Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 762978 times)

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2880 on: 11/02/2014 11:33 PM »
Next batch of scraped data from figure 19 page 15 of "anomalous thrust..." from Brady et al. The top (result1.txt) and middle (result2.txt) graphs are scraped.

Same caveats as previously posted. For first curve (top figure 19) I removed the (non existent) flat last sampled data of the previous version to avoid artefacts when analysing with filters.

Each line of those files is the value in ĶN at each .1 s interval (linearly interpolated from manual reconstruction). The vertical scale were roughly given by the calibration pulses at about 30ĶN (expect no more than 5% precision). Absolute values are arbitrary (because of the drifting baseline). Horizontal scale given by the indication of 196 s for the whole display graph window of the pictures.

Will proceed with other graphs when time permits. Will post attempts at original signal reconstruction : thrust(t) while what we see is only balance displacement(t). Since the balance is underdamped, a lot can hide behind those oscillations and drifts in position.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2014 11:37 PM by frobnicat »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2881 on: 11/02/2014 11:46 PM »
@Rodal, a question of definition :

You often mention "torsional inverted pendulum". I fail to see in what we have an inverted pendulum here (with Eagleworks balance). Isn't an inverted pendulum a device that is kept close to a situation of unstable equilibrium ? I understand how the nonlinear couplings with different axis of rotation/displacement with flexure bearings can make chaos, but around the principal movement of rotation around z we are quite stable with the spring restoring torque, aren't we ?

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2882 on: 11/03/2014 01:40 AM »
@Rodal, a question of definition :

You often mention "torsional inverted pendulum". I fail to see in what we have an inverted pendulum here (with Eagleworks balance). Isn't an inverted pendulum a device that is kept close to a situation of unstable equilibrium ? I understand how the nonlinear couplings with different axis of rotation/displacement with flexure bearings can make chaos, but around the principal movement of rotation around z we are quite stable with the spring restoring torque, aren't we ?

Since the stiffness of the swinging beam overwhelms the gravity contribution, it doesn't really make a difference whether this type of pendulum would be upright or inverted.    I have been calling inverted torsional pendulum because it has the same construction as an inverted torsional pendulums used for measurements: a beam that is stiff enough that its stiffness overwhelms the effect of gravity.

It has all these known problems associated with inverted torsional pendulums:

1) This pendulum's swinging periods (and frequencies) instead of being simply determined by the length of a pendulum string and the force of gravity (as in a regular pendulum), are determined by the bending stiffness of a vertically cantilevered beam and its stiffness of clamping.

2) The exact periods (and frequencies) of swinging vibration of this pendulum are given by uncertain to ascertain variables as the amount of stiffness fixation at the cantilevered end, and to a lesser extent the bending moment of inertia and modulus of the beam.

3) As opposed to a simple pendulum, this pendulum's swinging modes of vibration are infinite in number (the infinite number of modes of swinging vibration of a cantilevered beam).

4) In a simple hanging pendulum, the neutral location is simply dictated by gravity.  In this pendulum the neutral location of the pendulum is dictated by the (unknown beforehand) neutral position of the (stiff) un-strained beam.

5) The neutral position of the center of rotation of this pendulum can be affected by differential temperatures (producing thermal curvature of the beam). This does not happen in a regular pendulum (all that temperature can do is to stretch or shrink the length of the pendulum which is usually a much smaller ).

6) Due to the fact that the beam (whose angular rotation around the vertical axis z is being measured) needs to be simultaneously clamped for swinging motions, the stiffness in torsional, rotational motion around the z axis is very dependent on the total load mounted on the pendulum.  This is a bad feature and that's probably why Eagleworks had to resort to another method to calibrate the relationship between torsional force and angular rotation for every test.

These (and others) are all good reasons to differentiate the Eagleworks pendulum from regular hanging pendulums.

How would you prefer to name this pendulum and why would you prefer to give it another name?

I see that Wikipedia has an article on inverted pendulums that are close to instability, but that article does not discuss measurement devices or torsional pendulums.  I am not aware of inverted torsional pendulums used for measurement purposes having been intentionally made close to vertical static instability. It seems to me that this type of pendulum has enough problems already for measurement purposes to intentionally want to make it worse by making it vertically unstable due to gravity.  Why would one want to make a torsional flexural pendulum for measurement purposes intentionally close to static instability ?

Am I missing something?

PS: I am aware that regular hanging pendulums also have a few other modes of vibration: bouncing (usually quite negligible), precession of the plane of oscillation, etc.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2014 02:45 AM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2883 on: 11/03/2014 06:20 AM »
Revisited this Feigel paper from 2003 in more detail; attached. Page 3 is especially compelling and echoes the later Donaire, Tiggelen, Rikken (publications linked to below) paper discussed back around page 126. A quote from the Feigel paper to raise eyebrows:

"Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each otherís contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric."

http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=fr
« Last Edit: 11/03/2014 06:52 AM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1361
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2884 on: 11/03/2014 12:49 PM »
Revisited this Feigel paper from 2003 in more detail; attached. Page 3 is especially compelling and echoes the later Donaire, Tiggelen, Rikken (publications linked to below) paper discussed back around page 126. A quote from the Feigel paper to raise eyebrows:

"Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each other’s contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric."

http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=fr

Taken at face value, this could add a momentum kick to the air (and/or dielectric) every half-cycle.   How to calculate the momentum added in that case ?

Reminds me once again, of the "optimized" NASA cone that we don't know the code for.

See also news today:  http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/11/two-photons-interact-using-ultra-thin-glass

« Last Edit: 11/03/2014 01:26 PM by Notsosureofit »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2885 on: 11/03/2014 05:07 PM »
Revisited this Feigel paper from 2003 in more detail; attached. Page 3 is especially compelling and echoes the later Donaire, Tiggelen, Rikken (publications linked to below) paper discussed back around page 126. A quote from the Feigel paper to raise eyebrows:

"Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each otherís contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric."

http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=fr

Taken at face value, this could add a momentum kick to the air (and/or dielectric) every half-cycle.   How to calculate the momentum added in that case ?

Reminds me once again, of the "optimized" NASA cone that we don't know the code for.

See also news today:  http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/11/two-photons-interact-using-ultra-thin-glass

Indeed momentum can be transferred but there must be an asymmetry present in the system. Actually two. Without broken symmetries, there is an equal push/pull with each half cycle, amounting to zero. Since we're dealing with conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, we must create an asymmetry in the discrete P and T symmetries in order to get any work done, aka thrust. It is known that the discrete symmetry of parity is broken in everyday life. See Wu experiment 1957 Nobel Prize. There is evidence that T symmetry is broken at least once too; http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/05/2.html (see bottom 1964 "direct T violations") Now some perspective is required. Just because a single instance of P or T symmetry violation has been found in some interaction; that doesn't mean that those symmetries are broken everywhere. It does show precedent. Which means it is possible to be broken in other ways. That is a major caveat. This also doesn't mean that since P or T was broken, that they are broken together, which they must be for casimir momemtum transfer to be real (so they say, but who am I to argue, but I do agree because I understand the connection between symmetries and conservations). I'm playing Sherlock Holmes here more than Einstein. PT symmetry must be broken simultaneously. Chirality regularly breaks P symmetry. This presentation, slide 20: http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf (thank you Rodal for finding this) suggests that T symmetry is also broken in the fashion described, but most importantly P and T can be broken simultaneously (section III quantum approach). I have also postulated that a chiral dielectric molecule present in an asymmetric spacetime (inside the conical frustum) will also simultaneously break PT symmetry, but have not formalized my ideas and it is not worthy of being called a hypothesis, thus it is just a crazy idea I have. I acknowledge this. Be that as it may, I hope that someone smarter than I am will be inspired and take the idea and run with it. I don't care about being right. I just care about the science. And I want my bleepin' hovercar and for my boy to get to Mars.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2014 05:41 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1361
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2886 on: 11/03/2014 05:35 PM »
Revisited this Feigel paper from 2003 in more detail; attached. Page 3 is especially compelling and echoes the later Donaire, Tiggelen, Rikken (publications linked to below) paper discussed back around page 126. A quote from the Feigel paper to raise eyebrows:

"Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each otherís contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric."

http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=fr

Taken at face value, this could add a momentum kick to the air (and/or dielectric) every half-cycle.   How to calculate the momentum added in that case ?

Reminds me once again, of the "optimized" NASA cone that we don't know the code for.

