Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

coolAlias said:
As you say here, Gravity is the force (well, one of them, since M-Drive, wind, etc. could also apply force), i.e. F, in that equation, so taking it away leaves you with 0 = m*a, or 0/m = a which is 0, i.e. no acceleration.

That doesn't eliminate the force needed to move the object at all because it still has mass, unless you mean specifically the amount of force required to counteract gravity, but that's not the really the same as not needing any force to move the mass.
Click to expand...
Yes it has mass but without having to counteract gravity it takes far far less force to move it. Or are you to going to tell me that you can’t lift more on the moon than on earth. And I never said it wouldn’t take any force at all.
 
tytalan said:
Yes it has mass but without having to counteract gravity it takes far far less force to move it. Or are you to going to tell me that you can’t lift more on the moon than on earth. And I never said it wouldn’t take any force at all.
Click to expand...
F = ma doesn't change just because you remove gravity. You're conflating acceleration in general with the specific case of counteracting gravity, which is a force that applies acceleration in one specific vector.

So yes, you can lift more on the moon because there is less gravity fighting against your application of lifting force, but that doesn't change the amount of acceleration applied to the object based on the amount of force you can apply to it - you still need exactly the same amount of Force to accelerate the object regardless of the amount of gravity, whether there is 0G or 1000G. The total effect (i.e. the final vector) of your applied force will be different, but the acceleration you apply will be the same.
 
coolAlias said:
F = ma doesn't change just because you remove gravity. You're conflating acceleration in general with the specific case of counteracting gravity, which is a force that applies acceleration in one specific vector.

So yes, you can lift more on the moon because there is less gravity fighting against your application of lifting force, but that doesn't change the amount of acceleration applied to the object based on the amount of force you can apply to it - you still need exactly the same amount of Force to accelerate the object regardless of the amount of gravity, whether there is 0G or 1000G. The total effect (i.e. the final vector) of your applied force will be different, but the acceleration you apply will be the same.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
MasterGwydion said:
Are there rules for building tunneling vehicles that can bore into a planet? Just a random thought in My head. lol
Click to expand...
The tunneller option was there before for ground vehicles, and I'm keeping it, though I'm beginning to think that the rate of progress is way too fast (Haven't heard much about the Boring Company lately, but I do remember the years of Big Bertha not moving under Seattle).
 
coolAlias said:
F = ma doesn't change just because you remove gravity. You're conflating acceleration in general with the specific case of counteracting gravity, which is a force that applies acceleration in one specific vector.

So yes, you can lift more on the moon because there is less gravity fighting against your application of lifting force, but that doesn't change the amount of acceleration applied to the object based on the amount of force you can apply to it - you still need exactly the same amount of Force to accelerate the object regardless of the amount of gravity, whether there is 0G or 1000G. The total effect (i.e. the final vector) of your applied force will be different, but the acceleration you apply will be the same.
Click to expand...
And what you’re not understanding is one all forces have vectors and anytime you wish to accelerate an object you first have to apply enough force to over come existing forces. Or to put it simply to accelerate a requires the force to accelerate it plus enough force to counter the effects of other forces on the object. If you reduce one of the strongest of those other forces affecting an object to zero you no longer have to counter the effects of that force causing you to need less total force to accelerate the object. Or to put it another way to lift an object I have to first counter the force of gravity then apply force to accelerate the object upwards.
 
Geir said:
The tunneller option was there before for ground vehicles, and I'm keeping it, though I'm beginning to think that the rate of progress is way too fast (Haven't heard much about the Boring Company lately, but I do remember the years of Big Bertha not moving under Seattle).
Click to expand...
I would say that they should be slow as well unless they are boring through ice and not rock. I forget which of the Borderland worlds has ice borers tunnelling through the ice.
 
tytalan said:
here is were you are wrong the force needed to move a mass is a vector. the force needed to counter gravity on the moon is much less that the force needed to counter it on earth. see what you do not understand is force vectors. forces are always measured in vectors.
Click to expand...
To move any mass requires a force. Mass is the resistance to a force causing acceleration

F=ma -> a=F/m ->m=F/a

It doesn't matter if you are on the moon, the earth or in deep space, to accelerate a given mass m you need to apply a force F to achieve an acceleration a.

