MGT Sensors

[BP]

Some questions for the forum:

• Densitometer - any MGT source for this being based on gravitic tech (i.e. non-electromagnetic based)?
  
  NAS - any MGT source for this being based on neural electrical activity (i.e. electromagnetic based)?
  
  Does Scouts provide extra ship sensors or ship sensor enhancments?

Many Thanks!

 

[AndrewW]

Does Scouts provide extra ship sensors or ship sensor

Only ship specific sensors in Scout are:

Life Scanner
Life Scanner / Analysis.

 

[BP]

Thanks AndrewW!
I assume these are more for surveys than for, say, ship detection and scanning. (My primary interest of the moment being space combat.)

 

[EDG]

• Densitometer - any MGT source for this being based on gravitic tech (i.e. non-electromagnetic based)?

• 
  
  Traditionally it's been gravity-based. But since the point is that it's detecting density variations, it could equally be EM-based (by observing background EM radiation and comparing that with a snapshot of the same volume taken a few seconds earlier, you can see if the radiation has been absorbed by intervening matter, and thus possibly determine the density of that matter).
  
  Either way though, there's no way to determine the fine scale structure of an object using a densitometer. If it's anything like gravity modelling today, you'd instead end up with a zillion different possible models for what it could be, but you'd have no way of knowing which of the possibly valid ones would be more likely than the others without taking other measurements using other sensors.
  
  e.g. gravity modelling is used to detect ore bodies on Earth. You take a bunch of gravity measurements, and you'll find positive or negative anomalies relative to the background gravitational field. Once you've ruled out variations due to height and topography (that mountain next to you can alter the result because the mass of material there has a gravitational pull), you can say "OK, there's a positive (or negative) anomaly here, which means there's something denser (or less dense) than the surrounding rock". But you can't tell how deep that material is, or what the density is, without taking other measurements. e.g. a positive anomaly could be a small dense ore body close to the surface, or it could be a larger one deeper below the surface - both would look the same. You'd have to drill boreholes or take magnetometer or resistivity measurements to pin it down further.
  
  I see no reason why a densitometer would be able to determine it any differently and thus why it wouldn't run into the same issues.

 

[AndrewW]

Thanks AndrewW!
I assume these are more for surveys than for, say, ship detection and scanning. (My primary interest of the moment being space combat.)

Yup, used for detecting life takes 24 hours for an earth sized world.

 

[BP]

Much appreciated AndrewW!

Thanks for the response EDG!

As MGT Densitometers 'can determine the internal structure and makeup of an object' at distances upto 10 km, I figured they would need to be based on something more exotic - i.e. graviton detection or Higgs field handwaviums... but, haven't found a MGT source that would collaborate this.

In the RW, I've seen mention of densitometers used for BRDF info for shaders (optical- though goniophotometers are more typical). In physics and Texas I recall devices made with masses and fine wires for subsurface geographics 'mapping' (suspect MEMS might be used today). Did a quick Google and came up with a lot of medical devices - using X-Ray (more CT like) and ultrasound - though a NMRI device would fit the bill too.

 

[EDG]

As MGT Densitometers 'can determine the internal structure and makeup of an object' at distances upto 10 km, I figured they would need to be based on something more exotic - i.e. graviton detection or Higgs field handwaviums... but, haven't found a MGT source that would collaborate this.

Well, sensors have to work in one of several ways:

- by detecting something that an object is itself emitting (passive sensing).
- by something passing through an object that affects it, and detecting those changes (generally passive sensing again, unless you deliberately set up whatever is on the other side emitting the radiation or whatever).
- by firing off a pulse of something that the object then absorbs/reflects/scatters/whatever, and detecting whatever comes back to the sensor (active sensing).

A medical X-ray, IIRC, is (or used to be) passing X-rays through organic material to affect a film on the other side of the target - more absorptive objects (like bones) would show up as brighter, less absorptive objects would show up darker.

A densitometer (as described in MGT) can't work the same way. Even if you say it's graviton detection or whatever, you're still receiving all the gravitons (or whatever) at the sensor at the same time - so how can you tell the ones that are emitted by the mass of material in an interior wall, or how can you tell that there's an empty space inside the object?

I could see how one could use a densitometer to figure out the overall mass of a target, and (given other EM measurements detecting its shape and therefore its volume) its bulk density, but internal structure? I think you'd need something more sophisticated to do that - like something that launched an array of probes at the object that really could map it out in 3 dimensions by taking readings from many different points at the same time.

 

[AndrewW]

A densitometer (as described in MGT) can't work the same way. Even if you say it's graviton detection or whatever, you're still receiving all the gravitons (or whatever) at the sensor at the same time - so how can you tell the ones that are emitted by the mass of material in an interior wall, or how can you tell that there's an empty space inside the object?

I could see how one could use a densitometer to figure out the overall mass of a target, and (given other EM measurements detecting its shape and therefore its volume) its bulk density, but internal structure? I think you'd need something more sophisticated to do that - like something that launched an array of probes at the object that really could map it out in 3 dimensions by taking readings from many different points at the same time.

Densitometer Imaging (TL 14, Exotic): Densitometer imaging uses a large densitometric gravitational imager to create a near-real-time three-dimensional image of the building and its surroundings...

 

[EDG]

A densitometer (as described in MGT) can't work the same way. Even if you say it's graviton detection or whatever, you're still receiving all the gravitons (or whatever) at the sensor at the same time - so how can you tell the ones that are emitted by the mass of material in an interior wall, or how can you tell that there's an empty space inside the object?

I could see how one could use a densitometer to figure out the overall mass of a target, and (given other EM measurements detecting its shape and therefore its volume) its bulk density, but internal structure? I think you'd need something more sophisticated to do that - like something that launched an array of probes at the object that really could map it out in 3 dimensions by taking readings from many different points at the same time.

Densitometer Imaging (TL 14, Exotic): Densitometer imaging uses a large densitometric gravitational imager to create a near-real-time three-dimensional image of the building and its surroundings...

My point remains. As far as I can see, the sensor has to be at least as large as the angular diameter of the building (as seen by the densitometer) in order for it to even attempt to discern anything about its internal structure.

 

[BP]

...A densitometer (as described in MGT) can't work the same way. Even if you say it's graviton detection or whatever, you're still receiving all the gravitons (or whatever) at the sensor at the same time...

I don't even want to postulate on how MGT Densitometers 'work' - just qualify wether they are stated to be EM or non-EM based! :wink:

Superficially, many Sci-Fi sensors 'work' on a premise that would require something that interacts with matter without interacting with matter! Though, nothing states - as far as I know, that a MGT Densitometer works by 'receiving all the gravitons (or whatever) at the sensor at the same time'. Multilple snapshots at varing frequencies (polarizations, what have you) allow existing ground penetrating radar systems to be capable of producing 3D models - and airborne and space sensors (synthetic aperture, I think) 'see' underground (rivers under sand) from within the MGT defined ranges.

If something like nuclear magnetic resonance could be used without a confining field/sensor array, then internal structure as well as composition could be realised.


P.S. well put list of sensor requirements - I'd just add:

-by detecting something passing around an object (i.e. gravity lens)

 

[EDG]

Multilple snapshots at varing frequencies (polarizations, what have you) allow existing ground penetrating radar systems to be capable of producing 3D models - and airborne and space sensors (synthetic aperture, I think) 'see' underground (rivers under sand) from within the MGT defined ranges.

Well that's a possibility, that somehow there are different "frequencies" of gravitons - gravity waves have a range of frequencies, certainly... but the wavelengths are ridiculously long (like, hundreds or thousands of km, so it'd be on a planetary scale) and you'd need a detector at least as big to detect them.

But a densitometer works by doing some kind of hyperspectral analysis on gravity itself (i.e. there are different frequencies/types of particle, or diferent polarisations, or whatever), then one really ought to ask what the implications of that are for other technologies too.

-by detecting something passing around an object (i.e. gravity lens)

Maybe I should rephrase the second element in the list to read "by something being directly affected by the object", which would include light being bent by it .

 

[BP]

Thanks again AndrewW - that provides a definitive MGT source for Densitometer sensors using gravitics that I can hang my hat on! (I plan on acquiring Scouts and Scoundrels later this month...)

... the sensor has to be at least as large as the angular diameter of the building (as seen by the densitometer) in order for it to even attempt to discern anything about its internal structure.

Phased-array techniques are used in UT (ultrasonic testing) for 3D mapping of internal structure - so the sensor does not have to physically move. While this is an active detection method (I've heard of EM based phased array sensors for spacecraft - not sure if they are active or passive) - passive methods could perhaps use such techniques - regardless add angular movement of the detector and there is no reason this would be a show stopper.

Though I often don't care for my Sci-Fi to be 'explained' (though I do like it to not pass my plausibility threshold), this would mean that such techniques would be susceptible to mis-interpretation (processing) and being 'fooled' into providing false information.

 

[BP]

...and you'd need a detector at least as big to detect them.

The last I recall, detecting 'gravitons' would require immense detectors anyway - given that they are so extremely small (and massless or near so), but then again that is all highly unsubstantiated theory (math models more than anything - which I won't pretend to undestand). So I guess, I can accept such things in Sci-Fi... (especially if I'm accepting Traveller style gravitics...)

Maybe I should rephrase the second element in the list to read "by something being directly affected by the object", which would include light being bent by it .

Again - well stated - I attempted to rewrite your second element several times before deciding to just append one - your definition is much more elegant than anything I would have written! 8)

 

[BP]

Some questions for the forum:

• Densitometer - any MGT source for this being based on gravitic tech (i.e. non-electromagnetic based)?
  
  NAS - any MGT source for this being based on neural electrical activity (i.e. electromagnetic based)?[/list
  ...

• 
  So I'm quoting myself
  
  While reading my well thumbed Core book, I found the following on page 63 under Battlefield Sensors in Combat section:
  • - Densitometer - 'outgrowth of gravitic technology'
    
    - NAS - 'highly sensitive EM-detectors'

Nicely answering my questions (wish the index listed multiple pages - since this detail is lacking from the Equipment listing on page 96).

It also states that a Densitometer 'takes several minutes to perform and cannot be used in real-time' and 'can be fooled by multiple objects of similar density'. Wonder if the Scoundrel version of near-real-time
means minutes .

 

[AndrewW]

It also states that a Densitometer 'takes several minutes to perform and cannot be used in real-time' and 'can be fooled by multiple objects of similar density'. Wonder if the Scoundrel version of near-real-time
means minutes .

Could be the Scoundrel version is specific to the detector used which could be a higher TL version.

 

[BP]

It also states that a Densitometer 'takes several minutes to perform and cannot be used in real-time' and 'can be fooled by multiple objects of similar density'. Wonder if the Scoundrel version of near-real-time
means minutes .

Could be the Scoundrel version is specific to the detector used which could be a higher TL version.

Same TL-14. And 'near-real-time' could refer to several minutes - though that might be near-useless in a conflict...

After a full 3-D scan - tracking movement should be faster (as the rest of the scan would be static and could be easily elimitated from processing taking into account scanner movement - high speed motion image recognition works in this fashion today).