Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 763974 times)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #900 on: 09/22/2014 03:01 PM »
hey Dr Rodal, regarding the derivation of Woodward's Mach Effect, I asked GiThruster at TalkPolywell

Quote from: GiThruster
I would just recommend the book. If Dr. Rodal wants to be placed on Woodward's general reading list where he can have a dialog on this issue, have him send me a note to this effect with a couple sentences of his background and interest and I'll forward this to Jim.
I take from this that GiThruster (whoever he is) thinks that such a discussion (Woodward's derivation) can only take place there and not here at NASAspaceflight.  Concerning the derivation of transient mass terms, I would rather use the peer-reviewed papers by Dr. Woodward than a book "Making Starships and Stargates and Absurdly Benign Wormholes"

I'll leave the construction of Stargates and Absurdly Benign Wormholes to John: he was moving some large masses yesterday  :)

Guarda, sto solo dicendo

« Last Edit: 09/22/2014 05:20 PM by Rodal »

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1362
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #901 on: 09/22/2014 04:02 PM »
<<Virtual particles, [this means the virtual electron as well as the virtual positron] which are what appear in the loop in that diagram, are not particles.  They are not nice ripples, but more general disturbances.  And only particles have the expected relation between their energy, momentum and mass; the more general disturbances do not satisfy these relations.  So your intuition is simply misled by misreading the diagram.  Instead, one has to do a real computation of the effect of these disturbances.  In the case of the photon, it turns out the effect of this process on the photon mass is exactly zero.>>

Yes, this is certainly correct.  There is not even a mathematical reason to think otherwise. (that I know of anyway)

Always assuming that the experimental results are real:

The only hope I see from QED (so far anyway) is with the 2-photon interaction mediated w/ the dielectic dipoles, and not the symmetrical case. The dispersion in the microwave cavity would have to be connected to a nonlinear term that could generate a massive real escaping particle. (dark matter ??)

What bothers my gut is the symmetry of the GR situation in an AFR.  The presence of the dielectric (and it's charge pairs) might be the antacid for that.  I don't remember anyone trying to add another (nonlinear) differential equation to the EM cavity solutions to get transport properties. ( ~ bulk viscosity as in acoustics etc)

OK, enough grousing, off to dig around in the paper pile .

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #902 on: 09/22/2014 04:40 PM »
<<Virtual particles, [this means the virtual electron as well as the virtual positron] which are what appear in the loop in that diagram, are not particles.  They are not nice ripples, but more general disturbances.  And only particles have the expected relation between their energy, momentum and mass; the more general disturbances do not satisfy these relations.  So your intuition is simply misled by misreading the diagram.  Instead, one has to do a real computation of the effect of these disturbances.  In the case of the photon, it turns out the effect of this process on the photon mass is exactly zero.>>

Yes, this is certainly correct.  There is not even a mathematical reason to think otherwise. (that I know of anyway)

Always assuming that the experimental results are real:

The only hope I see from QED (so far anyway) is with the 2-photon interaction mediated w/ the dielectic dipoles, and not the symmetrical case. The dispersion in the microwave cavity would have to be connected to a nonlinear term that could generate a massive real escaping particle. (dark matter ??)

What bothers my gut is the symmetry of the GR situation in an AFR.  The presence of the dielectric (and it's charge pairs) might be the antacid for that.  I don't remember anyone trying to add another (nonlinear) differential equation to the EM cavity solutions to get transport properties. ( ~ bulk viscosity as in acoustics etc)

OK, enough grousing, off to dig around in the paper pile .

We agree.  Concerning adding nonlinearities to the differential equations, yes people have been trying to do that since at least Schrodinger's time, but so far (from my limited knowledge) A) all quantum mechanics experiments have confirmed the linear equations of quantum mechanics and B) several nonlinear theories lead to unphysical results. 

We agree again concerning the dielectric material because the material introduces a constitutive equation and we know that

A) constitutive equations can certainly be nonlinear (for real materials) and
B) constitutive relations can only be ascertained from experiments and never from theoretical principles

However, what bothers me is that analyzing this shows that (unless they had a very defective PTFE ("Teflon") dielectric and/or much higher transient Electric Field) the dielectric had an imposed Electric Field hundreds of times less than the amount necessary for breakdown of a good sample of PTFE ("Teflon") .  They would have had to either have a very defective PTFE  ("Teflon")  and/or a much higher electric field applied (at least transiently) than the one reported. 

Perhaps their computations don't adequately reflect transient Electric Field terms ?

And even if the dielectric material experienced some sort of breakdown and particles were emitted (either electrons or something more exotic) one still would need these emitted particles to escape the other end of the drive to have propulsion.

And, even if the dielectric material experienced some sort of breakdown and particles were emitted (either electrons or something more exotic) this would not be a propellant-less drive but instead the PTFE  ("Teflon") would have been the propellant, so it would be a big dissapointment for anybody that booked her quick trip to Enceladus based on the reported figures at the end of the report.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2014 04:55 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 #903 on: 09/22/2014 05:06 PM »
I'll leave the construction ... to John: he was moving some large masses yesterday.

Hey.  I resemble that!
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #904 on: 09/22/2014 05:10 PM »
I take from this that GiThruster (whoever he is) thinks that such a discussion (Woodward's derivation) can only take place there and not here at NASAspaceflight.

No, I take that GiThruster thinks Dr Woodward doesnīt really frequents discussion boards, and that GiThruster himself either isnīt capable of doing the derivations that you need or more simply, that he canīt participate in such discussions here, because he was banned long ago from NasaSpaceFlight Forums.

It isnīt so much a question of he thinking if the derivation discussion should take place here. It's a question of that it CANīT take place here, unless Paul March returns to this topic.


I guess you noticed noone else here at Nasa Spaceflight Forums was qualified for the depth of discussion of the derivation of Dr Woodward equations, which was the reason you even said it would be a bit unfair to discuss here as it would be a one sided argument.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2014 05:11 PM by aceshigh »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #905 on: 09/22/2014 05:21 PM »
hey Dr Rodal, regarding the derivation of Woodward's Mach Effect, I asked GiThruster at TalkPolywell

Quote from: GiThruster
I would just recommend the book. If Dr. Rodal wants to be placed on Woodward's general reading list where he can have a dialog on this issue, have him send me a note to this effect with a couple sentences of his background and interest and I'll forward this to Jim.
I take from this that GiThruster (whoever he is) thinks that such a discussion (Woodward's derivation) can only take place there and not here at NASAspaceflight.  Concerning the derivation of transient mass terms, I would rather use the peer-reviewed papers by Dr. Woodward than a book "Making Starships and Stargates and Absurdly Benign Wormholes"

I'll leave the construction of Stargates and Absurdly Benign Wormholes to John: he was moving some large masses yesterday  :)

Guarda, sto solo dicendo

Woodward's stated assumption is (in Woodward's own words)

<< the assumption that all of the power delivered to the capacitors ends up as a proper energy density fluctuation is an optimistic, indeed, perhaps wildly optimistic, assumption>> (Italics added for emphasis)
(p.5 of FLUX CAPACITORS AND THE ORIGIN OF INERTIA http://wqww.theeestory.com/files/Flux_Caps___Origin_of_inertia_04-20-2004.pdf)

Why should the power fluctuation delivered to the capacitors end up as any significant rest energy density fluctuation ?

Woodward fully admits that he just hopes it will.


I say no, that the power fluctuation delivered to the capacitor ends up elsewhere and there is completely insignificant change to the rest energy density.   To access the rest energy E=mc^2 one needs a humongous amount of power (like a nuclear reaction, etc.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence )

This is a little similar to my car (which is not a FLT DeLorean), when I go on the highway the car's power ends up as kinetic energy, wasted heat energy (including friction and dissipation in the rubber tires, etc.).  When I go up a hill you can add some potential energy (and decrease it when I go downhill). But none of the power goes to change the rest energy of my car.  Adherents to this theory will complain that but, but, but it is different for electromagnetic energy in a capacitor or in a dielectric. To which I say, not much difference.  The capacitors and dielectrics involved do not have ongoing nuclear reactions, etc.  The capacitors and dielectrics involved are undergoing very mundane circumstances (just as when you cook some food in your microwave on a teflon-coated dish). If you don't agree, you can resort to experiments to resolve our disagreement...

And to those that claim that Woodward's theory does not involve a big leap of faith, I say: yes it does.  Woodward himself wrote so:

<< the assumption that all of the power delivered to the capacitors ends up as a proper energy density fluctuation is an optimistic, indeed, perhaps wildly optimistic, assumption>>

The problem with Woodward's transient terms is not in Sciama's view of inertia (Mach's effect).  The problem is Woodwrd's assumption that any power fluctuation (not by non-nuclear, etc., means) delivered to capacitors or dielectrics by mundane means can result in a fluctuation in rest energy.
 
« Last Edit: 09/22/2014 05:50 PM by Rodal »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #906 on: 09/22/2014 05:53 PM »
I agree that Dr. Woodward's theory needs a leap of faith *and* to be wildly optimistic about it's utility.
Nevertheless, we have anomalous thrust reported and it needs to be thrashed out and disproved.
The good Dr. Rodal is doing a fine effort here to resolve the questions we have.
Thank you Dr. Rodal for putting the question on an even keel. I know you expect experimental error, but until it is quantified you have an open mind.
Refreshing!

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #907 on: 09/22/2014 06:03 PM »
 :)

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1362
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #908 on: 09/22/2014 06:23 PM »
I do still have Sciama '64 and Erratta.  It'll take a while to remember how to read it ! ;D

The only comment I can remember was "Remember, these Maxwellian equations are just tautological relations between a particle representation and a field representation."

Edit:  I just noticed this was from the "Third International Conference on the Mossbauer Effect"
« Last Edit: 09/22/2014 06:40 PM by Notsosureofit »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #909 on: 09/22/2014 06:25 PM »
I do still have Sciama '64 and Erratta.  It'll take a while to remember how to read it ! ;D

The only comment I can remember was "Remember, these Maxwellian equations are just tautological relations between a particle representation and a field representation."
Isn't that QM in a nutshell?

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #910 on: 09/22/2014 06:37 PM »
I do still have Sciama '64 and Erratta.  It'll take a while to remember how to read it ! ;D

The only comment I can remember was "Remember, these Maxwellian equations are just tautological relations between a particle representation and a field representation."

I have not seen any paper by Sciama on Mach's principle from 1964.  The papers I have seen from him on this topic are his flat spacetime 1953 paper http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Gravite-Inertie-Mass/Inertie/Sciama/D%20W%20Sciama%20-%20On%20the%20origin%20of%20inertia.pdf that Woodward used as a reference and his 1969 paper on a perturbation of General Relativity regarding the same.  None of these papers dealt with Maxwell's equations.

If you have another Sciama paper dealing with Mach's inertia for Maxwell's equations I would be most interested in it.  Particularly since you also have an Errata for the paper.  Is that an official Errata sheet from the author or is it the Errata you found on the paper?  I have not seen an author's Errata sheet either for the 1953 or 1969 papers either.

Could you please provide the title of the 1964 paper and the journal information for such paper?

Thanks
« Last Edit: 09/22/2014 06:41 PM by Rodal »

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1362
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #911 on: 09/22/2014 06:44 PM »
Reviews of Modern Physics vol 36 pp463 and 1103

"The Physical Structure of General Relativity"
« Last Edit: 09/22/2014 06:48 PM by Notsosureofit »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #912 on: 09/22/2014 06:45 PM »
Reviews of Modern Physics vol 36 pp463 and 1103

Thanks.  I don't have that paper.  Does Sciama specifically discuss his Mach's principle in that particular paper too?

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2740
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 237
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #913 on: 09/22/2014 06:49 PM »

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Quote
As a scientific concept, the existence of zero-point energy is not controversial, although the ability to harness it is.[11] Over the years, there have been numerous claims of devices capable of extracting usable zero-point energy. None of the claims have ever been confirmed by the scientific community at large, and most of these claims are dismissed either by default, after third-party inspection of such a device or based on disbelief in the viability of a technical design and theoretical corroboration. Current claims to zero-point-energy-based power generation systems are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large [12][13] and skeptics usually dismiss efforts to harness zero-point energy by default.
Quote
Despite the scientific stance to typically discount the claims, numerous articles and books have been published addressing and discussing the potential of tapping zero-point-energy from the quantum vacuum or elsewhere. Examples of such are the work of the following authors: Claus Wilhelm Turtur,[15] Jeane Manning, Joel Garbon,[16] John Bedini,[17] Tom Bearden,[18][19][20] Thomas Valone,[21][22][23] Moray B King,[24][25][26] Christopher Toussaint, Bill Jenkins,[27] Nick Cook[28] and William James.[29]
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1362
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #914 on: 09/22/2014 06:55 PM »
The bulk of the paper is on Mach's Principle.

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1362
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #915 on: 09/22/2014 07:04 PM »
At the end of section 2.2 "It will also be interesting to see whether in the quantized theory the inertial waves have zero rest mass"  ref: P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 130, 439 (1963)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #916 on: 09/22/2014 07:16 PM »
At the end of section 2.2 "It will also be interesting to see whether in the quantized theory the inertial waves have zero rest mass"  ref: P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 130, 439 (1963)

Thanks, @Notsosureofit, but (refer to my prior post http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1260728#msg1260728) the crux of Woodward's effect is not at all with Sciama's hypothesis.  Nowhere in his '53 or '69 papers (please check whether this is the case for the '64 paper too) Sciama claims that mundane fluctuations in capacitor's or dielectric's power can result in significant fluctuations in the rest mass. 

On the contrary, Sciama writes the opposite:

<<Since the change of rho [the density] with time is very small, the gravelectric part of the field is approximately>> p. 38 of ON THE ORIGIN OF INERTIA Đ Royal Astronomical Society  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1953MNRAS.113...34S

The assumption that mundane fluctuations in capacitor's or dielectric's power can result in significant fluctuations in the rest mass rests squarely on the shoulders of Dr. Woodward assuming that he can substitute the Rest Energy by the electric power input energy -something that Sciama never does-.  I think that this (wildly optimistic -in Dr. Woodward's own words) assumption by Dr. Woodward is unjustified.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2014 07:39 PM by Rodal »

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1362
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #917 on: 09/22/2014 07:42 PM »
Just finished scanning through, he quite specifically excludes electromagnetism, just uses analogies.

"We may note in passing that the result (7) suggests that unified field theories based on a nonsymmetric connection have nothing to do with electromagnetism"

So I didn't see any connection.  (brought up memories though)
« Last Edit: 09/22/2014 07:49 PM by Notsosureofit »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #918 on: 09/22/2014 07:50 PM »
well, since people who have access to Dr Woodward's discussion list do not participate in this forum (except for Paul March, but he seldom posts), since Dr Woodward is not a discussion forum user as far as I know, and since Dr Rodal doesnīt seem interested in joining Dr Woodward's emailing list, I guess discussing the derivation of Woodward's equations here is a bit useless?

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #919 on: 09/22/2014 07:59 PM »
well, since people who have access to Dr Woodward's discussion list do not participate in this forum (except for Paul March, but he seldom posts), since Dr Woodward is not a discussion forum user as far as I know, and since Dr Rodal doesnīt seem interested in joining Dr Woodward's emailing list, I guess discussing the derivation of Woodward's equations here is a bit useless?
It may be "a bit useless" from your point of view, but it may be bit useful to others to note that:

Dr. Woodward himself states "his leap of faith" (equating fluctuations in the Rest Energy with fluctuations in  the Input Electric Energy to a capacitor), which to me is unjustified and Dr. Woodward himself states is "wildly optimistic" and is an "arguable" assumption.

So, yes to me, this was a useful discussion to have.  It means from my point of view (until somebody can justify equating fluctuations in the Rest Energy with fluctuations in the Input Electric Energy) that Woodard's effect is not a valid justification for propellant-less propulsion.

It has nothing to do with arguing about Mach's principle or with Sciama's (which to me distract from the key Woodward assumption that he equates fluctuations in Rest Energy with fluctuations in Input Electric Energy to a capacitor).

And it is useful to me that @Notsosureofit pointed out the '64 paper by Sciama and its Errata (which I didn't have). It is useful to the community that @Notsosureofit  points out that Sciama's '64 paper further deals with the Machian principle but contains no such assumption (equating the fluctuations in Rest Energy with the fluctuations in Input Electric power).

So yes, this discussion was useful to me: I learned from @Notsosureofit about Sciama's '64 paper.

A lot of what I discussed may not be useful to others.  But I have room to improve in the future... :)
« Last Edit: 09/22/2014 11:08 PM by Rodal »

Tags: