Hybrid Fisson/fusion Reaction Engine

[starship1]

Originally posted by Planetwatcher@May 30 2004, 01:34 AM
Boy this stuff is interesting, but so deep and detailed, and time consuming, I couldn't begin to have time to read it all.

I'm beginning to consider trying to find some way of copying an entire string like this to a diskette. Then perhaps when I'm off work over Christmas break I can sit back and read them, (after also sending my wife on a trip by herself far enough away that it takes her a couple weeks to do all there is to do. But then she would just send me E-mails as long as some of these postings telling me of her travels with details I must remember to stay out of the doghouse.)

Thanks for the read-moderator.

As you can tell, I am new to the group. I have not found a way to display images in my posts as they are worth a thousand words so without displayed graphs and images I tend to get a bit wordy explaining my work.

I get an error when I try [ I M G ] http://example. jpg [ / I M G ] without the extra spaces. Can you advise how to display images?

I have a MSN mirror site under my profile listing that I compile my work and links in for future search reference.

Though I like to just chat about science, I prefer doing my rocket science work online as I have done for the past five years. There is nothing like two heads and educated readers reading my work and commenting as peer reviewers letting me know if I have not explained something well enough

Physics by it's very nature is tedious and time consuming even for me so I have to stick to what interests me and enjoy as motivation as my excitement level regarding star travel today is as high as it was when I started in 1963.

I am looking forward to your comments and questions, if yiou can find some time.

My engine patent was only 18 pages long and my publication A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power is 18 pages. But 36 pages - that is a lot of technical detail to wade through. That is not counting the 100's of pages detailing star travel and mars mission technical requirements some of which is posted here.

I have not posted "A Definitive Analysis ...... " it on this site as it contains detailed images and instructions for constructing my 10 megaton atomic bomb design "Genie Bottler".

I use it to demostrate the need and importance to place tighter security on radioactive metals as the information to construct it is in the public domain. It has been reviewed by the patent office as it contains the first publication of my rocket engine invention establishing by law the date of invention. The U.S. government placed no national security restrictions classification on my bomb or rockets designs.

I would like to post it in this group if I can find a way to display the illustrations, otherwise I may just link to it as needed and if you approve.

[starship1]

Originally posted by GOURDHEAD@May 30 2004, 03:09 AM

I am just as dead colliding wit a space rocket at 1/00 light speed as I am at 100 C so I do not let that fact keep me from going as fast as I can as the faster I can go the less the probability is I will hit any thing.

Indeed you will be.

Consider that the objects that you may run into will be near stationary relative to your speed such that those crossing your trajectory even at right angles to your line of travel will take several tens of seconds to cross the cylinder of your trajectory. Those crossing at a more acute angle may occupy the cylinder from 100's of seconds up to hours. For any specified length of time, the faster you go the more likely you are to occupy the section of the cylinder being occupied by a hazard because each will not have time to get out of the way and you have no way to detect nor avoid them. At sub-c you can not only detect the ones in the way but also those that may enter your path at places where you will be when they get there and you can avoid them. In 10 seconds traveling at 10c the volume that must be hazard free is r^2 times 18,600,000 miles and as v increases so does the volume of space that could present a hazard to your ship i.e., the larger the probability of encountering a hazard and the smaller the probability of you surviving it.

What don't I understand.

You probably do not understand the fact my collison probability theory learned in 1968 at the FAA academy is very rusty. I just remembered the results but not how to derive them again.

Refreshing memory now
google search term...poisson "probability of collision"......finding

quote..........
ON-ORBIT COLLISION HAZARD ANALYSIS IN LOW EARTH ORBIT
http://ast.faa.gov/files/pdf/poisson.pdf

The eguation one Poisson probability distribution function is given by the equation

Pk=-(R^k)(e^-k)/k!
P= probabilty of k events
k=number of events
R=rate of occurrance parameter

equation four (partially derived from Poisson)
PC =1 -exp (-AC*SPD*VR*T)

PC = Probability of collision for the duration of time T
AC=cross sectional area, km
SPD = Spatial density, objects/km
VR = relative velocity, km/s and
T=Time at risk seconds

Therefore making velocity faster reduces the time at risk (3.9 years) and the smaller the cross section the better as is the lower the density. however I am getting a contridiction as higher velocity makes the number in parenthes bigger instead of the expected smaller. So I do not use the equation with confidence at this time until I read more.

On-Orbit Collision Hazard Analysis in Low Earth Orbit Using the Poisson Probability Distribution (Version 1.0)
http://ntl.bts.gov/card_view.cfm?docid=219
Probability of Collision Error Analysis
http://jungfrau.tamu.edu/~html/alfriend/al...stro98Paper.pdf

I could be only a partial dervitive equation and I am misreading the exp notation as inverse natural log as sometimes exp notation works only in base 10 and the natural log is 2.7128 something base as I fuzzily recal.

Let me brush up on my probability theory and log math to get back with you on that unless you want to take a stab at doing the probability collison calculation yourself with the values I give in this post unless you have some others you prefer.

My gut feeling in any full derivitive equation, I have to divide the length of trajectory (4.25 light years) by the length of the ship (approx 300 meters )getting a denominator under the nominator of 4.25 ly times ship width estimated at 6 meters 6 meters/10,000,000 objects to get the spatial density low requirement--if that is some help and you want to give it a try.

I have a exp button on my windows scientific calculator, but guess it just gives a the scientific notation of a number. I used the ln and inverse ln (log number) button recently with good results if I trust a calculator - Hows your math? I have some reading to do from the google search term above.

....reading....Okie dokie I will take a stab at it now. Jumping in..... :unsure:

exp is indeed the inverse natural log function (ln) as
exp(x)=1/ln(x) so to use my inverse ln button as I do not have a exp button

PC =1 -exp(-AC*SPD*VR*T) becomes
PC =1 - (1/ln(-AC*SPD*VR*T)

PC = Probability of collision for the duration of time T
AC=cross sectional area, km squared
SPD = Spatial density, objects/km cubed
VR = relative velocity, km/s and
T=Time at risk seconds

checking first physics units 1km^2 * 1/km^3 * 1km/s * 1sec = 1 so units are correct leaving a real number as dimensionless value.

AC = pi * radius of ship squared = 3.14 times (.003 km)^2 = 0.00002826 km^2

That was easy enough giving me confidence to fiqure the next three varibles
Java calculator to figure trip time found at:
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/R...ket/Voyage.html
also see http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/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 Centoria 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

T = 5.8780560467144 years times 365.25 days/ year times 24 hours/day times 60 minute/hour times 60 seconds/ minute
= 185497341.49979434944 seconds as Time at risk

two easy down two to go....... :P

SPD = The Local Bubble extending out 500 light years is not only relatively empty (with a density of less than 0.001 atoms per cubic centimeter); it is also quite hot, about one million degrees kelvin. By comparison, the interstellar cloud around the solar system is merely warm, about 7,000 degrees, with a density of about 0.3 atoms per cubic centimeter..........the relative sun/cloud velocity is 26 kilometers per secon..........

citations for above paragraph-http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...id/21173/page/2
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0305/30map3d/

Picking a good number tween .001 atoms/cc and .3 atoms/cc, I pick .003.cc or three times the known insteller density accounting for a little of the higher density in the cloud around the sun averaged over the distance to the star multiplied by the higher velocity number applied to the solar cloud to gives a very conservative estimate.

