GeeGee wrote:I've uploaded it for you:
Doesn't work with Safari on my iPhone.
Robert Lynn wrote:Great that they are getting it nailed down, though at those force levels it will struggle to find any applications - 10
μN will only give about 1m/s speed increase per day to 1kg, and at that level of acceleration it would take 10 years to get from low earth orbit to the moon, 3000 years to get to Alpha Centuri. However if you are travelling 1000's of lightyears then it starts to look pretty good.
To be really useful it needs to increase in force by a couple of orders of magnitude.
Brett Bellmore wrote:"Those tests included checking to see whether the thrusts seen depended
on the pressure of the residual air in the vacuum chamber by comparing
data obtained with the chamber pressure less than 10 mT with data for a
chamber pressure of 10 T. ... This may take place, for example, with an object experiencing eccentric
motion sitting on a rough surface, or located in a fluid with
non-vanishing viscosity. In the case of this apparatus, the test that
excludes residual air in the vacuum chamber eliminates the fluid variety
of Dean drive effect. "
It's an interesting implication of the kinetic theory of gasses, that the viscosity of air is independent of pressure over a very wide range. (The experimental confirmation of this was a major point in favor of the theory!) In order to actually eliminate viscous effects you would have to evacuate the chamber to a degree where the mean free path was comparable to the dimensions of the experimental setup. That's a darned good vacuum, and quite a bit better than 10mT.
This is sufficiently counter-intuitive that it's not widely understood by people who don't deal in vacuum on a regular basis.
Chad Hale wrote:Oh, I so wish I could take a dozen of the "BIG HONKIN' ONES" to the physics dept. at ASU so the effect can be tested and studied. I could have sworn that the folks working on the mach effect thruster had two versions; a little tiny one they called the "shuttler" and the big one they labeled "warp core". I don't want to strech the limits of current technology searching for 'what might be bumps in the data of thousands of trials'. It just smacks of heaps of wrong. why?
Meta analysis' can be used to prove various human psi abilities exist with far fewer trials than is needed to 'prove' the existance of the higgs boson, and further trials increasingly affirm the psi experiment results. So, we need to have very clear observations. we need to turn up the juice, we need to use a quote from commedian Tim Allen, "MORE POWER (various animal-like grunting)"....
I look at the paper and say, so they turn it on briefly and hope to measure "something". Great. are we measuring lorentz effect, electromagnetic fields tugging on the metal bits, electricity heating the air, or something else that we already know? are the tests being done in a vaccum? what are the controls?
What method would I want to test mach effect thrusters? FOR A FEW HUNDRED of us to put one in the boot of our car, disconect the transmission from drive train, use the Motor to power the device, and see how many miles to the gallon we get....
GIThruster wrote:There are plenty of exceptions to this rule and many are found here at T-P but I haven't ever seen any at NBF and very few at NSF.
Well I posted there for 2+ years and all advanced propulsion was treated very nastily by the handful of aerospace engineers that consider NSF their private pond. It was indeed because of people like that, that I was banned. Their posts were much more aggressive and abusive than mine, but somehow they were permitted to post whatever nasty nonsense they like, and people were not permitted to respond in kind.AcesHigh wrote:I think you were banned from NSF long before the Propellantless Propulsion thread got more respected.
GIThruster wrote:Well I posted there for 2+ years and all advanced propulsion was treated very nastily by the handful of aerospace engineers that consider NSF their private pond. It was indeed because of people like that, that I was banned. Their posts were much more aggressive and abusive than mine, but somehow they were permitted to post whatever nasty nonsense they like, and people were not permitted to respond in kind.AcesHigh wrote:I think you were banned from NSF long before the Propellantless Propulsion thread got more respected.
You're saying it's changed. Why should I believe you?
In light of this, the only purpose I can see served by you cross posting is trying to start trouble, when you could just as easily make the same points I just did and those people would have the answers you seem to think they desperately need.
Or didn't you understand the answers and so can't simply provide them yourself?
93143 wrote:I was under the impression that a Dean Drive couldn't operate without static friction... though a non-Newtonian fluid might do...
GIThruster wrote:I can't see much reason to answer any of these people.
Robert is making a point without a point. No one thinks the current test device is a commercial prototype so the point of his little calculation seems to be self indulgence.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], tomschuring, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests