Emergency Beacon Detection Range

Yep a quick dip test shows it seems to be a factor of 8 out (at least some of the time). All the hidden values are correct until that massive formula in D11 and that just screws everything up.
I found what I think is an error in cell H 10 on the fuel tab. There was a section where it looked for holes that were lower than 100 tons and it had part of it that rounded up. When I removed the round up function from that I got the expected numbers. I sent a note to Arkathan.
 
I found what I think is an error in cell H 10 on the fuel tab. There was a section where it looked for holes that were lower than 100 tons and it had part of it that rounded up. When I removed the round up function from that I got the expected numbers. I sent a note to Arkathan.
That was my finding. But that whole formula is a tough read :) It is looking to see if the small craft rule is applied (and whether it is a small craft - though I am not sure that is relevant rounding up is a convenience not a law of physics).
 
Math is hard, he whines...

a) 1 AutoBerth = .5 power, 3 tons no gravity = .3 power. Total= .8 (I'm powering it all)

b) .8 power (what the sheet is using) can be done with .04 tons of TL15 Fusion.

c) .04 tons of TL15 fusion power requires .004 tons per 4 weeks.

d) 1.3 tons of fuel for 1300 weeks (which was my comparison point. My belief is that the small craft rules for fuel only removed the 1 ton minimum, so I think this is correct.

Well, it sure seems like the math is wrong in the sheet. Damn.
Wrong? Not technically. The formula is correct, but rounded to a reasonable number.
Rounded to the second decimal place because I didn't foresee designs that are more akin to large robots or small vehicles being made with the HG rules. Removed the rounding in the power plant fuel calculation, so we should be good until the next weird thing comes up.
 
In regard to power plants listed in High Guard, except for chemical at one thousand percent over a fortnight, all other listed reactors consume ten percent over four weeks, or a month.

I asked specifically about technological level six fission, and that was the reply, post the last update, since I wanted to know how much uranium cost, and consumption rate.
 
GROGNARD! GROGNARD!
I missed my slipstick. Dad says that anyone who can't use a slide rule is a cultural illiterate and should not be allowed to vote. Mine is a beauty - a K&E 20" Log-log Duplex Decitrig. Dad surprised me with it after I mastered a ten-inch polyphase. We ate potato soup that week - but Dad says you should always budget luxuries first. I knew where it was. Home on my desk.

No matter. I had figures, formula, pencil and paper.
 
In regard to power plants listed in High Guard, except for chemical at one thousand percent over a fortnight, all other listed reactors consume ten percent over four weeks, or a month.

I asked specifically about technological level six fission, and that was the reply, post the last update, since I wanted to know how much uranium cost, and consumption rate.
As has been repeatedly stated, the "fuel" used on a weekly basis is actually reactor coolant. The Stirling plant is sealed, eliminating the need to replace lost coolant, and thereby proving the previous sentence to be true.
TL 6: Coolant is lost because the chemistry needs to be carefully controlled in order to avoid corrosion.
Radioactive action tends to make a hydrogenated coolant acidic. This is not conducive to the continued function of the heat exchanger tubes, which are thinner than a cheap piece of copier paper. You bleed some of that off and treat it with a basic pH additive. Same goes for the steam generation side if they are separate loops.
 
So, for an overly simplistic example, let’s say the Voyager TL6 RTG creates 0.001 Power per week. It’s been operating for 50 years - 2,600 weeks. It is now approaching the end of its useful life cycle. It weighs 10kg (does it? I don’t know).
The data you seek is available on wikipedia:


For the Voyagers 37.7 kg produces 160W of electricity. And there are better designs which ave a greater output. The kilopower system is outputting 7 W per kg.
 
As has been repeatedly stated, the "fuel" used on a weekly basis is actually reactor coolant. The Stirling plant is sealed, eliminating the need to replace lost coolant, and thereby proving the previous sentence to be true.
TL 6: Coolant is lost because the chemistry needs to be carefully controlled in order to avoid corrosion.

The closed cycle on real world devices do not lose coolant, they radiate the wast heat. I know Traveller ignores thermodynamics but how long until someone accepts we need radiators or gravitic heat sinks? (sorry couldn't resist)
2300 ships have to have radiators, they don't have the option of space magic...
Radioactive action tends to make a hydrogenated coolant acidic. This is not conducive to the continued function of the heat exchanger tubes, which are thinner than a cheap piece of copier paper. You bleed some of that off and treat it with a basic pH additive. Same goes for the steam generation side if they are separate loops.
Or you build them using real world engineering and stop handwaving such silliness to explain something introduced to cover up a... oh look a shiny thing.
 
The closed cycle on real world devices do not lose coolant, they radiate the wast heat. I know Traveller ignores thermodynamics but how long until someone accepts we need radiators or gravitic heat sinks? (sorry couldn't resist)
2300 ships have to have radiators, they don't have the option of space magic...

Or you build them using real world engineering and stop handwaving such silliness to explain something introduced to cover up a... oh look a shiny thing.

I worked on fission plants. Chemistry and radiological controls. That IS a real world thing.
 
A radioisotope thermoelectric generator is a completely closed system, it is not cooled like a fission reactor. I studied nuclear chemistry and physics and did lab work at the joint universities reactor Risley.


The stirling engine variant does involve helium flow:


but as the article states:
"In 2020, a free-piston Stirling power converter reached 15 years of maintenance-free and degradation-free cumulative operation in the Stirling Research Laboratory at NASA Glenn"

The advanced version showed promise but was cancelled for the usual reasons:


Then we have the more advanced Kilopower concept:

 
Last edited:
... I studied nuclear chemistry and physics and did lab work at the joint universities reactor Risley. ...
That's nice. I WORKED on a fission plant. I drained the coolant, primary and secondary, in order to maintain the chemistry, so when I tell you it uses water, that's an accurate statement.
A TL 6 reactor, and I have repeatedly stipulated a low tech reactor - not a TL7.5 experiment, is not sealed unless you are using molten salt, and even then only the primary coolant is sealed. You have water generating the power... and the steam side is the one that you eject the most water from to maintain the chemistry - because you REALLY don't want those paper thin heat exchanger tube walls to rupture when there is molten sodium on the other side of the water system. You either use a volatile pH control, which needs frequent replacement, or you dissolve the pH medium, which causes sediment to build up where the water boils and has to be flushed out by draining the water out.

The Stirling system as described doesn't exist as a hermetically sealed closed system with a moving coolant generating electricity on a Traveller ship scale. It isn't an RTG. RTG's won't power anything but an unmanned probe with low-power instruments.
 
Last edited:
That's nice. I WORKED on a fission plant. I drained the coolant, primary and secondary, in order to maintain the chemistry, so when I tell you it uses water, that's an accurate statement.
Thank you, but we are talking about a different type of generator.
A TL 6 reactor, and I have repeatedly stipulated a low tech reactor - not a TL7.5 experiment, is not sealed unless you are using molten salt, and even then only the primary coolant is sealed.
Again you are talking about something different, not an rtg but a fission reactor, they are very different technology. The rtg in voyager has certainly not sprung a leak since there is nothing to leak.

"A radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG, RITEG), or radioisotope power system (RPS), is a type of nuclear battery that uses an array of thermocouples to convert the heat released by the decay of a suitable radioactive material into electricity by the Seebeck effect. This type of generator has no moving parts and is ideal for deployment in remote and harsh environments for extended periods with no risk of parts wearing out or malfunctioning."

The rtgs on Voyager were designed during the 60s, the first ones were 1950s.
You have water generating the power... and the steam side is the one that you eject the most water from to maintain the chemistry - because you REALLY don't want those paper thin heat exchanger tube walls to rupture when there is molten sodium on the other side of the water system.
But there are no pipes and coolant on an rtg, they don't work like that.
You either use a volatile pH control, which needs frequent replacement, or you dissolve the pH medium, which causes sediment to build up where the water boils and has to be flushed out by draining the water out.
Not in an rtg you don't.
The Stirling system as described doesn't exist as a hermetically sealed closed system with a moving coolant generating electricity on a Traveller ship scale. It isn't an RTG. RTG's won't power anything but an unmanned probe with low-power instruments.
The real world says different, I have provided the wiki links, would you like the links to the companies developing these things?

The stirling system uses liquid helium, after 15 years of continuous testing no degradation or leaks.


The kilopower uses sodium in a closed loop.


Read the articles, then read the references - I am talking about rtgs not fission power plants.
 
Last edited:
As imagined, the Stirling ( got it write right this time) reactor was a sealed reactor, not an RTG. But, probably doesn't not need to be repeated if fission reactors were better described.

RTGs exist as options for robots. They don't even exist as option for vehicles, because at best you'd get an unshielded e-bike out of them... (comes with a coupon for a Free Non-Invasive Combination Sterilization and Hair Removal Treatment!!!) and you won't need to paint them that annoying lime green, because they'd glow in the dark (okay, maybe not really, but Anton Petrov just did a thing on Patreon (or I'd link it) about Chinese researchers making (blurry) IR contact lenses. )
 
Back
Top