It's not specifically the energy density that counts, but the thrust-to-mass ratio of the whole package. Based on NASA's test, the device alone (not even counting the power supply) has a thrust-to-mass ratio about 100 times worse than a solar sail, which puts it squarely in the "who cares?" category as far as practical applications go.
Thrust to mass ratio for the sail is measured at what distance from the sun? It falls off with R^2.
Topic: NASA Tests ‘Impossible’ no-fuel Quantum Space Engine – and it Actually Works (Read 2574 times)
August 23, 2014, 10:15:41 AM
August 23, 2014, 09:51:57 AM
It's not specifically the energy density that counts, but the thrust-to-mass ratio of the whole package. Based on NASA's test, the device alone (not even counting the power supply) has a thrust-to-mass ratio about 100 times worse than a solar sail, which puts it squarely in the "who cares?" category as far as practical applications go.
Thrust to mass ratio for the sail is measured at what distance from the sun? It falls off with R^2. August 23, 2014, 09:38:30 AM
It's not specifically the energy density that counts, but the thrust-to-mass ratio of the whole package. Based on NASA's test, the device alone (not even counting the power supply) has a thrust-to-mass ratio about 100 times worse than a solar sail, which puts it squarely in the "who cares?" category as far as practical applications go.
August 23, 2014, 08:54:27 AM
Now that we are back on the same page, we agree that engines that convert energy to motion will get better and more clever, microwaves, quantum foam, etc. They will all use input energy to create motion. The real long term issue is not the engines themselves, it is the power source.
The first issue is that we need to store a lot of energy in as little mass as possible. This is called the energy density. Check out this table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density_Extended_Reference_Table
A few highlights with respect to future space craft (numbers in MJ/kg):
This all assumes you are already off the planet because getting off the planet has a further issue, namely the power density issue.
Also note with respect to current electric cars and their energy density issue:
This is the area where we could really use some breakthroughs.
The first issue is that we need to store a lot of energy in as little mass as possible. This is called the energy density. Check out this table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density_Extended_Reference_Table
A few highlights with respect to future space craft (numbers in MJ/kg):
Code:
Arbitrary Antimatter ≈89,876,000,000
Deuterium-tritium fusion 576,000,000
Hydrogen + Oxygen 13.43
Nitroglycerin 6.38
battery, Lithium ion nanowire 2.54
battery, Hydrogen closed cycle H fuel cell 1.62
Deuterium-tritium fusion 576,000,000
Hydrogen + Oxygen 13.43
Nitroglycerin 6.38
battery, Lithium ion nanowire 2.54
battery, Hydrogen closed cycle H fuel cell 1.62
This all assumes you are already off the planet because getting off the planet has a further issue, namely the power density issue.
Also note with respect to current electric cars and their energy density issue:
Code:
Current Lithium-ion batteriies 0.36–0.875
Gasoline ~46
Gasoline ~46
This is the area where we could really use some breakthroughs.
August 23, 2014, 05:58:33 AM
It's a way of propelling a spaceship through space without the need for fuel like other traditional methods and the point is that you're completely missing people are making up any old bullshit about it instead of looking at the actual explanations of the inventor who discovered it. Consider it the same as electric car engines where you only have one moving part, it's the same sort of principle except it's been applied to space instead so that will mean less maintenance is required as well.
If you read my link as well, it's also not a theory, it's actually been tested, it's just on such a small scale people choose to dismiss it as you have.
I did read it. And I don't dismiss it.If you read my link as well, it's also not a theory, it's actually been tested, it's just on such a small scale people choose to dismiss it as you have.
Your electric car analogy seems appropriate.
Electric cars have batteries that store energy. The device in the articles also requires energy: "The device (engine) requires an electrical power source to produce its reflecting internal microwaves but does not have any moving parts or require any reaction mass as fuel"
So, just like I said before, several times: energy is being converted into motion. But you still need an energy source.
Maybe you and I are in violent agreement here as opposed to some of the others in this thread that are claiming there is a new engine that gives you motion without input energy.
It does require energy to operate, that's the whole point of it generating microwaves, it's just a matter of finding a lasting power supply for it, the problem is there are morons as I've said who are confusing the issue and completely misunderstanding what It actually does. So yes, it's not frictionless and doesn't operate via dark matter or quantum physics, but in theory it should be a lot more efficient than those stupid oversized rocket fuel engines we have now, it will be a long way off before it becomes viable for proper space flight especially with the lack of funding it has but it's something very promising.
I'm still wrapping my head around the idea and researching it, but it's certainly not impossible and it doesn't break the laws of physics etc. as some stupid idiots are trying to claim, hell we might even see much smaller spaceship designs because of this thing because of how tiny it is compared to the stuff NASA creates, even if it turns out it can't be used for deep space exploration it could still be used for land based vehicles because of how it generates thrust.
August 21, 2014, 02:20:22 PM
Oh well, I wish i paid more attention in physics class. Will we able to travel to other planets then?
And astronomy class 
Travel to the nearby planets is totally possible in fact we have already sent and landed unmanned spacecraft there already. Mars is totally within the reach of present day technology. Very expensive but totally possible.
August 21, 2014, 12:35:52 PM
Oh well, I wish i paid more attention in physics class. Will we able to travel to other planets then?
August 21, 2014, 11:37:37 AM
It's a way of propelling a spaceship through space without the need for fuel like other traditional methods and the point is that you're completely missing people are making up any old bullshit about it instead of looking at the actual explanations of the inventor who discovered it. Consider it the same as electric car engines where you only have one moving part, it's the same sort of principle except it's been applied to space instead so that will mean less maintenance is required as well.
If you read my link as well, it's also not a theory, it's actually been tested, it's just on such a small scale people choose to dismiss it as you have.
I did read it. And I don't dismiss it.If you read my link as well, it's also not a theory, it's actually been tested, it's just on such a small scale people choose to dismiss it as you have.
Your electric car analogy seems appropriate.
Electric cars have batteries that store energy. The device in the articles also requires energy: "The device (engine) requires an electrical power source to produce its reflecting internal microwaves but does not have any moving parts or require any reaction mass as fuel"
So, just like I said before, several times: energy is being converted into motion. But you still need an energy source.
Maybe you and I are in violent agreement here as opposed to some of the others in this thread that are claiming there is a new engine that gives you motion without input energy.
August 21, 2014, 08:27:20 AM
It's a way of propelling a spaceship through space without the need for fuel like other traditional methods and the point is that you're completely missing people are making up any old bullshit about it instead of looking at the actual explanations of the inventor who discovered it. Consider it the same as electric car engines where you only have one moving part, it's the same sort of principle except it's been applied to space instead so that will mean less maintenance is required as well.
If you read my link as well, it's also not a theory, it's actually been tested, it's just on such a small scale people choose to dismiss it as you have.
If you read my link as well, it's also not a theory, it's actually been tested, it's just on such a small scale people choose to dismiss it as you have.
August 21, 2014, 06:54:54 AM
I've never understood what the big deal is with this drive. It does require energy, and nobody sensible is claiming it is reactionless. Sure, using the quantum vacuum as remass is pretty neat, but it's no means a revolutionary idea.
It is a revolutionary idea, but not in the way people think, as for other people, don't you remember the hadron collider? There were some morons who thought they knew better claiming the thing was going to generate a black hole and of course the religious people out there were doing everything they could to harass the people working on it because it meant scientists were getting closer and closer to proving them wrong.
So they changed their minds and started to claim that LHC and other things support idea of God? Seems legit to me actually.
..... How the fuck did you come to that conclusion from my post?
Please explain how a theoretical engine design that has been cussed and discussed for the last few decades "is a revolutionary idea, but not in the way people think" because I do not see how your discussion of the hadron collider and the morons etc. has anything to do with the discussion at hand.
August 21, 2014, 06:48:55 AM
I've never understood what the big deal is with this drive. It does require energy, and nobody sensible is claiming it is reactionless. Sure, using the quantum vacuum as remass is pretty neat, but it's no means a revolutionary idea.
It is a revolutionary idea, but not in the way people think, as for other people, don't you remember the hadron collider? There were some morons who thought they knew better claiming the thing was going to generate a black hole and of course the religious people out there were doing everything they could to harass the people working on it because it meant scientists were getting closer and closer to proving them wrong.
The idea was nonsense, and it was all over the media.
The engine is actually quite cool, Quantum physics is the future. But humanity as it is knows pretty much nothing yet.
August 21, 2014, 06:46:02 AM
I've never understood what the big deal is with this drive. It does require energy, and nobody sensible is claiming it is reactionless. Sure, using the quantum vacuum as remass is pretty neat, but it's no means a revolutionary idea.
It is a revolutionary idea, but not in the way people think, as for other people, don't you remember the hadron collider? There were some morons who thought they knew better claiming the thing was going to generate a black hole and of course the religious people out there were doing everything they could to harass the people working on it because it meant scientists were getting closer and closer to proving them wrong.
So they changed their minds and started to claim that LHC and other things support idea of God? Seems legit to me actually.
..... How the fuck did you come to that conclusion from my post?
August 21, 2014, 06:35:01 AM
I've never understood what the big deal is with this drive. It does require energy, and nobody sensible is claiming it is reactionless. Sure, using the quantum vacuum as remass is pretty neat, but it's no means a revolutionary idea.
It is a revolutionary idea, but not in the way people think, as for other people, don't you remember the hadron collider? There were some morons who thought they knew better claiming the thing was going to generate a black hole and of course the religious people out there were doing everything they could to harass the people working on it because it meant scientists were getting closer and closer to proving them wrong.
So they changed their minds and started to claim that LHC and other things support idea of God? Seems legit to me actually.
August 21, 2014, 02:42:49 AM
I've never understood what the big deal is with this drive. It does require energy, and nobody sensible is claiming it is reactionless. Sure, using the quantum vacuum as remass is pretty neat, but it's no means a revolutionary idea.
It is a revolutionary idea, but not in the way people think, as for other people, don't you remember the hadron collider? There were some morons who thought they knew better claiming the thing was going to generate a black hole and of course the religious people out there were doing everything they could to harass the people working on it because it meant scientists were getting closer and closer to proving them wrong.
August 21, 2014, 12:04:30 AM
We might never be able to achieve direct empty space to force conversion while remaining in control. But if we get to, say, the third turbocharger from this "space to force engine," we will be at a place where the emptier the space, the more "free fuel" we will have. We won't need to carry any. In fact, the more mass we carry, the more space will be affected around us so that we can't draw as much force from space itself.
Nope. Converting "empty space" to force (momentum) requires energy. So, you are wrong.Except that the thing that we call empty space is exactly the opposite of empty.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8456692
We might need a little energy to get our engine started. But all it might take is some kind of a quantum physics "trick."
A turning car alternator, once it has an initial burst of electrical energy, continues to make way more electrical energy than it needs to cause itself to make even more electrical energy, as long as the mechanical energy is provided by the car engine. The thing we call empty space really has energy virtually unlimited.
August 20, 2014, 11:53:49 PM
We might never be able to achieve direct empty space to force conversion while remaining in control. But if we get to, say, the third turbocharger from this "space to force engine," we will be at a place where the emptier the space, the more "free fuel" we will have. We won't need to carry any. In fact, the more mass we carry, the more space will be affected around us so that we can't draw as much force from space itself.
Nope. Converting "empty space" to force (momentum) requires energy. So, you are wrong.Except that the thing that we call empty space is exactly the opposite of empty.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8456692
We might need a little energy to get our engine started. But all it might take is some kind of a quantum physics "trick."
A turning car alternator, once it has an initial burst of electrical energy, continues to make way more electrical energy than it needs to cause itself to make even more electrical energy, as long as the mechanical energy is provided by the car engine. The thing we call empty space really has energy virtually unlimited.
August 20, 2014, 10:45:20 PM
I've never understood what the big deal is with this drive. It does require energy, and nobody sensible is claiming it is reactionless. Sure, using the quantum vacuum as remass is pretty neat, but it's no means a revolutionary idea.
August 20, 2014, 09:06:32 PM
We might never be able to achieve direct empty space to force conversion while remaining in control. But if we get to, say, the third turbocharger from this "space to force engine," we will be at a place where the emptier the space, the more "free fuel" we will have. We won't need to carry any. In fact, the more mass we carry, the more space will be affected around us so that we can't draw as much force from space itself.
Nope. Converting "empty space" to force (momentum) requires energy. So, you are wrong.Except that the thing that we call empty space is exactly the opposite of empty.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8456692
We might need a little energy to get our engine started. But all it might take is some kind of a quantum physics "trick."
A turning car alternator, once it has an initial burst of electrical energy, continues to make way more electrical energy than it needs to cause itself to make even more electrical energy, as long as the mechanical energy is provided by the car engine. The thing we call empty space really has energy virtually unlimited.
August 20, 2014, 08:23:09 PM
We might never be able to achieve direct empty space to force conversion while remaining in control. But if we get to, say, the third turbocharger from this "space to force engine," we will be at a place where the emptier the space, the more "free fuel" we will have. We won't need to carry any. In fact, the more mass we carry, the more space will be affected around us so that we can't draw as much force from space itself.
Nope. Converting "empty space" to force (momentum) requires energy. So, you are wrong. August 20, 2014, 06:55:24 PM
I studied this a bit in college and yes it should be possible to create a particle stream from the background quantum flux with a strong enough and dense enough electrical field. In fact, at that time I did a quick back of the envelope calculation on the required electrical field. Don't remember the answer but if I get some time I may redo the calculations. The particle stream thus produced could then be thrown out the back of a space ship in order to propel it forward.
I talked to my professors about it and they said, sure that should work.
However, due to the laws of physics, specifically the conservation of energy/mass/momentum, the amount of energy needed to do this is rather large and has to come from somewhere. So I can see a way to convert say sunlight into mass/momentum and orbit around a star (the source of energy for the engine) but if you are out between the stars you are screwed unless you cary a source of energy with you (nuclear perhaps?).
I don't really know why this is all being hyped as something new. I figured this out in the junior year in my EE degree in 1983 and as my professors said at that time "that is a well know theoretical engine design".
I talked to my professors about it and they said, sure that should work.
However, due to the laws of physics, specifically the conservation of energy/mass/momentum, the amount of energy needed to do this is rather large and has to come from somewhere. So I can see a way to convert say sunlight into mass/momentum and orbit around a star (the source of energy for the engine) but if you are out between the stars you are screwed unless you cary a source of energy with you (nuclear perhaps?).
I don't really know why this is all being hyped as something new. I figured this out in the junior year in my EE degree in 1983 and as my professors said at that time "that is a well know theoretical engine design".
Think of a car engine with a series of 10 or 12 turbochargers (off one manifold). Series means that all of the exhaust passes through all of the turbochargers. Then, imagine what it would be like trying to run the whole car off the energy output of the last turbocharger alone - not even the engine. That is more or less exactly the kind of engine an Otto Cycle engine is.
A dam-reservoir-water-turbine-generator-transformer is a couple steps up the chain - a turbocharger or two closer to the engine - than a regular automobile engine. The Emdrive is a few steps closer to pure conversion of "empty space backdrop" directly to force than the dam water turbine.
We might never be able to achieve direct empty space to force conversion while remaining in control. But if we get to, say, the third turbocharger from this "space to force engine," we will be at a place where the emptier the space, the more "free fuel" we will have. We won't need to carry any. In fact, the more mass we carry, the more space will be affected around us so that we can't draw as much force from space itself.
Jump to: