Jump to content
Science Forums

Clean nuclear for my starship.


Recommended Posts

Ok, I think I've settled on a nice integrated Reactor, MagnetoPlasmaShield, and Accelerator system that could work to get the IPCS to over 99%C. And slow it down at the other end. And get us back too.

 

The reactor is a Transmutation Radioactivity Activation system capable of turning any raw material with a mixture of light and heavy elements into Iron and neighbouring atomic number elements. This is done by trapping and using the abundant high energy Protons in the space enviroment to spallate neutrons from the heavy elements and transmute lighter elements into radioisotopes. This will allow us to get every bit of available nuclear binding energy out of any rough material. Easily harvested anywhere.

 

The Iron etc is bleed out and stored at high particle energys over 0.9C in the external magfield in torioid shaped rings concentrically stacked. Electron toroids at equal velocity are intermeshed with the Positive particle toroids to ensure they stay at equal and parallel velocitys.

It is expected that before an interstellar launch we would stack several times the crafts mass this way, preaccelerated to over 0.9C.

 

Saturn Orbit would be a good launch preparation area with high energy radiation belts providing lots of protons and rings to provide mass to burn in our reactor.

 

Our accelerator is a variably configurable linear device that will cycle thru the particle toroids progressively accelerating and re stacking the reaction mass.

 

When we launch, we will rapidly accelerate to near lightspeed by launching a simular reaction mass from our fields at near lightspeed.

Slowing into our destination system can be largely done via electrostatic-magnetic ramscoop friction helped by a forward deployed negative electrostatic grid. Our magfields will be used to catch charged particles and hurl them forward at twice our velocity while deccelerating.

:naughty:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

QUANTUM NUCLEONICS is looking darn interesting.   Researchers move closer to switching nuclear isomer decay on and off     Gamma-ray laser      

What you describe is not predicted by classical physics. According to the basic laws of motion, if no outside force acts on the body, or the body doesn’t expel mass, it’s speed and direction won’t ch

Posted Images

Ok, I think I've settled on a nice integrated Reactor, MagnetoPlasmaShield, and Accelerator system that could work to get the IPCS to over 99%C. And slow it down at the other end. And get us back too.

 

The reactor is a Transmutation Radioactivity Activation system capable of turning any raw material with a mixture of light and heavy elements into Iron and neighbouring atomic number elements. This is done by trapping and using the abundant high energy Protons in the space enviroment to spallate neutrons from the heavy elements and transmute lighter elements into radioisotopes. This will allow us to get every bit of available nuclear binding energy out of any rough material. Easily harvested anywhere.

 

The Iron etc is bleed out and stored at high particle energys over 0.9C in the external magfield in torioid shaped rings concentrically stacked. Electron toroids at equal velocity are intermeshed with the Positive particle toroids to ensure they stay at equal and parallel velocitys.

It is expected that before an interstellar launch we would stack several times the crafts mass this way, preaccelerated to over 0.9C.

 

Saturn Orbit would be a good launch preparation area with high energy radiation belts providing lots of protons and rings to provide mass to burn in our reactor.

 

Our accelerator is a variably configurable linear device that will cycle thru the particle toroids progressively accelerating and re stacking the reaction mass.

 

When we launch, we will rapidly accelerate to near lightspeed by launching a simular reaction mass from our fields at near lightspeed.

Slowing into our destination system can be largely done via electrostatic-magnetic ramscoop friction helped by a forward deployed negative electrostatic grid. Our magfields will be used to catch charged particles and hurl them forward at twice our velocity while deccelerating.

:naughty:

 

Can you tell me where I can look to find more information on this reactor?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you tell me where I can look to find more information on this reactor?

 

Spallation of Lead and other heavy nuclei is well known. Wikipedia talks about the phenomina even mentioning how the isotopic ratios rocks of mars,meteorite, and supposedly the moon are altered by this stoking of the nuclear coals.

 

a 30MeV proton spallates~1 neutron when striking heavy materials and 1 proton ~gives 1 neutron per 30MeV of energy it has when striking material made of the heavier nuclei. When light nuclei absorb that neutron or a couple they are knocked off the stability catwalk and they beta decay usually in a halflife around seconds to a few hrs to the next heaviest element.

The neutron absorbtion releases energy and the beta decay is around 5MeV in lighter elements.

Smashing the heavier nuclei with protons also fissions them with energy release and neutrons as they are neutron rich species.

The reactor I've drawn is entirely speculative on these principles after studying the spallation studies and decay chains for elements H to Pb last night.

Seems like it has a energy to fuel mass 100+ times the best chain reaction actinide fission systems though. Only possible on earth with good efficiency high volume proton acceleration to over 100MeV, but easy in space.

 

BTW I'm completely in nervous twitches over the silica lightbulb at 25000 deg C. And chernobyl has killed well over a million not 40.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spallation of Lead and other heavy nuclei is well known. Wikipedia talks about the phenomina even mentioning how the isotopic ratios rocks of mars,meteorite, and supposedly the moon are altered by this stoking of the nuclear coals.

 

a 30MeV proton spallates~1 neutron when striking heavy materials and 1 proton ~gives 1 neutron per 30MeV of energy when striking the heavier nuclei. When light nuclei absorb that neutron they beta decay usually in a halflife around seconds to a few hrs to heavier elements.

The neutron absorbtion releases energy and the beta decay is around 5MeV in lighter elements.

Smashing the heavier nuclei with proton also fissions them with energy release and neutrons as they are neutron rich species.

The reactor I've drawn is entirely speculative on these principles after studying the spallation studies and decay chains for elements H to Pb last night.

Seems like it has a energy to fuel mass 100+ times the best chain reaction actinide fission systems though. Only possible on earth with good efficiency high volume proton acceleration to over 100MeV, but easy in space.

 

BTW I'm completely in nervous twitches over the silica lightbulb at 25000 deg C. And chernobyl has killed well over a million not 40.

 

 

You twitch over a 25,000 degree silica light bulb I twitch over wikapedia. I have to admit i am completely unfamiliar with the nuclear processes you are talking about but the silica light bulb reactor works for me, especially in an interplanetary space craft. i would have to see some real studies of real reactors before i could see them raising payloads through the atmosphere. Would your version of nuclear power be safe inside the earths atmosphere? We really need a better surface to orbit sytem than we have now. Metalic hydrogen would be quite effective if someone could figure out a way to make it and use it. No radioactivity at all but no idea how to go about using it either.

Chernobyl did not kill millions either directly or indirectly but I'm quite sure it was more than 40.

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

My reactor would be very safe comparitively. No chance of runaway chain reaction, turn off the protons and it will slowly wind down at a rate that will in a few weeks be at simular heat output to a snap pu238 alpha reactor. The operating temperature can easily be contained with solid materials. Radioactivity of the core is quite short lived.

The magfield generated by a transverse superconductor current array with shielded return paths will lift 50 times ( vapour deposited on carbon fibre) the superconductors weight against the earths magfield or provide propulsion for flying to orbit.

The Silica may be transparent to UV from the core but it'll cop all frequencies of radiant energy, (and probably turbulent particle collisions) from the heating reaction mass, nuclear energy particles from the core, some of which are neutrons that will transmutate some of the silica. Just seems hairy to me.:shrug:

 

On the subject of hairy, the IPCS with its Interstellar Stack would be frightening if not controlled flawlessly. Failure of the magfields would be simular to Craigs flywheel car but far cleaner. It would vapourise everything within hundreds of km without a decent magfield and maybe even make a small linear short lived black hole at the centre where the craft was. :eek:

If The Stack was somehow released in one direction in a split second then the craft would try to accelerate to near lightspeed in a simular time. :naughty: With obvious consequences.

I don't envisige the Interstellar Stack being used near earth though.

Anyone want to work out how long shipboard it'll take us to reach say 0.99c if we rein this puppy in to 2g acceleration? Relativitively speaking?:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On the subject of hairy, the IPCS with its Interstellar Stack would be frightening if not controlled flawlessly. Failure of the magfields would be simular to Craigs flywheel car but far cleaner. It would vapourise everything within hundreds of km without a decent magfield and maybe even make a small linear short lived black hole at the centre where the craft was. :)

 

What’s not to like about a 2-g capable interstellar spacecraft that leaves a New Hampshire-sized area of total destruction and a short-lived black hole in the event of catastrophic failure, and fits in a medium-sized aircraft hanger? (I think – never have quite pinned down its scale yet) ;)

 

Seriously, like many “children of the Space Age”, I enjoy throwing around spacecraft ideas a lot. That they’re often speculative and over-the-top is part of the fun. I try to keep close tabs on just how over-the-top the ideas are, though, by way of how many currently impossible technologies or they require, and redflag any that appear absolutely prohibited by science, but in no way mean to discourage creativity.

 

Isn’t the IPCS’s design evolving rather radically? Originally (ie: in 11069), it seemed mostly electrodynamically driven. Now, it seems mostly a relativistic-exhaust Bussard ramjet.

 

Not that evolution isn’t a good thing in design, but I think we’re now referring to 2 very different designs by the same name. Should they be IPCS-SCEDD and IPCS-RRJ?, or something like that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
My reactor would be very safe comparitively. No chance of runaway chain reaction, turn off the protons and it will slowly wind down at a rate that will in a few weeks be at simular heat output to a snap pu238 alpha reactor. The operating temperature can easily be contained with solid materials. Radioactivity of the core is quite short lived.

The magfield generated by a transverse superconductor current array with shielded return paths will lift 50 times ( vapour deposited on carbon fibre) the superconductors weight against the earths magfield or provide propulsion for flying to orbit.

The Silica may be transparent to UV from the core but it'll cop all frequencies of radiant energy, (and probably turbulent particle collisions) from the heating reaction mass, nuclear energy particles from the core, some of which are neutrons that will transmutate some of the silica. Just seems hairy to me.:hihi:

 

On the subject of hairy, the IPCS with its Interstellar Stack would be frightening if not controlled flawlessly. Failure of the magfields would be simular to Craigs flywheel car but far cleaner. It would vapourise everything within hundreds of km without a decent magfield and maybe even make a small linear short lived black hole at the centre where the craft was. :hihi:

If The Stack was somehow released in one direction in a split second then the craft would try to accelerate to near lightspeed in a simular time. :naughty: With obvious consequences.

I don't envisige the Interstellar Stack being used near earth though.

Anyone want to work out how long shipboard it'll take us to reach say 0.99c if we rein this puppy in to 2g acceleration? Relativitively speaking?:hihi:

 

I am curious, your version of nuclear power sounds pretty good, has it ever been used for real or is it just another could be if we knew how? I don't see how you could draw the power you say from it with out high temperatures. The reason you get high power out puit always has to do with high temperatures and pressures. the higher the power out put the higher the temps. Even ion engines have high temps.

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am curious, your version of nuclear power sounds pretty good, has it ever been used for real or is it just another could be if we knew how? I don't see how you could draw the power you say from it with out high temperatures. The reason you get high power out puit always has to do with high temperatures and pressures. the higher the power out put the higher the temps. Even ion engines have high temps.

 

Michael

 

The use of proton spallation for reactors is generating wide excitement. Whats mainly being looked at is subcritical masses of fissile actinides. The neutron deficit for a self sustaining chain reaction is handled by a high power and volume proton accelerator. The french are building one I think. With todays accelerators waste heat is dumped which makes it lossy. For an efficient power generating system on earth the proton stream has to be quite small, and the reactor not far below a self sustaining chain reaction. Advances may be made by rigourously reclaiming waste energy from the accelerator.

Proton volumes achieved today seem to be getting pretty good. Accelerators are considered a nukebomb proliferation risk as the best ones are capable of generating more neutron flux via spallation than breeder reactors and could manufacture over 100kg of Pu239 from u238 per year, enough for 20 bombs.

 

The reactor I've pictured is reliant on very high proton flux if no fissiles are present in the outer heavy blanket for high power outputs. Or it could be run as a subcritical fissile system as described above with a reasonable actinide percentage in the outer layers. I'd use a berylium reflector as part of the containment capsule to keep all the neutrons in, more important if chain reaction neutrons are produced as spallation neutrons are far more directional.

Its likely if its run on non fissiles that heavy nucleus rich feed would be prefered, though the same bias could be achieved by removing elements from iron down to whatever rather than iron and neighbors.

The system is enormously throttlable, stable at anything from fully solid and slightly warm to entirely plasma at up to 6000degrC(if you want to use physical materials) where you would give the thing so many protons that the few minutes halflife of the average 1 neutron above stable light elements is reved up another step to the microsecond halflife of two or more neutrons above stable. Billions of times output variability.

 

Of course you need a cooling system to take the heat out. Liquid cooled containment sphere with liquid cooled rib-fins should be adequate for most purposes. Or you could circulate the middle region through a heat exchanger for neutron free heat to coolant at high power settings.

 

Without being able to slurp up lots of high energy Protons from a radiation belt etc, this would be best run in partial actinide fission mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The use of proton spallation for reactors is generating wide excitement. Whats mainly being looked at is subcritical masses of fissile actinides. The neutron deficit for a self sustaining chain reaction is handled by a high power and volume proton accelerator. The french are building one I think. With todays accelerators waste heat is dumped which makes it lossy. For an efficient power generating system on earth the proton stream has to be quite small, and the reactor not far below a self sustaining chain reaction. Advances may be made by rigourously reclaiming waste energy from the accelerator.

Proton volumes achieved today seem to be getting pretty good. Accelerators are considered a nukebomb proliferation risk as the best ones are capable of generating more neutron flux via spallation than breeder reactors and could manufacture over 100kg of Pu239 from u238 per year, enough for 20 bombs.

 

The reactor I've pictured is reliant on very high proton flux if no fissiles are present in the outer heavy blanket for high power outputs. Or it could be run as a subcritical fissile system as described above with a reasonable actinide percentage in the outer layers. I'd use a berylium reflector as part of the containment capsule to keep all the neutrons in, more important if chain reaction neutrons are produced as spallation neutrons are far more directional.

Its likely if its run on non fissiles that heavy nucleus rich feed would be prefered, though the same bias could be achieved by removing elements from iron down to whatever rather than iron and neighbors.

The system is enormously throttlable, stable at anything from fully solid and slightly warm to entirely plasma at up to 6000degrC(if you want to use physical materials) where you would give the thing so many protons that the few minutes halflife of the average 1 neutron above stable light elements is reved up another step to the microsecond halflife of two or more neutrons above stable. Billions of times output variability.

 

Of course you need a cooling system to take the heat out. Liquid cooled containment sphere with liquid cooled rib-fins should be adequate for most purposes. Or you could circulate the middle region through a heat exchanger for neutron free heat to coolant at high power settings.

 

Without being able to slurp up lots of high energy Protons from a radiation belt etc, this would be best run in partial actinide fission mode.

 

 

It sounds very interesting, I guess i wasn't as up to date as I thought. I would like to see more about this tecnology as it evolves.

 

michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
What’s not to like about a 2-g capable interstellar spacecraft that leaves a New Hampshire-sized area of total destruction and a short-lived black hole in the event of catastrophic failure, and fits in a medium-sized aircraft hanger? (I think – never have quite pinned down its scale yet) :D

 

Seriously, like many “children of the Space Age”, I enjoy throwing around spacecraft ideas a lot. That they’re often speculative and over-the-top is part of the fun. I try to keep close tabs on just how over-the-top the ideas are, though, by way of how many currently impossible technologies or they require, and redflag any that appear absolutely prohibited by science, but in no way mean to discourage creativity.

 

Isn’t the IPCS’s design evolving rather radically? Originally (ie: in 11069), it seemed mostly electrodynamically driven. Now, it seems mostly a relativistic-exhaust Bussard ramjet.

 

Not that evolution isn’t a good thing in design, but I think we’re now referring to 2 very different designs by the same name. Should they be IPCS-SCEDD and IPCS-RRJ?, or something like that?

 

Well I did call it a starship Craig.

Originally I was hopeful that the EM tether style system could be useful in interplanetary and interstellar space. I did also consider it needed a reaction thrust system for when the magfields were not conveniently aligned. We have found that the solar system and interplanetary fields are too diffuse for decent thrust so an efficient high velocity reaction thrust system was required for rapid Interstellar transit.

Whats most amazing to me is how well the three necessities of relativistic particle reaction thrusters, High power reactor with versatile fuel use and variable power outputs, and external magnetic shields have dovetailed in such a symbiotic way with the original cylindrical magfield concept.

A lot of work needs to be done to work out exactly how to precisely put particles in and take them out of the field, stuff for supercomputers perhaps.

I was concerned that the particle toroid stack might have killed the magfield and massively limited the mass of high V particles we could store. I've just checked the right hand slap rule for charged particles in a mag field and the left hand grip rule for current and magfield in a coil and they actually seem to reinforce the magnetic field.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong here as its very important.

 

This may mean that we can stack huge masses without the giant detachable Interstellar wing I pictured, and the ramscoop brake could be eliminated as too much hassle.

This could mean that even if our superconductors fail the stack may self support for long enough for an automatic failsafe to erect a backup reverse conventional conductor forcefield that will burrow us out of the stack and thrust us away at high g's while protecting us from particles that come at us.

 

The system of storing preaccelerated reaction mass with its unlimited acceleration potential would be a cheap way of sending unmanned probes out on one way trips to stars.

You can keep the reactor and accelerator at home, perhaps on the back of the moon and launch them from between tall pylons. At say 1000g acceleration they wouldn't need onboard refrigeration as a small liquid He tank could last the whole trip in shiptime.

 

I'm not sure of the scale yet either. Somewhere around 150m is probably good for me

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, to clarify, the charged particle toroids I pic'ed would have opposite direction magfield inside them as the ship field and same outside. So this could be a stable stacking layout suitable for max mass.

We may be able to stack toroids outwards indefinately. Anyone prepared to hazard a guess how they will respond to accelerations? If we could bleed them as thrust directly from each outer toroid then quite well I'd expect. Big if though.:shrug: easier would be turning the fields at the ends into spirals into a particle conduit I'd think, and harvesting the toroids one by one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seem what i've conceived with my particle storage toroids is called a magnetoplasmoid. Others are talking about them as the future for spacecraft propulsion unsurprisingly.

 

good pictures and description of how they work:

Neoteric Research, Inc

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A mysterious glowing ball of light traveling 1/100th the speed of light (300km/sec) has

been spotted and videotaped in the earth's upper atmosphere, but what it is has scientists puzzled.

Brief footage of the image, which appeared for about 3/100th of a second at an estimated height of 80 kilometers,

was presented publicly for the first time Monday at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union. In a six-frame

sequence, the object can clearly be seen crossing

upwards and left across the field of view, while retain-ing

its shape and intense glow.

This is the natural incarnation of them called ball lightening.

I never expected the particle stacks could survive in an atmosphere but it seems that due to a superconductor like phenomomina called hyperconductivity that occurs in fast coherent particle streams they are extremely stable. I mean large balls visible from 80km accelerating to and moving through the atmosphere at 300km/s without power added! The IPCS may be able to do this.

The things have been filmed moving around in forests and burning branches off trees! Great news for our shielding requirements.

The magnetic field building property I mentioned is extremely valid. Enormous fields can be built without power useage to sustain them.

I was concerned about stability problems with the particle toroid storage but the creators of our universe have gifted us the goods.:hyper:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seem what i've conceived with my particle storage toroids is called a magnetoplasmoid. Others are talking about them as the future for spacecraft propulsion unsurprisingly.

 

good pictures and description of how they work:

Neoteric Research, Inc

 

This is the natural incarnation of them called ball lightening.

I never expected the particle stacks could survive in an atmosphere but it seems that due to a superconductor like phenomomina called hyperconductivity that occurs in fast coherent particle streams they are extremely stable. I mean large balls visible from 80km accelerating to and moving through the atmosphere at 300km/s without power added! The IPCS may be able to do this.

The things have been filmed moving around in forests and burning branches off trees! Great news for our shielding requirements.

The magnetic field building property I mentioned is extremely valid. Enormous fields can be built without power useage to sustain them.

I was concerned about stability problems with the particle toroid storage but the creators of our universe have gifted us the goods.:phones:

 

so you are planning on getting energy from a plasma ball and using it propell a space ship? How do you control the plasma? how do you keep it going for more than a few milliseconds? I am trying to understand but I think you might be beyond me on this one.

 

michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
so you are planning on getting energy from a plasma ball and using it propell a space ship? How do you control the plasma? how do you keep it going for more than a few milliseconds? I am trying to understand but I think you might be beyond me on this one.

 

michael

 

These are also the latest buzz in plasma bottles for fusion reactors. I couldn't find a good picture I can link here so I wizzed up a model.

The superconducting coils winding around the torus the short way have been ditched in favour of hyperconducting sheet currents of electrons. Though in a gaseous medium the hyperconduction has simular current per cross section area as superconductors. Like superconduction hyperconduction fiercely resists any change in the magnetic field it experiences. In this way the fast +ve particles travelling the long way around the torus are maintained at high pressure while a near vacuum is maintained in the polodial field mantle, sheathed inside its hyperconducting spherical shell. The hyperconducting sheet currents form tough impervious barriers against the pressure differentials.

Natural ball lightnings in air sustain for up to many minutes without any power input. The air does not move through them but around them. Why ones moving at 300km/s in air are so amazing.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
These are also the latest buzz in plasma bottles for fusion reactors. I couldn't find a good picture I can link here so I wizzed up a model.

The superconducting coils winding around the torus the short way have been ditched in favour of hyperconducting sheet currents of electrons. Though in a gaseous medium the hyperconduction has simular current per cross section area as superconductors. Like superconduction hyperconduction fiercely resists any change in the magnetic field it experiences. In this way the fast +ve particles travelling the long way around the torus are maintained at high pressure while a near vacuum is maintained in the polodial field mantle, sheathed inside its hyperconducting spherical shell. The hyperconducting sheet currents form tough impervious barriers against the pressure differentials.

Natural ball lightnings in air sustain for up to many minutes without any power input. The air does not move through them but around them. Why ones moving at 300km/s in air are so amazing.:)

 

 

All I can say is way cool, I have tried googleing this but with limited results.

 

michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
All I can say is way cool, I have tried googleing this but with limited results.

 

michael

 

Second you on both statements!

 

Other than the obvious advantage that they are self building structures that are much cheaper than superconducting magnetic toruses to setup, the other advantage for fusion is that you can form a big low pressure one and then by increasing the pressure in the containment sphere, compress them to very high density without destroying the magnetoplasmoid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Second you on both statements!

 

Other than the obvious advantage that they are self building structures that are much cheaper than superconducting magnetic toruses to setup, the other advantage for fusion is that you can form a big low pressure one and then by increasing the pressure in the containment sphere, compress them to very high density without destroying the magnetoplasmoid.

 

I have to ask, how many of these have ever been made and were any of them energy producing instead of energy consuming?

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...