Presser/Tractor

Relevant quotes: Cauldron of Ghosts has at least two

Page 351 HB: ch 43 Then the freighter's heavy cargo-handling tractors, fitted with the standard industrial tractor/pressor heads, thrust them gently away from her.(detailing frigates being pressed)

Page 420: HB Ch 51 A cargo-handling tractor-presser device--basically, a high-tech cargo hook, a generator that could switch back and forth between tractor and pressor mode-- had been placed inside the container...

It is safe to say that tractors on ships both push and pull according to the latest book even though previously this had not been spelled out in detail. It does make rational sense if you want to push you also want to pull and vice versa.

Relax wrote:Relevant quotes: Cauldron of Ghosts has at least two

Page 351 HB: ch 43 Then the freighter's heavy cargo-handling tractors, fitted with the standard industrial tractor/pressor heads, thrust them gently away from her.(detailing frigates being pressed)

Page 420: HB Ch 51 A cargo-handling tractor-presser device--basically, a high-tech cargo hook, a generator that could switch back and forth between tractor and pressor mode-- had been placed inside the container...

It is safe to say that tractors on ships both push and pull according to the latest book even though previously this had not been spelled out in detail. It does make rational sense if you want to push you also want to pull and vice versa.

Not really. Everyone already agreed that pressors and combination tractor/pressors existed. People even referred to that text. But every instance of their appearance in the text is in reference to cargo-handling equipment, and only at relatively close range (e.g. moving things in and out of a cargo bay).

We do not have any evidence that the longer range tractors used at tens to hundreds of km ranges are also pressors. It is certainly plausible, perhaps even likely. But we have no actual evidence, and that is what the discussion was about.

All you have done is confirm the existence of cargo-handling pressors--which no one had disagreed with--using the evidence which had already been mentioned.

The frigates were cradled on the outside. They were not in a cargo bay.

As for long range, yuppers no text. Of course we all have brains, so simple logic time: Still doesn't make much sense to be able to only tractor and not press at long range.

Take a Keyhole or other ECM drone for instance. If all you have is tension(tractor), then the acceleration would drag said keyhole/drone(inertia) to the aft aspect only of the ship. Said drones etc would not be able to maintain its broadside guard station. Must be able to push(presser) as well as pull(tractor).

Relax wrote:The frigates were cradled on the outside. They were not in a cargo bay.

As for long range, yuppers no text. Of course we all have brains, so simple logic time: Still doesn't make much sense to be able to only tractor and not press at long range.

Take a Keyhole or other ECM drone for instance. If all you have is tension(tractor), then the acceleration would drag said keyhole/drone(inertia) to the aft aspect only of the ship. Said drones etc would not be able to maintain its broadside guard station. Must be able to push(presser) as well as pull(tractor).

What I was trying to say was that we already knew that cargo-handing pressor/tractors existed, and we even knew there was text for it. The only question was whether the long-range tractors had that capability, and these citations don't give us anything we didn't already know. The ones cited are still explicitly cargo-handling tractors.

You missed the "standard" part of those quotes. In other words it would be very unusual for a tractor to be present without a pressor.

It should also be mentioned that it is science fiction trope that a "tractor" can hold/move an object at will. This has defined how a "tractor" works throughout science fiction lore. I see no reason not to disabuse this trope definition. If a tractor can move/hold an object, this by definition means it has push/pull ability.

Relax wrote:Of course we all have brains, so simple logic time:

Take a Keyhole or other ECM drone for instance. If all you have is tension(tractor), then the acceleration would drag said keyhole/drone(inertia) to the aft aspect only of the ship. Said drones etc would not be able to maintain its broadside guard station. Must be able to push(presser) as well as pull(tractor).

Here is the only "text" we need.

Common sense.

Tension(tractor) holds nothing in place other than directly behind the object in motion.

What about Hephaestus or Vulcan? What have we seen their tractors do? What about the tugs?

Relax wrote:You missed the "standard" part of those quotes. In other words it would be very unusual for a tractor to be present without a pressor.

No, I did not miss the "standard" part of the quotes--what it actually says is "standard industrial". So that does not resolve the issue I noted.

It should also be mentioned that it is science fiction trope that a "tractor" can hold/move an object at will. This has defined how a "tractor" works throughout science fiction lore. I see no reason not to disabuse this trope definition. If a tractor can move/hold an object, this by definition means it has push/pull ability.

Relax wrote:Of course we all have brains, so simple logic time:

Take a Keyhole or other ECM drone for instance. If all you have is tension(tractor), then the acceleration would drag said keyhole/drone(inertia) to the aft aspect only of the ship. Said drones etc would not be able to maintain its broadside guard station. Must be able to push(presser) as well as pull(tractor).

Here is the only "text" we need.

Common sense.

Tension(tractor) holds nothing in place other than directly behind the object in motion.

I agree that this is the traditional understanding of "tractor beams" in science fiction. I even agree that it is logical that they do have this capability. I myself am fairly certain that the tractors holding pods and LACs are both pressers and tractors.

I also acknowledge that merely "pulling" will not hold an object in place to the side of the ship while the ship accelerates. However, "pushing" does not help, either. Rather, it would have to "pull" sideways. It require more than merely causing a force (positive or negative) along the line of the beam; it has to have a force component perpendicular to the beam as well.

All I am saying is that we already knew about these citations in the previous discussion, and they did not answer people's desire for actual evidence rather than logic.

SWM wrote:I agree that this is the traditional understanding of "tractor beams" in science fiction. I even agree that it is logical that they do have this capability. I myself am fairly certain that the tractors holding pods and LACs are both pressers and tractors.

I also acknowledge that merely "pulling" will not hold an object in place to the side of the ship while the ship accelerates. However, "pushing" does not help, either. Rather, it would have to "pull" sideways. It require more than merely causing a force (positive or negative) along the line of the beam; it has to have a force component perpendicular to the beam as well.

All I am saying is that we already knew about these citations in the previous discussion, and they did not answer people's desire for actual evidence rather than logic.

That's true if you assume a single beam per target. But with two, at least if their emitters have some separation, one pushing and one pulling you've got a lot more control without needing a single beam to impart a lateral force.

Jonathan_S wrote:

SWM wrote:I agree that this is the traditional understanding of "tractor beams" in science fiction. I even agree that it is logical that they do have this capability. I myself am fairly certain that the tractors holding pods and LACs are both pressers and tractors.

I also acknowledge that merely "pulling" will not hold an object in place to the side of the ship while the ship accelerates. However, "pushing" does not help, either. Rather, it would have to "pull" sideways. It require more than merely causing a force (positive or negative) along the line of the beam; it has to have a force component perpendicular to the beam as well.

All I am saying is that we already knew about these citations in the previous discussion, and they did not answer people's desire for actual evidence rather than logic.

That's true if you assume a single beam per target. But with two, at least if their emitters have some separation, one pushing and one pulling you've got a lot more control without needing a single beam to impart a lateral force.

Good point.

(Though a 1 kilometer warship doesn't give very much angular separation at a range of a couple hundred kilometers.)

Yup, why I fall back to the term "tractor" is in fact a sci-fic trope that can hold an object at any angle relative to its moment of inertia in relation to the ship. Therefore by definition they must all be able to push/pull with little to no angular separation required for the tension/compression mechs. Some "handwavium" of the beam holds both forces or in this case transmits the forces through 90 degrees seemingly violating basic physics.