Nuclear Dampers

[Horatius]

As I understand it, when a starship is outfitted with a nuclear damper, it is immune from the effects of nuclear warheads. To do this, the damper interferes with the nuclear chain reaction on the quantum level. Ok, I can live with this explanation. But, when the damper is active, why does the fusion power plant aboard the ship still work? since the fusion power plant is a self-sustaining nuclear reaction, it should be nullified by the effect of the damper.

Does the damper only interfere with the U235/ Pu238 reaction? Does it stop the neutrons from carrying out the chain reaction?

Or, am I taking this the wrong way and the nuclear damper only interferes with the subsequent radiation and EMP waves generated by the device?

Anybody have any thoughts or suggestions? Depending on how a nuclear damper actually works, it could be converted into a weapon. (More on that thought as replies come in.)

 

[Piper]

My understanding is that the damper field is focused and needs to be aimed at a target in order to effect it. Don't have the books handy, but I'm pretty sure I remember Mercenary describing a ground-based system as requiring 2 transmitter vehicles and a third vehicle for fire control. A shipboard system would be similar.

edit: (just remembered this) The dampers uses focused nodes and anti-nodes (whatever those are). The inersection of these prevents nuclear warheads from detonating and blocks the fission triggers of thermo-nuclear warheads. It won't interfere with fusion plants.
It would make a useful, non-lethal weapon against cultures using fission power sources.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

The idea of using NDs to shut down a reactor (great for pirates!) goes back at least 15 years, but I've never come up with a good answer either way.

 

[Anthony]

The most likely answer is that compact fusion reactors use nuclear dampers in their normal operations, and are thus shielded from external influences. Pick your preferred handwave as to why this isn't done to weapons, such as that they are (which is why dampers are unreliable), or that the shielded region in a fusion reactor is much smaller than a warhead.

 

[mike wightman]

In the TNE adventure Guilded Lilly a nuclear damper is used to ground a Far Trader by preventing its reactor from firing up to full output.
As others have said the nuclear damper must be focussed, it isn't a field effect. So unless you focus your nuclear damper on your power plant it won't affect it.

 

[Piper]

I'm pretty sure a damper won't work on a fusion reactor.
If I understand this, fission occurs when a neutron splits a nucleus. This splitting produces smaller nuclei and releases more neutrons which split other nuclei, etc. etc. Dampers work by lowering the energy level of the released neutrons thereby inhibiting the chain reaction you need to blow up things (like starships or cities).
A fusion reaction happens when nuclei are combined, or fused together. Thermo-nuclear weapons use a fission trigger to accomplish this (an atom bomb detonates a hydrogen bomb). Most experiments with useable fusion power use a laser to heat the hydrogen to a plasma state where fusion begins. Neutron release is incidental and far less energetic.
I'll be the first to admit that my particle physics is so rusty that it creaks, but this does seem consistent with what I remember of it.

 

[mike wightman]

Nuclear dampers work by either increasing the strong nuclear force - positive node - which prevents fission from taking place, or decreasing the strong nuclear force - negative node - which prevents fusion.
How the nuclear damper operator knows which type of nuke to defend against is a bit of a mystery though

 

[flykiller]

nuclear weapons use fission, which is the accelerated decay of U-23something or some other suitable isotope to release energy. fusion power plants operate off of nuclear fusion, which is the packing together of various isotopes to release energy. nuclear dampers "project a series of nodes and anti-nodes where the strong nuclear force is enhanced or degraded, rendering nuclear warheads ineffective." two possibilities: 1) when a nuke detonates the nuclear dampers change the physics of the weapon's operation, thus preventing it from fissioning properly. 2) the nuclear dampers ruin the physical distribution of the nuke's fuel, thus rendering it ineffective.

seems to me that whatever would shut down a nuke would enhance a fusion plant, maybe burn it out. and vice versa.

as a ref, if the players started sniffing in this direction I'd just say I don't know how it works and no it's not going to affect a fusion plant, then roll for a wandering monster encounter.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

Usually I assume, that nuclear damping modifies the effective average capture cross section ("Einfangquerschnitt" in German) of subatmic particles, thus decreasing the capability for fission chain reactions (because neutrons have difficulties to hit other Uxxx nucleons) or even for fusion reactions (because the protons cannot hit each other anymore).

OTOH the opposite effect would be interesting, too, e.g. to warm up a fusionplant more easily

 

[mike wightman]

IMHO advanced fusion reactors use nuclear damper technology to enhace fusion rather than hinder it, thus leading to the greater efficiency of higher TL power plants.

 

[TheEngineer]

That what I thought of, Sigg

 

[Piper]

Good points all, and some interesting observations.
It may depend to some extent on where your damper definition comes from. The description in LBB 4 is the most detailed of any that I have and it specifically mentions the fission trigger issue.

I can see where altering the strong force might be able to moderate a fusion reaction, but as a game mechanic it presents problems. If a damper can shut down a fusion reactor at range then it becomes the king of anti-vehicle weapons at higher tech levels. Since no rules exist to limit the damper (screens, armor, etc) any target in line of site can have it's power cut off by simply focusing a damper on it.
In MT, damper technology leads to the disintegrator at around TL17. This can be screened by a damper. The effects of disintegrator hits are surface effect, not power disruption. It would seem that canon intended to keep the damper as a defensive system.
If you want to allow dampers as offensive systems then protecting fusion plants with damper boxes would be a possible defense (or assume that higher tech level plants have a damper installed, as Sigg and TheEngineer suggested). The Disintegrator vs. Damper charts in MT might provide a good starting point to create rules from.

 

[TheEngineer]

Total agreement Piper, the damper stuff should be considered as defensive measure.
Shouldnt dampers be quite short ranged anyway ?
I always thought of another kind of screen/shield.
The damper field also might be quite matter sensible (which fits to the desintegrator evolution), meaning its not very well suited for reaching power plant interiors.
This might cut away the need for dampers there, even if they could be very useful. Just think of high effective radiation shielding by modifying material capturing properties with damper technology.

The fission trigger thing would work this way, too.
A pulsed damper field might indeed trigger initial fission reactions, which breaks warheads apart. Subsequently ongoing fission is disrupted by changing damper modulation (Oh god, please excuse, this sounds like Star Trek nonsense....).

 

[far-trader]

Some quick comments to chum the heavy water...

If disintegrators (from damper tech) are only effective against surfaces of vehicles how does a damper penetrate a missile hull to affect the warhead, it would be heavily shielded wouldn't it?

If dampers are effective against fusion powerplants (as suggested) then the obvious thing to do is not use fusion powerplants for combat vehicles. Besides I thought that fusion powerplants were like a huge beacon for sensors. Combat vehicles will want stealthy tech, like batteries, which can't be damper fluxed.

Yep, I think the dampers should have a (short) range associated with it as a targeted effect.

I like the idea of advanced fusion being an application of very localized damper tech. It would not make the advanced fusion any safer from outside damper fluxing.

What is damper fluxing? I think dampers operate by pulsing between the two, increase and decrease, destabilizing the reactions and in the case of a warhead causing a reduced early partial detonation (maybe) and in the case of fusion powerplants, causing a safety warning for fluctuations outside parameters and a shutdown event.

So combat vehicles would probably still have fusion powerplants (for getting around quick and deploying), then when they need to go combat active or stealth, switch to batteries, kinda like the old diesel/battery subs.

That's all my input for now, loving the comments, lots of good ideas.

 

[TheEngineer]

Originally posted by far-trader:
[QB] Some quick comments to chum the heavy water...

If disintegrators (from damper tech) are only effective against surfaces of vehicles how does a damper penetrate a missile hull to affect the warhead, it would be heavily shielded wouldn't it?

Well, good remark, but I guess missile shielding is quite weak compared to a starship hull..
Perhaps thats another issue with combat vehicles, which usually are armored ?
MT weight for a nuclear missile is just 70 kg, so there doesnt seem to be much payload available for a 40 cm starship hull

Regarding neutrino emissions of a fusion PP standard dampers might be not efficient enough, so that most of these tiny bastards slip thru shielding....

..
Yep, I think the dampers should have a (short) range associated with it as a targeted effect.
...

Might remove most of the other triggered problems...

So combat vehicles would probably still have fusion powerplants (for getting around quick and deploying), then when they need to go combat active or stealth, switch to batteries, kinda like the old diesel/battery subs.

Yes,perhaps its a typical defense reaction just to power down and switch to battery, when exposed to a unfriendly damper field ? If the field is away they could switch back....
Thus offensive dampers might not be of real value.

Regards,

Mert

 

[Horatius]

Ok.
Somebody fetch me a physicist. I need someone to correct me on this before I do something drastic.

As we've determined, a nuclear damper strengthens or weakens the strong nuclear force in the nucleus of the U235/Pu238 in the explosive package of the nuclear warhead, depending on if the warhead is at the node or anti-node of the nuclear damper. If it strengthens the strong force, this would increase the bonding force between the protons and neutrons in the nucleus, requiring a greater energy need for the incomming particles to split the next nucleus in the chain. If a strengthening node were directed at a fusion reaction in a power plant, it would increase the tendency for the nuclei to bond together into helium4, thereby making the fusion reaction require less energy to occur, thereby making a fusion plant either burn more efficently than conventional physics allows; OR if said fusion reaction were made extremely easy, it could cause a fusion power plant to become a runaway reaction, thereby causing it to explode, i.e. a very clean fusion device. [Hydrogen bombs being so dirty because they require a fission-based nuclear explosion to trigger them.]

If the anti-node of the nuclear damper were pointed at the fissionable material of a missile, it would lessen the strong force in the material, thereby causing the fission warhead to explode more easily or more efficiently, thereby making a small warhead more dangerous or a sub-critical mass become super-critical. If you take the technology far enough, you could take a non-reactive material, say lead206 or an isotope of gold or some other near-uranic material, and make it into a fissionable material. It wouldn't even set off a radiological warning on a battlefield. If the same anti-node were pointed at a fusion drive, it could halt the reaction, and stop the conversion of Hydrogen into Helium4. Carried far enough (ancients perhaps? or someone with a BIG axe to grind and an even bigger budget), a large enough nuclear damper could halt the fusion reaction in a star, thereby destroying solar systems.

Hmmm... Could this be what the Darrian Sun-Trigger was doing? Something happened to produce a massive runaway reaction in the sun's core that caused a chain reaction and a coronal mass event? Maybe.

Someone please correct my knowledge of physics. My players will thank you. I've already been banned from watching old Dr. Who episodes. If I understand things the way I think I do, I might be banned from the science channel as well.

 

[Anthony]

If nuclear dampers actually worked as written and were strong enough to prevent fusion weapons from working, they could be used to make non-radioactive elements radioactive, and would have many applications as a Death Ray. Therefore, we have to assume that the canonical way nuclear dampers work is not, in fact, true. I'm somewhat at loss to come up with a mechanism that will prevent nuclear weapons from working that won't also kill people.

 

[Piper]

Originally posted by Horatius:
Ok.
Somebody fetch me a physicist.

here

From what little I know, you seem to have it right. Interesting thought on the Darrians. I'll have to ponder that one,
FWIW, I think it depends more on what limits you impose as a ref than the actual physics. Nuclear explosions (as opposed to a simple core meltdown) are fairly tricky things to pull off. The damper, as described in Book 4, doesn't seem to have much capacity beyond simply stopping the chain reaction, or speeding it up so that the bomb fizzles.
That said, manipulating the strong force could conceivably allow almost anything up to and including matter transmission and disintegrators. Moderating a fusion reaction would be a simple thing for a device that sophisticated.

 

[Anthony]

Assuming you could increase the strength of the strong nuclear force, this would reduce the radius of the stable nucleus, as well as increasing the binding energy (and thus reducing the mass of the nucleus). Since presumably the damper doesn't directly make nuclei smaller or less massive, this means the nucleus is in an unstable state, which problem it will presumably correct by emitting a gamma ray. This applies to both radioactive and normally stable nuclei. On the other hand, if you reduce the strength, we wind up with a peculiar state where the nucleus is at lower energy than its stable state; I'm not sure what the nucleus would do, but electron capture seems like a plausible candidate.