You are not logged in.
No, no it wouldn't. First of all, the carbon nanotube is made from aromatic carbon, so the nanotube itself will simply absorb the electron. Second, even if there were a way around this, the electrons are so small that they may go right around the atoms in the tube.
And even then, even if you did find a way around this, it would still not be any better, and probobly be worse, then exsisting ion engine concepts.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
This is really immaterial to the hole discussion the real discussion should be thermodynamics Anyway there can be billiard ball collisions between particles. It is called scattering. Collisions can either be elastic or inelastic. When it is inelastic a photon is emitted or the electron is absorbed. You will only observe the scattering if the electron density is low enough otherwise you will observe reflections and such. If a lot of electrons are fined the averaging out of all the scattering will look like a wave effect. Anyway what is the point of arguing if it is ok to think about the process classically or not. How does it either enhance or hurt Errorist argument. Regardless of the process momentum is transferred. The laws of collision are more or less obeyed in terms of conservation of energy and momentum.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
This is really immaterial to the hole discussion the real discussion should be thermodynamics Anyway there can be billiard ball collisions between particles. It is called scattering. Collisions can either be elastic or inelastic. When it is inelastic a photon is emitted or the electron is absorbed. You will only observe the scattering if the electron density is low enough otherwise you will observe reflections and such. If a lot of electrons are fined the averaging out of all the scattering will look like a wave effect. Anyway what is the point of arguing if it is ok to think about the process classically or not. How does it either enhance or hurt Errorist argument. Regardless of the process momentum is transferred. The laws of collision are more or less obeyed in terms of conservation of energy and momentum.
I agree. It is a mute point as to how the energy is transferred. It won't matter as long as the energy is transferred.
The CRT in our TV set hits a particle on the TV screen How fast would that particle travel in space if it were bombarded many times by the electrons?
Offline
The CRT in our TV set hits a particle on the TV screen How fast would that particle travel in space if it were bombarded many times by the electrons?
The best you can do is a perfectly elastic collision. That is in energy before the collision is equal to the energy after the collusion.
For non relativistic velocities
The energy is given by:
E=(1/2)*m*v^2
The Momentum is given By:
P=m*v
Anyway try and solve these equations for one collision show your work and if you get stuck I will help. If you have trouble there are websites and physics books that could be helpful.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
The same should happen when a photon hits an electron correct?
Offline
The same should happen when a photon hits an electron correct?
If it hits but work it out.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Errorist, the energy may be transferred, but it does NOT nessesarrily become additional momentum. Alot of the electrons will simply be absorbed, and not that many will bounce off. My point is that most of the electrons will not collide elasticly, with most being absorbed, and that electrons cannot be directed at ions where they will all essentially hit an ion stream.
You really really really really have to address the thermodynamics Errorist. Stop thinking engines for once, since I have shown you why this is futile. Instead, you should be thinking about how to power exsisting engines.
The trouble is John is that photons aren't normal particles, they don't have "mass" persay at all. One thing I do know is that photons will be absorbed by electrons for sure. They do not behave as billard-ball particles.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Thermodynamics can be figured out also.
Offline
The trouble is John is that photons aren't normal particles, they don't have "mass" persay at all. One thing I do know is that photons will be absorbed by electrons for sure. They do not behave as billard-ball particles.
The can do both. But regardless of whether they are deflected or absorbed there is a transfer of momentum.
P.S. Ever wonder why the sky is blue? Look up Raleigh Scattering.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
The photon will be absorbed for sure but the electron accelerates to C instantly and the electron emits another photon. I think I have read this before.
Offline
Errorist, are you even understanding when I say "thermodynamics?"
Bascially, none of your engine designs will ever make much of a difference because there is no way to power them. You have to figure out how to supply enough energy to make an engine with high exhaust velocity produce signifigant thrust. We sure can make an engine with exhaust velocity near the speed of light, but it can eject so little exhaust mass, that the thrust and acceleration is so low that its useless. This is because of a lack of energy to power the engine, not because a problem with the efficency of the engine. Even at 100% energy efficency, where your engine would be perfect, you will still have no thrust if you have a very high fuel efficency.
You must have more energy, lots more, for a high-velocity engine to be useful.
Sure you can stack up a thousand engines and a thousand fission reactors, but what will that accomplish? The vehicle will also be a thousand times heavier, and so it will go no faster. This is ultimatly the problem with your thinking, that you are aproaching the problem from the engine up, not the power source down. It is all about the power source, not the engine.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
The photon will be absorbed for sure but the electron accelerates to C instantly and the electron emits another photon. I think I have read this before.
No the ellectron will not be accelerated to C.
For an in ellastic collision:
m_e v_e1+p_photon ~=m_e v_e2
Since the mass or the ellectron is much bigger then the mass of the hoton
this gives:
v_e2~=(m_e v_e1+p_photon)/m_e;
where
v_e1 is the intial velocity of the ellectron
v_e2 is the final velocity of the ellectron
p_photon is the momentum carried by the photon
m_e is the mass of the ellectron
~= denotes aproximatly equal to
To find p_photon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon]htt … iki/Photon
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
A 100W light bulb could do it.
Offline
A 100W light bulb could do it.
Prove it. Sow me the money. Lets see some arithmatic.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Errorist, you aren't listening... you cannot ignore the law of the conservation of energy, it will rule no matter what you do, what engine you dream up, what nuclear reactor concept you invent...
Ultimatly, you cannot get more propulsive energy then you have energy to push you from the power source. If your engine is perfect in every way and converts 100% of the energy from the reactor's generator into propulsive force, that you still can't improve much over what it is already available.
For a given amount of energy, the thrust and fuel efficency of your engine are inversely proportional. You can make an engine with very high thrust, but it will have low fuel efficency. You can make an engine with very high fuel efficency, but then it will have low thrust. The amount of power you have available to you is all important, not the engine.
Creating 100W of energy, if converted entirely into propulsive force with a high exhaust velocity with 100% efficency will have a very very very small, effectivly zero thrust. It will have so little thrust, it would never even get you out of LEO because air drag would be greater. This is not a problem with the engine, this is entirely a problem with the power source.
Currnet ion drives are capable of very very high fuel efficency, but they don't do that... instead, they push a greater mass of fuel out the back with a low efficency, but in doing so, the engine produces much more thrust without needing more energy.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
An engine with high thrust and high efficency can be made,also. Show me the money and I will build it.
Offline
An engine with high thrust and high efficency can be made,also.
If you have enough power. So lets forget about the engine for now? What exaust velocity do you want and what thrust do you want? We will calculate how much power you need.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Yes you can build such an engine, but there are two more answers you must also provide, how do you intend to power it and how much will it weigh?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Exhaust Velocity= 99%Speed of light. H ions used
Offline
Exhaust Velocity= 99%Speed of light. H ions used
Thrust is in pounds, newtons, slugs, or killoponds.
However if you said how many H ions per second that would be equivalent to a thrust.
In SI units acceleration in metters per second squared is equal to the force in newtons divided by the mass in killograms.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Total fuel weight= 1 ton
Engine weight= 300 lbs
Offline
Okay, Protons at 0.99C, thats half the information needed. Now you must decide how much thrust or how fast you want to use the fuel. Two tons of fuel per second? Minute? Hour? Year?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
MONTH
Offline
By rough calculation, that means you will use 7.467x10^(-4) kilograms of propellant per second. At 99%C the mass increase due to relativity is about 708%.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
So what does that mean?
Offline