Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity

[STAR1SHIP@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/21/00 3:34:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
Chris.Walker@bskyb.com writes:

> > Yours was good response to issues with good questions.
>  > Have I answered them to your satisfaction?
>  
>  Mostly...a few more questions though!
>  
>  > 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 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 insulators) generated when water as 
propellant
>  is used. 
>  
>  The temperatures we are talking about are of the order of 100,000's degrees
>  C; titanium has a melting point in the low 1,000's. Water in a paper cup
>  doesn't need to transfer nearly so much heat from a candle flame as the
>  engine insulators will need to transfer from the plasma. Are the heat
>  transfer paths in your engine that efficient?

In a nut shell, from ancient times that which is not space and time, but 
matter and machines is made of earths, waters, winds and fires. Modern 
physics labels these as solids, liquids, gases and plasmas as the four known 
states of matter.

As a static plasma generated by static electricity can contain millions of 
volts yet due little but shock you without the current flow needed to produce 
the power required to fry you so it is so with high temperature without much 
mass. No high power that you fear to require more than control of the heat 
paths.

My engine is designed to operate for many years continuously. It is off only 
for fractions of a second to change plasma generators. As the mass of the 
water in the cup is greater than the mass of the paper and the mass of the 
plasma (candle flame) the ratios of the different masses are what determines 
successful containment.

Examine the animation provided and determine the ratios of the mass of 
casing, to the propellant and to the plasma to see this for yourself. I 
lessen (from 100%) the control I do use a small amount to provide extra heat 
for generating heat, light, and electrical power for ship needs.


>  
>  > 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.
>  
>  Surely if you're travelling at a high sublight speed, you won't have time 
to
>  change the ship's velocity (vector) sufficiently to avoid collision with a
>  neutral particle following its detection? 

As soon as collision course with another object is plotted in real time 
(analog computer processor) on radar screen, an electrical signal at light 
speed is sent to the exhaust port jet pumps to inject liquid perpendicular 
into the plasma stream. The instantaneous result is change in direction as 
the resulting micro explosion redirects the exhaust changing course 
instantly. Recall the ship nose cone is pointed sharply. This sheds any 
unmissed projectiles into two xy vectors so the absorbed impact force of any 
collision is greatly reduced. 

I do the best I can to reduce the number of fatal collisions over thousands 
of missions for hundreds of years. It is going to happen eventually. Star 
travel is no place for girlie boys. If you do not want to be struck by a car 
as you cross the street because it "could happen" - then Stay Home:).

>   
>  > In Lab take shape memory alloy wire...the reaction is not instantaneous
>  but 
>  > very close.
>  
>  My point was that if the particle impact rate was high (eg. thousands per
>  second), then you are activating the SMA shield thousands of time per
>  second. Given that it may need to function in this manner *continously* for
>  months or years, I think this gives rise to serious system reliablility and
>  material fatigue issues. Any proposals to deal with these problems?

Please, Do not call my "Electric Armor" by any other name such as SMA shell. 
The name of my invention is my property as is my invention my property.  I 
named it that and that is what it is period.

Name your own inventions if you wish not mine. Your suggested name SMA 
reminds me of government jargo and I do my best to be jargon free in speech. 
Should your name catch on by accident then I will have to answer the question 
for years " What does SMA stand for?" I do not need the work load.

>  
>  > For a sand particle to be hit a near c by a hundred ton space craft 
recall
>  from SR
>  > momentum the mass relativistic to the sand is millions of tons. The
>  collision is
>  > readily absorbed without damage or change to velocity.
>  
>  Maybe no appreciable change to ship velocity, but the SMA shield *will*
>  suffer some damage. Over a period of months/years, there will be noticeable
>  erosion of the shield.

Then and only then will I chose or not to replace the many pieces that have 
been replaced periodically in routine maintenance. 

I have addressed all the issues many years ago you raise now. I value your 
feedback and hope to complete a FAQ(jargonsorry).That I can refer new readers 
of my patent from 1988. It would be nice to reply to most with:

See FAQ click link 

To each inquiry, but until such time I will do my best answer individually. I 
prefer real questions over imaginary questions found in so many FAQs

>  > Mine is designed to be fired from lunar orbit for maximum safety. Ion
>  propulsion
>  > pollutes the atmosphere of earth. 
>  
>  (1) What happens if someone gets imperial and metric units mixed up, and 
the
>  spacecraft is accidentally launched towards Earth? ;) <g>

You do worry a lot you need to get out more. "What Happens"? The same thing 
that happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. 

>  
>  (2) How do ions pollute the Earth's atmosphere in a more dangerous way (to
>  its inhabitants) than radioacticive debris?

I said that I plan to launch from lunar orbit to explore galaxies as well as 
our solar systems. So earth's pollution is not my concern as the planet will 
be cleaned by natural process should I decide to return in far earth's 
future.  I can land or launch from on earth as the propellant stream is 
composed mainly of hydrogen atoms  slowed deliberately to low velocity. The 
exhaust high velocity sought after in ion drives when striking atmospheric 
atoms produce a high level or radiation from atom fission when the 
calculations are made comparatively for a given mass at given velocity for 
both ships. Mine engine is the least pollution with least radioactive debris

My exhaust stream polutes only a few acres of earth at south pole, the same 
few acres each launch or landing and much less air.

Any more good questions Chris on my patent or attached publications at 
indexC, index, indexda, bio, RocketScientistResume or transcript.htm(l) 

Regards,
Tom

 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexda.html">A Definitive 
Analysis of Atomic Power</A> 

 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexC.htm">MATH PROOFS</A> 

 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/index.htm#TRANSPORT">CyberSpace 
Star Ship</A> 

>  
>  Thanks,
>  
>  Chris
>