Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2167510 times)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Is this right? This looks to me like bad science. How could thrust fall as speed increases? I also looked to "scientific" paper on emdrive page and there is stated that at about 0.7c thrust reverses?

http://emdrive.com/sciencemissions.html
...

There are several theoretical problems with the emdrive.com theories, as they have been addressed in prior pages of this thread.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 06:45 PM by Rodal »

Offline LasJayhawk

Hi Everyone,

I am an RF engineer in the Microwave Instrument Technology Branch at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.  I had seen a few articles here and there about the EM drive and today it caught my eye on IO9.com.  While I have only spent the last hour or so reviewing what has been done to eliminated external factors to explain the phenomenon I would like to offer my two-cents.  If what I'm suggesting as an explanation has already been eliminated, I apologize.

Have you considered the effects of breakdown, and in particular multipaction and corona generation?  Multipaction breakdown events are known phenomenon on the RF radar and communication systems community.  Essentially, at high RF powers you see an effect similar to arcing within your components.  This arcing can occur between conductors and dielectrics or even between conductors in vacuum.  Sharp edges such as welds and fasteners - particularly in a cavity resonator such as this - can cause these events.  This result is damage to the interior conductor and particle generation (even in metal-only situations) as material is "burned."  In this case, the metal walls and / or contaminants of your cavity would serve as the propellant.  Corona / plasma can then develop from this particle release and exacerbate the situation.

Better descriptions can be found here : 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipactor_effect

http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/multipaction 

As a real world example, I am the lead engineer for the Radiometer Front End on the recently launched Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) Mission. (http://smap.jpl.nasa.gov/)  We had a terrible problem with multipaction in our RF diplexer which was a cavity resonator - similar to your setup.  These devices are essentially three-port band-pass filters whose resonant frequencies are set by the physical dimensions of the (mostly) empty cavity.  Picture an empty aluminum box about 10'' x 5'' x 5''.  We saw damaging breakdown events beginning around 350W at 1.2GHz which is the nominal operating point of our radar.  It took several design iterations and many months to totally eliminate various sources of breakdown including sharp edges, gas trapped by resonator pucks, tuning screws, etc.   While your cavity and ours arn't exactly the same one could say the situations are quite similar.  The NASA Eagleworks system operated at 935MHz at (?)W, Roger Shawyer 2.45GHz at 850W, and Dr Yang at (?)MHz at 2.5KW (apologize if these missing values have been published, I didn't immediately see them).   

In a nutshell, at these power levels I would be surprised if your systems were not multipacting to some degree as designing a cavity that does not have breakdown at these levels takes a good deal of expertise on the nuances of the issue.  So as multipaction events are particle generators these could produce the force you are seeing.  What order of magnitude force we would see I havn't the foggiest.  But if I were an independent reviewer of your technology I would first ask that you prove this cannot be explained by multipaction.  Or show that even if multipaction were occuring the magnitude of the forces involved cannot be explained. These events can be observed by monitoring the RF power level passing through, or in your case reflecting, from a system.  An ideal setup would be to add an RF coupler between your magnetron and the cavity and observe the return loss into the system as power is slowly ramped up.  You will see a reflected power loss as the energy is converted into the events described.  A further test would be to have your resonator opened and carefully inspected by an expert as burn marks and other evidence can be detected optically.   

Good luck, I can pass you some names off-line if that is of interest.   If you havn't already, it would be useful to consult a high-power RF engineer, not necessarily and EM physicist (sorry guys!  :) ).  As stated, I am not an expert on this phenomenon but if there are further questions I can perhaps pass them along.

-Joseph Knuble

(Also, I hope I'm wrong!)
My understanding is the current setup is a little over 1.9 GHz @ 50 watts.

From what I can find out online, the end caps of the cavity are single sided FR4, but I couldn't find out if they were baked and post coated or not. Do you think they could be getting some out gassing or other effects from the FR4? Would glass Teflon be a better choice of dielectric?

Offline jknuble

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 0
Good luck, I can pass you some names off-line if that is of interest.   If you havn't already, it would be useful to consult a high-power RF engineer, not necessarily and EM physicist (sorry guys!  :) ).  As stated, I am not an expert on this phenomenon but if there are further questions I can perhaps pass them along.

-Joseph Knuble

(Also, I hope I'm wrong!)

Welcome to the thread  :)  We hope you are here to stay  ;)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of this effect is that the multipactor effect occurs "when electrons accelerated by radio-frequency (RF) fields are self-sustained in a vacuum (or near vacuum)"

The counter-argument to this is that most of the EM Drive experiments have been conducted in ambient conditions (not in a vacuum).

I may have overly used the word "multipaction" as that is what primarily plagued us.  Multipaction is one type of "high-power breakdown" and you can see different types of breakdown in air or vacuum.  Testing a system in one or the other can have differing results.  There could also be plasma generation for instance.  The "better" sources I have provided may be overly academic.

-JK

Offline Andy USA

  • Lead Moderator
  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Los Angeles, California
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 80
Ok guys, so a lot of new people into this thread, but this thread is mainly for the development of the EM Drive. We knew this would happen, so we have a new "Entry Level" thread for opening questions and general questions.

I've moved the last few pages of new members asking questions into that thread, so if you posted here and can't see it, don't worry, it's in this thread.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0

Posting this notice as some sites are linking to this thread and not the section or the article, so people are thinking this is the only thread on this.

Remember to use the above link and allow this thread to continue with the Eaglework folk and others updating progress.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2015 12:08 AM by Andy USA »

Offline R.W. Keyes

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Massachusetts
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 42
Ok guys, so a lot of new people into this thread, but this thread is mainly for the development of the EM Drive. We knew this would happen, so we have a new "Entry Level" thread for opening questions and general questions.

I've moved the last few pages of new members asking questions into that thread, so if you posted here and can't see it, don't worry, it's in this thread.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0

Posting this notice as some sites are linking to this thread and not the section or the article, so people are thinking this is the only thread on this.

Remember to use the above link and allow this thread to continue with the Eaglework folk and others updating progress.

I think we need a F.A.Q.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Ok guys, so a lot of new people into this thread, but this thread is mainly for the development of the EM Drive. We knew this would happen, so we have a new "Entry Level" thread for opening questions and general questions.

I've moved the last few pages of new members asking questions into that thread, so if you posted here and can't see it, don't worry, it's in this thread.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0

Posting this notice as some sites are linking to this thread and not the section or the article, so people are thinking this is the only thread on this.

Remember to use the above link and allow this thread to continue with the Eaglework folk and others updating progress.

I think we need a F.A.Q.

Yes, if the EM Drive thread would be about well-understood science and/or engineering, an FAQ section would be great.

We all want answers, that's why we are here.

Unfortunately there is substantial amount of disagreement as to the measurements and even more disagreement about the theories.

Who is going to be in charge of answering the questions?  Are (maybe innocently incorrect or innocently misleading) answers provided by forum volunteers for an unsettled, controversial, Research project like the EM Drive more useful than not having an FAQ section?

How can a FAQ section for unsettled Research in a forum be objectively handled for scientific/engineering accuracy?
Who will give an authoritative answer in a forum?
How and how often are answers going to be updated?
How is misinformation going to be prevented? 
How is agreement on what is the correct answer to a question going to be reached?

« Last Edit: 05/02/2015 02:51 AM by Rodal »

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 15
Ok guys, so a lot of new people into this thread, but this thread is mainly for the development of the EM Drive. We knew this would happen, so we have a new "Entry Level" thread for opening questions and general questions.

I've moved the last few pages of new members asking questions into that thread, so if you posted here and can't see it, don't worry, it's in this thread.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0

Posting this notice as some sites are linking to this thread and not the section or the article, so people are thinking this is the only thread on this.

Remember to use the above link and allow this thread to continue with the Eaglework folk and others updating progress.

I think we need a F.A.Q.

Yes, if the EM Drive thread would be about well-understood science and/or engineering, an FAQ section would be great.

We all want answers, that's why we are here.

Unfortunately there is substantial amount of disagreement as to the measurements and even more disagreement about the theories.

Who is going to be in charge of answering the questions?  Are (maybe innocently incorrect or innocently misleading) answers provided by forum volunteers for an unsettled, controversial, Research project like the EM Drive more useful than not having an FAQ section?

How can a FAQ section for unsettled Research in a forum be objectively handled for scientific/engineering accuracy?
Who will give an authoritative answer in a forum?
How is misinformation going to be prevented? 
How is agreement on what is the correct answer to a question going to be reached?

Maybe you should elect the most hardcore and knowledgeable proponent and the most hardcore and knowledgeable critic and produce two answers to each question.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Ok guys, so a lot of new people into this thread, but this thread is mainly for the development of the EM Drive. We knew this would happen, so we have a new "Entry Level" thread for opening questions and general questions.

I've moved the last few pages of new members asking questions into that thread, so if you posted here and can't see it, don't worry, it's in this thread.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0

Posting this notice as some sites are linking to this thread and not the section or the article, so people are thinking this is the only thread on this.

Remember to use the above link and allow this thread to continue with the Eaglework folk and others updating progress.

I think we need a F.A.Q.

Yes, if the EM Drive thread would be about well-understood science and/or engineering, an FAQ section would be great.

We all want answers, that's why we are here.

Unfortunately there is substantial amount of disagreement as to the measurements and even more disagreement about the theories.

Who is going to be in charge of answering the questions?  Are (maybe innocently incorrect or innocently misleading) answers provided by forum volunteers for an unsettled, controversial, Research project like the EM Drive more useful than not having an FAQ section?

How can a FAQ section for unsettled Research in a forum be objectively handled for scientific/engineering accuracy?
Who will give an authoritative answer in a forum?
How is misinformation going to be prevented? 
How is agreement on what is the correct answer to a question going to be reached?

Maybe you should elect the most hardcore and knowledgeable proponent and the most hardcore and knowledgeable critic and produce two answers to each question.
Even assuming that an FAQ with opposing answers (*) to the questions would be helpful, having somebody choose who is " the most hardcore and knowledgeable" would result in a certain amount of arbitrariness, and  the main problem is keeping such FAQ updated with correct information, because it often turns out to be the case that  " the most knowledgeable" doesn't have the time to update the FAQ section and often doesn't volunteer, and those who readily volunteer are not " the most knowledgeable"  :(

_________
(*) Therefore the possibilities are that either 1) one of the answers is wrong or,  2) both answers are wrong.  (Since they are opposing answers, they cannot both be true). In the first case, one of the answers is misleading and it confuses the reader, and in the second case there is no point to the FAQ section to provide those answers as both are wrong.  In my opinion it is always better to give no answer than to give two answers, at least one of which we know (in the case of opposing answers) must be an incorrect answer. 
« Last Edit: 05/02/2015 03:44 AM by Rodal »

Offline SH

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Mass
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 12
We don't need a FAQ.  The collection of manuscripts and reports written by White's team and everyone else, as well as the Wikipedia article and other writeups all serve as a FAQ.  Perhaps what we should have, though, is a comprehensive listing of all the various sources of information that have been published or reported, as well as unbiased accountings including the wiki article and Rhodal's summary.

Also, it would certainly help if some people bothered to update the Wikipedia article...as it is in many ways incorrect, out of date, and lacking a lot of the known references and possible explanations.  All of this would help provide context to incoming scientists wishing to look at this issue.

Offline R.W. Keyes

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Massachusetts
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 42
The Wikipedia article, last time I looked at it, seemed to consist mostly of quotes of famous scientists saying it was a fraud. I don't know if I'd want to wander into the political storm of wikipedia in this.

Perhaps many questions can't be take care of with a FAQ. But perhaps some can. Perhaps some questions can be answered with "there's no widely accepted answer, but these people have proposed the following, and these other people have found fault", without getting to deep into the finer points of the disagreement.

But perhaps instead of a FAQ, we need a wiki. I don't know how many people share my evaluation of Wikipedia as a political battleground, though. I've only created one wikipedia entry (Botryococcus braunii), and done my best to keep it accurate and organized, though perhaps it is now out of date.

The need I am trying to fill, is a way to satisfy the many newcomers here who haven't gone through the voluminous and sometimes difficult to follow threads. I am not wedded to any particular approach, I merely want to do my part to help out, whatever that may be.

Offline R.W. Keyes

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Massachusetts
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 42
This is a question for Eagleworks people:
It seems as though you are short of resources of various types. I propose an online petition, utilizing the "we the people" facility of whitehouse.gov, to ask for more resources to be given to NASA, earmarked for Eagleworks, for the projects of the EM-drive/ME-drive/Q-thruster, and its application to the Alcubierre drive. If you could come up with a proposal, perhaps more focused than I've indicated, this would be the meat of the petition.

I don't mean to over the heads of the NASA Administration, and force them to take money away from other programs for this one. This would be additional, federal money. In my experience, being given more resources than you can use raises expectations beyond what is achievable. Most often, you can't get a project done twice as fast by spending twice as much money on it.

If Eagleworks thinks this is a bad approach to obtaining additional resources, please let me know why.

With great respect,
Robert W. Keyes

Offline NovaSilisko

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Liked: 1435
  • Likes Given: 1305
additional, federal money.

If that's the case, I don't see it materializing, even if it's a pittance...

Offline SH

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Mass
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 12
If Eagleworks thinks this is a bad approach to obtaining additional resources, please let me know why.

Honestly, it would reflect poorly on the Eagleworks team if they did respond with a shopping list of resources...because it would give the impression that NASA wasn't sufficiently supplying them to do their job, and that they were trying to violate the chain of command so to speak.

I imagine that there have already been some tense conversations between Dr. White and NASA leadership.  Most likely, NASA leadership is really not liking all the publicity about this right about now...because NASA knows (or assumes) that this is most likely just a fluke, and that when this finally does get refuted, it's going to reflect very poorly on NASA for having gone on so long, with all the news articles saying "NASA made a warp drive" and "NASA doesn't believe in conservation of energy anymore," and that's going to make it very easy for politicians who don't like NASA to cut their funding even more.

I'm sure that they would rather move Eagleworks into a secret team, but it's too late for that now...so if this EmDrive is invalidated, don't be surprised if the Eagleworks team gets the axe.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2015 05:23 AM by SH »

Offline Prunesquallor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Currently, TeV Brane Resident
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 73
This is a question for Eagleworks people:
It seems as though you are short of resources of various types. I propose an online petition, utilizing the "we the people" facility of whitehouse.gov, to ask for more resources to be given to NASA, earmarked for Eagleworks, for the projects of the EM-drive/ME-drive/Q-thruster, and its application to the Alcubierre drive. If you could come up with a proposal, perhaps more focused than I've indicated, this would be the meat of the petition.

I don't mean to over the heads of the NASA Administration, and force them to take money away from other programs for this one. This would be additional, federal money. In my experience, being given more resources than you can use raises expectations beyond what is achievable. Most often, you can't get a project done twice as fast by spending twice as much money on it.

If Eagleworks thinks this is a bad approach to obtaining additional resources, please let me know why.

With great respect,
Robert W. Keyes

I do not represent EagleWorks, but...

The Administration is the wrong place to do this.  The President can request a budget, but he does not allocate NASA's money. Congress does. What you're proposing is indeed an earmark and it would only be seen as valuable to Texas politicians.  That's fine - it is done all the time, but the Texas senators and the JSC congressional district representatives are the ones you want to convince.

And you don't want to ask for "new money".  There isn't any.  This is such a pittance it is the rounding error from NASA's big programs.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2015 05:48 AM by Prunesquallor »
Retired, yet... not

Offline R.W. Keyes

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Massachusetts
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 42
These seem to be depressive, defeatist, Kafkaesque responses. I am going to wait to see what people who actually work at Eagleworks say. $25M (just picking a reasonable but arbitrary amount here) might to a lot of money Eagleworks, but for the federal government, that's pin money. Even in a word where governments are overrun by corruption, pettiness, and mismanagement, that doesn't mean that all parts are, all the time.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 267
I am assuming the microwaves path is something like this?



Where forces F0 through F16 represent the force of a single microwave at different time intervals.

If the directional force happens at F2, and the opposing force happens from F3 to F16, this still obeys Newtons third law.  Isn't the opposing force just being damped like a spring over time? 

If M1, M2, ... Mn represent different microwaves, and each Mi is following a similar course, wouldn't this suggest that the directional force will remain positive at a constant rate until the device is shut off causing all forces to cancel?

 

Not according to Maxwell's linear, isotropic equations.

The small base of the EM Drive is not open.  It is a closed cavity.  As such, the waves inside it are not travelling waves, but standing waves.   See this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave

The energy flux is pointed towards one end during half a (Poynting vector) period and it is pointed towards the opposite end during the next half-period.  Hence the net energy flux over a whole period is completely self-cancelling.

No net directional thrust for a microwave closed cavity can be explained just using Maxwell's linear, isotropic equations.  If the measurements are not an experimental artifact, another explanation is needed.

If the small base would be open, then it would be an inefficient photon rocket, with the microwave photons escaping at the small base end.  Less efficient for space propulsion than using a flashlight or a military searchlight as a means of propulsion.

Even for a perfectly collimated photon rocket, the thrust/powerInput of such a photon rocket is orders of magnitude less than what is claimed for these experiments.

With all respect, and I am not sure this is much of an issue to point out but I think the model of the waves in the cavity as standing waves may be a bit over-simplified. 

1. I think one can look at standing waves as super-imposed traveling waves of opposite direction but this part is likely less significant. 

2.  Maybe of more significance is the ac power in power lines can be modeled as standing waves but if no one is using power.  When power starts being consumed the standing waves begin to travel towards the object consuming the power.  The moving bulges of magnetic/electric field can be thought of as transporting power from the power station to the consumer.  There should be some traveling of the standing waves bulges from the power supply towards areas of heat loss in the cavity I would assume.  I can't say the power dissipated into heat loss is significant but it does seem to buck the perfect standing wave view for me a bit.  I do understand on the other hand that it may be a good approximation. 

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
I am assuming the microwaves path is something like this?



Where forces F0 through F16 represent the force of a single microwave at different time intervals.

If the directional force happens at F2, and the opposing force happens from F3 to F16, this still obeys Newtons third law.  Isn't the opposing force just being damped like a spring over time? 

If M1, M2, ... Mn represent different microwaves, and each Mi is following a similar course, wouldn't this suggest that the directional force will remain positive at a constant rate until the device is shut off causing all forces to cancel?

 

Not according to Maxwell's linear, isotropic equations.

The small base of the EM Drive is not open.  It is a closed cavity.  As such, the waves inside it are not travelling waves, but standing waves.   See this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave

The energy flux is pointed towards one end during half a (Poynting vector) period and it is pointed towards the opposite end during the next half-period.  Hence the net energy flux over a whole period is completely self-cancelling.

No net directional thrust for a microwave closed cavity can be explained just using Maxwell's linear, isotropic equations.  If the measurements are not an experimental artifact, another explanation is needed.

If the small base would be open, then it would be an inefficient photon rocket, with the microwave photons escaping at the small base end.  Less efficient for space propulsion than using a flashlight or a military searchlight as a means of propulsion.

Even for a perfectly collimated photon rocket, the thrust/powerInput of such a photon rocket is orders of magnitude less than what is claimed for these experiments.

With all respect, and I am not sure this is much of an issue to point out but I think the model of the waves in the cavity as standing waves may be a bit over-simplified. 

1. I think one can look at standing waves as super-imposed traveling waves of opposite direction but this part is likely less significant. 

2.  Maybe of more significance is the ac power in power lines can be modeled as standing waves but if no one is using power.  When power starts being consumed the standing waves begin to travel towards the object consuming the power.  The moving bulges of magnetic/electric field can be thought of as transporting power from the power station to the consumer.  There should be some traveling of the standing waves bulges from the power supply towards areas of heat loss in the cavity I would assume.  I can't say the power dissipated into heat loss is significant but it does seem to buck the perfect standing wave view for me a bit.  I do understand on the other hand that it may be a good approximation.

In ref to the image above, there is wealth of information buried within the earlier pages of this thread. A more accurate representation of what it looks like inside the cavity is available here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1333246#msg1333246
Paul March was kind enough to attach the Frustrum modes overview 2A.pdf which has all the mode shapes and characteristics of their test article.

So things are a bit more complicated than photons bouncing around like marbles in a can. For example, I know that I can only excite TM212 and TM311 (thanks @Rodal for modeling this) with my little setup at home.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1353372#msg1353372
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1352878#msg1352878

Paul March has shown clearly in his many posts that there is a clear correlation between mode shape and magnitude and direction of thrust. This is where input from RF Engineers would be extremely valuable.

Just food for thought, it is worth going back to page 1 and commenting on the stuff starting there. That way the conversation can keep building on ideas.



« Last Edit: 05/02/2015 10:16 AM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Stoney

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Have dielectrophoretic (and perhaps magnetophoretic?) effects been ruled out? It seems to me that you have a lot of the ingredients (high voltage, RF, non-uniform field) for a dielectrophoretic force to appear on any surrounding bulk material that may behave like a dielectric at these frequencies...

Also, how is the thrust being measured? (I apologise as this has probably been mentioned earlier but I'm struggling to find it in >100 pages of discussion)

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Dr. Rodal:

I missed your question last night on whether the warp-field interferometer cylindrical cavity had any dielectric inside of it.  The answer is no it does not, except for the nanometers thick aluminum oxide coating that bare aluminum develops as soon as it is exposed to the oxygen in the air.

Next you asked about whether there where optical windows cut into the center of the cylindrical resonant cavity end caps or not.  Well, yes there has to be optical window holes for the 633nm laser light to pass through the 7.23cm gap between the endplates of the aluminum cylindrical cavity.  We also added two, three inch long, 0.50" OD by 0.25" (6.35mm) ID threaded aluminum tubes to the resonant cavity endplates, see attached picture, that function as two RF chokes that keep the 1.48 GHz RF from leaking into the lab area.  So the laser light passes through these RF choke tubes and the cylindrical cavity where the peak ac E-field of 900kV/m is present along the entire 7.23 cm long laser path while in the resonant cavity and an exponentially reducing E-field in the RF chokes since these are cylindrical waveguides well into their cutoff mode since the RF wavelength at 1.48 GHz is 202.7mm. 

BTW, we are going to add optical borosilicate telescope grade flat windows to the ends of the RF chokes when we get around to pulling a vacuum in this 1.48 GHz resonant cavity.

Next a clarification.  We used a cylindrical cavity for the warp-field interferometer instead of a frustum shape because we didn't want to create a force with this unit, but instead we needed just a large densification of the Q-V along the active path length of the laser beam while it was traversing the resonant cavity's centerline volume.  And this is the main difference between the Q-thruster and a warp-drive.  In Dr. White's warp-field conjecture you first have to have an Q-Thruster derived acceleration vector to work on and then you engage the a toroidal warp-field around your accelerating vehicle that then multiples the initial Q-Thruster provided velocity vector by the selected warp-factor.   Thus if you have an initial velocity of say 0.01c towards Alpha Centauri with a warp factor of 1,000, your effective velocity becomes 10c while the warp-drive is engaged.

Best, Paul M.

Paul March, have you seen this?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.0712
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1174
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1859.htm
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-when-the-speed-of-light.html



Mulletron:

No I hadn't but thanks for the pointers.  So what to you think an asymmetric difference of ~1x10^-18 m/s in velocity of light bring to the table?  That the vacuum can be differentially polarized by applied E and B-fields in a volume, in this case dc E&M fields??

Best, Paul M.

Their results seem to support what you guys are reporting from your open air experiments, which is a win, but I don't think we can call this length contraction (even though it might look like it) for sure until the same results are in repeated in vacuum.

Might be of interest to somebody. Another researcher predicting the possibility. Still yet to be verified as far as I know. The references are good leads too.

From all the research I've found, the Europeans are way ahead of the USA on this in so many ways.

https://www.ostfalia.de/export/sites/default/de/pws/turtur/FundE/English/Licht_in_elmagn_Feldern_engl.pdf
« Last Edit: 05/02/2015 10:45 AM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline GregoryNemitz

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
"Dean Drive" mechanics can offer an insight to EM Drive function.

The Dean Drive is a mechanical device proposed and experimented in the 1960s.  It could never work as hoped because it would need to operate at frequencies that will tear a mechanical device apart.

Essentially, it requires force waves in solid objects that get out of phase with each other due to one path being longer and the other path being shorter.  When energy is put into the end of a solid object to move it, the object will not begin to move until the force wave reaches the long end of the object and it is reflected back.  The Dean Drive proposed a system when the direct path and the reflected path were different lengths so an out of phase relationship would occur and the object would move as a system, reactionlessly.

With the EM Drive the electromagnetic energy from the microwaves act upon the inner surface of the cone like a solar sail.  The reflected energy is pushing on the surfaces.

Since it is a cone, towards the center is the long path and towards the edges is the short path.  This creates an imbalance in the push on the system, just like the Dean Drive was proposed to work.  Except it is working at gigahertz frequencies, far above what will tear a mechanical Dean Drive apart.

Tags: