Greetings, I have been trying to measure the mass (in grams) of the GZG ships.
(Using my wifes (food scale.) Naturally the lack of all of the GZG ships is a
problem as well as the basic lack of accuracy of the scale
when dealing with less the 10 grams. End of gripes.
The desired end was to wse the actual mass of the
ship to determime the mass of the FTFB ship. The
problem occured when the smaller ships were not sufficenty massive to provide
a measurable difference
on the scale (in grams). I frequently had to use
5 to 10 ships to provide a basis for a speculative
measurement. In any case, a scentific sca;e with
proper calibration would be an improvement in the rough values obtained by the
food scale. As a sample, I provide the following items from the most commonly
available ships: ( Mass for ship
construction was determined by ((Mass +4) X 2) NAC:
NAC CVA, 216; SDN, 220; CVL, 168; BB, 86; CB, 80; CH, 48; CE, 28; CL, 32; DD,
20; FH, 14; LL, 12; NSL: SDN 384(with voids filled 448); BDN, 160; CH, 76; DD,
20; NI: BB,96; CE, 36; DD,23:
UN: SDN, 188; BDN, 152; CH, 80; DD, 18; CC-B, 14;
FSE: CBA, 268; CBL, 132; BB, 60; CH,56; CL, 38; DDH, 24; DD, 18; CC, 13; ESU:
BB,76; CH,34; DD, 22; CC, 10 SS, 10: kRA'VAK: SDN, 196; BDN, 116; BB, 76; CB,
68; CH, 54; CE, 38; CL, 30; DD, 24; FF, 18; CC 11; SS, 9; SH;VASKU; CVL, 52;
CH,28; CE, 20; CL, 16; SS, 11; CC, 10; SS, 9; FCT; DD, 22.
comments welcome.
Bye for now,
Just a bit or two of idle curiosity:
Are these Geo-Hex manufactured? Did you prep them? Paint? Measure more
than a single fig, and average? What did you use to fill voids?
Course, even bad flash prolly won't show if your scale is having trouble with
the smaller ships.
Thanks, I'll hush now.
The_Beast
Okay, silly question - Why?
Are you comparing the ship in grams to the ship listing in the books in mass?
At an undefined scale and with no guarantee of consistency between models of
the same nationality (how much difference is 1 mass at any common SF starship
scale anyway? I have no clue) how consistent 'should' the weights (grams) be
to the mass (tons)? Given that the models are
honestly more 'counters' then models - despite the beautiful sculpting
which i cannot approach) - what is the goal of this exercise? Are you
seeing if the same 'paper tonnage' ships of the various forces are consistent?
It sounds like a lot of work but I am obviously missing the reason you are
going to this much trouble...
That said, interesting numbers. What's an LL? I think I can figure out
CCC, CB (old BC?,) CC, CC-B, CBA, and CBL. Maybe. Isn't SS Submarine
??? Some of the Acronyms are not clear since I don't have the books in front
of me.
Gracias, Glenn
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 00:09:09 -0800 (PST) John Leary
> <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> writes:
> warbeads@juno.com wrote:
Me.
> I think I can figure out
Given that they're around 12-12 mass, I'd say this means "Scout".
> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
-------
Most of the ships were Geo-hex, the UNSC
were mostly from GZG, as were the ORC, FCT. The OUDF ships are from Oz. (I
didn't post the complete list because I wanted to 'sample the waters' before I
sent out all that I had done.
> Did you prep them?
-------
I did not have bare metal for all ships. The UNSC, ORC, OUDF, FCT, NI, and
Japanese
were unpainted and unprimed. Most of the
others were painted and many were based, ship value was calculated from an
average base weight subtracted from the measured value.
> What did you use to fill voids?
-------
I didn't, the only major problem was the NSL SDN which is 188g (assembled) and
220g (estimated) when the hollows are filled.
> Course, even bad flash prolly won't show if your
-------
Flash was not a problem.
The Sa'Vasku have VERY small ships by weight, (Light mothership and smaller),
using mass to determine the payload will limit the Sa'Vasku in combat. Mass:
CVL, 22; CH, 10; CE, 6; CL, 4; FF, 1.5;
SS-battle, .5. (All ships painted and based)
The Phalons will have rather heavy ships and may become even more of a
problem. Mass: CVL, 96 (Estimated 106 with void filled); BB, 58; BC, 48; CE,
22; CL, 19; DD, 13. (Only CL and DD were painted and based)
Japanese Mass: CVA, 164; SDN, 164; BDN,132; BB, 52; BC, 50; CH, 30; CE, 16;
CL, 14; DD, 7; FF, 4; CC, 1.5. (all are unassembled)
ORC Mass: BDN, 56; CH (Long), 22; CH (Medium), 27; CH (short), 23; CL, 11; DD,
9; FF, 3. (All are bare metal, unassembled.)
OUDF Mass: CVL, 60; CH, 42; CL, 24; DD, 15; FF, 7.
NI Mass: BB, 44; CE, 14; DD, 7.5.
FCT Mass: DD, 11.
Bye for now,
> --- warbeads@juno.com wrote:
-------
I noticed that the NAC CL and CE were rather close in actual size. I just make
a jump to the concept of actual mass being used to
determine the ship mass. The ships being
solid (for the most part) and the build system in FTFB being percentages of
the mass just sort of evolved into the concept.
> Are you comparing the ship in grams to the ship
-------
No, the actual mass of the model ship determines the ship mass for
construction in the rules. (I did need to provide a minimum value so that FF
and smaller had some limited value in the game.)
> - what is the goal of this exercise? Are you
-------
This is patially brough about by the 'fleet theme'
that has floated around lately. Looking at the
NSL DD and the FCT DD, one can clearly see that the FCT ship is actually twice
the size of the NSL DD, I this the basis of a fleet theme? It is possible that
the FCT tends to build larger than average ships and classes then by a
different standard that the other powers.
> It sounds like a lot of work but I am obviously
-------
It's fun, also provides comment for the list.
> That said, interesting numbers. What's an LL?
-------
NAC Lancer
> I think I can figure out CCC, CB (old BC?,)
-------
Correct.
> CC, CC-B, CBA, and CBL.
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:12:23 -0500 Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> warbeads@juno.com wrote:
Sigh, keep the day job <grin> but seriously where does "Lancer" (I read John
L.'s answer) fit in with a nautical theme for class names?
Gracias,
> I have been trying to measure the mass (in grams)
Out of interest, how well has that followed with the fleet book's set designs?
I sort of assume that St John has not been using this when designing them.
> The
Actually, that is probably a much better statistical technique than measing
individuals using a highly accurate balance, on the grounds that there are a
great many uncontrolable variables, such as the thicknes of paint etc.
Just my 2 cents...
> --- Richard Kirke <richardkirke@hotmail.com> wrote:
Another thought - the mass of your models could be variable depending on
who cast them and from what - I believe pewter (which I'm pretty sure is
what Jon casts his models in now) is a significantly lower density than any
white metal with a lead content. So anything you have in lead would show up as
much heavier then an identical pewter casting.
A better measure might be to try and work out the volume of each model (stick
'em in a beaker of water and measure the displacement?). You'd have to make
sure that any hollow models were sealed of course.
IIRC from college stat class you need 30 samples to be significant - as
in 30 of each ship. Well, Jon T. will encourage your research I am sure.
<grin>
gracias, Glenn
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:56:48 -0800 (PST) John Leary
> <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> writes:
> --- warbeads@juno.com wrote:
Can I do three, ten times?
Bye for now,
<grin> Uh, no. Again, IIRC, 30 separate, unique samples to make the data
statistically significant.
So we'll settle for 3 ten times.
__Although__ I think an order for 27 more of _any_ BC class ship (and
Above) should get some kind of discount/'extra goodie' for your
dedication from a pleased and gracious manufacturer. <VBG>
It is an interesting idea but I think it would have problems at the smaller
end since a single 'bit' missing or present on a model would have significant
impact on the relative (?) mass.
Gracias, Glenn
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:55:44 -0800 (PST) John Leary
> <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> writes:
> From: John Leary <john_t_leary@yahoo.com>
Depends which error you are trying to eliminate. That would eliminate (or at
least reduce) any errors involved in the measuring, but would still leave the
error associated with variation in the ships.
> --- Richard Kirke <richardkirke@hotmail.com> wrote:
Errors can be as large as 100% on the small ships (SC, CT), DDs are more than
likely around 16%.
Since the small ships are 'given' a +4 mass to make
then 'close' to the game mass for ship building the error are not as important
as they could be otherwise.
Bye for now,
> John wrote:
> Errors can be as large as 100 % on the small ships
This whole "ship mass based on figure mass" is interesting, but as has been
pointed out there is room for error.
What I thought might be interesting is not to weigh the figures, but calculate
their volume. If you assume that they are made of the same material all the
figures should be the same density, as long as there were no air bubbles in
the figure. Since the ships of the same class are made from the same moulds,
then ships of the same class should have the same volume. Irregularities in
casting would make for less of a volume difference than the irregularities
you'd see in weights. If you have an
old ship from Geo-Hex and a new ship of the same class from GZG, they
should have the same volume even if one of the ships was made from a lighter,
more pewter, material than the other.
Since density = mass / volume, and we are assuming all ships have the
same density, you could compare figure volumes to figure volumes in order to
calculate the mass of the real "starship".
The trick, of course, is measuring volume. I remember a special cup in science
class. It had a spout near the top that tunneled into the side of the cup. You
filled it with water and let it settle so that the water level was just at the
bottom of the spout. You carefully put in the object and captured the water
that ran out the spout. You measured the water for the volume of the object.
Of course this only works with items that will sink, and not everyone has one
of these special beakers and an accurate enough volume measurer to do this...