Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10  (Read 1635255 times)

Offline TheTraveller

Hence the comments about such stringent geometry and polishing requirements being an example of 'raising the goalpost' for experimentalists.

Followed by "If you don't have it, you won't see it. Told you so".

Not very auspicious.

I really hope the ongoing experiments prove otherwise.

As I suggested before, please share with the real world accelerator cavity and waveguide makers they can stop polishing their interior surfaces and using electro polishing to eliminate scratches, plus they can throw away all their very tight manufacturing tolerances.

Maybe look into a space rated waveguide and explore the manufacturing tolerances, then talk to people that make accelerator cavities?

I agree I'm no expert.

Personally, I'm more interested in the experiments trying to conclusively prove that 1) these things actually exist and 2) work in a vacuum as thrusters with greater efficiency than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.

Due to lack of proof on the matter, super-strong Emdrives that can levitate cars for me simply don't exist. If some clear evidence emerges tomorrow, I'd change my mind, but there is none so far.

With those interests in mind, I think a passably good cavity that could be made by a DIY builder or an engineer with regular materials and machinery, and without impossible space-industry quality requirements, could be used to prove those points.

Roger Shawyer himself started there, as far as I know. His first Emdrives weren't that much different from what several DIY engineers are doing now. And none of his designs have been tested in a vacuum chamber, also as far as I know. Thus NASA EW's and now Prof. Tajmar's experiments will have a clear advantage towards those 2 goals I mentioned.

Roger has been involved with high quality military & space microwave systems all his life. The interiors of all his cavities were highly polished and his machined cavities built to space/mil specs.  They even had an Invar sketal structure to control heating deformation.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
...
Can you imagine how small the difference is regarding the volume to surface ratio due to a few µm deep scratch for such a cavity resonator, at 2...4 GHz? Sure the wall currents are slightly bent at the scratch but in contrast to the local wavelength this is so damn tiny that it almost don't matter because the conductivity in the region dont change.

What impacts the Q factor is the conductivity of the walls and maybe inhomogeneities of the order of lets say 1/10 of the wavelength or something like that. Monomorphic has shown some calculations to this subject a few threads ago. Dr. Rodal showed an analytic calculation of the Q factor as well as others.

I would be happy if you show us a Q comparison (i.e. calculations or even measurements!) of a cavity with the high surface quality you state, with the same one after a few scratches were made.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1503747#msg1503747
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1503825#msg1503825
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1504635#msg1504635

I bet even with the best VNA you can get (within its uncertainty range) you will see no difference even using high average values. If you think you can reject this please deliver real results!


Hence the comments about such stringent geometry and polishing requirements being an example of 'raising the goalpost' for experimentalists.

Followed by "If you don't have it, you won't see it. Told you so".

Not very auspicious.

I really hope the ongoing experiments prove otherwise.

As I suggested before, please share with the real world accelerator cavity and waveguide makers they can stop polishing their interior surfaces and using electro polishing to eliminate scratches, plus they can throw away all their very tight manufacturing tolerances.

Maybe look into a space rated waveguide and explore the manufacturing tolerances, then talk to people that make accelerator cavities?

I agree I'm no expert.

...

Roger Shawyer himself started there, as far as I know. His first Emdrives weren't that much different from what several DIY engineers are doing now. And none of his designs have been tested in a vacuum chamber, also as far as I know. Thus NASA EW's and now Prof. Tajmar's experiments will have a clear advantage towards those 2 goals I mentioned.

* The argument being made for this is from a position of authority, quoting "this is what Roger specifies," (now? how about years ago when testing copper cavities instead of writing about superconducting cavities?) without providing independent specification from a resonant cavity for an accelerator, (instead he posts a picture of a guy posing next to a cavity) and challenges others here to prove him wrong (it would be better if he would post here the specifications from accelerators on copper resonant cavities -dating from the time when they used to be used instead of superconducting cavities)

* One should distinguish between the surface finish requirements for superconducting cavities in accelerators vs. the surface finish requirement for a copper resonant cavity

* See for example this expert report on the subject matter for a Nb Niobium superconducting cavity which has much more demanding surface finish requirements than copper cavities (in proportion to the much higher Q and much smaller skin depth for superconducting cavities)   
 http://slideplayer.com/slide/10321550/

http://casa.jlab.org/members/kneisel.shtml
Dr. Kneisel
Center for Advanced Studies of Accelerators
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility


Of course, I understand that what matters to him is that "Roger specifies it" rather than what an expert at the Center for Advanced Studies of Accelerators states (surface roughness is of secondary importance) but users (Monomorphic for example) can try different levels of surface smoothness and compare for themselves and publish their results here to see what difference it makes...
« Last Edit: 10/05/2017 12:24 am by Rodal »

Offline spupeng7

Temperature sensor inside the draft enclosure is working. I ended up going with a 4-20mA signal with pt100 resistance temperature sensor.    Here is a screen cap of all 5 channels of data I will be collecting off the torsional pendulum. I can still add up to three more channels. Every once in a while I notice a fairly strong repetitive RF signal in this band. I'm not sure what it is except perhaps my neighbor's microwave oven. Does anyone recognize the signal in channel 4?
Monomorph,
could not make out your time stamp but the signal looks similar to a cell phone presence signal which would also be intermittant.
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline spupeng7

Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.

So if there's an external field involved here, what is it? (And please don't tell me it's a "field of dreams"  ;) )

Is it the Quantum Foam (aka. Dynamic Vacuum) ?
sanman,
gravity and inertia are inextricably linked by the principle of equivalence and by their common dependence upon the depth of the gravitational field within which their mechanism acts. By this I mean that gravitational and inertial mass are phenomena whose weight varies with depth into the gravitational field.

This then is sure, that they both depend upon an external meter for their action. That being so they cannot be local phenomena because they depend upon external conditions. How then are they not Machian by nature?

We know that mass is composed of charges so it is beyond doubt that gravity and inertia act upon charges, which is to me at least, a strong argument that their mechanisms must be electrical. Why should they not be the external field we are looking for?
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline Bob Woods

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
  • Salem, Oregon USA
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 1579
sanman,
gravity and inertia are inextricably linked by the principle of equivalence and by their common dependence upon the depth of the gravitational field within which their mechanism acts. By this I mean that gravitational and inertial mass are phenomena whose weight varies with depth into the gravitational field.
Is that correct? When you say weight I assume you mean mass. Mass captured in a gravitational field does not gain additional mass merely as a result of the gravitational field itself, does it? Isn't more an increase in the density of the material, rather than gaining of additional mass?


Isn't the accretion of mass more due to acceleration at relativistic speeds, or boson interactions enabling energy conversion to mass?

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
So if there's an external field involved here, what is it? (And please don't tell me it's a "field of dreams"  ;) )

Is it the Quantum Foam (aka. Dynamic Vacuum) ?
sanman,
gravity and inertia are inextricably linked by the principle of equivalence and by their common dependence upon the depth of the gravitational field within which their mechanism acts. By this I mean that gravitational and inertial mass are phenomena whose weight varies with depth into the gravitational field.

This then is sure, that they both depend upon an external meter for their action. That being so they cannot be local phenomena because they depend upon external conditions. How then are they not Machian by nature?

Well, I can follow that Woodward's Mach Effect ideas are posited in terms of gravitational effects of the rest of the universe. So from that, the structure of local space has been determined by the arrangement of all matter in the universe, whether local matter or non-local distant matter.

But since EM Drive's working dynamics are expressed in terms of electromagnetism, then the easiest way for me to imagine an external field for it to operate against, would be in terms of electromagnetism too - ie. the Dynamic Vacuum or Quantum Foam. In a way, this Dynamic Vacuum or Quantum Foam is the embodiment of incoherence - it's continually changing in x,y,z,t and is only discernible at the limits of our perception (the Planck scale). And yet it is discernible (just barely), which means that it can be interacted with (just barely).


Quote
We know that mass is composed of charges so it is beyond doubt that gravity and inertia act upon charges, which is to me at least, a strong argument that their mechanisms must be electrical. Why should they not be the external field we are looking for?

Well, technically neutrons have mass but don't have charge (unless you want to count color-charge of their constituent quarks)
Anti-matter has opposite charges relative to normal matter, yet has the same mass properties and gravitational properties as matter.

But since the mechanism of EMdrive is photons, which are carriers of electromagnetic force (including charge force), then I'll agree that whatever the EMdrive's traveling wave is acting on, would likewise have to be characterized by electrical charge forces. And that would be the various fleeting fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum / Quantum Foam.

Offline Peter Lauwer

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Setting up an exp with torsion balance
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 339
  • Likes Given: 469
Surface resistance as function of roughness

I have found an article in which the degradation of Q as function of the surface roughness is studied: Hernandez et al, 1986 (attached). They don't list the measured Q's, but the derived surface resistance (measured at ~11 GHz).
I quote:
"The variation in the normalised surface resistance against roughness has the same form in all the figures. The surface resistance increases quickly with roughness in the interval 0<r/∂<1, and reaches asymptotically a maximum value that depends on the metal for r/∂ >2." (r/∂ being the groove depth relative to the skin depth).
For copper, the surface resistance increases to a maximum of ~35% with grooves of several times the skin depth. If you don't mind a Q degradation of a factor of two, this is not something to worry about too much, it seems.

Even more interesting in this article: they treat suppression of TM modes:
"We have found empirically that the most effective way to reduce the TM112 effect is the combination of two different techniques: allowing a gap between the cylindrical wall and one of the end plates (Atia and Williams 1976) and the production of the cavity excitation by means of a rectangular iris, parallel to the axis of the cavity, in the side wall (Aron 1967)."

I don't have the article by Aron yet, my univ does not have a subscription.
[you can buy it on http://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/piee.1967.0197 ]
The use of the gap is obvious, of course, if you measure at TE-modes (but I made my cavity with the desire to also measure at TM-modes. I can isolate the small endplate in case of TE-mode, though it will radiate then (enough shielding when wrapping in Al-foil?)).
« Last Edit: 10/05/2017 12:23 pm by Peter Lauwer »
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.   — Richard Feynman

Offline TheTraveller

Surface resistance as function of roughness

I have found an article in which the degradation of Q as function of the surface roughness is studied: Hernandez et al, 1986 (attached). They don't list the measured Q's, but the derived surface resistance (measured at ~11 GHz).
I quote:
"The variation in the normalised surface resistance against roughness has the same form in all the figures. The surface resistance increases quickly with roughness in the interval 0<r/∂<1, and reaches asymptotically a maximum value that depends on the metal for r/∂ >2." (r/∂ being the groove depth relative to the skin depth).
For copper, the surface resistance increases to a maximum of ~35% with grooves of several times the skin depth. If you don't mind a Q degradation of a factor of two, this is not something to worry about too much, it seems.

Even more interesting in this article: they treat suppression of TM modes:
"We have found empirically that the most effective way to reduce the TM112 effect is the combination of two different techniques: allowing a gap between the cylindrical wall and one of the end plates (Atia and Williams 1976) and the production of the cavity excitation by means of a rectangular iris, parallel to the axis of the cavity, in the side wall (Aron 1967)."

I don't have the article by Aron yet, my univ does not have a subscription.
[you can buy it on http://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/piee.1967.0197 ]
The use of the gap is obvious, of course, if you measure at TE-modes (but I made my cavity with the desire to also measure at TM-modes. I can isolate the small endplate in case of TE-mode, though it will radiate then (enough shielding when wrapping in Al-foil?)).

Hi Peter,

If the gap is tiny, like the size of the holes of the door mesh of a kitchen microwave,  nothing that matters will get out as the gap size is well below cutoff.

And yes electrically insulating your end plate from the side wall will very strongly discourage exciting ANY mode that needs eddy currents to flow from end plate to side wall.

Doing this also allows physically tuning your cavity to resonate at a desired freq, that is if you vary the spacing between the end plates.

Plus yes once the grove depth is several times the skin depth,  going deeper has no effect as the skin current does not go that deep. Max current depth is 5x skin depth.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2017 12:37 pm by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Peter Lauwer

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Setting up an exp with torsion balance
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 339
  • Likes Given: 469
...
Plus yes once the grove depth is several times the skin depth,  going deeper has no effect as the skin current does not go that deep. Max current depth is 5x skin depth.

But the main conclusion from the Hernandez et al., 1986 study is that the increased surface roughness only increases the surface resistance by some tens of percent.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.   — Richard Feynman

Offline TheTraveller

...
Plus yes once the grove depth is several times the skin depth,  going deeper has no effect as the skin current does not go that deep. Max current depth is 5x skin depth.

But the main conclusion from the Hernandez et al., 1986 study is that the increased surface roughness only increases the surface resistance by some tens of percent.

Quote
For copper, the surface resistance increases to a maximum of ~35% with grooves of several times the skin depth.

If you don't mind a Q degradation of a factor of two, this is not something to worry about too much, it seems.

Q dropped 100x.

Depends where the groves or scratches are and their orientation to the eddy current flow. Those groves, cut as a circular grove where the blue nulls are, could be highly helpful stopping unwanted modes being excited. Placed at right angles across the green, yellow and red eddy current rings at the lobe macima, would not be a good idea.

Take it as read, every cavity of any worth is highly polished and then electro polished to cover up any polishing marks and scratches.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2017 01:52 pm by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Peter Lauwer

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Setting up an exp with torsion balance
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 339
  • Likes Given: 469

Q dropped 100x.


I don't know where you read that in the article by Hernandez et al.  :o
Or is it your own calculation? Then, please show Rs -> 1.35x, then Q -> 100x.  ;)
As I wrote earlier, my test cavities of unpolished copper tube show Q's of the order of 30k.  8)
« Last Edit: 10/07/2017 06:55 pm by Peter Lauwer »
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.   — Richard Feynman

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 1071
Seems like a good idea to rough up the spot in TE012/TE013 where the magnetic field is the highest. That is if you believe that dissipation is important to engineer in.
And I can feel the change in the wind right now - Rod Stewart

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
could not make out your time stamp but the signal looks similar to a cell phone presence signal which would also be intermittant.

Or perhaps a wifi router broadcasting its SSID?  Wifi operates near the frequencies being used for most DIY EmDrive experiments.

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 195
....

But since the mechanism of EMdrive is photons, which are carriers of electromagnetic force (including charge force), then I'll agree that whatever the EMdrive's traveling wave is acting on, would likewise have to be characterized by electrical charge forces. And that would be the various fleeting fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum / Quantum Foam.

First, photons are not charged particles, even massless charged particles, thus while their interaction with charged particles (matter) often results in changes in electromagnetic (EM) potentials, the photon itself may not be a carrier of EM energy. Even while it is a carrier of energy that may upon interaction with matter be expressed as an EM potential.

Do EM waves actually have any independent force/charge or is what we observe to be variations in charge associated with the interaction between EM waves and charged particles (matter), just changes in the energy state of matter resulting from boundary condition interactions between EM waves and matter?

Does an electromagnetic wave in an of itself, generate an independent electric and/or electromagnetic field?.. Or does the existence of an EM wave or resonant EM wave/field(?) only establish a corresponding potential within the quantum vacuum (QV)? A potential expressed as electric and electromagnetic currents and fields, as the result of boundary condition interactions with matter?

Keeping these questions in mind consider the following.

If a resonant EM field does in and of itself, create an electromagnetic field in "empty space", that electromagnetic field potential might interact with the induced electric and electromagnetic currents and fields in any matter that it interacts with... This would seem to suggest that momentum could be transferred between an enclosed resonant EM field (within a frustum) and the induced electric and electromagnetic fields in the frustum walls.., resulting in some relatively small net thrust... Here the thrust would essentially be the result of a polarized interaction between the induced electric and electromagnetic currents and fields in the frustum walls, with an engineered asymetric bias in that portion of the QV within the frustum, originating with the enclosed resonant EM field. NOTE as long as the total energy is conserved (CoE is not an issue), that is as long as the sum of the heat, kinetic energy (acceleration) and any electrical energy lost to ground, etc., does not exceed, the electrical energy expended to generate the resonant EM field within the frustum, CoM should not be an issue, even while any kinetic energy.., thrust.., would not be the result of historically classical interpretations.

OR

If on the other hand an EM wave/field only creates a potential within the QV, expressed as real electric and electromagnetic currents and fields within matter through boundary condition interactions, there would seem to be NO associated transfer of momentum.., between the enclosed resonating EM field and the frustum. If resonating EM waves do not generate an independent electromagnetic field, apart from any interaction with matter, there could be no transfer of momentumi between the induced electric and electromagnetic currents and fields in the frustum walls and the QV or the enclosed resonating EM waves.., and any acceleration of the frustum would have to be the result of some external interaction.

On the other hand, is it possible that by engineering an asymmetry in the dynamics of the QV within a frustum, the resulting asymetric boundary condition interactions and the frustum walls, is in some small part expressed as a transfer of momentum? Though at present it does not appear useable, the Casimir effect seem to demonstrate that momentum can be transferred between the QV and matter.

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 195


Mach effect
Imho - A particle exists in the vacuum by occupying a place that nothing else can. As such, it constitutes a single boundary for all vacuum wave functions around it. As a boundary, it receives continual momentum from all directions making the particle jiggle around, a sort of vacuum Brownian motion. This is why its position and momentum are not intrinsically definite, since its existence is inseparable from the vacuum and its fluctuations. When we accelerate the particle, the boundary function becomes asymmetric creating the force exposed by Casimir.

It seems to indicate that inertia, or the resistance to acceleration, is the Casimir force resulting from an asymmetric contact with the effect of the vacuum.  This means that we accelerate with respect to the vacuum.

The Mach effect says that we accelerate with respect to the rest of the universe. It is true in a large sense, but in practice, it is more local. The local condition of the vacuum is in effect part of “the rest of the universe”, as not being at the same place, as already taken by the particle.

Now go and have a good night sleep

There seems some similarity above to the early Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff Inertia model.

1998 Inertia as reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion
Rueda & Haisch
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802031v1

1998 Advances in the Proposed Electromagnetic Zero-Point Field Theory of Inertia
Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807023v2

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 2479
...
Plus yes once the grove depth is several times the skin depth,  going deeper has no effect as the skin current does not go that deep. Max current depth is 5x skin depth.

But the main conclusion from the Hernandez et al., 1986 study is that the increased surface roughness only increases the surface resistance by some tens of percent.

Thanks for the paper! Very nice found.


With this numbers[1] i calculate[3] a drop of ~15% of the max possible Q value in the worsed case[4]. Of course this is an estimation, in this case i used the Brady cone dimensions and TE012.

I guess the result [2] was based on a surface strewn with scratched over and over by coarse sanding.
No DIY experimentalist will do this with his cavity baby   ;D



[1] 5.8e7 S/m *(1/1.35 [2]) = 4.3e7 S/m = effective surface conductivity = 1/R_s --> R_s= effective surface resistance

[2] 1.35 is the normalized result of the surface resistance measured at 11.4 GHz, asymptotic plateau for a high surface roughness of copper (Hernandez et. al)

[3] http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1476704#msg1476704

[4] while i used this lower value for the whole cavity not a single end plate as in the paper!
« Last Edit: 10/05/2017 08:21 pm by X_RaY »

Offline LowerAtmosphere

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 91
....

But since the mechanism of EMdrive is photons, which are carriers of electromagnetic force (including charge force), then I'll agree that whatever the EMdrive's traveling wave is acting on, would likewise have to be characterized by electrical charge forces. And that would be the various fleeting fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum / Quantum Foam.

Though at present it does not appear useable, the Casimir effect seem to demonstrate that momentum can be transferred between the QV and matter.

Regarding Casimir, QV, Scratches, Wall potential, time and experimental design for QV related gain:

You are correct. The Casimir effect is irrelevant here unless you squeeze the vacuum significantly with an inhomogeneous anistropic medium. In such compressed states of spacetime you are essentially forcing more of the QV into less spacetime therefore increasing the Casimir force by a finite amount. It is curious to consider possible warping (yes stiffness is mitigated if the field is oscillatory and relatively low density) in the context of the cavity. This idea is far from novel however.

The inner fields will always repel off of the wall fields (otherwise you would be baked alive near an EM Drive) since these are misaligned and of different strengths. The current within the walls determines the wall field and you will notice that the wall field segments each retain eigen characteristics over the course of the resonance of the internal fields. So saying the EM Drive's primary mechanism is photons is laughable as it is elementary to prove that radiation pressure in any shaped or identical boundary condition cavity will not yield net thrust (pushing on a windscreen or jumping in a small box metaphor). It is my recent view that momentum is transferred most likely through the time delay of electrons and electrical charge in imperfect skin regions. Consider a cavity where a majority of current is confined in discrete rings (See TE modes XX2 and above). This radiates energy outwards kinetically, heating the metal. If more energy in the form of incident waves are absorbed on one end then the contraption should not move forward, unless the momentum is delayed from reaching the opposite end of the cavity before more input or escape from the system as heat.

How could you delay said electrical charge rebalancing and momentum transfer along the lattice? The only answer is in the question itself: time. If you have field lines and closed circuits in the wall these will eventually have to connect to the weaker nearby field. As the outer wall saturates, the weaker field is the next adjacent ring segment. The same can be said of any excited medium within the cavity.

What about a scratch or imperfection? An imperfection interrupts and captures incident waves. For lack of a better metaphor the wavelets along the skin would be like balls falling into a canyon. Their transmission and absorption on the other side is far from guaranteed if the incidence angles are scrambled, especially with a lag between in-coupling and out-coupling* or a chaotic transient system which can be expected due to oscillations of the original incident waves and splatter, but I digress. It is important to see the waves within the wall medium as multiple groups of coincident fast electrons forming chaotic bandwidths as the electron density increases, this explains why part of the current is lost upon reaching the canyon. The more canyons you have the longer it will take for electrical charge to balance along the lattice to where there is a relatively lower charge! Since local alignment is ruined by the imperfection, there will be a continuous traffic jam building at the scratch until the medium passes its boiling point and the entire lattice smoothes out. The really interesting part is that this is equally valid across all media exposed to similar asymmetric input! It is perfectly valid to consider all discrete internal fields as interacting sequentially just as it is valid to recognize asymmetric heating in any elongated asymmetric modal cavity. The only cost of ruining the skin conductivity with imperfections is that there is increased absorption due to randomized angles of incidence and an abundance of disrupted eddies causing holes and tangled field lines thus providing less directional reaction force to incident charged particles moving with EM fields.

It is extremely important to consider what the wall is made of and the properties thereof. If it were a Weyl Semi-Metal then you would have relativistic fermions to deal with. Similarly, meta-materials could have interesting refraction indices providing anistropy to trapped energy. Instead of those we have Copper: a soup of latticed protons and very fast delocalized electrons. Make sure you do not forget that the QV is the "salt" to the "soup" of the cosmos. If you want to find significant effect sizes for a cause you can't just taste the "soup" and ignore the tasteless water in the form of the electron particle family. Without the current there would be no medium to observe the QV by. Without the QV there would still be "soup". However, if you take away enough "soup" or add enough "salt" then you will see sudden "salt crystals" forming. If you are on the hunt for QV as an explanation, then the current EM Drive is an exceedingly bad experimental design. It would be far more efficient to use perfect mirrors around a superconductive anisotropic (or inhomogeneous) metallic solenoid or tube with neutralized central field to run interferometry with a wavelet through the middle. It would be far easier to calculate and verify QV induced gain using emission spectra or asymmetric optical pressure in such a controlled system rather than the chaos and transience of the tapered cone resonant microwave cavity. It would not be a typical gun if you have a strong guide field providing varying compression and a control using a regular solenoid or tube. It does not matter what shape the medium or the walls are, but where and what orientation the fields are which are accelerating or reacting with it. Basic stuff but important to consider when seeking the balance between modal peak density and EM potential.

Back to the shadows and work for now...

*(note here broken lorentz reciprocity probably allows full bandwidth to resonate)

Yours Sincerely,
L.A.                   
« Last Edit: 10/05/2017 08:24 pm by LowerAtmosphere »

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 195
....

But since the mechanism of EMdrive is photons, which are carriers of electromagnetic force (including charge force), then I'll agree that whatever the EMdrive's traveling wave is acting on, would likewise have to be characterized by electrical charge forces. And that would be the various fleeting fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum / Quantum Foam.

Though at present it does not appear useable, the Casimir effect seem to demonstrate that momentum can be transferred between the QV and matter.

Regarding Casimir, QV, Scratches, Wall potential, time and experimental design for QV related gain:

You are correct. The Casimir effect is irrelevant here unless you squeeze the vacuum significantly with an inhomogeneous anistropic medium. In such compressed states of spacetime you are essentially forcing more of the QV into less spacetime therefore increasing the Casimir force by a finite amount. It is curious to consider possible warping (yes stiffness is mitigated if the field is oscillatory and relatively low density) in the context of the cavity. This idea is far from novel however.

...

When I mentioned the Casimir effect earlier, it was only meant to support the idea that momentum might be transfered to matter through its interaction with the QV.

Truth be told I have a tendency to over talk a thing to the extreme and what should have been a post of a few sentences about photons and whether they actually carry any charge or EM energy, or just that through their interaction with matter the charge and/or EM energy state of the matter may be changed.., wandered far afield of the initial intent.

Still if things like the Casimir effect, which involves a direct transfer of momentum and Unruh radiation most commonly discussed as a heat gain associated with the acceleration of matter relative to the QV (which could be argued might also be described as a resistance to acceleration realized as heat.., or even once again transfer of momentum), how can we exclude the possibility that there might be and probably are other interactions where momentum is transferred between the QV and matter (whatever our final descriptive definition of the QV might be).

At present the interaction between matter and the QV seems to be governed by the boundary conditions of the involved matter or object. Since it is almost certain that the boundary conditions of the interior surfaces of a frustum are asymmetric and not unreasonable to expect that the local field potential of that portion of the QV within a frustum is also asymmetric, it would seem that any interaction between the frustum and the enclosed portion of the QV would also be asymmetric. ... And if in any case it is reasonable to conclude that momentum can be transferred between the QV and matter, as appears to be the case with the Casimir effect, it seem unreasonable to exclude the possibility, that where boundary conditions can be engineered to be asymmetric, any potential transfer of momentum might also be net asymmetrical.

I do not claim this is what is happening or even that it could happen, I just wonder about things like this.

« Last Edit: 10/05/2017 09:47 pm by OnlyMe »

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
....

But since the mechanism of EMdrive is photons, which are carriers of electromagnetic force (including charge force), then I'll agree that whatever the EMdrive's traveling wave is acting on, would likewise have to be characterized by electrical charge forces. And that would be the various fleeting fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum / Quantum Foam.

First, photons are not charged particles, even massless charged particles, thus while their interaction with charged particles (matter) often results in changes in electromagnetic (EM) potentials, the photon itself may not be a carrier of EM energy. Even while it is a carrier of energy that may upon interaction with matter be expressed as an EM potential.

Hi, I know that - I only meant that photons are said to be mediators between charge interactions.




Mach effect
Imho - A particle exists in the vacuum by occupying a place that nothing else can. As such, it constitutes a single boundary for all vacuum wave functions around it. As a boundary, it receives continual momentum from all directions making the particle jiggle around, a sort of vacuum Brownian motion. This is why its position and momentum are not intrinsically definite, since its existence is inseparable from the vacuum and its fluctuations. When we accelerate the particle, the boundary function becomes asymmetric creating the force exposed by Casimir.

It seems to indicate that inertia, or the resistance to acceleration, is the Casimir force resulting from an asymmetric contact with the effect of the vacuum.  This means that we accelerate with respect to the vacuum.

The Mach effect says that we accelerate with respect to the rest of the universe. It is true in a large sense, but in practice, it is more local. The local condition of the vacuum is in effect part of “the rest of the universe”, as not being at the same place, as already taken by the particle.

Now go and have a good night sleep

There seems some similarity above to the early Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff Inertia model.

1998 Inertia as reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion
Rueda & Haisch
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802031v1

1998 Advances in the Proposed Electromagnetic Zero-Point Field Theory of Inertia
Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807023v2

I remember reading that stuff when it first came out, and I recall it was heavily attacked - particularly over ideas like "Rindler frames". They were claiming an electromagnetic origin for gravity and inertia.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2017 10:41 pm by sanman »

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 195
....

But since the mechanism of EMdrive is photons, which are carriers of electromagnetic force (including charge force), then I'll agree that whatever the EMdrive's traveling wave is acting on, would likewise have to be characterized by electrical charge forces. And that would be the various fleeting fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum / Quantum Foam.

First, photons are not charged particles, even massless charged particles, thus while their interaction with charged particles (matter) often results in changes in electromagnetic (EM) potentials, the photon itself may not be a carrier of EM energy. Even while it is a carrier of energy that may upon interaction with matter be expressed as an EM potential.

Hi, I know that - I only meant that photons are said to be mediators between charge interactions.




Mach effect
Imho - A particle exists in the vacuum by occupying a place that nothing else can. As such, it constitutes a single boundary for all vacuum wave functions around it. As a boundary, it receives continual momentum from all directions making the particle jiggle around, a sort of vacuum Brownian motion. This is why its position and momentum are not intrinsically definite, since its existence is inseparable from the vacuum and its fluctuations. When we accelerate the particle, the boundary function becomes asymmetric creating the force exposed by Casimir.

It seems to indicate that inertia, or the resistance to acceleration, is the Casimir force resulting from an asymmetric contact with the effect of the vacuum.  This means that we accelerate with respect to the vacuum.

The Mach effect says that we accelerate with respect to the rest of the universe. It is true in a large sense, but in practice, it is more local. The local condition of the vacuum is in effect part of “the rest of the universe”, as not being at the same place, as already taken by the particle.

Now go and have a good night sleep

There seems some similarity above to the early Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff Inertia model.

1998 Inertia as reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion
Rueda & Haisch
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802031v1

1998 Advances in the Proposed Electromagnetic Zero-Point Field Theory of Inertia
Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807023v2

I remember reading that stuff when it first came out, and I recall it was heavily attacked - particularly over ideas like "Rindler frames". They were claiming an electromagnetic origin for gravity and inertia.

They were claiming an electromagnetic origin for gravity and inertia.

(Or maybe just that both inertia and electromagnetism are secondary effects of a more fundamental process?)

That could be a matter of interpretation. If photons are inherently electromagnetic then yes. But they have no charge, no inherent magnetic field and for practical purposes no mass.  It is just as reasonable to argue that it is their interaction with matter that results in electromagnetic effects... and electromagnetism is itself a secondary affect rather than fundamental. At least as it relates to EM waves and photons.

Photons and EM radiation in general carry/or transfer momentum and heat, as well as the potential to alter the EM potential of an atom or particle. Not all photons interact with all matter in the same way.

The HRP model was phrased essentially in terms of an EM portion of the ZPF at Zitterbewegung frequencies.., interacting with charged particles exclusively through an exchange of momentum etc.. That's speed of light frequencies and perhaps as small as Planck lengths. Matter would be essentially transparent to photons, of even orders of magnitude lower frequencies.

Think about it, even protons have a Zitterbewegung like motion and perhaps a corresponding analog in the ZPF. Even a neutral neutron trembles and we have no reason to believe that goes unnoticed by the universe.

Sometimes critiques are more a defense of what we have come to believe, than a reasoned unbiased evaluation. Think back a few years to when the first Eagleworks conference paper was leaked. Almost as it hit the net it was bashed, even by otherwise credible sources like Steve Carlip, few if any of whom took enough time to stop and see that it was meant as a handout for a conference, not a peer reviewed paper.

The point is it is not always good to dismiss an idea just because it doesn't fit with what we have come to believe. At least not until we know what we know is more than just what we think we know.

That said, even IF the HRP model touched on something worth defending, the world is far more complex than a single fundamental particle in a flat spacetime ZPF and far beyond any possibility of experimental verification.

Still the following would fit well with that early HRP model of inertia,

"A particle exists in the vacuum ... . As such, it constitutes a single boundary for all vacuum wave functions around it. As a boundary, it receives continual momentum from all directions making the particle jiggle around, a sort of vacuum Brownian motion. ... its existence is inseparable from the vacuum and its fluctuations. When we accelerate the particle, the boundary function becomes asymmetric"

« Last Edit: 10/06/2017 12:10 am by OnlyMe »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1