Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 51 guests
Re: Back from LA with Honorverse move news | |
---|---|
by JustCurious » Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:09 pm | |
JustCurious
Posts: 163
|
I think most of us accept the necessity of the energy beams being visible to show what is going on. Necessary artistic license.
But what I really hope and I expect most others here hope is that explosions in space do not look like explosions in an atmosphere. We want the explosions described in the books. No billowing opaque clouds. Just a momentary intense point of light , pieces flying away from it and perhaps a very disappearing fireball. Actually as SWM impied most of the visible light will come from the fireball which will spread into invisiblity very quickly indeed. Most of the intial flas will be in non visible wavelengths. Perhaps show the explosion as a a fireball suddenly appearing and spreading and fading in less than a second. Bit please, pretty please with sugar on it, believable explosions. |
Top |
Re: Back from LA with Honorverse move news | |
---|---|
by KNick » Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:21 pm | |
KNick
Posts: 2142
|
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions so completely. So Abigail did get to stand out on that balcony and watch the battle. _
Try to take a fisherman's fish and you will be tomorrows bait!!! |
Top |
Re: Back from LA with Honorverse move news | |
---|---|
by waddles for desert » Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:51 am | |
waddles for desert
Posts: 2414
|
SWM had enough to do without trying to account for gravity lenses directing the energy asymmetrically towards the rods that generate the intense beams.
Depending upon the efficiency of the gravity lensing, apparent magnitude may be much less in most directions, but much more at the point of aim and possibly perpendicular to the rods??? |
Top |
Re: Back from LA with Honorverse move news | |
---|---|
by kzt » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:20 am | |
kzt
Posts: 11360
|
I suspect that by the time the fireball is emitting visible light the planar gravity field is gone, destroyed by the xray pulse. And the weaponized part is the xray pulse, the rest is just something that happens with the xray pulse.
|
Top |
Re: Back from LA with Honorverse move news | |
---|---|
by waddles for desert » Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:45 am | |
waddles for desert
Posts: 2414
|
I meant to be a bit ironic, but you are probably correct,
The fudge factors were generous. It was an excellent post. |
Top |
Re: Back from LA with Honorverse move news | |
---|---|
by namelessfly » Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:58 am | |
namelessfly
|
First off, you are treating this as a Black Body radiation problem. When dealing with gas or plasma, radiative power is as much a function of density as surface area. Think about a star. The Chromosphere and Corona are much hotter than the Photosphere, but the radiative power of these outer layers of a star is negligible because the plasma is so tenuous.
(One of the subtleties of bomb pumped X-Ray lasers is that the lasing rods have to remain intimately connected to the actual bomb so that after the lasing media is pumped by the absorption of gamma rays from the explosion, the shockwave that propagates along the length of the still dense plasma that had once been the lasing rod compresses the plasma to stimulate lasing in the X-Ray spectrum.) Secondly, you are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the explosive energy is in the form of kinetic energy of the bomb residue. As the plasma cloud expands, the velocity of the particles becomes very uniform. In the absence of atmosphere for the residue to collide with, the effective, radiative temperature is an order of magnitude lower than you assume. Thirdly, radiation in the visible spectrum requires electrons to have actually been recaptured by nuclei so that they can undergo the transitions in energy state that correspond to emissions in the visible portion of spectrum. By the time the plasma cloud has cooled sufficiently for electrons to be recaptured, it has expanded to such an extent that the rate of electron recapture becomes very low. Think of how we can see the gas cloud remnants from supernovae thousands of years after the event. The bottom line is that the nuclear explosions from a space battle are going to be very visible, but only if you have an X-Ray or Gamma Ray telescope.
|
Top |
Re: Back from LA with Honorverse move news | |
---|---|
by waddles for desert » Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:39 pm | |
waddles for desert
Posts: 2414
|
If we are talking a 78 ton missile, most of which is not a 15 MT warhead or lasing rods, given that gravity lensing is not perfectly efficient, you have some 50 to 70 tons of material in very close proximity to the blast that will probably radiate visible light of sufficient magnitude, and probably for a longer duration than in SWM's example.
. |
Top |
Re: Back from LA with Honorverse move news | |
---|---|
by namelessfly » Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:58 pm | |
namelessfly
|
Read The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, paragraph 2.58. The theoretical limit on the Yield to Mass ratio for a fusion bomb is about 4eex14 Joules per KG. Practical limits for modern nuclear weapons are about 2MT/ton. I would expect that most of mass of a missile in an Honorverse missile to be the nuclear explosive, lasing rod, and associated equipment. Whatever the case, the energy to mass ratio is so damn high that the radiation will be predominantly as X-Rays rather visible light. |
Top |
Re: Back from LA with Honorverse move news | |
---|---|
by SWM » Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:28 pm | |
SWM
Posts: 5928
|
At no point in my calculations did I use the surface area of the explosion. I calculated the total power of the EM radiation over the entire sphere, which is independent of the surface area and the density. You yourself did the same thing--the explosion produces a certain amount of energy, in a certain amount of time. The only point at which discussion of a blackbody entered was to estimate how much of the EM radiation was in the visible frequencies. I believe you will agree that, regardless of the density and the surface area, the spectrum of the radiation of the superheated bomb remnants will be a blackbody spectrum?
Actually, I was basing my numbers on several sources which said that initially (i.e. before the energy hits the atmosphere) 80% of the yield is in the form of photons. That's where the 80% came from in my discussion. In an atmospheric explosion, quite a bit of the electromagnetic energy gets converted into kinetic energy by heating up the atmosphere and producing a shock wave. But I believe that in space, most of the energy will be in EM radiation. If you have sources with better numbers, I'll be happy to incorporate it.
That is not true. Blackbody thermal radiation does not require recaptured electrons. In fact, a plasma will produce a spectrum much closer to blackbody than any material with bound electrons.
I've shown my numbers. The only possibly valid point you have introduced is the question of how much of the energy of a nuclear explosion in space is in the form of kinetic energy of the bomb fragments. In order to change the result by 5 magnitudes, you would have to say that less than 1% of the yield of the bomb goes into electromagnetic radiation. --------------------------------------------
Librarian: The Original Search Engine |
Top |
Re: Back from LA with Honorverse move news | |
---|---|
by namelessfly » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:07 pm | |
namelessfly
|
You articulated my point far better than I have been doing by asking this rhetorical question.
I believe you will agree that, regardless of the density and the surface area, the spectrum of the radiation of the superheated bomb remnants will be a blackbody spectrum? A nuclear explosive is not initially an emission of energy as black body radiation. Most of the energy yield from the bomb is in the form of gamma rays, X Rays and KE of Neutrons and the expanding plasma. Depending on size and geometry, most of the energy from the Gamma Rays, X-rays and Neutrons will not be captured by the expanding plasma cloud to be reradiated as black body radiation.
|
Top |