OK, yes it's me again.. I'm gonna make this thread about actual space-travel and new technologies that can actually get us there and back again.. The regular way is to get a big fat engine a large fuel supply and a spinning habit to survive the trip basically..that would be the regular NASA way, I'd think.. You get parts of a ship in orbit using space-shuttle tech and assemble it there.. Much like Lego.. Big fat ion thrusters for the long accelertion and big fat boosters using rocket fuel, for the deceleration into LMO (Low Mars Orbit) Maybe HMO, or whatever keeps the speed of the main vessel up the most.. (deceleration of the main vessel is the costliest, since it has more mass than a lander) (specially since it also need acceleration again to make the trip back..) Now, how can we shave off some of the time and possibly the fuel requirements ? Less mass needed for fuel needs less fuel to accelerate and decelerate, but with less fuel one can decelerate and accelerate less, without increasing the economy of the fuel.. So..increasing thrust pressure is one way to need less fuel to get the same amount of acc/del... Ion engines have great economy when it comes to thrust but provide little in that regard..however since the trip actually takes months, even a very small accel over the duration of a week can still be useful.. 2G accel for a duration of 10 minutes (600 secs x 20 m/s = 12.000 m/s) but.. 0.01 G accel for a week (0.1 m/ss x 604800 = 60.480 m/s) (the kind of accel you can expect from an ion engine) using both will then get you up to 72 km/s It would be great to get more powerfull ion engines btw...since most designs involve a somewhat bulk and short design, and need to propel the ions for a short period into the highest possible speed, but what if a lengthy, less snubby design was used ? More speed from propeled ions means more efficient use of the fuel.. Instead of using a single stage acceleration for the ions, using multi stage.. after the initial speed gain by the regular engine, adding a 'booster' of sorts, to give them an even greater speed upon leaving the propulsion ? granted that would also increase the weight of the construction, but if multiple regular engines would expel all of that into asingle 'funnel' ? And that funnel would use magnetics to give it just that lil bit extra speed before actually going out ? Only a 10% increase in speed at that point would yield significantly better results.. 10% increase in speed increase the result with 21 percent more thrust.. even more so..if there's gonna be a lengthy ship one could use teh entire length of the ship as a matter propulsion unit.. The engines woudl be near the front, and the booster runs throughout the length of the ship.. And instead of using continues thrust from teh ion engines, you'd pulse them.. Then with each 'blow' from the ion engine, the 'funnel' would start guiding the ions through the funnel increasing it's speed even more.. magnetic forces pushing the ions away, so they'd gain speed.. And the nice thing about the added force..it's electric..
Anyone see anything wrong with this picture ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think I do.. Yes, I'm obstinate, self-assumedly all knowing, etc.. But.. Correct me if I'm wrong..(not spelling..that's always gonna be there..) But..if you consider the approach..using a magnetic field to push off on ions.. Isn't the distance to said ions the most important factor when it comes to said magnetic fields ? If one sees a linear accelerator (funnel) and pushes away one ion using that same principle, wouldn't it achieve a much higher velocity ? Hence my last post.. My booster idea would use those ion-engine ions as a resource to push-off on as well.. And also...Xenon ?..there's hardly anything in space..let alone Xenon.. Isn't it better to use a propellant like H2O ? (which is much more readily available ?) H2O can be made into ions by simple electrocution.. The resulting gasses O2 and H2 can be easily seperated doing that process alone.. (everyone who has been highschool knows this..) The resulting H2 can be ionized and has no polair sides when in ion state.. (it's basically a radical proton..) Also I'll do a post next on the polarity and it's effects on ion engines next.. Pushing away a pure proton, has the best effects when using ion thrust.. Not to mention it can be made out of water, which is very common..
Polarity in ion thrust.. (in combo with my idea for using a magnetic proton accelerator) if you know that ions in their 'natural' state always have two sides.. One negative and one positive, but one usually outstripping the other.. If there's one or two or three less electrons, the lacks of protons makes an ion.. But that does not negate the fact that even so, there's still a psoitive and a negative side to each ion.. While one of the sides outstrips the other in greatness/size, they both still exist.. They are actually more like +5-2 rather than +3.. Or in case of Helium +2-1..(with an He- ion) When using close magnetic fields (micro-nano close), the ions in effect change their facing..for instance a negative ion and a negative magnetic field will have it's most negative side turned away from that field, whereas the more positive side turns towards the magnetic field.. The resulting effect being that the positive side is somewhat closer and the negative side a lil further.. Stretching this effect is the fact that the electron cloud is pushed to one side of the ion.. This in turn increases the distance from the magnetic field and allows an even greater pull from the negative magnetic field on the positive core.. The effective push from a magnetic field on an ion is relative to it's distance.. So..when trying to improve more, using polair ions, will negate any such efforts.. But..AH ISH NOT DUMB ! Using non-polair ions, or in my case mere radical protons, this effect is completely nullified.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Using a positive field with protons..just protons.. (from H2O => H2 => H) Common fuel = water, and it's richeness in common single protons.. But..here's my problem.. In my case, the most part of the weight is O2.. The atomic mass of water is 18.. With 2 of that that mass being used as fuel.. The other 16 is the oxygen.. Now. if I can solve the way to convert O into H..well..basically all of the water can be used as fuel.. I already thought up a way to get rid of the unwanted neutrons when releasing the protons from the water.. (lanthanide beta decay...force the excess neutron into the lantanide, and simply wait for it to decay into a proton..which may then be extracted again using another sequence, reducing the lanthanide back to it's original form) one neutron ==> lanthanide ==> beta decay ==> extract proton ==> use as fuel.. But this sounds simplistic.. The theory is ok, but practical..not so much (yet)
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Especially with nano-magnetic fields, the situation in the upper right corner, would yields significantly less results.. In fact..with a very powerfull magnetic field, at nano distnace, stripping the electrons from the entire ion (they get pushed away completely, while the nucleus gets attracted to the magnetic field, and subsequently collides.) yields less than favourable results.. However, the non-polair ion (Radical Hydrogen) has no such problems, when using a positive field..
The use of this method will yield much greater velocities from the escaping ion.. How much exactly ?..umm -clueless- That involves very complex formulas for which I have no desire to complete.. Any math wizards on here can do something like that ? Preferably in a table of nearness to said magnetic field.. 1cm, 1 mm, 1 micrometer, 1 nanometer (I can do the interpolation from there) As for the highest strength of the magnetic field use a tried and true strong source.. I know they can get a proton up to near the speed of light in an accelerator, but I'm unsure as to how long and how much power that would involve.. Although power (electricity) can be found/created in relative abundance in space, in comparison to fuel, it's not unlimited.. Note: Maybe this would be a better reference 1.0E-2 m, 1.0E-3 m, 1.0E-4 m, etc.. (I'd shorthen that into E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5, etc..) (also, if ur gonna do that, plz state the strength and the source of said magnetic field plz..ty..) Nope..I don't have a spreadsheet..
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes, it's a very blocky ship, but it's just for diagrams.. (I'm lousy artist..) Some explanation.. The intial burst of protons is initiated by the ion thruster.. Then upon it's release it enters the funnel.. Each set of rings gets to exert a magnitc force upon it...each in turn.. Now when the distance of the rings is great enough to 'neglect' the resulting magnetic force towards the next proton mass batch, the next mass is released by the ion thruster.. As each proton mass gets flung away from the magnetic rings, it also gains even more speed than it had initially.. (effectively linear accelerator cannon style..) The ship, seen it's length is quite great, can also make use of that length, by using the funnel along most of it's length.. Thus allowing for even greater impulse derived from the fuel.. As stated before a 10% increase in speed yields 21% more impulse.. (thus 10% extra speed from the fuel will negate 20% less fuel) In fact, using a simplified particle accelerator instead of a linear funnel, might be a possibility.. Although I'd use a spiral one for cascading purposes..(not a round one).. A particle accelerator in a spiral shape could lengthen the funnel, allowing for even greater speed and resulting impulse..
in reality, the actual travel and technologies are not the issue. the issue is simply the human element.
Umm..ofc with most tech's it's human element that's fail.. But..since you can't do without it, it's ceteris paribus.. O = Ch . I (O=output, Ch=human constant, I=Input) But still, whereas in most cases the human element can and is a burden to the equation, it sometimes adds benefit. (problem solving skills beyond the scope of any automated algorithms..) And also, to overcome the negative of the human factor, one needs to shorten that negative.. (adding comforts, shortening duration, training, etc..) but that's not what I am trying to do here..I see those as ceteris paribus also.. (or maybe a not-my-concern) I'm tinkerer, but not of minds, but of machine.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now..even with great fuel economy and months of thrust, still the resulting voyage would be lengthy, for which closeness in planetary alignment has been the tried and true way for keeping it as short as possible.. This will remain true in every case.. However, Mars and Earth don't align that many times per year.. In fact (i just read it's only once per two years roughly..) So.. Earth moves around the sun more often than Mars, but still.. With enough thrust widening of the launch window and receive window is possible.. Which in turn allows for more than a single voyage every two years.. It's not perfect, and maybe waiting for each perfect occasion (once every 15 years or so, when the closest distance between Mars and Earth is at a minimum less than 60 million kilometers) is maybe prefered as as a start.. I haiz no such patience.. (this would normally incur an unhappy bunneh, but imma skip that..this time..) hmm.I found an online spreadsheet..now let's see if I can remember anything of that one time I actually used it in the 90's... Back in those days it was easier for me to program a basic for next loop..^^
I'm trying to get a quick reference together, for the purpose of checking outgoing ion speed vs. travel time. (the greater the outgoing ion speed the more thrust, the shorter the duration of the travel..) But..the equations are giving me big fat headache.. Although basically simple enough, wit changing mass over duration of burn..ugh..the headache.. In this example I'm taking 10% fuel..(of total mass) So..basically roughly a 'some' over 2.5% is used for the initial accel towards Mars. Then still the decel is still a lil over 2.5% upon halfway there.. (I'm using linear accel and decel for this..yes it can be better to accel faster and then coast and then decel, but that's only possible with enough thrust.) then upon the return a lil under 2.5% is used for accel again, and even a lil more less then 2.5% is used for the final decel.. The problem is..what's a lil more on the accel first leg ? and the frist decel ? And what's a lil less on the return accel and decel ? And that's where my headache came in.. Is it true or not that I can state that when using 10% fuel for the entire ship (in comparison to mass), I can calculate the average weight of the ship (95%) during that voyage ? Or (and I so hope this is not the case..) will it be a formula that looks like spaghetti, with the transparancy of the toast it's served on and under ?
https://ethercalc.org/a46qu4o7gbzt this is what I have for now..and yes, I had a simple formula for the first 10%.. but that's when it struck me.. (funny earth's gravity type acceleration would only need 21.5 hours of accel and 21.5 decel, and voila Mars..but..umm..we lack thrust..^^') (and hence me wanting to see if that can be improved upon..would be neat..top speed 775 Km/s) I'm thinking for now, we can muster maybe 0.004 G at best... (1/250th of Earth gravity type acceleration.and that would be top speed 50 Km/s after 13.9 DAYS accel..but still..total travel time under 1 month..27.8 days)
To ZMacZ Why do you think a static magnetic field will ionize a neutral atom? And even if it could / did, would not the charged particles just gyrate around the field lines with their Lamor orbit frequency? I think you need to learn some simple physics before making inventions. A plasma will move into a weaker magnetic field if it can. Magnetic / plasma guns are possible, but not very efficient in converting the energy in the discharging capacitor into kinetic energy. I worked with a Conical Electrode Plasma Gun* for quite a few years to accelerate a plasma down the axis of a magnetic solenoid. * Google that
I think i mentioned the fact that it was an ion ? not a neutral atom ? (read first than blah..) And yes, if the distance to a magnetic field of sufficient density is high enough, then yes, I stick with the statement. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If this does NOT state CLEARLY..ION..then I don't know what does.. Also..this is about propulsion, not weapon.. The fact that it uses a linear accelerator, does not make it into a weapon.. (note: It's not exactly linear either...but that's something else altogether.) And I think I know what you mean by Larmor orbits.. But even so, elektron particles will be pushed away by said magetic field, as the core is being drawn toward it..NO denying that.. So..upon really strong magnetic forces, the pull between nucleus and elektrons WILL be overcome by said magnetic field, and the elektrons WILL be expelled while the nucleus ''rams' the source of the magnetic field.. Basic particle physics.. If the forced exerted by the elektron on the nucleus and vice versa is overcome, by the magnetic field it happens..NO denying that.. So..Larmor orbit or not..in a strong enough magnetic field it will happen.. Leaving the nucleus barren from elektrons.. And yes, I do understand physics very well.. The strength that a magnetic field has on any object increases as the object gets closer.. And I'm talking nanometres here.. Specially with large atoms like Xenon, with big electron clouds, the effect described WILL occur.. It may not be great enough to completely push the elektrons away, but deformation of the Larmor orbits will happen..the greater the field strength the greater the deformation.. And I'm now on a limb, but stating that the orbits' centers will start occuring far outside the center of the atom because of this effect, according to my opinion at this time.. When the total of forces involved that will try and keep the elektrons in any Larmor orbit, get outstripped by the magnetic force applied by the magnetic field..bye bye elektrons.. My statement does NOT however involve the creation of ions from neutral matter in this way.. It only states that ion charge shift (or more by ur words, Larmor-center-of-orbit shifts, as well as changing the radius of said orbit and possibly speed) will occur, when using polair ions in magnetic fields. And with polair ions I mean ions that have a side..the only one not being a polair ion being a radical proton..(H)..since every other atom HAS elektrons in which this will occur.. (final edit)
I was working in the controled fusion effort, not any "weapon." You are being mislead by the term "gun" Those plasma acclerators are also called: conical theta-pinch guns. We had a magnetic mirror confinement machine. Plan was to very briefly weaken the field at one end and inject the plasma from the gun into it along their mutual axis and magnetically close that end before the plasma could bounce off the still strong field end. Note plasmas can be accelerated but not isolated ions by magnetic fields. Ions (or electrons) will just gyrate around the field lines at their respective Lamor frequencies. To get sustained thrust you must not just eject positive ions. Soon the developing negatively charged space craft will pull them back making zero net thrust. A plasma gun, with years of technology development is the best approach for large thrust. You could eject equal numbers of electrons and ions, using two different linear accelerators, but I strongly doubt the net efficiency would improve for any given level of thrust. These conical guns make a large circular loop current*(in the theta direction) that "pinches" down but as the field is weaker at one end than the other, the plasma, escaping the magnetic field is accellerated away from the gun. All this into a vacuum with a "puff" of gas into the gun axis just before the capacitor discharges. * It is the "secondary" of a single turn primary that has peak current of several thousands of amps. The capacitor, typically charged to 20,000 volts, is very low inductance design so can fully discharge in a millisecond. Magnetic mirror machines always leak as some confined ions (and electrons) will scatter into the axial direction and escape. PS What statement are you "sticking by"?
Umm..those I have not yet heard of.. It sounds like plasma containment..through the use of strong magnetic fields.. Well..I'm unsure if this is what you mean, but If you wanna create a plasma and then store it.. 1) create vacuum.. 2) create magnetic fields that repel said ions.. 3) upon having don this, add more ions.. 4) How ? by starting to create a magnetic field from the back of the ions, while maintaining repulsion (through additional magnetic fields throught the conduit..) 5) lower the magnetic field that is at the end of the conduit...so the plams won't be repelled by part of the containment sphere, keep increasing the magtic field from the back, so it outstrips the rest, forcing the plamsa to join the rest of the plasma within the containment.. 6) once the plasma enters the containment, re-erect the magetic field that normally seals of the containment. But..I could be mistaken.. Also, in ur case, when using 'complete' ions (with elektron clouds) expect trouble.. for instance, when elektros ar pushed inward all at teh same time, they might escpae one atom and attach to another, turning parts or ur precious plasma back into neutrals while ions with less elektrons will be created in a sphere around the (partially turned) neutrals.. This will undoubtly mak ur plan a fial, but will yield interesting basis for my theory.. So..you got my vote, eitehr way..you great plasma containment, or my theory gets founded.. Great science either way.. I think the success of plamsa containment does not involve maxed out magnetic fields, but using just enough to keep it contained..anything more will incur the turning effect..
The turning effect.. It's not only caused by the magnetic field, but also by heat and other energies that might allow an elektron to temporarily overcome it's attraction to a nucleus.. Upon that temp overcome, it MAY (unproven) attach itself to another nucleus, in the plasma container.. Changing the ions within ur containment.. or at least mixing them.. Whether or not the situation gets reversed upon release of said plasma is another matter altogether..
Also..if ur containment ever works..you WILL have advanced science another step towards better propulsion, of that I'm sure.. Plasma containment can be of great use.. Specially if engine designs rely on the fact that the plasma is generated by batch, but only used in linear fashion.. (batch 1 gram..use by engine 0.1 gram per sec..)
Also..if at all possible..if nucleae are stripped entirely from their elektrons and storable as such, other things are possible..trying to extract one proton for instance.. And that would be of immense benefit to my plans.. The ability to extract single protons for fuel from complex nucleae, and subsequently also using the neutrons that are left for forced beta decay into more protons, which would then make all of the mass particles (protons and neutrons) available for use as fuel... Awesome.. So..although I do not agree with all you said, I do hope you'll succeed in creating plasma containment.. it would also have benefits to know wheter or not radical protons CAN be stored.. Since radical protons do not have any elektrons, those would survive ur storage, even if larger ions with elektronclouds would not, as is.. So..tell me about the outcomes ? And if possible, if it fails, what happened..thanx..
Also..note that in the diagram about Ion Charge shift, that in the upper right corner, I did not redraw the orbits..I'm not an artist.. but in words, it's simple..the orbits centers will be away from the center of the nucleus.. and possibly not look much like orbits at all any more..but the latter is pure speculation..
With that I mean that the human factor is alway present.. Even when ppl think it is not.. But that goes for anything man-made.. Although the human factor will be positive at times and negative in others, even when it involves a next to exact same situation, meaning variable outocome, this does not enter into it atm.. can someone step on the berak if he needed the accelerator ? yes..that can always happen.. But that doesn't mean the car engine design will be different.. In fact, because of human error, design changes ARE being added like airbags.. But the engine stays the same.. Ofc, for a spaceship that will have fuel use repercussions.. and before we end up with butterfly effect etc..it's just my way of saying, in the design of the engine, the human element won't change it much at all.. (well..unless you talk about defectiveradition shielding roasting everyone on board..) (so..yeah, in case of nuclear radiation involved yes..rad shield is nice..but will also add weight..etc...etc..etc..) (still won't change the engine unless it uses nuclear reactions releasing neutrons or other stuff that'll affect the crew..) ugh..
