[AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone heard of this?")
- From: Carlo Vaccari <airplaniac2002@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 12:59:54 -0400
Even it has reaction relative to phantom particle pairs that are on average
at rest in any given inertial reference frame, the force in the observer
frame will be reduced due to the time dilation and length contraction. If
it produces constant kg*m*s^(-2) in the device frame, remember that it's
going to be smaller at relativistic speeds because the observed meter will
be smaller and the observed second will be longer in the observer frame.
On Aug 7, 2014 12:42 PM, "Nathan Mogk" <nm8911@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You aren't applying the same thought experiment here. No one on this list
> understands exactly how the device works, so in absence of any test data
> beyond static tests on a pendulum, there is no data for how the drive
> behaves, and the assumption is applied that it produces a constant
> thrust/power ratio under all circumstances. This is the assumption that
> causes the perpetual motion, which has nothing to do with the actual
> workings of the device. When asked to show how it isn't the same for
> another device, you did not apply the same assumption because you know the
> properties of the electric motor.
>
> This only shows the faultiness of that particular assumption in this
> thought experiment. It has nothing to do with the functioning of an actual
> device.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Jake Anderson <jake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/08/14 21:38, Keld Laursen wrote:
>>
>>> I have seen it a couple of times now...
>>>
>>> <snip />
>>> <quote>
>>> work = force * distance
>>> power = work / time
>>> Assuming the thruster takes a constant power input and produces a
>>> constant output force regardless of its speed.
>>>
>>> The thought experiment I propose is to put the thruster on an arm
>>> connected to a generator so as the thruster thrusts the arm spins the
>>> generator.
>>>
>>> The power from the generator is going to be speed * force
>>> (In the real world speed = volts, torque = amps)
>>>
>>> As RPM of the motor goes up the power the generator makes will increase
>>> for the same constant torque value.
>>>
>>> At some point the power generated will exceed that required to run the
>>> generator and presto you have a perpetual motion machine.
>>> </quote>
>>> <snip />
>>>
>>> The problem with this is that it will work for anything. A series
>>> coupled DC motor will run to infinity RPMs, and therefore you can attach a
>>> generator to it and obtain overunity.
>>>
>> No that is not the case, as the RPM of the motor increases so will the
>> voltage you need to supply and so will the power to maintain a torque
>> output.
>> (note the maintain a torque output part there, an ideal series wound
>> motor with no load will reach infinity RPM)
>>
>> There! You overunity seekers. Go back to lurking. We are not on
>>> perpetual motion yet. Unless I have overlooked something.
>>>
>> The difference with the proposed thruster is the fixed power input
>> results in a fixed force output regardless of the speed of the system, that
>> is the bit where it breaks everything.
>> And they have measurements that are perhaps less trustworthy than they
>> initially seemed which supported their assertion.
>> In all other cases the power demand to produce the torque is proportional
>> to the speed of the system.
>>
>> It is an "unbalanced force", in every case F = MA if something pushes in
>> one way it is balanced by something pushing in the other.
>> If the thruster worked, sure it took power in, but it produces a force
>> without pushing on something else and from there there are any number of
>> ways of turning that into perpetual motion.
>>
>> I do still wonder where a photonic system fails and I'd really like to
>> hear an explanation for why it would, though I fear the answer involves
>> actual numbers not just abstract thought to work. ;->
>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
