exchemist

OK I understand. But they are not in 2 locations. Each observer sees them in only one location. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that one can somehow stand outside this scenario and see both at once, or that these observers are seeing two different "distortions" of some "true" version. A system always has to be analysed from one frame of reference or another. You can do QM in either reference frame and in neither of them will any superposition arise. But you can't do QM in some imaginary space that stands outside reality and can see both perspectives at once.

For each observer all lengths, along the direction of relative motion, are affected equally. If we call it the x direction and say it is foreshortened for one observer, compared to the other, then it means that wherever x appears in the wave equation x is shorter. So the probability cloud of the particle is foreshortened, etc. Hence it does not cause anything to "overlap" that was not overlapping before. Quantum superposition, however, does not in any case refer to particles physically overlapping one another. That requires another discussion.

I suppose that, to be fair, an initial Q factor of 10 to break even would start dropping as the power of the thing increased. I would expect the power absorbed by all the ancillary systems to become less, as a proportion of the total, as the power output increases. But I still miss any serious discussion of how a practical power extraction and generation system would be designed. Would it be by intercepting the neutrons in some moderator shell construction, surrounding the torus, that gets hot, and raising steam from that? Or would it be by intercepting radiant heat emitted by the plasma itself ? If the latter, how, given that the torus is surrounded by (I think?) superconducting magnets that have to kept very cold? Do you have any idea? It sounds to me like a difficult engineering challenge.

No, the link I provided was mainly focused on ITER and confirms the number for JET. So it's about tokamaks. But it does seem that the numbers for inertial confinement systems are even worse. Tell me, how does the heat exchange from this plasma to a steam boiler work? Has anyone produced a design yet for this? I don't think I've seen any steam pipes anywhere, wrapped around the torus, in any of the tokamak designs, but I don't pretend to have followed it all very closely. The torus seems to be festooned in magnets and cables in every picture I've seen.

Yes. And as far as I am aware, little to no work has yet been done on how to get the energy out of the plasma, once it exceeds break-even. So it seems to me there is a hell of along way to go. Here is one link that goes into it. https://whyy.org/segments/fusion-energy/ The energy you actually input to the plasma is only a fraction of the energy needed to drive all the systems at the facility. And then the energy output from the plasma goes through various lossy processes, including a Carnot efficiency factor (<50%) in the steam turbine or whatever heat engine is used to convert heat to electricity. According to this article, to break even and become a net provider of electricity to the grid, you will need a Q factor of around 10. With laser "inertial confinement" systems it is even worse, apparently. (The article also corroborates @Prometheus's figure of 0.01 (1%) for JET.)

On what basis do you welcome us? You've only just joined. And who is "we", please?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "peer-reviewed" in this case. Peer review is a process carried out when a piece of research is written up and submitted for publication, to make sure the research is sound and properly explained. In your case, you haven't written up or otherwise dlsclosed the details of your device, as you don't want to put it into the public domain. So how can anyone review it? You seem, rather, to be inviting the people here to just agree with you that it is possible to have a reactionless thruster, when on the face of it it isn't. Obviously we are not going to do that. Hence the scepticism about your claims and the attempts to guess at what is really going on in your device. I don't see any way out of the dilemma. Nobody can review a black box. Which is why, instead, I have been trying to dispel some of the misconceptions you seem to have about the physics of the setup, without asking you to reveal too many details. I am willing to carry on with that, as there are some issues left dangling at the moment. If you want to abandon that discussion then fair enough, but I think the responses you are going to get anywhere else will be similar to those here.

@Aquatek, I've answered your 3 questions and explained that momentum is conserved in inelastic collisions. Are you intending to respond, to explain why you asked me those questions?

My use of the term "addendum", in the 4th post of this thread, was qualified to make clear it was not intended to signify something added algebraically. Let's not descend to word games.

Why not make it a dwarf-throwing contest, to get some of that true Antipodean flavour?

Shall we see how many posts we can generate on this fascinating topic? 😃 Exactly. But it's just not how I have generally thought about it, given that we tend to use algebraic expressions without units until we have a specific application for them.

As an addendum, in the form of a piece of explanatory text, rather than as part of the algebraic expression. This I think is how most people see them. But logically you must be right, I think.

Oh I'm not complaining about him. He was a good tutor and still remembers me when I show up for college functions. I remember once I was reading a book about electron spin resonance and querying something I didn't understand, which also baffled him, so he picked up the phone and just rang the author (a don at another college) - and got the answer on the spot! I thought that was pretty cool. By the way, nothing gay about him: he even tried to get my then girlfriend into bed, at one point....(it was the 70s)

Bye bye Theorist, Amber, Tyler Shaw, Spencer 666, TheBrokenSoul, Sustainer, James Blunt, etc., etc., etc. Until next time, eh? 😉

I remember one physical chemistry tutorial in which white rum (!) was broached at about 3pm and I staggered out of the door at 7, to get my gown for dinner, and really had to concentrate quite hard not to bump into either of the doorposts, thinking : "left a bit, right a bit, right a bit more, no right you fool, steady.........." etc. But that tutor was notorious. And it was the 70s: things will be more strait-laced now. He's still alive, amazingly, after all that liver abuse.

Especially when it comes to the drink involved...................🙂 Well, only sometimes.

Sure. Or if there is an electrical coil, it may be that means vibration makes it move or something. (I think we had one of those a while back.) That's why I'm all the more keen to get this momentum aspect brought to a head. At this time of year it seems to be traditional for someone to pop up with a perpetual motion machine, a free energy device or some other thing that is claimed to break the laws of physics. I tend to regard straightening these out as a sort of Christmas puzzle.

Well, I can understand someone who thinks he has invented something not wanting to share all the details. I think we can get further by focusing on momentum. I've come across people before who have proposed impossible things because they have a blind spot about some aspect of basic physics, whether it be the 2nd Law of TD or, in one memorable case, someone who simply did not believe in the conservation of angular momentum. Anyway, I am keen to see @Aquatek's response to my last post. Perhaps this will smoke out his attitude to momentum in his device.

Yes, I think our poster has been looking at it from the viewpoint of energy rather than momentum. This may have led him to overlook some aspects.

Aha I see. So you have a working fluid, in effect, that is recycled, being accelerated by the thruster and then decelerated, 3/4 by the KE converter and 1/4 by the right hand wall of the box. So that deals with my query about the box blowing up. Fair enough. A word about Inelastic collisions: these do not conserve kinetic energy, because they convert some of it to heat. However they do conserve momentum. This is why your idea that the KE converter experiences no force from the exhaust it intercepts can't be correct. I am not sure your 3 questions are very relevant to this issue, but maybe you will explain why you think they are if I answer. So here goes: 1) total momentum of the ball + box system before the collision is m1v1 +m2v2 = 1x10 + 1x0 = 10kgm/sec, in the direction of motion of the ball (momentum is a vector). This is conserved during the collision, whether elastic or not. If the ball sticks to the box, then after the collision we have one mass of 2kg, still with a momentum of 10kgm/sec. So v = 5m/sec, still in the direction of motion of the ball. (Note, in passing, that the kinetic energy of the system has decreased from 50J to 25J, so 25J have been converted to heat). 2) if the ball is 3kg and the box still 1kg then total momentum before is 3x 3.333 +1x0 ~10kgm/sec, in the direction of the ball. After the collision we have a single 4kg mass. So v =10/4 = 2.5m/sec, again in the direction of motion of the ball. 3) Initial momentum is zero so this is conserved after the throw, i.e. 100xv1 +100xv2=0. Therefore v2 = -v1. So if v1 = 10m/sec for the ball then you recoil at v2= -10m/sec, in other words at 10m/sec in the direction opposite to that of the motion of the ball. What light does that shed on the problem of your thruster setup?

Correction: F=ma

Thanks for the responses. From your answer to the first question I have the feeling the K E converter must be converting the exhaust stream via a phase change of some kind, to avoid the thing blowing up. But no matter, the important thing is you are saying there is nothing leaving the box, so we can rule out anything leaving it possessing residual momentum. Regarding the second question, you say this KE converter stands directly in the exhaust stream, reduces its momentum to a quarter of what it was, and yet does not experience any force from the gas it intercepts. That, I am afraid, is just not credible. Even if, as I now suspect, the converter carries out some kind of phase change (condenses gas to liquid, converts a stream of electrons to electric current, or even absorbs 3/4 of a beam of "exhaust" light) the momentum of the intercepted exhaust will exert a force on it: F = d(mv)/dt.

Yes, in a way I suppose they are, though I had never thought about it like that.

It is certainly a poster previously banned, on numerous occasions, from several other forums I belong to. However I don't know if he has history here.

No, kinetic energy would not be lost due to the phase change. The phase change would release Latent Heat, that's all, though the volume reduction would allow a sealed system to run a bit longer before blowing up or splitting from the accumulated water inside. I do not see why you can't confirm: (1) whether or not the exhaust intercepted by the KE converter leaves the box, and (2) whether, if you put the KE converter on castors, you would expect it to move or not. Neither of those things involves disclosing anything material regarding your invention. If you can answer these questions then I think we will be making progress in analysing the system correctly. Because as it stands, it looks nuts. I agree with @swansont that the key to the analysis is momentum rather than energy, which is why I am asking these two questions.