I still have to loop back and finish looking at the earlier one, but I
think there's still something going on in 3 and 4 based on other remarks
about M0-4 being too cold, and giants being inadmissible.
Is it your understanding the using the habitable zones table is adequate,
or that there is something beyond that?
I'm just calling it "stellar failure" because the intent was to do it
once, take the heat, and be done with it. The fact that it didn't
accomplish that means by definition that it failed its mission. I'm not
trying to go all martyr-y, just calling a spade a spade. And the obvious
danglers, like the remaining D companions and failing to rename the Ds
indicates that somewhere along the line I had to go "quick and dirty"
which means it was doomed from the get-go. Not what I intended. Probably
my thought at the time is that those 2 obvious danglers at least "solved
the main problem" by giving habitable zones to worlds that didn't have
them (except where it didn't).
> You can probably boil the whole thing down to basically #2, #5, and #6.
> Those cover the vast majority of what I did.
>
>
>
> Obviously #1 played a part, but that was actually pretty small, and I
> likely
> added enough of those to counterbalance whatever ones I did fix.
>
>
>
> Items #3 and #4 are more of the types of things I *wanted* to fix, but
> knew
> I couldnt. The primary issues (2, 5, and 6) were what I focused on to
> finish the changes you had started.
>
>
>
> Then, as mentioned before, in an ideal opportunity, as part of #7, I would
> have fixed the world sizes, too. But, again, that just wasnt possible,
> so
> it didnt happen.
>
>
>
> So, again, to stress the point, it wasnt so much a stellar failure and
> just an incomplete process. And, when you look at what I tried to do with
> the cold, hard light of objectivity, it was incomplete, too. Because it
> cant ever be complete without changing it so much it risks becoming
> unrecognizable. Sure, I went a few steps past the RSB, but that doesnt
> mean
> it isnt incomplete as well.
>
>
>
> Mike West
>
>
>
> RE: Subject lines--I think I am better at changing subject lines when I
> change the subject than I am at doing it in replies where the subject has
> already changed, but I am trying to catch those as well.
>
> Back to topic, I may be jumping ahead a little bit here, but this is in my
> mind, so I might as well discharge it. I am thinking that "not far enough"
> means that, "you did fix some of the world/star mismatches (% unknown at
> this point, it would be nice if I could satisfy myself by comparing
> pre-TNE stars with TNE stars with youseguys' EDG fixes to see how far we
> got against the ideal, but I don't think I'm going to get that done, and
> it is not fair for me to ask someone else to do it for me)" but didn't get
> all of them.
>
> And I think that the Delta between "fixed some" and "not up to the ideal"
> is a combination of the following:
>
> 1. Standard error (hopefully small) in stuff slipping through the QA
>
> 2. A failure to appreciate that M5+ V still had no hab zone, and assuming
> erroneously that switching D to V fixed it (this one annoys me, but I
> think it's probably a reasonable explanation)
>
> 3. A new post-EDG understanding that the hab zone model does NOT capture
> adequately all of the issues, i.e., while an M star gives you a hab zone
> in terms of simple heat, its wavelength is centered too low to give you
> the full spectrum you'd want for growing plants (Sol's wavelength is
> centered in--guess what: Green), and while a bright star gives you a hab
> zone in terms of heat, its wavelength is centered too high, giving you
> rather too much UV for safe life
>
> 4. A new post-EDG understanding that a late-life giant would have done
> something to blow the biosphere off of the remaining undigested worlds
>
> 5. Failed to properly rename degenerates as degenerates
>
> 6. Failed to fix the companion degenerates along with the primary
>
> 7. Maybe something else in addition
>
> I get the impression that we're waiting for EDG to clarify points 3 and 4
> above that you guys worked from.
>
> Assuming that the above is accurate, that would provide me a basis for
> saying, "okay, we got some but not all" and moving on with my life.
>
> Another thing that this points out is that the "existing" (at the time of
> TNE) star generation system is flawed in that it adds on Luminosity Class
> D after generating spectral class which tends to force an unnecessary
> error. Really you should determine if it's a remnant or a "real star, open
> for business" at a step BEFORE calculating spectral class. The existing
> process fully explains why Traveller had G2 Ds or whatever, because going
> through the steps you had already written down G2 (or had your buggy
> program drop G2 into the fields) before you got the D value. So an ideal
> generation system would start out with, "Is there a star here," then, "If
> so, Degenerate or not," then, "If not, generate spectral type, luminosity
> class," etc.
>
> Although arguably if the primary target is "how to add logical stars to
> existing 3I UWPs," it would proceed differently, asking, "what does this
> established world require," then randomly generate specifics within that
> narrower band.
>
>> Ø Oh look, there's Alell. Never mind, DED, we found it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh look, there is a big ol screw-up on me.
>>
>>
>>
>> The physical characteristics of Alell are 467. So, yes, indeed, it
> should
>> have had one of its stars increased to be F-K. I probably should have
> made
>> it have stellar data of K7V M7V. I dunno why I screwed it up. Maybe I
> thought two M7Vs in a tight formation would have produced enough heat?
> Regardless, I should have definitely bumped it. Maybe I could have
> swapped
>> it around with Boughene and make Boughene be an M7V, and Alell be a K7V
> M7V
>> so as to try and keep the distribution a little more like the original.
>>
>>
>>
>> On a related through, I noticed in your reply to DED that Frank hated
> the
>> high-pop hostile world. I really hate those, too, and (with the
> horrible
>> upheaval even in the Domain of Deneb/Regency) used that as an excuse to
> ruthlessly crush many (maybe most) of those worlds. (In fact, I
> initially
>> went too far and ended up putting some of them back.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike West
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
think there's still something going on in 3 and 4 based on other remarks
about M0-4 being too cold, and giants being inadmissible.
