Propellantless propulsion, apparently.

I mentioned this before, but superconductors don't work well at microwave frequencies. Most drop out of superconductivity around 500 MHz, iirc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Isn't the proper term "reactionless drive".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MT,

CERN and Fermilab have ran tests on niobium-coated cavities that are superconductive at 4.5K, which are cooled by liquid nitrogen.

I have two or three links to papers concerning the cavities. I do see that a
Lorentz force producing a torque is noted, but I have no idea how well that could translate into a viable propulsive force in a closed system. The links:
http://tesla.desy.de/new_pages/TDR_CD/PartII/chapter02/references/benvenuti2.pdf
Here is the paper where they speak of the Lorentz force:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0308/0308266.pdf
This one is interesting as they propose a high rate pulsed power to eliminate a problem with a magnetic flux developing:
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/public/SRF/1998/SRF980804-06/SRF980804-06.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Lets assume this concept works for a minute, if we may?)

So why not use visible wavelengths on this, anyone see anything preventing that? im thinking of the developement of the MASER here.

 

Huh!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ion drive is way more effective than rockets, chemical or solid. An alternative way of generating thrust in space with lower propellant requirements could be hugely important.
Specific impulse for a typical ion drive is 3000 seconds, about the same as a jet engine, whereas rockets come in between 250 (solid) and 450 (liquid).

It's not rocket science! Oops, it is rocket science.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not if room temperature superconductors are used. Recent research strongly suggests these can be produced within the decade.

 

Duh! No! it's not much of an advancement in terms of an ion drive. Ion drives are already chemical propellentless, hence the voyager mission is at the edge of the solar system with fuel still left.

Yeah really

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Other reaserch also suggest that this grail will never happen, in any case the submition stated a high temperature superconductor. Twat.

 

If you are going to call someone a 'twat' you might try to get your facts right.

Your statement "Ion drives are already chemical propellentless" is ambiguous to the point of being meaningless. What do you imagine they expel from their exhausts if it is not a chemical?

The Voyager craft were most certainly not ion drive vehicles. They were launched by conventional chemical rockets, achieving the bulk of their complex manouvering via gravity assist, with minor contributions from onboard thrusters.

Your remarks on superconductors betray a surprising ignorance on your part. Room temperature superconductors are high temperature superconductors. This makes your ad hominem somewhat sad.

 

Ionized gas! You know as well as I do that for all intents and purposes it is not a chemical propellent. A standard chemical reaction such as hydrogen and oxygen would be spent in a fraction of the time in comparison.

OK I'll give you that one. I never reference anything jsut to post with a bunch of saps.

No that is not so, high temperature super conductors are available now, but room temperature super conductors 'specifically' are little more than a pipe dream such as cold fusion.

 

Of course it's suspect. That's why I said it seemed too good to be true, and why I sought other opinions.

If you could maintain an acceleration of 1G without expelling any mass, you could reach Mars in a matter of days, rather than months. That seems to be quite a significant advance in propulsion technology to me.

Why is this relevant? Whether a rocket ejects gas, subatomic particles or chunks of rock, the principle is the same. If this EM engine is for real, it's entirely different and not subject to the same payload/propellant constraints.

 

Anyone ever hear of conservation of momentum? If it accelerates in space, to conserve momentum, something has to be going the other way.

If it merely opposes an existing force (gravity), without moving, then that's a different story. However, how that'd work is beyond me.

 

Imaplank
this is my last post to you. I won't waste any more time arguing with the terminally stubborn. You are ejecting chemicals that have been ionised. Understand.

And high temeperature supeconductors include high temperature superconductors. If you believe they are a pipe dream then you have researched them just about as well as you have researched everything else you post on.

I had quite a high regard for you before this little exchange. I recalled another thread where someone pointed out than when you lost an argument you took a very "well it's not important" stance. Just look what we have here.
"OK I'll give you that one. I never reference anything jsut to post with a bunch of saps."

The only person you are insulting in all of this is yourself.

 

The statement is actually somewhat meaningful. Chemical propellants get their energy from chemical reactions. Ion drives get their energy from electrical and/or electromagnetic actions.

 

Yes chemicals that have electrons added or taken away to give a charge. Can you understand the difference between ionizing and a chemical reaction? A true chemical propellent would involve a chemical reaction.

Bollocks. Roomtemperature superconductors are a pipe dream. You are on another planet in regard proper physicists if you still fail to see the distinction.

Oh really, I wasn't aware anyone had any respect what so ever for me, This is the first I've heard of such and then only used as a put down.

No! im insulting your impertinent attacks on my comments, which I assume is merely due to a bozzo wish to put down everything I say, because I dont research a single thing I say on this forum and have made 1 or 2 errors in recall of things that are outside my study.

 

Well that's really the point. That's why it's so hard to believe, and so potentially ground-breaking.

What's the difference? Whatever you throw out the back, the principle is the same. I don't understand why you're letting yourself get bogged down in pedantry about the nature of the reaction mass that this new device supposedly does away with. The whole idea is that you would not have to expel any propellant, ionized or otherwise. Not even photons.

 

Glad we agree. Did you read my posts (four before yours) also explaining why it will not work, by a simple analogy anyone can understand?

 

much better than that, I don't rembember for sure but a bout a 1000 times better. I think the best approaches use all the standard cooling mechanisms (such as a collection of atoms in a gas with a sharply defined laser frequency knocking out the "hot ones" form the group as only their Doppler shifted lines absorb, etc.) and in the final stages you turn off the external magnetic field which has been keeping their magnet monents aligned. Most of what little thermal energy is left is spent to disorganize this alignment, getting them down to less than a milla-degree or so from zero.

 

I dreamt about the damm thing....

and i have given it alot of thought.

it would be resonate chamber... must be.

the signal is introduced at the resonate frequency of the cavity, in this way, the wave energy we input... doesnt disapate.. but builds up...
the intensity of the wave form, rises as we add more and more energy.

the waves, bounces back and forth between to the two ends of this resonate cavity, and none of the energy is allowed to exit.

it is known that photons, do apply a push when they strike and object, but the effect is minor..

this process would send the photon back and forth between each side, and due to the shape an inbalance is created, allowed more force to apply to one side.

thus.. the Q.. i believe is the magnyfying factor of the cavity...
higher Q.. results in more intensity of the wave form in the cavity, and thus more force.. in this way,, we might generate and store.. alot.. of watts.. inside the chamber.. which than can do work, due to the force displacement.

and the reason... it would not work well for acceloration...

is we are dealing with waves.. waves which in order to apply force, must be at resonance in the cavity...
as the spaceship speeds up... accelorates... in the direction of the side with more force.... the act of moving... accelorating.. would reduce the overall force which would be applied to the higher force wall in the cavity.
thus.. more acceloration... directly causes a drop in the Q, because the waves are effected in their motion, and the cavity becomes less and less resonate, the Q drops and the over all ability of the system to apply any force is greatly diminished.

thats why they suggest using it to lift, and to make smalll motions to satalites...
since at slow velocities, and without acceloration, the Q can be at maximum, and the force output would be greatest.

fascinating stuff. I feel like building one.

-MT

 

yes.. Adiabatic demagnetization.
fascinating stuff.

-MT

 

You do not understand how ion dirves (at least those with any significant thrust) work. Despite the name, they do not throw out ions (at least not ions of one charge only). If they did the space craft would be come oppositley charged and after traveling some distance from it they would stop and accelerate back to the ship producing no net thrust.

I do not know the details, but in some way what is ejected must be electrically neutral. Perhaps if positive ions (hydrogen nuclei or protons would be best) are thrown out you could also eject an equal nuber of electrons, but most of the electrons would soon combine with the protons to make hydrogen so effectively you are throwing out, as exhaust, fully ionized hydrogen plasma, which cools and becomes hydrogen gas, certaily a "chemical." - the most abundant one in the universe.

I have read of some systems where even before the ion beam leaves the space craft, it is neutralized to make higher than any chemical fuel specific impulse thruster, but again you are throwing out a "chemical" as your exhaust.

 

This is nonsense. Every thing you said about photons banging into the "properly shaped" chamber is also true it it is filled with helium gas atoms - each time they hit the wall they too apply a force to it. Do you really think some shape exists that if you fill a sealed chamber of this shape, with either photons or a gas, it will try to move due to the "internal force imbalance"? As I said, non-sense.