Jump to content

Recommended Posts

    I am almost positive that this topic has come up before, but I make this post just in case.  If this is an existing topic can someone kindly point me to it, thanks.

    In this world of nanoformers and FTL the power issue may have with been dealt within lore but if it hasn't it opens up some interesting gameplay possibilities.  Can your spaceship's battery die? The most basic question to ask, this idea is closely linked with that of fuel because what ever is used to propel the ship though space can likely be used to generate power.  Maybe the outer layer of every ship is super efficient solar panel, although that leads into the same question when some of your outer hull is damaged or completely destroyed, if you dont manage your power levels could you lose all ship function and be set adrift, in the cold unforgiving void.  As the size of whatever we are taking about gets larger the questions change, to things like stability in things like nuclear reactors, and coolant, and the more exciting possibility of the trench run being recreated in DU.  Which brings my to the final point, Starkiller base, and dyson spheres and personally setting your organization to being a type two civilization, the power being used for whatever a giant space gun, opening massive stargate portals for your whole fleet or over relatively huge distances, or maybe even selling batteries and becoming space Energizer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The energy gathering seems a very important part of the game... Or at least this is the impression given to me by the reading of the story in the dev-blog...

 

 

And we try to gather energy through solar farms and yellow trees native to Alioth which have a sap resembling a solar fuel, and which I can suck into our kadpaks and then pour back into our reservoirs.

https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2015/08/20/dual-universe-part-4/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love power usage as it would allow huge solar farms be constructed just to gather some energy.

It would also make exploration not a "do I have enough reactors?" but more like a "I'm low on fuel. I should conserve it".

 

Which would make huge colony ships sent into space trying to find uranium and hydrogen (assuming there are hydrogen-based generators).

 

I mean, of course, we could just stock up on a few billion batteries and be lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Asimos, Thanks for pointing that, by some upsetting miracle, I only learned of this game today so I am not caught up on all the dev blogs.

@Kuritho, hopefully that is a decision I get to make, although there will most likely be some feature of physics in the game, like the rocket equation for traveling though stargates, so I have opportunity to bust out my calculator and spreadsheets, to find out just how many billions of AAAs i should pick up at CaptainTwerkmotor's costco gas.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Asimos, Thanks for pointing that, by some upsetting miracle, I only learned of this game today so I am not caught up on all the dev blogs.

 

@Kuritho, hopefully that is a decision I get to make, although there will most likely be some feature of physics in the game, like the rocket equation for traveling though stargates, so I have opportunity to bust out my calculator and spreadsheets, to find out just how many billions of AAAs i should pick up at CaptainTwerkmotor's costco gas.   

I'd actually opt for the BigBangBatteries. (BBB)

They have twice the power at a fraction of the cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interstellar starships require a vast amount of power for engines, weapons, shields and life support.  The electrical requirements to run computer/navigation systems is miniscule in comparison.  Although power management will certainly be a game mechanic I doubt you would get to the point where your batteries run out and the lights turn off - unless your ship is pretty much destroyed, and then you have bigger problems to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of solar farms I'm imagining a solar powered particle accelerator occupying a substantial part of a moon's surface, possibly running around the entire equator.  This accelerator has one purpose:  Antimatter production.  You know you want it.  In gameplay terms this would be the ultimate in high performance fuel at the expense of requiring a huge infrastructure to manufacture it.  Antimatter propulsion could be geared for high efficiency, making them well suited for long distance exploration, or high thrust, ideal for combat maneuvers.  Antimatter power plants could similarly work both ways, either with a long endurance power plant where a little bit of antimatter goes a long way, or a high performance plant, for when you need to recharge your railgun capacitors right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of solar farms I'm imagining a solar powered particle accelerator occupying a substantial part of a moon's surface, possibly running around the entire equator.  This accelerator has one purpose:  Antimatter production.  You know you want it.  In gameplay terms this would be the ultimate in high performance fuel at the expense of requiring a huge infrastructure to manufacture it.  Antimatter propulsion could be geared for high efficiency, making them well suited for long distance exploration, or high thrust, ideal for combat maneuvers.  Antimatter power plants could similarly work both ways, either with a long endurance power plant where a little bit of antimatter goes a long way, or a high performance plant, for when you need to recharge your railgun capacitors right now.

"Star Wars Episove 7 : Attack of the Bogush Science" aside, there's not any possible chance of moving a moon with any kind of propulsion. And I don't mean that in game it won't be possible,  I mean in real life. Such a strainous application of force would have to be spread out in a ratio of 30 to 45% of one hemisphere of the moon's surface to do so and then, you got random things like tectonic plates shifting at the wrong angle, SHREDDING the moon apart. Sure, if you want to see the world burn go for it, if it's a moon and you break it you probably destroyed the planet below via raging thunderstorms and high tides. :P

 

 

I'm talking Sharknado levels of destruction here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not suggesting moving a moon. Just using a moon as an example of how large the infrastructure should be. It's unlikely that celestial objects will be moving at all. Mattter-Antimatter reactions truly are very energetic though. Nice high-end alternative to the super maple syrup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not suggesting moving a moon. Just using a moon as an example of how large the infrastructure should be. It's unlikely that celestial objects will be moving at all. Mattter-Antimatter reactions truly are very energetic though. Nice high-end alternative to the super maple syrup.

Dayum, I read "Antimatter propulsion". 

 

My bad xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBF he does say "Antimatter propulsion" but in a different context. Another high-end energy source would be zero-point energy, but that's sort of energy for free, so not balanced at all. Perhaps an SGU star-skimmer type of energy gathering. Literal solar power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBF he does say "Antimatter propulsion" but in a different context. Another high-end energy source would be zero-point energy, but that's sort of energy for free, so not balanced at all. Perhaps an SGU star-skimmer type of energy gathering. Literal solar power.

Zero-point energy is a misconceptualised idea. Zero-point Energy is the energy preventing us to go to Absolute Zero temperatures. It's called Zero Point because of the temperature we have managed to reach in a lab, 0.000001 Kelvin (Zero Point Zero Zero Zero Zero Zero One) , cause after that temperature, all sorts of quantum mechanics kick in, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and such. The point is, think about it. In order to cool something, you need to keep said something in place, because atoms vibrate or more accurately, OSCILATE depending on the electrons they have around them, in other words, HEAT. 

 

When you cool something down, you need energy for that. And Zero Point is the kind of last ditch energy in the universe that won't allow you to break though that point. It's like Special Relatitivity in a way preventing us from reaching the speed of light. We can get near it, but never reach it. 

 

 

So no, YOU CAN'T HARVEST ZERO POINT ENERGY.

 

 

It's like saying that the Flash is going at 5 times the speed of light really. It's a sci-fi oxymoron like Superman's laser vision being visible to the naked eye or Star Trek's beaming device.

 

The universe works in absolutes. Actions and reactions. There's no free energy... sorry.

 

Cold Fusion though is more than feasible. It's all until the real heroes of humanity figure out how to lock down how to manipulate quarks and boom we'll have the power of a star powering our engines.

 

 

Peace ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things: to cool down atoms you have to make them slower, not keep them locked up tighter.

With locking them up tighter you heat them up more.

But then, you also have the problem that individual atoms dont have a defined temperature but only large groups of atoms have a temperature due to temp being a statistical measure. :P

 

Its also dependent on the linear movement of atoms, not on "oscillations because of their electrons".

Its electrons dont make an atom oscillate in free space.

 

But regardless, theres something else that we may can tap into for power: vacuum fluctuations.

With the right setup they have a measurable effect and even provide very small amounts of unusable work.

We have yet to figure out how to extract power (pseudo)continously.

We know how to build batteries using the same principle, though.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

 

 

Also "lock down how to manipulate quarks", and how should that provide power? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things: to cool down atoms you have to make them slower, not keep them locked up tighter.

With locking them up tighter you heat them up more.

But then, you also have the problem that individual atoms dont have a defined temperature but only large groups of atoms have a temperature due to temp being a statistical measure. :P

 

Its also dependent on the linear movement of atoms, not on "oscillations because of their electrons".

Its electrons dont make an atom oscillate in free space.

 

But regardless, theres something else that we may can tap into for power: vacuum fluctuations.

With the right setup they have a measurable effect and even provide very small amounts of unusable work.

We have yet to figure out how to extract power (pseudo)continously.

We know how to build batteries using the same principle, though.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

 

 

Also "lock down how to manipulate quarks", and how should that provide power? :P

Bob's your uncle good sir :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how fusion works, thank you.

 

what are you trying to say there?

... manipulating quarks to turn a hydrogen (a proton) into a neutron. Cause you know, fusing 1 hydrogen and 1 hydorgen will create something is not POSSIBLE,. That's my point on "locking down how to manipulate quarks" and why that provides energy via naturally occuring cold fusion that provides more energy than imported into it.

 

Stop acting like you can't read between the lines Cornflakes, it's exasperating at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you skip the step of helium-2 to deuterium you are far from cold fusion.

 

We skip that step all the time in terrestric fusion experiments and they are far from being cold fusion :P

 

Solar fusion in general isnt cold fusion either, its the very definition of hot fusion :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you skip the step of helium-2 to deuterium you are far from cold fusion.

 

We skip that step all the time in terrestric fusion experiments and they are far from being cold fusion :P

 

Solar fusion in general isnt cold fusion either, its the very definition of hot fusion :P

Still trolling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, just stating facts.

Is a fact you just made a technicality over what Cold Fusion is?

 

If it's not Thermonuclear and it doesn't waste energy instead of generating, it's Cold Fusion. This is a fact.

 

What you stated in your previous reply is considered trolling, an attempt to infuriate by commenting platitudes in a thread to prolong a conversation to the point of exasperation of the opposite party. I tried politely to end this "game" of yours, by stating you won, you exasperated me.

 

Fusing two Hydrogens won't lead to any step of Helium-2, because 2 protons, don't make a Helium. Manipulating quarks to shift a hydrogen - a proton - from a UUD configuration to a UDD quark configuration would lead into fusion of Hydrgeon with its reconfigured self, given that energy would be produced instead of being spent, that would be categorised as Cold Fusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a fact you just made a technicality over what Cold Fusion is?

 

If it's not Thermonuclear and it doesn't waste energy instead of generating, it's Cold Fusion. This is a fact.

 

What you stated in your previous reply is considered trolling, an attempt to infuriate by commenting platitudes in a thread to prolong a conversation to the point of exasperation of the opposite party. I tried politely to end this "game" of yours, by stating you won, you exasperated me.

 

Fusing two Hydrogens won't lead to any step of Helium-2, because 2 protons, don't make a Helium. Manipulating quarks to shift a hydrogen - a proton - from a UUD configuration to a UDD quark configuration would lead into fusion of Hydrgeon with its reconfigured self, given that energy would be produced instead of being spent, that would be categorised as Cold Fusion.

No, you are describing the first step of the proton proton chain of solar fusion.

Which is very hot fusion.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton–proton_chain_reaction

 

And a nucleus with two protons /is/ per definition helium because atoms are categorised by their number of protons.

Helium2 is a highly unstable isotope of helium without any neutrons.

Its still helium.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope

 

 

Cold fusion isnt "without wasting energy", cold fusion is a fusion reaction that happens at much lower reactant temperatures than solar fusion.

It makes no statement about efficiency.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

 

 

I'll stop being annoying when you stop spouting nonsense as fact.

Especially things you could check with 2 minutes of googling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are getting too bogged down in real science here. This is a game. It doesn't have to satisfy real science, otherwise, this game would take place on Earth with current 2016 technologies. The point here is that it's fun and entertaining, not accurate.

 

Zero point energy may in reality be unfeasible, but I would want that in the game anyway. Cold fusion might be unfeasible, but we can have that too. Recall from the short story that we may be using magic maple syrup to power our ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are getting too bogged down in real science here. This is a game. It doesn't have to satisfy real science, otherwise, this game would take place on Earth with current 2016 technologies. The point here is that it's fun and entertaining, not accurate.

 

Zero point energy may in reality be unfeasible, but I would want that in the game anyway. Cold fusion might be unfeasible, but we can have that too. Recall from the short story that we may be using magic maple syrup to power our ships.

IF we are to add misconceived science in a game, I want EM drives powered by singing good sir. It would work with my proposal of Ship Shanties in the game. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...