starship-design: Power - T.E.M.I

[Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>]

Jonathan J Jay writes:
 > He was not entirely sure how to answer ALL your questions but he answered
 > what he could. Hopefully with the information provided you should be able
 > to understand and possibly even answer the rest of the questions.
 > 
 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 > Q> Where does the energy come from, What is the theoretical basis of
 > operation?
 > A> He believes the energy comes from particles in the fluid
 > making contact with the rods and being shoved around the tank
 > constantly slamming into the rods making more energy. That is
 > the basis of operation, he thinks.

Uh huh.  I still think it's a chemical battery; he seems to think
it's some kind of thermal engine.  Either way it's not a useful
power source for a starship drive, because it's not going to
yield enough energy.  Nuclear fusion is barely capable of
generating enough energy to accelerate a spacecraft to
relativistic speeds, and then only with a very high
fuel-to-payload ratio.

 > Q> Are the 'rods' consumed by the reaction?
 > A> No. Not in the slightest bit. The rods are still the exact
 > measurements they started at.

Uh huh.  What measurements are these?

 > Q> How many watts does the thing put out?
 > A> He is unsure about watts, but it makes 15 to 30 volts at 1.2 amps
 > constantly.

Oooh, this is a bad sign.  If he doesn't know enough about
physics to calculate wattage from those figures, I'm not going to
be particularly trusting of his other claims.  W = V * A.  It
puts out 18-36 watts.  "Constantly?"  For how long?  It can't
last forever.

 > Q> Are the 'rods' changed any when the reaction starts?
 > A> They heat up about 11 degrees centigrade but that's it.

Yet another sign that it's probably no more than a chemical
battery.

I really think this is not something we should be discussing on
starship-design.  I didn't set up this list to be a "kook
science" forum or a place to discuss proprietary battery designs.