info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!)
26 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Clark
Apr 17, 2016, 9:40:21 AM4/17/16
to
I've been thinking of ways we can get such nanocraft to link up through
self-assembly and form larger structures that can do more detailed
observations and experiments. This could work even for visits to far off
destinations still in the Solar System such as Kuiper belt objects like
Pluto or the Oort cloud.
The main problem is getting the many objects flying independently and
getting further apart the further out they go to gradually be drawn to each
other and link up. Once they link up, I don't it would be to difficult to
then get them to do self-assembly.
But it's that drawing together step that is the sticking point.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Rick Jones" wrote in message news:nemkel$sl7$1...@news.hpeswlab.net...
dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
> See:
> http://gizmodo.com/a-russian-billionaire-and-stephen-hawking-want-to-build-1770467186
Indeed, the hurdles range from how to create the laser array
capable of accelerating a small payload off Earth to how to
transmit data back to us over interstellar distances. These will
be huge accomplishments, with reverberations throughout many
fields of science and technology.
I was wondering how they were going to get comms back from such a
small package. I guess the answer is they haven't exactly figured
that out yet.
rick jones
--
self-assembly and form larger structures that can do more detailed
observations and experiments. This could work even for visits to far off
destinations still in the Solar System such as Kuiper belt objects like
Pluto or the Oort cloud.
The main problem is getting the many objects flying independently and
getting further apart the further out they go to gradually be drawn to each
other and link up. Once they link up, I don't it would be to difficult to
then get them to do self-assembly.
But it's that drawing together step that is the sticking point.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Rick Jones" wrote in message news:nemkel$sl7$1...@news.hpeswlab.net...
dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
> See:
> http://gizmodo.com/a-russian-billionaire-and-stephen-hawking-want-to-build-1770467186
Indeed, the hurdles range from how to create the laser array
capable of accelerating a small payload off Earth to how to
transmit data back to us over interstellar distances. These will
be huge accomplishments, with reverberations throughout many
fields of science and technology.
I was wondering how they were going to get comms back from such a
small package. I guess the answer is they haven't exactly figured
that out yet.
rick jones
--
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Apr 17, 2016, 1:46:06 PM4/17/16
to
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
> I've been thinking of ways we can get such nanocraft to link up through
> self-assembly and form larger structures that can do more detailed
> observations and experiments. This could work even for visits to far off
> destinations still in the Solar System such as Kuiper belt objects like
> Pluto or the Oort cloud.
>
> The main problem is getting the many objects flying independently and
> getting further apart the further out they go to gradually be drawn to each
> other and link up. Once they link up, I don't it would be to difficult to
> then get them to do self-assembly.
>
> But it's that drawing together step that is the sticking point.
>
> Bob Clark
Since you are already using Stargate technology, i.e. replicators, just
> I've been thinking of ways we can get such nanocraft to link up through
> self-assembly and form larger structures that can do more detailed
> observations and experiments. This could work even for visits to far off
> destinations still in the Solar System such as Kuiper belt objects like
> Pluto or the Oort cloud.
>
> The main problem is getting the many objects flying independently and
> getting further apart the further out they go to gradually be drawn to each
> other and link up. Once they link up, I don't it would be to difficult to
> then get them to do self-assembly.
>
> But it's that drawing together step that is the sticking point.
>
> Bob Clark
use some more, i.e. tractor beams.
--
Jim Pennino
Robert Clark
May 22, 2016, 4:48:49 PM5/22/16
to
Suppose we made the probes at the virus or bacteria scale then used
self-assembly to form a macroscale spacecraft say size of Mars Pathfinder.
Then we might only need a ground laser of currently existing size, say a few
hundred kilowatts, to send multiple nanoscale components to relativistic
speeds.
Know of references for doing self-assembly with components at the nanoscale?
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
news:08dbc5ec-25b2-4495...@googlegroups.com...
...
A solar pumped laser at 1/50th AU, operating at 3.42 MW per square meter, is
2500x solar intensity, which is outlined in my solar energy patent, and
routinely achieved in the 1990s in my shop.
http://www.google.com/patents/US20050051205
US 7081584
An emitter operating at 250 nm wavelength over a distance of 800 AU can form
a spot efficiently that's 5 km in diameter using an objective that's 5 km in
diameter.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/41/7/10.1063/1.93625
http://news.mit.edu/2013/chips-that-can-steer-light-0109
http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Hughes_etal_SPIE2014_OpticalSimulation_Paper_R05.pdf
A 5 km diameter sphere that's 1 micron thick made of structured silicene
occupies 78.54 cubic meters of space and efficiently folds into a 5,320 mm
diameter sphere that weighs 94.25 tonnes. Placed into LEO polar orbit, in
constant sunlight, with a 100 tonne launcher, it inflates to 5 km diameter
using solar power.
It collectes 26.86 billion watts on orbit around Earth, and ejects material
from its surface at 120 km/sec. . It absorbs light energy efficintly from
the sun across the range of visible colours, and fires up an array ion
engines that eject 3.73 kg/sec of propellant producing 45.65 tonnes force of
thrust, accelerating the satellite at 0.58 gees.
...
---
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
May 22, 2016, 5:46:04 PM5/22/16
to
> Suppose we made the probes at the virus or bacteria scale then used
> self-assembly to form a macroscale spacecraft say size of Mars Pathfinder.
> Then we might only need a ground laser of currently existing size, say a few
> hundred kilowatts, to send multiple nanoscale components to relativistic
> speeds.
>
> Know of references for doing self-assembly with components at the nanoscale?
>
> Bob Clark
Star Trek the Next Generation and Star Gate SG1.
> self-assembly to form a macroscale spacecraft say size of Mars Pathfinder.
> Then we might only need a ground laser of currently existing size, say a few
> hundred kilowatts, to send multiple nanoscale components to relativistic
> speeds.
>
> Know of references for doing self-assembly with components at the nanoscale?
>
> Bob Clark
--
Jim Pennino
Sergio
May 22, 2016, 6:09:08 PM5/22/16
to
On 5/22/2016 3:48 PM, Robert Clark wrote:
>
> Suppose we made the probes at the virus or bacteria scale then used
> self-assembly to form a macroscale spacecraft say size of Mars
> Pathfinder. Then we might only need a ground laser of currently existing
> size, say a few hundred kilowatts, to send multiple nanoscale components
> to relativistic speeds.
>
> Know of references for doing self-assembly with components at the
> nanoscale?
>
go ahead and suppose that you do.
>
> Suppose we made the probes at the virus or bacteria scale then used
> self-assembly to form a macroscale spacecraft say size of Mars
> Pathfinder. Then we might only need a ground laser of currently existing
> size, say a few hundred kilowatts, to send multiple nanoscale components
> to relativistic speeds.
>
> Know of references for doing self-assembly with components at the
> nanoscale?
>
Alain Fournier
May 23, 2016, 1:49:52 PM5/23/16
to
On May/22/2016 at 4:48 PM, Robert Clark wrote :
>
> Suppose we made the probes at the virus or bacteria scale then used
> self-assembly to form a macroscale spacecraft say size of Mars
> Pathfinder. Then we might only need a ground laser of currently existing
> size, say a few hundred kilowatts, to send multiple nanoscale components
> to relativistic speeds.
>
> Know of references for doing self-assembly with components at the
> nanoscale?
>
As others have mentioned, this kind of self-assembly is rather far-out
>
> Suppose we made the probes at the virus or bacteria scale then used
> self-assembly to form a macroscale spacecraft say size of Mars
> Pathfinder. Then we might only need a ground laser of currently existing
> size, say a few hundred kilowatts, to send multiple nanoscale components
> to relativistic speeds.
>
> Know of references for doing self-assembly with components at the
> nanoscale?
>
in the sci-fi zone. But even if you did have such self assembly,
focusing your laser on something far away that is of nanometric size is
yet another challenge far-out in the sci-fi zone.
Alain Fournier
Robert Clark
May 24, 2016, 11:00:03 AM5/24/16
to
The Hawking proposals would use 100 gigawatt lasers to propel a thousand of
the small craft weighing a few grams and centimeters in size to relativistic
speeds in only 10 minutes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot
Since they reach the desired speed in only minutes I assume the distance at
which they are being accelerated isn't very far. This will make it easier to
focus the laser over a small area. But another consideration is the sail
doesn't have to be the same small size as the spacecraft. For instance
according to the wiki article, though the spacecraft in the Hawking proposal
are only centimeters across, the sails are meters across, made of
ultralightweight materials such as graphene. Also since a much smaller laser
would be required we can envision placing it in space to avoid the
distortion of the beam due to passing through the atmosphere.
About the self-assembly much research is going for that at the macroscale:
Fluid Assembly: Chair.
https://vimeo.com/112761863
Aerial Assemblies.
https://vimeo.com/109708208
Programmable self-assembly in a thousand-robot swarm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK54Bu9HFRw
SELF RE-ASSEMBLY AFTER EXPLOSION.
http://modlabupenn.org/self-re-assembly-after-explosion/
Considering the research also at producing synthetic versions of
biomolecules even up to the level of viruses, it should already be doable to
get self-assembly at the nanoscale.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Alain Fournier" wrote in message news:nhvfl4$rtf$1...@dont-email.me...
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
the small craft weighing a few grams and centimeters in size to relativistic
speeds in only 10 minutes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot
Since they reach the desired speed in only minutes I assume the distance at
which they are being accelerated isn't very far. This will make it easier to
focus the laser over a small area. But another consideration is the sail
doesn't have to be the same small size as the spacecraft. For instance
according to the wiki article, though the spacecraft in the Hawking proposal
are only centimeters across, the sails are meters across, made of
ultralightweight materials such as graphene. Also since a much smaller laser
would be required we can envision placing it in space to avoid the
distortion of the beam due to passing through the atmosphere.
About the self-assembly much research is going for that at the macroscale:
Fluid Assembly: Chair.
https://vimeo.com/112761863
Aerial Assemblies.
https://vimeo.com/109708208
Programmable self-assembly in a thousand-robot swarm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK54Bu9HFRw
SELF RE-ASSEMBLY AFTER EXPLOSION.
http://modlabupenn.org/self-re-assembly-after-explosion/
Considering the research also at producing synthetic versions of
biomolecules even up to the level of viruses, it should already be doable to
get self-assembly at the nanoscale.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
May 24, 2016, 2:16:04 PM5/24/16
to
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
> The Hawking proposals would use 100 gigawatt lasers to propel a thousand of
> the small craft weighing a few grams and centimeters in size to relativistic
> speeds in only 10 minutes:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot
>
> Since they reach the desired speed in only minutes I assume the distance at
> which they are being accelerated isn't very far. This will make it easier to
> focus the laser over a small area. But another consideration is the sail
> doesn't have to be the same small size as the spacecraft. For instance
> according to the wiki article, though the spacecraft in the Hawking proposal
> are only centimeters across, the sails are meters across, made of
> ultralightweight materials such as graphene. Also since a much smaller laser
> would be required we can envision placing it in space to avoid the
> distortion of the beam due to passing through the atmosphere.
>
> About the self-assembly much research is going for that at the macroscale:
If you launch them all at once they may as well be assembled to start with.
> the small craft weighing a few grams and centimeters in size to relativistic
> speeds in only 10 minutes:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot
>
> Since they reach the desired speed in only minutes I assume the distance at
> which they are being accelerated isn't very far. This will make it easier to
> focus the laser over a small area. But another consideration is the sail
> doesn't have to be the same small size as the spacecraft. For instance
> according to the wiki article, though the spacecraft in the Hawking proposal
> are only centimeters across, the sails are meters across, made of
> ultralightweight materials such as graphene. Also since a much smaller laser
> would be required we can envision placing it in space to avoid the
> distortion of the beam due to passing through the atmosphere.
>
> About the self-assembly much research is going for that at the macroscale:
If you lauch them independently they will be strung out and have dispersion.
Where do they get the energy to come together?
--
Jim Pennino
Robert Clark
May 25, 2016, 10:22:36 AM5/25/16
to
Thanks for the links on self-assembly. But in regards to propulsion using
positronium, i.e., antimatter, how do you store it in a small craft? It
would have to be held within a vacuum since any contact with matter would
cause it to turn into pure energy. Moreover it would have to be held in
stasis within that vacuum, less any contact with the walls would also cause
it to turn into pure energy.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"William Mook" wrote in message
news:bfc3fa7f-2668-4d3d...@googlegroups.com...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4q0_0dKiKg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551Y
http://video.mit.edu/watch/small-cubes-that-self-assemble-25913/
http://www.ganino.com/games/Science/science%20magazine%202001-2002/root/data/Science%202001-2002/pdf/2002_v295_n5564/3076162.pdf
http://video.mit.edu/watch/small-cubes-that-self-assemble-25913/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F_SRwrCF6Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tVR4IzE30s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRdcZSuCpNo
A self replicating machine cell that extracts silicon from Earth's surface,
and makes positronium (Ps) molecules from sunlight, and stores it within
itself efficiently and efficiently retrieves it. The system self replicates
every 23.7 seconds. It covers 1.57 sq km of surface in two hours. Two
hours after that it sends a square millimeter of machine cells to the sun,
accelerating at 1000 gees. This requires 0.2865 propellant fraction of Ps
to achieve 38,289 km/sec top speed, and slow to zero speed on the solar
surface, using photonic thrust, reaching the surface 2.16915 hours after
launch. It takes 47 minutes after arrival, to encase the Sun, and capture
4 million tons per second of Ps, and 10,000 tons per second of any material
desired, whilst maintaining normal solar image to any body visible or
detectable from the solar surface. Virtually unlimited computing power is
available. We are a Kardashev class II civilization.
There are two ways to fly to the stars.
(1) As a body;
(a) enter stasis,
(b) inhabit a portable biosphere,
(c) encase that biosphere in tungsten, plastic, iron, sheild meters
thick,
(d) encase that shield in a photonic crystal dozens of meters thick,
(e) risk the loss of vehicle during transit.
(f) limited to 310 million persons per year using solar output
(g) 30 years to depopulate Earth.
(2) As a virtual pattern;
(a) machine cells enter your body,
(b) machine cells record quantum state as body is dissolved,
(c) multiple copies of your quantum state dispatched to stars at
1000 gee
(d) arrival and replication assured at chosen destinations
(e) backup copies stored until experiences retrieved
(f) multiple copies sent to multiple destinations simultaneously.
(g) quantum state retrieved from multiple destinations,
(h) back up personality updated with experiences
(i) home personality integrates experiences, plans others
(j) repeat exploration cycle at (b)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTMS9y8OVuY
---
Jeff Findley
May 25, 2016, 6:45:16 PM5/25/16
to
In article <ni4c8f$r1f$2...@dont-email.me>,
rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...
on earth (using seriously heavy magnetic containment) and you think we
have the tech for antimatter containment and propulsion? You've been
hanging around Mook for too long.
Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...
>
> Thanks for the links on self-assembly. But in regards to propulsion using
> positronium, i.e., antimatter, how do you store it in a small craft? It
> would have to be held within a vacuum since any contact with matter would
> cause it to turn into pure energy. Moreover it would have to be held in
> stasis within that vacuum, less any contact with the walls would also cause
> it to turn into pure energy.
WTF Bob? Seriously? We can't even sustain fusion for power generation
> Thanks for the links on self-assembly. But in regards to propulsion using
> positronium, i.e., antimatter, how do you store it in a small craft? It
> would have to be held within a vacuum since any contact with matter would
> cause it to turn into pure energy. Moreover it would have to be held in
> stasis within that vacuum, less any contact with the walls would also cause
> it to turn into pure energy.
on earth (using seriously heavy magnetic containment) and you think we
have the tech for antimatter containment and propulsion? You've been
hanging around Mook for too long.
Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
Robert Clark
May 26, 2016, 10:38:10 PM5/26/16
to
Extremely tiny amounts of antimatter have been contained for very sort time
periods. I don't see how these methods that require an entire laboratory can
be extended to a tiny craft which would require very small amounts of
antimatter, or for large craft that would require large amounts of
antimatter stored for long periods.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
news:MPG.31aff5037...@news.eternal-september.org...
periods. I don't see how these methods that require an entire laboratory can
be extended to a tiny craft which would require very small amounts of
antimatter, or for large craft that would require large amounts of
antimatter stored for long periods.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
news:MPG.31aff5037...@news.eternal-september.org...
Robert Clark
May 26, 2016, 10:54:53 PM5/26/16
to
The key problem is storage. Just putting antimatter inside a crystalline
structure made of matter is not going to keep it stable. You need to keep it
stable until you want it to interact to produce the propulsion.
You need to think about ways of keeping antimatter stable for long periods.
Everyone already knows that antimatter propulsion could provide
extraordinary propulsion efficiency if it could be controlled. That's not
the issue. The storage is the issue. Look up some references on how
antimatter is stored and try to see how these methods could be extended to
work over long periods or how the tiny amounts produced so far could be
stored in nanoscale structures.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"William Mook" wrote in message
news:de738932-6f4c-4525...@googlegroups.com...
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 2:22:35 AM UTC+12, Robert Clark wrote:
> Thanks for the links on self-assembly. But in regards to propulsion using
> positronium, i.e., antimatter, how do you store it in a small craft?
In a sparse 'smart' crystalline structure.
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=lHDmCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA399&lpg=PA399&dq=sparse+quasi+crystals&source=bl&ots=nC4gl6K8P9&sig=38zmFbF53-egrtlMd4b4T9zfT3k&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
> It
> would have to be held within a vacuum since any contact with matter would
> cause it to turn into pure energy.
And the conversion takes place if they touch each other, and given their
nature, they tend to spin into one another in a few microseconds.
So, the photons that are radiated away must pass through the photonic
crystal in such a way as to be exchanged with another Positronium pair, to
kick their energy higher.
Its easy to see that two Ps molecules consisting of 4 parts is stable whilst
lone Ps pair is not. This spin coupling along with fine structure and
hyperfine structure within the Ps molecule gives the basic control logic of
a Ps management system. Mapping that logic into the nanostructure of a
quasi crystal is how you build a reliable solid state anti-matter
containment facility.
Remember, the space between atoms inside a crystal is a vacuum and operating
between the atoms of the crystal using the forces exerted by the crystalline
lattice gives absolute assurance of reliable operation in the solid state,
as easily and as sure as we control the flow of electrons today through
crystalline lattices on computer chips.
> Moreover it would have to be held in
> stasis within that vacuum, less any contact with the walls would also
> cause
> it to turn into pure energy.
Correct, and any macroscopic system of control is doomed to failure for that
reason. So, it is by careful control of energy states of each Ps pair
within a crystalline lattice that is well defined down to the molecular
level that Ps can be held and controlled in the solid state reliably without
direct contact.
What is the density?
The size of a Ps molecule at its lowest energy state is 60 pm.
http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~phys191r/References/b3/Harpen2004.pdf
http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_083_01_0028.pdf
A Positronium molecule masses 18.2 x 10^(-31) kg. A cubic meter of iron
masses 8,000 kg. So,
N = 8,000 / (18.2 x 10^(-31) ) = 4.3296 x 10^(33) Ps molecules
are needed to match the density of iron.
The cube root of this figure is 163.81 billion per meter. A separation of
61.02 pm. This is 11.24% of the spacing between Silicon atoms in a
crystalline lattice (542.07 pm)
pm=picometers = 10^(-12) = 1 trillionths of a meter.
Sparse quasi crystals the density of aerogels - less than 800 grams per
cubic meter
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/153063-graphene-aerogel-is-seven-times-lighter-than-air-can-balance-on-a-blade-of-grass
Is 10,000 lighter than the Ps it controls. A 10,000 to 1 mass ratio permits
a photon rocket
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19065173
to achieve a velocity of;
Vf/c = tanh( ln( 10000 ) ) = 0.99999998 c = 99.999998% light speed.
to achieve a velocity of and slow down from;
Vf/c = tanh( ln( 100 ) ) = 0.999800019998 ~ 99.98% light speed
to achieve a velocity of and slow down twice from;
Vf/c = tanh( ln( 10 ) ) = 0.98019801980198 ~ 98.02% light speed.
Time dilation is 5000 to 1 in the first instance, 50.005 to 1 in the second
instance, and 5.05 to 1 in the last instance.
The Stanford Torus weighs about 10 million tons mass.
Total mass: 10 million tons (including radiation shield (95%), habitat, and
atmosphere)
Diameter: 1,790 m (1.11 mi)
Habitation tube diameter: 130 m (430 ft)
Spokes: 6 spokes of 15 m (49 ft) diameter
Rotation: 1 revolution per minute
Radiation shield: 1.7 meters (5.6 feet) thick raw lunar soil
Replacing the lunar soil with tungsten iron polymer sheild - cuts the weight
by half, and replacing the windows and mirror system with a sunlamp, and
replacing the solar power setup with Ps power. We have 5,000,000 tons of
hardware and 10,000 permanent residents. The habitation tube rolls through
90 degrees allowing the people to stand upright during full boost, or stand
against the outer wall when at zero boost.
Starting with 100 to one and having a two boost system at 10 to 1. We have
Payload 5,000,000 tons
Braking Ps 45,000,000 tons
Acceleration Ps 450,000,000 tons.
Ps mass = 495,000,000 tons.
Density = 8 tons/m3
Total volume = 61,875,000 cubic meters
A sphere 491 meters in diameter inside the torus.
To fill up this tank requires that all the energy from the sun except that
energy falling on or directed toward all visible objects from the solar
surface be converted to Ps for 125 seconds. This captures essentially all
the energy from the sun, without interrupting any of the energy falling on
any object visible from the solar surface.
The heavier elements in the solar wind are captured for this period of time
which provides the payload as well. The film disintegrates and forms a
plume that self assembles into a finished fuelly fueled vehicle. Transport
ships are deployed to pick up passengers on Earth.
To produce 500 million tons of force as thrust with photons requires the
production of 1.471x10^21 Watts of power. This is 3.884x10^15 Watts/m2 flux
across the base of the 491 meter sphere.
Total power output is 3.83 ppm of the sun, whilst the temperature of the
exhaust is 88.53x hotter! (511,615 K).
At the end of the first boost, and the start of the second power level has
dropped to 1.471x10^20 Watts of power, and flux to 3.844x10^14 Watts/m2.
Total power is now 0.383 ppm of the sun, whilst temperature is 49.78x hotter
(287,254K).
At the end of the journey power level drops to 1.4710^19 Watts of power,
flux to 3.884x10^13 Watts/m2. Total power is 38.3 ppb of the sun, whilst
temperature is 28.00x hotter (161,535K)
The sunlamp inside the habitation ring averages 182.76 MW to reproduce earth
normal conditions throughout the day, with a peak output of 731.00 MW and 0
for 12 hours excepting reproducing the night sky.
Another 50 MW is required for life support of 10,000 people. Add another
219 MW for temperature control, and we have 1,000 MW of power. 31.56 x
10^15 Joules per year. Equivalent to 350.8 grams Ps per year! 1 ton of Ps
runs the station for nearly 3000 years!
At one gee it takes 4 light years to accelerate to 98% light speed. It
takes 4.37 years star time and 2.25 years ship time. So, any star within 8
light years of Sol, requires constant 1 gee acceleration. At 98% light
speed you're travelling 5 light years for each year on board.
So, anything farther than 8 light years requires 4.5 years ship time of
boost at each end, and
( D(ly) - 8 ) / 5 = years coast time.
Total time = boost time + coast time.
So, a star 100 light years away requires
4.5 years + 92/5 = 4.5 + 18.4 = 22.9 years ship time
to reach.
Once the target star is reached, the same technology that made the starship
and fuelled it in the first place is deployed at the target star. The
output of that star is tapped, and used to refuel and refurbish the
starship. Drones and planetary cruisers, are deployed across the target
star system to map and survey the local system. This information is
dispatched back to Earth in a drone. Over an 83 year period, the population
triples from 10,000 to 30,000 - three stations are built. One for those who
wish to stay. One for those who wish to move on. One for those who wish to
return to Earth.
The process is repeated.
In this way, we traverse 100 light years every 200 years. We traverse the
galaxy in 250,000 years.
So, this is old-school. New-school focuses on replicating natural life with
synthetic life, and powering each cell with Ps - and dispatching multiple
copies of individuals wherever they like to be - then reassembling them. As
I've described previously.
I prefer old-school for now.
structure made of matter is not going to keep it stable. You need to keep it
stable until you want it to interact to produce the propulsion.
You need to think about ways of keeping antimatter stable for long periods.
Everyone already knows that antimatter propulsion could provide
extraordinary propulsion efficiency if it could be controlled. That's not
the issue. The storage is the issue. Look up some references on how
antimatter is stored and try to see how these methods could be extended to
work over long periods or how the tiny amounts produced so far could be
stored in nanoscale structures.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"William Mook" wrote in message
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 2:22:35 AM UTC+12, Robert Clark wrote:
> Thanks for the links on self-assembly. But in regards to propulsion using
> positronium, i.e., antimatter, how do you store it in a small craft?
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=lHDmCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA399&lpg=PA399&dq=sparse+quasi+crystals&source=bl&ots=nC4gl6K8P9&sig=38zmFbF53-egrtlMd4b4T9zfT3k&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
> It
> would have to be held within a vacuum since any contact with matter would
> cause it to turn into pure energy.
nature, they tend to spin into one another in a few microseconds.
So, the photons that are radiated away must pass through the photonic
crystal in such a way as to be exchanged with another Positronium pair, to
kick their energy higher.
Its easy to see that two Ps molecules consisting of 4 parts is stable whilst
lone Ps pair is not. This spin coupling along with fine structure and
hyperfine structure within the Ps molecule gives the basic control logic of
a Ps management system. Mapping that logic into the nanostructure of a
quasi crystal is how you build a reliable solid state anti-matter
containment facility.
Remember, the space between atoms inside a crystal is a vacuum and operating
between the atoms of the crystal using the forces exerted by the crystalline
lattice gives absolute assurance of reliable operation in the solid state,
as easily and as sure as we control the flow of electrons today through
crystalline lattices on computer chips.
> Moreover it would have to be held in
> stasis within that vacuum, less any contact with the walls would also
> cause
> it to turn into pure energy.
reason. So, it is by careful control of energy states of each Ps pair
within a crystalline lattice that is well defined down to the molecular
level that Ps can be held and controlled in the solid state reliably without
direct contact.
What is the density?
The size of a Ps molecule at its lowest energy state is 60 pm.
http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~phys191r/References/b3/Harpen2004.pdf
http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_083_01_0028.pdf
A Positronium molecule masses 18.2 x 10^(-31) kg. A cubic meter of iron
masses 8,000 kg. So,
N = 8,000 / (18.2 x 10^(-31) ) = 4.3296 x 10^(33) Ps molecules
are needed to match the density of iron.
The cube root of this figure is 163.81 billion per meter. A separation of
61.02 pm. This is 11.24% of the spacing between Silicon atoms in a
crystalline lattice (542.07 pm)
pm=picometers = 10^(-12) = 1 trillionths of a meter.
Sparse quasi crystals the density of aerogels - less than 800 grams per
cubic meter
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/153063-graphene-aerogel-is-seven-times-lighter-than-air-can-balance-on-a-blade-of-grass
Is 10,000 lighter than the Ps it controls. A 10,000 to 1 mass ratio permits
a photon rocket
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19065173
to achieve a velocity of;
Vf/c = tanh( ln( 10000 ) ) = 0.99999998 c = 99.999998% light speed.
to achieve a velocity of and slow down from;
Vf/c = tanh( ln( 100 ) ) = 0.999800019998 ~ 99.98% light speed
to achieve a velocity of and slow down twice from;
Vf/c = tanh( ln( 10 ) ) = 0.98019801980198 ~ 98.02% light speed.
Time dilation is 5000 to 1 in the first instance, 50.005 to 1 in the second
instance, and 5.05 to 1 in the last instance.
The Stanford Torus weighs about 10 million tons mass.
Total mass: 10 million tons (including radiation shield (95%), habitat, and
atmosphere)
Diameter: 1,790 m (1.11 mi)
Habitation tube diameter: 130 m (430 ft)
Spokes: 6 spokes of 15 m (49 ft) diameter
Rotation: 1 revolution per minute
Radiation shield: 1.7 meters (5.6 feet) thick raw lunar soil
Replacing the lunar soil with tungsten iron polymer sheild - cuts the weight
by half, and replacing the windows and mirror system with a sunlamp, and
replacing the solar power setup with Ps power. We have 5,000,000 tons of
hardware and 10,000 permanent residents. The habitation tube rolls through
90 degrees allowing the people to stand upright during full boost, or stand
against the outer wall when at zero boost.
Starting with 100 to one and having a two boost system at 10 to 1. We have
Payload 5,000,000 tons
Braking Ps 45,000,000 tons
Acceleration Ps 450,000,000 tons.
Ps mass = 495,000,000 tons.
Density = 8 tons/m3
Total volume = 61,875,000 cubic meters
A sphere 491 meters in diameter inside the torus.
To fill up this tank requires that all the energy from the sun except that
energy falling on or directed toward all visible objects from the solar
surface be converted to Ps for 125 seconds. This captures essentially all
the energy from the sun, without interrupting any of the energy falling on
any object visible from the solar surface.
The heavier elements in the solar wind are captured for this period of time
which provides the payload as well. The film disintegrates and forms a
plume that self assembles into a finished fuelly fueled vehicle. Transport
ships are deployed to pick up passengers on Earth.
To produce 500 million tons of force as thrust with photons requires the
production of 1.471x10^21 Watts of power. This is 3.884x10^15 Watts/m2 flux
across the base of the 491 meter sphere.
Total power output is 3.83 ppm of the sun, whilst the temperature of the
exhaust is 88.53x hotter! (511,615 K).
At the end of the first boost, and the start of the second power level has
dropped to 1.471x10^20 Watts of power, and flux to 3.844x10^14 Watts/m2.
Total power is now 0.383 ppm of the sun, whilst temperature is 49.78x hotter
(287,254K).
At the end of the journey power level drops to 1.4710^19 Watts of power,
flux to 3.884x10^13 Watts/m2. Total power is 38.3 ppb of the sun, whilst
temperature is 28.00x hotter (161,535K)
The sunlamp inside the habitation ring averages 182.76 MW to reproduce earth
normal conditions throughout the day, with a peak output of 731.00 MW and 0
for 12 hours excepting reproducing the night sky.
Another 50 MW is required for life support of 10,000 people. Add another
219 MW for temperature control, and we have 1,000 MW of power. 31.56 x
10^15 Joules per year. Equivalent to 350.8 grams Ps per year! 1 ton of Ps
runs the station for nearly 3000 years!
At one gee it takes 4 light years to accelerate to 98% light speed. It
takes 4.37 years star time and 2.25 years ship time. So, any star within 8
light years of Sol, requires constant 1 gee acceleration. At 98% light
speed you're travelling 5 light years for each year on board.
So, anything farther than 8 light years requires 4.5 years ship time of
boost at each end, and
( D(ly) - 8 ) / 5 = years coast time.
Total time = boost time + coast time.
So, a star 100 light years away requires
4.5 years + 92/5 = 4.5 + 18.4 = 22.9 years ship time
to reach.
Once the target star is reached, the same technology that made the starship
and fuelled it in the first place is deployed at the target star. The
output of that star is tapped, and used to refuel and refurbish the
starship. Drones and planetary cruisers, are deployed across the target
star system to map and survey the local system. This information is
dispatched back to Earth in a drone. Over an 83 year period, the population
triples from 10,000 to 30,000 - three stations are built. One for those who
wish to stay. One for those who wish to move on. One for those who wish to
return to Earth.
The process is repeated.
In this way, we traverse 100 light years every 200 years. We traverse the
galaxy in 250,000 years.
So, this is old-school. New-school focuses on replicating natural life with
synthetic life, and powering each cell with Ps - and dispatching multiple
copies of individuals wherever they like to be - then reassembling them. As
I've described previously.
I prefer old-school for now.
Robert Clark
May 26, 2016, 11:09:02 PM5/26/16
to
It may indeed work to use the lightsails to use sunlight to steer the
nanocraft together.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"nu...@bid.nes" wrote in message
news:5d7c98f5-ae5a-46db...@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 6:40:20 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark wrote:
> I've been thinking of ways we can get such nanocraft to link up through
> self-assembly and form larger structures that can do more detailed
> observations and experiments. This could work even for visits to far off
> destinations still in the Solar System such as Kuiper belt objects like
> Pluto or the Oort cloud.
>
> The main problem is getting the many objects flying independently and
They won't be flying independently, they'll be a coordinated swarm. They
will have to be.
> getting further apart the further out they go to gradually be drawn to
> each
> other and link up. Once they link up, I don't it would be to difficult to
> then get them to do self-assembly.
>
> But it's that drawing together step that is the sticking point.
I'm not seeing the problem. If each starchip has its own lightsail, how
hard will it be for each chip to steer itself in coordination with the rest
of the swarm, using the energy from the launch beam, or sunlight at the
destination?
> I was wondering how they were going to get comms back from such a
> small package. I guess the answer is they haven't exactly figured
> that out yet.
Easy peasy- most of the swarm just links up to form a Great Big Reflector
aimed at Earth and the rest site themselves at the focus to combine their
transmit power, and transmit away. It'll take a lot of them to make it work,
but if each is a centimeter across and weighs a couple grams, we can send
millions per launch.
Mark L. Fergerson
---
nanocraft together.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
news:5d7c98f5-ae5a-46db...@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 6:40:20 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark wrote:
> I've been thinking of ways we can get such nanocraft to link up through
> self-assembly and form larger structures that can do more detailed
> observations and experiments. This could work even for visits to far off
> destinations still in the Solar System such as Kuiper belt objects like
> Pluto or the Oort cloud.
>
> The main problem is getting the many objects flying independently and
will have to be.
> getting further apart the further out they go to gradually be drawn to
> each
> other and link up. Once they link up, I don't it would be to difficult to
> then get them to do self-assembly.
>
> But it's that drawing together step that is the sticking point.
hard will it be for each chip to steer itself in coordination with the rest
of the swarm, using the energy from the launch beam, or sunlight at the
destination?
> I was wondering how they were going to get comms back from such a
> small package. I guess the answer is they haven't exactly figured
> that out yet.
aimed at Earth and the rest site themselves at the focus to combine their
transmit power, and transmit away. It'll take a lot of them to make it work,
but if each is a centimeter across and weighs a couple grams, we can send
millions per launch.
Mark L. Fergerson
---
Robert Clark
May 26, 2016, 11:21:17 PM5/26/16
to
You may be thinking of self-reproducing which is different from
self-assembly. Self-assembly can be done at the macroscale. Considering the
advances in nanoscale devices it should be doable at the nanoscale.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sjouke Burry" wrote in message
news:57422972$0$4393$e4fe...@textnews.kpn.nl...
On 22.05.16 22:48, Robert Clark wrote:
>
> Suppose we made the probes at the virus or bacteria scale then used
> self-assembly to form a macroscale spacecraft say size of Mars Pathfinder.
> Then we might only need a ground laser of currently existing size, say a
> few
> hundred kilowatts, to send multiple nanoscale components to relativistic
> speeds.
>
> Know of references for doing self-assembly with components at the
> nanoscale?
>
> Bob Clark
>
>
You think that you can put a computer/assembly line inside
a nano particle?
Please show us how.
It should be able to go after raw material in space,which
needs oodles of energy.
What useful amount of energy can you store in a nano particle?
Where does the particle get the ions to to travel millions of miles?
I think a minimal self-reproducing craft would weight several tons,
and be anything but small.
self-assembly. Self-assembly can be done at the macroscale. Considering the
advances in nanoscale devices it should be doable at the nanoscale.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
news:57422972$0$4393$e4fe...@textnews.kpn.nl...
On 22.05.16 22:48, Robert Clark wrote:
>
> Suppose we made the probes at the virus or bacteria scale then used
> self-assembly to form a macroscale spacecraft say size of Mars Pathfinder.
> Then we might only need a ground laser of currently existing size, say a
> few
> hundred kilowatts, to send multiple nanoscale components to relativistic
> speeds.
>
> Know of references for doing self-assembly with components at the
> nanoscale?
>
> Bob Clark
>
>
a nano particle?
Please show us how.
It should be able to go after raw material in space,which
needs oodles of energy.
What useful amount of energy can you store in a nano particle?
Where does the particle get the ions to to travel millions of miles?
I think a minimal self-reproducing craft would weight several tons,
and be anything but small.
Robert Clark
May 26, 2016, 11:29:51 PM5/26/16
to
Thanks for that info. I wasn't aware of that. Self-replication probably
wouldn't be needed in this scenario. But scientists have made synthetic
viruses and using techniques of biomimicry we may be able to see how
organisms self-organize into more complex organisms.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mikkel Haaheim" wrote in message
news:de67c9a7-8e52-44b9...@googlegroups.com...
As I understand it, viri actually ARE self replicating, but require an
exterior host for the resources. That is, they have no interior metabolism,
but they create self replications using the energy and raw material from
other organisms. This is rather like the concept of the self replicating
moon base.
---
wouldn't be needed in this scenario. But scientists have made synthetic
viruses and using techniques of biomimicry we may be able to see how
organisms self-organize into more complex organisms.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
news:de67c9a7-8e52-44b9...@googlegroups.com...
As I understand it, viri actually ARE self replicating, but require an
exterior host for the resources. That is, they have no interior metabolism,
but they create self replications using the energy and raw material from
other organisms. This is rather like the concept of the self replicating
moon base.
---
Robert Clark
May 27, 2016, 12:00:11 AM5/27/16
to
As someone already suggested since they will have sails you may be able to
use solar power for the purpose. The self-assembly would have to be
completed before they got too far out in this case.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Findley
May 27, 2016, 8:48:32 AM5/27/16
to
In article <ni8bnl$5g6$2...@dont-email.me>,
rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...
out of it without blowing up the tiny craft would be even more
challenging tech (I'd say orders of magnitude more difficult than
containment). This is because you'd have to extract the smallest amount
of antimatter from the containment without disturbing the rest of the
antimatter in storage. Tricky, tricky, tricky...
rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...
>
> Extremely tiny amounts of antimatter have been contained for very sort time
> periods. I don't see how these methods that require an entire laboratory can
> be extended to a tiny craft which would require very small amounts of
> antimatter, or for large craft that would require large amounts of
> antimatter stored for long periods.
Agreed. And even if it could be contained, getting any useful thrust
> Extremely tiny amounts of antimatter have been contained for very sort time
> periods. I don't see how these methods that require an entire laboratory can
> be extended to a tiny craft which would require very small amounts of
> antimatter, or for large craft that would require large amounts of
> antimatter stored for long periods.
out of it without blowing up the tiny craft would be even more
challenging tech (I'd say orders of magnitude more difficult than
containment). This is because you'd have to extract the smallest amount
of antimatter from the containment without disturbing the rest of the
antimatter in storage. Tricky, tricky, tricky...
David Mitchell
May 27, 2016, 11:41:26 PM5/27/16
to
On 27/05/16 13:48, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article <ni8bnl$5g6$2...@dont-email.me>,
> rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...
>>
>> Extremely tiny amounts of antimatter have been contained for very sort time
>> periods. I don't see how these methods that require an entire laboratory can
>> be extended to a tiny craft which would require very small amounts of
>> antimatter, or for large craft that would require large amounts of
>> antimatter stored for long periods.
>
> Agreed. And even if it could be contained, getting any useful thrust
> out of it without blowing up the tiny craft would be even more
> challenging tech (I'd say orders of magnitude more difficult than
> containment). This is because you'd have to extract the smallest amount
> of antimatter from the containment without disturbing the rest of the
> antimatter in storage. Tricky, tricky, tricky...
>
> Jeff
>
Not sure which one, but one of the Mil-SF writers keep his antimatter
> In article <ni8bnl$5g6$2...@dont-email.me>,
> rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...
>>
>> Extremely tiny amounts of antimatter have been contained for very sort time
>> periods. I don't see how these methods that require an entire laboratory can
>> be extended to a tiny craft which would require very small amounts of
>> antimatter, or for large craft that would require large amounts of
>> antimatter stored for long periods.
>
> Agreed. And even if it could be contained, getting any useful thrust
> out of it without blowing up the tiny craft would be even more
> challenging tech (I'd say orders of magnitude more difficult than
> containment). This is because you'd have to extract the smallest amount
> of antimatter from the containment without disturbing the rest of the
> antimatter in storage. Tricky, tricky, tricky...
>
> Jeff
>
electrostatically suspended in sacrificial specks of silicon, billions
of them.
It's safe enough to handle as a liquid; but when it's made hot enough
the containment fails and the silicon becomes reaction mass.
Robert Clark
May 29, 2016, 9:21:11 AM5/29/16
to
The lifetime of positronium is only 100 nanoseconds, a tenth of a
microsecond:
Positronium puzzle is solved.
May 28, 2003.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/may/28/positronium-puzzle-is-solved
Know of references to extend the lifetime?
Bob Clark
------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-stage-to-orbit was already shown possible 50 years ago
with the Titan II first stage.
In fact, contrary to popular belief SSTO's are actually easy.
Just use the most efficient engines and stages at the same time,
and the result will automatically be SSTO.
Blog: Http://Exoscientist.blogspot.com
Yes, storing Ps isn't as difficult as making it efficiently and efficiently
retrieving it without destroying the mechanism used.
Slowing photons in media and structuring photons and joining them to create
fewer more energetic photons and then using very energetic photons to create
Ps pair - that is then stored in quantum wells - is one technique.
Reversing the process controlling the spin the fine and hyperfine relations
to retrieve the energy as energetic photons and causing them to split into
lower energy photons in greater number and collimating the resulting beam
efficiently without heating the structure- makes the process useful.
Detonating in an uncontrolled way groups of Ps molecules and vaporising the
mechanism - is primitive by comparison.
microsecond:
Positronium puzzle is solved.
May 28, 2003.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/may/28/positronium-puzzle-is-solved
Know of references to extend the lifetime?
Bob Clark
------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-stage-to-orbit was already shown possible 50 years ago
with the Titan II first stage.
In fact, contrary to popular belief SSTO's are actually easy.
Just use the most efficient engines and stages at the same time,
and the result will automatically be SSTO.
Blog: Http://Exoscientist.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
"William Mook" wrote in message
news:f220beb1-35f2-4677...@googlegroups.com...
"William Mook" wrote in message
Yes, storing Ps isn't as difficult as making it efficiently and efficiently
retrieving it without destroying the mechanism used.
Slowing photons in media and structuring photons and joining them to create
fewer more energetic photons and then using very energetic photons to create
Ps pair - that is then stored in quantum wells - is one technique.
Reversing the process controlling the spin the fine and hyperfine relations
to retrieve the energy as energetic photons and causing them to split into
lower energy photons in greater number and collimating the resulting beam
efficiently without heating the structure- makes the process useful.
Detonating in an uncontrolled way groups of Ps molecules and vaporising the
mechanism - is primitive by comparison.
Robert Clark
Jun 7, 2016, 9:51:10 AM6/7/16
to
Good question. Positronium is not an exact analogue of a hydrogen atom since
it consists of an electron and a positron (anti-electron) orbiting each
other while the hydrogen atom has an electron orbiting around the much more
massive proton. The highly advanced theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED)
mentioned in the article describes how these states are stable or unstable.
BTW, the production of antihydrogen is quite low:
CERN snags 38 antihydrogen atoms in magnetic trap.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/11/researchers-trap-antihydrogen-atoms/
by Alexander B. Fry - Nov 17, 2010 11:11pm EST
But theoretical work may allow the production rate to be ramped up:
Physicists find ways to increase antihydrogen production.
May 20, 2015 by Lisa Zyga
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-physicists-ways-antihydrogen-production.html
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"ClutterFreak" wrote in message
news:jy4pg9nftxlp.wxkun453v2h2$.dlg@40tude.net...
On Sun, 29 May 2016 09:19:21 -0400, Robert Clark
wrote:
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/may/28/positronium-puzzle-is-solved
Why same thing doesn't happend to hydrogen?
--
it consists of an electron and a positron (anti-electron) orbiting each
other while the hydrogen atom has an electron orbiting around the much more
massive proton. The highly advanced theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED)
mentioned in the article describes how these states are stable or unstable.
BTW, the production of antihydrogen is quite low:
CERN snags 38 antihydrogen atoms in magnetic trap.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/11/researchers-trap-antihydrogen-atoms/
by Alexander B. Fry - Nov 17, 2010 11:11pm EST
But theoretical work may allow the production rate to be ramped up:
Physicists find ways to increase antihydrogen production.
May 20, 2015 by Lisa Zyga
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-physicists-ways-antihydrogen-production.html
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
news:jy4pg9nftxlp.wxkun453v2h2$.dlg@40tude.net...
On Sun, 29 May 2016 09:19:21 -0400, Robert Clark
wrote:
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/may/28/positronium-puzzle-is-solved
Why same thing doesn't happend to hydrogen?
--
ClutterFreak
Jun 7, 2016, 12:44:45 PM6/7/16
to
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:51:05 -0400, Robert Clark wrote:
> on. Positronium is not an exact analogue of a hydrogen atom since
> it consists of an electron and a positron (anti-electron) orbiting each
> other while the hydrogen atom has an electron orbiting around the much more
> massive proton. The highly advanced theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED)
> mentioned in the article describes how these states are stable or unstable.
So the difference is made only by higher mass where
> on. Positronium is not an exact analogue of a hydrogen atom since
> it consists of an electron and a positron (anti-electron) orbiting each
> other while the hydrogen atom has an electron orbiting around the much more
> massive proton. The highly advanced theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED)
> mentioned in the article describes how these states are stable or unstable.
the positive charge is, something as lame as just
gravity at that scale, or is it much more involved
having to do with what "mass" itself is?
--
"Woade Hueoo"
-extra thick-lipped Black American female
intending to say "Walnut Hill"
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jun 7, 2016, 1:57:11 PM6/7/16
to
On 6/7/16 9:51 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
> Good question. Positronium is not an exact analogue of a hydrogen atom
> since it consists of an electron and a positron (anti-electron) orbiting
> each other while the hydrogen atom has an electron orbiting around the
> much more massive proton.
So why isn't it made of a positron in orbit around an anti-proton? That
> Good question. Positronium is not an exact analogue of a hydrogen atom
> since it consists of an electron and a positron (anti-electron) orbiting
> each other while the hydrogen atom has an electron orbiting around the
> much more massive proton.
would be an exact analogue, yes?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Robert Clark
Jun 7, 2016, 2:09:12 PM6/7/16
to
DARPA is funding methods of getting separate components to self-assemble and
form larger satellites and also self-assemble to form robotic rovers:
How Tiny 'SuperBots' Will Create Cheap, Modular Satellites.
BY SOPHIA STUART JANUARY 14, 2015 1 COMMENT
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2475070,00.asp
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Clark" wrote in message news:ni8e8g$avo$2...@dont-email.me...
form larger satellites and also self-assemble to form robotic rovers:
How Tiny 'SuperBots' Will Create Cheap, Modular Satellites.
BY SOPHIA STUART JANUARY 14, 2015 1 COMMENT
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2475070,00.asp
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duster Zee
Jun 7, 2016, 3:34:44 PM6/7/16
to
Those guys have too much money.
Imagine looking at a planet which is 1400 light years away,
a place where any member of the human race can never be,
no matter how long he has to do it.
DZ
Robert Clark
Jun 7, 2016, 4:07:22 PM6/7/16
to
Yes. In the post earlier today in this thread I discussed antihydrogen being
formed.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" wrote in message
news:nj71tl$dm3$1...@dont-email.me...
---
formed.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
news:nj71tl$dm3$1...@dont-email.me...
0 new messages