http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship.htm
Remember, what he's describing could be possible today, if it had the funding.
It seems very likely that this is what powers all of the various suborbitals and the like that proliferate in SR.
Full Version: Nuclear rocket engines
if I'm not mistaken they already have working fusion plants in SR.
Then... then why is there still pollution? THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
Fusion Power may be available, but it's expensive.
Good old fashion greed over enviroment.
I didn't say CHEAP AND PORTABLE did I???
It's a fusion PLANT. not something that fits in a car, or even a tractor trailer for that matter.
It's a fusion PLANT. not something that fits in a car, or even a tractor trailer for that matter.
Who said Cheap and Portiable?
IN time once the tech is developed i do feel it will drop in price, in the next 100 years.
IN time once the tech is developed i do feel it will drop in price, in the next 100 years.
Besides, power generation doesn't produce all of the pollution in the world. There are tons of industrial applications that make some really bad stuff.
true, it's mostly the production of plastics and metals, these produce nasty chlorine compounds that are expensive (re: not profitable) to displose of. dump 'em in the harbor/down the sewers.
yep, "cheap" electric power just helps big biz in creating ever more waste...
still, SR isnt realy the smog filled cyberpunk of old. rember that there is a tree-hugger nation down in south america.
still, SR still carry the good old cyberpunk theme of technology out of control. and allso the age old big amoral corp line of thinking. mix in magic and metahumans, and you can make comments about racism and similar but without the risk of stepping on real life feet.
basicly, cyberpunk is a new spin on a age old theme. and SR gives that spin a aura of magic...
still, SR isnt realy the smog filled cyberpunk of old. rember that there is a tree-hugger nation down in south america.
still, SR still carry the good old cyberpunk theme of technology out of control. and allso the age old big amoral corp line of thinking. mix in magic and metahumans, and you can make comments about racism and similar but without the risk of stepping on real life feet.
basicly, cyberpunk is a new spin on a age old theme. and SR gives that spin a aura of magic...
and toxic shamans, the twisted ones do thier best to screw up the enviroment even more.
Fusion engines are not feasible for vehicles, which run on methane... Fusion engines aren't Cold Fusion, so they're still dumping superheated water into the environment which still destroys it... and most industrial products still have waste associated with them, as I recall. Any other byproducts I miss...?
| QUOTE (Calvin Hobbes) |
| Fusion engines aren't Cold Fusion, so they're still dumping superheated water into the environment which still destroys it... |
First, cold fusion is still significantly warmer than room temperature, it's just a lot colder than fusion as seen in stars.
Second, it's called steam, not superheated water.
Third off, cold fusion doesn't fraggin' exist. It was a hoax that was well and true debunked by physicists.
Fourth off, fusion power is another word for nuclear power, which is why there are not fusion powered cars.
Fifth off, "steam" and "superheated water" are synonymous.
Fourth off, fusion power is another word for nuclear power, which is why there are not fusion powered cars.
Fifth off, "steam" and "superheated water" are synonymous.
| QUOTE (TheNarrator) |
| Fourth off, fusion power is another word for nuclear power, which is why there are not fusion powered cars. |
No, fission power is used quite often and most definitely isn't harnessed from nuclear fusion.
| QUOTE (TheNarrator @ Jan 22 2006, 09:12 PM) |
| Third off, cold fusion doesn't fraggin' exist. It was a hoax that was well and true debunked by physicists. |
It's not a hoax, it is theoretically possible. It has never been done using a method that can be reproduced... Whether it has been done or not is irrelevant, you can't say you've done something unless you can do it again (in scientific circles anyways).
| QUOTE (TheNarrator @ Jan 22 2006, 09:12 PM) |
| Fifth off, "steam" and "superheated water" are synonymous. |
Well, yes and no. Steam is water in a gaseous state. Superheated water is still a liquid, just at a temperature above boiling point (100 degrees Celcius). If a bubble or some other substance (such as instant coffee) is added to superheated water, the whole amount evaporates almost instantly... Found this information here (even has a video): http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/superheating.html (Snopes also has some info: http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave.asp ).
Not wanted to stir up trouble, just want to set things straight.
| QUOTE (IAmMarauder) | ||||
It's not a hoax, it is theoretically possible. It has never been done using a method that can be reproduced... Whether it has been done or not is irrelevant, you can't say you've done something unless you can do it again (in scientific circles anyways).
Well, yes and no. Steam is water in a gaseous state. Superheated water is still a liquid, just at a temperature above boiling point (100 degrees Celcius). If a bubble or some other substance (such as instant coffee) is added to superheated water, the whole amount evaporates almost instantly... Found this information here (even has a video): http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/superheating.html (Snopes also has some info: http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave.asp ). Not wanted to stir up trouble, just want to set things straight. |
Just to derail a topic...
Suppose a target is fond of an early morning cuppa from his microwave? The whole process is automated. But suppose his microwave runs too long, and it's circuits have been bypassed to overcharge it. That water will be ultra-hot by the time he goes to pick it up out of the microwave. But something's wrong; the automatic coffee adder must be out. Oh, fie, says target, as he reaches for the packet of instant coffee. Oh well, I saw mom do this once in an old movie. I can do it myself. He adds his instant coffee mix...
that superhot water will be steam in a microwave.
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685 @ Jan 23 2006, 06:31 AM) | ||||||
Just to derail a topic... Suppose a target is fond of an early morning cuppa from his microwave? The whole process is automated. But suppose his microwave runs too long, and it's circuits have been bypassed to overcharge it. That water will be ultra-hot by the time he goes to pick it up out of the microwave. But something's wrong; the automatic coffee adder must be out. Oh, fie, says target, as he reaches for the packet of instant coffee. Oh well, I saw mom do this once in an old movie. I can do it myself. He adds his instant coffee mix... |
As long as the conditions are correct, he could end up with some nasty burns to his hand and face. The water needs to be pure and the interior of the cup needs to be smooth and unblemished. It will evaporate into a large cloud of steam if he accidently jiggles the cup, or as soon as he adds the coffee (see the video on the UNSW website). The water will bubble over and get his hands if he is holding the cup, and possibly a face full of steam as well. Not deadly, but its a good way to get someone to have a day off work (especially if you someone in mind to fill in for him). I wonder if the machine can be hacked through its wireless connection...
| QUOTE (IAmMarauder) |
| I wonder if the machine can be hacked through its wireless connection... |
Maybe not directly if you're pre-2065, but you can possibly do it through the telecom and screw with the Mr. Soycaf automation settings.
| QUOTE (nick012000) |
| It seems very likely that this is what powers all of the various suborbitals and the like that proliferate in SR. |
No, those are described as chemical rockets in Rigger 3.
| QUOTE |
| Fusion engines are not feasible for vehicles, which run on methane... |
Some SR vehicles run on methane. Others run on gasoline, diesel, batteries, or fuel cells. And SR3 covers "nuclear" (fission and fusion) for vehicles - they're restricted to ships, but they are available for vehicles.
| QUOTE |
| Fusion engines aren't Cold Fusion, so they're still dumping superheated water into the environment which still destroys it... |
If by "superheated" you mean "a few degrees C warmer than the local seawater or river water used to cool the plant," sure, that's superheated.
But the difference between 15C intake water and 20C exhaust water usually isn't too upsetting except to ardent environmentalists.
Further, fusion power plants can be nifty in that they produce less waste heat per unit of electricity generated due to their potentially higher efficiency. A "hot" fusion power plant that uses a magnetohydrodynamic (say that 3 times fast) electrical generation system may be 90% or more efficient in converting heat from the reactor into electricity. On the other hand, a typical steam plant will be about 30% efficient.
Which means if a steam power plant (any heat source) generates 1 megawatt of power, it'll be generating 2.33 megawatts of waste heat. (And eventually the electricity will be degenerated into heat, for a total of 3.33 megawatts of heat).
On the other hand, a 90% efficient fusion plant will generate 0.11 megawatts of waste heat for 1 megawatt of electricity. In the end, that's 2.22 megawatts less waste heat than a 30% efficient power plant of equivalent electrical power output.
| QUOTE |
| and most industrial products still have waste associated with them, as I recall. Any other byproducts I miss...? |
Fusion does gradually irradiate the reactor vessel thanks to stray neutrons in the reactions. If SR's fusion runs on a tritium-deuterium fuel combo, it'll make the reactors radioactive quite quickly.
| QUOTE |
| Fifth off, "steam" and "superheated water" are synonymous |
Unless the water is pressurized until it remains liquid above its traditional boiling point, or it's pressurized until it's a super critical fluid. 600F water in a supercritical state isn't steam or liquid.
| QUOTE (nick012000) |
| http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship.htm Remember, what he's describing could be possible today, if it had the funding. It seems very likely that this is what powers all of the various suborbitals and the like that proliferate in SR. |
Also, the engine described in this "Liberty Ship" webpage is optimistic about the performance of gas core fission rockets. While the writer idly mentions 1.2 million pounds of thrust, it's quite likely that a "nuclear light bulb"-type gas core fission rocket would end up being close to or over 1.2 million pounds in weight - nevermind the rest of the vehicle.
Such rockets would be of use in orbit and for deep space missions (depending on the performance of fusion engines), but they're not going to get a suborbital off the ground.
For suborbitals and other passenger vehicles, there's the issue of shielding. Conventional designs for fission rockets put a thick shield between the crew/cargo and the rockets, but then let the rockets irradiate the surroundings. That's not a problem since most real world studies for fission rockets have used fission rockets as upper stages and the only thing they'll irradiate is very thin air or space.
However, a nuclear reactor activated on the ground presents some interesting problems. For example, look at the lengths that the USAF had to go through when testing nuclear rockets or to implement a "nuclear-powered bomber" concept:
http://www.military.com/Content/MoreConten..._atomicairpower
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baug...us/b036-13.html
A B36 modified to carry a test reactor (which provided no propulsion power) required a 12-ton shield between the crew and reactor. Modern materials will not help with radiation shielding. You need mass to stop radiation, not fancy compounds.
http://www.air-attack.com/page.php?pid=18
A special hangar for the plane, and associated maintenance facilities, were built with enormously thick, nuclear-shielded walls and bays. General Electric, the program contractor, planned to equip the engine maintenance facilities with closed-circuit television systems and remote manipulator arms to allow technicians to work on the aircraft and its powerplant without direct exposure to the intense radiation field that would persist even after the reactor was shut down. Since the turbojets essentially functioned as the cooling system for the reactor, they would have to be run at high power settings even after shutdown of the reactor in order to maintain cooling airflow through the still-hot core. After an initial cooldown period, ground cooling systems would be connected to the reactor and the engines could be shut down as the P-1 was extracted from the airplane and placed in its shielded storage bay.
That's what you get from nuclear reactors - including fission rockets - that lack shielding. And you'd need hundreds of tons to properly shield a reactor, which is why such a rocket engine is probably not going to get itself off the ground.
| QUOTE (Slump) |
| Besides, power generation doesn't produce all of the pollution in the world. There are tons of industrial applications that make some really bad stuff. |
Actually most pollution comes from what is described as non-point sources, that is small activities in a concentrated area that produce overall high levels of pollution. Wood burning Cooking Fires are a prime example of this
I remember reading about a fancy cloth that used chemicals that mimicked the properties of heavy metals, so a few mm of cloth would have the same effect as quite a bit more metal. By the time SR rolls around, I don't think sheilding would be a problem. 
Sigh, and if you read if on the Internet, it must be true.
The primary things you want to shield are fast neutrons and gamma rays. You can shield from neutrons either by using a neutron absorbing material (which you will have to replace every 'now and then') of simply by sticking a whole lot of matter (remember that most stuff is actually mostly empty space, we are talking about the number of atoms between you and the neutrons, not the amount of empty space) between you and the neutrons. Of course, the additional problem is that neutrons running into things tend to produce gamma rays, so your shielding needs to be thicker to block the ‘secondary gamma’ as well.
Gamma rays are also stopped by intervening matter. This is why dense substances (like lead) are more effective as shielding; they have more actual matter per unit volume. So, your shielding might not take up that much volume but it will still be plenty heavy.
Re: 'cloth like' shielding materials, if you have ever had say, a dental x-ray, notice that the shielding apron the dentist sticks on you is flexible, but it is still quite heavy. Where you are building a reactor that stays put, the weight of the shielding is just an engineering problem (you have to build your building strong enough to support the weight of the shielding), but when you want to put your reactor on a moving vehicle, then the weight of the shielding can be a real design limitation.
You can mitigate these problems by using different a nuclear reaction (fissioning (should that be ‘fissing’?) or fusing different atoms) or by designing a more efficient reactor, which means that you have to use less nuclear reactions (and thus, produce less radiation and waste heat) to obtain the same amount of power.
The primary things you want to shield are fast neutrons and gamma rays. You can shield from neutrons either by using a neutron absorbing material (which you will have to replace every 'now and then') of simply by sticking a whole lot of matter (remember that most stuff is actually mostly empty space, we are talking about the number of atoms between you and the neutrons, not the amount of empty space) between you and the neutrons. Of course, the additional problem is that neutrons running into things tend to produce gamma rays, so your shielding needs to be thicker to block the ‘secondary gamma’ as well.
Gamma rays are also stopped by intervening matter. This is why dense substances (like lead) are more effective as shielding; they have more actual matter per unit volume. So, your shielding might not take up that much volume but it will still be plenty heavy.
Re: 'cloth like' shielding materials, if you have ever had say, a dental x-ray, notice that the shielding apron the dentist sticks on you is flexible, but it is still quite heavy. Where you are building a reactor that stays put, the weight of the shielding is just an engineering problem (you have to build your building strong enough to support the weight of the shielding), but when you want to put your reactor on a moving vehicle, then the weight of the shielding can be a real design limitation.
You can mitigate these problems by using different a nuclear reaction (fissioning (should that be ‘fissing’?) or fusing different atoms) or by designing a more efficient reactor, which means that you have to use less nuclear reactions (and thus, produce less radiation and waste heat) to obtain the same amount of power.
| QUOTE (stevebugge) | ||
Actually most pollution comes from what is described as non-point sources, that is small activities in a concentrated area that produce overall high levels of pollution. Wood burning Cooking Fires are a prime example of this |
riiiight. you've obviously never seen boston harbor have you....
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.