These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Capsules are dangerous

First post
Author
Abon
Pandorum Research Incorporated
#61 - 2013-06-13 16:16:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Abon
double toast..damn forums What?
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#62 - 2013-06-13 16:19:50 UTC
Came expecting case for mounting hardpoints on pods, left disappointed.

Nice write-up though.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#63 - 2013-06-13 16:24:04 UTC
Abon wrote:
This is all you nerds need to calculate all the bumping. Lol

Those laws apply when the ship is not enclosed in a warp bubble and in normal space time.


But if you look at the way ships and objects collide, everything is always enclosed in a bubble. Shocked

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Baren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2013-06-13 16:27:26 UTC
Love it...
Abon
Pandorum Research Incorporated
#65 - 2013-06-13 16:28:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Abon
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Abon wrote:
This is all you nerds need to calculate all the bumping. Lol

Those laws apply when the ship is not enclosed in a warp bubble and in normal space time.


But if you look at the way ships and objects collide, everything is always enclosed in a bubble. Shocked


Haha very true! Lol

I think CCP should hire a theoretical physicist and let him work out all the necessary physical laws for the EVE universe.

Bear

Addendum: Wasn`t this once explained by the shields bumping/repelling each other and not the actual object hull. If so do the shields take away some of the kinetic energy of the bump and if yes by what percentage?! CCP we need that math guy....i demand bump safety mechanics for my crew! I will no longer pay up for all those broken bones not covered by my ship insurance!
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#66 - 2013-06-13 16:55:44 UTC
A Loki linked, 10MN MWD fitted, snake implanted overheating Claw can reach a speed of 19,575 m/s within 14.2s.

How does that compute?

For those of you who think that the MWD would negate some of the accelation because of the warping, that same ship with an AB fitted instead can reach 9,150m/s within 14.2s.

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed

Abon
Pandorum Research Incorporated
#67 - 2013-06-13 17:06:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Abon
Iris Bravemount wrote:
A Loki linked, 10MN MWD fitted, snake implanted overheating Claw can reach a speed of 19,575 m/s within 14.2s.

How does that compute?

For those of you who think that the MWD would negate some of the accelation because of the warping, that same ship with an AB fitted instead can reach 9,150m/s within 14.2s.


Indeed MWDs and ABs are something very specific. I did not think about them before...seems like we have a problem here. Or the pilots flying fast ships are really flat. Lol

The MWDs might produce some form on weak warp bubble to cope with the inertia..the AB on the other side..heh.
Arduemont
The State of War.
#68 - 2013-06-13 20:16:58 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
Although I am no physics major or anything, I am pretty sure there would be no g-force in a spaceships. Without an atmosphere or gravity holding us to a nearby object there is no g-force.

"G-force (with g from gravitational) is a measurement of acceleration felt as weight."

If your on a ship generating false gravity for practical purposes you wouldn't feel anything either because your weight is determined relative only to the ships interior environment so anything going on outside is irrelevant.

So, in short, no Gs. Sorry to spoil the fun.

(Also, there is a lot of terrible terrible physics in this thread).

Edit: Not sure that was clear enough. We only experience G-Force on earth because gravity dictates that our weight holds us to a certain spot. Moving fast enough creates the phenomenon where your body is being pulled from that spot forcefully. Without the gravity there and a relative surface to be pulled away from, you don't have a problem. This might still be a problem for no artificial gravity ships accelerating fast away from high mass planets whilst in very very low orbit.


I got a little bit of ridicule for this post. The G-Force people are talking about in this thread is technically "Specific Force", not g-force. G-force is the force acting on the body as a result of the acceleration caused by GRAVITY. Yea, those are traditionalist definitions, and it's basically just nit picking. I know it's only semantics, but my post wasn't incorrect, I just misconstrued exactly what everyone was getting at.

My bad.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Susurrus Synaesthesia
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#69 - 2013-06-13 20:58:03 UTC
hmm
Abon
Pandorum Research Incorporated
#70 - 2013-06-13 23:27:21 UTC
Nice thread, thanks to all participants! o7
Abon
Pandorum Research Incorporated
#71 - 2013-06-14 00:26:37 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
Arduemont wrote:
Although I am no physics major or anything, I am pretty sure there would be no g-force in a spaceships. Without an atmosphere or gravity holding us to a nearby object there is no g-force.

"G-force (with g from gravitational) is a measurement of acceleration felt as weight."

If your on a ship generating false gravity for practical purposes you wouldn't feel anything either because your weight is determined relative only to the ships interior environment so anything going on outside is irrelevant.

So, in short, no Gs. Sorry to spoil the fun.

(Also, there is a lot of terrible terrible physics in this thread).

Edit: Not sure that was clear enough. We only experience G-Force on earth because gravity dictates that our weight holds us to a certain spot. Moving fast enough creates the phenomenon where your body is being pulled from that spot forcefully. Without the gravity there and a relative surface to be pulled away from, you don't have a problem. This might still be a problem for no artificial gravity ships accelerating fast away from high mass planets whilst in very very low orbit.


I got a little bit of ridicule for this post. The G-Force people are talking about in this thread is technically "Specific Force", not g-force. G-force is the force acting on the body as a result of the acceleration caused by GRAVITY. Yea, those are traditionalist definitions, and it's basically just nit picking. I know it's only semantics, but my post wasn't incorrect, I just misconstrued exactly what everyone was getting at.

My bad.


This is basically correct, gravitation is counted as an inertia dampening force, it is only rather weak. (Gravitation is actually a very weak force in comparison to the other known natural forces like electromagnetism.) Point is G Force occurs due to mass and acceleration and your mass is always the same no matter if it is on earth or in space. So you will be just as flat up there as you will be down on earth if you hit the wall.

That was by the way why there was such a huge fuzz about the Higgs Boson since it is assumed that it defines the mass of an atom. If you could manipulate it you could theoretically lower or rise the mass of an object. This goes as far as to lowering an objects mass to 0 which would allow for a multitude of applications.

One of those would be lowering a starships mass to Zero which would allow for FTL speeds. No mass = no problems with E=mc2, also the energy levels required for propulsion would be close to nothing.

Sadly no real news showed up after its supposed discovery, i guess people are just too uninterested in those things or all the interesting data already vanished in some military lab for further studies.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#72 - 2013-06-14 06:26:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Kusum Fawn
Isnt "g" a unit of measure that describes an acceleration per unit mass?

Edit - I am going to have to check all this when im not as tired.
9150m/s -> 14.2 s

644.36 m/s acceleration or

65.707 g for 14.2 seconds.




Usually the explanation of "Inertial Dampeners" is used. Something which is also generally explained as "localized gravity generators which form micro gravity occurrences to negate acceleration forces" or some such .

Basically you decide to hit the ab iin the 100mn loki and go 644m/s in one direction yous smear yourself and anything not bolted down into paste on the front end of your thruster, the inertial dampener
(a) creates a gravity (or several) that draws you forward at the same rate as the acceleration is trying to wedge you into the seam of the rear bulkhead.
(b) negates all acceleration forces within the ships living areas .. some other how.

65 g of acceleration is still 65 g. most of the problems humans have with low increases in g's are not external, (shielding from air pressure, enclosed spaces) but within them, blood flow. your heart has to move blood that is trying to move opposite the direction of acceleration.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#73 - 2013-06-14 06:35:54 UTC
I didn't take the time to do the math (I am at work), but I believe you when you say the gf is sufficient to cause problems.

Faced with such overwhelming evidence, the only real explanation I can make is...

Magic.

Also:

Quote:
I'm pretty sure our ships have Initerial Stabilizers to help help minimize ge-forces, pods especially so.


If these work anything like Star Trek, they go offline if another ship so much as sneezes at you, or if someone in engineering flushes a toilet. I mean, pretty sure the most repeated phrase in the entire history of that continuity is "Inertial Dampeners are offline, Captain!".

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Savage Angel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2013-06-14 12:07:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Savage Angel
As our ships are never damaged by a collision even at high speeds, we must assume they are totally rigid bodies. That being the case, the forces experienced in a collision are insane.

F=MA
A = dV/t

So in a collision, let us consider the force happens over about .001 seconds as both bodies are totally rigid (insert sex joke here). The relative velocity on the ships go to zero over that time, so the formula becomes:

F = M( V/.001)

If both ships are moving at 100 m/s, that gives M(200/.001) or Mass x 200,000 m/s2

Plug in the average battleship mass in Kg, multiply by 0.1, and you will get an approximation of the total forces involved. Only use one mass, as the resulting force will be divided between ships.

Squish.



Edit: Anyone really think our inertial dampers or internal gravity generators can generate that much opposing force in 0.001 seconds?
Solaris Ecladia
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#75 - 2013-06-14 13:00:29 UTC
Speaking of bad physics and this thread, everybody here knows that einstein was wrong and theres things that go faster than light right?
Arduemont
The State of War.
#76 - 2013-06-14 13:39:17 UTC
Solaris Ecladia wrote:
Speaking of bad physics and this thread, everybody here knows that einstein was wrong and theres things that go faster than light right?


He wasn't wrong, and the only things that go faster than light have no mass, which is completely in line with what he said.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Solaris Ecladia
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2013-06-14 13:46:26 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
Solaris Ecladia wrote:
Speaking of bad physics and this thread, everybody here knows that einstein was wrong and theres things that go faster than light right?


He wasn't wrong, and the only things that go faster than light have no mass, which is completely in line with what he said.

Well....
They do. And they dont. With it being such a recent event that it was discovered anyways its really hard to state factually either way but for now it has been theorized that they both have mass and they do not have mass. And with the recent discovery of the higgs boson, rumors are going around that people are going to try to add (more?) mass to the particles to see if they maintain their speed or slow down or even accelerate.
Arduemont
The State of War.
#78 - 2013-06-14 17:57:26 UTC
Solaris Ecladia wrote:

Well....
They do. And they dont. With it being such a recent event that it was discovered anyways its really hard to state factually either way but for now it has been theorized that they both have mass and they do not have mass. And with the recent discovery of the higgs boson, rumors are going around that people are going to try to add (more?) mass to the particles to see if they maintain their speed or slow down or even accelerate.


So, what is this mystical particle that has mass and doesn't have mass then? Also, adding mass to a particle using a higgs (whether theoretically possible or not) wouldn't make Einstien wrong, and it certainly wouldn't make that particle able to move faster than light.

Your going to have to back this one up with sources I am afraid. "An incredible claim requires incredible evidence." and "A claim proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Lelira Cirim
Doomheim
#79 - 2013-06-15 16:44:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lelira Cirim
Chribba wrote:
Now for those of you that just went tl;dr and comment about how the pod goo protects you and such while that do minimize the effects on the force it doesn't take it away,... (also take note that for best protection we'd also need to breath liquid to prevent internal damage).
This is exactly why I'm disappointed that I am fully clothed and not dripping wet every time I go to captain's quarters.
CCP OWES US A SHOWER AND DRESSING SCENE FOR CONTINUITY! /thread

But to be a little bit more serious, my interpretation is always that all ships fit a capsule for the control centre. If a cinematic camera swoop takes us from outside the ship to "inside" the cockpit, I view that like seeing inside Iron Man's helmet. There's not actually all that extra room around Stark's head for the UI.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I mean, pretty sure the most repeated phrase in the entire history of that continuity is "Inertial Dampeners are offline, Captain!".
That's so they can shake the camera and everyone can roll off their chair drunk for excitement.Blink I recall in TNG they started having hydraulic sets so there was less "pretending".

Also this thread is making me remember a Bill Nye the Science Guy episode where he taught that centrifugal force doesn't actually exist because nothing pushes in a circular way, it's centripetal force that prevents you from flying off in a straight line. IdeaShocked

Do not actively tank my patience.

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#80 - 2013-06-16 19:38:15 UTC
Suddenly scientists *thumbs up*

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar