[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: DotarSojat@aol.com, stevev@efn.org*Subject*: Re: starship-design: Motion of sail driven by constant-power beam*From*: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)*Date*: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 19:38:45 +0100

Hello Rex, At 9/11 you wrote: >DERIVATION > >For a power, Pe, sent out by an emitter, the power received by >a sail (ignoring inverse-square effects) that is receding at an >apparent velocity, beta lt-yr/yr, is > Pr = Pe * sqrt[(1 - beta)/(1 + beta)] > ....Doppler shift > = Pe * gamma * (1 - beta) > ....gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - beta^2) > = Pe * [cosh(theta) - sinh(theta)] > ....gamma = cosh(theta); beta = tanh(theta) > (definition of velocity parameter, theta) > = Pe * exp(-theta) > ....using exp forms of hyp functions. > >(I believe this relation, with theta = a * t' for constant a, is >the source of the logarithmic time dependence introduced by Steve >in his email of 8/20 to the Group.) But why do you believe that? Steve's results are not related to the red-shift, they are based on the signal travel time, which increases exponentially with the trip-time. Am I right to say that during constant acceleration not only the energy of the photons, but also the amount of photons decreases? Steve's calculations pointed to the amount (density) of photons, while yours seem to point only to their energy. Timothy

- Prev by Date:
**Re: (Re:)^4 starship-design: The Size of the Problem** - Next by Date:
**Doppler effect** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Mistake** - Next by thread:
**Doppler effect** - Index(es):