Valk Designs

[hobbes221]

And doesn't it fry everything in its path? The way plasma dissipates would give it a heat range similar, though hotter towards the engine, as the F-14. We see people always away from the engines, so no one gets fried. No vehicles are near the engines. And when we do see someone near them, it's on the ground, in my theory's third, not-previously-mentioned mode, Reactor mode. This is when no thrust, whatsoever, is being produced, and the engine is simply sustaining nuclear fusion for power. This is useful for being in Battroid mode, when ground combat is most common, and no thrust is necessary, as the legs are hydro-electrically driven.

I think what he is trying to say is 'What happens in gerwalk mode?'. We had this going awhile ago and David Hingtgen had some good points, I'm still working out some of what was said back then as my understanding and what he was saying don't jive. I'm at odds as I think we both are right on most things that were talked about.

The engines of the VFs are one of my favorite topics so I'm always glad when it comes around again. However I think that we really need the fuel/propellent to get a good grip on things and given the location of the wings I don't think that it would be too hard to have propellent tanks there, even if you would have to have a set of quick connect fittings, one for fighter/gerwalk modes and another for battroid mode.

And I said it before and I'll say it again, sorry if I missed the point.

[anime52k8]

Well, if the Tokamak Fusion Reactor is any indication, a magnetic field would be necessary to hold it together. Otherwise, the plasma would dissipate. This doesn't contribute to thrust.

oh, now I get what you were saying. I thought you meant that you needed a magnetic field to propel the plasma out the engine.

also I'm still not convinced that the wing fuel tanks are connected to the main engines. it would be very impractical (almost impossible) to rout sufficient amounts of fuel from the wings to the engines in both figther and Batroid mode. in fighter mode only, maybe, but then that means that the mode with the smallest available fuel volume is also the mode that consumes the most fuel.

I would think the wing tanks supply fuel for the vernier thrusters on the main body, and the leg tanks provide fuel for the engines. (at least on the VF-1)

[hobbes221]

I do get what you're saying anime52k8, having wing tanks would be hard but if it was me I would want them even if that meant only being able to have them feed in fighter mode. I think that in that case they (the wing tanks) could at least be used to top off the mains while in fighter mode, they would also be useful to feed the engines for the first part of the flight as in just getting to the fight that way when you got there your main tanks would be full or as close to full as possible. I guess I'm thinking of wing tanks as internal drop tanks just without the drop feature . Most of this thinking is along the lines of space ops where you would want as much propellent as you could get.

Anyways just my line of thinking on this.

Edited November 20, 2008 by hobbes221

[sketchley]

What's interesting is that some of the rough sketches of the VF-11 have wing tanks. Of course, another option is the ventral fuselage (jet) / chest and upper back (battroid) fuel tanks of the VF-0. However, given the likelihood of a center-mass (aka chest) hit, the chance of them being hit is high enough for me to feel that they are a silly place to mount a fuel tank.

[edwin3060]

What's interesting is that some of the rough sketches of the VF-11 have wing tanks. Of course, another option is the ventral fuselage (jet) / chest and upper back (battroid) fuel tanks of the VF-0. However, given the likelihood of a center-mass (aka chest) hit, the chance of them being hit is high enough for me to feel that they are a silly place to mount a fuel tank.

Not really-- having fuel stored closer to your centre of gravity reduces your moment of inertia, allowing you to have a higher roll rate in fighter mode and faster turning rate in battroid mode. Many modern fighters have internal fuel tanks along the centreline as well as the wings, so why couldn't there be tanks in both? Also, we have no idea whether the fuel/propellant for the thermonuclear reaction thrusters are explosive, and although the jet fuel for the VF-0 would certainly be inflammable, it would also not be very explosive.

[sketchley]

It's an anime. Anime physics apply. Fuel is explosive. (hmm... which is the same as Hollywood physics.)

[edwin3060]

It's an anime. Anime physics apply. Fuel is explosive. (hmm... which is the same as Hollywood physics.)

