Discussion in 'Alternative Technologies & Energetics' started by CasualBystander, Oct 18, 2017.
Anything that affects mass also affects trust...
Acceleration is always relative to the mass of the object, drag, gravity... But thrust does not decrease its relative thrust to the mass ratio, for all practical purposes.
When we reach light speed, that may change but until then... not much.
I know what you are saying.
That applies to a reaction rocket... Probably.
I'll look for the article to see what point was being made.
You make the point that an increase in speed or decrease in potential energy reduces pressure. Modern jets use the plywood principle - if you raise the leading edge of a speeding sheet of plywood relative to the back edge, it will fly.
Intake momentum drag decreases the overall thrust...
I was thinking about travel in space (vacuum).
Intake momentum drag isn't a factor except for a Bussard Ramjet.
But there will be some drag from interstellar gas that increases as V**2.
Once you hit 90% of light speed relativity cuts your acceleration.
You are both right, depending on the method of implementing it.
Star Trek had "navigational shields", that were always on, and were strong enough to deflect primitive laser based weapons.
As you approach any fraction of light speed a rock in your path, any rock, becomes a devastating threat and is a essentially a HVW.
Can't have high speed interstellar flight without a capable shielding system.
In other news:
Cannae is developing a 3U cubesat | Cannae
Cannae stlll hasn't deployed their cubesat.
Lets get the drive working first... one thing at a time. Haha.
A cubesat is 10x10x10 cm with a maximum weight of 1.33 kg.
Cannae is talking about launching over 1000 kg of equipment, in a 30x10x10 cubesat (3.99 kg maximum mass).
The information about the launch is either clearly wrong or I have significant doubts about Cannae's design capability.
Reviewed the Cannae site (again) and they say their system will take up 1.5U and 10W of power.
Given that gives them 1.5U for other purposes (communication and control) they may have a viable design.
So, blue dots are condensed energy, notice the energy condenses in a way that would push, or float the blunt end forward..... at least the engine is blunt end forward.
So we add a ship in front of the engine with a more functional or traditional shape, or any practical hull shape, maybe cruise ship style even?
What about Ion drive ? Would that do ?
Not as good.
In theory, the M drive would be able to virtually make anything instantly surf at any speed within the energy capability of the engine and power source, but the ion engine principle is pushing ions away to create micro thrust that gradually builds speed over longer durations.
Maybe Ion propulsion could be used to maintain speed once the M drive speed is attained.
Let's review the bidding.
1. The Dawn spacecraft (600 kg) was sped up 10 km/s by 600 kg (more or less) of krypton fuel and engine (engines were 48kg x 3 + 475 kg of fuel).
2. In theory a rocket with 475 kg of fuel would only increase the speed of the spacecraft about 1 km/s.
Is the ion drive better than a rocket? Yeah.
Will it get us to 300K km/s ??? No.
I'm not sure what you are trying to illustrate.
The drive would be inside the ship, preferably with the big end near the front. This would tend to face the front of the spacecraft forward and reduce stabilization requirements.
Who is talking about rockets?
Drawing is overegarrated toward engine demonstration, so yes it would likely be housed differently. It would probably be several smaller engines rather than one large one.
I was making a point then realized I didn't have any evidence for it.
I've assumed the thruster would be internal to the spacecraft.
I've seen claims there would be EM leakage in a blog, and am looking into whether this claims are valid. I'd assumed the losses would only be due radiation absorption inside the can causing it to heat.
Given that the engine would probably be cryogenically chilled it would have be near the skin of the spacecraft.
What sort of leakage?...Did you find out any more about this?...
Okay so the title of this thread/paper is wrong - pilot wave theory is an interpretation of quantum field theory (QFT), i.e., it doesn't make any predictions that are different than QFT, it just explains the same predictions differently. To date, nobody has found a prediction of pilot-wave theory that differs from QFT, which is why it's an interpretation rather than an alternate theory.
This paper is based on a theory that I've never heard of before, they're calling it "Eurhythmic Physics." Apparently the only subscribers to eurhythmic physics are a small group of people in Lisbon. It allows for violations of Newton's third law, which is why it's wrong. But that's also why it seems to be well-suited to explain the reactionless propulsion claims of the EM Drive, which are almost certainly experimental error in the first place.
I would love it if there were a way to achieve propellantless propulsion without warping the spacetime metric, but I see no way that the EM Drive could do it. And neither has anyone else, except for this group in Lisbon which is resorting to an erroneous physics theory.
They can explain it just fine: experimental error.
Have you got a citation about this? I heard that they were going to try this thing in space, but I never saw any results.
And earlier this year the Chinese Academy of Science published a refutation of the EM Drive.
It that still going ahead? I hope it doesn't fly over my house.
That's not just string theorists saying that - Lorentz symmetry is a fundamental feature of all modern physics. That's the first postulate of special relativity; it states that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames (i.e. there is no absolute motion or absolute rest - they're strictly relative concepts). So if the EM Drive works, all of modern physics is wrong and we have to start over from scratch, going back past Galilean relativity. That's a lot to expect from a minuscule and highly ambiguous detection that appears to be experimental error.
I'd like to hear about it if anyone comes up with something compelling - nothing would make me happier than throwing out the entire canon of academic physics - the existing physical laws are very inconvenient in many ways.
But the EM Drive looks like every other kind of experimental error that was ever touted as a revolution in physics: noise masquerading as signal.
I could be wrong, But It was my understanding that Bohmian mechanics or pilot wave, was complimentary reasoning to Super String theory, It was just a reskin for QFT that seemingly was a little more complimentary toward string theory?
Is this a misunderstanding of the concept?
Separate names with a comma.