Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Professor Mega-Mind on 23/08/2018 18:34:45
-
RE: Alan Calverd
I would like to hear your take on Thermal Mass . This being the increase in invariant mass caused by significantly raised or lowered temperature . It is a tiny , but measurable difference . This means that raising & lowering the temp. of a free-piston in an engine could give you a weak , but extant , reactionless drive . Whoa , Unnecessary Zoom ! Unnecessary Zoom !
Now my head won't fit through the door dagnabbit !
Otay , need wood saw . Bye , PM.
*Note-The main body of this discussion is located on NSF thread : Reactionless Drives possible ? Page.5 , Reply.91 .
*Note.2-The first 3-pages of this thread are purely exploratory . The actual preposition begins on pg.4, Reply # 60 .
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75294.new;topicseen#new
Note.3-Further examination is located in NSF.thread : What is the best spaceship design? Pg.8 Reply # 145 .
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74813.new;topicseen#new
Also, my post #1 at : quora.com/Is-a-reactionless-drive-possible/
***______________
.....______________
.....☆Critical☆
》This thread wrap-up and link @ Reply # 83 .《
**Bonus link at bottom of pg. 5 .
Is it possible to have a space-drive using reflecting light ?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79795.
P.M. .
-
RE: Alan Calverd
I would like to hear your take on Thermal Mass . This being the increase in invariant mass caused by significantly raised or lowered temperature . It is a tiny , but measurable difference . This means that raising & lowering the temp. of a free-piston in an engine could give you a weak , but extant , reactionless drive . Whoa , Unnecessary Zoom ! Unnecessary Zoom !
Now my head won't fit through the door dagnabbit !
Otay , need wood saw . Bye , PM.
It wouldn't be reactionless. Try thinking about heat as a fluid with mass that you are pumping into and out of the piston and you should understand why this is so.
-
You task me , Alan Calverd ! But I shall think 3 dimensionally ! I believe ye are referring to the slight drag the piston accrues as it intercepts the photons from the cylinders emitters . The easy answer is to have the piston be irradiated almost instantly when it is TDC ( top dead center ) , then allow it to radiate the heat away as it traverses the cylinder. When pushed from Hot TDC it should weigh more than when it reaches Cold TDC . Ignoring drag throughout it's travel , the impact ( yank ) at the cold end should be marginally less than the force applied ( shove ) . If 100% of the remaining momentum is used up on the return stroke , overcoming friction , then the cycle can be repeated endlessly . This would produce slightly more force applied on the action end , than on the reaction end . Just finish the cooling before Cold TDC and you are good-to-go .
I do believe I have you fellow big-head ! You can scream " Khaaan ! " now !
Just remember , in space , no one can hear you... , well , you know the saying .
Adios Amigos , I'm off to get my pimples popped ! P.M.
-
You task me , Alan Calverd ! But I shall think 3 dimensionally ! I believe ye are referring to the slight drag the piston accrues as it intercepts the photons from the cylinders emitters . The easy answer is to have the piston be irradiated almost instantly when it is TDC ( top dead center ) , then allow it to radiate the heat away as it traverses the cylinder. When pushed from Hot TDC it should weigh more than when it reaches Cold TDC . Ignoring drag throughout it's travel , the impact ( yank ) at the cold end should be marginally less than the force applied ( shove ) . If 100% of the remaining momentum is used up on the return stroke , overcoming friction , then the cycle can be repeated endlessly . This would produce slightly more force applied on the action end , than on the reaction end . Just finish the cooling before Cold TDC and you are good-to-go .
I do believe I have you fellow big-head ! You can scream " Khaaan ! " now !
Just remember , in space , no one can hear you... , well , you know the saying .
Adios Amigos , I'm off to get my pimples popped ! P.M.
No matter how tricky you may try to be, or what sleight of hand you try to pull, you can't make a reaction-less drive. If you think you've come up with an idea for one, it's guaranteed that you overlooked something.
-
To: Janus Effect
You sound like a Doc Brown devotee ! Dogma & Doctrine not be the best way to make new discoveries . I will convince you of the possibility by revealing to you a reactionless drive that you have been using all of your life . It is called a flashlight . The thrust from a flashlight is ridiculously small , but measurable . Sorry to disabuse you of your notion , but 2 + 2 = 4! By the way , if the E.M. Drive works at all , it is because it is a form of photon drive as well .
Okay , point proven by Mr. Nuff !
.......P.M.
-
To: Janus Effect
You sound like a Doc Brown devotee ! Dogma & Doctrine not be the best way to make new discoveries .
Neither is floating out wild ideas without any basis in reality[/i]
I will convince you of the possibility by revealing to you a reactionless drive that you have been using all of your life . It is called a flashlight . The thrust from a flashlight is ridiculously small , but measurable . Sorry to disabuse you of your notion , but 2 + 2 = 4! By the way , if the E.M. Drive works at all , it is because it is a form of photon drive as well .
Okay , point proven by Mr. Nuff !
.......P.M.
[/quote]
A flashlight is not reaction-less. It could be used as a very weak photonic rocket, but it still would produce thrust by the law of action and reaction. (it is throwing light( which has momentum) backwards to produce forward momentum in the flashlight.
A reaction-less drive would require imparting momentum to something without imparting momentum to something moving in the opposite direction.
-
Classically , light has not been considered a " thing " because it is a disturbance , not an object . This is why it has no rest mass , only virtual mass . This is analogous to waves in water . They are disturbances , not something that was thrown in . Have you noticed how poor waves are at moving floating objects ? Lightwaves similar . By the way , the mass differential between hot and cold objects is actual measured , scientific fact . Think relativity ; Energy=Mass . Using different mass/energy densities is the operating principle for most engines .
OK , you got yer Gerber .
Don't worry , be happy ! P.M.
-
Neither is floating out wild ideas without any basis in reality
Here's a basis in reality of a reactionless drive. Have you ever heard of the EM drive? It's under development at NASA's Johnson Space Station Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster
Whether it works or not is still being investigated. As that website states, i.e.
Several prototypes of this concept have been constructed and tested, including by the Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory at NASA. As of 2017, a few tests of prototype drives were reported to produce a small apparent thrust,[9] while other prototype tests did not report any thrust. No prototype has been successfully tested more than once.
Probably a loose cable or something. But its something which is being taken seriously.
The laws of physics are correct only until a counter example is found to exist consistently. The same section of NASA is working on Warp Field Mechanics. A method to travel back in time is taught at MIT by some of the top ranking physicists in the world. Its called the Gott Time Machine. One day antigravity is unheard of and the next its being used by Einstein to create a static universe and later to create the inflationary model of the universe, vacuum domain walls and cosmic strings.
-
The laws of physics are correct only until a counter example is found to exist consistently. The same section of NASA is working on Warp Field Mechanics. A method to travel back in time is taught at MIT by some of the top ranking physicists in the world. Its called the Gott Time Machine. One day antigravity is unheard of and the next its being used by Einstein to create a static universe and later to create the inflationary model of the universe, vacuum domain walls and cosmic strings.
Warp Drive antigravity and dark energy, are stuff of science fiction which might one day become fact. Looking at Verlindes emergent theory of gravity could we manipulate space in any way that might allow warp drive. Entanglement of space is reduced as mass or energy is approached, could entanglement of space be reduced by a focused uhf radio wave in a causing a warp drive? :) Edit or maybe could the entanglement be increased by focusing entangled photons in the opposite direction to where you want to go. :)
-
I think your flash light produces 1 N of thrust for every 300 megawatts of radiation it produces
-
Warp Drive antigravity and dark energy, are stuff of science fiction which might one day become fact.
IMHO, referring to any physics which is described in peer reviewed physics journals as "science fiction" is a very bad misuse of the term "science fiction." Anything taught at places like MIT and Harvard or being developed by places like NASA can hardly be called science fiction even though it may fit the definition its bad juju to do so.
-
Neither is floating out wild ideas without any basis in reality
Here's a basis in reality of a reactionless drive. Have you ever heard of the EM drive? It's under development at NASA's Johnson Space Station Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster
Whether it works or not is still being investigated. As that website states, i.e.
Several prototypes of this concept have been constructed and tested, including by the Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory at NASA. As of 2017, a few tests of prototype drives were reported to produce a small apparent thrust,[9] while other prototype tests did not report any thrust. No prototype has been successfully tested more than once.
Probably a loose cable or something. But its something which is being taken seriously.
And the latest tests appear to indicate that it is actually interacting with the Earth's magnetic field. This came from the the fact that while powered up, the same thrust was recorded regardless of the level of the microwave emission. This is not what should have happened if the device operated by by its proposed theory.
The laws of physics are correct only until a counter example is found to exist consistently. The same section of NASA is working on Warp Field Mechanics. A method to travel back in time is taught at MIT by some of the top ranking physicists in the world. Its called the Gott Time Machine. One day antigravity is unheard of and the next its being used by Einstein to create a static universe and later to create the inflationary model of the universe, vacuum domain walls and cosmic strings.
So far all such theories dealing with warp speed travel, time travel etc. rely on the introduction of such hypothetical ideas such as exotic matter ( matter with negative mass, etc.) or infinities. (In order for The Gott time machine to work, the strings have to be infinitely long.) Another example is the Tipler cylinder. It also allows for time travel, but only if either the cylinder is infinite in length or you can have negative energy.
Don't get me wrong. I would be absolutely thrilled if any of these things became actual reality, I'm just not holding on to any real hope that the universe will actually allow for them. I won't say never(because you can never predict what new thing we may learn down the road, but, at present, the odds are pretty damn long.
-
I think your flash light produces 1 N of thrust for every 300 megawatts of radiation it produces
I have an 130g LED flashlight which uses 3 AAA batteries. If we are allowed to assume 100% conversion of battery energy to light, It could reach a theoretical top speed of ~4.3 millimeter/sec* after exhausting its batteries, if used as a rocket
*actual top speed may vary
-
Classically , light has not been considered a " thing " because it is a disturbance , not an object . This is why it has no rest mass , only virtual mass . This is analogous to waves in water . They are disturbances , not something that was thrown in . Have you noticed how poor waves are at moving floating objects ? Lightwaves similar . By the way , the mass differential between hot and cold objects is actual measured , scientific fact . Think relativity ; Energy=Mass . Using different mass/energy densities is the operating principle for most engines .
OK , you got yer Gerber .
Don't worry , be happy ! P.M.
You say to think Relativity, but your problem was that you weren't thinking Relativistic enough. I'm not denying that a heated object would have more momentum than the same object cooler. The Hooter object has more energy. But in Relativity, all forms of energy exhibit momentum not just thermal energy, and that includes the energy present in light.
You can't consider the extra mass of a heat object as "real" and the equivalent mass of light as only being "virtual". Bit are examples of what used to be called "relativistic" mass. The extra momentum due to heating the piston, and the momentum carried by light are equally "real". You can't invoke one and ignore the other or treat them differently.
The only way your piston device will show any net movement is if the heat being radiated from the piston is being done asymmetrically so that it carries off an equal amount of net momentum in the opposite direction ( and it leaves the device completely). And this does not fit the definition of an reaction-less engine.
-
You task me , Alan Calverd ! But I shall think 3 dimensionally ! I believe ye are referring to the slight drag the piston accrues as it intercepts the photons from the cylinders emitters . The easy answer is to have the piston be irradiated almost instantly when it is TDC ( top dead center ) , then allow it to radiate the heat away as it traverses the cylinder. When pushed from Hot TDC it should weigh more than when it reaches Cold TDC . Ignoring drag throughout it's travel , the impact ( yank ) at the cold end should be marginally less than the force applied ( shove ) . If 100% of the remaining momentum is used up on the return stroke , overcoming friction , then the cycle can be repeated endlessly . This would produce slightly more force applied on the action end , than on the reaction end . Just finish the cooling before Cold TDC and you are good-to-go .
I do believe I have you fellow big-head ! You can scream " Khaaan ! " now !
Just remember , in space , no one can hear you... , well , you know the saying .
Adios Amigos , I'm off to get my pimples popped ! P.M.
Regardless of how you change the mass of the piston, you're still not going to give the engine any net kinetic energy. As soon as the piston stops moving, so does the rest of the engine. So the net momentum of the system is still zero.
-
To : Pimby Phi & Janus Effect .
Oh ye of little faith ! It doesn't need to be THAT complicated ! All you need is a system of circulating momentum . Transmute some of that mom. energy (unidirectionally) into heat energy , and your R.Drive will push in one direction . Think of a free-floating Hot Wheels track with a bunch of pinball circulating on it . If you suddenly convert the momentum energy of one ball to heat , the resulting collisions will cause the entire track to move in one direction , as a unit . Consider this a hint , because there's a 100 ways to skin a cat .
........................Professor Meg.
-
To : Pimby Phi & Janus Effect
Gentlemen , it's Hammer Time !
Consider a free-floating toy car racetrack , complete w/several pinballs circulating around it separately . Momentarily , a friction-pad pops up , and slows one of the balls way down . A series of collisions then ensues , which cause the entire track to slowly move in one direction . If the track mechanism regularly brings the ball's back up to speed , the process can be repeated endlessly . This , also , would constitute a DEFACTO reactionless drive . It might have 1% efficiency when refined , versus the .00000001% efficiency of a photon drive . The Photonic Rocket definitely " Can't Touch This ! " .
As was previously agreed , R.D.s work by ejecting/transmuting energy ( not matter ) uni-directionally .
I will take your bows now . P.M.
-
To : Pimby Phi & Janus Effect
Gentlemen , it's Hammer Time !
Consider a free-floating toy car racetrack , complete w/several pinballs circulating around it separately . Momentarily , a friction-pad pops up , and slows one of the balls way down . A series of collisions then ensues , which cause the entire track to slowly move in one direction . If the track mechanism regularly brings the ball's back up to speed , the process can be repeated endlessly . This , also , would constitute a DEFACTO reactionless drive . It might have 1% efficiency when refined , versus the .00000001% efficiency of a photon drive . The Photonic Rocket definitely " Can't Touch This ! " .
As was previously agreed , R.D.s work by ejecting/transmuting energy ( not matter ) uni-directionally .
I will take your bows now . P.M.
All that would do is make the racetrack itself rotate. You won't get any net motion in a particular direction.
-
To : Kryptic God of Science .
The word of the day is CONTRA-ROTATION . Two units linked together prevent net torque upon the ship . Worked great for P-38s , works great elsewhere too . Think gyroscopic stabilizers . Spinning up the balls contra/symmetrically is also necessary .
Okay , I still champ ! P. M.
-
To : Kryptic God of Science .
Please read my signature more carefully next time before declaring me the "God of Science"
The word of the day is CONTRA-ROTATION . Two units linked together prevent net torque upon the ship . Worked great for P-38s , works great elsewhere too . Think gyroscopic stabilizers . Spinning up the balls contra/symmetrically is also necessary .
Okay , I still champ ! P. M.
That still won't produce any net change in momentum. If the balls are pushing on the track, then the track is pushing back on the balls with equal force. These are equal forces acting in opposite directions, cancelling out any momentum that you might have hoped to gain.
-
IMHO, referring to any physics which is described in peer reviewed physics journals as "science fiction" is a very bad misuse of the term "science fiction." Anything taught at places like MIT and Harvard or being developed by places like NASA can hardly be called science fiction even though it may fit the definition its bad juju to do so
Putting the bad juju to one side,what are the possibilities for manipulating Verlindes emergent gravity to create a gravitational gradient in a specific direction and therefore acceleration, this is of course assuming he is correct or at least barking up the right tree and not just barking mad.
His idea seems to rest on the idea that entanglement of space is reduced near mass or energy .
I am not talking about creating thrust via action and reaction, I am talking about affecting the entanglement of space to create a gravitational gradient. :)
Edit the Casimir effect may not be related but placing two plates side by side restricting the allowable quantum effects between the plates create a force. :-\ EDIT see end of link proven and peer reviewed by NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
-
To : Pimby Phi & Janus Effect
Gentlemen , it's Hammer Time !
Consider a free-floating toy car racetrack , complete w/several pinballs circulating around it separately . Momentarily , a friction-pad pops up , and slows one of the balls way down . A series of collisions then ensues , which cause the entire track to slowly move in one direction . If the track mechanism regularly brings the ball's back up to speed , the process can be repeated endlessly . This , also , would constitute a DEFACTO reactionless drive . It might have 1% efficiency when refined , versus the .00000001% efficiency of a photon drive . The Photonic Rocket definitely " Can't Touch This ! " .
As was previously agreed , R.D.s work by ejecting/transmuting energy ( not matter ) uni-directionally .
I will take your bows now . P.M.
Here's a diagram of something like what you are suggesting (Please forgive the crudity of the model).
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kxms3oxgkk2jzm9/track.png?dl=1)
The ball is accelerated on one straight leg of the oval track and then slowed down by a brake on the other leg. In both cases, the action between track and ball will give the track a push. Now it looks like since this push is in the same direction, this should result in a net movement of the track.
However, this neglects the effect of the ball during the banked curves. As the ball travels around the curve its direction is reversed by 180 degrees, and so is its momentum This also results in a push on the track. One in each direction as the ball travels around each curve. However, the ball is traveling faster around one curve than it is the other and thus experiences a greater change of momentum and thus exerts a greater force on the track. So much more force, that its magnitude equals the sum of all the other times the track is pushed in the opposite direction, canceling them out.
The result is a track that wobbles back and forth, but that does not show any net change in displacement over time.
The center of gravity for track and ball together never moves.
-
To:Janus ( Effect is just a catchy tweak for P.R. ) .
You are correct , in as far as it goes . What I am suggesting , though , is something in line with orbital mechanics . As such it requires a circular track . What this means is that when the ball's momentum energy is ejected ( as heat ) some of that is OUTWARD momentum . This is similar to a planetary system's
largest planet having it's motion slowed greatly , and that energy of momentum wasted as heat . All of the involved planets would change orbital parameters , and the system , as a whole , would have a different linear path & velocity than before . This reflects an overall linear force applied to the system . The elimination of the largest planets OUTWARDS momentum causes the entire system to move in the opposite direction . No matter is ejected , only energy .
Alright , analyze away . I've got a million of 'em ! P.M.
-
No, planetary systems don't violate conservation of momentum either...
-
To:Kryptid
Must have logic , live by it !
Speaking of planetary systems , how do you like that Earth-Moon system ? Much of Earth's initial angular momentum has been transferred to Luna , BUT much of it was converted to heat in the process . Were it a perfect transfer , the E.-M. system would be in a different location , with a different momentum . If you now spun the Earth in the opposite direction , the opposite effect would occur . Bottom line , destroying energy of momentum works as well as removing mass. Sounds like a propellantless rocket to me !
Hokay , next victim ! P.M.
P.S.-" l'm freakin' Bobby Fisher ! "
-
To:Kryptid
Must have logic , live by it !
Speaking of planetary systems , how do you like that Earth-Moon system ? Much of Earth's initial angular momentum has been transferred to Luna , BUT much of it was converted to heat in the process . Were it a perfect transfer , the E.-M. system would be in a different location , with a different momentum . If you now spun the Earth in the opposite direction , the opposite effect would occur . Bottom line , destroying energy of momentum works as well as removing mass. Sounds like a propellantless rocket to me !
Hokay , next victim ! P.M.
P.S.-" l'm freakin' Bobby Fisher ! "
The center of mass (barycenter) of the Earth-Moon system cannot be moved just by transferring energy between the two objects via tidal interactions. You can make them further apart from each other or closer together through tidal interactions, but the principle of action and reaction still holds. Any tidal force that pushes the Moon away also pushes the Earth away in the opposite direction. This is why you can't change the net directional velocity of the Earth-Moon system by tidal forces alone.
-
To:Kryptid
Must have logic , live by it !
Speaking of planetary systems , how do you like that Earth-Moon system ? Much of Earth's initial angular momentum has been transferred to Luna , BUT much of it was converted to heat in the process . Were it a perfect transfer , the E.-M. system would be in a different location , with a different momentum . If you now spun the Earth in the opposite direction , the opposite effect would occur . Bottom line , destroying energy of momentum works as well as removing mass. Sounds like a propellantless rocket to me !
Hokay , next victim ! P.M.
P.S.-" l'm freakin' Bobby Fisher ! "
As already noted the Earth Moon barycenter doesn't shift due to the tidal acceleration of the Moon.
If we consider the angular momentum of the Earth -Moon system:
The Moon's orbital radius grows by some 4 cm per year, and if we use 384,000 km as its average orbital radius, We find that moving out by 4 meters ( the expected distance in one century) puts it into an orbit with an orbital velocity of 1018.9608624m/sec , vs its starting velocity of 1018.9608677 m/s with the Moon's mass, that works out to a gain of angular momentum of 1.348e26 kgm^2/s ( the Moon will also gain orbital energy by the relationship of E_0 = mv^2/2-u/r = -u/2a where u is the gravitational parameter for the Earth, GM= 3.987e14 m^3/s^2, and a is the semi-major axis of the orbit.)
The Earth, in that same century, increases its period of rotation by 1.7 milliseconds. Using the Earth mass, and assuming it is a sphere of uniform density in order to calculate its moment of inertia, we get a loss of 1.39e26 kgm^2/s
Pretty damn close considering we took a number of shortcuts along the way. (treating the Moon as a point mass, and assuming uniform density for the Earth, etc)
If we were to accurately account for all the factors we would get agreement in the numbers to whatever level of accuracy we had for those factors.
Now the Earth does heat up in this exchange, so some part of its remaining angular momentum will be due to the "effective" mass increase due to that thermal energy, And the Earth will radiate that energy. But this does not mean that there is any net change in total angular momentum. Because, as I already mentioned earlier Electromagnetic radiation exhibits the property of momentum and this "lost" angular momentum is being carried off by this radiation. Thus, if you take the Moon, Earth and the radiation emitted by the system all into account, there is no net gain or loss of momentum, angular or otherwise.
There is nothing "reaction-less" about this at all.
-
To : Janus
I aplaud your numbers ! Great calculating ! The only accurate value I didn't see was the thrust-momentum value of the generated EM radiation . This would contrast greatly with the momentum-energy value consumed to create said EM radiation . Same energy value , radically different " push " values depending on form . There are mechanical tricks to manipulate these forms to produce uneven push forces effecting an ENTIRE system , but I will not give up my secrets without FULL credit !
One hint to cred. my stuff ; two identical baseballs are thrown simultaneously & identically at the same wall. One hits a wrestling mat , & one hits a hardwood door . Do they bounce back the same ?
You might need Doc Brown on this one . Anyhoo , gimme cred !
Dr. Funkenstein AKA. P.M.
-
To : Janus
I aplaud your numbers ! Great calculating ! The only accurate value I didn't see was the thrust-momentum value of the generated EM radiation . This would contrast greatly with the momentum-energy value consumed to create said EM radiation . Same energy value , radically different " push " values depending on form . There are mechanical tricks to manipulate these forms to produce uneven push forces effecting an ENTIRE system , but I will not give up my secrets without FULL credit !
I'm not holding my breath on that one.
One hint to cred. my stuff ; two identical baseballs are thrown simultaneously & identically at the same wall. One hits a wrestling mat , & one hits a hardwood door . Do they bounce back the same ?
No, but they both still obey Newton's third law.
-
Photons have momentum. Momentum is conserved. That is how anything and everything moves.
-
This be where my point becomes clear . One ball bounces back with 90% of it's original momentum , the other with 10% . Where did that missing ENERGY of momentum go ? Partly into momentum transfer to the wall , and partly into waste heat radiated omnidirectionally from the impact points .
Same throw , different momentum transfer , same closed system . Properly arranged , this gives you uneven momentum transfer for the system as a whole . The waste heat is a dead loss , momentum-wise . Do the math and shock yourself !
Otay , point made , outa-ear !
.....P.M.
-
This be where my point becomes clear . One ball bounces back with 90% of it's original momentum , the other with 10% . Where did that missing ENERGY of momentum go ? Partly into momentum transfer to the wall , and partly into waste heat radiated omnidirectionally from the impact points .
Same throw , different momentum transfer , same closed system . Properly arranged , this gives you uneven momentum transfer for the system as a whole . The waste heat is a dead loss , momentum-wise . Do the math and shock yourself !
Otay , point made , outa-ear !
.....P.M.
The heat isn't radiated equally in all directions. When a ball hits a wall, the side where the ball hit is going to be slightly hotter than the side that was not hit. The photons radiated by the hot side carry momentum with them, resulting in a net force on the wall. So your claim that "the waste heat is a dead loss, momentum-wise" is incorrect.
-
You have a valid technical point . I would , however , welcome a numerical analysis of the thrust values involved .
Graciously , P.M.
-
This be where my point becomes clear . One ball bounces back with 90% of it's original momentum , the other with 10% . Where did that missing ENERGY of momentum go ? Partly into momentum transfer to the wall , and partly into waste heat radiated omnidirectionally from the impact points .
Same throw , different momentum transfer , same closed system . Properly arranged , this gives you uneven momentum transfer for the system as a whole . The waste heat is a dead loss , momentum-wise . Do the math and shock yourself !
Otay , point made , outa-ear !
.....P.M.
Even if we assume that the radiation is emitted in all directions from the ball or wall uniformly in the frame of the ball or wall, it is not being done so according to the frame from which we are measuring their motions.
Consider the ball. after the collision, it is now moving to right, and being warm, is cooling by radiation. Two photon of equal frequency (as measured by the ball) are emitted. one to the left and one to the right. In our frame, the photon to the emitted to the left is Doppler shifted to a lower frequency and the photon emitted to the right is Doppler shifted to a higher frequency. The momentum of a photon is related to its frequency, thus the right emitted photon has a greater momentum than the left emitted photon and between the two there is a net momentum to the right.
If we consider a photon emitted straight up ( in its frame) by the ball, This photon does not move straight up in our frame. It will be affected by aberration and, in our frame will travel in a path tilted to the right. This means that it also carries some net rightwards momentum with it. So all the radiation lost by the ball will be Doppler shifted, undergo aberration, or in most cases a combination of both.
So when you try to claim that the radiation from the ball is uniform, you are "frame jumping". Taking measurements made in one frame and trying to use them in another. All momentum measurements both before and after the collision have to be made from the same frame of reference. (and no, the ball itself cannot be used as this frame of reference both before and after collision. The ball before collision is at rest with respect to a different reference frame than it is after the collision.)
Just because you lost track of where the momentum goes doesn't mean that nature lost it somewhere.
-
To : Janus
Both your knowledge of S.R. , and your calculating abilities , are laudable . I will give you an illustration/hint that may hit closer to home . Imagine that you are at a billiards table . You have two normal billiard balls , and a same-weight & size sand ball , wrapped in cloth . First you place billiard ball # 1 on the cue spot . You strike it with b.b. # 2 dead-center at 50 mph. , you then put the sand ball on the cue spot . You repeat the process . What are the speeds/momentum energies of b.b. # 2 & the sand ball ?
Oh , and Janus , CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW ?
I await your # crunches . P.M.
-
To : Janus
Both your knowledge of S.R. , and your calculating abilities , are laudable . I will give you an illustration/hint that may hit closer to home . Imagine that you are at a billiards table . You have two normal billiard balls , and a same-weight & size sand ball , wrapped in cloth . First you place billiard ball # 1 on the cue spot . You strike it with b.b. # 2 dead-center at 50 mph. , you then put the sand ball on the cue spot . You repeat the process . What are the speeds/momentum energies of b.b. # 2 & the sand ball ?
Oh , and Janus , CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW ?
I await your # crunches . P.M.
Basically you are dealing with the realm between perfectly elastic and perfectly in-elastic collisions.
An in-elastic collision would be like throwing a hunk of clay at something and having it stick. If the momentum of the clay is m1V1 and the mass of the object it strikes is m2 then the resultant velocity, v2, of the combination of m1 and m2 stuck together will be such that (m1+m2)v2 = m1v1.
In the baseball thrown against the mat covered wall something similar occurs. The wall absorbs more of the ball's momentum.
In other words, if the ball was coming from the right, after it hits the wall, the mat covered wall will end up with rightward momentum after the collision than the bare wall does. No momentum is lost anywhere.
If the billiard ball hits the sand ball, stops relative to the table while the and ball doesn't move relative to the table, we are back to the clay thrown at something example. In this case the momentum of the ball is transferred through the table to the body of the Earth itself.
It's really pretty simple: If conservation of momentum violation were so easy to demonstrate, it would have been relegated to the trash heap of discarded concepts long ago.
-
Janus , your faith in your paradigm is extraordinary . I will transfer my example to the 0 G. Space Station , and approximate some numbers for you . After it is struck , b.b. # 2 flies forward at 45 mph. . The sand-ball , however , flies forward at <20 mph. . Nothing affects the table. The momentum-energy left in the first strike balls is ~3 times that left in the second pair . The difference is contained in the friction heat the sand-ball generated . Opposing these two actions would indeed produce asymmetrical push upon the receiving walls . Massive-Wall physics will give you the #s here. Go ahead , splurge ! This number-fest will surprise you !
Let 'er rip , number-cruncher ! PM
-
Janus , your faith in your paradigm is extraordinary
Experimental evidence isn't faith. Newton's third law has been known for over three centuries. No repeated, peer-reviewed experiment has ever falsified it.
I will transfer my example to the 0 G. Space Station , and approximate some numbers for you . After it is struck , b.b. # 2 flies forward at 45 mph. . The sand-ball , however , flies forward at <20 mph. . Nothing affects the table. The momentum-energy left in the first strike balls is ~3 times that left in the second pair . The difference is contained in the friction heat the sand-ball generated . Opposing these two actions would indeed produce asymmetrical push upon the receiving walls . Massive-Wall physics will give you the #s here. Go ahead , splurge ! This number-fest will surprise you !
Let 'er rip , number-cruncher ! PM
In each case, the baseball bat is pushed back just as hard as the baseball is pushed forward and the baseball is pushed back just as hard as the wall is pushed forward on impact. Nothing has violated Newton's third law here. Just because you were able to accelerate one baseball faster than the other doesn't change this.
-
Mr. Kryptid ,
Trick to everything , isn't there ? Mr. Einstein said it ; E = MC2 . Convert some of the momentum energy to heat energy , and you have a net loss of momentum , and a gain in heat . EM waves transfer energy well , but not momentum . How do you think a plane flies ? TRICK ! P.M.
-
Momentum is always conserved. That is how a plane flies,and indeed how just about everything else in the universe works.
-
Mr. Kryptid ,
Trick to everything , isn't there ? Mr. Einstein said it ; E = MC2 . Convert some of the momentum energy to heat energy , and you have a net loss of momentum , and a gain in heat .
Heat is caused by the motion of molecules in a substance. Moving molecules carry momentum, so it has not vanished at all.
EM waves transfer energy well , but not momentum .
Oh, yes they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
How do you think a plane flies ? TRICK ! P.M.
It's physics, not a trick.
-
Janus , your faith in your paradigm is extraordinary
Your faith in misconceptions like the following is unfounded.
Mr. Einstein said it ; E = MC2 . Convert some of the momentum energy to heat energy , and you have a net loss of momentum , and a gain in heat . EM waves transfer energy well , but not momentum .
E=mc^2 is only valid for determining the energy equivalence of the rest mass.
For the total energy for a moving object with a non-zero rest mass m_0, you need to use
E = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
For more general situations, including non-zero rest mass objects such as photons, he said that E= sqrt(p^2c^2+m_0c^4)
which means for a photon with a M_0 of zero, you get
E=pc
p=E/c
and since the energy of a photon is E=hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon.
And f = c/w where w is the wavelength,
E= hf/c =h/w for a photons.
Do not confuse the fact that photons do not not, depending on their wavelength, always interact well with certain materials, with the idea that photons do not transfer momentum.
That would be like saying that if I throw a handful of loose sand at a loose wire grid, the fact that since some of the sand passed through the spaces between the wires, that sand is bad at transferring momentum.
Trying to claim that light does not carry or transfer momentum is the equivalent of redefining the meaning the of word "momentum". And if you are going to base your argument on a redefinition of terms to meet your needs, then there is nothing further to discuss.
where p is the momentum and M_0 the rest mass.
Thus p =
-
I'm not going to go deep on the associated ( and convoluted ) formulas . The fact that the thrust produced by a 1 gigawatt laser ( a large cities worth ) is less than 1 pound makes the point . The same energy put into a 0 G ball-bouncing drive would produce OVER 100,000 lbs. of thrust easily . Momentum MAY be conserved , ENERGY always is . To critique my designs , accurate & complete numerical values are necessary . These are basic , mechanical machines, not intricate , relativistic experiments .
Anyhow , I always welcome well- intentioned debate , I just prefer easily measurable & transparent processes and quantities , to opaque & formulaic obfuscation.
Alright , my mechanical mind has to roll out . P.M.
-
I'm not going to go deep on the associated ( and convoluted ) formulas . The fact that the thrust produced by a 1 gigawatt laser ( a large cities worth ) is less than 1 pound makes the point . The same energy put into a 0 G ball-bouncing drive would produce OVER 100,000 lbs. of thrust easily . Momentum MAY be conserved , ENERGY always is . To critique my designs , accurate & complete numerical values are necessary . These are basic , mechanical machines, not intricate , relativistic experiments .
Anyhow , I always welcome well- intentioned debate , I just prefer easily measurable & transparent processes and quantities , to opaque & formulaic obfuscation.
Alright , my mechanical mind has to roll out . P.M.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your claims are valid, not on us to prove that they are not. So if anyone needs to do the intricate math, it's you.
-
Fairly said , I shall bone up on massive-wall & inelastic collision physics , and bring in some more precise numbers . Meanwhile , break time ! P.M.
-
Momentum MAY be conserved
Momentum is always conserved. Its a law of physics.
-
To the mechanics :
Gentlemen , I went way back , to the early work , and got you some accurate & indicative #s . A typical inelastic collision distributes it's kinetic energy as follows : 45% heat / 55% final motion . A 1kg. sand bag @ 30 mph. has 50 joules of KE . Striking the massive wall yields 22.5 J. in heat , and 27.5 J. in final motion . 90% of this having been transferred to the massive wall . Contrast this with a 1kg. steel ball striking a massive steel wall @ 30 mph. . It retains 98% of it's KE after impact . This leaves 1J in heat , and 1J in KE transferred to the massive steel wall . A 25 to 1 ratio in KE makes for an excellent propulsion mechanism , with no propellent necessary .
Let me hear it now ;
Who's the Mega-Mind !?
-
A 25 to 1 ratio in KE makes for an excellent propulsion mechanism , with no propellent necessary .
You seem to be forgetting that heat itself has kinetic energy. In any case, how do you propose using this to make a propulsion system?
-
Kryptid ,
The random quiverings of the component molecules ( radiating random photons ) do not exert a significant net force on this system . This is why EM is good at transferring heat , but not push .
As to usage , you'll just have to ask Mr. E.M. . He needs it a lot more than I do , he wants to get his car back !
Don't ya dig my sense of humor now ? Signing off , P.M.
-
Kryptid ,
The random quiverings of the component molecules ( radiating random photons ) do not exert a significant net force on this system
The motion of the molecules generated by the impact is not random. A pressure wave will travel through the wall in a particular manner, giving its molecules added momentum in certain directions. That includes momentum being transferred to the air molecules around it as sound. The photons radiated by all those moving molecules will also carry momentum in particular directions.
This is why EM is good at transferring heat , but not push.
On the scale of molecules, those two are the same thing. You have to accelerate molecules in order to heat up a substance.
As to usage , you'll just have to ask Mr. E.M. . He needs it a lot more than I do , he wants to get his car back !
Don't ya dig my sense of humor now ? Signing off , P.M.
The reason I ask is because I am certain I can explain what you would get when you turned your hypothetical engine on, and it wouldn't be reactionless thrust.
-
Mr. K. ,
You have made a good suggestion ! Let's " start the reaction ..." and see what happens ! I suggest you use a small boat , and compare the two ball throws . Don't worry , I know a good eye doctor who can get your eyes back in after they pop out staring in disbelief . When you finally see a boat w/no propeller , just remember 'Ol Professor ! Toodles . P.M.
-
Mr. K. ,
You have made a good suggestion ! Let's " start the reaction ..." and see what happens ! I suggest you use a small boat , and compare the two ball throws . Don't worry , I know a good eye doctor who can get your eyes back in after they pop out staring in disbelief . When you finally see a boat w/no propeller , just remember 'Ol Professor ! Toodles . P.M.
Let us know when you have footage of that experiment to show us.
Interestingly enough, I have actually seen footage of a supposed reactionless drive on a boat, and it did in fact move the boat. Essentially, what it was doing was give a hard, short-duration push in one direction and a weak, long-duration push in the other. Each push yields equal and opposite total momentum, but the friction of the water caused the pushes to transfer some of that momentum to the water unequally. So although you get net motion, it's because it was pushing against the water (which obeys Newton's third law). Nothing reactionless there. I suspect your proposed drive would have a similar problem if you tested it on a boat. You'd best do it in a vacuum.
-
To Kryptid , " I'll buy that fer a dollar ! " .
Seriously , I would welcome a serious review by NASA . They would know that the parasitic photon & phonon losses would be neglegible , also , that the KE transfer is proportional to the contact time .
OK , imagination's real ! P.M.
-
I'm not going to go deep on the associated ( and convoluted ) formulas . The fact that the thrust produced by a 1 gigawatt laser ( a large cities worth ) is less than 1 pound makes the point . The same energy put into a 0 G ball-bouncing drive would produce OVER 100,000 lbs. of thrust easily .
Misleading. This has nothing to do with light not carrying momentum. I can demonstrate a similar difference using two Hunks of lead:
You have an energy budget of 100J, and two masses, a 10kg one and a 1kg one.
Using just Newtonian physics, and E =mv^2/2 , we can work what velocity each of these masses would be moving and what momentum it would have with a kinetic energy of 100J.
The 10 kg hunk would be moving at ~4.5 m/sec and have a momentum of ~45 kgm/sec
The 1 kg hunk would be moving at ~14 m/sec and have a momentum of ~14 kgm/sec. A bit under a third of the momentum of the 10 kg hunk for the same energy expenditure. If I were to throw these hunks backwards to produce Thrust for a rocket, the 1kg mass would produce less thrust than the 10kg mass does.
The thrust difference has nothing to do with whether you are using light or matter, it has to do with the exhaust velocity.
But thrust, in of itself, is not a good measure of how efficient a rocket is, exhaust velocity is.
The rocket equation states:
dv = ve (ln(Mi/Mf)
where dv is the delta v or change in velocity for the rocket, ve is th exhaust velocity, ln stands for the natural log, Mi is the starting ( fully fueled) mass of the rocket and Mf is the final mass of the rocket.
The higher ve, the greater the delta v for the same fuel.
Thus if you convert all of your fuel to energy in the form of photons and use them for your thrust, you would produce a greater change in velocity than if you converted a fraction of it to energy and used the rest as reaction mass.
While the photonic rocket produces a lower thrust, it ends up giving you a greater velocity change.
This is a basic principle for rocket propulsion: Higher exhaust velocities give you a greater final speed for the same fuel usage, but at the expense of reducing thrust. (Ion engines, for example, use high exhaust velocities to reach high speeds with little fuel, but produce low thrusts). Thrust really is only important if you want to get up to speed fast, or need to lift you rocket from the ground against the pull of gravity.
Momentum MAY be conserved , ENERGY always is .
Momentum is always conserved, regardless of what you believe. To critique my designs , accurate & complete numerical values are necessary . These are basic , mechanical machines, not intricate , relativistic experiments .
No. You have to provide the complete numerical analysis to prove your devices actually break momentum conservation, and do so by keeping accurate account of all the momentum changes. So far all you've done is ignore, lose track of, or flat out deny some part of the momentum exchange Anyhow , I always welcome well- intentioned debate , I just prefer easily measurable & transparent processes and quantities , to opaque & formulaic obfuscation.
In other words, you'd rather rely on hand-waving arguments and gut-feelings, rather than the clarifying math that will expose your errors in logic. If anybody has been guilty of obfuscation in this thread, it's been you.Alright , my mechanical mind has to roll out . P.M.
-
Aaaghh , spaghettification !
Hokay , I'll grant you that higher accelerations require exponentially more energy . In my square box in space , however , I am accelerating the opposing balls at the opposing walls at the same speed . Every-thing is identical until their simultaneous wall-strikes . When they hit , the steel ball imparts almost no force ( push ) to it's wall, while the sand ball imparts about half of it's force to it's wall . The cause of this is a much longer contact time ( push time ) . I am mainly concerned with the gross mechanical quantifications , not the extraneous , miniscule losses incurred . That 25 to 1 ratio can really be magnified by reusing the steel balls remaining kinetic energy .
Okay ! Sloppy , but effective ! P.M.
-
To : Pimby Phi & Janus Effect .
Oh ye of little faith ! It doesn't need to be THAT complicated ! All you need is a system of circulating momentum . Transmute some of that mom. energy (unidirectionally) into heat energy , and your R.Drive will push in one direction . Think of a free-floating Hot Wheels track with a bunch of pinball circulating on it . If you suddenly convert the momentum energy of one ball to heat , the resulting collisions will cause the entire track to move in one direction , as a unit . Consider this a hint , because there's a 100 ways to skin a cat .
........................Professor Meg.
-
To : Pimby Phi & Janus Effect .
Oh ye of little faith ! It doesn't need to be THAT complicated ! All you need is a system of circulating momentum . Transmute some of that mom. energy (unidirectionally) into heat energy , and your R.Drive will push in one direction . Think of a free-floating Hot Wheels track with a bunch of pinball circulating on it . If you suddenly convert the momentum energy of one ball to heat , the resulting collisions will cause the entire track to move in one direction , as a unit . Consider this a hint , because there's a 100 ways to skin a cat .
........................Professor Meg.
No it won't. We've been through this before.
-
Consider our solar system . If you could suddenly convert 1/2 of Jupiter's kinetic energy into heat (with gigundo brakes), what would be the eventual result ? Simple , the entire solar system would gain a new direction & velocity , than it had before you applied your planet sized brakes !
Okaay ! Reactionless propulsion...
of a solar system !.....P.M.
-
A typical inelastic collision distributes it's kinetic energy as follows : 45% heat / 55% final motion . A 1kg. sand bag @ 30 mph. has 50 joules of KE .
Do you realise that a sandbag hitting a wall isn't "typical" in this case.?
-
Sandbag , beanbag , dirtbag , they all represent I.C. . Pinball , pool ball , bowling ball , all represent EC. The point is that if you launch both at the same wall , the bag will transfer much more kinetic energy to the Massive Wall than the ball . Using this difference is the trick .
.....P.M.
-
My pursuit here has had an ulterior motive : To shake up the "Tree of orthodox knowledge" enough that some low-hanging fruit fell out . Although that did not occur , I did manage to obtain a "View to a kill ."
. I established that there are two likely paths to a reactionless drive. The first is to unlock the internal energy of the photon . Using 1.3 gigawatts to produce 1 pound of thrust , is absurd ! Unleashing the rest of that energy , in any way , is likely to greatly increase the thrust and/or efficiency , of future photon rockets .
The second path is the more difficult , but rewarding , of the two. Accessing the fabric of the subspace matrix is likely to enable , not only reactionless propulsion , but also artificial/anti gravity as well . This breakthrough will likely come well after the first , however . My guess is one century vs three .
To view a more complete examination of this subject , go to thread "What is the best spaceship design ?" , "Reactionless Drives Possible ? " may also be of use .
Alright .......P.M.
-
Unleashing the rest of that energy
What more energy is there to unleash?
-
The remaining 1.299999 gigawatts contained , not in the beam's "apparent" kinetic energy, but in it's internally contained energy . This is the same energy that massively heats the substances which absorb the laser-beam , instead of reflecting it .
P.M.
-
The remaining 1.299999 gigawatts
If the laser is producing a beam at 1.3 gigwatts of power, then, by definition, that beam is at 1.3 gigawatts (this is self-evident). Where do you get this 1.299999 gigawatt figure from?
-
Bored today , eh ?
Okay , takes ~1kw energy output from a typical turbofan engine to produce 1 lb of thrust . A trolling motor will produce 10 lb of thrust with same . Subtract 1KW fr. 1GW.
Good math , yes ?
P.M.
-
Bored today , eh ?
Okay , takes ~1kw energy output from atypical turbofan engine to produce 1 lb of thrust . A trolling motor will produce 10 lb of thrust with same . Subtract 1KW fr. 1GW.
Yaaaay !
P.M.
They produce much more thrust because they are pushing against much more mass. The mass-energy of a 1.3 gigawatt laser beam is equal to a mass flow rate of about 0.0000145 grams per second. Turbofans, on the other hand can move hundreds or even over one thousand kilograms of air per second. That's a difference of tens of millions.
-
Accessing the fabric of the subspace matrix is likely...
Nope. It's only going to happen in Star Trek Voyager."Reactionless Drives Possible ? " may also be of use .
Alright .......P.M.
Not so far...
It has yet to show any use at all.
-
Using 1.3 gigawatts to produce 1 pound of thrust , is absurd !
Not always.
Why not do the maths?
- oh, I forgot- you have no idea how.
-
........Macro-Reactionless Drive
To Readers : All arguments to the effect that EMR momentum negates the piston engine of pg.1 can be negated by balancing EMR in , and EMR out . Furthermore , if we assume a piston which has it's own heating and cooling mechanisms inside it , including "perfect" piston insulation , then all EMR momentum arguments are rendered irrelevant .
P.M.
Note-Presume a piston/drum coating which sheds the added heat almost instantly .
-
To Readers : All arguments to the effect that EMR momentum negates the piston engine of pg.1 can be negated by balancing EMR in , and EMR out .
Can you elaborate on this?
Furthermore , if we assume a piston which has it's own heating and cooling mechanisms inside it , including "perfect" piston insulation , then all EMR momentum arguments are rendered irrelevant .
If the piston is perfectly insulated, then there will be no way to get the heat out of it and therefore you cannot change its temperature.
-
The precept assumes a more advanced/capable technology than we currently possess .
Also , the question is a riddle/test . There is ONE thing in the design which must be altered to achieve a net imbalance (difference) . Feel free to consult with the greatest minds you can interest .
P.M.
-
There is ONE thing in the design which must be altered to achieve a net imbalance (difference)
You don't really have a "design".
-
There is ONE thing in the design which must be altered to achieve a net imbalance (difference)
Yes, I know what that one thing is: conservation of momentum.
-
...........Here's your Gerber's !
I am shocked ! All of you gigantic bobble-heads out there , and no one can find the last piece of the puzzle !? So be it , I will school you number-crunchers , in this matter of system design .
The precept of import here is that of balance . The external forces acting upon the piston must be evenly balanced . As the electric motor provides a smooth , even , rotating force to the crankshaft , the issue is one of EMR momentum . The energy injection from the engine block into the piston , must be symmetrically opposed by the energy ejection from the piston , into the engine block . Ideally , these transfers should occur just before up-stroke deceleration , and down-stroke deceleration . Properly done , this should result in a pattern of slightly heavier "yanks" on the top-side strokes of the engine , than on the bottom-side strokes . The difference might be as much as .5 millionths . Small as that is , it would become evident quickly , over the course of thousands of engine revolutions .
There are other RD engine archi-tectures , such as free-piston , rotary , barrel , etc. . All would have anemic performance , but be good RD technology demonstrators .
Alright , only systemic , functional critiques welcome . No blind , non-sequitor , numerology .
P.M.
-
The very act of pumping heat back and forth between the piston and engine block will cause the entire engine to move. Don't forget that the heat itself has a mass associated with it. It won't work any better than pumping water back and forth between a hollow piston and engine block would.
-
and no one can find the last piece of the puzzle !
The first and last piece of the puzzle is to recognise that the pieces can not be assembled to produce the picture on the lid of the box.
You are sitting there trying to rearrange the pieces in the futile hope that they will fit together.
The rest of us have seen that the picture has a red post box in it and none of the pieces has any red bits so we know the puzzle is impossible.
Why not trust the grown ups when they tell you that you are wasting your time?
-
............The Missing Idea
Light is NOT a fluid , ergo , there is no back-pressure to push on the engine block or piston . The injection/rejection recoils balance out , leaving the "floating" mass imbalance as the only significant "difference" .
P.M.
Note-The thousands of rpm.s will , through angular acceleration , induce immense centripetal forces upon the virtual-mass of the hot-zone of the piston/drum . This will magnify it's "apparent" mass by a factor of many thousands . This mass , however , will exist only for a portion of the piston/ drum rotation . The result of that will be a noticeable uni-directional "weight" , or pull .
**To simplify :
The E-M injection will make the piston heavier ONLY on the upwards portion of it's stroke . It will also make the drum heavier ONLY on it's top-half .
-
there is no back-pressure to push on the engine block or piston .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
-
..............The Easy Way .
The simplest design possible would use a piston/drum coating , which sheds heat enormously quickly . Such a passive mechanism would eliminate the need for pumping heat into , or out of , the piston/drum . The engine would have to accept the radiated em. energy from the heated component .
Coatings similar to those indicated are being developed for the aerospace industry , even as this is being written .
P.M.
-
..........Technical Addendum .
The preceeding posts did not specifically address the effect of the device piston-stroke frequency upon the efficacy of the device . I will clarify that now :The higher the stroke frequency , the higher the linear-Inertial forces affecting the piston near Top-Dead-Center . This due to higher acceleration and deceleration of the piston as it slows down , and then reverses direction . The accelerative forces involved can be well over 1000 Gs.
This multiplies the extra heat-mass of the piston near TDC by a factor of 1000 also . Combine that with thousands of SPM , and you get enough apparent mass pulling upwards at TDC , to give the device a noticeable thrust (pull) in zero-G environments .
Rotary R.D. devices would gain apparent mass in a similar manner , but produced by angular , not linear , accelerative forces . Both types of Mechanical R.D. devices , would gain their efficacy from running the device at very high rpm.s , or spm.s . High velocities inducing high G-forces are the key , for either type of device .
P.M.
Note : From this point forth , I am calling the the cylindrical form a "Drum-roll" Engine .
-
I will clarify that now :The higher the stroke frequency , the higher the linear-Inertial forces affecting the piston near Top-Dead-Center .
And it increases the forces at BDC thereby cancelling out any "improvement"
-
..................Top-Heavy .
My Page.4 replies specify that the piston/cylinder is hot ONLY on the top portion of it's stroke/revolution . Multiply that extra heat-mass by a thousand , and you get a usable amount of pull/thrust .
P.M.
-
..................Top-Heavy .
My Page.4 replies specify that the piston/cylinder is hot ONLY on the top portion of it's stroke/revolution . Multiply that extra heat-mass by a thousand , and you get a usable amount of pull/thrust .
P.M.
Just saying it again does not make it true.
-
*Ref : NSF Threads :
Reactionless-Drives possible ?
What is the best spaceship design ?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75294.new;topicseen#new
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74813.new;topicseen#new
P.M. .
》To examine a totally different , and more efficient R-D paradigm , go to NSF thread : Red-shift of reflected light . *Reply # 28 .
**Transferred to NSF thread : Is it possible to have a space-drive using reflecting light ?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79795.0