|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 10, 2017 3:48:07 GMT
Can you actually dodge KKV and missiles with 3g on a main warship? I tried doing that, but my higher performance KKV and missiles don't seem to miss very often, even with major combat burns. I opted for ~0.5g-1g on warships and just focused on shooting down the missiles and KKVs before they get to me. At extreme range (using ignore range firing, ofc), coilgun launched warheads seem to need a huge amount of correction to hit. With some acceleration, they're quite dodgeable. Qswitched has a huge aversion to it [citation needed] I have your citation right here.
|
|
|
Post by lawson on Jan 10, 2017 5:46:05 GMT
I propose Sodium as an alternative fuel because it puts out yellow flames /s Sodium is the only way I've found to make a "good" MPD thruster that uses 100Kw. 28km/s 3.7N 100Kw MPD.It also works half-way well in a resistojet. Gets 3.20Km/s exhaust velocity. Too bad Sodium is less dense than Decane.
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Jan 10, 2017 6:16:50 GMT
I propose Sodium as an alternative fuel because it puts out yellow flames /s Sodium is the only way I've found to make a "good" MPD thruster that uses 100Kw. 28km/s 3.7N 100Kw MPD.It also works half-way well in a resistojet. Gets 3.20Km/s exhaust velocity. Too bad Sodium is less dense than Decane. You can use literally any fuel for MPDs the amount of "good" of the thruster is just what you want. If you need cheap fuel neon, high exhaust velocity hydrogen, high thrust mercury (or xenon). There are also two performance bands slow fuel injection rate with the highest possible current before onset phenomenon will yield high exhaust velocity with lower thrust. The other end of the efficiency band (coming from more injection speed) will yield more thrust but lower exhaust velocities for the same power input.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 10, 2017 6:41:44 GMT
52.3% efficiency, my soul hurts.
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Jan 10, 2017 19:42:09 GMT
I am completely lost on MPD design, so sorry if there's an obvious answer to this: is there a direct correlation between the power requirements of the MPD and its efficiency, or can you achieve 100% efficiency with even a low-powered MPD with the appropriate propellant flow rates and dimensions?
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jan 10, 2017 20:20:05 GMT
I am completely lost on MPD design, so sorry if there's an obvious answer to this: is there a direct correlation between the power requirements of the MPD and its efficiency, or can you achieve 100% efficiency with even a low-powered MPD with the appropriate propellant flow rates and dimensions? At small scales thruster diameter seems to be more important and at larger ones anode size becomes more relevant. Some happy medium between those seems to be the best solution. Just my own experience though, I bet someone else will have better advice.
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Jan 10, 2017 21:34:27 GMT
You can't do much better at low power (for neon 52.4% is the highest that reads 100kw (but it is rounded down and doesn't actually work with a 100kw powerplant, 52.3% is slightly rounded up to 100kw). There is a minimum reserved amount of power for ionizing the propellant into plasma (see the voltage pie chart). The more power dumped into the MPD the higher the efficiency will be as proportionally the amount to ionize the propellant becomes less. You can never reach a true 100% you can get 99.9999% to the point that it rounds up on the stats as the ionization energy becomes nearly irrelevant compared to the total output power of the system. Low energy MPDs are inefficient because the ratio of ionization energy required to thrust provided is much lower.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Jan 11, 2017 1:40:46 GMT
I am completely lost on MPD design, so sorry if there's an obvious answer to this: is there a direct correlation between the power requirements of the MPD and its efficiency, or can you achieve 100% efficiency with even a low-powered MPD with the appropriate propellant flow rates and dimensions? depends what you need really, arguably the only universal is more power=better thruster, otherwise it is like allot of engines. For example i had a set size and needed to double my engine power so i doubled my Anode size, it also doubled my power requirements but otherwise everything else(thrust, Dv, exhaust velocity etc.) Went up by at least a third.
|
|
|
Post by n2maniac on Jan 12, 2017 5:17:48 GMT
Decane, because somehow it has good power to thrust ratio in resistojet as well as a good exhaust speed (6.15 kmps) I suspect Decane decomposes in a high power resistojet to other hydrocarbons, before they decompose as well, increasing thrust/fuel weight ratio. Of course, then other complex hydrocarbons should have good resistojet performance. I had gone through the math before and am convinced the decomposition energy is either neglected or added. It is heated, and then suddenly its molar volume explodes without needing great heat input, and its thrust efficiency for a hot output greatly exceeds 100%. Something is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 12, 2017 6:36:36 GMT
*shrug* My NTR/Resistojets generate vast amounts of heat.
|
|