A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The EM drive gets another mention



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 21st 16, 07:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rick Jones[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default The EM drive gets another mention

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04...ve_theory_why/

The EmDrive's thrust can be predicted (and tested), says
McCulloch, by accounting for radiation pressure from Unruh
waves. These cause the momentum to increase as the thruster
moves. McCulloch suggests the same effect accounts for the
anomalies observed when spacecraft accelerate around a planet:
they jump.

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...
  #2  
Old April 23rd 16, 03:14 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default The EM drive gets another mention

Aneutronic fusion, that is initiated and supported by the fission of Lithium-6 with neutrons, allows us to create a compact fusion reactor that has no adverse reaction products.

Compact fission reactors, even clean ones, involve critical mass of fuels that have the capacity to sustain criticality.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...um-sphere.jpeg

When a nuclear chain reaction is self-sustaining, the mass is said to be in a critical state. There is no increase or decrease in power, temperature, or neutron population.

Critical mass depends on the neutron multiplication factor k. The average number of neutrons released per fission event that go on to cause another fission event rather than being absorbed or leaving the material. When k = 1, the mass is critical, and the chain reaction is self-sustaining.

A subcritical mass is a mass who's activity will exponentially decrease. In this case, k 1.

A supercritical mass is one where there is an increasing rate of fission. Reactors use materials that settle into equilibrium after startup since high temperatures reduce cross section. When supercritical, k 1.

The mass where criticality occurs may be changed. Attributes such as fuel mixture, fuel shape, fuel temperature, fuel density and neutron-reflective blankets affect critical mass.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a196877.pdf

This is an interesting reaction. A reaction that converts a neutron flux into a flux of alpha particles and tritium using Lithium-6, and thence to neutron flux again.

We start with Li-6 and a neutron which is a source of tritium for nuclear fusion, through low-energy nuclear fission.

6 3Li + n → 4 2He ( 2.05 MeV ) + 3 1T ( 2.75 MeV )

The Tritium decays into Helium 3 ion and an electron along with an anti-neutrino with a 4500 day half life.

3 1T → 3 2He + e− + _ν (18.76 KeV)

Now, energetic alpha particles react with Beryllium to produce Carbon-12 and a neutron.

9 4Be + 4 2He → 12 6C + n

Energetic tritium particles also react with Deuterium to produce alpha particles and energetic neutrons.

2 1D + 3 1T → 4 2He ( 3.5 MeV ) + n0 ( 14.1 MeV )

The energetic neutrons reacts with Beryllium to produce two lower energy neutrons which scatter off Beryllium and are absorbed by Lithium-6.

9 4Be + n → 2(4 2He) + 2n

and Be-9 and a neutron yields 2 neutrons

9 4Be + n → 8 4Be + 2 n.

Starting the cycle again.

The amount of energy released for the net reaction is 22.4 MeV and the atomic weight of all the fuel components is 17 grams per mole. So, 1 MeV = 1..602677·10^(-13) J and 1 mole = 6.02*10^(-23) atoms. This comes out to be 9.34 GJ/gram - or about 1.5 barrels of oil equivalent per gram of Lithium-6-Beryllium Deuteride fuel.

http://link.springer.com/article/10....2871175#page-1

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0128113356.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...25838800008835

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/...nalCode=jpccck

Critical mass is inversely proportional to the square of the density. A Lithium6-Beryllium-Deuteride salt has a density of 720 kg/m3 and a critical mass of 140 kg in a neutron reflective shell of Beryllium and lead. This critical reaction is started with a blast of neutrons and controlled by changing the efficiency of the neutron reflective blanket. Such a reactor is capable of releasing 93,300 barrels of oil equivalent energy before being recharged. Actually given the changing cross sections involved, and the efficiencies achievable at the temperatures possible, this will produce around 10,000 barrels of oil equivalent energy before needing to be refueled. A 200 kW generator would have a 10 year life span operating continuously. Sufficient to power 125 homes.

Getting a little more fancy, its possible to compress the Lithium-6-Beryllium-Deuteride salt to 150x resting density using an inductive shell. This reduces critical mass by 22,500 times from 140 kg to 6.3 grams. This tiny pellet only one inch (2.55 cm) across releases 58.8 GJ (14 ton TNT) when detonated. This will be used to make highly efficient multi-gigawatt generators...

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1172154

And efficient fusion rockets..

http://msnwllc.com/Papers/FDR_AIAA_2011.pdf

A 1954 12 cylinder 5.4 litre Jaguar engine at 5,500 rpm produces 210 kW (282 HP) undergoes 2,750 detonations per cylinder per minute, or 33,000 detonations per minute - 550 detonations per second.

Detonating these tiny units at the same 550 detonations per second in powerful magnetic fields that eject the plasma in a preferred direction, at 4,320 km/sec, produce

F = mdot * Ve = (0.0063 * 550) * 4,320,000 = 14.97 MN (1,526 metric tons force)

The power output of this engine is

P = 0.5 * mdot * Ve^2 = 0.5 * 0.0063 * (4,320,000)^2 = 58.8 GW.

This system can produce one gee acceleration for 122.367 hours by blasting through 964.6 tons of propellant carrying 561.4 tons of payload.

Two nacelles with a propulsive array situated on either of a space faring hull - with the nacelles carrying 657.3 cubic meters of 1 inch diameter spheres with a delivery system. Nacelles that carries 85 kg/m3 - or 6604 cubic meters hull.

https://goo.gl/kbUvQz

So, four floors that are 2.4 meters tall, with a beam of 37 meters and a length of 74 meters, and 2,752 square feet of floor space, with two nacelles 4.8 meters in diameter and 38 meters long.

This fusion propulsion system is far closer to reality than the drive mentioned here, and makes a dandy little interplanetary runabout.

With Tesla changing the nature of motoring, increasing demand for Lithium for electric drive vehicles, we see demand rising to 150,000 tons per year. Extracting Lithium-6 and adding Beryllium 11,250 tons of Lithium-6, 16,875 tons of Beryllium, 3,750 tons of Deuterium, 31875 tons of fuel. 9125 tons of fuel will be needed to provide energy for terrestrial energy, which produces $2.6 trillion per year. This means that 2 runabouts can be operated more or less continuously throughout the solar system.


On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 6:26:42 AM UTC+12, Rick Jones wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04...ve_theory_why/

The EmDrive's thrust can be predicted (and tested), says
McCulloch, by accounting for radiation pressure from Unruh
waves. These cause the momentum to increase as the thruster
moves. McCulloch suggests the same effect accounts for the
anomalies observed when spacecraft accelerate around a planet:
they jump.

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

  #3  
Old April 23rd 16, 03:38 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default The EM drive gets another mention

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 2:14:45 PM UTC+12, William Mook wrote:
Aneutronic fusion, that is initiated and supported by the fission of Lithium-6 with neutrons, allows us to create a compact fusion reactor that has no adverse reaction products.

Compact fission reactors, even clean ones, involve critical mass of fuels that have the capacity to sustain criticality.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...um-sphere.jpeg

When a nuclear chain reaction is self-sustaining, the mass is said to be in a critical state. There is no increase or decrease in power, temperature, or neutron population.

Critical mass depends on the neutron multiplication factor k. The average number of neutrons released per fission event that go on to cause another fission event rather than being absorbed or leaving the material. When k = 1, the mass is critical, and the chain reaction is self-sustaining.

A subcritical mass is a mass who's activity will exponentially decrease. In this case, k 1.

A supercritical mass is one where there is an increasing rate of fission. Reactors use materials that settle into equilibrium after startup since high temperatures reduce cross section. When supercritical, k 1.

The mass where criticality occurs may be changed. Attributes such as fuel mixture, fuel shape, fuel temperature, fuel density and neutron-reflective blankets affect critical mass.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a196877.pdf

This is an interesting reaction. A reaction that converts a neutron flux into a flux of alpha particles and tritium using Lithium-6, and thence to neutron flux again.

We start with Li-6 and a neutron which is a source of tritium for nuclear fusion, through low-energy nuclear fission.

6 3Li + n → 4 2He ( 2.05 MeV ) + 3 1T ( 2.75 MeV )

The Tritium decays into Helium 3 ion and an electron along with an anti-neutrino with a 4500 day half life.

3 1T → 3 2He + e− + _ν (18.76 KeV)

Now, energetic alpha particles react with Beryllium to produce Carbon-12 and a neutron.

9 4Be + 4 2He → 12 6C + n

Energetic tritium particles also react with Deuterium to produce alpha particles and energetic neutrons.

2 1D + 3 1T → 4 2He ( 3.5 MeV ) + n0 ( 14.1 MeV )

The energetic neutrons reacts with Beryllium to produce two lower energy neutrons which scatter off Beryllium and are absorbed by Lithium-6.

9 4Be + n → 2(4 2He) + 2n

and Be-9 and a neutron yields 2 neutrons

9 4Be + n → 8 4Be + 2 n.

Starting the cycle again.

The amount of energy released for the net reaction is 22.4 MeV and the atomic weight of all the fuel components is 17 grams per mole. So, 1 MeV = 1.602677·10^(-13) J and 1 mole = 6.02*10^(-23) atoms. This comes out to be 9.34 GJ/gram - or about 1.5 barrels of oil equivalent per gram of Lithium-6-Beryllium Deuteride fuel.

http://link.springer.com/article/10....2871175#page-1

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0128113356.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...25838800008835

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/...nalCode=jpccck

Critical mass is inversely proportional to the square of the density. A Lithium6-Beryllium-Deuteride salt has a density of 720 kg/m3 and a critical mass of 140 kg in a neutron reflective shell of Beryllium and lead. This critical reaction is started with a blast of neutrons and controlled by changing the efficiency of the neutron reflective blanket. Such a reactor is capable of releasing 93,300 barrels of oil equivalent energy before being recharged. Actually given the changing cross sections involved, and the efficiencies achievable at the temperatures possible, this will produce around 10,000 barrels of oil equivalent energy before needing to be refueled. A 200 kW generator would have a 10 year life span operating continuously. Sufficient to power 125 homes.

Getting a little more fancy, its possible to compress the Lithium-6-Beryllium-Deuteride salt to 150x resting density using an inductive shell. This reduces critical mass by 22,500 times from 140 kg to 6.3 grams. This tiny pellet only one inch (2.55 cm) across releases 58.8 GJ (14 ton TNT) when detonated. This will be used to make highly efficient multi-gigawatt generators...

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1172154

And efficient fusion rockets..

http://msnwllc.com/Papers/FDR_AIAA_2011.pdf

A 1954 12 cylinder 5.4 litre Jaguar engine at 5,500 rpm produces 210 kW (282 HP) undergoes 2,750 detonations per cylinder per minute, or 33,000 detonations per minute - 550 detonations per second.

Detonating these tiny units at the same 550 detonations per second in powerful magnetic fields that eject the plasma in a preferred direction, at 4,320 km/sec, produce

F = mdot * Ve = (0.0063 * 550) * 4,320,000 = 14.97 MN (1,526 metric tons force)

The power output of this engine is

P = 0.5 * mdot * Ve^2 = 0.5 * 0.0063 * (4,320,000)^2 = 58.8 GW.

This system can produce one gee acceleration for 122.367 hours by blasting through 964.6 tons of propellant carrying 561.4 tons of payload.

Two nacelles with a propulsive array situated on either of a space faring hull - with the nacelles carrying 657.3 cubic meters of 1 inch diameter spheres with a delivery system. Nacelles that carries 85 kg/m3 - or 6604 cubic meters hull.

https://goo.gl/kbUvQz

So, four floors that are 2.4 meters tall, with a beam of 37 meters and a length of 74 meters, and 2,752 square feet of floor space, with two nacelles 4.8 meters in diameter and 38 meters long.

This fusion propulsion system is far closer to reality than the drive mentioned here, and makes a dandy little interplanetary runabout.

With Tesla changing the nature of motoring, increasing demand for Lithium for electric drive vehicles, we see demand rising to 150,000 tons per year.. Extracting Lithium-6 and adding Beryllium 11,250 tons of Lithium-6, 16,875 tons of Beryllium, 3,750 tons of Deuterium, 31875 tons of fuel. 9125 tons of fuel will be needed to provide energy for terrestrial energy, which produces $2.6 trillion per year. This means that 2 runabouts can be operated more or less continuously throughout the solar system.


On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 6:26:42 AM UTC+12, Rick Jones wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04...ve_theory_why/

The EmDrive's thrust can be predicted (and tested), says
McCulloch, by accounting for radiation pressure from Unruh
waves. These cause the momentum to increase as the thruster
moves. McCulloch suggests the same effect accounts for the
anomalies observed when spacecraft accelerate around a planet:
they jump.

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...


Beryllium occurs at 1.8 ppm in the Earth's crust. As such it is more abundant thant tungsten or uranium. Now, 18,000 tons per year is 90x higher than 200 tons per year currently produced for the Beryllium market. Lithium is abundant may be extracted from seawater or soil. It is more abundant than lead in the crust of Earth.

Crustal Abundance

Lithium - 17 ppm
Lithium-6 - 1.275 ppm
Beryllium - 2.6 ppm

So, 150,000 tons per year of lithium of all sorts mean that 8.823 billion tons of rock must be processed. 3.15 cubic km of rock each year. Of course, processing this much material yields up a half ton of other useful materials as well. That produce another trillion dollars worth of goods.

A single 17 TW generator that beamed energy by satellite around the world, processing 9 meters by 1 sq km every day of rock, produces all the lithium needed for its operation, 500 kg of useful materials for every man woman and child on Earth each year, and all the energy for human industry to operate at US levels of consumption, along with enough spare lithium to replace all oil fired autos with lithium battery powered ones (and the power to charge those batteries using the Lithium-6.

An alternative to using solar pumped laser systems...






  #5  
Old April 23rd 16, 02:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default The EM drive gets another mention

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

William Mook wrote:


Aneutronic fusion, that is initiated and supported by the fission of
Lithium-6 with neutrons, allows us to create a compact fusion reactor
that has no adverse reaction products.


No. 'Aneutronic' fusion still emits some neutrons. Just a lot less.
We currently can't get real break even power from fusion fuels that
are much easier to ignite and sustain than He3.


This is yet another example of Mook reading a bit, doing some math, and
concluding that something is possible today, when it is most definitely
not anywhere near being an off the shelf technology.

Perhaps he's got a working structured silicene aneutronic fusion reactor
in his garage, but we have to give him several million and sign an NDA
just to look at it.


Now now. Be realistic. It's not I his garage.

That's where he keeps his prototype of the computing sphere he's going to
launch into orbit and bring supercomputing to everyone.

The fusion reactor is attached to the chest of the special suit he's
building.


Jeff


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #6  
Old April 23rd 16, 10:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default The EM drive gets another mention


Google+
Gmail
Web
Calendar
more
↰ sci.space.policy
The EM drive gets another mention
Apr 22Rick Jones
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04...ve_theory_why/

The EmDrive's thrust can be predicted (and tested), says
McCulloch, by accounting for radiation pressure from Unruh
waves. These cause the momentum to increase as the thruster
moves. McCulloch suggests the same effect accounts for the
anomalies observed when spacecraft accelerate around a planet:
they jump.

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

Apr 23me
Aneutronic fusion, that is initiated and supported by the fission of Lithium-6 with neutrons, allows us to create a compact fusion reactor t
Apr 23me
Beryllium occurs at 1.8 ppm in the Earth's crust. As such it is more abundant thant tungsten or uranium. Now, 18,000 tons per year is 90x hi
12:48 AMJeff Findley
In article ,
says...

William Mook wrote:


Aneutronic fusion, that is initiated and supported by the fission of Lithium-6 with neutrons, allows us to create a compact fusion reactor that has no adverse reaction products.


No. 'Aneutronic' fusion still emits some neutrons.


No the neutron flux in an active reactor is not a product since they are consumed in the fuel cycle.

Just a lot less.


The flux in an operating reactor is actually higher. The product of the fuel cycle is alpha particles and carbon 12.

We currently can't get real break even power from fusion fuels that
are much easier to ignite and sustain than He3.


No ignition problem. D+T reaction takes 0.12 MeV to ignite Li6 + n takes 0 to react and produces T at over 2 MeV.

This is yet another example of Mook reading a bit, doing some math, and
concluding that something is possible today, when it is most definitely
not anywhere near being an off the shelf technology.

Nonsense. Jetter cycle has been suppressed since the 1950s. Declassified Russia documents released in Canada since the 1990s have shown that. Reactors have been built in Italy. Even this is still suppressed in the land of the free.

Perhaps he's got a working structured silicene aneutronic fusion reactor
in his garage, but we have to give him several million and sign an NDA
just to look at it.

No I've got a fusion powered structured silicene interplanetary cruiser and it's open source.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P3-q-s79KXM
  #7  
Old April 23rd 16, 10:35 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default The EM drive gets another mention

Cornell built man amplifiers in 1950s went public after JFK was elected in '61 and went dark again in '63 after JFK was killed by Bush and the operation Zapata team. Ted Cruz's dad was an anti Castro Cuban involved in that and closely tied to the Bush gang. Prescott Bush poisoned FDR and funded Hitlers rise to power.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_htm...namplifier.php

Powered suits using shape changing alloys were perfected in 1980s. Silicene origami molecules improves on these elementary processes with logical and power circuits built in at the molecular level with no seams.

No the chest mounted power supply on the powered spacesuit uses positronium collected on the solar surface.

Fusion is passé. I merely point out here that fusion rockets are better than em drives. They're not better than positronium powered photonic thrusters.

Silence like a cancer grows. Hear my words that I might teach you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZDqVdGGrjE&app=desktop


  #8  
Old April 24th 16, 01:48 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default The EM drive gets another mention

In article ,
says...

Cornell built man amplifiers in 1950s went public after JFK was
elected in '61 and went dark again in '63 after JFK was killed
by Bush and the operation Zapata team. Ted Cruz's dad was an
anti Castro Cuban involved in that and closely tied to the Bush
gang. Prescott Bush poisoned FDR and funded Hitlers rise to power.


Wow, all of this is complete and utter nonsense.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_htm...namplifier.php

Even your link is a mix of science and SCIENCE FICTION. Yes early "man
amplifiers" were built in the 50s, but they never left the lab. There
was no lightweight power source that would have made them practical.

Yes, progress is continuously being made in the field, but the web page
above is mostly pictures of toys, drawings in comic books, and special
effects models in movies. The link you posted includes the Major Matt
Mason Supernaut Power-Limbs Pack (a child's plastic toy) and pictures of
the power-suit special effects miniature model used for the stop motion
animation sequences in Aliens.

You clearly can't separate fact from fiction and are drawn to websites
which blend the two. In your child like mind, it's all the same thing.

Powered suits using shape changing alloys were perfected in 1980s.


That's why anyone could go buy one at a Caterpillar, John Deere, or CASE
dealer, right? No? Well then, anyone could see one in operation at
military bases all over the world loading and unloading cargo from USAF
transports right? No? Hmm, then where is the evidence that they were
"perfected" if they weren't in widespread use, at least within the
military?

Silicene origami molecules improves on these elementary processes
with logical and power circuits built in at the molecular level
with no seams.


You're hilarious Mook.

No the chest mounted power supply on the powered spacesuit uses
positronium collected on the solar surface.


Yes, we all know you think you're Tony Stark. When are you going to
show off your Iron Man suit to the press?

Fusion is passé.


Sustained fusion is still not reality, so I fail to see how it is
"passe".

I merely point out here that fusion rockets are better than em
drives. They're not better than positronium powered photonic
thrusters.


This paper rocket is better than that paper rocket, but *Mook's* paper
rocket is the bestest of them all! LOL.

Silence like a cancer grows. Hear my words that I might teach you.


Oh, we all hear your bull****, loud and clear.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #9  
Old April 24th 16, 03:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default The EM drive gets another mention

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 12:48:27 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Cornell built man amplifiers in 1950s went public after JFK was
elected in '61 and went dark again in '63 after JFK was killed
by Bush and the operation Zapata team. Ted Cruz's dad was an
anti Castro Cuban involved in that and closely tied to the Bush
gang. Prescott Bush poisoned FDR and funded Hitlers rise to power.


Wow, all of this is complete and utter nonsense.


Only to the totally unaware. JFK was killed in office and the Warren Commission Report concluded there was a conspiracy. LBJ gave an interview in The Atlantic and said that there was a "Murder Inc." that operated around the White House. If you actually read the Warren report, and not the news articles that surrounded the report, you would know this. JFK's killing was not a one off. Taft was derailed through a conspiracy. Harding was poisoned by conspirators. McKinley was shot by conspirators. Lincoln was shot by conspirators. Jackson was shot at by an assassin and he beat him to death after taking a bullet and then issuing a warrant to arrest the conspirators the assassin worked for.


http://www.projectrho.com/public_htm...namplifier.php

Even your link is a mix of science and SCIENCE FICTION.


Its the best data available unfortunately. There's a reason for it. The good data is STILL CLASSIFIED.

Look, the US military has secrets to keep. Many of those secrets are of a technical nature. Counter intelligence has promoted two central ideas to keep their secrets;

(1) Ridicule of sensitive uses of technology as science fiction,
(2) Association of direct observation of sensitive technology with the UFO/Alien mythology (and ridicule that).

Yes early "man
amplifiers" were built in the 50s,


Correct. (so were Plutonium powered artificial hearts)

but they never left the lab.


They were never commercialised. You don't know anything about how they were used in secret programmes.

There
was no lightweight power source that would have made them practical.


That's a lie. Plutonium powered artificial hearts were constructed at the same time. There were no commercially available power sources that made it market. You don't know what power sources were used in secret programmes.

We do know that these proceeded in parallel that the heart motor would act as dandy power sources for such suits and that was even mentioned at the time. Both disappeared at the same time, and both were discredited at the same time in the media shortly after. T

We don't get to know how they might have been used in secret programmes. We can see that the individuals involved also disappeared and later emerged in various government programmes which suggests research at least continued through the 1980s

http://www.techinsider.io/artificial...tonium-2015-11

californium-251 has a 290 year half life and a 5 kg critical mass.
californium-252 has a 2.6 year half life and a 2.73 kg critical mass.

A critical mass of this 15.9 g/cc material is 5.56 cm (2.19 inch) diameter sphere. Einsteinium, Fermium, and other materials are even more radioactive and have even smaller critical mass. Tiny quantities of materials, more powerful than Plutonium, are very likely available to government workers and put to uses that are not possible in commercial labs.

Even commercially available quantities of Cf are technically interesting. Cf produces 2.1 trillion neutrons per second per milligram of material for the short lived isotopes is sufficient to keep a tiny Lithium-6 Deuteride reactor active at a very high power level even without neutron recycling or multiplication. At 22.4 MeV per Jetter cycle event, 7.2 Watts per milligram of Cf may be maintained, with no recycling of neutrons. 50 mg of Cf (and 20 grams of the stuff is produced commercially each year according to open records) is enough to maintain 360 Watts continuous output in the form of energetic alpha particles, that form an energetic miniature vacuum tube based power diode.

The element Cf was first made in 1950 at the University of California Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, by bombarding curium with alpha particles. It has been produced in amounts large enough to see with the unaided eye (after einsteinium). The element was named after the university and the state of California and has practical applications as a starter for nuclear reactors.

Yes, progress is continuously being made in the field, but the web page
above is mostly pictures of toys, drawings in comic books, and special
effects models in movies.


We are limited to these references because the serious scientific research results from Cornell ARE STILL CLASSIFIED. This suggests they are important results today.

The link you posted includes the Major Matt
Mason Supernaut Power-Limbs Pack (a child's plastic toy) and pictures of
the power-suit special effects miniature model used for the stop motion
animation sequences in Aliens.


If you look at the designers of that plastic toy, and the writers for the screenplays they had access to and were aware of Cornell's research results for a time. That science has remained classified to this day. So, any reference is reduced to these sources. This suggests that your attempt to ridicule the science I have presented as science fiction is misplaced.

You clearly can't separate fact from fiction


You clearly are following the procedures all government sock puppets follow in sowing disinformation about sensitive science. You say the science is the product of science fiction and ridicule the individuals involved. You cannot know what use the scientific materials that are still classified from Cornell's research might have been used for these past 60 years. You provide no sound scientific basis for your statements. You are the one who is divorced from reality.


and are drawn to websites
which blend the two.


Your ad hominem attacks ignore the reality that the science developed by Cornell reserachers are still classified, so we are reduced to viewing popular articles and artistic interpretations of those articles today.

In your child like mind,


You are the child since you are the one engaged in childish behaviour and illogical thinking.

it's all the same thing.


Your efforts have little to distinguish it from counter-intelligence as practised by the military to keep its secrets surrounding sensitive technologies.

Powered suits using shape changing alloys were perfected in 1980s.


That's why anyone could go buy one at a Caterpillar, John Deere, or CASE
dealer, right? No? Well then, anyone could see one in operation at
military bases all over the world loading and unloading cargo from USAF
transports right? No? Hmm, then where is the evidence that they were
"perfected" if they weren't in widespread use, at least within the
military?


Because their use wasn't commercialised and their use is secret and their secret uses are more valued than the savings you outline here.

Silicene origami molecules improves on these elementary processes
with logical and power circuits built in at the molecular level
with no seams.


You're hilarious Mook.


Still, creating a silicene weave of molecules using modern ATF microscopes on a monomolecular layer achieves much more than was achieved in the 1950s at Cornell.

No the chest mounted power supply on the powered spacesuit uses
positronium collected on the solar surface.


Yes, we all know you think you're Tony Stark.


You've got it backwards. Tony Stark was modelled after me.

When are you going to
show off your Iron Man suit to the press?


Tony Stark is fiction. I am not.

Fusion is passé.


Sustained fusion is still not reality,


According to declassified papers from Russian intelligence, as reported by Canadian intelligence, sustained Jetter cycle was achieved shortly after Ulrich Jetter outlined it operation in 1950. Walter Marshall in the UK and Lewis Strauss in the US promoted the concept of power being too cheap to meter by the 1960s. Strauss was quickly discredited and dismissed by the Eisenhower administration.

In 1962 Voitenko used a highly compressed Jetter cycle system to create miniature fission free fusion explosions that made fission free miniature nuclear pulse rockets possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRp3S8OOeZc

with explosions small enough for 1,500 to 3,000 ton take off weight.

so I fail to see how it is
"passe".


Because copious quantities of anti-matter harvested from near the solar surface make it so.

I merely point out here that fusion rockets are better than em
drives. They're not better than positronium powered photonic
thrusters.


This paper rocket is better than that paper rocket, but *Mook's* paper
rocket is the bestest of them all! LOL.


Wrong!

The photonic thruster was invented and models built by Bae at the US Air Force Research Lab several years ago and demonstrated in the lab. Voitenko created a fission free nuclear explosion in USSR in the 1960s. Strauss spoke glowingly about the low cost power such Jetter cycle reactors produce, based on solid results of Project Sherwood in 1954.

"Abundant Power from Atom Seen; It will be too cheap for our children to meter, Strauss tells science writers," New York Times, Sept. 17, 1954, p. 5.

For anyone with a clear physical understanding of;

(1) Proposed EM drive,
(2) Fusion rocket,
(3) Photonic thruster,

Its clear the fusion rocket is superior to the EM drive, and photonic thrusters are superior to the fusion rocket.


Silence like a cancer grows. Hear my words that I might teach you.


Oh, we all hear your bull****, loud and clear.


Psychological projection is an interesting phenomenon. You are the only one spouting baseless bull****.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What, no mention of its global warming B.S. mandate? $27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto Amateur Astronomy 8 October 15th 10 11:09 PM
Notice how they never mention the COSTS for this stuff? Rich[_1_] Amateur Astronomy 4 November 19th 08 04:54 AM
I don't see any mention of the X-33 here T Space Shuttle 8 October 28th 04 02:47 PM
Still no mention of Mexico MAT Amateur Astronomy 4 September 14th 04 02:15 AM
Moon Earliest Mention Asimov Astronomy Misc 22 December 12th 03 06:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.