Could you make an air powered turbine that used oxygen as a fuel?

>>7776787
what the fuck is a fire piston?

Alternatively, what reacts with the most common atmospheric gasses, like nitrogen?

If there was something that reacted with it well enough, would it be realistic to build an engine around that?

Interesting.

I assume at some temperature, diatomic oxygen would split and release energy. I'm not sure what temperature this would be but I have a feeling it's high enough that your "engine" would have to be made of exotic materials so it doesn't melt.

Bump for interest.

>>7776807
Oxygen and nitrogen react when exposed to high voltage/frequencies. But then I suppose you have the problem of consuming our atmosphere and populating it with NOx that needs to be considered.

>>7776803

http://youtu.be/SkWJdWGdgaM

Operates kinda like a diesel engine combustion chamber. You know how diesel motors don't have spark plugs, rather they compress the air to ignite the fuel?

I'm trying to think of a way to build an engine that uses the most common fuel available to it, the atmosphere around it.

Regular engines already use oxygen as fuel, without oxygen the process wouldn't work. What if an engine used atmospheric gasses exclusively?

>>7776787
>oxygen as a fuel
Lrn2redox

>>7776811

I suppose you have no problem with any other kind of pollution?

It is what it is.

I want unlimited fuel.

I want to go wherever I want, whenever I want.

I'm trying to find an easy way to make it possible.

What about a "reverse turbine" that creates a strong enough vacuum to liquify atmospheric gasses?

COME ON SCI

GIVE ME POSSIBILITIES

File: 34e437t.jpg (144KB, 1296x720px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1296x720px

>>7776855
Nuclear ramjet.

>>7776891

That's a little excessive.

What about a thorium ramjet?

I've got no idea the limitations of thorium.

>>7776901
The principle would be the same and you could probably miniaturize it more effectively since you need less moderator.

The real issue is shielding. SLAM didn't need any since it's unmanned but I imagine you would want some since 'unlimited flight' isn't too useful when you're dead after a couple of hours.

Sure as long as the engine operates in an atmosphere of methane or another flammable gas.

>>7776909

>shielding

The only thing that works for that is mass, right?

Is there a way to deflect radioactivity, kinda like how stealth vehicles redirect radar waves?

>>7776939

>flammable gas

Like oxygen???

YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT AND VALIDATED MY THREAD :D

Thx anon

Oxygen isn't a fuel..

How is this thread even getting replies.

File: the-joker-everything-burns.jpg (31KB, 588x300px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 588x300px

>>7776964

Everything burns.

>>7776809
No. Diatomic oxygen is at lower energy than atomic oxygen.

>>7776817
In fire pistons and diesel engines a hydrocarbon of some form is used as fuel and oxidized.

>>7776889
Gases do not liquify in a vacuum. To liquify gases you either need to get them cold or increase the pressure. Consult your phase diagrams


Now recall the part about atomic oxygen being in a higher energy state than diatomic oxygen, well it just so happens that this was considered as a way to power a ramjet.

It turns out the upper atmosphere(> 100km) has atomic oxygen, so provided you have a way to 'burn it' to diatomic oxygen you can use it as fuel for a ramjet. Except this doesn't work because it produces more drag than thrust.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930085302_1993085302.pdf

>>7776948
Yes but not in a way that's useful. Materials with a high scattering cross-section will tend to deflect radiation but the direction is random so gg.

You want mass, density and stability in your shielding. Unfortunately different types of radiation respond dramatically differently to the same shielding. Lead is great for charged particles and gamma-rays but pretty poor for neutrons, for example.

>>7776787
A fire piston doesn't use air as a fuel you retard

>>7777012
Of course to burn O2 you need platinum hexafluoride or other highly exotic oxidizers.

Helium and other noble gases cannot be burned.

>>7777020

I couldn't recall if it was vacuum or pressure that liquefied gasses. Neat. I don't know why I said "vacuum".. I'm not thinking about things when I post them. Yes, diesel engines use hydrocarbons. But in a fire piston the pressure superheats the air and causes the air to burn the tinder.

>>7777048

Derp, semantics

>>7777062

Thanks. I don't know the names of chemicals that react to atmospheric gasses.

OP here, let me restate my post...

"The principle behind the nuclear ramjet was relatively simple: motion of the vehicle pushed air in through the front of the vehicle (ram effect), a nuclear reactor heated the air, and then the hot air expanded at high speed out through a nozzle at the back, providing thrust."

Taken from the wiki about Project Pluto.

WHAT IF compression heated the air, and that provided thrust?

And WHAT IF the process was fueled by atmospheric gasses?

So, atmospheric gas is used to superheat atmospheric gas, and the expanding atmospheric gas provides thrust.

>>7777123
>WHAT IF compression heated the air, and that provided thrust? And WHAT IF the process was fueled by atmospheric gasses?

Yes, anon, if you figure out how to pull energy from fucking nowhere, then you can do pretty much anything you want.

Since that's not going to happen anytime soon, you're kind of screwed. LOL.

>>7777147

But energy is literally everywhere.

You can charge a battery by sticking electrodes in wet dirt, dude.

There are countless chemical reactions all around us.

>>7777098
>semantics
don't under-rate semantics, they distinguish you from the other apes

>>7777948

DUDE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS INSANELY COMPLEX AND CONVOLUTED. It doesn't even follow it's own rules!

Go spend an hour on urban dictionary.

It's a marvel we can communicate at all.

>>7776803

PAPP engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papp_engine

Also very crackpotty.

>>7778901
so not something using AIR as a fuel, then.

>>7777162
cool. so apparently you know everything and can figure it out then?

>>7778196
you are misinterpreting scientific semantics with fucking urbandictionary you mong.

>>7778969

Air isn't a fuel. If it was, the first couple of lightning pulses would have set the entire atmosphere ablaze billions of years ago. Poof! No more air as we know it.

To use air for energy, you must combust it. It must oxidize something. So you need another thing, like a hydrocarbon, that readily releases energy when oxidized.

Any fool can see that the energy of compressing the air itself can't be usefully obtained, as overunity. We compress air to heat things up as required, or to apply energy more precisely (like a air-ratchet tool), not as an energy source.

>>7779040
thats....pretty much what i was getting at.

>>7779023

I'm just saying there has to be a way to do it. It would probably be like a car that keeps air in the gas tank and gas in the air... but there has to be a way.

>>7779040

See >>7777012

File: SPBI1061.gif (2KB, 420x162px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 420x162px

>>7779481
What the fuck are you proposing to do? Air, as in the stuff we breath consisting 21% O2, 78% N2, and trace gases cannot burn itself. If it did it would no longer be air.

Second, heat engines(IC engines, steam engines, jet engines) do not give a fuck what the heat source is so long as there is a temperature difference. You could drive a car with a tank full of O2 in an atmosphere of methane. Heck you could just heat an inert gas like helium with an electric arc in the piston to drive things.

Yes you can do things like a ram accelerator where you have a big tube full of fuel and oxidizer launch a specially shaped projectile into it, that compresses the mixture in the front causing it to combust and then uses the expansion of the HEATED gas to propel itself.
But the gas in the tube is almost certainly not air.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_accelerator

>>7777012
>>7779481
Sure, if you compress it enough to start fusion.

>>7779603
Good luck getting out more energy than you put in compressing it.

http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/stars/FusionCarbonOxygen.html

Not to mention that most of the energy in oxygen-oxygen fusion is emitted as neutrinos