I want to say that somewhere we had the number of Gs that could be
accommodated by inertial compensators, that advanced by TL. Is that
correct? I think inertial compensators were assumed into the other
systems, whether it was the grav-nullifier thing or something else.
> In the arena of Inertia and Gravity I think its a 2 part problem.
>
> 1. Using gravity technology to 'nullify' the 'pull' of a planet's gravity
> field so that any object effected would have buoyancy in proximity to the
> gravity source (regardless of medium, air, methane, none, ect) doesn't
> strictly remove the issue of killing the biological occupants or relieving
> the craft's frame stresses when performing 90 degree turn when traveling
> 'at speed" even if the craft would be capable of performing such
> a maneuver without simply tearing itself apart.
>
> 2. Many Scifi settings assume Inertia compensator as part of gravity
> manipulation technology. Whether true or not it releases the authors
> having
> to explain elaborate ship/vehicle design to simulate a comfortable
> working/traveling environment for the characters of their
> setting/stories.)
>
> A possible technobabble explanation could be motion 'experienced' but a
> given object, be it organic or in-organic, can be cancelled out by a
> quantum field of equal frequency in a similar way sound wave can be
> canceled by a precisely opposite sound wave. This would nullify the
> 'experience' of motion for the effected object/person without actually
> impeding the motion of the object is space/time.
>
> The caveat being the power required to achieve complete nullification. So
> at this point you can say at higher energy(Gs) levels it incredibly power
> intensive to counter so its not practical to try and compensate beyond a
> certain point, which has the side effect of limiting 'thruster-less' real
> space acceleration. But this is only if you feel it needs a limitation.
>
> Also to the energy dump point the compensators could simply store or
> convert the motion cancellation to another from of energy. Electrical,
> Magnetic, HPG motion, or just light emission from the exterior of the
> hull,
>
> Either way its up to the setting designers to set a precident or a GMs
> preference.
>
> If you can't wrap your mind around how Inertial compensators 'could' work
> don't worry about it as most trained scientists have difficulty grasping
> Quantum Mechanics. And this is way beyond that.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Roger Malmstein <
> > wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> maybe more interesting, but it into the turf you was moving away from,
>> reactionless thrusters. Even though I missed them at first, I felt that
>> the
>> game universe gained something by dropping thrusters all together. For
>> the
>> same reason I was beither very satisifed with Repulsors and Tractors
>> (unless it was the farmer Bob kind).
>>
>> I could deal with inertial compensators for the interior of craftsm, but
>> I
>> have a hard time bending my brains around how they are supposed to work
>> on
>> a grav vehicle maneuvering under full thrust. If the inertial
>> compensators
>> would affect its maneuverability, it means that excess energy has to be
>> dumped someplace, and the craft could turn on a dime any time it wants.
>> just think about the effects on starships, which would gain a lot.
>>
>> ---
>> Roger Malmstein
>> Administrator / Webmaster
>> www.travellerfreeport.com
>>
>> *From:*
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2012 6:13 AM
>> *To:*
>> *Subject:* Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Armor XXI
>>
>>
>>
>> John's answer, which I just found in my spam folder, is much more
>> interesting than mine.
>>
>> And it reminds me that we haven't talked about inertial dampers. Which
>> is
>> probably one more way that Frank's "no reactionless drives" was
>> compromised by the embedded assumptions of the SF environment.
>>
>> > If we assume that gravity manipulation is at a level of vehicle sized
>> > mastery in a setting. The laws of thermodynamics for conservation of
>> > motion are no longer an issue.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
> would have been deserved.
>