| |
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > You said in the last letter before this letter that some liquids (referring
> > to the reaction to friction of certain particles in outer space) are
> > viscious while some solids are very hard and smooth in reaction to friction
> > in outer space. If liquids boil in outer space, how is this possible in
> > outer space? Do you really mean that gases, not liquids, are very viscious
> > with the concept of friction in outer space?
>
> I didn't necessarily mean in space. I was just talking about liquids in
> general (on Earth, in an atmosphere).
>
> Clearly if you're trying to push your way through something, a gas is easier
> than a liquid, which is easier than a solid. But, this isn't all down to
> friction. If you run into a brick wall, that's not friction that stops you
> - it's mechanics of a structure. You need to break the bonds in the
> structure to cut through it, then force the parts apart. Liquids just have
> looser bonds, making it easier to force your way through.
>
> Friction comes into play as you start to move through - it's the rubbing of
> the sides of your craft against what it's moving past. That may be gas (in
> an atmosphere), liquid (underwater), or solid (snow under the skis of a
> sled). This is what is referred to as 'surface drag' in aerodynamics -
> friction of the air flowing past. The force of running into the air in
> front (along with suction from the turbulence behind you) is know as
> 'pressure drag', and isn't caused by friction between your craft and the air.
>
> > I also must say that if the rumors (forgive my American dialect of the
> > English language) are true about Mir and the condensation of water droplets
> > on one of the observation windows, then the whole concept of boiling liquids
> > in different environments would be held in serious jeopardy and we may have
> > to reorganize our thoughts on condensation, the boiling points of liquids,
> > and air pressure in outer space and on our planet.
>
> Yup.
>
> > I do not understand why you say that it would be considered a terrible idea
> > for me to use plasma as a heated engine and yet you say that it could be
> > guided with electromagnetic fields. Would these electromagnetic fields not
> > only stabilize the plasma but also make the plasma increase in speed as
> > thrust or would the electromagnetic fields only provide a stable environment
> > for the plasma or would neither of these possibilities be true for my space
> > craft?
>
> Well, you could. This is what is meant by an 'ion drive'. You super-heat
> gas into ionised particles (plasma), then accelerate it backwards. It's
> just a bit dangerous. I don't know much more than that, but it's feasible.
> It just takes a lot of power for both the heating and the electromagnetic
> fields. You'd need to carry your own nuclear power source to run it all,
> and all the extra shielding increases the weight of your craft. Voyager
> uses a very small nuclear power source on the end of one of its long arms,
> but you'd need something much bigger. You'd have to take it up in bits and
> build it all in space.
>
> > I have two more questions to ask you, Jason. The first question is would
> > Newtonian physics contradict or complement the laws of aerodynamics? If
> > there are any contradictions or further explanations from these rules,
> > please explain them to me, Jason.
>
> No, they're complementary. It's just that neither completely explains
> everything, because airflow is always chaotic. No matter how finely you
> analyse it, there's always some tiny error creeps in.
>
> There are further explanations, but I took a degree course at Loughborough
> University in the UK, and I don't have them all. Maybe if you took the
> course two or three times (to cover all the optional modules), then put in
> some post-grad studies you'd have all the answers, but I doubt it. Only
> joking - however much you study this, there's always something more you
> don't know.
>
> > The second question is what would work
> > for an antigravity device for space craft, that is what materials and
> > options could we use for space craft? I am glad that the long ordeal about
> > the eternal space craft ethical war is almost over in Lugnet.
> > Jesse Long
>
> I have no idea. There have been a few reports of some obscure research lab
> that claimed to have produced reduced gravity, then immediately retracted
> their paper on the subject. Apart from that, there's no progress on
> anti-gravity so far.
>
> Jason J Railton
I understand now in my mind that atoms are what makes the structure of all
living organisms and the structure of all living organisms depends on the
density and class of materials in the constructuion of space craft. It is
obbvious to me that you do need a sturdy set of materials and compounds in
order to produce a space craft yet we have not produced an inexpensive,
reasonable, safe, profitable, enduring, and long range propellant engine for
space craft. We need a successor to the rocket engine or else we will not
be able to make the large strides in space travel as we had done up to two
decades earlier in this world.
I have a proposal to not only increase the power of these ion drives but
reduce the radiation of the engines and the answer, at least from theory, is
to use a fusion engine on the space craft. The concept of fusion power
currently, at least to my mind, only exists in my video game referred to as
SimCity2000 but that does not mean that such a power source could not exist
in our lives. The problem, however, is to make this source of power a
reality for humanity so that we can travel further into outer space. What
are your thoughts on alternate methods to construct ion drives without using
such a massive amount of power in the space craft?
I would consider taking the courses that you are taking right now but for
six reasons, I am unable to do so right now in my life. The first reason
why I can not take these courses is that in algebra and any form of
mathematics beyond algebra, I am horrible at keeping information and am
unable to accomplish the equations in the books unless a tutor could help me
to become able to learn these subjects in my mind and to become able to
accomplish this goal in my life. The second reason is that I do not know if
you have any online courses for that college. The third reason is that I do
not live in England, or any place in the European Union for that matter so I
do not know if, even if this college has online courses, I could attend
these courses or not attend these courses in my life. The fourth reason is
that I soon will become enrolled in a community college (what most people
around this part of the world refer to as a junior collge, though we have
five general types of college, which are junior colleges, community
colleges, technical colleges, vocational colleges, and vocational and
technical colleges) in my town. The fifth reason is that I also am enrolled
(or will soon enroll) in some online courses at my school. The sixth reason
is that I have about thirteen or fourteen hours of class every week so that
may become a burden to my mind. I want to learn but I do not want to become
tired from learning and become irritable, mean, rude, paranoid, and
generally stressed from learning too many subject at one specific period of
time in my life. Please let me know what you think of this message and let
me have some more information about your college and any world wide web
pages that your college contains in their address. Thank you, Jason, for
your cooperation in my life.
Jesse Long
P.S. I apologize for that last paragraph being extremely long, it is merely
the simple fact that I have several reasons why I can not attend your
college at this moment in my life.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) I didn't necessarily mean in space. I was just talking about liquids in general (on Earth, in an atmosphere). Clearly if you're trying to push your way through something, a gas is easier than a liquid, which is easier than a solid. But, this (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
195 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
