Flames vs. Technobabble

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

One of the reasons of figuring out how something works, whether it's technobabble or not, is creating consistency as well as depth.

Depth helps support that all important suspension of disbelief and makes the experience all the more enjoyable.  Consistency makes things less confusing.

In the case of figuring out how to make something work... knowing 'how it works' means you can more accurately portray a list of effects and requirements, scale them up and down, and whatnot... rather than arbitrary slap a number on and try to apply some kind of arbitrary balance with a pair of D20s.

In the case of your concept for Flame, you have a couple of issues.

We CAN create a series of micro-projectiles that ignite, but they would have to be either 1: A fuel and oxidizer that ignites on contact.  (Think Sodium and Chlorine here...)  Of course, you might have trouble making your 'micro-projectiles' without either igniting before being launched, or just plain being troublesome...    Or 2: Have a compound mixture like ammonium percholate and aluminum that will burn, but must be ignited... 

Alternatively, we can TRASH that idea as Just Plain Silly (JPS), and find something more effective.

The idea here to get rid of the old SF weapons collection, period, save maybe for a callback to the old days as an easter egg.  The old weapons are poorly balanced and inherently flawed.  They lack diversity, and are uninspired.

Do we want a flame thrower?  Sure, it's 'different' when you imagine space weapons.  So how do you make one?

Easy.  High Pressure Plasma Pump

NAME: Scorcher
Function: Utilizing high temperature plasma vented straight from the ship's reactor core, this device sprays the volotile substance at nearby objects.  The high temperature, and radioactive volitility of this material allows it to quickly burn through shields.  However, lacking density or velocity at impact, the plasma spray tends to only melt surface armors of most ships, making it less effective against larger capital ships, though a considerably vicious threat to small ships, fighters, and missiles.
Another major problem is dispersion.  Without a way to maintain density, the plasma quickly disperses and cools to background temperature, rendering it more or less a knife fighting weapon.

PROS: Infinite Ammo, Effective as defense against small craft and missiles.

CONS: Very poor range.  Ineffective against large heavy capital ships or planets.  (The reason is that, like most of the directed energy weapons, it'll hit the atmosphere and disperse like 'that'.  Effective planet bashing weapons have to be able to strike the surface.  Only a few energy weapons can reach the surface to actually do damage.)

[DarkSun]

One of the reasons of figuring out how something works, whether it's technobabble or not, is creating consistency as well as depth.

Depth helps support that all important suspension of disbelief and makes the experience all the more enjoyable.  Consistency makes things less confusing.

In the case of figuring out how to make something work... knowing 'how it works' means you can more accurately portray a list of effects and requirements, scale them up and down, and whatnot... rather than arbitrary slap a number on and try to apply some kind of arbitrary balance with a pair of D20s.

In the case of your concept for Flame, you have a couple of issues.

We CAN create a series of micro-projectiles that ignite, but they would have to be either 1: A fuel and oxidizer that ignites on contact.  (Think Sodium and Chlorine here...)  Of course, you might have trouble making your 'micro-projectiles' without either igniting before being launched, or just plain being troublesome...    Or 2: Have a compound mixture like ammonium percholate and aluminum that will burn, but must be ignited... 

Alternatively, we can TRASH that idea as Just Plain Silly (JPS), and find something more effective.

It's actually significantly less silly than some of your past technobabble, but in any case, I think this is actually not exactly relevant since we're tossing the old weapons anyhow, and we've just about flogged the dead horse into hamburger.

That being said, the plasma pump sounds nice. But as long as conservation of mass applies, there shouldn't be an infinite supply of plasma.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

My time at Spacebattles has injected quite a bit of common sense into my design attributes for things.  One of the things I've come into the habbit of doing is understanding that you can't just MAGICALLY violate the laws of physics as you see fit.  As such, if you come up with an idea, you need to find a way to have it work, or find a way to cheat known physics.

