Brilliant Lances Design Notes & Gravitic focusing...

A thread of 4 messages, 6 December 1993 to 7 December 1993, in the order they were sent.

#6421 Brilliant Lances Design Notes & Gravitic focusing...

I just picked up Challenge 71 and read 'Brilliant Lances Design Notes'
by David Nilsen.  I have a few gripes I want to throw out to the list for
discussion.

My gripe or gripes mainly has to do with 'gravitic focusing' of lasers.
I appreciate Nilsen stating up front that they try to "break the fewest
laws of physics that" they can when creating a sci-fi game and that the
other law of physics that they broke was the law of optics in that they
introduce gravitic focusing of the laser beam "by creating an _intense_
point source of gravity within the focusing area to bend the light with
gravity."  Now I went futzing around with some basic physics equations:

Law (?) of Gravity

               (m1)(m2)
      F  = -G ---------  where G = 6.672E-11 Nm^2/(kg^2)
                 r*r


Einsteins Equation  :   E = mc^2

I wanted to see how much energy (E) it would take to replace m1 by E/(c^2)
to create a gravity point source that would exert 1g acceleration at 1m
distance.  I came up with 5.09 x 10^21 (!!!) Joules.  That becomes Watts
if it's over time.  So the best I can tell, _IF_ you could create a
gravity well with Energy, it would take 5.09 x 10^12 TERAWATTS to produce
a 1g acceleration at 1 m.

Now, for focusing a laser beam, since they are talking extremely tiny
radian changes in the beam, the distance is probably much smaller than 1m.
However, how much gravity (mass -> energy) does it take to bend light?  All
I can recall is Mr. Spock telling Cpt. Kirk that the selective bending of
light is extraodinarily expensive.  So, I would have been happier if they
had come up with some other explanation:  e.g micromachines control minute
focusing elements in the focal plane array, or electronic advances in
solid state focusing elements or solid state laser emitters combined with
supercomputing power allows the beam to be dynamically focused during a
pulse, thus permitting lasers to reach out and touch someone at hundreds
of thousands of km.

However, since they stated they can "create an intense point source of
gravity", then why not have 'impulse drive' for system travel.  It's the old
idea of space being a fabric, that a gravity well is like pushing a finger
down in the fabric thus creating a 'well'.  Put a marble on the fabric, close
enough to your finger and the marble will fall into the well.  Now, since
we can "create an intense point source of gravity", why not just project
it out in front of the ship.  By shifting the gravity point source around
the ship, we can change our direction.  By intensifying or lessening the
source, we change the  magnitude of our acceleration.  And if we can
do this, why the need for all that reaction mass?

The only problem is the power required to create such a point source of
gravity.  Assuming you can, like I said earlier, at 1m distant, you'd need
5.09 x 10^12 TERAWATTS of power (at 10m, 5.09 x 10^13 TERAWATTS, at 100m,
5.09 x 10^15 TERAWATTS) just to create 1g of acceleration.  Assuming you
could generate 5x10^12 terawatts, your gravity point source would be INSIDE
of your ship!

I dunno, by breaking the laws of optics, it seems to throw their whole
system out of whack.  Maybe there's something in jump technology that allows
them to create an intense gravity point source at moderate energy levels
(that is, if jump space can be thought of as analagous to a worm hole, and
if worm holes are related to black holes or intense gravitic sources).
But still, if so, then why not have an impulse drive like i described above?

If gravitic focusing really throws their system out of whack, I guess I'd
rather have beam weapons restricted in range to tens of thousands of
kilometers.  Then you'd have to get close to do some damage, or you'd
have to rely on missiles more.

I dunno, what do you guys think?

- -steve camp
[email removed]

#6432 X-ray lasers, gravitic lenses

[Forwarded to [email removed].  Came to traveller-request alone.
Watch the auto-reply address, Ed -- James]

>From: [email removed] (Stephen Camp)
>Subject: Brilliant Lances Design Notes & Gravitic focusing...
>Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 19:00:10 -0700 (MST)

>If gravitic focusing really throws their system out of whack, I guess
>I'd
>rather have beam weapons restricted in range to tens of thousands of
>kilometers.  Then you'd have to get close to do some damage, or you'd
>have to rely on missiles more.

I also have a problem with the way CT/MT/T:TNE treated artifical
gravity.  I did a little digging in my trusty physics book and found
that there isn't any unique diffculty in creating a X-ray pulse.
(Obviously so since it is routinely used in medical and engineering
equipments.)  Anyway, I found that if a heat source can be maintained at
a temperature of 483000 Kelvin (I see a plasma here) about 66% of the
energy it radiates will be in the upper x-ray band (about 6 x 10-9
meters).  With proper cooling and using the same technolgy used to
confine the much hotter plasma found in fusion reactors, So big
shipmounted x-ray lasers ahould be possible at relatively low tech
levels.

As far as pointing the beam it would be much easier and simpler to
float the emitter mechanism using magnetic suspension technology.
Especially if you game in a "No-Gravity Control" universe...

So In any case, there really isn't any need for the 'gravity lense' in
the current BL.  Imagine a crew person walking by an active grav lense
laser,..THUNK! "Help I've fallen on the ceiling and I can't get down." :))

- -Ed Fok

#6431 RE: Laser Focussing

[email removed] (Stephen Camp) says:

>I just picked up Challenge 71 and read 'Brilliant Lances Design Notes'
>by David Nilsen.  I have a few gripes I want to throw out to the list for
>discussion.
>
>My gripe or gripes mainly has to do with 'gravitic focusing' of lasers.

 <snip>

>I dunno, by breaking the laws of optics, it seems to throw their whole
>system out of whack...

  Only if you know too much.

>If gravitic focusing really throws their system out of whack, I guess I'd
>rather have beam weapons restricted in range to tens of thousands of
>kilometers.  Then you'd have to get close to do some damage, or you'd
>have to rely on missiles more.
>
>I dunno, what do you guys think?


  Frankly, I think I don't care.  Having watched too many of these
"falling damage in D&D" discussions to count, I have adopted an attitude
of "if the _rule_ works, who cares what reality does".  From my point
of view, the rules work.  Reality can go hang.  The intense-gravity-
focusing explanation isn't important to how the rules work in practice,
so it's not important at all.  It is sufficient that lasers can reach
extreme distances at the higher tech levels, and that they can deliver
a great deal of damage when they get there.

  To address the power problem specifically, it has already been
established that a scoutship can be placed under a 1g internal gravity
field for a mere 7 megawatts (Brilliant Lances, pg 19).  That same 7 MW
is sufficient to compensate for 6g of maneuver thrust, provided the
Scout had such engines.  Obviously Imperials know something about
artificial gravity generation that we don't.  The generator capable of
these feats is all of 14 cubic meters in volume.  I have no trouble
believing that a smaller device could generate much higher gravity
fields in much smaller areas for brief instants of time (the discharge
time of a laser turret, in this case), given the "super-capacitors"
that laser turrets have in them and the increased volume of said
turret.
  As for why they don't use this technology for drive purposes, my
answer is that they probably are.  the HEPlaR drive in standard use
in TNE is mighty efficient for mere heat-exchange technology, and
frankly I wouldn't be surprised to find high gravitic fields involved
there as well.  I feel more comfortable with my super-gravity generator
working in a specially prepared chamber _BEHIND_ me than I would if
I were being pulled along by the gravity itself, implying a high-G
field directly _IN_FRONT_ of me.  Alan Dean Foster can keep it.


 James Kundert [email removed]
               [email removed]

 "It's a monkey thing. You wouldn't understand"

#6433 Re: Gravitic focussing

[email removed] (Stephen Camp) writes:
>
> My gripe or gripes mainly has to do with 'gravitic focusing' of lasers.
> ....
> Now I went futzing around with some basic physics equations:
>
> Law (?) of Gravity
>
>                (m1)(m2)
>       F  = -G ---------  where G = 6.672E-11 Nm^2/(kg^2)
>                  r*r
>
>
> Einsteins Equation  :   E = mc^2
>
> I wanted to see how much energy (E) it would take to replace m1 by E/(c^2)
> to create a gravity point source that would exert 1g acceleration at 1m
> distance.  I came up with 5.09 x 10^21 (!!!) Joules.  That becomes Watts
> if it's over time.

I don't know how the analysis should go, but that looks *extremely* dodgy.
For one thing, that figure doesn't seem to take any account of the mass of
the object being accelerated, and the day someone figures out how to
supply 1G acceleration to 10,000,000 kg of mass for the same amount of
energy as it takes to supply 1G acceleration to 0.0000001 kg of mass is the
day that someone is going to figure out how to make free energy.  For another
thing, you can't interchange Joules and Watts that easily, as someone found
out a few threads ago (remember the stuff about computer power consumption? :-)

> However, how much gravity (mass -> energy) does it take to bend light?  All
> I can recall is Mr. Spock telling Cpt. Kirk that the selective bending of
> light is extraodinarily expensive.

True, mainly because light moves very fast, so to do anything significant to
its path you need a lot of acceleration, i.e. a lot of gravity.  I for one do
not intend to be in a spaceship anywhere near a gravity well capable of doing
something useful to a light beam!

> However, since they stated they can "create an intense point source of
> gravity", then why not have 'impulse drive' for system travel.  It's the old
> idea of space being a fabric, that a gravity well is like pushing a finger
> down in the fabric thus creating a 'well'.  Put a marble on the fabric, close
> enough to your finger and the marble will fall into the well.  Now, since
> we can "create an intense point source of gravity", why not just project
> it out in front of the ship.  By shifting the gravity point source around
> the ship, we can change our direction.  By intensifying or lessening the
> source, we change the  magnitude of our acceleration.  And if we can
> do this, why the need for all that reaction mass?

Newton's 3rd law puts a stop to that.  If the gravity generator is exerting
a force on the ship, then the ship is exerting the same force on the gravity
generator.  Whatever is holding them apart is going to have to be pretty
tough if it isn't going to get squashed.  And if it doesn't get squashed,
then neither the ship nor the gravity generator are going anywhere.  You
don't need a hefty gravity generator to play this trick, anyway - an iron
hull and a large magnet will behave the same way.

> If gravitic focusing really throws their system out of whack, I guess I'd
> rather have beam weapons restricted in range to tens of thousands of
> kilometers.  Then you'd have to get close to do some damage, or you'd
> have to rely on missiles more.

Delete everything before "I guess" in the above paragraph, and you get my
preference. :-)

- --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!uknet!cee.hw.ac.uk!adrian  |  ARPA:  [email removed]