Results 61 to 72 of 72
Thread: Power-Positive Fusion Power!
-
2014-10-20, 05:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- Sharangar's Revenge
- Gender
Re: Power-Positive Fusion Power!
There was a thread about this a few months ago: Navy prepares to take railguns to sea. This may answer your question. Please note that this is an old thread, so get a Mod's permission before posting or start a new thread if you want to continue the discussion.
Warhammer 40,000 Campaign Skirmish Game: Warpstrike
My Spelljammer stuff (including an orbit tracker), 2E AD&D spreadsheet, and Vault of the Drow maps are available in my Dropbox. Feel free to use or not use it as you see fit!
Thri-Kreen Ranger/Psionicist by me, based off of Rich's A Monster for Every Season
-
2014-10-20, 06:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Gender
Re: Power-Positive Fusion Power!
Shout this from the rooftops man. You just resolved every armed conflict that has ever existed.
If only it was as easy as you say. Sadly, this only works when both parties share the same sentiment. I wholeheartedly support "peace" and "pacifism", but I will take "reason" above both when neccessary.
No matter though, if this gets developed it will benefit billions whether the military is the first to get their hands on it or not.Last edited by Crow; 2014-10-20 at 06:04 PM.
Avatar by Aedilred
GitP Blood Bowl Manager Cup Record
Styx Rivermen, Feets Reloaded, and Selene's Seductive Strut
Record: 42-17-13
3-time Division Champ, Cup Champion
-
2014-10-20, 06:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
Re: Power-Positive Fusion Power!
See when a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear it, you can bet we've bought the vinyl.
-Snow White
Avatar by Chd
-
2014-10-20, 07:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: Power-Positive Fusion Power!
I agree that none of us are in a position to actually change this development contract, but assuming we want to evaluate how we would act if we could in fact decide to block this, then it makes sense to ask the following question:
- What percent of the people who will ever live (lets say over the next 2 centuries to keep things from getting too strange) will end up being killed due to the militaries of the world having access to this kind of fusion, versus if the militaries of the world did not.
- What percent of the same set of people would end up dying without fusion, but would live if it were developed through this route otherwise?
- What is the additional miscellaneous bonus/malus associated with both questions, converted to 'effective human life weights'? E.g. if 7 billion people get access to cheaper, more convenient, faster flights then that may not directly mean someone lives or dies but there would probably be thousands of human-lifetimes worth of time saved due to the various ancillary factors.
That would give the necessary basis to at least evaluate whether or not developing this technology military-first is 'worth it' despite enabling killing.
-
2014-10-20, 08:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- I wish I knew...
- Gender
Re: Power-Positive Fusion Power!
I think there's a distinction that needs to be made. I was pointing out that the necessity for military purposes being a necessity is what keeps my faith in humanity from being restored, not that we acknowledge that necessity.
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't particularly mind if the military were to build itself one or two flying fortresses that could shoot down some nutjob with a rogue nuke before it got anywhere. And I wouldn't particularly mind if certain elements who were actively hostile to everyone who doesn't believe in their very narrow belief system were to end up on the wrong end of the new weapons being planned around these reactors. I recognize that I am, at least in part, morally responsible should that happen because I am a citizen of the representative government who would order that. And I would still put my seal of approval on it.
I still see no moral difference between killing and enabling killing, particularly not directly enabling by providing the power for the newest generation of weapons to function optimally. Having said that, I never did say that killing was, in and of itself, amoral. The morality or amorality would depend on how those weapons were used and in what way. As was mentioned before, the responsibility lies on those using them in the field, the chain of command and Table of Organization, and the civilian authorities who ultimately are responsible for them. Which then defaults, at least in a representative government, to the voting citizenship as a whole.
There's also a distinct difference between killing and murder in my books. I don't believe self defense is murder, even if you have to kill your opponent, particularly not when your opponent has proven time and time again that he will not hesitate to kill himself to take you out with him.
As far as 'why a rail gun when we have conventional weaponry/what advantage do rail guns have that makes them so much more desirable', there's several traits:
* Inexpensive rounds. You're talking a slug of nickle/iron. Much less expensive than rockets, for about the same range.
* Relatively low cubic footage per round. These things are much smaller than rockets.
* Faster. Yes, faster than a rocket. Like twice as fast at a minimum. Meaning you can work out an intercept trajectory using your onboard computer and fire to take out a rocket before termination phase.
* Lower intercept chance. Rockets can be shot down. No one has figured out how to stop a rail gun's slug. Yet.
When compared to a deck gun conventionally mounted on naval vessels
* Longer range. Quite a bit, actually.
* More damage on impact. The sheer kinetic impact alone is far beyond any round we can slide into a deck gun
* Faster speeds for shorter 'time to target', meaning you don't have to lead your moving targets as much, meaning simpler targeting solutions.
Possible downsides versus conventional weaponry
* Dependent on power supply of vessel. Granted, if your power goes out, your ship is probably already dead in the water, but it does require a LOT of energy to fire, being required to divert energy to secondary systems may prevent the weapon from firing to its fullest potential.
* Blowthrough. No, really. These things can penetrate just about anything short of a hill or mountain. You're going to need to examine what is behind what you are firing at a lot more closely. Fortunately, we've got some pretty good IFF so your computer should be able to tell you if anything friendly is in the line of effect, but it is still something to take into consideration. Blowing away an enemy tank, then going on to take out half the village you were trying to save is a poor trade-off.
* Price of the weapon system itself. Being a prototype weapon, it ain't cheap. Particularly not when compared to the price of deck guns. Against one-shot missiles, it fares more economically as you can get more shots out of it, so you hit a break even point eventually.
The MW lasers, however, have the potential to be better in terms of anti-missile doctrine, because they are literally light-speed weapons (slowed down ever so slightly due to atmosphere, but still able to go at cee-fractional speeds) and are still able to take missiles down consistently. However, they're also a LOT more expensive than a Rail Gun, and they cannot be used for indirect fire bombardment.
Both of these weapon systems will become more practical with the advent of CFR's. Both are already being built today, however they will dovetail very nicely with the CFR's to provide a substantial synergy boost to them to make them possibly more viable than the current weapons being employed. It takes them from 'fancy toy, but why bother' to 'economically and militarily viable'. CFR's also create the possibility of aircraft who can remain 'on station' for weeks or even months at a time, just like naval vessels can. Also, imagine what a tank could do if they had a Fusion reactor? They would then have the power budget to mount MW lasers or rail guns instead of their current equipment. At that point, they could double as anti-missile platforms as well as heavy weapons. They'd have to be bigger, but they'd also be a hell of a lot more dangerous. Perhaps think less tank and more mobile artillery with its own anti-missile system built in.SpoilerQuite possibly, the best rebuttal I have ever witnessed.
Joker Bard - the DM's solution to the Batman Wizard.
Takahashi no Onisan - The scariest Samurai alive
Incarnum and YOU: a reference guide
Soulmelds, by class and slot: Another Incarnum reference
Multiclassing for Newbies: A reference guide for the rest of us
My homebrew world in progress: Falcora
-
2014-10-20, 11:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Location
- Dromund Kaas
- Gender
Re: Power-Positive Fusion Power!
-
2014-10-20, 11:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
Re: Power-Positive Fusion Power!
That reminds me of the Hylar in the Dragonlance Dwarven Nations trilogy, in the first book they talk about looking to the left hand of their tools when trouble comes, meaning that from an outside perspective the tools they use with competency can also be deadly weapons...
Avatar by kpenguin
Spoiler
-
2014-10-21, 12:27 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- UTC -6
Re: Power-Positive Fusion Power!
Maybe? High temperature is relative at any rate, but unlike MRI machines (which do use cryogenics to keep their superconducting coils operating), the magnetic field in the CRF is by design bottling up monstrously hot plasma. I don't know enough of the specifics or physics, but that's going to be quite the thermal load to handle.
-
2014-10-21, 05:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
Re: Power-Positive Fusion Power!
A few inches of lead should do it, but short of that it is tricky to stop fast neutron radiation (which carries most of the power output of the reactor) and hard X-rays. One is better shielded by light materials, the other dense. Liquid helium cooling could work, but will be required to shift a significant proportion of total power output of the reactor. While 100kW of cooling does not sound hard, when you are not allowed to let the thing being heated get above 10K and you are limited in space it becomes a significant technical hurdle. 100kW requires you to boil off about 30 liters of helium per second, resulting in 300 liters of gas with reasonable high pressures (this number is my best guess, somebody who knows more can probably do better). A 5cm diameter pipe would require speeds of 150m/s, or about 300mph to transport this gas. At that heat flux with a temperature difference of at most 5 degrees you require a huge surface area and very good contact to make it work, and the structure cannot be damaged by rapid bubble formation. This is before we even start to talk about reliquifying 30liters per second of helium.
In short, maybe, but easy it will not be.
Another slight nitpick, The low temperature superconductors still work better than the high temperature ones, and even the high ones work better at low temperatures. The high temperature superconductors are probably not relevant, unless they prove to be the only ones that are coolable.
-
2014-10-21, 09:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Gender
-
2014-10-21, 07:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Gender
Re: Power-Positive Fusion Power!
NOW COMPLETE: Let's Play Starcraft II Trilogy:
Hell, It's About Time: Wings of Liberty
Does This Mutation Make Me Look Fat: Heart of the Swarm
My Life For Aiur? I Barely Know 'Er: Legacy of the Void
-
2014-10-21, 08:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Location
- Looking for the Xeelee
- Gender
Re: Power-Positive Fusion Power!
There are humans in the boloverse? I guess I skimmed past their mention as anything but payload or targets... reminds me of uh, what was it, the honorverse? Tales of heroic deeds done by amazing missiles and the people who love them or something like that.
Engraved here is a rendition of an image of the Dwarf Fortress learning curve. All craftsdwarfship is of the highest quality. It depicts an obsidian overhang which menaces with spikes of obsidian and tears. Carved on the overhang is an image of Toady One and the players. The players are curled up in a fetal position. Toady One is laughing. The players are burning.
ᴛʜɪs ɪs ɴᴏᴛ ᴀ sɪɢɴᴀᴛᴜʀᴇ.