You are not logged in.
Boron? Any of the noble gasses mix well?
Offline
Like button can go here
Boron, pretty reactive, would eat the tube.
Helium, Argon, Neon, Xenon are all noble gasses, and are all hard to ionize or move in quantity.
[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
Like button can go here
aluminium
Offline
Like button can go here
As rocket fuel?? Its a solid... you'd also need vast amounts of oxygen to go with it.
[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
Like button can go here
Aluminium possibly?
gallium?
Offline
Like button can go here
*sigh* Nope, and no... the further inward on the periodic table you go, the less good a fuel it makes for ion engines because of the low charge density and/or ion instability. And these would only be good for ion engines, like the last several you've mentioned, which don't need huge masses, thus negating the usefulness of the tube.
The only stubstances the tube could possible move in that kind of bulk that would be useful would be hydrogen, oxygen, or nitrogen. You can't efficently lift any of these, either because of low mass or high bond energies, and quite frankly it would be easier to mine them elsewhere or to launch them on a true SSTO RLV.
[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
Like button can go here
How about ozone?
Offline
Like button can go here
No no no! Not Ozone! That would eat the tube EXTREMELY fast! ...Its so unstable, that I doubt you can even ionize it for transport.
[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
Like button can go here
Ok H2,O2 or N2.
H2 + O2 is a good rocket fuel or it could used for an ion engine.
Offline
Like button can go here
No it makes terrible ion engines fuel, but makes good thermal engine fuel.
You can't use any of these. See previous pages.
[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
Like button can go here
How many megawatts will it take to get a flow rate of 24,000 btu per minute of H2 up to the top?
Offline
Like button can go here
Rocket fuel is measured in mass, not BTU.
And as already said, it would take alot of energy but I don't know exactly how much, because of all the beam direction and gas collection hardware. Hydrogen isn't easy to ionize per-weight, so I can tell you that it will be a pretty scarry figure.
[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
Like button can go here
It doesn't matter the energy can come from solar panels or a nuke facility.
Offline
Like button can go here
No; because if it takes too much energy, then you might as well launch it with a rocket due to cost. Also, if it takes too much energy, then the resistance in the beam guides up your tube would get too hot... and melt. Plus, you still need a gas liquification plant at the TOP of the tube that can accept extremely rareified gasses, which I imagine will take alot of power. And how are you going to get the power up there?
[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
Like button can go here
Solar panels for up there, and the ground based generators can regulate for the right amount of power needed to accelerate the ions to the right altitude.
Offline
Like button can go here
Although they can create enough energy, I question if the ground-based generators can get the power to the tube beam guides.
Plus, the gassification station may require alot of power... perhaps more than solar can reasonably provide at that altitude where there is substantial drag.
[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
Like button can go here
Explain more about the tube beam guides???? Can the solar panels at the top be moved to a higher altitude to lower the drag of the atmosphere???
Offline
Like button can go here
Because the tube won't be perfectly straight, you came up with the idea to make an electric field to prevent the ions from contacting (and hence damaging) the tube walls. This will work in theory, but you have to get power up the tube to operate it.
And not very well... you have to get the pannels to a great height to really eliminate air drag, and would also present transmission difficulties in getting power down to the liquification plant.
[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
Like button can go here
I have seen flexable bus bar straps on the generator in the plant for all three phases, it allows for expansion. Perhaps, something like this could work??? Also, on the solar panels I have read that the ones today are alot more effecient. They don't have to be as large anymore. If need be some of the fuel can go to the ion thrusters that keep the station in place or the panels in place.
Offline
Like button can go here
Trouble is you don't want it to bend, since the ions will (should) travel in a pretty straight line. In any event, since the particles won't travel in a perfectly straight line, you will need the beam guides to make sure it stays focused.
In order to compress, cool, and liquify/store a rareified gas, you need loads of energy... probably in the megwatt range, which isn't easy to do with solar. Using ion engines to activly compensate for the large area is iffy since it would be hard to control, and will substantially cut into the fuel mass sent up the tube.
[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
Like button can go here
This question is more complicated than you know... Energies required to accomplish what you are talking about:
~First ionization energy of Neon (or other monoatomic gas)
~Bond energy of gas involved (if polyatomic)
~Energy required to accelerate multiple kilogram quantities to high enough speed to reach 400km
~Energy required for final deceleration at the top of the tube
~Energy required to compress & liquify the vanishingly low pressure gas at the top of the tube (signifigant energy required here due to low pressure)
~Energy required to create an electric field around the inside of the tube to protect it from particle collisionThis is an engineering problem worthy of a doctoral thesis... I can only answer you the first two or three with my chemistry background.
I'd consider the energy required for both accelerating the multiple kilogram quantities to reach 400km and the energy to create a stable electric field inside the tube to be too large to make it economically viable, when you add in the other energy requirements - well lets just hope they'd plan a power station next to the nanotube.
Every time you add 'energy required' to an equation like this you have to consider the financial implications as well - say you raised 10 g (random figure) of molecules per day up the tube, but it cost $500,000 (another random figure) per day to maintain and run the tube - it would not make much sense economically speaking. Then if you figure in the lifespan of the tube as an unknown ('cos until its built no one would no for sure how long it would last) there would not be many people wanting to back the plan.
It would be much easier to send the gas up via rocket, or a space elevator (mentioned in other threads of New Mars).
Which option would anyone back from the following - Nanotube with a small payload, delivering tiny amounts of gas to space / rocket with large payload taking large amounts of gas / space elevator taking reasonable payloads regularly. I'd back the elevator myself as a future transportation method, as its investing in multiple payloads (not just gas as the tube would) and can carry huge amounts when compared with the tube).
There was a young lady named Bright.
Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day
in a relative way
And returned on the previous night.
--Arthur Buller--
Offline
Like button can go here
If the power comes from solar energy it is virtually free power.
Offline
Like button can go here
You'd need a massive solar array to produce the required energy. We are talking a *LOT* of energy here.
There was a young lady named Bright.
Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day
in a relative way
And returned on the previous night.
--Arthur Buller--
Offline
Like button can go here
Energy is never "free"
Solar power is actually one of the most expensive ways per-watt to produce electricity there is, on top of the fact that you would need a prohibitivly large solar power station, and that it could not run the tube continuously at night without substantial storage... and then there are clouds and power spiking to worry about. What if you get a cloudy day, and there isn't enough power to reach escape velocity? The particles may wind up falling back down and ruining the system.
As Graeme and myself have pointed out on more than one occasion, how can the tube possibly be better than a good rocket or space elevator hauling up liquified gasses?
[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
Like button can go here
Rockets blow up to often. Solar power is free and you can store the energy in batteries for bad days or you can just shut it down for bad days. Also, near the equator the sun almost always shines.The space elevator is to massive but the tube is not.
Offline
Like button can go here