Mach Effect progress

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 5881
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Skipjack » Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:22 am

They have had relatively little anomalies all things considered. I want to remind you that the much more expensive Space Shuttle had two fatal anomalies and IIRC several other anomalies as well. Space is hard and you cant innovate without taking the risk of making mistakes. The alternative is statism which is what we had the last 30 years, where nothing happened. I find that bullshit and I am quite sick of waiting. You want to be a hero- astronaut, you will have to take risks. If they have trouble finding people willing to take the risk, I will happily volunteer.

painlord2k
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby painlord2k » Thu Nov 24, 2016 1:39 pm

I support skipjack.
The triangle is misleading because "good" is a subjective measure so it is different for different people.
And the risk is also subjective because you must evaluate the risk of doing with the risk of not doing. It is never zero.

If you use shadowstats data, you can see, for the common people, the increase of price is around 10%/year and interest rates are non-existent.
So, it makes sense for people, to spend their saving in durable goods and research, because they are things that could keep their value or increase it (or, at least not lose value so fast).

It would be interesting if we could raise some budget to fund some prize to push research on MET.
Even crowdfunding some research if there are reputable researchers worth the risk.
It is my understanding Dr. Heidi Fearn , Dr. Woodward, Paul March, etc. budgets are very limited. If they were willing to accept string-free donations, I pretty sure some money would pour in.

krenshala
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby krenshala » Thu Nov 24, 2016 3:59 pm

painlord2k wrote:I support skipjack.
The triangle is misleading because "good" is a subjective measure so it is different for different people.

Taken how it was meant to be used, "good" means "good at doing what it is meant to do", which is far less subjective. You want a car to take you cross country: can you get one that has engineering/manufacturing that is good at what it does, fast to make, and cheap? You can get one that is good and fast, or good and cheap, or even cheap and fast, but I don't know of any that are all three at once. That is what the triangle is supposed to be describing.

ladajo
Posts: 6118
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby ladajo » Thu Nov 24, 2016 5:00 pm

"good" means "good at doing what it is meant to do"


Yes, and for me specifically over the years, "Good" has meant "Meeting Stated Objectives".
What makes the model interesting is when the scales for each of the three legs do not correlate in range, especially when it is by magnitudes.
For example, when the objective(s) is simple and easy to attain, then the scales(type and magnitude) of Cheap & Fast become less relevant.
It is a simple model with extreme complexity under the hood when one tries to unpack it. Most of the time, I have found it useful to only unpack one or two layers, and use the results as the basis of the project plan.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

kunkmiester
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby kunkmiester » Thu Nov 24, 2016 5:46 pm

All of which also misses my point, to put a spaceship in your garage you at least need airliner reliability, automobile level if you want to use it a lot.

While technically a thruster could be made in a garage, it would take a lot to make one with the mean time before failure as well as the thrust and efficiency to put on a spaceship reliable enough to go up and down with car or plane levels of maintenance. It's true you're no longer have to worry about massive cryogenic tanks full of LOX and such, but the paperwork I did on airplanes for the Air Force is not the level you would want needed in most garages.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

TDPerk
Posts: 934
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby TDPerk » Fri Nov 25, 2016 4:56 pm

kunkmiester wrote: to put a spaceship in your garage you at least need airliner reliability,


Home builders of airplanes of really ordinary airplanes accept far lower levels of reliability...

And most don't use ballistic recovery systems...

And they do know what they are getting into.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

paperburn1
Posts: 2253
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby paperburn1 » Fri Nov 25, 2016 10:15 pm

There is also the 51 percent rule. So if the "thruster" was commercial, that could add a level of reliability. Most home builders do not make their own power plant.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

TDPerk
Posts: 934
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby TDPerk » Sat Nov 26, 2016 8:44 pm

paperburn1 wrote:There is also the 51 percent rule. So if the "thruster" was commercial, that could add a level of reliability. Most home builders do not make their own power plant.


Well considering that at this time, you'd have to make your own MET--and an effective one at that--the 51 percent rule doesn't seem hard to satisfy. :P

Now if I recall, the biggest issue is that the effective mass which you have to modulate is the mass equivalent of the energy stored in the distorted crystal matrix vs the energy of the undistorted matrix, correct? That's why "k" is such a big deal, more effective energy per mass and volume?
molon labe

montani semper liberi

para fides paternae patria

TDPerk
Posts: 934
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby TDPerk » Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:20 pm

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/04/07/ ... -concepts/
The selected 2017 Phase I proposals are:
...
Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission, Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California


Wahooo!!! Hope it happens and goes well
molon labe

montani semper liberi

para fides paternae patria

krenshala
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby krenshala » Fri Apr 07, 2017 6:24 pm

That is good news. I noticed another interesting entry further down the list:

Continuous Electrode Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion, Raymond Sedwick, University of Maryland, College Park.


Could that be a Polywell?

Carl White
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Carl White » Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:27 pm

It looks like they're paying Heidi Fearn to basically speculate about an "if Mach thrusters work, then.." situation.

Skipjack
Posts: 5881
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Skipjack » Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:59 pm

Carl White wrote:It looks like they're paying Heidi Fearn to basically speculate about an "if Mach thrusters work, then.." situation.

From Gary Hudson (SSI):

Several of our colleagues (José Rodal, Paul March, Bruce Long, Nolan van Rossum and Marshall Eubanks) are Co-PIs or consultants. Prof. Jim Woodward will also consult on the project. SSI will administratively manage the grant for the team.

The Project Summary from our proposal:

We propose to study the implementation of an innovative thrust producing technology for use in NASA missions involving in space main propulsion. Mach Effect Thruster (MET) propulsion is based on peer-reviewed, technically credible physics. Mach effects are transient variations in the rest masses of objects that simultaneously experience accelerations and internal energy changes. They are predicted by standard physics where Mach’s principle applies – as discussed in peer-reviewed papers spanning 20 years and a recent book, Making Starships and Stargates: the Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes published by Springer-Verlag. These effects have the revolutionary capability to produce thrust without the irreversible ejection of propellant, eliminating the need to carry propellant as required with most other propulsion systems.

Our initial Phase 1 effort will have three tasks, two experimental and one analytical:

1. Improvement of the current laboratory-scale devices, in order to provide long duration thrust at levels required for practical propulsion applications.

2. Design and development of a power supply and electrical systems to provide feedback and control of the input AC voltage, and resonant frequency, that determine the efficiency of the MET.

3. Improve theoretical thrust predictions and build a reliable model of the device to assist in perfecting the design. Predict maximum thrust achievable by one device and how large an array of thrusters would be required to send a probe, of size 1.5m diameter by 3m, of total mass 1245Kg including a modest 400 Kg of payload, a distance of 8 light years (ly) away.

Ultimately, once proven in flight and after more development, these thrusters could be used for primary mission propulsion, opening up the solar system and making interstellar missions a reality. The MET device is not a rocket, it does not expel fuel mass, and does not suffer from the velocity restriction of rockets. Freedom from the need to expel propellant means very high velocities might be achievable simply by providing electrical power and adequate heat rejection for the drive system. A mission to Planet 9 is possible in the near future using RTG power and thruster arrays. A future goal would be interstellar travel to the nearest exoplanet, within 5-9 Ly distance. A mission of this type might take 20 or more years using the MET thruster. Although the nearest exoplanet is 14 or so ly distance, more Earth-like planets are being discovered daily.

This aerospace concept is an exciting TRL 1 technology, ready to take the next step to providing propellantless propulsion, first in incremental NASA smallsat missions, but later enabling revolutionary new deep space exploratory capabilities beyond anything achievable by conventional chemical, nuclear or electric propulsion systems. This unexplored opportunity has been uniquely developed by our co-Principal Investigators, breaking new ground in both science and engineering. Finally, it is technically credible – if bold and unconventional – and is fully consistent with modern physics, having been demonstrated over ten years of careful laboratory demonstration and investigation.

Skipjack
Posts: 5881
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Skipjack » Sat Apr 08, 2017 12:03 am


paperburn1
Posts: 2253
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby paperburn1 » Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:00 am

Here is a question for debate. Has anyone considered the reason why fermis paradox exists this just because of planet size. With a little bit of back the envelope calculations the most powerful chemical rocket we have cannot reach orbit if the plant was 1.75 times as large as earth. So maybe the reason we haven't any little green men is because they can't even get orbit?
Last edited by paperburn1 on Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

ltgbrown
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Albania

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby ltgbrown » Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:10 pm

"Improvement of the current laboratory-scale devices, in order to provide long duration thrust at levels required for practical propulsion applications."

darn, that is exciting! Oh the possibilities.

Interesting question on the size of the planet versus technological capability to escape. One might pose the question the other way: if the planet was just a little bit smaller (say, the size of Mars), wouldn't it be significant easier to get off the planet and thus shouldn't we see more "little" green men?
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests