all these theories of the virtual particles having mass or not (I guess they have, otherwise wouldn´t be used for propulsion)... wouldn´t the total mass of virtual particles be much greater than the mass of even dark energy + dark matter together, and thus cause a collapse of the universe?
Quote from: zen-in on 04/12/2015 04:30 pmA Poynting vector is not a field. In your drawing the Poynting vector is dispersed in all directions because the energy flow is entirely due to thermal loss. (DC case) If there are AC drives to the capacitor and gap magnet then some energy is transferred to near field RF radiation. Nothing exotic happens here. The em fields just combine.I don't get your point.1. CW's drawing does not show a Poynting vector dispersed in all directions, but a very directional vector going from the left to the right in the picture.2. That Poynting vector S = ExB actually gives a Lorentz force F = q(E + vxB) when electric charges are able to flow within the electric field. If the sum of those electric charges in movement are able to create an electric current in a continuous charge distribution, i.e. with a current density J due to the charge density ρ, the Lorentz Force is then a "3D volumetric force", accelerating all electric charges in the same direction whatever their sign, and also the neutral atoms in the plasma with them, through collisions. This is the basis of magnetohydrodynamics applied to propulsion (MHD accelerators), sometimes called magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thrusters when the accelerating fluid is a ionized gas.
A Poynting vector is not a field. In your drawing the Poynting vector is dispersed in all directions because the energy flow is entirely due to thermal loss. (DC case) If there are AC drives to the capacitor and gap magnet then some energy is transferred to near field RF radiation. Nothing exotic happens here. The em fields just combine.
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 04/12/2015 06:03 pmQuote from: zen-in on 04/12/2015 04:30 pmA Poynting vector is not a field. In your drawing the Poynting vector is dispersed in all directions because the energy flow is entirely due to thermal loss. (DC case) If there are AC drives to the capacitor and gap magnet then some energy is transferred to near field RF radiation. Nothing exotic happens here. The em fields just combine.I don't get your point.1. CW's drawing does not show a Poynting vector dispersed in all directions, but a very directional vector going from the left to the right in the picture.2. That Poynting vector S = ExB actually gives a Lorentz force F = q(E + vxB) when electric charges are able to flow within the electric field. If the sum of those electric charges in movement are able to create an electric current in a continuous charge distribution, i.e. with a current density J due to the charge density ρ, the Lorentz Force is then a "3D volumetric force", accelerating all electric charges in the same direction whatever their sign, and also the neutral atoms in the plasma with them, through collisions. This is the basis of magnetohydrodynamics applied to propulsion (MHD accelerators), sometimes called magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thrusters when the accelerating fluid is a ionized gas.I think you might be mixing a lot of things together here and jumping to conclusions. If you believe this gap magnet and capacitor can generate reactionless thrust you should build it and test it out for yourself. I could give you 20-30 more interesting ideas I have played with in the last 15 years when you get done with that one. Just because something looks "cool" doesn't mean it has any significance.
...I'm re-appending a Rice University paper on the hydrodynamics of the vacuum for your reference and study. You will find that a Q-V plasma acts quite a bit like a water based fluid, but with some startling differences as well, since it does salute MHD rules as well AND the still curious rules of the Quantum world. Best, Paul M....
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.10.1027&rep=rep1&type=pdf
I still think we can violate newtons 3rd law in a way but in another way it is not violated because the propulsion device projects radiation out one end. This looks like radiation propulsion but by sticking a dielectric between the two current loops we can change the speed of light making the two current loops closer or lowering the frequency needed while also getting near field effects? What this does for the radiation projected I'm not exactly sure but I would assume it should intensify. This is assuming none of the current loops have constant current but are both changing in time and out of phase pi/2 (see figure EM Propulsion 2.png). I guess the idea was if there was something similar going on inside the radiation cavity...
Just wanted to share the good news! Put a check in the box for diametric drives.http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html?WT.ec_id=NPHYS-201312http://phys.org/news/2013-10-optical-diametric.htmlhttp://www.creol.ucf.edu/Research/Publications/7155.pdf
The ESA had a study called Ariadna 04/1201 and a contract called PHOTONIMPULS ANR-09-BLAN-0088-01 to investigate Feigel's claims, derive a Lorentz invariant (and correct) description of the Feigel process, and figure out if the QV can be used for propulsion:http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/ariadna/projects/ari_study_04-1201.htmlhttp://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/ARI/ARI%20Study%20Report/ACT-RPT-PHY-ARI-041201-Koln_Feigel.pdfhttp://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/ARI/ARI%20Study%20Report/ACT-RPT-PHY-ARI-041201-Grenoble_Feigel.pdf
On the basis of our study, we come to the following conclusions: The derivation of the generally covariant relativistic constitutive relations for a moving magnetoelectric medium, together with the subsequent analysis of the vacuum waves travelling through the sample of a finite size shows that the magnetoelectric body will not move, despite the presence of a certain asummetry between the left- and right-moving waves in the matter. However, this only refers to the case of waves due to vacuum fluctuation.For the real waves falling symmetrically from the two sides on a magnetoelectric body, we expect a nontrivial effect of the Feigel type. Thus, we cannot confirm the possibility of "extracting momentum from nothing".
"It is a prediction, but experimental results are needed. VASIMR drive finally got those funds at NASA, I would like to see something similar on EM-Drive"So would we, but don't hold your breath. In the meantime we have enough funding for the rest of the NASA fiscal year to keep building up our 0.12-to-1.2kW, WR-340 waveguide based EM-Drive magnetron system on a teeter-totter balance system using a earlier aluminum frustum as our test article. The build of that experiment should be completed by the end of June using just civil servant labor and the existing hardware on hand. Then we get to see if Shawyer's and the Chinese's reported EM-Drive results are the real deal, or not.
Paul March has nicely summarized funding and future of the EM Drive project at NASA, a few hours ago in the Advanced Propulsion thread of LinkedIn, as follows: Quote"It is a prediction, but experimental results are needed. VASIMR drive finally got those funds at NASA, I would like to see something similar on EM-Drive"So would we, but don't hold your breath. In the meantime we have enough funding for the rest of the NASA fiscal year to keep building up our 0.12-to-1.2kW, WR-340 waveguide based EM-Drive magnetron system on a teeter-totter balance system using a earlier aluminum frustum as our test article. The build of that experiment should be completed by the end of June using just civil servant labor and the existing hardware on hand. Then we get to see if Shawyer's and the Chinese's reported EM-Drive results are the real deal, or not.
@ MulletronGreat find!Separating the two photon directions allows them to control their interaction (equivalent of the cavity taper and/or dielectric). In the EMdrive the two directions are intimately coupled within the cavity. If you fold figure 1 in half (vertical fold line) you have something like a tapered microwave cavity. I don't see the need to invoke negative mass (they did say effectively) as the same description looks like the "self accelerating" particle papers.The question is "is the nonlinearity a required condition ?".