[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: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 16:14:26 -0700
Which is why you would build one for fun using low cost equipment
rather than some NASA cost experiment wasting tax payers money. I had my
bout with conservation of energy when I was 13 years old. I have a
teammate that believes overunity is possible. Makes me crazy!
I will admit this one looked interesting to me as well until I figured
out it was likely overunity. This one would be a fun experiment. Should
be able to use a magnetron from a microwave and a simple interferometer
and $500 worth of vacuum equipment.
Hell if you want too you could use 2 junked rotary window unit A/C
compressors in tandem (don't forget the ballast valve between them) and
make a diffusion pump from SS exhaust pipe and reducers. Use DOT 5
silicone brake fluid for your diffusion oil. Make a parini gauge with a
tiny light bulb.
While your at it buy Dave Gingery's books "How to build a metal working
shop from scrap" and bild all of the machines.
You can rent calibration equipment any time far cheaper and calibrate
your own stuff.
Do that and you'll get an education you can not buy anywhere.
Make yourself a 200 amp TIG with an old ambulance alternator and
reactor from a junked machine.
You do that while your young and going to school too! There will not be
a job you can not tackle! Or a device you cant build or understand.
For the benefit of any young readers. If you think it's interesting
MAKE ONE don't buy into that you cant do it because you can!
It takes a LOT of time to do things this cheap but you will have them
for the rest of your life. And when someone has an idea you can DO IT!
Who cares if it doesn't work? Try it and find out!
You can't buy the kind of education or skills you will learn. You will
learn to "see" in your mind. Something you can't buy anywhere.
Do electronics and chemistry too! Do it in your garage!
You Need to buy just a few things. The best oscilloscope you can
afford! and a good torch. The biggest surface plate you can afford. And
a big place to work! Know where all the good junk is to be found.
Automobiles have lots of good junk from accelerometers to vacuum valves
and all kinds of sensors. Buy the biggest lathe you can and you can mill
on it too until you can get a mill. (you can do small milling on even a
mini lathe)
Don't get spoiled on expensive equipment and if you ever do get money
you'll know how to spend it right.
You don't NEED money or expensive equipment! Plenty of that in the
junkyards or swap meets, hamfest or little sales you find going out of
business.
Grind yourself a telescope mirror and learn about optics and
interferometry and spectrography.
School is GREAT! You need that too! But if your bold and you really
want to know with a FULL understanding. YOU have to do it hands on from
scratch.
Then you can look at a device and see what it is. See the path of the
electrons or the fluid or the gas and even the particles. IN YOUR MIND
without having made a single calculation other than the natural ability
of your mind to calculate things it knows from experience. Not something
you can read and figure out, something you know!
Do all you can WHILE YOUR YOUNG! Fiddle with EVERYTHING! Make one! You
CAN do it!
EXPLORE YOUR WORLD! IT IS YOURS TO EXPLORE! YOU OWN IT! So why not get
you some?
FAILURE is the key to success! The more you fail the more things you
will succeed at. The more things you don't have to try over and over.
NOTHING ON PAPER WORKS no device you see on paper works until it is
BUILT.
START BUILDING YOUR LIFE NOW. If you want to have high vacuum you can
have it! Just start doing it!
KEEP ALL YOUR STUFF! ALL OF IT! DO NOT SELL ANYTHING you will regret it
later.
LOL ok
Have FUN!
Monroe
PS. Don't go poo to anyone's hand crafted equipment ever! Esp the
really junky looking stuff. Look CLOSER! See where the fella put his
hands on it. See how it was built. See what it really does. Because that
person crafted it. Look closer and you can always SEE the craftsmanship
even in the junkiest contraption.
That is who we really are. Look closer- You might be in there too :)
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was
> "Anyone heard of this?")
> From: Pierce Nichols <piercenichols@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, August 06, 2014 2:20 pm
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> The fact that out takes some power to run doesn't mean it can't be used to
> build a perpetual motion machine. There are two different thought
> experiments that quite trivially show that the thrust and power levels
> claimed in the NASA paper would, if true, allow the construction of a
> perpetual motion machine.
> -p
>
> On Aug 6, 2014 1:00 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.
> >
> > 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: