You are not logged in.
Errorist: You are forgetting to think about the thermodynamics again. Where does the energy that makes the friction on the airplane come from? It comes from the burning of fuel in the engines. Since you can't get more energy out of a system then you put into it, you would still run out of fuel, it would just take a little longer.
How much longer? Could it scoop the water ice out of the atmosphere and then raise the temp to 1500c?
Offline
Like button can go here
Considering the extra mass and drag of building in the Copper/Chlorine reactors and their plumbing big enough to crack ton quantities of water in minutes, the mass of the heat pipes and their insulation to carry heat from the leading edges & hull, and the fact that the upper atmosphere is very dry and concentrating the water is fairly energy demanding...
You would beyond doubt be able to fly longer with a far lighter, far cheaper airplane if you didn't include a thermochemical atmospheric water splitter to try and make Hydrogen for fuel.
[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
What about a cetrafuge type one?
Offline
Like button can go here
Friction isn't going to be hot enough to cause efficent thermolosys, and there is still not much water high in the atmosphere to collect, and it would still be a huge pain to concentrate what little there is.
[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
What about the exhaust of the H2/O2 rocket motor? Lots of water there?
Offline
Like button can go here
Nope, if you scoop up your exhaust, you are violating Newtonian mechanics: that rockets are pushed forward because of the "equal and opposit reaction" of throwing mass in the opposit direction of flight.
If you pick up that exhaust after you throw it out the back, then your net momentum change is zero because it will reduce your momentum an equal amount if since you must pull the exhaust back into the rocket.
[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 having another ship behind it scoop it up?
Offline
Like button can go here
Why exactly do you need this hydrogen? What application is it for?
If you're planning on using the hydrogen to power something, the two-vehicle setup you just described wouldn't get you any more hydrogen than you started with in the lead rocket. In fact, you'd loose a good chunk of your hydrogen in the exhaust that rapidly goes in the wrong direction (namely, out instead of back). Perhaps if you fly through a cloud you could get some hydrogen if you could somehow crack it out of the teensy water droplets in the cloud.
A mind is like a parachute- it works best when open.
Offline
Like button can go here
Yea, but it would have to a long cloud. Perhaps, a plane just spraying water mist out the back end and then the rocket flys through the mist and cracks it out somehow.
Offline
Like button can go here
Nope, bad idea. It would be a much better idea to just have the airplane deliver liquid oxygen to the space vehicle directly, just like military fighters refuel in midair. Much of the energy in a jet plane is lost to engine inefficency anyway, not all to drag.
As for having one rocket following the other, the following rocket will experience drag from the exhaust cloud and slow it down and it will have to burn rocket fuel to keep up. In space, it will experience alot of drag since your cloud of gas is moving opposit the direction of flight. You can't escape the thermodynamics of the situation.
[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
Back to the heating of water. Could solar energy achieve the 1500 degree temperature for seperation of H2 from H2O??
Offline
Like button can go here
At the distance from the Sun that the Earth is, yes if your collector is big enough, though it may not be all that efficent. At the distance Mars is from the Sun or beyond, it would be difficult.
Why bother with thermalosys anyway? Use the S/I or Cu/Cl cycle instead. The Cu/Cl cycle may work at low enough temperatures for a Mars solar/thermal arrangement to function.
[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 solar H2 seperation sounds like a pretty cheap method of getting fuel from water??
Offline
Like button can go here
Probobly more efficent then using photovolic solar pannels and an electric heater.
A nuclear reactor could use its waste heat to push the process too.
[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 much H2 could be produced?
Offline
Like button can go here
About half of each watt put in is actually used to break H-O bonds. I could do calculations later on perhaps as far as watts-per-gram.
[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
Someone that retired from a steel plant told me you could pour hot water onto steel and nothing happens just steam or it just beads up and rolls off. But, if you pour hot molten steel onto water. BOOM! Does this mean the H2 has exploded?
Offline
Like button can go here
*sigh* no it doesn't.
An "explosion" is simply a moving wall of gasses (generally >Mach 1). This wall of gas can be made by reacting hydrogen and oxygen which makes the product gas (steam) hot and expand rapidly.
OR you can just heat up liquid water very fast and it will do the same thing. It will become steam, the steam expands, and presto... an explosion.
It all depends on how quickly you apply the heat. Molten metals with their high temperatures can do this if you have alot of metal and only a little water.
You must achieve high temperatures (~2000C) to effectively break water down by heating it, and even then seperation is a big challenge due to the corrosive effects of hot oxygen.
[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
Someone that retired from a steel plant told me you could pour hot water onto steel and nothing happens just steam or it just beads up and rolls off. But, if you pour hot molten steel onto water. BOOM! Does this mean the H2 has exploded?
Could you be a little more specific about what your saying.
If we are talking about hot water on cold steal, then of course nothing will happen.
If we are talking about hot water on hot metal, then naturally it will go off in steam or bead up.
But, if you through hot metal in tub of water, because metal is heavier than water and also much hotter than water, you will get a very rapid evaporation of that water and it will look like an explosion, but it just a very rapid heat transfer from the hot metal to the water.
Larry,
Offline
Like button can go here
I was wondering if the 3000 degree metal would cause the H2 to disassociate from the O2 and cause an explosin like the person from the steel mill described?
Offline
Like button can go here
Keep your units straight Errorist. 3000 degrees F, C, or K?
Not likly, the water probobly would boil away before it got hot enough to diasscociate.
[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
F
So what happens next? It is still water even if it is steam. So would the H2 disassociate even if it is now steam from the O2?
Offline
Like button can go here
No, because it wouldn't be close to the metal anymore, it would be floating away. Since it isn't held in contact with the hot metal, it wouldn't reach high enough temperature for the molecules to break down.
[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
Suppose you forced them to stay together?
Offline
Like button can go here
Then the water would break down into H2 and O2 if you got them above ~1,500C. Continue heating them and you will generate a plasma.
[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
