anyways..back on topic for my topic.. Anyone checked out that small table I made ? well..the problem is still there, and I want a simple formula that approximates the velocity of said fuel particles when they leave the propulsion.. (as that is the only thing that matters when it comes to thrust in space..) The table is to be used for quick reference on attainable speed using said velocity... I did fill the first column under the 10% fuel section with the result of sqr (19 * top speed * top speed), but I forgot that you don't use 10% of the fuel on a single acceleration/decel...that would make the fuel of the entire voyage about 40% total.. hey..it was late..^^
Ok then...then what part of the human element do you mean ? Ppl are unwilling to go on such a ship ? Someone doesn't wanna fit the bill ? You think they're gonna leave the water boiler on too long ? (there's no alcohol allowed while flying the spaceship..) Explain a lil more plz.. But even so...the tech may already be sufficient, but that's no reason NOT to improve it.. (if that's the case, we'd all be driving Ford-T's up to this day..)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I want a simple formula that approximates the velocity of said fuel particles when they leave the propulsion.. (as that is the only thing that matters when it comes to thrust in space..) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So..increasing thrust pressure is one way to need less fuel to get the same amount of acc/del... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah yes..I see the contradiction.. Increasing thrust pressure, increases the speed at which the fuel particles leave the exhaust.. oh wait..that's not a contradiction.. And both remain true.. Stop trying to sound so very knowledgeable, cuz you obviously don't grab the connection.. Thrust pressure <===> speed of fuel particles when leaving exhaust. It's like farting in space..when you have enough gas within, and you aim well enough, you end up on Mars...doesn't mean I wanna travel ur way.. Instead of using pressure there's other ways like magnetics to push off on particles.. That's called an ion thruster.. And my 'funnel' would allow for greater speed of the particles, and thus more force being applied to those particles...the resulting counter force pushes the ship forward.. Yes..there's expulsion of particles (mass) from the ship, so they both boil down to the same principle, but one is more fuel efficient than the other, and will save time..same amount of fuel, but with better use ==> greater speed ==> less time.. Shortening the trip, also alleviates the human factor, since there's less time in space, and thus less radiation, psychological effects etc.. So..better engine, not just for shorter trip, but also for preserving ppl on board..
I don't need to try. No it's not. Pressure is not speed nor is speed pressure. You are - as usual - talking nonsense. Start here and here.
Ok..that's not an explanation... one last time..what you mean with the human element.. (or r u just trolling ?) BRAVO !!! Now talk to NASA, and tell them they don't need greater pressure from their booster rockets cuz according to you, it doesn't make any difference in speed at all !! Hurray, we can now get to Mars without them anyway.. I'm sure the speed at which we travel there overall won't change..uh-uh.. They're gonna be just as impressed as I am, right now.. Ok..just in case I'm so clueless.. When using rocket boosters.. Greater pressure in thrust ==>> greater speed derived from thrust (True/False) When using ion engine.. Greater speed of the fuel particles upon leaving exhaust==>> greater speed derived (True/False) Now..in my view that would be TRUE and TRUE.. Ur reply if you plz.. And post it on Nasa as well.. But..ur absolutely correct when saying "pressure =/= speed"..- claps.. When I say there's a connection you insert equal sign..-claps again.. Now let's see ur reply with True or False, and let's see if I'll start clapping again.. <==> (direct) relation.. = equal to.. =/= not equal to.. or.. <==> =/= = ..... True or False..(given my definitions).. Hint: True..
I see you've chosen to invent "facts" rather than read the links. Correct in general. Booster rockets are used in atmosphere - not in space. To quote from one of the links you didn't read (or didn't understand) "Maximum efficiency for a rocket engine is achieved by maximising the momentum contribution of the equation without incurring penalties from over expanding the exhaust. This occurs when Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!." Since you're talking mainly about travel in vacuum then Pamb is effectively 0. Any increase of STATIC pressure at the plane of the exhaust nozzle (Pe) will reduce the efficiency of the system The term "pressure in thrust" is meaningless. Nothing to do with "pressure".
what is meant by the human element is that, it is getting the human too or from vast distances without being exposed to radiation or life expectancy of the duration of travel, along with communications and other such-es as things like this. again in reality, the actual travel and technologies are not the issue. the issue is simply the human element. humanity has to build a ship with all of earth's resources in-order for humans to be part of this adventure.
Ah..finally.. And yes, I do know that going on a voyage this long will incur radiation etc.. But..I'm currently on the engine..not the stuff needed elsewhere.. Since the length of the voyage also matters in stuff like radiation shielding (thickness durability) I'd like to see the voyage happen faster rather than slower.. This in turn would need less ship mass for life support, and shielding etc.. Hence me concentrating on the engine.. And yes, although ur first statement now makes sense, still, the duration of the voyage shortened, means human factor less important.. But like I said before, lifesupport, etc are next..now is only the engine and it's efficiency..
To Dywyddyr... I give up, you win... If you can't even do True/False...well..sowwies..can't help you.... Ur complete lack of understanding kinda saddens me.. "I see you've chosen to invent "facts" rather than read the links." ==> I was commenting on ur statement.. If you can't read back..well..not my problem.. Booster rockets are not used in space..yes... But I'm pretty sure that such things or something similar will be used to get some initial speed going first.. (and just in case you don't understand..I mean a regular thrust..not ion..) "This occurs when Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!." Since you're talking mainly about travel in vacuum then Pamb is effectively 0. Any increase of STATIC pressure at the plane of the exhaust nozzle (Pe) will reduce the efficiency of the system." If that's ur way of impressing me with a formula, I think you shoulda tried what I came up with last night.. Now that was horror..yawn.. I'm pretty sure that the pressure that is used to expel gas (whether or not by means of combustion) is relevvant to the speed gain, over the entire fuel package.. Whether or not it is true if lower pressure yields more speed over the entire package, then right now I must say that that I don't know.. However..with greater pressure the velocity of the escaping gas is greater, so the gain in speed must also be greater.. if this is NOT true, I'd really wanna know why, cuz that makes no sense to me.. Thrust..creating pressure through combustion and then releasing it to gain momentum ? nah..never heard of it.. You appear to misquoe however..I never said regular engine = ion engine.. Nor that an ion engine uses pressure..but hey..it's not ur fault.. And indeed..an ion engine has nothing to do with pressure ! Bravo..one score for you..you actually got it right.. thrust also..read here..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust you like links..so that's one for you.. this one may help too..it's got pictures.. http://www.tutorvista.com/content/science/science-i/gravitation/thrust-pressure.php you can see under Activity II, that there's a vewwy tineh relation between pressure and thrust.. but don't strain urself.. The thing is..copying and pasting rebuttals of ur words are time consuming and all you do is state more 'wisdom'.. If ur wisdom is what rules the world, well..we can do with a new textbook.. The people that do try and see stuff, they'll know what I mean.. So..don't bother commenting again plz..
Maybe it won't matter at all.. Really.. And none of the stuff we have done on here ever matters.. But..that doesn't prevent stuff from being invented or improved.. Even dumb ideas sometimes have benefit, and sometimes the smartest ideas are useless.. The forum is where you can express it.. And only time can tell how foolish or how smart it really was.. (and yes..we might all be dead by then..) (but Leonardo da Vinci's plane was a great idea..it was only the fact that he didn't know how to construct it correctly that made him look foolish..) (so..yeah..maybe I'm crazy, nuts or simply inept...but that won't stop me from trying to come up with something good..) (who knows..in 100 years from now there'll be plaques of my avi everywhere..whereas I myself am long forgotten..) ( I dunno..idc..i have a nice idea, and I'm working on it..)
hmm..a full page with nothing usefull.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! nothing of value.. anyways..where was I before the bashing started ? Yes I was asking if someone had a simple formula. Magnetic fields of vessel.. Pushing matter away from the vessel in stages..(see the diagram in the first page) Basically using ion thrust, and subsequently being funneled into a linear accelerator..allowing for even more momentum gain.. (resulting in momentum gain for host vessel) The vessel needs to reach 2.000 m/ss, using only 2.5% of it's total mass over time.. (so not one big chunk but small amounts over very long duration..) Now..what is the speed from each piece of mass as it leaves the exhaust ? The problem herein for me is not taking 2.5% of the mass and calculate the resulting speed of the needed momentum gain.. The problem is that as the vessel expends mass (fuel) it gets lighter while the 'burn' happens. This in turn will result in mass (fuel) leftover upon ending the trip, which may have been used to get more speed instead of being carried along, and sitting useless.. If the vessel has 10% of it's entire mass as fuel, the first leg would be more costly than the last.. This is more and more true as the amount of fuel increases (40% for instance..) During this, the first leg would optimally use a lil over 2.5% as the vessel is still at it's heaviest.. the second leg, decel upon reaching halfway, would also use a lil over 2.5%.. Then upon return from Mars, the first leg would be a lil less than 2.5%.. While the final decel would use the least amount of fuel, being even smaller than the third.. How do I put that in a formula ? Can I simply average that weight ? and will the over 2.5% balance out with the less 2.5% on the return trip of each leg ? (and with leg I mean each accel and decel phase).. (So going to Mars is like 4 legs..one accel, one decel, going to Mars, and one accel and decel on return to Earth.) Since the ion engine and it's 'booster' linear accelerator, wil be at 100%, the resulting speed gain, on the way to Mars, will also be smaller, since the vessel is still at it's heaviest.. The return trip, will be opposite, since the vessel will be lightest.. And there lies my problem..all factors combined make me unsure.. (and I'd hate to make a quick reference that's based on bad calculation..) (I hate complex math...one thing wrong, and poof...we're out of gas in the middle of space..) (that's why I love computers..when they calculate stuff, they always get it right, barring programming error..) (I used to have the same problem in highschool..always getting that B...simply for missing a minus, a minor oversight or stuff like that..) (my mind goes too fast for my hands, so when I think and my hands write or type, I skip stuff or miss stuff..) The show in my head is perfect, but putting it in writing is another matter..
No it is already apparent that you don't know much. For example going faster to Mars can increase the total radiation damage the humans received as there are hydrogen atoms (and other matter) in space that then become high energy particles slamming into your craft, making secondary ionizing particles. I. e. there is an optimum speed for least radiation damage. You still seem to think a static magnetic field, if strong enough, will accelerate charged particle when all it will do the make their lamor gyration radius smaller. No you "can not average the weight" You need to write down the forces, mass used, etc. as a function of time and integrate it, but I bet you do not know how to integrate. (I am asssuming your math skills are on about the same level as your knowledge of physics.) Generally speaking a "funnel" placed in a kinetic energy stream will reduce the net thrust of that kinetic energy stream as there are retarding forces on the funnel's walls, even if those walls are only magnetic fields. You can demonstrate this with a funnel placed in front of a water hose's stream. (Let the stream push against a hanging mass, with and without the funnel.)
In any case..the table I am working on links the speed of the mass leaving the ship, directly to the speed needed at exhaust to acquire needed acceleration.. That way, I can tell if the engine and the 'funnel' are at the performanc level required easily..
You may well be "pretty sure". But you're wrong. And that's the entire problem in a nutshell: you don't know but you keep spouting crap. And... wrong again. If you'd read the links I gave that would have been a start. I don't need it - you, however, do. Yep, another example you not looking at the subject beyond your mistaken preconceptions. "Copy and pasting"? Because actually using the quote function is also beyond you?a And wrong again - what a surprise. I know what I'm talking about BECAUSE I've "tried and done this stuff". But at no stage did I make shit up and try to impose that on reality.
Hmm..well..on a positive note..you at least answered with something a lil more usefull.. "No you can't average", which yes, makes my worst nightmare come true.. And yes, ur right about the math skill being lousy..although I do know how to integrate one formula into another.. On the other hand....you also say that a magnetic field does not push the ions away.. Also..although theoretcially there's optimal speed for getting there without secondary effects, this also means slower.. So..yeah...slower = less damage...but that's not new..(micrometorites for instance mean more damage at higher speed..) I'm saying theoretically in the first cuz although it sounds better, it also makes the voyage that much longer.. Wouldn't it make sense, in case those hydrogen atoms actually are in ion state already, to try and capture them and use them as fuel too ? Also..2 Km/sec would top speed be..does that have such a great effect on the state of the hydrogen atoms one encounters ? (btw..if a magentic feild does not push ions away, then what are you using for containment ?)
Copy and pasted...wow..that was helpfull.. So..basically we're back at that discussion..which involves a subject that is SOO not a part fo what I was working on.. Lemme see...time consuming rebuttal...or ignore..hmm..brainer.. ( I never wanted to use a rocketbooster nor regular thrust...)
