[AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone heard of this?")
- From: Pierce Nichols <piercenichols@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:33:46 -0700
It seems like the money would be best spent attempting to turn the effect
up to 11 rather than on ultra-sensitive measuring devices.
-p
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 3:24 PM, <qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
>
Other related posts: