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