Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 765761 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2980 on: 11/06/2014 01:26 PM »
Momerathe, a warm welcome to this forum !

Cheers. ...

And... might I ask when was the last time you "outgrabe"?  Or am I reading far too much in your moniker?

You are pre-supposing.
Who knows what energy actually is?

Quote from: Momerathe
generations of scientists?

The important thing to remember is that energy is a property of a system. It is not "stuff", even though we often talk about it as if it is. This is, IMO, a bad habit among science communicators.

Paraphrasing Albert here:

Property = Stuff times c^2

Those of us who subsist on peanuts tend to think of energy as a type of "stuff".  And since momentum = stuff times speed, it's not too surprising that we think so.

Personally, if photons have momentum, they, to me, must have some kind of mass, and therefore, there must be, in my peanutular analysis, some kind of rest mass associated with photons.  So what happens if you freeze light?  does this pertain to the discussion at hand?

Theatrical and dramatic, but still, about frozen light:



So Rodal:  Do you know Seth Lloyd?  Peter Shor?

I just started watching this this one:

« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 02:46 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5845
  • USA
  • Liked: 5925
  • Likes Given: 5269
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2981 on: 11/06/2014 01:30 PM »
You're muddling the issue by stipulating "rest".  Rest mass is actually a thing. I'm not muddeling. Virtual particles have no mass at any time, of any kind.  Where did you get your thorough understanding of the QV and virtual particles from? It is still a subject of intense research. You appear to be in the lead. Congratulations! If they did they would gravitate and collapse the universe. You are making a hasty assumption here. Did you consider their stochastic nature? The fact we distinguish between virtual and real photons should be explanation enough. No content here. Photons have mass unless they're virtual, and virtual particles cannot mediate momentum nor energy transfer. You know something the rest of the world doesn't. This is by definition, and it is when people redefine virtual particles to suit their pet theories (who? citation needed), that the folks like Sean Carroll get so upset. You're speaking on behalf of someone else. Would they appreciate that? Are you acknowledging that virtual particles exist but not the QV?

Virtual particles are not necessary to do any physics.  Virtual particles need not be material in order to be considered real. Their influence is seen in the material world, Zitterbewegung et al, and they are a useful mathematical accounting tool. You see them in Feynman diagrams. Their effects must also be adjusted for in calculations and also subtracted out by renormalization. They're an invention for people who like to see field phenomena in terms of particle exchange, but the fields are enough. Inventions are okay if they are useful and hold true. You don't need the particles for anything. Says you? They're really just a form of pandering to the need to see things in terms of particles which are really field phenomena.  the graviton is another example of this.  We have never found one, despite looking for 4 generations, but most people believe in gravitons anyway. I don't believe in gravitons either, however it is a popular theory that hasn't been ruled out. That's because particle theory is so emotionally satisfying. I don't get all emotional over particles. Beer is satisfying to me, not particles. It lends itself to the emotional need (see below) to feel we know what's going on when fields are the opposite--quite mysterious by nature. "Sometimes I just don't get it."



Pretty much everything quoted above is either factually inaccurate, a logical fallacy, or a cognitive bias. The rest is weasel words. This is the last time I ftt. I value your inputs but when you go on these anti QV rants, it is just too much. My "word by word" comments are in blue. My thoughts are that if someone has issue with a theory that's fine. But they should have a constructive rebuttal too. What is your alternate theory? Do you have a personal stake in something else that makes you just not like anything to do with EMdrive? Is it because it isn't Woodward's theory? What gives? Should we just not give EMdrive any attention whatsoever?

My apologies for any mistakes I may have made in my statements or vocabulary.  :)

Very respectfully,
Mulletron


Signing "Very respectfully" a post that charges "Pretty much everything quoted above is either factually inaccurate, a logical fallacy, or a cognitive bias. The rest is weasel words. " does not make it respectful.

The subject being discussed in this thread is EM Drives and Spaceflight.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 01:43 PM by Rodal »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2982 on: 11/06/2014 01:40 PM »
Some of my own medicine actually. I complained a lot on here about precision of language. Oh well live and learn.

I know how that feels.  Try a spoonful of sugar...

Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2983 on: 11/06/2014 01:52 PM »
Hah!  The five anomalies:

(From that hour long video I just posted)

1. Quantization of red shift.
2. Decreasing values of speed of light.
3. Increasing value of Plank's constant h.
4. Increasing atomic mass.
5. Slowing rate of the ticking of atomic clocks.

It seems like h times c might actually be a constant.

Plus a bonus track!

The astronomer runs into the mathemetician's office, saying "I've discovered that all od numbers are primes!"

"What?", sez the mathematician.

"Look!  1, 3, 5, 7... all primes!" sez the astronomer, "It gets better! 11, 13, 17, 19!"

"Uhhhh.... what about 9 and 15?"

"Oh that.  That's just observational error."

Anyhow:  They're not constants! 

They're habits.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 02:57 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2984 on: 11/06/2014 02:22 PM »
Quote
Signing "Very respectfully" a post that charges "Pretty much everything quoted above is either factually inaccurate, a logical fallacy, or a cognitive bias. The rest is weasel words. " does not make it respectful.

The subject being discussed in this thread is EM Drives and Spaceflight.

Well I am smart enough to recognize an agent provocateur on a forum whose mission is to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt. FUD. Because they have a conflict of interest (all things Woodward and his book). We've been here. I remember his treatment of Dr. M for example. So I calls em like I sees em. As I said, this is the last time I ftt. Giving in to the FUD creates distractions which is what they want. Back to the subject at hand, EMdrives and the science for or against them.

Thank you for your patience.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 03:09 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 #2985 on: 11/06/2014 03:37 PM »
Let's talk about virtual particles.

Insofar as we think of virtual particles as a prediction/phenomenon of Quantum Field Theory, they are perfectly understood, and have been for decades. However, we know that QFT is incomplete, requiring reconciliation with General Relativity.

Ditto the quantum vacuum; within the framework of QFT we understand it - or we should, except for what's been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics"; the failure to predict the value of vacuum energy. This too, we assume, must be due to in the incompleteness of QFT in some regard.

Under the tenets of QFT, the quantum vacuum cannot be "pushed against" (save by creating real particles) - any attempt to justify the EMdrive or QVPT as a working device by an appeal to currently understood principles of quantum mechanics is doomed to failure, because regardless of its internal workings we already know the answer.

For these devices to work, they must work via a novel principle of physics that extends QFT in some way. If they do work, it will herald a revolution in fundamental physics. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

(to be clear - when I say "work", I mean function as a form of propulsion. This presupposes that the results claimed are not some sort of anomaly which may be explicable conventionally.)

The only reason I'm not shooting this down out of hand is that we know a novel principle of physics must exist, because we know QFT is incomplete. What we don't know is if this extension is one that allows the quantum vacuum to act as a momentum sink. To be honest, I'm not even sure how one would begin to speculate about it.
thermodynamics will get you in the end

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2986 on: 11/06/2014 03:44 PM »
I like what you're saying up there. This quote holds true, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." ~Feynman.

I do think I have not been heard or was misunderstood. I stated that we're not pushing on the QV. The QV is pushing on us. The novel physics you speak of is allowing this to happen in a preferred direction. I postulate.

I like the brand of precise tempered reason you bring to the table.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 03:52 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2987 on: 11/06/2014 03:52 PM »
... we know a novel principle of physics must exist, because we know QFT is incomplete. What we don't know is if this extension is one that allows the quantum vacuum to act as a momentum sink. To be honest, I'm not even sure how one would begin to speculate about it.

In a nutshell, this thread begins the speculation that you suggest, at least, the way I grok it.  While the eperimentor's results may be sloppily reported, Frobnicat, Aero, Mulletron, and Rodal seem to be investigating "novel" possibilities.

Quote
to be clear - when I say "work", I mean function as a form of propulsion.

Preagmatic utility is kinda the way I phrase it, but the English meaning of your term there is not at all ambibuous.

I still don't get the utility of considering "virtual particles" as having "reality", other than in my poorly comprehended thinking that they complete certain aspects of the mathematical theory.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2988 on: 11/06/2014 03:53 PM »
I like what you're saying up there. This quote holds true, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." ~Feynman.

I do think I have not been heard or was misunderstood. I stated that we're not pushing on the QV. The QV is pushing on us. The novel physics you speak of is allowing this to happen in a preferred direction. I postulate.

I like the brand of precise tempered reason you bring to the table.

IDK, but it sounds like, by "preferred direction", you end up meaning that we can indeed push on the QV.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2989 on: 11/06/2014 04:02 PM »
I like what you're saying up there. This quote holds true, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." ~Feynman.

I do think I have not been heard or was misunderstood. I stated that we're not pushing on the QV. The QV is pushing on us. The novel physics you speak of is allowing this to happen in a preferred direction. I postulate.

I like the brand of precise tempered reason you bring to the table.

IDK, but it sounds like, by "preferred direction", you end up meaning that we can indeed push on the QV.

I realized that I couldn't reasonably find a way to justify saying the QV could be pushed on. I can't push on something that is random and fleeting. But I know the QV interacts with the real world in subtle ways. So I changed my approach and realized the QV is doing the pushing. Normally in a symmetric situation, this push amounts to no preferred direction due to local and global symmetry. The asymmetries in the system (see papers linked to previously), allow the QV to push more in one direction than the other, when the EMdrive is energized. There is a mechanism, the papers hint at, that is inducing a spontaneous PT symmetry break, allowing this to happen.

A broad range of literature is littered with hints that spontaneous PT symmetry breaking is a real thing. It could be happening inside EMdrive too.

Discrete symmetries are known to be broken in our universe, alone and in pairs, and are a common occurrence. We all owe our existence to these broken symmetries.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 04:15 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2744
  • 92129
  • Liked: 705
  • Likes Given: 240
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2990 on: 11/06/2014 04:50 PM »
Some nice features about Evanescent waves
- Energy is conserved WRT momentum. Excitation energy flows as current along the outside of the cavity. A resistance loss to the system.
- Momentum is caused by reaction. Energy flows, the magnetic field builds perpendicular to the wall, that is 90 degrees from the direction of current flow. The field collapses converting magnetic flux to momentum.

Point is, Evanescent waves provide a mechanism for the RF field within the cavity to produce momentum outside the cavity and still stay within the bounds of physics as we understand it.

It will take a better mathematician than I to determine the strength and direction of this momentum but to me, it seems that the evanescent fields must be created along the tapered sides of the cone. That is where the geometry gives the wave/wall angle less than the critical angle. 

Add: The Evanescent wave explanation requires no new physics, though it does require some of the latest developments in our understanding of it. And I suspect there are still some factors to be explained because the EM force has been measured from cavities of different shapes. Not all of the shapes are conic so discovering the critical angle in all cases may not be straight forward.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 05:11 PM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2991 on: 11/06/2014 05:24 PM »
Here ya go:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0547

http://phys.org/news/2014-03-extraordinary-momentum-evanescent.html

You take it from here. I'll leave you with what I learned and lessons learned. I ran into difficulties proving the surface plasmons could appear on the surface of the cavity given the unknown thickness and lack of official precedent in the literature, the complexities of quantifying the critical angle with a cone, and the crazy math. I learned that the critical angle is dependent on the lower cutoff frequency of the waveguide and the refractive index valid for that frequency, which for this article I calculated from 6.25 inches to be 1889.76Mhz. I never got the refractive index for copper at this frequency and I got confused about how this would work because copper is a conductor. Skin depth becomes important here. Copper does have a refractive index though. So my knowledge of how this works is limited. I posted a thing about it back there. The best I did was prove that evanescent wave resonant coupling with RF was indeed a very common thing and that quantum tunneling with RF was just the same as it is with light frequencies. See the videos I posted way back of the optical and RF prisms. I learned that evanescent fields due to the critical angle mechanism are non propagating, static and contain no energy. They must couple with another resonator capable of accepting the leaky mode in order tunnel through and propagate. Most importantly, what I learned, is that this phenomena is described in a bunch of related ways that have different and imprecise terminology, and it is described classically and quantumly, leading to difficulty in finding clarity. Oh yeah....most of the research I found dealt with dielectric waveguides, which allow both E and H evanescent fields/surface plasmons to escape, but in an air-metal-air interface, only H evanescent fields/plasmons tunnel through. E can't get through. God speed. These are strange indeed.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 07:19 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2992 on: 11/06/2014 07:47 PM »
It has been on my to do list to share this with the group. Dr. White lays out some math and a proof starting on slide 41 in the backup slides.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5845
  • USA
  • Liked: 5925
  • Likes Given: 5269
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2993 on: 11/06/2014 08:13 PM »
It has been on my to do list to share this with the group. Dr. White lays out some math and a proof starting on slide 41 in the backup slides.
We have discussed this presentation with Frobnicat about a hundred pages along.  Ron Stahl has also commented on this work.

No formulas or math in this presentation are applicable to obtain thrust estimates for the EM Drives.

I have referred to slides 45 and 46 of this presentation some pages ago: White shows the spreadsheet without showing what are the equations behind the spreadsheet predictions.  I also commented on the fact that the direction of the force predicted (ExB) is perpendicular to the displacements measured in the "Anomalous..." report.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 08:20 PM by Rodal »

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2994 on: 11/06/2014 08:20 PM »
Slide 43 and 44.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2744
  • 92129
  • Liked: 705
  • Likes Given: 240
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2995 on: 11/06/2014 08:32 PM »
@Mulletron -
Quote
Most importantly, what I learned, is that this phenomena is described in a bunch of related ways that have different and imprecise terminology, and it is described classically and quantumly, leading to difficulty in finding clarity.

Oh boy, you can say that again!
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2996 on: 11/06/2014 08:57 PM »
Well that specific impulse example from slide 43 is 40625 years. It melted down the quick and dirty delta V calculator I use from here: http://www.strout.net/info/science/delta-v/intro.html and gave me a delta V of 697,912,744,985.77 m/s. Acceleration of .544m/s^2. Velocity after 1 year 17,166,981 m/s. Whoa mama! Good thing there is a cosmic speed limit. Seems like something is really screwed up here. This is for chemical rockets. Anyway, I have to figure out how to get the thrust http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/specimp.html numbers with the little info I have. If I can. I don't think this rocket equation stuff will work here. Any rocket scientists out there? The thrust part is confusing the crap out of me and I feel the answer is staring me right in the face. This QV stuff is confusing. Maybe I could take the measured thrust from the anomalous thrust paper and wrap it around and see if the impulse values on slide 43 jive. Anybody here especially gifted at math?

Anyway, that calculator isn't a good test because it is for chemical rockets. I used 10000kg before and 9460kg after with the an Isp of 1.282x10^12 seconds from the slide. The ship masses were from the example from appendix A here: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf. Just having some fun. They don't mean anything. But I can wrap those numbers right back around and do some checking if I so desire.

But I did think of a possible way to solve the conservation of energy paradox someone brought up a few pages back. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1283252#msg1283252

and here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1275281#msg1275281

Tomorrow I'll go back and read their comments again and actually break out my calculator and see what I can do here. Admittedly I have no idea how to deal with the neutrino mass.

We need to take into account that fusion reactors do lose mass by emitting massive neutrinos. So quantum thrusters space ships lose mass just like chemical rocket space ships do, in a different way.

So the example on slide 43 is for a Mach test article @2Mhz, can anyone adapt it to the Brady et al test article using the same rationale? He invokes QVPT in the latest test campaign report we've been tearing apart: http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf

I mean, given the info we have from various sources (measured thrust/power/frequency) combined with the screenshot below, isn't that enough to reverse engineer this thing?
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 11:04 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2997 on: 11/06/2014 10:55 PM »
@Mulletron
Fusion reactors do lose mass by emitting "massive neutrinos" at relativistic speeds (and the rest mass part energy content is negligible compared to the emitted kinetic energy), but first principles first : they lose mass because they give energy. Giving energy E is losing at least mass E/cē. Please do due diligence to the theoretical bounds before tackling more contingent aspects.

I would be glad to hear about a sensible solution to the "energy paradox" of propellantless propulsion schemes, because if one is to believe to constant thrust/power ratio of the order of 1N/kW (and this clearly appear to be the case when proponents put forward amazing mission profiles) then one surely has a better option than messing around with nuclear fuel (be it for fission or fusion) : use auxiliary thrusters on a fast rotating shaft, extract free unlimited energy, use free unlimited energy to power main thruster => infinite ISP rocket.



For quantitative details and stability issues see
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1255765#msg1255765
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1255794#msg1255794

I don't know why people doing the mission profiles at 1N/kW are not advocating this obvious consequence of 1N/kW. Save maybe that "unlimited energy" would be immediately labelled crackpottery while "unlimited momentum" (with no intrinsic rest frame, making it as easy to push at the end of acceleration than at the beginning, which is not the case on a road) would have more chance to fly under the radars ?

« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 11:22 PM by frobnicat »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2998 on: 11/06/2014 11:41 PM »
Quote
Signing "Very respectfully" a post that charges "Pretty much everything quoted above is either factually inaccurate, a logical fallacy, or a cognitive bias. The rest is weasel words. " does not make it respectful.

The subject being discussed in this thread is EM Drives and Spaceflight.

Well I am smart enough to recognize an agent provocateur on a forum whose mission is to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt. FUD. Because they have a conflict of interest (all things Woodward and his book). We've been here. I remember his treatment of Dr. M for example. So I calls em like I sees em. As I said, this is the last time I ftt. Giving in to the FUD creates distractions which is what they want. Back to the subject at hand, EMdrives and the science for or against them.

Thank you for your patience.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the situation is just exactly as I described it.  QVF and E-M both fail the test of what makes real science, for exactly the reasons I've here explained.  QVF contradicts EEP and GR and for it to be true, these well established theories cannot be.    The E-M model fails simple conservation of momentum through a misunderstanding of what the concept of "group velocity" entails.  None of what I am saying is surprising, or a minority position--it is what the vast majority of physicists will tell you and in fact what they argue all across the web.

As to your misunderstandings about what virtual particles are, I suggest at least go read wiki.  You could not be more wrong and don't even seem to understand the issues.  Everything I wrote is true.  You just don't understand it nor agree with it.

And with that, yeah, we really need to be done and let the others do their thing.  If you stop posting the ridiculous nonsense about how these broken models obtain I promise not to continue to set you straight again and again.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2999 on: 11/07/2014 01:17 AM »
Anybody here especially gifted at math?

You talkin' to me?  You can't be...

Quote from: Mulletron
Well that specific impulse example from slide 43 is 40625 years...

Just threw an eyeball over Sutton 7th, chapter 2, Definitions and Fundabmentals, where they define Isp.

That "Equivalent Mass" equation of Slide 43 is not at all an equivalent to chemical rocketry, that I can tell.

It is a bogus Isp.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags: