Which power source is the best?

[Guest]

Discuss.

I have idea which consists of having neutronium confined in super-strong gravity fields or force fields. A little is released to break up into neutrons (still confined in force field). 54% of this would decay into protons and electrons and neutrinos, while the other 46% would be induced into decaying intoo antiprotons and positrons and neutrinos through some technobabble device. The remaining 8% would be used in an ion engine or other impulse engine
"Mass lighting" tech would be needed, otherwise the sheer mass would render acceleration practically impossible. Another problem would be the gravity emitted by the neutronium, as well as obtaining it, but I would not delve into that.

[Guest]

Damn, the option for "other" got cut off

[omegaLancer]

just use the Neutronium as an reactor.. Droping gas or normal matter on to it would cause the emission of gamma rays, positron and lots of energy..

Just look at Magstar and blastars, both are neutron stars, with powerful magnetic fields and matter falling onto them..

As for the Gravity.. it a great source for ship gravity, no need for the artificle stuff, and if the chunk of neutronium is not very big it should not be anymore trouble than moving any other massive object..

[Cpt_Frank]

Hm, lets see. The naquada reactor's name sucks. Power output is also not very good. Warp cores also suck cause they go boom very easily. The quantum singularity is technobabble, so there only remains the hypermatter reactor (which looks badass 'cause it's so huge btw), and it also supplies the most power.

[Chris Walker]

The poll description of best/coolest is kind of misleading. Saying a power source is (or sounds) "cool" tends to be a subjective viewpoint. The best power source is the one which has the greatest output, efficiency and stability/safety - which are objective. The hypermatter reactor certainly has the greatest output. As far as stability goes, well, I know it's more stable than a GCS's warp core...but then, so is a deck of cards balanced on a vibrator

[Stormbringer]

Hypermatter. High output, stable, and efficient.

[Wicked Pilot]

Where is the "steam engine" option?

[greenmm]

Hypermatter. It's got to be a matter/antimatter-based reaction that uses super-massive or super-dense matter (hence "hypermatter"), thus allowing for higher power output per reaction.

There are 2 big problems with warp cores:

-- they break when you look at them funny
-- they use the lightest element to form the matter/antimatter streams.

The first problem is solvable by getting better engineers.

The second problem is solvable if the "injectors" work off of the principle of regulating their flows based on how many molecules pass through per second. That way, if you stream through matter and antimatter based on, say, carbon (Atomic Mass 14 vs. Hydrogen Atomic Mass 1), you get 14 times the energy generation, and putting the E-D's warp core at an estimate of 14 TW (vs. the 1 TW they have). Carbon is a fairly common element as well, right?

Don't know about the other 2 options.

[Master of Ossus]

Hypermatter is clearly more powerful than any of the others. It also does not appear to have nearly the side-effects that many of the other sources are plagued with.

[Stormbringer]

That way, if you stream through matter and antimatter based on, say, carbon (Atomic Mass 14 vs. Hydrogen Atomic Mass 1), you get 14 times the energy generation, and putting the E-D's warp core at an estimate of 14 TW (vs. the 1 TW they have). Carbon is a fairly common element as well, right?

That would be incredibly dangerous. The Ent-D's warp core already has a lot of excess reactivity. Upping that even more would make it even more of a ticking time bomb. In a different (ie sane) design it would certainly be a worthwhile idea but in the current generation of Star Fleet warp cores it would be suicide.

[2000AD]

To my knowledge only one of the options gives you the power to blow up a planet. Hypermatter all the way.[/quote]

[Howedar]

I'd rate them as such: Hypermatter, Romulan singularity, Naquada reactor, steam, Warp

[greenmm]

That way, if you stream through matter and antimatter based on, say, carbon (Atomic Mass 14 vs. Hydrogen Atomic Mass 1), you get 14 times the energy generation, and putting the E-D's warp core at an estimate of 14 TW (vs. the 1 TW they have). Carbon is a fairly common element as well, right?

That would be incredibly dangerous. The Ent-D's warp core already has a lot of excess reactivity. Upping that even more would make it even more of a ticking time bomb. In a different (ie sane) design it would certainly be a worthwhile idea but in the current generation of Star Fleet warp cores it would be suicide.

Oh, most definitely you need to reengineer the whole bloody thing. Especially to get rid of the exploding consoles. Multiple redundant mag-shields on separate power circuits (including independent battery backups for the secondary and tertiary shielding), ability to manually shut off the AM stream (as in a manually-operated lever or wheel, or an independently-powered locally-controlled computerized system) should the "manifolds" get stuck open, and a host of other systems so that you don't need to eject the bloody core every few episodes.

In fact, do you realize how dangerous the Falcon's cockpit would have been if SW ships had that happen to them? Especially in that confined space...

[Stormbringer]

In fact, do you realize how dangerous the Falcon's cockpit would have been if SW ships had that happen to them? Especially in that confined space...

As David Weber is fond of saying "Anchovy Paste". First hit and everyone in there will be shredded. They'd be picking bits of the Han and Chewie up with a mop and bucket.

[ClaysGhost]

just use the Neutronium as an reactor.. Droping gas or normal matter on to it would cause the emission of gamma rays, positron and lots of energy..

Just look at Magstar and blastars, both are neutron stars, with powerful magnetic fields and matter falling onto them..

You would need a lot of neutronium, you would need a lot of fuel (I reckon about 4,000 tonnes per year for just 1GW output), the gravitational field of the neutronium would be strong enough to crush the ship, and so on. I liked the weak decay idea better.

As for the Gravity.. it a great source for ship gravity, no need for the artificle stuff, and if the chunk of neutronium is not very big it should not be anymore trouble than moving any other massive object..

The gravitational field produced by the neutronium will be severely bent. You will have to have a very oddly shaped ship to use it. That, and as you use the stuff up as fuel, your internal gravitational field slowly weakens. That's for the weak decay idea. For the second idea, you'd need so much neutronium that you'd need AG to prevent the crew from being crushed, along with the ship.

[SirNitram]

The best reactors in all of sci-fi are either GridTaps(Probably not the real name. What the Culture uses), or the Mythallar of Netheril.

Hey, they're a magical engine which can power objects over a large distance without any wires or such. Any sphere that can allow me to generate a dimensional gateway on demand is a damn good reactor in my book.(Though they have that nasty tendency to cease to exist if the entire Weave is annihilated...)