Black Hole powered interstellar flight

[why06]

You got me all wrong !!!!<br />When I said "substantial" I simply meanit would be big enough to have an effect. I'm talking about microscopic black holes as one "10 times the mass of our Sun" would have a much gentler curve than that of the microscopic. Your thinking about the exact same thing I am!! I'm sorry if I was vague!!!<br />Also if a white dwarf is still hot we'll get the material from a nuetron and if not well just ram matter together. Your plan simply causes for more matter to be accelerated while mines causes for bigger (but stilll microscopic) chunks of matter with a stronger particle accelerator.<br />Calm down we're on the same page. <font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Both neutron stars and white dwarfs have surface temperatures in the millions of degrees. Neutron stars are called neutron stars because they are degenerate matter: all neutrons. The moment you touch down on one you become all neutrons too: quite flat, and quite dead. <br />Getting material from the surface of either of these sorts of stars is quite impossible. <br /><br />Actually, my method implodes more matter in a single implosion, while a particle accelerator works with individual atoms. You seem very ignorant of both physics and astronomy, so I'd suggest you study both more.

 

[why06]

Listen mlorrey,<br />I don't know what your deal is, but my job was just to see if black hole powered flight was possible or not. The reasons I brought up anything at all about nuetron stars is because at first I was going to use the sling shot manuever to propel the ship. Ounce I found this would not be possible I stuck with it any way. Reason being I heard If a mountain the size of Mt Everest was shrunk small enough it could create a black hole deadly enough to eat the Earth. So I thought to my self "Man shrinking something that big would take a lot of energy. If I was going to create a black whole this super-dense matter would need to be pre-made." So I decided to collide the material of a nuetron star fast enough that the substance would collapse upon itself. <br /><br />But if you recall I came up with two plans, one using Hawking radiation. I thought producing Thousands of small black holes could propel the ship. It doesn't matter HOW I make them whole as long as it works. Even though my thoughts of nuetron stars might be completely irrelevant that was not the point I was trying to make.<br />And just so you know!! I know "neutron stars and white dwarfs have surface temperatures in the millions of degrees" What did you think I was going to scoop it up with a spoon. Obviously I know some about physics and astronomy to propose this idea and it worked. Every time a person said it was impossible I said it could be done. If you want to challenge me than go ahead because nothing is impossible if the possibility exist!!!!!!!!!!!!! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

There are several possible ways to use black holes for space travel. One is using blackhole bombs in a nuclear pulse drive, a 3rd generation Orion ship.<br /><br />Another is to keep a small stable black hole electrostatically or electromagnetically captive, which is possible since all black holes have charge, and feed matter into the black hole, extracting energy from the IR emissions of the accretion disk to power one's spaceship. <br /><br />Another idea is to use the blackhole to warp space: a theoretical and so far untestable theory.<br /><br />Since stable black holes would have huge masses, dragging one around the universe is a rather inefficient concept. The black hole bomb idea is the best, because it gets the mas-energy conversion efficiency of anti-matter, without needing antimatter production and storage infrastrucutre, and without the massive inefficiencies one sees in trying to produce antimatter.<br /><br />Production of black holes with particle accelerators is likewise incredibly inefficient. The energy you get out of one atom sized black hole evaporation is a millionth or less of the energy required to accelerate your normal matter to high enough velocities to generate atom sized black holes.<br /><br />The black hole bomb generates the needed power in one massive reaction, out in interstellar space. Your accelerator idea requires a planet filled with nuclear reactors creating millions of times more nuke waste than we already have to generate the electricity to do it your way.<br /><br />As for my 'challenging you', the fact is that you are the one making the extraordinary claim, thus it is you who must prove your position since extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.. I do not need to prove anything.

 

[why06]

Okay then why are you talking about nuclear waste?<br />And by the way I'm not trying to create a bomb. I'm tying to create a propulsion system. Blowing up the craft wouldn't help much...<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

The only reason I mentioned a particle accelerator is because that is the only idea someone has come up with and made a reality so far. <br /><font color="orange">Does any one know of other ways to create black holes?<br />I am very interested in any new ideas! So if you have some post them.<font color="yellow"></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

particle accelerators take energy to run, the amount of energy you would need to produce the black holes on earth would be huge, moreover, producing them only results in them evaporating here on earth. You need a method to produce mini black holes in space so their evaporation is the impulse for your drive. Particle accelerators don't fit in your back pocket, they are huge things that cover many miles. You can't just fit them in a spaceship. The amount of energy needed to power them is immense, and would produce an immense amount of nuclear waste (whether your nuke plant was on board ship or on a planet is immaterial: you are going to wind up glowing if you do it your way).<br /><br />I am talking about bombs, which is what Orion type nuclear pulse engines are: a pusher plate and a putt putt of bombs going off, one after the other, behind it. Black hole bombs in an Orion class ship is the only feasible way to do it. Particle accelerators are a waste of time. Yes its possible to make atom sized black holes with a particle accelerator, but such accelerators are huge things, and require immense amounts of energy. The energy you'd get out of the evaporating black holes would be a tiny percent of what it takes to produce them with a particle accelerator. My method produces more energy through black hole evaporation than it takes to produce the black holes through fusion implosion.

 

[mlorrey]

"The only reason I mentioned a particle accelerator is because that is the only idea someone has come up with and made a reality so far. <br />Does any one know of other ways to create black holes? "<br /><br />No, they haven't. Nobody has made a black hole with a particle accelerator yet. Some physicists have proposed it, but nobody has done it yet.

 

[why06]

From what I hear your idea is pretty good...<br />Could you please elaborate on it so that I might have a firm understanding of what your lalking about.<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Well, I'm not going to make specific suggestions that could land me in trouble as proliferating WMD technology, but essentially the idea is this:<br /><br />a) TNT implosions are used to detonate plutonium fission<br />b) plutonium fission implosions are used to detonate hydrogen fusion<br />c) hydrogen fusion implosions in stars can create black holes<br />d) atom collisions of high enough energy can create atom sized black holes<br />e) black holes below a certain mass evaporate, ergo using fusion bombs to implode a core to high enough pressure could cause some amount of that core to compress within its mass' Schwartzilde limits, and become a quantum black hole of a small amount of mass (a few moles up to a few grams, perhaps as much as a kg, depending on the size).<br />f) almost as soon as it is created, the black hole evaporates in a vast explosion of energy, leptons, etc. converting its entire mass to energy and high velocity particles.<br />g) a large amount of this energy and high energy particles is absorbed by the plasma of the triggering TNT, fission, and fusion explosion/implosions, thus boosting their energies even higher.<br />h) the boosted plasma gives an even greater kick to the pusher plate of the Orion spaceship that released the black hole bomb. <br /><br />If even just a few percent of the mass of the black hole converts to energy that is absorbed by the surrounding plasma, the effective Isp of the propulsion goes up by hundreds if not thousands of times. This means that instead of reaching 3-10% of light speed, a black hole bomb equipped Orion ship could reach relativistic velocities, possibly high enough to experience significant time dilation.<br /><br />This might also be a way to detect alien intelligence: if astronomers detect a pulsing source of energy that appears to be a chain of quantum black hole explosions, which also appears to be accelerating or decellerating, then that could be the exhaust of this sort of spacecraft.

 

[why06]

Thanks a lot<br />I have a few questions...<br /><br />1.How much TNT would we need to have repeated explosions on long a journey?<br /><br />2.Would this create a lot of radio-activity? I say this because one of the leading problems in nuclear powered space ship is the exposer of nuclear waste to people and what-not.<br /><br />3.Has any research been done possibly using this method or is it beyond are grasp at the moment.<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[nexium]

There is a very slight possibility that one of the methods suggested in this thread is workable. More likely all of them have a fatal flaw. Even the sub microscopic black holes (if they are possible) have a few tons of mass which you have to accellerate, so you need considerable thust to accellerate the black hole you carry in your space ship, plus the thrust you need to accelerate the auxillary equipment which protects you from the radiation, prevents the black hole from eating esential parts of your spacecraft, and the auxillary equipment that produces the thrust.<br />The next problem is these very low mass black holes are thought to convert all their mass to photons and sub atomic particals in less than a second. A mini black hole that would last one day likely has a mass of millions of tons, and the energy output will likely be more than your axilleries can survive the last few seconds, so you need a means to dump the black hole overboard before it distroys your craft. Now you have no propulsion system, and you like did not accelerate much in the one day.<br />Another approach is to do a sling shot manuver = gravity assist manuver around a medium or large mass black hole. Chrisdoc seems to think gravity manuvers are impossible, but NASA has used them to reach a few millionth of the speed of light which may be near the upper limit practical. Neil

 

[mlorrey]

I have no idea. We don't know how big of an explosion is needed to create such black holes for pulse propulsion.<br /><br />Radioactivity: is blocked by the pusher plate from reaching the crew compartments, and the ship is metallic, so they are sheilded from EMP.<br /><br />So far as I know no research has been done on this, but if it is possible by the method I've described, it isn't beyond grasp. I'm looking at making proposals to DARPA and DOE to pursue the idea. <br /><br />the Schwartzchild Radius is defined as rs = 2GM/c^2<br /><br />Therefore, if we are able to compress 1 gram of matter at the center of the bhole bomb, the radius of the resultant black hole is 1.4852098008226120280e-30 meters. Its evaporation energy would be a maximum of 2.4965421631578267e7 kilowatt-hours<br /><br />I have found that Hawking in 1988, describes Wheeler’s theory that if one took all the heavy water in the world and built a hydrogen bomb, the pressures at the center would create a quantum singularity. This is a very large bomb, and I'm not sure what he means by "all of the heavy water": i.e. all in storage, all in the oceans, what? If it is the first, then we have a managable possibility. If it is the second, then the concept is impossible. Given how physicists find easier and easier ways to make nukes over time with less fissile mass, I suspect that managable sized nukes could be built capable of this. John Wheeler who theorised that the world's heavy water could be used in the creation of a hydrogen bomb capable of compressing matter down to the limit whereby it would collapse to form a black hole. The pressures generated could reach a critical density of 1017 kilograms per cubic metre which would be sufficient to compact matter. The bomb would need to weigh several billion tonnes making it an economically unfeasible effort. More recently research into atomic accelerators has been under criticism from some quarters for the possible risk of singularity creation. Fortunately the energy

 

[rocketman5000]

You have some great Ideas, but where do you get all of your energy....

 

[mlorrey]

Slacking frees the imagination.

 

[why06]

wouldn't the fact that we are doing this in zero G have some effect on the blackhole bomb...possibly making it easier to create. The earth pul must definitely have to effect nuclear bombs. Hey i've got an idea could we in some way use the immense pressure and heat at earths core to produce this black hole?<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

no

 

[why06]

Okay I was getting away from myself there, but is there a less expensive way to make a black hole? Instead of the fusion of atoms can the fusion of electrons and proton's fuel this or the fission of a nuetron. Has anyone ever proposed this? Will it produce any power?<br /><br />I know you mentioned that the effienciency of nuclear bombs are being increased, but I just don't want to be carrying a bunch of nukes. I wanted it to be a small efficient energy source. Has anyone ever mentioned elementary particle fusion as a possible energy source.<br /><br />........I'm just trying to think outside of the box, even though some of these ideas were out of the top of my head.... <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> !<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

I know it's a big step to go from fission and fussion created atom sized black holes to breaking apart sub atomic particles. BUT COULD YOU IMAGINE THE ENERGY TRAPPED INSIDE!!!. This is all at a guess, I will see if anyone has done research on this and post it. If Braking apart molecules (like TNT) produces explosions and breaking apart an atom produces an even bigger one! Then Breaking apart fundemental particles will produce a huge release of energy...the key to this may lie in other elementary particles such as leptons, this is just logic I have no proof so far...I said this in order to keep the wait down, but what I mentioned might be a whole new kind of energy. :| <font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Well, using nukes is the easiest way, and likely the only way for humans to acheive it for the forseable future. What you want doesn't matter wrt what is possible. Humanity is going to have to advance a long way before it can do better.<br /><br />Fission is both less efficient and less energetic than fusion. If it takes a billion tonnes of hydrogen, it would take a trillion tonnes of plutonium or uranium.<br /><br />"elementary particle fusion"??? Do you mean quarks and stuff like that? No, that isn't a possible energy source, it take lots of energy to pry particles apart into quarks, you get less out of them coming back together. There is no free energy there.<br /><br />Look, the only two power sources you can use with any practicality in interstellar flight are fission and fusion. You can produce antimatter on earth with colliders, but that takes thousands of times more energy to produce than you get from the anti-matter reactions when they are used as fuel. Its very very inefficient.

 

[why06]

Well, thanks a lot for all the help...but I'm out ....see ya!!!<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

And getting material off a neutron star is easier than taking stardust off a black hole which I never suggested you said to begin with. What I said, and it applies to neutron stars as well, is that they are so far away you have to develop the means to get to them to do anything which kind of defeats the purpose of developing the system you proposed. That is unless your system proved to be far superior to the original means to get to one of these objects. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[why06]

Well it took you long enough...What is it 40 quotes after the fact anyway I do believe it will be that efficient, but thats if were making the model that used the sling shot effect.<font color="yellow"><br /></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Please post references to physics or astrophysics papers demonstrating why neutronium or black hole 'space dust' would be qualitatively superior in the manufacture of quantum black holes with accelerators. Otherwise, you are talking pixie dust and this conversation belongs in "phenomena".

 

[qso1]

why06:<br />Well it took you long enough...What is it 40 quotes after the fact anyway I do believe it will be that efficient, but thats if were making the model that used the sling shot effect.<br /><br />Me:<br />I don't always have time to be in front of my computer so my reponse times vary and are usually late night. I only point out what I see as possible areas you would maybe want to look into when designing something such as what you proposed. Its not my intent to offend or criticize unless is constructive. What will your probe be slingshotting around?<br /><br />BTW, my quote is right above yours, hardly 40 quotes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>