 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Joanne Simpson" <cor### [at] onewhiteraven com> schreef in bericht
news:web.43683abfe9e218d9dc45bc820@news.povray.org...
>
> On the other hand, if the material were purely plastic (e.g. clay or
metal),
> it _might_ deform like the picture, but I suspect the slope of the
mountain
> would be much shallower, and the shape of the top more flared out.
>
>
Now, that's interesting Joanne! From a different perspective (the
measurements of Fist-of-God on the Ringworld map in Ringworld Engineers), I
come to the conclusion that the mountain should have the shape of a shield
volcano, i.e. very flat.
Consider: The *base* starts almost at sea-level and gives it a radius of
150,000 miles. The slopes are gentle until an altitude of about 80 miles.
The final *cone* has a radius of 25,000 miles and ends at 1000 miles
altitude.
If you draw or model this you get a very flat object, with only the very top
perhaps flaring upwards. I even suspect that the mountain is so huge that it
would hardly be *visible* from the ground! in contradiction with what Niven
writes in fact...
Bill, what do you think? Do you agree with my measurements?
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote:
> measurements of Fist-of-God on the Ringworld map in Ringworld Engineers), I
> come to the conclusion that the mountain should have the shape of a shield
> volcano, i.e. very flat.
Yes, I would agree with that. However, the map in Ringworld Engineers is
almost certainly fan work and not necessarily in line with what Niven had
in mind.
> If you draw or model this you get a very flat object, with only the very top
> perhaps flaring upwards. I even suspect that the mountain is so huge that it
> would hardly be *visible* from the ground! in contradiction with what Niven
> writes in fact...
I go with Niven! His description of the mountain is very brief. He says that
it is "roughly conical" - nobody would describe a shield volcano as conical
except in the strictest possible sense (this is prose, not a mathematical
definition!). Natives for 100,000 miles around can see the mountain
clearly, indicating a distinctive, dramatic look. Also, Louis refers to the
top as a 'crater' quite early on. I used the mental picture I formed when I
first read Ringworld (over 10 years ago) - which was a steep, conical
volcano like Mt Ngauruhoe in north NZ. This doesn't of course preclude it
flattening out towards the base - which mine does, to a small degree.
As to whether it's visible - well, now we have the higher-precision
pov-engine we can find out. Make an atmospheric fog ~50 miles deep and put
your version of the mountain in it. Then look at it!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Joanne Simpson" <cor### [at] onewhiteravencom> wrote:
> On the other hand, if the material were purely plastic (e.g. clay or metal),
> it _might_ deform like the picture, but I suspect the slope of the mountain
> would be much shallower, and the shape of the top more flared out.
It might, of course, have different responses under different regimes of
pressure and temperature, to say nothing of varying internal structures.
Unknown materials (especially fictional ones) behave however you want!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> If the surface gravity is aroung 1G and the air pressure at ground level is similar
to ours, then
> about 90% of that mountain is in vacuum!
Yep! Cool, eh? Unlucky for those in the immediate vicinity, but good for the
Ringworld as a whole - at least the atmosphere won't drain away and spray
into space at 770m/s.
However, in that case I should probably remove more greenery from the lower
slopes (not that you can see clearly in that image...)
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> "Joanne Simpson" <cor### [at] onewhiteravencom> schreef in bericht
> news:web.43683abfe9e218d9dc45bc820@news.povray.org...
>>
>> On the other hand, if the material were purely plastic (e.g. clay or
> metal),
>> it _might_ deform like the picture, but I suspect the slope of the
> mountain
>> would be much shallower, and the shape of the top more flared out.
>>
>>
> Now, that's interesting Joanne! From a different perspective (the
> measurements of Fist-of-God on the Ringworld map in Ringworld Engineers),
> I come to the conclusion that the mountain should have the shape of a
> shield volcano, i.e. very flat.
> Consider: The *base* starts almost at sea-level and gives it a radius of
> 150,000 miles. The slopes are gentle until an altitude of about 80 miles.
> The final *cone* has a radius of 25,000 miles and ends at 1000 miles
> altitude.
> If you draw or model this you get a very flat object, with only the very
> top perhaps flaring upwards. I even suspect that the mountain is so huge
> that it would hardly be *visible* from the ground! in contradiction with
> what Niven writes in fact...
>
> Bill, what do you think? Do you agree with my measurements?
>
> Thomas
There is one inherent flaw in this reasoning.
You keep referring to the mountain as a volcano but it isn't even though
Niven describes it as one. The one thing you could/should compare it to is
a bullet hole in sheet metal.
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.4369f3a9e9e218d9731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> I go with Niven! His description of the mountain is very brief. He says
that
> it is "roughly conical" - nobody would describe a shield volcano as
conical
> except in the strictest possible sense (this is prose, not a mathematical
> definition!). Natives for 100,000 miles around can see the mountain
> clearly, indicating a distinctive, dramatic look. Also, Louis refers to
the
> top as a 'crater' quite early on. I used the mental picture I formed when
I
> first read Ringworld (over 10 years ago) - which was a steep, conical
> volcano like Mt Ngauruhoe in north NZ. This doesn't of course preclude it
> flattening out towards the base - which mine does, to a small degree.
>
I agree, in the sense that it is consistent with the story, and the dramatic
effect is paramount.
> As to whether it's visible - well, now we have the higher-precision
> pov-engine we can find out. Make an atmospheric fog ~50 miles deep and put
> your version of the mountain in it. Then look at it!
>
I did. It is an extremely flat pancake!!!
I shall show an image later on.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
> You keep referring to the mountain as a volcano but it isn't even though
> Niven describes it as one.
He does describe it as conical, though, which would almost always be a
volcano if it were formed naturally.
> The one thing you could/should compare it to is
> a bullet hole in sheet metal.
Good point. However, it wouldn't be quite like a bullet hole because the
asteroid in question would probably have been a dense cloud of plasma by
the time it hit the ring floor (the characters observe a foamy impact
buffer covering the underside before they land). It would certainly have
looked like a volcano; the glowing remains of the asteroid would have
sprayed forth from the tip of mountain even as it formed. Not that the
locals would have had a chance to observe the cataclysm - the shockwave
(depending on the damping properties of scrith, of course ;) ) would
probably throw the topsoil miles into the air for millions of miles around.
If scrith was like metal, the whole Ring would probably vibrate like a bell
for millennia, shaking everything to oblivion on its surface... although it
wouldn't be - the builders would surely foresee such events and want their
wonder-material to be as powerful a damper as it is strong.
Thinking about it though... bullets deform quite drastically when they
strike metal - perhaps it wouldn't be so different. What we need here is a
high-speed film of a ball-bearing striking a sheet of toffee. Anybody? :)
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
>> You keep referring to the mountain as a volcano but it isn't even though
>> Niven describes it as one.
> He does describe it as conical, though, which would almost always be a
> volcano if it were formed naturally.
My point is that volcanos can not exist on/in the ring. You need magma and
tectonic activity for a volcano to form and both are not available on the
ring
>
>> The one thing you could/should compare it to is
>> a bullet hole in sheet metal.
> Good point. However, it wouldn't be quite like a bullet hole because the
> asteroid in question would probably have been a dense cloud of plasma by
> the time it hit the ring floor (the characters observe a foamy impact
> buffer covering the underside before they land). It would certainly have
> looked like a volcano; the glowing remains of the asteroid would have
> sprayed forth from the tip of mountain even as it formed. Not that the
> locals would have had a chance to observe the cataclysm - the shockwave
> (depending on the damping properties of scrith, of course ;) ) would
> probably throw the topsoil miles into the air for millions of miles
> around. If scrith was like metal, the whole Ring would probably vibrate
> like a bell for millennia, shaking everything to oblivion on its
> surface... although it wouldn't be - the builders would surely foresee
> such events and want their wonder-material to be as powerful a damper as
> it is strong.
>
> Thinking about it though... bullets deform quite drastically when they
> strike metal - perhaps it wouldn't be so different. What we need here is a
> high-speed film of a ball-bearing striking a sheet of toffee. Anybody? :)
>
> Bill
If you can compare the ring material to anything known now it would, in my
mind, be something like high-strength aluminum. Somewhat soft and it can be
stretched quit a bit. Were it something like carbon fibre then the mountain
would not have formed because this does not deform but it shatters.
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> It might, of course, have different responses under different regimes of
> pressure and temperature, to say nothing of varying internal structures.
Plus, there are superconductors woven all through it, so the dispersal
of heat once the meteor got through the ablative shielding would be hard
to predict.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Neither rocks nor slush nor salted rims
shall keep us from our appointed rounds.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Thinking about it though... bullets deform quite drastically when they
> strike metal - perhaps it wouldn't be so different. What we need here is a
> high-speed film of a ball-bearing striking a sheet of toffee. Anybody? :)
>
> Bill
Reminds me of a bit from a different Larry Niven book (Lucifer's Hammer, so
LN/Steven Barnes, for correct attribution) - where they're comparing the
comet to a cubic mile of hot fudge sundae.
And remember: Hot Fudge Sundae falls on a Tuesdae :->
(Sorry for being OT somewhat - but you just reminded me about that bit...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
