[AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone
- From: John Schilling <John.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 09:17:53 -0700
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 12:33:02 -0700
From: Henry Vanderbilt<hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone
On 8/6/2014 11:33 AM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>Purely from an informational point of view (ie, looking at how does the
>drive know what the velocity zero is, while ignoring how it interacts
>with it), as far as I can see there are at most two possibilities.
>
>The first and in my opinion by far the most likely (but only because the
>other is even less likely!) possibility is zero velocity relative to the
>big bang; which is also a zero relative to the mass in and/or of the
>universe; and for practical purposes is very close indeed to the rest
>frame relative to the cosmic microwave background.
>
>The last is something which we can actually measure; we are travelling
>at 369±0.9 km/s in the direction of galactic longitude l = 263.99±0.14°,
>b = 48.26±0.03 relative to that rest frame.
>The second possibility comes from General Relativity and is sort of
>similar in terms of being a summation of the effects of all the mass in
>the universe, but it takes local matter more into account. For various
>reasons I think it's very unlikely indeed but I thought I'd mention it
>as, like the rest of these speculations, it is not impossible, assuming
>the rest of physics is correct but incomplete.
Underinformed speculation department: Stipulating for the moment
something real happening, also stipulating either of these frames of
reference prevailing, the wild variation in reported thrust-to-watts
ratios might in some part be related to differences in which way the
experimenters happened to have their devices pointing at the time.
Can you give some idea of to what degree the local matter might prevail
under the second possibility? If indeed anyone were to report
verifiable results varying with direction that could help resolve what's
actually going on. (Not to mention be fun to speculate about in the
meantime.) Thanks!
Henry
Basically, this is postulating an "Aetheric Propellor", which is an
interesting thought experiment at least, and not an entirely ridiculous
notion. Also, I think Edison used one of those to conquer the Martians,
so there's heritage :-)
Roughly speaking, if you try to use a perfectly efficient Aetheric
Propellor to accelerate relative to the local Aether, your thrust to
power ratio is limited to: T/P <= 1/Vr, where Vr is velocity relative
to the Aether, thrust power and velocity in consistent units.
If, on the other hand, you aren't trying to accelerate relative to
the Aether, you theoretically don't need any power at all. You are
just engaged in Aetherobraking, though there may be some overhead
load associated with engaging your Aetheric Anchor.
The experimental results presented by Brady et al, are mostly consistent
with a 100% efficient Aetheric Propellor trying to fly upstream in an
Aether flow at 500-700 km/s. That's kind of interesting at first glance,
what with the CMB having a local velocity of ~370 km/s. Going with thus
hypothesis, they are getting maybe +/-20% variation depending on how
their gadget was aligned with the Aether Flux during the working day, and
their one anomalously high result came when they worked late into the
night and inadvertently deployed a simple Aetheric Anchor.
Damn; now you've got me thinking about trajectory optimization using an
Aetheric Anchor in a unidirectional 370 km/s Aether Flux. Can we maybe
deploy an Aether Sail instead, and get some side force? Need to think
on what we would use for a keel...
Or, can we just dip a well-anchored Aether Turbine into the flux, and
go back to solving the energy crisis? Well, at least until we find
the Earth being dragged off towards Leo at 370 km/s; Greenpeace is
going to be a nuisance on that one.
The big problem comes when we look at the theoretical predictions, and
the secondhand reporting of the Chinese experiments. The claimed T:P
ratio of 0.4 N/kW is inconsistent with any relative velocity greater
than 2.5 km/s. OK, some of the old theories had an "Aetheric Drag"
that brought the local Aether to rest relative to any large mass in
the vicinity; that was thoroughly disproven w/re the Luminiferous
Aether, but maybe can be resurrected for our newfangled Quantum Plasma
Aether. That gives us Aether stationary in the geocentric reference
frame, and they can make highly efficient Aetheric Propellors in the
laboratory.
Which will proceed to crap out as they accelerate past 2.5 km/s, making
them pretty much useless for space propulsion. Oops. That might have
been worth mentioning in the paper.
Mind you, for that to be going on here, we'd need to daisy-chain a whole
lot of implausibilities:
A team that is trying to build a reactionless drive, stumbling
onto an Aetheric Propellor instead
Their getting better than 50% efficiency on their first try of
a gadget they didn't know they were building
Their Aetheric Propellor, at 50% efficiency, just happening to
produce a thrust right at the fuzzy edge of the error bar on
their thrust stand
Their one and only try of a novel configuration (TE01 on the
truncated-cone thruster?) just happening to come on the one and
only time they were operating in a reversed Aetheric Flux
And, neither this team, nor the Chinese, nor the theoreticians
who started the whole thing, recognizing or bothering to mention
that the reactionless drive they were trying to build would violate
conservation of energy and any conservative Aetheric Propellor they
might stumble into would have severe velocity limits that would
severely limit its utility for space travel.
I think I'm going to go with systematic experimental error on the edge
of the error bar as being the more likely explanation. Though it would
be fun to see someone take a serious look at the prospects for Aetheric
Propellors, Anchors, Sails, and Turbines if some variant of this proposed
mechanism could be consciously applied in that direction.
Where's Bob Forward when we need him?
John Schilling
john.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(661) 718-0955
Other related posts: