On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:13:36 -0000, "rogerclarktopaz"
<> wrote:
>I since ran into a post on the Traveller Web Ring
>that had these tanks spelled out in FF&S terms, below is an example.
>
>TL TYPE POWER (mw) MASS PRICE(Cr) CAPACITY MIN VOLUME
>11 MLH-11 0.24 1.00 200,000 7 kliters 54.0 kliters
>14 MLH-14 0.12 0.5 150,000 10 kliters 13.5 kliters
>16 MLH-16 0.06 0.25 100,000 12 kliters 13.5 kliters
>All the values are per kiloliter of hull volume
>
>The above table is from:
>http://www.reasonablyinteresting,com/traveller/entry_mlhfueltanks.htm
>
>Unfortunately my computer skill level is (0) and trying to find this
>site again is proving to be a pain, so if the original writer of the
>table reads this post step forward.
The link you gave above returns an error for me. I also would like to
know more about this technology.
>This leaves us with the question "now what?" I hat to turn my nose
>up at any new technology, but using the chart above the J-Hawk Far
>Trader would have an additional 874.285m3 of additional cargo space
>if it used the MLH-11 tanks.
>I'm looking for any cannon rules or good solid house rules for using
>these tanks.
In a way I would be carefull to use this in a Traveller Campaign as
they would tilt the balance TNE is buildt on unless you want to
redesign every ship published as this kind of technology is just too
good to miss. It would likely be used by most in the far future.
Depending on mission I think the space saved would be used for even
more fuel to increase the amount of G-hours available.
Roger Malmstein
www.travellerfreeport.com
Thread: Re: [Traveller_TNE] New fuel storage tanks? and a new piece of equipment
4 posts.
Yeah, I get the same error message, so I'll give reasonably interesting a week or so to come forward then I'll post the whole article. Just for laughs I dusted off an old design for a 300 Ton J-3,G-1 freighter I called Wilds Hawk and added the MLH-11 tanks. At 18.75m3/G 48G-turns cost me 900m3, with the MLH tanks it dropped to 128.572m3, but the cost was almost that of a new jump drive! This and the power consumed will be the limiting factor on this technology at least at lower tech levels. Did you check out the fuel cell store? They have several tanks for sale, 100 standard liter Tank $415 6.4cm diameter 18.2cm tall weight 1 kg. While you are there check out the fuel station 2. It is designed to fill one of these tanks which can then be installed in a vehicle, but I see no reason that they can't be plugged right into the fuel tank of say an air raft it only produces 4.3 cm3 a minute but if it size was amped up or you were not
in a hurry this little fellow could be of use. For years we have been using the fuel station from 2300AD another GDW product, be nice for Traveller to have one of its own.
Starwolf <> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:13:36 -0000, "rogerclarktopaz"
<> wrote:
>I since ran into a post on the Traveller Web Ring
>that had these tanks spelled out in FF&S terms, below is an example.
>
>TL TYPE POWER (mw) MASS PRICE(Cr) CAPACITY MIN VOLUME
>11 MLH-11 0.24 1.00 200,000 7 kliters 54.0 kliters
>14 MLH-14 0.12 0.5 150,000 10 kliters 13.5 kliters
>16 MLH-16 0.06 0.25 100,000 12 kliters 13.5 kliters
>All the values are per kiloliter of hull volume
>
>The above table is from:
>http://www.reasonablyinteresting,com/traveller/entry_mlhfueltanks.htm
>
>Unfortunately my computer skill level is (0) and trying to find this
>site again is proving to be a pain, so if the original writer of the
>table reads this post step forward.
The link you gave above returns an error for me. I also would like to
know more about this technology.
>This leaves us with the question "now what?" I hat to turn my nose
>up at any new technology, but using the chart above the J-Hawk Far
>Trader would have an additional 874.285m3 of additional cargo space
>if it used the MLH-11 tanks.
>I'm looking for any cannon rules or good solid house rules for using
>these tanks.
In a way I would be carefull to use this in a Traveller Campaign as
they would tilt the balance TNE is buildt on unless you want to
redesign every ship published as this kind of technology is just too
good to miss. It would likely be used by most in the far future.
Depending on mission I think the space saved would be used for even
more fuel to increase the amount of G-hours available.
Roger Malmstein
www.travellerfreeport.com
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
--- In , "rogerclarktopaz"
<rogerclarktopaz@...> wrote:
>
> I've been keeping an eye on the new hydrogen fuel cars that are
> coming out and I ran across two new types of fuel tanks...
Not to be a wet blanket but the easiest way to go is to say that these
are how it's always been done in Traveller, in the future, maybe only
better ;)
It's pretty clear it's never been simple hydrogen gas. It's also clear
it's never been simple liquid water with the hydrogen extracted as
needed (which would also allow more H per volume than simple hydrogen
gas iirc.
It's easy to see from the damage results and certain colour bits of
text over the years that it is likely super (or at least highly)
pressurized and cooled liquid hydrogen.
But an argument could be (and has been) made for it being some kind of
matrix too. Chiefly this is from the canon usage of lanthum for the
jump grid, since it turns out lanthum is also a good hydrogen sponge,
again iirc. The biggest problem with making it a sponge matrix is
there would have to be a cost associated with it whereas fuel tanks
are usually included in the hull cost for free. And you have a problem
with working in the collapsible and removable/take down fuel tanks
neither of which would work well as sponge matrix types.
So for the OTU if anybody asked I'd just say "Of course, that's how
it's done and always has been." But for your own TU it's certainly
something you could add, after coming up with a good reason why it
wasn't done before but is (all of a sudden) done now. Otherwise you
have to rework every bit of technology that uses hydrogen fuel in the
game, and then see how that impacts every bit of downstream element,
such as the economics of shipping, and fix all that too ;)
Or not, like I said I'm not trying to dissuade you, just present the
issues involved in any basic change to the standards.
Dan "far-trader" Burns
Real world rail guns
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327205,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/innovation
wow, just wow!
> coming out and I ran across two new types of fuel tanks...
<rogerclarktopaz@...> wrote:
>
> I've been keeping an eye on the new hydrogen fuel cars that are
Not to be a wet blanket but the easiest way to go is to say that these
are how it's always been done in Traveller, in the future, maybe only
better ;)
It's pretty clear it's never been simple hydrogen gas. It's also clear
it's never been simple liquid water with the hydrogen extracted as
needed (which would also allow more H per volume than simple hydrogen
gas iirc.
It's easy to see from the damage results and certain colour bits of
text over the years that it is likely super (or at least highly)
pressurized and cooled liquid hydrogen.
But an argument could be (and has been) made for it being some kind of
matrix too. Chiefly this is from the canon usage of lanthum for the
jump grid, since it turns out lanthum is also a good hydrogen sponge,
again iirc. The biggest problem with making it a sponge matrix is
there would have to be a cost associated with it whereas fuel tanks
are usually included in the hull cost for free. And you have a problem
with working in the collapsible and removable/take down fuel tanks
neither of which would work well as sponge matrix types.
So for the OTU if anybody asked I'd just say "Of course, that's how
it's done and always has been." But for your own TU it's certainly
something you could add, after coming up with a good reason why it
wasn't done before but is (all of a sudden) done now. Otherwise you
have to rework every bit of technology that uses hydrogen fuel in the
game, and then see how that impacts every bit of downstream element,
such as the economics of shipping, and fix all that too ;)
Or not, like I said I'm not trying to dissuade you, just present the
issues involved in any basic change to the standards.
Dan "far-trader" Burns
--
"Here at Artillery Command we have at our disposal one hundred megawatt laser beams, mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some people say we think that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his SMITE button for our fire control system"