[AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone heard of this?")
- From: "Troy Prideaux" <GEORDI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 08:32:16 +1000
I am a skeptic of the claims, but I have to agree with Robert 100% there.
Troy
_____
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 7 August 2014 7:32 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone
heard of this?")
Yes, you can do that if you have something to drive the wheel with. In the
space they are talking about
there is nothing to drive the wheel against and I have seen nothing mentioned
the would come close to
a setup as you have described.
How does a Q-thruster work? A Q-thruster uses the same principles and equations
of motion that a conventional plasma thruster would use, namely
Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), to predict propellant behavior. The virtual plasma
is exposed to a crossed E and B-field which induces a plasma drift of the
entire plasma in the ExB direction which is orthogonal to the applied fields.
The difference arises in the fact that a Q-thruster uses quantum vacuum
fluctuations as the fuel source eliminating the need to carry propellant. This
suggests much higher specific impulses are available for QVPT systems limited
only by their power supply’s energy storage densities. Historical test results
have yielded thrust levels of between 1000-4000 micro-Newtons, specific force
performance of 0.1N/kW, and an equivalent specific impulse of ~1x1012 seconds.
Figure 4 shows a test article and the thrust trace from a 500g load cell [8].
The near term focus of the laboratory work is focused on gathering performance
data to support development of a Q-thruster engineering prototype targeting
Reaction Control System (RCS) applications with force range of 0.1-1 N with
corresponding input power range of 0.3-3 kW. Up first will be testing of a
refurbished test article to duplicate historical performance on the high
fidelity torsion pendulum (1-4 mN at 10-40 W). The team is maintaining a
dialogue with the ISS national labs office for an on orbit DTO.
How would Q-thrusters revolutionize human exploration of the outer planets?
Making minimal extrapolation of performance, assessments show that delivery of
a 50 mT payload to Jovian orbit can be accomplished in 35 days with a 2 MW
power source [specific force of thruster (N/kW) is based on potential measured
thrust performance in lab, propulsion mass (Q-thrusters) would be additional 20
mT (10 kg/kW), and associate power system would be 20 mT (10 kg/kW)].
Q-thruster performance allows the use of nuclear reactor technology that would
not require MHD conversion or other more complicated schemes to accomplish
single digit specific mass performance usually required for standard electric
propulsion systems to the outer solar system. In 70 days, the same system could
reach the orbit of Saturn.
NO where in there does it suggest perpetual motion.
Taken from http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492.pdf
At 03:05 PM 8/6/2014, you wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:59 PM, <qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Where and why do you guys keep on coming up with perpetual motion? It is
> stated quite clearly that it requires electric power to operate. While it
> does not require a stored fuel in the true sense of the word, it still
> requires power to run and the tests so far show that much more energy is
> need than the equivocal thrust produced. So if all of that is the case where
> is the perpetual motion.
You don't seem to be familiar with the thought experiment that makes a
drive of this type into an energy source.
Mount such a drive on a frictionless skate board in a vacuum. Turn it
on and the device will accelerate while using a constant amount of
power. When it reaches a high enough speed, lower a wheel connected
to a generator. At some speed, the generator output will equal the
constant power the drive is using. At any higher speeds, it is making
"free" power.
Keith
> Robert
>
>
> At 12:33 PM 8/6/2014, you wrote:
>>
>> On 06/08/14 14:47, Keith Henson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 06/08/14 05:47, Troy Prideaux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As we've concluded here many times in the past, rockets don't care
>>>>> how fast they're going with respect for the surroundings. More energy
>>>>> or more Isp per given mass ratio = better performance as per the
>>>>> rocket equation. It does matter a lot with air breathing propulsion,
>>>>> but not with rockets or for that matter the technology of current
>>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think maybe it does matter with this technology - if it doesn't then
>>>> it
>>>> would be a perpetual motion machine, and even less likely to work.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then the laws of physics, at least as they apply to this technology,
>>> would have to be variable depending on velocity. Then the question
>>> becomes velocity with respect to *what*?
>>
>>
>> What indeed, which is where the previous conversations about
>> Michelson-Morley, Lorentz invariance, and so on come in.
>>
>> Purely from an informational point of view (ie, looking at how does the
>> drive know what the velocity zero is, while ignoring how it interacts with
>> it), as far as I can see there are at most two possibilities.
>>
>> The first and in my opinion by far the most likely (but only because the
>> other is even less likely!) possibility is zero velocity relative to the big
>> bang; which is also a zero relative to the mass in and/or of the universe;
>> and for practical purposes is very close indeed to the rest frame relative
>> to the cosmic microwave background.
>>
>> The last is something which we can actually measure; we are travelling at
>> 369±0.9 km/s in the direction of galactic longitude l =
>> 263.99±0.14°, b =
>> 48.26±0.03 relative to that rest frame.
>>
>>
>>
>> The second possibility comes from General Relativity and is sort of
>> similar in terms of being a summation of the effects of all the mass in the
>> universe, but it takes local matter more into account. For various reasons I
>> think it's very unlikely indeed but I thought I'd mention it as, like the
>> rest of these speculations, it is not impossible, assuming the rest of
>> physics is correct but incomplete.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I was amused by a comment on a recent discussion of power satellites
>>> about how this would make transporting the parts to GEO easier. If
>>> this is real, it's the future energy source, forget power satellites.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> Unless of course it does vary depending on velocity ... in which case it
>> isn't a perpetual motion machine, and is somewhat less implausible.
>>
>> -- Peter Fairbrother
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>> -- Peter Fairbrother
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Other related posts: