Morning arakish and Defendi,
And another question.
Can it purchased separately to do both?
rmfr
No. The ideas are sort of mutually exclusive.
And why not?
rmfr
In the real world an alloy is created by mixing different percentages of materials during the manufacturing process. SM: P special alloys, at least in my mind and as written currently in the construction rules, use different mixed materials to provide enhanced DB or better hull acceleration reinforcement.
If I'm understanding the rule modification proposed by MarkC correctly the CAT can be mixed to provide both DB and acceleration reinforcement at the same time. Which is how the Note example in SM2 Superior Alloy suggested could be done except for the either/or requirement in the main rules.
To me the question Can it purchased separately to do both?
seems to mean creating a DB Alloy, then a Hull acceleration reinforcement Alloy, and combining them together somehow. If I got the question right then I have two separate alloys laminated together instead of a single alloy combined at the molecular level. In the real world the laminated alloy is weaker than the single mixed alloy. Also the laminated alloy is probably thicker and heavier than the mixed alloy. Of course I could be totally out in a field somewhere;-).
Tom R
Sorry. In actuality, I was only asking questions others may want answered. However, laminated materials have been proven to be much stronger than single layer materials.
To me the question Can it purchased separately to do both?
seems to mean creating a DB Alloy,
Actually, this was in reference to lamination technologies.
A very good example exists in the woods (I am a carpenter hobbyist). Plyboard, more commonly known as plywood sheets, is much stronger than a single sheet of wood of the same dimensions of the same type of wood. A single plyboard sheet 4' x 8' x 0.5" will support much more weight than a board of a single piece of wood the same size. This is why plyboard is used to make roofs on a house. Then again, the only wood you will ever be able to make a single sheet that is 4' x 8' x 0.5" in size is redwood or sequoia. This is the reason why plyboard is manufactured.
The same holds true for metals, ceramics, and metaliceramic alloys. Several sheets laminated together will resist more force and heat and energy than a sheet of a single material of the same thickness. This makes one wonder why our ships and tanks are not constructed from laminated materials. Then again, they are. Our tanks have steel plate armor as the base. On top of this is ceramic alloys, then on top of that is reactive armor. Our naval ships have double and triple hulls. The more layers means less chance of a single force or energy being able to punch through.
Thus, my question stands. Why couldn't they be purchased separately in laminated layers?
Then again, as said, this is a house rule. In my house rules, such things can be purchased multiple times, separately, and then laminated into a single system. Of course, this can consume a huge amount of mass and volume of the vessel, but if the person is willing to sacrifice other systems...
Even my father, God Rest His Soul, who had doctorates in both Mechanical and Construction Engineering said it was feasible. Notice I said that he said it was feasible. He earned his doctorates in 1958 (Mechanical) and 1963 (Construction). He also told me that it was not possible in our current engineering possibilities (in 1973).
However, he also said, "But who is to say what we may be able to do in the next 50 years. Look at the engineering we have been able to overcome in just time when I joined the USAF (in 1953) and since landing men on the moon." And that was said back in 1978.
Thus, I say, think about it. Why could we not engineer interstellar vessels that are capable of having a laminated superior set of alloys that can both withstand acceleration and decreasing the chances of hull penetration due to combat activities?
Think about it. If had not been for the double hull system (in a sense lamination) of the USS Cole, that destroyer would have normally sunk. Especially if it was constructed using World War Two technology instead of the construction technology we learned while in the Vietnam War. The USS Cole would possibly even broke in half while sinking.
I do not care what anyone else says, laminated systems will always be much stronger than single layer systems. If you think different, then prove me wrong.
Evening MarkC,
If a drive unit can operate in vacuum and provide propulsion in an atmosphere then I would guess liquid like water wouldn't be a problem. Of course a plot device could be that due to age, a manufacturing flaw, damage, or anything the GM can think of could cause a failure. I think that Chris Bunch in the Last Legion series allowed starships to operate on the water without any problems. Okay, being hit with ordnance did have some negative consequences. I also think that the ships could submerge as well, guess I'll have to read the books again.
Tom R
Sorry, but drive units that operate in space cannot operate in an atmosphere. The two mediums are too different in their densities. Space has literally no density. Compared to space, an atmosphere is infinitely denser. That is why you have the phenomena known as Re-entry. Compared to the atmosphere, liquid water is infinitely denser. That is why you can free fall from 25,000 feet and hit water with almost the same impact force as hitting ground. Provided there is no parachute used.
Here is a question for you. Can a ship also move across the land? No. Because the land is so much denser than water the propellor will not work.
Or am I getting this wrong? It seems to me that you are saying that a single drive system could operate in space, an atmosphere, and underwater? If so, then that would be impossible. In this case, the drive systems are mutually exclusive and must be purchased separately. Unless it is some form of hyper-gravitic drive system.
rmfr
