Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Professor Mega-Mind on 16/09/2018 03:11:04
-
Optimum Spaceship Design ?
__________________________________
*Jump to pg.8 , Reply#145 .
**Also pg.10 , Reply # 191 .
__________________________________
Let the assumption be that we have developed an effective Impulse Drive . Not a rocket , not an ion thruster , but a powerful & efficient , nuclear-powered , drive mechanism . This being the case we can presume peak travel velocities in excess of 1 million miles per hour . *Although such a ship can afford to carry adequate radiation shielding for the job (see ref. below) , interplanetary dust and debris pose a lethal danger . At full speed , one pea-sized rock would impact a ship with more explosive power than a stick of dynamite . Such an impact would punch through blunt shielding , wrenching the ship badly , and spraying deadly shrapnel through it's interior . To prevent this , a different type of shield is necessary . The most effective design would be a long cone . This would be slightly wider than the ship , and held ahead of the ship by flexible mounts . Constructed mainly of high-tech , impact-absorbing materials , it would be coated with a thick layer of iron sand , contained within an aluminum skin . The resultant composite effect would absorb tremendous energy , and yet be reasonably light .
The ship proper would be a long, thin , pencil-like design . In other words ; a Needle-Ship . The crew working & living spaces would be directly behind the cone . The supplies & auxiliary craft would be next , the Impulse Drive machinery would be after that , and the Reactors ( w/minimal shielding ) would be last .
Electric thrusters would arranged about the ship for fine attitude control . Heat radiators , solar panels , antennas , etc. would all be arranged strategically on the ship exterior.
The final requirement would be the trajectory . In order to minimize in-flight impacts , the ship would need to follow a parabolic trajectory , rising up above the plane of the ecliptic . This would place the high-speed portion of it's course above 99% of possible impactors .
A ship of this type would benefit from full recycling of organic waste products . Pre-positioning of LNG would also improve capability . A two-ship formation would magnify safety and redundancy , and possibly allow for tethered , centripetal gravity as well .
Alright , this would kick 2001s Odyssey all over the place !
》Enjoy your new spaceship ! P.M.
Ref.: Page # 10, Reply # 191, Link :
Can an Impulse-Engine be made ?
__________________________________
**Alternate propulsion method at :
Is it possible to have a space-drive using reflecting light ?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79795.new;topicseen#new
__________________________________
》Link to Reactionless Drive thread is below , at reply # 5 .
__________________________________
**Radiation mitigation**
Electrostatic deflection of charged particles is optimal .
Ref.: Quora threads ; If you were building a star ship and had a reactor that could generate an unlimited amount of power ..?
Ref.2 : www.quora.com/How-difficult-is-it-to-generate-a-magnetic-field-around-a-starship-to-protect-against-radiation-just-like-our-planet-does?
>Concentrate on my post/comments .
**Note : The above reference electroSTATIC fields ONLY .
=============================
》On-board cancer treatment《
Study the analyses presented in NSF. thread : Can cancers be treated by burning them with a hot probe?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74771.new;topicseen#new
-
a different type of shield is necessary ... Constructed mainly of high-tech , impact-absorbing materials
I recently saw some samples of shielding that had been subjected to simulated micrometeorite impacts that you expect to encounter in Earth orbit.
The idea of having two thin layers of protection seems much more effective than a single thick layer.
The idea of the first layer is to partially melt/vaporize the micrometeorite (and slow it a bit). What hits the second layer is a partially melted spray of particles, spread out over a larger area, so it is much less likely to penetrate the next layer.
The composition of the first layer is not so important - in fact, if the first layer is particularly tough, it may provide very tough debris that can puncture the second layer. So it is probably best if the first layer is something like aluminium that is light and has a fairly low melting point, so it splatters rather than remain intact.
This photo shows a 5mm thick layer of aluminium, hit by the ball bearing. The impact created a crater through most of the depth (and probably cracked and weakened the remainder of the depth).
[ Invalid Attachment ]
This photo shows the effect of two layers of 0.5mm each, and the splatter pattern on the second layer.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
From an exhibition at Scienceworks, Melbourne Australia.
-
if the first layer is particularly tough, it may provide very tough debris that can puncture the second layer.
There was a similar problem with early tanks in WW1. Bullets hitting the outside caused the metal inside to delaminate and fragment sending shrapnel that was more damaging than the bullet would have been. The same effect was seen with cannon balls going through the sides of wooden ships.
Some anti armour piercing designs use double layers similar to what you are describing.
-
My personal favourite space ship is a big ball of rock , water and air, in orbit round a star.
It's a pig to steer- but all the life support systems seem to be reliable.
-
To all of the space advocates :
Start your nuclear engines !
You are so right about the spalling problem . Sand is great at absorbing energy . I figured that the iron would extra-hard to penetrate, would not eject shrapnel but would absorb tremendous energy by welding . Perhaps elastomer mounts could support this cone ? Maybe thorium fuel would be best ? Synergy is the ticket , eh ? Let's go space truckin' in " industrable " ships !.......P.M.
-
.........Ideal Space Ship/Drive .
*.The below was inspired by the classic thought-experiment where a light-beam bounces between two mirrors repeatedly , exerting a slight pressure at each contact point . Expending the beam entirely yields enormous thrust upon both mirrors .
--------------------------------------------------------
I neglected to address the supposedly impossible Reaction-less Drive . E=MC2 suggests that ejecting or transforming energy uni-directionally , could yield results similar to ejecting matter . The easiest approach appears to be a linear set-up using two opposed steel "Massive Walls" , with opposed launchers between them . One launches a beanbag , while simultaneously , the other launches a same-weight pinball . The beanbag imparts over half it's kinetic energy to it's wall , while the pinball imparts under 2% to it's wall . A mechanical setup to repeat this process continuously , yields a net push in the direction of the bean-bag wall . This is the heart of the ideal spacecraft propulsion system . More thorough analysis of this subject is contained in thread "Can we feel gravity from objects at different velocities ?" .
Bottom line ? The "Epstein Drive" is definitely a real thing ! P.M.
__________________________________
》For discussion of Compton-Effect driven "Shockwave-Engine" , go to Reactionless-drive possible?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75294.new;topicseen#new
For more context , go to thread :
Discussion on Reactionless drive.
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75493.new;topicseen#new
-
E=MC2 suggests that ejecting or transforming energy uni-directionally , could yield results similar to ejecting matter .
Energy carries with it an associated mass and vice-versa, so ejecting mass from a ship or energy from a ship are two ways of saying the same thing. A laser engine would indeed impart a thrust on a spacecraft (but would have to be extremely powerful in order to yield a decent acceleration).
The easiest approach appears to be a linear set-up using two opposed steel "Massive Walls" , with opposed launchers between them . One launches a beanbag , while simultaneously , the other launches a same-weight pinball . The beanbag imparts over half it's kinetic energy to it's wall , while the pinball imparts under %2 to it's wall . A mechanical setup to repeat this process continuously , yields a net push in the direction of the bean-bag wall . This is the heart of the ideal spacecraft propulsion system . More thorough analysis of this subject is contained in thread "Can we feel gravity from objects at different velocities ?" .
Bottom line ? The "Epstein Drive" is definitely a real thing !
That would not be a reactionless drive.
The beanbag launcher itself will impart a force on the ship in an equal and opposite direction to that of the beanbag when it hits the opposite wall. The launcher fires the beanbag, causing the ship to move in the opposite direction of the beanbag. Then the beanbag hits the opposite wall, cancelling out the ship's momentum and bringing it to a stop. So that particular part of the system produces no net change in total momentum.
The pinball launcher has the same effect: it thrusts the ship in the opposite direction to that of the pinball. Unlike the beanbag, however, the pinball ricochets off the wall that is now moving towards it. This causes the pinball and the wall to bounce away from each other and at a slower rate than they were moving before (because some of the kinetic energy is now in the form of heat). The pinball will eventually strike the opposite wall, changing direction again while slowing both it and the ship down further. This back-and-forth bouncing will continue until all of the kinetic energy of the ball and ship have become heat. So in this case, the total momentum change of the system is still zero. Putting both of these systems together will not change that. Zero plus zero equals zero.
If you want to get super-duper technical, you might be able to argue that the ship can gain a tiny increase in momentum due to the fact that the beanbag impact will slightly heat one wall of the ship. This extra heat will produce thermal radiation of a slightly higher frequency that then radiates out into space, pushing the ship in the opposite direction. Not exactly an efficient propulsion mechanism.
-
Ah , Mr. Earthbound , we had this conversation before . It's really all about the tricks .
First ; the photon drive . You need over a gigawatt of EM power emitted , in order to get ONE pound of thrust . This is why the EM Drive is so pathetic , if it even works at all . Even VASIMIR can burst to 1lb. of thrust per 7klb. of transmission , though not engine .
Now then , the R.D. . If the pinball and beanbag are same-weight , and are fired simultaneously , but in opposite directions , they cancel, inducing no net force upon the ship . Counter-firing is the first trick . When the bag strikes it's Massive Wall , it gives it a serious push , due to the long contact time . It then drifts weakly back to it's launcher . When the steel ball hits it's Massive Wall , it bounces back almost as fast . It then hits a secondary sand-containing "splat" wall , depositing most of it's energy in THAT wall . This is the second "trick" , twisting counter-firings into a double-impact in the "splat" direction . The %55 inertia deposit rate means that this system will have an overall energy efficiency comparable to a modern car . Any waste heat produced is omni-directional , so there is no 2ndary thrust from thermal radiation .
A ship using this would be almost as safe as a nuclear surface-ship . That's a lot better than riding a freaking BOMB !
Calculate out what I've said , THEN respond .
P.M.
-
Ah , Mr. Earthbound , we had this conversation before .
Indeed we did, and you failed to understand what I was telling you.
It's really all about the tricks .
Tricks don't let you violate conservation of momentum.
Now then , the R.D. . If the pinball and beanbag are same-weight , and are fired simultaneously , but in opposite directions , they cancel, inducing no net force upon the ship . Counter-firing is the first trick . When the bag strikes it's Massive Wall , it gives it a serious push , due to the long contact time .
