6 ms·
If you could produce a constant force (and therefore constant acceleration) for a constant power use, then both speed and the total energy spent would rise line
by wcoenen 6y ago
If you could produce a constant force (and therefore constant acceleration) for a constant power use, then both speed and the total energy spent would rise linearly with time. This is in conflict with the fact that kinetic energy goes up with the square of speed. In other words, if this works as described you can create energy out of nothing by sticking the drive on the outside of a rotating system and using it as a generator.
- aaronblohowiak 6y agoPlease forgive my ignorance. If you are floating in a vacuum, how do you know what kinetic energy you have? isn't that all with respect to some other object? I believe the trick here is that constant-acceleration with constant power use is due to the (puzzling) particulars that there's no ejection mass
- mhh__ 6y agoIn empty space yes, but space is a vacuum (mostly) but not empty. If you are in orbit you can measure your speed relative to something else, the only that doesn't work is a privileged frame.
- wcoenen 6y agoKinetic energy is relative to some inertial reference frame. You can pick any reference frame you want and each will give you different numbers, but conservation laws should still hold in each. Addition of kinetic energy is pretty unintuitive in this regard, e.g. when throwing a ball, the "work" done by your muscles depends on the reference frame that you pick to analyze the event.
- freshhawk 6y agoYup. Simple perpetual motion machine if it works. This seems, to me, to be the simplest explanation of why it almost certainly doesn't work, but that isn't mentioned frequently, am I missing something?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- postalrat 6y agoBecause if emdrive works where science says it shouldn't be possible then it becomes difficult to predict it's characteristics.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- andrewflnr 6y agoI'm not following you completely, but this particular argument seems to work equally well if you put a photon rocket in place of the EmDrive. Constant power, constant torque, but I don't see how it makes a perpetual motion machine.
- NZGumboot 6y agoWhen you do the math, in order to extract infinite free energy as per OP's argument, you have to get the drive up to a certain speed (think of a y=x line intersecting with a y=x^2 parabolic curve). The required speed depends on the performance of the drive (i.e. the N/kW figure), with a higher performance drive meaning a lower required speed before you can start extracting energy. For a photon drive, the speed you need to reach to extract infinite free energy is... the speed of light. Which you can't get to. So OP's argument only applies to drives which perform better than a photon drive, which naturally includes the EmDrive.
- mrfusion 6y agoWho says it’s a constant force though?
- wcoenen 6y agoI thought that was implied by the description of the EM drive of "X kilowatt for Y newton". But I guess the effect could indeed depend on your speed relative to some special reference frame, like that of the microwave background. If that's the case, then we can do something like the Michelson–Morley experiment, to check whether the effect is different depending on the direction the Earth is moving in its orbit.
- mrfusion 6y agoGood point. Or if it is emitting em waves they would get red shifted as it sped up. (Not sure if that’s ruled out)
- Tade0 6y agoI don't think it's implied anywhere that the force will remain constant. It's more a proxy to the ratio of the change in kinetic energy to the energy put in. I suppose they used a very precise equivalent of a dynamometer that necessarily required some work to be done to give out a reading and this is what it showed.
- NZGumboot 6y agoThe force cannot possibly depend on the drive's kinetic energy, because the kinetic energy is based on the velocity, which is relative to the frame of reference you use to measure it. If your frame of reference is the drive itself, then the kinetic energy is always zero, and conversely it's always possible to use a remote galaxy as a frame of reference, which makes the kinetic energy (and velocity) absurdly high.
- throwaway316943 6y agoSimple answer could be that it tops out at a certain speed for the energy input. 1kw might only allow acceleration up to say 1m/s and no further.
- wcoenen 6y agoNote that we're already moving around the sun at 30km/s. Or at 230km/s around the galactic center. Or at 368 km/s relative to the CMB rest frame...