It seems from the theory presented, and even the experimental results,Dirk said:An incandescent light bulb would work just as well in that case.
Agreed.
However, the claim is that this engine will produce vastly more thrust
than you would get from simply emitting the photons.
Benj said:
Note: I'm cross-posting this to sci.physics so all the people "smarter
than Einstein" can have a look at it.
I'm not quite sure about it. My gut feeling has to do with the fact
that the device theory more or less ignores the forces along the
tapered portion of the guide. This feels a lot like so many hydraulic
"perpetual motion" machines where forces on tapered surfaces get
neglected and thus the thing seems to work. [but they really don't]
The relativistic explanation would need to be looked at in detail to
really be sure about the device. I'm not sure that the frame
difference between the radiation and the guide really has the thrust
effect claimed. Radiation pressure is obviously real, but that should
only be a stress between the large and small end. ( including the
tapered portion I presume). Conservation of momentum seems to preclude
this thing from working...BUT I'd point out that in Newtons system of
action and reaction being equal, which actually doesn't hold when
causality is taken into account, then it follows that mechanical
momentum is NOT conserved! [for more information on this see
Jefimenko, "Gravitation and Cogravitation" P. 7] So if Newton's laws
don't hold then we are starting to get somewhere strange.
So guys, do we have an "all-electric" satellite thruster or not?
[Follow the links to the theory paper]
Note that any opinion from clowns who "know" it's bunk, even though
they haven't read the paper, should be ignored as should all comments
about "tinfoil" helmets.
[snip]
This is called light propulsion.
It is fantastically inefficient
Benj said:
Benj said:Note that any opinion from clowns who "know" it's bunk, even though
they haven't read the paper, should be ignored as should all comments
about "tinfoil" helmets.
The problem becomes acute long before SR effects are obvious.
[snip]
This is called light propulsion.
It is fantastically inefficient and for all intents and purposes,
useless.
This has been discussed before in one of the sci.*
groups, a few years ago IIRC. It's a drive based on
radiation pressure, with an additional (and erroneous)
claim that using a resonator multiplies the thrust by
the Q-factor of the resonator.
Adrian said:It seems from the theory presented, and even the experimental results,
that it will produce the thrust. What they dont point out is that the
thrust wont produce useful acceleration.
Start here for some criticism from someone who is not a clown:http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf
What's wrong with tinfoil helmets?http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
Salmon said:Benj said:Note: I'm cross-posting this to sci.physics so all the people "smarter
than Einstein" can have a look at it.
I'm not quite sure about it. My gut feeling has to do with the fact
that the device theory more or less ignores the forces along the
tapered portion of the guide. This feels a lot like so many hydraulic
"perpetual motion" machines where forces on tapered surfaces get
neglected and thus the thing seems to work. [but they really don't]
The relativistic explanation would need to be looked at in detail to
really be sure about the device. I'm not sure that the frame
difference between the radiation and the guide really has the thrust
effect claimed. Radiation pressure is obviously real, but that should
only be a stress between the large and small end. ( including the
tapered portion I presume). Conservation of momentum seems to preclude
this thing from working...BUT I'd point out that in Newtons system of
action and reaction being equal, which actually doesn't hold when
causality is taken into account, then it follows that mechanical
momentum is NOT conserved! [for more information on this see
Jefimenko, "Gravitation and Cogravitation" P. 7] So if Newton's laws
don't hold then we are starting to get somewhere strange.
So guys, do we have an "all-electric" satellite thruster or not?
[Follow the links to the theory paper]
Note that any opinion from clowns who "know" it's bunk, even though
they haven't read the paper, should be ignored as should all comments
about "tinfoil" helmets.
There is no doubt that radiation pressure is real. With ordinary
propellents, the system is most efficient when the space vehicle is
going at a speed such the exhaust is stationary as the craft flies on.
That is, any kinetic energy in the exhaust is energy that cannot be used
to provide kinetic energy to the spacecraft.
[snip]
Benj said:. When ever a so-
called "scientist" starts telling you he doesn't need to read a paper
or it's fundamental reference
to know it's rubbish, that's a clown
talking!
In message
No, he read the paper.
which is evidently misapplied.
If the introduction to a paper claims that it's applying some standard
physical theory (e.g. Maxwellian electrodynamics, Newton's laws) and the
conclusions (e.g. momentum is not conserved) are inconsistent with the
theory, then the only reason for reading what comes between them
(including your "fundamental reference") is to find _where_ the error
was made. Physical theories have to be (logically, mathematically)
self-consistent or they wouldn't be theories.
If the introduction to a paper claims that it's applying some standard
physical theory (e.g. Maxwellian electrodynamics, Newton's laws) and the
conclusions (e.g. momentum is not conserved) are inconsistent with the
theory, then the only reason for reading what comes between them
(including your "fundamental reference") is to find _where_ the error
was made. Physical theories have to be (logically, mathematically)
self-consistent or they wouldn't be theories.
In message
No, he read the paper.
which is evidently misapplied.
If the introduction to a paper claims that it's applying some standard
physical theory (e.g. Maxwellian electrodynamics, Newton's laws) and the
conclusions (e.g. momentum is not conserved) are inconsistent with the
theory, then the only reason for reading what comes between them
(including your "fundamental reference") is to find _where_ the error
was made. Physical theories have to be (logically, mathematically)
self-consistent or they wouldn't be theories.
So the bottom line is that I"m not going to accept the argument that
this thing is "nuts" because it violates "conservation of momentum".
That argument only says "I'm a lazy fool!". That immediately places
you in the list of candidates for person who was the largest moron and
who did the MOST to embarrass physics by saying really stupid things.
You know, that list that includes Tesla's professor who "proved" that
a motor could "never" be built without a commutator, and the French
"experts" who affirmed that heavier than air craft could never fly.
Jeeze, how can the public ever trust "science experts" again?
The bottom line here is that anyone who argues that this device
"cannot" work because momentum isn't conserved is a moron. The very
existence of the device (thruster) implies that somehow momentum isn't
being conserved!
So, the real question is could this device actually
work.
The fact that we've not seen the case where momentum is not
conserved doesn't make it impossible anymore than the fact that
Tesla's professor had never seen an induction motor makes commutator-
less electric motors "impossible".
The true question is NOT "is this
possible"? Let us assume for the purposes of science that ALL THINGS
are "possible". The real question is "how does one do this?" If one
can't do it, then that only means you don't know how to do it, not
that it is impossible!
This is exactly correct. However, in such a case one would expect the
person to 1. actually read the paper including the references. and 2.
find the exact location where the error was made and then write those
equations down saying, "look, this guy is a moron!".
But that isn't
the usual thing in science. See the post of MooseFET below. It's just
a bunch of crap of no substance. His basic argument underlying all the
"fun" is that this paper is so ridiculous that we don't even need to
read it to know the author is "insane". But this should be no
surprise given the clownish name "MooseFET" he posts under.
So the bottom line is that I"m not going to accept the argument that
this thing is "nuts" because it violates "conservation of momentum".
That argument only says "I'm a lazy fool!".
That immediately places
you in the list of candidates for person who was the largest moron and
who did the MOST to embarrass physics by saying really stupid things.
You know, that list that includes Tesla's professor who "proved" that
a motor could "never" be built without a commutator, and the French
"experts" who affirmed that heavier than air craft could never fly.
Jeeze, how can the public ever trust "science experts" again?
The bottom line here is that anyone who argues that this device
"cannot" work because momentum isn't conserved is a moron.
The very
existence of the device (thruster) implies that somehow momentum isn't
being conserved!
So, the real question is could this device actually
work.
The fact that we've not seen the case where momentum is not
conserved doesn't make it impossible anymore than the fact that
Tesla's professor had never seen an induction motor makes commutator-
less electric motors "impossible". The true question is NOT "is this
possible"? Let us assume for the purposes of science that ALL THINGS
are "possible". The real question is "how does one do this?" If one
can't do it, then that only means you don't know how to do it, not
that it is impossible!
So the bottom line here is that the claim of the author that this
device relies upon some relativistic effect to obtain a differential
in radiation pressure on the two ends of the cavity is the ONLY
argument that needs attention. Is this true or not? Only a examination
of his relativistic equations would give the answer. Invoking
violation of conservation of momentum does not!
I haven't examined his
equations. I actually try to avoid all discussions of who is "smarter
than Eisnstein" and relativity. And so far I haven't seen anybody else
point out where his relativity is in error either.
So what is the crux here? Say we have a cavity with radiation inside
it. HE says that if you taper the cavity, the EM radiation inside has
a different velocity at one end than at the other.
HE says that by
relativity this means the radiation pressure on one end is different
from that one the other end. Could this possibly be true?
What if we
had molecules in there instead? Note as they get closer and closer to
the speed of light they get larger and larger mass.
