Re: A low cost alternative to the space elevator
Hey folks, there is another site that may relate to this debate see: J. Slough Louis Giersch http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/PlasmaMag/ They are thinking a drive in the vacuum of space but it could be bagged to operate in the atmosphere. Mark If the fields so big it will have real or imaginary environmental effect to deal with. Indiced effects in matter near the launch site. By imaginary I mean screeming greenies at the launch site. I have a degree in the relevant fields, sustainable development and human ecology [ a very green degree you might say] if I can help check about environmental effects email me. Jed Rothwell wrote: Mark Goldes wrote: Geomagnetic propulsion is based on the use of the earth's magnetic field as a force field analogous to the stator of an electric motor. I understand that. You might compare it to a linear motor railroad. In effect, it is as through the small artificial field source expands itself into a huge magnetic balloon, because of the low density of the earth's magnetic field. Instead of using a physical plate you are making a huge virtual magnetic plate. How huge? It would have to hundreds of square kilometers, wouldn't it? How much energy does it take to make such a gigantic field? Cohering the seemingly insignificant forces that act upon every point on the surface of the balloon, yields a considerable resultant force. The forces that act on the balloon appear to be orders of magnitude stronger than those you propose to harness. Helium balloons can be very small, and I have made functional toy hot air balloons around 2 m tall, out of paper. What is the smallest magnetic field you can harness to launch a toy lifter of this design? You (or the inventor) would have a great deal more credibility if you can demonstrate the principle in a toy. - Jed
Re: A low cost alternative to the space elevator
Mark Goldes posted MPI has been supporting How Wachspress, an inventor who holds a Patent and has done many experiments that suggest a free-flying magnetic levitator can become practical, and provide a better path to access to space. The concept of an electrically powered levitation system is very interesting. The proposed Space Elevator is neither fast or cheap. Now all we have to do is come up with a low weight electrical supply system. I just had an email exchange with Kiril Chukanov. He didn't hold out the hope of any help on the home heating system that I'd like to build however. A levitator can be designed to take off and land at ordinary airports, using the geomagnetic field as the stator of a very clever electric motor. The geomagnetic field can be used for braking, eliminating the need for heat shields. I have to admit that the proposed system would be great if it worked. One of the local TV stations just did a story on the people who live under the approach to the new runway at our airport. We anticipate that electricity for the propulsion system will be supplied by our Magnetic Power Modules. As I mentioned above Mark, I'm looking for a home heating unit. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: A low cost alternative to the space elevator
Mark Goldes wrote: MPI has been supporting How Wachspress, an inventor who holds a Patent and has done many experiments that suggest a free-flying magnetic levitator can become practical, and provide a better path to access to space. A levitator can be designed to take off and land at ordinary airports, using the geomagnetic field as the stator of a very clever electric motor. The geomagnetic field? 0.6 gauss at the maximum? That's preposterous. As Clarke wrote in Profiles of the Future: The Earth's magnetic field is so extremely feeble (a toy magnet is thousands of times stronger) that it is not even worth considering. From time to time one hears optimistic talk of 'magnetic propulsion' for space vehicles, but this is a project somewhat comparable to escaping from Earth via a ladder made of cobwebs. Terrestrial magnetic forces are just about as tough as gossamer. You would have to have a ship that reacted against the field with a plate of hundreds of square kilometers, and the plate would have to weigh a few kilograms. - Jed
Re: A low cost alternative to the space elevator
Mark Goldes wrote: Geomagnetic propulsion is based on the use of the earth's magnetic field as a force field analogous to the stator of an electric motor. I understand that. You might compare it to a linear motor railroad. In effect, it is as through the small artificial field source expands itself into a huge magnetic balloon, because of the low density of the earth's magnetic field. Instead of using a physical plate you are making a huge virtual magnetic plate. How huge? It would have to hundreds of square kilometers, wouldn't it? How much energy does it take to make such a gigantic field? Cohering the seemingly insignificant forces that act upon every point on the surface of the balloon, yields a considerable resultant force. The forces that act on the balloon appear to be orders of magnitude stronger than those you propose to harness. Helium balloons can be very small, and I have made functional toy hot air balloons around 2 m tall, out of paper. What is the smallest magnetic field you can harness to launch a toy lifter of this design? You (or the inventor) would have a great deal more credibility if you can demonstrate the principle in a toy. - Jed
Re: A low cost alternative to the space elevator
Jed, A toy is possible and likely to be a product in about a year. This will utilize ferromagnetic material which is quite marginal when compared with Ultraconductors. Size does not appear to be a factor. Quite small motors have been used in experiments. That is what makes this so interesting a technology. Mark From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A low cost alternative to the space elevator Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:31:36 -0500 Mark Goldes wrote: Geomagnetic propulsion is based on the use of the earth's magnetic field as a force field analogous to the stator of an electric motor. I understand that. You might compare it to a linear motor railroad. In effect, it is as through the small artificial field source expands itself into a huge magnetic balloon, because of the low density of the earth's magnetic field. Instead of using a physical plate you are making a huge virtual magnetic plate. How huge? It would have to hundreds of square kilometers, wouldn't it? How much energy does it take to make such a gigantic field? Cohering the seemingly insignificant forces that act upon every point on the surface of the balloon, yields a considerable resultant force. The forces that act on the balloon appear to be orders of magnitude stronger than those you propose to harness. Helium balloons can be very small, and I have made functional toy hot air balloons around 2 m tall, out of paper. What is the smallest magnetic field you can harness to launch a toy lifter of this design? You (or the inventor) would have a great deal more credibility if you can demonstrate the principle in a toy. - Jed
Re: A low cost alternative to the space elevator
MPI has been supporting How Wachspress, an inventor who holds a Patent and has done many experiments that suggest a free-flying magnetic levitator can become practical, and provide a better path to access to space. A levitator can be designed to take off and land at ordinary airports, using the geomagnetic field as the stator of a very clever electric motor. The geomagnetic field can be used for braking, eliminating the need for heat shields. The story had a writeup some years back in Aviation Week and Space Technology. The early designs have been superseded. New patents will be filed. A first product may be a sounding rocket replacement. Eventually, with the use of Ultraconductors, passengers can likely be carried. We anticipate that electricity for the propulsion system will be supplied by our Magnetic Power Modules. From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Small Nuclear Power Reactors Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 18:44:43 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Frederick Sparber wrote: Based on A. C. Clarke's reasoning we should be using that idea for Boeing 777s and Airbuses full of passengers. That would be very difficult and dangerous to arrange, whereas a space elevator must have some sort of braking, so it might as well be regenerative. Incidentally, I do not think the elevator car would actually touch the track. That would be too slow. I am assuming it would be magnetic. In that case, you could not avoid generating power by braking. OTOH, failing that, Air Brakes for Planes and Vacuum Brakes for Spacecraft? Again, that's dangerous and impractical, whereas regenerative braking is natural. Without it, the elevator cars will need to shed a great deal of heat, in a vacuum no less. stresses they undergo during spaceflight. A vehicle climbing the space elevator would undergo little stress. Burt Rutan would dispute that, Jed. I admire Rutan, but he is FAR from making a practical earth-to-orbit system that could lift millions of tons per day. Frankly, I think we are closer to a space elevator than a Rutan-type mass transit system. Someday, in the distant future, I expect that more people and more tons of goods will travel off earth and around the solar system than alll the traffic we now have on the ground. That can only be accomplished with something like an elevator -- or silent anti-gravity ships that go straight up. - Jed
