With the noise in the measurements of Lightsail 2 leading people to question whether they achieved solar propulsion (despite the mechanism behind solar sails not being in question), it would take extreme efforts to raise any thrust value above the noise floor of LEO operations (photon pressure, drag, self-emission, outgassing, geomagnetic field interaction, etc etc). This will not be a 'slam dunk' experiment as some seem to expect.
At 52mN/W, I'm not sure why they don't just test this on Earth as a power generator.One of these on a 1 meter spoke can generate .052N-m of torque with one watt input. Put that spoke on a hub and attach the hub to standard electrical generator.P = torque*rotational velocityRun that at 100 radians/sec (about 955 rpm) and you've got 5.2 watts of power that you can convert into electricity.Not including inefficiencies, that's power amplification of 5.2x with a trivial lab setup.One would want to use 2 or more to make the system rotationally balanced of course, but the torques add linearly so the amplification is still 5.2x.Where all that power is coming from, I'll let the physicists decide.But more power out than in should convince anyone. The lab setup would be on the order of $5,000, instead of $500,000 for a launch.Probably could do it for $500 in my garage, if IVO can supply me two QI force thingies
I agree with this sentiment. You could easily get a whole POUND of thrust with just 10 of these small devices, each running at 10 Watts. If they truly have a device capable of this level of thrust, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to splurge on an entire satellite system + launch simply to "run tests" to prove that it works. My assumption is that this is part of a publicity and marketing campaign: tell everyone you are going to do "an orbital test" and then collect on some fresh new crowdfunding. As an aside, the IVO website also appears to be hastily put together and its articles have several spelling and grammar issues throughout. This whole thing is probably someone's or some groups' attempt at generating "passive income", in a manner of speaking.
Quote from: crow_kraehe on 03/23/2023 03:51 amI agree with this sentiment. You could easily get a whole POUND of thrust with just 10 of these small devices, each running at 10 Watts. If they truly have a device capable of this level of thrust, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to splurge on an entire satellite system + launch simply to "run tests" to prove that it works. My assumption is that this is part of a publicity and marketing campaign: tell everyone you are going to do "an orbital test" and then collect on some fresh new crowdfunding. As an aside, the IVO website also appears to be hastily put together and its articles have several spelling and grammar issues throughout. This whole thing is probably someone's or some groups' attempt at generating "passive income", in a manner of speaking.I think you are off by a factor of ten -- ten 0.052 Newton thrusters would produce 0.117 pounds of thrust.
My assumption is that this is part of a publicity and marketing campaign: tell everyone you are going to do "an orbital test" and then collect on some fresh new crowdfunding.As an aside, the IVO website also appears to be hastily put together and its articles have several spelling and grammar issues throughout. This whole thing is probably someone's or some groups' attempt at generating "passive income", in a manner of speaking.
perpetual motion machine
Why do some people on this forum believe that an internal drive is some kind of perpetual motion device?
It's the free energy you could extract from the system forever. It's one way of illustrating the impossibility of reactionless drives.
So linear motion is OK then, since there would be no free energy to extract?
Quote from: chazemz on 04/07/2023 08:30 amSo linear motion is OK then, since there would be no free energy to extract?Linear motion just as problematic in terms of "energy from nowhere." It's just a little harder to turn into an infinite energy machine because things that move linearly have a habit of getting away from you. You could rig something up with a long rail, with linear coils at either end to decelerate the vehicle and extract energy. Then use a portion of that energy in the magic device to accelerate back to the other end and repeat. You still get free energy so long as you accelerate to a speed high enough such that mv² is greater than the energy required to go that fast.These objections have nothing to do with the mechanics of a perpetual energy machine by the way. If you're getting hung up on the specifics of linear or rotating motion, then you're missing the fundamentals. These things are supposed to create constant force, without any exchange of momentum. You can rearrange the equations however you want from there on, and you will end up with infinite energy at some point. That's enough to tell you that it doesn't exist.
That's enough to tell you that it doesn't exist
I would have thought that regardless of whether the propulsion was by reactive mass or a reactionless method, the moving object would be subject to the same interactions. The object must move through something and the faster it moves, the more something it has to push out of the way. If you wish the object to continue to accelerate, the amount of energy used must increase rapidly. Every energy source is finite and so will eventually be used up. The object will then begin to slow and come to rest. Where is the "energy from nowhere". Your maglev train idea with regenerative breaking would incur a lot of losses.