Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1799772 times)

deltaMass

• Full Member
• Posts: 955
• A Brit in California
• Liked: 671
• Likes Given: 275
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1300 on: 06/08/2015 10:28 PM »
That's the ticket. Bounded below by lambda0

TheTraveller

Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1301 on: 06/08/2015 10:28 PM »
EMDYIers, seems a lot of the RF injection into the frustum has been monopole antenna (magnatron) or coupling loop (EW). Been trying to think past this...I'll start out with a unity gain 1/2 wave monopole, then the loop, then a colinear array which provides about gain up to about 10dB with series 1/2 wave elements. Since this would exceed a linear dimension in the frustum, was thinking perhaps of a spiral arrangement.

Gain is important in my design, since I'm only planing on about +37dbm to start...FWIW: http://www.nodomainname.co.uk/Omnicolinear/2-4collinear.htm

Oops, forgot the helical pic...

I think that the antena length might have some influence if we consider near field (as an evanescent waves) distribution inside the frustum.

After wikipedia:

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

Inside the frustum at say TEx,x,3 there are 3 halfwaves or 4 node points from end plate to end plate. However the guide wavelength is NOT the same along the 3 halfwaves. Wavelength is longest at the small end the shortest at the big end.

If you wish to excite & couple to that bundle of energy, your antenna, in a simple way, should be 1/4 the guide wavelength at the point of side wall insertion, which should be 90 deg (1/4 wave) away from the nodes. With 3 x 1/2 waves, there are 3 points which match this condition.The EMDrive calc can give you those values.

While the attached is not shown as a cavity, the rules are the same. Always remember to adjust for guide wavelength not being constant.

Note well the tuning screw. Roger Shawyer told me every successful EMDrive build had a way to tune for optimal impedance matching / lowest VSWR.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2015 10:57 PM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1227
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1293
• Likes Given: 1745
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1302 on: 06/08/2015 10:35 PM »
Sorry if I interject into @WarpTech's and @deltaMass's conversation...

...
@WarpTech, am I interpreting what you are saying correctly?

You summed it up quite well actually! What I'm trying to show is that the speed limit depends on the available power and when equilibrium's reached, that's as fast as it can go. To be clear, in GR, the coordinate speed of light is not constant. Therefore, there is a "mechanism" that sets the speed limit, depending on the space-time curvature. Space-time curvature is determined by Tuv, so calling it "flow of power from and to the Universe" is quite accurate, though the local field is good enough. I'm attempting to show it depends on the power available to push it.

My problem is, I'm much better at the physical conceptualization and explaining things, than I am at the Mathematics.

Todd

vnbt4

• Member
• Posts: 3
• california
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1303 on: 06/08/2015 10:55 PM »
sorry to but in but i have a relatively novice question. i am trying to do diy emdrive with the hope of scaling to a drone eventually. But my question is if you use a smaller cavity with the same level of input power from a magnetron would it mean more thrust? Also is there any advice available for a really cheap version of Woodward's thrust pendulum? i already have plan but i figured asking would help.

sorry if this seems rude, just been reading the forum a while and decided to shoot my mouth off. Sorry for the intrusion
« Last Edit: 06/08/2015 10:56 PM by vnbt4 »

TheTraveller

Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1304 on: 06/08/2015 11:03 PM »
sorry to but in but i have a relatively novice question. i am trying to do diy emdrive with the hope of scaling to a drone eventually. But my question is if you use a smaller cavity with the same level of input power from a magnetron would it mean more thrust? Also is there any advice available for a really cheap version of Woodward's thrust pendulum? i already have plan but i figured asking would help.

sorry if this seems rude, just been reading the forum a while and decided to shoot my mouth off. Sorry for the intrusion

In my opinion, a non superconducting EMDrive would NOT generate enough thrust or lift to keep your drone airborne.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

vnbt4

• Member
• Posts: 3
• california
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1305 on: 06/08/2015 11:18 PM »
Oh i didn't mean right away. i intended to build a very small emdrive and attach it to a woodward like test bench. Then use a microwave magnetron to power it in a vacuum. I know i will have small trusts but playing around and testing might reveal something useful. That aside though. would a standard coaxial cable be able to transfer a microwave signal into the emdrive or would there need to be a different cable/technique to transfer the microwave energy to the drive?
Also if a small emdrive like the one  being built to be used on the modified levitating globe mechanism but using the same power-supply as a larger test artificial change the thrust levels at all or just make the small emdrive nonfunctional?
« Last Edit: 06/08/2015 11:24 PM by vnbt4 »

Mulletron

• Full Member
• Posts: 1111
• Liked: 775
• Likes Given: 1012
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1306 on: 06/08/2015 11:39 PM »
PHOTON ACCELERATION

A related microwave experiment by Joshi et al, in 1992 [95] was able to show
that the frequency of microwave radiation contained in a cavity can be up-shifted
to give a broadband spectrum, in the presence of an ionization front produced by
an ultraviolet laser pulse. These results provided the first clear indication that the
photon acceleration mechanism was possibly taking place

http://bit.ly/1FY2inV

This Russian website has this book on

Theory of Photon Acceleration
J T Mendonca

http://bit.ly/1M9gPyy

by one of the original discoverers of what is known as photon acceleration.

This website version of the book is only shown here for research purposes, for researchers such as @Notsosureofit, conducting such research.

People are warned that this book is copyrighted and published by The Institute of Physics, and if interested, you are advised to purchase the book from an authorized bookseller, for example here is Amazon

http://amzn.to/1FxkrXd

instead of relying on the copy from the Russian website.

<<The concept of photon acceleration appeared quite recently in plasma physics. It
is a simple and general concept associated with electromagnetic wave propagation,
and can be used to describe a large number of effects occurring not only in
plasmas but also in other optical media. Photon acceleration is so simple that it
could be considered a trivial concept, if it were not a subtle one.
Let us first try to define the concept. The best way to do it is to establish a
comparison between this and a few other well-known concepts, such as with refraction.
For instance, photon acceleration can be seen as a space–time refraction.
Everybody knows that refraction is the change of direction suffered by a light
beam when it crosses the boundary between two optical media. In more technical
terms we can say that the wavevector associated with this light beam changes,
because the properties of the optical medium vary in space.
We can imagine a symmetric situation where the properties of the optical
medium are constant in space but vary in time. Now the light wavevector remains
constant (the usual refraction does not occur here) but the light frequency changes.
This effect, which is as universal as the usual refraction, can be called time
refraction. A more general situation can also occur, where the optical medium
changes in both space and time and the resulting space–time refraction effect
coincides with what is now commonly called photon acceleration.
Another natural comparison can be established with the nonlinear wave processes,
because photon acceleration is likewise responsible for the transfer of
energy from one region of the electromagnetic wave spectrum to another. The
main differences are that photon acceleration is a non-resonant wave process,
because it can allow for the transfer of electromagnetic energy from one region of
the spectrum to an arbitrarily different one, with no selection rules>>

Well this certainly is a revolutionary idea and later related work from him and others is published.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0607195
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960106011340

Given recent developments such as this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165

and this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.0712 (and predictions of the same in vacuum within this paper)
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.193003

So the subject of "photon acceleration" remains a possibility (contrary to my original assumptions, based off the majority view), but I'd rather wait to embrace it until there is an experiment proving it in vacuum (which would make a real mess of currently accepted physics). In the meantime, it might be a good idea to challenge our other assumption too, which stem from this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.6706

If the EmDrive doesn't turn out to be bunk, it'll answer some the questions in the above reference.

« Last Edit: 06/08/2015 11:40 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

hhexo

• Member
• Posts: 31
• An Italian in the UK
• Liked: 24
• Likes Given: 1
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1307 on: 06/09/2015 12:00 AM »
Sorry if I interject into @WarpTech's and @deltaMass's conversation...

...
@WarpTech, am I interpreting what you are saying correctly?

You summed it up quite well actually! What I'm trying to show is that the speed limit depends on the available power and when equilibrium's reached, that's as fast as it can go. To be clear, in GR, the coordinate speed of light is not constant. Therefore, there is a "mechanism" that sets the speed limit, depending on the space-time curvature. Space-time curvature is determined by Tuv, so calling it "flow of power from and to the Universe" is quite accurate, though the local field is good enough. I'm attempting to show it depends on the power available to push it.

My problem is, I'm much better at the physical conceptualization and explaining things, than I am at the Mathematics.

Todd

Ok, thanks!

Hm... is this speed limit in any way related to the "speed of light" speed limit that we all know? I can understand that one in SR. I know how it works. But GR is different, and that I don't know enough. Is what you're suggesting similar?
Would a possible interpretation be that in the weird accelerated reference frame the speed limit determined by the energy equilibrium with the universe is the same thing as the speed of light speed limit? Or am I going totally wrong now?

I guess what I'm asking is: in your accelerated frame of reference trying to reach equilibrium with the universe, is your speed limit actually still c, only we would perceive it in our different reference frame as a smaller limit v (which incidentally would be slightly different for different observers in different gravity wells)? Because if that were the case, I would sort of understand the whole "it's better than a photon rocket" issue as something like "it's really just a photon rocket in its own frame, but in our different reference frame we see it as appearing better than a photon rocket but with a lower limit speed, as an artefact of how accelerated frames work".

Maybe I have just veered in a totally different direction there.
Also, even if GR does predict variations in the speed of light for different accelerated reference frames, I would think that these variations can't transform it to the order of magnitude of everyday speeds unless there is a massively (pun intended) strong gravitational effect.

The kind of distortion you would need for something like your_c_in_my_frame = 1m/s boggles the mind.
 ...or maybe not! http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6720/abs/397594a0.html
... wow. I think that's a bit too much to digest at 1am here. I'll go back to trying to make sense of this tomorrow.
« Last Edit: 06/09/2015 12:21 AM by hhexo »

TheTraveller

Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1308 on: 06/09/2015 12:26 AM »
Either Im going slowly mad.. a possibility .. or reality is conspiring to keep this project front and center in my mind for a while

I feel hungry and decide its time for a rest and some food... sounds like a good excuse to go to the pub and get a pub meal.
I take some reading material along to keep my mind busy.. sort of a habit

I order some fries and some food, What do you think arrives ... #\$%^ cavities are everywhere... triffids

I've done Dfs on quite a few buckets & glasses. Not ideal but could work. Even better if already copper electroplated.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

rfmwguy

• EmDrive Builder (retired)
• Senior Member
• Posts: 2165
• Liked: 2681
• Likes Given: 1124
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1309 on: 06/09/2015 12:33 AM »
Brief Intermission -

Wow, if nothing else, this thread is dusting off the cobwebs of vague memories regarding the nature of the universe. Which turns me to dark matter, which compromises most of the universe: "Dark matter neither emits nor absorbs light or any other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

As we try to wrap our heads around the 4.9%, lets consider the other 95.1% and how we may or may not be inadvertedly bumping into it...by mistake. I know dark energy/matter is sci-fi realm to some, but not to others.

Quantum Vacuum, Dark Energy or Aether? Who knows, not me

WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1227
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1293
• Likes Given: 1745
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1310 on: 06/09/2015 12:41 AM »
That's the ticket. Bounded below by lambda0

Wow, light bulb time! What I'm describing is almost exactly Mike McCulloch's theory, and it's "real" effects. Check this out. He writes on his blog; http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/mihsc-101.html

"I have suggested that the waves of Unruh radiation cause inertia as follows: the waves have to fit exactly between the rightwards-accelerating object and the Rindler horizon that forms on the left. This is similar in form to the Casimir effect, but I use logic instead: a non-fitting partial wave would allow us to infer what lies beyond the horizon, so it wouldn't be a horizon anymore. This logic disallows Unruh waves that don't fit on the left: they dissappear. As a result more Unruh radiation pressure hits the object coming from the right than from the left and this imbalance pushes it back against its acceleration, just like inertia. I have shown that this effect is the right size to provide a mechanism for inertia,...."

Now, imagine this Rindler horizon behind the accelerating object and consider it to be a real black hole event horizon. As the object gains speed, the black hole keeps getting closer until you reach a speed where the best you can do at this constant power is hover above the horizon.

Maybe if the engine has enough power, the horizon catches up and then the object falls through the event horizon, as observed by someone in the rest-frame??? It's far fetched, but almost plausible. McCulloch's theory I find is not too different from my own. The acceleration vector points toward where gravity is strongest. In his model, it points towards where there is are fewer allowed modes of the ZPF. Exactly as it should be and what I said in my warp drive paper. Interesting new way to look at it! He just got my attention.

Also, the equation for hovering above the horizon  I believe, turns out to be this....
agreed?

deltaMass

• Full Member
• Posts: 955
• A Brit in California
• Liked: 671
• Likes Given: 275
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1311 on: 06/09/2015 01:22 AM »
Yes if
a) your g00 is unitless, and
b) it predicts sqrt(t) dynamics for 'a'

WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1227
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1293
• Likes Given: 1745
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1312 on: 06/09/2015 01:47 AM »
Yes if
a) your g00 is unitless, and
b) it predicts sqrt(t) dynamics for 'a'

g00 = 1/sqrt(1 - 2GM/rc2),

There are two ways to interpret this.

a) M is the mass of the black hole chasing the object, and r is the distance between the thruster and the CM
b) M is the total inertia of the object at velocity (v), and r is the distance between the thruster and the CM.

Not sure which is right, but both result in the same thing. I think b is the more reasonable choice.

Mulletron

• Full Member
• Posts: 1111
• Liked: 775
• Likes Given: 1012
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1313 on: 06/09/2015 01:56 AM »
EMDYIers, seems a lot of the RF injection into the frustum has been monopole antenna (magnatron) or coupling loop (EW). Been trying to think past this...I'll start out with a unity gain 1/2 wave monopole, then the loop, then a colinear array which provides about gain up to about 10dB with series 1/2 wave elements. Since this would exceed a linear dimension in the frustum, was thinking perhaps of a spiral arrangement.

Not that I have experience designing waveguide couplers, but AFAIK the idea is to couple energy by matching impedance from source to sink.

An antenna is used to match impedance to free space. An E-field probe (or slot) or B-field loop is used to couple to waveguides, and very similarly, cavities.

And with high-Q cavities and filters, you'll want to match a pretty low impedance (~50 ohms) to a very high-Q and impedance. So a very short probe or link, away from the high-field area would be in order.

I don't think putting the magnetron output stub axially, on an end of the frustrum is a good idea, because the end regions may be "hot" (high E-field). Locating it near a node, or low-field, will match better.

Most important, it won't load the cavity which would kill the Q.

It has been noted previously, if you use a loop, you can rotate it to reduce the coupling/impedance/loading.

Well said. I've been trying to visualize this. EW had their loop in the top of the frustum, off-center, but according to models, right on a "hot spot". Shawyer seems to have his on the side as well as Iulian. My first tests will be side injection per my paper, at 3 different points. If I go with a helical radiator, think I can avoid the 4 hotspots I believe Doc said were TM212 which highlights 4 E fields at the top and bottom sides. Thks for the inputs...

Eagleworks had their antennas on the side. See images from Eagleworks here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327467#msg1327467
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1331854#msg1331854 (note copper tape showing old antenna location)

Also very good info if you read in detail:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1349225#msg1349225
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1346380#msg1346380 (antenna placement)
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1227
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1293
• Likes Given: 1745
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1314 on: 06/09/2015 02:00 AM »

The kind of distortion you would need for something like your_c_in_my_frame = 1m/s boggles the mind.
 ...or maybe not! http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6720/abs/397594a0.html
... wow. I think that's a bit too much to digest at 1am here. I'll go back to trying to make sense of this tomorrow.

I'm doing my best to grapple with this thing. I think I am bridging to new understanding, right or wrong has yet to be determined. Please bare with me and thank you for your comments.

Just FYI: In GR, the coordinate speed of light is a variable;

ds2 = -g00c2dt2+g11dx2...

For light, ds = 0

So we get,

(dx/dt)2 = c2g00/g11

or simply, dx/dt = c/K

where K is the refractive index of the vacuum, i.e., the gravitational field. It amounts to the difference between how much space-time has been altered from what we define as |guv|=1, where c = 1, not 1/K.

kml

Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1315 on: 06/09/2015 02:26 AM »
I've been reading up on waveguide math and noticed a very important property of waveguides:

- As you approach cutoff frequency group velocity decreases but guided wavelength increases
- As EM waves enter a dielectric the group velocity decreases but guided wavelength decreases
- Dielectrics also take you further from cutoff frequency, additionally decreasing guided wavelength.

If Shawyer's formula 7 in theorypaper9-4.pdf is correct, this means that in a tapered resonator without dielectric, would accelerate large end forward while a resonator with dielectric at one end would accelerate dielectric end first (regardless of which end has the taper).

Isn't this exactly what happened in the the Eagleworks test where the dielectric disk fell off the small end?

Another consequence of this is that an EmDrive that does not use dielectric could never exceed Q * photon rocket thrust, while an EmDrive with dielectric does not have that limitation.    This is because tapering only reduces momentum transfer at the small end while the large end transfers higher but still less than unguided reflection momentum.   In a resonator with dielectric at one end, the reflections at the dielectric end transfer more momentum than normal (according to Shawyer's guided wavelength theory).

Shawyers formula 7 already incorporates the effect of a dielectric if guided wavelengths are calculated correctly including relative permittivity (which is not hard).  I wonder why he opted to set Er=1 and mur=1 in formula 7 and add in dielectric terms in a very akward and confusing way in later formulas?

---

Progress update:  I have installed the feedpoint connector at 1/4 guided wave from the end for f=1265mhz (8.5cm). Circulator has been ordered.   I placed an order for 5kg of Strontium Titanate but the vendor needs to approve my account before it will ship.

It looks like my surplus WR-650 waveguide section came from the famous Millstone Radar L-band system.    That's pretty cool.

ThereIWas3

• Full Member
• Posts: 612
• Liked: 260
• Likes Given: 212
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1316 on: 06/09/2015 03:18 AM »
But GR is different, and that I don't know enough.

I just remembered the name of first book I ever read on relativity, both Special and General.  I read it (or tried to read it) in my High School lilbrary.  Twice.  At the start it only assumes you can understand High School math, and teaches you just enough of the rest to grasp General Relativity.  Including terms like "Covariant tensors of rank three".

The title is "The Einstein Theory of Relativity, a trip to the fourth dimension" and it is by Lillian R. Lieber.  It was written in the 1940's.  It has been republished and Amazon has it.
"If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

SeeShells

• Senior Member
• Posts: 2326
• Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
• United States
• Liked: 2956
• Likes Given: 2588
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1317 on: 06/09/2015 03:58 AM »
...
I would have done the test differently. Instead of putting all the weight onto a air bearing I would have suspended from the ceiling from the center point of the test jig. As even a small air bearing would have provided enough air bearing surface and balancing it out. Eliminate a lot of potential errors.
OK good idea to take care of for static stability but this will not eliminate (just by doing this) dynamic unbalance, unfortunately.
Think of ceiling fans: they are hang this way from the ceiling.  Remember that even carefully placing lead weights it is difficult to take care of dynamic balancing problems of a ceiling fan, even more so when one has a light fixture under the fan.  Here is a picture of me trying to balance a fan, I can never get right, and the noise keeps me up at night:

The paper I attached in a prior post goes over the equations and shows that there is an inherent dynamic balancing problem with air bearings.

I think this problem is greater for the EM Drive than for usual electronics, due to the weight of Shawyer's EM Drive and the attendant equipment and the fact that the weight on air bearings is limited.
6 inch diameter air bearing. Area of a circle = Pi x diameter 2/4 = 3.142 x 36/4 = 28.28 sq ins
@ 100psi x 28.28 = 2,828 pounds
Support isn't a issue, but design is in making the bottom cavity cupped to keep the top disk in the center and that can be done with air jets in the bottom section and very small .020" groves connecting the jets dispersing the air flow over the bearing and eliminating high pressure areas.
I could put a small car on this bearing and spin it around without it loosing any centricity of rotation.

Rodal

• Senior Member
• Posts: 5835
• USA
• Liked: 5915
• Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1318 on: 06/09/2015 04:41 AM »
...
6 inch diameter air bearing. Area of a circle = Pi x diameter 2/4 = 3.142 x 36/4 = 28.28 sq ins
@ 100psi x 28.28 = 2,828 pounds
Support isn't a issue, but design is in making the bottom cavity cupped to keep the top disk in the center and that can be done with air jets in the bottom section and very small .020" groves connecting the jets dispersing the air flow over the bearing and eliminating high pressure areas.
I could put a small car on this bearing and spin it around without it loosing any centricity of rotation.
What is the minimum speed at which that air bearing (described above) can accurately operate?
Does it require precise manufacturing ?

Or can you give the manufacturer name (or link) to see its design parameters?

Thanks
« Last Edit: 06/09/2015 04:43 AM by Rodal »

WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1227
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1293
• Likes Given: 1745
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3
« Reply #1319 on: 06/09/2015 05:35 AM »
I know this thread is regarding the EM Drive and we have been doing a lot of talking about physics. This post definitely belongs here because to my understanding, the EM Drive works by attenuating waves and I've said that it mimics gravity because of this. I would like to elaborate on this, because really understanding it is relevant to engineering such devices.

The average power and energy of a quantum mechanical oscillator in its ground state is;

E0 = h*w
P0 = h*w2/2

Here, P0 is both the power radiated by the oscillator, and the power absorbed from the vacuum. You can call it the ZPF, or you can call it a Thermal field with a gaussian distribution, since the vacuum has a minimum temperature above zero. It really doesn't matter, it is the energy of the vacuum that is relative to some other energy, someplace else.

In a gravitational field, Power is modified by the g00 term of the Schwarzschild metric. It co-varies with the coordinate speed of light, which is a variable as I showed in an earlier post today.

P(r) = P0*(1 - 2GM/rc2)

What this says is, the average power goes to zero as the oscillator approaches the event horizon of a black hole, as r -> Rs, the Schwarzschild radius. This makes sense, we know time stops there, so there can be no change with respect to time. Therefore, we can deduce that the radiation and absorption for this oscillator go to zero.

So what happened here? My understanding is this;

In free space, the oscillator is driven by the ZPF, and it is attenuated by Radiation Reaction. The two are in equilibrium. The oscillator in its ground state can't go any lower in energy because the ZPF prevents it. It sets the base-line, ground state energy level. Relative to what?

As the oscillator approaches the event horizon, it is losing power, P(r). No doubt here, the particle is in free fall and this is geodesic motion. There is no force acting on it so why is it losing power?

Because the ZPF that sustains it is being attenuated by the presence of the matter, by the presence of the black hole

The Damping factor for the damped harmonic oscillator, turns out to be.... yup, you guessed it right;

Damping factor = sqrt(2GM/rc2)

It causes the "loss" of power due to the term, 2GM/rc2, reducing the available power required to drive the oscillator. Why? Because the presence of the oscillator drives currents in nearby matter that are phase-shifted relative to the oscillator, causing work to be done and power to be spent. Again, superposition of waves leads to asymmetrical pressures, amplification or attenuation.

Unfortunately, the EM Drive is attempting to do both, amplify Q and attenuate for thrust. It's a great clue, but the design is like a push-me-pull-you. Anyway... the EM Drive has a cut-off frequency where the wave velocity goes to zero, due to attenuation of the waves caused by the relative phase shift. This mimics gravity. Once frequencies below the cut-off cross that line, it is like crossing the event horizon and they are not reflected. Stored energy is attenuated asymmetrically to provide thrust, dependent on the rate of attenuation.

Will that make it a good thruster someday? How do you move a black hole?