Fuel Bladders

[dragoner]

With the release of CT LBB 5 the jump drive has been linked with the power plant which has pretty much shredded my understanding to the point I do not think about how they work or why they require refined L-Hyd in any of the Traveller rule sets.

Same here, and this goes back to an earlier discussion of that the fuel bladder rules are just a nerf to the players without making much sense technically. Personally I ignore them, they don't add anything to the game, if players want them, they are already sacrificing cargo space.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello again dragoner,

With the release of CT LBB 5 the jump drive has been linked with the power plant which has pretty much shredded my understanding to the point I do not think about how they work or why they require refined L-Hyd in any of the Traveller rule sets.

Same here, and this goes back to an earlier discussion of that the fuel bladder rules are just a nerf to the players without making much sense technically. Personally I ignore them, they don't add anything to the game, if players want them, they are already sacrificing cargo space.

I can image using collapsible tanks as ad-hock tankers for corsairs or another group that can not afford real tankers or away to get fuel to a stranded ship.

 

[dragoner]

If the cabin is open to anything, that is the problem. Water vs hydrogen is moot at that point.

Again - which is more dangerous when it spills into your starship - water or l-hyd? I fyou take yourstarship into combat, there's a good chance it will happen.

Once again, NASA prefers filling ships with hydrogen, just don't smoke.

This makes about as much sense as saying that NASA does not put unleaded gasoline in their rockets, so you should not put it in your car. And once again, your statement is a non sequitur, and has be twice refuted earlier in this thread. NASA is not using jump drives and fusion reactors. Jump drives are not rocket science.

Planets might have an issue with cross contamination of water supplies too, transferring biologicals to different worlds, not that the game deals with it; it is a real life issue with ships and ballast tanks, that is how the Baltic Mussels contaminated the great lakes.

I am aware of this, however, I believe the process of wilderness refueling of water can easily be used to disinfect that water. Disinfecting wilderness-water is much easier and less handwavey than refining that water into l-hyd using the same tanks (which is how Traveller fuel purifiers have to work). Here on TL8 Earth, we can easily disinfect water and store it for arbitrarily long periods and not have things growing in it. And that's sill easier than storing l-hyd.

Safety does not override efficiency, more vehicles run on gasoline than diesel, yet diesel is safer handling.

It varies according to the circumstances, so you cannot use that as a blanket statement.

Mind you, it varies according to the circumstances, so you cannot use that as a blanket statement. However, we see that a refueling accident with a spaceship using l-hyd can easily result in the loss of the craft - an incident that cannot happen when you're refueling with water.

I again maintain that handling water is much much much safer and much less handwavey than handing l-hyd.

NASA uses liquid hydrogen just fine, that's all that counts, it's not hand wavey at all, it does not matter what they use it for. There are no real refueling accidents I know of either, launch accidents yes, but as you said, we aren't talking about chemical rockets. As far as safety, automobiles are responsible for 38,000 fatalities and 4.4 million injuries last year in the US alone; space travel is a 1000 times safer.

If someone is shooting holes in your spacecraft, you have a big problem which hydrogen isn't one, water isn't much better in that situation either. Hopefully you are suited up.

We have all sorts of problems with storing water, every time it floods here we get boil orders on using tap water, and a lot of places you have to do it all the time. Water used as coolant is usually treated to chemically stabilize it, and to prevent the growth of micro-organisms. Water also promotes dielectric decomposition in metals, another form of corrosion.

If it's all just about the volumetric density of hydrogen, methane is better than water, except from energy density, and engineering viewpoints, just break it down into its constituent parts. Not only are process tasks easier to do separately, there is less chance of a breakdown in the chain too.

Use water if you want, it doesn't look like less handwavium though, just different.

Speaking of technological plateau's, I was just reading a review of The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, they are a good example, eleven centuries and little technological advancement.

 

[dragoner]

Hello again dragoner,

With the release of CT LBB 5 the jump drive has been linked with the power plant which has pretty much shredded my understanding to the point I do not think about how they work or why they require refined L-Hyd in any of the Traveller rule sets.

Same here, and this goes back to an earlier discussion of that the fuel bladder rules are just a nerf to the players without making much sense technically. Personally I ignore them, they don't add anything to the game, if players want them, they are already sacrificing cargo space.

I can image using collapsible tanks as ad-hock tankers for corsairs or another group that can not afford real tankers or away to get fuel to a stranded ship.

^^^That's good.

My view is that a fuel tank is a fuel tank, collapsible or not, so if your other ducks are in order (jump drive, power plant), you can do the jump. It's basically a complication where there doesn't need to be one the way it is written.

 

[Reynard]

"The discussion of the fuel and fuel purification appears to be a secondary topic and probably have a thread of its own."

Oh please yes! I too gave up with the Forever War of Circular Logic.

"I seem to remember a thing from Mug-A-Traveller callleda fuel bladder that would store away in the ship until needed after skimming. I can't seem to find it in this edition. Or am I missing something"

It's fully described in the ship building book High Guard but the Common Spacecraft section of the Core Book states which ships normally have fuel processors (refiners) in their description. Page 147 under Fuel describes the mechanics of a refiner.

High Guard lists the various non-standard fuel storage systems. Collapsible Fuel Tanks (fuel bladders) are a solution for vessels facing large gaps between stellar mains, systems within 1 parsec of each other. You have the option to cross a gap farther than your normal jump capability then fold it away for normal (minus 1% hold space) trade service. Could come in handy for the Sindal subsector. Make sure it is a necessity for the price, tonnage lost for both filled and empty tonnage and assure you have enough fuel for the jump needed plus power plant fuel for the extra time in jump space. Disadvantage is fuel is nor directly able to pump into the Jump drive. You must stop between jumps and transfer to the normal fuel tanks.

There's also the Dismountable Tank. This is another temporary conversion of cargo space to fuel space but acts as normal fuel tanks with pumps and connections so you can jump again from the last exit in the time frame of normal jump prep. Twice as expensive as a fuel bladder and needs 4 weeks to set up or break down. That is serious consideration for purpose.

The last system is the Drop Tank mostly used by military forces for mainly assault missions where you want a lean ship at exit with full jump capability in case something goes wrong. The system is expensive, takes up precious internal space, could cause misjump, and you are leaving the tanks behind if they aren't destroyed. Little to no advantage to commercial and personal vessels but militaries can better justify this including tenders to retrieve the drop tanks.

 

[vargr1]

NASA uses liquid hydrogen just fine, that's all that counts, it's not hand wavey at all, it does not matter what they use it for. There are no real refueling accidents I know of either,

SpaceX would beg to differ. https://www.wired.com/2016/10/cause-spacexs-explosion-gets-little-clearer/
Or the Russians: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/28/world/1980-soviet-rocket-accident-killed-50.html

Besides - NASA doesn't use water in its rockets because those rockets do not use water as fuel. Putting water in their rockets makes as much sense as putting water in your car's gas tank. Again - Traveller starships are not NASA rockets.

Also, NASA is very careful with its l-hyd. Thats one reason why rocket launches take a lot of time to prepare. Translating that into a commercial-speed operation is quite difficult - again, ask SpaceX. All that would be much safer if their rockets could use water.

If someone is shooting holes in your spacecraft, you have a big problem which hydrogen isn't one, water isn't much better in that situation either. Hopefully you are suited up.

I'd much rather have water sloshing around in my starship than l-hyd. Which would you rather have? Water, or a liquid that has a good chance of killing you dead if you fall into a puddle of it - with or without a spacesuit on?

We have all sorts of problems with storing water, every time it floods here we get boil orders on using tap water, and a lot of places you have to do it all the time. Water used as coolant is usually treated to chemically stabilize it, and to prevent the growth of micro-organisms. Water also promotes dielectric decomposition in metals, another form of corrosion.

Have you seen what cryo fuel can do to metal and other materials?

Besides, flooding and your tap water is a non sequitur. None of that is onboard a starship, Your tap water cannot blow up. Your l-hyd can.

Are you really saying that storing and pumping l-hys is as safe as water?

Lets see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety

"Hydrogen-air mixtures can ignite with very low energy input," Not water.
"Hydrogen leaks can support combustion at very low flow rates, as low as 4 micrograms/s" Not water.
"Condensed and solidified atmospheric air, or trace air accumulated in manufacturing, contaminates liquid hydrogen, thereby forming an unstable mixture. This mixture may detonate with effects similar to those produced by trinitrotoluene (TNT) and other highly explosive materials" Not water.
"Hydrogen collects under roofs and overhangs, where it forms an explosion hazard" Not water

So, again, I disagree with you, and I have pointed out sources as to why. Water is a much safer material to obtain, store, and use. I think the real world shows this as well.

