A reactionless drive tends to break the conservation of energy by just existing.
Since there is no equal and opposite energy does not balance, double the velocity would be achieved with double the energy but yield 4 times the stored energy, eventually that leads to excess energy out. Now in the case of a non-moving hover, a reactionless thrust against gravity would not build up any energy, it gains no velocity or height and would not be entirely dissimilar to a superconducting hover, or orbital velocity. Except if it operates the same in free space or in any other direction then yes it would breach the conservation of energy but by default this tends to occur anyway. John On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:35 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 23:19:42 -0400: > Hi, > > I'm suggesting that in theory no energy is required as long as there is no > movement. IOW he creates a force, but as long as that force doesn't act > over a > distance, then it need do no work. > > E = F x d; F = m x a. E = m x a x d. You have calculated the mass times > acceleration part of it. > > OTOH a rocket would most definitely expend energy just to hover, as do > helicopters etc. but they also accelerate mass downward to produce the > thrust > (air in the case of helicopters). > > So I think it just depends on exactly how the thrust is generated, i.e. > how the > drive interacts with the space-time continuum. > > >His claim is 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt. One tonne of thrust will > >accelerate an object. An object under the acceleration of gravity will be > >countered by the thrust, costing 48 kilowatts of power in the process. > This > >is not the same as suspending an object by a rope or something. Are you > >suggesting that there is no theoretical limit as to how much power, > applied > >as thrust, is needed to suspend an object weighing a tonne? Or are you > >suggesting that my math is wrong and that there is a lower number? If the > >number is lower, then how do you arrive at it? > > > >Craig > > > > > > > > > >On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 10:48 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > > > >> In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 10 May 2015 18:07:28 -0400: > >> Hi, > >> [snip] > >> > >> It doesn't cost any energy at all to support a car. The ground does this > >> just > >> fine with no energy expenditure. E = F . d. If d = 0, then E = 0. > >> I'm not sure how this applies to an EM drive (if at all), but perhaps it > >> needs > >> to be taken into consideration? > >> > >> >Hello! > >> > > >> >I was hoping the Vorts could help me with this. Roger Shawyer, at > minute > >> >2:56 in this video, claims that the next generation EM Drive could > >> >generation 1 tonne of thrust per kilowatt of power. This means that a 1 > >> >tonne car should be able to hover above the ground for the price of one > >> >kilowatt. However, my calculation shows that to be about 48 times a > >> >theoretical maximum. > >> > > >> >Here is the video where he makes the claim at 2:56. > >> > > >> >http://tinyurl.com/ko5v6h7 > >> > > >> >But here is my calculation for a theoretical maximum, calculated two > >> >different ways: > >> > > >> > - > >> > > >> > A joule is a watt-second > >> > - > >> > > >> > A watt is a joule / second > >> > - > >> > > >> > The power required to hover an object is the same power required to > >> > increase the speed of the object from rest, in a weightless > >> environment, to > >> > 9.8 m/s in one second. We know this because the pull of gravity is > 9.8 > >> > meters/second2. > >> > - > >> > > >> > The kinetic energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * > v2. > >> So > >> > for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules > = 48 > >> > kilowatts to do this in one second. > >> > - > >> > > >> > This power should be 1/2 the power to raise an object of the same > mass, > >> > to a height of 9.8 meters in one second, since it would require > twice > >> as > >> > much energy to do this. > >> > - > >> > > >> > The formula to determining how much energy it takes to raise > something > >> > to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * > 9.8 = > >> > 96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it > >> agrees > >> > with the previous result. > >> > > >> >So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the > mass > >> >of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on > this > >> >would be appreciated. > >> > > >> >Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH) > >> Regards, > >> > >> Robin van Spaandonk > >> > >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >> > >> > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
