T4 QSDS Question tmr0195@xxxxxx (25 Apr 2015 22:45 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question Bruce Johnson (26 Apr 2015 02:05 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question tmr0195@xxxxxx (26 Apr 2015 03:33 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question Derek Wildstar (28 Apr 2015 16:21 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question tmr0195@xxxxxx (28 Apr 2015 22:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question Derek Wildstar (29 Apr 2015 20:19 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question tmr0195@xxxxxx (29 Apr 2015 23:39 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question Derek Wildstar (30 Apr 2015 12:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question tmr0195@xxxxxx (30 Apr 2015 15:35 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question Derek Wildstar (30 Apr 2015 21:04 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question Ethan McKinney (30 Apr 2015 21:18 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question tmr0195@xxxxxx (01 May 2015 02:10 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question tmr0195@xxxxxx (01 May 2015 00:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question Derek Wildstar (01 May 2015 15:49 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question tmr0195@xxxxxx (02 May 2015 04:48 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (02 May 2015 15:10 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (03 May 2015 15:52 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (04 May 2015 19:29 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors Derek Wildstar (05 May 2015 01:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 May 2015 06:34 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 May 2015 20:43 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors Derek Wildstar (05 May 2015 21:22 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (06 May 2015 15:29 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (06 May 2015 20:20 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (07 May 2015 15:45 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors Derek Wildstar (07 May 2015 20:34 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (08 May 2015 00:04 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (08 May 2015 03:23 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (08 May 2015 13:40 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors Ethan McKinney (09 May 2015 02:50 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (09 May 2015 21:33 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors Ethan McKinney (09 May 2015 21:41 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (11 May 2015 18:54 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors Ethan McKinney (11 May 2015 19:59 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (11 May 2015 23:48 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors Derek Wildstar (05 May 2015 01:26 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 May 2015 05:43 UTC)
Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors Derek Wildstar (05 May 2015 21:19 UTC)

Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors Derek Wildstar 05 May 2015 01:25 UTC

On May 3, 2015, at 11:52 AM, xxxxxx@comcast.net wrote:
> At first glance I thought the Min Length was based on antenna area, then I thought that the min hull was based on passive sensor antenna diameter. Now I am simply confused.  How is Min Length determined in the QSDS 1.5e Standard Sensor Table?

That is a very good question.

I don't have a good answer for you.

In the spreadsheet, I don't list a min length - the spreadsheet lists "MinHull", which is the smallest hull (in displacement tons) that can mount the sensor package.  It is listed as 100 tons for Basic and Improved, 300 tons for Small Military, and 2000 tons for Medium Military.

The Word document has the same data table, but instead of Min Hull it lists Min Length.

I don't know how any of these values (MinHull or Min Length) were calculated - in both cases, they appear to have been entered from another source.  I suspect that the (missing) sensors spreadsheet might be the source.

In any case, I suggest treating these numbers as suspect.

I believe my original intent was to list a Minimum Hull size for the sensor package that incorporated both the length and area.  The minimum hull would be the hull that was both long enough to be longer than the largest diameter sensor included in the package, and had enough area to accommodate all of the sensors in the package.

In other words: MinHull = MAX(LengthHull,AreaHull) where LengthHull = Hull size in dtons where every hull of that displacement and larger has length >= MAX(Length) of each sensor included in the package; and AreaHull = Hull size in dtons where every hull of that displacement and larger has available area > SUM(Area) of each sensor included in the package.

I don't recall the logic behind the switch from minimum hull size to minimum length, or how the lengths in the table were arrived at. This might have been something that was made up out of whole cloth just before QSDS went to press.

Personally, I'd support re-instating MinHull as defined above in errata.

---Guy "wildstar" Garnett
xxxxxx@prismnet.com