Peter and others. I disagree that there is nothing there other than Ionic wind, see http://jnaudin.free.fr/lfpt/html/lfptsmk.htm , however the Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster and other BB Effect devices also prove something else. that the resultant force is to small to be of much use in most common applications. That being said, NASA's patent, of 2002 for asymmetrical capacitors which use the BB Effect for thrust instead of "Ionic Wind" (also reproduced by Jnaudin) seem to have at least some potential.
For now, the use of the BB Effect in a device ends up in the same category as the Stirling engine and the Tesla turbine.
At 01:35 PM 8/4/2014, you wrote:
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