Re: Black globes and gravity
In reply to #1697 Re: (1696) Black globes and gravity by Brent L. Woods
> > > TML nightly Tue Nov 6 20:32:02 PST 1990 Volume 11 : Issue 6 > > Today's Topics (Archive Msg Number and Subject): > 1691: More from Scott Kellogg, part 14 > 1692: More from Scott Kellogg, part 15 (the last) > 1693: Fission Plant Disclaimer > 1694: Gnu Traveller: a modest (hah) proposal > 1695: Knightfall: another view > 1696: Black globes and gravity > > This is a passively moderated mailing list. All messages sent to the > submission address will be distributed. The nightly digest is currently > distributed every day at 8:30pm. > > The TML is made possible by facilities provided by Tektronix, Inc. > Submissions: [email removed], or > [email removed] > Administrator: [email removed] (James Perkins) > All opinions and material below is the responsibility of the originator. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 09:45:42 -0500 > From: [email removed] > Subject: (1691) More from Scott Kellogg, part 14 > > From: [email removed] (Stephen D Smith) > Organization: personal mailbox at The Next Challenge > > Here's more from Scott: > > Stephen D Smith USENET: [email removed] > BIX: sdsmith > > ********************************************************* > I have no access to e-mail so you will not be able to > reach me very easily and there will be long gaps between > my having access to any comments to any designs or ideas > you might have but I would appreciate it > > Scott Kellogg [phone removed] > [address removed] > ********************************************************* > > The Wolf class carrier operates in large squadrons, nessecary so > that the firepower of the Indianapolis interceptor can be brought to > bear. Operating as such, they can often destroy much heavier ships. > The cost of the ship however is much lower than heavier ships and this > allows the construction of vast fleets. > > Typical tactics used by Wolf packs are to hang way back out of > range of the opposition's guns. The 10G+ capable Indianapolis > fighters > scream in and unleash their heavy missile loads from long range. The > fighters never close with the target, instead using their superior > speed to break off back to the carrier to reload. With enough > concentration, the fighters can overwhelm the defensive batteries > wearing down the largest of ships. Even heavily armored ships will > eventually have the weapons scrubbed off their hulls, allowing more > heavily armed ships to close with the target to finish it off. > > Should the attackers manage to close on the carrier, the beam > laser would almost never be used. A directive to all captains went > out > advising them to make use of emergency agility for the protection of > the carrier. Indeed if the carrier were to come under fire it would > almost certainly jump rather than brave the fire, provided the > fighters > are aboard. Basically the carriers rely on carrier tactics of the > pacific theater of WWII. > > The inexpensiveness of these ships (534.5 Mcr in quantity) is > their main attribute. The say a battle ship costs 1 trillion Cr or a > cruiser 100 billion, (very conservative estimates) so a cruiser would > have to handle 1,870 fighters, and a battleship would have to handle > 18,700 fighters each with a factor 6 missile battery. Against armored > hulls maybe I can't kill, but I'll be damned if I won't shave the > weapons off you hull! > > In addition, on page 100 of refs manual you have the listed > damage for hull penetration by explosives. Ok, assuming the missiles > do penetrate they cause 15 points damage; if they don't 1.5 right? > Now, say only 1/2 actually connect with the hull. 1/2*1870 fighters*30 > missiles*1.5=42075 hull damage points per battery round. This will > put > 47000 displacement tons of vessel out of action per shot. > > Admittedly, throwing several squadrons at a battle cruiser is > going to destroy quite a few fighters, But as the old line goes: > > "Where ever you send your subs and planes, > you're bound to mark up lots of gains, > and losses too, but what the hell! > The planes are just flown by young studs, > and Lieutenant Commanders run the subs." > > Scott Kellogg > > Light Carrier TL11 "Wolf" Class > > CraftID: Light Carrier, TL11, MCr642.409 (Sisters=534.5373) (Prices > include carried ships) > Hull: (891/2228) Disp=990, Config=7USL, Armor=40E, Unloaded=9260.62, > Loaded=12024.43 > Power: (53/106) 4722.174 Mw, Dur=30/90 > Loco: (45/90), Manuver=2G, (27/54) Jump=2, NOE=150, Cruise=225kph, > Top=300kph, Agility=0 > Commo: Radio=System, Maser=System*10 > Sensors: EMM, P-EMS=Interstel*2, A-EMS=FarOrb*2, Neutrino=1Gw*2, > Densitometer=1m*2, ActObjScn=Rout, ActObjPin=Rout, > PasObjScn=Form, PasObjPin=Form, PasEnScn=Rout, > PasEnPin=Form > Off: HPoints=10 > BLasers=xx3 > Batt 1 > Bear 1 > Def: DefDM=+6 > SCaster=xx4 > Batt 9 > Bear 9 > Control: Computer=5/Fib*3, HUD*22, DynLink*22 > Accom: Crew=22, (Command=4, Bridge=1, Eng=1, Gunner=2, Flight=12, > Steward=1, Medic=1) Env=Basic Env, Basic is, Extend is, > Inertial Comp, Grav Plate, Subcraft=22ton Indianapolis > Fighter*10, 50ton Fuel Barge*1 > Other: Fuel=3704.7Kl, Cargo=543.9Kl, Magazine=1800Kl, (30 Fighter > Loads,), PurePlant=18hr, HvyRobotArm*20, Objsize=Avg, > EMlevel=Faint > Remarks: The robot arms allow rapid armament of the fighters. > Often > times multiple missile racks are loaded as the fighters are returning > to the ship. When the fighters dock, the empty racks are removed, and > the full racks bolted on the hardpoints for rapid redeployment. The > ships irregular configuration allows the multiple launch of all craft. > > The class is named for famous commerce raiders: Wolf, Emden, > Mowe, Atlantis, See Adler, Von Muller, Von Luckner, Virginia, Florida, > Arkansass, Golden Hind, Wahoo etc. > > Scott Kellogg > > *****End Part 14***** > - --Name = STEPHEN SMITH Mailbox # = 68 > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 09:51:26 -0500 > From: [email removed] > Subject: (1692) More from Scott Kellogg, part 15 (the last) > > From: [email removed] (Stephen D Smith) > Organization: personal mailbox at The Next Challenge > > Here's more from Scott: > > Stephen D Smith USENET: [email removed] > BIX: sdsmith > > ********************************************************* > I have no access to e-mail so you will not be able to > reach me very easily and there will be long gaps between > my having access to any comments to any designs or ideas > you might have but I would appreciate it > > Scott Kellogg [phone removed] > [address removed] > ********************************************************* > > Indianapolis TL11 Orbital Interceptor > > CraftID: VTOL Orbital Interceptor, TL11, MCr14.31 > Hull: (60/150) Disp=66 (22 with wings folded) Unload=14.78 (Weight > w/standard load HE=17.95, nuclear=19.15), > Airframe=Hypersonic VTOL > Power: 1.024275 Mw (drawn from engines), Dur=48hr > Loco: (4/10), Fusion Rocket, Thrust 198.9 tons, NOE=150, > Cruise=3750kph, Top=5000kph, Accel Unload=13.5G, (W/std HE > load=11G, nuclear=10.4G) Agility=6 > Commo: Radio=System, Maser=System > Sensors: A-WeatherRADAR=FarOrb, P-EMS=Interstel ActObjScn=Rout, > ActObjPin=Rout, PasEnScn=Rout, > Off: Fusilage HPoint, > Fusilage Launch Rails*4, Missile=x06 > Inboard HPoints*4, Batt Rnds=2 > Outboard HPoints*4, > Wing Tip Launch Rails*2, > (Standard load=60 Anti-Ship Missiles) > Def: DefDM+13 > Control: Powered, 2 Manuver Points, Computer=5 > Accom: Crew=1, Basic life supp, sealed cockpit w/vac suit backup, > Inertial comp, Complex cockpit w/rocket escape pod > Other: Fuel=.24Kl, ObjSize=Small, EMLevel=Faint > > Robert Dean (who's designs are first rate by the way!) > criticized > the above saying it had insufficient protection in the way of armor. > Well, I must point out that it is not intended for long durations > outside the hull of it's mother ship. The flight controls are not > linked with the computer (servoes w/gymbaled thrust of fusion rocket > for outside atmosphere) so computer damage would only affect > targetting > systems. (Be reminded that while Pioneer 10, 11, and Voyager 1 and 2 > have been out for years only one computer, (Voyager 2's) has been > damaged. Also, Challenge 45 includes rules for micrometeoroid damage > P.37, 1/6 chance for a strike of penetration 8*1d6. This is patently > stupid. Consider the LDEF Long Duration Exposure Facility, 2 meteor > strikes in 2+ years! In Earth's junk filled orbit no less! > > Admittedly, this doesn't cover possible radiation damage. But > on the other hand I've heard and seen things about cosmic radiation > that tell me that any armor is going to be useless. (Cosmic radiation > detected in a covered system's optics in total darkness.) > > Supposedly, NASA considers the secondary radiation generated by > cosmic rays hitting an armored hull to be more deadly than the cosmic > radiation itself. An interview I saw recommended having 2 habitats > one > armored and the other unarmored. The armored section was supposed to > have a slightly dangerous radiation level inside it due to secondary > radiation. It would be used when lower level radiation 'storms' > passed > over the ship. > > If you like, you could use this to defend against the fighters: > Hide the opposing fleet close to an asteroid belt or near a gas giants > rings. But those hazards will affect those hiding too. Even armor > won't stop an asteroid with orbital velocity, and ring systems are > quite well defined. > > Scott Kellogg > > Gunned Barge TL11 "Wolfchen" Class > > CraftID: Gunned Barge Type WG, TL11, MCr112.34 > Hull: (45/113) Disp=50, Config=1AF, Armor=40E, Unload=796.82, > Load=831.65 > Power: (6/12) 990.06 Mw Fusion, Dur=5/15 > Loco: (4/8), Manuver=3G, Agility=0 NOE=150, Cruise=2138kph, > Top=2850kph > Commo: Radio=System, Maser=System > Sensors: EMM, A-EMS=FarOrb, P-EMS=Interstel, EMS-Jam=FarOrb > ActObjScn=Rout, ActObjPin=Rout, PasEnScn=Rout > Off: HPoints=1 > PLaser=x01 Missile=x01 SCaster=x03 > Batt 1 1 1 > Bear 1 1 1 > Def: DefDM=+7 > Control: Computer=5*3, HUD*2, DynLink*2 > Accom: Crew=2, Seat=Roomy*2, Adequate*7, Env=Basic Env, Basic is, > Inertial Comp, Grav Plate, > Other: Cargo=4, Fuel=194.5, Scoops=2hr, Fuel Cargo=339.7, > ObjSize=Avg, EMlevel=None > Remarks: The Wolfchen requires 11 runs for fuel to top the Wolf's > tanks. > > Scott Kellogg > > > Recently Robert Dean (who's designs I very much admire and appreciate) > sent in one not quite up to his normal standards. Repeated below. > > 40 ton Spaceplane TL8 > CraftID: 40 ton Spaceplane, TL8, MCr10.54 > Hull: 36/90, Disp=40, Config=1AF, Armor=40C, Unloaded=341.7t, > Loaded=500t > Power: 10MW from turbofan engines > Loco: 1/2, High Bypass turbofan=500ton, Duration=3hr, 1/2, High > Performance Rocket=585t, Duration=5min > Comm: Radio=Dist*3 > Sensors: None > Off: Hardpoint=1 > Control: Computer Mod1*3, ElecLink*170 > Accom: Crew=2 (Pilot, Copilot), Passenger=6, Seat=8*Room, > Env=basic env, basic ls > Other: AviationFuel=115.2kl, RocketFuel=30kl, CargoBay=290kl > (32.4ton load limit at full fuel load), ObjSize=Avg, > EmLevel=Mod > > This vehicle is capable of taking off from a size A planet with > a standard atmosphere. For more advantageous conditions, fuel weight > can be traded for cargo weight. Optimum takeoff weight of the vehicle > is 500 tons. Modular attachment fittings are provided. > > Think about it. This thing weighs roughly two times as much as > a B-52 long range strategic bomber, and has an airframe smaller than > an F-4 Phantom II. I am reminded of what they used to say about the > old B-26 Marauder: 'The Flying Prostitute' She has no visible means > of support. Never get it off the ground. Even the Space Shuttle > Orbiter only weighs 84.8 metric tons loaded. In COACC an aircraft may > lift 35% of it's clean weight in cargo. > > If you want something to fly it comes out that the aircraft > displacement volume is 3.3 (displacement tons) per metric ton. And > that is a heavily loaded aircraft. An aircraft weighing 500metric > tons, would displace at least 1600 displacement tons. > > I have checked out the displacement volume equations (against a > few jet aircraft) The displacement figure calculated in COACC roughly > approximates a box capable of enclosing the aircraft with wings > unfolded. Obviously, an aircraft's hull is going to be smaller than > this amount. > > If you want to design an space plane use COACC and build an > orbital hanger to store it in for protection. > > Otherwise you will end up digging your nose right in the dirt. > The above design probably has a stall speed somewhere around MACH 1 if > that. I wouldn't care to try to land it. It would have the glide > angle of a crowbar. > > I include a possible substitute for use with the rest of his TL > 8 space craft. See the Orion TL8 Space Plane. > > Scott Kellogg > > *****End Part 15*****. > > From: Stephen D Smith > Well that's the end of Scott's postings. Hope it was of interest > to the rest of the TML. Scott's probably busy doing something else, > but I probably won't seen for the next few weeks. Thanks for the > patients. > - --Name = STEPHEN SMITH Mailbox # = 68 > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 9:10:39 EST > From: "Robert S. Dean" [email removed] > Subject: (1693) Fission Plant Disclaimer > > In a recent message Scott Kellogg quoted my aircraft carrier design as a > justification for building a couple of fission powered spacecraft. While > I am flattered that people remember what I write, I need to point out that > that was a "quick fix" ruling, intended to make a particular class of vehicles > fit my conception of TL8 reality a little closer. Before I started doing > cost/benefit analyses using those fuel consumption figures to decide whether > a starship should have a fission plant, I'd want to be a little more sure of my > numbers. (As soon as I get around to it, I'll get the fuel volume and refueling > rate for a nearby commercial nuclear powerplant from a friend of mine who works > there, and see what that works out to in kl/hour per megawatt of power output. > > I also want to comment on the current nuclear damper controversy raging as a > result of Scott's post. While I will not comment on the rationalization of > dampers in the game, I think there is a problem with using your damper to > increase the prodcution of your power plant. I'm originally a chemical engineer > by training, and that was a while ago, BUT, I suspect that if you intended a > fission (or any other steam generating) plant to be a certain size, that is, > have a certain heat flux and boil a certain amount of water, operate at a fixed > pressure, etc...you could not easily "overload" it to prodcue more power. This > means that if you really wanted to do that, you would need to have the plant > sized for the largest power output that you intended to squeeze out of it, and > run it at a lower efficeincy the rest of the time. In game terms, you could > "burn your fuel faster" in a nuclear power plant, and thus carry less fuel for > a given power output (with correspondingly lower endurance). I'm not sure I > see the advantage of this. > > Now, I said I wasn't going to comment on damper rationalization, but if you > really focussed a beam on a nuclear pile that caused extra neutrons to be shed > (which is *not* the same as normal radioactive decay for uranium...which decays > by alpha emission, I think) and more fissions to take place, the temeprature > in the pile would rise until it would eventually melt down...unless you shoved > the damper rods in to slow the reaction, which wouldn't help your power output. > > Anyway, an innovative idea, but I don't think it will work. > > > PS Fission power vs. Fission warheads: about 4% U235 vs. 95+% U235 if memory > serves me correctly. You wouldn't have to completely destroy the U235 to > render a fission warhead unusable...just get it below 90(??)%. (I don't > know the real crtitical limits, and if I did they'd be classified.) > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 11:11 EDT > From: [email removed] > Subject: (1694) Gnu Traveller: a modest (hah) proposal > > > I have an idea. It's a BAD idea. Why? Because it's the kind of thing that > may well end up costing me many man-hours of time that could be spent on > physics, music, or sex. But hell, I put in my time at work, my studio's > not always where I'm in the mood to be, and my wife is going to the South > Pole for three months in about a week and a half and I won't see her again > until around Valentine's Day, so what the hell. > > I wish to propose, to the TML, a truly sweeping bit of obnoxiousness that > could get us all arrested on one trumped-up charge or another. I call it > "Gnu Traveller." > > For those of you who aren't UNIX-heads, "Gnu" is a set of public-domain > programs, shells, and compilers designed by civically-minded hackers to > fix what they regard as the broken aspects of UNIX. Ideally, one should > be able to use Gnu on any UNIX machine, for free, and get more utility > out of it. (And for those of you who ARE UNIX-heads, don't jump all over > me and send me copies of the Gnu Manifesto with annotations as to where > I got it all wrong-- I really don't care. It's a useful concept, and if > I made a mistake in the details, well, go misjump.) Anyone at all can > write Gnu stuff, but it needs to be thoroughly checked for workability > before it's distributed, etc. > > It occurs to me that for those of us who aren't satisfied with the incredible > idiocies of the holes in the MegaTraveller rules, it might be worthwhile to > fix them ourselves, for free, and make them available to interested parties. > A sort of Gnu Traveller, you see? Rob Dean and Steven Kellogg have essentially > overrun the DGP 101 Vehicles book, and Rob and Dow Reider have made some much- > needed corrections and simplifications to the vehicle rules. Dow and I are > looking into replacing the utterly worthless and nonsensical trade and commerce > rules with better ones, and I'm rolling up my sleeves (with the possible > assistance of Dow and Paul Reilly, a General Relativist in my Trav group who > will probably join the TML soon) and fixing the glaring physics errors that > make so much of Traveller starship design difficult to swallow, without harming > the game balance too badly. (no Jump-7's folx) I'm probably going to see if I > can talk Iain Fogg and Mark Cook into helping me redo the weapons skills system > in a convincing manner, and I'd like to tackle the combat system at some point > and add a bunch more weapons to the canonical list.... > > The end result of all of this is going to be a parallel rules set that may > bear little resemblance to Traveller in places but will at least work in a > relatively consistent fashion. As all of physics is constrained within the > single rule, "Thou shalt not exceed c," we will constrain our rules in the > Miller Principle, "Thou shalt not allow news to go faster than Jump-6." It > may even turn out that the existing Traveller Universe will be no good for > the resulting rules, in which case (sigh) I'll just have to create a new > one. But hopefully the end result will be a rules set that one can use and > not feel vaguely cheated by in one respect or another. > > Keep in mind that this is not a going project yet! It's a proposal, to > organize and coordinate the work that other people are doing elsewhere > anyway. It may well be decided that people don't want to go to the extra > effort. Most people may like MT as it is; I certainly can make it work > in its current form. I may hand off the directorship of this idea to > someone else. Or whatever. But I wanted feedback. Please post to the TML > if you'd like to see a Gnu Traveller, and if so what rules you'd like > to see fixed, whether you'd be willing to write or help write new rules, > and whether or not you'd be interested in a new Universe to run them in. > (Also, the Gnu people will probably get mad if we keep using that term, > so we could use a catchy title for this... GigaTraveller? Nah.) > > Looking to see if anyone's interested, > > metlay > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 10:48 EDT > From: [email removed] > Subject: (1695) Knightfall: another view > > > I'd like to add a few thoughts to Rob Dean's commentary on Knightfall. > > First, let's get my major gripes out of the way-- the underlying premise > > SPOILER WARNING! > > of the game is just plain silly. "Oh, yeah, there was ANOTHER race BEFORE > the Ancients that made them look PITIFUL and they all died 600,000 years > ago...from boredom!" Literally. The rules state that the Primordials died > of boredom. And so can you, too, gentle reader. The flow of the game is > not open at all in critical junctures: at more than a half dozen points, > the possible scenaria squeeze together into a rigid set of events that MUST > occur if the adventure is to "work." I realize that this is true of most > if not all adventure modules, but I find the multiple-hourglass nature of > Knightfall to be a bit dizzying. "In Chapter 1, this and this and this > MUST happen. In Chapter 2, here's a whole bunch of random mini-scenarios > (most of them not terribly interesting) for people to putz around with. In > Chapter 3, though, you must get the players to here, so this and this and > this can happen. Then we have more random adventures...." And so on. There's > relatively little choice on the part of the players; I much prefer the > Traveller Adventure, whose structure was much less predictable and whose > bones were meatier. There are a number of areas in which the ref is told > to fudge rolls; this is OK as a tactic when necessary, but should not be > an integral part of the adventure: it leaves the players feeling railroaded. > > On a less sour note, there are some interesting points made in terms of > general campaign color, not all of which I agree with... the manufacture > of TL11 Gauss weapons on a mining world where smuggling of TL12 guns would > have been better and cheaper. The attempted patching of the Trade and > Commerce system, which Dow Rieder and I are preparing to rebuild from > scratch. The tremendously anti-Lucan, pro-Margaret slant of the story... > yes, Lucan's a scumbag. We KNOW Lucan's a scumbag! But I'm sorry, folx, > as the Travellers' Digest has made abundantly clear, Margaret's no Joan > of Arc either, and it bugs me that the players aren't given enough data > to make an informed decision. In any campaign I ran, the players would > look at me en masse about 70% of the way through the module and say, "Oh, > come off it, Metlay. What are you trying to sell?" But your mileage may > vary: this is a great campaign for idealistic parties, and I may simply > suffer from an overly cynical bunch of players. (Nah.) > > So do I consider this a wasted $10? NO! BY NO MEANS! I'm the TML historian, > and I pride myself on knowing more about the Traveller Universe than just > about anyone outside of DGP or GDW (interesting, the order I chose to name > those two...Freudian slip), and Knightfall is a thick book, full of really > worthwhile information. In the old days, we paid $6 and were very happy to > get books with sector maps: well, here's another one, the Massilia sector > in all its glory with full world data! There's a ton of good background > information on the politics and social structures of dozens of worlds, and > hints at all sorts of nifty groundwork for a campaign in one of the more > dangerous and risky parts of the Imperium these days. Combine this with > Trav Digest 11 (on the Geonee and more Massilia stuff) and you've got the > strong basis for a good campaign. The artwork, unlike that of recent GDW > MT releases, is almost uniformly excellent, and there are a number of small > adventure bits that could be spliced out of Knightfall and used in any > campaign that needs a quick adventure in a hurry. So I give Knightfall a > dual rating: > > As an adventure: Fairly Limiting > As a data module: Quite Worthwhile > > Make your own choices, based on what your game needs. I consider it the > first truly worthwhile GDW MT book since the Rebellion sourcebook or > MAYBE the Referee's Companion. MAYBE. > > metlay > > > ------------------------------ > Adrian Hurt [email removed] wrote: > Scott Kellogg writes (via Stephen D Smith): > > > [deleted] Light, heat, and > > gravitation are converted into usable energy and this is dumped into > > the jump drive. > > If a black globe can absorb gravity and turn it into usable energy, does > this violate the law of conservation of energy? I think there were a discussion about if black globes did block (or absorb) gravitation or not on the TML this spring(?). I don't remember the result of it, but IMHO there is several references in the books that would point in the direction that black globes *dosen't* block or absorb gravitation. possible (but quite unlikely) spoiler for Knightfall follows: ^L There is mention, in several places, most notably the 'Project Blackheart' in an old Digest, and the current Knightfall, about the tactic of jumping in-system with the globes on and with a predetermined course and speed, drifting along, presumably under the influence of local gravity in the system, and then lowering the globe and surprise the enemy completely. Naturally, Both the Digest and Knightfall lies at home, so I can't be 100% sure the they specifically mentioned that a black-globed ship will follow local gravity even when the globe is up, but I think that they did. another (but comparably very minor) spoiler for, and goof in, knightfall. ^L In one of the episodes where the characters are thrown in prison, there is talk about the gravitic prison door that essentially is a field from floor to ceiling in which the gravity changes from -6 to +6 gee once per second. According to traveller Q&A in the latest challenge, one have to install gravplates in the entire ships volume because they are too inexact to be used in just one part of the ship... ..but just one part of a cell is obviously ok :( > Also, what happens to a piece of matter which hits a black globe? Does > it bounce off, or get converted to usable energy too? If it "bounces", > what happens to its kinetic energy? The globe is described as an 'discontinuity in the fabric of space', so I'd treat it as a solid, un-yielding wall with the additional refinement that it absorbs kinetic energy on contact. But obviously it can only absorb the kinetic energy from the part of the impacting object that directly touch the globe (ie a very thin slice of the impacting object). The rest of the object would thus continue and expend it's energy in deforming itself until it too are in direct contact with the globe. A fast enough object would thus go splat against the surface of a black globe. - - -bertil- PS. I borrowed Nivens 'The Moth in Gods Eye' some months back, and the first thing that struck me when I read about the defensive black field that absorbed all energy that struck it but misbehaved when overloaded was: "BLACK GLOBE!!":) - - -- "Words on the net aren't usually worth the paper they are written on."