NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a thread to discuss various Energy Sources, mostly for use in a military sense. Here are some links to get this started-

Rotary Hydrogen Engine-
http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/rotary.html

Zero Point Energy-
http://www.zpenergy.com/
http://users.erols.com/iri/ZPENERGY.html

Small Scale Fusion-
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/fusion_rockets_000719.html

Cold Fusion-
http://members.tripod.com/WWJD_GY/indexold2.html

If you know of any more/better websites about these or other sources of energy feel free to post them.

Di-Hydrogen Mon-Oxide (www.dhmo.org). A well made website does not make a thing true.

Like DHMO, "Zero-Point Energy" and "Cold Fusion" are both scientific hypothesis that never made it to theory, but made it to misunderstanding by the scientifically inept public.

Certainly, normal fusion may be possible on a small scale, but current research is saying that a bigger reactor is needed to get a sustained reaction. For a real, scientific website, try http://www.fusion.org.uk/index.html

It is a joint, world fusion project, funded by real world nations (except the US, which pulled out. Last I checked, it hadn't entered back in...it has several of its own projects).

I'm not saying it's all legit, but I don't think it's all baloney either.

surely you aren't suggesting that everyone who thinks mabey we should seriously adress the issue of cold fusion is a lunatic?

surly you aren't suggesting that everyone who thinks mabey we should seriously adress the issue of cold fusion is a lunatic?

OOC: The story I heard (from said physics professors) was that cold fusion was origionally "proven" by a few scientists in the states. They wrote up huge articles and...no one was able to reproduce their results.

Someone reading through their published research noted that had the device worked, the two (I think it was 2) would have had more then a lethal dose of radiation.

But the same people who wrote those articles are still alive today, fully healthy, and fully discredited. The most common question among physicists (as I understand it) is "Why?" Why did they do this? The most common answer is "to get published." But that doesn't really answer the question because they would KNOW everyone else would find out.

As I said, go talk to some physicists, see what they say.

Anyway, my origional post wasn't suggesting that any of the links were particularily accurate, and I Invited you to post better ones, so I guess I had it coming. It seems to me however, that the rotary hydrogen engine and NASA's experimenting with the "Gas Dynamic Mirror (GDM) Fusion Propulsion Experiment" were worth looking into.

http://www.sc.doe.gov/feature/fes.htm

another interesting topic:
biomass
http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass.html

I'm no physics expert, and the main purpose of this thread was to give me ideas for a theoretically sound means of advanced propulsion for my armored vehicles. It seems ZPE and cold-fusion have already been ruled out. Anyone care to analyze the Rotary Hydrogen Engine or micro fusion reactor ( the latter of which has already been partially dismissed)?

how about a modular biomass system?

Our main power source:
Chlorophusion Technology (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66190)

basically, organic fusion.

We find it a lot easier to use.

sounds kinda like something I contrived a few years ago but never tried to fully explain- "ecofusion"

OOC: I wouldn't dismiss small-scale fusion reactors...I just wouldn't immediately jump to them. Make bigger, more basic reactors first, then make smaller ones later.

And realize that you might not want your troops riding around with a nuclear reactor. It is probably more energy they need, and the reactor could be captured by other nations, corporations, or even terrorists.

There is something called a "fission battery" you could use...I'm not sure how much energy they provide, but they have been used on deep space satelites like Voyager I & II and (I believe) on Casini.

More likely sources of energy for armored vehicles include methane (mined as ice from ocean deposits?), gas/desil-electric hybrid (like the cars that get 70 miles per gallon now...an APC or tank might get 5. I'm pretty sure Abrams get 1), fuel cell (not necessarially hydrogen), or magnetically-spun flywheels, or some sort of super-battery, or who knows what?

Or you could always just go the conventional route, use normal gas or desil engines for cheaper repairs (though those Abrams use turbines and jet fuel...I think).

sounds kinda like something I contrived a few years ago but never tried to fully explain- "ecofusion"I use it all the time, it is awesome... all sorts of hidden properties...

Another possibility is the use of anti-matter. It's existence is a well-known scientific fact, and has been able to explain many nuclear processes, such as fusion and radioactivity. By interacting anti-matter with ordinary matter, both forms would mutually annihilate, becoming pure energy, and a whole lot of energy at that. It is also very clean, as the only thing to leave the reaction chamber is radiation. No lumps of anything, no pollution.

Another possibility is the use of anti-matter. It's existence is a well-known scientific fact, and has been able to explain many nuclear processes, such as fusion and radioactivity. By interacting anti-matter with ordinary matter, both forms would mutually annihilate, becoming pure energy, and a whole lot of energy at that. It is also very clean, as the only thing to leave the reaction chamber is radiation. No lumps of anything, no pollution.

One problem with antimatter, you have to make it.

Unless you can find a place to mine it.

Of course, if there were such a place, it long would have annihilated itself with surrounding matter.

So you have to make it.

That means you need energy to make it.

You put energy in...say 90% of it becomes matter.

Later, you Annihilate it...say 90% of it becomes energy.

What you have is a big, heavy, expensive, and very dangerous battery that works at 90% of 90% efficiency.

Unless you can find that source of antimatter to mine.

EDIT: Oh, and make sure your anti-matter storage compartment does NOT get even the slightest dent. Very very important.

This is a thread to discuss various Energy Sources, mostly for use in a military sense. Here are some links to get this started-

Rotary Hydrogen Engine-
http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/rotary.html

Zero Point Energy-
http://www.zpenergy.com/
http://users.erols.com/iri/ZPENERGY.html

Small Scale Fusion-
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/fusion_rockets_000719.html

Cold Fusion-
http://members.tripod.com/WWJD_GY/indexold2.html

If you know of any more/better websites about these or other sources of energy feel free to post them.

The Cold Fusion link sounds like a bunch of cranks.

The ZPE looks like a prank. The host address does not conform to what one would expect from a research institute (.edu or .org) and the first link is broken, suggesting no one is maintaining it.

I don't know about the small scale fusion, but it sounds like the kind of thing you would *not* want to use inside the atmosphere.

The hydrogen engine sounds like a pipedream. There is nothing on that site that lets me conclude anything else. Even if possible (unlikely), New Zealand does not have the resources to accomplish it, and if they are the only people researching it, i'll assume that anyone who knows anything has decided its not feasible, otherwise there would be US researchers looking into it.

yeah, antimatter is a bit tricky. provable better to use for a weapon

That may be true, but 81% efficiency is a whole lot better than engines and power stations currently have. Car engines only run at about 30% efficiency at the best of times, not to mention that anti-matter produces a whole lot more energy than a car engine.

Another possibility is the use of anti-matter. It's existence is a well-known scientific fact, and has been able to explain many nuclear processes, such as fusion and radioactivity. By interacting anti-matter with ordinary matter, both forms would mutually annihilate, becoming pure energy, and a whole lot of energy at that. It is also very clean, as the only thing to leave the reaction chamber is radiation. No lumps of anything, no pollution.

Yeah, no radiation chamber left either. The problem with anti-matter is that it takes more energy to make it than it releases, its highly unstable, cannot be concentrated in large quantities, needs an energy-intensive storage device (magnetic containment), and creates so much energy that it would be incredibly dangerous to use. I don't think we've exceeded a few atoms total produced. And thats over a 50+ year period.

That may be true, but 81% efficiency is a whole lot better than engines and power stations currently have. Car engines only run at about 30% efficiency at the best of times, not to mention that anti-matter produces a whole lot more energy than a car engine.

Except we don't have to make the oil, we can mine it. Energy production needs to net energy that humans expend. We're just lucky that the earth compressed all that dead plant matter into fossil fuels.

yeah, those links were based on a quick google search.
I have a couple better ones further down- one to general info about fusion and one to biomass energy concepts.

yeah, those links were based on a quick google search.
I have a couple better ones further down- one to general info about fusion and one to biomass energy concepts.

I like biomass as an energy source. But thats more of an energy plant power source than a vehicular source.

The lower-down fusion link is merely looking into fusion and plasma technology. Fusion exists (its what stars do). We've wanted to do it over 50 years. Of course someone is researching it. It didn't look like they were claiming they'd have a working engine soon.

but what do you guys think of the biomass thing?

but what do you guys think of the biomass thing?

Read previous message. I like it. Perfectly feasible right now.

yeah thats my main problem. most of this stuff is more usefull for power plants than vehicles.

I was looking for something on the site that would adress possible use in propulsion systems but I didn't find anything.

I was looking for something on the site that would adress possible use in propulsion systems but I didn't find anything.

Fuel Cells. I can't get you a link, buts its effectively a highly efficient battery. You can use power plants to make them (thus your power plants generate energy, even though you lose some making your vehicle fuel source).

Alternatively, there is a corporation that can synthesize oil from organic waste. (I think i can dig up the link of this if anyone cares). This is totally sweet, and as the oil is made from atmospherically available carbon, no new CO2 is released. And since its free from impurities associated with ground deposits, less pollution by other compounds. CO would still be a problem, but thats not that bad in the grand scheme of things, unless you leave your car running in the garage... =)

Oh good grief, this would make a GREAT UN proposal: "Let's FORCE member nations to use technology that isn't fully developed yet!" :roll:

If you think its a great idea, then invest in it. If you're right, you'd be getting in on the ground floor and you'd make a fortune. There are a lot of people with money who do exactly this for a living, none of them are investing in these technologies because the present information suggests they will not work, and would not be worth the investment.

-Morgan, Emperor of Morgain

Oh good grief, this would make a GREAT UN proposal: "Let's FORCE member nations to use technology that isn't fully developed yet!" :roll:

If you think its a great idea, then invest in it. If you're right, you'd be getting in on the ground floor and you'd make a fortune. There are a lot of people with money who do exactly this for a living, none of them are investing in these technologies because the present information suggests they will not work, and would not be worth the investment.

-Morgan, Emperor of Morgain

If you are talking about synthesizing oil, there are some people who have invested in it, the corporation hasn't gone public yet, and the technology is in fact real and tested. I even read a description of the (patented) process used.

Sorry Calcednie, that post wasn't referencing synthetic oil. You're the only other person on this thread who has a shred of engineering/physics education.

But fuel cells, while very efficient batteries, are ultimately not as efficient as gasoline engines. You have the make the hydrogen. There are 2 ways: Electrolysis, and through petroleum cracking. It is more efficient to crack petroleum into gasoline than hydrogen. The only thing a fuel cell is more efficient than is a battery, and at present they are a LOT more expensive. Ultimately fuel cells, with current technology for producing hydrogen would net more CO2 than gasoline powered cars because their electricity source (which is the source of Hydrogen) is largely petroleum based.

Unless we wanna switch to straight nuclear power (which has a host of problems, though CO2 is not among them), we're better off with internal combustion.

-Morgan

Sorry Calcednie, that post wasn't referencing synthetic oil. You're the only other person on this thread who has a shred of engineering/physics education.

But fuel cells, while very efficient batteries, are ultimately not as efficient as gasoline engines. You have the make the hydrogen. There are 2 ways: Electrolysis, and through petroleum cracking. It is more efficient to crack petroleum into gasoline than hydrogen. The only thing a fuel cell is more efficient than is a battery, and at present they are a LOT more expensive. Ultimately fuel cells, with current technology for producing hydrogen would net more CO2 than gasoline powered cars because their electricity source (which is the source of Hydrogen) is largely petroleum based.

Unless we wanna switch to straight nuclear power (which has a host of problems, though CO2 is not among them), we're better off with internal combustion.

-Morgan

Not about to disagree with those sentiments. I just seem to recall seeing some research which suggested, given 5-10 years of serious R+D consideration, fuel cells could be effective for powering vehicles. Its still all powered off what you generate at a plant somewhere, its not like it needs to be efficient in that sense. He was just wondering, given there were options for power plants, what he could do for vehicles.

I find synthetic oil/gasoline to be a better alternative, but thats because the process involves recycling organic waste. Ie, additional benefits beyond power. (Well, that and it is more energy efficient... but thats because it takes advantage of the fact that its raw materials have been processed already, so it nets energy).

Sorry Calcednie, that post wasn't referencing synthetic oil. You're the only other person on this thread who has a shred of engineering/physics education.

OUCH! I resent that! I put a lot of hard work in this! Read my posts before you dismiss me! :P

But fuel cells, while very efficient batteries, are ultimately not as efficient as gasoline engines. You have the make the hydrogen. There are 2 ways: Electrolysis, and through petroleum cracking. It is more efficient to crack petroleum into gasoline than hydrogen. The only thing a fuel cell is more efficient than is a battery, and at present they are a LOT more expensive. Ultimately fuel cells, with current technology for producing hydrogen would net more CO2 than gasoline powered cars because their electricity source (which is the source of Hydrogen) is largely petroleum based.

Unless we wanna switch to straight nuclear power (which has a host of problems, though CO2 is not among them), we're better off with internal combustion.

-Morgan

Another problem with hydrogen fuel cells (there are other fuels you can use in them...don't remember what) is the chemical energy hydrogen holds. Unless you liquify it (basically carry around rocket fuel), your not going to get much energy per volume as for gasoline. And liquifying it has its own problems (either supercooling or superhigh pressures).

Also, a note on antimatter. Recently (as long as a few years ago), a few scientists discovered how to make a few hundread atoms in the span of a few days. Unfortionately, they made neutral atoms, not ions, so it could not be contained. Still, thats a big advance.

But for anyone thinking of using a varient of this, please know that a few hundread atoms is still a very very small amount.

1 mole of any substance is somethingorother(6.?) times 10^23 power of atoms/molecules...and it's mass is 1 gram per atomic mass.

The most common form of molecular hydrogen has an atomic mass of 1...and hydrogen is usually found in pairs (H2). So 2 grams of anti-hydrogen would be around 60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms.

Try making that at 400 atoms a day....

1 mole of any substance is somethingorother(6.?) times 10^23 power of atoms/molecules...and it's mass is 1 gram per atomic mass.


The number you are looking for is 6.022 * 10^23. =)

Personally I don't have a problem with what wacky power sources a nation uses. So long as they don't simply up and delcare one day they are using some new element to create more enegy th an the sun. Come on people, the US has spent 50 years on cold fusion and they have nothing...is roleplaying a few months of research relly that hard?

Personally I don't have a problem with what wacky power sources a nation uses. So long as they don't simply up and delcare one day they are using some new element to create more enegy th an the sun. Come on people, the US has spent 50 years on cold fusion and they have nothing...is roleplaying a few months of research relly that hard?

How about a couple of days perfecting technology to prevent double posts? :P

How about a couple of days perfecting technology to prevent double posts? :P

I think that technology is as much of a pipe dream as cold fusion. =p