It’s Official: NASA’s Physics Defying EM Drive Just Passed Peer Review

“The accumulation can be additive at an increasing rate .”

Additive accumulation of displacement at a constant rate would be constant speed, and additive accumulation of displacement which is INCREASING at a constant rate is constant acceleration.

As well, you might have acceleration increasing with time which might give some displacement polynomial in time. So, there’s nothing about the quoted phrase which implies exponential increase, and I’m saying that constant acceleration satisfies the sense of it, in terms of displacement.

Exponential increase is defined uniquely by a rate of increase of a quantity which is proportional to the quantity itself.

I was contrasting ““Additive accumulation of displacement at a constant rate ...” with the quoted phrase, as a starting point you see, describing constant speed, in contrast to “additive accumulation of displacement at an increasing rate” which aptly describes constant acceleration.

Increasing rate is not the same as constant rate.

The original #85:
“The accumulation can be additive at an increasing rate resulting in an exponential yield.”

Nothing was mentioned of displacement or constant acceleration. Thrust is not the same as displacement. Increasing rate may also refer to increasing acceleration. The descriptor ‘increasing rate’ is more general than constant rate or constant acceleration.

The remarks were made to counter a potential misunderstanding that a minuscule thrust yield per power input rendered the development much ado about nothing.

The remarks made the point that small yields in thrust could be additive at an increasing rate similar to neutron flux chain reactions to yield exponential energy yield from small mass defect calculations.

For the untrained person, the discussion can talk about scaling up from a small amount, that the discovery of a very small amount of something valuable is significant because the process can be scaled up; it is scalable. Hence, one shouldn’t be misled to believe the discovery is not worthy of further development.

Well, the claim as stated, “The accumulation can be additive at an increasing rate resulting in an exponential yield.” is unscientific in my estimation, lacking any sort of model that would say this rate of increase is proportional to the accumulated “yield”, whatever that means, and without such a model, there is no basis for calling this yield “exponential.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.