Is it your understanding the using the habitable zones table is adequate,
or that there is something beyond that?
I'm just calling it "stellar failure" because the intent was to do it
once, take the heat, and be done with it. The fact that it didn't
accomplish that means by definition that it failed its mission. I'm not
trying to go all martyr-y, just calling a spade a spade. And the obvious
danglers, like the remaining D companions and failing to rename the Ds
indicates that somewhere along the line I had to go "quick and dirty"
which means it was doomed from the get-go. Not what I intended. Probably
my thought at the time is that those 2 obvious danglers at least "solved
the main problem" by giving habitable zones to worlds that didn't have
them (except where it didn't).
> You can probably boil the whole thing down to basically #2, #5, and #6.
> Those cover the vast majority of what I did.
>
>
>
> Obviously #1 played a part, but that was actually pretty small, and I
> likely
> added enough of those to counterbalance whatever ones I did fix.
>
>
>
> Items #3 and #4 are more of the types of things I *wanted* to fix, but
> knew
> I couldnt. The primary issues (2, 5, and 6) were what I focused on to
> finish the changes you had started.
>
>
>
> Then, as mentioned before, in an ideal opportunity, as part of #7, I would
> have fixed the world sizes, too. But, again, that just wasnt possible,
> so
> it didnt happen.
>
>
>
> So, again, to stress the point, it wasnt so much a stellar failure and
> just an incomplete process. And, when you look at what I tried to do with
> the cold, hard light of objectivity, it was incomplete, too. Because it
> cant ever be complete without changing it so much it risks becoming
> unrecognizable. Sure, I went a few steps past the RSB, but that doesnt
> mean
> it isnt incomplete as well.
>
>
>
> Mike West
>
>
>
> RE: Subject lines--I think I am better at changing subject lines when I
> change the subject than I am at doing it in replies where the subject has
> already changed, but I am trying to catch those as well.
>
> Back to topic, I may be jumping ahead a little bit here, but this is in my
> mind, so I might as well discharge it. I am thinking that "not far enough"
> means that, "you did fix some of the world/star mismatches (% unknown at
> this point, it would be nice if I could satisfy myself by comparing
> pre-TNE stars with TNE stars with youseguys' EDG fixes to see how far we
> got against the ideal, but I don't think I'm going to get that done, and
> it is not fair for me to ask someone else to do it for me)" but didn't get
> all of them.
>
> And I think that the Delta between "fixed some" and "not up to the ideal"
> is a combination of the following:
>
> 1. Standard error (hopefully small) in stuff slipping through the QA
>
> 2. A failure to appreciate that M5+ V still had no hab zone, and assuming
> erroneously that switching D to V fixed it (this one annoys me, but I
> think it's probably a reasonable explanation)
>
> 3. A new post-EDG understanding that the hab zone model does NOT capture
> adequately all of the issues, i.e., while an M star gives you a hab zone
> in terms of simple heat, its wavelength is centered too low to give you
> the full spectrum you'd want for growing plants (Sol's wavelength is
> centered in--guess what: Green), and while a bright star gives you a hab
> zone in terms of heat, its wavelength is centered too high, giving you
> rather too much UV for safe life
>
> 4. A new post-EDG understanding that a late-life giant would have done
> something to blow the biosphere off of the remaining undigested worlds
>
> 5. Failed to properly rename degenerates as degenerates
>
> 6. Failed to fix the companion degenerates along with the primary
>
> 7. Maybe something else in addition
>
> I get the impression that we're waiting for EDG to clarify points 3 and 4
> above that you guys worked from.
>
> Assuming that the above is accurate, that would provide me a basis for
> saying, "okay, we got some but not all" and moving on with my life.
>
> Another thing that this points out is that the "existing" (at the time of
> TNE) star generation system is flawed in that it adds on Luminosity Class
> D after generating spectral class which tends to force an unnecessary
> error. Really you should determine if it's a remnant or a "real star, open
> for business" at a step BEFORE calculating spectral class. The existing
> process fully explains why Traveller had G2 Ds or whatever, because going
> through the steps you had already written down G2 (or had your buggy
> program drop G2 into the fields) before you got the D value. So an ideal
> generation system would start out with, "Is there a star here," then, "If
> so, Degenerate or not," then, "If not, generate spectral type, luminosity
> class," etc.
>
> Although arguably if the primary target is "how to add logical stars to
> existing 3I UWPs," it would proceed differently, asking, "what does this
> established world require," then randomly generate specifics within that
> narrower band.
>
>> Ø Oh look, there's Alell. Never mind, DED, we found it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh look, there is a big ol screw-up on me.
>>
>>
>>
>> The physical characteristics of Alell are 467. So, yes, indeed, it
> should
>> have had one of its stars increased to be F-K. I probably should have
> made
>> it have stellar data of K7V M7V. I dunno why I screwed it up. Maybe I
> thought two M7Vs in a tight formation would have produced enough heat?
> Regardless, I should have definitely bumped it. Maybe I could have
> swapped
>> it around with Boughene and make Boughene be an M7V, and Alell be a K7V
> M7V
>> so as to try and keep the distribution a little more like the original.
>>
>>
>>
>> On a related through, I noticed in your reply to DED that Frank hated
> the
>> high-pop hostile world. I really hate those, too, and (with the
> horrible
>> upheaval even in the Domain of Deneb/Regency) used that as an excuse to
> ruthlessly crush many (maybe most) of those worlds. (In fact, I
> initially
>> went too far and ended up putting some of them back.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike West
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>