Jump to content

IsaacAsimov

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About IsaacAsimov

  • Rank
    Meson

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Plan D has promise, because the deuterium atoms are travelling at such a high velocity (Mach 4) that they could get in close proximity to stationary deuterium atoms and cause fusion. Plan E: Muons are much heavier than electrons, so would pull the hydrogen atoms together as they orbited around them. However, muons decay rapidly, but travel at such a high velocity after leaving the cyclotron, that they experience time dilation, so they last much longer than stationary muons. We could try using other negatively charged particles, such as kaons and pions, in place of electrons. Plan F: The carbon nanotubes would only let protons through in single file because they have such a small diameter. Applying pressure to both ends of the nanotube might cause the protons to fuse together, forming helium atoms. The nanotubes could be put in a pressurized chamber, which is how pressure could be applied to the protons. Neutrons could be introduced through tiny openings on the surface of the nanotubes, which would keep the protons together.
  2. I appreciate you responding, Sensei. Thank you for doing the calculations to a high degree of accuracy, even though it proves that deuterium collisions would produce less energy than is put in. Well, there's still Plans C - F. Sincerely, IsaacAsimov
  3. The Chinese have almost perfected hot fusion. I think we should take a look at cold fusion again. I have made some notes on the subject. Here they are: Plan A: Collide 2 deuterium nuclei. Deuterium (or hydrogen-2) is one of two stable isotopes of hydrogen (the other being protium, or hydrogen-1). The nucleus of a deuterium atom, called a deuteron, contains one proton and one neutron, whereas the far more common protium has no neutron in the nucleus. Deuterium has an abundance in Earth's oceans of about one atom in 6420 of hydrogen. My idea: collide 2 deuterium nuclei at high speeds in opposite directions (use a cyclotron), causing them to fuse into helium nuclei, which are also called alpha particles, and releasing a lot of energy according to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2. You have to collide the particles at the optimum relative velocity: If it's too fast, the particles will collide and fly apart. If the relative velocity is too low, the particles will repel each other and won't collide at all. An alpha particle is often a helium ion with a +2 charge (missing its 2 electrons). If the ion gains electrons from its environment, the alpha particle becomes a normal (electrically neutral) helium atom. Plan B: Bombard tritium (hysrogen-3, which has one proton and two neutrons in the nucleus) atoms with protons. Some of the protons will hit the nucleus and fuse, releasing energy. Plan C : Instead of heating up hydrogen atoms, cool down H2 gas (to possibly near 0 K), which will contract the volume of gas and make the hydrogen atoms fuse together. Plan D : Use water bubbles that travel at 4 times the speed of sound (mach 4) to smash deuterium nuclei together. Plan E: muon-catalyzed fusion: put a muon, which has a negative charge, in place of the electron in an H2 molecule, and the two protons will be drawn together by the muon, which has a larger mass than an electron. Plan F: Put protons in a carbon nanotube and apply pressure to both ends. This approach converts a 3D problem into a linear problem. Out of plans A - F, I would choose Plan A and Plan F because they are more likely than the other plans to result in nuclear fusion.
  4. I agree that doing two seems to be achievable, such as a car and a flying car, where all 4 wheels would be used for vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and then tilted forward for flight. The key to these vehicles would be the 4 wheels of the car, which would have blades to produce thrust. If they don't work in a flying car, use jet engines. For three (a boat), the car's wheels would be tilted at an angle and its blades would be partially submerged to give it forward thrust. For four (a submarine), the wheels would be vertical, but at right angles to the direction of travel, so that the car could go pretty fast, and naturally sink below the surface of the water due to its weight. I thought of a fifth method of travel (a hovercraft), which the car could accomplish by tilting the wheels parallel to the surface of the water, which would provide upward thrust greater than the car's weight, which would lift the car a short distance above the water, and the car wouldn't sink because the air would bounce off the surface of the water and hit the car, thus producing more thrust. So there you have it: The 5-in-1 car!
  5. Well, the way I see it, is that the bigger the wheels on the car, the more blade surface you can fit on it, and the greater thrust you will have. I would suggest 19-inch wheels inside larger 20-inch wheels, which would be attached to the tires. The car might have to be jet-propelled like on an airplane. Actually, I don't really know how thrust is generated on an airplane, so I'm going to search for it on the Internet as soon as I finish this post. Cars that fly will probably have to be computer-controlled, and may have to fly inside different flyways (similar to highways) to avoid collisions. The flying car is just more efficient than a regular car, which has to stay on the ground and travel on roads, while the flying car can fly directly from point A to point B. You could fly it directly into a lake and then activate the boat function, which would just be for fun in your free time. Going underwater would also be for fun, and you could observe many underwater life-forms. The boat and underwater functions could also be computer-controlled. If you just wanted the car for efficiency, you could just have the flying car option and leave out the boat and underwater travel options. That's fairly simple, isn't it?
  6. A knife, fork and spoon are usually used for eating different types of food, so we are better off if they're separate. Usually, only a fork and knife are needed to eat food. So, about the car: If you don't have a lot of money, you could just buy the car. If you had a somewhat large amount of money, you could add the skycar feature. If you had a large quantity of money, you could add the boat feature, and if you were rich, you could finally add the underwater feature. There's nowhere in the world you couldn't go in such a car!
  7. Yes, I realized the same thing. How about using 18-inch wheels, and having the last 3 inches attached to the tire, while the inner 15 inches would rotate very quickly? If the car could be made waterproof (the Japanese are good at this), the car could go underwater, which would be a 4th mode of transportation. The 4 wheels would be vertical, but at right angles to the direction of travel. The car could be called a quadcar, 4car, or supercar. I'm not an engineer, but I'm very creative. Thank you for replying.
  8. I have a really neat idea. Engineers should be able to build a car that travels on land, air and sea. The main method of locomotion would be in the wheels. For travel on land, the wheels would be vertical, and travel on roads, which of course is possible. They are just called cars, or possibly landcars. For travel through the air, the wheels would slowly turn to a horizontal position, and start rotating within the tires. The wheels would have small wings in them, which would provide lift when rotated. The car could take off and land vertically. The cars would be called aircars, skycars, or flying cars. For travel on the sea or lakes, the car would be driven a short distance into the water, then the wheels would turn to a 45 degree angle, and start rotating within the tires. The small wings on the wheels would propel the water backward, thus pushing the car forward, as in a motorboat. The cars would be called seacars or watercars. Of course, all 3 functions could be used in the same car. I'm not sure what size the wheels should be: I was thinking 15-inch. The resulting car would be called a 3car or supercar, or something else. I think this type of car could be built. Does anybody else have any thoughts on the matter?
  9. How can a person use a computer to design a computer better than itself? Or does it need a person to provide creativity?
  10. Goto Wikipedia.org, then search for "tau lepton". Look under History, and there it is. I hope this satisfies you.
  11. Thank you for your help. Did you know that you look almost like Stan Laurel of the Laurel and Hardy famous comedy duo? Just look up specific subatomic particles, for instance muon, kaon, tau lepton.
  12. By "we", I mean the scientific community. I got all of my facts from Wikipedia.org.
  13. How about using a negative ion in place of the electron? Would that work?
  14. I was reading about muon-catalyzed cold fusion, and I thought if muons don't work in cold fusion maybe some other negative subatomic particles would. Muons decay after 2.2 x 10 -6 s, which is too short for cold fusion. Kaons (K-): Charge-parity violation, which generates the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe, was discovered in the kaon system in 1964. The lifetime of the kaon is 1.238 x 10 -8 s, too short for cold fusion. Tau lepton: Has a lifetime of 2.9 x 10 -13 s, too short to be considered for cold fusion. We have discovered 64 events of the form e+ + e- > e+- + muon-+ + at least 2 undetected particles for which we have no conventional explanation. In total, the tau lepton will decay hadronically approximately 64.79% of the time. These particles decay in too short a time. There may be some other negatively charged subatomic particles that will decay in a longer time and can substitute for the electron to cause cold fusion.
  15. I have devised a photonic motor just in case people switch from electricity to light. It would work like a radiometer, except it would not need a vacuum. It would have about 6 vanes, which would be colored black. A laser would fire a laser beam at the vanes, which would absorb the photons and cause the vanes to rotate clockwise. For a faster speed, the vanes could be colored white, which when struck by a laser beam, would reflect the light back. When the laser light hits the vanes, the vanes would absorb the momentum of the light and be pushed clockwise. When the light is reflected, the reaction with the vane would push the vane clockwise, making it turn twice as fast as the motor with the black vanes. That's all I have to say on the subject.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.