Unfortunately as I help Toshiro standardize, a couple generals issue has come up as a result recent Nepleslian Tech and more recently while researching the validity of the comment Sean sent me about the standardization. Here is the first one:
At least one a month, I come across things that I know deep in my heart would not be realistic either because it Utilitarian Engineering Ethics or more recently during this specific month as I have looked at past articles such as one on 1st Formulation of Deontological Ethics. Notice that this is not a personal religious ethics but in fact Engineering Ethics, which is the fundamental thing that decide the morality of technology in modern society.
How really do you without offending someone inform them that their technology is not scientifically plausible because no ethical engineer would make it?
Other times, I find that the implementation of a certain technology is not very plausible because it doesn't match how modern technology works.
For example take conventional stealth on SARP when used underwater. From what I under stand all these metaalloys like Zesuaium and Xirulium and hyperspace stealth technology really is based on the concept of how surface ships have camouflage. In real life, this is plausible in air because most of the sensors are active and fundamental principle is to be stealthy and fast.
However, in Underwater its the opposite. Most of of the sensors are passive and require passive stealth like simple eraser rubber mountings. The fundamental principle is not to be stealthy and fast; however, to be to be slow and stealthy like sharks. Its why the sharks were originally called sea-wolves before the seawolf came around then topped them. Later all submarines got this name, the most famous example being the USS Seawolf
Also it turns out that the stealth materials used for B2 bombers and for other ships actually light up acoustically ships under water because of how the earth's magnetic field interacts with liquids or magnetohydrodynamics. In the same way most conventionally stealth, either adds to or doesn't resolve the problem of "engine noise" or "rudder noise", which Nuclear Submarines and Silent Running.
^Now really did you read that large paragraph above?
did you!?
.... If you didn't and skips to you here or are so angry you want to throw something at me then, I feel like you may start to feel my point.
So how really do you without offending someone inform them that their technology is not scientifically plausible? More so how do you do it in a way that still allows them to have the need that they wanted tech to do?
I say this because I am honestly worried that the Tech and Setting Managers sometimes lack either the experience or knowledge that Fay had about aquatic technology. I mean I personally right now have spent nearly 2-4 hours everyday researching aquatic technology to bring to SARP or checking whether or not something is legitimate. I didn't even know until a few days ago that CFS tech actually didn't work underwater till I talked to my uncle who was I nuclear engineer to see how actual submarines work.
At least one a month, I come across things that I know deep in my heart would not be realistic either because it Utilitarian Engineering Ethics or more recently during this specific month as I have looked at past articles such as one on 1st Formulation of Deontological Ethics. Notice that this is not a personal religious ethics but in fact Engineering Ethics, which is the fundamental thing that decide the morality of technology in modern society.
How really do you without offending someone inform them that their technology is not scientifically plausible because no ethical engineer would make it?
Other times, I find that the implementation of a certain technology is not very plausible because it doesn't match how modern technology works.
For example take conventional stealth on SARP when used underwater. From what I under stand all these metaalloys like Zesuaium and Xirulium and hyperspace stealth technology really is based on the concept of how surface ships have camouflage. In real life, this is plausible in air because most of the sensors are active and fundamental principle is to be stealthy and fast.
However, in Underwater its the opposite. Most of of the sensors are passive and require passive stealth like simple eraser rubber mountings. The fundamental principle is not to be stealthy and fast; however, to be to be slow and stealthy like sharks. Its why the sharks were originally called sea-wolves before the seawolf came around then topped them. Later all submarines got this name, the most famous example being the USS Seawolf
Also it turns out that the stealth materials used for B2 bombers and for other ships actually light up acoustically ships under water because of how the earth's magnetic field interacts with liquids or magnetohydrodynamics. In the same way most conventionally stealth, either adds to or doesn't resolve the problem of "engine noise" or "rudder noise", which Nuclear Submarines and Silent Running.
^Now really did you read that large paragraph above?
did you!?
.... If you didn't and skips to you here or are so angry you want to throw something at me then, I feel like you may start to feel my point.
So how really do you without offending someone inform them that their technology is not scientifically plausible? More so how do you do it in a way that still allows them to have the need that they wanted tech to do?
I say this because I am honestly worried that the Tech and Setting Managers sometimes lack either the experience or knowledge that Fay had about aquatic technology. I mean I personally right now have spent nearly 2-4 hours everyday researching aquatic technology to bring to SARP or checking whether or not something is legitimate. I didn't even know until a few days ago that CFS tech actually didn't work underwater till I talked to my uncle who was I nuclear engineer to see how actual submarines work.
