[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: more physics (short)
- To: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)
- Subject: Re: more physics (short)
- From: email@example.com (Kelly Starks x7066 MS 10-39)
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 07:59:26 -0500
- Cc: KellySt@aol.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, David@InterWorld.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, DotarSojat@aol.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, MLEN3097@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU
At 12:59 AM 6/4/96, Timothy van der Linden wrote:
>>>Thus the energy per kg is:
>>>1.394E-12 / 1.993E-26 = 6.995E13 J/Kg
>>So we used the same numbers (thou in a different order) and got about the
>I guess so.
>>One suprize, I had that the mass of Protons and neutrons as about 1.673
>>E-27 kg, where you have 1.661E-27. Is that a typo? We came up with the
>>same velocity, which seems odd if we were using a different constant.
>I used the definition for 'u', which finds it origin in the mass of a Carbon
>12 atom. The weight of 12C is defined exactly 12*u. A single proton or
>neutron is heavier than the protons and neutrons in a atom-core of multiple
>nuclei (hence fusion frees energy).
>But like I said before, the accuracy of this number only makes sense if you
>know the (nearly) exact numbers of atom-masses.
Well eiather way I can't remember where I got my atomic mass constant
from. Eiather one seems to get similar numbers, so its probably not a
>>>(Don't use much more significant numbers, if you do use them you need to
>>>define some things more accurate and cannot simply think that 11 H weighs as
>>>much as 11B.)
>>>Using E=0.5 m v^2 I still get v=11.8E6 m/s, so I really wonder how Bussard
>>>can get a higher velocity, unless he dumps some of the reaction mass instead
>>>of accelerating it.
>>No the numbers were not based on an engineering output. That was supposed
>>to be the direct output from the reactions. Could be I misread something
>>and the 14E6 number was for something else (though I can't see what).
>I don't know, but I've been discussing this with Rex lately and he thinks
>that the efficiency of a DIRECT fusion engine may be low. With direct I mean
>that one doesn't convert the kinetic energy of the reaction products to
Why? The velocities seem to be similar to the 'optimum' velocities in your
table. I thought you figured that by the time you converted the particals
momentum to elec, and then convert that elec back to the exaust velocity of
a mass it would all come out even? (Give or take a lot of tonage of power
Please CC me if you have anything.
>>>I assume this time relativistics is the origin (for 0.5c gamma=1.15 which
>>>means its not almost equal to 1 anymore) for our differences
>>Why are you geting larger (often much larger) numbers for 75E6m/s, 125
>>E6m/s, and 150 E6m/s, but smaller for 100 E6m/s? Also the deltas don't
>>seem even. Hum. I suppose I should rerun my numbers with relativistic
>>equations. With our luck I'll come up with a third set of numbers.
>I think the deltas are exponential, this causes rapid deviations when one
>neglects higher terms (ie. use classical instead of relativistic formulas)
>I believe the relativistic rocket equation is:
>M=Mo Exp[Vend/(g Vexh)] where g=1/Sqrt[1-Vexh^2/c^2]
>(Vexh is relative to the ship)
Thanks for the equation. As to my question about why are you geting larger
numbers for 75E6m/s, 125 E6m/s, and 150 E6m/s, but smaller for 100 E6m/s?
My guess would be you calculated for .3c not 1/3rd c again.
>>Pity you gave no way to use you magic number. (Like the value for given
>>fuels?) Also the F number table didn't give the numbers for the fuels,
>>which naturally didn't have even F numbers.
>Well simply devide c^2 (9E16) by the J/kg numbers (eg. 9E16/6.995E13=1287)
>Compared to 257 for the best fusion fuel we have come up with.
Best is of course a relative term, and so obviously is the term simple. ;)
>Somewhere in my document there are a few fusion reactions with f, Mev and J/kg.
>Here is something that looks like it:
> J/kg f
>2H + 3He -> 4He + 1H + 18.3 MeV 3.51E14 257
>2H + 3H -> 4He + n + 17.6 MeV 3.38E14 267
>3He + 3He -> 4He + 2 1H + 12.9 MeV 2.06E14 437
>6Li + 6Li -> 3 4He + 20.0 Mev 1.60E14 564 (Combined)
>3He + 6Li -> 2 4He + 1H + 16.0 MeV 1.28E14 704
>1H + 6Li -> 4He + 3He + 4.0 MeV 5.47E13 1645
>1H + 11B -> 3 4He + 8.7 Mev 6.99E13 1287
Thank you. Thats a table that would have made your other table useful.
Kelly Starks Internet: email@example.com
Sr. Systems Engineer
Magnavox Electronic Systems Company
(Magnavox URL: http://www.fw.hac.com/external.html)