sunshaker Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Does a electric current passing through metal have any effect on radiation passing through said metal? Would the radioactive ions get caught up in the electric current, and directed away or pass straight through without being effected? Would layers of lead sandwiched between electrified layers of a conductive metal be a better shield than a pure thicker layer of lead? Just watched a bbc doc on a trip to mars, One problem radiation shielding, With all that free radiation/cosmic winds surely the way to go would be to collect/harness/focus this energy as a fuel source, may be excite the atoms in palladium hydroxide or some other compound? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Does a electric current passing through metal have any effect on radiation passing through said metal? Would the radioactive ions get caught up in the electric current, and directed away or pass straight through without being effected? Would layers of lead sandwiched between electrified layers of a conductive metal be a better shield than a pure thicker layer of lead? Just watched a bbc doc on a trip to mars, One problem radiation shielding, With all that free radiation/cosmic winds surely the way to go would be to collect/harness/focus this energy as a fuel source, may be excite the atoms in palladium hydroxide or some other compound? You might get some effect on charged particles but mass and distance are your best bets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 I know that electric charge has been proposed as a method of protecting astronauts on the moon but the equipment is heavy and bulky and requires lots of power, not sure this would be practical on a space craft... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 First I must point out that lead itself is a conductive metal so it may as well be the layer(s) getting a charge.Second, if such a scheme were actually realistic it would not have been overlooked by the experts who have actually worked with radiation over these last many decades.Third, as Moontanman points out, even were it to work, the equipment and power source to operate it in space would outweigh the benefit, if you'll forgive the pun. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunshaker Posted February 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 @moontanman"I know that electric charge has been proposed as a method of protecting astronauts on the moon but the equipment is heavy and bulky and requires lots of power, not sure this would be practical on a space craft..." I would like to read more, Also if electric charge has been proposed as a method of protection, surely it would be easier to have this bulk within a space craft, One that can be reused. I realize lead is conductive to a minor degree, I was thinking about silver between layers of lead, With a current passing through each layer of silver, Whether each layer of silver/electric current would grap radiation/ions has they pass through the lead layers. Just a thought when lead stops radiation, would there be within lead a point/atom where one is radioactive and its neighbour is not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 ...I realize lead is conductive to a minor degree, I was thinking about silver between layers of lead, With a current passing through each layer of silver, Whether each layer of silver/electric current would grap radiation/ions has they pass through the lead layers. ... While it's true silver is the most conductive -i.e. least resistive- metal, lead is far from being conductive to a minor degree. Were that true it wouldn't be used to solder electrical connections. Moreover, if you put dissimilar metals in contact and run a current through them it will cause electrolysis and physically break down the metal(s) structure. Moreover I suspect the cost of silver would make it out of the question for shielding. Again, were this a practical idea then real scientists would be doing it. It isn't; they aren't. Moontanman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 I should also point out it's not the electric current that would shield radiation, rather the magnetic field an electric current generates. Here's something fairly recent on the concept with a quote in line with my comment about its practicality. Magnetic shielding for spacecraft @ The Space Review ...One of the most important conclusions to the second phase of this research will be to determine if using superconducting magnet technology is mass effective. “I have no doubt that if we build it big enough and strong enough, it will provide protection,” Hoffman said. “But if the mass of this conducting magnet system is greater than the mass just to use passive (absorbing) shielding, then why go to all that trouble?” That’s the challenge, and the reason for this study. “This is research,” Hoffman said. “I’m not partisan one way or the other; I just want to find out what’s the best way.”... Moontanman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 While it's true silver is the most conductive -i.e. least resistive- metal, lead is far from being conductive to a minor degree. Were that true it wouldn't be used to solder electrical connections. Moreover, if you put dissimilar metals in contact and run a current through them it will cause electrolysis and physically break down the metal(s) structure. Moreover I suspect the cost of silver would make it out of the question for shielding. Again, were this a practical idea then real scientists would be doing it. It isn't; they aren't. I'm not sure i would assume that everything that can be done has been thought of but as Turtle said, Lead is quite a good conductor and silver is very expensive. I think very powerful magnetic fields will be at least part of the answer to charged particle radiation and electric charge might supplement that at some point. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/24jun_electrostatics/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7595-force-fields-may-shield-astronauts-from-radiation.html#.UvqMK2LzaSo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 @moontanman"I know that electric charge has been proposed as a method of protecting astronauts on the moon but the equipment is heavy and bulky and requires lots of power, not sure this would be practical on a space craft..." I would like to read more, Also if electric charge has been proposed as a method of protection, surely it would be easier to have this bulk within a space craft, One that can be reused. I realize lead is conductive to a minor degree, I was thinking about silver between layers of lead, With a current passing through each layer of silver, Whether each layer of silver/electric current would grap radiation/ions has they pass through the lead layers. Just a thought when lead stops radiation, would there be within lead a point/atom where one is radioactive and its neighbour is not? Are you suggesting lead becomes radioactive when it stops charged particles? It would not, neutron radiation might do that but not charged particles... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7595-force-fields-may-shield-astronauts-from-radiation.html#.UvqMK2LzaSo RE this link and your other regarding an electrostatic scheme. First, these are for a Moon base and not a spacecraft. Second, as they point out, there are both negatively and positively charged particles and no way of blocking both has been effectively proposed using electrostatics. Finally, in the last link the researcher claims his scheme would be better than transporting concrete to the Moon when in fact there is abundant material on the Moon to manufacture a materially massive cover if not concrete itself. As to discoveries by amateurs posting on science forums, it just doesn't happen. While it's all the rage in this venue to diss the experts, they are experts for damn good reasons. All this nonsense like Einstein flunked math and such tommy-rot is a distortion of the facts and thrown up as a convenient dodge by amateurs posting on forums in an attempt to add credence to their pipedreams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 RE this link and your other regarding an electrostatic scheme. First, these are for a Moon base and not a spacecraft. Second, as they point out, there are both negatively and positively charged particles and no way of blocking both has been effectively proposed using electrostatics. Finally, in the last link the researcher claims his scheme would be better than transporting concrete to the Moon when in fact there is abundant material on the Moon to manufacture a materially massive cover if not concrete itself. True but electrostatics can be set up and moved much easier than concrete and would probably be a short term solution IMHO. Also positive particles carry much more energy than negatively charged particles.. As to discoveries by amateurs posting on science forums, it just doesn't happen. While it's all the rage in this venue to diss the experts, they are experts for damn good reasons. All this nonsense like Einstein flunked math and such tommy-rot is a distortion of the facts and thrown up as a convenient dodge by amateurs posting on forums in an attempt to add credence to their pipedreams. You are correct but that wasn't what i was alluding to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 True but electrostatics can be set up and moved much easier than concrete and would probably be a short term solution IMHO. Also positive particles carry much more energy than negatively charged particles.. You are correct but that wasn't what i was alluding to... Well, what good is an easily portable thing that doesn't work worth? If you weren't alluding to that, well enough. (What exactly were you alluding to then?) Anyway, sooner or later it gets thrown up and we might as well throw it out the sooner the better. A stitch in time saves nine. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Well, what good is an easily portable thing that doesn't work worth? If you weren't alluding to that, well enough. (What exactly were you alluding to then?) Anyway, sooner or later it gets thrown up and we might as well throw it out the sooner the better. A stitch in time saves nine. :D How do you get that it wouldn't work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 How do you get that it wouldn't work? The researcher says it doesn't. From one link:But several thorny issues remain, says Buhler, who has applied for a follow-up NASA grant. Additional barriers might be needed to protect the crew from radiation slipping in from the sides of the canopy. And current power supplies on Earth would have to be cranked up from their current production limit of 20 megavolts to protect a Moon base. The title of the article is equally telling; emphasis on 'may' is mine. >> Force fields may shield astronauts from radiation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunshaker Posted February 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 @Turtle, Says the cost of silver would be to high for shielding, But the silver would only be the conductor of the electric field, How much silver would this need for a conductive layer of silver?, We already coat glass with silver that is used in sky scrappers, From what i can figure out gamma radiation seems to be the biggest problem, Has alpha/beta can be shielded from without much problem, Just came across this about gamma ray astronomy (laue lenses)about focusing gamma rays, Could this tech be used to focus gamma rays away from a space craft/base, perhaps then harnessing this energy? http://uk.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0LEVjAPbPtSCnUAMb13Bwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMG04Z2o2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--/SIG=124erd7qi/EXP=1392237711/**http%3a//sci.esa.int/trs/36959-the-gamma-ray-lens/ Also i am no trekie but i do enjoy the program, if a remember right star trek/generations/voyager used force fields but Enterprise with captain archer ionized the hull, which is more on the lines i think we should first be heading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 @Turtle, Says the cost of silver would be to high for shielding, But the silver would only be the conductor of the electric field, How much silver would this need for a conductive layer of silver?, We already coat glass with silver that is used in sky scrappers,... Better to use gold as suggested in Moontanman's links. Gold is the most malleable of metals and can be laid down in thinness greater than any other. The economics does seem the greatest hurdle to developing an adequate shield for manned interplanetary travel. If some person or persons is not willing to throw enough money for a long enough time at the problem then we are going nowhere fast. While I have grown up with the space age and am all for it, I have also grown up with a great many wars, diseases, starvations, and privations and I think we ought to be getting those problems solved before -if not coincident to- moving them on out into space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.