MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Darrians have a design of ship that uses the Collector. They can build them. They are not TL-16 ships.
How jump works
- Thread starter Sigtrygg
- Start date
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Hop, skip, and jump.
The question is a bit more complex.
The question is a bit more complex.
Where did I mention tech level? You can have an alternative way of doing the same thing at most tech levels, especially if there are tradeoffs. Tactically the collector is vulnerable - a conventional J-Drive can be quickly refuelled and jump out again. A collector drive needs to hang around while it charges up. And putting aside the later Mongoose interpretation, the original writeup really only seems to be about the collector as a solar panel:
Fuel, Refuel, or Power. The canopy collects radiated stellar power and stores it
in the accumulators on the drive deck. The only way to extend the canopy is with
the controls on the drive deck or the control panel in the observation dome. It
cannot be controlled from the bridge.
The accumulators can store enough energy to power each jump drive once, as
well as maintain internal life support under normal conditions.
Duration of internal power: 60 days under ordinary load.
Required recharge time: 1 to six weeks (1D), depending on the distance from,
and spectral type of the star serving as the radiation source.
Also note that each of the drives is charged separately. The odd arrangement does predate the concept of jump governers and using less fuel to make a smaller jump, but on the other hand... alien tech. And no jump fuel anyway.
The Darrians having worked it out is yet a third technological development stream. The Annic Nova is clearly not a Darrian ship.
Fuel, Refuel, or Power. The canopy collects radiated stellar power and stores it
in the accumulators on the drive deck. The only way to extend the canopy is with
the controls on the drive deck or the control panel in the observation dome. It
cannot be controlled from the bridge.
The accumulators can store enough energy to power each jump drive once, as
well as maintain internal life support under normal conditions.
Duration of internal power: 60 days under ordinary load.
Required recharge time: 1 to six weeks (1D), depending on the distance from,
and spectral type of the star serving as the radiation source.
Also note that each of the drives is charged separately. The odd arrangement does predate the concept of jump governers and using less fuel to make a smaller jump, but on the other hand... alien tech. And no jump fuel anyway.
The Darrians having worked it out is yet a third technological development stream. The Annic Nova is clearly not a Darrian ship.
Last edited:
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
Well, they could build them at one time. Not sure about now.
Hop, Skip, Jump, and the rest are all the same version of FTL. They just are longer distances.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
It would seem to me, it should be easier for Collectors to do the longer jumps, considering fuel requirements.
That depends entirely on how much power the collector array can actually accumulate. Granted, the Mongoose version is ill explained and we don't know how it works or whether the "accumulators" can store multiple jumps of power or how long it can hold it.
T5's collector technology addresses these issues, since it doesn't have those undefined "accumulators".
T5's collector technology addresses these issues, since it doesn't have those undefined "accumulators".
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
My pet theory is, that jumping basically violates the second dimension, injecting a pimple of our reality into it, that is popped out at a, more or less, predetermined location.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
Yes, I understand what you say, but I see a bit of apples vs. oranges here.
We have several conditions for a functioning jump ship, e.g.:
The ship must also be 100 Dt, we must have a computer, etc.
All are necessary conditions, we can't jump without ALL of them.
They are not mutually exclusive, there is no contradiction.
Are you with me so far?
Then we have exceptions to the rules, or replacement systems, e.g. instead of jump fuel, we may use Collectors.
This condition replaces the jump fuel condition, we still have the Power requirement, the size requirement, and the computer requirement.
None of them are mutually exclusive, there is no contradiction.
Are you with me so far?
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
No, saying that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence is argumentum ad ignorantiam.
From your reference:
Absence of evidence ISN'T evidence of absence is saying that without evidence we don't know if the proposition is true or not, as we have no evidence either way:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10065758/
Example:
Claiming that since Marc's Jumpspace article does not mention hydrogen-filled bubbles [no evidence], proves [is evidence] that there are no hydrogen-filled bubbles, that is argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
You miss one important caveat, which is where the fallacy lies.
If there should be evidence but there is none. Which is where many people fall foul of this particular argument. They do not know that there are times when it doesn't apply.
"The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is often debated in philosophy and logic. It depends on the context.
In some cases, it's true—just because we haven't found evidence of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example, before the discovery of exoplanets, we had no direct evidence of planets outside our solar system, but that didn't mean they didn't exist.
In other cases, it's false—if we would reasonably expect to find evidence if something existed, then the absence of that evidence can be taken as evidence of absence. For instance, if someone claims there's an elephant in your living room, but you look around and see no elephant, that absence of evidence is strong evidence that there is no elephant."
Marc's article doesn't not mention a hydrogen filled bubble. Would be reasonable expect that if such a bubble were necessary would the article mention it - yes.
The fact that the article doesn't mention it is because at that time a hydrogen filled bubble was not necessary. There for absence of evidence is in this case evidence of absence.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
I believe the main cause of contention is:
The first quote does not mention the role of the power plant.
The second quote does not mention hydrogen-filled bubbles.
I maintain there is no contradiction (they are not mutually exclusive) as "does not mention" is not evidence of absence.
The first quote does not mention the role of the power plant, so we don't know what role the power plant plays.
The second quote does not mention hydrogen-filled bubbles, so we don't know if there are hydrogen-filled bubbles.
If both statements are true, then the power plant burns some of the jump fuel AND there is a hydrogen-filled bubble.
Both statements contribute to a better understanding.
They are not mutually exclusive, so there is no contradiction.
vs.:
The first quote does not mention the role of the power plant.
The second quote does not mention hydrogen-filled bubbles.
I maintain there is no contradiction (they are not mutually exclusive) as "does not mention" is not evidence of absence.
The first quote does not mention the role of the power plant, so we don't know what role the power plant plays.
The second quote does not mention hydrogen-filled bubbles, so we don't know if there are hydrogen-filled bubbles.
If both statements are true, then the power plant burns some of the jump fuel AND there is a hydrogen-filled bubble.
Both statements contribute to a better understanding.
They are not mutually exclusive, so there is no contradiction.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
Collectors replace the power plant requirement too
" This charge is released in a single spike to power a jump drive"
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
So your argument rests on that you believe that a hydrogen-filled bubble is so important that it must be mentioned in all discussions of jump space.
I don't believe that every description of a technology in an RPG must be complete. Details may be left out. The description in HG is incomplete. The description in JTAS is incomplete. Together they give us a better understanding, with both contributing.
Neither of our beliefs are logical proofs.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
Logical fallacy - the article can reasonably be expected to mention it, it doesn't so it is absent.
We are told later in the same book that the power plant provides the energy needed by the jump drive - context is also important. We are told later in the same book how a fusion or AM power plant is needed and the exact amount of EPs necessary to operate the jump drive.
page 17:
"Jump Drive: In order to use the jump drive, the ship requires an amount of Power equal to 10% of the hull’s total tonnage multiplied by the maximum jump number the drive is capable of. Only fusion and antimatter power plants can generate the intense burst of energy necessary to operate a jump drive."
Also in the same book this is contradicted when it is stated batteries may be used to power the jump drive,
page 44:
"This Power can then be used in subsequent rounds as if they were being produced by the power plant"
page 158:
"The jump drive is powered by the battery"
Then again when it says collectors can power the jump drive.
page 83:
"This charge is released in a single spike to power a jump drive"
If there is a hydrogen filled bubble could we reasonably expect it to be mentioned? Yes. It isn't mentioned so it doesn't exist.
I, and many others, disagree.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
As I recall, I sort of reverse engineered it, and came to the conclusion that what is required are exotic particles.
So that you either collect exotic particles, or manufacture them.
So that you either collect exotic particles, or manufacture them.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
It is not a belief, it is a fact that marc's article doesn't mention it
If it were not, would I be wasting so much time discussing it?
All. No. I can see that trap a mile away. But in any in depth discussion, such as a definitive article or rule book "explanation" I would reasonably expect it to be mentioned. The fact that it was never a thing until T4 authors misunderstood what was written in the MT SOM and fanon became canon.
Belief is a very loaded word.
Here is where we disagree. I think Marc's article is an in depth discussion, much more so than a brief statement in T4's flawed FF&S, further expanded upon by the MT SOM. If a hydrogen filled bubble was a necessity for the jump drive then I would reasonably expect Marc's article and the MT SOM to mention it - neither does so.
I'm not talking about belief, I am using the text as it is written to identify contradictions that need to be addressed. many others recognise them as contradictions.
I've posted how I think it should work many times. But I don't believe in jump travel as it is fiction.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
I stated that on CotI many years ago, then it became canon.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
Yes, it's a logical fallacy. You deliberately argue from ignorance, because you believe it is reasonable.
I don't believe jump space is a small room, or that the exact composition of the plasma in it is an elephant.
