Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 9  (Read 1800543 times)

Offline Kenjee

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 21
Ok, this one is pretty interesting. (especially bottom row)
Bell with conical big end.

Bellconica is the name of the ship.  :)

Offline TheTraveller

Ok, this one is pretty interesting. (especially bottom row)
Bell with conical big end.

Bellconica is the name of the ship.  :)

Suggest if you look at the eddy currents, you will see the small end plate is cutoff, ie less eddy current than in small end side wall ring.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline TheTraveller

KISS thruster update:

I'm leaving for China shortly and plan to spend 4 to 8 weeks there to sort out the final KISS Thruster manufacturing process & component supply. Will have a workshop there to work in and staying with a friend.

Design goal for the KISS Thruster force generation is now at 10mN from 25Wrf forward power or 0.4N/KwRF. Well above the best Ion Drive specific force.

Once market ready will be sending out the freebie KISS Thruster verification units directly from China. When they verify it works, larger scale distribution will start.

Also after verification is completed will try to contact Oyzw, Prof Yang & Dr. Chen to catch up & invite them to view a KISS Thruster in operation.

Will also be visiting a few YBCO coating companies as a cryo version of the KISS Thruster is the next item on my R&D agenda.

Still plan to have a KISS Thruster at IAC Sept 2017.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2017 06:18 am by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline TheTraveller

One has to balance the advantage of the greater unsymmetry vs. the useless metal mass adjacent to the big diameter.  But in that sense the geometries with constant cross-section are even worse since the whole constant-cross-section is useless baggage (and also carrying the bad feature of the greater symmetry, hence having high electromagnetic fields in the wrong section

Sorry but high E & H fields at the small end are not what causes the force generation.

The visible to FEKO "Stretching" of the guide wavelength at the small end is what causes the force generation as longer guide waves deliver less momentum transfer / radiation pressure to the small end plate vs the large end plate with it's much shorter guide waves.

And for sure, on that point we do have a "failure to communicate".
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline ThatOtherGuy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 47
Maybe others tried it but here it is:
Bell curve

I wonder if and how the fields would change replacing the two (top/bottom) flat panels with curved (parabolic or catenary ?) ones, also, it may be interesting to have the bottom side curved up (out to in) and the top side (smaller one) curved up too (in to out)
« Last Edit: 03/18/2017 08:14 am by ThatOtherGuy »

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
Ok, this one is pretty interesting. (especially bottom row)
Bell with conical big end.

Bellconica is the name of the ship.  :)

I looked at similar geometry. There was another mode very close to TE013. The difficulty is fabricating all the curved surfaces to tight tolerances.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2017 12:39 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
One has to balance the advantage of the greater unsymmetry vs. the useless metal mass adjacent to the big diameter.  But in that sense the geometries with constant cross-section are even worse since the whole constant-cross-section is useless baggage (and also carrying the bad feature of the greater symmetry, hence having high electromagnetic fields in the wrong section

Sorry but high E & H fields at the small end are not what causes the force generation.

The visible to FEKO "Stretching" of the guide wavelength at the small end is what causes the force generation as longer guide waves deliver less momentum transfer / radiation pressure to the small end plate vs the large end plate with it's much shorter guide waves.

And for sure, on that point we do have a "failure to communicate".
This discussion surely can be interminable.  It is not clear to me whether a) I did not communicate it clearly enough, b) you did not understand what I wrote or c) you are arguing for argument's sake, in order to prolong an argument.

I assumed an IF statement: IF the purpose of Shawyer's EM Drive was to create an electromagnetic asymmetry in the cavity (initially in his first patent by using dielectrics in constant cross-section cavities and then switching to a geometric asymmetry) in the electromagnetic fields, THEN, the following follows (that constant cross-section (without asymmetric dielectrics) is sub-optimal, and that having the highest asymmetry of the electromagnetic field is what one is seeking). 
You on the other hand change the argument by stating that I said that I know what would make the EM Drive have an anomalous force, when I never stated such a thing (whether it is an experimental artifact or if real what would be responsible for such an anomalous force).  As pointed out by Monomorphic and X_Ray, Shawyer used segments of constant cross-section initially only to be able to mechanically adjust the frequency to match the frequency of the magnetron (2.4 GHz).  He abandoned the necessary evil of the constant cross-section when he switched to solid-state.  Shawyer then concentrated on producing an asymmetry purely based on geometry.

To similarly prolong such discussion by exaggerating your argument, I could answer you as follows:

If you do not think that high E & H fields at the small end is what matters to create a more asymmetric drive, that means that you think that the best EM Drive is one with constant cross-section, having the same electromagnetic field amplitude at both ends.

This way we could surely have an interminable number of posts this way, by exaggerating and misrepresenting each other person's arguments: the 2nd commandment of logical discussion:



« Last Edit: 03/18/2017 02:38 pm by Rodal »

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Either you have no idea about what we are discussing or you are deliberately misleading this forum. Either way you will shortly come up short. See you on the other side.

Rodal updated his post just after your post, clarifying exactly what he is talking about. You are the one who appears to not be following the conversation.

Also, you have previously argued that people need to change their designs to be more similar to the latest Shawyer designs (curved endplates), and now you are telling people to instead include a feature that has since been abandoned by Shawyer (straight sections). I am having trouble understanding what purpose this back and forth could serve other than to mislead or slow down emDrive testing. (Another explanation is just you not applying critical thinking).

Offline spupeng7

Something I've tried to reconcile in my own mind, and is vitally important to get (at least for me), is truly understanding that warping space (ala Star Trek or the Alcubierre drive) which requires A LOT (the amounts of energy stored in matter) of energy, and inducing gravity, isn't the same thing. In my mind, I can induce a gravitational field (however weak) and it can coexist and superimpose with the gravitational field of the immediate environment to produce thrust, or cancel it out, or change the average rate of clocks in vicinity.

Thank you Mulletron,
The notion of 'warp drive' is flawed because it assumes that empty space has properties. Surely acceleration of an object must be an interaction with other objects. Even if you want to define that interaction using fields, those fields are still dependent upon the presence (however remote) of objects.

In my opinion relativity indicates that interactions occur across a separation at the speed of light. Time dilation due to acceleration, or, acceleration due to time dilation, amount to the same thing which is a balance of interactions in accordance with conservation. Isolated and independent generation of acceleration sounds to me like magical thinking.
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 1071
Something I've tried to reconcile in my own mind, and is vitally important to get (at least for me), is truly understanding that warping space (ala Star Trek or the Alcubierre drive) which requires A LOT (the amounts of energy stored in matter) of energy, and inducing gravity, isn't the same thing. In my mind, I can induce a gravitational field (however weak) and it can coexist and superimpose with the gravitational field of the immediate environment to produce thrust, or cancel it out, or change the average rate of clocks in vicinity.

Thank you Mulletron,
The notion of 'warp drive' is flawed because it assumes that empty space has properties. Surely acceleration of an object must be an interaction with other objects. Even if you want to define that interaction using fields, those fields are still dependent upon the presence (however remote) of objects.

In my opinion relativity indicates that interactions occur across a separation at the speed of light. Time dilation due to acceleration, or, acceleration due to time dilation, amount to the same thing which is a balance of interactions in accordance with conservation. Isolated and independent generation of acceleration sounds to me like magical thinking.

Well, empty space does have properties because everywhere in space exists a field for every particle we know of (and undiscovered ones), so to bring the argument full circle, there's no such thing as empty space. These fields all exist together everywhere (and are never exactly zero) and the aggregate effect of these fields are what we experience as the universe, including the (deceptively) empty parts. I'm talking about QFT here. So space isn't empty and it has properties. About 20 minutes in, this guy lays it out quite nicely.


Bringing it back to the classical world, here's what I was talking about with the warp drive. It takes a lot of energy to warp/stretch/contract/bend spacetime, so why bother? Warping space and inducing gravity aren't the same thing. I'm going to try very hard over the coming days to translate what's going on in my intuitive mind to something other people can read and understand.

There's a discussion here about this. You'll see comments saying that GR is a nonlinear theory and therefore it doesn't obey the superposition principle. That's true, and it's only applicable to extreme cases.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/306305/do-all-waves-of-any-kind-satisfy-the-principle-of-superposition
So, gravity, in the weak field limit (what we're experiencing right now on Earth and even in the solar system) is linear. It only goes nonlinear in the strong regime, like around a black hole. I'm entirely justified in ignoring the nonlinear parts of the theory and I can go with a linear approximation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearized_gravity
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/GravField.htm
I firmly believe that in the weak field limit, I can get away with generating weak gravitational fields using gravitational induction (if it's really real, and not just a theory and equations that have no place in actual reality) and superimpose this paltry AC gravity with the static gravity (it's not really static either but that's another post) of the environment around me, and go places.

Couple of quick things I dug up about the rigidity of spacetime.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-large-energy-field-other-than-gravity-warp-spacetime

« Last Edit: 03/19/2017 05:35 am by Mulletron »
And I can feel the change in the wind right now - Rod Stewart

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 1031
  • Likes Given: 31
Something I've tried to reconcile in my own mind, and is vitally important to get (at least for me), is truly understanding that warping space (ala Star Trek or the Alcubierre drive) which requires A LOT (the amounts of energy stored in matter) of energy, and inducing gravity, isn't the same thing. In my mind, I can induce a gravitational field (however weak) and it can coexist and superimpose with the gravitational field of the immediate environment to produce thrust, or cancel it out, or change the average rate of clocks in vicinity.

Thank you Mulletron,
The notion of 'warp drive' is flawed because it assumes that empty space has properties. Surely acceleration of an object must be an interaction with other objects. Even if you want to define that interaction using fields, those fields are still dependent upon the presence (however remote) of objects.

In my opinion relativity indicates that interactions occur across a separation at the speed of light. Time dilation due to acceleration, or, acceleration due to time dilation, amount to the same thing which is a balance of interactions in accordance with conservation. Isolated and independent generation of acceleration sounds to me like magical thinking.

Well, empty space does have properties because everywhere in space exists a field for every particle we know of (and undiscovered ones), so to bring the argument full circle, there's no such thing as empty space. These fields all exist together everywhere (and are never exactly zero) and the aggregate effect of these fields are what we experience as the universe, including the (deceptively) empty parts. I'm talking about QFT here. So space isn't empty and it has properties. About 20 minutes in, this guy lays it out quite nicely.


Bringing it back to the classical world, here's what I was talking about with the warp drive. It takes a lot of energy to warp/stretch/contract/bend spacetime, so why bother? Warping space and inducing gravity aren't the same thing. I'm going to try very hard over the coming days to translate what's going on in my intuitive mind to something other people can read and understand.

There's a discussion here about this. You'll see comments saying that GR is a nonlinear theory and therefore it doesn't obey the superposition principle. That's true, and it's only applicable to extreme cases.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/306305/do-all-waves-of-any-kind-satisfy-the-principle-of-superposition
So, gravity, in the weak field limit (what we're experiencing right now on Earth and even in the solar system) is linear. It only goes nonlinear in the strong regime, like around a black hole. I'm entirely justified in ignoring the nonlinear parts of the theory and I can go with a linear approximation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearized_gravity
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/GravField.htm
I firmly believe that in the weak field limit, I can get away with generating weak gravitational fields using gravitational induction (if it's really real, and not just a theory and equations that have no place in actual reality) and superimpose this paltry AC gravity with the static gravity (it's not really static either but that's another post) of the environment around me, and go places.

Couple of quick things I dug up about the rigidity of spacetime.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-large-energy-field-other-than-gravity-warp-spacetime



Mulletron:

One of the ideas behind Sonny White's mutable and degradable Quantum Vacuum (QV) conjecture is that it and GRT spacetime are one and the same thing.  If this conjecture truly reflects the real world, then the GRT spacetime stiffness "constant" of 8*Pi*G / c^4 is also locally mutable under large (>100kV/m), time-varying (>10^9 Hz)  E&M fields.  In other words the stiffness of spacetime can be locally reduced under the appropriate dynamic excitation and in doing so create a local variation to the ambient gee field. 

Is there any proof that this could be real other than what is presented in the NASA/JSC Eagleworks Lab papers published to date?  There might be in the guise of the attached 2009 paper by a Dr. Turtur in Germany that experimentally demonstrates that it IS possible to harvest energy from the QV zero point field with electrostatic and/or magnetostatic rotary converters.  Now apply this QV energy harvesting lesson to the EMdrive and all other propellantless propulsion engines, but replace this experiment's rotor with large, time varying E&M fields in the frustum...

Best,  Paul M.
« Last Edit: 03/19/2017 10:00 am by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 195
One has to balance the advantage of the greater unsymmetry vs. the useless metal mass adjacent to the big diameter.  But in that sense the geometries with constant cross-section are even worse since the whole constant-cross-section is useless baggage (and also carrying the bad feature of the greater symmetry, hence having high electromagnetic fields in the wrong section

Useless metal/baggage? I suggest not. Inconvient truth, yup.

The big end was not adjustable, yet it had a 1/4 guide wavelength constant diameter setback to the big end plate. Tuning was done by adjusting the 1/4 guide wavelength constant diameter setback to the small end plate.

Why was the small end 1/4 guide wavelength setback much longer than the 1/4 guide wavelength big end setback? Because the guide wavelength at the small end is LONGER than at the big end.

The setbacks at each end are there for a reason. Would have thought a smart guy like you would be asking why the two 1/4 guide wavelength setbacks are there and what function they provide?

TT, the above does not make sense! My impression is that Dr. Rodal was making a comparison between mechanically tuning and electronically tuning.., where once the design moves to digital electronic tuning any constant diameter section.., originally used to mechanically tune, becomes useless... At least unless you or Roger can provide a better explanation why it is needed.

IOW if the constant diameter section is not being used to move the end plate for tuning purposes, what purpose does it serve, other than to add weight?

AND later designs seem to have eliminated that feature completely.

My impression is that is was just a stage in sequential engineering design changes.., basically driven by trial and error.., or trial and comparison.

Dr. Rodal here seems spot on when is says there seems to be failure in communication.
« Last Edit: 03/19/2017 02:13 pm by OnlyMe »

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 195
One has to balance the advantage of the greater unsymmetry vs. the useless metal mass adjacent to the big diameter.  But in that sense the geometries with constant cross-section are even worse since the whole constant-cross-section is useless baggage (and also carrying the bad feature of the greater symmetry, hence having high electromagnetic fields in the wrong section

Sorry but high E & H fields at the small end are not what causes the force generation.

The visible to FEKO "Stretching" of the guide wavelength at the small end is what causes the force generation as longer guide waves deliver less momentum transfer / radiation pressure to the small end plate vs the large end plate with it's much shorter guide waves.

And for sure, on that point we do have a "failure to communicate".

TT, it seems the above is another one of those There You Go Again posts... where you seem to claim without proof how an annomolous force is produced.., without providing credible proof/data to support the opionion.

If Roger has shared some credible proof with you that nails down exactly how force/acceleration is developed, you are arguing opinion as if it were fact.

As I have mentioned earlier, no one on any side of the discussion has yet to publish credible data/proof that nails down exactly how an EmDrive develops any thrust/force. Lots of guessing and opinion, no published credible evidence. What has been public ally shared has been attempts to measure the magnitude of an annomolus force, with what seems to be initially promising results using both Balance beam and torsion pendulum designs and one (Shawyer's) very limited video of a rotary setup, which at best could serve to demonstrate a constant acceleration, if it exists and the experiment were allowed to run long enough to be meaningful.

NO ONE has yet presented data that even seems designed to demonstrate how any force is produced. At least not that has been publicly shared or published.

...............

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
...
Mulletron:

One of the ideas behind Sonny White's mutable and degradable Quantum Vacuum (QV) conjecture is that it and GRT spacetime are one and the same thing.  If this conjecture truly reflects the real world, then the GRT spacetime stiffness "constant" of 8*Pi*G / c^4 is also locally mutable under large (>100kV/m), time-varying (>10^9 Hz)  E&M fields.  In other words the stiffness of spacetime can be locally reduced under the appropriate dynamic excitation and in doing so create a local variation to the ambient gee field. 

Is there any proof that this could be real other than what is presented in the NASA/JSC Eagleworks Lab papers published to date?  There might be in the guise of the attached 2009 paper by a Dr. Turtur in Germany that experimentally demonstrates that it IS possible to harvest energy from the QV zero point field with electrostatic and/or magnetostatic rotary converters.  Now apply this QV energy harvesting lesson to the EMdrive and all other propellantless propulsion engines, but replace this experiment's rotor with large, time varying E&M fields in the frustum...

Best,  Paul M.
It is healthy that the consequences of these theories are being honestly examined by Star-Drive as to their strange consequences, rather than being "swept under the rug".  From the above discussion by Star-Drive it appears  clear that Sonny White's theory about a degradable QV embraces the idea that energy can be harvested from the QV.  This is a very controversial consequence of the theory.  A lot has been written about the energy problem concerning that a force can be produced without expelling any propellants: http://emdrive.wiki/Energy_Conservation



My understanding is that Dr. McCulloch also embraces the idea that energy can be harvested from the Quantum Vacuum, according to McCulloch's theory.

Notsosureofit has been trying to resolve this by examining the entropy in General Relativity, but my understanding is that the progress is slow and no final conclusion has been reached.

Frobnicat early on showed that if the EM Drive can produce a constant force, this force could be utilized (in theory) to harvest energy.  Actually, Frobnicat asked:

1) if the EM Drive works as proposed, it looks like it would be more immediately exploitable for economic purposes (not necessarily by the scheme sketched by Frobnicat, but by any other means as discussed above by Star-Drive) as a means to produce practically "free energy" for mankind than for Interstellar Travel.

2)  if the EM Drive works as proposed, it looks like extra EM Drives on-board could harvest energy from the QV and therefore avoid having to have (at least in part, or ideally at all) a means of providing electric energy to the EM Drive's providing propulsion, as that energy to produce the force could be harvested from the QV instead of being produced by onboard nuclear reaction or other means to provide electric energy.

I am resurrecting these questions by Frobnicat, because at the time that Frobnicat posed them, Star-Drive was momentarily not active in the forum, and because Star-Drive's latest post discusses the idea that energy may be harvestable from the QV.

On Turtur's experiments:

https://www.psiram.com/en/index.php/Claus_Wilhelm_Turtur

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claus_Turtur

http://vixra.org/author/claus_wilhelm_turtur

quote from http://www.ostfalia.de/export/sites/default/de/pws/turtur/images/1_Schrift_03f_englisch.pdf

Quote
Dr. Martin Tajmar from AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH at
Seibersdorf near Wien (Head of Space Propulsion & Advanced Concepts) did
many discussions with me, coming to the result that he tried together with
Harald Chmela to further develop the electrostatic vacuumenergy-rotor into a
version with rigidly fixed axis. (Unfortunately up to now, the experiments did
not have success.)
« Last Edit: 03/19/2017 03:27 pm by Rodal »

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 2479
...
Mulletron:

One of the ideas behind Sonny White's mutable and degradable Quantum Vacuum (QV) conjecture is that it and GRT spacetime are one and the same thing.  If this conjecture truly reflects the real world, then the GRT spacetime stiffness "constant" of 8*Pi*G / c^4 is also locally mutable under large (>100kV/m), time-varying (>10^9 Hz)  E&M fields.  In other words the stiffness of spacetime can be locally reduced under the appropriate dynamic excitation and in doing so create a local variation to the ambient gee field. 

Is there any proof that this could be real other than what is presented in the NASA/JSC Eagleworks Lab papers published to date?  There might be in the guise of the attached 2009 paper by a Dr. Turtur in Germany that experimentally demonstrates that it IS possible to harvest energy from the QV zero point field with electrostatic and/or magnetostatic rotary converters.  Now apply this QV energy harvesting lesson to the EMdrive and all other propellantless propulsion engines, but replace this experiment's rotor with large, time varying E&M fields in the frustum...

Best,  Paul M.
It is healthy that the consequences of these theories are being honestly examined by Star-Drive as to their strange consequences, rather than being "swept under the rug".  From the above discussion by Star-Drive it appears  clear that Sonny White's theory about a degradable QV embraces the idea that energy can be harvested from the QV.  This is a very controversial consequence of the theory.  A lot has been written about the energy problem concerning that a force can be produced without expelling any propellants: http://emdrive.wiki/Energy_Conservation



My understanding is that Dr. McCulloch also embraces the idea that energy can be harvested from the Quantum Vacuum, according to McCulloch's theory.

Notsosureofit has been trying to resolve this by examining the entropy in General Relativity, but my understanding is that the progress is slow and no final conclusion has been reached.

Frobnicat early on showed that if the EM Drive can produce a constant force, this force could be utilized (in theory) to harvest energy.  Actually, Frobnicat asked:

1) if the EM Drive works as proposed, it looks like it would be more immediately exploitable for economic purposes (not necessarily by the scheme sketched by Frobnicat, but by any other means as discussed above by Star-Drive) as a means to produce practically "free energy" for mankind than for Interstellar Travel.

2)  if the EM Drive works as proposed, it looks like extra EM Drives on-board could harvest energy from the QV and therefore avoid having to have (at least in part, or ideally at all) a means of providing electric energy to the EM Drive's providing propulsion, as that energy to produce the force could be harvested from the QV instead of being produced by onboard nuclear reaction or other means to provide electric energy.

I am resurrecting these questions by Frobnicat, because at the time that Frobnicat posed them, Star-Drive was momentarily not active in the forum, and because Star-Drive's latest post discusses the idea that energy may be harvestable from the QV.

On Turtur's experiments:

https://www.psiram.com/en/index.php/Claus_Wilhelm_Turtur

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claus_Turtur

http://vixra.org/author/claus_wilhelm_turtur

quote from http://www.ostfalia.de/export/sites/default/de/pws/turtur/images/1_Schrift_03f_englisch.pdf

Quote
Dr. Martin Tajmar from AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH at
Seibersdorf near Wien (Head of Space Propulsion & Advanced Concepts) did
many discussions with me, coming to the result that he tried together with
Harald Chmela to further develop the electrostatic vacuumenergy-rotor into a
version with rigidly fixed axis. (Unfortunately up to now, the experiments did
not have success.)
In general it sounds like it is worth to read a little deeper into the basic concept. However, I am happy about the fact that you quote to critic voices also. (Biefeld–Brown-effect and so on.) :)
Thanks for the additional links!
« Last Edit: 03/19/2017 07:44 pm by X_RaY »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 1031
  • Likes Given: 31
...
Mulletron:

One of the ideas behind Sonny White's mutable and degradable Quantum Vacuum (QV) conjecture is that it and GRT spacetime are one and the same thing.  If this conjecture truly reflects the real world, then the GRT spacetime stiffness "constant" of 8*Pi*G / c^4 is also locally mutable under large (>100kV/m), time-varying (>10^9 Hz)  E&M fields.  In other words the stiffness of spacetime can be locally reduced under the appropriate dynamic excitation and in doing so create a local variation to the ambient gee field. 

Is there any proof that this could be real other than what is presented in the NASA/JSC Eagleworks Lab papers published to date?  There might be in the guise of the attached 2009 paper by a Dr. Turtur in Germany that experimentally demonstrates that it IS possible to harvest energy from the QV zero point field with electrostatic and/or magnetostatic rotary converters.  Now apply this QV energy harvesting lesson to the EMdrive and all other propellantless propulsion engines, but replace this experiment's rotor with large, time varying E&M fields in the frustum...

Best,  Paul M.
It is healthy that the consequences of these theories are being honestly examined by Star-Drive as to their strange consequences, rather than being "swept under the rug".  From the above discussion by Star-Drive it appears  clear that Sonny White's theory about a degradable QV embraces the idea that energy can be harvested from the QV.  This is a very controversial consequence of the theory.  A lot has been written about the energy problem concerning that a force can be produced without expelling any propellants: http://emdrive.wiki/Energy_Conservation



My understanding is that Dr. McCulloch also embraces the idea that energy can be harvested from the Quantum Vacuum, according to McCulloch's theory.

Notsosureofit has been trying to resolve this by examining the entropy in General Relativity, but my understanding is that the progress is slow and no final conclusion has been reached.

Frobnicat early on showed that if the EM Drive can produce a constant force, this force could be utilized (in theory) to harvest energy.  Actually, Frobnicat asked:

1) if the EM Drive works as proposed, it looks like it would be more immediately exploitable for economic purposes (not necessarily by the scheme sketched by Frobnicat, but by any other means as discussed above by Star-Drive) as a means to produce practically "free energy" for mankind than for Interstellar Travel.

2)  if the EM Drive works as proposed, it looks like extra EM Drives on-board could harvest energy from the QV and therefore avoid having to have (at least in part, or ideally at all) a means of providing electric energy to the EM Drive's providing propulsion, as that energy to produce the force could be harvested from the QV instead of being produced by onboard nuclear reaction or other means to provide electric energy.

I am resurrecting these questions by Frobnicat, because at the time that Frobnicat posed them, Star-Drive was momentarily not active in the forum, and because Star-Drive's latest post discusses the idea that energy may be harvestable from the QV.

On Turtur's experiments:

https://www.psiram.com/en/index.php/Claus_Wilhelm_Turtur

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claus_Turtur

http://vixra.org/author/claus_wilhelm_turtur

quote from http://www.ostfalia.de/export/sites/default/de/pws/turtur/images/1_Schrift_03f_englisch.pdf

Quote
Dr. Martin Tajmar from AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH at
Seibersdorf near Wien (Head of Space Propulsion & Advanced Concepts) did
many discussions with me, coming to the result that he tried together with
Harald Chmela to further develop the electrostatic vacuum-energy-rotor into a
version with rigidly fixed axis. (Unfortunately up to now, the experiments did
not have success.)

Jose':

As I already noted a mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) AKA spacetime by definition permits setting up a thermodynamic cycle that should in theory be able to extract energy from the QV, i.e., degrade or lower the cosmological vacuum energy state of the causally connected universe.  If Shawyer's EMdrives and/or Woodward's Mach-Effect drives work, then this has to be true.  For me this does NOT mean we are creating a perpetual motion machine, but simply tapping into another energy storage source that just happens to be the cosmological gravitational field.  What's the price for this kind of energy extraction process?  I think it just means our energy loans hasten the cooling of the average 2.73K background temperature of the cosmos and perhaps increase the expansion rate of the universe as well, i.e., there is no free lunch.  However look at the magnitude of the potential energy reserves contained in the cosmological gravitational field.  If we are tapping just the potential energy contained in all the estimated ~1x10^80 atoms in the causally connected universe that created this background gravitational field, and apply E = m*c^2 to that mass, we could run a whole galactic empires from same for a billion years and not even put a dent in it...

Best, Paul M.   
« Last Edit: 03/19/2017 07:28 pm by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 355
Quote
Does the momentum increase or decrease as the refractive index of the medium increases? The results here suggest that the answer depends on whether or not the light can put the fluid into motion: if it can, its momentum decreases and it exerts Abraham's pushing force; otherwise, its momentum increases and it exerts Minkowski's pulling force.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-06-physicists-pressure.html#jCp

So maybe if I could say there was some effective change in the index of what is responsible for the existence of light in the vacuum between different ends, and if this vacuum is a fluid, then as light travels back and forth, changing in effective mass by coupling/decoupling with this vacuum, it might have a repeated pushing effect (Abraham's) on the vacuum as it gains momentum near the large end.  The reaction on the vacuum may possibly cause a Doppler effect on the lights frame reducing the lights increased momentum at the large end.  Problem is now the vacuum is repeatedly set in motion making the cavity perceive an accelerating frame but in the direction of the large end? 

