What does KT really mean?? - Page 2

Taqwus · #11 January 18th, 2001, 06:34 PM

Dehydrated? Ouch. That has to be uncomfortable... no wonder colonists are Jubilant at getting off the boat.

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

Sabre21 · #12 January 18th, 2001, 10:48 PM

I started this topic just to see how it would turn out..kinda funny how it began with an abbreviation to dehydrated colonists..hehe.

FrankyVas · #13 January 18th, 2001, 11:26 PM

A 15kt fighter would be bigger than an Aegis destroyer (550' long, +50' wide). Now that's a huge fighter. A Nimitz class carrier weights about 100kt, this is an escort in the game.

Because of the incongruenties that arrise from using only one system of measurment, I picture a kt as an artificial game unit and leave it at that.

Frank V.

evader · #14 January 19th, 2001, 12:00 AM

To be honest I haven't given it much thought. I just took it to be I artifical unit of messure in this game and left at that. Kinda like simoleons(sp) in SimCity 3000 or Units(or whatever I end calling it) in a game I wrote.

My advice don't worry about it that too much and just enjoy the game

ColdSteel · #15 January 19th, 2001, 02:32 AM

Congratulations!

The fact that this discussion is even taking place simply means that this forum is peopled entirely by... Grognards! Yes, This really fits the definition to a perfect degree. Be proud. LOL.

Dracus · #16 January 19th, 2001, 02:52 AM

The weight of an object has nothing to do with size. It has to do with the stuff the object is made out of and everything packed into it. If I build a 4 story 4000 sq ft building out of paper and put nothing in it, it will wieght a lot less then the same building maded out of steel and packed with gastanks, food, people, defense systems, computers,etc.

Barnacle Bill · #17 January 19th, 2001, 03:19 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Dracus:
The weight of an object has nothing to do with size. It has to do with the stuff the object is made out of and everything packed into it. If I build a 4 story 4000 sq ft building out of paper and put nothing in it, it will wieght a lot less then the same building maded out of steel and packed with gastanks, food, people, defense systems, computers,etc.

Nevertheless, the volume of of ship is measured in tons. This refers to the weight of seawater displaced by the volume. A ton of seawater occupies a given volume, and that volume is a ton of displacement.

Tomgs · #18 January 19th, 2001, 04:34 AM

So that means a spaceship measured in tons would measure the displacement of vaccuum
in tons? If I could spell Aether (ether?) I would use that instead of vaccuum

.

rdouglass · #19 January 19th, 2001, 10:51 PM

Hey guys, we're NOT talking about weight here, but rather MASS. Weight only is a measure of FORCE. In other words, in different gravities, the same mass weights differently. In fact, if you could measure it precisely, you weigh less on top of a mountain than you do at sea level. The gravity changes as you move further from the "center" of the planet (or body). I know some of you are going to get me 'cause this doesn't keep its accuracy once you get below the surface - the gravity changes based on a complex mathematical formula.

Reguardless, the displacement of water on a ship has to do with WEIGHT and not mass. In space, they don't "displace" a vaccum. Rather the mass is an absolute. And based on Newtonian physics (that's the one I use), the force needed to move an object has to do with MASS and other forces and nothing to do with WEIGHT. Someone else said it more elegantly than me earlier, but that is the bottom line.

Peersonally, I think the size of the ships in kT's has to do with how strong the actual hull is and not it's size. Theoretically, you could attach infinite components to a structure in space (there is no WEIGHT). However moving the object would / could require tremendous sheer strength by the structure to hold them all together while accelerating (which is what engines do).

[This message has been edited by rdouglass (edited 19 January 2001).]

Kimball · #20 January 20th, 2001, 01:51 AM

quote:
Originally posted by rdouglass:
The gravity changes as you move further from the "center" of the planet (or body). I know some of you are going to get me 'cause this doesn't keep its accuracy once you get below the surface - the gravity changes based on a complex mathematical formula.

The formula to which you refer is

F=G*M1*M2/R^2

G = Universal Graviation Constant (6.67E-11 m^3/(s^2*kg, or 3.32E-11 lbf*ft^2/lbm^2)
M1 = mass of object 1 (kg or lbm)
M2 = mass of object 2 (kg or lbm)
R = distance between the center of mass of each(m or ft)

I beleive this formula holds true even below the surface of the earth since is measures the distance between the centers of mass. In the english engineering system of units, mass is measured in lbm in lieu of slugs. Therefore 1 lbm is numerically equal to 1 lbf. There are 32.174 lbm in one slug. There is also a funny conVersion factor, gc = 32.174 (ft-lbm)/(lbf-s^2).

This is why 1 lbm is equal to 1 lbf. F=ma, from Newton's second law of motion. In the English Engineering system, we introduce that funny little gc into the equation, F=ma/gc (a=the acceleration of gravity, 32.174 ft/s^2 on earth at sea level)

so

1 lbf = (1 lbm)*(32.174 ft/s^2)/(32.174 ft-lbm/lbf-s^2)

1 = 1

We engineers is weird.