[AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone heardof this?")
- From: Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 21:43:55 -0400
Randall:
I can't help but notice that you appear to have correctly risk valued your
investment....
Bill
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 4, 2014, at 12:14, rclague@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> One man proposes to build an experimental apparatus. Another man invokes
> authority.
>
> One of these is science. The other is not.
>
> Clive, I'm in for $10.
>
> -R
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> From: David Gregory <david.c.gregory@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sender: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 07:52:30 -0700
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ReplyTo: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone
> heardof this?")
>
> You're going to spend 100k to test a machine that appears to violate Newton's
> third law?
>
> On Aug 3, 2014, at 11:14 PM, Michael Clive <clive@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> my idea is just,well, build enough of these things, test em, and let the
>> data rule all. The math will come after. The capital outlay is in the 100k
>> range, which is feasible for a crowdfund/private partnership.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 9:04 PM, <joesmith@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> In the late 1890's Marconi invented the wireless,working off the efforts of
>>> such as
>>> Henry,Maxwell and Hertz.
>>> The world was changed overnight,forever after.
>>> Logically we should have to ask not ''when'' but ''how soon'' and ''who''.
>>>
>>> Nobody can deny the technology exist,,but how do we tie it together as the
>>> 20 year old Italian did?.
>>> Don't you think that it is about time to come un-STUCK?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:47:11 -0700, "Monroe L. King Jr."
>>> <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> There is the theory Hawking Radiation (which was mostly proven wrong)
>>>> But there is the radiation emitted from black holes. It takes a hell of
>>>> a gravity well to produce it. But as the particles reach the horizon
>>>> it's like there it produces a particle and an anti particle and one
>>>> falls over the horizon and the other escapes if they do no annihilate
>>>> each other first. For me that explains why we have more matter than anti
>>>> mater in our universe. Black holes sweeping up the floor all the time
>>>> for eons.
>>>> I am sure you guy's could care less what I think. But it's going to
>>>> take a hell of a lot of energy to make the next breakthrough (like a
>>>> tiny black hole) or being able to actually see the event horizon and
>>>> measure something from a far off black hole (Like the massive one at the
>>>> center of our galaxy) But Hawking was trying to explain why or where the
>>>> matter goes? Why not a "Big Bang" on the other side? Why not if the
>>>> gravity is so
>>>> great the singularity smashes down so far to the Higgs or beyond and
>>>> that energy is expelled into another universe?
>>>>
>>>> One thing is for sure they don't expel anything but some minor
>>>> radiation in our universe. Where does all that matter go?
>>>>
>>>> Black holes do die! They eventually evaporate.
>>>> Anyway bla bla bla. With no proof.
>>>> Mathematics is like building skyscrapers with geometric shapes that
>>>> seem to resemble something we call building blocks. Lots of ways to
>>>> build something but eventually you reach the top. We have whole cities
>>>> of blocks that over time we have made fit together.
>>>> We are at the pinnacle of what we can do with our building blocks made
>>>> of stone. So what we have to do now is discover steel and concrete.
>>>> The new cities we build will look nothing like the ones we have now. Maybe
>>>> a bit here some architecture there you can recognize. But beyond
>>>> that it just wont be the same anymore.
>>>> That's how far we have come. Pretty damn far! But we are so so so very
>>>> far from understanding it all it's not even funny.
>>>> Monroe > -------- Original Message --------
>>>> > Subject: [AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was
>>>> > "Anyone heard of this?")
>>>> > From: Ian Woollard<ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> > Date: Sun, August 03, 2014 3:09 pm
>>>> > To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> > > > If you have photons leaving in significant numbers you will have at
>>>> > > > least
>>>> > some thrust; but that's a conventional photon rocket. Photon rockets give
>>>> > very small thrust and are highly inefficient; it turns out that almost
>>>> > all
>>>> > the energy leaves with the photons and hardly any ends up accelerating
>>>> > the
>>>> > vehicle. (It's due to the extreme mismatch between the exhaust speed and
>>>> > vehicle speed, you always want the two to be about the same-ish relative
>>>> > to
>>>> > the launch frame of reference aka inertial reference frame.)
>>>> > > Note that these thrusters have no photons leaving other than thermal
>>>> > > ones
>>>> > due to waste heat; they consist of sealed cavities filled with
>>>> > microwaves. > They claim that by quantum/relativistic/magic/somehow they
>>>> > will start
>>>> > moving all by themselves. > > I'll only really believe it if it floats
>>>> > up into the sky and yanks the
>>>> > power cord out of the wall. > > > On 3 August 2014 09:23, Steen Eiler
>>>> > Jørgensen<steen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> > > > Den 03-08-2014 02:09, Ian Woollard skrev:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > There's essentially no chance that a thruster can work where you turn
>>>> > > > it on, feeding only electricity through it, and with nothing leaving
>>>> > > > it; where you switch it off, and you're now moving faster. This is
>>>> > > > what the emdrive is claimed to do. > >
>>>> > > Please define "nothing". Photons (e.g.) have no mass, but nonzero
>>>> > > momentum. > >
>>>> > > /steen
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > -- > -Ian Woollard
Other related posts: