Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1) 467 467

I got the math slightly wrong on that post. However, it is still true that any reactionless drive is also a over unity device.

Lets say i have this thing on a plane traveling at constant speed. The power *output* in the stationary frame of reference is simple force times distance traveled per second. pout=fv. No matter how much energy is needed to create the force f, there is always some velocity v that means pout is larger than power in.

You can also do the calculations based on total energy. You still get more out (more kinetic energy) than you put in. Lets say we use input power P for a force output of f. Our craft has mass m. Acceleration is a=fm. After time t the power input is Pt. Velocity is at, and the kinetic energy is .5*m*t^2*a^2. Since kinetic energy is going up by a factor of t^2 it is easy to see that at some time t>T, it will be larger than total energy input. We can find that characteristic time by solving tP=.5*m*t^2*a^2 for t. T=2*P/(m*a^2).

The result can be generalized to any frame of reference. ANY reactionless drive is a over unity device in some characteristic time eventually.

Comment Re:Blimey (Score 1) 467 467

It's also theoretically possible to have a "warp" drive that produced thrust without propellent by altering the local spacetime metric.

Err not really. You have to violate a bunch of things widely held to be true for real mass configurations. Also you need negative mass, which doesn't exist even theoretically, oh and more mass energy than the entire universe. Finally it is totally causally disconnected from the rest of the universe.

Just because i write down math does not make it a valid prediction.

Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1) 467 467

Angel is a regular here and often goes on and on about germany and in particular its wind and solar energy with totally crazy and provably incorrect claims with utility (often in the links he/she provides). He/she also comes up with crazy stuff about how many people have been killed with nuclear and stuff.

Comment Re:Blimey (Score 1) 467 467

Thorium is nice because it's only minimally radioactive, can be stored in huge piles without getting 'hot', and won't sustain a reaction without encouragement - hence throttling ability.

The same is true for Uranium. Since a Thorium fuel cycle *burns* 233U it also still has decay heat. Throttling down can be done, but heat dumps are required. Not hard to do since even conventional generation often needs that. Thorium is not magic and homogenous reactors not restricted to Th.

Comment Re:Blimey (Score 1) 467 467

IF you really do have a reactionless drive. You really do have a free lunch. It is a over unity device.

The output power of a device traveling at speed v with force f is p=fv (work per unit time=force x distance per unit time). if the power force coefficient is k such that f=kP where P is the input power. Then once traveling at speed v=1/k output is higher than input. Your getting free energy. You can generalize this for total energy and arbitrary frames of reference pretty easily.

Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1) 467 467

Perhaps read some other threats in this post. There are plenty of us. It is not really a surprise that some random internet forum, one that tends to attract wantabe CS "experts", have no fucking idea about physics. Not only that, but won't even bother to read up on it at all.

What do you think is more likely. Everyone for the last 400 years made consistent repeatable mistakes thousands and thousands of times. Or perhaps these 3 "reports" and 2 groups have maybe made the mistake?

Comment Re:Blimey (Score 1) 467 467

I read them. Yea its really sloppy. Credentials don't give you a free pass. Measuring forces that small without a proper vacuum or proper controls or just plain ignoring the results of the controls. Even this one has the *same* force for the control where there should be none and yet won't conclude no detectable force. And also the german "team" have a patented anti gravity device.

There is a reason almost none of the this gets published properly in science journals (hint newscientist is not a science journal, its a magazine and a shit one at that.), not such good credentials. It is plain sloppy.

For the device to work, it must violate conservation of momentum, Maxwell's equations, Quantum physics, relativity and conservation of energy. Oh and somehow 400 years of experiments are wrong.

I bet one years salary that this doesn't work as advertised. (I earn about 120k pa)

Do not underestimate the value of print statements for debugging.

Working...