SPD = objects/km^3 = .003 atoms times1,000,000,000,000,000 cc =3000000000000 atoms/km^3
as the trajectory total volume = area times height
= 0.00002826 km^2 times 4.25 light years
Vol.tot=0.00002826 km^2 times 299,792.458 km/s times
185497341.49979434944 sec
= 1571558493.9290642025410120746752 cubic km
atoms = 3000000000000 atoms/km^3 times
1571558493.9290642025410120746752 /km^3
= 4714675481787192607623.0362240256 atoms crossing my path
side bar........how much mass?....
There are 6.0225x10^23 hydrogen atoms in 1 gram of hydrogen
so grams of hydrogen atoms in my path
= 0.0078284358352630844460324387281445 grams
So if I hit every single atom in my path at an average angle of
45 degrees

Ekinetic= (0.0078284358352630844460324387281445 grams times
216822.079256 km/sec times 216822.079256 km/sec)/2
= 184014484906.20450984639531873246 kilograms-m^2/sec^2
= 184014484906.2 watts over 5.8 years
= 0.99200604935035425532482688826712 watts per second
energy released in atom collisions my ship can withstand.
Note at .72 C relativistic energy kicks in so multiply that by approx
1.5 to guesstimate the gamma factor Ek=EC^2 *gamma/2 and
gamma =1/ 1-V^2/C^2 maybe? .72 times .72 ~= .5 ? h34r:

Back on topic- since I guess the velocity of the atoms is proportional to the temperature and I know the average velocity of the sun cloud atoms at 7,000 K, I can calculate the higher velocity of the interstellar atoms at 1 million K by multiplying the velocity of the solar cloud atoms by the ratio 1,000,000/7000 to get the higher velocity of the interstellar atoms. :huh:

VR = velocity of ship - velocity of objects= (26 km/sec)(1,000,000K/7,000K)
=ship velocity - 3714.2857142857142857142857142857 km/sec
ship velocity = Trip length: 4.25 light years (ly)
/ Time on earth: 5.8780560467144 years.
s Velocity = distance traveled/ time traveled
Velocity average wrt earth = .732 C and c =299,792.458 km/s
Vavg=219448.079256 km/s

VR = 219448.079256 km/s - 3714.2857km/sec
= 215733.79354171428571428571428572 km/sec
however as the objects move at various angles to the tracjectory path I will
assume average of 45 degrees so correct the velocity by the
sine of 45 degrees = .707 and correcting
VR = 219448.079256 km/s - 2626 km/s = 216822.079256 km/sec

knowing now AC, SPD, VR and T; I solve for PC

PC =1 - (1/ln(-AC*SPD*VR*T)
= 1 - (((1/ln((-0.00002826 km^2 )(3000000000000/km^3)(219448.079256 km/sec)(185497341.49979434944 sec)))
= 1 - (1/ln(-3451142452668224988780.0625159867)

Note: ln(minus x) returned invalid input so I dropped it recalling that velocity is not a unit vector but scalar vector having both magnitude and direction with the direction noted by the minus sign so I should have subtracted the larger ship velocity from the objects smaller velocity getting a negative velocity to multiply the minus sign by making the ln(-x)= ln(x) if I recall my analytic geometry class from 1973. That solves the previous contridiction I found of a high V when expecting a low V as minus numbers are lower than positive numbers. Besides I could not concieve of a way to make time at risk a negative number or understand negative objects or imagine a negative density leaving only velocity to change and relative velocites are often negative.
therefore..............

PC = 1- 1/49.592992274802526103814870677229
= 0.97983586079140287384216440679304 times 100 percent
= 97.9835860 percent probability I will hit at least one atom

Recalling my combinations and permutations probability math from 1968
The PC of n number of objects
=PC of one object raised to the nth power
= PC^n

Probability for hitting 10 atoms
PC^10 = 0.81570533089286596506609074604119 =81%

PC^100 = 13.041663959514299452836762753626 %
PC^1000 = .00000001423410145081292721735445731557 percent
considered insignifigant if not zero therefore

of 1000 atoms hit /4714675481787192607623 atoms available = power of collison / power available of 184014484906.2 watts over 5.8 years
power of collison = 1000 atoms times 184014484906.2 watts
/ 4714675481787192607623 atoms
= 0.000000039030148653295137686211255652988 watts

also considered insignifigant if not zero as the probability of releasing that energy in hitting 1000 atoms is considered insignifigant if not zero.

care to check my math anyone? B)

[Deep_Eye]

Thanks for answering my question. By the way...i've gotten a headache just reading some of your equations. There's a lot of functions that I don't know (but that's not really saying a whole lot). How much math have you had?

[starship1]

Originally posted by Deep_Eye@May 31 2004, 02:44 AM
Thanks for answering my question. By the way...i've gotten a headache just reading some of your equations. There's a lot of functions that I don't know (but that's not really saying a whole lot). How much math have you had?

Hmm try this link as I often do to find or refresh your functions- HyperPhysics

How much math do I have you ask?.

I can give you the equations if you want to take an aspirin for your headache.

Just for fun I counted my education once totaling some 8000 plus class room hours since high school equally divided into four major subjects and equal course levels 1 to 6.

Using the equivelant education equation of
1 formal semester hour = 16 class room hours; 32 labortory hours; or 72 formal on the job training

I counted up to four informal common law doctorates in Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education.

A formal Ph.D in Math is required to have 4,000 class room hours and he might have 1000 class room hours in core math subjects with 3000 hours fullfilling general education, minor and optional reguirements. That 1000 hours of math is equal to 25- 40 hour work weeks or 6 months full time math training.

I have that 1000 hours of math plus at age 19 I aced the air force math physics bypass test becoming the first in the history of the test to do so.

I fulfilled my Doctorial disertation in math by calculating the relativistic effects for sublight speed, light speed and superlight speed masses

My masters thesis in physics ws "A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power"
My doctorial disseration in physics was "A Plasma Rocket Engine" of my own invention

I fulfilled my doctorial dissertation in computer science constructing a super computer from 100 Pc's and 600 hard drives that passed the terabyte data processed barrier in 1993 using the technigue known as massive parallel processing as a 100 PC's wired in parallel have a data processing time of
PCT=1 / (pct1 plus pct2 plus pct3 plus pct4........pct100) so expandable to any number of N or any number of PC's.

It amazed even myself when one weekend, while operating, it's housing was struck by several lighting bolts and I found it Monday morning still running at 97% speed, so I reset a few surge suppressors and it returned to 100% speed.

My General Education Doctorate does not require a thesis or disertation as one of each from my other three doctorates will substitute for it, just as my other three doctorates share my general education requirements and each doctorate meet any minor requirement from the other three majors.

I am only certified to practice only one Ph.d at a time and can wear one hat at a time so to speak

Those are my four common law doctorates or informal equivalent education earned mostly at the United States Air Force Air University (USAFAU) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Academy also under the auspices of USAFAU as I was under a military contract to learn advanced electronics; though I have other universities amd schools I have attended.

Click on my name Starship1 or name at the upper lefthand corner of this window, to see my other federal, state and industry certifications and diplomas if interested.

I do not list the government schools so secret even the course names could not be listed on any official transcript.

But enough about me. What math or physics training do you have? I just use simple algebra in my rocket science so most can follow it.

[Deep_Eye]

...Jeez. I'd say you're very well versed on the subjects of physics and mathematics!

As for what math I've had...well...I'm a freshman in high school lol, so not a whole lot yet :P.

