Author Topic: White–Juday warp-field interferometer - Any updates?  (Read 2365 times)

Offline Rocket Surgeon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 12
Reposted from the Advanced Concepts section:

So I know that the Eagleworks has been hard at work on the EmDrive recently, and I know that the media keeps confusing Harold White's teams work on the EmDrive and the warp field work they started in 2011, but has there been any results on this lately? I know they had results in 2013-2014 that were 'inconclusive' with a 'vanishing but non-zero' result and that they were moving the rig to a more isolated testing set up to remove sources of noise.

I know this is very 'sci-fi' and almost certainly won't pan out, but I still would like to know what the status is :)

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 376
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: White–Juday warp-field interferometer - Any updates?
« Reply #1 on: 01/25/2017 04:31 AM »
I dunno, but I'd started another thread about Investigating/Manipulating the Vacuum, where I'd made passing mention of it:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42120.0

I think that the use of short-pulse lasers and the squeezed light should also be done in connection with interferometry to measure if a Path Length Difference was produced.

Beyond Squeezed Light, we should also start thinking about the Squeezed Vacuum.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 376
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: White–Juday warp-field interferometer - Any updates?
« Reply #2 on: 02/02/2017 11:07 AM »
What if you could rig up interferometers inside the EMdrive frustrum cavity?

If the EMdrive is producing a "warp" effect internally, then could an appropriate interferometer setup detect it?

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 797
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: White–Juday warp-field interferometer - Any updates?
« Reply #3 on: 02/02/2017 01:29 PM »
What if you could rig up interferometers inside the EMdrive frustrum cavity?

If the EMdrive is producing a "warp" effect internally, then could an appropriate interferometer setup detect it?

Sanman:

The Eagleworks Lab's warp-field interferometer (WFI) has been using an aluminum 1.48 GHz pancake resonant cavity since the first time I talked about it at NSF.com during the spring of 2015, and was included in Dr. Rodal's NSF.com summary of that time period, see attached slide.  In short while in-air, using 25W-to-40W of 1.48 GHz RF in an non-frustum aluminum resonant cavity with a loaded Q-factor of ~3,000, the EW lab folks documented spacetime compression LIKE effects with signal to noise rations well above the system's noise platform, see attached PRELIMINARY 2015 & 2016 test result slides.  The better WFI signals in the 2016 tests were attributed to higher RF power delivered to the cavity via better RF tuning and RF loss management in the RF amplifier system driving it.  (And yes, the generated spacetime compression effect magnitude is VERY non-linear with respect to RF input power to the cavity appearing to scale with the 4th power of the driven peak E-fields.

However, the EW folks will have to redo this test series in a hard vacuum (~5x10^-6 Torr) before the professional doubter will acknowledge these preliminary test results as a real spacetime compression effect, instead of just another experimental error.  The EW lab folks will also have to perform a time-of-flight test series in the same pancake resonant cavity to further buttress these initial in-air WFI tests.  In other words, when NASA management considers this activity import enough, it will get done, but only when the financial and labor support shows up to do it.

BTW, the EW lab used the aluminum pancake resonant cavity in the WFI instead of the frustum cavity because they didn't want to generate thrust with this system, but just a spacetime compression effect that could be used to envelope a vehicle in a warp drive bubble.  However the same spacetime compression effects should be occurring in the frustums as well but combined with a way to force rectify the spacetime compression effects into a unidirectional force.

Best, Paul M.

PS: I added some clarifications.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2017 09:36 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline Rocket Surgeon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: White–Juday warp-field interferometer - Any updates?
« Reply #4 on: 02/03/2017 01:19 PM »
What if you could rig up interferometers inside the EMdrive frustrum cavity?

If the EMdrive is producing a "warp" effect internally, then could an appropriate interferometer setup detect it?

Sanman:

The Eagleworks Lab's warp-field interferometer (WFI) has been using an aluminum 1.48 GHz pancake resonant cavity since the first time I talked about it at NSF.com during the spring of 2015, and was included in Dr. Rodal's NSF.com summary of that time period, see attached slide.  In short while in-air, using ~35W of 1.48 GHz RF in an non-frustum aluminum resonant cavity with a loaded Q-factor of ~3,000, the EW lab folks documented spacetime compression LIKE effects with signal to noise rations well above the system's noise platform, see attached PRELIMINARY 2015 & 2016 test result slides.  The better signal in the 2016 tests were attributed to better RF tuning and RF loss management in the RF amplifier system driving it.  (And yes, the generated spacetime compression effect magnitude is VERY non-linear with respect to RF input power to the cavity.

However, the EW folks will have to redo this test series in a hard vacuum (~5x10^-6 Torr) before the professional doubter will acknowledge these preliminary test results as a real spacetime compression effect, instead of just another experimental error.  The EW lab folks will also have to perform a time-of-flight test series in the same pancake resonant cavity to further buttress these initial in-air WFI tests.  In other words, when NASA management considers this activity import enough, it will get done, but only when the financial and labor support shows up to do it.

BTW, the EW lab used the aluminum pancake resonant cavity in the WFI instead of the frustum cavity because they didn't want to generate thrust with this system, but just a spacetime compression effect that could be used to envelope a vehicle in a warp drive bubble.  However the same spacetime compression effects should be occurring in the frustums as well.

Best, Paul M.

I'll admit I'm slightly confused by this. Are you saying that the Warp Field Experiment and the EmDrive Experiment have essentially bled into each other and are, in a way, becoming one and the same? I.E. there is a potential that the apparent force effect from the EmDrive is coming from space time distortions similar to what would be required for a Alcubierre esq. Warp? and that White et al. are abandoning the energised ring capacitor as a method of attempting to generate a Spacetime warp in their interferometer experiment?

How does this gel with the leading explanasions for the EmDrives anomolous force?

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 797
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: White–Juday warp-field interferometer - Any updates?
« Reply #5 on: 02/03/2017 08:57 PM »
What if you could rig up interferometers inside the EMdrive frustrum cavity?

If the EMdrive is producing a "warp" effect internally, then could an appropriate interferometer setup detect it?

Sanman:

The Eagleworks Lab's warp-field interferometer (WFI) has been using an aluminum 1.48 GHz pancake resonant cavity since the first time I talked about it at NSF.com during the spring of 2015, and was included in Dr. Rodal's NSF.com summary of that time period, see attached slide.  In short while in-air, using ~35W of 1.48 GHz RF in an non-frustum aluminum resonant cavity with a loaded Q-factor of ~3,000, the EW lab folks documented spacetime compression LIKE effects with signal to noise rations well above the system's noise platform, see attached PRELIMINARY 2015 & 2016 test result slides.  The better signal in the 2016 tests were attributed to better RF tuning and RF loss management in the RF amplifier system driving it.  (And yes, the generated spacetime compression effect magnitude is VERY non-linear with respect to RF input power to the cavity.

However, the EW folks will have to redo this test series in a hard vacuum (~5x10^-6 Torr) before the professional doubter will acknowledge these preliminary test results as a real spacetime compression effect, instead of just another experimental error.  The EW lab folks will also have to perform a time-of-flight test series in the same pancake resonant cavity to further buttress these initial in-air WFI tests.  In other words, when NASA management considers this activity import enough, it will get done, but only when the financial and labor support shows up to do it.

BTW, the EW lab used the aluminum pancake resonant cavity in the WFI instead of the frustum cavity because they didn't want to generate thrust with this system, but just a spacetime compression effect that could be used to envelope a vehicle in a warp drive bubble.  However the same spacetime compression effects should be occurring in the frustums as well.

Best, Paul M.

I'll admit I'm slightly confused by this. Are you saying that the Warp Field Experiment and the EmDrive Experiment have essentially bled into each other and are, in a way, becoming one and the same? I.E. there is a potential that the apparent force effect from the EmDrive is coming from space time distortions similar to what would be required for a Alcubierre esq. Warp? and that White et al. are abandoning the energised ring capacitor as a method of attempting to generate a Spacetime warp in their interferometer experiment?

How does this gel with the leading explanasions for the EmDrives anomolous force?

First off we abandoned the capacitor ring in the Warp-field Interferometer (WFI) when we found we could not obtain a usable WFI signal from same.  It was then that we took the next step and inserted an available aluminum pancake resonant cavity that had the required TM010 operating frequency range.

Second, IMO the only difference between the WFI pancake cavity and a EMdrive's frustum is the change from a symmetrical cylindrical cavity to an asymmetrical frustum cavity that provides a means to force rectify the QV/GRT mass/energy fluctuations into a unidirectional force as pursed by both Dr. Woodward and Dr. White.  All the rest is "just engineering" as the engineer in me strangles the other third of me, which is my scientist in training...:)

Best, Paul M.

Update: Cleaned up some grammar issues.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2017 01:31 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 376
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: White–Juday warp-field interferometer - Any updates?
« Reply #6 on: 02/04/2017 06:12 AM »
I'll admit I'm slightly confused by this. Are you saying that the Warp Field Experiment and the EmDrive Experiment have essentially bled into each other and are, in a way, becoming one and the same? I.E. there is a potential that the apparent force effect from the EmDrive is coming from space time distortions similar to what would be required for a Alcubierre esq. Warp? and that White et al. are abandoning the energised ring capacitor as a method of attempting to generate a Spacetime warp in their interferometer experiment?

How does this gel with the leading explanasions for the EmDrives anomolous force?

Here was a nice post from user flux_capacitor:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1636165#msg1636165


and here was a follow-up response from WarpTech which I also particularly liked:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1636213#msg1636213


Quote
The problem with this idea is that; unlike an Alcubierre warp drive as you ave depicted in this photo. The warped field is "inside" the frustum boundary conditions. Then what?  The space in front of the frustum is not contracting and the space behind it is not expanding. Inside the frustum there is a small effect to this regard, but there is no "gravity well" in front of it to fall into. The gravity well is inside it, not outside it. So the frustum would need to go backwards for the small end to fall into the gravity well, and the big end would be repelled, making the frustum "big end leading", or not moving at all.

So take the bump-dip from the standard Alcubierre image below, flip/reverse it, and put it inside your frustrum:



Then you'd be pushing on the front wall (big end) while pulling on the rear wall (small end) of the frustrum.

It would be great if someone with some decent drawing/artistic skills could create a convenient-sized image of the bump-dip inside the frustrum, like a Hitchiker's Guide version just for simple illustrative purposes, so that laymen could quickly get upto speed on what EMdrive is supposed to be doing.


This idea of "Warp-in-a-Bottle" sounds a lot more elegant than the "negative mass torus" arrangement that Miguel Alcubierre originally conceived and Harold White later refined.
« Last Edit: 02/04/2017 06:38 AM by sanman »

Online aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2705
  • 92111
  • Liked: 686
  • Likes Given: 215
Re: White–Juday warp-field interferometer - Any updates?
« Reply #7 on: 02/04/2017 04:20 PM »

   
Quote
The problem with this idea is that; unlike an Alcubierre warp drive as you ave depicted in this photo. The warped field is "inside" the frustum boundary conditions. Then what?  The space in front of the frustum is not contracting and the space behind it is not expanding. Inside the frustum there is a small effect to this regard, but there is no "gravity well" in front of it to fall into. The gravity well is inside it, not outside it. So the frustum would need to go backwards for the small end to fall into the gravity well, and the big end would be repelled, making the frustum "big end leading", or not moving at all.

Some assumptions there, warranted or not.  Why is the warped field necessarily completely inside the frustum boundary conditions? Gravity behaves differently than EM and passes right through the cavity boundaries. If the centers of the positive/negative gravity conditions (for lack of a better descriptive term) are near the ends, then part of the sphere of influence would overlap the ends and be outside. Why does all of warp field need to be outside the cavity?

As for which end is leading, doesn't that depend on just where the centers of influence of the warp field are, which depends on  things we're currently unsure of.

Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Rocket Surgeon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: White–Juday warp-field interferometer - Any updates?
« Reply #8 on: 02/05/2017 11:17 PM »
What if you could rig up interferometers inside the EMdrive frustrum cavity?

If the EMdrive is producing a "warp" effect internally, then could an appropriate interferometer setup detect it?

Sanman:

The Eagleworks Lab's warp-field interferometer (WFI) has been using an aluminum 1.48 GHz pancake resonant cavity since the first time I talked about it at NSF.com during the spring of 2015, and was included in Dr. Rodal's NSF.com summary of that time period, see attached slide.  In short while in-air, using ~35W of 1.48 GHz RF in an non-frustum aluminum resonant cavity with a loaded Q-factor of ~3,000, the EW lab folks documented spacetime compression LIKE effects with signal to noise rations well above the system's noise platform, see attached PRELIMINARY 2015 & 2016 test result slides.  The better signal in the 2016 tests were attributed to better RF tuning and RF loss management in the RF amplifier system driving it.  (And yes, the generated spacetime compression effect magnitude is VERY non-linear with respect to RF input power to the cavity.

However, the EW folks will have to redo this test series in a hard vacuum (~5x10^-6 Torr) before the professional doubter will acknowledge these preliminary test results as a real spacetime compression effect, instead of just another experimental error.  The EW lab folks will also have to perform a time-of-flight test series in the same pancake resonant cavity to further buttress these initial in-air WFI tests.  In other words, when NASA management considers this activity import enough, it will get done, but only when the financial and labor support shows up to do it.

BTW, the EW lab used the aluminum pancake resonant cavity in the WFI instead of the frustum cavity because they didn't want to generate thrust with this system, but just a spacetime compression effect that could be used to envelope a vehicle in a warp drive bubble.  However the same spacetime compression effects should be occurring in the frustums as well.

Best, Paul M.

I'll admit I'm slightly confused by this. Are you saying that the Warp Field Experiment and the EmDrive Experiment have essentially bled into each other and are, in a way, becoming one and the same? I.E. there is a potential that the apparent force effect from the EmDrive is coming from space time distortions similar to what would be required for a Alcubierre esq. Warp? and that White et al. are abandoning the energised ring capacitor as a method of attempting to generate a Spacetime warp in their interferometer experiment?

How does this gel with the leading explanasions for the EmDrives anomolous force?

First off we abandoned the capacitor ring in the Warp-field Interferometer (WFI) when we found we could not obtained a usable WFI signal from same.  It was then that we took the next step and inserted an available aluminum pancake resonant cavity that was in the required TM010 operating frequency range.

Second, IMO the only difference between the WFI pancake cavity and a EMdrive's frustum is the change from a symmetrical cylindrical cavity to an asymmetrical frustum cavity that provides a means to force rectify the QV/GRT mass/energy fluctuations into a unidirectional force as pursed by both Dr. Woodward and Dr. White.  All the rest is "just engineering" as the engineer in me strangles the other third of me, which is my scientist in training...:)

Best, Paul M.

Brilliant! That explains alot for me, thanks.

Have there been any new results from the WFI? Or is that still in testing/super seceded by the EmDrive work? The recent paper and the discussions it promoted was very interesting.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 376
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: White–Juday warp-field interferometer - Any updates?
« Reply #9 on: 02/06/2017 09:13 AM »
First off we abandoned the capacitor ring in the Warp-field Interferometer (WFI) when we found we could not obtained a usable WFI signal from same.  It was then that we took the next step and inserted an available aluminum pancake resonant cavity that was in the required TM010 operating frequency range.

Second, IMO the only difference between the WFI pancake cavity and a EMdrive's frustum is the change from a symmetrical cylindrical cavity to an asymmetrical frustum cavity that provides a means to force rectify the QV/GRT mass/energy fluctuations into a unidirectional force as pursed by both Dr. Woodward and Dr. White.  All the rest is "just engineering" as the engineer in me strangles the other third of me, which is my scientist in training...:)

Best, Paul M.

Paul,
So the pancake-shaped cavity was meant to produce a possible "warp" around the cavity itself, rather than inside it. But the frustum is meant to produce a possible "warp" internally inside it. (and as you've said, it's the taper-vs-cylindrical which gives the directional bias for possible acceleration.)

Which geometry is better for WFI detection purposes?

Wouldn't a long tubular-shaped cavity be better, offering the longest longitudinal space for any "warp" distortion effect to manifest itelf along, inside the cavity?

Have you considered doing a WFI experiment to measure an internal "warp" inside a suitably designed cavity?
That would mean mounting the interferometer on the inside of the cavity, though.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2017 09:16 AM by sanman »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 797
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: White–Juday warp-field interferometer - Any updates?
« Reply #10 on: 02/06/2017 01:36 PM »

   
Quote
The problem with this idea is that; unlike an Alcubierre warp drive as you ave depicted in this photo. The warped field is "inside" the frustum boundary conditions. Then what?  The space in front of the frustum is not contracting and the space behind it is not expanding. Inside the frustum there is a small effect to this regard, but there is no "gravity well" in front of it to fall into. The gravity well is inside it, not outside it. So the frustum would need to go backwards for the small end to fall into the gravity well, and the big end would be repelled, making the frustum "big end leading", or not moving at all.

Some assumptions there, warranted or not.  Why is the warped field necessarily completely inside the frustum boundary conditions? Gravity behaves differently than EM and passes right through the cavity boundaries. If the centers of the positive/negative gravity conditions (for lack of a better descriptive term) are near the ends, then part of the sphere of influence would overlap the ends and be outside. Why does all of warp field need to be outside the cavity?

As for which end is leading, doesn't that depend on just where the centers of influence of the warp field are, which depends on  things we're currently unsure of.


Aero:

Agreed, IMO we are dealing with a gravitational like effect that can extend well beyond the confines of the metallic resonant cavity.  In fact Dr. White thinks we may be dealing with at least a 5th dimensional effect that tends to short circuit any normal 4D spacetime analysis applied to this problem.

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 797
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: White–Juday warp-field interferometer - Any updates?
« Reply #11 on: 02/06/2017 01:39 PM »
What if you could rig up interferometers inside the EMdrive frustrum cavity?

If the EMdrive is producing a "warp" effect internally, then could an appropriate interferometer setup detect it?

Sanman:

The Eagleworks Lab's warp-field interferometer (WFI) has been using an aluminum 1.48 GHz pancake resonant cavity since the first time I talked about it at NSF.com during the spring of 2015, and was included in Dr. Rodal's NSF.com summary of that time period, see attached slide.  In short while in-air, using ~35W of 1.48 GHz RF in an non-frustum aluminum resonant cavity with a loaded Q-factor of ~3,000, the EW lab folks documented spacetime compression LIKE effects with signal to noise rations well above the system's noise platform, see attached PRELIMINARY 2015 & 2016 test result slides.  The better signal in the 2016 tests were attributed to better RF tuning and RF loss management in the RF amplifier system driving it.  (And yes, the generated spacetime compression effect magnitude is VERY non-linear with respect to RF input power to the cavity.

However, the EW folks will have to redo this test series in a hard vacuum (~5x10^-6 Torr) before the professional doubter will acknowledge these preliminary test results as a real spacetime compression effect, instead of just another experimental error.  The EW lab folks will also have to perform a time-of-flight test series in the same pancake resonant cavity to further buttress these initial in-air WFI tests.  In other words, when NASA management considers this activity import enough, it will get done, but only when the financial and labor support shows up to do it.

BTW, the EW lab used the aluminum pancake resonant cavity in the WFI instead of the frustum cavity because they didn't want to generate thrust with this system, but just a spacetime compression effect that could be used to envelope a vehicle in a warp drive bubble.  However the same spacetime compression effects should be occurring in the frustums as well.

Best, Paul M.

I'll admit I'm slightly confused by this. Are you saying that the Warp Field Experiment and the EmDrive Experiment have essentially bled into each other and are, in a way, becoming one and the same? I.E. there is a potential that the apparent force effect from the EmDrive is coming from space time distortions similar to what would be required for a Alcubierre esq. Warp? and that White et al. are abandoning the energised ring capacitor as a method of attempting to generate a Spacetime warp in their interferometer experiment?

How does this gel with the leading explanasions for the EmDrives anomolous force?

First off we abandoned the capacitor ring in the Warp-field Interferometer (WFI) when we found we could not obtained a usable WFI signal from same.  It was then that we took the next step and inserted an available aluminum pancake resonant cavity that was in the required TM010 operating frequency range.

Second, IMO the only difference between the WFI pancake cavity and a EMdrive's frustum is the change from a symmetrical cylindrical cavity to an asymmetrical frustum cavity that provides a means to force rectify the QV/GRT mass/energy fluctuations into a unidirectional force as pursed by both Dr. Woodward and Dr. White.  All the rest is "just engineering" as the engineer in me strangles the other third of me, which is my scientist in training...:)

Best, Paul M.

Brilliant! That explains a lot for me, thanks.

Have there been any new results from the WFI? Or is that still in testing/super seceded by the EmDrive work? The recent paper and the discussions it promoted was very interesting.

R-S: As of the end of last September none that I'm aware of, but do remember that I am no longer privy to what is going on in ANY of the NASA/JSC EW Lab.

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 797
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: White–Juday warp-field interferometer - Any updates?
« Reply #12 on: 02/06/2017 01:58 PM »
First off we abandoned the capacitor ring in the Warp-field Interferometer (WFI) when we found we could not obtained a usable WFI signal from same.  It was then that we took the next step and inserted an available aluminum pancake resonant cavity that was in the required TM010 operating frequency range.

Second, IMO the only difference between the WFI pancake cavity and a EMdrive's frustum is the change from a symmetrical cylindrical cavity to an asymmetrical frustum cavity that provides a means to force rectify the QV/GRT mass/energy fluctuations into a unidirectional force as pursed by both Dr. Woodward and Dr. White.  All the rest is "just engineering" as the engineer in me strangles the other third of me, which is my scientist in training...:)

Best, Paul M.

Paul,
So the pancake-shaped cavity was meant to produce a possible "warp" around the cavity itself, rather than inside it. But the frustum is meant to produce a possible "warp" internally inside it. (and as you've said, it's the taper-vs-cylindrical which gives the directional bias for possible acceleration.)

Which geometry is better for WFI detection purposes?

Wouldn't a long tubular-shaped cavity be better, offering the longest longitudinal space for any "warp" distortion effect to manifest itelf along, inside the cavity?

Have you considered doing a WFI experiment to measure an internal "warp" inside a suitably designed cavity?
That would mean mounting the interferometer on the inside of the cavity, though.

Sanman:

"Which geometry is better for WFI detection purposes?"

If you follow the KISS principal which is typically the best way to go, the symmetric cylindrical cavity is the best approach for WFI studies. 

"Wouldn't a long tubular-shaped cavity be better, offering the longest longitudinal space for any "warp" distortion effect to manifest itself along, inside the cavity?"

If all else was equal, yes, a longer Z-axis tubular cylindrical resonant cavity would provide more volume to generate the sought after measurable time of flight delays, but there is a problem with that approach as well.  The WFI effect in question appears to scale linearly with the resonant frequency, but if you lengthen the cylindrical cavity along its Z-Axis, it's TM010 resonant frequency drops accordingly, so you would have to make up for that frequency driven decrease in WFI effect generation by increasing the RF input power.  Since the WFI spacetime compression effect also appears to scale with the generated peak E-field to the 3rd or 4th power, that is a very doable trade, but only if you have the resources to pursue it.  The EW WFI experiment was always at the bottom of the priority list of NASA management, so it was always deprived of the required equipment and labor resources needed to make fast advancements in this venue.

Best, Paul M.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2017 02:00 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Tags: