What predictions?Behemoth wrote:Well, my second prediction held up.
What about the jumpdrives?
Because that efficiency increases with size, so in order to be as efficient a fighter would have to be as large and at that point it is no longer a fighter.Cornflakes_91 wrote:my whole problem was that objects maybe 8 times the volume of a fighter have means of transport thousand times more efficient than said fighters driveHadrianus wrote: I’m sorry but you don't seem to understand that such a large device would only have a use when it would be used for great distances. The rest of the time it would be a burden to the ship carrying it, both in relation to size and energy draw. Since like most large engines they become very inefficient at low velocities. Why wouldn’t every car have a Ferrari engine?
The same can be stated for canons, we can make them very efficient, but it is still impractical for each soldier to carry a canon, that is why we have special artillery units, that is why we would need these "gates"
and why we arent utilising that efficiency increasing techniques in the fighter too
then would someting with the relative volume of 20 be much, much faster than the fighterHadrianus wrote:Because that efficiency increases with size, so in order to be as efficient a fighter would have to be as large and at that point it is no longer a fighter.Cornflakes_91 wrote:my whole problem was that objects maybe 8 times the volume of a fighter have means of transport thousand times more efficient than said fighters driveHadrianus wrote: I’m sorry but you don't seem to understand that such a large device would only have a use when it would be used for great distances. The rest of the time it would be a burden to the ship carrying it, both in relation to size and energy draw. Since like most large engines they become very inefficient at low velocities. Why wouldn’t every car have a Ferrari engine?
The same can be stated for canons, we can make them very efficient, but it is still impractical for each soldier to carry a canon, that is why we have special artillery units, that is why we would need these "gates"
and why we arent utilising that efficiency increasing techniques in the fighter too
These:ThymineC wrote:What predictions?Behemoth wrote:Well, my second prediction held up.
What about the jumpdrives?
Behemoth wrote:What about the jumpdrives?Cornflakes_91 wrote:*snip*
They have to be FTL, and cost fuel. So not H-drives.
My prediction is, that Thymine will have a convincing way to implement jumpdrives as H-drives by tomorrow.
I have no idea. Again, I predict, that this inconsistency will be gone by tomorrow. (Already fulfilled by ridiculous scale differences)Cornflakes_91 wrote:*snip*
we have been gone too far off-topic in this thread for now, i'll send you an PMHadrianus wrote:Cornflakes_91 wrote:then would someting with the relative volume of 20 be much, much faster than the fighter
Have you ever heard of a bell curve? Every technology has a limit to its efficiency, Yes the large the drive would get, the faster it would get hypothetically, but at some point further increase in size would no longer increase speed.
And after the “top” of the bell curve would be reached further increase in size would actually lead to greater inefficiency rather than greater efficiency.
Cornflakes_91 wrote:we have been gone too far off-topic in this thread for now, i'll send you an PMHadrianus wrote:Cornflakes_91 wrote:then would someting with the relative volume of 20 be much, much faster than the fighter
Have you ever heard of a bell curve? Every technology has a limit to its efficiency, Yes the large the drive would get, the faster it would get hypothetically, but at some point further increase in size would no longer increase speed.
And after the “top” of the bell curve would be reached further increase in size would actually lead to greater inefficiency rather than greater efficiency.
Speed steadily appoaching c. It's 0.43 here. Good night.ThymineC wrote:Spoiler: SHOW
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests
