Things TLs 7-9 would be interesting to see WITHOUT - Page 4

nik1979 · 10-24-2009, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molokh

Greetings, all!

This more of a free practice for world-building, but I'm curious about possible differences that would make alternate worlds of a TL similar to ours (i.e. from TL7 to TL9, with almost-humans) look very different from ours. It seems that I'm not good at judging possible consequences, so both analyses of consequences and more examples are welcome. So, a few ideas of mine:

No consumerism.
No corporations at all.
No makeup (okay, this one goes from than TL0 . . .).
No skyscrapers and multilevel residences (only workplaces and hotels fall so low).
No Superpowers (i.e. all countries are no larger than England, Poland, France etc.).
No centralized cellphone systems (but radio relays are fully maintained by volunteers, linux-style).
No patents - only copyrights and trademarks.
No intellectual property, but only in the world of software.
No governmental armies - only mercs.
No mercs - armies started as militias and ended up as governmental armies.
No social gender roles at all - wonder how that would affect technology from the onset.
No internet.
No GUIs.

Thanks in advance!

After reading the other replies, what about TL7 should remain? Might as well stagnate at TL3.

Quote:

[*]No social gender roles at all - wonder how that would affect technology from the onset.

Isnt a lot of the meritocratic culture, equality, freedoms we are getting from TL7-9? I mean you can't have freedom from slavery, and sexism until there was enough critical mass to afford that change.

Since there are so much of the modern world has to be removed, what should remain in a while leaving everything TL2-3 why call it TL7-9 without X?

Mailanka · 10-24-2009, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik1979

After reading the other replies, what about TL7 should remain? Might as well stagnate at TL3.

I think the point of this thread is not to design a TL 7 without all these things, but to pick and choose. Aliens might have Nuclear Power without Nuclear weapons, but they still have corporations and consumerism, or religion and intellectual property, etc.

This is one of those threads that are all about "How far can we stretch this TL, and still be in it," which is quite handy for alternate world creation.

dcarson · 10-25-2009, 03:06 AM

The freight idea reminded me of an old idea of mine. Pre WW II someone comes up wit the idea of container shipping. The containers would be smaller than what we use today, smaller trucks and ships. The idea is adopted by the military for logistic in the war. Lots of army 2 1/2 ton truck with container bases instead of covered backs. Liberty ships designed to load an unload standard containers quickly. A slight impact on the war, better logistics and fewer troops tied up moving supplies. After the war instead of pushing the interstate system the way he did Eisenhower supports an expansion of the modal switching yards that transfer the containers from trains to truck to ships. So no interstates, most major roads are similar to the old US Routes like the classic Rt 66.

BMR · 10-25-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

As other threads have said, that would require radio waves to propagate much farther than they do in the real world. Still interesting though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasonft

What's the effective range on radio transmissions then? I never heard this as hard figures.

Radiowaves can and do have ranges of hundreds, even thousands of light-years. A pulsar or quasar can send radio waves between galaxies.

Radio is a long wavelength with a low pulse repetition rate. This means it is low-powered and low resolution, blockable by solid objects, but has great range.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, gamma rays and X-rays are high-powered, high res, and able to penetrate solid objects--but they are short-ranged and require much more power than radio to cross any appreciable distance. That's because they have very short wavelengths, so they don't travel far without a lot of juice behind them. The reason why gamma ray bursts from black holes and supernovas are considered such a threat is because they are backed by the power of a star.

The general rule is that the higher the frequency, the more power it takes to transmit, the more powerful the beam is, but the shorter the range for your effort. You can make an ultraviolet beam with the same range as a radio, but you'll have to hook up exponentially more energy to get there. But if it works, those space aliens will read you loud and clear!

Power means two things: generative capacity, and heat! There's a reason why the military is exploring infrared lasers, because visible laser beams not only require more power to achieve the same range as infrared, but also heat up the weapon more. As it is, solid state infrared beams can fit on a Humvee, but still require a liquid coolant system. Kind of the TL9 equivalent of a water-cooled Maxim gun.

But if this is true, then why is cell phone and radio reception so crappy on Earth? Range on Earth is limited due to our atmosphere, which absorbs, reflects, and scatters all electromagnetic frequencies. Radio transmission is also limited by your power source; which is why your average walkie-talkie can't reach more than few miles.

Also, radio transmissions like to pool around metal, which is one reason why the Navy has special procedures for handling fuels and explosives near antennas. We don't use depleted uranium in part because it was expensive overkill, and in part because it supposedly reacts with RF energy that accumulates around the superstructure of a ship.

Here's the other thing. All EM energy attenuates on their own. That means the particles in your beam will naturally widen and scatter, known as a "bloom". Thus, radio signals tend to be very weak, long before they reach their maximum theoretical range.

The range on your walkie-talkie or cell phone is not just a measure of output, but also input. A more sensitive reciever will detect weaker signals at longer range. Which means more expensive phones and radios. Most organizations prefer to invest in a centralized relay or "repeater" system, rather than pony up the cash to give each individual a high-quality radio. Cell phone towers are an excellent example of this.

For a transmission between stars, you also have to worry about nebulae and Oort clouds and a lot of other junk in the "vacuum" of space. All of this means your transmission will need a pretty tight beam, aimed at specific systems. You can't just broadcast in all directions.

BMR · 10-25-2009, 05:56 PM

Leading to the obvious:

What if there was no radio? Telegraphs, close circuit television, even phone lines--but no radiowave or microwave transmission?

This would be difficult to justify, because radio and microwaves are so much easier to generate than laser beams, but I think it would be interesting if a world bypassed radio communication and relied entirely upon hardlines.

Come to think of it, there is a TL6/ early TL7 example of this. Even in World War II, portable radios were uncommon. Most militaries relied heavily on landlines, flags, signal flares, and couriers for long distance communication. Even during the Normandy campaign in the summer of 1944, the British and German ground forces had little or no radio coordination with their air and artillery.

Before 1942, radio sets seldom existed below the division headquarters level, and perhaps one vehicle in an entire battalion of 100 tanks might be equipped. This is especially the case with the Russians. Artillery, aircraft, signal units, and ships were the exception, because they were considered in higher need. Radio was a central job of any signal unit, and artillery and aircraft control was almost impossible without it. Naval operations also relied heavily on radio traffic, and the Japanese ultimately suffered for their over-reliance on radio silence and flag signalling.

Portable radio communication in ground combat units only became common place with the Americans. Though by 1944, British and German units might have had one per infantry company or tank platoon. Even when a combat unit had radio, they often didn't have the frequencies or codes for contacting artillery or air support. Both the British and the Germans had to relay requests for fire support through their battalion, who had to route it through division, who finally contacted the squadron or battery.

German defense particularly suffered because they relied so much on telephones. When paratroopers and partisans cut their phone lines and intercepted couriers, the Germans were forced to use their radio network which wasn't as capable as ours. Even worse, we knew their codes.

America, on the other hand, had fire support liason officers with every company or battalion by the time of the Normandy campaign, with a direct radio link to overhead fighter-bombers or rearward guns.

The reason for all of this is that battery capacity was low, range was limited, and the sets heavy and bulky and expensive. Although American weapons technology was primative compared to other major world powers, they were much more advanced in automotives and electronics.

shadowjack · 10-25-2009, 06:11 PM

BMR's posts there remind me that a whole bunch of technological development is—like so much history—a matter of the right place at the right time… and therefore you can fudge a lot of invention dates by a decade or two either way. So instead of not having the thing exist at all—have it delayed. (Or early.)

In our timeline, television was a curiosity just before WWII, saw some development in the late 1940s, and hit the mainstream in the 1950s. I once developed an alternate where television was invented over a decade earlier, and matured more quickly; really fancy late-1920s/early-1930s night-clubs would have cable television set ups to carry live music and early "music videos."

So you could go also the other direction—for whatever reason, no one figures out to throw a decent image on a CRT and sell people on the concept until the 1960s. First thing that comes to mind: Newsreels and all the other parts of classical cinema culture endure another decade. The second thing that comes to mind: the Vietnam War would have had little to no television news coverage! Or, alternatively, would have been the first thing anyone saw on TV.

Consider a world where seatbags and airbags were invented and implemented earlier—James Dean survives his car crash?—or a world where Detroit beat Nader and American cars were mostly safety-device free up into the 1990s.

Can do the same for social movements, too.

SimonAce · 10-25-2009, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowjack

In our timeline, television was a curiosity just before WWII, saw some development in the late 1940s, and hit the mainstream in the 1950s. I once developed an alternate where television was invented over a decade earlier, and matured more quickly; really fancy late-1920s/early-1930s night-clubs would have cable television set ups to carry live music and early "music videos."

So you could go also the other direction—for whatever reason, no one figures out to throw a decent image on a CRT and sell people on the concept until the 1960s. First thing that comes to mind: Newsreels and all the other parts of classical cinema culture endure another decade. The second thing that comes to mind: the Vietnam War would have had little to no television news coverage! Or, alternatively, would have been the first thing anyone saw on TV.

Consider a world where seatbags and airbags were invented and implemented earlier—James Dean survives his car crash?—or a world where Detroit beat Nader and American cars were mostly safety-device free up into the 1990s.

Can do the same for social movements, too.

Yep. I did a world where Color TV was common in the early 1960s and Modern Rock started alongside Do-Wop. I was trying for a Streets of Fire vibe.

Another possibility is a world with nothing much past the transistor and Moore's Law. You can have many of the current devices and even decent size ones (with microtransistors say) but no PC, No Internet. It would be a very different world

As for car safety. Imagine Tucker a Man and His Dream was pure fact and Tucker won his fight with the car companies. Cars would have have been safer earlier and that might make a huge change

10-25-2009, 03:06 AM	#3
dcarson Join Date: Mar 2008	Re: Things TLs 7-9 would be interesting to see WITHOUT The freight idea reminded me of an old idea of mine. Pre WW II someone comes up wit the idea of container shipping. The containers would be smaller than what we use today, smaller trucks and ships. The idea is adopted by the military for logistic in the war. Lots of army 2 1/2 ton truck with container bases instead of covered backs. Liberty ships designed to load an unload standard containers quickly. A slight impact on the war, better logistics and fewer troops tied up moving supplies. After the war instead of pushing the interstate system the way he did Eisenhower supports an expansion of the modal switching yards that transfer the containers from trains to truck to ships. So no interstates, most major roads are similar to the old US Routes like the classic Rt 66.

10-25-2009, 05:56 PM	#5
BMR Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Near the Heart of the Valley, Oregon country	Re: Things TLs 7-9 would be interesting to see WITHOUT Leading to the obvious: What if there was no radio? Telegraphs, close circuit television, even phone lines--but no radiowave or microwave transmission? This would be difficult to justify, because radio and microwaves are so much easier to generate than laser beams, but I think it would be interesting if a world bypassed radio communication and relied entirely upon hardlines. Come to think of it, there is a TL6/ early TL7 example of this. Even in World War II, portable radios were uncommon. Most militaries relied heavily on landlines, flags, signal flares, and couriers for long distance communication. Even during the Normandy campaign in the summer of 1944, the British and German ground forces had little or no radio coordination with their air and artillery. Before 1942, radio sets seldom existed below the division headquarters level, and perhaps one vehicle in an entire battalion of 100 tanks might be equipped. This is especially the case with the Russians. Artillery, aircraft, signal units, and ships were the exception, because they were considered in higher need. Radio was a central job of any signal unit, and artillery and aircraft control was almost impossible without it. Naval operations also relied heavily on radio traffic, and the Japanese ultimately suffered for their over-reliance on radio silence and flag signalling. Portable radio communication in ground combat units only became common place with the Americans. Though by 1944, British and German units might have had one per infantry company or tank platoon. Even when a combat unit had radio, they often didn't have the frequencies or codes for contacting artillery or air support. Both the British and the Germans had to relay requests for fire support through their battalion, who had to route it through division, who finally contacted the squadron or battery. German defense particularly suffered because they relied so much on telephones. When paratroopers and partisans cut their phone lines and intercepted couriers, the Germans were forced to use their radio network which wasn't as capable as ours. Even worse, we knew their codes. America, on the other hand, had fire support liason officers with every company or battalion by the time of the Normandy campaign, with a direct radio link to overhead fighter-bombers or rearward guns. The reason for all of this is that battery capacity was low, range was limited, and the sets heavy and bulky and expensive. Although American weapons technology was primative compared to other major world powers, they were much more advanced in automotives and electronics. __________________ I stick with mainstream physics right up to the point that it gets into decimal places, whereupon I gladly step back into liberal arts." --brianranzoni.com Bored with power cells? Try Paper Cells! Last edited by BMR; 10-25-2009 at 06:04 PM.

10-25-2009, 06:11 PM	#6
shadowjack Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Endor	Re: Things TLs 7-9 would be interesting to see WITHOUT BMR's posts there remind me that a whole bunch of technological development is—like so much history—a matter of the right place at the right time… and therefore you can fudge a lot of invention dates by a decade or two either way. So instead of not having the thing exist at all—have it delayed. (Or early.) In our timeline, television was a curiosity just before WWII, saw some development in the late 1940s, and hit the mainstream in the 1950s. I once developed an alternate where television was invented over a decade earlier, and matured more quickly; really fancy late-1920s/early-1930s night-clubs would have cable television set ups to carry live music and early "music videos." So you could go also the other direction—for whatever reason, no one figures out to throw a decent image on a CRT and sell people on the concept until the 1960s. First thing that comes to mind: Newsreels and all the other parts of classical cinema culture endure another decade. The second thing that comes to mind: the Vietnam War would have had little to no television news coverage! Or, alternatively, would have been the first thing anyone saw on TV. Consider a world where seatbags and airbags were invented and implemented earlier—James Dean survives his car crash?—or a world where Detroit beat Nader and American cars were mostly safety-device free up into the 1990s. Can do the same for social movements, too.