Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Approching lightspeed with a nuclear reactor?

  1. #1 Approching lightspeed with a nuclear reactor? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    20
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/06...t-speed-drive/

    does this make sense?
    pretty much hes saying as the ship gains mass as it approaches C, so does the nuclear fuel. So even at near C speeds the proportion to potential energy in the fuel to the mass of the ship stays the same.

    is this correct?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I'll say that that doesn't really make sense to me, since it'd seem to imply that it'd continue to gain potential energy without bound. Of course, I don't know enough about the subject to say anything definitive, so perhaps DrRocket or someone else can either confirm or deny my initial guess.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1
    If I'm moving at the speed of light and throw a magnet in front of me, is the magnet moving faster than light?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    If you're moving at the speed of light, you are light and can't have a magnet to throw. If you are moving any slower, then no, the magnet will be moving faster than you, but slower than light. (That also has little to do with the OP.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Approching lightspeed with a nuclear reactor? 
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,214
    Quote Originally Posted by roflwaffle123
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/near-light-speed-drive/

    does this make sense?
    pretty much hes saying as the ship gains mass as it approaches C, so does the nuclear fuel. So even at near C speeds the proportion to potential energy in the fuel to the mass of the ship stays the same.

    is this correct?
    No, it is not. There are a couple of ways of pointing out the flaw in this argument:

    As the ship accelerates, time aboard the ship slows down and the ship contracts along its length as viewed by our "stay at home" observer. This means also that the exhaust velocity of the rocket decreases as the ship nears light. Since the speed of the the exhaust factors into the rate of acceleration of the ship, and this drop in velocity more than compensates for any gain in its mass, the ship's acceleration rate drops off towards zero as it nears the speed of light.

    another way is to recognize that the "increase in mass" is just an expression of how the ship's inertia increases with the ship's kinetic energy. And just like you can't tap the kinetic energy of a moving body to make that same body go faster, you can't tap this "increase in mass" to drive the ship.

    But the thing you really have to ask yourself is this: Is it really possible that countless scientists working in Relativity would have missed such an obvious solution to the speed of light limit if it had any validity?
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    98
    There is one BIG problem in that nucleur power doesn't covert mass into energy it either combines (it doesn't make molecules)two atoms or it splits two atoms more mass doesn't mean more atoms just means heivier more unstable atoms most likely. I think what that guy needs or means is a zero point battery but I don't knowmuch about one myself so I could be wrong.
    Once a door is opened it never truly closes
    Once a door is closed new ones are open
    Two concepts forever intwined it is you decision to make them for the better or the worse.

    Being invisble lets you run away from pain
    Being visible gives you irraplacable experiences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Topalk
    There is one BIG problem in that nucleur power doesn't covert mass into energy it either combines (it doesn't make molecules)two atoms or it splits two atoms more mass doesn't mean more atoms just means heivier more unstable atoms most likely. I think what that guy needs or means is a zero point battery but I don't knowmuch about one myself so I could be wrong.
    he was definitely not describing a zero point battery....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Topalk
    There is one BIG problem in that nucleur power doesn't covert mass into energy it either combines (it doesn't make molecules)two atoms or it splits two atoms more mass doesn't mean more atoms just means heivier more unstable atoms most likely. I think what that guy needs or means is a zero point battery but I don't knowmuch about one myself so I could be wrong.
    Nuclear fusion produces heavier atoms that weigh less than the . That's where the energy comes from. In fission, again, it makes two smaller nuclei that weigh less combined than the original atom, which is what gives you your energy from mass
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •