Refinement of the Mach Effect Propulsion using brass separation from the reaction mass has improved the thrust by about 65 times up to 60 millinewtons per kilowatt. This would be competitive with the best Hall ion thrusters if there is replication and proving the technology in space.
Heidi Fearn will be taking a working device to Dresden and will stay with them until they get it working. Dresden had problems with a previous device and published bad results.
In June, 2018, Tajmar and his team didn’t use the mandatory stepup/isolation transformer: Therefore they operated the device at the wrong frequency, one that could never trigger any thrust signature.
As the Dresden team saw nothing conclusive, they increased the voltage for too long and the temperature in the PZT stacks, so they also managed to toast the initially good-working device before returning it to Woodward in California four months later.
Martin Tajmar previously had good results on an 18-year-old test device he had received from Woodward.
71 slide powerpoint lays out the tests that Woodwards team did to show that Martin Tajmar and his team made mistaken tests.
Previous Work from 2016, 2017 and early 2018
Mach Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA) drive propulsion is based on peer-reviewed, technically credible physics. Mach effects are transient variations in the rest masses of objects that simultaneously experience accelerations and internal energy changes. They are predicted by standard physics where Mach’s principle applies as discussed in peer-reviewed papers spanning 20 years and a recent book, Making Starships and Stargates: the Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes published in 2013 by Springer-Verlag.
Above – Graphic depiction of Mach Effect for in-space propulsion: Interstellar mission Credits: J. Woodward
In Phase I, James Woodward and the Space Studies Institute achieved the following:
* Implemented chirped pulses to reduce heating and provide a longer duration thrust capability.
* Designed and developed circuits to allow for 1f and 2f frequency impedance matched AC input to the device, to improve efficiency of the MEGA drive.
* Developed a better theoretical model for the device and conceptualized a probe for an interstellar mission to Proxima b. In Phase II, the next critical step in the development of these thrusters is to test new designs with higher frequency to increase the output thrust.
They have been using Steiner Martin’s SM-111 PZT for their devices.
They also expect to test new materials, for example APC-840 PZT, and PIN-PMN-PT, which they have procured but not had the opportunity to yet evaluate.
It would also be advantageous to operate multiple devices to determine the thrust scales in arrays of 2 or more devices. They view the independent verification of the MEGA Drive effects by experts in the vacuum testing of micropropulsion as a crucial step in Phase II. They envision a collaboration with several entities (from academia and industry) to enable the testing of new devices. Mach effects have the revolutionary capability to produce thrust without the ejection of propellant, eliminating the need to carry propellant as required with most other propulsion systems. Ultimately, once proven in flight, these thrusters could be used for primary mission propulsion, opening up the solar system and making interstellar missions a reality. This aerospace concept is an exciting TRL 1 technology, ready to take the next step to providing propellantless propulsion, first in incremental NASA smallsat missions, but later enabling revolutionary new deep space exploratory capabilities beyond anything achievable by conventional chemical, nuclear or electric propulsion systems.
2017 video of presentation to NASA – funded NASA NIAC study
At 23 minutes of this video. SSI SA Dr. Heidi Fearn explains how just scaling power and size causes problems. (heat, arcing and other problems).
For Mach effect propellentless propulsion it will be better to go to an array of smaller devices.
They expect 1-5 years to get to 1-5 millinewtons of thrust. (Using better materials and other near-term design improvement.)
Tajmar has replicated the 2 micronewton level and will scale to 12 micronewtons with a larger set of discs.
In 5-10 years, have array of several devices to get to 10-20 millinewtons.
10-20 years, increase thrust to 1 newton for each device.
Test arrays of 100 – 1 newton devices
MEGA space propulsion would be 1000+ 1 newtons devices.
MEGA would be powered by a 5 MW nuclear power source.
Mach Effect Propulsion Replications and modeling that matches experimentation
The Mach-Effect thruster is a propellantless propulsion concept that has been in development by J.F. Woodward for more than two decades. It consists of a piezo stack that produces mass fluctuations, which in turn can lead to net time-averaged thrusts. So far, thrusts predictions had to use an efficiency factor to explain some two orders of magnitude discrepancy between model and observations. Here (M Tajmar) presents a detailed 1D analytical model that takes piezo material parameters and geometry dimensions into account leading to correct thrust predictions in line with experimental measurements. Scaling laws can now be derived to improve thrust range and efficiency. An important difference in this study is that only the mechanical power developed by the piezo stack is considered to be responsible for the mass fluctuations, whereas prior works focused on the electrical energy into the system. This may explain why some previous designs did not work as expected. The good match between this new mathematical formulation and experiments should boost confidence in the Mach effect thruster concept to stimulate further developments.
Mach-Effect thruster model (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319974638_Mach-Effect_thruster_model [accessed Oct 17 2017].
Woodward devised a method to use these mass fluctuations for a novel propulsion scheme: Push the mass when it is heavy and pull it back when it is lighter. This cycle can create a time-averaged net linear impulse in one direction that satisfies the definition of a propellantless thruster. Apart from Woodward’s own thrust measurements in 2016 Buldrini independently replicated this effect. Recently, it has been shown explicitly that such a scheme does not violate conservation of momentum.
Of course, energy must still be spent to vary the mass and accelerate it. The power-to-thrust ratio is an important figure of merit to compare it against photon (P/F=3⋅10^5 W/mN) and other electric thrusters (P/F=20-60 W/mN). At present, typical experimental values for the Mach-Effect thruster are an order of magnitude better than the photon rocket (P/F=3⋅10^4 W/mN). Woodward is using Piezo crystals both as capacitors and actuators to oscillate their energy and to push/pull them. Both processes must appear at a proper phase between them to produce thrust.
After significant improvements of the experimental techniques, the observed thrusts are in the sub-µN – µN range, which requires micro thrust balances with high resolution. Proper analysis and shielding is necessary to rule out possible artifacts such as thermal effects, outgassing or magnetic interactions as demonstrated by Woodward and coworker.
Tajmar has a fully analytical model of the Mach-Effect thruster is presented whose predictions match experimental data and allows the design of optimized thrusters based on mass fluctuations by taking both design and material properties into account. The model gives an important insight into how mass fluctuations appear and why the present design works but other designs failed.
The current embodiment of the Mach-Effect thruster consists of a stack of piezo discs that is similar in design to typical actuators using ferroelectric (PZT=Lead Zirconate Titanate) materials, which are sold by many suppliers e.g. for ultrasonic applications. In general, if an electric field is applied across such PZT discs, they expand and contract depending on the field strength and direction of the field. The piezo/PZT stack is made of several discs that are mechanically connected in series but electrically connected in parallel (i.e. all discs have the same electric potential applied between their electrodes). This is achieved by always switching the polarity from disc to disc such that every electrode faces another electrode with the same polarity to avoid electric short circuits. Woodward uses brass electrodes which are glued with epoxy between each disc. The whole assembly is clamped with stainless steel screws between two end caps, a larger one made from brass with threaded holes and a smaller one made from aluminum. The screws are tightened to ensure that the piezo stack is well compressed between the stiff end caps.
In contrast to prior Mach thruster analysis, the assertion in this analysis is that only the mechanical (inertial) energy contributions to the Mach fluctuations, whereas the prior interpretations focused on the electrical energy in the capacitors (or coils). This makes sense as Sciama’s model describes inertial and hence only inertial (=mechanical) energy. In some previous experiments, mechanical oscillation was replaced by ion/lattice movements that were thought to be much more efficient because they can oscillate at much higher frequencies. However, although early papers reported thrusts up to the mN range, no net thrusts were seen when proper electrical shielding and setups were used in subsequent measurements. As a result, it was thought the bulk acceleration is necessary for the effect to occur, however as we will see, it is not only bulk acceleration but pure mechanical energy that is responsible for the correct thrust values observed.
Qm is the mechanical quality factor of the stack. Although Qm can be high for individual PZT discs, it is quite low for a stack with epoxy and electrode material in between. The values are determined by spectrum analysis and are typically around 60. Again, using our example, we get an effective power of 63 W and a power loss of 2.6 W and a total capacity of 14 nF.
Tajmar has developed a 1D analytical model that can accurately predict the thrust from Mach- Effect thrusters taking design and materials parameters into account. It compares well to experimental data and allows for further optimization to obtain higher thrusts and efficiencies. Apart from the well-known voltage and frequency scaling, it predicts higher thrusts e.g. for larger disc diameters and higher stiffness. For example, if the PZT discs are increased to a diameter of 25 mm, the 2nd resonance frequency should rise to 51 kHz. Both should lead to an increase in thrust to 12 µN at an amplitude of 200 V. Of course, there are several shortcomings and simplifications that may be corrected in future iterations such as implementing resonances 22 into thrust model, use of electric field dependent piezo material parameters, include temperature degradation effects and adding the influence of clamping torque from screws.
The model is flexible enough to be modified for different geometries (e.g. piezo rings instead of discs with one single screw in the middle). One of the main conclusions of this analysis is that the thrust is only accurately calculated if only the mechanical power is used in the transient mass equation. This can explain why some previous designs (Mach-Lorentz thrusters) did not work as expected. It is hoped that the model and its fit to experimental results adds further confidence into Mach effect thrusters and stimulates further research in that area.
Tajmar is working on experimental tests.
Woodward in 2016 indicates that there were multiple experimentalists replicating the initial experiments.
Most of the videos are from the Sept 2016, Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop.
Woodward is convinced it is proven, replicated and will scale to fast interstellar travel. It will take some decades to achieve but the effects are there and replicated. Various scaling like higher frequency will improve it by somewhere between the square and cube of the frequency.
It is complicated so there is a lot of work and experimentation to do.
They need to get from 36 kilohertz to about 2 gigahertz for true interstellar vehicles.
Woodward also says George Martin has a Mach effect propulsion device working.
Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop 2016 in Estes Park, Colorado had many presentations of Mach Effect, EM Drive and related technologies.
Phased Array Mach effect is a route to engineering high thrust mach effect propulsion.
We may not just be able to make bigger engines because this is a wavefront.
Lance Williams goes over a summarized version of the theory and assumptions of Mach Effect.
There are multiple ways to get to scale free mach effect terms from general relativity.
He starts with Linear field equations.
James Woodward assumes what d rho and dt means in order to engineering it. This was the old way.
They now start from the mass equations. Using the full covariant form.
They have a roadmap to continue to advance the work as this proves out will be able to make a propellentless interstellar ship that they are designing to reach 40% of lightspeed.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Just give the money to the people without having them pretend to work.
Reaction less drive, cold fusion, probably hot fusion also= welfare for physicists
The Space Launch System= welfare for engineers
Homeopathy= welfare for charlatans
The healthcare system= armed robbery by doctors
by the end of Woodward’s video, he tries to sit on his wheelchair… and starts falling backwards onto the panel, which then falls over him and the host…
It’s at the beginning of Part 3 on Day 1.
30 seconds into Day 1 Part 3 video.
Dr. Woodward! You’ve opened the stars to mankind! How did you finally achieve your breakthrough reactionless propulsion?” “Well, it turned out it wasn’t that hard, I just had to replace the rubber pads with brass washers.
All this effort and no easy way to find Woodward’s new presentation video. It’s 2:30 on Tuesday but how many minutes into which vid?
by the end of Woodward’s video he tries to sit on his wheelchair… and starts falling backwards onto the panel which then falls over him and the host…
It’s at the beginning of Part 3 on Day 1.
30 seconds into Day 1 Part 3 video.
Dr. Woodward! You’ve opened the stars to mankind! How did you finally achieve your breakthrough reactionless propulsion?””””””Well”” it turned out it wasn’t that hard”” I just had to replace the rubber pads with brass washers.”””””””
All this effort and no easy way to find Woodward’s new presentation video. It’s 2:30 on Tuesday but how many minutes into which vid?
And having looked up the word fnord, you see Scaryjello reacts to good news as the unenlightened do to seeing the word fnord without conscious acknowledgement, with confusion, discomfort, dismay. I did not say or suggest he consciously could “see the fnords”.
If you look up the meaning of “fnord” it turns out that only the enlightened can see the word “fnord”, it is the ignorant masses who cannot.
Yes Scaryjello, and if the government (or ultra gullible investors) give them a few million of $, in five years they’ll come back with more heat and a lot more uncertainty.
I’m glad to see this. I hope Woodward lives long enough to see commercialization. If not, Heidi Fearn is more than capable of seeing it through. Unlike the EMDrive stuff, this is real.
He is an aged and not terribly well man. I hope he lives to see acknowledgement his work on this is replicable.
No, per kW it produces as much thrust as does Hall ion thruster. It’s like your pathological skepticism forces you to act like you’ve seen *fnord* when you see good news.
And having looked up the word fnord you see Scaryjello reacts to good news as the unenlightened do to seeing the word fnord without conscious acknowledgement with confusion discomfort dismay. I did not say or suggest he consciously could see the fnords””.”””
If you look up the meaning of fnord”” it turns out that only the enlightened can see the word “”””fnord”””””””” it is the ignorant masses who cannot.”””
Yes Scaryjello and if the government (or ultra gullible investors) give them a few million of $ in five years they’ll come back with more heat and a lot more uncertainty.
I’m glad to see this. I hope Woodward lives long enough to see commercialization. If not Heidi Fearn is more than capable of seeing it through. Unlike the EMDrive stuff this is real.
He is an aged and not terribly well man. I hope he lives to see acknowledgement his work on this is replicable.
No per kW it produces as much thrust as does Hall ion thruster. It’s like your pathological skepticism forces you to act like you’ve seen *fnord* when you see good news.
I really laughed at the Scotty quote from that time in the new series where they rescued him from a form of suspended animation. Picard asks Gordy for an estimate on some work: Forge: Yeah, well, I told the Captain I’d have this analysis done in an hour. Scotty: How long will it really take? Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: An hour! Scotty: Oh, you didn’t tell him how long it would *really* take, did ya? Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: Well, of course I did. Scotty: Oh, laddie. You’ve got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker.
I’m not what anyone would call pathologically negative, and *I’m* dubious about this. Too many badly set up experiments. I always get suspicious when they continue doing bad experimental setups, instead of just doing one really, really sensitive experiment that would settle things.
… what’s taking so long…” According to reports Woodward, Fearn et al sent a working sample to Dresden. But Tajmar and company apparently ignored the instructions, goofed the assembly cooling and fried the gear… and then sent the charred remnants back while reporting the (very widely publicized) negative results.
they are using stock components for this experiment as I understand, what’s taking so long to either replicate the effect or dismiss it altogether? what’s holding them back to increase the input power and see how it scales?
Actually it is amazing. I have looked through all of his replies in the site. He has a record I think of having never been positive. Heck, even the trolls here are sometimes positive.
Scotty would have done the same – just with a little more hand-wringing.
These are Heidi Fearn’s results, and they haven’t been reproduced yet. I’d hold off on setting up Starfleet until somebody’s actually reproduced the dreamy results. Or until she makes a working anti-gravity device for us all to see.
I really laughed at the Scotty quote from that time in the new series where they rescued him from a form of suspended animation. Picard asks Gordy for an estimate on some work:Forge: Yeah well I told the Captain I’d have this analysis done in an hour. Scotty: How long will it really take? Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: An hour! Scotty: Oh you didn’t tell him how long it would *really* take did ya? Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: Well of course I did.Scotty: Oh laddie. You’ve got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker.”
I’m not what anyone would call pathologically negative and *I’m* dubious about this. Too many badly set up experiments. I always get suspicious when they continue doing bad experimental setups instead of just doing one really really sensitive experiment that would settle things.
… what’s taking so long…””According to reports Woodward”” Fearn et al sent a working sample to Dresden. But Tajmar and company apparently ignored the instructions”” goofed the assembly cooling and fried the gear… and then sent the charred remnants back while reporting the (very widely publicized) negative results.”””
they are using stock components for this experiment as I understand what’s taking so long to either replicate the effect or dismiss it altogether? what’s holding them back to increase the input power and see how it scales?
Actually it is amazing. I have looked through all of his replies in the site. He has a record I think of having never been positive. Heck even the trolls here are sometimes positive.
Scotty would have done the same – just with a little more hand-wringing.
These are Heidi Fearn’s results and they haven’t been reproduced yet. I’d hold off on setting up Starfleet until somebody’s actually reproduced the dreamy results. Or until she makes a working anti-gravity device for us all to see.
Sandbagging is a filthy habit for engineers.
Woodward seems eager for third party verification. So that to me is a genuine plus. Let the data and its replication speak for itself.
In the early days, when even just the basic results have to be validated/reproduced, then it’s probably best to directly come over with the sample – or maybe record a video – to ensure that things are done properly. Otherwise, “Just Read the Instructions” won’t cut it.
If the principle is proven, then one is tempted into thinking “well heck, what are we waiting for, let’s gear up a Manhattan-Project-style Mach-Effect program.” But a major “giggle factor” paired with ordinary budgetary inertia would no doubt figure in.
But a lot of what shows up here cannot be fairly considered as “news.” A lot of it is hype, gossip, or rumor, when it hasn’t degenerated into plagiarism, or paid advertisements, or breathless, credulous reports on obvious fraud and woo. The marginal virtue of this site is only that Wang manages to read and keep track of a bunch of different other sites and sources, and hurl them up against the wall in great quantity and at high velocity. It is *not* in his ability to act as a filter, and certainly not in his analytical ability, his critical skills, or his technical chops. So let’s stop pretending that any special deference is owed to anything found herein– it isn’t, and if you think it is, you aren’t reading carefully. Let’s *especially* stop pretending that Wang *or any of the readers here* are somehow specially “enlightened.” That is not how science and technology works. That is how magic and cults of personality work.
should be ~three of five years~
Too many badly set up experiments
One of the few things this site reported on that has actually been built was the Krusty kilopower stirling engine generator for Mars. Everything else is kind of fringe science – that’s why it’s fun to visit this site and call out the BS.
Sandbagging is a filthy habit for engineers.
Woodward seems eager for third party verification. So that to me is a genuine plus.Let the data and its replication speak for itself.
In the early days when even just the basic results have to be validated/reproduced then it’s probably best to directly come over with the sample – or maybe record a video – to ensure that things are done properly. Otherwise Just Read the Instructions”” won’t cut it.”””
If the principle is proven then one is tempted into thinking well heck” what are we waiting for” let’s gear up a Manhattan-Project-style Mach-Effect program.”” But a major “”””giggle factor”””” paired with ordinary budgetary inertia would no doubt figure in.”””
But a lot of what shows up here cannot be fairly considered as ews.”” A lot of it is hype”” gossip or rumor when it hasn’t degenerated into plagiarism or paid advertisements or breathless credulous reports on obvious fraud and woo.The marginal virtue of this site is only that Wang manages to read and keep track of a bunch of different other sites and sources and hurl them up against the wall in great quantity and at high velocity. It is *not* in his ability to act as a filter and certainly not in his analytical ability his critical skills or his technical chops. So let’s stop pretending that any special deference is owed to anything found herein– it isn’t and if you think it is”” you aren’t reading carefully.Let’s *especially* stop pretending that Wang *or any of the readers here* are somehow specially “”””enlightened.”””” That is not how science and technology works. That is how magic and cults of personality work.”””
should be ~three of five years~
Too many badly set up experiments “” “””
One of the few things this site reported on that has actually been built was the Krusty kilopower stirling engine generator for Mars. Everything else is kind of fringe science – that’s why it’s fun to visit this site and call out the BS.
Nice active comment threads. Good! Millinewtons per kilowatt is kind of a weird unit-system. I guess it works for spacecraft: they’re happy with millinewton course adjustments and azimuth corrections, and they’ve typically got “kilowatts hanging around” to employ to such purposes. But in straight physics, we ought to have at least ONE of the parameters in its natural unit form. Either newtons per megawatt or micronewtons per watt. Since the “adds-more-kinetic-energy-than-input-energy” breakpoint is V = 2/k, where k = newtons-per-watt, well … V = 2/k … V = 2 ÷ 0.000060 N/W … V = 33,333 m/s That’s pretty fast, for things in outer space. If our probe has a nuclear power supply (or a very light weight photovoltaic one), and weighs in at what, 5,000 kg, produces 25 kW of power, 20 of which is available to the Magic Thruster … … P = 20,000 … F = Pk = 20,000 W × 0.000060 N/W … F = 1.2 newtons … F = ma … … a = F/m … a = 1.2 ÷ 5,000 kg … a = 0.00024 m/s², or times 60² … a = 0.864 m/min² or times 60² … a = 3,100 m/hr² or times 24² … a = 1,791,000 m/day² Though admittedly, those last bits don’t really help with much. Everything “spacey” seems to be done in km/s for the most part. So: … a = 0.00024 m/s² × 0.001 km/m … a = 0.00000024 km/s² Now to get an appreciable (1 km/s?) ΔV change: … V = at … t = V/a … t = 1 km/s ÷ 0.00000024 km/s² … t = 4,166,667 s … divide by 60 × 60 × 24 … t = 48 days Well, there you are! Now should we ask, “how far did it travel?” Sure… … d = ½at² … d = 0.5 × 0.00000024 km/s² × 4,166,667² … d = 2,000,000 km. … divide by 150×10⁶ km/AU … d = 0.014 AU 1.4% of the Earth:Sol distance. In 48 days. Riveting! Edge of chair suspense! But it is going 1 km/s after the 48 days. This is good. Since we might want this for both ends of the Earth ↔ Mars transit, conservatively about 0.7 AU all in, let’s see. … D = 0.7 AU × 150×10⁶ km/AU … D = 105,000,000 km. … ½ D = ½at² (i.e. half-way accelerating, half-way decelerati
When I started my career, my estimate was the most likely time of completion. But that meant I was late half the time. I discovered that management was always upset when I was late, but usually didn’t care if my estimate was long. So after a while I started giving estimates that I could meet, say, 95% of the time, which meant usually I had extra time. That’s what management wanted, and it makes sense if they’re making promises to customers, or making plans that get disrupted when engineers are late. An engineer with extra time can usually do something productive with it, so it works out well long-term. But an implication for any managers is that if you want to maximize throughput in the short term, then getting mad when engineers are late is exactly the wrong strategy.
First, I wouldn’t assume that at all. Has there been any response to the accusations of plagiarism? Second, if reporting is not endorsing, then why are so many shorts twisted up into so many bunches over skepticism?
Awesome! Well said.
Reporting is not endorsing. And this is something being actively researched somewhere. If it turns out to be nothing, then I assume it will be also reported here and elsewhere. I concur that we shouldn’t take anything anyone says here as the truth. Just as pointers to actual potential happenings (hence the Next Big Future name of the site).
Building in time for contingencies, instead of assuming everything goes perfect. Personally, I give estimates of the, “If nobody interrupts me, I should have it done in a week, but when have I never been interrupted? Figure on two weeks.” sort.
PS: using V₂ = 2/k for the breakeven which we determined was 33.3 km/s and … t = V/a … t = 33.3 ÷ 0.00000024 … t = 138750000 sec (1606 days or 4.4 years) It is pretty clear that to actually GET to the over-unity-magic-free-energy-machine velocity is quite a bit further off than what most cubesat missions are willing to wait. That and further in distance. … D = ½at² … D = 0.00000012 × 138750000² … D = 2.3 billion kilometers. About 15.5 AU or somewhere between Saturn 10 AU and Uranus 20 AU.Just saying[b]Goat[/b]Guy”
Nice active comment threads. Good!Millinewtons per kilowatt is kind of a weird unit-system. I guess it works for spacecraft: they’re happy with millinewton course adjustments and azimuth corrections and they’ve typically got kilowatts hanging around”” to employ to such purposes. But in straight physics”””” we ought to have at least ONE of the parameters in its natural unit form. Either newtons per megawatt or micronewtons per watt. Since the “”””adds-more-kinetic-energy-than-input-energy”””” breakpoint is V = 2/k”” where k = newtons-per-watt well … V = 2/k… V = 2 ÷ 0.000060 N/W… V = 33333 m/sThat’s pretty fast for things in outer space. If our probe has a nuclear power supply (or a very light weight photovoltaic one) and weighs in at what5000 kg produces 25 kW of power 20 of which is available to the Magic Thruster …… P = 20000… F = Pk = 20000 W × 0.000060 N/W… F = 1.2 newtons… F = ma …… a = F/m… a = 1.2 ÷ 5000 kg… a = 0.00024 m/s² or times 60²… a = 0.864 m/min² or times 60²… a = 3100 m/hr² or times 24²… a = 1791000 m/day²Though admittedly”” those last bits don’t really help with much. Everything “”””spacey”””” seems to be done in km/s for the most part. So:… a = 0.00024 m/s² × 0.001 km/m … a = 0.00000024 km/s²Now to get an appreciable (1 km/s?) ΔV change:… V = at… t = V/a… t = 1 km/s ÷ 0.00000024 km/s²… t = 4″”166667 s … divide by 60 × 60 × 24… t = 48 daysWell there you are! Now should we ask”” “”””how far did it travel?”””” Sure…… d = ½at²… d = 0.5 × 0.00000024 km/s² × 4″”166667²… d = 20000 km. … divide by 150×10⁶ km/AU… d = 0.014 AU1.4{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the Earth:Sol distance. In 48 days. Riveting! Edge of chair suspense! But it is going 1 km/s after the 48 days. This is good. Since we might want this for both ends of the Earth ↔ Mars transit conservatively about 0.7 AU all in let’s see. … D = 0″
When I started my career my estimate was the most likely time of completion. But that meant I was late half the time. I discovered that management was always upset when I was late but usually didn’t care if my estimate was long. So after a while I started giving estimates that I could meet say 95{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the time which meant usually I had extra time.That’s what management wanted and it makes sense if they’re making promises to customers or making plans that get disrupted when engineers are late.An engineer with extra time can usually do something productive with it so it works out well long-term. But an implication for any managers is that if you want to maximize throughput in the short term then getting mad when engineers are late is exactly the wrong strategy.
First I wouldn’t assume that at all. Has there been any response to the accusations of plagiarism?Second if reporting is not endorsing then why are so many shorts twisted up into so many bunches over skepticism?
Awesome! Well said.
Reporting is not endorsing. And this is something being actively researched somewhere.If it turns out to be nothing then I assume it will be also reported here and elsewhere.I concur that we shouldn’t take anything anyone says here as the truth. Just as pointers to actual potential happenings (hence the Next Big Future name of the site).
Building in time for contingencies instead of assuming everything goes perfect. Personally I give estimates of the If nobody interrupts me” I should have it done in a week” but when have I never been interrupted? Figure on two weeks.”” sort.”””
If it could produce uncertainty we would be in high fantasy.
Leave the government out of this. We need a clone of Elon Musk or someone like him.
PS: using V₂ = 2/k for the breakeven, which we determined was 33.3 km/s and … t = V/a … t = 33.3 ÷ 0.00000024 … t = 138,750,000 sec (1,606 days, or 4.4 years) It is pretty clear that to actually GET to the over-unity-magic-free-energy-machine velocity is quite a bit further off than what most cubesat missions are willing to wait. That, and further in distance. … D = ½at² … D = 0.00000012 × 138,750,000² … D = 2.3 billion kilometers. About 15.5 AU, or somewhere between Saturn 10 AU and Uranus 20 AU. Just saying, [b]Goat[/b]Guy
If it could produce uncertainty we would be in high fantasy.
Leave the government out of this.We need a clone of Elon Musk or someone like him.
That would be why they’re talking interstellar missions, not Mars trips. That low but continuous acceleration adds up over a few years.
also should be ~they should be as provable as Hall Effect thrusters, right?~
Apart from the folk who castigate you for your comic skepticism, I’ve ⊕1 pushed a vote your direction. There definitely is a bit of the [i]“uncertainty and heat”[/i]. They’re only MEASURING micronewtons so far. At least from the graphics contained herein and the main article. Micronewtons are forces approximately that of a common mosquito sitting on your arm. … F = 2.5 mg × 9.8 N/kg ÷ 1,000 g/kg … F = 25 µN Well, no, mosquitoes apparently are still running 4–8 times more newtonian (Ugh… who couldn’t pass by that pun) than the good article’s experimenters’ apparatus. Just saying, [b]Goat[/b]Guy
That would be why they’re talking interstellar missions not Mars trips. That low but continuous acceleration adds up over a few years.
also should be ~they should be as provable as Hall Effect thrusters right?~
Apart from the folk who castigate you for your comic skepticism I’ve ⊕1 pushed a vote your direction. There definitely is a bit of the [i]“uncertainty and heat”[/i]. They’re only MEASURING micronewtons so far. At least from the graphics contained herein and the main article. Micronewtons are forces approximately that of a common mosquito sitting on your arm. … F = 2.5 mg × 9.8 N/kg ÷ 1000 g/kg… F = 25 µNWell no mosquitoes apparently are still running 4–8 times more newtonian (Ugh… who couldn’t pass by that pun) than the good article’s experimenters’ apparatus. Just saying[b]Goat[/b]Guy”
A reactionless drive is kinda cool, but an Infinite Improbability Drive, now that’s cool.
Look at the history of the ICE. It has increased in performance in term of power to displacement/engine size by several orders of magnitude. That was possible due to heavy investment. So far, the Mach Effect drives have been largely produced on shoestring budgets. You would have to think that more money opens up better materials and manufacturing techniques that would lead to performance increases. If they increased it by say 300% or to roughly 200 millinewtons per kilowatt, or 0.2 newtons per kilowatt. Theoretically a 600 ton space craft with a 250 ton 200 MW SMR MSR (this is about on par with many current designs for high output MSRs), 250 ton set of mach effect thrusters (leaving 100 tons for a shield and other stuff) using 190 MW (190,000 killowatts) for some 200 millinewton (0.2 newton) per kilowatt efficiency mach effect thruster array (a 300% performance increase), it would generate 20,000 newtons of thrust for a 600,000 kg space craft. That’s about 33 millinewtons per kg, which is about 0.033 m/s of acceleration in zero G. At that rate the space craft would be traveling around 900 km/s in a year, or about 20 times faster than any other space craft. In 10 years it would be traveling 0.03% the speed of light.
A reactionless drive is kinda cool but an Infinite Improbability Drive now that’s cool.
Look at the history of the ICE. It has increased in performance in term of power to displacement/engine size by several orders of magnitude. That was possible due to heavy investment. So far the Mach Effect drives have been largely produced on shoestring budgets. You would have to think that more money opens up better materials and manufacturing techniques that would lead to performance increases. If they increased it by say 300{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} or to roughly 200 millinewtons per kilowatt or 0.2 newtons per kilowatt. Theoretically a 600 ton space craft with a 250 ton 200 MW SMR MSR (this is about on par with many current designs for high output MSRs) 250 ton set of mach effect thrusters (leaving 100 tons for a shield and other stuff) using 190 MW (190000 killowatts) for some 200 millinewton (0.2 newton) per kilowatt efficiency mach effect thruster array (a 300{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} performance increase) it would generate 20000 newtons of thrust for a 600000 kg space craft. That’s about 33 millinewtons per kg which is about 0.033 m/s of acceleration in zero G. At that rate the space craft would be traveling around 900 km/s in a year or about 20 times faster than any other space craft. In 10 years it would be traveling 0.03{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} the speed of light.
Look at the history of the ICE.” ok, ICE was powering airplanes in 1903; it was fabricated in a bike shop. Lost me with the rest of it.
There were a lot of accusations being thrown around this forum of people being short various Elon Musk companies (especially Tesla) and that this was why they insisted that the companies in question were going to crash and burn any day now. My own little-informed opinion is that professional short sellers tend to be very cautious and only bet against something that has serious evidence against it (because they can lose all their money fairly easily). And so having lots of short sellers of your company stock is a warning sign, not an excuse.
Good point about proving Hall Effect thrusters. I suspect that part of the problem is that while producing (apparently) the mN/kW of a HE thruster, they do so while being much larger, heavier, and with lots of vibration. All of which adds considerable noise to any measurement.
Of the articles in this site about new types of technology, and new science, as opposed to bigger/better/faster versions of existing technology, just how many have actually worked out in real life? Skepticism in the face of amazing claims is the correct response until proven otherwise.
Without mentioning any names, this sort of “well, we ignored instructions and destroyed it, so your system doesn’t work” is by no means restricted to cutting edge physics. At least in my experience.
One factor the Manhattan Project had going for it was a huge, immediate, national and indeed international need for the product. (There was a world war on, and this was promising an invincible superweapon that could win wars near risklessly.) If someone in peacetime 1950s had brought up the prospect of controlled fission reactions, but with the promised product being cheapish power, which would compete with equally effective coal/gas/oil/hydro. Well there may have been some interest but it would probably have been powerpoint talks and slow grinding progress with no breakthrough achievements for decades.
This actually applies to all of the super high ISP, low thrust tech that are floating around these days. (And propellentless drives have ISP of infinity.) For short distances, and Earth-Moon or even Earth-Mars are short by these standards, you are better off with a couple of hundred tonnes of oxygen and hydrogen and a good old fashioned rocket. It’s once you get to the outer planets, or Pluto, or further, that rockets just fall on their faces and the slow but super-efficient stuff pulls ahead and starts to look really good.
There were a lot of accusations being thrown around this forum of people being short various Elon Musk companies (especially Tesla) and that this was why they insisted that the companies in question were going to crash and burn any day now.My own little-informed opinion is that professional short sellers tend to be very cautious and only bet against something that has serious evidence against it (because they can lose all their money fairly easily). And so having lots of short sellers of your company stock is a warning sign not an excuse.
Good point about proving Hall Effect thrusters. I suspect that part of the problem is that while producing (apparently) the mN/kW of a HE thruster they do so while being much larger heavier and with lots of vibration. All of which adds considerable noise to any measurement.
Of the articles in this site about new types of technology and new science as opposed to bigger/better/faster versions of existing technology just how many have actually worked out in real life?Skepticism in the face of amazing claims is the correct response until proven otherwise.
Without mentioning any names this sort of well” we ignored instructions and destroyed it” so your system doesn’t work”” is by no means restricted to cutting edge physics.At least in my experience.”””
One factor the Manhattan Project had going for it was a huge immediate national and indeed international need for the product. (There was a world war on and this was promising an invincible superweapon that could win wars near risklessly.)If someone in peacetime 1950s had brought up the prospect of controlled fission reactions but with the promised product being cheapish power which would compete with equally effective coal/gas/oil/hydro. Well there may have been some interest but it would probably have been powerpoint talks and slow grinding progress with no breakthrough achievements for decades.
This actually applies to all of the super high ISP low thrust tech that are floating around these days. (And propellentless drives have ISP of infinity.)For short distances and Earth-Moon or even Earth-Mars are short by these standards you are better off with a couple of hundred tonnes of oxygen and hydrogen and a good old fashioned rocket.It’s once you get to the outer planets or Pluto or further that rockets just fall on their faces and the slow but super-efficient stuff pulls ahead and starts to look really good.
Look at the history of the ICE.””ok”””” ICE was powering airplanes in 1903; it was fabricated in a bike shop.Lost me with the rest of it.”””
Meaninglessly said.
Just saying,
If they are quiet shorters yes. These are very loud “short and distort” shorters.
Which being noise can be validly filtered to show the signal. And has been.
But not skepticism in the face of evidence. Scaryjello and Marcus are acting as if there is no distinction to be drawn between degrees of evidence for an idea, and the provenance of that evidence, if it is seen here at NBF — that all drastically sneering skepticism is equally valid here. It’s not so. In this case, the claims are not amazing at all, they are a necessary and direct consequence of what is already known about the universe. That math Goatguy never dares to do? What he claims he’s never been presented with? It is right up there in this post. It’s been posted here before, he’s no doubt seen it. He merely refuses to deal with math that shows what is his religious faith the universe can’t work the way Mach conjectured is a faith about to be undone. It is not possible for that math he has done here to be meaningful in commenting about the MET, because his math presumes energy cannot enter the system other than what enters locally and electrically. Something produces what we know to be gravity and inertia. It brings a planet to see a generally Copernican path around a star as the straightest line it can follow. This property of mass is gravity distorting spacetime. An object at rest tends to stay at rest, and one in motion tends to stay in motion, until an external force acts on it. E=MC^2. None of that is in dispute. It is a certainty that by altering the E associated with a volume of M and then effectively it’s M is changed. Therefore, you can push when it is heavy and pull when it is light. The math describing that is right in the article above. Will the likes of Goatguy deign to look at it?
He didn’t lose you, your pathologically skeptical brain saw fnord. Goatguy merely saw math he didn’t like.
It’s tough to produce thrust in a vacuum from nothing; it’s significantly less tough to make explosions turn a crank.
Honesty is the best policy. Providing you are dealing with a listener who 1. Will treat a best guess as a best guess and not a guarantee. (See Dennis’s explanation for details.) 2. Will assume that you actually gave a best guess, and not assume there is 50% margin in there that they can cut. 3. Will not change the specifications/resources/requirements 3/4 of the way through and still expect the same completion date. 4. Will not report your number to someone else who will fail to meet all these criteria.
Oh, and the word “plagiarism” comes up sometimes because Brian is not as careful as I would be about carefully marking out in his articles which bits were quoting other sources. Those of us who are used to his style accept that he is mostly quoting and don’t take any notice of it.
If all information presented here was of equal validity then you would have a point.That’s why you don’t have one.
Meaninglessly said.
Just saying” “” “””
If they are quiet shorters yes. These are very loud short and distort”” shorters.”””
Which being noise can be validly filtered to show the signal. And has been.
But not skepticism in the face of evidence.Scaryjello and Marcus are acting as if there is no distinction to be drawn between degrees of evidence for an idea and the provenance of that evidence if it is seen here at NBF — that all drastically sneering skepticism is equally valid here.It’s not so.In this case the claims are not amazing at all they are a necessary and direct consequence of what is already known about the universe.That math Goatguy never dares to do? What he claims he’s never been presented with? It is right up there in this post. It’s been posted here before he’s no doubt seen it. He merely refuses to deal with math that shows what is his religious faith the universe can’t work the way Mach conjectured is a faith about to be undone. It is not possible for that math he has done here to be meaningful in commenting about the MET because his math presumes energy cannot enter the system other than what enters locally and electrically.Something produces what we know to be gravity and inertia. It brings a planet to see a generally Copernican path around a star as the straightest line it can follow. This property of mass is gravity distorting spacetime. An object at rest tends to stay at rest and one in motion tends to stay in motion until an external force acts on it. E=MC^2. None of that is in dispute.It is a certainty that by altering the E associated with a volume of M and then effectively it’s M is changed. Therefore you can push when it is heavy and pull when it is light.The math describing that is right in the article above.Will the likes of Goatguy deign to look at it?
He didn’t lose you your pathologically skeptical brain saw fnord. Goatguy merely saw math he didn’t like.
It’s tough to produce thrust in a vacuum from nothing; it’s significantly less tough to make explosions turn a crank.
Honesty is the best policy. Providing you are dealing with a listener who 1. Will treat a best guess as a best guess and not a guarantee. (See Dennis’s explanation for details.)2. Will assume that you actually gave a best guess and not assume there is 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} margin in there that they can cut.3. Will not change the specifications/resources/requirements 3/4 of the way through and still expect the same completion date.4. Will not report your number to someone else who will fail to meet all these criteria.
Oh and the word plagiarism”” comes up sometimes because Brian is not as careful as I would be about carefully marking out in his articles which bits were quoting other sources. Those of us who are used to his style accept that he is mostly quoting and don’t take any notice of it.”””
I like how the ankle biters didn’t key-in on your over-unity comments. You phrased it very carefully this time out of courtesy to the true believers – very gentle.
Pointlessly posted…
I say… from your dirk-in-the-ribs-responses, I have to think that you’ve collected these over some time. Sociopath? Seems to be. If snakes had no fangs, they’d be as harmless as worms. You collect fangs. Bravo, snake. GoatGuy
(contined, part 2) Since the displacement is to the first approximation sinusoidal, what does this infer? Well… calculus. In a nutshell, displacement amplitude = velocity amplitude × 1/ω where ω is 188,000 radians per second at 30 kHz. The displacement amplitude would be 0.74 meters. 740 millimeters. Ahem… that didn’t survive the gravity test. The little device shown would be lucky to support a displacement amplitude of a single millimeter, let alone 740 of them. It’d explode. So, we get back to the basics. And the basics don’t foot. And that in turn doesn’t support “it working” as described. Just saying, GoatGuy
Yah, yah… hey: it gets real HARD to accept the Mach Effect conjecture when at the very outset of their first principles, an assertion is made that is functionally preposterous. Read the little “beige panel” above. The one that has in bold “A mass fluctuation per unit mass on the order of 10⁻⁸ with a period of microseconds is a small variation of mass per time. It deseres further experimentation and theoretical study.” and prior to that “Our experiments use a devices with a mass of 0.2 kg, the mass is calculated to fluctuate at 30 kHz with a zero-to-peak amplitude on the order of a Planck Mass (2.18×10⁻⁸ kg).” IF you hope ot chafe my math, do so while reading the following. The originating authors (in that same beige panel) cite the Δm/m or embodiment-of-energy as Δm change of mass, of various things like heating iron plates, combusting methane, melting of ice, emission of power from Sun (see, I did read it in detail), as being on the order of Δm/m = ( 10⁻¹⁰, 3.7×10⁻¹², 10⁻¹², 6.5×10⁻¹² ) respectively over salient time frames. Using… … E = mc² (in MKS units, c = 299,792,458 m/s) … ΔE = Δmc² So lets plug in the various factors listed above … ΔE = 10⁻¹⁰ × 299,792,458² … ΔE = 8.9 MJ/kg (methane) … … cf. 54.0 MJ/kg methane combustion enthalpy lookup … … cf. 10.8 MJ/kg methane + oxygen as a mixture … ΔE = 3.7×10⁻¹² × 299,792,458² … ΔE = 332 kJ/kg (melting ice) … … cf. 334 kJ/kg from lookup of enthalpy of water fusion … ΔE = 10⁻¹² × 299,792,458² … ΔE = 90 kJ/kg (200° K iron heating) … … cf. 90 kJ/kg from lookup of heat-capacity of iron … ΔE = 6.5×10⁻¹² × 299,792,458² … ΔE = 584 kJ/kg (100 years Sol output) … … cf. … didn’t do. Let’s assume is mostly right. How closely do these work out as viable Δm numbers? Good enough, tho’ the burning-of-methane one is off. Strictly, methane burning releases around 54,000,000 J/kg of methane. Derated for methane+oxygen stochiometric (“perfect” ration) amounts, then it drops to 10,800,000 J/kg: very close to
And free to you does not mean free thermodynamically any more than a ship’s sails are over unity devices.
Your math is off. But I’ve gone thru and redone it correctly. GIVEN… … M₀ = 600,000 kg (MSR, MED, payload) … k = 200 mN/kW → 0.0002 N/W … 90% power utilization from a 200 MWe MSR (180,000,000 W) for MED Then… … F = kP = 0.0002 × 180,000,000 … F = 36,000 N … a = F/m = 36,000 ÷ 600,000 … a = 0.060 m/s² … a = 448,000 km/day² … a = 0.00299 AU/day² (a useful interplanetary/interstellar number) In 365 days, … V = at = 0.00299 × 365 … V = 1.09 AU/day (= 1,893 km/s) … d = ½at² … d = 0.5 × 0.00299 × 365² … d = 200 AU The “over unity” kinetic energy breakeven is at 2/k = 10,000 m/s, which at 0.060 m/s² takes: … V = at … t = V/a … t = 10,000 ÷ 0.060 … t = 167,000 s (almost 2 days) Testing it: At 365 days, the speed is 1,893,000 m/s. Using: … E = ½mv² … E = 0.5 × 600,000 kg • (1,893,000 m/s)² … E = 1.08×10¹⁸ J (kinetic energy) … t = 365 × 24 × 60 × 60 … t = 31,550,000 sec … P = 1.08×10¹⁸ ÷ 31,550,000 … P = 34,100,000,000 watts Showing that the kinetic energy of the vehicle will be approximately … x = P/p … x = 34,100,000,000 W ÷ 180,000,000 W … x = 189 Well, the total kinetic energy of the spacecraft is “only” 189× that of the total electrical input energy to your proposed 300% over 60 mN/kW Woodward drive. How about that. Much free energy indeed. PS: the velocity of 1,893 km/s is about 0.63% of the speed of light. Just saying, [b]Goat[/b]Guy
Yes really. The math you still won’t look at it is right up there in the post you are commenting on. None of your rhetoric addresses or changes that. There is no invective here, just facts you don’t like.
He said ICE engines went from incredibly weak and unreliable engines to being very well understood and high power devices. That’s ridiculous to you because you are a pathological skeptic.
Really Tom? Let’s see… you provide NO math whatsoever. ZIPPO. NADA. ZERO. NONE. ZILCH. That makes you a pumpkin on a post topped with a clown hat, Jack. I’ll stick with consistent math, provable, ordered, obvious, clean. You will no doubt gin up additional ad hominem invective. Maths beat baseless invective every minute of the day. LOL! Just saying, [b]Goat[/b]Guy
He made the ridiculous comparison of ICE to Mach (mock) effect, not me.
If all information presented here was of equal validity, then you would have a point. That’s why you don’t have one.
I like how the ankle biters didn’t key-in on your over-unity comments. You phrased it very carefully this time out of courtesy to the true believers – very gentle.
Pointlessly posted…
I say… from your dirk-in-the-ribs-responses I have to think that you’ve collected these over some time. Sociopath? Seems to be. If snakes had no fangs they’d be as harmless as worms. You collect fangs. Bravo snake. GoatGuy
(contined part 2)Since the displacement is to the first approximation sinusoidal what does this infer? Well… calculus. In a nutshell displacement amplitude = velocity amplitude × 1/ω where ω is 188000 radians per second at 30 kHz. The displacement amplitude would be 0.74 meters. 740 millimeters. Ahem… that didn’t survive the gravity test. The little device shown would be lucky to support a displacement amplitude of a single millimeter let alone 740 of them. It’d explode. So we get back to the basics.And the basics don’t foot.And that in turn doesn’t support it working”” as described.Just saying””””GoatGuy”””””””
Yah yah… hey: it gets real HARD to accept the Mach Effect conjecture when at the very outset of their first principles an assertion is made that is functionally preposterous. Read the little beige panel”” above. The one that has in bold “”””A mass fluctuation per unit mass on the order of 10⁻⁸ with a period of microseconds is a small variation of mass per time. It deseres further experimentation and theoretical study.”””” and prior to that “”””Our experiments use a devices with a mass of 0.2 kg”””” the mass is calculated to fluctuate at 30 kHz with a zero-to-peak amplitude on the order of a Planck Mass (2.18×10⁻⁸ kg).””””IF you hope ot chafe my math”” do so while reading the following. The originating authors (in that same beige panel) cite the Δm/m or embodiment-of-energy as Δm change of mass of various things like heating iron plates combusting methane melting of ice emission of power from Sun (see I did read it in detail) as being on the order of Δm/m = ( 10⁻¹⁰ 3.7×10⁻¹² 10⁻¹² 6.5×10⁻¹² ) respectively over salient time frames. Using…… E = mc² (in MKS units c = 299792458 m/s)… ΔE = Δmc²So lets plug in the various factors listed above… ΔE = 10⁻¹⁰ × 299792458²… ΔE = 8.9 MJ/kg (methane)… … cf. 54.0 MJ/kg methane combustion enthalpy lookup… … cf. 10.8 MJ/kg methane + oxygen as a mixture… ΔE = 3.7×10⁻¹² × 299792458²… ΔE = 332 kJ/kg (melting ice)… … cf. 334 kJ/kg from lookup of enthalpy of water fusion… ΔE = 10⁻¹² × 299792458²… ΔE = 90 kJ/kg (200° K iron heating)… … cf. 90 kJ/kg from lookup of heat-capacity of iron… ΔE = 6.5×10⁻¹² × 299792458²… ΔE = 584 kJ/kg (100 years Sol output)… … cf. … didn’t do. Let’s assume is mostly right.How closely do these work out as viable Δm numbers? Good enough tho’ the burning-of-methane one is off. Strictly methane burning releases around 540″”000 J/kg of methane. Derated for methane+oxygen stochiometric (“”””perfect”””” ration) amounts”” then it drops to 10800″”000″
And free to you does not mean free thermodynamically any more than a ship’s sails are over unity devices.
Your math is off. But I’ve gone thru and redone it correctly. GIVEN…… M₀ = 600000 kg (MSR MED payload)… k = 200 mN/kW → 0.0002 N/W… 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} power utilization from a 200 MWe MSR (180000000 W) for MEDThen…… F = kP = 0.0002 × 180000000… F = 36000 N… a = F/m = 36000 ÷ 600000… a = 0.060 m/s²… a = 448000 km/day²… a = 0.00299 AU/day² (a useful interplanetary/interstellar number)In 365 days … V = at = 0.00299 × 365… V = 1.09 AU/day (= 1893 km/s)… d = ½at² … d = 0.5 × 0.00299 × 365²… d = 200 AUThe over unity”” kinetic energy breakeven is at 2/k = 10″”000 m/s which at 0.060 m/s² takes:… V = at… t = V/a… t = 10000 ÷ 0.060… t = 167000 s (almost 2 days)Testing it: At 365 days the speed is 1893000 m/s. Using:… E = ½mv²… E = 0.5 × 600000 kg • (1893000 m/s)²… E = 1.08×10¹⁸ J (kinetic energy)… t = 365 × 24 × 60 × 60… t = 31550000 sec… P = 1.08×10¹⁸ ÷ 31550000… P = 341000000 wattsShowing that the kinetic energy of the vehicle will be approximately… x = P/p… x = 341000000 W ÷ 1800000 W… x = 189 Well”” the total kinetic energy of the spacecraft is “”””only”””” 189× that of the total electrical input energy to your proposed 300{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} over 60 mN/kW Woodward drive. How about that. Much free energy indeed. PS: the velocity of 1″”893 km/s is about 0.63{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the speed of light. Just saying””[b]Goat[/b]Guy”””””””
Yes really. The math you still won’t look at it is right up there in the post you are commenting on.None of your rhetoric addresses or changes that. There is no invective here just facts you don’t like.
He said ICE engines went from incredibly weak and unreliable engines to being very well understood and high power devices. That’s ridiculous to you because you are a pathological skeptic.
Really Tom? Let’s see… you provide NO math whatsoever. ZIPPO.NADA.ZERO. NONE. ZILCH. That makes you a pumpkin on a post topped with a clown hat Jack. I’ll stick with consistent math provable ordered obvious clean. You will no doubt gin up additional ad hominem invective. Maths beat baseless invective every minute of the day. LOL! Just saying[b]Goat[/b]Guy”
He made the ridiculous comparison of ICE to Mach (mock) effect not me.
Come on Tom, even the mach effect guys themselves now claim that you can get more energy out of these things than you put in (if it works). They just claim that the energy is coming from interaction with external fields that we are usually not able to access. But getting more energy than we are supplying is accepted as a natural result of the theory. Power = force x velocity That’s it. That’s what the word Power means. Tom venit etiam ad effectum mach guys se nunc plus potest dici quod haec de industria in vobis est (si enim operatus). Sicut non dici quod est ex industria vita cum externa agrorum, ut plerumque sunt non possunt accedere. Sed acrius quam supplere quando accipitur ex naturali ratione. Quod est potentia cum velocitate = x vis est. Hoc illud est quod per potentiam est. Tom venit etiam ad effectum mach guys se nunc plus potest dici quod haec de industria in vobis est (si enim operatus). Sicut non dici quod est ex industria vita cum externa agrorum, ut plerumque sunt non possunt accedere. Sed acrius quam supplere quando accipitur ex naturali ratione. Quod est potentia cum velocitate = x vis est. Hoc illud est quod per potentiam est.
And I still say that a good fused silica ribbon torsion pendulum, with the “drive” in a balanced Faraday chamber, being turned off and on at the resonant frequency, would settle this pretty quick. That kind of setup could detect the thrust from an LED.
I am not a shorter of Tesla (not long, not in Tesla FWIW) but Tesla just got hammered by a SEC investigation. Which is what I said would happen, much to my sadness. CEOs of the world: don’t tweet when you are high on drugs.
Come on Tom even the mach effect guys themselves now claim that you can get more energy out of these things than you put in (if it works).They just claim that the energy is coming from interaction with external fields that we are usually not able to access.But getting more energy than we are supplying is accepted as a natural result of the theory.Power = force x velocity That’s it. That’s what the word Power means.Tom venit etiam ad effectum mach guys se nunc plus potest dici quod haec de industria in vobis est (si enim operatus). Sicut non dici quod est ex industria vita cum externa agrorum ut plerumque sunt non possunt accedere. Sed acrius quam supplere quando accipitur ex naturali ratione. Quod est potentia cum velocitate = x vis est. Hoc illud est quod per potentiam est.Tom venit etiam ad effectum mach guys se nunc plus potest dici quod haec de industria in vobis est (si enim operatus). Sicut non dici quod est ex industria vita cum externa agrorum ut plerumque sunt non possunt accedere. Sed acrius quam supplere quando accipitur ex naturali ratione. Quod est potentia cum velocitate = x vis est. Hoc illud est quod per potentiam est.
And I still say that a good fused silica ribbon torsion pendulum with the drive”” in a balanced Faraday chamber”” being turned off and on at the resonant frequency”” would settle this pretty quick. That kind of setup could detect the thrust from an LED.”””
I am not a shorter of Tesla (not long not in Tesla FWIW) but Tesla just got hammered by a SEC investigation.Which is what I said would happen much to my sadness. CEOs of the world: don’t tweet when you are high on drugs.
Come on Tom, even the mach effect guys themselves now claim that you can get more energy out of these things than you put in (if it works). They just claim that the energy is coming from interaction with external fields that we are usually not able to access. But getting more energy than we are supplying is accepted as a natural result of the theory. Power = force x velocity That’s it. That’s what the word Power means. Tom venit etiam ad effectum mach guys se nunc plus potest dici quod haec de industria in vobis est (si enim operatus). Sicut non dici quod est ex industria vita cum externa agrorum, ut plerumque sunt non possunt accedere. Sed acrius quam supplere quando accipitur ex naturali ratione. Quod est potentia cum velocitate = x vis est. Hoc illud est quod per potentiam est. Tom venit etiam ad effectum mach guys se nunc plus potest dici quod haec de industria in vobis est (si enim operatus). Sicut non dici quod est ex industria vita cum externa agrorum, ut plerumque sunt non possunt accedere. Sed acrius quam supplere quando accipitur ex naturali ratione. Quod est potentia cum velocitate = x vis est. Hoc illud est quod per potentiam est.
Come on Tom even the mach effect guys themselves now claim that you can get more energy out of these things than you put in (if it works).They just claim that the energy is coming from interaction with external fields that we are usually not able to access.But getting more energy than we are supplying is accepted as a natural result of the theory.Power = force x velocity That’s it. That’s what the word Power means.Tom venit etiam ad effectum mach guys se nunc plus potest dici quod haec de industria in vobis est (si enim operatus). Sicut non dici quod est ex industria vita cum externa agrorum ut plerumque sunt non possunt accedere. Sed acrius quam supplere quando accipitur ex naturali ratione. Quod est potentia cum velocitate = x vis est. Hoc illud est quod per potentiam est.Tom venit etiam ad effectum mach guys se nunc plus potest dici quod haec de industria in vobis est (si enim operatus). Sicut non dici quod est ex industria vita cum externa agrorum ut plerumque sunt non possunt accedere. Sed acrius quam supplere quando accipitur ex naturali ratione. Quod est potentia cum velocitate = x vis est. Hoc illud est quod per potentiam est.
And I still say that a good fused silica ribbon torsion pendulum, with the “drive” in a balanced Faraday chamber, being turned off and on at the resonant frequency, would settle this pretty quick. That kind of setup could detect the thrust from an LED.
And I still say that a good fused silica ribbon torsion pendulum with the drive”” in a balanced Faraday chamber”” being turned off and on at the resonant frequency”” would settle this pretty quick. That kind of setup could detect the thrust from an LED.”””
I am not a shorter of Tesla (not long, not in Tesla FWIW) but Tesla just got hammered by a SEC investigation. Which is what I said would happen, much to my sadness. CEOs of the world: don’t tweet when you are high on drugs.
I am not a shorter of Tesla (not long not in Tesla FWIW) but Tesla just got hammered by a SEC investigation.Which is what I said would happen much to my sadness. CEOs of the world: don’t tweet when you are high on drugs.
I like how the ankle biters didn’t key-in on your over-unity comments. You phrased it very carefully this time out of courtesy to the true believers – very gentle.
I like how the ankle biters didn’t key-in on your over-unity comments. You phrased it very carefully this time out of courtesy to the true believers – very gentle.
Pointlessly posted…
Pointlessly posted…
I say… from your dirk-in-the-ribs-responses, I have to think that you’ve collected these over some time. Sociopath? Seems to be. If snakes had no fangs, they’d be as harmless as worms. You collect fangs. Bravo, snake. GoatGuy
I say… from your dirk-in-the-ribs-responses I have to think that you’ve collected these over some time. Sociopath? Seems to be. If snakes had no fangs they’d be as harmless as worms. You collect fangs. Bravo snake. GoatGuy
(contined, part 2) Since the displacement is to the first approximation sinusoidal, what does this infer? Well… calculus. In a nutshell, displacement amplitude = velocity amplitude × 1/ω where ω is 188,000 radians per second at 30 kHz. The displacement amplitude would be 0.74 meters. 740 millimeters. Ahem… that didn’t survive the gravity test. The little device shown would be lucky to support a displacement amplitude of a single millimeter, let alone 740 of them. It’d explode. So, we get back to the basics. And the basics don’t foot. And that in turn doesn’t support “it working” as described. Just saying, GoatGuy
(contined part 2)Since the displacement is to the first approximation sinusoidal what does this infer? Well… calculus. In a nutshell displacement amplitude = velocity amplitude × 1/ω where ω is 188000 radians per second at 30 kHz. The displacement amplitude would be 0.74 meters. 740 millimeters. Ahem… that didn’t survive the gravity test. The little device shown would be lucky to support a displacement amplitude of a single millimeter let alone 740 of them. It’d explode. So we get back to the basics.And the basics don’t foot.And that in turn doesn’t support it working”” as described.Just saying””””GoatGuy”””””””
Yah, yah… hey: it gets real HARD to accept the Mach Effect conjecture when at the very outset of their first principles, an assertion is made that is functionally preposterous. Read the little “beige panel” above. The one that has in bold “A mass fluctuation per unit mass on the order of 10⁻⁸ with a period of microseconds is a small variation of mass per time. It deseres further experimentation and theoretical study.” and prior to that “Our experiments use a devices with a mass of 0.2 kg, the mass is calculated to fluctuate at 30 kHz with a zero-to-peak amplitude on the order of a Planck Mass (2.18×10⁻⁸ kg).” IF you hope ot chafe my math, do so while reading the following. The originating authors (in that same beige panel) cite the Δm/m or embodiment-of-energy as Δm change of mass, of various things like heating iron plates, combusting methane, melting of ice, emission of power from Sun (see, I did read it in detail), as being on the order of Δm/m = ( 10⁻¹⁰, 3.7×10⁻¹², 10⁻¹², 6.5×10⁻¹² ) respectively over salient time frames. Using… … E = mc² (in MKS units, c = 299,792,458 m/s) … ΔE = Δmc² So lets plug in the various factors listed above … ΔE = 10⁻¹⁰ × 299,792,458² … ΔE = 8.9 MJ/kg (methane) … … cf. 54.0 MJ/kg methane combustion enthalpy lookup … … cf. 10.8 MJ/kg methane + oxygen as a mixture … ΔE = 3.7×10⁻¹² × 299,792,458² … ΔE = 332 kJ/kg (melting ice) … … cf. 334 kJ/kg from lookup of enthalpy of water fusion … ΔE = 10⁻¹² × 299,792,458² … ΔE = 90 kJ/kg (200° K iron heating) … … cf. 90 kJ/kg from lookup of heat-capacity of iron … ΔE = 6.5×10⁻¹² × 299,792,458² … ΔE = 584 kJ/kg (100 years Sol output) … … cf. … didn’t do. Let’s assume is mostly right. How closely do these work out as viable Δm numbers? Good enough, tho’ the burning-of-methane one is off. Strictly, methane burning releases around 54,000,000 J/kg of methane. Derated for methane+oxygen stochiometric (“perfect” ration) amounts, then it drops to 10,800,000 J/kg: very close to
Yah yah… hey: it gets real HARD to accept the Mach Effect conjecture when at the very outset of their first principles an assertion is made that is functionally preposterous. Read the little beige panel”” above. The one that has in bold “”””A mass fluctuation per unit mass on the order of 10⁻⁸ with a period of microseconds is a small variation of mass per time. It deseres further experimentation and theoretical study.”””” and prior to that “”””Our experiments use a devices with a mass of 0.2 kg”””” the mass is calculated to fluctuate at 30 kHz with a zero-to-peak amplitude on the order of a Planck Mass (2.18×10⁻⁸ kg).””””IF you hope ot chafe my math”” do so while reading the following. The originating authors (in that same beige panel) cite the Δm/m or embodiment-of-energy as Δm change of mass of various things like heating iron plates combusting methane melting of ice emission of power from Sun (see I did read it in detail) as being on the order of Δm/m = ( 10⁻¹⁰ 3.7×10⁻¹² 10⁻¹² 6.5×10⁻¹² ) respectively over salient time frames. Using…… E = mc² (in MKS units c = 299792458 m/s)… ΔE = Δmc²So lets plug in the various factors listed above… ΔE = 10⁻¹⁰ × 299792458²… ΔE = 8.9 MJ/kg (methane)… … cf. 54.0 MJ/kg methane combustion enthalpy lookup… … cf. 10.8 MJ/kg methane + oxygen as a mixture… ΔE = 3.7×10⁻¹² × 299792458²… ΔE = 332 kJ/kg (melting ice)… … cf. 334 kJ/kg from lookup of enthalpy of water fusion… ΔE = 10⁻¹² × 299792458²… ΔE = 90 kJ/kg (200° K iron heating)… … cf. 90 kJ/kg from lookup of heat-capacity of iron… ΔE = 6.5×10⁻¹² × 299792458²… ΔE = 584 kJ/kg (100 years Sol output)… … cf. … didn’t do. Let’s assume is mostly right.How closely do these work out as viable Δm numbers? Good enough tho’ the burning-of-methane one is off. Strictly methane burning releases around 540″”000 J/kg of methane. Derated for methane+oxygen stochiometric (“”””perfect”””” ration) amounts”” then it drops to 10800″”000″
And free to you does not mean free thermodynamically any more than a ship’s sails are over unity devices.
And free to you does not mean free thermodynamically any more than a ship’s sails are over unity devices.
Your math is off. But I’ve gone thru and redone it correctly. GIVEN… … M₀ = 600,000 kg (MSR, MED, payload) … k = 200 mN/kW → 0.0002 N/W … 90% power utilization from a 200 MWe MSR (180,000,000 W) for MED Then… … F = kP = 0.0002 × 180,000,000 … F = 36,000 N … a = F/m = 36,000 ÷ 600,000 … a = 0.060 m/s² … a = 448,000 km/day² … a = 0.00299 AU/day² (a useful interplanetary/interstellar number) In 365 days, … V = at = 0.00299 × 365 … V = 1.09 AU/day (= 1,893 km/s) … d = ½at² … d = 0.5 × 0.00299 × 365² … d = 200 AU The “over unity” kinetic energy breakeven is at 2/k = 10,000 m/s, which at 0.060 m/s² takes: … V = at … t = V/a … t = 10,000 ÷ 0.060 … t = 167,000 s (almost 2 days) Testing it: At 365 days, the speed is 1,893,000 m/s. Using: … E = ½mv² … E = 0.5 × 600,000 kg • (1,893,000 m/s)² … E = 1.08×10¹⁸ J (kinetic energy) … t = 365 × 24 × 60 × 60 … t = 31,550,000 sec … P = 1.08×10¹⁸ ÷ 31,550,000 … P = 34,100,000,000 watts Showing that the kinetic energy of the vehicle will be approximately … x = P/p … x = 34,100,000,000 W ÷ 180,000,000 W … x = 189 Well, the total kinetic energy of the spacecraft is “only” 189× that of the total electrical input energy to your proposed 300% over 60 mN/kW Woodward drive. How about that. Much free energy indeed. PS: the velocity of 1,893 km/s is about 0.63% of the speed of light. Just saying, [b]Goat[/b]Guy
Your math is off. But I’ve gone thru and redone it correctly. GIVEN…… M₀ = 600000 kg (MSR MED payload)… k = 200 mN/kW → 0.0002 N/W… 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} power utilization from a 200 MWe MSR (180000000 W) for MEDThen…… F = kP = 0.0002 × 180000000… F = 36000 N… a = F/m = 36000 ÷ 600000… a = 0.060 m/s²… a = 448000 km/day²… a = 0.00299 AU/day² (a useful interplanetary/interstellar number)In 365 days … V = at = 0.00299 × 365… V = 1.09 AU/day (= 1893 km/s)… d = ½at² … d = 0.5 × 0.00299 × 365²… d = 200 AUThe over unity”” kinetic energy breakeven is at 2/k = 10″”000 m/s which at 0.060 m/s² takes:… V = at… t = V/a… t = 10000 ÷ 0.060… t = 167000 s (almost 2 days)Testing it: At 365 days the speed is 1893000 m/s. Using:… E = ½mv²… E = 0.5 × 600000 kg • (1893000 m/s)²… E = 1.08×10¹⁸ J (kinetic energy)… t = 365 × 24 × 60 × 60… t = 31550000 sec… P = 1.08×10¹⁸ ÷ 31550000… P = 341000000 wattsShowing that the kinetic energy of the vehicle will be approximately… x = P/p… x = 341000000 W ÷ 1800000 W… x = 189 Well”” the total kinetic energy of the spacecraft is “”””only”””” 189× that of the total electrical input energy to your proposed 300{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} over 60 mN/kW Woodward drive. How about that. Much free energy indeed. PS: the velocity of 1″”893 km/s is about 0.63{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the speed of light. Just saying””[b]Goat[/b]Guy”””””””
Yes really. The math you still won’t look at it is right up there in the post you are commenting on. None of your rhetoric addresses or changes that. There is no invective here, just facts you don’t like.
Yes really. The math you still won’t look at it is right up there in the post you are commenting on.None of your rhetoric addresses or changes that. There is no invective here just facts you don’t like.
He said ICE engines went from incredibly weak and unreliable engines to being very well understood and high power devices. That’s ridiculous to you because you are a pathological skeptic.
He said ICE engines went from incredibly weak and unreliable engines to being very well understood and high power devices. That’s ridiculous to you because you are a pathological skeptic.
Really Tom? Let’s see… you provide NO math whatsoever. ZIPPO. NADA. ZERO. NONE. ZILCH. That makes you a pumpkin on a post topped with a clown hat, Jack. I’ll stick with consistent math, provable, ordered, obvious, clean. You will no doubt gin up additional ad hominem invective. Maths beat baseless invective every minute of the day. LOL! Just saying, [b]Goat[/b]Guy
Really Tom? Let’s see… you provide NO math whatsoever. ZIPPO.NADA.ZERO. NONE. ZILCH. That makes you a pumpkin on a post topped with a clown hat Jack. I’ll stick with consistent math provable ordered obvious clean. You will no doubt gin up additional ad hominem invective. Maths beat baseless invective every minute of the day. LOL! Just saying[b]Goat[/b]Guy”
He made the ridiculous comparison of ICE to Mach (mock) effect, not me.
He made the ridiculous comparison of ICE to Mach (mock) effect not me.
Come on Tom, even the mach effect guys themselves now claim that you can get more energy out of these things than you put in (if it works).
They just claim that the energy is coming from interaction with external fields that we are usually not able to access.
But getting more energy than we are supplying is accepted as a natural result of the theory.
Power = force x velocity
That’s it. That’s what the word Power means.
Tom venit etiam ad effectum mach guys se nunc plus potest dici quod haec de industria in vobis est (si enim operatus). Sicut non dici quod est ex industria vita cum externa agrorum, ut plerumque sunt non possunt accedere. Sed acrius quam supplere quando accipitur ex naturali ratione. Quod est potentia cum velocitate = x vis est. Hoc illud est quod per potentiam est.
Tom venit etiam ad effectum mach guys se nunc plus potest dici quod haec de industria in vobis est (si enim operatus). Sicut non dici quod est ex industria vita cum externa agrorum, ut plerumque sunt non possunt accedere. Sed acrius quam supplere quando accipitur ex naturali ratione. Quod est potentia cum velocitate = x vis est. Hoc illud est quod per potentiam est.
If all information presented here was of equal validity, then you would have a point. That’s why you don’t have one.
If all information presented here was of equal validity then you would have a point.That’s why you don’t have one.
Meaninglessly said.
Meaninglessly said.
And I still say that a good fused silica ribbon torsion pendulum, with the “drive” in a balanced Faraday chamber, being turned off and on at the resonant frequency, would settle this pretty quick. That kind of setup could detect the thrust from an LED.
Just saying,
Just saying” “” “””
I am not a shorter of Tesla (not long, not in Tesla FWIW) but Tesla just got hammered by a SEC investigation.
Which is what I said would happen, much to my sadness. CEOs of the world: don’t tweet when you are high on drugs.
If they are quiet shorters yes. These are very loud “short and distort” shorters.
If they are quiet shorters yes. These are very loud short and distort”” shorters.”””
Which being noise can be validly filtered to show the signal. And has been.
Which being noise can be validly filtered to show the signal. And has been.
But not skepticism in the face of evidence. Scaryjello and Marcus are acting as if there is no distinction to be drawn between degrees of evidence for an idea, and the provenance of that evidence, if it is seen here at NBF — that all drastically sneering skepticism is equally valid here. It’s not so. In this case, the claims are not amazing at all, they are a necessary and direct consequence of what is already known about the universe. That math Goatguy never dares to do? What he claims he’s never been presented with? It is right up there in this post. It’s been posted here before, he’s no doubt seen it. He merely refuses to deal with math that shows what is his religious faith the universe can’t work the way Mach conjectured is a faith about to be undone. It is not possible for that math he has done here to be meaningful in commenting about the MET, because his math presumes energy cannot enter the system other than what enters locally and electrically. Something produces what we know to be gravity and inertia. It brings a planet to see a generally Copernican path around a star as the straightest line it can follow. This property of mass is gravity distorting spacetime. An object at rest tends to stay at rest, and one in motion tends to stay in motion, until an external force acts on it. E=MC^2. None of that is in dispute. It is a certainty that by altering the E associated with a volume of M and then effectively it’s M is changed. Therefore, you can push when it is heavy and pull when it is light. The math describing that is right in the article above. Will the likes of Goatguy deign to look at it?
But not skepticism in the face of evidence.Scaryjello and Marcus are acting as if there is no distinction to be drawn between degrees of evidence for an idea and the provenance of that evidence if it is seen here at NBF — that all drastically sneering skepticism is equally valid here.It’s not so.In this case the claims are not amazing at all they are a necessary and direct consequence of what is already known about the universe.That math Goatguy never dares to do? What he claims he’s never been presented with? It is right up there in this post. It’s been posted here before he’s no doubt seen it. He merely refuses to deal with math that shows what is his religious faith the universe can’t work the way Mach conjectured is a faith about to be undone. It is not possible for that math he has done here to be meaningful in commenting about the MET because his math presumes energy cannot enter the system other than what enters locally and electrically.Something produces what we know to be gravity and inertia. It brings a planet to see a generally Copernican path around a star as the straightest line it can follow. This property of mass is gravity distorting spacetime. An object at rest tends to stay at rest and one in motion tends to stay in motion until an external force acts on it. E=MC^2. None of that is in dispute.It is a certainty that by altering the E associated with a volume of M and then effectively it’s M is changed. Therefore you can push when it is heavy and pull when it is light.The math describing that is right in the article above.Will the likes of Goatguy deign to look at it?
He didn’t lose you, your pathologically skeptical brain saw fnord. Goatguy merely saw math he didn’t like.
He didn’t lose you your pathologically skeptical brain saw fnord. Goatguy merely saw math he didn’t like.
It’s tough to produce thrust in a vacuum from nothing; it’s significantly less tough to make explosions turn a crank.
It’s tough to produce thrust in a vacuum from nothing; it’s significantly less tough to make explosions turn a crank.
I like how the ankle biters didn’t key-in on your over-unity comments. You phrased it very carefully this time out of courtesy to the true believers – very gentle.
Honesty is the best policy. Providing you are dealing with a listener who 1. Will treat a best guess as a best guess and not a guarantee. (See Dennis’s explanation for details.) 2. Will assume that you actually gave a best guess, and not assume there is 50% margin in there that they can cut. 3. Will not change the specifications/resources/requirements 3/4 of the way through and still expect the same completion date. 4. Will not report your number to someone else who will fail to meet all these criteria.
Honesty is the best policy. Providing you are dealing with a listener who 1. Will treat a best guess as a best guess and not a guarantee. (See Dennis’s explanation for details.)2. Will assume that you actually gave a best guess and not assume there is 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} margin in there that they can cut.3. Will not change the specifications/resources/requirements 3/4 of the way through and still expect the same completion date.4. Will not report your number to someone else who will fail to meet all these criteria.
Oh, and the word “plagiarism” comes up sometimes because Brian is not as careful as I would be about carefully marking out in his articles which bits were quoting other sources. Those of us who are used to his style accept that he is mostly quoting and don’t take any notice of it.
Oh and the word plagiarism”” comes up sometimes because Brian is not as careful as I would be about carefully marking out in his articles which bits were quoting other sources. Those of us who are used to his style accept that he is mostly quoting and don’t take any notice of it.”””
Pointlessly posted…
I say… from your dirk-in-the-ribs-responses, I have to think that you’ve collected these over some time. Sociopath? Seems to be. If snakes had no fangs, they’d be as harmless as worms. You collect fangs. Bravo, snake. GoatGuy
There were a lot of accusations being thrown around this forum of people being short various Elon Musk companies (especially Tesla) and that this was why they insisted that the companies in question were going to crash and burn any day now. My own little-informed opinion is that professional short sellers tend to be very cautious and only bet against something that has serious evidence against it (because they can lose all their money fairly easily). And so having lots of short sellers of your company stock is a warning sign, not an excuse.
There were a lot of accusations being thrown around this forum of people being short various Elon Musk companies (especially Tesla) and that this was why they insisted that the companies in question were going to crash and burn any day now.My own little-informed opinion is that professional short sellers tend to be very cautious and only bet against something that has serious evidence against it (because they can lose all their money fairly easily). And so having lots of short sellers of your company stock is a warning sign not an excuse.
Good point about proving Hall Effect thrusters. I suspect that part of the problem is that while producing (apparently) the mN/kW of a HE thruster, they do so while being much larger, heavier, and with lots of vibration. All of which adds considerable noise to any measurement.
Good point about proving Hall Effect thrusters. I suspect that part of the problem is that while producing (apparently) the mN/kW of a HE thruster they do so while being much larger heavier and with lots of vibration. All of which adds considerable noise to any measurement.
(contined, part 2)
Since the displacement is to the first approximation sinusoidal, what does this infer? Well… calculus. In a nutshell, displacement amplitude = velocity amplitude × 1/ω where ω is 188,000 radians per second at 30 kHz.
The displacement amplitude would be 0.74 meters.
740 millimeters.
Ahem… that didn’t survive the gravity test. The little device shown would be lucky to support a displacement amplitude of a single millimeter, let alone 740 of them. It’d explode.
So, we get back to the basics.
And the basics don’t foot.
And that in turn doesn’t support “it working” as described.
Just saying,
GoatGuy
Yah, yah… hey: it gets real HARD to accept the Mach Effect conjecture when at the very outset of their first principles, an assertion is made that is functionally preposterous.
Read the little “beige panel” above. The one that has in bold “A mass fluctuation per unit mass on the order of 10⁻⁸ with a period of microseconds is a small variation of mass per time. It deseres further experimentation and theoretical study.” and prior to that “Our experiments use a devices with a mass of 0.2 kg, the mass is calculated to fluctuate at 30 kHz with a zero-to-peak amplitude on the order of a Planck Mass (2.18×10⁻⁸ kg).”
IF you hope ot chafe my math, do so while reading the following.
The originating authors (in that same beige panel) cite the Δm/m or embodiment-of-energy as Δm change of mass, of various things like heating iron plates, combusting methane, melting of ice, emission of power from Sun (see, I did read it in detail), as being on the order of Δm/m = ( 10⁻¹⁰, 3.7×10⁻¹², 10⁻¹², 6.5×10⁻¹² ) respectively over salient time frames. Using…
… E = mc² (in MKS units, c = 299,792,458 m/s)
… ΔE = Δmc²
So lets plug in the various factors listed above
… ΔE = 10⁻¹⁰ × 299,792,458²
… ΔE = 8.9 MJ/kg (methane)
… … cf. 54.0 MJ/kg methane combustion enthalpy lookup
… … cf. 10.8 MJ/kg methane + oxygen as a mixture
… ΔE = 3.7×10⁻¹² × 299,792,458²
… ΔE = 332 kJ/kg (melting ice)
… … cf. 334 kJ/kg from lookup of enthalpy of water fusion
… ΔE = 10⁻¹² × 299,792,458²
… ΔE = 90 kJ/kg (200° K iron heating)
… … cf. 90 kJ/kg from lookup of heat-capacity of iron
… ΔE = 6.5×10⁻¹² × 299,792,458²
… ΔE = 584 kJ/kg (100 years Sol output)
… … cf. … didn’t do. Let’s assume is mostly right.
How closely do these work out as viable Δm numbers? Good enough, tho’ the burning-of-methane one is off. Strictly, methane burning releases around 54,000,000 J/kg of methane. Derated for methane+oxygen stochiometric (“perfect” ration) amounts, then it drops to 10,800,000 J/kg: very close to the 8.8 MJ/kg listed An “acceptable typo”.
But the IMPORTANT take-away is this: a Δm change-of-mass on the order of 10⁻⁸ would be:
… ΔE = 10⁻⁸ × 299,792,458²
… ΔE = 1,956 MJ per 0.2 kg
… ΔE = 9,756 MJ per kg
… ΔE = 2,336 kg of TNT per kg of PZT
… &Detla;E = 2,717 kWh per kg of brass.
Now this is where the author’s numbers fall off the rails. Compressional energies — even of the amazing piezoelectric material PZT cannot store, even for moments, compressional energies of thousands of kilowatt-hours of strain per kilogram. They would simply explode. The same goes for the “accelerated brass mass”. To attain a velocity-component Δm mass increase of 10⁻⁸ requires:
ΔE = ½mv²
v = √( 2 ^Delta;E / m )
v = √( 2 9.78×10⁹ ÷ 1.00 )
v = 140,000 m/s
So that’d require the little brass rat to be whizzing back and forth at 140 kilometers per SECOND at 30 kHz. Ouch, that hurts the head.
(see more)
Of the articles in this site about new types of technology, and new science, as opposed to bigger/better/faster versions of existing technology, just how many have actually worked out in real life? Skepticism in the face of amazing claims is the correct response until proven otherwise.
Of the articles in this site about new types of technology and new science as opposed to bigger/better/faster versions of existing technology just how many have actually worked out in real life?Skepticism in the face of amazing claims is the correct response until proven otherwise.
Without mentioning any names, this sort of “well, we ignored instructions and destroyed it, so your system doesn’t work” is by no means restricted to cutting edge physics. At least in my experience.
Without mentioning any names this sort of well” we ignored instructions and destroyed it” so your system doesn’t work”” is by no means restricted to cutting edge physics.At least in my experience.”””
One factor the Manhattan Project had going for it was a huge, immediate, national and indeed international need for the product. (There was a world war on, and this was promising an invincible superweapon that could win wars near risklessly.) If someone in peacetime 1950s had brought up the prospect of controlled fission reactions, but with the promised product being cheapish power, which would compete with equally effective coal/gas/oil/hydro. Well there may have been some interest but it would probably have been powerpoint talks and slow grinding progress with no breakthrough achievements for decades.
One factor the Manhattan Project had going for it was a huge immediate national and indeed international need for the product. (There was a world war on and this was promising an invincible superweapon that could win wars near risklessly.)If someone in peacetime 1950s had brought up the prospect of controlled fission reactions but with the promised product being cheapish power which would compete with equally effective coal/gas/oil/hydro. Well there may have been some interest but it would probably have been powerpoint talks and slow grinding progress with no breakthrough achievements for decades.
This actually applies to all of the super high ISP, low thrust tech that are floating around these days. (And propellentless drives have ISP of infinity.) For short distances, and Earth-Moon or even Earth-Mars are short by these standards, you are better off with a couple of hundred tonnes of oxygen and hydrogen and a good old fashioned rocket. It’s once you get to the outer planets, or Pluto, or further, that rockets just fall on their faces and the slow but super-efficient stuff pulls ahead and starts to look really good.
This actually applies to all of the super high ISP low thrust tech that are floating around these days. (And propellentless drives have ISP of infinity.)For short distances and Earth-Moon or even Earth-Mars are short by these standards you are better off with a couple of hundred tonnes of oxygen and hydrogen and a good old fashioned rocket.It’s once you get to the outer planets or Pluto or further that rockets just fall on their faces and the slow but super-efficient stuff pulls ahead and starts to look really good.
And free to you does not mean free thermodynamically any more than a ship’s sails are over unity devices.
Your math is off. But I’ve gone thru and redone it correctly. GIVEN…
… M₀ = 600,000 kg (MSR, MED, payload)
… k = 200 mN/kW → 0.0002 N/W
… 90% power utilization from a 200 MWe MSR (180,000,000 W) for MED
Then…
… F = kP = 0.0002 × 180,000,000
… F = 36,000 N
… a = F/m = 36,000 ÷ 600,000
… a = 0.060 m/s²
… a = 448,000 km/day²
… a = 0.00299 AU/day² (a useful interplanetary/interstellar number)
In 365 days,
… V = at = 0.00299 × 365
… V = 1.09 AU/day (= 1,893 km/s)
… d = ½at²
… d = 0.5 × 0.00299 × 365²
… d = 200 AU
The “over unity” kinetic energy breakeven is at 2/k = 10,000 m/s, which at 0.060 m/s² takes:
… V = at
… t = V/a
… t = 10,000 ÷ 0.060
… t = 167,000 s (almost 2 days)
Testing it: At 365 days, the speed is 1,893,000 m/s. Using:
… E = ½mv²
… E = 0.5 × 600,000 kg • (1,893,000 m/s)²
… E = 1.08×10¹⁸ J (kinetic energy)
… t = 365 × 24 × 60 × 60
… t = 31,550,000 sec
… P = 1.08×10¹⁸ ÷ 31,550,000
… P = 34,100,000,000 watts
Showing that the kinetic energy of the vehicle will be approximately
… x = P/p
… x = 34,100,000,000 W ÷ 180,000,000 W
… x = 189
Well, the total kinetic energy of the spacecraft is “only” 189× that of the total electrical input energy to your proposed 300% over 60 mN/kW Woodward drive. How about that. Much free energy indeed.
PS: the velocity of 1,893 km/s is about 0.63% of the speed of light.
Just saying,
[b]Goat[/b]Guy
Yes really. The math you still won’t look at it is right up there in the post you are commenting on.
None of your rhetoric addresses or changes that. There is no invective here, just facts you don’t like.
He said ICE engines went from incredibly weak and unreliable engines to being very well understood and high power devices. That’s ridiculous to you because you are a pathological skeptic.
Really Tom?
Let’s see…
you provide NO math whatsoever.
ZIPPO.
NADA.
ZERO.
NONE.
ZILCH.
That makes you a pumpkin on a post topped with a clown hat, Jack.
I’ll stick with consistent math, provable, ordered, obvious, clean.
You will no doubt gin up additional ad hominem invective.
Maths beat baseless invective every minute of the day.
LOL!
Just saying,
[b]Goat[/b]Guy
He made the ridiculous comparison of ICE to Mach (mock) effect, not me.
Look at the history of the ICE.” ok, ICE was powering airplanes in 1903; it was fabricated in a bike shop. Lost me with the rest of it.
Look at the history of the ICE.””ok”””” ICE was powering airplanes in 1903; it was fabricated in a bike shop.Lost me with the rest of it.”””
If all information presented here was of equal validity, then you would have a point.
That’s why you don’t have one.
Meaninglessly said.
” Just saying, ” <-- Nothing with any relevance whatsoever. All your math falls into the category of, as Don Lancaster put it, of "not even wrong".
If they are quiet shorters yes. These are very loud “short and distort” shorters.
Which being noise can be validly filtered to show the signal. And has been.
But not skepticism in the face of evidence.
Scaryjello and Marcus are acting as if there is no distinction to be drawn between degrees of evidence for an idea, and the provenance of that evidence, if it is seen here at NBF — that all drastically sneering skepticism is equally valid here.
It’s not so.
In this case, the claims are not amazing at all, they are a necessary and direct consequence of what is already known about the universe.
That math Goatguy never dares to do? What he claims he’s never been presented with? It is right up there in this post. It’s been posted here before, he’s no doubt seen it. He merely refuses to deal with math that shows what is his religious faith the universe can’t work the way Mach conjectured is a faith about to be undone. It is not possible for that math he has done here to be meaningful in commenting about the MET, because his math presumes energy cannot enter the system other than what enters locally and electrically.
Something produces what we know to be gravity and inertia. It brings a planet to see a generally Copernican path around a star as the straightest line it can follow. This property of mass is gravity distorting spacetime. An object at rest tends to stay at rest, and one in motion tends to stay in motion, until an external force acts on it. E=MC^2. None of that is in dispute.
It is a certainty that by altering the E associated with a volume of M and then effectively it’s M is changed. Therefore, you can push when it is heavy and pull when it is light.
The math describing that is right in the article above.
Will the likes of Goatguy deign to look at it?
He didn’t lose you, your pathologically skeptical brain saw fnord. Goatguy merely saw math he didn’t like.
A reactionless drive is kinda cool, but an Infinite Improbability Drive, now that’s cool.
A reactionless drive is kinda cool but an Infinite Improbability Drive now that’s cool.
Look at the history of the ICE. It has increased in performance in term of power to displacement/engine size by several orders of magnitude. That was possible due to heavy investment. So far, the Mach Effect drives have been largely produced on shoestring budgets. You would have to think that more money opens up better materials and manufacturing techniques that would lead to performance increases. If they increased it by say 300% or to roughly 200 millinewtons per kilowatt, or 0.2 newtons per kilowatt. Theoretically a 600 ton space craft with a 250 ton 200 MW SMR MSR (this is about on par with many current designs for high output MSRs), 250 ton set of mach effect thrusters (leaving 100 tons for a shield and other stuff) using 190 MW (190,000 killowatts) for some 200 millinewton (0.2 newton) per kilowatt efficiency mach effect thruster array (a 300% performance increase), it would generate 20,000 newtons of thrust for a 600,000 kg space craft. That’s about 33 millinewtons per kg, which is about 0.033 m/s of acceleration in zero G. At that rate the space craft would be traveling around 900 km/s in a year, or about 20 times faster than any other space craft. In 10 years it would be traveling 0.03% the speed of light.
Look at the history of the ICE. It has increased in performance in term of power to displacement/engine size by several orders of magnitude. That was possible due to heavy investment. So far the Mach Effect drives have been largely produced on shoestring budgets. You would have to think that more money opens up better materials and manufacturing techniques that would lead to performance increases. If they increased it by say 300{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} or to roughly 200 millinewtons per kilowatt or 0.2 newtons per kilowatt. Theoretically a 600 ton space craft with a 250 ton 200 MW SMR MSR (this is about on par with many current designs for high output MSRs) 250 ton set of mach effect thrusters (leaving 100 tons for a shield and other stuff) using 190 MW (190000 killowatts) for some 200 millinewton (0.2 newton) per kilowatt efficiency mach effect thruster array (a 300{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} performance increase) it would generate 20000 newtons of thrust for a 600000 kg space craft. That’s about 33 millinewtons per kg which is about 0.033 m/s of acceleration in zero G. At that rate the space craft would be traveling around 900 km/s in a year or about 20 times faster than any other space craft. In 10 years it would be traveling 0.03{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} the speed of light.
That would be why they’re talking interstellar missions, not Mars trips. That low but continuous acceleration adds up over a few years.
That would be why they’re talking interstellar missions not Mars trips. That low but continuous acceleration adds up over a few years.
It’s tough to produce thrust in a vacuum from nothing; it’s significantly less tough to make explosions turn a crank.
also should be ~they should be as provable as Hall Effect thrusters, right?~
also should be ~they should be as provable as Hall Effect thrusters right?~
Apart from the folk who castigate you for your comic skepticism, I’ve ⊕1 pushed a vote your direction. There definitely is a bit of the [i]“uncertainty and heat”[/i]. They’re only MEASURING micronewtons so far. At least from the graphics contained herein and the main article. Micronewtons are forces approximately that of a common mosquito sitting on your arm. … F = 2.5 mg × 9.8 N/kg ÷ 1,000 g/kg … F = 25 µN Well, no, mosquitoes apparently are still running 4–8 times more newtonian (Ugh… who couldn’t pass by that pun) than the good article’s experimenters’ apparatus. Just saying, [b]Goat[/b]Guy
Apart from the folk who castigate you for your comic skepticism I’ve ⊕1 pushed a vote your direction. There definitely is a bit of the [i]“uncertainty and heat”[/i]. They’re only MEASURING micronewtons so far. At least from the graphics contained herein and the main article. Micronewtons are forces approximately that of a common mosquito sitting on your arm. … F = 2.5 mg × 9.8 N/kg ÷ 1000 g/kg… F = 25 µNWell no mosquitoes apparently are still running 4–8 times more newtonian (Ugh… who couldn’t pass by that pun) than the good article’s experimenters’ apparatus. Just saying[b]Goat[/b]Guy”
If it could produce uncertainty we would be in high fantasy.
If it could produce uncertainty we would be in high fantasy.
Leave the government out of this. We need a clone of Elon Musk or someone like him.
Leave the government out of this.We need a clone of Elon Musk or someone like him.
PS: using V₂ = 2/k for the breakeven, which we determined was 33.3 km/s and … t = V/a … t = 33.3 ÷ 0.00000024 … t = 138,750,000 sec (1,606 days, or 4.4 years) It is pretty clear that to actually GET to the over-unity-magic-free-energy-machine velocity is quite a bit further off than what most cubesat missions are willing to wait. That, and further in distance. … D = ½at² … D = 0.00000012 × 138,750,000² … D = 2.3 billion kilometers. About 15.5 AU, or somewhere between Saturn 10 AU and Uranus 20 AU. Just saying, [b]Goat[/b]Guy
PS: using V₂ = 2/k for the breakeven which we determined was 33.3 km/s and … t = V/a … t = 33.3 ÷ 0.00000024 … t = 138750000 sec (1606 days or 4.4 years) It is pretty clear that to actually GET to the over-unity-magic-free-energy-machine velocity is quite a bit further off than what most cubesat missions are willing to wait. That and further in distance. … D = ½at² … D = 0.00000012 × 138750000² … D = 2.3 billion kilometers. About 15.5 AU or somewhere between Saturn 10 AU and Uranus 20 AU.Just saying[b]Goat[/b]Guy”
Nice active comment threads. Good! Millinewtons per kilowatt is kind of a weird unit-system. I guess it works for spacecraft: they’re happy with millinewton course adjustments and azimuth corrections, and they’ve typically got “kilowatts hanging around” to employ to such purposes. But in straight physics, we ought to have at least ONE of the parameters in its natural unit form. Either newtons per megawatt or micronewtons per watt. Since the “adds-more-kinetic-energy-than-input-energy” breakpoint is V = 2/k, where k = newtons-per-watt, well … V = 2/k … V = 2 ÷ 0.000060 N/W … V = 33,333 m/s That’s pretty fast, for things in outer space. If our probe has a nuclear power supply (or a very light weight photovoltaic one), and weighs in at what, 5,000 kg, produces 25 kW of power, 20 of which is available to the Magic Thruster … … P = 20,000 … F = Pk = 20,000 W × 0.000060 N/W … F = 1.2 newtons … F = ma … … a = F/m … a = 1.2 ÷ 5,000 kg … a = 0.00024 m/s², or times 60² … a = 0.864 m/min² or times 60² … a = 3,100 m/hr² or times 24² … a = 1,791,000 m/day² Though admittedly, those last bits don’t really help with much. Everything “spacey” seems to be done in km/s for the most part. So: … a = 0.00024 m/s² × 0.001 km/m … a = 0.00000024 km/s² Now to get an appreciable (1 km/s?) ΔV change: … V = at … t = V/a … t = 1 km/s ÷ 0.00000024 km/s² … t = 4,166,667 s … divide by 60 × 60 × 24 … t = 48 days Well, there you are! Now should we ask, “how far did it travel?” Sure… … d = ½at² … d = 0.5 × 0.00000024 km/s² × 4,166,667² … d = 2,000,000 km. … divide by 150×10⁶ km/AU … d = 0.014 AU 1.4% of the Earth:Sol distance. In 48 days. Riveting! Edge of chair suspense! But it is going 1 km/s after the 48 days. This is good. Since we might want this for both ends of the Earth ↔ Mars transit, conservatively about 0.7 AU all in, let’s see. … D = 0.7 AU × 150×10⁶ km/AU … D = 105,000,000 km. … ½ D = ½at² (i.e. half-way accelerating, half-way decelerati
Nice active comment threads. Good!Millinewtons per kilowatt is kind of a weird unit-system. I guess it works for spacecraft: they’re happy with millinewton course adjustments and azimuth corrections and they’ve typically got kilowatts hanging around”” to employ to such purposes. But in straight physics”””” we ought to have at least ONE of the parameters in its natural unit form. Either newtons per megawatt or micronewtons per watt. Since the “”””adds-more-kinetic-energy-than-input-energy”””” breakpoint is V = 2/k”” where k = newtons-per-watt well … V = 2/k… V = 2 ÷ 0.000060 N/W… V = 33333 m/sThat’s pretty fast for things in outer space. If our probe has a nuclear power supply (or a very light weight photovoltaic one) and weighs in at what5000 kg produces 25 kW of power 20 of which is available to the Magic Thruster …… P = 20000… F = Pk = 20000 W × 0.000060 N/W… F = 1.2 newtons… F = ma …… a = F/m… a = 1.2 ÷ 5000 kg… a = 0.00024 m/s² or times 60²… a = 0.864 m/min² or times 60²… a = 3100 m/hr² or times 24²… a = 1791000 m/day²Though admittedly”” those last bits don’t really help with much. Everything “”””spacey”””” seems to be done in km/s for the most part. So:… a = 0.00024 m/s² × 0.001 km/m … a = 0.00000024 km/s²Now to get an appreciable (1 km/s?) ΔV change:… V = at… t = V/a… t = 1 km/s ÷ 0.00000024 km/s²… t = 4″”166667 s … divide by 60 × 60 × 24… t = 48 daysWell there you are! Now should we ask”” “”””how far did it travel?”””” Sure…… d = ½at²… d = 0.5 × 0.00000024 km/s² × 4″”166667²… d = 20000 km. … divide by 150×10⁶ km/AU… d = 0.014 AU1.4{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the Earth:Sol distance. In 48 days. Riveting! Edge of chair suspense! But it is going 1 km/s after the 48 days. This is good. Since we might want this for both ends of the Earth ↔ Mars transit conservatively about 0.7 AU all in let’s see. … D = 0″
When I started my career, my estimate was the most likely time of completion. But that meant I was late half the time. I discovered that management was always upset when I was late, but usually didn’t care if my estimate was long. So after a while I started giving estimates that I could meet, say, 95% of the time, which meant usually I had extra time. That’s what management wanted, and it makes sense if they’re making promises to customers, or making plans that get disrupted when engineers are late. An engineer with extra time can usually do something productive with it, so it works out well long-term. But an implication for any managers is that if you want to maximize throughput in the short term, then getting mad when engineers are late is exactly the wrong strategy.
When I started my career my estimate was the most likely time of completion. But that meant I was late half the time. I discovered that management was always upset when I was late but usually didn’t care if my estimate was long. So after a while I started giving estimates that I could meet say 95{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the time which meant usually I had extra time.That’s what management wanted and it makes sense if they’re making promises to customers or making plans that get disrupted when engineers are late.An engineer with extra time can usually do something productive with it so it works out well long-term. But an implication for any managers is that if you want to maximize throughput in the short term then getting mad when engineers are late is exactly the wrong strategy.
First, I wouldn’t assume that at all. Has there been any response to the accusations of plagiarism? Second, if reporting is not endorsing, then why are so many shorts twisted up into so many bunches over skepticism?
First I wouldn’t assume that at all. Has there been any response to the accusations of plagiarism?Second if reporting is not endorsing then why are so many shorts twisted up into so many bunches over skepticism?
Awesome! Well said.
Awesome! Well said.
Reporting is not endorsing. And this is something being actively researched somewhere. If it turns out to be nothing, then I assume it will be also reported here and elsewhere. I concur that we shouldn’t take anything anyone says here as the truth. Just as pointers to actual potential happenings (hence the Next Big Future name of the site).
Reporting is not endorsing. And this is something being actively researched somewhere.If it turns out to be nothing then I assume it will be also reported here and elsewhere.I concur that we shouldn’t take anything anyone says here as the truth. Just as pointers to actual potential happenings (hence the Next Big Future name of the site).
Building in time for contingencies, instead of assuming everything goes perfect. Personally, I give estimates of the, “If nobody interrupts me, I should have it done in a week, but when have I never been interrupted? Figure on two weeks.” sort.
Building in time for contingencies instead of assuming everything goes perfect. Personally I give estimates of the If nobody interrupts me” I should have it done in a week” but when have I never been interrupted? Figure on two weeks.”” sort.”””
Sandbagging is a filthy habit for engineers.
Sandbagging is a filthy habit for engineers.
Woodward seems eager for third party verification. So that to me is a genuine plus. Let the data and its replication speak for itself.
Woodward seems eager for third party verification. So that to me is a genuine plus.Let the data and its replication speak for itself.
Honesty is the best policy. Providing you are dealing with a listener who
1. Will treat a best guess as a best guess and not a guarantee. (See Dennis’s explanation for details.)
2. Will assume that you actually gave a best guess, and not assume there is 50% margin in there that they can cut.
3. Will not change the specifications/resources/requirements 3/4 of the way through and still expect the same completion date.
4. Will not report your number to someone else who will fail to meet all these criteria.
Oh, and the word “plagiarism” comes up sometimes because Brian is not as careful as I would be about carefully marking out in his articles which bits were quoting other sources.
Those of us who are used to his style accept that he is mostly quoting and don’t take any notice of it.
There were a lot of accusations being thrown around this forum of people being short various Elon Musk companies (especially Tesla) and that this was why they insisted that the companies in question were going to crash and burn any day now.
My own little-informed opinion is that professional short sellers tend to be very cautious and only bet against something that has serious evidence against it (because they can lose all their money fairly easily). And so having lots of short sellers of your company stock is a warning sign, not an excuse.
Good point about proving Hall Effect thrusters.
I suspect that part of the problem is that while producing (apparently) the mN/kW of a HE thruster, they do so while being much larger, heavier, and with lots of vibration. All of which adds considerable noise to any measurement.
Of the articles in this site about new types of technology, and new science, as opposed to bigger/better/faster versions of existing technology, just how many have actually worked out in real life?
Skepticism in the face of amazing claims is the correct response until proven otherwise.
In the early days, when even just the basic results have to be validated/reproduced, then it’s probably best to directly come over with the sample – or maybe record a video – to ensure that things are done properly. Otherwise, “Just Read the Instructions” won’t cut it.
In the early days when even just the basic results have to be validated/reproduced then it’s probably best to directly come over with the sample – or maybe record a video – to ensure that things are done properly. Otherwise Just Read the Instructions”” won’t cut it.”””
Without mentioning any names, this sort of “well, we ignored instructions and destroyed it, so your system doesn’t work” is by no means restricted to cutting edge physics.
At least in my experience.
One factor the Manhattan Project had going for it was a huge, immediate, national and indeed international need for the product. (There was a world war on, and this was promising an invincible superweapon that could win wars near risklessly.)
If someone in peacetime 1950s had brought up the prospect of controlled fission reactions, but with the promised product being cheapish power, which would compete with equally effective coal/gas/oil/hydro. Well there may have been some interest but it would probably have been powerpoint talks and slow grinding progress with no breakthrough achievements for decades.
If the principle is proven, then one is tempted into thinking “well heck, what are we waiting for, let’s gear up a Manhattan-Project-style Mach-Effect program.” But a major “giggle factor” paired with ordinary budgetary inertia would no doubt figure in.
If the principle is proven then one is tempted into thinking well heck” what are we waiting for” let’s gear up a Manhattan-Project-style Mach-Effect program.”” But a major “”””giggle factor”””” paired with ordinary budgetary inertia would no doubt figure in.”””
This actually applies to all of the super high ISP, low thrust tech that are floating around these days. (And propellentless drives have ISP of infinity.)
For short distances, and Earth-Moon or even Earth-Mars are short by these standards, you are better off with a couple of hundred tonnes of oxygen and hydrogen and a good old fashioned rocket.
It’s once you get to the outer planets, or Pluto, or further, that rockets just fall on their faces and the slow but super-efficient stuff pulls ahead and starts to look really good.
But a lot of what shows up here cannot be fairly considered as “news.” A lot of it is hype, gossip, or rumor, when it hasn’t degenerated into plagiarism, or paid advertisements, or breathless, credulous reports on obvious fraud and woo. The marginal virtue of this site is only that Wang manages to read and keep track of a bunch of different other sites and sources, and hurl them up against the wall in great quantity and at high velocity. It is *not* in his ability to act as a filter, and certainly not in his analytical ability, his critical skills, or his technical chops. So let’s stop pretending that any special deference is owed to anything found herein– it isn’t, and if you think it is, you aren’t reading carefully. Let’s *especially* stop pretending that Wang *or any of the readers here* are somehow specially “enlightened.” That is not how science and technology works. That is how magic and cults of personality work.
But a lot of what shows up here cannot be fairly considered as ews.”” A lot of it is hype”” gossip or rumor when it hasn’t degenerated into plagiarism or paid advertisements or breathless credulous reports on obvious fraud and woo.The marginal virtue of this site is only that Wang manages to read and keep track of a bunch of different other sites and sources and hurl them up against the wall in great quantity and at high velocity. It is *not* in his ability to act as a filter and certainly not in his analytical ability his critical skills or his technical chops. So let’s stop pretending that any special deference is owed to anything found herein– it isn’t and if you think it is”” you aren’t reading carefully.Let’s *especially* stop pretending that Wang *or any of the readers here* are somehow specially “”””enlightened.”””” That is not how science and technology works. That is how magic and cults of personality work.”””
should be ~three of five years~
should be ~three of five years~
Too many badly set up experiments
Too many badly set up experiments “” “””
One of the few things this site reported on that has actually been built was the Krusty kilopower stirling engine generator for Mars. Everything else is kind of fringe science – that’s why it’s fun to visit this site and call out the BS.
One of the few things this site reported on that has actually been built was the Krusty kilopower stirling engine generator for Mars. Everything else is kind of fringe science – that’s why it’s fun to visit this site and call out the BS.
“Look at the history of the ICE.”
ok, ICE was powering airplanes in 1903; it was fabricated in a bike shop.
Lost me with the rest of it.
I really laughed at the Scotty quote from that time in the new series where they rescued him from a form of suspended animation. Picard asks Gordy for an estimate on some work: Forge: Yeah, well, I told the Captain I’d have this analysis done in an hour. Scotty: How long will it really take? Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: An hour! Scotty: Oh, you didn’t tell him how long it would *really* take, did ya? Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: Well, of course I did. Scotty: Oh, laddie. You’ve got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker.
I really laughed at the Scotty quote from that time in the new series where they rescued him from a form of suspended animation. Picard asks Gordy for an estimate on some work:Forge: Yeah well I told the Captain I’d have this analysis done in an hour. Scotty: How long will it really take? Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: An hour! Scotty: Oh you didn’t tell him how long it would *really* take did ya? Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: Well of course I did.Scotty: Oh laddie. You’ve got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker.”
I’m not what anyone would call pathologically negative, and *I’m* dubious about this. Too many badly set up experiments. I always get suspicious when they continue doing bad experimental setups, instead of just doing one really, really sensitive experiment that would settle things.
I’m not what anyone would call pathologically negative and *I’m* dubious about this. Too many badly set up experiments. I always get suspicious when they continue doing bad experimental setups instead of just doing one really really sensitive experiment that would settle things.
A reactionless drive is kinda cool, but an Infinite Improbability Drive, now that’s cool.
Look at the history of the ICE. It has increased in performance in term of power to displacement/engine size by several orders of magnitude. That was possible due to heavy investment. So far, the Mach Effect drives have been largely produced on shoestring budgets. You would have to think that more money opens up better materials and manufacturing techniques that would lead to performance increases. If they increased it by say 300% or to roughly 200 millinewtons per kilowatt, or 0.2 newtons per kilowatt. Theoretically a 600 ton space craft with a 250 ton 200 MW SMR MSR (this is about on par with many current designs for high output MSRs), 250 ton set of mach effect thrusters (leaving 100 tons for a shield and other stuff) using 190 MW (190,000 killowatts) for some 200 millinewton (0.2 newton) per kilowatt efficiency mach effect thruster array (a 300% performance increase), it would generate 20,000 newtons of thrust for a 600,000 kg space craft. That’s about 33 millinewtons per kg, which is about 0.033 m/s of acceleration in zero G. At that rate the space craft would be traveling around 900 km/s in a year, or about 20 times faster than any other space craft. In 10 years it would be traveling 0.03% the speed of light.
That would be why they’re talking interstellar missions, not Mars trips. That low but continuous acceleration adds up over a few years.
also should be ~they should be as provable as Hall Effect thrusters, right?~
Apart from the folk who castigate you for your comic skepticism, I’ve ⊕1 pushed a vote your direction. There definitely is a bit of the [i]“uncertainty and heat”[/i]. They’re only MEASURING micronewtons so far. At least from the graphics contained herein and the main article. Micronewtons are forces approximately that of a common mosquito sitting on your arm.
… F = 2.5 mg × 9.8 N/kg ÷ 1,000 g/kg
… F = 25 µN
Well, no, mosquitoes apparently are still running 4–8 times more newtonian (Ugh… who couldn’t pass by that pun) than the good article’s experimenters’ apparatus.
Just saying,
[b]Goat[/b]Guy
If it could produce uncertainty we would be in high fantasy.
Leave the government out of this.
We need a clone of Elon Musk or someone like him.
PS: using V₂ = 2/k for the breakeven, which we determined was 33.3 km/s and
… t = V/a
… t = 33.3 ÷ 0.00000024
… t = 138,750,000 sec (1,606 days, or 4.4 years)
It is pretty clear that to actually GET to the over-unity-magic-free-energy-machine velocity is quite a bit further off than what most cubesat missions are willing to wait. That, and further in distance.
… D = ½at²
… D = 0.00000012 × 138,750,000²
… D = 2.3 billion kilometers.
About 15.5 AU, or somewhere between Saturn 10 AU and Uranus 20 AU.
Just saying,
[b]Goat[/b]Guy
Nice active comment threads. Good!
Millinewtons per kilowatt is kind of a weird unit-system. I guess it works for spacecraft: they’re happy with millinewton course adjustments and azimuth corrections, and they’ve typically got “kilowatts hanging around” to employ to such purposes.
But in straight physics, we ought to have at least ONE of the parameters in its natural unit form. Either newtons per megawatt or micronewtons per watt.
Since the “adds-more-kinetic-energy-than-input-energy” breakpoint is V = 2/k, where k = newtons-per-watt, well
… V = 2/k
… V = 2 ÷ 0.000060 N/W
… V = 33,333 m/s
That’s pretty fast, for things in outer space. If our probe has a nuclear power supply (or a very light weight photovoltaic one), and weighs in at what, 5,000 kg, produces 25 kW of power, 20 of which is available to the Magic Thruster …
… P = 20,000
… F = Pk = 20,000 W × 0.000060 N/W
… F = 1.2 newtons
… F = ma …
… a = F/m
… a = 1.2 ÷ 5,000 kg
… a = 0.00024 m/s², or times 60²
… a = 0.864 m/min² or times 60²
… a = 3,100 m/hr² or times 24²
… a = 1,791,000 m/day²
Though admittedly, those last bits don’t really help with much. Everything “spacey” seems to be done in km/s for the most part. So:
… a = 0.00024 m/s² × 0.001 km/m
… a = 0.00000024 km/s²
Now to get an appreciable (1 km/s?) ΔV change:
… V = at
… t = V/a
… t = 1 km/s ÷ 0.00000024 km/s²
… t = 4,166,667 s … divide by 60 × 60 × 24
… t = 48 days
Well, there you are! Now should we ask, “how far did it travel?” Sure…
… d = ½at²
… d = 0.5 × 0.00000024 km/s² × 4,166,667²
… d = 2,000,000 km. … divide by 150×10⁶ km/AU
… d = 0.014 AU
1.4% of the Earth:Sol distance. In 48 days. Riveting! Edge of chair suspense! But it is going 1 km/s after the 48 days. This is good. Since we might want this for both ends of the Earth ↔ Mars transit, conservatively about 0.7 AU all in, let’s see.
… D = 0.7 AU × 150×10⁶ km/AU
… D = 105,000,000 km.
… ½ D = ½at² (i.e. half-way accelerating, half-way decelerating)
… 50,000,000 = 0.5 × 0.00000024 × t²
… t = √( big number )
… t = 20,915,000 s … divide by (24 × 60 × 60)
… t = 242 days to the midway point
… t = 484 days to Mars!
See, that isn’t so bad. What’s the velocity?
… V = at
… V = 20,915,000 s × 0.00000024
… V = 5.02 km/s
Not exactly an outrageous velocity.
Well, it isn’t an outrageous thruster.
Best of LUCK to them.
To me at least it sounds plausible to “do a space test on the cheap” using a cubesat and some unfoldable PV solar power stuff. Spin the thing a bit for sun-pointing stability, and [i]“let her fly”[/i]. Its not like there is any extra mass needed for propellants.
Just saying,
[b]Goat[/b]Guy
… what’s taking so long…” According to reports Woodward, Fearn et al sent a working sample to Dresden. But Tajmar and company apparently ignored the instructions, goofed the assembly cooling and fried the gear… and then sent the charred remnants back while reporting the (very widely publicized) negative results.
… what’s taking so long…””According to reports Woodward”” Fearn et al sent a working sample to Dresden. But Tajmar and company apparently ignored the instructions”” goofed the assembly cooling and fried the gear… and then sent the charred remnants back while reporting the (very widely publicized) negative results.”””
When I started my career, my estimate was the most likely time of completion. But that meant I was late half the time. I discovered that management was always upset when I was late, but usually didn’t care if my estimate was long. So after a while I started giving estimates that I could meet, say, 95% of the time, which meant usually I had extra time.
That’s what management wanted, and it makes sense if they’re making promises to customers, or making plans that get disrupted when engineers are late.
An engineer with extra time can usually do something productive with it, so it works out well long-term. But an implication for any managers is that if you want to maximize throughput in the short term, then getting mad when engineers are late is exactly the wrong strategy.
First, I wouldn’t assume that at all. Has there been any response to the accusations of plagiarism?
Second, if reporting is not endorsing, then why are so many shorts twisted up into so many bunches over skepticism?
they are using stock components for this experiment as I understand, what’s taking so long to either replicate the effect or dismiss it altogether? what’s holding them back to increase the input power and see how it scales?
they are using stock components for this experiment as I understand what’s taking so long to either replicate the effect or dismiss it altogether? what’s holding them back to increase the input power and see how it scales?
Awesome! Well said.
Reporting is not endorsing. And this is something being actively researched somewhere.
If it turns out to be nothing, then I assume it will be also reported here and elsewhere.
I concur that we shouldn’t take anything anyone says here as the truth. Just as pointers to actual potential happenings (hence the Next Big Future name of the site).
Building in time for contingencies, instead of assuming everything goes perfect. Personally, I give estimates of the, “If nobody interrupts me, I should have it done in a week, but when have I never been interrupted? Figure on two weeks.” sort.
Sandbagging is a filthy habit for engineers.
Woodward seems eager for third party verification. So that to me is a genuine plus.
Let the data and its replication speak for itself.
Actually it is amazing. I have looked through all of his replies in the site. He has a record I think of having never been positive. Heck, even the trolls here are sometimes positive.
Actually it is amazing. I have looked through all of his replies in the site. He has a record I think of having never been positive. Heck even the trolls here are sometimes positive.
Scotty would have done the same – just with a little more hand-wringing.
Scotty would have done the same – just with a little more hand-wringing.
These are Heidi Fearn’s results, and they haven’t been reproduced yet. I’d hold off on setting up Starfleet until somebody’s actually reproduced the dreamy results. Or until she makes a working anti-gravity device for us all to see.
These are Heidi Fearn’s results and they haven’t been reproduced yet. I’d hold off on setting up Starfleet until somebody’s actually reproduced the dreamy results. Or until she makes a working anti-gravity device for us all to see.
In the early days, when even just the basic results have to be validated/reproduced, then it’s probably best to directly come over with the sample – or maybe record a video – to ensure that things are done properly. Otherwise, “Just Read the Instructions” won’t cut it.
And having looked up the word fnord, you see Scaryjello reacts to good news as the unenlightened do to seeing the word fnord without conscious acknowledgement, with confusion, discomfort, dismay. I did not say or suggest he consciously could “see the fnords”.
And having looked up the word fnord you see Scaryjello reacts to good news as the unenlightened do to seeing the word fnord without conscious acknowledgement with confusion discomfort dismay. I did not say or suggest he consciously could see the fnords””.”””
If the principle is proven, then one is tempted into thinking “well heck, what are we waiting for, let’s gear up a Manhattan-Project-style Mach-Effect program.” But a major “giggle factor” paired with ordinary budgetary inertia would no doubt figure in.
But a lot of what shows up here cannot be fairly considered as “news.” A lot of it is hype, gossip, or rumor, when it hasn’t degenerated into plagiarism, or paid advertisements, or breathless, credulous reports on obvious fraud and woo.
The marginal virtue of this site is only that Wang manages to read and keep track of a bunch of different other sites and sources, and hurl them up against the wall in great quantity and at high velocity. It is *not* in his ability to act as a filter, and certainly not in his analytical ability, his critical skills, or his technical chops. So let’s stop pretending that any special deference is owed to anything found herein– it isn’t, and if you think it is, you aren’t reading carefully.
Let’s *especially* stop pretending that Wang *or any of the readers here* are somehow specially “enlightened.” That is not how science and technology works. That is how magic and cults of personality work.
If you look up the meaning of “fnord” it turns out that only the enlightened can see the word “fnord”, it is the ignorant masses who cannot.
If you look up the meaning of fnord”” it turns out that only the enlightened can see the word “”””fnord”””””””” it is the ignorant masses who cannot.”””
Yes Scaryjello, and if the government (or ultra gullible investors) give them a few million of $, in five years they’ll come back with more heat and a lot more uncertainty.
Yes Scaryjello and if the government (or ultra gullible investors) give them a few million of $ in five years they’ll come back with more heat and a lot more uncertainty.
I’m glad to see this. I hope Woodward lives long enough to see commercialization. If not, Heidi Fearn is more than capable of seeing it through. Unlike the EMDrive stuff, this is real.
I’m glad to see this. I hope Woodward lives long enough to see commercialization. If not Heidi Fearn is more than capable of seeing it through. Unlike the EMDrive stuff this is real.
should be ~three of five years~
” Too many badly set up experiments ” <-- But so far not on the part of Dr. Woodward. He went down one wrong alley for three or syears concerning biasing ions in crystal grids via Lorentz forces he got a null result which lead him to adopt Buldrini's bulk acceleration concept, since then he as had smooth sailing. At 60mN per kW, Dr. Fearns results are on par with Hall Effect thrusters, so if this is replicated, they should be as Hall Effect thrusters, right?
One of the few things this site reported on that has actually been built was the Krusty kilopower stirling engine generator for Mars. Everything else is kind of fringe science – that’s why it’s fun to visit this site and call out the BS.
He is an aged and not terribly well man. I hope he lives to see acknowledgement his work on this is replicable.
He is an aged and not terribly well man. I hope he lives to see acknowledgement his work on this is replicable.
No, per kW it produces as much thrust as does Hall ion thruster. It’s like your pathological skepticism forces you to act like you’ve seen *fnord* when you see good news.
No per kW it produces as much thrust as does Hall ion thruster. It’s like your pathological skepticism forces you to act like you’ve seen *fnord* when you see good news.
by the end of Woodward’s video, he tries to sit on his wheelchair… and starts falling backwards onto the panel, which then falls over him and the host…
by the end of Woodward’s video he tries to sit on his wheelchair… and starts falling backwards onto the panel which then falls over him and the host…
It’s at the beginning of Part 3 on Day 1.
It’s at the beginning of Part 3 on Day 1.
30 seconds into Day 1 Part 3 video.
30 seconds into Day 1 Part 3 video.
Dr. Woodward! You’ve opened the stars to mankind! How did you finally achieve your breakthrough reactionless propulsion?” “Well, it turned out it wasn’t that hard, I just had to replace the rubber pads with brass washers.
Dr. Woodward! You’ve opened the stars to mankind! How did you finally achieve your breakthrough reactionless propulsion?””””””Well”” it turned out it wasn’t that hard”” I just had to replace the rubber pads with brass washers.”””””””
All this effort and no easy way to find Woodward’s new presentation video. It’s 2:30 on Tuesday but how many minutes into which vid?
All this effort and no easy way to find Woodward’s new presentation video. It’s 2:30 on Tuesday but how many minutes into which vid?
I really laughed at the Scotty quote from that time in the new series where they rescued him from a form of suspended animation. Picard asks Gordy for an estimate on some work:
Forge: Yeah, well, I told the Captain I’d have this analysis done in an hour.
Scotty: How long will it really take?
Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: An hour!
Scotty: Oh, you didn’t tell him how long it would *really* take, did ya?
Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: Well, of course I did.
Scotty: Oh, laddie. You’ve got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker.
I’m not what anyone would call pathologically negative, and *I’m* dubious about this. Too many badly set up experiments. I always get suspicious when they continue doing bad experimental setups, instead of just doing one really, really sensitive experiment that would settle things.
“… what’s taking so long…”
According to reports Woodward, Fearn et al sent a working sample to Dresden.
But Tajmar and company apparently ignored the instructions, goofed the assembly cooling and fried the gear… and then sent the charred remnants back while reporting the (very widely publicized) negative results.
they are using stock components for this experiment as I understand, what’s taking so long to either replicate the effect or dismiss it altogether? what’s holding them back to increase the input power and see how it scales?
Actually it is amazing. I have looked through all of his replies in the site. He has a record I think of having never been positive. Heck, even the trolls here are sometimes positive.
Scotty would have done the same – just with a little more hand-wringing.
These are Heidi Fearn’s results, and they haven’t been reproduced yet. I’d hold off on setting up Starfleet until somebody’s actually reproduced the dreamy results. Or until she makes a working anti-gravity device for us all to see.
And having looked up the word fnord, you see Scaryjello reacts to good news as the unenlightened do to seeing the word fnord without conscious acknowledgement, with confusion, discomfort, dismay. I did not say or suggest he consciously could “see the fnords”.
If you look up the meaning of “fnord” it turns out that only the enlightened can see the word “fnord”, it is the ignorant masses who cannot.
Yes Scaryjello, and if the government (or ultra gullible investors) give them a few million of $, in five years they’ll come back with more heat and a lot more uncertainty.
I’m glad to see this. I hope Woodward lives long enough to see commercialization. If not, Heidi Fearn is more than capable of seeing it through. Unlike the EMDrive stuff, this is real.
He is an aged and not terribly well man. I hope he lives to see acknowledgement his work on this is replicable.
No, per kW it produces as much thrust as does Hall ion thruster. It’s like your pathological skepticism forces you to act like you’ve seen *fnord* when you see good news.
by the end of Woodward’s video, he tries to sit on his wheelchair… and starts falling backwards onto the panel, which then falls over him and the host…
It’s at the beginning of Part 3 on Day 1.
30 seconds into Day 1 Part 3 video.
“Dr. Woodward! You’ve opened the stars to mankind! How did you finally achieve your breakthrough reactionless propulsion?”
“Well, it turned out it wasn’t that hard, I just had to replace the rubber pads with brass washers.”
All this effort and no easy way to find Woodward’s new presentation video. It’s 2:30 on Tuesday but how many minutes into which vid?