We are confining a neutral highly conductive plasma in controlled fusion efforts, not ions - they only gyrate around field lines. A plasma is diamagnetic - is pushed to weaker field areas. The work I did in this field was 40+ years ago. Back in the early days when all thought it would be relatively simple to confine a highly conductive hot plasma. I worked at APL/JHU and the US Navy sponsored the project for about a decade, then canceled its funding as it became clear their next aircraft carrier would not be fusion powered.* They did not expect our small group (four physics Ph.D.s) to solve the problem. They only wanted us to have "hands on" experience, so later when it came time to place an order for a fusion powered aircraft carrier we could, as APL employees often did, keep an eye on their contractors for them. Naval officer do not want to be stuck in DC more than a couple of years – bad for their careers, so uses APL who perfected the proximity fuse in WWII, which save the Pacific fleet from the kamikaze fighters crashing into capital ships. They have generously funded APL for more than 70 years now and APL has invented and managed dozens of Naval projects. * The solution to the controlled fussion problem is still "only a decade away" as it has been for six decades now.
Wrong. And it's strange that you only decide to mention that it's "not what you're working on" now that you've been shown to be full of sh*t. Then why did YOU bring up the subject of rocket boosters? And the objections to your "increased pressure" are still valid whatever thrust you're using.
Ok... Tada ! "Cyclotrons reach an energy limit because of relativistic effects whereby the particles effectively become more massive, so that their cyclotron frequency drops out of synch with the accelerating RF. Therefore, simple cyclotrons can accelerate protons only to an energy of around 15 million electron volts (15 MeV, corresponding to a speed of roughly 10% of c)," Protons..being accelerated to 30.000 Km/sec..back in 1932..and yes I was wrong.. It does NOT use magnetic fields..it uses RF... but that's done by electrics..so..no big deal.. The only thing that remains in my case, is to convert oxygen into protons.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 30.000 Km/s..now if that can be used for ion thrust, I'm in the clear, no matter how you bash.. ttyl..I'll check back in later..
I think the volume of protons must be really small, but maybe that can be helped.. Since I only need a fraction of the speed...
Every thing wrong again! There is a magnet that makes the charged particle curve. In fact the magnetic field strength must increase as the particle traveling at near the speed of light gains mass. This, I belive, was the first experimenatal proof that the mass increases. The frequency of the electric field across the gaps hardly changes as both the radius of curvature and time to make a circuit is almost constant but the required magnetic field can even tripple.
Your long error filled posts, ZMacZ are not impressing anyone. Some times they show you lie. For example in post39 you said: "I do know how to integrate one formula into another.." No one who knows anything about integration would not say that as one does not integrate "formulae or functions." You integrate expressions, and your results are not "formulae or functions" either. They are expresions or in the case of definite intergals, values.
I wonder if the natural radiation of the sun can be used as an alternate to RF ? I mean the sun emits all kinds of radiation..So can there be a useful one in there that can be used by a cyclotron ? Not needing that much power would be even better..
I have a problem with language like as I prefer to use the same phenomenon as an illustration of a more general breakdown of the Newtonian formula: \(\vec{F} = m \vec{a}\). Indeed for particle in motion parallel to the force, as measured in the lab frame, we have \(\vec{F}_{\parallel} = \left( 1 - \left( \frac{\vec{v}}{c} \right)^2 \right)^{-\frac{3}{2}} m_0 \vec{a}\) while for a perpendicular force, we have \(\vec{F}_{\perp} = \left( 1 - \left( \frac{\vec{v}}{c} \right)^2 \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} m_0 \vec{a}\). So if you consider it absurd to describe the mass of a particle as different depending on which direction you are pushing it, as I do, I think the nomenclature of velocity-dependent mass is flawed, and prefer to use always the rest mass as the "mass of the particle" in Special Relativity. But on the specific point that cyclotron frequency not changing as particles approach the limiting speed of c, it's a fair point. It somewhat understates the technological effort to raise a simple cyclotron which can be made in a garage with relatively simple RF frequency generator, constant magnet current, and a vacuum chamber with a synchrotron which is better suited to make highly relativistic particles. Should this page be moved to Free Thoughts, because while I see plenty of question marks, I don't see any engagement on prompted replies.
Ok..it's cyclotron, not a synchrocyclotron, nor an isochronous cyclotron..which means RF stays the same..read the wikipedia article if you don't believe me.. (I just did..) it does NOT go near the speed of light..that's one of the others..this is a mere regular cyclotron, max pseed 30.000 Km/s.. Also.. Now You are saying that the fields involved ARE being generated using magnetics..and the wikipedia article says so too.. Although not using direct magnetics, still..magnetics are used..and you just said a couple post ago, that magnetics were NOT involved with teh guiding of the protons (my radical H's..) and yet they are.. So..I trust the wikipedia, and simply take that old machine as proof that protons CAN be guided using magnetics (although indirectly), and that my plan for using protons (Hydrogen ions) as masses involved for the engine is very possible.. Ah..and you call me a liar ? Simply cuz I stated something the wrong way ?..taking one variable from one formula and rewritting the formula in such a manner that you get the leftover of said formula on one side of the equal, so you can use it to substitute said variable in another formula ? That IS what you mean right ? Well..if not..idc..ur wise..and stuck here trying to keep others from working on their ideas...instead of having ur own..
I have no idea what you just said....that's where I think you are SOO much better equipped to do that math stuff.. Theoretical stuff gives me headaches.. Anyway, the cyclotron I mentioned has regular properties, and only goes up to 30.000Km/s (at least that's what I just read..) That is a so much higher speed for the protons than I need, so even 1932 tech as a basis for reference in my case is useful.. I do have one question however..if relativistic mass increases does the momentum of that particle also increase ? And as a result the applied force against it ?..thanx.. (and as a result of that the resulting counterforce ?)
Right now I'd use a design similar to a cyclotron (old, regular, no variable field etc), as a basis for a proton based thruster (and in this may have yet again used the wrong word for this).. Instead of taking minute quantities of protons up to 30.000Km/s, I'd settle for taking a large quantity up to 30 Km/s.. Would that require less magnetic field strength and therefore less electricity ? Also, does that make that the resulting requirements for the magnets is also reduced (less metal involved ? less heavy ?) I'm gonna read up on that for a while now.. (have fun in the meantime saying "wrong.wrong"..pour ur heart out on here..idc..) I'm also gonna start using a thrust vs. engine weight ratio... (it's useless if the engine is really heavy and the thrust very small..)
Ok..back to work on my general reference card.. I finally found a simple formula to do the spreadsheet.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And it's perfect for my purposes.. Now at least I can get something done..-sigh- I hope this is correct for non-relativistic uses of proton thrust..
If you could actually integrate rather than lie by claiming you can, you would not need to put the data in a spread sheet.
Ok then..tell me..what do you mean by integrate ? Or do I need to Google it ? And what's ur problem with using a spreadsheet to get a neat table ? I said before, I don't like to do math unless I really can't avoid it..
Ok smarthiny..I looked up the translation.... And yes I can do integrals.. And does that mean I wanna do that EVERY time something changes ?..hell no.. And maybe you should say calculus for reference.. Also when looking up formula's on the Net they sometimes appear exactly foreign to me.. In which acse I have to first figure out which one to use etc..and that's even more work.. So..no..you can go calculus ur hiny off, showing everyone that you can do what any high-school ppl can do..
Ionizing radiation is composed of particles with significant momentum relative to the few eV/c that characterize the dynamics of electron orbitals, so this looks like a distinction without a difference.
Spread sheets are very useful. I like and use them; However, when the data being put into them is for specific points in time (with finite intervals between each), any averaging or summation of that data is just a lower accuracy approximation to what integrating the function of time would accurately give. The only reason I mentioned integration was your terminology when claiming to know how to do it* was such than no one who actually knew anything about integration would never state their claim as you did.* Are you a kid in a poor high school that does not even teach differential calculus much less the inverse, which is integral calculus? (And often much harder to do - some times only by numerical methods, which are like your spread sheets, with small error.) We all known you know little physics, and make up a lot, have huge ego so think you are suggesting great ideas, but I thought it worth while to point out that you also lie as well as work from a base of great ignorance. BTW Do you still think passing an exhaust stream thru a funnel will increase the thrust it gives to a rocket ship? * Here is your claim, from post 39: "I do know how to integrate one formula into another..."
I am 99+% sure you know that a cyclotron accelerates charged particles, so must also make radiation. Many were built for this reason as that radiation has many uses, including medical ones. I note this only as some less well informed than you, may be mislead by your "Not radiation." BTW it is sort of interesting to think about what meaning: "Accelerate radiation" could even have. My best guess is a laser beam, headed up away for earth's surface, could be said to be accelerated as the index of refraction drops. It gets more "red shift" than leaving the gravity field provides.
