Discussion in 'Alternative Technologies & Energetics' started by CasualBystander, Dec 20, 2017.
Alright,, makes some sense.. I think .. one way reactions.. drive .. propulsion you say..
the other method of moving is to toss something heavy the other direction,
issue with that is that you just can't carry enough heavy things to move the heavy things you need to move in the future with that method.
so any method you can manage to use that you don't have to carry heavy things to move around wins
A rocket is a reaction drive system. Ion propulsion is a reaction drive system.
A reaction drive system by definition is one where you throw sh*t out the back to make you go forward.
No sh*t out the back, no go forward.
Just that simple.
Newtonian (Reaction) drive systems use Newton's law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
They expel mass/energy in one direction to make the ship move in the opposite direction since the net momentum of the system has to be zero.
Reactionless drive systems have no identifiable mass/energy loss in any direction except as thermal loss as a byproduct of the drive system.
As a side note - the Pioneer anomaly is thought to be due to asymmetric heating of the exterior of the spacecraft which caused an unintended effect on velocity.
Im keepin one eye on this whole thing
Case anyone comes up with a good explanation to how these drives works.
Right now - How they dont work seems to be sorted out
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory is viewed as denying that it works. That is more than 97% of scientists (a consensus).
The Pilot Wave flavor of quantum theory says it works and gives guidance on how to optimize the design.
Basically the pilot wave kicks virtual particles out the back (will give an accurate description later).
Still thinking about why it provides more momentum (thrust) than expelling energy.
Massless ? With mass we're back at the sh*t out the back level
I'm going to look at the actual explanation so I understand it again.
No mass is lost from the vehicle.
I could kick ass on virtual particles from now 'til doomsday and the mass of my rocket won't change.
It isn't like they are expending propellant.
The issue is why does this generate more momentum that expelling the energy?
Think I know why - but need time to do some math.
Thanks ,, I'm clueless ... not schooled in any of this, besides normal merchant marine propulsion systems..
Give it your best shot and report back
You need an AI to calculate it for you...
I have suspected that for some time. Casual could be an A.I, lol
But then again, theres this jersey burning kneeling thread.. So he could be human afterall
Was looking forward to this bit...
Pilot Wave theory suggests Trumpet shaped Emdrive would have more thrust | NextBigFuture.com
Pilot wave theory says that an object radiates a wave field, and it is then pulled or attracted to regions of that field that have higher intensity or energy density. In that way, the wave field is actually ‘piloting’ the object, hence the name.
Through modelling, the team showed that a sufficiently strong and asymmetrical electromagnetic field could act as a pilot wave. And that’s exactly what the EM drive generates.
Because the cone, or frustum, of the EM drive is asymmetrical, it would also generate an asymmetrical wave field. As a result, the walls of the EM drive would move towards the areas of higher intensity, creating thrust.
They are saying the narrow end of the frustum is pulled forward because highest intensity is in the narrow end. I interpret this as the particles in the wall of the narrow end of the EMDrive are "fooled" into thinking their pilot waves are guiding them toward the big end of the EMDrive.
Here is a skeptical view:
NASA's EMDrive And The Quantum Theory Of Pilot Waves
Home - Professor Terry Rudolph
Hes into the pilot wave
Space race revealed: US and China test futuristic EmDrive on Tiangong-2 and mysterious X-37B plane
Tajmar can make any claims he wants.
China and the US Air Force are actually testing it in space.
So - at least two groups already know if it works or not.
Even a micronewton force in space is unmistakable.
The US is backing new research into this EMdrive...
U.S. Funds ‘Quantized Inertia’ Research To Advance EmDrive Engine Project
The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has awarded a $1.3 million grant to divisive (to say the least) British physicist Mike McCulloch to prove his contentious "quantized inertia (QI) theory."
In McCulloch's own words, his quantized inertia theory suggests a new model for inertial mass that combines Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Very controversially, quantized inertia predicts galaxy rotation without dark matter or adjustable parameters, and predicts the EmDrive (or propellant-less propulsion), another equally notorious technology that seemingly violates fundamental physical laws.
The starting point for this controversy is "Uhler radiation." McCulloch, a professor of physics at the University of Plymouth in England, described Uhler radiation as a kind of radiation you see when you accelerate.
When moving forward or accelerating, a horizon radiation appears behind you, and the radiation emanates from this horizon the way Hawking radiation is emitted by the horizon of a black hole. McCulloch said that one definition of quantized inertia is that the force we know as inertia is caused by a gradient in this Uhler radiation.
DARPA, however, isn't so much interested in the theory of quantized inertia, per se, as it is in the practical application of this theory. It wants to develop a far more workable version of the EmDrive engine that can be used to power U.S. spacecraft on very long interstellar voyages.
As a result of lingering interest in the EmDrive, there's more global activity in space, said Mike Fiddy, program manager for DARPA's Nascent Light-Matter Interactions program. DARPA is seeking to deepen its understanding "of how to move objects around in more energy efficient and versatile ways."
