Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 794813 times)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #500 on: 09/13/2014 03:45 AM »
OK, this was an enjoyable discussion.

You admit that <<There is an instantaneous reaction that results from communication forward and then backward in time>>

There are two things here that bothered me greatly:  1) instantaneous reaction and 2) communication backwards in time.

I would rather consider other alternatives, which respect the arrow of time, and where there is no instantaneous reaction.  I have much more of a problem with  " communication backwards in time" than with the information traveling through an extra dimension in the Chung-Freese metric.   You know, there are string theories (one of them proposed by Professor Randall at Harvard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall%E2%80%93Sundrum_model )) that support the idea of gravitation being the only force that escapes our 3-D Universe -that's why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces-. 

I think that Dr. Woodward also is not 100% comfortable: he smiled and said "that's the obvious question to ask" and he said "presumably....".   Presumably means that he is not 100% comfortable with this.   And he didn't give only one alternative, he gave two:  the Wheeler-Freeman was one, and constraining the equation to become elliptic instead of hyperbolic was another one.  To me it looks like he was not very certain of what is the answer...

Let's continue this later  :)
« Last Edit: 09/13/2014 04:18 AM by Rodal »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #501 on: 09/13/2014 01:04 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,

@PaulMarch

Not sure if you will be able to answer this or not but, are there any plans for EagleWorks to carry out tests on Woodward's M-E devices?

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 #502 on: 09/13/2014 01:21 PM »
Previous posts at NBF (of mine) have been pasted here;  so far, I see little love for the position(s) I've taken.

Hah! 

Most of the objections were issues of writing style, but I wouldn't worry about it.  I have "stylistic" issues myself.  Check my deleted post history for details.

Still, from my armchair, the propellantless propulsion "team" gives every impression of being honestly convinced that they have discovered a natural phenomenon which they hope could be harnessed for HSF.

They can barely discern the effect from background noise, and have yet to float the device over the conference room table, in front of investors.  From a stylistic standpoint, I object strenuously to the culturally optimistic projections of missions to Saturn and so forth, particularly when HSF in the immediate neighboorhood is so primitive.

They assert that NASA decisionmakers have to be sold on the sizzle of this speculative future if they are to even get small amounts of money for their research.  This just irks me to think that the folks at NASA keep forgetting the potential for a propellantless drive flight system.

They do not answer questions about what does the device push on.  As I said above,
one could say they have ansered the question about what their devices instantaneously push upon, if and only if any answer were acceptable without experimental proof or without requiring the "answer" to reconcile other theoretical incompatabilities.

So.... many thanks for your algebraic explanation.  I will be sending you a bill for the two or three sheets of used paper that I must now use in order to print this out for my education.

Hope ya don't mind.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #503 on: 09/13/2014 02:14 PM »

@PaulMarch

Not sure if you will be able to answer this or not but, are there any plans for EagleWorks to carry out tests on Woodward's M-E devices?

@birchoff

See this paper by Paul March, Fig.7 and Fig.8, p.1330:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31119.0;attach=496011

FIGURE 7. Woodward’s Mach-2MHz MLT Test Article, vxB core & March’s Test Stand.
FIGURE 8. Mach-2MHz MLT Test Results - Predicted Thrust is 1.3 / 5.0 Milligram-Force.

and this paper by Dr. White, slide 40:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf

It appears from this that Paul March's/Dr.Woodward's device is the one tested in the 2005 campaign shown by Dr. White giving:

Thrust ~ 3 mN

Specific Force ~ 0.3 N/kW



« Last Edit: 09/13/2014 02:20 PM by Rodal »

Offline GoatGuy

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Loving Space, NASA, physics and dialog!!!
  • Berkeley CA USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #504 on: 09/13/2014 02:16 PM »
A few caveats :

1. Your calculations are Newtonian mechanics, when approaching c speeds or Thrust/Power ratios below 1/c its no longer valid...

2. Ok so we are breaking energy conservation, great : Noether's theorem show this implies reality not to be time invariant. Hard to swallow much much below cosmological timescales.

3. Ok so energy is conserved but the acquired energy is pumped from vacuum, not free energy but rel cheap energy, great : quoting myself  "tap into vacuum zero-point energy, which would no longer be zero-point...

4. Penultimate point : if the k factor somehow decays with acquired speed ...  it's really difficult to see what would make the system "remember" this particular initial reference frame

5. Last point : the k=0.4 N/kW figure used for the mission profiles implies possible breakeven starting at speeds of 1/k=2.5km/s relative to a fixed frame. ... I'd like to see the experiment done on a freely rotating arm, in an otherwise rotationally symmetric setting around the axis.

Replies...

(1) - Yes, agreed.  However, at the velocities contemplated even to get to the next star, we're way, way below relativistic velocities that require changing the simple math of Newton.  Even doing a "fly thru" to alpha Centauri using the same ship that was proposed to make it to Saturn in 289 days would only be going 8.9% of c in 98 elapsed years.

(2) - We probably agree, but my ignorance of Noether's Theorem is a hindrance.

(3) - I guess this is where I get stuck: if there is some tinderbox of really cheap energy that these things are tapping into, it just kind of breaks down Physics. Even Casimir forces don't break physics: they imply measurable attractive/repulsive forces on micron-to-angstrom scales, between various electromagnetically active materials, and they have been measured to not be much different than envisioned.  Moreover, (sadly for those wishing to employ Casimir force(s) for making free-energy devices), like electromagnetic and gravitational fields, the circular integration of force over any closed path in a Casimir field is exactly zero

(4) - Indeed... the initial reference-frame memory is required if total system energy is to be conserved.  It is the only way that the magical caveat ("system cannot exceed ΔV=2/k ...") can be maintained.  Δ means "change", which means "from initial state".  Hence... yep, we agree.

Personally, I really hope that the effect is real, that it doesn't have "memory issues", that it can be scaled with higher Q devices or higher dielectric piezoelectric quality factors, to far higher 'k' values than the present 5 to 22 µN/W reported levels. The 1/k for these (200,000 m/s to 45,000 m/s respectively) are far too high to employ here on Planet Dirt as alternative energy force generators.  Unobtanium.  But somewhere north of 2 mN/W, the critical 1/k velocity of 500 m/s becomes entirely attainable for large rotors;  COP of 5+ can be imagined as manufacturable, with moderately exotic materials.

GoatGuy
« Last Edit: 09/13/2014 02:18 PM by GoatGuy »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #505 on: 09/13/2014 02:29 PM »
frobnicat <<3. Ok so energy is conserved but the acquired energy is pumped from vacuum, not free energy but rel cheap energy, great : quoting myself  "tap into vacuum zero-point energy, which would no longer be zero-point... >>

GoatGuy <<(3) - I guess this is where I get stuck: >>

How about discussing the actual equations that Dr. White uses to calculate the thrust?

Dr. White uses a "local quantum vacuum density" that is several orders of magnitude larger than the zero-point quantum vacuum density.

(Not that I agree with the physical model they propose, see my previous posts; but it would be interesting to discuss the actual equations he uses instead)
« Last Edit: 09/13/2014 02:32 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 #506 on: 09/13/2014 02:39 PM »
... the possibilities of delivering grand pianos to Saturn moons for enthusiasts.

Whoah there, kemosabe.  I've never promised anybody a piano.  I only promise ponies. 
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 #507 on: 09/13/2014 02:39 PM »
@GoatGuy, frobnicat,

Your arguments illustrate that the operational principles of the EM drive satisfy Clark's third law - they are, "indistinguishable from magic". Your arguments do not advance our understanding of those principles. Others have taken the risk and dared to postulate principles but I know of none that are accepted. Go ahead, take the risk, postulate physics sufficiently advanced as to cast light on the difference between operation of the EM drive and magic.

Your assertion that the arguments above illustrate that the devices are "indistinguishable from magic", is itself only an assertion.

For purposes of discussion, let us assume that the devices have been theoretically dis-proven to be "indistinguishable from magic".  If the "dis-proof" has been proven, then indeed that does in fact advance our understanding, because we would no longer have to expend time talent and treasure working on a device that will never perform as hoped.

To put it another way, those two avatars are not claiming to be able to build a device which would send a 90 ton spacecracft  to Saturn and return a significant fractional mass of that spacecraft to Earth 788 days later.

The onus of proof is on those who make the extraordinary claim, not on those who find mathematical and theoretical objections to those claims.

Just sayin'.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2014 02:50 PM by JohnFornaro »
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 #508 on: 09/13/2014 02:40 PM »
Regarding the EM-Drive, I thought it was pretty well established that Shawyer's explanation implied a violation of conservation of momentum, and that thus if the drive worked it would be for some other reason.

That is my recollection as well.  Over on the far too long "Propellantless Propulsion" thread, there was a seemingly valid, to me, disputation of Shawyer's work.

Quote
Basically, your energy balance isn't complete until you've accounted for the device's interaction with the rest of the matter in its Hubble sphere, whatever form that interaction takes.  In other words, you're drawing the box too small.

Furthermore, without something to push on, you aren't just violating conservation of energy; you're violating conservation of momentum too.

I don't care for the various "free energy" claims either.  How do these devices push and pull on all the matter in their Hubble sphere, instantaneously, and in a controlled direction, subject to the whims of the spaceship's driver?

While I am interested in the experimental setup, I am also interested in the theory.

« Last Edit: 09/13/2014 02:48 PM by JohnFornaro »
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 #509 on: 09/13/2014 02:40 PM »
...all attempts at putting intrinsic frames of reference of space/vacuum or aether back on the table failed experimentally so far ...

I keep on believing in the ether, because it would explain so much, including inertia.

But that's my work, no excuses, no blame to another. 

Quote
I'm against a "what if it works" scenario that won't go to all the inescapable consequences, when the consequences are on firm ground that couldn't possibly be overtaken by the hypothesis.

Bingo.

You do a pretty damn good job with English there, buddy.  What is your native tongue?
« Last Edit: 09/14/2014 01:27 PM by JohnFornaro »
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 #510 on: 09/13/2014 02:40 PM »

Dr . Woodward answers the question with the following statement:

it is a radiation reaction interaction, presumably, that involves the Wheeler-Feynman ...

I really appreciate your analysis of the experimental setup.  However, Mr. Woodward does not answer any questions at all by saying "presumably".
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 #511 on: 09/13/2014 02:41 PM »
Of course not.  The whole point of the advanced/retarded wave concept in W-F is that you can get instantaneous action at a distance without breaking causality; no momentum or energy or information need travel faster than c.

I objected to the advanced/retarded wave concept here:


Woodward brought up [advanced/retarded wave concept] in his book.


Cuddihy attempts to explain why my objection is incorrect, but I think he misses my point:

"somehow predicting my whimsical left and right turns" is not correct.

If I am driving a spacecraft which uses the advanced/retarded wave concept as a key principle of its operation, somehow, as I go on a joyride thru the galaxy, those gravitational waves that I'm depending on for propulsion change direction instantaneously with every whimsical turn of my hand on the steering wheel of my spaceship. 

Makes no sense to me.

And it is strange to consider a General Relativity theory where one divorces completely from the Quantum Mechanics arrow of time (the Weak Force), but postulates that gravitational waves travel effectively with infinite speed, as with "action at a distance" (a concept only known in Quantum Mechanics entanglement).

Yeah it is.

Do you [93143] claim that Dr. Woodward misspoke in the video? Or that Dr. Woodward meant that instantaneous action is not an infinite speed? How long a period of time is instantaneous according to Dr. Woodward?

I dunno, but that video is not the body of Mr. Woodward's work.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #512 on: 09/13/2014 02:47 PM »

Dr . Woodward answers the question with the following statement:

it is a radiation reaction interaction, presumably, that involves the Wheeler-Feynman ...

 Mr. Woodward does not answer any questions at all by saying "presumably".

Yes Dr. Woodward clearly said "presumably" (in the video I referenced)  :).  And Dr. Woodward answered only one question -not several questions- in that video.

Please listen to Dr. Woodward's answer again, and if you don't agree he said "presumably" please post the answer you hear he gave: (
[ ]
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))
« Last Edit: 09/13/2014 03:19 PM by Rodal »

Offline GoatGuy

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Loving Space, NASA, physics and dialog!!!
  • Berkeley CA USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #513 on: 09/13/2014 02:48 PM »
1. Most of the objections were issues of writing style...

2. HSF

3. They can barely discern the effect from background noise (and so) I object strenuously to the culturally optimistic projections of missions to Saturn and so forth...

4. They assert that NASA decisionmakers have to be sold on the sizzle...

5. They do not answer questions about what does the device push on.

6. So.... I will be sending you a bill for the two or three sheets of used paper...

Replies:

(1) Thank the Diety for that.  My style won't likely change, so I can rest satisfied that it'll pique some people's pin-feathers.

(2) HSF.  HSF?  Ah... Human Space Flight.  See... I'm a newbie.

(3) Some experimenters presented a table showing 5.5 to over 21 micronewtons per watt (at under 3 watts input).  Won't float the thruster over the board table, but still getting closer to the levels needed to really "invest deep".  Now, missions to Saturn in 286 days?  Yes, those are galling.

(4) Sizzle, schmizzle. The rather conservative Make-in-Missouri types of NASA want to see a large enough effect with a criteria somewhere around 1 mN/W to challenge existing methods such as Xenon ion drives, which achieve a similar thrust, without requiring the "magic" of pulling on the Universe's Zero-point Wind, etc.  They don't need sizzle.  They need 1 mN/W with the upside potential to make thrust substantially greater than this, theoretically.

(5) What is being deflected is the sense I get: if it is the Universe itself, then that's a pretty startling idea, but not a particularly outrageous one.  Most people don't even give it consideration, but when you or I hop in a car and accelerate onto the highway, we are pushing against the whole Earth, which ever so infintessimally, is accelerated in the opposite direction.  The whole system is MV invariant. 

The reason why I say deflected instead of pushed against is this:  if we are pushing against something (like the Earth, for our car situation), then the amount of energy expended depends on both the initial velocity of the car relative to the pusher-plate, and the change-in-velocity (integration of acceleration) of the vehicle, times its mass.

Or, to put it a bit more succinctly:

P = maV   (mass times acceleration times velocity)...

the higher the V, the more power P is required.  Empirically, in cars this makes sense ... at low velocities, the power of the engine can produce (through gearing) high accelerations.  At high velocities, it cannot.  No magic, just physics.

OK, that being what it is, then if we are pushing against the Universe, then it must be relative to our velocity compared to the universe's velocity frame.  There is no way around that one, I'm afraid.  However, as I recall an analogy trotted forth in another forum about just this, the poster said,

Quote
But Goat, the Mach Woodward is deflecting the intertial energy of the Universe, not unlike how a sailboat's sails are harvesting energy from the passing wind

This is an intriguing idea - because at low velocities (non-relativistic, to be sure), the very fast, very tenuous "inertial wind" could be deflected to produce tangible force, without seeming to diminish as our test vehicle is accelerated to higher velocities.  It is hugely attractive, even if there is little-to-no theory to support the idea.  It also might imply that there wouldn't be directionality anisotropy, as the inertial wind could be directly related to the expansion of SpaceTime itself, which we now know to be ongoing, and accelerating itself.  Energy from latching onto the expansion of the Universe.  Wow.  That'd be a big supply!

(6) OK - I'm glad you used used paper to paper these ideas ideologically.  (Sorry, I couldn't pass the opportunity to pen a sentence that employs double-words in succession, homophones with different meaning.)

GoatGuy

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #514 on: 09/13/2014 03:33 PM »
Concerning a critique of Dr. White's QVPT model, besides addressing the actual equations and justification that Dr. White used (including the fact that Dr. White uses a "local quantum vacuum density" several orders of magnitude larger than the zero point quantum vacuum density), a fair analysis would address Dr. White's attempt at analysis of conservation issues. 

(For example the "QVPT Conservation Issues" slide where Dr. White wrote: “Compressed” vacuum serves as potential energy source (like a compressed spring, hence “negative”); “expanding” the vacuum does work on the system which has the net effect of increasing system box’s kinetic energy, etc. etc.).

« Last Edit: 09/13/2014 03:50 PM by Rodal »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #515 on: 09/13/2014 04:19 PM »

2. Ok so we are breaking energy conservation, great : Noether's theorem show this implies reality not to be time invariant. Hard to swallow much much below cosmological timescales.

(2) - We probably agree, but my ignorance of Noether's Theorem is a hindrance.

If you are fighting on the energy conservation ground this is a chief weapon ! Specifically you might be interested in the following link that explains how energy can be NOT conserved on cosmological scales : http://motls.blogspot.fr/2010/08/why-and-how-energy-is-not-conserved-in.html. Don't expect clarifications from me as most "details" are beyond my physics. Bottom line of consequences : yes energy conservation can be considered broken at cosmological scales when space is not asymptotically flat at large distances (but "energy" is by itself an ill-defined concept in this setting), no it's not a practical way to produce energy for free (see comments)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #516 on: 09/13/2014 04:42 PM »
<< we are breaking energy conservation, great : Noether's theorem >>
 <<We probably agree, but my ignorance of Noether's Theorem is a hindrance.>>

Noether's theorem applies to a postulated Lagrangian, if the Lagrangian that was assumed is an incorrect model of physical reality (because it ignores important physical terms, or because it contains mathematical terms that are not a proper model of reality), Noether's theorem cannot correct this error, as Noether's theorem will  not produce a conservation law in accordance with reality.  (Garbage IN, Garbage  OUT applies.  "IN" is the assumed Lagrangian, "OUT" is the conservation law by Noether's theorem ..)

You should ask yourself: were all the relevant energy terms properly defined and included in the assumed Lagrangian?

Noether's theorem doesn't know anything concerning whether the assumed Lagrangian is a proper model of reality...
« Last Edit: 09/13/2014 04:51 PM by Rodal »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #517 on: 09/13/2014 05:05 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.


Jose':

"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."

Agreed but it appears others on this forum still want to go down other rabbit trails in pursuit of the holy grail as the additional four pages of posts on the topic since I last looked will attest. :)  However I will point out that Dr. Woodward's M-E conjecture does not need instantaneous Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces or John Wheeler's elliptical constraint equations equivalent of same to allow the M-E conjecture to work as Jim proposes.  It just needs Mach's principle to be an integral part of Einstein's General Relativity Theory (GRT) and that the cosmological gravitational field energy density phi is equal to c^2 in a spatially flat universe.  Woodward has made a very strong case for just these assertions in his published journal papers from 1995 and on, in his ongoing M-E e-mail group, and especially in his 2013 "Making Starships and Stargates" book.  In other words if Einstein's GRT and the original Einstein equivalence principle holds, Mach-Effects are already part of these theoretical monuments if you know where to look for them. 

As to the other theoretical issues you and others have raised in this thread, we probably won't find the final answers to these enigmas until QM, GRT and the Standard Model are seamlessly integrated into a theory of everything (ToE).  (I know, I know, the answer is "42" :) )  Along this path however, I might suggest you consider that QM's supposed "greatest mistake" in calculating the vacuum energy density, (See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html ), isn't a mistake after all, and consider the idea that ALL elementary particles like the electron are in fact 5+D vacuum energy rarefaction vortices like a tornado being balanced and maintained by electrostatic and gravitational forces per Woodward's ADM conjecture.  Past that it really gets strange and removed from experimental facts, so back to the lab work.

BTW, I'm a little late is saying this, but tell Goat Guy that he needs to perform his energy conservation analysis in the 4D GRT formalism and not the flat space-time Newtonian version he's been using to date when performing M-E or Q-Thruster based momentum and energy conservation calculations.  Woodward's 2004 M-E derivation paper's appendix A can show what's needed here.

As for White's Q-Thrusters, energy & momentum conservation is observed by the fact that the vacuum derived propellant has an energy equivalent mass that does have a velocity less than c.  And just like the standard rocket equation, your rocket's maximum obtainable velocity is dependent on the maximum exhaust velocity of the Q-Thruster that is driven by all its local and perhaps gravitational field input energies.  Our current model for same indicates that these vacuum e/p pair like propellant velocities should be in the range of 10,000-to-10,000,000 m/s for the geometries and input power levels we've looked at to date, but of course only if our Q-Thruster model Excel sheet is correct. 

PS:  A Hall thruster's input power to thrust efficiency or specific thrust is around 0.05 N/kWe using today's commercially available thrusters.  Air breathing jet engines can have thrust efficiencies of up to ~75 N/kWe at take off, so assuming a 0.40N/kWe for our Copernicus Orbital calculations is not way out on a limb, and in fact is representative of the performance of my first two Mach-Lorentz Thrusters (MLT) that I built in 2003 and 2004 and reported on in my STAIF-2006 paper.

Now to pay the bills...

Best,

Star-Drive

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #518 on: 09/13/2014 05:13 PM »
frobnicat <<3. Ok so energy is conserved but the acquired energy is pumped from vacuum, not free energy but rel cheap energy, great : quoting myself  "tap into vacuum zero-point energy, which would no longer be zero-point... >>

GoatGuy <<(3) - I guess this is where I get stuck: >>

How about discussing the actual equations that Dr. White uses to calculate the thrust?

Dr. White uses a "local quantum vacuum density" that is several orders of magnitude larger than the zero-point quantum vacuum density.

(Not that I agree with the physical model they propose, see my previous posts; but it would be interesting to discuss the actual equations he uses instead)

As I said, my understanding is limited. While I feel confident I can derive some practical consequences of exotic physics, when given phenomenological effects of said exotica (like for instance thrust/power>1/c without expelled reaction mass), as only an engineer by formation I shouldn't feel qualified and shouldn't have the time to dive into the exotic theories by themselves, did too much already. But I will read with great interest, in a state of trance, the ongoing theoretical speculations.

Can't resist. Just to be clear : if some net energy can be extracted from vacuum then something about vacuum is not understood and some other theories are needed. But I don't see how a higher density makes any difference :  the "problem" from my limited pov is to be able to get from vacuum any useful net energy or net thrust at all, however small. Why Dr White needs this higher density vacuum, to reconcile quantitatively with claimed magnitudes ?

Still willing to contribute, if possible, about experimental setup and possible classical explanations of the results.

@John : I'm French, and writing meaningful English is a daily struggle. Better you don't hear me speak English. Just like with advanced physics, I'm just pretending I can do it  ::)

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 775
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 780
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #519 on: 09/13/2014 07:23 PM »
To get a... well, obvious question out of the way, if the effect is real, and is predicted to scale up, why not build a 33 kilowatt device, place it on an old fashioned weighing scale, and wow the world with a whole pound of thrust?
« Last Edit: 09/13/2014 07:23 PM by RotoSequence »

Tags: