sci.physics.particle

On Feb 9, 6:41=A0am, BradGuth wrote:
> At least Robert Clark isn't against our use of ions for thrust, and of
> notions for storing enough of such ions for creating a fairly
> substantial amount of volume sustained thrust if given the necessary
> energy for accelerating such ions is part of the package deal. =A0Of
> course, I've had to correct those usual robo-moderated words as having
> been run together, so that a normal key word search would even turn up
> this "Stored ionized gas for ion drives" contribution of his, stating
> that such ion exhaust/exit shouldn't have any difficulties in
> obtaining 10,000 km/s. =A0Whereas I'm thinking the 16.7e3 km/s of the
> natural 5.6 MeV radium alpha/ion particle itself is perhaps not half
> of what a electrostatic boosted and magnetic focused Rn222 ion could
> muster, therefore its potential exit velocity of 34,000 km/s (that's
> better than 0.1'c') seems entirely doable, and of the much greater
> mass of the Rn222 ion should by rights benefit the thrust potential
> without ignoring any of those laws of physics.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/109...
> From: Robert Clark
> Date: Sep 28 2007, 4:53 pm
> Subject: =A0Stored ionized gas for ion drives.
> To:sci.space.policy, sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity,
> sci.physics.fusion
>
> On Sep 20, 4:47 pm, Robert Clark wrote:> =A0This=
page gives a formula for the exhaust speed of an ion engine in
> > terms of the charge on the ions and the voltage driving the ion flow:
>
> >Ionthruster.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster#Energy_usage
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > =A0The exhaust speed increases with the charge on the ions and decreases=

> > with their mass. You would think then that a light gas like hydrogen
> > would be ideal since heavier gases even when fully ionized would still
> > contain approximately equal numbers of neutrons as protons which would
> > not contribute to the charge but would approximately double the mass.
>
> > =A0Yet it is the heavier gases like cesium and more recently xenon that
> > are used. The explanation is that of the energy it takes to ionize the
> > gas used as fuel. The figure on this page shows the energy to ionize a
> > light gas such as hydrogen is relatively high compared to the heavier
> > gases:
>
> > Ionization Energies.
> >http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/ionize.html
>
> > =A0The figure gives the energy per mole which is high in itself. It is
> > even worse when you consider this on a per mass basis since the mass
> > amount of hydrogen would be so small compared to the amount of energy
> > needed to ionize it.
>
> > =A0So could we instead store the hydrogen or some other light gas
> > already in ionized form so we would not have to supply power to ionize
> > the gas, only to accelerate it?
>
> > =A0If you used ionized hydrogen, so you would be accelerating protons,
> > then using 6 x 10^18 protons to make one 1 Coulomb, and a mass of 1.6
> > x 10^-27 kg for a proton, and V representing the voltage in volts, the
> > speed on the ions (protons) would be about (10^4)sqrt(2*V) in meters/
> > second.
>
> > =A0If we made the voltage be 5,000 V we would get 1,000,000 m/s speed
> > much higher than any currentiondrive. Also, there are power supplies
> > that convert low voltage high amperage power into high voltage, low
> > amperage power, even up to 500,000 V. Then we could get 10,000,000
> > m/s =3D 10,000 km/s exhaust speed.
>
> > =A0The question is could we get light weight means of storing large
> > amounts of ionized gas? Note that is this for space based propulsion
> > not launch from Earth. You would have a possibly large energy
> > generating station that remained in low Earth orbit to supply the
> > power to ionize the gas once the spacecraft was placed in orbit. The
> > power generator would be left behind in orbit. Then the volume of the
> > gas container could be large to keep the density of the gas low. This
> > would allow very thin container walls. Note the low density would also
> > allow the electrostatic repulsion of the positively charged ions to be
> > more easily constrained.
>
> > =A0A possible problem though is the charged ions contacting the walls
> > could lead to a loss of ionization. You might be able to use a low
> > level magnetic field to prevent the ions contacting the walls. Low
> > density of the gas would insure the strength of the magnetic field
> > required would be low. It might even be accomplished by thin permanent
> > magnets so you would not need to use extra power.
>
> > =A0Some questions: what would be the electrostatic pressure produced by
> > a low density highly ionized gas? What strength magnetic field would
> > you need to contain it?
>
> > =A0Note that with an exhaust speed of say 10,000 km/s, by the rocket
> > equation we could get the rocket itself up to relativistic speeds with
> > acceptable mass ratios.
>
> > =A0Then this would provide a means of testing relativistic effects on
> > =A0macroscopic bodies.
> > =A0 =A0Bob Clark
>
> > There is a lot of research on containing charged particles of only
> > one charge, that is, all positive or all negative, because of fusion
> > research. These are called "non-neutral" plasmas.
>
> > There is a limit on the number of charged particles you can contain
> > in a magnetic trap based on the strength of the magnetic field called
> > the "Brillouin limit."
>
> > However, some researchers have argued it is possible to exceed
> > This limit:
>
> > Confinement Of PureIonPlasma In A Cylindrical Current Sheet.
> >http://www.pppl.gov/pub_report//2000/PPPL-3403.pdf
> > =A0Bob Clark
>
> Perhaps others might care to ponder and subsequently offer their best
> swag(scientific wild ass guess) as to our getting the most out of ion
> thrust, not that Ra226->Rn222 need be the one and only alternative.
> However, with that nearby and gamma saturated moon of ours might
> actually suggest there's a good amount of Radium to behold, and at a
> $1M/gram seems entirely worth going after, more so than whatever 3He.
> (why the hell not accomplish extracting both?)
> . - Brad Guth
>
> On Feb 8, 7:59 am, BradGuth wrote:
>
>
>
> > A good source of thruster ions that'll keep coming is from the likes
> > of Radium that creates the Radon (Rn222) gas. =A0Radium is somewhat
> > rare, but it is not as an element uncommon. =A0However, of what's most
> > uncommon is any public disclosures or education about Radium.
>
> > Apparently the element of Radium is officially taboo/nondisclosure
> > rated, especially as far as to who has what and at whatever current
> > market value. =A0Essentially, this need-to-know market price of Radium
> > is at least a thousand fold more government cartel hocus-pocus price
> > fixed than anything of fossil fuels or even of yellowcake, though the
> > formal extraction process of obtaining roughly 100 milligrams per
> > yellowcake tonne is essentially a robotic task from start to finish.
> > For the most part, Radium is actually another one of those discarded
> > elements within spent nuclear fuel, as well as found at less
> > concentrations within most mineral tailings or otherwise given as a
> > slight part of most all fossil fuels, that which the fossil energy
> > industry as a whole do not bother to extract or otherwise divert this
> > element from the subsequent CO2/Nox laced combustion soot, much of
> > which simply goes either directly into our atmosphere or if in full
> > clean-air compliance merely gets relocated into various landfills
> > that'll eventually end up eroding and/or blending back into the
> > general environment. =A0Of course none of the valuable 3He has been
> > collected either, so what the hell.
>
> > Naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORM)http://www.eoearth.org/a=
rticle/Naturally-occurring_radioactive_materi...)
> > A =A0great amount of Radium and subsequently Radon comes into our
> > surface environment though fossil fuel extractions and subsequent
> > usage, and much of whatever's initially kept from being
> > atmospherically dispersed as CO2 and NOx contaminated soot that's
> > laced with a slight trace of Radium is simply buried in relatively
> > shallow graves or in some cases utilized as fill for open pit mining
> > site recovery. =A0In other words, most all of the mined elements of
> > radioactive fuel that used to be safely sequestered far enough
> > underground, essentially away from our frail DNA and surface
> > environment, has been systematically and artificially reintroduced
> > into our life sustaining environment, along with as little public
> > education as possible so that folks are simply snookered into being
> > unaware of these surrounding concentrations and dosage levels that we
> > all have to cope within.
>
> > Radon gas; "reportedly causes 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year in
> > the United States alone."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon
> > If that be the case, then by any global/world standard could be
> > looking at as many as 400,000 Radon gas related deaths per year, if
> > not an all-inclusive 500,000 in radiation contamination related deaths
> > per year (keeping in mind that fewer than 500 pandemic deaths per year
> > would become a world health alert with multiple quarantines imposed).
> > Therefore, rounding up as much of the spare/surplus Radium as possible
> > seems like a perfectly good sort of task worth doing, so that it can
> > be either put safely away or at least properly utilized in a manner
> > that doesn't further traumatize our frail DNA and badly failing
> > environment any more than absolutely necessary. =A0Like U238 yellowcake
> > of 80% grade, whereas perhaps the 100 mg/tonne of 90~97% extracted
> > grade of this refined Radium ore doesn't amount to all that much by
> > volume, but clearly what there is of it has become extremely valuable
> > as well as humanly lethal if continually ignored as is, not to mention
> > what adverse affects are imposed upon all other plant, animal and
> > microbe forms of life that surrounds and benefits us, and in one way
> > or another gets involved and/or consumed by us humans.
>
> > Radium is roughly 60 fold more radioactive than Uranium, is also of at
> > least 6 million fold greater worth per
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't know what the big deal is about keeping ionic
propulsion top secret. The cold war has been over for some time and
the Communists propably invented them before we did anyway. Its not
that complicated. You take the guts out of a microwave oven, mount a
parabolic reflector behing the tube so that it concentrate the
mocrowave energy into a point inject a little water into that point at
the same time you push the thrust button and volia you have thrust.
When you run out of water you can stick just about anything in there
and it will ionize it. When you are close enough to other star sstems
for yoursolar cells to work you will ionic propulsion. You would think
it was rocket science! I lived twelve miles north of Cape Canaveral
and watched Werner Von Brun's team put the first satellite in orbit.
We owned two large parcels of land and they kicked everybody off Merit
Island so that they could pretend to put men on the Moon.
Ionic propulsion has been around before the cold war. When
I was twelve Popular Science and National Geographic both showed
pictures of gold plated ion rocket cubes attached to satellites with
five nozzels pointing in five diferent directions controlled by a
solonoid valve for manovering purposes. They even had manually
controlled ones for the astronauts operated by a four-way toggle
switch. When I was going to college whenever I would mention ionic
propulsion the teacher would clam up. When I would aske anyone from
NASA or JPL about ion engines they would clam up and give me strange
look.
Ionic propulsion is the only way we move around in space
using conventional technology. Until we have mass reduction technology
and can alter time and warp space (some of us can already do this) we
have to stick with what works.
What I have been working on lately is mutural gravity
alignment bubbles between multiple star systems. Using our
conventional ionic propulsion technology we might be able to sustain
1/10 earth gravity acceleration so there would be fairly large spaces
between stars where a spaceship could navigate using ionic propulsion.
If you went outside this envelop you would have to use your rocket
power to get back in. In a real dire emergency you would have to use
nuclear to get back into the safe zones. At the present time mankind
has the coputational capability to create three dimensional maps of
the mutural gravity points dictated by the capability of our ionic
propulsion rockets. Teh software already exists but they won't let us
use it. The Berkley-JPL Labritory has a 2048 CPU with terrabites of
memory but us common folk aren't allowed to use it even though we paid
for it.
Those of you who have an inkling of what Brad and I are
talking about know that our sun reached a mutural gravity point at
apogee about ten to twelve thousand years ago in its orbit around the
Sirius system and we (our sun) is traveling (accelerating) toward
Sirius A & B at 7.5 kilometer per second. We (our sun) exists in an
oblong star cluster of 100 stars about 15 light years by 100 light
years ruled by two the giants Sirius and Procyon which are several
billion years older than our sun. We obviously didn't come from the
same place. Our sun was born in Orion--a birthing place for stars 1330
light years to the south. Both Sirius and Procyon have white dwarfs
with masses larger than our sun. Sirius A and B is the object that
started advance multicellular life forms on Earth. Sirius B orbits
Sirius A every 54 years. There are many other larger star clusters
around us; some containing 2500 stars.
To make a very long story short after our sun was born in
Orion with about 40 other stars. The planets formed from extra
material and we drifted out away from Orion for three billion years.
Earth had a 1450 pound per square inch atmosphere and 1/3 of it was
CO2. Earth had an Ice Age that lasted over a billion years and finally
we drifted between Procyon and Sirius into a mutural gravity alignment
point. Sirius B with 1.5 solar masses that orbits Sirius A every 54
years came around and put our Sun into orbit around Sirius while our
sister stars kept going and are in a much larger orbit. The aditional
light and heat from these very old stars took Earth out of it's
billion-year-long ice age and the intense light from Sirius B which
puts out from 100 to 1000 times more UV than our sun started plants
growning on the surface of the oceans. It took the intense light from
a neutron or white dwarf to penetrate earth's 1450 pound per square
inch atmosphere and start laying down coal, oil and limesone with
plant growth. 650-million years of this took earth's atmospher down to
14.5 pound per square inch giving us free oxygen, coal, oil and
limestone. You can't drive a car without a neutron star! You can read
the entire book in a couple months by ordering it from Trafford of
Victoria British Columbia, Amazon.com Boarders, Bokers Etc., Etc.
You can read a dsylexic version of it right now by
going to my web site www.alaskapublishing.com. It can be downloaded
for $4.00. I got my directions backward in regards to which way we are
heading for Sirius. The mainstream information I have to work with is
not that good. The book itself will be awsome with over twenty
wonderful, full-page, full-color images and graphs. WWW.ALASKAPUBLISHING.COM=

BEST WISHES, HANK