Re: [TML] Destroyer tonnage...
Cheng Tseng
(15 Sep 2014 22:44 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Destroyer tonnage...
Evyn MacDude
(15 Sep 2014 22:56 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Destroyer tonnage...
Peter Berghold
(15 Sep 2014 22:57 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Destroyer tonnage...
Bruce Johnson
(15 Sep 2014 23:01 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Destroyer tonnage...
Michael Houghton
(15 Sep 2014 23:17 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Destroyer tonnage... Evyn MacDude (16 Sep 2014 00:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Destroyer tonnage...
Ian Whitchurch
(16 Sep 2014 01:54 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Destroyer tonnage...
Phil Pugliese
(16 Sep 2014 13:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Destroyer tonnage... Evyn MacDude 16 Sep 2014 00:32 UTC
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Michael Houghton <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: > Howdy! > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Bruce Johnson > <xxxxxx@pharmacy.arizona.edu> wrote: >> >> On Sep 15, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Cheng Tseng <xxxxxx@kennett.net> wrote: >> >>> ObTrva: I am still confused over how Traveller gets the displacement tons from the mass and vice versa, for a ship design. I always thought that going to a pure mass system (A la David Weber's Honor Harrington.) might be less confusing. >> >> It might be, but since jump drive is volume-dependent, not mass-dependent it makes sense to size ships in volume. Why it isn’t in cubic meters is probably due to some un-nammed naval traditionalist during the Rule of Man shoehorning the term into use. >> > Even today, ships' tonnage is a volume, not a mass measurement. In some cases > (Gross Tonnage), the conversion to cubic meters or the like has a > factor that varies > as the size of the vessel. > > A measurement ton, or freight ton is another volumetric measure, being > 40 cubic feet. Not to forget the Register Ton which 100 cubic feet or 2.83 m^3 -- Evyn