Thread: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Artifical Gravity:

So the motion of the gravitons create the gravity effect?  Similar to
electricity and magnetic fields?

IMTU: The AG is really a floor and ceiling system.  The ceiling
elements act as a anode for the AG waves and the floor acts as a
cathode.  This projector/absorber system helps explain why the effect
is isolated to a single deck. 

This version pushes everything towards the floor at 1G, which seems
right for "Artificial Gravity" since if it pulled everything towards
the floor it might be too much like "real" gravity.  I really wanted
something that people could feel the difference.  That way as a story
plot if a spacer gets knocked-out in a planet side bar and wakes up
in a ship in space, he is going to "know it" where a character that
has never been on a ship would not.

This also allows me to have a reason for a kind of "space-sickness"
as a plot device.

Of course it would be OK to flip this over and get something that
feels more like real gravity.

I have also toyed with the idea of a low power repulsor in the
ceiling to do the job.  But repulsors seem to be much too large in
traveller for this to be feasible/believable.

--- In , "Joel Callahan" <joel@m...>
wrote:
> Artifical Gravity:
> I've kinda imagined a tube (made of some sort of 'really cool
metal') that
> is filled with densely packed gravitons.
> These particles proprogate throughout the tube in a closed loop.
> I imagine there would be some energy to contain the gravitons in
the tube.
>
> Could this be a source of artifical gravity in starships?
>
> A tube underneath the decks?
>
> Of course, if the ship has multiple decks, then the tubes might
cancel each
> other out or have gravity above and below each deck.
>
> Perhaps the top of each deck could have a charge running thru it,
repelling
> the gravitons coming from above...
>
> Yes, I know it's not hard science, but I'm trying to make a case for
> artifical gravity sound as scientific as I can...
>
> -joel


---- LSpots keywords ?>---- HM ADS ?>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com ---- LSpots keywords ?> ---- HM ADS ?>

•  Visit your group "Traveller_TNE" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

On 13 Jul 2005 at 21:18, Joel Callahan wrote:

> Artifical Gravity:
> I've kinda imagined a tube (made of some sort of 'really cool metal') that
> is filled with densely packed gravitons.
> These particles proprogate throughout the tube in a closed loop.
> I imagine there would be some energy to contain the gravitons in the tube.

Sorry, but gravitons can't affect you if they are confined to the
tube.

Gravitons "do" gravity by being exchanged between two bodys,
resulting in the bodies being attracted to each other.

> Yes, I know it's not hard science, but I'm trying to make a case for
> artifical gravity sound as scientific as I can...

Then avoid getting overly specific...

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com


---- LSpots keywords ?>

Traveller	Role playing games	Individual
Gdw	Conde nast traveller	Travellers insurance

•  Visit your group "Traveller_TNE" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Shadow, thank you for your expatiation of your understanding of the
theory of gravity. You know that gravitons don't really exist right? 
Gravitons are theoretical particles that MIGHT explain how gravity
works, but it is just a theory (one of many).

Joel's theory of gravity seems to work like electric current and
magnetic fields.  Which is just as reasonable as any other writers'
version.  Now if he had call them "super-dense particles"
or "Energized Cubane(C8)" instead of gravitons would you have had any
issue?


While you could have actually offerd some kind of suggestion, you
elected to attack someone's concept. Why? Was your last comment
really necessary?  Did you send these same kinds of flip remarks to
the writers of StarTrek since they can't even keep their technobabble
straight in the same episode?

Joel has put some thought and effort into his idea where you clearly
did not put any effort into your reply.  In my playbook that makes
Joel smarter than you.  (It is clear that the only reason you would
have made a post like this is that you wanted to show that you were
smarter than Joel.)

Give the rest of us a break.
Try to add to the creative efforts - not throw water on them.



