Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

starship1 · 2004-06-08 22:03:36

STARSHIP ENGINE
PLASMA ROCKET ENGINE
(ATOMIC POWERED ROCKET)

Inventor: Thomas Hulon Jackson Citizenship: United States of America
Starship1@sbcglobal.net

Universal Patent Number 1
Star Ship Operators License Number 1
Expiration Date- None
Disclosure Document Number: 210758
Authority: U.S.,PCT;
Patents pending
U.S. 07/247,498 Plasma rocket engine;
International Patent Cooperation Treaty
PCT/US89/05888 Star Ship.

Restrictive Notice:

From Authorship(authority),I preserve all intellectual and physical property rights both tangible and intangible of:
A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power ©1987 Disclosure Document No.201758 and inventions entitled;
A Plasma Rocket Engine filed 1988 Patent Application Number 07/247,498 (application abandoned),
Star Ship filed 1988 International Patent Cooperation Treaty Patent Application Number 07/247,498 Application PCT/US89/05888 (application abandoned), licensing rights to others to make use and operate my inventions, rights to petition congress for revival of abandoned applications and extension of patent life terms as well as retaining non petition rights to modifications and improvement of my invention and any craft secrets deamed keepable. This list of rights is non-exclusive.

Table of Contents

Brief Discription of the Drawings
Drawings -Figures 1 to 4
Legend of the Drawings
(Fig 5 Animation added year 2000 for net display)
Invention/Inventor
Background of Invention
Field of Invention
Description of the Prior Art
Summary of the Invention
Description of a Preferred Embodiment
Claims 1 to 7
Abstract

Drawings
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0UgDnAgIX … ...7981947
Figures 1 to 4
Fig I A plasma rocket engine showing cross section of engine in
starting mode with a magnified view of the plasma generator in off
position.

Fig 2 Shows a means to obtain fuel disks from radioactive metal to be
inserted in a plasma generator and stacked above critical mass to
generate a plasma.

Fig 3 Shows a means to determine critical mass from a radioactive
metal to be used to manufacture fuel disks, also, a plasma generator
shown in off, on and plasma mode.

Fig 4 A preferred embodiment of a means to obtain a fully functional
plasma engine (shown with plasma generator in plasma state). This is
opposed to fig. 1 which is a one start, go where you point it basic
engine.

http://communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch. … ...3;NAMy8
Figure 5 Engine Animation- added year 2000 for net display

LEGEND OF DRAWINGS
The following is (are) the preferred embodiment(s) of:
1 a solid casing open at one end to expel exhaust and with a
propellant storage and delivery system (shown with optional cooling
path) to a plasma chamber.
2 a liquid propellant.
3 a plasma generator assembly.
4 a means of nozzles and openings to direct propellant flow (four
shown)
5 a fuel disk(s).
6 a fuel disk guide post (2 shown).
7 an electric starter motor.
8 a worm gear.
9 a burning plasma.
10 a crucible with radioactive metal cubes.
11 a heat source.
12 a Geiger counter.
13 a fuel disk mold.
14 a Worm gear shape.
15 exhaust focusing nozzles (2 shown).
16 exhaust tuning nozzles (2 shown).
17 exhaust steering nozzles (2 shown).
18 optional magnetic containment coils.
19 electromechanical propellant pumps.
20 exhaust focusing tuning and steering pumps.
21 an exhaust port.
22 a plasma chamber.
23 separated metal cubes.
24 cubes arranged and stacked in a disk shape to determine
critical mass.
25 a critical mass graph with radioactive curve expressed as
a function of mass and radiation to determine Geiger
counter "runaway" of critical mass point (c.m). The
fuel disk mass is one half this point.

BACKGROUND OF INVENTION

1. FIELD OF THE INVENTION
My invention is an atomic rocket engine that contains a plasma
generated by radioactive metal above critical mass. It uses the heat
to accelerate a liquid propellant. The energy produced gives thousands
of times more thrust per pound than chemical rockets presently used and
produces greater efficiency and velocity than proposed atomic rockets.

2. DESCRlPTlON OF THE PRIOR ART
Theodore Taylor's Project Orion uses a series of small atomic bomb
explosions on a "pusher plate" to obtain thrust. The disadvantage is
that due to cooling time between explosions the time the engine is on
compared to the time it is off gives a very low efficiency or duty
cycle [Time on divided by (time on + time off) = duty cycle). One is
desirable.

The propellant shrapnel is expelled from the pusher plate
in all directions from behind it. This wastes the majority of the
energy used in energy vectors perpendicular to the line of travel. He
indirectly uses atomic energy to build bombs, then used these bombs to
build a rocket engine. A device that may work but is not energy
efficient; however, it will probably create more thrust per pound of
engine weight than chemical rockets.

His invention's problems are low duty cycle, inefficient exhaust,
indirect means of propulsion, and the use of atomic bombs subject to
theft. Also, the use of atomic bombs in space is forbidden by
international treaty. My invention eliminates all the above problems.
The other atomic rocket encounters one of the above problems and
one additional one my invention eliminates. He uses atomic energy to
operate a reactor and uses the electricity produced from heat to
liquid hydrogen and oxygen using electricity. He then uses
electricity to strip electrons from hydrogen atoms. He uses the small
remainder to accelerate the positive ions for propulsion. The safety
problem of a over heated reactor and liquid hydrogen is obvious as is
the inefficiency of the many steps he uses to get indirectly from
atomic energy to propellant through this is partially off set by the
production of oxygen and electricity for the pay load.

His invention's problems are indirect means of propulsion and a
inefficient atomic reactor with it's safety concerns. My invention
solves all the above problems by using all the power available in
atomic energy to directly accelerate the propellant in a line parallel
to the direction of travel in a continuous on state. This eliminates
the energy waste of the above rockets enabling it to accelerate the
same pay load mass to many times the velocity of prior art. The safety
factor of eliminating the atomic bombs and the liquid hydrogen is
considerable. The future chemical and nuclear costs of solar system
or galactic exploration with prior art will be astronomical. I
invention will reduce that cost astronomically.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

My invention is an atomic rocket engine that contains and
harnesses a Plasma in a liquid propellant and casing to directly
effect the rapid expansion of the propellant; thereby, expelling the
propellant out of an exhaust port causing acceleration of the engine
which consists of a means to contain the plasma in three dimensions,
whereby; the energy from the plasma directly causes the liquid
propellant plasma container to rapidly expand from chemical and atomic
change and this changed liquid propellant is contained in the two
dimensions of the casing with the "leak" in the third dimension used
to provide propulsion.

To make my invention fully functional in the environment it is
required to operate, the means are described to obtain the functions
of steering, starting once and multiple times, planned and emergency
stops, regulating propellant flow, tuning and focusing the exhaust,
casing cooling, artificial gravity, auxiliary power, increasing
velocity to permit intra and extra galactic exploration, replenishing
the propellant from deep space, manufacturing the fuel disks and
protecting the engine and pay load from meteorite collisions.
Also described is a means of converting the engine to a electric
generator to power a space and earth habitat as is a means of
modifying my invention to convert earth stored radioactive waste and
toxic chemical waste to harmless atoms and subatomic particles and
deliver the remainder to deep space economically.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
(DETAILED DESCRIPTION)
My invention is a rocket engine that consists of a solid container
(casing 1) open at one end to emit exhaust from an exhaust port 21.
The opposite end and sides are closed but contain openings 4 to admit
a liquid spray (propellant 2) directed to contain a plasma 9
consisting of radioactive metal (fuel disks 5) above critical mass
located in a plasma chamber 22 (the hollow inside of a casing 1). The
vaporization of the liquid propellant 2 creates a vapor container for
the plasma 9 isolating and insulating it from the casing 1; thereby,
preventing melting. The plasma 9 is balanced and contained in the
liquid envelope balanced by the dynamic pressures created. (This is
similar to a ping pong ball in an air stream enclosed in a tube of
greater diameter than the ball to provide stabilization.) The energy
from the plasma 9 directly causes the liquid propellant 2
plasma 9 container to rapidly expand from chemical and atomic changes;
whereby, this changed liquid propellant 2 is contained in the two
dimensions of the casing I with the "leak" in the third dimension used
to provide propulsion by the action and reaction law.

Additional stabilization that may be required in some operating
modes can be obtained from electro-magnetic containment field coils
18, constructed with conventional technology, used to confine the
plasma 9 in one or two dimensions by using the electro-magnetic
properties of the plasma 9. Three of the above mentioned operating
modes of turning, starting and rapid acceleration change may cause
the inertial mass of the plasma 9 to increase to where it overcomes
the propellant 2 containment properties, therefore may require
additional containment to prevent the plasma 9 from becoming
unbalanced in it's plasma chamber 22.

A means to generate the plasma 9 is obtained by fuel disks 5 of
radioactive metal below critical mass which when stacked together by
a plasma generator assembly 3 using a electric motor 7 to turn a worm
gear 8, thereby; moving the disks 5 along the guide posts 6 to the non-
threaded portion of the worm gear 8 where they obtain critical mass
and generate heat in the range below the melting point of the
radioactive metal to the temperature of a blue white star depending
on the total mass of the fuel disks 5 and the quality of the fuel
used. The hotter and larger the Plasma 9 contained the more mass in
the propellant 2 and fuel disks 5 is converted to energy giving faster
acceleration effects and, therefore, velocities. Velocities based on
ratios of chemical rockets, mass and velocities, to projected atomic
rockets, mass and velocities, indicate a range of velocities from dead
stop to in excess of that of light, therefore, my invention may
provide a means to test Einstein's theory that a man made object other
than a particle accelerator may be found to travel faster than light.

A means of steering is obtained by directing liquid propellant 2
from the exhaust port 21 nozzles and openings 17 to alter the
direction of the ejected propellant 2. Another means is obtained by
the artificial gravity of acceleration for self regulation. A means
of pumping the fluid at various pressure is desirable for various
plasma 9 sizes and acceleration rates required of the engine
therefore, mechanical regulation can be obtained by conventional
pumping technology.

A means of constricting the exhaust propellant diameter to effect
plasma chamber 22 pressure; thereby, tuning and focusing the exhaust
for pencil thin efficiency can be obtained by directing with openings
and nozzles 16, 17 the liquid propellant 2 to the center of the
exhaust port 21 to effect narrowing and acceleration of the propellant
2 stream.

The solid casing I can be cooled by the internal circulation of
propellant 2 part of which is used for steering, focusing, and tuning
and The preheated remainder is directed at the plasma 9 for further
confinement and to prevent thermal shock that may be present.
Artificial gravity is provided for extended space flight by the
acceleration and deceleration rates of an engine that can burn
continuously providing one 9 of acceleration.

Auxiliary power is provided by thermo-couples attached to the
casing 1 to generate electricity for the pay load requirements of
electricity. Also, oxygen may be generated from the electrolysis of
water. The waste products from the air and surplus hydrogen may be
added to the propellant 2.

A means of increasing the velocities obtained by multi-stage
operation for sensor probes in intra or extra galactic exploration can
be obtained by making stacked engines of a size to propel the engines
to escape velocity of earth, solar system, and milky way in that order
Two means of replacing the propellant 2 from frozen liquids on
asteroids, moons, or planets is obtained. One by directing the exhaust
at a frozen mass, two by a plasma generator assembly 3 started a body
of frozen propellant 2 will melt it; thereby, allowing conventional
pumping techniques to be used as with a propellant 2 found in a liquid
state.

A means of manufacturing fuel disks 5 from high grade radioactive
metal found extra-terrestrially can be obtained by the following means.
The maximum size a disk 5 can made changes with the ratio of
unstable isotopes to stable in a radioactive metal. 40% to 80%
reactor grade and 80% or higher bomb grade is suitable. The actual
size depends on the element and the quality available. The more
unstable and heavier (Atomic Mass) the greater the heat generated by
atomic parts hitting other unstable atoms producing heat. This is
best determined by experiment.

Arrange 1/2 inch cubes 23 in a disk shape 24 with a (5 to 4):1
ratio of diameter to thickness. The sides should be touching.
Monitor the pile with a Geiger counter 12. As the mass is increased
linearly, (one cube at a time). the radiation will increase
exponentially. Plotted on a graph 25, the y axis is radiation. x
axis is mass. The curve starts with a low slope going to a sharp
rise. The steep rise (marked as c.m. for critical mass) is that point
where the temperature rises. This makes it unsuitable in a fuel disk
5 resulting in melting the shape of the disks to changes it where it
is no longer the disk you designed. When the Geiger count starts to
'run away', physically separate the cubes 24 and take 1/2 the mass,
from this point and place in a crucible 10. (Caution) Give the
separated cubes 24 time to cool down. The cubes 24 are then melted
over a heat source 11. They should be monitored by Geiger counter 12
to assure the radiation is stable. 4 slight rise is expected. 4
rapid rise requires that the contents of the crucible 10 be scattered
by pouring in a sweeping motion through water. Begin again with a
smaller mass. Pour in a disk mold 13 with it's worm gear shape 14 and
a (5 to 4): 1, diameter to thickness, ratio. When cooled at room
temperature for 24 hours, measure the temperature. If the temperature
is more than 90 degrees thin with hacksaw or lathe. (Disk faces
should be parallel.) They can then be installed in the plasma
generating assembly 3.

A means to protect the rocket and pay load from projectile
collisions with dust and matter it may encounter may be obtained by
reducing the cross section of the craft, thereby, streamlining it. My
invention may be shaped as a long cylinder to aid in streamlining.
Another means of protection may be found with metals that have a shape
memory effect when heated. By anticipating the collision of solid
matter using conventional technology (such as radar or metal
detectors), a heating electric current may be generated through the
shape memory effect metal to resist the original penetration at the
time of impact by the force of the spring back effect plus the
thickness of the metal, thereby, creating an electric armor of my own
invention.

A means of converting the engine to a electric generator for
power a space and earth habitat is obtained by mounting the engine on
the ground of planet or moon with the exhaust pointed upwards and
using the thermo couples to power the manufacture of devices to
contain the uncontained third dimension of the exhaust port 21. In
practice 90% or less containment is needed for more containment may
result in the melt down of the engine. Energy present in the exhaust
as heat, light, mechanical and other forms can be tapped with
conventional thermo couples, turbine generators, solar cells and other
common energy converters.

Earth requires 100% containment so the harmful wastes of the 100
uncontained exhaust and any other from the conventional energy taps
may be collected in a low impedance container and recycled in the
propellant 2 directed at the plasma 9 where it's temperatures can'
render them harmless by altering the chemical and atomic structure;
thereby, decreasing the half lives of radioactive atoms to where they
stabilize in an ecological short time.

A means of detoxifying radioactive and chemical wastes is obtained
by mixing low level radioactive and chemical wastes with the
propellant 2. High level radioactive material can be combined with
the fuel disks 5. This allows the plasma 9 temperatures to break down
the chemical and atomic structures into harmless components. That
quantity not practical to convert to energy can be economically
delivered by my invention to deep space.

[To examiner]:
An atomic theory explaining the atomic alteration
of a liquid propellant 2 of water to it's exhaust form
"plasmelt" (coined from that which is melted and
vaporized by a plasma 9) from a plasma 9 of americium
241 in a steel casing I is beyond requirement for this
patent application for it's theoretical and therefore,
transient nature. A detailed atomic theory can be
found in the document disclosed at the time of this
application.

CLAIMS
I claim:
1. My invention is an atomic rocket engine that provides a means
to contain a plasma, generated by radioactive metal
above critical mass, by using a liquid propellant to contain
the plasma and insulate a casing from it; thereby, directly
changing the chemical and atomic structure of a liquid
propellant; thereby causing expansion which is contained
in two dimensions with the leak of the changed propellant from
the third dimension; thereby accelerating the engine.

I claim:
2. My invention uses a casing and propellant to directly
contain and harness the atomic energy of a plasma in the
dimensions required of a rocket engine and consists of all
atomic engines of this type in a range of the basic unregulated,
unguided, rocket to the fully functional engine
and that the operating temperatures of the plasma contained
range from below the melting point of the radioactive metals
used to the temperatures of a blue white star which can give
a range of velocities from dead stop to faster than light.

I claim:
3. A preferred embodiment of a means to generate a plasma by
the plasma generator assembly that can deliver one or more
multiple plasmas to the plasma chamber.

I claim:
4. My invention is a means to create temperatures of an
extent to effect the atomic and chemical structure of the
propellant; thereby, creating a means to reduce the half
life of radioactive atoms by using the plasma temperatures
to convert radioactive and chemical wastes in an
ecologically short time.

I claim:
5. My invention is a means to generate electricity
by harnessing the energy in the propellant with conventional
technology and that it effectively will contain a propellant
in two dimensions and future technology may contain it in
three dimensions therefore; should my invention be the basis
for this container in the life of this patent, I claim
credit as co-inventor.

I claim:
6. My invention is an electric armor that is a means of
protecting an object from projectile collision, whereby, a
shape memory metal is heated electrically at the time of
collision to use the metals spring back effect to add to the
effective thickness of the shield, thereby increasing the
resistance to penetration.

I claim:
7. My invention is a rocket engine that is a means to test Einstein's
theory that a man made object other than a particle accelerator
may travel faster than light.

ABSTRACT
My invention is an atomic powered rocket engine that
contains a plasma and harnesses it's energy directly to
accelerate a propellant It increases the velocities
and payload handling capabilities by many factors over present
rockets including chemical and atomic. It is more cost efficient,
more reliable, safer and faster than any previous invention
chemical or atomic. It has the potential to populate the stars with mankind

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-09 11:04:25

Hoookay...

I think that somebody has already beaten you to this idea... the Gas Core Nuclear Rocket, aka the "GCNR" of my namesake, already does use a critical mass of fissile substance to heat, vaporize, and perhaps ionize a propellant liquid in a similar fasion to effect propulsive force. The difference is, the fuel itself gets so hot that it melts and becomes a plasma and is trapped in a vortex of liquid hydrogen propellant rather than stabilized by the linear flow of LH or electromagnets.

Problems with your application:

1: Nothing can achieve the speed of light in a vacuum except light. No particle accelerator has ever or will ever reach this speed, nor will a space ship.

2: Your engine would have to use hydrogen or helium as the liquid to attain superior specific impulse and to keep the core from overheating. These gasses do not thermaly "ionize" or convert to plasma effectivly even at temperatures far exceeding the melting point of any known material, especially not steel or Americium.

3: For a given fuel, the hotter the engine and the lighter the propellant determines the efficency of a purely thermal rocket engine. As you are using the lightest propellants in the universe, hydrogen or helium, then raising the temperature is the only way to really get high efficencies. Nasa's NERVA-NTR engines achieved about 900sec running at nearly 3000K, only double of chemical. You must attain temperatures much higher than this.

4: You cannot generate a plasma in LH or LHe without getting your fissile core so hot that it would melt or without the application of a very large electric current, which would be hard since the electrodes would melt too at useful temperatures. The GCNR engine intentionally melts and vaporizes its core to attain the very high temperatures and even there cannot cause alot a large conversion to plasma.

5: How do you intend to keep the fissile core in its position when the ship accelerates around it but the core does not? Also not convinced about how you keep it from being pushed by the propellant as it escapes, since you would not have the benefit of gravity to hold your "nuclear ping pong ball" down.

Lets see if i've forgotton anything... oh yes, two or three more items...

1: Simply heating fissile material does not increase the rate of nuclear decay and does not shorten the halflife of the waste. Only increasing the rate of the nuclear reaction will increase the rate of material decay, and your engine does not do a convincing job of this, as the decay from various daughter elements is not nessesarrily the same too.

2: Thermocouples have very poor efficency, and running the engine intentionally with propellant to generate electricity doesn't strike me as a good idea, since you would run out of propellant fast and not produce much energy in the process. Containing the propellant at its very high temperatures is also not practical, and balencing the core against a gravity field would be difficult. An MHD system would be much more efficent in any event, why didn't you propose using it?

3: Memory metal or hot memory metal does not have good mechanical properties, yes it will bounce back to some degree, but not before the piece of debries pierced the shielding and destroyed the ship behind it.

At the very least, the speed of light thing will keep this engine design is in the tin-foil-hat & UFO w/ little green men catagory.

starship1 · 2004-06-09 20:23:27

Thanks for your most welcome comments and questions.

Give me just a bit of time and I will address fully the 8 issues raised including the beginning paragraph not numbered so renumbered issues 1 to 9. I have to look up some references by Einstein regarding the possibility of faster than light as it was his theory and not mine and look up my proof of principal tests for my engine as all required to date have completed and passed.

1. I think that somebody has already beaten you to this idea... the Gas Core Nuclear Rocket, aka the "GCNR" of my namesake, already does use a critical mass of fissile substance to heat, vaporize, and perhaps ionize a propellant liquid in a similar fasion to effect propulsive force. The difference is, the fuel itself gets so hot that it melts and becomes a plasma and is trapped in a vortex of liquid hydrogen propellant rather than stabilized by the linear flow of LH or electromagnets.

True, the GCNR is not practical as it looses the radioactive fuel with the propellant. My invention solved that problem by keeping the fuel under high pressure so that it remains confined as solid the consitancy of asphalt on a cold day.

2. Problems with your application:
Nothing can achieve the speed of light in a vacuum except light. No particle accelerator has ever or will ever reach this speed, nor will a space ship.........At the very least, the speed of light thing will keep this engine design is in the tin-foil-hat & UFO w/ little green men catagory.

........: Dr. Paul Karl Hoiland
http://65.108.189.168/Docs/WAS%20DR%20N … 0RIGHT.pdf
"When Einstein wrote down his postulates for special relativity he did not include the statement that you cannot travel faster than light. There is a misconception that it is possible to derive it as a consequence of the postulates he did give. Incidentally, it was Henri Poincare who said "Perhaps we must construct a new mechanics, ... in which the speed of light would become an impassable limit." That was in an address to the International Congress of Arts and Science in 1904 before Einstein announced special relativity in 1905."

...

......Refrence Item 16 - The infinite enegy arguement. http//:math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R … t/FTL.html
"It is a consequence of relativity that the energy of a particle of rest mass
m moving with speed v is given by
E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)
As the speed approaches the speed of light the energy approaches infinity. Hence is should be impossible to accelerate an object with rest mass to the speed of light and particles with zero rest mass must always go at exactly the speed of light otherwise they would have no energy. This is sometimes called the "light speed barrier" but it is very different from the "sound speed barrier". As an aircraft approaches the speed of sound it starts to feel pressure waves which indicate that it is getting close. With some more thrust it can pass through. As the light speed barrier is approached (in a perfect vacuum) there is no such effect according to relativity. Moving at 0.99999c is just like standing still with everything rushing past you at -0.99999c. Particles are routinely pushed to these speeds in accelerators so
the theory is well established. Trying to get to the speed of light in this way is like trying to get to the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. This explains why it is not possible to exceed the speed of light by ordinary mechanical means.

Note 1 :
Einstein explained the above given equation as a limit on particle accelerator to accelerate the particle to only sub C as proven mathematically and by particle accelerator experiments. He then said "because" a particle accelerator has to provide the energy to accelerate the particle from a rest frame base to a relativistically increasing mass towards infinity so the energy required tended towards infinity. "In relativity calculation do not mix frames of reference. "It did not rule out a different machine being found that provides the energy from a different frame reference so would require the energy calculation being redone with the proper frame of reference" "Experiments can be poorly designed so as not to prove what they are intended to such as particle accelerator experiments and the Michale-Morleson experiment" -Einstein (1955)

I can fairly assume that Einstein was the leading authority on relativity till 1955, and not Gibbs or others before and after who interpreted his equations some other way to mean a machine cannot be found to exceed C. There is zero evidence such a velocity of light speed limit mechanics was ever constructed and Einstein denied in 1955 that he ever constructed such mechanics as he taught that a massive object could be accelerated beyond light speed. He than explained "How" it could be done.

He then explained the wide spread public misconception tying his relativity theories to a C speed limit to a "German to English" translator he hired to translate his relativity papers to English.

The Translator knowing basically as a second language German and some basic physics and less relativity physics and some of Henry Poincare's workwas looking for a C speed limit mechanics so Jumped to the conclusion he had found it translating some of the equations adding his own interpretation comments to appear falsely as from Einstein to say:

"It appears we cannot accelerate an object beyond light speed" in the English translation. By the time Einstein came to America and had learned enough English to correct the mistranslations he found the misinformation so widespread that correction was found impractical so then he confined his teaching of the possibility of acceleration beyond light speed to his personal students at Princeton and private students and from that time on authorized only those works signed by
him to be published. The one signed in 1955, I read in 1963.

So my list of math or experimental proofs of any C limit for massive objects velocity contains no data.

Universal speed limit at C Proof list
.............................................
(Empty-Null Set)
.............................................
like the possibility of Einstein's faster than light theory, popular science often contridicts Einstien' statements as it is populary taught Einstein did not complete his gravitaional unified field theory . foia.fbi.gov/
click on electronic reading room, famous persons, Einstein, Albert, Part 9b
foia.fbi.gov/einstein/einstein9b.pdf
page 18 and 19
Washing Star Dec 27,1949
Einstein presents New Theory of all motion in Universe

"The unified field theory" It was reveled here yesterday on 20 mimeographed pages-a mixture of typewritten words and squiggly mathematical symbols that even scientists hesitated to interpret. It was the English translation of Doctor Einstein's original German........

................

......In earlier theories Dr. Einstein linked up space and time, matter and energy and gravitation and inertia, but one great force was left out-electromagnetism, an invisible force field that can act at a distance.

The new theory now includes electromagnetism and it and gravitation are viewed as two forms of one overall force.

In his general theory of 1915 Dr. Einstein showed by mathematics that gravitation and inertial were equivalent. This theory was proved when astronomers were able to detect the suns gravity bending light from a distant star.

---------------------------

Einstein destroyed the infinite energy and mass argument against faster than light by teaching light had mass.

......
http://foia.fbi.gov/]http://foia.fbi.gov/
click el;ectronic reading room, famous persons, Einstein, Albert to find
http://foia.fbi.gov/einstein.htm]http:/ … nstein.htm
link Einstein, Albert; part 1a gives page 88
Rankin Denies Einstein A-Role
By United Press
Reb. Rankin (D) of Mississippi said yesterday that professor Albert Einstein "had nothing to do" with the atomic bomb and "should have been deported for his Communistic activities years ago" He denounced as "bunk" Einstein, proposal for a world government to prevent an atomic war that might wipe out mankind. Scientists declared Einstein, A naturalized citizen of German birth, had "just about everything to do" with making possible the US development of the atomic bomb.........
....................Rankin concludes with "Every since he published the book on relativity, to try to convince the world that light had weight, he has capitalized upon his alleged reputation as a scientist." Rankin went on. "He had no more to do with the development of the atom bomb than if their hadn't been such a thing Rankin. American scientists developed the atomic bomb and old faker Einstein had nothing to do with it."
regarding relatvistic mass
quote Einstein's point of view is described in the following quote...http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body

for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."

3: Your engine would have to use hydrogen or helium as the liquid to attain superior specific impulse and to keep the core from overheating. These gasses do not thermaly "ionize" or convert to plasma effectivly even at temperatures far exceeding the melting point of any known material, especially not steel or Americium.

I use water as propellant as it has more mass than hydrogen so gives more momentum to the rocket as momentum = mass times velocity and the momentum of the exhaust = momentum of rocket. high specific impulse alone as not a good indicatior of a rockets performance as my flashight will acclerate in deep space with a photon velocity of light speed but not the mometum or mass required to be practical.

4: For a given fuel, the hotter the engine and the lighter the propellant determines the efficency of a purely thermal rocket engine. As you are using the lightest propellants in the universe, hydrogen or helium, then raising the temperature is the only way to really get high efficencies. Nasa's NERVA-NTR engines achieved about 900sec running at nearly 3000K, only double of chemical. You must attain temperatures much higher than this.

I do, as my normal engine operating temperatures are over 50,000K-proof of principal test
My engines liguid reduction nozzle has been tested to 50,000 K or nine times the temperature of the surface of the sun, by using electric arc to simulate the supercritical mass temperatures contained by my engine like so:

http://www.hypertherm.com/technology/plasma_history.htm
water injection 1968 link
In the water injection plasma cutting process, water was radially injected into the arc in a uniform manner as shown in radial impingement of the water at the arc provided a higher degree of arc constriction than could be achieved by just the copper nozzle alone. Arc temperatures in this region are estimated to approach 50,000°K or roughly nine times the surface temperature of the sun and more than twice the temperature of the conventional plasma arc.

5: You cannot generate a plasma in LH or LHe without getting your fissile core so hot that it would melt or without the application of a very large electric current, which would be hard since the electrodes would melt too at useful temperatures. The GCNR engine intentionally melts and vaporizes its core to attain the very high temperatures and even there cannot cause alot a large conversion to plasma.

I do not generate a plasma in LH or LE. I generate a plasma by stacking radiaoctive metals above critical mass.

6: How do you intend to keep the fissile core in its position when the ship accelerates around it but the core does not? Also not convinced about how you keep it from being pushed by the propellant as it escapes, since you would not have the benefit of gravity to hold your "nuclear ping pong ball" down.
Lets see if i've forgotton anything... oh yes, two or three more items...

As the plasma chamber is a eleptical chamber of 1:4 to width to length ratio, by the law of reflectivity, all forces generated from one foci are focused to the second foci in this case the reduction nozzle input whose output velocity is .44C with an Isp of 1,400,000 seconds after a thousand to one reduction for the plasmelt as the liquid walls of the reduction nozzle expand. That leaves the averge particle velocity colliding with the liquid wall of the plasma chamber at mach 30, the reflected force therefore on the surface of the metal plasma is mach30 times the (surface area of the chamber)/(surface are of the plasma) This high pressure keeps the plasma solid and inplace at greater than 50,000 k from the hydrodynamic forces present as stated in the patent application.

7: Simply heating fissile material does not increase the rate of nuclear decay and does not shorten the halflife of the waste. Only increasing the rate of the nuclear reaction will increase the rate of material decay, and your engine does not do a convincing job of this, as the decay from various daughter elements is not nessesarrily the same too.

Yes stacking metals above critical mass increases the decay rate as evident by the heat generated stacking atoms to critical mass as the heat melts the mass at that critical mass point. Stacking them above critical mass further acceleration of the decay occurs as evident by the dozens of supercritical accident reports. BTW not one accident resulted in an expolsion.

8: Thermocouples have very poor efficency, and running the engine intentionally with propellant to generate electricity doesn't strike me as a good idea, since you would run out of propellant fast and not produce much energy in the process. Containing the propellant at its very high temperatures is also not practical, and balencing the core against a gravity field would be difficult. An MHD system would be much more efficent in any event, why didn't you propose using it?

My engine casing is made of water cooled iron with the water preheated by the engine prior to injection in the plasma chamber. I can also use part of the engine casing heat to heat the junction of a thermocouple producing electricty to power the paylaod and crew. It has no moving parts so long life expectacy and reliable as my engine is on all the time.

9: Memory metal or hot memory metal does not have good mechanical properties, yes it will bounce back to some degree, but not before the piece of debries pierced the shielding and destroyed the ship behind it.

Like any armor it has some limitations though remains useful. In my case it is most useful in protecting the engine and ship from low velocity orbiting space junk placed in earth's gravity well by the chemical rocket industry, in which case as my rocket launces from earth at a constant 1.2 g acceleration for 97 minutes to achive an escape velocity from earth of 11.2 meters/sec.

In deep space at high velocity I use other methods of protecting my engine and crew from high velocity impact, such as steering for one avoiding the asteroid belt and ort cloud of comets, by plotting a trajectory perpinducular to the sun's ecliptic orbital plane where all the planets, moon, asteroids, and 5/6 of the comets are known to exist in.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-09 20:56:07

Einstein's speed limit thingie basicly says that the faster you go, the more energy you need to accelerate to the next unit of speed. This trend increases and becomes asympototic the closer you get to the speed of light, such that you need an engine with infinite thrust to actually reach the speed of light, so you can't ever get there. This effect is vanishingly small at the low speeds of day to day life up to the lower double-digits percentage of the speed of light, so it is ignored in most physics textbooks and interplanetary rocket math.

Your engine will work and produce thrust, it just won't do it as well as other engines. Since there isn't much ionization of the propellant gas at any reasonable temperature and it isn't practical to ionize it in sufficent quantity otherwise, the efficency of the engine will be determined by the temperature of the core. Now, since your core (sphere of fissile material disks) needs to remain solid so you can control its location with magnets (melted metal is hard to magnetize I think) this limits the temperature of the core to below the melting point. Otherwise I don't know how you would keep the core from being pushed to the back by the fast-moving propellant.

The highest temp you can get a metal for the core casing is around 2000K-2500K I think, and so is the limiting factor for the efficency, which for liquid hydrogen the best propellant there is gives you an efficency around 750-850sec Isp I guess. The Space Shuttle's cryogenic engines give you about 450sec, with Nasa's old NERVA-NTR engine (graphite/ceramic core) giving around 900sec, and the GCNR engine somewhere in the 3000-5000sec range with its ultra-high temperature.

Edit: To put things in a little perspective... an Isp around 1000 with reasonable thrust would take two or three months off a Mars transit or permit about double the payload as the best chemical engines. A GCNR engine or advanced plasma engine might be good enough for a trip to Jupiter or Saturn, but not by much. Nothing short of Orion or Zubrin's NSWR or a true pure-fusion engine have much of a chance of pushing anything to another star or pushing a very large spacecraft anywhere without obcene quantities of fuel.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-09 22:25:59

*Shrug* Perhaps Einstein didn't say it after all, but that does not change the fact that that you cannot push a vehicle with a rocket faster than light. This is not controvertial and is a well established fact, proven on numerous occasions I am sure, particle accelerators for one. Saying to the contrary without a (long) list of material to back up such a statement... well... would severely damage your credibility.

Ah an arcjet... well the temperature that the actual jet generator withstands is much less than the 50,000 degrees as the jet doesn't come into substantial contact with the device. Please, point out to me a ferromagnetic material that does not melt at this temperature. I am quite certain that Nasa would love to have some... Also note how the water protects the working componets in your diagram. In either event, the material to take note of is not what the device is made of, but what it is directed against, which is more like what the core of the engine would experience as it would be heated from within and not like the jet generator.

Note that nothing changes about the need for the core to reach high temperatures to give high efficencies for a thermal engine with a pinch nozzle or simply because the propellant is water. Further, I will not get into specifics, but your statement that water is a more efficent reaction mass propellant per-pound than hydrogen is wrong. For thermal engines the lighter the propellant per mole, the more momentum you can impart to it, and the higher the efficency of the rocket engine. Of course specific impulse is not the only benchmark for a rocket! I know that, but for an engine with moderate amounts of thrust, Isp is what determines your travel time and payload.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-10 10:23:40

I believe you are missing some of the chemistry concerning your reactor core... the stacking of fissile material plates can cause the release of a great deal of energy, such that it gets very hot. This is good since you need to attain a very high temperature to raise the propellant to a very high temperature, hence the propellant molecules will attain a very high linear velocity when released from the engine.

Now, metals will generally melt around 2,500K. This limits the Isp of your engine to under 800sec roughly. If you get it hotter, the core will melt. If you get it very very hot, it will become a gas and even a plasma with sufficent heat. The nuclear reaction will still occur, since temperature means nothing to nuclear processes. So if you raise the temperature of your core to 50,000K, the core itself will enter a gasseous state, and unless it is contained by a physical barrier or a vortex due it will simply mix with the propellant and be lost. You cannot heat the core beyond ~2,500K without the core itself becoming a liquid or gas.

So... since your core remains solid and metallic, I must therefore assume that it never reaches higher temperatures, and that the plasma being generated is infact the propellant itself being ionized, which you cannot do efficently at such a relativly low temperature.

Trying to raise the propellant to temperatures needed to produce very high Isp will simply cause your engine to melt... you cannot raise the temperature of the propellant beyond the melting point of the engines' material unless it is physically separated from the engine wall. As your engine uses liquid water to buffer the walls of the engine as I understand it, the quantity of water needed and the consequent lowering of the mean exhaust temperature will ruin the Isp of the rocket. It is a shakey enough proposition to do it with liquid hydrogen in a GCNR engine.

Finally, I think you have made a terrible mistake somewhere in your calculations, simply "need a high Isp? make a smaller nozzle!" is incorrect or impractical (chaimber pressure, temperature), and if I saw Isp figures like 1.4m seconds and would think my math was bad. I would suggest rechecking your figures and come back with a more reasonable number.

starship1 · 2004-06-10 10:39:23

I have called lunatic, crackpot, delusional from 1963 as taught the possibility of faster than light since 1963 when I read Einsteins signed dictations of 1955 stating the theory though I lost the original source reference in 1968. I am not concerned about credibility as Einstein's equations speak for themselfs as I consider him the authority on his theory and not others misinterpeting his theory to quess a velocity limit at c.

Drat-These fellow's below also have a plasma engine able to get to Mars in a few days but I can find no details they must keep it very secret however you are lucky you have me to talk to. :

http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/sci/sol/cg … space1.htm
Reference quote....There is a completely new technology that has been developed on a small scale which uses a plasma to accelerate the spacecraft. It is said that this could reduce the time needed to travel to Mars from nine months to a few days. The Defence Research Agency in Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 6TD has done some work on plasma technology for rockets. They may be able to provide you with more informationen
end quote.........

The final velocity of a rocket propelled projectile depends upon how much
propellant you have and how fast the exhaust velocity is. The formula for
determining the speed of a rocket is called the "dynamic" ROCKET EQUATIONS:

^denotes exponet like x squared = x^2

[Eq. 1] Vf = Ve * LN((1/(1-u)) where Vf=final velocity, Ve=exhaust velocity of 81840 miles/sec
u=propellant fraction, c = light speed 186,000 miles/sec
LN:=Natural Log: that is log e, where e is the natural constant that is approximately 2.718281828. So x=log y <=> e^x=y. do not confuse with exhaust e

(Eq. 2) Vf=Ve[ln(Minitial/Mfinal)]

(Eq. 3) Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u)) ---> u = 1- 1/EXP(Vf/Ve)

Of rocket
90.227 % Propellant = 902.727 tons propellant
6.000 % Structure = 60 tons structure
3.773 % Payload = 37 tons payload
u = .90227 = 902.727 tons of propellant / 1000 tons of rocket
Ve= 81840 miles/sec therefore:

Vf = (81840 miles/sec ) (LN(1/(1-.090227))
.44 times 186,000 miles/sec ) (LN 10.)
=(81840 miles/sec)(2.3255467)
Vf =190,322.7 miles/sec = 1.023 C or warp speed 1.02 arriving with 37 tons of payload and 60 tons of structure.

checking my results of equation one with equation 3

Vf=Ve[ln(Minitial/Mfinal)]
(190,322.7 miles/sec)/(81840 miles/sec) = ln(1000 ton / 97tons)
2.3255 = ln 10.10.30927
2.325546 ~ =2.33304 rounding to 3 signifigant digits
2.33=2.33 so answer checks correct with either equation

A round trip to Mars with the same engine at a constant 1 g acceleration to midpoint and a constant 1 g decelleration to stop at Mars requires an engine capable of substaining 1 g the entire trip time of 1.73 days and so an engine capable of obtaining a velocity = 1g times 1.73 days as

[Eq. 4] V=AT therefore a

Vmars in miles / sec = 1 g times 1.73 days
= [(32.2 feet/sec*sec)/(5820 feet/miles)](1.73 days)(24 hours/day)(60 minutes/hour)(60 seconds/min)
= (0.005532646 miles/sec*sec)(149472 seconds)
Vmars = 826.975670 miles/sec = 0.004446105 C

Vf/Ve=[ln(Minitial/Mfinal)
(826.97567 miles/sec)/(81840 miles/sec) = ln (Minitial / (Mintial-902.727 tons)
0.01010478 = ln (Minitial) / (Mintial-902.727 tons)
1.01015601 = (Minitial) / (Mintial-902.727 tons)
1.01015601(Mintial-902.727 tons)= (Minitial)
1.01015601Mintial -911.895105 =Minital subtracting Mi both sides
0.01015601Mintial -911.89510=0 adding constant both sides
0.01015601Mintial = 911.89510
Minitial=911.89510 / 0.0101560
Mintial = 89,788.7 tons for the Mars rocket

Propellant = 902.727 tons propellant with Ve=of 81840 miles/sec and Vf= 826.975 miles/sec
Structure + payload = 88,886 tons as 80,000 tons is payload and 8,886 tons is structure
propellant fraction (u)= 902.727 tons / 89,788.7 tons = 0.0100539 ~= 1/100

[Eq. 5] E=MC^2
M=E/C^2 tells one what energy that some mass converts to.

[Eq. 6] Ekinetic = (MV^2)/2 so I need to convert mass to energy to propell 902.727 tons of propellant to 81840 miles/sec
Ek=(902.727 tons )(81840 miles/sec)(81840 miles/sec)/2
Ek=6046271901331.2/2 tons-mile^2/sec^2
= 3023135950665.6 tons-mile^2/sec^2 therefore

M = (3023135950665.6 tons-mile^2/sec^2) / C^2 as C= 186,000 miles /sec
M = (3023135950665.6 tons-mile^2/sec^2) / 34596000000 miles^2/sec^2
M = 87.3839736 tons of propellant mass coverted to energy ~= one part of propellant in 10 parts converted to energy

[Eq .7] Power=weight x distance traveled/time (P=WD/t)
distance traveled=AT^2/2 = (32.2 feet / sec^2 )(149472s)(149472s)/2 = (32.2 feet / sec^2 )(2.9929 days)/2
__Example 1: A rocket totals 89,788.7 tons, If the rocketman flies his constant 1 g rocket past Mars a distance of 359,704,248,422.4 feet vertical feet in 1.73 days, his horsepower can be calculated as:

Power = 179577400 pounds times 359704248422.4 feet / 149472 serconds
= 64594753700648693760ft-pounds /149472 sec
=1305683087416087.7619663648124191 ft-lb/sec
= (1305683087416087.7619663648124191 ft-lb/sec) / (550 ft-lb/sec) dividing by one horsepower
= 2,373,969,249,847 horsepower ~=2.4 trillon horsepower or 1,770,981 gigawatts for the light speed or Mars misson with approximately a thousand ton engine

Eq. 1-7 is an incomplete set of Rocket Science equations.

As I am ejecting the propellant at .44 C a small amount of relativistic effects limit the exhaust momentum transferred to the rocket estimated at 5% loss and as I convert 1 propellant part in 10 to energy than that mass is not considered in the propellant momentum estimated at 10% loss so the final mass and velocity calculations above are estimated at 15% high until I recalculate with relativity equations and propellant mass lost converted to energy so the above are to be considered ball park calculations until that time.

In any case, simply decreasing the payload mass a relative small amount estimated at 15%, I can achieve the stated velocites as calculated above for both the light speed and Mars trip.

starship1 · 2004-06-10 11:38:25

So... since your core remains solid and metallic, I must therefore assume that it never reaches higher temperatures, and that the plasma being generated is infact the propellant itself being ionized, which you cannot do efficently at such a relativly low temperature.

Incorrect assumption- Above 50,000 K, my metalic plasma remains a solid as the pressure on it keeps it confined to the metal volume as explained in a previous post.

Trying to raise the propellant to temperatures needed to produce very high Isp will simply cause your engine to melt... you cannot raise the temperature of the propellant beyond the melting point of the engines' material unless it is physically separated from the engine wall. As your engine uses liquid water to buffer the walls of the engine as I understand it, the quantity of water needed and the consequent lowering of the mean exhaust temperature will ruin the Isp of the rocket. It is a shakey enough proposition to do it with liquid hydrogen in a GCNR engine.

Nope I demonstrated in my labortory that physical seperation nor a magnatic field is required to keep the casing from melting by the heat of the plasma. I simulating a 3000 degree centigrade plasma(fire), I placed it under a container of water, boiling it to steam and sent the steam into a reduction nozzle increasing it's specific impulse at the exhaust port by a factor of 100.

As the container was a paper cup and the reduction nozzle was a snow cone cup it did not burn though over the candle flame as all radiant, conductive and convective heat paths were under control limiting the temperature on the container to below the flash point of the paper. Using a waxed paper cup I lost control of the heat paths as the wax on the paper ignited at a lower temerature and ignited the paper container resulting in a loss of propellant accident as I lost control of the heat paths.

In the same manner and with enhanced radiant heat path control, my rocket engine casing does not melt despite the 50,000 plus K tempertures contained.

Finally, I think you have made a terrible mistake somewhere in your calculations, simply "need a high Isp? make a smaller nozzle!" is incorrect or impractical (chaimber pressure, temperature), and if I saw Isp figures like 1.4m seconds and would think my math was bad. I would suggest rechecking your figures and come back with a more reasonable number.

http://www.islandone.org/APC/]http://ww … e.org/APC/
http://www.islandone.org/APC/Nuclear/00 … ml#fission
The energies (per unit mass) available from nuclear reactions (fission, fusion, and matter-antimatter annihilation) can range from 10^7 to 10^9 times that of chemical reactions, as shown in the graph below.

This results in the potential for enormous increases in specific impulse (Isp); for example, an estimate of the "ideal specific impulse (in units of lbf-s/lbm) can be derived from the energy density (in units of kilojoules per gram) by:
http://www.islandone.org/APC/]http://ww … e.org/APC/
Isp (lbf-s/lbm) = 144.22 {E (kJ/g) }1/2
However, in practice there are many practical difficulties in converting energy from the nuclear reaction into energy of the exhausted propellant "working fluid." Thus, while an O2/H2 chemical rocket engine such as the RL-10, operating at an oxidizer-to-fuel (O/F) ratio of 5, can transfer in excess of 80% of the ideal O2/H2 chemical reaction energy (at a stoichiometric O/F of 8) to the exhaust gasses, most nuclear propulsion concepts have much lower efficiencies.

Therefore at a minimum power ratio of 10 million to one representing the ratio of atomic powered rockets versus chemical powered rockets of the same mass one can reasonably expect to go 10 million times faster than chemical rockets with the same payload size with the same engine mass and with engine efficiencies near 100% not obtained until 1988 with my invention of a Hybrid Fission/Fusion rocket engine.

Your infinite energy argument limits only particle accelerator particle speeds and the exhaust particle velocity to sub light speeds of my engine estimated at only .44 C for the Mars trip engine. Simply reducing the 100,000 ton payload to 10 tons the rocket exceeds light speed. The infinite energy argument does not limit the rocket's final velocity as an infinite number of observer traveling at an infinite number of velocities with respect to my ship would calculate a infinite number of relativistic masses and relativistic energies required so relativistic mass and relativistic energy are considered meaningless in Einstein's extended relativity theory (ERT) of 1949 as they are observer effects only as all is normal in space and time aboard the moving rocket.

NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project
Public Information Site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWS (January 31, 2003): There is no funding available for the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project.
http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/Pro … Orion.html
The idea of an "atomic drive" was a science-fiction cliche by the 1930's, but it appears that Stanislaw Ulam and Frederick de Hoffman conducted the first serious investigation of atomic propulsion for space flight in 1944, while they were working on the Manhattan Project (2). During the quarter-century following World War II, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (replaced by the Department of Energy in 1974) worked with various federal agencies on a series of nuclear engine projects with names like Dumbo, Kiwi, and Pluto, culminating in NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) (3). Close to producing a flight prototype, NERVA was cancelled in 1972 (4).
The basic idea behind all these engines was to heat a working fluid by pumping it through a nuclear reactor, then allowing it to expand through a nozzle to develop thrust. Although this sounds simple the engineering problems were horrendous. How good were these designs? A useful figure for comparing rocket engines is specific impulse (Isp), defined as pounds of thrust produced per pound of propellant consumed per second. The units of Isp are thus seconds.

The best chemical rocket in service, the cryogenic hydrogen-oxygen engine, has an Isp of about 450 seconds (5). NERVA had an Isp roughly twice as great (6), a surprisingly small figure considering that nuclear fission fuel contains more than a million times as much energy per unit mass as chemical fuel. A major problem is that the reactor operates at a constant temperature, and this temperature must be less than the melting point of its structural materials, about 3000 K (7).

It's not suprising that at low temperatures contained in reactors limit the percentage of matter turned to energy limiting the efficiency like so:

The equations to calculate Engine efficiency

http://www.reliance.com/prodserv/motgen … 87_5_3.htm
EFFICIENCY = OUTPUT / (OUTPUT plus LOSSES)

These equations give:

Nuclear electric Propulsion (NEP)(ion drive - Project Vasimar) .001 % efficiency
Nuclear thermal Propulsion (NTP) (solid core - Project Nerva) = .0001 %
Project Orion (pulse drive) =.00025 %
Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) = 32% (d/t fusion engine )
Beam Core = 16% (antimatter engine)
Chemical powered rockets >= 99% (space shuttle main engines)
Hybrid Fission/Fusion Reaction Engine >= 99% (Americium 241 plasma rocket engine)

above efficiency data reference
http://www.islandone.org/APC/]http://ww … e.org/APC/

Project Orion has higher operating temperatures but it is a pulse engine limiting it's efficiency like so:

Project Orion (pulse drive) =.00025 %

The shaped charge concept for Orion below

http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_orion_and … ...htmhttp
The pulse units had a nominal yield of 1 kT, each containing a conservative 2 kg of Plutonium. The complete pulse units weighed 141 kg for the 10 m and 450 kg for the 20 m. The propellant was to be tungsten, the channel filler beryllium oxide, and the radiation case uranium. The tungsten-beryllium oxide mass ratio was 4:1. The high-opacity radiation case contains the radiation from the bomb long enough for the filler to absorb most of the energy. The filler would then be heated and delivers a pressure shock to the propellant, vaporizing it and accelerating it toward the pusher. The propulsion modules were designed to hold 900 pulse units internally; extra pulse units would be carried in external canisters which would feed into the propulsion module.

From above quote
The 141 kg shaped charge consists of a: propellant; radiation case; channel filler; delivery case; fusing and firing, mass

The pulse mass (Pm) goes one direction at a velocity(V) towards the pusher plate. The charge shaper mass(Csm) consisting of The fusing and firing, delivery case, and radiation case masses goes the opposite direction an equal momentum as PmV = CsmV conserving momentum.

The energy is also conserved As PmV^2/2 =E= CsmV^2/2 therefore only the Pm's momentum is transferred to Orion causing acceleration.

I/2 the energy available is wasted accelerating the shaped charge the opposite direction of the ship. Turning the shaped charge around makes no difference as one now has to accelerate it's casing mass as payload mass requiring equal energy so the pusher plate best efficiency is 1/2 available at ideal and in practice much smaller fraction is calculated and the pulse momentum transferred is always less than 100% as you have heat, light, radiation, particles impacting the pusher plate at other than 90 degrees angle and other losses making the figure a small fraction estimated at 1/4 being generous.

In addition while it is cooling some between pulses time it is not delivering acceleration to Orion so the duty cycle for pulse engines of Pulse time on / (pulse time on pulse time off) is a very small fraction estimated at 1 / 1000 being very generous. These, two small fractions multiplied together give a very small efficiency in converting exhaust(e) energy from mass to get the rocket® momentum(P) of some mass(M) to velocity(V) as Pe=Pr=MeVe=MrVr.

This duty cycle in a 4 cycle auto engine is 1/4 as only one of the 2 cycles of two piston up and down strokes is the power stroke causing at ideal 25% of the chemicals power to transfer to the wheels though in practice 17% is common from other power losses such as sound, heat, friction etc.

Therefore Orion's efficiency is estimated generously at:
1 / 4000 or .00025 % percent versus the 100 percent available for payload were a different atomic engine of near 100% efficiency like most chemical rockets of today like liquid oxygen rocket engines.

Euler · 2004-06-10 12:02:58

M = 87.3839736 tons of propellant mass coverted to energy ~= one part of propellant in 10 parts converted to energy

Fission can convert about .00075 of the fuel mass into energy, fusion can convert about .003 of the fuel mass into energy. That means that you will not be able to get an exhaust velocity above .06c without using antimatter, no matter how good your engine is.

The inability of matter to travel faster than light is a simple consequence of the way that velocities and distances are measured in relativity. If an object has a velocity V with respect to observer O, and a second object is moving with velocity U with respect to the first object, then the second object is moving with a velocity (U+V)/(1+U*V) with respect to the observer. That means that is a rocket is headed away from Earth at .9c, and it launches a smaller rocket that heads away from it, the smaller rocket will still only be headed away from Earth at a speed of (.9+.9)/(1+.9*.9)=.994c. If it then launches a third rocket that heads away from it at .9c, the third rocket will still only be traveling away from Earth at .9997c. You cannot exceed the speed of light through simple acceleration.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-10 12:15:57

You honestly believe that you can best the speed of light with a "regular" reaction mass rocket? Not hardly! I reject the notion that Einstein's papers and calculations permit a reaction mass rocket from ever reaching 1C, and if they do, then Einstein is wrong. In either event, you are wrong, and stating such a thing in a patent claim will get you laughed right out of the court room.