Use water if you want, it doesn't look like less handwavium though, just different.

Yes, it is massively less handwavium, as I've shown. Use l-hyd if you want. Enjoy your starship explosions. Trust me, I wont come to your game and stop you.

Speaking of technological plateau's, I was just reading a review of The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, they are a good example, eleven centuries and little technological advancement.

Agreed, but it's another non sequitur. Not because tech plateaus can't happen, but the 3I is not on a tech plateau. The Traveller rules shows a slow-but-steady technological increase of TL in the 3I (TL 12 to TL15) over a thousand years. It's not amazingly fast, but it's steady progress.

 

[snrdg121408]

Evening Reynard,

My apologies for a slight issue with the sentence quoted which I corrected in my original post and again here as shown by the underlined word.

"The discussion of the fuel and fuel purification appears to be a secondary topic and probably should have a thread of its own."

Oh please yes! I too gave up with the Forever War of Circular Logic.

"I seem to remember a thing from Mug-A-Traveller callleda fuel bladder that would store away in the ship until needed after skimming. I can't seem to find it in this edition. Or am I missing something"

It's fully described in the ship building book High Guard but the Common Spacecraft section of the Core Book states which ships normally have fuel processors (refiners) in their description. Page 147 under Fuel describes the mechanics of a refiner.

High Guard lists the various non-standard fuel storage systems. Collapsible Fuel Tanks (fuel bladders) are a solution for vessels facing large gaps between stellar mains, systems within 1 parsec of each other. You have the option to cross a gap farther than your normal jump capability then fold it away for normal (minus 1% hold space) trade service. Could come in handy for the Sindal subsector. Make sure it is a necessity for the price, tonnage lost for both filled and empty tonnage and assure you have enough fuel for the jump needed plus power plant fuel for the extra time in jump space. Disadvantage is fuel is nor directly able to pump into the Jump drive. You must stop between jumps and transfer to the normal fuel tanks.

There's also the Dismountable Tank. This is another temporary conversion of cargo space to fuel space but acts as normal fuel tanks with pumps and connections so you can jump again from the last exit in the time frame of normal jump prep. Twice as expensive as a fuel bladder and needs 4 weeks to set up or break down. That is serious consideration for purpose.

The last system is the Drop Tank mostly used by military forces for mainly assault missions where you want a lean ship at exit with full jump capability in case something goes wrong. The system is expensive, takes up precious internal space, could cause misjump, and you are leaving the tanks behind if they aren't destroyed. Little to no advantage to commercial and personal vessels but militaries can better justify this including tenders to retrieve the drop tanks.

Yes, my PDF of MgT Core 2e p. 147 has a section on fuel mentions fuel refiners, but I have not found anything more detailed. MgT HG 2e pp. 36-37 does cover fuel associated options. My reply focused on collapsible fuel tanks or fuel bladders which I believe is what the subject's author was looking for.

CT Adventure 5 TCS broke demountable tanks into to types internal and external. The external demountable is a cheaper version of drop tanks since they do not need the explosive bolts, or whatever system is used, to jettison the tank.

Of course I am glad someone added the additional tank to the discussion.

 

[dragoner]

NASA uses liquid hydrogen just fine, that's all that counts, it's not hand wavey at all, it does not matter what they use it for. There are no real refueling accidents I know of either,

SpaceX would beg to differ. https://www.wired.com/2016/10/cause-spacexs-explosion-gets-little-clearer/
Or the Russians: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/28/world/1980-soviet-rocket-accident-killed-50.html

Besides - NASA doesn't use water in its rockets because those rockets do not use water as fuel. Putting water in their rockets makes as much sense as putting water in your car's gas tank. Again - Traveller starships are not NASA rockets.

Also, NASA is very careful with its l-hyd. Thats one reason why rocket launches take a lot of time to prepare. Translating that into a commercial-speed operation is quite difficult - again, ask SpaceX. All that would be much safer if their rockets could use water.

If someone is shooting holes in your spacecraft, you have a big problem which hydrogen isn't one, water isn't much better in that situation either. Hopefully you are suited up.

I'd much rather have water sloshing around in my starship than l-hyd. Which would you rather have? Water, or a liquid that has a good chance of killing you dead if you fall into a puddle of it - with or without a spacesuit on?

We have all sorts of problems with storing water, every time it floods here we get boil orders on using tap water, and a lot of places you have to do it all the time. Water used as coolant is usually treated to chemically stabilize it, and to prevent the growth of micro-organisms. Water also promotes dielectric decomposition in metals, another form of corrosion.

Have you seen what cryo fuel can do to metal and other materials?

Besides, flooding and your tap water is a non sequitur. None of that is onboard a starship, Your tap water cannot blow up. Your l-hyd can.

Are you really saying that storing and pumping l-hys is as safe as water?

Lets see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety

"Hydrogen-air mixtures can ignite with very low energy input," Not water.
"Hydrogen leaks can support combustion at very low flow rates, as low as 4 micrograms/s" Not water.
"Condensed and solidified atmospheric air, or trace air accumulated in manufacturing, contaminates liquid hydrogen, thereby forming an unstable mixture. This mixture may detonate with effects similar to those produced by trinitrotoluene (TNT) and other highly explosive materials" Not water.
"Hydrogen collects under roofs and overhangs, where it forms an explosion hazard" Not water

So, again, I disagree with you, and I have pointed out sources as to why. Water is a much safer material to obtain, store, and use. I think the real world shows this as well.

Use water if you want, it doesn't look like less handwavium though, just different.

Yes, it is massively less handwavium, as I've shown. Use l-hyd if you want. Enjoy your starship explosions. Trust me, I wont come to your game and stop you.

Speaking of technological plateau's, I was just reading a review of The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, they are a good example, eleven centuries and little technological advancement.

Agreed, but it's another non sequitur. Not because tech plateaus can't happen, but the 3I is not on a tech plateau. The Traveller rules shows a slow-but-steady technological increase of TL in the 3I (TL 12 to TL15) over a thousand years. It's not amazingly fast, but it's steady progress.

Water is more handwavium as you have presented it than hydrogen, it has way more issues. Just because it burns isn't that big of a deal, and it only burns with oxygen, something not present in outer space, so if you are imagining spacecraft exploding in outer space because of hydrogen, it's unlikely. Handling hydrogen is a technical detail that is easily believed to be solved in the future. Space is cold too, but it's not the cold that will kill you, it's suffocation, something that also happens with water, same with liquid hydrogen. Not to mention water flashing into steam if hit by a particle beam or something. Fact is that one could probably survive a hydrogen flash fire, with the minor amount of oxygen that is in a cabin, due to Stoichiometry.

Pretty sure you don't understand the meaning of non-sequitur, it isn't one to mention something that has already come up in discussion and is relevant. Like NASA handling liquid hydrogen, they do it, it's relevant.

What isn't relevant is talking about water as fuel, it isn't fuel, and can't be unless you are a Kardashev Type 2 civilization, which Traveller spacecraft and reactors aren't a product of, that's the non-sequitur. Saying it is a massive handwave.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, my PDF of MgT Core 2e p. 147 has a section on fuel mentions fuel refiners, but I have not found anything more detailed."

HG pg 37 details the fuel processor in the core book. Essentially, from the info in both books, a ship with a refiner can create refined fuel.

"MgT HG 2e pp. 36-37 does cover fuel associated options. My reply focused on collapsible fuel tanks or fuel bladders which I believe is what the subject's author was looking for."

I think I had two things going on in my head and added the processors by accident. I did follow with the storage information.

"CT Adventure 5 TCS broke demountable tanks into to types internal and external. The external demountable is a cheaper version of drop tanks since they do not need the explosive bolts, or whatever system is used, to jettison the tank."

Classic Traveller Trillion Credit Squadron is about 35 years old and has gone through lots of revision. There is no external dismountable tank. Closest MgT has is the External Cargo Mount but its mechanics aren't really fuel tank friendly. The mounts just attach boxes to the outside making the drop tank connections impossible and no way to transfer internally as with eiter a bladder or dismountable. They could be used to transport fuel but not actually use it.

Quite frankly, the bladder and dismountable systems should fit the needs of the majority of users and it's a balanced compromise.

 

[vargr1]

Water is more handwavium as you have presented it than hydrogen, it has way more issues.

I disagree. It has much less issues than l-hyd as presented in the Traveller rules. I thin kthat this thread has shown that, as the handwavium needed for l-hyd is much more than for water. Besides, three versions of Traveller rules have allowed just that - water to be used as fuel.

it only burns with oxygen, something not present in outer space

Last I checked, Traveller pc ships spend time on planets with standard atmospheres, and indeed carry a bubble of standard atmosphere inside them.

Pretty sure you don't understand the meaning of non-sequitur, it isn't one to mention something that has already come up in discussion and is relevant. Like NASA handling liquid hydrogen, they do it, it's relevant.

The fact that NASA used l-hyd in its rockets is not relevant to Traveller spaceships at all. So, yes, I do know what non sequitur means.

What isn't relevant is talking about water as fuel, it isn't fuel, and can't be unless you are a Kardashev Type 2 civilization,

If you want to be technical, yeah. The fuel isn't the water, its the H2 cracked out of the water. That's exactly what I've been saying. Traveller itself calls unrefined fuel (water) as fuel, so I kept that terminology. Maybe you need to take that point up with MWM.

Besides, I thought that this was a board that we could use to discuss Traveller, and also discuss home rules and alternative interpretations. I'm sorry that seems to be a problem for some people. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't. No one is forcing you to post about it.

 

[vargr1]

Water is more handwavium as you have presented it than hydrogen, it has way more issues.

I disagree. It has much less issues than l-hyd as presented in the Traveller rules. I thin kthat this thread has shown that, as the handwavium needed for l-hyd is much more than for water. Besides, three versions of Traveller rules have allowed just that - water to be used as fuel.

it only burns with oxygen, something not present in outer space

Last I checked, Traveller pc ships spend time on planets with standard atmospheres, and indeed carry a bubble of standard atmosphere inside them.

Pretty sure you don't understand the meaning of non-sequitur, it isn't one to mention something that has already come up in discussion and is relevant. Like NASA handling liquid hydrogen, they do it, it's relevant.

The fact that NASA used l-hyd in its rockets is not relevant to Traveller spaceships at all. So, yes, I do know what non sequitur means.

What isn't relevant is talking about water as fuel, it isn't fuel, and can't be unless you are a Kardashev Type 2 civilization,

If you want to be technical, yeah. The fuel isn't the water, its the H2 cracked out of the water. That's exactly what I've been saying. Traveller itself calls unrefined fuel (water) as fuel, so I kept that terminology. Maybe you need to take that point up with MWM.

Besides, I thought that this was a board that we could use to discuss Traveller, and also discuss home rules and alternative interpretations. I'm sorry that seems to be a problem for some people. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't. No one is forcing you to post about it.

 

[dragoner]

Water is more handwavium as you have presented it than hydrogen, it has way more issues.

I disagree. It has much less issues than l-hyd as presented in the Traveller rules. I thin kthat this thread has shown that, as the handwavium needed for l-hyd is much more than for water. Besides, three versions of Traveller rules have allowed just that - water to be used as fuel.

it only burns with oxygen, something not present in outer space

Last I checked, Traveller pc ships spend time on planets with standard atmospheres, and indeed carry a bubble of standard atmosphere inside them.

Pretty sure you don't understand the meaning of non-sequitur, it isn't one to mention something that has already come up in discussion and is relevant. Like NASA handling liquid hydrogen, they do it, it's relevant.

The fact that NASA used l-hyd in its rockets is not relevant to Traveller spaceships at all. So, yes, I do know what non sequitur means.

What isn't relevant is talking about water as fuel, it isn't fuel, and can't be unless you are a Kardashev Type 2 civilization,

If you want to be technical, yeah. The fuel isn't the water, its the H2 cracked out of the water. That's exactly what I've been saying. Traveller itself calls unrefined fuel (water) as fuel, so I kept that terminology. Maybe you need to take that point up with MWM.

Besides, I thought that this was a board that we could use to discuss Traveller, and also discuss home rules and alternative interpretations. I'm sorry that seems to be a problem for some people. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't. No one is forcing you to post about it.

The only issue you can bring up about hydrogen is that it is flammable, which isn't handwavium. It's basically so what? Fixating on it and proposing water which does have handwavium involved? That is a non-sequitur, it isn't a logical conclusion.

You can discuss what you like, but if what you propose something that is illogical and argue the point? Well, don't be surprised if people disagree.

 

[vargr1]

The only issue you can bring up about hydrogen is that it is flammable, which isn't handwavium. It's basically so what? Fixating on it and proposing water which does have handwavium involved? That is a non-sequitur, it isn't a logical conclusion.

Horsefeathers. You haven't actually been reading my posts, have you?

I mention the dangers of l-hyd to refute the rediculous assertion that handling it is no big deal and is as safe as handling water. That doesn't even come close to reality.

Using water instead of l-hyd also makes fuel purifiers work better (without all that magitech and extra tankage needed to store l-hyd and water together) and, as handling water is geneally much much safer that handling l-hyd, makes ships not go boom as easily.

Also, you don't have to worry about your pumps and tanks being submerged in a cryo fluid and all the problems that can happen from that. I'm sure that having your tanks full of cryo fluid for weeks at a time is a lot more stressful to a tank than filling one with water.

Also, water as fuel means things like collapsible fuel bladders work without having to postulate some flexible material that can contain the pressure of l-hyd.

All of these points I have made earlier in this threat.

You can discuss what you like, but if what you propose something that is illogical and argue the point? Well, don't be surprised if people disagree.

What isn't relevant is talking about water as fuel,

When people disagree with points that do not stand up to logic, I show them how it's illogical. I expect others to do the same.

The caveat is, of course, when you refute a point, you need to be logical about it. It helps when you've actually read the other persons argument.

 

[dragoner]

The only issue you can bring up about hydrogen is that it is flammable, which isn't handwavium. It's basically so what? Fixating on it and proposing water which does have handwavium involved? That is a non-sequitur, it isn't a logical conclusion.

Horsefeathers. You haven't actually been reading my posts, have you?

I mention the dangers of l-hyd to refute the rediculous assertion that handling it is no big deal and is as safe as handling water. That doesn't even come close to reality.

Using water instead of l-hyd also makes fuel purifiers work better (without all that magitech and extra tankage needed to store l-hyd and water together) and, as handling water is geneally much much safer that handling l-hyd, makes ships not go boom as easily.

Also, you don't have to worry about your pumps and tanks being submerged in a cryo fluid and all the problems that can happen from that. I'm sure that having your tanks full of cryo fluid for weeks at a time is a lot more stressful to a tank than filling one with water.

Also, water as fuel means things like collapsible fuel bladders work without having to postulate some flexible material that can contain the pressure of l-hyd.

All of these points I have made earlier in this threat.

You can discuss what you like, but if what you propose something that is illogical and argue the point? Well, don't be surprised if people disagree.

What isn't relevant is talking about water as fuel,

When people disagree with points that do not stand up to logic, I show them how it's illogical. I expect others to do the same.

The caveat is, of course, when you refute a point, you need to be logical about it. It helps when you've actually read the other persons argument.

If your posts were more coherent, they would be easier to read. You are still fixated on the flammability issue, ships that go boom? Nobody said handling hydrogen is easy as water, neither is gasoline and I just filled my car's tank with it, it isn't a big deal. Hydrogen is as easy to use as natural gas, it isn't a big deal either; in fact the biggest deal are seals, due to molecular size. Flexible bladders? Technical issue which we could probably solve now. You aren't thinking things through, when you are talking about using the H2 from the water, you will still need separate tankage, so no difference from what is you are saying won't be needed? That's not logical. That's how it isn't logical. That is even before talking about H2 and fusion, which I pointed out doesn't fit the Lawson Criterion.

Also, you don't have to worry about your pumps and tanks being submerged in a cryo fluid and all the problems that can happen from that. I'm sure that having your tanks full of cryo fluid for weeks at a time is a lot more stressful to a tank than filling one with water.

Incorrect, in mechanical engineering, you will find that a constant is that heat is the enemy over cooling, cooling increases efficiency.

That is three strikes right there. So you wanted to be shown how it's illogical to use water, there it is.

 

[vargr1]

If your posts were more coherent, they would be easier to read.

My posts are quite coherent. They address each person's point and point out the problem with their critique, Some people, it seems, have problems actually reading posts.

You are still fixated on the flammability issue, ships that go boom?

It's part of the problem. It makes water much safer that l-hyd. Some people are arguing against that. That makes no logical sense.

Hydrogen is as easy to use as natural gas,

Completely untrue. We're talking liquid hydrogen. Natural gas doesn't have to be held at 20°K. Handling cryo fluids is just a little bit more difficult that handling water. I mean, even NASA has problems handling l-hyd sometimes.

when you are talking about using the H2 from the water, you will still need separate tankage,

I did say that you crack the H2 from the water as you need it, You;re getting more than enough power form the reactor to do that.

And - for a fusion reactor - that tank really doesn't need to be very large at all - maybe a couple of liters. Just big enough to store the hydrogen needed to start the reaction.

That is even before talking about H2 and fusion, which I pointed out doesn't fit the Lawson Criterion.

Which is wrong. Your point that 'the energy is in the heaver atoms' is wrong. D-T fusion is easier to do - that's what the Lawson Criterion says. It doesn't mean you 'get more energy' from it, and it doesn't mean that other forms of fusion are not possible, even if they are more technologically difficult to do.

Proton-proton fusion liberates about twice the energy as D-T fusion. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fusionfuel.php

We aren't talking about TL8 reactors in Traveller, but reactors that are many TLs more advanced. I gave nice reasons that Traveller high tech reactors are probably p-p or CNO, giving actual examples of Traveller tech that would help make those reality. High tech to the rescue!

Besides, following the rules, Traveller fusion reactors have <1% efficiency. According to real word terms, they are unbelievably inefficient, Trying to reconcile Traveller's hydrogen fuel consumption with the reality of known physic is a road to madness.

Incorrect, in mechanical engineering, you will find that a constant is that heat is the enemy over cooling, cooling increases efficiency.

Pumps for cry liquids are not simple to build nor is it easy to make them last a long time. Yes, high tech can help with this. The difficulty in pumping l-hyd is one of the reasons that space is hard and expensive using l-hyd fueled rockets. A pump that moves water (and tanks that hold water) will always be simpler and last longer than pimps (and tanks) for l-hyd. That helps a lot when you may be a parsec or two from a starport.

That is three strikes right there.

Nope. No strikes there. In every one of your points, I have shown how water is easier, less dangerous, and just as useful.


However, at this point, I can see that this conversation is going to go nowhere constructive, so I'm pulling the plug from my end.

Your points failed to convince me, as mine failed to convince you, and that's okay. With the amount of handwavium prevalent in Traveller as it is, each person is going to have a different tolerence not only to the quantity but the specific flavor of handwavium.

No biggie - play Traveller the way you want to. As long as you play Traveller.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello vargr1 and dragoner,

I am not one of the monitors for the Mongoose forums or the originator of subject under discussion, however as a member of the forum I asking you to return to the subject of fuel bladders. Further I would request you move the discussion of water versus L-Hyd as a fuel to a new thread.

Respectfully,

 

[dragoner]

Hello vargr1 and dragoner,

I am not one of the monitors for the Mongoose forums or the originator of subject under discussion, however as a member of the forum I asking you to return to the subject of fuel bladders. Further I would request you move the discussion of water versus L-Hyd as a fuel to a new thread.

Respectfully,

You know this thread is seven years old, right? It's dead. No worries though, I've lost interest, the water argument is too implausible.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello dragoner,

Hello vargr1 and dragoner,

I am not one of the monitors for the Mongoose forums or the originator of subject under discussion, however as a member of the forum I asking you to return to the subject of fuel bladders. Further I would request you move the discussion of water versus L-Hyd as a fuel to a new thread.

Respectfully,

You know this thread is seven years old, right? It's dead. No worries though, I've lost interest, the water argument is too implausible.

I did not notice that the thread is 7 years old I picked up the thread on October 23, 2016 with a reply to Rikki Tikki Traveller indicating that a collapsible fuel tank when empty takes of 1% versus 10% of their volume when full.

Thank you for the information.

 

[vargr1]

Yeah, it's been discussed to death over on CoTI.

With the pro-water side generally making more sense, as there's no in-game reason as to why you cant use water.

 

[dragoner]

Hello dragoner,

Hello vargr1 and dragoner,

I am not one of the monitors for the Mongoose forums or the originator of subject under discussion, however as a member of the forum I asking you to return to the subject of fuel bladders. Further I would request you move the discussion of water versus L-Hyd as a fuel to a new thread.

Respectfully,

You know this thread is seven years old, right? It's dead. No worries though, I've lost interest, the water argument is too implausible.

I did not notice that the thread is 7 years old I picked up the thread on October 23, 2016 with a reply to Rikki Tikki Traveller indicating that a collapsible fuel tank when empty takes of 1% versus 10% of their volume when full.

Thank you for the information.

It's weird that it was raised from the depths, I remember others on fuel bladders, more recent, after Adventure 3: Trillion Credit Squadron came out. The author was GM of a game I was player in.