|
|
Post by matterbeam on Sept 12, 2017 16:44:19 GMT
It looks great! I like the use of colloid accelerator guns. 6 seconds between firing and impact! |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Sept 12, 2017 16:48:45 GMT
It looks great! I like the use of colloid accelerator guns. 6 seconds between firing and impact! The Colloid Accelerators are a multi-purpose weapon, being able to ablate dozens of centimeters of nanomaterials per second or (more realistically) damage: Radiators, sensors, weapon and ablating the armor like an pulse laser without inverse square law ruining your day. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Sept 12, 2017 17:37:40 GMT
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. That would fill the middle space and give lits of flexibility. What are colloud guns?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Sept 12, 2017 17:47:55 GMT
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. That would fill the middle space and give lits of flexibility. What are colloud guns? An electromagnetic gun that accelerates charged nano-microparticles. They have better charge ratios than normal materials like Magnetic metal glass etc. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Sept 12, 2017 18:07:19 GMT
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. That would fill the middle space and give lits of flexibility. What are colloud guns? An electromagnetic gun that accelerates charged nano-microparticles. They have better charge ratios than normal materials like Magnetic metal glass etc. Got any material properties I can look at? |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Sept 12, 2017 18:12:57 GMT
An electromagnetic gun that accelerates charged nano-microparticles. They have better charge ratios than normal materials like Magnetic metal glass etc. Got any material properties I can look at? No, I've simulated it by using Graphene Railgun armature, using Riftandrends 840 kW railgun. The colloid part was just lore. Or at least an explanation how it could work. Colloids can be from whatever material you like, C60 is also possible indicated by an chart on Project Rho under Electrostatic propulsion, so basically graphene. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Sept 12, 2017 18:26:02 GMT
how are they different from a partical beam?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Sept 12, 2017 18:29:43 GMT
how are they different from a partical beam? They don't suffer as much from thermal/electrostatic blooming, meaning that they have drastically lower beam diffusion. Railgun: 1-100km/s Colloid: 1-5Mm/s Particle Accelerators: 10-99% c |
|
|
|
Post by lorentz99 on Sept 24, 2017 14:56:00 GMT
Look at this table: www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fusionfuel.php#id--Fusion_Reactionsp-B11 is noted as releasing of its energy 0% as electromagnetic radiations. It therefore does not produce bremsstrahlung. But, that source could be wrong, as could be ignoring the interaction between a hail of charged alpha particles and a cloud of inert hydrogen propellant. Rapidly slowing down any charged particle produces high-energy radiations, which is what bremsstrahlung is. It wouldn't make sense that bremsstrahlung just goes away in p-B11 but not in other reactions. And I know what bremsstrahlung. Heck, the name even describes it pretty well. "brems" derived from "bremsen" meaning slowing down or to brake. And "strahlung" which means radiation. Quite right. I think the 0% electromagnetic radiation means that no prompt radiation is released when the fusion (as a nuclear reaction) itself occurs. If you mess with high energy electrons anywhere near nucleii, you would inevitaby get bremsstrahlung. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Jan 18, 2018 8:24:18 GMT
I am attempting to model a heavy water afterburner on a P4 chain reaction rocket in order to trade This apparently requires me to know more about nuclear fusion than I am capable of grasping. Specifically, how do I predict my products? (I'd assume that'd be helium, oxygen and hydrogen) I assume activation energy and autoignition temp don't change. What is characteristic length?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jan 18, 2018 9:11:26 GMT
I am attempting to model a heavy water afterburner on a P4 chain reaction rocket in order to trade This apparently requires me to know more about nuclear fusion than I am capable of grasping. Specifically, how do I predict my products? (I'd assume that'd be helium, oxygen and hydrogen) I assume activation energy and autoignition temp don't change. What is characteristic length? Getting P4 fusion to work is ridiculously hard, CNO is even harder but you can get a efficient burn with it easier than with P4. The water is broken down to two hydrogen and one oxygen atom. Producing a 6g/mol vapour. A 100% P4 Burn with a fuel-remass mass ratio of 1:100 would get you a 2.53Mm/s exhaust. In other words you can pretty much ignore the fusion products as in a afterburner their mass fraction is insignificant. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Jan 18, 2018 9:15:05 GMT
I am attempting to model a heavy water afterburner on a P4 chain reaction rocket in order to trade This apparently requires me to know more about nuclear fusion than I am capable of grasping. Specifically, how do I predict my products? (I'd assume that'd be helium, oxygen and hydrogen) I assume activation energy and autoignition temp don't change. What is characteristic length? Getting P4 fusion to work is ridiculously hard, CNO is even harder but you can get a efficient burn with it easier than with P4. The water is broken down to two hydrogen and one oxygen atom. Producing a 6g/mol vapour. A 100% P4 Burn with a fuel-remass mass ratio of 1:100 would get you a 2.53Mm/s exhaust. In other words you can pretty much ignore the fusion products as in a afterburner their mass fraction is insignificant. Thanks. That's very helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jan 18, 2018 9:18:23 GMT
ironclad6 What is your state of your FEL's? I've transcended my laser knowledge and noticed that your old FEL's way not work.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Jan 18, 2018 9:20:56 GMT
ironclad6 What is your state of your FEL's? I've transcended my laser knowledge and noticed that your old FEL's way not work. I've dumped them completely. They completely kill the drama. At some point I have to just stop messing about with numbers and just run with a model or I'll never finish anything. Lasers seem to require so many fudges and handwaves to make them work that it strains credibility. Then, when you get them really working they just overtake the entire setting and kill all of the drama. In the end I just decided to apply narrative causality. High ROF kinetic CIWS produces much tenser and tauter action as well as requiring few if any fudges. The only problem is that COADE makes me model each barrel as a separate black box module. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jan 18, 2018 9:22:30 GMT
ironclad6 What is your state of your FEL's? I've transcended my laser knowledge and noticed that your old FEL's way not work. I've dumped them completely. They completely kill the drama. Oh well, what you use now? Considered a look in my latest project? |
|
