Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Professor Mega-Mind on 06/09/2018 02:11:02
-
☆For compressed version - Pg. 5
** Steam-Punk Engine
Can an Impulse Engine be made.
In a nutshell , yes ! The real question is ; can a strong , extremely high ISP (above 50K) reaction engine , be built ? No nuclear-thermal , or ion engines , fit the bill . They fall short on at least one count . Nuclear- explosion engines (including pellet) are impractical , & fusion is a pipe dream . What is needed is a nuclear-mechanical drive . This would be a nuclear-powered high pressure system , fielding 1 million psi.+ , & yielding exhaust velocities approaching 1M mph ! The pressure-chamber would be held at 250°F . This would keep the methane liquid, but the metal strong . Solar power& capacitors could be used , but compact nuclear reactors would be much more powerful & effective . High power/efficiency would enable much more shielding , & much shorter transit times . Very long electro-thermal exhaust pipes would magnify the exhaust velocity. Coiled versions would work for SSTO shuttles . This propulsion architecture would give mankind the Solar system right off the bat .
As the cartoon character used to say ; " Oh Magoo , you've done it again ! ". P.M.
**Note : Bypass pg. 4 .**
__________________________________
》Compare/contrast systems at : What is the best spaceship design?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74813.new;topicseen#new
> Also <
NSF. thread : How does rocket-thrust work in the vacuum of space?
Link at 28976.0 .
My replies begin at # 12 .
》My post #1 : quora.com/How-do-impulse-engines-work/answer/Derek-Hendricks-7?ch
-
The pressure-chamber would be held at 250°F . This would keep the methane liquid, but the metal strong .
Methane cannot be a liquid at 250 degrees Fahrenheit. That's above its critical temperature.
A nuclear fission rocket engine was developed and successfully tested back in the 60's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA
-
Ah Mr. Kryptid , what a pleasure to hear you again !
Normally that would be the case , but at 1 Million + psi the CH4 will turn to hot ice , below ~250F°. You would then need to shovel it like coal !
Please critique further , 2.5 heads is better than 1.5 . P.M.
-
Normally that would be the case , but at 1 Million + psi the CH4 will turn to hot ice , below ~250F°.
"Hot ice" is not a liquid.
You would then need to shovel it like coal !
How is a person going to surviving in a 1 million psi environment to shovel it? Also, existing rocket combustion chambers operate between 150 to 3,000 psi (even the NERVA nuclear rocket had a nominal.chamber pressure of 450 psi). How do you propose building an engine to withstand beyond 1,000,000 psi without making it excessively thick and heavy?
-
Good points , manly-man !
If I let it go from liquid to ice , it would clog up & go boom ! Also , it damned sure better be real heavy ; the reinforcement necessary for that much pressure is huge . Only someone standing behind the engine exhaust would experience it's rediculous power , it is meant for a large , SSTO spaceplane . Let us measure ; One 200MW SMR - 40 ft. X 20 ft. by 20 ft. . One Nuclear
Compression Drive - 20ft.X20ft.X 20ft. . One 4,000gal. LNG tank - 10 ft. X 10ft. X 20ft. .
Craft size - Venture Star class .
Gross Take-Off Weight - 500k lbs.
Launch locations - Remote .
OK , spread the good mews ! P.M.
-
Good points , manly-man !
If I let it go from liquid to ice , it would clog up & go boom ! Also , it damned sure better be real heavy ; the reinforcement necessary for that much pressure is huge . Only someone standing behind the engine exhaust would experience it's rediculous power , it is meant for a large , SSTO spaceplane . Let us measure ; One 100MW SMR - 40 ft. X 20 ft. by 20 ft. . One Nuclear
Compression Drive - 20ft.X20ft.X 20ft. . One 4,000gal. LNG tank - 10 ft. X 10ft. X 20ft. .
Craft size - Venture Star class .
Gross Take-Off Weight - 500k lbs.
Launch locations - Remote .
OK , spread the good mews ! P.M.
Where are you getting these numbers from? What method did you use to calculate the spacecraft's weight? How did you calculate the exhaust velocity? Did you calculate how much thrust would be produced? More importantly, is the resulting thrust-to-weight ratio high enough to get the ship into space? Is it demonstrably better than prior nuclear rocket technologies like NERVA? How would you get it past the political issues that prevented nuclear rockets from being sent to space in the first place?
-
Mista Kryptid , all numbers used are extrapolations based upon known facts , figures ,& databases. Exhaust velocity, for example, is based on many tables of pressure vs escape velocity , including things like rupturing hi-pressure vessels . The important thing is to recognize the non-linear nature of the relationship, and extrapolate accordingly . Weights of high-powered SMRs w/partial shielding, no pressure-vessel, & light-weight components should total ~100klbs w/o radiators .
200MWshould net ~100klbs of thrust .
The 5 to 1 power/weight ratio is aerospace standard . The craft should T.O. & climb quite well , picking up speed steadily , until it exceeds Mach 24 ( O.V. ) . ISP would be ~50 times SSME .
The political issues would be mitigated by having it travel over the ocean , not land . The modern public is much less fearful of N.- Power than in the past . It is now manageable .
Alright , space-trucking it is ! P.M.
-
Please show your math (especially for the claim that your design has a specific impulse 100 times that of NERVA).
-
Cliff Notes
SSME pressure : 4,000 psi.
Exhaust Velocity : 10,000 mph
Heavy gas cylinder : 10,000 psi.
Rupture Ex. Velocity : 30,000 mph
*relatively wide throat allows more layered exhaust & higher velocities.
extrapolating for lightweight CH4 yields 1M.mph at 1M.psi .
Okay , done for day !..................P.M.
-
Cliff Notes
SSME pressure : 4,000 psi.
Exhaust Velocity : 10,000 mph
Heavy gas cylinder : 10,000 psi.
Rupture Ex. Velocity : 30,000 mph
*relatively wide throat allows more layered exhaust & higher velocities.
extrapolating for lightweight CH4 yields 1M.mph at 1M.psi .
Okay , done for day !..................P.M.
And what equation(s) did you use to turn those numbers into an exhaust velocity of 1 million miles per hour and a specific impulse of 82,500?
-
Graph , and extrapolate for ballpark
-
Graph , and extrapolate for ballpark
That tells me nothing as to the accuracy of your numbers. You've got to give us more than that to work with.
-
Who is us ? You & Gunter Zoloff ?
If you must have a formula , try Navier-Stokes: `m`=pA♤T/z .
My process is extrapolation from known values . I will show it here step-by-step .
Step 1 : Sample a multitude of rocket systems . Note chamber pressures , throat diameters , gas densities , and flow velocities .
Step 2: Sample hi-pressure vessel ruptures . Note pressure , hole size, gas density , and escape velocities.
Step 3 : Establish P/V pattern .
Step 4 : Extrapolate from 10k.psi to 1 Million psi .
Step 5 : Compensate for lighter weight methane reaction mass .
Step 6 : Calculate for different pressure chamber orifice sizes .
Conclusion : Large orifice sizes should yield ~1Mmph. @ 1M.psi. , ISP ~45k.sec. , thrust ~25M.lbs. .
Smaller orifice sizes would greatly reduce these values , but electrothermal " afterburners " would greatly increase them .
Alright,it's an aerospacepropulsion breakthrough !
I will take your congrats. now . P.M.
-
Who is us ? You & Gunter Zoloff ?
Anyone else who happens to read this thread.
If you must have a formula , try Navier-Stokes: `m`=pA♤T/z .
My process is extrapolation from known values . I will show it here step-by-step .
Step 1 : Sample a multitude of rocket systems . Note chamber pressures , throat diameters , gas densities , and flow velocities .
Step 2: Sample hi-pressure vessel ruptures . Note pressure , hole size, gas density , and escape velocities.
Step 3 : Establish P/V pattern .
Step 4 : Extrapolate from 10k.psi to 1 Million psi .
Step 5 : Compensate for lighter weight methane reaction mass .
Step 6 : Calculate for different pressure chamber orifice sizes .
Conclusion : Large orifice sizes should yield ~1Mmph. @ 1M.psi. , ISP ~45k.sec. , thrust ~25M.lbs. .
Smaller orifice sizes would greatly reduce these values , but electrothermal " afterburners " would greatly increase them .
Alright,it's an aerospacepropulsion breakthrough !
I will take your congrats. now . P.M.
Telling me "it's such-and-such because I extrapolated" is meaningless because that doesn't tell me if it is accurate. I don't know if your interpretation of the graphs and numbers are even correct. Show me those very same graphs and/or equations that you used to get your numbers. I want to see each and every step in the math that you used to get from your starting assumptions to your final numbers.
-
Yaah mahn , Ya needs an aerospace engineer mahn ! I'm a system designer , not a rocket scientist.I never had the patience ta crunch formulas like dat ! I tell you whut , why don't you put on dem sneaks , ahnd chase down da nearest pencil-on-da-ear nerd walkin' down da street , cuz I not be wone , cuz ! 10 gits ya one my numbas be ballpark dough !
Adios , #s jockey !...............P.M.
-
Yaah mahn , Ya needs an aerospace engineer mahn ! I'm a system designer , not a rocket scientist.I never had the patience ta crunch formulas like dat ! I tell you whut , why don't you put on dem sneaks , ahnd chase down da nearest pencil-on-da-ear nerd walkin' down da street , cuz I not be wone , cuz ! 10 gits ya one my numbas be ballpark dough !
Adios , #s jockey !...............P.M.
So in other words, you have no idea if your claims are valid.
-
I'm sure , buut , you not be sure !
Just track down a graduate student and give him/her this thread . Have them run realistic #s through the relevant equations . Then You'll be sure . Adios , P.M.
-
I be sure , buut , you not be sure ! Just track down a graduate student and give him/her this thread . Have them run realistic #s through the relevant equations . Then You'll be sure . Adios , P.M.
It's not up to us to prove or disprove your claims. That's your job. So far, you have not done so. All you have done is said that you got your results by extrapolations. You think we are just going to take your word for it?
-
What is needed is a nuclear-mechanical drive . This would be a nuclear-powered high pressure system , fielding 1 million psi.+ , & yielding exhaust velocities approaching 1M mph ! The pressure-chamber would be held at 250°F .
No.
To get high exhaust velocities, you need high temperature differences (Carnot efficiency rules these kinds of situations). Pressure is helpful to allow you to make use of very high temperatures, but makes no difference on its own.
-
You are thinking of combustion-powered projectiles , I am using a continuing shockwave . Their velocity is definitely pressure-driven . Combustion is so weak !
-
Maybe you should draw a diagram of this engine of yours. I am having trouble visualizing how it is supposed to work.
-
Otay , Imagine if you will...
A hi-pressure gas cylinder . Mount it upside-down , attach gas supply lines thru the sides , pump in 1 M. psi. , attach your harness to it , then take a sledgehammer and knock the valve assembly off and "get ready for a surpriise!" , yeeehaaw !!
-
Otay , Imagine if you will...
A hi-pressure gas cylinder . Mount it upside-down , attach gas supply lines thru the sides , pump in 1 M. psi. , attach your harness to it , then take a sledgehammer and knock the valve assembly off and "get ready for a surpriise!" , yeeehaaw !!
So where does the "continuing shock wave" come into that?
-
The hoses are rediculously long, so the 1 Mil.psi. is maintained , ergo ; an infinity of mega-shock-waves ! Hole size will determine mass flow & ex.velocity . Also , the P/V graphic relationship is a ginormous parabola . You will travel in one too !
Nyuck , nyuck , nyuck ! P.M.
-
You are thinking of combustion-powered projectiles , I am using a continuing shockwave . Their velocity is definitely pressure-driven . Combustion is so weak !
Carnot is not to be so easily circumvented.
What's the peak temperature at the shockwave, and what's the exhaust temperature?
-
~300F° in pressure chamber , thermal-energy drops in direct proportion to increase in volume . Can either have very short pipe dumping straight to low pressure , or very long pipe with massive electro-thermal induction , for increased efficiency . This would be much easier for small flow rates , being somewhat like a jet engine that keeps heating the exhaust gases ever hotter , hopefully all the way to plasma .
Okeley-dokeley , must propulsion my vehicle . P.M.
-
An engine that only reaches a peak of 300F is inevitably horribly inefficient. The laws of thermodynamics cannot be circumvented; you're trying to turn a hot fluid into a fast fluid, that's a heat engine. You seem to be unaware that high pressures do not raise the speed of sound in fluids- and fluids leave an orifice at only sonic speeds (supersonic speeds, if the orifice has an expansion nozzle as well).
Very high pressure engines enjoy plenty of thrust, but the exhaust velocity and efficiency is not in any way raised due to that. For that you need high temperatures.
-
You are right , mahn . I forgot the Post-chamber , where the liquid is superheated , THEN exhausted ,possibly into another Post-chamber , etc. . The end result is a superheated gas stream released at somewhat less than the initial 1 Mi.psi .
Hadn't thought of this branch in years . P.M.
-
FYI the problem with most engines isn't the low exhaust velocity- velocities can trivially be made arbitrarily large, even lightspeed (photon rocket). The problem is getting very high exhaust velocity at the same time you get very high thrust. That implies extremely, ridiculously high power. Normal rockets give you that because the nozzle doesn't directly touch most of the flow. But if you're trying to heat a flow electrically to raise the temperature then you've got to build electrical stuff with very high power/weight ratio. This is beyond the state of the art.
-
Yes , the laminar flow issue is a fundamental limiter , it imposes size/efficiency parameters . The rest is an engineering challenge , similar to early jet engine development . Sounds like an opporknockity for someone , I am willing to coach .
》
Note : Injecting that much heat by conduction is beyond the state of the art , but could be accomplished by microwave injection .
P.M.
-
It's not an opportunity unless you have a plan that can actually achieve it.
-
Eeek ! Money required ! I feel like Nikolai ! "The world is a vampire !"
Seriously though , there have got to be organizations out there that could use an actual Impulse Drive . Didn't you think the Shuttle sucked ?
P.M.
-
Design Clarification
The Carnot critique is valid . In addition to being released under tremendous pressure , the LNG must be raised to very high temperature as it travels down the reheat tube ( afterburner ) . The tube must be very long , so that as the liquid bursts from the pressure chamber , the thermal energy (microwave) injection causes it to phase-change to a supercritical fluid , then a superheated gas , & then a plasma . All of the while , the initial burst velocity is maintained/increased by the un-believably extreme (10s of thousands of times ) expansion of the highly compressed LNG into superheated plasma . The "afterburner" does not have to withstand as much pressure as the pressure-chamber , but it does have to withstand very high temperatures .
The very-long reheat tube would likely require gas-turbine type active-cooling mechanisms . High-pressure reinforcement would also be necessary .
In the end , the unbelievable efficiency of this propulsion package would come from the astounding energy-density of nuclear fuel . The nuclear power-plant would be the "engine" , and the high-pressure drive would be the "transmission " .
Unbelievable isn't it ? A practical Impulse Drive . I welcome any quantitative analysis ...........P.M.
-
Can a relativistic exhaust (.99c) be generated by near-future ,
accelerator-type , propulsion mechanisms ? Does such an "Impulse Engine" give us the stars?
P.M.
-
Accelerating an electron up to 99% the speed of light would give that electron a kinetic energy of about 3.11 MeV. Using plasma accelerator technology, we can already accelerate electrons to more than a GeV in a space of a few centimeters. So that particular aspect of such a thruster would be no problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_acceleration
However, when I take a look at such lasers as BELLA (which was used in a plasma accelerator), the pulse used to accelerate the electrons had only 42.2 joules of energy and lasted for only 40 femtoseconds. If you had the entire BELLA laser apparatus and its powerplant in space, no doubt those electrons it accelerated with a mere 42.2 joules of energy would produce pitiful acceleration. I'm somewhat doubtful that current technology could scale that level of power up in a practical manner without also arbitrarily increasing the mass of the system. I would need more information to be sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BELLA_(laser)
-
I'm thinking massive amounts of plasma at above .99c . However , I am questing for near-future capabilities . You are right about today's . Performance parameters are of particular interest . The public really wants believable avenues to the heavens , let's give'em what they want !
P.M. .
Note : Such an engine would be called an accelerator-engine .
-
The public really wants believable avenues to the heavens , let's give'em what they want !
Does that mean you are going to stop posting stuff that's not believable?
-
I believe in reaction engines , and positive effort , not sniping .
P.M.
-
I believe in reaction engines , and positive effort , not sniping .
D.
Last week you believed that the conservation of momentum didn't work.
If reality does not agree with your beliefs, it isn't because reality made a mistake.
Explaining that you need to learn stuff before you can make useful progress is common sense, not sniping.
-
Look , I saw a supposedly unbeatable battleship of a problem , proclaimed "Damn the torpedoes , full speed ahead !" . I then strapped on a steel helmet , launched myself at it max-force , and made a dent . Meanwhile , the nay-sayers did nothing to help . Now I tackle a different problem . I'd prefer that the negatives back off , and make room for other people to contribute , in a positive environment . Let’s not hear any more personal BS , then maybe the readers will feel more comfortable participating in this thread . Got it ?
P.
-
..............Basic Propulsion .
If we continuously eject 3/1000 of a pound of reaction mass per.sec. at .95c , we can propel a 1Mlb. ship at .1g almost indefinitely . This yields a velocity of 1M.mph in just 4.5 DAYS , with minimal fuel consumption to boot . This BEGINNING level of performance gives us the entire solar system with ease . A compact nuclear reactor could easily provide the necessary energy , a high-volume accelerator-ejector could produce the thrust .
The caveat here is that as your exhaust velocity approaches c. , it's relativistic mass increases exponentially . You get more and more thrust from ejecting the same amount of reaction mass ! You could actually reach .1c w/out having to carry too much reaction mass and tankage at all !
The stellar neighborhood is most definitely within reach , Stro-nuts respond !
.....P.M.
-
There's no doubt that nuclear propulsion would greatly exceed chemical propulsion in performance. Russia is currently doing research in this area: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_tests_nuclear_propulsion_spacecrafts_key_element_999.html
-
They have done some impressive Research & Development . I just don't want to see any more levitating helicopters !
P.
-
Its all about "why not".
If the science exists, so does the tech.
"one hell of a complicated scenario"
-
An impulse engine can be made.
But, its not in contemporary science.
-
What's an Impulse Engine ? If it is a rocket with an ISP of a billion , I will call it that !
P.
-
Its gold, its someone who has faced gold and its gold.
-
The golden ratio of time.....I thought it would have this effect......
-
Gold is good.
-
(I was a preacher)
-
What's an Impulse Engine ? If it is a rocket with an ISP of a billion , I will call it that !
P.
-
What's an Impulse Engine ? If it is a rocket with an ISP of a billion , I will call it that !
P.
What are you investing in? Good or bad?
-
Bad looks good, right?
-
I'm with human , human is good !
P.
-
All of what I have found with science wants a bang.
The opposite is quite silent.
And silent seems more disturbing than the bang.
Can you explain that?
-
The ancient questions ; what of the beginning/end , and how ?
I am no theologian , but I sense some form of eternity .
Worlds without end , and no two the same .
It is beyond this mortal instrument .
...P.M.
-
What's an Impulse Engine ? If it is a rocket with an ISP of a billion , I will call it that !
Everyone else is calling it BS.
-
The toughest thing in the world will always be accepting the responsibility of what we deem the simplest and most natural of things. Why should science be any different?
-
Potty-training for planet-hopping technologists ?
P.
-
(I was a preacher)
Please keep your posts relevant to the thread and don’t daisychain posts in other people’s topics - you have posted a run of 7 posts in 15mins - edit your last post rather than create multiple posts.
Daisychain posts are often deleted, if you don’t want to lose them go back and put them all into one post. Posts which are not relevant to a thread are often deleted as trolling.
-
Apologies.
The point I am making, briefly, is that an impulse engine can be made, yet we need to think outside the square, and that means sacrificing a few long held "beliefs", one of which is central to "negative energy", namely the idea of "anti-matter", the other is the BBT. The BBT sets an incorrect stage I think that requires more faith and less science, and thus sacrifices scientific thought which could otherwise be spent on outside the square projects/research.
Impulse engine proposals, like warp drive, depend on "negative energy" so the problem is "anti-particles" being used as a theory to explain away "negative energy":
The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles with negative energy. It was first postulated by the British physicist Paul Dirac in 1930[1] to explain the anomalous negative-energy quantum states predicted by the Dirac equation for relativistic electrons.[2] The positron, the antimatter counterpart of the electron, was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea, well before its experimental discovery in 1932.[nb 1]
Upon solving the free Dirac equation,
i ℏ ∂ Ψ ∂ t = ( c α ^ ⋅ p ^ + m c 2 β ^ ) Ψ , {\displaystyle i\hbar {\frac {\partial \Psi }{\partial t}}=(c{\hat {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}}\cdot {\hat {\boldsymbol {p}}}+mc^{2}{\hat {\beta }})\Psi ,}
one finds[3]
Ψ p λ = N ( U ( c σ ^ ⋅ p ) m c 2 + λ E p U ) exp [ i ( p ⋅ x − ε t ) / ℏ ] 2 π ℏ 3 , {\displaystyle \Psi _{\mathbf {p} \lambda }=N\left({\begin{matrix}U\\{\frac {(c{\hat {\boldsymbol {\sigma }}}\cdot {\boldsymbol {p}})}{mc^{2}+\lambda E_{p}}}U\end{matrix}}\right){\frac {\exp[i(\mathbf {p} \cdot \mathbf {x} -\varepsilon t)/\hbar ]}{{\sqrt {2\pi \hbar }}^{3}}},}
where
ε = ± E p , E p = + c p 2 + m 2 c 2 , λ = sgn ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon =\pm E_{p},\quad E_{p}=+c{\sqrt {\mathbf {p} ^{2}+m^{2}c^{2}}},\quad \lambda =\operatorname {sgn} \varepsilon }
for plane wave solutions with 3-momentum p. This is a direct consequence of the relativistic energy-momentum relation
E 2 = p 2 c 2 + m 2 c 4 {\displaystyle E^{2}=p^{2}c^{2}+m^{2}c^{4}}
upon which the Dirac equation is built. The quantity U is a constant 2 × 1 column vector and N is a normalization constant. The quantity ε is called the time evolution factor, and its interpretation in similar roles in, for example, the plane wave solutions of the Schrödinger equation, is the energy of the wave (particle). This interpretation is not immediately available here since it may acquire negative values. A similar situation prevails for the Klein–Gordon equation. In that case, the absolute value of ε can be interpreted as the energy of the wave since in the canonical formalism, waves with negative ε actually have positive energy Ep.[4] But this is not the case with the Dirac equation. The energy in the canonical formalism associated with negative ε is –Ep.[5]
In hole theory, the solutions with negative time evolution factors are reinterpreted as representing the positron, discovered by Carl Anderson. The interpretation of this result requires a Dirac sea, showing that the Dirac equation is not merely a combination of special relativity and quantum mechanics, but it also implies that the number of particles cannot be conserved.[6]
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea)
If warp-drive, impulse-drive, can work, there needs to be a re-evaluation of theory.
If you go to research conducted by "Eagleworks", they suffered much embarrassment owing to their supposition of contradicting the idea of conservation of momentum, and thus ignoring the idea of anti-particle theory to explain the Dirac sea. So, their research "stopped", officially it seems. Mmm.
Eagleworks links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Propulsion_Physics_Laboratory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster
In another post, (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75294.80) I explained how I am also researching the idea of resonant cavity thrusters, with interesting results. I have the magnetron, I have the magnetron launcher, I have the coaxial cable, I have the resonant cavity tube, and all of my work is based on a new theory for time. "Key" to my work though is by-passing how negative energy / Dirac sea was explained off/away with anti-particles.
-
The point I am making, briefly, is that an impulse engine can be made, yet we need to think outside the square, and that means sacrificing a few long held "beliefs", one of which is central to "negative energy", namely the idea of "anti-matter",
Antimatter is real.
https://home.cern/news/news/physics/still-making-tracks-eighty-years-positron
We have pictures
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95918/why-does-the-spiral-of-a-positron-have-a-larger-radius-than-that-of-an-electron
So your idea is wrong.
You should now stop posting about it.
Continuing to post about something which you know to be wrong is trolling.
-
The point I am making, briefly, is that an impulse engine can be made, yet we need to think outside the square, and that means sacrificing a few long held "beliefs", one of which is central to "negative energy", namely the idea of "anti-matter",
Antimatter is real.
https://home.cern/news/news/physics/still-making-tracks-eighty-years-positron
We have pictures
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95918/why-does-the-spiral-of-a-positron-have-a-larger-radius-than-that-of-an-electron
So your idea is wrong.
You should now stop posting about it.
Continuing to post about something which you know to be wrong is trolling.
Thank you for those two links. I whole-heartedly agree with those two links, and my work supports the findings of both:
paper 7, p8:
3.2 Negative energy and anti-particles
When the idea of negative energy is discussed, the idea of anti-particles cannot be ignored, as it is embedded in the current idea of negative energy. In regard to anti-particles, more specifically the positron, Dirac associated his Dirac sea full of negative energy with “anti-particles” as a theoretical model of the vacuum containing an infinite sea of particles with negative energy [12]. It was first postulated to explain the anomalous negative-energy quantum states predicted by the Dirac equation [13] for relativistic electrons The positron [14], the antimatter [15] counterpart of the electron, was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea, well before its experimental discovery in 1932.This idea was revised; although quantum field theory replaced the idea of the Dirac sea owing to the notion of anti-particles representing “real” matter, the theory presented here more accurately presents the idea of the positron as an electron that has undergone a magnetic field “flip”, the case in point regarding the relationship here between positron and electron and negative energy is a new explanation for a relativistic electron that when becoming super-massive would undergo a magnetic flip according to the phi-quantum wave-function, as according to the theory here, an idea though previously unbeknown to contemporary physics theory. The question though with this theory, as per the phi-quantum wave-function, is why would there be a magnetic flip in the electron? The thinking is that electron in reaching relativistic speeds would undergo a magnetic flip according to the phi-quantum wave-function where the wavefunction would track back on itself as though mirroring the magnetic moment of the proton in taking on the signature of a massive particle at such a relativistic speed. It’s not a remarkable concept in this phi-quantum wave-function golden ratio theory, just a part of a newly-defined process, yet a theoretical and research-based possibility to be examined in this paper. It was though a remarkable concept during the early stages of “negative energy” theory last century, albeit in the context of relativistic and quantum physics, which here in this paper has taken a different route owing to the new a-priori (golden ratio for time) put into effect. Note therefore, the “idea” of anti-particles will not be used here in the process of “negative energy gravity”.
The second link is particularly interesting, as the ratio between the movement of the electron and positron are in a golden ratio proportion. That's interesting, I think, yet its not mentioned in the article link provided.
I don't disgaree with the idea of the positron, as my quote clearly highlights, its just the idea of the entire "gambit" of anti-particles that would need to exist somehow with their particle opposite. The positron I am fine with; a relativistic electron undergone a magnetic flip, fine. No problem there.
-
This could be a slow process...
Anti protons also clearly exist We have pictures
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiO6rnfvufeAhXt4IUKHbBRDJ4Qjxx6BAgBEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencesource.com%2Farchive%2FProton-Antiproton-Collision-in-Bubble-Chamber-SS2405191.html&psig=AOvVaw0-tyrA_evmQ5hxiQ9HvwHt&ust=1542958564061025
Antimatter is real.
Your idea is wrong.
Are we going to have to run through the entire gamut of antiparticles one at a time, before you accept the very simple fact that you are wrong?
-
This could be a slow process...
Anti protons also clearly exist We have pictures
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiO6rnfvufeAhXt4IUKHbBRDJ4Qjxx6BAgBEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencesource.com%2Farchive%2FProton-Antiproton-Collision-in-Bubble-Chamber-SS2405191.html&psig=AOvVaw0-tyrA_evmQ5hxiQ9HvwHt&ust=1542958564061025
Antimatter is real.
Your idea is wrong.
Are we going to have to run through the entire gamut of antiparticles one at a time, before you accept the very simple fact that you are wrong?
No you don't have to and no I am not wrong. I present in my 5th paper the very "inference" of antiparticles the link you posted infers to, key word being "inference" of anti-protons. Have you read that article?
Here in my fifth paper, page 13:
The complicated feature here though is that on the one hand we have the “anti-particles” of the proton/neutron domain, but on the other hand the electron in occupying the “0” domain would express itself as a distinct feature “through” those antiparticle domains; the electron thus in being the central particle feature would have associated to it “6” types of generations of itself (perhaps as the “neutrino” [22] set of particles), and beyond that another “8” features, indicative of the “weak nuclear force”, once again noting that within this domain as “1/2” a quantum we would have a situation in all experimental fact of not being able to measure the exact location of any of these particles using “light” without interfering with their states of both spin and position, and perhaps even energy. Nonetheless, we end up with the following (Figure 14):
I do not ignore the idea of anti-particles, and thus the idea of the anti-proton, as my theory also states that the "inference" of their existence must exist, yet on further development of my theory the practicality of anti-particles across the entire spectrum of standard elementary particles become problematic. For instance the evidence of these anti-particles fails to present themselves in the stars.
Solutions though exist for such asymmetry: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-physicists-offer-a-solution-to-the-puzzle-of-the-origin-of-matter-in-the-universe
My second paper though deals with the Higgs boson correctly, calculates it.
This is a "new theories" section.
-
I would prefer to start a new thread on this topic, as the OP here perhaps wasn't expecting this train of thought, if that's OK with you?
If I may, the abstract of the link you last sent is as follows:
Bubble Chamber Event. Resonances last typically for a mere 10 (-23 power) s and therefore leave no discernible track in a bubble chamber. But by calculating back from the energies and angles of the particles that are detected, physicists can infer that a resonance has existed. In this picture from a bubble chamber at Berkley, an antiproton, coming from below, annihilates with a proton to produces two negative pions, a neutral pion and two positive pions. The negative pions move off to the left, the positive pions to the right, while the pi-zero is undetected. The lower pi-plus decays to a muon, the short piece of track, and then to a positron, which curls out of the picture. The information in the picture ins consistent with the lower-energy pions, the lower tracks on left and right-being the decay products of a resonance state known as the omega.
I then sent you another link about the fact these particles are not "expressed" in our reality, an article that says these particles were annihilated shortly after the theorised big bang. The "inference" there is that "they don't exist anymore, yet the idea of anti-particles "can" be constructed in a lab re. the positron by creating a relativistic electron, yet all other theoretical "anti-particles" can only be "inferred" to exist. Are we on the same page?
-
Staying relevant to the topic of impulse engines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_drive
It's pie in the sky. Using "anti-matter" that lasts I quote typically for a mere 10 (-23 power) s is not floating the boat any time soon.
I'm happy to explain how to by-pass the hope of using anti-matter to event a more realistic possibility of for instance warp-drive. The BBT is a good way to explain relativistic electrons in experimental conditions to support the "inferrence" of "other" anti-particles, below a mere 10 (-23 power) s, yet "that's not a realistic solution of theory" despite how crafty it is. Any ideas on how a new thread title should be worded?
-
I am just looking for fundamental rocketry/mechanical answers , and theories/analysis . The brain-twisters are better off in a theoretical physics thread , not confusing the issue here .
'Nuff said !
P.M.
-
That's what I thought also. No worries ;)
-
the practicality of anti-particles across the entire spectrum of standard elementary particles become problematic.
And, since, in every case where we have looked, they do actually exist, your idea is, as you put it "problematic".
Or, as I put it; your idea is wrong.
-
Perhaps Word-Salad , with a heap of Spaghetti-Logic , is a better description !
P.M.
-
the practicality of anti-particles across the entire spectrum of standard elementary particles become problematic.
And, since, in every case where we have looked, they do actually exist, your idea is, as you put it "problematic".
Or, as I put it; your idea is wrong.
Excuse me. My goodness. You're not even a physicist, right?
My quoted statement is valid.
Positrons are a natural decay process in the field of the weak nuclear force, but all other anti-particles are "very" problematic. "In other words" (and is English you're first language or science you're first field) these particles "do not predominate in reality".
Who are you to twist my words?
-
I am a scientist and have been paid to do science for long enough to pay off the mortgage.
English is my first language. My mother was an English teacher.
So there's no credible claim that I can't understand science or English. (And, the correct spelling is "your")
On the other hand, let's see what you wrote:
the practicality of anti-particles across the entire spectrum of standard elementary particles become problematic.
And, since, in every case where we have looked, they do actually exist, your idea is, as you put it "problematic".
Or, as I put it; your idea is wrong.
Excuse me. My goodness. You're not even a physicist, right?
My quoted statement is valid.
Positrons are a natural decay process in the field of the weak nuclear force, but all other anti-particles are "very" problematic. "In other words" (and is English you're first language or science you're first field) these particles "do not predominate in reality".
Who are you to twist my words?
"My goodness. You're not even a physicist, right?"
There's a hint in my pseudonym.
"My quoted statement is valid."
We can look into that...
"Positrons are a natural decay process in the field of the weak nuclear force,"
Yes, they are (so are their antiparticles- the electrons).
Nobody disputed that. You seem to have forgotten that you were the one saying that antiparticles didn't exist.
an impulse engine can be made, yet we need to think outside the square, and that means sacrificing a few long held "beliefs", one of which is central to "negative energy", namely the idea of "anti-matter"
We can't sacrifice the idea of reality (unless we abandon science + write fiction).
But let's get back to your latest post .
You say ", but all other anti-particles are "very" problematic. "In other words" (and is English you're first language or science you're first field) these particles "do not predominate in reality"."
You are claiming that "do not predominate in reality" somehow means the same as ""very" problematic."
OK, people who try to stop axe wielding murderers do not predominate in reality (not least through lack of opportunity).
If you are right then people who try to stop axe wielding murderers are very problematic.
Do you have any idea how stupid that looks?
It's true that we are not sure why there's such a huge imbalance between matter and antimatter in the universe, but antimatter clearly exists (and for more than 10^-23 seconds, since we can get pictures of macroscopic travel), s we can't abandon it.
-
Bored Chemist, no, these particles are "inferred" to exist, and no not last more (as you quote) than 10^-23 seconds, yet "less than".....read the abstract. Have you read the article btw? They are problematic. Anything that lasts less than 10^-23 seconds is problematic. Read the abstract again :o
-
Bored Chemist, no, these particles are "inferred" to exist, and no not last more (as you quote) than 10^-23 seconds, yet "less than".....read the abstract. Have you read the article btw? They are problematic. Anything that lasts less than 10^-23 seconds is problematic. Read the abstract again :o
Something that short lived is a problem.
However the actual physical evidence shows pictures of antiparticles.
Those pictures show the tracks of particles.
Even if the particles are travelling practically at the speed of light, the few centimetres of track show that the particles existed (at least) for a time equal to the time taken for light to traverse a few cm.
That's about 10^-10 seconds.
OK, that's not long.
But, for you to "mistake" 10^-10 seconds for 10^-23 seconds is equivalent to losing 13 orders of magnitude.
It's like muddling the distance across town, with the distance across a (small) molecule.
-
Bored Chemist, no, these particles are "inferred" to exist, and no not last more (as you quote) than 10^-23 seconds, yet "less than".....read the abstract. Have you read the article btw? They are problematic. Anything that lasts less than 10^-23 seconds is problematic. Read the abstract again :o
Something that short lived is a problem.
However the actual physical evidence shows pictures of antiparticles.
Those pictures show the tracks of particles.
Even if the particles are travelling practically at the speed of light, the few centimetres of track show that the particles existed (at least) for a time equal to the time taken for light to traverse a few cm.
That's about 10^-10 seconds.
OK, that's not long.
But, for you to "mistake" 10^-10 seconds for 10^-23 seconds is equivalent to losing 13 orders of magnitude.
It's like muddling the distance across town, with the distance across a (small) molecule.
This is the abstract of the link you posted:
Bubble Chamber Event. Resonances last typically for a mere 10 (-23 power) s and therefore leave no discernible track in a bubble chamber. But by calculating back from the energies and angles of the particles that are detected, physicists can infer that a resonance has existed. In this picture from a bubble chamber at Berkley, an antiproton, coming from below, annihilates with a proton to produces two negative pions, a neutral pion and two positive pions. The negative pions move off to the left, the positive pions to the right, while the pi-zero is undetected. The lower pi-plus decays to a muon, the short piece of track, and then to a positron, which curls out of the picture. The information in the picture ins consistent with the lower-energy pions, the lower tracks on left and right-being the decay products of a resonance state known as the omega.
-
This is the abstract of the link you posted:
Bubble Chamber Event. Resonances last typically for a mere 10 (-23 power) s and therefore leave no discernible track in a bubble chamber. But by calculating back from the energies and angles of the particles that are detected, physicists can infer that a resonance has existed. In this picture from a bubble chamber at Berkley, an antiproton, coming from below, annihilates with a proton to produces two negative pions, a neutral pion and two positive pions. The negative pions move off to the left, the positive pions to the right, while the pi-zero is undetected. The lower pi-plus decays to a muon, the short piece of track, and then to a positron, which curls out of the picture. The information in the picture ins consistent with the lower-energy pions, the lower tracks on left and right-being the decay products of a resonance state known as the omega.
The resonance lasting for 10-23 seconds being referred to is the omega baryon, which isn't even antimatter. The omega baryon was the result of the proton-antiproton collision. The 10-23 seconds does not refer to the antiproton life time.
-
This is the abstract of the link you posted:
Bubble Chamber Event. Resonances last typically for a mere 10 (-23 power) s and therefore leave no discernible track in a bubble chamber. But by calculating back from the energies and angles of the particles that are detected, physicists can infer that a resonance has existed. In this picture from a bubble chamber at Berkley, an antiproton, coming from below, annihilates with a proton to produces two negative pions, a neutral pion and two positive pions. The negative pions move off to the left, the positive pions to the right, while the pi-zero is undetected. The lower pi-plus decays to a muon, the short piece of track, and then to a positron, which curls out of the picture. The information in the picture ins consistent with the lower-energy pions, the lower tracks on left and right-being the decay products of a resonance state known as the omega.
Yes, it's a quote from the stuff I cited.
And it's not the relevant bit, is it?
So, why did you keep banging on about it?
Could it be because you have no idea what you are talking about?
-
Gentlemen (except the BS artist) ,
Let's return the focus here to relativistic accelerator-type engines , if you don't mind !
P.M.
-
Gentlemen ( except the BS artist ) ,
Are you talking to yourself?
Quote from: Professor Mega-Mind on 20/11/2018 14:08:34
What's an Impulse Engine ? If it is a rocket with an ISP of a billion , I will call it that !
Everyone else is calling it BS.[/quote]
-
Then it's BS that the space community is desperately pursuing , and for damned good reason !
P.
-
Gentlepersons ,
Let us consider the Daedalus Project of Alan Bond & company .
Powered by ICF fusion engines , it's specific impulse could exceed 140k . I propose that they make it a hybrid fission/fusion rocket with gatling-gun type propulsion layout.
Such a system gives us the entire Solar System , even the Oort Cloud , with effective cryogenic stasis (see Japan's Cells Alive System) . Any add-ons or critiques ?
P.M.
-
Let us consider the Daedalus Project of Alan Bond & company .
OK, let's consider it.
There are details here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus
which include "Daedalus would be propelled by a fusion rocket using pellets of a deuterium/helium-3 mix".
So, their plan is fusion power. That makes sense because it's got the best energy storage density.
And your version
I propose that they make it a hybrid fission/fusion rocket with gatling-gun type propulsion layout.
spoils it by adding a redundant fission reactor.
Any add-ons or critiques ?
Yes; you should leave this sort of thing to the grown-us.
-
To Old Guy ,
MY proposal is a fission reactor powering the ship's systems AND the laser ICF igniters . Firstly , this provides a proven , reliable , rugged , and highly controllable power source for the ship . Secondly , it allows the design of the fusion system to be optimized for propulsion , not power production . On a related note ; no fusion reactor yet has managed to achieve SUSTAINED break even power production . A stand-alone fusion ship would be an assured failure .
Long live the " 'stro-nuts " !
P.M.
-
On a related note ; no fusion reactor yet has managed to achieve SUSTAINED break even power production .
I know of one that has worked for a few billion years.
-
...Galaxy Express 999 .
The Solid Chunks Rocket .
Imagine if you will , a solid rocket that runs , not on one big stick of propellant , but on many small chunks of it , similar to the old steam-engines . This solid-chunks engine would offer operational flexibility , and safety factors , that monolithic , solid-propellant engines could not . "Chunks" engines could be low-thrust , long-firing , and could have their fuel pre-positioned along their route . This would obviate the "Rocket Equation" , enabling far greater propulsion efficiency , and mission capability , than standard rockets . The safety factor of this type of engine , towers over that of normal solid rockets . The risk of explosion from voids , cracks , and mis-formulation , is negated . The fuel is never exposed to an ignition source , except when it is "fed" into the combustion-chamber . Most of the time , it's not even inside of the room . Low-thrust means that the engine can be tiny , and lightweight , generating a lesser heat-flux as well .
Alright , let's here it for coal-powered rocket-ships !
D.H.
Note-Designed for In-Space propulsion .
Addendum : This engine can also have a nuclear-powered , RF-injection , thermal-exhaust "super-charger" . This would multiply it's specific-impulse , while reducing exhaust-coking .
Addendum-2 : A more efficient propellent alternative would be frozen hydrazine/hy.peroxide . Easily stored at below 0°C in space , these could be safely handled as ices . They would not be subject to void/crack explosions , and would burn much cleaner than the "rubber" type solid-fuels .
-
This would obviate the "Rocket Equation"
How?Low-thrust means that the engine can be tiny
Low thrust means an engine that's not much use.
-
Low thrust means an engine that's not much use.
I wouldn't go that far, since ion engines have very low thrust but are efficient and have high exhaust velocities.
I'm not sure how his idea to have chunks of fuel floating around in space en route would even work. They would have to be in orbit around something, since they can't just sit still (they'd drift towards the nearest source of gravity otherwise). Plotting the rocket's path to intercept those fuel pellets sounds tedious and very limiting in terms of the launch window. You'd also have to get the pellets into place somehow beforehand, which would require another rocket to have gone there first.
-
I wouldn't go that far, since ion engines have very low thrust but are efficient and have high exhaust velocities.
A good big one beats a good little one.
-
...The joys of pre-positioning .
On surface , in orbit , on Phobos , on Blitzen !
Seriously , fuel-depots were invented right after fire ! Now ; What's old is new again !
Ja-ai guru deva , ohhm !
P.M.
-
Seriously , fuel-depots were invented right after fire
Yes, local ones.
But what you are proposing is absurd.
-
This would obviate the "Rocket Equation" ,
How?
(Second time of asking)
-
......Transpiration Rocket Engine .
This engine is designed with jet-engine technology in mind . It is , however , nuclear-powered . It begins with ultra-high pressure propellent-pumps . The CH4 cryogenic fluid is forced through several thousand channels , at 50k.psi , into the 360° atomizing-powerheads. These spray the fluid sideways , so that it coats the chamber walls , and then evaporates into gaseous form . The gas is then super-heated by massive , high-energy RF injection , producing a 20+k°C , 50+k.psi , ball of " cold-plasma" . This is then vented through a similarly cooled , narrow (10") nozzle . The exhaust velocity should exheed 20 times that of the SSME engines , causing a proportionate increase in thrust-specific impulse . Having a high mass , but a modest thrust-level , this type engine is best suited for interplanetary travel , not surface propulsion .
Interplanetary space-drive it is !
D.H.
-
20+k°C , 50+k.psi , ball of " cold-plasma"
Do you mean cold or do you mean over 20,000 K?
-
20k°Celsius is categorized as cold, in plasma physicist-talk .
P.M.
Ref : voltaicplasma.com/hot-and-cold-plasma
-
20k°Celsius is categorized as cold, in plasma physicist-talk .
P.M.
OK, so that's another area of science which we now know that you don't understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonthermal_plasma
-
Alrighty then !
If we consider that exhaust-velocities from a fusion-rocket could well exceed 30km.sec. , we definitely must consider the exiting gases to be a "hot" plasma .
Deuterium-Tritium fusion liberates ~ 20-million times as much energy per pound as kerolox .
This equates to ~ 1400 times the thrust/acceleration of the chemical-rocket , with identical fuel-burn , excepting ; that the fusion exhaust products have a much lesser molecular mass . This means those molecules will exit at a much higher speed than the heavy molecules of the chem-rocket , multiplying the ISP to as much as 6-million for fusion .
-
we definitely must consider the exiting gases to be a "hot" plasma .
It only took you 6 months to work out that 20,000K is not cold.
It's also about 3 or 4 times as hot as the surface of the sun, so it will be quite bright.
How do you plan to shield the rocket from the radiation?
-
It's just the nomenclature .
As far as technical details go , the above is only a theoretical analysis of a future possible design pathway . 😐
-
As far as technical details go , the above is only a theoretical analysis of a future possible design pathway .
And it's pointless.
It's obvious that getting the rocket exhaust hotter is better.
It's obvious that a nuclear reactor will get things hotter.
All you have done is state the obvious.
-
The point of my analysis is to show the incredible efficiency of fusion-rockets . Even if the combustion-chamber ran an average temperature comparable to that of a chemical-rocket , it would still be ~ 20k. times more efficient than that engine .
An example of this scenario would be an ICF engine ; one powered by an auxiliary energy-source , in order to avoid impeding the exhaust-stream , and reducing the specific-impulse .
--------------------------------
*Ref.:www.projectrho.com/public_html /rocket/realdesignsfusion.php
"Realistic Fusion Designs"
*Ref.: www.sciencedirect.com/ topics/physics-and-astronomy/ inertial-confinement-fusion
Author : Garry McCracken
Title : Fusion Power Plants
Article Year : 2013
-
What you have said (twice) is "if we had a much better engine, it would be a much better engine."