Consolidated MT Errata v2.2 Antimatter Fuel Pod

[snrdg082102]

I've got a question or maybe more concerning the Antimatter Fuel Pod on p. 26 of the Consolidated MT Errata v2.2.

The Consolidate Errata, p. 26, provides the following:

Antimatter power plants use fuel pods: a special self-contained fuel package that contains a measured quantity of antimatter enclosed in a strong artificial gravity “bottle”. The bottle’s gravity fields are maintained by an array of super batteries. Fuel pods are the heart of an antimatter power plant, and they typically provide fuel for up to a year before needing replaced. Fuel pods also have a minimum size to which they may be built:

On MT: Referee's Manual p. 64 each Antimatter Power Plant has a minimum volume requirement.

Parameter:

A TL 17 Antimatter plant, per the table on MT: RM p. 64, must use be at least 8 kl in size, MT: RM p. 64.

A TL 17 fuel pod, per Consolidated Errata p. 26, has a minimum volume of 2 kl.

Question 1: Is the fuel pod minimum size incorporated into an antimatter power plant's minimum volume require?

Question 2: Are there separate weight and price requirements for a fuel pod?

Tom R

 

[DonM]

I don't have good answers for your questions, but I can tell you that the errata you are mentioning is from the 10/1/88 Genie posting by GDW...

Now: what did they mean by that?

 

[snrdg082102]

I don't have good answers for your questions, but I can tell you that the errata you are mentioning is from the 10/1/88 Genie posting by GDW...

Now: what did they mean by that?

I was hoping someone might have a clue. Now here is hoping I've got a handle on how to build a Power Plant.

Parameters for a TL 17 Antimatter Power plant.
Power Out: 500 MW
Weight: 6 tons
Price: 500,000 Cr
Volume: 8 kl (At least I think that this is what the Min Volume column means)
Fuel usage/Year: 250 kl
Fuel weight: 250 tons
Price: 625,000 Cr

To be honest I haven't a clue on how the fuel pod works.

Thanks for the reply. Did I get the process right?

 

[snrdg082102]

E. D. Quibell provided help that is posted over at my post titled MT: RM Power Plant - Fusion at http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=25356

I'm pondering the fusion plant and antimatter fuel pod answers.

 

[E.D.Quibell]

Parameters for a TL 17 Antimatter Power plant.
Power Out: 500 MW
Weight: 6 tons
Price: 500,000 Cr
Volume: 8 kl (At least I think that this is what the Min Volume column means)

Yup. That's reading strieght off the page, however it's not a minimum volume, it's a maximum. For anti matter Power Out is the maximum without destroying the power plant. I'm not sure why you couldn't have multiple 500 Mw anti matter power plants though, so i don't really see why this restriction is there, but that is beside the point.

Fuel usage/Year: 250 kl
Fuel weight: 250 tons
Price: 625,000 Cr

To be honest I haven't a clue on how the fuel pod works.

Thanks for the reply. Did I get the process right?

You have the fuel wrong. To run this for a year you need 250 kl.

Each kl of fuel weighs 1 ton and costs 625,000 cr. So for a year the fuel would weigh 250 tons but cost 156,250,000 cr.

Best regards,

Ewan

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello once again Ewan,

Are you referring to the text below as restricting the number of antimatter power plants to a single unit.

Antimatter power output is the maximum that is possible without destroying the power plant.

I take the text to mean that an antimatter power plant's output after a certain point over stresses components which leads to a big boom. Engineers have determined that an 1 kiloliter TL 17 antimatter power plant avoids going boom when producing a maximum of 500 MW of output power. I can put as many antimatter power plants into a design as I want. Of course I think having one potential antimatter bomb is just the right number.

Oh how my brain is hurting when thinking about power plants.

So in the first Power Plant table the volume represents the smallest volume a system can be built. In the antimatter Volume = the largest. The maximum size TL 14 power plant is 8 kl that has a power output of 4,000 MW, weighs 48 metric tons, can be purchased for 4 MCr, and can cruise for 1 year on 2,000 kl of fuel under normal operating conditions.

My abbreviation of Fuel usage/Year - 250 kl was meant to mean a 250 kl fuel load will operate a 500 MW TL 17 antimatter power plant for one year under normal operations.

Good catch about the Price of the fuel being incorrect. I apparently was distracted and forgot to do the math before posting. I did review the post before sending and I swear the math was there web gremlins must have removed the calculation.

I really do hope I get a handle on power plants, of course I'm very to have already lost my mind otherwise I'd be in serious trouble.

 

[snrdg082102]

Okay, with Ewan's help, calculating the volume of an antimatter fuel pod is coming together.

I think I may have discovered a small problem for the fuel pod volume versus power plant volume. Per the errata a fuel pod is the heart of an antimatter power plant and the smallest fuel pod size is 2 kl. The specifications for antimatter power plants on the table on MT: RM p. 64 is for 1 kl. To me this means that a fuel pod can't be the heart of this type of power plant.

Additional questions (actually the originals)

Question 1: Is a fuel pods volume added to the power plant volume?

Question 1A: Is the fuel pod volume already part of the power plant's volume?

Question 2: In addition to volume shouldn't the power pod have weight and price requirements?

 

[E.D.Quibell]

Ok now you've got questioning if I'm doing it right (I don't usually play at TL17+).

And it turns out I'm doing it wrong !!!

The volume label on the Antimatter table should be "minimum volume"

So the smallest TL17 Antimatter power plant we can build is 8kl, and the units are listed as per kl.

So the smallest antimatter power plant at TL17 is:

8 kl Volume
4000 Mw Output
36 tons Weight
4 Mcr Price
2000 kl/y Fuel (or 5.479 kl per day)


Fuel cost is 3,424,657 Cr (MCr 3.4) per day !!!!

So while the power plant is cheep (MCr 4 for 4000 Mw is very very cheep) the fuel is very very very very expensive, and very very large.

10 days of fuel will pay for an equiverlent 4000 Mw TL16 Fusion plant, and 30 days of antimatter fuel is about 85% of the volume of the equiverlent Fusion plant.

Basically making it not worth the effort to implement, and as fuel rates stay relative to power output as the TL incresese there is no TL efficency savings on fuel size or cost.

At TL21 the smallest power plant is:

0.02 kl Volume
1000 Mw Output
0.04 tons Weight
10,000 Cr Price
500 kl/y Fuel (or 1.3699 kl per day)

Fuel cost is Cr 856,187.5 per day !!

Now 1000 Mw for Cr 10,000 is very very very cheep, but the fuel cost and size is VERY Expensive and very large.

The text suggests that you can run these as less power out and thus use less fuel. So if say we run this at 10 Mw output we should be able to reduce the fuel consumption to 0.013699 kl per day, at a cost of Cr 8,562 a day !!! Still way too expensive. If you run it down in the 1 Mw range where is kind of makes sence you get equiverment output and costs from an MHD Turbine, and while the Hydrogen fuel is much larger in volume it's considerably cheaper.

Tom. I should forget about Antimatter power plants they are just not worth the money spent on the fuel. Stick to TL16 Fusion plants if you are designing TL17+ shipps.

Best regards,

Ewan

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Ewan,

Goody, I'm not the only who got confused with power plants in MT. My intent was not to prove anyone wrong, one is never wrong, one is just in a different reality that needs slight adjustment , about anything to do with antimatter power plants and the addition of antimatter fuel pods. I'm one of the individuals that tries to follow the design sequence from start to finish as written and modified by official errata. Any Home brew alterations that make sense might be included after the first draft.

Another goody since I appear to have been on the right track, maybe the light at the end of the tunnel is getting brighter again.

Unless the MTU, actually any of the canon TUs, can find deposits of antimatter the creation of the fuel is going to be more expensive than the other types. At TL 17 I have no problems with the price of antimatter fuel listed on MT: RM p. 83 being 625,000 Cr. Unfortunately I don't see that the price to be the same over the next 4 Technology levels. Of course the manufacture of antimatter fuel will still be more expensive that for hydrogen, radioactives, and hydrocarbons.

I realize the MTU concerns the collapse of the 3I, however all of the established cultures are still around. The Darrian's still have mothballed vessels, not to mention were progressing toward their former technology base. So an antimatter power plant is possible.

I'm not in the position currently to even think about designing anything yet, especially power plants in any form. Hopefully I will be successful in getting a handle on power plant design with all the help I'm getting to move on to locomotion.

Stay tuned for a new post that checks to see if I have a handle on batteries, fuel cells, and solar cells. Hey, why is everyone groaning and shaking their heads was it something I typed?

Thanks Ewan for your efforts.

 

[McPerth]

Most MT TL 17+ stuff is really incoherent with any science, and few (if any) is cost effective. Not only AM plants, but also weaponry is not really more effective (as I pointed out already in former posts, see posts 525+ in the errata thread, specifically http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=370038&postcount=525).

Now 1000 Mw for Cr 10,000 is very very very cheep, but the fuel cost and size is VERY Expensive and very large.

Most MT fuel needs are astronomically absurd. I readed in some article (sorry, I cannot find it now, it was on MTJ or TD, IIRC) about radioactives that fuel needs are so large because they come in pods, form which only a small part is really fuel (radioactives, in this case), the rest being shielding, and so on. IMHO that could also be told of AM.

This might be a good explanation, but, if so, I guess there would be different pods of different size, the larger the more efficient (less shielding per mass of true fuel). If you need 1 kl to hold and contain 1 gr of antihydrogen, that does not mean you need 1000 kl to hold 1 kg of it. Probably the shielding and containing will be little more for a kg of antihydrogen than for a gram of it, as most of it is grav/magnetic shileding. So, a ship that needs (let's say, numbers are here taken from my hat, not solid science) 1 gr of AM to be fueled for 3 months, may need in fact 1 kl of volume, but a ship that needs 1 kg of it, probably won't need 1000 kl, unless the only pods it finds are 1 gr/1kl sized, but I guess if those ships were built, different sized pods would be also to maximize its usefulness.

To represent this (IMHO), fuel pods should be described as (numbers again taken from my hat) 2 kl + 0.05 kl/kl of PP supported, or something like that, representing the minimum shielding equipment and the increased efficiency as it has to hold more AM.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy McPerth,

Thanks for dropping by and adding to the discussion.

I think that the intent of adding the antimatter fuel pod was to explain the costs and probably came about from the article you recall reading.

Again thanks for adding to the discussion.

 

[McPerth]

You're wellcome.

I think the intent for DGP when giving stats for TL up to 21 was to give a way to standarize artifact ships and other Ultra Hi Tech elements the referee wanted to incorporate to his campaign.

While they (more or less) achieved that (perceived, it's just my opinion, I cannot talk for them) objective in designing them, there was quite more problem when trying to play them (the disadvantage the desintegrator puts you against MG, as I pointed is just an example).

About the fuel problem (any kind of fuel in fact), one of the worst aspects of MT (IMHO again) is the inefficiency of most PP. Even for fusion, you need vast amounts of hydrogen to make them work. Most assumptions I've seen in other Science Fiction sources point to very small amounts of in needed. While this may be a handicap for the science, it's anyway game sound, as the need for so much Hydrogen is what makes frontier sound.

If you need to refuel after every jump (or, at most after 4-5 parsecs, if you intend to have a decent payload in your ship), the border zone is limited to about double of that, allowing for stable frontiers. If you could do 12-15 parsecs without refuelling, the zone needed to be patroled would be about twice or three times that amount, so making defending borders nearly impossible, leading to quite a less stable universe (not a bad thing, if that is what you intend, but not Traveller Universe).

 

[snrdg082102]

You're welcome.

I think the intent for DGP when giving stats for TL up to 21 was to give a way to standardize artifact ships and other Ultra Hi Tech elements the referee wanted to incorporate to his campaign.

While they (more or less) achieved that (perceived, it's just my opinion, I cannot talk for them) objective in designing them, there was quite more problem when trying to play them (the disadvantage the disintegrator puts you against MG, as I pointed is just an example).

About the fuel problem (any kind of fuel in fact), one of the worst aspects of MT (IMHO again) is the inefficiency of most PP. Even for fusion, you need vast amounts of hydrogen to make them work. Most assumptions I've seen in other Science Fiction sources point to very small amounts of in needed. While this may be a handicap for the science, it's anyway game sound, as the need for so much Hydrogen is what makes frontier sound.

If you need to refuel after every jump (or, at most after 4-5 parsecs, if you intend to have a decent payload in your ship), the border zone is limited to about double of that, allowing for stable frontiers. If you could do 12-15 parsecs without refueling, the zone needed to be patrolled would be about twice or tree times that amount, so making defending borders nearly impossible, leading to quite a less stable universe (not a bad thing, if that is what you intend, but not Traveller Universe).

Don't forget back when Traveller computers were large scale compared to what we have today. Another item is that the designers created an universe that had certain restrictions, like refueling after a jump, which is much different from today. A warship leaves port with a full fuel load and cruises to a port on the other side of the pond. The ship will need to refuel before heading back to home port. Of course nuclear powered ships only take on fuel for subordinate craft.

Oh, yea a lot of good stuff here, thanks.

 

[Timmy]

If you look at the expected duterium content of naturally occuring hydrogen and assume that 1% of the mass of duterium is converted into energy in a fusion reaction, then the fuel consumptions are not unreasonable for fusion plants. This assumes that the reaction achievable duterium-duterium fusion, with consequsntly lower threshols energies, rather than hydrogen-hydrogen, via the proton-proton chain, that the sun uses. The other thing to watch is that the fuel cells at higher TLs seem to come out with consumptions that would require more energy output from the fuel than the enthalpy of formation of water from hydrogen and oxygen can supply.

 

[snrdg082102]

If you look at the expected deuterium content of naturally occurring hydrogen and assume that 1% of the mass of deuterium is converted into energy in a fusion reaction, then the fuel consumptions are not unreasonable for fusion plants. This assumes that the reaction achievable deuterium-deuterium fusion, with consequently lower thresholds energies, rather than hydrogen-hydrogen, via the proton-proton chain, that the sun uses. The other thing to watch is that the fuel cells at higher TLs seem to come out with consumptions that would require more energy output from the fuel than the enthalpy of formation of water from hydrogen and oxygen can supply.

Howdy Timmy,

Thanks for adding the my store of knowledge about fusion power plants and fuel cells.
Unfortunately, I only have a vague idea from the information provided is that (1) fusion plant fuel usage is not too bad and (2) fuel cell power output exceeds the potential of what the fuel can actually generate.

Of course being close to the age of dirt, I'm not very swift on the uptake anymore. Is there a simpler explanation that a poor old gray haired retired submarine sailor might understand?

Thanks again for the comment, even if I'm kind of fuzzy about the meaning.

 

[Timmy]

Further to my previous post regarding the fuel efficiencies of the fusion reactors detailed in Megatraveller, I have done some calculations and come up with the following.
In a fusion reaction approximately 1% of the mass of the neuceli being fused will be converted to energy, following the relationship e=mc^2
Getting normal light hydrogen neuclei to fuse takes imense pressure and temperature, this is what is happening in the sun, the process is called the proton-proton chain.
A process that takes significantly less perssure and temperature is the fusion of deuterium neuclei, i.e. heavy hydrogen, this, I believe, is some of the process that occurs in the fusion stage of a thermonuclear bomb detonation.
Deuterium makes up approximately 0.0156% of naturaly occuring hydrogen, so 1 kl of hydrogen (70kg) skimmed from a gas giant would contain of the order of 10.92 g (10.92 x 10^-3 kg) of deuterium.
The expected energy content of 1 kl of hydrogen used in a fusion plant would then be 0.01 x 10.92x10^-3kg x (2.9979x10^8m/s)^2 J, or 9.81x10^12 J, this ammounts to 2.73x10^6 kWh from a kl of fuel.
Taking the example of the TL 15 fusion plant of 1188 MW capacity, having a duration of 97 hours and using 86.912 kl of fuel, this would ammount to 4.28x10^12 J/hr of output, with the duterium content of the used fuel ammounting to 0.01092 kg/hr and liberating 8.79x10^12 J/hr. The the efficiency of the system is then of the order or 50%.

 

[snrdg082102]

Further to my previous post regarding the fuel efficiencies of the fusion reactors detailed in Megatraveller, I have done some calculations and come up with the following.
In a fusion reaction approximately 1% of the mass of the neuceli being fused will be converted to energy, following the relationship e=mc^2
Getting normal light hydrogen neuclei to fuse takes imense pressure and temperature, this is what is happening in the sun, the process is called the proton-proton chain.
A process that takes significantly less perssure and temperature is the fusion of deuterium neuclei, i.e. heavy hydrogen, this, I believe, is some of the process that occurs in the fusion stage of a thermonuclear bomb detonation.
Deuterium makes up approximately 0.0156% of naturaly occuring hydrogen, so 1 kl of hydrogen (70kg) skimmed from a gas giant would contain of the order of 10.92 g (10.92 x 10^-3 kg) of deuterium.
The expected energy content of 1 kl of hydrogen used in a fusion plant would then be 0.01 x 10.92x10^-3kg x (2.9979x10^8m/s)^2 J, or 9.81x10^12 J, this ammounts to 2.73x10^6 kWh from a kl of fuel.
Taking the example of the TL 15 fusion plant of 1188 MW capacity, having a duration of 97 hours and using 86.912 kl of fuel, this would ammount to 4.28x10^12 J/hr of output, with the duterium content of the used fuel ammounting to 0.01092 kg/hr and liberating 8.79x10^12 J/hr. The the efficiency of the system is then of the order or 50%.

Evening Timmy,

This is a pleasant surprise, since I got distracted by other issues and helping out in CT with Andrew Vallance's HGS application.

I'm going to have to re-read the thread a bit better, but what you have worked out is very interesting.

Thank you continuing to do research on the power plant fuel usage.