Graser replacement

SWM wrote:

namelessfly wrote:Fair enough.

I would be curious to know what your assumptions are regarding how steep the gravity well for a fusion reactor would be. Even if the fusion reaction produced no neutrons, the charged nuclei of the fusion reaction products would require time and distance to be thermalized with the reactants.

I'm afraid that it's been 30 years since I did nuclear physics, so I wouldn't dare make a guess. But I can't accept the assumptions because if they were true, we would see those extreme gravitational forces in other places. In particular, we would see them in the grav launchers for missiles. They get accelerated over a ten kilometer length (from the broadside to the sidewall) in a tube of gravitational force. If the Honorverse had grav accelerations as powerful as you suppose, missiles would be over 95% of the speed of light before they ever fired up their wedge.

In a gravatic tube 280km long you just might. It would be an ideal way to shoot at a ship chasing or running from you. Or with laser heads anywhere you like. Especially with a machine gun effect.

Of course your "absurd" suggestion is a natural consequence of the fictional technology that Weber describes. Might I suggest that Weber did not understand this when his ideas of sidewalls evolved just as he did not fully appreciate the effects of MDMs impacting planets?

There is always the issue of generating an intense gravity field that is homogeneous somas not to destroy a large, complex projectile.

Question, have SLN or some SDF R&D folk been working on a very high Delta Vee gravity launcher for a SDM? That would be an unpleasant surprise for the RMN.

SWM wrote:

namelessfly wrote:Fair enough.

I would be curious to know what your assumptions are regarding how steep the gravity well for a fusion reactor would be. Even if the fusion reaction produced no neutrons, the charged nuclei of the fusion reaction products would require time and distance to be thermalized with the reactants.

I'm afraid that it's been 30 years since I did nuclear physics, so I wouldn't dare make a guess. But I can't accept the assumptions because if they were true, we would see those extreme gravitational forces in other places. In particular, we would see them in the grav launchers for missiles. They get accelerated over a ten kilometer length (from the broadside to the sidewall) in a tube of gravitational force. If the Honorverse had grav accelerations as powerful as you suppose, missiles would be over 95% of the speed of light before they ever fired up their wedge.

namelessfly wrote:

Lord Skimper wrote:Always wondered if you could fuse with fusion then split them a part and repeat?

With low atomic mass nuclei, fusion produces energy but fission consumes energy.

While they are correct Skimper, to be fair, the nuclear process in a star can be considered a (complex) fusion-fission-fusion process. But such processes can only happen on a stellar level due to the shere amount of energy invoved.

The fission of large mass nuclei produces energy because large amounts of energy were required to produce their (unstable) nuclear bonds to begin with. Adding another neutron or helium nuclei to the unstable mix causes it to rip appart violently, like the snowflake which causes the avalanche, releasing energy as scores of previously stable bonds are ripped appart. Of course, another biproduct is more atomic deterious, which can impact and destabalize neighboring nuclei in the same fashion, continuing the chain reaction if certain criteria are met.

Smaller nuclei do not have this inherit instability, so to create fission in them, you literlly need to tear them appart with large amounts of energy, sufficent to over come the energy of the existing bonds.

But be certain, you are not creating any energy in these processes, you are transforming energy stored as the mass of atomic bonds BACK into energy. The energy we extract from uranium was stored in it years ago when it was produced in a stellar core, and to recreate it again today in a similiar fusion process to its birth would require more energy than it stores.

Nuclear power is really stored solar power! I knew that but didn't really think about the implications.

May be we could use this point to persuade the green weenies to support building more power plants that convert solar energy that has been stored in atomic nuclei into useful electricity?

Theemile wrote:

While they are correct Skimper, to be fair, the nuclear process in a star can be considered a (complex) fusion-fission-fusion process. But such processes can only happen on a stellar level due to the shere amount of energy invoved.

The fission of large mass nuclei produces energy because large amounts of energy were required to produce their (unstable) nuclear bonds to begin with. Adding another neutron or helium nuclei to the unstable mix causes it to rip appart violently, like the snowflake which causes the avalanche, releasing energy as scores of previously stable bonds are ripped appart. Of course, another biproduct is more atomic deterious, which can impact and destabalize neighboring nuclei in the same fashion, continuing the chain reaction if certain criteria are met.

Smaller nuclei do not have this inherit instability, so to create fission in them, you literlly need to tear them appart with large amounts of energy, sufficent to over come the energy of the existing bonds.

But be certain, you are not creating any energy in these processes, you are transforming energy stored as the mass of atomic bonds BACK into energy. The energy we extract from uranium was stored in it years ago when it was produced in a stellar core, and to recreate it again today in a similiar fusion process to its birth would require more energy than it stores.

namelessfly wrote::lol:

Nuclear power is really stored solar power! I knew that but didn't really think about the implications.

May be we could use this point to persuade the green weenies to support building more power plants that convert solar energy that has been stored in atomic nuclei into useful electricity?

Technically, nuclear power would be stored STELLAR energy. The heavy elements were created before Sol was a thing. Coal, oil, and natural gas are stored solar power.

crewdude48 wrote:

namelessfly wrote::lol:

Nuclear power is really stored solar power! I knew that but didn't really think about the implications.

May be we could use this point to persuade the green weenies to support building more power plants that convert solar energy that has been stored in atomic nuclei into useful electricity?

Technically, nuclear power would be stored STELLAR energy. The heavy elements were created before Sol was a thing. Coal, oil, and natural gas are stored solar power.

Thank you for the correction.

namelessfly wrote:lol:

Nuclear power is really stored solar power! I knew that but didn't really think about the implications.

May be we could use this point to persuade the green weenies to support building more power plants that convert solar energy that has been stored in atomic nuclei into useful electricity?

crewdude48 wrote:Technically, nuclear power would be stored STELLAR energy. The heavy elements were created before Sol was a thing. Coal, oil, and natural gas are stored solar power.

namelessfly wrote::Thank you for the correction.

Great, following this line of thought just made me realize we're all made out of Solar baby gak.

I need to go change shirts and shower now.....

I suddenly feel like the floor of a taxi cab.

Theemile wrote:

namelessfly wrote:lol:

Nuclear power is really stored solar power! I knew that but didn't really think about the implications.

May be we could use this point to persuade the green weenies to support building more power plants that convert solar energy that has been stored in atomic nuclei into useful electricity?

crewdude48 wrote:Technically, nuclear power would be stored STELLAR energy. The heavy elements were created before Sol was a thing. Coal, oil, and natural gas are stored solar power.

namelessfly wrote::Thank you for the correction.

Great, following this line of thought just made me realize we're all made out of Solar baby gak.

I need to go change shirts and shower now.....

Theemile wrote:Great, following this line of thought just made me realize we're all made out of Solar baby gak.

I need to go change shirts and shower now.....

namelessfly wrote:I suddenly feel like the floor of a taxi cab.

I prefer Carl Sagan's famous quote: "We are Star Stuff." Makes it seem a little more nobler.

Or perhaps Neil DeGrasse Tyson says it even better:

Those who see the cosmic perspective as a depressing outlook, they really need to reassess how they think about the world. Because when I look up in the universe, I know I'm small but I'm also big. I'm big because I'm connected to the universe, and the universe is connected to me.

Theemile wrote:

namelessfly wrote:lol:

Nuclear power is really stored solar power! I knew that but didn't really think about the implications.

May be we could use this point to persuade the green weenies to support building more power plants that convert solar energy that has been stored in atomic nuclei into useful electricity?

crewdude48 wrote:Technically, nuclear power would be stored STELLAR energy. The heavy elements were created before Sol was a thing. Coal, oil, and natural gas are stored solar power.

namelessfly wrote::Thank you for the correction.

Great, following this line of thought just made me realize we're all made out of Solar baby gak.

I need to go change shirts and shower now.....

Be humble, for you are made of earth; be noble, for you are made of stars.