VF-0 vs VF-1

[F-ZeroOne]

i love macross...but there's not much point in rationalizing how their nuclear engines work, even in SF theory. I mean, even in space, the valks used runway to take off (which was thankfully fixed in DYRL) which was kind of annoying. In general though, macross is pretty good in terms of realism for a 80's cartoon.

Macross isn't the only show to do this - Gundam has its "Base Jobbers" and launch catapaults. An aircraft carrier is, after all, pretty much a giant steam-powered device for flinging large metal objects into the sky. It looks odd, but then, the Macross arms were aircraft carriers at one point...

Not sure if you could get a steam catapault to work in a vacuum, though (David?!). Possibly an electromagnetic one...

As to explosions in space - I always thought that it was the vacuum that made them form circles all the time...

[lutesla]

I think the reason why they were so round and brief was from being in space... but you'd get an explosion if you hit a battle pod's presurized cockpit (ie:most of the pod, it's filled with air.), you'd also get a fiery explosion if you released plasma or reaction mass in a chain reaction. The sun doesn't burn oxygen but that doesn't mean it doesn't burn... and brightly too.

on the notion of the engines being like rockets in space, again... no one is contesting this. You can't have an air breathing engine where there is no air. I merely made the point that they don't work like just rockets int heair though... if they did, why have a massive air intake? Why show air swirling into it during the first episode of the original series?

It's a jet engine. It just so happens to be a theormonuclear jet engine that can switch modes and burn plasmas/reaction mass only when it travels in space.

(well, and maybe when in battloid mode, I mean... how can it be a jet then? The intakes are sealed with armor at that time?)

(oh, and a base jabber is a booster sled, it carries an MS into combat at greater ranges and at greater speeds than most MS could, since they have limited fuel supply. The MS reclines on the base jabber and it takes him to his location til he ditches it, often using it as a projectile against other MS, it can also be a manned shuttle because it has it's own cockpit.)

-

Edited September 4, 2004 by lutesla

[mikeszekely]

i love macross...but there's not much point in rationalizing how their nuclear engines work, even in SF theory. I mean, even in space, the valks used runway to take off (which was thankfully fixed in DYRL) which was kind of annoying. In general though, macross is pretty good in terms of realism for a 80's cartoon.

What's the problem with using runways in the show? The Macross itself was only supposed to have a limited number of fighters, if any, and it was intended that two smaller carriers remained permanently docked to the Macross. The fighters would be stored and launched from those carriers. Iin DYRL, the Macross was fitted with the ARMD carriers for space, but in the show, the Macross wound up getting two sea-going carriers as a substitute. Seems reasonable that they'd just use the facilites as they are. I mean, just because a Valkyrie doesn't need a runway in space doesn't mean it couldn't use them, either.

[ewilen]

Yeah, the runways on the carriers could have been useful even in space. In fact, a catapult launch has the advantage of giving it a boost in the direction of the objective without having to use up the Valk's internal store of reaction mass.

As for how the catapults work...since we're currently planning on using electromagnetic catapults in the near future, I think it's safe to speculate that in Macross, with OT speeding up technological development, the Prometheus and Daedalus would have them by 2009.

In principle, I think that steam catapults would work in space, though.

[Final Vegeta]

Well, we haven't really established that the Valk engines produce a plasma stream either in atmospheric operation or in space.

Technically fire is plasma

Ion Drive is still newtonian physics. I don't see the need of two different propulsions, except for overboost.

FV

[buddhafabio]

Yeah, the runways on the carriers could have been useful even in space. In fact, a catapult launch has the advantage of giving it a boost in the direction of the objective without having to use up the Valk's internal store of reaction mass.

As for how the catapults work...since we're currently planning on using electromagnetic catapults in the near future, I think it's safe to speculate that in Macross, with OT speeding up technological development, the Prometheus and Daedalus would have them by 2009.

In principle, I think that steam catapults would work in space, though.

the next carrier built in the beginning of the ncvx class will have electromegnetic catapults

[Aurel Tristen]

Clearing up some things here.

FF-2001 thermonuclear engines-they...

....do not use nuclear fusion, but use something similar to it-thermonuclear reaction which is an OverTechnology, which makes use of the super dimension spatial theory to maintain this fuel in a plasma state with ease.

....do need fuel, but the fuel not need to be nuclear.

....do have afterburners.

....do incorparate a magneto-hydro dynamic drive component.

....have extremely high efficiency rate.

....are a source of excellent power.

The above is official. The things that the MAT fan group came up with....

can be found here soon: http://doujin.macrossmecha.info/

Edited September 6, 2004 by Nanashi

[David Hingtgen]

Afterburn what? Wouldn't it be more like "afternuke"?

[lutesla]

not fusion?

there are only two major nuclear reactions I know of... that's Fission, (the splitting of a heavy element on the atomic level, it's relativly easy if the element is very heavy... hence Uranium, it can actualy be done to any element above Iron, though... but it gets harder and releases less energy the lighter the element is.)

and then there's fusion:

fusion is just what it sounds like. Two small things being put together to form a larger one. This is easiest with light elements and is the process that makes the sun burn. The Sun converts Hyrogen into Helium... and in large stars this process can continue all the way up to Carbon, Iron is too heavy... and is dead in the middle of the periodic table (being too light to fission, and too heavy to fuse).

Concievably you could get a lot of energy from what's called "zero point" energy... or literaly "energy from nothing". When an absolute vacuum is shielded of all radiation, and EM firlds and even the smallest of dust... it can be observed "vibrating". Basicly nothing has energy. Some scientists theorize that this will the next great energy source because it's free, safe, and potentialy limitless. It's apparently just really hard to do.

I know nothing of this "IT thermonuclear" reaction that you speak of. I know that in the bastard-American Robotech "protoculture" was the mysterious energy source that mecha and whatnot ran off of. It supposedly was very energetic for it's mass, and maintained a balance of implosion and explosion, sort of a reaction mass that is always fissioning and fusing all the time. It's an interesting idea.

You speak of "plasme being maintained"... what makes it ionized and superheated? Is it Hydrogen plasma... and wouldn't that basicly just be a bunch of protons? A thermonuclear reaction would be needed to put the hydrogen reaction mass in this plasma state... if the Valk was merely "fueled" with plasma... that would have to be some macho magnetically shielded gas pump. If the plasma is generated from a neutral reaction mass... then it can be used as a massivly powerful propellant, and much of the residual heat can be used to generate that enourmous amout of power that Valk reactors are famous for.

If it's magnetohydrodynamic... that still doesn't explain anything... as my link pointed out, an airbreathing system can be magnetohydrodynamic... or it could contain a plasma that is released in bursts or pulses. Heck... magnetohydrodynamic is also a word that describes how the movement of the molten core in the earth generates a magnetic field that protects us from solar flares and cosmic rays. It's a very broad term.

-

[Stamen0083]

Is it Hydrogen plasma... and wouldn't that basicly just be a bunch of protons? A thermonuclear reaction would be needed to put the hydrogen reaction mass in this plasma state...

Not necessarily. Plasma is the state of matter where enough energy was absorbed by the electrons that they float free of the nucleus. As long as enough energy is being pumped into the system, you can generate plasma. You don't need a nuclear reaction to create it. But yes, hydrogen plasma would basically be free protons and electrons.

If it's magnetohydrodynamic... that still doesn't explain anything...

Of course not. Your PDF file doesn't explain what magnetohydrodynamics is. I'm not sure if you know what it is.

Magnetohydrodynamics: The study of the interaction of magnetic fields and electrically conducting liquids and gases.

In other words, the interaction between magnetic fields and plasma or molten metal.

[ewilen]

Clearing up some things here.

First of all, Final Vegeta is either pulling my leg or using a different definition of "plasma" from what physicists mean. Fire is just incandescent gas, or a rapid chemical reaction producing incandescent gas. Anyway, on to Nanashi's comments...

FF-2001 thermonuclear engines-they...

....do not use nuclear fusion, but use something similar to it-thermonuclear reaction which is an OverTechnology, which makes use of the super dimension spatial theory to maintain this fuel in a plasma state with ease.

A bit vague here but I gather that the OT "thermonuclear reaction" is still a form of fusion power (i.e., releasing energy by fusing the nuclei of light elements to turn them into heavier elements). What makes it different from the kinds of fusion we know about is that it requires neither a solar mass nor a fission reaction to generate the heat and pressure necessary to cause atomic nuclei to fuse.

....do need fuel, but the fuel not need to be nuclear.

What does "not nuclear" mean? Do you mean, it doesn't need unstable isotopes of heavy elements?

....do have afterburners.

What David said.

....do incorparate a magneto-hydro dynamic drive component.

....have extremely high efficiency rate.

....are a source of excellent power.

The above is official. The things that the MAT fan group came up with....

can be found here soon: http://doujin.macrossmecha.info/

Thanks for the info, Nanashi. Where did the official info come from?

[Aurel Tristen]

Clearing up some things here.

First of all, Final Vegeta is either pulling my leg or using a different definition of "plasma" from what physicists mean. Fire is just incandescent gas, or a rapid chemical reaction producing incandescent gas. Anyway, on to Nanashi's comments...

FF-2001 thermonuclear engines-they...

....do not use nuclear fusion, but use something similar to it-thermonuclear reaction which is an OverTechnology, which makes use of the super dimension spatial theory to maintain this fuel in a plasma state with ease.

A bit vague here but I gather that the OT "thermonuclear reaction" is still a form of fusion power (i.e., releasing energy by fusing the nuclei of light elements to turn them into heavier elements). What makes it different from the kinds of fusion we know about is that it requires neither a solar mass nor a fission reaction to generate the heat and pressure necessary to cause atomic nuclei to fuse.

....do need fuel, but the fuel not need to be nuclear.

What does "not nuclear" mean? Do you mean, it doesn't need unstable isotopes of heavy elements?

....do have afterburners.

What David said.

....do incorparate a magneto-hydro dynamic drive component.

....have extremely high efficiency rate.

....are a source of excellent power.

The above is official. The things that the MAT fan group came up with....

can be found here soon: http://doujin.macrossmecha.info/

Thanks for the info, Nanashi. Where did the official info come from?

The fuel does not need to be nuclear.

http://www.anime.net/macross/story/encyclo...tion/index.html

[Stamen0083]

The fuel does not need to be nuclear.

http://www.anime.net/macross/story/encyclo...tion/index.html

That explains nothing.

Nuclear fuel means anything that can be used for a nuclear reaction. This refers to really light elements like Hydrogen for fusion, or really heavy elements like Uranium for fission. Non-nuclear fuel would be something like iron; Too light for fission, too heavy for fusion.

Now, address the rest of the man's questions.

[lutesla]

*edit*

sorry guys... I need to walk on eggshells a bit more, being new here and all.

and after looking around here some more I've found more variety of opinion.

Seriously Stamen0083, chill man. You're basicly acting condiscendingly to me and demanding that certain people answer certain questions. relax a bit... I erased my over-reactionary post cause you really hit my buttons with the whole "I don't think you know bal bla... your PDF didn't explain bla bla"... dude, I tried. And when it comes to this topic I've still at least provided more info on the subject than your single sentence.

take it easy... I do get the impression that this topic has been talked to death, I just hate to see people throw stuff around and not explain anything, say "this is the official story" and then make up some star-trek Overtechnology explaination about how thermonuclear jets are niether jets... nor are they nuclear.

My commet about needing nuclear power for a plasma was indeed technically incorrect. I meant more that a nuclear power source was a sufficient power source... you could technically make plasma in a variety of ways, but for this kind of superheated plasma... and for all that power to be generated on an airplane that can travel in space... and all that jazz, I doubt a big diesel generator would make enough juice. Nuclear is the way to go... unless you're going zero-point or Robotech/protoculture (the stuff, not Macross/protoculture= the extinct race of humanoids).

---

I'm not sure I like the post macross 7 magical slant to overtechnology... like everything is all weird and wahcky, and people float stones with enya, and now armor is made of hypercarbons and not titanium, as was generaly thought to be canon a few years ago.

Now Valkaries have big space speakers and "guitar sticks" to play live music while dancing around missile swarms... and somehow this sound travels in a vacuum and people hear it and all that.

Ok... now I'm indanger of being long winded and offending Macross 7 fans, sorry guys. Macross DYRL and Plus rule!!!!

-

Edited September 7, 2004 by lutesla

[Final Vegeta]

lutesla:

Nuclear reactions are more than two. Even switching atomic arrangement of nucleons (isomers) could release a gamma-ray burst. There are several military researches on Hafnium isomer (obviously for bombs), the problem lays mainly in the mass production of the right isomer, which is costly. Someone says you could induce a reaction chain even in sugar...

Some informations on the development of isomer reaction

(pdf) Page 156, Simulated Isomer Energy Release (SIER), from US military sites

By the way, a supernova exploding could fuse elements heavier than iron. This is where gold came.

Ewilen:

Physics goes as this: Solid -> Liquid - Gaseous -> Plasma. Add heat and you step into the next state of matter. That said, plasma doesn't need to be hot, it can be ambient temperature, but enough heat ends up creating plasma. Fire is low-density plasma, at least that's what I've heard. I've heard it could happen strange things if you put a candle in your micro-wave oven, but I don't recall what exactly should happen (maybe your food won't warm up), so don't try it at home.

A bit vague here but I gather that the OT "thermonuclear reaction" is still a form of fusion power (i.e., releasing energy by fusing the nuclei of light elements to turn them into heavier elements). What makes it different from the kinds of fusion we know about is that it requires neither a solar mass nor a fission reaction to generate the heat and pressure necessary to cause atomic nuclei to fuse.

The explanation in the Compendium is really vague, and I think it was meant that way. Alien technology should be scientific but unexplainable with actual terms.

On one hand I have theorized the reaction used in Macross is straight pair annihilation.

A type of Overtechnology similar to nuclear fusion.

Two nuclei "fuse" together. Pair annihilation differs in that no new nucleus is born.

Unlike nuclear fusion however, this energy reaction became an excellent power source

Pair annihilation gives more energy than fusion.

since the fuel does not necessarily have to be nuclear material and is also easily maintained in plasma state with the use of super dimension spatial theory.

The problem with anti-matter is that it tends to anihilate with matter spontaneously. The Compendium indeed mentions a way to maintain it over time.

On the other hand, as I said, anti-matter could be the catalyst of a fusion.

There should be still some problems with radiations, but I am sure they have found a way.

FV

[Stamen0083]

Seriously Stamen0083, chill man.  You're basicly acting condiscendingly[sic] to me and demanding that certain people answer certain questions.

Let's address this logically.

You threw the buzzword "magnetohydrodynamic" around, and you didn't even attempt to explain it. The PDF file you linked to didn't explain what it is. So you've tried to explain, but you've failed. I would rather not provide any information that I don't know than to provide false or incorrect information. You know what they say, "it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

I'm not saying you're a fool, mind you. Hell, my accusing you of not knowing what magnetohydrodynamic is is unfounded. However, you didn't even try to explain yourself. All you've done is get defensive. Prove me wrong, and explain to us the entire premise of magnetohydrodynamic and its application towards propulsion, because to be honest, I'm just a simple person, and technical words in fields I know little to nothing about tend to throw me.

So please.

As for my demanding that certain people answer certain questions, I was peeved that Nanashi quoted the man's ENTIRE post, then linked to the Compendium and expected the extremely vague post to answer ALL of his questions. I don't demand anything more than if you're going to quote everything the man asks, answer them.

...plasma doesn't need to be hot, it can be ambient temperature...

Assuming, of course, the ambient temperature is enough to strip the electrons from their orbits. Practically speaking, this is extremely unlikely. Of course, fires are enigmatic creatures at best, and who knows what the hell is going on at the quantum level.

Edited September 7, 2004 by Stamen0083

[ewilen]

That WaPo link on isomer reactions is interesting, thanks.

Yes, I've also read that a supernova can fuse elements beyond iron, and I believe that's the standard explanation of how such elements came into existence. However, when you fuse iron, or any element with a greater atomic number than iron, there's a loss of energy. Similarly, fissioning an atom with atomic number less than or equal to iron causes energy to be absorbed rather than released.

On plasma and flame, to my surprise, I've found enough references on the net to make me believe that a candle flame does have some plasma in it, or at least ions--enough to produce effects such as conducting electricity. But the amount of ions in an everyday flame, even the flame in a conventional jet engine, is small. A full-fledged plasma requires at least thousands of degrees, or an electrical current run through a gas at low pressure (as in a neon light).

The various plasma engines (VASIMR, Hall thruster, Magnetoplasmadynamic) and the related ion drive all seem to me to be so radically different from the likely atmospheric operation of the Valkyrie's engine that (IMO) they'd be a completely distinct drive. What I've suggested is essentially a nuclear jet engine that doubles as a nuclear thermal rocket ("nuclear thermal propulsion", "NERVA" are also good search terms). E.g., look at the diagram at the bottom of this page and compare the nuclear-powered engine here. In both cases, a nuclear reactor is coupled to a heat exchanger, which heats a propellant. This causes it to expand and flow out the rear of the engine. The fundamental difference is that the jet's "propellant" is air, while the rocket's propellant is carried onboard.

About "pair annihilation", I doubt that it has anything to do with Valk engines.

I assume that the term refers to matter-antimatter reaction; if that were going on in the Valks' engines, then "thermonuclear reaction" would be a poor term for it. The compendium refers to "pair-annihilation" in reference to post-2045 weaponry, not directly in connection with thermonuclear reaction as used in VF engines and pre-2045 weaponry. Matter-antimatter reaction is really quite different from a fusion reaction. In the former, the problem is keeping the matter and antimatter separate; the latter, the problem is keeping the plasma together. In the former, the matter can be in any form (including subnuclear particles) prior to reacting; in the latter, the reaction specifically comes from combining atomic nuclei. I wouldn't say that "pair annihilation" is similar to fusion reaction.

The fact that "thermonuclear reaction" is contrasted with fusion as an excellent energy source doesn't support the notion that the former uses pair annihilation. The reason that fusion isn't (yet) an excellent energy source (except indirectly in the form of solar energy ) is because it's hard to contain the plasma under sufficient temperature/pressure to bring about fusion. If OT solves that problem, fusion becomes an excellent energy source. In my opinion, "thermonuclear reaction" is just fusion enabled by OT, as described by "easily maintained in plasma state with the use of super dimension spatial theory."

I don't see any reason to believe that antimatter is involved in thermonuclear reaction either as an ingredient or as a catalyst. If I'm mistaken, and there's evidence of antimatter being involved, I'd appreciate a reference to a source(s).

Edited September 7, 2004 by ewilen

[Stamen0083]

The reason that fusion isn't (yet) an excellent energy source (except indirectly in the form of solar energy ) is because it's hard to contain the plasma under sufficient temperature/pressure to bring about fusion.

I dream of the day when cold fusion becomes a reality. No more energy crises.

Last I looked into fusion, which was... two years ago (?), scientists have reached economic break-even. In other words, they've gotten enough energy out of the reaction that they put in so that using it won't make or lose money. How they did it? Muon catalysis fusion.

[lutesla]

Since Valkyries are stated to have Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), I think this means they have magnetohydrodynamics propulsion, or Ion Drive. Basically it's like a normal rocket except the fire goes out really faster.

Besides, the Compendium says pair annihilation is used in what in Macross is called "thermonuclear reaction", so I think anti-matter must be somewhere, even though the possibilities are many. Anti-matter could be used simply to catalize a normal micro-fusion/fission.

FV

here's who brought it up without explaining.

and this was brought up by nanashi... also without explaination.

....do not use nuclear fusion, but use something similar to it-thermonuclear reaction which is an OverTechnology, which makes use of the super dimension spatial theory to maintain this fuel in a plasma state with ease.

....do need fuel, but the fuel not need to be nuclear.

....do have afterburners.

....do incorparate a magneto-hydro dynamic drive component.

....have extremely high efficiency rate.

....are a source of excellent power.

The above is official. The things that the MAT fan group came up with....

can be found here soon: http://doujin.macrossmecha.info/

this is what I said about it:

as megnetohydrodynamics apply to propulsion of the air breathing and rocket type systems... this little PDF article does a nice job of explaining some of it.

I never said I had it all figured out, and I avoided articles that talked mainly about the study of the earth's magnetic field. This aspect... the one I tried to avoid (because it's only aplication has to do with using the magnetic fields from the molten metal or Plasma, like in power generation... this would not apply to actual propulsion.)

you're right that the PDF didn't talk about the subject very much. I was in a hurry and saw how the paragraph on magnetic propulsion was going... and I figured the rest would elaborate, it didn't. I apologise for that.

As of yet I don't have a clear understanding of the issue, but my point from the begining is that the word DOESN'T explain anything. I never brought it up... I'm not the buzzword user here. I tried to clear thigns up by appealing to a source that I hoped would, and I didnt' check my source very well.

Can you elaborate oh critical one?

All you've mentioned is that it has to do with megentism, molten metal and plasmas... geee... that really explained alot. That doesn't even touch on any propulsion at all. Most of the info I found on the internet talked around the issue, or used a long winded version of your same explaination. I was hoping for more elaboration... perhaps when I can get some time away from work I can look it up.

There is a great article out there on a Russian transsonic design that runs on magnetic propulsion... but I havn't seen it in years.

I just can't figure out why, of all the people who have talked about the "buzz word" you have decided to single me out, especialy since you are doing so to make the point I was trying to make, that the word doesn't explain anything... it's too dang broad

As I said before:

If it's magnetohydrodynamic... that still doesn't explain anything... as my link pointed out, an airbreathing system can be magnetohydrodynamic... or it could contain a plasma that is released in bursts or pulses. Heck... magnetohydrodynamic is also a word that describes how the movement of the molten core in the earth generates a magnetic field that protects us from solar flares and cosmic rays. It's a very broad term.

the pdf didn't explain much, but the whole point I made was that the pdf points to air-breathing aplications... and it mentions the "magic word" of the day... so, regardless of it's flimsyness as a real comprehention builder... it still makes my case by association.--

and pair annihilation would be anitimater right?

-

[ewilen]

Okay, a problem with all the speculation about vasimr, magnetohydrodynamic/magnetoplasmadynamic engines and/or various other plasma or ion drives is that from what I've glearned on the net, it looks like they're all great ways powering a spacecraft that accelerates slowly but steadily over a long period, ultimately reaching a very high velocity. But I'm not sure any of those technologies gives you an engine that produces a whole lot of thrust all at once. The kind of thrust you'd need to get off the ground, overcome air resistance on Earth, or engage in rapid maneuvers.

In short, those technologies are fine for long-range space exploration, but I don't think they'd be very effective on the Valkyrie.

[Stamen0083]

I never said I had it all figured out, and I avoided articles that talked mainly about the study of the earth's magnetic field. This aspect... the one I tried to avoid (because it's only aplication has to do with using the magnetic fields from the molten metal or Plasma, like in power generation... this would not apply to actual propulsion.)

On the contrary. The fact that a propulsion system may use plasma alone brings magnetohydrodynamics into play, since the plasma can only be contained by magnetic fields. Perhaps that was the extent of the application of the theory. Still, it has everything to do with propulsion, if, in fact, the propulsion system relies on plasma in any way.

As of yet I don't have a clear understanding of the issue, but my point from the begining is that the word DOESN'T explain anything.

Ahh, but see, I've explained the word, so I don't think you can make that claim anymore.

All you've mentioned is that it has to do with megentism, molten metal and plasmas... geee... that really explained alot.

I said that magnetohydrodynamic is the study of the interaction between magnetic fields and electrically conducting fluids. You left out the critical "interaction between", which explained everything. I never challenged its dealing with propulsion. I merely questioned your knowledge of the word's meaning.

Here's my take on magnetohydrodynamics as applied to propulsion: Use the magnetic field to expel plasma, much like using compressors to expel hot gases in a modern engine. If not, use magnetic fields to inject plasma into whatever else the propulsion system might need plasma for.

Whatever it may be, it's still just uneducated speculation, especially on my part, since I no next to nothing about propulsion.

I just can't figure out why, of all the people who have talked about the "buzz word" you have decided to single me out, especialy since you are doing so to make the point I was trying to make, that the word doesn't explain anything... it's too dang broad

I don't single anyone out. You just happen to be the target because I got the feeling that you didn't know what you were talking about.

And as I've pointed out, the term is NOT broad. It makes perfect sense to me. It just feels broad because it can be applied to different contexts, like propulsion, or the Earth's magnetic field, but in whatever case it's used, its meaning is still the same.

As I said before:

If it's magnetohydrodynamic... that still doesn't explain anything... as my link pointed out, an airbreathing system can be magnetohydrodynamic... or it could contain a plasma that is released in bursts or pulses. Heck... magnetohydrodynamic is also a word that describes how the movement of the molten core in the earth generates a magnetic field that protects us from solar flares and cosmic rays. It's a very broad term.

Yeah, about that. How would plasma be released? Manipulation of the magnetic fields holding the plasma in. Lo and behold, there's the 'M' word again!

the pdf didn't explain much, but the whole point I made was that the pdf points to air-breathing aplications... and it mentions the "magic word" of the day... so, regardless of it's flimsyness as a real comprehention builder... it still makes my case by association.--

and pair annihilation would be anitimater right?

From what I gathered from the PDF file, the MHD device is merely a small part in a larger engine. It's not the be all, end all propulsion system. It's a small piece that makes the system work. The PDF simply didn't explain what MHD is, or how it helps make the system works, which is what we are after.

And yes, pair annihilation is matter-antimatter reaction.

[Macross_Fanboy]

Ok, here's a question. We all know that the VF-0 is not a Valkyrie per se since the phrase "Valkyrie" was coined with the VF-1. But in Macross Zero's first episode where we see the killer transformation of the VF-0, on the display it says Valkyrie Battroid transformation or something. So, is it possible that the OS that manages all of the VF-1's movements and such can be used for the VF-0 since the only real difference between the two is size and engines?

[eugimon]

wow, while all this arguing about a valk's power plant is very interesting... I would just like to throw in my two cents...

macross was created in the 70s... before the incident at 3 mile island... when nuclear energy was thought to be the greatest thing since sliced bread... and people were saying all sorts of crazy things... nuclear powered cars and stuff like that.

I think this may simply be a case where the creators used nuclear energy because that was what was available, threw in some buzz words and just left it at that...

really, if you think about it... if a valks engines are fission nuclear reactors, use plasma for whatever reason, superheating air or other fuel... you're talking about a system that would generate TONS of heat, would need amazingly precise megnetic fields... tons of maintanence... I mean, to compensate for the jarring every time one of those things took a step alone.

[ewilen]

Eugimon,

Macross was created in the 1980's. First episode aired in 1982 Three Mile Island was 1979.

Also, I'm certain the creators of Macross always intended the Valk's engines to use something other than fission. The term "thermonuclear reaction" was used by Roy in episode 5 when Hikaru asked him how Valks can fly in space. (That's in the summary on mahq.net; I don't really feel like popping my DVD in to double check.)

[Macross_Fanboy]

Hmm...Roy says they run on reactor engines, he didn't quite say "Overtech".

[ewilen]

Hmm...Roy says they run on reactor engines, he didn't quite say "Overtech".

Okay, I popped the DVD in just now and here's the exact dialogue, per the Animeigo subtitles. Disk 2 of SDF Macross, episode 5, "Transformation", 8:04 into the episode.

Hikaru: Sempai, those fighters are flying in space.

Roy: Yeah, the Valkyries have thermonuclear reaction engines."

The words for "thermonuclear reaction" must be Japanese (not English loan words) because I couldn't make out any of it beyond "Sempai".

So unless the translator monkeyed with the terminology, the idea of "thermonuclear reaction" as the energy source for the Valk's engines was there from the start. Whether the concept of "overtechnology" was also in Macross from the beginning, and whether it was explicitly considered the enabling technology for "thermonuclear reaction", I don't know.

[Macross_Fanboy]

Questions, questions. We must ask Negrodomous!

[Hurricane29]

Questions, questions. We must ask Negrodomous!

If anyone knows, it has to be Paul Mooney!

[eugimon]

Eugimon,

Macross was created in the 1980's. First episode aired in 1982 Three Mile Island was 1979.

Also, I'm certain the creators of Macross always intended the Valk's engines to use something other than fission. The term "thermonuclear reaction" was used by Roy in episode 5 when Hikaru asked him how Valks can fly in space. (That's in the summary on mahq.net; I don't really feel like popping my DVD in to double check.)

d'oh

thinking of star wars at the time... hahaha. I'm going back to playing video games now