Batteries for a Ship Power Source?

[DangerousThing]

Hi,

I'm asking for comments. So I suppose this is an RFC.

I'm working with T5, and the universe I work in (The Dangerous Journeys Universe, or DJ'verse for short) is not the OTU, though I've taken many ideas from the OTU for the golden age of the DJ'verse.

However, I've never liked fusion plants for a space ship. So I did some research into the future of batteries and learned they are doing some research on a different kind of battery that stores energy by increasing the particle spin or something like that. I'm not a physicist but I do understand that there can be a lot more energy stored using atomic level forces than there can be by chemical reactions.

So I propose a form of battery (TL-8 TL-12) that uses an atomic level force and can hold as much energy at TL-8 as an equal amount of hydrogen. Again, at TL-8, a regulator is needed to both help charge the batteries from different sources and to regulate the flow of energy from the batteries (to make sure the drain is relatively equal and that you get the proper voltage/amperage...). The volume of these go down rather quickly with TL as the purity of the underlying structures increases.

I also realize the changes this makes to the underlying universe. For instance, almost everything would use batteries rather than fusion drives or anything else for mobile energy use.

For instance, your floater (personal grav vehicle in Traveller terms) would go for at least a year on a very small battery -- I picture a standard vehicle battery to be about 1 kg, about 3 inches in diameter and four inches long. And yes, I realize the silliness of mixing metric and English measurements.

And your energy weapons will shoot hundreds of shots on a single clip.

I figure that individual cells are made for these batteries and only the purest ones go to starships (hence their expense).

Any thoughts? I take negative feedback quite well, and while positive feedback is nice, I learn more from people throwing rocks at my ideas.

 

[atpollard]

The whole E=MC2 matter to energy conversion associated with fusion is orders of magnitude better than any chemical or mechanical energy storage can be.

Which simply means that your super-batteries will be no more 'hard science' than Travellers FTL or anti-gravity technologies ... so use it if you want, but don't sweat the 'reality' of it. It is a hand-wave to make the game fun, nothing more and nothing less.

As a 'for instance':
Using hydrogen fusion and grav drive to travel from earth to mars requires less than 10% of the ship as fuel for a 1 G trip (per Traveller).
Using the chemical energy of LH2-LOX combustion would need over 90% of the ship as fuel for a fraction of a G (year long) trip (per the Rocket equation).
Mechanical energy storage, like flywheels, is typically worse than chemical combustion.
Batteries are typically even worse than flywheels.
... So a battery that rivals fusion is one heck of a battery.

 

[Dragoner]

Don't forget the AM battery from Twilight's Peak; then if you break it open it's full of gravel.

 

[Piper]

Something along these lines, perhaps?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100704162218.htm

This device apparently stores mechanical energy. It should be possible to convert that energy into another form (to generate heat or electric current for example) or it might be possible to use it directly in some variation of a mass driver.

As was mentioned ( and also pointed out in the article) this isn't going to compete with nuclear sources but it might make an interesting "rocketpunk" variation.

Another idea (if you don't mind space opera) could be mini black holes.

Interesting topic.

Regards

 

[robject]

Sort of reminds me of the batteries used in Gamma World. A bit.

Nah, it's more like antimatter batteries. Would that work? Just shimmy practical antimatter down to TL8?

 

[Lycanorukke]

With the amount of energy these batteries would have to store - you would have Joe Public driving around in car with a multi-megaton explosive under the hood. And given the competence of some drivers....

"And now our traffic report - drivers are advised to avoid California today as there has been a two car collision on the I-80"

 

[mike wightman]

With the amount of energy stored in the nucleus of an atom I would be terrified of the results of any collision...

oh, wait, it's a bit difficult to release the massive amount of energy stored in the nucleus of an atom

I think the idea has merit - it is a science fiction not science fact idea after all.

Storing energy in an atomic nucleus using quark manipulation (nuclear damper technology) could be handwaved at TL12 using standard Traveller TL scale.

 

[McPerth]

I'm not sure a collision among two fusion powered vehicles will be too much better than one among vehicles powered by such batteries...

 

[Lycanorukke]

I'm not sure a collision among two fusion powered vehicles will be too much better than one among vehicles powered by such batteries...

The fusion reaction would most likely just fizzle, or at worst slag the reactor in the event of a containment breach. Hydrogen in its natural state will do nothing outside the reactor (unless the grav vehicle does a Hindenburg but thats another story) and to extract the energy requires carefully controlled conditions and reactions. The superbattery however is a device which energy is shoved into and then extracted, so its 'natural state' is discharged. And like a shorted capacitor if that energy is released all at once so it can resume it's natural state it goes *bang*.

Hmm, one thing which just jumped into my mind now about the proposed superbatteries dimensions, and function seem remarkable similiar to a small ZPM. How much of a solar system would it destroy - 5/6 or 3/4?

On edit: Arrgh. I should have mentioned atomic metastability, where energy can be stored at an atomic level. The downside is that they have a nasty habit of destabilizing rather quickly with the same energy release (its roughly the same as spontaneous emission for electrons in a higher energy state in lasers).

 

[McPerth]

The fusion reaction would most likely just fizzle, or at worst slag the reactor in the event of a containment breach. Hydrogen in its natural state will do nothing outside the reactor (unless the grav vehicle does a Hindenburg but thats another story) and to extract the energy requires carefully controlled conditions and reactions. The superbattery however is a device which energy is shoved into and then extracted, so its 'natural state' is discharged. And like a shorted capacitor if that energy is released all at once so it can resume it's natural state it goes *bang*.

Hmm, one thing which just jumped into my mind now about the proposed superbatteries dimensions, and function seem remarkable similiar to a small ZPM. How much of a solar system would it destroy - 5/6 or 3/4?

On edit: Arrgh. I should have mentioned atomic metastability, where energy can be stored at an atomic level. The downside is that they have a nasty habit of destabilizing rather quickly with the same energy release (its roughly the same as spontaneous emission for electrons in a higher energy state in lasers).

I'm not an expert in that matter, but, AFAIK, the fusing hydrogen is contained by magnetic (probably gravitic in traveller) fields. What will it happen if those fields destabilize, or are outright turned off, by an accident?

Even if the possibility of such a catastrophic crash is 1 in a million, how long until it happens in a metropolis like Tokio or Los Angeles? I guess not long enough for the last time to have been forgotten...

 

[DangerousThing]

The whole E=MC2 matter to energy conversion associated with fusion is orders of magnitude better than any chemical or mechanical energy storage can be.

Which simply means that your super-batteries will be no more 'hard science' than Travellers FTL or anti-gravity technologies ... so use it if you want, but don't sweat the 'reality' of it. It is a hand-wave to make the game fun, nothing more and nothing less.

e = mc2 is wonderful until you realize that only a small amount of the H2 gets converted, and only a small amount of that is the fusion energy.

I went with batteries because of a couple of things that came out of a discussion on another board.

First, I was flat-out told that hydrogen was the best power for space flight because it is the most commonly available fuel. My response is that electricity is a lower common denominator in this case. You can make electrify from solar power with power sats close to the sun beaming the power where it is needed or by using large and efficient fusion reactors. And recharging batteries just takes regulators and superconducting cables and a *lot* of power. :rofl:

Second, I realize that this isn't hard science. There is some research that led me onto this path, but there is nothing that states that energy can't be stored this way. And yes, like Traveller's pint-sized fusion reactors, we have no guarantee that these things will really exist.

I do require superconductors for these batteries, and superconductors have some odd properties.

And the TL-13 version of these, energy cells were chosen more for their mad science looks than anything else.

And I also have force fields and such; I'll post them later.

Right now I don't use anything above TL-12, because my most advanced system, Narbon, is most of the way through 12, at least with starship construction and military hardware.

 

[DangerousThing]

Another idea (if you don't mind space opera) could be mini black holes.

Interesting topic.

Regards

I like the black hole device. Maybe I'll use it for the TL-16 version. A power plant the size of a walnut indeed.

And why yes, the DJ'verse is space opera, though I tend to call it science fantasy.

I rarely run hard sf.

 

[Lycanorukke]

I'm not an expert in that matter, but, AFAIK, the fusing hydrogen is contained by magnetic (probably gravitic in traveller) fields. What will it happen if those fields destabilize, or are outright turned off, by an accident?

I always ran Trav reactors as a mix of gravitic (to contain it) and Nuke dampers (to allow ordinary hydrogen Proton-Proton reactions to occur in such a small volume). It also covered why Trav fusion generators were so ineffecient - 90% of the energy was powering the Nuke dampers (a trade off between fuel availability and energy output).

Fusion reactors only have tiny amounts of material fusing (grams or less), and the moment they escape the containment they dump their heat into the containment chamber and rapidly drop below the temperature required for fusion and thus the rection stops. Actual real world reactors (eg: JET) have these problems as the magnetic confinement is not perfect and escaping plasma create small pits on the chamber walls which has to be repaired. Fission is different as the materials _want_ to disintergrate and release energy, and hence a meltdown is bad because the materials will continue to react even when they escape containment, whereas fusion can't happen without very specific conditions. If the grav/magnetic confinement fields collapse and the plasma starts to expand, density drops and thus fusion can't take place.

Note: Speculation some here

The only way I think a fusion reactor could explode is if you had a P-P reactor, and suddenly dumped a lot of deuterium/tritium into it. As a P-P reactor has to operate and vastly higher temperatures than a D-T reactor, the sudden influx of a lower temperature fusible material would allow the rection to escape before temperature droppped enough to stop.

It would be a good way to booby trap someone ship by fueling it with 'bad' hydrogen.

 

[DangerousThing]

I always ran Trav reactors as a mix of gravitic (to contain it) and Nuke dampers (to allow ordinary hydrogen Proton-Proton reactions to occur in such a small volume). It also covered why Trav fusion generators were so ineffecient - 90% of the energy was powering the Nuke dampers (a trade off between fuel availability and energy output).

I also think that a fission reactor could benefit from the use of gravitics. Imagine small but strong focused grav nodes designed to compress the fissionable material.

Or perhaps something the opposite of the nuke damper, designed to encourage fission.

 

[mike wightman]

Nuclear dampers manipulate the strong nuclear force and can be used to speed up or slow down fission and fusion.

Grav compression would be a no brainer for fusion reactors, but I'd keep it away from fission reactors if I were you

 

[DangerousThing]

Nuclear dampers manipulate the strong nuclear force and can be used to speed up or slow down fission and fusion.

Grav compression would be a no brainer for fusion reactors, but I'd keep it away from fission reactors if I were you

It would really be da bomb!

Seriously, how efficient could a fission plant be in Traveller? I would imagine that it could be made smaller for a given output than a fusion plant plus fuel. Then I could get away from batteries.

 

[Piper]

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hyperion's_Small-Scale_Nuclear_Reactors

Note: this is just the reactor vessel without supporting structures or energy conversion systems.

As an alternative to all this, you could use H. Beam Piper's direct nuclear-to-electric power cells. I believe that "Junkyard Planet" has the best description.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20727 (page 118)

They come in all sizes; from small batteries up to the keg-like units used to power starships.

Regards

 

[DangerousThing]

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hyperion's_Small-Scale_Nuclear_Reactors

Note: this is just the reactor vessel without supporting structures or energy conversion systems.

Interesting. I'd like to see them actually being used.

They put out (according to the article) 25 MW with a steam turbine conversion unit or 75 MW in heat. Give it a few TLs and maybe we can split the difference with a better heat engine and call it 50 MW.

Now how does that convert to Traveller 5 EP?

As an alternative to all this, you could use H. Beam Piper's direct nuclear-to-electric power cells. I believe that "Junkyard Planet" has the best description.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20727 (page 118)

They come in all sizes; from small batteries up to the keg-like units used to power starships.

Regards

Very interesting. I have to download that. It's been a long time since I've read it. I like the "collapsium" handwavium to insulate and protect the batteries.

 

[Timerover51]

Very interesting. I have to download that. It's been a long time since I've read it. I like the "collapsium" handwavium to insulate and protect the batteries.

"Collapsium" is not "handwavium". Just straight neutrons, as in collapsed matter neutron stars.

 

[Piper]

Canon two-step

Well ... (scratches head) High Guard gives the energy point requirement for a turret laser as 1 EP. Striker calls that 250MW of input power (yowzers!)

A 14m3 (1 ship dton) Striker fusion plant will generate that much power (ish).


Traveller may already contain Collapsium. It depends on how you choose to interpret "superdense" and "bonded superdense" armor.