More Untidy Spinal Mount Observations

[kilemall]

A couple more big gun issues, one an observation, the other a 'wouldn't this make sense'.

* The Meson Screen works by introducing unanticipated decay into a meson burst shot. The stronger the screen factor, the better chance the meson gun doesn't make it through.

However, the screen has to be throwing in surprising values, if the meson gunner knows a factor 1 screen is always set to 1 second decay he can compensate and the adjusted shot will go off when and where he wants, the screen is then neutered.

So the meson screen has to be constantly and randomly altering it's decay interference force, the bigger the screen value the greater the range of potential decay factors.

That allows for all sorts of McGuffins, for instance getting the screen pattern transmitted to make an otherwise superdreadnaught vulnerable, perhaps tuning a screen down to a lower value range to conserve power after a hit, and if there are misses they would be like flak bursts going off on either side of the target ship, very dramatic look.

* The PA weapon is a gun accelerating neutrons into a date with destiny on an enemy's hull (preferably through it).

Nuclear Dampers work to reduce the strong nuclear force and cause nuclear missile warheads to shed too many neutrons to sustain a chain reaction.

So wouldn't Nuclear Dampers affect PAs, breaking up their neutron streams?

 

[whulorigan]

* The PA weapon is a gun accelerating neutrons into a date with destiny on an enemy's hull (preferably through it).

Nuclear Dampers work to reduce the strong nuclear force and cause nuclear missile warheads to shed too many neutrons to sustain a chain reaction.

So wouldn't Nuclear Dampers affect PAs, breaking up their neutron streams?

I am not aware that there is any text saying that a PA-weapon is a neutron beam. Neutral particles, yes, but not specifically neutrons.

The most logical candidate for a space-based PA-weapon would be neutral hydrogen atoms. Nuclear Dampers would have no effect on them.

 

[wbyrd]

A couple more big gun issues, one an observation, the other a 'wouldn't this make sense'.

* The Meson Screen works by introducing unanticipated decay into a meson burst shot. The stronger the screen factor, the better chance the meson gun doesn't make it through.

However, the screen has to be throwing in surprising values, if the meson gunner knows a factor 1 screen is always set to 1 second decay he can compensate and the adjusted shot will go off when and where he wants, the screen is then neutered.

So the meson screen has to be constantly and randomly altering it's decay interference force, the bigger the screen value the greater the range of potential decay factors.

That allows for all sorts of McGuffins, for instance getting the screen pattern transmitted to make an otherwise superdreadnaught vulnerable, perhaps tuning a screen down to a lower value range to conserve power after a hit, and if there are misses they would be like flak bursts going off on either side of the target ship, very dramatic look.

* The PA weapon is a gun accelerating neutrons into a date with destiny on an enemy's hull (preferably through it).

Nuclear Dampers work to reduce the strong nuclear force and cause nuclear missile warheads to shed too many neutrons to sustain a chain reaction.

So wouldn't Nuclear Dampers affect PAs, breaking up their neutron streams?

It would make for a good way to allow sensor and computer operators to have a role slightly more intgral to combat than just getting a sensor lock...being able to detect the pattern of a dampening field and perhaps anticipate the pattern allowing a meson weapon to be adjusted to negate the screen would definitely make those guys in the computer section more valuable.

If two ships could get within close proximity, perhaps setting your own screen to create a cancelling force then extending it to come int contact with the enemies screens nullifying them would be a possible acce up the sleeve move. Of course the ship would have to be specially modified to survive long enough to get into pint blank range and drop the enemies shields...

I am not aware that there is any text saying that a PA-weapon is a neutron beam. Neutral particles, yes, but not specifically neutrons.

The most logical candidate for a space-based PA-weapon would be neutral hydrogen atoms. Nuclear Dampers would have no effect on them.

if you had some way to excite the particles, and reintroduce a positive' or negative, charge into a particle then you could conceivably break up or redirect a neutral particle beam.

using gravity manipulation would be the most effective, if most complex means of shielding. If you created enough tiny points of intense gravity between the weapon and the target, each one having a slightly different intensity, then beams would be bounced around like a pinball as it passed through the field.

I have to think if you have enough skill at creating gravity fields, and the software to make the calculations and coordinate thousands of emitters it would be less taxing on a system than a black globe generator. after ll gravity is weaker than strong and weak nuclear forces.

 

[kilemall]

I am not aware that there is any text saying that a PA-weapon is a neutron beam. Neutral particles, yes, but not specifically neutrons.

The most logical candidate for a space-based PA-weapon would be neutral hydrogen atoms. Nuclear Dampers would have no effect on them.

Do you mean the protium isotope? That IS a tough nut to crack.

Although it certainly solves the 'ammo' question, don't have to look any further then the fuel tank.

Looking over the strong nuclear force, it occurs to me that my conception of what the meson screen may be off too. Could it be more like a particle screen enticing mesons to resume their normal household chores inside an atom?

 

[whulorigan]

Do you mean the protium isotope? That IS a tough nut to crack.

Although it certainly solves the 'ammo' question, don't have to look any further then the fuel tank.

Yes on both comments.

Looking over the strong nuclear force, it occurs to me that my conception of what the meson screen may be off too. Could it be more like a particle screen enticing mesons to resume their normal household chores inside an atom?

The problem is the degree of debate over exactly how a meson gun operates. According to strict canon, a meson gun fires a beam of mesons (variously described as either pi-neutral (π⁰) or π⁺ / π^-) and/or muons (µ^- or µ⁺), or possibly even more exotic heavier mesons types.

The general description of the meson screen in the text is that it causes premature decay of said mesons. Now, a π⁰ meson decays electromagnetically (and very quickly, as well), so a strong/weak nuclear force based screen would have no effect on a π⁰ meson. But both the π⁺ meson and the π^- meson (as well as the muon (µ^-) and antimuon (µ⁺)) decay via the weak nuclear interaction. So a screen based around manipulating the weak nuclear force could theoretically work for a meson gun as canonically described.

Of course, depending on exactly how and where the mesons/muons are actually created, you would potentially have the problem of charged particles in vacuum once again. However, my thought would be that the gun is producing "exotic atoms" of either {µ⁺/π^-} or {µ^-/π⁺}, thus avoiding the charge-repulsion issue.

 

[kilemall]

It occurs to me that a muon based meson gun would instead be effectively inciting fusion chain reactions with the ship's own fuel and equipment matter- reasonable/unreasonable interpretation?

 

[whulorigan]

It occurs to me that a muon based meson gun would instead be effectively inciting fusion chain reactions with the ship's own fuel and equipment matter- reasonable/unreasonable interpretation?

Not liklely.

To begin with, Fusion does not occur as a chain-reaction like Fission does - you need to externally keep the conditions conducive to Fusion, it does not "run away" once initiated.

Secondly, in the case of muonic fusion, there would be no damper-mediation in the fuel tank to stabilize the muons in order to maintain the fusion reaction. ^* The number of fusion events, relatively speaking, would probably be insignificant.

^*We have successfully performed muonic-catalyzed fusion in the laboratory for decades on Earth. The reason we do not currently have a practical [FONT=arial,helvetica]µCF power reactor is that we cannot produce muons quickly enough at reasonable power expenditure to utilize in the reaction before they decay back into electrons. Additionally, some of those muons bind with the alpha-particle fusion products instead of the Deuterium or Tritium reactants, further absorbing some of the muons out of the catalyzation process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

The useablilty of [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]µCF generation in Traveller is predicated upon damper-mediation of the reaction chamber to stabilize muon decay, thus significantly reducing the necessary production rate of muons for catalyzation purposes.
[/FONT]​

 

[kilemall]

Ya, that's now, not 'in the FUUUUUUUUUTURE', where the problem COULD be solved.

Begs the question, how much energy could a cloud of mesons really deliver if we are talking what is possible with what we know now.

 

[nobby-w]

Ya, that's now, not 'in the FUUUUUUUUUTURE', where the problem COULD be solved.

Begs the question, how much energy could a cloud of mesons really deliver if we are talking what is possible with what we know now.

The technology has been proposed for use in radiotherapy IRL (normally referred to as pions in the literature) but AFAIK nobody ever got as far as building a working prototype.

[Edit:] Actually, it has been tried.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/371782

And here's a fairly accessible article about the physics.

http://lss.fnal.gov/conf/C711204/p.33.pdf

 

[rancke]

As I understand it, none of the known particles, including the meson, would ever have the effect that meson gun mesons do. Clearly we must be talking about the particles discovered by Professon Stephen Meson and named after him. The particles that used to be called mesons must have been renamed. (To messons, perhaps? )


Hans

 

[kilemall]

Another untidy thought occurred- aren't PA guns effectively introducing a thrust vector since it is sending frac-C particles downrange, much like an ionic thruster?

For a barbette this is likely a small number, but have to think spinal PA is some serious reaction going on.

 

[whartung]

Another untidy thought occurred- aren't PA guns effectively introducing a thrust vector since it is sending frac-C particles downrange, much like an ionic thruster?

For a barbette this is likely a small number, but have to think spinal PA is some serious reaction going on.

Nothing a 1G+ drive can't compensate for without even blinking. Ionic thrusters are known to long term, steady micro-G thrust. Stick a 25 year nuclear power plant on the ship and plug an ionic thruster in to it, you get 25 years of micro-G thrust -- which adds up after awhile. Well, traveller does that with full G M-Drives.

So, any counter thrust a PA might belch out would be trivially compensated for.

 

[aramis]

Another untidy thought occurred- aren't PA guns effectively introducing a thrust vector since it is sending frac-C particles downrange, much like an ionic thruster?

For a barbette this is likely a small number, but have to think spinal PA is some serious reaction going on.

So also are Plasma and Fusion.

PA Energy dump isn't that much tho. maybe a few nanometers a second for an escort - less for a battleship
Plasma or fusion is more like a micrometer per second.