Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 795171 times)

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2785
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1880 on: 10/10/2014 03:41 AM »
It's time to do some maths.

If the maths work.

Build a better one.

Then test it.

Before that, ya got to tell 's what 'ya think the Teflon dielectric is for 'n why ya wanta put it at the wide enda  :)

Here is a patent application that talks about an RF antenna design. Treat it as background.

Quote
In order to operate the RF antenna at sufficiently high power, the antenna needs to be cooled and insulated from the plasma by a dielectric material


So that is what the dielectric is for and why it is at the front end of the cavity. Of course Eagleworks didn't operate at high enough power to need cooling. Think about why insulation of the feed power allowed a thrust but without the insulation, it didn't.

You can put an additional dielectric at the base, but that would not insulate the feed power.

http://www.google.com/patents/US20140070697
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1881 on: 10/10/2014 04:01 AM »
This seems to have at least some elements in common with the device tested by Eagleworks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster

Quote
There are two main types of MPD thrusters, applied-field and self-field. Applied-field thrusters have magnetic rings surrounding the exhaust chamber to produce the magnetic field, while self-field thrusters have a cathode extending through the middle of the chamber. Applied fields are necessary at lower power levels, where self-field configurations are too weak. Various propellants such as xenon, neon, argon, hydrogen, hydrazine, and lithium have been used, with lithium generally being the best performer.

According to Edgar Choueiri magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters have input power 100-500 kilowatts, exhaust velocity 15-60 kilometers per second, thrust 2.5-25 newtons and efficiency 40-60 percent

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket


Quote
VASIMR can be most basically thought of as a convergent-divergent nozzle for ions and electrons. The propellant (a neutral gas such as argon or xenon) is first injected into a hollow cylinder surfaced with electromagnets. Upon entry into the engine, the gas is first heated to a “cold plasma” by a helicon RF antenna (also known as a “coupler”) which bombards the gas with electromagnetic waves, stripping electrons off the argon or xenon atoms and leaving plasma consisting of ions and loose electrons to continue down the engine compartment. By varying the amount of energy dedicated to RF heating and the amount of propellant delivered for plasma generation VASIMR is capable of either generating low-thrust, high–specific impulse exhaust or relatively high-thrust, low–specific impulse exhaust.[4] The second phase is a strong electromagnet positioned to compress the ionized plasma in a similar fashion to a convergent-divergent nozzle that compresses gas in traditional rocket engines.

A second coupler, known as the Ion Cyclotron Heating (ICH) section, emits electromagnetic waves in resonance with the orbits of ions and electrons as they travel through the engine. Resonance of the waves and plasma is achieved through a reduction of the magnetic field in this portion of the engine which slows down the orbital motion of the plasma particles. This section further heats the plasma to temperatures upwards of 1,000,000 kelvin — about 173 times the temperature of the Sun’s surface


Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1882 on: 10/10/2014 01:16 PM »
Does McCulloch's quantised inertia theory make testable astrophysics predictions?

Yes.

For example, it is known that galaxies and galaxy clusters have rotational velocities apparently too fast to allow them to be gravitationally bound by their visible matter. This has been attributed to the presence of invisible (dark) matter, but so far dark matter has not been directly detected.

McCulloch has shown that his model (that modifies inertial mass by assuming it is caused by Unruh radiation, which is subject to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) predicts the outer rotational velocity of dwarf and disk galaxies, and galaxy clusters, within error bars, without dark matter or adjustable parameters.

So detection (or lack of detection) of a significant amount of dark matter is an astrophysical test of the theory.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 01:26 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1883 on: 10/10/2014 01:37 PM »
I need help. PTFE monomers appear to be chiral to me as seen in a globe model of the molecules, but I have no idea if it is magnetochiral.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1884 on: 10/10/2014 01:54 PM »
I need help. PTFE monomers appear to be chiral to me as seen in a globe model of the molecules, but I have no idea if it is magnetochiral.
PTFE is a thermoplastic.  As a polymer it can be semi-crystalline   The crystallinity is governed by the processing method and the rate of cooling after processing. Higher rates of cooling suppress crystallite formation, resulting in lower degrees of crystallinity.

The magnetic properties of Teflon can also be tuned by strain:  http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n3/fig_tab/ncomms1689_F2.html

There are different types, and what's most important, as I previously discussed there is a transition near room temperature that affects the structure, and therefore its chirality.

See this page in this book:  http://goo.gl/ot67GB

« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 02:22 PM by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1885 on: 10/10/2014 02:42 PM »
I need help. PTFE monomers appear to be chiral to me as seen in a globe model of the molecules, but I have no idea if it is magnetochiral.

OK, I took the time to go through all the pages in which you have posted, looking for the original reference you use to place importance on the chirality of Teflon.  I could not find such reference. Please post the link again, as I would like to check whether it can possibly relate to a thermoplastic semi-crystalline polymer with transitions near room temperature, and in particular to Teflon.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 02:44 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1886 on: 10/10/2014 02:51 PM »
I need help. PTFE monomers appear to be chiral to me as seen in a globe model of the molecules, but I have no idea if it is magnetochiral.

OK, I took the time to go through all the pages in which you have posted, looking for the original reference you use to place importance on the chirality of Teflon.  I could not find such reference. Please post the link again, as I would like to check whether it can possibly relate to a thermoplastic semi-crystalline polymer with transitions near room temperature, and in particular to Teflon.

Well the whole notion of chirality was an idea I had while trying to invoke a better linear asymmetry in a tube of dielectric, so I could explain Cannae, and also explain if the dielectric was important or not in EMdrive; days later it became crystal clear that for emdrive to work, you had to react with something in order to move, then I found this paper and my heart started beating rapidly.......

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



« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 02:58 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1887 on: 10/10/2014 03:13 PM »
I need help. PTFE monomers appear to be chiral to me as seen in a globe model of the molecules, but I have no idea if it is magnetochiral.

OK, I took the time to go through all the pages in which you have posted, looking for the original reference you use to place importance on the chirality of Teflon.  I could not find such reference. Please post the link again, as I would like to check whether it can possibly relate to a thermoplastic semi-crystalline polymer with transitions near room temperature, and in particular to Teflon.

Well the whole notion of chirality was an idea I had while trying to invoke a better linear asymmetry in a tube of dielectric, so I could explain Cannae, and also explain if the dielectric was important or not in EMdrive; days later it became crystal clear that for emdrive to work, you had to react with something in order to move, then I found this paper and my heart started beating rapidly.......

http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990
The paper provides a  theoretical calculation, no experiments to verify it.   Common Teflon is only semi-crystalline and a thermoplastic, it is not that ordered.  Not much can be said without knowing the specific manufacturing method, but even if the paper's calculation would be correct (an unverified assumption) it seems to me that commonly available Teflon would not be an ideal material.  It would have to have been manufactured with the intent to enhance its order and anisotropy, and even then it is very unclear to me why would a researcher use such a nonlinear material with transitions occurring in the room temperature range, particularly in a lab like Eagleworks that to my knowledge did not fully characterize the Teflon used for the experiments (no FTIR, DSC, TMA, TGA, DTMA, thermal conductivity vs Temp, MTS, and certainly no measurements to characterize its anisotropy, etc.).  According to our previous discussions, the NASA report shows that if there is something useful in this respect to Teflon it is more likely to be the result of chance than experimental design.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 03:15 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1888 on: 10/10/2014 03:25 PM »
Well in generic terms, it looks chiral. Magnetochiral? I don't know. Given the shape of the emdrive cone and the nature of the poynting vector flowing from A to B. I don't think the magnetochiral nature of the material is required for the thing to work, inasmuch as a magnetochiral material would be an optimization; making it work better. The arxiv paper was assuming a spherical universe and no modification of inertia.

Asymmetries in the system already:
1. Linear asymmetry
2. Poynting vector has defined direction by diminishing Q
3. magnetochirality of teflon?????

I think we have enough.

Agreed? Yes or no?
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 03:27 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1889 on: 10/10/2014 03:29 PM »
Well in generic terms, it looks chiral. Magnetochiral? I don't know. Given the shape of the emdrive cone and the nature of the poynting vector flowing from A to B. I don't think the magnetochiral nature of the material is required for the thing to work, inasmuch as a magnetochiral material would be an optimization; making it work better. The arxiv paper was assuming a spherical universe and no modification of inertia.

Asymmetries in the system already:
1. Linear asymmetry
2. Poynting vector has defined direction by diminishing Q
3. magnetochirality of teflon?????

I think we have enough.

Agreed? Yes or no?

My understanding is that from the point of view of the quantised inertia explanation, what matters is the acceleration occurring at the boundaries (the boundary surfaces provided by the copper walls and the boundary surface of the dielectric) rather than the deep interior of the copper wall or the deep interior of the dielectric:

<<This is why I'm thinking the EmDrive walls might make a horizon: MiHsC assumes that inertia is caused by Unruh waves and the Hubble horizon is a boundary for information so all patterns within the cosmos must close there otherwise they let us deduce what lies beyond (this looks like a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) this includes the Unruh waves, so it affects inertia. Now, for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns have to close at the wall just as at the Hubble horizon (but for a different reason), so we have a mini-MiHsC going on. In both cosmic & mini cases it seems to explain anomalies.>>  http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html

There is a "skin penetration" of this into the copper, and the dielectric, but just a "skin"
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 03:32 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1890 on: 10/10/2014 03:32 PM »
Well in generic terms, it looks chiral. Magnetochiral? I don't know. Given the shape of the emdrive cone and the nature of the poynting vector flowing from A to B. I don't think the magnetochiral nature of the material is required for the thing to work, inasmuch as a magnetochiral material would be an optimization; making it work better. The arxiv paper was assuming a spherical universe and no modification of inertia.

Asymmetries in the system already:
1. Linear asymmetry
2. Poynting vector has defined direction by diminishing Q
3. magnetochirality of teflon?????

I think we have enough.

Agreed? Yes or no?

My understanding is that from the point of view of the quantised inertia explanation, what matters is the acceleration occurring at the boundaries (the boundary surfaces provided by the copper walls and the boundary surface of the dielectric) rather than the interior of the copper wall or the interior of the dielectric:

<<This is why I'm thinking the EmDrive walls might make a horizon: MiHsC assumes that inertia is caused by Unruh waves and the Hubble horizon is a boundary for information so all patterns within the cosmos must close there otherwise they let us deduce what lies beyond (this looks like a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) this includes the Unruh waves, so it affects inertia. Now, for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns have to close at the wall just as at the Hubble horizon (but for a different reason), so we have a mini-MiHsC going on. In both cosmic & mini cases it seems to explain anomalies.>>

It is both, inside and outside; at the same time. The universe inside the cavity is finite. Therefore any accelerating particle inside the cavity gains inertia. Inside the cavity, the edge of the universe is inertial. The universe outside is expanding, invoking Unruh, modifying inertia. In the real universe outside, nothing is inertial.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 03:33 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1891 on: 10/10/2014 03:34 PM »
Well in generic terms, it looks chiral. Magnetochiral? I don't know. Given the shape of the emdrive cone and the nature of the poynting vector flowing from A to B. I don't think the magnetochiral nature of the material is required for the thing to work, inasmuch as a magnetochiral material would be an optimization; making it work better. The arxiv paper was assuming a spherical universe and no modification of inertia.

Asymmetries in the system already:
1. Linear asymmetry
2. Poynting vector has defined direction by diminishing Q
3. magnetochirality of teflon?????

I think we have enough.

Agreed? Yes or no?

My understanding is that from the point of view of the quantised inertia explanation, what matters is the acceleration occurring at the boundaries (the boundary surfaces provided by the copper walls and the boundary surface of the dielectric) rather than the interior of the copper wall or the interior of the dielectric:

<<This is why I'm thinking the EmDrive walls might make a horizon: MiHsC assumes that inertia is caused by Unruh waves and the Hubble horizon is a boundary for information so all patterns within the cosmos must close there otherwise they let us deduce what lies beyond (this looks like a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) this includes the Unruh waves, so it affects inertia. Now, for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns have to close at the wall just as at the Hubble horizon (but for a different reason), so we have a mini-MiHsC going on. In both cosmic & mini cases it seems to explain anomalies.>>

It is both, inside and outside; at the same time. The universe inside the cavity is finite. Therefore any accelerating particle inside the cavity gains inertia. Inside the cavity, the edge of the universe is inertial. The universe outside is expanding, invoking Unruh, modifying inertia.

<<for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long>> 

It is the acceleration , not the speed, that affects the inertia.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1892 on: 10/10/2014 03:36 PM »
Well in generic terms, it looks chiral. Magnetochiral? I don't know. Given the shape of the emdrive cone and the nature of the poynting vector flowing from A to B. I don't think the magnetochiral nature of the material is required for the thing to work, inasmuch as a magnetochiral material would be an optimization; making it work better. The arxiv paper was assuming a spherical universe and no modification of inertia.

Asymmetries in the system already:
1. Linear asymmetry
2. Poynting vector has defined direction by diminishing Q
3. magnetochirality of teflon?????

I think we have enough.

Agreed? Yes or no?

My understanding is that from the point of view of the quantised inertia explanation, what matters is the acceleration occurring at the boundaries (the boundary surfaces provided by the copper walls and the boundary surface of the dielectric) rather than the interior of the copper wall or the interior of the dielectric:

<<This is why I'm thinking the EmDrive walls might make a horizon: MiHsC assumes that inertia is caused by Unruh waves and the Hubble horizon is a boundary for information so all patterns within the cosmos must close there otherwise they let us deduce what lies beyond (this looks like a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) this includes the Unruh waves, so it affects inertia. Now, for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns have to close at the wall just as at the Hubble horizon (but for a different reason), so we have a mini-MiHsC going on. In both cosmic & mini cases it seems to explain anomalies.>>

It is both, inside and outside; at the same time. The universe inside the cavity is finite. Therefore any accelerating particle inside the cavity gains inertia. Inside the cavity, the edge of the universe is inertial. The universe outside is expanding, invoking Unruh, modifying inertia.

<<for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long>> 

It is the acceleration , not the speed, that affects the inertia.

I just said that.

"Therefore any accelerating particle inside the cavity gains inertia."

Outside the cavity is the opposite, the QV itself is the inertial observer.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 03:38 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1893 on: 10/10/2014 03:39 PM »

The Summary
A living document.
Probably way premature and more than likely incorrect on many fronts. Anyway the summary in general terms.

How I suppose EMdrive works based on my interpretation of all other theories I researched regarding the extrinsic origins of inertial mass, put into context of the most fundamental element common to them all, and the most fundamental property of inertia itself, resistance to acceleration over time, informed by the theory of modified inertia; MiHsC, QM, GR, and SR. The scientific method was applied equally with the philosophy of not placing arbitrary limits on systems which are limitless.

In a nutshell:

Begin with the universe we live in.
This universe is ever expanding at an accelerating rate in all directions
More or less evenly in all directions, but not exactly in all directions.
In this universe, the notion of exactly 0 acceleration with respect to the universe itself is impossible.
A hypothetical particle experiencing 0 accelerations would have 0 inertia, but this condition is impossible.
In this universe, the notion of very very small accelerations with uncertain magnitude is very possible and evident at the edges of galaxies and in intergalactic space.
In this universe, we observe a definite arrow of time, the rate of which time passes is variable between regions based on the shape of spacetime curvatures and relative velocities in local and global contexts, but always positive.
The sum of spacetime is set forth by all the observable matter, energy, interactions, and the mostly unobservable vacuum composed of all possible energy levels in their ground state. Kept in check by the physical laws governing that universe.

None of the laws of this universe at large can be broken.

None of the laws of this universe can describe the universe to infinity, meaning there is always a remainder of uncertainty. Because of this, theories of modified inertia by virtue of being correct, do not invalidate GR; they further expand upon it.

The EEP was formulated with a supporting philosophical background which excludes data which is unobservable, deeming it insignificant. To this effect, EEP was given an artificial absolute equivalence, which in the context of infinity falls apart. EEP is correct within everyday experience, but incorrect beyond what can be directly observed.

This philosophy of science is incongruent with the notion of infinity, and infinite uncertainty.

In the notion of infinity, insignificant values do not follow.

If the laws governing the world we live in are truly derived from properties of the limitless universe surrounding us, it is illogical to place an artificial limit on the precision of a theory describing that universe by invoking an unbreakable equivalence.

Uncertainty gives rise to the stochastic nature of our universe and the probability based world we live in. This insight comes full circle with the question; what is and is not observable?

This philosophy of science is evident in the uncertainty principle.

EEP and the uncertainty principle are not congruent.

No wonder GR and QM don't agree.

Our inability to adapt GR in the face of new data is the other.

This reduces down further to information and mathematical theory and philosophy, to which remains fully unexplored.




Within said universe,
Construct an asymmetric metal cone shape and enclose both ends.
The resulting enclosed space is subject to all the laws of the universe that contains it.
The boundary conditions set forth by the mechanical properties, geometry, and electromagnetic properties of the enclosed metal space serve to artificially create an apparent event horizon between the inside and outside space of the device.
Within the device, the universe is exactly the same as the universe outside, except for the shadow created in the electromagnetic spectrum (both vacuum and real).

As above in the real universe, spacetime is defined by all the observable matter, energy, interactions, and the mostly unobservable vacuum composed of all possible energy levels in their ground state.

Gravity is not blocked.

Therefore, as a universe is defined above, the universe inside the device is slightly different from outside by virtue of its boundary conditions.

The device contains its own unique universe.

Governed by the geometry of the spacetime contained within the cavity, set by its boundaries. The universe is finite and not expanding.
The shape of spacetime within has a conical bias. This serves to widen spacetime at the large end and shorten spacetime at the small end, from where a nearly perfect sphere was before. The conditions within the conical cavity are almost exactly the same as the conditions outside the cavity, but not exactly. This difference is governed by the shadow created within and resulting in very slight modification to the shape of spacetime within the cavity.

This tiny change within the cavity is extremely small, but in the context of infinity, and the notion of continual acceleration of particles subject to those extremely small differences, the effects continually compound allowing work to be accomplished.

Within the device, the arrow of time flows from the small end to the large end. As in any universe, time is positive and flows at a variable rate as a function of position in spacetime and velocity as defined by general relativity.

Inertia within the device is governed by a particles interactions with the distant universe, as a function of time. As in any universe.

Within the device at T=0, inertia and time cease to have meaning in the singularity.

Due to the lower ground state within the cavity, a result of the shadow created by the cavity, particles start out with a smaller inertia than would be possible otherwise. The particles are being accelerated less by the rest of the universe by virtue of some modes are blocked out. They are colder.

As a particle moves from T=0, through the arrow of time, the inertia of that particle decreases as a function of its acceleration with respect to the non expanding boundary of the universe.

The rate of which time passes for said particle is a function of its velocity and position in spacetime with respect to T=0.

A particle exactly at the far end of the cavity which isn't moving with respect to the universe contained within experiences very little acceleration, resulting in very little inertia.

A hypothetical particle inside this universe experiencing no acceleration, experiences zero inertia.

This hypothetical particle has an extremely low probability of ever existing because it is still subject to the conditions of the universe outside the cavity, by virtue of what was not excluded by the boundary conditions of the cavity; which still influence the inside of the device.




Outside the asymmetrical metal cone, the entire device is treated as an asymmetric particle in context to the scale of the universe at large.

This asymmetrical particle is subject to the dynamics set forth by its mechanical properties, geometry, and electromagnetic properties and the interactions of the device with the geometry of the expanding universe at large.

Given this device exists within a universe continually accelerating away from it in all directions more less equally but not exactly, at an increasing rate, this device experiences a very small asymmetrical inertial bias across the length of the cone.

The dynamics of this inertial bias are set forth by the inclusion and exclusion of Unruh waves between the boundary conditions of the device's walls and the Hubble horizon. The dynamics of which are defined within the theory of MiHsC.
The larger end of the cone experiences more inertia than the small end.
This gives a very small dipole moment to the force required to accelerate the device in space.
It is easier to push the device toward the small end than toward the large end.
Inertia of the entire system is never lowered.

When the device is excited with radio frequencies internally, photons comprising the electromagnetic waves travel the length of the device, interacting and transferring their momentum to particles within the cavity. The particles within the dielectric exist along an inertial gradient down the length of the device.

The electromagnetic waves within the device propagate as defined by resonance modes of enclosed conical cavities. The poynting vector of the cavity is along the Z axis from small end to large end. The energy flow of the poynting vector is maximized by the Q factor of the device. The final product of the Z axis Q factor being most critical to device operation.

Magnetochiral dielectric materials used within the device provide a vector for transfer of momentum from photons to the QED vacuum. Not from the oscillation of magnetic fields within the device, but by the net magnetic energy flow defined by the poynting vector of the rf within the device.

In essence a quantum rocket nozzle.

Proper placement and orientation of chiral dielectric materials along the Z axis poynting vector in areas of maximum magnetic energy flux and flow allow for the transfer of momentum from the photons to the diamagnetic QED vacuum. The true nature of which I don't understand, given the fleeting and stochastic nature of the QV.

The resulting transfer of momentum results in a very small acceleration of the device by classical mechanics. The effects of this small acceleration build over time, resulting in a useful velocity of the device.

An observer standing behind the device would feel no effect from the device in operation.

The effeciency of the device is simply an engineering problem. The addition of superconductor technologies can greatly increase the Q factor of the device, increasing thrust.

As the device accelerates to greater speeds toward the Hubble horizon, a Rindler horizon approaches the device from behind as a function of velocity.

This has the effect to exclude possible Unruh modes behind the device, by virtue of the boundary conditions set forth by the walls of the device and the approaching causal event horizon.

At the same time, Unruh modes in front of the device are left unexcluded by virtue of the nature of the boundary conditions set by the walls of the device and the ever expanding and accelerating universe.

This has the effect to induce an inertial bias on the device, whereas inertia is greater at the large end then the small end.

This inertial bias builds with continued acceleration of the device, requiring more energy to be expended to accelerate the device, resulting in the inability to approach or exceed C.

The device has come full circle, return to start.

Supporting studies, theories, and arguments are documented within the evolution of the forum thread.

I just forced myself to believe in an impossible thing.

I'm going to go think about something else now for a while.

« Last Edit: 11/22/2014 04:41 AM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1894 on: 10/10/2014 03:42 PM »
Well in generic terms, it looks chiral. Magnetochiral? I don't know. Given the shape of the emdrive cone and the nature of the poynting vector flowing from A to B. I don't think the magnetochiral nature of the material is required for the thing to work, inasmuch as a magnetochiral material would be an optimization; making it work better. The arxiv paper was assuming a spherical universe and no modification of inertia.

Asymmetries in the system already:
1. Linear asymmetry
2. Poynting vector has defined direction by diminishing Q
3. magnetochirality of teflon?????

I think we have enough.

Agreed? Yes or no?

My understanding is that from the point of view of the quantised inertia explanation, what matters is the acceleration occurring at the boundaries (the boundary surfaces provided by the copper walls and the boundary surface of the dielectric) rather than the interior of the copper wall or the interior of the dielectric:

<<This is why I'm thinking the EmDrive walls might make a horizon: MiHsC assumes that inertia is caused by Unruh waves and the Hubble horizon is a boundary for information so all patterns within the cosmos must close there otherwise they let us deduce what lies beyond (this looks like a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) this includes the Unruh waves, so it affects inertia. Now, for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns have to close at the wall just as at the Hubble horizon (but for a different reason), so we have a mini-MiHsC going on. In both cosmic & mini cases it seems to explain anomalies.>>

It is both, inside and outside; at the same time. The universe inside the cavity is finite. Therefore any accelerating particle inside the cavity gains inertia. Inside the cavity, the edge of the universe is inertial. The universe outside is expanding, invoking Unruh, modifying inertia.

<<for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long>> 

It is the acceleration , not the speed, that affects the inertia.

I just said that.

"Therefore any accelerating particle inside the cavity gains inertia."

Outside the cavity is the opposite, the QV itself is the inertial observer.

It is not any accelerating particle that matters for the horizon.  It is only those that undergo an acceleration such that the Unruh waves fit within the dimensions of the flat surfaces of the truncated cone, or the dielectric.
That rules out a wide range of accelerations, and restricts what matters to the surfaces (including a thin skin effect)
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 03:44 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1895 on: 10/10/2014 03:45 PM »
Well in generic terms, it looks chiral. Magnetochiral? I don't know. Given the shape of the emdrive cone and the nature of the poynting vector flowing from A to B. I don't think the magnetochiral nature of the material is required for the thing to work, inasmuch as a magnetochiral material would be an optimization; making it work better. The arxiv paper was assuming a spherical universe and no modification of inertia.

Asymmetries in the system already:
1. Linear asymmetry
2. Poynting vector has defined direction by diminishing Q
3. magnetochirality of teflon?????

I think we have enough.

Agreed? Yes or no?

My understanding is that from the point of view of the quantised inertia explanation, what matters is the acceleration occurring at the boundaries (the boundary surfaces provided by the copper walls and the boundary surface of the dielectric) rather than the interior of the copper wall or the interior of the dielectric:

<<This is why I'm thinking the EmDrive walls might make a horizon: MiHsC assumes that inertia is caused by Unruh waves and the Hubble horizon is a boundary for information so all patterns within the cosmos must close there otherwise they let us deduce what lies beyond (this looks like a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) this includes the Unruh waves, so it affects inertia. Now, for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns have to close at the wall just as at the Hubble horizon (but for a different reason), so we have a mini-MiHsC going on. In both cosmic & mini cases it seems to explain anomalies.>>

It is both, inside and outside; at the same time. The universe inside the cavity is finite. Therefore any accelerating particle inside the cavity gains inertia. Inside the cavity, the edge of the universe is inertial. The universe outside is expanding, invoking Unruh, modifying inertia.

<<for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long>> 

It is the acceleration , not the speed, that affects the inertia.

I just said that.

"Therefore any accelerating particle inside the cavity gains inertia."

Outside the cavity is the opposite, the QV itself is the inertial observer.

It is not any accelerating particle that matters for the horizon.  It is only those that undergo an acceleration such that the Unruh waves fit within the dimensions of the flat surfaces of the truncated cone, or the dielectric.
That rules out a wide range of accelerations, and restricts what matters to the surfaces (including a thin skin effect)

All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1896 on: 10/10/2014 03:52 PM »
...

All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.
We are discussing whether the bulk interior of the copper walls and the bulk interior of the dielectric plays a significant role as compared to the boundary surfaces.

At one point recently I understood you to ask or suggest that the cylindrical "can" inside the truncated cone was a dielectric.  That would make it a hugely thick dielectric.

Let me ask you: if you think that the inner bulk inner material of the dielectric plays an important role, then do you think that a dielectric several inches thick would be even better ?
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 03:53 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1897 on: 10/10/2014 03:58 PM »
...

All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.
We are discussing whether the bulk interior of the copper walls and the bulk interior of the dielectric plays a significant role as compared to the boundary surfaces.

At one point recently I understood you to ask or suggest that the cylindrical "can" inside the truncated cone was a dielectric.  That would make it a hugely thick dielectric.

Let me ask you: if you think that the inner bulk inner material of the dielectric plays an important role, then do you think that a dielectric several inches thick would be even better ?

Sure would, bigger is better. As long as you don't collapse the EM field. You gotta engineer it.

On the flip side, a bigger antenna can impart more power. A bigger loop probe=more power. A giant door knob probe=more power.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 04:00 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1898 on: 10/10/2014 04:05 PM »
...

All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.
We are discussing whether the bulk interior of the copper walls and the bulk interior of the dielectric plays a significant role as compared to the boundary surfaces.

At one point recently I understood you to ask or suggest that the cylindrical "can" inside the truncated cone was a dielectric.  That would make it a hugely thick dielectric.

Let me ask you: if you think that the inner bulk inner material of the dielectric plays an important role, then do you think that a dielectric several inches thick would be even better ?

Sure would, bigger is better. As long as you don't collapse the EM field. You gotta engineer it.

On the flip side, a bigger antenna can impart more power. A bigger loop probe=more power. A giant door knob probe=more power.

OK we strongly disagree.  I don't think that a very thick dielectric would be better, actually I think that it would be worse.  I think that what matters most is the surface of the dielectric, not its inner bulk.

This is testable.  So far all the indications is that they used a  very small diameter, high aspect ratio (length to diameter) dielectric for the Canae device and a flat disk doughnut for the truncated cone.

Both of the dielectrics they used are the contrary of what you would propose, as the small diameter cylinder with high length to diameter, and the flat doughnut disk  (with thickness significantly smaller than its inner and outer diameters) maximize surface to bulk volume ratio.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 04:41 PM by Rodal »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2785
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1899 on: 10/10/2014 05:43 PM »
At one point back up thread there was a discussion that included the velocity of DM inside the cavity. I wondered if we could treat DM to behave like an ideal gas WRT density and volume. That is,

V2 = V1*rho1/rho2

Divide Volume by 1 m2 on both sides lets me use velocity in the equation.

For DM data, I use: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.3767v1.pdf

1 - Use Solar escape velocity at earth's orbit, 42.1 km/s, galactic DM density 2E12 kg/AU3 and DM density at earth orbit, 5E16 kg/AU3.

The equation gives DM velocity at earth orbit = 1.6 m/s

2. Try again. Use the velocity of the comet Siding Spring at Mars orbit as the velocity of DM at Mars, 57 km/s and DM density at Mars orbit about 5E15. This gives DM velocity at Earth orbit of 5.7 km/s.

Well, 1.6 m/s seems very low, and such a high velocity at Mars orbit (Siding Spring) seems unjustifiable. Still, the velocities are sun centered, and since the earth's orbital velocity about the sun is about 30 km/s, it dominates.

I conclude that the velocity of DM at the earth's surface is about 30,000 m/s.

Since F = dm*Ve, for 50 micro N thrust, dm = 5.0E-5/3.0E+4, = 1.67 E-9 kg/s if dm were due to change in inertial mass of dark matter in the cavity.

Well, no - way to much change. Assume the cavity area is 0.1 m^2 * 30,000 m/s gives total swept volume per second of 3,000 m^2, and DM density is like 5E-16 kg/m^3 so total swept mass is 1.5E-13 kg. It doesn't work out.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 11:40 PM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Tags: