impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

JoshNH4H · 2014-08-09 09:26:54

Thus making the Fermi Paradox even more concerning. I won't even mention the fact that the solar system would probably vaporize itself of we reached Kardashev 3 without leaving.

Has anyone considered that the thrust generated might just be from localized heating of the drive system causing atoms to be vaporized at low velocity?

Void · 2014-08-09 09:45:26

I am not capable of answering your questions Josh.

However I can ask questions. Maybe very silly ones.

I am currently curious what is the interaction of Dark Energy and its presumed virtual particles with Baryonic Matter?

A pair of virtual particles, winking into being inside of a matter object. Do they interact ever? How? Does it matter what is the temperature and pressure of the matter?

A comet with low pressure and low temperature, and a Super Massive Black hole with enormous pressure, energy, and heat I presume. Those might be the Baryonic matter extremes.

Where is Dark Energy getting it's means to expand? If it is possible that Black Holes were supplying some of it, can it work in reverse, and donate energy to objects?

I know my body is not heating up from it or dissolving from virtual anti-matter winking into being inside of it, but my understanding is that it is so dispersed that our whole solar system contains only a little.

As for Dark Matter, I have read that there is a notion by a minority that some types of it might interact to some small degree with baryonic matter.

JoshNH4H · 2014-08-09 18:35:35

Quite honestly, seeing as we don't know anything about dark matter (It might not even exist at all) I don't think we can say anything about its interaction with normal matter.

Based on observations of the universe, one would guess that it doesn't.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-08-10 06:44:43

Maybe NASA should test the drive in space. If the vehicle ascends in orbit, there is no way that can be faked. If we can increase the acceleration, we won't even need rockets to reach space! Reminds me of flubber! Maybe NASA should call it the "flubber drive". Remember that 1950s movie where they produced that flying car by having flubber balls bounce around inside a chamber, I don't know how that was supposed to make a car fly.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-08-10 07:02:09)

Terraformer · 2014-08-10 07:50:53

Going with the dark matter angle, the power consumption of the device should increase the faster it goes, due to the increased velocity of the dark matter relative to the spacecraft (increasing a stream from 1km/s to 1.1km/s requires a lot more energy than going from 0 to 0.1km/s).

The energy required to add a velocity Va to a particle of velocity Vo is given by E = 0.5m(2VoVa + Va^2). Now, when the difference between Vo is much larger than Va, the latter power becomes insignificant, so we can rewrite this as E = mVoVa. mVa, of course, is the momentum change given to the particle, so this becomes E = pVo; consequently, the power is given by P = TV, where P = power in watts, T = thrust in newtons, and V = velocity of the particle (yes, there does need to be some proper differentiation done here, rather than dividing through by t, because V is changing...).

With a starship, the relevant velocity here is the velocity of the dark matter relative to the starship; that is, the velocity of the starship relative to the dark matter. Hmmm, I notice I am confused. This equation would seem to give a linear relation between the velocity of the starship and the power required for a given thrust; however, that still leads to the problem of breaking the conservation of energy, I think... nope, power *does* equal thrust times velocity, because a force times a distance give an energy. Huzzah for dimensional analysis!

Anyway, now that we have our equation, even if it's not completely accurate, so let's play around with it. P = TV, then our power per newton is equal to the velocity of our starship. Just like a photon drive! Except photons are moving at the speed of light relative to the starship, and hence have the horrible 300MW/N requirement. Hence the dark matter drive should be more efficient than the photon drive always, and especially at low velocities.

So there we have it. Your average power will be given by your average velocity during acceleration (for deceleration, you should be able to use it as a very effective parachute, thus making deceleration free?). So, for beaming the power to the ship, trips at 0.8c peak should be 2.5x more efficient than a solar sail... combine this with suspended animation to allow for high accelerations, so you can accelerate before the power beam diverges too much...

Terraformer · 2014-08-10 09:12:29

Of course, such a system would be no more efficient than a particle beam system...

I was hoping that such a system could be used similarly to a ram augmented fusion rocket, using the much greater mass available to impart more momentum for the energy available. Perhaps that would be possible..? The key part of the equations from above is the mVa part, from the full E = mVaVo + 0.5mVa^2 = mVa(Vo + 0.5Va). That's the momentum change. Doubling the mass allows halving Va... aww, it reaches it's limit at the old E = TV... damn.

Terraformer · 2014-08-10 13:58:35

Now, if it's axions we're dealing with...

One of the proposed means to detect axions is a resonant microwave cavity - which is what's being used in all the propellentless thruster experiments. It's supposed to accelerate the transformation of axions into photons (which would make a mighty power source, naturally). It works in reverse, too, turning photons into axions. So now we have a potential means by which terawatts of power can be generated in a device consuming kilowatts of power, and also a means by which they can be converted into a mass stream that won't interact with ordinary matter, giving the illusion of being a reactionless drive...

This, in my opinion, is the most elegant and useful possibility, because it (a) doesn't violate known physical laws, (b) answers the question of what dark matter is, and most importantly, (c) gives us enough power to make us a Type III civilisation.

But, again, I am very ignorant on the physics, so take all I say with a single crystal of NaCl.

Void · 2014-08-11 08:09:05

http://iaxo.web.cern.ch/iaxo/the-experiment/physics/

OK, so there are maybe's.

Which direction would grant energy and which would consume energy? Photon>Axion, Axion>Photon?

I think you indicated Axion>Photon.

Dark Matter apparently clings to matter gravitationally as a rule, or vice versa. So, there would be fields of concentration if we were lucky enough to have a Axion dominated Dark Matter. Too bad there would not be a way to funnel it into a magnetic field.

Stars might be doing this though, since they are magnetic to a degree?

Last edited by Void (2014-08-11 08:12:57)

Mark Friedenbach · 2014-08-11 14:12:04

I find any axion explanation extremely dubious. If all that was required to tap seemingly limitless free energy was a resonant microwave cavity, even evolution would have happened upon such a design by chance. The biosphere would be full of things like coral reefs depositing microwave-reflecting material in fractal cavity patterns that behave as energy generators for surrounding life.

The much more mundane "pushing on quantum foam" explanation would still be a revolutionary advance in space capability. A completely propellentless electric drive that scales to both large and small with competative efficiency numbers... all you'd need is a compact nuclear reactor and you'd open up the entire solar system to human exploration. It'd make interstellar travel workable today.

I'll have my fingers crossed for the next few months/years as this plays out...

Last edited by Mark Friedenbach (2014-08-11 14:12:59)

Terraformer · 2014-08-11 15:35:09

The problem with that is that either (a) your power requirements increase according to P = TV, or (b) you generate more energy than you put in. Granted, with (a) you still have something fairly useful for zipping around a solar system, though perhaps not as good as a magsail.

Actually, I'm not quite sure about that. Probably not,now that I think about it some more... it depends on whether the virtual plasma is at rest relative to the drive. If it is, then there shouldn't be a problem...

I don't think the lack of something in nature can be said to have any relevance on its possibility. There are no species using nuclear reactors as part of their bodies.

Mark Friedenbach · 2014-08-11 18:24:18

The virtual plasma would be at rest relative to the drive, no matter the speed of its starship relative to Earth.

Nuclear reactors are not analogous. A nuclear device is an extremely complex precision device, requires purified fuel that is scarce in nature, and results in results in life-destroying radiation and temperatures. This device on the other hand seems to be a simple construction -- just a microwave resonant cavity, really -- without poisonous side effects. It's the kind of thing that an undirected optimization process like natural selection would be able and likely to stumble upon. So the fact that we don't see anything like it in nature, is meaningful evidence against a free energy interpretation.

Last edited by Mark Friedenbach (2014-08-11 18:25:04)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-08-13 12:29:13

You don't see many creatures with wheels instead of legs, you don't see birds propelled by jet engines or rockets, does that mean those things are impossible? I have an additional question, where are the aliens? Why isn't the galaxy filled with alien civilizations that we just can't help but notice because of all the radio noise they make? If life on Earth really possible since we don't see life elsewhere? Seems that the fact that life itself is rare indicates there maybe stuff that is possible that is not reproduced in the natural world we call Earth. There are no jet propelled flying creatures on Earth, but that doesn't mean other planets don't have them.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-08-13 12:33:02)

GW Johnson · 2014-08-13 15:42:50

Cephalods are jet propelled. Octopi, squids, etc. Water jets.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-08-13 19:53:26

GW Johnson wrote:

Cephalods are jet propelled. Octopi, squids, etc. Water jets.
GW

In the same way water balloons are jet powered, that is by bladder pressure not combustion.

Terraformer · 2014-08-14 04:30:04

What about telepathy? Radio is fairly simple, so where are the creatures that communicate using it?

Void · 2014-08-14 08:01:42

A potential answer might be as follows;

I have wanted to imagine a red dwarf tidal locked world with a sea on it’s dark side. As improbable as that might be, it might exist in a few instances somewhere in the universe. Humans should they ever travel between stars might create or enhance such worlds.

The day side a dry desert, the night side wet in some locations, but dark. No competition from photo organisms, so chemical driven organisms if any organisms, being the highest, unless some organism could harness kinetic energy, the energy of wind of the air or waves in water or currents in the water.
That is not so silly, as some organisms on a microscopic level use proton flow to drive themselves through water. They consume internal chemical energy to swim. Not with muscle, but with proton motors in some cases. So in a dark star lit place, with wind and waves and currents, the masters of such a method might reverse it and generate energy for their use by anchoring to a surface and allowing a flowing fluid to impel a mobile sub-device, an organic generator. So plants in the darkness feeding on the motion of fluids. Very likely animals would appear to feed on such organisms.

But put a spin on the planet then, and let it be lighted part of the day and a more powerful energy source would lead to a ecosystem such as we have, and any organisms which live off of a lesser energy source would become prey, would be gone in short order. But I do wonder if there are any microscopic organisms hidden on Earth that might harness fluid motion for energy.

Telepathy, Radio heads, blabbers:

Any communicative method such as telepathy or radio heads suggests that the efficiency of a hive mind will internally weed out any autonomous large brained subset. Any thinkers will have their intellectual property taken without payment. No rewards for big brain within the tribe under those circumstances.

Tribes are bad, unless you think talkers should get free rewards and rule. The villagers don’t understand me. The torches and pitchforks, I hate them. :0 It takes a village to raise a child badly.

Family:

A competing organism which only uses hiving to “Program” it’s members may have the advantage, as they will not as easily reveal plans and intentions to be taken as intellectual property theft by the hivers.

We are in a continual contest between these forces. Now communication is breaking down, chaos is taking over, because the communicators could not avoid being gluttons, and had to take too much. It’s a pity, but one hand washes the other. It takes time though. Take a vacation if you can. Life is short, eternity is forever.

Last edited by Void (2014-08-14 08:05:51)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-08-14 21:06:01

Radio is just a form of communication, just like talking, it doesn't necessarily grant access to all of a creatures thoughts, and creatures would not necessarily broadcast every thought on its mind, just as someone doesn't necessarily say out loud everything one is thinking. I'm thinking of radio as a voluntary communications device, just as a person need not talk when thinking, he need not broadcast either. I don't think I can reprogram a person by talking to him.

Void · 2014-08-15 05:48:51

Well, your argument has value. We havn't defined what the details of the non-vocal communication system are. So for some notions of it you are correct, or nearly correct.
To a degree the problems are already appearing using the internet, and cell phones. The time lag for a "Pack" of humans to operate has deminished. It used to be much slower.

The consequences are yet to be seen, but it is obvious that if I can query the internet for information I need, it is efficient, but I am no longer required to have as much internal resources as I outherwise would to accomplish/win a task. I benefit perhaps, but and more greatly subject to the risk of predation by others. Hackers for instance.
This is a still evolving situation. The level of negitive consequences has not yet been measured, and is not yet developed fully to measure.

But really I am most interested in how a humanoid group would develop with radio communications. It depends on factors such as self ownership of communications, who can listen in, and who will for instance transmit critical information to a rival group or information. Insanity, betrayal, gossip and so on.

Human voice is typically short range, and slow, much slower and shorter range than radio could be.

But the good thing is that about the time our communication system really begins to damage our culture and mind capabilities, humans are likely to distributed in a greater volume of space, so time lag will compensate to a degree for the problem.

You can accomplish things with intellegence and communication, but communication is the inverse of intellegence. You would not have to talk about it if you already knew, and if you already knew, you would be intellegent, or a snoop. Snoops don't have to be very intellegent, just informed.

If snoops win, then you would have a species of rather unintellegent snoops.

Terraformer · 2014-09-16 15:14:14

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/nasa-c … drive.html

Thermal error has been ruled out, apparently.

Terraformer · 2015-04-30 15:48:14

Bump, because apparently it works in a vacuum too.

JoshNH4H · 2015-04-30 19:54:51

Pretty much my opinion on the matter:

wired wrote:

Here’s the tricky part: The laws of physics are called laws for a reason. It’s exceedingly unlikely that shooting off radio waves inside a carefully constructed can is enough to break one of them. It’s much more likely there’s some error in the experiment, something extremely subtle that no one has noticed yet. It’s happened before. In 2011, Italian physicists thought they had discovered neutrinos that could travel faster than light, contradicting Einstein’s theory of relativity. After extensive testing, the team realized it had flawed data thanks to a loose fiber optic cable. It’s likely that the results of the NASA experiment have a similar explanation.

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/why-nasas- … bly-bogus/

Terraformer · 2015-05-01 04:18:28

However, that assumes that the device is, indeed, violating the laws of physics. The explanation by Shawyer does, yes, and the explanation by White appears to as well (but it might not, depending on what the exhaust actually is), but there *are* other suggestions. The Mach Effect doesn't - at least, not globally, though it appears to locally. If it's accelerating dark matter (woo woo!), then it wouldn't violate it any more than a plane or boat does.

We'll see soon enough. It doesn't look to be an expensive experiment to do as far as (potentially) groundbreaking physics experiments go, so there should be plenty of attempted replications. Eh, you could crowdfund the amount required to set up a small lab.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-05-01 07:24:37

Nothing ever violates the laws of physics, but sometimes the laws of physics are not what we think they are! At one time Einsteinian dialation violated the laws of physics as we thought we knew them.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-05-02 14:20:19

Now this on Newsmax:
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/nasa-war … id/641944/
70 days to Mars they say! From what I read of the article, it would launch from orbit, so we'd still need the big boosters to get it into orbit. I find it hard to believe, but we'll see. I remember Cold Fusion too, if we're still getting articles about this next year and it hasn't been exposed as a fake or a fraud, then the laws of physics might not be exactly what we thought they were. It requires a nuclear reactor, the more interesting thing is it may put the stars within our reach. We might actually be able to visit Earth like planets orbiting other stars.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2014-08-09 09:26:54

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#27 2014-08-09 09:45:26

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#28 2014-08-09 18:35:35

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#29 2014-08-10 06:44:43

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#30 2014-08-10 07:50:53

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#31 2014-08-10 09:12:29

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#32 2014-08-10 13:58:35

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#33 2014-08-11 08:09:05

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#34 2014-08-11 14:12:04

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#35 2014-08-11 15:35:09

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#36 2014-08-11 18:24:18

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#37 2014-08-13 12:29:13

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#38 2014-08-13 15:42:50

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#39 2014-08-13 19:53:26

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#40 2014-08-14 04:30:04

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#41 2014-08-14 08:01:42

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#42 2014-08-14 21:06:01

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#43 2014-08-15 05:48:51

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#44 2014-09-16 15:14:14

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#45 2015-04-30 15:48:14

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#46 2015-04-30 19:54:51

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#47 2015-05-01 04:18:28

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#48 2015-05-01 07:24:37

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

#49 2015-05-02 14:20:19

Re: impossible-space-engine-nasa-test

Board footer