Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Well, they only had a finite amount of material, and it was practically
> > indestructible. No reason to do it any other way really!
>
> Why not leave it flat? It's not like you're planning on fooling anyone who
> lives there. That takes even less material than sculpting it.

Pretty boring living on a table top tho :) If they wanted a range of ecosystems
they'd have to reproduce a planet's surface topology, surely? And anyway, where
would they put the water? :D

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4c20cd6e325a7df36dd25f0b0@news.povray.org...
> Hmm, I'm sure the walls were sheer on the other side. Perhaps the 
> implication is
> that the spill mountains are solid? Whoknows.

Yes, the spill mountains should be solid indeed as they serve as sediment 
reservoirs for the rivers.

I am beginning to get unsure about the "sculpting" of the Rim Wall into 
mountain shapes...

Tanj! It becomes really necessary to re-read the series!  ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Pretty boring living on a table top tho :)

Mountains!  We're talking about the walls, aren't we?

Given they had islands the size of planets, I don't think they really needed 
the walls to be textured like mountains in order to have mountain terrain.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Pretty boring living on a table top tho :)
>
> Mountains!  We're talking about the walls, aren't we?

Yes, sorry, world of my own. Um, dunno. Thomas' reply, that they are sediment
reservoirs, seems the only likely explanation other than pure aesthetics, which
the builders may or may not have been concerned with. (Not, if memory serves).

Post a reply to this message

Interesting flyby video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXZdaQN3r50

I didn't realize a) that the sun was so large WRT the ring, and b) that 
the inner "shadow" ring was so much nearer the outer ring than the sun.


-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

"SharkD" <pos### [at] gmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4c214569$1@news.povray.org...
> Interesting flyby video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXZdaQN3r50
>
> I didn't realize a) that the sun was so large WRT the ring, and b) that 
> the inner "shadow" ring was so much nearer the outer ring than the sun.
>

Nice animation indeed, but:
The shadow squares are wrong. According to Niven, they are located at the 
equivalent of the orbit of Mercury, if the ring were at Earth's distance.

Have you seen the Rama animation?

Five years ago, I distilled the following parameters for the Ringworld 
system:

 RINGWORLD parameters conversion table


      scale factor
     1,00
      sun diameter mi 1.000.000,00

     km 1.610.000,00
      ring radius mi 95.000.000,00

     km 152.950.000,00
      ring width mi 997.000,00

     km 1.605.170,00
      rim wall height mi 1.000,00

     km 1.610,00
      shadow square radius mi 13.000.000,00

     km 20.930.000,00
      shadow square width mi 1.000.000,00

     km 1.610.000,00
      shadow square length mi 2.500.000,00

     km 4.025.000,00
      spill mountain height (1) mi 30,00

     km 48,30
      spill mountain height (2) mi 40,00

     km 64,40



Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.06.2010 09:50, schrieb Thomas de Groot:

>> I didn't realize a) that the sun was so large WRT the ring, and b) that
>> the inner "shadow" ring was so much nearer the outer ring than the sun.
>>
>
> Nice animation indeed, but:
> The shadow squares are wrong. According to Niven, they are located at the
> equivalent of the orbit of Mercury, if the ring were at Earth's distance.

To be precise, the shadow squares aren't "wrong" - it's just "some" ring 
world, not the one from Niven's books.

Post a reply to this message

SharkD <pos### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I didn't realize a) that the sun was so large WRT the ring, and b) that
> the inner "shadow" ring was so much nearer the outer ring than the sun.

OK, so it's not Niven's ringworld, but if it was, the sun should also be a lot
smaller. :D As Thomas detailed, for Niven's ringworld, it's basically our sun,
with the ring as Earth's orbit. The ring's width is the same as the sun's
diameter.

(I don't think you'd want the shadow squares that close to the ring floor anyway
- very abrupt nightfall, total cave-like darkness and utterly empty sky at
night... it might even cause the natives to die off depending on their
psychology. Also less efficient - you need more material to make them, and more
energy to spin them up and stabilise them. Plus, in the event of a failure of
the shadow ring, you'd have far less time to do something about it before the
shadow squares hit the ringworld.)

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4c21c501$1@news.povray.org...
> To be precise, the shadow squares aren't "wrong" - it's just "some" ring 
> world, not the one from Niven's books.

Hold the thiefs!!  They stole Niven's ring! ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 6/23/2010 5:03 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> OK, so it's not Niven's ringworld,

Oops!


-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message