The Power plant

[Klaus]

Some questions about fusion.

Fusing Hydrogen produces Helium. Could you then fuse the Helium to create a kind of 'after-burner' effect? And what would you do with the Berylium produced?

As to fuel, 14 cubic metres of H2 is 1 metric ton, 14 cubic metres of H2O is 14 metric tons, yet contains the same 1 metric ton of H2. This leads to some interesting conclusions.

1: it seems in the 3I they've perfected a way to split H2 from O quickly and efficiently; this seems to happen just before the fuel is 'burned'. But what happens to all that Oxygen?

2: if refined fuel is pure H2, then it is relativley dangerous. A fuel leak into the crew compartment would risk a deadly explosion. Therefore isn't it somewhat safer to carry the fuel in the form of water? Especially in a non-jump ship. Apart from the fact that the fuel would mass 14 times more... But we don't care about mass do we; just volume.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Klaus:

Fusing Hydrogen produces Helium. Could you then fuse the Helium to create a kind of 'after-burner' effect? And what would you do with the Berylium produced?

Helium fusion mostly produces C-12 (using three helium nuclei at once). It wouldn't really give you an 'afterburner' effect, though; not all that much energy is released.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Anthony:
The only version of Traveller with remotely sane power plant fuel requirements is GURPS Traveller -- where the fuel supply in a fusion reactor lasts as long as the reactor, and thus the reactor never needs refueling.

I'd agree if they hadn't come up with the ridiculous power slice idea
GT:ISW is much better just because it has a separate power plant

Fusion fuel was also very much reduced in TNE and T4 to only a few hundred litres per year per MW of output.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by stofsk:
Lack of hard science doesn't bug me, it's the sci-fi brain bugs which do. Brain bugs can be anywhere, from 'hard' sci-fi to soft.

Brainbugs?

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by stofsk:
Lack of hard science doesn't bug me, it's the sci-fi brain bugs which do. Brain bugs can be anywhere, from 'hard' sci-fi to soft.

Brainbugs? </font>[/QUOTE]http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/

In the essay section, under 'brainbugs'. Quoting from it:

Originally written by Michael Wong
Written: 2002-04-27
Last Revised: 2002-05-27

"Brain bugs" is my personal term for ideas which are implanted in the collective consciousness of sci-fi fans. They enter through the ears ... and warp themselves around the cerebral cortex. This has the effect of making the victim extremely susceptible to ... suggestion. As they grow ... follows madness. And- oh, I'm sorry, am I quoting Khan again? Anyway, these ideas start as an insignificant microbe and then grow of their own accord, gradually infecting the mind like a malignant tumour.

Some examples are: Jeffries tube (from Star Trek), exploding bridge consoles (again, Star Trek), one-trick-pony alien races (mainly Star Trek, the warrior race and the capitalist race and the sneaky race: Klingons, Ferengi, Romulans/Cardassians), as well as general sci-fi brainbugs like exploding fusion reactors, gravitics, misunderstanding evolution (people 'evolving' into a 'higher state of being' which looks suspiciously like rewording 'was ascended into heaven as an angel'), though I don't mind gravitics myself.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by stofsk:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally written by Michael Wong
Written: 2002-04-27
Last Revised: 2002-05-27

"Brain bugs" is my personal term for ideas which are implanted in the collective consciousness of sci-fi fans. They enter through the ears ... and warp themselves around the cerebral cortex. This has the effect of making the victim extremely susceptible to ... suggestion. As they grow ... follows madness. And- oh, I'm sorry, am I quoting Khan again? Anyway, these ideas start as an insignificant microbe and then grow of their own accord, gradually infecting the mind like a malignant tumour.

Some examples are: Jeffries tube (from Star Trek), exploding bridge consoles (again, Star Trek), one-trick-pony alien races (mainly Star Trek, the warrior race and the capitalist race and the sneaky race: Klingons, Ferengi, Romulans/Cardassians), as well as general sci-fi brainbugs like exploding fusion reactors, gravitics, misunderstanding evolution (people 'evolving' into a 'higher state of being' which looks suspiciously like rewording 'was ascended into heaven as an angel'), though I don't mind gravitics myself. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, you mean a combination of "memes" and cliche's; I recall finding a very detailed web page about these and about (japanese-made) RPG video games cliches. Both VERY funny.

Anyway, shipboard Gravitics are mostly a special-effects-budget reducer, as you can just walk on a regular set rather than having zero-G effects (strings and pulleys or computer-graphics). And most StarTrek aliens are quite cheap to make, too. On the other hand, as Traveller takes place in the players' imagination, so you can create any setting that you can describe, that your players can understand, and that everyone around the gaming table enjoys.

Ofcourse rotation/constant acceleration as a gravity source is far more realistic and quite fun, as well as the non-gravitic, but still high-tech, flying vehicles (ACV, VTOL aircraft, MAGLEV cars on magnetized roads, ducted-fans, tilt-rotors, vector-thrust and so on). But you could go with gravitics if you want - brainbug or not, they could be fun.

Now about exploding bridge-consoles, I'd make a console on the bridge explode in one of two conditions:
1) The Computer was hit (and thus possibly its peripherals get a power surge), especially by radiation or EMP.
2) The ship as a whole explodes (and then it's pointless as the PCs die

)

Fusion reactors don't explode; ships do (when the hull is hit so badly that it falls apart).

Forcefields are another brainbug - I've never understood how they work in any other way than a space-opera handwave.

 

[MR TEK]

Oh, I don't know...

Magnetic containment fields for focusing e-beams, and containing fusion reactions seem pretty close to the concept of force fields.

Can those be expanded into the plot devices lazy SciFi authors love so much, maybe, maybe not, but they are not just a compleate fabrication.

My personal pet peve is all of the Star Trek inspired MAchines of the Gods running around.

In Star Trek it was the magical transporter. No mater how badly deformed you became, or how out of control the plot got, step into this magical device, and it remembers the universe as it was in the past, and puts all to rights.

Almost anything that involves time travel has used this trick, and at least one series based its entire premise on using that trick as the CORE of each episode. Seven days, I think it was called.

Sliders varied the routine slightly, in that you didn't fix the broken unviverse, you just slid into a new one, broken if a differnt way.

Come to think of it Quantum Leap was the same trick warmed over too.

The Greeks used Duex Ex Machina as a core of their drama, but then they believed the Gods had a bigger hand in your life than you did anyway.

Since that time, Western lititure has considered anything but the MOST judicious use of this device to be the mark of the most unsofisticated hacks around. Now though the magic of hack TV it has become a Scifi staple.

 

[marvo]

Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Klaus:

Fusing Hydrogen produces Helium. Could you then fuse the Helium to create a kind of 'after-burner' effect? And what would you do with the Berylium produced?

Helium fusion mostly produces C-12 (using three helium nuclei at once). It wouldn't really give you an 'afterburner' effect, though; not all that much energy is released. </font>[/QUOTE]If Carbon 12 is produced from the Helium fussion at incredible temperature and pressure, then you might be able to produce diamonds as a 'waste' product. Of course, they would be radioactive, but good trade items for unscrupulous traders.

 

[Anthony]

carbon-12 is not radioactive. However, diamond is rather easier to generate by other means.

 

[marvo]

Originally posted by Anthony:
carbon-12 is not radioactive. However, diamond is rather easier to generate by other means.

Oops your right. I was getting 12 and 14 mixed up.