BC(C) (Spoiler Within)

Relax wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:There's a difference between "fold" and "wiggle". Not my fault you can't understand that.

All you gave were examples of wiggling, vibration, etc. Nothing you mentioned folded.

And what precisely do you think RADAR antennas have done since its inception? Hrmm? Good grief....

Folded, rotated...

Give ya a hint about basic engineering(applied physics). Calibrating for the small stuff is VASTLY more difficult and complex than compensating for a LARGE external movement .... that happens once and then your sensor is locked in place where the calibration takes place.

And just what do you think NASA has been proposing and doing for a VERY long time with their folding space based mirrors? Hrmm? NASA is getting ready to launch said gigantic mirror assembly...

Obviously, there's some misunderstanding here. Let's go back over it and see where it is:

1. Discussion about fitting x-number of LACs in a carrier the size of a Nike

2. You do some math (which makes many assumptions), and decide that yes, one can fit x-number in y-volume.

3. Short mention of possible folding grav sensor array.

4. I say the grav sensor arrays don't fold. Not that they CAN'T fold, but that they DON'T fold.

5. You ask why.

6. I never responded to that. Someone else did, and mentioned examples.

7. You followed with some other stuff, but the main point that I have issues with is that you stated, as an absolute, "every other sensor known to mankind can fold".

8. To which I responded with examples of sensors that CAN'T fold, thereby nullifying your "every other sensor..." shtick.

9. To which you responded with examples of wiggling, tremors, trucks driving by, but not ONE SINGLE MENTION of a sensor that actually folds. At this point, you're still replying to the person that replied to your "why" up there at #5, even though you're addressing it to me.

10. I respond by pointing out that you only mentioned movement when my request was to show me video of specific sensors FOLDING, which is different from needing to be stabilized and calibrated against outside influences.

So, what do I see in all this? I see that I NEVER said that these sensors (whether the real life ones I specified, or fictional in the Honorverse) CAN'T fold, but that they DON'T fold. I'm perfectly well aware that SOME sensors CAN fold - jesus christ, I spent seven years in the Air Force! I'm also aware of the James Webb telescope, and solar panels and dishes on satellites and planetary probes. But that wasn't MY point, which you have conveniently overlooked.

MY point was the assertion "every other sensor known to mankind can fold" is wrong, and I named several sensors that prove that point. Your problem is that you are equating folding and wiggling, which are two completely different things, except maybe in extreme examples such as that in my next paragraph.

As for my experience with engineering, I may not have the edumacation that you allegedly have, but I've picked up a few things over the years. Wanna have a discussion on how traffic, winds funneled through a canyon, and ENGINEERS that should have known better brought down the Tacoma Narrows Bridge?

Maybe talk about how I was changing a flat on an overpass that moved an inch or so up and down every time a loaded semi drove by? I know why it does that, and why it's SUPPOSED to do that. I may not have the technical vocabulary for it, but I can (and HAVE DONE SO) explain it so a child can understand it.

How about active and passive means to prevent or minimize damage in buildings during earthquakes? Weights that move near the top of a building to help cancel out movement, sliding foundations on concave surfaces, Kevlar/carbon fiber and epoxy on older buildings, and probably a few that I haven't read about, but can follow well enough without needing a translator.

Let's talk about a high-power model rocket I made that weighed ten pounds with the motor installed that reached 1000 feet* at a speed of around 200 MPH peak (onboard altimeter and accelerometer), that was made of paper and balsa, had landing legs/fins that not only flexed on landing, but were also removeable in less than 10 minutes (half of that removing the screws that held the baseplate on) for transport and storage, and could be reflown again after 30 minutes of prep. I have pics of the build and the first flight, and it wasn't a kit. Totally scratch-designed and built.

I can even tell you how the digger arms on the Viking 1 and 2 Mars landers extended. Hint: It wasn't pistons. Think retractable metal tape measures.

In short, I'm not as stupid as you think I am, but YOU seem to have a reading comprehension issue. Either that, or you get so wedded to an idea you have that you ignore or gloss over anything that appears to disagree with it (if you actually go back and reread everything from the past couple days, you'll notice I never disagreed with you about anything, except your absolutist statement, "every other sensor known to mankind can fold". And if this gets me a warning or temp ban from Duckk, then fine. I don't really care.

Oh, almost forgot: I DO have an example of folding grav sensors for an Honorverse ship. I just keep forgetting to render an image and then post it. Look at any top 3/4 view of the pinnace. See that hump towards the aft end? See those three lines, two short, one long on the hump? Those are stored grav sensor blades. They extend like a switchblade, hinged at the front end.