In my Zeropoint work, I have to go down to the fabric of spacetime itself and tweak it to make things work.  (Introduction of fundamentals for magic include a dimension of space known as the 'wink wink' Astral Plane that behaves like computer code... thus 'magic' can be said to be coding or 'hacking' spacetime.  It's complicated, the info I wrote is here:
http://www.shadowtek.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=1195
It's old, and I need to review it, but that was the basis.)


As for the plasma pump... remember, it's Reactor Plasma... so unless we start incorporating fuel into the ships...  (which is a headache I don't want to play the game with...)  ...avoid getting there.  The side effect of using reactor plasma to fuel the weapon should be obvious...  fast power loss.

[DarkSun]

My time at Spacebattles has injected quite a bit of common sense into my design attributes for things.  One of the things I've come into the habbit of doing is understanding that you can't just MAGICALLY violate the laws of physics as you see fit.  As such, if you come up with an idea, you need to find a way to have it work, or find a way to cheat known physics.

In my Zeropoint work, I have to go down to the fabric of spacetime itself and tweak it to make things work.  (Introduction of fundamentals for magic include a dimension of space known as the 'wink wink' Astral Plane that behaves like computer code... thus 'magic' can be said to be coding or 'hacking' spacetime.  It's complicated, the info I wrote is here:
http://www.shadowtek.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=1195
It's old, and I need to review it, but that was the basis.)

Almost all of the so-called 'analysis' at SB.com involves the attempted application of RL scientific principles to technobabble sci-fi systems. Once you realize this, you realize that SB.com 'analysis' is just fundamentally silly, because you just can't apply RL scientific principles to inherently unscientific technobabble systems.

What you're attempting to do here is really to apply a double standard, you're applying one standard in order to claim my microprojectile idea is 'silly', and you're applying another entirely different standard in order to claim your technobabble ideas are 'scientific'. I almost cannot believe you are seriously trying to argue that my microprojectile idea is 'silly', yet that drivel about an 'Astral Plane' and 'hacking' spacetime is 'scientific'.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Almost all of the so-called 'analysis' at SB.com involves the attempted application of RL scientific principles to technobabble sci-fi systems. Once you realize this, you realize that SB.com 'analysis' is just fundamentally silly, because you just can't apply RL scientific principles to inherently unscientific technobabble systems.

What you're attempting to do here is really to apply a double standard, you're applying one standard in order to claim my microprojectile idea is 'silly', and you're applying another entirely different standard in order to claim your technobabble ideas are 'scientific'. I almost cannot believe you are seriously trying to argue that my microprojectile idea is 'silly', yet that drivel about an 'Astral Plane' and 'hacking' spacetime is 'scientific'.

You sound bitter Al.  Critisizm is part of the Game of Life.  I got a sound trashing late spring of last year when I was developing the Lance Rifle for something I was writing... did that stop me?  No.

And incidently, you're also putting words in my mouth.  At no point did I call your idea silly.  If you want to take offense to my critisizm of your idea, come up with a better argument than I'm applying double standards.  We KNOW how to make flames in space.  A big difference from making a Phased Molecular Disruptor (how do you create an energy weapon that disrupts molecules?).

So instead of taking offense at what I'm trying not to turn into a...  pardon the pun 'Flame War'... why don't you answer the question?

The question being:  If you have a spray of fuel/oxidizer projectiles, how do you ignite them?  If they react on contact, how do you keep it from igniting untill you fire them?

I can think of a half a dozen ways, but it's not my weapon to develope.  All I'm asking is that you think your weapon through.  Is that so hard to ask?  Perhaps it's zirconium pellets mixed with ammonium percholate ignited by a high temperature heating element ring at the muzzle of the weapon... or something like that.  (Have to be a really hot ring though to cause ignition by radiation alone...  The other option is one of those laser forcefield things that cause stuff to burn when they hit/pass through them... you've seen the type.  But I think the equipment needed for that's a bit over the top for the muzzel of a spray gun.)


(Incidently, I think the idea of storing a flame materials mix like Z/AP in the hold is totally insane.  Since the fuel and oxidizer are pre-mixed, all it takes is an ignition source.  One stray hit and BOOM!!!!  The ship goes up like a fireworks factory.  Which is actually the problem with any chemical explosive material in a fight.  Though in space, stores that AREN'T mixed can be kept in a vaccume storage environment.)

[DarkSun]

You sound bitter Al.  Critisizm is part of the Game of Life.  I got a sound trashing late spring of last year when I was developing the Lance Rifle for something I was writing... did that stop me?  No.

I'm not bitter. I also appreciate constructive criticism.

And incidently, you're also putting words in my mouth.  At no point did I call your idea silly.

Alternatively, we can TRASH that idea as Just Plain Silly (JPS), and find something more effective.

Of course, perhaps there is a fundamental difference between 'JPS' and 'silly' that I did not see.

If you want to take offense to my critisizm of your idea, come up with a better argument than I'm applying double standards. We KNOW how to make flames in space.  A big difference from making a Phased Molecular Disruptor (how do you create an energy weapon that disrupts molecules?).

We DON'T know how to make flames in space, or at least not any flames resembling those in SF. And you were in fact applying double standards. You were insisting on applying rigorous modern scientific principles in evaluating my idea, but you were fine with applying completely nonscientific technobabble and using reasoning techniques from SB.com in evaluating other ideas, including ideas you had thought up.

So instead of taking offense at what I'm trying not to turn into a...  pardon the pun 'Flame War'... why don't you answer the question?

The question being:  If you have a spray of fuel/oxidizer projectiles, how do you ignite them?  If they react on contact, how do you keep it from igniting untill you fire them?

I can think of a half a dozen ways, but it's not my weapon to develope.  All I'm asking is that you think your weapon through.  Is that so hard to ask?  Perhaps it's zirconium pellets mixed with ammonium percholate ignited by a high temperature heating element ring at the muzzle of the weapon... or something like that.  (Have to be a really hot ring though to cause ignition by radiation alone...  The other option is one of those laser forcefield things that cause stuff to burn when they hit/pass through them... you've seen the type.  But I think the equipment needed for that's a bit over the top for the muzzel of a spray gun.)

I don't think this is turning into a flame war at all, although I have been considering splitting some of these posts into a separate thread so this thread remains neat.

As for the idea, I've already thought it through and explained it before. Am I going to actually attempt to reduce it to practice, into something that we could actually build in RL now? No. Because that's besides the point, since Stellar Frontier has never been and will not be about what can be done in RL today. (If it were, it would be incredibly boring, because it'd take months to just traverse the Sol System, and forget about colonizing.) Could my idea be built in RL now? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter, since it is as likely to work in RL as pretty much any of the other weapons and systems in SF.

(Incidently, I think the idea of storing a flame materials mix like Z/AP in the hold is totally insane.  Since the fuel and oxidizer are pre-mixed, all it takes is an ignition source.  One stray hit and BOOM!!!!  The ship goes up like a fireworks factory.  Which is actually the problem with any chemical explosive material in a fight.  Though in space, stores that AREN'T mixed can be kept in a vaccume storage environment.)

A similar risk applies if you carry any weapons beside energy weapons and massdrivers, really. Besides, if your shields and armor are down in SF, you're effectively dead anyway.

[Staker]

Ok... Chicas... no more arguing.

Fact: Fire can't live in Space
Fact: Flame I and II should be disabled.
Fact: New Weaps should be a challenge to everyone.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

I hate to break it to you about your fact there Staker...

But...  Fire, is PLASMA.  And there's plenty of plasma in space.

I can't get into this full tilt at the moment though.  I have to reconnect half the stuff on my desk because one of my main shelf towers came in.   (One more tower, and a some more shelves to go between them, and it'll be done.

[ChillFactor]

Now now boys, let's just try to make the new weapons a lot more fun now shall we?

BTW: Plasma can live in space.... expample? look tu the sky during the day... that bubble that goes from one side of the sky to the other is all warm tasty plasma

[CloakedKiller]

I'm confused. I've always pictured Flame I and II as a glorified aerosol can to a lighter effect.
That wouldn't fly in space... So what's going on with this plasma business?

Wasn't there an acid weapon or am I thinking of something else?

[DarkSun]

Well the entire thing began when ATC here began insisting on all Stellar Frontier systems being allowed by either rigorous RL science or technobabble. It was apparently determined that the aforementioned rigorous RL science standard would be applied to flames. ATC then claimed that if SF's flames were to adhere to said rigorous RL science, they would need to be comprised of plasma. I have been attempting to point out that: 1) SF's flames do not necessarily have to be comprised of plasma; 2) SF's flames most likely can't be rationalized to adhere to said rigorous RL science anyhow due to their inherent behavior as seen in-game; 3) there's no need for anything to adhere to said rigorous RL science anyway, especially when technobabble is being used to justify decidedly nonscientific exotic weapons.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Tigerclaw then proceded to note that flames ARE, by definition, made of plasma and provided a source as per standard rules of debating any given issue.

Thus, if they do not behave according to the rules of physics governing how flames and plasma behave, they are NOT 'Flames'... and must be something else entirely.

By name, SF notes them to be flames.  By visual, they appear as a spray of expanding high temperature substance that does significant damage in the game.  Behaving as an expanding gas and plasma cloud would when fired into a vaccume.

Please explain now, why it would be more cool, to use a convoluted, and overly complicated method to create a flame effect when simpler, perfectly acceptable scientific solution for the same thing ALREADY EXISTS.  Because when given the choice between the complicated, highly expensive method, and the equally effective but simple, cheaper method, both nature and defense contractors tend to agree that going with the cheaper, easier method would be better on the bottom line.

If I had presented the idea,TK99 AND SpaceBrotha would have raked my ass over hot coals on the principles alone.  Then Wild Goose would have probably ask me what the hell I was thinking for suggesting a more complex method than is really needed to get the job done.  And if I had posted that concept on Spacebattles, about half the military guys and engineers that bother to look at that particular topic would have strafed it to death... at some point, OrkKaptain would have made some kind of derogitory comment about my intelligence and capped it by calling me EnsignKittyMewl and it would have devolved into nothing more than the remainder of the topic being a sniper fight/flame war over something off topic with side orders of Spacemarines, Orks, and BOLOs before being trumped by the SHRIKE and stolen by Carmen Sandiego...  (Pity I can predict how threads operate there these days.) 

So really, compared to what I get to go through when I present an idea to my peers, having just me seriously review and break down your concept is a walk in the park.  If you present an idea, expect a critique.  If you can't aknowledge or can't handle a critique, well, that's not my issue. I can only harp on you a little for being as stubborn as I am, but I know how it feels.   I've learned to handle critiques, re-evaluate my idea, and redesign it as I need to if I really want it. 

I'm actually surprised that I haven't picked up more serious reviews of things I've put down around here.  I'm so used to having my ideas dissected and picked apart at the molecular level that the lack of serious discussion or minor nitpicking anywhere is really starting to get to me.  Probably why I'm persuing this argument so much.  It's a good refreshing debate.

Or is it simply one of those cases where my ideas resonate so well with where everyone would like to take SF, but can't really detail it themselves, that everyone's just latching on?


Either way, I told you I'd get to this in full.  Now that I've worked myself up nicely, I think I'll go relax and take my medicine.


Chillax yo!

[Hooters]

well why coulent it be like a klingons fart?  you know lights automatic when exposed to space and the stink alone would melt right thru a hull... imagine 500 klingons after bean gok sitting on the flame containment container.  when ready to fire.. oh heck.. what a mess..


i can just see that all over spacemans ship  LOL>. upps.. did i say that.. LOL>. just kidding honest >>>:-)

[ChillFactor]

That comment 'almost' made sense: You mean klingons sitting on the flame contaier? I mean, it's a forum and all, but stil, plz try to make a bit more sense... ty!

PS: ATC, stop using my pills!!!