[Aeronaut]

Ok, Brian, this might be a head-scratcher for you. Might not, lol.

I worked a radar in the navy when I wasn’t cleaning and painting. We needed to calculate the bearing, range, and time of each contact’s CPA (Closest Point of Approach) so we could avoid getting run over by ships that were much, much larger. Given that radar is lightspeed, and all motion is relative to my ship, cruising in a long-term straight line at .5C,

1. What frame is each radar pulse in? My ship’s, general space-time, or a contact’s frame?
2. Would a radar even work above .25 or .5C? If so, would it only “see” contacts on the same course and speed?
3. In general, do frames become ever more isolated as the speed becomes more relativistic?

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

Here’s another way to go about getting licensees, which I got from following a Google Pay Per Click ad that showed up next to an email: http://www.ibridgenetwork.org/arizona/UA07-081_Tunable_Terahertz_Radiation_Emitter_Based

Oooo… T-rays! I love ’em. Reeally interesting stuff. Spontaneously emitted by organic matter, didja know? :cheese: 🙂 :cheese:

As for licensees, I suspect they will be beating on the door, with fistfuls of dollars, Euros, yen, rubles, and yuan by the time it becomes clear the engineering design is going to be a success. (Maybe Eric should demand payment in gold bars! 😆 😉 )

Yeah, they heat a substrate and pass the radiation thru tiny holes. Kind of like thermionic emission in a triode tube. Seriously, though, PPC advertising is an option to keep in mind, as it has a different demographic than organic search results.

Just to be clear, I was talking about Eric’s door, not the T-Ray guys’!

No, I didn’t post that link to sell T-rays, only to mention PPC and and their marketing strategy. All I want to right now is minimize the bulk and mass of my neutron shielding design.

[Aeronaut]

Here’s the link, Brian. Had to break down and use the site’s search engine. https://focusfusion.pmhclients.com/index.php/site/article/singapore_dpf_group_demonstrates_high_efficiency/

[Aeronaut]

Hmm… Learned some neat terms like HVT and TVT this afternoon. After pretty much dismissing pure hydrogen, it looks like I’m stuck with the mass, although lead will give a smaller package than water or concrete.

[Aeronaut]

That’s the clearest I’ve heard it explained. Might take me a little while to assimilate, though.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

Here’s another way to go about getting licensees, which I got from following a Google Pay Per Click ad that showed up next to an email: http://www.ibridgenetwork.org/arizona/UA07-081_Tunable_Terahertz_Radiation_Emitter_Based

Oooo… T-rays! I love ’em. Reeally interesting stuff. Spontaneously emitted by organic matter, didja know? :cheese: 🙂 :cheese:

As for licensees, I suspect they will be beating on the door, with fistfuls of dollars, Euros, yen, rubles, and yuan by the time it becomes clear the engineering design is going to be a success. (Maybe Eric should demand payment in gold bars! 😆 😉 )

Yeah, they heat a substrate and pass the radiation thru tiny holes. Kind of like thermionic emission in a triode tube. Seriously, though, PPC advertising is an option to keep in mind, as it has a different demographic than organic search results.

[Aeronaut]

JimmyT wrote: Before the age of solid state ignition systems, those of us who are old enough, remember ignition coils. These worked via a pinch, although I never heard it called that. Input voltage 12 volts. Output voltage ~10,000 volts. I know that it’s dependent on the relative number of turns in the primary and secondary. But, I don’t think you can use any 4x or 5x the input voltage rule of thumb.

The plasma focus sort-of works as a step-up transformer in that sense. Concentrating magnetic forces.

I know that two of the factors that go into the induced voltage spike are: magnetic field strength and speed of field decay.
Beyond that: proximity of the field, geometry of the objects involved, and of course materials they are made of.

Anything more elaborate than that gets a little above my pay grade.

Oh, yeah, I remember coils, distributors, condensers, and breakers. You’re right about the speed of decay- the breaker simply cut the current, and the collapsing field created counter EMF. The high voltage had no current to speak of. All it had to do was spark the air/gas mixture.

I went thru the video this morning, since I’m almost positive that’s where Eric mentioned the 5 to 6 fold voltage spike to the caps. Missed what I was looking for, but am now a LOT clearer on the current flows, mag fields, and instabilities.

Going back to my tank circuit diagram, inserting a 2 bank cap controller for ignition and profit caps, and the diamond switch leaves just the FF reactor as the “coil” in the circuit. It leaves the rails when you try to add a coil or cap to explain how this “supercoil” puts out 1.8 x input. Since this isn’t a paper FF, less than 100% of the energy that’s made it this far makes it to the next instability/transfer. This means there is a residual magnetic field to discharge with a reverse current, or account for as an electrostatic charge. Works for me on runout, so far. I still need to sketch/note the whole process to be sure.

[Aeronaut]

Here’s another way to go about getting licensees, which I got from following a Google Pay Per Click ad that showed up next to an email: http://www.ibridgenetwork.org/arizona/UA07-081_Tunable_Terahertz_Radiation_Emitter_Based

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote: Here’s a TeslaMotors Press Release that combines news and promo:

http://www.teslamotors.com/media/press_room.php?id=1347

And here’s their press room, with all their press releases:

http://www.teslamotors.com/media/press_room.php?id=1388

Thanx for the links, Brian. Looks like they believe in Press Release marketing. Did you notice how they ramped up the PR frequency just before the launch? A great deal of that material is begging to be adapted to FF. Especially the phrase “Performance With A Clean Conscience”.

[Aeronaut]

Jimmy, if you’re thinking about Red Adair, he huffed, and he puffed, and he blew it out with a bunch of high explosives.

I went through Eric’s video again over the last 4 hours, then copied & pasted the entire energy harvesting system into Photoshop 6 and started taking “measurements” by the clues that Eric gave along with the assumption that the drawing was more about clarity than scale. So I pulled some numbers out of thin air:

X-ray collector diameter, ~3′ or more. (original “scaling” suggested 13′, which I consider unacceptable for an aerospace market.
Baseplate diameter (electrode mounting plate) ~9 inches;
Electrode lengths ~7″;
Electrode to drift tube ~7″;
Drift Tube/Solenoid, guess 4′ (May be twice as long as needed to reach 90% eff.)
Missing Gyrotron to couple particle beam to solenoid, ~2′ (resembles a length of wave guide)

Length overall, ~7 or 8 feet
Minimum diameter, ~1 foot, using hydrogenated plastic shielding (again, it’s a guess- figure 2 to 3 feet more realistic)
Min diameter to approach max theoretical efficiency, ~6 feet.
Shielded weight, (another guess), under 250 pounds, without capacitors.

This will fit easily in a high bypass turbofan powered airliner engine nacelle.

Biggest challenge, passing X-rays for recovery while blocking neutrons.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

I get a kick out of all those with a better physics education than Einstein that are afraid to publicly challenge any and/or all 4 parts of the theory of relativity, which was published 104 years ago. Wasn’t Einstein working on a unified field theorum when he died?

So far, tests of GR have supported it, including such things as “frame dragging”, measured from orbit. The problem is synching it with QM (which Einstein resisted as a theory until his dying day — the famous “God does not play dice” was his objection to resorting to probabilities at a fundamental event/causal level. He also disliked the “spooky action at a distance” aspect of entanglement. A very cause-and-effect kind of guy!) So it’s more like fear of making readily provably false statements that inhibits physicists, I think.
Can’t follow you into the specific theories, but I’ll agree with the human nature parts. As I understand it, Relativity was an attempt to describe God’s M.O., so to speak, despite all he didn’t know. I’m surprised nobody connected the dots and did a “top floor” to tie everybody else’s slices together.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

With regard to the scalability question:
It would probably be farsighted to try to fit one of these power units into a containerized cargo unit right at the beginning of the design phase. They might need outriggers to contain shielding water (mainly for neutrons.) I’ve seen many references in the forums to these units being “about the size of semi trailers”. Well, maybe we should endevor to make them exactly the size of those modular trailers. They would sure be easy to transport that way.

That standardized form factor would be a huge plus for shipping FF around the world. But a meter of water in all directions is a lot of mass, volume, and steel that isn’t absolutely required, as thinner, lighter shielding materials might give us a torpedo-like form factor.

This in turn could possibly fit 4 or more reactors into the container, along with the control room.
There is no intention of shipping the reactor with the water! :bug: 😆

It is unnecessary until the unit is “switched on”, in any case. Nothing in the FF generator is inherently radioactive. It would only be necessary for transport situations if it was being used as the power source.

Brian, you’re absolutely right- as long as you restrict the choice of primary shielding material to water. I don’t. Assuming a 1 foot FF core diameter, a meter of water shielding in all directions requires a diameter of just under 8 feet, which does not leave much clearance in a semi trailer. It may very likely be overweight, too, except for specially licensed oilfield trailers that can carry 40 tons. Sooooo, once you ship it halfway across the Sahara, how do you plan to fill it? :bug: 😆

But you just keep thinking inside the box, my friend, and my Delta-Vee conscious designs will eat your lunch by every metric.

[Aeronaut]

I get a kick out of all those with a better physics education than Einstein that are afraid to publicly challenge any and/or all 4 parts of the theory of relativity, which was published 104 years ago. Wasn’t Einstein working on a unified field theorum when he died?

[Aeronaut]

JimmyT wrote: With regard to the scalability question:
It would probably be farsighted to try to fit one of these power units into a containerized cargo unit right at the beginning of the design phase. They might need outriggers to contain shielding water (mainly for neutrons.) I’ve seen many references in the forums to these units being “about the size of semi trailers”. Well, maybe we should endevor to make them exactly the size of those modular trailers. They would sure be easy to transport that way.

That standardized form factor would be a huge plus for shipping FF around the world. But a meter of water in all directions is a lot of mass, volume, and steel that isn’t absolutely required, as thinner, lighter shielding materials might give us a torpedo-like form factor.

This in turn could possibly fit 4 or more reactors into the container, along with the control room.

[Aeronaut]

JimmyT wrote: How can we be sure, with our current data, that the earth’s magnetic field will be optimal with any tilt of the electrodes? Maybe a somewhat stronger field is necessary. In which case —> Blake coil.

Lotsa experimental baseplates for each manufacturer, since Baby’s optimized for New Jersey by definition, lol.

[Author]

Posts