[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
starship-design: Power - T.E.M.I
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.