It should be noted, though, that any spaceship travelling less than 0.1c would be surpassed by future tech that *would* go at 0.1c or faster (like a lasersail-based one can achieve). Thus, an 'interstellar arc'-ship - even with fusion-engines very slow - is not well suited for travelling to a star, and would not be recommended, unless their is some doom-like scenario threatening for the immediate extinction of the human race, and no other possibilities are left open for some reason.
Otherwise, you're just wasting enormous amounts money, time, and effort, on a risky venture to send inhabitants in such a closure for hundreds or even thousands of years, who, when arriving at their destination (a live-able planet), would notice it's already habited by other humans who departed much later, but arrived much sooner.
You must have missed the very, very many posts and all the long explanations as how EMdrives can break CoE as well as CoM, and thus become perpetuum mobile/free energy/over unity machines.
As a poster already told you: it's not about sending an EMdrive as described, into space with a battery-pack, but showing that an EMdrive can be made into a perpetuum mobile/free energy device, IF one presumes it's a reactionless device, as described. And the fact that the EM drive can be used to build a perpetual motion machine makes its very existence impossible. And btw, it comes over as really immature to shout 'go back and redo all your math' to people who have clearly shown they understood the basic problem better than you did.
Anyway, IF your contention is that it's possible to have a reactionless drive, yet claim that doesn't violate CoE, I have to refute that.
Let me explain:
Conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are equally fundamental. So perpetual motion machines are no more or less impossible than reactionless drives. Here's how the latter implies the former: relativity says there's no such thing as absolute velocity. There's only your velocity compared to something else. You have an infinite number of velocities at once, but can only have one acceleration. So there's no way acceleration can depend on your velocity.
So you have constant acceleration from your energy input, but your kinetic energy is going up *with the square* of your velocity, and at some point you're getting more energy out than you put in. The point at which you start getting more energy than you put in depends on the thrust to power ratio. The higher the ratio the lower the minimum speed needs to be for that to happen. A normal photon rocket has a theoretical maximum thrust to power ratio such that the speed is c (the speed of light in vacuum). It can never reach that speed, so the problem is avoided. The reported thrust to power ratios for the EmDrive are orders of magnitude higher than that, so the problem *does* exist for them.
You're not quite right in that assertion, I'm afraid. Let me explain:
IF, however, your contention is that it's possible to have a reactionless drive, yet claim that doesn't violate CoE, I have to refute that. (your position in this is not clear).
Let me explain:
Conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are equally fundamental. So perpetual motion machines are no more or less impossible than reactionless drives. Here's how the latter implies the former: relativity says there's no such thing as absolute velocity. There's only your velocity compared to something else. You have an infinite number of velocities at once, but can only have one acceleration. So there's no way acceleration can depend on your velocity.
So you have constant acceleration from your energy input, but your kinetic energy is going up *with the square* of your velocity, and at some point you're getting more energy out than you put in. The point at which you start getting more energy than you put in depends on the thrust to power ratio. The higher the ratio the lower the minimum speed needs to be for that to happen. A normal photon rocket has a theoretical maximum thrust to power ratio such that the speed is c (the speed of light in vacuum). It can never reach that speed, so the problem is avoided. The reported thrust to power ratios for the EmDrive are orders of magnitude higher than that, so the problem *does* exist for them.
I'll, instead, respond to your post, thank you very much. What you do with your hand is your own (and I don't have to know the yucky details;-))
I've explained it in another post, also to you if memory serves well, very clearly and very easily to understand, why something that breaks CoM also breaks CoE, and why the EMdrive DOES break both. I can't help it if you still do not comprehend.
And while you might think it doesn't, just like you think I'm 'that other guy'; you're wrong on both accounts.
I guess I'll refrain from comparing you to a Xerox copy, not because there is no ample opportunity too, but at least I want to keep debates relevant and mildly polite (depending on how another poster is in return, of course).
IF, however, your contention is that it's possible to have a reactionless drive, yet claim that doesn't violate CoE, I have to refute that. (your position in this is not clear).
Let me explain:
Conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are equally fundamental. So perpetual motion machines are no more or less impossible than reactionless drives. Here's how the latter implies the former: relativity says there's no such thing as absolute velocity. There's only your velocity compared to something else. You have an infinite number of velocities at once, but can only have one acceleration. So there's no way acceleration can depend on your velocity.
So you have constant acceleration from your energy input, but your kinetic energy is going up *with the square* of your velocity, and at some point you're getting more energy out than you put in. The point at which you start getting more energy than you put in depends on the thrust to power ratio. The higher the ratio the lower the minimum speed needs to be for that to happen. A normal photon rocket has a theoretical maximum thrust to power ratio such that the speed is c (the speed of light in vacuum). It can never reach that speed, so the problem is avoided. The reported thrust to power ratios for the EmDrive are orders of magnitude higher than that, so the problem *does* exist for them.
Ermm... I don't know if you realize this, but if your contention is you can't derive free energy out of an EMdrive, that is exactly what I and the other guy are claiming as well...
But while you claim the problem lays in practical problems, we claim it's far more inherent then that, and is based on the principle of it.
No, they do not. And that's what you do not understand, I know. I've talked enough to people like you to realize this. It's like you guys have a mental block.
What the experiments showed, was the difficulty in singling out the cause of a minor force between a lot of noise, which an extremely high likelihood of being an artifact or measure error. That's really all the experiments showed.
Yet, people like you think it makes a strong case for a reactionless drive. It doesn't and isn't.
But it's impossible to make you comprehend that, because you do not *WANT* to comprehend it.
Wrong. Even if losses would be cumulative, the kinetic energy augments with the square of the thrust.
It's also obvious to see. If your device turns and keeps going at 1000 W, it doesn't matter *where* that 1000 W comes from. So if it comes from the device itself, it doesn't matter for the generator.
Ergo, unless you claim that the resistance also augments to the square with each given energy of the input - which is bullocks - it's obvious that at a certain point, your velocity (and thus the energy it gives) will become great enough to keep the whole thing running. At which point you have a perpetuum mobile device.
Also, as the parent poster said: debating the practicality and possible technical difficulties do not change the fact that one could actually make a perpetuum mobile. The breaking of CoM and CoE or any other basic law is not depended on technical difficulties in making a practical device that is easily built. Whether you need superconducting wires, a very low-friction axis, 100 of years of running it, high speeds of hundreds of km/h, and whether you have to pour millions of dollars in it to build it, etc. does not matter: the point is, it's possible to make one, so it breaks a basic law of physics.
People claiming the torsional resistance is the problem don't realize it doesn't really matter if the EM drive really is a reactionless drive. There is no increase of the resistance to the square of the input, while there IS through the velocity (kinetic energy) for every amount of input. It's not difficult to see, thus, that at some point, the energy getting out of it will be greater than whatever input + resistance will demand.
Also, people arguing about the *difficulty* of it don't seem to realize that the actual problem is, that it would actually allow a perpetuum mobile in principle; and it's that which makes it impossible. Technical difficulties are not a good argument against the principle of the matter, if that principle would actually allow a perpetuum mobile. In this case, the only ned is to augment the input enough to the point that the return, with low efficiency and all, supersedes the input and all resistances - which is possible, since the energy that one can derive from it is the SQAURE of the energy needed for the thrust. Is one really claiming resistance augments with the square too? If not, then the machine will, at a certain point, become a perpetuum mobile.
Hey, you don't have to convince me its impossible. That was just the whole point, to demonstrate the implausibility of it.
However, the impossibility of it stems from the fact that a reactionless drive, such as the EM drive, is not possible. EM fanfappers however claim it is, and I pointed out that if that were true, you would be able to make a perpetuum mobile out of it. And in that case, it wouldn't matter much how efficient the conversion is, as long as the energy getting out of it is more than the energy to run the thing. And that would be possible at some point, since the energy of velocity squares with each amount of thrust you put in (and the thrust is dependent on the energy you put in).
So torque, (in)efficiency only postpone that point, it does not inhibit it, unless one argues the torque etc. also squares with the input (which it doesn't).
So people claiming the EMdrive can't turn into a perpetuum mobile or over unity device are wrong. It can be made into one, IF the EMdrive ould be a reactionless drive. Which, of course, it isn't.
Incorrect. I do too. For the simple reason that, if the EMdrive works as it is described to work (aka, as a reactionless drive), it's the only logical conclusion to take. The only other option, if one refutes the former, is to conclude that fundamental laws vary depending on localisation. This in turn would mean, the speed of light varies, the strong nuclear force would change, etc., and thus whole swats of matter would spontaneously disintegrate into atomic and subatomic particles and exotic matter, and flood the universe . This, however, we have not observed, not even once, for the last 400 years. Hence, the extreme unlikelihood of such a claim.
You can't have it both ways. It either follows the laws of physics, in which case you can make it into an over unity device (which is extremely unlikely), or it doesn't follow the basic laws of physics, but that would entail - since we've observed those laws working to an astonishingly accurate level - that those laws vary depending on localisation and that we somehow missed the telltale signs of such a thing for the last 400 years, which is also highly unlikely.
Hence the most likely assumption, namely that the EMdrive isn't a reactionless drive at all, but the result is rather a measure error or artefact.
For f- sake, you simply seem NOT be able to comprehend this.
It doesn't work, because there is no such thing as a reactionless drive. If there WERE such a thing, however, like the EM drive is claimed to be, then you can get more energy out of it that you put in, by the SQUARE of it (through kinetic energy). EVEN if you have losses and the efficiency would be low, this means you can get more energy out than you put in, because those losses DO NOT rise as the square of your input.
The reason ALL PERPETUUM MOBILE and free energy devices do not work, is because you CAN NOT get more energy out of them than you put in them. Even with a frictionless and lossless conversion - which doesnt exist - it would be equal at most.
If, however, one claims one has a reactionless drive, PHYSICS say that you get the square of the energy in velocity for each amount of thrust you put in it. So IT DOES NOT MATTER whether you have losses and it isn't completely frictionless, as long as the output you have exceeds the losses. And since losses don't inversely relate in the same manner (you won't suddenly have a square loss by doubling your input), it's easy to see that, at some point, you will get more energy out than your input + losses together.
Which is, of course, not possible. Aka, the EMdrive, as described, is not possible.
For f- sake you're either dense or being wilfully obtuse.
You do realise that my whole point is, that such a machine can not be, right?
However, not because of losses - that would merely mean the energy you get out of it should be large enough to continue providing the required energy - but because there is no such thing as a reactionless drive to begin with, and thus the EM drive can't work as proclaimed.
Well, everything is a matter of balancing one against the other. The scientific community has limited finances, time and workforce, so it's clear they can't research every crackpot idea out there. Even those crackpot-ideas that claim are successful (most do).
Look at it this way: if the contention would be that the thrust is due to dragonmagic; how much worth would you give to it? What would you consider a worthwhile amount of time, money and effort to spend on it?
I would claim, until they make a far better case, very little.
Yes, I console myself with the thought that all the money and time already wasted (which predominantly is taxpayers' money btw, not their own money) on this likely case of an error measurement or artefact, may, perhaps, lead to something like better magnetic shielding, or much finer tuned mN-measurement devices - if we're lucky.
That will be about it. Better then nothing, but not really worth much money, time, and especially not the hype and nonsense we've been seeing for the last years about it.
Contrary to you, thus, I try to balance things - a pragmatic stance, unless one wants to research every crackpot-idea which has very weak observational data and no theoretic substantiation out there.
So, yes, it 'may' lead to things, just as dragonmagic 'may' lead to a power to control the universe, but it all depends on how likely it is, and what the cost/benefits are that can reasonably be expected. That goes for any reasonable person. Even if you'd venture that it might or might not lead to more efficient spacedrives: would you, for instance, wager 10 trillion dollars for it? Doubtful. In my view (and in most of the scientific community) the case for it being a reactionless drive is infinitesimal small, and very unlikely to deliver something worthwhile. And that's also the reason why not much time, effort and money is devoted on it. And I think that reasonable.
Tajmar with his latest experimental tests, btw, has shown strong indications that it IS a measure error or artefact, because he has gotten 'thrust' in situations where he deliberately set up his device so it *could not* show thrust due to the 'resonance of microwaves'.
Well, let's face it; if it works *as they themselves claim and imply it does* it clearly DOES violate CoM and CoE. 'They' being Sawyer and White (and to a lesser degree, Tajmar). Ah, yes, and the Chinese. Basically, all those claiming it works.
By it 'works' they mean the extremely unlikely possibility of it being a reactionless drive, they do NOT mean the far, far, far more likely case of it being a measure error or artefact. Point in case: you do not need to invent a theory, like White did, about 'pushing against virtual quantum plasma' just to explain an error measurement, now do we?
The same goes for you too. If, by "it seems to work", you mean measuring a tiny force between a lot of noise, which is most likely to be an error measurement or artefact, then I would agree with you. If you mean by that, that it shows a thrust due to the resonance of bouncing microwaves that generates thrust, even while being fully enclosed, then, no, I do not agree with that statement, for the simple reason it then DOES violate our current physical laws, and that would entail all what I just said in my earlier post. Which makes it extremely, extremely unlikly - equal to saying it's due to dragonmagic.
I mean, one can't have it both ways. If one claims it DOES work as described - thus: providing thrust by the resonance of microwaves in a closed compartment - it DOES violate our basic natural laws.
In the unlikely event it's meant as a genuine question of interest, I'll explain it to you.
If the device would work in a way which breaks CoM and CoE - which it would, if one presumes it works in ways that defy current physics in regard to it being a reactionless drive (which includes if it somehow would not generate constant acceleration at constant power) - that would in turn mean most other laws and observations of our universe would go down too. This is because IF the CoM principle could be violated (and by the mere resonance of microwaves, no less), it would mean that fundamental laws vary depending on localisation. This in turn would mean, the speed of light varies, the strong nuclear force would change, etc., and thus whole swats of matter would spontaneously disintegrate into atomic and subatomic particles and exotic matter, and flood the universe. This, however, we have not observed, not even once, for the last 400 years. Hence, the extreme unlikelihood of such a claim.
Hey, c'mon. It was clear he was talking about it in the context of a reactionless drive. that's what this whole threat is about, after all. You're technical correct with your remark, but I think you're being a bit wilfully obtuse in this instance.
I know, and you know, that he wasn't talking about a car using the combustion of petrol. He would have been correct if he just had added "an unknown reactionless drive mechanism" (the precise mechanics of that wouldn't have mattered, indeed), which we both know was what he meant.
"Verified observation *ALWAYS* trumps all theories regardless of how precious you hold them or whether you have an explanation."
While true on itself, in the case of the EMdrive, there are no verified observations of a reactionless device, AND neither is a plausible theory provided for said claim (they provide one, but it's nonsensical).
I'm glad you're highly sceptical, but saying the observations have been repeated and holding up to scrutiny is not entirely correct, depending on what you think has been 'uphold' and by what 'scrutiny'.
After all, while observation trumps theory, the interpretation of said observation needs explanation. And that explanation needs to be *the most logical and most likely* one, since giving more weight to the least plausible explanation for an observation, leads to a deterioration of the scientific method. So what is the most likely explanation of the observation? What did we, in fact, observe? Nothing more than the difficulty in pinpointed a very weak signal in a lot of noise, which is most likely a measure error or artefact. So, if any conclusion or plausible explanation or interpretation should be given, it should be that. Yet, what do we see? That one tries to explain it with inconsistent and nonsensical theories and CoM and CoE breaking new physics which would invalidate the past 400 years of scientific observations. Does this make sense? No. Yet, they persist.
This clearly implies they think their observation is linked to that (why otherwise trying to substantiate it with nonsense like 'pushing against vacuum plasma'?), while it's, in effect, far, far, far more likely to be linked with an error measure or artefact.
People should realise it makes as much sense to claim the 'observation' is due to a reactionless drive, than to say it's due to dragonmagic. As of yet, it has about the same validity. And one can wonder if putting money, time and work in researching dragonmagic is all that wise and to be considered a rational spending and worthwhile effort.
What I would consider a reasonable approach, is that the people who want to waste their money on it (though in most cases it's taxpayers money, which makes it more grating) do so in the extend that a cursory interest for an undefined measure error or artefact would warrant, nothing more, nothing less. Not until they've actually made a strong case for the claims they are doing (or implying) now.
It's a pity not more logical/educated people are on/. Or at least, people who actually *want* to learn and be rational. I would mod you up if I had mod points.
1) comes forth as a direct result of my dealings with EM-fanfappers. True, at some points I could be more PC, but by and large, the EM-fanfappers are an obnoxious and annoying lot, insensitive to logic and rational argumentation. And if one feels hurt by my direct way of communicating, it's mainly ones own problem; nobody is forcing to apply the nominator 'EM fanfapper' on themselves, after all.. Compared to posting something sceptical on an EM-fanfapper forum, and getting the flack there, you'll see that my reactions are actually mild and moderate in comparison.
2)for there to be competitive technology, there must be technology that actually competes. A (claim of) a reactionless EM-drive which breaks CoM and CoE, can't compete, since it doesn't exist. Besides, you seem to imply I have a vested interest; you do realise the TPS is a non-profit organisation, right? The Lightsail is pure space-exploration and research, without any commercial interest. And if one would claim I have a 'philosophical' vested interest, then only between things that actually can work, and things that don't. Thus, I don't really care *what* technology will pave the ways to the stars, only if it's feasible (and, of course, if the project is interesting/appeals to me, if a donation is at stake). Ergo, everything I deem interesting and feasible in this regard, I'll sponsor, within reason. That's the only criteria I have. And, if there is any competition in this regard (no-ones budget is limitless, after all), obviously the likely and plausible will win from the extremely unlikely and implausible. But that's just logical and common sense, and has nothing to do with a personal bias or vested interests.
And no, they call us 'pathosceptics'.;-) I don't feel butthurt by it or complain about their namecalling though; I just don't feel it addresses me. That's all.
3)Experiments that haven't been done yet? No, I base myself on the experiments that have already been done, and what EM-fanfappers don't seem to realise, is that the current experiments in NO WAY have demonstrated, nor even implied, that the EM drive is a reactionless drive. What they DID demonstrate, was the inability to filter out the cause of a tiny force between a lot of noise. But make no mistake: I don't claim it's 'impossible' in the absolute sense. I only say it being a reactionless drive is so extremely unlikely that it's an par with claiming the force measured is due to tooth-fairy magic. And I do NOT find it particularly necessary or even wise to put much scientific effort or money in researching a tooth-fairy drive. The best one can hope for in that case, is that it may help developing ultra-sensitive measure-instruments, or new magnetic shielding (since this is a contender as a cause for it) or such. Now, is it absolutely impossible that we've discovered a reactionless drive that breaks CoM and CoE and that by being a closed microwave-oven, yet never have seen any evidence or even observation of such an easy and low energy CoM/CoE breaking device - which logically should have dire and very obvious consequences in the world around us, if it were true, for the last 400 years? Well, no. But it's also not absolutely impossible in that sense, that the universe is hold in check by dragonmagic. And should one now research the possibility the measured force is due to dragonmagic, if a person would postulate such a thing? Me thinks not. In my view, people defending such a stance are the zealots and the irrational fanatics and obnoxious Trump/Hilary adepts. The only problem is, EM-fanfappers don't realise they *are* taking such a stance; instead defending their position with "you have to keep an open mind". Yes, but not until your brain falls out. The scientific community does not posses infinite finances, time or workforce, it therefore can not pursue and research every crack-pot idea and absurd claim out there; before they do so, one needs to meet some minimum standards. Do we agree on that? Well, then the only difference is, that I realise that thes
Let me refrase it differently, since you seem to have misunderstood: the question whether or not a perpetuum mobile (or free energy machine, or over unity device, etc.) is NOT dependend on whether you have to put energy in it as far as as 'needing energy' would exclude it being a perpetuum mobile, which was what the contention was. It's not because a machine needs energy, it it has excluded itself from being a perpetuum mobile, so people saying "the EM drive is not a perpetuum mobile/free energy/over unity device because it requires energy, are faulty.
For such a device, it matters only if you get more energy out of it, than you put in it. That's all. Meaning, even if you have to put 10 GW/h in it, but you get 20 (or even 11) GW/h in return you DO have such a device. Which, of course, is impossible.
As for your contention that you have to convert motion of the machine into energy which surpasses the initial energy of the device: this is correct. And that's what EM would allow, since, as said, the kinetic energy of velocity *squares* in regard to the thrust. So for every 1 Newton force you put in there, you'll get far more energy back. In that case, it's only a matter of time until you surpass the initial amount of energy required. Torque and friction does nothing to impede that principle, it just means your initial thrust must be high enough to overcome the friction. Frankly, we already can make very low-frictionless devices, so even a few mN would suffice to put it in practise. And even if one couldn't, since it's theoretically possible (if the EM drive would work as advertised, which it doesn't), it's only a matter of creating more thrust - which, indeed, would need more energy-input, but since you *always* get more back (as kinetic energy) than you put, the *amount* you initially put in is of no concern to demonstrate it being a perpetuum mobile/free energy device. Even with low efficiency, the only thing to do is too augment it enough, and you'll surpass it sooner or later.
There is really no way around: you *can* make a perpetuum mobile out of it, IF it's truly a reactionless drive.
You nitwit. Its your last part that is not true. It's perfectly possible to have less friction than what an EM thrust would generated to have to overcome it, even with small thrusts, AND you seem to conveniently forget that the thrust - according to shawyer himself - is dependend on the energy input, you dumbbell.
If anyone should go away it's you, to read up on it. But please come back when you're a bit better educated on the subject.
And you'll forgive the personal namecalling, no doubt, since you started with it.
Well, yes, but I assume the real./-geeks around here realise and already know that using ordinary chemical rockets is not a very palatable or reasonable option to travel to the stars, to use an euphemism.;-)
As for the technologies I mentionned: I didn't mean it as being exclusive. As said, I meant: in the short to medium long term, it seems those tchnologies are the most promising. For instance, I don't know of any other plan or concept that would actually be more possible with current or near-future tech as that of the StarChip-project, to reach another star in our life-time (at least potentially).
Of course, spaceships with nuclear fusion or anti-matter are possible too, but I don't see that happening anytime soon; the technology is still to immature for that.
Granted, projects like Orion and Daedalus may work too, and are technically feasible with current tech, but that's less likely to happen in our current time, for other (Obvious) reasons. Things like the 'interstellar arc' are possible too, but, again, not in the short run.
The most practical and plausible concept as of yet is something along the lines of StarChip, me thinks. The Lightsail of TPS can play a role in this too, if only to get more data on solar/light sailing.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be noted, though, that any spaceship travelling less than 0.1c would be surpassed by future tech that *would* go at 0.1c or faster (like a lasersail-based one can achieve). Thus, an 'interstellar arc'-ship - even with fusion-engines very slow - is not well suited for travelling to a star, and would not be recommended, unless their is some doom-like scenario threatening for the immediate extinction of the human race, and no other possibilities are left open for some reason.
Otherwise, you're just wasting enormous amounts money, time, and effort, on a risky venture to send inhabitants in such a closure for hundreds or even thousands of years, who, when arriving at their destination (a live-able planet), would notice it's already habited by other humans who departed much later, but arrived much sooner.
You must have missed the very, very many posts and all the long explanations as how EMdrives can break CoE as well as CoM, and thus become perpetuum mobile/free energy/over unity machines.
As a poster already told you: it's not about sending an EMdrive as described, into space with a battery-pack, but showing that an EMdrive can be made into a perpetuum mobile/free energy device, IF one presumes it's a reactionless device, as described. And the fact that the EM drive can be used to build a perpetual motion machine makes its very existence impossible. And btw, it comes over as really immature to shout 'go back and redo all your math' to people who have clearly shown they understood the basic problem better than you did.
Anyway, IF your contention is that it's possible to have a reactionless drive, yet claim that doesn't violate CoE, I have to refute that.
Let me explain:
Conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are equally fundamental. So perpetual motion machines are no more or less impossible than reactionless drives. Here's how the latter implies the former: relativity says there's no such thing as absolute velocity. There's only your velocity compared to something else. You have an infinite number of velocities at once, but can only have one acceleration. So there's no way acceleration can depend on your velocity.
So you have constant acceleration from your energy input, but your kinetic energy is going up *with the square* of your velocity, and at some point you're getting more energy out than you put in. The point at which you start getting more energy than you put in depends on the thrust to power ratio. The higher the ratio the lower the minimum speed needs to be for that to happen. A normal photon rocket has a theoretical maximum thrust to power ratio such that the speed is c (the speed of light in vacuum). It can never reach that speed, so the problem is avoided. The reported thrust to power ratios for the EmDrive are orders of magnitude higher than that, so the problem *does* exist for them.
We've been with three now , each making several posts clearly and succinctly explaining it to him. Let's hope he finally understands.
You're not quite right in that assertion, I'm afraid. Let me explain:
IF, however, your contention is that it's possible to have a reactionless drive, yet claim that doesn't violate CoE, I have to refute that. (your position in this is not clear).
Let me explain:
Conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are equally fundamental. So perpetual motion machines are no more or less impossible than reactionless drives. Here's how the latter implies the former: relativity says there's no such thing as absolute velocity. There's only your velocity compared to something else. You have an infinite number of velocities at once, but can only have one acceleration. So there's no way acceleration can depend on your velocity.
So you have constant acceleration from your energy input, but your kinetic energy is going up *with the square* of your velocity, and at some point you're getting more energy out than you put in. The point at which you start getting more energy than you put in depends on the thrust to power ratio. The higher the ratio the lower the minimum speed needs to be for that to happen. A normal photon rocket has a theoretical maximum thrust to power ratio such that the speed is c (the speed of light in vacuum). It can never reach that speed, so the problem is avoided. The reported thrust to power ratios for the EmDrive are orders of magnitude higher than that, so the problem *does* exist for them.
I'll, instead, respond to your post, thank you very much. What you do with your hand is your own (and I don't have to know the yucky details ;-))
I've explained it in another post, also to you if memory serves well, very clearly and very easily to understand, why something that breaks CoM also breaks CoE, and why the EMdrive DOES break both. I can't help it if you still do not comprehend.
And while you might think it doesn't, just like you think I'm 'that other guy'; you're wrong on both accounts.
I guess I'll refrain from comparing you to a Xerox copy, not because there is no ample opportunity too, but at least I want to keep debates relevant and mildly polite (depending on how another poster is in return, of course).
IF, however, your contention is that it's possible to have a reactionless drive, yet claim that doesn't violate CoE, I have to refute that. (your position in this is not clear).
Let me explain:
Conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are equally fundamental. So perpetual motion machines are no more or less impossible than reactionless drives. Here's how the latter implies the former: relativity says there's no such thing as absolute velocity. There's only your velocity compared to something else. You have an infinite number of velocities at once, but can only have one acceleration. So there's no way acceleration can depend on your velocity.
So you have constant acceleration from your energy input, but your kinetic energy is going up *with the square* of your velocity, and at some point you're getting more energy out than you put in. The point at which you start getting more energy than you put in depends on the thrust to power ratio. The higher the ratio the lower the minimum speed needs to be for that to happen. A normal photon rocket has a theoretical maximum thrust to power ratio such that the speed is c (the speed of light in vacuum). It can never reach that speed, so the problem is avoided. The reported thrust to power ratios for the EmDrive are orders of magnitude higher than that, so the problem *does* exist for them.
Ermm... I don't know if you realize this, but if your contention is you can't derive free energy out of an EMdrive, that is exactly what I and the other guy are claiming as well...
But while you claim the problem lays in practical problems, we claim it's far more inherent then that, and is based on the principle of it.
No, they do not. And that's what you do not understand, I know. I've talked enough to people like you to realize this. It's like you guys have a mental block.
What the experiments showed, was the difficulty in singling out the cause of a minor force between a lot of noise, which an extremely high likelihood of being an artifact or measure error. That's really all the experiments showed.
Yet, people like you think it makes a strong case for a reactionless drive. It doesn't and isn't.
But it's impossible to make you comprehend that, because you do not *WANT* to comprehend it.
Wrong. Even if losses would be cumulative, the kinetic energy augments with the square of the thrust.
It's also obvious to see. If your device turns and keeps going at 1000 W, it doesn't matter *where* that 1000 W comes from. So if it comes from the device itself, it doesn't matter for the generator.
Ergo, unless you claim that the resistance also augments to the square with each given energy of the input - which is bullocks - it's obvious that at a certain point, your velocity (and thus the energy it gives) will become great enough to keep the whole thing running. At which point you have a perpetuum mobile device.
Also, as the parent poster said: debating the practicality and possible technical difficulties do not change the fact that one could actually make a perpetuum mobile. The breaking of CoM and CoE or any other basic law is not depended on technical difficulties in making a practical device that is easily built. Whether you need superconducting wires, a very low-friction axis, 100 of years of running it, high speeds of hundreds of km/h, and whether you have to pour millions of dollars in it to build it, etc. does not matter: the point is, it's possible to make one, so it breaks a basic law of physics.
To the square?
People claiming the torsional resistance is the problem don't realize it doesn't really matter if the EM drive really is a reactionless drive. There is no increase of the resistance to the square of the input, while there IS through the velocity (kinetic energy) for every amount of input. It's not difficult to see, thus, that at some point, the energy getting out of it will be greater than whatever input + resistance will demand.
Also, people arguing about the *difficulty* of it don't seem to realize that the actual problem is, that it would actually allow a perpetuum mobile in principle; and it's that which makes it impossible. Technical difficulties are not a good argument against the principle of the matter, if that principle would actually allow a perpetuum mobile. In this case, the only ned is to augment the input enough to the point that the return, with low efficiency and all, supersedes the input and all resistances - which is possible, since the energy that one can derive from it is the SQAURE of the energy needed for the thrust. Is one really claiming resistance augments with the square too? If not, then the machine will, at a certain point, become a perpetuum mobile.
Hey, you don't have to convince me its impossible. That was just the whole point, to demonstrate the implausibility of it.
However, the impossibility of it stems from the fact that a reactionless drive, such as the EM drive, is not possible. EM fanfappers however claim it is, and I pointed out that if that were true, you would be able to make a perpetuum mobile out of it. And in that case, it wouldn't matter much how efficient the conversion is, as long as the energy getting out of it is more than the energy to run the thing. And that would be possible at some point, since the energy of velocity squares with each amount of thrust you put in (and the thrust is dependent on the energy you put in).
So torque, (in)efficiency only postpone that point, it does not inhibit it, unless one argues the torque etc. also squares with the input (which it doesn't).
So people claiming the EMdrive can't turn into a perpetuum mobile or over unity device are wrong. It can be made into one, IF the EMdrive ould be a reactionless drive. Which, of course, it isn't.
Incorrect. I do too. For the simple reason that, if the EMdrive works as it is described to work (aka, as a reactionless drive), it's the only logical conclusion to take. The only other option, if one refutes the former, is to conclude that fundamental laws vary depending on localisation. This in turn would mean, the speed of light varies, the strong nuclear force would change, etc., and thus whole swats of matter would spontaneously disintegrate into atomic and subatomic particles and exotic matter, and flood the universe . This, however, we have not observed, not even once, for the last 400 years. Hence, the extreme unlikelihood of such a claim.
You can't have it both ways. It either follows the laws of physics, in which case you can make it into an over unity device (which is extremely unlikely), or it doesn't follow the basic laws of physics, but that would entail - since we've observed those laws working to an astonishingly accurate level - that those laws vary depending on localisation and that we somehow missed the telltale signs of such a thing for the last 400 years, which is also highly unlikely.
Hence the most likely assumption, namely that the EMdrive isn't a reactionless drive at all, but the result is rather a measure error or artefact.
For f- sake, you simply seem NOT be able to comprehend this.
It doesn't work, because there is no such thing as a reactionless drive. If there WERE such a thing, however, like the EM drive is claimed to be, then you can get more energy out of it that you put in, by the SQUARE of it (through kinetic energy). EVEN if you have losses and the efficiency would be low, this means you can get more energy out than you put in, because those losses DO NOT rise as the square of your input.
The reason ALL PERPETUUM MOBILE and free energy devices do not work, is because you CAN NOT get more energy out of them than you put in them. Even with a frictionless and lossless conversion - which doesnt exist - it would be equal at most.
If, however, one claims one has a reactionless drive, PHYSICS say that you get the square of the energy in velocity for each amount of thrust you put in it. So IT DOES NOT MATTER whether you have losses and it isn't completely frictionless, as long as the output you have exceeds the losses. And since losses don't inversely relate in the same manner (you won't suddenly have a square loss by doubling your input), it's easy to see that, at some point, you will get more energy out than your input + losses together.
Which is, of course, not possible. Aka, the EMdrive, as described, is not possible.
For f- sake you're either dense or being wilfully obtuse.
You do realise that my whole point is, that such a machine can not be, right?
However, not because of losses - that would merely mean the energy you get out of it should be large enough to continue providing the required energy - but because there is no such thing as a reactionless drive to begin with, and thus the EM drive can't work as proclaimed.
Well, everything is a matter of balancing one against the other. The scientific community has limited finances, time and workforce, so it's clear they can't research every crackpot idea out there. Even those crackpot-ideas that claim are successful (most do).
Look at it this way: if the contention would be that the thrust is due to dragonmagic; how much worth would you give to it? What would you consider a worthwhile amount of time, money and effort to spend on it?
I would claim, until they make a far better case, very little.
Yes, I console myself with the thought that all the money and time already wasted (which predominantly is taxpayers' money btw, not their own money) on this likely case of an error measurement or artefact, may, perhaps, lead to something like better magnetic shielding, or much finer tuned mN-measurement devices - if we're lucky.
That will be about it. Better then nothing, but not really worth much money, time, and especially not the hype and nonsense we've been seeing for the last years about it.
Contrary to you, thus, I try to balance things - a pragmatic stance, unless one wants to research every crackpot-idea which has very weak observational data and no theoretic substantiation out there.
So, yes, it 'may' lead to things, just as dragonmagic 'may' lead to a power to control the universe, but it all depends on how likely it is, and what the cost/benefits are that can reasonably be expected. That goes for any reasonable person. Even if you'd venture that it might or might not lead to more efficient spacedrives: would you, for instance, wager 10 trillion dollars for it? Doubtful. In my view (and in most of the scientific community) the case for it being a reactionless drive is infinitesimal small, and very unlikely to deliver something worthwhile. And that's also the reason why not much time, effort and money is devoted on it. And I think that reasonable.
Tajmar with his latest experimental tests, btw, has shown strong indications that it IS a measure error or artefact, because he has gotten 'thrust' in situations where he deliberately set up his device so it *could not* show thrust due to the 'resonance of microwaves'.
Well, let's face it; if it works *as they themselves claim and imply it does* it clearly DOES violate CoM and CoE. 'They' being Sawyer and White (and to a lesser degree, Tajmar). Ah, yes, and the Chinese. Basically, all those claiming it works.
By it 'works' they mean the extremely unlikely possibility of it being a reactionless drive, they do NOT mean the far, far, far more likely case of it being a measure error or artefact. Point in case: you do not need to invent a theory, like White did, about 'pushing against virtual quantum plasma' just to explain an error measurement, now do we?
The same goes for you too. If, by "it seems to work", you mean measuring a tiny force between a lot of noise, which is most likely to be an error measurement or artefact, then I would agree with you. If you mean by that, that it shows a thrust due to the resonance of bouncing microwaves that generates thrust, even while being fully enclosed, then, no, I do not agree with that statement, for the simple reason it then DOES violate our current physical laws, and that would entail all what I just said in my earlier post. Which makes it extremely, extremely unlikly - equal to saying it's due to dragonmagic.
I mean, one can't have it both ways. If one claims it DOES work as described - thus: providing thrust by the resonance of microwaves in a closed compartment - it DOES violate our basic natural laws.
Really? Name me some other 'novel technologies' who broke the basic laws of physics and actually work. Where are they?
In the unlikely event it's meant as a genuine question of interest, I'll explain it to you.
If the device would work in a way which breaks CoM and CoE - which it would, if one presumes it works in ways that defy current physics in regard to it being a reactionless drive (which includes if it somehow would not generate constant acceleration at constant power) - that would in turn mean most other laws and observations of our universe would go down too. This is because IF the CoM principle could be violated (and by the mere resonance of microwaves, no less), it would mean that fundamental laws vary depending on localisation. This in turn would mean, the speed of light varies, the strong nuclear force would change, etc., and thus whole swats of matter would spontaneously disintegrate into atomic and subatomic particles and exotic matter, and flood the universe. This, however, we have not observed, not even once, for the last 400 years. Hence, the extreme unlikelihood of such a claim.
Hey, c'mon. It was clear he was talking about it in the context of a reactionless drive. that's what this whole threat is about, after all. You're technical correct with your remark, but I think you're being a bit wilfully obtuse in this instance.
I know, and you know, that he wasn't talking about a car using the combustion of petrol. He would have been correct if he just had added "an unknown reactionless drive mechanism" (the precise mechanics of that wouldn't have mattered, indeed), which we both know was what he meant.
"Verified observation *ALWAYS* trumps all theories regardless of how precious you hold them or whether you have an explanation."
While true on itself, in the case of the EMdrive, there are no verified observations of a reactionless device, AND neither is a plausible theory provided for said claim (they provide one, but it's nonsensical).
I'm glad you're highly sceptical, but saying the observations have been repeated and holding up to scrutiny is not entirely correct, depending on what you think has been 'uphold' and by what 'scrutiny'.
After all, while observation trumps theory, the interpretation of said observation needs explanation. And that explanation needs to be *the most logical and most likely* one, since giving more weight to the least plausible explanation for an observation, leads to a deterioration of the scientific method. So what is the most likely explanation of the observation? What did we, in fact, observe? Nothing more than the difficulty in pinpointed a very weak signal in a lot of noise, which is most likely a measure error or artefact. So, if any conclusion or plausible explanation or interpretation should be given, it should be that. Yet, what do we see? That one tries to explain it with inconsistent and nonsensical theories and CoM and CoE breaking new physics which would invalidate the past 400 years of scientific observations. Does this make sense? No. Yet, they persist.
This clearly implies they think their observation is linked to that (why otherwise trying to substantiate it with nonsense like 'pushing against vacuum plasma'?), while it's, in effect, far, far, far more likely to be linked with an error measure or artefact.
People should realise it makes as much sense to claim the 'observation' is due to a reactionless drive, than to say it's due to dragonmagic. As of yet, it has about the same validity. And one can wonder if putting money, time and work in researching dragonmagic is all that wise and to be considered a rational spending and worthwhile effort.
What I would consider a reasonable approach, is that the people who want to waste their money on it (though in most cases it's taxpayers money, which makes it more grating) do so in the extend that a cursory interest for an undefined measure error or artefact would warrant, nothing more, nothing less. Not until they've actually made a strong case for the claims they are doing (or implying) now.
I concur with everything you said here.
It's a pity not more logical/educated people are on /. Or at least, people who actually *want* to learn and be rational. I would mod you up if I had mod points.
1) comes forth as a direct result of my dealings with EM-fanfappers. True, at some points I could be more PC, but by and large, the EM-fanfappers are an obnoxious and annoying lot, insensitive to logic and rational argumentation. And if one feels hurt by my direct way of communicating, it's mainly ones own problem; nobody is forcing to apply the nominator 'EM fanfapper' on themselves, after all.. Compared to posting something sceptical on an EM-fanfapper forum, and getting the flack there, you'll see that my reactions are actually mild and moderate in comparison.
2)for there to be competitive technology, there must be technology that actually competes. A (claim of) a reactionless EM-drive which breaks CoM and CoE, can't compete, since it doesn't exist. Besides, you seem to imply I have a vested interest; you do realise the TPS is a non-profit organisation, right? The Lightsail is pure space-exploration and research, without any commercial interest. And if one would claim I have a 'philosophical' vested interest, then only between things that actually can work, and things that don't. Thus, I don't really care *what* technology will pave the ways to the stars, only if it's feasible (and, of course, if the project is interesting/appeals to me, if a donation is at stake). Ergo, everything I deem interesting and feasible in this regard, I'll sponsor, within reason. That's the only criteria I have. And, if there is any competition in this regard (no-ones budget is limitless, after all), obviously the likely and plausible will win from the extremely unlikely and implausible. But that's just logical and common sense, and has nothing to do with a personal bias or vested interests.
And no, they call us 'pathosceptics'. ;-) I don't feel butthurt by it or complain about their namecalling though; I just don't feel it addresses me. That's all.
3)Experiments that haven't been done yet? No, I base myself on the experiments that have already been done, and what EM-fanfappers don't seem to realise, is that the current experiments in NO WAY have demonstrated, nor even implied, that the EM drive is a reactionless drive. What they DID demonstrate, was the inability to filter out the cause of a tiny force between a lot of noise. But make no mistake: I don't claim it's 'impossible' in the absolute sense. I only say it being a reactionless drive is so extremely unlikely that it's an par with claiming the force measured is due to tooth-fairy magic. And I do NOT find it particularly necessary or even wise to put much scientific effort or money in researching a tooth-fairy drive. The best one can hope for in that case, is that it may help developing ultra-sensitive measure-instruments, or new magnetic shielding (since this is a contender as a cause for it) or such. Now, is it absolutely impossible that we've discovered a reactionless drive that breaks CoM and CoE and that by being a closed microwave-oven, yet never have seen any evidence or even observation of such an easy and low energy CoM/CoE breaking device - which logically should have dire and very obvious consequences in the world around us, if it were true, for the last 400 years? Well, no. But it's also not absolutely impossible in that sense, that the universe is hold in check by dragonmagic. And should one now research the possibility the measured force is due to dragonmagic, if a person would postulate such a thing? Me thinks not. In my view, people defending such a stance are the zealots and the irrational fanatics and obnoxious Trump/Hilary adepts. The only problem is, EM-fanfappers don't realise they *are* taking such a stance; instead defending their position with "you have to keep an open mind". Yes, but not until your brain falls out. The scientific community does not posses infinite finances, time or workforce, it therefore can not pursue and research every crack-pot idea and absurd claim out there; before they do so, one needs to meet some minimum standards. Do we agree on that? Well, then the only difference is, that I realise that thes
Let me refrase it differently, since you seem to have misunderstood: the question whether or not a perpetuum mobile (or free energy machine, or over unity device, etc.) is NOT dependend on whether you have to put energy in it as far as as 'needing energy' would exclude it being a perpetuum mobile, which was what the contention was. It's not because a machine needs energy, it it has excluded itself from being a perpetuum mobile, so people saying "the EM drive is not a perpetuum mobile/free energy/over unity device because it requires energy, are faulty.
For such a device, it matters only if you get more energy out of it, than you put in it. That's all. Meaning, even if you have to put 10 GW/h in it, but you get 20 (or even 11) GW/h in return you DO have such a device. Which, of course, is impossible.
As for your contention that you have to convert motion of the machine into energy which surpasses the initial energy of the device: this is correct. And that's what EM would allow, since, as said, the kinetic energy of velocity *squares* in regard to the thrust. So for every 1 Newton force you put in there, you'll get far more energy back. In that case, it's only a matter of time until you surpass the initial amount of energy required. Torque and friction does nothing to impede that principle, it just means your initial thrust must be high enough to overcome the friction. Frankly, we already can make very low-frictionless devices, so even a few mN would suffice to put it in practise. And even if one couldn't, since it's theoretically possible (if the EM drive would work as advertised, which it doesn't), it's only a matter of creating more thrust - which, indeed, would need more energy-input, but since you *always* get more back (as kinetic energy) than you put, the *amount* you initially put in is of no concern to demonstrate it being a perpetuum mobile/free energy device. Even with low efficiency, the only thing to do is too augment it enough, and you'll surpass it sooner or later.
There is really no way around: you *can* make a perpetuum mobile out of it, IF it's truly a reactionless drive.
Which, of course, it isn't.
No shit, sherlock? Of course it takes torque.
You nitwit. Its your last part that is not true. It's perfectly possible to have less friction than what an EM thrust would generated to have to overcome it, even with small thrusts, AND you seem to conveniently forget that the thrust - according to shawyer himself - is dependend on the energy input, you dumbbell.
If anyone should go away it's you, to read up on it. But please come back when you're a bit better educated on the subject.
And you'll forgive the personal namecalling, no doubt, since you started with it.
Well, yes, but I assume the real ./-geeks around here realise and already know that using ordinary chemical rockets is not a very palatable or reasonable option to travel to the stars, to use an euphemism. ;-)
As for the technologies I mentionned: I didn't mean it as being exclusive. As said, I meant: in the short to medium long term, it seems those tchnologies are the most promising. For instance, I don't know of any other plan or concept that would actually be more possible with current or near-future tech as that of the StarChip-project, to reach another star in our life-time (at least potentially).
Of course, spaceships with nuclear fusion or anti-matter are possible too, but I don't see that happening anytime soon; the technology is still to immature for that.
Granted, projects like Orion and Daedalus may work too, and are technically feasible with current tech, but that's less likely to happen in our current time, for other (Obvious) reasons. Things like the 'interstellar arc' are possible too, but, again, not in the short run.
The most practical and plausible concept as of yet is something along the lines of StarChip, me thinks. The Lightsail of TPS can play a role in this too, if only to get more data on solar/light sailing.