Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: paul cotter on 21/04/2022 17:10:56
-
the ivo thruster claims to produce reactionless thrust, thereby contradicting the CoM. some suggestion that this will also allow the CoE to be circumvented has also been made. what say you?
-
I'd say I've never heard of it. Can you provide a link?
-
A brief google search brings these up:
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/03/24/2409190/0/en/IVO-Ltd-Introduces-the-World-s-First-Pure-Electric-Thruster-for-Satellites.html
https://www.ahedc.com/newsroom/ivo-ltd/
It looks like a scam or a mistake to me!
Either a "part-time Baptist pastor/part time electronics hobbyist" has completely revolutionized physics, or he hasn't and is just claiming to have done so...
-
The IVO Quantum Drive achieved 45mN of thrust consuming only a single watt and zero fuel.
So where did they get that "single watt" of power from?
-
A brief google search brings these up:
Mine got me here
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2017/02/15/quantized-inertia-dark-matter-the-emdrive-and-how-to-do-science-wrong/?sh=19902960675f
-
what say you?
I say that the conservation laws are unusual in science.
Not only have they stood the experimental tests, but they are mathematically proven to be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
So we know that anything which seems to break them is wrong.
-
bored chemist, i'm in full agreement with you.
-
So where did that watt come from?
-
Hi.
I'm not going to spend too much time digging up info for this. From what's written here already, it's not worth the time.
So where did that watt come from?
One article said it was a pure electric drive. Presumably the author(s) knew that electricity is measured in Watts but fuel is sold by the gallon, so they made a distinction between the two.
The assorted quotes and comments imply that electricity is just free stuff that is out there in space for the taking - perhaps by solar panels. So the spacecraft don't need to carry any fuel.
Best Wishes.
-
There are classes of propulsion that don't require fuel, for example, interacting with the Earth's magnetic field. But I don't know what this is supposed to be, many of these things are bullshit.
-
So where did that watt come from?
It came from some electrical source.
But perhaps you asked : Where dit that thrust come from ?
Nobody know exactly if there is really some thrust, but the latest experiences done in Germany stated that the thrust (very small) observed with the previous model of the EmDrive by the NASA is due to experimental errors.
They were able (they say) to "kill the thrust" when they corrected those errors around year 2020.
Using a new measuring scale and different suspension points of the same engine, the TU Dresden scientists “were able to reproduce apparent thrust forces similar to those measured by the NASA team, but also to make them disappear by means of a point suspension,” researcher Martin Tajmar told the German site GreWi.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35991457/emdrive-thruster-fails-tests/
-
achieved 45mN of thrust
I can do better than that by dropping a coin.
-
I can do better than that by dropping a coin.
Sure.
But for that you have to throw your coin away forever.
This is how the actual rockets do : They throw some mass out of the rocket.
And they have to accelerate the mass they have for further propulsion.
This is a big loss in efficiency.
And when you dont have any mass on board... you are stucked in space.
But if you can retrieve electrical energy (from the sun or from nuclear reaction (low mass loss with big energy gain)), you can always recharge your battery.
Inertial propulsion is the "graal" everyone try to discover because it can be achieved without any loss of mass.
Furthermore the propulsor can be protected into the spaceship without any interaction with the outside.
It is very secure.
-
Inertial propulsion is the "graal" everyone try to discover because it can be achieved without any loss of mass.
This is a claim of reactionless thrust, not 'inertial propulsion'. And the word is 'grail', not 'graal'.
But if you can retrieve electrical energy (from the sun or from nuclear reaction...), you can always recharge your battery.
Indeed. If I had reactionless thrust, I could use it to generate more electricity than it costs, so no sunlight or nuclear reactor needed. The world energy problem would be solved. Isn't magic great?
-
The experimental result, assuming it was accurately reported, was not obtained in an infinite perfect vacuum. An electrostatic accelerator can use residual gas molecules to generate thrust, and an imperfectly shielded electrostatic system will experience a force from induced charge on the surface of the vacuum chamber.
-
Indeed. If I had reactionless thrust, I could use it to generate more electricity than it costs, so no sunlight or nuclear reactor needed. The world energy problem would be solved. Isn't magic great?
Theoritically, you dont need to have less reaction (or no reaction at all) to produce a thrust (more or less must be understand as the norm of the vector).
You "only" need to make the counter reaction not collinear to the reaction.
In this case there is no energy loss or energy gain and the great question is ... what transform into what ? (transformation of energy is theoritically permited)
-
So Newton was wrong? Experimental evidence?
-
So Newton was wrong?
Se already know that Newton was wrong concerning a lot of things.
First he used instant action of forces (concerning this point he was aware that it was probably wrong).
Second, he worked in flat spacetime.
To explain the principia without any complicated formula, you can understand the spacetime to be composed of space and time.
So your vector, in a 4D space unlike Newtons 3D space, is composed of "spacetime".
If you gain space, you loose time.
Therefore curving the counter reaction vector is achieved by creating a field where time passes at lower speed, relativ to the environment outside the field.
To say it simple : If you get by mistake into the field under such a powerfull "thrusting machine" you will experience a missing time.
Experimental evidence?
I said : "Theoritically" 2 times.
But... i can remember some experiment (i dident found it again) that showed some strange lifting force that occured almost randomly (so nobody really wanted to waste their time to understand why because of the randomness and the weak effect).
This was a very very fast spining disk and it is obvious that if it was lifting sometime it is only because of the very sligh vibrations and of the difference between the action and the reaction of theses vibrations that are in some random directions.
And concerning the theory it should be something like that :
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/K-Kassner/publication/51937163_Spatial_geometry_of_the_rotating_disk_and_its_non-rotating_counterpart/links/00b7d520a3faf46415000000/Spatial-geometry-of-the-rotating-disk-and-its-non-rotating-counterpart.pdf?origin=publication_detail
-
Se already know that Newton was wrong concerning a lot of things
So are you saying that Newtons 3rd law of motion is wrong?
I said : "Theoritically" 2 times.
What theory says an action can occur with no reaction?
-
The only way to "influence" the passage of time is either to travel at relativistic speed or to set up the experiment in strong gravity well(eg black hole). In the first case one would not need any further thrust as one would already be travelling at alarming speed. In the second case whatever thrust developed might not save one from spaghettification.
-
Inertial propulsion is the "graal" everyone try to discover because it can be achieved without any loss of mass.
No it is not.
Because we know it is impossible.
People should not waste time on it.
-
What theory says an action can occur with no reaction?
No theory say that.
Is it what you have understand ?
No. I say that if you have a 2 parameter propriety (here space and time) you can have a continuum of the 2 values that have in result the SAME value.
Action have reaction : SAME value (theory is,safe)
BUT : It only apply in this very primitiv way for flat spacetime.
Because we know it is impossible.
What ! You KNOW it is impossible ?
For what reason ?
Because mathematic say so ?
This is not physic, sorry.
So are you saying that Newtons 3rd law of motion is wrong?
Sure it is wrong.
Like every law.
The law depend on the environnment, and there is no environnment (the details) in mathematic (therefore this is not physic... Newton was a MATHEMATICIAN)
Therefore you have to be very carefull before you apply "a law" and you have to consider the "environment" where the law CAN apply.
We know that EVERY law has a limited domain of application.
If not, we already could modelise every phenomenon using only 2 parameters.
-
We know that EVERY law has a limited domain of application.
So what is the limit of the law of conservation of momentum?