#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9162
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 610
• Likes Given: 314
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1300 on: 10/03/2014 07:46 AM »
The derivation of the field equation containing A) the second derivative with respect to time of Eo ("the local proper energy density") and B) the square of the first derivative with respect to time of Eo ("the local proper energy density"),

* is not in these pages attached by John. John could you also attach those pages? Thanks

Scanned a bit too fast the other day, and missed this.

Rephrase that for me a mite, mate?

Ise confused.  You want the derivates of A) and B)?  I've tapped out my UVA whiz, but I will take a stab at it, if ya give me a few hints.

Is the starting equation the "field equation" from Sciama '53?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9162
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 610
• Likes Given: 314
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1301 on: 10/03/2014 08:04 AM »
After catching up on the past few pages, I'd be lying if I said I really understood any of what you're discussing. I don't suppose anyone has some good ideas on testable predictions from these theories?

I realize that I asked for a lot up thread, when I requested an equational line of reasoning which started with, say, e=Mc^2 and resulted in propellantless drive or an explanation of inertia.`

If I may?

If what is commonly known as a scientist is well grounded in the liberal arts, the English language, (here in America, people.  The rest of the world can just enjoy the squabble) rhetoric, logic, fairness, and a genuine effort to understand by using the Socratic method, that scientist will realize that I also ask for "testable predictions".

There is more than one way to ask questions.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

#### raketa

• Full Member
• Posts: 211
• Liked: 36
• Likes Given: 24
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1302 on: 10/03/2014 08:12 AM »
However, if one were to accept Woodward's theory on a theoretical basis, and materials in nature are found not to obey it

I think you're conflating two things: Woodward's theory (which describes what happens when certain things occur in a material) and the properties of the material (which describe how easily and/or efficiently those things can be forced to occur in it).

Woodward's theory itself has no efficiency terms.  Those terms result from an attempt to map experimentally imposed parameters onto the quantities appearing in his equations.  Since the electromechanical response of the material is what performs this mapping in real life, the efficiency terms represent the constitutive relations, which are not the Mach effect but mediate between the Mach effect and the attempt to force it to happen.

...

Assuming Woodward's theory is accepted for the sake of argument, saying a real-life material doesn't obey it is like saying a real-life material doesn't obey the law of gravity.  A feather may not fall as fast as a brick, but there are other reasons for that.

Or perhaps a better example is a collision.  Most real-life collisions don't appear to obey conservation of energy, until you account for dissipation of that energy in forms other than the bulk kinetic energy of the colliding objects.

Combining these two examples, bouncing a ball off the pavement and having it not quite come back up to the height it was dropped from does not mean the ball fails to obey either the law of gravity or the law of conservation of energy.
Your example is not good what Woodward try to claim. He is not questioning  mass that you can measure during low speeds. His theory try to explain mass increase during speed close to light speed and possibility manipulate increase mass/inertia at these moments. I am really recommending to read book, I finish first 15% and it is very interesting. All these claims that he invented device and try to explain how is it works are completely wrong. Looks like he spend lot time to to build his theory and now try to prove it through testing. It is very rare example. If he didn't believe his theory are right, I think he will not wasting time with testing, in his life situation.

#### Mulletron

• Full Member
• Posts: 1106
• Liked: 774
• Likes Given: 1007
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1303 on: 10/03/2014 08:43 AM »
not to mention supersymmetry and string theory.

I thought string theory was dead now since the Higgs Boson mass was wrong. Or am I totally off base (just something I heard in a talk)?

I believe string theory is very much alive. The problem is that testing it is a pain. The Higgs mechanism is correct. It is an electroweak interaction, which helps confer rest mass to matter. This is one component to mass. The Higgs mechanism imparts the rest mass to matter. There are other types of mass. Basically whenever a particle interacts with a field in such a way that symmetry is broken, it gains a mass energy component from that field, be it electroweak, color, gravity, stochastic quantum fluctuations. If symmetry is preserved, no energy is given, no mass is gained. Mass has a lot of parts. Mass can be intrinsic or extrinsic, depending on whether the field contributing energy is inside the particle (color) or around the particle.
« Last Edit: 10/03/2014 08:59 AM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9162
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 610
• Likes Given: 314
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1304 on: 10/03/2014 12:44 PM »
[Woodward] is not questioning  mass that you can measure during low speeds. His theory try to explain mass increase during speed close to light speed and possibility manipulate increase mass/inertia at these moments.

That's my understanding as well.

