Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2106529 times)

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1286
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
OT: I found a thing and put it over in the "New Hope For Warp Drive" thread. it does have some interesting details that can be examined in a very loose sort of way. not a technical paper by any means but it does describe the set up and effects. i found it interesting the weight of his test object and magnitude of effect on it.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8017
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168
Curious that there has been no coverage of this in the mainstream science press for the end of year, not a mention in anyone that I've seen roundups of 2014.

For comparison the detection of primordial gravity waves has been well covered even though this discovery has been heavily disputed since.
« Last Edit: 12/30/2014 01:31 PM by Star One »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Curious that there has been no coverage of this in the mainstream science press for the end of year, not a mention in anyone that I've seen roundups of 2014.

For comparison the detection of primordial gravity waves has been well covered even though this discovery has been heavily disputed since.

The reason is well explained by xkcd, see: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1404:_Quantum_Vacuum_Virtual_Plasma



[Note however that the comic is wildly exaggerated regarding NASA's tests: NASA only "pumped" 2.6 to 17 watts of power into the truncated cone cavity, about 1,000 to 8,000 times less input-power than what the comic shows]

None of these experiments have demonstrated a linear acceleration: all of them have measured rotational accelerations.  None of the EM Drives have been tested in a vacuum.  None of the measured forces are high enough to levitate the drive.

Some of Woodward's experiments have been conducted in a vacuum, however, from a practical-applications viewpoint or proof-of-concept viewpoint, they are even more disappointing: The reported "thrust" force/(power input) of the latest Woodward experiments (Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser) is about 2000 times less than the NASA Brady et.al TE mode and about 20,000 times less than the Shawyer Demo  In other words, it takes (for the latest Woodward experiments) 3 to 4 orders of magnitude greater input power to produce the same level of what is reported as "thrust" force as for the EM Drives.



For comparison, the Wright Brothers experimented with real flying machines, Goddard with real chemical propulsion rockets that although small had enough thrust to lift the rockets, and world-renowned physicists like Freeman Dyson (based on ideas by the world-known mathematician Ulam) successfully conducted explosively loaded experiments to thrust up payloads for Project Orion's explosive-loaded propulsion.

If any of these experimenters ever gets any payload to get thrusted upwards, levitated or at least propelled in outer space, you may then see this covered in the mainstream science press.  Until then, there is really no experimental breakthrough to report in the mainstream science press.  Even NASA's Dr. White titled his experimental paper with the weakly tentative title "Anomalous..." and it was given at an AIAA conference and not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
« Last Edit: 12/30/2014 06:08 PM by Rodal »

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1364
OT: I found a thing and put it over in the "New Hope For Warp Drive" thread. it does have some interesting details that can be examined in a very loose sort of way. not a technical paper by any means but it does describe the set up and effects. i found it interesting the weight of his test object and magnitude of effect on it.

Not much to go by, it seems to be a 2 meter (146 MHz) asymmetric resonant antenna, so it could meet the requirement for a "Sachs-Schwebel" gravitational current generator instead of a warp drive.  It could also be seeing electromagnetic forces between the antenna and the faraday cage walls which are in the near field.  The interferometer tests are interesting, but again, not much data.

There is a paper of sorts: http://swdllc.paresspacewarpresearch.org/PressRelease/Press.htm
« Last Edit: 12/30/2014 04:17 PM by Notsosureofit »

Online bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1784
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 171
Has anyone discussed testing spin using a Woodward effect device, like a pendulum, using a cheap very high altitude balloon of the sort JP Aerospace launch? It's not perfect vacuum, but its cheaper than launching a cubesat. It just seems like navel gazing to me unless the effect does anything practical.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1286
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80


Not much to go by, it seems to be a 2 meter (146 MHz) asymmetric resonant antenna, so it could meet the requirement for a "Sachs-Schwebel" gravitational current generator instead of a warp drive.  It could also be seeing electromagnetic forces between the antenna and the faraday cage walls which are in the near field.  The interferometer tests are interesting, but again, not much data.

There is a paper of sorts: http://swdllc.paresspacewarpresearch.org/PressRelease/Press.htm
When you say that it means it really was topical for this thread after all.

I am slightly optimistic about it now; but i have seen this guy's web page before. I kind of dismissed it as true fringe, but then I saw the article and the video with video demonstration footage. That moved it up a step or two in my estimation. The guy is not completely nuts but his idea has a giggle factor that has ensured he has been interviewed on tons of fringe kook venues; pod casts and such.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8017
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168
On another forum they were discussing how such drives could accelerate the end of the universe, I looked at some of the explanations on there as too what was meant but they completely lost me I'm afraid to admit?

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1286
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
On another forum they were discussing how such drives could accelerate the end of the universe, I looked at some of the explanations on there as too what was meant but they completely lost me I'm afraid to admit?

well...that's a step ahead of what is already a shaky concept or two. but I think anything that is a linear drive like the thing i was just talking about would be an infinitesimal perturbation in the scheme of the whole cosmos. but i have heard arguments about collapsing the vacuum state of the universe. but i think that that was in reference to collider experiments and not warp drives or em drives.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8017
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168

On another forum they were discussing how such drives could accelerate the end of the universe, I looked at some of the explanations on there as too what was meant but they completely lost me I'm afraid to admit?

well...that's a step ahead of what is already a shaky concept or two. but I think anything that is a linear drive like the thing i was just talking about would be an infinitesimal perturbation in the scheme of the whole cosmos. but i have heard arguments about collapsing the vacuum state of the universe. but i think that that was in reference to collider experiments and not warp drives or em drives.

God help us if the media ever get hold of this, you can imagine the headlines now!

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1286
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80

On another forum they were discussing how such drives could accelerate the end of the universe, I looked at some of the explanations on there as too what was meant but they completely lost me I'm afraid to admit?

well...that's a step ahead of what is already a shaky concept or two. but I think anything that is a linear drive like the thing i was just talking about would be an infinitesimal perturbation in the scheme of the whole cosmos. but i have heard arguments about collapsing the vacuum state of the universe. but i think that that was in reference to collider experiments and not warp drives or em drives.

God help us if the media ever get hold of this, you can imagine the headlines now!
oh they already did. it's just that after the LHC black hole media hype no one paid attention to the "collapse of the vacuum state" scare. i remember seeing articles about it in new scientist if i recall right.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1286
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
ok. this is interesting... neutrinos that collide with nuclei at an oblique angle create particles out of the vacuum. evidently said new particles don't annihilate with a virtual twin? is that right?

http://phys.org/news/2014-12-neutrinos-full-on-glancing.html

so here is a real interaction with the vacuum. that was being argued a few pages back WRT Dr White's Theory of how QVPTs work i think.

When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
ok. this is interesting... neutrinos that collide with nuclei at an oblique angle create particles out of the vacuum. evidently said new particles don't annihilate with a virtual twin? is that right?

http://phys.org/news/2014-12-neutrinos-full-on-glancing.html

so here is a real interaction with the vacuum. that was being argued a few pages back WRT Dr White's Theory of how QVPTs work i think.

Ok, let's try this : there is no question that there can be real interaction with the vacuum (vacuum polarization, pair production from strong electric field or gamma photon bouncing on nucleus or photon/photon...) the question is at what energetic cost ? If there is conservation of momentum_energy in those interactions then you are no better of than with the photon rocket (again) or shooting the supposedly available neutrinos backward (almost the same).

Offline wembley

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • London
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 0
So what TRL would you guys say the devices presented in the "Anomalous Thrust Production...." papers are at right now? I'd say probably a TRL 2. Possibly on the way to a TRL 3, hopefully. 

Well, Cannae were talking about flying theirs in a nanosatellite about a year ago, and I suspect that is still ongoing. The Chinese appear to be more cautious but are somewhere around 4+. Shawyer certainly claimed to be at 4 some time ago. And if rumour is to be believed, an aerospace company has pushed Shawyer's work on some from there.

Offline wembley

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • London
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 0
Has there been the least indication yet when we are too get some more results in relation to those who are experimenting in this area?

There is essentially a news blackout on the experimental side from NASA.

The problem is, if this drive really works, the defence implications are huge. Those in charge might feel it would not necessarily be a good idea to go public with it -- especially from the US perspective. Remember that 'Sputnik moment'?

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3521
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2076
  • Likes Given: 2417
Curious that there has been no coverage of this in the mainstream science press for the end of year, not a mention in anyone that I've seen roundups of 2014.

For comparison the detection of primordial gravity waves has been well covered even though this discovery has been heavily disputed since.

The primordial gravity wave research was peer reviewed and done by scientists who are respected by the rest of the scientific community.  The debate over it was from within the scientific community.  That's why the mainstream media covered it.

The reactionless drive work is entirely outside the scientific mainstream, and every mainstream scientist who has examined it has found it to be without sufficient evidence to claim a discovery.  That's why the mainstream media has not covered it much.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3521
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2076
  • Likes Given: 2417
So what TRL would you guys say the devices presented in the "Anomalous Thrust Production...." papers are at right now? I'd say probably a TRL 2. Possibly on the way to a TRL 3, hopefully. 

Well, Cannae were talking about flying theirs in a nanosatellite about a year ago, and I suspect that is still ongoing. The Chinese appear to be more cautious but are somewhere around 4+. Shawyer certainly claimed to be at 4 some time ago. And if rumour is to be believed, an aerospace company has pushed Shawyer's work on some from there.

No, it's TRL-1.  Basic research has not even established sufficient evidence of anything anomalous to convince even a small part of the mainstream physics community.

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1286
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
ok. this is interesting... neutrinos that collide with nuclei at an oblique angle create particles out of the vacuum. evidently said new particles don't annihilate with a virtual twin? is that right?

http://phys.org/news/2014-12-neutrinos-full-on-glancing.html

so here is a real interaction with the vacuum. that was being argued a few pages back WRT Dr White's Theory of how QVPTs work i think.

Ok, let's try this : there is no question that there can be real interaction with the vacuum (vacuum polarization, pair production from strong electric field or gamma photon bouncing on nucleus or photon/photon...) the question is at what energetic cost ? If there is conservation of momentum_energy in those interactions then you are no better of than with the photon rocket (again) or shooting the supposedly available neutrinos backward (almost the same).
But neutrinos are "free" so there is no real cost or at least not a commensurate cost similar to banging high energy gamma photons together. Further I know no way of increasing the amount ambient neutrinos. Since only an occasional neutrino collides with anything and of those only a few do the glancing blow trick I was not shooting for using them for a drive of any sort. What i was pointing at was the vacuum interaction itself; which you covered nicely in the first line of your reply. :)
« Last Edit: 12/31/2014 04:29 PM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5145
  • Liked: 950
  • Likes Given: 340
None of these experiments have demonstrated a linear acceleration: all of them have measured rotational accelerations.  None of the EM Drives have been tested in a vacuum.  None of the measured forces are high enough to levitate the drive.
Forget about levitation. I havent read much or anything about it, but are the forces even in the same ballpark as existing magnetic torquer rods for cubesats ? If yes, in theory this could assist with attitude control in deep space, at least for desaturation.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8017
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168
Curious that there has been no coverage of this in the mainstream science press for the end of year, not a mention in anyone that I've seen roundups of 2014.

For comparison the detection of primordial gravity waves has been well covered even though this discovery has been heavily disputed since.

The primordial gravity wave research was peer reviewed and done by scientists who are respected by the rest of the scientific community.  The debate over it was from within the scientific community.  That's why the mainstream media covered it.

The reactionless drive work is entirely outside the scientific mainstream, and every mainstream scientist who has examined it has found it to be without sufficient evidence to claim a discovery.  That's why the mainstream media has not covered it much.
I suspect there are people who may disagree with you with that statement, but that's not my debate to have.:)

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • California
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 365
So what TRL would you guys say the devices presented in the "Anomalous Thrust Production...." papers are at right now? I'd say probably a TRL 2. Possibly on the way to a TRL 3, hopefully. 

Well, Cannae were talking about flying theirs in a nanosatellite about a year ago, and I suspect that is still ongoing. The Chinese appear to be more cautious but are somewhere around 4+. Shawyer certainly claimed to be at 4 some time ago. And if rumour is to be believed, an aerospace company has pushed Shawyer's work on some from there.

No, it's TRL-1.  Basic research has not even established sufficient evidence of anything anomalous to convince even a small part of the mainstream physics community.

Writing to his friend, Joseph Priestley, Benjamin Franklin said, “We may perhaps learn to deprive large Masses of their Gravity & give them absolute Levity, for the sake of easy Transport.

Another researcher believes he can build a small craft with much levity.

http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/working-toward-a-warp-drive
-in-his-garage-lab-omahan/article_b6489acf-5622-5419-ac18-0c44474da9c9.html
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 03:10 AM by Chris Bergin »

Tags: