Why do you need $100k to build one of these? The more I look into it I don't see where you need it. I can try this in my shop. What's going on here? I don't get it? Is it a schema to raise money for research? What's the pitch? A simple interferometer should be sufficient for the measurement. I can pull 10 to the 8th torr I can machine the parts it looks like. What else do you need? Monroe > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was > "Anyone heard of this?") > From: Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, August 04, 2014 12:35 pm > To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > On 04/08/14 17:47, Ian Woollard wrote: > > On 4 August 2014 16:54, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186@xxxxxxxxx > > <mailto:zenadsl6186@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > Suppose, as has been claimed, the drive is somehow exchanging > > momentum with the entire universe. The momentum of the universe may > > have a (?local) velocity - which would be mathematically equivalent > > to a preferred frame of reference. > > > > If so, there need be no violation of either of the conservation laws. > > > > > > Even that wouldn't be of any practical use for propulsion. > > > > There's basically zero chance that you would moving close the preferred > > frame of reference's speed. And if you're not.. .big trouble in little > > china. > > > > To see this, consider that we're already going at (say) >300km/s due to > > orbital speed, the speed of the Sun within the local cluster and the > > orbital speed around the Milky Way, and the speed of the Milky Way > > relative to other galaxies... so it takes enormous energy to make quite > > modest increases in speed because energy goes as 0.5 m V^2. > > > > i.e. > > > > E = 0.5 m V^2 > > > > where V is the speed in the preferred frame of reference. > > > > differentiating wrt time: > > > > P = m V dV/dt > > > > dv/dt = P/mV > > > > so acceleration for any given power is inversely proportional to initial > > speed. That's the same reason cars accelerate very fast initially, and > > then accelerates ever more slowly. But here you would be going at > > extreme speeds to start with. Rockets and ion drives circumvent this due > > to Oberth effect and get constant acceleration from constant power. > > > > Plugging in numbers here it would cost 300kW to accelerate 1kg by 1m/s^2 > > which is insanely inefficient. > > So, 300 kW per N. > > The highest claim in the paper, afaict, is 17 W for 91 uN - or 186 kW > per N, not so different. > > There may also be local issues, eg the Milky Way's mass may drag an > effective local frame velocity zero closer. > > And what about if you want to go sideways? > > > The point I am trying to make (while I don't actually believe in the > thruster at all) is if the explanation is as above, if the quantum > vaccuum has a (?local) velocity, it does not violate Newtonian physics > or Special Relativity - it just adds a single new item, the local > velocity of the universe, to the laws of physics. > > And maybe it answers a long-standing question about Special Relativity > too - the universe does in fact seem to have some sort of preferred > frame of reference. That is unexplained in SR. > > There is also an asymmetry in SR time dilation which it also might help > explain as well, but probably better offlist. > > > > We do not know all the laws of physics. Not even close. > > > > -- Peter Fairbrother