mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Neil deGrasse Tyson, Cosmos.
Dark matter and dark energy are a matter of faith until there is experimental or observational evidence, until then it's just conjecture.
Maximum Warp, Mr. Sulu
- Thread starter Kilgs
- Start date
Dark matter and dark energy are a matter of faith until there is experimental or observational evidence, until then it's just conjecture.
Lycanorukke
SOC-13
Technically the Nautilis wasn't nuclear. It was powered by 'super' Voltaic Piles - the 'super piles' producing vastly more power and for longer than real Voltaic piles of the time.
Interestingly, practical dynamos had just begun to replace V-piles about the same time Verne released '20,000 Leagues'.
Easy misunderstands. Disney spins everything. But I must say, Nemo opening a nuclear reactor isn't too bright.
Lycanorukke
SOC-13
Ah my bad. I haven't seen the Disney one, only the awful 1997 remake.
Oh I dont know. I suspect he would have been glowing brightly in the few remaining seconds of his life. :devil:
A thorium or radium reactor, sure, he can open it, and won't even get seriously ill unless he stands there for hours - the working fluid will absorb almost all the radiation!
His voltaic piles could be construed as any of several kinds of energy creation - but his energy density is pretty comparable to a modern thorium reactor.
That disney chose to interpret it as a nuclear reactor makes perfect sense.
His voltaic piles could be construed as any of several kinds of energy creation - but his energy density is pretty comparable to a modern thorium reactor.
That disney chose to interpret it as a nuclear reactor makes perfect sense.
That depends on the definition you take from the word submarine (and even on the difference you make among submarine and submersible).
In any case, the Nautilus (Verne's, of course)was clearly as Science Fiction in his time as those warping ships are today. I guess we all hope those warping ships are as science fiction in (let's say) 50 years as the submarines were 50 years after Verne's Nautilus...
Really, Verne's Nautilus was easily foreseeable. The ironclads of the 1860's had freeboards under a foot in some cases.
By the taxonomy used by NOAA - A submersible operates with support from surface craft, and a submarine operates autonomously, the Turtle of the 1770's-80's was a submarine - it operated on internal air, crew muscle, and crew vision. (It was also almost totally ineffective. But it was used.)
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sub_turtle.htm
We're looking for Dr. White to give us the equivalent of the Turtle... not of the Nautilus. Impractical but functional, rather than practical but imaginary.
AFAIK (I'm not an expert) in Spanish a sumergible (submersible) is a hip able to work under surface, while a submarino (submarine) is a ship thought to work under the sea. In this sense, the first true submarine would be the German class XXI (1944), as it was the first one intended to conduct normal opperations (not only combat ones) uner sea, while previous ones used to go surfaced, only submersing themselves in combat (or other dangerous) opperations.
Perhaps. You've added to my tremendous amount of reading. I've only worked with the land based reactors that produce 950+MW. So, it's worth researching. Those reactors get cleaned by scuba divers while being shutdown for maintenance. A diver can make a big salary in a very short period of time by meeting their annual radiological limits inspecting and cleaning reactor pools. Work a few months, go surfing the rest of the year.
On a side note, in the 90s at disney they had one of the original Nautilus models hanging in the props department next to the balloon model used in "Around the world in 80 days". One might see them on the studio tours. I was working there so, i passed through.
Show me the math.
p.s. no psi functions either; I mean real integrals and differentials that show how space can be manipulated back on itself to create a hyper-hole / patch-of-hyperspace, or create something the separates a segment of fabric and mass into non-space.
It's in Dr. Alcubierre's initial paper. And in Dr. White's paper.
Go LOOK THEM UP.
Here's Dr. White's: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936.pdf
And his 2013 presentation packet.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130011213.pdf
And someone's local copy of Dr. Alcubierre's paper:
http://members.shaw.ca/mike.anderton/WarpDrive.pdf
You are a better man than I. That particular variety of math is Greek to me. Literally - they use these Greek letters for everything.
Lycanorukke
SOC-13
I vaguely understood some of the maths. It doesn't quite seem like a Trek warp drive, but more of a 'velocity booster' similiar to the Mass effect drive.
If you switch it on while your velocity is zero - you go nowhere. But if you switch it on while moving, your speed is boosted by the 'warp factor'. Eg: You putter along at 0.1c and switch it on to factor 100 and you now are moving at 10c as per the example. The higher your 'warp factor', the narrower the bubble wall gets and the energy requirements go up rapidly (so maybe the warp 10 barrier isn't just trekno-babble
).
They also still seem to need to a negative energy density which was the big sticking point for the original Alcubierre drive, though by making the field 'looser' they have reduced the overrall requirement.
If you switch it on while your velocity is zero - you go nowhere. But if you switch it on while moving, your speed is boosted by the 'warp factor'. Eg: You putter along at 0.1c and switch it on to factor 100 and you now are moving at 10c as per the example. The higher your 'warp factor', the narrower the bubble wall gets and the energy requirements go up rapidly (so maybe the warp 10 barrier isn't just trekno-babble
).They also still seem to need to a negative energy density which was the big sticking point for the original Alcubierre drive, though by making the field 'looser' they have reduced the overrall requirement.
You are a better man than I. That particular variety of math is Greek to me. Literally - they use these Greek letters for everything.
Heh, well, it's been something I've given much thought to, and I think I understand the "C-speed limit" a lot better.
To be honest, I'm not sure that we as a species will be able to achieve FTL travel, but not for want of believing it's achievable, but by the simple hard approach a lot of people take on FTL theorization. And it may be that the way the universe is setup won't allow us to zip to other solar systems the way sailing ships of yore did to islands around the globe.
It may be that our longevity and idea of a social unit and stability needs to radically alter before we can reach to the stars, and that when we do, we need to be able to deal with people that we haven't seen in a long time when we come back, or, reach another solar system that's been colonized.
My gut tells me that there's a real fundamental element that the pro research physicists are staring right in the face. And that it's discover, whatever it is, may say "yes, we can travel at warp speed / through-hyperspace, and make our brief lives filled with space travel..." OR, it may be that simple need to live longer, perhaps alter the human design to foster near immortality to make those long journeys, and to find a way to keep the mental facilities sharp for such long voyages.
But, who knows?
Similar threads
