[AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone heard of this?")
- From: "Monroe L. King Jr." <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 15:45:06 -0700
I'm wondering who it needs to be proven to? If we can prove it to
ourselves then just build a bigger one. Then you would need the money.
Build one that people will go OH wow! Ok then.
Sure I'll help out but proving to the world? That's not my kind of
thing. Just build it if you really think you can. Why bother with all
that?
Build one and prove it to yourselves and then build a bigger one! Big
enough they cant ignore it. If you cant do that why bother? That's why
build a small one first right?
Just saying you know, why bother with all that? Spend the money on
something that will prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
If you can't go big with it why bother. Check it out small first then
build a real one that's not a toy.
Hey I'm far from convinced it will work yet. I need to know myself
before I go galloping off don't you?
Monroe
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was
> "Anyone heard of this?")
> From: qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Mon, August 04, 2014 3:24 pm
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> 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: