The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 17   Go Down

Reactionless Drives Possible ?

  • 334 Replies
  • 67557 Views
  • 3 Tags

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Professor Mega-Mind (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 681
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #240 on: 07/12/2018 14:11:52 »
............"That's impossible !" .
Ya ever watch Beevis & Butt-Head ?
Anyway , your own fellow "scientist" ( Har , har , har...) admits that there should be a powerful impact on  the target end .
About your question : You fire a laser at the G.ball , Godzilla screams in agony , aims his "Death Breath" at you , and burns your body off !
Theere , ya happy ?
P.M.
Logged
 



Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    13%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #241 on: 07/12/2018 14:17:42 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/12/2018 13:25:36
What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    13%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #242 on: 07/12/2018 14:19:25 »
Quote from: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 14:11:52
Anyway , your own fellow "scientist" ( Har , har , har...) admits that there should be a powerful impact on  the target end .
Where?
I saw this
Quote from: Kryptid on 06/12/2018 22:38:03
All of these factors come together to make the thrust exactly the same as in my first calculation: 3.3356 newtons.
That's still under a pound of force.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline Professor Mega-Mind (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 681
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #243 on: 07/12/2018 14:43:06 »
..........Missing the obvious .
Reply # 226 clearly implies that the target impact is greater than 21 sticks of dynamite per sec .
P.M.
Logged
 

Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 8082
  • Activity:
    1.5%
  • Thanked: 514 times
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #244 on: 07/12/2018 15:48:49 »
Quote from: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 14:43:06
Reply # 226 clearly implies that the target impact is greater than 21 sticks of dynamite per sec .

As I said before, energy is not force. The two are not even proportional to each other. The factor you are missing is time. The equation for determining impact force is (2 x mass x velocity)/time. So you can have the exact same amount of mass moving at the exact same speed but produce wildly different forces depending on the time period involved in target contact.

The explosive component of dynamite is nitroglycerin, which has a detonation velocity of 7,700 meters per second. Let's say we have a stick of dynamite with a radius of 2 centimeters. At 7,700 meters per second, it would take only 0.0000026 seconds for the entire stick to explode. You could time the explosion of each of those 21 sticks to happen at the same time, which means you have 21 sticks of dynamite exploding in 0.0000026 seconds.

Your engine, on the other hand, is accelerating electrons to that same level of kinetic energy over 1 second. That's about 385,000 times longer of a time period. Is it apparent now why the exploding dynamite produces more force?
Logged
 



Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    13%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #245 on: 07/12/2018 16:40:53 »
Quote from: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 14:43:06
..........Missing the obvious .
Reply # 226 clearly implies that the target impact is greater than 21 sticks of dynamite per sec .
That's not "obvious" it's wrong.
So, let's backtrack.
Because you didn't understand post  226 you thought that someone agreed with you and you thought that was significant.

Where does that now leave you?
Also
What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?
Are you unable to answer, or is it that you daren't because you realise that it undermines everything you have said?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline Professor Mega-Mind (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 681
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #246 on: 07/12/2018 16:50:17 »
.............Uselessly Tricky .
Tricky monkeys !  Even .8 GJ equals .59 Billion foot-pounds of force !  That's enough to push a battleship around !
Why punish yourselves here ?  Just admit that the energy translation would produce a hellacious push !
P.M.
Logged
 

Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 8082
  • Activity:
    1.5%
  • Thanked: 514 times
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #247 on: 07/12/2018 21:18:54 »
Quote from: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 16:50:17
Even .8 GJ equals .59 Billion foot-pounds of force !

Foot-pounds are a measure of energy, not force.
Logged
 

Offline Professor Mega-Mind (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 681
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #248 on: 07/12/2018 22:42:04 »
It's enough to raise the QE2 a foot.  Come now , MAN UP !
Jeez , it's like pulling teeth around here !
P.M.
Logged
 



Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 8082
  • Activity:
    1.5%
  • Thanked: 514 times
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #249 on: 07/12/2018 22:49:10 »
Quote from: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 22:42:04
It's enough to raise the QE2 a foot.  Come now , MAN UP !
Jeez , it's like pulling teeth around here !
P.M.

So what? It's still not a force and therefore not a means of measuring the thrust of your engine.
Logged
 

Offline Professor Mega-Mind (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 681
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #250 on: 07/12/2018 23:21:33 »
..............Most annoying
81M newtons , or 18.2 Mlbs .
Are you screeching , and jumping for joy now ?  Sheesh !
P.M.
Logged
 

Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 8082
  • Activity:
    1.5%
  • Thanked: 514 times
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #251 on: 07/12/2018 23:35:33 »
Quote from: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 23:21:33
..............Most annoying
81M newtons , or 18.2 Mlbs .
Are you screeching , and jumping for joy now ?  Sheesh !
P.M.

Where did you get those numbers from?
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    13%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #252 on: 07/12/2018 23:50:26 »
Quote from: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 16:50:17
Just admit that the energy translation would produce a hellacious push !
Why would we "admit" something that's not right?
The force is still less than a pound.

You really need to go + learn why there is a difference between force and energy.
Why don't you?
Are you scared?

What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?
Are you unable to answer, or is it that you daren't because you realise that it undermines everything you have said?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    13%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #253 on: 07/12/2018 23:51:35 »
Quote from: Professor Mega-Mind on 07/12/2018 23:21:33
..............Most annoying
81M newtons , or 18.2 Mlbs .
Are you screeching , and jumping for joy now ?  Sheesh !
P.M.
You pulled those numbers from thin air.
Do you think that's how science works?
What happens to the track of the centre of the ball?
Are you unable to answer, or is it that you daren't because you realise that it undermines everything you have said?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline Professor Mega-Mind (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 681
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #254 on: 08/12/2018 00:29:12 »
..................Petty B.S.
It SHOULD be obvious that it is the force necessary to accelerate .6Mlb. to 1ft per second . 
However , if you want to amuse the world by claiming that .8 GWsec in kinetic energy  ( .8 GJ ) transferred by MATTER results in a force of one pound for one second on a target , I must question more than your numerical competence .  Go ahead , advertise the difference between our logic capabilities !
P.M.
Logged
 

Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 8082
  • Activity:
    1.5%
  • Thanked: 514 times
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #255 on: 08/12/2018 00:36:18 »
Quote from: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/12/2018 00:29:12
It SHOULD be obvious that it is the force necessary to accelerate .6Mlb. to 1ft per second . 

No particular force is required to accelerate 600,000 pounds to 1 foot per second because 1 foot per second is a speed, not an acceleration. A very small force acting over a very long time period will get 600,000 pounds up to 1 foot per second just fine.

Quote from: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/12/2018 00:29:12
However , if you want to amuse the world by claiming that .8 GWsec in kinetic energy  ( .8 GJ ) transferred by MATTER results in a force of one pound for one second on a target , I must question more than your numerical competence .  Go ahead , advertise the difference between our logic capabilities !
P.M.

I already did that in reply #188, though technically it was 0.975087 GW/s and a force of 0.75 pounds.
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    13%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #256 on: 08/12/2018 00:54:43 »
Quote from: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/12/2018 00:29:12
Go ahead , advertise the difference between our logic capabilities !
OK
You are completely unable to understand the logic of this  situation. Kryptid and I are able to do so. That's' the difference in "our logic capabilities ".

In part, this is because we know some stuff about science.
Mainly it's because you can't get to grips with the fact that you don't know anything about physics. So, you repeat the same schoolboy errors.

Would you like me to advertise your utter ignorance anywhere else as well?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



Offline Professor Mega-Mind (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 681
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #257 on: 08/12/2018 01:04:40 »
..................Rolling in it !
 IN ONE SECOND ! Tell me you didn't realise that !  Even your Low-brow School classmates would have recognised that !  Time to stop the dishonest cow-crud , and admit the basic facts here , not the absurd quibbling over wording which appears to be all you self-proclaimed "scientists" can produce !  It’s getting embarrassing  even to have MY system associated with your rediculous twaddle !
Professor  ( earned as a kid , inspite of the automatic zero ) Megamind  !
!
Logged
 

Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 8082
  • Activity:
    1.5%
  • Thanked: 514 times
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #258 on: 08/12/2018 05:52:08 »
Quote from: Professor Mega-Mind on 08/12/2018 01:04:40
..................Rolling in it !
 IN ONE SECOND ! Tell me you didn't realise that !  Even your Low-brow School classmates would have recognised that !  Time to stop the dishonest cow-crud , and admit the basic facts here , not the absurd quibbling over wording which appears to be all you self-proclaimed "scientists" can produce !  It’s getting embarrassing  even to have MY system associated with your rediculous twaddle !
Professor  ( earned as a kid , inspite of the automatic zero ) Megamind  !
!

Sorry, but that doesn't work. You can't calculate a force when all you have to go on is energy and time. Mass is a critical component as well. Given the way that your engine works, you can't accelerate more than 5.686 micrograms of electrons in one second anyway (assuming an energy of 1 MeV per photon). So the idea that your engine can accelerate 600,000 pounds of electrons in one second is completely off the table and irrelevant to the discussion.
Logged
 

Offline Professor Mega-Mind (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 681
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?
« Reply #259 on: 08/12/2018 08:35:34 »
........Common Sense Here !
To envision this clearly , imagine 298 horses pulling max-hard for 1 hour , or imagine 590 MILLION foot/pounds of work done .  Cram those into 1 second , and you have the force applied to the target CONTINUOUSLY , as long as you are feeding in 1GW of power , in the form of HEX-rays .  I really do not want to hear any more cockamamie blathering about THAT equaling 1 pound of force ! 
I think it is exactly what I claimed from the start ; a potentially very strong , Space Drive .
Now , in the name of professional decor , stop spraying me as if you are somebody's pet pot-bellied pig.
Professor Megamind 
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 17   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags: new space engine ?  / ff to reply#91  / pg.5 . 
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.623 seconds with 67 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.