|
|
Post by RiftandRend on May 30, 2017 18:05:40 GMT
I don't see how carbon clogging is an issue. The engines in my ships only can run for ~10 min until the tanks are dry. I highly doubt that any appreciable soot buildup could occur during that time. Even across multiple full burns and re fuelings this should be a non issue. Even if it is, cleaning the engine should be a fairly trivial task, just attach a grinder to a drone and remove it. The thing is, we are talking about hundreds of kilos to several tonnes of propellant per second, propellant which is >80% carbon by mass, through reactor cores with a total mass of only a few dozen kilos or so. So, even assuming less than 1% of the carbon soot produced deposits, it will deposit an amount of carbon equal in mass to the reactor core within those few minutes. Using encapsulated reactor components the core temp can reach ~4400-5000 K, well above the melting point of carbon. While the high pressures of an operating engine may allow some soot to stay solid this can be fixed by throttling down the flow rate and core to a minimum to boil any residue. |
|
|
|
Post by ash19256 on May 30, 2017 19:27:04 GMT
The thing is, we are talking about hundreds of kilos to several tonnes of propellant per second, propellant which is >80% carbon by mass, through reactor cores with a total mass of only a few dozen kilos or so. So, even assuming less than 1% of the carbon soot produced deposits, it will deposit an amount of carbon equal in mass to the reactor core within those few minutes. Using encapsulated reactor components the core temp can reach ~4400-5000 K, well above the melting point of carbon. While the high pressures of an operating engine may allow some soot to stay solid this can be fixed by throttling down the flow rate and core to a minimum to boil any residue. Heck, if you designed your guidance to throttle down as it completed a burn with the main engine, this would be dealt with automatically as the amount of propellant (and thus the pressures involved) went down while the overall temperature stayed mostly the same (it doesn't make sense that you'd throttle down by making the engine less efficient after all). |
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 3, 2017 0:50:07 GMT
New fusion reaction, D-T fusion.
If you want to be realistic, you should have 805 Megawatts per gram/s of flow rate to represent fusion ignition.
Material Tritium Fuel
Elements T
ElementCount 2
Density_kg__m3 220
EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 337698653
BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 446.67
GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 0
BulkModulus_GPa .1130
MeltingPoint_K 20.62
BoilingPoint_K 25.04
ThermalConductivity_W__m_K .13007
SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 5200
Viscosity_Pa_s 12.6e-6
RefractiveIndex Hydrogen
ChemicalReaction D-T Fusion
Reactants Deuterium Tritium Fuel
ReactantCounts 1 1
Products Helium
ProductCounts 2
ActivationEnergy_kJ__mol 4824266
AutoignitionTemperature_K 153000000
CharacteristicLength_m 1.27
|
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jun 3, 2017 3:02:54 GMT
New fusion reaction, D-T fusion. If you want to be realistic, you should have 805 Megawatts per gram/s of flow rate to represent fusion ignition. Material Tritium Fuel
Elements T
ElementCount 2
Density_kg__m3 220
EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 337698653
BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 446.67
GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 0
BulkModulus_GPa .1130
MeltingPoint_K 20.62
BoilingPoint_K 25.04
ThermalConductivity_W__m_K .13007
SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 5200
Viscosity_Pa_s 12.6e-6
RefractiveIndex Hydrogen
ChemicalReaction D-T Fusion
Reactants Deuterium Tritium Fuel
ReactantCounts 1 1
Products Helium
ProductCounts 2
ActivationEnergy_kJ__mol 4824266
AutoignitionTemperature_K 153000000
CharacteristicLength_m 1.27Make sure to get rid of the neutrons in the reaction. Remove like 89% of the initial energy you got from the calculation because you just can't control those pesky neutrons. |
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 3, 2017 4:30:49 GMT
New fusion reaction, D-T fusion. If you want to be realistic, you should have 805 Megawatts per gram/s of flow rate to represent fusion ignition. Material Tritium Fuel
Elements T
ElementCount 2
Density_kg__m3 220
EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 337698653
BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 446.67
GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 0
BulkModulus_GPa .1130
MeltingPoint_K 20.62
BoilingPoint_K 25.04
ThermalConductivity_W__m_K .13007
SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 5200
Viscosity_Pa_s 12.6e-6
RefractiveIndex Hydrogen
ChemicalReaction D-T Fusion
Reactants Deuterium Tritium Fuel
ReactantCounts 1 1
Products Helium
ProductCounts 2
ActivationEnergy_kJ__mol 4824266
AutoignitionTemperature_K 153000000
CharacteristicLength_m 1.27Make sure to get rid of the neutrons in the reaction. Remove like 89% of the initial energy you got from the calculation because you just can't control those pesky neutrons. Already done. The reaction produces 3.5 MeV per fusion instance and ignores the 14.1 MeV in the neutron. |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jun 3, 2017 4:32:11 GMT
Make sure to get rid of the neutrons in the reaction. Remove like 89% of the initial energy you got from the calculation because you just can't control those pesky neutrons. Already done. The reaction produces 3.5 MeV per fusion instance and ignores the 14.1 MeV in the neutron. Don't forget to make a reactor module that produces said neutron radiation  |
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 3, 2017 10:55:56 GMT
The header for the low pressure O2 is not in the style of the others
|
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Jun 3, 2017 13:34:08 GMT
New fusion reaction, D-T fusion. If you want to be realistic, you should have 805 Megawatts per gram/s of flow rate to represent fusion ignition. Material Tritium Fuel
Elements T
ElementCount 2
Density_kg__m3 220
EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 337698653
BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 446.67
GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 0
BulkModulus_GPa .1130
MeltingPoint_K 20.62
BoilingPoint_K 25.04
ThermalConductivity_W__m_K .13007
SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 5200
Viscosity_Pa_s 12.6e-6
RefractiveIndex Hydrogen
ChemicalReaction D-T Fusion
Reactants Deuterium Tritium Fuel
ReactantCounts 1 1
Products Helium
ProductCounts 2
ActivationEnergy_kJ__mol 4824266
AutoignitionTemperature_K 153000000
CharacteristicLength_m 1.27How about 3He-D fusion? Just curious and too lazy to calculate  |
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 3, 2017 22:00:08 GMT
New fusion reaction, D-T fusion. If you want to be realistic, you should have 805 Megawatts per gram/s of flow rate to represent fusion ignition. Material Tritium Fuel
Elements T
ElementCount 2
Density_kg__m3 220
EnthalpyOfFormation_kJ__mol 337698653
BondDissociationEnergy_kJ__mol 446.67
GibbsFreeEnergyOfFormation_kJ__mol 0
BulkModulus_GPa .1130
MeltingPoint_K 20.62
BoilingPoint_K 25.04
ThermalConductivity_W__m_K .13007
SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 5200
Viscosity_Pa_s 12.6e-6
RefractiveIndex Hydrogen
ChemicalReaction D-T Fusion
Reactants Deuterium Tritium Fuel
ReactantCounts 1 1
Products Helium
ProductCounts 2
ActivationEnergy_kJ__mol 4824266
AutoignitionTemperature_K 153000000
CharacteristicLength_m 1.27How about 3He-D fusion? Just curious and too lazy to calculate 3.86 GW/g/s |
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jun 4, 2017 5:13:53 GMT
New fusion reaction, D-T fusion. Alright. Next update I'll separate fusion propulsion into its own category. Can anyone tell me about the status of the Zubrin NSWR stuff? |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jun 4, 2017 11:47:08 GMT
Power of modding   |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jun 4, 2017 11:52:59 GMT
 "I think I saw a bright blue flash, then both the enemy corvette and our deuterium ship fleet vanished." |
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Jun 7, 2017 23:51:52 GMT
Hey Rocket Witch someone mentioned on discord (who I don't think has an account here) that Aramid Fiber has potential as an Asbestos substitute. Could you find the data for asbestos so I could see if they're interchangeable for laser resistance? |
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 8, 2017 0:02:19 GMT
Hey Rocket Witch someone mentioned on discord (who I don't think has an account here) that Aramid Fiber has potential as an Asbestos substitute. Could you find the data for asbestos so I could see if they're interchangeable for laser resistance? Free lung cancer with every purchase! /s |
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jun 8, 2017 2:58:57 GMT
Hey Rocket Witch someone mentioned on discord (who I don't think has an account here) that Aramid Fiber has potential as an Asbestos substitute. Could you find the data for asbestos so I could see if they're interchangeable for laser resistance? Doubtful. I've looked before on my own accord. That 0.07 thermal conductivity sure looks nice, but online data concerned with properties and use of rather than safety and removal of asbestos are a rarity. The stuff was outlawed long before people used the Internet to advertise and trade such things. I have looked for other building materials like concrete and brick too, but very little luck getting more than density and compressive strength for them. someusername6 might do better than me with their library card, if interested. I remember when a building got taken down where I work, we threw some of the corrugated ceramic roof panelling which supposedly contained asbestos into a fire and it exploded. 10/10 heat resistance. |
|
