View Thread
 Reactor modernisation initiative (RMI)
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 19-11-2005 20:06
|
 Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
Even Bentusi-developed drives cannot bypass the laws of physics. In continuation of that article you ran across: Quote To produce self-sustaining fusion, the energy released by the reaction (or at least a fraction of it) must be used to heat new reactant nuclei and keep them hot long enough that they also undergo fusion reactions. Or to put it in another way: Though the reaction can sustain itself without further energy input it still requires fuel input. It's not a magic way around the loss of mass problem. As Itharu said: 'Fusion reactors do keep the reaction going, but still require lots of fuel.' Yes, energy may be converted back to mass, but why would you want to? It uses an inversion of the same principle required to produce energy in the first place so you wouldn't be gaining anything and in anything less than a 100% efficient conversion you'd actually be losing something. Although I suppose as M-E reactors convert straight to energy they would be able to use that principle to a greater effect than less efficient Fusion reactors that do not convert 100% of mass to energy. |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 19-11-2005 21:15
|
 Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
Sigh, let me make my statement a little bit clearer. A normal fusion reaction can be between hydrogen atoms, which, when fused, create helium and energy. Now, a fusion reaction like this creates a minimum of 120% of the amount of energy put in. Now is it not possible to set aside about 20 or 30 % of that energy to break down the helium atoms back to hydrogen? We can then use that to fuel further reactions. Granted, this may be mathematically incorrect as I lack the knowledge to calculate such an expenditure, but is it not possible? |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 20-11-2005 00:14
|
 Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
Quote Inert wrote: Now is it not possible to set aside about 20 or 30 % of that energy to break down the helium atoms back to hydrogen? We can then use that to fuel further reactions. Granted, this may be mathematically incorrect as I lack the knowledge to calculate such an expenditure, but is it not possible? unfortunately, I don't think that's possible. If it were, stars would not collaps. Most of the 'energy' created is in the form of heat. Even by todays methods of energy production only 1/3 of energy released from a reaction is actually usable, that other 2/3s is in an unharnsable form, (for example light, or infered). That is basically the only drawback to energy production. Remember the sun gives off all kinds of radation in it's energy production, I can't see a smaller scale unit being any different. On a side note, it's almost impossible for four standard hydrogen atoms to become one helium atom; two would have to be converted into neutrons and neutrons are the product of an emmense gravational collaps. (where an electron is pushed into a proton, negating the charge completely) I don't even want to think how much energy has to be used to create such a thing. But it is interesting to note that if you have a reactor producing stable nuetrons, then you can escentially collect those neutrons and make super dense munition rounds with them. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 20-11-2005 00:28
|
|
Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
Well it's not a hydrogen - hydrogen reaction, it's a deuterium - tritrium reaction. |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 20-11-2005 00:49
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
It doesn't really make much difference what kind of reaction it is. As I attempted to show earlier by drawing a line between fuel and energy you can't get back more than you put in. If you're just getting back 100% of the 'energy' you put into a reaction it's break even, it means you have enough energy to keep the reaction in your reactor going. It does not however mean that you can change the leftovers of your reaction back into what they were. The energy required to release the energy contained in the fuel is much less than the energy required to make the leftovers of that fuel into new fuel. In order to do that you have to be able to add the energy the fuel has released back into the leftovers and return them to their original form, which takes all the energy they've released and then some. Which gets you into a negative equation. Essentially all you'd be doing with such a system is draining the ship's backup power supply very quickly. |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 20-11-2005 02:20
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
It seems we're arguing less useful points. And I'm wondering about M-E reactors and they energy creation systems. I'm not sure if they've been mentioned. And aside from that, would it be a little more productive to outline a few new methods of the incorporation of the M-E reactors with the new line(?) or Fusion Reactors to be used in mainstream capital ships, to reduce the demand on main reactor power gird? Things look like they could become offtopic. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 20-11-2005 02:37
|
|
Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
With our current form of energy storage, trying to store energy created by a M-E reactor is like trying to hold water in your hands. I still recommend setting aside M-E reactors for impulse weapon systems (pulsar, ion, plasma, etc.). We'd quickly run out of mass to feed these reactors if we replaced all fusion reactors with M-E reactors. It'd quickly turn into something the Kadeshi fighter drives were like. |
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 20-11-2005 05:27
|
 Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
As much as mass may be an issue, I see wear and tear as the more important one. Imagine an ICA firing continuously, 24 hours a day. Think the tech base is good enough to handle that right now in the battlespace...? |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 20-11-2005 13:27
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
Then why not reserve M-Es for combat situtations only and have them feeding the largest weapons aboard the ship. Have the weapons that drain less energy (probably the CWIS weapons) feed from batteries charged via the main reactor that maybe switched onto the M-E reactors when truely need. But I'm still confused about the principles behind a M-E reactor. How does it work exactly? -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 20-11-2005 16:50
|
|
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
M-E simply means matter to energy. Antimatter is a very efficient but very dangerous way of converting matter to energy. Whatever the process used in PDS, be it the HGN's M-E chambers or the Vagyr's LPC cores, is quite inefficient. But the advantages! No longer needing a reactor feed for ion cannons/whatever the Vagyr had as primary beam armament is absolutely huge. The fact that the conversion chamber plus the necessary saftey and channelling features take up much less space is a secondary bonus. |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 20-11-2005 17:33
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
Quote Inert wrote: With our current form of energy storage, trying to store energy created by a M-E reactor is like trying to hold water in your hands. This would be why the design recommendation has talked about hyper-capacitors or battery systems. Quote Inert wrote:We'd quickly run out of mass to feed these reactors if we replaced all fusion reactors with M-E reactors. It'd quickly turn into something the Kadeshi fighter drives were like. If you have enough mass to push the drive plume out then you've enough mass to run many many M-E reactors, more than you could ever possibly need. Quote Glacialis wrote: As much as mass may be an issue, I see wear and tear as the more important one. Imagine an ICA firing continuously, 24 hours a day. Think the tech base is good enough to handle that right now in the battlespace...? We've got fighters that can survive a direct hit from a nuclear weapon. I think that the systems can probably handle firing an ICA 24/7/365 and for a thousand years provided there's enough energy and ammo. Edited by Nemmerle on 20-11-2005 17:34 |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 20-11-2005 22:55
|
|
Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
Nemmerle you're being illogical. Just take a look at our current weapon performances. ICAs can not be fired for thousands of years, whatever you may tend to believe. Secondly, simply stating that mass that is usable for fusion reactions will be usable for M-E reactions is unreasonable. Fusion reactions require certain criteria to be met for them to take place, M-E reactions are initiated completely different. |
|
|
|
| Vitechy |
Posted on 20-11-2005 23:12
|
|
Posts: 22 Joined: October 30 2005 |
How would you sustain the magnetic field?:confused:
You know we all could be reading a book right now.
|
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 21-11-2005 02:31
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
Quote Vitechy wrote: How would you sustain the magnetic field?:confused: How anyone sustains a magnetic field, a secondary power source until the primary one is functioning. I don't believe spark plugs run off the engine initially, you do need a battery to start them to get the engine working, then to re-power the battery via the alternator. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 21-11-2005 06:20
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
Quote Inert wrote: Nemmerle you're being illogical. Just take a look at our current weapon performances. ICAs can not be fired for thousands of years, whatever you may tend to believe. Not on a contiuos beam, no. But as has been pointed out M-E reactors generate burst power, (as seen demonstrated in ICA devices,) and ICAs can fire over and over again with no visible strain. If a system can handle burst power with a cyclic firing mechanism and apparently without need to vent excessive ammounts of thermal energy between shots then it stands to reason that it can probably candle continuos power of the same magnitude with relatively little modification. Quote Inert wrote: Secondly, simply stating that mass that is usable for fusion reactions will be usable for M-E reactions is unreasonable. Fusion reactions require certain criteria to be met for them to take place, M-E reactions are initiated completely different. Well whatever they use the ship has the capability to carry enough mass, however the reaction is initiated. It obviously works off a similar principle as there have been no massive modifications to the power system to incorporate ICA weapons, (one of the key advantages was that they be almost completely modular.) |
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 21-11-2005 10:45
|
|
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
ICA weapons are powered by their very own M-E core. Each and every one. Thus, no modifications to the power system are necessary. The ICAs may not show mechanical strain during combat, but if you were to keep them continuously firing for an hour, you can bet the technicians are going to be annoyed at having to service them. The point here is that M-E reactors are feasible, but not yet. ICAs have only JUST been deployed. Reactor and power generating technologies are not things you slap together. Look at the temporal distance between the development and deployment of nuclear weapons here on Earth and nuclear reactors. Years. M-E reactors are unproven and infinitely more complex, while fusion torches have been around for millennia. It's only been 18-24 months since the Invasion, and while weapon and even hyperspace technologies will advance rapidly during wartime situations, even now there is still room for improving fusion reactors. There are a near infinite number of situations a new power source must be subjected to in order to make it safer, more effective and more resistant to combat damage than a fusion torch, let alone continuous day to day operation. I'm theorizing another decade at the VERY earliest. Edited by Glacialis on 21-11-2005 10:47 |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 21-11-2005 20:22
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
Quote Glacialis wrote: ICA weapons are powered by their very own M-E core. Each and every one. Thus, no modifications to the power system are necessary. The ICAs may not show mechanical strain during combat, but if you were to keep them continuously firing for an hour, you can bet the technicians are going to be annoyed at having to service them. My engagements tend to last on the order of five hours. I don't tend to lose my capital ships often. If the technicians would be anoyed at having to service them after an hour it's a miracle that they can somehow manage to function for that length of time. Regardless we've seen the impressive field repair capabilites of the current generation of ships, there's nothing to suggest that being able to repair gapping holes in the hull in a handfull of minutes they are incapable of maintaining proper system integrity. Quote Glacialis wrote: The point here is that M-E reactors are feasible, but not yet. ICAs have only JUST been deployed. Reactor and power generating technologies are not things you slap together. Look at the temporal distance between the development and deployment of nuclear weapons here on Earth and nuclear reactors. Years. M-E reactors are unproven and infinitely more complex, while fusion torches have been around for millennia. It's only been 18-24 months since the Invasion, and while weapon and even hyperspace technologies will advance rapidly during wartime situations, even now there is still room for improving fusion reactors. There are a near infinite number of situations a new power source must be subjected to in order to make it safer, more effective and more resistant to combat damage than a fusion torch, let alone continuous day to day operation. I'm theorizing another decade at the VERY earliest. The problem is that M-E reactors are already an employed reactor technology. They exist in the current battle space as reactors that power weapons, not as the weapons themselves. I'm theorising a couple of weeks of R&D work to integrate an already proven power generation device into the new warship designs with the relevant power control and flow regulator systems. Edited by Nemmerle on 21-11-2005 20:23 |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 22-11-2005 01:36
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
I hope no one minds that much, but I'm going to perpose an outline of a duel power grid system on a cap ship. Main Helium-3 Reactor Grid: Powers- +Main Engines +Life Support +Ship computer /Basic Systems +CWIS weapons / Missiles / Torpedos +Power Reserves (in the form of Lithium-Poly Batteries) +Reserve Weapons batteries Note; The Main reactor can be physically switched to power main weapons. Only in an event of M-E reactor failure. M-E Reactors(one per main battery, or powering a pair depending on energy requirements): Powers- +Main Cannons +Main DEW weaponry +DEW Discharge Capacitors (so from M-E to the Capacitor to firing the weapon) +Reserve Weapons batteries (during non-combat times only) Note; -Reserve Weapons batteries hold the potential to power other ship components that require high amounts of energy for limited times. M-Es should never be used to power ships systems directly. -Will not power Missile and torpedo weapon systems. That should be handled by the Main Power Grid. -------- Just a suggestive outline. Take it as you will, open for changes. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 22-11-2005 03:46
|
|
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
I have stated my views, and I do not see any imaginary supercomputer generating the necessary data for changing M-E chambers built into weapons -- yes, they are -- into units that can power, safely and under combat conditions, an entire starship. Itharu, good outline. I believe that the weapon capacitors are plenty good for weapons and systems with rapid energy utilization, but there's also likely to be batteries for reserve and emergency power. Itharu's stated what I consider to be the best result of this thread. I do not believe M-E cores are going to be usable as primary power systems for years, in game time. |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 22-11-2005 04:24
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
I don't think you would want to make many anti matter reactors anywyas. Making the anti matter is a feat on it's own, unless you can see a way of harvesting positrons from a local sun. Oh and about the capacitors, I would suggest no more than 3 per M-E reactor, logic beaing that during combat, they would be charged dischaged a lot, resulting in stress from heating / cooling and the fact that there will always be a charge time on them(hypercapacitors or not). Also it would take advantage of the general firing delay on most main weapons. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum |