forufes

mmm i'm not sure:embarass: im not that hot which electrical physics, but: what exactly do you mean "run through the saber"? will the saber be some sort of long metal loop like ========> for the current to run in it? (an already connected circuit) or will it be one long rod charged somehow and you want it to discharge upon contact? ^^^^^ hey actually i think that miht be possible, you charge the saber by a method unknown to me, the electrons zap your friend upon contact, just like lightning, but then based on how much you charge it, the zap might be done remotly, it would "jump" to him, as i said just like lightning from the sky:D in which case the "circuit" would be simply using your friend as a medium to discharge into the the ground (what if he's wearing rubber boots?) or just balance the amount of charge between the - saber and relatavly + body of your friend (lol, maybe yours).. i'm really lost here, as i said, i'm not that much with electrical stuff..

could you please refer me to a source or table of such relations? aagh that's the same thing i get everywhere:mad: why does it have to be gaseous production? why not energy production? if you produce a lot of energy in a place full of gases, the gases will absorb the energy and expand.. why do they have to be a chemical product of the burnt fuel? i always come across "exothermic" materials as the ones producing highest thrust because -if i understand correctly- have a lot of compounds which are releasd upon burning as fuel, when those gases are produced accompanied by a great amount of energy (heat) they expand and give thrust (or destruction)... and so i keep asking and never got an answer; why do the gases have to be produced? the air is all around the place, it can absorb the heat and expand, right? same with eplosives. why not produce the heat or energy and let the surrounding air take over the rest? i know i'm repeating myself, but to mix those two they don't have to be both produced from the explosion, am i right? but theoretically, burning it all at once or slowly will give off the same amount of energy, right? like how a bullet works, so why not rockets be the same? why the difference between rocket fuel and a bullet's priming charge? not if the system used to "extract" energy from the explosive was as efficient as the one used with the slowly burned fuel, they do contain the same amount of potential energy after all don't they? isn't it like giving off 1 mega joule per second for five seconds, and giving off five mega joules the first second and zero the other four? but gravity will pull it down no matter what, it's the same in both methods, right? it was great, certainly learned much, but i'd really appreciate a more detailed analysis:-) all of them? no matter what? it makes it heavier even at the molecular level? aren't there any "explosives" which interact with the surroundig air as oxidizer.... EXACTLY, just like this ^^^ what does that make rocket fuel??? explosive or fuel? i'm really really confused here, learned many new things, but haven't sorted them out yet.. ? what's the difference? (if there's one)

by projectile i meant launched thingie, didn't stress the "passing momentum" part yet:D.. the best example to give is a gun, either fiing real bullets "powered" by black powder, or a toy gun powered by a spring. which will reach further and have a greater impact (meaning absorb more energy)? the one with mass X or 2X? i THINK the heavier one will have more momentum, but less kinetic energy, = more impact, less range. and vice versa.. but whether what i said is right or not, i still can't grasp the concept..i can't visualize it. also, consider the potential energy source is SO big it can be considered infinity, like a nuclear bomb, does this extreme change anything? does the relation between them change here?

this thing has been driving me crazy for some time and i can't figure it out.. is a projectile with a bigger mass better for absorbing as much momentum from a potential energy source (mechanical spring or chemical blast) or a lighter one?

but to deliver an electric jolt you'll have to make the current run through your friend, meaning an open electric circuit which closes upon contact with your friends skin.. i think the saber has to be covered with a number of small "heads"..so whenever two heads touch your friend the electric circuit is closed.. i also think you'd like to use capacitors, i'm sure they'll come i handy for such low voltage bursts like these. but i'm still not sure on how to arrange the circuit in a way that it'll be closed when ANY two pins or "heads" are connected..maybe each two heads will be connected to a capacitor and all capacitors recharge from one circuit connected to the batteries?

right, so that begs the question; will the increase in weight due to altering the balloon structure to support itself when "filled" with vacuum be compensated by vacuum's higher lift value? meaning, which will be lighter, a rigid vacuum balloon or a simple hydrogen filled one? by what fraction is vacuum lighter than hydrogen? and besides, can't you have semi-vacuume, or gas in a pressure lower than the outside one? that would give some support, but won't be as light as total vacuum. density of volume to surface area or weight to volume? can you give me the formula used for this? great, one less thing to worry about. the link is interesting, but it says

AWESOME!! i totally forgot that, i remember reading about it somewhere a long time ago, but what remains in my memory of it is a weird tank with a missile between two rods ready to be fired.. didn't know it can be implemented to such a huge scale as you mentioned, definitely worth more research.. so what in your opinion is the best way around that? any ideas on going around such extreme obstacles in a way other then head on? is that necessary? the thing which will be launched (#2 in the OP) does not have to have a human or any other sensitive equipment onboard, the launched object's goal is to go as high as possible, a human isn't necessary for that. and wen you said immense length, what did you mean? the tube it's launched from?? like what? if you mean concussions and strong shockwaves then lets say it's launched from within a desert, are the problems still present? great, so if the idea is scrapped off as a fail for the sole method of launch, it can still be used as an augmentation with other methods, right? and what properties does a projectile has to obtain to be launchable from a rail gun? does it have to be magnetized in some way? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedbesides people, you've all given your ideas for #1, the launcher, how about the projectile? personally, i was thinking of a HUGE cannon, erected vertically to help it support itself. have it's shaft connected to an underground chamber, in which the strongest explosives other than the nuclear will be ignited, and in BIG quantities.. the projectile will be a sheer metal (or any other durable material; titanium) slug. so simply, a sheer kinetic method, based on monstrous mechanical power.. btw, how will you know he hight it reached, you embed it with some transmitter or follow it on radar? any insights?

alright, so you propose a balloon made of (insert suitable lightweight material), full of (hydrogen i guess)..right? ..... i think you rounded it up nicely..you mentioned the general concepts and how to use them.. the engineering part is to USE them.. what is the lowest density "gas" we can fill it up with? does it have to be a gas? why not vacuum? or gas in a density lower than its normal one? how can you minimize the balloon's body weight? what material will you use and how? how big can you actually make the balloon? a football field? bigger? how will the balloon deal with the change of density of the surrounding air? make it's material expand? what shape do you think will reduce air resistance the most? you have to give the specifics, because only then will you really deal with how they all relate to each other. and that is the tricky interesting part, the one i'm asking you to give. lets also remember that this balloon's goal is to make an object reach as high as possible, method of fulfilling the goal has to consist of a balloon, but is not limited to it. you can add as much other things or mechanisms as you want.. well, any other ideas?

i didn't think an rc car motor can do it either, but i think a laptop cd/dvd drive is optimum.. no need to buy a new one, most of the broken/useless ones are having a problem in the iris thingy, so the engines should be cheap or even free to scavenge.

you want to design a: 1-cannon that will blast an: 2-object as high as possible in the atmosphere, and again, reaching outer space is a bonus.. what are your ideas for 1 and 2?

you want an object to reach as high as possible in the atmosphere, if it reaches space, even better... how can you do that while attaching it to a balloon? this includes a lot of physics and design, maybe even chemistry, but a LOT of innovation..i have some ideas, but wanna hear yours first.

i'm just responsible for the design of it..but i have to take a lot of friggin things into account..almost in every science..it's not definite yet..as that will be decided after taking all factors into consideration..but it's simple objective is to clear the atmosphere and reach outer space, no matter if the method used is untraditional..so i'm almost starting all over here.. what i understood from wht you said is: 1-faster burning speed= bigger boom 2-fules which are premixed or react with themselves are dangerous..but USUALLY have a bigger boom, hence the tendency to use them as explosives. the second part was: the goal of the detonation of both bombs and fuel is to generate shockwaves or thrust, which are mechanically the same...so.. so does rapid detonation or slow detonation affect the amount of net energy (shockwave) released? or is that to be asked of the physics guys?

(takes deep breath) ok. i've read some of the threads posted here..and you guys look like the real deal..in chemistry i mean..my knowledge in chemistry is average..and i'm working on a multi-disceplinary project and need the consultancy of guys like you.. i don't know were to start..but i'm sure anywhere will do, so here goes: on what basis are materials with fast "burning" -or energy release-..are chosen to be explosives or fuels?? i mean both are used by the method of igniting them and using the kinetic shock-wave for destruction(warheads) or repulsive force(fuels)..right? so why isn't C4 used in jet planes and why isn't solid rocket fuel used as bombs?? second part of the question is: what difference does burning the quantity of material you have all at once or continuously make?? does igniting it all at once have a positive effect in the sense of energy released (like a chain reaction).. or a negative one (like consuming a high ratio of O2 which reduces efficiency)..or is it irrelative?