The IVO quantum inertia drive is in orbit now and will be turned on within one to ten weeks and then operated for many weeks or months.
The IVO quantum inertia drive is very controversial because it would go against many theories in physics.
Let us assume the 52 millinewton drive using 1 watt of power from a drive that weighs about 200 grams works.
We will only know that the drive works for however long the experiment is run. We will know if the 52 millinewtons of thrust from lab tests is achieved in space and if the thrust stays constant.
If it works and operates for months and the thrust is constant, it would give some confidence that it should continue to operate for years. However, until we do make devices that operate for years we won’t know for sure. There is also the need to replicate many devices and probes and achieving the same or more thrust. We will need more tests to get to some estimate of reliability.
IF IVO is real and they cannot scale past 1 watt for one device, then maybe we have a constant 52 millinewtons for 200 gram drive. This would be without fuel limitations. However, we will not know if there are other limitations until we try to push the various limits.
Mike McCulloch thinks he both improve power and improve thrust. But this all depends upon actual experiments. He designed a proposal where he has 400 watts of power from an RTG and scaling to about 20 newtons. This gets to Proxima in 12 years.
If many devices achieve additive thrust then 400 one-watt devices drawing a total of 400 watt still gets us the Proxima in 12 years.
Let us pretend they cannot stack and cannot scale at all. Either capability means a form of Star Trek impulse drive or the Expanse drive.
All we have is IVO with 52 millinewtons for a 200-gram drive. No improvements, no making into an array. But no fuel, and thrust so long as there is power.
If the probe is 10 kilograms, then 52 millinewtons and operates for one decade, then the probe goes to 1732 AU in 10 years.
The probe mass budget works out with a nuclear isotope power source (5 kilograms or less) and 4 kilograms for the telescope.
a = force / mass^2
a=0.0052 m/s^2
Currently running on ion drive needs fuel. Months or a few years of fuel is about like 1 ton per year. The Quantized Inertial drive operates with thrust independent of fuel.
IVO working means a 10 kilogram probe gets to the solar gravitational lens are in 64 months out at 500 AU (20 times further than Pluto).
45 months with double the acceleration. Just changing the mass to a 5 kilogram probe instead of 10 kilograms gets double the acceleration with the same 200 gram drive.
91 months with half of the acceleration. Changing the mass of the probe to 20 kilograms drops the acceleration in half.
Acceleration and distance come from the time of constant acceleration.
The benefits of in-orbit operations are described in the DARPA $17 million per Otter program. Orbital or in-space movement without regret.
The Otter program will develop and demonstrate space technologies that enable operations in new orbital domains that are currently inaccessible. Capabilities demonstrated will provide increased mission duration and ability to maneuver without regret.
No more concerns about delta-V. Delta-V becomes only limited by time of operation and the applicable power levels converting to thrust.
The IVO drive would also be beyond perpetual motion energy threshold, which is what freaks out physics people.
They have not operated the devices for months or years in space. Is there degradation, is there other limits to the mechanism and process.
There are limits on electrical and mechanical processes. You can build up too much charge or hit capacitance limits. There are assumptions that the Unruh radiation processes do not have the normal limits. There are limits on wind sails and wind turbines, because we are capturing an effect from a different process. IF the Unruh radiation process works we will have to confirm the theories are write and all of the details of what is happening and why. There will be many limits but we will do understand them yet.
Rowing a Boat to Wind Sails
All of our existing propulsion involves propellant. This is somewhat like rowing a boat where we must feed the rowers food. It is also like a coal powered ship where many tons of coal drive the turbine.
The new IVO drive could be a variant of wind sailships on earth or solar sail in space. The sail ships have no fuel or propellant but they are leveraging other processes and effects to capture thrust.
We have theories about how Quantized Inertia works, but we don’t know it if works yet (other than the lab tests which are disputed) and we do not know if the theories or any aspects of scaling are correct either.
Wind turbines are not perpetual motion machines because they convert wind’s kinetic energy into mechanical energy, which means the movement of air after the turbine is less.
Once we confirm that IVO and other Quantized Energy systems work, then we need to understand exactly how they work and what bounds there are and if scaling and duration do work. We then need to explore and understand the theories and systems. The virtual particles and the Unruh radiation could be part of a larger process of wind like effects and processes.
The sailship analogy goes to if quantized inertial drives will have additive thrust or not. Multiple sails can interfere with each other. There is a maximum wind speed and other issues around what is being captured. This indicates we will only really know by doing the tests with Quantized Inertia.
The name itself quantized inertia is somewhat like lowering friction. The device could be operating like a localized reduction in friction. Ifwe put a lot of grease under an object to lower friction, then this can cause something to start sliding down a hill. We assume the device will work everywhere but we do not know if it is dependent upon being in a magnetic field or a gravitational well. We have theories where it is independent but we do not know.
The perpetual motion argument goes away if we know what is being converted and the environment in which the device is operating.
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.
In my perhaps cynical, but still analytic opinion, that physics so far has not been ‘broken’ by these experiments. Yes, I know I have put up a particularly clear (if stark) reality equation: V = P/F … power (watts) divided by force (newtons). Watts per newton. When the V (meters per second) of a device exceeds watts per newton, then the kinetic energy of that spacecraft (or thing at the end of a rotor!) will be increased MORE than the energy invested in the thruster.
Others have stated things like “but it takes energy input, so is not a perpetual motion device”, but this is both simplistic and basically ignorant. The point is to evaluate when the kinetic energy gain is LARGER than the amount of energy inputted to the proposed device. When the Ek is larger than Ein, well … we’re in the realm of perpetual motion.
Here’s something I thought of in the last 5 minutes which ought to be ‘interesting’. The spacecraft hosting this ‘QI drive’ is whizzing along at 7.6 km/s or 7600 m/s. The supposed performance so far has been what, 52 mN or 0.052 N for a 1 watt (really?) input. That by the above is a figure-of-merit of 1/k = 19.23 W/N … or a critical velocity of only 19.23 m/s.
7600 m/s is 395 TIMES the speed. This in turn means EACH watt-second, or joule of invested electrical energy in the thruster will be increasing the orbital kinetic energy of the whole device by 395 joules. These, in turn, ought to be easily measured from the whole-spacecraft free mass, time and the integrated thruster input energy. Which, of course, is exactly what the proposal is, right?
Thing is, if such results actually happen … it is also a very clear signal that something very much ‘perpetual motion-like’ is in play. Way beyond, actually. 400x beyond. And FURTHER along with the accumulated speed increase.
LIKE others, I too am intrigued to hear the results. I think — so far — that the various explanations of ‘’how it works’’ and then the word-salad of experimental bits so-far produced appear to have absolutely NOTHING to do with supposed Unruh radiation, ‘quantum’ inertia, or anything else like it. Nothing. So far, it appears that some effect of having lousy dielectrics on pretty simple hand-made capacitors and high-voltage supplies is being claimed to have thrusting capabilities, large, and profound — if true.
Just Sayin’… GoatGuy
From what I understand, these space drives are coupled to the rest of the matter in the universe and it pushes against it. But yeah, what’s stopping someone from hooking the quantized drive to an electric generator and violating the first law of thermodynamics. Then again, dark energy already violates that principle. So this isn’t the first time scientists has made an exception to a physical law that’s supposed to govern the universe.
I seem to remember you had back calculated the threshold to perpetual motion for specific reference frames, so that we have a rough guess where things get weird if they do happen. What were those?
When the engine is running it uses internal energy. Mc2 max. At the same time, its kinetic energy constantly and very quickly grows. Mc2/sq(1-v2/c2). If P is the power then
(Mc2 – Pt)/sq(1-(v+f(p, t))2/c2) = const = Mc2
That is, I believe that an engine of this kind should give just enough speed so that the growing kinetic energy of the entire system covers the energy consumption of the engine, which in turn should lead to some mass defect and the disappearance of energy. In practice this will mean that the engine thrust will be noticeable around zero speeds but will very quickly approach zero at high speeds.
As for the conservation of momentum, it is quite possible that it can occur due to the non-obvious transfer of momentum to very large masses around the engine. Something like the reverse swing principle. Since the masses are huge, the speed changes from negligible and the energy transfer tends to zero
The question becomes, “speed relative to WHAT”? The nearest large body? The average mass of the galaxy? The average mass of the universe?
If it actually were pushing on one of these, you’d inevitably see a strong directional bias in the thrust. It would be a lot more energetically efficient to push in some directions than others. And the effectiveness would drop off with your speed in SOME reference frame, becoming effectively useless for reaching relativistic speeds.
This is just an intellectual exercise for me at this point: I’ll be shocked (And delighted!) if this thing works. Even if QI is real, this drive makes little sense to me, you shouldn’t be able to suppress Unruh radiation with physical barriers.
Well, I also think that it doesn’t work, but if it does, then most likely some kind of theory of gravity based on Mach’s principle will be correct. That is, all the masses in the universe serve as our reference system, and they accelerate a little in the opposite direction, or in another version, the entire metric of the universe changes asymmetrically. Although here it is clear that the question arises about the speed of such a change, whether it is equal to the speed of light, whether it is greater than the speed of light, whether the wave travels in time or backwards.
That is, I proceed from the following (for fun). Let’s imagine that it will be work. What obvious problems will arise then? Well, first of all, energy conservation. If the acceleration of the engine is constant, it will very quickly gain enormous speed and energy, far exceeding its rest mass. That is, for example, it could be used as an ultimate weapon. Most likely this is impossible even if the engine is running. This means that the thrust will fall at a rapid rate or a lot of negative energy will appear somewhere.
The second problem is global conservation of momentum. And here either something should move backwards or some very large distortions should arise in space
I’m trying to picture this use: You build a probe that spends 10 years traveling away from Earth, ending up several light years away. It then, having slowed to a stop, accelerates back on a collision course, without any deceleration phase, arriving at relativistic speed.
So, you have to pre-schedule the attack 15-20 years in advance, or even longer depending on max acceleration. You’d better hope like hell the situation doesn’t change a decade after you launch it! The guidance demands are incredible. At any time the probe could wipe itself out on a grain of sand.
And you’ve still, unless the probe is enormous, only got yourself a Tsar Bomba equivalent weapon. Only much less flexible.
Nah, I don’t see it.
Yes Yes. Look, I’m from Russia, for example. We could build many small radioisotope probes. For a while, go to a truce, and in 2034 they would arrive, hitting the territory of the United States, causing massive destruction and a powerful flow of gamma radiation upon entering the atmosphere. Moreover, it would be impossible to prevent this attack in any way, nor would it be possible to react to it in time. Although…..taking into account the accuracy of Russian weapons in principle and the difficulty of aiming, perhaps they would have missed, perhaps even missing the ground.
Nevertheless …
If your government doesn’t give me an immigrant visa, I’ll sell this idea to Putin hahahaha
Brian,
Recently, you referenced DARPA’s QI funding with Mike M (which ran from 2018-2023 and was a total of 1.3 million dollars). Mike also mentioned this on a youtube and it sounded as if, at least for the moment, DARPA is not funding any follow projects with him. You also mentioned that DARPA was expanding their QI funding to 17 million dollars via Otter. I then asked for your source/links to articles explaining what specific QI projects DARPA was funding going forward and with what companies. You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to – but – this is a perfect example of why I am so skeptical about QI in general, and IVO in particular. People make big claims, but when pressed for third party confirmation they simply don’t reply. If you prefer, I can ask on twitter.
Yes, I said Mike McCulloch is not funded by DARPA right now. IVO is all privately funded.
I have not seen any announcement of any funding allocation from DARPA Otter.
You should phrase the questions as… Thanks for all of the research, can I please ask you to research these other questions which may have come up already in your research. You are skeptical but I am reporting facts that you did not know and did not bother to find for yourself. Which if you had the questions. I found and reported my links and sources.
Brian,
I apologize for offending you. I realize it is difficult to cover breakthrough tech – because the insiders are often reluctant/unwilling to share what they are doing. I did press the point on DARPA because at this point they are a reputable third party with hands on experience trying to make this tech work. In the Q&A below a recent article you said:
“DARPA looked and audited what McCulloch did for 5 years and then increased funding from $300k per year to $17 million per year.”
I did a fair amount of online research and while I agree – DARPA has funded the Otter program to the tune of 17 million, it is not clear how much (if any) of that funding is being directed towards QI type drives/IVO. So that was my question. If DARPA is continuing to fund QI, whether or not that includes IVO – that is certainly a good sign.
I am sure that many of the advanced technologies you cover will move the needle for humanity sooner or later. This one – SMH – LEOP doesn’t take 11 weeks and Richard consistently sounds like Elizabeth Holmes younger brother. For example, his post on “null” testing was pure nonsense. And multiple people have tweeted questions about the schedule – which he ignores.
As to my motives: Well – IVO does not have any actual products for sale. That means they are 100% investor funded. If Richard was the only investor – if he was personally funding this he should say so publicly. Because that would be 100% ok. But if he has actual investors – like early stage companies normally do – that is a big problem. Because IMHO he has made at least one material misrepresentation and if investors relied on that – it will be a big problem.
Plus – deep sigh – so far I have found his comments to be either ambiguous, outright nonsensical or in the case of the E Labs testing – objectively dishonest. But then he’s got this socially engineered layer of – he’s a Pastor and the Author of what looks like a delightful children’s book. He can’t actually be a bad guy. Or can he?
End of rant….
Notwithstanding Brian’s excellent coverage of these exotic drives and the extensive and especially good explanation of their workings…..
I would prefer an alternative thruster, for NASA to consider…..
Imagine a situation where a linear accelerator accelerated a small cloud of metallic ions to near light speed….. as the ions approached light speed (according to Einstein), their combined mass would become infinite. Now, the linear accelerator would vigorously move in the opposite direction (Newton-3). This could be the basis of the “Impulse Drive” seen so often in the “Star Trek” series? The thrust could be in the high kilogram range (depends on the rate of acceleration, the mass of the ion cloud, and also, the electrical power input), something that would be very handy for (sub light speed) interstellar travel? No fancy (and unproven) physics involved here!
Improvements could include recycling the ion cloud and recovering much of the energy spent in accelerating the mass to near light speed. An ionized, heavy, noble gas could also be used (xenon?).
It is all a matter of making use of Cousin Albert’s Special Relativity, nothing fancy in that. Such “off the shelf engineering” using readily available physics would make interstellar probes a reality in our lifetime….. 😉
At the point where the ions are moving at close to the speed of light, both the specific impulse and power consumption converge in the limit to the same as a photon drive. And, frankly, photons are a lot easier to generate than ions are to accelerate.
“At the point where the ions are moving at close to the speed of light, both the specific impulse and power consumption converge in the limit to the same as a photon drive.”
Eh??
Brett, photons have very little mass, being a two dimensional spin wave in the Aether, basically, just the actual Aetherons currently captured. Ions have a lot more mass and therefore benefit greatly from Newton-3.
“And, frankly, photons are a lot easier to generate than ions are to accelerate.”
Ion acceleration has been done quite easily for more than a century.
I guess CERN is an obvious example, as is….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
The problem is that physics has become clouded by a heap of nonsense about “garbage theory” lucky dips. That is delaying progress…..
A photon’s entire mass is due to its energy content. E=MC^2 implies that M=E/C^2.
This is also true of ions, of course, except that the rest mass energy is largely inaccessible without use of exotic physics. It’s still energy you had to bring with you. But as the ion is accelerated, and gains mass from relativistic effects? That extra mass is its KINETIC energy content. For highly relativistic ions, almost all their mass is kinetic energy, that your drive had to supply from whatever is powering it.
That means that for thrust to power ratio purposes, a highly relativistic ion drive is indistinguishable from a photon drive. They’re both turning power into mass moving at essentially the speed of light.
I learned this stuff in high school, (Sputnik had the education industry scared straight for a little while before they got lazy again.) but even today you should have learned it in college if you were paying attention. Basic physics: A highly relativistic ion drive is just an overly complicated photon drive.
“Improvements could include recycling the ion cloud and recovering much of the energy spent in accelerating the mass to near light speed.”
And here we arrive at the proof you never really learned physics. How the hell are you going to recycle the ions? By bringing them to a stop, hauling them back, and accelerating them again? That would exactly cancel the thrust you got throwing them out the back end in the first place!
The IVO drive is designed to work without propellant but it is not designed to work without fuel.
It is not a perpetual motion device, so it needs a source of energy whether that energy be solar panels, chemical or nuclear fuel.
Every propellentless system like the IVO is supposedly capable of doing IS a perpetual motion machine. If you tie the engine at the end of a long bar with a generator at the other end and then let the engine constantly accelerate, the bar will rotate around the generator faster and faster, and at a certain point, it will be able to generate more energy than the one you used to power the engine.
So yeah, it breaks momentum conservation, energy conservation, and thermodynamics.
Well as long as it is travelling through the interstellar plasma it can power itself by pushing wiring first and letting plasma induce an electric current through the wiring to.. power the drive so you keep accelerating. If you are going to go over unity then do it with style.
I can imagine some overly ambitious alien high schooler making an accidental planet destroyer from spare parts in an attempt to woo a mate. If this all works I insist we call it the “tentacle drive”.