Warp Drive

Trebuchet · 2006-01-05 21:01:51

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006

If it does work, I guess grandfather paradoxes will just have to be lived with. The sun doesn't revolve around the earth, after all, and life didn't come to a crashing halt when the apparently logical nature of things was shaken up in the Renaissance.

Of course, it's more likely that the experiment will fail. However, if it succeeded, it would mean that the Pluto Express's speed record is very short lived. Probes to the stars, anybody? Of course, if FTL is possible, this *really* raises big questions about the Fermi Paradox, and puts a new wrinkle on them. If FTL flight is possible, why aren't *we* already everywhere? ^_^

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-05 22:14:49

"More than likly will fail"

The only reason anybody is paying this guy's idea any attention is because we already have a machine sitting around that could perhaps test it, the Z-Pinch. Its cheap "breakthrough propulsion" science. Since the thing has to be kept up anyway, it might even be "free."

I'm especially dubious of this interdimensional travel business, particularly when its something "easy" like a magnetic field. Its convienant. Too convienant.

Trebuchet · 2006-01-05 22:42:25

Same here, but as you point out - it's cheap. Go ahead and buy that lotto ticket with the spare change from your burger.

Tim · 2006-01-06 14:50:15

It'd be nice if that worked out but I won't hold my breath!

Here are a couple of other articles on it I found.

http://www.newscientistspace.com/articl … space.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/06/hyperdrive/

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-06 20:10:14

Good:

-Based on work of a physicist whos other works accuratly described the mass of fundimental particles

Bad:

-His work on the antigravity and "hyperspace" are difficult to comprihend, and the original theorist has since died.

-The idea for a proof of concept is similar to the essentially debunked Russian antigravity engine.

Stormrage · 2006-01-08 14:11:10

When it comes to interstellar travel i am all for it. I have my doubts about this but i wish that it works.

showtime17 · 2006-02-03 08:28:17

http://www.physorg.com/news9786.html

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-03 12:47:33

The ion engine is nice, but its not warp drive... for really high speed travel time between the planets, you need four things:

-Moderate to high thrust
-High propellant efficiency (Isp 3000sec or higher)
-Low engine mass
-Low energy source mass per power output (eg kilowatts)

This ion engine fulfills the second and third requirement, but would still have pretty low thrust and is still limited by our current power sources (solar, solid core nuclear fission). This makes it good for space probes, so-so for cargo vehicles, and bad for manned flights.

showtime17 · 2006-02-03 13:31:48

Oh wait I think I posted the wrong link. Anyways sorry... Well it does deal with interplanetary travel, although not hyperdrive...

showtime17 · 2006-02-04 08:34:21

Anyways here's a link from another board discussing Heim's ideas.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=0

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Hyperspac … _4349.html

mboeller · 2006-02-05 12:55:07

The ion engine is nice, but its not warp drive... for really high speed travel time between the planets, you need four things:
-Moderate to high thrust
-High propellant efficiency (Isp 3000sec or higher)
-Low engine mass
-Low energy source mass per power output (eg kilowatts)
This ion engine fulfills the second and third requirement, but would still have pretty low thrust and is still limited by our current power sources (solar, solid core nuclear fission). This makes it good for space probes, so-so for cargo vehicles, and bad for manned flights.

So you think the MiniMag Orion would be an ideal interplanetary drive, or?

mboeller · 2006-02-05 13:00:16

Anyways here's a link from another board discussing Heim's ideas.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=0
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Hyperspac … _4349.html

Thanks for the links!

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-05 14:28:00

The ion engine is nice, but its not warp drive... for really high speed travel time between the planets, you need four things:
-Moderate to high thrust
-High propellant efficiency (Isp 3000sec or higher)
-Low engine mass
-Low energy source mass per power output (eg kilowatts)
This ion engine fulfills the second and third requirement, but would still have pretty low thrust and is still limited by our current power sources (solar, solid core nuclear fission). This makes it good for space probes, so-so for cargo vehicles, and bad for manned flights.
So you think the MiniMag Orion would be an ideal interplanetary drive, or?

Not really, such a contraption would be pretty hard to build, and the "fuel" (Americium or Plutonium) would be difficult to produce reliably. IE really really expensive.

Also, you couldn't refuel anywhere without a supply of the metal and the industrial facilities to process large quantities of it.

Whatever "super engine" we use should use either Hydrogen or Water as the primary propellant, since this would enable refueling at destination, vastly simplified fuel handling infrastructure, and provide an attainable point of entry for non-traditional sources.

The three best options so far that don't involve a sustained nuclear fusion reaction are the GCNR engine, the VASIMR engine fed by a vapor core reactor, and an external-combustion NSWR engine. They all share one thing in common, they permit Uranium in a nuclear reaction to become so hot it vaporizes, which makes the pile much hotter then normal solid or liquid Uranium, so that it can in turn make the propellant much hotter and expand much more.

Edit: I'm not thrilled by the pulse nature of the thing either... of the three super-engines I noted, the easiest one would probobly be the salt water rocket, but would require a great deal of nuclear fuel. The VCR/VASIMR combo would be very complex, but very efficient. The GCNR engine, my favorite and namesake, is a happy medium.

Gennaro · 2006-02-06 17:14:06

The Buchard Heim Drive seems totally incredible. Too good too be true is not enough to label it.

Funny though, the principles behind it sound an awful lot like what has been speculated to power UFO's... :shock:

Is this a joke? :?

Trebuchet · 2006-02-10 20:44:01

It's probably just a cheap experiment that can be done without much overhead.

As for engines, though, "the best" depends on a whole host of factors. Our main problem isn't ISP - we got plenty of high-ISP engines - but sheer, raw thrust. Apart from the three listed up above (nuclear saltwater, gas-core nuclear, and VASIMIR) there is also the Longshot engine (inertial fusion powered by fission reactor, no good for anything other than cargo, but what range! Sucker can fly to nearby stars in a century or so) or Orion (paging Dr. Strangelove...)

Sometimes I think the best solution is simply to build the damn space elevator and build high-ISP, low-medium thrust craft in orbit, where you don't need to worry about fighting the earth's immense gravity. Build them big, like the size of a small space station, slowly boost them into a free-return orbit with ion engines or whatever, and then just shuttle people to and from those cycling craft with cheap expendable chemical stages. Forget high speed Buck Rogers stuff, because, unless you're in a tearing hurry, it's not how much thrust you can get out of the engine, it's how much thrust you can get out of a dollar.

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-10 21:25:36

Ah the cyclers...

Cyclers are elegant conceptually, but are never going to be practical.

First off, transit times are too long. If we want to have an interplanetary civilization, waiting months or years for a cycler to pass and many months more for it to transit is not going to work out.

The cycler doesn't, and I want to put this in big bold letters for emphasis, does not reduce the amount of fuel needed to get anywhere, only the size of vehicle required for manned transit. If the cycler is on a free-return trajectory, then your "little shuttles" have to be on a free-return trajectory too to dock with it.

Crew shuttles have one massive elephant-in-room problem too: if you fail to rendezvous with the cycler, and you don't have enough supplies to last the whole trip onboard (unlikly since its a little day-trip shuttle), then,
A: You are all going to die. Badly.
B: You have to carry along a MASSIVE amount of rocket fuel for a direct abort back to port.

So, given the low speed and flexibility of a cycler, I don't think they make sense.

Gennaro · 2006-02-12 20:48:23

Our main problem isn't ISP - we got plenty of high-ISP engines - but sheer, raw thrust.

Like I was always saying...

Anyway, just popped in here for no real reason. What I probably should have done instead of commenting this thread was replying to a message from about a year ago regarding Muslim influence on chivalry and European morals. It was so wide off the mark it could have been considered a duty. However, I neither have the enthusiasm nor energy to even go look for it...

So, how are you all at New Mars? Well, I hope...

publiusr · 2006-02-17 15:48:21

More of the same:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology … avity.html

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-02-17 16:04:05

Ah the cyclers...
Cyclers are elegant conceptually, but are never going to be practical.
First off, transit times are too long. If we want to have an interplanetary civilization, waiting months or years for a cycler to pass and many months more for it to transit is not going to work out.
The cycler doesn't, and I want to put this in big bold letters for emphasis, does not reduce the amount of fuel needed to get anywhere, only the size of vehicle required for manned transit. If the cycler is on a free-return trajectory, then your "little shuttles" have to be on a free-return trajectory too to dock with it.
Crew shuttles have one massive elephant-in-room problem too: if you fail to rendezvous with the cycler, and you don't have enough supplies to last the whole trip onboard (unlikly since its a little day-trip shuttle), then,
A: You are all going to die. Badly.
B: You have to carry along a MASSIVE amount of rocket fuel for a direct abort back to port.
So, given the low speed and flexibility of a cycler, I don't think they make sense.

I agree about the Cyclers.

In the Cycler concept I see the reasons that NASA used to trumpet the shuttle program.

"Build this and costs will go down".

psuguru · 2006-06-20 04:25:52

It's probably just a cheap experiment that can be done without much overhead.

I don't know if you meant this to be a good thing or a bad thing.

Whether or not Heim Quantum Theory as extended by Walter Droescher turns out to be a good description of a GUT, the theory itself seems to me to be a work of towering genius. Alone of all the theories of fundamental particles, not only does HQT predict their masses, but gets them correct to 7 places of decimals! Droescher's (et-al) extension of HQT into 8 dimensions (these extra dimensions are mathematical dimensions, not "real" metric dimensions) predicts the existence of a coupling between the EM field and the Gravitational field, mediated by the "gravito-photon".
A cheap test proving their existence would turn particle physics on its head and would alter the direction of multi-billion dollar collider projects. Surely this is worthwhile investigating, even if no space propulsion came of it.

Heim had to invent an entire new mathematics to describe his ideas, so it's not surprising that there are few people who can work on HQT, let alone pass judgement upon its validity. It's like pygmies criticising giants for being able to see further!!!
The only thing we should be concerned with is: "Does it produce the right answers?" So far, the answer is "Yes"

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-20 06:01:17

As a counter to that though, if nobody understands how to do the math but him (particularly with this "invented all new math" thing), then who is to say that the math is all fake, just with clever buzzwords with simplistic "proofs" that make particle masses come out to be what we already measured them to be but have nothing to do with reality.

Edit: Almost nobody is a "giant and a genius," so it ought to be on him to prove that he is, not us to prove that he isn't.

Do not be quick to believe in those who proclaim radical changes or breakthrough theories, as many crackpots are among their ranks, and so many are desperate to believe in something new.

psuguru · 2006-06-20 08:17:22

It's not completely correct to say that "nobody" understands how to do the math. It's just that there are only a few people who can do it, Walter Droescher being the most prominent.
The mass formula exists, whether people want to accept it or not, and it gives the precisely correct numerical results.
Physical theories have worth only by their utility:-Do they give the right answers in specific circumstances? That's why spacecraft navigation is done using un-modified Newtonian Dynamics as the underpinning theory. It's useful and gives the "right" answers in a non-relativistic scenario.
Whether I personally "believe" in 8-dimensional hyper-spaces will make no difference to the results of any experiments (probably); but I confess to being on the edge of my seat just waiting!

cIclops · 2006-06-20 08:53:16

Whether or not Heim Quantum Theory as extended by Walter Droescher turns out to be a good description of a GUT, the theory itself seems to me to be a work of towering genius. Alone of all the theories of fundamental particles, not only does HQT predict their masses, but gets them correct to 7 places of decimals! Droescher's (et-al) extension of HQT into 8 dimensions (these extra dimensions are mathematical dimensions, not "real" metric dimensions) predicts the existence of a coupling between the EM field and the Gravitational field, mediated by the "gravito-photon".

After almost 30 years hardly anybody has reviewed these theories and except for a small group of HQT fanatics no one in the theoretical physics community is interested. The claims to predict accurate particle masses are unverified, a state of affairs indicative of a worthless crank theory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-20 08:54:56

Precise results based on what though? If the math includes a bunch of "constants" or inputs based on things other then what they claim, then it is possible to make the answers come out to be whatever you want them to, including the experimentally derived answers that we already knew. If these other inputs are hidden in math that nobody can understand, then it could just be a hoax. A better test is does it predict anything that was not already known.

psuguru · 2006-06-20 11:26:08

Precise results based on what though? If the math includes a bunch of "constants" or inputs based on things other then what they claim, then it is possible to make the answers come out to be whatever you want them to, including the experimentally derived answers that we already knew. If these other inputs are hidden in math that nobody can understand, then it could just be a hoax. A better test is does it predict anything that was not already known.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not a "believer" of HQT. That's because I have the merest hint of an idea of what it's about; but then again, I'm keeping my mind open to evidence as good scientists ought.
The arguments against HQT are merely dogmatic. I mean, is it likely that a fundamental theory of everything would be understandable by everybody?
What Droescher has done by raising the issue of a space-propulsion application is raise the interest level so that enough people will become sufficiently proficient in Selector Calculus that the theory can pass peer review to the satisfaction of "the scientific community", whoever they are. But peer reviewed or not, the theory has predictions.
Meanwhile, it seems incredible to me that a fake formula from a bogus theory that artificially predicts (say) the mass of the proton in terms of the fundamental constants of nature would also just happen to get the masses of the Electron, Muon, Tau also bang on, would predict the existence of the Omicron particle and its 1st resonance (verified in Oct 2003) and predict the Sommerfeld Fine Structure constant. These results are necessary preliminary predictions of a successful theory. To say they are false would be calling these people frauds without, it seems, having an inkling of the work. Perhaps you could elucidate your opposition to the theory?
I did some work on the Vigier theory in the 1970's. This theory was a well meant attempt at a relativistic description of particle physics. It was a genuine theory that hardly anyone, including me, understood. It passed on because it predicted nothing useful and failed to explain known phenomena.
The gravito-photon is predicted by no theory other than HQT and a comparatively easy experiment to show its existence and effects (either positively or negatively) would be decisive and make discussions like these redundant. It should be done because the ramifications of success would be world shaking.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-01-05 21:01:51

Re: Warp Drive

#2 2006-01-05 22:14:49

Re: Warp Drive

#3 2006-01-05 22:42:25

Re: Warp Drive

#4 2006-01-06 14:50:15

Re: Warp Drive

#5 2006-01-06 20:10:14

Re: Warp Drive

#6 2006-01-08 14:11:10

Re: Warp Drive

#7 2006-02-03 08:28:17

Re: Warp Drive

#8 2006-02-03 12:47:33

Re: Warp Drive

#9 2006-02-03 13:31:48

Re: Warp Drive

#10 2006-02-04 08:34:21

Re: Warp Drive

#11 2006-02-05 12:55:07

Re: Warp Drive

#12 2006-02-05 13:00:16

Re: Warp Drive

#13 2006-02-05 14:28:00

Re: Warp Drive

#14 2006-02-06 17:14:06

Re: Warp Drive

#15 2006-02-10 20:44:01

Re: Warp Drive

#16 2006-02-10 21:25:36

Re: Warp Drive

#17 2006-02-12 20:48:23

Re: Warp Drive

#18 2006-02-17 15:48:21

Re: Warp Drive

#19 2006-02-17 16:04:05

Re: Warp Drive

#20 2006-06-20 04:25:52

Re: Warp Drive

#21 2006-06-20 06:01:17

Re: Warp Drive

#22 2006-06-20 08:17:22

Re: Warp Drive

#23 2006-06-20 08:53:16

Re: Warp Drive

#24 2006-06-20 08:54:56

Re: Warp Drive

#25 2006-06-20 11:26:08

Re: Warp Drive

Board footer