Knife fighting with cm's

Front or back? I remember something that the front wedge and the back wedge are slightly different.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Front or back? I remember something that the front wedge and the back wedge are slightly different.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Ummm... there's no front or back wedge. Top and bottom, yes. The throat is taller than the kilt, though. Like the image here: http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/100/1

However, I noticed a comment from David that was added after he himself had seen the image:

From an email dated April 21, 2002:

Assuming the brown is sidewall (which is what I assumed when Russ showed it to me some time ago), this is, indeed, an accurate representation of the wedge geometry. The exact angle of the wedge changes somewhat as acceleration goes up -- the throat tends to get narrower and the kilt wider as acceleration climbs, although it certainly isn't a gross deformation until very high (like lethal) accelerations are reached. I think I've also mentioned that the exact position of the ship within the wedge/sidewalls can be adjusted somewhat if less than optimum acceleration for power is accepted, which further complicates targeting considerations.

The bolded part may be where people are getting the impression of trapezoids or rectangles, as, IMO, what David MEANT to say was that the throat gets shorter and the kilt gets taller as accel increases. Which also implies that the center of each wedge plane always stays at the same distance from the ship, aside from moving the ship itself around inside the wedge (the underlined bit).

Another possible reason for varying thoughts on wedge shape may come from other Honorverse artwork. The game that was being worked on many years ago (not the Evergreen game) had rectangular wedges, and I've seen various 3D renderings from others that show that as well.

Dude, you don't get to say thete's no front and back and then quote RFC saying thete's not only a front and back but that they are different (admitadly under acceleration.)

True throat and kilt wpuld have been more accurate but I'm damn sure people knew what I was talking about.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Dude, you don't get to say thete's no front and back and then quote RFC saying thete's not only a front and back but that they are different (admitadly under acceleration.)

True throat and kilt wpuld have been more accurate but I'm damn sure people knew what I was talking about.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

i was pretty sure I knew what you were talking about; but you left out the word "opening". The vertical separation between the top wedge and the bottom wedge is taller in the front of the wedges than at the back of the wedges. But a "front wedge" makes it sound like the ship projects a wedge die rely ahead of it; which as you know isn't the case.

Annachie wrote:Dude, you don't get to say thete's no front and back and then quote RFC saying thete's not only a front and back but that they are different (admitadly under acceleration.)

True throat and kilt wpuld have been more accurate but I'm damn sure people knew what I was talking about.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

No, actually, I didn't know what you were talking about. You said, "Front or back? I remember something that the front wedge and the back wedge are slightly different." which came across to me as you thinking there was a wedge in the front, and one in the back.

Had you instead said something like, "The front of the wedge is different from the back", then yes, I would have understood what you meant. Or, as Jonathan said, thrown in the word "opening".

Anyway, to answer your question, the front opening of the wedge is much taller than the aft opening. With higher accel rates, what I'm currently assuming (until Tom and I can sit down to completely hash this out) is that the wedge "pivots" at the centerpoint, causing the throat to close up slightly, and the kilt to open slightly. That's how the infodump quote reads to me, but I need to confirm that.

MaxxQ wrote:Anyway, to answer your question, the front opening of the wedge is much taller than the aft opening. With higher accel rates, what I'm currently assuming (until Tom and I can sit down to completely hash this out) is that the wedge "pivots" at the centerpoint, causing the throat to close up slightly, and the kilt to open slightly. That's how the infodump quote reads to me, but I need to confirm that.

Agree with the wedge pivoting, but IMO dosen't need to pivot at the center.

IMO it would be more likely to pivot closer to the back. That way when the ship speeds up, for every KM the kilt opens, the throat might close 2KM.

This would make the faster wedge closer to the ship, Which would match real world physics, where gravity strength is the square of the distance.

darrell wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:Anyway, to answer your question, the front opening of the wedge is much taller than the aft opening. With higher accel rates, what I'm currently assuming (until Tom and I can sit down to completely hash this out) is that the wedge "pivots" at the centerpoint, causing the throat to close up slightly, and the kilt to open slightly. That's how the infodump quote reads to me, but I need to confirm that.

Agree with the wedge pivoting, but IMO dosen't need to pivot at the center.

IMO it would be more likely to pivot closer to the back. That way when the ship speeds up, for every KM the kilt opens, the throat might close 2KM.

This would make the faster wedge closer to the ship, Which would match real world physics, where gravity strength is the square of the distance.

There is some limited relative movement allowed in the middle of the wedge fields for the generating ship. So whilst the pivot might be in the exact center, the ship wouldn't necessarily be - it could move a few hundred metres this way, or that way.

It does seem logical to think the pivot of the fields might end up somewhere between the two impeller rings of a ship. Some crafts only have a single ring, though.

What I don't get is why the fields can't be reversed - effectively a 180 degree course change without turning the ship. Sure would save on reaction mass from all those turnover maneuvers.

munroburton wrote:

darrell wrote:Agree with the wedge pivoting, but IMO dosen't need to pivot at the center.

IMO it would be more likely to pivot closer to the back. That way when the ship speeds up, for every KM the kilt opens, the throat might close 2KM.

This would make the faster wedge closer to the ship, Which would match real world physics, where gravity strength is the square of the distance.

There is some limited relative movement allowed in the middle of the wedge fields for the generating ship. So whilst the pivot might be in the exact center, the ship wouldn't necessarily be - it could move a few hundred metres this way, or that way.

It does seem logical to think the pivot of the fields might end up somewhere between the two impeller rings of a ship. Some crafts only have a single ring, though.

What I don't get is why the fields can't be reversed - effectively a 180 degree course change without turning the ship. Sure would save on reaction mass from all those turnover maneuvers.

*That* I do not know. It *would* seem logical. It's certainly something I can bring up, but frankly, in my opinion, it may just come down to, "Because David Said So™".

MaxxQ wrote:

munroburton wrote:
There is some limited relative movement allowed in the middle of the wedge fields for the generating ship. So whilst the pivot might be in the exact center, the ship wouldn't necessarily be - it could move a few hundred metres this way, or that way.

It does seem logical to think the pivot of the fields might end up somewhere between the two impeller rings of a ship. Some crafts only have a single ring, though.

What I don't get is why the fields can't be reversed - effectively a 180 degree course change without turning the ship. Sure would save on reaction mass from all those turnover maneuvers.

*That* I do not know. It *would* seem logical. It's certainly something I can bring up, but frankly, in my opinion, it may just come down to, "Because David Said So™".

I know that it's something I remember thinking was something that was going on until I read more books in the series and some stuff from Weber on the forums and Pearls.
In that interpretation "Turnover" was not actually flipping the ship around anymore, it was just a legacy term from the days of reaction drive ships, that meant reversing the wedge orientation and thus direction of acceleration.
Especially since pre-podlayers there was no real difference between the bow and stern hammerheads armor, defenses, sensors, armament, etc.


I suspect you're probably right when you say it'll probably come down to "because David Weber said that's the way it is".

munroburton wrote:What I don't get is why the fields can't be reversed - effectively a 180 degree course change without turning the ship. Sure would save on reaction mass from all those turnover maneuvers.

They don't use reaction mass for turnover as long as the wedge is active though.

We saw detailed turnover maneuvers on reaction thrusters twice, First Hancock, and Battle of Cerberus. In both occasions it was because Honor wanted absolute stealth and came in ballistic entirely to attack range before wedges would come up.

Any other time a fleet is conducting turnover, they've been accelerating at whatever KPS^2, and obviously detected by the defenders who are also maneuvering within detection range.