Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2138567 times)

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6043
  • Likes Given: 5315
I must reject the analysis by J & W in Appendix A, but thanks for the link.

I have already mentioned in my preamble that not only is any propellantless propulsion craft capable of perpetuum mobile operation, but that free energy is available on top of that to boot.

This causes many people to break out in hives, or to resort to chewing their towels.  ::)

Well, when somebody like Hawkings proposes chronology protection to prevent time travel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjecture

it is invested with the imprimatura of somebody serious. So White and Woodward deserve the same attention and respect.

How do you address Woodward's conjecture ?  (he claims that it is perfectly compatible with GR)
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 01:06 AM by Rodal »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Having been raised in the sixties, I am kinda allergic to imprimatura imprimaturs. A pox on them, say I.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 03:02 AM by deltaMass »

Offline PushHigher

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Nevada, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 21
It's good that at least one person understands what I'm on about. :-\

Consider an EmDrive in free space and accelerating. We switch it off temporarily and let it coast at speed v relative to the inertial frame in which it began its acceleration. When we switch it back on, are we going to assert that somehow the thrust F  knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust like F = P/v?

I assert again that this kind of thinking requires a preferred frame, and thus violates SR.

deltaMass, can you explain this further? 

With my limited SR understanding - the statement "x knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust" seems perfectly acceptable to me (minus the word "thrust") but I realize I'm likely missing some key points.  If you have two star systems and a rocket sets out for the other at the speed of light (99.999 etc) from each star system toward each other.  Is the speed of the two rockets approaching each other 2c?  No.  Does that mean the two dropped down to .5c? No.  Are they "aware" of each other?  Kinda.  If they decide to burn their thrusters a max does their approach speed increase? No.

I realize you probably already understand this or maybe my understanding is wrong - so what am I missing? 

Thank you for your help!
 


Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
It's good that at least one person understands what I'm on about. :-\

Consider an EmDrive in free space and accelerating. We switch it off temporarily and let it coast at speed v relative to the inertial frame in which it began its acceleration. When we switch it back on, are we going to assert that somehow the thrust F  knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust like F = P/v?

I assert again that this kind of thinking requires a preferred frame, and thus violates SR.

deltaMass, can you explain this further? 

With my limited SR understanding - the statement "x knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust" seems perfectly acceptable to me (minus the word "thrust") but I realize I'm likely missing some key points.  If you have two star systems and a rocket sets out for the other at the speed of light (99.999 etc) from each star system toward each other.  Is the speed of the two rockets approaching each other 2c?  No.  Does that mean the two dropped down to .5c? No.  Are they "aware" of each other?  Kinda.  If they decide to burn their thrusters a max does their approach speed increase? No.

I realize you probably already understand this or maybe my understanding is wrong - so what am I missing? 

Thank you for your help!

I don't mean to muddy the waters of my maths by including fully relativistic calculations (as for example is done in Appendix B of that paper, quite correctly I think). I specifically stated that the derivation is strictly subrelativistic. Indeed, one can entertain a real life rotary device that gets to v = 2/k and hits breakeven, provided that we can achieve a k-value about 50x higher than what is currently achieved, reportedly, by Yuan. That velocity is about the speed of sound in air. So, no SR is needed to address my maths, nor to build a machine to test it.

My mention of SR is simply in order to highlight a core principle of Einstein's thinking about space and time; to whit, there is no preferred inertial frame, such that physics there is different to physics in another one.

So one has a choice here - reject Noether or reject Einstein. It's a tough call.
Unless of course propellantless propulsion sui generis is a canard.

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1367
I must reject the analysis by J & W in Appendix A, but thanks for the link.

I have already mentioned in my preamble that not only is any propellantless propulsion craft capable of perpetuum mobile operation, but that free energy is available on top of that to boot.

This causes many people to break out in hives, or to resort to chewing their towels.  ::)

We can of course test to see this at work. We use a rotary configuration and when the tangential velocity exceeds 2/k, we switch from external power to a coaxially mounted generator. And then begin charging people for the juice. Outrageous!  8)

I would think the free energy speculation is a bit premature.  The "frame of reference problem" could inhibit any constrained mechanism, not that such can be calculated until the momentum question is resolved.

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1267
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1335
  • Likes Given: 1800
It's good that at least one person understands what I'm on about. :-\

Consider an EmDrive in free space and accelerating. We switch it off temporarily and let it coast at speed v relative to the inertial frame in which it began its acceleration. When we switch it back on, are we going to assert that somehow the thrust F  knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust like F = P/v?

I assert again that this kind of thinking requires a preferred frame, and thus violates SR.

First, there are two different points here. You seem to want to use this example to invalidate SR. I can help you with that. SR is only valid in an inertial reference frame. However, the quantum vacuum permits a continuum of inertial reference frames, each with a different value of the speed of light, depending on the local gravitational field. These are called "local tangent planes" and on them we "define" c = 1, but if we compare them, we find that c in one frame, is c/K at another altitude in the field. So yes, it does violate the usual idea of SR because it is traveling at "v" relative to it's preferred rest frame. But it's rest frame is not absolute! It is relative to the gravitational field "vacuum energy" at the location it started from.

In your analysis, you did not specify any losses. Therefore, Ein = Eout at all times, t, not just when it gets to "break even". I think I found the error in your analysis. You said,

v = a*t = (F/m)*t

This statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so this must be replaced by the integral.

v(t) = integral[a(t)]*dt

When put it in integral form, we end up with the same Work integral I presented earlier. Your value of;

Eout = .5*m*v0^2

is assuming acceleration is constant from 0 to v0. That is the where the assumption is made. The integral I presented (from Wikipedia) is integrating "Force x Distance", where Power in = Power out. THAT is the correct way to do the calculation. There is no paradox here if you understand the quantum vacuum correctly.

Todd D.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Quote from: WarpTech
I think I found the error in your analysis. You said,
v = a*t = (F/m)*t
This statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...
It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion.  Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.

Did you find any other mistakes?

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
I must reject the analysis by J & W in Appendix A, but thanks for the link.

I have already mentioned in my preamble that not only is any propellantless propulsion craft capable of perpetuum mobile operation, but that free energy is available on top of that to boot.

This causes many people to break out in hives, or to resort to chewing their towels.  ::)

We can of course test to see this at work. We use a rotary configuration and when the tangential velocity exceeds 2/k, we switch from external power to a coaxially mounted generator. And then begin charging people for the juice. Outrageous!  8)

I would think the free energy speculation is a bit premature.  The "frame of reference problem" could inhibit any constrained mechanism, not that such can be calculated until the momentum question is resolved.
To your first sentence:
If by that you mean the engineering issues, then I couldn't agree more, and have already estimated here the performance gap which exists. Feel free to run your own numbers; I reckon currently we're about a factor of 50 down on breakeven.
But if by that you mean the physics, I must needs take issue. Have you looked at string theory lately?  8)

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your second sentence. Perhaps you could say it another way?

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1267
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1335
  • Likes Given: 1800
Quote from: WarpTech
I think I found the error in your analysis. You said,
v = a*t = (F/m)*t
This statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...
It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion.  Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.

Did you find any other mistakes?

No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.

Todd D.

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1367
I must reject the analysis by J & W in Appendix A, but thanks for the link.

I have already mentioned in my preamble that not only is any propellantless propulsion craft capable of perpetuum mobile operation, but that free energy is available on top of that to boot.

This causes many people to break out in hives, or to resort to chewing their towels.  ::)

We can of course test to see this at work. We use a rotary configuration and when the tangential velocity exceeds 2/k, we switch from external power to a coaxially mounted generator. And then begin charging people for the juice. Outrageous!  8)

I would think the free energy speculation is a bit premature.  The "frame of reference problem" could inhibit any constrained mechanism, not that such can be calculated until the momentum question is resolved.
To your first sentence:
If by that you mean the engineering issues, then I couldn't agree more, and have already estimated here the performance gap which exists. Feel free to run your own numbers; I reckon currently we're about a factor of 50 down on breakeven.
But if by that you mean the physics, I must needs take issue. Have you looked at string theory lately?  8)

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your second sentence. Perhaps you could say it another way?

Admittedly,  I'm sitting here rereading my Einstein after an absence of 50 years so take me w/ a pound of salt until I catch up.

The acceleration in the frame of a free cavity system can be a "constant" added to the background gravitational gradient (or variation in the index of refraction if you prefer)  So GR.  "Free Energy" if you want to call it that as you accelerate away in non-local fashion.

So far, of course, the experiments have been about (nearly) static forces which involve little or no work.

Once the cavity is constrained into some fixture that ties it to a fixed frame of reference we become dependent on the type of mechanism (and it's GR behavior) which is responsible for the change in momentum of the cavity.   White's mechanism, (I'm not particularly fond of it)  for example, will not yield free energy.  Some unknown version might, but I don't see it as likely yet.

« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 02:37 AM by Notsosureofit »

Offline LasJayhawk

Health and safety, another concern.

You will be dealing with voltages that could be lethal. Making sure your frustum case is at ground, and not several thousand volts above it, would be advised.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Quote from: WarpTech
I think I found the error in your analysis. You said,
v = a*t = (F/m)*t
This statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...
It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion.  Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.

Did you find any other mistakes?

No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.

Todd D.
My mention of SR is simply in order to highlight a core principle of Einstein's thinking about space and time; to whit, there is no preferred inertial frame, such that physics there is different to physics in another one.

Are you really saying that you reject this?

Offline Einstein79

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
The reason for the confusion over the violation of classical physics is because this system has nothing to do with classical physics. Moreover, the “thrust” that is being calculated is not thrust at all but space moving the drive from one position to another which can merely be related to thrust but is not, per se, thrust. The controlling factor here is, of course, the resonant frequency. If you match the resonant frequency that space uses to “hold” the object you will develop a “cavity” that the “object will move towards”. The reason why the device cannot be “pushed off of” for conservation of momentum to hold true is because space is already pushing on it satisfying the law.

A couple of postulates to keep in mind that will help with these experiments are:
1. Space creates light.
2. Space itself is a resonating chamber.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Quote from: Notsosureofit
Once the cavity is constrained into some fixture that ties it to a fixed frame of reference we become dependent on the type of mechanism (and it's GR behavior) which is responsible for the change in momentum of the cavity.
Indeed. I was limiting my discussion to a device freely moving under its own power in free space. Clearly, bolting it down to a lab vac chamber does not satisfy that criterion.

I trust you appreciate how I've "black boxed" propellantless propulsion devices - any and all of them. What I've said doesn't depend on what kind of device it is, nor upon any particular pet theory used to explain its "propellantlessness".
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 02:54 AM by deltaMass »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
The reason for the confusion over the violation of classical physics is because this system has nothing to do with classical physics. Moreover, the “thrust” that is being calculated is not thrust at all but space moving the drive from one position to another which can merely be related to thrust but is not, per se, thrust. The controlling factor here is, of course, the resonant frequency. If you match the resonant frequency that space uses to “hold” the object you will develop a “cavity” that the “object will move towards”. The reason why the device cannot be “pushed off of” for conservation of momentum to hold true is because space is already pushing on it satisfying the law.

A couple of postulates to keep in mind that will help with these experiments are:
1. Space creates light.
2. Space itself is a resonating chamber.
Interesting! Would you then be prepared to write down the equations of motion so that we can play with them?

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1267
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1335
  • Likes Given: 1800
Quote from: WarpTech
I think I found the error in your analysis. You said,
v = a*t = (F/m)*t
This statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...
It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion.  Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.

Did you find any other mistakes?

No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.

Todd D.
My mention of SR is simply in order to highlight a core principle of Einstein's thinking about space and time; to whit, there is no preferred inertial frame, such that physics there is different to physics in another one.

Are you really saying that you reject this?

As I said, it is not applicable. "Special" Relativity is the special case that ONLY applies when we have a Minkowski metric, such as;

ds^2 = -(c*dt)^2 + (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

When we compare 2 inertial frames using Lorentz Transformations, both frames have the same Minkowski metric signature because they are indistinguishable.

However, consider the metric,

ds^2 = -(1/K)*(c*dt)^2 + K*(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

where, K is a "constant" different from 1, over all coordinates. This metric is just as Flat as Minkowski's. However, it has been scaled to a different maximum speed-limit, c/K rather than c. THIS is no longer SR! It is a general case, so we must use General Relativity. In GR, the speed of light is not constant in accelerated reference frames, and when you accelerate from one inertial frame to another, they are NOT equal, just as changing altitude in a gravitational field can be modeled as a variable Refractive Index where two adjacent tangent planes are NOT equal when you compare them. Rulers and clocks are scaled by acceleration.

When matter is accelerated, length contracts and time dilates, this is a scale transformation. When the thrust is turned off and the coasting rocket finds itself is at rest relative to some distant planet. It's length does not spring back to "normal" and the clock does not speed up. They remain in this relative state until thrust is reversed and they return to the same vacuum energy state they started from. For accelerating matter, the vacuum's refractive index increases until wave velocity goes to zero and time stops. A true warp drive, modifies the vacuum to flatten the local light-cone, reducing the refractive index to compensate for this effect, thereby raising the speed limit.

Best Regards,
Todd



Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
I'm sorry, but I can only entertain a further discussion if we restrict ourselves to severely subrelativistic (i.e. slow) scenarios - since that is a constraint I've imposed upon myself for the purposes of the most elementary possible discussion of the dynamics.

In that framework then, and assuming (to first order, of course) a flat spacetime, do you now agree with Einstein's assertion about physics in inertial frames?

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1267
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1335
  • Likes Given: 1800
Quote from: Notsosureofit
Once the cavity is constrained into some fixture that ties it to a fixed frame of reference we become dependent on the type of mechanism (and it's GR behavior) which is responsible for the change in momentum of the cavity.
Indeed. I was limiting my discussion to a device freely moving under its own power in free space. Clearly, bolting it down to a lab vac chamber does not satisfy that criterion.

I trust you appreciate how I've "black boxed" propellantless propulsion devices - any and all of them. What I've said doesn't depend on what kind of device it is, nor upon any particular pet theory used to explain its "propellantlessness".

Hypothetically, if there were a black box with a gravitational field "inside", i.e., it has a NET acceleration vector along the X axis, pointing toward the blue side of the box..., (which is opposite the red side of the box)  but has no discernible gravitational field "outside" of the box other than what a normal box of that mass would have. Let's say that inside the box there is all the equipment and energy storage, necessary to generate this field. Nothing comes in or goes out, but the energy stored inside it (battery) is being dissipated without being expelled.

What sort of motion would YOU expect to see?

1. Will it move forward with the blue side leading?

2. Will it move forward with the red side leading?

3. Will it not move at all because nothing is coming out?

Keep in mind, by definition, it has a NET acceleration vector inside along the X axis.

Todd


Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 597
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 263
Quote from: WarpTech
I think I found the error in your analysis. You said,
v = a*t = (F/m)*t
This statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...
It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion.  Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.

Did you find any other mistakes?

No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.

Todd D.
My mention of SR is simply in order to highlight a core principle of Einstein's thinking about space and time; to whit, there is no preferred inertial frame, such that physics there is different to physics in another one.

Are you really saying that you reject this?

What about with respect to the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" CMBR?  Couldn't we say the universe has this as an absolute frame? 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16121186223305818545&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48

Lets say there is a God view looking above far from all gravitational fields observing the universe and stationary with respect to its boundaries.  (It should have a finite size if it had a beginning and an expansion.)  Light falling into gravity fields I would think should slow down, (considering the limit when light reaches an event horizon).  From inside a gravity field I should think light should still appear to be going c due the shrinking of the ruller.  This could give the appearance of the index of refraction (gravitational lensing).  Two objects traveling towards each other @ .6c still appear from the God view to be approaching at 1.2c though I suppose the two observers both have their (space/time) warped so it appears to them they are not approaching each other at 1.2c but rather v<c.  I mean sure time/space screws our perceptions all up but why not have an absolute frame of the universe or CMB where either we are moving with respect to it or we arent?  Or am I missing something. 

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0306196

« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 03:58 AM by dustinthewind »

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1267
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1335
  • Likes Given: 1800
I'm sorry, but I can only entertain a further discussion if we restrict ourselves to severely subrelativistic (i.e. slow) scenarios - since that is a constraint I've imposed upon myself for the purposes of the most elementary possible discussion of the dynamics.

In that framework then, and assuming (to first order, of course) a flat spacetime, do you now agree with Einstein's assertion about physics in inertial frames?

Okay then. If we are restricting ourselves to Newtonian mechanics, then we have a paradox that cannot be resolved. It leads to either an over-unity device or a preferred reference frame, and momentum is not conserved.

However, if we honestly want to resolve the paradox and conserve momentum, then we must use General Relativity to solve the problem, regardless of how fast it is going.

I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. There is no Newtonian resolution for this argument.

Thank you.
Todd

Tags: