Questions regarding DPF.

[Aeronaut]

Brian,

For 2 tons of mass to equal 2 tons of weight, you need to have done one of 3 things-

1. Persuaded Congress to repeal the Law of Gravity (which would make rockets much smaller), or
2. Beat CERN to discovering the god particle that’s supposed to impart mass to every atom in existence, thereby making an anti-gravity device possible, or
3. Gone off your meds.

To split hairs, NASA routinely ships water to the ISS. 8,000 miles plus a topoff makes almost any point in the world accessible within 24 hours. Granted, the bird of choice would most likely be a C5-A, as the situation would be motivated by political expediency rather than cost-effectiveness.

About water mass, are you calculating volume radially around the vacuum chamber, or 1 meter around the entire machine- cap banks, switches and all?

Duke, here’s a link to a borated polyethylene supplier who lists the TVT of .875 inches of lead as doing the same shielding as 1inch of his material, but around 11 times heavier. Probably costs less in materials and labor, too.

http://www.boratedpe.com/kingplasti-shieldboratedpesheet.html

Maybe we’re not stuck with quite as much weight as we were expecting yesterday….

[Duke Leto]

I again have to query, why in god’s name do you feel the need for air shipping? Rail, truck and sea are just fine.

[Aeronaut]

Duke Leto wrote: I again have to query, why in god’s name do you feel the need for air shipping? Rail, truck and sea are just fine.

‘Cause it can be done? Actually, all I wanted to do was see if a jetliner or cargo plane would be feasible to power with FF using today’s eclectic motors. If I was building FF, I’d definitely be on a rail line and ship them like tanks.

[JimmyT]

With regards to weight and mass. This may help. Or maybe not: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/slug.html

Hmmm. Any suggestions on getting this link to work?

Aero coached me on this. Had an extra space, which I removed. Thanks Aero!

[Duke Leto]

My own calculations on whether you could strap in a FF generator to a commercial airplane indicate that it is probably not feasible, owing to the amount of thrust that would need to be generated to replace the Jet-A driven engines would be in the department of 50+ FF units for a full sized 747-400. So either they need to be miniaturized or multiple focuses have to share the same shielding. And then there’s still the issue of getting propulsion from the requisite electrical energy. If you have to carry your FF plus some sort of propellant than you really are better off just synthesizing Jet A on the ground.

[Aeronaut]

Duke Leto wrote: My own calculations on whether you could strap in a FF generator to a commercial airplane indicate that it is probably not feasible, owing to the amount of thrust that would need to be generated to replace the Jet-A driven engines would be in the department of 50+ FF units for a full sized 747-400. So either they need to be miniaturized or multiple focuses have to share the same shielding. And then there’s still the issue of getting propulsion from the requisite electrical energy. If you have to carry your FF plus some sort of propellant than you really are better off just synthesizing Jet A on the ground.

Yep, I would, too.

[Aeronaut]

JimmyT wrote: With regards to weight and mass. This may help. Or maybe not: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/slug.html

Hmmm. Any suggestions on getting this link to work?

Thanx, Jimmy. I clicked the Mass link and got it rephrased with and without gravity. Here’s that link: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/mass.html#mas

Looks like adding http:// to the link should make it clickable. Copy and paste always works, too.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote: Brian,

For 2 tons of mass to equal 2 tons of weight, you need to have done one of 3 things-

1. Persuaded Congress to repeal the Law of Gravity (which would make rockets much smaller), or
2. Beat CERN to discovering the god particle that’s supposed to impart mass to every atom in existence, thereby making an anti-gravity device possible, or
3. Gone off your meds.

To split hairs, NASA routinely ships water to the ISS. 8,000 miles plus a topoff makes almost any point in the world accessible within 24 hours. Granted, the bird of choice would most likely be a C5-A, as the situation would be motivated by political expediency rather than cost-effectiveness.

About water mass, are you calculating volume radially around the vacuum chamber, or 1 meter around the entire machine- cap banks, switches and all?

Duke, here’s a link to a borated polyethylene supplier who lists the TVT of .875 inches of lead as doing the same shielding as 1inch of his material, but around 11 times heavier. Probably costs less in materials and labor, too.

http://www.boratedpe.com/kingplasti-shieldboratedpesheet.html

Maybe we’re not stuck with quite as much weight as we were expecting yesterday….

Rockets? Gravity? Aero, you’ve gone loony. 🙂 %-P We are not discussing how much fuel mass it would take to put an FF into geosynch orbit. A 747 is many orders of magnitude less expensive transportation (fuel-wise, etc.) than a Delta rocket.

Mass and weight are identical, by convention, at sea level, on Earth. Here’s a link to the standard Kilogram used as the defining mass/weight standard for the world:

The kilogram or kilogramme (symbol: kg) is the base unit of mass in the International System of Units (SI, from the French Le Système International d’Unités). The kilogram is defined as being equal to the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram[1] (IPK), which is almost exactly equal to the mass of one liter of water. It is the only SI base unit with an SI prefix as part of its name. It is also the only SI unit that is still defined in relation to an artifact rather than to a fundamental physical property that can be reproduced in different laboratories.

In everyday usage, the mass of an object, which is measured in kilograms, is often referred to as its weight. However, the term weight in strict scientific contexts refers to the gravitational force of an object. Throughout most of the world, force is measured with the SI unit newton and the non-SI unit kilogram-force. Similarly, the avoirdupois (or international) pound, used in both the Imperial system and U.S. customary units, is a unit of mass and its related unit of force is the pound-force. The avoirdupois pound is defined as exactly 0.45359237 kg, making one kilogram approximately equal to 2.2046 avoirdupois pounds.

(And, therefore, 910 kg = about 1 ton, etc., etc., etc. See above.)

Image, with ruler (marked in cm.) for scale: http://tinyurl.com/KilogramSI

So, to repeat, a 747-400F could handle the weight/mass of 140-155 FF reactors, but the volume constraint would limit it to 15-18, depending on packing efficiency.

[Brian H]

JimmyT wrote: With regards to weight and mass. This may help. Or maybe not: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/slug.html

Hmmm. Any suggestions on getting this link to work?

Aero coached me on this. Had an extra space, which I removed. Thanks Aero!

I just read through the page you link, and am guessing that this is a clue about where Aeronaut got his mysterious weight=32*mass formula. It gives the mass weight equivalence as a ratio between a slug and a pound, where a slug is = 32.2 lbs.

Of course, the mass of a ‘slug’ is irrelevant to the discussion, even though it is a standard mass, but I thought this might be where that strange number came from, leading to the astonishing revelation that 2 tons = 64,000 lbs! (1 ton = 2000 slugs?)

[JimmyT]

I just read through the page you link, and am guessing that this is a clue about where Aeronaut got his mysterious weight=32*mass formula. It gives the mass weight equivalence as a ratio between a slug and a pound, where a slug is = 32.2 lbs.

Of course, the mass of a ‘slug’ is irrelevant to the discussion, even though it is a standard mass, but I thought this might be where that strange number came from, leading to the astonishing revelation that 2 tons = 64,000 lbs! (1 ton = 2000 slugs?)

Brian,
Yeah, you are right. That’s why I included that link to begin with, as it was the only possible place I could think of where Aero could be getting the factor of 32. I thought perhaps the point of confusion was that the pound is a unit of force or weight. Not a unit of mass. So hoping to clarify it I included the link. I may have just muddied the waters in doing so.

[Brian H]

JimmyT wrote: I just read through the page you link, and am guessing that this is a clue about where Aeronaut got his mysterious weight=32*mass formula. It gives the mass weight equivalence as a ratio between a slug and a pound, where a slug is = 32.2 lbs.

Of course, the mass of a ‘slug’ is irrelevant to the discussion, even though it is a standard mass, but I thought this might be where that strange number came from, leading to the astonishing revelation that 2 tons = 64,000 lbs! (1 ton = 2000 slugs?)

Brian,
Yeah, you are right. That’s why I included that link to begin with, as it was the only possible place I could think of where Aero could be getting the factor of 32. I thought perhaps the point of confusion was that the pound is a unit of force or weight. Not a unit of mass. So hoping to clarify it I included the link. I may have just muddied the waters in doing so.

Yeah, a slug is not something I’d heard about before, but IAC is a much larger mass than the units we’re discussing here.

[Aeronaut]

I was hoping we’d all agreed to disagree on this issue, and I thought the waters had just about cleared. Following Jimmy’s link leads to a discussion of how weight is mass times the force of acceleration. Had I used metric units my multiplier would be 10 or 9.8, depending on the degree of precision I was after.

Clicking the “weight” link in that section goes here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/mass.html#wgt , which says the same thing. I don’t write this stuff, I just report it, lol.

What it says is that a 2 ton I beam will crush you in space, as on Earth, even though it has no weight in space. Its weight is 64,000 pounds on Earth, 0 pounds in space, and 10,666 pounds on the moon.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote: I was hoping we’d all agreed to disagree on this issue, and I thought the waters had just about cleared. Following Jimmy’s link leads to a discussion of how weight is mass times the force of acceleration. Had I used metric units my multiplier would be 10 or 9.8, depending on the degree of precision I was after.

Clicking the “weight” link in that section goes here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/mass.html#wgt , which says the same thing. I don’t write this stuff, I just report it, lol.

What it says is that a 2 ton I beam will crush you in space, as on Earth, even though it has no weight in space. Its weight is 64,000 pounds on Earth, 0 pounds in space, and 10,666 pounds on the moon.

Are you mad? A 2 ton I-beam weighs 4,000 lbs. on Earth. That’s what 2 tons means. Really. No doubt about it, no discussion or disagreement possible. Sorry.

Ask your HS science teacher, or anyone here on the Forum. I’ll put every cent I own and will earn in the foreseeable future on the answer. No shit, Sherlock.

[Aeronaut]

Pay up, my dear Watson. The slide I cited in Eric’s video clearly states 2 tons of MASS . Weight and mass are not the same thing, but I’ll look it up in my copy of the 23rd edition of Machinery’s Handbook and quote it if you like.

[Duke Leto]

Aeronaut, you just aren’t getting this.

A ton is not traditionally a measure of MASS at all, it is a measure of weight. The standard definition of a ton of weight is 2000 Imperial Lbs, which are also a measure of weight or force and not mass. Technically, as a weight measure rather than a mass measure, the weight of a ton of goods as sea level is slightly more than its weight at a higher altitude. The sea level pound is considered to be equivalent to the metric mass measure of about .45 kg. It is also acceptable, although not generally approved of, to consider gravitational force weight in Imperial pounds, again the same number as considered equivalent to 2.2 times the metric mass, as also equivalent to the metric gravitational force measure which will be about 4.5 Newtons to the pound. (Note the linked Wiki article differentiates between the American short ton and the old British long ton of 2240 lbs, but this does not make much of a difference for our purposes.)

But when we are talking about the conversion of Imperial tons to Imperial pounds, the rate is 1:2000, end of story. You seem to be confusing an Imperial measure of Mass, the Slug, with the Imperial pound, if I am reading this thread correctly.

You really need to get straight on this —–.

[Author]

Posts