Random Worldbuilding Questions (Biology, Geography, Society, etc.)

[Ksheep]

Originally Posted by Conners

-SNIP-
Of course that is fantasyish. Still, does it sound a plausible reason for society assuming, "Plate armour is something dwarves and wizards make. Normal men can't make such things"?

Sounds reasonable, but it wouldn't be that normal men can't make such things, it would be that the dwarves fiercely guard the techniques used to make it. Also, since they are dwarves, I'd assume they'd have superior metal. The orcs may have impure iron with other trace metals in it, potentially weakening it, most likely some sort of pot metal which results in cheap weapons and armor which can be fixed or replaced easily, but which also dulls and breaks easily. The dwarves, on the other hand, have higher quality metal and have developed better refining processes where they can get the impurities out. They may also have a technique of strengthening it, such as making steel in a coke oven, or possibly adding carbon to make Damascus steel or jewel steel (see Japanese swordsmithing).

In the real world, Damascus steel was used in some of the strongest and sharpest weapons of the period, but the smiths who made it kept it a closely guarded secret, and when their civilization fell, the technique was lost. Jewel steel manufacturing was also a closely guarded secret, and it is only in modern times that traditional swordsmiths are coming forward and showing others how it is made.

[Conners]

Originally Posted by awa

Spoiler

yes something like metallurgy usually does improve over time im not certain i understand how that relates to my comments.

I only said not every cultures develops technology at the same pace in the same order. and many weapons and tactics that are quite effective and were only developed late in the real world could develop with little supporting technology. A good example being the sirup which could just be a little leather strap no metal required, combine that with a bow that also doesn't require metal and you could have stone age mounted archers something even the Romans would have been unable to pull off.


like a previous poster mentioned environment can make a big difference.
a group like an amazon tribe would have get little benefit out of heavy plate armor. the combination of heat, needing to move on foot over rough terrain and the time required to put on the armor would make it highly impractical.

edit one of the biggest ways to have diverse weapons and armor is just different cultures, different groups use different weapons and different tactics. look at the Muslims and christian in the crusades the romans and every one around them every group had it's own tactics, weapons and armors. im not certain you need to go to any length to explain why short slow subterranean master smiths are using different gear then nimble forest dwelling master archers.

Were the Muslim and Christian armies that different, by the second Crusade? I was under the impression they both used a lot of the same equipment after the initial contact. I could be misremembering, but I thought aside from appearance (curved swords versus straight, different styles of mail armour), the main difference was the horse archers.

Rome is a good era for some interesting diversity of war. Chariots, heavy infantry, archers, horse archers, cavalry, elephants, slingers, javelineers, etc..

Originally Posted by Ksheep

Sounds reasonable, but it wouldn't be that normal men can't make such things, it would be that the dwarves fiercely guard the techniques used to make it. Also, since they are dwarves, I'd assume they'd have superior metal. The orcs may have impure iron with other trace metals in it, potentially weakening it, most likely some sort of pot metal which results in cheap weapons and armor which can be fixed or replaced easily, but which also dulls and breaks easily. The dwarves, on the other hand, have higher quality metal and have developed better refining processes where they can get the impurities out. They may also have a technique of strengthening it, such as making steel in a coke oven, or possibly adding carbon to make Damascus steel or jewel steel (see Japanese swordsmithing).

In the real world, Damascus steel was used in some of the strongest and sharpest weapons of the period, but the smiths who made it kept it a closely guarded secret, and when their civilization fell, the technique was lost. Jewel steel manufacturing was also a closely guarded secret, and it is only in modern times that traditional swordsmiths are coming forward and showing others how it is made.

Oh yes of course. Meant that humans assume Dwarves have some kind of magic that allows them to make such good weapons and armour, and so they don't try to experiment and make their own so much.

Has the method of how to make it been rediscovered yet?

[Ksheep]

Originally Posted by Conners

Oh yes of course. Meant that humans assume Dwarves have some kind of magic that allows them to make such good weapons and armour, and so they don't try to experiment and make their own so much.

Has the method of how to make it been rediscovered yet?

There have been a number of attempts to reproduce Damascus steel over the years, with varying degrees of success. However, recent examinations have given us a good hint to how they were made. It appears that the steel is infused with carbon nanotubes, which has led scientists to believe that it was indeed infused with carbon, but the exact technique is still unknown. There are four or five current methods that produce metals very similar to Damascus steel, but there is still debate as to which way it was actually made.

[Spiryt]

Originally Posted by Conners

Were the Muslim and Christian armies that different, by the second Crusade? I was under the impression they both used a lot of the same equipment after the initial contact. I could be misremembering, but I thought aside from appearance (curved swords versus straight, different styles of mail armour), the main difference was the horse archers.

Curved swords didn't really kick in in the Islamic world during Crusades.

@awa: Armour and metallurgy usually get better as time goes on. The exception is when people started to find armour unnecessary and started decreasing it.

You've got to define "better" I guess.

It certainly got way better since around ~ 1400 but that's somehow 'fresh' and unique process.

Before, metallurgy was at somehow similar level in Iron Age, with a lot of regional and periodical differences, original achievements, innovations etc.

[Qwertystop]

Originally Posted by Ksheep

There have been a number of attempts to reproduce Damascus steel over the years, with varying degrees of success. However, recent examinations have given us a good hint to how they were made. It appears that the steel is infused with carbon nanotubes, which has led scientists to believe that it was indeed infused with carbon, but the exact technique is still unknown. There are four or five current methods that produce metals very similar to Damascus steel, but there is still debate as to which way it was actually made.

Really? I was under the impression that nanotubes are not easy to make. I thought the consensus was that the strength was a combination of a slightly different technique and some impurities in the ore. That was in an article from five years ago at least. Can't remember the details though.

[Ksheep]

Originally Posted by Qwertystop

Really? I was under the impression that nanotubes are not easy to make. I thought the consensus was that the strength was a combination of a slightly different technique and some impurities in the ore. That was in an article from five years ago at least. Can't remember the details though.

Here's a bit more info on it:

Spoiler

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Fullerenes and carbon nanotubes are not necessarily products of high-tech laboratories; they are commonly formed in such mundane places as ordinary flames, produced by burning methane, ethylene, and benzene, and they have been found in soot from both indoor and outdoor air. However, these naturally occurring varieties can be highly irregular in size and quality because the environment in which they are produced is often highly uncontrolled. Thus, although they can be used in some applications, they can lack in the high degree of uniformity necessary to satisfy the many needs of both research and industry.

A research team in Germany published a report in 2006 revealing nanowires and carbon nanotubes in a blade forged from Damascus steel.

[Conners]

If you had a human composed primarily of carbon nanotubes... what effects would that have? I get the picture of them being fairly invincible, but pretty heavy.

EDIT: That is, a human with carbon-nanotubes where they can apply (such as the skeleton?).

[jseah]

Originally Posted by Conners

If you had a human composed primarily of carbon nanotubes... what effects would that have? I get the picture of them being fairly invincible, but pretty heavy.

EDIT: That is, a human with carbon-nanotubes where they can apply (such as the skeleton?).

Nanotube reinforced skeleton, muscle fibres, hair.
Interwoven fabrics of nanotubes with cross-tube bonds for skin...

Your bones are slightly lighter and harder; but not too much, nanotubes can only reinforce structures but are horrendous at compression forces by themselves. They are really very much like super-strength steel wires in that respect. Immune to breakage by pulling, but crumples like a wet tissue if you try to make it stand on end.
Muscle fibres and joints can take higher stresses; nanotubes are incredible at tensile strength, so your muscles can be bigger and pack more explosive power without hurting yourself.
Hair that repels water and dirt (mostly), super smooth and doesn't tangle, incredibly tough. You could weave a good thick rope out of your hair and suspend a small building with it...
Cross-woven nanotubes (ala common fabrics) will be very hard to break, but can be pierced by sharp objects. So nanotube skin would be essentially immune to cutting (turns sharp edges into blunt impacts) but not to needles. Also water and dirt repelling, plus essentially acid/alkaline/corrosion immune; carbon nanotubes are chemically inert in default form.
- Also, depending on the configuration of the nanotubes, could act as a faraday cage to make electricity crawl around the skin instead of going into the body. Essentially immune to heart attacks or convulsions from electricity (but heat is still a problem)
- The nanotube skin may be super heat stable, but the stuff underneath probably aren't. Although nanotubes conduct heat very well along their long axis, while are more like graphite otherwise. So heat will spread out across the skin surface very well, but conduct poorly through the nanotube skin. (about as well as normal skin?) So some heat resistance too.
- A more complex mix of protein bonded to chemically active nanotubes (double walled to preserve electrical conductance), could make a kind of skin-nanotube composite that would retain skin's normal resistance to needle like objects while being harder and tougher in nearly every way to skin or even the original nanotube fabric. You lose the water and dirt-repelling properties as well as corrosion resistance though. Also weighs a bit more, but negligible.


And you won't weigh more. If anything, you'll weigh less due to needing less stuff in your bones.

Sounds too good to be true? Well, that's nanotubes for you. Miracle stuff basically.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Aren't nanotubes very vulnerable to a force applied NOT in the same direction that the nanotube is pointing? If one applies a force at right angles to the nanotube, fairly certain I read that they'll snap really easily; they're intense strength is only in the one direction.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

Does nanotubes mean that dragons were created by something or someone? As in generated beings?


[!] As for my question - I'm working on creating a tree that grows in tundras and stores water heavily. How do I make it so it survives winters where it is really cold, and is dark for the entire day. I'm aware that since it stores water its more suseptible to freezing and exploding because of the cold...so perhaps it will need some way that keeps the water from freezing? I was thinking about developing a bird that generated light that would nest in the tree, thus giving it enough light to survive the long nights. Trying to make this as realistic as possible within the realm of fantasy, so liberties are ok to a degree (like light generating birds) but if it functions in a certain way, I want to know how that happens.

[Spiryt]

Are:

How does one feed carbon tubes, how does one (re)grow carbon tubes, how does carbon tubes produce red cells, and how generally carbon cells works, etc.

wrong questions?

[TheWombatOfDoom]

Originally Posted by Spiryt

Are:

How does one feed carbon tubes, how does one (re)grow carbon tubes, how does carbon tubes produce red cells, and how generally carbon cells works, etc.

wrong questions?

Seems legit...

(What if dragons are just really well made robots?!)

[jseah]

Originally Posted by Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

Aren't nanotubes very vulnerable to a force applied NOT in the same direction that the nanotube is pointing? If one applies a force at right angles to the nanotube, fairly certain I read that they'll snap really easily; they're intense strength is only in the one direction.

Not quite. Carbon nanotubes are very strong against stretching along their axis.

You can think of them as a very strong rope. You can pull heavy loads with it or suspend a lorry from a 1mm thick thread.
But if you try to stand a rope up, one end on the ground, it will fold up and coil on the ground. You can also bend ropes really easily, they don't break when given side-ways forces, but they are very easy to bend.

Carbon nanotubes are like that. They are a bit harder than rope fiber, so they can support their own weight (obviously there are limits and it is quite low), but are liable to bend if they have to support much weight.
They also bend and snap when pushed from the side, unlike ropes (which don't snap), but they don't snap easily. Its easy compared to their resistance to stretching is what I mean.

Wearing a carbon nanotube shirt (which is similar to having carbon nanotube skin) will be a bit like wearing a kevlar vest. Only this one is electrically and thermally conductive along it's plane, lighter and far stronger than normal kevlar.

Spiryt:
The cells just need to have chemically active ends on the tubes in order to grow them. So they will have open ends that are used to strip layers from the tube to shorten it or deposit layers to lengthen it.
Enzymes can do amazing things. With a reactive end to stick functional groups on (probably involving a very controlled alkyne-metal complex for the triple bond end so you can stick a few in and make them bond to each other *insert chemistry magitechnobabble here* =D), growing or disassembling the nanotubes is just a matter of patience.

It's not like the dragon is pure nanotubes...

[Gahrer]

Originally Posted by TheWombatOfDoom

[!] As for my question - I'm working on creating a tree that grows in tundras and stores water heavily. How do I make it so it survives winters where it is really cold, and is dark for the entire day. I'm aware that since it stores water its more suseptible to freezing and exploding because of the cold...so perhaps it will need some way that keeps the water from freezing? I was thinking about developing a bird that generated light that would nest in the tree, thus giving it enough light to survive the long nights. Trying to make this as realistic as possible within the realm of fantasy, so liberties are ok to a degree (like light generating birds) but if it functions in a certain way, I want to know how that happens.

Many trees lose their leaves during the winter and stops photosynthesizing, so complete darkness wouldn't bother them much as long as the sun returns in spring. Theese trees are basically in hibernation during the winter.
Trees mainly avoid freezing by dissolving more "stuff" in their cellular fluids (since this lowers the freezing point of the water) and by changing the composition of their membranes (to prevent them from freezing solid).

A question of my own: How common was locks on private homes (of the poor) in cities around 1400 in europe?

[Spiryt]

Originally Posted by Gahrer

A question of my own: How common was locks on private homes (of the poor) in cities around 1400 in europe?

Probably not very, because clearly 'poor' guy wouldn't probably have metal hinges either. Some kind of simpler staple or beam would be in use.

Assuming that such poor dude would ever have any private home, instead of living in someone's possession as a serf of some kind.

[Wyntonian]

I suppose you could get around that with a wooden bar on the door... Still, probably "Not very".

[Ksheep]

"Cities in Europe" seems kinda vague. You'd probably have different standards in different areas, and it would also depend on how poor you're talking. If you're the poorest of the poor, you'd be out on the street, so you wouldn't have to worry about that. Slightly higher income, you'd probably live wherever you work (whether that's as a servant for a rich person or a laborer for the merchant class) or in the equivalent of a flophouse, but you probably wouldn't have your own home either. It probably wouldn't be until you get to merchant class that you have your own home, and those would be part of the shop (typically above the shop in England, not sure about other countries). When you get to that level, you would definitely have locks to protect yourself and your goods.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

Originally Posted by Gahrer

Many trees lose their leaves during the winter and stops photosynthesizing, so complete darkness wouldn't bother them much as long as the sun returns in spring. Theese trees are basically in hibernation during the winter.
Trees mainly avoid freezing by dissolving more "stuff" in their cellular fluids (since this lowers the freezing point of the water) and by changing the composition of their membranes (to prevent them from freezing solid).

A question of my own: How common was locks on private homes (of the poor) in cities around 1400 in europe?

What if it was a fir tree?

[Ksheep]

Originally Posted by TheWombatOfDoom

What if it was a fir tree?

Conifers from the far north will shed their leaves in the fall due to lack of light, living off of stored up sap. For those that do keep their needles during the low-light conditions of winter, the needles are arranged in a spiral to maximize light absorption. Conifers have also evolved to require very little water, so they probably won't answer the question.

[Beleriphon]

Originally Posted by TheWombatOfDoom

Does nanotubes mean that dragons were created by something or someone? As in generated beings?

Carbon nanotubes can occur during natural processes, or be unintentionally created. Damascus steel for example is currently expected to have carbon nanotubes in the metal, this isn't intentional but it was something that happened.

[!] As for my question - I'm working on creating a tree that grows in tundras and stores water heavily. How do I make it so it survives winters where it is really cold, and is dark for the entire day. I'm aware that since it stores water its more suseptible to freezing and exploding because of the cold...so perhaps it will need some way that keeps the water from freezing? I was thinking about developing a bird that generated light that would nest in the tree, thus giving it enough light to survive the long nights. Trying to make this as realistic as possible within the realm of fantasy, so liberties are ok to a degree (like light generating birds) but if it functions in a certain way, I want to know how that happens.

Trees don't explode in the cold, even in sub-zero temperatures. The expansion of the wood prevents this completely. Trees are also not full of water, they have sap in them and its not just water, it has sugars and other minerals dissolved in it. This along should prevent freezing in any naturally occuring environment since it has long since stopped being water after getting inside a tree.

Do keep in mind the tree is probably not going to be very big, especially if you have it growing anywhere there's permafrost (which it sounds like is the case).

[tuggyne]

Originally Posted by Beleriphon

Trees don't explode in the cold, even in sub-zero temperatures. The expansion of the wood prevents this completely. Trees are also not full of water, they have sap in them and its not just water, it has sugars and other minerals dissolved in it. This along should prevent freezing in any naturally occuring environment since it has long since stopped being water after getting inside a tree.

I'd heard about this happening, actually, and WP seems to have citations of it.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

Originally Posted by Beleriphon

Carbon nanotubes can occur during natural processes, or be unintentionally created. Damascus steel for example is currently expected to have carbon nanotubes in the metal, this isn't intentional but it was something that happened.




Trees don't explode in the cold, even in sub-zero temperatures. The expansion of the wood prevents this completely. Trees are also not full of water, they have sap in them and its not just water, it has sugars and other minerals dissolved in it. This along should prevent freezing in any naturally occuring environment since it has long since stopped being water after getting inside a tree.

Do keep in mind the tree is probably not going to be very big, especially if you have it growing anywhere there's permafrost (which it sounds like is the case).

In fact, I thought they didn't either...until one winter a tree literally fell to pieces on my car...all the trees in the lot did it because it was really cold. It wasn't windy. Just cold.

[Beleriphon]

Originally Posted by TheWombatOfDoom

In fact, I thought they didn't either...until one winter a tree literally fell to pieces on my car...all the trees in the lot did it because it was really cold. It wasn't windy. Just cold.

Trees still don't explode, they can split which is a bit different than exploding trees. The only way you can make a tree explode is with dynamite. So, yes when exploding tree was mentioned I was thinking of explosive trees, rather than trees splitting.

I'm never going to worry about tree shrapnel hitting me in the winter, although I might be concerned if I owned a sugar bush. :)

[Ksheep]

Originally Posted by Beleriphon

Trees still don't explode, they can split which is a bit different than exploding trees. The only way you can make a tree explode is with dynamite. So, yes when exploding tree was mentioned I was thinking of explosive trees, rather than trees splitting.

I'm never going to worry about tree shrapnel hitting me in the winter, although I might be concerned if I owned a sugar bush. :)

In theory, it COULD explode, if you managed to freeze the liquid fast enough and uniformly throughout the tree. Of course, it would also have to be a tree with pretty high water content (perhaps a Baobab), and it would be extremely cold (-70º F, perhaps)… and that cold snap would have to happen FAST. Fortunately for us, such cold snaps are rare, and trees in areas that would experience said snaps are typically low-water trees (such as conifers). But if you were to import a tropical tree to, say, Siberia in the middle of winter, you may have a problem.

EDIT: Also, a note. Trees have a fair bit of tensile strength. However, if water inside started freezing and pushing against it, it would build up pressure. Sometimes it would just cause splitting to occur, but if you have just the right type of tree, it may hold the force in until it catastrophically fails and releases all the energy at once. Think pipe bomb made of wood and water.

[lunar2]

ooh. i've got an idea. a "natural trap" and a monster.

the monster is a monkey-like thing that lives in a forest of trees with high water content and high strength. when threatened, the monkey releases a cold aura, which causes all the trees within X radius to explode the next round, sending shrapnel flying throughout the area.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

In the world I've been brewing, I wanted to have a large moon (about 5 or 6 times as big as our luna in the night's sky). I had this idea that my moon measures the centuries by it's stages - waxing, full, waning, new. Basically a VERY slow stage cycle. Actually...even longer than that would be ok as well.

So basically think of looking up every night and seeing nearly the same cycle for your entire life. Other areas of the world would obviously be on different parts of the cycle based on where they viewed it from, but what kind of explination actually would make this possible. I know it's quite...far fetched. But I'm fairly confident if it were just right, it would work. I'd just have to have it that the moon was always at the same angle to the sun in it's orbit as the earth rotated, with a slight angle to make the change...right?

Thoughts? How would that effect the planet in terms of tides, seasons, orbit?

[Ksheep]

Originally Posted by TheWombatOfDoom

In the world I've been brewing, I wanted to have a large moon (about 5 or 6 times as big as our luna in the night's sky). I had this idea that my moon measures the centuries by it's stages - waxing, full, waning, new. Basically a VERY slow stage cycle. Actually...even longer than that would be ok as well.

So basically think of looking up every night and seeing nearly the same cycle for your entire life. Other areas of the world would obviously be on different parts of the cycle based on where they viewed it from, but what kind of explination actually would make this possible. I know it's quite...far fetched. But I'm fairly confident if it were just right, it would work. I'd just have to have it that the moon was always at the same angle to the sun in it's orbit as the earth rotated, with a slight angle to make the change...right?

Thoughts? How would that effect the planet in terms of tides, seasons, orbit?

First off, the moon would appear to be in the same stage across the planet. Seeing it from a slightly different angle would not change that, although it would change it's position in the sky.

Second, to make it have a cycle that long, it would have to have an orbit around the planet comparable to Pluto's around the sun. To get that to work properly, the sun would have to be MUCH further away from the planet, just so the moon would count as a moon and not another planet, the sun would have to be much hotter in order to keep the planet in the habitable zone. Oh, and the planet would also have to be massive in order to have enough gravitational pull to hold the moon in position.

Finally, the moon itself would have to be ginormous in order to be seen from that far away. If you look up in the night sky, Jupiter and Saturn appear as stars, even though they are dozens of times larger than the Earth. An object in a Pluto-like orbit would be about 6 times further away. In order for it to appear "5 to 6 times larger" than the moon, it would have to be about the same size as a red giant star.

So, to recap, the "moon" would be the size of a large star, the "planet" would be the density of a star and would either be a neutron star or a black hole unless you make it MUCH larger, and the sun would probably be a few light-years across.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

Originally Posted by Ksheep

First off, the moon would appear to be in the same stage across the planet. Seeing it from a slightly different angle would not change that, although it would change it's position in the sky.

Hmmm, I don't understand how this would be. The moon still moves across the sky, its orbit is fine. It's the angle of the orbit that's very slight. I think. As for the world, it is bigger to some degree than earth...but not THAT big. The sun as it stands is actually a duel star system, though one is a white dwarf and not nearly as bright as the first. It orbits the larger star. The planet itself I haven't decided whether it formed from the remenants of the dwarf when it went into red giant mode and exploded, or if it was a planet that was captured by the larger star and developed life. The larger sun is 2 times the size of Sol, the white dwarf about the size of earth. This allows the planet to be farther away and still be in a "life sustaining range".

As for the amount of time it takes for it to rotate around, I see you've misunderstood. The speed it orbits is fine. It's the angle. Hense why I mentioned the moon appearing to be in a different cycle at different points (one waxing and one waning). This would lead me to believe the moon could be much closer in this regard than pluto's orbit. And then we can start talking realistic numbers on size, as opposed to making a moon the size of a sun...which is out of the question in my mind, hahaha.

[Ksheep]

Lunar phase is entirely dependent on where in the orbit of the planet the moon is… unless the "planet" was actually a ringworld or halo around the "moon". That would probably be the simplest answer, would allow for seeing different phases depending on where you are on the ring, and would account for very slow progression of phases (say the ring has a slight wobble). However, this would raise further questions on day/night cycle and gravity. Normally, a ringworld would produce gravity via the centripetal (or was that centrifugal) force of it spinning, but this would invalidate the "always see the same phase" bit of the plan…

[TheWombatOfDoom]

Originally Posted by Ksheep

Lunar phase is entirely dependent on where in the orbit of the planet the moon is… unless the "planet" was actually a ringworld or halo around the "moon". That would probably be the simplest answer, would allow for seeing different phases depending on where you are on the ring, and would account for very slow progression of phases (say the ring has a slight wobble). However, this would raise further questions on day/night cycle and gravity. Normally, a ringworld would produce gravity via the centripetal (or was that centrifugal) force of it spinning, but this would invalidate the "always see the same phase" bit of the plan…

Hmmmm, it's not a ring world, so that wouldn't work...any thoughts on if the moon was not tidally locked?