Quote from: JasonAW3 on 05/01/2015 01:23 pmOk, Let me see if I can break this down to its simplest elements that laymen can understand. One, in order for it to the drive to work, energy has to be expended to create a propulsive force. (ie. Thrust) Two, "for every action, there has to be an equal and opposite reaction". Basic Newtonian Physics, not a hundred percent accurate, but close enough. Three, electricity is being used to create radio Frequencies within "The Device". Four, somehow, these "Radio Waves" are imparting their energy to "The Device" in such a way as to produce kinetic force. (ie. Thrust) Five, the "Radio Waves" seem to be being expended in a direction opposite of the direction of thrust, if I understand the diagrams I have seen so far. Six, since energy is matter in a more coherent form than lasers or plasma, mass is being expended in a direction opposite the direction of motion. Seven, again, unless I am misunderstanding these diagrams, heat is being generated as part of this conversion of energy to thrust. Eight, in order to continue to generate thrust, more energy must be expended in order to generate RF, which is converted by "The Device" into heat and thrust. Nine, so, in order to generate thrust; mass, in the form of energy, is being expended and expelled in a direction of motion opposite of the direction of thrust, energy is being used to impart this motion. heat is being generated as a byproduct of this process, and an amount of energy, similar to or larger than the normal amount of energy needed to break free of inertia and produce thrust, is being used, and if no additional energy is applied to the device, it stops generating thrust. I think that pretty much sums up what we know so far. So, Ten, it appears as though this device is a more efficient form of thrust convertion device than are chemical, plasma or nuclear rockets, which require mass be expended in the form of propellent, in order to produce thrust. It appears that mass, in the form of electrons, in this case, are being expended in order to impart thrust, but doing so in a much more energy efficent manner. Finally, if "The Device" is indeed producing thrust in this manner, and we don't quite have a grasp on HOW it's doing what it does, (I'm pretty sure there is some very simple explaination that everybody is overlooking, as these things usually wind up being) I'm not really quite sure WHAT particular law of physics that it is violating. non-of the lawsof motion or thermodynamicsa appear to be violated on the face of it. So, if it is indeed producing thrust as all the tests so far seem to indicate, now all we need to do is figure out HOW it's doing it!Heat is created by eddy currents in the walls of the cavity. They draw energy from the cavity energy, reducing stored cavity energy and cavity Q which is energy input per cycle to energy loss per cycle. This loss energy reduces cavity stored energy and thrust. The heat loss is not involved in thrust generation. It actually reduces thrust.No mass is being expelled.Please read: http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
Ok, Let me see if I can break this down to its simplest elements that laymen can understand. One, in order for it to the drive to work, energy has to be expended to create a propulsive force. (ie. Thrust) Two, "for every action, there has to be an equal and opposite reaction". Basic Newtonian Physics, not a hundred percent accurate, but close enough. Three, electricity is being used to create radio Frequencies within "The Device". Four, somehow, these "Radio Waves" are imparting their energy to "The Device" in such a way as to produce kinetic force. (ie. Thrust) Five, the "Radio Waves" seem to be being expended in a direction opposite of the direction of thrust, if I understand the diagrams I have seen so far. Six, since energy is matter in a more coherent form than lasers or plasma, mass is being expended in a direction opposite the direction of motion. Seven, again, unless I am misunderstanding these diagrams, heat is being generated as part of this conversion of energy to thrust. Eight, in order to continue to generate thrust, more energy must be expended in order to generate RF, which is converted by "The Device" into heat and thrust. Nine, so, in order to generate thrust; mass, in the form of energy, is being expended and expelled in a direction of motion opposite of the direction of thrust, energy is being used to impart this motion. heat is being generated as a byproduct of this process, and an amount of energy, similar to or larger than the normal amount of energy needed to break free of inertia and produce thrust, is being used, and if no additional energy is applied to the device, it stops generating thrust. I think that pretty much sums up what we know so far. So, Ten, it appears as though this device is a more efficient form of thrust convertion device than are chemical, plasma or nuclear rockets, which require mass be expended in the form of propellent, in order to produce thrust. It appears that mass, in the form of electrons, in this case, are being expended in order to impart thrust, but doing so in a much more energy efficent manner. Finally, if "The Device" is indeed producing thrust in this manner, and we don't quite have a grasp on HOW it's doing what it does, (I'm pretty sure there is some very simple explaination that everybody is overlooking, as these things usually wind up being) I'm not really quite sure WHAT particular law of physics that it is violating. non-of the lawsof motion or thermodynamicsa appear to be violated on the face of it. So, if it is indeed producing thrust as all the tests so far seem to indicate, now all we need to do is figure out HOW it's doing it!
That is what I was asking when I asked if it accelerated constantly. I mean constantly with constant power input. If power input is constant then total energy input increases linearly with time producing constant acceleration so velocity increases linearly with time. But kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity and so increases with the square of time.Power input (electrical energy) is constant while energy output (kinetic energy) is growing much faster and at an ever increasing rate. That violates COE. That is because kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity.If you had an electric car, 100% efficient and no friction losses, and gave it constant power input it would not accelerate constantly. It would start off with good acceleration but that would quickly fall to near zero as its velocity increased. You would need ever higher power inputs in order to just maintain constant acceleration. If your EMdrive works any different then it violates COE.
Simple question; Do electrons have mass? If not, you are correct, if so, mass is being expended. Perhaps minute quantities, but it IS being expended.From Jefferson Labs in Virginia: Electron = 9.1093897*10-31 kg.
Quote from: Nilof on 05/01/2015 11:42 amSo how exactly does that apply to the case where it is traveling at a constant velocity and fighting friction? By the principle of relativity, there is no difference between the case of static thrust and the case of static velocity. So you can still use this to create more work than you put into it.If the ship is travelling at constant velocity, there is no acceleration occurring, no thrust being produced by the EMDrive, so the EMDrive is switched OFF.When the EMDrive generates thrust, unless restrained from moving, it will cause the mass of what ever it is attached to move / accelerate, dropping resonate cavity Q, causing the EMDrive microwave load impedance to drop, causing the microwave generator to transfer more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the loss of cavity energy converted to kinetic, causing the microwave generator to draw more power from the primary electrical energy source.COE is conserved.All EMDrive does is to convert electrical energy into, if the EMDrive moves, kinetic energy. No OU. No free energy.Ok a new / strange energy conversion technique but so was the 1st coil generating a magnetic field, so was the 1st motor, converting electrical energy into a magnetic field, into torque.For the coil, the motor and the EMDrive, COE was conserved.Interesting history of the development of electrical energy being converted into torque:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_electric_motorSoon to be added: History of the development of electrical energy being converted into kinetic energy:
So how exactly does that apply to the case where it is traveling at a constant velocity and fighting friction? By the principle of relativity, there is no difference between the case of static thrust and the case of static velocity. So you can still use this to create more work than you put into it.
Quote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 09:51 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/01/2015 09:24 amQuote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 07:23 amA FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it? Force is not Work. Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.comSee his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdfI never said force is work. Force times distance is work but I have no idea why that is relevant here.I do not assume that the thing accelerates constantly. I asked you if it accelerates constantly. You see if it accelerates constantly you have one problem and if it does not you have a different problem.Ok you are going with it does not accelerate constantly although getting that out of you was like pulling teeth. Do you understand how this violates relativity and just about all of modern physics? It would almost be simpler to violate COE. For example it creates the problem that the power needed by the drive would change massively depending on the time of year. Do you understand why?Ok, Let me see if I can break this down to its simplest elements that laymen can understand. One, in order for it to the drive to work, energy has to be expended to create a propulsive force. (ie. Thrust) Two, "for every action, there has to be an equal and opposite reaction". Basic Newtonian Physics, not a hundred percent accurate, but close enough. Three, electricity is being used to create Radio Frequencies within "The Device". Four, somehow, these "Radio Waves" are imparting their energy to "The Device" in such a way as to produce kinetic force in one particular direction. (ie. Thrust) Five, the "Radio Waves" seem to be being expended in a direction opposite of the direction of thrust, if I understand the diagrams I have seen so far. Six, since energy is matter in a more coherent form than lasers or plasma, mass is being expended in a direction opposite the direction of motion. Seven, again, unless I am misunderstanding these diagrams, heat is being generated as part of this conversion of energy to thrust. Eight, in order to continue to generate thrust, more energy must be expended in order to generate RF, which is converted by "The Device" into heat and thrust. Nine, so, in order to generate thrust; mass, in the form of energy, is being expended and expelled in a direction of motion opposite of the direction of thrust, energy is being used to impart this motion. Heat is being generated as a byproduct of this process, and an amount of energy, similar to or larger than the normal amount of energy needed to break free of inertia and produce thrust, is being used, and if no additional energy is applied to the device, it stops generating thrust. I think that pretty much sums up what we know so far. So, Ten, it appears as though this device is a more efficient form of thrust convertion device than are chemical, plasma or nuclear rockets, which require mass be expended in the form of propellent, in order to produce thrust. It appears that mass, in the form of electrons, in this case, are being expended in order to impart thrust, but doing so in a much more energy efficent manner. Finally, if "The Device" is indeed producing thrust in this manner, and we don't quite have a grasp on HOW it's doing what it does, (I'm pretty sure there is some very simple explaination that everybody is overlooking, as these things usually wind up being) I'm not really quite sure WHAT particular law of physics that it is violating. none of the laws of motion or thermodynamics appear to be violated on the face of it. So, if it is indeed producing thrust, as all the tests so far seem to indicate, now all we need to do is figure out HOW it's doing it!Oh! I also forgot to mention that the amount of theurst varies according to both the input of energy and the frequency of the RF generated. (From what I think I understand, the higher the frequency, the more thrust is directly cvreated by "The Device") Again, no violation of thermodynamics or Newtonian physics.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/01/2015 09:24 amQuote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 07:23 amA FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it? Force is not Work. Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.comSee his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdfI never said force is work. Force times distance is work but I have no idea why that is relevant here.I do not assume that the thing accelerates constantly. I asked you if it accelerates constantly. You see if it accelerates constantly you have one problem and if it does not you have a different problem.Ok you are going with it does not accelerate constantly although getting that out of you was like pulling teeth. Do you understand how this violates relativity and just about all of modern physics? It would almost be simpler to violate COE. For example it creates the problem that the power needed by the drive would change massively depending on the time of year. Do you understand why?
Quote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 07:23 amA FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it? Force is not Work. Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.comSee his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/01/2015 01:36 pmQuote from: JasonAW3 on 05/01/2015 01:23 pmOk, Let me see if I can break this down to its simplest elements that laymen can understand. One, in order for it to the drive to work, energy has to be expended to create a propulsive force. (ie. Thrust) Two, "for every action, there has to be an equal and opposite reaction". Basic Newtonian Physics, not a hundred percent accurate, but close enough. Three, electricity is being used to create radio Frequencies within "The Device". Four, somehow, these "Radio Waves" are imparting their energy to "The Device" in such a way as to produce kinetic force. (ie. Thrust) Five, the "Radio Waves" seem to be being expended in a direction opposite of the direction of thrust, if I understand the diagrams I have seen so far. Six, since energy is matter in a more coherent form than lasers or plasma, mass is being expended in a direction opposite the direction of motion. Seven, again, unless I am misunderstanding these diagrams, heat is being generated as part of this conversion of energy to thrust. Eight, in order to continue to generate thrust, more energy must be expended in order to generate RF, which is converted by "The Device" into heat and thrust. Nine, so, in order to generate thrust; mass, in the form of energy, is being expended and expelled in a direction of motion opposite of the direction of thrust, energy is being used to impart this motion. heat is being generated as a byproduct of this process, and an amount of energy, similar to or larger than the normal amount of energy needed to break free of inertia and produce thrust, is being used, and if no additional energy is applied to the device, it stops generating thrust. I think that pretty much sums up what we know so far. So, Ten, it appears as though this device is a more efficient form of thrust convertion device than are chemical, plasma or nuclear rockets, which require mass be expended in the form of propellent, in order to produce thrust. It appears that mass, in the form of electrons, in this case, are being expended in order to impart thrust, but doing so in a much more energy efficent manner. Finally, if "The Device" is indeed producing thrust in this manner, and we don't quite have a grasp on HOW it's doing what it does, (I'm pretty sure there is some very simple explaination that everybody is overlooking, as these things usually wind up being) I'm not really quite sure WHAT particular law of physics that it is violating. non-of the lawsof motion or thermodynamicsa appear to be violated on the face of it. So, if it is indeed producing thrust as all the tests so far seem to indicate, now all we need to do is figure out HOW it's doing it!Heat is created by eddy currents in the walls of the cavity. They draw energy from the cavity energy, reducing stored cavity energy and cavity Q which is energy input per cycle to energy loss per cycle. This loss energy reduces cavity stored energy and thrust. The heat loss is not involved in thrust generation. It actually reduces thrust.No mass is being expelled.Please read: http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdfSimple question; Do electrons have mass? If not, you are correct, if so, mass is being expended. Perhaps minute quantities, but it IS being expended.From Jefferson Labs in Virginia: Electron = 9.1093897*10-31 kg.
Yes electrons have very tiny mass and to get thrust you would need huge amounts of them traveling at near light speed. The energy demand would be huge and the radiation would cook you.
Quote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 01:36 pmThat is what I was asking when I asked if it accelerated constantly. I mean constantly with constant power input. If power input is constant then total energy input increases linearly with time producing constant acceleration so velocity increases linearly with time. But kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity and so increases with the square of time.Power input (electrical energy) is constant while energy output (kinetic energy) is growing much faster and at an ever increasing rate. That violates COE. That is because kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity.If you had an electric car, 100% efficient and no friction losses, and gave it constant power input it would not accelerate constantly. It would start off with good acceleration but that would quickly fall to near zero as its velocity increased. You would need ever higher power inputs in order to just maintain constant acceleration. If your EMdrive works any different then it violates COE.Deep space Ion / Hall thrusters have constant energy input, resultant constant thrust as long as fuel lasts. They accelerate the craft to faster and faster velocities.EMDrive is no different, has constant energy input, resultant constant thrust, except it doesn't expel mass at a high velocity nor require fuel other than to supply the electricity generators.
A Hall thruster is just a rocket and like any rocket it takes its reaction mass with it so it can have constant acceleration with (apparent) constant power. That would suggest that it does better than a electric car which can't accelerate constantly with constant power. But that is an illusion. The Hall thruster is using massive amounts of energy to accelerate its reaction mass and as a result it will always do much worse than the car. A rocket will always run out of fuel long before its kinetic energy exceeds the energy content of its fuel.
Quote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 02:37 pmA Hall thruster is just a rocket and like any rocket it takes its reaction mass with it so it can have constant acceleration with (apparent) constant power. That would suggest that it does better than a electric car which can't accelerate constantly with constant power. But that is an illusion. The Hall thruster is using massive amounts of energy to accelerate its reaction mass and as a result it will always do much worse than the car. A rocket will always run out of fuel long before its kinetic energy exceeds the energy content of its fuel.Ion drive / Hall thruster / Vasimr uses fuel & electrical power. As long as it has fuel and electrical power, it can continuously accelerate or decelerate. Initially increasing craft velocity & kinetic energy, until it must turn 180 deg and decelerate to obtain orbit.EMDrive does the same.
Quote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 02:37 pmA Hall thruster is just a rocket and like any rocket it takes its reaction mass with it so it can have constant acceleration with (apparent) constant power. That would suggest that it does better than a electric car which can't accelerate constantly with constant power. But that is an illusion. The Hall thruster is using massive amounts of energy to accelerate its reaction mass and as a result it will always do much worse than the car. A rocket will always run out of fuel long before its kinetic energy exceeds the energy content of its fuel.Ion drive / Hall thruster / Vasimr uses fuel & electrical power. As long as it has fuel and electrical power, it can continuously accelerate or decelerate. Initially increasing craft velocity & kinetic energy, until it must turn 180 deg and decelerate to obtain orbit.EMDrive does the same. Just no mass/ fuel is expelled, However some form of primary energy is used to generate electrical energy (as occurs in Ion / Hall thruster), which is then converted into kinetic energy and accelerates / decelerates the craft.Different dog. same leg action.Some form of primary energy is converted into kinetic energy.COE is conserved.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/01/2015 03:05 amOf course, your kinetic energy would be ridiculously high, thousands of times greater than the energy you put into the drive.For .4N/kW and 40kg/kW specific power for a 1kW craft (weighing 40kg) just to make things easy:(Kinetic Energy)/(Energy input)=(.5*40kg*(92years*.4N/kW/(40kg/kW))^2)/(1kW*92years)=5806.5Make no mistake, this is also a method to gain free energy.Another useful meme is to beware of people who have simple answers to complex questions. If Dr White's team is right this thruster is more akin to a propeller or the air breathing nuclear ramjet of project PLUTO, and the "reaction mass" are the virtual particles being preferentially accelerated by the system.An interesting (but off topic) question would be does a virtual particle cease to exist entirely IE it's whole life is the single existence it's there for, or does it pop up "elsewhere," and is that "elsewhere" this universe, or another universe?But let me ask you a simpler question.Do you believe there is something there or IYHO it's all a set of experimental artifacts that have simply not been analyzed out thoroughly enough?
Of course, your kinetic energy would be ridiculously high, thousands of times greater than the energy you put into the drive.For .4N/kW and 40kg/kW specific power for a 1kW craft (weighing 40kg) just to make things easy:(Kinetic Energy)/(Energy input)=(.5*40kg*(92years*.4N/kW/(40kg/kW))^2)/(1kW*92years)=5806.5Make no mistake, this is also a method to gain free energy.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/01/2015 02:54 pmQuote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 02:37 pmA Hall thruster is just a rocket and like any rocket it takes its reaction mass with it so it can have constant acceleration with (apparent) constant power. That would suggest that it does better than a electric car which can't accelerate constantly with constant power. But that is an illusion. The Hall thruster is using massive amounts of energy to accelerate its reaction mass and as a result it will always do much worse than the car. A rocket will always run out of fuel long before its kinetic energy exceeds the energy content of its fuel.Ion drive / Hall thruster / Vasimr uses fuel & electrical power. As long as it has fuel and electrical power, it can continuously accelerate or decelerate. Initially increasing craft velocity & kinetic energy, until it must turn 180 deg and decelerate to obtain orbit.EMDrive does the same.Gosh.IT IS NOT THE SAME!!!!!!Having reaction mass expelled *changes everything*! For one, now you need to include reaction mass' kinetic energy into energy balance.Constant acceleration reactionless drive of any type violates COE.
The kinetic energy gain of the accelerated mass is matched by that drawn from the primary energy source, minus losses.
Quote from: gospacex on 05/01/2015 03:16 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/01/2015 02:54 pmQuote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 02:37 pmA Hall thruster is just a rocket and like any rocket it takes its reaction mass with it so it can have constant acceleration with (apparent) constant power. That would suggest that it does better than a electric car which can't accelerate constantly with constant power. But that is an illusion. The Hall thruster is using massive amounts of energy to accelerate its reaction mass and as a result it will always do much worse than the car. A rocket will always run out of fuel long before its kinetic energy exceeds the energy content of its fuel.Ion drive / Hall thruster / Vasimr uses fuel & electrical power. As long as it has fuel and electrical power, it can continuously accelerate or decelerate. Initially increasing craft velocity & kinetic energy, until it must turn 180 deg and decelerate to obtain orbit.EMDrive does the same.Gosh.IT IS NOT THE SAME!!!!!!Having reaction mass expelled *changes everything*! For one, now you need to include reaction mass' kinetic energy into energy balance.Constant acceleration reactionless drive of any type violates COE.EMDrive violates the Rocket Equation as no ISP from expelled high velocity fuel mass but not overall COE. The kinetic energy gain of the accelerated mass is matched by that drawn from the primary energy source, minus losses.See Shawyer's equations for dynamic operation:http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdfApologies if my explanations fails to convey how EMDrive works different to expelled mass rocket engine. Suggest need to stop comparing to conventional rocket engine and focus on overall primary energy input to final accelerating mass kinetic energy gain.