Re: Electrogravitics is Reality!


tomcat wrote:
William Mook wrote:
tomcat,

Your reply irks me on so many levels.

You speak as if paperwork were reality and the time to publish a paper
is somehow a detriment to the flow of valid ideas. And you ignore the
benefits of peer review - which filters out obvious bull*** so people
don't waste their time with it.


I have never said that publishing "a paper is somehow a detriment to
the flow of valid ideas."

It seems like it.

Peer review, intelligent criticism that is,
is fine. In fact, I enjoy it. But senseless remarks, statements void
of content, made by those that are 'void between the ears' incense me.

Wow, then you know how I feel reading some of your fantasies.

Reality isn't revealed in the ruminations of clueless posters to the
internet, reality is revealed by the work done in labs by COMPETENT
researchers. Labwork comes from the creative insights of imaginative
and KNOWLEDGEABLE people. Labwork can take years, creativity can occur
at any time, but may take a lifetime of working and thinking about a
problem.


There are clueless posters, but I am not one of them.

really? hahaha.

Usually
"clueless posters" are identified by either 4 letter words, or posts
void of content (see my remarks above).

Oh, I don't know, I've used four letter words when really urked by
clueless posters. haha.


Once a solid base of laboratory data is accumulated, creative and
competent technical people can take that data and use it to achieve
amazing things.


Yes, that is the way our huge industrial research establishment is
handling things today.



Unfortunately, 99% of the researchers have no
creativity in them or it has been beaten out of them by those that
brown-nosed, achieved high position, and 'have no creativity in them'.

Its simpler than that. Its beyond personalities. Creative ideas have
high risk and low reward and in today's business environment. Tax
laws, and laws that regulate the management of publicly owned
companies, combined with intense competition, undercut funding of
highly creative processes.

The net result of this brown-nosing, whip the bright attitude, is
'sterile research' that costs billions and accomplishes nothing.

Well, then you have government managed research which is more
constrained than the research performed by public companies. But on
rare occasion you have companies - like Hewlett Packard or Sony or
Intel, where you have owners who have enough clout, and enough sense,
to keep things moving in new ways - and produce a constant stream of
new products.

Noyce and Moore at Intel did everyone a favor by pushing Moore's law -
and inspiring a generation of electrical engineers to meet it - and
build a business model that demands it.

We need a generation of aerospace engineers that push as single
mindedly on the cost of momentum, with a clear idea of how the market
for space transport will increase, as costs decline, leading to more
profits and bigger markets overall.

This is so far outside the mainstream thinking, and government desire
to limit the spread of missile technology, that anyone who works in the
field has a hard time even decoding what I've said! lol.


Edison while not formally trained subscribed to Scientific American, he
counted it as a huge benefit to his work. Edison created his own
research lab to get information more quickly and more relevant than
using Scientific American by itself.

Edison was one of the very brilliant and creative people that pushed
America ahead in the late 19th Century. My hat is off to him! Edison
gave us motion pictures, the telephone, the stock ticker, the
mimeograph machine, and the phonograph.

Nearly 1200 inventions in all, and this was a time BEFORE the research
establishment was dominated by military concerns about nuclear and
missile proliferatoin, BEFORE the time there was income taxes, and
BEFORE the time of highly restrictive laws controlling the management
of publicly owned companies.

He knew to experiment and to
use what he learned from that.

We still do. We merely lack the capacity to continue funding the
dreams of proven innovators. As I mentioned, Sony's commitment to the
trinitron tube, HPs commitment to ink-jet printing, and Intel's
commtiment to the Moore curve, are notable exceptions, and should be a
model for others.

I also agree that Scientific American
is good reading.

Yep.

Noyce and Moore were formally
trained as Electronic and Chemical Engineers - they knew a helluva lot
about electronics and chemical engineering to come up with innovations
in ICs - in the end they had a huge staff of researchers as well to aid
them in their creative efforts - which resulted in the computers that
form the basis of the internet you talk about.

Integrated circuits are very important and their contribution is
considerable. They must have worked in an enviornment that allowed
creativity, i.e., new ideas.

Not really! Shockley won a Nobel prize for his work on the transistor,
and Bell Labs set up Shockley Semiconductor Labs and got Silicon Valley
started. Shockley was a great scientist, but a lousy manager. He
alienated EVERYONE and treated them badly. So, a group of folks left
Shockley Semiconductor Labs - including Noyce - and started Fairchild
Semiconductor - a fairer child of Shockley's labs! Fairchild spawned
scores of startup companies, one of which was Intel - with their idea
of INTEGRATING circuits on a single wafer, rather than making a
transistor, cutting it out of a wafer, and wiring it up with other
transistors. Using microscopes to project tiny virus sized images on
photoactive chemicals allow tiny virus sized circuits to be made - and
reducing the size of those images, gives you Moore's curve.


I am not sure how all of this relates to me.

I think you're pretty much clueless given what you've written.

I have a standing offer
to build a waverider cargo hauler for 8 billion dollars upfront.

???? Any real performance numbers? Forget about the cost, what can
you say to show that it can work?


Why
no one else can do this, I don't know.

Hahaha... How is it structured? Did you get your license yet? Did you
know you have to register with DOT/FAA before offering such flights? or
offering such vehicles?

Back in 1995 I designed a TSTO-RLV whose first stage was propelled by a
SSME and four RL10 engines. The second stage was propelled by four RL10
engines, and a smaller engine set modified from an existing ACS rocket
set. Both stages would enter ballistically - the system looked like a
narrow cone with a cylinder and cone on the top - a two stage version
of DCX - which it operated much like. Bill Gaubatz's DCX program was
AFTER mine, and the upper stage of my GREENSPACE project looked
suspiciously like DCX test vehicle. I asked Martin Marietta and others
to quote on this program. I went to Bill Gates and Craig McCaw and
asked them for $30 million per Teledesic satellite when I had a
vehicle. They wanted to see it fly first. The vehicle would put 9
tonnes into LEO for less than $5 million.

Back in 1998, well before the Soyuz based tourist flights, I spoke with
GKNPT Khrunichev, Lockheed and ILS about using the Proton, Soyuz, and
Atlas launched payloads simultaneously or nearly so, into a LEO within
the plane of the moon's orbit. The lunar stage, the piloted stage, and
the lunar lander stage, all meet on orbit, and fly to the moon. I've
gotten preliminary numbers and schedules from each vendor, and
developed a game plan where 4 people pay $85 million each to fly to the
moon and return to Earth. We needed 16 people to prepay $85 million
each - paid into a trust fund operated by a major brokerage house who
would manage the money while in escrow. The tour buyers get the
interest until all 16 people have paid in. They can withdraw after 5
years if we don't meet escrow conditions. Once we have $1,36 billion
in escrow,we start getting the interest from the account. The interest
money is used to refine the design and put together a final plan. Once
the plan is approved,the $1.36 billion gets spent to build a fleet of
payloads and buy the 12 launchers needed. Owners of tickets have a
right to resell them. This is likely to benefit the first returnees to
the moon. Four flights will occur in all, The first flight has the
potential to do a lot of firsts, so the tickets are likely to increase
in value as we get closer to the launch date. One buyer appeared, and
we ended up returning him his money.

Today I've asked folks to look at a TSTO-RLV based on the old siamese
twin concept. I've been asked for $150,000 to do a study, I'm thinking
about funding it. Two lifting body shapes back to back, one propelled
by a RD-120 rocket engine, the other propelled by a RL10 rocket engine
- putting 900 kg into LEO - fully reusable. This program will cost
$240 million to build a fleet.

Maybe it is because they have
never personally witnessed hypersonic flight or the Earth at 300,000+
feet.

No, its because those who are responsible for publicly owned companies
can't be swayed by such considerations. Its up to space engineers to
come up with plans that sober sane people CAN fund and have a good shot
at making a profit on. That's why you have people with vast personal
fortunes funding things like SpaceShip One or the X-Prize.

But you talk as if you have personally experienced such flight. Have
you? lol. Then why is the USAF planning a TEST FLIGHT of HTV-1 in
2007? Note the number - HTV - one - the first one.

Once, while flying in a plane, marvelled at the skin being red
hot just a couple of inches from my shoulder, yet I was completely
comfortable.


Hmm... are you talking about an SR71 Blackbird? That plane flies at
60,000' and 2,200 mph. - well it flies above both of these, but not
THAT high above both of these, just look at the thrust and weight and
fuel weight.

Hypersonic flight occurs at 5x the speed of sound or more. That's when
the shock wave folds back along the skin of the airplane. So, we're
talking 3,800 mph or more - and I'm not familiar with any plane that
flies that fast, or at 300,000 feet!

Now there are two rocket planes.

There is the X15 rocket plane that flies above 352,000 feet and at
4,520 mph! That's what you're talking about?

William H. Dana made the last flight in 1968, Scott Crossfield made the
first flight in 1959. I couldn't find a complete list of pilots. Are
you one of these? There were three aircraft and a total of 199
flights.

Or are you talking about Spaceship One? That climbs to a similar
altitude, but fly as fast as the X-15 - though it does qualify you for
space flight.

SpaceShipOne flights
Flight Date Top speed Altitude Duration Pilot
01C May 20, 2003 1 h 48 min
unmanned
02C July 29, 2003 2 h 06 min Mike
Melvill
03G August 7, 2003 0 h 19 min Mike
Melvill
04GC August 27, 2003 1 h 06 min Mike
Melvill
05G August 27, 2003 10 min 30 s
Mike Melvill
06G September 23, 2003 12 min 15 s
Mike Melvill
07G October 17, 2003 17 min 49 s
Mike Melvill
08G November 14, 2003 19 min 55 s
Peter Siebold
09G November 19, 2003 12 min 25 s
Mike Melvill
10G December 4, 2003 13 min 14 s
Brian Binnie
11P December 17, 2003 Mach 1.2 20.7 km 18 min - 10 s Brian
Binnie
12G March 11, 2004 18 min -
30 s Peter Siebold
13P April 8, 2004 Mach 1.6 32.0 km 16 min 27 s
Peter Siebold
14P May 13, 2004 Mach 2.5 64.3 km 20 min - 44 s
Mike Melvill
15P June 21, 2004 Mach 2.9 100.1 km 24 min 05 s Mike
Melvill
16P September 29, 2004 Mach 2.92 102.9 km 24 min 11 s Mike
Melvill
17P October 4, 2004 Mach 3.09 112.0 km 23 min 56 s Brian
Binnie

Mach 3.09 is NOT hypersonic, but close - though 112 km is 367,304 ft -
a trifle more than the top altitude of the X-15 on one of its flights
in 2004.

Are you one of the passengers on spaceship one? You could say you were
- I wouldn't know, I couldn't find a complete compilation of people who
flew on these either.

If you have, and you've paid the $100k or so, why not spend it with a
bonafide engineering firm to do something useful? Just wondering.
Should I sell my ferrari for a 10 minute ride in a rocket plane? I'm
not *that* middle aged crazy YET.

It takes engineering to do that.

Yah think? lol.

And, engineering can do
that, and a lot more.

Yes, but that doesn't make your asinine observations about waveriders,
electrogravity and lunar cargo rockets any more real. You need to put
forward the engineering for that.

tomcat

I don't see any tomcats listed anywhere - of course SR71 pilots are
pretty much mum about what they've done.

.