|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 4, 2017 11:51:00 GMT
After a long break, I finally found some random thing to add! Quark reaction! The utter impossibility of it won't stop us from doing it! Elements.txt Element Bottom Quark
Symbol Qb
AtomicMass 1
AtomicNumber 1
MolarMass_g__mol 4.488265
IsANonmetal true
FirstIonizationEnergy_kJ__mol 1312.0
MicroscopicThermalNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b .294
MicroscopicThermalNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 28.966
MicroscopicFastNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 3.96e-5
MicroscopicFastNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 3.99
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralCaptureCrossSection_b .149
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralScatteringCrossSection_b 240.23
SolarAbundance 1e-12
Emission HydrogenIons.txt Material Bottom Quark (Reactant)
Elements Qb
ElementCount 1
Density_kg__m3 150
EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 20165433870
BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 0
GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 203.3
BulkModulus_GPa .1130
MeltingPoint_K 0
BoilingPoint_K 0
SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 20636.15
ThermalConductivity_W__m_K 1815
Viscosity_Pa_s 8.76e-6
RelativePermeability .9999999751
DielectricStrength_MV__m 1.95
RefractiveIndex Hydrogen
Material Bottom Quark (Product)
Elements Qb
ElementCount 1
Density_kg__m3 150
EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 13507946133
BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 0
GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 203.3
BulkModulus_GPa .1130
MeltingPoint_K 0
BoilingPoint_K 0
SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 20636.15
ThermalConductivity_W__m_K 1815
Viscosity_Pa_s 8.76e-6
RelativePermeability .9999999751
DielectricStrength_MV__m 1.95
RefractiveIndex HydrogenChemicalReactions.txt ChemicalReaction Quarksplosion Bottom Quark
Reactants Bottom Quark (Reactant)
ReactantCounts 2
Products Bottom Quark (Product)
ProductCounts 2
ActivationEnergy_kJ__mol 0
AutoignitionTemperature_K 1000000000
CharacteristicLength_m 100Is that supposed to bottom quark fusion? 138MeV for two 4.2 GeV particles doesn't sounds that awesome. Four-ton fusion gives of 26.7MeV for 3.8 GeV of particles. This one requires no power to activate. In fact, if we'd ever be able to keep them around, you probably need some power to keep them from reacting, if they don't decay into either up or strange quark. It's utter impossibility, but it's fun to make. Fun fact: This quark is heavier than a helium atom. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 4, 2017 12:08:32 GMT
Is that supposed to bottom quark fusion? 138MeV for two 4.2 GeV particles doesn't sounds that awesome. Four-ton fusion gives of 26.7MeV for 3.8 GeV of particles. This one requires no power to activate. In fact, if we'd ever be able to keep them around, you probably need some power to keep them from reacting, if they don't decay into either up or strange quark. It's utter impossibility, but it's fun to make. Fun fact: This quark is heavier than a helium atom. Some power? Apparently they fuse when they as soon as they see the electromagnetic wave function of another fellow bottom quark. Pretty much antimatter, but worse, needs particle accelerators to be produced, decays within a picosecond and you have to separate every single bottom quark. While producing 60x less energy than annihilation. |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 4, 2017 12:22:39 GMT
This one requires no power to activate. In fact, if we'd ever be able to keep them around, you probably need some power to keep them from reacting, if they don't decay into either up or strange quark. It's utter impossibility, but it's fun to make. Fun fact: This quark is heavier than a helium atom. Some power? Apparently they fuse when they as soon as they see the electromagnetic wave function of another fellow bottom quark. Pretty much antimatter, but worse, needs particle accelerators to be produced, decays within a picosecond and you have to separate every single bottom quark. While producing 60x less energy than annihilation. I see, thanks for the information. Of course this is pretty much for fun. I make what I want to make. It doesn't have to be plausible. In this case I just came across an article in a Science website and I think it's pretty interesting, and because I can code, I code. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 4, 2017 12:43:21 GMT
Some power? Apparently they fuse when they as soon as they see the electromagnetic wave function of another fellow bottom quark. Pretty much antimatter, but worse, needs particle accelerators to be produced, decays within a picosecond and you have to separate every single bottom quark. While producing 60x less energy than annihilation. I see, thanks for the information. Of course this is pretty much for fun. I make what I want to make. It doesn't have to be plausible. In this case I just came across an article in a Science website and I think it's pretty interesting, and because I can code, I code. I see, have you thought about implementing some exotic fuels from theoretical physics? |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 4, 2017 12:46:29 GMT
I see, thanks for the information. Of course this is pretty much for fun. I make what I want to make. It doesn't have to be plausible. In this case I just came across an article in a Science website and I think it's pretty interesting, and because I can code, I code. I see, have you thought about implementing some exotic fuels from theoretical physics? Yes, I'd be glad to know new information and implementing new types of exotic fuel, both plausible and implausible, good or bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 4, 2017 12:52:38 GMT
I see, have you thought about implementing some exotic fuels from theoretical physics? Yes, I'd be glad to know new information and implementing new types of exotic fuel, both plausible and implausible, good or bad. Huh, what you think of GUT Theory? It has a interesting candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 4, 2017 13:02:41 GMT
Yes, I'd be glad to know new information and implementing new types of exotic fuel, both plausible and implausible, good or bad. Huh, what you think of GUT Theory? It has a interesting candidate. What is that candidate? |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 4, 2017 13:12:35 GMT
Huh, what you think of GUT Theory? It has a interesting candidate. What is that candidate? GUT Monopoles, massing in at 1e16 GeV, they can catalyze proton decay. Proton + Monopole -> Neutral Pion + Positron + Monopole Neutron + Monopole -> Negative Pion + Positron + Monopole |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 4, 2017 13:20:36 GMT
GUT Monopoles, massing in at 1e16 GeV, they can catalyze proton decay. Proton + Monopole -> Neutral Pion + Positron + Monopole Neutron + Monopole -> Negative Pion + Positron + Monopole So, okay, I have the idea of what I want to do. Then, now where's the data? Do I have to write it up from thin air, or do you have any easy-to-understand paper? |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 4, 2017 13:31:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 4, 2017 14:02:17 GMT
As a legitimate noob in particle physics, I don't understand much other than its mass and the reaction. Please help me fill the form. Elements.txt Element 10e16 GeV Monopole
Symbol unxuhmP
AtomicMass 1
AtomicNumber 1
MolarMass_g__mol 1.073748e13
IsANonmetal true
FirstIonizationEnergy_kJ__mol 1312.0
MicroscopicThermalNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b .294
MicroscopicThermalNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 28.966
MicroscopicFastNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 3.96e-5
MicroscopicFastNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 3.99
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralCaptureCrossSection_b .149
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralScatteringCrossSection_b 240.23
SolarAbundance 1e-64
Emission HydrogenIons.txt Material 10e16 GeV Monopole
Elements unxuhmP
ElementCount 1
Density_kg__m3 150
EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 13507946133
BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 0
GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 203.3
BulkModulus_GPa .1130
MeltingPoint_K 0
BoilingPoint_K 0
SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 20636.15
ThermalConductivity_W__m_K 1815
Viscosity_Pa_s 8.76e-6
RelativePermeability .9999999751
DielectricStrength_MV__m 1.95
RefractiveIndex Hydrogen |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 4, 2017 14:15:52 GMT
As a legitimate noob in particle physics, I don't understand much other than its mass and the reaction. Please help me fill the form. Elements.txt Element 10e16 GeV Monopole
Symbol unxuhmP
AtomicMass 1
AtomicNumber 1
MolarMass_g__mol 1.073748e13
IsANonmetal true
FirstIonizationEnergy_kJ__mol 1312.0
MicroscopicThermalNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b .294
MicroscopicThermalNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 28.966
MicroscopicFastNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 3.96e-5
MicroscopicFastNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 3.99
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralCaptureCrossSection_b .149
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralScatteringCrossSection_b 240.23
SolarAbundance 1e-64
Emission HydrogenIons.txt Material 10e16 GeV Monopole
Elements unxuhmP
ElementCount 1
Density_kg__m3 150
EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 13507946133
BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 0
GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 203.3
BulkModulus_GPa .1130
MeltingPoint_K 0
BoilingPoint_K 0
SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 20636.15
ThermalConductivity_W__m_K 1815
Viscosity_Pa_s 8.76e-6
RelativePermeability .9999999751
DielectricStrength_MV__m 1.95
RefractiveIndex HydrogenWell the monopole is fine, it is just a "placeholder". Simply catalyzing reactions. Then you chose a reaction mass, preferably not hydrogen, as it results in only neutral pions. Which decay into cosmic gamma rays. Use something like carbon, then chose a mag nozzle efficiency 36% Robert Frisbee Antimatter nozzle or the new 85% nozzle from the Beamed Core: Optimization document. Specific impulse ranges from 0.3-0.42c. The solar abundance seems too low, as soon as you have a single 1e16 GeV monopole you can create more with it. Neither me or anyone else except a black hole AHI can tell you the "Microscopic.." properties on the Monopole element. |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 4, 2017 14:25:54 GMT
As a legitimate noob in particle physics, I don't understand much other than its mass and the reaction. Please help me fill the form. Elements.txt Element 10e16 GeV Monopole
Symbol unxuhmP
AtomicMass 1
AtomicNumber 1
MolarMass_g__mol 1.073748e13
IsANonmetal true
FirstIonizationEnergy_kJ__mol 1312.0
MicroscopicThermalNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b .294
MicroscopicThermalNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 28.966
MicroscopicFastNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 3.96e-5
MicroscopicFastNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 3.99
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralCaptureCrossSection_b .149
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralScatteringCrossSection_b 240.23
SolarAbundance 1e-64
Emission HydrogenIons.txt Material 10e16 GeV Monopole
Elements unxuhmP
ElementCount 1
Density_kg__m3 150
EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 13507946133
BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 0
GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 203.3
BulkModulus_GPa .1130
MeltingPoint_K 0
BoilingPoint_K 0
SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 20636.15
ThermalConductivity_W__m_K 1815
Viscosity_Pa_s 8.76e-6
RelativePermeability .9999999751
DielectricStrength_MV__m 1.95
RefractiveIndex HydrogenWell the monopole is fine, it is just a "placeholder". Simply catalyzing reactions. Then you chose a reaction mass, preferably not hydrogen, as it results in only neutral pions. Which decay into cosmic gamma rays. Use something like carbon, then chose a mag nozzle efficiency 36% Robert Frisbee Antimatter nozzle or the new 85% nozzle from the Beamed Core: Optimization document. Specific impulse ranges from 0.3-0.42c. The solar abundance seems too low, as soon as you have a single 1e16 GeV monopole you can create more with it. Neither me or anyone else except a black hole AHI can tell you the "Microscopic.." properties on the Monopole element. How about merging it with neutrons? Neutrons can be gained from T-T fusion reactor nearby. Just open the radshield lid, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 4, 2017 14:31:15 GMT
Well the monopole is fine, it is just a "placeholder". Simply catalyzing reactions. Then you chose a reaction mass, preferably not hydrogen, as it results in only neutral pions. Which decay into cosmic gamma rays. Use something like carbon, then chose a mag nozzle efficiency 36% Robert Frisbee Antimatter nozzle or the new 85% nozzle from the Beamed Core: Optimization document. Specific impulse ranges from 0.3-0.42c. The solar abundance seems too low, as soon as you have a single 1e16 GeV monopole you can create more with it. Neither me or anyone else except a black hole AHI can tell you the "Microscopic.." properties on the Monopole element. How about merging it with neutrons? Neutrons can be gained from T-T fusion reactor nearby. Just open the radshield lid, I guess. Two scenarios 1. Your T-T Reactor produces dozens of grams worth of neutrons. 2. A piece of tin foil in sunlight out accelerates you. You are best of just using small graphite pellets or something like that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Nov 4, 2017 14:35:24 GMT
The question is, how much energy can we get from each reaction? Monopole + neutron ---> Monopole + negative pion + positron Monopole + proton ---> Monopole + neutral pion + positron negative pion mass: 139.57018(35) MeV/c 2neutral pion mass: 134.9766(6) MeV/c 2What's the formula when it's in the game? How about merging it with neutrons? Neutrons can be gained from T-T fusion reactor nearby. Just open the radshield lid, I guess. Two scenarios 1. Your T-T Reactor produces dozens of grams worth of neutrons. 2. A piece of tin foil in sunlight out accelerates you. You are best of just using small graphite pellets or something like that. Graphite? That's going to be really complex. How am I suppose to write a reaction with trillions of carbon atoms. Can you provide the reaction formula? |
|