--- In , shadow@s... wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2005 at 21:18, Joel Callahan wrote:
>
> > Artifical Gravity:
> > I've kinda imagined a tube (made of some sort of 'really cool
metal') that
> > is filled with densely packed gravitons.
> > These particles proprogate throughout the tube in a closed loop.
> > I imagine there would be some energy to contain the gravitons in
the tube.
>
> Sorry, but gravitons can't affect you if they are confined to the
> tube.
>
> Gravitons "do" gravity by being exchanged between two bodys,
> resulting in the bodies being attracted to each other.
>
> > Yes, I know it's not hard science, but I'm trying to make a case
for
> > artifical gravity sound as scientific as I can...
>
> Then avoid getting overly specific...
>
> --
> Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
> shadow at shadowgard dot com


---- LSpots keywords ?> ---- HM ADS ?>

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

•  Visit your group "Traveller_TNE" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

On 13 Jul 2005 at 23:55, Tom wrote:

> Shadow, thank you for your expatiation of your understanding of the
> theory of gravity. You know that gravitons don't really exist right? 
> Gravitons are theoretical particles that MIGHT explain how gravity
> works, but it is just a theory (one of many).

Thing is, if they exist, they are "exchange particles" that (as
virtual particles) carry a force. As such, they *cannot* work as
described.

Particles that did work as described wouldn't be gravitons.

> Joel's theory of gravity seems to work like electric current and
> magnetic fields.  Which is just as reasonable as any other writers'
> version.  Now if he had call them "super-dense particles"
> or "Energized Cubane(C8)" instead of gravitons would you have had any
> issue?

It's possible to generate gravity like forces by rapid movement of
very dense masses. We can't do it, but nothing says it won't work and
lots of stuff says it will.

But that has its own problems. The late Dr. Robert Forward went into
that sort of thing in great detail in many articles and papers.

We've already got "mesons" that don't act like mesons in Traveller.
We don't need yet another example of swiping the name of a "real"
particle for something that acts in ways the "real" one wouldn't.

>
> While you could have actually offerd some kind of suggestion, you
> elected to attack someone's concept. Why?

Because I was tired, and didn't have *time* to go into more detail.

And I *did* make a suggestion. Giving *unnecessary* details *always*
comes back to haunt you. Using technobabble unnecessarily does so
doubly.

> Was your last comment really necessary?

Yes. It's a concise *accurate* statement of the single most basic
rule in SF.

> Did you send these same kinds of flip remarks to
> the writers of StarTrek since they can't even keep their technobabble
> straight in the same episode?

It wasn't a "flip remark".

> Joel has put some thought and effort into his idea where you clearly
> did not put any effort into your reply.  In my playbook that makes
> Joel smarter than you.  (It is clear that the only reason you would
> have made a post like this is that you wanted to show that you were
> smarter than Joel.)

No. I made it because I wanted to stop him from doing something that
could make him look silly to any player who knew about gravitons.

> Give the rest of us a break.

Sure. And why don't *you* quit *assuming* attacks are being made.

> Try to add to the creative efforts - not throw water on them.

I've added quite a bit to the creative efforts on the TML *ever since
it started* (and elsewhere, I've had a pro SF writer thank me for
some help I gave him on stuff that eventually became part of his
first book).

I pointed out a serious "oops". And might post some ideas when I have
the spare time. Assuming I don't get flamed so much by folks who
can't see that a "that particle doesn't work that way" *is* a
contribution that I decide it's not worth my time.

I've got tax problems, money problems, *several* ongoing stories that
people are after me to finish, and that's just the top of the list.

Just because someone points out a problem, that doesn't mean they are
"sniping" or belittling or trying to show how smart they are.

Pointing out *bugs* is just as important as coming up with ideas.
Hell, ask any writer. The ideas are easy. It's the writing that's
hard. And part of that is having folks point out where you got it
wrong or it "looks wrong".

>

Next time find out what is going on *before* flaming.


--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com


---- LSpots keywords ?> ---- HM ADS ?>

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

•  Visit your group "Traveller_TNE" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

---- LSpots keywords ?> ---- HM ADS ?>

•  Visit your group "Traveller_TNE" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

On 15 Jul 2005 at 0:16, Joel Callahan wrote:

> Secondly, ShadowCat is a very knowledgable person. Reading his
> reply, I thought it a bit terse, but I did ask for opinions and what-
> not.

Shadow. I know a ShadowCat on LJ but *she* isn't much like me. :-)

> I prefer a Hard SF Universe, and that will probably mean no fake
> gravity. However, I wanted to come up with an idea on how it might
> be created/used in a Universe that had it.

Well, my take goes with the "gravity is just the curvature of space"
model. Give that jump drives seem to care about that sort of thing
(and use it) it's not unreasonable.

It's also rather more workable than the "graviton generator" in that
it's "easier" to have things happen that match stuff from canon (or
"assumed" so long that it's effectively canon.

But you can use graviton/antigraviton generators and still have much
the same principles.

Working principles:

1. the internal gravity of the ship is generated somehow and
*adjustable* on a very *local* basis (there are references to being
able to adjust the gravity of a cabin)

2. The gravity doesn't extend outside the ship. This avoids a number
of problems. It also introduces a few "interesting" effects.

3. "inertial compensation" is "just" a tie in between the "grav
plates" (or whatever) and the drive. Have the ship going at 6 g in
one direction and the grav system imposes a 6g force in the
*opposite* direction. Resulting in a net acceleration of zero.

Ok, the acceleration due to gravity is a function of the "slope" of
the gravity well, not the depth. The "energy" tied up in a gravity
well *is* tied to the depth. So this is a plus.

Principle 1 means that the gizmos responsible for gravity
(hereinafter referred to as "grav plates") will be a very distributed
system. Probably built into every deck and overhead.

Principle 2 means that the net effect on the universe has to be zero.
Which means that the plates are going to be paired, and there will be
odd effects at the "edges".


empty space -----------------

                  /\
Ship's field ----/  \  /-----
                     \/

Or something like that. Some day, I'm going to do up a graphic for
this and put it up on the web. The two sections angled this / way
should be *much* steeper and the section angled this \ way should be
shallower.

The field will reverse near the top and bottom of the hull. And where
it reverses, you are going to have "interesting" tidal effects.

The most "extreme" version would have the / sections vertical, and
the transitions at true angles. Which would result in some problems
with infinite gradient changes. So the transients are problem
"curves". With the "tightness" of the curve being proportional to the
strength of the tidal effects.

Expect warning labels near the transitions. They are probably
"inside" the plates (which are probably a lot more complex than the
word "plate" implies).

Other likely details. Establishing a field takes power. And if the
plates are working, lowering it *gets* energy back. Minus losses of
course. Sort of like charging a capacitor.

This makes for the lovely arcing wires and the like that folks are so
fond of if a plate takes damage and the energy can't go back into the
power system. Also makes working on an active grav plate more than a
bit nerve wracking. Between the tidal forces and field reversals
inside, the thing could practically blow up in your face if you
accidentally kill the power.

Power to maintain the field will likely be low (ideally it'd be
zero). But any time anything *falls*, the energy for the fall has to
be supplied by the plates (Energy = force times distance travelled).
Lifting things puts energy back into the field. Don't forget losses
both ways.

Knock over a large object (say a stack of cargo containers in the
hold) and there *will* be a big drain on the grav plate power feed.

The plates in the "middle" of a ship with multiple decks may be
"idling" with just the ones at the top and bottom of the hull doing
the work. If an area is set to different gravity than the rest of the
ship the plates at the top and the bottom of the area will be doing
the work to maintain the difference.

That's likely the typical civilian setup. The "intermediate" plates
are only used for varying gravity from ship standard, and in
emergencies when the "main" plates at the top and bottom of the ship
are knocked out.

Military setups are likely to have all the plates "hot" and working
to maintain the field(s). They'll take down a section for maintenance
(with the attendant higher load on the plates above and below them)
but keep the others hot. Working on the ones in the top and bottom of
the hull gets "interesting" because puts part of the ship (the next
deck inward from those plates) in zero g if they are in space.

Knocking out a plate will probably greatly weaken the field in the
area. Unless plates above and below it can compensate.

Oh yeah, crossing between areas with different gravities is going to
be hazardous. Going from a low g to high gee area will "instantly"
supply you with the difference in potential energy. As downwards
velocity. Going the other way will require *you* to supply the energy
difference.

So for both practical and safety reasons, I expect field boundaries
to be kept to walls. And to have safety interlocks with the doors. If
there's an airlock, it'll have a plate of its own so that it can be
used as a "grav lock".

Oh yeah, those energy requirements. They mean that that favorite anti-
hijack game "grav pong" requires a *lot* of power shuffling. And may
be hard on the grav plates. Which provides a much needed reason to do
it sparingly. :-)

I'm sure creative GMs can come up with all *sorts* of ways to make
life miserable for their players based on the above.

Details of *how* the plates bend space or generate/absorb gravitons
are best avoided as some player, sometime will find a way to make you
regret them.

Oh yeah, doing the inertial compensation as in principle 3 means that
if the ship takes a hit, you'll still feel it. You just won't feel
acceleration due to the main drive.

> "Sir! We've taken a hit to Engineering. They report that..."
>
> "...that the power plant has taken damage. Very well. Direct Damage
> Control Teams to that systems and give them top priority" the Captain
> directed.

Actually the "floating away" is unlikely to happen. *If* gravity
could just be shut off, there'd be no force holding things down,
true. But it'd still *take* a force to (for example) move the coffee
cup up from the table.

Movies use the "float up" bit to show the audience that zero-g is in
effect. :-)

So it's sort of a cliche.

But consider the fun if the inertial compensators go. Or at least the
link to the drive. Picture the compensators stuck at some level. And
you need to use a different level.

Compensators pulling you towards the nose at 6 g, but you have to
drop the drive to 3 g. Oops.

Losing grav plates means rerouting power to compensate or dealing
with areas of the ship that are isolated due to differing G settings.
Not a good thing if you are trying to do damage control.

At least a *failed* plate means that the transition to the zero (or
at least lower) g is gradual. Which will feel like a *real* steep
slope.

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

•  Visit your group "Traveller_TNE" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

On 15 Jul 2005 at 0:16, Joel Callahan wrote:

> Secondly, ShadowCat is a very knowledgable person. Reading his
> reply, I thought it a bit terse, but I did ask for opinions and what-
> not.

Shadow. I know a ShadowCat on LJ but *she* isn't much like me. :-)

> I prefer a Hard SF Universe, and that will probably mean no fake
> gravity. However, I wanted to come up with an idea on how it might
> be created/used in a Universe that had it.

Well, my take goes with the "gravity is just the curvature of space"
model. Give that jump drives seem to care about that sort of thing
(and use it) it's not unreasonable.

It's also rather more workable than the "graviton generator" in that
it's "easier" to have things happen that match stuff from canon (or
"assumed" so long that it's effectively canon.

But you can use graviton/antigraviton generators and still have much
the same principles.

Working principles:

1. the internal gravity of the ship is generated somehow and
*adjustable* on a very *local* basis (there are references to being
able to adjust the gravity of a cabin)

2. The gravity doesn't extend outside the ship. This avoids a number
of problems. It also introduces a few "interesting" effects.

3. "inertial compensation" is "just" a tie in between the "grav
plates" (or whatever) and the drive. Have the ship going at 6 g in
one direction and the grav system imposes a 6g force in the
*opposite* direction. Resulting in a net acceleration of zero.

Ok, the acceleration due to gravity is a function of the "slope" of
the gravity well, not the depth. The "energy" tied up in a gravity
well *is* tied to the depth. So this is a plus.

Principle 1 means that the gizmos responsible for gravity
(hereinafter referred to as "grav plates") will be a very distributed
system. Probably built into every deck and overhead.

Principle 2 means that the net effect on the universe has to be zero.
Which means that the plates are going to be paired, and there will be
odd effects at the "edges".


empty space -----------------

                  /\
Ship's field ----/  \  /-----
                     \/

Or something like that. Some day, I'm going to do up a graphic for
this and put it up on the web. The two sections angled this / way
should be *much* steeper and the section angled this \ way should be
shallower.

The field will reverse near the top and bottom of the hull. And where
it reverses, you are going to have "interesting" tidal effects.

The most "extreme" version would have the / sections vertical, and
the transitions at true angles. Which would result in some problems
with infinite gradient changes. So the transients are problem
"curves". With the "tightness" of the curve being proportional to the
strength of the tidal effects.

Expect warning labels near the transitions. They are probably
"inside" the plates (which are probably a lot more complex than the
word "plate" implies).

Other likely details. Establishing a field takes power. And if the
plates are working, lowering it *gets* energy back. Minus losses of
course. Sort of like charging a capacitor.

This makes for the lovely arcing wires and the like that folks are so
fond of if a plate takes damage and the energy can't go back into the
power system. Also makes working on an active grav plate more than a
bit nerve wracking. Between the tidal forces and field reversals
inside, the thing could practically blow up in your face if you
accidentally kill the power.

Power to maintain the field will likely be low (ideally it'd be
zero). But any time anything *falls*, the energy for the fall has to
be supplied by the plates (Energy = force times distance travelled).
Lifting things puts energy back into the field. Don't forget losses
both ways.

Knock over a large object (say a stack of cargo containers in the
hold) and there *will* be a big drain on the grav plate power feed.

The plates in the "middle" of a ship with multiple decks may be
"idling" with just the ones at the top and bottom of the hull doing
the work. If an area is set to different gravity than the rest of the
ship the plates at the top and the bottom of the area will be doing
the work to maintain the difference.

That's likely the typical civilian setup. The "intermediate" plates
are only used for varying gravity from ship standard, and in
emergencies when the "main" plates at the top and bottom of the ship
are knocked out.

Military setups are likely to have all the plates "hot" and working
to maintain the field(s). They'll take down a section for maintenance
(with the attendant higher load on the plates above and below them)
but keep the others hot. Working on the ones in the top and bottom of
the hull gets "interesting" because puts part of the ship (the next
deck inward from those plates) in zero g if they are in space.

Knocking out a plate will probably greatly weaken the field in the
area. Unless plates above and below it can compensate.

Oh yeah, crossing between areas with different gravities is going to
be hazardous. Going from a low g to high gee area will "instantly"
supply you with the difference in potential energy. As downwards
velocity. Going the other way will require *you* to supply the energy
difference.

So for both practical and safety reasons, I expect field boundaries
to be kept to walls. And to have safety interlocks with the doors. If
there's an airlock, it'll have a plate of its own so that it can be
used as a "grav lock".

Oh yeah, those energy requirements. They mean that that favorite anti-
hijack game "grav pong" requires a *lot* of power shuffling. And may
be hard on the grav plates. Which provides a much needed reason to do
it sparingly. :-)

I'm sure creative GMs can come up with all *sorts* of ways to make
life miserable for their players based on the above.

Details of *how* the plates bend space or generate/absorb gravitons
are best avoided as some player, sometime will find a way to make you
regret them.

Oh yeah, doing the inertial compensation as in principle 3 means that
if the ship takes a hit, you'll still feel it. You just won't feel
acceleration due to the main drive.

> "Sir! We've taken a hit to Engineering. They report that..."
> <everyone on the Bridge begins to lift against their seat belts>
> "...that the power plant has taken damage. Very well. Direct Damage
> Control Teams to that systems and give them top priority" the Captain
> directed.

Actually the "floating away" is unlikely to happen. *If* gravity
could just be shut off, there'd be no force holding things down,
true. But it'd still *take* a force to (for example) move the coffee
cup up from the table.

Movies use the "float up" bit to show the audience that zero-g is in
effect. :-)

So it's sort of a cliche.

But consider the fun if the inertial compensators go. Or at least the
link to the drive. Picture the compensators stuck at some level. And
you need to use a different level.

Compensators pulling you towards the nose at 6 g, but you have to
drop the drive to 3 g. Oops.

Losing grav plates means rerouting power to compensate or dealing
with areas of the ship that are isolated due to differing G settings.
Not a good thing if you are trying to do damage control.

At least a *failed* plate means that the transition to the zero (or
at least lower) g is gradual. Which will feel like a *real* steep
slope.

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Traveller	Role playing games	Individual
Gdw	Conde nast traveller	Travellers insurance

•  Visit your group "Traveller_TNE" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.