| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:09 pm Post subject: Re: The Difference Between Landspeeders and Airspeeders |
 |
|
| cynanbloodbane wrote: | | 1: Many land speeders are equipped with fusion or ion engines to make them go faster, and would allow for jumps for lack of a better term such as in the Episode 1 pod race. now this could be explained by giving the driver the ability to disengage the tractor drive and maneuver on momentum and stability thrusters. |
This was part of the original post: | crmcneill wrote: | | The impeller can provide thrust in any direction at relatively low speeds, but high velocities require the additional thrust of a fusion or ion engine. |
I won't mind expanding it to include landspeeders or speeder bikes, too.
| Quote: | | 2: (And this is the one that always gets me.) The use of apparent "landspeeders and speeder bikes" at altitude in the Coruscant scenes of all three prequels. This led me to suggest the legality issue of issuing land or air speeder registrations, but that seems like a "because I said so" answer in retrospect. My latest thought is that the propulsion/stabilization modules are interchangeable on some models of speeder depending on the market they are sold in. |
Yeah, that's a tough one. The most likely solution will be ret-conning certain vehicles' WEG stats to conform with what we see in the films/TV shows. Speeder bikes would likely have to be reconsidered as mini-airspeeders instead of mini-landspeeders (although both types could exist).
One possible in-game distinction between the two would be that, while airpseeders offer higher performance, the landspeeders, with their constant connection to the ground, offer stability. Put simply, you can treat a landspeeder like a car, but an airspeeder has to be treated like an aircraft or a helicopter (in that, while a landspeeder has the constant connection to the ground, an airspeeder can still crash like an aircraft it gets too close to the ground...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Theodrim
Lieutenant
Joined: 18 May 2014
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Yes, increasing altitude will require additional power. What you are failing to take into account is the degree of power already being expended to neutralize the pull of gravity on the speeder in the first place. |
This is categorically not the case. In fact, this is the complete opposite of what I am actually saying. My entire argument is based off the power already being expended to "neutralize" the pull of gravity on the speeder in the first place.
| Quote: | | In sum, you seem to be basing your theory entirely on distance above the ground dictating the required power output. |
Yes, this is why I keep making statements worded thus:
| Theodrim wrote: | | ...increasing in altitude with repulsors generates a positive feedback loop in that the further from a celestial object's center-of-mass (and therefore, "higher" in the gravity well), the less energy will be required to continue "climbing" the gravity well. |
| Quote: | | ...an assumption which is not supported anywhere in official material. |
Other than all that official material specifically stating landspeeders' maximum altitudes. Which is, incidentally enough, with what you're taking issue in the first place.
| Quote: | | However, the amount of energy required to move a rocket from ground level up to orbit will be comparable to the amount of energy required to make said rocket hover 1 meter off the launch pad for 1 hour. |
Citation please.
| Quote: | | Yes, additional power will be required to move from 1 meter up to 50 meters, but the only thing additional power will affect is how fast or slow it gets there, not whether or not it will get there at all. |
Assuming the vehicle, its engines, and power plant have that capacity in the first place.
Here's a real-world comparison to clarify at what I'm getting: if a go-kart's top speed is 10 mph, it doesn't matter whether it has the 1-gal. gas tank typical of go-karts, or if you hook it up to a 500-gal. reserve tank with a garden hose, it's still only going 10 mph.
| Quote: | | ...the fact that even landspeeders have the ability to vary in altitude from 0 to 1/2/3 meters... |
...from the ground, which you keep pointing out is irrelevant (remember, what is key here is proximity from a celestial object's CoM). Now, what you have to ask yourself here, is "is that variance in altitude a function of the repulsorlifts' own power, or a function of minute changes in ground level?". We, in the films, only ever see landspeeders, speeder bikes, and swoops used in relatively flat areas, and (I can't believe I'm about to point this out) when experiencing unexpected variance in altitude tend to go completely out of control, like for example the podrace scene.
| Quote: | | And what I'm trying to point out is that your objection has no real bearing on the technical issues involved with repulsorlifts. |
I'm pointing out the technical issues are moot in the face of practical concerns.
| Quote: | | Increasing or decreasing power will only affect the rate of increase or decrease... |
...and if its rate of increase as a function of available power and lift-generation is zero? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cynanbloodbane
Commander
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 410
Location: Cleveland, Go Tribe!
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Theodrim wrote: |
...and if its rate of increase as a function of available power and lift-generation is zero? |
Then the landspeeder plows into the road at the first incline greater than a few meters. that landspeeder manufacturer goes under and nobody ever uses that silly design again.
_________________
"Yes because killing the guy you always planned on usurping and killing anyways in order to save your own kid, totally atones for murdering a roomful of innocent trusting children." The Brain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Theodrim wrote: | | Other than all that official material specifically stating landspeeders' maximum altitudes. Which is, incidentally enough, with what you're taking issue in the first place. |
No, what I am taking issue with is a discrepancy between Star Wars' description of repulsorlift technology and the limits of that technology as expressed in the WEG rules. My proposal is an attempt to rectify that contradiction by introducing another reason why they must stay close to the ground (specifically, that they use proximity to the ground for locomotion, not lift)
Simple physics. If something weights 1,000 pounds, it will require the equivalent of 1,000 pounds of thrust/lift to counter that weight (more if it wants to bring it off the ground). A rocket does that with a blast of rocket fuel; a repulsorlift does it by negating gravity's pull. To accelerate that rocket upward, all you have to do is increase that thrust to 1,001 pounds and the rocket will slowly begin to creep upwards. Want it to go faster? Increase the thrust? But if all you want the rocket to do is hover a meter above the launch pad, it will require a continuous application of 1,000 pounds of thrust to keep it from dropping down to the ground. A 1,000 pound lanspeeder floating quietly just off the ground is still continuously expending the equivalent of 1,000 pounds of thrust, it just isn't doing it with all the flash and thunder of a rocket engine.
| Quote: | | Here's a real-world comparison to clarify at what I'm getting: if a go-kart's top speed is 10 mph, it doesn't matter whether it has the 1-gal. gas tank typical of go-karts, or if you hook it up to a 500-gal. reserve tank with a garden hose, it's still only going 10 mph. |
And that is a false analogy, because the key to the issue is not how fast it can go, but whether or not it had the power to move in the first place.
Picture a gravity well like a whirlpool, sucking anything in its reach in towards the center. If the whirlpool is sucking in at a speed of 10 mph, a boat moving 10 mph away from the whirlpool will appear to be holding the same position relative to the whirlpool. It will appear motionless, but needs a continuous application of 10 mph of velocity to do so. If the boat wishes to pull away from the whirlpool, it must speed up to faster than 10 mph, and vice versa if it wishes to get closer.
The same is true in a gravity field. We are all continuously being sucked down the whirlpool, with the only thing stopping us being the ground. We can walk around on that ground, experiencing gravity in the form of weight. However, if we wish to float above the ground, it requires some degree of counter-force to be continuously applied. For 1,000 pounds of weight to hover motionless in the air, resisting the pull of gravity, requires the continual application of 1,000 pounds of counter force, all so that it can appear motionless. That's what repulsorlifts do.
You keep presenting analogies based on a state of rest versus a state of motion. I keep trying to explain that a repulsorlift that is floating above the ground is in a perpetual state of motion, relative to gravity, even though that motion can not be perceived by the naked eye. Changing altitude is not a matter of going from rest to thrust, but a matter of going from thrust to more thrust / less thrust.
| Quote: | | ...from the ground, which you keep pointing out is irrelevant (remember, what is key here is proximity from a celestial object's CoM). |
That's what I've been saying all along, yet you keep insisting that a landspeeder should be restricted to a 2-meter band of altitude. If you tie that altitude band to distance from the center of mass, your vehicle will run into the ground the first time you try to drive up a hill. My original point has always been that, because repulsorlifts push against gravity, not the ground, basing their propulsion on ground proximity gives them a specific reason to stay close to the ground, even though the technical definition of a repulsorlift does not.
| Quote: | | We, in the films, only ever see landspeeders, speeder bikes, and swoops used in relatively flat areas, and (I can't believe I'm about to point this out) when experiencing unexpected variance in altitude tend to go completely out of control, like for example the podrace scene. |
Or maybe, since I did actually watch the films and take that into consideration, the pod racer, being a variant of a landspeeder, went out of control because it was too high in the air for its tractor field to function.
Again, the point here is not to rewrite the SWU canon, but to resolve two disparate aspects of the canon in a manner that fits with both the visual evidence and official statements about how the technology functions.
| Quote: | | I'm pointing out the technical issues are moot in the face of practical concerns.. |
The problem is tht your practical concerns are a confusing mish-mash of ideas that seem to change tracks between posts. Are you really arguing that a repulsorlift's lifting ability has nothing to do with proximity to the ground, but still requires proximity to the ground anyway?
| Quote: | | ...and if its rate of increase as a function of available power and lift-generation is zero? |
How did it get from zero meters up to 1 meter? If all it did was cancel weight, you'd have to stand next to it and lift on it to move it up in the air. Therefore, there must be some additional force available, above and beyond just that which is required to neutralize the vehicle's weight, which can cause it to rise up in the air, against the pull of gravity. This force is either feeding additional power to the repulsorlifts, or it is based on some other force to provide the movement and changes in altitude. My theory can be modified to fit with either one.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tetsuoh
Captain
Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Repulsorlift
OKAY..... so if you go by the above - repulsors - even though they create anti gravity work in opposition to a gravity well.
So its simple - the flight ceiling is then the point at which the repulsor is no long stabilized within said gravity well - like floating on water that has different levels, but the "water" level is determined by two factors - the strength of the gravity well, and of the repulsor.
The more power and better the repulsor the further it can push in opposition of the gravity until one reaches the outer limit of the technologies limitations or the gravity well's limits, which ever comes first.
which means landspeeders are cheap, airspeeders are not and often have better thrusters because they are further off the ground, AND they are still the same tech.
If you are NOT going by the above and instead by only what is presented in the movies as facts - then it doesn't matter anyway and you make it whatever you should see fit as it is intended as movie magic basically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cynanbloodbane
Commander
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 410
Location: Cleveland, Go Tribe!
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tetsuoh wrote: | http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Repulsorlift
OKAY..... so if you go by the above - repulsors - even though they create anti gravity work in opposition to a gravity well.
So its simple - the flight ceiling is then the point at which the repulsor is no long stabilized within said gravity well - like floating on water that has different levels, but the "water" level is determined by two factors - the strength of the gravity well, and of the repulsor.
The more power and better the repulsor the further it can push in opposition of the gravity until one reaches the outer limit of the technologies limitations or the gravity well's limits, which ever comes first.
which means landspeeders are cheap, airspeeders are not and often have better thrusters because they are further off the ground, AND they are still the same tech.
If you are NOT going by the above and instead by only what is presented in the movies as facts - then it doesn't matter anyway and you make it whatever you should see fit as it is intended as movie magic basically. |
There is no mention of repulsorlifts having a ceiling other than the upper limit of the gravity well in that entire article. I am going by the above AND what is presented in the films while trying to find a logical compromise that won't oppose previously established information.
_________________
"Yes because killing the guy you always planned on usurping and killing anyways in order to save your own kid, totally atones for murdering a roomful of innocent trusting children." The Brain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tetsuoh wrote: | | which means landspeeders are cheap, airspeeders are not and often have better thrusters because they are further off the ground, AND they are still the same tech. |
So, basically, you are just rephrasing the argument I've spend the last four pages refuting?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tetsuoh
Captain
Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
then by the movies luke had no reason to be so low in the family speeder while traveling - it would have been faster and far more effective to not be so low to the ground. And by the very same movies we are aware that he is NOT afraid of heights.
Then by WEG (monitored by lucasarts) we are told they have a flight ceiling.
| crmcneill wrote: | | tetsuoh wrote: | | which means landspeeders are cheap, airspeeders are not and often have better thrusters because they are further off the ground, AND they are still the same tech. |
So, basically, you are just rephrasing the argument I've spend the last four pages refuting? |
I had not fully read into the function of repulsors until reading that article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cynanbloodbane
Commander
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 410
Location: Cleveland, Go Tribe!
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tetsuoh wrote: | then by the movies luke had no reason to be so low in the family speeder while traveling - it would have been faster and far more effective to not be so low to the ground. And by the very same movies we are aware that he is NOT afraid of heights.
Then by WEG (monitored by lucasarts) we are told they have a flight ceiling.. |
Those points are not in dispute. We are trying to establish WHY the flight ceiling is there, in a way that is NOT contradictory to what is established. This leads to propulsion/stabilization systems NOT the repulsorlift system.
| tetsuoh wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | tetsuoh wrote: | | which means landspeeders are cheap, airspeeders are not and often have better thrusters because they are further off the ground, AND they are still the same tech. |
So, basically, you are just rephrasing the argument I've spend the last four pages refuting? |
I had not fully read into the function of repulsors until reading that article. |
Again, there is no mention of repulsorlifts having a ceiling other than the upper limit of the gravity well in that entire article.
_________________
"Yes because killing the guy you always planned on usurping and killing anyways in order to save your own kid, totally atones for murdering a roomful of innocent trusting children." The Brain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bobmalooga
Commander
Joined: 13 Sep 2010
Posts: 367
Location: The south...
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Paragraph 6, page http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Landspeeder
"Landspeeders should not be confused with airspeeders, which were capable of achieving much higher altitudes. Speeder bikes or swoops also functioned similarly to the landspeeder, though the latter functioned more along the lines of a low-altitude airspeeder. In general, all of the aforementioned vehicle types were collectively referred to simply as
speeders."
They also mention (paragraph 2...)
"Low-power repulsorlifts allowed most landspeeders to constantly hover one to two meters above the ground, both when stationary and while traveling. Turbine jet engines were responsible for propelling the vehicle forward. Some landspeeders also mounted weapons which were usually mounted either at the front of the craft or above and behind the pilot and/or passengers."
Similiarly
in Paragraph 1 of page http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Airspeeder
"Airspeeders were repulsorlift vehicles common throughout the galaxy. They were distinguished from landspeeders by a higher operating altitude and normally higher top speed. Sometimes they were also equipped with boosters that enabled them to achieve low planetary orbit for a short time. They were not designed for orbital flight, though they could attain such high altitude that they pushed the boundaries of atmosphere and space."
Maybe that will help someone's argument about the difference between the two...
_________________
No matter where you go, there you are... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bobmalooga wrote: | | "Low-power repulsorlifts allowed most landspeeders to constantly hover one to two meters above the ground, both when stationary and while traveling. Turbine jet engines were responsible for propelling the vehicle forward. |
Thanks for the research, but I am very hesitant to take Wookieepedia's word for anything that I can't independently verify. For one thing, not all landspeeders use jet turbines to generate thrust. Several examples come to mind (the personnel movers at the Rebel Base in ANH and ESB, the Trade Federation's tanks and APCs in TPM). Now, if someone were to specify that landspeeders use jet turbines to generate additional thrust to achieve higher speeds, I'd accept it (the non-turbine equipped vehicles I mentioned above all have relatively low speeds compared to other landspeeders). In fact, that is how WEG's Star Wars Sourcebook actually describes them. And finally, there is no reference cited on Wookieepedia's statement that landspeeders run off "low-power" repulsorlifts. Without a source, it could just as easily be alliteration by whoever wrote the article.
Now, I stand by my previous statements about how a repulsorlift would function if it cancelled all of a vehicle's weight. However, as a compromise concept, perhaps "low-powered" repulsorlifts only cancel out some of the vehicle's weight, thus requiring a tractor field to both keep the vehicle off the ground and provide propulsion. If said vehicle suddenly finds itself too high up in the air, it drops until the tractor field comes into contact with the ground / surface again. If it drops from high enough, it can actually push through the tractor field and strike the ground.
Airspeeders, on the other hand, with "high-powered" repulsorlifts, completely cancel out the pull of gravity, leaving them floating weightless, with no upward altitude limit save for the crew's life support requirements.
The distinction, therefore, between "low-powered" and "high-powered" repulsorlifts is not one of the repulsorlifts being better or more powerful, but rather, an intentional design in which high or low identifies whether or not the repulsorlifts support some of the vehicle's weight or all of it.
There is actually precedence for this in X-Wing: Wraith Squadron, where the drives of the repulsorlift ore haulers used in pages 90-94 are described as being equipped with "repulsorlift fields" that push against the ground. Normally, that would end the argument right there, but since the establishment of how repulsorlifts work is further up the hierarchy of canon than the X-Wing novels, it gets cancelled out (although, the only canon contradiction is that the field is a repulsorlift, so everything but the name is legit).
However, that does not mean that a field that pushes against the ground as a component of a repulsorlift drive is out of the question, and is, indeed, very similar to what I originally proposed, and almost identical to the compromise I posted above. Indeed, "repulsorlift field" and "repulsorlift drive" could both be technically inaccurate terms that have entered popular use in the SWU, in that, while they themselves are not technically repulsorlifts, they are essential components of actual repulsorlift drive systems. As such, the being on the street in the SWU may call it a repulsorlift field, even though it isn't, but anyone else will know exactly what he's talking about.
And in addition, as cynanbloodbane pointed out, there would be need for a stabilization system to coordinate both the repulsorlifts and the tractor field on landspeeders and the repulsorlift & impeller system on airspeeders. In fact, the stabilizer system could actually use the pull of gravity as a gyroscope, using the direction of the field to always know which direction is "down" (which could be part of the reason such drives are called repulsorlifts: the essential nature of the repulsorlift to the drive's stabilization and guidance systems). Turbine thrusters would also be tied in to provide additional speed, with ion afterburners being used on airspeeders and swoops to get really fast.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Theodrim
Lieutenant
Joined: 18 May 2014
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Simple physics. If something weights 1,000 pounds, it will require the equivalent of 1,000 pounds of thrust/lift to counter that weight (more if it wants to bring it off the ground). A rocket does that with a blast of rocket fuel; a repulsorlift does it by negating gravity's pull. |
Except it doesn't, as has already been clarified -- often enough by yourself -- this is not the case. Repulsorlifts use gravity wells by some unexplained physical phenomenon to generate lift. They don't negate the effects of gravity. Simply put, this isn't Mass Effect.
| Quote: | ...Picture a gravity well like a whirlpool, sucking anything in its reach in towards the center. If the whirlpool is sucking in at a speed of 10 mph, a boat moving 10 mph away from the whirlpool will appear to be holding the same position relative to the whirlpool. It will appear motionless, but needs a continuous application of 10 mph of velocity to do so. If the boat wishes to pull away from the whirlpool, it must speed up to faster than 10 mph, and vice versa if it wishes to get closer.
The same is true in a gravity field. We are all continuously being sucked down the whirlpool, with the only thing stopping us being the ground. We can walk around on that ground, experiencing gravity in the form of weight. However, if we wish to float above the ground, it requires some degree of counter-force to be continuously applied. For 1,000 pounds of weight to hover motionless in the air, resisting the pull of gravity, requires the continual application of 1,000 pounds of counter force, all so that it can appear motionless. That's what repulsorlifts do... |
"...unless acted upon by an unbalanced force". In this case the force of gravity and the lifting force are in equilibrium, and therefore are balanced; and relative to the gravity well's center-of-mass indeed, that vehicle is at rest. There is no such thing as a state of "absolute" rest, since even if that repulsorlift vehicle is at rest relative to the gravity well's CoM, that celestial object is still in orbit around a star, which in turn is in orbit around the galaxy's center-of-mass, and the entire freaking galaxy is tearassing through the known universe which is constantly in a state of expansion. This is a particularly absurd point of yours.
| Quote: | | If you tie that altitude band to distance from the center of mass, your vehicle will run into the ground the first time you try to drive up a hill. |
Gee, maybe that's why Anakin had to use his podracer's thrusters to get back on the otherwise completely flat track.
| Quote: | | ...basing their propulsion on ground proximity gives them a specific reason to stay close to the ground, even though the technical definition of a repulsorlift does not. |
That is fine, but you're also approaching this as if this is the only possible reason this might be the case. I'm saying that no, it isn't.
| Quote: | | Again, the point here is not to rewrite the SWU canon... |
...but you'll power through it anyway.
| Quote: | | The problem is tht your practical concerns are a confusing mish-mash of ideas that seem to change tracks between posts. |
With respect, reading what I'm actually writing instead of what you want me to write might help.
| Quote: | | Therefore, there must be some additional force available, above and beyond just that which is required to neutralize the vehicle's weight, which can cause it to rise up in the air, against the pull of gravity. |
...or, y'know, it might just have maneuvering thrusters or some form of onboard RCS. For someone so insistent there must be some secondary form of lateral propulsion (which should be a no-brainer given the very first landspeeder we ever see in the films has three turbine engines for lateral propulsion), you've been awfully resistant to the idea there must be secondary forms of vertical propulsion, well outside "tractor beams" even though that's not how tractors actually work in the SWU. Just saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cynanbloodbane
Commander
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 410
Location: Cleveland, Go Tribe!
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Theodrim wrote: | | you've been awfully resistant to the idea there must be secondary forms of vertical propulsion, well outside "tractor beams" even though that's not how tractors actually work in the SWU. [i]Just/i] saying. |
Actually, that is exactly how they work. Tractor beams use the inertia or mass of the larger object to effect the trajectory of a smaller, reguardless of which possess the tractor beam. Speeder is small object, chunk of planets crust dead ahead is big object. Speeder trajectory alters forward. 
_________________
"Yes because killing the guy you always planned on usurping and killing anyways in order to save your own kid, totally atones for murdering a roomful of innocent trusting children." The Brain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Theodrim wrote: | | Except it doesn't, as has already been clarified -- often enough by yourself -- this is not the case. Repulsorlifts use gravity wells by some unexplained physical phenomenon to generate lift. They don't negate the effects of gravity. |
So, if gravity is negated by application of lift, it wasn't actually negated? Are you really going to argue that the same effect is not achieved just because different terminology was used to describe it?
| Quote: | | In this case the force of gravity and the lifting force are in equilibrium, and therefore are balanced; and relative to the gravity well's center-of-mass indeed, that vehicle is at rest. |
No, actually, it isn't. Here is a quote from Wookieepedia: | Quote: | | Repulsorlifts used minimal power and were reliable enough to be utilized continuously. |
They use minimal power, but they still use power. That minimal power use is one of the reasons for their popularity, but nevertheless, a repulsorlift that is not resting on the ground is still expending energy to remain off the ground.
| Quote: | | There is no such thing as a state of "absolute" rest, since even if that repulsorlift vehicle is at rest relative to the gravity well's CoM, that celestial object is still in orbit around a star, which in turn is in orbit around the galaxy's center-of-mass, and the entire freaking galaxy is tearassing through the known universe which is constantly in a state of expansion. |
If you feel the need to be a literalist, there are all kinds of things about the SWU that will not make sense to you. My point was that you were arguing that a repulsorlift hovering off the ground was, based on your examples, not expending energy to do so, and was therefore at rest. Per Wookieepedia, this is not the case.
| Quote: | | Gee, maybe that's why Anakin had to use his podracer's thrusters to get back on the otherwise completely flat track. |
Oh, completely flat, was it? Did you do the surveying work for that track to verify it? Don't forget about the tanks and MTTs who had to climb up and over a hill before battling the Gungans. Good thing they had repulsorlifts that allowed them to increase altitude relative to the gravity well to clear that hill.
| Quote: | | That is fine, but you're also approaching this as if this is the only possible reason this might be the case. I'm saying that no, it isn't. |
And if you had a reason that wasn't some weird contradiction of repulsorlifts being able to push against a gravity field, but only by using 100% power, and only so long as they don't try to climb too high off the ground that they aren't actually pushing against anyway, I might be inclined to listen.
| Quote: | | With respect, reading what I'm actually writing instead of what you want me to write might help. |
Hello, pot, have you met kettle?
| Quote: | | For someone so insistent there must be some secondary form of lateral propulsion (which should be a no-brainer given the very first landspeeder we ever see in the films has three turbine engines for lateral propulsion), you've been awfully resistant to the idea there must be secondary forms of vertical propulsion, well outside "tractor beams" even though that's not how tractors actually work in the SWU. Just saying. |
And someone who wasn't so emotionally invested in proving me wrong might have been able to accept the appeal of the efficiency of a device that can allow a vehicle to both maintain altitude and alter it by the same method.
As for alternate methods of propulsion, the landspeeder description in the Star Wars Sourcebook mentions those three turbines as being present to provide additional speed. I believe I mentioned in my original post that airspeeders would use something similar, and since an official source makes it clear that landspeeders can do it to, it is an easy conceptual expansion to make.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
And, after due reflection, I think I'm going to decline to participate any further in this argument. Not that I think you are right, Theodrim, but at this point, neither of us is going to convince the other to see our point of view, so I'm moving on to other things. Last word's all yours; I don't really care anymore.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
