Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 9  (Read 682343 times)

Online Chris Bergin

This is a thread - Thread 9 in the series - focused on objective analysis of whether the EM Drive (a cavity resonating at microwave frequencies) reported "thrust force" is an experimental artifact or whether it is a real propulsion effect  that can be used for space applications, and if so, in discussing those possible space propulsion applications.

Objective skeptical inquiry is strongly welcome.   Disagreements should be expressed politely, concentrating on the technical, engineering and scientific aspects, instead of focusing on people.   As such, the use of experimental data, mathematics, physics, engineering, drawings, spreadsheets and computer simulations are strongly encouraged, while subjective wordy statements are discouraged. Peer-reviewed information from reputable journals is strongly encouraged.  Please acknowledge the authors and respect copyrights.

Commercial advertisement is discouraged.

In order to minimize bandwidth and maximize information content, when quoting, one can use an ellipsis (...) to indicate the clipped material.

Only use the embed [img ]http://code when the image is small enough to fit within the page. Anything wider than the width of the page makes the page unreadable as it stretches it (we're working on auto reduction, but different browsers work different ways, etc.)

This link

http://math.typeit.org/

enables typing of mathematical symbols, including differentiation and integration, Greek letters, etc.

--

Links to previous threads:

Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.0

Thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.0

Thread 3:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.0

Thread 4:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.0

Thread 5:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.0

Thread 6:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.0

Thread 7:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.0

Thread 8:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.0
--

Entry level thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0

Baseline NSF Article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

This is the link to the EM Drive wiki that users are encouraged to contribute to, edit for accuracy, and build as a knowledge resource for the EM Drive:

http://emdrive.wiki
http://rfdriven.com

Chris note: Please note all posts need to be useful and worthwhile or they will be removed via moderation. This subject has large interest, with over 4.2 million thread reads and 880,000 article reads. Most people are reading and not posting, so when you post it is in front of a very large audience.

Also, and it should go without saying, amateur experiments are discouraged unless you have gained educated and/or professional advice for safety reasons.

Online Chris Bergin

Right, a note from me.

1) All posts need to be useful and constructive.
2) Anyone attacking any other member in any form will result in their post being removed, without warning, and banned from posting. The forum rules here apply to all threads. I know most of you on this thread only read this subject.
3) Anyone repeating their argument in an attempt to promote it (known as bumping) will have their posts removed.
4) Stupid MEMEs and random pictures of ponies laughing as some sort of "humorous response" will be removed (although I really like horses).
5) If there is a problem post, don't post "Wow, why won't the moderators remove that" if you've not REPORTED TO MODERATOR. Don't quote bad posts.

--


Think really carefully before posting on this thread. If you see a breach of the above, report to moderator, it's the tab in the bottom right of the post in question.

How this thread goes will decide if there will be a thread 10, or at least one that isn't view only bar the good regular posters.

You've been warned! ;)

Offline Josave

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Madrid
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 104
This interesting article summarizes Lev A. Rivlin works on photon inertial mass and its relation to waveguide cross-section variations:

http://www.mathnet.ru/php/archive.phtml?wshow=paper&jrnid=qe&paperid=2500&option_lang=eng

Some ideas he proposes could shed light in other theories (say MiHsC) that need a physical mass equivalence for the amount of radiation confined in a cavity.

Photon rest mass exists when they are confined, is non-zero, and is determined by the geometry of the waveguide, and this mass can vary with the diameter. "Photon rest mass is equal to the work performed by an external force against the mode field force during the waveguide formation when the radiation pressure is 'raked' from infinite space (originally zero frequency or infinite wavelength) into the limited volume of the waveguide"...

..."The proper photon mass in the waveguide, defined as the equivalent of the energy mentioned above, serves in different situations precisely as the inertial and gravitational mass in the standard meaning of these concepts."

This is really a good starting point to do some engineering playing with diameters, frequencies and accelerations (Shawyer is indicating us that for observing a measurable thrust, there is necessary some initial acceleration). The recipe, more or less, could be to generate "stopped light", by modifying confinement geometries/cavity accelerations, so the radiation could leave inertia at rest.

"Equations (6.4) and (6.13) explain the difference between longitudinal and transverse masses: while both being proportional to the proper photon mass M, ML and MT are manifestations of the photon inertia in different types of accelerated waveguide motion. The longitudinal accelerated photon motion constitutes simply wave propagation with changing frequency through the waveguide. The transverse photon motion consists in the acceleration of the wave together with the waveguide confining it, as a whole".

This can be the explanation of different inertia if the EmDrive is in an upright position or in a lateral position respect to the external acceleration (or respect to Earth gravity). Following Lev A. Rivlin schema, could be possible to interchange or convert longitudinal mass into transverse mass, so the inertia is reduced for motion in one preferred direction, and CoM is not broken.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2016 08:57 PM by Josave »

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 46
Quote from: CorvusCorax
Just hypothetically, what happens if everyone flies around in those? With thrust forces in the kilonewton range.

If the EM drive creates its acceleration by "pushing against the quantum vacuum", would that yield measurable residual effects for matter riding the wake of an em drive? Like thrust fluctuations in another EM drive flying directly behind a first one, or measurable forces on masses that are placed in the thrust vector? Or spacetime distortions and eddies, like some proposed warp drive designs would create?

Could the presence and operation of an EM drive be detected from a distance?

(I know I'm mixing a lot of concepts here that have nothing directly to do with each other. Just food for thoughts)


In the just previous thread, this topic came up but was not replied to.  The QV hypothesis proponents have talked about a wake in the QV caused by an active EmDrive.   What are the implications of such a wake?

Just exactly how would one DETECT the hypothesized wake in the QV caused by an active EmDrive?

The only thing I can think of is another EmDrive directly behind a first EmDrive, which would act in the same way as a boat behind another boat in water, if the hypothesis is correct.

What other ways would you detect a wake in the QV?


Online LowerAtmosphere

  • Member
  • Posts: 61
  • "Knowledge is in the end based on acknowledgement"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 53
I assume you refer to Dr. White's QVP propulsion theory as outlined in http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3082.pdf

Whether perturbations truly affect the QV and spread as a wake effect (at the speed of light presumably) is a matter of interpretation. As far as most QED is concerned, the QV responds linearly to perturbation by E+M fields. That is to say a wake, such as can be seen trailing and spreading out behind a boat passing through a body of water, does not appear according to classical theory since there is no significant interaction. Each stimulated point instantaneously changes at the same speed as the EM fields perturbing it. What is worth considering is a thought experiment in which ultra-high neutron star level M fields are generated in two points orbiting each other at high speeds. The QV will be perturbed at both extrema, will the perturbation be toroidal at sufficient speed or still have two distinct extrema i.e. does information in the QV propagate at the speed of light or slower? Will one strong field 'soften up' the QV for a slightly longer time period than a weak field?

Edit: I suppose I should further elaborate. Spacetime has a fluctuating stiffness, does QV? My question is not whether the QV is immutable or degradable but rather whether  it has a memory of sorts. I.e. can the threshold energy for QV plasma generation be lowered temporarily after exposure to high EM fields and what determines local ZPE fields in an empty/E+M fieldless universe? Note again that this differs from a wake as a wake would be governed by magnetohydrodynamics not QV inherent properties.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2016 07:45 PM by LowerAtmosphere »

Offline therealjjj77

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Earth
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 10
Have been considering ways to test my theory here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1613281#msg1613281

And also some other comments have been given that lend toward theorizing that EM Drive may be producing gravitational waves(or I would say anti-gravity/creation of space).

Testing for this may be critical to confirming whether the EM Drive is producing a "gravity-like" affect for the following reasons:

1. Such an affect could create the impression of thrust without actual thrust occurring. This is because such an affect would "pull" or "push" on the measuring device giving a slight reading in the same way that an increase or decrease in gravity would impact measurements. That is not to say, however, that thrust had not been achieved, but that other testing methods would need to be developed to isolate if thrust is occurring.

2. Discovery of such an affect would have a profound impact on our understanding of gravity. The applications for technology that can impact gravity would be far-reaching.

3. Assuming such an affect was occurring AND thrust, in fact, was being produced, further study into this affect on the impact of the EM Drive may help develop more accurate calculations down the road.

Without calling up LIGO or building a smaller version of it, the easiest way to test for gravitational waves would be to have a 2nd scale or pendulum of identical orientation but not connected to the EM Drive. If the 2nd scale/pendulum shows a reading also, then we will know that the impact is from a gravity-like affect being produced.

IF the second scale/pendulum shows a reading, we can then deduce the thrust by finding the difference between the two scales.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2016 07:38 PM by therealjjj77 »

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 449
  • France
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 809
This interesting article summarizes Liv A. Rivlin works on photon inertial mass and its relation to waveguide cross-section variations:

http://www.mathnet.ru/php/archive.phtml?wshow=paper&jrnid=qe&paperid=2500&option_lang=eng

Some ideas he proposes could shed light in other theories (say MiHsC) that need a physical mass equivalence for the amount of radiation confined in a cavity.

Photon rest mass exists when they are confined, is non-zero, and is determined by the geometry of the waveguide, and this mass can vary with the diameter. "Photon rest mass is equal to the work performed by an external force against the mode field force during the waveguide formation when the radiation pressure is 'raked' from infinite space (originally zero frequency or infinite wavelength) into the limited volume of the waveguide"...

..."The proper photon mass in the waveguide, defined as the equivalent of the energy mentioned above, serves in different situations precisely as the inertial and gravitational mass in the standard meaning of these concepts."

The variation of the inertial mass of photons travelling in a tapered cavity has been claimed all along by Roger Shawyer, Mike McCulloch and Todd Desiato (WarpTech) using different theories :)

But Yikes! The available paper is in entirely in Russian but the abstract :\
Kvantovaya Elektronika articles are also edited in the journal Quantum ELectronics, but the English version is behind a paywall:

Rivlin, Lev A. (2003). "Stopped light: Towards plane-wave-free electrodynamics", Quantum Electronics 33(9).

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5662
  • USA
  • Liked: 5471
  • Likes Given: 4943
This interesting article summarizes Lev A. Rivlin works on photon inertial mass and its relation to waveguide cross-section variations:

http://www.mathnet.ru/php/archive.phtml?wshow=paper&jrnid=qe&paperid=2500&option_lang=eng

Some ideas he proposes could shed light in other theories (say MiHsC) that need a physical mass equivalence for the amount of radiation confined in a cavity.

Photon rest mass exists when they are confined, is non-zero, and is determined by the geometry of the waveguide, and this mass can vary with the diameter. "Photon rest mass is equal to the work performed by an external force against the mode field force during the waveguide formation when the radiation pressure is 'raked' from infinite space (originally zero frequency or infinite wavelength) into the limited volume of the waveguide"...

..."The proper photon mass in the waveguide, defined as the equivalent of the energy mentioned above, serves in different situations precisely as the inertial and gravitational mass in the standard meaning of these concepts."

This is really a good starting point to do some engineering playing with diameters, frequencies and accelerations (Shawyer is indicating us that for observing a measurable thrust, there is necessary some initial acceleration). The recipe, more or less, could be to generate "stopped light", by modifying confinement geometries/cavity accelerations, so the radiation could leave inertia at rest.

"Equations (6.4) and (6.13) explain the difference between longitudinal and transverse masses: while both being proportional to the proper photon mass M, ML and MT are manifestations of the photon inertia in different types of accelerated waveguide motion. The longitudinal accelerated photon motion constitutes simply wave propagation with changing frequency through the waveguide. The transverse photon motion consists in the acceleration of the wave together with the waveguide confining it, as a whole".

This can be the explanation of different inertia if the EmDrive is in an upright position or in a lateral position respect to the external acceleration (or respect to Earth gravity). Following Lev A. Rivlin schema, could be possible to interchange or convert longitudinal mass into transverse mass, so the inertia is reduced for motion in one preferred direction, and CoM is not broken.


These ideas to apportion mass from the field into particles go a long way back.  To the great physicist Leon Brillouin, for example.  The idea of an electromagnetic mass goes even further in time.

However, nowadays the prevailing mainstream viewpoint is that apportioning mass to particles is not the best way to go.  The mainstream viewpoint is that all fields carry mass.  It is not just due to energy, that there is a mass, but also due to stress.   It should all be contained in the stress-energy tensor that carries the field.

The fields carry mass because they carry momentum, therefore the field that carries electromagnetic pressure also carries a mass associated with the pressure.  And they also carry energy, since E=mc^2, therefore mass.

This is preferable to thinking of a magic mass associated with particles like photons that should not have any rest mass.

The very old (it goes back 100 years) viewpoint of apportioning mass from the field to particles (although still works if one includes all terms in the equations of motion) suffers from the arbitrariness of having to apportion somehow also the cross-contribution from several interacting particles, and it also suffers from the viewpoint that we know from Quantum Mechanics that particles (also photons) are both particle and wave, and not confined to a point in space.

« Last Edit: 11/30/2016 10:34 PM by Rodal »

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
  • Germany
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 158
As shown with the plate-gap experiment, the quantum vacuum can excert a pressure force on matter. This pressure force is normally uniform and undirected. If  an EM drive can however impart momentum to the quantum vacuum - similar to how a photon drive would impart momentum on spacetime - then it follows that the quantum vacuum could in turn impart momentum on matter - just like a lightsail would with electromagnetic momentum.

It would be very likely that general relativity applies and quantum vacuum fluctuation moment speed is limited by light speed.

If virtual particles had more than one interaction within their lifetime, this would be relatively easy to model. A virtual particle spawns, receives momentum from the EM drive, tranfers this momentum to a real particle, then recombines. As such the effect would be just like a real photon emmitted by a light-source and then bounced by a lightsail

It gets more complcated if the distance to the next real particle is longer than the lifetime of the virtual particle. To conserce the momentum, the virtual particle would at least have to pass on this property to another virtual particle - for example by recombining with its anti that travels the opposite way and as such still leaving a net momentum in the quantum vacuum.

If this is the case, then the EM drive would likely put unidirectional quantum pressure equal to its thrust force on the sum of all matter that happens to get into this virtual-particle-beam.  But depending on the average energy of these virtual photons, some matter might simply be translucent. Just like glass makes a bad light-sail material for visual light photons

We could make the bold assumption, that an EM drive would impart the most momentum on virtual particles with the same energy as its in-chamber photons. As such this "virtual ray" would have microwave wavelengths and should affect metal reflectors. While this might not necessarily hold, one could test this relatively easily

Mount a stationary EM "drive" (aka virtual ray generator) next to a frustum
Mount a microwave reflector on the frustum in such a way that a "real" photon source if it was in place of the EM drive would cause a force on it.

Measure if the EM drive can put an acceleration force on this free remote receiver

If this works, it would create alot of new cool applications for EM drives.

Offline Josave

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Madrid
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 104

The very old (it goes back 100 years) viewpoint of apportioning mass from the field to particles (although still works if one includes all terms in the equations of motion) suffers from the arbitrariness of having to apportion somehow also the cross-contribution from several interacting particles, and it also suffers from the viewpoint that we know from Quantum Mechanics that particles (also photons) are both particle and wave, and not confined to a point in space.

This is interesting. The generalization of the 2-particles mechanics to the n-particles is the Hamiltonian mechanics. Roughly said, in this mechanics the invariant is no longer Conservation of Momentum, but the quantity conserved is the observable G, a function not only of the mass of the n-particles, but also of the inter-distances of all the particles of the system.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2016 11:27 PM by Josave »

Offline zellerium

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 399
EW's TM212 Frustum, Cu walls (5.8E7 S/m) Polyethylene disc (eps_r = 2.25) using eigenmode solver
Frequency was 1.97 GHz, not 1.94 , maybe due to antenna, small distortions in copper walls etc ???

Interesting results...

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5662
  • USA
  • Liked: 5471
  • Likes Given: 4943
EW's TM212 Frustum, Cu walls (5.8E7 S/m) Polyethylene disc (eps_r = 2.25) using eigenmode solver
Frequency was 1.97 GHz, not 1.94 , maybe due to antenna, small distortions in copper walls etc ???

Interesting results...
The conventional type of Finite Element Method formulation always converges from above, always stiffer than an exact solution .
If you are comparing with the experimental resonance frequency, it makes sense it would be 1.5% stiffer (higher frequency) because of the finite mesh.  It also depends on the order of the basis functions used in the finite elements.  Are you able to choose finite elements with higher order polynomial basis functions?

The fields on the small base look better defined than in the FEKO model shown in thread 8
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 12:42 AM by Rodal »

Offline Bob Woods

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • Salem, Oregon USA
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 819
In regards to NASA's apparent lack of funding for more research and testing, is there any bureaucratic will to allow outside funding from GoFundMe or Kickstarter, administered through NASA?

While Dave and Shell and other DIY'ers have received some funding, with an imprimatur from NASA with plenty of caveats about experimental risks, I could see hundreds of thousands being raised without much trouble.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1105
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1217
  • Likes Given: 1574
EW's TM212 Frustum, Cu walls (5.8E7 S/m) Polyethylene disc (eps_r = 2.25) using eigenmode solver
Frequency was 1.97 GHz, not 1.94 , maybe due to antenna, small distortions in copper walls etc ???

Interesting results...

The results of the diagrams make sense according to my theory. The majority of energy is at the big end, and the majority of the losses are at the small end. So the gradient is from big to small and so the frustum moves the other way. Big end leading. No argument from me! Looks great!
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 12:16 AM by WarpTech »

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1254
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 77
In regards to NASA's apparent lack of funding for more research and testing, is there any bureaucratic will to allow outside funding from GoFundMe or Kickstarter, administered through NASA?

While Dave and Shell and other DIY'ers have received some funding, with an imprimatur from NASA with plenty of caveats about experimental risks, I could see hundreds of thousands being raised without much trouble.
I believe Paul has been asked that before. I think he said it was highly problematic if not impossible under current regulations or laws.  :(
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Donosauro

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 0
In regards to NASA's apparent lack of funding for more research and testing, is there any bureaucratic will to allow outside funding from GoFundMe or Kickstarter, administered through NASA?

While Dave and Shell and other DIY'ers have received some funding, with an imprimatur from NASA with plenty of caveats about experimental risks, I could see hundreds of thousands being raised without much trouble.

I have read that, while NASA can accept donations, the donor(s) cannot specify what the funds are to be used for. It would be just as if NASA's budget had been increased by the amount of the donation.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1105
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1217
  • Likes Given: 1574
Amazing what you can get from Amazon, cheap! The frequency of the small one is too high, but the bucket is almost perfect with a big adjustable end plate at the right spot. It's SS, so it needs to be a little more "round" and polished and plated before it's useful, but it's a lot easier than making one from scratch. I may yet go for a double-walled ice tub, so I can pump coolant around the outside and use it as a heatsink for the RF amplifier.

Data from @X_RaY.
epsilon res   1,0001
DS in mm   190,5
DB in mm   292,1
z in mm   266,7

Theta in °   10,7843

Solutions of equation system 2   
Mode   f in GHz
TE011   1,590
TE012   1,912
TE013   2,279
TE014   2,711




Offline rq3

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • USA
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 40
In regards to NASA's apparent lack of funding for more research and testing, is there any bureaucratic will to allow outside funding from GoFundMe or Kickstarter, administered through NASA?

While Dave and Shell and other DIY'ers have received some funding, with an imprimatur from NASA with plenty of caveats about experimental risks, I could see hundreds of thousands being raised without much trouble.

Give it a shot! The issue with sites like KickStarter is that the funders get something for their money. It may be a tee-shirt, or a 3 hour trip to Earth's moon. Just don't make promises that you cannot fulfill. In that case, at least under KickStarter terms, everyone gets nothing except a waste of time.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 02:02 AM by rq3 »

Offline M.LeBel

  • Member
  • Posts: 68
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 29
EW's TM212 Frustum, Cu walls (5.8E7 S/m) Polyethylene disc (eps_r = 2.25) using eigenmode solver
Frequency was 1.97 GHz, not 1.94 , maybe due to antenna, small distortions in copper walls etc ???

Interesting results...


Is there any force vector in there showing which way it is going?

Offline M.LeBel

  • Member
  • Posts: 68
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 29
There are many ways to light a fire, from sparks to blow torch. If we have no idea how the emdrive makes sparks, we have little chance to graduate from sparks to blow torch. The number of parameters involved makes the empirical exploration way too long. We need some theoretical idea of what we are trying to achieve, and this is the causal structure....

These em waves each carry a Planck quantum of action h. What is the Planck of action? Nobody really knows. Here, the Planck h quantum of action is assumed as a being a time rate differential of a specific amount. Furthermore, in the em wave, this differential is spread in half above and below the local rate of time; 1/2h above and 1/2h below.  This describes the em waves as travelling variations in the rate of time. (Which is what?) 

Earlier, I presented the rate of time as “per second” or 1/T. We may retrieve this rate of time from simple laws of induction. For example,   E = dB/dT   or  E/dB = 1/dT. An increase of the denominator dT actually means a decrease of the rate of time 1/T. The delta may be applied to the whole fraction if it is taken as the rate of time. Then, E/dB = d 1/T, a variation in the rate of time. This describes an em wave as a travelling variation of the magnetic field  conjugated by a constant electric loop field. But, there is also B = dE/dT  which suggests another model, equally valid, where the electric field varies while its conjugation magnetic loop field remains constant. This somehow suggests the existence of two types of em waves; one as a variation of the electric field and the other as a variation of the magnetic field. It is possible that reflection of an em wave upon a metallic surface changes it by induction from an electric field variation to a magnetic field variation or vice versa?

Now, let’s talk about the actual structure of the em wave. We have a sine wave with higher and lower rates of time. Which one comes first? In a gravitational field, an object move (fall) spontaneously toward a lower rate of time. We will then place the lower half of the time rate h in the front portion of the sine wave so that it moves toward it. What about the higher half of the time rate? If an object moves spontaneously toward a relatively lower time rate, it is assumed that it would spontaneously move away from a relatively higher time rate. Therefore, the higher time rate will fit nicely at the back of the em sine wave. Now, the higher time rate provides a cause for moving away from a place while the lower time rate provides a cause for moving toward another place. This combination of higher and lower time rate I call a “causal structure”. This is what makes the em wave move away from one place but also makes it move toward another place. In other words, it makes the em wave move, and move in a straight line. So, the Planck value is not just a number; it is an actual time rate differential structure for the quantum of action or movement. Better, it is a self contained structure having the properties of a wave and the properties of a finite quantity (Quantum) or a particle, both leading to the concept of a soliton wave. 



Now, to the emdrive.  Every em wave contains the Planck quantum of action, momentum or pilot wave; the causal structure for motion. While working with these em waves, we are trying to impart, somehow, the Planck structure of these em waves to the cavity. As such, it is not enough. The em drive experiment must create a larger causal structure from the power injected. It has to produce a causal structure for the whole drive, and more.

As discussed before, the spontaneous motion in a gravitational field is an entropic event. Objects falling into a gravitational field actually fall into larger “space”, which means a lower power. (Same energy, now into a larger space is the normal direction of entropy) Then, the causal structure could be in the form of a differential in energy or in the “space” container that holds it. Now, “space” is but a concept used to represent time following the ratio of “c”, the speed of light; “c” is but a conversion ratio from time to space, for our use, in our reality.
So, the emdrive is supposed to produce, among other thing, a differential in the time (length) container for the whole drive....

IMO, this requires the emdrive to produce an em wave in one direction, not a standing wave. I mean, all the power should go into a wave without return, not a standing wave. A kind of wave generated and captive from its center, not shot from one end of the cavity. In other words, we have to produce a wave from its center, not from one end. A sort of rectified dipole.  As such the “cavity” would not be required anymore.

How do we produce such unidirectional captive wave structure? (Reminds me of the Pares fractal antenna)  Any induction process would produce a free to move away em wave. So, we can’t build directly the unidirectional captive wave (cuws) by induction of a resonant circuit. The wave structure has to be built and maintained as two adjacent separate portions. We could think of two axial (wrt direction of motion) static electric fields in opposite directions and insulated from one another. For increased energy we might insert some dielectric material. Then, we would have formed two capacitors.(Woodward?) 

I think that such a cuws appears or emerges as a non-steady, low level side effect in various experiments and configurations, including the emdrive. The idea now would be to produce it on purpose with the appropriate configuration. But, can we produce directly this cuws or do we have to resort to producing it as an optimized side effect of some more complex process (like in the emdrive)? Pares, using a radio wave generator, is possibly optimizing a cuws produced as a side effect of his special fractal antenna. Woodward, working with capacitors, could be directly forming a small cuws, but inefficiently.   

Food for thought .....

Tags: