This one's been a classic example of government at work. From dubiously awarded contracts and an unusually early bonus, both which contributed to the resignation (firing) of the head of eHealth, to the boondoggle in the article. This thing has been mismanaged from the get-go and it's reflecting pretty poorly on the premier and government.
Well it's not like the general public actually wants to see the data. They need to keep the public interested so that they can garner funding and you do that by making vague, general statements about "cool" stuff. It saddens me that more people aren't very interested in learning what is actually being done but the rest of us can just wait a few years for the papers to make their wait unto arXiv.
True, but that's not the idea behind the hyperdrive; which is about not needing to carry fuel with you.
>"Stationary" is devoid of meaning in relativity.
But not in the context of conserving fuel on spacecraft that are being sent away from our planet. Why attach "as observed from X reference frame" when engaging in a colloquial discussion?
In that case the combustion engine is only used to provide electrical to the electric motors that drive the train. This patent is for a system that allows both the combustion engine and the electric motor to apply torque to the wheels simultaneously (or independently) and charge the battery through regenerative braking.
It still seems to me that the notion of a hybrid powered vehicle using a microprocessor to control power ratios would be obvious and only a specific implementation would be patentable...but I also haven't read much of the patent so maybe this one does propose an implementation.
Considering that the article is about accelerating a mass by flinging relativistic objects at (near) it, the energy source would likely be stationary; much like a sail reflecting light from a stationary laser.
This one's been a classic example of government at work. From dubiously awarded contracts and an unusually early bonus, both which contributed to the resignation (firing) of the head of eHealth, to the boondoggle in the article. This thing has been mismanaged from the get-go and it's reflecting pretty poorly on the premier and government.
>The idea is that due to the Hilbert effect a rocket with a relativistic exhaust velocity will have more thrust than "classically" predicted.
Yes, so it is; I misread the article. Thanks!
Well it's not like the general public actually wants to see the data. They need to keep the public interested so that they can garner funding and you do that by making vague, general statements about "cool" stuff. It saddens me that more people aren't very interested in learning what is actually being done but the rest of us can just wait a few years for the papers to make their wait unto arXiv.
But it would have been so much clearer if he'd presented it with Beamer!
>Flinging objects away works equally well.
True, but that's not the idea behind the hyperdrive; which is about not needing to carry fuel with you.
>"Stationary" is devoid of meaning in relativity.
But not in the context of conserving fuel on spacecraft that are being sent away from our planet. Why attach "as observed from X reference frame" when engaging in a colloquial discussion?
In that case the combustion engine is only used to provide electrical to the electric motors that drive the train. This patent is for a system that allows both the combustion engine and the electric motor to apply torque to the wheels simultaneously (or independently) and charge the battery through regenerative braking. It still seems to me that the notion of a hybrid powered vehicle using a microprocessor to control power ratios would be obvious and only a specific implementation would be patentable...but I also haven't read much of the patent so maybe this one does propose an implementation.
Considering that the article is about accelerating a mass by flinging relativistic objects at (near) it, the energy source would likely be stationary; much like a sail reflecting light from a stationary laser.