Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!@RUTGERS.ARPA:jpa144@cit-vax
From: @RUTGERS.ARPA:jpa144@cit-vax
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re:  SF-LOVERS Digest   V10 #44
Message-ID: <551@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 18:21:01 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.551
Posted: Thu Feb  7 18:21:01 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 07:44:48 EST
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 38

From: jpa144@cit-vax (Jens Peter Alfke)

In reply to George Moore's questions about Integral trees, which were:
1) Why does the tree only have foliage at the ends? and
2) Why is the gravity at the tufts the same and stronger than that at the
   middle of the tree?

The answer (to both questions) is: Tidal forces.  Niven first brought this
idea up in the story .  What happens is that the (angular) orbital
velocity at the radius of the out end of the tree is less than that at the in
end.  Since both ends must have the same angular velocity, the in end winds up
traveling too slowly for its orbit, and thus is pulled towards Voy, while the
out end travels too quickly and is pulled outwards by "centrifugal force"
(Yeah--I know--I've had two years of college physics, so I know it's not real,
but hey, you can feel it just as well whether it's real or not).

This also accounts for the winds at either end, since the air IS going at
orbital velocity.  A major purpose of the tufts is to filter debris out of
the wind, and pull it into the treemouth.  This doesn't work nearly as well
towards the middle of the tree, where there is much less wind.  The tufts
must also be photosynthetic, but I imagine that if the tree gets enough 
nutrition from the end tufts, it isn't worthwhile to support even more
greenery.

I hope these are the kind of answers you wanted!

While I'm here, I may as well add a few comments about the book as a book:
Overall, I enjoyed it, but there was a lack of characterization; it seems to
me that this is a general problem with Niven's more recent work.  Niven's
most memorable characters, to me, are still Gil Hamilton and Louis Wu.

Some of the dialogue at the beginning was frighteningly similar to that
uttered by cardboard fantasy-novel heroes, but things got better as time went
on.  I liked reading the book, and still liked it after I finished, and it
was INFINITELY BETTER than  (bletch) !!

"Can we tawk?					--Pete {-r Alfke}
 Here, put your hand in this box."		  jpa144@CIT-vax.arpa