.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Raging Tiger- Save $9.00
winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank- Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > Shrapnel Community > Space Empires: IV & V

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 11th, 2001, 10:36 PM

Lupusman Lupusman is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 111
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Lupusman is on a distinguished road
Default Re: newtonian motion

Physics humor. Is that horrible or what!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old July 11th, 2001, 10:37 PM
DirectorTsaarx's Avatar

DirectorTsaarx DirectorTsaarx is offline
Major
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northern Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,048
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
DirectorTsaarx is on a distinguished road
Default Re: newtonian motion

quote:
Originally posted by Spoo:
[quote\ Certainty? Heisenberg would be spinning in his grave....


Don't you mean Heisenberg is simultaniously spinning in his grave and just lying there -until you check that is. Or maybe it was Shroeder's cat...
[/quote]

You mean Schroedinger's cat?

Or maybe they're all spinning a giant roulette wheel and using the results to calculate the probability wave representing the ship in the first place...
__________________
L++ Se+++ GdY $++ Fr C+++ Csc Sf Ai AuO M+ MpTM S Ss RRSHP+ Pw- Fq->Fq+ Nd+++ Rp G++ Mm++ Bb---
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old July 12th, 2001, 03:29 PM
Quikngruvn's Avatar

Quikngruvn Quikngruvn is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: South Carolina, USA
Posts: 369
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quikngruvn is on a distinguished road
Default Re: newtonian motion

quote:
Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
Or maybe they're all spinning a giant roulette wheel and using the results to calculate the probability wave representing the ship in the first place...


I know my head's still spinning from my Last post. Give me little bit and I'll get it flipped from negative to positive spin....

quote:
Originally posted by Lupusman:
Physics humor. Is that horrible or what!



We've got nothing on Mother Nature when it comes to physics humor. I read an article Last year about some physicists deciphering the structure of protons and neutrons. They already knew that 98% of matter is just empty space, the rest being made up of elementary particles. After their analysis, they concluded that the remaining 2% of matter is mostly... well, nothing.

OK, time to think happy thoughts now!

Quikngruvn


------------------
"That which does not kill you will make you stronger." -- Nietzsche
__________________
The opposite of war isn't peace... it's creation. --from [i]Rent</i]
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old July 12th, 2001, 10:58 PM
Puke's Avatar

Puke Puke is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: california
Posts: 2,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Puke is on a distinguished road
Default Re: newtonian motion

quote:
Originally posted by Quikngruvn:
Certainty? Heisenberg would be spinning in his grave....



would be, IF he had oposing thrusters on his fore and aft to spin with! as it stands, I think there is considerably more friction in his grave than we are dealing with in space, so he certainly would not spin as well as one of the ships we are discussing.


quote:
Originally posted by Quikngruvn:
Bigger ships, having more mass, would require more thrust to spin the same rate as a less massive ship. Thus, spinning costs more the bigger the ship.

The difference with the strategic map is the scale of time....Tactical combat, on the other hand, relies on what a ship can do in a span of a few minutes.



all very true, i just figured that the time scale was such that the time and thrust necessary to turn (equal to thrust necessary to move a distance equal to no more than half the circumferance of a cricle with radius half the length of the ship in question, and then stop) would be negligable compared to the thrust necessary to move a ship one square on the tactical grid. which is somewhere between 1/2 the diamater of a tiny moon and 1/2 the diamater of a sphereworld which is built around a sun at the distance of some orbital shell n. this of course is a very big range, but either way it is presumably significantly greater than the distance required for a turn. basically, i figured our distances were bigger and time longer. not that your point is in any way invalid.


quote:
Originally posted by Quikngruvn:
There. I've run rings around your logic.


haha, my logic extends a forearm for the clothes-line!


__________________
...the green, sticky spawn of the stars
(with apologies to H.P.L.)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old July 12th, 2001, 11:58 PM
Puke's Avatar

Puke Puke is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: california
Posts: 2,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Puke is on a distinguished road
Default Re: newtonian motion

quote:
Originally posted by Quikngruvn:
I know my head's still spinning from my Last post. Give me little bit and I'll get it flipped from negative to positive spin....





you sure its not spinning in a state of supermotion? hold on while i observe it.


------------------
"...the green, sticky spawn of the stars"
(with apologies to H.P.L.)
__________________
...the green, sticky spawn of the stars
(with apologies to H.P.L.)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old July 13th, 2001, 05:06 AM
Quikngruvn's Avatar

Quikngruvn Quikngruvn is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: South Carolina, USA
Posts: 369
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quikngruvn is on a distinguished road
Default Re: newtonian motion

quote:
Originally posted by Puke:
...i just figured that the time scale was such that the time and thrust necessary to turn... would be negligable compared to the thrust necessary to move a ship one square on the tactical grid.




It may be. Let me see if I can so some rough calculations....

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity^2
KE is expresses in joules, the unit of energy.

So, a ship of mass M must expend J joules of energy to rotate at a given velocity V.

Now, assume you have a 150 kT escort and a 1500 kT baseship, both of which want to turn around in the same amount of time. Since the baseship is ten times more massive than the escort, it must expend ten times as much energy as the escort to execute the same turn.

Further, the velocity of the basheship must be greater than the escorts.

Circumference = pi x Diameter
Distance = Velocity x Time

Assuming a 180 degree turn, the distance traveled for each end of the ship is one-half the circumference, thus:

Distance = 1/2 x pi x Diameter = Velocity x Time
Velocity = (1/2 x pi)/Time x Diameter

Since the time is the same for both ships' turns, (1/2 x pi)/Time is a constant. Thus, the only thing affecting the velocity of the spin is the diameter of the ship: the longer the ship, the greater the velocity.

Thus, the longer a ship is, the more energy it must expend to execute a turn in a given length of time. Unless there are some funky ship designs going on, the baseship will be significantly longer than the escort, and thus must expend more energy. Oh yeah, and the difference in velocity is also squared, increasing the difference in energy even more....

N.B. These are very crude calculations, really. They do not take into account the fact that different parts of the ship will move at different speeds during the turn. The true velocity of any point on a ship during a turn will depend on the distance of that point from the axis of rotation. But, seeing that it would take calculus to compute the sum total of the kinetic energies of each point on a ship, I simplified just a smidgem. However, since much of the baseship will be spinning faster than the fastest points on the escort, this shouldn't affect the gist of my argument, just the values I'm about to pull out of the air. I'll use points midway between the axis of rotation and the tip of the ship to get an "average" value for velocity and kinetic energy.

So, if you've got a 20-meter long escort and a 100-meter long baseship, the midpoints would be 5 meters and 25 meters, respectively, and so the difference in velocity would be:

Velocity = Q x radius, where Q is a constant
Velocity(baseship) = 25 x Q
Velocity(escort) = 5 x Q

Thus, the baseship's average rotational velocity is 5 times that of the escort.

So, to get back to the energy expended, we gotta go back to the kinetic energy formula and input my seemingly arbitrary values:

KE = 1/2 x m x v^2
m(baseship) = 10 x m(escort)
v(bs) = 5 x v(e)
KE(e) = 1/2 x m(e) x v(e)^2
KE(bs) = 1/2 x m(bs) x v(bs)^2
= 1/2 x 10 x m(e) x (5 x v(e))^2
= 1/2 x 10 x m(e) x 25 x v(e)^2
= 250 x 1/2 x m(e) x v(e)^2
= 250 x KE(e)

THUS, a baseship must create approximately 250 times the thrust of an escort to perform an identical turn in a given length of time, at least using arbitrary (but I thimk plausible) values.

And then on top of that, there's the counterthrust each ship must expend to overcome momentum in the ship's original direction....

Sorry, I got carried away. Puke, I think I could have put your logic in a chokehold, but I think I bored it to death instead. Now, lemme catch my brain before it dribbles out of my head completely....

Quikngruvn

------------------
"That which does not kill you will make you stronger." -- Nietzsche
__________________
The opposite of war isn't peace... it's creation. --from [i]Rent</i]
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old July 13th, 2001, 10:08 AM
Puke's Avatar

Puke Puke is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: california
Posts: 2,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Puke is on a distinguished road
Default Re: newtonian motion

quote:
Originally posted by Quikngruvn:
Sorry, I got carried away..



not at all. i understood your point from the begining, and it is totally valid. what you are overlooking is that while it requires exponentially more thrust for a larger ship to spin, it requires them both far more thrust to move, say, one sqare on the tactical grid. unless the square is not much greater in size than the ship its self.

lacking my old physics ledgers, I cant pull up formulae for you, but let me give it a shot extrapolating from some basic geometry (granted I slept through geometry yet paid attention through physics, but guess which one comes readily to mind 7 years later? danm that. odds are my math is going to be invalid, so feel free to point out any glaring flaws) what we need to do is get a feel for the scale of the game:

in order to get an idea of scale, we need some rough idea of what a square is on the tactical grid. while they seem to have sides with length equal to the lengh of their diagnal, we will presume for a moment that they are insted standard geometric squares and not these bizarre geometrically impossible things. we can extrapolate that each of the (roughly) 63 squares along the side of the tactical map is 1/63 of a strategic square, which is in turn 1/13th the diamater of the stellar system in question. given that pluto is roughly 5.9 billion KM from the sun at its average orbital distance, we can simplify and say that the average solar system in se4 is 10 billion km in diamater. 1/819 of this distance (which is the size of a tactical square) is roughly 12 million km.

The Nimitz class carrier displaces about 97 metric KT and is roughly 330 meters long. if we figure that our escort is about 1.5 times the mass then we can presume (okay, its a crappy presumption, but its the simplest way of doing it) that its length would increase arrithmetically to 495(or 500)meters, the baseship following at 5000 meters. (and those distances are generous condisering that space vessels could be far more dense than earth based surface-ships, since they dont need to worry about silly things like displacing water)

now, with the .5*pi*D formula to find the longest distance traveled in a rotation (or half-rotation, as it were), we come up with about 7850m for the baseship and 785m for the escort. just in case you think im nitpickingon the distances you chose, im NOT: this is just to give you as much distance as possible regarding comparative lenght of a turn (that is, it would have been far more beneficial to my point if i had simply kept your numbers). I am in complete agreement that the core of your arguement reamins the same, and remains unchallenged.

BUT, we have ships that appear to be capable of transversing a minimum (basic engines) of 6*12billion meters(escort) or 2*12billion meters in one turn, from a standing start. now the original point of the thread was that they can not accelerate beyond this, and they can accelerate in the oposite direction without overcoming their own momentum, but we have obviously lost track of that at this point.

now, while I grant you that my flippant referance to turning being 'free in space' was something akin to Cisco's flatulant claims that bandwidth is free, the gist of the argument remains the same. the ammount of thrust expended to rotate a ship, a distance of no more than 7,850 meters, is significantly less than that required to transverse the 12,000,000,000 meters in one square. therefore, turning has no right costing any movement points, and even if a baseship takes longer to do it than an escort, it will happen in a space of time that is completely miniscule compared to the space of time required for either of the two example ships to move one square.

now, to forestall any other attempts at wwf-smackdown-style acrobatics being purprotrated against my logic, let me forstall your arguements by saying that you could further deconstruct this by supposing that a turn consists of a ship accelerating for the first half of its movement and decelerating for the second half, thus removing the requirement for a ship to overcome momentum on a turn.. i dont know where that would really get us, but i can imagine someone trying to take it somewhere. furthermore, i could go on to deconstruct your turning argument by stating that due to the increased length of the base ship, you can apply thrust further from the axis of rotation and achieve more velocity per joule than if they were closer to the axis of rotation (as is the escort's). but since im not actually arguing against your point, i wont go into the proof.

I usually try to keep things light-hearted, so I have to appologize if I have inadvertently turned this discussion into a logical testosterone fest. furthermore, i have to appologize for my abhorant spelling and guestimated mathmatics. Since I have been in basic agreement with you from the start, you probably dont need to expend quite so much effort running rings around me while I am only attempting to stand still and point in a related direction.

I do want to encourage further disucssion though. I enjoy a friendly intelectual conversation, and i usually tend to have more to learn than i do to offer.

------------------
"...the green, sticky spawn of the stars"
(with apologies to H.P.L.)

[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 13 July 2001).]
__________________
...the green, sticky spawn of the stars
(with apologies to H.P.L.)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.