Hi All:

The posts below from another group talk about the use of a near light speed inertial drive using TODAYS technologies to reach the nearer stars and certainly tool about in our own planetary "backyard".
See files / WIP drive Attempt1.rar for an independent force vector simulation.

Comments?

Best,

Hi Jonas, All:

See the file "attempt1" it is an independent force vector simulation of a single mass in a WIP type configuration from another group member showing the increase of force in a vectored direction.

The WIP uses TWO or more masses on a single shaft, see WIPing X-Plane file, to generate a single constant force vector.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Nice thing about "Science" it can be repeated and varified independeanly...

Best,

I get really tired of these re-hashes of the old Dean Drive. It didn't work in the '60s and it doesn't work now. Just because you have CALCULATIONS doesn't mean it works in REALITY.
,,,and the old "pendulum test" is easy to fake. Show me an unedited movie of such a drive lifting itself and its power source off the ground and remaining suspended in the air and THEN maybe I'll buy into it.
About the best drive system I've seen is a gas core nuclear power thruster with silica envelope and THAT has a basic design problem in that even an envelope that is 99 % transparent to the UV produced by the thruster still has to contend with heating effects from conduction between the Uranium hexafloride and the envelope as well as the effects of intense neutron bombardment on that envelop. I expect it would work better if the gas core is contained and compressed by magnetic fields, since the operating temperature (at 25,000 Kelvins) is plasma temperature(ie, all the gas is ionized, thus can be manipulated with mag fields) but I've yet to see anyone apply that idea to the nuc light bulb concept.
Gary 7

Hi All:

The posts below from another group talk about the use of a near light speed inertial drive using TODAYS technologies to reach the nearer stars and certainly tool about in our own planetary "backyard".
See files / WIP drive Attempt1.rar for an independent force vector simulation.

Comments?

Best,

Hi Jonas, All:

See the file "attempt1" it is an independent force vector simulation of a single mass in a WIP type configuration from another group member showing the increase of force in a vectored direction.

The WIP uses TWO or more masses on a single shaft, see WIPing X-Plane file, to generate a single constant force vector.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Nice thing about "Science" it can be repeated and varified independeanly...

Best,

>
> Hi Jonas, All:
>
> Answers inline as follows.
>
> Best,
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > I read the documents but frankly I am not convinced. Your physics doesn't seem to compute for me.
>
> *** Simply use the formula
> F = M V^2 / R
> for any point in the rotation.
>
> F = Force
> M = Mass
> V = Velocity
> R = The radius of the mass path being followed,
> in this case the curve of the case which is constant.
> ---
>
> Can you explain how it is supposed to work? Can you prove to us that it actually does work, through something other than your own simulations? Has it been independently verified? I'm just too sceptical to accept something that apparently manages to achieve a seemingly impossible feat, inertial propulsion,
>
> *** Actually, if you read the article carefully, the author who taught engineering at the US air force acadamy didn't think it would work either..so he did his own analysis of the concept independently verifying that it would work before bothering to write the article.
>
> More "independent analysis" has been done by both engineering firms and interested parties on other groups.
>
> This is why I invited the group to do its own analysis... Check my work, Do the math yourself..
> ---
>
> yet has no working machine, no independent verification, and no one but yourself claiming this as a breakthrough in engineering physics.
>
> *** the "Sub scale" model was a working machine that passed the pendulum test. you sre correct that it is not currently working because of the burned out motor but that can be fixed with a r&D program and already documented improvements made for the next phase.
>
> This is the second unit that worked.
> ---
>
> My question remains - if you managed to build an inertial propulsion device, why has no one heard about it? Perhaps there's some kind of conspiracy involving oil companies?
>
> *** Actually, a number of people have "heard about it" including a successful lecture at NASA Ames in 2007. I would also think the magazine has a fair circulation?
> I am NOT seeking publicity.. The article was to show how the system could be integrated into a working control scheme for a vehicle and simulated.
> ---
>
> Sorry to be so blunt but it seems a bit to good to be true and a bit too unscientific for my tastes.
> >
> > Jonas
> >
> *** Jonas, I have presented the concept. I have provided a numeric simulation of the concept for review and invited you and others to do the math and replicate and verify the results.
>
> Others have done it independently and have gotten the same results, it the experiment has been independently replicated..
>
> This is the trueist form of "Science" as far as can be defined...
> ---
>
> > 10 sep 2010 kl. 21:48 skrev "M" :
> >
> > > Hi Jonas, All:
> > >
> > > Jonas, if you look in the group "Files" section at the article...
> > >
> > > 2009 02 13 Computer pilot WIPing Xplane.doc
> > > Walden WIPCraft X-Plane sim article
> > >
> > > There is a fairly simple explaination of the WIP with both graphs and a picture of the subscale low sped unit passing the pendulum test.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hey Michael,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for some constructive posts.
> > > >
> > > > Would you explain to us, preferably in layman terms, how the proposed WIP drive works? I gather that it converts centrifugal energy into linear motion somehow, but as no such machine has yet been seen I am keen to learn weather this is hypothetical or proven technology. If it is proven, why have we not seen anyone build it?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Jonas
> > > >
> > > > 10 sep 2010 kl. 14:04 skrev "M" :
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi John, All:
> > > > >
> > > > > Answers inline as follows.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi M,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The terraforming of Mars is not as easy as you appear to suggest in your
> > > > > > e-mail. The DOD has had for quite some time now this simple idea of nuking the
> > > > > > polar ice caps of Mars as a methodology to expedite atmospheric pressure
> > > > > > increase and to initiate a greenhouse effect that would eventually create a
> > > > > > breathable atmosphere for human; once vegetation consuming CO2 has taken over
> > > > > > the planet surface and produced massive quantities of free Oxygen. This process
> > > > > > is not going to take 100 years... But even if the terraforming process of Mars
> > > > > > is successful (in a thousand years at best) you will still be stuck with
> > > > > > the problem of the much lower gravity of Mars. Any human who would settle there
> > > > > > for a prolonged period would never be able to go back to Earth because his
> > > > > > skeleton and muscle mass would have become too week within the matter of a few
> > > > > > years...
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *** The Terraforming using celestrial bombardment was NOT my idea. That was presented by Michio Kaku on "Making a new earth - Earth II" on "Sci Fi to Science" last week. He estimated the 100 year transformation.
> > > > >
> > > > > The difference is that using WIP thrusters instead of "rockets" the travel times are vastly reduced and "Direct" transits are possible instead of using Jupiter gravity assists to accelerate the bodies.
> > > > > ======
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hence the need to find for the purpose of colonization planetary ---bodies that
> > > > > > have the same mass and gravity as Earth (+ or - 10%) and who already have an
> > > > > > atmosphere that you can breath and enough water for agriculture. The Kepler
> > > > > > satellite is currently in the process of searching for these "other Earths"
> > > > > > around stars that are located within a 100 light years or so of the Sun. There
> > > > > > is no guaranty that the Kepler satellite will find "other Earths" within 15
> > > > > > light years of the Sun...
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *** First, what makes you think many of the "Spacers" would want to come back to earth for any length of time? Second, the WIP drive is a CONSTANT "1 G" drive so at any other time except for when ON Mars the spacers would be at full earth gravity when traveling. This would keep their physical structures strong.
> > > > > =====
> > > > >
> > > > > > With all due respect, I do not think that your proposed lower then C starship
> > > > > > would make it to any star. The related "rowboat" lower than C space drive is
> > > > > > very far from having been comprehensively designed. In particular, the problem
> > > > > > of appropriately shielding the starship from space dust, of identifying much
> > > > > > larger space debris and of stirring the ship away from them in time are far from
> > > > > > being solved. In addition, a 14 year round-trip (as you suggest for a relatively
> > > > > > close star) is something that is far from simple, in particular from a medical
> > > > > > and psychological perspective, for any potential crew.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *** You seem to have MISSED the point of the last post..
> > > > > The TOTAL CREW time on ship is..
> > > > >
> > > > > TOTAL Crew time experienced 4.282 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > As short as many old sailing ship voyages for a round trip to the nearest star, looking around for 2 years IN REAL TIME and returning.
> > > > >
> > > > > A modern vessel being FAR more comfortable and with better food! :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again, the "1 G" acceleration and decelleration solves the loss of physical structure problem.
> > > > > =====
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hence, I suggest the exploration of a much more direct approach to other
> > > > > > planetary bodies already having the characteristics of Earth using a faster than
> > > > > > C propulsion mode.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *** What propulsion system is this? Superluminal propulsion is still highly speculative, The WIP has at least been tested and proven to work. The development program from atmospheric craft to space craft and then to longer range space craft is simple CRAFT development. Much of the R&D for the life support can be done on ground, see WIPing Xplane article.
> > > > > Thei starts as a low cost "Bootstrapped" program.
> > > > > ======
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I conclude by adding than we (humanity) collectively do not have a great deal of
> > > > > > time to develop this new propulsion mode and the related colonization process
> > > > > > but that the potential reward is such that it should justify the effort.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *** True, I just heard that it was a "25 MILE" body that went between us and the moon along with the 65 Foot one..
> > > > > Perhaps we shoud start with a drive that has already been proven to work?
> > > > >
> > > > > After all, if you can learn to "live in space" while you travel then you are only limited to the life of your power unit as to distance at speed.
> > > > > ===
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > De : M
> > > > > > ' : luf-team@...
> > > > > > Envoy' le : Jeu 9 septembre 2010, 8h 13min 17s
> > > > > > Objet : [luf-team] Re: Humanity learning to walk among the stars
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi John, All:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From a previous post.. See below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are 50 star systems within 15 LY of here. This means that a voyage shorter
> > > > > > than an old whaling voyage of 4-5 years for the ship's crew in dialated time
> > > > > > could get you there. (the science channel just covered this)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > An alternative, as proposed by Michio Kaku (sux), would be to use the WIP drive
> > > > > > to go out to the asteroid belt, note WIPing X-Plane article should take about 2
> > > > > > weeks, pick up some large water and rock asteroids or comets and bombard the ice
> > > > > > caps of Mars, starting the greenhouse effect in a large / fast way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shis should shortly result in another habitable world? (Within 100 years)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Meanwhile the availability of cheap access to space and off planet resources "in
> > > > > > our own backyard" should help. It would also give the experience needed for the
> > > > > > later longer flights.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A simple method of shielding the ship at speed would be to put a string of small
> > > > > > asteroids with drives in front of it ro absorb any impacts. or one larger body
> > > > > > with the ship sheltered in its rear / wake.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doing it "roughly" in my head... Please excuse any slight errors :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SPEED:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At "1G" it takes about 0.87 years to get to 0.95 C.
> > > > > > average speed 0.475 C.
> > > > > > Distance traveled 0.41325 LY
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Decellerating to 0.85C and back up to 0.95C will let me keep "1G" on
> > > > > > board for physical health..
> > > > > > Average speed 0.90C.
> > > > > > Distance traveled 0.90 LY per year.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Slowing to a "relative standstill" another 0.87 years at "1G"..
> > > > > > Average speed 0.475C.
> > > > > > Distance traveled 0.41325 LY
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DISTANCE:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4.36 LY... Here to the nearest star..(average)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Accelerate
> > > > > > Average speed 0.475C.
> > > > > > Distance traveled 0.41325 LY
> > > > > > "Real time" duration 0.87 years
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cruise
> > > > > > Average speed 0.90C
> > > > > > Distance traveled 3.5335 LY
> > > > > > "Real time" duration 3.93 years. (rounded)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Decelerate
> > > > > > Average speed 0.475C.
> > > > > > Distance traveled 0.41325 LY
> > > > > > "Real time" duration 0.87 years
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Total "one way real time" trip duration (observed from earth)
> > > > > > Real time duration 5.67 years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking around for a couple of years... interplanetary trips will
> > > > > > take a matter of weeks at low speed.
> > > > > > And then returning (IF you wanted to :-) )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exploration 2 years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Return trip.
> > > > > > Real time duration 5.67 years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Total "Round trip real time" duration 13.34 years (Call it 14)!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WELL within the operating time limits of a CURRENT submarine reactor
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CREW TIME
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now throw in "relativistic" effects..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the "Crew" things are a little different..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Acceleration
> > > > > > TD at 0.475C about 3.
> > > > > > Crew time 0.87 RY = 0.29 CY.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cruise
> > > > > > At 0.9C about 7.
> > > > > > Crew time 3.93 RY = 0.561 CY
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Deceleration
> > > > > > TD at 0.475C about 3.
> > > > > > Crew time 0.87 RY = 0.29 CY.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exploration
> > > > > > equal to 1 "real time"
> > > > > > Crew time 2 RY = 2 CY
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Acceleration
> > > > > > TD at 0.475C about 3.
> > > > > > Crew time 0.87 RY = 0.29 CY.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cruise
> > > > > > At 0.9C about 7.
> > > > > > Crew time 3.93 RY = 0.561 CY
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Deceleration
> > > > > > TD at 0.475C about 3.
> > > > > > Crew time 0.87 RY = 0.29 CY.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TOTAL Crew time experienced 4.282 years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Automate a lot of the systems with the LATEST technologies for
> > > > > > Minimum crew (maximum cross training on tasks) and you could reduce
> > > > > > the crew of a typical "boomer" to 1 / 4 as many with the same
> > > > > > space...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With its CURRENT supplies you could then keep a CURRENT sub down for
> > > > > > that long...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We are NOT talking about Future technologies here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, this "Sub" would not be nearly as heavy.. a "spaceship" does
> > > > > > NOT have to take the pressure of an ocean.. ONLY the pressure
> > > > > > difference between 14.7 PSI "Breathing ASL" and the nearly 0 PSI of
> > > > > > space.. So you can cut its mass and internal structure by quite a
> > > > > > bit..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Given the development of the WIP and the PMMA, I think that ANY
> > > > > > country that CURRENTLY has nuclear subs could rebuild one and "go to
> > > > > > the stars" NOW.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All they have to do is pay for their applications license :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We "start" the "Bootstrapping" by licensing
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The PMMA / WAMM for home power and automotive applications..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The WIP for water, aircraft and sub orbital applications...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Ratchet wave generator for power and pumping water (with BOTH
> > > > > > you can MAKE FRESH water, as well as fuel) along any coast or "rough
> > > > > > water" (Scalable for homes or commercial)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comments?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > --- In Centrifugal_Inertial_Propulsion@... "mk_walden"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi William, All:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just listened to William's web radio programs on gyroscopic
> > > > > > > precession...
> > > > > > > Interesting...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > William, you might want to look at the document I uploaded to the
> > > > > > > list's files section..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ripping off the little guys
> > > > > > > You can access this file at the URL:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > \
> > > > > > > government%20steals%20and%20uses%20disinformation%20to%20cover.doc
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note how much "Sandia's super lifter" looks like the Haunebu II
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The interesting part is that the "new" model we flew in 2003 (not
> > > > > > > nearly as powerful as the WIP) was powered by 45 watts moving a 10
> > > > > > > pound ship...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Comments?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PS. The XEM01 was built in 1974 and the demo at Nellis AFB was in
> > > > > > > 1977... Hmmmm....The drawings were lenticular...
> > > > > > > BTW - "Mars is TOO COLSE.."
> > > > > > > See what you can find on the "RAM group" :-(
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ad Astra !!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for your interesting post M...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It must however be said that any deep space drive that does not enable to
> > > > > > > somehow go above C is not going to be practical to reach the "other Earths"
> > > > > > > currently being identified by the Kepler satellite.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In addition, since you are quite right in saying that space is not "empty", the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > higher the fraction of C that you reach the larger is the problem of
> > > > > > > appropriately shielding the craft from space dust and other debris. This is
> > > > > > > still a major unsolved problem with your proposed lower than C design.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hence, the ONLY practical way to reach other Earth type planets in other star
> > > > > > > systems is to find some kind of dimensional shortcut drive (you can' call it
> > > > > > > hyperdimentsional or warp drive or star-gate type).' Multi-generation lower
> > > > > > >than
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > C "rowboats" will never make it anywhere mainly because we (the human
> > > > > > > civilization) simply do not have the time nor the capital to build them.' We
> > > > > > >are
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > currently facing a critical civilization net energy crisis that is' presently
> > > > > > > masked by a financial/economic crisis; but the whole issue of global energy
> > > > > > > supplies can pop up on the public radar screen anytime through a crisis
> > > > > > > involving Iran and the Gulf of Hormuz for example. We currently do not have any
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > substitute for our current hydrocarbons supplies and the related EROEI (energy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > return over energy invested) is rapidly falling... In addition the 1972 Club of
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rome limits to growth scenario is coming back to haunt us with
> > > >
> > >

Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

To change settings online go to:

To change settings via email:
ssi_list-digest@...
ssi_list-fullfeatured@...

DS4G seems a better near term bet. Cheap a 1st grader can bild it. 205000 feet per second. Moon in 25 minutes unless you wan to stop the, 45 minte.. lunar solar capability.

Kevin

Date: Monday, September 20, 2010, 10:41 PM

Hi All:

The posts below from another group talk about the use of a near light speed inertial drive using TODAYS technologies to reach the nearer stars and certainly tool about in our own planetary "backyard".
See files / WIP drive Attempt1.rar for an independent force vector simulation.

Comments?

Best,

Hi Jonas, All:

See the file "attempt1" it is an independent force vector simulation of a single mass in a WIP type configuration from another group member showing the increase of force in a vectored direction.

The WIP uses TWO or more masses on a single shaft, see WIPing X-Plane file, to generate a single constant force vector.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Nice thing about "Science" it can be repeated and varified independeanly...

Best,

Hi Gaty, All:

NOT a "Dean drive" Dean did NOT modify both MASS and velocity.
Different enough for the USPTO. DO the math.

If you had read the article you would have seen that there is a REAL subscale test unit that passed the pendulum test.
Why would one "Fake" a test and then present the data and ask people to do the math that checks against the test data?

Science is where your results are replicated and tested.

Spock would say "Fascinating"... ASk your cat...

Best,

Hi Kevin, All:

Been doing multi layer ion drives since the 1970s.
First flight of self powered self contained atmospheric EK ship in 1977, built in 1974.

http://members.fortunecity.com/jlnaudin/html/ltasxmlft.htm

Last ship flown in 2003, moving 10 Lbs with 45 watts..
(Not very fast in atmosphere with this power to mass ratio).

WIP is several times as efficent with top speeds at > 95% of "C".

Note, you are NOT going to the moon in 45 minutes, you would not be able to take the acceleration or decellerations.
At "1G" you are talking about 4 HOURS with continuous 1G acceleration and then 1G decelleration for the other half of the trip.
Read the "WIPing X-Plane" article in FILES.
Anything harder than that would be uncomfortable for long durations.

Best,