If I am right then, well I'm no good at the math but I think that a superconducting chamber bouncing EM around assuming the Q is not effected by the acceleration then I think yes you could get to Mars quite comfortably assuming you have one hell of a bumper bar.
But the bumperbar could be the greatest problem if you get the speeds you want.
In which case you need to either have something to deflect debris or make the ship less solid or go into hyperspace which sounds a bit far off.
Perhaps better would be if I am right and the ship entrains aether, moves aether with it and moves at a high enough speed you might be able to pass right through objects, this sometime seems to be the case where after storms tires are found around tree trunks and straw through iron or in the Hutchison effect where things can sometimes pas through each other (and sometimes get stuck).
Maybe we should assume some form of effective propulsion is an inevitability and work on how to protect the ship as high speed.
On 9/17/06, Wesley Bruce
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good work fellows however I am more inclined to look at useable
interplanetary speeds, earth to Mars in a few weeks or so, say
~518041367424 km in 6 weeks [1008 hours ] This requires hideous
velocities and you will need a hell of a bumperbar on you ship. How do
the numbers come out?
Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: John Berry
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
>
>
>> What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST
>> violate the conservation of energy, there is no way round it, if you
>> use it to accelerate or row for >10 seconds and it accelerated it to
>> 1 meter a second using .5KWh say, then if you run it for 20 seconds
>> you'd have used 1KWh, have 2 meters a second velocity >but the energy
>> contained in forward movement of your ship is 4 times that of running
>> the engines for the 10 seconds.
>
>
> No.
>
> Assume a 1000kg spacecraft at initially velocity 0m/s. (we will ignore
> the "relatives" here for now, more on this later)
>
> Assume that this spacecraft uses its reactionless propulsion system
> (whatever it may be) to accelerate to approximately v=0.1c, or
> 29,979,246 m/s. We will ignore relativistic effects at this time. The
> energy require to get to this velocity will be K = 1/2 m v^2, or in
> this case, 4.494x10^17J. Not a small amount. But what is the energy
> required then to accelerate the craft to only v=0.05c? 1.123x10^17J,
> or 25% of that required to reach 0.1c. Now of course this makes sense,
> the square of velocity and all that. What it also indicates is that to
> go from v=0c to v=0.1c you must use increasing energy as time goes by.
> If you use a constant energy per unit time (I am using only basic
> units here to avoid confusion) you will find your acceleration tapers
> off rapidly as velocity is increased.
>
> So, if you use say (changing from kWh to something that is easier to
> follow, kW) 0.5kW for 10 seconds, on a 10,000kg object, the kinetic
> energy gained by the object is 5kJ, and our object is moving at a
> gentle 1m/s. This of course assumes that your method of converting
> electrical energy input to kinetic energy is 100% efficient.
>
> But...if we apply 0.5kW for 20 seconds, we have added 10kJ to our
> 10,000kg object, and its velocity is now...only 1.414m/sec. Can you
> get to 0.1c with a constant-power drive? Absolutely, but it will take
> much longer to get there, and efficiency will drop as speed increases,
> and fall rapidly the faster you try to go. If on the other hand, you
> use a constant-acceleration approach, you get there (to your desired
> speed) much faster, but you use an ever increasing amount of power.
> The total energy to reach 0.1c for constant-power or
> constant-acceleration is the same.
>
> Now here's something interesting. If drive efficiency in attaining
> some velocity from some given energy input decreases like this over
> time, as velocity builds up, it would seem to imply that an absolute
> velocity is important. A very big no-no when it comes to relativity as
> we know it. (or as we like to know it)
>
> You can have a reactionless drive which conserves energy globally, but
> to do this it will demonstrate some rather odd effects (at first
> glance) which later once you have juggled it in your mind for a while,
> really don't end up so confusing in the end. But it does seem to lead
> to one reference frame being preferred, and acting as the "road" for
> your hypothesized "space car". If a reactionless drive is constructed
> successfully, one wonders about its uses to test relativity in a new
> and unique way. I'll let you think on that for a bit.
>
> --Kyle
