Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:19:51 +1000
Warp engines may be more likely than thought...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_364000/364496.stm


--
/\\\ Robert Watkins | email: rwatkins@******.com
( ))) Software Engineer | ph: +61 7 3303 3432
\/// Brisbane, Australia | fx: +61 7 3303 3257
Mincom Limited





From griffinhq@****.com Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:37:29 -0400
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:37:29 -0400
From: Hunter g
Message no. 2
From: Hunter griffinhq@****.com
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:37:29 -0400
On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:19:51 +1000 "Robert Watkins"
<robert.watkins@******.com> writes:
>Warp engines may be more likely than thought...
>
If it's really of any interest, I designed a fission engine when I was
8.

*************************************************************************
********************
Griffin Industries
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/Griffin/index.html

"If you just want to kill things, play D&D."

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.




From robert.watkins@******.com Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:49:31 +1000
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:49:31 +1000
From:
Message no. 3
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:49:31 +1000
Griffin writes:
> If it's really of any interest, I designed a fission engine
> when I was
> 8.

Did you manage to solve the problem of spreading radioactive waste via your
exhaust? And what was the thrust-to-weight ratio?

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com






From griffinhq@****.com Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:59:30 -0400
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:59:30 -0400
From: Hunter g
Message no. 4
From: Hunter griffinhq@****.com
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:59:30 -0400
On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:49:31 +1000 "Robert Watkins"
<robert.watkins@******.com> writes:
>Griffin writes:
>> If it's really of any interest, I designed a fission engine
>> when I was
>> 8.
>
>Did you manage to solve the problem of spreading radioactive waste via
>your
>exhaust? And what was the thrust-to-weight ratio?
>
No and no clue.

*************************************************************************
********************
Griffin Industries
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/Griffin/index.html

"If you just want to kill things, play D&D."

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.




From m0ng005e@*********.com Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:08:21 -0500
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:08:21 -0500
From: Mong
Message no. 5
From: Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:34:32 +0200
Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> Griffin writes:
> > If it's really of any interest, I designed a fission engine
> > when I was
> > 8.
>
> Did you manage to solve the problem of spreading radioactive waste via your
> exhaust? And what was the thrust-to-weight ratio?
>
> --
> .sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

I would eliminate the first problem by using something very similar to
what is used in nuclear submarines, or nuclear power plants - You have a
controlled fission reactor heating your reaction mass (which could be
plain old water) to boiling point and release the steam out the back. A
steam powered space ship!

Oh, this is not an original idea, I first saw it in Arthur Clarke
novels.
--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com
Wandata

"Freedom is the ability to choose your own restrictions"




From Sven.DeHerdt@***********.be Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:01:51 +0200
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:01:51 +0200
Fro
Message no. 6
From: cmpetro@*********.com cmpetro@*********.com
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 07:56:53 -0500
>Robert Watkins wrote:
>>
>> Griffin writes:
>> > If it's really of any interest, I designed a fission engine
>> > when I was
>> > 8.
>>
>> Did you manage to solve the problem of spreading radioactive waste via
your
>> exhaust? And what was the thrust-to-weight ratio?
>>

>I would eliminate the first problem by using something very similar to
>what is used in nuclear submarines, or nuclear power plants - You have a
>controlled fission reactor heating your reaction mass (which could be
>plain old water) to boiling point and release the steam out the back. A
>steam powered space ship!

Can you say Particle Engine......I thought you could.








From zydev@****.netlink.se Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:18:41 +0200
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:18:41 +0200
From: Ron
Message no. 7
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:10:09 -0700
I've got Alcubierre's paper sitting right here in my office. I'll look for
Van Den Broeck's paper when it comes out.

Alcubierre's concept (and therefore Van Den Broeck's modification) still
rests upon the idea that the Weak, Strong, and Dominant Energy Conditions
are violated. In addition, it requires the use of exotic matter -- matter
with negative energy density. The only known way to get such right now is
via the Casimir effect. I'll be interested to see what his tweaks to the
Cosmological Contant are ...

>Warp engines may be more likely than thought...
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_364000/364496.stm

> /\\\ Robert Watkins | email: rwatkins@******.com
--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu




From iscottw@*****.nb.ca Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:10:37 -0300
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:10:37 -0300
From: Scott Whe
Message no. 8
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:14:28 -0700
>I would eliminate the first problem by using something very similar to
>what is used in nuclear submarines, or nuclear power plants - You have a
>controlled fission reactor heating your reaction mass (which could be
>plain old water) to boiling point and release the steam out the back. A
>steam powered space ship!

That doesn't solve the problem. You still have serious neutron bombardment
in your reactor core, which affects both the powerplant and propellant.
Thus, using steam still results in a radioactive exhaust plume.

Second, the specific impulse of a rocket depends upon the exhaust velocity.
A steam-powered rocket would have very low specific impulse. Better to wait
for higher velocities such as plasma and/or ion sources. In that case, the
shielding necessary for a fission rocket works against the design by
requiring more mass than a fusion, ion, or antimatter design.

>Allen Versfeld

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu




From m0ng005e@*********.com Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:50:59 -0500
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:50:59 -0500
From: Mongoo
Message no. 9
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:54:29 EDT
In a message dated 6/10/1999 7:14:23 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
acgetchell@*******.edu writes:

>
> Second, the specific impulse of a rocket depends upon the exhaust velocity.
> A steam-powered rocket would have very low specific impulse. Better to wait
> for higher velocities such as plasma and/or ion sources. In that case, the
> shielding necessary for a fission rocket works against the design by
> requiring more mass than a fusion, ion, or antimatter design.

Adam, a serious question on my part, as this topic very specifically
interests me. With the consideration of higher velocity expression of plasma
and/or ion sources, I thought that the relative mass of the
expulsion/propellant was also a factor as well?

Help?

-K




From dvixen@****.com Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:11:20 -0700
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:11:20 -0700
From: Dvixen dvixen
Message no. 10
From: A Halliwell u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:15:19 +0100 (BST)
And verily, didst Adam Getchell hastily scribble thusly...
|with negative energy density. The only known way to get such right now is
|via the Casimir effect. I'll be interested to see what his tweaks to the
|Cosmological Contant are ...

What's the Casimir effect?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |




From renouf@********.com Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:08:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:08:45 -0400 (EDT)
From
Message no. 11
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:27:22 -0700
>Adam, a serious question on my part, as this topic very specifically
>interests me. With the consideration of higher velocity expression of plasma
>and/or ion sources, I thought that the relative mass of the
>expulsion/propellant was also a factor as well?

First, here's an analysis of Nuclear-Heated Steam Rockets Using Lunar Ice:

http://www.neofuel.com/moonicerocket/

Specific impulse which defined as the thrust produced by an engine divided
by its fuel consumption, measured in seconds. It is a measure of efficiency
of the engine/propellant: a specific impulse of 300 seconds can be thought
of as one pound of propellant producing one pound of thrust for 300 seconds.

To answer your question, classic formulations of rocket fuel efficiency are
usually proportional to exp (v1/V), where v1 is the exhaust velocity and V
is the mission velocity, which is defined as the aggregate total changes in
velocity to achieve a specific mission.

For example, the mission velocity to get into Earth orbit is ~11 km/s,
while the mission velocity to get to Saturn is ~29 km/s. This is derived
using a Hohman transfer, which is the most efficient (ie least energy)
means of changing orbits in classical dynamics.

Thus, in the classic analysis, the exhaust velocity of the fuel determines
the important parameters such as tankage of fuel, ETA, etc. Specific
impulse, given above, is usually maximized as it is effectively the per
unit energy in a fuel. A really good primer on this is included in Robert
L. Forward's book "Mirror Matter", which discusses using antimatter as a
rocket fuel (vice propellant). In his book, for example, he makes the case
that antimatter is the ideal rocket fuel because it has no limitations on
specific impulse, hence one can reach the ideal ratio (from the equation
above) of about 4:1. That is, one can reach anywhere (unlimited mission
velocity) with four tons of propellant per pound of payload provided one
can have unlimited exhaust velocity.

Dr. Forward also has some declassified papers he's written on the subject
(which I have), or, if you want instant gratification, visit:

http://www-tradoc.army.mil/dcscd/spaceweb/chap6im.htm

I prefer the idea of an antimatter rocket. Especially in that, if the
tankage carried is hydrogen, then one has effectively unlimited fuel for a
fusion reactor; the byproduct plasma stream could then be vented as exhaust
giving a dual-cycle antimatter/fusion rocket/reactor.

There's also an alternate formulation concerning efficiency and specific
impulse at: http://www.neofuel.com/optimum/ I haven't gone through the
derivations or number yet, so I don't know that I believe it, but it gives
the surprising conclusion that rather than maximize specific impulse one
should find an intermediate value. The paper however does not minimize
total fuel tankage carried (he assumes free availability of Lunar ice and
starting the rocket from orbit), so it really is a different analysis than
the one I gave above. Zuppero's analysis, though, favors steam or other
intermediate value fuels.

>-K

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 12
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:36:05 -0700
>What's the Casimir effect?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/casimir.html

Essentially, the Casimir effect arises from virtual particle pairs (as
allowed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle) which are still
constrained to normal modes in the presence of a conducting gap (e.g.
spherical capacitor).

Since the density of virtual particle in the gap is less (only normal mode
particles allowed) compared to the "vacuum", one can derive from the
Einstein Stress-Energy tensor that the gap has a negative energy density.

In current parlance, negative energy density = exotic matter, a vital
component for such things as wormholes or the Alcubierre space warp.

A problem which is of great interest to me at the moment ...

>| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 13
From: Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:07:45 +0200
Adam Getchell wrote:
>
> >I would eliminate the first problem by using something very similar to
> >what is used in nuclear submarines, or nuclear power plants - You have a
> >controlled fission reactor heating your reaction mass (which could be
> >plain old water) to boiling point and release the steam out the back. A
> >steam powered space ship!
>
> That doesn't solve the problem. You still have serious neutron bombardment
> in your reactor core, which affects both the powerplant and propellant.
> Thus, using steam still results in a radioactive exhaust plume.
>

<acting like typical male who has academic background - taking a stand
on a topic that he has no real understanding of>
Can't the neutrons be controlled in the same way as in a nuclear power
plant?
</acting like typical etc>

But how exactly does neutron bombardment affect propellant and reactor
core? What are the effects?
And so what about a radioactive plume (apart from severely pissing off
radio astronomers)? In Space, No-one can hear you Pollute


> Second, the specific impulse of a rocket depends upon the exhaust velocity.
> A steam-powered rocket would have very low specific impulse. Better to wait
> for higher velocities such as plasma and/or ion sources. In that case, the
> shielding necessary for a fission rocket works against the design by
> requiring more mass than a fusion, ion, or antimatter design.
>

I suggested water purely because it's so cheap, and readily available.
It's not like we're ever likely to run out of the stuff. Also, the
original idea (which I poached) was to use a cold fusion reaction to
boil the reactant. I don't know much about cold fusion (except that
there is apparently no such thing - something about a chemical effect
being interpreted as a fusion reaction at below 1000 degrees...
Conspiracies have been mentioned) but I would think that it would
require minimal shielding, which means a low mass, which in turns means
that weaker engines aren't such a big deal. Besides, in space travel,
you don't necessarily need (or want) a high accelaration once you've
'escaped' from your gravity well. Just maintain it for long enough.

>
> --Adam
>
> acgetchell@*******.edu
> "Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu


--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com
Wandata

"Freedom is the ability to choose your own restrictions"
Message no. 14
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:01:32 +1000
> > That doesn't solve the problem. You still have serious neutron
> bombardment
> > in your reactor core, which affects both the powerplant and propellant.
> > Thus, using steam still results in a radioactive exhaust plume.
> >
>
> <acting like typical male who has academic background - taking a stand
> on a topic that he has no real understanding of>
> Can't the neutrons be controlled in the same way as in a nuclear power
> plant?
> </acting like typical etc>

Nope... without neutron bombardment, you don't get a nuclear reaction. All
you do in controlling it in a nuclear power plant is reduce the amount of
neutron bombardment... you don't stop it.

> But how exactly does neutron bombardment affect propellant and reactor
> core? What are the effects?

It makes it radioactive, by adding extra neutrons to some of the atoms
involved. Using water as your coolant/propellant, you'll get heavy water out
the other end. This can be solved to a degree by using a secondary exchange
(the way nuclear power plants do it, as they end up releasing the steam),
but that's more mass, and in a vehicle, mass is a bad thing.


> And so what about a radioactive plume (apart from severely pissing off
> radio astronomers)? In Space, No-one can hear you Pollute

Well, that's assuming it's in space. But that means you can't enter an
atmosphere, so you're back to expensive chemical fuels for atmospheric
flight. And besides pissing off radio astronomers, it also wrecks your
radar, your radio, and leaves a trail for people to track you down via.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 15
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:44:18 -0500
:> Second, the specific impulse of a rocket depends upon the exhaust
velocity.
:> A steam-powered rocket would have very low specific impulse. Better to
wait
:> for higher velocities such as plasma and/or ion sources. In that case,
the
:> shielding necessary for a fission rocket works against the design by
:> requiring more mass than a fusion, ion, or antimatter design.
:>
:
:I suggested water purely because it's so cheap, and readily available.
:It's not like we're ever likely to run out of the stuff. Also, the
:original idea (which I poached) was to use a cold fusion reaction to
:boil the reactant. I don't know much about cold fusion (except that
:there is apparently no such thing - something about a chemical effect
:being interpreted as a fusion reaction at below 1000 degrees...

1000 degrees is pitifully cold for rocket exhaust, I think. The
"chemical" effect you are likely reffering to is "muon catalized
fusion",
wherin a heavy, negatively charged muon replaces a light electron in a
hydrogen molecule. The resulting quasi-molecule has the nuclei close enough
together that fusion can occur. It happens, its just not a likely route ot
break-even fusion, since the muons are not really stable or naturally
produced by the reaction.

:Conspiracies have been mentioned) but I would think that it would
:require minimal shielding, which means a low mass, which in turns means
:that weaker engines aren't such a big deal. Besides, in space travel,
:you don't necessarily need (or want) a high accelaration once you've
:'escaped' from your gravity well. Just maintain it for long enough.


You do NEED a high exhaust velocity (in this case, temp), however,
because it directly corresponds to effeciency and max speed. High exhaust
velocity is not so much about acceleration, as being able to get there with
fuel left and before you run out of food and air.

Mongoose
Message no. 16
From: Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:44:05 +0200
Mongoose wrote:

> "chemical" effect you are likely reffering to is "muon catalized
fusion",
> wherin a heavy, negatively charged muon replaces a light electron in a

OK - I give up. What's a muon? (preferably with more detail than: It's
a subatomic particle)

>
> Mongoose


--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com
Wandata

"Freedom is the ability to choose your own restrictions"
Message no. 17
From: Graht Graht@**********.worldnet.att.net
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:58:45 -0500
Allen Versfeld wrote:
/Mongoose wrote:
/
/> "chemical" effect you are likely reffering to is "muon catalized
fusion",
/> wherin a heavy, negatively charged muon replaces a light electron in a
/
/OK - I give up. What's a muon? (preferably with more detail than: It's
/a subatomic particle)

It's a live cow (where as a muoff would be a dead cow).

;)

Sorry. I actually have no idea what a muon is.

-Graht
--
ShadowRN GridSec
The ShadowRN FAQ: http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3
Geek Code: GCS d-( ) s++:->+ a@ C++>$ US P L >++ E? W++>+++ !N o-- K-
w+ o? M- VMS? PS+(++) PE+(++) Y+ !PGP t+(++) 5+(++) X++(+++) R+>$ tv+b++ DI++++
D+(++) G e+>+++ h--->---- r+++ y+++
http://home.att.net/~Graht
"The battles that count aren't the ones for gold medals.
The struggles within yourself; the invisible, inevitable
battles inside all of us; that's where it's at."
-Jesse Owens
Message no. 18
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:15:18 +0100
In article <4.1.19990617155746.009499e0@**********.worldnet.att.net>,
Graht <Graht@**********.worldnet.att.net> writes
>Allen Versfeld wrote:
>/OK - I give up. What's a muon? (preferably with more detail than: It's
>/a subatomic particle)
>
>Sorry. I actually have no idea what a muon is.

It's similar to an electron but heavier, and unstable. Can't recall what it
decays to, though.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 19
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought...
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:37:45 -0500
:Mongoose wrote:
:
:> "chemical" effect you are likely reffering to is "muon catalized
fusion",
:> wherin a heavy, negatively charged muon replaces a light electron in a
:
:OK - I give up. What's a muon? (preferably with more detail than: It's
:a subatomic particle)

:Allen Versfeld

Its, um, a sub atomic particle. :)
I really don't know much more; I'm going on info from a Scientific
American article I read maybe 10 years ago, in a an issue that was already
old.
I do recall it had a mass about 1-200 time that of an electron, was
found in positive, negative, and neutral (?) varieties, and had a short
lifespan (but not so short as to make it "exotic").
I don't recall where they come from- they might be a short lived by
product of the decay of radioactive helium, as I seem to recall the
catalyzed reaction was (theoretically) self sustaining, if the reactions
could be made to happen quickly enough. I think the problem basically was,
most electron muons decay before lasting long enough to catalyze hydrogen
fusion.
Strangely enough, one proposed solution was to use a metallic catalyst
to get hydrogen in a dense, closely packed array, so that any muon that DID
last long enough would not waste time floating around free...

Mongoose

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Life is more like Star Trek than we thought..., you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!