Quote from: Rodal on 09/15/2014 07:09 pmA) There is a claim that there can be rocket propulsion produced without on-board propellant and without an outside force propelling it (i.e. solar propulsion, electrodynamic tethers, etc.)That's not extraordinary, as you mention an electric tether does this. Are you sure there is nothing similar at work in EMDrive and others? There are many perfectly classical explanations for those experiments. What is interesting is when an experimentation is reproducible and I don't see this here.
A) There is a claim that there can be rocket propulsion produced without on-board propellant and without an outside force propelling it (i.e. solar propulsion, electrodynamic tethers, etc.)
again, considering Paul March (Stardrive) is an electric engineer AND is working on the QThruster, he can probably answer that particular issue better than anyone on the planet.I think there is not much sense in speculating on an issue which is actually the specialty of Paul March. Maybe you guys can send PMs or emails to him asking about that?
...this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.
@IslandPlaya :Presumably also because higher power means stronger side effects. As already stated (was it John?) ....And also this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.
Quote from: aceshigh on 09/15/2014 08:38 pmagain, considering Paul March (Stardrive) is an electric engineer AND is working on the QThruster, he can probably answer that particular issue better than anyone on the planet.I think there is not much sense in speculating on an issue which is actually the specialty of Paul March. Maybe you guys can send PMs or emails to him asking about that?Presuming you are replying to my post...What speculation? It is a direct and simple question. It is relevant to the thread and enquring minds need to know.
There is probably a simple answer. I got one previously (Too expensive/difficult) that I dispute.
I would never pretend to speak for Paul, but I can relate to you what his positions have been in the past. Last I heard, he was still maintaining he believed that Sonny's QVF model and Jim's M-E model were opposite sides of the same coin, despite Jim, Sonny and myself keep arguing this cannot be true. As result, paul's interest was in low-k materials that can be run at high frequencies since these low k materials don't suffer the same non-linearities and other troubles most high k materials have.I doubt the trouble is lack of materials. I think Eagle has been remarkably productive, and I have little complaint there. Scaling up a thruster to Newtons of force just to scale it up is not useful at this point. What you want are high figures of merit (FOM's) in thrust to mass and thrust to power. You can alway build arrays of thruster later on if you get decent FOM's. I am still on record that I don't trust the data coming from Eagle, but I'd just note that it the rumors are true and three more NASA centers are going to jump into the fray and start testing, we'll have real answers in the next year or two. Stennis already has a balance, so they could do validation studies pretty quickly. NASA has remarkable resources. They just need to be properly tasked.I would just note though, that for a commercial grade M-E thruster, you really do want a Colossal Dielectric Constant (CDC) material that maintains its constant up into very high frequencies. Paul wasn't looking at that stuff despite I did recommend some to him.
Quote from: frobnicat on 09/15/2014 10:45 pm...this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.I hate to burst your bubble, but electromagnetic thrust can't be a real phenomenon and a "free energy" device at the same time.If EM drives are real, building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.
Quote from: RotoSequence on 09/15/2014 11:08 pmQuote from: frobnicat on 09/15/2014 10:45 pm...this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.I hate to burst your bubble, but electromagnetic thrust can't be a real phenomenon and a "free energy" device at the same time.If EM drives are real, building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.I strongly object : given the hypothesis of velocity invariant thrust/power effect (with this ratio >> 1/c therefore neglecting the mass of energy... see photon rockets) then a "free energy" device is not only possible, it is compulsory.Consider a mobile thrusting at a constant 1N with a constant 5km/s velocity on a track that recovers this mechanical power and convert it to electricity with an efficiency of 0.5 : 2.5 kWe. Now you divert 2kW of this recovered power to feed back the mobile, lets say with 0.5 efficiency (transmission...), so you have 1kW of power on the mobile to power a 1N/kW EM drive that keeps the mobile going. Rests 500W of net electrical output, free of charge.The velocity invariance of the thrust at constant power implies that above a certain speed (precisely the inverse of the thrust/power ratio) relative to whatever reference frame you feel technologically comfortable to exchange power with the mobile, above that speed so you reach breakeven. I let you figure out where the energy comes from as seen from the cosmic horizon, but if the effect is anything like it says it is, then it can give unlimited energy for all practical purpose.If you are implying that something can't be both a free energy generator and real, then you should consider that EM drives are not real (or not with a velocity invariant thrust/power), which I would tend to agree, though the energy might be conserved on a larger scale and that is not free energy after all (say, you are actively contributing at accelerating the demise of the Universe when running such device) in which case the effect could be valid (with velocity invariance) and be a good energy generator, not free but cheap.
Quote from: aceshigh on 09/15/2014 11:26 pmAnyway, let me just post the answer Gi-Thruster gave to my inquiry at Talk Polywell forums ...Quote from: GiThruster...I am still on record that I don't trust the data coming from Eagle,...What does the "record" show? Specifically, what data doesn't he trust and why doesn't he trust the data?
Anyway, let me just post the answer Gi-Thruster gave to my inquiry at Talk Polywell forums ...Quote from: GiThruster...I am still on record that I don't trust the data coming from Eagle,...
...I am still on record that I don't trust the data coming from Eagle,...
Quote from: Rodal on 09/16/2014 12:00 amQuote from: aceshigh on 09/15/2014 11:26 pmAnyway, let me just post the answer Gi-Thruster gave to my inquiry at Talk Polywell forums ...Quote from: GiThruster...I am still on record that I don't trust the data coming from Eagle,...What does the "record" show? Specifically, what data doesn't he trust and why doesn't he trust the data?Sorry Dr Rodal, ...
I hate to burst your bubble, but electromagnetic thrust can't be a real phenomenon and a "free energy" device at the same time.If EM drives are real, building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.
Quote from: frobnicat on 09/16/2014 12:05 am...Consider a mobile thrusting at a constant 1N with a constant 5km/s velocity on a track that recovers this mechanical power and convert it to electricity with an efficiency of 0.5 : 2.5 kWe. Now you divert 2kW of this recovered power to feed back the mobile, lets say with 0.5 efficiency (transmission...), so you have 1kW of power on the mobile to power a 1N/kW EM drive that keeps the mobile going. Rests 500W of net electrical output, free of charge....What?Energy is used to impart any sort of acceleration and give the object momentum, and driving a generator would take away an imparted portion of its momentum. The losses of driving the generator in a thermodynamically sound system would be greater than the energy needed to keep the system in motion. EM drives do not change this, and it makes no difference how high your initial velocity was before you started using that momentum to drive a generator; your perpetual motion machine is going to slow down.
...Consider a mobile thrusting at a constant 1N with a constant 5km/s velocity on a track that recovers this mechanical power and convert it to electricity with an efficiency of 0.5 : 2.5 kWe. Now you divert 2kW of this recovered power to feed back the mobile, lets say with 0.5 efficiency (transmission...), so you have 1kW of power on the mobile to power a 1N/kW EM drive that keeps the mobile going. Rests 500W of net electrical output, free of charge....
I don't see how you're making the leap from an EM drive providing a constant force to an EM drive imparting a constant change in velocity. I can't see how an unknown mechanism for transforming electricity into kinetic energy in one direction necessitates a surplus of energy.
If you find flaw in the mechanics of this perpetual motion, please tell exactly where, because I see none. If it is still not making sense to you then consider the EM thruster hypothesis to be wrong, and forget about the propulsion applications.