XPost: rec.arts.sf.misc   
   From: j.clarke.873638@gmail.com   
      
   In article , chakatfirepaw@gmail.com says...   
   >   
   > On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 08:30:16 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:   
   >   
   > > In article , chakatfirepaw@gmail.com says...   
   > >>   
   > >> On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:07:57 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> > In article , chakatfirepaw@gmail.com   
   > >> > says...   
   >   
   > >> >> Note that I was specifically referring to the power efficiency,   
   > >> >> (an ideal photon drive requires 300MW/N, the claimed figure for the   
   > >> >> EM Drive is about 1GW/N).   
   > >> >   
   > >> > And how much does kerosene require per newton?   
   > >>   
   > >> On the order of 3kW/N.   
   > >   
   > > So what's wrong with this picture?   
   >   
   > Nothing, power efficiency is a comparison between the power required to   
   > actually get a certain thrust and an ideal drive with the same specific   
   > impulse.  Ideal chemical drives top out at about 5kW/N, but that's   
   > because their specific impulse sucks, (500s at best).   
   >   
   > Meanwhile, photon drives have a specific impulse of 30,559,884s.   
      
   You remind me of the fellow who was criticizing phonics on a commercial   
   a while back.  He correctly read a sentence from a book but then   
   complained "I don't know what it means".   
      
   You are trying so hard to miss the point that this discussion has become   
   a huge waste of time.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)