Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 763688 times)

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1760 on: 10/08/2014 11:55 PM »
Taking a shot at an "axion condensate dark matter" energy to force calculation.

So theory and experiment both give a reduction in "sound speed" in a dilute condensate of ~ 10^-6.  So, let's say s = < 300 m/sec, given the assumption that the "axions" "interact" via gravity at c.

Where does it come from this 10^-6 ? specific to Bose Einstein condensates ? Reduction relative to what, the speed of "interactions" (sound ?) without BE condensation ?

Quote
Using a rough experimental result of 10W => 50 micronewtons for comparison.

At 300 m/sec, I need to generate 2.5 X 10^22 phonons/sec at a power of 1.5 X 10-2 watts to generate that 50 micronewtons.

So 15 milliwatts out of 10 watts => 0.15%  (pretty high)

Edit +10^22 and phonons not photons

I don't get it, where 2.5e22 comes from ?
Trying to understand the equivalent mass of the quanta you are pushing onto
  50e-6   = 300 * mass_1_phonon*2.5e22
kg*m/sē  =  m/s *       kg     /  s       
=> mass_1_phonon = 50e-6 / (300*2.5e22) = 6.7e-30 kg = 3.7MeV  why ?
2.5e22 * 6.7e-30 = 1.7e-7 kg/s 
( We didn't need to go through the individual phonon mass, it is just 50e-6/300 as mass_flow=force/speed)
Power of a jet having mass at sending mass from its own speed is 0.5*mass_flow*speedē = 0.5*1.7e-7*300ē = 7.5e-3 W
Lost a .5 factor here, but looks like I'm on the right track. You are like pushing on something at a relative speed of 300m/s : pow = force * speed = 1.5e-2 and considering there is no recoil of the medium because it's a "rigid" condensate ? But however rigid it would be, it would still need to have a certain mass : imagine an infinitly rigid slab spanning the solar system but weighing a gram, you couldn't really grab onto it to push efficiently a ship of one ton, unless sending the slab very very fast in the opposite direction.

So you have to "recruit" a mass to push onto at those efficiencies (that is, at this low characteristic speed) and this mass is on the order of 1.7e-7 kg each second. If I recall well, absolute experimentally checked upper bound (not likely) to DM density at earth orbit is about 1E6 GeV /cm^3 = 1.8e-24 kg/m^3 1.8e-15 kg/m^3
So the mass of DM to be pushed onto must be found on the order of 1e17 m^3, roughly 300km radius sphere.
How is it possible to recruit in 1s the mass of medium to be found in such a volume when the speed of sound
in said medium is 300m/s ?

There is simply not enough naturally occurring DM density to be of practical use, this is from the known gravitational bounds to density, so nothing more to be exploited could hide (in some specific kind of dark matter...)


Ahem :

so the mass of DM to be pushed onto must be found on the order of 1e8 m^3, roughly 300m radius sphere, that's within reach. Ok.

I know the discussion drifted to other considerations long time ago but I had to destroy that (sorry Notsosureofit, nothing personal, just to close all doors to classical natural DM)


Ok so it could. But it wont unless we find a way to couple with DM at better than 1e-15 event per encounter....

Now I will be attacking Shawyer's derivations.
(still of actuality)
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 01:10 AM by frobnicat »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1761 on: 10/09/2014 12:52 AM »
Taking a shot at an "axion condensate dark matter" energy to force calculation.

So theory and experiment both give a reduction in "sound speed" in a dilute condensate of ~ 10^-6.  So, let's say s = < 300 m/sec, given the assumption that the "axions" "interact" via gravity at c.

Where does it come from this 10^-6 ? specific to Bose Einstein condensates ? Reduction relative to what, the speed of "interactions" (sound ?) without BE condensation ?

Quote
Using a rough experimental result of 10W => 50 micronewtons for comparison.

At 300 m/sec, I need to generate 2.5 X 10^22 phonons/sec at a power of 1.5 X 10-2 watts to generate that 50 micronewtons.

So 15 milliwatts out of 10 watts => 0.15%  (pretty high)

Edit +10^22 and phonons not photons

I don't get it, where 2.5e22 comes from ?
Trying to understand the equivalent mass of the quanta you are pushing onto
  50e-6   = 300 * mass_1_phonon*2.5e22
kg*m/sē  =  m/s *       kg     /  s       
=> mass_1_phonon = 50e-6 / (300*2.5e22) = 6.7e-30 kg = 3.7MeV  why ?
2.5e22 * 6.7e-30 = 1.7e-7 kg/s 
( We didn't need to go through the individual phonon mass, it is just 50e-6/300 as mass_flow=force/speed)
Power of a jet having mass at sending mass from its own speed is 0.5*mass_flow*speedē = 0.5*1.7e-7*300ē = 7.5e-3 W
Lost a .5 factor here, but looks like I'm on the right track. You are like pushing on something at a relative speed of 300m/s : pow = force * speed = 1.5e-2 and considering there is no recoil of the medium because it's a "rigid" condensate ? But however rigid it would be, it would still need to have a certain mass : imagine an infinitly rigid slab spanning the solar system but weighing a gram, you couldn't really grab onto it to push efficiently a ship of one ton, unless sending the slab very very fast in the opposite direction.

So you have to "recruit" a mass to push onto at those efficiencies (that is, at this low characteristic speed) and this mass is on the order of 1.7e-7 kg each second. If I recall well, absolute experimentally checked upper bound (not likely) to DM density at earth orbit is about 1E6 GeV /cm^3 = 1.8e-24 kg/m^3
So the mass of DM to be pushed onto must be found on the order of 1e17 m^3, roughly 300km radius sphere.
How is it possible to recruit in 1s the mass of medium to be found in such a volume when the speed of sound
in said medium is 300m/s ?

There is simply not enough naturally occurring DM density to be of practical use, this is from the known gravitational bounds to density, so nothing more to be exploited could hide (in some specific kind of dark matter...)

I know the discussion drifted to other considerations long time ago but I had to destroy that (sorry Notsosureofit, nothing personal, just to close all doors to classical natural DM)

Now I will be attacking Shawyer's derivations.


I guess its time for my 10^7 contribution.

I've attached a current estimate of dark matter in the solar system, and for convenience converted 16.5E16 kg / AU^3 to 4.5E-17 kg/m^3.  That is quite a lot more than your number, 1.8e-24 kg/m^3 . In fact, it is almost exactly the value needed.

I do note that a drive based on this physics won't be so good much beyond Saturn. The DM mass really tails off with distance from the sun.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 12:56 AM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1762 on: 10/09/2014 12:53 AM »
Considering energy theoretical aspects of this article by Shawyer (linked to by sir Rodal) I was disappointed.

In conclusions it is claimed that
Quote from: Shawyer
Following extensive review, no contravention of the laws of the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy has been identified.

But to reach this conservation of energy (pages 5 and 6) he has to introduce a distinction between a "loaded" and "unloaded" Q factor : depending on the device having some speed or not.
- This is contrary to the equivalence principle of GR as keeping a constant thrust against earth gravity at constant altitude would be different from accelerating in deep space at 9.81m/sē
- This yield an equation (15) relating unloaded to loaded Q factor and a "mean speed" term : this mean speed is ill defined as we don't know of any frame of reference relative to which it should be measured.
- Because of this velocity term, this is contrary to inertial frame invariance (results of the equation depend on the arbitrary choice of inertial frame of reference)
- This is contrary to all experimental data that shows no sign of variation of Q in a resonant cavity depending on whether it goes fast or not (relative to what ?). Surely this would have been seen numerous times (satellites...) as this strong (halving...) non frame invariant effect appears at a few km/s in the equation for usual Q values.

Those problems are not addressed by the paper.

This doesn't hold water. I'm not trying to look any deeper as for the momentum aspect, apparently my first impression on Shawyer's theoretical skills is a shared judgement :
.../...
On the other hand, White's approach supposedly predicts thrust from a Shawyer EmDrive, while Woodward's does not.  It is generally acknowledged that Shawyer's explanation of his invention makes no sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean the invention itself doesn't work.  IIRC multiple parties have reported thrust from EmDrives, and not all of them are in China...

.../...
Most physicists are clueless when it comes to engineering, especially anyone who isn't in experiment. They simply lack the design skills to compete with engineers. Conversely, when an engineer tries to do physics, you often end up with a Roger Shawyer.


Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1763 on: 10/09/2014 01:12 AM »
Quote
"Superconductivity: a quantum mechanics effect for which people's intuition fails, because our intuition is built around our macro world and not the quantum world.   One would have to work out the quantum mechanics math to answer."

This is a hasty generalization.



What?  That's not me.  That's some other John.  This is me.  Accept no substitutes.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1764 on: 10/09/2014 01:14 AM »
...
I will try to embiggen my knowledge further.
Embiggen ?

"Embiggen" rox.  I shall be using it in sentence forthwith.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1765 on: 10/09/2014 01:23 AM »
A follow up to JohnFornaro's questions:

1) Q: ""Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO"...Therefore, I take issue with the above statement.  We still don't know what the "true" orgigin of inertia is."

A: You are right, we don't know the true origin of inertia. Lots of people have ideas. I have one too. It is time.

2a) Q: "Now, if one law of the universe can be broken, then all laws of the universe can be broken."

A: How do you figure? We're not breaking any laws here. But if we were, why the slippery slope?

2b) Q: "If a "new universe" is being created inside a copper can, which, tho not shielded from gravity, is subject to all other universal laws, two questions occur.  How can it be called a "new universe" if subject to the inertial laws of this one?"

A: If you change any single property of a consistent universe, is it still the same universe? Or a different universe? I say a different one. Because it has different rules. A universe is defined by its rules.

3) Q: "Is the 45 degree angled copper can the only way this assymetrical acceleration can occur?"

A: NO, read McCulloch's paper on inertia.

1) Thanks for the engagement.  Again, an object or particle with no acceleration has yet to be found.  Even at lo, lo, how lo can you go speeds, a massive object has inertia equal to its mass.  My objection was that we do not know, and have no evidence that inertia disappears with no acceleration.

My sense is, that you (well, one) can't go wrong by assuming that inertia exists in all frames of reference.

2a&b)  You answered "a" with "b".  You say it's a different universe, and maybe we're struggling with semantics here.  But then you go on to suggest that a "property" in the "new" universe is being changed.  We're not talking about the color of paint as a property, we're talking about fundamental properties, which in theory, we cannot change.

Whatever is happening in the copper can obeys the laws of the universe that it is embedded in.  No matter how much you embiggen it.

3)  Dang.  I knew you were going to say that.  Will try and find the time to throw an eyeball over it.  You all must be able to read at least an order of magnitute faster than I can, and I read so fast that my lips can't keep up.

4) What about Bohm's "implicate order".  Do you think it has bearing on this EM-drive and related physics?
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 01:31 AM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1766 on: 10/09/2014 01:25 AM »

I guess its time for my 10^7 contribution.

I've attached a current estimate of dark matter in the solar system, and for convenience converted 16.5E16 kg / AU^3 to 4.5E-17 kg/m^3.  That is quite a lot more than your number, 1.8e-24 kg/m^3 . In fact, it is almost exactly the value needed.

I do note that a drive based on this physics won't be so good much beyond Saturn. The DM mass really tails off with distance from the sun.

Yeah, I just, you know, forgot the G in GeV. Off by 9 orders of magnitude. Post corrected. Many thanks for not making myself a fool for too long.

I took a looser upper bound because I thought we would be so far from reaching the necessary mass. You numbers above background galactic DM are more precise (proven ? probable ? possible ? speculative ?). This doesn't tell where this 300m/s from Notsosureofit comes from...

Also, how could you meet DM at such low speed for a long time ? The equation for power of pushing on a medium is dependant on the speed you have in the medium, not the speed of sound of the medium. Unless there is a lump of cold DM orbiting with the earth we would encounter DM at a few km/s even on the ground. This is weakly interacting after all. Please detect DM before pushing too much on it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1767 on: 10/09/2014 01:48 AM »

I guess its time for my 10^7 contribution.

I've attached a current estimate of dark matter in the solar system, and for convenience converted 16.5E16 kg / AU^3 to 4.5E-17 kg/m^3.  That is quite a lot more than your number...

Yeah, I just, you know, forgot the G in GeV. Off by 9 orders of magnitude. Post corrected. Many thanks for not making myself a fool for too long. ...

This is weakly interacting after all. Please detect DM before pushing too much on it.

I was wondering about all the strike thrus.  Just go ahead and edit it so it reads better.  Add a "mea culpa" at the end.  I'm not gonna ask for an apoligy, 'cause I drop zeros all the time.

It's true tho, that you can't push very hard on something that is so rare.  But then I got confused.  You're not talking about "DM fusion", right?

Ai chihuahua.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1361
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1768 on: 10/09/2014 01:56 AM »

I guess its time for my 10^7 contribution.

I've attached a current estimate of dark matter in the solar system, and for convenience converted 16.5E16 kg / AU^3 to 4.5E-17 kg/m^3.  That is quite a lot more than your number...

Yeah, I just, you know, forgot the G in GeV. Off by 9 orders of magnitude. Post corrected. Many thanks for not making myself a fool for too long. ...

This is weakly interacting after all. Please detect DM before pushing too much on it.

I was wondering about all the strike thrus.  Just go ahead and edit it so it reads better.  Add a "mea culpa" at the end.  I'm not gonna ask for an apoligy, 'cause I drop zeros all the time.

It's true tho, that you can't push very hard on something that is so rare.  But then I got confused.  You're not talking about "DM fusion", right?

Ai chihuahua.

http://samos.martech.fsu.edu/chapters/chapters/md.PDF
http://cua.mit.edu/8.422_S07/BECinDiluteGases205-214.pdf

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1010
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1769 on: 10/09/2014 02:00 AM »
A follow up to JohnFornaro's questions:

1) Q: ""Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO"...Therefore, I take issue with the above statement.  We still don't know what the "true" orgigin of inertia is."

A: You are right, we don't know the true origin of inertia. Lots of people have ideas. I have one too. It is time.

2a) Q: "Now, if one law of the universe can be broken, then all laws of the universe can be broken."

A: How do you figure? We're not breaking any laws here. But if we were, why the slippery slope?

2b) Q: "If a "new universe" is being created inside a copper can, which, tho not shielded from gravity, is subject to all other universal laws, two questions occur.  How can it be called a "new universe" if subject to the inertial laws of this one?"

A: If you change any single property of a consistent universe, is it still the same universe? Or a different universe? I say a different one. Because it has different rules. A universe is defined by its rules.

3) Q: "Is the 45 degree angled copper can the only way this assymetrical acceleration can occur?"

A: NO, read McCulloch's paper on inertia.

1) Thanks for the engagement.  Again, an object or particle with no acceleration has yet to be found.  Even at lo, lo, how lo can you go speeds, a massive object has inertia equal to its mass.  My objection was that we do not know, and have no evidence that inertia disappears with no acceleration.

My sense is, that you (well, one) can't go wrong by assuming that inertia exists in all frames of reference.

2a&b)  You answered "a" with "b".  You say it's a different universe, and maybe we're struggling with semantics here.  But then you go on to suggest that a "property" in the "new" universe is being changed.  We're not talking about the color of paint as a property, we're talking about fundamental properties, which in theory, we cannot change.

Whatever is happening in the copper can obeys the laws of the universe that it is embedded in.  No matter how much you embiggen it.

3)  Dang.  I knew you were going to say that.  Will try and find the time to throw an eyeball over it.  You all must be able to read at least an order of magnitute faster than I can, and I read so fast that my lips can't keep up.

4) What about Bohm's "implicate order".  Do you think it has bearing on this EM-drive and related physics?

Quoting myself: "Place yourself in intergalactic space, outside of any dominant gravity well (except the universe itself) you would experience acceleration (very small acceleration) only with respect to the universe at large.

The algorithm I put together a few pages back is a thought experiment about what NO acceleration would be like. The notion of NO acceleration is immaterial in reality. Just very low accelerations are real. Given the perceived dipole moment of the CMB, there cannot ever be exactly 0 acceleration."

The paper in question is the 2013 one, near the end where he's talking about metamaterials.

I don't know anything about Bohm's implicate order. I'll check it out.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1770 on: 10/09/2014 03:02 AM »

I guess its time for my 10^7 contribution.

I've attached a current estimate of dark matter in the solar system, and for convenience converted 16.5E16 kg / AU^3 to 4.5E-17 kg/m^3.  That is quite a lot more than your number, 1.8e-24 kg/m^3 . In fact, it is almost exactly the value needed.

I do note that a drive based on this physics won't be so good much beyond Saturn. The DM mass really tails off with distance from the sun.

Yeah, I just, you know, forgot the G in GeV. Off by 9 orders of magnitude. Post corrected. Many thanks for not making myself a fool for too long.

I took a looser upper bound because I thought we would be so far from reaching the necessary mass. You numbers above background galactic DM are more precise (proven ? probable ? possible ? speculative ?). This doesn't tell where this 300m/s from Notsosureofit comes from...

Also, how could you meet DM at such low speed for a long time ? The equation for power of pushing on a medium is dependant on the speed you have in the medium, not the speed of sound of the medium. Unless there is a lump of cold DM orbiting with the earth we would encounter DM at a few km/s even on the ground. This is weakly interacting after all. Please detect DM before pushing too much on it.


From an article I posted a couple days ago (like 30 pages back), natural coupling of DM with photons may be on the order of the hubble constant, ~10^-18/s . (dp/dt = -Hp). I have a feeling that this is to weak to do us any good and haven't tried to calculate thrust using this coupling though I do note that the photon density within the cavity is much higher than photon density in freespace.

I've been looking for a mechanism that would create Axions within the cavity perhaps via the dual photon interaction. Frankly, my problem is the heavy physics and math, I go cross-eyed just trying to read the background papers, let alone trying to understand the process. Bunched or Clumped photons may play a role. Of course if the cavity actually created Axions then we might be back to the question of Energy conservation but we should solve one mystery at a time.

I'll keep looking but don't expect anything before this thread hits 300 pages.
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1010
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1771 on: 10/09/2014 03:15 AM »
Apart from my drawing ability. Tear it apart.

I'm having trouble resolving why it would want to move. Even with the internal imbalances. As mentioned here: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html

"The leap is that the only way to conserve force (or conserve momentum) is to have an equal force pushing the whole system the other way towards the narrow end."

Why would it want to move? When I looked at that question very critically I can't answer it.

What role does the dielectric specifically play if any in converting momentum from the particles (with an energy gradient over the length of the device) to linear motion of the whole system?

Assuming this thing isn't expelling any reaction mass. What is pushing it?

Can anyone explain why it would move?
Is this where the Lamb Shift comes into play?
There isn't anything coming out of the emdrive to balance what is happening inside vs outside.

Seems like it would be better suited to spinning a generator internally.

Edit:
Q factor of outside must matter too?
Think I got it. Solely by the definition of Inertia it would be harder to push one way vs the other with rf off. Barely. By virtue of the acceleration of the universe the emdrive is always accelerating with respect to the universe. It has less resistance to accelerate toward the small end. In deep space it would move slowly on its own. Very slowly. It would take forever to get up to a useful velocity.

Turn rf on. The inertial bias of the system is magnified.

Inertia is never lowered anywhere though.
Because of this the outside has to be designed to take advantage of the unbalanced inertial moment.

The universe and the radiation in the universe is what pushes it!

That means q factor outside is important too. So is its optical reflection and absorption.

Where did I go wrong? Inertia isn't lowered and I'm confused again. Harder to push in one direction vs another doesn't mean easier to push.

Okay, now I'm going back to physics school. I need to figure out who this bleeping thing could ever move! Looks like we're back to it reacting against the QV again.......somehow.

http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990 (what I've been saying)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.4390

« Last Edit: 11/02/2014 06:52 AM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • California
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1772 on: 10/09/2014 04:49 AM »
Re: performance of superconductors with AC and microwaves

I have found a Google book that describes low temperature and high temperature superconductor microwave resonators.  So this shoots a hole in my claim that superconductors are no good above 60 Hz.   However for slowly changing magnetic fields hst quench does occur quite easily.
books.google.com/books?isbn=0824755308
Here is a graph from that book showing resistance vs frequency for Cu and several superconductors.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 04:55 AM by zen-in »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1773 on: 10/09/2014 05:15 AM »
Question - Is there any way to know the shapes of the standing waves within the cavity, with and without the resonator?
See here for a curved truncated cone:  http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
for the cavity itself (not the dielectric resonator)


Observe that the ends, however are not flat in this solution for 1/r not equal to zero.  Shawyer's and NASA truncated cone have flat ends with 1/r = 0 (r-> Infinity at ends)

I like his drawings of the E and M fields in the cavity. What would be more helpful though would be if he made a few drawings separated by, say 30 degrees in phase, then put them together, time properly in a .gif image so I could see how the fields, and electromagnetic forces move within the cavity. I don't know if that would tell me anything but it might help my understanding and especially if he could put the electric field and magnetic field in cavities side by side in the .gif, with a representative particle of some sort.  Oh, and I'd like a Unicorn, too :)
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5914
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1774 on: 10/09/2014 01:06 PM »
...
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 01:10 PM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5914
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1775 on: 10/09/2014 01:15 PM »
Also notice that McCulloch states [http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266] <<MiHsC (Eq. 1) violates the equivalence principle, but not in a way that could be detected by the usual [Cavendish] torsion balance experiment. These experiments measure the differential attraction of two balls on a cross bar suspended on wire, towards distant masses by detecting tiny twists in the wire (eg: [12]). With MiHsC these two balls would have equal accelerations with respect to the distant masses (being rigidly connected) so their inertial masses would be modified equally by MiHsC, and there will be no twist in the wire, and no apparent violation of equivalance.>>

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1010
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1776 on: 10/09/2014 01:17 PM »
...
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>

I know he says that. I just modeled that (what he said) in my most recent huge post and it failed. It seems that MIHSC describes everything EXCEPT the final reaction mechanism. The reason why it moves. He maintained himself it is a leap. I tried to push the "I believe button" and it still didn't work. This thing doesn't expel any reaction mass. So now I'm back in line with Dr. White. The question is how?

Edit: You can't violate the equivalence principal, nomatter how it is detected or semantics.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 01:22 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5914
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1777 on: 10/09/2014 01:22 PM »
...
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>

I know he says that. I just modeled that (what he said) in my most recent huge post and it failed. He maintained himself it is a leap. I tried to push the "I believe button" and it still didn't work. This thing doesn't expel any reaction mass. So now I'm back in line with Dr. White. The question is how?
Can you explain in as few words as possible, what alternative explanation you have for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing towards the narrow end) that conserves momentum without the EM drive accelerating?
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 01:24 PM by Rodal »

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1010
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1778 on: 10/09/2014 01:24 PM »
...
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>

I know he says that. I just modeled that (what he said) in my most recent huge post and it failed. He maintained himself it is a leap. I tried to push the "I believe button" and it still didn't work. This thing doesn't expel any reaction mass. So now I'm back in line with Dr. White. The question is how?
Can you explain in as few words as possible, what alternative explanation you have for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing the whole systemtowards the narrow end)  that will conserve momentum with the EM drive not accelerating?

We have to react against something. That something isn't blocked by the boundary conditions of the enclosed cavity.

 Looks like we're back to it reacting against the QV again.......somehow.

http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990 (what I've been saying) Maybe this way.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 01:25 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5914
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1779 on: 10/09/2014 01:26 PM »
...
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>

I know he says that. I just modeled that (what he said) in my most recent huge post and it failed. He maintained himself it is a leap. I tried to push the "I believe button" and it still didn't work. This thing doesn't expel any reaction mass. So now I'm back in line with Dr. White. The question is how?
Can you explain in as few words as possible, what alternative explanation you have for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing the whole systemtowards the narrow end)  that will conserve momentum with the EM drive not accelerating?

We have to react against something. That something isn't blocked by the boundary conditions of the enclosed cavity.

 Looks like we're back to it reacting against the QV again.......somehow.

http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990 (what I've been saying) Maybe this way.
Sorry, I don't understand you.  Do you have an alternative explanation  for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing towards the narrow end) that conserves momentum without the EM drive accelerating?, yes or no ?
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 01:26 PM by Rodal »

Tags: