Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5  (Read 778526 times)

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • California
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 365
Interesting 1U CubeSat 10mN hot gas thruster form factor and performance profile:
http://www.busek.com/index_htm_files/70008518B.pdf

Now imagine a X band 10cm dia x 10cm long frustum installed in that 1U form factor.

What dimensions would a 10.2 GHz fustrum have?   Does the theory or experimental evidence say higher frequencies are better, aside from the smaller size?
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 03:54 AM by zen-in »

Offline TheTraveller

Interesting 1U CubeSat 10mN hot gas thruster form factor and performance profile:
http://www.busek.com/index_htm_files/70008518B.pdf

Now imagine a X band 10cm dia x 10cm long frustum installed in that 1U form factor.

What dimensions would a 10.2 GHz fustrum have?   Does the theory or experimental evidence say higher frequencies are better, aside from the smaller size?

Is it about resonance, unloaded Q (basically 2x Shawyer method measured loaded Q), Df (Shawyers frustum dimension driven Design Factor) and Rf power level.

Force = (2 Qunloaded Df P) / c

Higher freq means smaller frustums (driven by smaller guide wavelength) and higher potential issue with microwave "Black Magic".

Frustum dimensions are driven by Df, excitation mode and external frequency. For sure the external freq must be able to dynamically track the frustum's centre resonant freq or there will be little Force generated.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 04:07 AM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
.../...
Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March

Paul, thank you for posting news (within the constraints).

Following one of the aspect of the sensitivity of the experiment to cg shifts (discussed previously before the "black out") : do you still need a slight tilt (wrt strict verticality) of the axis of rotation of the TP's arm to have a stable rest position ? What else could be the cause for this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem that seems to indicate a measurement coupling directly proportional to temperature ?

The dynamic recoil of a part's mass accelerating (relative to fixation on TP's arm) under effect of thermal dilatation could hardly "shift" rest position at levels of 100µN for more than a few seconds. For instance a 1kg part would have to accelerate at 10-4 m/s˛, after 10s this would be a huge 5mm move. I am under the impression that a horizontal pendulum with strict verticality of axis of rotation (i.e. where there is no change in altitude of the test article when the arm rotates) should be sensitive only to such "dynamic recoils" effects, relatively easy to tame and filter out because proportional to second derivative (wrt time) of temperature.

Also, rules permitting, can you tell us if you have done new tests without dielectric inserts, and if yes if those tests are still yielding no measurable effect as for the previous experimental campaign at EW (Brady report 2014 and later follow-up by you on this forum) ?


Frobnicat:

I'm already pushing the permissible disclosure envelop I'm working under, but I think I can tell you that yes we are still using the slight down angle on the TP arm to stabilize the zero-force baseline.  As to the origins of the torque pendulum's cg shift induced zero force baseline drift it's simply due to the thermal expansion driven mass movements of the 2.6 kg copper frustum with 2 PE discs in one direction, and the thermally driven expansion of the 6.7 kg aluminum PLL box, RF amplifier, its heat sink and dual directional coupler in the opposite direction because they are now mounted to each other back-to-back with the test article to TP mount in the middle.  And since the ~30% efficient 100W RF amplifier is dumping 70% of its 28Vdc input power as heat into itself and its heat sink, verses the 30% going into the copper frustum via its RF output when optimally Z-matched, the aluminum bits expand more than the copper bits and have more affect on the TP system cg for a given delta T due to it being 2.57 times more massive, thus you get a NET cg induced zero force baseline drift in the aluminum's thermal expansion direction proportional to these NET thermal expansion induced mass movements over time even if we are only talking tens of microns cg mass movements.  Past that, wait for the peer reviewed paper that should be out on the street sometime during the first half of next year.

As to testing a frustum without a dielectric, we have tested this configuration in an aluminum frustum on a new teeter-totter balance using hundreds of watts of 2.45 GHz RF power, and we MAY have observed a non-zero thrust results while in-air.  Past that, you'll have to wait for the peer reviewed test report on this topic after the copper frustum test report is published.

Best, Paul M.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 04:15 AM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline TheTraveller

As to testing a frustum without a dielectric, we have tested this configuration in an aluminum frustum on a new teeter-totter balance using hundreds of watts of 2.45 GHz RF power, and we MAY have observed a non-zero thrust results while in-air.  Past that, you'll have to wait for the peer reviewed test report on this topic after the copper frustum test report is published.

Best, Paul M.

Paul,

Are the alum frustum internal dimensions the same as the copper one? If not, can you share the alum frustum dimensions plus what mode do you think it was excited in?

Phil
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Vax,

Your 10mN at 35W max input power requirements appears to be doable. Going to pulsed op at upto 50mN seems doable. 3kg is heaps of mass budget. All the electronics would be on one cubesat pcb with the frustum mounted and secured to the 1u modules frame. What g and vibration freq rates will the thruster and mounting system need to be designed to handle?

What are the processes to move forward, what are the precursor qualification requirements and what are the time frames as an overview?

Yes of course I need to do the rotary demo rig. That is a unspoken given requirement. Despite others opinion here, the EMDrive does work and this cubesat thruster is really doable.

It is my intention to start commercial sales of EMDrives, so the cubesat project will be done with commercial sales as the objective. It will be a high quality and high fidelity build.

Traveler:

We looked at using a 3U CubeSat as a means of validating the EmDrive physics, but the cost just for the required parts to build it is still well beyond our current means, even considering that the EW Lab could get a semi-free ride into orbit on one of the ISS resupply runs.  (The ISS can and does launch 3U CubeSats from the ISS Japanese lab module.)  Since you are considering selling CubeSats commercially, have you priced out how much a 3U at 3kg, 6U at 6kg and 12U at 12kg CubeSat would cost to have it put into orbit even using secondary payload status on flights of opportunity? 

I'm curious...

Best, Paul March

Hi Paul,

I'm very confident this is doable:

1) is supplied as a bolt on 1U cubesat propulsion module, with top end thrust, depending on pwr availibility, of around 25mN.

2) single pcb plugs into, powered and controlled by cubesat pcb connector.

3) uses pulse width and duty cycle modulation to achieve wide range of effective thrust upto around 25mN from an integrated 60w X band Rf amp subsystem that has self protection from thermal over temp.

4) real time frustum resonance tracking via lowest VSWR.

5) each thruster unit will be qualified on a rotary test rig, in a min 1 torr vac chamber.

My business model is to build and supply these 1U form factor X band thrusters to clients who wish to fly them as bolt on propulsion modules for their cubesat projects.

It is good to see you active on the forum again.


Phil Wilson

Phil:

You misunderstood my question though I find your current line of CubeSat propulsion cost analysis of interest as well.  What I was trying to ask is do you or anyone else on this forum know how much the orbital launcher companies charge a customer to insert their CubeSats into low Earth Orbit (LEO)?

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
I've been offline for a while, is anything new?

Just joking...hello again Paul. Congrats.

Offline Bob Woods

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Salem, Oregon USA
  • Liked: 330
  • Likes Given: 1055
{snip}
I'm very confident this is doable:

1) totally fits into a standard 1U cubesat frame.
2) single pcb plugs into, powered and controlled by cubesat pcb connector.
3) uses pulse width and duty cycle modulation to achieve wide range of effective thrust upto around 25mN from integrated 60w X band Rf amp subsystem.
4) frustum resonance tracking via real time tracking of lowest VSWR.
5) will be qualified in a rotary 1 torr vac chamber test rig.
6) total mass under 1kg.
7) 1st rotary test before end 1st qtr 2016.

Comments

A second market for EM Drives is RCS for larger satellites. 25mN is low but gives high accuracy. Alternatively "burn" for an entire day.

v = u + a t so t = Δv / a
F = m a so a = F/m
combining t = Δv * m / F

To give a 1 tonne (1000 kg) satellite a delta-v change of 1 m/s
t = 1 * 1000 / 0.025 = 40,000 seconds (or 11.11 hours)

25mN is only limited by Rf amp watts and power supply availability.

Can always end stack the standard 25mN 1U modules for higher acceleration rates & built 3 axis arrays for attitude control.

Like space lego. Only they make the sat move.

My grandson is a Lego genius. Perhaps he may be able to build a Lego habitat om Mars before I pass.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8182
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 107
{snip}
Phil:

You misunderstood my question though I find your current line of CubeSat propulsion cost analysis of interest as well.  What I was trying to ask is do you or anyone else on this forum know how much the orbital launcher companies charge a customer to insert their CubeSats into low Earth Orbit (LEO)?

Best, Paul M.

This 2014 Make: magazine article says about $40,000 to launch a cubesat, presumably a 1U.
http://makezine.com/2014/04/11/your-own-satellite-7-things-to-know-before-you-go

The price will be negotiable since NASA may have a bulk buy scheme, can do many of the inspections in house but could require the launch firm to do expensive extra paperwork.

Online MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 455
  • Likes Given: 53
{snip}
Phil:

You misunderstood my question though I find your current line of CubeSat propulsion cost analysis of interest as well.  What I was trying to ask is do you or anyone else on this forum know how much the orbital launcher companies charge a customer to insert their CubeSats into low Earth Orbit (LEO)?

Best, Paul M.

This 2014 Make: magazine article says about $40,000 to launch a cubesat, presumably a 1U.
http://makezine.com/2014/04/11/your-own-satellite-7-things-to-know-before-you-go

The price will be negotiable since NASA may have a bulk buy scheme, can do many of the inspections in house but could require the launch firm to do expensive extra paperwork.

www.spaceflight.com have a full list of prices.

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 23
Quote
Meberbs:

"Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error."

I concur with your position that Maxwell's Classical E&M can NOT explain the frustum test results we continue to see, because when you sum up ALL of the Maxwell pressure stress tensors in the frustum due to all the E&M fields bouncing around inside the cavity and their interactions with any interior components like the PE discs and the active copper layer in the frustum's end and side walls, the NET force answer has to be ZERO by definition.  In other words classical E&M cannot provide an explanation for conservation of momentum for a closed E&M system that produces a net thrust.
This "negative result" concerning the possibility for the formalism of classical Maxwell equations to predict the net thrust generated by a RF cavity is no more relevant when we consider the incorporation of this formalism in the general relativity context (switch of classical partial derivative to covariant derivative, taking into account of the variable metric tensor, incorporation of the electromagnetic contribution to the energy-momentum tensor, apparition of non-linearity in this generalized formalism and of a coupling between electromagnetism and  gravity).
The fact that both the Einstein equations of the gravitational fields and the Maxwell equations of electromagnetism are, according mathematicians, of hyperbolic type, leads necessarily to the existence of radiative solutions for these equations with both retarded and advanced components to be taken into account.
So it is most probable that the idea that a closed system, such as a RF cavity, can have a behavior totally independant from the remaining whole universe, is certainly a chimera and we cannot exclude that a momentum coupling with the whole causal universe, as investigated by James Woodward on both theoretical and experimental aspects for an electrical capacitor, can exist even for a closed RF cavity.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 11:27 AM by Mezzenile »

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1001
  • Likes Given: 2195
{snip}
At this hf frequencyies the preferred direction of the external EM field changes billions of times every second.
The average force acting on actual (virtual/real) charged particles have to be zero. At time t=0 the field pushes against that particle in a specific direction and after a half wavelength at t=1 the field and therefore the force turns by 180°, while the number of virtual particles remains over the time / is approximately constant.
And the creation of this particles is symmetrically (electron-<> positron+) the field acts on both in different directions, alone on this fact the average force have to be zero.

If I'm complete wrong please let me know.

If you do reverse the electrical field E AS WELL AS the magnetic field B at the same time, then their cross-product the Lorentz Force F is always pointing in the same direction, and accelerate in the same direction both positively charged and negatively charged particles q moving through those fields at a velocity v:

F = q [ E + (v × B) ]

That's the principle of a magnetohydrodynamic drive (liquid metal, salt water or plasma-based) which can work with steady-state or pulsed DC fields, as well as AC fields.

I imagine the electrical and magnetic components of the EM waves in the resonant cavity, and the resulting Poynting vector, act the same way?

The field fluctuates over the time(E>-E; B>-B) and  q is minus for electrons and plus for positrons, right?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentzkraft ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force

Translation of wikipedia(DE)

pic 1 b)
"... When deflection of a particle of charge q in spatially and temporally constant magnetic field as opposed to the deflection in the electric field no work is done, the kinetic energy and therefore the web speed so remain unchanged ..."

pic 1 a) and pic 2
"...Since the direction of the Lorentz force depends on the sign of the charge q, oppositely charged point charges the same direction of movement are deflected in opposite directions. ..."

Yes, all you've said is true, but you're describing a magnetohydrodynamic generator, not a motor.

Imagine a plasma flowing into a duct. Take two opposite charges in that flow, moving together in the same direction, with the flow, and entering a zone where a magnetic field is applied. Both charges will feel a Lorentz force in the opposite direction, and those forces will separate the charges like in your pictures. They can then be collected though electrodes on the sides of the duct. This is a power source, an MHD generator:




Now, imagine a ionized gas at rest. Take the same duct and applied magnetic field, but this time, apply an electric field between the electrodes on the sides of the duct. unlike the first example, your opposite charges will flow in opposite directions: the electron will be accelerated towards the positive electrode, while the positron will be accelerated towards the negative electrode, because this time there is an applied E-field. The Lorentz force will accelerate both particles in the same direction. This is an electrical motor, an MHD drive:



The difference is when you apply or not an electric field. In an MHD drive, the electric field accelerates the charges in opposite directions, but the magnetic field curves their trajectory and the resulting Lorentz force pushes all charges, whatever their sign, in the same direction. And, through collisions in the gas, momentum is transferred to heavy ions and neutral atoms which are also accelerated (as a side note, magnetohydrodynamic thrusters are way more powerful than ion thrusters, the latter accelerating only one species, positive ions, through an electric field).

Basically it's the same thing as in a classical electric generator or linear motor with copper rotor and stator. Except with MHD your rotor is a working fluid (electrically conductive liquid or gas).

Question: Will this pair of particles be deflected in the same direction even when the B(and E) field change the direction, or change the deflection angle with the magnetic field?
My though was that the field inside the cavity act like a ion trap.
As far as I know the Nasa reported no thrust without the dielectric insert, moreover the idea was that the dielectric acts like a mirror for the particles.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 10:56 AM by X_RaY »

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 927
Question: Will this pair of particles be deflected in the same direction even when the B(and E) field change the direction, or change the deflection angle with the magnetic field?
My though was that the field inside the cavity act like a ion trap.
As far as I know the Nasa reported no thrust without the dielectric insert, moreover the idea was that the dielectric acts like a mirror for the particles.

The movement triggered on the particles accelerated by the Lorentz force does combine and changes the direction of the resulting force. This is not a simple problem.

When I look at TM212 mode in the frustum I see the resulting Lorentz forces are mainly centrifugal for both charges in each "lobe", whatever the directions of the fields. This is because the charges being opposite, they flow in opposite direction along the E-field, but the Lorentz force acts on them oppositely too, so it pushes them in the same direction. After a cycle (since this is AC, not DC) the E-field is reversed, but the B-field is also reversed, and the left-hand rule shows the direction of the force is conserved, always centrifugal.



Doest that mean the particles being centrifugally accelerated would interact with the slant lateral walls and thus are deflected from small end to big end, like in a rocket nozzle? I don't know if I'm right on this scheme.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 11:02 AM by flux_capacitor »

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1367

@Mezzenile,

Probably time to recall from Thread 2...




Notsosureofit:

--- Quote from: ThinkerX on 12/27/2014 12:56 AM ---Another blog post from Professor McCulloch.  He links to a paper he just published describing how he believes the EM drive is a manifestation of his theory:

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/

--- End quote ---

Certainly close enough to be interesting.  I would have liked to see simplified Eq. 6 filled out to include the effect of the cavity modes.

Notsosureofit:
Awoke to memories of the '60s, ie. the Sachs-Schwebel version of GR using quaternions having an addl. coupling.  Found at least one ref. this AM.

mendelsachs-fromspecialtogeneralrelativity-macrotoquantumdomains28p-120114095137-phpapp02.pdf

"This expression predicts a coupling of the ‘gravitational field’ (in terms of qk) with the matter field components Tρ to define a gravitational current contribution. The latter is not foreseen in the conventional theories that neglect the gravitational coupling to matter fields."

That expression has a form that is at least "similar" in outline to that from the cavity dispersion relation.  The "gravitational current" might provide the missing momentum.

I need to find a way to get copies of the original papers which were in Il Nuovo Cimento as I recall.

Edit:  Looking for,


    Sachs, M. (1964).Nuovo cimento,31, 98.
    Sachs, M. (1968a).International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 387.
    Sachs, M. (1968b).Nuovo cimento,53A, 561.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1961).Nuovo cimento, Supplement21, 197.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1962).Journal of Mathematics and Physics,3, 843.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1963).Nuclear Physics,43, 204.

Also: Schwebel, S. L. INT J THEOR PHYS , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 61-74, 1972, "Interaction theory of the electromagnetic field"


Star One:
If you wanted to build a vehicle using this technology would there be a preferred shape to use?

Rodal:

--- Quote from: Notsosureofit on 12/27/2014 12:41 PM ---Awoke to memories of the '60s, ie. the Sachs-Schwebel version of GR using quaternions having an addl. coupling.  Found at least one ref. this AM.

mendelsachs-fromspecialtogeneralrelativity-macrotoquantumdomains28p-120114095137-phpapp02.pdf

"This expression predicts a coupling of the ‘gravitational field’ (in terms of qk) with the matter field components Tρ to define a gravitational current contribution. The latter is not foreseen in the conventional theories that neglect the gravitational coupling to matter fields."

That expression has a form that is at least "similar" in outline to that from the cavity dispersion relation.  The "gravitational current" might provide the missing momentum.

I need to find a way to get copies of the original papers which were in Il Nuovo Cimento as I recall.

Edit:  Looking for,


    Sachs, M. (1964).Nuovo cimento,31, 98.
    Sachs, M. (1968a).International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 387.
    Sachs, M. (1968b).Nuovo cimento,53A, 561.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1961).Nuovo cimento, Supplement21, 197.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1962).Journal of Mathematics and Physics,3, 843.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1963).Nuclear Physics,43, 204.

--- End quote ---

I found this this paper that Sachs wrote under sponsorship from the Air Force Cambridge Research Lab in Trieste in July 1966 while on leave from B.U., "To be submitted to Nuovo Cimento"

"ON FACTORIZATION OF EINSTEIN'S FORMALISM INTO A PAIR OF QUATERNION FIELD EQUATIONS"

http://streaming.ictp.trieste.it/preprints/P/66/081.pdf


--- Quote from: M. Sachs ---it might be remarked that the quaternion form of the metrical field equations lends itself in a natural way to a unification between the inertial and gravitational manifestations of interacting matter. This is because of the basic expression of the matter fields themselves in terms of the same spinor and quaternion variables.

--- End quote ---

Mendel Sachs has a website:

http://mendelsachs.com/


In his website he has posted several of his articles.  For example this relatively recent one on the Mach principle and origin of inertia:

http://mendelsachs.com/wp-content/uploads/articles/the-mach-principle.pdf

In that reference, Sachs convincingly argues against the approach to Mach's Principle followed by Woodward (-of course- he does not mention  Woodward), he considers the particle-antiparticle pairs of the quantum vacuum having a most important effect, while the effect of distant stars is negligible:



--- Quote from: Sachs ---I have found in my research program in general relativity, that the primary contribution to the inertial mass of any local elementary matter, such as an ‘electron’, are the nearby particle-antiparticle pairs that constitute what we call the ‘physical vacuum’. [The main developments of this research are demonstrated in my two monographs: General Relativity and Matter, and Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity]. A prediction of this research program is that the main influence of these pairs on the mass of, say, an electron comes from a domain of the ‘physical vacuum’ in its vicinity, whose volume has a radius that is the order of 10^(-15) cm. Of course, the distant stars, billions of light-years away, also contribute to the electron’s mass, though negligibly, just as the Sun’s mass contribution to the weight of a person on Earth is negligible compared with the Earth’s influence on this person’s weight! Nevertheless, it was Mach’s contention that in principle all of the matter of the closed system – the nearby as well as far away constituents – determines the inertial mass of any local matter.

--- End quote ---
(Bold added for emphasis) ==> this is the anti-thesis of Woodward's approach to Mach's principle!

There are many other interesting references, for example this one on Dirac's Quantum Negative Energy Problem:

http://mendelsachs.com/publication/view/the-quantum-negative-energy-problem-revisited/
Notsosureofit:
Yes, thanks.  This is great stuff and will require a lot of reading.  (not to mention the brain-busting)
But do look back at that expression in the AM reference, it looks (to me w/o justification) like it could be the "doppler frame" expression.

Edit:  Found the AM paper online, (on the Beardon site, of all places!  I have NO idea what this would have to do w/ free energy.)

http://www.cheniere.org/references/Symmetry_in_Electrodynamics.pdf

 See p.24, the three-current density
--------------------------------------------------

Still haven't gotten back to these (from when I was a NASA Fellow under S. Schwebel)

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
Question: Will this pair of particles be deflected in the same direction even when the B(and E) field change the direction, or change the deflection angle with the magnetic field?
My though was that the field inside the cavity act like a ion trap.
As far as I know the Nasa reported no thrust without the dielectric insert, moreover the idea was that the dielectric acts like a mirror for the particles.

The movement triggered on the particles accelerated by the Lorentz force does combine and changes the direction of the resulting force. This is not a simple problem.

When I look at TM212 mode in the frustum I see the resulting Lorentz forces are mainly centrifugal for both charges in each "lobe", whatever the directions of the fields. This is because the charges being opposite, they flow in opposite direction along the E-field, but the Lorentz force acts on them oppositely too, so it pushes them in the same direction. After a cycle (since this is AC, not DC) the E-field is reversed, but the B-field is also reversed, and the left-hand rule shows the direction of the force is conserved, always centrifugal.



Doest that mean the particles being centrifugally accelerated would interact with the slant lateral walls and thus are deflected from small end to big end, like in a rocket nozzle? I don't know if I'm right on this scheme.

The lifetime of virtual particle pairs is extremely short (hence the 'virtual' aspect), so I highly doubt that any of them ever have the time to come even close to the nozzle matter, before they disappear again. But still, they do exist for that extremely short time as 'real' particle pairs, made up from quantum mechanically borrowed energy (Heisenberg). If it were possible to actually impart those particle pairs with a unidirectional impulse while they exist.. what would happen to the impulse that they gained by being accelerated via appropriately crossed (and dynamically changing) electric and magnetic fields, right at the moment when the borrowed energy is returned to the quantum vacuum?

One could argue, that these virtual particle pairs, popping up everywhere in spacetime, are a subset of the superset of what comprises what we call the 'spacetime continuum'. I think that those again vanishing particle pairs, that gained a bit of momentum in a QV thruster during their 'real lifetime', simply take their newly gained momentum with them into the 'virtuality' that is the quantum vacuum. If, as argued above, the new particle pair momentum gained, gets merged back into spacetime or quantum vaccum as a superset, it seems likely that this would lead to spacetime locally gaining momentum itself. Space gaining unidirectional momentum would then be equivalent to spacetime having gotten accelerated. In this picture, space itself would start to move away from the QV-thruster 'nozzle', while the QV-thruster would experience the opposite acceleration. A body in front of the thruster nozzle would then feel a repulsive force coming from the nozzle, caused by the spacetime volume that's being moved by the thruster. Since matter is embedded in spacetime, the moving spacetime would then act like a volume of water that's flowing down a river, as seen by the embedded matter.

I personally tend to see Earth's gravity as spacetime moving towards all matter and taking all embedded matter with it, squisshing all of us against the surface of this wonderful world in consequence. I'm very thrilled to read about the coming results from EagleWorks.
8)
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1001
  • Likes Given: 2195
Not sure but I think the file below is already known nevertheless it's of interest for the last discussion...
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 01:41 PM by X_RaY »

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 23

@Mezzenile,

Probably time to recall from Thread 2...

My God : Thread 2 has 208 pages !  :)

Offline TheTraveller

Brilliance from Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3qzwqu/eli5_what_is_the_em_drive_and_what_is_the_current/cwkann5

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy

"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them." - Arthur C. Clarke

"When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself." - Mark Twain

"It is not uncommon for engineers to accept the reality of phenomena that are not yet understood, as it is very common for physicists to disbelieve the reality of phenomena that seem to contradict contemporary beliefs of physics" - H. Bauer

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spencer

One more late add:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 03:56 PM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Snip...

The lifetime of virtual particle pairs is extremely short (hence the 'virtual' aspect), so I highly doubt that any of them ever have the time to come even close to the nozzle matter, before they disappear again. But still, they do exist for that extremely short time as 'real' particle pairs, made up from quantum mechanically borrowed energy (Heisenberg). If it were possible to actually impart those particle pairs with a unidirectional impulse while they exist.. what would happen to the impulse that they gained by being accelerated via appropriately crossed (and dynamically changing) electric and magnetic fields, right at the moment when the borrowed energy is returned to the quantum vacuum?

One could argue, that these virtual particle pairs, popping up everywhere in spacetime, are a subset of the superset of what comprises what we call the 'spacetime continuum'. I think that those again vanishing particle pairs, that gained a bit of momentum in a QV thruster during their 'real lifetime', simply take their newly gained momentum with them into the 'virtuality' that is the quantum vacuum. If, as argued above, the new particle pair momentum gained, gets merged back into spacetime or quantum vacuum as a superset, it seems likely that this would lead to spacetime locally gaining momentum itself. Space gaining unidirectional momentum would then be equivalent to spacetime having gotten accelerated. In this picture, space itself would start to move away from the QV-thruster 'nozzle', while the QV-thruster would experience the opposite acceleration. A body in front of the thruster nozzle would then feel a repulsive force coming from the nozzle, caused by the spacetime volume that's being moved by the thruster. Since matter is embedded in spacetime, the moving spacetime would then act like a volume of water that's flowing down a river, as seen by the embedded matter.

I personally tend to see Earth's gravity as spacetime moving towards all matter and taking all embedded matter with it, squisshing all of us against the surface of this wonderful world in consequence. I'm very thrilled to read about the coming results from EagleWorks.
8)
[/quote]

CW:

"If, as argued above, the new particle pair momentum gained, gets merged back into spacetime or quantum vacuum as a superset, it seems likely that this would lead to spacetime locally gaining momentum itself. Space gaining unidirectional momentum would then be equivalent to spacetime having gotten accelerated.  In this picture, space itself would start to move away from the QV-thruster 'nozzle', while the QV-thruster would experience the opposite acceleration."

Bingo!  If Dr. White is correct in arguing that 4D+ spacetime IS the quantum vacuum and visa versa, and if gravity is an emergent force generated by the forced hydrodynamic flow of the quantum vacuum, then what these EM-Drives are, is a directional "gravity" flow generator powered by E&M fields.  The trick now is to prove this conjecture, which at a minimum will take the final marriage of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity Theory (GRT)...

BTW, IF QV spacetime flow is the root cause of the phenomenon we call gravity generated by mass, IMO there has to be at least one more spatial dimension beyond our normally perceived 3D universe to provide this QV gravity flow a "drain" back into the universal QV reservoir.  If you read the EW Lab's Bohr atom paper over at the NASA NTRS file server that I pointed to last night, you will note the 1/r^4 force dependency with distance of the Casimir force.  If you delve deeper into why this is so, you will find that this 1/r^4 force dependency requires an n+1 spatial dimension system or a 5d+time (6D) universe.   

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601

@Mezzenile,

Probably time to recall from Thread 2...

My God : Thread 2 has 208 pages !  :)
My God "It's Full of Stars".

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1383
  • Liked: 1252
  • Likes Given: 317
I really really dislike the term "new physics". We aren't changing the workings of the universe, just getting an idea of something not yet understood.

I understand your complaint since the definition of what counts as new physics changes as we learn more, but it is also useful to have a term to refer to discoveries that change our understanding of the universe, even though the universe has always worked that way.

As an example of what I consider new physics: the original theory on neutrinos indicated that they should be massless. When neutrino oscillations were discovered, that was new physics, since the theory had to be modified to give neutrinos mass in order to explain the observed phenomena. This was new physics at the time. Now, there are ongoing experiments to determine the actual mass of neutrinos. I would not consider the results of those experiments to be new physics since it is just determining a known parameter to greater accuracy. (Unless those results demonstrate an inconsistency, such as the masses not matching with the expected mass differences, and then we need more modifications to the theory to explain them.)

Any thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics.

That opinion is not shared by either Roger Shawyer nor Prof Yang. Both of who have a very considerable depth of experimental experience and data. Probably exceeding that of Eagleworks.

Just maybe you need to review ALL their experimental data and theories that both claim to show no new physics is needed to explain the "Shawyer Effect".

As I said above, new physics is about theory. The discussion of whether the emdrive is new physics is separate from whether or not it works. While the experiments to date have not convinced me that the emdrive works, I am open to the possibility, and could be convinced by more and better experimental evidence.

Assuming the emdrive does work, no details of experiments are required to determine whether or not it is new physics. It just has to be considered whether or not the currently accepted theories would need to be modified to account for it. Me, Eagleworks, Greg Egan, and others all have the background to determine what Maxwell's equations and current electrodynamic theory predicts to happen in an emdrive, and we have the same conclusion that it does not fit within current theory. Various explanations have been proposed, mostly ones that imply the emdrive is not actually a closed system, since it interacts with something such as the quantum vacuum. Every one of these theories that I have seen would be new physics, since they would change our current understanding of physics.

You cite Shawyer as a source with more experience than any of the other people I have mentioned. Even if that is true for experiments, I have posted on here before about the significant errors in his emdrive theory paper. Unless the issues I pointed out in his paper are resolved, Shawyer is not a good source for explanations of existing theory. From what I remember of Yang's paper it referenced Shawyer's hypothesis and stated his claims, but was focused on experiment, not theory.

This "negative result" concerning the possibility for the formalism of classical Maxwell equations to predict the net thrust generated by a RF cavity is no more relevant when we consider the incorporation of this formalism in the general relativity context (switch of classical partial derivative to covariant derivative, taking into account of the variable metric tensor, incorporation of the electromagnetic contribution to the energy-momentum tensor, apparition of non-linearity in this generalized formalism and of a coupling between electromagnetism and  gravity)
....

Electromagnetism has been well incorporated into quantum mechanics, but general relativity and quantum have not been unified into a single accepted theory, although multiple theories attempt to do this. Most results unifying general relativity and electromagnetism are therefore part of what I consider new physics.

Tags: