Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2140133 times)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Aces-high:

"well, it´s about 1250 kN is about two times the thrust of a Merlin 1D engine from the Falcon 9..."

Let's not get carried away here!  Our COMSOL/Q-V plasma code simulation indicated ~1,250 Newton for 100kW RF input using a water cooled version of our current copper cavity, NOT 1,250 kN, which is three orders of magnitude larger than stated in my previous post.  I'm still trying to wrap my head around this 1,250 to 2,000 Newton figure...

Best, Paul M.

bah, just a 3 orders of magnitude difference!

oops  :-[ :-[

well Paul, you might want to answer Birchoff's question directly?

Quote from: Birchoff
Given the figures the predicted thrust that paul march provided us. Anyone mind educating this lay person on how a single EmDrive thruster would perform vs our current rockets.

Aces-high:

Well what's a few zeros between friends?! :)

In regards to Birchoff's question, (Anyone mind educating this lay person on how a single EmDrive thruster would perform vs our current rockets.), well, lets say the Eagleworks COMSOL / Q-V plasma code is really providing accurate thrust predictions in its current V1.1 status, remembering that even Microsoft took to V3.1 to get the first really working version of Windows to a point of use-ability, i.e. we only just started to experimentally verify this code,  what does ~1,300 Newton bring to the table as far as rocket applications are concerned? 

The EM-Drive applications all depends on the thrust to mass ratio of the Q-Thruster AND its supporting power supply, structure and payload, and for how long the power supply & its energy source in question can operate.  If its thrust to weight (T/W) ratio is less than 1-to-1, then this is a in space based propulsion system that first has to be placed into orbit by chemical rockets.  If its greater than 1-to-1 and it can operate for long enough, then this EM-Drive rocket  could place itself into LEO and perhaps beyond for that all depends on how long its batteries/reactor can keep supply power.

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
Aces-high:

Well what's a few zeros between friends?! :)

In regards to Birchoff's question, (Anyone mind educating this lay person on how a single EmDrive thruster would perform vs our current rockets.), well, lets say the Eagleworks COMSOL / Q-V plasma code is really providing accurate thrust predictions in its current V1.1 status, remembering that even Microsoft took to V3.1 to get the first really working version of Windows to a point of use-ability, i.e. we only just started to experimentally verify this code,  what does ~1,300 Newton bring to the table as far as rocket applications are concerned? 

The EM-Drive applications all depends on the thrust to mass ratio of the Q-Thruster AND its supporting power supply, structure and payload, and for how long the power supply & its energy source in question can operate.  If its thrust to weight (T/W) ratio is less than 1-to-1, then this is a in space based propulsion system that first has to be placed into orbit by chemical rockets.  If its greater than 1-to-1 and it can operate for long enough, then this EM-Drive rocket  could place itself into LEO and perhaps beyond for that all depends on how long its batteries/reactor can keep supply power.

Best, Paul M.

I think that you could get away with a ratio of less than 1-to-1, if you use the propulsive force to accelerate like an airplane. Difference being, an airplane needs a dense enough atmosphere to further accelerate and gain altitude (which becomes a problem as of certain altitudes), while an EM-drive on a plane-shaped body could still accelerate further and further in a thinning atmosphere to gain tangential momentum and eventually reach orbit.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2015 12:52 PM by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
While that's all very interesting. You can immediately rule out the drive's functionality because of the lack of reaction mass. CoM is clearly broken.

I only have a minor in physics so I honestly can't understand most of what's talked about here, but I know at the least you can't go about thrusting around the universe with no particles/energy leaving the engine without something like an Alcubierre drive. Even if you're pushing against quantum virtual particle pairs, virtual particle pairs have opposite signs so will be propelled in opposite directions thus canceling out any net force.

I have yet to year a simple explanation of how this drive works that doesn't dive into theoretical physics to explain its operation. It is true of everything in physics that simple laws lead to complex behavior. If the operation of the EmDrive or other various families of the drive cannot be explained in an abstract way within a couple sentences then it doesn't work.

People are being sold snake oil and I don't like it.

"We don't know how, why, or if it works and known physics do not readily suffice, therefore it doesn't work and its proponents are perpetuating fraud" is jumping the gun a bit, don't you think?

Tornados don't produces magical instruments. They produce junk. Luck doesn't make engineering.

The chances of someone stumbling upon some contraption that violates physics principles by throwing electronics parts out of his garage together is nil.

"I  only have a minor in physics so I honestly can't understand most of what's talked about here, but I know at the least you can't go about thrusting around the universe with no particles/energy leaving the engine without something like an Alcubierre drive. Even if you're pushing against quantum virtual particle pairs, virtual particle pairs have opposite signs so will be propelled in opposite directions thus canceling out any net force."

In a neutral plasma there is an equal number of plus and minus electrical charges or ions that can react to applied E-fields and B-fields in various ways.  If there is only an electric field applied to the plasma volume then yes the positive charges will go one way and the negative charges will go in the opposite direction.  However if we apply a spatially crossed E-field and B-field across this volume, then we have a Lorentz force produced on the plasma ions that is at right angles to the applied E-field and B-field.  Then BOTH the positive and negative ions will be accelerated in the SAME direction, but with counter rotating twists AKA Gyro radius modifying their accelerated trajectories.  All of these EM-Drive like thruster utilize some form of this Lorentz force acceleration on some type of propellant, be it real as in a Hall thruster or semi-virtual.

Best, Paul M. 

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Aces-high:

Well what's a few zeros between friends?! :)

In regards to Birchoff's question, (Anyone mind educating this lay person on how a single EmDrive thruster would perform vs our current rockets.), well, lets say the Eagleworks COMSOL / Q-V plasma code is really providing accurate thrust predictions in its current V1.1 status, remembering that even Microsoft took to V3.1 to get the first really working version of Windows to a point of use-ability, i.e. we only just started to experimentally verify this code,  what does ~1,300 Newton bring to the table as far as rocket applications are concerned? 

The EM-Drive applications all depends on the thrust to mass ratio of the Q-Thruster AND its supporting power supply, structure and payload, and for how long the power supply & its energy source in question can operate.  If its thrust to weight (T/W) ratio is less than 1-to-1, then this is a in space based propulsion system that first has to be placed into orbit by chemical rockets.  If its greater than 1-to-1 and it can operate for long enough, then this EM-Drive rocket  could place itself into LEO and perhaps beyond for that all depends on how long its batteries/reactor can keep supply power.

Best, Paul M.

I think that you could get away with a ratio of less than 1-to-1, if you use the propulsive force to accelerate like an airplane. Difference being, an airplane needs a dense enough atmosphere to further accelerate and gain altitude (which becomes a problem as of certain altitudes), while an EM-drive on a plane-shaped body could still accelerate further and further in a thinning atmosphere to gain tangential momentum and eventually reach orbit.

CW:

Thanks much for pointing out this in between status of utilizing aerodynamic forces as a first stage that can be applied to exotic thrusters that are only producing ~0.1 N/kWe up to ~20 N/kWe where VTOL craft designs become viable. 

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8180
  • UK
  • Liked: 1322
  • Likes Given: 168
Aces-high:

Well what's a few zeros between friends?! :)

In regards to Birchoff's question, (Anyone mind educating this lay person on how a single EmDrive thruster would perform vs our current rockets.), well, lets say the Eagleworks COMSOL / Q-V plasma code is really providing accurate thrust predictions in its current V1.1 status, remembering that even Microsoft took to V3.1 to get the first really working version of Windows to a point of use-ability, i.e. we only just started to experimentally verify this code,  what does ~1,300 Newton bring to the table as far as rocket applications are concerned? 

The EM-Drive applications all depends on the thrust to mass ratio of the Q-Thruster AND its supporting power supply, structure and payload, and for how long the power supply & its energy source in question can operate.  If its thrust to weight (T/W) ratio is less than 1-to-1, then this is a in space based propulsion system that first has to be placed into orbit by chemical rockets.  If its greater than 1-to-1 and it can operate for long enough, then this EM-Drive rocket  could place itself into LEO and perhaps beyond for that all depends on how long its batteries/reactor can keep supply power.

Best, Paul M.

I think that you could get away with a ratio of less than 1-to-1, if you use the propulsive force to accelerate like an airplane. Difference being, an airplane needs a dense enough atmosphere to further accelerate and gain altitude (which becomes a problem as of certain altitudes), while an EM-drive on a plane-shaped body could still accelerate further and further in a thinning atmosphere to gain tangential momentum and eventually reach orbit.

Would it be useful to have some kind of launcher on the ground to assist it off the ground rather like the catapult on an aircraft carrier or as they are now moving to in the navy on some carriers an electro magnetic launcher?
« Last Edit: 04/07/2015 01:23 PM by Star One »

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Across the Universe
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 44
NASA has tested one of these things and got a positive result. So That is why people are discussing it. Otherwise, it would be lumped in with the Dean Drives, Ancient Astronauts, UFOs and other bizzare pseudo science stories.

Nobody is quite sure ***how*** they got a positive result. It may yet turn out to be not what they think it is, or it might turn out to be something interesting nobody really knows yet.

Offline JPLeRouzic

  • Member
  • Posts: 27
  • France, Rennes
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 29
However if we apply a spatially crossed E-field and B-field across this volume, then we have a Lorentz force produced on the plasma ions that is at right angles to the applied E-field and B-field.  Then BOTH the positive and negative ions will be accelerated in the SAME direction,
Hello,

Thanks for your patience and answers which are always very clear and precise.

However I don't understand the two quoted sentences, at least in this context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force#Force_on_a_current-carrying_wire
It seems to me that the second sentence contradicts the first sentence which looks correct to me.
Please could elaborate?

Jean-Pierre
« Last Edit: 04/07/2015 04:39 PM by JPLeRouzic »

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2418
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 10

While that's all very interesting. You can immediately rule out the drive's functionality because of the lack of reaction mass. CoM is clearly broken.

I only have a minor in physics so I honestly can't understand most of what's talked about here, but I know at the least you can't go about thrusting around the universe with no particles/energy leaving the engine without something like an Alcubierre drive. Even if you're pushing against quantum virtual particle pairs, virtual particle pairs have opposite signs so will be propelled in opposite directions thus canceling out any net force.

I have yet to year a simple explanation of how this drive works that doesn't dive into theoretical physics to explain its operation. It is true of everything in physics that simple laws lead to complex behavior. If the operation of the EmDrive or other various families of the drive cannot be explained in an abstract way within a couple sentences then it doesn't work.

People are being sold snake oil and I don't like it.

I'm not really certain that you can call this snake oil.

     Physics wise, energy is being generated, which consumes a form of fuel, be it nuclear, fossile or solar energy, energy is being generated.

     In theory, according to basic physics, it should be possible to convert one form of energy into another, such as kinetic energy being converted to heat energy as a vehicle is decellerated via air during reentry.

     So, in theory, it should be possible to convert generated electrical energy into kinetic energy, which, in normal circumstances, is typically done via the use of either motors or mass being expelled at a high velocity, typically using heat to produce a high amount of directionalized kinetic energy in said mass.  Thus, it is not beyond the realms of physics that it may be possible to convert electrical energy directly into kinetic energy.  There would, of course, be some loss or energy as heat, but, in theory, it should be possible.

     Whether or not this is what is happening here is unknown, but SOMETHING appears to be happening, (namely the imparting of thrust through non-normal means,) beyond the realm of "noise" in the experiment, thay as yet, cannot be fully explained.

     I think thay trying to figure out what is happening, and whether or not it is some artifact of the experiment or an actual force that can be utilized, goes well beyond "snake oil" directly into science.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline matthewpapa

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Houston, TX
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 22
How do rockets work? They push out hot gas - the rocket goes direction x, the gas direction -x .

How does the hypothesized Q-thruster work? It pushes out QV particle 'plasma' - the Q-thruster goes direction x, the QV particle 'plasma' direciton -x .

What's the difference? In case of a rocket, we can still 'see' the hot gas. In case of the Q-thruster, we cannot. Philosophically speaking, it does not matter if you use QV particle 'plasma' or 'real' particles. Both types can be considered a subset of what 'quantum vacuum' is - namely the superset of all that can possibly exist.

It's just interesting to think about CoM. I think that the most likely reaction would be that in direction of acceleration, the Q-thruster should produce a sort of 'suction effect', and a repelling effect on the opposite side. Reason being that when the virtual plasma particle pairs vanish again, the impeded momentum must be conserved still in some form. I can only imagine this as a unidirectional 'gravity'-like effect, or maybe an effect similar to a water jet engine's behaviour. Just that in this case the fabric of spacetime itself is being used instead of water. It seems clear to me that not only should a working Q-thruster propel itself, but also create clearly measurable local side-effects.

What do you guys think?

Yes, this I think is a good way to explain it I think
Seems like we should be able to find some sort of QV wake. The energy has to be expended somewhere.

Would be interesting to see if
Power in = Simultaneous Dissipated Heat (measured)
You would of course have to run the experiment for a while to get to a steady state to make the heat measurements (J/S).
If these numbers match and we still get "thrust" we can afford to be suspicious.
But, if
Power in != Dissipated Heat
And we can deduce
Pin = Heat+ Thrust

Then we can be assured there is something interesting is going on

This may be hard to see with the current test article due to the low amounts of thrust measured. But it should eventually be testable with what Paul is currently building
« Last Edit: 04/07/2015 03:46 PM by matthewpapa »

Offline jmossman

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • San Jose, CA
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 180
Quote
The microwave communications are possible because microwaves are transmitted from (and to) the satellite.  The microwaves obviously are leaving  (or entering) the satellite.  If there is any propulsion resulting from communications from the satellite, it may not violate the laws of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, because the microwave photons are leaving the sateliite.  It would work like a photon rocket for microwaves leaving the satellite (or like a solar sail for microwave photons hitting the satellite).  Scientists have no problems with the concept of a photon rocket (except that it is one the least useful forms of space propulsion: one can also use a military searchlight as a photon rocket).

Shawyer's EM Drive is completely different: it is a completely enclosed cavity.  The microwaves inside it are standing waves.  No microwaves leave the EM Drive.  No photons leave the EM Drive (certainly not on purpose). That's why scientists think that the EM Drive should not be able to have any propulsion: because it appears to violate conservation of momentum. 

The standing microwaves inside an EM Drive cannot be used for communication purposes because they stay inside the EM Drive: the metal acts like a Faraday cage.

So what is mystifying, if indeed Shaywer was inspired by this issue, is whether Shawyer did not understand the difference between a completely enclosed microwave cavity and a communications satellite transmitting microwaves or whether the story that he was inspired by this is not really accurate.

It would be like somebody saying that they invented a new form of space propulsion based on a flashlight inside a a completely sealed box with mirrors on every inside surface, and claiming that they were inspired by noticing that a satellite in space flashing a light for communications purposes, also acts like a photon rocket. 

Yes, a flashlight in space will act like a photon rocket, but if you put the flaslight inside a sealed box so that no light leaves the box, it is just a box sitting in space: it is no longer good for communications and it is no longer good for propulsion

My guess - and its no more than that - is that Shawyer concluded the 'thrust' produced by these microwave emitters was significantly greater than that of a photon rocket effect. 

Despite a fair number of internet searches, I have yet to encounter any details on Shawyer's research into this.

....
Think of the analogy: somebody is inspired by noticing that a flashlight used for communications from space also acts as a photon rocket.  Or, as you propose, it actually has even more thrust than a photon rocket.
Does it make sense then that the person being "inspired" by this would put the flashlight inside a sealed box, such that the flashlight cannot longer work as a communication device or as a super photon rocket?

Being inspired by microwave communications satellites and reacting by enclosing it inside a Faraday cage where the microwaves cannot escape doesn't make any sense to me.

If he was inspired by the microwave communications satellites his first design should have looked like a satellite's microwave antenna:





instead of a sealed box: a truncated cone without any openings:

 


No wonder then that you couldn't find anything supporting this story.  It is a contradictory story that hangs from a thread: that Roger Shawyer was a consultant to the Galileo project (Europe’s satnav system), but this "inspiration story" conceals the fact that Shawyer's EM Drive is not at all like a microwave communications antenna, since it is designed such that the microwaves canNOT escape the EM Drive, which is the opposite of the design of a microwave communications antenna.

What if the satellite(s) that were studied had some kind of internal microwave resonant cavity as part of a system to help amplify signals?  If the orientation of the internal cavity correlated strongly to the unexpected fuel burn direction.....

BTW I have no idea if this Shawyer background story has any truth or not...  just offering a (rather feeble) lifeline for the hypothetical Shawyer back story.   :P
« Last Edit: 04/08/2015 01:20 AM by jmossman »

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51

While that's all very interesting. You can immediately rule out the drive's functionality because of the lack of reaction mass. CoM is clearly broken.

I only have a minor in physics so I honestly can't understand most of what's talked about here, but I know at the least you can't go about thrusting around the universe with no particles/energy leaving the engine without something like an Alcubierre drive. Even if you're pushing against quantum virtual particle pairs, virtual particle pairs have opposite signs so will be propelled in opposite directions thus canceling out any net force.

I have yet to year a simple explanation of how this drive works that doesn't dive into theoretical physics to explain its operation. It is true of everything in physics that simple laws lead to complex behavior. If the operation of the EmDrive or other various families of the drive cannot be explained in an abstract way within a couple sentences then it doesn't work.

People are being sold snake oil and I don't like it.

I'm not really certain that you can call this snake oil.

     Physics wise, energy is being generated, which consumes a form of fuel, be it nuclear, fossile or solar energy, energy is being generated.

     In theory, according to basic physics, it should be possible to convert one form of energy into another, such as kinetic energy being converted to heat energy as a vehicle is decellerated via air during reentry.

     So, in theory, it should be possible to convert generated electrical energy into kinetic energy, which, in normal circumstances, is typically done via the use of either motors or mass being expelled at a high velocity, typically using heat to produce a high amount of directionalized kinetic energy in said mass.  Thus, it is not beyond the realms of physics that it may be possible to convert electrical energy directly into kinetic energy.  There would, of course, be some loss or energy as heat, but, in theory, it should be possible.

     Whether or not this is what is happening here is unknown, but SOMETHING appears to be happening, (namely the imparting of thrust through non-normal means,) beyond the realm of "noise" in the experiment, thay as yet, cannot be fully explained.

     I think thay trying to figure out what is happening, and whether or not it is some artifact of the experiment or an actual force that can be utilized, goes well beyond "snake oil" directly into science.

I 100% agree to the observation that physics does not forbid in any way a mechanism to directly convert electrical energy into kinetic energy. The problem is finding the mechanism. Experimentation will show whether or not this contraption can do the trick.
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 529
In theory, according to basic physics, it should be possible to convert one form of energy into another, such as kinetic energy being converted to heat energy as a vehicle is decellerated via air during reentry.
Conservation of momentum is as fundamental a property as conservation of energy, and it is the former which many critics believe is violated by the EM drive.

~Kirk

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6043
  • Likes Given: 5317
In theory, according to basic physics, it should be possible to convert one form of energy into another, such as kinetic energy being converted to heat energy as a vehicle is decellerated via air during reentry.
Conservation of momentum is as fundamental a property as conservation of energy, and it is the former which many critics believe is violated by the EM drive.

~Kirk

Conservation of momentum is satisfied in Maxwell's equations, Newtonian mechanics, special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.

In relativity, momentum and energy are both tied up together in the energy-momentum tensor.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 82
From the peanut gallery again... apparently massive particles in groups (sort of a meta-material or meta particle) can become effectively massless? That's a neat trick if you could pull it off at will.

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-unparticles-path-superconductivity.html

Just how many of these special cases in the standard model are there? We have this and we have stable kaons in lambda baryons and I have read mirror neutrons or alice matter.

These special modes of behavior in regular matter might have something to do with unexpected physical effects like what we are discussing in the present thread. I realize it probably doesn't but it is at least a remote possibility.

« Last Edit: 04/07/2015 05:16 PM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6043
  • Likes Given: 5317
....

     In theory, according to basic physics, it should be possible to convert one form of energy into another, such as kinetic energy being converted to heat energy as a vehicle is decellerated via air during reentry.

     So, in theory, it should be possible to convert generated electrical energy into kinetic energy, which, in normal circumstances, is typically done via the use of either motors or mass being expelled at a high velocity, typically using heat to produce a high amount of directionalized kinetic energy in said mass.  Thus, it is not beyond the realms of physics that it may be possible to convert electrical energy directly into kinetic energy.  There would, of course, be some loss or energy as heat, but, in theory, it should be possible.

    ...


If electrical energy can be converted directly into spacecraft's momentum, without any matter or energy leaving the spacecraft then many problems appear.

One interesting problem has been repeatedly pointed out by @frobnicat in this thread.  Since the kinetic energy is:

K = (1/2) m v^2

The power needed to accelerate (a question appearing in this thread over the last few pages concerning a comparison with chemical rockets) is dK/dt,and since in this EM Drive spacecraft, the mass doesn't change, the only thing that changes is the velocity, therefore:

dK/dt = (1/2) m [2 v dv/dt] = m v a

So the power needed to accelerate is a function of not only the acceleration wanted, but also the speed at which you're currently traveling.  But, according to relativity, there is no absolute measurement of spacecraft speed, it depends on the observer. So, the needed power (to escape the surface of the Earth, etc.) depends on your frame of reference. 

For a conventional rocket, the delta V is related to the mass of the spacecraft decreasing, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v for example.  For the EM Drive there is no decrease of mass of the spacecraft (and if one adheres to the assumption that the Quantum Vacuum (QV) is immutable and indestructible, the QV being the zero point energy, the energy=mass*c^2 of the QV shouldn't change either).  So one has a conundrum.

So, no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces).

There are several paradoxes  with the EM Drive related to this.

« Last Edit: 04/07/2015 06:10 PM by Rodal »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8180
  • UK
  • Liked: 1322
  • Likes Given: 168

In theory, according to basic physics, it should be possible to convert one form of energy into another, such as kinetic energy being converted to heat energy as a vehicle is decellerated via air during reentry.
Conservation of momentum is as fundamental a property as conservation of energy, and it is the former which many critics believe is violated by the EM drive.

~Kirk

Conservation of momentum is satisfied in Maxwell's equations, Newtonian mechanics, special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.

In relativity, momentum and energy are both tied up together in the energy-momentum tensor.

I wonder if somehow a post along these lines could be tagged to the start of the thread so this question would stop being repeated in it?

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
@Star-Drive

So its now the middle of the first week of April. I was under the impression that Eagleworks needed to get GRC something to test by the end of March. Is that an accurate recollection of what your part of your research timeline was? If so, were you able to hit that deadline or was it pushed out?

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2418
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 10
....

     In theory, according to basic physics, it should be possible to convert one form of energy into another, such as kinetic energy being converted to heat energy as a vehicle is decellerated via air during reentry.

     So, in theory, it should be possible to convert generated electrical energy into kinetic energy, which, in normal circumstances, is typically done via the use of either motors or mass being expelled at a high velocity, typically using heat to produce a high amount of directionalized kinetic energy in said mass.  Thus, it is not beyond the realms of physics that it may be possible to convert electrical energy directly into kinetic energy.  There would, of course, be some loss or energy as heat, but, in theory, it should be possible.

    ...


If electrical energy can be converted directly into spacecraft's momentum, without any matter or energy leaving the spacecraft then many problems appear.

One interesting problem has been repeatedly pointed out by @frobnicat in this thread.  Since the kinetic energy is:

K = (1/2) m v^2

The power needed to accelerate (a question appearing in this thread over the last few pages concerning a comparison with chemical rockets) is dK/dt,and since in this EM Drive spacecraft, the mass doesn't change, the only thing that changes is the velocity, therefore:

dK/dt = (1/2) m [2 v dv/dt] = m v a

So the power needed to accelerate is a function of not only the acceleration wanted, but also the speed at which you're currently traveling.  But, according to relativity, there is no absolute measurement of spacecraft speed, it depends on the observer. So, the needed power (to escape the surface of the Earth, etc.) depends on your frame of reference. 

For a conventional rocket, the delta V is related to the mass of the spacecraft decreasing, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v for example.  For the EM Drive there is no decrease of mass of the spacecraft (and if one adheres to the assumption that the Quantum Vacuum (QV) is immutable and indestructible, the QV being the zero point energy, the energy=mass*c^2 of the QV shouldn't change either).  So one has a conundrum.

So, no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces).

There are several paradoxes  with the EM Drive related to this.



Be it nuclear, fuel cell or even solar, as the source of electricity, mass is being expended in the form of electrons. (Solar is taking advantage of the Sun's own expendature of mass in the form of photons).  Whiloe the quantity of mass being expended is minute, it IS being expended.

     Unfortunately, the AMOUNT of mass being expended, even if it were being a total conversion to energy, does seem to be way out of proportion to the amount of kinetic energy being imparted, assuming the use of Newtonian Mass physics.

     Even considering a direct conversion of electrical to kinetic energy seems very much disproportionate.  Occam's Razor seems to apply in this case.  All things being equal, the simplest explaination seems the most likely.  Unfortuanately, most of the explainations of this phenomena seem to be of the complex and wonderful nature.

    I am wondering if anone has tried to place a force sensor against the side of the device that appeards to be producing the thrust to see if ther is some sort of repulsive force involved.  As I understand it, all the testing thus far have been with the device and arm that it's attached to.  If there is some force being produced, then an apparatus resting against the device should detect it.  If there is a kinetic energy being produced then the device pulling away from the apperatus should be detectible.  If there is a spacial distortion, this should be observable, but no real pressure would be detected by the apperatus.

     I have little doubt that someone's probably already done susch a test, but I haven't seen any data on this as yet.  (Or if I have, it's been cloaked in such higher math and physices that it left me completely baffled).
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6043
  • Likes Given: 5317
....
Be it nuclear, fuel cell or even solar, as the source of electricity, mass is being expended in the form of electrons. (Solar is taking advantage of the Sun's own expendature of mass in the form of photons).  Whiloe the quantity of mass being expended is minute, it IS being expended.
   ...
Even if (for discussion's sake) mass would be converted into energy with a nuclear reaction E=mc^2 inside the spacecraft to provide the electricity for the EM Drive, that does not solve the conundrum: the issue is not "to expend energy", the issue is to satisfy conservation of momentum.  If no mass leaves the spacecraft, while kinetic energy is converted into a change in momentum of the spacecraft's center of mass, you still have the same conundrum and the same paradoxes I previously noted:

The needed power for the EM Drive (to escape the surface of the Earth, or anything else you want the spacecraft to do) depends on your frame of reference. 

As Paul March himself admitted, for their Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive to hold, they need to disrespect the mainstream physics assumption that the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable.

Bottom line: no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces).  If the EM Drive were to work for space propulsion, it certainly would not be explainable in terms of mainstream physics where conservation of momentum is paramount, and the Quantum Vacuum is both indestructible and immutable.

« Last Edit: 04/07/2015 09:05 PM by Rodal »

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
....
Be it nuclear, fuel cell or even solar, as the source of electricity, mass is being expended in the form of electrons. (Solar is taking advantage of the Sun's own expendature of mass in the form of photons).  Whiloe the quantity of mass being expended is minute, it IS being expended.
   ...
Even if (for discussion's sake) mass would be converted into energy with a nuclear reaction E=mc^2 inside the spacecraft to provide the electricity for the EM Drive, that does not solve the conundrum: the issue is not "to expend energy", the issue is to satisfy conservation of momentum.  If no mass leaves the spacecraft, while kinetic energy is converted into a change in momentum of the spacecraft's center of mass, you still have the same conundrum and the same paradoxes I previously noted:

The needed power for the EM Drive (to escape the surface of the Earth, or anything else you want the spacecraft to do) depends on your frame of reference. 

As Paul March himself admitted, for their Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive to hold, they need to disrespect the mainstream physics assumption that the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable.

Bottom line: no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces).  If the EM Drive were to work for space propulsion, it certainly would not be explainable in terms of mainstream physics where conservation of momentum is paramount, and the Quantum Vacuum is both indestructible and immutable.



Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?
Reality is weirder than fiction

Tags: