Umberto Eco

I would be glad to hear about a sensible solution to the "energy paradox" of propellantless propulsion schemes, because if one is to believe to constant thrust/power ratio of the order of 1N/kW (and this clearly appear to be the case when proponents put forward amazing mission profiles) then one surely has a better option than messing around with nuclear fuel (be it for fission or fusion) : use auxiliary thrusters on a fast rotating shaft, extract free unlimited energy, use free unlimited energy to power main thruster => infinite ISP rocket. . .I don't know why people doing the mission profiles at 1N/kW are not advocating this obvious consequence of 1N/kW. Save maybe that "unlimited energy" would be immediately labelled crackpottery while "unlimited momentum". . .

. . .However, we know that QFT is incomplete, requiring reconciliation with General Relativity. . .

I think the main reason why intelligent people do make statements like the constant thrust/power ratio, has nothing to do with science or engineering and nobody here will like this reason, hence my reference to a book from Umberto Eco at the end of this post.The reason some people at JSC did this is because they wanted to keep their job in Houston after the closure of the Space shuttle progam several years ago.

Quote from: frobnicat on 11/06/2014 10:55 PMI would be glad to hear about a sensible solution to the "energy paradox" of propellantless propulsion schemes, because if one is to believe to constant thrust/power ratio of the order of 1N/kW (and this clearly appear to be the case when proponents put forward amazing mission profiles) then one surely has a better option than messing around with nuclear fuel (be it for fission or fusion) : use auxiliary thrusters on a fast rotating shaft, extract free unlimited energy, use free unlimited energy to power main thruster => infinite ISP rocket. . .I don't know why people doing the mission profiles at 1N/kW are not advocating this obvious consequence of 1N/kW. Save maybe that "unlimited energy" would be immediately labelled crackpottery while "unlimited momentum". . .That is exactly why. No one involved in this sort of work wants to be associated with the free energy crowd, even if what they're working on might be a way to harvest a new energy source. they don't even want association with such things, in just the same way that all advanced propulsion seeks to distance itself completely from anyone bandying about the term "anti-gravity". That term was ridiculed into uselessness back in the 50's and 60's so everyone avoids it like the plague.

.....This was for one Shawyer's thrust vs power graph. I prefer to concentrate on Brady, as someone put it (you ? Aero ? Mulletron ?) it is better documented, and maybe of more reliable value. I don't completely give up on this "warm jet effect". Even if it seems unlikely it would have been gone unnoticed and gave results somehow in agreements between different labs, the alternatives are either as much hazardous (magnetic couplings) or more hard to swallow (axions anyone ?)We don't even know from the experimenters the most basic geometric characteristics of their device. Who know (save them) how much they are tinkering with things before "it works", what kind of "secret recipe" procedures are followed and in which we could maybe see some confirmation or invalidation of such or such possible explanation. One thing stands out : the effect is hard to get at, and that's not because of ultra faint magnitude (µN when nN are "routinely" investigated with short range gravitation studies). So what makes it so hard to make it reproducible and reliable ? Driving a high Q at resonant frequency ? Mmm. Well. Maybe. Only maybe.My latest derivation for the warm air jet hypothesis : F in function of microwave volumetric heating Pow and tau time constant of the rise/fallF = Cf/rho * ((2*p*Tau)/V)^0.5 * (Pow/(C*T))^1.5 That is by using numerical values for almost constants ( 20°C ambient ... )F = 1.41e-6 * 1/sqrt(V) * sqrt(Tau) * Pow^1.5 V=0.027m^3 Tau=2s Pow=4W yields F=97µN But that needs tinkering until the leak area A is small enough (but not stoppered) to give high thrust, but big enough so that Tau is below some level (otherwise you see a ramp up). How much tinkering is going on ?F = 9.7e-12 * Pow^2/ATau = 4.74e-11 * V*Pow/A^2Intuitively I'm in favor of some electromagnetic explanation, but think this is still worth investigating.

Second column. Read it well, read it again, check the maths.... this is both gross and subtle.

something really outrageous is going on in this Appendix. Second column. Read it well, read it again, check the maths.... this is both gross and subtle.

Quote from: frobnicat on 10/26/2014 06:10 PM.....Frobnicat, I haven't heard about your warm air propulsion model since your last message reproduced above.I'm not clear as to what should be the forcing function as a function of time to input for the pendulum analysis, as per your model For this F = 1.41e-6 * 1/sqrt(V) * sqrt(Tau) * Pow^1.5 appears as a constant with tau = 2 seconds.What is your forcing function for your warm air propulsion model as an explicit function of time?

.....

hmmm... don´t the photons lose energy with each bounce? Yes, you will say that they remain at light speed after each bounce... which is true... but maybe in there we see the weird duality of light as particle and wave? If you see each photon alone, they won´t lose energy, but considering the whole light wave, it will?

...more energy to go from 100 to 101 than to go from 0 to 1. Because of the square.100² to 101² -> needs to add 2010² to 1² -> needs to add 1Wow, again, seems paradoxical, as this is the same "thing", just seen from a different way...