Impulse drive invented? Mars in 1 week.
- Thread starter crookeddy
- Start date
Your physics are all wrong.The site says clearly 35 micro newtons of thrust.
The drive only produces 35 MICRO newtons of thrust=0.000035 Newtons of thrust.You would get more thrust from a fart.
FORCE=MASS TIMES ACCELERATION
Now acceleration = MASS OF SPACESHIP/DIVIDED BY 35 MICRONEWTONS.
This means for a Saturn 5 type rocket is 3000 tons=3000000 kilograms.
So thrust or acceleration =0.000035 N/3000000 KG =
1.2 x 10 to the minus 11 or 0.00000000012 m/s/s.
Of course leaveing it on for a month you will build up substantial speed eventually.
Anyone agree this is the correct analysis?
No, that still violates conservation. All that kinetic energy was converted from the potential energy you extracted from whatever you're using as a propellant; some of your mass (the fuel) was converted into energy (thrust). You didn't gain any energy at all, in fact you LOST energy because no engine no matter how well designed is 100% efficient.
No, because he was analyzing the question of whether or not getting to Mars in one week was feasible in terms of acceleration. It's not a question of thrust, it's a question of efficiency, how much thrust the engine gets for the amount of power you put into it. Apparently, the advantage of PLTs are that, unlike ion engines, they're easily scalable without greatly increasing the amount of power needed to make them work. And that IS promising, since "slow and steady wins the race" has been the cutting edge of space flight for the last few years. "Slow and steady" works so much better when the turtle takes less energy to move his legs.
I understand the device is made of the shelf components.It's main component is a laser and an optical cavity made from mirrors.
I also suggest that the device should be replicated and tested by individuals.
Instead we could use solid state diode lasers as in dvd players and or laser pointer pens which cost a $1 each.
A laser is a laser after all.
The thrust is 35 uNewtons for 1 device.
By putting 10,100,or 10000 in parallel the thrust can be multiplied by the same factor.
In fact using solid state diode lasers which are made from silicon wafers with up to a 100000 devices on a single chip
we could use a single silicon wafer with a 100000 solid state diode laser devices encased in integrated optical cavities.
A 2nd point is that ufo's sightings always have bright lighting which may have a connection to this mode of propulsion.
What do you think of this?
I also suggest that the device should be replicated and tested by individuals.
Instead we could use solid state diode lasers as in dvd players and or laser pointer pens which cost a $1 each.
A laser is a laser after all.
The thrust is 35 uNewtons for 1 device.
By putting 10,100,or 10000 in parallel the thrust can be multiplied by the same factor.
In fact using solid state diode lasers which are made from silicon wafers with up to a 100000 devices on a single chip
we could use a single silicon wafer with a 100000 solid state diode laser devices encased in integrated optical cavities.
A 2nd point is that ufo's sightings always have bright lighting which may have a connection to this mode of propulsion.
What do you think of this?
I think if UFOs used laser propulsion we'd see huge scorch marks on the ground wherever they went, and anyone unlucky enough to see the glow would be burned to a crisp. Also, some of the maneuvers they supposedly pull would be impossible with a normal reaction drive.
Also, I'm fairly sure he was comparing the difference in power in his laser to other lasers which could in theory be used to drive a spacecraft. These are much more powerful and efficient than the lasers in your DVD player.
Also, I'm fairly sure he was comparing the difference in power in his laser to other lasers which could in theory be used to drive a spacecraft. These are much more powerful and efficient than the lasers in your DVD player.
There is actually resarch in this sort of area going already. It was covered in a Discovery channel doco but damned if I can remember what it was.
The approach depicted used a pulsing laser based a ground point and the lifted object having brightly polished surface which the laser fired at.
They actually showed it working on small scale (well that's if you believe there were no strings attached). The object used was a cross between a bell and spinning top and was able to hover the on the light pulse (which you here it cracking as it struck the surface).
The approach depicted used a pulsing laser based a ground point and the lifted object having brightly polished surface which the laser fired at.
They actually showed it working on small scale (well that's if you believe there were no strings attached). The object used was a cross between a bell and spinning top and was able to hover the on the light pulse (which you here it cracking as it struck the surface).
You seem to be confusing laser output intensity with thrust generation efficiency.
Example:-
A Phillips energy saver bulb consumes 20 watts compared with a normal 100 watt incandescent bulb yet gives the same light output.Do you get the idea?
Of course I get the idea. I don't really see how it applies to your earlier post... as a matter of fact I'm not even sure what you were trying to say in your other post... but that's fine.STARTREK11 said:
You seem to be confusing laser output intensity with thrust generation efficiency.
Example:-
A Phillips energy saver bulb consumes 20 watts compared with a normal 100 watt incandescent bulb yet gives the same light output.Do you get the idea?
As for UFOs, the light they may or may not generate is unlikely to be laser light due to the fact that people can see it and yet remain unharmed.
I saw that too a few years ago. It goes steadily faster & faster. Drawn back in the time it would take the laser to reach the object as it goes further out. So this new one would be self contained.
That is nothing more than a laser on the ground heating gas in a nozzle shaped cavity on the spinning top as it goes up shooting out suddenly hot air.this is the same as a rocket except the heat source is a ground based laser...any tracking loss or beam interruption and it will
JuanBolio said:
Of course I get the idea. I don't really see how it applies to your earlier post... as a matter of fact I'm not even sure what you were trying to say in your other post... but that's fine.STARTREK11 said:
You seem to be confusing laser output intensity with thrust generation efficiency.
Example:-
A Phillips energy saver bulb consumes 20 watts compared with a normal 100 watt incandescent bulb yet gives the same light output.Do you get the idea?
As for UFOs, the light they may or may not generate is unlikely to be laser light due to the fact that people can see it and yet remain unharmed.
No,you dont get the idea.
I can see a laser pen light and yet remain unharmed.
I see laser lights in concerts and clubs and yet remain unharmed.
Actually, you are both wrong as is the premise of your question which assumes Newtonian physics. Your mass never changes, it just appears different from different relative frames of reference. No mass is "created" or "destroyed", and so does not "come from" or "go to" anywhere, and conservation is not involved at all (which btw is also not entirely correct in a quantum universe).
The lasers that YOU see aren't AT ALL the kind of lasers that would be capable of imparting enough thrust to make a spaceship weighing several tons fly through and maneuver in Earth's atmosphere. Lasers are unidirectional. If you can see the light from one, you're being hit by it, unless its a very foggy or dusty day. Getting hit by a laser with that kind of power would result in your instant firey death.
What on EARTH makes you think that UFOs could float around in the atmosphere and gravity of our planet via laser thrust without causing MASSIVE damage???
Great, now we can brink back rocks from other planets.
Isn't that how an Ion engine works?
Similar threads
