Hybrid Fisson/fusion Reaction Engine

[John L]

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.

The stacking is to ensure a sufficient density of neutrons to trigger the chain reaction.

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.

Neutrons do not have an electric charge. The protons in teh Uranium nucleus do. The electromagnetic repulsion would keep the physical nuclei from colliding, but the electrically neutral neutron has no problem impacting the nucleus. Because the nucleus contains so many protons and neutrons it is easy to overcome the Strong Nuclear Force and initiate fission. That's why its the large elements that are used in fission. If your ideas were right you could fission simple atoms like oxygen or carbon, which you of course can't.

Originally posted by You linked to this
liquid-drop model,
in nuclear physics, description of atomic nuclei formulated (1936) by Niels Bohr and used (1939) by him and John A. Wheeler to explain nuclear fission. According to the model, the nucleons (neutrons and protons) behave like the molecules in a drop of liquid. If given sufficient extra energy (as by the absorption of a neutron), the spherical nucleus may be distorted into a dumbbell shape and then split at the neck into two nearly equal fragments, releasing energy. Although inadequate to explain all nuclear phenomena, the theory underlying the model provides excellent estimates of average properties of nuclei.

As even this states, it is a simplification to describe the fissioning of a nucleus, but is not an accurate model of other nuclear processes.

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.

Einstein was very influential in physics once the E=MC^2 equation was derived, but he himslef did not invent the atomic bomb. It was invented by a very large team of scientists working admittedly off the ideas of others, as well as their own ideas. Einstein never built an atom bomb, Einstein never test detonated an atom bomb; so even if he did draw up how one could work, he did not actually invent the thing. The guys who did the detailed math, designed and built the actual bombs, assembled The Gadget, and actually tested it are the guys who invented the atom bomb.


Give me a link to ANY website, article, preprint, or study that shows verifiable experimental results that prove your ideas and I'll investigate it further. If you can show me experimental proof then I'll turn around completely and start writing my Congressman to fully find your rocket (I do write mine several times a month).

[starship1]

JohnL-
The stacking is to ensure a sufficient density of neutrons to trigger the chain reaction.

No it is not. Einstein in 1912 examining the Curies work with the readioactive isotopes of uranium noticed that the temperature of the minute sample was hotter than the surrounding air. It also emitted green light as it was luminesent. That told Einstein that the heat and light coming from the atom was matter converting to energy as the atoms decayed. He calculated with E=MC^2 that stacking enough atoms togeter one would generate enough heat internally to melt the pile. He was coorect and called it critical mass point. He also knew that since the radioactive atom was unstable and 1/2 the atoms decayed (fissoned) in it's half life that hitting enough atoms hard enough one could cause it to split acclerating the decay rate; there by inventing what H.G. Well coined in 1914 an "atomic bomb"

Neutrons do not have an electric charge. The protons in teh Uranium nucleus do. The electromagnetic repulsion would keep the physical nuclei from colliding, but the electrically neutral neutron has no problem impacting the nucleus. Because the nucleus contains so many protons and neutrons it is easy to overcome the Strong Nuclear Force and initiate fission. That's why its the large elements that are used in fission. If your ideas were right you could fission simple atoms like oxygen or carbon, which you of course can't.

Bohr went to Einstein in 1912 to get him to endorse his static nuclear model constructed for Rutherford's gold foil scattering experiment. Einstein took one look at it an replied. non scientific nonsense, throw the theory out as it violates universal law of like charges repel as the protons would fly apart. Bohr stammered "maybe some kind of strong or weak glue holds them together. Eisntein replied "more nonsense" as one does not conjure up glues or gluons to patch ones theories when found in vioaltion of the law, one throws the law out or the theory out when that happens. Throw your theory out as I will keep the law.

He than said "Go back to Curies and Rutherfords" work and bring me a dynamic atom model with all parts in motion accounting for the scattering effect for by universal law all mass is in constant motion at any point and time in the known universe, including inside the atom. Bohr failed to follow his instructs and since Bohr was a popular scientist of his day, his theories remain popular today as modern scientific method has no good way to discard bad theories.

I agree with Einsteins method of discarding bad theories and his assement of Bohr's static nuclear atom, so threw the theory out. Scientists call positive, negative and neutral charged masses of any size - positive, negative and neutral charged masses. Only some obsolete atom model theorist call them protons, neutrons and electrons.

Einstein was very influential in physics once the E=MC^2 equation was derived, but he himslef did not invent the atomic bomb. It was invented by a very large team of scientists working admittedly off the ideas of others, as well as their own ideas. Einstein never built an atom bomb, Einstein never test detonated an atom bomb; so even if he did draw up how one could work, he did not actually invent the thing. The guys who did the detailed math, designed and built the actual bombs, assembled The Gadget, and actually tested it are the guys who invented the atom bomb.

You then do not know who invented the bomb as the actual builders wrote their names and reasons for dropping it in a time capsule buried and not to be uncovered for 100 years. One wrote home to his aunt the reason and I read the published letter though I forget where and when.

Atomic bombs are very simple machines requiring at most one inventor. Knowing how to build an atomic bomb from Einstein, Fermi and the army wanted to know how long it would take other countries to build the bomb. As a scientific experiment they hired our best quantum physicist willing to work on the bomb and gave them unlimited funds and time to invent it. They hired Lawrence and Oppenhiemer to invent the bomb, but did not tell them how it worked or that it had already been invented. By late 1944 they had failed to invent even one and as Fermi promised his bomb would end the war to get funds, he thought his job and future income potential would end had he not dropped one so he leaked Einstein's the invention to the acutal builders and most likey was the one giving the final order to drop the bomb on the japanese to save his job and future income potential.

Just as the miltary made many more atomic bombs and rocket duds to mix with the fewer real ones to magnify the bomb count to frighten the enemy, they also released many dud designs for various reasons mixed with real ones

In the United States no inventor is required to build his invention to be considered the inventor so Einstein is the inventor though he never built one,

Give me a link to ANY website, article, preprint, or study that shows verifiable experimental results that prove your ideas and I'll investigate it further. If you can show me experimental proof then I'll turn around completely and start writing my Congressman to fully find your rocket (I do write mine several times a month).

Based on your past performance you would discount any reference I give you if it does not conform to your preconcieved notions about how a bomb works.

Instead, just do the ballistics test firing a uranium 235 into a hardened target to observe the accelerated radioactive decay I speak of. As you will find it difficult to get your hands on U235, use americium 241 as found in smoke dectectors as the higher the atomic number the lower the critical mass. I describe the experiment in full In "A Definitive Analysis Of Atomic Power"

By the way sodium burns in water and not air so you can use it to simulate my engine supercritical mass. also any atom be it oxygen or hydrogen will fission if hit hard enough, and I rely on that fact to fission to hydrogen much of the propellant water oxygen in my engine, simply by the tempertures created in the supercritical mass of radiactive metals in excess of 50,000 Kelvin.


[QUOTEA Definitive Analysis Of Atomic Power Subcritical Ballistics Test-The velocity required is best determined by experiment. Small disks are mounted on titanium bullets 10 time the thickness of the disk. The are fired in increasing velocity at a steel or titanium target until an exponential rise in radiation is observed. The radiation detector is a photographic plate covered with 1/2-inch pine. The pine wood is placed close to the impact area. The number of white spots on the developed film will give a measurement of the radioactivity released. Plot on a x axis of a graph. The velocity is the y axis. The sharp rise on the plotted curve is the velocity required. Multiply this velocity by 1-1/2 to give the velocity required in the bomb.

Subcritical ballistics test illustration

(Caution- The first explosion of the Manhattan project was a secretive project claimed to be a test exploding 2000 pounds of TNT to use enerrgy released information to determine size of A-bomb explosion. As the gained technical information was widely known before the time, I label it misinformation used to explain the loud explosion. More likely, it was evidence that they tried Einstein's impact bomb with out the casing resulting in a successful small reaction from a few ounces of U235 in a ballistics test. The experiment was reported in the Library of Congress publication entitled Lawrence and Oppenheimer [/QUOTE]

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.

[John L]

Starship1,

Have you physically tested your impact theory, and what were the results?

[starship1]

Originally posted by John L@Jun 7 2004, 04:41 PM
Starship1,

Have you physically tested your impact theory, and what were the results?

Yes - The results were both conclusive and decisive.

For a show and tell project at age 10 in 1959, I drew the insides of an atom bomb.
I got parts of the design from a 12 year old designing a gun type atomic bomb that made the newspapers listing many of the actual shapes shapes inside an atomic bomb.

The teacher took me to the principal but he did not take me serious, though he confiscated my bomb plans.

Angry at that, I constructed a zip gun from a bicycle spoke, stuffing the tip that screws into the rim with gun powder from a dismantled shotgun shell. I then plugged the end with a singe double ought buck shot pellet coated with radium I had collected to build a minerature atom bomb. wrapping five or six wooden matches in the other end of the spoke to heat the barrel igniting the gun powder.

Concealed in bushes after all had gone home I then shot a bb size hole in his office window with the radium tipped bullet for not taking me serious.

I had coated one side of the buckshot with radium, hitting the glass target. I did not have any rifeling in the barell chamber to prevent the bullet from tumbling so I did not know if the bullet hit on the radium coating and the impact causing fission or fusion as I could not find the bullet. It either bounced backwards off the glass dropping to the dirt below or it entered with the broken glass into the locked school room or exploded. I examined the window hole, I did not stick around long enough to find it, nor did I have a glass photograpic plate inplace to record the amount of accelerated fisson from impact.

As Einstein said "at times like this without physical evidence one must rely on closeness to experience" (Empirical Evidence)

Four years later after I knew that radium atoms like all radioactive metal atoms was phyrophoric (fire making) so would explode on impact. When I went to verify explodes on impact or phyroporic in a standard reference book on the physical properties of the elements, I found the book (Gray's reference on the physical properties of the elements or something like that in the library but the section marked phsical properties of Uranium was blacked out under a government censor stamp. I then knew that Einstein kept it secret for approximately 25 years from 1913 to 1938 when he told Fermi and Fermi kept it secret 25 years till 1962 when Einsteins close family friend published in 1962 his signed dictaion telling the world so I could reasonably expect the government to fail to keep it secret for longer 25 years so I would occasionaly check back in the library reference shelf loction where I found the black censor stamp over uranium propertied to find the failed secret when It reappeared on schedule as 25 years is the maximium time anyone seemed to be able to keep it a secret. Sure enough in 1977 when I rechecked the reference shelve locatation. I found the explosive ordance manual published by the U S government printing office listing impact as the cause of detonation of uranium and plutonium bombs.

I then thought the government would fabricate the evidence and execute me like they did the Rosebergs a few years before for fiquring it out. Learning that, I then dismantled my bomb lab and buried the radioactive metals I had collected to date for it's construction.

I later verified my bomb design from many sources, as the Department of Energy policy is to neither confirm or deny leaked secrets. Applying for a miltary security clearance in 1968 in the section asking :is there any thing else we need to know about you" I remarked yes I designed an atomic bomb and faster than light atomic rocket engine.- I got the security clearance. I did not tell them I had the bomb metals needed and collected and buried Don't ask don't tell policy I guess. as they did not inguire further.

In any case when OU refused my bomb design in 1977, I was walking around with it till I got tired and called the FBI in 1978 and told them to come to my house and pick up my report. they misconstrued the blueprints for a built device. - They paniced and got the wrong house so the owner called me and said the FBI was looking for me. I walked out to find two of the three men wandering around looking for me. Bt then they had began to sneak, so I introduced myself as Tom Jackson shaking their hands and after the inital shock of being caught by one they were saneaking up on, one stammered "have you got a bomb" I replied no 'tis the theory that I have. As we went inside they asked me questions like where I got the information from. I replied I got the information from the libray., but I could not recall the name of the book. I remember who published it.

They asked who, and I said "the U.S. Government printing office" leaving them" speechless and leaving my house forgeting to pick up my report. In the middle of that the third agent knocked at the door pretending to have a flat tire asking to use the phone to call a garage. As the man I was talking to indicated I did not have a bomb to him so he could notify the ouside crew about what was happing inside the house, I touched him on the knee saying You just gave your man away. He blused beet red and I asured him I had gaught him when he rang the door bell, as the man of the phone (13 year old boy) from the wrong house, had called me and said there were three FBI agents looking for me but he got rid of them.

I asked them where they were going and they said back to Washington to straigten them out. I replied far be it from me to tell you how to do you job, but you have a hard job ahead of you. They remarked they would keep an eye on me.

I did not see or talk to the FBI again unitl 1992 when one of my coworkers applied for a security clearance upgrade and they questioned me about him, but they did not ask me about my bomb plans oor mention their previous visit. -Go figure

In any case I am left with the plans and enough radioactive metals today to build at least a minerature atomic bomb. -Go Figure

Some 25 years later, another student discovered phyrophoric materials explode on impact, but did not figure out radioactive metals were phyrophoric.

[quote]http://articles.findarticles.com/p/a..._21281407/pg_2
"The Radioactive Boyscout"
There they found David lying semiconscious on the floor, his eyebrows smoking. Unaware that red phosphorus is pyrophoric, David had been pounding it with a screwdriver and ignited it. He was rushed to the hospital to have his eyes flushed, but even months later David had to make regular trips to an ophthalmologist to have pieces of the plastic phosphorus container plucked carefully from his eyes.[end quote]

JohnL,
You must have me confused with an experimental physicist who does experiments to determine what happens. I am an inventor. Like, most inventors, I would soon be out of the invention business, it I built my inventions just to see if they will work as my garage would soon fill up with unworking inventions leaving no room. I know that my invention will work, then I build my inventions. Just build what I say do as they will work.

Even in the Manhatten project, little boy was not tested as they know the gun type device worked before testing it. The only readon they tested fat man was surrounding a sphere with high explosives the multiple detonators all had to fire withing micro seconds of each other so the imact force would converge on the center of the plutonium sphere and not miss the small sphere and land in the surrounding tamper. As that many detonators had not been used before they had to test it to have confidence it would work as ther was some uncetrtainty in the detoantor manufacturing process . As Fermi failed to produce the promised plutononium on time, before the required tests, Polonium was cannabilized from the double gun device thin man, and used in the sphere device gadget detonated at trinity testing the spherical detonators. The plutonium finaaly arrived and was used in the fatman dropped on Japan.

As always, I will give you and any skeptics only what information I do have or can readily obtain for your objective examination only. I will not give you what I do not have nor do I let any skeptic list what reference or source is acceptable to him as skeptics usually get the clue something is possible only after the rest of the world's witnesses the event and everbody else knows it is possible. So they can wait till then or build my inventions if they do not want to wait.

I am sure you can understand that at saves me a lot of work and time on my part that would wasted in just convincing skeptics. I spent to many years in training to examine new knowledge objectively to appreciate any skeptics lack of the same training in being objective, I do hope any readers understand that and take it in the spirit of "Scientific Inquiry" it is given.

[John L]

So you've never tested your theory. You've never fired a uranium or plutonium bullet from a rifled gun to see if your impact idea would really work? Thought not. And I can tell you're not a physicist by your ideas. Thanx for the fun conversations. B)

P.S. Patent Law only applies on Earth. If you space ship engine would work, you'd never see a dime from it. As long as it is only operated in space, NASA can build all they want and never pay anything.

[starship1]

Originally posted by John L@Jun 9 2004, 04:50 PM
So you've never tested your theory. You've never fired a uranium or plutonium bullet from a rifled gun to see if your impact idea would really work? Thought not. And I can tell you're not a physicist by your ideas. Thanx for the fun conversations. B)

P.S. Patent Law only applies on Earth. If you space ship engine would work, you'd never see a dime from it. As long as it is only operated in space, NASA can build all they want and never pay anything.

John to be objective you have to examine your own preconcieved notions with he same rigeorus methods you examine other's.

By your own methods you have not tested your neutron chain reaction theory to see if your bomb design works.

At best you only claim some secret bomb experiment in the 1940's at the Manhatten project proved it. However you fail to provide examined details of that experiment so anyone can reproduce the experiment verifying your theory. Sorry John, your secret science is not allowed in credible scientific method that I know of. Do you have any credible source or repeatable experiment you would like to share with the group to verify your theory.

By patent law the US does not need my permission to build my device in public or secret, Though if they do I am still entiled to be paid a fair market value by current patent law.

In any case Universal patent law number one invented and written with tooth and claw by myself and written under the authority granted to me by the U.S. patent office to assign license to any to make use or operate my invention including my self, as accepted patent applications are considered legal documents. Universal patent law protects my invention in deep space under the legal principal of imminent domain, as it protects my invention rights outside the legal jurisdiction of both national and international patent law.

As always John your comments and questions are always welcome

[geokker]

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

Particle accelerators cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

[John L]

At best you only claim some secret bomb experiment in the 1940's at the Manhatten project proved it. However you fail to provide examined details of that experiment so anyone can reproduce the experiment verifying your theory. Sorry John, your secret science is not allowed in credible scientific method that I know of. Do you have any credible source or repeatable experiment you would like to share with the group to verify your theory.

It was secret 60 years ago, but since the Rosenbergs and Fukes betrayed the United States and gave the secret to Stalin, the Genie was let out of the bottle. And since England, France, Russia, China, South Africe, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Germany, the Ukraine, etc, etc, etc, all have nuclear power and The Bomb, I'd say its not much of a secret. And saying that your untested system will work because I've never personally tested the accepted beliefs of nuclear power isn't a response. I asked you if you have tested your ideas of nuclear power?!?!

By patent law the US does not need my permission to build my device in public or secret, Though if they do I am still entiled to be paid a fair market value by current patent law.

In any case Universal patent law number one invented and written with tooth and claw by myself and written under the authority granted to me by the U.S. patent office to assign license to any to make use or operate my invention including my self, as accepted patent applications are considered legal documents. Universal patent law protects my invention in deep space under the legal principal of imminent domain, as it protects my invention rights outside the legal jurisdiction of both national and international patent law.

No. And your response is very silly. Universal Patent Law #1??? US, UN, and any other international law only applies on Earth. NASA and theUS military repeated violate patent law because the hardware they're using isn't being used on Earth. But, since your system won't work.

[John L]

Originally posted by geokker@Jun 10 2004, 07:46 AM

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

Particle accelerators cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

You're absolutely correct. Man has never made anything that traveled faster than light. Particle Accelerators do accelerate single particles to velocities close to that of light, but have never exceeded light speed.

[starship1]

JohnL sezBut, since your system won't work.

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

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

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

JohnL your comments and questions are always welcome.

[starship1]

Originally posted by geokker@Jun 10 2004, 12:46 PM

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

Particle accelerators cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

Your point is?. I cannot accelerate a exhaust particle out the exhaust port faster than light as it would require an infinite amount of energy to do so. I do not need to as I can accelerate 1000 tons of propellant to .44C out the exhaust port and as the momentum of the exhaust = mometum of the rocket than
MeVe=MrVr and for a 100 ton structure and payload.

Vr = MeVe/Me
= (1000 tons)(.44C)/(100 tons)
= 4.4 C

[John L]

Originally posted by starship1@Jun 10 2004, 03:15 PM
Your point is?. I cannot accelerate a exhaust particle out the exhaust port faster than light as it would require an infinite amount of energy to do so. I do not need to as I can accelerate 1000 tons of propellant to .44C out the exhaust port and as the momentum of the exhaust = mometum of the rocket than
MeVe=MrVr and for a 100 ton structure and payload.

Vr = MeVe/Me
= (1000 tons)(.44C)/(100 tons)
= 4.4 C

Bad Math! The crew compartment and engine weigh 100 tons, but the rocket also contains 1000 tons of fuel. If you could accelerate the propellant to that speed and if the total mass of the rocket is only 1100 tons (100 engine + 1000 fuel), then the ship will only travel at 0.4C, not 4.4C. Of course, this situation in reality would be a continuum, with the fuel decreasing as the ship traveled, however I recall several of your posts mentioning only using a few tons of fuel to achieve your high speeds, so the ship will still weigh more than 1000 tons.

I think you may want to go back and recheck your other calculations, too.

[John L]

Originally posted by starship1@Jun 10 2004, 03:05 PM

JohnL sez - But, since your system won't work.

Aerospace Technology Certifications (Rocket Science)
*Federal, **State, ***Industry **** Common Law <_<
--------------------------------------
* Computers Analog/ Digital (Aiforce Mechanic certificate and Computer Tech Certificates listed in detail...)
____
****Total Comman Law Doctorates
Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education

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

JohnL your comments and questions are always welcome.

So, you&#39;re a former Airforce mechanic and now you&#39;re a computer technician? That qualifies you as an expert in nuclear energy production? Again, I ask you if you personally have tested your ideas of nuclear energy production that you intend to apply in your rocket. The fact that you have some mechanics and computer tech certifications doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;ve tested your system. The fact that I am not an applied physicist and have not personally tested the accepted nuclear energy production process does not mean your system will work. Have you actually tested your methods of producing the energy to power this rocket??? If so, what were the results? What nuclear material did you use? What was the general setup of the experiments? How much energy was produced? Have you ever fissioned Oxygen experimentally to ensure that part of your system will really work?

<_< Common Law Degrees??? <_<

[starship1]

Originally posted by John L+Jun 10 2004, 09:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John L &#064; Jun 10 2004, 09:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-starship1@Jun 10 2004, 03:15 PM
Your point is?. * I cannot accelerate a exhaust particle out the exhaust port faster than light as it would require an infinite amount of energy to do so. I do not need to as I can accelerate 1000 tons of propellant to .44C out the exhaust port and as the momentum of the exhaust = mometum of the rocket than
MeVe=MrVr and for a 100 ton structure and payload.

Vr = MeVe/Me
** = (1000 tons)(.44C)/(100 tons)
** = 4.4 C

Bad Math&#33; The crew compartment and engine weigh 100 tons, but the rocket also contains 1000 tons of fuel. If you could accelerate the propellant to that speed and if the total mass of the rocket is only 1100 tons (100 engine + 1000 fuel), then the ship will only travel at 0.4C, not 4.4C. Of course, this situation in reality would be a continuum, with the fuel decreasing as the ship traveled, however I recall several of your posts mentioning only using a few tons of fuel to achieve your high speeds, so the ship will still weigh more than 1000 tons.

I think you may want to go back and recheck your other calculations, too. [/b][/quote]
Checking my "static" rocket equation and 4.4c is correct
http://www.usafa.af.mil/dfp/cockpit-phys/mr2th2.htm
Rockets
In the rocket shown in the picture, an explosion in the combustion chamber forces the rocket and the exhaust gases apart. Since these are internal forces, the total linear momentum is conserved.



At any instant, the linear momentum of the exhaust gas cloud equals (but is opposite to) the linear momentum of the rocket. As the mass of the exhaust gas cloud increases, so does its linear momentum, and consequently, so does the linear momentum of the rocket. The energy which causes this increased motion comes from the chemical energy of the combusting fuel.



double checking with the dynamic rocket equation
The final velocity of a rocket propelled projectile depends upon how much
propellant you have and how fast the exhaust velocity is. The formula for
determining the speed of a rocket is called the "dynamic" ROCKET EQUATION: considered an engineering equation as it is condiosered nonconservative and contains a Eulers constant of 2.718281828 so introduces an error the magnitude of which I will calculate

^denotes exponet like x squared = x^2

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

(Eq. 2) Vf=Ve[ln(Minital/final)]

(Eq. 3) Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u)) ---&#62; u = 1- 1/EXP(Vf/Ve)

Of rocket
Propellant = 1000 tons propellant
Structure = 6 tons structure
Payload = 4 tons payload
u = .0.99009900990099009900990099009901= 1000 tons of propellant / 1010 tons of rocket and propellant
Ve= 81840 miles/sec =.44c therefore:

Vf=.44c[ln1/1-0.99009900990099009900990099009901]
Vf =.44c[ln 1/0.009900990099009900990099009901]
Vf = .44c[ln 100.9999999999999999999999999999]
Vf = .44c[4.615120516841259450884198266912]
Vf = 2.0306530274101541583890472374413 C Plus error

calculating the error

http://my.execpc.com/~culp/rockets/rckt_eqn.html
THE rocket equation (dynamic mass): vd = Vx * ln([mr+mp] / mr)
The "static rocket mass" equation: vs = Vx * (mp / mr)
The static equation equivalent to my method of using average rocket mass is:
vs = Vx * (mp / [mr + 0.5*mp]).
Then a measure of the error induced by my method is E = 1 - vs / vd. Let&#39;s suppose the extreme case (for a model rocket) that the propellant is half the total weight of the rocket, or mp = mr = m. Then
E = 1 - vs / vd = 1 - [ (m / {m+0.5*m}) / ln({m+m} / m) ] = 1 - [1 / {ln(2) * 1.5}] = 0.04, or 4% error.

You can verify for yourself that for propellants that are somewhat smaller proportions of the rocket mass, the error is much smaller. The propellant has to exceed 67% of the total rocket mass before a 10% error is induced.

Therefore error = 1- 4.4C/2.03 C = 1-2.1667906533553168180748961786362 =
-1.166790653355316818074896178636 or 116% error so as 2.03 C plus - (1.167 percent times 2.03)
=2.03C + 2.3685850263112931406920392426311C
=4.3985850263112931406920392426311 C ~= 4.4C as the calculator introduced a small percentage of error.

Therefore the rocket&#39;s final velocity is 4.4 C

[starship1]

Originally posted by John L+Jun 10 2004, 09:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John L @ Jun 10 2004, 09:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-starship1@Jun 10 2004, 03:05 PM

JohnL sez - But, since your system won&#39;t work.

Aerospace Technology Certifications (Rocket Science)
*Federal, **State, ***Industry **** Common Law <_<
--------------------------------------
* Computers Analog/ Digital (Aiforce Mechanic certificate and Computer Tech Certificates listed in detail...)
____
****Total Comman Law Doctorates
Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education

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

JohnL your comments and questions are always welcome.

So, you&#39;re a former Airforce mechanic and now you&#39;re a computer technician? That qualifies you as an expert in nuclear energy production? Again, I ask you if you personally have tested your ideas of nuclear energy production that you intend to apply in your rocket. The fact that you have some mechanics and computer tech certifications doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;ve tested your system. The fact that I am not an applied physicist and have not personally tested the accepted nuclear energy production process does not mean your system will work. Have you actually tested your methods of producing the energy to power this rocket??? If so, what were the results? What nuclear material did you use? What was the general setup of the experiments? How much energy was produced? Have you ever fissioned Oxygen experimentally to ensure that part of your system will really work?

<_< Common Law Degrees??? <_< [/b][/quote]
JohnL. I answered you question "You must have me confused with an experimental physicist who does experiments to determine what happens. I am an inventor. Like, most inventors, I would soon be out of the invention business, it I built my inventions just to see if they will work as my garage would soon fill up with unworking inventions leaving no room. I know that my invention will work, then I build my inventions. Just build what I say do as they will work." You simply ignoring my answer does not change that fact.

As you claim you are an accountant then count my higher education at 8,000 plus classroom hours evenly distributed between course levels 1 to 6 in the four major subject areas of math, physics, computer science and general education using the equivelant education equation:

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

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

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

My university and all my federal diplomas were isssued by the United States Air Force Air University (USAFAU) and and the Federal Aviation Administration Academy (1400 classrom hours in advanced electronics) also under the auspices of the USAFAU as it was a military contract for training. The USAFU is fully accredited to the doctorate level though it was not while I attended school. As I was employed by the USAF when it was acredited, my schools were evaluated for acreditation and I was given the oppurtunity to take bypass tests on the areas lacking in my school to gain acreditation and formal credits. I did so and passed those with all A&#39;s.

If you really can count as you claim then count your education and you will find that I am:

Doctor Thomas Hulon Jackson
Common Law Doctorates
Math, Physics, Computer Science and General Education
Your Academic Superior
Na Na Na Na Na.

[geokker]

QUOTE (geokker @ Jun 10 2004, 12:46 PM)




QUOTE


I claim:
7. My invention is a rocket engine that is a means to test Einstein&#39;s
theory that a man made object other than a particle accelerator
may travel faster than light.



Particle accelerators cannot travel faster than the speed of light.






Your point is?. I cannot accelerate a exhaust particle out the exhaust port faster than light as it would require an infinite amount of energy to do so. I do not need to as I can accelerate 1000 tons of propellant to .44C out the exhaust port and as the momentum of the exhaust = mometum of the rocket than
MeVe=MrVr and for a 100 ton structure and payload.

Vr = MeVe/Me
= (1000 tons)(.44C)/(100 tons)
= 4.4 C

It was a bad gag.

[Sp1ke]

Don&#39;t worry, geokker. I got the gag. I might try flying to the nearest star on one of these fast-moving particle accelerators.

[starship1]

Originally posted by Sp1ke@Jun 14 2004, 03:37 PM
Don&#39;t worry, geokker. I got the gag. I might try flying to the nearest star on one of these fast-moving particle accelerators.

Yea I got the joke to.

Though,two things have always preplexed me when the subject of faster than light velocites for massive objects such as rockets comes up.

The rocket is ignored and the subject turns to light&#39;s properties or particle accelerator limitations.

If either of you fellows or another would enlighten me, I would appreciate any clue you can give me to help me keep the subject on topic of rocket velocites.

[geokker]

This could be something to do with the cognoscenti believing that information transmission is limited to 300,000kps. If a massless packet of information cannot break that limit, it seems unlikely in the extreme that a massive object could accelerate beyond it.

It&#39;s just frustrating that being massless, light particles cannot be &#39;pushed&#39;.

An aside - I read with interest once of a super-light spindle floating in a vacuum above an array of superconducting electromagnets. The subsequent induced spin accelerated the tips of the spindle to a very disappointing fraction of the speed of light.

The only kind of &#39;engine&#39; that will circumvent light years, would be one capable of locally changing the curvature of spacetime - effectively shortening distances before setting out.

[starship1]

Originally posted by geokker@Jun 15 2004, 08:49 AM
I read with interest once of a super-light spindle floating in a vacuum above an array of superconducting electromagnets. The subsequent induced spin accelerated the tips of the spindle to a very disappointing fraction of the speed of light.

The only kind of &#39;engine&#39; that will circumvent light years, would be one capable of locally changing the curvature of spacetime - effectively shortening distances before setting out.

Yea I know the feeling, I pedeled my tricykle once, and was dissapointed I could not exceed light speed. I just concluded then that one must use a machine that can exceed light speed so looked for other machines. Particel accelerators seem to get close to light speed; however they had no detectors on the experiment to detetect a particle even if it did exceed ligt speed, so I just kept looking at other machines till I found "one capable of locally changing the curvature of spacetime - effectively shortening distances before setting out" as you suggested by warping both space and time.

Reference Einstein&#39;s General Relativity field equations for constant
1 g accelerating rocket
C- ship our sturdy craft (The Lorentz)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.html
This applet below lets you make your own time dilation calculations.

The applet)
The Relativistic Rocket Applet
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/R...ket/Voyage.html
lets you plan how long a trip will take on a rocket that travels near
the
speed of light. You type the distance of the trip (measured in light
years)
and the acceleration of the rocket (measured as a multiple of Earth&#39;s
gravity). The rocket will accelerate at that rate for half of the
trip, then
decelerate at the same rate for the second half of the trip.
The time for the trip is measured in two ways: (1) As seen by a
person who
stays behind on Earth, and (2) as measured by you on the ship. For
your
convenience, space-sickness pills are available aft of the
observation
lounge.
end quote..............................


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

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

If Christ was resurrected after death and did ascended to the heavens
on a 1 g rocket ship to visit his father at a 1000 ly distant star he
could return today Obeying Einstein&#39;s laws some 27 years older and he
might be ticked off so behave as:

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

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

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

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

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

Which is also the velocity wrt earth when measuring the constant 1 g
wrt ship. As Einstein&#39;s equation for relativistic acceleration is:
A&#39;=A (gamma cubed)from extended relativity theory(ERT) of 1949.

When A&#39; is substituted for A in the deasy site equations inside the
present Java Calculator at the beginning of this post, Instead of the
rocket man in case one "feeling" a one g acceleration at the
beginning of the trip tending to zero as his velocity wrt earth tends
to C. In case two the rocket man accelerates his ship at a constant 1
g wrt the ship so he feels the constant one g the entire trip. When
the rocket man returns to earth in case two he finds his left behind
earth twin his same age rather than the ancient bones of case one. In
case two both space and time are warped from Einstein&#39;s equivalence
principal of general relativity equating gravity and acceleration as
being indistinguishable from one another.

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

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

Chemical rockets at best with adjustable thrust capabilities can
maintain 1 g for several hours, based on maintaining 15 g&#39;s for
approximately 15 minutes and atomic rockets have the potential power
of millions times more that so much faster velocities are possible
for any given payload up to any sub light velocities and beyond C, if
Einstein&#39;s theory was correct.

I will leave it to the group members if they wish to discuss the
possibility of true faster than light as Einstein&#39;s equations permit.
or if they want to discuss my atomic rocket engine.

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

I do ask that the group for this message thread at least stick to
Einstein&#39;s field theory and not discuss quantum theory as it is
Einstein&#39;s theory and not quantum mechanics that I understand best,
as I discarded quantum mechanics in 1963 as mathematical gobbley
gook, and not a theory one can actually do anything with thereby
following Einstein&#39;s instructions to discard it.

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

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

My patent application of engine caple of testing Einstein&#39;s faster
than light theory at above light speed or below light speed though in
any case capable of star travel and Einstein&#39;s ERT reference:

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

"The unified field theory" It was reveled here yesterday on 20
mimeographed pages-a mixture of typewritten words and squiggly
mathematical symbols that even scientists hesitated to interpret. It
was the English translation of Doctor Einstein&#39;s original
German........


&#39;my greatest achievement to date&#39;..............
................

......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---------------------------

[John L]

Chemical rockets at best with adjustable thrust capabilities can
maintain 1 g for several hours, based on maintaining 15 g&#39;s for
approximately 15 minutes and atomic rockets have the potential power
of millions times more that so much faster velocities are possible
for any given payload up to any sub light velocities and beyond C, if
Einstein&#39;s theory was correct.

What Chemical Rocket do you know of that has 15g acceleration that can run for 15 minutes?

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

The Equations let you calculate what the time dialation effects would be if you could accelerate at 1g for those lengths of time, but you could never carry enough fuel. The velocity of the current Ion engine&#39;s exhaust is huge, but the thrust is low and therefore take months to accelerate to any appreciable speeds. You&#39;ve previously stated that your engine will weigh about 100 tons (200,000 pounds), and your rocket will carry 1000 tons (2,000,000 pounds) of fuel. How much fuel will be consumed per hour to maintain 1g acceleration?

I do ask that the group for this message thread at least stick to
Einstein&#39;s field theory and not discuss quantum theory as it is
Einstein&#39;s theory and not quantum mechanics that I understand best,
as I discarded quantum mechanics in 1963 as mathematical gobbley
gook, and not a theory one can actually do anything with thereby
following Einstein&#39;s instructions to discard it.

A few advances in quantum mechanics have been made since 1963. Based on that gobbley gook mathematics we now have computers, lasers, and communication satellites.

[starship1]

Originally posted by John L@Jun 15 2004, 08:00 PM

Chemical rockets at best with adjustable thrust capabilities can
maintain 1 g for several hours, based on maintaining 15 g&#39;s for
approximately 15 minutes and atomic rockets have the potential power
of millions times more that so much faster velocities are possible
for any given payload up to any sub light velocities and beyond C, if
Einstein&#39;s theory was correct.

What Chemical Rocket do you know of that has 15g acceleration that can run for 15 minutes?

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

The Equations let you calculate what the time dialation effects would be if you could accelerate at 1g for those lengths of time, but you could never carry enough fuel. The velocity of the current Ion engine&#39;s exhaust is huge, but the thrust is low and therefore take months to accelerate to any appreciable speeds. You&#39;ve previously stated that your engine will weigh about 100 tons (200,000 pounds), and your rocket will carry 1000 tons (2,000,000 pounds) of fuel. How much fuel will be consumed per hour to maintain 1g acceleration?

I do ask that the group for this message thread at least stick to
Einstein&#39;s field theory and not discuss quantum theory as it is
Einstein&#39;s theory and not quantum mechanics that I understand best,
as I discarded quantum mechanics in 1963 as mathematical gobbley
gook, and not a theory one can actually do anything with thereby
following Einstein&#39;s instructions to discard it.

A few advances in quantum mechanics have been made since 1963. Based on that gobbley gook mathematics we now have computers, lasers, and communication satellites.

Q. What chemical engine runs for 15g&#39;s for 15 minutes?
A. I do not remember as I have been using those fiqures for many years. As I recal it was an unmanned probe held the world record for max change in velocityy for many years without using gravity assist sling shot orbiting manuvers. It may have been a venus probe and the name "helious" comes to mind as It may hold the crrent speed record. Just pulling some current figures off the net I find one that sounds reasonable. It matched the velocity difference twixt earth and venus to drop to the lower orbit and land as I recall.

"5/1 mass ratio per stage chemical rocket .
It burns H2 + O2. The specific impulse is 450 seconds.
Delta V at third stage burnout is 21,600 meters per second
which is about 49,000 miles per hour"

At a constant .2 g net acceleration that velocity of approx twice earth&#39;s escape velocity is obtainable in approximatly three hours and as the ship accelerates against the pull of gravity reguiring a 1.2 g gross acceleration, the same engine in deep space outside of earth&#39;s gravity will accelerate at a constant one g for several hours, so can accelerate at 15 gs for three hours/15 minutes or 12 minutes with the same power considering a varible thrust nozzle is used. So my figures are very close as V=AT and in deep space outside the gravity well of earth it would obtain a much higher velocity as V=1g times three hours or 5 times the earth launched rocket velocity or 245,000 miles per hour or 1/2733 light speed for a deep space chemical powered rocket of typical design.

I need only 2,733 time that power to get to light speed at a constant one g for 356 days of acceleration as power is linear proportional to velocity. Atomic rockets have millions of times that power of chemical rockets as there is as much atomic power in a base ball size chunk of U235 as there is in many millions of gallons of gasoline of gasoline which is nifty as I do not have to carry so much chemical fuel to reach ligth speed with atomic fuel.


Q.The velocity of the current Ion engine&#39;s exhaust is huge, but the thrust is low and therefore take months

to accelerate to any appreciable speeds. You&#39;ve previously stated that your engine will weigh about 100

tons (200,000 pounds), and your rocket will carry 1000 tons (2,000,000 pounds) of fuel. How much fuel will

be consumed per hour to maintain 1g acceleration?

A. I do not have a ion engine as my engine ejects a relative higher mass consisting of positive, neutral,

and negative charged mass. I have a plasma engine. A plasma is only an positive ionized gas in

chemistry, and cosmology so obeys the ideal gas law so ion drives are still considered just gas engines that use electric power to accelerate the positive charged ions. No method exists to stop those engines from building up a huge negative charge as they positive ions are ejected so they wreck havoc with the electronics and any crew so is considered not practical (reducible to practice) and limited to very low power levels in practice limiting the max velocity obtainable with them.

I use plasma as a physicist uses it meaning the fourth state of matter after liquids, solids, and gases known from ancient times as that which is matter is of Earth&#39;s Waters. Winds and Fires and therefore I have no reason to assume it obeys the ideal gas law.

For the 2.4 trillion horsepower engine above I get
Total Impulse Momentum(Itot) =2887799039640 tons- feet/minute (deep space)
Isp = 1,494,200 seconds = specific impulse in earth&#39;s gravity field
Vescape from Earth = 11.2 km/sec; acceleration time at 1.2 g = 97.2 minutes
`
To answer your question how much fuel consumed per second. I will just have to do the math for the 1000 ton engine to accelerate at a constant 1 g for 356 days to light speed for a hundred ton structure and payload. I quess not many pounds per hour ejected out the exhaust port at a varying velocity averaging to a velocity of .44C. As far as the amount of propellant and fuel converted to energy it would be a small fraction of that mass ejected as propellant. I will just have to run the numbers as time permits and as the propellant fraction is 1/10 than at the beginning of the trip the propellant flow rate would have to be ten times than at the end of the trip as I vary the flow rate and exhust velocity to maintain the constant one g acceleration and this reduces the efficiency estimated to 50%, but it beats feeling .1 g starting out ending at 10 g towards the end of the trip as the ship lightens as the thousand tons of propellant is ejected over 356 days. wow there is my answer to your question as there is 8544 hours per trip than 1000 tons/854 hours = 234 pounds / hour ejected at .44C as an average. with approx 10 times that ejected at the beginning of the trip and 1/10 that ejected at .44C at the end of the trip to light speed answering your question. as to the amount of mass converted to energy required to do this approximates to .

as M=E/C^2
M=[[1000 tons times (.44C)^2/]/2]] / C^2
M= 193 tons of propellant and fuel converted to energy

as this drops the amount of exhaust mass ejected to approx .80 percent for creating linear momentum the the actual mass of 100 tons to get to light speed is only 80 tons of payload and structure with single engine of 1000 tons of propelleant and fuel with an estimated power of 2.4 trillion horse power or 280,898,876 horse power/hour/

In practice a multistage rocket using engine configurations of (1,3,5....n) stages and gravity assist manuvers for velocity boost and rondeveu with unmanned fuel storage rockets in flight, then much higher tonnage payload can be delieviered to the stars in a short amount of time at light velocity.

[John L]

as to the amount of mass converted to energy required to do this approximates to .

as M=E/C^2
M=[[1000 tons times (.44C)^2/]/2]] / C^2
M= 193 tons of propellant and fuel converted to energy

Once again, I have to ask how you intend to achieve this. You claim you&#39;ll use radiactive elements to heat water to plasma and use this plasma for the exhaust, but you can&#39;t convert the total mass to pure energy with the efficiencies you seem to be counting on. In Uranium fission, to use your example, the nucleus splits in two, releasing some energy, some neutrons, and the daughter products. The vast majority of that energy, therefore, takes the form of the daughter products and the neutrons, with only a small fraction actual converted to usable energy.

.44C? How will you achieve such a high velocity for the exhaust? What about ablation of the exhaust nozzle? At that speed you&#39;ll eat away the entire nozzle in seconds. If you&#39;re going to achieve that velocity through tremendous heat, how will you contain it? The torus used for fusion confinement at ITER requires a vast building to house it, is massive, and requires tremendous amounts of electricity to power the electromagnets. If you&#39;re containment fails in even a microscopic way, your rocket would blow itself apart in seconds.

[starship1]

as to the amount of mass converted to energy required to do this approximates to .

as M=E/C^2
M=[[1000 tons times (.44C)^2/]/2]] / C^2
M= 193 tons of propellant and fuel converted to energy

Once again, I have to ask how you intend to achieve this. You claim you&#39;ll use radiactive elements to heat water to plasma and use this plasma for the exhaust,

I explained how two spatial dimensional containment for the a fourth dimension of time was achieved as described in the patent application using hydrodynamic forces (moving water).

[QUOTE]but you can&#39;t convert the total mass to pure energy with the efficiencies you seem to be counting on.

Sure I can as I do not convert the total mass of fuel and propellant to energy as I need most of the mass to provide linear momentum which is mass times velocity and I only use the energy to provide velocity to the mass so only approx 10% of mass conversion to energy is needed which is a hundred times better than previous low temperature atomic reactors and atomic bombs as they are limited in repectfully in operating temeperature and containment time.

In Uranium fission, to use your example, the nucleus splits in two, releasing some energy, some neutrons, and the daughter products. The vast majority of that energy, therefore, takes the form of the daughter products and the neutrons, with only a small fraction actual converted to usable energy.

Nope the atom splits converting a small percentage of the mass sending the atom various fragments apart at high velocity of approx .03 C which collide with other unstable radioactive and stable atoms splitting (fission) some and fuseing(fusion) with others, as the reaction continues and multiplies in the plasma chamber numerous times so that by the time it exists the exhaust port the water is turned to hydrogen atoms and neutral charged mass approximately the same size as the atom and more energy is providing velocity than heat to the mass as only a small fraction of the energy is heat. The total system radioactive decay equation is:

Etot=Elight+Eheat+Epartical velocity+ Egravity+Emagnetic+Eelectrical+Ex

Ex represents that relative small amount not listed as no list in physics is considered complete as long as measurement differs from calculation.

There is a multitude of different fission and fusion reactions in the plasma chamber, as the radioctive meal fuel and propellant undergo fission and fusion.

.44C? How will you achieve such a high velocity for the exhaust? What about ablation of the exhaust nozzle? At that speed you&#39;ll eat away the entire nozzle in seconds. If you&#39;re going to achieve that velocity through tremendous heat, how will you contain it? The torus used for fusion confinement at ITER requires a vast building to house it, is massive, and requires tremendous amounts of electricity to power the electromagnets. If you&#39;re containment fails in even a microscopic way, your rocket would blow itself apart in seconds.

That problem was solved as the velocities entering the reduction nozzle are only mach 30 and as the reduction nozzle has a 1000:1 input over output cross section area the velocity is increase to .44C while the propellant flow rate remains the same.

Ablation of the nozzle is solved by constantly renewing it&#39;s liquid walls as the old liquid ablates away creating exhaust momentum. This proof of principal test was done by hypertherm in 1968 greatly increasing a copper nozzle&#39;s life and increasing the velocity of the cutting plasma. It is easy to see and know that two objects cannot occupy the same space and time so by inserting a volume of water into a pipe shape containing a plasma stream as the water turns to steam and plasma expanding the plasma is pinched reducing its cross section and increasing it&#39;s velocity. There is no question about it as it works weell on a dialy basis since 1968 and has even been tested with atomic power as Project Orion uses a thon coating of grease on the pusher plate to prevent atomic exposions from eroding Orion&#39;s pusher plate as the grase vaporizes instad of the surface of the plate.

The torus used for fusion confinement at ITER is attempting to contain the reaction plasma in three dimensions of height width and length for a significant temporal dimension of time and failing by the way.

I do not do that as I contain the fission/fusion reaction plasma in only two dimensions for a sufficient time till it leaks out of the third dimension as it is in a pipe shape open at one end as an exhaust port.

It is plain to see that those working on torus used for fusion confinement at ITER are attempting unsuccessfully to stop the plasma leak for some reason unknown to me. I just enlarged focused and directed a plasma leak out an exhaust port to do the work of propelling my engine and harnessing the plasmas power. The US patent office will not even accept a patent application claiming three dimensional confinement over time as all have leaked to date. They accepted my two dimensional container with the leak enlared focused and directed as a rocket exhaust.

I suppose I could just mount my engine on a giant hand crank to turn a giant electric generator producing electricity for years at higher amounts and efficiencies than ITER does but maybe later to power a planetary colony or deep underground on earth.

At any time should my two dimensional confined plasma become unstable or risk melting my engine for any reason or just for stopping my engine, I just turn of the reduction nozzle off elimiminating teh back pressure confinement and hit the mettalic plasma with a high pressure stream of propellant flushing it out the exhaust port to deep space. I then load in another plasma generator and restart my engine.

[GCNRevenger]

Hey all, looking up more about this "Doctor Jackson" posting about the same subject at NewMars and my search landed me here...

So, to sum things up in a little more ledgible form, this engine uses nuclear fission energy to heat a propellant to increase its pressure in the reaction chaimber and then releases it out the back through a small hole which produces thrust. "A thermal rocket engine"

There are other designs for nuclear thermal rockets that operate under similar principles... the solid core variety have actually been built and tested numerous times, and this plasma rocket is supposed to get 1,000,000 times the efficency? Yeah. Uh huh.

Problems:

Sooo you are going to use Newton&#39;s rocket mass equations to show you can beat the speed of light and achieve inertia where V is > 1C. Then you turn round&#39; to Relativity, which isn&#39;t in Newton&#39;s rocket math, to show how time dialation permits you to achieve effective velocities of >1C. This doesn&#39;t add up... so you on the one hand say you can reach superluminal speeds by inertia increase (rocket burn) and then you say that time dialation does it. Which is it, Doc?

Annnd you "don&#39;t believe in the atomic model"? Well, I can imagine that quite a few physists (like, all of them) would disagree with you there. The Strong and Weak forces are pretty well proven to exsist too... Thus You can&#39;t convert 10% of the mass in a nuclear fission reaction to energy any which way, since there isn&#39;t that much tied up in the nuclear binding force to begin with...

Oxygen fission? Plasmelt of trans-subatomic matter? Ummm. No.

Efficency assumptions are all wrong too... current and near-term proposed nuclear powerd engines have very low efficency not so much because of penalties in energy conversion, but because of the mass of the propellant that weighs them down. Adding a propellant, any propellant, will lower the theoretical maximum efficency orders of magnetude, and thats before losses involved with thermal transfer etc.

Speaking of propellant velocities, simply making a smaller nozzle throat is not a magic way to increase propellant velocities. So if you make your nozzle throat 3X smaller then your exhaust velocity will be 1.32C? Gee, why doesn&#39;t Nasa do that right now with chemical rockets so we can get to Mars really fast? This equation only works for ideal fluids at low velocities, not for compressable gasses at extreme conditions. The gas will either pile up or simply not have enough energy to reach such speeds... under ideal circumstance with only daughter particles as exhaust, you are limited to around 0.04C for exhaust velocity best case, not 0.44C.

Paper cup? Snow cone wrapper? Candles?

Oh yeah, and how exactly do you intend to heat the propellant to 50,000K with a solid reactor? In an arcjet torch, the plasma isn&#39;t generated by a hot object heating the cold gas through thermal transfer, but rather through a current passing through a cloud of "already vaporized" gas. Now, thermodynamics says heat only flows from hot to cold in direct thermal transfer like this, so your core would have to reach 50,000K. It would vaporize instantly, much less melt...

Lets see... have I forgotton anything? I must say, your "secret knowledge of Einstein" and "secret knowledge of physics" and "doctorates you conferred on yourself" and such... oh and lets not forget the "atomic bomb conspiracy(s)," "universal patents #1" or USPTO "atomic rocket experts," annnnd and atomic bomb in your back yard?

Speaks for itself

[starship1]

Well hello old friend from Mars forum A.K.A. GNCavenger.
As you are anonymous, you can say anything and often do. Best I can tell you are at the undergraduate level as you have a sophomoric attitude who dose not believe my dozen plus diplomas hanging on my wall are real nor my atomic bomb design.

I can just say were I to alter or forge a government diploma or even misrepresent it, I would be subject to fine and imprisonment so I do not.

Myself, all I really needed to know I learned in kindergarten like how to wipe my nose, be polite, and respect my elders as they must have learned something to get so old. Apparently you were playing hooky when that was taught you.

I did not come her to teach popular science or make new friends.-I came here to discuss atomic rocket science math and
found none able to do the math or physics or even appear interested. There are plenty here who share your character assesment for you to chat with I am sure.

It is indeed a crying shame the man who invented the atomic rocket that can take mankind to the stars appears such an unlikable person with plenty of facial warts and clearly not a man of the fantasy image you would hope and can imagine to provide you with an engine for star travels in some far distant future. I assure you I am a very nice guy once you get to know me though I care less about first impressions.

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

1. The patent office assessment 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 gravitational field equations taught as incomplete in ever major university today and he considered it his greatest work.
5. Scientists in the 1950&#39;s claimed Einstein 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
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&#39;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 scroll down.

Quote..
Gainsville Sun&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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 Manhattan 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 writing. 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&#39;s house insisting to know how to build the atomic bomb.
Einstein then angrily 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 witness account was reported by Mae Freeman in her biography 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 below "iron" was to play a predominate role in Fermi&#39;s fraud and fabricated evidence. As both Fermi and Silizard speculated for years how it could be built, in 1945 as propaganda officer for the Manhattan project, Fermi released their unworking speculation (neutron chain reaction" on how it could be built to the public stated as fact to keep other countries scientist from building one.


reference 7
my atomic bomb design
Genie Bottler

The readers are free to verify any of the above references or ignore them like GNCAvenger habitually does when they do not fit his preconceived notion of what is so.

example: reference 8

The Case Against The Nuclear Atom

[GCNRevenger]

That is correct, I don&#39;t believe you have "dozens" of diplomas or awards of any kind like you attest to since you don&#39;t seem to know what your talking about concerning subjects you claim to be highly schooled in... And if you did, ones you give yourself don&#39;t count as the crime of fraud unless you try to practice medicine or put that on a resume or somthing.

You came here to discuss your engine, and have been shown why your engine cannot do what you claim it can do, and you cannot explain why even though you claim mastery of this subject, without using/stating theories which are.. to be kind.. "absurd" or go on about your take of rumor/myth/legend/fiction about Professor Einstein as the final authority like a nerveous twitch.

And your atomic bomb schematic... you can find ones about the real W-86 warhead online if you tried, and I could make you a simple schematic of a weapon that would probably work if I had the density of Plutonium.

The universal speed limit of 1C for ordinary matter is an established fact, and seeking to contradict it so casually is nothing short of audacious. If it were not true, then our modern physics - which has advanced since Einstein - would not be able to so accuratly predict physical observeable phenominon.

One particularly troubling thing is your questioning of the nuclear model and well known behavior of the atom, which is as established of a fact as scientific facts get. And your source? A pretty graph an a link to a crackpot who knows nothing of chemistry? In fact, I can name you an experiment right now to show him wrong: perform an Atomic Force Microscopy scan of a layer of metal atoms, then perform Rutherfords&#39; particle scattering experiment on the same and compare the radii of the objects detected. The orders-of-magnetude difference would clearly prove the nuclear model... Which leads me to believe that you don&#39;t know anything about them either.

The source of energy and behavior in nuclear reactions has been well known for a very long time, the physics which so accuratly describe our world is based on the experimentally proven 1C speed limit, and you supposed to "know better" than so many other professional physists, chemists, and engineers? That generally annoys me.

[starship1]

You have no math proof of a speed limit at C as scince cannot prove a negative.

You have no experimental proof of a speed limit at C as the particale accelerator experiments had no detector aboard that could even detect a faster than light paticle.

You have no reference to Einstein ever claiming a universal speed limit at C.

My diplomas and schools are real and you have no evidence they are not.

You do not have a leg to stand on.

You do not even have enough education to back your claim with math or even a credible source.

You have nothing but poor teachers as your teachers and their teachers were simply mistaught.

You have no explantion for why your GNC rocket gets only a few thousand times the power of chemical rockets and only .001% the theoretical max power available when most any chemical rocket gets near 100% the theoretical max power.

You do not know what is real physics and what is theoretical physics.

You do not know how to behave when speaking with your academic superior.

You even claimed if Einstein did say objects could travel faster than light he was wrong.

You do have unlimited arogance and very bad manners and a uncanny nack for being wrong a high precentage of the time while you speculate and rant.

You have no identity as you are an anonomous poster so those you libel with your slander cannot face their accuser in a court of law as required by the constitiution of the united states.

You even think the physical distance to the stars change because of the lorentz fitgerald contraction shorting length observed by the rocketman going near light speed so that V=Distance/ ship time is always less than c top fit your preconcieved notion that any value over C must be wrong so distance to the stars must change.

Sorry, my have nothing and know nothing friend, should the rocket man measure the distance to the star at some high velocity near c, his ruler would be shorter from relatiivitic contraction effects so he would measure a longer distance giving him even an even higher velocity that I calulate using the correct realtivity equations. any scool boy should know that all is normal in space and time aboard the moving rocket at any velocity. The relatvistic effects are observer illusion only as gthe change with each differenct observer ato any number of velocities

Nope you clearly are wrong as the physical distance between the stars do not change simply cause some rocket man is going near light speed, so knowing the real distance he as traveled and knowing the star and stop time on his watch he correctly calculates his average velocity to be greater than c wrt the ship.

Knowing his relativity he can also accelerate at one g for 356 days to exceed c wrt earth if the one g accleration is wrt the ship.

But since you do not know relativity theory you would not know that until you plug in the relativistic value for acceleration into Einsteins relativity equation for contstant acceleration. and get faster than light wrt earth.

but since you do demonstrate you have no math abilites that is not going to happen.

Many other atom models besides the static nuclear atom model can explain Rutherfords scattering effect for it is universal law all mass is in contant motion anywhere in the universe at any time including inside the atom, so the static nuclear atom you worship fails to obey universal law. Go back to the basic research and bring me a dynamic atom model with all mass in motion I can endorse sez I and also said Einstein to Neils Bohr in 1912.

He failed and you fail as you are very good at failing having clearly demostrated that fact.

[Sp1ke]

An entertaining rant, Starship1, but GNCRevenger had a good point.

There seems to be a contradiction when one the one hand, you reject the theory of c being a limiting velocity, yet you rely on the time dilation effects that the same theory predicts (and that have been demonstrated).

My understanding of time dilation is that it is an effect on spacetime caused by an object approaching the velocity of light and so it is inextricably linked with the increase in mass that prevents an object every reaching the speed of light without having an infinite source of energy to get it there.

[John L]

Thank you for proving GCNAvengers point, Spike1. You cannot deny SR on one hand and then rely on it on the other.

And furthermore:

1. The patent office assessment of my engine.

The US Patent Office DOES NOT assess your design. They merely determine whether it is original.

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

You seem to be the only person I can find that believes this. You don&#39;t get to just make up your own physics and expect everyone to believe its real.

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

And only you read it? I&#39;ve never found any reference to this book anywhere else. And quoting some woman from a Florida newspaper and assuming it is fact doesn&#39;t make it so.

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

Then why has no one (except you) accepted it as the end all beat all of physics? Why are there thousands of physicists working around the world to develop this theory if Einstein&#39;s worked?

5. Scientists in the 1950&#39;s claimed Einstein 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)

Once again, you seem to be alone in this assumption. Einstein&#39;s contribution that made the atom bomb possible was is matter to energy conversion. This gave other physicists such as Szilard and Fermi a way to calculate the various yeilds of different nuclear reactions that led them to the first atomic pile and chain reaction.

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

The phrase "atom bomb" was not top secret. The Japanese were drinking a drink called the A-Bomb before Hiroshima. Did Jules Verne invent the rocket? the submarine (The Hunley excluded)? Did H.G. Wells invent the Tank, or merely predict it based on the known advance of science at the time?

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).

I&#39;ve already commented on this, but you don&#39;t seem interested in facts. DOE 42 USC 2182 is the patent regulation that allows the US patent office to issue patents related to nuclear technology. It is not an assessment of your design.

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)

The USC says that 42 U.S.C. 2457 is a law that gives teh US Government the right to use your patent without paying you:

c) Patent application:
No patent may be issued to any applicant other than the Administrator for any invention which appears to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (hereafter in this section referred to as the &#39;&#39;Director&#39;&#39 to have significant utility in the conduct of aeronautical and space activities unless the applicant files with the Director, with the application or within thirty days after request therefor by the Director, a written statement executed under oath setting forth the full facts concerning the circumstances under which such invention was made and stating the relationship (if any) of such invention to the performance of any work under any contract of the Administration. Copies of each such statement and the application to which it relates shall be transmitted forthwith by the Director to the Administrator.

Did you register?