Propellant-less space engine

  • 72 Replies
  • 1407 Views
*

Stash

  • 3136
Re: Propellant-less space engine
« Reply #60 on: November 02, 2019, 03:56:36 AM »
Just more garbage ... for kids!
In other words you can't understand it so to cover your ignorance you're force to ridicule it, got that!
No.

For Heiwa, 'No' means 'Yes'.

*

Heiwa

  • 7572
Re: Propellant-less space engine
« Reply #61 on: November 02, 2019, 05:15:44 AM »
Just more garbage ... for kids!
In other words you can't understand it so to cover your ignorance you're force to ridicule it, got that!
No.

For Heiwa, 'No' means 'Yes'.
Yes, I read what you say.

*

Denspressure

  • 1686
  • What do you, value?
Re: Propellant-less space engine
« Reply #62 on: November 04, 2019, 10:33:40 AM »
Just more garbage ... for kids!
In other words you can't understand it so to cover your ignorance you're force to ridicule it, got that!
No.

For Heiwa, 'No' means 'Yes'.
Yes, I read what you say.
Does ten times 'No' still mean 'Yes'?
░░░░░░█░░░░░░
░░░█░░▓░░█░░░
░░░▓░░▓░░▓░░░
█░░▒▒▒▓▒▒▒░░█
▓░░░░░▓░░░░░▓
▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒
░░░░░░▓░░░░░░
░░█▓▒▒▓▒▒▓█░░
░░░░░▓░▓░░░░░
░░░░▓░░░▓░░░░
░░░░░▓▓▓░░░░░

*

Heiwa

  • 7572
Re: Propellant-less space engine
« Reply #63 on: November 05, 2019, 02:54:04 AM »
Just more garbage ... for kids!
In other words you can't understand it so to cover your ignorance you're force to ridicule it, got that!
No.

For Heiwa, 'No' means 'Yes'.
Yes, I read what you say.
Does ten times 'No' still mean 'Yes'?
Yes. A yes is always 10/10 a yes IMHO. It means in my lingos, yes, I hear you. Plenty idiots believe otherwise.

*

rabinoz

  • 22637
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Propellant-less space engine
« Reply #64 on: November 05, 2019, 03:42:57 AM »
Does ten times 'No' still mean 'Yes'?
Yes. A yes is always 10/10 a yes IMHO. It means in my lingos, yes, I hear you. Plenty idiots believe otherwise.
The topic is, "Propellant-less space engine"! Would care to offer your expert opinion ;D on that quite serious topic?

*

Heiwa

  • 7572
Re: Propellant-less space engine
« Reply #65 on: November 05, 2019, 06:33:35 AM »
Does ten times 'No' still mean 'Yes'?
Yes. A yes is always 10/10 a yes IMHO. It means in my lingos, yes, I hear you. Plenty idiots believe otherwise.
The topic is, "Propellant-less space engine"! Would care to offer your expert opinion ;D on that quite serious topic?

Yes. A rocket engine that does not use fuel or a propellant will not go anywhere. The person suggesting anything else is a fool or a NASA employé.

*

rabinoz

  • 22637
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Propellant-less space engine
« Reply #66 on: November 05, 2019, 05:28:05 PM »
Yes. A rocket engine that does not use fuel or a propellant will not go anywhere. The person suggesting anything else is a fool or a NASA employé.
In other words you didn't even read the paper and couldn't understand it if you did, understood!

*

Heiwa

  • 7572
Re: Propellant-less space engine
« Reply #67 on: November 05, 2019, 10:36:22 PM »
Yes. A rocket engine that does not use fuel or a propellant will not go anywhere. The person suggesting anything else is a fool or a NASA employé.
In other words you didn't even read the paper and couldn't understand it if you did, understood!

Well, I consider the new concept for in-space propulsion in which propellant is not ejected from the engine, but instead is captured to create a nearly infinite specific impulse:  the engine accelerates ions confined in a loop to moderate relativistic speeds, and then varies their velocity to make slight changes to their mass. The engine then moves ions back and forth along the direction of travel to produce thrust. This in-space engine could be used for long-term satellite station-keeping without refueling. It could also propel spacecraft across interstellar distances, reaching close to the speed of light. The engine has no moving parts other than ions traveling in a vacuum line, trapped inside electric and magnetic fields to be crap!
Circulating ions in loop! Sounds like a cyclotron! But it doesn't move anything but the ions. And how to change the mass of an ion?
Anyway, build it down on Earth and test it and see if it moves!
« Last Edit: November 05, 2019, 10:38:22 PM by Heiwa »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38471
Re: Propellant-less space engine
« Reply #68 on: November 07, 2019, 03:43:46 PM »
Yes. A rocket engine that does not use fuel or a propellant will not go anywhere. The person suggesting anything else is a fool or a NASA employé.
In other words you didn't even read the paper and couldn't understand it if you did, understood!
To be fair, a number of people a lot smarter than Anders don't think that the helical engine will work either.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 22637
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Propellant-less space engine
« Reply #69 on: November 07, 2019, 05:57:41 PM »
Yes. A rocket engine that does not use fuel or a propellant will not go anywhere. The person suggesting anything else is a fool or a NASA employé.
In other words you didn't even read the paper and couldn't understand it if you did, understood!
To be fair, a number of people a lot smarter than Anders don't think that the helical engine will work either.
Who wants to be fair with Heiwa ;D ;D?

Neither do I "think that the helical engine will work either" but I won't claim to know enough about relativity to claim that categorically.

But photons have momentum and the "Propellant-less space engine" requires "165 megawatts of power to generate just 1 newton of thrust".
Quote
Radiation pressure in terms of photons
Electromagnetic radiation can be viewed in terms of particles rather than waves; these particles are known as photons. Photons do not have a rest-mass; however, photons are never at rest (they move at the speed of light) and acquire a momentum nonetheless which is given by:

   

where p is momentum, h is Planck's constant, λ is wavelength, and c is speed of light in vacuum. And Ep is the energy of a single photon

So, if I'm not all screwed up, we can get the momentum change if we could radiate all the 165 megawatts as EM radiation the thrust would be 0.55 N - not quite as high.

But all the above might be crap away!

*

Heiwa

  • 7572
Re: Propellant-less space engine
« Reply #70 on: November 08, 2019, 04:46:20 AM »
Yes. A rocket engine that does not use fuel or a propellant will not go anywhere. The person suggesting anything else is a fool or a NASA employé.
In other words you didn't even read the paper and couldn't understand it if you did, understood!
To be fair, a number of people a lot smarter than Anders don't think that the helical engine will work either.
Who wants to be fair with Heiwa ;D ;D?

Neither do I "think that the helical engine will work either" but I won't claim to know enough about relativity to claim that categorically.

But photons have momentum and the "Propellant-less space engine" requires "165 megawatts of power to generate just 1 newton of thrust".
Quote
Radiation pressure in terms of photons
Electromagnetic radiation can be viewed in terms of particles rather than waves; these particles are known as photons. Photons do not have a rest-mass; however, photons are never at rest (they move at the speed of light) and acquire a momentum nonetheless which is given by:

   

where p is momentum, h is Planck's constant, λ is wavelength, and c is speed of light in vacuum. And Ep is the energy of a single photon

So, if I'm not all screwed up, we can get the momentum change if we could radiate all the 165 megawatts as EM radiation the thrust would be 0.55 N - not quite as high.

But all the above might be crap away!

Yes, this NASA space engine collects photons (light) in space, transforms some of their momentum into thrust and ... magic ... the engine can be used to propel a spacecraft at the speed of light.

*

rabinoz

  • 22637
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Propellant-less space engine
« Reply #71 on: November 08, 2019, 02:36:14 PM »
Yes, this NASA space engine collects photons (light) in space, transforms some of their momentum into thrust and ... magic ... the engine can be used to propel a spacecraft at the speed of light.
Really? Where did I or NASA ever say anything of the sort?
The "NASA space engine" does NOT "collect photons (light) in space" and "transform some of their momentum into thrust" - nothing of the sort! Had you read it you might ::) know that!

All I showed that you could achieve a similar thrust by using that 165 MW of power to "shine" photons out the back without violating any known laws but to get half a Newton thrust from 165 MW seems an awfully low "bang for your buck".

But note that this is hardly a NASA space engine. It's a "space engine" proposed by a NASA Engineer as in:
                      Helical Engine by David M. Burns, Ph.D., NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, 35812, USA but that site was "a little hard for me, in Australia, C:-)" to access - best of luck!
So far it is just an idea "tossed out there" to promote discussion.

Here is an easier to access reference: NASA Engineer Claims 'Helical Engine' Concept Could Reach 99% The Speed of Light.

But the consensus so far seems to be that the NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of physics.

On the surface, it does appear to violate "Conservation of Momentum" but what would I know?

*

Heiwa

  • 7572
Re: Propellant-less space engine
« Reply #72 on: November 08, 2019, 07:39:42 PM »
Yes, this NASA space engine collects photons (light) in space, transforms some of their momentum into thrust and ... magic ... the engine can be used to propel a spacecraft at the speed of light.
Really? Where did I or NASA ever say anything of the sort?
The "NASA space engine" does NOT "collect photons (light) in space" and "transform some of their momentum into thrust" - nothing of the sort! Had you read it you might ::) know that!

All I showed that you could achieve a similar thrust by using that 165 MW of power to "shine" photons out the back without violating any known laws but to get half a Newton thrust from 165 MW seems an awfully low "bang for your buck".

But note that this is hardly a NASA space engine. It's a "space engine" proposed by a NASA Engineer as in:
                      Helical Engine by David M. Burns, Ph.D., NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, 35812, USA but that site was "a little hard for me, in Australia, C:-)" to access - best of luck!
So far it is just an idea "tossed out there" to promote discussion.

Here is an easier to access reference: NASA Engineer Claims 'Helical Engine' Concept Could Reach 99% The Speed of Light.

But the consensus so far seems to be that the NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of physics.

On the surface, it does appear to violate "Conservation of Momentum" but what would I know?
Thanks for the links and:
Quote
The Helical Engine is possible because of recent innovations: an engine architecture that conserves propellant and offers an opportunity to recover energy used to accelerate ions; lightweight, efficient, space-rated, neutrally-charged particle beam components developed by National Laboratories; space-qualified nuclear reactor technology developed by NASA; and lightweight magnets and high efficiency undulators developed for producing synchrotron radiation in particle accelerators.   
It seems NASA is behind the engine.