Re: [Epic] Nukes in Epic universe

From: Aaron P Teske <Mithramuse+_at_...>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:53:40 -0500 (EST)

Excerpts from Epic: 16-Jan-97 Re: [Epic] Nukes in Epic un.. by Krazy
Kat_at_...
> > Comparison against Titans fusion generator meltdown would not be a good one
> > - after all a nuke is meant to cause humongous damage, whereas the fusion
> > generator is meant more for generating energy. Just compare Chernobyl
> > disaster against Hiroshima explosion.
> Good point, except that Chernobyl wasn't a fusion reactor. It was a
> fission reactor. Theoreticly, when the magnetic torus that holds a fusion
> reaction in place and operating is removed (damaged/destroyed), the
> reaction will stop, and all the explosion will be is the superheated
> plasma already in the reactor.

...Which actually won't be much of an explosion, given that there's only
a couple seconds of fuel in the reacor at a time. (At least, that's how
it works in current designs.) The fuel would actually more just
dissipate.

The thing the first poster missed is the fact that Titans don't use
fusion reactors, they use plasma reactors. What the difference between
the two is I'm not sure, but GW has differentiated between them; cities
use less powerful but much safer fusion reactors, while the requirements
of Titans mean the war machines need plasma reactors. There used to be
plasma missiles (in Adeptus Titanicus); as near as I can tell, these
have been replaced by the more mundane Barrage Missile, in terms of
being a one-shot with multiple templates anyway.


                    Aaron Teske
                    Mithramuse+_at_...
Received on Thu Jan 16 1997 - 19:53:40 UTC