So, again I say: The grav arrays on LACs DON'T fold, but that's not the same as CAN'T fold, or can't be made to fold.

*It wasn't a typical long, thin rocket. It was a short, fat thing - about 3.5 feet tall and 16 inches in diameter. Had it been long and thin, it would have gone higher and faster, but drag coefficient and all that. Drag increases as the square of the velocity, and this puppy was draggy as hell.

phillies wrote:Ummh, no. And I am a research physicist, and have done interferometry of a type for close to 50 years, until I retired. I was a research student for Rai Weiss, the fellow who invented LIGO, and was at the student seminar at which he first proposed the device.

Sand tubs are obsolete, and have been for half a century. Readers interested in modern tech should investigate https://www.newport.com/ .

Second, the core vibration at LIGO starts with massive objects hung from very weak springs. There is then a vast amount of compensation, as described above. LIGO runs as the outside-the-building temperature changes, for reasonably long periods of time. The extremely long optical paths are cryogenically pumped vacua.

Take the 2nd one first. Uh, no, every single accelerometer from L3 and Honeywell which bought allied signal which bough sundstrand data control all use Sand isolation as a start of their isolation labs for testing their accelerometers. No, it is not obsolete 50 years ago. It is not obsolete 10 years ago.

LIGO runs as I stated at exactly one temp as you just stated as well... Now how exactly they are isolating the ground vibrations in LIGO I don't know precisely and that part you are correct about.

MaxxQ wrote:SNIP

I don't mind replies like that. I prefer them actually.

Why do you think I keep bringing up calibration? Seems this convo, the reason WHY is missing. A sensor is useless without active calibration except in gross scenarios where no one really cares except over a tiny range.(A thermostat in your home for instance.) Over a tiny range, too many things constantly change. Especially for positional sensors. They requires active calibration curves for hordes of different scenarios.

In calibration, what is vastly easier, calibrating actively tiny changes, or large changes? Tiny. If you have a calibration method for the tiny does this necessarily mean it will also calibrate for large changes? Not necessarily, but usually is true as the large changes can be "stepped bins". Either TRUE/FALSE methods.

Lets put it this way regarding sensors. If you have a calibration method using a meter stick that also has centimeters denoted and a vernier scale allowing you to measure millimeters, can you then measure kilometers? Of course you can. Can a computer count over 1000.... Uh, yes.

So, if you have sensors with calibration built into them for tiny measurements with a calibration field large enough to measure possible slop due to tolerances in the rotating bearing/locking mechanism, the large motion measurements due to say... moving the instrument, are easy, or counting to 1000 instead of counting to 0.001.

As for gravitic array, I simple stated there is no reason that I was aware of why they shouldn't fold other than KISS. Possible reasons for ease of storing a LAC, or fold for on a new model LAC which could be larger, or fold for ease of maintenance or fold for possible maneuvering problems while docking...

I had already done my layout using non folding gravitic arrays with current LAC dimensions, missiles etc. I don't care about Textev in this instance, for folding/not folding, why all of a sudden you do, I don't know. All I did was point out there is no reason they couldn't fold and if they did, far more LAC's could be stored.

Relax wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:SNIP

I don't mind replies like that. I prefer them actually.

Why do you think I keep bringing up calibration?

I don't know, and I couldn't care less. I never said there was any reason they don't fold. I SIMPLY SAID THEY DON'T FOLD. Period. Full Stop. YOU'RE the one that brought up irrelevant BS.

Relax wrote:Seems this convo, the reason WHY is missing.

And I never GAVE a reason why, but if you're so desperate for one, here it is: Because.

Relax wrote:A sensor is useless without active calibration except in gross scenarios where no one really cares except over a tiny range.(A thermostat in your home for instance.) Over a tiny range, too many things constantly change. Especially for positional sensors. They requires active calibration curves for hordes of different scenarios.

In calibration, what is vastly easier, calibrating actively tiny changes, or large changes? Tiny. If you have a calibration method for the tiny does this necessarily mean it will also calibrate for large changes? Not necessarily, but usually is true as the large changes can be "stepped bins". Either TRUE/FALSE methods.

Lets put it this way regarding sensors. If you have a calibration method using a meter stick that also has centimeters denoted and a vernier scale allowing you to measure millimeters, can you then measure kilometers? Of course you can. Can a computer count over 1000.... Uh, yes.

So, if you have sensors with calibration built into them for tiny measurements with a calibration field large enough to measure possible slop due to tolerances in the rotating bearing/locking mechanism, the large motion measurements due to say... moving the instrument, are easy, or counting to 1000 instead of counting to 0.001.

As for gravitic array, I simple stated there is no reason that I was aware of why they shouldn't fold other than KISS. Possible reasons for ease of storing a LAC, or fold for on a new model LAC which could be larger, or fold for ease of maintenance or fold for possible maneuvering problems while docking...

I had already done my layout using non folding gravitic arrays with current LAC dimensions, missiles etc. I don't care about Textev in this instance, for folding/not folding, why all of a sudden you do, I don't know. All I did was point out there is no reason they couldn't fold and if they did, far more LAC's could be stored.

And again, none of this is relevant to my refutation of your absolutist statement that "every other sensor known to mankind can fold". You are again dodging the point of my disagreement with you. I don't give a flying frak about calibration over large and small ranges because I never gave you a reason to begin with.

I swear, sometimes I think you type all that stuff simply because you like to hear the "clicky" sounds the keyboard makes.

MaxxQ wrote:

Relax wrote:
I don't mind replies like that. I prefer them actually.

Why do you think I keep bringing up calibration?

I don't know, and I couldn't care less. I never said there was any reason they don't fold. I SIMPLY SAID THEY DON'T FOLD. Period. Full Stop. YOU'RE the one that brought up irrelevant BS.

And this is why I said its basic engineering and shouldn't have bothered to reply after you demonstrated you don't know. This is the entire basis of "relevance" and every sensor known to mankind folds.

"Because" is an answer. It is the best answer. "Because" his highness never bothered to think about it and had NO REASON to is the real answer. Outside of a CLAC/LAC there is zero reason to even contemplate it. Its minutia.

If you left it there, I would not have a problem at all.

But, this ceases to be an answer when YOU modify that answer by saying certain things CAN"T BE DONE in the real world and then refused engineering reasons why it works every day of our lives and has done so for a very long time in the real world.

Want another answer of a moving sensor? Javelin MANPAD missile.

Relax wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:
I don't know, and I couldn't care less. I never said there was any reason they don't fold. I SIMPLY SAID THEY DON'T FOLD. Period. Full Stop. YOU'RE the one that brought up irrelevant BS.

And this is why I said its basic engineering and shouldn't have bothered to reply after you demonstrated you don't know. This is the entire basis of "relevance" and every sensor known to mankind folds.

"Because" is an answer. It is the best answer. "Because" his highness never bothered to think about it and had NO REASON to is the real answer. Outside of a CLAC/LAC there is zero reason to even contemplate it. Its minutia.

If you left it there, I would not have a problem at all.

But, this ceases to be an answer when YOU modify that answer by saying certain things CAN"T BE DONE in the real world and then refused engineering reasons why it works every day of our lives and has done so for a very long time in the real world.

Want another answer of a moving sensor? Javelin MANPAD missile.

Re: bold: You are a liar. Provide the quote where I said that. I obviously haven't edited any of my posts, so show me where I said that.

I only said certain sensors in the real world can't be folded (did I actually have to specify, "as they are now, but after modifications they COULD be folded?" If so, then there, I said it). Such as the dish at Arecibo, and others. Moving them is not the question, as in the rotation of the individual dishes at the VLA, but then moving does not equal folding. Whereas YOU (again dodging my original point) stated quite categorically that "every other sensor known to mankind can fold".

Again, FOLDING DOES NOT EQUAL MOVING! Nor rotating, nor tiny actuators adjusting them to compensate for abberations.

Are you still insisting that any of those specific sensors I mentioned can fold (as in, make themselves more compact)? If so, then prove it. Until then, you are simply and flatly WRONG about "every other sensor known to mankind can fold".

Weird Harold wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:No folding. Period. Full stop. Nyet. Nein.

Unquestionably true for current designs. Does it hold true for all possible future designs, too?

In designing a BC(C), a concurrent design for a smaller, origami LAC would make many of the design choices much easier.

Almost from the very idea of carrier based aviation, aircraft were designed to fold wings, tail, nose, and every sort of protrusion to save deck and hanger space. It boggles the mind to think that such adaptive design principles can't be applied to a BC(C) specific LAC.

Oh, look! Here's a post from Harold that says what you say I said. Nothing else I personally have said anywhere in this thread mentions this.

All I've ever said is that LAC grav sensor blades don't fold, and that specific real-world sensors don't fold, as they currently stand.

Oh, apologies for the name-calling. I should have said, "You are grossly mistaken". I won't edit my post though. If Duckk wants to do it, that's fine.

MaxxQ wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:
Unquestionably true for current designs. Does it hold true for all possible future designs, too?

In designing a BC(C), a concurrent design for a smaller, origami LAC would make many of the design choices much easier.

Almost from the very idea of carrier based aviation, aircraft were designed to fold wings, tail, nose, and every sort of protrusion to save deck and hanger space. It boggles the mind to think that such adaptive design principles can't be applied to a BC(C) specific LAC.

Oh, look! Here's a post from Harold that says what you say I said. Nothing else I personally have said anywhere in this thread mentions this.

All I've ever said is that LAC grav sensor blades don't fold, and that specific real-world sensors don't fold, as they currently stand.

Oh, apologies for the name-calling. I should have said, "You are grossly mistaken". I won't edit my post though. If Duckk wants to do it, that's fine.

Ah, damn. I reread Harold's post and realized I misinterpreted what he was referring to. My apologies Harold. You were referring to current Honorverse designs as I and others have worked out, as opposed to current real-world designs.

Oh... look. An edit! Only adding, not changing anything above.

Harold, I have a question regarding your last paragraph I quoted above: What else besides the possibility of folding grav blades would you suggest could be folded on a LAC to make it more compact? This is not a sarcastic question - I'm genuinely curious. Because frankly, due to the design of a LAC, I can't see much else (if anything) that can be folded to make it take up less space. Likewise, there's not much room INSIDE a LAC to allow outside parts to be retracted. What you see on the outside of a LAC is like an iceberg - there's a lot more under the surface.

MaxxQ wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:
Unquestionably true for current designs. Does it hold true for all possible future designs, too?

In designing a BC(C), a concurrent design for a smaller, origami LAC would make many of the design choices much easier.

Almost from the very idea of carrier based aviation, aircraft were designed to fold wings, tail, nose, and every sort of protrusion to save deck and hanger space. It boggles the mind to think that such adaptive design principles can't be applied to a BC(C) specific LAC.

What else besides the possibility of folding grav blades would you suggest could be folded on a LAC to make it more compact? This is not a sarcastic question - I'm genuinely curious. Because frankly, due to the design of a LAC, I can't see much else (if anything) that can be folded to make it take up less space. Likewise, there's not much room INSIDE a LAC to allow outside parts to be retracted. What you see on the outside of a LAC is like an iceberg - there's a lot more under the surface.

For current (Honorverse) designs, nothing except any external sensors that don't lie flat against the hull.

For future, hypothetical BC(C) specific, LACs, it would depend entirely on how they were designed. Would they fold before docking, like a Star Wars fighter, or fold after docking like real world carrier aircraft? Would internal life support space be compressed for storage like an expandable RV?

The design of an Origami LAC is a blank page, like the RHN's design evolution for the Cimmeterre A. Nothing is set in stone.

MaxxQ wrote:
Again, FOLDING DOES NOT EQUAL MOVING! Nor rotating, nor tiny actuators adjusting them to compensate for abberations.

Love your semantics? Or just don't know?
And NO, those motions are not aberrations.

This conceptual misconception blocks all further contemplation of the discussion.

Those motions, to be calibrated and accounted for, actively, MUST be normalized, tabulated, calculated, expected before they are built on a production line.

Folding, rotating, hinging, g forces, varied temperatures, shielding, vibrations, are all movement. They are all expected. The type of movement does not matter. The gross distance of movement does not matter. As long as the movement is expected. It is the unexpected that bites.

PS. Curious factoid for one and all. Even days after a block of steel comes to ambient temperature the block of steel is still "settling" into its new shape as internal lattice structures are still relieving their stress build up by change in shape from expansion/contraction due to temperature. Accelerometors, the high end ones sending stuff to mars, can measure this change over days. A couple micro radians. Likewise they can easily measure when a suspended lab with meter thick concrete sitting on dried sand packed with calibration equipment be it temperature controlled ovens or different vibration machines can measure the tilt of the room just by where you are standing. Likewise they can easily measure when water is being pumped into the aquifer for HVAC(Why the quakes in OK can easily be traced and it is laughable that they supposedly don't know the cause) All it requires is a single accelerometer tied to the ground. which will measure the delta earth expanding as the waste water is pumped in and see if the earth settles DOWNward after the earthquake. IF it doesn't settle down, then its not the pumped water. Likewise the depth is rather telling...