 October 22, 2007 - 12:42pm | Refer to: Clarion-class Strike Cruiser. How does a pion engine work and what are the advantages/disadvantages? |
 October 22, 2007 - 1:51pm | It's been submitted for Issue 7 of the StarFrontiersman :) 3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our
vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time. |
 October 23, 2007 - 7:33am | Simplified, a matter/antimatter reaction releases anti-pions(the full name is antimatter pion engine, but it's a mouthful), which are concentrated and used as thrust, while the energy from the matter/antimatter reaction powers the ship. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
 October 25, 2007 - 3:02pm | Sounds a bit like my supercharged ion drives (SC/I drive) --- although in my case the engine utilizes a secondary chemical reaction to provide the extra burst. Most folks seem to prefer the simplicity of the Pan Galactic Eureka though (along with the corresponding Streel Big Bang that parriah drummed up)...atomic drives by all extent but +1 ADF. |
October 26, 2007 - 9:10am | I settled on +1 ADF as a matter of game balance(ADF was 150% of atomic drives, but I figured it was a tad overpowered)...in the house rules, there's more of an advantage, since the +1 ADF also means reduced mass and space as well. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
 October 30, 2007 - 6:06pm | Has anyone looked into inertia drives, pulse drives, or ion ramjet? |
October 30, 2007 - 6:43pm | Has anyone looked into inertia drives, pulse drives, or ion ramjet? I'm sure ppl have toyed with them in their games. Do you have something specific to add? Maybe a house rule or two? |
October 31, 2007 - 7:15am | Has anyone looked into inertia drives, pulse drives, or ion ramjet? Do you mean inertia or inertialess? "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
January 1, 2008 - 2:13am | Inertia drives are very difficult to explain. NASA has one the is an off-balance catapult, I will look for more data on this one. Pulse drives are possible in theory only because the real technology to make them is not available. Although, the thrust benefits would be 10 fold of what atomic would provide. And for ion ramjet, this engine has characteristics of a ram jet engines of current aircraft. Don't start believing tat jets can go into space, although that is another discussion. I could put numerous theories in here but I look into the ones that scientist are already looking as possible. |
January 1, 2008 - 1:35pm | Yeah, ion and ramjet engines work in two entirely different ways. In fact, both need the entire size of the engine to operate. There's no way to switch from ion to ramjet and back. The way they are constructed completely excludes the possibility. There's also no chemicals or systems that they could share, so even if you could join the two, it would be fruitless. |
January 1, 2008 - 2:26pm | By the way, regarding the pion engines piece in SFman #7, it should have been called antimatter drive (which is what NASA calls it). It just sounds more Star Frontiersish and better suits the overall function of the drive and source of the reaction, as well as suits the common vernacular. Additionally, fusion power currently outperforms antimatter drives with fewer and more controllable byproducts as well as performing quicker interplanetary missions. Fusion power is currently more attractive. |
January 2, 2008 - 7:08pm | Yeah, ion and ramjet engines work in two entirely different ways. In fact, both need the entire size of the engine to operate. There's no way to switch from ion to ramjet and back. The way they are constructed completely excludes the possibility. There's also no chemicals or systems that they could share, so even if you could join the two, it would be fruitless. Do you have any idea what you even said? The interstellar ramjet engine is a hybred ion drive. I have no idea what you are talking about. An ion engine in your mind carries its fual internally and an ion ramjet scoops its fuel from the 18 particles per cubic foot from large magnetic scoops into an intake like a ramjet engine in the atmosphere after that teat as ion engine because it is the same. I know because i did an essay in high school on the thing. Bussard designed it many years ago as a very long range engine. ** So, in a brief ending. Ion and interstellar ramjet engines are the same just one carries giant fuel tanks and the other doesn't because it gets fuel from the particles that are all around it. |
January 2, 2008 - 11:43pm | I'll just leave it at yes, I know exactly what I said. I confused the ramjet for the turbofan. No need to continue in that direction. Simple mistake. |
January 14, 2008 - 10:12am | By the way, regarding the pion engines piece in SFman #7, it should have been called antimatter drive (which is what NASA calls it). It just sounds more Star Frontiersish and better suits the overall function of the drive and source of the reaction, as well as suits the common vernacular. It's my campaign, I'll call it what I think sounds the most-Star Frontierish. If you want to call it something else, that's fine. Additionally, fusion power currently outperforms antimatter drives with fewer and more controllable byproducts as well as performing quicker interplanetary missions. Fusion power is currently more attractive. We currently don't have fusion power or pulse drives beyond the theoretical stages. Same with antimatter propulsion. And, NASA won't be the ones to come up with either, especially given the treatment they've had at the hands of our government and the people who keep putting them in power, but that's a rant of an entirely different nature. Assuming either of these drive systems come online in my lifetime, antimatter annhilation clearly outperforms an explosive thermonuclear reaction by at least a factor of two to one, CERN has confirmed that much. A full-on nucleosynthesis reaction, on the other hand, might generate more energy than antimatter, I'm not for sure on that one. But I digress. The technical challenges for creatiing anti-hydrogen(or any antiparticle) are immense in terms of input energy, though either a process for superheating hydrogen to form anti-hydrogen, more compact particle acceleration technology or even a process of creating antimatter through X-ray bombardement. They're also immense in terms of cooling antimatter for storage, though that challenge can be eliminated simply by having the engine annhilate the antiparticles as they're created. As for the by-products, an annhilation reaction produces a pair of gamma particles—which something like an advanced and micro-sized photovaltic cell might be able to trap and harness—and other anti-particles, which can be ejected out the rear of the engine as thrust. Of course, the technical challenges for creating even an antimatter-catalyzed pulse drive are immense as well, mainly in terms of mass and size(in particular the nagging problem of minimum sub-critical mass for the nuclear part of the equation). But, you never know...any of these technologies might just crop up in future, as any problem posed by technology can be solved with technology....that's the speculative part of science fiction, by the way. In closing, I respectfully suggest you practice what you preach in your sig, and don't dismiss someone else's ideas simply because they didn't orginiate from the brain of the almighty CJ "Art Easton" Williams. And, I think that's the real objection you have to my idea for a pion engine. 'Nuff said. Have a super day. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
January 14, 2008 - 3:33pm | I am looking for an article that had declared some country in Europe has made and has them contained in a magnetic bottle. I just can not remember the country. This is the closest I could get you for now. |
January 14, 2008 - 6:25pm | They're also immense in terms of cooling antimatter for storage, though that challenge can be eliminated simply by having the engine annhilate the antiparticles as they're created. As I understood it, the antimatter only lasts for an instant of time. Not enough time to be expelled as exhaust. The biproduct, as I understand it, is a result of the antimatter reaction. All the antimatter is consumed in the reaction. Correct me if I'm wrong.As for the by-products, an annhilation reaction produces a pair of gamma particles—which something like an advanced and micro-sized photovaltic cell might be able to trap and harness—and other anti-particles, which can be ejected out the rear of the engine as thrust. Of course, the technical challenges for creating even an antimatter-catalyzed pulse drive are immense as well, mainly in terms of mass and size(in particular the nagging problem of minimum sub-critical mass for the nuclear part of the equation). But, you never know...any of these technologies might just crop up in future, as any problem posed by technology can be solved with technology....that's the speculative part of science fiction, by the way. In closing, I respectfully suggest you practice what you preach in your sig, and don't dismiss someone else's ideas simply because they didn't orginiate from the brain of the almighty CJ "Art Easton" Williams. Was there a reason for this? Seriously. I never talked down to you the way he does. I'll overlook this. I didn't talk down to you, and didn't pretend you were below me in any way. On the contrary. I have heald you in high regard in every way. I'm sorry if I offended you by talking about science. |
January 17, 2008 - 11:17am | The antimatter lasts an instant of time, but some of the resulting antiparticles, if properly trapped(muons and pions in particular), can last long enough to be jetted(excuse the imprecision) out the back of the ship into space where they can be used as exhaust. I suppose I could reply to your interjection of a version of science by saying,"but I am a visionary," and leave it at that, but.... What brought on my final observation on the subject—and I ain't trying to be mean, really—is that if you had brought up the idea of the pion engine, and I had proposed objections to it, you would be quick to go on the offensive/defensive, whatever, as borne out by several posts, one in that other forum in particular. Again, 'nuff said. Have a super day. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
January 17, 2008 - 4:03pm | Just get back to the subject. The only thing I get offensive/defensive with is people making personal attacks such as talking down to me. That's why I developed a distaste for science discussions, because some nutsucker invariably has to make a personal attack on me if I'm even the slightest bit off target and talk to me even worse than to a 3 year old child, just the same way as you did. I don't know where your attitude came from, but you need to check yourself. Don't bother responding, because my participation in this conversation is over and I'm not worth your time. Get on with your convo. I'll butt out. |
January 17, 2008 - 7:00pm |  I started the thread because "I" wanted an answer.Corjay, suggestions are great. Stop saying "it should have." That is not a suggestion. I'll PM you because you ran away from this thread after saying "Last word" and running.  fork. |
January 24, 2008 - 10:50am | Just get back to the subject. The only thing I get offensive/defensive with is people making personal attacks such as talking down to me. That's why I developed a distaste for science discussions, because some nutsucker invariably has to make a personal attack on me if I'm even the slightest bit off target and talk to me even worse than to a 3 year old child, just the same way as you did. I don't know where your attitude came from, but you need to check yourself. Don't bother responding, because my participation in this conversation is over and I'm not worth your time. Get on with your convo. I'll butt out. God, but you are a whiny little puto, when you don't get your way, aren't you? For the record, the "science" under discussion was what I(and most people on the forum I'm sure) already frickin' knew. And, anyone what doesn't like my attitude(called freedom of expression in parts of America outside of Oklahoma) is perfectly free to take the drive down 69 to Wagoner, where we can discuss matters man to...whatever.... 'Nuff frickin' said. Apologies to w00t and other pleasant folk I may have offended, now back to the subject. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
January 24, 2008 - 10:54am | Gilbert, nearest I can find to that are the articles where CERN created anti-hydrogen. As far as I know, magnetic containment remains in the theoretical stage. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
January 25, 2008 - 2:53pm | I have been looking for the story on it. I don't believe I dreamed it. My wife remembers the article also. As soon as I find it I will post the site. But I do know that he is French and in the site is in Arizona where the 17 anti-hydrogen is contained in magnetic bottles. |
January 26, 2008 - 1:00pm | It sounds like it might be in a back ish(prolly an offline one too, way my luck runs) of either Popular Mechanics or Popular Science, they're good at running articles about fringe and cutting-edge science and research(the story you mentioned definitely being the latter), or at least they used to be. I would be most interested in seeing the story and the research. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
 November 22, 2012 - 4:38pm | I do like the Pion engine and the write up from back in Issue 7. The biggest obstacle in using antimatter in science fiction seems to always come down to containment from what I have read. Generating antimatter doesn't seem to be the big issue its storing the antimatter and holding it. I don't know if that makes a difference if the Pion engine works like a pulse where each antimatter reaction creates an individual thrust pulse. But my logic comes back to the same problem again... If you have to have the antimatter in the first place to mix it with matter than it has to be held somewhere before its used. Again the problem of containment. unless of course it somehow happens at once. The same reaction that creates the antimatter then is used to cause the matter reaction. I know it's science fiction and we have to make some leaps of speculation but I would feel better about it if we had an easier reconciliation. |