Haha so true. Shows something about the human psyche-- we all love a good explosion! However, the explosions can be explained away as the ammunition (missiles, rounds) exploding, leaving us with the far more attractive (from an engineering perspective) fuel which does not explode.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Exactly. Now, in my theory, it uses highly compressed Hydrogen as fuel. Deuterium, to be exact. This would be flammable, though not necessarily explosive. Especially since at high rates of compression, Hydrogen loses its ability to disperse evenly enough to ignite. Liquid hydrogen is still highly ignisive, as we've seen in almost all liquid fuel rockets.

Moving on, fuel tanks seem to be a big issue. We'd need fuel lines running to the nose section to feed them in Battroid*. We'd need them to shut off completely to transform. And most definitely, we'd need the engines to deal with the shock of the fuel supplu being cut off. Well, again, through the fusion theory, the hydrogen atoms aren't all fusing at once. Indeed, a small amount of fuel can keep the reactor running for a more than instant amount of time. So, during these times of no fuel flow, the engines can cope until fuel is restored. The only real problem is I can't find anything that looks like a set of fuel lines in the VF-1's nose. The whole thing can eject, if the need should arise, and looking at the diagrams, I see no fuel lines. Perhaps it's the picture angle. This theory allows for Centerline fuel tanks.

Almost all fighters hold most of their fuel in center tanks.

Why does everyone say all of the fuel space is for the verniers? Each thruster has its own tank. And the tanks are all small. They don't even need that much fuel. You never see a Valk stop maneuvering because its vernier tanks are dry...

Wing tanks wouldn't work. The Valkyrie's wings are too small. Maybe fuel lines running into the center tanks for drop tank use.

Hobbes, can you link me to what he said?

From what I see, GERWALK wouldn't be too hard to keep fueled. It keeps the nacelle mounted at the intake. This could possibly be where the fuel lines run for them...

On that note, who remembers Kakizaki? He had the fuel leak from his NOSE. This points out that the fuel lines to the nose section must exist.*

Explosion=Win. Win=Macross. Therefore, Macross=Explosion.

*Excuse me if it was actually headlight fluid.

[hobbes221]

Hobbes, can you link me to what he said?

http://macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?show...7033&st=360

starts about halfway down

Edited November 20, 2008 by hobbes221

[Killer Robot]

Exactly. Now, in my theory, it uses highly compressed Hydrogen as fuel. Deuterium, to be exact. This would be flammable, though not necessarily explosive. Especially since at high rates of compression, Hydrogen loses its ability to disperse evenly enough to ignite. Liquid hydrogen is still highly ignisive, as we've seen in almost all liquid fuel rockets.

Assuming this engine isn't going to be fusing all of its fuel but rather fusing some and using the rest as propellant, as would be indicated by the effects and range of Valkyries outside of atmosphere, I would assume it uses water instead. You want mass and density for such a use as opposed to 100% fusable atoms: water is both easier to handle and much denser than even liquid deuterium, meaning more fuel in smaller tanks. If the technology of the thermonuclear engines requires deuterium rather than protium, then use heavy water, obviously.

As for explosions: ammunition explains it, and engine damage could vent large amounts of superheated plasma into delicate components or fuel tanks and lines - even water will make an enormous steam explosion if enough heat hits it.

[SchizophrenicMC]

That's the problem, water is dense. Also, where would one store the oxygen put out by separating the atoms?

It is a good point you bring up. However, water is non-fusive material, and must be separated into its key elements before fusion can occur. This means more heavy equipment. Though, if said equipment is light and efficient enough, thanks to OT, it would add a lot of defensibility to the plane, as its fuel is chemically stable.

Now, I must leave until the 30th. I am going on vacation, so... Sorry I can't be on for a while.

[sketchley]

I'm going to go one step further and make it Macross physics: the SWGA energy conversion system, while making the armour stronger, actually weakens the molecular bonds when there is more energy pumped into it. Thus the whole thing explodes when the armour is overcome.

Haha so true. Shows something about the human psyche-- we all love a good explosion! However, the explosions can be explained away as the ammunition (missiles, rounds) exploding, leaving us with the far more attractive (from an engineering perspective) fuel which does not explode.

[edwin3060]

Assuming this engine isn't going to be fusing all of its fuel but rather fusing some and using the rest as propellant, as would be indicated by the effects and range of Valkyries outside of atmosphere, I would assume it uses water instead. You want mass and density for such a use as opposed to 100% fusable atoms: water is both easier to handle and much denser than even liquid deuterium, meaning more fuel in smaller tanks. If the technology of the thermonuclear engines requires deuterium rather than protium, then use heavy water, obviously.

As for explosions: ammunition explains it, and engine damage could vent large amounts of superheated plasma into delicate components or fuel tanks and lines - even water will make an enormous steam explosion if enough heat hits it.

Exactly my thoughts, KR! IMO water is probably one of the best choices for propellant, with high density in liquid form, but low density in the gaseous form, which could be further enhanced by dissociation of the molecule at the high temperatures at which the fusion engines work-- ideally the water would be turned into plasma, some hydrogen can be siphoned off for the fusion reaction and the rest ejected as thrust. The high specific heat capacity of water would also allow it to act as coolant in the aircraft, and best of all, any fuel leakage would no longer be dangerous. Refueling the valkyrie would be as simple as turning on a tap Also, the water tanks, if placed properly, could act as a dampener in case of ammunition explosion, increasing the chances of pilot survival and reducing the collateral damage from valkyrie explosions--while at the same time the steam would give the nice big explosions that everybody likes

[edwin3060]

I'm going to go one step further and make it Macross physics: the SWGA energy conversion system, while making the armour stronger, actually weakens the molecular bonds when there is more energy pumped into it. Thus the whole thing explodes when the armour is overcome.

Interesting idea-- it would be like the all-round PPB that the Macross used in SDF:M then Would be killer on the pilots though--literally.

[Killer Robot]

That's the problem, water is dense. Also, where would one store the oxygen put out by separating the atoms?

It is a good point you bring up. However, water is non-fusive material, and must be separated into its key elements before fusion can occur. This means more heavy equipment. Though, if said equipment is light and efficient enough, thanks to OT, it would add a lot of defensibility to the plane, as its fuel is chemically stable.

Now, I must leave until the 30th. I am going on vacation, so... Sorry I can't be on for a while.

Water being dense is exactly the point. Denser fuel means smaller tanks means less container weight. Even more so since compressed hydrogen tanks need to stand up to far more pressure than water tanks. Further, the hydrogen and oxygen disassociate at high temperatures, and really there's no reason in theory they need to be separated at all: the resulting plasma would be 66% hydrogen ( for such interactions, number of particles matter, not mass) and if that fuel purity is enough for fusion then it shouldn't need extra separation. The oxygen doesn't need to be stored: it's there to be expelled out the thrusters as reaction mass.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Well. That is a good way to look at it. Well, either way, all of this requires the idea of fusion running the engines. It could possibly be as mentioned by someone earlier: Matter/Anti-matter. I don't really know. I'm just assuming things, based on my engineering knowledge. Even then, that's somewhat limited.

[edwin3060]

Well. That is a good way to look at it. Well, either way, all of this requires the idea of fusion running the engines. It could possibly be as mentioned by someone earlier: Matter/Anti-matter. I don't really know. I'm just assuming things, based on my engineering knowledge. Even then, that's somewhat limited.

Not really-- even if it was matter-antimatter reactions generating the heat, water would still be a far better propellant than hydrogen, or indeed, any other substance, given the many advantages already highlighted by Killer Robot and myself. It would just mean that instead of siphoning off some of the hydrogen into the reactor, you can use all the water as reaction mass.

[SchizophrenicMC]

I'm not saying that the engines actively generate plasma as for thrust. It's just part of the fusion reaction. Matter-antimatter reactions are different, in that protons and anti-protons, for lack of a better word, are extremely explosive when combined. This explosiveness means energy. Energy can be harnessed. The Fusion Reactor Engine would generate superheated plasma in the reaction and expel it as thruster exhaust. If it ran on M-AM reactions, I have no idea how it would work, since that's more likely to be a pulse-detonation thrust.

Hydrogen would work in a fusion reaction. Hydrogen can be pulled out of water. Water, then, makes a good fuel source. However, water would not be good for a fusion reaction, due to the oxygen atoms in it. At high heat levels, the Hydrogen and Oxygen split. How would this be accomplished to start the reaction? I don't care much about the fuel, as long as it is fusive. Helium-3 is a good example.

Edited November 21, 2008 by SchizophrenicMC

[edwin3060]

I'm not saying that the engines actively generate plasma as for thrust. It's just part of the fusion reaction. Matter-antimatter reactions are different, in that protons and anti-protons, for lack of a better word, are extremely explosive when combined. This explosiveness means energy. Energy can be harnessed. The Fusion Reactor Engine would generate superheated plasma in the reaction and expel it as thruster exhaust. If it ran on M-AM reactions, I have no idea how it would work, since that's more likely to be a pulse-detonation thrust.

Hydrogen would work in a fusion reaction. Hydrogen can be pulled out of water. Water, then, makes a good fuel source. However, water would not be good for a fusion reaction, due to the oxygen atoms in it. At high heat levels, the Hydrogen and Oxygen split. How would this be accomplished to start the reaction? I don't care much about the fuel, as long as it is fusive. Helium-3 is a good example.

I guess I see it differently then-- in my way of thinking, Valkyrie propulsion can be split into 2 parts, power and propulsion. Power is generated by the reactor, which can be either fusion or antimatter (although from earlier versions of this thread references are made to pair-annihilation, which would point to antimatter). This power is then used to heat up, and possibly even ionise to a plasma, your propellant, which is then expelled to produce thrust. De-linking power and propulsion has advantages and disadvantages as compared to linking it as per your suggestion. Efficiency would definitely be lower due to power conversion issues, however the power generated in the reactor can be diverted to other means such as laser weaponry and the energy conversion armour that we know valkyries have.

Since we know that air can also be used as a propellant, it is more likely that power generation and thrust generation are decoupled, i.e. for your scheme, the plasma in the fusion reactor is not constantly expelled but kept in containment to maintain a stable fusion reaction, and the power generated be used to heat up either air or the onboard reaction mass to generate thrust.

[Nied]

It's not hard to separate hydrogen from water through electrolysis, the left over oxygen could be shunted to the pilot's life support system or into the engines as extra reaction mass. I imagine that in most situations the engines wouldn't use the fusion plasma for direct thrust at all, rather a heat exchanger would superheat the reaction mass (air in the atmosphere, water in space) which would then go out the back as thrust. Actually that might be how the afterburner setting works on a thermonuclear turbine: under normal thrust levels the engine uses a high efficiency heat exchanger to superheat air/water for thrust, but when the afterburner setting is engaged raw plasma from the fusion reactor is dumped into the stream as well bumping up the heating effect further.

[ChronoReverse]

I'm not saying that the engines actively generate plasma as for thrust. It's just part of the fusion reaction. Matter-antimatter reactions are different, in that protons and anti-protons, for lack of a better word, are extremely explosive when combined. This explosiveness means energy. Energy can be harnessed. The Fusion Reactor Engine would generate superheated plasma in the reaction and expel it as thruster exhaust. If it ran on M-AM reactions, I have no idea how it would work, since that's more likely to be a pulse-detonation thrust.

Actually they're not explosive at all. Proton anti-proton annihilation only releases some x-rays. Other particle pair annihilations will release various other photons like gamma rays. But they all convert completely into photons of some sort. It would take a special framework to absorb these photons and convert it to explosive force. It's not a given.

That is to say, it's ridiculous to say that annihilation is explosive and thus gives birth to energy. Annihilation releases pure energy and there must be some way to convert it to explosive force (although some explosive force will almost certain occur if the energy release is rapid enough since even the atmosphere absorbing enough energy at once would be explosive).

This is actually much more difficult than it would appear. One would need a method to annihilate large (understatement) numbers of anti-particles with particles at once to accomplish a release that could yield an explosion. But that implies mixing to increase the surface area (remember, basic physics still apply) which is something obviously non-trivial (understatement). Incidentally, even the rate of the fastest chemical reaction (conveniently called "instant" in 1st year chemistry) would still be orders of magnitude too slow.

If you just tried pumping two streams of matter and anti-matter (say a hypothetical hydrogen and anti-hydrogen gas) together, it's entirely possible that you'd run into the phenomenon where the minute amounts of annihilation releases enough energy to dissipate the streams from coming together momentarily leading to a "sputtering" effect. It's very similar to how water reacts when dripped on an extremely hot surface (it'll ball up and roll and generally take a while to completely vaporize).

In any case, it's quite clear that the propellant and "fuel" in valkyries must be separate. Otherwise, the information about the VF-11 and its practically unlimited flight in atmosphere doesn't make much sense. The nature of the propellant is still very much debatable unless there's some kind of OT bending physics.

As for the engines and whatever the fuel it uses, we only know it's extremely efficient, clean, light and long-lasting. They're called thermonuclear out of convenience, but there's definitely some OT going on that makes it nothing like a conventional tokamak design. Even so, we have much different fusion designs in our modern day in the test stages so we shouldn't automatically assume toroids, magnetic fields and plasma. Sure that's the way the universe did it (stars) but the universe never made fusion reactors as small as a car.

Edited November 21, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[SchizophrenicMC]

Never made a fusion reactor as small as a car? Look at some of the REALLY small dwarf stars.

Propellant and fuel could be separate. It adds weight, but it's possible. Lemme see, advantages are more diverse thrust applications that don't require loss of power from the reactors. However, it doubles weight, halves fuel capacity, and makes the craft explosive again... Maybe that idea does make sense...

Electrolysis isn't necessarily necessary. At very high heat, the molecules can get to speeds where their atomic bonds are broken (From what I've been taught about this kind of thing. Remember, I'm an engineer, not a chemist!). Thus, water can be used as fuel, providing Hydrogen for the reaction, and propellant, expelling the Oxygen as a thrust mass. In Overboost, superheated plasma is vented out of the engines as an extra thrust mass. Overboost lessens generation rate and runs through more fuel, but its extreme acceleration and added speed are worth the trade-off. It's a real think piece.

Again, OT saves the day and makes it all possible. Perhaps none of this is correct, and the TRT runs on some unknown scientific principle, only learned with the extensive research done on the ASS-1 and its OT... I dunno...

[Nied]

Thermonuclear refers to a very specific type of fusion reaction, so it's at least clear that a TNT is based around some form of hot fusion reaction. There are official cut away diagrams of the Valkyrie's FF-2001 turbines that show what looks like a tokamak toroid within the engine. I've gone back and forth on this but one possibility is that OT allows for fusion reactors efficient enough to get a net positive reaction out of heavier elements like Carbon Nitrogen and Oxygen. If that's the case a TNT powered aircraft could just divert part of the air being sucked into the turbines to the reactor to undergo fusion, giving it the effectively unlimited range listed in various sources. It would also allow it to "burn" whatever reaction mass you toss in to the fusion reactor.

[David Hingtgen]

It would also allow it to "burn" whatever reaction mass you toss in to the fusion reactor.

Like a Mr Fusion on a DeLorean...

[snakerbot]

After reading SchizophrenicMC's post, I looked up the smallest star. OGLE-TR-122. It has a radius 120% of that of Jupiter, and a mass of about 0.12 solar masses. Scientists think this is about as small as a star can get and still fuse hydrogen, so I think the TRTs might work on a completely different principle, or at least fuse a different element. The problem comes in when we realize that as the elements get higher on the periodic table, the mass of the star has to increase. Stars that fuse carbon have to be at least 4 solar masses, and stars that fuse neon must be at least 8. Stars that fuse nitrogen or oxygen then must be around 6 solar masses.

[ChronoReverse]

Never made a fusion reactor as small as a car? Look at some of the REALLY small dwarf stars.

A white dwarf is about the size of Earth. Plus no fusion is taking place in those. So yeah.

@snakerbot

Yeah and the fusion in those types of stars is a slow sluggish kind of fusion that's nowhere near even a yellow dwarf star like the Sun.

Edited November 22, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[Nied]

After reading SchizophrenicMC's post, I looked up the smallest star. OGLE-TR-122. It has a radius 120% of that of Jupiter, and a mass of about 0.12 solar masses. Scientists think this is about as small as a star can get and still fuse hydrogen, so I think the TRTs might work on a completely different principle, or at least fuse a different element. The problem comes in when we realize that as the elements get higher on the periodic table, the mass of the star has to increase. Stars that fuse carbon have to be at least 4 solar masses, and stars that fuse neon must be at least 8. Stars that fuse nitrogen or oxygen then must be around 6 solar masses.

All you need for fusion is to push the nuclei of two atoms together with enough force to overcome their electrostatic repulsion and they fus in to one larger atom. Stars do that with such an overwhelming amount of mass that their atoms are literally crushed together by the sheer mass of the material above them. You can also do this with intense heat (the method used in a hydrogen bomb), powerful magnetic fields (like are used in many modern attempts at fusion power, and most likely what are used in TNTs), even (theoretically) ultrasonic soundwaves.

[Nied]

Like a Mr Fusion on a DeLorean...

I think we have a good candidate for a reaction mass/fuel: Half empty cans of beer.

[edwin3060]

However, the problem with fusing heavier elements is that you get far less energy out of fusion of an equivalent weight of fuel, while requiring far more energy (i.e. higher temperatures) in order to ionise the fuel to a plasma so you can get fusion to occur. Ultimately, the scenario where the fusion reaction and thrust generation are separate still makes more sense.

SchizophrenicMC: It wouldn't make the craft any more explosive, especially if water were both the fuel and the propellant. Water is good in this way because it is a easy way to store large amounts of hydrogen, and because it will generate alot of plasma from a small starting volume of water when heated.

[David Hingtgen]

I think we have a good candidate for a reaction mass/fuel: Half empty cans of beer.

That's Roy's secret---alcohol-fueled valks get more thrust.

[ChronoReverse]

That actually makes some sense since some of the micromissiles appear to be bear cans =P

[Nied]

However, the problem with fusing heavier elements is that you get far less energy out of fusion of an equivalent weight of fuel, while requiring far more energy (i.e. higher temperatures) in order to ionise the fuel to a plasma so you can get fusion to occur. Ultimately, the scenario where the fusion reaction and thrust generation are separate still makes more sense.

Well if the reactor is fusing air sucked into the intakes, the weight of the fuel isn't important since it's pulling it from the outside. A hotter reaction isn't really a bad thing when your entire engine design is based upon heating air for reaction mass. Hell that might explain why the YF-19 and YF-21 have issues with overheating in an atmosphere.

[edwin3060]

Well if the reactor is fusing air sucked into the intakes, the weight of the fuel isn't important since it's pulling it from the outside. A hotter reaction isn't really a bad thing when your entire engine design is based upon heating air for reaction mass. Hell that might explain why the YF-19 and YF-21 have issues with overheating in an atmosphere.

Good point, although I always thought that the heating problems were due to air being a poorer conductor of heat and having a lower specific heat than the onboard propellant. From an engineering point of view, though, it is far easier to have the fusion reactor designed for one specific input and one operating temperature than for two or more-- especially since you don't need alot of 'fusile' material to sustain the reaction for practically forever.

[SchizophrenicMC]

I still stick with my Tokamak theory. It fulfills the name requirement and seems to fit the schematics. At this point, I don't care what exactly fuels it, as long as it makes sense as far as the engines' limits and what we see in the anime. (Kakizaki's fuel leak from the nose)

And as far as solar fusion goes, it operates on a different starting principle. In a star, immense gravity pulls the elements to the center at such rates that they fuse into denser elements. In toroid fusion, magnetic fields are used to speed up hydrogen atoms to the point where they fuse. Toroid fusion requires significantly more energy to start the same reaction, but starts more quickly and easily.

And white dwarfs (Dwarves?) undergo a very small amount of fusion. The fuel supply still exists in enough quantity that the super dense (Not hyper dense) mass is able to fuse small amounts of it over a long time. It is only after this period that a star burns out and becomes a black dwarf.

If the name is anything to go by, TRTs must be using "Hot" nuclear fusion, and be in a circularly integrated manner. Way I see it, Tokamak fusion meets all of the above characteristics. Only problem with my theory is that I haven't come up with a good fuel source. Some of you have, so I guess that works, however there is no consensus on what the fuel source is.

And not to kill a dead cow, but even though the universe never made a small car sized fusion reactor, WE have made a fusion reactor the size of a large SUV, and I'd say that's good enough.

[d3v]

That actually makes some sense since some of the micromissiles appear to be bear cans =P

By 2059 it seems that beer has been phased out in favour of Appale Genki.