02-25-2020, 09:04 PM | #21 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers
Quote:
One of the factoids in my head is that Gurps' fusion reactors that carry 200 years of fuel derive from some numbers from MA Lloyd where one half of the reactor's volume was liquid deuterium. I can't tell you how I came up with the 2 liters number this long after.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
02-26-2020, 12:45 AM | #22 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers
Quote:
On that basis I am not sure CT fuel usage is anything more than "handwavium" anyway. If you accept that then delving into the science of it is rather pointless as clearly it isn't based on our current physics. I note also that a domestic kettle is a multi-KW conversion device (turning cold water into slightly less cold water - from a fusion plasma standpoint - though water has one of the largets latent heats of vapourisation so we shouldn't be too sniffy), so a multi-MW device isn't that impressive other than for large values of "multi". Let us assume plasma is generated by the drives/plants themselves (we'll assume there is a handwavium mechanism to get the power to generate the plasma (and any necessary plasma containment -maybe we use LIF?) - massive batteries perhaps and thereafter the plant taps off it's own power to maintain the plasma). Now we could introduce water and thermally decompose it (and lets say it required little additional energy than thermally decomposing liquid hydrogen - "curse you Hydrogen Bond"). That still leaves the problem that you have lost 1/3 of your reactant compared to pure hydrogen. Now I suppose it depends where your fusion chain ends up, unlike fission where you are counting down, with fission you are counting up and in theory you could fission up to heavy elements. In reality there is a equilibrium to how much energy is produced by the reaction vs the amount of energy required to maintain the plasma. In our largest known fusion plant (the sun) it is about the iron (Fe) ion stage before gravity tends to collapse the core (if memory serves). So on that basis we could easily get up to oxygen rich plasma as a by-product of fusion. If we are to believe that we can fuel with sea water then we are just starting with some of that oxygen in the mix already (but it might put extra strain on the handwavium which results in the extra risk of drive failure / misjump). This is analogous to a wood stove, you start with kindling and once it is burning well and the stove is hot, you add larger logs. If you put a big log in with the kindling at the start when the stove is cold, it will soak up much of the thermal energy, char and smoulder, produce acrid smoke full of un-burned wood gas and condensing steam which will condense as tar in the flue. Only once the stove gets up to a temperature to fully ignite wood gas will it start to burn clean. Burning incorrect fuel mix results in extra maintenance cleaning the flue and the risk of chimney fire, so the analogy isn't bad for fusion) Normally for fusion we need at least deuterium as it has a neutron (and we need those to build the larger ions), but again we can invoke handwavium to maybe add a neutron source as part of the refined fuel mix. Unrefined water already has those of course in the oxygen and trace compounds. It might be easier to assume however that a neutron source (or generator) is part of the drive rather than an admix to the fuel. Focussing only on the hydrogen end of the chain doesn't provide a complete picture, and we cannot stay there or we end up with the bigger problem of what do we do with all the other ions we produce. Part of your fusion cycle may be exhausting heavy ions out of the drive nozzles - since you need some reaction mass. This will be a balance of retaining plasma and generating thrust (a fusion rocket). This is all a bit too "sciency" though for Traveller which is burdened with too much wet navy analogy. Last edited by swordtart; 02-26-2020 at 03:47 AM. |
|
02-26-2020, 09:17 AM | #23 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers
Yes, stop there.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
03-01-2020, 04:34 PM | #24 |
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers
We always assumed that water was electrolyzed on the spot and the tanks filled with hydrogen. The unrefined part was the random other gasses from unpurified and non isotope separated hydrogen not storing water in the fuel tanks.
|
03-01-2020, 04:38 PM | #25 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: near Houston
|
Re: Nerfing fuel purifiers
Quote:
It is interesting that Book 2 says their drives are especially built for the use of unrefined fuel, but this affects neither chance of malfunctions or the cost of the drives. Quote:
__________________
A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope GURPS 3e stuff: http://copeab.tripod.com |
||
|
|