Fuel scoop usage

Status
Not open for further replies.

zace66

Mongoose
OK my group are grabbing themselves free fuel as theur ship now has 2 working fuel scoops and 2 processing plants with nice clean filters.

Just wondering what can be used.

OK a gas giant is obvious - flying through the outer atmosphere allows collection of the gass to be purified.

Their trader IS streamlined so they can fly to a worlds surface. Thus they can collect water - this is ok to be used I presume.

However, spcaecraft are not usually built for underwater operation - so how risky is the water skimming method? or do they just land on the water and wait for the tanks to fill ? Now the weight of water compared to weight of hydrogen gas.... can they take off with water or must it be fully fuels and processed?

Any other hazards I may have missed? or opportunities that they can refuel from ?
 
They can land on the water and suck the unrefined fuel into the tanks. Gravitics will allow them to "hover" just above the water, so it isn't even an issue of floating.

Also, they can use Ice Asteroids as fuel (frozen water). These are going to be very common and are likely the main source of free fuel.

Why skim Jupiter with it's many-hundred-mile-per-hour winds when you can land on Europa and take all the ice you need?
 
but if they take ice on... how do they process it - if can you have ice and processed fuel in the same tank?

How long will refuelling take - how much weight ioce can they carry - does this affect anything?
 
In my Traveller universe you can refuel with water but it puts wear on your processors (they are set up for gas). If you can skim a gas giant thats best, and you can still refuel from a sea if you can convert the water to steam first.
 
zace66 said:
but if they take ice on... how do they process it - if can you have ice and processed fuel in the same tank?

How long will refuelling take - how much weight ioce can they carry - does this affect anything?

You melt it before you put it in the tank.

Don't get too wrapped up on the nitty-gritty details...

Water has a density of 1 ton per cubic meter
Liquid Hydrogen has a density of 1 ton per 13.5 cubic meters (the Dton of Traveller).

Just say, "You take on enough water to process it into a tank full of fuel." If it was 10 tons of water or 100 tons of water isn't really the point.

Here is how I use Fuel Processors with water, methane or whatever other source of hydrogen is available.

1 pass through the processor converts Water/Methane/Whatever to UNREFINED fuel. A second pass through the processor converts unrefined fuel to refined fuel.

So you can use Water as a fuel source, but it takes twice as long to process it into refined fuel. It is an approximation, but it is something.
 
You might want to look at this if you're interested in how fuel refinement probably works:

http://www.sfrpg.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=3409#p3409

(from this thread about fuel use in fusion reactors: http://www.sfrpg.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=251 )
 
Would powerplant fuel sound better when described as 'coolant' that for some reason needs replacing every two weeks. Same rules, different labels :)
 
The posts that Gamerdude showed here were actually written by me on the SFRPG boards. I would appreciate it if they were quoted correctly - or better still not quoted at all since I explicitly said that they could not be quoted elsewhere without my permission (and Gamerdude does not have my permission to do so).

And Gamerdude, I don't really care what you think about that. If individuals cannot control where their ideas are posted, then any concepts of copyright and IP ownership goes out of the window. Those are my ideas, and nobody but me gets to decide where they are posted. By doing this, you are deliberately being provocative, and clearly haven't changed your attitude towards me one bit.
 
GamerDude said:
2) The only thing that is going to require a lot of hydrogen fuel is the jump drive. Thruster plates won't speed up the fuel use for the reactor that much (even if they are accelerating constantly for weeks) - an actual fusion torch drive might though (or it might use it up as fast as a normal reactor, I dunno).
The fact that Traveller Drives are reactionless and/or gravitic means we have no way of unverstanding the kind of energy they require. So they could very well use the kind of energy involved, and probably do.
 
EDG said:
The posts that Gamerdude showed here were actually written by me on the SFRPG boards. I would appreciate it if they were quoted correctly -
EDG, I put the link at the top of the post and did quote the ENTIRE post you pointed to. They are intact although I did not quote the entire thread, nothing before, nothing after.

Have a good day mate.
 
I haven't read EDG's stuff on the SFRPG website recently, but the numbers seem to be for pure Fusion and Anti-Matter reactions (the scientific answer).

NOW, you get to be an ENGINEER.

You are not going to get 100% of the energy from every fusion event. You are going to lose energy when you convert that flying Helium atom (or neutron or whatever) into another form of energy that you can actual use. THEN you get into mechanical efficiency of that energy form being able to produce something useful (like electricity or gravitons).

Having GigaJoules of energy or TeraJoules of energy is fine, but you then have to make it work for you.

Current estimates are that we will only get about 1% of the energy from a fusion reaction into useful energy. Most mechanical systems are about 20% efficient (at best). So by the time you get that energy from the Fusion Event to lighting your lightbulb, you have lost over 99.8% of it.

So your one gram has now become a kilogram...

You get the idea.

As I said, I have not read the article recently, so if EDG's estimates included these kinds of numbers, then forget what I wrote above. Otherwise, I am pretty sure I made a similar argument on the SFRPG board further down in the post.
 
GamerDude said:
EDG said:
The posts that Gamerdude showed here were actually written by me on the SFRPG boards. I would appreciate it if they were quoted correctly -
EDG, I put the link at the top of the post and did quote the ENTIRE post you pointed to. They are intact although I did not quote the entire thread, nothing before, nothing after.

Irrelevant. My sig on the SFRPG boards says:
This post (or any other post I made here) may not be quoted or copied beyond the SF RPG boards without my explicit permission.

You are quoting them beyond the SFRPG boards without my explicit permission. You have already demonstrated your disdain for that part of my sig very clearly, and I really don't care what you think about it. I posted the links so that people could go to the threads and read them there in their full context. If I wanted to repost those posts here, I would have done so myself.

It seems to me that all you're trying to do here is cause trouble as usual (especially given that you have not even bothered to put them in quote code and credit them to me). Please delete the quoted parts of my posts from this thread immediately.
 
EDG said:
The posts that Gamerdude showed here were actually written by me on the SFRPG boards. I would appreciate it if they were quoted correctly - or better still not quoted at all since I explicitly said that they could not be quoted elsewhere without my permission (and Gamerdude does not have my permission to do so).

And Gamerdude, I don't really care what you think about that. If individuals cannot control where their ideas are posted, then any concepts of copyright and IP ownership goes out of the window. Those are my ideas, and nobody but me gets to decide where they are posted. By doing this, you are deliberately being provocative, and clearly haven't changed your attitude towards me one bit.

I agree with the principle and certainly your right to request it but such desires might carry more weight if you didn't personally imply such practices were ok (1) and permit them on your own board (2) by others when applied to others...

(1)
EDG said:
(on SFRPG):

(and sure, one could (re)post these ideas to another board or an archive website, but that'll go down eventually too)

Yes, you might argue context, and even me breaking your "rule" by (re)posting it here, it's just for brevity of the point.

(2) A whole thread that was largely an exercise in copying a whole thread from another forum:

http://www.sfrpg.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=940

Perhaps there are others? Or maybe permissions were secured but I doubt it, especially as the original thread creator is sadly no longer with us.

A bit of practice what you preach might be in order no?
 
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
1 pass through the processor converts Water/Methane/Whatever to UNREFINED fuel. A second pass through the processor converts unrefined fuel to refined fuel.

On a kinda related matter, I've always had a problem with the availability of refined vs. unrefined hydrogen in Traveller. It takes a class-B or higher starport to have refined hydrogen available. But, any 200-ton trader can add a small processor to refine fuel very cheaply. A class-C starport that has a ship repair yard and may support a scout base can't simply refine fuel? Or they can and they refuse to sale any to the public at any price?

Doesn't make sense.

MGT rules has a 1 ton of processor costing 50k and converting 20 tons per day. A 20 ton plant could process 400 tons per day and cost 1mcr. We are to believe that all Class-C starports couldn't spend 1mcr (1/14th the cost of the smallest small craft they service) to have at least some refined fuel available at a higher cost?

If I recall correctly, a Traveller referee of mine back in the mid 80's made all field collection of fuel unrefined. I could be wrong, but I think the shipboard processors were required to just get the unrefined fuel from whatever was collected. Further refinement was much, much longer to achieve or only capable by huge processors such as those found at a Class-A or B starport.
 
That's the way I've already done it, otherwise - why does anyone ever buy refined fuel???

Sturn said:
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
If I recall correctly, a Traveller referee of mine back in the mid 80's made all field collection of fuel unrefined. I could be wrong, but I think the shipboard processors were required to just get the unrefined fuel from whatever was collected. Further refinement was much, much longer to achieve or only capable by huge processors such as those found at a Class-A or B starport.
 
Actually, FWIW, most of the information in EDGs post about the differential refining has been floating around for quite a while , even on this website as per here
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=533025


Good luck working the rest out. I think it would be helpful if people actually posted their own quotes rather than linking them. That would solve the problem nicely.

EDIT: as an afterthought, posting an off-forum link to your own work is arguably quoting it, and thus brings it into the forum; otherwise, it seems that it allows one to make posts that may not be commented upon. Which pulls in the whole "fair use" issue. Ewwww.

Just post your own posts if you want to reference them. Easier all around.
 
Mithras said:
That's the way I've already done it, otherwise - why does anyone ever buy refined fuel???

Sturn said:
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
If I recall correctly, a Traveller referee of mine back in the mid 80's made all field collection of fuel unrefined. I could be wrong, but I think the shipboard processors were required to just get the unrefined fuel from whatever was collected. Further refinement was much, much longer to achieve or only capable by huge processors such as those found at a Class-A or B starport.

An interesting idea. Part of the problem is that the fuel refining part of the rules hasn't aged all that well. Its always been problematical that the scoops filtered out the worst contaminants and produces unrefined fuel, which then is passed to the onboard refinery.

I'm thinking one implication is to bail on the whole refined/unrefined issue at starports given the size of most shipboard units. Every port has fuel (except maybe E) , and all fuel you buy is refined. Certainly makes the sub C ports more useful.

So: the scoop/purifier system simply concentrates Hydrogen out of whatever - which is, at that point, unrefined but usable. Refined fuel has the heavy isotopes taken out, and presumably concentrated for the power plant. And arguably would require more complicated processing than could be carried on most ships.

for reference, and to spare me writing this again,

captainjack23 said:
Klaus Kipling said:
We know that jump drives use (preferably refined) h2 for jump fuel, and that power plants use the same.

We know from this version of Traveller that most of the h2 used in jump is used to inflate the jump bubble.

But why h2?

This is just idle speculation, but could it be something to do with the fact that if you strip the electron from a hydrogen atom, you're left with a proton? Is this some useful handwavium we can use to embellish our MTU jump theories? :)

Actually, and this is just my own speculation, that may be sort of the case.


The unique thing about H atoms is exactly that - the nucleus is one proton, and nothing else....except for the much less frequent heavy isotopes with one and two neutrons, correct ? So, a cool solution would make the need for H2 fuel dependent on its unique properties.

So, how 'bout this. We know from the previous discussion that 1. potential fusion reactions like more heavy isotopes of hydrogen, and that 2. unrefined fuel has to be a lot cleaner than often supposed -ie you can't throw "any old gas involving hydrogen " in there and make it work(the "pull my finger" refuel, as my useless players call it...) . So, basic scooping has to largely result in mostly H2; what do the refineries do, and why is it that it takes much time at all ? Gas separation isn't wildly hard nowadays, and can't help but get easier.

Here's a thought: most of the job in refining fuel is enriching the powerplant fuel with heavy hydrogen from the jump bubble hydrogen. Unrefined fuel for the fusion plant is simply unenriched hydrogen, and possibly has minor contaminants; but mainly it is unenriched.

So we could stop there, but we can tie it to the jump bubble....

suppose then, that whatever jumpspace is, one of its dangerous qualities is that of supressing or at least degrading the strong nuclear force which binds protons and neutrons...thus causing an atomic nucleus from our world to blast apart -and even heavy hydrogen would shed neutrons like crazy. Single proton Hydrogen, however, doesn't have that problem.

So, the more the jump bubble is composed of single proton hydrogen, the better it works; the more complex atoms it contains, however, the more we get sudden bursts of protons and neutrons. This would be....bad.... in general for the ship and crew...and as the ship's jump bubble enters jumpspace, too many bursts could well disrupt the jump to the point of causing misjumping.

So. The refining process transfers the heavy hydrogen from the jump bubble fuel into the powerplant fuel (as well as minor filtering) ; the hydrogens unique ability to resist jumpspace is increased by the process that makes the powerplant fuel more effective. Talk about efficient dependency !

The nice thing about this, is that the unrefined fuel modifier is no longer caused by the fuel effecting the powerplant but rather the jump process itself. And the whole Jumpspace/jump thing is so vaguely defined as to cause far less problems than making assumptions about engineering or powerplants......
 
random said:
I agree with the principle and certainly your right to request it but such desires might carry more weight if you didn't personally imply such practices were ok (1) and permit them on your own board (2) by others when applied to others...

Hm, first post and trolling already? I smell sockpuppet.

And you're also wrong. What I say in my sig goes for my posts and nobody else's (it's up to those users to decide for themselves), and nowhere do I imply otherwise.

As for that thread, again, I have no say on whether other people want their posts quoted anywhere else, that's up to them. But since you point it out, I'll check to see if permission was granted or not.

All I know is that I explicitly said "don't quote my posts elsewhere without my permission" and you (if you're really Al) went ahead and posted them anyway.
 
captainjack23 said:
Actually, FWIW, most of the information in EDGs post about the differential refining has been floating around for quite a while , even on this website as per here
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=533025

That doesn't reference the same posts that I referred to above.

EDIT: as an afterthought, posting an off-forum link to your own work is arguably quoting it, and thus brings it into the forum;

It's not arguable at all. It's the exact same thing as posting a link to a picture and posting the picture itself - the latter is just pointing people to the picture, the latter is disseminating the picture to somewhere that the copyright holder may not want it to go without his/her permission. And if I wanted to copy the posts over myself, I would have done that myself - but as I said, I wanted the reader to see the context and discussion around them as well, so I posted the links.

Either way, I do not want my posts quoted on other forums without my permission. I REALLY don't want my posts quoted on other forums by people who then make no effort to show that they did not write that material, as Gamerdude has done here. And I say so explicitly in my sigs on this board and the others I post on. I'm really not sure why this is apparently so hard for some people to comprehend.

As it is, Al's completely unnecessary duplication of my posts has caused a big distraction on this thread, when it could have just been left at my initial post on the subject with the links to those threads. It is deliberate trolling on his part.
 
EDG said:
random said:
I agree with the principle and certainly your right to request it but such desires might carry more weight if you didn't personally imply such practices were ok (1) and permit them on your own board (2) by others when applied to others...
As for that thread, again, I have no say on whether other people want their posts quoted anywhere else, that's up to them. But since you point it out, I'll check to see if permission was granted or not.
Due to some discussion regarding the potential for useful forum threads to disappear off the internet one day, I engaged on this experiment of thread-transfer, quoting each poster's post. My mistake, I should not have quoted those posts without trying to get the posters' permission (although that's not actually possible with the forum in question, because it could be interpreted as being against that forum's "unique" rules). I've removed those two threads from the SFRPG boards, and I'll re-start the discussions there afresh.

Off_topic.gif


Now, I'll stop feeding the troll and let this thread get back on topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top