Proven principle: "Rockets not carrying fuel" and the space tower.

Dear tadchem:

On Feb 19, 3:30*am, tadchem wrote:
On Feb 18, 3:23*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
....
*I suggested in the posts on that thread of using
pressurized fluid, liquid or gas, supplied from the
ground to provide propulsion to a
....
Fluid Motion: JetLev-Flyer H2O-Propelled Jet Pack
....
Water-Jet Pack Patented: The Jet Ski of 2020?
....

You could also use it as a drought-buster. *You
would only need to get up a few miles.
;-)

The water would serve to cool the Earth, and simultaneously destroy
much of the ozone layer. Water vapor both blocks one path of ozone
production (via temporary storage of an oxygen atom on a nitrogen
molecule), and increases ozone's decay via production of H2O2. Not a
good solution.

David A. Smith

Robert Clark wrote, On 2/18/2009 3:23 PM:
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.mech.fluids, sci.engr.mech,
sci.space.policy
From: "Robert Clark"
Date: 28 Mar 2005 12:52:00 -0800
Subject: "Rockets not carrying fuel" and the space tower.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...0c8a53330a521a

I suggested in the posts on that thread of using pressurized fluid,
liquid or gas, supplied from the ground to provide propulsion to a
rocket and/or to support a tower to high altitude. The *principle*
behind this of using pressurized fluid supplied from the ground to
provide the thrust has now been demonstrated, if not to high altitude:

Fluid Motion: JetLev-Flyer H2O-Propelled Jet Pack
By Chuck Squatriglia
February 02, 2009 | 5:02:03 PM
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2009/02/fluid-motion--.html

James Bond-style jetpack powered by high-pressure water invented.
A German entrepreneur, Hermann Ramke, has invented a James Bond-like
jetpack powered by high-pressure water, called the JetLev-Flyer.
Last Updated: 10:35AM GMT 17 Feb 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-invented.html

The patent on the device is described he

Water-Jet Pack Patented: The Jet Ski of 2020?
By Rob Beschizza
August 27, 2007 | 7:40:28 PM
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/0...jet-pack-.html

Hmmm, I wonder where they got the idea for this from ...


Bob Clark

I like the idea of rockets that don't carry fuel. Fuel and fuel tanks
are heavy; its best to leave them on the ground.

The real trick would be to open a small wormhole. Put one entrance on
the ground near your fuel supply. Put the end of the wormhole on your
spaceship near the engines. Then simply feed the fuel from the ground
directly to the engines. No hoses!

This system would work even better for inter-stellar flights. You could
send a tritium/deuterium mixture to run a fusion engine. Or better yet,
sent alternating burst of matter and anti-matter for engines with an
extra kick!

I might patent this idea. Does anyone know where I can buy a wormhole? I
don't need a new one; I could get by with a used wormhole.

--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)

Paul O wrote:
:
:I like the idea of rockets that don't carry fuel. Fuel and fuel tanks
:are heavy; its best to leave them on the ground.
:
:The real trick would be to open a small wormhole. Put one entrance on
:the ground near your fuel supply. Put the end of the wormhole on your
:spaceship near the engines. Then simply feed the fuel from the ground
:directly to the engines. No hoses!
:
:This system would work even better for inter-stellar flights. You could
:send a tritium/deuterium mixture to run a fusion engine. Or better yet,
:sent alternating burst of matter and anti-matter for engines with an
:extra kick!
:
:I might patent this idea. Does anyone know where I can buy a wormhole? I
:don't need a new one; I could get by with a used wormhole.
:

Gee, why not just make a slightly bigger wormhole and just toss the
ship through it? No fuel required.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Dear Fred J. McCall:

On Feb 19, 8:39*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
....
Gee, why not just make a slightly bigger wormhole
and just toss the ship through it? *No fuel required.

Too much atmosphere loss. Also, this places the Earth well within the
Roche limit of the singularity. For short duration, it might no break
Earth apart, but somebody somewhere will die.

David A. Smith

dlzc wrote:

ear Fred J. McCall:
:
:On Feb 19, 8:39*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:...
: Gee, why not just make a slightly bigger wormhole
: and just toss the ship through it? *No fuel required.
:
:Too much atmosphere loss. Also, this places the Earth well within the
:Roche limit of the singularity. For short duration, it might no break
:Earth apart, but somebody somewhere will die.
:

So you have the same problem using one to transport fuel, then....


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Feb 19, 3:42*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Feb 18, 8:29 pm, Brian Whatcott wrote:



Robert Clark wrote:
...
Fluid Motion: JetLev-Flyer H2O-Propelled Jet Pack
By Chuck Squatriglia
February 02, 2009 | 5:02:03 PM
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2009/02/fluid-motion--.html
...
* *Hmmm, I wonder where they got the idea for this from ...

* * * *Bob Clark

Reminds me of the Mythbusters episode which set out to replicate
* a uTube exploit: raising a car using fire truck hoses.
* The fearless MB gang had to take the engine out, but they did it.
25 ft up or so, and reasonably stable

Brian W

*Thanks for that info:

* Hovering car *.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-2BN6FLDjA

Myth Busters-Full size firehose car.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFEOctt9-UE

*Actually, the fire hoses reminded me of a possible application - as a
rescue platform to the high upper floors of skyscrapers. It could also
be used to deliver water to fight the fires at the high upper floors.
*However, using water would be dropping quite large amounts of water
down below and at high pressure, possibly dangerously to those below.
This might be solved just be using pumps on the ground that used
compressed air instead of water. To get the high pressures and volume
of air required would require quite large and heavy pumps so these
would, likely, still have to stay on the ground, though air is
ubiquitous unlike the water case.
*If we did use water, could the water be recycled? What I'm thinking
of is encasing the hose(s) in a wider shroud so that the water is not
lost, and can be recycled. But what I'm puzzling about is whether
capturing this water will make you lose the upward lifting force. For
the water coming down will be hitting on the shroud with a downwards
force component which will tend to want to bring the structure
downwards. Perhaps just making the shroud wide enough so that
relatively little of the water hits the sides would work.
*Another possible solution might be to have the hose(s) rising in the
form of an arch. Is it possible to make the arch stay aloft if no
water is actually exiting higher up as with the jet packs? If you have
a horizontal water pipe with an elbow bend you can certainly provide a
force pushing radially outward from the elbow against a wall for
example. If you directed instead the water in the pipe or hose upwards
at an angle could you with sufficiently high pressure get the pipe or
hose to stay in the vertical arch orientation? I'm thinking it would
be unstable because as soon as it tended to lean over, there be
nothing to prevent if from further toppling over, unlike when there
are directional jets at the top of the structure. But imagine the
material were rigid as with a pipe. The pressure of the water is
provided at the bottom and the direction it is squirted into the pipe
can also be altered. If the pipe were short then squirting the water
in a direction opposite to the one it is falling since it is rigid
would tend to counteract the fall. But we are imaging a very long pipe
(hose). There would be long lever arm for the part that is falling and
a quite short one at the bottom which is provided for a force to
counteract the fall. The required force of the water to counteract the
fall might then be impractically large.
*If we made the pipe be flexibly jointed all along its length, could
we have directional nozzles inside the pipe at each joint to direct a
counteracting force of water, still only inside the pipe, that only
had to do this for the section of the pipe directly above it?

* * *Bob Clark

You know that new outdoor advertising method that has an air blown
dancing puppet outside a store? They are called "air dancers":

I'm Hypnotized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE9DG...eature=related

Here, air that is constrained to lie within a tube supports the tube
vertically by being blown vertically at high speed. If the air blower
is tipped at an angle the "dancer" will even be supported at an angle.
Now, imagine your ordinary garden hose. If you point it upwards but
at an angle the water flow will come out in a parabolic arc. Then if
you had a very lightweight, flexible material wrapped in a tube shape
attached to the end of the hose the water should still be able to
support the weight of the lightweight tube which should then also
follow the parabolic arc. I'm thinking of some material like
polyethylene, which is used to make plastic bags. The reason why you
don't see this normally with your garden hose is because it is too
heavy to be supported by the water flow for any appreciable distance.
But at a couple of inches so, it will also.
To test this you could cut a rectangle from a plastic bag, then tape
or glue an edge to make a cylinder of the same diameter as your
garden hose, then attach it tightly to the end of the hose. See if you
can hold the hose at an angle to make the lightweight tube follow the
same parabolic arc as the water flow normally does all the way from
the end of the hose, upwards, and back down to the ground.


Bob Clark

On Feb 19, 6:37 pm, Paul O wrote:

I like the idea of rockets that don't carry fuel. Fuel and fuel tanks
are heavy; its best to leave them on the ground.

Don't be an idiot! It's impossible to have rockets that don't carry
fuel. Just work out the Newtonian forces! Of course, I didn't bother
to view the video. I don't need to see it to know that this idea is
nuts and that you need to go back and adjust your tinfoil helmet!
Everybody knows this idea is moronic! It's far better that people
spent their time and money working on REAL problems like the global
warming effects of man-made CO2 rather than ignorant ideas like the
fuel-less rocket! Go read some freshman physics texts!

"signed"
The Universal Debunker

;-)

"Benj" wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 6:37 pm, Paul O wrote:

I like the idea of rockets that don't carry fuel. Fuel and fuel tanks
are heavy; its best to leave them on the ground.

Don't be an idiot! It's impossible to have rockets that don't carry
fuel. Just work out the Newtonian forces! Of course, I didn't bother
to view the video. I don't need to see it to know that this idea is
nuts and that you need to go back and adjust your tinfoil helmet!
Everybody knows this idea is moronic! It's far better that people
spent their time and money working on REAL problems like the global
warming effects of man-made CO2 rather than ignorant ideas like the
fuel-less rocket! Go read some freshman physics texts!

"signed"
The Universal Debunker

;-)

Idiots can't help being idiots. Give him back his tinfoil helmet
and stop being a bully. :-)

"Androcles" wrote:
:
:"Benj" wrote in message
...
:
: Everybody knows this idea is moronic! It's far better that people
: spent their time and money working on REAL problems like the global
: warming effects of man-made CO2 rather than ignorant ideas like the
: fuel-less rocket! Go read some freshman physics texts!
:
:
:Idiots can't help being idiots. Give him back his tinfoil helmet
:and stop being a bully. :-)
:

I thought the troll bait of "REAL problems like the global warming
effects of man-made CO2" was a nice, if someone moronic, touch...


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Androcles" wrote:
:
:"Benj" wrote in message
...
:
: Everybody knows this idea is moronic! It's far better that people
: spent their time and money working on REAL problems like the global
: warming effects of man-made CO2 rather than ignorant ideas like the
: fuel-less rocket! Go read some freshman physics texts!
:
:
:Idiots can't help being idiots. Give him back his tinfoil helmet
:and stop being a bully. :-)
:

I thought the troll bait of "REAL problems like the global warming
effects of man-made CO2" was a nice, if someone moronic, touch...

Yeah, well, I've always been fascinated by Fred and Wilma Flintstone
causing the previous global warming of 130,000 years ago by cruising
around the Australian outback in their 2x2 and breathing heavily, so
I ignored the bait in case there was some substance to it.
The exclamation mark at the end of every sentence was amazingly
effective, it really brought the point home. All of them. What was it
again? Oh yeah... tethered rockets cause global warming.