Roll on the 20th June

[Morgenster]

EDIT 2

Ya looked at the shuttle on the launch pad?
Ya see that big middle tank attached to it?

That thing is jettisoned before leaving the atmosphere, I think the 2 ancillary tanks to either side do too, but not really sure if that happens while still under the inflence of gravity or not.

I'd say their mass (being completely filled with liquid hydrogen and oxygen) is greater than a 747 (and that aircraft, to my incomplete knowledge, can skirt the atmosphere) which is a traveling gas tank AND can piggy back the shuttle (less tanks) to that atmosphere boundary.

I see that as less fuel (energy) used to achieve the same goal.

Kosher dude?

A 747 carrying a shuttle won't make it to the 45km altitude needed to get the shuttle off the planet. The big tank will.
The two 'tanks' at the side are not tanks but rocket thrusters using up the fuel of the big main tank.
If there were a way to launch NASA shuttles more cheaply don't you think NASA would've come up with that in the first place?
Piggyback launches are, however, probably the wave of the future for other spaceflights, but those machines will be designed especially for that.

[ramset]

Graham your saying you have a vid of a magnet! Ball! anything! going round and round or up and over   I tried to find your ten year old vid  didn't see it Chet

[purepower]

Not quite there yet. There is no 'banked' energy in the ramp. It only alters the path of motion. Ultimately, to attain altitude X you need energy Y whether you use the ramp or straight vertical lift. The only differences in amounts of energy used between ramp and vertical lift are attributable to the design of the moving object. It's easy to test and demonstrate: build a ramp of a certain incline, and construct a pulley system for vertical lift, both the same height. When you pull object a up to height X vertically count the amount of energy used in watt/hrs and then do the same thing with object a on the ramp (you can even use the same pulley!). You'll find that (if your ramp is as good as frictionless) both ways to get to altitude X cost the exact same watt/hrs.

Yup! I proposed this same demo a couple pages back.

Since most people can't measure power or energy, measure force (linear scale) and distance applied. Multiply them together and you have energy.

As the force decreases due to mechanical advantage, distance applied increases proportionally, and the product of the two remains the same!

-PurePower

PS energy is Watt*hr, not watt/hr, that would be the acceleration of energy, or the time rate of change of power consumprion. While it is useful in some situations, its just the wrong term for what were talking about here. We want power*time, which gives energy (like how velocity*time gives distance).

[Morgenster]

Graham your saying you have a vid of a magnet! Ball! anything! going round and round or up and over   I tried to find your ten year old vid  didn't see it Chet

That's a bit unfair isn't it? Archer doesn't have it either. His stops at the final few magnets everytime and he then needs to break em loose to put them back at the starting position.

[ramset]

M IM just asking if what Archer has shown thus far has been done and the vid or pic   Archer knows how to break a wall Chet