This is is an amazingly easy to understand presentation, especially when combined with the QandA. I have to wonder why Emdrive gets so much attention when this is a device with a working theory which should be able to be replicated.
First time posting in this thread, so I apologize if I'm asking something obvious... regarding the general principle that inertia is caused by some sort of interaction with the rest of the matter in the universe, while it's relatively easy to think of a world with no (or very little) matter, I'm having a hard time imagining a world without inertia. Specifically, non-existent inertia would mean infinite acceleration during interaction of any kind (electromagnetic, etc), which makes no sense to me. What would happen to interacting objects (e.g. two masses on a spring, etc) if we "get rid" of all the other matter in the universe? It looks like inertia is a necessary condition for any kind of local interaction to make sense, so I'm not sure I fully understand the reasoning behind the Mach interpretation. If it is true, then not only inertia, but essentially all forces must be attributed to some sort of coupling with the rest of the universe, because otherwise there would be no interaction of any kind, and therefore, no matter would form. This sounds like a circular argument to me, and that's why I'm having a hard time accepting the Mach principle. Any comments/clarifications would be appreciated!
Quote from: bad_astra on 09/28/2017 02:08 pmThis is is an amazingly easy to understand presentation, especially when combined with the QandA. I have to wonder why Emdrive gets so much attention when this is a device with a working theory which should be able to be replicated.As my username indicates, the Mach Effect Thruster is what brought me to this site in the first place (until I discovered the SpaceX section), and I have asked the exact question you ask above periodically over the last couple of years. I still don't quite understand the answer. It seems the EMdrive is what the public likes, while the now renamed MEGA thruster (Mach Effect thruster) seems to be based on actual theory and proper science to a far greater extent.Anyway, hopefully we will see the breakthrough we have been waiting for sooner rather than later.
Well, any of them being true and moderately scalable changes the world.As Dr. Fearn's concept for a non-flyby interstellar probe with useful payload arriving in 20 or so years to Proxima B very eloquently shows.Such a thing is simply impossible with any known technology.The fact this is an actual phenomenon with evidence and now a NIAC project being actively researched is very exciting to say the least.
Looking at the section of the Q and A shown below, I wondered why they assert using the Mach effect as an energy generation scheme would be "very inefficient" if you assume the same advanced development devices assumed for the intersteller probe ~3 N/kW. Regardless, my reaction aligns with Jim Carrey's below;
Saying that "the kinetic energy comes from the gravitational field" without further explanations on how this process works is not better than saying that it comes "from the vacuum". Saying that using the device is an "inefficient" way to generate energy reminds me of a post from Rodal in this same thread.. don't know what are they thinking, but an inexhaustible source of energy beats any solar or nuclear option in my mind.I'm frankly surprised that no one at the NIAC meeting asked about this.
This is not complicated. Space-based solar is for all practicable purposes likewise inexhaustible, as well. Space Based Solar power in the orbit of Neptune, on the other hand would be so inefficient, even if it were possible, that there would be many better ways to generate power.You might also design some Rube Goldberg solar-wind windmill as well, but it would not be very efficient. There would be better ways, far better ways to get what you needed done.The MEGA Drive seems suited best to one thing, propellantless drive.
Interesting data, which suggests that the MEGA drive efficiency, ie Specific Force in uN/kW doubles as input power doubles.This is NOT a characteristic of either the Shawyer EmDrive or a White QV Thruster, which both exhibit a 1:1 relationship between input power, generated force and Specific Force.MEGA drive load impedance was selected as 200 ohm from Dr. Fearn's comment the input power was 200W. It is also assumed that the load impedance stays constant as voltage and power are varied.
QuoteThis is not complicated. Space-based solar is for all practicable purposes likewise inexhaustible, as well. Space Based Solar power in the orbit of Neptune, on the other hand would be so inefficient, even if it were possible, that there would be many better ways to generate power.You might also design some Rube Goldberg solar-wind windmill as well, but it would not be very efficient. There would be better ways, far better ways to get what you needed done.The MEGA Drive seems suited best to one thing, propellantless drive. I honestly don't see any reason to say this, given the current data available. It might be so, sure. But at this point it seems more like an apriori statement that is conveniently putted forward to avoid the whole discussion on where and how exactly this energy pops out.If the MEGA drive really works, then in principle, with the efficiencies they are aiming for (~1N/MW), building a generator is as hard as putting two drives on a wheel and let them spin around the axis.Depending on the mass of the device, after a more or less long "booting" time the kinetic energy of the wheel equals the output from the generator you are using to power the device, be it solar or nuclear, etc.Running for double that time (four double of the energy) grants you 4 times the energy in output, triple it and you get 9 times and so on..After closing the loop all you have to do for achieving high energy densities with such system is to wait.So you could in theory end up with an energy source comparable in density with nuclear power with none of its disadvantage and infinite. How can this be considered "inefficient"?
2) Why does power have to be dissipated?
Quote from: Bob012345 on 09/29/2017 05:59 pm2) Why does power have to be dissipated?Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated. V=I*R, W=I*I*R . I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.
Quote from: tdperk on 09/30/2017 12:38 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 09/29/2017 05:59 pm2) Why does power have to be dissipated?Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated. V=I*R, W=I*I*R . I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.One can imagine energy pumped in and out of a system to create a mass fluctuation but the question is why there necessarily needs to be a dissipation mechanism, that's completely different from the fact that resistive devices dissipate power.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 09/30/2017 05:27 pmQuote from: tdperk on 09/30/2017 12:38 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 09/29/2017 05:59 pm2) Why does power have to be dissipated?Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated. V=I*R, W=I*I*R . I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.One can imagine energy pumped in and out of a system to create a mass fluctuation but the question is why there necessarily needs to be a dissipation mechanism, that's completely different from the fact that resistive devices dissipate power.Hopefully, this will explain it. The power dissipation is an "effective gravitational potential". See attached. I put this together for you from notes I posted in the EMDrive thread.
Quote from: WarpTech on 09/30/2017 09:36 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 09/30/2017 05:27 pmQuote from: tdperk on 09/30/2017 12:38 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 09/29/2017 05:59 pm2) Why does power have to be dissipated?Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated. V=I*R, W=I*I*R . I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.One can imagine energy pumped in and out of a system to create a mass fluctuation but the question is why there necessarily needs to be a dissipation mechanism, that's completely different from the fact that resistive devices dissipate power.Hopefully, this will explain it. The power dissipation is an "effective gravitational potential". See attached. I put this together for you from notes I posted in the EMDrive thread.Thanks. I understand that since the mass change is very tiny, most of the effect to accelerate the CM is due to classical physics at the appropriate frequencies.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 10/05/2017 05:40 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 09/30/2017 09:36 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 09/30/2017 05:27 pmQuote from: tdperk on 09/30/2017 12:38 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 09/29/2017 05:59 pm2) Why does power have to be dissipated?Because electrical power is being moved through resistances, it will be dissipated. V=I*R, W=I*I*R . I know of know high k superconducting capacitors.One can imagine energy pumped in and out of a system to create a mass fluctuation but the question is why there necessarily needs to be a dissipation mechanism, that's completely different from the fact that resistive devices dissipate power.Hopefully, this will explain it. The power dissipation is an "effective gravitational potential". See attached. I put this together for you from notes I posted in the EMDrive thread.Thanks. I understand that since the mass change is very tiny, most of the effect to accelerate the CM is due to classical physics at the appropriate frequencies.I would speculate this gravitational potential induced may be an induced flow in space time. Similar to the speculation time slows down in Earth's gravitational potential because of increased relative velocity w.r.t. the vacuums velocity. This being possibly similar to an induced flow in superfluid helium where you create a superfluid fountain? Or basically momentum conserved by this acceleration of the vacuum which then acts on the rest of the universe. Just my speculation.