Missing Tech in OTU

[Icosahedron]

A post I wrote earlier today seems to have misjumped...
It went something like this:

That's a good point. Very well, I'll concede that it can be done. Now I ask you, why would you WANT to do it with civilian ships that are designed to dock with space stations or land in starports? I would think that you'd really prefer to keep your starship exterior closer to that of its surroundings when you load and unload.
Hans

It may not be a matter of choice - as I intimated and Dragoner stated, the tech that keeps radiation out might also keep it in.

eat dump
2) Heat-n-chill cycles, ala John Ringo's ASS Vorpal Blade (Looking Glass series)

That is, you have some working fluid with a massive specific heat. You pump heat into it whilst doing normal operations. At some point, it's near saturation, and superheated fluid... and you go find a patch of air, water or ice in which to shed that heat, shut down the drives, and re-crystalize most of your working fluid.

I like this.

radiators at 1000k ( dull red ) dissipates ~.0567mj/sec/m2, thus the ship would need 212 m2 of 1000k radiators ( less than a quarter of the type 's' surface area )**
radiators at 2000k ( red-orange ) dissipates ~.9072mj/sec/m2, thus the ship would need ~14 m2 of 2000k radiators ( less than 1/60th of the type 's' surface area )**

The Millennium Falcon has blue-white radiator (which may or may not be a reactionless drive, my StarWars-Fu is weak) what would that need? For curiosity can you toss me the formula for this calc, please?

The rules already state real space heat dissipation. So no, insulation is out unless you are rewriting the basic game rules.

Why? the rate of dissipation necessary depends on the rate of build-up. If you don't dump the heat eventually, your crew will fry, but there's nothing to stop you delaying that heat dump into space for a (potentially crucial) while.

And I thought we were talking about modifying the rules in the OP?

The important thing with a story, movie or game, IMO, is to make the thing internally consistent without throwing too much gearheadedness in the face of your audience. I agree with Ishmael et al that the best way to get the thing consistent is to diverge from physics/reality as little as the storyline will allow - and when you do diverge, make sure you know what you're doing.
Whether your audience knows how a thing works doesn't matter, as long as you do. That way, if any smart alec does ask, you can answer definitively without compromising your own canon.

 

[HG_B]

Why? the rate of dissipation necessary depends on the rate of build-up. If you don't dump the heat eventually, your crew will fry, but there's nothing to stop you delaying that heat dump into space for a (potentially crucial) while.

I agree. I'm talking for operations lasting more than an hour or two. Like pirate sitting at the 100D limit waiting for victims...

 

[Ishmael]

...<snip>... For curiosity can you toss me the formula for this calc, please?

where j*is the total power radiated per unit area, T is the absolute temperature and σ = 5.67×10−8 W m−2 K−4 is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant.

oh yeah... I assumed an emissivity = 1, because of magical materials tech. Some forms of carbon are ~.97 which is close to 1... besides, an emissivity =1 is easy

j* = 5.67e-8 * emissivity * T^4
j* = watts/m^2

T is temperature in Kelvin

 

[BardicHeart]

The reason most players don't concern themselves with the maths is that it is assumed that the game company did the maths for them and put the results into the rules and charts and tables.

Two points. First, most game companies don't do nearly that much research or math. SJG is one of the few that has set standards about researching topics for sourcebooks. Second, in my experience, most players don't concern themselves with the maths because they're mainly interested in playing the game and having fun. For most people, math isn't all that exciting.

 

[Pete Nash]

where j*is the total power radiated per unit area, T is the absolute temperature and σ = 5.67×10−8 W m−2 K−4 is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant.

Thanks Ishmael. As a matter of interest, what are you using as the heat pump for the non-PP systems to be able to raise the radiator temperature so high? I would have thought that increasing the temperature differential to 1,700+K would make the ultra-hot radiator system horrifically inefficient, further increasing the heat load by many multiples, if not orders of magnitude.

Again I'm no expert, so forgive me if this is a foolish question.

 

[Ishmael]

aha!...that's my magical supra-tech thermal super-conducting heat pipes which transport the heat effortlessly to wherever I expect it to go...powered by waving hands.
Naturally, I expect the heat to go out to black body radiators with perfect emissivity!

hopefully, my personal J-o-T skills can cover up for my lack of engineering skills

 

[Icosahedron]

Thanks Ishmael, that looks vaguely familiar from astrophys many moons ago. I'll play with it when I get an hour.

Two points. First, most game companies don't do nearly that much research or math.

Don't we know it!

Second, in my experience, most players don't concern themselves with the maths because they're mainly interested in playing the game and having fun. For most people, math isn't all that exciting.

True, most players don't. But 'fun' often means they expect a realistic game without too many whoopsies in the mix, so if the game companies don't do it, the good old Ref has to - or he has to continually dig himself out of holes.

When they're chasing someone, 'fun' is being able to find them on the sensors; when they're on the run, 'fun' is being able to avoid detection.
Heaven help the Ref who doesn't have an answer when some smart alec says "Hang on, when we were trying to escape last week, you said..."

Ref Rule #1 - do your homework.

 

[rancke]

The rules already state real space heat dissipation. So no, insulation is out unless you are rewriting the basic game rules.

But our sneaky, underhanded opponents confounded me by raising a point that I've used myself in other contexts: Why is our canon better than their canon? The rules also state that there are severe limits to detection ranges. So, reduced heat emissions is in unless you are rewriting the basic game rules.

You say, "the rules state real space heat dissipation, so that proves it; it's canon." They say, "the rules state limited detection ranges, so that proves it; it's canon."

I say, "there's a canon contradiction. To resolve it, it seems necessary to invalidate one or the other piece of canon. Which way makes for the best roleplaying setting and/or the easiset suspension of disbelief?"

I'd actually prefer to go with the reduced detection ranges if they can be made plausible. It improves the chances of pirates lurking about (And they need every help they can get). But going with realistic detection ranges is fine too. The one thing I really, really don't want to see is the subject being ignored and detection ranges being one way when the author wants one result and the other way when another author wants it the other way (or one way on onedays, thirdays, fidays and alternate sendays and the other way the rest of the week ). Because there are obvious setting ramifications, in the form of system control, sensor platform placement, etc., and one rules version will give a different setup than the other.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

You say, "the rules state real space heat dissipation, so that proves it; it's canon." They say, "the rules state limited detection ranges, so that proves it; it's canon."

We're talking about missing tech. This is missing tech due to the authors lack of science EDU. When there is a contradiction in the game rules, you look for the obvious error, (missing tech) in this case.

If for example the rules said that there was H2O in the Trav universe BUT no sources of H2, I'd ignore the obvious insane rule.

 

[rancke]

We're talking about missing tech. This is missing tech due to the authors lack of science EDU. When there is a contradiction in the game rules, you look for the obvious error, (missing tech) in this case.

Sensor tech isn't missing. It's performing differently than expected. The obvious thing to look for FIRST is a way to explain the difference. If one can't be found, THEN you start looking for what part of the rules to retcon. (Or deliberately ignore for gaming reasons). You don't START by seizing on the part of the rules you happen to like and refuse to examine all other possibilities.

Well, I don't, anyway.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

Sensor tech isn't missing. It's performing differently than expected.

No, it isn't "performing differently than expected". It is missing. That's like saying the water in Trav isn't wet and therefore is "performing differently than expected". NO, it isn't correct tech. The tech of chemistry would be missing.

 

[Dragoner]

The hull dissipating heat is the bad rule. Sensors could work by mass detection, by just passively sensing ripples in the fabric of space.

 

[rancke]

No, it isn't "performing differently than expected".

Sensor tech isn't missing. How can you claim that it is? It's right there in the rules. You can detect things. Using sensors. What's missing about it?

If you want to make such an astonishing claim, you really should present some sort of argument, not just present it as truth by decree.


Hans

 

[rancke]

The hull dissipating heat is the bad rule.

Not unless there's another way to get rid of the heat. Generally speaking the Laws of Thermodynamics tend to be very good rules.

Sensors could work by mass detection, by just passively sensing ripples in the fabric of space.

Coming up with alternate sensors with limited range isn't a problem. The problem is explaining away known sensors with far longer ranges.


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

Not unless there's another way to get rid of the heat. Generally speaking the Laws of Thermodynamics tend to be very good rules.


Coming up with alternate sensors with limited range isn't a problem. The problem is explaining away known sensors with far longer ranges.


Hans

A super-duper magic heat exchanger.

That's not the problem with the rule, the problem is that for the crew to be alive, the hull MUST be impermeable, MUST, it cannot be otherwise.

Talk about heat, think of your fusion plant running at 300,000+ K, but that goes away as well, so there has to be some sort of heat-exchange system.

The sensors, such as mass detection could have any range you want, the limitation would be time, most likely.

 

[rancke]

A super-duper magic heat exchanger.

No, a heat sink. Somewhere to get rid of the heat without radiating it into space.


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

A heat sink is often part of a heat exchanger system, eg the medium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_exchanger

Though if you can transfer heat to the fusion plant, maybe it can change it to energy? Once again, the fusion plant is the "hot" part of the ship, deal with that and you are home free for the most part.

 

[Ishmael]

I had a fun idea the other day concerning heat conductors and insulators.
What about a 'heat diode'? A material that conducts heat effectively in one direction, yet acts as an insulator in the opposite direction...

With something like that as a basic building block, why not gated heat diodes, or even heat transistors, etc. which also implies that a heat computer could be made; a computer that uses heat transfer instead of electrical current. That would give a new meaning to a solar powered calculator, wouldn't it.

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

Other things that might be fodder for fun would be the fact that a superconductor's critical magnetic field is proportional to its critical temperature.... lanthanum and barrium mentioned for jump bits are used in high temp superconductors nowadays ( though far from room temp superconducting )
iridium, ( wtf?) not so much...I'd use yttrium compound instead in a write-up.

If temps get too high, there might be a fierce magnet quench ala the LHC which might be exciting and firework-y.

A quench is an abnormal termination of magnet operation that occurs when part of the superconducting coil enters the normal (resistive) state. This can occur because the field inside the magnet is too large, the rate of change of field is too large (causing eddy currents and resultant heating in the copper support matrix), or a combination of the two. More rarely a defect in the magnet can cause a quench. When this happens, that particular spot is subject to rapid Joule heating, which raises the temperature of the surrounding regions. This pushes these into the normal state as well, which leads to more heating in a chain reaction. The entire magnet rapidly becomes normal (this can take several seconds, depending on the size of the superconducting coil). This is accompanied by a loud bang as the energy in the magnetic field is converted to heat, and rapid boil-off of the cryogenic fluid. The abrupt decrease of current can result in kilovolt inductive voltage spikes and arcing. Permanent damage to the magnet is rare, but components can be damaged by localised heating or large mechanical forces. Practical magnets usually have safety devices to remove the current or limit it when the beginning of a quench is detected. If a large magnet undergoes a quench, the inert vapor formed by the evaporating cryogenic fluid can present a significant asphyxiation hazard to operators by displacing breathable air. A large section of the superconducting magnets in CERN's Large Hadron Collider unexpectedly quenched during start-up operations in 2008, necessitating a replacement of a number of magnets.[2]

no sense to have all the discussion here be about sensors

 

[Dragoner]

I wonder if the quench process could be used in reverse.

Heat as power is interesting, esp for drives and energy weapons.

 

[HG_B]

Sensor tech isn't missing. How can you claim that it is? It's right there in the rules.

NOT there as far as real science goes. UNLESS, you REALLY think that as TL goes up, sensors get less powerful than today.

Let me know if you think so and, if you do, please list the scientific reason...

Waiting...