Jump to content

Neil1993

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    139

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Neil1993

    Deep space propulsion using spring force and kinetic energy

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    13 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

    I would like to know that can I post my concept in this thread regarding a perpetual motion machine or not to convinced you that there are some mistakes in Newton Laws to clear your doubts.

    I use Newton's laws in my job on a daily basis. If they were wrong I, and any other engineer or scientist, would sure as hell know.

    If you're so sure it will work, spend your own money, develop the concept, and put it in space. Just be careful and don't try to get anyone to fund you. Getting investments for perpetual motion machines is fraud in some places.

    Exploitation and human nature

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    1 hour ago, KSK said:

    There are examples where cooperative behavior has demonstrably been favoured (termites and bees for example) and plenty of other examples where symbiosis has been favoured instead.

    Or, as unlikely as it may seem sometimes, cooperation is at the core of all human endeavours.

    Deep space propulsion using spring force and kinetic energy

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Neil1993

    On 9/27/2016 at 4:13 AM, vikram_gupta11 said:

    further more I would like to inform you that we will use FERROFLUID(magnetic fluid) to reduce the velocity of these Iron balls .These iron balls will be filled up with this magnetic fluid  and at the time of  expelling this fluid will be in solid state but once expelling from the gun system it will convert into liquid form to reduce the velocity of iron balls .In this way this iron ball will reduce its velocity with itself due to ferro liquid.

    we can also use another system to reduce the velocity of iron ball upto 0%by using two electromagnets .In this solution suppose iron ball is moving through between two electromagnet  and these two electromagnet will try to attract this iron ball  and this iron ball will be stopped immediately.

    there is also an another option to reduce the velocity of this iron ball.
    Now my question is  now the velocity of this iron ball is Zero then this engine should move or not  as we are getting thrust of gun system to propel the engine and iron ball is in 0 velocity and the force has been canceled  to stop this iron ball due to both electromagnet  .

    Please explain your answer and this is last time.
    i shall be very grateful to you.

     

    It won't move. Let's just gloss over the technical magic of having a ferro-fluid which will change phases on a whim. In fact, it isn't necessary to consider a ferro-fluid at all, given the system you are proposing. I'm not sure if you realized this, but Iron is already ferromagnetic.

    Having an electromagnet on the ship is essentially the same as tossing a ball from your left hand to your right. When your ball leaves your left hand (this is your gun system) you gain some momentum. However, when you catch it with your right hand (your electromagnets) The ball imparts the momentum it has gained to you in the opposite direction, thus negating the forward momentum you gained from throwing the ball.

    Also, you can't stop anything "Instantly."

    I agree with the many previous people who have pointed out that there are only so many ways we can tell you that the laws of conservation of momentum exist. If you are still having trouble understanding that, then I don't know if there is anything we can do.

    Deep space propulsion using spring force and kinetic energy

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Neil1993

    One great way to determine if this is actually a feasible system is to try the following thought experiment:

    1. Imagine how cheap or easy this is to build and test. Is it cheaper and easier than regular rocket motors? Given the diagram, I would say yes. Can it be made very light? I would also guess that it could be. Based on these factors, does it seem that it will be more effective than a traditional engine?
    2. If you determined in 1. that it is more effective, then ask yourself why so many space agencies with such considerable resources and so many ideas have yet to try anything resembling it.

    Short answer: it doesn't work

    Edit: While I understand that some very great and disruptive ideas can come from individuals, remember that for every individual with a great idea, there are a million more with bad ideas. If you ever have an idea which you think has great merit, then I suggest bringing it to experts in the field, rather than posting it on a forum.

    Deep space propulsion using spring force and kinetic energy

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Neil1993

    I think simply stating "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" and then PROPERLY applying this within the proposed concept is enough to show that the internal forces cancel out and this concept will get you nowhere.

    Remember, while rockets use this same principle (called Newton's third law), THEY LEAVE SOMETHING BEHIND. This is the burned fuel. The rocket pitches out tiny bits of this fuel very quickly and, in return, gains tiny bits of momentum. Because accelerating the particles takes a force, an equal and opposite force MUST act upon the craft.

    QED

    Realistic Science Fiction: What did Interstellar/the Martian get wrong?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Neil1993

    14 minutes ago, Temstar said:

    It's conceivable but it doesn't seem likely to be the case given what we've seen of it. When they fired up the Ares 3 MAV's OMS engine it shot out two huge exhaust plumes (none of this 'puff of gas' type deal we see with regular monopropellant RCS blocks), was able to right the whole three stage vehicle against the storm and remained firing for quite some time. Given that Ares 4 MAV was dramatically lightened I get the feel that a working OMS would be able to impart significant amount of delta-V to it.

    It wouldn't really change the story either, they just have to have a second of two showing the Ares 4 MAV capsule firing the OMS after separation from the upper stage.

    It sounds like you may be using evidence from the movie. I'll have to take your word for it since I actually haven't seen the movie (this is an even more terrible sin when you consider the fact that I had received tickets to a pre-screening but have them to some friends because I had too much work that night).

    It might be possible that the OMS system that was removed were just the sections used for attitude adjustment or it was like Luke suggested where they just removed redundant components.

     

    Realistic Science Fiction: What did Interstellar/the Martian get wrong?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

     

    4 minutes ago, Temstar said:

    Why would you remove OMS to save weight (to get more delta-V) when you could just use the OMS to give you more delta-V?

    OMS systems aren't designed to put out huge amounts of Delta-v. Rather, they are for fine attitude and translation adjustment and quick response. It is conceivable that eliminating this system rather than using it in flight would result in a net gain in Delta-v.

    Realistic Science Fiction: What did Interstellar/the Martian get wrong?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Neil1993
    wrong word used

    I saw an interesting lecture by Kip Thorne. He actually went over a few of the things that were wrong in Interstellar and were changed for theatrical effect. This includes:

    1. Passing through the wormhole. It was all dramatic when, in reality, it would have been unnoticeable if you weren't looking out a window
    2. The Accretion disc on the wormhole, which should have been red-shifted on one side and blue-shifted on the other. Nolan didn't think it looked good

    InterstellarPaper_FEAT.png

    There were more things but I can't name them off the top of my head.

    Interview with Escape Dynamics on beamed microwave power SSTO spaceplanes

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    My first exposure to this idea was actually at the International Space Development Conference last May. By the time they rolled up, we had already heard the idea of using "Energy Beams" so much that it had become a running gag for my colleagues and I. The concept of beamed power is actually being slapped on to a lot of concept studies in a way that almost makes them seem like a Deus Ex Machina. This is a little different, however, seeing as the beamed power aspect is central to the craft. In the end, I have a feeling that by the time everything is developed for this craft to work, there will be more viable and practical technology available.

    I guess we'll just have to see.

    Finally Flying!

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Neil1993

    The solid fuel was manufactured by your team? Not sure if there are exact formules in internet and how easy is to get the elements.

    Is kinda similar in looks to the fuel of the movie october sky?

    We bought a commercial solid motor. We haven't the facilities at our University to go mucking around with rocket fuels. The motor we bought had an Ammonia Perchlorate Composite Propellant.

    Finally Flying!

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Neil1993

    Finally!! Thanks for the video.. perfect launch.

    Some surprise in the data collected?

    At what height you guess it had the max dynamic pressure?

    The data we collected from a commercial Stratologger sensor indicated a constant temperature from ground to apogee. Since the sensor uses temperature and pressure to calculate altitude based on an International Standard Atmosphere model (I think) the final altitude reading was skewed. We're trying to avoid these kinds of issues in future rockets

    Not sure at which altitude maxQ was encountered. Since there was no supersonic flight, we weren't too concerned about it.

    Finally Flying!

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    1. Failure of the motor in (aka a "CATO"). Basically the motor blows up. There are three kinds of CATO:

    1A: failure of the nozzle or aft closure. This results in an abrupt loss of thrust, and may eject burning fuel grains downward towards the pad. However, the rocket will remain mostly intact.

    1B: failure of the forward closure. This results in either the fuel being ejected from the top of the motor or the motor burning from both ends. In either case, the rocket immediately separates with varying amounts of damage. However, there is loss of thrust and the rocket now has very high drag due to being separated, so it will not travel very far.

    1C: failure of the side of the casing: total loss of thrust. The fuel is ejected sideways along with debris from the motor casing and lower section of the rocket. However, air drag will prevent the debris from falling in spectator areas if the minimum safe distance in the safety code is obeyed.

    On a single-stage rocket, the main hazards are ejected propellant grains starting fires (not a major problem since extinguishers are on hand, assuming there's even vegetation around), or in an extremely unlikely case, a partial nozzle failure resulting in reduced thrust that causes the rocket to arc towards spectators. On a multi-stage rocket though, the second stage may arc over, be sent into a tumble, or even land on the ground before its motor ignites, potentially sending it towards people at very high velocity.

    I think we had at least one of each of those at this year's IREC! :D

×
×
  • Create New...