EM Drive - User contributions [en]

Energy Conservation

2015-06-01T07:32:04Z

Jnt: /* Kinetic Energy Implications */

== Implications of Constant Thrust ==

Doctor White has proposed that the EM Drive is capable of producing constant thrust at a constant power output. User frobnicat has shown (in the following text and image) that if this were to be true, then the EM Drive could be utilized as a source of unlimited energy. <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.msg1369806#msg1369806 frobnicat on using the EM Drive for unlimited energy.]</ref> This of course constitutes a violation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy Conservation of Energy.]

"As often remarked : for any propellantless device yielding "given constant thrust for given constant power" (ie. a definite thrust/power ratio) there is a velocity relative to a power feedback loop system above which net power surplus can be generated (indefinitely, wear apart).
This velocity is simply the inverse of the thrust/power ratio : V (m/s) = power (W) / thrust (N)." -frobnicat <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.msg1370818#msg1370818 frobnicat explains constant thrust/power feedback loop]</ref>

<img src="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=619549;image" style="width:20%">

On the assumption that the results provided by the various experimenting groups are valid, then one of the following two options as provided by user deltamass<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370943#msg1370943 deltamass on the Energy Paradox.]</ref> and clarified by user frobnicat <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371907#msg1371907 frobnicat on apparent/non-apparent CoE breakage.]</ref> must be true. The options are as follows:

'''Option 1''': Energy is conserved, but there is a preferred rest frame. In essence, the drive has a maximum change in velocity (a decreasing acceleration curve) that it can impart irrespective of its starting velocity. The idea of a preferred rest frame is at odds with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity general relativity].

'''Option 2''': An '''apparent''' breach of conservation of energy is possible, where the mechanism by which conservation of energy is maintained is as yet unknown. An example of a possible solution to this problem is that the drive could in some way be emitting [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon tachyons.]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371907#msg1371907 frobnicat on tachyons.]</ref>

Tachyons are fictional particles that can travel faster than the speed of light. Sending signals faster than light, leads to violations of causality, see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone Tachyonic Antitelephone.]

Since option 1 leads to a violation of general relativity and option 2 leads to a violation of causality, one concludes that, with constant input power supplied to the EM Drive, the acceleration cannot be constant. As remarked by WarpTech the acceleration must decrease with increasing velocity, as per Newton's 2nd law:<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370683#msg1370683 WarpTech on decreasing acceleration with increasing velocity.]</ref>

Acceleration = Thrust / Mass = Power / (Mass*Velocity)

So, for constant input power to the EM Drive (and constant vehicle mass), the vehicle's acceleration must decrease in inverse proportion to the vehicle's velocity. To achieve constant acceleration, increasing power must be supplied to the EM Drive, in proportion to the increasing velocity.

== Kinetic Energy Implications ==

This is a basic back-of-the-envelope debunk. It is not framed as a proof, it simply shows that the Em drive *cannot* work without new physics.

Given:

1. <math>f=ma</math>

<math>a=\cfrac{f}{m}</math>

if this device can produce a constant force then it will produce a constant acceleration and velocity will increase linearly in accord to:

2. <math>v=v</math><sub>0</sub><math> + at</math>

and the amount of kinetic energy KE in the device will evolve over time according to:

3. <math>
e=\cfrac{1}{2}mv^2
</math>

So here we have the core problem. Because the increase in KE over time is exponential, and the velocity increase is linear then at some point we will have more energy in the system than we put in.

[[File:kvt.png|50px]]

There is no way to rescue this proposition other than to say either the energy comes from somewhere else, ie the quantum vacuum OR that the device can somehow sense how fast it is going and therefore does not let you keep accelerating. This second rescue proposition appears to have already failed experimentally. The Earth is currently moving at approximately 390 km/s in the direction of the constellation Leo. If this device somehow was not frameless then there would have been a significant variation when the experiment was tried in different directions. There was not.

===In Summary===

If this device works, new physics is involved. Either the quantum vacuum is not as passive as we thought or special relativity falls.

''See [[Talk:Energy_Conservation]] for more discussion on this.''

== References ==
<references/>

Energy Conservation

2015-06-01T07:23:14Z

Jnt: /* Kinetic Energy Implications */

== Implications of Constant Thrust ==

Doctor White has proposed that the EM Drive is capable of producing constant thrust at a constant power output. User frobnicat has shown (in the following text and image) that if this were to be true, then the EM Drive could be utilized as a source of unlimited energy. <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.msg1369806#msg1369806 frobnicat on using the EM Drive for unlimited energy.]</ref> This of course constitutes a violation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy Conservation of Energy.]

"As often remarked : for any propellantless device yielding "given constant thrust for given constant power" (ie. a definite thrust/power ratio) there is a velocity relative to a power feedback loop system above which net power surplus can be generated (indefinitely, wear apart).
This velocity is simply the inverse of the thrust/power ratio : V (m/s) = power (W) / thrust (N)." -frobnicat <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.msg1370818#msg1370818 frobnicat explains constant thrust/power feedback loop]</ref>

<img src="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=619549;image" style="width:20%">

On the assumption that the results provided by the various experimenting groups are valid, then one of the following two options as provided by user deltamass<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370943#msg1370943 deltamass on the Energy Paradox.]</ref> and clarified by user frobnicat <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371907#msg1371907 frobnicat on apparent/non-apparent CoE breakage.]</ref> must be true. The options are as follows:

'''Option 1''': Energy is conserved, but there is a preferred rest frame. In essence, the drive has a maximum change in velocity (a decreasing acceleration curve) that it can impart irrespective of its starting velocity. The idea of a preferred rest frame is at odds with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity general relativity].

'''Option 2''': An '''apparent''' breach of conservation of energy is possible, where the mechanism by which conservation of energy is maintained is as yet unknown. An example of a possible solution to this problem is that the drive could in some way be emitting [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon tachyons.]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371907#msg1371907 frobnicat on tachyons.]</ref>

Tachyons are fictional particles that can travel faster than the speed of light. Sending signals faster than light, leads to violations of causality, see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone Tachyonic Antitelephone.]

Since option 1 leads to a violation of general relativity and option 2 leads to a violation of causality, one concludes that, with constant input power supplied to the EM Drive, the acceleration cannot be constant. As remarked by WarpTech the acceleration must decrease with increasing velocity, as per Newton's 2nd law:<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370683#msg1370683 WarpTech on decreasing acceleration with increasing velocity.]</ref>

Acceleration = Thrust / Mass = Power / (Mass*Velocity)

So, for constant input power to the EM Drive (and constant vehicle mass), the vehicle's acceleration must decrease in inverse proportion to the vehicle's velocity. To achieve constant acceleration, increasing power must be supplied to the EM Drive, in proportion to the increasing velocity.

== Kinetic Energy Implications ==

This is a basic back-of-the-envelope debunk. It is not framed as a proof, it simply shows that the Em drive *cannot* work without new physics.

Given:

1. <math>f=ma</math>

<math>a=\cfrac{f}{m}</math>

if this device can produce a constant force then it will produce a constant acceleration and velocity will increase linearly in accord to:

2. <math>v=v0 + at</math>

and the amount of kinetic energy KE in the device will evolve over time according to:

3. <math>
e=\cfrac{1}{2}mv^2
</math>

So here we have the core problem. Because the increase in KE over time is exponential, and the velocity increase is linear then at some point we will have more energy in the system than we put in.

[[File:kvt.png|50px]]

There is no way to rescue this proposition other than to say either the energy comes from somewhere else, ie the quantum vacuum OR that the device can somehow sense how fast it is going and therefore does not let you keep accelerating. This second rescue proposition appears to have already failed experimentally. The Earth is currently moving at approximately 390 km/s direction of the constellation of Leo. If this device somehow was not frameless then there would have been a significant variation when the experiment was tried in different directions. There was not.

'''In Summary'''

If this device works, new physics is involved. Either the quantum vacuum is not as passive as we thought or special relativity falls.

''See [[Talk:Energy_Conservation]] for more discussion on this.''

== References ==
<references/>

File:Kvt.png

2015-06-01T07:20:33Z

Jnt: Graph showing Kinetic Energy and Velocity over time

Graph showing Kinetic Energy and Velocity over time

Energy Conservation

2015-06-01T07:13:54Z

Jnt: /* Kinetic Energy Implications */

== Implications of Constant Thrust ==

Doctor White has proposed that the EM Drive is capable of producing constant thrust at a constant power output. User frobnicat has shown (in the following text and image) that if this were to be true, then the EM Drive could be utilized as a source of unlimited energy. <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.msg1369806#msg1369806 frobnicat on using the EM Drive for unlimited energy.]</ref> This of course constitutes a violation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy Conservation of Energy.]

"As often remarked : for any propellantless device yielding "given constant thrust for given constant power" (ie. a definite thrust/power ratio) there is a velocity relative to a power feedback loop system above which net power surplus can be generated (indefinitely, wear apart).
This velocity is simply the inverse of the thrust/power ratio : V (m/s) = power (W) / thrust (N)." -frobnicat <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.msg1370818#msg1370818 frobnicat explains constant thrust/power feedback loop]</ref>

<img src="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=619549;image" style="width:20%">

On the assumption that the results provided by the various experimenting groups are valid, then one of the following two options as provided by user deltamass<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370943#msg1370943 deltamass on the Energy Paradox.]</ref> and clarified by user frobnicat <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371907#msg1371907 frobnicat on apparent/non-apparent CoE breakage.]</ref> must be true. The options are as follows:

'''Option 1''': Energy is conserved, but there is a preferred rest frame. In essence, the drive has a maximum change in velocity (a decreasing acceleration curve) that it can impart irrespective of its starting velocity. The idea of a preferred rest frame is at odds with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity general relativity].

'''Option 2''': An '''apparent''' breach of conservation of energy is possible, where the mechanism by which conservation of energy is maintained is as yet unknown. An example of a possible solution to this problem is that the drive could in some way be emitting [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon tachyons.]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371907#msg1371907 frobnicat on tachyons.]</ref>

Tachyons are fictional particles that can travel faster than the speed of light. Sending signals faster than light, leads to violations of causality, see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone Tachyonic Antitelephone.]

Since option 1 leads to a violation of general relativity and option 2 leads to a violation of causality, one concludes that, with constant input power supplied to the EM Drive, the acceleration cannot be constant. As remarked by WarpTech the acceleration must decrease with increasing velocity, as per Newton's 2nd law:<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370683#msg1370683 WarpTech on decreasing acceleration with increasing velocity.]</ref>

Acceleration = Thrust / Mass = Power / (Mass*Velocity)

So, for constant input power to the EM Drive (and constant vehicle mass), the vehicle's acceleration must decrease in inverse proportion to the vehicle's velocity. To achieve constant acceleration, increasing power must be supplied to the EM Drive, in proportion to the increasing velocity.

== Kinetic Energy Implications ==

This is a basic back-of-the-envelope debunk. It is not framed as a proof, it simply shows that the Em drive *cannot* work without new physics.

Given:

1. <math>f=ma</math>

<math>a=\cfrac{f}{m}</math>

if this device can produce a constant force then it will produce a constant acceleration and velocity will increase linearly in accord to:

2. <math>v=v0 + at</math>

and the amount of kinetic energy KE in the device will evolve over time according to:

3. <math>
e=\cfrac{1}{2}mv^2
</math>

So here we have the core problem. Because the increase in KE over time is exponential, and the velocity increase is linear then at some point we will have more energy in the system than we put in.

There is no way to rescue this proposition other than to say either the energy comes from somewhere else, ie the quantum vacuum OR that the device can somehow sense how fast it is going and therefore does not let you keep accelerating. This second rescue proposition appears to have already failed experimentally. The Earth is currently moving at approximately 390 km/s direction of the constellation of Leo. If this device somehow was not frameless then there would have been a significant variation when the experiment was tried in different directions. There was not.

'''In Summary'''

If this device works, new physics is involved. Either the quantum vacuum is not as passive as we thought or special relativity falls.

''See [[Talk:Energy_Conservation]] for more discussion on this.''

== References ==
<references/>

Energy Conservation

2015-06-01T06:47:01Z

Jnt: /* Kinetic Energy Implications */

== Implications of Constant Thrust ==

Doctor White has proposed that the EM Drive is capable of producing constant thrust at a constant power output. User frobnicat has shown (in the following text and image) that if this were to be true, then the EM Drive could be utilized as a source of unlimited energy. <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.msg1369806#msg1369806 frobnicat on using the EM Drive for unlimited energy.]</ref> This of course constitutes a violation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy Conservation of Energy.]

"As often remarked : for any propellantless device yielding "given constant thrust for given constant power" (ie. a definite thrust/power ratio) there is a velocity relative to a power feedback loop system above which net power surplus can be generated (indefinitely, wear apart).
This velocity is simply the inverse of the thrust/power ratio : V (m/s) = power (W) / thrust (N)." -frobnicat <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.msg1370818#msg1370818 frobnicat explains constant thrust/power feedback loop]</ref>

<img src="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=619549;image" style="width:20%">

On the assumption that the results provided by the various experimenting groups are valid, then one of the following two options as provided by user deltamass<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370943#msg1370943 deltamass on the Energy Paradox.]</ref> and clarified by user frobnicat <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371907#msg1371907 frobnicat on apparent/non-apparent CoE breakage.]</ref> must be true. The options are as follows:

'''Option 1''': Energy is conserved, but there is a preferred rest frame. In essence, the drive has a maximum change in velocity (a decreasing acceleration curve) that it can impart irrespective of its starting velocity. The idea of a preferred rest frame is at odds with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity general relativity].

'''Option 2''': An '''apparent''' breach of conservation of energy is possible, where the mechanism by which conservation of energy is maintained is as yet unknown. An example of a possible solution to this problem is that the drive could in some way be emitting [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon tachyons.]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371907#msg1371907 frobnicat on tachyons.]</ref>

Tachyons are fictional particles that can travel faster than the speed of light. Sending signals faster than light, leads to violations of causality, see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone Tachyonic Antitelephone.]

Since option 1 leads to a violation of general relativity and option 2 leads to a violation of causality, one concludes that, with constant input power supplied to the EM Drive, the acceleration cannot be constant. As remarked by WarpTech the acceleration must decrease with increasing velocity, as per Newton's 2nd law:<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370683#msg1370683 WarpTech on decreasing acceleration with increasing velocity.]</ref>

Acceleration = Thrust / Mass = Power / (Mass*Velocity)

So, for constant input power to the EM Drive (and constant vehicle mass), the vehicle's acceleration must decrease in inverse proportion to the vehicle's velocity. To achieve constant acceleration, increasing power must be supplied to the EM Drive, in proportion to the increasing velocity.

== Kinetic Energy Implications ==

This is a basic back-of-the-envelope debunk. It is not framed as a proof, it simply shows that the Em drive *cannot* work without new physics.

Given:

1. <math>f=ma</math>

<math>a=\cfrac{f}{m}</math>

if this device can produce a constant force then it will produce a constant acceleration and velocity will increase linearly in accord to:

2. <math>v=v0 + at</math>

and the amount of kinetic energy KE in the device will evolve over time according to:

3. <math>
e=\cfrac{1}{2}mv^2
</math>

So here we have the core problem. Because the increase in KE over time is exponential, and the velocity increase is linear then at some point we will have more energy in the system than we put in.

There is no way to rescue this proposition other than to say either the energy comes from somewhere else, ie the quantum vacuum OR that the device can somehow sense how fast it is going and therefore does not let you keep accelerating. This second rescue proposition appears to have already failed experimentally. The Earth is currently moving at approximately 390 km/s direction of the constellation of Leo. If this device somehow was not frameless then there would have been a significant variation when the experiment was tried in different directions. There was not.

In Summary

If this device works, new physics is involved. Either the quantum vacuum is not as passive as we thought or special relativity falls.

''See [[Talk:Energy_Conservation]] for more discussion on this.''

== References ==
<references/>

Energy Conservation

2015-06-01T06:43:55Z

Jnt: /* Kinetic Energy Implications */

== Implications of Constant Thrust ==

Doctor White has proposed that the EM Drive is capable of producing constant thrust at a constant power output. User frobnicat has shown (in the following text and image) that if this were to be true, then the EM Drive could be utilized as a source of unlimited energy. <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.msg1369806#msg1369806 frobnicat on using the EM Drive for unlimited energy.]</ref> This of course constitutes a violation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy Conservation of Energy.]

"As often remarked : for any propellantless device yielding "given constant thrust for given constant power" (ie. a definite thrust/power ratio) there is a velocity relative to a power feedback loop system above which net power surplus can be generated (indefinitely, wear apart).
This velocity is simply the inverse of the thrust/power ratio : V (m/s) = power (W) / thrust (N)." -frobnicat <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.msg1370818#msg1370818 frobnicat explains constant thrust/power feedback loop]</ref>

<img src="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=619549;image" style="width:20%">

On the assumption that the results provided by the various experimenting groups are valid, then one of the following two options as provided by user deltamass<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370943#msg1370943 deltamass on the Energy Paradox.]</ref> and clarified by user frobnicat <ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371907#msg1371907 frobnicat on apparent/non-apparent CoE breakage.]</ref> must be true. The options are as follows:

'''Option 1''': Energy is conserved, but there is a preferred rest frame. In essence, the drive has a maximum change in velocity (a decreasing acceleration curve) that it can impart irrespective of its starting velocity. The idea of a preferred rest frame is at odds with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity general relativity].

'''Option 2''': An '''apparent''' breach of conservation of energy is possible, where the mechanism by which conservation of energy is maintained is as yet unknown. An example of a possible solution to this problem is that the drive could in some way be emitting [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon tachyons.]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371907#msg1371907 frobnicat on tachyons.]</ref>

Tachyons are fictional particles that can travel faster than the speed of light. Sending signals faster than light, leads to violations of causality, see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone Tachyonic Antitelephone.]

Since option 1 leads to a violation of general relativity and option 2 leads to a violation of causality, one concludes that, with constant input power supplied to the EM Drive, the acceleration cannot be constant. As remarked by WarpTech the acceleration must decrease with increasing velocity, as per Newton's 2nd law:<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370683#msg1370683 WarpTech on decreasing acceleration with increasing velocity.]</ref>

Acceleration = Thrust / Mass = Power / (Mass*Velocity)

So, for constant input power to the EM Drive (and constant vehicle mass), the vehicle's acceleration must decrease in inverse proportion to the vehicle's velocity. To achieve constant acceleration, increasing power must be supplied to the EM Drive, in proportion to the increasing velocity.

== Kinetic Energy Implications ==

This is a basic back-of-the-envelope debunk. It is not framed as a proof, it simply shows that the Em drive *cannot* work without new physics.

Given:

1. <math>f=ma</math>

<math>a=\cfrac{f}{m}</math>

if this device can produce a constant force then it will produce a constant acceleration and velocity will increase linearly in accord to:

2. <math>v=v0 + at</math>

and the amount of kinetic energy KE in the device will evolve over time according to:

3. <math>
e=\cfrac{1}{2}mv^2
</math>

So here we have the core problem. Because the increase in KE over time is exponential, and the velocity increase is linear then at some point we will have more energy in the system than we put in.

There is no way to rescue this proposition other than to say either the energy comes from somewhere else, ie the quantum vacuum OR that the device can somehow sense how fast it is going and therefore does not let you keep accelerating. This second rescue proposition appears to have already failed experimentally. The Earth is currently moving at approximately 390 km/s direction of the constellation of Leo. If this device somehow was not frameless then there would have been a significant variation when the experiment was tried in different directions. There was not.

In Summary

If this device works, new physics is involved. Either the quantum vacuum is not as passive as we thought or general relativity falls.

''See [[Talk:Energy_Conservation]] for more discussion on this.''

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Generic EM Drive Information

2015-05-30T06:25:52Z

Jnt: Created page with "What about Option 3 - Momentum is not conserved ?"

What about Option 3 - Momentum is not conserved ?

Talk:Theory

2015-05-30T06:23:37Z

Jnt:

Somebody wrote:

_________________
====Back-of-the-envelope "Kinetic Energy Debunk"====

Given:

<math>f=ma</math>

and

<math>
e=\cfrac{1}{2}mv^2
</math>

then

<math>a=\cfrac{f}{m}</math>

So if this device can produce a constant force then it will produce a constant acceleration.

BUT!... because Kinetic Energy is proportional to the SQUARE of velocity, and the energy being put in is constant, then at some time the attained velocity will mean there is more kinetic energy in the device than has been put in to the device. Yay, free energy!
_____________________

That's not a debunking theory, it is an energy and acceleration consideration. It fails to take into consideration the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it makes an unwarranted assumption that the acceleration of the device (and hence the force F= m *a) should be constant under constant power (the power required for constant acceleration is not explicitly discussed), and it fails to consider that in many processes like for example a collision against a wall momentum is conserved but kinetic energy is not.

This is a back-of-the-envelope look at the claim. It is not meant to be exhaustive, it does not require efficiencies, nor does it deny the existence of new physics, it is simply to show that they are *required* if no sources of experimental error are identified.

This same "debunking theory" could be applied to any flying vehicle: rockets are not possible because, to start from an initial condition at rest, it means that they must accelerate, but constant acceleration means an energy puzzle, therefore there cannot be any rocket.

No, a rocket loses mass. It converts some form of energy (usually chemical) to kinetic energy and throws mass out the back. There is no 'energy puzzle' with a rocket. Let us for the purpose of our back-of-the-envelope discussion assume the existence of rockets.

(It fails on the same philosophical grounds as Zeno's paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Paradoxes_of_motion that motion is not possible.

It has nothing to do with Zeno's paradox.

This time by making the unwarranted assumption that the EM Drive will have constant acceleration at constant power.)

It is true that that is my assumption. But is it really unwarranted? It was quoted in the early NASA paper as a thrust to power ratio of 5.3 micro-Newtons per watt. However, if this is somehow frame dependent in contravention to general relativity, which I have also assumed, then they would have seen a variance as the device was pointed in different directions given the absolute movement of the galaxy, sun and the earth. No such variance was seen as far as I am aware and thus tends to discredit your hypothesis. Nevertheless, if general relativity were to fall I think that would still constitute new physics.

The issue of energy conservation has its own section in this wiki, and it has been better addressed by @frobnicat.

Perhaps the writer was unaware of the section titled "http://emdrive.echothis.com/Generic_EM_Drive_Information", and that section should be better titled "Energy Conservation"

I was unaware of that section and will happily contribute there if there is anything I can feel I can add. Thank you. I am not sure of the best way to format a rebuttal of a rebuttal so I have interleaved and indented as above.

---

I'm not sure who wrote it as they were anonymous, all I did was format it. I agree it would be better suited to http://emdrive.echothis.com/Generic_EM_Drive_Information, along with your rebuttal.

___

ADMINISTRATOR: Can you please change the section where the energy discussion takes place from "Generic Information" to "Energy Conservation" or something like that ?

There are many people bothered by the energy puzzle with the EM Drive, and conservation of Energy should have its own page instead of being buried under "Generic Information"

Actually I suggest the creation of two separate pages for people to write about these issues that they care so much about:

1) CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

2) CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM

Talk:Theory

2015-05-30T06:22:58Z

Jnt:

Somebody wrote:

_________________
====Back-of-the-envelope "Kinetic Energy Debunk"====

Given:

<math>f=ma</math>

and

<math>
e=\cfrac{1}{2}mv^2
</math>

then

<math>a=\cfrac{f}{m}</math>

So if this device can produce a constant force then it will produce a constant acceleration.

BUT!... because Kinetic Energy is proportional to the SQUARE of velocity, and the energy being put in is constant, then at some time the attained velocity will mean there is more kinetic energy in the device than has been put in to the device. Yay, free energy!
_____________________

That's not a debunking theory, it is an energy and acceleration consideration. It fails to take into consideration the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it makes an unwarranted assumption that the acceleration of the device (and hence the force F= m *a) should be constant under constant power (the power required for constant acceleration is not explicitly discussed), and it fails to consider that in many processes like for example a collision against a wall momentum is conserved but kinetic energy is not.

This is a back-of-the-envelope look at the claim. It is not meant to be exhaustive, it does not require efficiencies, nor does it deny the existence of new physics, <p>it is simply to show that they are *required* if no sources of experimental error are identified.

This same "debunking theory" could be applied to any flying vehicle: rockets are not possible because, to start from an initial condition at rest, it means that they must accelerate, but constant acceleration means an energy puzzle, therefore there cannot be any rocket.

No, a rocket loses mass. It converts some form of energy (usually chemical) to kinetic energy and throws mass out the back. There is no 'energy puzzle' with a rocket. Let us for the purpose of our back-of-the-envelope discussion assume the existence of rockets.

(It fails on the same philosophical grounds as Zeno's paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Paradoxes_of_motion that motion is not possible.

It has nothing to do with Zeno's paradox.

This time by making the unwarranted assumption that the EM Drive will have constant acceleration at constant power.)

It is true that that is my assumption. But is it really unwarranted? It was quoted in the early NASA paper as a thrust to power ratio of 5.3 micro-Newtons per watt. However, if this is somehow frame dependent in contravention to general relativity, which I have also assumed, then they would have seen a variance as the device was pointed in different directions given the absolute movement of the galaxy, sun and the earth. No such variance was seen as far as I am aware and thus tends to discredit your hypothesis. Nevertheless, if general relativity were to fall I think that would still constitute new physics.

The issue of energy conservation has its own section in this wiki, and it has been better addressed by @frobnicat.

Perhaps the writer was unaware of the section titled "http://emdrive.echothis.com/Generic_EM_Drive_Information", and that section should be better titled "Energy Conservation"

I was unaware of that section and will happily contribute there if there is anything I can feel I can add. Thank you. I am not sure of the best way to format a rebuttal of a rebuttal so I have interleaved and indented as above.

---

I'm not sure who wrote it as they were anonymous, all I did was format it. I agree it would be better suited to http://emdrive.echothis.com/Generic_EM_Drive_Information, along with your rebuttal.

___

ADMINISTRATOR: Can you please change the section where the energy discussion takes place from "Generic Information" to "Energy Conservation" or something like that ?

There are many people bothered by the energy puzzle with the EM Drive, and conservation of Energy should have its own page instead of being buried under "Generic Information"

Actually I suggest the creation of two separate pages for people to write about these issues that they care so much about:

1) CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

2) CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM