PRACTICAL fusion device by Princeton physicist suppressed

[~enigma~]

still, even that doesnt provide a lot of actual thrust, just high velocity, so 1g still seems unlikely

Funny how the weakest of the forces can easily cause a 1 G acceleration yet we seem to be tied in knots trying to produce 1 G.

 

[BenBurch]

Beachnut, Even 0.01g would be enough to open the solar system if you can sustain it for long intervals.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

still, even that doesnt provide a lot of actual thrust, just high velocity, so 1g still seems unlikely

Why do you think it wouldn't scale up if we had a large power supply?

 

[~enigma~]

if we had

Planning a trip?

 

[beachnut]

We are talking about your wrong assumption that 1 G acceleration isn't possible. This has nothing to do with his woo beliefs on any other subject. That is your hang up. I hope you wear it proudly.

Your assumption I had the assumption 1 g acceleration is impossible is WRONG. Sorry, but on earth your 1 g acceleration will not hack it. But from space have at it. How much energy does it take to maintain 1 g for 25 hours? Pick a payload. Got the wrong engineer.

OMG, in 1964 we discussed this in science. Sorry, but I was only 12, and I did not say it was impossible, you said I said it. Sorry, you are wrong.

In fact I have been at 3 to 5 gs many times. I have been at over 7 gs. So. What is wrong with doing 1 g; I have done 1 g for over 50 years; with occasional excursion to –1 g and + 7 gs. I like 0 g best after doing much 3 to 5 g stuff. I have done 720 degree rolls; but never said it was impossibe to do 1g. Do you have an engine I can try it with? I could sustain 3 gs for a while but loose energy, I need bigger engines and more fuel! Got more fuel. I could give you lots of gs, but you may die! Impossible. You must mean someone else. Got those energy numbers for a small 12,000 pound craft?

Sorry, you are wrong again.

 

[~enigma~]

I said 1 g was not going to hack leaving earth. So? I never said anything about dreaming up space flight. Sorry, I was 12 when we talked about this in science in 1964. You are too late to pin this on me.

As you guys assume for the nuke did the WTC man, I am still laughing.

I assume a nuke did the wtc? You are an insane nutcase. What did I ever say to give you that idea or do you think anyone that "defends" metamars use of 1 G must believe everything he does? If that's your reason i can recommend a good psychiatrist

Now please I am going to ask again. Explain why (preferably with calculations) that you can't have a 1 G acceleration and explain slowly why you are justified making the assumption that he meant a ship taking off from the surface of the planet.

If you are unwilling to answer any of the above questions, I question why you find a need to argue like a little girl that had her dolly taken away.

 

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)
Of the two, it is China that is working on "very interesting" tokamak fusion devices, apart from the huge (and, according to Bussard, likely futile) international ITER fusion project, and that "will beat ITER to the punch".

Developing these power plants would allow very rapid space travel. Going to Mars should only take about 4 weeks, and 76 days to Titan, a Saturnian moon.

So, don't be surprised when China not only leaves the US in the dust economically, but furthermore leaves the US still piddling with kerosene fueled rockets while they zoom throughout the solar system on fusion powered systems.

Sound like TIE Fighters!

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut, Even 0.01g would be enough to open the solar system if you can sustain it for long intervals.

So, I never said anything was impossible. What engine do you have?

I did say the 1 g stuff was not going anywhere from earth. So? I still can not find a way to leave earth at 1 g; sort of. I was 12 when we discussed space travel with nukes/other means. We even talked about constant acceleration for solar system travel. I enjoyed it. I am sorry if a statement by me is misleading others to give up their dreams for an engine with great energy. Please carry on. If you know a way to leave earth at 1 g, I am ready. I understand the assumption of starting in space. I do not assume anything; I have assumed many things in the past and paid dearly. You guys do the assuming, I will be asking for the initial conditions.

But what acceleration do you want, I can accelerate you for a while at very high rates, but there will be great changes to you depending on the means and the rate. None of the high acceleration rates will be healthful. Bring on the gs! The more the better.

What the heck did I say, oh,

No, (not sitting on earth) you can not use 1 g. WE are sitting here typing at 1 g. Try again smart man.

NOPE, never said impossible.

 

[Gravy]

Please stop.

 

[Brainache]

I assume a nuke did the wtc? You are an insane nutcase. What did I ever say to give you that idea or do you think anyone that "defends" metamars use of 1 G must believe everything he does? If that's your reason i can recommend a good psychiatrist

Now please I am going to ask again. Explain why (preferably with calculations) that you can't have a 1 G acceleration and explain slowly why you are justified making the assumption that he meant a ship taking off from the surface of the planet.

If you are unwilling to answer any of the above questions, I question why you find a need to argue like a little girl that had her dolly taken away.

I think you may have misinterpreted Beachnut's point. You also seem to be making personal attacks on him.

What I find most amusing is the way you fly right off the handle in the first response and then accuse him of behaving like a "spoiled brat" and "a little girl that had her dolly taken away". Are you trying to provide a textbook example of projection, or what?

 

[Alareth]

Look at me zoom through space with a rotational velocity of 876mi/hr!

I'm awesome.

 

[Corsair 115]

I did say the 1 g stuff was not going anywhere from earth. So? I still can not find a way to leave earth at 1 g...

You assumed metamars meant a 1 g accelerated departure from Earth's surface; I didn't make that assumption, nor did a few others. A spacecraft in Earth orbit leaving for Mars could certainly begin its voyage using a constant 1 g acceleration (assuming a engine capable of providing sufficient thrust).

Most of what I've read about manned interplanetary spacecraft, such as would be used for a mission to Mars, almost always talks about the craft departing from Earth orbit (or possibly lunar orbit).

I think you're getting in a bit of a tizzy over this one aspect for no reason. Seems like nothing more than a misunderstanding to me, so how about a truce between you and enigma? I don't think you guys are in disagreement about the main part of metamar's opening post.

Now, as to the rest of what metamars has to say about this supposedly available or nearly available fusion device, I find the story rather doubtful.

 

[~enigma~]

I think you're getting in a bit of a tizzy over this one aspect for no reason. Seems like nothing more than a misunderstanding to me.

It's obvious why he is trying to defend an indefensible and quite ludicrous position. Metamars has woo beliefs regarding the WTC among other things and someone just can't deal with ANYONE defending any of his beliefs even when they have nothing to do with 9/11. Classic case of debunker burnout.

 

[beachnut]

I assume a nuke did the wtc? You are an insane nutcase. What did I ever say to give you that idea or do you think anyone that "defends" metamars use of 1 G must believe everything he does? If that's your reason i can recommend a good psychiatrist

Now please I am going to ask again. Explain why (preferably with calculations) that you can't have a 1 G acceleration and explain slowly why you are justified making the assumption that he meant a ship taking off from the surface of the planet.

If you are unwilling to answer any of the above questions, I question why you find a need to argue like a little girl that had her dolly taken away.

I thought M man was the nuke guy, not you. LOL at him. It was not you. M man, the OP author made up ideas about blowing up the WTC with subsonic stuff. Take all the things you think I was saying about you and stuff them in a box for M man. Keep your head doctors for someone who needs it. M man is the author of the OP, I think. B man for me. E man for you.

Slowly? He did not state initial conditions. Slow enough. I do not trust him to have the proper conditions, I have seen his work on 9/11 issues, I doubt his science has changed, but on the bright side, he did not state initial conditions. I am ready to go, you now tell me it will not work from earth. What next. I too know the low g flight can work, but you have no engine yet. Sorry.

I also know, I can travel forever with no acceleration after my initial start. So? (sort of)

Slowly, I am at 1 g this very moment. We ain't moving higher faster! Sorry, was that too fast. Initial conditions sea level plus 1400 feet. Still waiting for lift off. Was that slow enough.

What is the rating on your engine? How does it work? How much energy will we use going to Mars?

I have sustained 1 g for years. I have done 7 gs. Why the hang up on engines you have not built yet? Get the engine and show me; how fast will we be going after 50 hours at 1 g that away --à Do you have the engine ready yet? Remember I never said you could not do 1 g as long as you wanted to. I do not think anyone said it. Did they? Is there going to be a poll about Bush next? 1 g, impossible, I never said it. Who did? Where is that engine again?

 

[Corsair 115]

1 g, impossible, I never said it.

You kind of did, though I expect it's a case of a statement not being phrased as well as it could have been.

Post #12:

If you can get a 1 g acceleration, Mars is doable in about 49.5 hours. ( I used 78 million km in http://www.cthreepo.com/cp_html/math1.htm )

Your reply in post #13:

No, (not sitting on earth) you can not use 1 g. WE are sitting here typing at 1 g. Try again smart man.

I initially interpreted your response as saying that a constant 1 g acceleration isn't possible at all, just as ~enigma~ did. But later on I realized that wasn't really what you were saying with your comment.

Your reply quoted above is what started the misunderstanding between you and ~enigma~ (in my estimation anyway).

 

[Furcifer]

that was my first though as well, but i did some rough calculations on his 49.5 hours figure and seems to be consistent with accelerating at 1g halfway there, and decelerating at 1g for the second half

I know I'm going to hear about this one, but to be technically correct you would flip and accelerate in the opposite direction. Decelerate is such an ugly word in physics.

 

[~enigma~]

He did not state initial conditions.

So the assumption of leaving from the surface was an assumpition you made. That in no way means a 1 G acceleration is impossible.

but you have no engine yet. Sorry.

There lies another assumption on your part. Do you care to show me the post where i said anything Metamars said was true (besides that a 1 G acceleration isn't impossible).

, I am at 1 g this very moment. We ain't moving higher faster! Sorry, was that too fast. Initial conditions sea level plus 1400 feet. Still waiting for lift off. Was that slow enough.

How does this prove that 1 G acceleration is impossible? Now time for my assumption. You are (or were) a fighter pilot (or maybe it was someone else here) so how can you sit there with a smug look on your face and tell me 1 G acceleration isn't possible when you have flown at acceleration well above 1 G?

What is the rating on your engine? How does it work? How much energy will we use going to Mars?

Again, what is with the assumptions that I have an engine? Are you turning woo?

I do not think anyone said it. Did they?

Yes...you said 1 G acceleration is impossible to acheive from the surface of the Earth.

Is there going to be a poll about Bush next?

As I said to Corsair and here is my proof. Debunker burnout. What the hell does Bush have to do with this Beachnut?

 

[Brainache]

I read the same Beachnut posts and saw immediately that he was saying that 1g of accelleration won't get you off the surface of Earth. Was I wrong? What's the problem?

 

[beachnut]

You assumed metamars meant a 1 g accelerated departure from Earth's surface; I didn't make that assumption, nor did a few others. A spacecraft in Earth orbit leaving for Mars could certainly begin its voyage using a constant 1 g acceleration (assuming a engine capable of providing sufficient thrust).

Most of what I've read about manned interplanetary spacecraft, such as would be used for a mission to Mars, almost always talks about the craft departing from Earth orbit (or possibly lunar orbit).

I think you're getting in a bit of a tizzy over this one aspect for no reason. Seems like nothing more than a misunderstanding to me, so how about a truce between you and enigma? I don't think you guys are in disagreement about the main part of metamar's opening post.

Now, as to the rest of what metamars has to say about this supposedly available or nearly available fusion device, I find the story rather doubtful.

I am not in a tissy, I was just wondering about his initial conditions. I have tried to tell all, we dreamed of this in 64, those of us who were inclined. And yes, I know space flight. Yes many missions leave from earth orbit. I actually understand that.

I also was vague about M man. I have was too lazy to spell his name, I am trying to forget about his crazy ideas on the WTC, and not doing much better on his attempted CT here. M man is metamars.

I have looked back and can't find anything I said about being impossible. Cool to have an engine I could accelerate for 50 hours. Was I getting excited too early?

I do not think much thought went into the OP, I see not problems with space travel ideas, I doubted, based on the nature and intent of the OP that my earth start was far off from his expertise. I was amazed at his restating the initial conditions as

You're not too bright, are you?

Does that mean he has no idea, or did he really mean to say "from space stupid". Then I could say "oh, much better". Darn, so simple, and he could say "from space stupid", I would be delighted he actually knew the initial conditions where a constant 1 g trip could start with greater success than earth. But the

You're not too bright, are you?

fits me perfect. I am a dumb pilot. Destined with my 1 g vehicle stuck on earth. I should have built the darn thing in space like my wife told me to.

Tissy, nope. Waiting for the engine. Hopefully soon?

 

[Gravy]

^^
(- -)
//^\\

​