-
#740
by
Req
on 09 Aug, 2017 13:07
-
I'm sorry but this is just getting ridiculous. I suppose next he'll be announcing gen4 with an E-Cat power source and a negative energy FTL drive that kicks in once it's reached orbit?
-
#741
by
PotomacNeuron
on 09 Aug, 2017 13:44
-
My biggest problem is the proposed 1.54kN/kW...
Really ?? kilo-Newtons ? 
1540 Newtons per kiloWatt?
And all this while we have yet to see a solid milli-Newton scale result ??
Not that I do not want to believe it could work, but this sure doesn't make it sound "believable"..
It rather falls in the category of "wishful thinking" instead of "engineering optimism"...
It only needs to move with a speed of 1m/s to provide free energy.
-
#742
by
RotoSequence
on 09 Aug, 2017 13:48
-
My biggest problem is the proposed 1.54kN/kW...
Really ?? kilo-Newtons ? 1540 Newtons per kiloWatt?
And all this while we have yet to see a solid milli-Newton scale result ??
Not that I do not want to believe it could work, but this sure doesn't make it sound "believable"..
It rather falls in the category of "wishful thinking" instead of "engineering optimism"...
It only needs to move with a speed of 1m/s to provide free energy.
If Rodal's hypothesis pans out, it doesn't provide energy as much as it robs kinetic energy from orbital momentum, like a gravity-assist does but in solid state and somewhat independent of relative orbital motion.
-
#743
by
Kenjee
on 09 Aug, 2017 14:26
-
Hey Mono, your .stl in comsol goes like this.
-
#744
by
Rodal
on 09 Aug, 2017 15:28
-
-
#745
by
RotoSequence
on 09 Aug, 2017 15:32
-
-
#746
by
Chrochne
on 09 Aug, 2017 16:53
-
-
#747
by
Bob012345
on 09 Aug, 2017 17:23
-
My biggest problem is the proposed 1.54kN/kW...
Really ?? kilo-Newtons ? 1540 Newtons per kiloWatt?
And all this while we have yet to see a solid milli-Newton scale result ??
Not that I do not want to believe it could work, but this sure doesn't make it sound "believable"..
It rather falls in the category of "wishful thinking" instead of "engineering optimism"...
It only needs to move with a speed of 1m/s to provide free energy.
Notice from http://www.emdrive.com/3GEmDrive.pdf that Shawyer now claims 7,800 times that amount: 7.8 km/s and ability to go to Low Earth Orbit single-stage carrying a payload of 100 kg 
:
3G Launch Vehicle Demonstrator
Launcher provides launch to LEO, one orbit, and return to site
Payload 100kg
Altitude 250km
Velocity 7.8 km/s = 28,080 km/hr = 17,448 miles/hour
The velocity required for a 200 km LEO circular orbit: 7.8 km/s (17,450 mph), so this is what he is claiming for velocity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed
His claims are getting more and more bizarre, as 11 years have gone by since his article in New Scientist in 2006.
https://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html
See this for comparison with a chemical rocket (which has to carry propellant):
https://www.quora.com/How-many-kN-engine-do-I-need-to-send-100kg-into-lower-orbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_I
Aren't you and your team ultimately wanting to generate large thrusts for the MEGA device, isn't that what the NAIC proposal is all about when you talk about a 400Kg payload rendezvous with Proxima Centauri in 20 years? Thanks.
-
#748
by
Chris Bergin
on 09 Aug, 2017 18:01
-
I'm sorry but this is just getting ridiculous. I suppose next he'll be announcing gen4 with an E-Cat power source and a negative energy FTL drive that kicks in once it's reached orbit?
It may be (I have no idea!) But I'll say this much, that new PDF has actually gotten my attention as now it's shown on an actual vehicle that is interesting to a wider base on a site like this! Let's keep the support and critics to technical.
-
#749
by
tchernik
on 09 Aug, 2017 18:13
-
It's not a matter of acceptability of the concept, but of scale and believability.
Anyone believing these space drives may exist buys into the scientific eccentricity that comes with them.
All thruster devices more efficient than a perfectly efficient photon rocket share this same characteristic: they shouldn't exist according to known physics.
Yet some apparently do. With experiments to prove it.
But the scale of things and the road there matters. It's different to say you can see a few micro/millinewtons on a tabletop experiment you can show at work, than saying you have thrusters ready to put a replica of the Enterprise in orbit by the next month, but without showing a path of development with gradually stronger devices to validate your sayings, with visible demonstrations that challenge or destroy our skepticism.
Mr. Shawyer has fallen into telling tales of enormously strong Emdrives existing, somewhere, but he isn't allowed to show them, the same as their owners.
That is absurd. A demonstration of such a device would make a very strong point for the companies and nations supposedly researching the topic, it would also make his critics shut up in awe and it would make him a potentially very rich man in his old age. Why hide it?
Not even for national security reasons. When the Soviets had a way to launch a satellite before the USA, they didn't hide it, but touted it far a wide to show the superiority of Communism. Or the dangerous game NK is playing, showing they can sting anyone wanting to mess with them.
The most reasonable answer to the lack of proof of hyper strong Emdrives, is that such devices only exist in Mr. Shawyer sayings.
-
#750
by
kaublezw
on 09 Aug, 2017 18:17
-
For the launch vehicle...
Force = 1.54 * 8 = 12320 N
acceleration = 12320 / 701 kg = 17.57 m /2
distance traveled from rest in 1 second is .5 * 17.57 = 8.79 m
work = F * d = 12320 * 8.79 = 77862
power = 77862 / 1 second = 78 kw
12.32 kw in, 78 kw out???
Is that right??
-
#751
by
RotoSequence
on 09 Aug, 2017 18:23
-
For the launch vehicle...
Force = 1.54 * 8 = 12320 N
acceleration = 12320 / 701 kg = 17.57 m /2
distance traveled from rest in 1 second is .5 * 17.57 = 8.79 m
work = F * d = 12320 * 8.79 = 77862
power = 77862 / 1 second = 78 kw
12.32 kw in, 78 kw out???
Is that right??
Probably. By Mach Theory, the excess energy is coming from the kinetic energy of orbital momentum, preserving CoE and preventing over-unity.
-
#752
by
Chrochne
on 09 Aug, 2017 18:26
-
It's not a matter of acceptability of the concept, but of scale and believability.
Anyone believing these space drives may exist buys into the scientific eccentricity that comes with them.
All thruster devices more efficient than a perfectly efficient photon rocket share this same characteristic: they shouldn't exist according to known physics.
Yet some apparently do. With experiments to prove it.
But the scale of things and the road there matters. It's different to say you can see a few micro/millinewtons on a tabletop experiment you can show at work, than saying you have thrusters ready to put a replica of the Enterprise in orbit by the next month, but without showing a path of development with gradually stronger devices to validate your sayings, with visible demonstrations that challenge or destroy our skepticism.
Mr. Shawyer has fallen into telling tales of enormously strong Emdrives existing, somewhere, but he isn't allowed to show them, the same as their owners.
That is absurd. A demonstration of such a device would make a very strong point for the companies and nations supposedly researching the topic, it would also make his critics shut up in awe and it would make him a potentially very rich man in his old age. Why hide it?
Not even for national security reasons. When the Soviets had a way to launch a satellite before the USA, they didn't hide it, but touted it far a wide to show the superiority of Communism. Or the dangerous game NK is playing, showing they can sting anyone wanting to mess with them.
The most reasonable answer to the lack of proof of hyper strong Emdrives, is that such devices only exist in Mr. Shawyer sayings.
I think 3rd generation is only a concept on the paper so far. Or that is what I understand from the articles at the moment. Yes we are all thinking about why there were not demonstrations yet.
Edit: On the other hand for example some experimental airplanes (like B2 Stealth bomber) were introduced to the public only after their first flights. It may be possible we will not see any demonstrations of the EmDrive until that very moment.
Link for B2 Bomber -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit
-
#753
by
flux_capacitor
on 09 Aug, 2017 18:32
-
For the launch vehicle...
Force = 1.54 * 8 = 12320 N
acceleration = 12320 / 701 kg = 17.57 m /2
distance traveled from rest in 1 second is .5 * 17.57 = 8.79 m
work = F * d = 12320 * 8.79 = 77862
power = 77862 / 1 second = 78 kw
12.32 kw in, 78 kw out???
Is that right??
Probably. By Mach Theory, the excess energy is coming from the kinetic energy of orbital momentum, preserving CoE and preventing over-unity.
I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:
The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?
-
#754
by
RotoSequence
on 09 Aug, 2017 18:34
-
I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:
The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?
Barring an additional unknown mechanism, one probably can't actually say that it avoids local over-unity.
-
#755
by
Bob012345
on 09 Aug, 2017 18:38
-
For the launch vehicle...
Force = 1.54 * 8 = 12320 N
acceleration = 12320 / 701 kg = 17.57 m /2
distance traveled from rest in 1 second is .5 * 17.57 = 8.79 m
work = F * d = 12320 * 8.79 = 77862
power = 77862 / 1 second = 78 kw
12.32 kw in, 78 kw out???
Is that right??
Probably. By Mach Theory, the excess energy is coming from the kinetic energy of orbital momentum, preserving CoE and preventing over-unity.
Using the term 'orbital momentum' unnecessarily confuses things. It doesn't have anything to do with being in orbit. According to the slide I attach below,
all the vehicle momentum and energy comes from elsewhere, the energy input into the MEGA device is solely to create the Mach effect. A very poor analogy, dig a deep hole then fall into it. You have to supply the energy to dig the hole but not the kinetic energy gained when you fall into it.
-
#756
by
flux_capacitor
on 09 Aug, 2017 18:39
-
I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:
The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?
Barring an additional unknown mechanism, one probably can't actually say that it avoids local over-unity.
That's exactly my point. If the engine offers constant acceleration under constant power, it is an over-unity device. If not, local CoE may still apply. But I am half-convinced by Shawyer's explanation about Doppler shifts preventing large accelerations, which are more a technological constraint than a fundamental law.
-
#757
by
Rodal
on 09 Aug, 2017 18:42
-
For the launch vehicle...
Force = 1.54 * 8 = 12320 N
acceleration = 12320 / 701 kg = 17.57 m /2
distance traveled from rest in 1 second is .5 * 17.57 = 8.79 m
work = F * d = 12320 * 8.79 = 77862
power = 77862 / 1 second = 78 kw
12.32 kw in, 78 kw out???
Is that right??
Probably. By Mach Theory, the excess energy is coming from the kinetic energy of orbital momentum, preserving CoE and preventing over-unity.
I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:
The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?
It all comes down as to how one defines energy extraction. Under any definition however, one can use gravitation to extract momentum (as for example in a gravity assist). If per your definition you think that presently one can extract energy from gravitation (for example using a hydoelectric powerplant, due to the momentum of the falling water stored in the reservoir thanks to the thermal cycle coming from the Sun), then yes you would be extracting energy using such a scheme. The momentum and the "energy" coming from the extremely small movement of the other celestial masses (10^55 grams of mass in the Universe). However, if one defines energy extraction thermodynamically as per a
closed cycle, then the answer would be no.
I don't understand what a "gravinertial transistor" means.
Gravity and inertia are tied together in General Relativity through the Equivalence Principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle , so why write "gravinertial". Are you implying any circumstance under which inertial mass and gravitational mass are not equivalent? I know of lots of experimental tests confirming the equivalence principle and no experimental test showing a difference between inertial and gravitational mass.
Also why "transistor" ? What transistor ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor A transistor is a semiconductor device used to amplify or switch electronic signals and electrical power. It is composed of semiconductor material usually with at least three terminals for connection to an external circuit.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/transistor
-
#758
by
Bob012345
on 09 Aug, 2017 18:47
-
I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:
The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?
Barring an additional unknown mechanism, one probably can't actually say that it avoids local over-unity.
That's exactly my point. If the engine offers constant acceleration under constant power, it is an over-unity device. If not, local CoE may still apply. But I am half-convinced by Shawyer's explanation about Doppler shifts preventing large accelerations, which are more a technological constraint than a fundamental law.
As professor Woodward pointed out,
any classical system that provides constant acceleration at a constant power does the same thing. Even conventional rockets. The reason we don't see such effects is because first, most of the energy is lost as reaction mass which is far more than the quadratic gain in the rocket and we explain it by saying the rocket 'borrows' kinetic energy from the reaction mass, and second, it simply runs out of mass first before it gets to that point.
-
#759
by
Bob012345
on 09 Aug, 2017 19:01
-
For the launch vehicle...
Force = 1.54 * 8 = 12320 N
acceleration = 12320 / 701 kg = 17.57 m /2
distance traveled from rest in 1 second is .5 * 17.57 = 8.79 m
work = F * d = 12320 * 8.79 = 77862
power = 77862 / 1 second = 78 kw
12.32 kw in, 78 kw out???
Is that right??
Probably. By Mach Theory, the excess energy is coming from the kinetic energy of orbital momentum, preserving CoE and preventing over-unity.
I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:
The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?
It all comes down as to how one defines energy extraction. Under any definition however, one can use gravitation to extract momentum (as for example in a gravity assist). If per your definition you think that presently one can extract energy from gravitation (for example using a hydoelectric powerplant, due to the momentum of the falling water stored in the reservoir thanks to the thermal cycle coming from the Sun), then yes you would be extracting energy using such a scheme. The momentum and the "energy" coming from the extremely small movement of the other celestial masses (10^55 grams of mass in the Universe). However, if one defines energy extraction thermodynamically as per a closed cycle, then the answer would be no.
I don't understand what a "gravinertial transistor" means. Gravity and inertia are tied together in General Relativity through the Equivalence Principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle , so why write "gravinertial". Are you implying any circumstance under which inertial mass and gravitational mass are not equivalent? I know of lots of experimental tests confirming the equivalence principle and no experimental test showing a difference between inertial and gravitational mass.
Also why "transistor" ? What transistor ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor A transistor is a semiconductor device used to amplify or switch electronic signals and electrical power. It is composed of semiconductor material usually with at least three terminals for connection to an external circuit.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/transistor
Perhaps transistor in the sense that there is a gain in what effect you get compared to what you put in not that it operates like a literal transistor.
p.s. Paul M. mentioned this concept in the Woodward effect thread.
1540 Newtons per kiloWatt? 
: