1st NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views nomination by Stanford's Earle Jones-- AP will accept a Chemistry Nobel, not a physics for physics is more than 80% fake awards Ironic, is it not that J.J. Thomson was awarded the...
16m views

Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 7, 2022, 6:56:48 PM
to sci.physics

1st NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views nomination by Stanford's Earle Jones-- AP will accept a Chemistry Nobel, not a physics for physics is more than 80% fake awards Ironic, is it not that J.J. Thomson was awarded the...

The very first Nobel prize in Chemistry to Archimedes Plutonium should be for-- "For the correction of the real true electron of Atoms is the muon of 105MeV stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law and the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. "

1st NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views nomination by Stanford's Earle Jones-- AP will accept a Chemistry Nobel, not a physics for physics is more than 80% fake awards Ironic, is it not that J.J. Thomson was awarded the...

Ironic, is it not that J.J. Thomson was awarded the Physics Nobel in 1906 for the conduction of electricity by gases. In essence for the erroneous belief that the 0.5MeV particle was an atom's electron. And ironic that the true electron of atoms would not be discovered until 2016-2017 by AP noticing that if you multiply the muon rest mass of 105MeV by 9, multiply by 9, you have the rest mass of the neutron and proton within sigma error. Meaning? Meaning that the muon is the atom's true electron and is stuck INSIDE a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law.

So yes, AP deserves the Nobel prize in Chemistry for the discovery of the True Electron of Atoms is the muon.

As for all the mathematics that AP did, we can call Physiology as being mathematical for physiology is form, and math is form whether algebra form or geometry form.

As for a Nobel in Medicine for AP, his discovery that DNA is perfect light-waves puts a foundation under all of biology and easily deserving of a Nobel in Medicine.

Of course, the bulk of AP's work is physics, and all of that can be put under Chemistry.

The Nobel in Physics from 1901 to 2022 was too polluted in fakery and con-art that AP does not ever want to be on that list, for it only drags AP down and lifts up con art charlatans of physics.

AP will accept a Nobel prize in Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, but not physics for it has been so polluted in error that the physics Nobel is about 80% or more fake physics. And definitely no math prize is worthy, for the Fields and Abel are virtually 100% awards for math fakery. I dare anyone can show me a single Fields or Abel award for true math, all fakery.

News from Mars helicopter today-THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views Subscribe  Earle Jones's profile photo Earle Jones Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM    to * Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium,

THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM
62k views


Earle Jones's profile photo
Earle Jones
Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM



to
*
Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium, win a Nobel Proze for all of his contributions to our field of Physics? There is no doubt that he has completely turned the entire field of Physics and brought it into the new way of thinking. We owe him some great thing.

At the same time, we need to think about the Fields Medal for Mathematical achievements. This is the Nobel Prize of Mathematiscs. Plutonium had completely re-writteen conventional mathematics into the new format and has offered many proofs of his new findings. His proof of slant cut of conic sections (the oval) is sufficiently advanced to warrant this award.

He is widely publiched and widely quoted. He has some 150 + books now attributed to his intellect.

Can we somehow get behind him and promote his wise genius? He needs to be recognized and awarded.

Earle Jones, Georgia Tech, Stanford.
*

Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?

But recently I see that a huge science neglected was RNA editing.

And I see that rightfully Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the chemistry Nobel in 2020 for CRISPR. But see little chemistry involved and should have gone for Physiology.

Thanks Earle, I am content as is. The only benefit a award like that for AP would be that it gets more people on my side, and perhaps increases my chances of conquering the science of Reincarnation, which I hope to conquer before I die.

Awards often do the opposite that a scientist needs-- peace and quiet away from other people.

AP

An engineer out of Georgia Tech, Stanford, smarter than the entire math dept of UCLA with Terence Tao, for no-one at UCLA can admit the truth about the conic single cone slant cut is a Oval, never the ellipse. UCLA should be intensely ashamed of themselves, that a High School student knows better than all of UCLA on cone slant cut is Oval.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

#11-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Of course we need international permission to try to fly a drone to the ISS..

Permission so that we do not hit a satellite or something else up there already.

And I do not know if we need some practice in the ISS to intercept a drone if it flys that high.


SCIENCE NEWS, 15Jan2022 has news of the helicopter on Mars "The NASA helicopter is pushing limits and doing science.

So, I would like to ask NASA to build another helicopter the same as the one on Mars and over the North Pole where the greatest amount of Earth Magnetic field is found, test it if this robot can fly to the height of the ISS, International Space Station. I would think everyone on Earth will be lovely surprised that such a helicopter can fly without ambient air. In fact, could fly to the moon if we did our calculations.

Yes, the first science award to AP should be for straightening out one of the hugest mistakes in all of science. Perhaps the only worst mistake was to think the Earth is flat.

Yes, the first science prize to AP is for straightening out the huge mistake of what is the true electron of atoms, for it changes all the sciences. I cannot think of a larger mistake with so much importance and consequences to all the other sciences. Perhaps if we go back to the time when people thought Earth was flat do we run into a huger, dumber mistake.

Funny how I am dictating how I can be awarded for my science work, but that is how it should be, Order, order, order, for science is all about order, and place in order.

I may require a Nobel prize for my brunt force demand and determination of researching drones that replace rockets for interplanetary travel. I may not actually engineer the drone itself, but certainly spur the momentum and feat onwards. For I envision that drones can fly in Space with no atmosphere, none whatsoever, only riding on the Magnetic Fields, Electric Fields, and Solar Wind. Yes, the Solar Wind should enable us to reach Europa, faster than any modern rockets now in use.

What Nobel prize covers this work? Well, truly it is a Physics Nobel Prize, for chemistry is about matter, and physics is about the motion of matter, but since the Nobel Physics prizes are so ugly in error, I estimate 80% in error perhaps even 90% error and fake physics, that AP never wants to be on that list, and let it completely die and fade away. Maybe start a Nobel 2 List of Physics, and AP awarded the first Nobel 2 Physics prize, for

"For the emergence of Spacecraft to travel Space by drones of lithium ion batteries, replacing all rockets before the drones."

Yes, that is a good solution for a cesspool error list of Nobel Physics prizes, bury it, and start over anew.

AP, King of Science, especially chemistry-physics

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:48:55 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I may require a Nobel prize for my brunt force demand and determination of researching drones that replace rockets for interplanetary travel. I may not actually engineer the drone itself, but certainly spur the momentum and feat onwards. For I envision that drones can fly in Space with no atmosphere, none whatsoever, only riding on the Magnetic Fields, Electric Fields, and Solar Wind. Yes, the Solar Wind should enable us to reach Europa, faster than any modern rockets now in use.

If you hadn't been wasting time telling everyone what to do that would result in starting WWIII
and you actually did real experiments with real instruments and real measurements and built real things...
then you might have been able to claim credit for your battery powered flight.

Instead the fine folks at MIT get all the credit for doing that.

https://www.iflscience.com/technology/scientists-have-created-a-star-treklike-plane-that-flies-using-ion-thrusters-and-no-fuel/

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:40:10 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:48:55 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > I may require a Nobel prize for my brunt force demand and determination of researching drones that replace rockets for interplanetary travel. I may not actually engineer the drone itself, but certainly spur the momentum and feat onwards. For I envision that drones can fly in Space with no atmosphere, none whatsoever, only riding on the Magnetic Fields, Electric Fields, and Solar Wind. Yes, the Solar Wind should enable us to reach Europa, faster than any modern rockets now in use.
> If you hadn't been wasting time telling everyone what to do that would result in starting WWIII
> and you actually did real experiments with real instruments and real measurements and built real things...
> then you might have been able to claim credit for your battery powered flight.
>
> Instead the fine folks at MIT get all the credit for doing that.
>
> https://www.iflscience.com/technology/scientists-have-created-a-star-treklike-plane-that-flies-using-ion-thrusters-and-no-fuel/

Thanks for that information for they apparently use wires to ionize N2 and this thrusts the aircraft.

Perhaps we need a design that uses both helicopter and ion thruster. The ion thruster to lift off of Earth in the N2 atmosphere, then the helicopter to blade of battery operated to get to the Solar Wind channels, then switch back to the ion thruster in the Solar Wind.

Maybe both are needed to get us from Earth to Europa and back. And maybe the design could be where we ride the Solar Wind and recharge the ion battery in the Solar Wind from the thruster wires.

Possibly even a third mechanism of Solar Radiation to recharge the batteries as the helicopter on Mars does.

So 5 power sources (1) lithium battery (2) Earth magnetic field lifting us (3) ion thruster (4) Solar Wind (5) Solar Radiation.

Things looking up on AP's new spacecraft, replacing all the old ugly polluters of rockets.

This would be AP's 9th Nobel Prize: 10) A Physics-II Nobel prize to AP, "For development of the lithium battery operated spacecraft, and thus saving life on Earth by colonizing Europa from the Sun gone Red Giant Phase, for stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion." Here we make a brand new category of Physics Nobel prizes because the old list is 80% in error and unfair to future winners of Nobel physics prizes. Who wants to be on a list of con-artist dumb fakesters of physics. So we split off the old error filled list and start fresh anew with a Physics Nobel prize.

Now can AP coax the researchers at MIT to see if a drone helicopter of lithium battery only, utilizing the North Pole strong upward magnetic field, see if the craft can reach the height of the Space Station. Everyone here on Earth says "no", but AP says "yes" and AP is the King of Science.

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:05:06 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:40:10 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:48:55 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > I may require a Nobel prize for my brunt force demand and determination of researching drones that replace rockets for interplanetary travel. I may not actually engineer the drone itself, but certainly spur the momentum and feat onwards. For I envision that drones can fly in Space with no atmosphere, none whatsoever, only riding on the Magnetic Fields, Electric Fields, and Solar Wind. Yes, the Solar Wind should enable us to reach Europa, faster than any modern rockets now in use.
> > If you hadn't been wasting time telling everyone what to do that would result in starting WWIII
> > and you actually did real experiments with real instruments and real measurements and built real things...
> > then you might have been able to claim credit for your battery powered flight.
> >
> > Instead the fine folks at MIT get all the credit for doing that.
> >
> > https://www.iflscience.com/technology/scientists-have-created-a-star-treklike-plane-that-flies-using-ion-thrusters-and-no-fuel/
> Thanks for that information for they apparently use wires to ionize N2 and this thrusts the aircraft.
>
> Perhaps we need a design that uses both helicopter and ion thruster. The ion thruster to lift off of Earth in the N2 atmosphere, then the helicopter to blade of battery operated to get to the Solar Wind channels, then switch back to the ion thruster in the Solar Wind.
>
> Maybe both are needed to get us from Earth to Europa and back. And maybe the design could be where we ride the Solar Wind and recharge the ion battery in the Solar Wind from the thruster wires.
>
> Possibly even a third mechanism of Solar Radiation to recharge the batteries as the helicopter on Mars does.
>
> So 5 power sources (1) lithium battery (2) Earth magnetic field lifting us (3) ion thruster (4) Solar Wind (5) Solar Radiation.
>
> Things looking up on AP's new spacecraft, replacing all the old ugly polluters of rockets.
>
> This would be AP's 9th Nobel Prize: 10) A Physics-II Nobel prize to AP, "For development of the lithium battery operated spacecraft, and thus saving life on Earth by colonizing Europa from the Sun gone Red Giant Phase, for stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion." Here we make a brand new category of Physics Nobel prizes because the old list is 80% in error and unfair to future winners of Nobel physics prizes. Who wants to be on a list of con-artist dumb fakesters of physics. So we split off the old error filled list and start fresh anew with a Physics Nobel prize.
>
> Now can AP coax the researchers at MIT to see if a drone helicopter of lithium battery only, utilizing the North Pole strong upward magnetic field, see if the craft can reach the height of the Space Station. Everyone here on Earth says "no", but AP says "yes" and AP is the King of Science.

Google says
Lithium AAA battery weighs 7.6 grams
and it contains 1.87 watt hours energy
1 watt hour = 3600 joules
1.87 watt hours * 3600 joules/watt hour = 6732 joules
International space station is 408 kilometers altitude
It takes 9.8 joules to lift one kilogram one meter

7.6 grams/1 kilogram*408 kilometers/1 meter*9.8 joules=30388 joules

So it takes 30388 joules to lift a 7.6 gram lithium AAA battery
from the earth to the ISS, but a AAA lithium battery only has 6732 joules

30388 joules / 6732 joules = 4.51

So it will take about 4.5 times the power in a AAA lithium battery
just to lift a AAA battery to the international space station.
And that is with 100% perfect efficiency and without the added
weight of a beryllium drone or electronics to obtain lift from any
magnetic field or anything else needed.

Thus the answer is no, a lithium AAA battery does not have the
energy needed to lift itself to the ISS.

Please check these calculations very carefully.

And sending it to mars or to europa needs far far greater energy.

Undergraduate physics student exercise: Calculate the energy
needed to lift an AAA lithium battery from the surface of the
earth to mars and from the surface of the earth to europa. How
many times more than the energy in an AAA lithium battery is that?
Do this calculation very very carefully, taking into account the
gravitational forces of the sun, the earth, mars and the outer planets.

Extra credit
The energy in how many AAA lithium batteries would be needed
to lift Archie from the surface of the earth to europa?
Do not include the weight of a space ship or oxygen or water
for Archie, ignore the fact that the AAA battery does not have
enough energy to lift itself to europa, ignore the fact that
this would take many many many many times the expected remaining
lifetime of Archie to complete this trip. just the energy of how
many AAA batteries would be needed to lift Archie to europa?
Assume Archie weighs 50 kilograms.

On 3/16/2022 1:39 AM, bwr fml wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:05:06 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:40:10 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:48:55 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>> I may require a Nobel prize for my brunt force demand and determination of researching drones that replace rockets for interplanetary travel. I may not actually engineer the drone itself, but certainly spur the momentum and feat onwards. For I envision that drones can fly in Space with no atmosphere, none whatsoever, only riding on the Magnetic Fields, Electric Fields, and Solar Wind. Yes, the Solar Wind should enable us to reach Europa, faster than any modern rockets now in use.
>>> If you hadn't been wasting time telling everyone what to do that would result in starting WWIII
>>> and you actually did real experiments with real instruments and real measurements and built real things...
>>> then you might have been able to claim credit for your battery powered flight.
>>>
>>> Instead the fine folks at MIT get all the credit for doing that.
>>>
>>> https://www.iflscience.com/technology/scientists-have-created-a-star-treklike-plane-that-flies-using-ion-thrusters-and-no-fuel/
>> Thanks for that information for they apparently use wires to ionize N2 and this thrusts the aircraft.
>>
>> Perhaps we need a design that uses both helicopter and ion thruster. The ion thruster to lift off of Earth in the N2 atmosphere, then the helicopter to blade of battery operated to get to the Solar Wind channels, then switch back to the ion thruster in the Solar Wind.
>>
>> Maybe both are needed to get us from Earth to Europa and back. And maybe the design could be where we ride the Solar Wind and recharge the ion battery in the Solar Wind from the thruster wires.
>>
>> Possibly even a third mechanism of Solar Radiation to recharge the batteries as the helicopter on Mars does.
>>
>> So 5 power sources (1) lithium battery (2) Earth magnetic field lifting us (3) ion thruster (4) Solar Wind (5) Solar Radiation.
>>
>> Things looking up on AP's new spacecraft, replacing all the old ugly polluters of rockets.
>>
>> This would be AP's 9th Nobel Prize: 10) A Physics-II Nobel prize to AP, "For development of the lithium battery operated spacecraft, and thus saving life on Earth by colonizing Europa from the Sun gone Red Giant Phase, for stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion." Here we make a brand new category of Physics Nobel prizes because the old list is 80% in error and unfair to future winners of Nobel physics prizes. Who wants to be on a list of con-artist dumb fakesters of physics. So we split off the old error filled list and start fresh anew with a Physics Nobel prize.
>>
>> Now can AP coax the researchers at MIT to see if a drone helicopter of lithium battery only, utilizing the North Pole strong upward magnetic field, see if the craft can reach the height of the Space Station. Everyone here on Earth says "no", but AP says "yes" and AP is the King of Science.
>
> Google says
> Lithium AAA battery weighs 7.6 grams
> and it contains 1.87 watt hours energy
> 1 watt hour = 3600 joules
> 1.87 watt hours * 3600 joules/watt hour = 6732 joules
> International space station is 408 kilometers altitude
> It takes 9.8 joules to lift one kilogram one meter
>
> 7.6 grams/1 kilogram*408 kilometers/1 meter*9.8 joules=30388 joules
>
> So it takes 30388 joules to lift a 7.6 gram lithium AAA battery
> from the earth to the ISS, but a AAA lithium battery only has 6732 joules
>
> 30388 joules / 6732 joules = 4.51
>
> So it will take about 4.5 times the power in a AAA lithium battery
> just to lift a AAA battery to the international space station.
> And that is with 100% perfect efficiency and without the added
> weight of a beryllium drone or electronics to obtain lift from any
> magnetic field or anything else needed.
>
> Thus the answer is no, a lithium AAA battery does not have the
> energy needed to lift itself to the ISS.

Don't confuse poor Archie with the facts!

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:39:41 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:05:06 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:40:10 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:48:55 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > I may require a Nobel prize for my brunt force demand and determination of researching drones that replace rockets for interplanetary travel. I may not actually engineer the drone itself, but certainly spur the momentum and feat onwards. For I envision that drones can fly in Space with no atmosphere, none whatsoever, only riding on the Magnetic Fields, Electric Fields, and Solar Wind. Yes, the Solar Wind should enable us to reach Europa, faster than any modern rockets now in use.
> > > If you hadn't been wasting time telling everyone what to do that would result in starting WWIII
> > > and you actually did real experiments with real instruments and real measurements and built real things...
> > > then you might have been able to claim credit for your battery powered flight.
> > >
> > > Instead the fine folks at MIT get all the credit for doing that.
> > >
> > > https://www.iflscience.com/technology/scientists-have-created-a-star-treklike-plane-that-flies-using-ion-thrusters-and-no-fuel/
> > Thanks for that information for they apparently use wires to ionize N2 and this thrusts the aircraft.
> >
> > Perhaps we need a design that uses both helicopter and ion thruster. The ion thruster to lift off of Earth in the N2 atmosphere, then the helicopter to blade of battery operated to get to the Solar Wind channels, then switch back to the ion thruster in the Solar Wind.
> >
> > Maybe both are needed to get us from Earth to Europa and back. And maybe the design could be where we ride the Solar Wind and recharge the ion battery in the Solar Wind from the thruster wires.
> >
> > Possibly even a third mechanism of Solar Radiation to recharge the batteries as the helicopter on Mars does.
> >
> > So 5 power sources (1) lithium battery (2) Earth magnetic field lifting us (3) ion thruster (4) Solar Wind (5) Solar Radiation.
> >
> > Things looking up on AP's new spacecraft, replacing all the old ugly polluters of rockets.
> >
> > This would be AP's 9th Nobel Prize: 10) A Physics-II Nobel prize to AP, "For development of the lithium battery operated spacecraft, and thus saving life on Earth by colonizing Europa from the Sun gone Red Giant Phase, for stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion." Here we make a brand new category of Physics Nobel prizes because the old list is 80% in error and unfair to future winners of Nobel physics prizes. Who wants to be on a list of con-artist dumb fakesters of physics. So we split off the old error filled list and start fresh anew with a Physics Nobel prize.
> >
> > Now can AP coax the researchers at MIT to see if a drone helicopter of lithium battery only, utilizing the North Pole strong upward magnetic field, see if the craft can reach the height of the Space Station. Everyone here on Earth says "no", but AP says "yes" and AP is the King of Science.
> Google says
> Lithium AAA battery weighs 7.6 grams
> and it contains 1.87 watt hours energy
> 1 watt hour = 3600 joules
> 1.87 watt hours * 3600 joules/watt hour = 6732 joules
> International space station is 408 kilometers altitude
> It takes 9.8 joules to lift one kilogram one meter
>
> 7.6 grams/1 kilogram*408 kilometers/1 meter*9.8 joules=30388 joules
>
> So it takes 30388 joules to lift a 7.6 gram lithium AAA battery
> from the earth to the ISS, but a AAA lithium battery only has 6732 joules
>
> 30388 joules / 6732 joules = 4.51
>
> So it will take about 4.5 times the power in a AAA lithium battery
> just to lift a AAA battery to the international space station.
> And that is with 100% perfect efficiency and without the added
> weight of a beryllium drone or electronics to obtain lift from any
> magnetic field or anything else needed.
>

Your calculations are wrong. Did you check to see what 30388 joules was? No, 1 kW = 1,000 J/s

You need to factor in the Magnetic field over the north magnetic pole for that lift.

But the best way is just go to the pole and try some drones and simple eye witness how high they fly-- once you are granted permission to do so

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:41:46 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:39:41 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:05:06 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:40:10 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:48:55 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > I may require a Nobel prize for my brunt force demand and determination of researching drones that replace rockets for interplanetary travel.. I may not actually engineer the drone itself, but certainly spur the momentum and feat onwards. For I envision that drones can fly in Space with no atmosphere, none whatsoever, only riding on the Magnetic Fields, Electric Fields, and Solar Wind. Yes, the Solar Wind should enable us to reach Europa, faster than any modern rockets now in use.
> > > > If you hadn't been wasting time telling everyone what to do that would result in starting WWIII
> > > > and you actually did real experiments with real instruments and real measurements and built real things...
> > > > then you might have been able to claim credit for your battery powered flight.
> > > >
> > > > Instead the fine folks at MIT get all the credit for doing that.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.iflscience.com/technology/scientists-have-created-a-star-treklike-plane-that-flies-using-ion-thrusters-and-no-fuel/
> > > Thanks for that information for they apparently use wires to ionize N2 and this thrusts the aircraft.
> > >
> > > Perhaps we need a design that uses both helicopter and ion thruster. The ion thruster to lift off of Earth in the N2 atmosphere, then the helicopter to blade of battery operated to get to the Solar Wind channels, then switch back to the ion thruster in the Solar Wind.
> > >
> > > Maybe both are needed to get us from Earth to Europa and back. And maybe the design could be where we ride the Solar Wind and recharge the ion battery in the Solar Wind from the thruster wires.
> > >
> > > Possibly even a third mechanism of Solar Radiation to recharge the batteries as the helicopter on Mars does.
> > >
> > > So 5 power sources (1) lithium battery (2) Earth magnetic field lifting us (3) ion thruster (4) Solar Wind (5) Solar Radiation.
> > >
> > > Things looking up on AP's new spacecraft, replacing all the old ugly polluters of rockets.
> > >
> > > This would be AP's 9th Nobel Prize: 10) A Physics-II Nobel prize to AP, "For development of the lithium battery operated spacecraft, and thus saving life on Earth by colonizing Europa from the Sun gone Red Giant Phase, for stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion." Here we make a brand new category of Physics Nobel prizes because the old list is 80% in error and unfair to future winners of Nobel physics prizes. Who wants to be on a list of con-artist dumb fakesters of physics. So we split off the old error filled list and start fresh anew with a Physics Nobel prize.
> > >
> > > Now can AP coax the researchers at MIT to see if a drone helicopter of lithium battery only, utilizing the North Pole strong upward magnetic field, see if the craft can reach the height of the Space Station. Everyone here on Earth says "no", but AP says "yes" and AP is the King of Science.
> > Google says
> > Lithium AAA battery weighs 7.6 grams
> > and it contains 1.87 watt hours energy
> > 1 watt hour = 3600 joules
> > 1.87 watt hours * 3600 joules/watt hour = 6732 joules
> > International space station is 408 kilometers altitude
> > It takes 9.8 joules to lift one kilogram one meter
> >
> > 7.6 grams/1 kilogram*408 kilometers/1 meter*9.8 joules=30388 joules
> >
> > So it takes 30388 joules to lift a 7.6 gram lithium AAA battery
> > from the earth to the ISS, but a AAA lithium battery only has 6732 joules
> >
> > 30388 joules / 6732 joules = 4.51
> >
> > So it will take about 4.5 times the power in a AAA lithium battery
> > just to lift a AAA battery to the international space station.
> > And that is with 100% perfect efficiency and without the added
> > weight of a beryllium drone or electronics to obtain lift from any
> > magnetic field or anything else needed.
> >
> Your calculations are wrong. Did you check to see what 30388 joules was? No, 1 kW = 1,000 J/s

I think I checked the calculations.
Yes 1 kilowatt is 1000 joules/second.
And a kilowatt second is 1000 joules. What is your point?
And 1.87 watt hours is 6732 joules. That is what I said.

9.8 joules will lift 1 kilogram one meter.
But we only need to lift 7.6 grams, not 1000 grams
But we need to lift 408 kilometers, not 1 meter.
So 7.6/1000 * 408000/1 * 9.8 joules = 30388 joules

If that isn't correct then put your precisely correct math on the table.

Those calculations are lifting a mass against gravity.

> You need to factor in the Magnetic field over the north magnetic pole for that lift.

And so what is this magnetic field going to do?
Is it going to give something to "push against",
sort of like propellers push against air to lift drones,
but your drone seems like it is going to quickly run
out of air to "push against" long before it gets to the ISS.

Or are you somehow claiming that the Magnetic field
over the north magnetic pole is going provide the energy
to push something to the ISS?

If that is the case then you need to provide some REALLY
convincing physics and math that people other than you
will believe. Because I don't think that anyone else believes that.

> But the best way is just go to the pole and try some drones and simple eye witness how high they fly-- once you are granted permission to do so

We might imagine some, or even lots of things, that might be better,
but notice that you are not actually DOING THOSE THINGS
and, to be bluntly honest, you will almost certainly never will actually DO..

So put your math and physics calculations on the table that will
convince everyone else of what you only imagine.

I was reading an interesting book a while back on making claims.
It described how people would claim almost anything, just as
long as they felt they really had little or nothing important to lose
if it turned out that they were wrong. BUT people's claims changed
dramatically if they felt they actually had something to lose, if they
actually had skin in the game and it was at risk.

SO, make your precise claim about what the drone is going to do.
None of this vague don't-actually-know-but-you-imagine-it-will
stuff. Pick an altitude that nobody else in the world believes will
happen. And then offer enough money that it will seriously hurt if
you turn out to be wrong. And get someone else who will offer
the same amount of money for the other side of this bet.
I think $100,000 seems like a reasonable number. Make your
claim and let's actually go and test your claim.

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 4:10:31 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:41:46 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:39:41 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:05:06 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:40:10 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:48:55 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > > I may require a Nobel prize for my brunt force demand and determination of researching drones that replace rockets for interplanetary travel. I may not actually engineer the drone itself, but certainly spur the momentum and feat onwards. For I envision that drones can fly in Space with no atmosphere, none whatsoever, only riding on the Magnetic Fields, Electric Fields, and Solar Wind. Yes, the Solar Wind should enable us to reach Europa, faster than any modern rockets now in use.
> > > > > If you hadn't been wasting time telling everyone what to do that would result in starting WWIII
> > > > > and you actually did real experiments with real instruments and real measurements and built real things...
> > > > > then you might have been able to claim credit for your battery powered flight.
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead the fine folks at MIT get all the credit for doing that.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.iflscience.com/technology/scientists-have-created-a-star-treklike-plane-that-flies-using-ion-thrusters-and-no-fuel/
> > > > Thanks for that information for they apparently use wires to ionize N2 and this thrusts the aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps we need a design that uses both helicopter and ion thruster.. The ion thruster to lift off of Earth in the N2 atmosphere, then the helicopter to blade of battery operated to get to the Solar Wind channels, then switch back to the ion thruster in the Solar Wind.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe both are needed to get us from Earth to Europa and back. And maybe the design could be where we ride the Solar Wind and recharge the ion battery in the Solar Wind from the thruster wires.
> > > >
> > > > Possibly even a third mechanism of Solar Radiation to recharge the batteries as the helicopter on Mars does.
> > > >
> > > > So 5 power sources (1) lithium battery (2) Earth magnetic field lifting us (3) ion thruster (4) Solar Wind (5) Solar Radiation.
> > > >
> > > > Things looking up on AP's new spacecraft, replacing all the old ugly polluters of rockets.
> > > >
> > > > This would be AP's 9th Nobel Prize: 10) A Physics-II Nobel prize to AP, "For development of the lithium battery operated spacecraft, and thus saving life on Earth by colonizing Europa from the Sun gone Red Giant Phase, for stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion." Here we make a brand new category of Physics Nobel prizes because the old list is 80% in error and unfair to future winners of Nobel physics prizes. Who wants to be on a list of con-artist dumb fakesters of physics. So we split off the old error filled list and start fresh anew with a Physics Nobel prize.
> > > >
> > > > Now can AP coax the researchers at MIT to see if a drone helicopter of lithium battery only, utilizing the North Pole strong upward magnetic field, see if the craft can reach the height of the Space Station. Everyone here on Earth says "no", but AP says "yes" and AP is the King of Science.
> > > Google says
> > > Lithium AAA battery weighs 7.6 grams
> > > and it contains 1.87 watt hours energy
> > > 1 watt hour = 3600 joules
> > > 1.87 watt hours * 3600 joules/watt hour = 6732 joules
> > > International space station is 408 kilometers altitude
> > > It takes 9.8 joules to lift one kilogram one meter
> > >
> > > 7.6 grams/1 kilogram*408 kilometers/1 meter*9.8 joules=30388 joules
> > >
> > > So it takes 30388 joules to lift a 7.6 gram lithium AAA battery
> > > from the earth to the ISS, but a AAA lithium battery only has 6732 joules
> > >
> > > 30388 joules / 6732 joules = 4.51
> > >
> > > So it will take about 4.5 times the power in a AAA lithium battery
> > > just to lift a AAA battery to the international space station.
> > > And that is with 100% perfect efficiency and without the added
> > > weight of a beryllium drone or electronics to obtain lift from any
> > > magnetic field or anything else needed.
> > >
> > Your calculations are wrong. Did you check to see what 30388 joules was? No, 1 kW = 1,000 J/s
> I think I checked the calculations.
> Yes 1 kilowatt is 1000 joules/second.
> And a kilowatt second is 1000 joules. What is your point?
> And 1.87 watt hours is 6732 joules. That is what I said.
>
> 9.8 joules will lift 1 kilogram one meter.
> But we only need to lift 7.6 grams, not 1000 grams
> But we need to lift 408 kilometers, not 1 meter.
> So 7.6/1000 * 408000/1 * 9.8 joules = 30388 joules
>
> If that isn't correct then put your precisely correct math on the table.

Sure, fool, 11.2 km/sec klunker rocket blast compared to AP's float and helicopter calmly
>
> Those calculations are lifting a mass against gravity.

But why bother with such calculations of lifting mass, as if you lifted a heavy rocket. Why bother at all. Did you ever take physics? I doubt it.

Just run to the Escape velocities.

Earth 11.2 km/sec
Moon 2.4 km/sec
Mars 5.03 km/sec
Europa 2.0 km/sec

Now, it is extremely difficult for a drone built of the lightest weight material beryllium parked at the magnetic north pole to gain the poles Magnetic Field, extremely difficult to get that drone at 11.2 km/sec.

But what most physicists do not understand is that we can Escape Earth from "floating" not rocketing.

Every day Earth loses thousands of particles that float, even bacteria that float. And none of these are going at 11.2 km/sec.

Now if we could build a perfect vaccuum in a weightless container of a balloon, we could go to outer space in this vessel. But once we reach outer space it is also almost a vaccuum except for Solar Wind and debris floating.

So, my Drone to take off at the North Magnetic Pole is a hybrid between something that Floats and the usual klunker rockets at Cape Canaveral.

My drone is so lightweight that the Magnetic Field of North Pole will do half the job of getting it to outer space as the helicopter blades on the drone for lift off.

So, what is the escape velocity of a balloon from Earth? It certainly is far less than 11.2 km/sec. For that is in Newton's law that misses the idea of Floating for Escape of Earth.

This is why I insist we cannot find the answers until someone with a drone goes to the Magnetic North Pole, lithium ion battery, the same helicopter that is now as I speak on planet Mars. Escape velocity of Mars is about half of Earth's 5.03. And this helicopter was built for lightweight like a balloon, not like a klunker rocket or airplane.

So, build a replica of Ingenuity and run up to the Magnetic North Pole and be surprised, that this helicopter goes past ISS and directly into Outer Space.

Every report of Ingenuity on Mars has been one of "outperform expectations".. And if NASA had the courage to let Ingenuity come home back to Earth riding the Solar Wind if possible, I bet we would be successful in even that much.

So, learn physics first before opening silly mouth. Learn that there is 11.2 Km/sec but there is a better way-- float into outer space. You see Newton's gravity laws are for the rush rush do everything instantly, microwave a rocket launch. But the AP way is float into outer space.

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 3:09:45 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 4:10:31 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:41:46 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:39:41 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:05:06 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:40:10 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:48:55 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > > > I may require a Nobel prize for my brunt force demand and determination of researching drones that replace rockets for interplanetary travel. I may not actually engineer the drone itself, but certainly spur the momentum and feat onwards. For I envision that drones can fly in Space with no atmosphere, none whatsoever, only riding on the Magnetic Fields, Electric Fields, and Solar Wind. Yes, the Solar Wind should enable us to reach Europa, faster than any modern rockets now in use.
> > > > > > If you hadn't been wasting time telling everyone what to do that would result in starting WWIII
> > > > > > and you actually did real experiments with real instruments and real measurements and built real things...
> > > > > > then you might have been able to claim credit for your battery powered flight.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Instead the fine folks at MIT get all the credit for doing that..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.iflscience.com/technology/scientists-have-created-a-star-treklike-plane-that-flies-using-ion-thrusters-and-no-fuel/
> > > > > Thanks for that information for they apparently use wires to ionize N2 and this thrusts the aircraft.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps we need a design that uses both helicopter and ion thruster. The ion thruster to lift off of Earth in the N2 atmosphere, then the helicopter to blade of battery operated to get to the Solar Wind channels, then switch back to the ion thruster in the Solar Wind.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe both are needed to get us from Earth to Europa and back. And maybe the design could be where we ride the Solar Wind and recharge the ion battery in the Solar Wind from the thruster wires.
> > > > >
> > > > > Possibly even a third mechanism of Solar Radiation to recharge the batteries as the helicopter on Mars does.
> > > > >
> > > > > So 5 power sources (1) lithium battery (2) Earth magnetic field lifting us (3) ion thruster (4) Solar Wind (5) Solar Radiation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Things looking up on AP's new spacecraft, replacing all the old ugly polluters of rockets.
> > > > >
> > > > > This would be AP's 9th Nobel Prize: 10) A Physics-II Nobel prize to AP, "For development of the lithium battery operated spacecraft, and thus saving life on Earth by colonizing Europa from the Sun gone Red Giant Phase, for stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion." Here we make a brand new category of Physics Nobel prizes because the old list is 80% in error and unfair to future winners of Nobel physics prizes. Who wants to be on a list of con-artist dumb fakesters of physics. So we split off the old error filled list and start fresh anew with a Physics Nobel prize.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now can AP coax the researchers at MIT to see if a drone helicopter of lithium battery only, utilizing the North Pole strong upward magnetic field, see if the craft can reach the height of the Space Station. Everyone here on Earth says "no", but AP says "yes" and AP is the King of Science.
> > > > Google says
> > > > Lithium AAA battery weighs 7.6 grams
> > > > and it contains 1.87 watt hours energy
> > > > 1 watt hour = 3600 joules
> > > > 1.87 watt hours * 3600 joules/watt hour = 6732 joules
> > > > International space station is 408 kilometers altitude
> > > > It takes 9.8 joules to lift one kilogram one meter
> > > >
> > > > 7.6 grams/1 kilogram*408 kilometers/1 meter*9.8 joules=30388 joules
> > > >
> > > > So it takes 30388 joules to lift a 7.6 gram lithium AAA battery
> > > > from the earth to the ISS, but a AAA lithium battery only has 6732 joules
> > > >
> > > > 30388 joules / 6732 joules = 4.51
> > > >
> > > > So it will take about 4.5 times the power in a AAA lithium battery
> > > > just to lift a AAA battery to the international space station.
> > > > And that is with 100% perfect efficiency and without the added
> > > > weight of a beryllium drone or electronics to obtain lift from any
> > > > magnetic field or anything else needed.
> > > >
> > > Your calculations are wrong. Did you check to see what 30388 joules was? No, 1 kW = 1,000 J/s
> > I think I checked the calculations.
> > Yes 1 kilowatt is 1000 joules/second.
> > And a kilowatt second is 1000 joules. What is your point?
> > And 1.87 watt hours is 6732 joules. That is what I said.
> >
> > 9.8 joules will lift 1 kilogram one meter.
> > But we only need to lift 7.6 grams, not 1000 grams
> > But we need to lift 408 kilometers, not 1 meter.
> > So 7.6/1000 * 408000/1 * 9.8 joules = 30388 joules
> > If that isn't correct then put your precisely correct math on the table..
> Sure, fool, 11.2 km/sec klunker rocket blast compared to AP's float and helicopter calmly

I started this trying to be polite with you and just do the math.
I don't think we want to start insulting each other,
because I believe that will just lead back to what you have
had for the last thirty years.

I politely asked you to show the math that demonstrates with
real physics and real mathematics how a 7.6 gram battery
with 6723 joules of energy was going to escape the gravity well of earth.

> > Those calculations are lifting a mass against gravity.
> But why bother with such calculations of lifting mass, as if you lifted a heavy rocket. Why bother at all. Did you ever take physics? I doubt it.
>
> Just run to the Escape velocities.
>
> Earth 11.2 km/sec
> Moon 2.4 km/sec
> Mars 5.03 km/sec
> Europa 2.0 km/sec
>
> Now, it is extremely difficult for a drone built of the lightest weight material beryllium parked at the magnetic north pole to gain the poles Magnetic Field, extremely difficult to get that drone at 11.2 km/sec.

I did not say ANYTHING about how fast this battery was going to go.
I ONLY calculated how much energy would be required to lift 7.6 grams
against gravity to the height of the ISS.

> But what most physicists do not understand is that we can Escape Earth from "floating" not rocketing.

OK. Show how 7.6 grams of AAA lithium battery is going to "float" to the ISS.
DO the math and DO the physics Archie.

> Every day Earth loses thousands of particles that float, even bacteria that float. And none of these are going at 11.2 km/sec.

Terrific. Go buy your 7.6 gram AAA lithium battery and demonstrate it "floating"

> Now if we could build a perfect vaccuum in a weightless container of a balloon, we could go to outer space in this vessel. But once we reach outer space it is also almost a vaccuum except for Solar Wind and debris floating.

OK. Suppose you have a 1 cubit meter container of perfect vacuum here on earth
and through Archie physics you manage to have that weigh zero grams.
Describing exactly the physics of how you are going to actually DO that will be impressive.

AFTER you have convinced everyone that is possible and you have actually DONE the
construction of a 1 cubic meter container of vacuum that weighs ZERO GRAMS
then put the 7.6 gram battery inside.
So this 1 cubit meter container with a perfect vacuum inside that you have actually BUILT
now contains 7.6 grams of battery inside for a total weight of 7.6 grams.

Google tells me that at sea level 1 cubic meter of air weights 1.222 kilograms.
And since the total weight of your container and battery is only 7.6 grams
this container will begin rising, at least until it reaches an altitude where
1 cubit meter of air weighs 7.6 grams, and then it will stop rising.

Terrific. So you have replaced all that pesky math with an imaginary container.
that weighs ZERO grams. But Google tells me that there is 10,332 kilograms/meter^2
so if your container is a cube it is going to be under more than 60 thousand kilograms
pressure and you have built that with material weighing zero grams. Impressive. DO IT!

> So, my Drone to take off at the North Magnetic Pole is a hybrid between something that Floats and the usual klunker rockets at Cape Canaveral.

WHERE did these rockets come from? You were going to use a single 6.7 gram lithium AAA battery to do all this,
well with your magic weightless container.

On 3/16/2022 6:09 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 4:10:31 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:41:46 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:39:41 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:05:06 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:40:10 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:48:55 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>>>>> I may require a Nobel prize for my brunt force demand and determination of researching drones that replace rockets for interplanetary travel. I may not actually engineer the drone itself, but certainly spur the momentum and feat onwards. For I envision that drones can fly in Space with no atmosphere, none whatsoever, only riding on the Magnetic Fields, Electric Fields, and Solar Wind. Yes, the Solar Wind should enable us to reach Europa, faster than any modern rockets now in use.
>>>>>> If you hadn't been wasting time telling everyone what to do that would result in starting WWIII
>>>>>> and you actually did real experiments with real instruments and real measurements and built real things...
>>>>>> then you might have been able to claim credit for your battery powered flight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead the fine folks at MIT get all the credit for doing that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.iflscience.com/technology/scientists-have-created-a-star-treklike-plane-that-flies-using-ion-thrusters-and-no-fuel/
>>>>> Thanks for that information for they apparently use wires to ionize N2 and this thrusts the aircraft.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps we need a design that uses both helicopter and ion thruster. The ion thruster to lift off of Earth in the N2 atmosphere, then the helicopter to blade of battery operated to get to the Solar Wind channels, then switch back to the ion thruster in the Solar Wind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe both are needed to get us from Earth to Europa and back. And maybe the design could be where we ride the Solar Wind and recharge the ion battery in the Solar Wind from the thruster wires.
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly even a third mechanism of Solar Radiation to recharge the batteries as the helicopter on Mars does.
>>>>>
>>>>> So 5 power sources (1) lithium battery (2) Earth magnetic field lifting us (3) ion thruster (4) Solar Wind (5) Solar Radiation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Things looking up on AP's new spacecraft, replacing all the old ugly polluters of rockets.
>>>>>
>>>>> This would be AP's 9th Nobel Prize: 10) A Physics-II Nobel prize to AP, "For development of the lithium battery operated spacecraft, and thus saving life on Earth by colonizing Europa from the Sun gone Red Giant Phase, for stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion." Here we make a brand new category of Physics Nobel prizes because the old list is 80% in error and unfair to future winners of Nobel physics prizes. Who wants to be on a list of con-artist dumb fakesters of physics. So we split off the old error filled list and start fresh anew with a Physics Nobel prize.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now can AP coax the researchers at MIT to see if a drone helicopter of lithium battery only, utilizing the North Pole strong upward magnetic field, see if the craft can reach the height of the Space Station. Everyone here on Earth says "no", but AP says "yes" and AP is the King of Science.
>>>> Google says
>>>> Lithium AAA battery weighs 7.6 grams
>>>> and it contains 1.87 watt hours energy
>>>> 1 watt hour = 3600 joules
>>>> 1.87 watt hours * 3600 joules/watt hour = 6732 joules
>>>> International space station is 408 kilometers altitude
>>>> It takes 9.8 joules to lift one kilogram one meter
>>>>
>>>> 7.6 grams/1 kilogram*408 kilometers/1 meter*9.8 joules=30388 joules
>>>>
>>>> So it takes 30388 joules to lift a 7.6 gram lithium AAA battery
>>>> from the earth to the ISS, but a AAA lithium battery only has 6732 joules
>>>>
>>>> 30388 joules / 6732 joules = 4.51
>>>>
>>>> So it will take about 4.5 times the power in a AAA lithium battery
>>>> just to lift a AAA battery to the international space station.
>>>> And that is with 100% perfect efficiency and without the added
>>>> weight of a beryllium drone or electronics to obtain lift from any
>>>> magnetic field or anything else needed.
>>>>
>>> Your calculations are wrong. Did you check to see what 30388 joules was? No, 1 kW = 1,000 J/s
>> I think I checked the calculations.
>> Yes 1 kilowatt is 1000 joules/second.
>> And a kilowatt second is 1000 joules. What is your point?
>> And 1.87 watt hours is 6732 joules. That is what I said.
>>
>> 9.8 joules will lift 1 kilogram one meter.
>> But we only need to lift 7.6 grams, not 1000 grams
>> But we need to lift 408 kilometers, not 1 meter.
>> So 7.6/1000 * 408000/1 * 9.8 joules = 30388 joules
>>
>> If that isn't correct then put your precisely correct math on the table.
>
> Sure, fool, 11.2 km/sec klunker rocket blast compared to AP's float and helicopter calmly

Where is your precisely correct math, Pluto?
>>
>> Those calculations are lifting a mass against gravity.
>
> But why bother with such calculations of lifting mass, as if you lifted a heavy rocket. Why bother at all. Did you ever take physics? I doubt it.

"Why bother with calculations?" ?? Because that's a major part of
physics, StupidPlutonium! If YOU had ever taken physics, you'd know
that. But I guess not, you are quite ignorant about how physics works.
>
> Just run to the Escape velocities.
>
Those are velocities. You need to know the amount of energy needed to
escape from the surface. bwr did that for the lithium AA battery and
showed it exceeded its storage capacity. Escape velocity is the velocity
need at the surface to escape _with no further energy added_.

>
> Now, it is extremely difficult for a drone built of the lightest weight material beryllium parked at the magnetic north pole to gain the poles Magnetic Field, extremely difficult to get that drone at 11.2 km/sec.
>
> But what most physicists do not understand is that we can Escape Earth from "floating" not rocketing.

Hand waving. You still need to provide energy to work against gravity.
>
> Every day Earth loses thousands of particles that float, even bacteria that float. And none of these are going at 11.2 km/sec.

The escape velocity is simply the speed needed when leaving the surface
to escape, with no further energy input. Like firing a cannon where the
cannonball isn't given any additional energy after firing. A cannonball
moving at escape velocity at the muzzle will escape, one with less
velocity will fall back to earth.

> So, my Drone to take off at the North Magnetic Pole is a hybrid between something that Floats and the usual klunker rockets at Cape Canaveral.

Where does it get its energy if a lithium battery doesn't have enough
energy to escape? All you do is handwaving about a magnetic field at
the north magnetic pole.
>
> My drone is so lightweight that the Magnetic Field of North Pole will do half the job of getting it to outer space as the helicopter blades on the drone for lift off.

More handwaving. What drone. Build it and demonstrate it. Explain where
it gets its energy from.
>
> So, what is the escape velocity of a balloon from Earth? It certainly is far less than 11.2 km/sec. For that is in Newton's law that misses the idea of Floating for Escape of Earth.

Balloons aren't fired from cannons. Balloons cannot escape by
themselves. Any gas in the balloon is denser than the vacuum of space.
>
> This is why I insist we cannot find the answers until someone with a drone goes to the Magnetic North Pole, lithium ion battery, the same helicopter that is now as I speak on planet Mars. Escape velocity of Mars is about half of Earth's 5.03. And this helicopter was built for lightweight like a balloon, not like a klunker rocket or airplane.

Show the math which shows it has enough energy to escape.
>
> So, build a replica of Ingenuity and run up to the Magnetic North Pole and be surprised, that this helicopter goes past ISS and directly into Outer Space.

Show the physics which cause this "surprise". Handwaving doesn't count
for anything.
>
> Every report of Ingenuity on Mars has been one of "outperform expectations". And if NASA had the courage to let Ingenuity come home back to Earth riding the Solar Wind if possible, I bet we would be successful in even that much.

Ingenuity, as it is, cannot even fly on earth. The atmosphere is too
thick and gravity is too strong. This was explained by a NASA tech
during a news special when Ingenuity first flew, he was flying a
modified version of Ingenuity and explained the modifications. Slower
rotation, different blade pitch (and material I think, needed to be
stronger) and run at a higher power due to stronger earth gravity.
>
> So, learn physics first before opening silly mouth. Learn that there is 11.2 Km/sec but there is a better way-- float into outer space. You see Newton's gravity laws are for the rush rush do everything instantly, microwave a rocket launch. But the AP way is float into outer space.