Using High Efficiency Batteries for Jump Drives

Regardless, saying fission plants are equal to quiet mode fusion plants means you can't have fission powered ships unless you have Fusion plus because you can't run Normal power mode to power your active sensors and weapons systems?

The question is (reading between the lines), can Fusion Plus (and hence Fission, in your example) power those systems, and are P-Plants ONLY needed for the Drives (and perhaps Spinal Mounts, but those are not covered in ACS)? Re-read the references closely. It is somewhat ambiguous.
 
I was interpreting some of your points as already "built in" to the tables / equations. The power plant descriptions on 132 talk about how the Fusion plant ability to Overclock is key to their ability to be so small and supposed to be a factor in the TL changes to size and efficiency of the Fusion plants. At size A the fusion plant is almost a quarter the size of the fission plant. Since both follow a linear progression of size (5 for fission, 3 for fusion), that changes to half the size at size H (800 EP) and 55% at size T (1800 EP). Theoretically, a larger fission plant could be installed that didn't need to overclock for the same power - but why 'waste' the space on a ship? Since this 'standard overclock' capacity is already reflected in the EP produced by the plant for normal operations, the M-drive doesn't seem to have a unique pull on the power than other systems. All 3 P-Plants for operations (H/U/A) can use the different operational modes, not just Fusion (H).

Earlier (beta) ruleset iterations had the Overclock rate per TL explicitly noted in a table, and also noted the standard Overclock rate for the given setting era. Golden Age Imperium Standard Rate is the 100% Base Rate against which everything else was compared, and 100% is available at TL13.
 
The question is (reading between the lines), can Fusion Plus (and hence Fission, in your example) power those systems, and are P-Plants ONLY needed for the Drives (and perhaps Spinal Mounts, but those are not covered in ACS)? Re-read the references closely. It is somewhat ambiguous.
I'm not a super big fan of the whole overclocking mechanic in the first place and I can't for the life of me even imagine a point in restricting M-Drives to fusion only. Like, the size and cost difference between fission and fusion already makes this a thing that favors fusion without special rules making fission plants worthless by fiat.

What is the point of even including fission plants in the rules for starships if they can't actually power a starship? So I'm going to parse it as "not completely moronic" :D Especially since one of the examples is a Nexus 9Z U-plant putting out 194,400 EP. Which is just slightly more than a 1A P-Plant's 100EP. :P
 
Well, that is my best attempt to play devil's advocate ;). I lean toward the chart being wrong.

But I suppose you could also say that the P-Plant Fuel consumption rate is an abstraction that averages the rate based on a normal lower consumption rate when the ship is not manoeuvring vs. a higher rate when it is (for typical usage patterns). But then of course a ship with a P-Plant but without an M-Drive for manoeuvre should get a benefit of low P-Plant fuel consumption.
 
Honestly, I vastly prefer HePlar to M-Drives in theory. It's just that M-Drive is much more player friendly. The number of times in my decades of playing Traveller that I've had players who derive any fun from figuring out how much fuel to use on particular maneuvers approaches 0.
 
Honestly, I vastly prefer HePlar to M-Drives in theory. It's just that M-Drive is much more player friendly. The number of times in my decades of playing Traveller that I've had players who derive any fun from figuring out how much fuel to use on particular maneuvers approaches 0.
I will do vector combat all day long - and in three dimensions - but I will never allow ships using reaction mass because I will not bother with the Tsiolkovsky equation.
 
I will do vector combat all day long - and in three dimensions - but I will never allow ships using reaction mass because I will not bother with the Tsiolkovsky equation.
The TNE g-hours thing almost makes it work without math, but only if you have a limiter on the acceleration, because it doesn't make the acceleration go up as you get lighter. Or propellant is such a small amount of the total mass that it doesn't matter... which of course makes little sense...
 
The TNE g-hours thing almost makes it work without math, but only if you have a limiter on the acceleration, because it doesn't make the acceleration go up as you get lighter. Or propellant is such a small amount of the total mass that it doesn't matter... which of course makes little sense...
Not to mention the difference between a fully loaded Free Trader and an empty one...
 
FF&S gives you the option:
"Calculating Gs: Craft with the huge fuel requirements listed above require a separate mechanism for calculation of Gs, because the mass of the vessel is continually changing as fuel is consumed. As a result, thrust is measured not in Gs, but in tonnes of thrust (the thrust necessary to give 1 tonne of mass an acceleration of 1G).
Once the craft is designed, calculate its G value when fully loaded, and then calculate its G value at each 10% increment of fuel consumption. G value is calculated by dividing the thrust in tonnes by the total mass of the craft (including fuel) in tonnes. By dividing the total fuel endurance of the craft by 10, you can arrive at a useful approximation of its performance, which may, for example, be 10 minutes at 1.2 G, 10 minutes at 1.4 G, 10 minutes at 1.6 G, etc.
Next, determine how much thrust in G-hours each 10% increment of fuel generates. To do so, divide the minutes of the increment (10 minutes in the example above, but it can be any length) by 60. The resulting value is multiplied by the G value of that increment to determine the total G-hours generated.
Using the example above, the increment is 10 minutes. Dividing 10 by 60 yields a value of 0.167. Therefore, the first 10 minute increment will generate 0.2004 Ghours (which we'll round down to 0.20), the second will generate 0.2338 G-hours (rounded down to 0.23), the third will generate 0.2672 G-Hours (rounded up to 0.27), etc"
 
Divide the fuel into 10 lots and calculate the drive performance is not difficult, a bit tedious if you are maths averse but you wouldn't be using FF&S in that case :)

If you want a quicker way and don't mind the fudge use a graphical method.
x axis point 1 mass of ship with full fuel, point 10 mass of ship with no fuel
y axis point 1 g performance fully loaded, point 10 no fuel g performance (ok just before no fuel as at no fuel no performance :))

Now connect the dots like this:
1738575050584.png
Not ideal but it works.

You can now read off the performance every 1/10 of fuel increment.

Give a laminated version to the players, they will either have fun with it or you can go back to ignoring fuel use.
 
Bringing this thread back to life to share this news more widely.

For those of us (like me) who use batteries for powering the jump drives because the rules say that the power in them is treated as if it comes from the original power source, someone on Farcebook pointed out that the Express Freighter in Traders and Gunboats explicitly uses this hack, so it is now officially legal! They've been watching us. ;)

As this makes sense in all but the smallest of jump ships, it should be used wherever it makes sense in official (and private) designs going forward. 15 power points is the break-even spot. If your jump drive uses more than 15 power points (1 ton of power plant), it now makes sense to use batteries to power the jump and reduce the size of the power plant by that amount. A 100-ton J1 ship does not hit that sweet spot, but 100-ton J2 does. 150-ton J1 ships are at that break-even point as well. Basically, if you aren't making a 100-ton J1 ship, you should be using this method.

1746472483589.png
 
There is something wrong with this.

How does a battery output more energy than a power plant?

There needs to be some thought given to the difference between power and energy.

A power plant produces its EP every second, while a battery has a finite amount of energy.
 
There is something wrong with this.

How does a battery output more energy than a power plant?

There needs to be some thought given to the difference between power and energy.

A power plant produces its EP every second, while a battery has a finite amount of energy.
With a battery, it can be charged over time and then dumped all at once would be my read. It only needs the power at jump time to work as written. Maybe that's what high efficiency means.
 
There is something wrong with this.

How does a battery output more energy than a power plant?

There needs to be some thought given to the difference between power and energy.

A power plant produces its EP every second, while a battery has a finite amount of energy.
I agree. Power plants should be rated in something like megawatts per hour. Batteries should be in megawatt-hours. So, the power plant would produce 100 MW/hr, it could charge a 2000 MW-hr battery in 20 hours. The battery could then power something that requires 2000 MW for one hour or something that requires 20 MW for 100 hrs.
 
I agree. Power plants should be rated in something like megawatts per hour. Batteries should be in megawatt-hours. So, the power plant would produce 100 MW/hr, it could charge a 2000 MW-hr battery in 20 hours. The battery could then power something that requires 2000 MW for one hour or something that requires 20 MW for 100 hrs.
Yet that isn't how power plants (or batteries) work in the game. All a ship's power can be used as fast as it is generated. The batteries can also dump them just as fast. Perhaps not realistic with today's technology, but this is the future! ;)

High Guard 2022 Update says:

HIGH-EFFICIENCY BATTERIES
Ship-board batteries are designed to store power until needed. They can be recharged in any round with excess Power not being used by other systems. This Power can then be used in subsequent rounds as if they were being produced by the power plant; simply add the amount of Power stored within the batteries (they need not be completely drained) to the Power the ship has available that round.

Nothing about a limit on discharge speed. Based on the text, you could use it all at once, which dovetails with the use here.
 
Last edited:
I am fine with being able to dump power quickly, that is not my concern. The issue is how much can the battery store, i.e. what quantity of power can be stored.

If Traveller measures Energy Point/second, then how many seconds worth of EP can the battery store? It is fine if it can discharge it all in one second, but what is the quantity?

To use a fluid example, it is not how many litres per second the power plant delivers, it is how many litres does the tank (battery) hold.
 
Based on this quote:

HIGH-EFFICIENCY BATTERIES
Ship-board batteries are designed to store power until needed. They can be recharged in any round with excess Power not being used by other systems. This Power can then be used in subsequent rounds as if they were being produced by the power plant; simply add the amount of Power stored within the batteries (they need not be completely drained) to the Power the ship has available that round.

It would appear that power plants produce Energy Points/Round.

High efficiency batteries store EP-rounds of power.

So:
If your power plant produces 100 EP per round.
And, your battery has a capacity to store 2000 EP-rounds of power
It will take the power plant 20 rounds to fully charge the battery
The battery can then discharge 2000 EP worth of power in one round
Or, it can discharge 500 EP worth of power for 4 rounds, or 200 EP worth of power for 10 rounds, etc...

If that is the intent, then it would work.

The assumption is that the jump drive expends all the power in just one round.
 
I am fine with being able to dump power quickly, that is not my concern. The issue is how much can the battery store, i.e. what quantity of power can be stored.

If Traveller measures Energy Point/second, then how many seconds worth of EP can the battery store? It is fine if it can discharge it all in one second, but what is the quantity?

To use a fluid example, it is not how many litres per second the power plant delivers, it is how many litres does the tank (battery) hold.
I see what you're saying. As the power plants on produce power points--whatever those are--and they are treated as discrete units like a hot dog, they can give all their hot dogs away at the same time as fast as they can make them. They simply appear every time increment that a powerplant can produce hot dogs, er power. Batteries seemingly play be the same rules and can eat all the hot dogs handed to them and then regurgitate them--don't think about that too closely--at the same speed.
 
Last edited:
Based on this quote:



It would appear that power plants produce Energy Points/Round.

High efficiency batteries store EP-rounds of power.

So:
If your power plant produces 100 EP per round.
And, your battery has a capacity to store 2000 EP-rounds of power
It will take the power plant 20 rounds to fully charge the battery
The battery can then discharge 2000 EP worth of power in one round
Or, it can discharge 500 EP worth of power for 4 rounds, or 200 EP worth of power for 10 rounds, etc...

If that is the intent, then it would work.

The assumption is that the jump drive expends all the power in just one round.
I believe you to be correct.
 
Back
Top