Now on Earth you must also overcome the object's weight which is holding it down, friction etc. The lifter removes weight, you still need a force to move the mass, the same amount of force you would need anywhere in the universe.

The weight force vector is removed, to move the object you must apply another force to move the mass, which has its own vector.
 
Last edited:
MasterGwydion said:
Sig is right. you don't know physics. Please stop.

Edit: My degree is in Physics.
Click to expand...
Mine is in Chemistry, with physics and nuclear chemistry courses taken throughout the three years. So I have a pretty good understanding of the standard model and the like, thermodynamics, statistical chemistry/physics - the usual stuff.
I have taught Chemistry and Physics to A level and tutored undergrads in chemistry, maths, and physics.

Over the past few decades I have studied an awful lot of post degree chemistry and physics. I retired a couple of years ago so threw myself at general relativity. Physics wise the only discipline I am uncomfortable with now is electricity and electronics, the research I am doing to get sensor right is correcting that.

It is pretty easy to learn stuff that interests you, once you have been taught to be an independent learner then there are online courses and books, the maths was tricky but again if there is a reason to learn it...
 
Apparently, not all soil, or rock is equal.

So, you might want to detour, to avoid structural problems, or find somewhere softer to drill through.
 
tytalan said:
And what you’re not understanding is one all forces have vectors and anytime you wish to accelerate an object you first have to apply enough force to over come existing forces. Or to put it simply to accelerate a requires the force to accelerate it plus enough force to counter the effects of other forces on the object. If you reduce one of the strongest of those other forces affecting an object to zero you no longer have to counter the effects of that force causing you to need less total force to accelerate the object. Or to put it another way to lift an object I have to first counter the force of gravity then apply force to accelerate the object upwards.
Click to expand...
Moving an object directly opposite of gravity is only one of an infinite number of possible vectors, about half of which will work with the force of gravity to increase an object's downward motion, and about half of which will have to work against gravity.

In all cases, F = ma remains unchanged. The amount of acceleration any given mass exhibits is directly proportional to the sum of all Forces acting on it. You are confusing the final vector (e.g. gravity + external force = possible lift) with the individual F = ma calculations.

Here's an example. Assume gravity of 1G, and 1 unit of mass. There is a constant downward acceleration vector of F = 1 / m = 1, or 1 m/s^2.

If I apply an upward force of 0.5G to that mass, then it will accelerate upward at a rate of 0.5/1, or 0.5 m/s^2, for a final vector that is still falling downward, but now at only half the rate. I'm still accelerating the object according to F = ma, just not enough to fully overcome gravity.

If I applied that same force perpendicularly, the object would now have a downward vector of 1 m/s^2 PLUS a horizontal vector of 0.5 m/s^2 (ignoring friction) - I didn't have to overcome gravity at all, which is why you can push more than you can lift (when gravity is a significant factor).

That same principle applies even if you totally remove gravity - I can still only accelerate that mass at 0.5 m/s^2 because the amount of Force I can apply has not changed.
 
Sigtrygg said:
Why can I not resist looking this stuff up?

en.wikipedia.org

Tunnel boring machine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Well the key information in that article seems to be:
Tunneling speeds increase over time. The first TBM peaked at 4 meters per week. This increased to 16 meters per week four decades later. By the end of the 19th century, speeds had reached over 30 meters per week. 21st century rock TBMs can excavate over 700 meters per week, while soil tunneling machines can exceed 200 meters per week. Speed generally declines as tunnel size increases.

The current VHB has it at 10m per hour x TL, so at TL10 you're going 100 metres an hour. Musk was promising much greater speeds than the article mentions... The Boring Company website is not as 'information free' as it seems, if you look. Their latest project is supposed to go 1 mile per week, which is 1600 metres per week, but only about 10m per hour - but we're not at TL1 are we?

I suppose if you added a nuclear engine (like a nuclear icebreaker) you could go faster, but if all you have is a 'mole machine' the debris behind you clogs up the tunnel, so you need a vehicle to clear the debris and then a process to shore up the walls, build in things like a flat floor layer, power, lights, etc..

I am doing a chapter on construction (say goodbye to the PWH, but a FTE/hour is essentially the same) only I'm trying to be sane about it and include fun useful stuff like robots and fabricators as options - while keep complexity low. The really low effort basic version is just a more sane and scalable application of the High Guard 'method'. At the moment. All rules are subject to intersection with reality and playability.
 
Geir said:
Well the key information in that article seems to be:
Tunneling speeds increase over time. The first TBM peaked at 4 meters per week. This increased to 16 meters per week four decades later. By the end of the 19th century, speeds had reached over 30 meters per week. 21st century rock TBMs can excavate over 700 meters per week, while soil tunneling machines can exceed 200 meters per week. Speed generally declines as tunnel size increases.

The current VHB has it at 10m per hour x TL, so at TL10 you're going 100 metres an hour. Musk was promising much greater speeds than the article mentions... The Boring Company website is not as 'information free' as it seems, if you look. Their latest project is supposed to go 1 mile per week, which is 1600 metres per week, but only about 10m per hour - but we're not at TL1 are we?

I suppose if you added a nuclear engine (like a nuclear icebreaker) you could go faster, but if all you have is a 'mole machine' the debris behind you clogs up the tunnel, so you need a vehicle to clear the debris and then a process to shore up the walls, build in things like a flat floor layer, power, lights, etc..

I am doing a chapter on construction (say goodbye to the PWH, but a FTE/hour is essentially the same) only I'm trying to be sane about it and include fun useful stuff like robots and fabricators as options - while keep complexity low. The really low effort basic version is just a more sane and scalable application of the High Guard 'method'. At the moment. All rules are subject to intersection with reality and playability.
Click to expand...
I would say that movement speed would be dependent on the Size of the vehicle and how many units of Mining Equipment, from the RH you install on the machine, up to the maximum of the max speed of the locomotion type.
 
Sigtrygg said:
To move any mass requires a force. Mass is the resistance to a force causing acceleration

F=ma -> a=F/m ->m=F/a

It doesn't matter if you are on the moon, the earth or in deep space, to accelerate a given mass m you need to apply a force F to achieve an acceleration a.

Now on Earth you must also overcome the object's weight which is holding it down, friction etc. The lifter removes weight, you still need a force to move the mass, the same amount of force you would need anywhere in the universe.

The weight force vector is removed, to move the object you must apply another force to move the mass, which has its own vector.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I said
 
coolAlias said:
Moving an object directly opposite of gravity is only one of an infinite number of possible vectors, about half of which will work with the force of gravity to increase an object's downward motion, and about half of which will have to work against gravity.

In all cases, F = ma remains unchanged. The amount of acceleration any given mass exhibits is directly proportional to the sum of all Forces acting on it. You are confusing the final vector (e.g. gravity + external force = possible lift) with the individual F = ma calculations.

Here's an example. Assume gravity of 1G, and 1 unit of mass. There is a constant downward acceleration vector of F = 1 / m = 1, or 1 m/s^2.

If I apply an upward force of 0.5G to that mass, then it will accelerate upward at a rate of 0.5/1, or 0.5 m/s^2, for a final vector that is still falling downward, but now at only half the rate. I'm still accelerating the object according to F = ma, just not enough to fully overcome gravity.

If I applied that same force perpendicularly, the object would now have a downward vector of 1 m/s^2 PLUS a horizontal vector of 0.5 m/s^2 (ignoring friction) - I didn't have to overcome gravity at all, which is why you can push more than you can lift (when gravity is a significant factor).

That same principle applies even if you totally remove gravity - I can still only accelerate that mass at 0.5 m/s^2 because the amount of Force I can apply has not changed.
Click to expand...
Again exactly what I said
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Garnfellow
Robot Handbook - Biological Robots
Replies
19
Views
536
rinku
R
N
Ship vs vehicle cost
2 3
Replies
58
Views
3K
MasterGwydion
M
T
Please Mongoose Fix the Vehicle Handbook
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
7K
tytalan
T
T
Vehicle handbook update request
Replies
19
Views
2K
Condottiere
C
M
Grav Locomotion in the RH on high-G planets?
Replies
0
Views
381
MasterGwydion
M
Back
Top