The Navy’s Rail Gun technology hides a secret, that the Navy’s projectile accuracy has been substantially increased by about 45x. But first some history.
The US government brought Prof Eric Laithwaite to help them build a rocket launcher based on linear motor principles. Today we call this the Rail Gun. In terms of its original objectives it was not a success, because astronauts could not survive the accelerations required to launch from a rail gun and cargo required a much longer rail gun than feasible with the then technologies.
Watching this video I realized that the secret to the Navy’s Rail Gun project was not the rail gun itself, but the substantially increased accuracy attained by the much higher muzzle velocity.
I present two important point. Using quick & dirty theoretical reasoning and real examples showing that the rail gun projectile has an increased accuracy of between 28x to 45x over conventional ship-based guns.
And the real possibility that the rail gun projectile traveling at Mach 7.4 has the ability to shoot down the X-51 traveling at Mach 5 at an altitude of 70,000ft.
In a study published online Sunday in the journal Nature Photonics, three physicists from Imperial College London and the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany, propose a relatively straightforward method for witnessing the conversion of two photons into two particles. The trio came up with the idea and hammered out the key details in a single, coffee-fueled day, according to Imperial.
The Lifeboat Foundation Worldwide Ambassador Mr. Andres Agostini’s own Transformative and Integrative Risk Management (TAIRM) methodology and White Swan defined:
“…Transformative and Integrative Risk Management (TAIRM) methodology, a most advanced beyond-insurance risk management systems, comprises of all activities and initiatives required to seize the optimum degree of risk ( a ) elimination, ( b ) mitigation, ( c ) modulation or ( d ) control within the constraints of ( i ) operational effectiveness, ( ii ) time, and ( iii ) cost, attained through the specific, systemic and systematic application of management, scientific, engineering and applied mathematical principles throughout all phases and facets of system operation, articulated under ( 1 ) Systems Approach, ( 2 ) Engineering, ( 3 ) Classical Risk Management and ( 4 ) Practical Non-Theological Omniscience…”
“… Applied non-theological omniscience consists of having total knowledge; knowing everything, having infinite knowledge, the current state of knowledge, the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known and actually knowing everything that can be known. Synonyms to omniscience include panshopy, polyhistory and all-knowingness …”
Yesterday’s program, The Next Space Race, on Bloomberg TV was an excellent introduction to the commercial aerospace companies, SpaceX, the Sierra Nevada Company (SNC), and Boeing. The following are important points, at the stated times, in the program:
0.33 mins: The cost of space travel has clipped our wings. 5:18 mins: How many people knew Google before they started? 7:40 mins: SpaceX costs, full compliment, 4x per year at $20 million per astronaut. 11:59 mins: Noisy rocket launch, notice also the length of the hot exhaust is several times the length of the rocket. 12:31 mins: One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. 12:37 mins: Noisy shuttle launch, notice also the length of the hot exhaust is several times the length of the rocket. 13:47 mins: OPF-3, at one time the largest building in the world at 129 million cubic feet. 16:04 mins: States are luring private companies to start up in their states. 16:32 mins: NASA should be spending its money on exploration and missions and not maintenance and operations. 17:12 mins: The fair market value of OPF-3 is about $13.5 million. 17:19 mins: Maintenance cost is $100,000 per month 17:47 mins: Why Florida? 18:55 mins: International Space Station (ISS) cost $60B and if including the Shuttle program, it cost $150B. 19:17 mins: The size of the commercial space launch business. 21:04 mins: Elon Musk has put $100 million of his own money into SpaceX. 21:23 mins: The goals of NASA and private space do not conflict.
Summary: 1. Cost of ISS is $60B, total cost including the Shuttle program is $150B.
2. SpaceX cost is $20M per astronaut (for 7 astronauts) or a launch cost of $140 million per launch at $560 million per year for 4 launches per year.
3. The next space race is about money.
4. NASA will give a multi billion dollar contract to private space companies to ferry humans & cargo into space and back.
5. Orbiter Processing Facility 3 (OPF-3) valued at $13.5million, and an estimated area of 207,000 sq ft gives a value of $65.22/sq ft.
6. With a maintenance costs of $100,000 gives a per sq ft maintenance costs of $0.48/sq ft/month or $5.80/sq ft/year.
7. Another reason for the Cape Canaveral NASA launch site is the mandatory no/low population down range for rocket launches. At Cape Canaveral this down range is the Atlantic Ocean.
The May 2014 Scientific American article, “Super Symmetry, A Crisis in Physics”, got me thinking. If the proton mass is substantially greater that the sum of the masses of the quarks & gluons in the proton then there is an outrageous question regarding the Standard Model.
Before I attempt to answer that question we need to understand the concept of falsifiability.
The reason why I am qualified to ask this outrageous question is because I solved the physics of gravity modification, and falsifiability opens up more avenues for research, more questions and the finally the reasons for the outrageous question.
In April 2012 I met Lisa Randall while book signing at the National Space Symposium, held every April at the Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado. She is the Frank B. Baird, Jr., Professor of Science at Harvard University.
She autograph my copy of her book “Warped Passages” and I showed her the proof copy of my book “An Introduction to Gravity Modification, 2nd Edition” with the g=tau.c^2 massless formula for gravitational acceleration, solving the gravity modification physics.
The future propulsion community are those who believe in or are actively researching rocketry, gravity modification & interstellar propulsion engineering & physics.
In this video I discuss the 3 groups within the future propulsion community. These groups are the Nay Sayers — they don’t believe that it is in the near future, Advanced Rocket — that only rockets can do this, & New Physics — that a new physics will solve this soon.
I also discuss briefly the European/French and Chinese interest in my work.
I am so glad to have the new video for my Kick Starter project, Ground Zero of Interstellar Propulsion and covers briefly Gravity Modification aka Anti-Gravity, Interstellar Propulsion, UFOs, Laithwaite, Crisis In Physics
Someone sent me this YouTube video. It claimed to have explained Laithwaite’s Big Wheel experiments as explained by classical mechanics. This I had to see.
The reason why I was particularly interested in this video was because, some months earlier I had spoken to a Boeing engineer who had agreed that these observations could not be solved using classical mechanics.
This video is an excellent example of sloppy research. After you have watched this video please review with my comments. Unfortunately, in spite of their academic backgrounds, the experimenters do not have a clue how to conduct world class research. Very unfortunate.
The first thing I noticed about this video’s claimed observations was that this video demonstration contradicted Laithwaite’s meticulous demonstrations as found here, http://www.gyroscopes.org/gallery.asp.
Here are the errors in this video to watch for, in their experimental method.
1. The experimenter introduces systemic errors by rotating the disc about himself while standing on the weight scale. This is observed as bounces around the 91 kg weight.
2. If the disc spin is low enough the weight change is smaller than that introduced by the bounces and therefore masked by the observations, resulting in “null” observations.
3. At 0.54 mins, he says “… if it does not get lighter why does it feel lighter?”. What was that again? It feels lighter? So what he is saying is that his body is telling a different story from his experimental observations! Not good.
4. At 2.49 mins, the experimenter tries to reverse the rotation, and says “it is hard to go back…” You can see that the disc weight has increased as it has fallen much lower and closer to the ground. This experimenter ignores this evidence.
5. At 2.57 mins, we are not sure what he is doing, but there is a weight gain from 431.0 to 431.2 i.e. you can observe weight gain, but those two folks ignore that fact.
6. At 3.29 mins, the weight is dropping all by itself.
7. At 3:36 mins, they keep messing with the experiment. Why?
I conclude this is a very sloppy experiment lacking experimental rigor. Further the experimenter himself agrees that his experiment is a “shaky mess”. Noting that Laithwaite’s own experiments (http://www.gyroscopes.org/gallery.asp) were meticulous by comparison. You have to watch Laithwaite’s experiments to understand how meticulous he was.
And this is the crux of the matter, to make the claim that this is within classical mechanics requires a derivation from classical mechanics of a formula that matches their observations. This they have not done.
Both Laithwaite’s discussion with his esteemed peers at Imperial College London and my encounter with the Boeing engineer affirm that this is not possible.
Summarizing: A sloppy experiment resulting in more disinformation. Very unfortunate as, if they were as meticulous as Laithwaite was, this could have turned into a PhD project and God knows what other discoveries they may have found.
The crisis in super symmetry physics is causing physicist to search for a new physics. Could this new physics be non-particle based? A physics closer to General Relativity than to either Quantum or String theories?