See also news today:  http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/11/two-photons-interact-using-ultra-thin-glass

Indeed momentum can be transferred but there must be an asymmetry present in the system. Actually two. Without broken symmetries, there is an equal push/pull with each half cycle, amounting to zero. Since we're dealing with conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, we must create an asymmetry in the discrete P and T symmetries in order to get any work done, aka thrust. It is known that the discrete symmetry of parity is broken in everyday life. See Wu experiment 1957 Nobel Prize. There is evidence that T symmetry is broken at least once too; http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/05/2.html (see bottom 1964 "direct T violations") Now some perspective is required. Just because a single instance of P or T symmetry violation has been found in some interaction; that doesn't mean that those symmetries are broken everywhere. It does show precedent. Which means it is possible to be broken in other ways. That is a major caveat. This also doesn't mean that since P or T was broken, that they are broken together, which they must be for casimir momemtum transfer to be real (so they say, but who am I to argue, but I do agree because I understand the connection between symmetries and conservations). I'm playing Sherlock Holmes here more than Einstein. PT symmetry must be broken simultaneously. Chirality regularly breaks P symmetry. This presentation, slide 20: http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf (thank you Rodal for finding this) suggests that T symmetry is also broken in the fashion described, but most importantly P and T can be broken simultaneously. I have also postulated that a chiral dielectric molecule present in an asymmetric spacetime (inside the conical frustum) will also simultaneously break PT symmetry, but have not formalized my ideas and it is not worthy of being called a hypothesis, thus it is just a crazy idea I have. I acknowledge this. Be that as it may, I hope that someone smarter than I am will be inspired and take the idea and run with it. I don't care about being right. I just care about the science. And I want my bleepin' hovercar and for my boy to get to Mars.

Well, maybe, but I tend to settle in around equation (16).  The wavelengths here are of the order of the cavity size.

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2887 on: 11/03/2014 05:42 PM »
Sorry for asking, but -as the discussion is getting very technical- could someone of you make a quick update for the non-physicists among us (like myself)? is there any tangible progress, or has the device been demistified once for all?

thanks! :)

Hi there.

I wouldn't put much stock in the ostensibly technical speculations that fill this thread. The results are certainly wrong and are in clear violations of macroscopic conservation of momentum. All explanations or "models" proposed to explain this (quantum plasma, virtual particles, etc.) are all based on incredibly bad physics.

Any signal these experimenters find is almost certainly due to a terrible experimental method and questionable data analysis.

As far as I can tell, along with the greater physics and engineering communities (from what I have seen), this is a fantasy device.
How many of the five competing models to explain thrust from these devices are you familiar with?  I happen to agree with you about QVF and virtual particles, but there are 5 models to choose from and that's one.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2888 on: 11/03/2014 05:54 PM »
......

Hi there.

I wouldn't put much stock in the ostensibly technical speculations that fill this thread. The results are certainly wrong and are in clear violations of macroscopic conservation of momentum. All explanations or "models" proposed to explain this (quantum plasma, virtual particles, etc.) are all based on incredibly bad physics.

Any signal these experimenters find is almost certainly due to a terrible experimental method and questionable data analysis.

As far as I can tell, along with the greater physics and engineering communities (from what I have seen), this is a fantasy device.
How many of the five competing models to explain thrust from these devices are you familiar with?  I happen to agree with you about QVF and virtual particles, but there are 5 models to choose from and that's one.

Here is his (Supergravity's) opinion on Woodward's theory:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1065368#msg1065368, which Supergravity has discussed at length in that thread dedicated to Woodward's thread.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2014 05:56 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2889 on: 11/03/2014 05:56 PM »
Revisited this Feigel paper from 2003 in more detail; attached. Page 3 is especially compelling and echoes the later Donaire, Tiggelen, Rikken (publications linked to below) paper discussed back around page 126. A quote from the Feigel paper to raise eyebrows:

"Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each otherís contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric."

http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=fr

Taken at face value, this could add a momentum kick to the air (and/or dielectric) every half-cycle.   How to calculate the momentum added in that case ?

Reminds me once again, of the "optimized" NASA cone that we don't know the code for.

See also news today:  http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/11/two-photons-interact-using-ultra-thin-glass

Indeed momentum can be transferred but there must be an asymmetry present in the system. Actually two. Without broken symmetries, there is an equal push/pull with each half cycle, amounting to zero. Since we're dealing with conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, we must create an asymmetry in the discrete P and T symmetries in order to get any work done, aka thrust. It is known that the discrete symmetry of parity is broken in everyday life. See Wu experiment 1957 Nobel Prize. There is evidence that T symmetry is broken at least once too; http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/05/2.html (see bottom 1964 "direct T violations") Now some perspective is required. Just because a single instance of P or T symmetry violation has been found in some interaction; that doesn't mean that those symmetries are broken everywhere. It does show precedent. Which means it is possible to be broken in other ways. That is a major caveat. This also doesn't mean that since P or T was broken, that they are broken together, which they must be for casimir momemtum transfer to be real (so they say, but who am I to argue, but I do agree because I understand the connection between symmetries and conservations). I'm playing Sherlock Holmes here more than Einstein. PT symmetry must be broken simultaneously. Chirality regularly breaks P symmetry. This presentation, slide 20: http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf (thank you Rodal for finding this) suggests that T symmetry is also broken in the fashion described, but most importantly P and T can be broken simultaneously. I have also postulated that a chiral dielectric molecule present in an asymmetric spacetime (inside the conical frustum) will also simultaneously break PT symmetry, but have not formalized my ideas and it is not worthy of being called a hypothesis, thus it is just a crazy idea I have. I acknowledge this. Be that as it may, I hope that someone smarter than I am will be inspired and take the idea and run with it.

When the author writes << This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric.>> the author is explicitly discussing material asymmetry, what is known scientifically as anisotropy or aelotropy: different material properties in different intrinsic (materially embedded) directions.  This should not be confused with asymmetrical geometry of an isotropic material. 

Moreover, the author requires a specific type of anisotropy: helical anisotropy, a type of anisotropy found in some (chiral) polymer chains, but unusual in a macro sample (typical fabrication methods like injection molding result in isotropic macro samples even when the polymer chains are chiral).

The materials used in the EM Drives (copper) and the polymer dielectrics (Teflon and Polyethylene) are isotropic homogeneous materials and hence do not satisfy the condition required by the author.

Well a quick fact check on what you are saying finds no mention of the word "helical" or "anisotrop" or "anisotropic' or "anisotropy" in either publication. So it sounds like that is your interpretation not the information reported.........am I sensing obstructionism?

Did I mention that some polymers exhibit unplanned helical twist in their melt phase at production (which is known) isn't present for all polymers? This isn't an assumption that can be made and applied to all extruded plastic polymer dielectrics. Nor did the authors invoke this.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2014 06:04 PM by Mulletron »
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 #2890 on: 11/03/2014 05:56 PM »

I'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math.

Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion.

"One of the issues to consider for a constant thrust system is the matter of conservation of energy."
You can't have constant thrust with action/reaction scheme, because there can be a constant expelled mass flow for only so long. So for me this is broadly "we are talking about propellantless propulsion". And indeed any such propellantless scheme has an issue of energy conservation. In the terminology of this appendix, the Hall thruster is conventional, the EMdrive (propellantless whatever) is advanced.

I see another spectacularly failed attempt at addressing the intrinsic issue with energy conservation of propellantless schemes, as bad as Shawyer's. Any serious physicist/engineer reading this appendix A will immediately see the plain absurdity of the argument, one way or another. This is not serious.

What is most perplexing is that this report follows the "Anomalous..." Brady experiment report.  It continues to insist on explaining the experimental results as being the result of the Quantum Vacuum of electron-positron virtual particles acting like a plasma that can be modeled with magnetohydrodynamics.  It has not backed down at all from that claim, which remains entirely unsupported: it does not add any support to it.  It takes for granted that these microwave propellant less thrusters work based on the Quantum Vacuum, it does not address the criticisms from the scientific community (except energy conservation by now creating a paradox questioning energy conservation ?) that has been raised against those claims and continues to build on this unsupported claim by further discussion of trips to the Jovian and Saturnian moons.

I would have expected instead to address the criticisms about the Quantum Vacuum hypothesis and to further analyze the tests and to comment on future tests. 

I would have expected an effort to analyze the anomalous experimental results instead of trips to Enceladus with a propellant-less drive that has never been shown to operate in flight.
This is the way QVF and ZPF before it have always been.  There has never been an attempt to answer the objections about how they predict the wrong mass for the proton, or violate EEP and GR.

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2891 on: 11/03/2014 06:04 PM »
The QV thrust scenario is the only method available to justify measuring thrust from an otherwise sealed rf cavity and still say that momentum was conserved.
I'm sorry but that's not true.  M-E theory makes such an explanation and QVF model does not.  Sonny clearly owns that he is proposing a violation of conservation whereas M-E theory does not require this.

The point however in regards to M-E is that though the cavity is sealed, in M-E theory it is part of the larger system including all the mass in the universe.  You cannot talk about conservation in open systems and the M-E system is the universe under all circumstances.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2892 on: 11/03/2014 06:07 PM »

I'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math.

Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion.

"One of the issues to consider for a constant thrust system is the matter of conservation of energy."
You can't have constant thrust with action/reaction scheme, because there can be a constant expelled mass flow for only so long. So for me this is broadly "we are talking about propellantless propulsion". And indeed any such propellantless scheme has an issue of energy conservation. In the terminology of this appendix, the Hall thruster is conventional, the EMdrive (propellantless whatever) is advanced.

I see another spectacularly failed attempt at addressing the intrinsic issue with energy conservation of propellantless schemes, as bad as Shawyer's. Any serious physicist/engineer reading this appendix A will immediately see the plain absurdity of the argument, one way or another. This is not serious.

What is most perplexing is that this report follows the "Anomalous..." Brady experiment report.  It continues to insist on explaining the experimental results as being the result of the Quantum Vacuum of electron-positron virtual particles acting like a plasma that can be modeled with magnetohydrodynamics.  It has not backed down at all from that claim, which remains entirely unsupported: it does not add any support to it.  It takes for granted that these microwave propellant less thrusters work based on the Quantum Vacuum, it does not address the criticisms from the scientific community (except energy conservation by now creating a paradox questioning energy conservation ?) that has been raised against those claims and continues to build on this unsupported claim by further discussion of trips to the Jovian and Saturnian moons.

I would have expected instead to address the criticisms about the Quantum Vacuum hypothesis and to further analyze the tests and to comment on future tests. 

I would have expected an effort to analyze the anomalous experimental results instead of trips to Enceladus with a propellant-less drive that has never been shown to operate in flight.
This is the way QVF and ZPF before it have always been.  There has never been an attempt to answer the objections about how they predict the wrong mass for the proton, or violate EEP and GR.

I can't argue with you on this Ron. They aren't showing their work on QVF thrusters. Doom on them if they want to be taken seriously and much to my dismay  :(. Therefore I am looking for my own.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2893 on: 11/03/2014 06:09 PM »
The QV thrust scenario is the only method available to justify measuring thrust from an otherwise sealed rf cavity and still say that momentum was conserved.
I'm sorry but that's not true.  M-E theory makes such an explanation and QVF model does not.  Sonny clearly owns that he is proposing a violation of conservation whereas M-E theory does not require this.

The point however in regards to M-E is that though the cavity is sealed, in M-E theory it is part of the larger system including all the mass in the universe.  You cannot talk about conservation in open systems and the M-E system is the universe under all circumstances.

Okay but I can tell you that there is a body of knowledge you are not taking into account. That is the difference between local and global symmetries.

Broken local symmetries must still satisfy global symmetries. This lecture breaks it down.



« Last Edit: 11/03/2014 06:14 PM by Mulletron »
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 #2894 on: 11/03/2014 06:16 PM »
......

Hi there.

I wouldn't put much stock in the ostensibly technical speculations that fill this thread. The results are certainly wrong and are in clear violations of macroscopic conservation of momentum. All explanations or "models" proposed to explain this (quantum plasma, virtual particles, etc.) are all based on incredibly bad physics.

Any signal these experimenters find is almost certainly due to a terrible experimental method and questionable data analysis.

As far as I can tell, along with the greater physics and engineering communities (from what I have seen), this is a fantasy device.
How many of the five competing models to explain thrust from these devices are you familiar with?  I happen to agree with you about QVF and virtual particles, but there are 5 models to choose from and that's one.

Here is his (Supergravity's) opinion on Woodward's theory:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1065368#msg1065368, which Supergravity has discussed at length in that thread dedicated to Woodward's thread.
Yes well, he's entirely wrong.  He's pretending to dispense with a theory that's been through 20 years of peer review, and that is gaining an ever increasing following amongst the physics community, by simply stating it is not consistent with GR when in fact it is required by GR.

I'll bet beers he hasn't read the book or the papers.  I would note too, the references are all of people doing this same thing--don't know the theory, haven't read the papers, making sweeping claims.

That's not science.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2014 06:18 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2895 on: 11/03/2014 06:18 PM »
...

When the author writes << This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric.>> the author is explicitly discussing material asymmetry, what is known scientifically as anisotropy or aelotropy: different material properties in different intrinsic (materially embedded) directions.  This should not be confused with asymmetrical geometry of an isotropic material. 

Moreover, the author requires a specific type of anisotropy: helical anisotropy, a type of anisotropy found in some (chiral) polymer chains, but unusual in a macro sample (typical fabrication methods like injection molding result in isotropic macro samples even when the polymer chains are chiral).

The materials used in the EM Drives (copper) and the polymer dielectrics (Teflon and Polyethylene) are isotropic homogeneous materials and hence do not satisfy the condition required by the author.

Well a quick fact check on what you are saying finds no mention of the word "helical" or "anisotrop" or "anisotropic' or "anisotropy" in either publication. So it sounds like that is your interpretation not the information reported.........am I sensing obstructionism?
The author uses the word chirality (instead of helical) and material asymmetry (instead of anisotropy), which is understandable in his context because he is dealing with chiral molecules in a micro context.  It is obvious that the author does not mean geometrical asymmetry of an isotropic material.
Quote
Concerning "am I sensing obstructionism?", I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate such a clarification.

Well I can prove to you that chirality is not the same as helicity. I'm going to draw some mustaches on electrons for you and break this down to parade rest. That will make things as right as rain. In short, helicity is spin in linear motion. Chirality is in motion and at rest. Spin at rest is uncertain.

http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/06/19/helicity-chirality-mass-and-the-higgs/

« Last Edit: 11/03/2014 06:23 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2896 on: 11/03/2014 06:21 PM »
......

Hi there.

I wouldn't put much stock in the ostensibly technical speculations that fill this thread. The results are certainly wrong and are in clear violations of macroscopic conservation of momentum. All explanations or "models" proposed to explain this (quantum plasma, virtual particles, etc.) are all based on incredibly bad physics.

Any signal these experimenters find is almost certainly due to a terrible experimental method and questionable data analysis.

As far as I can tell, along with the greater physics and engineering communities (from what I have seen), this is a fantasy device.
How many of the five competing models to explain thrust from these devices are you familiar with?  I happen to agree with you about QVF and virtual particles, but there are 5 models to choose from and that's one.

Here is his (Supergravity's) opinion on Woodward's theory:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1065368#msg1065368, which Supergravity has discussed at length in that thread dedicated to Woodward's thread.
Yes well, he's entirely wrong.  He's pretending to dispense with a theory that's been through 20 years of peer review, and that is gaining an ever increasing following amongst the physics community, by simply stating it is not consistent with GR when in fact it is required by GR.

I'll bet beers he hasn't read the book or the papers.  I would note too, the references are all of people doing this same thing--don't know the theory, haven't read the papers, making sweeping claims.

That's not science.

Ron, I value your input. I must remind you to not fall in love with a theory. Fall in love with the truth. Are you trying to sell me a book or the truth?
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 #2897 on: 11/03/2014 06:25 PM »
I wasn't even responding to you.  Do you have these suspicions often about people talking about you behind your back?  ;)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2898 on: 11/03/2014 06:29 PM »
I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate a clarification on Donaire's formulation ( http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf ).


Donaire explcitly requires a helical (chiral) anisotropic third order tensor (epsilon ijk) as shown in this attachment:

gamma is an antisymmetric T-P odd tensor resulting from the product of (helically anisotropic) epsilon ijk with the magnetic field B

(The word helical of course has multiple connotations, and this clarification only refers to how Donaire uses it)

helical:



Now, my understanding is the following: if a polymer material has chiral molecule chains, if the chains are like a "spaghetti" in random directions as usual isotropic polymers are (for example as a result of injection molding) , the chiral effect will be nullified by the random orientation of the polymer chain spaghetti.

For the Donaire effect to be mutually self-reinforcing and not self-cancelling, one needs the overall material to have a helical anisotropy.

« Last Edit: 11/03/2014 06:53 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2899 on: 11/03/2014 06:46 PM »
I wasn't even responding to you.  Do you have these suspicions often about people talking about you behind your back?  ;)

Um no, we've been here before. You refute every idea that isn't Woodward's. Then plug his book.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Tags: