Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 794318 times)

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #100 on: 08/02/2014 07:47 PM »
I step into this debate with trepidation. My perspective is that neither proponent has developed a successful characterisation of any effect, hence the confusion over the test article modified to not perform, and the confusion over Shawyer's description leading to his theory gaining little traction. However- having exercised my doubts, and well aware of the problems inherent in using an analogy, one presents itself to me in this case. A rocket motor utilises the shape of the nozzle to convert chemical energy to a directed force, which we call thrust. Is it possible that all that happening here is microwave energy is converted to thrust by the shape of the chamber?
It's a horribly inefficient conversion that may be due to the net sum of all the forces applied of the chamber. It is most likely more complex and as I am not clear on Shawyer's use of relativity as part of his description of the system I am ignoring that, but from what I have read I am in good company. Just an idle thought on a rainy saturday evening in Cumbria so if you think it doesn't hold water let it pass         : )
We are a friendly bunch here SteveKelsey, never be afraid to put your oar in!  :)
IMHO a good post! I am unclear on almost all of the theory that predicts the way these things should work. Doesn't stop me spouting my speculations though!
It can't however work like you are suggesting. The microwave cavity is closed. Imagine a Merlin engine encased in a large metal sphere. Would it go anywhere when ignited? No.
It's a rainy and windy Saturday night up here in the Outer Hebs too! But what better way to pass some time than talking about possibly world changing tech.
 ;D

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #101 on: 08/02/2014 07:57 PM »
Hello all,

I think there is one elephant in the room that nobody seems to notice. If the drive is supposed to gain impulse by interaction with virtual particles of the quantum vacuum, then these particles obviously have to be accelerated in the opposed direction in which the drive is accelerated.

Here comes now the elephant: When those accelerated virtual particles (which pop in an out of existence spontaneously) disappear again to who-knows-where, what happens to the impulse that these particles previously gained.. is it gone? I can hardly imagine that this should be the case. So.. where would the imparted impulse on the virtual particles go? Ideas? On the other hand.. please correct me if I'm wrong.. I seem to remember some knowledge that virtual particles were not subject to impulse conservation?

Regards
Welcome to the forum!
Short answer. I don't know. I don't think anyone knows...
Interesting point of discussion though! Great first post mate!

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2477
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #102 on: 08/02/2014 07:59 PM »
The Wright brothers,
Were two American brothers, inventors, and aviation pioneers who are credited with inventing and building the world's first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight, on December 17, 1903

Prior to that, It could be said that, "Heaver than air was consider impossible".

That's completely wrong.  Since the start of modern physics in the era of Newton, no serious physicist thought heavier than air flight violated the laws of physics.  It was always considered an engineering challenge, not a violation of the laws of physics.

The scientific community is far smarter than your fantasies imagine it to be.

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #103 on: 08/02/2014 08:12 PM »
Consider a neutron in free space. It is surrounded by a malestrom of pair-production events all around it. It is perturbed on the Planck scale by all these events, but as in Brownian motion they average out to nearly zero.
Remember we are talking Planck scale perturbations here. I.e: un-observable.
What if you could bias the pair-production events somehow so that there was a preferred vector of momentum?
Would we see our neutron being accelerated in a particular direction?
 ;)

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #104 on: 08/02/2014 08:18 PM »
Consider a neutron in free space. It is surrounded by a malestrom of pair-production events all around it. It is perturbed on the Planck scale by all these events, but as in Brownian motion they average out to nearly zero.
Remember we are talking Planck scale perturbations here. I.e: un-observable.
What if you could bias the pair-production events somehow so that there was a preferred vector of momentum?
Would we see our neutron being accelerated in a particular direction?
 ;)

Since neutrons can't be accelerated by electromagnetism AFAIK, this effect would sound similar to what gravity would be able to do. I mean, gravity is a gradient in space, right?
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #105 on: 08/02/2014 08:23 PM »
Consider a neutron in free space. It is surrounded by a malestrom of pair-production events all around it. It is perturbed on the Planck scale by all these events, but as in Brownian motion they average out to nearly zero.
Remember we are talking Planck scale perturbations here. I.e: un-observable.
What if you could bias the pair-production events somehow so that there was a preferred vector of momentum?
Would we see our neutron being accelerated in a particular direction?
 ;)

Since neutrons can't be accelerated by electromagnetism AFAIK, this effect would sound similar to what gravity would be able to do. I mean, gravity is a gradient in space, right?
I'm not talking about EM acceleration, hence my choice of the neutron to make things clear.
I'm talking about pair-production in the false vacuum being able to transfer momentum along a particular vector, under conditions that are created by the device we are discussing.

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #106 on: 08/02/2014 08:29 PM »
So you mean that by some mechanism, the maelstrom of vectors in quantum vacuum, which usually time average to zero, change locally in the drive to produce a non-zero vector in the preferred direction? Like some sort of mechanism to manipulate the "natural statistics" of space? :)
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #107 on: 08/02/2014 08:31 PM »
Yes. I suppose that is exactly what I'm saying.
Sounds crazy when you put it like that! I'm just putting forward ways the anomalous thrust could be explained *if* it is real...

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8249
  • UK
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #108 on: 08/02/2014 08:33 PM »
Slightly odd article from the Verge on this. What I mean is they seem to be sceptical about this because of Guido Fetta's qualifications, which is a bit harsh.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959637/nasa-cannae-drive-tests-have-promising-results
« Last Edit: 08/02/2014 08:36 PM by Star One »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #109 on: 08/02/2014 08:44 PM »
Slightly odd article from the Verge on this. What I mean is they seem to be sceptical about this because of Guido Fetta's qualifications, which is a bit harsh.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959637/nasa-cannae-drive-tests-have-promising-results
We see this everyday.
People who criticize CAGW are hacked down because the are not in the 'Climate Science Club' and don't have qualifications in 'Climate Science' (sic)
In this case 'He can't possibly know what he is talking about, he only knows about chemistry!'
Sigh.
Maybe the tech doesn't work, but I would fight and fight for the ability of people to try and fail at this sort of stuff.
/rant over

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1010
  • Likes Given: 787
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #110 on: 08/02/2014 08:50 PM »
Yes. I suppose that is exactly what I'm saying.
Sounds crazy when you put it like that! I'm just putting forward ways the anomalous thrust could be explained *if* it is real...

It does sound crazy, but it is worth a little testing. If we don't test theory to see if it works, then it becomes philosophy.

Odds are the anomalous thrust produced is just experimental error. They'll find out as they do more testing.

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #111 on: 08/02/2014 09:02 PM »
Yes. I suppose that is exactly what I'm saying.
Sounds crazy when you put it like that! I'm just putting forward ways the anomalous thrust could be explained *if* it is real...

OK, here's an idea. The resonant cavity's purpose is to produce standing waves, right? So, basically it's a precise arrangement of conducting plates which reflect EM waves back and forth. For some reason, this reminds me of a "macro" Casimir cavity, just on a different scale and with "real" photons. So, what if.. this EM drive acted (by coincidence) as some weird form of "macro" Casimir cavity and its specific shape (accidentally) produced a preferred vector, working with real photons? I seem to remember that specific geometries of Casimir cavities were calculated to be able to produce a preferred vector of motion. I didn't find that piece of info yet again, or perhaps I remember wrongly. Maybe someone else knows better?
« Last Edit: 08/02/2014 09:04 PM by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2477
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #112 on: 08/02/2014 09:15 PM »
Slightly odd article from the Verge on this. What I mean is they seem to be sceptical about this because of Guido Fetta's qualifications, which is a bit harsh.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959637/nasa-cannae-drive-tests-have-promising-results
We see this everyday.
People who criticize CAGW are hacked down because the are not in the 'Climate Science Club' and don't have qualifications in 'Climate Science' (sic)
In this case 'He can't possibly know what he is talking about, he only knows about chemistry!'
Sigh.
Maybe the tech doesn't work, but I would fight and fight for the ability of people to try and fail at this sort of stuff.
/rant over

Nobody I've ever heard of has argued that anybody shouldn't have the right to try whatever they want, with their own resources, and the resources of anyone wishing to spend them that way.

However, resources are limited, and it's perfectly legitimate to argue about whether a particular line of research is worth putting the resources into, and to try to convince others not to put their own resources into a particular line of research.

There are tens of thousands of grad students struggling to find research dollars to continue their research into all sorts of topics in physics and aerospace engineering.

I personally find it sad that a very small number of fringe people who make outlandish claims get so much attention -- attention that, to my mind, would be better focused on more mainstream science and engineering, which is, I believe, far more likely to get us eventually to the breakthroughs we all would like to see.

Real advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind.  Deciding to try to design a device that violates limitations of known physics gets it backwards -- it's the approach of amateurs.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8249
  • UK
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #113 on: 08/02/2014 09:21 PM »
Slightly odd article from the Verge on this. What I mean is they seem to be sceptical about this because of Guido Fetta's qualifications, which is a bit harsh.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959637/nasa-cannae-drive-tests-have-promising-results
We see this everyday.
People who criticize CAGW are hacked down because the are not in the 'Climate Science Club' and don't have qualifications in 'Climate Science' (sic)
In this case 'He can't possibly know what he is talking about, he only knows about chemistry!'
Sigh.
Maybe the tech doesn't work, but I would fight and fight for the ability of people to try and fail at this sort of stuff.
/rant over

Nobody I've ever heard of has argued that anybody shouldn't have the right to try whatever they want, with their own resources, and the resources of anyone wishing to spend them that way.

However, resources are limited, and it's perfectly legitimate to argue about whether a particular line of research is worth putting the resources into, and to try to convince others not to put their own resources into a particular line of research.

There are tens of thousands of grad students struggling to find research dollars to continue their research into all sorts of topics in physics and aerospace engineering.

I personally find it sad that a very small number of fringe people who make outlandish claims get so much attention -- attention that, to my mind, would be better focused on more mainstream science and engineering, which is, I believe, far more likely to get us eventually to the breakthroughs we all would like to see.

Real advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind.  Deciding to try to design a device that violates limitations of known physics gets it backwards -- it's the approach of amateurs.

You might want to be rather careful in what you say here otherwise it might look like you're casting aspersions on the NASA scientists and their decision to investigate this.
« Last Edit: 08/02/2014 09:31 PM by Star One »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #114 on: 08/02/2014 09:57 PM »
Yes. I suppose that is exactly what I'm saying.
Sounds crazy when you put it like that! I'm just putting forward ways the anomalous thrust could be explained *if* it is real...

OK, here's an idea. The resonant cavity's purpose is to produce standing waves, right? So, basically it's a precise arrangement of conducting plates which reflect EM waves back and forth. For some reason, this reminds me of a "macro" Casimir cavity, just on a different scale and with "real" photons. So, what if.. this EM drive acted (by coincidence) as some weird form of "macro" Casimir cavity and its specific shape (accidentally) produced a preferred vector, working with real photons? I seem to remember that specific geometries of Casimir cavities were calculated to be able to produce a preferred vector of motion. I didn't find that piece of info yet again, or perhaps I remember wrongly. Maybe someone else knows better?
I like this idea. What we are seeing is a macro-Casimir effect. Maybe like we see macro superconductivity from quantam Cooper-pairings?
Who knows?

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2477
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #115 on: 08/02/2014 10:00 PM »
You might want to be rather careful in what you say here otherwise it might look like you're casting aspersions on the NASA scientists and their decision to investigate this.

This is one little corner of NASA.  NASA is a huge organization with lots and lots of people working on lots of things.  Sonny White and friends are not equivalent to NASA as a whole.

And there's nothing wrong with complaining that this one small part of NASA is wasting precious resources that could be better spent, and misleading the public by letting the NASA name get attached to wishful thinking in the guise of science.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8249
  • UK
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #116 on: 08/02/2014 10:12 PM »
You might want to be rather careful in what you say here otherwise it might look like you're casting aspersions on the NASA scientists and their decision to investigate this.

This is one little corner of NASA.  NASA is a huge organization with lots and lots of people working on lots of things.  Sonny White and friends are not equivalent to NASA as a whole.

And there's nothing wrong with complaining that this one small part of NASA is wasting precious resources that could be better spent, and misleading the public by letting the NASA name get attached to wishful thinking in the guise of science.

I like the way you're pre-judging the outcome of this, now that's not very scientific. Such attitudes are almost as bad in my book as the pseudo-science that often attaches itself online too such pronouncements.
« Last Edit: 08/02/2014 10:20 PM by Star One »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #117 on: 08/02/2014 10:13 PM »
Real advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind.
Which is exactly what the authors are trying to do.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8249
  • UK
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #118 on: 08/02/2014 10:15 PM »

Real advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind.
Which is exactly what the authors are trying to do.

That point seems to have escaped the OP.

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #119 on: 08/02/2014 10:43 PM »
Coming back to the issue of the virtual particle pairs of quantum space possibly being used for propulsion and seemingly vanishing impulse in this setup, when the pairs disappear again into "nothingness".. something interesting might happen, if this is not all a systematic measuring error.

So here comes another idea. If we were to consider quantum space itself to be made up of virtual particle pairs et cetera and made an analogy of quantum space being some sort of weird virtual liquid or gas with the particle pairs as 'liquid' or 'gas' molecules/atoms (or maybe even being a perfect virtual plasma e.g. of electrons and positrons etc), a space drive using a technologically enabled, controlled particle pair interaction to 'push' against this 'substance' should logically result in creating a sort of particle pair 'stream' exiting the space drive in the opposed direction to the drive's acceleration, to keep impulse conservation intact. That would be analogous to a submarine using propellers to push water backwards, while itself is propelled forward.

Now, if we considered quantum space as a medium to be 'expelled' behind the drive, wouldn't that imply quantum space itself were being moved? And what would happen, if that moving 'medium' hits on some other object. Would there be some 'virtual particle wind or stream' behind the drive's vector of acceleration, as can be observed in water for submarines?

Questions over questions :) .
« Last Edit: 08/02/2014 10:54 PM by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Tags: