swansont

The total output is 40 MW, but only about ~27 MW could be used; ~13 MW is carries away by neutrons And using any of that 27 MW would likely be counterproductive, since it would tend to cool the plasma down, requiring more input.

The US used to mandate draft registration (still does) and military service if your number came up. Seems to me putting yourself in harm’s way in service of your country would get more pushback than efforts to protect you, but this is where we are, I guess.

That would be dissipated from the system, yes. It’s the energy generated from fusion. From the link I found, you’d retain about 20% of that 16 MW. The neutron losses are presumably because tritium is used

I'm not following the math here How does 16 MW output produce 50 MW of waste heat? I don't think you are doing a proper accounting of the energy here. https://www.euro-fusion.org/faq/top-twenty-faq/how-much-power-is-needed-to-start-the-reactor-and-to-keep-it-working/ The power required to keep a reactor working is an interesting question. Energy input is required to keep the plasma hot, because most of the energy produced by fusion is carried away by the neutrons. However 20% is carried by the helium nuclei, which remain within the plasma, so it is possible to reach a point called ignition, at which the production of hot helium is enough to sustain the plasma and the external energy sources can be turned off. It is not clear yet however whether that will be the optimum operating regime in a power plant – being slightly below ignition may give better control of the reactor (while still producing plenty of hot neutrons). So the 16 MW output is mostly radiated away as neutrons - largely unrecoverable, and also a problem* There's no electricity produced anywhere in this process. They haven't gotten to the point of a self-sustaining reaction, where you can turn off the input thermal energy, because (from the numbers above) you'd need to generate ~120 MW for that to happen. And you need to generate more if you want to start siphoning some off to generate electricity. *fusion is sometimes touted as being clean, radiation-wise. The fuel itself will not be more radioactive, which is a leg up on fission, but these neutrons will activate the containment vessel. Yes. This is another issue not accounted for in the math. Q=1 would be a PR milestone, but not an indication that fusion power is around the corner.

I don't think this a matter of "forgetting" human rights. Governments have to be empowered to enforce isolation or even just mask mandates, and then have the fortitude to carry out the required actions, childish public reactions be damned. edit: this requires that they listen to the scientists, even when this means updating the response in light of new information.

That's why I specified sustained. But similarly, scientists have successfully done steps that would be involved in creating life. It's just a matter of time.

Same is true of sustained nuclear fusion, but that's happening all over the place The feasibility is debatable and that just kicks the can down the road about life starting.

How hard is it? We have one data point for life getting started on a planet with liquid water, and there is life. How does one extrapolate that to get a level of difficulty?

Not enough info. Does “Atoms from a person’s body” include air atoms that one has inhaled/exhaled? What counts as an atom being “in your body”? Does frequent contact include swapping bodily fluids (i.e. sex)?

! Moderator Note It's preferred that you have one topic per thread, so that followup discussion can be kept straight. (it would also avoid the jumbling of the links that has occurred, and which I have been unable to fix)

Photons weren't a part of physics back then anyway; Einstein had only submitted the photoelectric effect paper a few months prior to his SR paper, and the quantum nature of light didn't become mainstream physics until a bit later. Nothing in SR is dependent on light having a quantum nature.

This is a more succinct way of presenting it. You can argue whether it's the same photon but ultimately it becomes this set of questions, which are more philosophy (or zen koan) than physics. The physics part is that photons are bosons, so you can create as many as you want, and destroy them all, as long as you follow the other rules (i.e. conservation laws)

Feel free to discuss that in another thread It's from point A to point B. Where the photon started to where it ends up. It doesn't matter. If both of them move the same amount, the interval remains the same. It's only motion relative to each other that would change anything. And none of that matters, as these motions are, to a very good approximation, inertial. No way to tell. There's a good argument that it's a different photon, because a photon ceases to exist when it's absorbed. Why does this matter? Because it's not. You can choose to use it for convenience, but there isn't any physics that tells you the earth is at rest (considering only inertial motion) and all other objects are moving. Your stance isn't even consistent. You acknowledge that the earth is moving, so how can its location be unique? And, to ask yet again, what experiment would show that the earth is at absolute rest?

You don't get to do this in a discussion of relativity. You have to establish this as true before you can do anything else, if you are arguing from some other model to work. You are claiming there is no choice in terms of a reference frame. An absolute frame requires you can measure your motion with respect to it. How do you tell if you are the one that's moving? It depends on the experiment. They are from relative motion, as you admit, so how are they evidence of an absolute frame?

You can have a box with a mass inside and if you shift the mass, the box will move. The center of mass will remain fixed, so momentum is conserved. The box will never move more than its length, though, because the CoM is located inside. Which is why I asked about details of these thrust measurements, and which I've noticed have not been answered.

No, that's not quite right. The number is a measure of how isotropic you can say the universe is, limited by experimental error. The universe could be even more isotropic than that, but we can't tell, because of limitations of the experiment. It is different from claiming that the universe is anisotropic at that level. That is the best-case scenario (or worst case, depending on how you look at it), but nobody is claiming that this is the actual anisotropy IOW, the error bars include zero. It's entirely different, and erroneous, to argue that they exclude zero.

No, the ether was abandoned when it failed to predict the behavior observed in the Michelson-Morley experiment. It was disproved.

Is this your question, or do you have a question about physics? I don't see one. I'm not sure what the point of posting code is.

That's quite the space heater you've got. How hot does your device get? What kind of temperature gradient is there? My guess that you could just be heating the air is still in play. You admit the mass and power input has changed, so this is not entirely accurate. I agree. If the OP is looking for validation, they aren't going to get it, and not enough information is provided to find out what is actually going on. Add to that the fact that they are ignoring certain questions. I'm not sure what the point of discussion is. If the OP is looking for pointers on how to better test this device, one step would be to test it in a vacuum.

How do you know this? Surely there are sightings that are a “trick of the light” All UFO sightings show up on radar? There’s not enough evidence, but that cuts both ways. There’s also not enough evidence to draw other conclusions as well, and yet some are willing to do so. But as the label indicates, these are unidentified objects/unexplained phenomena That’s flawed reasoning. There will always be unexplained phenomena. That doesn’t mean they violate the laws of physics. You seem to be equating UAPs with aliens, and that’s not what UAP means. It means the phenomenon is unexplained. I agree there are issues with the video, but I’m curious as to what you think he got wrong.

The shots carry momentum, so for this analogy to be applied, one must account for the thrust imparted by the gun recoil. Which will account for the momentum of the turkeys that got blasted out of the air.

This is pathetic, to be honest. Northern lights come from charged particles accelerating - that's where the matter is: the particles. The magnetic field is there even when the northern lights aren't. Similarly, whatever is levitating is where the matter is. Not the magnetic field.

I agree, but we also know it doesn't work as advertised. And there's the issue of someone who is not well-versed in physics who is also simultaneously insisting on what the important physics concepts are. For all we know, the device works by heating the air around it, and it's able to direct the heated air in one direction, causing the box to recoil.

It may be that you haven't studied the concept of center of mass yet. But that's not necessary in order to solve the problem

In terms of thrust, and in terms of it being a transient at best, momentum is the key. Energy is a red herring. Unless the OP is more forthcoming about the device, I fear we are at an impasse. It will not work as described, and since we know the physics involved, it means the description is lacking - if it works. But we don't actually know this. We don't have a picture, or a video of a working device. Inclusion of these would not preclude chicanery, of course.