Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 763269 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 #440 on: 09/11/2014 08:16 PM »
3. Is the torsion pendulum the only way to test a device of this sort on Earth?

There are several types of small thrust measurement devices. ...

Hey, thanks!  Great overview! 1, 2, & 4?

Best to ignore Goatguy ...

Sheesh, what a diatribe.  Speaking as a Capricorn, he is an embarrasment to my sign.

Still, a pet peeve of mine regarding these not yet proven technologies is the discussion about future "expectations", based on "theoretical models", and the like.

Quote from: the Brady, White, March paper
Based on test data and theoretical model development, the expected thrust to power for initial flight applications is expected to be in the 0.4 newton per kilowatt electric (N/kWe) range, which is about seven times higher than the current state of the art Hall thruster in use on orbit today.

The following predictions of missions to Saturn and all strain credulity, because they are merely the application of numbers to an equation, and do not flesh out the many requirements needed to actually carry out one of these missions, other than the single metric of "0.4 newton per kilowatt electric (N/kWe)".

It's not acceptable to handwave such missions into a suggested plausible existance based only on "theoretical models".  It's not like the technology, if proven, has no perceived utility.

Anyhow, it is fascinating to follow the real discussion going on above.

Oh.  And I can easily lowball your sister. I'll run those ads for $5M.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 856
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #441 on: 09/11/2014 08:25 PM »
I'm not quite following GoatGuy's reasoning, but there are issues that can arise from a high-Q RF system.  My own focus of concern is unbalanced forces from RF in the feed line.  Without knowing the routing of the feed line I can't evaluate these potential errors properly, but plausible case can easily produce the force levels I've seen cited.

Please note that the entire RF system inlcuding its voltage controlled oscillator, phased locked loop, RF amplifier, RF coupler and coaxial transmission lines are hard mounted on the moving torque pendlum arm with the test artricle as it would be in flight.  The only power lines that comes across the liquid metal contacts (LMC) are the +5.0Vdc control and +28.0Vdc and their associated ground power lines for each circuit.  The Maxwell stress forces created in the LMC pots due to these dc power currects are calculated to be in the nano-Newton range and just act to restore the LMC metal pins to the center of the LMC pots that hold the Galanstan.  In otherwords these Maxwell centering stress forces just increase the effective C-flex spring constants by less than a tenth of a percent even when drawing ten amps through the plus and minus 28Vdc bus wires.  And yes, all these power wires are twisted and and shielded throughout their runs to cancel out most of B-fields associated with the RF amplifer and control power feeds.  Even with all that though, we appeared to still have a small residual interaction between these stray power line shield B-fields interacting with the stray B-fields from the magnetic damper, so we've already upgraded the magnetic damper design to further reduce this problem.  I've attached a couple of slides with the new magnetic damper design and buildup pictures.
Star-Drive

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5904
  • Likes Given: 5252
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #442 on: 09/11/2014 08:48 PM »
@Star-Drive (Paul March)

Concerning

<<The current plan is to support an IV&V test campaign at the Glenn Research Center (GRC) using their low thrust torsion pendulum followed by a repeat campaign at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) using their low thrust torsion pendulum. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory has also expressed an interest in performing a Cavendish Balance style test with the IV&V shipset.>>

Of course, any and all further independent testing is great and should be greatly encouraged.  For the reasons I pointed out previously, I think that it is most crucial to test in a different type of thrust balance, and of the ones discussed above (GRC, JPL and John Hopkins) it looks like the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Cavendish Balance style test would be the most different, and therefore the most interesting.

« Last Edit: 09/11/2014 08:48 PM by Rodal »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #443 on: 09/11/2014 10:56 PM »
Maybe I missed that but anyone inquired or commented on the apparently systematic slope changes (downward) after the relatively clean square thrust periods ? Is there a higher period (>200s) harmonic mode in the system that gives those overall slopes on the order of 1µN/s, or is this just long period "random drifts" due to sensitivity of system ? The charts show the signals measured relative to this slowly drifting baseline (drawn as dotted yellow curve, like piecewise linear best fits). The statistically small sample makes hypothesis risky, but visually there appear a systematic downward change of slope after thruster's pulses, and (also not quite clearly) no slope changes after the (arguably smaller magnitude) 30 µN calibration periods. What is the relevance or irrelevance of this drifting baseline ?


We found that this slope change after the test article and RF amplifer were turned on for 10-to-20 seconds was apprently due to IR radiation from the amplifier's heatsink that is mounted on the back side of the torque penlulum on an 8" square platform was affecting the top C-flex bearing more than the lower one.  We tried aluminum shielding the top bearing assembly from the heatsink IR source and managed to reverse the metioned thermal slope in the thrust plots, but after shielding the bottom one we could reduce it but still coundn't completely get rid of this thremal drift artifact.  Currently we are just living with it.

Thank you for this answer.
This gives a sense of how sensitive is the system and hairy to calibrate and use.

If due to the generator's IR radiation this slope changing effect should then be the same with the Null Test RF load, but the 3 charts of fig.20 show disparate results, 11:13 downward trend after power off like ones of fig.19, 11:23 upward trend during power on and then resuming same slope as before, 11:28 no discernible change of slope at all during power on neither after power off. Unless the closely paced successive runs change the successive heat equilibriums/exchanges with hard to predict outcomes ? If there is long period complex drifts/swings in the system then I'm probably trying to guess at too few samples here... it's just frustrating to see those drifts at comparable magnitudes as the measured effect.

I understand that a thermally induced displacement of mass could mimic a sharp rise in thrust (as it would be the second derivative of temperature) but can't make it quantitatively, while a IR induced thermal effect on the spring constant of the bearings can reach the magnitude observed, but apparent thrust would then be proportional to temperature : couldn't explain the sharp rise has it would then imply instant rise of temperature.

« Last Edit: 09/11/2014 10:59 PM by frobnicat »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 856
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #444 on: 09/11/2014 11:22 PM »
3. Is the torsion pendulum the only way to test a device of this sort on Earth?

There are several types of small thrust measurement devices. ...

Hey, thanks!  Great overview! 1, 2, & 4?

Best to ignore Goatguy ...

Sheesh, what a diatribe.  Speaking as a Capricorn, he is an embarrasment to my sign.

Still, a pet peeve of mine regarding these not yet proven technologies is the discussion about future "expectations", based on "theoretical models", and the like.

Quote from: the Brady, White, March paper
Based on test data and theoretical model development, the expected thrust to power for initial flight applications is expected to be in the 0.4 newton per kilowatt electric (N/kWe) range, which is about seven times higher than the current state of the art Hall thruster in use on orbit today.

The following predictions of missions to Saturn and all strain credulity, because they are merely the application of numbers to an equation, and do not flesh out the many requirements needed to actually carry out one of these missions, other than the single metric of "0.4 newton per kilowatt electric (N/kWe)".

It's not acceptable to handwave such missions into a suggested plausible existance based only on "theoretical models".  It's not like the technology, if proven, has no perceived utility.

Anyhow, it is fascinating to follow the real discussion going on above.

Oh.  And I can easily lowball your sister. I'll run those ads for $5M.

John:

"It's not acceptable to handwave such missions into a suggested plausible existance based only on "theoretical models".  It's not like the technology, if proven, has no perceived utility."

 The NASA managers who control the research dollars have to understand the value proposition in the pursuit of a new propulsion technology or they won't support developing it, period.  And no, they didn't at first perceive and appreciate the utility of this Q-Thruster or Dr. Woodward's near equivalent Mach-Effect Thruster (MET) technologies until we performed a whole family of Copernicus orbital scenarios conservatively based on same, which the JPC report just touched on.  It's really that simple and the managers have at least now been told the theoretical and developmental benifits and risks in the pursuit of this unproven propulsion science and technology, so they can now make an educated choice to pursue it or not based on our orbital analysis work and the current sad state of affairs in the US human spaceflight program.  In other words chemical rockets just won’t cut it going out past Mars even with a robust human spaceflight budget and positive direction from the Whitehouse!  If we could use nuclear rockets, other choices would be availabe for our propulsion needs, but sadly the nuclear propulsion venue is not available to the US space program due to political issues we all know of, unless of course a fusion power breakthrough shows up on our doorsteps...

Best,
« Last Edit: 09/11/2014 11:24 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

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 #445 on: 09/12/2014 01:16 AM »
The NASA managers who control the research dollars have to understand the value proposition in the pursuit of a new propulsion technology or they won't support developing it, period.

Paul, thanks for the engagement.  I totally get the justification argument.  I mean, name one AIAA paper where, among the conclusions, they state; "No, thanks all the same, we got tons of money.  Really."

The fact of the matter is, all that we have is chemical rocketry, and that for the forseeable future.   Your all's effort seems appropriately funded, and you have your work cut out for you.  If the managers you are beholden to must be reminded at every turn that your work has significant potential, one has to wonder at their attention span.

At the same time, you are jumping, without justification in my mind, way too far into the speculative future.  Your task, as they say, is to float the damn thing on the tabletop.  Just get us and twenty tons of stuff to Luna, willya?  By a low energy orbit, if you can.  The rest will follow, but only after that useful demonstration

If Rodal's analysis is faulty, get into those mathematical weeds.  If he has pointed out a weakness in your procedures, acknowledge it and take steps to address his argument.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5904
  • Likes Given: 5252
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #446 on: 09/12/2014 01:59 AM »
John (Fornaro) and Paul (March),

The experimental results and possible explanations are not trivial, addressing and studying them will take patience and time.  There are subtle issues involved because of the extremely small forces being measured. 

There is no hurry. 

I think that we have a great line of communications !.  Let's keep it going. :D


To Infinity and Beyond (or to wherever we can get with the propulsion we have)

Jose' Rodal

Look up at the stars. Try to make sense of what you see. Be curious.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 02:22 AM by Rodal »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7991
  • UK
  • Liked: 1277
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #447 on: 09/12/2014 06:30 AM »
I hope this isn't inappropriate but can I just thank you all for your posting in this thread, hearing from people at the coal face of research has been fascinating to read even if as a lay person I've only understood about fifty percent of it.:)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 856
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #448 on: 09/12/2014 12:58 PM »
John (Fornaro) and Paul (March),

The experimental results and possible explanations are not trivial, addressing and studying them will take patience and time.  There are subtle issues involved because of the extremely small forces being measured. 

There is no hurry. 

I think that we have a great line of communications !.  Let's keep it going. :D


To Infinity and Beyond (or to wherever we can get with the propulsion we have)

Jose' Rodal

Look up at the stars. Try to make sense of what you see. Be curious.

Jose':

I've been involved in testing Dr. Harold Sonny White's Q-Thruster approach to exotic propulsion for seven plus years now, and Dr. James F. Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) work for sixteen years.  (I started down this road in March of 1998 while working for Lockheed-Martin at JSC working as an electrical engineer on the NASA Space Shuttle program.)  I summarize my M-E AKA Woodward Effect research in three STAIF papers published in 2004, 2006 and 2007.  I know Dr. Woodward's body of M-E work extensively having been to his lab at CSUF a number of times now, and IMO Woodward has been seeing real forces in his M-E Thruster (MET) experiments for years. 

These latest experimental results on the Q-thruster is just trying to take Jim's work one step further by attempting to quantize the gravitational field in a manner consistent with Quantum Mechanics (QM), Plasma Physics and General Relativity Theory (GRT).  In other words if you are not already familiar with this body of work that Dr. Woodward started in 1982, you need to perform due diligence in reading several of the papers that Dr. Woodward, Dr. White and I have written over this time period.  Primarily I'm just the electrical engineer turned experimental physicist that is trying to make this exotic propulsion business work, for without something like it, humanity is doomed to stay inside the asteroid belt for the foreseeable future.  In the meantime if you can't find the papers in question e-mail me a note and I'll be glad to get them to you.

Best,
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 01:07 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #449 on: 09/12/2014 02:00 PM »

"It's not acceptable to handwave such missions into a suggested plausible existance based only on "theoretical models".  It's not like the technology, if proven, has no perceived utility."

  It's really that simple and the managers have at least now been told the theoretical and developmental benifits and risks in the pursuit of this unproven propulsion science and technology, so they can now make an educated choice to pursue it or not based on our orbital analysis work and the current sad state of affairs in the US human spaceflight program.


So, unless I am VASTLY mistaken, the only real risks that I can see here are a possible waste of Time, Money and a small amount of resources while pursuing a phenomena that even NASA acknowledges as being "Interesting".  Should it be proven wrong, then I don't see any appreciable fallout, as everyone involved seems to be seeing what they are acknowledging as a real induced motion of some kind.

     If it proves wrong, there doesn't appear to be any attempt a fraud, so no one takes a hit for that, extensive precautions are being taken to ensure that no other inflences could be responsible for what is happening, and the worst fall out I can see is the equivelent of the loose connector in teh CERN laboritiries that made everyone think that they may have spotted FTL neutrinos.  Basicly, everyone said, "OOPS, our bad!" and pretty much went on from there.

     So, if this doesn't prove out, it would be much like Edison's 1000 failures before he perfected the Light Bulb. He didn't fail 1000 times, he simply found 1000 ways that the light bulb wouldn't work.

     With that in mind, I say go for it and let's see where this leads!
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 05:38 PM by JasonAW3 »
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #450 on: 09/12/2014 02:25 PM »
Paul March is one of the nicest guys around. I have seen him taking flak and never altering his manners.


GoatGuy at NBF (they made a new article with the things Paul just published above) is now saying it´s obvious the EM Drive (or any other propellantless drive) is a perpetual motion machine because using a simple mission to Saturn in less than a year proves the energy needed to get there is orders of magnitude larger than the electrical energy input.

Quote from: GG
Mission-to-Saturn.
286 days.

Half that is acceleration, and half is deceleration. It only makes sense to keep the thruster "on" the entire trip, to minimize trip time. Half is about 12,000,000 seconds. This is an important number.

Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!

Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.



well, I guess that in a QM Drive, in theory, the electric energy only allows you to kind of access the much bigger energies of the quantum vacuum?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7991
  • UK
  • Liked: 1277
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #451 on: 09/12/2014 02:41 PM »
Paul March is one of the nicest guys around. I have seen him taking flak and never altering his manners.


GoatGuy at NBF (they made a new article with the things Paul just published above) is now saying it´s obvious the EM Drive (or any other propellantless drive) is a perpetual motion machine because using a simple mission to Saturn in less than a year proves the energy needed to get there is orders of magnitude larger than the electrical energy input.

Quote from: GG
Mission-to-Saturn.
286 days.

Half that is acceleration, and half is deceleration. It only makes sense to keep the thruster "on" the entire trip, to minimize trip time. Half is about 12,000,000 seconds. This is an important number.

Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!

Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.



well, I guess that in a QM Drive, in theory, the electric energy only allows you to kind of access the much bigger energies of the quantum vacuum?

Speaking with a complete ignorance of this guy's past articles, should we take much note of what he says?
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 02:41 PM by Star One »

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
  • United States
  • Liked: 1427
  • Likes Given: 1970
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #452 on: 09/12/2014 03:06 PM »
Paul March is one of the nicest guys around. I have seen him taking flak and never altering his manners.


GoatGuy at NBF (they made a new article with the things Paul just published above) is now saying it´s obvious the EM Drive (or any other propellantless drive) is a perpetual motion machine because using a simple mission to Saturn in less than a year proves the energy needed to get there is orders of magnitude larger than the electrical energy input.

Quote from: GG
Mission-to-Saturn.
286 days.

Half that is acceleration, and half is deceleration. It only makes sense to keep the thruster "on" the entire trip, to minimize trip time. Half is about 12,000,000 seconds. This is an important number.

Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!

Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.



well, I guess that in a QM Drive, in theory, the electric energy only allows you to kind of access the much bigger energies of the quantum vacuum?

Speaking with a complete ignorance of this guy's past articles, should we take much note of what he says?

You should not.  I'm shocked to see him quoted on this thread when we have direct practitioners- including a principle Eagleworks scientist- engaged in open discussion for our benefit.  They could have taken it off-line, but didn't, and that bomb-throwers quotes only serve to shut down the benefits we're getting.
Bring the thunder Elon!

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5904
  • Likes Given: 5252
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #453 on: 09/12/2014 03:49 PM »
Jose':

I've been involved in testing Dr. Harold Sonny White's Q-Thruster approach to exotic propulsion for seven plus years now, and Dr. James F. Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) work for sixteen years. .....
Paul,

Thank you for pointing this out.  I have read with interest several of Dr. Woodward, and Dr. White's papers, including some of your own papers.  It is admirable, in  a sense, to have people willing to pursue research avenues that are not most popular, or commonly accepted.  Concerning Dr. Woodward's, theory, to cut to the chase, as Dr. Woodward himself accepts with a smile in the following presentation (
[ ]
where I have on purpose timed it to when the question is asked, otherwise advance to the end of the presentation at 41:08 minutes (2468 sec)) the obvious question to pose to Dr. Woodward is:

If your interpretation of Mach's principle is that inertia is a gravitational reaction from the rest of the Universe (no matter how distant from your center of mass) how come that reaction takes place INSTANTLY ?

In other words, in Dr. Woodward's theory, the propagation of this gravitational reaction responsible for inertia, has INFINITE speed, which is problematic in a Theory of Relativity (where we usually associate gravitational waves to travel at the speed of light).

Dr. Woodward answers with a smile, that "presumably" it is a radiation reaction attributable to Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory.  With his smile and frank facial expression he acknowledges that this is, let's say... problematic?

Because we know that:

A) The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory assumes that the solutions of the electromagnetic field equations must be invariant under time-reversal symmetry, there is no distinction between past and future.

B)  It therefore assumes that elementary particles are not self-interacting. This is a big drawback of this theory. Indeed, as demonstrated by Hans Bethe, the Lamb shift necessitated a self-energy term to be explained. Feynman and Bethe had an intense discussion over that issue and eventually Feynman himself stated that self-interaction is needed to correctly account for this effect.

C) Wheeler and Feynman conceived of this theory before the Weak Force was understood as it is nowadays.  It is known that the Weak Force implies time-symmetry breaking and gives an arrow of time.  Hence the Weak Force is incompatible with the  Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory, in this sense.

I think that it was wise that you, Dr. White, et.al., decided that <<This paper will not address the physics of the quantum vacuum plasma thruster (QVPT), but instead will describe the recent test campaign>> (Abstract of "Anomalous Thrust Production..." paper).

In that vein, I think it would be best to discuss the experiments without addressing any controversial physical explanation for the time being.

 
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 03:53 PM by Rodal »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #454 on: 09/12/2014 04:15 PM »
Paul March is one of the nicest guys around. I have seen him taking flak and never altering his manners.


GoatGuy at NBF (they made a new article with the things Paul just published above) is now saying it´s obvious the EM Drive (or any other propellantless drive) is a perpetual motion machine because using a simple mission to Saturn in less than a year proves the energy needed to get there is orders of magnitude larger than the electrical energy input.

Quote from: GG
Mission-to-Saturn.
286 days.

Half that is acceleration, and half is deceleration. It only makes sense to keep the thruster "on" the entire trip, to minimize trip time. Half is about 12,000,000 seconds. This is an important number.

Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!

Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.



well, I guess that in a QM Drive, in theory, the electric energy only allows you to kind of access the much bigger energies of the quantum vacuum?

Speaking with a complete ignorance of this guy's past articles, should we take much note of what he says?

You should not.  I'm shocked to see him quoted on this thread when we have direct practitioners- including a principle Eagleworks scientist- engaged in open discussion for our benefit.  They could have taken it off-line, but didn't, and that bomb-throwers quotes only serve to shut down the benefits we're getting.

Fact is, he keeps throwing his bombs, and at least, I am not knowledgeable enough in this advanced physics subjects to expose flaws in his reasoning. And there are plenty of people who do listen to him.

That's why I quoted him here: expecting people to prove him wrong. In the process, I also learn something.

 

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 #455 on: 09/12/2014 04:43 PM »
Quote from: goatguy
Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!

Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.

Is the math here correct or is it not?

I don't care much about his style of writing, nor do I care so much that someone else is "shocked to see him quoted on this thread".  Is this "easy-peasy" math correct or not?

Intuitively, it does not seem likely at all that a 2MWe spacecraft, which includes payload and the necessary reactor and shielding, could transport 90mT to Saturn's moons in the time suggested.  I believe that the 90mT figure has been completely concocted. 

The 300KWe, 788 day manned fly-by only mission to Phobos/Deimos is also sketchy, at least from this armchair.  Here, the authors believe that somehow a 70 mT stack is assembled in a presumably lunar DRO.  The reader is left to assume that this spacecraft has been appropriately analyzed and suggested.

But hey.

Quote from: Rodal
If your interpretation of Mach's principle is that inertia is a gravitational reaction from the rest of the Universe (no matter how distant from your center of mass) how come that reaction takes place INSTANTLY ?

This question has been asked over and over again, but it has not yet been answered by any of the people who are experimenting with these drives, nor any other physicist studying the problem of inertia, that I can tell.

Just sayin'. 

I'm personally happy to read the back and forth regarding the experimental apparatus.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 04:53 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5904
  • Likes Given: 5252
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #456 on: 09/12/2014 05:22 PM »

Quote from: Rodal
If your interpretation of Mach's principle is that inertia is a gravitational reaction from the rest of the Universe (no matter how distant from your center of mass) how come that reaction takes place INSTANTLY ?

This question has been asked over and over again, but it has not yet been answered


Well, yes, it has been answered by Dr. Woodward himself, as I show in the YouTube clip above.  The problem is that Dr. Woodward's explanation relies on the old Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory, which was abandoned by Feynman himself (as I point out above) because of the Lamb shift effect. 

Most importantly, this answer is incompatible with our present knowledge of the Weak Force (as I point out above).   The Weak Force is the only fundamental force that breaks parity-symmetry, and similarly, the only one to break CP-symmetry. 

Has anybody else pointed out the incompatibility of Dr. Woodward's answer (Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory) with the arrow of time shown by the Weak Force?

Bottom line:   I think it would be best to discuss the experiments without addressing any controversial physical explanation for the time being.

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 #457 on: 09/12/2014 05:33 PM »
Well, yes, it has been answered...

That would be the case if and only if any answer were acceptable without experimental proof or without requiring the "answer" to reconcile other theoretical incompatabilities.  Savvy?

As I said, I'm personally happy to read the back and forth regarding the experimental apparatus.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #458 on: 09/12/2014 06:06 PM »
Rodal,

     Unless my understanding of what is being implied here is incomplete, which it probably is, it seems to imply that Gravity and Space itself are closely tied together.

     The Albercrombie Drive, for example, uses weird matter to distort Space in a fashion similar to that postulated in Inflation Theory, allowing the craft generating this distortion to ride behind a wave of compacting Space while riding the wave of expanding space behind it.

     What seems to be implied here is that Space can be distorted in the same way using Gravity, if one were able to create a directionalized gravity well.

     So, hypothetically, if one were to create a toroidal magnetic field off sufficent strength to contain a high energy plasma accellerated along the magnetic lines of force, from south pole to north, through the center of the torus and back out again, accellerating the plasma to relativistic velocities, would not such a system also produce an expansion of space at the southern pole of the field while compressing space at the northern pole of the field, in a similar manner to the Albercumbie Drive?  Mind you, by accellerating the Plasma to Relativistic velocities, we amplify it's effective mass (and gravity) and its' effective distortion of space, proportionally.

     Mind you this is both an oversimplification of my thoughts and likely incorrect, but if Gravity is tied to Space in the manner that is seeminlg applied, then in what way is this hypothisys incorrect?

     The only reason I'm posting this here is due to Rodal's previous post concering the instanatious nature of the effect of gravity.  As such, it could be argued that this is an outgrowth of the EM Drive discussion.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5904
  • Likes Given: 5252
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #459 on: 09/12/2014 06:36 PM »
Rodal,

         The Albercrombie Drive, for example, uses weird matter to distort Space in a fashion similar to that postulated in Inflation Theory...
Rodal's previous post concering the instanatious nature of the effect of gravity.  ..
Jason,

1) The Alcubierre drive needs a large amount of negative mass (not antimatter, not dark matter, but negative mass) to distort spacetime.  The expansion of spacetime that occurred during Inflation was not due to negative mass.  Problems: A) Where is the negative mass going to come from ? and B) It has been shown that the distortion of spacetime that would enable the Alcubierre drive to travel faster than light would also enable it as a time machine, including a time machine enabling time travel to the past.  There are huge problems with that, not the least being a number of paradoxes.


2) My previous post discussed that Dr. Woodward's answer to the fact that his theory implies instantaneous reaction is incompatible with experimental results: it relies on an old theory of Wheeler and Feynman (late 1940's) that Feynman later abandoned due to the experimental results of the Lamb Shift and most importantly is incompatible with our experimental results for the Weak Force.


____

Once we thoroughly understand the experimental results we can proceed to discuss possible physical interpretations.

« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 07:05 PM by Rodal »

Tags: