Here are some (belated) responses to items discussed last week.
Someone named "Does it matter?" [email removed] writes:
> [about antimatter fuel]
Quite a while ago, I read an interesting article (I believe that it was in
Analog's Science Fact column) that attempted to determine whether or not
there were any large quantities of antimatter nearby (such as in this
Galaxy). The conclusion was that there is not, based on observed
characteristics of cosmic radiation.
So any antimatter fuel will have to be created in a particle accellerator.
Doing so will consume more energy than anihallating the antimatter will
produce; so no energy is created. Instead, antimatter is only an efficent
way to store energy.
"Bruce Pihlamae" [email removed] writes:
> I read with interest the alternate cilicon virus posted in TML and it
> made me shudder with fear. If this is the future of TRAVELLER then
> I for one will become anti-TECH and close all borders and go hide
> in my cave (with a friend 8-}.
Well, I'd call that a sucessfully achieved design goal. The virus was
supposed to be a plot device which causes the complete collapse of
interstellar society. Everyone throws away or stops using anything more
sophisticated than an internal combustion engine, and wants to have nothing
to do with starships or space travel. Even (nay, ESPECIALLY) when a bunch
of interstellar merchants show up and try to trade.
> I think that GDW should publish (or hint at) all these possibilities.
> Don't set it in concrete. Maybe several things happened that wiped
> out separate parts of the Imperium while missing others.
The "true story" behind the what happened is supposed to be a mystery. The
common knowledge (so far, anyway) is what happened in Challenge #64; there
should be hints and clues that point to the conclusion that the common
knowledge is not actually what happened ... Exactly what the truth is
should be up to each individual referee; my virus story was intended to be
one such possibility (the details were provided so that referees can leave
appropriate clues for the players to pick up, and eventually solve the
mystery).
[email removed] (Scott "2 accounts" Kellogg) writes:
[Summarised to save the expen$ive net.bandwidth. Mark Watson posts that
control systems should probably vary with tech level more than anything
else. Scott counters with an argument based on extrapolation of current
technology.]
It could also bear pointing out that after the initial period of crazy
experimentation, the current control system layout (joystick, rudder
pedals, throttle) has become a de-facto standard, even as controls advanced
from direct mechanical linkages to power assisted controls, to the modern
"fly-by-wire" electronic control systems and the current "fly-by-light"
all-digital controls. It seems likely that the "user interface" will
remain standard, while the "brains" behind the control system improve.
[email removed] (Steven Owens) writes:
> Game system check: I don't archive TML digests, but I believe
> the previous poster mentioned drilling through a 7cm metal plate or
> something. I'm probably way off with the numbers, but I definitely
> got the impression that the average traveller laser weapon has more
> power than boiling twenty-five cubic centimeters of water in one
> second.
Well, if we assume a 1cm beam (arbitrarily chosen); the vaporized area will
be slightly larger than the beam. let's say approx 1.15cm, then we have a
vaporized area of 1cm^2. If we are vaporizing 25cc of water (flesh), we
have a 25cm deep hole (about 10 inches deep; enought to ruin your whole
day!). Water requires a suprising amount of energy to vaporise it! The
absorption of metal plate will of course be different than that of water;
and so will the energy required to vaporize it. But a 7cm deep hole does
not sound so unreasonable.
> Note that the laser probably has to be "tuned" to flesh, to a
> degree, to get maximum wound potential. This would also tend to trade
> off on effectiveness vs. armor. It could be tuned the other way, of
> course (armor-piercing lasers anybody? :-)
Probably. Most lasers would probably be constructed to operate on a good
general-purpose setting, and would not be adjustable. On the other hand,
some expensive models would offer adjustable settings. However, changing
the frequency of a laser would require some power loss, so these would
either accept the lower beam energy (unlikely), or have a higher power
draw.
> So now you have a pulse laser with 10 times the intensity vs a beam
> laser with 10 times the duration.
The pulse duration is probably more like 0.01 second or less. 3G3 treats
beam lasers as pulse lasers that fire 100 pulses per second; I would assume
a pulse width of 0.005sec and a 50% duty cycle (ie: 0.005sec on followed by
0.005sec off). Compared to a CW (continous wave) beam laser, the multipulse
beam is twice as intense, but is "on" for only half the time. Although both
lasers deliver the same amount of energy to the target over the same time
period, the short, rapid pulses will probably do more damage.
A monopulse laser which delivers the same energy in one large pulse (with a
duration of maybe 0.01sec) would have a beam 100 times as intense as the CW
beam laser (but of course, lasting only 1/100th the time). Such a pulse
would do far more damage to the target than the CW beam laser.
There are limits to the intensity of a laser beam or pulse. If the laser
light is travelling through an atmosphere, it can reach a point where the
beam ionizes the air as it passes through it. This ionized air will absorb
and refract far more energy than un-ionized air would. However, this
ionized air is a good channel for an electric charge or a charged particle
beam.
> This is something I always found really silly about classic
> traveller, the lack of a built-in "targeting" laser on a beam laser.
> On a pulse-laser, on the other hand, you're probably going to need a
> separate laser for targeting.
Or operate the pulse laser at reduced output and increase the pulse
frequency. After all, enough pulses per second (and it doesn't take many)
looks like a beam to the human eye.
> A comment on the difficulty of evading a laser, remarked upon
> by the previous poster. Try playing paintball, a combat-style game
> using CO2-propelled, paint-filled gelatin capsules.
Or try playing Photon. You shoot at each other with sort-range infra-red
in a cluttered, dimly-lit, sometimes smoked-up maze (rather like boarding
action combat aboard a disabled starship, come to think of it). You need
to stay alert, trust noone, and keep your laser handy (oops, wrong game!).
Seriously, though, the major problem is to stick with your buddies and not
get ambushed from around the corner or side passage.
Eric Edward Moore [email removed] (Eric the Finn) writes:
> What we need are some indexes of how much
> cheaper certain things are to produce at various places, and the cost
> to transport things.
One possibility is the exchange rate chart (most recently incorporated into
Striker, also printed in several other places in Classic Traveller). I
still use this chart, although (as far as I know) it is not official with
MegaTraveller.
> This example sucks, because the TL14 world has *nothing* to sell to
> the TL15 world.
That all depends; for example, labor might be cheaper on less-developed
worlds. According to Striker, the average per-capita income (in local
credits) for a world correlates to tech level. In other words, higher TL
workers get paid more. The exchange rate chart magnifies this effect by
making these local credits worth even less as starport quality and local
tech level decrease.
This means that labor-intensive goods will be less expensive if produced at
a lower tech level. High-tech worlds without the labor forces to be
classified as "Industrial" may mass produce unfinished components to be
completed and assembled wherever the work force is both plentiful and less
expensive. Other possibilities are mineral resources. If the resources
are readily accessible and of high quality it may be economical to mine
them elsewhere and ship them to where they are needed.
[email removed]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science-Fiction Adventure
in the Far Future