A mission to another star is quite a jump for today’s technologies and will be for some time to come. But if you’re thinking of robotic payloads rather than human, it’s at least in the range of possibility. Fast ‘Sun-diver’ trajectories that could get a fly-by probe to Alpha Centauri in something on the order of a thousand years are not beyond question, and Robert Forward-style lightsails, pushed by gigantic lasers, might reduce that time to a century or less, using a Solar System-wide infrastructure we might be able to build with the help of nanotechnology in the next century.
Human crews, though, are quite another matter. The problem seems to demand breakthrough technologies, one of which could be the propellantless propulsion being investigated by James Woodward (California State University, Fullerton). The vast amounts of propellant needed for chemical or even nuclear missions seem to rule out their use in practical crewed spacecraft. A propellantless thruster would resolve the issue, but most theorists think that producing acccelerating forces without expelling some kind of propellant mass from the vehicle is an idle dream.
On the other hand, we learn things by finding out just what the problems are — in this case, the distances to be traversed, and the time involved — and then asking what breakthroughs would be needed to surmount them. Our experiments to probe breakthrough concepts may lead to further solutions we hadn’t ever thought of. And if the work of a James Woodward, recently considered in these pages, ultimately fails, it will still offer the chance to confirm our existing understanding of physical laws and perhaps broaden our views of what is and is not possible.
Those who have asked for more information about Woodward will also want to know about the investigations of Hector Brito (Instituto Universitario Aeronautico, Cordoba, Argentina) and colleague Sergio Elaskar (CONICET, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba). In a recent paper, the researchers describe their experiments with what they call an electromagnetic inertia manipulation (EMIM) thruster, producing what they believe is experimental evidence of sustained thrust using concepts not dissimilar to those championed by Woodward.
After describing their device, the authors present the principle behind it:
By Minkowski’s formalism, a nonvanishing momentum of electromagnetic origin is shown to arise for the particular device… It follows that the EM field can modify the inertial properties of the generating device, their variation producing forces on the device without any exchange of mass-energy with the surrounding medium. A propulsion concept based upon this kind of inertia manipulation mechanism was subsequently drawn; an electromagnetic inertia manipulation (EMIM) thruster was engineered up to the “proof of concept” level. Experiments were designed and performed, yielding by spectral analysis techniques, in an exploratory phase, indirect evidence of Minkowski’s approach being valid.
Brito and Elaskar then go on to modify the experiment, producing what they call “…sharper and clearer evidence of sustained thrust…” Work like this depends crucially on filtering out the signal from the noise, so that tiny effects that might be construed as thrust aren’t confused with myriad side-effects caused by the apparatus itself. The paper studies such effects in a series of experiments, with results the authors consider provocative:
Tests performed during an exploratory phase produced results, which after intensive data processing gave indirect evidence of matter-electromagnetic field momentum exchange, as predicted by Minkowski’s formalism; direct detection of the sought effect could not be achieved due to interfering effects leading to very low S/N ratios. Sustained thrust experiments based on an alternative formulation of the EM force densities were devised and performed, aiming at getting rid of most of the identified spurious effects. They yield sharp and clear evidence of force-producing effects as predicted by that formulation, albeit in contradiction with null results predicted by the standard formulation.
Are Brito and Elaskar (and, by extension, Woodward) on to something, or are they mistaking mechanical noise for thrust? I tend to agree with Bob Shaw that there is no such thing as a free launch, but we’ll see. The uncertainties are numerous, with the researchers noting how extensive is the work necessary to confirm their results, including (one day) in-orbit testing. Right now we’re a long way from that, or from understanding the principles underlying such anomalous effects, if they are indeed genuine.
The paper is Brito and Elaskar, “Direct Experimental Evidence of Electromagnetic Inertia Manipulation Thrusting,” Journal of Propulsion and Power Vol. 23, No. 2 (March/April 2007), pp. 487-494. Many thanks to Joseph Mahaney for getting a copy of this paper to me.
Is there some other information out there that examines this work from an outside perspective?
I certainly agree that more experimental work needs to be done to establish the existence or non-existence of a measurable effect. At that point one cannot refute observable and repeatable evidence. There is a controversy as to whether or not current theory allows for mechanical inertia. Depends on your point of view.
Joseph
By the way, I have had some difficulty in obtaining copies of the work Woodward has done. Can anyone provide some help?
Joseph
Concepts of this kind generally violate one or more conservation laws, including energy, momentum, and angular momentum. This one appears to be no different, unless it is just a photon rocket in a fancy dress.
What is the basis of inertia? How and why is it manifested? How does it relate to everything else? I admit my presentation is childish but, to my knowledge, these questions have never been answered. Until there’s an actual, verifiable theory that encompasses these questions I’ll keep an open mind on the subject of discussion.
Probably there is no free lunch but under what context is the balance maintained? As a thought, and no I’m not comparing the two, consider gravity sling operations. The bill is paid by the mass momentum of the planet used. In the medium that gives rise to what we call inertia is there a similar balancing system? I have no idea but I’m sure it’s an area worth research.
dear administrator:
from time to time i would read your blog for fun.
however, the current article seems a bit outlandish on its face. without additional info from credible sources, the descriptions of the “electromagnetic inertia manipulation thruster” experiment detailed in this post often sounds like a series of catch phrases gleaned from physical and engineering journals that were strung together to give the appearance of a ‘scientific’ article.
it is interesting to note that light sails also experience a ‘nonvanishing momentum of electromagnetic origin’ (from the momentum of the zero mass photons;) consequently, you can say that the sun’s EM field can ‘…modify the inertial properties of the … device…’, but i wouldn’t claim this to be some kind of breakthrough discovery (especially since the ‘authors’ claim that the initial ‘signal’ of momentum transfer was not detectable.)
you may want to look into what this is all about. it sounds suspicious. also a side note: there’s no such institution as UC-Fullerton (UC grad/undergrad campuses are: Berkeley, Davis, Irving, Los Angeles, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and San Diego.) there IS a California State University Fullerton; however, it is not a PhD-granting institution.
perpahs you may want to consider exercising more discretion prior to posting under the ‘breakthrough propulsion’ category. breakthrough propulsion should not be equivalent to crackpot propulsion.
but all in all, thanks for your blog.
Sorry Andy, my mistake re Fullerton, which I’ll correct in the original post right away. Re the topic ‘breakthrough propulsion,’ it does not announce breakthroughs. It’s a reference to the kind of research studied by the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program, hence research into ideas that may or may not pay off (BPP included Woodward’s theories among its projects). No claim is made here for either Brito or Woodward’s ideas to be correct — the topic is just used as a place where such ideas are discussed.
In particular response to “andy from LA” and others who are skeptical of these works: Please continue to apply a healthy dose of skepticism, and even better if you can apply that skepticism to identify the make-break details of the works in question. If so, publish those insights so the scientific process moves forward.
In both the case of Woodward and the most recent publication of Brito, these works have at least passed the filter of being published in peer-reviewed journals. While both are treading ambitiously with lingering unknowns of physics, they are also playing by the rules of scientific conduct. There are exposing details of their works to the normal scrutiny of their peers, and trying themselves to determine if they are dealing with mundane artifacts or new discoveries. This is hard work.
In the case of Woodward, his work provokes unanswered questions about inertial frames and their connection to surrounding matter of the universe. This is one of many approaches to Mach’s Principle. Although some approaches to convert Mach’s Principle into a theory have failed, there are many versions (At lest 10 according to Bondi 1977) and many unresolved observations about our universe which leave room for future discoveries. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just two off the top of my head. I’m not saying that Woodward’s assertions are correct, but I am saying that they are presented in a productive manner and in a way where knowledge will be gained even if the desired effects are not found.
In the case of Brito, et al, their work attempts to take advantage of a lingering ambiguity of photon momentum inside dielectric media. While both the Abraham and Minkowski versions agree about vacuum photon momentum, they differ when describing momentum inside materials. Although I do not have the author’s names in front of me, there have been some recent journal and news articles about just this unresolved issue, regardless of its propulsive implications. This too offers new ground to scrutinize.
I guess my assertion is this: In both the Woodward and Brito investigations, their propulsive goals provide additional perspectives from which to study some lingering unknowns in physics. Even if neither provides a propulsion breakthrough, both will provide knowledge. The flip side, of course, is even more beneficial. If either method works as hoped, we are one small step closer to enabling humanity to venture beyond Earth. Admittedly, this high-payoff potential makes it more difficult to apply impartial rigor than for just curiosity-driven research. To shy away from such implications would be just as wrong as to jump to conclusions that they are pending breakthroughs. It is difficult to be simultaneously rigorous and adventurous at the same time, but that’s what’s called for here.
Thanks,
Marc
marc:
my problem with the brito articles is that i’m not at all sure that he’s providing and/or advancing knowledge rather than just muddling it up for the public;
i’ve been able to get a copy of brito and elaskar’s paper presented during the Space Technology and Applications International Forum-2005 (edited by M.S. El-Genk, and published and copyrighted in 2005 by the American Institute of Physics.)
while i don’t think what they’re doing constitutes fraud, i also don’t think they’re quite on the up and up.
they’re exploiting an lingering issue in macroscopic photon-matter interactions and then trying to bootstrap from there to claim that we can get free momentum out of it. Now while the matter-EM field tensor is in dispute, no one disputes the underlying classical EM theory and the QED extension of that theory; both of these theories accept the conservation of energy and momentum as a given. of course, these conservation principles are only assumptions based on repeated observations. but it seems to me that if brito et. al. were to relate their investigations honestly, they’d refer to them as efforts to show the incompleteness of these long-accepted principles.
instead of doing this, they portray to their efforts as investigations into an propulsion engieering problem (which i assume would allow their work to get published without rigorous examinations by appropraite ‘peers’.)
a bad analogy to what they’re doing would be this: let’s say there’s some issue regarding the proper Lagrangian that should be used to describe the microscopic state of some superfluid; i then claim that if the issue is resolved in a particular way we can build a perpetual motion machine, but instead of saying so, i say that i can build a better regrigerator and publish my self-referential findings in a journal for refrigeration contractors.
in short, publication in peer-reviewed journals is not a guarantee of scientific rigor; the peer-review system is very flawed.
i’m not averse to speculations; but we should not treat speculations on the same footing as rigorous scientific investigations (which, indeed, is very hard, as i’ve come to find out.)
cheers,
andy
Andy;
Ahh… you are familiar with the Brito work, and you do raise strong points. Since you are already familiar with it, here are my own more detailed skepticisms: Assume for the moment that there is a momentum imbalance in ‘part’ of the system, but when viewed as a ‘whole’ system, will this imbalance still lead to more momentum than a photon rocket? This has not yet been shown to my satisfaction (I have not read the J of P & P version, however). Furthermore, if I recall correctly, there is an issue about going from an oscillating momentum to a net momentum. I’m not sure about that either, but it has been too long ago for me to recall the details. And lastly, from the prior conference publications (of which STAIF is one), the signal versus noise is difficult to assert the way he ran his experiments. His noise background tended to drift, so making comparisons at different times is dubious. (Again, I have not read the most recent publication). All in all, he has many critical issues to resolve.
Regarding my take on your refrigerator analogy… If the refrigeration physics has some doubtful areas – meaning it was not absolutely clear that it was a perpetual motion machine – then one way to explore the issues is to try and make a working embodiment. If it works, convincingly, then more will have been learned than just through theoretical attempts. If it fails, however, any number of reasons could be cited, and yes, that would be confusing. On that, I concede how his approach might confuse the issue more than clarify.
At the same time, I still feel that dealing with such notions can provoke deeper inquires that might otherwise be overlooked. The critical element, is to proceed with both opportunistic optimism coupled tightly to rigorous skepticism. One without the other is not progress.
I concur, too, that the peer system is imperfect. It can both allow in occasional substandard work as well as to exclude promising work that is not sufficiently developed. It is better than no filters, however, and time and continued scrutiny has a way of weeding out the dead ends. If you can think of a better system to pursue spaceflight breakthroughs, I’d certainly like to hear it.
Marc
This post has made me even more uncertain concerning interstellar travel. There seems to be no agreement on what would be currently possible to build (I mean literally possible, if money was no object). This post says that we could currently build a starship to reach Alpha Centauri in 1000 years. But I’ve seen other sources say we could do much better. NASA’s Project Longshot, for example, would have gotten there in only 100. And most informed people I’ve read say we could build an Orion Nuclear starship. It’s estimated this could go anywhere from 3% of the speed of light (about 130 years to AC) to as high as 10% (only 40+ years). Orion will almost certainly not be built, because it would violate a treaty against detonating nuclear weapons in space. Still, it seems we could do it if we wanted to.
In a 2003 article of Discover Magazine, a plan to build a multi-stage rocket using americium (millions of tons of it) as fuel is discussed. The articles says that a two-stage rocket of this sort could reach Alpha Centauri in 46 years.
A similar uncertainty exist about solar sails. Lou Friedman (of the Planetary Society) recently wrote that he believes it won’t be practical for at least 200 years to send a solar sail craft to another star. But I’ve heard others say it might be practical in a few decades, or that we could possibly even do it today. Friedman says that solar sails are the only known form of interstellar travel that doesn’t violate the known laws of physics. But again, he seems to ignore Project Longshot and the other nuclear technologies I mentioned above.
Is there anyone who can say with more certainty what’s possible today? Maybe we would have to actually start building something before we could know what’s possible. After all, even in the 1950s there were scientists saying that we couldn’t go to the Moon in a rocket. Any thoughts?
Thanks folks, Andy et. al. for posting thought provoking challenges. I see Andy’s interesting point about classifying one’s work as ‘refrigerator’ engineering to bypass peer review by physicists. BTW, I are an engineer :)
Dear LHH;
I know how frustrating it is not to know how seriously to take the various sources of information especially when projections vary so considerably. The difficulty is that the span of assumptions that go into planning an interstellar mission is enormous, and different assumptions lead to very different conclusions.
Often, many assumptions go unstated, so you don’t even know that they affect the outcome. For example, some of the fastest space sail concepts assume that there already exists a significant activity beyond low-Earth orbit from which to build the multi-kilometer sails, the multi-kilometer lenses, and multi-Gigawatt lasers. Other sources concentrate more on the propulsive device itself and do not address the supporting industry it would take to process its fuel – which also takes time and money. There are no universally recognized standards or checklists to make comparisons easier.
And then there is the aspect of the various quality of the sources, regardless of their assumptions.
Part of the function of the Tau Zero Foundation (which is still working through its set-up details), is to articulate these spans of mission options, technology approaches, costs, and degree of societal participation. Also, the intent is to identify the most relevant “next-step” questions that need to be solved to make progress across all options. We want to clarify the edge of knowledge (including links to the source of information for checking), so students know where to pick up the topic and move forward. This is not an easy task and the answers will constantly evolve as more is learned.
When the Foundation’s website is functional and this information begins to be posted, you can help us by letting us know if it makes sense. Did we present the material in an understandable manner?
It is hard doing this in addition to a day-job, but my cohorts and I are working on it. It will still be months into the future.
Marc
Ad astra incrementis!
I’ll second what Marc said and add this about one concept, the atomic-powered Orion. You can make a case for a kind of ‘super-Orion’ that could carry enough fuel to make an interstellar crossing with significant payload, but the case is hampered by the sheer amount of nuclear fuel needed. Even the Daedalus craft designed by the British Interplanetary Society would have required 50 billion pellets of frozen deuterium and helium-3 (and this was just for a flyby mission to Barnard’s Star using pulsed fusion techniques). The helium-3, as the BIS engineers saw it, would have to be mined from the atmosphere of Jupiter, and you can imagine what kind of infrastructure that entails. Search here on Centauri Dreams for more.
As to Orion, the man most associated with it other than Ted Taylor is Freeman Dyson, who worked with the project through its most interesting period. Dyson, although he once wrote up interstellar Orion concepts, told me in an interview four years ago that he now thinks the design is unworkable for interstellar uses. Chemical rockets don’t even get onto the chart because of the amount of fuel required, so we fall back to things that require massive engineering — like Forward’s lightsail concepts and vast lenses in the outer Solar System (not to mention huge power stations in close Solar orbit), or antimatter concepts that depend upon producing antimatter in quantities far beyond what we can do today. As you can see, there are theoretical ways, quite expensive, to get a flyby payload to another star, but we’re still talking investment in infrastructure so vast that it’s unlikely society would attempt it in the forseeable future. That’s a major reason why work continues in alternative propulsion technologies that may one day offer less expensive and much faster options. There is a lively community of scientists whose work dips into interstellar matters as the basic laying out of the theoretical foundations proceeds.
