Enthalpy

Chlorates and permanganates should be avoided in a rocket because their "pressure exponent" exceeds 1, which means they burn faster at a higher pressure, and this acceleration is faster than the pressure increase - but the mass flow through the nozzle increases only as the pressure. In short: boom. Perchlorates and nitrates (simplifying) don't have this serious drawback. I strongly warn against hydrogen peroxide, which is very dangerous in usable concentration http://www.gkllc.com/lit/gk-authored/AIAA-2004-4146_Field_Handling_of_hydrogen_peroxide.pdf Ammonium nitrate is dangerous, it destroyed the AZF plant ten years ago, a port in 1947, and many more: Nitrocellulose is commonly used in missiles, as a colloid with nitroglycerine to improve performance. It's dubbed safe - as long as nitroglycerine hasn't crept out. Needs a serious igniter. But mixing with nitroglycerine is nothing for a hobby chemist. Don't get paranoid, but... Shops around you stop selling potassium nitrate - certainly because police asked them to do so, certainly because police has noticed your activity. Not only because of terrorism, also because of frequent accidents. Did you consider switching to liquid propellants? At least they don't detonate before use. Liquid oxygen is very efficient with most fuels: liquid natural gas, Diesel oil, turpentine, polyethylene... http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/canceled/1740151.pdf

Polyethylene glycol is an extremely common family (PEG, see Wiki) produced dirt-cheap from petroleum by-products. Easy to find in drum quantity. Many uses, including hydraulic oil, used for instance in brakes - then it's mixed with water and additives. Lab quantity at usual providers. Molecular weight (=degree of polymerization) tells the viscosity, together with the amount of water, and the thing is hygroscopic. It behaves much like glycerine or glycol.

And why should gas cold down, hence contract, only by emitting light? Couldn't it expel its hottest atoms and molecules instead, and let the coldest sink? As long as the mean free path is big enough, this must necessarily happen. Also, the even spread of thermal energy means that heavier nuclides have less speed hence must fall down (or diffuse down if density is big enough). As gravitation potential is many times stronger than heat there, random movements can delay this but not prevent it. Turbulence could hinder that, or too slow diffusion - this must depend on density.

I could read Boctane's data published by Katorgyn, that is at the source. Heat of formation is +80cal/g (I estimated +77cal/g) Density 828kg/m3. Viscosity 2.4cPs @+20°C. Melt -54.5°C / Flash +20°C / Boil +134°C / Autoig +205°C / Decomp +430°C

To let the stop tell its name to the bus: - Have a radio transmitter at the stop - Have a bar code on the stop, big and at standard height - Have a camera on the bus, read and recognize the name written on the stop If you want to announce the coming stop in advance, the computer must know the sequence and deduce the next stop from the previous one. Or have a Gps in the bus, compare with the route, deduce the next stop. All the methods? Imagination has no limit.

The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics has tables spanning dozens of pages. Outdated editions are nearly affordable on eBay. Serves more purposes. The CRC Handbook of Thermophysical and Thermochemical Data looks like what you need but is seriously expensive. Same for: The Yaws Handbook of Thermodynamic Properties for Hydrocarbons and Chemicals. If the your gases are manufactured by Merck, Sigma-Aldrich... they often give a heat capacity on their website. You might also browse the Web through the chemical name of the gas and "Msds"... I've also read that some chemistry software for ab nihilo molecule computation calculates the heat capacity. Until compared with tables, I wouldn't rely on them. "Complete" is impossible, and "reliable"... That's a human activity.

This must depend a lot on the country.

If you don't draw current, yes, sure. If you do, it depends on how much current, and what the battery's capacity is. Laptops and cell phones use already the best among existing practical battery technology. The next to come (also lithium) has the same capacity but is safer. Others are considered (by big research team with heavy budgets) but are still unusable, like lithium-air.

Graphite filament winding is simple but it may stay expensive just because it's space technology, so here are alternative materials for the flow calmer. Chromium and electroless nickel plating can be very hard. Provided some compositions aren't brittle, they could make the disks and the cylinders including stiffening corrugations. Cold-worked austenitic steel is the material I trust best. 5m wide sheets shall be hammered from an existing width, maybe 2.5m. Hammers, as long as the sheet (for instance 5m), make an affordable machine: Reducing steel from 1mm thickness and 1500MPa to 0.5mm and 2000MPa+ on 5m*3mm surface may need some 20kJ, or at 5m/s, 2 hammers of 800kg each, or a tapered section of just 0.1m*0.3m - the 0.3m shall maintain a straight impact area, which is seriously hardened. One impact per second makes a sheet in 20min; a second pass, crossed, can make the sheet more uniform. 20min at +200°C improve both the yield strength and the toughness. And I'd make a sandwich with two sheets over some balsa or foam, sure. Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy

http://detector-cooling.web.cern.ch/Detector-Cooling/data/Table%208-3-1.htm

Hello you all! Boctane is a rocket fuel, designed to be compatible with kerosene, performing 4s better than RP-1 and 7s better than Jp10. According to http://www.freepaten...om/6415596.html it should be Cyclobutyl-Cyclobutane: I wonder: how easy is it to produce? Apparently naphthenic crude oil contain some cyclobutane, which I imagine is the difficult part of the job. How easy is it to bond to rings then? React with chlorine first, then Chloro-cyclobutane with cyclobutane? Impossible? Other ideas? And would you know its physical properties: melting - flash - boiling points, density? Reliable information for its heat of formation perhaps? http://www.propulsio...ermo/thermo.inp gives +55,1kJ/mol, I estimate +35,4kJ/mol instead. Thanks!

Enrich cooling water with tritium: Tritium reacts with deuterons. Tritium-neutron reaction isn't considered. The other drawback is that everyone lacks tritium, which is very slow to produce. You'll get richer by adding deuterium in cooling water and filtering out tritium than consuming the scarce tritium. ITER: A liquid wall is feasible provide the liquid flows quickly within a curved wall. It has been proposed but has some drawbacks. Anyway, neutron irradiation produces radioisotopes which are truly radioactive and this is a huge worry. Tokamak designers "hope" (computational models) to have materials whose radioactivity will decrease within a century, but that's all. Worse: tritium regeneration must be done at the tokamak, it needs a neutron multiplier which is lead, and lead irradiation by fast neutrons would be as dirty as uranium fission at identical power: http://saposjoint.ne...php?f=66&t=2450 and I have only checked very few reactions. A liquid inner face won't have the structural difficulties but it must be reprocessed to separate unwanted nuclides. One should also check its vapour pressure, and contamination of the plasma.

Plain or hydrodynamic bearings would dissipate much. Computed after Dubbel, Taschenbuch für den Maschinenbau, chapter Gleitlagerungen, pages G97 and G187. Two horizontal bearings have L=0.3m, D=0.3m+0.5mm, oil is 9mPa*s thin. Having given the 80t flywheel the form of a slower D=5m tore helps, but the bearings dissipate 30kW together, or in 10h 18% of the stored energy. -------------------------------------------------------------------- In June 2011, as Japan lacks peak capacity for electricity production, a first storage plant using batteries has been decided, to receive excess electricity at night and release it during day peak. Flywheels would be several times cheaper than the battery gross prices I found. -------------------------------------------------------------------- This hydrostatic bearing with vertical axis improves losses. The 80t toroid has OD=5m ID=3.8m h=1.2m, whose slow 392m/s = 174rd/s = 27,8Hz also reduce losses. The axial bearing is at the centreline and the piston and cylinder have no sealing ring. 700b on tiny D=120mm (not drawn to scale!) lift the wheel; a nonreturn valve allows for vertical overload during a seism and gentle landing on an emergency bearing (not represented). If the piston is centred by the adjusted lower roll bearing, 30µm radius clearance over 40mm hydraulic fitting, combined with 55mPa*s oil, lose 3kW in the leak and 3kW in the torque, or over 10h 3.5% of the stored energy. On the right figure, a smaller clearance permits lighter oil, which reduces losses. For that: A surrounding chamber equalizes the pressure on the inner cylinder so it deforms little; The hydrostatic bearing can follow the shaft's lateral movements. 12 vertical parallel rods of d=12mm L=300mm pull it and allow 50µm to the sides with some 100N force; Sensors (maybe capacitive) can detect the relative position and (maybe piezoelectric) lateral actuators centre the cylinder around the axle. Now 10µm radius clearance over 5mm fitting and 39mPa*s oil lose 800W in the leak and 800W in the torque, or over 10h 0.9% of the stored energy. I prefer this hydrostatic bearing to the usable magnetic bearing I described elsewhere. Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy -------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll bearings must be oversized to live long, but losses of usual parts are already good . Here I don't apply the standard life expectancy model that varies like load power 10/3, but use instead the "wear limit load" given by SKF and compute losses with their applet: http://www.skf.com/s...d=&action=Calc5 One NNCF 5048 CV per side lifts 390kN each. Maximum 1000rpm impose a wheel of D=8.4m, undesired, and no fair play. With an oil viscosity of 6.6mm2/s, loss is 27N*m or 2.8kW per bearing, the pair summing over 10h 3.3% of the stored energy. Better: several smaller bearings at each shaft end accept more rmp and reduce the loss torque. This wins the 5m wheel back at identical power loss. It needs added hardware to align the bearings and share the load, like spherical caps working similarly to bogies. And now, running the shaft on a big roller shall reduce losses further - it can even be a cascade, as on the right sketch. Advantages: passive and strong; easy to assemble and service; a shaft line can couple many wheels with one motor-alternator. How much does this dissipate? From contact mechanics computations, we can keep the shaft's diametre from roll bearings http://en.wikipedia....h_parallel_axes so the shaft is around 6.4 times larger than the usual rolls. The contact line is around sqrt(6.3) or 2.5 times wider, and the equivalent length of rolling resistance shall do the same at most. Then, as the big roller is supported by its smaller shaft, this loss occurs once, instead of twice at a roll bearing. The main improvement comes from the radius increased 6.4 times over the rolls. The combination cuts loss by 5. This shall bring rolling losses over 10h under 1% of the stored energy. Roll bearings need a long contact line, so the big roller would be longer than a roll bearing, and the shaft accordingly narrower - the shaft's diameter has margin and this reduces loss. Elastic bending at the shaft may become a limit, but the roller can be inclined and grinded slightly non-cylindrical. Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy -------------------------------------------------------------------- If these flywheels rotate bare in air, aerodynamic loss is huge and prohibitive. The common answer is vacuum, but feel the big chamber too expensive and unreliable, so here's the solution. Turbulent flow lets force and torque increase as the square of speed differences or even faster. By adding rotating separators in the flow, like the disks in the sketch below, I divide the flow in cells where speed differences are smaller, and this reduces the loss torque. At the wheel's outer face, concentric cylinders ("can close" at the sketch) can split the speed gap into smaller steps. A cylinder and a disks pair can't be one single part, for access inside; maybe the cylinders can be sewn at the disks. Here's a loss estimate with my flow calmer. For a wheel of OD=5m ID=3.8m L=1.11m that rotates at 28Hz = 1680/min = 177rd/s, or 440m/s at the external radius, I add per side 70 disks spaced by 5mm air. That's many disks, but composite material are cheap. Now, speed drop across the 5mm is 6.3m/s only. Air viscosity of 15mm2/s and 18.6µPa*s gives a Reynolds number Re = 2100, meaning a laminar flow. Shear constraint is then 23mPa at R=2.5m; combine with 19.6m2 and an integral coefficient of 0.5 to get a torque of 0.57N*m only. Tripling it for the other side and for the cylindrical face, the power loss is 305W, or over 10h 0.2% of the stored energy, nice. 70*5mm are in fact an exaggeration. Some bearings must hold the disks. They can run slowly between adjacent disks. In a flywheel, they would differ from the main bearings. The disks and cylinders at the flow calmer rotate fast and must resist the same centrifugal acceleration as the flywheel itself. Fibre composites, especially graphite fibres, are even better than steel at fast rotation and can produce the big thin parts rather easily. The performance gap over steel permits to use fabric or crossed unidirectional layers laid down and overlapped. A stronger product would result from filament winding, which can even leave a hole at the centre but lose no strength. A sandwich, or a non-flat shape, can increase the parts' stiffness. And aerodynamic skis, with some elasticity, might hold the distance between the calmer's layers. I consider holding the cylinders by the disks. A circumferential rope or thin rod made of present-day fibres holds easily the centrifugal acceleration that is difficult for steel; such a rope could pass many times through the ends of a disk and a cylinder alternately, a bit like if sewing. It can be opened within a reasonable time. When producing the disks and cylinders, handles can be made for the rope, and filament winding maintains full strength there. Anyway, I don't imagine a reliable prediction of the collective stability of the flow calmer, which should be experimented early in the development. The same losses plague many rotating objects beyond flywheels, like centrifugal turbines, compressors, pumps, alternators, motors... These disks and cylinders at intermediate speed look useful there as well. Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy

Hello everybody! Flywheels have been used for long to store energy. Doing it at the scale of the power grid or even a fraction of it isn't common, and they want to: http://www.popularme...ry/4337758.html but their wheel of carbon fibre is (too) expensive, and I suggest steel instead - very strong steel. Maraging steel is too expensive, but a disk of dirt-cheap S960MC could rotate at 412m/s+20%. Better yet: spring steel. Cheap silicon makes it martensitic (the aim of quenching) at any thickness. At 1200MPa only, a cylinder can rotate at 555m/s and a tore at 492m/s, storing much energy. Because spring steel stays martensitic it can't be machined in a softer austenitic condition and quenched thereafter. The Ovako 477solves it with a very long annealing that precipitates much carbon, leaving a softer matrix for machining; then a short annealing dissolves the carbon to harden. Alternately, I imagine a turning machine could be installed at the forge, and machine the flywheel right after forging, when it's still hot - present tools do like hot chips. Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy -------------------------------------------------------------------- This subject was posted there beginning Wed Nov 25, 2009 , but it's messy: http://saposjoint.ne...php?f=66&t=1974 here it shall be clearer and shorter. More to come. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The procurement cost of flywheels makes them very seducing, even when compared to power plants consuming fossil energy, provided my estimate is sensible. A 1300MW peak power plant costs about 2€/W or 2.6G€ (gas less, nuclear more), but only produces a mean 1000MW over a day, because demand peaks for <4h, and drops down to 700MW for <4h. Storing only 300MW * 4h energy lets build a 1000MW plant instead of 1300MW, or rather 10 plants instead of 13, and also run the plants near full power where efficiency improves. As an example, I take small flywheels of 80t, or D=2.4m L=2.25m cylinders of spring steel, still movable on roads: usual truck size, more tyres. A pair costs 240k€ and, at 555m/s, stores 12GJ. One common alternator-motor and electronics for 850kW *4h shall cost 200k€. Four hydrodynamic bearings are estimated at 50k€. A concrete pit houses the unit for 30k€ and contains the wheels if the bearings fail - excellent idea though not mine. Transport and installation are to cost 60k€. Summing to 570k€, the flywheel storage costs 0.7€/W - far less than the production plant. Few units smooth the consumption of a factory, a hospital... At a big power plant, 300MW fluctuation would need 350 of the small flywheel units; on a 10m*5m pattern they take only 50m*150m, less than the plant itself, and the pits' surface can have other uses. For such a big storage, the flywheels would be forged, turned and ground on the site, so they're bigger, and more wheels couple with one alternator-motor: cheaper. Earth's rotation creates a tiny gyroscopic moment allowing any flywheel orientation. A vertical axis would simplify the bearings, but a horizontal axis makes seism-proof design easier and is expandable. In times when peak demand exceeds the available supply (Japan now), the flywheels limit blackouts. Full operation immediately after a seism would make the flywheels a praised emergency supply. For railways and underground, a bigger alternator-motor would provide more power over a shorter time - classical use. Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Iwate-Miyagi earthquake reached 4.36g (single component). http://en.wikipedia....ble_earthquakes No huge and expensive dampers to mitigate the tremor: I prefer oversized bearings (here only a symbolic representation) and a stiff construction, where the flywheel, the motor-alternator, and all bearings move together. A pit (not my idea, but a good one) is to hold the shrapnel in bad cases; it also anchors well the aggregate in the soil. Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy --------------------------------------------------------------------

The closest to what you describe is called Magnetized Target Fusion. This company wants to develop such a reactor: http://www.generalfusion.com/ by browsing its website, you can find a description of the previous attempts as well. Some technological suggestions, meant to overcome the difficulties at their hammers, are there http://www.sciencefo...-target-fusion/

A scroll compressor was used as a motor - with tiny power! - in gas meters. Very little pressure drop is allowed there, and the scroll combined desirable features: low friction but tight enough smooth and silent movement over decades materials compatible with natural gas parts easily made by plastic injection you can guess that reciprocating pistons couldn't replace it, nor could a rotary vane pump. A Roots or a gear pump maybe, but they're more difficult to produce. The only competitor then was a gas turbine, with the easily running bearings being the difficulty. Now, if you want to produce a big mechanical power from compressed air, you must check the stress and deformation of the parts, how the seals will work and how much they wear... and this leaves little choice. For instance, only the Wankel emerged are a rotary internal combustion engine because Mr. Wankel solved the seals problem.

And because blade tips move much faster (almost 100m/s) than the harvested wind (15m/s) they do use all the swathed area. In fact, blades are built to run fast so that they need little material to swath the huge necessary area. As well, it allows to use moderate wind but resist storms just by tilting the blades. These are the big advantages of modern turbines, with narrow blades covering a big area. Presently, wind turbines are at Betz's limit (or even little above, because this limit is approximative), which proves they don't waste area at their tip. So they wouldn't need to be wider near the shaft to harvest wind there; I believe to understand they must be thicker at their root to resist the bending moment, and their width only improves streaming around this big thickness. It's the drawback of blades running faster than the wind: their lifting force increases a lot and exceeds the useful forward force by a big factor - for instance because the blades run nearly flat. The resulting moment stresses the blades near the shaft, and the lifting (=downwind) force stresses the bearings and the pole.

That's an excellent beginning. Perhaps the first cause for heat of formation are the individual bonds between the atoms. Oxygen bonded to carbon or hydrogen releases much heat, but to nitrogen little. And nitrogen bonds best with itself in N2. The you have strain within the molecules, for instance in cyclopropane, diasterane, stellane... You may - or not - view multiple bonds as a special case of strained bonds. Resonances lower the heat of formation, like in benzene or guanidine. Steric hindrance increases the heat of formation, but not much, and highly hindered molecules tend not to exist or be difficult to synthesize. Important to energetic compounds is that stability is loosely linked with heat of formation. Cubane for instance is quite stable. ----- If you study energetic compounds, please convince yourself that rocket propellants have nothing to do with explosives. Using hundreds of tons of propellants is dangerous enough that rockets want very safe propellants. Explosives, even little sensitive like nitromethane, are excluded, and people think twice and thrice before using hydrogen peroxide. Components that polymerize, like ethylene, are excluded as well. Rockets strongly prefer compounds with a flash well above a sunny day. And toxic compounds like hydrazine and its parents are being suppressed currently. As a consequence, mono-propellants (like nitromethane) aren't used on rockets nor spacecraft, only on paper. And once you've several propellants, you get more reaction heat by putting C, H and sometimes N and Al in the fuel, and all O in the oxidizer. Exotic propellants like NF3, F-Cl-O combinations and the like, are all abandoned. Beware most documents and books are historic, and much Internet frenzy (propyne...) is personal work that was never used. As well, launchers to space have different requirements (performance through liquids) than missiles (readiness through solids). Missile propellants are more varied, launcher propellants have boiled down to 4 combinations presently. Which doesn't mean progress has ended: we need strained hydrocarbons, stable and cheap; non-toxic replacements for methylhydrazine, quickly pyrophoric with N2O4 and efficient and cheap; non-toxic replacements for N2O4 and efficient and cheap; solids better than Al+polybutadiene+NH4ClO4.

Your battery would produce a strong and long-lasting current, or flow of electrons, not only a potential quickly vanished as in typical experiments with electrostatic toys. Send this current in an electric motor to rotate the fan. Up to now, all efficient motors use a magnetic field to produce a "Lorenz force" (Wiki) in a conductor where a current flows. This has made electric machines possible historically. My electrostatic alternator-motor is an alternative (or at least I believe it...). This way hadn't been taken for a century, as it looks. http://saposjoint.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=1684 But I didn't check if it's any usable for a fan. Normal air isn't the very good insulator my machine prefers. On dam alternators we can afford vacuum, on wind turbines a liquid insulator, on boat propeller pods a high-pressure special gas; in a fan I imagine only air. Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy

The design of a trimmer is difficult because they have a huge desire to oscillate. Especially if you put a control surface, or a trimmer, behind its hinge, it does oscillate for sure - seen it myself. Stabilizing it requires at least a counterweight before the hinge. And with a broken jackscrew, the trimmer may well flutter to disintegration anyway.

Frequency sum or difference, which would increase the wavelength as queried. Difference is less commonly used because many sources of light, especially lasers, operate in the near IR or visible spectrum and users (DVD, lithography...) want visible or UV light, so frequency doublers or triplers fit. Difference is used in some receivers (Lidar, a light Radar) to convert input light down to radio frequency signals for detailed processing. It was also used recently to produce permanent THz waves, from a frequency difference between far-IR light sources which were Quantum Cascade Lasers. Sum, difference, multiplication need a non-linear material, which isn't very common at convenient light intensity. Some crystals behave like this, with the polarization varying as the field squared for instance (cubed is more common, as crystals are often symmetric). Then, if you input cos(wA*t)+cos(wB*t), the square introduces a term cos(wA*t)*cos(wB*t) which is mathematically cos[(wA+wB)*t] and cos[(wA-wB)*t], with the special case wA=wB being a frequency doubler. A cube would introduce 2*wA+-wB and triple frequencies. This all needs fields not too small as compared with molecular polarization, far more than usual light intensity. So non-linear crystal are best placed within a fibre, or within a laser cavity. Because the effect sums up over many atoms, over a macroscopic length, all contributions must be in phase, which would require the same (simplifying) phase speed at all interesting frequencies: uncommon. At even higher intensities, green or infra-red light can ionize nitrogen from air despite the photon energy is too small. The expression "multi-photon absorption" was coined for it, and people don't ask how this is compatible with quantum mechanics - just as I did with my cosines. You can also consider the Raman effect as an optical non-linearity. To my knowledge, experiments searching for any tiny non-linearity of vacuum found none.

It takes much energy only to cover a wide area. Local-effect EMP weapons fit in a suitcase and store energy in capacitors. Surge protectors do defeat an EMP when the field is low enough that destructive voltages appear only on external lines. At few 10m, a suitcase-size EMP weapon produces a field that destroys even components within a silicon chip, so overvoltage protection would work only at 100m from the weapon. More at the other thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59234-electromagnetic-pulse/page__gopid__622655#entry622655

Nuclear bombs in the upper atmosphere were just the first historical means to produce an EMP. Unlikely to be used in a limited conflict or during peace. Present weapons produce a more local EMP, very strong. Those operated for decades use a chemical explosive to deform some metal foil or tube within a magnetic field, whose induction surges as its area is squeezed by the smashed conductor. They can be a warhead in a bomb, as the one used by the USAF against Al Jazeera in Bagdad. More recent but probably operational weapons use electric circuits that aren't destroyed each time. A Marx generator is just a low-tech possibility; fast power MOS switches (combined) can even produce the necessary power and rise time. These generators have an antenna, often separated from the electronics. It is easy enough that an enlightened hobbyist can build one. Depending on the field produced, only sensitive components (electronics) connected to a long line (antenna, power mains, phone line...) are destroyed, or sensitive components without a line (even within a silicon chip) or insensitive components (transformers) connected to a line. These weapons are so real that warfare equipment is designed since 2+ decades to survive it. And it takes heavy methods. Because an EMP generator using electronic components is small and banal (a suitcase) it's a first-choice weapon for spooks, so civilian targets like airliners would better be hardened against them. Very few years ago, a company wanted to equip the police with such weapons to stop cars, but the risk of accident and collateral damage was probably too high. And two Italian towns witnessed destructions of electric equipment that are very strong hints to the use of EMP weapons.

Steel wheels produce very little drag, far less than a wing, even with ground effect. In a train, the biggest drag is from the air flow (and the brakes' cooling!), so the proposed short train would consume much more power per passenger. The only advantage I see is that at seriously high speed, ground effect accepts a track not as perfect as a rail must be. Then, the story with Solar panels and wind turbines is decoupled from the train. They produce expensive electricity, whether on a train track or on a house's roof. And you could install them at any train track.

A transmitter is supposed to radiate, this is not the consequence of a defect! As computer hardware is always very poorly designed, you do have troubles. This is where improvement must be done. Yes, shielding. Aluminium foil is a good start. Connect it to the computer's box as shortly as possible. Capacitors are an other action, probably to be combined with the shield.