OK Monroe, yes it can be done relatively easy and somewhat cheaper than 100K. But it needs to be done in a way that will meet "scientific" testing standards, that means the right apparatus for power generation, calibration of the testing equipment, testing, the exact duplication of the device, etc. That is all going to cost money. The testing must be done by somebody that has the credibility and the knowledge of the methodology used in testing this device. We also can't rush into this with out setting down what will be considered a valid or invalid result. It needs to be done right.
And while as you say you think you can machine the parts and you can pull 10 to the 8th torr for vacuum, and A simple interferometer should be sufficient for the measurement. Yes it will show if it works or not but not in the way that it would be accepted by most of the scientific community. It needs to be done right so lets just do it right!
Robert At 02:22 PM 8/4/2014, you wrote:
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