Check my figures for matter conversion please.

[Durandal]

All of the power ratings are expressed in lbh: Pounds Per Hour, as in pounds of matter converted into energy (E=MC^2) per hour. The numbers were justtoo damned big to use joules.

So they use a fucked-up unit system of lb/hr instead? Ever heard of scientific notation?

Well, they use is elsewhere in the book, but I guess they figured it was cumbersome when you had to add up a bunch of these numbers. 1.2*10^6 + 2*10^12 + 6.22*10^6 etc. is a lot harder to deal with than 1 + 6 + 2...

Or, they're just fucking morons. You can write scientific notation thusly: 1.2E3 (which is how I've been writing it) is the same as 1.2 * 10^3. The writers have probably never heard of SI units, or are completely mystified by the way SI units actually make sense. Again, pounds per hour is a unit of momentum.

Is that your professional opinion?

Were I a professional, it certainly would be.

[Currald]

Or, they're just fucking morons.... The writers have probably never heard of SI units, or are completely mystified by the way SI units actually make sense.

Have you even read a Doc Smith book? Or are you passing judgement based on my amateurish posts here?

Again, pounds per hour is a unit of momentum.

Feel free to post this fact yet again if it pleases you to do so.

Is that your professional opinion?

Were I a professional, it certainly would be.

So you admit that you aren't qualified to make such a judgement?

[Durandal]

Anyone who thinks force per unit of time is a valid rate for mass conversion is a fucking moron. Sorry to rain on your parade. And yes, I've played GURPS.

[Currald]

Anyone who thinks force per unit of time is a valid rate for mass conversion is a fucking moron.

Obviously.

Sorry to rain on your parade.

Apology accepted. Though I'd prefer if you apologized for busting into this thread with crass language and repetative posts that belie the fact that you haven't read the thread completely, or didn't read it carefully, or have a bad case of amnesia. My parade is relatively undampened.

And yes, I've played GURPS.

Good for you. I didn't ask.

[Durandal]

Obviously.

People who want to write sciencey-sounding stuff in books should at least have the good sense to actually VERIFY what they write.

Apology accepted. Though I'd prefer if you apologized for busting into this thread with crass language and repetative posts that belie the fact that you haven't read the thread completely, or didn't read it carefully, or have a bad case of amnesia. My parade is relatively undampened.

Fuck you. I gave you what you wanted from this thread, and just commented that whoever wrote the book was a fucking moron, because he used units of momentum instead of mass in his source book. I haven't said anything bad about you; why are you so pissed off about what I say about RPG writers?

[Currald]

People who want to write sciencey-sounding stuff in books should at least have the good sense to actually VERIFY what they write.

Fair enough.

Fuck you.

Calm down.

I gave you what you wanted from this thread, and just commented that whoever wrote the book was a fucking moron, because he used units of momentum instead of mass in his source book.

Indeed you did. You were right. They are units of momentum.

I haven't said anything bad about you; why are you so pissed off about what I say about RPG writers?

We were having a nice discussion here, and you came in and started spewing insults towards the writers of some books you've obviously never even read, contributing nothing useful to the discussion at hand. You pointed out what amounts to a trivial error on the part of said writer, obviously made in the interest of making the game more playable. It isn't a science textbook, its a space opera game. Thanks for your matter conversion yields, but we covered that on page 1. I'm afraid that you've contributed nothing of use to this thread, and managed to use the word "fuck" in almost every one of your posts. Noone else was swearing in here; what made you think that it was necessary for you to do so?

http://www.bartleby.com/95/

[Durandal]

So this is about me using the word "fuck"? Sorry if I've defiled your virgin ears.

[Shadowhawk]

Someone on SB already did a pretty damned comprehensive analysis and conversion of Lensman capabilities.

Smith's use of 'pounds per hour' relates to their energy production methods, which seemingly used some type of fission or fusion with iron. It's never explicitly described; only obscenely powerful.

I've only read the first three books, and a couple years ago, so I don't remember the specifics.
An alien race in an extremely iron-poor solar system (designed that way from the birth of the universe) figured out how to use what little iron they had as a fuel. Then they met up with humans, who had iron everywhere in their solar system. After a brief war, they teamed up (again, designed that way from the birth of the universe).

They could cross interstellar distances and fight high-energy battles with just a few pounds of iron. With the two working together, their ships became more and more powerful and the amount of energy produced by burning one pound of iron in one hour became the de-facto standard of the universe.

Searching for 'Lensman' on SB would probably get you the appropriate threads.

[Durandal]

Someone on SB already did a pretty damned comprehensive analysis and conversion of Lensman capabilities.

Smith's use of 'pounds per hour' relates to their energy production methods, which seemingly used some type of fission or fusion with iron. It's never explicitly described; only obscenely powerful.

Then I retract my former statement, as it was not sufficiently derisive. This guy a a complete fucking moron.

There's a reason we do nuclear fission with uranium: it's easier to split, and releases more energy. Fission with iron is stupid.

It's impossible to perform nuclear fusion with iron, as it does not meet Lawson's Criterion.

I suppose if the guy provided a graph of pounds vs. hours, we could find the area under the curve and get the amount of energy released, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as wildy powerful as you make it out to be.

Does it say anywhere just what the rate of "pounds per hour" is?

[Hotfoot]

Then I retract my former statement, as it was not sufficiently derisive. This guy a a complete fucking moron.

There's a reason we do nuclear fission with uranium: it's easier to split, and releases more energy. Fission with iron is stupid.

Smith originally wrote the Lensman stories in 1934, so you'll have to forgive him for not knowing nuclear physics as well as you do. Besides which, if this energy source is at all similar to the Rovolon-Lead/Uranium reactions from Skylark, I think that there is a catalyst in the reaction.

Smith, by the way, was a Chemist.

It's impossible to perform nuclear fusion with iron, as it does not meet Lawson's Criterion.

When was Lawson's Criterion revealed to the world? Smith finished the Lensman series in 1948.

Lawson's Criterion, IIRC, was around 1957, a full nine years after Lensman was written. You might as well be talking about how stupid the writer of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea was because he didn't make the Nautalis equivilant to a modern nuclear powered submarine.

[Durandal]

Ah, well that explains it then. I'll retract my statements.

Though, chemists do (or should) know how to use proper units.

[Currald]

Well, I checked out SB.com and found nothing that we hadn't already gone over and found to be incorrect. Some of the posters there didn't read the data carefully enough. There were a couple of useful quotes from Gray Lensman regarding power generation and primary beam strengths that are useful. Of particular use is a quote stating that a primary beam can crack a Q-Type helix of force, something that a Q-Gun shell certainly cannot. That clearly places the primary in a higher firepower rating than the Q-Gun, finally and definitively destroying the validity of my latest series of calculations. I've started rereading the series in search of more data. If I find anything useful, I'll let y'all know.

[Hotfoot]

Ah, well that explains it then. I'll retract my statements.

Though, chemists do (or should) know how to use proper units.

I think the point was that it was supposed to show some sort of change in how things were measured, at least colloquially. Think of it this way, it's easier to know how many units of resource X are needed to keep a ship of class Y operational for A, B, or C conditions.

Of course, I'll have to re-read the books to get a better refresher course.

[consequences]

Before you start insulting the author, you might consider the fact that the U.S. Navy in WW2 used his idea for A Fleet coordination system for the CIC center on their carriers and Admiral Nimitz wrote him a letter specifically thanking him.

[Darth Wong]

Smith originally wrote the Lensman stories in 1934, so you'll have to forgive him for not knowing nuclear physics as well as you do.

The scientific community aleady knew by 1934 that you need heavy elements for fission and light elements for fusion.

Lawson's Criterion, IIRC, was around 1957, a full nine years after Lensman was written.

Irrelevant. Rutherford first induced laboratory fusion in 1919 IIRC. They already knew perfectly well that you need very light elements for fusion.

If he didn't know about the state of scientific knowledge at the time, then he should have kept his mouth shut about the precise mechanism.

[Darth Wong]

Before you start insulting the author, you might consider the fact that the U.S. Navy in WW2 used his idea for A Fleet coordination system for the CIC center on their carriers and Admiral Nimitz wrote him a letter specifically thanking him.

And how does that excuse him for iron fusion and "pounds per hour" as a power generation unit?

[Hotfoot]

Smith originally wrote the Lensman stories in 1934, so you'll have to forgive him for not knowing nuclear physics as well as you do.

The scientific community aleady knew by 1934 that you need heavy elements for fission and light elements for fusion.

Fair enough. In any event, I think the energy source is being somewhat misrepresented here, at least going by how energy was generated in his previous stories (specifically, Skylark). I'll have to go back and check to be certain, however.

Lawson's Criterion, IIRC, was around 1957, a full nine years after Lensman was written.

Irrelevant. Rutherford first induced laboratory fusion in 1919 IIRC. They already knew perfectly well that you need very light elements for fusion.

If he didn't know about the state of scientific knowledge at the time, then he should have kept his mouth shut about the precise mechanism.

Again, I shall have to go back and look through the books to get an exact quote, as I have done with his Skylark series.

[consequences]

you know, it only takes one really great idea to label someone a genius, are you saying that Einstein's math grades aren't excused by his scientific theories?
Oh my god, his terminology is deficient, we must call Lucas an idiot because he called something a Turbolaser that wasn't actually a laser.
It wasn't fusion of Iron, it was some mechanism for converting it into energy, that worked really well with a specific made up type of iron.
Pounds per hour was used mainly by the GURPS game designers, not by the author himself. It has been consistently misattributed to him throughout this thread, his stlyle is to refer to things as starkly, indescribably powerful, not to try to put numbers behind them.

[Hotfoot]

It has been consistently misattributed to him throughout this thread, his stlyle is to refer to things as starkly, indescribably powerful, not to try to put numbers behind them.

Actually, I've gotten quite decent values from Skylark, hence my figure 7.8 Petatons for 5th Order projectors in Skylark Three. They're often few and far between, but they're there. Unless he decided to take things like that out of Lensman, but again, it's been a while since I've read that series.

[Darth Wong]

you know, it only takes one really great idea to label someone a genius, are you saying that Einstein's math grades aren't excused by his scientific theories?

There is a difference between grades and spouting of pseudoscience. Grades may indicate sloppiness, lack of care, simple immaturity, etc. Spouting of pseudoscience indicates an attempt to impress people with nonsense.

Oh my god, his terminology is deficient, we must call Lucas an idiot because he called something a Turbolaser that wasn't actually a laser.

Lucas never tried to say how the thing worked. There's a difference.

It wasn't fusion of Iron, it was some mechanism for converting it into energy, that worked really well with a specific made up type of iron.

Whatever. OK, so it's a super-volatile form of iron. I'm sure that made sense in the 1930's too

[Hotfoot]

Whatever. OK, so it's a super-volatile form of iron. I'm sure that made sense in the 1930's too

In Smith's Skylark Series, power (more specifically the main drives of the ship, but I digress) was generated by coating Lead (and later, Uranium) with a "Metal X" (or Rovolon) and then irradiating it with some device or another (the specifics fail me at the moment, I'm afraid) whereby the Lead/Uranium is converted into energy. The Rovolon merely acts as the catalyst in the reaction. This method was used to accelerate ships at faster-than-light speeds with no maximum velocity in the Skylark series. The specific process of why the Rovolon-Lead/Uranium works is never really touched on, just that it does, and that it is capable of doing X, Y, and Z.

IIRC, he used a similar method for power generation (but not propulsion) for the Lensman series. Again, I'll have to go back and check. The point of using Iron, I think, was that it was common enough and dense enough to be used effectively in the process.

[consequences]

Hotfoot: Everything I am remembering, and after flipping through Children of the Lens again(frickking hell, where did my copies of the rest of the series get to) is that he used a lot of extravagant adjectives to describe things blowing up or resisting being blown up, he may have varied htat in Skylark, I still have to read that series.
Wong: Read the damned series before you start nitpicking, the Iron bit came from 2 prequel novels written long after the original series of books, do you judge Star Wars on the basis of the Phantom Menace?

[Hotfoot]

Hotfoot: Everything I am remembering, and after flipping through Children of the Lens again(frickking hell, where did my copies of the rest of the series get to) is that he used a lot of extravagant adjectives to describe things blowing up or resisting being blown up, he may have varied htat in Skylark, I still have to read that series.

Skylark came before Lensman, so it could have just been Smith refining his writing style. But there were several points in Skylark that gave some hard numbers for things, since the Rovolon-Lead/Uranium reaction gave perfect Matter->Energy.

Wong: Read the damned series before you start nitpicking, the Iron bit came from 2 prequel novels written long after the original series of books, do you judge Star Wars on the basis of the Phantom Menace?

Now now, let's cool off a bit. I think it's safe to say that nobody in this thread has read the Lensman books to the proper level of detail for a debate. It also is a rather obscure series, so we who have the books and are trying to present an argument one way or another should at least try to explain things in good enough detail. We don't have that yet, unless maybe we go by the analysis from SpaceBattles.

In any event, I would suggest that everyone read the Lensman Series. It's a good source of old school SF and the basis for a lot of modern Science Fiction.

[Currald]

Smith does mention "pounds per hour" in an offhand descriptive way in Gray Lensman just as they reach intergalactic space on the voyage to the Second Galaxy. Barrett then took this offhand comment and used it as the standard power measurement, since it was one of the few places in the series where Smith uses an actual number to describe something.

Just because Smith's space opera goes into slightly more detail about the impossible physics involved than Lucas's does doesn't mean that Smith should be castigated. Lensman is not hard SF, and doesn't pretend to be.

[Currald]

In any event, I would suggest that everyone read the Lensman Series. It's a good source of old school SF and the basis for a lot of modern Science Fiction.

I would recommend skipping the two prequels and going straight into Galactic Patrol. Skip the prologues, too, as they give away the ending!

This isn't how I read it, but I barely made it through Triplanetary alive the first time, and most of the references in First Lensman were completely lost on me.