It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Space ship which doesn't require fuel

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I was thinking for a moment and I started to design a spaceship. This spaceship would be propelled by the negative charge of an electron layer. To those of you who remember my thread about my time machine thesis I mention the carbon nanotube object here. But this object is not used to bend space and time here though.

So this object uses the energy from sunlight to release electrons. The electrons flow all the way through the tube from the power of the nanotube. The nanotube goes straight down into some magnets that are aligned on a wheel. Since the electrons are moving they will repel the field. Increasing density and creating an electron layer. This electron layer is can sustain itself without the help of sunlight if a certain amount of time has passed.

Now I do use this but not for time travel.I use this to push a tube that is connected to spaceship. This tube is negatively charged. The charge is the same as the electrons. So the tube will move away from the electron layer.

The tube has a rod in it, the rod is connected to a fat magnetic cylinder which is only a little bit smaller than the diameter of the tube. Close to the bottom of the tube there are 5 things. The first thing is a place for the rod. The other 4 are very large, strong springs. Thus makes the tube act like a pump.

Once it moves away from the electron layer it accelerates upward (Which will be enough to sustain the object's forward motion for a long time).But when it accelerates the springs can gain enough energy to push the electron layer back toward the tube. Thus starting the process over.

You maybe wondering what if the object containing the electron layer pushes away from the cylinder?

This is solved by the rod. You see the rod actually is connected to a sort of propeller looking object that is behind the object which contains the electron layer.

Now this object has magnets on each of the "propellers" that are angled in a way to cause motion for the object which contains the electron layer. Thus pushing it forward with the power of the springs. (Since the rod is connected to the magnetic cylinder which is pushed forward by the springs.)

I would also like to mention that it does require another force to keep the tube charged so if anyone has any ideas for that one feel free to include it.

Now I have some conditions. First I don't want any one mentioning the process for the carbon nanotube time machine part as that is not what we are talking about. Second I want it strictly about the machine for the spaceship and the charging of the tube.

And that's pretty much it.(I have a diagram but the file for the diagram is too large enough to be uploaded)

I uploaded through my Facebook page. So here is 2 links to see what I am describing

www.facebook.com...

www.facebook.com...

Disregard where I said spinner as I don't need that anymore.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]




posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


Cooool! A thermodynamics defying ion engine!

Unnecessary Second Line.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Q1) This is for a spaceship, yes? What exactly are the "propellors" pushing against in the vacuum of space that will result in forward motion?

Q2) The sole purpose of a ship that needs no fuel would obviously be to travel vast distances, but what use is travelling vast distances if the ship needs sunlight to run? Surely the necessity of remaining close to a star at all time automatically rules out crossings of interstellar space?



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
Q1) This is for a spaceship, yes? What exactly are the "propellors" pushing against in the vacuum of space that will result in forward motion?

Q2) The sole purpose of a ship that needs no fuel would obviously be to travel vast distances, but what use is travelling vast distances if the ship needs sunlight to run? Surely the necessity of remaining close to a star at all time automatically rules out crossings of interstellar space?


It only needs to be lit with sunlight for a short amount of time. About as much as it needs to create a dense electron layer.

I showed them in the drawing, if you saw it, that they are not used to propel anything but the electromagnetism of the magnets on each "propeller" to push the object which contains the electron layer at slow speeds but keeps the electrons moving because of the magnetic fields they create. Not only does it do that but it keeps the object which contains the carbon nanotubes away from floating off into space.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 



It only needs to be lit with sunlight for a short amount of time. About as much as it needs to create a dense electron layer.


Exactly *how* efficient do you think carbon nanotubes are? You're certainly giving them more credit than they deserve.


I showed them in the drawing, if you saw it, that they are not used to propel anything but there electromagnetism of the magnets on each "propeller" to push the object which contains the electron layer at slow speeds but keeps the electrons moving because of the magnetic fields they create. Not only does it do that but it keeps the object which contains the carbon nanotubes away from floating off into space.


Right, what he's describing folks is a thermodynamics defying Ion Engine. I could have sworn I've seen a similar idea to this somewhere on the net years ago.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 



It only needs to be lit with sunlight for a short amount of time. About as much as it needs to create a dense electron layer.


Exactly *how* efficient do you think carbon nanotubes are? You're certainly giving them more credit than they deserve.


I showed them in the drawing, if you saw it, that they are not used to propel anything but the electromagnetism of the magnets on each "propeller" to push the object which contains the electron layer at slow speeds but keeps the electrons moving because of the magnetic fields they create. Not only does it do that but it keeps the object which contains the carbon nanotubes away from floating off into space.


Right, what he's describing folks is a thermodynamics defying Ion Engine. I could have sworn I've seen a similar idea to this somewhere on the net years ago.


It's pretty short if you compare it to the amount of time it takes to create an electron layer using solar panels.

Which law? Cause I mentioned that it is dependent on electromagnetism.

It did have to be charged electromagnetically.I never said that it runs by itself. It doesn't run on fuel though. It has to have a charger if the magnets wear off. I would recommend using electromagnets on the propeller like objects. But only after the normal magnets where off.(Like I previously stated otherwise it would just waste the power we have.)

I would like to mention that this is more of a pulse inductive thruster. Even though that's a different kind of ion engine.

But it is not an ION Engine.

By definition an Ion Engine (or thruster if you prefer)is a form of electric propulsion used for spacecraft propulsion that creates thrust by accelerating ions, with using either electrostatic or electromagnetic force.Electrostatic ion thrusters use the Coulomb force and accelerate the ions in the direction of the electric field. Electromagnetic ion thrusters use the Lorentz force to accelerate the ions. Note that the term "ion thruster" frequently denotes the electrostatic or gridded ion thrusters only.

Thats from wiki.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Man, it is strange that not a single aerospace engineer back at Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral AFS never quite came up with such an imaginative and innovative method of propulsion. They all felt strangely reliant upon those based on known physics principles. This is really quite a breakthrough technology!

Exactly when will your working prototype be ready for structual and integration testing?



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth1000
 


I'd rather leave sarcasm out of this and explain yourself.


Sounds like someone I know.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Sorry for the sarcasm, GA.

My point was that it is simply an impractical system. There are tens of thousands of highly trained engineers who are working on extremely complex propulsion systems. When I have had the opportunity to discuss what the difficulties are with their programs, I was always incredibly impressed by the degree of knowledge they exhibited, and doubt that your proposal would compare to theirs.

It isn't as though I could come up with anything myself, since I am not an engineer either.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
Sorry for the sarcasm, GA.

My point was that it is simply an impractical system. There are tens of thousands of highly trained engineers who are working on extremely complex propulsion systems. When I have had the opportunity to discuss what the difficulties are with their programs, I was always incredibly impressed by the degree of knowledge they exhibited, and doubt that your proposal would compare to theirs.

It isn't as though I could come up with anything myself, since I am not an engineer either.


It's alright but I think it doesn't matter how much you know but how you apply what you know to the real world.

So I think any machine or plan someone has should be treated the same as any other plan you might see.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Having pre-flighted aircraft too many times, before you put your life on the line in a vehicle, you want to have complete confidence in it. All proper equipment can't even be trusted if not correctly maintained and prepped for flight. At that moment, all mechanisms are NOT created equal.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth1000
 


True but I meant it doesn't matter who made it it matters about how good it its.

As I said before can you tell me why you do not trust it?



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 



It's pretty short if you compare it to the amount of time it takes to create an electron layer using solar panels.


Define 'short' as I don't think anyone is going to sit around in your thermodynamics defying ion engine powered spaceship for a few weeks waiting for it to build up enough mass to provide an itty bitty amount of thrust.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
If this is as revolutionary a breakthrough in propulsion technology as you claim, then I'm somewhat confused as to why you're seeking opinions here on ATS when in fact you should have written up a paper describing your theory, technology and incorporating all your supporting mathematics ... and then submitted it for peer review through the normal channels.

And the same goes for your time travel theory ... why here on ATS and not formally written up for peer review ?



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
GA,

First, what alloy types would be needed for your metal rods? What will be their composition and what manufacturing processes will be needed to assure the exact right mix? How will you determine what the mixture for the alloy will be? How will you determine the size of the rods that you propose? How will you test your concept of design for your rods? How will you know what the ionizing radiation of space will do to the rods themselves? How do you plan to test whether the IR will affect the functioning of the rods? How long will the rods last? Do any of the space conditions affect the rate of deterioration of your rods?

I could go on and on, just about your rods. What about the rest of your concept?

There is a huge difference between coming up with an idea, and developing a functional spacecraft, and you don't seem to have any idea of what all is involved. That is why it took over 20,000 aeronautical engineers seven years to develop the initial orbiter for the STS (aka Space Shuttle).

No offense, but you are clearly an uninitiated amateur with no experience with a working spacecraft.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
If this is as revolutionary a breakthrough in propulsion technology as you claim, then I'm somewhat confused as to why you're seeking opinions here on ATS when in fact you should have written up a paper describing your theory, technology and incorporating all your supporting mathematics ... and then submitted it for peer review through the normal channels.

And the same goes for your time travel theory ... why here on ATS and not formally written up for peer review ?


Because he is thirteen and those idiot adult scientists that would review his work just wouldn't understand his magic physics.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Why do I not trust it?

Can you give me a single example of a demonstration anywhere to show that it is possible? If you show me any example that even remotely proves the slightest realistic chance of the physics of your concept being viable, I will rapidly change my opinion.

Any hint of proof of your physics will be satisfactory.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
Why do I not trust it?

Can you give me a single example of a demonstration anywhere to show that it is possible? If you show me any example that even remotely proves the slightest realistic chance of the physics of your concept being viable, I will rapidly change my opinion.

Any hint of proof of your physics will be satisfactory.


In the time travel thread he gave a cute analogy, I forget the specifics though. Essentially, if X could do Y then Z effect would work. Which understandably, would be accurate and reasonable, but we can't just invent magic physics and exclaim at the age of thirteen that we've succeeded where hundreds of idiot adult scientists got it all wrong or failed miserably at achieving what his masterful genius has achieved.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
If flying by ether forces the best way is by voltage.
The voltage generation is well known and the step up AC
transformer action is also known to high school students
perhaps.
To effect the ether the secondary coil is left open to
pulse the ether and drive in the negative charges.
Negative ether charge reacts faster than the positive
and heads for the ship and coil and crew.
As the tuning is adjusted to repetitive one way of DC
square wave pulses the negative charge takes over.
However an engine must power the voltage.
The fuel can be Helium or a Noble gas as in the Papp
engine that is sparked by a spark gap as in a car spark plug
but how good will the battery last even if overunity results.
The battery will be the first part to wear out.
The whole future of Tesla ship travel in outer space resolves
on a battery spark lasting.
Not good.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
Why do I not trust it?

Can you give me a single example of a demonstration anywhere to show that it is possible? If you show me any example that even remotely proves the slightest realistic chance of the physics of your concept being viable, I will rapidly change my opinion.

Any hint of proof of your physics will be satisfactory.


Ok

1. The springs- proven by Newtons laws.

2. The Negative charges of the electron layer and the negative charges of the tube- It is as simple to understand as electrons repelling electrons. The charges are the same so they repel.

3. The magnets- The magnets also repel the electron layer but since they are behind it they cause it to move forward.

IS that enough for you or should I go on?




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join