Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on July 24, 2003, 08:36:56 pm
-
Does anyone know what molecule or chemicle can make hydrogen explode? If there is one?
I know heat does, but that's not what I need.
-
Try sodium or anything in that first row besides, well, hydrogen.
-
Planning something?:p
*radios to FBI hq, where he is ignored*
-
any halogen or oxygen. you need a spark though :D
-
anti-hydrogen :D
-
I hear Flourine and Hydrogen can make an explosive combination even below 0 Degrees C.
-
I think the rule is sodium for hydrogen, magnesium for oxygen.
-
Originally posted by Singh
I hear Flourine and Hydrogen can make an explosive combination even below 0 Degrees C.
Yes but the resulting hydrogen fluoride is VERY nasty. Especially if it can dissolve in water to make hydrofluoric acid. I've seen the stuff used before and when you see that
1) PhD students aren't allowed to touch it even though they are allowed to handle almost any other acid you can think of.
2) The Doctor using the stuff has to wear a face shield and gloves Selotaped down to prevent even a few drops touching the skin
3) You have to take home a special burn cream because the acid can start to burn you several hours after exposure
You realise exactly how nasty the stuff is :D
If you want to make a bang Hydrogen and oxygen is the best way to go. No one is going to complain about the toxic or highly flamable residue :D
-
unless toxic or highly flamable residue is a desired effect, I know if I was building some sort of explosive (to use against people), haveing it leave a vapor that would react with the water in peoples bodies (probly there eyes mostly) to form something that is about as nasty as a chemical weapon would be consitered a happy bonus, not that I would actualy do this.
I think the question we have to ask is what does he want this for
-
Umm...something non-lethal, please. So something can actually get NEAR the exhaust nozzle.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Umm...something non-lethal, please. So something can actually get NEAR the exhaust nozzle.
OK, now I really don't want to know ;)
Stick with oxygen, it reacts to form one of the most benign substances imaginable: water. Not exactly a big boom, but it should generate enough heat for whatever you are trying to do.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Umm...something non-lethal, please. So something can actually get NEAR the exhaust nozzle.
OK, now I really don't want to know ;)
Stick with oxygen, it reacts to form the most benig substance imaginable. Not exactly a big boom, but it should generate enough heat for whatever you are trying to do.
-
I don't need heat, I need raw thrust. Plus, I'd like to stay away from using oxygen.
-
Oh so you are after a rocket of some kind... a Halogen is probably your best bet for thrust, but you are going to cook up some form of acid no matter what that way... Hydrogen really isn't the best fuel for something like that unless you can store truely massive amounts of it in your gas tank, along with tons of stuff to react it with. And unless you use oxygen, you'll probably cook up some rather unpleasant results.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I don't need heat, I need raw thrust. Plus, I'd like to stay away from using oxygen.
You would have thought that hydrogen & oxygen would give you plenty of thrust since they are used in rocket engines :) That said they tend to use liquid oxygen and that stuff can be lethal if not handled properly.
If you don't want to use oxygen you could just use air. It's not as efficient but it should still give you plenty of thrust.
Basically if you're using hydrogen your only choice is oxygen or air. All the other elements I can think of leave very nasty compounds behind.
-
this is all theoretical, I'm not actually going to do this.
Plus, I'm talking about molecules colliding or interacting, not liquids being mixed + ignited.
-
Gasoline and cut gunpowder both make fine rocket fuel- you need a spray system for the one and a proper mixture of controlled impurities for the other (or you get what's known in layman's terms as "a bomb"). In fact, if you just shake up an aerosol hairspray can and stick a nail in the bottom, you've got basically all you need right there- weaker than the other two, perhaps, but the system's all premade and ready to go.
-
Hydroflouric acid? Isn't that a weak electrolyte. Wouldn't you have to be more conrened with HCl?
In response to the first post:
Heat isn't a chemical. It combines with O2. So you don't want that.... Unless the reaction is endothermic, you'll need heat.
-
Well, it's for space, I've got a thought in my head about a new type of space engine.
Here's the idea I had:
A hydrogen powered ship would use a large intake chute. The ship would suck up (or rather, fly thru) space, all the while pulling in excess hydrogen molecules (there are oodles of molecules floating thru space, leftovers from stars + the big bang). The molecules would go thru the chute, and enter the combustion chamber, AKA the engine. The molecules would be bombarded with another molecule, resulting in a (chemicle) explosion, which would be channeled and pushed out the exhaust nozzle.
I can't have heat, because there's no air in space for a flame. The engine would use the coldness of space as a cooling mechanizme.
Feel free to poke holes.
-
UT: You're talking about a standard ramscoop setup. The ICE would be something different, but that's because most people theorizing about it decided it would be simpler to just pump the hydrogen out the back really fast than have to lug around a few tons of reactant.
Falcon: No. Take a chemistry class.
-
See next post
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
UT: You're talking about a standard ramscoop setup. The ICE would be something different, but that's because most people theorizing about it decided it would be simpler to just pump the hydrogen out the back really fast than have to lug around a few tons of reactant.
Stryke, a ramscoop must be accelerated through the air at such a high speed that the compressing air going into the front comes out the back faster than when it went in. The downside to this is that it's hard to get running, and that it can't go in space.
My setup basically REMOVES the fuel tank, because the very matter that the ship is moving thru is it's fuel.
-
Also, there's not that much hydrogen in space. That's why it's called a vacuum- there's a few trace particles, and about one hydrogen molecule every few yards. Your setup would require a collector about the size of the Sun and a ship about the size of a '73 Volkswagon Bus.
-
Doubt that. Hold on, I'll go check some sources, you may be right, I admit that, but I don't believe so.
Plus, the gathering % could be increased by magnatizing the molecules + the plating, and sucking it into the ship by means of magnetic propulsion, if that is possible.
Molecular hydrogen is the most abundant molecule in the Universe
Still searching for more, tho.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
Hydroflouric acid? Isn't that a weak electrolyte. Wouldn't you have to be more conrened with HCl?
HF is technically classified as a weak acid since you only get about 10% disassociation in solution. That means that if you're trying to disolve a metal or make a chemical reaction in as lab HCl is the worst of the acids made by burning halogens.
If you're talking about the effect on you HF is far worse. The problem is that weaker solutions of HF don't burn you immediately. Instead the solution passes through the skin and slowly attacks the body. As the disassociated acid gets used up more of the disolved HF gas disassociates. It can take hours for the burns to appear but by that time the solution can actually have reach deep enough to actually burn the bone.
What's really weird is that the stronger concentrations don't always cause more damage because they burn you immediately so you go straight to the hospital. It's when you spill a weaker solution and let it have hours to work on you that you get the really bad burns.
Told you it was nasty didn't I :D
-
UT what you're refering to sounds very similar to a device know as a Bussard Ramjet. The difference is the BR doesn't burn the hydrogen. Instead it uses it as fuel for a fusion reactor.
Type in Bussard Ramjet into google and you'll get tons of links.
-
problem with a BR is, also, two things:
1) It's not currently possible (the fusion part) + the intense heat-no metals known to man can withstand it.
2) Radioactivity. It's sitting right behind the crew. What if the ship goes down? Chernoblye over Cape Canaveral.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Falcon: No. Take a chemistry class.
Don't be mean. Many people with a degree in chemistry wouldn't be able to tell you why HF was nastier.
I only know cause I studied toxicology as well
-
I wasn't talking about that, I was referring to his gross misapplication of the Laws of Thermodynamics. If the only heat you got out of a system was what you put in, there's not a single machine on the planet that would be working right now. Particularly since mammals and such (us) would have died out instantly.
-
Ah. Okay then :D
-
I know heat is not a chemicle. Heat is radiation.
-
UT, you know those red things on the front of federation starships? that's what you're talking about. problems:
there is only one molicule of hydrogen per square meter in space. that's many many times as thin as the best vaccum we've ever made in a laboratory. if you had a straw that stretched from our solar system to alpha centuri, the matter inside of it wouldn't be enough to fill a coffee cup. even in a nebula, planetary or not, it's still many many times as thin as the best vaccum we've ever made in a laboratory.
-
No, the thing on the front of a federation starship is to deflect molecules ;)
Hey, I'm still refining it. Maybe it's possible to create a quantum-sized molecule of hydrogen, therefore, two molecules could exist in one place, so basically you'd get 2 for 1.
Still thinking of ideas, tho....
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
No, the thing on the front of a federation starship is to deflect molecules ;)
no, you're thinking of the deflector dish. the red things on the front of the nacelles are what i was talking about.
-
oh, OK, N/M :D
Why would they need to gather molecules? According to Star Trek lore, all starships are powered by Matter/Antimatter drives (which, I don't believe, are possible)
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
problem with a BR is, also, two things:
1) It's not currently possible (the fusion part) + the intense heat-no metals known to man can withstand it.
2) Radioactivity. It's sitting right behind the crew. What if the ship goes down? Chernoblye over Cape Canaveral.
1. Extremely powerful magnetic fields (like those found in a Tokamak)
2. Assemble it in space.
-
1) Are thost possible right noiw?
2) would you like to fly on a ship while sitting on a giant thermonuclear bomb? plus, what if a small collision ruptures the ship? boooom! especially if it accidentally hits a larger ship, or installation.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Why would they need to gather molecules? According to Star Trek lore, all starships are powered by Matter/Antimatter drives (which, I don't believe, are possible)
you're asking why a ship that runs on matter and anti-matter would need matter? :wtf:
-
well, i dunno where the hell they got it. I always thought they tossed tribbles into the engine or something :D
-
1. Tokamaks try to create nuclear fusion reactions by compressing plasma to a few million degrees, so with some work, yeah.
2. If the ship ruptured the reacton would just shut down, I doubt there would be enough energy or hydrogen for it to explode.
-
I'd rather stay away from any radiation besides background radiation in the universe itself.
Plus, nuclear fusion is WAY too big right now to work on a smaller craft. Currently, the most dvanced way of doing fusion that I know of is using light...forget the details...
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I'd rather stay away from any radiation besides background radiation in the universe itself.
better get into a dark industrial freezer then.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I'd rather stay away from any radiation besides background radiation in the universe itself.
Are you looking at your monitor?:D
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I'd rather stay away from any radiation besides background radiation in the universe itself.
I meant that, when designing the ship, I would like to have as little radiation eminating from the ship.
Duh. :D
-
To further complicate UT's plans: Van Allen belts
;7
-
I am just getting the basic stuff down! sheesh! :D
I'm just trying to get the basic mechanics right, then I will tackle everything else.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Falcon: No. Take a chemistry class.
I did, they usually don't talk about that specific of ****. But I was correct on my assumption about it being a weak electrolyte.
karajorma: thanks for informing me why in a polite fashion. You showed more brains. Any idiot can just say what Stryke 9 did.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
2) would you like to fly on a ship while sitting on a giant thermonuclear bomb?
HELL YES!!
Haven't you ever heard of the Orion Project?
Project Orion (http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html)
Orion EMP (http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_emp_effects_orion.htm)
Orion Drive (http://www.engin.swarthmore.edu/~tcronin1/Orion.htm)
Stupid anti-nuke treaties
-
didn't we just pull out of that treaty?
-
One of them. There are lots of them. The US only pulled out of the one that was preventing the government from wasting more money on its piece-of-**** antimissile system which we'll fortunately never need to use in even the wildest apocalyptic fantasy.
-
the anti balistic missle treaty? that was the one that made the orion project "illigal"
-
You sure? Whatever.
It's still kinda impractical.
-
oh, no, I was wrong, it was the nuclear test-ban treaty that made it illigal, must not have been paying attention