have the
> > landing gear and bracing to do this.
>
>Sure. It's the *atmosphere* that's the problem. :-)
>
>BTW, I just realized another "yipes!" effect that I don't think has
>been mentioned in this or any previous discussion.
>
>The mere act of passing thru the air, even at a low speed, can cause
>several interesting effects. One is that suspended, supercooled water
>droplets deposit on the hull as ice. *Heavy* deposits can build up
>rather quickly. Far *too* quickly for the "ease the ship down slowly"
>folks.
>
>A 200 ton ship has a *minimum* surface area of 937 m^2. Call it 1000
>m^2. 1000 m^2 of area with a 1 mm thick coating of ice is an extra
>*ton* of mass.
>
>But most ships *aren't* spheres. So they'll *easily* have 10-100 times
>as much surface area. Which gives us 10-100 tons *mass* of extra load
>for every mm of ice.
Considering that even the scout masses several thousand tons, this isn't 
_that_ big a deal...


>Oh yeah, it will melt from the radiators. And maybe re-freeze
>elsewhere? :-)
>
>BTW, were the ship's radiators atmosphere rated? Or will they catch
>fire upon exposure to high levels of oxygen? Remember, those puppies
>are *hot*. :-)

OTOH, they will be cooled much faster in atmosphere.  Conduction is much 
more efficient than radiation...

           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)

- --
jg42@cornell.edu        "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will
                          defend to the death your right to say it."
                                              -- Francois Marie Voltaire
#include <disclaimer.h> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
                          			     -- Albert Einstein
for PGP public-key and
more quotes, finger: jg42@gerfalcon.tzo.com
WWW Page: http://www.cadif.cornell.edu/~falcon/                

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:55:41 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

At 01:56 AM 8/26/99 -0800, you wrote:

>The equivalent of a bunch of wind tunnel tests, and control loop
>calculations. Or detailed info on aerodynamics, the shape of the ship
>(down to the millimeter level) and some really *massive* numerical
>intergration.
err. we don't need to do that anymore even today.  The Boeing 777 was 
designed entirely on the computer with virtual "wind tunnels".  A TL10-15 
shipboard computer should be able to do that very fast.


>Producing such a program is gonna get *expernsive*, and it'll be one of
>the things involved in the cost of producing "streamlined" ships.

no, the program will be cheap.  All you need is detailed blueprints 
(already available) and a _lot_ of computing power.  Fortunately, at least 
in GT, there's plenty of that.  It's only expensive now because a lot of 
number crunching is involved.



           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)

- --
jg42@cornell.edu        "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will
                          defend to the death your right to say it."
                                              -- Francois Marie Voltaire
#include <disclaimer.h> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
                          			     -- Albert Einstein
for PGP public-key and
more quotes, finger: jg42@gerfalcon.tzo.com
WWW Page: http://www.cadif.cornell.edu/~falcon/                

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:07:14 +0100
From: John Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net>
Subject: Apologies for mulitple messages

Sorry about the multiple messages. I have just "upgraded" to Netscape 4.6 and am
deeply regretting it.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:27:42 GMT
From: jzeitlin@cyburban.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Subject: [www] Freelance Traveller Announcement

Freelance Traveller, the Fan-Supported Traveller Resource,
currently exists due to good will and taking advantage of various
free services.

One of those free services is the "V3 URL" from V3 Internet
Redirection, the owners of the domain come.to. Up to now, you
have been able to enter http://come.to/FreelanceTraveller and be
taken right to our home page, regardless of where we've actually
been hosted. You saw no ads, no delay, and in general the only
indication that you had that this might not be where we really
are was the V3 button on our home page.

V3 is offering new services, and because of that, they are making
changes in the present redirection services.  The change that
affects you the most is that you will no longer be able to avoid
V3's advertising when using the come.to URL. Instead, you will
see a popup window, much like the Yahoo! Geocities option, or a
delay page (which can be clicked through, at least for now). We
apologize for this, but we feel that the come.to URL - and the
forthcoming email address, FreelanceTraveller@come.to (NOT YET
ACTIVATED), are too convenient to give up. If you are really
dead-set against seeing V3's ads, you can always bookmark our
current real location,
http://www.downport.com/freelancetraveller/Default.htm, or our
mirror, http://w3.execnet.com/jeffz.

This change at V3 does _not_ affect the quality Traveller
material that Freelance Traveller attempt to bring you; it only
affects access through our easy and convenient URL,
http://come.to/FreelanceTraveller. We encourage you to send
feedback on our site, any problems with it that you observe, and
other related issues, like whether we should continue to maintain
the V3 URL, by sending us email at freetrav@hotmail.com - and
soon, at FreelanceTraveller@come.to (We'll post another
announcement when that becomes available).

Freelance Traveller would like to publicly extend thanks to all
those who have supported us by visiting our site and by writing
material for publication at Freelance Traveller.  It is fans like
you that make us a success.
- --
Jeff Zeitlin
jzeitlin@cyburban.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:26:01 -0700
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: 101 Starships

Juliean Galak wrote:
> 

> Rob: that's actually a good Idea in general - do you have any Really Big
> freighter?  I'm talking 50kdt+ here....

Pah! 50kdt isn't Big...

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~bjohnson/Majesta.html

That is BIG! ;-)

(this is the direct link to the design that Dom mentioned earlier today)
- -- 
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:50:55 -0400
From: Michael Peters <travelleri@home.com>
Subject: OT but related: More art

A quick note. I've uplaoded a render of the grav tank I've been working
on. Take alook and let me know what you think.

P.S.If these notes are bothering people let me know and I'll stop, it's
judt the feed back has been really helpful.

Address:
http://members.home.net/travelleri/index.html

follow link to ART page.
- -- 
Mike Peters
travelleri@home.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:03:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Marc Miller's website?

Does Far Future Enterprises have a web site at the moment?  I'm wanting to
order those collectors' editions of CT materials, but don't know where...

Charles C.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:14:03 -0400
From: "Jory Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Apologies for mulitple messages

You regretting Netscape 4.6 too?  Before that version, I was so sold on
Netscape over IE that I would gladly have still paid for Netscape.

However, 4.6 is the most dismal release yet.  It's quite apparent that
Netscape is going down the tubes now.

Anyway, it's 4.6's fault I am now using IE 5.0.  And I don't regret the
move.
___________________________________________________________
 J-Man
 ICQ# 2843475
 New Hampshire - U.S.A.
 Email : j-man@iname.com
 Home Page : http://www.geocities.com/~jman037/
___________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:14:12 -0700
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: OT but related: More art

Michael Peters wrote:
> 
> A quick note. I've uplaoded a render of the grav tank I've been working
> on. Take alook and let me know what you think.
> 
> P.S.If these notes are bothering people let me know and I'll stop, it's
> judt the feed back has been really helpful.

cool! It's a Trepida, BTW. Looks a bit shiny...I think you'll need to
rough it up a bit on the surface. (He says blithely...;-)

And these notes ARE bothering the hell out of me!!! They're reminding me
that I have got tons of unfinished stuff lying around I should finish
;-P

Maybe this weekend...I've got more projects going than I can shake a
mouse at...

- -- 
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:39:50 -0700
From: "Tom" <tbergman@brawleyonline.com>
Subject: Re: Strephon and IRIS

> From:           SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
>
> > The failure in Strephon was to be human and allow his grief to blind him
to
> > his aides' decisions. On them must fall the blame for the deaths of
> > Trillions of sophonts following the Collapse and the release of Virus.
>
> No, to put it bluntly, Strephon was not an ordinary man. He was leader of
> the Third Imperium and as such had responsibilities. He abdicated those
> responsibilities. Or in other words "The buck stops here".
>
SM pp 67-68 "Noblesse oblige" vs. "Noblesse n' oblige plus"
Translated: "nobility obligates" vs. "nobility no longer obligates"
This is the age old question: "Do the people exist to serve nobility, or
does the nobility exist to serve the people?"
I have to agree that even if Strephon didn't directly neglect the people, he
did abdicate his rule to his subordinates.
If an Army or Navy fail in combat, who takes the blame?  The General or
Admiral in command of that force.  Political rule has VERY little difference
here.  Look at today!  If the economy is doing well, out political leaders
get the credit even if they themselves had nothing directly to do with it...
and if it fails...  they fail as well.

Strephon may have been a good emperor for a SUNNY empire...  he was NOT the
man for a stormy one.

Oriontwin
orion 0609 C36AA84-A hi- va+ vi+ so++ A633
tc+ tm+ tn t4+ tg-- ru+ he+ 3i!(+) c+ jt- st++ pi+ ta ge

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:50:22 -0400
From: "Thomas Schoene" <TomSchoene@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft

- ----------
> From: John Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net>
> To: tml <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com>
> Subject: Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft
> Date: Thursday, 26 August, 1999 4:29 PM
> 
> >We had this debate over the battledress issue. I think there was a
ruling
> >somewhere in there about how much area could be covered by the advanced
> >armours.
> 
> I didn't participate in that discussion. 
> Looking back at the archives I see that someone made a handwave on this.
> It doesn't hold water though. GT sidebar p155 discusses creating
non-standard
> hulls using the different armors available in G:Vehicles. In G:Vehicles
there is
> an example scout ship with composite armor. In G:Space it makes reference
to
> using different (unnamed) armor types as a mass/cost trade-off with no
limit.

This is going to be covered in some detail in GT: Starships, along with
some other cans of worms (lesser forms of streamlining, for example). One
suggestion that looks likely to be adopted is that the Imperium is early to
mid TL12, so advanced TL12 armor may not be available for large
constructions like starships.
 
> >Remember that we're trying to model CT here, not min-max GURPS Vehicles.
> 
> We?
> 
> I thought this was a forum for discussing all aspects of all versions of
> traveller. I personally have no interest in the detailed mechanics of CT 
> or maintaining its "purity". 

There is an effort within GT to maintain the "look and feel" of Classic
Traveller.  That's not to say some variation is not allowed, but that's the
basic design philosophy that's being used in the books.
 
> Are you saying that Gurps gearheads are not welcome on the list?
> 
> Anyone else want to move over to the Gurps traveller mailing list?

NO, a thousand times no.  I definitely do not want GT relegated to some
sort of second-class citizenship.  However, there needs to be some
recognition that the ultimate goal of GT is to replicate the feel of the
Traveller universe, not to transform it into something else by pushing the
system to its limits.

Tom Schoene

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:53:02 +0100
From: John Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net>
Subject: Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft

>I would say that just as you wouldn't use Gurps:Supers to make (most)
>Gurps:Cliffhangers characters, you wouldn't use every possible trick
>in Gurps:Space, Gurps:UltraTech, and Gurps:Vehicles to make
>Gurps:Traveller gear that is markedly different <snip>

The difference is that:
- - GT invites you to do so (within the traveller framework) - it specifically
  mentions armor as one area you might want to customize.
- - G:Vehicles provides an internal consistency, which I thought was one of
  Travellers cornerstones.
- - It isn't that markedly different.

Why is efficient GT design upsetting CTers?  I don't see complaints about
efficient CT design.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:51:43 +1000
From: dadams@parracity.nsw.gov.au
Subject: OT : Dennis Ashelford

For those gamers in NSW Australia, it is with deep regret that I write this
(and appologise the waste of bandwith).

Dennis Ashelford, long time gamer, former convenor of the SAGA conventions
and manager of Atlantis Gaming, passed away last night (26/8/99).

I have little details, but if you email me directly I will pass any news on
about funeral arangements as I get them.

Darryl
Visit our Web Site : http://www.ParraCity.nsw.gov.au

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:45:49 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Streamlining

In mail you write:

> At 04:40 PM 8/24/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>Juliean Galak writes:
>> >>         Entering the atmosphere may be possible, though awkward if
>> >>         the ship must be pointed straight up all the time, but
>> >>         landing requires more than surviving the atmosphere.  I
>> >>         have always assumed that "streamlining" includes landing
>> >>         gear, wilderness refueling equipment, and general design
>> >>         considerations that allow access to the ship when it is
>> >>         landed.
>> >
>> >well, that's an acceptable solution for small ships, but that still
>> >doesn't explain why it's "streamlining" that's at stake here.  I can see
>> >a 5000dt USL freighter slowly settling, nose up, into a prepared berth in
>> >a downport, where various gantries grab onto it for support, and fuel
>> >hoses attach to the same nozzles used in orbital refueling.  The ship
>> >never completely powers down, and takes off, slowly, as soon as it's
>> >unloaded and re-loaded.
>>
>>         Sounds like a good system to me.  IMTU, it is easier and
>>         cheaper to offload "unstreamlined" ships at the highport
>>         and ferry the goods down in a shuttle, but what you
>>         suggest sounds doable.
>
> I'm having a hard time justifying that IMTU.  In fact, IMTU that's 
> precisely the system I use.  IMHO, it's really cool to watch a multi-kdton 
> freighter slowly lower itself to the pad.

Ok, try this on for size. At 20 mph, it's going to take your ship 5-10
hours *each way* to go from the top of the atmosphere to the ground.
That *alone* is expensive. 

Also, at 20 mph weather, such as storms, moves a *lot* faster than your
ship can dodge. Since weather is a chaotic system, the Imperium won't
be able to predict it any better than we can. So you could easily start
a descent (or a takeoff) and a couple of hours later find yourself in
the path of a squall line that was "supposed" to be nowhere near you.
Or trying to dodge a jetstream.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:53:30 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Streamlining

In mail you write:

> At 10:07 AM 08/25/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>>Juliean Galak writes:
>> >I'm having a hard time justifying that IMTU.  In fact, IMTU that's
>> >precisely the system I use.  IMHO, it's really cool to watch a multi-kdton
>> >freighter slowly lower itself to the pad.
>> >
>> >The reason I brought this up to begin with was to find reasons why this
>> >_can't_ be done, since that seems to be the OTU claim...
>
> I always figured that it could be done if enough time was allotted to the 
> process.  Even in Adv 7, Broadsword, it has the Broadsword "grounded" at 
> the starport.

And this is an example of what I pointed out earlier. The Broadsword is
definite not "airframe". But it's *also* most definitely not
"unstreamlined". It's symmetrical. It's got a smooth, rounded surface.
It doesn't have "stuff" sticking out all over.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:57:13 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Streamlining

In mail you write:

> At 04:37 PM 08/25/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>>At 10:11 25/08/1999 -0400, Kurt Feltenberger wrote:
>>
>> >I always figured that it could be done if enough time was allotted to the
>> >process.  Even in Adv 7, Broadsword, it has the Broadsword "grounded" at
>> >the starport.
>>
>>Isn't Broadsword one of those partially streamlined designs that can skim
>>fuel from a gas giant?
>
> It can skim, but according to the hull form (and book 2) it was unable to 
> land on a planet.

Which is just plain *silly*. If you can skim, you can take strains that
you'd *never* encounter in landing on a normal planet. <sigh>

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:58:55 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Streamlining

In mail you write:

>>         4) using a highport with connecting shuttles is more cost-
>>            effective, entails less risk to the ship, shortens the
>>            turn-around time, and makes it much easier to load/
>>            unload
>
> Now that I have trouble buying.  You are talking about putting in a whole 
> additional infrastructure - highports, shuttles, orbital refueling, living 
> quarters, etc...

But there are good and sufficient reasons for having it *anyway*.
Satellite repair, access to low g & vacuum, truly *isolated* quarantine
facilities. 

Also, even if you can spare the many hours to land and take off again,
what do you do if the weather patterns aren't suitable? Sit up in orbit
for days, waiting for favorable weather?

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:09:29 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: 101 Starships

In mail you write:

> How about a mixed technology ship in the 1 - 2 thousand ton range. What
> I'm picturing is a Gypsy ship made from add ons to a 2 Imp cruiser. I
> have a group of wanderers that refused to give up space during the long
> night. Since that time they've lived in a small fleet by cannibalizing
> they're own wrecks and any other ships they could find. After the
> formation of the 3 Imp they continues they're ways and are a staple (if
> somewhat shady) encounter through out most areas of Charted Space.
>
> Ships should be less than Jump 3, with moderate maneuvering. USL is
> probably the best configuration. Beyond that, well they are a mongrel.

These sound like an *ideal* case for using fission reactors for the
main power plant. You get to go a *lot* longer before overhauling the
plant, and they can set up breeder reactors on worthless chunks of
rock. Use NERVA type rockets for maneuver drive. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:16:44 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: GT Weapons Question

In mail you write:

> Errr, ummm, NO.
>
> All those units predate the metric system. Their SI _definitions_ are
> based on metric measurements (mks system or maybe cgs, I forget which),
> as are joules,ergs, etc, but the only truly _metric_ system units are
> meters (distance) or grams (mass). 

Nope. Volt, Amp, etc came *after* the metric system. Remember, metric
was started during the French Revolution (about 1800). Units like
volts, amps and the like came *afterwards*.

> One definition of an ampere, in fact, is a _chemical_ term: one amp = 1
> mole of electrons, 6.02 x 10^23 electrons.

Nope. An ampere is a unit with the dimensions of charge/time. That is X
number of charge units flowing per time unit. A coulomb is defined as
either so many "elementary charges" or as the charge required to
deposit a certain amount of metal in a precisely specified
electroplating setup. 

This is no different than the definitions of the second and the metter.
Both are tied to a particular wavelength that is easily produced and
measured in the lab, and to the speed of light, which is now a defined
quantity.

> I looked them up in my handy-dandy Microsoft Bookshelf and got:
>
> Ampere:
>
> A unit in the International System specified as one International
> coulomb per second and equal to 0.999835 ampere.

Definitely garbage.

> Coulomb:
>
> The meter-kilogram-second unit of electrical charge equal to the
> quantity of charge transferred in one second by a steady current of one
> ampere.

That's better.

The SI unit of charge is the Coulumb. An Ampere is a current of 1
coulomb per second. Except that for various reasons SI makes Ampere the
"fundamental" unit and Coulomb the "derived" unit.

Using Q for charge, M for mass, L for length, and T for time, here are
the dimensions of the units:

Charge	 Q
Mass	 M
velocity L/T
current  Q/T
energy   ML^2/T^2
Power	 ML^2/T^3

voltage*current=power
voltage*Q/T=ML^2/T^3
voltage*Q=ML^2/T^2
voltage=ML^2/QT^2

That is, voltage = energy/charge. Thus the definition of a volt as
involving moving one coulomb of charge across a potential difference of
one joule.

And resistance is derived similarly, using Ohm's law.
resistance  ML^2/Q^2T

But in essence, we use the metric units for electrical quantities
simply because there are no *non*-metric units for such. The units were
invented after the metric system, and every effort was made to fit them
in seamlessly.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1021
***********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe
"local-traveller":

subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