An EmDrive is an electromagnetic thruster that doesn't use any reaction mass. It also emits no directional radiation. This highly controversial space propulsion technology might propel a spacecraft in violation of the law of conservation of momentum. It's also called a radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity thruster.
In a still unexplained way, the thruster harnesses subatomic particles that continuously fade into and out of existence to produce thrust. It seems to "quantum vacuum fluctuation," an effect where sub-atomic particles create themselves on their own accord in the vacuum of space before self-destructing.
In previously published papers, McCulloch used his quantized inertia theory to explain galaxy rotation without the presence of dark matter, as well as the thrust achieved by the EmDrive.
McCulloch asserts the EmDrive is a manifestation of quantized inertia. He also believes a different set of experiments could produce more powerful QI-powered thrusts.
After 18 months of theory-building, the DARPA grant will help fund experimental teams in Germany and Spain, which will build a pair of thrust-producing experiments. One such experiment is a shielded laser loop, and another uses asymmetrical mirrors and laser light, said McCulloch.
If the experiments succeed, as predicted by McCulloch's theory, researchers will look for ways to enhance the thrusts.
A British aerospace engineer named Roger Shawyer is credited with developing the EmDrive in 2001. He's pushed the idea through his company, Satellite Propulsion Research. Chemical engineer Guido Fetta then designed the Cannae Drive, somewhat based on similar principles.
The EmDrive and Cannae Drive -- if they work as theorized - stand to revolutionize many propulsion applications, especially those used in spaceflight.
Should point out that whoever wrote this doesn't know what they are talking about.
It is Unruh radiation (named after W. G. Unruh).
It comes from the Fulling–Davies–Unruh effect.
Here's an update:
NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of physics
For every action, there is a reaction: that is the principle on which all space rockets operate, blasting propellant in one direction to travel in the other. But one NASA engineer believes he could take us to the stars without any propellant at all. Designed by David Burns at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, the “helical engine” exploits mass-altering effects known to occur at near-light speed. Burns has posted a paper describing the concept to NASA’s technical reports server.
It has been met with skepticism from some quarters, but Burns believes his concept is worth pursuing. “I’m comfortable with throwing it out there,” he says. “If someone says it doesn’t work, I’ll be the first to say, it was worth a shot.” To get to grips with the principle of Burns’s engine, picture a box on a frictionless surface. Inside that box is a rod, along which a ring can slide. If a spring inside the box gives the ring a push, the ring will slide along the rod one way while the box will recoil in the other. When the ring reaches the end of the box, it will bounce backwards, and the box’s recoil direction will switch too. This is action-reaction – also known as Newton’s third law of motion – and in normal circumstances, it restricts the box to wiggling back and forth.
But, Burns asks, what if the ring’s mass is much greater when it slides in one direction than the other? Then it would give the box a greater kick at one end than the other. Action would exceed reaction and the box would accelerate forwards.
(see videos in the link)
This mass changing isn’t prohibited by physics. Einstein’s theory of special relativity says that objects gain mass as they are driven towards the speed of light, an effect that must be accounted for in particle accelerators. In fact, a simplistic implementation of Burns’s concept would be to replace the ring with a circular particle accelerator, in which ions are swiftly accelerated to relativistic speed during one stroke, and decelerated during the other.
But Burns thinks it would make more sense to ditch the box and rod and employ the particle accelerator for the lateral as well as the circular movement – in which case, the accelerator would need to be shaped like a helix.
It would also need to be big – some 200 metres long and 12 metres in diameter – and powerful, requiring 165 megawatts of power to generate just 1 newton of thrust, which is about the same force you use to type on a keyboard. For that reason, the engine would only be able to reach meaningful speeds in the frictionless environment of space. “The engine itself would be able to get to 99 per cent the speed of light if you had enough time and power,” says Burns.
Propellant-less proposals aren’t new. In the late 1970s, Robert Cook, a US inventor, patented an engine that supposedly converted centrifugal force into linear motion. Then, in the early 2000s, British inventor Roger Shawyer proposed the EM drive, which he claimed could convert trapped microwaves into thrust. Neither concept has been successfully demonstrated and both are widely assumed to be impossible, due to violation of the conservation of momentum, a core physical law.
Martin Tajmar at the Dresden University of Technology in Germany, who has performed tests on the EM Drive, believes the helical engine will probably suffer the same problem. “All inertial propulsion systems – to my knowledge – never worked in a friction-free environment,” he says. This machine makes use of special relativity, unlike the others, which complicates the picture, he says, but “unfortunately there is always action-reaction”.
Burns has worked on his design in private, without any sponsorship from NASA, and he admits his concept is massively inefficient. However, he says there is potential to harvest much of the energy that the accelerator loses in heat and radiation. He also suggests ways that momentum could be conserved, such as in the spin of the accelerated ions.
“I know that it risks being right up there with the EM drive and cold fusion,” he says. “But you have to be prepared to be embarrassed. It is very difficult to invent something that is new under the sun and actually works.”
Separate names with a comma.