You are definatly misusing or misunderstanding the rocket equations anyway, which are based soley on Newtonian mechanics with no correction for relativistic effects. Using these equations at all to describe the acceleration of a spacecraft beyond the single-digit percentages of the speed of light is entirely innappropriate and clearly undermines a favorable appraisel of your grasp of the physics involved.

You are not anyway going to eject a signifigant mass of propellant at 44%C in any shape form or fasion... frankly the little nuclear core is way too small to impart such gargantuan energies to a useful quantity of propellant even if 100% of all the nuclear decay energy were directly transferred to the linear motion of the propellant molecules. Your claims of these high impulses are easily dismissed through the clearly faulty thermodynamics which you are still bound by.

Finally, there are no metallic plasmas... the material will simply cease to be a metal solid, and even if you were to confine it to the same volume that the metal orginally occupied or under extreme pressures, it would still at the very least be a liquid simply escape with the propellant.

Paper cups? Candles? Snow cone wrappers? Metal plasmas? 1,400,000sec Isp? 44%C exhaust velocity? >1C velocity of a rocket? Even you must admit that it all sounds like nonsense... I see no further reason to continue this discussion as your grasp of rocket physics, thermodynamics, and chemistry are not sufficent to properly understand or defend your own arguments.

starship1 · 2004-06-10 13:03:45

Thank you for your comment Euler.

starship sez
M = 87.3839736 tons of propellant mass coverted to energy ~= one part of propellant in 10 parts converted to energy

Euler sez,Fission can convert about .00075 of the fuel mass into energy, fusion can convert about .003 of the fuel mass into energy. That means that you will not be able to get an exhaust velocity above .06c without using antimatter, no matter how good your engine is.

That is indeed measured in reactors and bombs as the conversion process is limited by the low temperture of the reactor (600 degrees) and time of casing confinement in the bomb (fractions of a micro second. At the temperatures and containment times of my engine a much higher precentage of matter is converted to energy.

In any case, your number .06 C limitation on exhaust velocity is not a problem as that velocity into a reduction nozzle increase to the required .44C as the velocity out = (velocity in)(area of nozzle in)/ area of the nozzle out. Acheivable input velocity/output velocity ratios are reasonably estimated at 1:1000

Antimatter at current production costs of 1.2 quadrillion dollars an ounce make animatter rockets not reducible to practice (made practical) without some future discovery.
Mine is reduced to practice requiring no future discovery.

Euler-The inability of matter to travel faster than light is a simple consequence of the way that velocities and distances are measured in relativity. If an object has a velocity V with respect to observer O, and a second object is moving with velocity U with respect to the first object, then the second object is moving with a velocity (U+V)/(1+U*V) with respect to the observer. That means that is a rocket is headed away from Earth at .9c, and it launches a smaller rocket that heads away from it, the smaller rocket will still only be headed away from Earth at a speed of (.9+.9)/(1+.9*.9)=.994c. If it then launches a third rocket that heads away from it at .9c, the third rocket will still only be traveling away from Earth at .9997c. You cannot exceed the speed of light through simple acceleration.

I do not do that. I constantly accelerate at one g wrt the earth and using Einstein's relativity equations the numbers are
An ordinary chemical rocket can control by throttle an exhaust flow rate to
give 1 g acceleration for several hours based on tests of rockets reaching an
average 15g for many minutes such as "Helios".
At less than 1 year = 356 days time 24 hours =8544 hours of 1 g acceleration
are needed to exceed c.
Versus present chemical rockets, 8,544/3(several) times more power is needed
so that acceleration time can be measured at greater than 356 days to exceed c.
The chemical Vs atomic power to mass unit ratio based on atomic bomb and
reactor test measurements are best "guesstamated" at 1,000,000 to 100,000,000
times the power possible with chemical rockets so atomic rockets of good
design can maintain 1 g acceleration for 351 to 35100 years.

quote...........................
The apple(t)

The Relativistic Rocket Applet
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applet … oyage.html
lets you plan how long a trip will take on a rocket that travels near the
speed of light. You type the distance of the trip (measured in light years)
and the acceleration of the rocket (measured as a multiple of Earth's
gravity). The rocket will accelerate at that rate for half of the trip, then
decelerate at the same rate for the second half of the trip.
The time for the trip is measured in two ways: (1) As seen by a person who
stays behind on Earth, and (2) as measured by you on the ship. For your
convenience, space-sickness pills are available aft of the observation
lounge.
end quote

Plugging in above calculater 4.25 light years to near star at 1 g
acceleration the calculator gives:
Trip length: 4.25 light years.
Acceleration: 1.0 g wrt the earth.
Time on earth: 5.8780560467144 years.
Time on ship: 3.544401860293398 years.

The average velocity of the rocket wrt the earth is
V= 4.25 ly/ 5.8780560467144
= 0.72302815186248203532516008847251 C

The average velocity of the rocket wrt the rocket is
V= 4.25 ly/3.544401860293398
=1.1990739672075993369920037141966 C
= warp speed 1.2 by warping time though the rocket man f"eels" a contant 1 g beginning the trip tending to zero g as his ship nears light speed wrt earth.

Warping both space and time accelerating at a constant 1 g wrt the ship generating a artifical gravity well of one g as accleration is relative expressed as A'=A(gamma factor^3) with gamma factor= 1/square root (1/v^2/C^2) the rocket man "feels" a constant 1 g througout the trip and his velocity is measured at 1.2 C wrt both earth and ship.

In a constant accleration 1 g rocket for 45 years trip to the edge of the observable universe, the rocket man returns to find his left behind earth twin his same age rather than the anchient bones some 17,000,000,000 years old of the case of one g wrt the earth ship as both space and time are warped as a conseqence of Einstein's relativistic acceleration equation when the accleration is a constant 1 g wrt the ship.

For numeric methods of Rocket simulations see
http://www.execpc.com/~culp/rockets/rck … t_sim.html

starship1 · 2004-06-10 13:18:26

GCNavenger sez,
I see no further reason to continue this discussion as your grasp of rocket physics, thermodynamics, and chemistry are not sufficent to properly understand or defend your own arguments.

Star ship sez,
Shhh. Do not tell any one that :-)as the government who spent almost a quarter of a million dollars in todays dollars educating me on the physics of "most" all machines known to man, might get the idea I do not know how a simple bomb machine and a rocket machine work and they might just want their money and diplomas back stripping me of all my credentials.

Aerospace Technology Certifications (Rocket Science)
*Federal, **State, ***Industry **** Common Law
--------------------------------------
* Computers Analog/ Digital
* Communications Electronics
* Automatic Pilot Systems (Inertial Guidance Systems)
* Radar Electronics
* Traffic Safety Certificate
* HI-Value Soldering
* Communications Repairman
* Electronic Warfare Repairman
* Upgrade General Subjects
* Non-Destructive Inspection
* Communications Technician
* Management AF Supervisor
* Electronic Warfare Technician
* War theory
* Marksmanship (Sharp Shooter Medal)
* National Defense (Medal)
* Special Force (Commendation)
* Journeyman Electronic Auto Pilot Mechanic (B52)
* Atomic Propulsion Systems (Accepted patent application)
** Computer Operations Technician I
** Data Processing Support Technician II
** Data Processing Systems Specialist III
*** Pre production Training (Data Storage Systems)
*** A+ Certified Computer Service Technician
____
****Total Comman Law Doctorates
Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education

And that is not even counting the fact that I aced the Air Forces Math-Physics bypass test in 1968 becoming the first in history to ace it, nor does the above list include schools I attended so secret even the course names could not be listed on any official transcript.

GNcavenger your comments and questions are always welcome.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-10 14:12:13

"Common law doctorates" ...and secret military schools and classes. Extended relativity theory. Ah huh. You wouldn't happen to have any relation to ol' Rick from the ISA would you?

I don't think you've got a very good grasp of relativity either... the speed of an object with respect to itself is ~zero~. Are you talking about the time dialation effects?

I also don't think you are getting what Euler is saying, that no fission power source, even if every single eV produced by the nuclear reaction could be harnessed for propulsion, no matter what propellant used or arrangement of reaction mass engine, can reasonably provide an exhaust velocity above 6% of C. Its thermodynamics, and thermodynamics is an easy check to see if somthing is wrong someplace in the math, because thermo is based on the inviola-able laws of the conservation & conversion of energy.

I don't think you understand quite how rocket engines work, simple flow physics for a reduction in the width of the engine for a moving fluid is not a magic means of vastly increasing the specific impulse as you make it out to be... its more complex then that.

---

Edit: Time for a little comparison shopping... your water-cooled atomic plasma rocket thing vs. the hydrogen cooled toridal vortex GCNR.

The GCNR engine theoreticly attains core temperatures in the range from 25,000K to 50,000K and hands off energy to the swirling liquid hydrogen. Depending on the temperature or the presence of absortion dopants in the hydrogen, the engine has Isp in the 3,000-5,000sec range.

Your engine core cannot reach temperatures beyond 2,500K without melting, and trying to cool it with water or any other propellant would nessesarrily lower the maximum temperature of the propellant, reducing Isp. Your propellant of choice, water, is also much worse than hydrogen on a pound-for-pound basis because it cannot absorb as much thermal energy.

But, even if it could... think in broad strokes for a minute... how can your engine produce decent thrusts with Three Hundred Times the efficency, even though both operate at similar temperatures? Even though both use similar schema and similar fuels and similar propellants in similar ways and are both thermal rockets. The GCNR engine has a pinch in the nozzle too, but its exhaust velocity is quite a bit less than 44%C, and thats with light-weight hydrogen! How do you explain this discrepency? I don't mean to be really rude, but if your engine does a tenth what you say it can, the people that cooked up the GCNR would have thought of it first. Your rocket simply isn't anything new or special, and certainly isn't capable of reaching 1,400,000sec Isp at 1G accelerations in any configuration or fuel burn time.

Euler · 2004-06-10 15:19:47

That is indeed measured in reactors and bombs as the conversion process is limited by the low temperture of the reactor (600 degrees) and time of casing confinement in the bomb (fractions of a micro second. At the temperatures and containment times of my engine a much higher precentage of matter is converted to energy.
In any case, your number .06 C limitation on exhaust velocity is not a problem as that velocity into a reduction nozzle increase to the required .44C as the velocity out = (velocity in)(area of nozzle in)/ area of the nozzle out. Achievable input velocity/output velocity ratios are reasonably estimated at 1:1000

When I said that fission converted .00075 of it's mass into energy, and that fusion converted .003 of it's mass into energy, I meant that the products of a fission reaction weigh .99925 as much as the reactants, and that the products of a fusion reaction weigh .997 as much as the reactants. That is all the energy there is to be released, and even a 100% efficient reactor would not be able to get more energy out of the reactions than that. With those numbers, if all of the energy released in the reaction went into accelerating the products of the reaction, the velocity of those reactant products would be about .03c for fission and .06c for fusion. Nozzle in/nozzle out ratio cannot improve on this unless you get more energy from somewhere.

The average velocity of the rocket wrt the rocket is
V= 4.25 ly/3.544401860293398
=1.1990739672075993369920037141966 C
= warp speed 1.2 by warping time though the rocket man f"eels" a contant 1 g beginning the trip tending to zero g as his ship nears light speed wrt earth.

You are right that it is possible for a ship to travel 4.25 ly with less than 4.25 years passing on the ship. The light speed barrier thingie just says that people on Earth wont think that the ship is going faster than light. The ship does not really think that it is going faster than light either, it just thinks that it is going close to light speed and that the distance that it has to travel has shrunk. Basically, what you are saying is correct, but the way that you are phrasing it is misleading and most people will think that you mean that you can travel the 4.25 light years with less than 4.25 years passing on Earth.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-10 19:39:56

3%C? Even worse than I thought for Fission...

No, you clearly claim that a reaction mass rocket can exceed the speed of light with no relatvistic time effects to compensate for by your use of the Newtonian rocket mass equations. This is entirely incorrect, since Newton's math doesn't take time dialation into account. You state the the Delta-V is >1C, which you just can't do with relativity holding you back no matter how high an exhaust velocity.

starship1 · 2004-06-10 21:59:32

regarding relatvistic mass
quote Einstein's point of view is described in the following quote...http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body

for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."

end quote

As there can be an infinite number of external observers traveling at an infinite number of velocites and angles wrt the the ship each would calculate a different relativistic mass for the ship so all relativistic masses calculated are considered incorrect as there is no absolute frame of reference in special relativity theory (SRT)(1904) and general relativity theory (GRT)(1912). the lorentz relativity theory (LRT) equations are range variable equations valid only within limits specified for velocites below C. You have to do the extended relativity equations of 1949 to correctly calculate the relativitic effects for objects of mass traveling at light speed and beyond.

Using the Java calculator to figure trip time found at:
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applet … oyage.html also see http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.htm … craft.html
Trip length: 4.25 light years (ly)
Acceleration: 1.0 g wrt earth mid way to decelerate at one 1 g to arrive at
Alpha Proxima at rest.......
Trip length: 4.25 light years (ly)
Time on earth: 5.8780560467144 years.
Time on ship: 3.544401860293398 years
As Velocity = distance traveled/ time traveled
Velocity average wrt earth = .732 C and c =299,792.458 km/s
Vavg=219448.079256 km/s

Vaverage wrt ship = 4.25 ly/3.544401860293398 years
= 1.1990739672075993369920037141966 C

In the case above of warping time, the rocket man feels a artifical gravity field of 1 g starting out decreasing to zero g as the ship approaches light speed as the constant one g is measured wrt the earth leaving the rocket man to calculate his distance traveled/ ship time to get warp speed.

unit time versus unit light speed gamma factor graph

Using the same equations used in the java calcultor and replacing the 1 g with realtivistic acceleration of 1 g, the rocket man feels a constant one g accleration throughout the trip as
A'= A(gamma cubed) and gamma = 1/(1-V^2/C^2)
as a little known and little appreciated fact of general relativity theory. Only algebra and trig is needed to do the math. In this manner the rocket warps both space and time obtaining warp speed wrt to the earth. I will look up the reference later. I will look up the reference later using google serch for "relativistic acceleration" with also "little" and "unappreciated" maybe.

The rocket man returns to earth finding his left behind evil twin his same age instead of ancient bones by warping both time and space from Einstein's equivelance principal of genral relativity unifying gravity with acceleration and as earth's gravity warps space visulized in gravity wells, so he artifical gravity well visulised as a crease in rubber sheet model of the universe as it is created by a constant accelerating rocket at one g warping space also.

All of Einstein's special relativity equations (SRT) of 1905, and General relativity theory of 1912(GRT) and this Extended realtivity theory (ERT) of 1949 are derived with algebra from him defining time as the forth dimension in T'=T(1/1-v^2/^2) of the graph above and time dilation gamma factor is derviable with algebra from his E=M^2 discovery.

In his ERT all mass, motion, and forces in the universe including inside the atom can be expressed with simple algebraic equations of third dgree or lower of variables with whole exponents 0,1,2,3, with the exponents representing the three spatial dimensions of heigth, width, length and the forth temporal dimension of time as he completed his gravitaional unified field theory (UFT)uniiting gravity with the elctromagnetic forces seeing them as one overall force.

He told assosiates his his completed theory in 1949 was his "greatest achievment"

foia.fbi.gov/
click on electronic reading room, famous persons, Einstein, Albert, Part 9b
foia.fbi.gov/einstein/einstein9b.pdf
page 18 and 19
Washing Star Dec 27,1949
Einstein presents New Theory of all motion in Universe

"The unified field theory" It was reveled here yesterday on 20 mimeographed pages-a mixture of typewritten words and squiggly mathematical symbols that even scientists hesitated to interpret. It was the English translation of Doctor Einstein's original German........

................

......In earlier theories Dr. Einstein linked up space and time, matter and energy and gravitation and inertia, but one great force was left out-electromagnetism, an invisible force field that can act at a distance.

The new theory now includes electromagnetism and it and gravitation are viewed as two forms of one overall force.

In his general theory of 1915 Dr. Einstein showed by mathematics that gravitation and inertial were equivalent. This theory was proved when astronomers were able to detect the suns gravity bending light from a distant star.

end quote---------------------------

Euler · 2004-06-10 22:06:27

Correction: I think that I missed a sqrt(2) somewhere in my calculations, fission and fusion should have ideal isp values of 4% and 8% respectively. Still, it will not get your ship up to high relativistic speeds.

I think that the main problem in your calculations is that you seem to think that isp is proportional to the energy in the fuel. In fact, it is proportional to the square root of the energy in the fuel (because kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity), so if you increase the specific energy of the fuel 10 million fold, the ideal isp will increase by a factor of 3162.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-10 22:29:08

I also don't think you are understanding the relativity discussions or Einstein's works that you are quoting... The speed of light being a limit of velocity is a well established, tried, and tested theory with things of nonzero rest mass. It is not controvertable for a rocket in any event, the increase in energy required to achieve the next unit of velocity is a proven and documented physical phenomenon, it really does destroy your credibility when you state otherwise with some Einstein quotes sprinkled on top.

"The rocket man returns to earth finding his left behind evil twin his same age instead of ancient bones by warping both time and space from Einstein's equivelance principal of genral relativity unifying gravity with acceleration and as earth's gravity warps space visulized in gravity wells, so he artifical gravity well visulised as a crease in rubber sheet model of the universe as it is created by a constant accelerating rocket at one g warping space also."

And now this stuff about acceleration and gravity altering time dialation... it isn't making much sense, and taste to me of cut-and-paste physics buzz phrases strung together. It is not possible for a vehicle to travel near or beyond 1C and not experience a net time dialation versus a stationary frame.

What exactly are Common Law Doctorates anyway? Was there any thesis or defense involved? Have you ever taken a college-level math or physics course?

Euler · 2004-06-10 23:15:36

The rocket man returns to earth finding his left behind evil twin his same age instead of ancient bones by warping both time and space from Einstein's equivelance principal of genral relativity unifying gravity with acceleration and as earth's gravity warps space visulized in gravity wells, so he artifical gravity well visulised as a crease in rubber sheet model of the universe as it is created by a constant accelerating rocket at one g warping space also.

Yeah, that seems very confusing to me too. You should be dealing with special relativity only, gravity wells warping space is not something that concerns a rocket ship.

starship1 · 2004-06-11 14:37:04

What exactly are Common Law Doctorates anyway?

The rule of thumb for common law doctorates is that if you cannot list and count your own educational hours, grades and level than they do not count or if you do not know what common law is your education does not count.

I count my higher education at 8,000 plus classroom hours evenly distributed between course levels 1 to 6 in the four major subject areas of math, physics, computer science and general education using the accredited standardized equivalent education equation:

1 formal semester hour = 16 classroom hours or 36 laboratory hours or 72 hours of formal on the job training.

A formal PhD in physics is required to have 4,000 classroom hours or 250 formal semester hours of which approximately 1000 hours is core physics subjects and 3000 hours is spent in fulfilling general education, minor, and optional requirements.

That boils down to just 6 months of actual physics training based on a 40 hour work week with one weeks off for vacation and one week off for sick leave.

One of my universities attended and all my federal diplomas were issued by the United States Air Force Air University (USAFAU) and the Federal Aviation Administration Academy (FAA Academy-1400 classroom hours in advanced electronics) also under the auspices of the USAFAU as it was a USAF military contract for training. The USAFAU is fully accredited to the doctorate level though it was not while I attended school (67-68). As I was employed by the USAF when it was accredited, the schools were evaluated for accreditation and I was given the opportunity to take bypass tests on the areas lacking in my prior school to gain accreditation and formal credits. I did so and passed those with all A's. I graduated in 1968 with and Honors diploma and advanced graduate level course credits. I continued in post graduate school for three and a half years, graduating at the seventh skill level with straight A's.

Doctor Thomas Hulon Jackson
Common Law Doctorates
Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education

Was there any thesis or defense involved?

My master's thesis in physics was "A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power"
My doctorial dissertation in physics was "A Plasma Rocket Engine"
My doctorial dissertation in Math was "Calculating The Relativistic Effects for Sub C, C , and Super C Objects of Mass"
No thesis in math required.
My doctorial dissertation in computer science (1993) was as 1 of a team of 7 building a super computer from scratch that first passed the terabyte data barrier processing it in 24 hours in 1993 by wiring in parallel and series 100 Pc's and 600 hard drives reducing the PC's processor time (pct) using the equation pct=1/(pct1 plus pct2 plus pct3 plus pct4............pct100) using the technique known today as massive parallel processing invented independently by others at a later date.

As an unintended consequence of my action, while it was working unattended one weekend the computer's housing was struck by several lightning bolts slowing it to 97% speed. Monday morning I reset a few surge suppressor and it returned to 100% speed amazing even myself.

My General Education Doctorate requires no thesis or dissertation as it shares a thesis and dissertation from the other doctorates as they also share the general education requirements of the general education doctorate and any minor requirements are fulfilled by the other majors. I am certified to practice only on doctorate at a time as I can wear only one hat at a time.

Have you ever taken a college-level math or physics course?

A few for refreshment as a year out of high school I made a hundred percentile on the Air Forces Math/Physics bypass test becoming the first in history to 100 percent it. It contained 50 multiple choice problems taken from middle of the book problem selected from college undergraduate and graduate math and physics text books. To keep my certifications current, I did recently take a "discrete mathematics" course as it did not exist when I went to school.

Pausing...to refresh before tackling your questions - did I miss any question from you or Euler or do you want to add to the following list?.......................

You wouldn't happen to have any relation to ol' Rick from the ISA would you?

Goolge search for "Rick Dobson"...ISA...finding .......
No relative though brothers as we are both military vets and both former officers. I cannot find him claiming to be a doctor, though examining his bio at
http://www.international-space-agency.n … ...hy.html

I have no problem addressing him respectfully as "Doctor" as he obviously has the the required semester hours and thesis requirement completed by compiling other's prior research and he has meet the disseratation requirement demonstrating outstanding performance in the field by advancing the field with his independent work in the field of Aerospace Technology and he does have the military security clearance so keeps much secret though the clearance is inactive.

He clearly has you pegged correct.

"Never Stop Dreaming And Never Stop Trying, And You Will Suceed In Spite Of YOur Personal Short Comings And Failures in Life, And Never Buckle Under To The Nay Sayers And Critics, As They Draw Satisfation From Attacking Others Nobel Efforts, Because They Themselfs Have No Dreams Or Visions!"

I agree.

how can your engine produce decent thrusts with Three Hundred Times the efficiency, even though both operate at similar temperatures?

A plasma's (fire's) power is proportional to both mass and temperature as any fire walker can tell you as the light coal ash even at many thousands of degrees will not transfer enough heat from the conductive path to their much more massive foot to burn it.

Heating a heavy liquid many times more massive than your hydrogen gas to many times the maximine temeperature your engine is rated for, mine gets close to one hundred percent efficient at converting mass to energy while your best is .0001 percent efficient. That is if you can make some future discovery keeping the gas plasma in it's engine casing long enough to do much work.

Your GGNC' (NTP) max efficiency is measured at
Project Orion (pulse drive)
=.00025 %
Nuclear electric Propulsion (NEP)(ion drive - Project Vasimar)
.001 % efficiency
Nuclear thermal Propulsion (NTP) (solid core - Project Nerva and gaseuos core such as GCNR)
= .0001 % efficiency
reference http://www.islandone.org/APC/Nuclear/ch … emnuke.gif
http://www.islandone.org/APC/]www.islandone.org/APC/

Even though both use similar schema and similar fuels and similar propellants in similar ways and are both thermal rockets. The GCNR engine has a pinch in the nozzle too, but its exhaust velocity is quite a bit less than 44%C, and thats with light-weight hydrogen! How do you explain this discrepency?

The convergent/divergent nozzle was invented by 1900 for chemical rockets and since then its efficiency has increased only 5 or 10 percent over what it began with up to todays space shuttle main engine operating at >99% efficency.
The exhaust velocity in the chamber is limited to below the speed sound (Mach1) at the convergent nozzle as the shock wave blocks the nozzle throat causing the chamber pressure to increase till the nozzle explodes. Super Mach exhaust velocities are obtainable by the divergent nozzle after the throat allowing the the gas to expand and increase velocities.
Because chemical rockets have servere mass limitations the combustion chamber and nozzle are relative light weight so cannot withstand the mach 30 internal chamber velocites of my design as my casing is two feet thick of water cooled cast iron surrounded by I foot thick wrapping of 1/4 inch iron cable. As the reduction nozzle's walls are expanding liquid multiple mach velocites shock wave is simply not a problem as the liquid walls go out with the shock wave becoming part of the exhaust momentum.

I don't think you've got a very good grasp of relativity either... the speed of an object with respect to itself is ~zero~. Are you talking about the time dialation effects?

At any time the rocket man can determine his velocity wrt his ship knowing the distance he has traveled and dividing that distance by his own watch to determine his velocity as v=D/T. He can even use a scale and his watch as V=AT.

Imagine a race car driver on an oval track. Einsteins relativity eliminated the need for the offical at the edge of the track measuring the lap time to calculate the veleocity as he eliminated proper time of Lorentz relativity saying there was no absolute frame of refernce. The race car driver can use his own watch and knowing the lab distance calculate his own velocity. From time dilatation effects appearing on the drivers clock his velocity will always be calculated faster than the official velocity and both velocites are valid as there is no offical or proper time or absolute frame of reference.

Doctor Thomas Hulon Jackson
Common Law Doctorates
Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education
Your Academioc Superior
Na Na Na Na Na
:laugh:

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-11 15:05:42

The coincidence with Rick Dobson and his "alter ego" Eric and yourself is enough to make someone think twice...

-Both claim to be current or former USAF officers concerned with aeronautical research. You are current or former USAF.
-Rick claimed to be harrassed/punished for his outlandish claims and ideas. You claim to be ostricized about your interpretation that 1C is not the universal speed limit for rockets.
-Rick wanted to be referred to as "doctor" even though he holds no such degree. Eric seemed very protective over Rick's title too... You hold "common law" degrees or whatever those are.
-Rick claimed to be mixed up in "secret USAF stuff," and you claim to have attended a secret USAF school.
-Rick is kicked off the board a few weeks prior, and the you apear with more very long posts with a little algebra, much like Rick did when he was here.

I'll be happy to appolgize if you aren't Rick, but you must admit, it is quite... uncanny. Back to rockets:

You use Newtonian rocket equations to calculate relativistic >1C Delta-V which is a mistake you obviously would not have made if you knew about relativity, claim that a reaction rocket can exceed the speed of light and that virtually the entire physics community for almost the past hundred years is "wrong" and you are right, and finally you go and quote fuel energy figures and extrapolate them incorrectly to inflate the performance of your rocket...

...Which is obviously far far too high and based off of very bad physics, entirely ignoring the thermodynamics...And using simplified "plumbers math" about pinch nozzles (don't forget gasses are compressable)... And claiming that you can keep a metal stable at 50,000K which is preposterous... And oh yes, basing the logic of your ultra-high-temp/ultra-high-pressure rocket on candles and snow cone wrappers.

Oh and of course, your "secret" USAF training and your many and various "common law" doctorates, or whatever those are... added up, this isn't very reassuring about your grasp of the subject, particularly the physics that you claim to hold an advanced degree in.

Euler · 2004-06-11 18:47:25

That is an interesting theory, but I am pretty sure that starship 1 is not Rick. This is partly because he gave his full name, and partly because he has not yet called either of us a "CIA Nazi Thug."

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-11 23:10:51

I dunno Euler... comes to Dobson's defense just like "Eric," capitalized Aerospace Technology like Rick does, has similar writing style, and as the third from last paragraph on the link from Starship points out he also works on wacky propulsion systems too. Oh yes, and the military training Starship here says he has had would be the exact same kind needed to work on E/A-6 fighter jets like Rick says on his website.

For our uninformed members of the audience, Rick Dobson is somthing of a loonie; supposedly an ex-military officer of some sort with a community college degree or other lower-level qualification (no bachelors), who hatched a plan to create a non-profit NGO to unify all the various national space agencies who would all naturally jump at the "great opportunity to work together," and who proceeded to become entirely unhinged claiming he was fired because of a secret government conspiracy to "stop" him. Other tidbits include a particularly acid-trip-inducing public TV program and "space brotherhood" of similar loons, accusing long-term members of the board of being CIA agents, and creating an alter ego ("Eric") to defend himself who began to act likewise.

Mister Dobson has obviously not earned his doctorate from what information is available, as he hasn't produced anything new really, and as I am sure you know Starship, being that you have multiple doctorates, that simply compiling old knowledge does not constitute a new work sufficent for a thesis or the title of doctor of anything. And what is this "outstanding performance" which you refer to? Frankly you seem awfully quick to lavish unearned praise on him... Say Starship, speaking of which, who did you write your various thesis papers for, and who bestowed upon you the title? Frankly, simply working in a technical field for six months and/or taking a few classes does not constitute a doctorate, particularly one someone would bestow on themselves.

Okay back to rockets and relativity...

I won't pretend that my knowledge of the physics involved with rocket engines is complete, but I do know a little bit about the behavior of gasses and thermodynamics with my chemistry background... The concept behind thermal rocket engines is fairly simple on the molecular level, that the speed that gas molecules normally bounce around is directly governed by the temperature, and when the pressure is released - like when the gas escapes the rocket nozzle - the random bouncing around is converted to linear motion that drives the rocket.

Now, this is quite idealized, and a pinch nozzle can have an effect on the velocity of the molecules, but ultimatly the average velocity (and Isp) is limited by the temperature of the propellant gas. Next, your engine core, the "hot" part is heated from within by the fuel itself: so, the temperature of the actual core elements themselves will largely limit the temperature of the propellant molecules. Isp in thermal engines goes up with increasing momentum imparted to the propellant molecules, so a cool-running engine makes less momentum to each molecule, requring much more propellant to create the same dV, resulting in poor Isp.

Now, since your core remains a metal solid, and no metal can handle temperatures beyond 2,500K-3,000K you are thermodynamically limited to Isp in the 100's region by my recconing. Since Nasa would certainly have used a big water cooled iron block for the NERVA engine if a "pinch drive" produced such high efficencies, I must therefore assume that their 3,000K NTR engines would be of at least remotely similar performance.

Concerning energy densities listed by yourself and Euler, I don't think you are really understanding Starship... atomic fission can't convert 100% of its mass to energy under any circumstance, and even if the energy it does yeild is entirely converted to kenetic energy of the daughter particles - the most efficent type of fission engine possible - that you still cannot access velocities beyond around a few percent C. Adding propellant to the calculation, any propellant, decreases the efficency orders of magnetude because of the increased vehicle mass... which you have glossed over entirely. So... your engine gets a million times better millage as a regular NTR system that works under the same principles? A smart person such as yourself, highly schooled in physics, knowing all about jet engines and writing a thesis on atomic rockets, would obviously dismiss such a claim, of course...

Okay now about your backpeddling on the Relativity issue:

1:Time dialation can give you effective velocities beyond 1C. If you go fast enough, time will slow substantially, but your effective speed can never reach 1C without time dialation. This is established and incontrovertable.

2: Newton obviously didn't know about relativity or time dialation, and didn't include it in any of his equations, which are used to derrive the rocket equation [like dV = Ve * Ln(Mi/Mf)]. Anybody with a gram of knowledge about rocket relativity or a "common law" doctorate in physics would know this in his sleep.

3: You used the Newtonian rocket equations, which don't compensate for relativity, to claim that your rocket can reach and exceed the speed of light. Then you start talking about time dialation permitting effective speeds beyond 1C, as an explanation as to why the Newtonian reaction-mass rocket can do this.

So... I can't reconcile it that a person educated such as yourself would make such a fundimental error to use two unrelated theories to explain the one performance effect of your rocket.

starship1 · 2004-06-15 11:33:25

What exactly are Common Law Doctorates anyway?

The rule of thumb for common law doctorates is that if you cannot list and count your own educational hours, grades and level than they do not count or if you do not know what common law is your education does not count.

I count my higher education at 8,000 plus classroom hours evenly distributed between course levels 1 to 6 in the four major subject areas of math, physics, computer science and general education using the accredited standardized equivalent education equation:

1 formal semester hour = 16 classroom hours or 36 laboratory hours or 72 hours of formal on the job training.

A formal PhD in physics is required to have 4,000 classroom hours or 250 formal semester hours of which approximately 1000 hours is core physics subjects and 3000 hours is spent in fulfilling general education, minor, and optional requirements.

That boils down to just 6 months of actual physics training based on a 40 hour work week with one weeks off for vacation and one week off for sick leave.

One of my universities attended and all my federal diplomas were issued by the United States Air Force Air University (USAFAU) and the Federal Aviation Administration Academy (FAA Academy-1400 classroom hours in advanced electronics) also under the auspices of the USAFAU as it was a USAF military contract for training. The USAFAU is fully accredited to the doctorate level though it was not while I attended school (67-68). As I was employed by the USAF when it was accredited, the schools were evaluated for accreditation and I was given the opportunity to take bypass tests on the areas lacking in my prior school to gain accreditation and formal credits. I did so and passed those with all A's. I graduated in 1968 with and Honors diploma and advanced graduate level course credits. I continued in post graduate school for three and a half years, graduating at the seventh skill level with straight A's.

Doctor Thomas Hulon Jackson
Common Law Doctorates
Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education

Was there any thesis or defense involved?

My master's thesis in physics was "A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power"
My doctorial dissertation in physics was "A Plasma Rocket Engine"
My doctorial dissertation in Math was "Calculating The Relativistic Effects for Sub C, C , and Super C Objects of Mass"
No thesis in math required.
My doctorial dissertation in computer science (1993) was as 1 of a team of 7 building a super computer from scratch that first passed the terabyte data barrier processing it in 24 hours in 1993 by wiring in parallel and series 100 Pc's and 600 hard drives reducing the PC's processor time (pct) using the equation pct=1/(pct1 plus pct2 plus pct3 plus pct4............pct100) using the technique known today as massive parallel processing invented independently by others at a later date.

As an unintended consequence of my action, while it was working unattended one weekend the computer's housing was struck by several lightning bolts slowing it to 97% speed. Monday morning I reset a few surge suppressor and it returned to 100% speed amazing even myself.

My General Education Doctorate requires no thesis or dissertation as it shares a thesis and dissertation from the other doctorates as they also share the general education requirements of the general education doctorate and any minor requirements are fulfilled by the other majors. I am certified to practice only on doctorate at a time as I can wear only one hat at a time.

Have you ever taken a college-level math or physics course?

A few for refreshment as a year out of high school I made a hundred percentile on the Air Forces Math/Physics bypass test becoming the first in history to 100 percent it. It contained 50 multiple choice problems taken from middle of the book problem selected from college undergraduate and graduate math and physics text books. To keep my certifications current, I did recently take a "discrete mathematics" course as it did not exist when I went to school.

Pausing...to refresh before tackling your questions - did I miss any question from you or Euler or do you want to add to the following list?.......................

You wouldn't happen to have any relation to ol' Rick from the ISA would you?

Goolge search for "Rick Dobson"...ISA...finding .......
No relative though brothers as we are both military vets and both former officers. I cannot find him claiming to be a doctor, though examining his bio at
http://www.international-space-agency.n … ...hy.html

I have no problem addressing him respectfully as "Doctor" as he obviously has the the required semester hours and thesis requirement completed by compiling other's prior research and he has meet the disseratation requirement demonstrating outstanding performance in the field by advancing the field with his independent work in the field of Aerospace Technology and he does have the military security clearance so keeps much secret though the clearance is inactive.

He clearly has you pegged correct.

"Never Stop Dreaming And Never Stop Trying, And You Will Suceed In Spite Of YOur Personal Short Comings And Failures in Life, And Never Buckle Under To The Nay Sayers And Critics, As They Draw Satisfation From Attacking Others Nobel Efforts, Because They Themselfs Have No Dreams Or Visions!"

I agree.

how can your engine produce decent thrusts with Three Hundred Times the efficiency, even though both operate at similar temperatures?

A plasma's (fire's) power is proportional to both mass and temperature as any fire walker can tell you as the light coal ash even at many thousands of degrees will not transfer enough heat from the conductive path to their much more massive foot to burn it.

Heating a heavy liquid many times more massive than your hydrogen gas to many times the maximine temeperature your engine is rated for, mine gets close to one hundred percent efficient at converting mass to energy while your best is .0001 percent efficient. That is if you can make some future discovery keeping the gas plasma in it's engine casing long enough to do much work.

Your GGNC' (NTP) max efficiency is measured at
Project Orion (pulse drive)
=.00025 %
Nuclear electric Propulsion (NEP)(ion drive - Project Vasimar)
.001 % efficiency
Nuclear thermal Propulsion (NTP) (solid core - Project Nerva and gaseuos core such as GCNR)
= .0001 % efficiency
reference http://www.islandone.org/APC/Nuclear/ch … emnuke.gif
http://www.islandone.org/APC/]www.islandone.org/APC/

Even though both use similar schema and similar fuels and similar propellants in similar ways and are both thermal rockets. The GCNR engine has a pinch in the nozzle too, but its exhaust velocity is quite a bit less than 44%C, and thats with light-weight hydrogen! How do you explain this discrepency?

The convergent/divergent nozzle was invented by 1900 for chemical rockets and since then its efficiency has increased only 5 or 10 percent over what it began with up to todays space shuttle main engine operating at >99% efficency.
The exhaust velocity in the chamber is limited to below the speed sound (Mach1) at the convergent nozzle as the shock wave blocks the nozzle throat causing the chamber pressure to increase till the nozzle explodes. Super Mach exhaust velocities are obtainable by the divergent nozzle after the throat allowing the the gas to expand and increase velocities.
Because chemical rockets have servere mass limitations the combustion chamber and nozzle are relative light weight so cannot withstand the mach 30 internal chamber velocites of my design as my casing is two feet thick of water cooled cast iron surrounded by I foot thick wrapping of 1/4 inch iron cable. As the reduction nozzle's walls are expanding liquid multiple mach velocites shock wave is simply not a problem as the liquid walls go out with the shock wave becoming part of the exhaust momentum.

I don't think you've got a very good grasp of relativity either... the speed of an object with respect to itself is ~zero~. Are you talking about the time dialation effects?

At any time the rocket man can determine his velocity wrt his ship knowing the distance he has traveled and dividing that distance by his own watch to determine his velocity as v=D/T. He can even use a scale and his watch as V=AT.

Imagine a race car driver on an oval track. Einsteins relativity eliminated the need for the offical at the edge of the track measuring the lap time to calculate the veleocity as he eliminated proper time of Lorentz relativity saying there was no absolute frame of refernce. The race car driver can use his own watch and knowing the lab distance calculate his own velocity. From time dilatation effects appearing on the drivers clock his velocity will always be calculated faster than the official velocity and both velocites are valid as there is no offical or proper time or absolute frame of reference.

So... your engine gets a million times better millage as a regular NTR system that works under the same principles?

Mine gets a millon times the velocity of a regular NTR system as their limitations and reasons for it are well known and efficiency caclulated at best .0001% as theoretical max power/actual power =.000001. that fraction in chemcial rockets is >.99 or >99% having increased only 5 to 10 percent since the invention of the combustion chamber and it's convergent /divergent nozzle. There is simply no reason to accept such low effeicencies in atomic rockets. My engine does not work on the the same principles of the NTR as the plasma is contained for much longer time and at higher temperatures then the NTR as theoretical max power/actual power is close to one. Mine passed all the proof of pricipal tests it does operates on.

http://www.hypertherm.com/technology/plasma_history.htm
water injection 1968 link (not invented at the time of project Nerva) so was not used.

In the water injection plasma cutting process, water was radially injected into the arc in a uniform manner as shown in radial impingement of the water at the arc provided a higher degree of arc constriction than could be achieved by just the copper nozzle alone. Arc temperatures in this region are estimated to approach 50,000°K or roughly nine times the surface temperature of the sun and more than twice the temperature of the conventional plasma arc.

who did you write your various thesis papers for, and who bestowed upon you the title?

The masters thesis "A Definitive Analysis Of Atomic Power" was assigned in a signed open commision by Albert Einstein in 1955 dictating instructions to the reader on how to continue his work in atomic physics open to anyone who could do the job. I accepted the commision after he died and completed the work and completed his work designing a 10 megaton atomic bomb compiled for other's work.

Normally these works are listed in a bibliography at the end of a thesis givening proper credit and demonstrating the student has moved to a skill level in the field and in my case a masters level. The exception is all "A Defintive Analysis of............." works as they are written from memory with no references or bibliography allowed an it written usually only after many years of research into the historical publications.

University "closed" commisions are closed to those attendending the university and they result in a "formal degree" from that university. When the asigning doctor dies before the work is complete, it is rare for one to find another doctor or university wiilling to accept the work; thefore the students work is lost. I my case I accepteted the open commison by Einstein who had already died as he left very detailed instructions on how the work was to be performed after he died. The comman law doctorates titiles are awarded by any common man reading the works of disseration calipar indication independent work in the field advancing the as the research is at the forntiers of the field while the masters thesis is based on past works compiled from historical research. My Doctoriall dissertation in physics was "A plasma rocket engine" bering an invention of my own advancing the field.

Universites are limited to level 6 instruction by an acreditation board. levels 7-10 are reserved for the field and all universities are required by law to recognize outstanding performance in the field. As Oklahomas universities are considered substandard in computer science doctorates, Certification is made by the state of oklahoma and after evaluating four years of computer science formal undergraduate and graduate course work plus 4 years experience in a computer engieering lab plus the super computer I built from scratch I was certified Computer Systems Specialist 1. I used my previous doctorates to award myself the commmon law title doctor as PhD in Computer Science as I recognize outstanding performance in the field and I am a common man. Though the Air Force Community college did not exist when I was a non commission officer of SSGT rank. I do have a formal transcript there as they were acredited to evaluate part of one of my diplomas, transfering some graduate course work to Oklahoma Central University for formal credits.

Doctor Thomas Hulon Jackson
Common Law Doctorates
Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education
Your Academioc Superior
Na Na Na Na Na
:laugh:

continuing
Reference Einstein's General Relativity field equations for constant
1 g accelerating rocket
C- ship our sturdy craft (The Lorentz)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.htm … craft.html
This applet below lets you make your own time dilation calculations.

The applet)
The Relativistic Rocket Applet
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applet … oyage.html
lets you plan how long a trip will take on a rocket that travels near
the
speed of light. You type the distance of the trip (measured in light
years)
and the acceleration of the rocket (measured as a multiple of Earth's
gravity). The rocket will accelerate at that rate for half of the
trip, then
decelerate at the same rate for the second half of the trip.
The time for the trip is measured in two ways: (1) As seen by a
person who
stays behind on Earth, and (2) as measured by you on the ship. For
your
convenience, space-sickness pills are available aft of the
observation
lounge.
end quote..............................

For a one way trip to the closest star at a constant 1g wrt earth to
midpoint and decelerating at 1 g the remainder of the journey.

Trip length: 4.25 light years.
Acceleration: 1.0 g.
Time on earth: 5.8780560467144 years.
Time on ship: 3.544401860293398 years.

If Christ was resurrected after death and did ascended to the heavens
on a 1 g rocket ship to visit his father at a 1000 ly distant star he
could return today Obeying Einstein's laws some 27 years older and he
might be ticked off so behave as:

Trip length: 1000.0 light years.
Acceleration: 1.0 g.
Time on earth: 1002.2235407106124 years.
Time on ship: 13.453214568643295 years.

For a one way trip to the edge of the observable universe measuring a
constant 1g wrt earth to midpoint and decelerating at 1 g the
remainder of the journey.

Trip length: 1.7E10 light years.
Acceleration: 1.0 g.
Time on earth: 1.7004884192539843E10 years.
Time on ship: 45.71651222563561 years.

Velocity average with respect to (wrt) earth =
17E10 light years /1.7004884192539843 years =
.99971277707718905089055716347216 C
Velocity average wrt ship
1.7E10 light years/45.71651222563561 =
371856888.73411523778926486148209 C

1 g acceleration wrt earth wrt earth Velocity
= .99971277707718905089055716347216 C
Velocity average wrt ship = warp speed 371856888.7
Known as faster than light or warp speed due to warping time.

Which is also the velocity wrt earth when measuring the constant 1 g
wrt ship. As Einstein's equation for relativistic acceleration is:
A'=A (gamma cubed)from extended relativity theory(ERT) of 1949.

When A' is substituted for A in the deasy site equations inside the
present Java Calculator at the beginning of this post, Instead of the
rocket man in case one "feeling" a one g acceleration at the
beginning of the trip tending to zero as his velocity wrt earth tends
to C. In case two the rocket man accelerates his ship at a constant 1
g wrt the ship so he feels the constant one g the entire trip. When
the rocket man returns to earth in case two he finds his left behind
earth twin his same age rather than the ancient bones of case one. In
case two both space and time are warped from Einstein's equivalence
principal of general relativity equating gravity and acceleration as
being indistinguishable from one another.

So the ERT theory goes, however Einstein did not know of a way to
test his ERT theory when he completed his gravitational unified field
theory of 1949, calling it his "greatest achievement to date".
However it occurred to me that such a time dilatation warp and space
warp combined effect can easily be measured as sub speed light
velocities, just as time warps are measured in rockets today.

Hence my topic of my proposed engine capable of maintaining a
constant acceleration for extended periods of time.

Chemical rockets at best with adjustable thrust capabilities can
maintain 1 g for several hours, based on maintaining 15 g's for
approximately 15 minutes and atomic rockets have the potential power
of millions times more that so much faster velocities are possible
for any given payload up to any sub light velocities and beyond C, if
Einstein's theory was correct.

I will leave it to the group members if they wish to discuss the
possibility of true faster than light as Einstein's equations permit.
or if they want to discuss my atomic rocket engine.

As I have already commented and given the required equations above
making faster than light travel possible. I prefer to discuss my
rocket engine,(18 page patent application with drawings and animated
gif of engine starting showing internal mechanism. But will yield to
the groups interest if they would rather discuss just the math.

I do ask that the group for this message thread at least stick to
Einstein's field theory and not discuss quantum theory as it is
Einstein's theory and not quantum mechanics that I understand best,
as I discarded quantum mechanics in 1963 as mathematical gobbley
gook, and not a theory one can actually do anything with thereby
following Einstein's instructions to discard it.

Sorry group I do not have that reference to give you as I lost it
in 1968.

I can only give you what I do have. Is it enough?

My patent application of engine caple of testing Einstein's faster
than light theory at above light speed or below light speed though in
any case capable of star travel and Einstein's ERT reference:

foia.fbi.gov/
click on electronic reading room, famous persons, Einstein, Albert,
Part 9b
foia.fbi.gov/einstein/einstein9b.pdf
page 18 and 19
Washing Star Dec 27,1949
Einstein presents New Theory of all motion in Universe

"The unified field theory" It was reveled here yesterday on 20
mimeographed pages-a mixture of typewritten words and squiggly
mathematical symbols that even scientists hesitated to interpret. It
was the English translation of Doctor Einstein's original
German........

'my greatest achievement to date'..............
................

......In earlier theories Dr. Einstein linked up space and time,
matter and energy and gravitation and inertia, but one great force
was left out-electromagnetism, an invisible force field that can act
at a distance.

The new theory now includes electromagnetism and it and gravitation
are viewed as two forms of one overall force.

In his general theory of 1915 Dr. Einstein showed by mathematics that
gravitation and inertial were equivalent. This theory was proved when
astronomers were able to detect the suns gravity bending light from a
distant star.

end quote---------------------------

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-15 13:35:31

That might be the biggest post i've ever seen since ol' Rick was around... anyway...

Okay let me see if I can get this straight... you cleped your way to a degree from the USAF Air University/CC and count working for the USAF as equal to class credits by your dubious equivilence formula. And your master thesis was assigned by Albert Einstein specificly about atomic rockets and it has no bibliography at all, since you took all the information "from memory." And the best tidbits of all: "The comman law doctorates titiles are awarded by any common man reading the works" and "I... award myself the commmon law title doctor" ...So, basicly your doctorates are made up and you just put "Dr." on your business card. That isn't exactly how it works... If I wern't in somthing of a good mood, I would be quite annoyed with your presumption given all the trouble i'm going through for my "Dr."

Further, your engine does not operate on different principles from NTR engines: you have a critical nuclear fission reaction which becomes hot, then it passes this thermal energy to the propellant through contact, and finally the propellant produces thrust by escaping a nozzle while the nuclear fuel remains in the engine. So since the physics are similar, then you must have a giant error for your engine to have 1,000's of times better performance. Claiming that NTR engines get only like 0.0001% efficency and that yours gets 99% is plainly and obviously nonsense.

In an arcjet cutting torch, the cutting gas is renderd a plasma after it has been injected into the nozzle assembly by a powerful electric current; the gas in the assembly does not come into close contact with any componet of the torch except parts that are cooled or the coolant itself, so no signifigant transfer of heat occurs to the cooler nozzle parts and what there is is readily carried away.

Now, your engine uses entirely thermal effects to create the plasma and eventually heat the propellant. Where does this heat energy come from? It comes from the nuclear fuel elements. Heat in the case always moves from the higher temperature componet to the cooler ones, in this case from the fuel elements to the propellant. Therefore, the core elements themselves must reach temperatures equal or greater than the temperature of the propellant. Since no known solid can withstand temperatures of 50,000K, generally limited to 2,500-3,000K, your engine cannot raise the temperature of the propellant above this, as the core itself would melt so therefore your propellant temperature is likewise limited.

Now about that efficency... I don't think you understand what it means at all; it means how much momentum change you get from the entire vehicle versus how much you would get if all the energy released from the nuclear reaction was used to push the daughter particles themselves out the back. Such an engine could reach 1,000,000sec Isp but isn't practical... but yours, your engine relies on having a propellant pushed out the back, so now you have the weight of propellant AND the weight of nuclear fuel onboard, so the mass of propellant used is far, far greater than the nuclear fuel alone for the same amount of energy!

Now all that extra propellant weight slows your rocket down, and slows it down alot. There goes that 1,000,000sec Isp stuff... and since the process of thermal conduction to the gas and the conversion of thermal motion to linear motion aren't all that efficent, and the low temperatures you achieve, that 1,000,000sec stuff falls by orders of magnetude quite quickly... If such a pinch drive would work, don't you think that Nasa would have employed it even if it was much heavier than other rockets? The mass it would save would far exceed the extra mass of the engine.

And the relativity stuff...

All you have done is cut & paste big numbers from earlier posts, and again I state that your equations themselves are used incorrectly to justify the superluminal performance of your magic rocket. You used the Newtonian-based rocket mass equations to reach speeds exceeding 1C and stop. Then you talk about an entirely separate and unrelated effect of time dialation to give you effective speeds above 1C without the superluminal increase in inertia of the Newtonian equations.

Now if you said your rocket aproached 1C with conventional Newtonian mechanics and then your velocity change slowed and time dialation gave you effective speeds over 1C, this would almost make sense... but you did not, you used the Newtonian calculations to explicitly show your vehicle's velocity not corrected for time dialation exceeds 1C. The huge disconnect between the two theories & arguments is easy even for a chemist to spot.

So all these errors... the simple thermodynamics, the huge misconception of Einstein vs Newton, and the lack of common sense with talk of acceleration alone causing time dialation sprinkled on top leaves me to conclude that you do not have a sufficent grasp on the subject to have written any real dissertations on atomic rockets or superluminal craft, nor even properly able to defend the grandiose claims of your rocket.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-06-08 22:03:36

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#2 2004-06-09 11:04:25

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#3 2004-06-09 20:23:27

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#4 2004-06-09 20:56:07

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#5 2004-06-09 22:25:59

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#6 2004-06-10 10:23:40

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#7 2004-06-10 10:39:23

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#8 2004-06-10 11:38:25

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#9 2004-06-10 12:02:58

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#10 2004-06-10 12:15:57

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#11 2004-06-10 13:03:45

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#12 2004-06-10 13:18:26

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#13 2004-06-10 14:12:13

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#14 2004-06-10 15:19:47

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#15 2004-06-10 19:39:56

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#16 2004-06-10 21:59:32

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#17 2004-06-10 22:06:27

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#18 2004-06-10 22:29:08

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#19 2004-06-10 23:15:36

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#20 2004-06-11 14:37:04

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#21 2004-06-11 15:05:42

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#22 2004-06-11 18:47:25

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#23 2004-06-11 23:10:51

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#24 2004-06-15 11:33:25

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

#25 2004-06-15 13:35:31

Re: Hybrid Fisson/Fusion Reaction Engine

Board footer