Cpl Kendall wrote:Just post everything from start to finish that you used. Don't worry about it being to complicated.
As I used it? The problem you have with this, I feel, is not the complexity; the problem is the presentation. What is perfectly obvious and intuitive to
me is not necessarily so for you.
But, since you asked, here's basically the whole thought process from start to finish:
Description:
Trying to match the description of what's seen.
First, I looked at the catalog of puzzling evidence, and thought to myself: Wait a minute. Clear, colorless, aromatic, and flammable fuel - this is starting to resemble gasoline or some other kind of hydrocarbon being fed into a fusion engine.
Second, I check my intuition by reviewing what other clear liquid hydrogen-loaded flammable substances with characteristic smells are available. Ammonia, for example, is flammable, colorless, and clear; unfortunately, it has a very low boiling point at standard pressure, and is thus a poor candidate. Water is very hydrogen-rich, but is not particularly flammable or pungent under most circumstances.
Derivation:
Figuring out why this might make sense.
Given an arbitrarily effective fusion furnace, what's your best fuel? In order to store hydrogen compactly and in liquid chemically stable fashion, we're basically dealing with C-H-O-N compounds of various flavors. For the reasons of density described above, saturated hydrocarbons are optimal.
Low end figures I plug and chug by putting the kg hydrogen per kg and liter, subtracting off the mass of the helium it would be fused to, and multiplying by the square of lightspeed... i.e., a very simple application of COE that takes about five minutes with a table of isotopic masses and an open spreadsheet or calculator. For the high end, I assume the case of magically fusing everything to iron-56 - i.e., 28 deuterium atoms, 14/3 carbon 12s, 4 nitrogen 14s, et cetera. I compare these figures.
(Online
table of isotopic masses for your convenience in the event you don't have it in a nearby handbook. Note that C-12 is 12.000... by definition, not coincidence. Basically speaking, in fusion of hydrogen, you can get rid of almost 1% of the mass if you fuse it all the way down to iron, and in fusion of carbon to iron, you can get rid of about 0.1%, but I already knew that.)
Methane has the most hydrogen per unit weight (CH4), but requires high pressure or low temperature to make liquid. As you go up the alkanes, you get better milage by volume, and worse by weight (heavy methane is 40%, heavy decane is 27%). It doesn't get better as you start dealing with esters, alkenes, or adding nitrogen and oxygen into the mix. Packing as much hydrogen in as possible is basically what makes a good
chemical fuel, too.
At that point, it's perfectly clear to me what's going on.