rodge

seriously, i do not think a machine could outdo the human body and mind. yes computers can compute things at speeds a human could only dream of and computers can have massive amounts of memory and some machines, most machines, can lift more and move faster. but once all of these things are integrated, and a computer is faced with the amount of input of ALL of the senses at once, how would it not freeze up? a computer cant gather "food" (energy) by itself, it cant make irrational decisions and even if it could, it could not be contained to the size of the human body and brain. it would not be mobile. so in my opinion no artificial intelligence could never match a human.

are there any free programs for Linux that could be used to design something (an aircraft for example) and to test the aerodynamics of it?

I guess not... I'm sure you're not the only one interested in it by the way.

I think the turbine would be in the way if the scramjet would start to operate in its scramjet mode. All flow inside a scramjet is supersonic... and I can imagine that you do not want some turbine blades in the way of a supersonic flow.

 

Also the combustion process in a scramjet works different.

 

You could mount both types of engines on a plane, and first use one, then the other...

i meant that they would be seperate. i know how both work and that the blades would get in the way. but would the vessel be too heavy?

but what about the laws of equilibrium?

is there a way of incorporating a turbine onto a scramjet in order for it to be completely self propelled? that way it wouldn't need to be launched from another vessel.

well you say this is the easiest method. does that mean there are other methods? SURELY there is a way. even if it is primitive, with the rate of technological advances, an adequate and effective method could be rendered in the next few decades.

i understand that in order to reverse the reaction, it would need to be extremely cool and the fuels would have to be pure, but these would theoretically be easy hurdles to overcome. what i am asking is WILL it be done, not could it be done, and when?

I have learned that almost all chemical reactions are reversible. if so then why isn't any effort put into the reversal reaction of hydrocarbonic combustion? If this reaction is feasible, shouldn't it be implicated? millions, even billions of dollars would be saved. fossil fuels would become a renewable resource. global warming could be lowered. economies would prosper.