dustinthewind, your post does not discuss anything with any relevance to this thread, and generally is wrong in the places where your statements aren't completely meaningless, to avoid wasting time, I'll just respond to one part of your post where the fact that your statements are in error can be easily researched.You want to build a transmission that keeps the engine at optimal rpm for maximum torque and a transmission that can handle that torque. This is why I don't like automatic transmissions in that they allow the car to rev up, lowering efficiency. For gasoline engines that don't have a lot of torque, and are more inefficient, because of their low pressure, they have to let it rev up because the engine can't handle the torque.Modern automatic transmissions are more efficient than manuals, and "letting it rev up" is not why the older ones were less efficient, but because of fundamental losses in the design. Engines do have an optimal RPM, but not for the reasons you describe, and modern automatic transmissions enable more gears which helps keep the engine in the optimal RPM range. The "because of their low pressure" does not even make sense where you have it in this quote nor does claiming that you have to let something rev up (and therefore apply more torque) because it can't handle the torque. It is simply a self-contradictory statement.
The rest of your post is equal levels of wrong, nonsensical, and irrelevant, since even if your statements here were correct, they would still in no way, shape or form be relevant to any of the topics of discussion in this thread.
... photons) according to special relativity is limited to a 1/c momentum/energy ratio.
Consider RPM and MPG
An engine's workload is determined by how fast the crankshaft is turning. The crankshaft transmits engine power to the transmission and then to the wheels, and crankshaft speed is measured in revolutions per minute, as indicated on a tachometer.
A manual transmission gives the driver full control over rpm because the driver can make the engine speed up or slow down via gear selection. The lower the gear, the higher the rpm. The higher the rpm, the more torque the engine is producing, and the more fuel it is using. Automatic transmissions take some of this control out of the driver's hands, but they, too, can be manipulated to maximize fuel efficiency.
Choice of gear (manual transmissions)
...
For a turbo diesel too low a gear will move the engine into a high-rpm, low-torque region in which the efficiency drops off rapidly
...
the optimum operating point for cruising at low power is typically at very low engine speed, around or below 1000 rpm. This explains the usefulness of very high "overdrive" gears for highway cruising. For instance, a small car might need only 10–15 horsepower (7.5–11.2 kW) to cruise at 60 mph (97 km/h). It is likely to be geared for 2500 rpm or so at that speed, yet for maximum efficiency the engine should be running at about 1000 rpm to generate that power as efficiently as possible for that engine (although the actual figures will vary by engine and vehicle).
Its absolutely relevant.
My post was about obtaining pressure with a resonator and converting energy between systems. There are many types of resonators but pressure is key to coupling systems and transferring energy.
You tell Alex_O above thatQuote... photons) according to special relativity is limited to a 1/c momentum/energy ratio.I would argue is wrong. With use of a resonator you can get better than this. One example being the recycled photon thruster. Of course a problem is your mirror eventually gets too far, but far better pressure.
I have heard it argued that you only get photon efficiency 1/c momentum/energy ratio from gravitational wave propulsion and that such propulsion would be negligible, but I would argue this can't be correct.
If you watch black holes merge as they rapidly spiral in the last few seconds the pressure they have on the vacuum or space time increases drastically and this is when they start efficiently coupling and throwing off most of their effective mass. I would argue this is because of their massive, velocity, acceleration and jerk they are undergoing. This pressure they exhibit represents the efficiency of converting energy between the systems which should far exceed the 1/c momentum/energy ratio because of the pressure.
I argue that we can do the same as they do also utilizing the jerk, acceleration, and velocity but in a cavity, billions of times per second. While with less mass that less mass times billions of times per second and recycling energy stored until its converted.
Its absolutely relevant to the EM drive because the EM drive is a resonant cavity and the photons are resonators with energy.
The dielectric introduced into the cavity was also considered to possibly be a resonator influenced by the electric fields of the light. The dielectric was speculated to possibly induce propulsion based on the mach-effect with the dielectric being the accelerated mass and the cavity the anchor. I was explaining to Alex and those interested the pressure desired to be developed by such a dielectric resonator and why its important. Think of it like rowing in the water. You turn your ore and couple to the water. Rotate it again and decouple for the return stroke - except they use jerk and acceleration to couple.
About the transmission in which I was less concerned with, and more concerned with the pressure in the engine cavity, which is influenced by the rate at which the cylinder wall recedes via RPM. Reducing this pressure reduces efficiency as it does with many resonant systems when converting energy.
Now you can make an automatic that keeps the rpm's low but in designing them they usually take this ability out of the operators hands and allow the rpm's to go high, though I know now they tend to to a bit better nowdays I could easily keep my car below a set rpm with a manual.
I would argue with them that torque or pressure actually decreases with higher rpm per the same use of fuel and that that is why efficiency decreases but close enough.
So ultimately I'm concerned with better than 1/c momentum/energy. Unlike with a recycled photon source where the laser gets to far, the vacuum is never too far (open seas).
...I would argue with them that torque or pressure actually decreases with higher rpm per the same use of fuel and that that is why efficiency decreases but close enough.And now you are claiming that you get more torque and therefore accelerate faster by taking your foot off the gas to reduce the RPMs of the engine. This is contrary to both basic mechanics and the experience of anyone who has ever driven a car.
So ultimately I'm concerned with better than 1/c momentum/energy. Unlike with a recycled photon source where the laser gets to far, the vacuum is never too far (open seas).The vacuum simply does not have the magic properties you assign to it, and cannot carry away momentum, (Electromagnetic fields, and gravitational waves can, but with restrictions you keep trying to deny with no real basis.)
I've already made up my mind that the obvious pressure change as black holes merge suggests a non constant coupling that can be changed and useful on large enough levels.
...I would argue with them that torque or pressure actually decreases with higher rpm per the same use of fuel and that that is why efficiency decreases but close enough.And now you are claiming that you get more torque and therefore accelerate faster by taking your foot off the gas to reduce the RPMs of the engine. This is contrary to both basic mechanics and the experience of anyone who has ever driven a car.Not sure how you always manage to misunderstand. Obviously not what I was saying.
Obviously the pressure on black holes changes as they merge so as to massively decelerate them in the last few moments. That pressure is what is needed as a foot hold to push off. While it might take a lot of energy to get to that point (less so with smaller amounts of mass) storing that energy in a cavity and only utilizing what you need to push is the key to effeciency.
I'm done with our discussion as your desire to disagree will stretch this conversation on for miles. I've already made up my mind that the obvious pressure change as black holes merge suggests a non constant coupling that can be changed and useful on large enough levels.
Gravitational Wave Propulsion
AIP Conference Proceedings 746, 1331 (2005);https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1867262
Giorgio Fontana
...
the required preliminary discovery has been already made. This opinion is enforced by many different proposals for building the required powerful gravitational wave generators that have recently appeared in the literature and discussed at conferences. It is no longer reasonable to wait for additional confirmation of the existence of gravitational waves to start a program for building generators and testing their possible application to space travel. A vast literature shows that gravitational waves can be employed for space propulsion. Gravitational wave rockets have been proposed, non‐linearity of Einstein equations allows the conversion of gravitational wavesto a static gravitational field and “artificial gravity assist” may become a new way of travelling in space‐time. Different approaches to gravitational wave propulsion are reviewed and compared. Gravitational wave propulsion is also compared to traditional rocket propulsion and an undeniable advantage can be demonstrated in terms of efficiency and performance. Testing the predictions will require gravitational wavegenerators with high power and wavelength short enough for producing high energy densities. Detectors designed for the specific application must be developed, taking into account that non‐linearity effects are expected. The study and development of Gravitational wave propulsion is a very challenging endeavor, involving the most complex theories, sophisticated materials and testing techniques ever conceived by science. The development of Gravitational wave propulsion appears to be within the reach of a large national or a worldwide research program.
We already know how to make a propellantless rocket. It consists of an apparatus which emits EM radiation, and another which interacts with it (a mirror). The challenge is to make it more efficient.
The idea behind resonating an object, is for it to couple to space-time.
The idea behind resonating an object, is for it to couple to space-time.This idea is incorrect. Resonance does not have this property.
The point of using a mirror in this case is to create a resonant cavity or resonating an object.
for recycled photon thruster you want to push against the mirror so the resonant cavity is what's pushed on therefore part of the resonant cavity has to be free to move.
In case of pushing against space-time the resonant cavity isn't supposed to move so the resonant cavity is a fixed object. You want material to accelerate to push against spacetime. You want the resonant cavity to contain the energy within the resonators which are accelerated. The analogy is that of a paddle in water.
No, but acceleration velocity and jerk does help with coupling with space-time.
Resonance is what is used in the combustion engine,
the recycle photon thruster,
and LIGO.
Resonance is what is used to repeatedly extract energy from one system and convert to another system in which normally energy is not able to be exchanged efficiently.
cavities might be able to be used to achieve both (energy storage to achieve jerk, acceleration, velocity), and (resonance to achieve efficient energy exchange).
The point of using a mirror in this case is to create a resonant cavity or resonating an object.That is clearly not what RERT was talking about.
for recycled photon thruster you want to push against the mirror so the resonant cavity is what's pushed on therefore part of the resonant cavity has to be free to move.You aren't making sense, a recycled photon thruster is not a resonant cavity. A recycled photon thruster is just a way of pushing off of some other, preferably much more massive object.
In case of pushing against space-time the resonant cavity isn't supposed to move so the resonant cavity is a fixed object. You want material to accelerate to push against spacetime. You want the resonant cavity to contain the energy within the resonators which are accelerated. The analogy is that of a paddle in water.Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense. It is completely self contradictory, as you both claim that the resonant cavity doesn't move, and that it accelerates.
Skipping ahead, since the rest of your post seems to be based on the completely false statement edzieba pointed out:No, but acceleration velocity and jerk does help with coupling with space-time.Untrue. Please stop making assertions like this.
Resonance is what is used in the combustion engine,Combustion engines are not resonators, and are not relevant to this thread, please stop bringing them up.
Resonators
A physical system can have as many resonant frequencies as it has degrees of freedom; each degree of freedom can vibrate as a harmonic oscillator. Systems with one degree of freedom, such as a mass on a spring, pendulums, balance wheels, and LC tuned circuits have one resonant frequency. Systems with two degrees of freedom, such as coupled pendulums and resonant transformers can have two resonant frequencies. As the number of coupled harmonic oscillators grows, the time it takes to transfer energy from one to the next becomes significant. The vibrations in them begin to travel through the coupled harmonic oscillators in waves, from one oscillator to the next.
the recycle photon thruster,Also not a resonator. (Most likely the input would be a laser, which typically uses a form of resonance, but the structure itself is not a resonator, and only cares that it has highly directional light as the input, lasers are just a convenient way to get highly directional light.)and LIGO.Resonance is used there, but not for the reasons you claim. They need something high power and very stable so they can detect the minute changes in the lengths caused by gravitational waves.
Resonance is what is used to repeatedly extract energy from one system and convert to another system in which normally energy is not able to be exchanged efficiently.No, that is not something that resonance does and is not the definition of resonance. Resonance is when something has a preferred frequency for oscillations. It can sometimes be used to build up energy in a system from a relatively low power input, but that can also be done in other systems without resonance.cavities might be able to be used to achieve both (energy storage to achieve jerk, acceleration, velocity), and (resonance to achieve efficient energy exchange).What you are looking for here is something that violates the laws of physics, also known as magic. Neither resonators in general nor resonant cavities specifically are magic. They do not have the properties you assert.
Quotefor recycled photon thruster you want to push against the mirror so the resonant cavity is what's pushed on therefore part of the resonant cavity has to be free to move.You aren't making sense, a recycled photon thruster is not a resonant cavity. A recycled photon thruster is just a way of pushing off of some other, preferably much more massive object.It is a resonant cavity. The quality of the cavity has to do with the quality of the mirrors and the number of times the photons can be recycled. The pressure on the mirrors changes with respect to the number of times the photons are recycled making recycled photon thrusters more efficient than just shooting a laser out the back. F.dx=E . Extracting more energy=%xn from the photons which normally don't give up much energy.
QuoteIn case of pushing against space-time the resonant cavity isn't supposed to move so the resonant cavity is a fixed object. You want material to accelerate to push against spacetime. You want the resonant cavity to contain the energy within the resonators which are accelerated. The analogy is that of a paddle in water.Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense. It is completely self contradictory, as you both claim that the resonant cavity doesn't move, and that it accelerates.No separated mirrors moving away from each other. The propellant is not the mirror but rather space time. Paddle in water.
The energy is stored between the mirrors. The light accelerates ions maybe which are massive. The ion's then accelerate and jerk accordingly.
QuoteNo, but acceleration velocity and jerk does help with coupling with space-time.Untrue. Please stop making assertions like this.Untrue? Then I suppose there is no reason why black holes as they increase in velocity, acceleration, and jerk in their last spirals inward, experience increasing pressure, increasing their deceleration and throwing off more energy into space time.
QuoteResonance is what is used in the combustion engine,Combustion engines are not resonators, and are not relevant to this thread, please stop bringing them up.Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResonanceResonators
A physical system can have as many resonant frequencies as it has degrees of freedom; each degree of freedom can vibrate as a harmonic oscillator. Systems with one degree of freedom, such as a mass on a spring, pendulums, balance wheels, and LC tuned circuits have one resonant frequency. Systems with two degrees of freedom, such as coupled pendulums and resonant transformers can have two resonant frequencies. As the number of coupled harmonic oscillators grows, the time it takes to transfer energy from one to the next becomes significant. The vibrations in them begin to travel through the coupled harmonic oscillators in waves, from one oscillator to the next.
Thermal energy is given to atoms, giving them kinetic energy and they bounce accordingly. The stored energy exerts pressure on the cavity walls as potential energy. The cavities have a quality, damping ect. Same for the recycled photon thruster, and EM drive cavity experiences pressure on its walls. Take a single ball bouncing between 2 surfaces with 1 degree of freedom. For photons the balls can pass through each other, for gas they can not. Increase the number of balls ect. For balls that interact with a propellant, you can increase the efficiency at which they transfer energy via the number of times they collide with the propellant.
and LIGO.Resonance is used there, but not for the reasons you claim. They need something high power and very stable so they can detect the minute changes in the lengths caused by gravitational waves.
Quotecavities might be able to be used to achieve both (energy storage to achieve jerk, acceleration, velocity), and (resonance to achieve efficient energy exchange).What you are looking for here is something that violates the laws of physics, also known as magic. Neither resonators in general nor resonant cavities specifically are magic. They do not have the properties you assert.Yes, cavities can store energy. Yes energy can be converted to inducing ions to accelerate in a cavity. Yes repeated interactions with a propellant can transfer more energy than just a single interaction. Pressure so F.dx=E
...and LIGO.Resonance is used there, but not for the reasons you claim. They need something high power and very stable so they can detect the minute changes in the lengths caused by gravitational waves.QuoteVia the pressure on the mirrors, when they do move they do more work, and it shows.Nope, they measure the phase of the signals via interference. (Actually I believe it is much more complicated than that, but it is not "do more work")
M.E. Gertsenshtein (1961). "Wave Resonance of Light and Gravitational Waves". Jetp (Ussr). 41 (1): 113–114.
http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/e/index/e/14/1/p84?a=list
AccORDING to general relativity, light and
gravitational waves propagate at the same speed,
and their rays coincides with no geodetics. Therefore, if the waves of gravitational and light waves
are linearly related, wave resonance, a well known
phenomenon in radio physics, sets in and makes
possible an appreciable transfer of energy even at
low coupling. In the present note we estimate the
extent of excitation of gravitational waves by light.
..
Let us apply Eq. (1) to the propagation of light
(field pik) in the presence of a strong "magnetizing" field p<O>ik, constant in space and in time.
The energy-momentum tensor will be the sum of
three terms: the square of the constant term, the
square of the field of the light wave, and an interference term describing the wave resonance. Leaving out the nonresonant terms we obtain
...
There are strong magnetic fields also inside the
stars, and consequently generation of gravitational
waves is also possible.
...
From general relativity follows also the possibility of the inverse conversion of gravitational
waves into light waves, but this problem is hardly
of interest.
The laser cavity produces an increased force between the mirrors. They are measuring strain or change in length. by F.dx there is obviously work done and energy transfer to the light.
M.E. Gertsenshtein (1961). "Wave Resonance of Light and Gravitational Waves". Jetp (Ussr). 41 (1): 113–114.
http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/e/index/e/14/1/p84?a=list
...
square of the field of the light wave, and an interference term describing the wave resonance. Leaving out the nonresonant terms we obtain
In 1962, M. E. Gertsenshtein and V. I. Pustovoit published the very first paper describing the principles for using interferometers for the detection of very long wavelength gravitational waves.