The Beginning of Science Fact

Remove all ads!

Bring it on!

You are being correct. Read my post

That is why it's so fun to imagine how we would make a mech irl

 

Hmm...well, kuemper, you yourself did throw out a few sources, of middling use. (I, myself, don't trust the Wikpedia much from it being open-source with no accountability; anyone can post anything there without so much as a by-line, let alone any bibliographical references. )

I did find this, which - if you skim over the middle section, the beginning does explain nuclear fusion in principle, and finally - on the latter part of pg4 - discusses it in detail.^1

The big problem with a fusion reaction is that it requires massive temperatures and pressures (both of which are typically only found within a stellar body) to 'ignite' the fusion reaction. Unless you can accumulate a massive amount of fusionable material in one location to be ignited (then the fusing fuel provides the heat and surrounding pressure to sustain the reaction) the fusion reaction is going to require more and more energy to be used to maintain the conditions required for the fusion reaction.

From what I've read, the best instance of a fusion reactor is the Tokamaks at Princeton U. and 'somewhere in the USSR'. It's capable of coming *close* to the critical level of getting the fusionable fuel dense enough together to thus create more energy given off from the reaction than is being put in to ignite/sustain.

(Oh, and Meatdog?

^1)

But even if we 'cross the line' and manage to start and maintain a nuclear fusion reaction that gives off more energy than it takes in, there's still the tiny issue of capturing this energy and converting it to a useful form.

---

And here we enter the issue of 'engine' versus 'reactor'. And I'm gonna go to the granddaddy source for the English language - the OED (sorry, Mr. Webster, but it's not called 'American' for a reason )

Engine

Reactor

To which I'd say there exists no 'fusion engine' in the real world yet (the only practicable or useful purpose Tokamak and its kin serve is research, not power generation), whereas a fictional BattleTech motive powerplant is a fusion engine - part of which is a fusion reactor that passes created (freed?) heat energy to the 'transmission' part of the engine which converts it into a useful form for propelling the vehicle it is within - likely electrical energy.

Interestingly, from the word definitions I've cited above, almost all of our 'engines' could also be considered 'reactors' - e.g. the internal combustion engine has cylinders where a air-octane vapour is combusted to produce heat and pressure; that chamber can be defined as a 'reactor' by the second definition of OED's entry!

In short, an engine is (or has) a reactor, but not all reactors are engines.

--

And finally, the issue that started this whole wobbling, prone-to-misunderstanding discussion: could catastrophic damage to a fusion engine (or fusion reactor) cause an explosion?

I'll start with the real-world:

Remember - the fuel here is superheated hydrogen plasma; in the instance of our naturally-occurring fusion reaction - Sol,

^2 and the link to this article is here

By comparison, the environment within the reaction chambers of man-made fusion reactors like Tokamak or JET:

^1

^1

Yes, the fusion reaction would stop upon destruction of the EM field containing the reaction, but that's not the killer here!

This hydrogen plasma is still very 'effing hot, but also very, very diffuse. In my unlearned opinion, if Tokamak were to suddenly lose all electrical power and its electro-magnetic containment field were to vanish, the plasma fuel would - due to its very low density, just sit there, transmitting its retained heat to the materials of the reactor; the electromagnets would melt - likely even sublime straight to vapor from solid - and then pass heat on the rest of the reactor. Looking at photos and dimensions of same here (the reaction torus has an interior diameter of 1m, and an exterior diameter of 3m), I'd say the reactor would be ruined, the room it is in would be inhospitably hot before long, and the building itself may catch fire, but a violent explosion? I don't think so.

As for a BattleMech's powerplant? The object is smaller than our experimental reactors, and something tells me the temperature would be lower, and the pressure/density of the fuel higher, buuuuuuuut.... I don't think the density would still be significant to do much - but by this point, this fictional device is so undefined in its operating conditions I couldn't even hazard a guess about the result of a catastrophic destruction of a 'Mech's engine - I would defer to the creators of the game who say for core Level 1 or Level 2 play, NO. If you're entertaining Level 3 rules, there is an optional rule that makes a rare possibility for an overwhelming amount of damage directed to that same engine all at once causing a massive explosion.

IRL? no. IBT? almost always no.


footnotes and bibliography:

1. "Nuclear Energy," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2005
http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

2. "Sun," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2005
http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

 

Why imagine? Play the games!

 

But that's virtual. You haven't made a mech then. I was talking about the fun of thinking how to make one, not of the fun to pilot one.

 

Then perhaps you would enjoy getting an engineering degree if you don't already have one.

 

Lol. Funny you would say that. I'm supposed to graduate as engineer in somewhat more than a month. And oddly enough my thesis (or however you call a graduation work) was about robots.

That's why I suggested the semi-autonomous steering of mechs. I've analysed the advantages of the system.