By the way, do you happen to know which (of these 3) type of reaction creates the most energy?
1) Hydrogen-Hydrogen Fusion
2) Hybrid Fusion-Fission (your engine)
3) Matter/Antimatter annihilation

[starship1]

Originally posted by Deep_Eye@May 31 2004, 04:02 PM
...Jeez. I'd say you're very well versed on the subjects of physics and mathematics!

As for what math I've had...well...I'm a freshman in high school lol, so not a whole lot yet :P.

By the way, do you happen to know which (of these 3) type of reaction creates the most energy?
1) Hydrogen-Hydrogen Fusion
2) Hybrid Fusion-Fission (your engine)
3) Matter/Antimatter annihilation

Number 2 as it requires no future discovery and considered real world physics as all proof of principal tests have been done.

One and three are theoretical physics requiring some future discovery. anitmatter current production costs are 1.2 quadrillion dollars an ounce making it impractical today erquiing some future discovery and hydrogen fusion has not even reached the break even point. Theoretical physics is good work if you can get it as all you have to do is wait around until someone else invents something so you can tell him how it works. :blink:

I can get to a near star in 4 years with real world physics and being a applied physicist myself.

Using theoretical physics NASA can only imagine trip times ranging from 49 to a thousand years, while they wait for some future breakthrough in propulsion systems.

http://www.angelfire.com/space/cruisinthes...in_present.html

Since most of these systems are beyond our current level of techonlogy so the estimates for their performace are rough guesses.

Propulsion System Exhaust Velocity (m/s) Specific Impulse (sec) Chemical 4600 460 (hydrogen-oxygen) Ion 25,000-100,000 2,500-10,000 Pulsed Fission (Project Orion) Continuous Fission 5,000-70,000 500-7,000 depending on the type of reactor Pulsed Fusion (Project Daedalus) Continuous Fusion 25,000-2,000,000 2,500-200,000 Matter/Antimatter 90,000,000-150,000,000 at best 9.000,000-15,000,000 at best Interstellar Ramjet similar to continuous fusion similar to continuous fusion Solar Sail N/A N/A Solar/Light Sail Driven N/A N/A by Beamed Power

Propulsion System Relative Thrust Approx Travel Time To Alpha Centauri (4.4 light-years) With Deceleration Going Twice Exhaust Velocity (years) Chemical Very High 7000 years or more making maximum use of gravity assist from Jupiter and the Sun (hydrogen-oxygen) Ion Very Low 500-1000 years Pulsed Fission Very High Project Orion) Continuous Fission High 200-300 years at best Pulsed Fusion High - Very High (Project Daedalus) Continuous Fusion Very Low 80-100 Interstellar Ramjet Very Low 10 or less Matter/Antimatter Very Low 10 or less Solar Sail Extremly Low 500 Solar/Light Sail Driven Low 30-50 depending on the by Beamed Power the power of the laser and how long it's kept on Chemical Chemical rockets would take far too long for crewed missions. Making the greatest possible use of the gravitational assists and using chemical rocket boosts to furthur speed up it would still take many thousands of years to reach Alpha Centauri.

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:

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 . The 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.

[Deep_Eye]

Wow. $1,200,000,000,000,000 an ounce!!! So, IF antimatter was cost-efficient and time-efficient to make, would it be a better type of propulsion? (If you had 900 tons of antimatter-similar to your 900 tons of hydrogen)

[starship1]

Originally posted by Deep_Eye@May 31 2004, 08:29 PM
Wow. $1,200,000,000,000,000 an ounce!!! So, IF antimatter was cost-efficient and time-efficient to make, would it be a better type of propulsion? (If you had 900 tons of antimatter-similar to your 900 tons of hydrogen)

I do not know as I stick to applied physics and what is working now as I am not a theoretical physicist, prophet wannabe or ancient Greek from the golden age of physics (or visa versa) as I am not very good at prediciting the future.

We used to throw false prophets off the cliffs. Nowdays we just give the theoretical physicist grant monies to keep them out of our hair while we do the real work of physics.

[Deep_Eye]

Lol, how kind. Okay, I know that the fusion of hydrogen takes place at 10,000,000 degrees C. Does the fusion of higher elements such as helium or iron take place at higher temperatures?

[starship1]

Originally posted by Deep_Eye@Jun 1 2004, 02:08 AM
Lol, how kind. Okay, I know that the fusion of hydrogen takes place at 10,000,000 degrees C. Does the fusion of higher elements such as helium or iron take place at higher temperatures?

I do not know as the data you refered to originated from the nuclear binding energy graph drawn freehand by Enrico Fermi in 1938,



It is a total fabrication as Einstien would not tell Fermi how the atomic bomb he invented could be built unless Fermi produced evidence Germany was working on an atomic bomb. So Fermi got together with Leo Silizard and they fabricated some graphs and captured Geman documents that worked just long enough to trick Einstein into telling Fermi how to build Einstein's invention

All real physics curves are of two types. That curve constructed from equation data and that curve drawn smoothly through data points plotted from measument experiment. All real world physics equations contain variables with exponents 0,1,2,3 only representing the four dimensions of Einstein's space and time universe consisting of three spatial dimnsions and one temperal dimension of time.

As the graph curve is a jagged curve it can only be plotted from equations with higher exponents indicating fantasy dimensions of 5 or more so considered invalid.

As there is no known measurement test for plotting data points that would generate the curve above and simply connecting the dots of plots is a no no in physics, the graph is considered a forgery and so unreliable.

Fermi was low level intelligent agent for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS)
in 1938 so he used his muscle and threatened Einstein with jail if he did not turn over all his papers and sign a letter to the president pretending the bomb could be invented instead of it alrady being invented to get funding for Fermi. He regretted the signing the letter drafted by Fermi and Silizard until he died in 1955.

He also regretted that Silizard who he had previously co-authored patents with and whom he knew as one who would steal anything not nailed down- Stole the invention credit for Einstein's bomb invention.

Fermi after the war, as anonomous became in charge of public disimination of misinformation regarding atomic physics released for the Manhatten project as he was in deep cover when he worked on the atomic bomb there.

So the big lie about it working on neutron chain reaction theory he released to the public in 1945 became the popular science of today misconstrued as truth.

[Deep_Eye]

Oh wow. I'd never heard that story before. Poor Einstein...

[John L]

Interstellar mass density has been measured by calculating the mass of the universe and dividing it by the volume of the universe after subtracting the mass in the estimated solar systems. It is something like 1 gram times 10 to the - minus 37th power per cubic kilometer within a wide error range. I multiply that amount of interstellar mass by a million factor so my calculations are on the conservative side using 1 gram times 10 to the -31 power / cubic kilometer with the mass contained in various size and velocity objects ranging in size from atoms and dust, rocks, meteors, comets.

Do the math- taking to the near star in a cylindrical trajectory path 4.25 light years distance for a 15 meter diameter 150 meters long streamlined ship even if there were 10,000,000 baseball size rock crossing the path at various velocities in 4 or five years the chances of even one being where my ship is at any given time is insignificant if not zero. But you miss the point. At any significant fraction of light speed a collision with such a rock is catastrophic so there is not need to calculate how catastrophic.

You're not traveling "thorugh the Universe," but through the Milky Way Galaxy, which has a much higher density than the universe in general. The universe, I will agree with you, is mostly empty space. The interstellar medium is not. Even if you don't run into a baseball sized chunck of something, you may simply enter an area of higher density gas and burn the nose off you ship as you travel through it.

Nope speaking of Alchemy. The alchemist Roger Bacon more than 400 years ago coined the terms fission and fusion for use in his transmutation of base metals into gold by fissioning (splitting) heavier metal atoms into gold or by fusion (combining) lighter atoms into gold atoms. Though he knew that making gold was not cost effective as one got a little bit of gold by expending large amounts of energy (as demonstrated in minutes amounts of gold found in today's breeder reactors), the King just thought a good scientist could turn lead into gold. So Bacon wrote the king volumes of promises that it could be done thereby transmuting his empty pocket air into the kings gold while he spent the money on more worthwhile experiments writing his lab books in code so his fraud would not be discovered..

Any way I do not believe in strong and weak nuclear forces.

the DOE keeps the physical properties of Uranium and Plutonium as a top secret allowing only the neutron chain reaction to be published publicly for smoke and mirrors hiding the fact that radioactive metal atoms explode on impact with other atoms as they are so unstable even by themselves 1/2 split over the half lives. Heat them by stacking the atoms above critical mass or hit them hard enough and the momentum from colliding atoms accelerate that decay rate and that accelerated decay rate is used in bombs and reactors and rocket engines.

The DOE does not control the global scientific community. There are capable scientists in any one of a dozen countries that could prove the DOE's data as incomplete, false, or misleading if your concepts were true. I thank you for your considered responses to my questions and have been able to conclude from them that although you have some interesting ideas, your system is not in agreement with physics and therefore will not work.

[John L]

Originally posted by starship1@May 31 2004, 10:15 PM
It is a total fabrication as Einstien would not tell Fermi how the atomic bomb he invented could be built unless Fermi produced evidence Germany was working on an atomic bomb. So Fermi got together with Leo Silizard and they fabricated some graphs and captured Geman documents that worked just long enough to trick Einstein into telling Fermi how to build Einstein's invention

All real physics curves are of two types. That curve constructed from equation data and that curve drawn smoothly through data points plotted from measument experiment. All real world physics equations contain variables with exponents 0,1,2,3 only representing the four dimensions of Einstein's space and time universe consisting of three spatial dimnsions and one temperal dimension of time.

As the graph curve is a jagged curve it can only be plotted from equations with higher exponents indicating fantasy dimensions of 5 or more so considered invalid.

As there is no known measurement test for plotting data points that would generate the curve above and simply connecting the dots of plots is a no no in physics, the graph is considered a forgery and so unreliable.

Fermi was low level intelligent agent for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS)
in 1938 so he used his muscle and threatened Einstein with jail if he did not turn over all his papers and sign a letter to the president pretending the bomb could be invented instead of it alrady being invented to get funding for Fermi. He regretted the signing the letter drafted by Fermi and Silizard until he died in 1955.

He also regretted that Silizard who he had previously co-authored patents with and whom he knew as one who would steal anything not nailed down- Stole the invention credit for Einstein's bomb invention.

Fermi after the war, as anonomous became in charge of public disimination of misinformation regarding atomic physics released for the Manhatten project as he was in deep cover when he worked on the atomic bomb there.

So the big lie about it working on neutron chain reaction theory he released to the public in 1945 became the popular science of today misconstrued as truth.

There are thousands of physicists around the world who would be laughing whole-heartedly at the foolish Americans if any of your opinions on American control of nuclear technology were true.

And I can find plenty of evidence of the historic version of events regarding Einstein's involvements with Szilard, Fermi, Teller, and the early nuclear pioneers, but none for yours. You have talked about a letter that no longer seems to exist describing your viewpoint. Shame you can't point me to a copy to prove your argument...

[Deep_Eye]

America though, was the first country to develop the atomic bomb-not that that is anything to be proud of though. By the way starship1-What is the maximum speed you can get out of your hybrid rocket engine?

[starship1]

Originally posted by John L@Jun 1 2004, 02:57 PM
There are thousands of physicists around the world who would be laughing whole-heartedly at the foolish Americans if any of your opinions on American control of nuclear technology were true.

And I can find plenty of evidence of the historic version of events regarding Einstein's involvements with Szilard, Fermi, Teller, and the early nuclear pioneers, but none for yours. You have talked about a letter that no longer seems to exist describing your viewpoint. Shame you can't point me to a copy to prove your argument...

I just state the fact and evidence as I find them providing credible reference as I go. Like so:

1. The patent office assesment of my engine.
2. It was not Einstein who claimed nothing could exceed light speed
3. Einstein wrote the book on how to make an atomic bomb- I read
4. Einstein did complete his unified gravitaional field equations taught as incomplete in ever major university today and he considered it his greatest work.
5. Scientists in the 1950's claimed Einstien made the claim he invented the bomb considered by most the US government built invention of Leo Silizards invention. So Einstein was called a Fake (actually Faiker-eastern mystic but the newspaper mispelled it)
6. Einstein in 1913 told his friend HG Wells how to build the atomic bomb and told no other till Enrico Fermi in 1938.

Bibliography:
(1)As the United States Patent Office has determined in Form PTOL-456 mailed Oct 13 1988 that the subject matter of my application appears to:


1. be “useful in the production or atomic energy” as recited in 42 U.S.C 2182 (Department of Energy (DOE).
2. “have significant utility in the conduct of aeronautical and space activities” as recited in 42 U.S.C 2457 (National Aeronautical and Space Administration(NASA)

Reference 2 indent
Relativity FAQ] - [Copyright]
Updated 14-January-1998 by PEG
Original by Philip Gibbs 14-April-1997
http://www.weburbia.com/physics/FTL.html

(See Anchor Link "The Infinite Energy Argument"-Tom)

"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."


There is zero evidence such a mechanics was ever constructed


3-The reference below is not at the Gainsville (Florida) Sun's website.
It has been long since moved to the newspapers library archives. I got the permission of the author to post in physics groups years ago by email if I made sure I said the name of the paper. I have the complete article and Karen’s phone number and email address, if you want it.
I underlined the significant parts if you just want to scrool down.

Quote..
Gainsville Sun's website link at;
www.sunone.com/news/artic...-99h.shtml
Tuesday, December 28, 1999
Einstein fondly recalled by area woman
By KAREN VOYLES
Sun staff writer
Garland had joined the WACs -- Women's Army Corps -- shortly after it was formed in 1943. She got a top secret security clearance and was sent to work with the Atomic Energy Commission. She had been working on the 59th floor of the Empire State Building handling various clerical duties when her supervisor asked for volunteers.
............"They wanted us to do some typing for him (Einstein)," Garland said. "He wanted to put together what he knew about the atomic bomb in book form so he doled out what he wanted typed, and there was no way someone could put it all together after that."

"He would hand it (the day's work) to you and tell you what he wanted and he would tell us not to worry about punctuation or capitalization or anything right then, said."He wanted universities to be able to study how they had made the atom bomb and he said other people would do all that punctuation." Garland recalled that she was one of about 10 typists who volunteered to work on Einstein's project, a task that took a couple of weeks.
end quote

Reference four
foia.fbi.gov/
link Electronic reading room-famous persons-Einstein, Albert; 11 indented
See link part 9b page 17,18 contained in a .pdf file.
Washington Star Dec 27,1949
Also Einstein Presents New Theory of all motion in the universe -Extending Relativity Theory

foia.fbi.gov/einstein/einstein9b.pdf

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

refrence 5.
http://foia.fbi.gov/einstein.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."
end article------

6.
Reference
Citation H.G. Wells The World Set Free, 1914
quote ...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night
were strange even to the men who used them. end quote.....


In 1963,I read the 1955 dictations signed by Einstein, I read what Einstein said about "how they made an atomic bomb at the Mnahatten project" as referenced in citation 3 above regarding His meeting with H.G. Wells in 1913 leading to reference 6 above.

Einstein-Explained how his bomb worked and could be built to his friend Wells. Wells then coined the term "atomic bomb". Einstein liked it so much, that he asked if he could use the name to entitle his invention. Wells agreed if he could use the name in his Next novel. Einstein agreed if Wells left out the "how to" part. Wells protested as his readers required technical details in his writting. Einstein understood, So he came up with alternate technical babble details that sounded like science but was fiction similar to the star trek babble of today so the readers could suspend belief long enough to enjoy the work. And so it was done.

Shortly after Wells published, apparently Fermi read the book and contacted Wells for more information learning Einstein invented it.

Fermi then went to Einstein's house insisting to know how to build the atomic bomb.
Einstein then angerly told Fermi to get out. Shouting, no one will ever use my theories build an atomic bomb as Einstein had decided it to keep it a secret.

An eye witnees acccount was reported by Mae Freeman in her biograpy of Einstein as she interviewed his house keeper at the time. She said it was a pesky reporter Einstein ejected. Einstein corrected the housekeepers report only after it was already published saying it was Enrico Fermi.

Fermi badgered Einstein for years to get him to tell "how" than in 1937 when Fermi asked well can you at least tell me what the casing was made of. Einstein replied "Iron". So in the graph Fermi fabricated in the previous message "iron" was to play a predominate role in Fermi's fraud and frabricated evidence. As both Fermi and Silizard speculated for years how it could be built, in 1945 as propaganda officer for the Manhatten project, Fermi released their unworking speculation (neutron chanin reaction"on how it could be built to the public stated as fact to keep other countries scientist from building one.

reference 7

some reviews of Dewey. B. Larson's on line book
The Case Against The Nuclear Atom
www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“To all of us, steeped in the unquestioning adoration of the contemporary scientific method, this is a rude and outspoken book, which sometimes hurts. The frightening thing about it is that it rings true.”

-------------------------------------------
Isaac Asimov
As an iconoclastic work, Larson’s book is refreshing. The scientific community requires stirring up now and then; cherished assumptions must be questioned and the foundations of science must be strenuously inspected for possible cracks. It is not a popular service and Mr. Larson will probably not be thanked for doing this for nuclear physics, though he does it in a reasonably quiet and tolerant manner and with a display of a good knowledge of the field.

-----------------------------
The present almost universal belief that the nuclear theory is an established fact-that we are dealing with nuclear physics-strikes a double blow against scientific progress. First, it wastes an enormous amount of time and effort in futile attempts to establish the nature and properties of features of the atomic model that have no counterparts in the real world-the purely hypothetical force that holds the hypothetical nucleus together, for example. Second, it places an almost insurmountable obstacle in the way of a better theory, even if this might be the correct theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Deep_Eye]

Where are you getting all this information about Einstein?

[John L]

1. The patent office assesment of my engine.

The patent office simply determines whether your system is a unique system, not whether it would ever work. The quotes of 42 USC 2182 is merely the DOE code that allows you to patent a nuclear related idea and has nothing to do with the merrits of your idea.

2. It was not Einstein who claimed nothing could exceed light speed.

Ok. I don't argue this, nor do I doubt we will ever find a way to exceed the speed of light.

3. Einstein wrote the book on how to make an atomic bomb- I read

And you quote a woman who may have type it for him rather than the book? What was the title? What is the Library of Congress number? You can get the detailed plans to build an atom bomb on the internet so why couldn't I get this book, too?

4. Einstein did complete his unified gravitaional field equations taught as incomplete in ever major university today and he considered it his greatest work.

Then why are there thousands of scientists around the world trying to come up with one if Einstein's was correct? Why would it be so thuroughly hidden when all of his other work is lauded as some of the greatest achievments of the 20th century?

5. Scientists in the 1950's claimed Einstien made the claim he invented the bomb considered by most the US government built invention of Leo Silizards invention. So Einstein was called a Fake (actually Faiker-eastern mystic but the newspaper mispelled it)

Szilard invented the atomic pile with which he achieved the first documented chain reaction. Oppenheim and Groves led the teams to build the first atomic bomb. Quoting a southern democrat's whining doesn't convince me otherwise...

6. Einstein in 1913 told his friend HG Wells how to build the atomic bomb and told no other till Enrico Fermi in 1938.

And even if Einstein thought of the concept of an atom bomb he never actually built one. And even if he told Fermi how it could be done it took from December 1941 until July 1945 to build and test one. Einstein drew the stick man sitting in a box with four wheels connected to an engine - he didn't build the car.

reference 7

some reviews of Dewey. B. Larson's on line book
The Case Against The Nuclear Atom
www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“To all of us, steeped in the unquestioning adoration of the contemporary scientific method, this is a rude and outspoken book, which sometimes hurts. The frightening thing about it is that it rings true.”

Having now read some of his work (on-line) I'm left doubting his ideas with no impact on my current beliefs. The esoteric equations that resulted from the Quantum Mechanics that he complains about are responsible for you and I being able to discuss these issues - the computer chips that we all use everday to communicate. I see nothing in his arguments but unsupported speculation on possible alternatives.

[starship1]

Originally posted by Deep_Eye@Jun 1 2004, 06:30 PM
Where are you getting all this information about Einstein?

A lifetime of reading about Einstien including his published letters to Burtrand Russel, many of his signed works, and recent documents released under the Freedom of information act-leading to my atomic bomb design and invention of my faster than light rocket. some works of which are referenced below----


I just state the fact and evidence as I find them providing credible reference as I go. Like so:
1. The patent office assesment of my engine.
2. It was not Einstein who claimed nothing could exceed light speed
3. Einstein wrote the book on how to make an atomic bomb- I read
4. Einstein did complete his unified gravitaional field equations taught as incomplete in ever major university today and he considered it his greatest work.
5. Scientists in the 1950's claimed Einstien made the claim he invented the bomb considered by most the US government built invention of Leo Silizards invention. So Einstein was called a Fake (actually Faiker-eastern mystic but the newspaper reporter misspelled Rankins spoken word)
6. Einstein in 1913 told his friend HG Wells how to build the atomic bomb and told no other till Enrico Fermi in 1938.
7. The case against the nuclear atom
8. My atomic bomb design
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography:
(1)As the United States Patent Office has determined in Form PTOL-456 mailed Oct 13 1988 that the subject matter of my patent applicationappears to:


1. be “useful in the production or atomic energy” as recited in 42 U.S.C 2182 (Department of Energy

(DOE).
2. “have significant utility in the conduct of aeronautical and space activities” as recited in 42 U.S.C 2457

(National Aeronautical and Space Administration(NASA)

Reference 2
http://65.108.189.168/Docs/WAS%20DR%20NATA...RIO%20RIGHT.pdf
Dr. Paul Karl Hoiland

"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."


There is zero evidence such a mechanics was ever constructed


3-The reference below is not at the Gainsville (Florida) Sun's website.
It has been long since moved to the newspapers library archives. I got the permission of the author to post

in physics groups years ago by email if I made sure I said the name of the paper. I have the complete article and Karen’s phone number and email address, if you want it. I underlined the significant parts if you just want to scrool down.

Quote..
Gainsville Sun's website link at;
www.sunone.com/news/artic...-99h.shtml
Tuesday, December 28, 1999
Einstein fondly recalled by area woman
By KAREN VOYLES
Sun staff writer
Garland had joined the WACs -- Women's Army Corps -- shortly after it was formed in 1943. She got a top secret security clearance and was sent to work with the Atomic Energy Commission. She had been working on the 59th floor of the Empire State Building handling various clerical duties when her supervisor asked for volunteers. ............"They wanted us to do some typing for him (Einstein)," Garland said. "He wanted to put together what he knew about the atomic bomb in book form so he doled out what he wanted typed, and there was no way someone could put it all together after that."
"He would hand it (the day's work) to you and tell you what he wanted and he would tell us not to worry about punctuation or capitalization or anything right then, said."He wanted universities to be able to study how they had made the atom bomb and he said other people would do all that punctuation." Garland recalled that she was one of about 10 typists who volunteered to work on instein's project, a task that took a couple of weeks.
end quote.........

Reference four
foia.fbi.gov/
link Electronic reading room-famous persons-Einstein, Albert; 11 indented
See link part 9b page 17,18 contained in a .pdf file.
Washington Star Dec 27,1949
Also Einstein Presents New Theory of all motion in the universe -Extending Relativity Theory

foia.fbi.gov/einstein/einstein9b.pdf

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

refrence 5.
http://foia.fbi.gov/einstein.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."
end article------


Reference 6
Citation H.G. Wells The World Set Free, 1914
quote ...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night
were strange even to the men who used them. end quote.....


In 1963,I read the 1955 dictations signed by Einstein, I read what Einstein said about "how they made an atomic bomb at the Mnahatten project" as referenced in citation 3 above regarding His meeting with H.G. Wells in 1913 leading to reference 6 above. Einstein-Explained how his bomb worked and could be built to his friend Wells. Wells then coined the term "atomic bomb". Einstein liked it so much, that he asked if he could use the name to entitle his invention. Wells agreed if he could use the name in his Next novel. Einstein agreed if Wells left out the "how to" part. Wells protested as his readers required technical details in his writting. Einstein
understood, So he came up with alternate technical babble details that sounded like science but was fiction similar to the star trek babble of today so the readers could suspend belief long enough to enjoy the work. And so it was done.

Shortly after Wells published, apparently Fermi read the book and contacted Wells for more information learning Einstein invented it.

Fermi then went to Einstein's house insisting to know how to build the atomic bomb.
Einstein then angerly told Fermi to get out. Shouting, no one will ever use my theories build an atomic bomb as Einstein had decided it to keep it a secret.

An eye witnees acccount was reported by Mae Freeman in her biograpy of Einstein as she interviewed his house keeper at the time. She said it was a pesky reporter Einstein ejected. Einstein corrected the housekeepers misidentification only after it was already published saying it was Enrico Fermi.

Fermi then went to Leo Silizard who had coauthored patents with Einstein to pump him for more information becoming fast friends.

Fermi badgered Einstein for years to get him to tell "how" than in 1937 when Fermi asked well can you at least tell me what the casing was made of. Einstein replied "Iron". So in the graph Fermi fabricated in the previous message "iron" was to play a predominate role in Fermi's fraud and frabricated evidence. As both
Fermi and Silizard speculated from 1913 to 1988 how it could be built, in 1945 as propaganda officer for the

Manhatten project, Fermi released their unworking speculation (neutron chanin reaction"on how it could be built to the public stated as fact to keep other countries scientist from building one.

reference 7

some reviews of Dewey. B. Larson's on line book
The Case Against The Nuclear Atom
www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“To all of us, steeped in the unquestioning adoration of the contemporary scientific method, this is a rude and outspoken book, which sometimes hurts. The frightening thing about it is that it rings true.”

-------------------------------------------
Isaac Asimov
As an iconoclastic work, Larson’s book is refreshing. The scientific community requires stirring up now and then; cherished assumptions must be questioned and the foundations of science must be strenuously inspected for possible cracks. It is not a popular service and Mr. Larson will probably not be thanked for doing this for nuclear physics, though he does it in a reasonably quiet and tolerant manner and with a display of a good knowledge of the field.

-----------------------------
The present almost universal belief that the nuclear theory is an established fact-that we are dealing with nuclear physics-strikes a double blow against scientific progress. First, it wastes an enormous amount of time and effort in futile attempts to establish the nature and properties of features of the atomic model that have no counterparts in the real world-the purely hypothetical force that holds the hypothetical nucleus together, for example. Second, it places an almost insurmountable obstacle in the way of a better theory, even if this might be the correct theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

reference 8
"Genie Bottler" I designed by intsructions from Einstein on "How to build an atomic bomb"

[Deep_Eye]

Alright thanks. That could make some interesting, though not very light reading.

[John L]

reference 7

some reviews of Dewey. B. Larson's on line book
The Case Against The Nuclear Atom
www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/

You might want to reconsider your sources. Larson makes references to several outdated ideas including references of Herbert Dingle in order to dispell Einstein. One of the flaws in Herbert Dingle's ideas, and therefore flowing through into Larson's, is what Dingle calls the Twin Clocks Paradox of Einstein's Relativity - something Dingle tried to used to dispell Relativity altogether. To him it is paradoxical that two identical clocks could give two different times, but this aspect of Relativity has been proven experimentally. First it is a fundamental attribute of the global position system using the atomic clocks abord the GPS satellites to measure the exact location on Earth based on the time signals from the time onboard each satellite are received at a point on Earth. But most importantly, atomic clock flown abord jets and into space, with identical atomic clocks remaining on Earth originally set to the exact same time to the accuracy limit of the clocks, showed the Relativistic time dialation effects predicted by Einstein. The clocks in motion, on the international airplane flights between New York and London and back, and on the Shuttle, all showed a slowing of the clocks counting of time compared to the relatively motionless clock left on the ground.

If Dingle's ideas about Relativity are wrong, then Larson's ideas about Relativity are also wrong, and then your ideas, based on theirs, are wrong, too.

Now that I'm satisfied, I won't be involving myself in this thread any longer. Thank you for the stimulating discussion. It has made me seek a deeper understanding of the subject and that is the whole point for me of coming to sites like this.

[starship1]

Originally posted by John L@Jun 1 2004, 08:02 PM

reference 7

some reviews of Dewey. B. Larson's on line book
The Case Against The Nuclear Atom
www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/

You might want to reconsider your sources. Larson makes references to several outdated ideas including references of Herbert Dingle in order to dispell Einstein. One of the flaws in Herbert Dingle's ideas, and therefore flowing through into Larson's, is what Dingle calls the Twin Clocks Paradox of Einstein's Relativity - something Dingle tried to used to dispell Relativity altogether. To him it is paradoxical that two identical clocks could give two different times, but this aspect of Relativity has been proven experimentally. First it is a fundamental attribute of the global position system using the atomic clocks abord the GPS satellites to measure the exact location on Earth based on the time signals from the time onboard each satellite are received at a point on Earth. But most importantly, atomic clock flown abord jets and into space, with identical atomic clocks remaining on Earth originally set to the exact same time to the accuracy limit of the clocks, showed the Relativistic time dialation effects predicted by Einstein. The clocks in motion, on the international airplane flights between New York and London and back, and on the Shuttle, all showed a slowing of the clocks counting of time compared to the relatively motionless clock left on the ground.

If Dingle's ideas about Relativity are wrong, then Larson's ideas about Relativity are also wrong, and then your ideas, based on theirs, are wrong, too.

Now that I'm satisfied, I won't be involving myself in this thread any longer. Thank you for the stimulating discussion. It has made me seek a deeper understanding of the subject and that is the whole point for me of coming to sites like this.

Your questions and comments are always welcome John

regarding the six issues you raise in a previous post and addressing them now.

1. True enough however in the following 3 year patent examination of my invention by those trained in atomic rocket physics, no technical objection was raised.

Claim seven was rejected as it supposedly violated some alleged universal law of light speed limit so claims 1 to seven could not issue.

I refused to drop or rewrite the claim seven which could of allowed the patent to issue as the 1955 signed work of Einstein I read was believable to me. I then abandoned the patent application issuing Universal Patent number 1. Star ship Operators License Number One and Universal Patent Law number One of my own invention as it's operation was for deep space outside any national and international patent legal jurisdictions beneath the moon. I did so under the authority of Maritime patent law, and ship commander rigts extended to deep space.

Without the new law, my invention property was unprotected in deep space requiring me to use my authority as star ship commander to enforce my law protecting my ship and crew from invention pirates.

2. We agree about FTL possiblity, though I belive I have already found a way.

3. I do not know the title as it never saw the light of day as it was confiscated by Fermi under national security reasons. I read in 1963 the book he dictated and signed in 1955 to get past the censors through a close family friend who published in 1961 or 62. I lost the author and title she published under in 1968. I can no longer find the book and in 1977 many unamed books and records were removed from libraries by the FBI for national security reasons. I assume the book i read was one as I am good at finding things. The original junior high library I read the book at has long since been torn down.

4. Einstein sez his original completed theory was confiscated in 1938 by Fermi for national security reasons regarding atomic information and also the later one he tried to publish with his How to build.... book, that I can find no record of the 17 mimiograped pages refered to. He decribed it in detail and I remember much of it in the book that he manged to get past the censors.

I learned and read many things your teachers and their teachers did not know so I would expect them not to know or teach what I know. It is not your fault you were mistaught.

5. Einstein invented the critical mass test Fermi constructed. I just quoted that other scientists claimed Einstein had nearly everything to do with making the atomic bomb as you could find no reference of others agreeing with my view of history. I have no real need to convince you of anything.

5. He constructed in text and drawings such detail any one trained in the art of constructing machines could build it so the invention was considered completed by US patent law and several more countries so gets the invention credit regardless of who actually built it. In most backward countries of the world- the builder gets the invention credit. I maintain the U.S.'s position as leader in technology and so I do not care who builds my invention- I remain the inventor and the first to invent a faster than light machine and I remain the first until the end of time.

6. If any one wants to steal my invention credit and drawings and text and build my invention without my permission, than I have ample US legal authority, to confiscate their machines. tools, building and profits under the present law. So most legitimate businesses will not infringe on patent applications as It is simple putting money in the bank for the inventor he can withdraw at his chosing. Case law precedent- Sears vs the inventor of the Cresent Wrench.

As far a illigitimate businesses that do exist and steal other's works, I will deal with those pirates in deep space as they trespass givng them fair warning.

7. As quantum physics uses variable with exponets 4 and higher it is not considered real world physics so considered fantasy and mathamatical gobley gook believable only to those not knowing the difference between math and physics. Einstein taught in his completed unified field theory that all mass motion and forces in the universe could be expressed in equations no higher than 3rd degree equations as the exponents 0,1,2,3 represented the four real dimentions of Einstein's Space and Time universe consisting of 3 spatial dimensions of height, width and length and one temporal dimension of Time.

I listened to Einstien and agreed. Quantum mechanic failed to listen to Einstein so become trapped in the fantasy dimensions of 5 or more, so they fantasize that I and all machines do not exist without their beliefs.

Perhaps the quantum mechanic need a good spanking to bring them back to real world physics as their imagination is untrained and undisciplened with real world physics.

8.
"Genie Bottler" designed by intructions from Einstein on "How to build an atomic bomb"

[John L]

This is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory. Talk about Occam's razor.

[Deep_Eye]

Starship1-What is the maximum speed that your rocket can reach?

[starship1]

Originally posted by Deep_Eye@Jun 1 2004, 10:54 PM
Starship1-What is the maximum speed that your rocket can reach?

In practice a manned ship acclerating a constant 1 g using multiple stages of 1 engines, 3 engine, 5 engine etc. up to a practical limit of diminishing returns and using multiple sling shot orbiting manuvers around planets and stars and galaxies for a free energy velocity boost including, extended range and velocity with rendeveous with external fuel and propellant storage rockets, I would see no problems stopping at the observable universe edge of 17,000,000,000 light years distance in 45.7 years ship time achieving my peak velocity at mid point.


For a one way trip to the edge of the observable universe in a manned craft 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/45.71651222563561years =
warp speed 371856888.73411523778926486148209

=- approx 371,856,889 times the speed of light as an average velocity with the peak velocity being twice that.

A unmanned ship can stand more acceleration going up to 13 g so at 10 g constant acceleratiion it can go ten times as fast as the manned ship making the trip in 4.9 years.

I see no reason to go any faster than the above as I run out of track and stopping distance.

http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/R...ket/Voyage.html
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.html

Chemical rockets can maintain 1 g acceleration for approximately 3 hours so I would need 49 years/3 hours = 400606 hours/ 3 hours = 133,535 times the power of chemical rockets the same size to make the trip and as atomic fuel has at least 100,000,000 times the power per unit of mass than chemical engines of the same mass. The required energy is no problem getting even in my engine operating at 10 % efficiency.

[starship1]

Originally posted by John L@Jun 1 2004, 09:28 PM
This is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory. Talk about Occam's razor.

Not really. It only shows you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Government propaganda 40's and 50's is well documented. I could not pick up a science reference book without the physical properties of uranium and plutonium being blocked out with black india ink stamp, so I of course had to find out what was concealed.

In 1977, I came across an explosive ordinace manual published inadvertantley I assume by the U. S. goverment printing office. Checking the publishers distribution list I found 20,000 copies had been distributed to various public and private libraries. It cleary stated impact as the cause of detonation of uranium and plutonium bombs.

I did not even bother to reference the book as by then I had heard it so many times before I knew the equations by heart, including my professor at the FAA academy placing his own impact atom bomb design on the blackboard while I was learning to repair the B52 bomber mechanical, electronic, radar and communications equipment. I was even able to verify ion class his design as credible though I was a student, using Einstein's book and my uncle's statements I ease dropped on while young as he built atomic bombs for the air force and ought to know.

Just recenly I read a 1997 DOE publication listing what was classified and declassified about atomic weapons. Declassifed is neutron chain reaction theory
Classified still is "the physical properties of uranium and plutonium metals" hint it explodes on impact as it is pyroporic (fire making)

It is strange you never heard of the impact theory even though atom bomb design details are not covered under the Freedom of Information Act.

[Deep_Eye]

Wow, thats really moving along!

[John L]

Originally posted by starship1@Jun 1 2004, 09:02 PM
Just recenly I read a 1997 DOE publication listing what was classified and declassified about atomic weapons. Declassifed is neutron chain reaction theory
Classified still is "the physical properties of uranium and plutonium metals" hint it explodes on impact as it is pyroporic (fire making)

It is strange you never heard of the impact theory even though atom bomb design details are not covered under the Freedom of Information Act.

It sounds like you're confusing the gun barrel design of a nuclear weapon. If you take half a critical mass and impacting at high velocity with the other half of a critical mass the impact will trigger the chain reaction. It's a gun barrel shooting Uranium and Uranium, but its not simply dropping it on the ground. I think you're confusing the reaction that vaporizes uranium on impact when used as the penetrator on a tank shell. The heat of impact vaporizes it creating a hot cloud of uranium gas that burns the interior of the enemy tank, but it is not a nuclear reaction of nuclear explosion. And I have found that Uranium will burn in the open air, but so will sodium, but uranium is usually in an oxidized form that is very stable.

[starship1]

The force of impact (Fi) ballistics equation used in all atomic bombs is
Fi=(MVR)^n with n exponent of 1,2, or 3 as mass times velocity times ridgedity.
rigidity is a relative hardness constant twixt zero and one, with one being diamond. Uranium is slightly less than 1.

Exponent one is for single or double gun type device powered by 45 pounds of gun powder in a eliptical chamber of .25 eccentricity of 1:4 ratio of width to length slamming two subcrtitical uranium 235 disks of 1:5 ratio of thickness:diameter together at approximately 3,000 miles per hour with the disks backed by a U 238 cylindercal mass driver (tamper) of approximately ten time the mass of the disk.

The disks can be any size below critical mass as critical mass is only the maximum size a part of shape and ratio of stable to unstable atoms can be made. In practice disks spheres or cylinders are limited to .75 critical mass as hot spots from natural radioactive decay can appear nearer critical mass and the heat released is not good for the nearby high explosives, as they can cause predetonation.

At that Fi, the unstable radioactive uranium 235 atoms colliding on the disk face split, with the number of fissions being many millions on the disk face. The reaction is contained by the heavy iron casing for approx 1/10 of a microsecond before its atomic bonds come apart as the atomic reaction blow the casing to smithereens the size iron atoms- hence the nomenclature - atom bomb. Little boy is an examaple of a singkle gun type device.

Exponet two is for the Fi of the atoms on the centerline of a cylinder or radioactive metals surrounded by high explosive. so less chemcial explosive need by used and therefore smaller casing for a equal yield as disks. In practice it is not used as sphere type devices can be even smaller.

Exponent 3 is used for the sphere type devices, as the Fi at the center of the sphere causes the atoms in the center of the sphere to fission in the millions and the reaction is contained for fractions of a microsecond till the heavy iron casing is blown to smithereens the size of iron atoms. The sphere is surrounded by a spherical tamper to keep any hot spots from predetonating the chemcial explosive. The size of iron atom so like fat man is an atom bomb. Much of the heat generated is from friction of breaking chemical iron bonds in the casing.

As all the above are limited to subcritical mass shapes of unstable radioactive metal the explosive yeld is limited to approx 20 kilotons of TNT max with no minimum limit therefore to get smaller yield bombs one need only reduce the size of disks, cylinders or spheres.

To get bigger bombs, booster assemblies of disk, spheres, or cylinders inserted in the casing around the intial atom bomb explosion boost the yields tested to 100 Megatons TNT. The mass time velocity of the atoms released in the intial atom bomb explosion are so great a expontialy higher number of atoms in the booster assemblies of any radioactive metals split in much greater number as the atoms from the intial atom bomb blast collide with them. Parts of the heavy iron casing containing the reaction for fractions of a microsecond, is blown to smithereens roughly the size of hydrogen atoms as iron fissions at those velocities from atom impact. -hence the nomenclature- hydrogen bomb.

Surrounding the casing outside with shrapnel of radiactive metal disks, spheres or cyclinders making them part of the atomic reaction containment casing creates a higher yield "dirty" bomb. As the casing is blown to kindom come and with smithereens the size of imaginary supatomic particles, its nomenclature is -Neutron Bomb.

Making the sharpnel strontium 90 and cobalt 60, it will circulate through the food chain until all higher life froms are dead. Hence the name -Doomsday bomb

In a specific very narrow range its blast kills people, leaving machines intact as the subatomic atom parts collide with the atoms of the body or machines or building producing heat . Machines cool down while it fatal for people

Some scientists thought that the possibility the first atom bomb tests would ignite the atmosphere, but as the earth's flash point is unknown, the first atom bomb experiments did not do it. The earth's flashpont is best determined by experiment; Therefore an experiment finding it by detonating all the world's atomic bombs in one spot at one time is named -Star Maker.

This scientist believes and demonstates the atomic bomb plans are in the public domain. It is only a matter of time till terrorist construct one, therefore all radioactive metals should be placed in lower solar orbit out of their hands for a time effectively bottleling the nuclear genie.

My bomb design"Genie Bottler"- Please let me know if both it and the link works.

[John L]

I'm glad you agree with me then. It takes a critical mass of uranium or plutonium to make a nuclear expolsion reaction, and that it is usually done using the forced impact of two subcritical bodies of uranium/plutonium, or through the spherical expolsive compression of the same.

I agree that pure uranium and plutonium will burn in open air. This is a simple chemical oxidation reaction similar to one undergone by sodium or potasium, but it has nothing to do with nuclear radioactive decay or a nuclear explosion.

[starship1]

Originally posted by John L@Jun 2 2004, 07:18 PM
I'm glad you agree with me then. It takes a critical mass of uranium or plutonium to make a nuclear expolsion reaction, and that it is usually done using the forced impact of two subcritical bodies of uranium/plutonium, or through the spherical expolsive compression of the same.

I agree that pure uranium and plutonium will burn in open air. This is a simple chemical oxidation reaction similar to one undergone by sodium or potasium, but it has nothing to do with nuclear radioactive decay or a nuclear explosion.

I did not agree with you John. I clearly stated critical mass is not required any any atomic bomb design as it limits only the maximimum size a bomb part can be made.

Responding to public criticism about the size of the bombs dropped on Japan, even it it was justified (which it was not), one spokesman stated that we do not know how to build a smaller bomb as we need as a minimum critical mass. He was wrong, leading to the public misconception. You were simply mistaught as a neutron chain reaction is not needed in either bombs or reactors or my rocket engine. The accelerated decay rate of impact and also from stacking radioactive atoms above critical mass is all that is needed to release large amount of energy.

I do find it very strange that you can even imagine a neutron stricking a uranium atom with some momentem causing it to split, but you find it unfathonable that hitting a radioactive meatal atom with antoer atom of the same momentum willl not cause it to split. Scientists do not know what an atom looks like or how it works.

The neutron atom model theory was not used in the invention of the atomic bomb as the inventor Einstein dismissed the theory as non scintific nonsense in 1913.
Even Neils Bohr, was unable to use the neutron theory to calculate critical mass until he worked backward from the correct value determined by Einstein's critical mass test and developed a liquid drop atom model.

http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/351_66.html

All machines work on applied physics and not theoretical physics found in current atom model theory so by U.S. Patent Law no inventor can be required to use any atom model in giving a complete description of his invention and insructions for building it. Quatum theorists and atom model thoerist spent small fortunes in court failing to provide facts and evidence an atom model part is real.

They fought and failed all the way up to the supreme court where they failed again appealed and failed again, so the legal precedent set is considered very strong.

You just imagine neutrons and they have no relation to real atoms as you imagination is untrained and undisciplened. With my training your imagination could be very useful in real world physics as a sense of wonderment is required