View Thread
 Reactor modernisation initiative (RMI)
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 17-11-2005 20:35
|
 Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
The following document is classified level three {{Begin authorisation. Input security code key as gene tag}} > Input: ******** {{Processing... Confirmed}} Reactor modernisation initiative ---------------------- With the advent of direct mass to energy conversion on a scale suitable to power warship weapon systems the time has come to reexamine our primary means of generating power. In the past this has been done by relatively inefficient fusion reactors and usually organised within the power-grid on a central design principal. This created a weakness in both system architecture and safety by having large amounts of dangerous plasma along with a high value target in one position. We now posses the means to address these shortcomings. It would be simple to propose we replace our fusion reactors with M-E reactors and indeed that is part of the proposal. But furthermore we suggest a complete decentralisation of the energy generation system. The days in which we needed one large reactor to generate all the power for our ships has come and gone, we can now have multiple reactors spread throughout the ship and linked into a power grid with suitable surge protection to prevent fluctuations disrupting operational capability, (this level of protection is seen in ICA devices which can continue firing even when themselves under any level of fire up to physical disablement of the weapon.) Naturally this system should also create a great deal of redundancy and would support the modular design principals that have proven so core to our combat doctrines. Swapping power systems even between a frigate and a Cruiser should be a simple operation as they would both be designed on the same principle and using them in banks instead of increasing the size of the reactors would allow for them to be simply 'unplugged' from one ship and placed into another. Therefore it is the recommendation of Fleet that banks of standardised M-E reactors should be incorporated into all designs at the soonest availability for increased safety, power output, ease of support and combat survivability. {{End file}} > Input: ****| Edited by Nemmerle on 17-11-2005 20:37 |
|
|
|
| Freezyguy |
Posted on 18-11-2005 03:06
|
|
Posts: 17 Joined: September 04 2005 |
I like the idea, however where does all the mass for the generators come from?
Therefore, to gain a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the highest excellence; to subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence. -Sun-Tzu
|
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 18-11-2005 03:42
|
 Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
I had thought that this was a practice already employed since the creation of the Ion Cannon Frigate. I thought it took a reactor alone to power it and larger capital ships had a number of generators aboard already.
-Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 18-11-2005 04:22
|
 Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Let's just use this comparison for now. Discuss the technobabble later: "Conventional" fusion reactor: - Long endurance - High power output (powers reaction drives plus ship's power grid) - Large size "M-E" powerplant, all types, from small laser-fusion chambers (ICA, LPC etc) to true M-E devices: - Short endurance, requires equivalent of "fuel" expenditure - High short term power output (not efficient to run them on low power) - Small size, generates intense surge of energy to power weapons, combat maneuver drives, start main reactor fusion reaction etc. I recommend a combination of the two - one main core with M-E powerplants providing surge power for energy weaponry, combat drives etc. Ships powered exclusively by M-E would be short range high performance craft, missiles and expendable probes. They should have some sort of secondary power source so they don't have to expend fuel all the time (hypercapacitors?) |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 18-11-2005 05:07
|
 Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
I agree with Tel, a combination system works best. Fusion reactors are much more efficient then you assume them to be. They don't need fuel, they can run almost limitlessly as far as I can tell. I wouldn't replace F-reactors with M-E reactors. But, there could be a way for the compromise to work. We can set up M-E reactors to control the DEW energy outputs and we can retain the F-reactors for engine. Perhaps we can also allocate an additional M-E reactor to provide quick and powerful thrusts? So that a battleship doesn't spend a whole minute trying to turn around. |
|
|
|
| MarieHawke |
Posted on 18-11-2005 05:42
|
 Posts: 501 Joined: September 02 2005 |
This brings to mind the difference between military drives and commercial drives in the "Stars at War" universe (Shiva Option, In Death Ground), where military drives have good "burst" tactical speed but bad comparative strategic speed as compared to commercial drives.
A starlight sharpshot magical girl!
|
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 18-11-2005 08:42
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
Fleet recommends the same fuel used as a reactant mass in the fusion generators and to create the drive plasma be used as the conversion mass. Ships already carry a large and readily available supply of this which would help with logistics and solve the problem of limited conversion mass. Hypercapacitators make sense to ensure a steady flow of power. |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 18-11-2005 15:42
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
Heh, this is looking to sound like you want to have a massive fusion reactor with something compareable to a diesel generators powering the weapons. Not bad to be honest. Althought I suggest High capacity batters over Capacitors, or a combination of both. My reason being battery power can always be redirected and shut off and is always readily available. The only way to "turn off" a capacitor after it's charged is a discarge, either in one shot, or running it through a resistor for a slow discharge. And with battiers you can always toy with the Amps and voltage.
-Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 18-11-2005 17:31
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
Fleet R&D doesn't really see the point in leaving a fusion reactor in the design at all anymore when the M-E reactors should be able to perform all the same functions without creating the weaknesses inherent to a large fussion reactor being in the design. Capacitor power can be shut off from something as easily as battery power and can be controlled in roughly the same way but has the advantage of allowing for much higher discharge rates than you'll get with a battery system which would be essential for emergency speeds, weapon's fire, Hyperspace defence grids, etc. |
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 18-11-2005 18:36
|
 Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Typical problems with batteries vs capacitors or the new (real life) hypercapacitors: Batteries are good for long term discharge. Capacitors, not so much. Batteries generally are safer than capacitors. Capacitors are good for short term discharge and can dump their energy very quickly. Modern day batteries are almost totally incapable of doing this. Batteries have a memory, or number of times they can be recharged. To my knowledge, capacitors can be used over and over again. Some wear and tear, but still longer and more frequently than batteries. Nemmerle, you missed a critical point Tel was making. Fusion reactors can produce safe, manageable energy levels and do it for a long time without using all that much fuel. M-E on the other hand is on the level of antimatter power production. Remember that the only reason antimatter is valuable as a power source is because it perfectly translate to energy when matched with appropriate antiparticles. The M-E conversion system in use now is enormously powerful. It is NOT safe for long-term power generation, and it is unlikely that the HGN or VGR have the capabilities to properly channel a constant stream of M-E generated power. M-E s are simply too dangerous to use for everyday tasks. They are overkill. It looks like ICAs/LPCs are simply channelling the output into a destructive beam. Containing that into a *power source* requires another level of engineering. Not that it can't or won't be done -- it's the next logical step -- but it's going to be a long time before ships can run entirely on M-E plants, safely. Probably outside of the time scale of PDS. |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 18-11-2005 19:36
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
If you're planning a replacement of reactors and de-centralising powergrids, why not re-engineer the common fusion reactor to also be less of a central unit. If you're reducing the demands on the reactor via removing the systems attached to it, then I believe the ability to make it more specific towards the systems it will be powering is an option, not to mention the stress relieved on the reactor itself. As for battery memory, some batteries do have a memory (depending on the type, Nickle-Cadnium (Ni-Cd) or Nickle metal Hydrate (NiM) )One type has a memory that is reduced grately if not completely discharged and the other has one that may be reset through a dischage and recharge cycle. Then there's alway Lithium Ion batteries. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 18-11-2005 19:58
|
|
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
LiIon batteries still have a memory. Pretty nasty one too for the price. We're not talking about de-centralising power grids necessarily, but eliminating the need to have weapons tied directly to the reactor. If a weapon's power feed is sufficiently disrupted, no more weapon. Having local power sources for weapons, likely a combination of capacitors and M-E reactors, will increase survivability and systems integrity in battle. Most weapons won't be touching the fusion reactor at that point. So the reactor will be freed to power the other systems quite nicely. I don't see any specific use of the fusion torch becoming more efficient because of this, but I do see the entire plasma generation, containment and channelling systems becoming more resilient because of spare capacity. Perhaps smaller reactors could be used, but I think it more likely that existing models will continue to be used because of the redundancy they provide. |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 18-11-2005 22:16
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
The ICA technology is still an ion cannon rather than a pure energy weapon and as such the energy generated by the M-E device is handled in the weapon rather than simply being waved in the general direction of the target and then 'unleashed'. Thus the HGN at least has the necessary technological background to handle that kind of power safely in even the most demanding of likely applications. The presence of capacitors or other such storage and release devices allows that the ship may tailor its fuel consumption to the situation and because it converts it directly to energy it is more efficient than a fusion reactor. This in mind M-E reactors are safe as demonstrated by their use in ICA weaponry and should have comparable or, as is more likely, superior endurance to the fusion reactors currently in use. |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 19-11-2005 03:28
|
|
Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
Nemmerle, I would like to point out that the fusion reactors require almost no fuel at all, that the fuel they spend is recycled so that there is never a time that you need to add fuel. M-E reactors however, constantly need fuel. Furthermore, ion cannons are directed using magnetic fields. |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 19-11-2005 05:55
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
To be honest, I would be happier with batteries over capacitors. In battle you always run the risk of a power surges happening when some systems are damaged, ect. If you accidentally over charge a capacitor, it tends to explode and leak goo all over the place. But I guess it all depends on you circut set up. Personally, if I was asked to design a system like this, I would have generator feed batteris and those batteries feed capacitors. As well, I would have the batteries on a rolling charge cycle, ones not in used, take off the grid for later use and if need be, have a bypass for the reactor to directly feed capacitors incase all batteirs are dead. I'm also thinking that if you kept a ractor-capacitor system going, if one of those parts break, then the entire system might become inoperable. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 19-11-2005 07:49
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
Inert, to say there is never a time you need to add fuel is -- well, it's not going to be entirely accurate. In order to gain energy you need to lose mass, (E w6; mc? + mv?/2) every time you use the engines or fire the weapons, or use life support, you're going to lose mass, in most cases this cannot be recycled. Then there's the fact that you have lots of plasma flying out the back of your ship from the reactor, (drive plume.) Now that's a lot of mass, however you care to figure it. |
|
|
|
| Freezyguy |
Posted on 19-11-2005 14:35
|
|
Posts: 17 Joined: September 04 2005 |
I like the idea of having multiple small reactors that can be interchanged at will, it creates the ability to upgrade ships far easier. All you would need to do is fabricate a couple more M-Es and plug them into the system and your good to go. However I do see the point that we need redundency with some kind of a back up generator. However having a full scale back-up defies the point of having the M-Es at all. A fusion generator is not a samll peice of equipment, i would be willing to bet that it takes up a large part of the capitol chips interior. So if we remove that generator that ships will gain increased agility for the reduced weight, instantly ginving the ships increased battle capabilities. Now about the question of fuel. But first, where does all the drive plasma come from? Does it come from the fusion reactor or is it something else? And if it does not come from the reactor would it be possible to send drive plasma into the M-E's to create a replenishing supply of power. About fusion reactors needing fuel, i was under the impression that they created a higher energy output then input, so until the reactor was drawn on heavily they should be able to sustain themselves for extremely long periods of time. However, I cannot say how to replenish a drive with more fuel after an intensive battle has spent some of the mass and since fusion reactors convert hydrogen ions into helium, i do not know how to "put back" the hydrogen after it has all been spent. Edited by Freezyguy on 19-11-2005 14:44 Therefore, to gain a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the highest excellence; to subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence. -Sun-Tzu
|
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 19-11-2005 15:46
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
I don't see reactors taking up that much space. We do have nuclear subs which are not entirely the reactor, they usually take around 1/3 of the subs length (including engine section) And a refrence to Nuclear Fusion (what happens in the sun, what we want to happen on Earth as well) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion Lots of goodie information inside of there. Fusion reactors do keep the reaction going, but still require lots of fule. I believe the sun eats 4 tons of it's mass a second. But all the fuel is there for it to keep going for well over 5 billion years. Do the math for that  -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 19-11-2005 17:47
|
|
Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
With the advent of Bentusi-developed fusion drives passed down to the Som-taaw, the fuel expenditure has been reduced to almost nothing. And I think this article by wikipedia is important to note: Quote It takes considerable energy to force nuclei to fuse, even those of the least massive element, hydrogen. But the fusion of lighter nuclei, which creates a heavier nucleus and a free neutron, will generally release more energy than it took to force them together ? an exothermic process that can produce self-sustaining reactions. And true, in order to gain energy you need to lose mass. But energy is equally convertible back to mass, just as mass is able to be converted to energy. Edited by Inert on 19-11-2005 17:48 |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 19-11-2005 19:39
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
Quote Inert wrote: And true, in order to gain energy you need to lose mass. But energy is equally convertible back to mass, just as mass is able to be converted to energy. Woah there... you're going to get scientist linching you on this. RULES OF MATTER: -Matter cannot be lost, it can change states; 2H + O + energy = Water + energy (heat). It cannot be created from nothing or be destroyed into nothing (matter/ anti-matter is just a balancing of an equasion; 1+-1 = 0) -Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can change it's type or be absorbed. It is always looking to settle on the lowest state possible. -Typical reactions head to the lowest entropy, or lowest energy state whenever possible. For instance, burning gasoline makes water, energy (heat) and Carbon Dioxide. But, if you were to take the end products and put them into a jar, you would NOT get that gasoline back. it is possible, but the massive ammount of energy to get it back into that state is just silly. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum |