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 <mailto: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
<mailto:zenadsl6186@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Mon, August 04, 2014 12:35 pm
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> On 04/08/14 17:47, Ian Woollard wrote:
> > On 4 August 2014 16:54, Peter Fairbrother
<zenadsl6186@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:zenadsl6186@xxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto: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