A diamond hull will not be enough!

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 5, 2004

So maddad, any response to my proposition a couple of posts up? How about letting me "have a go" at it for a change? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Maddad · Nov 5, 2004

packet " the size of the blast was that of a 20kt device. Stop confusing apples and oranges. You made a big stink about Orion using 0.2 kt devices. Don't go waffling around with bombs that are 100 times bigger. "100,000,000 what? Wow. That's pretty hot. Yes, 100 million Kelvin is hot enough to vaporize your entire pressure plate in milliseconds. "And just how do you arrive at that figure maddad? Son, do your own damn research. Read your own damn links. "There is nothing which has to do with a concrete plug that has any relevance to Project Orion whatsoever. The verified total ablatement of the two ton concrete plug in 31 milliseconds disproves your pet Orion theory because Orion needs a pressure plate for the second bomb. "the superheated atmosphere that happens to be right next to your "Sagan'esque" billions and billions of degrees in temperature is going to go somewhere. The atmosphere does not stand still. Stop confusing apples and oranges. Your Orion fantasy doesn't do you any good unless it works in space where there is no atmosphere. "The speed of movement at the shockwave front is initially 30/km sec. The temperature caused by the compression of the atmosphere can reach 30,000 deg C. Yadah, yadah, yadah. The temperature is millions of degrees if its close enough; it's room temperature if you're far enough away. Whatever shock wave speed and temperature you get is a secondary effect anyway, not a primary effect. Your whole analysis is stupid because you're talking about a bomb that's 100 times bigger than what you want to use on your Orion ship. Stop confusing apples and oranges. Your Orion fantasy doesn't do you any good unless it wor

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 5, 2004

maddad - Stop confusing apples and oranges. You made a big stink about Orion using 0.2 kt devices. Don't go waffling around with bombs that are 100 times bigger. The way the blast behaves is very similar regardless of the kilotonnage used. I was only staying within the parameters of the example given that I referrenced. maddad - Yes, 100 million Kelvin is hot enough to vaporize your entire pressure plate in milliseconds. Too bad those temperatures would never impinge upon the pusher plate or long enough to effect it. a_lost_packet_-"And just how do you arrive at that figure maddad?" maddad - Son, do your own damn research. Read your own damn links. I have. However, nothing there referrences that number at the distance needed to effect the pusher plate of an Orion Craft. So, I'm wondering why you keep bringing it up. That's all. a_lost_packet_-"There is nothing which has to do with a concrete plug that has any relevance to Project Orion whatsoever." maddad - The verified total ablatement of the two ton concrete plug in 31 milliseconds disproves your pet Orion theory because Orion needs a pressure plate for the second bomb. I'm sure that if they change the design specs for the Orion proposal that information would be handy. However, a concrete plug sunken in a vertical, underground shaft and positioned above a nuclear blast doesn't quite fit in the specs for Nuclear Pulsed Propulsion. Maybe they should build the pusher plate out of old railroad bridges? That makes about as much sense. a_lost_packet_-"the superheated atmosphere that happens to be right next to your "Sagan'esque" billions and billions of degrees in temperature is g <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Maddad · Nov 6, 2004

packet "The way the blast behaves is very similar regardless of the kilotonnage used. I was only staying within the parameters of the example given that I referrenced. If Orion were a valid concept, then sombody must have described the effects of the bombs that it is supposed to have used. "maddad - Yes, 100 million Kelvin is hot enough to vaporize your entire pressure plate in milliseconds. Too bad those temperatures would never impinge upon the pusher plate or long enough to effect it. If 31 milliseconds is long enough to totally vaporize two tons of concrete; it is long enough to vaporize your pressure plate. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> "nothing there referrences that number at the distance needed to effect the pusher plate of an Orion Craft. Try thinking independently instead of only pasting what somebody else has written. You are allowed to consider what would happen if you halved one of the parameters of the problem. Exercise your brain. "It is scaler. The pressure wave would effect a smaller area in smaller kt devices. Atta boy. You're learning. "I'm sure that if they change the design specs for the Orion proposal that information would be handy. But it's not handy, is it? Could it be that real scientists are not wasting time with your tin hat project? "we're talking about what inititially occurs within a few hundred feet as being important to the discussion. Learn to think in metric units like real scientists do. Then you'd realize (if you'd read your own links) that a few hundred feet is tens of times greater this initial distance. You tried to get steve to steve to back you up. You concocted a test that said the crucial

