[TML] Molding Ships

[Charles Prevatte]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tml-bounces at travellercentral.com
> [mailto:tml-bounces at travellercentral.com]On Behalf Of
> shadow at shadowgard.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:06 PM
> To: The Traveller Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [TML] Molding Ships
>
>
> On 2 Oct 2007 at 16:54, Charles Prevatte wrote:
>
> > ATGM are not practical unless you are assuming the "space men" came in
> > legion force levels with a massive space ship and lots of on
> board factory
> > capacity.
> >
> > I was assuming a small group on ONE side with a small ship and a good
> > library package.  Say a TL 11 commecial ship or perhaps just a life boat
> > with the survivers personal electronics and perhaps one of them is an
> > engineer.
> >
> > ATGM would take recreating 1970s level electronics at the
> least.  That would
> > take 10+ years assuming 1940s tube technology.  It takes time
> to build up a
> > base of train personel to build totally new things.
>
> Actually, no. They were building them *in* WWII. TV guided missiles
> were actually used. Mostly air-to ground.
>
> Radar proximity fuzes are arguably harder to build. And were mass
> produced.
>

Not true, I know how each were built then, and could build them myself
today.  The Prox fuse was not really "radar", it used a priciple similar to
it.  If you have ever noticed how a radio or TV that is tuned in will detune
if you move near it, then you have seen that principle at work.  The fuse
you mentioned used only one small and very simple circuit, and was based on
radio technology like that of the common AM radio of the time.  It was very
simple to build in large numbers and had a high failure rate.

Also you are incorrect about the TV guided bombs.  They were guided true,
but no TV.  Just simple radio remote control.  The first listed camera bomb
was in the 1960.  There was Operartion Aphrodite that had a TV equiped B17
loaded with explosives in WW2 but that failed.  It was ment to take out
hardened german targets.  The Azon was the closest to a "smart bomb" but it
was a flare guilded bomb not a camera bomb.

There was the Baka bomb of course, but not something I would suggest to use
short of a very desparate situatuion.

> > A transister would be near magic to most 1940s personel, while an engine
> > that had a better compression ratio is perfectly
> understandable, even if the
> > way the better tolerences are achieved is a bit of a mistery.
>
> The original patent for a transistor was before WWI. It was a
> modified "crystal detector". It was forgotten because theory couldn't
> explain it, so nobody knew how to improve it.
>

Not sure that counts (it did not to the patent office) as a transister.
Crystal detector would be a better discription.  Or perhaps the first stage
of a "tuned ossilater" or filter by todays standards.  Hard to say for sure.
I do not have the patent reference or a copy of the proposal.  There were
several similar "discoveries" over time.

> > In the case of the transiter you have to train the entire
> production staff
> > and the users.
>
> Nope. The users don't care. It's a black box anyway. Just a smaller
> one that uses less power. Production staff is much the same.
>

No, I mean the people who have to calibrate the curcuit.  Not the end user.
The user of the technology.  The "Techs".

> The only people you have to train are the folks producing the
> transistors. And that doesn't take as long as you might think.
>
> But it'd take too long to build the equipment to produce a
> significant number of transistors. Then again, it'll tak a while to
> redo that factory full of machine tools.
>

No, not really.  I do that as part of my job.  Most of what you need is
already built in.  I did such a job with one other person in about 3 weeks
for the first unit and about a week for the second identical machine.  We
could have done it faster, but we were not in a rush, and had other jobs at
the same time.

> But building gear *using* transistors is no big deal. Designing it is
> harder, but the "space men" can do that for you.
>

Again, yes and no.  With chips yes, with just single transiters, NO!  lots
of work an millions of parts.

> > In the case of the engine, a few people to help in the final
> assembly have
> > to learn a new trick or two that is very close to what they already are
> > doing.
> >
> > There is a very large difference in scale.
>
> Trust me, there are a *lot* of things that will be "minor" but very
> important changes.
>

True.

> > Look at the engine in the Wright brothers plane.  Today we have
> better and
> > more powerfull engines in leaf blowers and lawnmowers, but the basic
> > principle is exactly the same.  No new concepts to learn, just
> refinements.
>
> Too many of the things you want to build require new materials. Like
> the turbine engines in the copter and the M1A1 tank.

Not new, and they are already available in a WW1 time frame.  Mostly it's a
material called steel.

A lot of what many people think of as material advances are really process
advances (again part of what I do for a living).  The material has not
changed just how it is worked.

Some item would take special materials, but those are the one I would avoid
as much a posible to save time and energy.  If explosives are needed I'd
provide the simplest formula that would provide the needed improvement, and
preferable one that used chemical that were already available in large
quantity.

That is what engineering is.  Making what you need out of what you have, or
can easily make.

If I were that "space man" and the people that save my hide were being
attacked by the local "Hitler" I'd look other what they had and make the
best weapons I could out it.  If they had large ammount celulose, I'd teach
them to make a nito-celulose explosive, if they had good steel, I'd improve
their engines.  If transiters, I'd give them walkie-talkies.  (At least
first thing), and good commo properly used is a powerfull force multiplier.

What we should do is relable this thread and set up some more specific
conditions, as neather of us "knows" what we would have to work with, and
that would make a huge difference in what could be done.

Charles L.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date: 10/2/2007
11:10 AM