So if the inertia varies within the cavity then what is to prevent a Dean drive from working like depicted in the attached sketch? Apart from interference effects.In words, the mass rotates around a central support with high inertia at the bottom and low inertia at the top pulling the whole attached cavity downward by centrifugal force. Of course a spinning flywheel would work just as well, better in fact, but the blob of mass is easier to visualize.
Quote from: aero on 10/09/2014 05:36 pmSo if the inertia varies within the cavity then what is to prevent a Dean drive from working like depicted in the attached sketch? Apart from interference effects.In words, the mass rotates around a central support with high inertia at the bottom and low inertia at the top pulling the whole attached cavity downward by centrifugal force. Of course a spinning flywheel would work just as well, better in fact, but the blob of mass is easier to visualize.I think that wouldn't move it would oscillate on the table. By virtue of the string, conservation of angular momentum. At least emdrive heats the cavity unevenly by virtue of its uneven particle momentums.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/09/2014 06:06 pmQuote from: aero on 10/09/2014 05:36 pmSo if the inertia varies within the cavity then what is to prevent a Dean drive from working like depicted in the attached sketch? Apart from interference effects.In words, the mass rotates around a central support with high inertia at the bottom and low inertia at the top pulling the whole attached cavity downward by centrifugal force. Of course a spinning flywheel would work just as well, better in fact, but the blob of mass is easier to visualize.I think that wouldn't move it would oscillate on the table. By virtue of the string, conservation of angular momentum. At least emdrive heats the cavity unevenly by virtue of its uneven particle momentums.That is the way it would work without the variable inertia.Fc = (inertial mass)*w^2/r. If inertial mass varies with all else fixed, then force varies.
I have to accept the risk of coming up with borderline crackpot sounding ideas that make me look bad. But that is what is required to explain new info like the emdrive.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/09/2014 06:11 pmI have to accept the risk of coming up with borderline crackpot sounding ideas that make me look bad. But that is what is required to explain new info like the emdrive.Quote Quoting @Ron" Given it contradicts Einstein and what we have good reason to suppose is true (EEP and GR), I can't say I think this is going to be a fruitful line of inquiry."
Quoting @Ron" Given it contradicts Einstein and what we have good reason to suppose is true (EEP and GR), I can't say I think this is going to be a fruitful line of inquiry."
Question:Can anyone provide any insight to how the dielectric material in the device (seems to) function like a quantum rocket nozzle? I posted some stuff earlier about momentum transfer to virtual particles for clarity. It mentioned chirality, which is what I've been going on about for days now.The dielectric seems as important to the emdrive, as a nozzle is to a chemical rocket.http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990
Well the reason why I've been going on about this is that, as I've mentioned, the QED vacuum is diamagnetic. A refresher about diamagnetism is that diamagnetic materials create an induced magnetic field in a direction opposite to an externally applied magnetic field. This knowledge, combined with the ideas in the paper above, excite me.Assuming a properly oriented PTFE slug in the presence of an rf field who's poynting vector is in the direction of magnetic energy flow (not electrical), combined with knowing the QED vacuum is diamagnetic; I see thrust. Hasty generalization? Faulty reasoning? Or a lead?http://books.google.it/books?id=n51yJr4b_oQC&pg=PA26&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=falseA very small thrust, in the presence of modified inertia+continuous acceleration=Bingo?
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/09/2014 07:48 pmWell the reason why I've been going on about this is that, as I've mentioned, the QED vacuum is diamagnetic. A refresher about diamagnetism is that diamagnetic materials create an induced magnetic field in a direction opposite to an externally applied magnetic field. This knowledge, combined with the ideas in the paper above, excite me.Assuming a properly oriented PTFE slug in the presence of an rf field who's poynting vector is in the direction of magnetic energy flow (not electrical), combined with knowing the QED vacuum is diamagnetic; I see thrust. Hasty generalization? Faulty reasoning? Or a lead?http://books.google.it/books?id=n51yJr4b_oQC&pg=PA26&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=falseA very small thrust, in the presence of modified inertia+continuous acceleration=Bingo?Well, water is weakly diamagnetic too. Let's say one immerses a (EM drive with a PTFE slug) submarine inside the water. Would you expect directional propulsion of the submarine from the diamagnetism of the water surrounding it?
Quote from: Rodal on 10/09/2014 08:53 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/09/2014 07:48 pmWell the reason why I've been going on about this is that, as I've mentioned, the QED vacuum is diamagnetic. A refresher about diamagnetism is that diamagnetic materials create an induced magnetic field in a direction opposite to an externally applied magnetic field. This knowledge, combined with the ideas in the paper above, excite me.Assuming a properly oriented PTFE slug in the presence of an rf field who's poynting vector is in the direction of magnetic energy flow (not electrical), combined with knowing the QED vacuum is diamagnetic; I see thrust. Hasty generalization? Faulty reasoning? Or a lead?http://books.google.it/books?id=n51yJr4b_oQC&pg=PA26&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=falseA very small thrust, in the presence of modified inertia+continuous acceleration=Bingo?Well, water is weakly diamagnetic too. Let's say one immerses a (EM drive with a PTFE slug) submarine inside the water. Would you expect directional propulsion of the submarine from the diamagnetism of the water surrounding it?What I would expect is a hydrophobic effect: the water will be repelled away from the magnetic surfaces
For the sake of personal clarification, what is the expected impact of increasing or decreasing the tapering of the resonance cavity frustum?
If you grok those equations that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole then kudos, can't say more.Then maybe you can say what 'a' and 'k' stand for in this apparently relevant paper :QuoteThus, again we can identify cs = k/(2ma) as an effective sound speed of the axion fluid.Well, k is the wave number and a is a coefficient (where I would have just used 1/2 as in the simpleminded "perfect" superconducting cavity case)Great ref by the by. If I can grok it at all it says I should be able to write a 3 PD set of equations for the EM cavity and insert coefficients for a viscous term using the equation of state they give. But, it still looks like the sound speed, etc., has to be experimentally determined from the axion mass. (the 300m/s was the assumption to get a power figure as an example)And NO, I'm not promising I CAN write those equations (and solve them with the boundary conditions), but I have been in that situation in the dim, very dark past.
Thus, again we can identify cs = k/(2ma) as an effective sound speed of the axion fluid.