Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1798267 times)

Offline ElizabethGreene

  • Member
  • Posts: 69
  • Nashville, Tennessee
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 3
I don't understand why perforated copper sheets instead of solid. At that frequency it will decrease the effective conductivity and ruin the Q of any cavity. Additionally you lose structural rigidity and will be suspect to thermal effects changing the shape of the cavity (having a variable Q).

The idea with perforations was to eliminate the possibility that the cavity could be working as a hot-air balloon.  A perforated cavity reduces hot air as an error factor significantly.

(Reduces, not eliminates.) 

Offline rfcavity

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 0
I don't understand why perforated copper sheets instead of solid. At that frequency it will decrease the effective conductivity and ruin the Q of any cavity. Additionally you lose structural rigidity and will be suspect to thermal effects changing the shape of the cavity (having a variable Q).

The idea with perforations was to eliminate the possibility that the cavity could be working as a hot-air balloon.  A perforated cavity reduces hot air as an error factor significantly.

(Reduces, not eliminates.)

Then you make some small venting areas. Making the whole thing out of it can have really weird side effects (even if all the holes are much smaller than a wavelength).

Check out application of a perforated metal sheet at this frequency (2.45 GHz)
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1614&context=ese_papers

Offline marshallC

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 25
I don't understand why perforated copper sheets instead of solid. At that frequency it will decrease the effective conductivity and ruin the Q of any cavity. Additionally you lose structural rigidity and will be suspect to thermal effects changing the shape of the cavity (having a variable Q).

The idea with perforations was to eliminate the possibility that the cavity could be working as a hot-air balloon.  A perforated cavity reduces hot air as an error factor significantly.

(Reduces, not eliminates.)

If the emdrive functions as you think it may, and deltamass' statement about the air (acting as a necessary medium) absorbing the apparent violations of CoM is correct, would allowing air to escape mask the fact that air is effectively acting as reaction mass?

Again, my apologies if I'm misunderstanding somewhere.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5906
  • Likes Given: 5253
...

I don't understand why perforated copper sheets instead of solid. At that frequency it will decrease the effective conductivity and ruin the Q of any cavity. Additionally you lose structural rigidity and will be suspect to thermal effects changing the shape of the cavity (having a variable Q).

See this post with the PROS and CONS of perforated sheet vs solid:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1403306#msg1403306

Please let us know whether you would  like to modify or add to the pros and cons.

____________________

BACKGROUND: SeeShells has a comprehensive program, where she will initially use perforated sheets to start with, to take care of several pros, most prominent among them the "gas effect" that has plagued all radiation pressure measurements in air since the time of Maxwell.

The first successful measurement of  microwave radiation pressure was performed by  Prof.Dr. Cullen in his Ph.D. thesis (a full half-century after the first successful radiation pressure in vacuum for optical frequencies).  Prof. Cullen detailed in his article (often quoted by Roger Shawyer who unfortunately did NOT follow Cullen's advise to use grids on the bases to prevent the gas effect) how he initially started with solid sheets that proved a disaster concerning measurements as doing so the experiment is plagued with noise.  He succesfully addressed the "gas effect" by using an open grid for a base instead of a solid sheet for the base of his cylindrical waveguide (which had solid cylindrical surfaces).

Observe that those that have solely performed experiments in air (Shawyer and Yang, who have never reported of a single experiment in vacuum) claim measurements that are orders of magnitude larger than those that have performed experiments in vacuum (the more prestigious NASA and TU Dresden University).   Interestingly, both Shawyer and Yang have used solid sheets in their experiments in air, and therefore Shawyer's and Yang's experiments are highly questionable to say the least, according to Prof. Cullen's work.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 08:27 PM by Rodal »

Offline ElizabethGreene

  • Member
  • Posts: 69
  • Nashville, Tennessee
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 3

If the emdrive functions as you think it may, and deltamass' statement about the air (acting as a necessary medium) absorbing the apparent violations of CoM is correct, would allowing air to escape mask the fact that air is effectively acting as reaction mass?

Again, my apologies if I'm misunderstanding somewhere.

Nasa has eliminated air as reaction mass by testing the emDrive in a hard vacuum.

(If you meant my personal theory, I don't know enough to answer that question.)

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Germany
  • Liked: 993
  • Likes Given: 2143
I don't understand why perforated copper sheets instead of solid. At that frequency it will decrease the effective conductivity and ruin the Q of any cavity. Additionally you lose structural rigidity and will be suspect to thermal effects changing the shape of the cavity (having a variable Q).

The idea with perforations was to eliminate the possibility that the cavity could be working as a hot-air balloon.  A perforated cavity reduces hot air as an error factor significantly.

(Reduces, not eliminates.)

If the emdrive functions as you think it may, and deltamass' statement about the air (acting as a necessary medium) absorbing the apparent violations of CoM is correct, would allowing air to escape mask the fact that air is effectively acting as reaction mass?

Again, my apologies if I'm misunderstanding somewhere.
If there is any thrust for real(and i hope for), the conservation of momentum is be fulfilled if one accept that a part of the energy is translated into acceleration of the whole cavity (the energie whats lost in the field inside the resonator is still there, conserved in the speed(*restmass)).
The NASA get no thrust without dielectric insert but that can depend on the used mode or something else. For the air it may be the same unknown effect.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 08:48 PM by X_RaY »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
I don't understand why perforated copper sheets instead of solid. At that frequency it will decrease the effective conductivity and ruin the Q of any cavity. Additionally you lose structural rigidity and will be suspect to thermal effects changing the shape of the cavity (having a variable Q).

The idea with perforations was to eliminate the possibility that the cavity could be working as a hot-air balloon.  A perforated cavity reduces hot air as an error factor significantly.

(Reduces, not eliminates.)

Then you make some small venting areas. Making the whole thing out of it can have really weird side effects (even if all the holes are much smaller than a wavelength).

Check out application of a perforated metal sheet at this frequency (2.45 GHz)
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1614&context=ese_papers
Weird is what we are after. Others used solid materials, I plan to use screen for reasons Doc transcribed earlier in the thread. The paper is dealing with EM cloaking, not an effect we are after.

Offline mwvp

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 254
  • Coincidence? I think Not!
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 30
MWVP thanks for posting this!!!! Is there a slide out there with a Bottom Radius 431.8mm and height 711.2mm?!?!? Looking at this slide you can see that the 431.8mm x 711.2mm is probably not designed for the 2.4GHz frequency... and you can see that the TM010 design is the one that achieves resonance at the lowest frequency - I think March is going TM010 to allow a commercial L-band magnetron to achieve resonance.

Your welcome, but someone else deserves credit for posting on ~5/22/15. That's all I know.

Maybe Traveller's got more at his dropbox?

Can we have that dropbox URL again Traveller? Thanks.

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2737
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
@leomillert

I think you're fine - looks like you have a good meep install.

Yes, all of the numbers in your csv file were different than the numbers in my csv file, the not by much. I loaded both csv files into a spread sheep program then subtracted one from the other, entry by entry. Then I looked for the largest positive difference and the absolute value of the largest negative difference. I came up with 4.16333634234434E-017 and 2.7972416050126E-017. That is the difference in numerical precision of our two machines, nothing more.

You're good to go, and for all you theorists out there, leomillert is now set to generate meep data for you.

and leomillert, here are some links to manuals that you may wish to bookmark if you haven't already.

http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/documentation/mit-scheme-user.pdf
http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/documentation/mit-scheme-ref.pdf
https://www.mail-archive.com/meep-discuss@ab-initio.mit.edu/ - You may need to join.
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Tutorial
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/h5utils/h5topng-man.html
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/h5utils/h5totxt-man.html
http://www.hdfgroup.org/products/java/hdfview/UsersGuide/index.html

and don't forget, Google is your friend.

aero
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Germany
  • Liked: 993
  • Likes Given: 2143
Is there someone who explain me the following?
I don't understand in Dr White's theory of virtual electrons and positrons:
This particles are real after creation (for a really short time, not an infinite) and are able to interact with the copper at the large diameter. If a created positron for example interacts with a electron inside the copper it'll annihilate and erased, at the same time a photon will radiate from the annihilation point(with a other wavelength, feynman diagramm)... how can it be that there are "real-virtual" particle from inside deliver to outside the cavity. I think i've got read about the energy to create those particles is spent by the quantum vacuum energy for a short while to get real particles, real particles can interact with other real particles and the copper is a great barrier for the positrons and electrons. Don't know how this particle can escape. Please help me to understand. Got i am wrong or not?  :-\ If i am wrong Hawking radiation is also. :o
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 09:23 PM by X_RaY »

Offline Tetrakis

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 9
"Hard" vacuum is relative.

To get to 1-10 millitorr, PTFE gaskets and a standard rotary pump will do.

To get far below that, you start needing to use polished steel, all-metal gaskets, turbomolecular or oil-diffusion pumps backed with a rotary pump, etcetera.

What was the pressure of the "hard vacuum" tests by NASA?

Offline zellerium

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 400
"Hard" vacuum is relative.

To get to 1-10 millitorr, PTFE gaskets and a standard rotary pump will do.

To get far below that, you start needing to use polished steel, all-metal gaskets, turbomolecular or oil-diffusion pumps backed with a rotary pump, etcetera.

What was the pressure of the "hard vacuum" tests by NASA?

[quote ]
They have now confirmed that there is a thrust signature in a hard vacuum (~5.0x10^-6 Torr) in both the forward direction, (approx. +50 micro-Newton (uN) with 50W at 1,937.115 MHz), and the reversed direction, (up to -16uN with a failing RF amp), when the thruster is rotated 180 degrees on the torque pendulum.
[/quote]

source:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/04/eagleworks-nasa-updated-emdrive-models.html

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2737
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Don't have the software to do the integration on the images but I did the large end.

I hope you have good solder joints people! The maximum stress seems to ride the seem of the large end. Hence, the use of bolts, not solder to hold it together. Hmmm...

It makes sense though, that when the mode energy reaches the big end, it has already expanded. So after that, most of the reflections must be concentrated around the perimeter of the big end. That's why I want to see a simulation of it turned off. I want to see how far back up the frustum the wave goes after it is reflected from the big end, and for how long.
Todd

It is a location NEAR the big end, but NOT at the big end.  I still have to plot the stresses at the big and at the small ends

In order to do that, don't you need csv files at the big and small ends? If so, tell me where they are. That is, what rows of the xz or xy csv files that you have correspond to the big and small ends? Then I can cut x slices at those rows and make the right csv files.

aero, I figured out exactly where the bases are located in the RFMWGUY latest model that has

245 FD nodes in the longitudinal x direction
261 FD nodes in the transverse y and z directions

BIG BASE is at x = 16   (column 16 of 245 columns)

SMALL BASE is at x = 231  (column 231 of 245 columns)   


(x corresponds to the column number in the matrix)

So, I would need TS013 to TS13 for at x = 16 and at x = 231

It is very important to get the exact location, as x=15 and x = 232 have zero fields.

If you decide to locate the cross sections based on the middle node located at:

x = (245-1)/2 + 1
   = 123

then

BIG BASE      x = 16  corresponds to     123 - 107 

SMALL BASE  x = 231 corresponds to    123 + 108

In other words, the bases are NOT equidistant from the middle node.  The big base is closer by one node to the middle node than the small base

You have confused me. Did you transpose the matrix? My csv files have 245 rows and JA columns = 261 columns.
I will trust that you intended "rows" instead of "columns," because the x dimension corresponding to length is smaller than the y,z dimension corresponding to diameter of the cavity.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline leomillert

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 12
@leomillert

I think you're fine - looks like you have a good meep install.

Yes, all of the numbers in your csv file were different than the numbers in my csv file, the not by much. I loaded both csv files into a spread sheep program then subtracted one from the other, entry by entry. Then I looked for the largest positive difference and the absolute value of the largest negative difference. I came up with 4.16333634234434E-017 and 2.7972416050126E-017. That is the difference in numerical precision of our two machines, nothing more.

You're good to go, and for all you theorists out there, leomillert is now set to generate meep data for you.

and leomillert, here are some links to manuals that you may wish to bookmark if you haven't already.

http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/documentation/mit-scheme-user.pdf
http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/documentation/mit-scheme-ref.pdf
https://www.mail-archive.com/meep-discuss@ab-initio.mit.edu/ - You may need to join.
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Tutorial
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/h5utils/h5topng-man.html
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/h5utils/h5totxt-man.html
http://www.hdfgroup.org/products/java/hdfview/UsersGuide/index.html

and don't forget, Google is your friend.

aero

Good to hear, aero!
This is all a bit overwhelming for me, but I believe I will be able to provide some sensitivity analysis on some parameters (if my old laptop cooperates, this simulation is pretty demanding). I'm thinking about changing line 86 of NSF-1701.ctl from (set! high 10.2) to (set! high 14) and provide the resulting .csv files here, so scientist can see how such a change influence the Poynting vector, stress tensor, etc. What do you think?

I'll try to write a step-by-step guide soon so others can do what I am doing in order to provide more data to the scientists.


PS: if you post all the commands you use to generate .csv out of .h5 files, I can automate the process through a shell script. That should simplify things a little bit. I know one command already: h5totxt -t 13 -0 -y -0  ex.h5 > zCopper-exy.csv
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 10:04 PM by leomillert »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2737
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Is there someone who explain me the following?
I don't understand in Dr White's theory of virtual electrons and positrons:
This particles are real after creation (for a really short time, not an infinite) and are able to interact with the copper at the large diameter. If a created positron for example interacts with a electron inside the copper it'll annihilate and erased, at the same time a photon will radiate from the annihilation point(with a other wavelength, feynman diagramm)... how can it be that there are "real-virtual" particle from inside deliver to outside the cavity. I think i've got read about the energy to create those particles is spent by the quantum vacuum energy for a short while to get real particles, real particles can interact with other real particles and the copper is a great barrier for the positrons and electrons. Don't know how this particle can escape. Please help me to understand. Got i am wrong or not?  :-\ If i am wrong Hawking radiation is also. :o

My guess, and it's just a guess mind you, is that it is exactly the same phenomenon that results in tunnelling. That is, the annihilation results in the  the creation, but not at exactly the same point but somewhere near-by in the QV. I don't know what "near-by" means in the QV world but I suspect that statistically, the outside of the copper is within reach. And I think this idea could extend to superluminal velocity of evanescent photons. They don't really go faster than speed of light, they tunnel, and tunnelling is near instantaneous. Again, just a guess, no math for it.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Germany
  • Liked: 993
  • Likes Given: 2143
Is there someone who explain me the following?
I don't understand in Dr White's theory of virtual electrons and positrons:
This particles are real after creation (for a really short time, not an infinite) and are able to interact with the copper at the large diameter. If a created positron for example interacts with a electron inside the copper it'll annihilate and erased, at the same time a photon will radiate from the annihilation point(with a other wavelength, feynman diagramm)... how can it be that there are "real-virtual" particle from inside deliver to outside the cavity. I think i've got read about the energy to create those particles is spent by the quantum vacuum energy for a short while to get real particles, real particles can interact with other real particles and the copper is a great barrier for the positrons and electrons. Don't know how this particle can escape. Please help me to understand. Got i am wrong or not?  :-\ If i am wrong Hawking radiation is also. :o

My guess, and it's just a guess mind you, is that it is exactly the same phenomenon that results in tunnelling. That is, the annihilation results in the  the creation, but not at exactly the same point but somewhere near-by in the QV. I don't know what "near-by" means in the QV world but I suspect that statistically, the outside of the copper is within reach. And I think this idea could extend to superluminal velocity of evanescent photons. They don't really go faster than speed of light, they tunnel, and tunnelling is near instantaneous. Again, just a guess, no math for it.
thanks. got some equal ideas about it like you, but i don't sure about caused by the potential wall is really huge for such particles i think
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 10:13 PM by X_RaY »

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2588
Busy morning and thought I'd give you all a update on the build. Thank goodness for gofundme I couldn't be doing this and I'd be hanging this baby off  my bathroom shower curtain rod or throwing into my hot tub. http://www.gofundme.com/yy7yz3k

I just ordered hollow carbon fiber rods 12.7 mm x 1.8 m, weight 354 grams or about 12 oz for the test Fulcrum to measure thrust.

I've ordered a Raspberry Pi 2 Model B (1GB) Ultimate Starter Kit-- Includes over 40 components--Raspberry Pi 2 Model B--200 Page User Guide--Edimax EW-7811Un 150Mbps for data logging.

Added a iPazzPort Raspberry Pi Mini Wireless Handheld Remote Control Keyboard with Multi Touch Touchpad Work for Android and Google Smart TV XBMC KP-810-21B for remote control and added a 32gb San disk for a great price.

I've got 2 sheets of perforated copper on order 3x5 ft ~.020 thick for making the test dummy Plus a sheet of O2 free copper conductive .040 perforated copper for the real test.

I've got price quotes coming from L3 for a complete power supply with a .01-50% duty cycle along with a 800w magnetron water cooled.

If that doesn't work out and proves to much than I'll use for first test a standard 800 w OTS magnetron and power supply.

What else? Oh ya, a http://www.ebay.com/itm/138M-4-4G-SMA-signal-source-generator-simple-spectrum-analyzer-Tracking-source-/111493176997?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19f582dea5

I've got wires and silver solder and cables on order Shielded where needed. Oh and a couple of inexpensive lasers and mirrors and graph paper, a tub and foam for the anti-vibration component of the test.

I have a android pad w/wifi and blue tooth that I'll use as well.

Now starts the process of putting it all together get
Here we go!!! I'm so jazzed to see this project go ahead.

Note to self, don't talk on the phone while typing.. sheesh.

I don't understand why perforated copper sheets instead of solid. At that frequency it will decrease the effective conductivity and ruin the Q of any cavity. Additionally you lose structural rigidity and will be suspect to thermal effects changing the shape of the cavity (having a variable Q).

Think the only reasons are one can look into the cavity(possible plasma strokes) and the thermal heated gas can evacuated it selves by convection... Q can only be less than in a solid case. But i also think these are interesting experiments, we will see whats happens and the "bandwidth" of experiments can't be high enough :)
I've tossed around the plusses and minuses of a perforated sheet and have read several papers on the effect of a perforated sheet. See inside is a plus as nobody has seen it before. I have two perforated copper sheets I'm using right now. The first is a cheap (well inexpensive) dummy test sheet to iron out the bugs, test some equipment, test the fulcrums accuracy to thrust, make sure the wires meet and match and all those things that you need to do. And most of all to solidify the actual building and securing edges and testing end plate tapered drive pins and the conductive expansion seals I'm using to allow the endcaps to expand as temperature changes occur. Take some low power cavity measurements. Even thought of putting a candle under the cavity (BTUs are well established) and see how the thermal heat from a thermal currents with a perforated copper sheet effect the test. Hard to do with a closed cavity.

(Also I have in the works an active design for keeping the cavity tuned, but I'm still working on that. I used a similar design in a much more demanding environments than this.)

The way I see it is these are all small steps necessary to solidify the EMDrive to provide good data and define the next step. All heading to a real test bed for ideas on increasing the efficiency and thrust and controlling the Q and making something viable.

Shell

Some papers deal with the angle of incidence at an angle of around 60 degrees where it becomes a serious Q sap, I'm running about 6 degrees on the side walls of the cavity. The ends will loose some from the holes looking like a waveguide for anything aboue 150GHz and should not present a large issue in losses, perforated holes are used in microwave dishes where weight and wind load and draining off water.

The cavity is a hexagon shape that will be stronger than a curver frustum also it will allow me to place the magnetron flat against the surface to mount in various places. The split cavity can easily be taken apart for different endplate sizes assisting and placement of antennas and also cleaning

Offline saucyjack

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • San Francisco
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 1
I'll try to write a step-by-step guide soon so others can do what I am doing in order to provide more data to the scientists.

@leomillert (and @aero, @dumbo, et al.) - I started this page: http://emdrive.wiki/MEEP - please document your setup steps there, so folks can set up a new environment, compile MEEP, execute the .ctl file, and postprocess the CSVs as needed.  And it would be great to put your .ctl file up on, say, Github and link to it as well.

Perhaps @dumbo could also share his Amazon AMI with MEEP set up? 

I suspect there are a lot of lurkers out there who would like to lend a hand in these areas.


Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5906
  • Likes Given: 5253
..
You have confused me. Did you transpose the matrix? My csv files have 245 rows and JA columns = 261 columns.
I will trust that you intended "rows" instead of "columns," because the x dimension corresponding to length is smaller than the y,z dimension corresponding to diameter of the cavity.
All the numbers I gave you were correct.  You are right, the words "row" and "column" in my post were transposed because I keep thinking of the EM Drive as being longer than its mean diameter, and I keep forgetting that your Finite Difference grid has more nodes in the diameter direction than in the longitudinal direction.  If given the choice I would have put more grid points in the longitudinal direction, in the direction where the fields have the most variation. I am correcting the initial post to transpose rows with columns.  Thank you.

Also I keep thinking of the x axis as the horizontal axis, but your matrix is set-up so that x is in the vertical direction of the matrix (x indicates the number of rows) . 

My intuition is to have the z axis as the longitudinal axis of a cone, but you have the x axis as the longitudinal axis, so I have to keep reminding me of all this stuff (particularly when I type fast :)  ).  Too late to change it (these directions are arbitrary as long as we remember them).  I would not be surprised if unwillingly I make the same mistake again (thinking of the x axis in the horizontal direction)
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 10:33 PM by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5906
  • Likes Given: 5253
Is there someone who explain me the following?
I don't understand in Dr White's theory of virtual electrons and positrons:
This particles are real after creation (for a really short time, not an infinite) and are able to interact with the copper at the large diameter. If a created positron for example interacts with a electron inside the copper it'll annihilate and erased, at the same time a photon will radiate from the annihilation point(with a other wavelength, feynman diagramm)... how can it be that there are "real-virtual" particle from inside deliver to outside the cavity. I think i've got read about the energy to create those particles is spent by the quantum vacuum energy for a short while to get real particles, real particles can interact with other real particles and the copper is a great barrier for the positrons and electrons. Don't know how this particle can escape. Please help me to understand. Got i am wrong or not?  :-\ If i am wrong Hawking radiation is also. :o

I suppose the best one can do (short of getting in touch with Dr. White) is to look at Dr. White's papers justifying his model.  Some of the last posts of Paul March at this NSF thread were about his latest paper (by Dr. White, co-authored with March and others), justifying the assumption of a mutable and degradable vacuum with separate levels.  It is somewhere in thread 2.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 10:51 PM by Rodal »

Tags: