From: [email removed] (Stephen D Smith)
Organization: personal mailbox at The Next Challenge
Here's more from Scott:
Stephen D Smith USENET: [email removed]
BIX: sdsmith
*********************************************************
I have no access to e-mail so you will not be able to
reach me very easily and there will be long gaps between
my having access to any comments to any designs or ideas
you might have but I would appreciate it
Scott Kellogg [phone removed]
[address removed]
*********************************************************
Designers notes. OK, folks are you ready for the next design
rules controversy? Robert Dean recently sent a design for a TL8
aircraft carrier. In his notes he suggests that the fuel consumption
for a fission reactor is not per hour as printed but per year. This
started the wheels turning (Very dangerous when applied to Scott
Kellogg). There is indeed something dreadfully wrong with the fission
fuel consumption figure. The U.S.S. Nautilus's (first atomic sub)
reactor had an output of approximately 11Mw. It was refueled
approximately every two years. I calculate that the reactor would
consume about four times the weight of the sub in that period of time.
If we take it that Robert is correct and it would consume the
listed figure per year sounds much better. But, this means that the
energy density of fission is greater than that of the fuel for fusion,
and we know that fusion is more powerful than fission. Megatrav
fusion
plants therefore must be EXTREMELY ineffiecient in their fuel
consumption. This may be because of the fact that fusion reactors
would be very inefficient burning hydrogen. So, maybe they aren't
burning hydrogen after all... Now don't get in an uproar, I mean they
are probably burning only the deuterium that can be found in hydrogen.
This sort of begs the question, what if I fill my tanks with only
deuterium? I don't know offhand what the proportion of deuterium to
hydrogen is 1 in 100? one in 1000? Probably 100 is underestimating it.
But, it is a safe side estimate. So fill your tanks with deuterium
and
you'll get a hundred fold improvement in fuel economy. It would
certainly be expensive, but deuterium enriched fuel ought to
be available at military bases at least... At High Prices!
In any case I began pondering the idea of fission powered
starships. Here are a few for your perusal.
Actually, one original idea did come to me on the subject of
nuclear dampers. Essentually, they work by shortening the halflife of
a radioactive element. Conservation of energy says the energy will
have to be released anyway.
So what happens when you focus your damper on a fission pile? All the
nuclei start splitting (fissioning?: verb form of fission?) at a much
faster rate and so you increase the output of your pile.
This gets into another question I have: the disintigrator: A
souped up damper which splits the nucleii of its targets. What about
the mass difference and good old E=MC^2? Of course the mass
difference
would be less if you dissintigrated a person rather than a few kilos
of enriched Uranium, but the basic problem is still the same. I would
think that the amount of energy released by the matter conversion
would
be more destructive than the effect of the disintigrator in the first
place, and would release a hell of a lot of radiation. What GDW has
described as a disintigrator is more like a partial conversion beam.
Scott Kellogg
P.S. Being unemployed is boring, but I get to work on Trav designs a
lot.
Anybody need an out of work Physicist/Lab Tech/Student Pilot/All
around
nice guy?
Call Now![phone removed]
Scout/Courier TL11, Fission Powered
CraftID: Scout/Courier Type SN, TL11, MCr 51.966019
Hull: (90/225) Disp=100, Config=1SL, Armor=40E, Unload=2569.867,
Load=3063.5475
Power: (15/30) 440.44Mw Fission, Dur=1yr
Loco: (5/10), Manuver=2G, (3/6) Jump=2, Agility=0 NOE=150,
Cruise=750kph, Top=1000kph,
Commo: Radio=System
Sensors: A-EMS=FarOrb, P-EMS=Interstel, Densitometer=1m,
Neutrino=1Gw
ActObjScn=Rout, ActObjPin=Rout,
PasObjScn=Form, PasObjPin=Form,
PasEngScn=Rout, PasEngPin=Form
Off/Def: HPoints=1, DefDM=+2
Control: Computer=1bis*3, HUD*4, DynLink=134
Accom: Crew=1, Staterooms=4, Env=Basic Env, Basic is, Extend is,
Inertial Comp, Grav Plate, Subcraft=Air/Raft
Other: Cargo=373.5, Fuel=202.5Kl Hydrogen, Scoops=45min, Fuel
Pure=5hr45min, 440.44liters Fissionables, ObjSize=Avg,
EMlevel=Faint
Remarks: At high tech, improvements in fusion technology will
probably outstrip good old fission, but at lower tech...
Scott Kellogg
Scout/Courier TL11
CraftID: Scout/Courier Type S, TL11, MCr 75.330889
Hull: (90/225) Disp=100, Config=1SL, Armor=40E, Unload=1084.0707,
Load=1562.1985
Power: (5/10) 431.4Mw Fusion, Dur=30/90
Loco: (5/10), Manuver=2G, (3/6) Jump=2, Agility=0 NOE=150,
Cruise=750kph, Top=1000kph,
Commo: Radio=System
Sensors: A-EMS=FarOrb, P-EMS=Interstel, Densitometer=1m,
Neutrino=1Gw
ActObjScn=Rout, ActObjPin=Rout,
PasObjScn=Form, PasObjPin=Form,
PasEngScn=Rout, PasEngPin=Form
Off/Def: HPoints=1, DefDM=+2
Control: Computer=1bis*3, HUD*4, DynLink=134
Accom: Crew=1, Staterooms=4, Env=Basic Env, Basic is, Extend is,
Inertial Comp, Grav Plate, Subcraft=Air/Raft
Other: Cargo=358.0815, Fuel=357.804Kl Hydrogen, Scoops=80min,
Fuel
Pure=10hr10min, ObjSize=Avg, EMlevel=Faint
Remarks: Standard low tech scout for comparason to equal tech level
fissionpowered version
Scott Kellogg
*****End Part 6*****
- - --Name = STEPHEN SMITH Mailbox # = 68