Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Traveller

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-25-2020, 05:48 AM   #11
thrash
 
thrash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: traveller
Default Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
Sometimes the best approach is not to give out justifications, since they tend to draw attention to the very things that everyone would be more comfortable studiously ignoring.
It is my nature to worry about such things. I have my answers for most of the issues you raise, though it makes my ATU physically very different from the OTU (as I think you've seen elsewhere).

I don't necessarily share my justifications, mind. I simply like to have them ready if and when someone asks.
thrash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 05:58 AM   #12
thrash
 
thrash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: traveller
Default Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
Whilst it is possible to extract unrefined fuel from oceans, is it written that water is unrefined fuel?
"In addition, water can be taken from oceans or lakes (if there are any on the world) and used as unrefined fuel."
Book 2 (1981), p. 6.

"Any streamlined or partially streamlined ship may be equipped with fuel scoops which allow the skimming of gas from gas giants. On streamlined ships, such an installation also includes hoses or other equipment for drawing water from oceans. ... If fuel scoops are installed, a fuel purification plant should be installed on the ship or available on another ship before the fuel is used in drives.
"Unrefined fuel,, when used in starship drives and power plants, can result in equipment malfunctions and misjumps. This can be avoided with the use of a fuel purification plant which allows refining of the raw gas before it is used in the drives."
Book 5 (1980), p. 27.

The implication is clear: water drawn from oceans or lakes is unrefined fuel; processing requires a purification plant (which isn't mentioned in Book 2) and produces refined fuel.
thrash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 06:36 AM   #13
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers

I respectfully disagree with your inference, as you say it is not explicit, but that's why we have our own traveller universes. Traveller is the bare bones of a system, the rest is up to you to implement. Vive la difference ;)

Surely, the simplest thing to do is just require an imperial licence to buy a shipboard fuel refiner. You know, after that tragic accident where Duke XXXX was sucked into a fuel refiner while out swimming, it's just a safety measure, honest. Surface facilities are inspected etc...

Doesn't inhibit trade, brings in revenue. Emperor Approved!

You can make those licences as difficult or easy to acquire as you wish (even require one per system). Or you could ban fuel scoops and refiners in non-military ships altogether... "Recognising the need to combat piracy..." All non-military ships will need to refuel at starports only and thus the sector polities can monitor / restrict fuelling to reputable parties. I amy not be able to do you for piracy Cpt. Parrot, but I can do you for evasion of fuel duties.

Even if the Emperor would not risk such a broad policy, individual planets/system already inhibit skimming to protect their own Starport revenue streams / ecology's.

Most oceans have more than just oxygen and hydrogen in them. You may be able to vent surplus oxygen to jump space as you burn unrefined fuel, venting micro-aquatic sophonts is another matter.

Some scooped hydrogen sources might contain any number of corrosive contaminants vastly increasing your maintenance costs. One of the ways of defusing mechanical timer based WW2 bombs was to flood the fuse with a concentrated salt solution. The water evaporated and the salt gummed up the mechanics. That was the reason I consider there is some rendering of ocean derived fuel before it gets to the fuel tanks.

But fundamentally even 3 tonnes for a refiner is 3K credits less haulage fee (more if you can trade speculatively). On a 100 ton ship you are only 1-2 Kc better off skimming even if you would only haul someone else's stuff (even ignoring the capital cost and increased maintenance cost).

I note that unrefined fuel is not the biggest contributor to risk of mis-jump. As long as you are properly maintained and have an engineer there is only a 1 in 36 chance of mis-jumping or your drive failing. To be honest that mis-jump is more of a pain to the DM than the players. A random hop of up to 36 hexes screams adventure and campaign busting in the same ragged breath. Are you going to kill the players? Do they know that? Are they going to take the risk then? It's less than the risk of low-berthing and people do that all the time. It's probably lower than the chance of dying during character generation. I know campaigns where players would do that for fun and profit. The campaign would resemble "Quantum Leap" with every jump requiring the DM to generate entire systems (or even sub-sectors) on the fly. It would be easier to just kill them.

I think fuel purifiers are the least of your worries, but again our campaigns vary. I am not sure in my game they will every get up to 20 jumps before they get themselves killed ;)

Last edited by swordtart; 02-25-2020 at 07:33 AM.
swordtart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 08:39 AM   #14
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
W

Cracking water should use a lot of power, so some of the fuel you have just refined is used in the refining process itself further extending the refuel time.
A fellow once wanted to know how much hydrogen his fusion power plant used per week. After some calculations I was able to tell him that his multi-MW power plant fused about 2 liters per year.

Cracking water does not use a lot of power on a scale that has multi-megawatt power plants as the norm.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 02:38 PM   #15
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrash View Post
It is my nature to worry about such things. I have my answers for most of the issues you raise, though it makes my ATU physically very different from the OTU (as I think you've seen elsewhere).

I don't necessarily share my justifications, mind. I simply like to have them ready if and when someone asks.
That is a very sound position, one that I am struggling towards myself.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.

Last edited by Agemegos; 02-25-2020 at 03:53 PM.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 02:42 PM   #16
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
A fellow once wanted to know how much hydrogen his fusion power plant used per week. After some calculations I was able to tell him that his multi-MW power plant fused about 2 liters per year.
Hah! What's that, about 140 grams? Five ounces?
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 02:59 PM   #17
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
Hah! What's that, about 140 grams? Five ounces?
Protium fusion is basically 4H (4.0313 AMU) -> 4He (4.0026 AMU) for a net loss of 0.0287 AMU, or about 7.2%, which is maximum energy yield of about 6.4e+12J/g; over a year (3.2e+7s) that is about 200 kW, so 140 grams is 28 megawatts, or less depending on efficiency (Traveller probably can't capture the neutrinos and likely doesn't have perfect efficiency, so I'd assume not more than 20 MW).

2 liters looks low, at least for a CT reactor outputting 250MW per EP; perhaps it was originally 2 kg.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 03:53 PM   #18
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Protium fusion is basically 4H (4.0313 AMU) -> 4He (4.0026 AMU) for a net loss of 0.0287 AMU, or about 7.2%, which is maximum energy yield of about 6.4e+12J/g; over a year (3.2e+7s) that is about 200 kW, so 140 grams is 28 megawatts, or less depending on efficiency (Traveller probably can't capture the neutrinos and likely doesn't have perfect efficiency, so I'd assume not more than 20 MW).

2 liters looks low, at least for a CT reactor outputting 250MW per EP
You could have a 5MW reactor, 2% of that, and still be fairly called "multi-MW".

Quote:
perhaps it was originally 2 kg.
That is still an hilariously small amount.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 03:58 PM   #19
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
That is still an hilariously small amount.
Yes, and that CT reactor had a ton of hydrogen fuel (in High Guard, a pp-1 is 250 MW/100 dtons, and requires a 1% fuel fraction. As I recall, it needed monthly refueling, or around 6,000x what was needed).

It's actually about right if you assume that you only fuse the deuterium (1 part in 5,000), which might be the original source of the numbers -- someone saw the numbers for fusing the deuterium and thought it was the total.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2020, 07:41 PM   #20
thrash
 
thrash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: traveller
Default Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
Surely, the simplest thing to do is just require an imperial licence to buy a shipboard fuel refiner.
If the characters can get their hands on naval grade lasers and missiles, I can't imagine that obtaining a fuel purifier would be even that difficult. (And prohibiting the former would be a more effective tool for preventing piracy than the latter.)

The reason I asked in the first place is that I'm considering the mechanics of exploration beyond the bounds of civilization -- specifically during the Long Night, but the principles are generally applicable.

In first (1977) edition Book 2, for example, the DM to drive failure for using unrefined fuel was +1 per jump, "until the drives are flushed, which takes a week at any starport." (p. 4) Since refined fuel was available only at class A or B starports, this was a pretty significant limit on visits to previously uncontacted worlds (starport X, before the introduction of travel zones).

Quote:
As long as you are properly maintained and have an engineer there is only a 1 in 36 chance of mis-jumping or your drive failing.
Remember that a misjump has a 50% chance of landing in an empty hex at standard density (more like 67% in most published sectors). Having to maintain a Jump-1 fuel reserve against the possibility of being stranded or having to "walk" home STL is considerably more expensive.
thrash is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.