|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 8, 2017 8:35:54 GMT
I figured out how to fix the reaction. Use this instead.
Material Antihydrogen-Hydrogen Mix (Fusion) Elements H H- ElementCount 1 .000000000000000000000001 Density_kg__m3 70.85 EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 0 BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 435.7799 GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 0 BulkModulus_GPa .1130 MeltingPoint_K 14.01 BoilingPoint_K 20.28 SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 14310 ThermalConductivity_W__m_K .1085 Viscosity_Pa_s 8.76e-6 RelativePermeability .9999999751 DielectricStrength_MV__m 1.95 RefractiveIndex Hydrogen
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 8, 2017 8:44:39 GMT
Antihydrogen-Hydrogen boosting seems like a mess, so I made a Positron-Electron version.
If you want to apply this to other reactions Positron-Electron annihilation gives off 49304003 KJ/mol and Antihydrogen-Hydrogen gives off 181392419502 KJ/mol.
Element Positron Symbol e+ AtomicMass .00054858 AtomicNumber 1 MolarMass_g__mol .00054858 IsANonmetal true FirstIonizationEnergy_kJ__mol 1 MicroscopicThermalNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicThermalNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicFastNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicFastNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicResonanceIntegralCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicResonanceIntegralScatteringCrossSection_b 0 SolarAbundance 0 Emission Hydrogen
Element Electron Symbol e AtomicMass .00054858 AtomicNumber 1 MolarMass_g__mol .00054858 IsANonmetal true FirstIonizationEnergy_kJ__mol 1 MicroscopicThermalNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicThermalNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicFastNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicFastNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicResonanceIntegralCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicResonanceIntegralScatteringCrossSection_b 0 SolarAbundance 4e10 Emission Hydrogen
Material Electron-Positron Mix (Fusion) Elements e+ e ElementCount 1 1 Density_kg__m3 .078 EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 218 BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 0 GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 203.3 BulkModulus_GPa .1130 MeltingPoint_K 14.01 BoilingPoint_K 20.28 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 Deuterium-Tritium Mix (Fusion) Elements T D ElementCount 1 1 Density_kg__m3 191.2 EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 356022182 BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 446.67 GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 0 BulkModulus_GPa .1130 MeltingPoint_K 19.68 BoilingPoint_K 24.36 ThermalConductivity_W__m_K .13007 SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 7763.5 Viscosity_Pa_s 12.6e-6 RefractiveIndex Hydrogen
ChemicalReaction Electron-Positron Boosted Fusion Deuterium Tritium Reactants Deuterium-Tritium Mix (Fusion) Electron-Positron Mix (Fusion) ReactantCounts 88 1 Products Helium ProductCounts 88 ActivationEnergy_kJ__mol 0 AutoignitionTemperature_K 696271500 CharacteristicLength_m 50
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 8, 2017 9:14:56 GMT
Here's p-11B fusion. This is probably the best fusion to use antimatter ignition, as once the ignition issue is solved it's very cheap and nearly aneutronic.
ChemicalReaction Electron-Positron Ignited Fusion Proton Boron-11 Reactants Proton-Boron Mix (Fusion) Electron-Positron Mix (Fusion) ReactantCounts 152 1 Products Helium ProductCounts 456 ActivationEnergy_kJ__mol 0 AutoignitionTemperature_K 3899120402 CharacteristicLength_m 50
Material Proton-Boron Mix (Fusion) Elements B p ElementCount 1 1 Density_kg__m3 1075.43 EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 839422366 MeltingPoint_K 2349 BoilingPoint_K 4200 ThermalConductivity_W__m_K 921.2 SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 10830.88 Viscosity_Pa_s 1.77e-4 RefractiveIndex Boron
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 8, 2017 11:30:50 GMT
Hmm, D-T fusion is 5x worse than D-He³ in producing thrust, at the same time, D-He³ needs 5x more energy for maximum fusion rate. My ingame tests suggest otherwise. D-T fusion gets ~11 kN per GW of input power and ~13 Mm/s exhaust velocity. D- 3He fusion gets ~4.5 kN per GW of input power and ~20 Mm/s exhaust velocity. This is assuming no ignition, so the data may be significantly skewed in favor of D-T fusion. D-T fusion only produces 20% of its rest energy as charged particles, D-He³ 95%-100%. They both have circa the same exhaust velocity (D-He³ is 200km/s faster) but D-He³ produces nearly 5x more charged particles than D-T fusion. In practice a D-He³ would be roughly as strong as a D-T engine per input, but with 16x less neutrons.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 8, 2017 11:34:28 GMT
Antihydrogen-Hydrogen boosting seems like a mess, so I made a Positron-Electron version. If you want to apply this to other reactions Positron-Electron annihilation gives off 49304003 KJ/mol and Antihydrogen-Hydrogen gives off 181392419502 KJ/mol. Element Positron Symbol e+ AtomicMass .00054858 AtomicNumber 1 MolarMass_g__mol .00054858 IsANonmetal true FirstIonizationEnergy_kJ__mol 1 MicroscopicThermalNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicThermalNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicFastNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicFastNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicResonanceIntegralCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicResonanceIntegralScatteringCrossSection_b 0 SolarAbundance 0 Emission Hydrogen
Element Electron Symbol e AtomicMass .00054858 AtomicNumber 1 MolarMass_g__mol .00054858 IsANonmetal true FirstIonizationEnergy_kJ__mol 1 MicroscopicThermalNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicThermalNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicFastNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicFastNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicResonanceIntegralCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicResonanceIntegralScatteringCrossSection_b 0 SolarAbundance 4e10 Emission Hydrogen
Material Electron-Positron Mix (Fusion) Elements e+ e ElementCount 1 1 Density_kg__m3 .078 EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 218 BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 0 GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 203.3 BulkModulus_GPa .1130 MeltingPoint_K 14.01 BoilingPoint_K 20.28 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 Deuterium-Tritium Mix (Fusion) Elements T D ElementCount 1 1 Density_kg__m3 191.2 EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 356022182 BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 446.67 GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 0 BulkModulus_GPa .1130 MeltingPoint_K 19.68 BoilingPoint_K 24.36 ThermalConductivity_W__m_K .13007 SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 7763.5 Viscosity_Pa_s 12.6e-6 RefractiveIndex Hydrogen
ChemicalReaction Electron-Positron Boosted Fusion Deuterium Tritium Reactants Deuterium-Tritium Mix (Fusion) Electron-Positron Mix (Fusion) ReactantCounts 88 1 Products Helium ProductCounts 88 ActivationEnergy_kJ__mol 0 AutoignitionTemperature_K 696271500 CharacteristicLength_m 50 Why are Antiprotons a mess? Just use 1.88GeV*0,664 to get the energy of the charged particles which produce the most amount of fusion, the neutral pions and gamma rays might just pass through the entire fuel without being affected n any way. We are talking about 200MeV Gamma rays. Why Electron-positron? You can store million times more AM by just using Antihydrogen in a maglev trap than with any hypothetical storage device for Positrons.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jun 8, 2017 11:38:12 GMT
Antihydrogen-Hydrogen boosting seems like a mess, so I made a Positron-Electron version. If you want to apply this to other reactions Positron-Electron annihilation gives off 49304003 KJ/mol and Antihydrogen-Hydrogen gives off 181392419502 KJ/mol. Element Positron Symbol e+ AtomicMass .00054858 AtomicNumber 1 MolarMass_g__mol .00054858 IsANonmetal true FirstIonizationEnergy_kJ__mol 1 MicroscopicThermalNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicThermalNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicFastNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicFastNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicResonanceIntegralCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicResonanceIntegralScatteringCrossSection_b 0 SolarAbundance 0 Emission Hydrogen
Element Electron Symbol e AtomicMass .00054858 AtomicNumber 1 MolarMass_g__mol .00054858 IsANonmetal true FirstIonizationEnergy_kJ__mol 1 MicroscopicThermalNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicThermalNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicFastNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicFastNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicResonanceIntegralCaptureCrossSection_b 0 MicroscopicResonanceIntegralScatteringCrossSection_b 0 SolarAbundance 4e10 Emission Hydrogen
Material Electron-Positron Mix (Fusion) Elements e+ e ElementCount 1 1 Density_kg__m3 .078 EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 218 BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 0 GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 203.3 BulkModulus_GPa .1130 MeltingPoint_K 14.01 BoilingPoint_K 20.28 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 Deuterium-Tritium Mix (Fusion) Elements T D ElementCount 1 1 Density_kg__m3 191.2 EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 356022182 BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 446.67 GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 0 BulkModulus_GPa .1130 MeltingPoint_K 19.68 BoilingPoint_K 24.36 ThermalConductivity_W__m_K .13007 SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 7763.5 Viscosity_Pa_s 12.6e-6 RefractiveIndex Hydrogen
ChemicalReaction Electron-Positron Boosted Fusion Deuterium Tritium Reactants Deuterium-Tritium Mix (Fusion) Electron-Positron Mix (Fusion) ReactantCounts 88 1 Products Helium ProductCounts 88 ActivationEnergy_kJ__mol 0 AutoignitionTemperature_K 696271500 CharacteristicLength_m 50 Why are Antiprotons a mess? Just use 1.88GeV*0,664 to get the energy of the charged particles which produce the most amount of fusion, the neutral pions and gamma rays might just pass through the entire fuel without being affected n any way. We are talking about 200MeV Gamma rays. Why Electron-positron? You can store million times more AM by just using Antihydrogen in a maglev trap than with any hypothetical storage device for Positrons. Do antihydrogen atoms possess charge? If not, how do you store it with neodymium magnet container?
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 8, 2017 11:39:17 GMT
My ingame tests suggest otherwise. D-T fusion gets ~11 kN per GW of input power and ~13 Mm/s exhaust velocity. D- 3He fusion gets ~4.5 kN per GW of input power and ~20 Mm/s exhaust velocity. This is assuming no ignition, so the data may be significantly skewed in favor of D-T fusion. D-T fusion only produces 20% as charged particles, D-He³ 95%-100%. They both have circa the same exhaust velocity (D-He³ is 200km/s faster) but D-He³ produces nearly 5x more charged particles than D-T fusion. In practice a D-He³ would be roughly as strong as a D-T engine per input, but with 16x less neutrons. Wouldn't D- 3He have a much higher exhaust velocity than D-T due to higher energy exhaust? D-T puts out a 3.5 MeV helium atom while D- 3He puts out a 3.6 MeV helium atom and a 14.7 MeV proton.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 8, 2017 11:44:49 GMT
Why are Antiprotons a mess? Just use 1.88GeV*0,664 to get the energy of the charged particles which produce the most amount of fusion, the neutral pions and gamma rays might just pass through the entire fuel without being affected n any way. We are talking about 200MeV Gamma rays. Why Electron-positron? You can store million times more AM by just using Antihydrogen in a maglev trap than with any hypothetical storage device for Positrons. Do antihydrogen atoms possess charge? If not, how do you store it with neodymium magnet container? It doesn't need to, hydrogen is diamagnetic just as e.g graphite. It's repelled by magnetic fields. Iron doesn't have a charge either and it's still affected by magnetic fields.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 8, 2017 11:47:04 GMT
Antihydrogen-Hydrogen boosting seems like a mess, so I made a Positron-Electron version. If you want to apply this to other reactions Positron-Electron annihilation gives off 49304003 KJ/mol and Antihydrogen-Hydrogen gives off 181392419502 KJ/mol. Why are Antiprotons a mess? Just use 1.88GeV*0,664 to get the energy of the charged particles which produce the most amount of fusion, the neutral pions and gamma rays might just pass through the entire fuel without being affected n any way. We are talking about 200MeV Gamma rays. Why Electron-positron? You can store million times more AM by just using Antihydrogen in a maglev trap than with any hypothetical storage device for Positrons. Ahh, I didn't know about that multiplier. The business with the pions and gammas made me question the accuracy of the reaction. Ill still probably use positrons though, they are easier to define reactions for (they don't hit hardcoded limits).
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 8, 2017 11:47:51 GMT
D-T fusion only produces 20% as charged particles, D-He³ 95%-100%. They both have circa the same exhaust velocity (D-He³ is 200km/s faster) but D-He³ produces nearly 5x more charged particles than D-T fusion. In practice a D-He³ would be roughly as strong as a D-T engine per input, but with 16x less neutrons. Wouldn't D- 3He have a much higher exhaust velocity than D-T due to higher energy exhaust? D-T puts out a 3.5 MeV helium atom while D- 3He puts out a 3.6 MeV helium atom and a 14.7 MeV proton. D-He³= 353TJ/kg D-T=340TJ/kg It isn't much of a difference.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 8, 2017 11:51:14 GMT
Wouldn't D- 3He have a much higher exhaust velocity than D-T due to higher energy exhaust? D-T puts out a 3.5 MeV helium atom while D- 3He puts out a 3.6 MeV helium atom and a 14.7 MeV proton. D-He³= 353TJ/kg D-T=340TJ/kg It isn't much of a difference. Yes, but the neutrons that make up most of the energy of D-T don't contribute anything to the exhaust energy and just fly out through the nozzle. The 14.6 MeV protons from D- 3He should make some contribution.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 8, 2017 11:51:23 GMT
Why are Antiprotons a mess? Just use 1.88GeV*0,664 to get the energy of the charged particles which produce the most amount of fusion, the neutral pions and gamma rays might just pass through the entire fuel without being affected n any way. We are talking about 200MeV Gamma rays. Why Electron-positron? You can store million times more AM by just using Antihydrogen in a maglev trap than with any hypothetical storage device for Positrons. Ahh, I didn't know about that multiplier. The business with the pions and gammas made me question the accuracy of the reaction. Ill still probably use positrons though, they are easier to define reactions for (they don't hit hardcoded limits). One problem I hit was that calculating the amount fusion reactions a specific amount of antimatter can initiate isn't correct, after a certain amount of antimatter the fusion can "sustain" itself. Documents and my calculations hit around 1µg to initiate a fusion reaction. Thermonuclear weapons need a fissile bomb to initiate the their second fusion stage, but after than you can add infinitely more fusion stages.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 8, 2017 11:52:40 GMT
D-He³= 353TJ/kg D-T=340TJ/kg It isn't much of a difference. Yes, but the neutrons that make up most of the energy of D-T don't contribute anything to the exhaust energy and just fly out through the nozzle. The 14.6 MeV protons from D- 3He should make some contribution. Yes! that was what I meant, D-He³ and D-T have roughly the same energy output, but D-He³ turns more fusion energy into useable energy for spaceships
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 8, 2017 12:03:10 GMT
Yes, but the neutrons that make up most of the energy of D-T don't contribute anything to the exhaust energy and just fly out through the nozzle. The 14.6 MeV protons from D- 3He should make some contribution. Yes! that was what I meant, D-He³ and D-T have roughly the same energy output, but D-He³ turns more fusion energy into useable energy for spaceships Ah ok, I was just surprised that it didn't translate into higher exhaust velocity for D- 3He.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 8, 2017 12:12:46 GMT
Actually, If we ignore ignition energy (thanks to antimatter even p+B11 and most likely fourton is easy) using D-He³ makes more sense, if we have 100t tritium, can generate 20% thrust out of it, if we let it decay into helium-3 we 100% thrust out of it. Helium-3 shouldn't be that much more expensive than tritium, keep it as radioactive waste in the underground, dig it out and utilize the helium-3 for fusion propulsion. The biggest problem with D-T ships is that, 80% of the energy can't be directed, that means it basically becomes a ongoing nuclear explosion which heats its surrounding up creating massive damage.
|
|