Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 765627 times)

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1820 on: 10/09/2014 06:06 PM »
So if the inertia varies within the cavity then what is to prevent a Dean drive from working like depicted in the attached sketch? Apart from interference effects.

In words, the mass rotates around a central support with high inertia at the bottom and low inertia at the top pulling the whole attached cavity downward by centrifugal force. Of course a spinning flywheel would work just as well, better in fact, but the blob of mass is easier to visualize.

I think that wouldn't move it would oscillate on the table. By virtue of the string, conservation of angular momentum. At least emdrive heats the cavity unevenly by virtue of its uneven particle momentums.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline MikeMcCulloch

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • UK
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1821 on: 10/09/2014 06:08 PM »
Someone has raised the issue that MiHsC violates EEP and weakly tries to argue against MiHsC by saying I'm an oceanographer and claims MiHsC hasn't seen peer review? Well, I am a physicist (degree in physics, PhD in physical oceanography) and I've published 10 peer-reviewed papers on MiHsC, some in very good physics journals (MNRAS, EPL). Besides, personal histories have no bearing on whether or not a theory is true or not, only experiment decides. It is true that EEP has been tested in a torsion balance, but MiHsC violates EEP in such a way that it cannot be detected by a torsion balance experiment (or Galileo's ball expt either). You can see this by deriving the eqn of motion. In my opinion there is too much reverence for old theories, over new data (including Emdrive, real or not). I'm arguing that GR breaks down at extremely low accelerations. You may say 'We can fix GR in deep space with dark matter and energy' but this is ugly and cannot work for tiny globular clusters which also show a rotation anomaly (Scarpa et al., 2006) since dark matter, to work, has to stay spread out on bigger galactic scales.

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1822 on: 10/09/2014 06:11 PM »
Quoting Ron. "So once more back to basics: in order for no preferred frame of reference to emerge, one has to hold that inertial and gravitational mass are always identical. . under ALL conditions and circumstances.  This is what MiHsC denies.  And I am just noting to you, this "theory" that challenges Einstein, comes from someone with no training in field theory--as is the norm."

I've thought very long and hard ::) on this (preferred frames of reference). I made note of the fact that our universe is undergoing accelerating expansion, while at the same time the QV remains consistent. The preferred frame is virtual. Those virtual particles that nobody believes in that yoink in and out of existence with plank time, have no preferred frame of reference other than the horizon of the universe, and no preferred path in any particular direction.

Why does everyone neglect the fact that the universe itself is a frame of reference?
They are inertial. So how can I react with them and produce thrust? That is what I want to know.

(Side thought) Dr. White really shot himself in the foot when he put the word "plasma" in QVPT. That turned physics against him. QVT would suffice.

I have to say, that given new data, like anomalous thrust predictions, I have to force myself to think differently. I have to have the courage to "loooook harder." I have to accept the risk of coming up with borderline crackpot sounding ideas that make me look bad. But that is what is required to explain new info like the emdrive. I trust the experimentalist in that they at least got the measurements right. There is a VERY high likelyhood that because of thinking differently, errors were made and that is fine. Because from those errors come new insight and finally a path to the real truth....and finally a trip to the stars......or a hovercar. Thanks!
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 06:26 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online Chris Bergin

Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1823 on: 10/09/2014 06:26 PM »
1) I will not allow this forum to be used to attack people who are not here to defend themselves, or other members. Reported post removed. If I've missed any others, or any where someone has quoted the ad hominem, please report it.

2) I'm not entirely convinced we even need this Advanced Topics area, so threads in here are on thin ground, because it's not what I set the site up for.

Taking both into account, you all need to be very, very careful with these threads, because my patience is thin with areas we'll never get to cover on the news site.

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2744
  • 92129
  • Liked: 705
  • Likes Given: 239
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1824 on: 10/09/2014 06:27 PM »
So if the inertia varies within the cavity then what is to prevent a Dean drive from working like depicted in the attached sketch? Apart from interference effects.

In words, the mass rotates around a central support with high inertia at the bottom and low inertia at the top pulling the whole attached cavity downward by centrifugal force. Of course a spinning flywheel would work just as well, better in fact, but the blob of mass is easier to visualize.

I think that wouldn't move it would oscillate on the table. By virtue of the string, conservation of angular momentum. At least emdrive heats the cavity unevenly by virtue of its uneven particle momentums.

That is the way it would work without the variable inertia.

Fc = (inertial mass)*w^2/r.

If inertial mass varies with all else fixed, then force varies.
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1825 on: 10/09/2014 06:32 PM »
So if the inertia varies within the cavity then what is to prevent a Dean drive from working like depicted in the attached sketch? Apart from interference effects.

In words, the mass rotates around a central support with high inertia at the bottom and low inertia at the top pulling the whole attached cavity downward by centrifugal force. Of course a spinning flywheel would work just as well, better in fact, but the blob of mass is easier to visualize.

I think that wouldn't move it would oscillate on the table. By virtue of the string, conservation of angular momentum. At least emdrive heats the cavity unevenly by virtue of its uneven particle momentums.

That is the way it would work without the variable inertia.

Fc = (inertial mass)*w^2/r.

If inertial mass varies with all else fixed, then force varies.

Okay I hear you and you are right. Under modified inertia, you still have to react with something......just like emdrive has to react with something. That realization is what put me back on the QV wagon. Dr. Rodal might have a better answer for you. We're in different camps now about reacting against something. I maintain that because inertia was modified, not lowered, it isn't just going to shoot through space in a useful way. Due to the perceived very small anisotropy of the universe, it might move for you a little bit if you wait a really long time.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1826 on: 10/09/2014 06:32 PM »
I have to accept the risk of coming up with borderline crackpot sounding ideas that make me look bad. But that is what is required to explain new info like the emdrive.

I can appreciate this.  Let me note one past experience.

I'm a philosopher of science and technology, not a technician.  I've studied both phil of sci and phil of tech, and it is really the former as well as my study of epistemology that suits me to look for "emergent" technology.  About a decade ago, I was hired by the Advanced Aerospace Research Center because of my odd training, to hunt for emergent technologies they might like to invest in.  My decision then, as now, was and is that to best vet the crazy models, theories and claims, I use a two-fold criteria and it is pretty much the criteria of what makes good science.

First is, I want to see cogent theory.  Since I'm not a physicist, I rely on peer review.  This is actually a benefit because to be honest, the time it takes to really understand a new model is why most people never invest themselves.  It is just too labor intensive.  The best people to judge truly cutting edge and advanced models are those who specialize in those fields.  And you want that judgement to be one people will stand by, hence the need for peer review.  Although you and I can make judgements about this or that model, the best judgements come form those who are specialists in the field. 

Second, I want to see empirical evidence.  If someone is gonna spend money, there should be real evidence.  One can then quibble about what is intellectually satisfying.  I want to see vacuum since there are so many spurious effects that are ruled out by vacuum.  But the point is, there should be real observation to back up any proposed model, before anyone takes it much too seriously.

And just saying, this model from an Oceanographer doesn't meet either of these criteria.  Given it contradicts Einstein and what we have good reason to suppose is true (EEP and GR), I can't say I think this is going to be a fruitful line of inquiry.

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1827 on: 10/09/2014 06:39 PM »
I have to accept the risk of coming up with borderline crackpot sounding ideas that make me look bad. But that is what is required to explain new info like the emdrive.
Quote
Quoting @Ron
" Given it contradicts Einstein and what we have good reason to suppose is true (EEP and GR), I can't say I think this is going to be a fruitful line of inquiry."

I like Einstein too, he's never let me down so far. But a theory that satisfies infinity, required infinite insight.

Edit:
Things got a little heated here. I want us to play nice and be respectful. In the end, we're all interesting in furthering mankind. This thread is devoted to news and insight related to EMdrive, not attacking opposing (and possibly complimentary) ideas. So on.......

Question:
Can anyone provide any insight to how the dielectric material in the device (seems to) function like a quantum rocket nozzle? I posted some stuff earlier about momentum transfer to virtual particles for clarity. It mentioned chirality, which is what I've been going on about for days now.

The dielectric seems as important to the emdrive, as a nozzle is to a chemical rocket.

http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990

« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 07:11 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5267
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1828 on: 10/09/2014 07:21 PM »
Question:
Can anyone provide any insight to how the dielectric material in the device (seems to) function like a quantum rocket nozzle? I posted some stuff earlier about momentum transfer to virtual particles for clarity. It mentioned chirality, which is what I've been going on about for days now.

The dielectric seems as important to the emdrive, as a nozzle is to a chemical rocket.

http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990

We have discussed the dielectric resonator a lot in this thread.  A lot of the discussion was prompted by this sentence in the NASA "Anomalous Thrust..." report:

<<There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be evaluated using numerous COMSOLŪ iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.>>

We know:

1) Another test increased the power input by a factor of 6 [both tests with a dielectric resonator] and the thrust force instead of increasing, it decreased by 10%

2) Someone reported in this thread that Shawyer no longer uses a dielectric resonator for his microwave cavity

3) the Chinese experiments did not report anything concerning the dielectric resonator

4) Someone else posted that his/her information is that Paul March introduced a Teflon dielectric resonator as an exploratory move to see its effect.

5) The COMSOL analysis both for the Canae and the truncated cone show the Electric Field to be an order of magnitude higher in the dielectric material than in the cavity.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 08:43 PM by Rodal »

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1829 on: 10/09/2014 07:48 PM »
Well the reason why I've been going on about this is that, as I've mentioned, the QED vacuum is diamagnetic. A refresher about diamagnetism is that diamagnetic materials create an induced magnetic field in a direction opposite to an externally applied magnetic field. This knowledge, combined with the ideas in the paper above, excite me.

Assuming a properly oriented PTFE slug in the presence of an rf field who's poynting vector is in the direction of magnetic energy flow (not electrical), combined with knowing the QED vacuum is diamagnetic; I see thrust.

Hasty generalization? Faulty reasoning? Or a lead?

http://books.google.it/books?id=n51yJr4b_oQC&pg=PA26&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

A very small thrust, in the presence of modified inertia+continuous acceleration=Bingo?
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 08:12 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5267
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1830 on: 10/09/2014 08:53 PM »
Well the reason why I've been going on about this is that, as I've mentioned, the QED vacuum is diamagnetic. A refresher about diamagnetism is that diamagnetic materials create an induced magnetic field in a direction opposite to an externally applied magnetic field. This knowledge, combined with the ideas in the paper above, excite me.

Assuming a properly oriented PTFE slug in the presence of an rf field who's poynting vector is in the direction of magnetic energy flow (not electrical), combined with knowing the QED vacuum is diamagnetic; I see thrust.

Hasty generalization? Faulty reasoning? Or a lead?

http://books.google.it/books?id=n51yJr4b_oQC&pg=PA26&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

A very small thrust, in the presence of modified inertia+continuous acceleration=Bingo?

Well, water is weakly diamagnetic too.  Let's say one immerses a (EM drive with a PTFE slug) submarine inside the water.  Would you expect directional propulsion of the submarine from the diamagnetism of the water surrounding it?
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 08:54 PM by Rodal »

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1831 on: 10/09/2014 09:02 PM »
Well the reason why I've been going on about this is that, as I've mentioned, the QED vacuum is diamagnetic. A refresher about diamagnetism is that diamagnetic materials create an induced magnetic field in a direction opposite to an externally applied magnetic field. This knowledge, combined with the ideas in the paper above, excite me.

Assuming a properly oriented PTFE slug in the presence of an rf field who's poynting vector is in the direction of magnetic energy flow (not electrical), combined with knowing the QED vacuum is diamagnetic; I see thrust.

Hasty generalization? Faulty reasoning? Or a lead?

http://books.google.it/books?id=n51yJr4b_oQC&pg=PA26&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

A very small thrust, in the presence of modified inertia+continuous acceleration=Bingo?

Well, water is weakly diamagnetic too.  Let's say one immerses a (EM drive with a PTFE slug) submarine inside the water.  Would you expect directional propulsion of the submarine from the diamagnetism of the water surrounding it?

I don't think the medium you are in makes any difference. Water is of no fundamental difference to air (they're both fluids) in the context of this, which is the QV of our universe. The QV is the fundamental thing here.

Congratulations, you just invented a propless sub.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 09:04 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5267
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1832 on: 10/09/2014 09:03 PM »
Well the reason why I've been going on about this is that, as I've mentioned, the QED vacuum is diamagnetic. A refresher about diamagnetism is that diamagnetic materials create an induced magnetic field in a direction opposite to an externally applied magnetic field. This knowledge, combined with the ideas in the paper above, excite me.

Assuming a properly oriented PTFE slug in the presence of an rf field who's poynting vector is in the direction of magnetic energy flow (not electrical), combined with knowing the QED vacuum is diamagnetic; I see thrust.

Hasty generalization? Faulty reasoning? Or a lead?

http://books.google.it/books?id=n51yJr4b_oQC&pg=PA26&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

A very small thrust, in the presence of modified inertia+continuous acceleration=Bingo?

Well, water is weakly diamagnetic too.  Let's say one immerses a (EM drive with a PTFE slug) submarine inside the water.  Would you expect directional propulsion of the submarine from the diamagnetism of the water surrounding it?

What I would expect is a hydrophobic effect: the water will be repelled away from the magnetic surfaces



« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 09:06 PM by Rodal »

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1833 on: 10/09/2014 09:06 PM »
Well the reason why I've been going on about this is that, as I've mentioned, the QED vacuum is diamagnetic. A refresher about diamagnetism is that diamagnetic materials create an induced magnetic field in a direction opposite to an externally applied magnetic field. This knowledge, combined with the ideas in the paper above, excite me.

Assuming a properly oriented PTFE slug in the presence of an rf field who's poynting vector is in the direction of magnetic energy flow (not electrical), combined with knowing the QED vacuum is diamagnetic; I see thrust.

Hasty generalization? Faulty reasoning? Or a lead?

http://books.google.it/books?id=n51yJr4b_oQC&pg=PA26&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

A very small thrust, in the presence of modified inertia+continuous acceleration=Bingo?

Well, water is weakly diamagnetic too.  Let's say one immerses a (EM drive with a PTFE slug) submarine inside the water.  Would you expect directional propulsion of the submarine from the diamagnetism of the water surrounding it?

What I would expect is a hydrophobic effect: the water will be repelled away from the magnetic surfaces



Yeah if water was inside your emdrive. You can bend water at home with the static charge on a comb.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1834 on: 10/09/2014 09:08 PM »
Since you're thrusting against the QV, you could stand right next to the thing while it is on full bore and you wouldn't feel anything hitting you. Considering the test pulses lasted for about 30 seconds or so, how long would it take for the thing to rip right off the table under constant acceleration?

Also I need to go back to the paper and see if TE modes were thrusting flatly over the period rf was on or were they at an upward angle. Were TM modes flat? Was there a difference? That can give a lot of info. It could reveal the orientation of the dielectric in the unit. My hard copy is at home so I gotta find it in my sea of bookmarks.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 09:15 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Liked: 554
  • Likes Given: 764
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1835 on: 10/09/2014 09:15 PM »
For the sake of personal clarification, what is the expected impact of increasing or decreasing the tapering of the resonance cavity frustum?

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1836 on: 10/09/2014 09:19 PM »
Given the information provided, can anyone provide a calculation and proof showing a vector where momentum is transferred from a particle/wave inside the cavity, through to the QED vacuum particles/waves? Resulting in a reaction force of the device. If so, what is the impulse?

Seems like a tall order indeed.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 09:23 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5267
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1837 on: 10/09/2014 09:22 PM »
For the sake of personal clarification, what is the expected impact of increasing or decreasing the tapering of the resonance cavity frustum?

Increasing the difference in surface area between the two flat surfaces of the truncated cone should increase the thrust as long as the truncated cone is not too far from being a cylinder since the simple formula by Prof. McCulloch is 1-dimensional.  In the limit for a pointy cone one gets an infinite thrust force, which does not make sense.  A detailed analysis is lacking.  Since the shape of the surfaces in the Casimir effect is difficult to analyze, I expect the same in this problem.  I have posed that question to Prof. McCulloch in his blog: see here http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1364
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1838 on: 10/09/2014 09:28 PM »

If you grok those equations that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole then kudos, can't say more.
Then maybe you can say what 'a' and 'k' stand for in this apparently relevant paper :
Quote
Thus, again we can identify cs = k/(2ma) as an effective sound speed of the axion fluid.

Well, k is the wave number and a is a coefficient (where I would have just used 1/2 as in the simpleminded "perfect" superconducting cavity case)

Great ref by the by.  If I can grok it at all it says I should be able to write a 3 PD set of equations for the EM cavity and insert coefficients for a viscous term using the equation of state they give.  But, it still looks like the sound speed, etc., has to be experimentally determined from the axion mass.  (the 300m/s was the assumption to get a power figure as an example)

And NO, I'm not promising I CAN write those equations (and solve them with the boundary conditions), but I have been in that situation in the dim, very dark past.

Well, that kept me awake during my nap.  Anyway I think the coefficient a has to be an absorption, but I can't read his references because I don't have anything but public info these days.

Every time I try to visualize a physical model I add another differential wave equation. But it has to be something like the EM cavity solutions immersed in a fluid (dilute gas) w/ very porous walls.

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1839 on: 10/09/2014 09:46 PM »
Assuming the shaded area is the dielectric, it really needs to be at the other end or strategically placed in areas of max H along the length. This is becoming clearer now. I hope the math works and the theories hold.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 09:50 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Tags: