No. Vastly different orders of magnitude.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/05/2015 07:56 pmQuote from: Star One on 05/05/2015 07:46 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 05/05/2015 07:20 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 05/05/2015 07:14 pmNo. Vastly different orders of magnitude.Honestly, I think you're underestimating what EM Drive would represent if true. EM Drive if real is an enormous departure from the current accepted laws of physics. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.If EM drive is real (which it isn't), then something like a warp effect could certainly be part of the new physics behind it.Which is all the more reason to take EM drive with an enormous grain of salt. There's a powerful temptation to let wishes be horses.Your god like omnipotence is impressive here and obviously there's no need to continue testing it. This sort of attitude has bedevilled this thread and I expected better of a regular poster on this forum. Especially when you're making claims about it that have been explained on multiple occasions are not applicable to it, even with my limited understanding I can understand it is not a free unlimited energy device. It only puts out kinetic energy wise what's put into it electromagnetically, it isn't a magical device from Harry Potter.He's politely expressing skepticism without being rude or defamatory. Why be hostile back?There's considerable to prove if real. If one is an advocate, one wants skepticism and to eventually marshal enough proof.Whole lot better than outright conclusory declarations.Maybe I'm just fed up with seeing this attitude replicated a hundred times in the media coverage of this story. Did those at NASA who kindly posted here deserve the harsh treatment that they were subjected to by some on this thread?
Quote from: Star One on 05/05/2015 07:46 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 05/05/2015 07:20 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 05/05/2015 07:14 pmNo. Vastly different orders of magnitude.Honestly, I think you're underestimating what EM Drive would represent if true. EM Drive if real is an enormous departure from the current accepted laws of physics. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.If EM drive is real (which it isn't), then something like a warp effect could certainly be part of the new physics behind it.Which is all the more reason to take EM drive with an enormous grain of salt. There's a powerful temptation to let wishes be horses.Your god like omnipotence is impressive here and obviously there's no need to continue testing it. This sort of attitude has bedevilled this thread and I expected better of a regular poster on this forum. Especially when you're making claims about it that have been explained on multiple occasions are not applicable to it, even with my limited understanding I can understand it is not a free unlimited energy device. It only puts out kinetic energy wise what's put into it electromagnetically, it isn't a magical device from Harry Potter.He's politely expressing skepticism without being rude or defamatory. Why be hostile back?There's considerable to prove if real. If one is an advocate, one wants skepticism and to eventually marshal enough proof.Whole lot better than outright conclusory declarations.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/05/2015 07:20 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 05/05/2015 07:14 pmNo. Vastly different orders of magnitude.Honestly, I think you're underestimating what EM Drive would represent if true. EM Drive if real is an enormous departure from the current accepted laws of physics. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.If EM drive is real (which it isn't), then something like a warp effect could certainly be part of the new physics behind it.Which is all the more reason to take EM drive with an enormous grain of salt. There's a powerful temptation to let wishes be horses.Your god like omnipotence is impressive here and obviously there's no need to continue testing it. This sort of attitude has bedevilled this thread and I expected better of a regular poster on this forum. Especially when you're making claims about it that have been explained on multiple occasions are not applicable to it, even with my limited understanding I can understand it is not a free unlimited energy device. It only puts out kinetic energy wise what's put into it electromagnetically, it isn't a magical device from Harry Potter.
Quote from: Mulletron on 05/05/2015 07:14 pmNo. Vastly different orders of magnitude.Honestly, I think you're underestimating what EM Drive would represent if true. EM Drive if real is an enormous departure from the current accepted laws of physics. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.If EM drive is real (which it isn't), then something like a warp effect could certainly be part of the new physics behind it.Which is all the more reason to take EM drive with an enormous grain of salt. There's a powerful temptation to let wishes be horses.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/05/2015 07:35 pmBut while I'm certain the effect is an artifact, if it WERE to be true, the implications would be absurd. Unlimited energy (and yes, I know people try to tack on energy conservation whenever someone points it out,....@Robotbeat. Serious question for you. You've mentioned several times that a working EMDrive would be an unlimited energy device. I don't follow your logic though. The EM drive converts electromagnetic input energy into output kinetic energy at some efficiency yet to be discovered, minus friction and other parasitic factors. How does that make a free energy device? Are you suggesting that it converts at greater than 100%? How so?
But while I'm certain the effect is an artifact, if it WERE to be true, the implications would be absurd. Unlimited energy (and yes, I know people try to tack on energy conservation whenever someone points it out,....
I think what Robotbeat is referring to has to do with differences in kinetic energy. To double the velocity of an object takes four times the energy. However, many EM drive theories state that to double the velocity of an object only takes double the energy. So, you use the EM drive to increase the velocity, then use a normal system to convert the KE into heat for your heat engine, and you get extra energy from nowhere, free energy.
Quote from: sghill on 05/05/2015 07:45 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 05/05/2015 07:35 pmBut while I'm certain the effect is an artifact, if it WERE to be true, the implications would be absurd. Unlimited energy (and yes, I know people try to tack on energy conservation whenever someone points it out,....@Robotbeat. Serious question for you. You've mentioned several times that a working EMDrive would be an unlimited energy device. I don't follow your logic though. The EM drive converts electromagnetic input energy into output kinetic energy at some efficiency yet to be discovered, minus friction and other parasitic factors. How does that make a free energy device? Are you suggesting that it converts at greater than 100%? How so?I think what Robotbeat is referring to has to do with differences in kinetic energy. To double the velocity of an object takes four times the energy. However, many EM drive theories state that to double the velocity of an object only takes double the energy. So, you use the EM drive to increase the velocity, then use a normal system to convert the KE into heat for your heat engine, and you get extra energy from nowhere, free energy.If your theory gets you free energy it is wrong.Maybe something interesting and useful is going on in these devices, but it isn't going to throw away the past hundred years of physics.
Please forgive the dumb question, but I recall a comment along a similar line of thought before, so I figured I'd ask it here. Is it theoretically possible for an imaginary solar-electric vehicle, with imaginary, 100% efficient solar cells and a 100% efficient electrical system, with sufficiently high specific impulse and reaction mass to impart more kinetic energy into the rocket than the equivalent solar flux it used to accelerate?
If the spacecraft is accelerating (under thrust) it appears the photons approaching the "forward" end of the resonator where they would add momentum in the direction of travel will be redshifted by the acceleration of the resonator to a somewhat lower energy, http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/waveguide-mathematics#velocityGood article on the dynamic Casimir effect. http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714Unfortunately the thrust from this mechanism is less than using the same energy to produce a stream of photons as an exhaust stream.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 05/05/2015 12:10 amI'm starting to believe COM, linear and angular, is no longer the brick wall I once thought, especially in the quantum realm:http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2811...from Cornell, and other sources regarding "Transmutation of Momentum"Way over my humble head: "Transmutation methods are developed for equations of the form x2 φ“ + x2(k2” - q̃(x)) φ = (v2 - (1/4)) φ, with v as spectral variable, which correspond to problems in quantum scattering theory at fixed energy k2 (here v ˜ l + (1/2) with l complex angular momentum). Spectral formulas for transmutation kernels are constructed and the machinery of transmutation theory developed by the author for spectral variable k is shown to have a version here. General Kontrorovič-Lebedev theorems are also proved."Transmutation via the momentum planeR. Carroll andD. S. Jones CommunicaterArticle first published online: 6 JUN 2011DOI: 10.1002/mma.1670060129Copyright © 1984 John Wiley & Sons, LtdQuantum mechanics can violate conservation of momentum locally but not globally. To see how this works consider the experiments that demonstrated the violation of Bell's inequality. The local measurement of a particle on one end is ruled by probability and can be anything. But when you connect that measurement to the measurement of its entangled twin they must match. That matching is driven exactly by the need to conserve angular momentum. It will do so even if it has to apparently cheat by violating Bell's inequality.In the matrix mechanics formulation of quantum mechanics that conservation of momentum is built in at the ground level. In fact all the classical conservation laws are built in. In fact all of Newtonian and classical physics is built in on the classical limit. In the wave mechanics formulation it was less clear that conservation of momentum was preserved. It turned out that the two formulations were equivalent. So if you want quantum mechanics to violate momentum conservation you are out of luck. It is like squaring the circle or trisecting the angle. The math just will not allow it.
I'm starting to believe COM, linear and angular, is no longer the brick wall I once thought, especially in the quantum realm:http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2811...from Cornell, and other sources regarding "Transmutation of Momentum"Way over my humble head: "Transmutation methods are developed for equations of the form x2 φ“ + x2(k2” - q̃(x)) φ = (v2 - (1/4)) φ, with v as spectral variable, which correspond to problems in quantum scattering theory at fixed energy k2 (here v ˜ l + (1/2) with l complex angular momentum). Spectral formulas for transmutation kernels are constructed and the machinery of transmutation theory developed by the author for spectral variable k is shown to have a version here. General Kontrorovič-Lebedev theorems are also proved."Transmutation via the momentum planeR. Carroll andD. S. Jones CommunicaterArticle first published online: 6 JUN 2011DOI: 10.1002/mma.1670060129Copyright © 1984 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Quote from: RonM on 05/05/2015 08:32 pmQuote from: sghill on 05/05/2015 07:45 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 05/05/2015 07:35 pmBut while I'm certain the effect is an artifact, if it WERE to be true, the implications would be absurd. Unlimited energy (and yes, I know people try to tack on energy conservation whenever someone points it out,....@Robotbeat. Serious question for you. You've mentioned several times that a working EMDrive would be an unlimited energy device. I don't follow your logic though. The EM drive converts electromagnetic input energy into output kinetic energy at some efficiency yet to be discovered, minus friction and other parasitic factors. How does that make a free energy device? Are you suggesting that it converts at greater than 100%? How so?I think what Robotbeat is referring to has to do with differences in kinetic energy. To double the velocity of an object takes four times the energy. However, many EM drive theories state that to double the velocity of an object only takes double the energy. So, you use the EM drive to increase the velocity, then use a normal system to convert the KE into heat for your heat engine, and you get extra energy from nowhere, free energy.If your theory gets you free energy it is wrong.Maybe something interesting and useful is going on in these devices, but it isn't going to throw away the past hundred years of physics.Here is a concrete contraption to get unlimited energy, and unlimited deltaV, given the hypothesis of constant "propellantless thrust" at constant power : biggerEm drives mounted on a rotor turning at 2000m/s tangential velocity (not easy but this is the kind of tangential velocity attained in some energy storage flywheels...). Em drives consuming 1kW microwave, radiating some (all ?) of this power as heat and thrusting at 1N : 1N/kW is in the ballpark of what has been experimentally claimed already. This gives 2000m/s * 1N = 2kW mechanical power to the shaft of the rotor. 2kW mechanical power at the shaft are converted to 1800W DC current by a generator (and 200W radiated as heat). Of this 1800W DC electrical power, 250W are diverted for any use we like. To keep it in line with the topic I put it to good use to power another Em drive but really we are free to use those 250W for whatever (creating mass for instance). The power splitter is not 100% efficient, it radiates 50W of power. 1800-250-50 = 1500W to feed the RF amplifier. The RF amplifier wastes (radiates) 500W as heat and pumps 1000W of clean microwave back into the Em drives on the rotor.The process needs an initial investment in energy (to make rotor move at 2000m/s tangential velocity) but then this is a free energy generator for all practical purpose. If small variations in efficiency make the rotor lose a bit of velocity, just divert a little more power to the RF amplifier : this is just a regulation problem, there is ample margins to adjust and stabilize around the optimal operating point.If this consequence is a feature of the Em drive, great. If this is a problem then the problem rests in the initial hypothesis of "propellantless thrust magnitude at constant power". But we often see by proponents the contradictory position that "of course EM drive respects COE, and somehow at constant power input at some (ill defined) point thrust has to surrender" and that "with that technology we could reach Proxima in less than a century", that later hope being made possible only by breaking COE, that is considering "constant thrust at constant power".So either "constant thrust at constant power" is true and this is (apparently) breaking COE. Then let's state it : "This journey to the stars is made courtesy of free energy", and be consistent : stop advocating nuclear power generators as Em drive tech could then be self powering.Or either "constant thrust at constant power" is not true, COE might be preserved, then we would like to see a not so ill defined formula of thrust=function(power, other objective parameters ?), and short of that at least not be sold deep space mission profile that do presuppose constant thrust at constant power, undercover.BTW "acquired kinetic energy" could by no way be an objective parameter in the mysterious thrust function that would leave COE unscathed, as has been clearly stated above by PPNL about frames, either we have a physical favored rest frame of "something" we are pulling onto, or we don't and "acquired kinetic energy" is going mystical as it depends on arbitrary choice of frame and we know frames are a fiction (even if some are more convenient and look more "natural").Short journeys to the stars depend on (apparent) COE breaking. No (apparent) COE breaking (ie free or dirt cheap energy), no short journey to the stars. Even if we had an asphalt road to drive on between Sun and Proxima this would be of little help unless there were also cheap gas stations along the way : this is not a problem of shortage of momentum but of shortage of energy.
...Though, I suppose this discussion isn't about the article, and should go over to the main EMDrive thread...
Do they apply for example, to:1) An idealized military search light used as a photon rocket (assuming, for argument's sake, in a Gedankenmodell that components have an infinite life without degradation, and you operate it an indefinite amount of time with energy supply)
Quote from: Rodal on 05/06/2015 12:31 pmDo they apply for example, to:1) An idealized military search light used as a photon rocket (assuming, for argument's sake, in a Gedankenmodell that components have an infinite life without degradation, and you operate it an indefinite amount of time with energy supply)A photon rocket does not have this problem because even at its theoretical maximum thrust per power ratio (which is about 3.336 * 10^-9 N/W), the speed it would have to reach in order to start the violation is the speed of light in vacuum. So, even though it has a constant thrust per power input it will simply never reach the required speed no matter what you do. But any increase in the thrust/power ratio will decrease the speed to something that can be reached and at 1N/kW that speed is only 1 km/s.