[OB] Flying ships

[+Hoiditthroughthegrapevine]

On Thursday, February 08, 2018 at 5:18 AM, Stark said:

Why does this feel like a reference to the restaurant at the end of the universe?  I hope it is, its a lovely reference, even though technically it was a restaurant at the start of the highstorm.  At the same time, I can see Syl having fun discussing how to fly with Arthur Dent, who flies by falling and missing the ground.  Kalladin flies by changing the direction of down and falling away from the ground.  That would be a fun conversation.

Good point about it being at the Start of the Highstorm, in cosmere terms Saved in his pre-ascension moping about the loss of Tywndle phase could play the part of the waiter (pretty good stand in for Marvin the Robot).

Have to agree with about Kal and Arthur talking, but then again pretty much any conversation with Arthur Dent would be fun.

@The One Who Connects, I have to get some work done, but I will address your again very good points later, when I can in good conscience do so. Posting on the shard for some reason doesn't seem to help with my backlog of work... If there is anything that will ever guarantee that I will reply in detail to a post it is is the skillful use of diagrams (your diagrams are very nice by the way). I will update this post with some diagrams of my own (probably later tonight).

Edited February 12, 2018 by hoiditthroughthegrapevine

[+Hoiditthroughthegrapevine]

 

@The One Who Connects I have been getting some work done (sad I know), but during my down time I have been putting quite a bit of thought into this.

Examining the prima facie evidence, we know that onscreen conjoined fabrials have only been used when the fabrial that is being manipulated by the conjoined fabrial that is being actively moved is at rest (spanreeds are set in specific predetermined spots, the archery platform was stationary before the conjoined platform was lowered). This means that the effects of engaging a conjoined fabrial while in motion have not been shown, and as such are pure conjecture. Furthermore, and even more telling (as in telling the death knell for this far fetched and impractical means to make flying airships work) the chapter where conjoined fabrials are fist discussed in WoR is called "The Multiplied Strain of Simultaneous infusion". In that chapter Navanni explains to Adolin and Rushu that the things that they are having the most trouble with for these reversers working to raise the archery platforms are that the distance between conjoined fabrials and the weight of conjoined systems both increase the likelihood that the reverser fabrial gemstones will crack under the strain.

But in thinking about this more, I think this was never an idea that would have worked. In examining the scene in chapter 35 of WoR where Navani is testing out raising the archery platform, it is clear that there is a magical effect that is at play. The ardents engage the fabrial of the raised wooden square platform, then remove the wooden supports for the raised square and it hangs in space ostensibly unsupported in it's current position. This implies that conjoining a system sets a baseline frame of reference, where the conjoined object at rest becomes the baseline for this conjoined framework. After the ardents lower the engaged suspended platform down to the ground and the previously at rest conjoined fabrial + archery platform rises into the air in equal measure to the lowered square platform, they tie the lowered platform down. This implies that the conjoined system would return to its initial state, with the engaged fabrial trying to reach the baseline height before it was actively lowered and the raised platform would try to return to its previous position at rest on the ground.

I believe that this is pretty clear evidence that the magical effect of the conjoined fabrial lies in the creation of a baseline shared frame of reference at the time that the conjoining fabrial is engaged. Furthermore, I think that this is not an absolute frame of reference but a relative frame of reference that probably takes into account the intent of the person that engages the conjoining mechanism.

This point becomes more obvious when you look at the practical ramifications of using conjoined spanreeds to communicate between the shattered plains and Tashikk. Based on this amazing map or Roshar, which was approved by Peter, the longitudinal separation between the shattered plains and Tashikk is ~110 degrees of longitude. Here is a view of the map with approximate orthogonal normals shown in black, showing the relative directions of up based on the relative position of both spanreeds.

Looking at the map it becomes fairly obvious that some relative (and possibly cognitively reinforced) frame of reference needs to be established at the moment of conjoining to make sure that something as precise as the re-dipping of the spanreed quill into the spanreed system inkpot can happen. If the framework was an absolute framework then the spanreed when lifted up would be lifted in relation to the surface normal of it's relative position, and if this was translated as absolute movement to the conjoined spanreed it would be essentially lifted at angle nearly orthogonal to the direction that is up in relation to it's relative frame of reference (essentially it would be moving to the right instead of up). Here is another map of Roshar, with the plane that is orthogonal to the relative position of the spanreed at the shattered plains that should clarify what I am talking about:

So based on this analysis, I think that we can safely say that conjoined fabrials have the following base characteristics:

• At the time that they are actively conjoined, each fabrial has a relative frame of reference that is linked to the relative frame of reference of it's conjoined pair fabrial, and that movement of one conjoined fabrial is translated into relative movement for the other fabrial in its own relative frame of reference.
• A baseline state of equilibrium is established between the two conjoined fabrials at the time that the fabrials are actively conjoined. This is the rest state. Each part of the coinjoined system, if no external force were applied, would return to this base state. I think we have primary evidence for this in the form of the archery platform (in that the portion lowered needs to be tied down in order to have it maintain it's position), but it would be interesting to know if the conjoined spanreeds have a force that is attempting to re-position them into their initial base rest state. These are small, relatively light pens, so the force attempting to reinstate them in their initial equilibrium rest position would also be somewhat negligible, but the farther away in any of the 3 axes you get from the rest position, the greater the resultant force to return to the rest position should be (this should be noticeable as a tension, kind of like an elastic string, tying the spanreed to the position where it was first engaged).
• This is a magical property, and possibly the frame of reference for each conjoined fabrial is imparted by the user that engages the fabrial. This would be a further proof of the quantum nature of fabrials (and spren in general) that the observer sets the functional parameters. This is the great causal I of the quantum system. The determinant nature of the frame of reference of the system is based on the perceived frame of reference of the user. I don't recall any references in the SLA of spanreeds being used in conjunction with compasses, so I am assuming that the cognitive interpretation of the spanreed user establishes the relative frame of reference. Up is towards the top of the spanreed board, right is to the right of the spanreed board, etc. This is the most flexible way to use this technology, and also it's probably part of the underlying magic that these considerations and translations of position are done automatically. But the root cause of these translations probably has to do with the perception of the user.

 

So based on the above, I have to say, the idea of using a system of weights and counterweights dangling from Urithiru to provide vertical ascent/descent to flying airships is ridiculous and completely untenable.

Till next time @The One Who Connects, when we see what topic unleashes an unholy war of ideas that can only be settled by the surgical use of WoBs and the clarifying use of diagrams.

As always this has been diverting and edifying.

Edited February 12, 2018 by hoiditthroughthegrapevine
clarification and typos. Always typos...

[The One Who Connects]

7 hours ago, hoiditthroughthegrapevine said:

Based on this amazing map or Roshar, which was approved by Peter, the longitudinal separation between the shattered plains and Tashikk is ~110 degrees of longitude.

Otto's map has them a little under 100° apart, based on the number of Longitude Lines he used. But it's actually about 81° now, since with the advent of the OB map, we learned that the Rosharan Lat/Long lines aren't on the 360 system, but 400(presumably so that half the globe is 100 of their degrees in any direction, for the tens). The distinction is irrelevant for your post, but I like spreading knowledge.

7 hours ago, hoiditthroughthegrapevine said:

At the time that they are actively conjoined, each fabrial has a relative frame of reference that is linked to the relative frame of reference of it's conjoined pair fabrial, and that movement of one conjoined fabrial is translated into relative movement for the other fabrial in its own relative frame of reference.

This seems like how I'd imagined it would be with the Spanreeds in the other thread. Up for Spanreed A translates into Up for Spanreed B, but since they have separate frames of reference, "Up" for one may appear to be "Down" (the whole Australia is upside down joke). What matters is that both objects move in the same "direction" compared to their point of reference. In this, we agree.

7 hours ago, hoiditthroughthegrapevine said:

In examining the scene in chapter 35 of WoR where Navani is testing out raising the archery platform, it is clear that there is a magical effect that is at play. The ardents engage the fabrial of the raised wooden square platform, then remove the wooden supports for the raised square and it hangs in space ostensibly unsupported in it's current position. This implies that conjoining a system sets a baseline frame of reference, where the conjoined object at rest becomes the baseline for this conjoined framework. After the ardents lower the engaged suspended platform down to the ground and the previously at rest conjoined fabrial + archery platform rises into the air in equal measure to the lowered square platform, they tie the lowered platform down. This implies that the conjoined system would return to its initial state, with the engaged fabrial trying to reach the baseline height before it was actively lowered and the raised platform would try to return to its previous position at rest on the ground.

I understand tying it down for actual use, since the weight of people on the raised tower would push it downwards if the lowered one wasn't tied/equally weighted down. I guess I'll have to reread that scene, but assuming both platforms weighed the same, shouldn't they middle out due to gravity?
Post-Reread Thoughts: I may be right about this, since one platform appears to be heavier.

• "The wooden structure looked like the top of a siege tower that had been cut off and laid on the ground. Crenellations ringed it, and they'd set up dummies at those, the kinds that soldiers used for archery practice."
• They start the test with the Archer Platform on the ground, and the other platform raised. The archer platform has practice dummies on it, to simulate having people on it. As such, that platform weighs more, which prevents it from rising, and keeps the other platform from falling.

As such, I'll disagree with your "Rest State" assumption. I hold that the platform didn't fall because the other platform was heavier, and couldn't rise. This inability to rise is then duplicated in the other position by tying down the lowered(and lighter) platform. When tied to the ground, it theoretically weighs as much as the object it's tied to(in this case, the planet itself) and thus weighs more.

7 hours ago, hoiditthroughthegrapevine said:

Till next time @The One Who Connects, when we see what topic unleashes an unholy war of ideas that can only be settled by the surgical use of WoBs and the clarifying use of diagrams.

As always this has been diverting and edifying.

Indeed.

Edited February 12, 2018 by The One Who Connects

[+Hoiditthroughthegrapevine]

 

2 hours ago, The One Who Connects said:

As such, I'll disagree with your "Rest State" assumption. I hold that the platform didn't fall because the other platform was heavier, and couldn't rise. This inability to rise is then duplicated in the other position by tying down the lowered(and lighter) platform. When tied to the ground, it theoretically weighs as much as the object it's tied to(in this case, the planet itself) and thus weighs more.

Ok, so here is the text from Chapter 35 of WoR where Navani and the scholar ardents are performing the test on the conjoined platforms (empahsis added):

Quote

She turned back to the wooden tower. Ardents at the top had activated the fabrials there, and now climbed down the ladders at the sides, unhooking latches as they went. Once they were down, workers carefully pulled the sides away on their rollers. Those were the only things that had been holding the top of the tower in place. Without them, it should fall.

The top of the platform, however, remained in place—hanging impossibly in the air. Navani's breath caught. The only thing connecting it to the ground was a set of two pulleys and ropes, but those offered no support. That square, thick section of wood now hung in the air completely unsupported.

The ardents around her murmured in excitement. Now for the real test. Navani waved, and the men below worked the cranks on the pulleys, pulling down the floating section of wood. The archer parapet nearby shook, wobbled, then began to rise into the air in a motion exactly opposite to the square's.

...

The parapet wobbled its way upward. It acted as if it were being hoisted, though it had no support at all. Finally it peaked. The square of wood that had been hanging in the air before was now down against the ground tied in place. The round parapet hung in the air instead, slightly off kilter.

It did not fall.

...

(adolin)..."How did you do it?"

"Conjoined fabrials," Navani said. "The trick was finding a way to overcome the structural weakness of the gemstones, which succumb easily to the multiplied strain of simultaneous infusion drain and physical stress. We..."

(Adolin stares blankly)...

Navani smiled, switching to layman's terms.

"If you split a fabrial gemstone in a certain way," Navani said, "you can link the two pieces together so they mimic each other's motions. Like a spanreed?"

"Ah, right," Adolin said.

"Well," Navani said, "we can also make two halves that move opposite one another. We filled the floor of that parapet with such gemstones and put their other halves in the wooden square. Once we engage them all—so they are mimicing one another in reverse—we can pull one platform down and make the other go up."

Also, as further clarification for this scene, here is a cropped view of Navani's notebook that deals with workings of the conjoined Archery platform fabrial:

From the textual description and from the diagram above, you can see that there is no attempt of the given system to balance out. This I think is pretty clear evidence that the act of activating the conjoiner establishes a mechanical linkage between the two items conjoined, and the base state of relation is set at the time of activation of the conjoining fabrials. I would posit further, as I did in my previous post, that the Rest or Equilibrium state is defined by first of the conjoined fabrials to be activated. The one that is activated second, linking it the intially activated fabrial takes it's current position and establishes this position in relation to the first activated fabrial as it's equilibrium rest position. Classic physics can then take over from here, as force is required to move this secondarily activated fabrial from it's rest position. This in turn propogates in inverse force vectors to the primarily activated conjoined fabrial, but I would wager that if the square platform that was hanging suspended in air and then lowered to raise the archery parapet was untied from the ground, both the square platform and the archery parapet would return to their initial rest state. I think when they are conjoined they are essentially connected by a magical mechanical linkage, the linkage for this setup would be like a balance scale. Pushing one side down causes the other to rise. And further, as a clarifying thought experiment, imagine a balance scale with a 500 gram weight on one side, and say that this is the difference in potential energy states of the two conjoined fabrials when they are engaged. One side of the balance (the one without the weight) would be higher than the one with the weight. To get the scale to balance, force would need to be exerted on the side without the weight in direct proportion to the weight on the other side of the balance scale, causing the side being Forced down to descend and the weighted side to ascend.

Because I do love diagrams, here's a diagram about what I'm talking about:

Maybe the explanation is really that the baseline of equilibrium is actually set by the conjoined system at the time the two pieces are conjoined. There will be a difference in potential energy states of the two parts of the balanced linkage, and this difference could be the offset that the system without the application of additional force would be trying to return to (like in diagram step 4).

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by hoiditthroughthegrapevine

[The One Who Connects]

19 minutes ago, hoiditthroughthegrapevine said:

From the textual description and from the diagram above, you can see that there is no attempt of the given system to balance out. This I think is pretty clear evidence that the act of activating the conjoiner establishes a mechanical linkage between the two items conjoined, and the base state of relation is set at the time of activation of the conjoining fabrials.

Nothing in the text or journal diagram contradict what I said either. You appear to be taking descriptions from Navani's PoV and ascribing meanings to them that aren't necessarily there.

She says/thinks "The parapet wobbled its way upward. It acted as if it were being hoisted, though it had no support at all." You highlighted this portion, so you must see something important here. Given that we know the rising parapet is being supported by the (people pulling on the) other platform, all I'm seeing here is Brandon evoking "no strings on me"-esque imagery, to show that it is rising with no visible sources of lift(like a hoist, or the pulleys&ropes on the other platform)

The first "unsupported" usage is about the other platform. "The only thing connecting it to the ground was a set of two pulleys and ropes, but those offered no support. That square, thick section of wood now hung in the air completely unsupported." The first sentence says it has no support from anything connecting it to the ground, and then the second sentence says it hung unsupported in the air, which to me is Brandon visually implying that nothing is connected to it from above either. I'm just not seeing anything magical in these sentences.

34 minutes ago, hoiditthroughthegrapevine said:

Because I do love diagrams, here's a diagram about what I'm talking about:

So, my biggest problem with all that you are saying is this: I'm saying that the platforms only stay the way position 2 is drawn because that platform(the archer parapet) was heavier, and then it seems like you are both agreeing and disagreeing with me. At times, it feels like you are saying the equilibrium state(2) would be unchanged even if you removed the weight from that side of the scale, and it bothers me that I can't not read that. Take this snippet:

52 minutes ago, hoiditthroughthegrapevine said:

I would posit further, as I did in my previous post, that the Rest or Equilibrium state is defined by first of the conjoined Fabrials to be activated. The one that is activated second, linking it the initially activated Fabrial takes it's current position and establishes this position in relation to the first activated Fabrial as it's equilibrium rest position. Classic physics can then take over from here, as force is required to move this secondarily activated Fabrial from it's rest position.

This in turn propagates in inverse force vectors to the primarily activated conjoined Fabrial, but I would wager that if the square platform that was hanging suspended in air and then lowered to raise the archery parapet was untied from the ground, both the square platform and the archery parapet would return to their initial rest state.

Blue Text: The First sentence makes sense, since we're using a balance scale. The second sentence is what's getting me, as it feels like you are saying that neither platform would move upon activation, regardless of what their respective weights should be doing to the balance of the scale. Equilibrium is reached based on balancing things(It's in the definition of the word), and other than the weights, what else is there to balance? (This eventually led to something similar(and less succinct) to the "prepend" statement in Green Text, so skip to that and come back) Force is required to move the system from it's equilibrium, but force(gravity, in the form of weights) was required to make the equilibrium the way it was in Position 2. (See Diagram Below for More)

Green Text is essentially Position 4 on your balance diagram, yes? (Both segments are shorter than they originally were, as some thoughts went nowhere, or just didn't work with the others.) Maybe I'm digging too deep and you needed to prepend Green Text with "all other things being unchanged," but the only reason that Position 2 is arranged the way it is is because of the weight.

(Both Blue & Green Text also had these meandering bits of talk that led to this(to B & C respectively), but I'm summing it up with "Diagram Time")

Quote

Real Life is self-explanatory. Fabrial A is also self-explanatory, if you imagine them as the Archer Tower image.

Look at the final stage of Navani's journal page, and imagine all those archers jumped off. If you then cut the rope, would you end up at Position C? This is where Green Text lost me, because it seems like you are saying they'd return to their initial state anyway, even though the balance has changed.

Now look at Fabrial B. This is what the last sentence you wrote in Blue Text seems to imply would happen, rather than what would happen in Real Life.

[+Hoiditthroughthegrapevine]

26 minutes ago, The One Who Connects said:

Blue Text: The First sentence makes sense, since we're using a balance scale. The second sentence is what's getting me, as it feels like you are saying that neither platform would move upon activation, regardless of what their respective weights should be doing to the balance of the scale. Equilibrium is reached based on balancing things(It's in the definition of the word), and other than the weights, what else is there to balance? (This eventually led to something similar(and less succinct) to the "prepend" statement in Green Text, so skip to that and come back) Force is required to move the system from it's equilibrium, but force(gravity, in the form of weights) was required to make the equilibrium the way it was in Position 2. (See Diagram Below for More)

What you are seeing is that I didn't edit my post, I originally was arguing that the first activated conjoined fabrial set the basis for equilibrium for the conjoined system, and the fabrial that was activated second inherits this equilibrium baseline (but inverted) from the first fabrial engaged.

After looking at this from the perspective of a balance scale, I later came to the conclusion that the magical portion of conjoined fabrials had to do with that at the time the conjoined reverse fabrials are engaged, a new and balanced relative framework is created. The difference in initial potential energies of the two conjoined paired fabrials becomes the baseline balance for the system. To move either conjoined fabrial from this baseline rest position would require an additional force.

In my diagram, the 500g weight was to show the difference in initial potential energy states of the linked platforms so that the balance scale analogy would make sense. You are starting off from two unequal potential energy states (one at rest with 0 potential energy, the other substantially raised off of the ground with a positive potential energy), and when the conjoined fabrials are engaged, this would become a zero potential energy system. This is the magic part of it. It's creating an artificial baseline of balance based on the relative positions of the conjoined pairs. The other option is that conjoined reverser fabrials try to find some type of  balance point based just on the mass of the two conjoined parts. The ardents could have done the calculations and made the archery parapet much heavier than the floating square platform, but to me this doesn't seem tenable. After the ladders are wheeled away, the floating square platform hangs in the air. No mention of bobbing, wobbling or any minor fluctuation in position is related. Though while it is being lowered lots of mention of wobble of the ascending platform is given. This implies that at the point that the conjoined fabrials were engaged, the system is at rest or at equilibrium.

Further, I think for practical reasons they used a conjoined platform similar in mass to the archery parapet to be raised, because you could probably use a smaller less massive platform to raise the archery parapet but it would require a greater degree of force to move than a more massive parapet, F=m*a afterall.

45 minutes ago, The One Who Connects said:

Look at the final stage of Navani's journal page, and imagine all those archers jumped off. If you then cut the rope, would you end up at Position C? This is where Green Text lost me, because it seems like you are saying they'd return to their initial state anyway, even though the balance has changed

If the archers all jumped off the parapet who were on the parapet when the conjoiners were engaged (and thus part of it's initial mass) and the square platform was still tied down, the archery parapet would bob up. It's loss of mass would make it lighter than its initial baseline state, and this would cause the square platform to push downwards towards the ground with force equal to the mass of the lost archers * the acceleration of gravity. This would cause a slackening of the rope, and when the ropes where cut with the conjoined fabrials still engaged, the archery parapet would go back to it's initial position and push against the ground with a force equal to the mas of the loss archers * the acceleration of gravity and the square platform would rise back up higher than it's original starting position.

I don't have time to do a diagram on this, but I think this is sufficiently clear. If you want another diagram I might be able to do another one later tonight (depends on how much of my real work I get done before then).

I am currently out of upvotes, but the clarifying use of diagrams for the purposes of argumentation will always get an upvote from me, so I'll get you one later when they come back online.

[The One Who Connects]

On 2/12/2018 at 4:22 PM, hoiditthroughthegrapevine said:

This would cause a slackening of the rope, and when the ropes where cut with the conjoined fabrials still engaged, the archery parapet would go back to it's initial position and push against the ground with a force equal to the mass of the loss archers * the acceleration of gravity and the square platform would rise back up higher than it's original starting position.

It shouldn't be able to go any higher though. Once one platform hits the ground, the other stops rising.

Quote

Blightsong

With reverser fabrials, if one fell and sat on the ground will the other one continue to rise due to the gravity affecting the one on the ground?

Brandon Sanderson

No, good question.

[+Hoiditthroughthegrapevine]

 

3 hours ago, The One Who Connects said:

It shouldn't be able to go any higher though. Once one platform hits the ground, the other stops rising.

Very nice WoB, as per usual.

I have slowly been working on a seriously impressive diagram where I was attempting to solve what was going on with conjoined fabrials pictorially and mathematically using the Physics equations for Total Mechanical Energy of a system. But, using the Gillette Mach 3 model of Occam's razor, the simplest explanation for the archery platform test is probably the true solution. If the archery parapet is heavier than the conjoined square platform and the energy from the stormlight investiture used by the conjoined fabrials is ensuring parity of motion between the two systems, the fact that the square platform doesn't move after the supports are taken away is simple to explain. Say that archery parapet A weighs 1000kg with the archers and that the square platform it is conjoined with, platform B, weighs 600 kg. Platform A would be experiencing a force of 6,864 N due to gravity directed towards the center of Roshar (F=m*a, and the surface gravity of Roshar is 6.864 m/s^2). Platform B would be experiencing a force of 4118.4 N due to gravity likewise directed towards the center of Roshar. If the force affecting platform A is subject to is inverted and applied to Platform B, then you have a net upwards force of 2,745.6 N that is being applied to platform B after the fabrials are conjoined. This implies that the work being done by the stormlight would be in offsetting this force differential to maintain positional parity.

Actually, now that I am typing this up, this still implies that at the moment of conjoining a new relational baseline needs to be established, because unless you used precisely matched Masses for conjoining their would always be a drift due to a mass imbalance at the time of conjoining paired fabrials at different heights and the force of Gravity

Maybe the simplest explanation is that the magical effect of the reverser conjoined fabrials is simply cancelling out the effect of mass in the system. Say that conjoined fabrials are only concerned with Position. All of the differences in mass are done away with through consumption of stormlight. Whatever external non-conserved energy that is necessary to maintain exact inverted positional parity is handled through conversion of Investiture (in the stored gemstones) into energy to maintain force relations so that positional parity is maintained after the initial baseline reference frame is set when the fabrials are first conjoined. Until we get further information, this is the official position on this that I will maintain, that conjoined fabrials work by ensuring complete inverted positional parity using stormlight as necessary to provide non-conserved energy to balance out the forces in play (really just the effects of gravity) to ensure that the positions in relation to the baseline positions are inverted. This would imply that if you used a 1 kg sphere to try and raise a 1000 kg platform, you would require an insane amount of stormlight and the gems would most likely crack due to the "the multiplied strain of simultaneous infusion drain and physical stress".

So for reals, I was working on an epic Diagram, I believe that it is now mostly useless, but I do think it's still kind of fun to look at, so it's spoilered below:

Spoiler

 

[The One Who Connects]

12 minutes ago, hoiditthroughthegrapevine said:

So for reals, I was working on an epic Diagram, I believe that it is now mostly useless, but I do think it's still kind of fun to look at, so it's spoilered below:

And that's an Upvote. I don't even need to read your post for that. (Though I'll give you props for the math. That's dedication)
Also, what do you use for your diagrams? I feel like a pleb over here. (And you'll probably get a kick out of what I've used for mine)

17 minutes ago, hoiditthroughthegrapevine said:

Actually, now that I am typing this up, this still implies that at the moment of conjoining a new relational baseline needs to be established, because unless you used precisely matched Masses for conjoining their would always be a drift due to a mass imbalance at the time of conjoining paired fabrials at different heights and the force of Gravity

I agree. Gotta set up the baseline when you turn the device on.

21 minutes ago, hoiditthroughthegrapevine said:

This would imply that if you used a 1 kg sphere to try and raise a 1000 kg platform, you would require an insane amount of stormlight and the gems would most likely crack due to the "the multiplied strain of simultaneous infusion drain and physical stress".

Until the very far future, when they can make a massive, but lightweight, synthetic gemstone. Bigger gems are less likely to crack, IIRC.

[Calderis]

9 minutes ago, The One Who Connects said:

I agree. Gotta set up the baseline when you turn the device on.

Just asking here, because I'm curious here... Why is this the case? 

In my mind the coinjoining is purely in respect to the gems fabrial device itself, and that's why so many sets of gems were built into the platforms. 

I pictured it as you have the paired gems, set into a device set into the platform, and the gems/fabrials themselves are acting as a transference point. 

So basically, all of the mass of both items is pushing on both halves of the gem, which are being treated as a single item (half of which has the application of force inverted).

The "baseline" as I see it would be equilibrium between the two gems themselves, and all of the extraneous mass attached to them is built within the constraints of the gems themselves, requiring multiple gems to keep them from being crushed/shattered under the forces being applied. 

I feel like activation of any conjoined fabrial, whether a standard conjoiner, or especially in the case of reverses would cause massive sheering and destroy the device. 

[+Hoiditthroughthegrapevine]

16 hours ago, The One Who Connects said:

Also, what do you use for your diagrams? I feel like a pleb over here. (And you'll probably get a kick out of what I've used for mine)

I'm a professional Illustrator, so I use Adobe Illustrator CS 6 and Macromedia Freehand MX to make my diagrams. My profile pic is from an illustration that I did for Make: magazine about how to build your own R2-D2 based on the official blueprints from Astromech.net. They have blueprints for pretty much every star wars R-Series droid, and they've actually taken physical measurements from the real props used in the Star Wars movies, pretty freaking awesome. My R2 was modified slightly from their blueprints to make R2 look closer to how he looks in Empire Strikes back, a larger version of it is spoilered below:

Spoiler

I would wager good spheres that you use a vector based drawing program to make your diagrams, what program do you use?

Your diagrams are really good, they very clearly illustrate the point you are trying to make and visualizations are always helpful (unless they're not).

@Calderis I've been thinking about this a lot more than is possibly healthy (considering how my work is piling up), but I will get back to you about your points over the weekend.

I was doing some research about quantum entanglement experiments, and saw this amazing video produced by a group at MIT where they have filmed in super slow motion the movement of a single photon of light through a 1-liter bottle. The photon of light is created by titanium sapphire laser, and it truly looks like a bit of stormlight moving through the bottle, here's a video of it spoilered below (freaking amazing):

Spoiler

Here's another video where the scientists at MIT talk in detail about the setup for the slow motion videographry of single photons of light:

 

 

 

[The One Who Connects]

On 2/22/2018 at 2:48 AM, hoiditthroughthegrapevine said:

I would wager good spheres that you use a vector based drawing program to make your diagrams, what program do you use?

Your diagrams are really good, they very clearly illustrate the point you are trying to make and visualizations are always helpful (unless they're not).

I'm old-fashioned, because simplicity is fun.

Spoiler

[+Hoiditthroughthegrapevine]

Just now, The One Who Connects said:

I'm old-fashioned, because simplicity is fun.

I now stand in deeper awe of your diagramming skills, that's like Michelangelo carving the pieta with a fork, brilliant!

[Cosmé]

Very cool! I hope this is a thing.

A windrunner-controlled airship would probably be very dangerous. Would the lashing last while the windrunner is asleep? If the binding fails while it’s in the air, everyone dies. Would you need multiple shifts of windrunners? How much stormlght would you need? Probably a lot. My guess is that such a ship would be built to travel across the ocean, but would use a temporary binding to ride through or over a highstorm. You probably couldn’t keep it in the air over land for long. That would explain why they did exist in the past but were not a dominant form of travel I don’t think.

A fabriel-controlled ship is much more feasible. Take a sailing ship and bind it to be weightless. Lashing up and down would control ascent and descent. You wouldn’t need a Radiant. You’d need to be able to lash the ship independently from those inside it, otherwise everyone falls towards the ceiling when you ascend, though that’d probably work since the ship is seen as its own entity in the cognitive realm. 

Propulsion would be handled by either lashings, conventional sails,  or both. You might be able to build something like a propeller, jet engine, or rocket using the other surges as well, though that would probably be for future eras. Turning is tricky. Maybe you would angle the sails? 

We could see this in this half of the series though, perhaps more likely the next half. Odium has a fleet. Maybe he plans to make a flying fleet with similar mechanisms, and rain chaos from the skies? That would be scary. 

[digitalbusker]

56 minutes ago, Cosmé said:

That would explain why they did exist in the past

Wait, what? Do we have evidence that flying ships existed in the past on Roshar?

[+Hoiditthroughthegrapevine]

@Cosmé interesting ideas, I would like to hear more about how you think this would work:

32 minutes ago, Cosmé said:

You might be able to build something like a propeller, jet engine, or rocket using the other surges as well, though that would probably be for future eras. Turning is tricky. Maybe you would angle the sails?

Rad ideas though.

@Calderis and @The One Who Connects, as per usual I have been spending far too much time on this, but I really can't stop myself.

So in an effort to truly understand what is going on with conjoined fabrials I am going to be making a series of though experiment diagrams that all will use the following standardized symbol set:

In working through this, I realize that in earlier attempts to figure out what was going on, I forgot to factor in the fact that the force applied against a far more massive object results only in mechanical strain. So here is a partial view of the archery parapet example, where the archery parapet is shown as being 1.5x as massive as the raised, supported platform:

You can see in this case in panel 2 that the total force once the Force of Gravity experienced by Platform A and Platform B are balanced out and applied in the proper direction (FGAcon and FGBcon) is pushing Platform A into the ground. A force with the same magnitude is attempting to push Platform B up, but since Platform A can not go down due to it's motion being interrupted by the ground, the actual effect of the Conjoined force is mechanical strain on the fabrials equal to the force imbalance because any motion must be mirrored to the conjoined fabrial.

So after platform B's support is removed, Platform B's mass is offset by the inverted gravitational force affecting Platform A, and the remaining force opposite to gravity is absorbed as mechanical strain and neither of the Platforms move.

 

Looking at another case, where the heavier platform is raised on the support and similar series of steps is taken, we find that if there is no means of offsetting the weight of the heavier platform on the support (like tension in a pulley system imparting an upward thrust) then when conjoined the heavier mass on the rolling support would continue to be pressed against the support and when it was wheeled away Platform A would go with the support. Also, Platform B would be pushed in the opposite direction of the rolled cart (and pushing the wheeled support would require more force because they would be moving the conjoined mass of the two platforms and would have to overcome the coeffecient of static friction for Platform B, though it would be accelerating a downward force less than that of gravity because there would be a net positvie upward thrust which is retarded by Platform A's inability to be pushed down into the wheeled support).

 

I might edit this text later to make it clearer, but I think the diagrams are pretty clearly laid out and I am excited to dig into this some more when I have more time, there are some pretty interesting thought experiment you can do if you add pulleys, latched spring platforms, or spring mounted platforms with removable supports.

 

The next series of diagrams that I add will be ones that try and clarify what is going on with the one known use case we have of conjoined fabrials, namely the archery parapet conjoined fabrial system. Now back down into the digital coal mine for me, Hi-Ho-Hi-Ho and all that merry jazz.

[Cosmé]

I have a freshly minted WoB to contribute to this topic. I was just at the Emerald City Comic Con and asked this question:

Quote

 

Me: “Could Kaladin lash a boat to be weightless.”

Brandon: “Yes, that is possible”

Me: “I hope he does! Thank you!”

 

I got a signed Oathbringer and Elantris Leather bound too