Could squeezed light and the connection to squeezing the vacuum be connected to some how allow such a change in the vacuum index?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeezed_coherent_state  With a change in dx it appears a change in dp is following which could lead to some change in momentum. 

For the squeezed vacuum state the photon number distribution displays odd-even-oscillations. This can be explained by the mathematical form of the squeezing operator, that resembles the operator for two-photon generation and annihilation processes. Photons in a squeezed vacuum state are more likely to appear in pairs.
could we be squeezing and un-squeezing light?

Edited: had things backwards for a second.
« Last Edit: 03/19/2017 07:55 pm by dustinthewind »
Follow the science? What is science with out the truth.  If there is no truth in it it is not science.  Truth is found by open discussion and rehashing facts not those that moderate it to fit their agenda.  In the end the truth speaks for itself.  Beware the strong delusion and lies mentioned in 2ndThesalonians2:11.  The last stage of Babylon is transhumanism.  Clay mingled with iron (flesh mingled with machine).  MK ultra out of control.  Consider bill gates patent 202060606 (666), that hacks the humans to make their brains crunch C R Y P T O. Are humans hackable animals or are they protected like when Jesus cast out the legion?

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
...
Jose':

As I already noted a mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) AKA spacetime by definition permits setting up a thermodynamic cycle that should in theory be able to extract energy from the QV, i.e., degrade or lower the cosmological vacuum energy state of the causally connected universe.  If Shawyer's EMdrives and/or Woodward's Mach-Effect drives work, then this has to be true. ...

Best, Paul M.
Paul,

It looks like that follows if the QV could be used to generate propelllant-less propulsion (something that mainstream science finds unlikely), however I'm not sure if that is the case for a gravitational effect: we can use a gravity assist in order to propel a spacecraft to much higher velocities (e.g the Pioneer 10-11 probes, or the Voyager probes) and  we can use gravity to get energy from a reservoir of water in a hydroelectric dam, but in that last case, the energy is really harvested from the atmospheric process (evaporation and rain driven by the Sun's energy) that is responsible to take the water to the higher height of the reservoir in the first place.  So it looks to me like gravity really can be used for propulsion (a gravity assist), or to rapidly extract energy from a reservoir harvested by another process but not for energy harvesting itself.




« Last Edit: 03/19/2017 11:11 pm by Rodal »

Offline spupeng7

...

I just wanted to point out that any accelerated ion that makes light emits in a circle around it self or omnidirectionally.  In that sense light always has a counter propagating partner.  Would that imply it always has a center of mass?

dustinthewind,

        the evidence for these behaviors is incomplete. The evidence of individual photon interactions suggests they are emitted and an absorbed and so have a specific direction, if not a specific path, their energy is conserved not dissipated over distance by 1/r2. How this can be feasible in anything other than complex time, escapes me.

Present concepts of physical force may prove inadequate as a explanation for emdrive thrust. A simple explanation for that thrust may be arrived at by a combination of complex time which allows interaction without mediation by particles, and time dilation as the mechanism of electromagnetic interaction. If we can begin by reducing our assumptions we may be able to develop new tools which assist emdrive development.
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline spupeng7

Extract from a larger argument,
...
 (Saying something rotates in all 3 axes at once doesn't make sense. Things only spin in one direction at once, you might just have to tilt your head to line up coordinate systems.)   ...

meberbs, rotation of a single solid object can occur about two non-parallel axes at the same time, but no more.

See -  quaternions    :-)
« Last Edit: 03/20/2017 12:05 am by spupeng7 »
Optimism equals opportunity.

Tags:
 

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