Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EM space drive
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 51 (735171)
08-06-2014 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
08-06-2014 2:05 PM


Re: wrong
Jon was asking about applications here on the ground...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 08-06-2014 2:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2014 3:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 51 (735177)
08-06-2014 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by NoNukes
08-06-2014 3:39 PM


Re: wrong
Jon was asking about applications here on the ground...
Being on the ground does not matter.
Uh, gravity and friction would certainly play a role in how much stuff you could move with 2 ounces of force.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2014 3:39 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2014 7:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 51 (735187)
08-06-2014 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NoNukes
08-06-2014 7:04 PM


Re: wrong
Did you read just half of my comment before responding? Did I not address everything you mentioned?
I read it all. The stuff you said after what we were talking about, i.e. "being on the ground", had nothing to do with it.
How much weight do you think you can move with 2 oz of thrust CS assuming we conduct the experiment at ground level?
Not much. I doubt you could move my dick with it
Is there any universal answer?
Pretty much, for the one for down here on the ground... where gravity and friction would certainly play a role...
That's what I meant. That's what was being talked about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2014 7:04 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2014 12:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 51 (735225)
08-07-2014 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by NoNukes
08-07-2014 12:50 PM


Re: wrong
The link below is to an experiment for measuring the gravitational constant by measuring the motion of a pair of 38 gram masses being attracted gravitationally by a pair of 1.5kg mass.
I remember hearing about that experiment in a physics class in college.
There is no limit to the amount of weight that two oz of thrust can move here on earth. F= ma applies everywhere.
That's not what is being talked about, this is:
quote:
quote:
quote:
but I don't really understand just how much power the research in these articles is reporting.
What's 720 mN of thrust? How about 30-50 micro-Newtons?
Could this have applications on the ground?
According to the one article, the 720 mnt is 72 grams of thrust.
that's a bit more than 2 oz.
So it's enough to move 2 oz. worth of material?
They're talking about using an EmDrive for some kind of ground vehicle, like a car or something.
There's just not enough thrust there for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2014 12:50 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by xongsmith, posted 08-07-2014 3:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2014 3:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 51 (735230)
08-07-2014 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by xongsmith
08-07-2014 3:23 PM


Re: wrong
Yes, and then another member asked if it had applications on the ground.
It does not, currently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by xongsmith, posted 08-07-2014 3:23 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 51 (735232)
08-07-2014 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by NoNukes
08-07-2014 3:51 PM


Re: wrong
Apparently, that's what you decided the issue was. The answer to the question Jon actually asked was given correctly by Nosy Ned.
Is the question you ask just literally the words that you type, or is the question you ask the one that you mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2014 3:51 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2014 4:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 51 (735236)
08-07-2014 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by NoNukes
08-07-2014 4:06 PM


Re: wrong
Jon's question was whether he should interpret the 2 oz of thrust to mean that only 2 oz of material can be moved.
Yeah, in the context of being on the ground, in some kind of vehicle or something.
quote:
I understand the importance of getting power without having to tote around an exhaustible fuel supply, but I don't really understand just how much power the research in these articles is reporting.
What's 720 mN of thrust? How about 30-50 micro-Newtons?
Could this have applications on the ground?
Can you not see that he is trying to wrap his mind around how much power this is by comparing it to the kind of ground transportation that we are all already familiar with?
Then you interpret that to mean that Jon is only asking about applications for ground vehicles? Where do you get that?
I already quoted the context to you. Here, let me paraphrase it:
"This is cool, but I don't get how strong it is. Does it have applications on the ground?"
-well, its only 2 ounces of thrust
"Oh, so you can only move 2 ounces of stuff with it?"
This isn't a deep interrogation of the underlying physics behind the power of thrust in a friction-less vacuum, this is a question about how much weight can be moved along the ground with the power that this new thing creates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2014 4:06 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by xongsmith, posted 08-07-2014 5:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 50 of 51 (735430)
08-14-2014 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Taz
08-13-2014 9:35 AM


I've seen this line of questioning before. The first light bulb was dim as hell. Imagine if people judged the technology and dismissed it off hand because the prototype was too dim for practical use. We'd still be using candles at night. So, instead of focusing on how dim the prototype light bulb was, instead try to see that there was light without fire.
If someone was genuinely curious about, say, how big of a room your newly invented dim light bulb could fill with light, how could they ask the question without a guy like you seeing that as impeding the progress of the technology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Taz, posted 08-13-2014 9:35 AM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024