I believe that he admits to not being able to accelerate an ion to these speeds, and is now attempting to accelerate the lattice at these speeds.

Again, unless I'm confused, this paper claims that "Approximately 30-50 micro-Newtons of thrust were recorded from an electric propulsion test article consisting primarily of a radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity excited at approximately 935 megahertz".

They offer this tentative explanation for how the device works:  "Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma".

This is a different operating principle than the one thought to be operative by Woddward.

Again, unless I'm confused, bewildered, and a host of other terms, including un-read, the thread topic has included these two theories of operation on a propellantless drive.

Nobody has yet explained how either of these devices actually work, other than the obvious; that the devices covert electrical energy to forward momentum, which is the only thing that the term "electric propulsion" can mean.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9162
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 610
• Likes Given: 314
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1305 on: 10/03/2014 12:49 PM »
Equation experiment:

□=gνμ∇ν∇μ=1−g−−−√∂μ(−g−−−√∂μ).

Edit: Humph. What's the secret to posting equations beyond the Fortran method that I know how to use, but which seems limited to algegraic equations?

\begin{align*}
\Box &= \sum_a \partial^a\partial_a \,, &
\hat\Box &= \sum_a \mathcal{D}^a\mathcal{D}_a
\end{align*}

2nd Edit:  Humph again.
« Last Edit: 10/03/2014 12:52 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

#### Mulletron

• Full Member
• Posts: 1106
• Liked: 774
• Likes Given: 1007
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1306 on: 10/03/2014 12:57 PM »
Wanted to share info about casimir energies in cavities and vacuum expectation values in various systems. Spent all morning researching boundary conditions wrt shapes other than parallel plates. This says cones have positive casimir energy (repulsive). By repulsive do they mean net effect on the cavity walls? Or space? QV? A poynting vector?

http://merlin.fic.uni.lodz.pl/concepts/2005_3_4/2005_3_4_137.pdf

Other neat stuff I waded through:

http://www.calphysics.org/articles/Davis_STAIF06.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4370v1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0106045.pdf

www.technologyreview.com/view/416697/how-to-build-casimir-molecules/

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.5409v2.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6867.full

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-04272004-200428/unrestricted/casimir-effect.pdf

Edit:

I wanted to throw it out there that as I understand it, the casimir effect between the plates equates to a small negative mass energy by virtue of all other modes being excluded. This is the difference of potential, similar to volts. The sign of casimir energy doesn't denote positive/negative mass energy; just the direction of bias. The energy is negative with respect to the universe. Not necessarily a mass less than zero. A lower mass. Think of it as a direction toward the vacuum, not reaching it, and not crossing below it. Another way to think of it is possible hole flow in electronics. Am I right?
« Last Edit: 10/07/2014 06:31 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

#### Rodal

• Senior Member
• Posts: 5831
• USA
• Liked: 5897
• Likes Given: 5245
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1307 on: 10/03/2014 01:10 PM »
Wanted to share info about casimir energies in cavities and vacuum expectation values in various systems. Spent all morning researching boundary conditions wrt shapes other than parallel plates. This says cones have positive casimir energy (repulsive). By repulsive do they mean net effect on the cavity walls?
We discussed this with @frobnicat, @aero and others way back in this thread.  Nobel Prize Winner Schwinger was so dissatisfied with Casimir's explanation for the Casimir force (that relies on the quantum vacuum) that Schwinger came up with his own derivation that explains the Casimir force strictly as a van der Waal force, in terms of charges.  (Great physicists like Pauli, Feynman and DeWitt were also dissatisfied with Casimir's explanation) Casimir was successful in predicting the Casimir force for flat plates but unsuccessful for other geometries.  What made it worse is that Casimir's derivation can even get the sign wrong.  Schwinger's derivation (although more complicated) gets the sign correctly for different geometries.  One problem is that the fine structure constant plays an important role in deriving the Casimir force for different geometries.  Casimir's explanation for flat plates does not contain the fine structure constant.

The Casimir force is attractive for flat plates but it is repulsive for cones.  Repulsive means that the cones are pushed apart by the Casimir force.  Flat plates are attracted to each other by the Casimir force.  But the plates have to be extremely close (nanometers or less) for the Casimir force to be significant.

I don't see any relation between the Casimir force and the microwave cavity, as the distance between the microwave cavity walls is so large that the Casimir force between them is completely negligible.  If I misunderstood something please forgive me (I haven't had a coffee this morning yet).
« Last Edit: 10/03/2014 01:14 PM by Rodal »

#### Mulletron

• Full Member
• Posts: 1106
• Liked: 774
• Likes Given: 1007
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1308 on: 10/03/2014 01:18 PM »
I don't expect to get much use out of the casimir force either. I'm more interested in the asymmetry created by the exclusion of all other modes by the effect and the shape of the device.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

#### aceshigh

• Full Member
• Posts: 606
• Liked: 171
• Likes Given: 16
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1309 on: 10/03/2014 01:27 PM »
Nobody has yet explained how either of these devices actually work, other than the obvious; that the devices covert electrical energy to forward momentum, which is the only thing that the term "electric propulsion" can mean.

in simple terms, Woodwards device works by using these mass fluctuations... pull when itīs light, push when itīs heavier. That is how I understand it.

#### Rodal

• Senior Member
• Posts: 5831
• USA
• Liked: 5897
• Likes Given: 5245
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1310 on: 10/03/2014 01:30 PM »

I wanted to throw it out there that as I understand it, the casimir effect between the plates equates to a small negative mass energy by virtue of all other modes being excluded. This is the difference of potential, similar to volts. The sign of casimir energy doesn't denote positive/negative energy. It is negative with respect to the universe nomatter the sign. Another way to think of it is possible hole flow in electronics. Am I right?

Well, count me with Jaffe at MIT:   http://cua.mit.edu/8.422/Reading%20Material/Jaffe2005_Casimir.pdf

<<In discussions of the cosmological constant, the Casimir effect is often invoked as decisive evidence
that the zero-point energies of quantum fields are real. On the contrary, Casimir effects can be
formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies.
They are
relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between
parallel plates vanishes as , the fine structure constant, goes to zero>>

I do not think that the Casimir force is related to negative mass.  The "all other modes being excluded" explanation is Casimir's.  It works for flat plates but it doesn't work for several other geometries.

#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9162
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 610
• Likes Given: 314
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1311 on: 10/03/2014 01:30 PM »
Please continue to scan the pages ... until you reach Woodward's main result: the wave equation for the gravitational potential (the  d'Alembertian of phi) on the left hand side of the equation, and on the right hand side of the equation: the term (4 Pi G rho) and the terms containing the derivatives with respect to time.

Yes, O my master.

The power of the virtual martini mind meld is amazingly strong in this one.

Claiming fair use for educational principles again, here are pages 70-75.

Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9162
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 610
• Likes Given: 314
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1312 on: 10/03/2014 01:44 PM »
Nobody has yet explained how either of these devices actually work, other than the obvious; that the devices convert electrical energy to forward momentum, which is the only thing that the term "electric propulsion" can mean.

in simple terms, Woodwards device works by using these mass fluctuations... pull when itīs light, push when itīs heavier. That is how I understand it.

Oh wait.

The device aims to convert electricity to forward motion. ...

There are two problems which have not yet been addressed or answered.  "Push heavy, pull light", which is the summary of the M-E device's operation, relies upon action at a distance with the inertia of the entire Hubble sphere surrounding the device.

7b. AIUI, it is conjectured that the interstitial atomic bonds in the capacitor move at relativistic speeds, over small distances, with properly timed alternating, opposed electrical signals.  Because it is supposed that there is a time lag between the extemes of motion in this cycle, that the electrical signals can be timed so as to "push heavy" in one dirrection, and "pull light" in the other.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9162
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 610
• Likes Given: 314
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1313 on: 10/03/2014 01:45 PM »
Why is there a dollar sign after MachEffect as in "MachEffect\$" at the top left of every page?

R U Sirius?

That's the Greek symbol for Martini.

Sheesh.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9162
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 610
• Likes Given: 314
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1314 on: 10/03/2014 01:47 PM »
Also, the first page that came up for me a few minutes ago:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89quation_de_d%27Alembert

The good news?  I understand this as well as I understand the English page!
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

#### JasonAW3

• Senior Member
• Posts: 2406
• Claremore, Ok.
• Liked: 374
• Likes Given: 10
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1315 on: 10/03/2014 01:53 PM »
Ok, likely an oversimplification on my part, but;

If a solar sail can work via reflected photons, could not another drive, using a pure electron stream, (which has mass) also work?

Pointing a basic idea out here, mass is being expended as a propellent whether that mass be of a chemical, nuclear, ionic or even an electron stream. You have to have SOMETHING to generate the power. be it a generator or solar panels.  In the case of Solar panels, the electrons are being generated via the energy produced via capturing and converting photons into electrical power.  (Not very effecient, granted, but mass is being exchanged, even is on an almost quantum level).

Like I said, likely a vast oversimplification, but according to basic physics, it should work.

In the case as presented, it sort of appears that the electron stream, may be being concentrated and accelerated to increse their effective mass.

Assuming that you could either focus, or effectively "Laser" focus the electron stream, there should be some sort of thrust in the opposing direction, even if it were in the millinewtons of force. Basic Newtonian Physics, "Every Action has an equal and opposite reaction."
My God!  It's full of universes!

#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9162
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 610
• Likes Given: 314
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1316 on: 10/03/2014 02:17 PM »

In all fairness, this is the last time I can provide and claim this fair use educational scanning service today.

Quote from: Rodal
Please continue to scan the pages ... until you reach Woodward's main result: the wave equation for the gravitational potential (the  d'Alembertian of phi) on the left hand side of the equation, and on the right hand side of the equation: the term (4 Pi G rho) and the terms containing the derivatives with respect to time.

These are all of the equations which precede page 70.  There are equations on pages 40 and 66.  In between p-35 and p-70 are three addenda, reasonably presumed to support Woodward's derivation, here summarized:

#1 Sciama 1953, p37
#2 Brans, 1962, p388-396
#3 Nordtverdt, 1988, 91395-1404

Would you be so kind as to repost the PDF's for Brans and Nordtverdt?  I don't have them yet.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9162
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 610
• Likes Given: 314
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1317 on: 10/03/2014 02:20 PM »
In the case as presented, it sort of appears that the electron stream, may be being concentrated and accelerated to increse their effective mass.

They are not claiming that mass, regardless of its elemental particle composition, including electrons, is coming out of the device.

Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

#### Ron Stahl

• Full Member
• Posts: 210
• Liked: 32
• Likes Given: 2
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1318 on: 10/03/2014 02:26 PM »
EDIT: Let's call the point at which constitutive statements are attached to Woodward's theory, a "W theory," such that "W theory" stands for the whole theory including any attached constitutive statement.

So even if one were to accept Woodward's theory on a theoretical basis, at the point that Woodward's theory becomes a constitutive theory, it does not follow that actual materials would have to behave as prescribed by "W theory" with a Buldrini factor >0.  I think that Buldrini understood this and that's why he allowed his "fudge factors" to range all the way from zero (for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect).

Only experiments would be able to show whether they do or do not.  However, if one were to accept  "W theory"  on a theoretical basis, and materials in nature are found not to obey it, the interesting possibility could still be raised whether such a  "W theory" material could be eventually be man-made (to allow propellant-less drives) as for example now we are able to make isotropic materials with very negative Poisson's ratio that don't exist in nature.  (The experiments that are trying to verify Woodward's effect now are limiting themselves to materials that are presently available for other uses, not materials that have been engineered by man first at the nano level and eventually at the molecular level with the only intent to maximize such a "W theory" effect. )
I think what you're saying is true, but it is not Woodward's theory that all bulk matter stores delta mass when deformed.  That's undergrad physical chemistry.  Woodward chose shape change materials since they have very large changes in internal energy--the largest I know of.  So I don't think it's fair to say this is a constituative part of his theory.  His theory only stipulates that if one changes the internal energy of a mass while accelerating it, you will get this 2w fluctuation, or Mach Effect.

#### JohnFornaro

• Not an expert
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9162
• Delta-t is the salient metric.
• Planet Eaarth
• Liked: 610
• Likes Given: 314
##### Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1319 on: 10/03/2014 02:40 PM »
...
These are all of the equations which precede page 70.  There are equations on pages 40 and 66.  In between p-35 and p-70 are three addenda, reasonably presumed to support Woodward's derivation, here summarized:

#1 Sciama 1953, p37
#2 Brans, 1962, p388-396
#3 Nordtverdt, 1988, 91395-1404

Would you be so kind as to repost the PDF's for Brans and Nordtverdt?  I don't have them yet.
The purpose of your scanning educational exercise was to show in this thread the actual Derivation equations as they appear in The Book, to better guide discussion.

Can you point out to any equation in The Formal Derivation in The Book that were not present in his previously published papers?

Yes, I know that there new and different words, and supporting material.  I'm talking strictly about the mathematical equations in The Formal Derivation leading to the final transient fluctuation equation .

You are asking for something I cannot offer.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags: