[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Engine (EM radiation) problems
- To: 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
- Subject: Engine (EM radiation) problems
- From: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 18:19:51 +0100
>I don't follow why the presure or hole? I was figuring on the reactor
>being in a parabolic charged bowel that would reflect the particals in the
>general direction. (About a 20 degree cone should be good.) Otherwise
>trying to contain that much power would be hard and HOT.
Yes, I believe this pressure thing was something I imagined, and later it
seemed that the Bussard engine did not work that way.
The main reason for that pressure thing was to even out the velocities, this
way we would not get very fast and very slow particles all together.
Particles with high velocity have a worse momentum:energy ratio (a new
term?). This means that if you have some energy and want to make the most
velocity (momentum) from it, you get the most of it if you use low exhaust
velocities. Unfortunately this also means that more mass is needed, which is
But assuming a specific amount of mass and a specific amount of energy, you
get the most momentum if you give all the mass the same velocity.
Having said all this, I haven't the faintest idea how much the efficiency of
engine would rise if one did this in reality.
One thing that I'm worried about is the question of how much EM-radiation
would be formed during the reaction, I know you said none, but any collision
of particles (or acceleration, or deceleration of charged particles) would
create EM-radiation. Since it will not be easy to deflect this radiation, we
need a solution for it.