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 6, 2004

I picked up G. Dyson's book this morning "Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship." So far, it's very interesting. I've been meaning to pick it up for awhile now. However, since this post, my interest has piqued. By the way, one of the side benefits is that there is alot of experimental evidence listed there. Including specifics regarding the "discussion" we've been having. I'll post some of them tomorrow. I'll be fair and include the problems also. After all, it looks like I'll have to be the one to address the issues. maddad - You tried to get steve to steve to back you up. You concocted a test that said the crucial point was wether the two ton concrete plug ablated in 31 milliseconds. You agreed that if it did then the issue was settled. Since it ablated, the issue is settled. According to your own test, your project Orion is invalid. Hmm... that's a lie. I answered a question and proposal that stevewh had. However, the question was framed as if the "concrete plug" obliterated during the Pascal Tests had something to do with Project Orion. No doubt, it was your continuous misinformation that clouded this issue. I explained the significance of the plug, what it was associated with and acknowledged the fact that it "blew to smithereenies." Big deal. It had nothing to do with Orion and had nothing to do with any tests associated with Orion. By the way, I have no need for "backup." I may appreciate acknowledgments from time to time, however, that doesn't make me rely on them. I'm quite comfortable with or without "backup." As always, my posts stand on their own merit. Anyone can examine them and see the truth of the situation: I'm not arguing anything more than the relevence of the experiments conducted and, on occasion, correcting your posts. By the way, in the book are several examples of materials that were purposefully placed near nuclear blasts, we <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

mcbethcg · Nov 6, 2004

I think its a pointless discussion. Maddad knows little, and intentionally distorts, misreads, and misunderstands every post or piece of information that counters his world view, that any nuclear bomb will "Obliterate the pusher plate in milliseconds" Let him be a'scared of nukes. He'll never change. He is set in his ways. Facts don't matter. I think he must have lived through too many "duck and cover" drills.

Maddad · Nov 7, 2004

packet "the question was framed as if the "concrete plug" obliterated during the Pascal Tests had something to do with Project Orion. It has to do with disproving your Orion idea. You only need one observation to disprove the hypothesis that nuclear bombs produce no ablation. Since we have one observation in which a nuclear bomb totally ablates your entire 4,000 pounds of concrete (which is more than your coating of grease) in a fraction of a second, your Orion idea is disproved. "my posts stand on their own merit Disproved. "By the way, in the book are several examples of materials that were purposefully placed near nuclear blasts, were propelled and they survived handily. Your problem is that this is the Space Science and Astronomy forum, not SETI. This is science, not your high school make believe. When you propose a hypothesis, no matter how many examples you show to support your hypothesis, they can never prove it. All they can do is fail to disprove it. You only need one observation to disprove the hypothesis. We've had that, so you and Orion are disproved. Deal with the fact that is the way science works. 'we would have been able to solve this "discussion" long ago. We have soved it because your tin hat Orion idea is disproved.

Maddad · Nov 9, 2004

st eve Your position is that since really smart people have said so, the proof is conclusive. It brings up the issue of how we know what we know. The equivalent of your and packet's arguments are that you know because your mommy told you so. The problem of accepting your logic is that your mommy might be mistaken. You yourself decided that the ablation of the concrete plug in 31 milliseconds was crucial to settling the issue. packet agreed. Since the only point to your proposing such a test was to settle the issue, as you said it was, I spent the time and effort looking up packet's links (packet does not read his own material), again, to settle the issue from packet's own links. I know you and packet have an emotional attachment to Orion. Yes, I agree; it's a pretty cool idea. It doesn't work though; the crucial test that you proposed has settled the issue. Orion is disproved.

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 9, 2004

Sorry for not returning on Sunday to post those refs. I was rather busy. I'll check back in this eve and post some. I'll have to type them up though. It may be late. maddad - The equivalent of your and packet's arguments are that you know because your mommy told you so. The problem of accepting your logic is that your mommy might be mistaken. My my. Snotty aren't we? Maddad, have you personally done experimental investigations concerning the fundamental nature of the atom? Have you performed experimental validations of Special Relativity? Have you done independent experimental confirmations of Wein's Law? Have you documented personal experimental investigations into the nature of Black Holes? The Universe? Dark Energy? Gravity? Yet, you discuss and refer to these "scientific" ideas often. Why is that? Did your mommy tell you so? Or, have you relied on the validated, experimental results reported to us by experienced scientific researchers? The process of scientificy discovery, experiment, validation, review (etc) is fundamentally different than "heresay." Shame on you for using such a weak and powerless argument. You're floundering here. Accept reality. Accept that there are valid experiments conducted which lend support towards an NPP propulsion system as proposed by the Orion Project. Accept that what you may believe about the results of a nuclear blast could be based on more supposition than fact. Accept that the scientists and engineers working on the Orion Project were competent professionals and highly regarded in the field of nuclear research and aerospace engineering. Maddad, you are mistaken about your assumptions regarding the testing performed. However, that doesn't mean that you are not an intelligent individual. There comes a time when admitting you were mistaken about something is more important than digging in your heels to defend your ego. Eve <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

nexium · Nov 9, 2004

It seems reasonable to me that going from 20 kt to 0.2 kt might produce important differences. I don't think we can conclude negligible differences even if a few tests suggest negligible difference, as a minor change occasionally produces a radical change in results. Instintively, I don't picture the blast being efficiently coupled to a flat pusher plate in a high vacuum, but I do picture the presure plate ablating to nothing in seconds if exposed to plasma at 10,000 degrees c or more, reguardless of the composition of the pressure plate. I suspect neither of you have sufficient evidence to support your contention, and I have only opinion/instint. Neil

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 10, 2004

Maddad, the book proves to be a very rich source of information concerning Project Orion. It also includes details of the experimental investigation that I have been defending, along with many confimations of the corrections and responses I have given to your posts. To start: "The propellant is vaporized into a jet of plasma by the bomb." (1) One of these propellants, as I explained earlier, could be the selected casing for the bomb. However, it could also, very well, include any material that could be vaporized into plasma. Any cheap, inert material will do once the craft was in space. I've mentioned that several times. "For about one, three-thousandth of a second the plasma stagnates against the pusher plate at a temperature of 120,000 degrees. The time is too short for heat to penetrate the pusher, so the ship is able to survive an extended series of pulses….Even on an ambitious interplanetary mission, involving several thousand explosions, the total plasma-pusher interaction time amounts to less than one second. The high temperatures are safely isolated, in both time and distance, from the ship." (2) Remember discussing exposure times and temperature intensities? Remember what I have told you time and time again? Why was Orion considered at all? Because it's specific impulse could reach up to 6000 using the materials available at the time. That's why. (3) "..instead of simply exploding a stockpile weapon and measuring its yield, weaponeers began to study how the energy of a fission explosion could be directed and channeled and how that energy might be transformed.." (4) Remember me trying to explain to you that you can tailor the effects of nuclear weapons and direct their energies? You scoffed and didn't accept my analogies in that regard. Well, a humorous example of this type of inventive engineering is Ted Taylor's cigarette lighting stunt as detailed in the book. Ted T <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 10, 2004

nexium - ..but I do picture the presure plate ablating to nothing in seconds if exposed to plasma at 10,000 degrees c or more, reguardless of the composition of the pressure plate. I suspect neither of you have sufficient evidence to support your contention, and I have only opinion/instint. Neil <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />".."For about one, three-thousandth of a second the plasma stagnates against the pusher plate at a temperature of 120,000 degrees. The time is too short for heat to penetrate the pusher, so the ship is able to survive an extended series of pulses….Even on an ambitious interplanetary mission, involving several thousand explosions, the total plasma-pusher interaction time amounts to less than one second. The high temperatures are safely isolated, in both time and distance, from the ship." (2) <hr /></blockquote> (Scroll up to my post above for the reference.) I would never present anything of the sort without sufficient evidence. As a matter of fact, respectfully, I ask that you review the evidence that I have presented in previous posts within this thread before passing judgement on my position. You will see that I do not make suppositions or conjecture without uniquely identifying them as such and I do not present argument, especially against "science" without evidence to support my case. I understand your commentary and respect the spirit of it. However, I assure you, the inference does not apply to me in this matter. You will also notice that I have continually repeated, ad nauseum, that I am not a proponent of the Orion NPP design. I am only defending the ablation and thermal testing that was done during the Project as being scientifically valid inquiries. The entirety of the rest of my statements are rebuttles to Maddads spurious and ill-formed accusations concerning various aspects of the Project. Actually, lately, h <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 10, 2004

a_lost_packet_-"the question was framed as if the "concrete plug" obliterated during the Pascal Tests had something to do with Project Orion." maddad - It has to do with disproving your Orion idea. You only need one observation to disprove the hypothesis that nuclear bombs produce no ablation. Since we have one observation in which a nuclear bomb totally ablates your entire 4,000 pounds of concrete (which is more than your coating of grease) in a fraction of a second, your Orion idea is disproved. Only relevant experimental data and observation can disprove a hypothesis maddad. Brush up on your basics. a_lost_packet_-"my posts stand on their own merit" maddad - Disproved. So far, I believe you have failed to address directly any position I have taken in any of my posts. Instead, you focus on side-bars that have nothing to do with the substance of the discussion, make off the cuff, unsubstantiated commentary and then you argue about it. Again, only relevant observation could disprove my statement. Brush up on your basics. a_lost_packet_-"By the way, in the book are several examples of materials that were purposefully placed near nuclear blasts, were propelled and they survived handily." maddad - You only need one observation to disprove the hypothesis. We've had that, so you and Orion are disproved. Deal with the fact that is the way science works. Must I restate everything I post in regards to your quibbling? You must have relevant experimental data and observation to disprove a hypothesis. You haven't presented that. Your description has nothing to do with the way science works. Brush up on your basics. a_lost_packet_-'we woul <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Maddad · Nov 10, 2004

packet "there are valid experiments conducted which lend support towards an NPP propulsion system as proposed by the Orion Project. Experiments conducted at the wrong distance are invalid. Experiments conducted at the wrong temperature are invalid. Experiments conducted the wrong number of times are invalid. Experiments conducted without verification are invalid. Experiments conducted without repeatability are invalid. "Accept that the scientists and engineers working on the Orion Project were competent professionals and highly regarded in the field of nuclear research and aerospace engineering. Accept that you've been disproven. "I'll post some experimental info this eve. I can't post links to research papers. Many are still classified. Oh, well, that absense of evidence conclusively proves your Orion hypothesis then! *Snort* "ALL of this information . . . Is useless because we have at least one observation that disproves you. All you can prove is that your Orion dupes do not know how to test under the proper conditions. nexium "I do picture the presure plate ablating to nothing in seconds if exposed to plasma at 10,000 degrees c or more, reguardless of the composition of the pressure plate. That exactly has been the basis of my objection since Day 1. If 10,000 Kelvin is a problem for the pressure plate, then 13,000 Kelvin will be a bigger problem. Wein's Law says that it's almost three times a bigger problem. 80,000 Kelvin is even worse, 4,000 times worse according to Wein. But nuclear temperatures don't stop there. They run between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000 Kelvin. (You can verify those temperatures in a minute either in packet's links or in google.) That's a trillion times bigg

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 10, 2004

Maddad - Why do you lie? What purpose does it serve? Why do you purposefully ignore fact in favor of presenting misleading and irrelevent statements? Why do you insist on redefining the argument? Why do you insist on redefining science to suite you? a_lost_packet_-"there are valid experiments conducted which lend support towards an NPP propulsion system as proposed by the Orion Project." maddad -Experiments conducted at the wrong distance are invalid. Prove that the experiments were conducted at the wrong distance and and are invalid. You have failed to do so. Where is the substance behind your accusation? Your implication is false. maddad -Experiments conducted at the wrong temperature are invalid. Prove that they were conducted at the wrong temperature. You have failed to do so. Where is the substance behind your accusation? Your implication is false. maddad -Experiments conducted the wrong number of times are invalid. So says who? Is this some "generic" number of times you can find in "Maddad's Science Wannabe Handbook?" What is your reasoning? I tried to coach you on how to make a valid argument that could be used to cast doubt on some of the validity of the testing conducted. You chose to take the lazy way out and throw "monkey poo" at it. If you wish to pursue a possibly valid argument, here's your chance. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air. Where is the substance behind your accusation? Your implication is false. maddad -Experiments conducted without verification are invalid. Who's verification? Yours? I wouldn't let you verify the expiration date on a can of soup much less offer critical review of an experiment. These were tests which were r <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

mcbethcg · Nov 11, 2004

Hey man, I have a set of tools made of concrete that I want to sell you.

Maddad · Nov 12, 2004

packet "You continually repeat results from a nuclear test that shows a concrete block, stuck in a shaft, on which the channeled energies of a nuclear blast blew through it like someone popping the top on a bottle of soda. This has nothing to do with Orion. You got steve to come to your rescue when you couldn't respond to my objections. You both agreed this was the crucial test, so you've been disproven. The funny part is that it was the test that you designed. I didn't come to you with my idea for a test for the validity of Orion; you came to me. Since you failed the test that you created, you are disproven by your very own words. If you hadn't chosen someone so incompetent to design your test, then you wouldn't have to accept your pet hypothesis being disproven on your own merit now. "Nuclear bombs can blow things up. That's a fact. If you had any science background then you would understand that nucear bombs heat things more than blow them up. "This is not a hypothesis being proven by experimental science. You are correct. Orion is a hypothesis disproven by science. "when testing against a hypothesis, you design the experiment in such a way as it isolates the variables you wish to test as best you can. So why can't you understand that and apply it to your disproven Orion hypothesis?

a_lost_packet_ · Nov 12, 2004

maddad - You have to be just cruising for the longest argument thread in SDC. You don't make any sense. So, I salute you on maintaining the facade. maddad - So why can't you understand that and apply it to your disproven Orion hypothesis? Why can't you understand that the concret plug has nothing at all to do with the concept of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion? maddad - You got steve to come to your rescue when you couldn't respond to my objections. You both agreed this was the crucial test, so you've been disproven. The funny part is that it was the test that you designed. Prove it. Link the conversation that establishes this fantasy. Prove to the thread that you aren't lying. Go ahead, prove it. I've already asked you to do so, yet you haven't. Why is that? Go ahead maddad, prove your accusation. Link the source material. It has to be in this thread somewhere. Go ahead, prove it. a_lost_packet-"This is not a hypothesis being proven by experimental science." maddad - You are correct. Orion is a hypothesis disproven by science. How can you say that when you have been maintaining that nothing that qualifies as scientific investigation was conducted in association with Orion? That's a common theme in many of your posts. Are you now switching positions and saying that scientific investigation was done which pertains to Orion? Thanks for admitting that! Now all we have to do is agree that the experiment you are talking about never had anything to do with Orion at all. That is easy enough as I have already done so time and time again in posts in this thread. Maybe you missed them? If so, go ahead and look over them again. I'll waite. a_lost_packet_-"Nuclear bombs can blow things up. That's a fact." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

Maddad · Nov 14, 2004

packet "Why can't you understand that the concret plug has nothing at all to do with the concept of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion? Why can't you understand that disproving your "no ablation" claim has everything to do with Orion? The real issue is the concrete plug. It absolutely disproves a required tennant of your Orion project. The pusher plate must survive the nuclear blasts, plural, many-many plural, or Orion doesn't work. Since we have an observation of mast wasting by ablation of the entire plug, we have the one and only required observation to disprove your Orion project. In 31 milliseconds the entire two tons ablated. That's more than your thin coating of grease, packet, and it's less than 10,000 nuclear bombs or 100,000 or more. Your pusher plate cannot survive a single nuclear blast, as demonstrated. You and steve set up the test, remember? If the pusher plate is going to vaporize with the first blast, then it darn sure isn't going to be there 10,000 blasts later. This brings up the next obstacle that you would have to overcome even if you could wish away the ablation of the two ton concrete plate. Orion's never been tested for the application you're proposing. You've never exposed anything to thousands of nuclear blasts, and yet to claim to have experimental evidence supporting Orion, you would have had to do something in this area. Give it up packet. Orion's a fantasy. A really neat idea, but saying that we have experimental evidence supporting it is ignoring the evidence against it and ignoring the fact that you haven't tested it in the manner that you propose to use it.

Maddad · Nov 15, 2004

It's been two days packet. Thought the better of it?

Astrosag · Nov 15, 2004

Well if "mommy" is a rocket scientist and the opponent is a nurse, who do you expect people to believe on this manner. And if you want to counter this by stating that the facts prove you, well they've already said that Packet's facts and arguments are stronger...nullified.

mcbethcg · Nov 15, 2004

I have a hammer and a some drill bits made of concrete that I want to sell you.

petepan · Nov 16, 2004

So what your saying Maddad, your proposing that the pusher plate is made of concrete? Who and how did this arise, nobody mentioned this? As a_lost_packet has repeatedly said, the concrete plug has NOTHING to do with Orion, AFAIK. It cant disprove the ablation issue, because, it has nothing to do with it! What is the material they propose to use for a pusher plate?

Maddad · Nov 16, 2004

pp I did not propose this test; steve and packet did. They were the ones who decided that if the two tons of concrete really did ablate in 31 milliseconds then the Orion issue was settled. Since we have established that the two tons of concrete did ablate in 31 milliseconds, we have met the requirements of a test that satisfies both steve and packet. I would not have proposed the test myself because concrete is not steel. However, steve and packet felt that it was close enough that if the two tons of concrete ablated, then some of the steel would have ablated. How much is hard to quantify, but steve and packet felt that it would be enough to invalidate the Orion hypothesis. In trying to quantify a difference between concrete and steel you might want to decided that steel will not be say 1,000 times more resistant to heat than concrete. It's highly improbable that steel resists the effects of heating by three orders of magnitude as compared to concrete, but let's run with that number to see where it takes us. The effects of close exposure to a nuclear blast would vaporize a minimum of four pounds of this resistant steel. Remember that all the concrete ablated. Would ten tons have ablated if ten tons had been there? We don't know because it wasn't really a controlled experiement, it was just an observation. So we can accept that at least four pounds of steel would ablate, and realize that probably much more would go. Of course, this is but one exposure to a nuclear blast. Orion would requre tens of thousands of them for even a short flight. Ablating four pounds 10,000 times means you lose 40,000 pounds of pusher plate. This assumes that this steel is a thousand times better than concrete, and we have no such knowledge of that. It's probably a factor that one of you guys could look up, or might know from working in industry. Anyway, if the steel does not resist heating a thousand times more

Astrosag · Nov 16, 2004

Thats true, learn to think for yourself. But if you take it at face value, who would you EXPECT people to listen to or believe more?...thats my point.

A diamond hull will not be enough!

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

Maddad

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

nexium

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

Maddad

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

Maddad

Guest

Maddad

Guest

Astrosag

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

petepan

Guest

Maddad

Guest

Astrosag

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page