Re: Electrogravitics is Reality!


William.Mook@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
My last statement in the quote was "but mathematics can be deceptive."
Let me explain.


Lets not and say you did.


If you launch from near the equator towards the East then you will pick
up about 700 mph because of the Earth's rotation. That is not in the
Tsiolkovsky Equation.


That's because the rocket equation - which you have apparently looked
up on the internet and found is also called Tsiolkovsky Equation -
haha... speaks only of terminal velocity. All the other bull*** you
mention is just that. It doesn't change the need for speed.


Don't knock the 700 mph, it is the reason NASA chose Cape Canaveral for
their Space Center. It was far enough south to use this 700 mph kick
to the East.


Look, if I was given the longitude and latitude of New York City 40 d
45m 6s North and 73 d 39 m 59 s West - and Chicago, 41 d 52 m 28 s
North and 87 d 38 m 22 s I could compute a great circle route from one
city to the other. I could compute the distance of that arc to be
711.14 miles.

That would be the MINIMUM distance I'd have to travel to get from one
point to the other. Now, if I had a car that got no more than 28 miles
per gallon I'd be able to say I'd need at least 711.14 / 28 = 25.39
gallons of gas - as a minimum to drive from one city to the other in
that car and likely need more.

Now, if you came along and said by driving slower I can use less gas
than driving fast, I'd have to say how slow, because if the car just
sat still and idled, it wouldn't be going anywhere - and there's an
optimal speed, depending on gear, road condition and so forth. That
wouldn't change the MINIMUM amount of gas required, changing speeds
away from the optimal conditions INCREASES fuel use, so the minimum
will not be got around that way.

If you came along and said the car must travel on roads, and the car
can turn left and right, and that a car that tavels straight covers
more distance than a car that zig zags all over the place I'd have to
say that any deviation from the great circle route would increase miles
travelled and increase fuel use. So the minimum will not be got around
that way either.

If you came along and said that a car going uphill uses more gas than a
car going downhill and that if we travelled downwhill all the way we
could use less gas, I'd have to say Chicago and New York are on the
water, and are pretty much the same altitude, and any up and down the
hills will increase fuel use. So, the minimum will not be got around
that way either.


To do a fuel 'overload', i.e., take it to greater than 1:1 thrust to
weight, slows the vehicle within the thickest part of the high friction
thermal atmosphere. A lot of the reason that HTOL waveriders aren't
used is because extreme heat is difficult to deal with. Air brakes can
be used to rapidly decelerate a waverider spacecraft, but you can't use
'air brakes' when you are achieving orbit/escape velocity.


JESUS TOMCAT - people are trying to educate you a little bit here -
pick up a freakin book on the subject you post about and read it. Do
the exercises at the end of each chapter, and check it against the
answers in the back of the book. Re read the chapters until you get
the right answers and see why. Don't give up, rack your brains, read
related books at a libarary, talk to people who wrote the book - THAT'S
WHAT I DID WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL STUDYING THIS ***!


JESUS William Mook, go to your nearest AFB and 'borrow' a Super Eagle
and get some hands on experience. Note: land at an abandoned airport
someplace or the USAF will probably 'interrogate' you. And, don't
leave fingerprints in the cockpit.


You're supposedly a freakin military pilot with a degree? I don't see
it. Juding from your responses here you're a freakin' poser in over his
head - maybe you carried tools for someone who worked on a military
aircraft and dreamed about flying it - maybe that's what you did - but
judging by what you've written here - I don't see it dude.

How do I know you don't just peruse the mathematics/aerospace sites to
pick up weird formulas and the like? Like I said, the Usenet is a
'blind' medium.


The size of the vehicle is not in the Tsiolkovsky Equation.

Because the size of the vehicle doesn't determine the final velocity,

"The size of the behicle doesn't determine the final velocity,"
according to the Tsiolkovsky Equation. You are being 'circular' here.


The fact that for every air mile traveled the Earth drops away at point
64 miles is not in the Tsiolkovsky Equation.

Because the properties of the earth don't determine the final velocity
of a rocket under ideal conditions.

Gravity is a property of the Earth. Air density is a property of the
Earth. And, I believe, that this dropping off has a very real affect
on Space Travel. Once again, "the properties of the Earth don't
determine the final velocity" according to the Tsiolkovsky Equation.


The fact that gravity diminishes with the square of the distance is not
usually used in calculations.

Depends on which calculation you're doing. Every hear of
equipotential? Sheez

Sounds like an add on to the Tsiolkovsky Equation. This is not
necessairly bad, but indicates that the Tsiolkovsky Equation was a
little flawed to begin with.


The fact that the Moon has 1/6th the gravity of Earth and this pulls on
the surface of the Earth when it is overhead is not normally in the
calculations.

Which calculation? You still talking about the rocket equation? If
so, the rocket equation gives the amount of propellant you need in a
rocket to make it go a given speed. Clearly the properies of the moon
don't determine the final velocity of a rocket propelled projectivel
under ideal conditions.

Yes, it does. The Moon's gravity, though faint on the Earth's surface
does 'neutralize' some of Earth's.


The length of the burn time is not in the Tsiolkovsky Equation.

Because in the absence of a gravity field, under ideal conditions, the
length of burn time does not determine the final velocity of a rocket
propelled projectile.

This, I believe, is based on the Ancient and False notion that a rocket
cannot go faster than the rocket's exhaust. This is false. Instead
ISP determines acceleration, not final velocity. But the 'original'
Tsiolkovsky Equation does not reflect this.

Original Equation: u = V Ln ( Mo/M ) + uo

Where: u = Final Velocity
V = Exhaust Gas Velocity
Mo = Start Mass
M = End Mass
uo = Initial Velocity Prior to Burn


These are just a few of my objections to the calculations that I often
see.

They are objections that make no sense. They make no sense because its
like someone objecting that it'll take 25 gallons of gas at a minimum
to drive to Chicago from New York - and likely more given the great
circle distance and the gas mileage.

No, it is because the 'modified' Tsiolkovsky Equation works on Vertical
Tubular rockets, but was not designed for, and doesn't do well with
HTOL waveriders. But it is the reason lots of 'knowledgeable' people
say SSTO is Impossible!


The rocket equation determines the speed of an rocket of a given ratio
of propellant to dry weight burning a propellant of a given specific
impulse under ideal conditions. We know under IDEAL CONDITIONS what
the MINIMUM speed is to get to orbit. This is the same as figuring out
the gas mileage of a car you plan to take a trip in. If you don't have
a minimum amount of gas, you ain't going to make the miminum distance
needed, See? Same here. If you don't have the right propellant
performance and propellant fractdion, you're not going to make it to
orbit. Your objections are senseless and reveal a deep seated ignorance
and foolishness.

If we had a nuclear rocket that had better than 1:1 thrust to weight,
and achieved about 500 mph, and could thrust for years, it would escape
from Earth's gravity. So, orbital and escape velocity speeds have
certain 'presumptions' in the premises. Those presumptions are what I
am dealing with here. Orbital and Escape Velocity speeds are not
Absolutely necessary.


The Earth dropping away combined with the length of the burn time
is an enormous factor.

This is secondary to the minimums. Once you've built a rocket that can
go the minimum speed, then you can talk about how to fly it. That's
another topic entirely.

If your goal is orbit then the Earth dropping away results in more
efficiency of fuel use because it can be used to increase speed and not
just altitude. If you are talking about escaping the Earth's Gravity
then you will get out of the atmosphere more rapidly and into the
'squares of the distance' which diminish gravity quicker. For a
'winged vehicle' this is the route of choice. Vertical tubular rockets
can't do this and have to go straight up which does not take advantage
of the Earth dropping away at the rate of 6.4 tenths of a mile per mile
over land.




tomcat

.

Loading