techno geek question, acceleration vs speed

>> A big semi with a full load may have trouble with acceration but drop the
>>trailer and how fast can one move?
>

not all that much faster as the transmission gearing pretty much hoses
them as go fast machines.
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

After a Computer crash and the demise of civilization, it was learned
Brian McDonald <Brian_knowspam.McDonald RemoveThis @shaw.ca> wrote on Sat, 24 Nov
2007 19:02:03 GMT in alt.books.david-weber :
>
>
>>> A big semi with a full load may have trouble with acceration but drop the
>>>trailer and how fast can one move?
>>
>
>not all that much faster as the transmission gearing pretty much hoses
>them as go fast machines.

But they can go further on a tank of fuel without the trailer. Of
course, stopping can be a thrill, as brakes designed to handle several
tons don't have that weight to factor in.
--
pyotr filipivich
The two oldest cliches in the book are "The Good Old Days were
better." and "After all, these are Modern TImes."
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

On Nov 24, 5:09 am, Don Sample <dsam....RemoveThis@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <tnnfk3tmoaci8826s6vuocg8l6e13ef....RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
> pyotr filipivich <ph....RemoveThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but "deowll" <deo....RemoveThis@bellsouth.net>
> > wrote on (according to the old calendar) 16 May 2007
> > alt.books.david-weber :
>
> > >Without friction or some such to slow them down a HH universe merchant ship
> > >should be able to haul butt much faster than when a lot more mass. Of course
> > >this isn't the way they normally travel. Empty merchant ships don't make
> > >much money.
>
> The maximum acceleration is governed by how good the ship's inertial
> compensator is, not the ship's mass. Lightening the ship by dumping
> cargo doesn't do anything to make the compensator work better.
>
>

Part of the problem is that impellers cannot work in the way that they
are described. Another part of the problem is that a starship's
tonnage is not its mass, but is actually a continuance of the much
older rating system of tunnage-- how many large, sort-of-standard
barrels (tuns) can you put in the hold. In other words, the tonnage
of a ship is a function of its volume. A helium baloon the size of a
superdreadnaut will not have any better acceleration than a
superdreadnaut, all other factors being equal.

The established fact that the acceleration compensation is limited by
the volume of accelerated ship infers a potential explanation that can
replace the one offered in the books and produce the same observed
phenomena is that the job of the acceleration compensator is to make
sure that the gravitic field that propels the vessel has the same
value at all points in the vessel. A small vessel is easier to
compensate simply by the fact that the flat zone of the gravitic field
does not need to be very large. Missiles, being very small can, have
huge accelerations.

We need to add some details to flesh out compensator/impeller
interactions, but these are tweaks to make it fit with the novels.
The impeller field fluctuates, so a static compensation will not do,
and the fluctuations increase with desired level of thrust.
Compensator failures result in the gravitic field not being constant
thoughout the ship. As the ship is rigid (to a point) minor failures
that do not actually tear the ship apart only cause all loose objects
to accelerate, relative to the ship, by the difference between the
average acceleration felt by the ship and the acceleration at the
object's current location. In other words, a ***minor*** failure can
turn the ship into a "paint mixer of doom". Anything worse will
actually break the vessel up. There may even be vacsuited survivors
from a breakup, if the fusion reactors can scram fast enough. Worst
case failures either attempt to collapse the ship into a disk, or pull
the ship, and any of its contents, into a thread. I say attempt, as
the impellers, and their power sources, are also subjected to these
stressed, so the wedge will be struck before the event is complete. I
suspect that really severe compensator failures are visibly
indistinguishable from grav pinched fusion bottle failures.
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

rlbell.nsuid.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> Another part of the problem is that a starship's
> tonnage is not its mass, but is actually a continuance of the much
> older rating system of tunnage-- how many large, sort-of-standard
> barrels (tuns) can you put in the hold. In other words, the tonnage
> of a ship is a function of its volume. A helium baloon the size of a
> superdreadnaut will not have any better acceleration than a
> superdreadnaut, all other factors being equal.

Does Weber say he is measuring them that way in one of the info dumps?

Cargo ships of the future may well continue the tunnage rating system
for advertising, insurance, taxes, and licensing purposes, it's just not
all that relevant to the series. I made the assumption that a military
historian would have gone with the present method of measuring military
hulls: displacement.
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

In article <QoidnR6Xd9zxEczanZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d.DeleteThis@scnresearch.com>,
Offbreed <offbreed_106.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> rlbell.nsuid.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
> > Another part of the problem is that a starship's
> > tonnage is not its mass, but is actually a continuance of the much
> > older rating system of tunnage-- how many large, sort-of-standard
> > barrels (tuns) can you put in the hold. In other words, the tonnage
> > of a ship is a function of its volume. A helium baloon the size of a
> > superdreadnaut will not have any better acceleration than a
> > superdreadnaut, all other factors being equal.
>
> Does Weber say he is measuring them that way in one of the info dumps?
>
> Cargo ships of the future may well continue the tunnage rating system
> for advertising, insurance, taxes, and licensing purposes, it's just not
> all that relevant to the series. I made the assumption that a military
> historian would have gone with the present method of measuring military
> hulls: displacement.

Weber is quite specific in many places that the tonnage of a ship refers
to its mass. For example, in "Short Victorious War" we have:

HMS <i>Fearless</i> had massed only three hundred thousand tons.

<i>Nike</i> massed 879,000 tons.

In Echoes of Honor we have:

HMS <i>Minotaur</i> ... massed almost exactly six million tons.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

rlbell.nsuid.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 24, 5:09 am, Don Sample <dsam....RemoveThis@synapse.net> wrote:
> > In article <tnnfk3tmoaci8826s6vuocg8l6e13ef....RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
> > pyotr filipivich <ph....RemoveThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but "deowll" <deo....RemoveThis@bellsouth.net>
> > > wrote on (according to the old calendar) 16 May 2007
> > > alt.books.david-weber :
> >
> > > >Without friction or some such to slow them down a HH universe merchant ship
> > > >should be able to haul butt much faster than when a lot more mass. Of course
> > > >this isn't the way they normally travel. Empty merchant ships don't make
> > > >much money.
> >
> > The maximum acceleration is governed by how good the ship's inertial
> > compensator is, not the ship's mass. Lightening the ship by dumping
> > cargo doesn't do anything to make the compensator work better.
> >
> >
>
> Part of the problem is that impellers cannot work in the way that they
> are described. Another part of the problem is that a starship's
> tonnage is not its mass, but is actually a continuance of the much
> older rating system of tunnage-- how many large, sort-of-standard
> barrels (tuns) can you put in the hold. In other words, the tonnage
> of a ship is a function of its volume. A helium baloon the size of a
> superdreadnaut will not have any better acceleration than a
> superdreadnaut, all other factors being equal.
>
> The established fact that the acceleration compensation is limited by
> the volume of accelerated ship infers a potential explanation that can
> replace the one offered in the books and produce the same observed
> phenomena is that the job of the acceleration compensator is to make
> sure that the gravitic field that propels the vessel has the same
> value at all points in the vessel. A small vessel is easier to
> compensate simply by the fact that the flat zone of the gravitic field
> does not need to be very large. Missiles, being very small can, have
> huge accelerations.
>
> We need to add some details to flesh out compensator/impeller
> interactions, but these are tweaks to make it fit with the novels.
> The impeller field fluctuates, so a static compensation will not do,
> and the fluctuations increase with desired level of thrust.
> Compensator failures result in the gravitic field not being constant
> thoughout the ship. As the ship is rigid (to a point) minor failures
> that do not actually tear the ship apart only cause all loose objects
> to accelerate, relative to the ship, by the difference between the
> average acceleration felt by the ship and the acceleration at the
> object's current location. In other words, a ***minor*** failure can
> turn the ship into a "paint mixer of doom". Anything worse will
> actually break the vessel up. There may even be vacsuited survivors
> from a breakup, if the fusion reactors can scram fast enough. Worst
> case failures either attempt to collapse the ship into a disk, or pull
> the ship, and any of its contents, into a thread. I say attempt, as
> the impellers, and their power sources, are also subjected to these
> stressed, so the wedge will be struck before the event is complete. I
> suspect that really severe compensator failures are visibly
> indistinguishable from grav pinched fusion bottle failures.

If I remember correctly mass does have some effect, but it is
minimal.
From what I have read there are three systems that compensate, the
wedge, the compensator, and the artificial gravity systems. Missiles
have only the wedge so there drives have been tweaked to maximize this
and built strong to take the rest of the Gs, and beta squared-node
tech comes from applying missile drive tech to ships.
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

On Dec 1, 11:13 pm, wendal <aeho... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> rlbell.ns... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 5:09 am, Don Sample <dsam... DeleteThis @synapse.net> wrote:
> > > In article <tnnfk3tmoaci8826s6vuocg8l6e13ef... DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
> > > pyotr filipivich <ph... DeleteThis @mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but "deowll" <deo... DeleteThis @bellsouth.net>
> > > > wrote on (according to the old calendar) 16 May 2007
> > > > alt.books.david-weber :
>
> > > > >Without friction or some such to slow them down a HH universe merchant ship
> > > > >should be able to haul butt much faster than when a lot more mass. Of course
> > > > >this isn't the way they normally travel. Empty merchant ships don't make
> > > > >much money.
>
> > > The maximum acceleration is governed by how good the ship's inertial
> > > compensator is, not the ship's mass. Lightening the ship by dumping
> > > cargo doesn't do anything to make the compensator work better.
>
> > Part of the problem is that impellers cannot work in the way that they
> > are described. Another part of the problem is that a starship's
> > tonnage is not its mass, but is actually a continuance of the much
> > older rating system of tunnage-- how many large, sort-of-standard
> > barrels (tuns) can you put in the hold. In other words, the tonnage
> > of a ship is a function of its volume. A helium baloon the size of a
> > superdreadnaut will not have any better acceleration than a
> > superdreadnaut, all other factors being equal.
>
> > The established fact that the acceleration compensation is limited by
> > the volume of accelerated ship infers a potential explanation that can
> > replace the one offered in the books and produce the same observed
> > phenomena is that the job of the acceleration compensator is to make
> > sure that the gravitic field that propels the vessel has the same
> > value at all points in the vessel. A small vessel is easier to
> > compensate simply by the fact that the flat zone of the gravitic field
> > does not need to be very large. Missiles, being very small can, have
> > huge accelerations.
>
> > We need to add some details to flesh out compensator/impeller
> > interactions, but these are tweaks to make it fit with the novels.
> > The impeller field fluctuates, so a static compensation will not do,
> > and the fluctuations increase with desired level of thrust.
> > Compensator failures result in the gravitic field not being constant
> > thoughout the ship. As the ship is rigid (to a point) minor failures
> > that do not actually tear the ship apart only cause all loose objects
> > to accelerate, relative to the ship, by the difference between the
> > average acceleration felt by the ship and the acceleration at the
> > object's current location. In other words, a ***minor*** failure can
> > turn the ship into a "paint mixer of doom". Anything worse will
> > actually break the vessel up. There may even be vacsuited survivors
> > from a breakup, if the fusion reactors can scram fast enough. Worst
> > case failures either attempt to collapse the ship into a disk, or pull
> > the ship, and any of its contents, into a thread. I say attempt, as
> > the impellers, and their power sources, are also subjected to these
> > stressed, so the wedge will be struck before the event is complete. I
> > suspect that really severe compensator failures are visibly
> > indistinguishable from grav pinched fusion bottle failures.
>
> If I remember correctly mass does have some effect, but it is
> minimal.
> From what I have read there are three systems that compensate, the
> wedge, the compensator, and the artificial gravity systems. Missiles
> have only the wedge so there drives have been tweaked to maximize this
> and built strong to take the rest of the Gs, and beta squared-node
> tech comes from applying missile drive tech to ships.

Missiles have to have compensators. The missile body may be strong
enough to withstand a significant fraction of its acceleration
(although, I doubt it), but a lot of the other missile components
(power supply, sensors, other electronics, and warhead) may have
requirements that compromise their compressive strength. The guide
rods for the bomb-pumped laser have to be long, thin, and straight.
Fitting them in the smallest possible missile body means that, as far
as the acceleration is concerned, they are stood on end (the diagram
is in either the hardcover of Ashes of Victory, or War of Honor).
Bracing the rods is a serious issue, as the bracing shouldn't conduct
and cannot creep under stress. Conductive braces have to be placed in
correct relation to each other, or some fraction of the beam (between
0 and 1) will not be projected. The precision needed to get it right
is a fraction of the wavelength. For x-rays, this is on the order of
nanometers, so a rod with conducting braces needs to be kept at a
precise temperature. I am not privy to the secret of nuclear bomb
manufacture, but I suspect that they had enough trouble making them
explode after millisecond long boosts of only a couple thousand g's .

My main gripe about the acceleration compensators is that if the wedge
can accelerate all masses within a vessel at the same rate, they are
superfluous. If acceleration compensators are needed, they do not
just work on objects within the hull, they also act on the hull
itself . Otherwise, going through a door becomes rather unsettling,
as it involves passing through an interface between two compensated
regions. In Honor Among Enemies, I believe that the Wayfarer's
problem, after the final battle, is that, although the wedge and
acceleration compensators are still functional, the hull is too badly
damaged to make way under power-- a rather absurd explanation(I will
be happy to be corrected about this). If the compensator works, the
ship will not fall apart, even if made of soggy tissue paper (it may
not remain pressurised, but it will not be pulled apart by the
acceleration).
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 00:49:47 -0800 (PST), an orbiting mind-control
laser made "rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com" <rlbell.nsuid.DeleteThis@gmail.com> write:

>My main gripe about the acceleration compensators is that if the wedge
>can accelerate all masses within a vessel at the same rate, they are
>superfluous. If acceleration compensators are needed, they do not
>just work on objects within the hull, they also act on the hull
>itself . Otherwise, going through a door becomes rather unsettling,
>as it involves passing through an interface between two compensated
>regions. In Honor Among Enemies, I believe that the Wayfarer's
>problem, after the final battle, is that, although the wedge and
>acceleration compensators are still functional, the hull is too badly
>damaged to make way under power-- a rather absurd explanation(I will
>be happy to be corrected about this). If the compensator works, the
>ship will not fall apart, even if made of soggy tissue paper (it may
>not remain pressurised, but it will not be pulled apart by the
>acceleration).


The wedge _doesn't_ accelerate all objects within the 'pocket'.
The acceleration forces are coupled to the ship through the node
rings. (You can then argue that that simply creates new problems,
because the ship's structure must then be able to maintain integrity
under the stresses of hundreds of gs, but _that_ is also why
_Wayfarer's_ damaged hull prevented safe powered operation.)

The _inertial compensator_ is what causes all objects within its
field volume to be rendered in free-fall.

(I suppose you can then argue that with a running compensator,
then the effect of the acceleration forces upon the node rings should
be relieved, as well.)


My take on the inertial compensator limits has always been that of
the three known constraints to its maximum efficiency (mass, volume
cross-section area and wedge-strength), David has always stressed mass
as the more important factor, whereas cross-section should probably be
more important, given the loaded/unloaded acceleration discrepancy.

Another point to remember is that when a ship's mass increased,
you're also changing the other two factors upon which the max accel
are dependant (a bigger ship would tend to have a larger cross-section
while a bigger ship would also tend to have a more powerful drive
system), so all of the factors scale by different amounts which all
interact with unknown relationships.


-JPB
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

In article <95n5l397kf4gbreq75ratg1p8dkl8jh443.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
Dahak <Dahak_II.DeleteThis@theXOUTfifthimperium.com.invalid> wrote:

> The wedge _doesn't_ accelerate all objects within the 'pocket'.
> The acceleration forces are coupled to the ship through the node
> rings. (You can then argue that that simply creates new problems,
> because the ship's structure must then be able to maintain integrity
> under the stresses of hundreds of gs, but _that_ is also why
> _Wayfarer's_ damaged hull prevented safe powered operation.)

Then why does Weber make such a big deal about being able to tow pods
*within* the wedge not affecting a ship's acceleration? Honor and the
Peeps use that trick a few times to hide the fact that they have pods in
tow in some of the earlier books.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

rlbell.nsuid.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote

> > wedge, the compensator, and the artificial gravity systems.
Missiles
> > have only the wedge so there drives have been tweaked to maximize
this
> > and built strong to take the rest of the Gs, and beta squared-node
> > tech comes from applying missile drive tech to ships.
>
> Missiles have to have compensators. The missile body may be strong
> enough to withstand a significant fraction of its acceleration
> (although, I doubt it), but a lot of the other missile components
> (power supply, sensors, other electronics, and warhead) may have
> requirements that compromise their compressive strength. The guide
> rods for the bomb-pumped laser have to be long, thin, and straight.
> Fitting them in the smallest possible missile body means that, as far
> as the acceleration is concerned, they are stood on end (the diagram
> is in either the hardcover of Ashes of Victory, or War of Honor).
> Bracing the rods is a serious issue, as the bracing shouldn't conduct
> and cannot creep under stress. Conductive braces have to be placed
in
> correct relation to each other, or some fraction of the beam (between
> 0 and 1) will not be projected. The precision needed to get it right
> is a fraction of the wavelength. For x-rays, this is on the order of
> nanometers, so a rod with conducting braces needs to be kept at a
> precise temperature. I am not privy to the secret of nuclear bomb
> manufacture, but I suspect that they had enough trouble making them
> explode after millisecond long boosts of only a couple thousand g's .

Interesting points. Whether they are good might require the expertise
of a X-ray laser designer. Given temperature variations and such I
don't think a laser rod or any material object can be made accurate to
a fraction of a X-ray wavelength OTOH the wavelength spread of the
pumping radiation from the nuclear bomb may be sufficient, given this
is not an burst not an ordinary laser and the rods will be destroyed
within nanoseconds, quicker than radiation can traverse the full length
of the rods.

> My main gripe about the acceleration compensators is that if the
wedge
> can accelerate all masses within a vessel at the same rate, they are
> superfluous. If acceleration compensators are needed, they do not
> just work on objects within the hull, they also act on the hull
> itself . Otherwise, going through a door becomes rather unsettling,
> as it involves passing through an interface between two compensated
> regions. In Honor Among Enemies, I believe that the Wayfarer's
> problem, after the final battle, is that, although the wedge and
> acceleration compensators are still functional, the hull is too badly
> damaged to make way under power-- a rather absurd explanation(I will
> be happy to be corrected about this). If the compensator works, the
> ship will not fall apart, even if made of soggy tissue paper (it may
> not remain pressurised, but it will not be pulled apart by the
> acceleration).

There is no textev whatever for any of this and some textev against.

Certainly compensators that work at 96,000 g would have been mentioned
if they existed.

In HaE explicitly

[HaE ch 41]
Both Warshawski sails are down, and Impeller One and Impeller Two are
both badly damaged. We may be able to get a few beta nodes back in each
ring, if we can find anyone for repair parties, but not the sails.
[...]
Without a survey, I'm not sure we've got enough frame integrity left to
stand up to the drive even if we can get the impellers back. == {note,
nothing about the compensator}

Which means there is a force on the nodes which is transmitted to the
hull frame of the ship and I think there is textev elsewhere to the
same effect. The Battle of Hades business suggests the hull is very
strong since it can take many gravities even with impellor and
compensator off the same followes from the "failed compensator" events.
Of course the compensator is also attached to the hull. The logic of
this is debatable but since we don't understand the theory of any of it
and don't have any kind of reactionless drive you will have to show it
is in violation of basic physics, like some of the anti-grav
description in"A Beautiful Friendship".

--
Mike D
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

On Dec 2, 10:47 am, "Michael R N Dolbear" <m....TakeThisOut@privacy.net> wrote:


>
> Which means there is a force on the nodes which is transmitted to the
> hull frame of the ship and I think there is textev elsewhere to the
> same effect. The Battle of Hades business suggests the hull is very
> strong since it can take many gravities even with impellor and
> compensator off the same followes from the "failed compensator" events.
> Of course the compensator is also attached to the hull. The logic of
> this is debatable but since we don't understand the theory of any of it
> and don't have any kind of reactionless drive you will have to show it
> is in violation of basic physics, like some of the anti-grav
> description in"A Beautiful Friendship".
>
Why do the impellers only grab the nodes, when the acceleration
compensators can extend a field that grabs everything in a volume?
The problem is not that it is against the laws of physics the problem
is it is not internally consistent.

Because the acceleration compensators work over a volume, there is no
need to make the ships strong enough, and it is a serious safety
hazard to even try. Look at the following two examples: A strong
ship suffers a compensator failure and everything among the contents
is subjected to dozens (hundreds?) of g's and everyone is killed. A
weak ship suffers a compensator failure and all of the impeller nodes
are subjected to enough force to rip them from the hull-- everybody
not in the path of a broken off node survives. The weak ship is a lot
cheaper to build. Why would you even bother to build a strong ship if
one of your primary concerns is cost (building a merchant)?

The only reason to build a strong ship is so that it survives a
compensator failure. If compensator failures, even after battle
damage, are as rare as they show up in the books, why not just build
more ships (you will need to replace much of the ship, even if it is
recovered)?

If acceleration compensators cannot offset the acceleration applied to
the structure, why do they work at all?
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:19:38 -0500, an orbiting mind-control laser
made Don Sample <dsample RemoveThis @synapse.net> write:

>In article <95n5l397kf4gbreq75ratg1p8dkl8jh443 RemoveThis @4ax.com>,
> Dahak <Dahak_II RemoveThis @theXOUTfifthimperium.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The wedge _doesn't_ accelerate all objects within the 'pocket'.
>> The acceleration forces are coupled to the ship through the node
>> rings. (You can then argue that that simply creates new problems,
>> because the ship's structure must then be able to maintain integrity
>> under the stresses of hundreds of gs, but _that_ is also why
>> _Wayfarer's_ damaged hull prevented safe powered operation.)
>
>Then why does Weber make such a big deal about being able to tow pods
>*within* the wedge not affecting a ship's acceleration? Honor and the
>Peeps use that trick a few times to hide the fact that they have pods in
>tow in some of the earlier books.

I honestly can't say why.

Maybe he's assuming that the compensator field extends further
from the hull than I'd expect it to?

Without knowing how he has it worked out, I guess we'll have to
chalk it up to Authorial Fiat.

-JPB
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed 

In article
<b403f6e3-ccd4-4530-9848-41f4e5472dc1 DeleteThis @e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com" <rlbell.nsuid DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 2, 10:47 am, "Michael R N Dolbear" <m... DeleteThis @privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Which means there is a force on the nodes which is transmitted to the
> > hull frame of the ship and I think there is textev elsewhere to the
> > same effect. The Battle of Hades business suggests the hull is very
> > strong since it can take many gravities even with impellor and
> > compensator off the same followes from the "failed compensator" events.
> > Of course the compensator is also attached to the hull. The logic of
> > this is debatable but since we don't understand the theory of any of it
> > and don't have any kind of reactionless drive you will have to show it
> > is in violation of basic physics, like some of the anti-grav
> > description in"A Beautiful Friendship".
> >
> Why do the impellers only grab the nodes, when the acceleration
> compensators can extend a field that grabs everything in a volume?
> The problem is not that it is against the laws of physics the problem
> is it is not internally consistent.
>
> Because the acceleration compensators work over a volume, there is no
> need to make the ships strong enough, and it is a serious safety
> hazard to even try. Look at the following two examples: A strong
> ship suffers a compensator failure and everything among the contents
> is subjected to dozens (hundreds?) of g's and everyone is killed. A
> weak ship suffers a compensator failure and all of the impeller nodes
> are subjected to enough force to rip them from the hull-- everybody
> not in the path of a broken off node survives. The weak ship is a lot
> cheaper to build. Why would you even bother to build a strong ship if
> one of your primary concerns is cost (building a merchant)?
>
> The only reason to build a strong ship is so that it survives a
> compensator failure. If compensator failures, even after battle
> damage, are as rare as they show up in the books, why not just build
> more ships (you will need to replace much of the ship, even if it is
> recovered)?
>
> If acceleration compensators cannot offset the acceleration applied to
> the structure, why do they work at all?

If the acceleration force is carried by the structure, then your
structure also has to be made from unobtainium. A 2km long ship capable
of accelerating at 500g? The strength required would be the same for
building a 1000km tall tower in a 1g field. (And war ships aren't made
as light at the engineers can get away with, either. They've got all
that armour plastered over their hulls, and other such things.)

But it does seem to be the case. We've heard of ships with compensator
failure continuing to accelerate with their dead crews aboard, until the
ship's particle shielding failed.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: techno geek question, acceleration vs speed