34 replies to this topic

[Epic Weasel]

ALL reactors go CRITICAL. Its just step one of starting up. This means they are beginning to "react" and make us some heat to use for power. To keep this in laymans terms, "critical" is the same as "on" or "running". Even "supercritical" isn't the end of the world.

Now I know my experience is limited to fission, uranium-fueled reactors. And we'll be waltzing around in fusion powered death machines. But "critical" is not a term for catastophe outside of Hollywood. Until someone puts out a fusion power source I say this critical business needs to be reigned in.

When the sexy computer lady whipsers in your headset "reactor critical," its game time. Not punch out time.

And so we're clear, in the canon, fusion engines don't go "nuclear." Superheated plama escapes from a damaged engine and rapidly heats up and bursts. Apparently only dangerours to unarmored infantry. And it comes out is 2021, so soon we can all know the truth

[pursang]

Your logic, it does not belong here! Away with you!

[William Petersen]

Yeah, the Fusion Engines page on Sarna is pretty damning towards the idea of fallen Mechs becoming weapons themselves.

Suffice to say, if we have MW4-esque Mech-mauling deathsplosions, Imma be a lil perturbed.

I'm not even sure there is much precedent for the MW3 "You over heated by a LOT and blew the *#%)*#$ up." In the TT (according to my record sheets) the apparent maximum heat was 30, that seems to be the absolute maximum, if you generate more heat, I guess it's "free"? I'm not sure. If you end a turn on 30 heat (or greater?) you shutdown. Period. Now, you also have ammo checks to make, but if you have no ammo, it can't very well explode, now can it? In MW3, I distinctly remember having a Supernova Prime blow up when I tried to Alpha with it. That really shouldn't happen. <.< I should just be forced into a shut down for a while.

[Motionless]

Reactor Critical[ly Damaged]



The voice is for mechwarriors, not lab coats.

[Hawkeye 72]

If you would be so kind sir and direct yourself to this thread, where logic is debated to your hearts content!

http://mwomercs.com/...ttletech-fluff/

[Alizabeth Aijou]

So is it either confirmed or disproven that 'Mechs can stackpole?

[Epic Weasel]

My only problem is the use of the term "reactor critical." Both in battletech and any other fiction with a reactor in it. I'm not out to rag on BT's logic. I know where to do that . This is a beef with word choice, not science or science-fiction.

I also don't debate that mechs can explode, just that its a nuclear explosion. And that some of the misunderstanding is from shorting the phrase "Reactor Critically Damaged."

[Motionless]

Epic Weasel, on 10 April 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

This is a beef with word choice, not science or science-fiction.

Just gotta remember, they'll have misnomers in the future too.

They might even still call them 'peanuts' even though they're not nuts! And I wonder how long the term 'shooting star' will be around, even though we know now that they're not stars.

[Dirk Le Daring]

Epic Weasel, on 10 April 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

ALL reactors go CRITICAL. Its just step one of starting up. This means they are beginning to "react" and make us some heat to use for power. To keep this in laymans terms, "critical" is the same as "on" or "running". Even "supercritical" isn't the end of the world.

Now I know my experience is limited to fission, uranium-fueled reactors. And we'll be waltzing around in fusion powered death machines. But "critical" is not a term for catastophe outside of Hollywood. Until someone puts out a fusion power source I say this critical business needs to be reigned in.

When the sexy computer lady whipsers in your headset "reactor critical," its game time. Not punch out time.

And so we're clear, in the canon, fusion engines don't go "nuclear." Superheated plama escapes from a damaged engine and rapidly heats up and bursts. Apparently only dangerours to unarmored infantry. And it comes out is 2021, so soon we can all know the truth

2021 !! Thats another NINE YEARS .... NOOOOOO......

[Rhinehart]

Sorry. But to hearken to Mechwarriors past that phrase in your ear "Reactor Critical" makes the heart pound and the blood freeze because you know that yes, you are sitting on a nuclear implosion device and yes all sorts of bad things are seconds away from happening if you do the right thing, the wrong thing or nothing and just take one more hit in the wrong place and that eject button is looking soooo tempting right now cause if your dead not much else matters and...

Can anyone truly say beyond a bald recitation of scientific "facts" what will truly happen if a nuclear fusion reactor of any size takes critical damage during the stress of heavy combat? What if the fail-safes fail? Not only can we not be sure of the answer because it has never happened yet, but we don't want to be sure because that means it happened and if it happened once it can happen again and we soooo need to be somewhere else...

Reactor Online says just what it sounds like. Your reactor is sending power to your systems as it should.

Reactor Critical sounds just like it should.

Oh *%$#@$!

[Der Kommissar]

If at all possible, I'd like to avoid Stackpoling mechs.

[MajDisaster]

I hear Reactor Critical and the Pucker factor goes to 100 and the Brown factor goes to Need New Shorts

Edited by MajDisaster, 10 April 2012 - 07:34 PM.

[Belisarius1]

Was this level of semantics really worth a thread?

[Der Kommissar]

Belisarius†, on 10 April 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

Was this level of semantics really worth a thread?

You're on the internet, after all.

[Epic Weasel]

@Rhinehart: I was following you till the end, at which point I wasn't sure where anyone wanted to be and what was there to begin with... But after posting the thread I did a bit more digging. The fusion reactors in our canon are actually based on reality. The fuels, reactions, containment are all known ideas since the 50's. And apparently we even have some experimental fusion devices already. Albeit very large installations that don't actually produce a steady source of energy, but we got em.

So actually, yeah. We do have some idea what could happen if a fusion reactor takes catastrophic damage. It realeases a bunch of D@^! hot plasma and quits. No nuclear blast. No radiation. I'm willing to bet any nearby munitions would most definitely cook off.

I also suppose listening to "Reactor is critical" over a loudspeaker everyday has made me numb to phrase. Its more of a "I need coffee" sorta feeling.

[Zakatak]

"Reactor flaring" sounds more scientific, even if not 100% accurate.

[ASC]

'Reactor Containment Critical'?

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Epic Weasel, on 10 April 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

I also don't debate that mechs can explode, just that its a nuclear explosion. And that some of the misunderstanding is from shorting the phrase "Reactor Critically Damaged."

Or, rather, a critical to the fusion engine/reactor.
+5 heat/turn for the first, +10 for the second, engine disabled on the third.

Quote

makes the heart pound and the blood freeze because you know that yes, you are sitting on a nuclear implosion device

As Tactical Operations has shown, it is pretty damn hard to stackpole your fusion engine.

Quote

The fusion engines that power ’Mechs and certain vehicles are well protected from damage. Designed to operate under heavy fire, they can withstand direct hits from enemy weapons. Fail-safe devices and the basic physics of magnetic plasma confinement present in all fusion engines prevent them from exploding when damaged; instead, the engine shuts down immediately when catastrophic damage occurs.

In TT terms, you need to receive at least 4 criticals to your fusion engine in a single turn to even have a chance of stackpoling. Alternatively, you can initiate a self-destruct sequence.

[Philipe von Rohrs]

ASC, on 11 April 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

'Reactor Containment Critical'?

That be more like it...

As said, the very act of "firing up" a fusion reactor (when we ahve 'em that is ) is that you are starting a critical nuclear reaction.

But as to losing the containment... Thats the bad bit.

But it's a bit more of a mouthfull.

[Alan Grant]

Philipe von Rohrs, on 11 April 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

That be more like it...

As said, the very act of "firing up" a fusion reactor (when we ahve 'em that is ) is that you are starting a critical nuclear reaction.

But as to losing the containment... Thats the bad bit.

But it's a bit more of a mouthfull.

That's why we have abbreviations.

R.C. Critical.

Not as good as I thought, on second pass.

Edited by Alan Grant, 11 April 2012 - 01:54 PM.