[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 18:35:20 -0700
You don't need high dollar stuff to test this theory. But I am not
interested in proving it alone for no good reason. Yes, it is likely
overunity and the likelihood of it working is almost nil.
Trying it would be fun though and maybe a worthwhile adventure for
some. I like working with others on projects like this. For me it's fun
and learning.
Do I think it works? No I don't, that's why the prototype first.
I see your at the end of the road there now so I'll sign off.
Monroe
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was
> "Anyone heard of this?")
> From: Michael Clive <clive@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, August 04, 2014 5:42 pm
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Monroe, it requires money to get vacuum pumps, chambers, interfeometers, RF
> amplifiers, DAQ systems, structural equipment. It requires money to get the
> systems to a level of sophistication that the data produced by them will be
> trusted. It takes money to have calibration labs verify your equipment, and
> it takes money to publish results, host websites, etc.
>
>
> Since the possibility of this being an over-unity device has been raised, I
> am really unenthused about the project now. I don't waste time with
> perpetual motion machines.
> Bummer!
> If anyone can counter Pierce's argument, I would love to hear about it!
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Monroe L. King Jr. <
> monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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: