Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1801059 times)

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
@Rodal: You want me to agree to the statement that the onboard battery, located one million LY distant from our galaxy and far away from any ponderable masses and where all fields are miniscule, depletes at a different rate when moving at 10 m/s relative to our galaxy than when it is moving at 1 m/s relative to our galaxy?

Why on earth would you expect me to agree to something as silly as that?

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
@Rodal: You want me to agree to the statement that the onboard battery, located one million LY distant from our galaxy and far away from any ponderable masses and where all fields are miniscule, depletes at a different rate when moving at 10 m/s relative to our galaxy than when it is moving at 1 m/s relative to our galaxy?

Why on earth would you expect me to agree to something as silly as that?
I have no idea what battery you are talking about.  Where did I ever ask you to agree about a depletion of a battery one million light years away?

and why do you write

Quote
Precisely. That is all I am saying. Todd and Rodal, however, seem to think differently.

???  ? ? ?

What I wrote was this:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1386124#msg1386124
« Last Edit: 06/07/2015 09:17 PM by Rodal »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Quote from: Rodal
The kinetic energy, and also the change in this energy due to a change in velocity, depends on the inertial frame of reference. The total kinetic energy of an isolated system also depends on the inertial frame of reference

and immediately after:
Quote from: Rodal
changes with time of the total kinetic energy do not depend on the inertial frame of reference.

Is it just me, or does this strike you also as a pair of inconsistent statements?

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
@Rodal: You want me to agree to the statement that the onboard battery, located one million LY distant from our galaxy and far away from any ponderable masses and where all fields are miniscule, depletes at a different rate when moving at 10 m/s relative to our galaxy than when it is moving at 1 m/s relative to our galaxy?

Why on earth would you expect me to agree to something as silly as that?
I have no idea what battery you are talking about.  Where did I ever ask you to agree about a depletion of a battery one million light years away?

and why do you write

Quote
Precisely. That is all I am saying. Todd and Rodal, however, seem to think differently.

???  ? ? ?

What I wrote was this:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1386124#msg1386124
Because you assert that P is frame-dependent. For a long time now we have used P to denote input power Pin.  This can be thought of as being supplied by a battery.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Consider the domain of the following to be a field-free region of flat spacetime...

No such domain exists. The EM and Gravitational fields span the entire universe. There is no way to "eliminate" them for convenience and have a meaningful discussion of this topic. Sorry!

Please read my paper and tell me where I made the mistake in the Math, rather than another long analogy in a nonexistent universe with no fields to interact with. The problem cannot be solved without them, not even at rest.

Thank you.

Todd
Quote
...
I rest my case.
But I already have refuted your paper. I already posted that your equation 2), with gamma ~1, states as an assumption that F = P/v. And just now I discussed the consequences of F = P/v. Since the entirety of your paper is based on the assumption of the correctness of equation 2), your paper proposes a preferred frame. But I already said that to you twice.

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Germany
  • Liked: 993
  • Likes Given: 2144
Expressions in GR.
Seriously everything is relative. But if one accept the maximum speed of light in our state of Quantum vacuum valley, nothing with any rest mass can reach c in an inertial frame whatever. So (if) the frustum truster is able to accelerate over long time and it becomes relativistic the time it need to reach c goes to infinity. Because of its own rest mass.

By the way, the Energy inside the cavity is given from the relation of the inner and outer Q.
1/Q_eff= 1/Q_int+1/Q_ext
Thats because of the impedance of the cavity AND the HF source with respect to K=coupling factor. The stored energy enters an equilibrium state of internal energy.

If ther is a(near) constant transformation ratio P_eff to accelleration-->velocity it have to respect the aspects of GR such as known and accept in modern physics.
Let me ask a question:
Why the people here doesnt belive the Lorenz-Invariace is usabe in such a situation as accelleration? It describes the relative conditions of equal inertial systems, it can do this for at a given time t to make relative predications to any energy/velocity/wavelenght conditions of this systems each other.
And it has to give predictions to systems in a preferably homogeneous frame such as an accellerated system with respekt to a given time to compute the interessting realtions. At time t (i.e. planck time t(p)@inertialsystem1=relative_t(p)@inertialsystem2)  the situation reduces to a constant relative velocity [v_t(p)1<--rel-->2]  not an acceleration.
Please explain me in this last point why you think its not. :)
« Last Edit: 06/07/2015 10:09 PM by X_RaY »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
Quote from: Rodal
The kinetic energy, and also the change in this energy due to a change in velocity, depends on the inertial frame of reference. The total kinetic energy of an isolated system also depends on the inertial frame of reference

and immediately after:
Quote from: Rodal
changes with time of the total kinetic energy do not depend on the inertial frame of reference.

Is it just me, or does this strike you also as a pair of inconsistent statements?

They are correct statements.  You have to read the different qualifiers.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect
« Last Edit: 06/07/2015 11:18 PM by Rodal »

Offline Prunesquallor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Currently, TeV Brane Resident
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 73
If the effect as measured on lab balances is real (not a force exchanged with earthly surroundings), I find constant_thrust/constant_power +  frame invariant proper source/reserve of energy in vacuum actually quite less unbelievable than other proposed schemes positing a span/duration/velocity limit so far. Just an opinion.

Well stated. I was trying to come up with a similar opinion. Mine would be something like - if the effect is not an artifact, we need to expand our thinking regarding the CoM and CoE control volumes.
Retired, yet... not

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
...Because you assert that P is frame-dependent. For a long time now we have used P to denote input power Pin.  This can be thought of as being supplied by a battery.

1) You are addressing Todd's paper

2)  When Todd uses P in his equations 2 and 3, P depends on velocity

 
« Last Edit: 06/07/2015 09:56 PM by Rodal »

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1295
  • Likes Given: 1749
Every particle of matter in both devices still absorbed the increased inertia when it was accelerated by the rocket engine to the new potential, (v - v0)^2. Note, this is the "change" in velocity, relative to where it started from, relative to its rest frame. The rest frame it started in is a preferred frame for that object, but it was not at rest in any "absolute" sense of the word.

If you and the EM drive were aboard the spaceship after the conventional rocket finished accelerating it, would you be able to take apart and inspect the EM drive to tell that it was "spent" (as in already at its maximum velocity)? Presumably (if I am understanding your predictions correctly), you could tell it was spent by running it and seeing if it accelerated your ship further, but could you tell by looking at its particles?

Thanks for all your patience with us!

No problem. If you are in the same inertial frame as the EM Drive, then you, and all your tools would be scaled as well, so no. On board the rocket however, you would've felt the acceleration when the rocket was running, so you "know" work was done to your body and to the EM Drive to get it there.

Taking it apart in this inertial frame, it would appear totally normal but if you compared your EM Drive to the one you left behind, using Lorentz Transformations between the two frames, you will see yours is different than that one left behind. This is because "you and your EM Drive" are the ones that were accelerated to a higher velocity potential. Work was done to get you there, and you could measure it happening by the physical forces acting on every sub-atomic particle. It is not symmetrical. Frame invariance implies symmetry, this is not symmetrical because only 1 EM Drive was accelerated by the rocket, to this new inertial frame.

Here's my take on what I'm seeing as the issue most people are having with understanding this.

1. The Twin Paradox is supposed to teach that two inertial frames are not identical, when they are not symmetrical. One twin was accelerated, the other was not.

2. Lorentz Invariance is supposed to teach that you can transform measurements between two identical inertial frames at constant relative velocity  and you cannot distinguish between them, so the math works both ways. However....

3. Relativistic mass is supposed to teach that matter physically possesses more inertia, more mass after it has been accelerated. Where this is stored seems to be a bit of a mystery to most people, including main stream physicists, to my amazement. Hopefully my paper has cleared this up, it is stored as Lorentz contraction and time dilation, i.e., curved space-time.

4. The Equivalence Principle is supposed to teach you that anything you do in an accelerated reference frame will be identical to what happens in a gravitational field.

It seems to me that some people miss the point of 1 because it's not taught correctly. They grasp onto 2 like gospel because that's how to work problems in SR to pass the class. Then assume 3 doesn't matter at all until you reach relativistic speed so they ignore it when it comes to 4, and totally misunderstand GR altogether.

Does that about sum it up? I really do hope I'm helping to facilitate understanding of all these things.

Todd

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
...Because you assert that P is frame-dependent. For a long time now we have used P to denote input power Pin.  This can be thought of as being supplied by a battery.

1) You are addressing Todd's paper

2)  When Todd uses P in his equations 2 and 3, P depends on velocity
Then I suggest to Todd that he explicitly differentiate between Pin and Pout in his paper.

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1295
  • Likes Given: 1749
...
To answer your question, if the rocket engine and the EM Drive have the same thrust-to-power ratio, then switching off the rocket and switching on the EM Drive will make no difference. Just because EM Drive 2 was only along for the ride makes no difference. Every particle of matter in both devices still absorbed the increased inertia when it was accelerated by the rocket engine to the new potential, (v - v0)^2. Note, this is the "change" in velocity, relative to where it started from, relative to its rest frame. The rest frame it started in is a preferred frame for that object, but it was not at rest in any "absolute" sense of the word.

So to be absolutely clear, you agree and have yourself now stated that an absolute rest frame is required for your theory to work (when you postulate that COE is forbidden, but that the EMdrive may still create net thrust)....


No, I did not say that! I strongly disagree. You are totally misunderstanding what I wrote in the paper. Please don't put words in my mouth if you do not understand what I'm saying.

I'm saying, at the surface of the earth, the inertial mass is  m0, this is what we define it to be. At the surface of the moon, it will be;

m = m0*|g_11|^3/2 < m0, because g_11 on the moon is less than it is on the earth, where I have defined it to be 1.

Its inertial mass in free space, far away from the earth and before it is accelerated is going to be;

m = m0*|g_11|^3/2 < m0, where now g_11 is the difference between the earth where g_11 at those coordinates was defined to be 1, and this distant location (coordinates) far from any planets. In other words, the inertial mass is slightly lower,  away from the earth.

Now turn on the engine, and the inertial mass increases, m = m0*(gamma*sqrt|g_11|)^3. I have to carry the g_11 term with it because I "defined" it to be 1 at the surface of the earth. Had I defined it to be 1 in free space, I would not need that term. There is nothing absolute about this. My only preference is that it started on Earth, so I defined my initial inertial mass value there.

Also, when I say "free space", that kinda depends on where we're at in the universe too. Far from earth is still within the gravitational field of the sun, far from the sun is still within the gravitational field of the Milky Way, etc., etc.. So everything is relative to everything else. There is no absolute zero. Measurements can ONLY be made by comparing one thing to another, so the best ratio to use is 1, not 0.

Understand?

Thank you.
Todd
« Last Edit: 06/07/2015 10:40 PM by WarpTech »

Offline Carl G

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1115
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 107
Please remember posts that do not correctly quote another member will be removed.

Quoting is very easy. It cites the person you're quoting and links to the original post. Otherwise they are open to the quote being altered and not referenced. Such posts will be removed.

Please ensure your post is useful and worthwhile, or it will be removed.

Hi. New here.

  I'm trying to make an analogue between a hypothetical non-CoE violating em-drive and a momentum wheel.
Is this a worthwhile analogy to make?

  In a momentum wheel, how does the angular momentum (torque?) scale with the input power? It doesn't violate the conservation of energy. It's my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), that a preferred rotational reference frame is not completely confirmed to exist. If an absolute rotational reference frame isn't known to be certainly true, there must be some kind relationship between the difference in reference frames of both the small mass wheel and the big mass spaceship, and the kinetic energy of the whole system?

  I can understand of course how a momentum wheel obeys the conservation of momentum and newton's third law, and I can understand that the rotational energy is limited by the strength of the wheel, but couldn't an analogy be drawn where the momentum wheel flywheel is represented by an em-drive's "working photons", and the spacecraft (or whatever the motor is attached to) of a momentum wheel is represented by an em-drive's frustum?
« Last Edit: 06/07/2015 11:18 PM by zurael »

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1362
Hi. New here.

  I'm trying to make an analogue between a hypothetical non-CoE violating em-drive and a momentum wheel.
Is this a worthwhile analogy to make?

  In a momentum wheel, how does the angular momentum (torque?) scale with the input power? It doesn't violate the conservation of energy. It's my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), that a preferred rotational reference frame is not completely confirmed to exist. If a non absolute rotational reference frame isn't known to be certainly true, there must be some kind relationship between the difference in reference frames of both the small mass wheel and the big mass spaceship, and the kinetic energy of the whole system?

  I can understand of course how a momentum wheel obeys the conservation of momentum and newton's third law, and I can understand that the rotational energy is limited by the strength of the wheel, but couldn't an analogy be drawn where the momentum wheel flywheel is represented by an em-drive's "working photons", and the spacecraft (or whatever the motor is attached to) of a momentum wheel is represented by an em-drive's frustum?

see:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1385280#msg1385280

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589

Does that about sum it up? I really do hope I'm helping to facilitate understanding of all these things.

Todd
Well done...very well done.
To everyone here very well done. I did and I hope others learned something.

All my life I was told you can't do that or that will not work and I never believed them. You can't like electronics, you're a girl. Didn't work. You can't do a degree in 2 years, didn't work. You can't, you can't, it will not work, gag me. Well the you can'ts gave me a couple dozen patents and proved to me that if you raise red flag of "you can't" in front of me I'll somehow prove you can.

You see when someone says you can't, it will not work. The first thing I do is look for ways it will work. (The hardest thing for me is to finally know and accept it just might not work and that's not often). This is not the case with the EMdrive as there is enough (barely) real test data to prove to me there is something there. Dozens of people have seriously worked on this and against those who have said it's not gonna work. Well, my hat is off to them for we are alike. Why is what drives you and for me the why is the reason you have pushed to know the world around you.

I was retired, but you know, I still like a good fight when someone says, you can't do that. So I'm building this newfangled EMdrive violation contraption and learning. And this is the other side to the equation as to why many are here and it's just as important as all the math and all the conjecture.

Shell

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
I'm fascinated in a way by WarpTech's insistence of including elements of metric tensors, and of the Lorentz boost gamma, in his calculations.  It is surely clear that space is "almost flat" and that the relative velocities involved in foreseeable lab tests, or even in space in the mid-term, will have a gamma factor as close to unity as makes "no difference".

So Todd, can you quantify please by what kind of percentage your calculations would be affected if you dropped these SR and GR references? 0.000001%? 0.00000000001%? less?

And if you agree that they are so small, then why do you bother with them when they don't change the outcome in a materially significant way? That's a serious question. I just don't get why you would bother with them.

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1295
  • Likes Given: 1749
Okay.... but how does that solve the problem?  Instead of referring to the gradient of (F/P), you are referring to the gradient of (P/F)2, correct?

Yes, the gradient derivative of (P/F)^2 is an acceleration vector that opposes the thrust.

Quote
So in my example, wtih a ball just sitting in a gravitational field, the F/P ratio is just given by 1/v.  There is no spatial dependence.  It is not uniquely defined.

There is no such thing as the gradient of (P/F)^2 for this case.

So is there something special in my hypothetical case that causes you theory to be inapplicable?

(P/F)^2 = v2^2 - v1^2, the difference between two potentials, better?

Or if I define v1 at infinity to be 0, does that make it clearer? It differs only by a limit of integration and I am showing the indefinite integral solution. I guess it could be expressed clearer, but the meaning is there.

In a gravitational field this would be;

(P/F)^2 = g(h2 - h1), same thing.

(P/F)^2 is not a constant wrt the center of mass in a gravitational field, it depends on the relative distance from it and varies like 1/r, like a potential.

Todd





Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1

Turychev's paper written to explain the pioneer spacecraft anomoly...its deceleration...breaks no laws of physics. Does not address its spin-down, however.

I could not gather how much thermal "thrust" the spacecraft was generating on its own. Perhaps a braintrust here can give us a micro or milinewton translation. Not sure I understand how thermal radiation could slow a spacecraft in interstellar space, regardless... :o

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1295
  • Likes Given: 1749
I'm fascinated in a way by WarpTech's insistence of including elements of metric tensors, and of the Lorentz boost gamma, in his calculations.  It is surely clear that space is "almost flat" and that the relative velocities involved in foreseeable lab tests, or even in space in the mid-term, will have a gamma factor as close to unity as makes "no difference".

So Todd, can you quantify please by what kind of percentage your calculations would be affected if you dropped these SR and GR references? 0.000001%? 0.00000000001%? less?

And if you agree that they are so small, then why do you bother with them when they don't change the outcome in a materially significant way? That's a serious question. I just don't get why you would bother with them.

Because, when mass is accelerated, it's inertia content increases. That inertia is stored as length contraction and time dilation of of every sub-atomic particle in the object. In other words, inertial mass curves space-time. Without that, the inertia seems to disappear! Leading to preposterous conclusions like "free energy" and perpetual motion machines. At the human scale of a meter stick moving at v << c, these factors may be imperceivable small, but for millions of sub-atomic particles spinning at nearly the speed of light, and whose tiny wavelength depends on its momentum,

lambda(t) = h/p(t), i.e., it's inertia content....

ANY warping of space-time is significant.

In the case of your battery scenario. In that situation, you are starting with a total inertial mass energy of;

E = ship(m) + charged battery(M(t)) = (m + M(t))*c^2. The limiting velocity will be determined by the equation;

E2 = ((m + M(t))c2)2 + (p(t)c)2

The thrust-to-power ratio will just tell you how fast you can get there. What happens is, the energy stored in the battery is discharged into accelerating all the particles to a new momentum. If no mass was ejected in the process, then once the ultimate momentum state is reached the battery is discharged and all the sub-atomic particles of mass that were accelerated will have been contracted. Work was done to curve space-time for the matter that was transported, relative to the rest-frame where it started. Without that, there is "hidden inertia", not accounted for, even at low speed.

Todd

« Last Edit: 06/08/2015 12:29 AM by WarpTech »

Tags: