Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:16:13 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-13 11:25:36 EST, barbie@**********.COM writes:

> >Multiple-Power-Plant Vehicles.
>
> >Yeah, you heard/read this right. Anyone else thought of this? What
> >happens??? Come on Mr. Szeto, time to really earn your worth...
>
> I have done it some time ago and I belive that you can think in which
> vehicle...
>
Yes Barbie, I probably can.

I am however trying to get more information on the idea. Mike and are
working on some -very- edgy crap for the Winternight Wars we are running at
the moment in the Home Games. My basic thouhts???

Add Load Ratings for multiples, but keep economy the same (multiple power
plants indicate multiple fuel tanks IMHO).

Signatures are reduced by 1 point per power plant after the first, and any
signature improvements need to be handled cumulatively per power plant (the
ones that count anyway, like Thermal Baffling).

Handling Tests remain relatively uneffected (I don't know enough just yet to
make a guess).

Speed (Maximum) is increased in 5% increments per power plant after the
first. Remembering that a power plant provides "x-lift" instead of
"x-speed"
(it's oversimplified, but I didn't feel like adding multiple jet engines to
get something that goes Mach 10). I have considered greater increases than
what I mention here, as in the case of the original Platinum vs. Platinum II
(RBB).

Flux Ratings can be bolstered by an additional number of points towards
Sensors and the like equal to one-half the body for each engine. For
example, say you had a vehicle with bod of 5 (a plane preferred here), which
could give 2 more poitns (IIRC) to the flux rating(s) of equipment contained
within. If a second engine was involved, then 2 more flux rating points
could be utilized.

These are just the beginning.

-K
Message no. 2
From: Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:30:47 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-13 19:21:31 EST, Ereskanti writes:

> In a message dated 97-11-13 11:25:36 EST, barbie@**********.COM writes:
> > >Multiple-Power-Plant Vehicles.
> > >Yeah, you heard/read this right. Anyone else thought of this? What
> > >happens??? Come on Mr. Szeto, time to really earn your worth...
> >
> > I have done it some time ago and I belive that you can think in which
> > vehicle...
> >
> Yes Barbie, I probably can.
>
> I am however trying to get more information on the idea. Mike and are
> working on some -very- edgy crap for the Winternight Wars we are running
at
> the moment in the Home Games. My basic thouhts???

(details snipped)

One of you two (or both) may be confusing me.

When Barbie says multiple power plants, what I think he means is a vehicle
with two completely different types of power plants, so that the driver can
switch between one or the other, either as a backup or for special purposes
(for example, the Aztechnology Aguilar, which has both a jet turbine and
electric engine).

When Ereskanti says multiple power plants, what I think *he* means are two
independent (yet identical) engines working concurrently for increased power
output. (for example, a single engine plane vs. a twin-engine plane).

Do I interpret either of you correctly, and which are you (both) talking
about?

-- Jon
Message no. 3
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:18:00 -0500
At 13-Nov-97 wrote Jon Szeto:



>When Barbie says multiple power plants, what I think he means is a vehicle
^^she, please:)

>with two completely different types of power plants, so that the driver can
>switch between one or the other, either as a backup or for special purposes
>(for example, the Aztechnology Aguilar, which has both a jet turbine and
>electric engine).

Yep thats what I mean in the fist place.
Examble as backup engine or like the Aguilar.
The rules for such effort should be not to complicated, since you have
to calculate only the weight, speed and so for each engine seperately.

>When Ereskanti says multiple power plants, what I think *he* means are two
>independent (yet identical) engines working concurrently for increased power
>output. (for example, a single engine plane vs. a twin-engine plane).

Yep, I think thats was he mean, extream difficult to make rules for it.
How would be the performance of a 747 with only one or thre engines?

>Do I interpret either of you correctly, and which are you (both) talking
>about?

You do and we talking about both possibilities of multiple engines,
wait for mixed multiple engines........



--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 4
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:07:10 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-13 23:00:29 EST, JonSzeto@***.COM writes:

> One of you two (or both) may be confusing me.
>
> When Barbie says multiple power plants, what I think he means is a vehicle
> with two completely different types of power plants, so that the driver
can
> switch between one or the other, either as a backup or for special
purposes
> (for example, the Aztechnology Aguilar, which has both a jet turbine and
> electric engine).

I actually believe that Barbie is thinking of something else, but I could
wrong too.

> When Ereskanti says multiple power plants, what I think *he* means are two
> independent (yet identical) engines working concurrently for increased
power
> output. (for example, a single engine plane vs. a twin-engine plane).
>
> Do I interpret either of you correctly, and which are you (both) talking
> about?

I know you are thinking correctly with regards to my posting. I am looking
for what happens with multiple power plants working in tandem/concurrence
with one another. I know this is usually resolved better with big airliners
and the like, but it has also come up with regards to -REALLY- heavy panzers
and the real Ares Dragon (using two tandem Cargo Helicopter engines). We
have used the Double Engine Dragon before, gainsaying the term "D2" for our
games here. Any thoughts, I posted some of mine in a related article
elsewhere, but simply put out my initial thoughts, and not anything concrete.

-K
Message no. 5
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:46:46 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-13 23:11:54 EST, you write:

> When Barbie says multiple power plants, what I think he means is a vehicle
> with two completely different types of power plants, so that the driver
can
> switch between one or the other, either as a backup or for special
purposes
> (for example, the Aztechnology Aguilar, which has both a jet turbine and
> electric engine).
>
> When Ereskanti says multiple power plants, what I think *he* means are two
> independent (yet identical) engines working concurrently for increased
power
> output. (for example, a single engine plane vs. a twin-engine plane).
>
> Do I interpret either of you correctly, and which are you (both) talking
> about?
>
> -- Jon

Ereskanti and I (Airwisp) mean that the two power plants are working together
for not just increased power output. For example, take a panzer for example,
give it the base t-bird power plant to create the thrust to keep the brick
from dropping, then add another, say a jump-jet fighter p-plant for the
movement and control thrust ... can you say a very fast t-bird ...

Which reminds me ... I need to refigure my panzer some ... gotta make up my
mind between a airliner/jump-jet p-plants or airliner/t-bird p-plants ...

Have fun,

Mike
Message no. 6
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:53:09 GMT
Keith wrote:
>I know you are thinking correctly with regards to my posting. I am looking
>for what happens with multiple power plants working in tandem/concurrence
>with one another. I know this is usually resolved better with big airliners
>and the like, but it has also come up with regards to -REALLY- heavy panzers
>and the real Ares Dragon (using two tandem Cargo Helicopter engines). We
>have used the Double Engine Dragon before, gainsaying the term "D2" for our
>games here. Any thoughts, I posted some of mine in a related article
>elsewhere, but simply put out my initial thoughts, and not anything concrete.

(The theme in this post is multiple power plants of the same kind as a means
to increased engine power)

Multiple power plants.. I would treat that as a non-problem. Both the Apache,
Hind, Havoc and Hokum use twin turbine engines for engine power. While they
have varying configurations the fact remains that they use multiple engines.
(It's not one engine for the tail rotor and one for the main rotor, btw, or
if it is, that is a third engine. We're talking 5000HP monster engines here.).

The reason? Twofold. Power and durability. The Ares Dragon might well be
a quad engine system for all I know, btw.

The cases in which it would be a problem/question/interesting would be in
cases where you install multiple engines in a vehicle which is not normally
configured for multiple engines. (Tractor pullers with six tandem engines,
for instance). Since the engine system is usually about half the chassis
of a vehicle (Hm. Is that right? Car.. a third. Helicopter, half, jet fighter,
two thirds... well, not that far off.)... adding a second engine doesn't double
the space used for engines in a vehicle, probably 50% extra. (Halve max
remaining CF's per added engine). What the gain would be is unknown.
Better speed? Better load(current) but reduced load(max) or the opposite?
KISS - assume it's handled by normal means of increasing performance?
Or make up something more.. +1 body, halve remaining CF's, add CMF(sp?),
double economy(halve, in effect), multiply max speed and acc with 1.2 *OR*
max possible load*1.5, sig is reduced by 2, double DP's for the power plant
and 1.5*DP's for chassis? Whatever...
Message no. 7
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:43:06 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-14 09:02:27 EST, runefo@***.UIO.NO writes:

>
> The cases in which it would be a problem/question/interesting would be in
> cases where you install multiple engines in a vehicle which is not
normally
> configured for multiple engines. (Tractor pullers with six tandem engines,
> for instance). Since the engine system is usually about half the chassis
> of a vehicle (Hm. Is that right? Car.. a third. Helicopter, half, jet
> fighter,
> two thirds... well, not that far off.)... adding a second engine doesn't
> double
> the space used for engines in a vehicle, probably 50% extra. (Halve max

I love these approximated guess btw, just wanted to let you know that.

> remaining CF's per added engine). What the gain would be is unknown.
> Better speed? Better load(current) but reduced load(max) or the opposite?
> KISS - assume it's handled by normal means of increasing performance?
> Or make up something more.. +1 body, halve remaining CF's, add CMF(sp?),
> double economy(halve, in effect), multiply max speed and acc with 1.2 *OR*
> max possible load*1.5, sig is reduced by 2, double DP's for the power
plant
> and 1.5*DP's for chassis? Whatever...

All of which are the same range of guestimates that Mike and I are working on
here, but we want something more Canon. Especially with what we have planned
coming up.

-K
Message no. 8
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 20:40:00 GMT
on 14.11.97 barbie@**********.COM wrote:

b> >When Barbie says multiple power plants, what I think he means is a vehicle
b> ^^she, please:)

They'll never gonna get it, eh? :)

b> >with two completely different types of power plants, so that the driver
b> >can switch between one or the other, either as a backup or for special
b> >purposes (for example, the Aztechnology Aguilar, which has both a jet
b> >turbine and electric engine).
b>
b> Yep thats what I mean in the fist place.
b> Examble as backup engine or like the Aguilar.
b> The rules for such effort should be not to complicated, since you have
b> to calculate only the weight, speed and so for each engine seperately.
b>
b> >When Ereskanti says multiple power plants, what I think *he* means are two
b> >independent (yet identical) engines working concurrently for increased
b> >power output. (for example, a single engine plane vs. a twin-engine
b> >plane).
b>
b> Yep, I think thats was he mean, extream difficult to make rules for it.
b> How would be the performance of a 747 with only one or thre engines?

Hmmmm....this isn't actually that hard (I'm heavy into physics, remember?)
Movement energy is 1/2*m*v^2, so to get twice the speed, you'll need 4
times as much power. So two engines will make the vehicle 1.4 (square-root
of 2 rounded to something usefull) times as fast (with half the economy)

b> You do and we talking about both possibilities of multiple engines,
b> wait for mixed multiple engines........

Same thing. First calculate the maximum energy for both engines (with the
formula above), add it together and then reverse the process to get the
new speed.

Sounds good?



Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 9
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 23:14:20 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-15 21:49:46 EST, Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE writes:

>
> Same thing. First calculate the maximum energy for both engines (with the
> formula above), add it together and then reverse the process to get the
> new speed.
>
> Sounds good?
>
All of this would sound wonderful, IF I had been able to follow it. Take the
square of what times what??? (Keith, who'se Migraine from Monday is back)
-K
Message no. 10
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:16:00 GMT
on 15.11.97 Ereskanti@***.COM wrote:
E> In a message dated 97-11-15 21:49:46 EST, Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE writes:
E>
E> >
E> > Same thing. First calculate the maximum energy for both engines (with
E> > the formula above), add it together and then reverse the process to get
E> > the new speed.
E> >
E> > Sounds good?
E> >
E> All of this would sound wonderful, IF I had been able to follow it. Take
E> the square of what times what??? (Keith, who'se Migraine from Monday is
E> back)

Ah, come on! This is easy.

sqrt(2*(velocity with one engine)^2)=velocity with two engines.

Got it?

No?

O.K.: take the square of the velocity with one engine. Then double it. Now
take the square root of this number and you have. That's the speed with
two engines (of the same type).

:)



Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 11
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:26:18 +0100
Tobias Berghoff said on 20:40/15 Nov 97...

> Hmmmm....this isn't actually that hard (I'm heavy into physics, remember?)
> Movement energy is 1/2*m*v^2, so to get twice the speed, you'll need 4
> times as much power. So two engines will make the vehicle 1.4 (square-root
> of 2 rounded to something usefull) times as fast (with half the economy)

Although that's the basics, I don't think it's quite that simple. You have
to actually transfer the power from the engines to the wheels, and if you
have two engines you're looking at a more complicated gearbox (can't have
one engine destroying the other) which causes a reduction in efficiency.
Clever design can reduce the reduction, but it won't totally negate it.
With aircraft, the extra engine adds drag, though by good design this can
again be minimized.
Furthermore, the extra engine adds weight, not just the engine itself but
the things around it as well. That also reduces the actual speed increase.

However, RPGs are probably not the ideal place to try and introduce such
complexity into vehicle design ;) For SR's purposes, I think it would be
a good idea to assume that more than one engine adds to the power as
Tobias said.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
So what if we're making a scene now?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 12
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 23:48:56 -0500
At 15-Nov-97 wrote Tobias Berghoff:



>Hmmmm....this isn't actually that hard (I'm heavy into physics, remember?)
>Movement energy is 1/2*m*v^2, so to get twice the speed, you'll need 4
>times as much power. So two engines will make the vehicle 1.4 (square-root
>of 2 rounded to something usefull) times as fast (with half the economy)

>b> You do and we talking about both possibilities of multiple engines,
>b> wait for mixed multiple engines........

>Same thing. First calculate the maximum energy for both engines (with the
>formula above), add it together and then reverse the process to get the
>new speed.

>Sounds good?

On the surface yes, but what you forget is the increased weight, the
increased airdrag and so on. Its like multiprocessing CPU`s, the speedup
is not linar.
And for mixed engines it will get worst.
Example jet and proppeler engine, the propeller engine has a speed limit
thats below the jet engine and at some point the rotor will break...
--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 13
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:47:00 GMT
on 16.11.97 gurth@******.NL wrote:

g> > Hmmmm....this isn't actually that hard (I'm heavy into physics,
g> > remember?) Movement energy is 1/2*m*v^2, so to get twice the speed,
g> > you'll need 4 times as much power. So two engines will make the vehicle
g> > 1.4 (square-root of 2 rounded to something usefull) times as fast (with
g> > half the economy)
g>
g> Although that's the basics, I don't think it's quite that simple. You have
g> to actually transfer the power from the engines to the wheels, and if you
g> have two engines you're looking at a more complicated gearbox (can't have
g> one engine destroying the other) which causes a reduction in efficiency.
g> Clever design can reduce the reduction, but it won't totally negate it.

Oh well. That's probably a few promille, so nothing to worry about.
Actually, I can't see where I lose energy there. I mean. what's that
energy turned into?

g> With aircraft, the extra engine adds drag, though by good design this can
g> again be minimized.

What's 'drag', Gurth?

g> Furthermore, the extra engine adds weight, not just the engine itself but
g> the things around it as well. That also reduces the actual speed increase.

The 'm' in the formula is mass. Of course, you take the one-engine mass in
the first step and the two-engine mass in the second (hey, I'm not *that*
stupid! :))

g> However, RPGs are probably not the ideal place to try and introduce such
g> complexity into vehicle design ;) For SR's purposes, I think it would be
g> a good idea to assume that more than one engine adds to the power as
g> Tobias said.

Well, thanks. What I really left out is friction. But I just don't want to
think up Cw-values for every vehicle. :)
(And hell, does it matter for SR? Nope.)



Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 14
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:46:30 +0000
On 16 Nov 97, Tobias Berghoff disseminated foul capitalist propaganda
by writing:

> on 16.11.97 gurth@******.NL wrote:
>
<snip>

> Oh well. That's probably a few promille, so nothing to worry about.
> Actually, I can't see where I lose energy there. I mean. what's that
> energy turned into?

Heat. Friction causes the elements to heat up, and in high end
vehicles that can be pretty severe... So the lost energy transforms
into heat... Hey, what about signature? ;>
Still, I'd say losses should be, in that case, ignored. This is SR,
after all...

> g> With aircraft, the extra engine adds drag, though by good design
> this can g> again be minimized.
>
> What's 'drag', Gurth?

Widerstand. (aerodynamischer, even... ;P)

<snip>


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike; FIAWOL
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
VICI, VENI, VD
Message no. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:01:14 +0100
Tobias Berghoff said on 18:47/16 Nov 97...

> g> With aircraft, the extra engine adds drag, though by good design this can
> g> again be minimized.
>
> What's 'drag', Gurth?

Wearing women's clothes when you're a man :)

Oh, you meant when it comes to aircraft... In that case it's air
resistance.

> Well, thanks. What I really left out is friction. But I just don't want to
> think up Cw-values for every vehicle. :)
> (And hell, does it matter for SR? Nope.)

My idea too. In the end I think using multiple engines is also unnecessary
-- you can easily say that, even though you buy a single engine in the
vehicle design rules, it's actually two smaller engines with the power
output of the one on the table. I don't think it matters much in the way
of rules...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
So what if we're making a scene now?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 16
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:03:05 -0600
On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Tobias Berghoff wrote:
> on 16.11.97 gurth@******.NL wrote:
> g> > Hmmmm....this isn't actually that hard (I'm heavy into physics,
> g> > remember?) Movement energy is 1/2*m*v^2,
> g> Although that's the basics, I don't think it's quite that simple. You have
> g> to actually transfer the power from the engines to the wheels, and if you
> g> have two engines you're looking at a more complicated gearbox (can't have
> g> one engine destroying the other) which causes a reduction in efficiency.
> g> Clever design can reduce the reduction, but it won't totally negate it.
> Oh well. That's probably a few promille, so nothing to worry about.
> Actually, I can't see where I lose energy there. I mean. what's that
> energy turned into?

Heat, Sound, Vibration, Wear on parts, ect for the energy loss internal to
the system energy. Remember your laws of Thermodynamics, 1) you cant win,
2) YOU CANT BREAK EVEN! You cant get as much energy out of a system as
you put into it with breaking the law.:) We will get to external loss in a
secound.

> g> With aircraft, the extra engine adds drag, though by good design this can
> g> again be minimized.
> What's 'drag', Gurth?

Drag is air resistance, basicly friction with the air. It is most obvious
on aircraft as Gurth said but you get it on everything. Try sticking your
had out the window as you drive down the road. That pressure you feel on
it is drag. Its perportional to the *thunkthunk* square of the speed, the
effective surface area, dencity of the medium, the coeficent of friction
between the medium and the object and probaly the phase of the moon as
well:). Those smooth curves on sport cars arnt just there for looks boys
and girls, the lower energy loss do to drag.


> g> However, RPGs are probably not the ideal place to try and introduce such
> g> complexity into vehicle design ;) For SR's purposes, I think it would be
> g> a good idea to assume that more than one engine adds to the power as
> g> Tobias said.
> Well, thanks. What I really left out is friction. But I just don't want to
> think up Cw-values for every vehicle. :)
> (And hell, does it matter for SR? Nope.)

BUT BUT We're Physics majors!! we have to obey the laws of Physics:).
Actualy thats probaly why upgrading the engine power costs so much, its
upgrading the EFECTIVE power after loses are taken into effect.

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 17
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:34:45 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-16 13:56:55 EST, Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE writes:

> Got it?
>
> No?
>
> O.K.: take the square of the velocity with one engine. Then double it. Now
> take the square root of this number and you have. That's the speed with
> two engines (of the same type).
>
Ah, yes, now I have it Tobias...so tell me, what's a Stonewall doing with
such a nice young lady???

-K (who would like to have a mail chat in private with ya)
Message no. 18
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 01:30:01 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-14 09:02:29 EST, you write:

> Multiple power plants.. I would treat that as a non-problem. Both the
Apache,
> Hind, Havoc and Hokum use twin turbine engines for engine power. While
they
> have varying configurations the fact remains that they use multiple
engines.
> (It's not one engine for the tail rotor and one for the main rotor, btw,
or
> if it is, that is a third engine. We're talking 5000HP monster engines
here.)
> .
>
> The reason? Twofold. Power and durability. The Ares Dragon might well be
> a quad engine system for all I know, btw.
>
> The cases in which it would be a problem/question/interesting would be in
> cases where you install multiple engines in a vehicle which is not
normally
> configured for multiple engines.

Here is what I have been using for vehicles that have multiple power plants
...

1. Start with the engine that is going to be the base engine for the vehicle
...

2. The only thing which benefits from multiple power plants is the Load
rating (any other is at the behest of the GM ... and that means I chat with
Keith in that department) ...

For the load increase ... the second engine adds in half of it's maximum
rating ...
The third adds in one-fourth of it's maximum rating for Load ...
And so on .. until the increase is negligible ...

Mike
Message no. 19
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 02:19:11 PST
>> O.K.: take the square of the velocity with one engine. Then double
it. Now
>> take the square root of this number and you have. That's the speed
with
>> two engines (of the same type).

This is mathematically identical to simply mutiplying by the square root
of the ratio of power increse- in this case, the sqrt of 2, for 2
identical engines.

IIRC, drag actually increses as the CUBE of speed, all other things
equal. Something to do with vortice formation in 3 dimensionsand such
bullshit. No, It's real physics, I just forget the actual formula.
Doubling speed requires 8 times as much power!

So instead, figure out the ratio of max power vs normal, and take the
CUBE ROOT to find the ratio of max speed (with multiple plants) to
normal (single plant) speed. Doubling power would give about a 25%
speed boost, which sound about right.

Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psychotic - Einstein

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 20
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:05:00 GMT
on 16.11.97 barbie@**********.COM wrote:

b> >Hmmmm....this isn't actually that hard (I'm heavy into physics, remember?)
b> >Movement energy is 1/2*m*v^2, so to get twice the speed, you'll need 4
b> >times as much power. So two engines will make the vehicle 1.4 (square-root
b> >of 2 rounded to something usefull) times as fast (with half the economy)
b>
b> >b> You do and we talking about both possibilities of multiple engines,
b> >b> wait for mixed multiple engines........
b>
b> >Same thing. First calculate the maximum energy for both engines (with the
b> >formula above), add it together and then reverse the process to get the
b> >new speed.
b>
b> >Sounds good?
b>
b> On the surface yes, but what you forget is the increased weight,

Is it really than unobvious? (Gurth had the same prob)
You use the one-engine mass in the first calculation and the two-engine
mass in the second. That's one of the reasons why I want to have the
weight of engines....

b> the increased airdrag and so on.

Well, give me Cw-values and I'll do it. BTW, we don't have to take
everything into account. I do have the correct formula here, but that's a
bit to complex (and really useless for normal SR: I'd need the actual
output of the vehicles, the mass, the Cw and the altitudes for planes)

[mixed engines]

Huh? I can't make an electric and a gas engine work together. They'd rip
eachother apart. Only the stronger engine will count.



Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 21
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:24:40 GMT
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:05:00 GMT, Tobias Berghoff wrote:

> [mixed engines]
>
> Huh? I can't make an electric and a gas engine work together. They'd rip
> eachother apart. Only the stronger engine will count.

Why would you think that the *type* of engine make a difference when using
multiple engines? Besides, with the proper "transmission" it could be
done.



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 22
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:23:00 GMT
on 17.11.97 trrkt@*****.ONET.PL wrote:

t> > on 16.11.97 gurth@******.NL wrote:
t> >
t> <snip>
t>
t> > Oh well. That's probably a few promille, so nothing to worry about.
t> > Actually, I can't see where I lose energy there. I mean. what's that
t> > energy turned into?
t>
t> Heat. Friction causes the elements to heat up, and in high end
t> vehicles that can be pretty severe... So the lost energy transforms
t> into heat... Hey, what about signature? ;>

Oh yeah. Gear friction (if that's the right translation). But I doubled it
anyway (which is far too much IMO), so I guess we can forget about
that...:)

t> > g> With aircraft, the extra engine adds drag, though by good design
t> > this can g> again be minimized.
t> >
t> > What's 'drag', Gurth?
t>
t> Widerstand. (aerodynamischer, even... ;P)

Hey, danke.

Anyway, the extra drag created by an additional engine ought to be
minimal. Drag is Cw * A * p * v^2, IIRC and as I only inrease Cw
slightly...



Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 23
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:36:00 GMT
on 17.11.97 gurth@******.NL wrote:

g> > g> With aircraft, the extra engine adds drag, though by good design this
g> > g> can again be minimized.
g> >
g> > What's 'drag', Gurth?
g>
g> Wearing women's clothes when you're a man :)

You do have strange planes, my friend. :)

g> Oh, you meant when it comes to aircraft... In that case it's air
g> resistance.

Ooops.

g> > Well, thanks. What I really left out is friction. But I just don't want
g> > to think up Cw-values for every vehicle. :)
g> > (And hell, does it matter for SR? Nope.)
g>
g> My idea too. In the end I think using multiple engines is also unnecessary
g> -- you can easily say that, even though you buy a single engine in the
g> vehicle design rules, it's actually two smaller engines with the power
g> output of the one on the table. I don't think it matters much in the way
g> of rules...

It's just that players (and GMs) always want to invent thier own stuff
(RPGers are a creative bunch, you know) and that's much easier if the GM
has some rules to do it. We have multiple engines in the sourcebooks, so
you can imagine that lots of players want their own. Especially since the
R2 came out. (I know, you can always solve the problem with a fistfight,
but one of my players' doing TeaKwonDo...:)



Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 24
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:29:00 GMT
on 17.11.97 Ereskanti@***.COM wrote:

E> > Got it?
E> >
E> > No?
E> >
E> > O.K.: take the square of the velocity with one engine. Then double it.
E> > Now take the square root of this number and you have. That's the speed
E> > with two engines (of the same type).
E> >
E> Ah, yes, now I have it Tobias...so tell me, what's a Stonewall doing with
E> such a nice young lady???

Ermmm....what?

E> -K (who would like to have a mail chat in private with ya)

No prob. I do have a AOL account (Try "Zixx Crus").


Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 25
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:47:00 GMT
on 18.11.97 jlindsay@******.CA wrote:

j> > [mixed engines]
j> >
j> > Huh? I can't make an electric and a gas engine work together. They'd rip
j> > eachother apart. Only the stronger engine will count.
j>
j> Why would you think that the *type* of engine make a difference when using
j> multiple engines? Besides, with the proper "transmission" it could be
j> done.

The problem is that maybe the gas engine does 150Hz maximum, while the
Diesel does 100Hz. Now, if I kick the gas up to 150Hz, the diesel's going
to blow. Unless I take it out of the system, which would mean I lose a lot
of power.

see what I mean?


Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 26
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:58:53 GMT
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:47:00 GMT, Tobias Berghoff wrote:

> on 18.11.97 jlindsay@******.CA wrote:
>
> j> > [mixed engines]
> j> >
> j> > Huh? I can't make an electric and a gas engine work together. They'd rip
> j> > eachother apart. Only the stronger engine will count.
> j>
> j> Why would you think that the *type* of engine make a difference when using
> j> multiple engines? Besides, with the proper "transmission" it could
be
> j> done.
>
> The problem is that maybe the gas engine does 150Hz maximum, while the
> Diesel does 100Hz. Now, if I kick the gas up to 150Hz, the diesel's going
> to blow. Unless I take it out of the system, which would mean I lose a lot
> of power.
>
> see what I mean?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Hz". Is this a European term for RPMs
(rotations per minute)? Or do you mean "horsepower" (translation: KW, or
kilowatts)? I'm assuming you mean the former, since Hz (hertz) are cycles
per second, while RPMs are cycles per minute.

No matter. If a diesel engine can only handle a certain rotational
velocity (or RPMs) before going boom, and a tandem electrical powerplant
can handle much higher RPMs, it simply becomes a matter of using a gear
reduction system with the proper ratio to provide identical final drive RPM
ratings. Besides, electric motors provide the most torque at stall speeds,
tapering off as they spin faster and faster. Since diesels rarely operate
above 4,000 RPM (2,000 RPM in heavy trucks), both drive systems share
similar torque & horsepower curves.

Or, you could use a fluid coupler like the torque converter in an automatic
transmission if you think a direct drive will suffer too much stress. This
way, the slower revving diesel engine will be able to remain max'ed out at
2,000 RPM (or whatever) while still allowing the electric motors to run at
higher RPMs.

Or-- and this works best with a wheeled vehicle example-- you could have
the diesel engine powering the rear wheels while electric motors power the
fronts (kind of like a hybrid 4x4).



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Power Plant Mania (Re: Riggers and Mechs), 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!