[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 14:41:39 +1000
No, Jake there is a limit with the reactionless drive, exactly as there's a
limit with rocket engines. The limit is *energy*. A rocket engine is propelled
by *energy* and guess what, a reactionless drive device is also propelled by
*energy* and both are limited by the onboard supply unless you transfer energy
to the devices from external sources. But more importantly, the claim here is
of a violation of the conservation of *energy*. Nothing to do with mass
limitations or mass transfer.
If that was critical, you could effectively replace the reactionless drive
device with an electrical motor propelled device with the assumption of
frictionless movement along a surface for the thought experiment to arrive at
the same conclusion.
Troy
>-----Original Message-----
>From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>Behalf Of Jake Anderson
>Sent: Thursday, 7 August 2014 2:29 PM
>To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone
>heard of this?")
>
>I *think* what it is, is the power you get out of a generator is force *
>speed.
>Thus as you increase the speed the amount of force required to generate
>the power reduces and at some speed it all works out.
>The critical difference is you aren't throwing anything over the side,
>so it can run forever where a rocket engine would run out of fuel.
>
>That said however, photon thrust is a thing and it has no reaction mass,
>what do the numbers look like on that?
>(I'm imagining its something like the speed of light or perhaps several
>multiples, but if it does work its still a violation of thermodynamics,
>so something is wrong)
>
>On 07/08/14 14:19, Troy Prideaux wrote:
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On
>>> Behalf Of Keith Henson
>>> Sent: Thursday, 7 August 2014 1:41 PM
>>> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was
>"Anyone
>>> heard of this?")
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Troy Prideaux <GEORDI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> 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.
>>>> The generator can only generate power equalling or exceeding the device
>>> if
>>>> (a) the system and generator is 100% efficient or more (impossible)
>>> Assume the generator is only 50% efficient. Let the speed go up to up
>>> to twice as high and then start tapping energy.
>> Ok, doesn’t that mean that the generator will be providing x2 frictional
>force (force working against the device) to generate the same amount of
>power the device needs to consume to generate the force?
>>
>> Please show me how this differs from a conventional propulsion system?
>>
>>> The key is the assumption the drive force and power consumption is
>>> constant at any speed.
>> As per the capability of any rocket engine.
>>
>>> If that's the case, then at some speed, the power, velocity x force,
>>> you can get out of the device exceeds the input power because the
>>> velocity is unlimited.
>> How? You only have a limited energy source to power the device? You need
>*energy* and power to *get* that velocity. If the device delivering the
>force is less than 100% efficient, then how, please tell, how do you get
>that velocity (whatever it is) with less energy than the resulting kinetic
>energy of the craft?
>>
>>> I am not saying this is impossible, just that if they work as claimed,
>>> free energy is the consequence.
>> Nobody has yet provided a satisfactory answer as to how that is so.
>>
>> Troy.
>>
>>> Keith (BSEE, U of Arizona 1969)
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> (b) the system is utilizing residual energy (say kinetic) expended from
>>> the device and its power source prior to the generation - quite possible,
>>> but that residual energy will eventually be dissipated by the <100%
>>> efficient generator and system. That doesn't imply any violation to the
>>> conservation of energy law. The analogy would be: aeroplanes have proven
>to
>>> get off the ground with a thrust to weight ratios of less than 1.
>>>> You have to remember, in this thought experiment, you start with an
>>> energy source - say a battery for argument sake. For the system to
>violate
>>> the conservation of energy, the entire system needs to have more energy
>>> than the battery originally had. That's impossible if all the various
>>> components of the system that transfer and use the energy are less than
>>> 100% efficient and we know that all the components (the device, the
>>> generator, the wires etc are all less than 100% efficient.
>>>> Again, there is absolutely no difference between a reactionless drive
>>> device to a conventional thrusting device for thought experiments like
>this
>>> one regarding energy utilization & transfer.
>>>> Troy
>>>>
>>>>> 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: