Thursday, September 21, 2006
The Relativity Drive
I'm a sucker for impossible stories. If we aren't willing to believe anything that turns out to be impossible, then we'll never allow ourselves to imagine what really is possible - such as that too much artificial light can cause breast cancer.
But, just when I thought my own site that discusses that and more, photoperiodeffect.com might be the strangest news story of the year, or maybe the decade (since I'm saying that most chronic illnesses, and its a long list, are caused by prolonged use of artificial light); I read what really must surely be the strangest news story of the decade, and it comes from the highly respected New Scientist magazine which reports that the drive has been prototyped, tested, and supposedly, it works!?
The drive described below doesn't conserve momentum, in any way that I can discern. That's not right. Is the Universe a larger system than we think? I hope it works (I was cheering for telegraphy, too) but seriously, if you can't bet on Newton's Laws, just what sort of bar bet can't a person lose?
Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?
- New Scientist, 8 September 2006, by Justin Mullins, issue 2568
"Traditional forms of transport are just so last century. New Scientist meets the man who would replace them with pure radiation
....
Roger Shawyer has developed an engine with no moving parts that he believes can replace rockets and make trains, planes and automobiles obsolete. "The end of wings and wheels" is how he puts it. It's a bold claim. Read Shawyer’s theory paper here (pdf format)." http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19125681.400-relativity-drive-the-end-of-wings-and-wheels.html
That last link is just a stub article, but there's more at Wikipedia, under the title of EmDrive. Typical of Wikipedia, because it's exciting, it's recommended for deletion, of course. Another article is at Eureka. The inventor's rather spare site is emdrive.com and I'm guessing he might not be thrilled that I bought relativitydrive.com and .org today.
Quoting from Shawyer's Paper: "The technique described in this paper uses radiation pressure, at microwave frequencies, in an engine which provides direct conversion from microwave energy to thrust, without the need for propellant.
The concept of the microwave engine is illustrated in fig 1. Microwave energy is fed from a magnetron, via a tuned feed to a closed, tapered waveguide, whose overall electrical length gives resonance at the operating frequency of the magnetron."
But I can't help thinking that it might be made more efficient, by using baffles in the interior of the chamber (I may be wrong about this, my Relativity is rusty at best, and it isn't easy to test in your own garage, since the forces involved are small.) The diagram below is meant to be a cross-section showing a baffle arrangement that might (or might not) help. Below is another diagram of a different arrangement that might be a better bet. Anybody want to be the first on their block to have a share in a Relativity Drive Improvement patent? Oh, come on...
Or better:
Of course, because resonance is key, the size of the baffles might have to be exactly half the proportions of the chamber, and you might then have to halve the wavelength to get thrust from both baffles and chamber. This is vaguely similar to using overtones when singing, perhaps, and other resonance phenomena. Or maybe baffles just can't work.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm vastly surprised even that such a thing as an EmDrive (or Relativity Drive) MIGHT work, if that's so. But it ain't April and it's in New Scientist. They aren't easy to hoax. The British government is funding it, based on an independent evaluation of the effect.
So how does anyone judge the truth of news stories as bizarre as the Photoperiod Effect or a Relativity Drive? I suppose, the same way we evaluated the telephone, telegraph, airplane, nuclear bombs, etc. If it works it works. Likewise if more darkness helps your diabetes, why then it does. Still, Newton's Laws predate even Newton...
Who wants to live in a world without surprises, anyway? Even if the story's false, it's good mental exercise to take Lewis Carol's advice and try to believe four or five impossible things before breakfast.
But, just when I thought my own site that discusses that and more, photoperiodeffect.com might be the strangest news story of the year, or maybe the decade (since I'm saying that most chronic illnesses, and its a long list, are caused by prolonged use of artificial light); I read what really must surely be the strangest news story of the decade, and it comes from the highly respected New Scientist magazine which reports that the drive has been prototyped, tested, and supposedly, it works!?
The drive described below doesn't conserve momentum, in any way that I can discern. That's not right. Is the Universe a larger system than we think? I hope it works (I was cheering for telegraphy, too) but seriously, if you can't bet on Newton's Laws, just what sort of bar bet can't a person lose?
Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?
- New Scientist, 8 September 2006, by Justin Mullins, issue 2568
"Traditional forms of transport are just so last century. New Scientist meets the man who would replace them with pure radiation
....
Roger Shawyer has developed an engine with no moving parts that he believes can replace rockets and make trains, planes and automobiles obsolete. "The end of wings and wheels" is how he puts it. It's a bold claim. Read Shawyer’s theory paper here (pdf format)." http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19125681.400-relativity-drive-the-end-of-wings-and-wheels.html
That last link is just a stub article, but there's more at Wikipedia, under the title of EmDrive. Typical of Wikipedia, because it's exciting, it's recommended for deletion, of course. Another article is at Eureka. The inventor's rather spare site is emdrive.com and I'm guessing he might not be thrilled that I bought relativitydrive.com and .org today.
Quoting from Shawyer's Paper: "The technique described in this paper uses radiation pressure, at microwave frequencies, in an engine which provides direct conversion from microwave energy to thrust, without the need for propellant.
The concept of the microwave engine is illustrated in fig 1. Microwave energy is fed from a magnetron, via a tuned feed to a closed, tapered waveguide, whose overall electrical length gives resonance at the operating frequency of the magnetron."
But I can't help thinking that it might be made more efficient, by using baffles in the interior of the chamber (I may be wrong about this, my Relativity is rusty at best, and it isn't easy to test in your own garage, since the forces involved are small.) The diagram below is meant to be a cross-section showing a baffle arrangement that might (or might not) help. Below is another diagram of a different arrangement that might be a better bet. Anybody want to be the first on their block to have a share in a Relativity Drive Improvement patent? Oh, come on...
Or better:
Of course, because resonance is key, the size of the baffles might have to be exactly half the proportions of the chamber, and you might then have to halve the wavelength to get thrust from both baffles and chamber. This is vaguely similar to using overtones when singing, perhaps, and other resonance phenomena. Or maybe baffles just can't work.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm vastly surprised even that such a thing as an EmDrive (or Relativity Drive) MIGHT work, if that's so. But it ain't April and it's in New Scientist. They aren't easy to hoax. The British government is funding it, based on an independent evaluation of the effect.
So how does anyone judge the truth of news stories as bizarre as the Photoperiod Effect or a Relativity Drive? I suppose, the same way we evaluated the telephone, telegraph, airplane, nuclear bombs, etc. If it works it works. Likewise if more darkness helps your diabetes, why then it does. Still, Newton's Laws predate even Newton...
Who wants to live in a world without surprises, anyway? Even if the story's false, it's good mental exercise to take Lewis Carol's advice and try to believe four or five impossible things before breakfast.
