Mach Effect progress

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby djolds1 » Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:50 pm

GIThruster wrote:Yes.

So far as I'm aware, heavy use of Mach-Effect technology at anytime during the lifetime of the universe, could theoretically explain the acceleration in expansion of the universe, since it reduces entropy locally at the expense of entropy of the entire system, which entails pushing the arrow of time toward it's end. So yeah, it might explain dark energy, and might make the concept kinda trivial at the same time.
What about natural Mach Effect phenomena?
Vae Victis

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:34 am

djolds1 wrote:What about natural Mach Effect phenomena?

I've never been able to think of a natural phenomenon that would generate more than insignificant effects. You really need fantastically high internal energy and UHF to get a pronounced effect. I suppose if you had entire crystal planets being swung through a hugely asymmetrical orbit around a millisecond pulsar or some such you might see an effect, but that sounds pretty far fetched to me.

Would make good fiction though.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby djolds1 » Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:20 pm

GIThruster wrote:
djolds1 wrote:What about natural Mach Effect phenomena?
I've never been able to think of a natural phenomenon that would generate more than insignificant effects. You really need fantastically high internal energy and UHF to get a pronounced effect. I suppose if you had entire crystal planets being swung through a hugely asymmetrical orbit around a millisecond pulsar or some such you might see an effect, but that sounds pretty far fetched to me.
Neutron star? Perhaps one in orbit of a secondary partner?
Vae Victis

raelik
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:10 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby raelik » Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:14 pm

GIThruster wrote:
djolds1 wrote:What about natural Mach Effect phenomena?

I've never been able to think of a natural phenomenon that would generate more than insignificant effects. You really need fantastically high internal energy and UHF to get a pronounced effect. I suppose if you had entire crystal planets being swung through a hugely asymmetrical orbit around a millisecond pulsar or some such you might see an effect, but that sounds pretty far fetched to me.

Would make good fiction though.


I can't imagine that any natural astronomical phenomena would generate a significant Woodward effect, except possibly for very brief periods (pulsars would probably be the most likely cause of something like this, as you posited) where a charge transfer hits the proper resonance with some sort of varying acceleration. Even this sort of effect would still be many times many orders of magnitude lower than the gravitational forces acting on these bodies, so would be basically undetectable. However, at the cosmic scale, the frequency of tiny events like this could be very significant, and possibly a major contributor to the overall expansion of the cosmos.

ltgbrown
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby ltgbrown » Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:51 pm

Ya'all understand the implications of unnatural sources of Mach effect on a scale and timeframe to cause universal expansion beginning 7.5 billion years ago, right?

Wasn't there a Star Trek Next Generation episode about something like this? Didn't we already talk about this?
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Tue Jan 13, 2015 9:18 pm

There was a Star Trek TNG episode where they decided to play out that warp drive wears out spacetime and causes rips, so they had to suddenly limit the use of warp in the future. Idiotic episode if you ask me. Talk about ruining the bigger story of adventure in space.

In any event, since the advanced wave from a gravinertial event propagates backward in time, any arbitrarily high use of gravinertial technology could theoretically cause accelerated expansion at any time since the big bang. A universe packed full of people 10 billion years from now could be causing what we observe. Hard to imagine but 10 billion years is a very long time.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

quixote
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:44 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby quixote » Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:51 pm

GIThruster wrote:
djolds1 wrote:What about natural Mach Effect phenomena?

I've never been able to think of a natural phenomenon that would generate more than insignificant effects. You really need fantastically high internal energy and UHF to get a pronounced effect. I suppose if you had entire crystal planets being swung through a hugely asymmetrical orbit around a millisecond pulsar or some such you might see an effect, but that sounds pretty far fetched to me.

Would make good fiction though.


What about diamond planets?
http://www.space.com/23138-diamond-plan ... overy.html

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:05 pm

quixote wrote:What about diamond planets?
http://www.space.com/23138-diamond-plan ... overy.html

The whole idea of natural Mach Effects seems to me to require something other than an e-field for internal energy change. Hence a strongly elliptical orbit very close around a neutron star, would swing a crystal of any sort through a powerful gravitational gradient, alternately squeezing and releasing energy bound up in the chemical bonds. This combined with acceleration (in all orbits) relative to the distant stars, could form a Mach Effect and though this would not generate thrust since there is no 2w rectification of the delta mass into force; you could get an effect. Any Mach Effect should cause the universe to accelerate in its expansion.

But to cause the universe to accelerate in its expansion to the degree we would notice. . .this is like measuring the change in the Earth's rotation from ants walking East or West--imperceivable unless there are a LOT of ants doing this for billions of years. And in a universe where anyone, anywhere, making a discovery about space-time that grants the ability to manufacture wormholes, especially if topological change is possible and we can travel backward through time, this is a universe where eventually, all the Mach Effect technology has verifiable consequences that can be seen, as regards the universe's expansion.

So yeah this stuff is all theoretically possible but if it doesn't make you feel a little crazy to consider such stuff, you need your head examined. This is why I don't even like to talk about stargates. I'm happy to work for the "Golden Age of Human Spaceflight" were we get to go to Mars or at least, our children do. Let generations to follow worry about stargates.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:48 pm

updated:
Aceshigh wrote:I remember some speculation years ago, here at TP, that the ideal design for a ME Spaceship would be somewhat like... a flying saucer?


I've considered this now for many hours over the years and I don't think there is one design that meets a "best" criteria. I think there are several answers for several different kinds of needs.

For making space travel as ubiquitous as possible, one wants to build the equivalent of a Ford Model T or DC-3. IMHO, the best way to make space travel "safe, quick, convenient and economical" is to go immediately for economies of scale, by producing a basic assembly line that can build many different kinds of craft by fitting together modules of various different sorts. The skin of the craft seems at this time best made of composite, because composite's high moisture content aids in protecting from space weather (radiation), and because unlike metals, it does not convert gamma into far more dangerous forms of radiation. You don't want to use metal.

When it comes to composites, by far the most cost effective means, and the one that produces by far the highest strength to weight is either dry or wet-filament winding. Wet filament was the preferred method 10 years ago, but new resins have been created in the last decade that make dry winding a legitimate option. Both have made advances that no longer require an autoclave, nor baking in a vacuum. In both cases, you are winding a thread around a mandrel that gives the shape to what is wound, and you want that shape to be common for as many spacecraft modules as possible. Also note you can't wind concave surfaces this way. You need a convex surface. The simplest is the cylinder. This is the most basic module. If you want to give a head nod to some aerodynamic concerns, you might make a truncated cone instead of a cylinder for one end. The other end you would want your docking/air lock module. So the simplest form would be one pointy end module and one docking module gives a space taxi. Put a cylinder with rows of seats between and you have a bus. I've noted 16 different kinds of modules to this sort of assembly that can easily yield millions of different configurations, each owner ordering what they want from this group of choices. You have communications rings that can turn an antenna assembly to any point on the circumference of the craft so the deck always stays normal to the direction of travel, and sleeping quarters, galleys, science facilities, medical, etc. I'm sure the list will grow longer. Basically though, you are looking at a cigar shape for the vast majority of craft.

For larger assemblies like this, it makes sense to have a "T" connector module available so all your builds don't require linear progression, and force people to walk through every module to get from one end to another. This is really just for the bigger craft. A pair of T connectors in a pair of linear progressions makes it possible to join two linear fuselages in parallel. It also makes it possible to dock at other than one end. A very complex arrangement of these relatively cheap modules can have as many docking rings as one likes, so the lines between spaceship and space station begin to blur. Note though, that every module has as many systems in common as is useful. So propulsion can be distributed for example, throughout the entire ship; say under the flooring for easy access should you need to replace ceramic drive units. Power can be in the ceiling. Life support can be in the walls. Common power busses can link modules so that if a single section takes an asteroid impact, the airtight doors at each end of every module can seal it off, and redistribute power and the ship automatically uses its redundancies to continue to fly. BTW, the doors in Star Trek make good sense if you can make them airtight, since they don't take up floorspace where they have to swing open. With two doors in every module, this makes a huge difference.

This is all cheap to build, but modular construction has one down side--it replicates systems in an inefficient manner such that it is not nearly as high performance as something built as a single unit. There are reasons to build other shapes. For instance, suppose you want to build a Hilton on the Moon, Mars or Titan (or all three). The most efficient method is surely to build hotel rooms on Earth, fly them to their homes and snap them together like Legos. Each room is similar to the modular construction above except there is now utility in a square or rectangular cross section, and you don't need things like propulsion systems. You can filament wind these rooms too, and you can even wind them with a trapezoidal cross section for assembly into ring-cities in the sky. These aren't spacecraft though they would likely have their own life support, but the point is to move them economically, you need an external cargo carrier like the S-64 Skycrane or even resembling a tractor trailer. You design the rooms so your transport can pick them up from the parking lot at the factory, fly them straight to their destination and snap them into place. If you want to fly them with people aboard, at one Gee it's 9 days to Titan. If you want to fly them robotically, you can choose any plausible acceleration in vacuum to get shorter travel times for each hauler. If you can make it to Mars in a few hours, all the better to optimize your transport ship's scheduling. Keep it flying fast and cheap. No pilots required. Especially since you'd expect the return trips to all be empty, why limit the travel accelerations to those a person can endure comfortably? Pull 10 Gees on the homeward trip while the ship is unladen. That saves money.

All of these shapes--cylinders, truncated cones, rectangles and trapezoidal cross sections--can be manufactured on the same equipment and this is important to driving down tooling costs such that this stuff gets done. It is when pie-in-the-sky engineering ignores things like tooling and infrastructure costs that we get these proposals for stuff no one in their right mind would ever invest in. If we take these shapes and assign them standard hotel room like dimensions, 12' wide and 8' high cross sectional area for all ships and living quarters; then a filament winding gantry needs to be able to wind 14' diameters plus some extra for radiation protection. The McClean Anderson Raptor can wind 16' diameters up to 70 meters long, so this one machine can build millions of different kinds of spacecraft, hotel rooms and sky born cities. It's just sensible to order half a dozen. :-)

http://www.mccleananderson.com/index.cf ... tle=Raptor

When it comes to special needs that you can't serve with modular construction, perhaps the best need to represent that class is any ultra-high performance ship, such as what the military sails and flies. The military is one of the few groups who could have a pressing need to fly fast in atmo so they might prefer a triangle or saucer shaped ship. While these shapes can move through atmo fast on edge, its when they're in vacuum the shape really comes into its own. You want the largest cross sectional area to be normal to travel so there's room for lots of thrusters, so short and wide makes good sense. Also saucers are a good shape for fitting a wormhole generator should you take the technology that far. In Nembo Budrini's depiction on the cover of Woodward's book, The Journey Home; you see a ring generator fitted around the ship, but there is really no reason to have empty space inside the ring at all. If you fill that space with spacecraft, and make it thin on edge for atmo, and as wide a cross section as possible for fitting the most thrusters as possible, you get a saucer geometry and the best way to construct it, is as a single unit--not modularly. If you stay with filament wrapping for this, this would require a much larger machine than a McClean Anderson Raptor. I don't know if there is such a machine commercially available. I believe Lock-Mart has a machine they use to wrap X-47b's, but that is not nearly large enough for real spacecraft of this type. I think a custom built gantry is certainly called for in this instance, but McClean Anderson does that too.

Cigars, triangles and saucers--pretty much your best options save for the robotic trucks that one supposes might resemble the S-64 Skycrane, though even that presumes a need to extend the ship below the top of the external cargo and that might not be necessary at all. Depends how you grapple the cargo. Might look closer to the Eagle Transporter in Space 1999, or the entire heavy hauler might be smaller than the dimensions of a standard hotel room, just so the ship itself does not get in the way of placing modular pieces. It you can get sufficient grasp of a module by a set of grapple points build into the roof of a module, keeping the entire hauler smaller than the dimensions of that module will make it easy to fit the modules in place. Lastly and a separate case is any hypersonic dabbling you'd like to do--then you need to look at wedges (which can also be done on a winding gantry), but this is not an especially useful nor practical type of travel as the thermal stresses are so severe, you're not then looking at useful maintenance schedules.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:48 pm

double
Last edited by GIThruster on Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

krenshala
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby krenshala » Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:31 pm

You description reminds me of the General Hulls from Larry Niven's Known Space universe.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:20 am

I haven't read Niven in 45 years but it is possible I was channeling him without knowing it. To the best of my knowledge, I read Ringworld and that was about it. I don't recall any of the contents of the book. I recall I was disappointed with his ability as a writer. I think though, his Ringworld concept scooped Gerard O'Neill's treatment by several years so the concept is likely his.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

kurt9
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby kurt9 » Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:13 pm

I think the "flying saucer" shape is inspired by the idea that it is a low, flat shape that minimizes the mass per unit area of MET used to drive the ship. The bottom surface of the saucer would comprise of modular MET's that cover the entire bottom surface of the ship.

However, if the ship uses electro-magnetic shielding for radiation, would not there be a need for a "donut-hole", thus making for a torus-shaped ship.

kunkmiester
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby kunkmiester » Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:37 pm

IIRC the main point of the genre hulls is that they were all but indestructible. They had standard shapes you could add onto but that wasn't the main point.

A saucer would indeed be a saucer, the donut hole would probably be filled with something that wouldn't care about the magnetic and particle flux going through it.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

krenshala
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby krenshala » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:31 pm

kunkmiester wrote:IIRC the main point of the genre hulls is that they were all but indestructible. They had standard shapes you could add onto but that wasn't the main point.

Yes, in the stories teh main point was that they were mono-crystalline structures that extremely difficult/near impossible to damage. However, my comparison was in the aspect that General Hulls were made in specific shapes and sizes and then 'customized' to fit particular needs, much as GIThruster described in his idea.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests