Valk Designs

[ChronoReverse]

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.

Semantics. It's only residual fusion and besides a white dwarf is planet sized so your original idea that nature has fusion plants that are car sized is still completely off-based.

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.

Thermonuclear was coined to describe nuclear fusion bombs because it took a fission bomb (heat and energy) to activate it. There's NOTHING that implies anything about "circularly integrated manner" nor is there any reason to limit it to tokamak designs.

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.

Fusion only works with "fuels" below iron in the periodic table. Hydrogen isotopes are the best though in terms of energy released per fusion.

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.

No we haven't. We've fused things in the space of a SUV and even smaller but we haven't even got a continuous fusion duration of more than a few minutes and certainly not many seconds for break-even fusion duration. Those tokamak facilities certainly aren't "SUV sized".

[edwin3060]

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

I put forward that the damage caused by micromissiles is due to the carbon dioxide in the can expanding on impact--- so Appale Genki must be more fizzy than beer!

Edited December 1, 2008 by edwin3060

[SchizophrenicMC]

MMMMMMMMMKay... Thermonuclear, in and of itself has nothing to do with circles, however, Turbine does. A turbine is a rotary engine that extracts energy from a fluid flow. ROTARY. That means going in a circle, non?

Has anyone suggested Cobalt as a fuel? No? As such, your point is moot.

Exactly my point. We have built a space for fusion to occur within the space of an SUV. It's that part which, by sheer definition, is the reactor. Given, due to proton bombardment of the interior surfaces, no reaction has been sustained. However, this is due to safety issues. The reaction can last longer, however, the reactor would probably give out before it could continue.

Furthermore, the reactor's exterior components make up most of the space. Reaction space is rather small. One would assume that such a machine could be essentially "Shrunk" in size over research time. Look at your PC. Just a few years ago, something as powerful as it would be 3 times as big.

At that age, the Appale Genki has alcoholized and become explosive. This is why it's so effective.

[Nied]

MMMMMMMMMKay... Thermonuclear, in and of itself has nothing to do with circles, however, Turbine does. A turbine is a rotary engine that extracts energy from a fluid flow. ROTARY. That means going in a circle, non?

I think it's pretty clear that the Turbine part of a TNT doesn't refer to the configuration of the Fusion reactor, but the fact that said fusion reactor is part of a jet turbine. Said turbine is powered by a thermonuclear fusion reaction rather than a chemical one like modern jet engines. Having said that, I do believe a Tokamak style reactor is the most likely candidate for the heart of a TNT, it's straightforward, it gives off a steady amount of energy (unlike other likely methods like laser initiated fusion) and it's strongly implied by the official material (the toroid structure in the TNT cutaway diagrams I mentioned earlier).

Edited December 1, 2008 by Nied

[SchizophrenicMC]

I didn't mean the turbine was the structure of the reactor. I meant that since the turbine must be round, it would make sense that the reactor is round, and a Tokamak is round.

[ChronoReverse]

MMMMMMMMMKay... Thermonuclear, in and of itself has nothing to do with circles, however, Turbine does. A turbine is a rotary engine that extracts energy from a fluid flow. ROTARY. That means going in a circle, non?

Which has absolutely nothing to do with a tokamak or thermonuclear. You're going on a tirade because you were simply completely off-base.

Has anyone suggested Cobalt as a fuel? No? As such, your point is moot.

I think you don't understand the point then. The point is simply that there's limited selection of fusion fuels and hydrogen is the best. It also means that fuel for the fusion component has a very high chance of being hydrogen.

Exactly my point. We have built a space for fusion to occur within the space of an SUV. It's that part which, by sheer definition, is the reactor.

Yes, it's called an thermonuclear bomb. Not exactly a reactor

Given, due to proton bombardment of the interior surfaces, no reaction has been sustained. However, this is due to safety issues. The reaction can last longer, however, the reactor would probably give out before it could continue.

We have sustained fusion. The problem is sustained fusion that at least breaks even in terms of energy. Generally, neutrons emissions are a much bigger issue than protons. And it's usually instabilities in the plasma (and it's magnetic bottle) that usually messes things up. Plasma touching the walls doesn't remain plasma for long.

Furthermore, the reactor's exterior components make up most of the space. Reaction space is rather small. One would assume that such a machine could be essentially "Shrunk" in size over research time. Look at your PC. Just a few years ago, something as powerful as it would be 3 times as big.

And this is why we have gasoline engines the size of a pinhead. After all, combustion can take place in volumes smaller than that.

. Having said that, I do believe a Tokamak style reactor is the most likely candidate for the heart of a TNT, it's straightforward, it gives off a steady amount of energy (unlike other likely methods like laser initiated fusion) and it's strongly implied by the official material (the toroid structure in the TNT cutaway diagrams I mentioned earlier).

Yeah, that's completely reasonable and I have to agree with that much.

With that said, a toroid configuration would likely be the case almost regardless of the type of fusion occurring. Even if (as an example) laser pulse compression style fusion was the only feasibly shrinkable technology availed by Overtechnology, the modules would likely still be arranged in a ring to accommodate the turbine. Furthermore, steady energy output isn't an absolute must either. Back to the car engine example, those don't use constant combustion (like a power plant would) for a myriad of reasons.

Edited December 2, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[SchizophrenicMC]

Are you mocking me?

Tokamaks are ROUND, non? Rotary means ROUND. Since the engine itself is a turbine, and Tokamaks seem to be the most popular reactors, I suggested Tokamak. Got a problem?

At the beginning, did I not say Hydrogen?

The Thermonuclear bomb is barely the size of a man, let alone an SUV. If you're using THAT as your basis, we've done better than previously stated.

The space within most Tokamaks is roughly as big as the interior of an SUV. Seeing as this is the reaction space, I'd say it's a start.

The main problem that the technicians keep running into is corrosion of the reactor wall by high-speed nuclear particles. They slam into the reactor wall in high speed and quantity, breaking the wall down. This is probably because the magnetic field is not strong enough to hold things that small going that fast. And the only reason energy amounts don't break even is because of this. We can't sustain a reaction long enough to generate energy sufficient for it to be efficiently harvested.

On your note of the car engine: It's all about your energy conversion methodology. In a car, an explosive bout of combustion forces a piston down, turning a camshaft connected to the transmission axle. In a coal-burning powerplant, heat from the fire is used to boil water, and steam is forced by the laws of physics through a series of turbines, generating electricity. In a solar cell, energy from sunlight excites electrons within the topmost silicon skin, causing it to move down to an electrical conductor. I may be off on the solar cell.

I'm not trying to fight you, just point out my way of thinking. If you're going to contradict me, please don't be an ass about it. If you're not trying to be, no offense, but get help. From where I'm standing, you're acting like a prick.

Thank you and good night!

[anime52k8]

And this is why we have gasoline engines the size of a pinhead. After all, combustion can take place in volumes smaller than that.

which engine are you talking about by the way? the 1mm micro rotary engine there working on at Berkley,

or the one that's a cube with a spiral channel cut into it that acts as a combustion chamber? (name of that one escapes me completely)

[ChronoReverse]

Are you mocking me?

Well, if you keep giving replies like this, it will seem like it. I'm really not against the idea of the tokamak; it's quite reasonable even. I was just irked by some of your erroneous assumptions. I saw fit to point out the flaws in the assumptions.

Remember the entire thing started when I made a rather innocent comment (I thought anyway) that we shouldn't assume that it's definitely like our tokamak designs or that it should be a tokamak at all. Plus a side comment about nature not having car-sized fusion reactors.

Tokamaks are ROUND, non? Rotary means ROUND.

Rotary comes from rotation. Even a stick can rotate.

At the beginning, did I not say Hydrogen?

You must note that while you were saying hydrogen I didn't disagree.

The Thermonuclear bomb is barely the size of a man, let alone an SUV. If you're using THAT as your basis, we've done better than previously stated.

The point is that a thermonuclear bomb isn't anywhere near controlled. As with the example with the gasoline engine, just because you can cause a certain reaction to occur in a small volume doesn't mean you can utilize it at that scale. In the case of fusion, our current efforts for self-sustaining reactions don't quite work at smaller scales with the tokamak design. That isn't to say that OT won't allow that of course.

On your note of the car engine: It's all about your energy conversion methodology. In a car, an explosive bout of combustion forces a piston down, turning a camshaft connected to the transmission axle. In a coal-burning powerplant, heat from the fire is used to boil water, and steam is forced by the laws of physics through a series of turbines, generating electricity. In a solar cell, energy from sunlight excites electrons within the topmost silicon skin, causing it to move down to an electrical conductor. I may be off on the solar cell.

Well, for my first example, I was showing how just because combustion can easily occur in super small scale, doesn't necessarily lead to super small engines. That is to say, even though we've achieve fusion in small spaces, doesn't mean it's physically (as in terms of physics) possible to have a sustained controlled reaction in the same small space.

Furthermore, you can't simply discount the support hardware that allows for such reactions to occur. For instance, the tokamak internal volume isn't all that huge but the support hardware plus the generators to reconvert the heat energy into electricity to feed back into the magnetic systems to sustain the fusion reaction as well as keeping it bottled are not things you can just write out.

The main problem that the technicians keep running into is corrosion of the reactor wall by high-speed nuclear particles. They slam into the reactor wall in high speed and quantity, breaking the wall down. This is probably because the magnetic field is not strong enough to hold things that small going that fast. And the only reason energy amounts don't break even is because of this. We can't sustain a reaction long enough to generate energy sufficient for it to be efficiently harvested.

That's definitely a concern (it's neutron bombardment making the metal walls brittle incidentally) but it's actually secondary since that isn't what directly stops the fusion process from self-sustaining. Magnetic fields also can't stop neutrons, them being neutral and all.

So far, in tokamak reactors, the magnetic bottle tends to develop "leaks" and there's also trouble keeping the plasma smooth and uniform. The field strength isn't really the issue but rather the control of the fields to keep the leaks away is. Simply applying more power is rather like trying to press a bubble under a piece of plastic; it doesn't help much. If we go along with the analogy, one would have to keep the bubble from getting there in the first place.

which engine are you talking about by the way? the 1mm micro rotary engine there working on at Berkley,

I had forgotten about MEMS, you got me there (although I did qualify it using gasoline )

With that said... the chamber itself is that small but how much support hardware is required to keep it going? Does it deliver more output energy than it takes simply to hold it steady and deliver fuel to it? Will they eventually be durable enough to be useful? Not every challenge is surmountable. The research will find out of course.

Have they gotten past making the parts and testing them assembled yet? A fully functional internal combustion engine at the 1mm scale would be a great achievement.

In any case MEMS technology has created many interesting micro-engines and I do not believe anyone has shown that they're physically infeasible. There's even precedent in nature after all for small rotational engines =)

Edited December 2, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[taksraven]

Well, if you keep giving replies like this, it will seem like it. I'm really not against the idea of the tokamak; it's quite reasonable even. I was just irked by some of your erroneous assumptions. I saw fit to point out the flaws in the assumptions.

Remember the entire thing started when I made a rather innocent comment (I thought anyway) that we shouldn't assume that it's definitely like our tokamak designs or that it should be a tokamak at all. Plus a side comment about nature not having car-sized fusion reactors.

Rotary comes from rotation. Even a stick can rotate.

You must note that while you were saying hydrogen I didn't disagree.

The point is that a thermonuclear bomb isn't anywhere near controlled. As with the example with the gasoline engine, just because you can cause a certain reaction to occur in a small volume doesn't mean you can utilize it at that scale. In the case of fusion, our current efforts for self-sustaining reactions don't quite work at smaller scales with the tokamak design. That isn't to say that OT won't allow that of course.

Well, for my first example, I was showing how just because combustion can easily occur in super small scale, doesn't necessarily lead to super small engines. That is to say, even though we've achieve fusion in small spaces, doesn't mean it's physically (as in terms of physics) possible to have a sustained controlled reaction in the same small space.

Furthermore, you can't simply discount the support hardware that allows for such reactions to occur. For instance, the tokamak internal volume isn't all that huge but the support hardware plus the generators to reconvert the heat energy into electricity to feed back into the magnetic systems to sustain the fusion reaction as well as keeping it bottled are not things you can just write out.

That's definitely a concern (it's neutron bombardment making the metal walls brittle incidentally) but it's actually secondary since that isn't what directly stops the fusion process from self-sustaining. Magnetic fields also can't stop neutrons, them being neutral and all.

So far, in tokamak reactors, the magnetic bottle tends to develop "leaks" and there's also trouble keeping the plasma smooth and uniform. The field strength isn't really the issue but rather the control of the fields to keep the leaks away is. Simply applying more power is rather like trying to press a bubble under a piece of plastic; it doesn't help much. If we go along with the analogy, one would have to keep the bubble from getting there in the first place.

I had forgotten about MEMS, you got me there (although I did qualify it using gasoline )

With that said... the chamber itself is that small but how much support hardware is required to keep it going? Does it deliver more output energy than it takes simply to hold it steady and deliver fuel to it? Will they eventually be durable enough to be useful? Not every challenge is surmountable. The research will find out of course.

Have they gotten past making the parts and testing them assembled yet? A fully functional internal combustion engine at the 1mm scale would be a great achievement.

In any case MEMS technology has created many interesting micro-engines and I do not believe anyone has shown that they're physically infeasible. There's even precedent in nature after all for small rotational engines =)

Is it just me or is this thread becoming more OT, complicated and unreadable??

Taksraven

[Morpheus]

Is it just me or is this thread becoming more OT, complicated and unreadable??

Taksraven

A bit complicated, since several things are being repeated over and over again, I think we need a summary or something on the 1st page.

[azrael]

Is it just me or is this thread becoming more OT, complicated and unreadable??

D) All the above.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Moving on, we should get back to VALKYRIE DESIGNS, not fusion reactors, gas engines, and whatnot...

How pointless would a Variable Cargo Carrier be?

And, now that I think of it, would Lego Valks be awesome? I've seen many a Transformable Valk, rendered in Lego, but I can only wish they were mass-produced....

[ChronoReverse]

And, now that I think of it, would Lego Valks be awesome? I've seen many a Transformable Valk, rendered in Lego, but I can only wish they were mass-produced....

If only Kawamori would release blueprints for his lego valkyries. I'd love to build a transformable lego VF-25 =D~

[badboy00z]

I'd be happy if LEGO did a fighter craft line.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Possible the pwnliest set of Valks ever:

http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=116907

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i268/RaZoRX32/Lego001.jpg

http://mocpages.com/moc.php/34788

http://mocpages.com/moc.php/55819

http://mocpages.com/moc.php/59371

http://mocpages.com/moc.php/59371

http://mocpages.com/moc.php/64536

http://mocpages.com/moc.php/12493

http://mocpages.com/moc.php/12491

http://mocpages.com/moc.php/12750

http://mocpages.com/moc.php/31387

http://mocpages.com/moc.php/14141

And though they're not Variable Fighters:

http://mocpages.com/moc.php/14140

and

http://mechahub.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=4711

[ChronoReverse]

http://mocpages.com/moc.php/14141

! That's unbelievably good. Now I really want to make one these...

Edited December 2, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[SchizophrenicMC]

Oh yes.

I WANTZ ALL OF THEM!

[anime52k8]

http://mocpages.com/moc.php/14141

http://mechahub.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=4711

these two are by far the best, I think the Koning monster (how do I get the farting dots over the U) looks a bit better and more accurate, but it does help that the VA-6B is an inherently boxy design, (and the uniform Grey color looks cool)

[SchizophrenicMC]

I wholeheartedly agree.

Which dots over what U? There's many dots and at least 4 u's...

[anime52k8]

I wholeheartedly agree.

Which dots over what U? There's many dots and at least 4 u's...

i meant to say O, as in the O in Koning, I want to know how to type the umlauts over the o so it's actually spelled correctly.

[sketchley]

Easy.

Option a: copy and paste "VB-6 König Monster" from another source on the internet (ie http://www.macrossroleplay.org/Sketchley/S...riable_Fighters )

Option b: copy and paste from your text editor (and use the text editor's features to get the accented ö).

Option c: learn ASCII code: http://homepage1.nifty.com/tabotabo/ccc/asci.htm Press and hold [alt] + 246 (for small) or 214 (for big) on your number keypad - may or may not work, depending on your version of windows (J-Win, K-Win, etc.) and/or your keyboard.

Edited December 3, 2008 by sketchley

[SchizophrenicMC]

Oh... You know, Koenig is also a proper spelling. It's Alt 246, right?

[SchizophrenicMC]

Hello?

[anime52k8]

it should be, accept that I've got a laptop and non of the ASCII commands work for me.

[sketchley]

try using your laptop's FN (or whatever it's called) to access the number pad which normally gets buried in the regular QWERTY keyboard on a laptop.

[anime52k8]

try using your laptop's FN (or whatever it's called) to access the number pad which normally gets buried in the regular QWERTY keyboard on a laptop.

honestly I can never get the number pad to work with the function key either...

wait... what's this? oh, so I have to hold function then press the num lock key (which I alway's thought was the scroll lock key since it says scroll on it)

then the number pad works... heh.

and apparently on my computer alt +246 = ÷ and alt +214 = ╓ what ever that is.

[sketchley]

So go with option a or b.

[SchizophrenicMC]

ö

It's alt 148.

[sketchley]

That results in ” on my PC.

[SchizophrenicMC]

ö=Alt 148 on mine... "=alt 34

Alt 65 through 123 are the Java references for A-z (65=A, 97=a) ¥=alt 157... In case you need to note the price of a Yamato or a Hasegawa in terms of yen...

[ChronoReverse]

Go to your accessories and open up the character map. Highlight the character you want and look at the bottom for the appropriate combo on your system.

[SchizophrenicMC]

So, this thread is dead, I take it?

[badboy00z]

Hey Schizo, you got any original VF designs? Since you know exactly what a VF should look like and how it should be named you ought to have some.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Hey Schizo, you got any original VF designs? Since you know exactly what a VF should look like and how it should be named you ought to have some.

Yes. Yes I do. A WIP image is a bit back... Now, I thought there was an agreement in that thread that we would learn to take things with a grain of salt. If you don't plan on doing so, I suggest you leave the fan works section alone. That place, I consider to be sacred ground, where you shouldn't rip on things, but give friendly advice, as I was doing.