What about DN(P)s for the GA?

Hi Weird Harold,

Are we then to assume because the MK-31/Vipers mass less according to some despite their apparent increased volume, that a Katana can carry more than 500 CM/Vipers [ie 567-624]because they only mass 10-11 tons?

L

Weird Harold wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:
SNIPPED 4 BREVITY

For what little it's worth Vipers fire and forget capabilities were mentioned specifically in reference to engaging other LACs. Those are quite different targets than MDMs.

Yes, I know that. I wasn't very clear that currently it doesn't apply to anti-missile employment. There have been some learned discussion in the past about why FAF is more difficult for anti-missile use; IIRC, none have completely eliminated it as a future development, just eliminated it with state-of-the-art guidance systems.

A missile using same Capacitor tech, whom has not only a higher power output(acceleration), but also longer power endurance requirements is supposed to be LESS massive?

That is so bad I can't even laugh in derision.

lyonheart wrote:Are we then to assume because the MK-31/Vipers mass less according to some despite their apparent increased volume, that a Katana can carry more than 500 CM/Vipers [ie 567-624]because they only mass 10-11 tons?

I think you're confusing displacement (volume) with mass. I have no idea whether Vipers are less massive than prior versions, but MaxQ's renders clearly show that they have more volume than Mk31 CMs or earlier versions of CMs. Since conventional magazine capacity is a function of volume (displacement) rather than density (Mass/volume) I would say that Vipers would reduce the number of rounds a given magazine can hold.

OTOH, for the "revolver" type magazines, as used for LAC ship-killers, missile size/volume/mass is irrelevant as a six-shot revolver will only hold a maximum of six shots.

For either conventional or revolver magazines, it is going to require modifications of some degree to increase missile loads.

wastedfly wrote:A missile using same Capacitor tech, whom has not only a higher power output(acceleration), but also longer power endurance requirements is supposed to be LESS massive?

That is so bad I can't even laugh in derision.

A wedge gets virtually 100% of its power from the siphon effect, not the capacitors or reactor hooked up to the nodes (work out the relativistic kinetic energy of an MDM at burnout, then work out what percentage of its mass would have to be reactor fuel even with a perfect fusion reactor). A higher acceleration and lower capacitor mass is very easily explained by a better use of it.

Grashtel wrote:

wastedfly wrote:A missile using same Capacitor tech, whom has not only a higher power output(acceleration), but also longer power endurance requirements is supposed to be LESS massive?

That is so bad I can't even laugh in derision.

A wedge gets virtually 100% of its power from the siphon effect, not the capacitors or reactor hooked up to the nodes (work out the relativistic kinetic energy of an MDM at burnout, then work out what percentage of its mass would have to be reactor fuel even with a perfect fusion reactor). A higher acceleration and lower capacitor mass is very easily explained by a better use of it.

Per pearl, ~60%. Not 100%. Warshawki sails on the other hand get 100% of their power. Probably what you were thinking of.

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/144/1

" When the wall is bent, energy is siphoned across it from the "higher" hyper band on its other side. Hyper-space is an area of inherently higher energy levels, and the siphon effect could be considered a sort of strictly limited, primitive ancestor of the "core tap" in the Mutineers' Moon Universe. The initial power for the wedge has to come from internal sources -- current generation and stored power. Once the initial energy investment is made, something like 60% of the energy necessary to maintain and power the wedge is drawn through the "siphon" effect. "

He then goes on that the MAJOR power drain is the compensator field(acceleration of mass negation). So, total power required is initial wedge initiation, compensator power instantaneous built into the nodes themselves multiplied by the duration.

Old 12 ton CM's were roughly 100,000g x 60s. New 130kg x 75s.

Compensator field strength went up by roughly 33%.
Duration increased by 25%.

Add it up = roughly 60% more power.

If one wished to push forward missile node advancements to the point where effectively old CM's and new are same tonnage due to amazing breakthroughs, ok. But smaller? Last we knew, per HotQ and SVW, the new compensator from Grayson was slightly less efficient powerwise but allowed greater overall acceleration. Assuming that this tech transferred to missiles at all.

Anyways.

