techno geek question, acceleration vs speed

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:11:09 -0500, Don Sample <dsample.RemoveThis@synapse.net>
wrote:


>If the acceleration force is carried by the structure, then your
>structure also has to be made from unobtainium. A 2km long ship capable
>of accelerating at 500g? The strength required would be the same for
>building a 1000km tall tower in a 1g field. (And war ships aren't made
>as light at the engineers can get away with, either. They've got all
>that armour plastered over their hulls, and other such things.)
>
>But it does seem to be the case. We've heard of ships with compensator
>failure continuing to accelerate with their dead crews aboard, until the
>ship's particle shielding failed.


could be there is only a partial failure of the compensator rather
than a total failure which would spread the ship parts across the
cosmos. even a few percent drop in compensator effectiveness would be
quite fatal to the crew while leaving the ship relatively intact.
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

On Dec 3, 5:08 pm, Don Sample <dsam....DeleteThis@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <ujs8l39idvui6haf4t83c57mhnvc6ds....DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
> Brian McDonald <Brian_knowspam.McDon....DeleteThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:11:09 -0500, Don Sample <dsam....DeleteThis@synapse.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >If the acceleration force is carried by the structure, then your
> > >structure also has to be made from unobtainium. A 2km long ship capable
> > >of accelerating at 500g? The strength required would be the same for
> > >building a 1000km tall tower in a 1g field. (And war ships aren't made
> > >as light at the engineers can get away with, either. They've got all
> > >that armour plastered over their hulls, and other such things.)
>
> > >But it does seem to be the case. We've heard of ships with compensator
> > >failure continuing to accelerate with their dead crews aboard, until the
> > >ship's particle shielding failed.
>
> > could be there is only a partial failure of the compensator rather
> > than a total failure which would spread the ship parts across the
> > cosmos. even a few percent drop in compensator effectiveness would be
> > quite fatal to the crew while leaving the ship relatively intact.
>
> Except it's been stated a few times that there is no such thing as a
> partial failure of a compensator. They either work or they don't.
> There is no in between.
>

That is why I put some thought into coming up with an alternate
explanation that does not do too much damage to the collected
narrative, but does make things more consistent. The "paint shaker of
doom" effect from impeller variation outside compensatable bounds
allows for a burst of 2000 g's that both keep the ship relatively
intact and reduce the crew a red paste.
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

In article <ujs8l39idvui6haf4t83c57mhnvc6dsvsp.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
Brian McDonald <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:11:09 -0500, Don Sample <dsample.RemoveThis@synapse.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >If the acceleration force is carried by the structure, then your
> >structure also has to be made from unobtainium. A 2km long ship capable
> >of accelerating at 500g? The strength required would be the same for
> >building a 1000km tall tower in a 1g field. (And war ships aren't made
> >as light at the engineers can get away with, either. They've got all
> >that armour plastered over their hulls, and other such things.)
> >
> >But it does seem to be the case. We've heard of ships with compensator
> >failure continuing to accelerate with their dead crews aboard, until the
> >ship's particle shielding failed.
>
>
> could be there is only a partial failure of the compensator rather
> than a total failure which would spread the ship parts across the
> cosmos. even a few percent drop in compensator effectiveness would be
> quite fatal to the crew while leaving the ship relatively intact.

Except it's been stated a few times that there is no such thing as a
partial failure of a compensator. They either work or they don't.
There is no in between.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

>> Except it's been stated a few times that there is no such thing as a
>> partial failure of a compensator. They either work or they don't.
>> There is no in between.

Didn't Honor's thoughts during Nike's first full power run after release
from the shipyards comtemplate a fluxuation in the compensator and it's
unhealthy effects on the crew? It seems I'm seen this implied more than once
with the impression being given that the max compensator limit is not a rock
solid value, which is why pushing it is not a good idea. A compensator
failure is when it fails enough to kill the crew. It doesn't have to be a
complete loss of function.

At 500g's, the compensator wavering low a tenth of a percent for a mere
tenth of a second would leave the crew splattered over the rear bulkheads a
dozen or so feet behind them and a ship still accelerating on it's merry way
with a working compensator.


..
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

Baydlor wrote:
> At 500g's, the compensator wavering low a tenth of a percent for a mere
> tenth of a second

Misplaced decimal. A tenth of a percent = 0.001, so that's 0.5g. Enough
to motivate a bit of cussing, that's all.
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

"Offbreed" <offbreed_106 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YNydnfaoyssFiMvanZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@scnresearch.com...
> Baydlor wrote:
>> At 500g's, the compensator wavering low a tenth of a percent for a mere
>> tenth of a second
>
> Misplaced decimal. A tenth of a percent = 0.001, so that's 0.5g. Enough to
> motivate a bit of cussing, that's all.

True, should have been a full percent for 5g. That sudden trip to the rear,
even against a flat surface, would seriously mess up your day more than
likely.

I'll have to aim those decimals more accurately next time.
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

Baydlor wrote:
> I'll have to aim those decimals more accurately next time.

Sneaky little beggars, always jumping around.
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

FWIW the WW2 VT (proximity) fuzes survived about 10,000G on firing
from a gun. They each contained a small glass vacuum tube which very
nicely survived both setback and spin from the rifling. Don't know
what the G was on the Sprint close-range (endoatmospheric) AICBM but
it sure went like a bat out of hell.
Walt BJ
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

On Dec 18, 3:18 pm, Gunfighter40 <waltb....TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote:
> FWIW the WW2 VT (proximity) fuzes survived about 10,000G on firing
> from a gun. They each contained a small glass vacuum tube which very
> nicely survived both setback and spin from the rifling. Don't know
> what the G was on the Sprint close-range (endoatmospheric) AICBM but
> it sure went like a bat out of hell.
> Walt BJ


Pay close attention to how small that vacuum tube was.

Things do not scale well, as there is that pesky square/cube law. One
commercial that had a lasting effect on me had the tag line that the
Tonka dumptruck was tougher than the real hauler on which it was
modeled (back when Tonka meant made from steel). An example of each
was rolled over a precipe. There was no closeup on the toy, but a
clever choice of impact surface (packed earth,as opposed to a rock
floor) may have left the toy undamaged, and the toy obviously
continued to posess its full play value. The Terex Titan dumptruck,
probably intercepted on its way to the metal recyclers, was crushed by
its own momentum.

Building smal things to take huge loads is relatively easy. There are
small things that are not designed with load in mind, that still take
huge loads. I saw an interesting photograph of a ten tonne earth
mover supported by four Wedgewood china teacups. Each cup was sitting
on a block of wood and topped with a block of wood to distribute the
load evenly. The trick is building large things to take huge loads
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

My copy of Mark's (an old one) shows on page 452 table 1 that there is
a steel alloy (52100) with a tension yield strength of 114 tons per
square inch. Given a weight of about 490 pounds per cubic foot for
steel, perhaps someone could figure out how far apart the node rings
should be. Of course, there is always unobtanium for ship manufacture
with N times that 114 tons, plus great fatigue resistance.
Walt BJ
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:18:29 -0800 (PST), Gunfighter40
<waltbj01.RemoveThis@mindspring.com> wrote:

>FWIW the WW2 VT (proximity) fuzes survived about 10,000G on firing
>from a gun. They each contained a small glass vacuum tube which very
>nicely survived both setback and spin from the rifling. Don't know
>what the G was on the Sprint close-range (endoatmospheric) AICBM but
>it sure went like a bat out of hell.
>Walt BJ

No rocket is going to match the acceleration of an artillery piece.
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:18:28 -0800 (PST), "rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com"
<rlbell.nsuid.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>Building smal things to take huge loads is relatively easy. There are
>small things that are not designed with load in mind, that still take
>huge loads. I saw an interesting photograph of a ten tonne earth
>mover supported by four Wedgewood china teacups. Each cup was sitting
>on a block of wood and topped with a block of wood to distribute the
>load evenly. The trick is building large things to take huge loads

Yeah. I've had debates with 9/11ers who don't understand this.

In our everyday world just about everything is far stronger than it's
weight, things don't fail under their own load no matter what you do
with them. You can break a shelf by piling too many books on it but
you never break a shelf by piling shelves on it.

Thus they have a hard time seeing that it doesn't take much of a head
start to cause a building to collapse due to it's own weight.
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

On Dec 19, 9:58 pm, Gunfighter40 <waltb....DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
> My copy of Mark's (an old one) shows on page 452 table 1 that there is
> a steel alloy (52100) with a tension yield strength of 114 tons per
> square inch. Given a weight of about 490 pounds per cubic foot for
> steel, perhaps someone could figure out how far apart the node rings
> should be. Of course, there is always unobtanium for ship manufacture
> with N times that 114 tons, plus great fatigue resistance.
> Walt BJ


There are two impeller rings. One pulls about half of the mass of the
ship, and the other ring pushes the rest, so we need a compressive
yield strength and a table for calculating how many crossbraces are
needed for a given load and length.

What I feel moots all this is the point I made earlier: If the
acceleration compensators can grab anything in the ship, at all, and
make it accelerate at the same rate as the ship, they can compensate
the effects of acceleration on the ship's structure. If the
acceleration compensators cannot take the strain off of the ship's
structure, then there is only recourse to magic to explain why they do
anything, at all.

Personally, I refuse to accept unadulterated magic in a science
fiction universe. Especially when everything is described as products
of science and technology.
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed