What TL For Anti Matter Torpedoes? (New Sub Topic)
- Thread starter Solomani666
- Start date
barnest2 said:
Calling people "whiners" because they get in the way of your self-centered "fun" is very much "being a dick".
Since there's evidently no moderation on this board, the only way things are going to stay sane around here is if people think about that before they post. Otherwise, this place will spiral down the plughole.
Don't be a dick. It is very simple advice and will avoid a lot of problems if people take it to heart, and everyone should keep that in mind before they hit the post button.
Oh, i'm sorry, I was being entertained...
Jesus, is that a crime now? It's hardly self centred, as the question had already been answered, and if solomani deletes this now, he is screwing himself, and any future members. I will state (like I did in a previous thread) that I hope he doesn't, because the answers that were on topic were very useful.
This place will not "spiral down the plughole". A few off-topic comments are not the end of the universe as you seem to think they are.
I will say it again.
Man up, and stop whining.
Jesus, is that a crime now? It's hardly self centred, as the question had already been answered, and if solomani deletes this now, he is screwing himself, and any future members. I will state (like I did in a previous thread) that I hope he doesn't, because the answers that were on topic were very useful.
This place will not "spiral down the plughole". A few off-topic comments are not the end of the universe as you seem to think they are.
I will say it again.
Man up, and stop whining.
barnest2 said:
Don't get me wrong, I think deleting the threads is "dickish" behavior too. But I think he's justified to be annoyed by people who insist on derailing them.
There is a board here devoted to off-topic rambling: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=74
I suggest you go there and start a thread, and you can post monty python quotes there until the cows come home. Monty Python doesn't even have anything to do with Traveller for crying out loud, and I don't want to see threads clogged up with that because people feel like they should be able to post anything they like on this board.
The problem here is that people keep posting Off topic stuff (with excuses like "the question has been answered" - but who are you to say that? Who is to say that further discussion may not take place? By derailing it, you make it harder for the topic to continue).
And I will say it again - Don't be a dick. And I will keep saying it until you get the message.
Except the quote had context here. I essentially called the poster a witch for saying anti matter torpedoes could come in at tl 13. And I used a reference to say it. If I just posted it in off-topic, it would have no context, and therefore make no sense.
And yes, I know there is an OT sub-forum. I posted in it an hour ago.
And yes, I know there is an OT sub-forum. I posted in it an hour ago.
barnest2 said:
That is a ridiculous excuse.
Jame's post contained the word "heretical" and then you and DFW decided to take off on a Monty Python bender based on that. Do we have to endure that kind of derailment every time someone mentions any word from a monty python film now?
Or do you think you could exercise some willpower and not do that? Can you really not see how your "fun" totally derailed the thread?
FreeTrav
Cosmic Mongoose
Getting back to the original topic of the thread, the question with regard to the amount of damage done is going to be dependent on the amount of antimass that can react with the normal mass of the target before being dispersed by the explosion. That in turn may be dependent on the amount of antimass available in the torp.
If all you're doing is using antimatter instead of a standard nuke for pumping a 'bomb-pumped laser head', the same issue obtains; just remember that the E being released in an antimatter explosion is going to be proportional to TWICE the mass of the antimatter, because matter+antimatter=total conversion of BOTH to energy. Then apply the laser head damage based on the fraction of that energy that can be focussed and 'lased' prior to vaporization of the focussing array. Also note that a matter/antimatter interaction is automatically 100% efficient at converting mass to energy - any loss is going to be from mass (of either polarity) on the 'outside' of the interaction being 'blown away' from the kernal of the explosion.
If all you're doing is using antimatter instead of a standard nuke for pumping a 'bomb-pumped laser head', the same issue obtains; just remember that the E being released in an antimatter explosion is going to be proportional to TWICE the mass of the antimatter, because matter+antimatter=total conversion of BOTH to energy. Then apply the laser head damage based on the fraction of that energy that can be focussed and 'lased' prior to vaporization of the focussing array. Also note that a matter/antimatter interaction is automatically 100% efficient at converting mass to energy - any loss is going to be from mass (of either polarity) on the 'outside' of the interaction being 'blown away' from the kernal of the explosion.
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
Actually, you will not get total conversion of all the matter/antimatter.
Based on studies done using supercolliders, antimatter is only about 10% efficient at converting matter to energy. I know seems weird, but not every particle/antiparticle is going to collide with its counterpart, some will just fly off into space and not be part of the warhead.
Fusion is about 0.1% efficient, so you are still getting 100 times the energy out of the same amount of matter.
The only way to get 100% conversion of matter to energy is to use a Black Hole. (TL25ish)
Based on studies done using supercolliders, antimatter is only about 10% efficient at converting matter to energy. I know seems weird, but not every particle/antiparticle is going to collide with its counterpart, some will just fly off into space and not be part of the warhead.
Fusion is about 0.1% efficient, so you are still getting 100 times the energy out of the same amount of matter.
The only way to get 100% conversion of matter to energy is to use a Black Hole. (TL25ish)
FreeTrav
Cosmic Mongoose
FreeTrav said:
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
Seems to me that the two quotes above are saying essentially the same thing. I am surprised that the percentage of matter 'on the outside' is so high...
I think that the 'supercollider' may be an issue, as well; would the efficiency be as low if it were solid matter, or a controlled (magnetic bottle) plasma, instead of basically firing two shotguns at each other and hoping that the pellets will hit?
Also, a black hole isn't 100%; you get NOTHING out, by definition. That sounds closer to zero percent, to me...
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Blix said:
Okay, reported...happy ?
And turning a thread into your own personal argument about generative organs isn't even worse derailment ? Ooooo-kay. Three argument threads in one afternoon ? Bad day at work , doc ? As Hal says, take a stress pill, sit down and think about what you are doing.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
FreeTrav said:
IIRC, the theoretical maximum is about 50%; that fraction of any conversion is always neutrinos, which effectively don't interact with normal matter. Physics dudes, feel free to tell me I'm wrong.
Solomani666
Mongoose
Blix said:
Thank you Blix for being reasonable and rational.
I have no problem with a thread going off topic after the initial topic has been answerd sufficiently as this thread has.
Even intermixed on/off topic responses are ok as long as the initial comment is still being addressed.
.
Solomani666
Mongoose
.
Feasibility Question:
Assuming that the reason that nuke missles and torps only do 2d6 and 6d6 damage respectively is that they detonate some distance away from the ships hull. I can reach no other conclusion than this simply because a 100 ton scout ship can usually survive 2 nuclear torpedo attacks. (Note: I did not say 'and function afterwards'!)
Given the above assumption:
At TL 16 would a suicide drone such as the one described in Traders and Gunboats be feasible with an anti-matter warhead instead of the warhead listed?
Since the drone penetrates (or at minimum impacts the enemy hull) how much damage would such a weapon do?
The drone will be a needle configuration with an armor value of 16.
The plan is to have the drone guided by an AI or proto-AI. (I'll tell you the rest of this story later!)
Please answer in 'game terms', dice of damage, chance of impact, etc.
The drones will not be too common of an item. A frigate or destroyer might only carry 2, a mated pair. (More on that later!)
Please discard any notions of 'game balance' before answering. After all it's not like they have 'star triggers' or anything!
Please try to keep answers on topic until we have a few direct answers addressing the new topic.
.
Feasibility Question:
Assuming that the reason that nuke missles and torps only do 2d6 and 6d6 damage respectively is that they detonate some distance away from the ships hull. I can reach no other conclusion than this simply because a 100 ton scout ship can usually survive 2 nuclear torpedo attacks. (Note: I did not say 'and function afterwards'!)
Given the above assumption:
At TL 16 would a suicide drone such as the one described in Traders and Gunboats be feasible with an anti-matter warhead instead of the warhead listed?
Since the drone penetrates (or at minimum impacts the enemy hull) how much damage would such a weapon do?
The drone will be a needle configuration with an armor value of 16.
The plan is to have the drone guided by an AI or proto-AI. (I'll tell you the rest of this story later!)
Please answer in 'game terms', dice of damage, chance of impact, etc.
The drones will not be too common of an item. A frigate or destroyer might only carry 2, a mated pair. (More on that later!)
Please discard any notions of 'game balance' before answering. After all it's not like they have 'star triggers' or anything!
Please try to keep answers on topic until we have a few direct answers addressing the new topic.
.
Depends. How much antimatter we talking about? Damage could range from a missile hit to "Wasn't there a ship there a moment ago?"
According to the table I found Here, 1 milligram of antimatter is equivalent to 43 tons of TNT (equal to this). One gram would be 43 kilotons, or more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Emperor forbid you get your hands on a Star Trek torpedo with 1.5 kilograms of antimatter. Something about having the power of over 4300 Hiroshimas... Funny. They don't look that powerful in the shows.
According to the table I found Here, 1 milligram of antimatter is equivalent to 43 tons of TNT (equal to this). One gram would be 43 kilotons, or more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Emperor forbid you get your hands on a Star Trek torpedo with 1.5 kilograms of antimatter. Something about having the power of over 4300 Hiroshimas... Funny. They don't look that powerful in the shows.
Solomani666 said:
Have to agree about nukes not actually hitting a ship.
Let's say that an anti-matter warhead is ~75% more powerful than a nuke for a given amount of reaction matter and the torp penetrates past both hulls; I'd say that any ship smaller than a couple hundred meters long/wide/deep, is destroyed outright.
I don't know if it could be quantified with dice of damage unless, the structure was SO large as to be a city in space type of craft. Even in that case I'd just determine the radius of vaporization, severe destruction, mod destruction, light damage, etc. a lot of that would depend on configuration, internal construction, etc
