Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

217 Excellent

About Arugela

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

3,272 profile views
  1. If that is true it just means absolute 0 isn't really the absolute limit and we have to reexamine things. You can never assume a theory is the correct answer for observation. Observation can be caused by things much more complex or different than what you think atm. You need more observation and as much as possible to try to get the tiniest chance of every truly being correct. It would be fun as we would find new things to mess with and expand on our current knowledge/technology.
  2. I'm sure I'm missing the nuances of this, but if electricity can be turned into magnetism. Then the answer is yes. You can simply convert to electricity then magnetism. Make an electromagnet from the solar power. Which I assume we do all the time. Couldn't you use electricity to power permanent magnets also and use them like batteries. I'm assuming they are less efficient than other sources unless they can stay powered longer than normal batteries. Either way maybe they could be used for both electricity and magnet features? No idea what amount you need to power such magnets though.
  3. Yes you can. If current design is 80% of max potential from a physics standpoint you can design it to 85%...
  4. You are missing what I am saying. Yes, if you just put the bullets gas back in it might be a problem. I'm assuming you put more gas from a new source to replace it. IE add to the system. A secondary source of gas or pressure to replace the explosion from the bullets material. I'm taking from a design standpoint. The question then is does going to soley external sources of propellent then outweigh just the bullets and moving the bullets with no inherent powders or something else. And the sole reason for not doing so it not just efficiency. Hypothetically efficiency doesn't even matter with a g
  5. No, it does. That was the point. I'm assuming if you want you can improve other aspects to regain efficiencies with more work in other ways or leave as is. Like better barrel muzzling or custom bullets to go through it at extra lengths to achieve the original performance. You could even improve the part where you collect the gas. There should logically be means of improvement if going for pure performance. If you want to go through the hassle. Were not advanced enough to out of means to improve something. Not counting cost. the power provided by anti matter might make room for some functional
  6. I think you are missing the point. You do not have to collect all the gases. You just have to need to collect some of it badly enough to be viable design. Hence you are not stopping the thrust. Just some of it. This is useful when one thing is prioritized over another. This is probably more useful as you get more complex engines overriding simpler ones. And why can't you design specialized inner engine chambers to recycle an oxidizer or something in the process of burning potentially? It could even be shaped to help with efficiency. It's just a matter of knowing how. Current designs are n
  7. That technically isn't the definition of a planet though. That is the real problem here. Just stated why that is. See, when you use a word from another language in a new language, especially in formal use, it's best to not change it's definition and just do the right thing.(It sort of creates confusion.) Problem solved.
  8. The base problem looks like it comes from the fact that originally, "planet," was based on observable patterns of movement in the earths sky. This could be retained as a definition and then use other words to amend it for different systems like mass or whatnot we have since adopted. It's a problem caused by, "scientists," who can't keep their definition straight and use sloppy means to name things. It's a simple problem and an issue with redefining terms with no new definition. Their fault. I state above how to fix it in detail. Planet remains a word based on it's original orientation and
  9. Except that it can be solved by only catching the fumes from the bullet just like with a silencer and then recycled to be used. It's how things work in the real world. You are not thinking it out enough. Imagine if prior to the bell you have a bunch of tubes in the shape of a helix with maybe tubes going backwards and up if needed to catch materials or something instead of a normal chamber(loose example). You have several injections at the top of the helixes. You then use the walls and chambers or whatever is needed to somehow collect some of the oxidizer and recycle it in the process of
  10. Yes it can, hypothetically, be done. And yes the formula has nuances. If you expand the one side to display all variables possible you have smaller areas to play off of. That is where design plays in and yes you can catch some things(or a lot depending on chosen design.). And there are lots of inefficiencies to utilize potentially...(or just plane old tradeoffs.) What you are saying is not how real formulas work vs real life. BTW, pure simple efficiency is often or normally over ridden by other things. The efficiencies you are normally talking about either don't apply or are a part of other u
  11. A bunch of tiny black holes that are encased in something to protect against the individual explosions or even mass explosions? Black hole batteries? Preferably remake able after the fact. The explosion could even be used if possible. Black hole combustion engines in space could be one concept. If not funny as you could actually fly a car in space then. You could have a space flyable cadillac with a B8 engine! I don't know if this is practical, but if you can print space ships with light weight methods like using vacuum and spraying light weight materials onto another lite weight mat
  12. Unless there is something else at play. Say if you go beyond a certain distance and it ceases to produce as much thrust. Or can be collected with angular momentum to limit the counter effect. It might be possible. Especially if you are collecting one of multiple fuels. Or if you use the angular momentum somehow like gravity production or something. It could excuse or use the loss of thrust as a secondary product. If collecting fuel for fuel maybe it can help regain a single very small thrust producing fuel to in essence extend a very small tank to a very large effective size. Say there is an a
  13. Yea, technically. I think people are missing that point. How about we reclassify it as a Planetine to really confuse people. Then we could also add in banana shaped objects! The answer would then be multiple classification systems based on what is being emphasized(or one overriding one with all considerations). You then combine the names based on the emphasis. Then it's whatever the nature of the conversation is. Problem solved. Unless you lack sufficient descriptions. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/planet If this is correct it's meaning is it's vi
  14. But you could imperfectly do it to try to recycle thrust materials if you had a type that could be put back into the system. It just has to increase effective fuel over time. Or whatever criteria is important. Assuming you can get more thrust out of it. Or if something else takes priority. Say you have a thruster and a long set of rods out the back that then collect the thrust material away from the back of the thrust rear opening. This could be designed to catch thrust like a net but in a way that doesn't produce a lot of counter thrust as it's collecting looser material away from the no
  15. [Moderator's note: This thread was originally split from another thread about antimatter propulsion. It was split to its own thread because it's addressing a completely different topic: confusion about conservation of momentum and how reaction engines work, rather than antimatter per se. The executive summary: OP is wondering why you can't save fuel on a rocket by collecting the exhaust gases. Other folks are trying to explain why that can't possibly work, due to conservation of momentum. The moderators decided to split the thread, rather than simply pruning the off-topic conten
  • Create New...