Artificial gravity doesn't necessarily have to use the force gravity, it only has to fulfill the same basic function. For example, extremely powerful magnetic coils can produce a force on a body which could act as gravity (please note that the strength of the fields produced have negative side effects on the human body; even though we can "float" a frog in such a field its really not safe to use it for artificial gravity in space).



An inertial compensator does not have to "negate" inertia in any way, shape, or form -- its in the name, inertial compensator Vs. inertial nullifier. All it does is compensate somehow. The easiest way to do this would be tied in to artificial gravity -- a force that somehow produces an equal acceleration on every part of your body (gravity) could be used to compensate for inertia, effectively allowing the entire ship to accelerate as one body (as if it were falling down in free fall).

Ah, I think you may want to look in to that closer . .
powerful magnetic coils (even IF you ignore the health problems) used to “counter” extreme accelerations run into the same problems as everything else does . . .we are made of different materials of different properties . . IF you use a magnetic field (a very very localized effect at around 16+ teslas) to counter the inertia of a organism accelerating at some high rate that organism would be ripped apart.
The magnetic field is working on the diamagnetic properties of a material (which typically is extremely low in organics, forcing a massively concentrated field) then this poor organism accelerates . . every partial in that organism has to change speed at the same rate to say put. Since that does not happen (the organism is not solid - a bag of hard parts, soft bits and liquids) each more rigid part must PUSH the rest, liquids puddle, soft bits deform and hard parts pinch and bend. Now this magnetic field is NOT giving the same counter force on each material and varies greatly . . OWCH . . the parts with higher magnetic susceptibility stays put and the others keep going. . . .


“inertial compensator Vs. inertial nullifier. All it does is compensate somehow”
That is the rub isn’t it? Since it is a black box sci-fi change physics sort of thing with no explanation of any kind (even fictional) it could BE anything with ANY properties . . that is why you must state what properties this fictional tech has so we can understand how thing would function in that universe.

Gravity might be able to nullify of the effects of inertia but . . here we go again . . a gravity generator . . another black box item . . that properties would that have then? The problems would be the vector of force, the Gradient of force, variability and location. If you just wanted people to walk in a ship then (since gravity is only attractive) you could have a core of generators and “down” would be the center of the ship. Though this would have little affect on helping your ship move, and may even hider it because of it’s now massive (but with out the needed mass) gravitational field . . ships could be orbiting each other . . . . but since this is sci-fi you can give the black box any properties you want . . (Limited range, strong, variable gravity with out the need of mass?) . . . might as well make up a new force rather them mutilate gravity .. .

“effectively allowing the entire ship to accelerate as one body as if it were falling down in free fall”
Too bad that does not happen . .I am assuming you are referring to free fall in a gravity well . . the force on the back of the ship is less then the front (nose down) . . This is the gradient problem. . Once you jack up the force the gradient becomes a real problem. (Remember that inertia is not a force . . but a behavior of mater to resist acceleration, gravity is a bend in space time made by mass)

I think we could be friends. Believe it or not I think we agree more than we disagree. Besides Arguments are the meat and potatoes of conversation. What fun would it be if everyone agreed? I understand your perspective, and I frankly don’t have fascination with any one particular ship myself. But, I was interpreting from your comments to mean that Battleships were almost useless even in WWII and that was not the case.



True. But in knowing that how do you know that your analysis is the truth?



The one tech that you failed to mention is also the main reason why you didn’t have a large number of BB duels. That is the spy satellite. Before the advent of the spy satellite if apposing fleets happen to run into each other it was largely blind luck. Even though you may have spies that could tell you when a ship left port and where it might be going, finding it would take an educated guess and a lot of luck. This is the reasoning behind the bigger gun theory, if you did run into each other you wanted to have the bigger guns.
Your assessment of the ‘stand off position’ is true, again largely due to intel satellites, JTIDS and the Harpoon Missile. Your assessment of the ‘new defense is to not get hit’ also true. I’ve seen first hand what CWIS can do. It can shred any missile or jet that gets too close. The gambit that comes is if an opposing navy has the same capabilities, the one thing that is very hard to have counter measures for is a 16” projectile dead on target not to mention nine. Which is what I suspect was the reasoning behind the Cold War reinstatement of the Iowa Class Battleship.



I do actually. And it’s cruiser man, navy defines the frigates role as basically an interceptor to protect the fleet from subs and small boats, because of which their design for maneuverability and speed. While a cruiser is a lot larger (almost twice) and is more mission oriented. While her hull may have been laid as a DLG, she was in actual service designated as a CG and Decommissioned as a CG therefore she will always be remembered as a cruiser.



See I told you we could be friends.

To the contrary! I am well aware that the magnetic field trick couldn't work. I'm using it as an example.



You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that it would actually be gravity used (in fact, you're right about the issues involved, I believe), but rather that it would have to act in a similar fashion, giving acceleration rather than applying force. Since gravity accelerates every part of your body equally (ignoring the normally minor tidal forces caused by each part of your body being in a different place relative to the "generator" of the gravity) there isn't any force applied on your body until you try to resist it.



Please explain yourself in more detail. I think we may be talking at cross purposes.

Obviously any "black box" technology would require careful delineation if we wish to avoid the "Star Trek Syndrome", but what I'm talking about is more in the lines of "guidelines" for what you need. Some way to compensate for the effect inertia would have if you accelerated extremely rapidly, and the easiest way to do that would be to create a device that acts on a ship in a manner similar to gravity, accelerating the entire ship equally, ignoring the mass of individual parts (though probably not the mass of the whole ship).

Ron Lugge

Yes, but as I was looking the rather poor example (yes you did state that) that did not really move the discussion along . .but saw did allow me to highlight a basic problem with using any force other then gravity to affect inertia.


That was my counter point . .(and I think you did understand) Some unknown, highly convenient new force that acts like gravity but also does not. . made by a equally fictional generator . . effectively the definition of the sci-fi black box. This is SO wide open that it could do anything (basis of star trek like you noted). . but trying to explain how it works is quite hard since it is so out there, so like trek stories often leave it as a black box/ buzzwords like "an inertial generator" which effectively means ignore inertia please because it is inconvenient and we do not want to be bothered explaining it (or if they do through the word quantum in a mash of techno babble and you have something passable).
I gave the gravity examples because actually defining such a force or attempting to use gravity is much more complex then people think . . and it only takes one inconvenient fact to make it unusable. That shows why they do not like explaining how (this was done not to pick on you but to highlight that point also)


That is good enough really . . . possibly some more detail, dose it have limits? Power use? Does it effect the ship or is it a area effect (sphere or more like a conforming shield)?

Now having said all that . . . I think we are on the same track . . I think I might have just rambled on a bit sorry

Yes that was the goal (again I ramble) . . I tend to like things either one off reality (close and possible sci-fi) OR totally Alien/hyper advanced (where explanations of how are not needed or possible) . . . between those extremes sometimes tend to try to justify rather poor plot devices with techno babble that is meant to sound real and often confuses people about reality (which is my real problem with them ) but I guess it should be on the shoulders of people believing TV and Movies.
People still think Hollywood explosions (the fierily type) are what real explosions are like . . that space ships need to fly like airplanes if they are small and move like ships if they are big . . . or even that a Nuclear or even a Fusion power plant can explode . . . etc . . . rather funny

Given the pressure / tempurature involved in a fusion reaction, I'd sure expect a fusion reactor to explode under the right circumstances

And if you have a meltdown from a fission plant, the heat sure is enough to manage a good "ka-boom", even if it isn't really an explosion

I only have one thing to say, I HATE! Hollywood grenades

we figuared out how to stop all meltdowns. but thanks to clinton and his attempt to save welfare we will never be able to use it.


all you have to do is leave enough room in the rods so that the materail can expand. when it expands far enough the nuke energy stops. no people, no computers, no water.

Ta_erog,
Seeing you are obviously a naval history buff. I found a website you might be interested in. it gives a brief summary of some capital ship engagements in WWII.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/capitalshipsurfaceactions.aspx

what I meant was no . . Nuke/fusion uncontrolled reaction . . .IE a reactor = a unexploded Nuke/fusion bomb. (ya I deserved that )

jc1ward

I may have overstated . . but I do see in my posts that I said not as designed or planed often . . Battleships were where not useless but did not play the pivotal role they where designed for or planed to take . . and I can't see it revive either. (but that is only my option due to current tech developments)



TOO TRUE! and I do not expect you too! As always you must be skeptical and take any analysis "with a grain of salt" and confirm the validity yourself, and get references from the person to support there views. Good man! (I try not to be but I could be "full of it")


Where I under stand what you are saying, a BB coming with in 20 or so miles to fire a salvo would be something of a lark in this time period. I think the reassessment had more to do with $ and effectiveness of shore bombardment with those same shells . . not ship vs ship.


And thanks for the URL . . but I know the site
(let me again say it is VERY pleasing to have a good discussion with another knowledgeable person rather then the typical rant and flam war most forums tend to have. . . I have found people here of a much higher caliber then "normal" game dev sites)

all the japanese attack on pearl harbor did was hasten the usa navy into changing from a battleship group centered fleet to a carrier group centered fleet. in other words we were already doing away with the battleship as the primary weapon.

Don't forget it also hastened the concept of using small fast craft to inflick major damage "pt boats" and hit and run tactics "subs".

  The cost of ANY welfare is a spit in the sea comapred to the cost of Iraq war. Even the money needed for ITER fusion reactor is a spit in the sea, yet it was pretty hard to find the finances. 5 billion dollars for ITER. How many for welfare? How many for Iraq? So please don't try to point fingers at welfare.

And no, I'm not on welfare.

i won't argue with you on this.


the other thing that they found out is that if you recycle the nuke material you can use it for 20 years and end up with a handful of dirt. but believe it or not that was stopped by carter.

  Any link to that? Because USA is not the only country that uses nuclear material and I'm surprised nobody did it. Recycling/storing the waste is profitable now as well, but if you could do it radiation-free...

Also Carter's motives for this are hugely unclear.

no link this was back 1995? on pbs


don't think carter knew about the recycle into dirt part. but he made it illegal to recycle the material. presidental whatever you call it.

they only had one more goal to reach and that was to make sure that the material in a power plant couldn't be used as a weapon.

wow, how did we get here? I just meant that nothing you can do to a Nuclear or a Fusion "reactor" would create an explosion similar to a thermonuclear or fusion bomb. . . yet it is VERY popular in movies and books.
So is exploding or instantly frozen people exposed to space . . . not going to happen.
Or funny things like ships always meeting each other . . right side up in space movies/TV shows . . .really funny. .
How about how close you need to be to soot each other in most space movies . . . .these ships are normally right on top of each other! Where even using the tech in the shows each ship would be so far from each other that to the human eye they would only be dots . . or less.

AS to the topic "radiation" is a buzzword . . people are scared of it . . as also Led and Asbestos . . . but the reality is all can be used quite safely . . Led and Asbestos really crack me up since they are only dangerous in rather narrow perimeters (as long as you do not injest it you are fine). There is more danger of toxins in the “oil” in a normal industrial transformer then any solid hunk of Led and Asbestos but people see the buzzword and Freak. Radiation from waste is not the thing people should be worried about, it is the substance that IS radioactive that should be the worry. Uranium is a very toxic metal regardless of level of radiation. . . . Bah . . Sheeple will be scared about anything they are told to be scared of .

yeh, led zeppelin is really scary nowadays...

lol@sheeple

Just in case no one is aware President Carter is a nuclear physicist and during his carrier in the Navy he was instrumental in the development of the submarine leg of our nuclear triad deterrent during the cold war!

If he put a stop to anything he would have had a good reason for doing so. Contrary to popular belief Cater was very pro military and was the driving force behind updating our militaries' weapons systems after Vietnam. Reagan was instrumental in increasing funding for those programs but they were started by Carter!

Eh, radiation is quite real, its just people hear the word and go stupid

"Electron Gun" TVs / monitors probably emit more radiation than you even want to think about... the sun emits radiation... your computer emits radiation (if not very much)... You emit radiation... that granite cliff in a nearby park is probably very radioactive, as granite is where certain radioactive compounds are usually found... etc etc.

The danger isn't being exposed to radiation, its being exposed to more radiation than your body can "counteract" (though there is a small cumulative effect where your body doesn't repair the damaged stuff quite right, you get much the same thing from standing out in the sun for too long).

Acccording to the bio I read on President Carter, He only received a Bachelor of Science degree from the naval academy. He resiegn from service before completing the Navy Nuclear Program, becuase of his fathers death '53. This hardly makes him a Nuclear Physist which would require a PhD.

He did not have a Phd at the time of his naval service. That is correct. My post did give the impression that he had the degree at the time of his naval service, my error in wording. He did however obtain his PhD. (later)

My involvment with Carter was in the mid 70's and I do get the when things were obtained screwed up sometimes...

In the Navy he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and rising to the rank of lieutenant. Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program, he was assigned to Schenectady, N.Y., where he took graduate work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer of the pre-commissioning crew of the Seawolf.


16 OCT 1952 - 08 OCT 1953 -- Duty with US Atomic Energy Commission (Division of Reactor Development, Schenectady Operations Office) From 3 NOV 1952 to 1 MAR 1953 he served on temporary duty with Naval Reactors Branch, US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. "assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels." From 1 MAR 1953 to 8 OCT 1953 he was under instruction to become an engineering officer for a nuclear power plant. He also assisted in setting up on-the-job training for the enlisted men being instructed in nuclear propulsion for the USS Seawolf (SSN575).

University Distinguished Professor, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 1982-Present

sorry for the screwed up dates


Note: Information drawn from Jimmy Carter Library staff knowledge and the Library's Vertical File.

"Eh, radiation is quite real, its just people hear the word and go stupid "
That is what I meant . .the word makes people go irrational (not that radiation does not exist?!? or can be dangerous?! That is crazy talk )