The force the beanbag imparts on the wall it hits will stop the ship from moving. The launch of the beanbag itself will propel the ship in the opposite direction until the beanbag hits the opposing wall. That action then stops both the beanbag and the ship from moving.
It then drifts weakly back to it's launcher .
If the beanbag is now drifting away from the wall it just hit (as opposed to sticking to it), then the wall will also be pushed in the opposite direction with equal force. So when the bean bag arrives back at its launcher (and is presumably stopped once it gets there), the ship will also stop and your ending position will be exactly the same as your starting position.
When the steel ball hits it's Massive Wall , it bounces back almost as fast . It then hits a secondary sand-containing "splat" wall , depositing most of it's energy in THAT wall . This is the second "trick"
There is no trick there. Let's say for the sake of an easy argument that the ship is equal in mass to the pinball. You fire the pinball from the launcher at 10 meters per second. That will send the ship moving in the opposite direction at 10 meters per second. The wall is now approaching the pinball at 10 meters per second while the pinball moves towards it at 10 meters per second. When it hits the wall, it loses some momentum, so we'll say that it bounces back at 8 meters per second which will also send the spaceship moving at 8 meters per second in the opposite direction.
When the pinball lands in the sand trap, it deposits its remaining kinetic energy completely into the ship. This brings both the pinball and the ship to a complete stop, since the ship was moving in the opposite direction to the pinball the whole time. There is no net change in momentum and the ship is not moving at the end of the cycle.
Calculate out what I've said , THEN respond .
You're the one making the claim. You're the one responsible for showing that the math works in your favor.
-
Hokaay ! For the sake of any readers , I'll give an example which I think you can relate to . The ali-frenz finally decide to send an ambassador . It is box-shaped (like a brick) , according to their tradition , the image of the ambassador's head is painted onto the steel-hard hull , ears on small ends . Just as they pull into orbit , 2 ten-pound pieces of space junk ,
one a fresh poo-dump , the other a solid chunk of steel , hit the ship at the same time & speed , dead-on right into the "ears" . The first impact goes " splort ! " and mostly sticks, the second goes " clang ! ", and bounces off almost as fast as it hit .
Which way does the " Hard-Head " ship jerk ( and drift ) ?
P.M.
-
Calculate out what I've said ,
I don't need to. Someone already did the calculation for me some time ago.
Her name was Emmy (and I think she should be a lot more famous, but that's not the point.
The maths she did proves that your reactionless drive won't work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
I don't expect you to understand it.
But I do hope you will accept that the point was proved long ago.
-
Well , you know the old saying
" Gobbidge in , Gobbidge out ! "
My wager is that your architecture was inaccurate ( like the above ) . At any rate , I'll stick with the established " Massive Wall with elastic/inelastic collision " physics.
You can continue to do the Alfred P. Newman thing . Adieu !
P.M. .
-
I'm not an engineer but I really like Millennium Falcon
-
Which way does the " Hard-Head " ship jerk ( and drift ) ?
This is not a good analogy for your so-called reactionless drive. Although this ship would indeed experience a change in momentum from the collisions, the situation is different because the ship itself is not the one that launched the projectiles. You're also not trying to stop the steel brick from drifting away into space after it hits the ship. If the ship did capture it, then the very act of stopping the steel brick would cancel out any momentum that it transferred to the ship in the first place.
-
Hey Rocky , watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat !
Hokay , hokay , hokay !
The steel chunk bounces off , imparting very little inertia to the Newmen's ship . The flying spit-storm , however , has given it a good , stinky shove . The steel chunk then hits a massive-plate mounted on an antenna . It bounces back at the ship , hits the ear-side again ( still over %90 of initial inertia ) , then hits a sand-board mounted on the antenna . This shoves the big-eared Newman ship in the same direction as the sandbag ! Now dig this , both objects were launched from the ship on bungee cords by grinning crewmembers , as a traditional salute to strangers ! They were launched mirror-image so the ship would not be torqued . After the objects had both spent their energy , and were drifting , they were slowly pulled back on board by intelligent mice .
Well , how do you like them apples , Mr. Newman ?
P.M.
-
At any rate , I'll stick with the established " Massive Wall with elastic/inelastic collision " physics.
That's 'what Noether did.
And, unlike you, she got the right answer.
-
The steel chunk bounces off , imparting very little inertia to the Newmen's ship .
How much is "very little"
(show your working or get laughed at)
-
Hey Rocky , watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat !
Hokay , hokay , hokay !
The steel chunk bounces off , imparting very little inertia to the Newmen's ship . The flying spit-storm , however , has given it a good , stinky shove . The steel chunk then hits a massive-plate mounted on an antenna . It bounces back at the ship , hits the ear-side again ( still over %90 of initial inertia ) , then hits a sand-board mounted on the antenna . This shoves the big-eared Newman ship in the same direction as the sandbag ! Now dig this , both objects were launched from the ship on bungee cords by grinning crewmembers , as a traditional salute to strangers ! They were launched mirror-image so the ship would not be torqued .
Then my initial analysis stands. When you consider that each and every one of these steps pushes the ship by the exact same amount as it pushes the projectiles and in the opposite direction, it's clear that you get no change in total momentum.
After the objects had both spent their energy , and were drifting , they were slowly pulled back on board by intelligent mice .
The very act of pulling the projectiles back to the ship will impart an acceleration on the ship. It doesn't matter how slowly you do it. Once you get the projectiles back to their starting point and stop them, the ship will stop too.
-
Have No-Ether calculate the kinetic energies for the puppy up above ! I did long ago , that's why I'm now grinning like a fool !
P.M.
-
Have No-Ether calculate the kinetic energies for the puppy up above ! I did long ago , that's why I'm now grinning like a fool !
P.M.
So how about reproducing those calculations here?
-
I am a busy monkey ! However , you can view the basic numbers in "Can we feel gravity from objects at different velocities ?" .
P.M.
-
I am a busy monkey ! However , you can view the basic numbers in "Can we feel gravity from objects at different velocities ?" .
P.M.
The numbers in that thread do not demonstrate a violation of conservation of momentum.
-
When I have time to burn , I will demonstrate the difference between %2 and %55 .
P.
-
When I have time to burn , I will demonstrate the difference between %2 and %55 .
P.
To whom, and why?
-
Apparently , inquiring minds need to know .
P.
-
Apparently , inquiring minds need to know .
P.
Why do you consider it "apparent"?
Nobody has indicated that they don't know.
-
Page 1 , entries 9 , 16 , 19 .
P.
"Professor" busy 'til later !
-
Page 1 , entries 9 , 16 , 19 .
P.
"Professor" busy 'til later !
If you don't have time to make sense, don't post.
-
When I have time to burn , I will demonstrate the difference between %2 and %55 .
P.
Kinetic energy being turned into heat doesn't violate conservation of momentum. If it did, we would have known a very long time ago.
-
Sandbag type collision against Massive-Wall yields ~%45 friction heat , ~%55 inertia transfer to wall. Kinetic energy breakdown for EC :
~%2 transfer to wall , ~%98 retained by ball .
In other words , sandbag pushes hard , pinball bounces back with no effect .
P.
-
Sandbag type collision against Massive-Wall yields ~%45 friction heat , ~%55 inertia transfer to wall. Kinetic energy breakdown for EC :
~%2 transfer to wall , ~%98 retained by ball .
In other words , sandbag pushes hard , pinball bounces back with no effect .
P.
Which also means that the wall pushes hard back on the sandbag while it doesn't push as hard on the pinball. Conservation of momentum is not violated.
-
Ask No-Ether if she's ever seen a sandbag bounce back off of a wall!
Aaahahahaha...!
P.
-
Ask No-Ether if she's ever seen a sandbag bounce back off of a wall!
Aaahahahaha...!
P.
Why can't you spell Noether?
Anyway, as I said,
If you don't have time to make sense, don't post.
Incidentally, you might want to try standing on a skateboard and throwing a big bag of sand at a wall.
-
If I stand on a SB in between two walls , and simultaneously a 20lb sandbag right , and a 20lb steel ball left , I ain't moving ! However , the sandbag is going to flop to the ground , while the steel ball will bounce back and thump me ! Which one could push something ? Come on now , make sense , Mister Manager/Owner !
P.M.
-
Well, it seems you are determined to miss the point, but let's try again.
What happens if you stand on a skateboard and throw a heavy sandbag (say forwards, just to clarify things)?
Why is it different if you stand on the ground
Given that momentum is actually conserved in both cases, what happens in the skateboard-less case?
Clearly the momentum of the bag, while it is in flight, has to be balanced by an opposing momentum, so what else moves?
-
Dude-man , I'm way ahead of this . Obvi either the man OR the Earth . My example has counter-throw (opposing force) , which prevents that . Take my last example , modify it so that the steel ball misses me , and then splats on a sand panel mounted near where the sandbag went splat . Two strong splats on one wall , one weak ding on the other . Which wall got shoved hard ?
Remember , unequal shove equals Reactionless Drive .
....P.M.
-
I'm way ahead of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
-
Well, it seems you are determined to miss the point, but let's try again.
What happens if you stand on a skateboard and throw a heavy sandbag (say forwards, just to clarify things)?
Why is it different if you stand on the ground
Given that momentum is actually conserved in both cases, what happens in the skateboard-less case?
Clearly the momentum of the bag, while it is in flight, has to be balanced by an opposing momentum, so what else moves?
-
With my design , the thrower does not move whether he's on a skate-board or not . The simultaneous throws oppose each other , negating any net force . The momentum of the bag is balanced by the momentum of the ball .
It's a tightrope , bubbatugs !
P.M.
-
With my design , the thrower does not move whether he's on a skate-board or not . The simultaneous throws oppose each other , negating any net force . The momentum of the bag is balanced by the momentum of the ball .
It's a tightrope , bubbatugs !
P.M.
And I pointed out in your other, spurious, thread why this doesn't work
-
There are none so blind ...blah , blah , blah...!
By the way , does your math whiz agree with you on that !?
P.M.
-
And I pointed out in your other, spurious, thread why this doesn't work
does your math whiz agree with you on that !?
What do you think that means?
-
It means have the math person analyse the K. Benz flat engine , and see if there are any overall sideways forces from it .
P.
-
It means have the math person analyse the K. Benz flat engine , and see if there are any overall sideways forces from it .
P.
Who is "the math person"?
-
any overall sideways forces from it .
Why would that matter anyway?
-
I admit that I had to think about this for a while, but here is my analysis of your most recent design. I'm going to make a couple of changes to make things easier to analyze while still retaining the essence of the machine.
We start off with a launcher mounted in the middle of the box with two guns. Each gun can shoot a rubber ball and is wired to fire both of them simultaneously. The right wall of the box is made of plain metal while the left wall is metal coated with a sticky substance. The mass of each rubber ball is equal to the mass of the rest of the assembly. Now we start the experiment.
Step 1: The launcher fires each rubber ball at the two opposing walls. As you say, the launcher (and therefore the box itself) does not move because each ball counteracts the force of the other.
Step 2: Each ball makes contact with their respective walls, causing each ball to compress and stretching the box itself slightly due to the force that each ball imparts on its own wall (every material has finite elasticity). The box still does not move because the force on each wall is exactly equal (each ball has the same mass and velocity upon impact).
Step 3: The box has finished stretching and now begins contracting, pushing each compressed rubber ball back towards the middle. The box as a whole still does not move as both balls are still in contact with the walls.
Step 4: The box finishes contracting, launching the ball from the right wall back towards the middle of the box. This is where a difference finally arises. The ball on the left wall tries to leave at the exact same time as the one on the right wall, but cannot as it is stuck to the wall. This causes this previously compressed ball to stretch out and away from the wall, pulling the wall along with it.
Now, if the ball on the right had also stuck to its wall, then it would pull on the right wall with equal force to that of the left wall and the box would not move. However, there is no ball on the right wall to counter the pulling force of the ball on the left. This, against your prediction that the box should move to the left, causes the box to move to the right instead. Since this ball is of equal mass and velocity to its partner, it moves the box to the right with the same amount of force that the free ball would have if it had been the only ball in the system.
Step 5: The box is drifting to the right and the free ball to the left. When the free ball makes contact with the sticky wall, it sticks and exactly cancels out the momentum that the other ball had imparted on the system. There is thus no net change in momentum for the system as a whole.
Bored Chemist, tell me if you see any problems with this as I may have made some mistakes.
-
Bored Chemist, tell me if you see any problems with this
I predict one problem.
The OP will talk balderdash about a sufficiently rigid box not deflecting.
This will not actually make a difference, but that won't stop him.
-
Wah-haha-haha-haha !
Good one , that's not my system though . Massive Wall physics automatically implies heavy , extremely stiff walls . I use steel because of this . Your example involved entirely different material dynamics than mine . I could , however , bastardise the two , just to make a point .
Example : The thrower throws both balls at the opposite walls . The RH ball hits the "sand-filled" wall , and imparts %50 of it's kinetic energy to it , then bounces back slowly . The LH ball hits the steel wall . It impart %5 of it's kinetic energy to the wall , then bounces back powerfully . It continues across the room , then strikes the sand-filled wall , depositing %50 of it's remaining kinetic energy into the wall . The sand-filled wall absorbed most of the energy that the thrower expended . Half of that was converted to kinetic energy of the box , half to waste heat .
Any doubt as to which way the box drifts ?
Hold on... , I keep hearing the theme to "Mr. Ed" playing nearby !
Anyhoo , "Khan , I'm laughing at...".
P.M.
-
For further clarification of this R.D., go to thread "Reactionless Drives Possible ?" .
P.M.
-
Wah-haha-haha-haha !
Good one , that's not my system though . Massive Wall physics automatically implies heavy , extremely stiff walls . I use steel because of this . Your example involved entirely different material dynamics than mine . I could , however , bastardise the two , just to make a point .
Example : The thrower throws both balls at the opposite walls . The RH ball hits the "sand-filled" wall , and imparts %50 of it's kinetic energy to it , then bounces back slowly . The LH ball hits the steel wall . It impart %5 of it's kinetic energy to the wall , then bounces back powerfully . It continues across the room , then strikes the sand-filled wall , depositing %50 of it's remaining kinetic energy into the wall . The sand-filled wall absorbed most of the energy that the thrower expended . Half of that was converted to kinetic energy of the box , half to waste heat .
Any doubt as to which way the box drifts ?
Hold on... , I keep hearing the theme to "Mr. Ed" playing nearby !
Anyhoo , "Khan , I'm laughing at...".
P.M.
You keep forgetting about the momentum transferred when you throw things.
Sure, you can cancel it by throwing wto things at once, but then you cancel the impacts on the walls too.
I explained that in the other thread you started for no good reason.
I keep asking you to show the maths.
I gave you an example of how to do it.
Are you scared to do it, or what?
Nobody on a science web page is going to take you seriously until you have calculations that back up your point.
-
Math is just quantitative description , not concept . I enjoy ideas , systems , and designs . I'm not a big number cruncher by choice . I may bother here , but you should have gotten this concept long ago . For instance ; the opposing impacts are NOT the same , ergo , their effect on the box is NOT the same . Saying %2vs%55 is the same as saying 2,000 ergs vs 55,000 ergs . As I said , I may bore myself later . Busy now .
P.M.
-
may bother here , but you should have gotten this concept long ago
We get the concept.
It's just that, when you do the maths, it does not work.
And that's why you are wrong to say this
Math is just quantitative description
Speaking of concepts, do you know the difference between energy and momentum?
-
The problem you're having is that you are not seperating out the molecule momentum in the final product . This "heat loss" reduces the amount left for the objects involved in the inelastic collisions . So , yeah , momentum IS conserved , yet momentum imparted is different than momentum transferred .
Alright , still busy !
P.M.
-
The problem you're having is that you are not seperating out the molecule momentum in the final product .
That's because you just made up " molecule momentum ".
Now, would you like to come back when you are busy enough to do your working?
-
Too critical man ! Molecules have molecular motion and vibration . These , of course , can be categorized in terms of momentum . While I'm doing math work , you need to do conceptual research .
P.M.
-
... These , of course , can be categorized in terms of momentum .
Not really, no.
While you are doing the maths, you need to find out what the differences are among momentum, energy and vibration.
-
Electrons gain momentum from friction , atoms & molecules vibrate more because of this . This raises the temperature . Electrons emit photons , atoms & molecules vibrate less , this decreases temp. . Heat IS increased momentum . In space the speed of free electrons is considered to be their temp. . The %45 figure I quote is moment-um transferred to electrons .
Basic research dude !
P.M.
-
I have yet to see any calculations showing that conservation of momentum is violated by your design. Calculating kinetic energy is not the same as calculating momentum. In the SI system, kinetic energy is measured in units of joules, whereas momentum is measured in units of kilogram meters per second: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
-
Electrons gain momentum from friction , atoms & molecules vibrate more because of this . This raises the temperature . Electrons emit photons , atoms & molecules vibrate less , this decreases temp. . Heat IS increased momentum . In space the speed of free electrons is considered to be their temp. . The %45 figure I quote is moment-um transferred to electrons .
you need to find out what the differences are among momentum, energy and vibration.
And you still need to find it out.
As you say.
Basic research dude !
-
For further clarification of this R.D., go to thread "Reactionless Drives Possible ?" .
P.M.
Either provide a detailed mathematical treatment of your idea, or concede that you are way out of your depth. There are no other viable alternatives, unless we list those that lack integrity or intellect. So, maths, or concession?
-
It's not high-level particle physics , nor does it require a mathematical treatise to broach the idea . Any good tutorial on Perfectly Elastic/ Inelastic Collisions will break it down as I have . The %2-%98 and %45-%55 ratios are quite adequate to calculate kinetic energy transfer. These are the accepted figures for steel-ball on steel-wall collision , and sandbag on steel-wall collision . Simple , clear , visible to all who wish to analyze the process . I do so despise formulaic obfuscation . There is a reason I said Erg instead of Joule ! Perhaps I should have just said Og instead ?
Anyhoo , I'm not going to jump through hoops to mystify and impress observers . The concept is impressive enough , let's hear your brainstorm . Nyuck , nyuck , nyuck !
P.M.
-
It's not high-level particle physics
No. It isn't.
So, why don't you actually try to do the maths properly?
Then we can see where you are getting it wrong.
My best guess is that you think that this sort of thing "he %2-%98 and %45-%55 ratios are quite adequate to calculate kinetic energy transfer.
"
means that the momentum is also transferred in a 45:55 ratio.
It isn't.
Do you understand that?
The concept is impressive enough
It would be, if it wasn't wrong.
-
For the sake of clarity , I will repeat what that means . For steel-ball only %2 K.E. is transferred to the Massive Wall (box) , %98 remains with the ball (though direction is reversed) . For sandbag , %55 K.E. is transferred to the Massive Wall , %45 is turned to thermal energy . I would drop the momentum babble , it's just confusing you ! Make it a straightforward analysis of energy transfer . No one will be bam-boozled then !
P.M.
-
I would drop the momentum babble , it's just confusing you !
Except that you are proposing that your device is reactionless (which, definition, means that it violates conservation of momentum). Since you claim to be able to violate conservation of momentum, you have to be able to express your claims in terms of that very momentum. You can't make a claim about momentum and then tell us to "drop the momentum babble". That's a fundamental contradiction. If someone tried to sell a device that they claimed could create water out of nothing and then said "drop the water babble" to their detractors who asked them to prove it, why should anyone take them seriously?
-
I would drop the momentum babble , it's just confusing you !
Your problem is that you think the fundamentally important bit of the discussion is "babble".
Come back when you have learned enough to recognise how daft that view is (and, preferably, don't come back before you have done so)
-
....Momentum = Mass × Velocity
"Look , I made an MTV !" .
Truthfully , you'd sound more credible without the fantasy . Fact is , I prefer to "Keep It Simple , Simon !" . That means simple math , and simple units . Sqwaking that I don't know the obvious , while I use it masterfully , sounds totally masochistic to me . There is an audience out there , if my simple math was bad , at least some would save your pride . Well , I'm still listening ! No absurd put-downs please , come up with more than "they said so !" .
P.M.
-
....Momentum = Mass × Velocity
"Look , I made an MTV !" .
Truthfully , you'd sound more credible without the fantasy . Fact is , I prefer to "Keep It Simple , Simon !" . That means simple math , and simple units . Sqwaking that I don't know the obvious , while I use it masterfully , sounds totally masochistic to me . There is an audience out there , if my simple math was bad , at least some would save your pride . Well , I'm still listening ! No absurd put-downs please , come up with more than "they said so !" .
P.M.
Well done. You managed to find out how to calculate momentum.
Dow all you need to do is apply that to the problem (as you have been asked many times to do).
Then post your calculations and if you get the calculations right, they show that you are wrong about reactionless drive.
Or you will get the calculations wrong, and we will be able to explain your mistake to you.
Fact is , I prefer to "Keep It Simple , Simon !"
There is a lot to be said for keeping it simple. But your approach here is like saying that you plan to build a car but to "keep it simple" you will not include wheels or an engine.if my simple math was bad , at least some would save your pride
You have not done any maths.
That's the problem here. Please do the math- and then you will see that you are wrong.
-
Speak for yourself Bubbatugs ! I learned that years ago , then learned to use calculators if I wanted specific values . The percentage figures at the beginning of "Reactionless Drives" are all the number I need . If moved to , I can plug any value I want in , fait accompli ! I have designed the first reactionless drive here , because I am a DESIGNER ! I let people who like crunching numbers get specific , I avoid it unless necessary , such as when I want to obtain operating capacities and parameters . Now , show ME a quantitative analysis that disproves my design , and I'll show you a trick mirror !
P.M.
-
show ME a quantitative analysis that disproves my design
I already did.
You were not able to understand it.
The percentage figures at the beginning of "Reactionless Drives" are all the number I need .
No.
The other number you need is the thrust produced (or the velocity if you like).
And the reason you need it is that it is zero.
-
Just replace the % symbol in my breakdown with joules , and you've got it .
Meanwhile , I'm busy at work right now . Don't feel like unnecessary number crunching .
P.
-
n my breakdown with joules
You didn't do any such breakdown.
If you had it would be irrelevant.
Energy does not work in the same way as momentum.
-
KE = 1/2 mass × Velocity squared
Of course , I use a calculator !
A 100Kkgm ship is coasting at
100m per sec.
It represents .5 gigajoules of kinetic energy .
It crashes into a massive , steel-hard Tholian Web .
%55 KE is transferred to the T.Web.
%45 KE is turned into heat .
In quantitative terms :
.275 gigajoules of kinetic energy is transferred to the T. Web .
.225 gj. becomes friction heat .
There now , it's all calculated out . Isn't that amazing ? I could just stare at it for hours !
Anyhow , I'm off to actually think .
......P.M.
-
KE = 1/2 mass × Velocity squared
Of course , I use a calculator !
A 100Kkgm ship is coasting at
100m per sec.
It represents .5 gigajoules of kinetic energy .
It crashes into a massive , steel-hard Tholian Web .
%55 KE is transferred to the T.Web.
%45 KE is turned into heat .
In quantitative terms :
.275 gigajoules of kinetic energy is transferred to the T. Web .
.225 gj. becomes friction heat .
There now , it's all calculated out . Isn't that amazing ? I could just stare at it for hours !
Anyhow , I'm off to actually think .
......P.M.
Now do the right maths.
The calculations of the momentum.
-
It's not high-level particle physics , nor does it require a mathematical treatise to broach the idea . Any good tutorial on Perfectly Elastic/ Inelastic Collisions will break it down as I have . The %2-%98 and %45-%55 ratios are quite adequate to calculate kinetic energy transfer. These are the accepted figures for steel-ball on steel-wall collision , and sandbag on steel-wall collision . Simple , clear , visible to all who wish to analyze the process . I do so despise formulaic obfuscation . There is a reason I said Erg instead of Joule ! Perhaps I should have just said Og instead ?
Anyhoo , I'm not going to jump through hoops to mystify and impress observers . The concept is impressive enough , let's hear your brainstorm . Nyuck , nyuck , nyuck !
P.M.
Fair enough. You have opted for the response lacking integrity, or intellect, or both. Duly noted. Thank you for confirming you cannot do the math and can be safely ignored in future.
-
Fairly said , fool yourself !
What I said withstands BASIC mathematical examination . I don't see any BASIC , TRANSPARENT , disproofs of the concept . Whining that I'm not using opaque , overly complicated formulas does not discredit the design . It does show that even the formula aces cannot undo this new effect .
Read it and weep , oh jealousy !
P.M.
-
I don't see any BASIC , TRANSPARENT , disproofs of the concept .
Yes you did.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75294.msg558852#msg558852
Now, can you let us know what there is "opaque , overly complicated formulas "?
-
Ah , the incomplete counter-example . It lacked a counter-throw , plus it had bouncy sandbag . My sandbag would be loosely packed , and would yield a near-perfect inelastic collision . This means the sandbag would hit the wall , transfer %55 of it's KE to it , and convert the rest to friction heat . The bag would go "splat !" , then stop dead right near the wall . No KE left in the bag .
Well , how do you like the SigDif ?
P.M.
-
It lacked a counter-throw ,
No.
It explained why a counter throw would make no difference.
So it doesn't matter if you throw the two things in opposite directions at the same time- neither of them "knows" about the other, so they can't change their behaviour because of the other throw.
The only difference it makes is we no longer need to fix your feet to the floor.
Feel free to do the maths (I showed you how) for both items.
Handy hint.
Stop focussing on energy (which can be lost from the ship) and look at the momentum which can't, but actually defines the reaction.
plus it had bouncy sandbag
Nothing has a zero coefficient of restitution. Everything is at least slightly "bouncy".
But it doesn't matter, you can do the maths with the rebound equal to zero.
You get the same outcome; the ship does not move.
Incidentally, you keep complaining that you don't have time.
Well, all this dross you post takes longer than actually doing the maths, so that can't be your real reason.
It must be something else.
So, "professor", are you going to admit that you can't do basic school physics?
Or are you going to show that the maths proves you wrong.
-
First : The counter-throw makes all of the difference . Without it , the thrower imparts KE to the ship , with it , he does not .
Second : The "dead" sandbag makes a huge difference also . It's powerful shove completely outweighs the weak shove of the metal ball . Proper manipulation of this difference is the heart of the "Engine" . I actually don't need ANY math to prove the concept , the words very big , very small , half & half would suffice . It is the LOGIC involved that bulwarks the process , not numbers that mystify the readers . I believe a third-grader could get this , if it was explained as I just illustrated .
Third , I still don't see any "High-School math" that disproves my process . Your prior attempt did not do too good !
Hooray for logic , thumbs down for mistaken math !
P.M.
-
It's powerful shove completely outweighs the weak shove of the metal ball . Proper manipulation of this difference is the heart of the "Engine" .
OK, here's a nice simple question for you.
Consider two collisions.
(1)
A small weight slides along a (frictionless) table and hits a second (bigger) weight.
The colliding surfaces are hard steel, the weight bounces off, but it imparts some momentum to the second one.
That secone weight slides away with velocity V(bouncy)
(2)
The same small weight slides along (at the same speed) and hits the same (big) weight. But this time, the two surfaces are velcro and the two weights stick together.
The weights slide off with a velocity V(sticky)
In which scenario does the bigger weight move away faster?
Is V(sticky) bigger or smaller than V(bouncy)?
-
First , if it's only a little bigger , A .
B would be an average .
This is not my concept though , the velcro is not a true inelastic collision . There is no "sand" to turn K.E. into thermal energy .
My whole point is to waste K.E. unidirectionally in order to have the remaining induce unidirectional thrust !
Try to reduce the question volume , I'm having trouble finding time to surf , etc. !
P.
-
Here is something that I don't think you considered: with the ball hitting the sand-filled wall, 45% of the kinetic energy is changed into heat. That means that the ball only has 55% of its original kinetic energy after impact. With the ball hitting the hard wall, only 2% of the kinetic energy is changed into heat, meaning that the ball has 98% of its original kinetic energy after impact. Since the one hitting the hard wall has more kinetic energy than the one hitting the soft wall, the hard wall is actually pushed harder than the soft wall (against your implications). So the box drifts in the direction of the hard wall, while the ball that hit the hard wall bounces back faster than the one that hit the soft wall. The faster moving ball carries more kinetic energy than the slower moving ball. This means that the total momentum of the balls is in the direction away from the hard wall while the momentum of the box is in the direction of the hard wall. Since the motions are in opposite directions, they cancel out and the momentum is still zero.
-
, the velcro is not a true inelastic collision .
Yes it is. But feel free to imagine sandbags instead.
Please answer the question
In which scenario does the bigger weight move away faster?
Is V(sticky) bigger or smaller than V(bouncy)?
-
Energy is not a vector. Momentum is.
-
Mr. K. ,
Your picture above is also different from my design . I use only loosely packed sandbags . When a steel ball hits these , it gives up ALL of it's KE : %55 to the Massive-Wall as kinetic energy (shove) , %45 to the sandbag as thermal energy (heat). The ball stops dead in it's tracks as a result of this , it is done until it is thrown again .
In regards to the steel ball/wall impact : This too was pictured not like my process . The ball imparts %2 of it's KE to the steel wall , it converts ~%0 to heat , it then reflects back with %98 of it's KE intact . The sandbag transfers more KE because of it's much longer contact time , same with the steelball on sandbag impact .
Note - Energy must be radiated or conducted out to make this system work .
P.M.
-
Mr. K. ,
Your picture above is also different from my design . I use only loosely packed sandbags . When a steel ball hits these , it gives up ALL of it's KE : %55 to the Massive-Wall as kinetic energy (shove) , %45 to the sandbag as thermal energy (heat). The ball stops dead in it's tracks as a result of this , it is done until it is thrown again .
In regards to the steel ball/wall impact : This too was pictured not like my process . The ball imparts %2 of it's KE to the steel wall , it converts ~%0 to heat , it then reflects back with %98 of it's KE intact . The sandbag transfers more KE because of it's much longer contact time , same with the steelball on sandbag impact .
Note - Energy must be radiated or conducted out to make this system work .
P.M.
OK, since you seem to want to talk about non elastic collisions and elastic ones, please answer my question.
In which scenario does the bigger weight move away faster?
Is V(sticky) bigger or smaller than V(bouncy)?
-
Reply # 80 covered it pretty well . I'll use pool balls to elucidate .
One pool ball bulls-eyes another . It stops dead , while the target bounces forward at ~%100 speed . If you increase the target ball's mass slightly , it will bounce a bit slower , while the shooter-ball bounces backwards slowly .
The "adhesive collision" converts two objects into one instantly . The "Shooter" object's KE is then distributed proportionately throughout the "new object" . This results in a significantly lower velocity than the "target" object in the first case .
OK , ya got yer cockamamie answer ! Finished work , gotta long drive now .
P.M.
-
So, without the dross, you think the ball with the elastic collision moves off slower than the one where they stick together?
And do you think the same would happen with, for example, rail trains (assuming they had frictionless wheels)?
If a small waggon hit a larger one and bounced off (backwards) it would set the bigger one moving.
If they hit + "stuck" together (Imagine, if you like, a big spike on the front of the small wagon sticking into a big bag of sand stuck to the back of the big one.)
Do you think the "sticky" collision would send the combined train off slower than the "bouncy" collision?
-
You're throwing out multiple variables there . An "adhesive" collision is fundamentally different from a true in-elastic collision , terminology notwithstanding .
Now , your puzzle :
If a steel ball bulls-eyes a same-weight steel ball , it stops dead as it transmits ~100% of it's kinetic energy to the target ball . If the target ball is heavier , it absorbs less KE from the shooter-ball , which keeps some KE as it bounces back from the target . If the target-ball is massive-plate heavy , the shooter-ball will bounce back with ~98% of it's KE , while the target-ball absorbs ~2% .
IF you add a "perfect" adhesive to the target ball , then the balls will instantly become one upon contact . They will then be a larger object with the KE of the 2 objects put together .
In summary , your final statement is correct .
-
An "adhesive" collision is fundamentally different from a true in-elastic collision
For a start, no it isn't. For a finish, what do you think the difference is?
-
The first fifteen sentences of reply # 85 explain it nicely .
D.
-
The first fifteen sentences of reply # 85 explain it nicely .
Well, they don't make sense but never mind
OK, let's do the maths that you are apparently incapable of.
Let's say the small mass is 1KG and the big one is 100KG the small mass starts of at 1 m/s the collision is perfectly elastic.
The initial KE is 1/2 Joules (from KE=1/2 M V^2)
First let's look at the non elastic collision case.
We know we can't rely on conservation of energy here. Some energy is lost warming up the sand.
But we have the conservation of momentum.
As before the total initial momentum is 1, so the final momentum must also be 1
And the combined mass of the (now joined) masses is 101Kg.
So the final velocity is 1/101 m/s
Now let's look at the inelastic collision, the final KE is also 1/2 J
What we need to do next is work out what the velocities of the two masses are.
We know the initial momentum (1 Kgm/s) and that's conserved, so we know the final momentum.
And the final momentum must be the sum of momenta of the two masses.
1 V(small) +100 V(big) =1 kgm/s
and from the KE we know that
1/2 V(small)^2 +100/2 (V(big)^2 =1/2 J
Multiply both sides by 2 to tidy up
V(small)^2 + 100V(big)^2 =1
That's a pair of simultaneous equations.
It's a bit late in the day for me to think about that pair of equations , perhaps someone will stuff them into a solver for us.
In the meantime...
There's a simplifying assumption we can make here.
If the big mass was infinitely big then the ball would bounce off at the same speed as it hit.
Because the big mass is much bigger than the small one (100Kg vs 1Kg) the speed it bounces off must be nearly the same as the initial speed.
So, the initial momentum of the small mass is 1 Kgm/s
And the final momentum is (nearly) -1 Kgm/s
(There's a minus sign there because the movement is in the opposite direction.)
So the change in momentum of the small mass is (nearly) -2 Kg m/s.
And if the small mass has lost 2 Kgm/s of momentum and the overall momentum has stayed the same, then the big mass must have gained (nearly)2 Kgm/s
And since it's 100Kg that means the velocity must be (nearly) 2/100 Kgm/s
So, the final velocity of the big mass for the perfectly elastic (bouncy) collision is nearly 0.02 m/s
And the final velocity of the big mass for the perfectly inelastic (sticky) collision is 1/101 i.e. 0.0099 m/s
Now, if you remember,your assertion was this
The "dead" sandbag makes a huge difference also . It's powerful shove completely outweighs the weak shove of the metal ball .
And then you contradicted yourself
The "adhesive collision" converts two objects into one instantly . The "Shooter" object's KE is then distributed proportionately throughout the "new object" . This results in a significantly lower velocity than the "target" object in the first case .
(The first case was the elastic collision)
So you started off by saying the inelastic (sandbag) case hits harder. (They were the same mass at the same speed)
But you ended up (correctly) saying that the elastic (steel ball) case sends the target off faster.
(and what I proved above was that the bouncing ball transmits nearly twice as much momentum to the target as a non bouncy one.)
But your "spaceship" example was based on your original idea that the sandbag delivers more impact- and that is false.
Which is why your original idea is wrong.
-
HEAVIER , not faster , heavier .
Also , I don't see the momentum of the electrons , atoms , and molecules up there . Think of heat as dispersed , uni-directional momentum .
P.
-
One important issue ; math error .
Paragraph "So the important. ...." , and following paragraph . The momentum transferred to the massive plate is ~2% of 1kg.m/s. , not -2kg.m/sec. . I believe that you are transposing photon absorption /reflection dynamics upon bulk matter collision dynamics . Not the same thing , at all . Try your formulas with that 2% figure in place , then congratulate me on my breakthrough !
P.M.
-
Think of heat as dispersed , uni-directional momentum .
You were calling it omni-directional earlier...
Any waste heat produced is omni-directional
-
Woops , habit . Kind of obvious I meant in all directions ( omni ) .
D.
-
Woops , habit . Kind of obvious I meant in all directions ( omni ) .
D.
If you did mean omni-directional, then why are you bothering to complain about the lack of molecular momentum calculations? If you propose that the heat is omni-directional, then it will have no effect on the net momentum and won't change Bored Chemist's calculations.
-
The momentum transferred to the massive plate is ~2% of 1kg.m/s. , not -2kg.m/sec. .
No
You keep making the same mistake.
The momentum transfer is 2 Kgm/s
I believe that you are transposing photon absorption /reflection dynamics upon bulk matter collision dynamics .
Well spotted.
The reflection of photons (with virtually no loss of everyg- perfectly elastic) gives rise to twice the momentum transfer as absorption of photons (with total loss of energy and thus totally inelastic).
What you don't seem to understand is that this is also the outcome for macroscopic collisions of other things.
Not the same thing , at all .
It's exactly the same thing. Why would it be different? Momentum is momentum.
Try your formulas with that 2% figure in place , then congratulate me on my breakthrough !
So, what you are saying is that your "breakthrough" depends on getting the maths wrong.
-
I shouldn't need to say it buut ; photons are NOT bulk matter . The differences are many-fold , especially in matters of reflection . I will recap : Glass on steel 90/10 . 10% of kinetic energy is transferred to the Massive Plate , 90% of KE is retained by glass ball after rebound . Now, Beanbag on Steel : 55/45/0.
55% of kinetic energy is transferred to Massive Plate , 45% becomes molecular momentum during "bonding" , .002% is retained as rebound KE .
The imbalance in striking force is made manifest here . Proper manipulation can then use this to create a unidirectional thrust engine , or ensemble .
OK , momenta A is not momenta B!
......P.M.
-
a different type of shield is necessary ... Constructed mainly of high-tech , impact-absorbing materials
I recently saw some samples of shielding that had been subjected to simulated micrometeorite impacts that you expect to encounter in Earth orbit.
The idea of having two thin layers of protection seems much more effective than a single thick layer.
The idea of the first layer is to partially melt/vaporize the micrometeorite (and slow it a bit). What hits the second layer is a partially melted spray of particles, spread out over a larger area, so it is much less likely to penetrate the next layer.
The composition of the first layer is not so important - in fact, if the first layer is particularly tough, it may provide very tough debris that can puncture the second layer. So it is probably best if the first layer is something like aluminium that is light and has a fairly low melting point, so it splatters rather than remain intact.
This photo shows a 5mm thick layer of aluminium, hit by the ball bearing. The impact created a crater through most of the depth (and probably cracked and weakened the remainder of the depth).
[ Invalid Attachment ]
This photo shows the effect of two layers of 0.5mm each, and the splatter pattern on the second layer.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
From an exhibition at Scienceworks, Melbourne Australia.
Actually Evan, the Israelis came up with one better if I remember correct, I think we use it for our tanks in Sweden too. You put 'directed explosives' on the outside of the material, If something hits that it will explode creating a counterforce outwards. Now, I wouldn't recommend hanging dynamite staves (or nitroglycerin) outside the Spacecrafts hull, but there should be some possibilities, well, maybe :)
-
I shouldn't need to say it buut ; photons are NOT bulk matter .
You didn't need to say it.
Nobody had said that photons were bulk matter.
That's just some sh1t you made up.
You should realise that we will spot that sort of thing, point it out and leave you looking a bit silly.
10% of kinetic energy is transferred to the Massive Plate , 90% of KE is retained by glass ball after rebound . Now, Beanbag on Steel : 55/45/0.
55% of kinetic energy is transferred to Massive Plate , 45% becomes molecular momentum during "bonding" , .002% is retained as rebound KE .
Which part of "Energy does not work in the same way as momentum." do you not understand?
-
"It's exactly the same thing . Why would it be different ?"
Sounds like somebody forgot their castor oil this morn !
Seriously though ? My engine doesn't give a flying fleep about your momentum strictures , only about kinetic energy transfer . So far , it's right too !
Wah-haha-haha !
P.M.
-
Which part of "Energy does not work in the same way as momentum." do you not understand?
-
It's a good thing that "energy does not work in the same way..." , this frees me up to piss energy all over the universe without suffering from that obnoxious "rocket equation" !
P.M.
-
It's a good thing that "energy does not work in the same way..." , this frees me up to piss energy all over the universe without suffering from that obnoxious "rocket equation" !
P.M.
Great!
Progress.
Now all you need to do is recognise that the obnoxious rocket equation is a law of physics (and is independent of the conservation of energy).
-
......................Recap .
The system contains a number of recycling units of kinetic energy . Reducing the velocity of units by friction reduces the system energy ( momentum ) asymmetrically , thus engendering an effective "push" on the entire unit .
Obviously , since no reaction mass is used , the Rocket Equation Law is bypassed . There's always a tricK , eh !
P.M.
-
......................Recap .
The system contains a number of recycling units of kinetic energy . Reducing the velocity of units by friction reduces the system energy ( momentum ) asymmetrically , thus engendering an effective "push" on the entire unit .
Obviously , since no reaction mass is used , the Rocket Equation Law is bypassed . There's always a tricK , eh !
P.M.
Word salad is not sufficient to overturn the laws of physics.
And you still need to learn the difference between momentum and energy.
They two quantities are separate, so saying things like "reducing the velocity of units by friction reduces the system energy ( momentum ) asymmetrically " makes no sense.
-
It's mechanic speak , kind of like an engine repair-manual . This IS a special purpose machine . How's about that Coefficient Of Restitution Table ? Ain't nothin' like some basic math to set ya straight!
Also , the kinetic energy and the momentum rise and fall together , though ASYMMETRICALLY !
Think of this as an engine that works by applying suction to the cylinder , instead of pressure . It might be weak , but it would work !
Logic exercise over .
.......P.M.
-
Also , the kinetic energy and the momentum rise and fall together ,
No.
They don't.
Do you not realise that just because you say something, that doesn't make it true?
Ain't nothin' like some basic math to set ya straight!
And you have yet to do any relevant maths.
How's about that Coefficient Of Restitution Table ?
What about it?
The only person here who has misunderstood it is you.
You don't understand that losing 50% of the energy is not the same as losing 50% of the velocity.
-
I already quoted the necessary rebound percentages . The imbalance is obvious , thus the principle of USING this imbalance to engender push (asymmetric thrust) should be easily understood by all . Motion imbalance is the causative factor for most reciprocating engines ; a good enough guide-line I think !
Hey , I know , think of it as negative energy . That should produce a Woody Harrelson !
P.M.
-
I already quoted the necessary rebound percentages
Yes, You quoted them.
And you made it clear that you didn't understand them.
a good enough guide-line I think !
You think that.
Reality disagrees.
-
Replies #107&109 show that I understand PLENTY ! Your constant repetition of established dogma , combined with a total refusal to acknowledge the basic math involved , tends to make the discussion both boring , & stupid . I am under no obligation to subject myself to such !
P.M.
P.S.- ALL engines manipulate matter and energy in complex ways , this one is no different !
-
a total refusal to acknowledge the basic math involved
I have repeatedly explained that you have done maths, but not the right maths.
You need to calculate momentum changes and you have not done that.
If you had (or even if you read + understood wher I have done so for you) you would understand why your silly idea doesn't work.
I am under no obligation to subject myself to such !
Indeed.
Any time you want to stop posting trash is fine by me.
Replies #107&109 show that I understand PLENTY
No, they do not.
OK, let's have a quick look at one.
I already quoted the necessary rebound percentages .
Yes, you did.
Repeatedly.
But you don't understand that the percentages for velocity are not the same as those for energy. This is not evidence that you "understand PLENTY"
The imbalance is obvious
Yes, it is obviously that if you throw thing about inside a spaceship, you can get it to move (as seen from outside). If you are clever, you can make the ship rotate (as seen from outside).
What you can't do is get it to move continuously in 1 direction without something to push against.
You fail to properly take account of the momentum transfers when the thrown things come to a halt.
This is not evidence that you "understand PLENTY"
thus the principle of USING this imbalance to engender push (asymmetric thrust) should be easily understood by all .
The issue is not that we don't understand it, the problem is that you don't (see above) and that is why, while it's perfectly obvious, it's not true so once again This is not evidence that you "understand PLENTY"
Motion imbalance is the causative factor for most reciprocating engines ;
That's just gibberish.
The cause of reciprocating engines is that people make them.
Engines are actually carefully designed to try to balance the forces involved. People get paid to do it.
http://www.balancingservices.co.uk/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIh4my5Kvb3gIVbpPtCh3F0QxeEAAYASAAEgLu8fD_BwE
So, again this isn't evidence that you "understand PLENTY".
; a good enough guide-line I think !
The fact that bouncing something transfers more momentum than having it stick is counterintuitive, but demonstrably true.
Your thoughts do not influence reality. The fact that you act as if they do is not evidence that you "understand PLENTY".
Hey , I know , think of it as negative energy .
It doesn't matter much how you think of it.
The fact is that experiments have shown that you are wrong (and the fact is made use of in practical machines like turbines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelton_wheel
So, once more, this isn't evidence that you "understand PLENTY".
That should produce a Woody Harrelson !
That's evidence of you being a dick, rather than evidence that you "understand PLENTY".
The only real question left is are you an idiot or a troll?
-
..............Bouncy - Bouncy !
Go to Physics Stack Exchange :
"Why is momentum conserved when a ball hits a vertical wall ?"
The difference in momentum is directional , not quantitative ! The hard ball rebounds having transferred very little kinetic energy to the steel wall . This opposes the beanbag transferring more than 1/2 of it's kinetic energy to it's steel wall . As I said before , this is solid shove versus light dink . The solid shove pushes the box in it's direction far harder than the dink ! These kinds of imbalances are what engines run on , witness the symmetrical outward push of a combustion chamber explosion . Asymmetrical use of this push results in asymmetrical action , i.e. the pushing down of the piston . The difference here is that my symmetrical throws experience asymmetrical actions , resulting in asymmetrical pushes to the walls .
My analysis of your reasoning indicates a fixation on Newtonian Physics . Problem is , Einstein predominates here . E=MC2 does mean that ejecting/converting energy uni-directionally should be equivalent to ejecting mass/matter unidirectionally .
Well , waddya know ! I feel like a Troll with a giant stick today !
P.M.
-
This opposes the beanbag transferring more than 1/2 of it's kinetic energy to it's steel wall .
Just for a start, it doesn't. Much of the energy is lost as heat.
This opposes the beanbag transferring more than 1/2 of it's kinetic energy to it's steel wall . As I said before , this is solid shove versus light dink
You still refuse to understand that it's the momentum which gives the shove, rather than the kinetic energy.
(You may notice that your weird world where energy and momentum are treated the same is sufficiently different from the real world that the mods have moved you into "new theories".)
-
..............Different Tack .
Let’s assume that the beanbag and the steel ball both push the wall equally hard , thus cancelling out . You are still left with a steel ball flying across the UNMOVING box ! When that hits it's target sandbag , what will be the result ?
You are having a conceptual problem here because this is a compound system , not a single impact . It opposes elastic and inelastic collisions , that complicates the issue !
As for the board thing , did you just hike up your shorts , and run away screaming !?
P.
-
Let’s assume that the beanbag and the steel ball both push the wall equally hard
Why assume something which is known to be wrong?
As I have explained, the bouncing ball imparts twice as much momentum as the beanbag.
As for the board thing , did you just hike up your shorts , and run away screaming !?
It would be better if you stopped saying stupid things.
-
..............Illusion......
Alright , I have to backtrack a bit . Convertalot is backing up that 2x bit , counter-intuitive though it is . However , the inelastic collisions should shed much more energy as heat than the elastic ones . A system of repeating impacts should produse a slight loss of kinetic energy transfer on the inelastic collision side , ergo slight push due to inefficiency of kinetic energy transfer . Call this a friction engine . Weak but doable .
P.M.
-
..............Illusion......
Alright , I have to backtrack a bit . Convertalot is backing up that 2x bit , counter-intuitive though it is .
I was in the process of trying to prepare an easy experiment that anyone could do at home using inexpensive items to demonstrate this whole momentum thing. Has it turned out that such a thing isn't necessary after all? Have you accepted that the ball pushes the metal wall harder than the sandbag? Or should I go ahead with the experiment?
-
Optimum Spaceship Design ?
Let the assumption be that we have developed an effective Impulse Drive . Not a rocket , not an ion thruster , but a powerful & efficient , nuclear-powered , drive mechanism . This being the case we can presume peak travel velocities in excess of 1 million miles per hour . Although such a ship can afford to carry adequate radiation shielding for the job , interplanetary dust and debris pose a lethal danger . At full speed , one pea-sized rock would impact a ship with more explosive power than a stick of dynamite . Such an impact would punch through blunt shielding , wrenching the ship badly , and spraying deadly shrapnel through it's interior . To prevent this , a different type of shield is necessary . The most effective design would be a long cone . This would be slightly wider than the ship , and held ahead of the ship by flexible mounts . Constructed mainly of high-tech , impact-absorbing materials , it would be coated with a thick layer of iron sand , contained within an aluminum skin . The resultant composite effect would absorb tremendous energy , and yet be reasonably light .
The ship proper would be a long, thin , pencil-like design . In other words ; a Needle-Ship . The crew working & living spaces would be directly behind the cone . The supplies & auxiliary craft would be next , the Impulse Drive machinery would be after that , and the Reactors ( w/minimal shielding ) would be last .
Electric thrusters would arranged about the ship for fine attitude control . Heat radiators , solar panels , antennas , etc. would all be arranged strategically on the ship exterior.
The final requirement would be the trajectory . In order to minimize in-flight impacts , the ship would need to follow a parabolic trajectory , rising up above the plane of the ecliptic . This would place the high-speed portion of it's course above 99% of possible impactors .
A ship of this type would benefit from full recycling of organic waste products . Pre-positioning of LNG would also improve capability . A two-ship formation would magnify safety and redundancy , and possibly allow for tethered , centripetal gravity as well .
Alright , this would kick 2001s Odyssey all over the place !
Enjoy your new spaceship ! .P.M.
Who would fund that?
-
The asteroid-grabbers !.......D.
-
"
Alright , I have to backtrack a bit . Convertalot is backing up that 2x bit ,
"
I think what you mean there is that you have to admit that practically your entire thread has been a stupid mistake. Every post was a waste of bandwidth which could have been avoided if you had done what you were told at the outset and actually learned some stuff.
Presumably you now understand that you are going to be written off as "The guy who was too dumb to realise he was dumb".
Call this a friction engine
In space, not only can nobody hear you scream, but there's no friction.
Eventually, you might recognise that heating one wall of the ship (by whatever means) will cause it to emit more radiation than the cold side and that will produce a net thrust.
It's hard to imagine a stupider way to heat the back of your ship than repeatedly throwing bean bags at it.
So the answer to " What is the best spaceship design?" is
Almost anything except what P M-M suggests.
-
Hey , if it works for Guido Fetta , it's worth a shot , right ? Beside , I'll keep butting my head against that wall , just to see what else falls off. Remember , preconceptions preclude discovery . Meanwhile , the best close options are the Impulse Drives discussed in other threads .
OK , study,study,study !
P.
-
if it works for...
It doesn't
It never will.OK , study,study,study !
I presume that's a "note to self", in which case it's a good idea.
-
I'll let y'all know in 300 years . Until then it's reaction engines for me , yeehaw !
D.
-
I'll let y'all know in 300 years . Until then it's reaction engines for me , yeehaw !
D.
You have a nonsensical thread on them too.
-
...........Spaceship Engines .
Drive comparisons are at :
"Can An Impulse Engine Be Made?"
P.M.
-
...........Spaceship Engines .
Drive comparisons are at :
"Can An Impulse Engine Be Made?"
P.M.
Nonsense can be found here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74724.0
-
"The future belongs to those who make it !".
"The Expanse" wii happen soon enough !
P.
-
"The future belongs to those who make it !".
"The Expanse" wii happen soon enough !
P.
And you don't "make the future" by wasting time on drivel like yours.
-
"If you don't have anything good to say , it's best to not say anything ."
That is such good advice , let's follow it in these threads , eh ?
P.M.
-
"If you don't have anything good to say , it's best to not say anything ."
That is such good advice , let's follow it in these threads , eh ?
P.M.
It's a pity you didn't do that at the outset, isn't it.
-
Let's all be clear that my ultimate motivation , and goal , is to find promising avenues to solutions for these space travel problems .
P.M.
-
Let's all be clear that my ultimate motivation , and goal , is to find promising avenues to solutions for these space travel problems .
P.M.
That's nice.
Do you think that the best path to that goal is to not bother to learn anything about the subject and continually rant about stuff that's known to be impossible?
-
Unorthodox opinions voiced outside-the-box .
P.
-
I will now rant ( examine ) a near-term possibility which could lead to a reactionless drive .
Imagine that I have a 1.35 GW photon rocket . It produces 1lb of thrust . I pass the light-beam through a special Light Mutator , which changes the internal form of the light into something that the electrons of my "reciever" cannot absorb . This light expends much of it's stored energy impacting the surface , not heating it . This could concievably produce thrust above 1Mlb , depending upon the efficiency of the "Heavy Light" conversion , and impacts .
The other possible path is further down the road . It involves accessing the quantum substance of space-time itself . This unlocks the possibilities of anti-gravity , artificial gravity , and reactionless propulsion .
These two approaches , vigorously pursued , are likely to yield good results within the next century or two . A worthwhile effort to secure such powerful new technologies .
Alright , path revealed .
P.M.
-
Unorthodox opinions voiced outside-the-box .
P.
It's not a matter of "Unorthodox opinions ..."
It's a matter of you saying stuff that's simply not true.
It's like having the "opinion" that the capital of France is in the southern hemisphere
-
This could concievably produce thrust above 1Mlb
Based upon what calculations?
-
Re: What is the best spaceship design?
One that works !
-
Gentlemen ,
The thrust of the thread is the quest for near-future spaceship architectures .I stated the question as I did because we don't have real spaceships yet , and will not without major conceptual and technological advances . This is what I am questing for .
P.M.
-
Gentlemen ,
The thrust of the thread is the quest for near-future spaceship architectures .I stated the question as I did because we don't have real spaceships yet , and will not without major conceptual and technological advances . This is what I am questing for .
P.M.
Then why waste everyone's time with nonsensical distractions like this?
This light expends much of it's stored energy impacting the surface , not heating it . This could concievably produce thrust above 1Mlb , depending upon the efficiency of the "Heavy Light" conversion
-
One of many POSSIBILITIES , all of which could yield miraculous results . So hard to predict the development of technology .
P.M.
-
One of many POSSIBILITIES , all of which could yield miraculous results . So hard to predict the development of technology .
P.M.
Except that many things you talk about are IMPOSSIBILITIES.
Why can't you grasp that?
-
There are ways to siphon energy from EMR in flight , so I definitely say "possible".
-
, so I definitely say "possible".
You may say it, but that doesn't stop it being wrong.
-
You are missing the trick !
While it is true that EMR sucks for recoil and impact involving bulk materials , you can transfer much of it's kinetic energy to intermediary electrons in flight . Each high-energy x-ray carries a kinetic-energy of almost 3-M.e-v . These little bb.s will hit a reciever with ~ 2.5-M.e-v of kinetic-energy , ALL AT ONCE ; far harder than the emitted light would have . The challenge is developing an efficient electron-catching and recycling mechanism . Such a device is analogous to a wave generator plunging up and down to drive a cork forward . Analyse some Compton Scattering events for energy transfer , electrons are surprisingly good at changing EMR sine waves into lateral velocity . The technical challenge is an efficient electron-catching device . I suspect that the most efficient approach is to use concentrated waves , ergo the name " EMR Shockwave Engine " . Go ahead , spew out your " It can't be ! " arguments , I actually nailed down this paradigm years ago !
Chuckling P.M.
__________________________________
*Discussion on Reactionless Drive
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75493.new;topicseen#new
-
These little bb.s will hit a reciever far harder than the emitted light would have .
How? The photons can't donate more momentum to the electrons than they already have.
The challenge is developing an efficient electron-catching and recycling mechanism .
Have you already forgotten when I pointed out that such a system would hold itself back and keep the engine from going anywhere?
-
There is your fundamental error . The recoil/impact of the light beam is nothing compared to it's energy content . The electrons parasitise much of that hidden energy , turning it into kinetic energy instead of thermal energy . On impact , they will push the reciever much harder than a light beam .
Remember , a gigawatt can power several jumbo jets at once . That measly 1lb of thrust is nothing !
P.M.
-
There is your fundamental error . The recoil/impact of the light beam is nothing compared to it's energy content . The electrons parasitise much of that hidden energy , turning it into kinetic energy instead of thermal energy . On impact , they will push the reciever much harder than a light beam .
Remember , a gigawatt can power several jumbo jets at once . That measly 1lb of thrust is nothing !
P.M.
In principle, you can extract more momentum from a beam of light if you allow for multiple bounces. I've read about solar sail schemes where a laser is reflected multiple times between the sail and some reflector placed some distance away (not connected to the ship itself, obviously). Every time the light beam bounces between the two, it pushes both the ship and the reflector more and more strongly in opposite directions. If you tuned things right, you might be able to take advantage of that same idea by bouncing a laser beam multiple times back and forth between the inside of the engine and the cloud of electrons (although I would suggest a plasma, as it would be electrically neutral and therefore much easier to contain).
However, all of that boils down to how fast you can make those electrons (or plasma) move. There are probably more efficient schemes for that than pushing on it with a laser beam. Electromagnetic acceleration like that used in ion engines might work better.
-
You go , Sum Dum Goy !
Extreme reaction engines have a potential !
P.M.
-
Go ahead , spew out your " It can't be ! " arguments , I actually nailed down this paradigm years ago !
It wouldn't work years ago.
It still doesn't.
The reason was sorted out long before you were born.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
-
If one accepts that a relativistic electron hits a reciever much harder than a same-energy photon , I yam in business !
P.
-
If one accepts that a relativistic electron hits a reciever much harder than a same-energy photon , I yam in business !
P.
No.
You need to recognise that momentum and energy are both important and, if you want to do anything efficiently, you need to conserve energy as well as possible.
-
Efficiency can be sacrificed for power , especially if you're running off of a nuclear reactor .
Just for grins , what happens when a powerful wave of X-rays hits a closed container of plasma ? Come on , all together now !
P.M.
-
Just for grins , what happens when a powerful wave of X-rays hits a closed container of plasma ? Come on , all together now !
It bounces off the container (by the definition of "closed"- you can't get into it).
-
..........Unspeakably Obtuse !
I definitely meant a container made of X-ray transparent material .
P.
-
..........Unspeakably Obtuse !
I definitely meant a container made of X-ray transparent material .
P.
Then you should have said so, rather than saying it was opaque.
Never mind...
If you stopped creating multiple threads about the same nonsense you would realise that I already answered this "point" here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75294.msg560838#msg560838
-
I want each thread to concentrate on it's topic , but folks keep wandering !
P.
-
If any of you have designs , do not tell them on science forums, you are just a ''dog'' to them , they will just take your ideas.
-
You have a point , Mr. Box .
However , what if I'm hit by a truck tomorrow ? Millions of cancer patients scream to death unnecessarily , or humanity loses it's only reactionless drive , or a thousand timeless questions go unanswered ? Don't I have a moral obligation to humanity here ?
P.M.
-
You have a point , Mr. Box .
However , what if I'm hit by a truck tomorrow ? Millions of cancer patients scream to death unnecessarily , or humanity loses it's only reactionless drive , or a thousand timeless questions go unanswered ? Don't I have a moral obligation to humanity here ?
P.M.
I've tried , I have lots of answers but ''they'' don't care . I have loads of inventions I haven't posted , they think stealing the ones I posted is enough . Oh boy ! 'They' missed out on serious chit .
-
.................Back on topic .
Let us assume that we are using two-ship formations near future . A tethered-rotation scenario is employed to provide artificial gravity . A separation distance of one kilometer is used . 0.3 rpm. gives 10% Earth gravity , 0.6 rpm. gives 39% E.grav. , 1.0 rpm. gives 109% E.grav. ( G ) . If done in orbit , a "log-roll" orientation yields best results . It optimizes both visibility , and shuttle-craft access . It is much easier for craft to dock if they can approach at the same altitude and speed . Fly-by-wire should control the ships , and their rotation . Triple redundancy releases should hold the super-strong tethers to the ships . Vacuum and radiation resistant composite-fiber materials would likely be optimum for this job .
Okay , gravity .
*Addendum : Rotating Stations . These will have a central hub, for ingress/egress of ships/shuttles .The current concept is of a slot in the hub , with airtight door . A much more practical design is that of a ring-hub , with safety-lips . This would be somewhat similar to a Hot-Wheels loop-the-loop track , with work-shops placed interior to it . Craft would slide sideways into the middle of the loop , then slowly descend onto the track . They would , in effect , land on an "air-strip" . They would then be towed into a bay , and a pressure-door would slide into place .
*Far easier/safer than the "slot".
P.M.
-
they think stealing the ones I posted is enough .
You have yet to produce anything worth stealing.
-
Vacuum and radiation resistant composite-fiber materials would likely be optimum for this job .
Are you claiming that saying things like that is creative?
-
You have yet to produce anything worth stealing.
I'm curious to know when he thinks someone actually stole one of his ideas.
-
To : Low-brow School Grads
What is wrong with my R.D. threads ?
P.M.
-
To : Low-brow School Grads
What is wrong with my R.D. threads ?
P.M.
I presume you are not expecting any replies to that question.
-
I can't post in them , can you ?
P.
-
It looks like you will need to wait until some "Low-brow School Grads" turn up + answer your question.
-
How's about some noisemakers spew some incredible pfaf at it ?
-
How's about some noisemakers spew some incredible pfaf at it ?
It looks like you will need to wait until some "Low-brow School Grads" turn up + answer your question.
-
Dood ,
I already have a record button on my phone ! I need someone to yap at the R.D. thread .
P.
-
Dood ,
I already have a record button on my phone ! I need someone to yap at the R.D. thread .
P.
And do you now realise that this
To : Low-brow School Grads
What is wrong with my R.D. threads ?
P.M.
is a dumb way to try to get that outcome?
-
Come , come , O.G. ! I play off your mess with ribbing humor . Think Rot-knee Danger-meadows !
P.M.
P.S.- I'm going to keep asking until your ears bleed !
-
Getting to grips with how well your attitude of insulting people helps yet?
As a hint, you might want to read the rules.
-
After reading through your pile ! I just rib , you all pile o the "stupid" , and "dumb" , etc. comments . Do not blame me for your insults , I act as the adult in the room , NOT the direct insulters .
Now , if you can't hold your weight in debate , withdraw , do not queef out ! If you've finally realized that I was correct about the subject , MAN UP ! You say you run a company , but the best you can do is run to a cohort and go "Wah !" ? That is elementary-school stuff , not adult MAN ! If I flubbed so bad , I'd tape all my mirrors over !
Sheesh , hard to believe !
P.M. ........ ( a MAN ! )
-
Do not blame me for your insults ,
I'm blaming you for your actions.
I act as the adult in the room
You need to check on how adults really act.
Now , if you can't hold your weight in debate , withdraw ,
You have yet to participate in a debate: you just childishly reassert that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
If you've finally realized that I was correct about the subject ,
You are still at least as wrong as you were at the outset, but with less excuse because your mistakes have been pointed out to you.
You say you run a company ,
Nope.
I never said that.
but the best you can do is run to a cohort and go "Wah !"
Actually the best I could do was get the maths right- which is obviously better than your best.
That is elementary-school stuff , not adult MAN
The science you are getting wrong is school stuff.
As an adult you should accept the limits of your understanding.
If I flubbed so bad , I'd tape all my mirrors over !
If you looked in the mirror you might see where your problem really is.
Sheesh , hard to believe !
Yes, but you keep acting this way.
Is it dawning on you that people are unlikely to help you if you start off by only asking for replies from "Low-brow School Grads"
BTW, did you read the rules?
-
First of all , obviously so . That is why all of your posts contain direct insults , and mine do not . I deflect your carp with humor , perhaps a little bit bite at times , but no one likes being called dumb , stupid , not adult , etc . This chessmatch of barbs is not why I participate in forums , it is to share & enjoy ideas . The hostile crud origin as test with you , NOT me . All anyone need do is read your posts from the last several months , to clearly see that .
As far as the company biz goes , it was a cab company . As far as the math goes , I made it clear from the start , that I had minimum interest in formulas . More basic forms suffice for my purposes ; pattern recognition , and system design .
At any rate , I consider the behind-the-back crud , running away shrieking ! Par for the course ?
P.M.
-
I would welcome other people getting involved in the discussion as well, but what is your definition of "low-brow school grads"? Anyone who has graduated high school but didn't go to college? Or do you simply mean anyone who isn't a scientist?
-
Anybody who graduated from what is called "High School" . It's not like high-school students are the wisest , or most thoughtful people.
P.M.
-
What about college graduates?
-
That is why all of your posts contain direct insults ,
For example...
-
As far as the company biz goes , it was a cab company
I don't drive.
I have never ran a cab company.
Your claim that I have done so, or said that I have done so is bizarre.
-
I'm not going to be furthering the personal carp anymore , just the technical .
P.M.
-
I'm not going to be furthering the personal carp anymore , just the technical .
P.M.
So, when you get caught lying you follow your own advice which was "Now , if you can't hold your weight in debate , withdraw , do not queef out ! "
I guess that's good.
Pity you didn't have the honesty to admit you goofed.
-
Optimum Spaceship Design ?
Let the assumption be that we have developed an effective Impulse Drive . Not a rocket , not an ion thruster , but a powerful & efficient , nuclear-powered , drive mechanism . This being the case we can presume peak travel velocities in excess of 1 million miles per hour . Although such a ship can afford to carry adequate radiation shielding for the job , interplanetary dust and debris pose a lethal danger . At full speed , one pea-sized rock would impact a ship with more explosive power than a stick of dynamite . Such an impact would punch through blunt shielding , wrenching the ship badly , and spraying deadly shrapnel through it's interior . To prevent this , a different type of shield is necessary . The most effective design would be a long cone . This would be slightly wider than the ship , and held ahead of the ship by flexible mounts . Constructed mainly of high-tech , impact-absorbing materials , it would be coated with a thick layer of iron sand , contained within an aluminum skin . The resultant composite effect would absorb tremendous energy , and yet be reasonably light .
The ship proper would be a long, thin , pencil-like design . In other words ; a Needle-Ship . The crew working & living spaces would be directly behind the cone . The supplies & auxiliary craft would be next , the Impulse Drive machinery would be after that , and the Reactors ( w/minimal shielding ) would be last .
Electric thrusters would arranged about the ship for fine attitude control . Heat radiators , solar panels , antennas , etc. would all be arranged strategically on the ship exterior.
The final requirement would be the trajectory . In order to minimize in-flight impacts , the ship would need to follow a parabolic trajectory , rising up above the plane of the ecliptic . This would place the high-speed portion of it's course above 99% of possible impactors .
A ship of this type would benefit from full recycling of organic waste products . Pre-positioning of LNG would also improve capability . A two-ship formation would magnify safety and redundancy , and possibly allow for tethered , centripetal gravity as well .
Alright , this would kick 2001s Odyssey all over the place !
Enjoy your new spaceship ! .P.M.
*The real preposition begins on page.8 , Reply # 145 . All before that is exploritory .
-
*Actual preposition begins on page # 8 , reply # 145 . Prior discussion is exploratory .
P.M.
*Note to Hayseed : Interacting with anything at 70million mph. will be extremely problematic . Likely it will be much easier to design the ships to be vacuum-filled "pass-through" ships , full of astronaut "peopsicles" . No ship-destroying shockwaves that way .
P.M.
-
From the first post, redundant large and powerful field emitters will be needed. And redundant laser scanners to detect and ionize neutral particles.
You will have to clear a path.
OR, instead of deflecting......collect all close matter and use it for fuel.
At those speeds, you might collect mega watts of charge.
Live off the land.
-
Mr. Hayseed (fever ?) ,
The energy required to ionize and manipulate the interstellar-medium is enormous . It's much more than you could garner by fusing the bit of deuterium you collected .
*Don't lose heart though , R-D is right around the corner .
*Read thread : Reactionless Drives Possible ?
P.M.
-
At those speeds, you might collect mega watts of charge.
Charge isn't measured in megawatts.
-
Ok P.M. Hayseed for simple intellect.
I read the first few pages of the reaction-less drive thread. I can't go for it.
No one more than me, believes that the hobbit novels, doesn't hold a candle to modern science fantasy theory.
But your idea of motion does not agree with experience. This is not to say the experience has revealed all possibilities.
May I ask, why a reaction-less drive? Is it so we don't have to carry mass? Or to prove the space has some kind of usable characteristic?
I would think success would be much more likely in exploiting an established gradient, such as gravity or our systems charge gradient. There might be other gradients.
It would be nice to know what is accelerating Sol's charge out beyond Neptune. Not to mention where it all ends up.
We sail thru and against the wind, why not thru and against a charge wind? Perhaps a magnetic and/or electrostatic sail.
The sail might possibly act as a shield/collector also.
-
Yes , carrying reaction-mass is deadly for space-drives .
The technical explanations are less obtuse , in the last few thread-pages .
Think of the "Compton-Effect" as a converter ; it takes the enormous thermal energy contained in light , and transmutes it into kinetic-energy .
A simpler device is examined in thread : *Discussion on Reactionless-Drive .
Links on pages # 1 and 8 .
As to using Sol-System fields for propulsion , they are weak , and run out of gas quickly .
P.M.
__________________________________
*Note : For an in-depth look at efficient reaction-drive possibilities , go to thread - Can an Impulse-Engine be made ? Begin Reply # 32 .
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74724.new;topicseen#new
-
I read the first few pages of the reaction-less drive thread. I can't go for it.
Good, because it's wrong. Conservation of momentum kills it dead.
-
Well guuud , then ya don't need to give yer self a migraine thinnin' about it !
P.