Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 796984 times)

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2920 on: 11/04/2014 08:03 AM »
I had the thought a long time ago that the measured thrust might have to do with photon angular momentum. That's why I knew where to find the paper I linked above.

It occurs to me now that this phenomenon might hint at an explanation of the difference in thrust between Brady a" and Brady b" which  differ in measured force, but otherwise very little.

I think you are on the right track on this.  :) Photon angular momentum (circular polarization/helicity) is the first half of the puzzle and chirality and asymmetry of the dielectric is the second half of of the puzzle.

I know nature works this way, as it is fact that the weak interaction prefers left handed electrons.

So if we want to transfer momentum to/from the QV, we have to get the local rotations and asymmetries right.

The reason "from" is bold above is because given the literature I've been reading and have posted in this forum, it seems like we're not "thrusting against the qv" rather we're allowing the QV to push against us asymmetrically. Instead of the usual push from all directions equally. Read this as vacuum polarization in the presence of a material with asymmetric space and time via molecular chirality, and asymmetric radiation pressure acting on those molecules inside the cavity. This would be a good thing if true, because the QV is a source of infinite energy momentum. ;)

I have no idea if the RF inside the cavity at Nasa was RHCP or LHCP but they didn't say they ran their RF through a polarizer, and the rf probe used was a loop not a helix, so I suspect it was not circularly polarized. Maybe it should be.

Looks like it was most likely linear polarization since they used a loop probe inside the cavity and rotating the loop changes whether E or H is transverse.
Given that the cavity was conical though, an angular component could develop unintentionally through Coriolis effects or gyroscopic precession or Faraday rotation.

Also the fields themselves are in rotation by the right hand rule.

All this mentioned above and in previous posts (cited from many other's work) could allow EMdrive to "work" without breaking any Laws. What the world needs is a theory of EMdrive that doesn't get laughed at by the mainstream scientific community. It just takes a mathematically inclined person to formalize it and take their place in history. (If it works) Hint  ;)


This is why I've been boning up on my knowledge of spin/helicity/chirality.
Massive particles behave very differently than mass less particles wrt helicity. Local and global symmetries are different beasts too.

http://physics.unl.edu/~tgay/content/CPE.html
http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/06/19/helicity-chirality-mass-and-the-higgs/
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 03:09 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 #2921 on: 11/04/2014 01:08 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 µN at each .1 s interval (linearly interpolated from manual reconstruction). The vertical scale were roughly given by the calibration pulses at about 30µN (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.

Frobnicated Top of Fig. 19 page 15 of anomalous (Mean and Linear Least Squares Fit)


Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Mean (Blue)

Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)


Power Spectral Density (from FFT)  on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)

horizontal scale = frequency(Hz) * 0.1 * (DataLength/2) = frequency(hz)*94.6

Peaks         Period (seconds)
3                 1/(3/(94.6))  = 31.53 s   Pulse period
5                 1/(5/(94.6))  = 18.92 s   4*Pendulum Period
7                 1/(7/(94.6))  = 13.51 s
10               1/(10/(94.6))  = 9.46 s   2*Pendulum Period
15               1/(15/(94.6))  = 6.31 s <---- This unidentified frequency appears on both Top and Middle
18               1/(18/(94.6))  = 5.26 s
20               1/(20/(94.6))  = 4.73 s    Pendulum Period
25               1/(25/(94.6))  = 3.78 s
41               1/(41/(94.6))  = 2.31 s    1/2 Pendulum Period

Frobnicated Middle of Fig. 19 page 15 of anomalous NASA report (Mean, Linear Least Squares Fit and Quadratic Least Squares Fit)


Autocorrelation of Middle of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Mean (Blue), by Linear LS (Red) and by Quadratic LS (Green)


Power Spectral Density of Middle of Fig. 19 page 15  (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Quadratic LS (Red)

horizontal scale = frequency(Hz) * 0.1 * (DataLength/2) = frequency(hz)*98

Peaks         Period (seconds)
3                 1/(3/(98))  =  32.67 s   Pulse period
5                 1/(5/(98))  =  19.60 s   4*Pendulum Period
7                 1/(7/(98))  =  14..00 s
12               1/(13/(98))  =  7.54 s 
16               1/(16/(98))  =  6.13 s  <---- This unidentified frequency appears strongly on both Top and Middle
22               1/(22/(98))  =  4.45 s   Pendulum Period
29               1/(29/(98))  =  3.38 s   
34               1/(34/(98))  =  2.88 s
36               1/(36/(98))  =  2.72 s   
40               1/(40/(98))  =  2.45 s   
42               1/(42/(98))  =  2.33 s    1/2 Pendulum Period

« Last Edit: 11/04/2014 01:33 PM by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2922 on: 11/04/2014 02:09 PM »
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....

The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy.  The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization).  No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality.  In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2014 02:10 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2923 on: 11/04/2014 02:10 PM »
Well as I stated on page 136

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1269767#msg1269767

I'm personally putting MiHsC back on the shelf for application to EMdrive. I still have confidence in it and hope it is the right answer, but I don't think it applies to this situation. I had a lot of cognitive dissonance over MiHsC but I realize that I really don't need it in light of more elegant solutions which require less pushing the I believe button and messing with constants.

MiHsC is very very closely related to all this but the way it has been applied is backwards in my view.

I'm going to clean up the summary I keep on page 127 given the new info I have digested.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1269024#msg1269024

I guess my next step is get more familiar with the math of quantum mechanics. That is going to be rough because I'm trained in the math of electrical/electronic engineering.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2014 02:36 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 #2924 on: 11/04/2014 02:14 PM »
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....

The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy.  The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization).  No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality.  In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.

The only thing that takes away a perfect infinity is the cutoff at the Planck length. That takes away ridiculously small wavelengths. That is the lower bound. The upper bound is ridiculously long wavelengths. In between is a practically infinite amount of available wavelengths available. It is infinite otherwise. Not able to be exhausted.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2014 02:20 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline momerathe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2925 on: 11/04/2014 03:14 PM »
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....

The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy.  The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization).  No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality.  In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.

The only thing that takes away a perfect infinity is the cutoff at the Planck length. That takes away ridiculously small wavelengths. That is the lower bound. The upper bound is ridiculously long wavelengths. In between is a practically infinite amount of available wavelengths available. It is infinite otherwise. Not able to be exhausted.

I think you're missing his point. It's the *lowest* state of energy. For practical purposes it doesn't matter what that energy density is because you can't access any of it; to do so you would need a lower energy state to transition to and this lower energy state doesn't, by definition, exist.

if you're interested in learning more about quantum mechanics, I recommend this series of lectures by Leonard Susskind: http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses .
thermodynamics will get you in the end

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1367
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2926 on: 11/04/2014 03:20 PM »
"Spectral non-reciprocity" in the "coffee can" half-wave resonator at the earths surface.

df = (1.65 * 10^-8)Hz,  interestingly independent of frequency for a wavelength dependent resonator.

Doppler speed at 1GHz comes out at 5nm/sec.

Pretty small numbers.  Curious !

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2927 on: 11/04/2014 03:28 PM »
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....

The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy.  The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization).  No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality.  In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.

The only thing that takes away a perfect infinity is the cutoff at the Planck length. That takes away ridiculously small wavelengths. That is the lower bound. The upper bound is ridiculously long wavelengths. In between is a practically infinite amount of available wavelengths available. It is infinite otherwise. Not able to be exhausted.

Where does your idea of force due to evanescent coupling with the chamber stand? I have found some information quantifying such force mathematically. The information I have found is just a start though as the geometry is quite different than that of the cavity within the vacuum chamber.

I note that another name for evanescent is "near field." The two are almost, if not completely identical but described using different terminology.

So, did you rule out evanescent coupling as a source of the measured force?
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2928 on: 11/04/2014 03:47 PM »
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....

The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy.  The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization).  No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality.  In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.

The only thing that takes away a perfect infinity is the cutoff at the Planck length. That takes away ridiculously small wavelengths. That is the lower bound. The upper bound is ridiculously long wavelengths. In between is a practically infinite amount of available wavelengths available. It is infinite otherwise. Not able to be exhausted.

Where does your idea of force due to evanescent coupling with the chamber stand? I have found some information quantifying such force mathematically. The information I have found is just a start though as the geometry is quite different than that of the cavity within the vacuum chamber.

I note that another name for evanescent is "near field." The two are almost, if not completely identical but described using different terminology.

So, did you rule out evanescent coupling as a source of the measured force?

I abandoned it because I couldn't find enough information to prove anything. It remains on the possible but not plausible shelf as another artifact effect. I didn't rule it out or in. What do you have?
« Last Edit: 11/04/2014 04:57 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2929 on: 11/04/2014 03:51 PM »
Ok,

     Admittedly, the math for this a\has finally gotten WAY beyond me.

     Could someone give me an idea of the power to motion ratio that seems to be being generated with this system, verses, say, a regular chemical rocket?

     What I am trying to find out is simple; Is this system somehow generating more motion than should be possible, assuming a direct conversion of energy to motion?

     In other words, is 1 calorie of energy somehow rasing 1 cubic centimeter of water's temprature higher than 1 degree celcius, or is the amount of power being used within a reasonable ratio of energy effecient conversion, say, 70% of power applied is being converted to motion, as an example?

     For the moment, set aside HOW it appears to be doing what it is doing, and let's see if it violates any of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

     Sorry, but you guys have gone so far beyond me mathematically, (plus, I think I may have missed a couple of equations that would have made it simpler to follow) that I am having the devil's own time trying to keep up with this thread.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2930 on: 11/04/2014 03:58 PM »
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....

The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy.  The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization).  No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality.  In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.

The only thing that takes away a perfect infinity is the cutoff at the Planck length. That takes away ridiculously small wavelengths. That is the lower bound. The upper bound is ridiculously long wavelengths. In between is a practically infinite amount of available wavelengths available. It is infinite otherwise. Not able to be exhausted.

I think you're missing his point. It's the *lowest* state of energy. For practical purposes it doesn't matter what that energy density is because you can't access any of it; to do so you would need a lower energy state to transition to and this lower energy state doesn't, by definition, exist.

if you're interested in learning more about quantum mechanics, I recommend this series of lectures by Leonard Susskind: http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses .

I want to be clear that I'm not screaming "over unity" here. I'm not tapping into the ZPE here trying to get free energy. Just because there is an infinite reservoir available of something, that doesn't mean it is all available for use. In the application described by me, you must put in energy to get thrust. So there is no free lunch. You don't get back any more than you put in. The energy of the QV is infinite in the sense that it is available everywhere to push on you.

There is no debate whether the QV influences our physical world.

The debate is whether it can be used for anything useful, like push on you in a particular direction, instead of all directions. The papers on Casimir momentum linked to previously, seem to suggest this is possible.

Right now it is a mathematical annoyance that must me corrected for.

Now to the math, I've seen calculations of velocity contributions to dielectrics as low as 50nm/s. As long as they are non zero, that's pretty good, for a start.

More info on the Feigel Effect:

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/10/06/rspa.2011.0481.full.pdf (A peer review with surprising results!)

http://physics.aps.org/story/v13/st3

The anomalous thrust production from an RF test device was due to the Feigel–van Tiggelen effect.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2014 07:22 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2931 on: 11/04/2014 06:15 PM »
This is an estimate of the relative geometry between the Chamber walls and the cavity. These dimensions are needed in order to calculate  evanescent  forces.

First, by looking at the photograph, it appears as though the method of reversing the direction of the cavity must be simply to withdraw the complete test stand from the chamber, with cavity mounted, reverse the test stand front to back and re-insert it into the chamber. Note that reversing direction this way will not change the relative chamber wall/cavity geometry. That is, the base (large end) will be the same distance from the wall, as will the small end, just the opposite chamber walls.

What the above means is that any electromagnetic interactions between the cavity and chamber will not be changed by reversing the cavity, so that interacting forces need only be calculated for one orientation. They will be the same for either orientation.

To make this easy, I make an assumption which can be corrected in the end. That is, assume that the bottom corner of the cavity conic section and the large end sits on the chamber central axis - that is the 0,0 origin. Using dimensions of the cavity previously extracted:

surface      cm    inch
Large dia. 27.25   10.73
Small dia. 15.36   6.05
Length     24.48   9.64

and the given diameter of the Chamber, 30 inches (76.2 cm), radius = 15 inches (38.1 cm) I calculate that the diagonal of the cavity is 12.77 inches or 2.23 inches less than the chamber radius. That gives the location of the top of the small dia. WRT the chamber wall. (Note that the cavity diagonal makes an angle of 0.716 rad. from horizontal. Also, the top of the large end is 4.3 inches from the top center of the chamber and the lower corner of the small end is 5.08 inches from the wall in the chamber radial direction. Summarizing:

Chamber diameter/radius           30 / 15 inches      (76.2 /  38.1 cm)   
Small end to chamber wall range - 2.33 to 5.08 inches (5.66 to 12.91 cm).
Large end to chamber wall range - 4.3  to 15.0 inches (10.92 to 38.1 cm).

These estimates can be adjusted by moving the origin up and over. How much is just a guess, maybe one inch up and 1/2 inch to the left. Making that adjustment would bring the small end closer to the wall.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2932 on: 11/04/2014 06:20 PM »
Your numbers are pretty close to mine too. Looks good!

My cad files and other screeshots:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4PCfHCM1KYoNmtVVDZuZ1FrQ2M&usp=sharing&tid=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTXhSUTd5ZDN2WnM
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2933 on: 11/04/2014 06:42 PM »
Thanks. But we need to explain this video before we can attribute the EM Drive thrust in general to chamber wall/cavity interactions.

http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html


Video clips are near the bottom of the page. I don't see anything in the video that the EM Drive could interact with.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2934 on: 11/04/2014 06:50 PM »
Thanks. But we need to explain this video before we can attribute the EM Drive thrust in general to chamber wall/cavity interactions.

http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html


Video clips are near the bottom of the page. I don't see anything in the video that the EM Drive could interact with.

I was using evanescent coupling as another artifact (didn't start off that way, in the beginning I was trying to use it to explain legit thrust) to throw in there with heat and all the other possible experimental artifacts. Your take on the video is interesting and that does seem to further kill evanescent wave coupling as a possibility. Nice job indeed. I posted that video a few pages back trying to demonstrate conservation of angular momentum. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1280373#msg1280373

I've been back and forth on whether EMdrive is bs or not over the past few weeks.

I've come to the conclusion that empty copper can EMdrives are bs, those with dielectrics inserted are legit.

Oh yeah.... Air is a dielectric too. This means that with the Feigel–van Tiggelen effect, EVERYBODY wins!
« Last Edit: 11/04/2014 07:40 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2935 on: 11/04/2014 07:25 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.
...

Not sure If this is an accurate representation. If you check out this link http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140013174 you will see that the publication date is in January 2014 before the paper was presented at AIAA. Actually if you compare the metadata to the Anomalus thrust paper presented at AIAA this year, see here http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052. I would interpret the following.

Since, Human Outer Solar System Exploration via Q-Thruster Technology(Paper 2) references
Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum
(Paper 1) then Paper 1 was written before Paper 2. However, paper 2 was written before Paper 1 was widely circulated. Therefore, I can see how any questions raised about the results described in Paper 1 would not be answered in Paper 2. That doesn't mean that there aren't people in the Eagleworks circle who could have asked the same questions we are currently asking. However, they could also be privy to the missing information that is directly leading us to ask these questions. So they may already know the answers or haven't thought to ask those questions because of some sort of bias preventing their thought processes from thinking of these questions.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2936 on: 11/04/2014 07:30 PM »
Well the photo above (scroll up) was taken 23Jan14.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2937 on: 11/04/2014 07:32 PM »
Turns out to have been a blissfull few days... Saturday thru mid-day today with out fone or intertubes.  Came back to this thread as a junkie.

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?

I wasn't even responding to you.  Do you have these suspicions often about people talking about you behind your back?  ;)

Ahhhh, Ron:  Stick with English meanings.  Everybody is responding to everybody on the thread.  Take it to PM if you want, expect, or demand privacy.

Mulletron has no suspicions, and asks of you a simple, reasonable request.  Take it or leave it.

Can you break down what your interpretation of non-reciprocity means.

Easy.  You scratch my back, and I keep on moving, withoug even a thank you.

Seriously, you all have lost me over the last twenty pages...

Now this is interesting stuff!

Is this the same thingy without the copper can?  This image would be easier to dimension.  Also, since you can see the FZTK stuff unencombered, you could estimate the standard lengts of the available stock.

Any "you" that wants to, that is.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2014 07:34 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 298
  • Likes Given: 583
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2938 on: 11/04/2014 07:52 PM »
Thanks. But we need to explain this video before we can attribute the EM Drive thrust in general to chamber wall/cavity interactions.

http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html


Video clips are near the bottom of the page. I don't see anything in the video that the EM Drive could interact with.

After all this lengthy discussion I have been tracking for a while, what stays with me is the absolute need of more experimental results to talk about. More data points, more confirmations (or refutations).

And the video you bring, while enticing, is alas not enough. I can imagine several ways to trick a video like that, just requiring enough willingness and lack of a consciousness to do it.

Don't get me wrong. I like visual demonstrations as the next guy, it's that we only have this one so far.

But if more people replicated that... we could start becoming really intrigued.

Offline momerathe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2939 on: 11/04/2014 08:27 PM »
I want to be clear that I'm not screaming "over unity" here. I'm not tapping into the ZPE here trying to get free energy. Just because there is an infinite reservoir available of something, that doesn't mean it is all available for use. In the application described by me, you must put in energy to get thrust. So there is no free lunch. You don't get back any more than you put in. The energy of the QV is infinite in the sense that it is available everywhere to push on you.

That's.. not what energy means. What you describe appears to be closer to the idea that QV is/could be an infinite momentum sink. This is, basically, the fundamental question behind these devices.

Quote
The debate is whether it can be used for anything useful, like push on you in a particular direction, instead of all directions. The papers on Casimir momentum linked to previously, seem to suggest this is possible.

That's pretty uncontroversial on its own. The Unruh effect can create radiation, and thus momentum, and thus thrust. The thing is that it's creating real particles, the momentum isn't disapearing into the quantum vacuum, as I've seen some proponents of the QVPT suggest. (I'm not saying you're one of them, BTW, I haven't the mental fortitude to follow this thread in detail.)

However, creating particles from vacuum takes energy, and you just end up with a complicated photon rocket.


Quote
More info on the Feigel Effect:

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/10/06/rspa.2011.0481.full.pdf (A peer review with surprising results!)

http://physics.aps.org/story/v13/st3

The anomalous thrust production from an RF test device was due to the Feigel–van Tiggelen effect.

Interesting paper. Some thoughts occur:
* the dielectric constant in the can will be very low. it's meant to be evacuated, after all.
* the ExB fields in the Feigel effect are steady, those in an EM wave oscillate sinusoidally. Thus the force would be continually swapping direction, and average to zero.
* If you are right, it spells the death-knell for this device as a form of propulsion. From the paper:

Quote
Feigel considers the following situation: a region of a dielectric fluid far from
the boundaries of its container is initially at rest (t = 0). Subsequently, strong
electrical and magnetic fields crossed at right angles to each other are applied
to the region. As the fields reach their constant final values, Eext and Bext for
electrical and magnetic fields, respectively, the fluid is accelerated by the Lorentz
forces (FLorentz ∝ vt(Eext × Bext)) to a final velocity v.

It's a one-off impulse. It can't provide a steady thrust (again, I'm not saying that you're one of the people saying it does) unless you can keep increasing the field forever. When you turn the field off, the dielectric will stop moving. Kind of how the casimir effect provides a one-off energy gain when you bring the two plates together.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2014 08:29 PM by momerathe »
thermodynamics will get you in the end

Tags: