|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Oct 14, 2018 8:52:15 GMT
How can that even work? Planet atmosphere is so different to a laser pump. Does the infrastructure require will turn the red planet into a death star? Ask the person themselves, I just heard it from them and wanted to share Venus has more CO 2. Pretty much 80 atmospheres worth of it.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixzix on Oct 25, 2018 5:55:08 GMT
Uhh,Kugelblitz anyone?
Quoting from Wikipedia: “Black holes seem to have a sweet spot in terms of size, power and lifespan which is almost ideal. A black hole weighing 606,000 metric tons (6.06 × 108 kg) would have a Schwarzschild radius of 0.9 attometers (0.9 × 10–18 m, or 9 × 10–19 m), a power output of 160 petawatts (160 × 1015 W, or 1.6 × 1017 W), and a 3.5-year lifespan. With such a power output, the black hole could accelerate to 10% the speed of light in 20 days, assuming 100% conversion of energy into kinetic energy. Assuming only 10% conversion into kinetic energy would only take 10 times longer to accelerate to 0.1c (10% of the speed of light).”
And we just have to deal with the confinement problem.......
|
|
|
Post by airc777 on Oct 25, 2018 10:32:02 GMT
Primary problem with Kugelblitz if I understand them correctly is the engineering hurtle of building a particle accelerator that can actually construct a 606k metric ton black hole, but yeah black hole star ships are cool.
|
|
|
Post by treptoplax on Oct 25, 2018 11:34:03 GMT
Uhh,Kugelblitz anyone? Quoting from Wikipedia: “Black holes seem to have a sweet spot in terms of size, power and lifespan which is almost ideal. A black hole weighing 606,000 metric tons (6.06 × 108 kg) would have a Schwarzschild radius of 0.9 attometers (0.9 × 10–18 m, or 9 × 10–19 m), a power output of 160 petawatts (160 × 1015 W, or 1.6 × 1017 W), and a 3.5-year lifespan. With such a power output, the black hole could accelerate to 10% the speed of light in 20 days, assuming 100% conversion of energy into kinetic energy. Assuming only 10% conversion into kinetic energy would only take 10 times longer to accelerate to 0.1c (10% of the speed of light).” And we just have to deal with the confinement problem....... Well, black holes do have charge, so I think you can "just" dump a bunch of charged particles in and manipulate it with electrostatic forces.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Oct 26, 2018 15:08:43 GMT
Uhh,Kugelblitz anyone? Quoting from Wikipedia: “Black holes seem to have a sweet spot in terms of size, power and lifespan which is almost ideal. A black hole weighing 606,000 metric tons (6.06 × 108 kg) would have a Schwarzschild radius of 0.9 attometers (0.9 × 10–18 m, or 9 × 10–19 m), a power output of 160 petawatts (160 × 1015 W, or 1.6 × 1017 W), and a 3.5-year lifespan. With such a power output, the black hole could accelerate to 10% the speed of light in 20 days, assuming 100% conversion of energy into kinetic energy. Assuming only 10% conversion into kinetic energy would only take 10 times longer to accelerate to 0.1c (10% of the speed of light).” And we just have to deal with the confinement problem....... The keyword being "just". Also, assuming 10% conversion, you now have 144PW of waste heat on your hands. I think it's commonly referred to as "hot potato" - one hell of a hot potato in this particular case.
A cool thing about miniature black holes is that they are effectively total conversion machines antimatter engines want to be, without many of their problems.
BTW: What happens with the charge when a charged BH evaporates?
|
|
|
Post by phoenixzix on Oct 27, 2018 13:28:07 GMT
Uhh,Kugelblitz anyone? Quoting from Wikipedia: “Black holes seem to have a sweet spot in terms of size, power and lifespan which is almost ideal. A black hole weighing 606,000 metric tons (6.06 × 108 kg) would have a Schwarzschild radius of 0.9 attometers (0.9 × 10–18 m, or 9 × 10–19 m), a power output of 160 petawatts (160 × 1015 W, or 1.6 × 1017 W), and a 3.5-year lifespan. With such a power output, the black hole could accelerate to 10% the speed of light in 20 days, assuming 100% conversion of energy into kinetic energy. Assuming only 10% conversion into kinetic energy would only take 10 times longer to accelerate to 0.1c (10% of the speed of light).” And we just have to deal with the confinement problem....... The keyword being "just". Also, assuming 10% conversion, you now have 144PW of waste heat on your hands. I think it's commonly referred to as "hot potato" - one hell of a hot potato in this particular case.
A cool thing about miniature black holes is that they are effectively total conversion machines antimatter engines want to be, without many of their problems.
BTW: What happens with the charge when a charged BH evaporates? Uhm, looking up the shaddy reference of wikipedia, it seems like a recent BIS journal paper analyzed the conversion problem and found that, the problem was getting that much energy captured in the first place, aka current material have really bad capture ratio at the wavelength that blackhole is radiating at. that it can't even capture that much to melt it self. The resulting propulsive efficiency is really ugly. Tho i pretty liked it being a total-conversion machine.........nothing else comes close. Too sad but can't complain, the universe as it is, nothing that powerful is easy. Also, the paper i read, they carefully avoided mentioning the end-of-life problem, and one that did tentatively talked about jettisoning it to someplace very far so hopefully the explosion will end up like a "bright flash in the sky", (i'd be more worried about the radiation aftereffects, tho) And None of them talk about what if it got lose and swallowed Earth or something for an obvious reason. Overall, i guess this was a nice try (like the Bussard Ramjet) but it got to nothing (like the Bussard Ramjet).
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Oct 27, 2018 14:20:57 GMT
The keyword being "just". Also, assuming 10% conversion, you now have 144PW of waste heat on your hands. I think it's commonly referred to as "hot potato" - one hell of a hot potato in this particular case.
A cool thing about miniature black holes is that they are effectively total conversion machines antimatter engines want to be, without many of their problems.
BTW: What happens with the charge when a charged BH evaporates? Uhm, looking up the shaddy reference of wikipedia, it seems like a recent BIS journal paper analyzed the conversion problem and found that, the problem was getting that much energy captured in the first place, aka current material have really bad capture ratio at the wavelength that blackhole is radiating at. that it can't even capture that much to melt it self. The resulting propulsive efficiency is really ugly. Tho i pretty liked it being a total-conversion machine.........nothing else comes close. Too sad but can't complain, the universe as it is, nothing that powerful is easy. Also, the paper i read, they carefully avoided mentioning the end-of-life problem, and one that did tentatively talked about jettisoning it to someplace very far so hopefully the explosion will end up like a "bright flash in the sky", (i'd be more worried about the radiation aftereffects, tho) And None of them talk about what if it got lose and swallowed Earth or something for an obvious reason. Overall, i guess this was a nice try (like the Bussard Ramjet) but it got to nothing (like the Bussard Ramjet). I think the main idea is to avoid end of life by feeding your BH matter to keep it steady state. Otherwise you not only have end of life issues, but your BH will dramatically change its radiative power and characteristics as it sheds mass.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Apr 20, 2019 16:01:33 GMT
BTW: What happens with the charge when a charged BH evaporates? Something interesting has just occurred to me:
Given that BH effective temperature (and thus radiation spectrum) is a function of mass and that electric charge is going to be one of the few properties of BH that remains externally observable, wouldn't it be possible to feed a charged BH to keep it at right mass and charge, so that it preferentially spews out antimatter via pair production (gleefully violating baryon number and all that)?
We might be able to construct a magic mirror, after all.
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Apr 23, 2019 22:26:59 GMT
I've read somewhere that a charged black hole loses its charge through its Hawking radiation, but I don't see why this would imply antimatter production. Why can't it simply emit more/less protons than electrons?
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Apr 23, 2019 22:33:23 GMT
I've read somewhere that a charged black hole loses its charge through its Hawking radiation, but I don't see why this would imply antimatter production. Why can't it simply emit more/less protons than electrons? Shouldn't masses/energies of predominantly produced particle pairs depend on peak photon energies, that in turn depend on temperature, which in turn depends on BH's mass?
(I fully expect someone more knowledgable to prove me wrong and explain why exactly I can't have my antimatter making mirror. )
|
|
|
Post by airc777 on Apr 24, 2019 19:51:30 GMT
So I know the black hole as a whole is very energetic, but how energetic are the individual particles coming out of this thing? Also, how much mass per year does this thing lose initially?
Or, a better line of questioning I guess would be I know it would take a colossal particle accelerator and colossal energy to compact 606k metric tons in order to build these things in the first place, but how much particle accelerator and how much energy would it take to continuously feed one that's already been built?
Would the black hole starship be able to move it's own refueler, or would it be too massive? What about the mass of the Stirling engine and radiators you would use to turn the waste heat into usable energy to power the refueler, or whatever other energy recovery process you would use?
Would it matter if the blackhole had a spin? Would it be potentially easier if the blackhole had a strong enough spin to have defined poles? If it had defined poles could you electromagnetically manipulate it to face a new orientation?
If 606k metric tons is the ideal mass but for whatever application you needed more energy output could you build closely stably orbiting clusters and use some sort of electromagnetic process to station keep them?
|
|
|
Post by airc777 on May 4, 2019 0:57:55 GMT
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAocMzxPjjoIssac Arthur did a black hole propulsion video recently.
Edit: So he answered many of my questions from the above post. Most significantly you would need to feed Hawking drives mass on the order of kilograms per year to maintain them and assuming a mass-less ship you can expect about 1/10th G of acceleration.
|
|