Author Topic: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster  (Read 38558 times)

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Liked: 481
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #40 on: 03/17/2023 08:59 pm »
52 mN/W is significant, I do hope they demonstrate an ability to turn thrust on/off while changing attitude.

 No doubt there will always be questions, I look forward to the advancing state of the art based on their claims of thermal vacuum testing.
« Last Edit: 03/17/2023 09:01 pm by D_Dom »
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1798
  • Likes Given: 2925
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #41 on: 03/22/2023 05:08 am »
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 per W, they are far above any noise floors.   With a couple of watts they will be able to maneuver as well as any Starlink can.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2023 05:11 am by InterestedEngineer »

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1798
  • Likes Given: 2925
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #42 on: 03/22/2023 05:35 am »
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 velocity

Run 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
« Last Edit: 03/22/2023 05:44 am by InterestedEngineer »

Offline crow_kraehe

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Georgia Institute of Technology
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #43 on: 03/23/2023 03:51 am »
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 velocity

Run 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.
« Last Edit: 03/23/2023 03:52 am by crow_kraehe »

Offline Mongo62

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 834
  • Likes Given: 156
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #44 on: 03/23/2023 10:47 am »
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.

I think you are off by a factor of ten -- ten 0.052 Newton thrusters would produce 0.117 pounds of thrust.
« Last Edit: 03/23/2023 10:48 am by Mongo62 »

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6103
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9325
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #45 on: 03/23/2023 11:57 am »
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.

I think you are off by a factor of ten -- ten 0.052 Newton thrusters would produce 0.117 pounds of thrust.
52mN/W * 10W * 10 thrusters = 5N thrust. That skips right past the torsion-spring-balance-in-a-vacuum-with-laser-displacement-sensor regime and could be tested with a regular set of household scales.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #46 on: 03/23/2023 07:33 pm »
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.

My assessment as well.  There is a paucity of information on their website.  TBF, if they really have a working mechanism, that would be IP of the highest caliber, and many parties, including our favorite IP-klepto nation, would be building one ASAP.

Also,  Richard Mansell, CEO of IVO Ltd. does not seem to have any papers or patents on electric propulsion.

Guess we all will have to wait until June '23 for the flight test.

« Last Edit: 03/23/2023 07:35 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1798
  • Likes Given: 2925
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #47 on: 03/24/2023 06:16 am »
I must have forgotten to say the trigger words

Quote
perpetual motion machine

because that's what I described with IVO's specifications, and nobody yelled about it.

In fact, if you can get any thrust per watt beyond some small threshold, you have a perpetual motion machine, because, well, once you break one law of kinematic physics, you break them all.  The easiest way to do that with a thrust machine is to create circular motion, because the math is dirt easy and the lab experiment dirt easy.

Now, if they are truly drawing energy from quantized inertia, it's not perpetual, just until we run out of universe  ;D

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #48 on: 03/25/2023 07:47 am »
I see all of these theoretical discussions. I am skeptical, but at least for this concept, we will have an idea if it works or not very soon. I don't see anything wrong with experimentation. If it works, great! If it does not, well then we skeptics can say "we told you so". I will wait until we know the results. Personally, I would be delighted, even exhilarated if we had to rewrite all of our physics books. Not holding my breath though.

Offline chazemz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • england
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #49 on: 04/06/2023 01:33 pm »
Why do some people on this forum believe that an internal drive is some kind of perpetual motion device?

Offline Crispy

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1025
  • London
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #50 on: 04/06/2023 02:01 pm »
Why do some people on this forum believe that an internal drive is some kind of perpetual motion device?

Because if the thrust scales linearly with energy input, then acceleration is constant, which means velocity increases linearly, while kinetic energy scales with velocity squared. So above a particular velocity (which will depend on the purported efficiency of the device) the kinetic energy of the system will be higher than that required to maintain it
Just because these things are usually thought of as accelerating a spacecraft in a straight line, doesn't mean you couldn't take the same thrust and accelerate a rotating system instead. So it would be a simple matter of bolting on an alternator.

Offline chazemz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • england
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #51 on: 04/06/2023 03:06 pm »
Unfortunately alternators do not last forever. I do like your green area and what you refer to as "profit". Does profit mean that an internal drive would be more efficient or that it would start to create

Offline Crispy

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1025
  • London
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #52 on: 04/06/2023 08:06 pm »
It's the free energy you could extract from the system forever. It's one way of illustrating the impossibility of reactionless drives.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1798
  • Likes Given: 2925
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #53 on: 04/06/2023 08:20 pm »
It's the free energy you could extract from the system forever. It's one way of illustrating the impossibility of reactionless drives.

Or if you believe quantized inertia, it's an entropy-to-energy conversion device.

We still don't understand why galaxies rotate faster than they should.  That also results in "free energy" in that something is exerting a force holding it all together.

There is still a possibility of drawing energy from something we don't yet understand, because we don't fully understand how the universe works and we have data staring in our face (if our face is in a telescope) that there's something we don't understand and it looks like "free" energy.

Offline chazemz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • england
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #54 on: 04/07/2023 08:30 am »
So linear motion is OK then, since there would be no free energy to extract?

Offline Tommyboy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 308
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #55 on: 04/07/2023 11:48 am »
So linear motion is OK then, since there would be no free energy to extract?
Perhaps, but that makes it quite useless for orbit raising or stationkeeping which is inherently non-linear.

Offline Crispy

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1025
  • London
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #56 on: 04/07/2023 03:35 pm »
So 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.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1798
  • Likes Given: 2925
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #57 on: 04/07/2023 03:56 pm »
So 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.

Agree except for the last part

Quote
That's enough to tell you that it doesn't exist

No, it does not.

Across the universe, there's an insane amount of energy caught up in the minimum acceleration of 2e-10 m/s.  Said number trivially noticeable by observation and not making up arbitrary distributions of invisible matter that nobody can detect.

Tapping into this source isn't infinite energy.  It's simply an energy transfer.

If I put a solar panel on a rotating device in outer space and add an alternator, it'll spin and generate electricity as long as the sun shines, so billions of years.

It doesn't mean the mechanism doesn't exist, it's simply energy transfer.

Offline chazemz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • england
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #58 on: 04/07/2023 04:27 pm »
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.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1798
  • Likes Given: 2925
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #59 on: 04/07/2023 07:01 pm »
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.

You should probably go back and explain sailing or soaring birds in the terminology you use above.

You will find sailing and soaring birds don't work.   I just checked out my window, they are.  Therefore your terminology is not mapping to reality.

In terms of space travel, extrapolate to the physically reasonable idea of getting to 1% of c by soaring on the solar wind.   There's no way the on board power source has the watt-hours to get to 400km/sec, or 800TJ for a 10t probe.  The energy is gained from the solar particles, whose vector changes and thus they lose a corresponding amount of energy.

Envision quantized inertia as an external power source.   Somewhere the energy is being conserved, (but really it's information-energy-entropy being conserved).

I'm not saying I believe quantized inertia works esp. in the IVO manner.  But saying it violates conservation of energy doesn't prove it that it doesn't work, I can use terminology that doesn't map to reality to prove almost anything doesn't work in terms of COE.  Usually it just means one doesn't know where the energy is coming from.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1