Jump to content
Science Forums

JoeRoccoCassara

Members
  • Content Count

    298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by JoeRoccoCassara

  1. In terms of sheer power doesn't nuclear pulse produce the most pressure?
  2. If you have enough ATP, or energy, will that result in enhanced motor performance? Wait, what is motor performance?
  3. I know that your ability to bench press a heavy weight is different from your ability to punch really hard, but why? Is it because a long steady weak muscle twitch providing the weight with a constant pressure allows you to lift more than a quick and powerful muscle twitch? Are punches different because they require a quick muscle twitch, that releases all the pressure quickly?
  4. No no no, I don't have a plan for destruction, I'm just curious, how big of an explosion?
  5. Okay, I want to know a number of things; How much mass would you have to remove from the nucleus (core) of the sun for it to collapse to the point where the magnitude of fusion would cause the smallest Supernova possible to occur. By supernova I mean the expulsion of the shell from the collapsing core of the sun, this core will collapse into a white dwarf, and the shell of the pre-existing sun will become a nebula. And finally, how big would an explosion have to be to remove this much mass from the core?
  6. You are that smart, just not trained enough. If neutronium had an atomic and what you say is true, than I could essentially find out the size of this explosion. How long is our solar system? If I knew this, since the sun is 99% of it, I could find out how much volume the fireball would have to be in order to destroy the sun, and divide that by how much smaller the percentage of central mass of the sun is, and figure out how much the size of the explosion in terms of volume.
  7. What is the atomic number of neutronium? I read that it was found in the center of neutron stars, wouldn't this make it a giant atom, composed of a single atom that is the equivalent to countless atoms fused together, making it have an atomic number of zero.... I can't use that for numbers, what percent of the Earth's core that, when extracted, will cause the Earth to collapse?
  8. Yes, you do, :naughty: What I want, is math and numbers, whatever causes it is irrelevant, not to be rude, I meant it in a completely scientific monotone way. If it would take that much power to collapse the Earth, how much then would you say it would take to collapse the sun?
  9. Hello; I have a question, How big would an explosion have to be to cause cause a chain reaction that will result in the destruction of our sun. In other words, if an explosion was detonated inside the core of our sun, how large would it have to be to get rid of a large enough central mass to cause a collapse that will abruptly result in a type 1 supernova????????? This is for you geniuses!!!
  10. So it's energy from fusion that keeps the star from collapsing? How exactly does a higher atomic number mean that it generates less energy when given another particle? In other words why does fusion produce energy?
  11. I need to describe the process of a Super Nova for my science class. When a star reaches the end of it’s life, it has no fuel to burn, ergo, it has no more matter to keep it held together, and so gravity pulls it down, so it collapses, when it collapses it’s core undergoes fusion, fusion is the process in which sub-atomic particles are added to atoms, transmuting them into heavier elements, this process releases only a little bit of the energy inside the atoms that were transmuted, thus not all the energy that could possibly be extracted was extracted from the collapse, but there still is a
  12. The stations would be destroyed by mass coronal ejections, you don't put something that close to the sun and expect it to survive, unless you could build it really strong, and if it weren't made of photovoltaic material, than it wouldn't work.
  13. But unlike Antimatter, after a certain point in time, a large enough self sustaining fusion reactor doesn't require any fuel, and it's energy production will eventually achieve greater energy than Antimatter Annihilation, and it will continue to achieve even greater amounts of energy after that.
  14. Space elevators would be great if achieved, no, they would be monumental. This is because a self sustaining fusion reactor is THE greatest propulsion method, and a craft can be built large enough to fit a large fusion reactor on board if it doesn't have to escape earth. It's perfect, the only flaw is that the metal will over heat and where out over time, which is why the fusion reactor would have to be turned off every once in a great while, and it's walls would have to be replaced, which won't be much of a problem.
  15. after all of this debating, I think the most likely candidate for a space craft will be the amalgam of many different things; The first thing we need to do is overcome the earth's gravity, I'm talking about assembling and launching crafts from Earth Orbit. A way to do this is by building space elevators. One problem with space elevators is that they need to be extremely strong in order to support their own weight. They can be made this strong by giving them super nano structures, using nanotubes such as these. A problem with making such neatly built nano structures is that we can't do it
  16. What exactly is ISP, and a gaseous nuclear core reactor engine? And how will structural strength increase it's speed specifically? I'm talking about nano structure mastery to the point where something can be light, still strong enough to last for a long time, and doesn't shatter, break or deform as easily as diamond or titanium. All it needs is a really strong nano-structure, as CraigD pointed out there is a limit, but it's probably a vast one at that.
  17. Okay I get the point.... What were you proposing exactly? Lighter fuel as opposed to a lighter craft?
  18. Do you know how light Aerogel is? In space it would weigh next to nothing, you're speed wouldn't increase by percentage, but it would multiply, saying the engine and parts and all are made of this nanotube enhanced aerogel. I could literally push a craft made of aerogel at several miles per hour with my bare hands in a vacuum, so imagine what an antimatter powered rocket engine would do to it. Now to decrease failure we could give it shielding, such as magfields.
  19. Nano Assembly would allow the spacecraft to be both strong and light. With light fuel, and a light haul/craft, the craft will zip through space, as opposed to a craft with light fuel and a heavy craft producing drag. We wouldn't need it to be any stronger than high class titanium or diamond.
  20. So combine the gaseous core nuclear reactor engine with a craft that is as light as Aerogel and....
  21. A good Science Fiction oriented space craft would be a super light spacecraft. If we had nano assemblers we could essentially give Aerogel a nanostructure that fortifies it's strength by composing it's structure with nanotubes such as these. There is no limit to how strong we could make it, we just need to engineer a stronger structure, and this doesn't increase it's mass. So imagine a spacecraft made of a material as light as Aerogel and as strong as Titanium or Diamond. A 1000 pound spacecraft made of this material would have such volume that it would be a LOT faster, because it woul
  22. Actually it's not remote at all, that was a typo, it's quite close. The laser beam fuses the atoms in a pool of hydrogen, transmuting the hydrogen itself. For example, the sun heats the ocean, same thing here, same principle, I mean. It's the contact of degenerating plasma that heats the hydrogen into regular plasma. By degenerating plasma I mean plasma that is so hot, that it goes through a similar process as plasma in the core of the sun would go through as it's atoms are fused to the point of combustion, releasing energy. The Laser Beam is quite close, and the light particles are
  23. That will depend on it's size, or how much fuel it can carry. The more fuel it burns into energy at once, the quicker quicker it's acceleration will perpetuate. You make it sound like reality's a sin, and that we don't need it. If I had a nickle for everytime I heard that, I bet you do respond, it's not a bad thing, just a little human curiosity. The fun speculation needs fuel, so, impinge reality so that I might improve my theories, and make them slightly more realistic!
  24. Right on top of it, realizing this I edited the post, and moved it to the BEC thread, before you posted.
×
×
  • Create New...