[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity
I>
> > Subj: RE: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity
> > Date: 1/20/00 6:57:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
> > From: Chris.Walker@bskyb.com (Walker, Chris)
> > To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com ('STAR1SHIP@aol.com')
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com [mailto:STAR1SHIP@aol.com]
> > > Sent: 20 January 2000 03:18
> > > To: chithree@boo.net
> > > Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
> > > Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity
> > > http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > See above link to faster than light engine that can be built
> > > today and requires no future discovery or future technology, I know
> > > because I (man of many letters after name) invented it.
> >
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > I've read the page and have a few questions and comments - I'd be
> grateful
> > if you could answer them please.
> >
> > (1) "...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"
> >
> > What material do you intend to use to contain the fuel at "blue white
> star"
> > temperatures?
Hey Cris,
> Depending on the engines mission, I use any of a range of metals from cast
> iron to titanium or high temperature ceramic-metalic alloys. Their melting
> point is not important as the temperature of the plasma heat that is
transferred
> by radiant, convection and conductive heat paths through as it is absorbed
by
> the selected propellant carried out the exhaust port and the casing is
> further insulated by the steam (One of the best heat insulaters)generated
> when water as propellant is used.
>
> In lab, place papercup with water over candle and boil water to observe
that
> the flash point of the paper is lower than the temperature of the flame (
> plasma). The heat paths are controlled to carry the ignition heat away from
> the casing.
>
> >
> > (2) "A means of manufacturing fuel disks 5 from high grade radioactive
> metal
> > found extra-terrestrially can be obtained by the following means..."
> >
> > Do you know how much extra-terrestrial high grade radioactive material
> there
> > is freely available to find? Also the method you outline will either
> require
> > a human presence, or a very complex piece of machinery (if it's an
> unmanned
> > probe).
>
> You can find metals nearly any where.
> The breeder(fusion) reactor to produce the fuel from ordinary metals is a
> simple machine and fusion device. For the fission reactions starting the
> breeder require I maintain a seed supply and use only unspent fuel disks to
> start the reactions producing the radioactive metal isotopes. Breeder
> reactors by design produce from fusion reactions plutonium 239, and
americium
> 241 from the base metal u235.
>
> >
> > (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..."
> >
> > Even reducing the cross-section, if you travel at high sublight speeds
> > you're going to get a *lot* of matter hitting the front of your ship. (I
> > appreciate this is just one part of the solution though).
>
> Reduced cross section and the rain drop effect from high velocity
eliminate
> the majority of collisions. I invented the electric armor (claim 6) as a
part
> of the total solution to reduce the risk of collection and when hit the
armor
> closes the jagged hole edges allowing self sealing or manual patching to be
> more effective and give added repair time before life support systems fail.
>
> >
> > (4) "By anticipating the collision of solid matter using conventional
> > technology (such as radar or metal detectors)..."
> >
> > This gets harder as you approach light speed, given that the reaction
> time
> > available to you will decrease. Also, how effective will radar be if
your
> > spacecraft exceeds 'c' (as you claim it might)?
>
> Detecting the charge on the projectile from fields generated at light
speed
> to charge the armor with the charged deflecting field requires microseconds
> as does the change of exhaust (on already) direction to avoid neutral
> particle collisions. At c and above all is normal and the radar works just
> fine.
>
> >
> > (5) "...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."
> >
> > Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that you
would
> > heat the shape memory alloy so that it changes shape just at the time of
> > impact? How many impacts per second do you expect the shield will
receive
> > high sublight velocities - too many for the SMA shield system to cope
> with?
>
> In Lab take shape memory alloy wire stretched through but not fastened
> across two poles, With hook on spring scale deform the wire measuring the
> deforming force required. Next do the same with the electric shape
restoring
> force applied. The difference is considerable as the second greater
deforming
> force required is measured. The reaction is not instantaneous but very
close.
>
> For a sand particle to be hit a near c by a hundred ton space craft recall
> form SR momentum the mass relativistic to the sand is millions of tons. The
> collision is readily absorbed without damage or change to velocity.
>
>
> >
> > (6) "It is more cost efficient, more reliable, safer and faster than any
> > previous invention chemical or atomic."
> >
> > Well, it involves potentially large quantities of radioactive material,
> so
> > to say that it is safer than any previous chemical or atomic invention
is
> > not strictly true - I believe that ion propulsion is safer than your
> atomic
> > propulsion method.
>
> Mine is designed to be fired from lunar orbit for maximum safety. Ion
> propulsion pollutes the atmosphere of earth. The amount of pollutant
exhaust
> to propel any given mass to some velocity is far less than your ion drive.
> Pollution in high radioactive deep space is simply of no concern. The ship
> crew is well protected from radiation by the distance from the source and
the
> inert propellant shield between.
>
> The extreme slow speed of ion drives compared to mine make the crew spend
> far more time in radioactive space than I advise and is the most unsafe of
> the two designs.
>
> > Think of the political problems as well if you want to launch a
> spacecraft
> > powered by this propulsion system from Earth - look at the fuss that was
> > kicked up about the Cassini probe.
>
> I launch from lunar orbit to bypass the fuss and occasional terrorist
> missile.
>
> >
> > If I've misunderstood any of the above, I'm sure you'll let me know ;)
>
> I will, though have no desire to teach the mistaught ';=)>
Yours was good response to issues with good questions.
Have I answered them to your satisfaction?
Tom
>
> Regards,
> Tom.
>
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >