nivek
As Above So Below
Acceleration does not reduce thrust.
Anything that affects mass also affects trust...
Acceleration does not reduce thrust.
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.Anything that affects mass also affects trust...
I know what you are saying.If, instead of constant thrust, the vehicle has constant acceleration, the engine thrust must decrease during the trajectory.
Acceleration does not reduce thrust.
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.
Intake momentum drag decreases the overall thrust...
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.
Star Trek had "navigational shields", that were always on, and were strong enough to deflect primitive laser based weapons.You are both right, depending on the method of implementing it.
Lets get the drive working first... one thing at a time. Haha.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.
A cubesat is 10x10x10 cm with a maximum weight of 1.33 kg.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.
Correction: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.
Not as good.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.
View attachment 1692
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?
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'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.
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.Pilot Wave/EMDrive
http://www.ikpress.org/abstract/6485
Journal of Applied Physical Science International, ISSN No. : 2395-5260 (Print), 2395-5279 (Online), Vol.: 8, Issue.: 4
A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE EM DRIVE BASED ON A PILOT WAVE THEORY
They can explain it just fine: experimental error.The mainstream quantum scientists (Copenhagen) have been in the "it doesn't work" camp since they can't explain it.
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.China launched a test article last year and claimed it worked in space. So the "it doesn't work" ship presumably has sailed.
It that still going ahead? I hope it doesn't fly over my house.The Impossible Propulsion Drive Is Heading to Space
A rival drive shape (same principle) is getting launched on a cubesat later this year as its propulsion system (they normally don't have one). If it stays in orbit over 6 months the debate is over.
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.Further, string theorists (extra dimensions) are EMDrive deniers because they say it violates Lorentz symmetry, which string theory is also built on.
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.I'll update the thread when a trumpet shaped EMDrive is tested.
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 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.