Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: About Seattle Antics
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:47:51 EDT
I am having Herc look into information about shipping within the port of
Seattle and into the lanes controlled by Salish, though going nowhere near Tir
just yet though.

The information is going to be used to make runs against ships coming and
going from Seattle and some of the other shipyards in the area.

If this is something that might interfere or harangue something in someone's
plot, let me know, if it helps, let me know and perhaps I can perform this
within the story you are creating/

Thanks,

Mike
Message no. 2
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:08:49 +0100
In article <16fe8996.353e0319@***.com>, Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
waffled & burbled about About Seattle Antics
>I am having Herc look into information about shipping within the port of
>Seattle and into the lanes controlled by Salish, though going nowhere near Tir
>just yet though.
>
>The information is going to be used to make runs against ships coming and
>going from Seattle and some of the other shipyards in the area.
>
>If this is something that might interfere or harangue something in someone's
>plot, let me know, if it helps, let me know and perhaps I can perform this
>within the story you are creating

Yes it might. Some of the equipment and more exotic toys that CoT play
with comes in by shipment through Seattle's Tacoma docks. There's a
possibility that someone playing with boats may run afoul of them at
some point. I'm not clear on the amount of shipping moving through
Seattle in 2059, though I believe it is considerable, so it's a
probability that the two will never meet, but there is a route that is
used by this organisation there, and if you want, you can have a blast
with one such group either receiving or sending goodies.

I don't mind you doing this, but I thought I'd point out that some of my
guys use the harbours and transportation docks.

--
Avenger
Message no. 3
From: Craigtw1 <Craigtw1@***.COM>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:49:34 EDT
Hmmm...Vathor Technologies, Katana Industrials, and Ryaka Science and Tech use
the Shipyards, though Katana has their own docks. I haven't really thought
whether or not Vathor and Ryaka have docks in Seattle.

Tom
Message no. 4
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:46:15 EDT
In a message dated 4/22/98 10:42:18 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK writes:

> Yes it might. Some of the equipment and more exotic toys that CoT play
> with comes in by shipment through Seattle's Tacoma docks. There's a
> possibility that someone playing with boats may run afoul of them at
> some point. I'm not clear on the amount of shipping moving through
> Seattle in 2059, though I believe it is considerable, so it's a
> probability that the two will never meet, but there is a route that is
> used by this organisation there, and if you want, you can have a blast
> with one such group either receiving or sending goodies.
>
> I don't mind you doing this, but I thought I'd point out that some of my
> guys use the harbours and transportation docks.
>
Avenger, is there a possibility they could use a rigger that could smuggle in
some stuff after stealing it from one of those ships. He has a minisub
capable of doing 185 (after rounding up).

Mike
Message no. 5
From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:51:30 -0700
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Airwasp wrote:

> In a message dated 4/22/98 10:42:18 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
> Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK writes:

> > I don't mind you doing this, but I thought I'd point out that some of my
> > guys use the harbours and transportation docks.
> >
> Avenger, is there a possibility they could use a rigger that could smuggle in
> some stuff after stealing it from one of those ships. He has a minisub
> capable of doing 185 (after rounding up).

Capable of doing 185 what? Or do you mean 18 S damage?

Out of curiosity, did you use the Rigger2 rules for making the thing, or
did you base it on something you already saw in a sourcebook?

--Just curious

Jeff
Message no. 6
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:05:39 EDT
In a message dated 4/23/98 5:51:49 PM !!!First Boot!!!, mach@****.CALTECH.EDU
writes:

> > I don't mind you doing this, but I thought I'd point out that some of my
> > > guys use the harbours and transportation docks.
> > >
> > Avenger, is there a possibility they could use a rigger that could
smuggle
> in
> > some stuff after stealing it from one of those ships. He has a minisub
> > capable of doing 185 (after rounding up).
>
> Capable of doing 185 what? Or do you mean 18 S damage?

185 as in movement speed. Though the Firelance on top can also do some
serious damage however.

> Out of curiosity, did you use the Rigger2 rules for making the thing, or
> did you base it on something you already saw in a sourcebook?

The minisub is based out of the R2, using a Diesel power plant with the
following modifications ... Engine Customization (maxxed out), Smart
Materials, Drive-By-Wire (with the multiplier being 1.05), and two levels of
turbocharging.

This gets the top speed to a total of 184 and change (wounds up to 185),
although the cavitation speed is something like 45 though.

Depth is still a problem, but is limited to 150 meters.

And God do I love R2 ... one of the best books a player should have on hand at
all times.

Mike
Message no. 7
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:07:57 +0100
In article <8bf03781.353ec798@***.com>, Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
waffled & burbled about About Seattle Antics
>In a message dated 4/22/98 10:42:18 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
>Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK writes:
>
>>
>> I don't mind you doing this, but I thought I'd point out that some of my
>> guys use the harbours and transportation docks.
>>
>Avenger, is there a possibility they could use a rigger that could smuggle in
>some stuff after stealing it from one of those ships. He has a minisub
>capable of doing 185 (after rounding up).

Quite probably. Though at this time they're unlikely to hire outside of
known contacts. It's possible that the rigger in question may be used
by a shipping company to move stuff outside of Seattle waters -
especially with a slightly more active coastguard operating in the
Sound.

I do have an idea though, that I'll write to you about privately.

One question? 185 what? If that's knots, then the sub is cavitating
beyond belief and is useless for smuggling. Everything and it's
grandmother will see the bow wave and hear it. The internal sensors
would be all but blind and I'd be interested in the kind of man carrying
vessel capable of that speed underwater. Modern nuclear subs punch
through at an energetic 30 knots, which is considered pretty damned
fast.

If KPH, then that's about 99.9 knots, still a terrifying speed for a
submarine, and causing all sorts of sonar signatures. No amount of
streamlining and dampening is going to hide that mother.

If MPH then that's 160.7 knots - incredible.

In my opinion of course. :)


--
Avenger
Message no. 8
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:02:05 EDT
In a message dated 4/23/98 11:47:42 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK writes:

> >> I don't mind you doing this, but I thought I'd point out that some of my
> >> guys use the harbours and transportation docks.
> >>
> >Avenger, is there a possibility they could use a rigger that could smuggle
> in
> >some stuff after stealing it from one of those ships. He has a minisub
> >capable of doing 185 (after rounding up).
>
> Quite probably. Though at this time they're unlikely to hire outside of
> known contacts. It's possible that the rigger in question may be used
> by a shipping company to move stuff outside of Seattle waters -
> especially with a slightly more active coastguard operating in the
> Sound.

Then perhaps they would become interested when someone begins to make waves
and taking a piece of the action without their having something to do with it.

> I do have an idea though, that I'll write to you about privately.
>
> One question? 185 what? If that's knots, then the sub is cavitating
> beyond belief and is useless for smuggling. Everything and it's
> grandmother will see the bow wave and hear it. The internal sensors
> would be all but blind and I'd be interested in the kind of man carrying
> vessel capable of that speed underwater. Modern nuclear subs punch
> through at an energetic 30 knots, which is considered pretty damned
> fast.

185 is the movement rate in meters per turn, which comes out to about 222 KPH,
and true about the the being deafer than a doornail, but at 185 you are
basically doing pedal to the metal on the darn boat.

> If KPH, then that's about 99.9 knots, still a terrifying speed for a
> submarine, and causing all sorts of sonar signatures. No amount of
> streamlining and dampening is going to hide that mother.

Yeah, there is something, spirit concealment would work somewhat, though not
at all that much, though Spirit Guard, from a certain pov, could enable the
sub to go a little deeper than 150 meters.

> If MPH then that's 160.7 knots - incredible.
>
> In my opinion of course. :)
>
>
> --
> Avenger

Yeah, the only problem is that it is completely within the rules, a bit
munchkinish, but still very doable.

Mike
Message no. 9
From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:46:07 -0700
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Airwasp wrote:

> In a message dated 4/23/98 11:47:42 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
> Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK writes:

> 185 is the movement rate in meters per turn, which comes out to about 222 KPH,
> and true about the the being deafer than a doornail, but at 185 you are
> basically doing pedal to the metal on the darn boat.

Uh....uh....uh. Rules or no, that's completely bogus. I'm sorry, but I'm
not going to sit back and say "go ahead" to a minisub that goes 222kph,
even if you did do it by the rules. There's this slight (read HUGE)
discrepancy between some of the SR physics and reality because they
usually don't expect people to MIN/MAX everything past the point of
believability. And, there is that little GM must approve the vehicle bit
in Rigger2. BTW, how much did the thing cost? And where did the
character get the money?

Putting this in perspective: Unlimited hydroplanes can top out on glass
flat water in the 200mph/300kph range. They tend to be ultra-light and
powered by fighter-class jet engines and kick up 30 foot rooster-tails.
Now, you want to say that a _SUB_ _underwater_ (touching water with its
entire surface and not just the tiny tips of its bottom) is going to do
nearly 2/3rds of that speed? With a Diesel Engine? No way. Not gonna
happen. Sorry.

Beyond deafer than a doornail, there is that little factor of wave drag
that is going to crush the sub like a bloody bug on a windshield if you
try to go that fast. Not to mention the orbital power station or quantum
singularity drive that it would take to give you enough energy to power
the thing.

Just so you don't think I'm blowing smoke, consider the math: Drag
coefficient on a sleek modern sub: ~10x10^-3 (taken from actual research
data). Say due to incredible advancements in submarine technology they
cut it down to 5x10^-3, a two-fold improvement (not likely, but not
impossible). Now, you get drag from multiplying drag coefficient times
1/2 * Density * Velocity^2 * Area (Volume^2/3). Assuming you have a sub
that is _really_ small and is only 2m wide and 10m long, this gives you
an area factor of about 10m^2.

(Plug and chug)==>roughly 865kN of drag or about 96 _tons_ of drag. Not
to mention that at this speed the entire boat would be cavitating,
(forming pockets of vacuum since the boat is moving so fast through the
water than in can't stay attatched to the surface) which increases drag,
and the propellers loose power if they cavitate, which is basically a
certainty.

The energy analysis should be even more damning, but I am getting sleepy.
Suffice to say that even if you built your sub out of some adamantine
super-metal that could survive the pressure of onrushing water at 185m/s
and whatever depth you have it at, and you could somehow eliminate
cavitation (impossible at those speeds) you still couldn't shoehorn a
powerplant strong enough to get you going that fast into your boat.

> > If KPH, then that's about 99.9 knots, still a terrifying speed for a
> > submarine, and causing all sorts of sonar signatures. No amount of
> > streamlining and dampening is going to hide that mother.

Uh...I thing the giant frothing wake that would make the death-throws of
Moby Dick look like a minnow flopping in a teacup would probably give
it away, yes.

> Yeah, there is something, spirit concealment would work somewhat, though not
> at all that much, though Spirit Guard, from a certain pov, could enable the
> sub to go a little deeper than 150 meters.
>
> > If MPH then that's 160.7 knots - incredible.
> >
> > In my opinion of course. :)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Avenger
>
> Yeah, the only problem is that it is completely within the rules, a bit
> munchkinish, but still very doable.

Within the rules? I'd have to check. A bit munchkinish? Have you seen
my pet Cthuga (hint: it just ate the Moon)? Still very doable. Not by
any stretch of my imagination.

See, here is one area where I think we, as writers can take odds with the
game mechanics and put our collective feet down, just because the rules,
when streatched to near breaking, allow something that just shouldn't
work. By rights, I could have my character have a concussion grenade
shoved in his mouth and explode, and have him walk away with a bad
headache. Why? Because the rules say that a consussion grenade only does
X S(erious) damage, and all of it is "Stun" damage, so he doesn't even
receive any physical harm. So there. In the immortal words of Col.
Sherman Potter: "Horse hockey!" A concusion grenade, while not packed
with shrapnel or HE like an Anti-personnel grenade is packed with an
explosive charge that should at least blow his jaw clean off (maybe the
rest of his face) and probably kill him instantly by pulpifying his brain,
or else leave him with a few scraps of ganglia left as a human vegetable
if the charge is really, really small. Reality bites, but I'm willing to
ignore the rules if they are completely at odds with reason.

So Mike, as a compromise, can we say that your sub does a pentultimately
studly (for a sub) speed of 60 (72kph/43.2mph). For perspective, the
fastest sub around: the Seawolf, can reach a nearly unheard of 25 knots
(28mph/46.3kph). A speed of 60 would make it faster than most watercraft
other than hydrofoils and hydroplanes, and a hell of a lot faster than the
fastest submarines of even 2059. I'll ignore the fact that it has a
microfusion powered MHD drive to allow it to go that fast or the
megacorp/alien superpowers that are letting your rigger play with the
thing.

Seeing as Paul is working on a torpedo design, I am curious as to his
thoughts on the matter, that is after he comes down off the ceiling. Note
that a comparable U.S. fast torpedo in the works can go on the order of
40knots (46mph), using the absolute latest technology, and has the
advantage of orders less drag, since drag scales as length^(>2).

--My two yen

Jeff
working on
Masters Degree in
Aerospace Eng.
Message no. 10
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:13:29 +0100
On 23 Apr 98 at 23:02, Airwasp wrote:
[snip speed discussion]
> Yeah, the only problem is that it is completely within the rules, a bit
> munchkinish, but still very doable.
Haven't looked at the rules for sub construction too closely (simply not
interested yet), but... 'scuse me... a diesel underwater?? Diesel subs use
electric engines for submerged drive, IIRC, as diesel engines would
consume oxygen , which most people think is best used for the crew... Are
there any rules on this?

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst | "The dagger of |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| irony is a sharp |
| \___ __/ | ICQ#: 7 517 216 | one." |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | - Jane-In-The-Box |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | (Jak Koke) |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 11
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:41:53 EDT
In a message dated 4/24/98 6:46:24 AM !!!First Boot!!!, mach@****.caltech.edu
writes:

> > In a message dated 4/23/98 11:47:42 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
> > Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK writes:
>
> > 185 is the movement rate in meters per turn, which comes out to about 222
> KPH,
> > and true about the the being deafer than a doornail, but at 185 you are
> > basically doing pedal to the metal on the darn boat.
>
> Uh....uh....uh. Rules or no, that's completely bogus. I'm sorry, but I'm
> not going to sit back and say "go ahead" to a minisub that goes 222kph,
> even if you did do it by the rules. There's this slight (read HUGE)
> discrepancy between some of the SR physics and reality because they
> usually don't expect people to MIN/MAX everything past the point of
> believability. And, there is that little GM must approve the vehicle bit
> in Rigger2. BTW, how much did the thing cost? And where did the
> character get the money?

After all was said and done, the vehicle will cost only 8.5 million nuyen.

As for where the pc got the money, no one has really asked Herc for any of the
orichalcum he has, so he has been selling it and other enchantments to get the
money together to build the minisub.

And as for min/maxing, the pc I play has the mentality of trying to push the
SOTA curve on technology, hence the reason for the extreme speeds involved,
and the other assorted toys on the thing.

And, though this may cause something of a stir, I am sorry, within the game-
physics of SR this minisub is capable of these speeds. As a slight example of
this, Seaquest is capable of doing something like 75 knots underwater and not
have any problems with cavitation. This thing does, besides, I am thinking of
changing the power plant to something else and using a different vehicle and
throwing in the Amphib Assault Package III (and then asking Mr. Szeto if the
AAP can be improved like any other power plant - although all it does is
provide speed).

> Putting this in perspective: Unlimited hydroplanes can top out on glass
> flat water in the 200mph/300kph range. They tend to be ultra-light and
> powered by fighter-class jet engines and kick up 30 foot rooster-tails.
> Now, you want to say that a _SUB_ _underwater_ (touching water with its
> entire surface and not just the tiny tips of its bottom) is going to do
> nearly 2/3rds of that speed? With a Diesel Engine? No way. Not gonna
> happen. Sorry.

I am sorry if you do not see it this way, but it is something capable of being
done, and is allowable as per the FAQ.

> Beyond deafer than a doornail, there is that little factor of wave drag
> that is going to crush the sub like a bloody bug on a windshield if you
> try to go that fast. Not to mention the orbital power station or quantum
> singularity drive that it would take to give you enough energy to power
> the thing.

I am sorry, the above power plants do not exist yet.

<snip a lot>

> So Mike, as a compromise, can we say that your sub does a pentultimately
> studly (for a sub) speed of 60 (72kph/43.2mph). For perspective, the
> fastest sub around: the Seawolf, can reach a nearly unheard of 25 knots
> (28mph/46.3kph). A speed of 60 would make it faster than most watercraft
> other than hydrofoils and hydroplanes, and a hell of a lot faster than the
> fastest submarines of even 2059. I'll ignore the fact that it has a
> microfusion powered MHD drive to allow it to go that fast or the
> megacorp/alien superpowers that are letting your rigger play with the
> thing.
>
> Seeing as Paul is working on a torpedo design, I am curious as to his
> thoughts on the matter, that is after he comes down off the ceiling. Note
> that a comparable U.S. fast torpedo in the works can go on the order of
> 40knots (46mph), using the absolute latest technology, and has the
> advantage of orders less drag, since drag scales as length^(>2).
>
> --My two yen
>
> Jeff
> working on
> Masters Degree in
> Aerospace Eng.

I would like to thank you for all of the information you have provided me, and
since others are having a difficulty in accepting the vehicle, which I will
send a posting for all to see, actually, I am going to post onto part of the
Hoosier Hacker House and I'll give you all the information regarding the mini-
sub, though it may not be used, as I may have come up with a better idea.

Thank you,

Mike

P.S. I play Herc with a piratish attitude, not with a runnerish attitude.
Message no. 12
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:55:10 EDT
In a message dated 4/24/98 11:16:58 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE writes:

> > Yeah, the only problem is that it is completely within the rules, a bit
> > munchkinish, but still very doable.

> Haven't looked at the rules for sub construction too closely (simply not
> interested yet), but... 'scuse me... a diesel underwater?? Diesel subs use
> electric engines for submerged drive, IIRC, as diesel engines would
> consume oxygen , which most people think is best used for the crew... Are
> there any rules on this?

Yep, unfortunately within the R2, it does not specify what happens, but I did
add in an Electroltyic Oxygen Convertor to make enough oxygen for the pilot
and the engine during normal operation.

Mike
Message no. 13
From: "Mark L. Neidengard" <mneideng@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:47:07 -0700
According to Airwasp:
>And, though this may cause something of a stir, I am sorry, within the game-
>physics of SR this minisub is capable of these speeds. As a slight example of
>this, Seaquest is capable of doing something like 75 knots underwater and not
>have any problems with cavitation. This thing does, besides, I am thinking of
>changing the power plant to something else and using a different vehicle and
>throwing in the Amphib Assault Package III (and then asking Mr. Szeto if the
>AAP can be improved like any other power plant - although all it does is
>provide speed).

I am going to voice a second dissenting vote against allowing the bogosities
in FASA's rulebooks stand in this forum. It is well-established that FASA
are very poorly versed in various technical matters, and I don't see why we
should pay for their mistakes.

>I am sorry if you do not see it this way, but it is something capable of being
>done, and is allowable as per the FAQ.

If that's the case, I want to vote for a change.
--
/!\/!ark /!\!eidengard, CS Grad, VLSI http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~mneideng
"Fairy of sleep, controller of illusions" Operator/Jack-of-all-Trades, CACR
"Control the person for my own purpose." "Don't mess with the Dark
Elves!"
-Pirotess, _Record_of_Lodoss_War_ Shadowrunner and Anime Addict
Message no. 14
From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:54:54 -0700
Well, this might be pointless seeing as Airwasp is considering leaving the
list, but...

On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Airwasp wrote:

> And, though this may cause something of a stir, I am sorry, within the game-
> physics of SR this minisub is capable of these speeds. As a slight example of
> this, Seaquest is capable of doing something like 75 knots underwater and not
> have any problems with cavitation. This thing does, besides, I am thinking of
> changing the power plant to something else and using a different vehicle and
> throwing in the Amphib Assault Package III (and then asking Mr. Szeto if the
> AAP can be improved like any other power plant - although all it does is
> provide speed).

I wish to point out that the SeaQuestDSV is in a completely different
story-verse, which I believe is quite a bit ahead of even SR in
technology, the bugger has God-knows-what as a power core, and still, I
have a big problem with it going 75knots. And you were postulationg a
speed of twice this.

> > Putting this in perspective: Unlimited hydroplanes can top out on glass
> > flat water in the 200mph/300kph range. They tend to be ultra-light and
> > powered by fighter-class jet engines and kick up 30 foot rooster-tails.
> > Now, you want to say that a _SUB_ _underwater_ (touching water with its
> > entire surface and not just the tiny tips of its bottom) is going to do
> > nearly 2/3rds of that speed? With a Diesel Engine? No way. Not gonna
> > happen. Sorry.
>
> I am sorry if you do not see it this way, but it is something capable of being
> done, and is allowable as per the FAQ.

The only thing the FAQ has to say on the matter is:

"Another rule of thumb is that plots should generally stick with the
published FASA world as much as possible. Sticking to the FASA world
ensures that new listmembers will see a world that they are familiar
with from published FASA literature. NOTE: The list generally lags
behind published FASA literature by a month or so. This gives all of the
listmembers who are interested in plots pertaining to that literature
time to purchase and read it."

My point was that the "generally stick with the published FASA world"
comment should include some respect for realism and story balance, even if
certain things are permited or not expressly denied.

Now, I also doublechecked your math which appears faulty. There are three
modifications to vehicles in the R2 that allow one to violate the listed
speed maximum for a chassis/powerplant combination. Smart materials (1.15
x Max), Engine customization (up to 1.75 x Max), and Drive by Wire (one
time improvement of 1.05 x Max [I think it goes to 1.10]). Note that all
of these figures are used to give one a new Maximum from the old one, and
when combined, they have an additive benefit, not a multiplicative
benefit. Therefore, using all of these should give you an improvement of
1+15%+75%+5%, or 1.95 x Max for the new maximum. Now, listed in the book
for a Diesel engine is a speed Base/Max of 10/70. This may be a typo.
Since they also say in the same book, and it is true in every other case
that a gasoline engine is typically faster for less load, and a gas
powered sub has a speed listed at 5/30. Now that makes a _lot_ more
sense. And even still, completely maxing out the engine with allowed
modifications, the gas engine will get you to 60, while the Diesel (I
believe incorrectly) should max to 140 (not 185).

Now, the problem that Sacha correctly touched on. _All_ subs running
underwater are Electric. Even all the way back to WWII. They were
"Diesel" submarines, because when they ran on the surface and used the
outside air, they used Diesel engines for propulsion, as well as for
recharging their batteries. You can't use an elecrolytic oxygen generator
for the simple reasons of entropy and combustion. Namely, it would take
so much energy to liberate oxygen from water, that burning it in a Diesel
power plant won't get you enough energy back to give you enough energy to
liberate more oxygen to continue the process.

> > Beyond deafer than a doornail, there is that little factor of wave drag
> > that is going to crush the sub like a bloody bug on a windshield if you
> > try to go that fast. Not to mention the orbital power station or quantum
> > singularity drive that it would take to give you enough energy to power
> > the thing.
>
> I am sorry, the above power plants do not exist yet.

And won't for reasons that I outline above that are pretty well absolute.

I would be willing to settle for this compromise: You can have a
hydrocarbon powered mini-sub that can go at the (correctly calculated)
maxed out speed _above_ water. But, underwater, it is restricted to what
ever your maxed out speed is for an electric propulsion system. That way,
you keep the still amazingly high top speed, and I don't have to feel that
something outside the realm of plausability is on the list.

--Catch you later

Jeff
Message no. 15
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:05:20 +0100
On 24 Apr 98 at 9:55, Airwasp wrote:
[snip]
> > Haven't looked at the rules for sub construction too closely (simply not
> > interested yet), but... 'scuse me... a diesel underwater?? Diesel subs use
> > electric engines for submerged drive, IIRC, as diesel engines would
> > consume oxygen , which most people think is best used for the crew... Are
> > there any rules on this?
> Yep, unfortunately within the R2, it does not specify what happens, but
> I did add in an Electroltyic Oxygen Convertor to make enough oxygen for
> the pilot and the engine during normal operation.
'scuse me /again/. Electrolytic Ox.Generator... powered by what? The
diesel? What water do you use? Salt water?

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst | *BLAM!* *BLAM!* |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| "Stop!" *BLAM!* |
| \___ __/ | ICQ#: 7 517 216 | "Police!" *BLAM!* |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | -- Officer Axly |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me |Phoenix Command SACS|
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 16
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowtk@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:04:56 +0100
In message <a84f6ccd.354099c1@***.com>, Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM> writes
>Yep, unfortunately within the R2, it does not specify what happens, but I did
>add in an Electroltyic Oxygen Convertor to make enough oxygen for the pilot
>and the engine during normal operation.

The problem is that you need energy to crack water into hydrogen and
oxygen. And you cannot get more out than you put in.

We've used the bomb for decades, and yet we still can't run diesels
underwater without snorkel or stored O2.
Message no. 17
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowtk@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:09:38 +0100
In message <199804241547.IAA09916@***.ugcs.caltech.edu>, Mark L.
Neidengard <mneideng@****.CALTECH.EDU> writes
>According to Airwasp:
>>I am sorry if you do not see it this way, but it is something capable of being
>>done, and is allowable as per the FAQ.
>
>If that's the case, I want to vote for a change.

Rigger 2 requires players to clear their creations with the GM.

This list doesn't have a GM, but it _does_ require the consent and
acceptance of fellow gamers.
Message no. 18
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowtk@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:02:15 +0100
In message <c656d74a.354096a3@***.com>, Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM> writes
>In a message dated 4/24/98 6:46:24 AM !!!First Boot!!!, mach@****.caltech.edu
>writes:
>And, though this may cause something of a stir, I am sorry, within the game-
>physics of SR this minisub is capable of these speeds.

Okay. But understand that dogs fifty miles away howl in pain when this
beast goes to even half power. It's blind, deaf and utterly visible at
anywhere near full speed. You are talking about an underwater _rock
concert_ here.

Power = noise = detection. Simple as that.


Oh, yeah, think about depth keeping. At these speeds, the slightest
flutter on any plane and you're either broached or below crush depth.
This is a big problem already for submarines.

This is monstrously impractical, and likely to kill anyone using it.


>As a slight example of
>this, Seaquest is capable of doing something like 75 knots underwater and not
>have any problems with cavitation.

Seaquest is pure fiction, and related to submarines the way Star Trek
relates to the Navy. It's also, from the few episodes I saw, _large_.

>I am sorry if you do not see it this way, but it is something capable of being
>done, and is allowable as per the FAQ.

And has enormous disadvantages, which _will_ be enforced.

Why do you think nobody's building fifty-knot submarines today? We
could, quite easily, it's just a power and transmission issue. Hell, the
USS Albacore clocked 33 knots on _batteries_ for a short period.

222kmh = 62 metres a second. Call this minisub a nice, slim five-metre-
diameter cylinder, give it a Cd of 1.0 for argument's sake, and we come
out with a power requirement of nearly 40 megawatts to hold this speed,
assuming 100% efficiency everywhere in the system - that's 53,000
horsepower, or four times the output of the S6G reactor in a Los
Angeles-class nuclear submarine.

Now, I consider that sort of powerplant to be somewhat bogus, especially
in the hands of a private individual. Why ain't the military got this
kit?

You bet your ass there's problems with this kit. Technology might
change, physics doesn't.

>> Seeing as Paul is working on a torpedo design, I am curious as to his
>> thoughts on the matter, that is after he comes down off the ceiling.

No how, no way.

If this boat goes to sea, passengers on cruise liners miles away wonder
what the frothing in the water and the funny noise is. Anyone wanting to
detect it can do so. It's blind and continually in danger of broaching
or crushing. At low speeds it's grossly inefficient and still terribly
noisy (got to keep that 40MW plant cool somehow).
Message no. 19
From: Justin Fang <justinf@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 17:02:45 -0700
[Re: super subs]

I wish to point out that SeaQuestDSV is not exactly known for it's stellar
technical accuracy. In fact, about the only way you could do worse would be
to get technical advice from ST: Voyager...

As for the diesel engine/electrolytic oxygen generator combo: Just to
emphasize what other people have been saying about it, if you *could* do
that you'd have a perpetual motion machine: replace the diesel engine with a
hydrogen-burning one, use power from the engine to electrolyze water into
hydrogen and oxygen, burn the oxygen and hydrgen to run the engine...

--
Justin Fang (justinf@****.caltech.edu)
This space intentionally left blank.
Message no. 20
From: shimeall mark <zzshim@***.WUACC.EDU>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:23:54 -0500
Sorry to interupt. Some diesel subs have snorkles so they can use their
engines underwater. Mark


On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Sascha Pabst wrote:

> On 23 Apr 98 at 23:02, Airwasp wrote:
> [snip speed discussion]
> > Yeah, the only problem is that it is completely within the rules, a bit
> > munchkinish, but still very doable.
> Haven't looked at the rules for sub construction too closely (simply not
> interested yet), but... 'scuse me... a diesel underwater?? Diesel subs use
> electric engines for submerged drive, IIRC, as diesel engines would
> consume oxygen , which most people think is best used for the crew... Are
> there any rules on this?
>
> Sascha
> --
> +---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
> | / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst | "The dagger of |
> | / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| irony is a sharp |
> | \___ __/ | ICQ#: 7 517 216 | one." |
> |==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | - Jane-In-The-Box |
> |LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | (Jak Koke) |
> +------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
>
Message no. 21
From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:16:17 -0700
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, shimeall mark wrote:

> Sorry to interupt. Some diesel subs have snorkles so they can use their
> engines underwater. Mark

"Underwater" is relative. That basically limits you to periscope depth,
which is not that far, especially if you want to avoid detection and you
really don't want to imagine the forces on a thin periscope/ snorkel at
the speeds that were being discussed.

--My two yen

Jeff
Message no. 22
From: Wraith <wraith@************.COM>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 01:22:54 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>


>On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, shimeall mark wrote:
>
>> Sorry to interupt. Some diesel subs have snorkles so they can use their
>> engines underwater. Mark
>
>"Underwater" is relative. That basically limits you to periscope depth,
>which is not that far, especially if you want to avoid detection and you
>really don't want to imagine the forces on a thin periscope/ snorkel at
>the speeds that were being discussed.
>

Not to mention that at the speeds that are being talked about here, the
snorkel would be swamped by the waves it creates.

Wraith
Message no. 23
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 18:30:37 +0100
On 25 Apr 98 at 0:04, Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message <a84f6ccd.354099c1@***.com>, Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM> writes
> >Yep, unfortunately within the R2, it does not specify what happens, but I did
> >add in an Electroltyic Oxygen Convertor to make enough oxygen for the pilot
> >and the engine during normal operation.
>
> The problem is that you need energy to crack water into hydrogen and
> oxygen. And you cannot get more out than you put in.
Wasn't sure about this, as one fills diesel into the system. (Thus, once,
I kept silent :-)

> We've used the bomb for decades, and yet we still can't run diesels
> underwater without snorkel or stored O2.
Hm... up to which depth do snorkels work? And... up to which speed?

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------- ICQ#: 7 517 216 --------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |Things that try to look |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact. - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary ---(T.Pratchett)-+
Message no. 24
From: shimeall mark <zzshim@***.WUACC.EDU>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 20:27:18 -0500
Well so much for that idea. The germans in WWII developed two answers to
the diesel sub. The snorkle was one. The other was an engine that ran
off hydrogen-peroxide (yeah the blond hair stuff) apparently it could burn
underwater without sufficating the crew. Don't ask me how I never had
chemistry. Anyway if Germans 120 years in the past of the shadowrun
timeline could come up with an answer it seems likly someone in the 2050's
could also. Mark

On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, Wraith wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
>
>
> >On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, shimeall mark wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry to interupt. Some diesel subs have snorkles so they can use their
> >> engines underwater. Mark
> >
> >"Underwater" is relative. That basically limits you to periscope
depth,
> >which is not that far, especially if you want to avoid detection and you
> >really don't want to imagine the forces on a thin periscope/ snorkel at
> >the speeds that were being discussed.
> >
>
> Not to mention that at the speeds that are being talked about here, the
> snorkel would be swamped by the waves it creates.
>
> Wraith
>
Message no. 25
From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: About Seattle Antics
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 20:22:07 -0700
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, shimeall mark wrote:

> Well so much for that idea. The germans in WWII developed two answers to
> the diesel sub. The snorkle was one. The other was an engine that ran
> off hydrogen-peroxide (yeah the blond hair stuff) apparently it could burn
> underwater without sufficating the crew. Don't ask me how I never had
> chemistry. Anyway if Germans 120 years in the past of the shadowrun
> timeline could come up with an answer it seems likly someone in the 2050's
> could also. Mark

I did take chemistry. The Hydrogen-peroxide was used as an oxidizer
instead of the air. Problem is it is _very_ dangerous to work with in
high concentrations (meaning that it wouldn't bleach your hair, it would
cause your head to ignite) and about as advisable as having a tank of
liquid oxygen on your sub. The snorkel, as discussed earlier, limited you
to only a _very_ short diving depth, and limited you to a speed at which
it wouldn't be damaged.

The answer was atomic power.

It gives you more power without using oxygen than most subs will ever
need. By 2059, they are probably using fusion as opposed to fission power
plants, though. Of course, they are a little hard to instal on mini-subs.

In my somewhat educated opinion, I would think that minisubs could use
some form of high-efficiency (superconducting?) electrical supply, if
necessary regenerating on the surface with some form of fuel-cell
technology to efficiently convert some sort of high-energy liquid fuel to
electrical energy. Hmmmm. There could be the possibility of using a
gill-like system to extract diffused oxygen from the water so you didn't
have to surface, although I suppose it would limit you to a relatively
slow speed, since extracting oxygen from the water would be much more
inefficient (volume per unit time) than just drawing it from the air. I
could see a mini-sub using a gill system and fuel-cells to recharge its
power supply while moving relatively slowly at a shallow depth, then
diving and racing at the full speed available from its electrical motors,
so that it didn't have to surface. Of course, staying under water for
long periods in a mini-sub could get mighty uncomfortable.

IMNSHO, the lack of fuel-cells in ShadowRun is pretty silly, especially
since they are otherwise so eco-conscious and given that research on them
is already pretty mature (they were used on the Apollo mission). FYI,
instead of burning a fuel in a combustion reaction and using the expanding
heated gas to generate mechanical power, a fuel cell oxidizes a fuel in a
special reaction chamber that extracts the release of chemical energy
directly as electrical power. The efficiency of this process in
extracting usable energy as opposed to a combustion process can be very
high. Also, you tend not to produce harmful by-products like those of
combustion.

In fact, auto-makers are looking into a new type of fuel cell that will
run on plain-old gasoline that you can buy at the service station.
Through several stages it is reacted in a fuel cell with oxygen from the
air to produce pure electrical power and with no other by-products than
water and carbon dioxide (just like most living things). The efficiency
looks to be much more than a normal combustion engine (meaning more miles
to the gallon). The ecologists also like the fact that you get no harmful
ozone, carbon monoxide, or nitrogen oxide. The oil companies like the
fact that you would still be using gasoline. And, since the energy
content of gasoline is so high, power from a car powered by a gasoline
fuel-cell should be more than adequate for highway driving. Just don't
ask for a race-car just yet.

Cannonical answer would be: "It got lost in the Crash." But I think most
here would already know my opinion on that. =P

--My two yen

Dr. Science

er... Jeff

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about About Seattle Antics, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!