Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How efficient are other power sources

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    How efficient are other power sources

    I don't know if it has ever been said or not but how efficient are the other sources of power they have (i.e. zpm, naquadah generator, etc.)? I know that you are more efficient then what we have know, but by how much more? Also, how many alt. power sources are there?
    "Those who sow the wind might reap the whirlwind."

    "Only God knows everything and he works for the Mossad."

    #2
    well 3 ZPM's used consecutivly can hold a shield for 10,000 years, under water.

    1 naquadah generator cant come close to powering the shield at all, above water.

    Comment


      #3
      i think he means in terms of effeciencey like how much waste does it produce? how much input do u need to keep it going?

      i dont think they have ever said if naquada has any waste or how much u really need to keep the generator to keep going. we have seen them put in a few small rocks but how long does that last?

      as for zpms we dont know enough about how they work, sure they look really good but how hard are they to make? does it destory the space time it uses for power?

      Comment


        #4
        Under ideal conditions a naqahdah generator's a little more efficient than uranium fission.
        Lord §okar, Niles, Mark VI, etc: Dom Howard fan

        Tama, Bosphorus, Istanbul Mehmet, Sabian, Zildjian and Remo

        Comment


          #5
          Yes but smaller and portable. And perhaps longer lasting? And I assume less toxic waste; not sure though.
          And it makes for bigger explosions.

          "You know what would make a good story? Something about a clown who makes people happy, but inside he's real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea." - Jack Handy

          Comment


            #6
            If a naquadah generator is just as good as what we have now, is safer to use? What would be the point of using it if the benefit isn't that great. I would guess that it would cost more to procure and build than what we have now.
            "Those who sow the wind might reap the whirlwind."

            "Only God knows everything and he works for the Mossad."

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by MarshAngel
              Yes but smaller and portable. And perhaps longer lasting? And I assume less toxic waste; not sure though.
              And it makes for bigger explosions.
              Size and controllability are the only advantages. Naqahdah generators are extremely easily regulated.
              Lord §okar, Niles, Mark VI, etc: Dom Howard fan

              Tama, Bosphorus, Istanbul Mehmet, Sabian, Zildjian and Remo

              Comment


                #8
                DHDs have some kind of cold fusion crystal (I remember seeing a close up of the notes O'Neill wrote in The Fifth Race, and they mentioned cold fusion). Anyway, in Heroes, Sam said that the power they give off is more efficient somehow, but they didn't know how. It takes 10% less power outputted from a DHD to power a gate than it would to power a gate via a Naquada generator. Given the fact that DHDs are tens of millions of years old, the more recent stuff like Arcturus and ZPMs have to be significantly more efficient if just in that regard.
                sigpic

                Comment


                  #9
                  If the stargates are made of Naquada and they are room temp superconductors and are energized by neutrinos (according to SCI-FI channel website they are energized by neutrinos) then all the DHD needs to do is radiate neutrinos at it for a very small amount of time and the current would just continue to flow through it. The problem would now become how to get rid of the current once it starts running. Plus, there are small amounts of neutrinos flying all over the place right now as you are reading this.

                  The big "Fictional thing" here is that it is a room temp superconductor. This is their easy way out to explain how the thing is able to be charged up and stay charged so easily.

                  There are various ways of radiating neutrinos at the stargate. There are various radioactive substances that have a very long half life (millions of years) which can be used in conjuction with a normal element to produce something called the PROTELF effect which generates neutrinos. There are also negative beta decay isotopes which give off high voltage which could be used as a solid state means of an electric field to use in the PROTELF effect.
                  In the PROTELF effect you need an electric field, a magnetic field, a source of Gamma rays, and then the feedstock materials (helium, carbon, lithium, nitrogen, oxygen, there are more) which is made to temporarily beta decay.

                  Isotopes which naturally "negative beta decay" like potassium 40 and carbon 14 (Can't remember if it is 13 or 14) and give off neutrinos for many years is another option.
                  It would seem that the DHD should have some similarities in design with the ZPM's.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I would assume less toxic waste as well, the generators don't seem to expel any waste and they are not that big. However, with the size of the fuel a lot of waste could not be produced.

                    Owen Macri

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by aironoeus
                      If the stargates are made of Naquada and they are room temp superconductors and are energized by neutrinos (according to SCI-FI channel website they are energized by neutrinos)
                      I believe it has been said that Stargates are capable of absorbing and converting nearly any form of energy into what they need to operate.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Yes, that is my basis for assuming that the Stargate would not be desintegrateable by a zat.

                        Owen Macri

                        EDIT: Sorry, I thought this was another thread...

                        Owen Macri

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Owen Macri
                          Yes, that is my basis for assuming that the Stargate would not be desintegrateable by a zat.

                          Owen Macri

                          EDIT: Sorry, I thought this was another thread...

                          Owen Macri
                          You're probably right. I mean, zat blasts do something with energizing an object somehow. Since the stargate would instantly convert that energy into something else, the blasts would likely not do anything other than eventually power it.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Yes, I would have to agree with that. Seeing as the Stargate pretty much absorbs all types of energy it was designed that way.

                            Owen Macri

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Potassium 40 is safe. It only emits electrons and neutrinos. Both of which would power the stargate. The other possibility here is that since small amounts of neutrinos are flying everywhere and passing through everything at any given time except for naquada (which energizes it) then the stargate could continually absorb this energy and store it into a high tech super capacitor in the DHD via diode for later reintroduction into the gate via some other mechanism similar to the ZPM to boost it up into a much higher range.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X