Anti Gravity Aircars

Jonathan_S wrote:I certainly agree that if you can angle something to deflect the force then you can build horizontal vector directly rather than by using fins in the airflow.

My working assumption was that countergrav wasn't capable of applying an angled deflection.

But if you could angle the countergrav then why bother with the turbines that we know the air cars have - the angled countergrav would seem to be a more elegant propulsion. (Turbines being more like the ox pulling the hovercart ). So that reenforces my thought that countergrav can only work directly against gravity - rather than off to an angle.

Not necessarily, there may be a cost benefit analysis that favors turbines; as I said before. For example: having the anti-gravity field fixed in position and using thrusters (such as turbine engines) to provide horizontal motion, may be both simpler to control and more energy efficient.

We simply do not know enough to be able to judge. For example: if you have to run the turbine anyway to get the energy to power the anti-gravity field, then using the exhaust for thrust is free.

tlb wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:I certainly agree that if you can angle something to deflect the force then you can build horizontal vector directly rather than by using fins in the airflow.

My working assumption was that countergrav wasn't capable of applying an angled deflection.

But if you could angle the countergrav then why bother with the turbines that we know the air cars have - the angled countergrav would seem to be a more elegant propulsion. (Turbines being more like the ox pulling the hovercart ). So that reenforces my thought that countergrav can only work directly against gravity - rather than off to an angle.

Not necessarily, there may be a cost benefit analysis that favors turbines; as I said before. For example: having the anti-gravity field fixed in position and using thrusters (such as turbine engines) to provide horizontal motion, may be both simpler to control and more energy efficient.

We simply do not know enough to be able to judge. For example: if you have to run the turbine anyway to get the energy to power the anti-gravity field, then using the exhaust for thrust is free.

Turbines don't seem to be just for providing energy since pinnaces and shuttles both use turbines for atmospheric thrust - but their power comes from their laser ignition fusion plants.

But, as you say, we simply do not know enough to be able to judge; the most we can do is speculate.

Jonathan_S wrote:Turbines don't seem to be just for providing energy since pinnaces and shuttles both use turbines for atmospheric thrust - but their power comes from their laser ignition fusion plants.

But, as you say, we simply do not know enough to be able to judge; the most we can do is speculate.

Aircars are much smaller than either shuttles or pinnaces, do we have any information on the minimum size of a laser fired fusion reactor? Certainly a fusion reactor can supply plasma, do we really know how they ultimately get energy from that plasma (is it just MHD)? I do not remember much discussion about the waste exhaust of a fusion reactor. Does it drive turbines?

tlb wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Turbines don't seem to be just for providing energy since pinnaces and shuttles both use turbines for atmospheric thrust - but their power comes from their laser ignition fusion plants.

But, as you say, we simply do not know enough to be able to judge; the most we can do is speculate.

Aircars are much smaller than either shuttles or pinnaces, do we have any information on the minimum size of a laser fired fusion reactor? Certainly a fusion reactor can supply plasma, do we really know how they ultimately get energy from that plasma (is it just MHD)? I do not remember much discussion about the waste exhaust of a fusion reactor. Does it drive turbines?

Air cars probably don't have fusion plants. So their turbines likely do power their systems, including countergrav, in addition to providing thrust.

My point was just that even larger vehicles, which don't need turbines for power generation, still carry air breathing turbines for providing atmospheric thrust. (Implying that their countergrav isn't used, and therefore likely isn't usable, for that)


And I don't recall any specific mention of how any of the honorverse fusion plants convert fusion into electricity.

Jonathan_S wrote:Air cars probably don't have fusion plants. So their turbines likely do power their systems, including countergrav, in addition to providing thrust.

My point was just that even larger vehicles, which don't need turbines for power generation, still carry air breathing turbines for providing atmospheric thrust. (Implying that their countergrav isn't used, and therefore likely isn't usable, for that)

And I don't recall any specific mention of how any of the honorverse fusion plants convert fusion into electricity.

Interestingly the shuttles used in chapter 10 of Echoes of Honor only have their fusion reactors started to power the anti-gravity units, implying that for a shuttle sized vehicle other power sources are not sufficient. Also that perhaps the turbines were providing the power previous to fusion startup.

Why did Honor's shuttle have large hydrogen filled tanks that blew up at the time Reverend Hanks died if it was using fusion for thrust?

Jonathan_S wrote:Air cars probably don't have fusion plants. So their turbines likely do power their systems, including countergrav, in addition to providing thrust.

My point was just that even larger vehicles, which don't need turbines for power generation, still carry air breathing turbines for providing atmospheric thrust. (Implying that their countergrav isn't used, and therefore likely isn't usable, for that)

It’s not just probably. Air cars are a lot smaller than say recon drones. Which required an innovation and technical advances exclusive to the RMN to fit a reactor.

And I don't recall any specific mention of how any of the honorverse fusion plants convert fusion into electricity.

Is it needed for the picture he’s painting?

So what happens to a anti or counter gravity aircar when your are moving over sharply rising or falling or even heavily irregular ground? And then going from over earth to over water?
Is there some sort of aumoatic adjustment?

Brigade XO wrote:So what happens to a anti or counter gravity aircar when your are moving over sharply rising or falling or even heavily irregular ground? And then going from over earth to over water?
Is there some sort of aumoatic adjustment?

The difference in the acceleration of gravity due to those irregularities is negligible compared to the planet's gravity.

Daryl wrote:Why did Honor's shuttle have large hydrogen filled tanks that blew up at the time Reverend Hanks died if it was using fusion for thrust?

I don't think it was using fusion for thrust - not in the atmosphere. It'd be using fusion to provide electricity for its countergrav.

The hydrogen in those tanks would be burned in its air-breathing turbines to provide thrust in the atmosphere, as well as in its emergency thrusters (the extra hydrogen tanks for which didn't jettison after the crash). Now in orbit, or it deep space, its main thursters might well be able to vent fusing hydrogen (after all a starship's do) for relatively high acceleration without its wedge; but I can't see using those in the atmosphere.

Though I don't know if it has special extra fuel for its little fusion plant - or if that fuses hydrogen from the same fuel tanks as the turbines and thrusters.