My own guess: Flyby probes just aren’t going to cut it, not when we can get nearly as much information from telescopes right here in our own system (as we’ll be able to do in the not distant future). We’ll need the ability to deliver a payload and put it into orbit around another star. I think we’ll one day manage this with a robotic payload and a flight time below a century, but barring a sudden breakthrough, we’re still a long way from achieving it.
marc, i am very happy that tau zero is still working on these subjects! may the wind (solar wind in this case?) be at your back! as to propellentless propulsion,reminds me of the idea i was talking (perhaps too much about)about some months ago.to use the energy of the zpf to power a space craft.even wrote it in to breakthrough pro pulsion physics and was honored to have recieved a very nice answer. but these days i find the subject of traversable wormholes much more interesting and to the point. in fact i read that the negative matter inherent in the zpf may be just the thing to line the worm holes and hold them open.”only” leaves us with the problem of “engineering” space to ,excuse the expression – make it so! very respectfully your friend george
Joseph, are there particular Woodward papers you need? If so, let me know which.
Hi Paul G
Good summary on the current state of play of interstellar probes. I must’ve missed that Dyson interview – why did he think it wouldn’t work, even for a “Super-Orion”?
All the recent studies on pulsed fusion require rather massive vehicles (many 1,000s of tons) to get decent efficiency out of the laser-ignition systems, so they’re really not worthwhile for probes. Ultra-thin solar sails might allow probes doing 0.1%-1% c, but that’s multiple centuries/millennia flight-times. Multi-bounce laser-sails might cut the power costs somewhat, but it’ll be gigawatt power-range even for ultra-light sails.
We really do need Woodward drives – just wish we had more experimental data.
Adam, the Dyson interview wasn’t published; it was part of a background interview he gave me when I was writing Centauri Dreams (the book). Dyson pointed out that the amount of energy you get with nuclear options just isn’t sufficient. You wind up with huge amounts of propellant and projects so immense that by the time they could be built, faster options are likely to be available. At the time we talked, Dyson said what interested him were laser and microwave sail options as well as pellet propulsion, all of which strike him as far more practicable than the old Orion idea. We need to do something soon here on Clifford Singer’s pellet stream ideas, and I’ll try to work something up. Gerald Nordley has a really interesting take on the pellet concept.
paul,you know its funny i was just thinking about dyson spheres the other day and came up with the idea that a civilization that could do such a project would probably just find a more elegant way to do what they wanted than such a huge complicated project as building such a sphere!! now dyson seems to have implied something like that himself!! thank you very much, your friend george
George, good point, and it certainly underlines how speculative we have to be when trying to figure out what civilizations far more advanced than our own might do!
First I think its great to see Marc Millis here with the news on the Tau Zero Foundation.
I Think flybys are still useful for testing technology just as our early moon probes did. I am thinking of something like the Junker/Hobbes probe posted last year here. It was a tiny probe pushed by earth based lasers to test the concept. I hope Marc look at these priliminary type missions as well
Also cant we sell this research to the public and politicians on this bases tha we need new energy sources here on Earth as well?
David;
Yes, The Foundation will look at the learning steps too.
Tau Zero covers the seemingly simple solar sails to the seeming impossible faster-than-light engines. We also address the underlying reasons for the steps taken, both the near-term practical aspects and the meaning in the larger sociological context.
Since achieving interstellar flight seems so far in the future, it is crucial to find things that can be done today to make meaningful progress. The value comes not only from eventually being able to reach interstellar destinations, but from all the steps taken along the way that help educate and inspired humanity and improve the human condition. Even though my personal niche is in seeking physics advances, there are many others in Tau Zero who’s niches are engineering, and others who address how this matters to humanity.
As far as who I’m selling this to, it’s NOT the politicians. There are already enough space advocacy groups working the political side. After seeing the effect of decades of such efforts, I figure a different approach is warranted. Instead, I’m forging a grass-roots team of leading practitioners and then seeking support from the people and philanthropists to help us make progress.
We recently obtained our charitable organization status from the IRS, so if you make a contribution it is fully deductible.
One last point. It is important to stress (for legal reasons) that Tau Zero is NOT an extension of my NASA job. NASA is NOT in any way supporting Tau Zero. I branched off on my own to do what goes beyond NASA with other like-minded professionals. We saw a need that was not being met, that we could advance, and decided how best to approach it given today’s conditions.
If any of you would like to contribute, we’d greatly appreciate your tax-deductible contributions that you can mail to:
Tau Zero Foundation
P. O. Box 26027
Fairview Park OH 44126
USA
Thank you.
Hi Paul
I’m a big fan of Gerald’s smart pellet mass-beam system. IMHO it’s the most efficient Newtonian relativistic drive ever proposed, and the only thing really stopping interstellar travel via mass-beams is the necessity for a self-reproducing in-space power supply. If someone can design self-replicating powersats then everything will follow nicely after that ;-)
Adam
marc,i certainly did realize that what you are doing now was in no way an extension of your nasa job! how short sighted where they to cut off the breakthrough propulsion physics funding?! and now to add insult to injury niac too!! bad news . i am almost tempted to use the word stupid. very respectfully…george
I said it before… doubtful, dubious, unlikely… I just don’t buy it. How long has Professor Woodward been working to create a verifiable result? Still there’s no definitive progress? Just how long is the Brooklyn Bridge anyway?
I think fusion drives are a pipedream. Not only would the mass of the ship have to be enormous (as Adam so succintly stated), but practical hot fusion itself has thus far been tantalyzingly unobtainable.
Marc,
You’ve stressed the importance of peer review. Is there a good how-to book on writing and submitting materials?
Eric,
Laser-ignition fusion drives are very heavy due to the size and power of the lasers and the fact they have neutron-absorbing lithium jackets to breed tritium for the D-T fuel cycle they use. Look up VISTA for an example.
Other possible fusion fuel cycles could be used if Robert Bussard’s Polywell fusor can be developed. Such systems burning p-B or Li-Li or He3-He3 would be much lighter, but probes using them would still mass hundreds of tons. If Woodward’s drive can be developed it will still require a power source and that may well be massive for interstellar speeds – we don’t yet know.
Marc,
Do you have references to the articles that you refer on the Abraham and Minkowski disagreement concerning photon momentum inside dielectric materials?
I too have a healthy dose of skepticism concerning the explanations for the supposed ‘effect’. Is it a measurement artifact? Is their interpretation of existing theory incorrect? Or is this just a bunch of hopeless romantics with starry eyes?
I believe that if you are a skeptic and you have an ability to examine theory and experimental evidence, as a skeptic you have a responsibility to answer your own questions and present them for peer review by individuals who have the ability to scrutinize your work. Thus, I have begun to look in to these claims, albeit part time, to derive from it my own conclusions. I encourage others (andy in LA, Marc, and Mr Dietz come to mind) to put forth their constructs in an open forum for discussion.
I guess I will have to dust off my old EM books by Landau…Need to refresh myself on some theory.
I am glad this article has provoked some interesting discussion.
Joseph
Adam and Eric: unless you leave the fusion engine behind ;-)
What I mean is fusion powered laser drives pushing small robot probes, that, in this way, won’t need an engine nor fuel themselves. Just a sail and pay-load, which can be kept very light.
Something for the future, for instance on the moon.
Hi Ron
Always an option. Definitely a good one when boosting probes at 100 g or so, but the range gets prohibitive for gentle boosts – Bob Forward’s original manned laser-sails needed insanely large Zone-lenses to get light-year ranges. Zubrin mentions probes getting up to 0.3 c with 400 metre lenses, which would be doable.
Dana Andrews did an energy analysis for a variety of mission architectures and Jordin Kare’s laser micro-sail system has the lowest power-levels required, so it might be the first option.
Regarding two questions above:
(1) “You’ve stressed the importance of peer review. Is there a good how-to book on writing and submitting materials?”
(A) Hmm.. not that I know of. Thank you for bringing this up. I can see how this would be a good thing to provide for students (of all stages). I hope I can remember to address this later under Tau Zero. Good idea.
On the flip side, I did write guidance for how to conduct peer reviews to address the challenge of dealing with edgy ideas, and that NASA document is available electronically at: http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/citations/all/tm-2004-213406.html
(2) “…you have a responsibility to answer your own questions and present them for peer review…”
(A) Yes, absolutely! Some of the items that have been discussed here are being written about now, but the review and publishing process might not make them available till another year… or more (sigh).
Regarding the EM momentum issue in particular, I know of a report in progress that looks at that in detail and lists key references. Again, review and publication takes time. I wish my cohorts and I had more free time to attend to these things to speed things up, but alas, most of us are doing such things as an aside to our day-job duties.
I have not yet pondered using the axriv venue to broach some of these works in progress as a way of accelerating dissemination and soliciting reviews while the works are still being prepared for formal venues. This has advantages and disadvantages that I have not discussed with my cohorts. Golly, another good idea to add to my list!
Thank you all for your comments and ideas. This will have to be my last post in this thread since I have to focus my attentions elsewhere at present. I look forward to the next time when an article provokes good discussion and I have time to chime in.
Ad astra incrementis,
Marc Millis
Isn’t this a variation on Robert Shawyer’s EMDrive ? (http://www.emdrive.com/)
Interesting, I would be very happy when the EMIM replace the chemical rockets. We should not forget the work of Dr. Tajmar. The device wich is on the road to be made will be very impressive(Dr. Tajmar’s device). As I see the EMIM won’t provide FTL travel. That means that something must be added(jump to hyperspace) if we want interstellar mission in reasonable time. If not then this will be enough only for fast interplanetary travel.
hello all,apologies if this is not the best question, but saw something on a star trek episode yesterday that i never knew and just had to mention it and ask a question ! it seems that the “romulan power source” aboard their star ships is an artificial black hole ! so… it occured to me,how come when they turn that on it does not suck their ship right in?! seems like a strange drive to me. well,maybe next time i’ll find a better statement or question! but for now thought i’d just throw that out in case any body might have a feasable answer of some nature. thank you very much george ps ironic really because i was just thinking of making a list of all the hypotetical star drives i have come across in my readings. i think that might be a valuable thing to innumerate on a site such as this one.never know where a better idea might spring forth from. thanks again g
George, here is your list of star drives in science fiction:
http://www.projectrho.com/stardrv.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspace_(science_fiction)
George, not only the factions in Star Trek are using artificial black holes, but in Star Wars too. The Death Star’s primary energy source is a hypermatter reactor(some kind of artificial black hole) wich gives million times the energy of a star. Recently scientist have discovered new particle called oton. One oton is much smaller than an atom, but it has hundred times more energy. The otons are microscopic black holes. If we one day could control such particles, then we will not need helium 3 fusion or antimatter for energy on board a star ship.
lubo, thank you very very much but.. that still does not tell me !? how do you use things like those ! without destroying your own ship i mean! lol probably because the writer says so at this point i guess!anyway good to hear from you your friend george
ljk thank you for that list,heck lol i knew it was a good idea! nice to see that someone else thought so too! still may take a crack at some ideas of my own when i get the chance anyhow – one never knows! lastly as i have said before just this morning… IT IS SO GOOD to see that such a large number of persons share our interests!!! respectfully your friend george
hello all, at the risk of talking too much i want to say one more thing. i thank everyone here who shares my interests and like me wants to bring together ideas for star flight.but…we must also think and talk about these ideas so as to hopefully realize them in the real world too!!! well my friends,just another thought. thanks your friend george
Good day, I apologize for the question but I can’t find info about diuritium fusion. Can someone tell me something more about this kind of fusion. As far as I know diuritium is mineral, but only that.
Hi Lubo
Try spelling it deuterium and you’ll have more hits in a search engine.
And deuterium is “heavy” hydrogen so it’s found anywhere hydrogen is found in a small ratio to “light” hydrogen (usually called protium.) On Earth 1 part deuterium is found in every 6,000 of regular hydrogen. On other planets it can be a lot higher – on Venus it’s about 1:40 ratio, and Mars it’s about 1:1,200.
Other isotopes can be used for fusion – tritium (an even heavier hydrogen, but it’s radioactive), helium-3 (“light” helium), lithium-6, and boron-11. Higher elements than boron and the energy released by fusion is much, much lower. For example if fusing protium gets about 100%, then fusing helium gets about 30% and fusing carbon gets a mere 6%. Fused carbon makes silicon or magnesium and fusing that ends up with iron and nickel – neither of which release a net amount of energy when fused.
In a star that’s a catastrophe because stars are supported by their internal heat – without a net fusion energy source in their cores, the core can only remain hot via gravitational collapse, which causes the iron/nickel in the core to be squeezed to incredibly high densities. Past a certain point and free electrons become very attracted to the protons in nucleii via the weak force, overcoming electrostatic repulsion, forming neutrons.
Once the nucleii become neutrons there’s no more electrostatic repulsion to stop them from getting even closer together, and they collapse into a very high density state – neutronium. This collapse is very rapid and the energy release – as a big burst of neutrinos – heats up the outer core explosively, creating a supernova.
And Lubo where on Earth did you hear about “otons”?
Sub-nuclear particles, smaller than electrons and quarks are usually called “preons”.
As for “Star Wars” and the “Death Star” the power-levels might be about right for the task at hand. Blowing up a planet in one blast takes quite a bit of power. The gravitational binding energy of a planet is roughly G*M^2/R – which for Earth is roughly 10^32 Joules, which liberated in a second would be about 1 million times the Sun’s output of 4 x 10^26 J/s.
Adam, I apologize, my mistake. I’m a bulgarian and in my language “oton”(???? ?????? ?? ???????????????) is an abbreviation of General theory of relativity(GTR). In an article this “oton” is described as microscopic black hole and it has 40 times the mass of an atom. This discovery has been made in 1971 from russian scientist.
Ok Adam, I agree with your explanation about the different fusion reactions and I know that deuterium is a isotope of hydrogen. In Halo books the covenant is using diurithium(some kind of mineral) plasma for their Slipstream drives. The energy release from diurithium fusion is far better than this from D-T or D-D fusion. And my question was does diurithium exist or it is sci-fi?
Hi Lubo
Interesting. Is there any literature in English I could read?
And it’s not really a mistake, just a misunderstanding.
Preons are hypothetical regular particles, but the ‘otons’ sound more like multi-dimensional objects. If regular space-time was all there is, then the very smallest black-holes would be at the Planck scale and mass, about 10^19 GeV or 0.02 milligrams. But if there are extra dimensions, Kaluza-Klein style, then black-holes can be much smaller in mass can form through stronger gravity in higher dimensions. The Large Hadron Collider will hopefully allow probing of the energy range of mini-black holes if higher dimensions exist.
Hi Lubo
Just saw the other post and simply: it’s fiction. No such element exists. Hydrogen fusion – 4 hydrogens to 1 helium – is the most energetic fusion cycle in existence. It’s also the very hardest to start and sustain. To happen at all in regular stars the protons have to quantum tunnel into close contact to make deuterium, which then reacts pretty easily. It only provides enough energy to make stars glow because there’s so much mass in a star’s fusion core.
In a power reactor to get proton-proton fusion happening at a reasonable rate requires a temperature of about 1 billion degrees, which is just way too high to be practical for a rocket.
Stable microscopic black holes could catalyse it at lower temperatures, so perhaps the fictional mineral is really a form of “collapsium” – a crystal made of mini-black holes. Charged super-symmetric particles, like higgsinos, could also act as fusion catalysts in the right conditions. A material made of higgsinos would be incredibly dense and have all sorts of other interesting properties. Even those otons you mention could act as proton-proton catalysts.
Adam, how far are we from practical use of p-^11B fusion?
Ok, one thing. How do we enter that 8th dimension and why speed increase, proportional to mass reduction, results in exceeding the light barrier? How is that possible?
hi all i’d just like to say that i have just reviewed all of the postings under this topic.this is a really good subject and everyone here has done a fine job in discussing it! we need things like this and hopefully we are beginning to “put our heads together”.an early first step in really getting somewhere!!ad astra my friends!! respectfully george ps just one more thing that i would like to see an idea about – if you use a black hole as your ships power source – how do you keep your ship from being sucked in and destroyed ! so far i guess the answer is,because the sf writers did’nt write it that way! but… we are trying to figure out some real and useful ideas here and should imho hold ourselves to a higher standard! thanks again g