Real electric drives.

 

Another early April 1st joke.

https://www.universetoday.com/16051...ter-the-ivo-quantum-drive-is-headed-to-space/

The Controversy Endures
Naturally, the news of this test and the company’s claims have been met with considerable skepticism by many scientists. Notably, there’s Andrew Higgins, a professor of mechanical engineering at McGill University and the leader of the Interstellar Flight Experimental Research Group. In 2018, Higgins published a paper titled “Reconciling a Reactionless Propulsive Drive with the First Law of Thermodynamics,” where he demonstrated that an electromagnetic drive that does not use propellant was not physically sound.

According to Higgins, electromagnetic devices that do not rely on propellant can generate no more than 3.33 micronewtons per kilowatt (?N/kW) of thrust, or else they end up being a kind of perpetual motion machine. This is due to the fact that applying constant force results in constant acceleration, which means that the object’s kinetic energy increases quadratically over time, whereas the energy input increases linearly. As a result, the object’s kinetic energy will exceed the energy input, and (if this energy is collected via deceleration) there would be a net gain in energy.

In short, the concept violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the internal energy (E) of a system is equal to the difference between the heat transfer (Q) into a system and the work (W) done by the system – expressed mathematically as E2-E1=Q-W. As Higgins told Universe Today via email:

“My take on the IVO Quantum Drive is the same as the EM drive, the Woodward Mach effect thruster, or any other device that claims to take a power input and generate thrust output, with no other interactions with a reaction mass or some other mass to push against. It is trivial to show such a device can be converted into a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. That is, a machine that just generates power from a black box, with no other interactions.”

In response, Mansell has stated that the Quantum Drive is not a reactionless system and is not comparable to the EM Drive. “The Theory of Quantised Inertia provides for some unique ways to move spacecraft without fuel and without violating Newton’s laws of motion,” he said. “The Quantum Drive uses electricity and our patent pending configuration to move spacecraft. This configuration has been tested as much as it can on Earth’s surface. The next and definitive test will be in LEO.”

All of this Quantised Inertia BS was used to explain the non-existing thrust of the EMdrive.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03449
Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive

It has been shown that truncated cone-shaped cavities with microwaves resonating within them move slightly towards their narrow ends (the emdrive). Standard physics has no explanation for this and an error has not yet been found. It is shown here that this effect can be predicted by assuming that the inertial mass of the photons in the cavity is caused by Unruh radiation, whose wavelengths must fit exactly within the cavity, using a theory already applied successfully to astrophysical anomalies such as galaxy rotation where the Unruh waves have to fit within the Hubble scale. In the emdrive this means that more Unruh waves are allowed at the wide end, leading to a greater inertial mass for the photons there, and to conserve momentum the cavity must move towards its narrow end, as observed. The model predicts thrusts of: 3.8, 149, 7.3, 0.23, 0.57, 0.11, 0.64 and 0.02 mN compared with the observed thrusts of: 16, 147, 9, 0.09, 0.05, 0.06, 0.03, and 0.02 mN and predicts that if the axial length is equal to the diameter of the small end of the cavity, the thrust should be reversed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/briank...-and-how-to-do-science-wrong/?sh=18f06e6f675f

 

IID is superior.

 

Quantum Drive

 

Quantum Drive

FTL capable!

 

FTL capable!

even better ... it's faster than the speed of causation ...

 

even better ... it's faster than the speed of causation ...

I was thinking Faster Than Largemouth bass.

 

Use a QM Drive for Rock-et fishing.

It's a great fishing hole.
https://www.tradewindscharters.com/

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/radica...uld-reach-interstellar-space-in-under-5-years

Your interstellar vehicle upon reaching its destination:



But at least it gets there quick!

 

What happens to the stray pellets? That's why we see this in movies.

 

IMPOSSIBLE QUANTUM DRIVE THAT DEFIES KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS SCHEDULED FOR “DO OR DIE” OCTOBER SPACE FLIGHT​

“We got to the point where our third-party inspectors said, at this point, there’s nothing we can do to debug what you’re doing,” said Mansell. “It’s just got to go to space. It’s really got to go to space.”

 

IMPOSSIBLE QUANTUM DRIVE THAT DEFIES KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS SCHEDULED FOR “DO OR DIE” OCTOBER SPACE FLIGHT​

What will a space flight prove? We already know they are good fishing Spinning Reels.

 

What will a space flight prove? We already know they are good fishing Spinning Reels.
View attachment 298192

What bothers me is that the article never explains the principle behind said "quantum drive" ... at least they're putting their money where their mouth is and will be doing actual measurable tests ... but after the EM Drive fiasco, and from what you've previously explained to me, I'm extremely skeptical about this endeavor.

 

What bothers me is that the article never explains the principle behind said "quantum drive" ... at least they're putting their money where their mouth is and will be doing actual measurable tests ... but after the EM Drive fiasco, and from what you've previously explained to me, I'm extremely skeptical about this endeavor.

It's a rehash of the same old stuff.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briank...-and-how-to-do-science-wrong/?sh=33442446675f

Down that path lies pseudoscience, and sometimes you can watch it happening. Take for example, Mike McCulloch's theory of Modified inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect (MiHsC), also known as quantized inertia.

McCulloch's model has been in the works since 2008, but it has become popular in recent years due to its connection to the EMDrive. You might recall this as the device that (according to its proponents) can create a thrust without any traditional propellant which could revolutionize space travel and take us to the stars. The EMDrive has created quite a stir among the general public because of the tremendous possibilities if it succeeds. Meanwhile, scientists have noted that even the best experimental results can't be distinguished from background noise, and that such a device would violate basic physics. McCulloch argued that the effect was not only real, but that it could be explained in the context of his model.

 

More on the Quantum Drive:

Quantum drive that draws 'limitless power' from Sun will fly to orbit this year

​

 

More on the Quantum Drive:

Quantum drive that draws 'limitless power' from Sun will fly to orbit this year
View attachment 298366​

"IVO believes that its Quantum Drive could eventually produce up to 52 millinewtons (mN) of thrust from a single watt of electricity"

A photon rocket is ~3.3 nanonewtons per watt. That means this Qdrive device is another 'free' energy, perpetual motion device.

 

A photon rocket is ~3.3 nanonewtons per watt. That means this Qdrive device is another 'free' energy, perpetual motion device.

You've kept saying that over and over, and at first I didn't understand it, but I believed you. So after a little digging, here's the conclusion that I arrived to. And please by all means correct me if my reasoning is wrong:

1.- The only known way for any object in the universe to move is through the exchange of momentum. Check Newton's third law of motion.
2.- When one tries using pure energy as the source of momentum exchange, the photon is the purest form of energy one can use, since it has no mass.
3.- The photon has no mass, but it has momentum, or an equivalent mass, according to E=mc²
4.- Therefore, if any device that uses pure energy as its source of momentum produces more thrust than that of an equivalent amount of photons, it would mean that said device is actually producing more energy (in the form of kinetic energy) than what was invested into putting it in motion in the first place.

Am I right?

 

You've kept saying that over and over, and at first I didn't understand it, but I believed you. So after a little digging, here's the conclusion that I arrived to. And please by all means correct me if my reasoning is wrong:

1.- The only known way for any object in the universe to move is through the exchange of momentum. Check Newton's third law of motion.
2.- When one tries using pure energy as the source of momentum exchange, the photon is the purest form of energy one can use, since it has no mass.
3.- The photon has no mass, but it has momentum, or an equivalent mass, according to E=mc²
4.- Therefore, if any device that uses pure energy as its source of momentum produces more thrust than that of an equivalent amount of photons, it would mean that said device is actually producing more energy (in the form of kinetic energy) than what was invested into putting it in motion in the first place.

Am I right?

Is there a law that prohibits converting watts per square meter to newtons thrust? Serious question.

 

Is there a law that prohibits converting watts per square meter to newtons thrust? Serious question.

Serious reply: wouldn't that be the working principle of a solar sail?

 

Serious reply: wouldn't that be the working principle of a solar sail?

Don't think it can be done that way.