Plasma experiment recreates 'burping' astrophysical jets

[hinwer]

Notice: Throughout the entire thing, she never says "Burping" like in the title.

[TheAngryPhilosopher8]

@nickharvey7

"I am an artist on YouTube trying to promote my theory on the dynamics of light and time"

Oh boy. That is the funniest combination I've seen in quite some time. Congratulations good sir.

[oilmeters]

voice is fine.

[nickharvey7]

Interesting video! I am an artist on YouTube trying to promote my theory on the dynamics of light and time

This theory is based on just two simple postulates

1. The first is that the quantum wave particle function explained by Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the forward passage of time itself

2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event

[VanKlaunch]

People who bitch about her voice are tools.

[aei05h1]

I unsubscribed because I couldn't take her voice anymore. SOOOO annoying!!! Damn woman needs to get a nose job.

[redghost105]

one pound of thrust?

thats what my tax dollars are going into?

wtf

[TheLivirus]

@redghost105 I'm no expert on this, but it's appearently more efficient than the current technology. Plasma thrust enables them to collect energy from the sun and convert it to momentum by accelerating atoms to vast speeds in the opposite direction. I have no numbers but it's probably many times more efficient per weight/volume than any solid rocketfuel.

[blingblinge]

@redghost105 in space that can do a lot. and the fact that plasma is like a million times more efficient than liquid/solid fuel

[Ratama]

i dont believe that the viseo looks like CG from the 90s

[aussiebrissy]

why are pople so rude

[TheMatrixAussie]

Pfft why do you need super heated plasma to strip electrons off of argon atoms, when you could just use her voice.

[torquemenistan]

Argon Being super heated?...Damn that must be one hell of a fire works display, that would be friggin bright!

[qualin2k5]

awesome

[ipzent]

and who ever doubted star trek? with their colourful propulsions... or any other artists who would imagine spaceships and draw them with some glowing blue's or red's etc, at the back of the crafts... ha!

[shadowblast007]

As hot as the center of the sun!? This is freaking dangerous dude. But it IS impressive.

[madjimms]

@shadowblast007 Its actually not dangerous at all. Do you know how hot welding metal gets?

There are TONS of man made things that are already hotter than the center of the sun. (BTW, the center isn't the hottest part)

[Zylen92]

wow i didnt know that really.. which part is the hottest? i thought center because all the reaction takes place in the centre

[madjimms]

@Zylen92 Oops, my mistake. The center is the hottest part.

[BadaBingBadaBoomsday]

@madjimms Tons of things hotter than the centre of the sun???? Like what???

[madjimms]

Particle accelerators/atom smashers get WAAYY hotter than the center of the sun.

Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC)

[BadaBingBadaBoomsday]

@madjimms Then why did you say 'do you know how hot welding metal gets'?

And i dont think the gas temperature of a collider will be anywhere near the temperature of the core of the sun.

[madjimms]

@BadaBingBadaBoomsday I said the welding metal to make a point. & Just because you don't "believe" doesn't mean its not true. From Wiki

"In 2010, RHIC physicists published results of temperature measurements in earlier experiments that concluded that temperatures in excess of 7 trillion degrees Fahrenheit, or 4 trillion kelvins, were achieved in gold ion collisions, that resulted in break down and creation of a liquid-like quark-gluon plasma"

[madjimms]

@madjimms Nuclear physicists and cosmologists may use beams of bare atomic nuclei, stripped of electrons, to investigate the structure, interactions, and properties of the nuclei themselves, and of condensed matter at extremely high temperatures and densities, such as might have occurred in the first moments of the Big Bang.

[BadaBingBadaBoomsday]

@madjimms But its nowhere near a sustained temperature, like the temperature of an ion thruster. And is that temperature a gas temperature or particle temperature??

[madjimms]

@BadaBingBadaBoomsday The Temperature of the particle becomes that hot. Hard to believe but it does happen.

[DKM101]

@BadaBingBadaBoomsday

Is that the difference between "collision" temperature and some other kind of kinetic energy? If so... I've been interested in figuring that stuff out. Would you mind finding me a link where I could learn more about that? In my (high school) science classes, I'm told there are rogue cosmic particles with a high temperature, but am given "colliding particles" as the definition of temperature - and that makes 0 sense.

[kwontuckit]

Whenever you hear the word plasma and engine its always gonna be cool

[Madmonkeythegreat]

haha to bad it goes so damn slow :P

[TheGGES]

yeah but about we run out of fuel i bet then well need it

[squidmanlol]

dang thats sick

[hansi5227]

her voice is damn annoying to listen to..

[Nasty0suicide]

Its enough because there is no air resisrtance, and no gravity (well...). It does accelerate slowly, but its enough.

[oliverandm]

GET A FUCKIN NARRATOR WHO DOSEN'T SPEAK THROUGH THE NOSE... gosh these videos are interresting, but i can't take that damn narrator

[SaberTanker22]

LOL i call this clean rocket fuel .

[alhazmi2005]

nice vid

[Gannondalf]

fuckin hell

[plac1]

compressed air can do better than that...oh wait, minus the pretty light

[MrJSockolov]

yeah but its easier to store argon than air.

[dasquirrel715]

bring enough compressed air to get you to mars and back in a reasonable amount of time into space for a reasonable price and a space-station sized container? not gonna happen. A few dozen pounds of argon? Easy.

[markbelgen]

Wow, how do you stop this thing. You get a spacecraft up to any legitmate velocity (which would take a hell of a long time) for space travel, you would have to reverse thrust with this propulsion unit well in advance of your projected destination. Way too shallow of an acceleration curve, actually, there is no curve, it is almost flat. Cool to look at, but not practicle yet.

[dasquirrel715]

To get to mars you'd have a reason to choose this over faster fuels or solar sails because it's either A. more cost efficient or B. faster (respectively)

This is not light speed to alpha centauri.

[Shadowcamper1383]

lol 1lbs of thrust?

[em3rica89]

i'd stick with rocket fuel, 1 lb of thrust would take years to get anywhere

[happyxix]

Yea but that rocket fuel won't get you as far as that one pound of thrust.

fuel wise.

[greenlefl1990]

So freakin awesome. Welcome to the future.

[Wulfsaga]

Research complete :

Astrophysical jets

Movement + 5

[TheVideoperson25]

Starcraft reference I hope.

[spensv9]

my farts when put up to flame create more power

[matsemanjds]

Wow... I've saved the comments to this video for posterity. Painful, but entertaining! I hear you, PapalTime - go YouTube!

[spectracide]

fucking narrator sucks

[someonesperson]

video is too short...it wouldn't hurt to make it twice as long and explain a little more.

[julian1000]

Where would they get more footage though?

[joshjarrott]

To clarify what Niosis said (thumbs up dude), gravity is actually the force pulling between two objects of mass. This attraction creates the force known as weight.

[PheobusX]

You didn't quite clarify what he said, though. What you're talking about is a slight bit different than what he's talking about.

[rummyboy]

Turboplasma flow!

[LarsThePleap]

Some people here should read up on Density and Atomic Mass.

[PapalTime]

God damn, I love youtube comments.

[platonicx]

other problem how hard is it to stop a moving meteorite in space. By physics law i would start calculating something with speed * weight but weight is like 0 here so?

[combatplayer]

n also. any object have its own gravity field. the heavyer a object is the more gravity it gains. i think its in same catagory as wat we are talking abaut.. but i dont know.

[platonicx]

yeah thats right.... I just found some article about the difference between weight and mass. They say you can massure weight only in relationship to another object eg. and object weight more on earth then on moon etc. And yeah they say that in open space things weight nothing. But what they say is that objects in space still have its mass. But i really dont know how could this "mass" influence speed and such. I think we need a university physicist to explain this :-D

[Niosus]

Weight is actually a force. We measure that force in pounds or kilogrammes but actually to be correct it should be measured in Newton. The weight of an object is the amount of force it aplies on the object that is supporting it. If you grab a weight and hold it with your arm stretched you will feel a force pushing your hand down.Mass is measured in kilogrammes.On earth (g=9,81N/Kg) 102g = 1 Newton,on the moon:1/6

Btw this is not exactly rocket science (lol?) Im 14 and i learned that a year ago

[didles123]

Why would it be incorrect to measure weight, a force, in pounds? Pounds are a unit of force. A pound is the amount of force it takes to accelerate a slug one foot per square second.

[Niosus]

i'm sorry, i live in the metric zone and i don't know the definition of the non-metric standards ( = non SI-standards). Pounds can be a force, but a kilogramme is mass.

[platonicx]

lol you again used the word hevyer..... light heavy ... in space? No way how my brain can accept that :-D maybe more mass less mass. Whats solidity of a substance anyway? how come that 1 litre of water is less then 1 litre of mercury? Oh i am messed up :-D

[combatplayer]

lol yeah probably. i have the understanding of how it works but i got no clue of how to explain i xD

but well maybe something like u can compare it to a car crash or something. if a truck hits a small car then the small car will fly away n be totaly crushed wile the truck is almost unharmed. idk xD

and the waight thing in space.. umm.. how else would u refer to it than bieng heavy or light? xD

[platonicx]

the bigger car is almost unharmed becouse it hevier then the small car in space object dont have weight. To second part of your coment well not weight just mass of an object. meaning i dont know ... how big the object is? We are probablly not gonna find a solution.

[combatplayer]

lol probably not.. but its fun to talk abaut anyway =P well not how big it is.. cus a huge object made of light waight material (oops i did it again~) and a small object like a stone with a higher waight (and again X_X) then the heavy one will win the battle if u know wat i mean lol

[Niosus]

Mercury atoms have a bigger core than hydrogen (x2) and oxigen together -> atom has more mass

[63NY1]

u mean nucleus?

[Niosus]

yes, in dutch core and nucleus have the translation

[Niosus]

Speed^2 * mass = energy required

mass =/= weight

in space you dont have a weight but you still have a mass ( it takes energy to start moving, even in space). Because there is no air in space there also is no friction. This means even a very small engine can push heavy objects at a high speed, it will only take several months/years to get to the topspeed

[combatplayer]

yeah. but to move a heavy object u need to throw a heavy object. and in space there isent resurses for that.

(Oxydox)

[teamforteress]

fuck her voice FUCKK

[shubidubar]

find a new narrator

[platonicx]

1 pound of thrust = 10 ton of cargo? WTH? i mean in space the ten tons of cargo weights ..... null .. so teoretically with any force u should be able to move xxxxxxx tons as long as the cargo dont have its own gravity field right? i mean ...... lol

[bimblinghill]

Yeah, they explained that very poorly. Not sure what they were getting t.

[maddermarvin]

we need laser cannons. not plasma engines...

[shadowriser22]

interesting

[ippymcbippy]

wheres the burping

[DeagleBeagle]

the same propellant was used on earth too, so no

[Hewpie]

It means 2 tonnes of cargo on a Hohmann transfer orbit between Earth and Mars...

[oEQjet]

excuse me? Yes you, you seem to know what you are talking about. Please continue talking.

[Hewpie]

On frame 0.35 there's a diagram of the Hohmann transfer orbit between Earth and Mars.

What the video should say is that a Vasimr engine can propel 2 tonnes of cargo with a pound of thrust on a Hohmann transfer orbit between Earth and Mars.

[trakkaton]

Why do they come to the conclusion that a pound of thrust can propell 2 tons of cargo? Why shouldn't it be able to propell, say, 40 tons, just not with the same amount of increase in speed?

[DeagleBeagle]

I think they mean at the same acceleration as the 1 pound object, because yeah I think it is possible for it to propell 40 tons, just at 20 times slower speed.

[platonicx]

why should it be slower? there is no opposit force n space. And also u cant even talk about how much the cargo weights becouse it weights nothing

[DeagleBeagle]

uh there is opposite force in space, it isn't completely a vacuum, otherwise why do you think there would be even a ratio of force between it and earth? Why do you think space shuttles and satellites have to propell themself somehow if they want to move in space, not just propell and then never propell again because it is a vacuum and isn't pushing against another force.

[platonicx]

ermm becouse earth is influenced by sun and setelites are influenced by other planets. But in outer space it should rly be vacuum. What else would be there? And i am totaly sure u rly cant talk about weight in space thats just stupid. weight is different on jupiter earth pluto and in open space? its Zero null nothing. Even with some opposite force made by dust in space anything would travel for years... as long as it wont be influenced by any gravity force.

[combatplayer]

weight cus a heavy object takes allot more force to move than a light object nomatter resistance or gravity or watever. a heavy object is harder to move. and also.. yeah it would move for years. but the higher a speed it have the faster that speed will also fall. so to travel years u have to travel slow..

well anyway its great they develop newer engines. other planets are so far away we cant get to em with wat we have now. takes to long..

oh and sorry for my poor english

[cicadarain]

Yeah i have to agree.

But if we can get a pound of thrust from that to push 2 tonnes

I think it'll become more full efficient to go faster. :)

[combatplayer]

yup. but 2 pounds should be enugh to make it accelerate.. the resistance in space isent very big so a low thrust engine would still have a sick max speed but a low aceleration. high powered engines acelerates it fast and use tonns of fuel doing it. but if that can run on less fuel for so much longer time it might be better on the long term. i have no clue how much fuel/power it uses tho xD

(cicadarain)

[platonicx]

how can u talk abot light objects and heavy object when you are in enviroment with zero gravity?

[combatplayer]

as i said further down. nomatter if theres air resistance or graviy then a heavy object is still harder to bring into motion than a light object.

excampel. if u are on a space shuttle n take a little stone or piece of dust. and throw it away into space.. then the space shuttle waying many many tons wont move a inch. but the little object will fly away at rapid speed.

[platonicx]

well... thats what logic tells me. But why is that so? in space everything weight 0 pounds so ...

[combatplayer]

well im not cientist or anything so i cant give u a direct explanation lol. but waight n the gravity ur refering to dosent have to be conected like that. if u have a heavy stone in one hand and a piece of light waight material in the other but with same sice.. then start to spin arround.. u'll fast notice that the heavy one gains waight n the light one dosent gain nearly as much. theres allot of diferrence on how a light and how a heavy object moves arround. even if in waightless enviroment

[didles123]

Zero gravity? If there is no gravity, then why would the Moon orbit the Earth, and why would the Earth orbit the Sun?

[platonicx]

what do you think we meant when we were talking about open space? Most of space is empty. Solar systems (so planets suns and other stuff) are pretty rare. In open space there is zero gravity really. I think this has something to do with the gravity of the flying object itself... i dunno. Come on no collage profesors here? :-D

[didles123]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but a gravitation force is always being applied as long as there are two masses in the universe. There's no way of completely escaping gravitational pull.

[platonicx]

simply on earth force of a flying object = speed * weight (mass * g) where g is some gravitation equvalent of earth. But when there is a lonely object in space its not affacted by any other gravitation so how do u calulate its force? I think this has something to do with .. Who said it? einstain? give me a solid point and ill move the earth? simple teoretically all u need to stip a asteroid in space is a blow of ur mouth lol i mean force of like 1 N.

[Nephallux]

your thinking of space outside of the earth's atmosphere is horribly disfigured :O

even outside our atmosphere, you are still inside a region of space that contains mass (the heliosphere, the mass is the cosmic wind coming from the sun)... it's not a vacuum with Zero gravity. You are constantly attached to the gravitational pull of the sun here locally.. and it is bound to the central mass of our galaxy

[platonicx]

There is space without any mass? Galaxies are actually pretty lonely there is a lot of open space.

[adrastea99]

You have no idea how weak suns attraction really is. Even earths attraction is indescribably weak for us

It is practically nonexistant for small craft

[ilenses]

you are talking about the attraction between 2 objects??

beause if yes you cant say that a small craft attraction is smaller than the earth... because it is always between at least 2 objects. An object on its own doesnt have attraction. For example the attraction between the earth and a needle... both are the same, the earth attracts the needle with the same force like the needle attracts the earth...

[adrastea99]

I can say that

Gravitational force is the same, of course, but the masses are grossly different

No, I was talking about the distances involved

[C0ldking]

click the link in the bar or buy the magazine ?

[trakkaton]

The link in the bar is linking to an article that focuses on astrophysical jets, not spaceships. Propulsion isn't even mentioned.

[C0ldking]

Then call the magazine and DEMAND an Explaination!!

[trakkaton]

You seem to have a lot of free time and money if that's your way to handle things.

[C0ldking]

Yup, summer vacation lasts one week more and I am getting bored with all this free time.

[ALAPAT1]

exactly

[coolman9999uk]

pfff!!... imagine if the enterprise had to escape from the klingons with these thrusters...

[mastercheeok]

what does it push against?

[DeagleBeagle]

newtons 2nd law of motion states for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. So it pushes against the atmosphere, in space there is a lot less matter, literally about 2 tons less matter, so that is why 1 pound propellant on earth is about 2 tons propellant in space. Space isn't perfectly a vacuum apparently.

[mastercheeok]

just use dark matter..... no really

if there was a way of using dark matter then dark matter would be the perfect way to move in space

[roidroid]

it pushes against the ship.

[teemuruskeepaa]

This is not the best candidate even if the mass media or magazines say so. There are other equally unsure projects. You can hear that media tone here, that they try to convince you that this magazine has the best story to tell.

[eedahl]

But dude, there's plasma.

[teemuruskeepaa]

Dude, science takes more responsibility than that.

[eedahl]

Come on; it's plasma!