>No Kyle, your mistaken.
You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2?
Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion.
To postulate a scenario where a supposed
reactionless engine consumes power at a rate based on an "absolute" velocity
and therefore obeys energy conservation I think is less mistaken than to
simply assume that conservation of energy is wrong.
But you must assume that the reactionless engine starts at the universal (at least universal for this engine) rest velocity and no matter where else it goes in the universe no matter what the local stationary reference frame is it must still have performance based on where it was first launched!
Or if where it was first launched was not stationary relative to the universal rest velocity but moving then you may find that it's performance begins poorly but if you move if you accelerate in the right direction every second it thrusts and accelerates faster and faster because the propulsion is more effective the closer the ship is to this universal reference frame.
I am sorry, but your math for 0.5kW input for 10 seconds, giving 1m/s, and
then 0.5kW for 20 seconds giving 2m/s is just incorrect;
Your idea of it having a 'road' or universal stationary reference frame on which performance is based is positively kookie.
Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected, where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance lowering the Q is pretty much what was stated in the article, There was no indication they used it as a way to save the conservation of energy and if they did then we can discount it as bunk anyway because that would mean they have no theoretical basis for believing in the effect.
But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially Podkletnov with their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then how would the conservation of energy be saved in this case?
Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went through, and there was no counter reaction on anything.
Face it, if reactionles propulsion if real then the only way the conservation of energy could MAYBE be saved is is we just assume there is a loss (or gain) in ZPE somewhere in the universe of equal magnitude with the gain or loss in kinetic energy, even though figuring out how this could possibly occur and know it it should even be a loss is crazy but if you have to believe in the conservation of energy (why?) then that's your best bet.
if you have a
situation like that, your numbers will not add up at all, and you will get a
"free lunch" of kinetic energy. If this were true, we could build a
perpetual motion machine with a linear accelerator
Sure, a reactionless one, not a normal one though.
, based on needing 500J to
get a charge to say 0.25c, and a kinetic energy upon hitting a target of X
Joules, and then decide to use 1000J to get X^2 Joules upon hitting the
target. This is nonsensical.
No it's not, it could be used as an example as to why there is no such a thing as a reactionless engine though, but for me I'm happy with both laws being general observations and not absolutes.
And one of the major reasons why understanding
the performance of a hypothesized reactionless engine is difficult at first.
Its one of the reasons pushing the decimals a bit higher and higher in
particle accelerators is such a pain
Particle accelerators aren't reactionless.
And moreover to even keep the particle moving at a constant velocity they must pump in lots and lots of energy.
: at very high speeds you have to keep
dumping massive amount of energy in to get a minute increase in speed. And
on top of that, the relativistic problems start to bite you, and now we're
really in it.
Do you not see the difference between a reactionless engine and a linear motor or particle accelerator which is tied to a reference frame by way of stators used to accelerate it??????
Of course the conservation of energy works in these situations generally, if you do the math you will see that if you double the velocity with a linear motor you need 4 times the energy naturally.
But a reactionless drive is not tied to a reference frame.
Now try this on for size, fact: If you disregard relativity the energy needed from a photon rocket to to get to 1 meter a second is half that needed to get to 2 meters a second and 1/10th that needed to get to 10 meters a second because it is reactionless. (or kinda)
Now it's ok because the energy in the photons relative to your starting and final reference frames is less the faster you go, the one during the first second have a higher frequency than the ones emitted during the last second. (same freq. at the time of course but lower at the end of the 10 second run)
The point is that a flashlight will yield constant acceleration at a given power input.
Are you by chance equating:
A. converting 0.5kW for 10 seconds to thrust, and then for an additional 10
seconds, as being the same as,
B. blasting a rocket for 10 seconds, and then for 10 more seconds?
Very much so yes except I have explained why with rockets it isn't really the same as the energy in the exhaust is lowered.
>There is no way it can work with a stationary reference frame as you say.
I am not referring to the loss of Q effect which takes place in the
(supposed) EMdrive. I am referring to reactionless engines in general. There
is no reason they are precluded by a preferred frame of reference, should
one exist.
The only frame of reference there is, is one that any decent sized ship drags along, yes that's my own theory not conventional although plenty of relativists are slowly coming to such a conclusion. (it allows FTL travel)
Your stationary reference frame makes no freaking sense but if you choose to believe in it that's your choice.
>The idea behind it being unable to accelerate and I believe it is just a
>theory is that ACCELERATION will cause a Doppler like effect and it will no
>longer be in >resonance hence lower Q and lower EM bouncing in the box and
>hence lower force.
Again, I am not talking about the EMdrive thing, particularly since very
little hard data is known beyond the hearsay of the media, and we know how
reliable a source they are. (Shawyer used a 700W magnetron or an 850W one,
depending on who is reporting)
>You are right that without a stationary reference frame with which to
>measure energy against there is no way it can keep to the conservation of
>energy and >regardless of whether or not this device works I'm sure such
>devices do exist which means conservation of energy really is just a
>general observation and not true >in all cases.
Well, personally I think they (reactionless propulsion systems) probably are
possible as well, but I will predict that they will be found to obey energy
conservation. It would be really nice if they *didn't*, but I think we are
stuck with C-of-E.
You think that why?
Sure conservation of energy makes sense as a general observation but that's all it is, obviously most energy transformations won't lead to anything that breaks the conservation of energy, but that doesn't mean there aren't situations where energy creation/destruction does occur.
There are plenty of situations where conservation of energy is not observed (both experiments and logic/math) leading to the question, why do you believe that energy can't be created?
In most cases though I believe that the conservation of energy and equal and opposite and other laws, rules or constants are broken when the aether (space time) is effected in certain ways, when you do the right things to the medium in which all matter and energy floats the rules change.
