space is 3D!!!
Felix
We all know that space is 3D right? (X=L/R, Y=F/B, Z=U/D) So how come the
only two instances of Z-axis manouvering I can remember is in STWOK and
STTUC?
STWOK - Enterprise alters Z-axis coords in order to "appear" behind Reliant
and fire within the nebula.
STTUC - Chang's warbird hides under Enterprise in order to fire upon Kronos
1.
Why do all evasive manouvers seem to involve only X/Y alterations rather
than X/Y/Z?
It seems to me that the writers need some submarine/aerial experience in
order to appreciate this.
Just my opinion though.
Ironwood
You're not alone. The other night I was watching some rerun, and a wave of
some sort was coming towards the ship. Of course it was a long horizontal
line, easily avoided by going "up" or "down" in relation to it. Of course
they didn't.
Spooky Guy Next Door
THIS...
> I have an observation / question.
>
> We all know that space is 3D right? (X=L/R, Y=F/B, Z=U/D) So how come the
> only two instances of Z-axis manouvering I can remember is in STWOK and
> STTUC?
>
> STWOK - Enterprise alters Z-axis coords in order to "appear" behind Reliant
> and fire within the nebula.
> STTUC - Chang's warbird hides under Enterprise in order to fire upon Kronos
> 1.
TOS didn't really have the technology for 3D shots, but in some cases
("The Ultimate Computer", for example) they matted in shots (usually
out of lack of choice, as in Ultimate Computer).
TNG, though:
"Yesterday's Enterprise" (sort of)
"All Good Things"
DS9:
"The Die is Cast"
"Shattered Mirror"
"Call to Arms"
"Sacrifice of Angels"
"Tears of the Prophets" (sort of)
VOY:
"Scorpion" (sort of)
--
Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two make four. If that is
guaranteed, all else follows.
- George Orwell, "Nineteen Eighty-Four"
http://smiley.vh.mewl.net/markweb/
http://www.smileydesigns.com/
Neil
All course headings have been given in 3d AFAIK
Imagine two circles around a ship, like the screen display on the training
simulator in WOK.One running left to right, one running above and below.
Using this system, only two numbers meed to be given to plot a 3d course.
Of course they always say something like "set course 240 point 65" (perhaps
a bigger fan than me can tell me if there's ever been a course heading that
included a number near to 360) I assume that the first number would set the
horizontal vector and the second number sets the vertical vector, relative
to their current position. Star system positions appear to be given as their
3d position, with our sun as the "centre" of the universe.
Hope a) I'm right and b) You understand.
"Felix" <cptn_...@startrekmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b1086d2$1...@news.uow.edu.au...
9 of 12
<neil....@SPAMTRAP.btclick.com> spoke these words within earshot of
the Collective:
>Forgive me if I'm wrong but:
>
>All course headings have been given in 3d AFAIK
>
>Imagine two circles around a ship, like the screen display on the training
>simulator in WOK.One running left to right, one running above and below.
>Using this system, only two numbers meed to be given to plot a 3d course.
>
>Of course they always say something like "set course 240 point 65" (perhaps
>a bigger fan than me can tell me if there's ever been a course heading that
>included a number near to 360) I assume that the first number would set the
>horizontal vector and the second number sets the vertical vector, relative
>to their current position. Star system positions appear to be given as their
>3d position, with our sun as the "centre" of the universe.
>
>Hope a) I'm right and b) You understand.
Essentially, you are correct. There are two circles round a ship which
indicate the vector heading. Therefore, setting a course of '221 Mark
330' would indicate the ship rotates horizontally round 221degrees,
and vertically round 330degrees. These headings are extrapolated
relative the exact Centre of the Galaxy, therefore, a course of '0
Mark 0' would put you on a direct course to the center of the Galaxy
(highly unrecommened) and a course of '180 Mark 0' takes you straight
out the edge of the galaxy.
On the question of evasive maneouvres, there has only been about ONE
instance where the evasive course has ACTUALLY been given that I can
remember. (TNG BOBW when Picard gave the heading to the Paulson
Nebula) and, in the Year of Hell (VOY season 4) when they first used
their successful attempt at temporal shielding, you canclearly see the
ship swoops downward, and to starboard. Usually, the Conn officer
decides what sort of evasive pattern to use depending on their
experience, unless they are given a specific pattern to follow (eg
'evasive pattern Delta')
Also, if anyone remembers the Voy episode 'Message in a Bottle', the
three Fed ships were clearly coming at a slightly diagonal angle, and
the seven ships were all fighting on seperate 'levels' (ie, they
weren't all on the same vertical level).
Hope this clears up some problems.
Assimilation complete. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!
9 of 12, Primary Processing Unit of Unimatrix One.
However 9 of 12 would be a sufficient designation.
9_o...@REMOVEALLTHISresistanceisfutile.co.uk
www.geocities.com/mylife210/
Jimmy A. Morrison
episode Data Lore (I think that is what it was called)
"Neil" <neil....@SPAMTRAP.btclick.com> wrote in message
news:ar2Q6.1628$4I5.28522@NewsReader...
xyz
1 - They always nowadays use evasive pattern delta-charlie-47 (or
whatever.) We don't know what that really means.
2 - when they say heading 178mark24, the first # is relative to 360° arc on
the current plane (hence R/L & F/B) I believe the second # refers to ° of
inclination, so there you have your 3D navigation.
The Highlander
> "Felix" <cptn_...@startrekmail.com> wrote > | I have an observation /
Indeed. I think it's also worth pointing out that in TWOK the Enterprise was
more or less stationary and Kirk/Spock thought that Kahn would think in two
dimentional terms, and so moved the ship specifically in the third
dimention, i.e. straight down and then up again. In this way the movement
was atypical because it wasn't a course maneuver with two components for the
course, it was a z-axis manuever. It worked of course because Khan was
indeed swooping around, and passed right through the point that the
Enterprise had occupied, allowing the Enterprise to pop up behind them once
they had passed.
In fact, Felix, your own explanation of three dimensions misses the point.
left and right, forward and backwards are all movements on a single plane.
This is where the heading comes from. The only remaining number is the
inclination to the plane of movement. So as everyone else has pointed out
two numbers are all that is required to give a three dimensional course
heading.
Andrew Wolfe
Felix wrote:
>
> I have an observation / question.
>
> We all know that space is 3D right? (X=L/R, Y=F/B, Z=U/D) So how come the
> only two instances of Z-axis manouvering I can remember is in STWOK and
> STTUC?
Hi
i reckon they are 2D thinkers / writers, just like Kahn (ST2) as a
strategist.
i also note how when ships enter a star system, they are ALWAYS oriented
to the plane-of-the-ecliptic. sure, in the days of models cam shots are
limited, but now in the digital age, we should be able to see many
angles.
but, these are hollywood types, with very limited imaginations.
--
cheers, andrew wolfe
Melbourne PC User Group
Mike Harrison
wrote:
>"Felix" <cptn_...@startrekmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3b1086d2$1...@news.uow.edu.au...
>| I have an observation / question.
>|
>| We all know that space is 3D right? (X=L/R, Y=F/B, Z=U/D) So how come
>the
>| only two instances of Z-axis manouvering I can remember is in STWOK and
>| STTUC?
>|
>| STWOK - Enterprise alters Z-axis coords in order to "appear" behind
>Reliant
>| and fire within the nebula.
>| STTUC - Chang's warbird hides under Enterprise in order to fire upon
>Kronos
>| 1.
>|
>| Why do all evasive manouvers seem to involve only X/Y alterations rather
>| than X/Y/Z?
>|
>| It seems to me that the writers need some submarine/aerial experience in
>| order to appreciate this.
>|
>| Just my opinion though.
>
>1 - They always nowadays use evasive pattern delta-charlie-47 (or
>whatever.) We don't know what that really means.
It means that since today's starships are much more advanced, they
probably have the ability to store hundreds if not thousands of
combat maneuvers, and the easiest way to quickly respond to an attack
is often to run one of these "macros" which are probably complex
maneuvers. Poor Sulu used to have to think on the fly about what moves
he was going to make when Kirk said "Evasive action Mr Sulu!"
Tom Paris has it easy in comparison.
Boris Badenov
Mike Harrison <harri...@home.com> wrote in message
news:0tu4htcmakog032bv...@4ax.com...
hand it limits possibilities - there is no way poor Sulu is going to
remember thousands of combinations - , it has the advantage of spontaneity.
Anything generated by a computer could seem predictable after awhile to
another computer. My money is on Sulu's ingenuity when it becomes
necessary to actually evade something. "Use the force, Luke." Oops.
Wrong galaxy....:)
H. McDaniel
My guess: if you look at the necelle (sp?) design of most of the Trek ships
they look like they can turn left and right by altering engine thrust (or
whatever the Treksters call it these days) faster than they can go up and
down. OTOH, even if that is true they could rotate around their center
fore-aft axis to make "left" become what was up or down. In evasive manuvers
being able to out turn your opponent is more important than trying to dazzle
him with your ability to go this direction or that.
-McDaniel
j...@deserted.net
> I have an observation / question.
> We all know that space is 3D right? (X=L/R, Y=F/B, Z=U/D) So how come
> the only two instances of Z-axis maneuvering I can remember is in
> STWOK and STTUC?
At the risk of becoming the guy here who insists on spoiling Star Trek
Universe questions with Star Trek - A Paramount Production answers, it
seems to be a lot like the "24th century Klingons had better makeup
artists" answer.
I found this ages ago at http://www.psiphi.org/DS9/ep/550.html:
And why do ships always meet each other on the same plane? Sure, it
looks better on the screen, but this is space; you should use all
three dimensions.
David Stipes (VFX Supervisor on DS9) responded:
Yes, you are correct: "It looks better on the screen" and it is less
confusing to the producers and the general audience. There is no up
or down in space, but we earth bound souls still relate to the visual
images based upon our everyday sensory experiences. On Trek we
generally use the out-of-level ships to communicate that they are
damaged or in distress. It is a kind of visual "short-hand", if you
will. That's the way we see ships in trouble: keeled over. I have
played with the 3-D aspects of the effects shots. We call that
"breaking the glass table top". Usually our ships fly around on one
invisible level (the glass table top). This usually requires me to
get the producer's approval for the design of the effects scene.
Going "off level" challenges the producer's visual orientation, too.
-Joe.
--
-Joe MacDonald.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
X windows:
The ultimate bottleneck.
H. McDaniel
How are you going out run a phaser beam? Can you explain that to me? Your
only hope is to quickly turn and head parallel to your opponent or towards your
opponent. Just going up or down doesn't help. As I say in another post I
think they turn left/right more often because Trek ships scan turn left/right
quicker than they can go up or down.
-McDaniel
Ironwood
> > > Why do all evasive manouvers seem to involve only X/Y alterations
rather
> > > than X/Y/Z?
> > >
> > > It seems to me that the writers need some submarine/aerial experience
in
> > > order to appreciate this.
> > >
> > > Just my opinion though.
> >
> > You're not alone. The other night I was watching some rerun, and a wave
of
> > some sort was coming towards the ship. Of course it was a long
horizontal
> > line, easily avoided by going "up" or "down" in relation to it. Of
course
> > they didn't.
>
> How are you going out run a phaser beam? Can you explain that to me?
Your
> only hope is to quickly turn and head parallel to your opponent or towards
your
> opponent. Just going up or down doesn't help. As I say in another post I
> think they turn left/right more often because Trek ships scan turn
left/right
> quicker than they can go up or down.
I see no point in trying to explain how to outrun a phaser beam, since it
has nothing to do with this conversation.
Brian White
you get the physical characteristics, 3 Dimensions... Length, Bredth, Depth.
But space also has an extra Dimension, 1 TIME dimension.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.255 / Virus Database: 128 - Release Date: 5/17/01
Photoman
Chan @trebutechdotcom John Chan
We perceive 'space-time' to consist of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temperal
dimension... if anyone here is into hyperstring theory...10 & 26 dimensions
are nice numbers too :)
"Brian White" <whi...@one.net.au> wrote in message
news:3b12f...@news01.one.net.au...
Pam Hinkel
plane but the center of the universe would be 000 mark 0. Of course its all
relative to where you are and where you are pointed.
Pam Hinkel
an automated system which orients the ship in relative position to any other
ship.
Andrew Wolfe
John Chan wrote:
>
> Now thats just stupid :)
> We perceive 'space-time' to consist of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temperal
> dimension... if anyone here is into hyperstring theory...10 & 26 dimensions
> are nice numbers too :)
Hi
i agree with 4D; the other dimensions are not a part of normal space;
possibly sub-space; so don't count here !
the time dim may be the most important.
there was a great quote from the distant past of sf
"time is what stops everything happening at once".
9 of 12
<awo...@melbpc.org.au> spoke these words within earshot of the
Collective:
>
>
>John Chan wrote:
>>
>> Now thats just stupid :)
>> We perceive 'space-time' to consist of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temperal
>> dimension... if anyone here is into hyperstring theory...10 & 26 dimensions
>> are nice numbers too :)
It has been theorised that there are an infinite number of dimensions.
>Hi
>i agree with 4D; the other dimensions are not a part of normal space;
>possibly sub-space; so don't count here !
>the time dim may be the most important.
>
>there was a great quote from the distant past of sf
>"time is what stops everything happening at once".
Agreed. Space has four dimension: Length, breadth, depth and time.
However, this is about a navigation problem. They only give three
general headings. (Forward/backward, lateral heading and vertical
heading.) They don't need to use time in the equation, as this gets
used for an ETA. After taking this into account, the factor of time
for navigating the universe becomes irrelevant.
<begin signature protocol Alpha-1>
Assimilation complete. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!
9 of 12, Primary Processing adjunct of Unimatrix One.
However 9 of 12 would be a sufficient designation.
Email: 9_o...@REMOVEALLTHISresistanceisfutile.co.uk
ICQ: 110935798
AIM: UK9of12
URL: www.geocities.com/mylife210/
<end signature protocol Alpha-1>
John Warlow
docked with the starbase, must be a TV-universal constant!
> David Stipes (VFX Supervisor on DS9) responded:
<SNIP>
> images based upon our everyday sensory experiences. On Trek we
> generally use the out-of-level ships to communicate that they are
> damaged or in distress. It is a kind of visual "short-hand", if you
> will. That's the way we see ships in trouble: keeled over. I have
> played with the 3-D aspects of the effects shots. We call that
<SNIP>
Lurker@home
"John Warlow" <jlwa...@NOSPAMHotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9g37f9$brp$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
bank when they turn.... and those explosions that form clouds of smoke!
Alan Ashby
Smoke is simply clouds of particles in Brownian motion. Particles would
still exist in vacuum. It's smoke, but not as we know it....
--
Alan Ashby
Lurker@home
"Alan Ashby" <ajaximag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EhuW6.170843$PP3.13...@nnrp3.clara.net...
little cloud. That takes an atmosphere to mute the initial energy of the
explosion.
Mark Blankenship
And you shouldn't hear a thing. . .
--
MB
Use systematic doubt and question everything.
Learn the difference between arguments of rational proof
and those merely of persuasion.
Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others.
Look for error, even in Holy Scripture.
---Yes and No, Pierre Abelard, 12th century Paris.
jesus X
> I especially love the way ships in a vacuum make turbine-like noises and
> bank when they turn.... and those explosions that form clouds of smoke!
Although the rest is purely for show, I HAVE managed to figure out an
explanation for banking. Inertia. Let's say the inertial dampers only work on
the internals of the ship, keeping things in sync relative to the ship itself.
When a ship needs to turn, rather than turning flat and putting horizontal sheer
stress on the nacelle pylons, it banks so that the turn is now a vertical
motion, translating the stress to vertical, down the pylons, into the hull. The
shipp just rolls to a side and then "ascends" relatively, then rolls back, turn
accomplished.
Sure it's loose, but it's a valid theory. :)
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
Marco
"Mark Blankenship" <mar...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:E7D37DFBCC572FA5.FF4FE418...@lp.airnews.net...
> "Lurker@home" wrote:
>
> > "Alan Ashby" <ajaximag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:EhuW6.170843$PP3.13...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> > > > and those explosions that form clouds of smoke!
> > >
> > > Smoke is simply clouds of particles in Brownian motion. Particles
would
> > > still exist in vacuum. It's smoke, but not as we know it....
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alan Ashby
> > >
> > Yeah, but they'd all be travelling in straight lines, not puffing out
into a
> > little cloud. That takes an atmosphere to mute the initial energy of the
> > explosion.
>
> And you shouldn't hear a thing. . .
>
Actually, you would. As the shock wave hit your ship, it would cause
reverberation throughout the hull, especially if it was forceful enough to
effect the ship through the shields.
Marco
Mark Blankenship
A.) There would be no "shockwave." Even accepting the nonsensical idea that such
pseudo-science exists, we're talking ships exploding, not supernovae.
B.) Photon torpedoes barely make thuds and they're exploding on the shields. The miniscule
bits of matter and energy of a ship exploding further away wouldn't even register.
C). ) And even if it did, you still wouldn't be hearing the explosion, but would instead
hearing the matter and energy hitting the hull/shields.
If you wanted total realism in a space battle, every external sequence shown would be
completely silent.
xyz
news:3b2b...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
|
| Actually, you would. As the shock wave hit your ship, it would cause
| reverberation throughout the hull, especially if it was forceful enough
to
| effect the ship through the shields.
|
| Marco
What shock wave? If the ship is firing it's impulse engines, then it's
using basically a high tech rocket relying on simple Newtonian physics that
would have some type of exhaust, and that may affect you if the exhaust is
coming off into your direction. Otherwise, it's pretty much a vacuum, and
there is no medium for a "shock wave" (or any wave) to affect your ship.
Alan Ashby
shown would be
> completely silent.
True. And if the battle were in interstellar space, we wouldn't see very
much due to the almost total lack of light...... and if it were near to a
star, we would only see half of each ship, as the half furthest away from
the star would be in deep shadow. Only in a planetary orbit would we see
the ships as we are accustomed to seeing them.
--
Alan Ashby
Bozo the Evil Klown
*****
"Welcome to the Federation Starship S.S. Butt-Crack!!"
John Crichton, to the Queen Of Cluelessness
Bozo the Evil Klown
>into a
>> > little cloud. That takes an atmosphere to mute the initial energy of the
>> > explosion.
>>
>> And you shouldn't hear a thing. . .
>>
>
>Actually, you would. As the shock wave hit your ship, it would cause
>reverberation throughout the hull, especially if it was forceful enough to
>effect the ship through the shields.
I'd expect more like a gentle, wispy sound as the expanding shell of gas gently
brushes the hull.
Marco
Which was my point. You wouldn't hear the explosion, per se, but the result
shockwave (not sound waves) hitting the hull, as you repeated. I realise
sound can't travel in a vacuum. But the energy must dissipate into the
surrounding space. A large enough explosion, close enough, would knock the
ship about.
Now, I'm not an expert on fictional levels of energy, aboard fictional
spaceships, but an engine that can move a large object at greater than light
speed must capable of producing a large explosion, fictionally speaking;
which is why they get to a safe distance in case of a warp core breach on a
nearby ship.
>
> If you wanted total realism in a space battle, every external sequence
shown would be
> completely silent.
I don't want total realism. I want lots of explosions and loud noises.
I think the last silent explosion I saw was the mining transporrt ship in
"Alien". Can anyone think of any others.
Regards
Marco
Bubba
Conservation of momentum states that when these particles hit other
particles at any given velocity, total momentum would stay the same.
Soo..... concevably it is possible to form clouds in space. However, it is
quite unlikely and you are right, you would hear nothing since sound waves
are variations of air pressure. Both while air is present in outer space,
its denisity is much less than that on earth. So, actually, if you had
<i>really</i> sensitive equiptment, one might actually "hear" something from
the exploion.
--
"I've never formed an opinion in my life."
"You must think we're idiots..."
"OK, I've formed one opinion."
-dogbert from dilbert
"His ignorance is encyclopedic"
-Abba Eban
^_^
AIM: Mrßig§369
"Lurker@home" <blue...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:2VwW6.1144$pU.2...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
Voicenet Tech Support
The Turbine sounds are a necessary evil.
Go to your favorite space battle scene and hit themute button Pretty lame
ehh ???
Also the banking actually makes a LOT of sence.
Remember an object in motion tends to remain in motion until acted on by an
outside force. Think about the discomfort of sliding sideways in your care
around a tight turn at 50mph.
Now imagine this at half impulse or warp speed for that matter. Not only
would it be very uncomfortable and devistating for the occupants of that
ship but probably devastating for the ship as well !!
"Lurker@home" <blue...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:dDrW6.34237$Ts6.3...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
Chan @trebutechdotcom John Chan
"Voicenet Tech Support" <sup...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
news:MfkX6.227$1_6....@news3.voicenet.com...
> Clouds of smoke DO form in space (they just usualy disperse much faster)
>
> The Turbine sounds are a necessary evil.
>
> Go to your favorite space battle scene and hit themute button Pretty lame
> ehh ???
>
> Also the banking actually makes a LOT of sence.
>
> Remember an object in motion tends to remain in motion until acted on by
an
> outside force. Think about the discomfort of sliding sideways in your
care
> around a tight turn at 50mph.
>
> Now imagine this at half impulse or warp speed for that matter. Not only
> would it be very uncomfortable and devistating for the occupants of that
> ship but probably devastating for the ship as well !!
>
> Chris
> http://www.nerys.com/
Actually 'fictional' inertial dampeners are fitted on starships :) Inertia
means shit :> [Don't know why the ship always shakes about when they're hit
though :P]
Voicenet Tech Support
practical.
a system that reacts in the same general direction the sip moves and the
gravity works (forward and down) or in all 3 axis where all but 2 would
FIGHT the those 2.
This is actually very believable.
Our ships in space do not bank because the speed they move might as well be
a snail trying to cross the united states in comparison.
Once we get to speed where maneuvers exceed 3 or 4 g's you will see OUR
space ships banking like jet fighters too!
It just makes sense to do it that way. The ship can then be smaller faster
and more effecient.
I also think Inertial dampners will be a reality (they better be or rapid
space travel is impossible) It is just a matter of controlling mass and
gravity.
Lower the relative mass and you have already killed most of the inertia
problem right there. Now just tweak gravity a bit and you got it made.
500g maneuvers etc..
"John Chan" <John Chan @ Trebutech Dot Com> wrote in message
news:3b2dff43$0$25491$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
Bubba
Besides, conservation of momentum does apply and thus any explosion in space
would be like those of Star trek.
"Voicenet Tech Support" <sup...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
news:uTFX6.469$4x2....@news2.voicenet.com...
Jacob Fruehling
>
> Oh quite. If you have seen a flame in zero G's it is a ball, not a flame.
> Besides, conservation of momentum does apply and thus any explosion in space
> would be like those of Star trek.
Do you know anywhere on the web where I can see such a video of a flame
in space?
--
--Jacob--
http://www.ActInJapan.com
Have you ever wanted to be an actor or model? Need some extra income?
Want a new exciting career? Now you can have all of the above! There
are many opportunities for you in the Tokyo area. No matter what you
look like or your experience. Please visit:
http://www.ActInJapan.com
--
http://www.WanderingJacob.com
Personal homepage about my life and adventures. You can read about, and
see lots of pictures AND VIDEOS about my journey around the world. I
have been on a month long roadtrip across America. Now I live in Japan
and have been here one year.
http://www.WanderingJacob.com
Grant Robinson
>
> Bubba wrote:
> >
> > Oh quite. If you have seen a flame in zero G's it is a ball, not a flame.
> > Besides, conservation of momentum does apply and thus any explosion in space
> > would be like those of Star trek.
>
> Do you know anywhere on the web where I can see such a video of a flame
> in space?
>
> --
> --Jacob--
I don't know but if I was you I'd try at www.nasa.gov
Highwayman(of Kurill Prime)
Jacob Fruehling
>
> Jacob Fruehling wrote:
> >
> > Bubba wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh quite. If you have seen a flame in zero G's it is a ball, not a flame.
> > > Besides, conservation of momentum does apply and thus any explosion in space
> > > would be like those of Star trek.
> >
> > Do you know anywhere on the web where I can see such a video of a flame
> > in space?
> >
>
I tried digging around there, but their search engine doesn't seem to be
working, and they have TONS of videos to sift through. Guess I'll just
continue digging there.
Jake
news:3B3BAE4F...@gol.com...
: Bubba wrote:
: >
: > Oh quite. If you have seen a flame in zero G's it is a ball, not a
flame.
: > Besides, conservation of momentum does apply and thus any explosion in
space
: > would be like those of Star trek.
:
: Do you know anywhere on the web where I can see such a video of a flame
: in space?
:
: --
: --Jacob--
I don't know about 'on the web' but I just watched Red Planet again and the
0G fire was pretty interesting in that movie.
Jake
Chris Taylor Jr.
A pressure driven flame will be the same in or out of gravity (although as
it spreads it will change to spherical)
The experiment he is referring to is with a CANDLE in space. This is a
gravity driven shape so in space the shape will be spherical.
Most fluidic things in space whether gas or liquid (even solid over time)
will tend to spherical since this is the shape where all forces are equal or
in balance.
Basically a flame thrower will still work fine in space and will look
basically as it does on earth. Now an LPF flame thrower those plobs of LP
MAY stray and look like ballsa of fire until they burn out.
"Jacob Fruehling" <ja...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:3B3BAE4F...@gol.com...