Quotes reordered due to embedding limit.

wastedfly wrote:A missile using same Capacitor tech, whom has not only a higher power output(acceleration), but also longer power endurance requirements is supposed to be LESS massive?

That is so bad I can't even laugh in derision.

Grashtel wrote:A wedge gets virtually 100% of its power from the siphon effect, not the capacitors or reactor hooked up to the nodes (work out the relativistic kinetic energy of an MDM at burnout, then work out what percentage of its mass would have to be reactor fuel even with a perfect fusion reactor). A higher acceleration and lower capacitor mass is very easily explained by a better use of it.

wastedfly wrote:
Per pearl, ~60%. Not 100%. Warshawki sails on the other hand get 100% of their power. Probably what you were thinking of.

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/144/1

" When the wall is bent, energy is siphoned across it from the "higher" hyper band on its other side. Hyper-space is an area of inherently higher energy levels, and the siphon effect could be considered a sort of strictly limited, primitive ancestor of the "core tap" in the Mutineers' Moon Universe. The initial power for the wedge has to come from internal sources -- current generation and stored power. Once the initial energy investment is made, something like 60% of the energy necessary to maintain and power the wedge is drawn through the "siphon" effect. "

He then goes on that the MAJOR power drain is the compensator field(acceleration of mass negation). So, total power required is initial wedge initiation, compensator power instantaneous built into the nodes themselves multiplied by the duration.

Old 12 ton CM's were roughly 100,000g x 60s. New 130kg x 75s.

Compensator field strength went up by roughly 33%.
Duration increased by 25%.

Add it up = roughly 60% more power.

If one wished to push forward missile node advancements to the point where effectively old CM's and new are same tonnage due to amazing breakthroughs, ok. But smaller? Last we knew, per HotQ and SVW, the new compensator from Grayson was slightly less efficient powerwise but allowed greater overall acceleration. Assuming that this tech transferred to missiles at all.

Anyways.

Actually The Honor of the Queen and The Short Victorious War say that the original Grayson compensator was more efficient, not less, from a power standpoint. It was more bulky and massive, due to the components they were limited to, prior to joining the Manticoran Alliance.

Although your point about whether any of this inertial compensator technology transferred to missiles (which use a much more limited inertial compensator effect that is a consequence of the missile's impeller node design) is definitely relevant (and a question that we don't have an answer for, either as text evidence, or a post by David in the Pearls or on this forum, unless it is in A Call to Duty which I haven't yet read).

Here's the relevant quotes:

The Honor of the Queen, Chapter 14 wrote:Grayson fusion plants were four times as massive as modern reactors of similar output (which was why they still used so many fission plants), and their military hardware was equally out of date—they still used printed circuits, with enormous mass penalties and catastrophic consequences for designed lifetimes—though there were a few unexpected surprises in their mixed technological bag. For example, the Grayson Navy had quite literally invented its own inertial compensator thirty T-years ago because it hadn’t been able to get anyone else to explain how it was done. It was a clumsy, bulky thing, thanks to the components they had to use, but from what he’d seen of its stats, it might just be marginally more efficient than Manticore’s.

The Short Victorious War, Chapter 4 wrote:Constanza adjusted her power settings slowly, eyes intent on her panel while Honor watched her own readouts with equal intensity. Her mind always tended to drift to the inertial compensator at moments like this. If it failed, Nike's crew would turn instantly into something gruesomely reminiscent of anchovy paste, and Honor's ship had been chosen to test BuShips's newest generation compensator. It was an adaptation of the Grayson Navy's, which hadn't been calculated to inspire confidence in all hands, given that Grayson's general technology lagged a good century behind Manticore's, but Honor had seen the Graysons' system in action. It had been crudely built and mass-intensive, yet it had also been undeniably efficient, and BuShips claimed not only to have exterminated every possible bug but to have tweaked the specs even further, as well. Besides, the Navy hadn't had a compensator failure in over three T-centuries.

Italics are the author's, boldface is my emphasis.

Vince wrote:Grayson efficiency SNIP

Efficiency regarding mass/acceleration is what those quotes are referring to specifically.

The quotes broken out say zilch about power efficiency. Could it be?

In engineering land their are multiple types of efficiency. In this case; 2 types. The third would be a overall specific efficiency for W mass/acceleration.