For the terrestrial model, at 8 inches for 500 feet, my friend and I
have calculated that we need 522,000 BTUs (give or take a few thousand)
to melt through.
The math used:
8" diameter craft (50.25 sq inches)
500' depth (6000 linear inches)
total ice volume = (50.24*6000 or 301,440 cubic inches)
total ice volume in gallons = (301,440/231 or 1,305 gallons)
total weight = (8*1,305 or 10,440 lbs)
Assuming a 50 degree (F) shift in temperature, this is close to 522,000
BTUs aka the amount of energy to raise 1 pound of water 1 degree (F).
This is roughly 153,080 watts of power. Can someone check this math?
I know it is over simplified, but hey it is a start.
Now all we need is to figure out how much energy this is in terms of
batteries.
BTW, for the Europa craft, we figure something like 1.5 Billion BTU's
assuming a 100 degree shift in temperature. This really needs further
study!!
Joe Latrell
On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 21:11, Gary McMurtry wrote:
> >In a message dated 11/2/2002 4:59:49 PM Alaskan Standard Time,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >>You could try non-rechargeable lithium. They are the highest
> >>energy density batteries at the present time, which approach 3X
> >>over Pb-acid motorcycle batteries. Other candidates are Ni-Cd
> >>(high energy discharge rate; rechargeable), Ni-metal hydride, Li
> >>ion (both are rechargeable) and silver-zinc (high energy discharge
> >>rate; rechargeable). The Navy uses the latter type for torpedos.
> >>They can be expensive and are hard to find.
> >>
> >>Probably best to get the maximum battery connection at the same
> >>voltage and let them work together as one giant battery discharging.
> >>
> >>Gary
> >>
> >
> >Our central question then comes down to:
> >
> >Would a high battery energy source be enough to provide enough heat
> >to melt through 500,000 cubic inches of ice?
> >If not, can/should the battery heat be supplemented with a chemical
> >reaction heat via thermite/thermate/magnesium?
> >-- John
>
> John, et al.,
>
> Probably depends on the size of the probe and payload, but a rough
> guess is batteries as we know them today won't provide enough energy
> because of the tremendous amount of energy needed to melt the ice.
> I'll try some calculations, but I'm pretty busy with (guess what?)
> proposals at the moment. However, if batteries won't make it and we
> have to rely on a chemical torch or an extension cord, remember that
> we are all subject to the same laws of physics (well, maybe not
> Robert, ho-ho). Therefore, expect the NASA-funded folks to be using
> the same kinds of half-measures to test prototypes in the ice without
> the aid of an RTG.
>
> Gary
==
You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
