Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5  (Read 683540 times)

Offline oliverio

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 2
...

My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too.  (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.)  I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all.  In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.

I don't mind you calling something I said as silly.  I have heard worse from better critics.   But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive.   The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary.  If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work.   Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out.  Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.

That doesn't make a difference about the fact of describing the emdrive as one system is misleading. I wasn't even saying that the Lenz effect propels an emdrive.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2164
  • Liked: 2674
  • Likes Given: 1124
...

My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too.  (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.)  I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all.  In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.

I don't mind you calling something I said as silly.  I have heard worse from better critics.   But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive.   The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary.  If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work.   Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out.  Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.
I dunno zen...something is out of balance best I can tell. It could be thermal or magnetic but something threw off my balance beam. EW is seeing it in their own configuration, shell is about ready to fire up her test stand...we may need your help to figure this anomaly out. While I can't claim my experiments are definitive proof, I do believe something is occuring. If it turns out to be mundane, I can accept that, but there is something there. Your theoretical expertise will be needed...

Offline Kimight

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Norway
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
First of all I would have to say I'm no physicist. I however do follow up on some of the more abstract ideas in physics, but my mathematical understanding is only in classical physics and some basic relativity and quantum theory. My question then may not be mathematically sound, but I believe it is an interesting one.

If string theory, or some other theory which allow for a multiverse or more spatial dimensions, is correct: Couldn't the conservation of momentum be conserved in a grander scale than just our universe or three spatial dimensions?

The reason I'm asking is because I feel this engine rests in some domain we don't understand yet. Lets say between quantum theory and relativity. Of course everything can just be a fluke of sorts and no new physics will be developed here. But I sure hope this is revolutionary in some way :)
« Last Edit: 11/29/2015 11:46 PM by Kimight »

Offline VAXHeadroom

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Whereever you go, there you are. -- BB
  • Baltimore MD
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 140
Finished uploading faster than I thought :)

Here's the video with all 5 planes!  I think the large end isn't lined up quite right yet...I'll work on that tomorrow...



Is this video supposed to show the magnetic field vectors? If so something is definitely wrong with it, because the boundary condition for magnetic fields near metallic surfaces is that the magnetic field component normal to the surface is zero.

My guesses at the issue:

-You are actually plotting the electric field (the electric field must be purely normal to a metal surface)
-You have switched up the order of the coordinates somewhere.
-The points shown in the video are mostly not near the actual walls.
-There is a major issue with the simulation.

It is probably just one of the first 2, in my experience that type of mistake is really easy to make.

The "E" fields are shown as the red/blue dots in the slices, colored by the vector length of the field at that x,y coordinate.  Showing the electric fields as whiskers creates exactly what you describe; the vectors are normal to the plane at those locations.  This is why I decided not to show them that way - it just obscures the "H" field whiskers and the colored dot was just as informative.

The "H" fields are shown by creating a cylinder starting at the x,y location in the slice, adding the vector value to the base location, and scaling the length and thickness by a factor that was purely artistic.  So it is not exactly the magnetic field line per say; it is a graphic representation of the H vector magnitude and direction at that location.

Hope that clears things up! I'm going to post my POVRay and C++ converter code tonight - look for it in my blog post here :https://vaxheadroom.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/rf-drive-to-the-stars/
« Last Edit: 11/29/2015 11:53 PM by VAXHeadroom »
Emory Stagmer
  Executive Producer, Public Speaker UnTied Music - www.untiedmusic.com

Offline TheUberOverLord

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • U.S.
    • Secure Methods To Display IP Cameras In Websites
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 7
...

My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too.  (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.)  I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all.  In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.

I don't mind you calling something I said as silly.  I have heard worse from better critics.   But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive.   The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary.  If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work.   Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out.  Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.
I dunno zen...something is out of balance best I can tell. It could be thermal or magnetic but something threw off my balance beam. EW is seeing it in their own configuration, shell is about ready to fire up her test stand...we may need your help to figure this anomaly out. While I can't claim my experiments are definitive proof, I do believe something is occuring. If it turns out to be mundane, I can accept that, but there is something there. Your theoretical expertise will be needed...

Dave,

I have said this once before but maybe it got lost?

Why is it such an absurd belief to wonder if all and any valid thrust produced by an EM Drive, is and always will be in a pure horizontal thrust direction in reference to any position that the larger end of a EM Drive is placed?

Don
EM Drive builders can use these free Interfaces to show their tests live using any IP Cameras in websites Click for live demo examples

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 220

...

Throwing this out to the masses here for their thoughts and ideas.

Sehll

Interesting. Never ran across this in the past. As it happens I did have a 5 foot length of 3/4 inch ridged copper pipe and a neodymium magnet 1/2x1/2x1 (inches), even with the comparatively thin copper walls, it takes 5-6 seconds for the magnet to drop the 5 feet... (And it is magnetized through the 1/2 dimension, rather than end to end.)

So the question is, how would a copper frustum know the difference between a magnet moving through it and a magnetic field, generated by the resonance of the EM, moving through it?... Can you think of anyway to test or measure whether a magnetic field is being generated inside the frustum and moving from one end to the other?...

Here we go with another violation of CoM theory of operation... But what the heck, when possible, test and measure for every hair brained thing you and anyone else can think of.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier but no one responded.  here is the link: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1450260#msg1450260  For ease of viewing I'll re-post Shells gif.  I was saying that if the fields in the image are magnetic fields then it looks like there is a magnet appearing lower in the frustum and moving towards the top.  I was wondering if this would induce a dragging effect similar to a magnet moving along an aluminum plate.  It is also used in trains to break because they would go through a lot of brakes otherwise.  The cavity and the light are two separate systems similar to a magnet and a pipe.  There is the lights magnetic field and then there are the currents in the cavity.  The currents in the cavity move to keep the light from escaping in such a way that they block the lights electromagnetic field.  Is the image of magnetic or electric fields?  I also stated it was odd it looked like a traveling wave.  I would have expected more of a standing wave.  A traveling wave should imply there is some power dissipation, similar to when power is used in power lines.  You get traveling waves when considering counter propagating waves and then the reflected wave is attenuated, giving traveling waves.

Also, is this a legitimate image of the frustums EM fields?

Maybe it isn't a traveling wave and I am mistaking what I am seeing? 

Edit1: Thanks Aero, I did find some in shell's links of those as still images.  I didn't find the gifs.  They say Hz so it's of the magnetic field I guess.  The only problem is I don't have an axis to compare so I know which direction the magnetic field is pointing in.

Edit2: Ok it appears the z axis points toward the top of the frustum and y and x axis are along the base where it is symmetric. 
« Last Edit: 11/30/2015 01:57 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2707
  • 92111
  • Liked: 689
  • Likes Given: 218

...

Throwing this out to the masses here for their thoughts and ideas.

Sehll

Interesting. Never ran across this in the past. As it happens I did have a 5 foot length of 3/4 inch ridged copper pipe and a neodymium magnet 1/2x1/2x1 (inches), even with the comparatively thin copper walls, it takes 5-6 seconds for the magnet to drop the 5 feet... (And it is magnetized through the 1/2 dimension, rather than end to end.)

So the question is, how would a copper frustum know the difference between a magnet moving through it and a magnetic field, generated by the resonance of the EM, moving through it?... Can you think of anyway to test or measure whether a magnetic field is being generated inside the frustum and moving from one end to the other?...

Here we go with another violation of CoM theory of operation... But what the heck, when possible, test and measure for every hair brained thing you and anyone else can think of.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier but no one responded.  here is the link: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1450260#msg1450260  For ease of viewing I'll re-post Shells gif.  I was saying that if the fields in the image are magnetic fields then it looks like there is a magnet appearing lower in the frustum and moving towards the top.  I was wondering if this would induce a dragging effect similar to a magnet moving along an aluminum plate.  It is also used in trains to break because they would go through a lot of brakes otherwise.  The cavity and the light are two separate systems similar to a magnet and a pipe.  There is the lights magnetic field and then there are the currents in the cavity.  The currents in the cavity move to keep the light from escaping in such a way that they block the lights electromagnetic field.  Is the image of magnetic or electric fields?  I also stated it was odd it looked like a traveling wave.  I would have expected more of a standing wave.  A traveling wave should imply there is some power dissipation, similar to when power is used in power lines.  You get traveling waves when considering counter propagating waves and then the reflected wave is attenuated, giving traveling waves.

Also, is this a legitimate image of the frustums EM fields?

Maybe it isn't a traveling wave and I am mistaking what I am seeing?

I don't know what field component that is in the image. But here is a link to 24 different gif's with the field components and view direction identified in the file name. I think the last three gif's are the ones you want to look at but feel free to evaluate them all.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRERjT0tEYWxwMXM&usp=sharing
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline VAXHeadroom

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Whereever you go, there you are. -- BB
  • Baltimore MD
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 140

I don't know what field component that is in the image. But here is a link to 24 different gif's with the field components and view direction identified in the file name. I think the last three gif's are the ones you want to look at but feel free to evaluate them all.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRERjT0tEYWxwMXM&usp=sharing

The really interesting fields there to me are the BEZ_vu_h* fields and the SEZ_vu_h* fields. The BEZ is the big end Z plane, the SEZ is the small end Z plane.  If you watch how those two sets of fields are moving, the BEZ fields are moving outward from the center, where as the SEZ fields are mostly cycling between the colors meaning their H field vectors are perpendicular to the small end plate. 

Add to that, that the highest reported thrust per power number to date is from the superconducting Cannae drive test, and I tend to agree this begins to make me suspicious that this is a magnetic field effect - almost like the microwave fields are acting like a pump for the magnetic field, cycling across the big end, but being 'squeezed' by the frustum toward the small end where they push on the small end plate.  I'm not a physicist, but just trying to verbalize what I'm seeing in the visualizations of the simulation data.

This can also be seen in my latest video where the H fields 'bunch up' toward the small end of the frustum, ending up being perpendicular to the small end plate.  Essentially you're looking at all those animated GIFs at once but with the H field vectors being shown as the 'whiskers'.


Emory Stagmer
  Executive Producer, Public Speaker UnTied Music - www.untiedmusic.com

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 220

...

Throwing this out to the masses here for their thoughts and ideas.

Sehll

Interesting. Never ran across this in the past. As it happens I did have a 5 foot length of 3/4 inch ridged copper pipe and a neodymium magnet 1/2x1/2x1 (inches), even with the comparatively thin copper walls, it takes 5-6 seconds for the magnet to drop the 5 feet... (And it is magnetized through the 1/2 dimension, rather than end to end.)

So the question is, how would a copper frustum know the difference between a magnet moving through it and a magnetic field, generated by the resonance of the EM, moving through it?... Can you think of anyway to test or measure whether a magnetic field is being generated inside the frustum and moving from one end to the other?...

Here we go with another violation of CoM theory of operation... But what the heck, when possible, test and measure for every hair brained thing you and anyone else can think of.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier but no one responded.  here is the link: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1450260#msg1450260  For ease of viewing I'll re-post Shells gif.  I was saying that if the fields in the image are magnetic fields then it looks like there is a magnet appearing lower in the frustum and moving towards the top.  I was wondering if this would induce a dragging effect similar to a magnet moving along an aluminum plate.  It is also used in trains to break because they would go through a lot of brakes otherwise.  The cavity and the light are two separate systems similar to a magnet and a pipe.  There is the lights magnetic field and then there are the currents in the cavity.  The currents in the cavity move to keep the light from escaping in such a way that they block the lights electromagnetic field.  Is the image of magnetic or electric fields?  I also stated it was odd it looked like a traveling wave.  I would have expected more of a standing wave.  A traveling wave should imply there is some power dissipation, similar to when power is used in power lines.  You get traveling waves when considering counter propagating waves and then the reflected wave is attenuated, giving traveling waves.

Also, is this a legitimate image of the frustums EM fields?

Maybe it isn't a traveling wave and I am mistaking what I am seeing?

I don't know what field component that is in the image. But here is a link to 24 different gif's with the field components and view direction identified in the file name. I think the last three gif's are the ones you want to look at but feel free to evaluate them all.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRERjT0tEYWxwMXM&usp=sharing
The key appears to be:
Y,X,Z = plane of view, vu=? -hz, hx, hy=magnetic field of corresponding axis, -ex, ey, ez = electric field of corresponding axis.
Y-vu-hz.gif, Y-vu-hx, Y-vu-ey, X-vu-hz, ?possibly X-vu-hy, appear to have modes traveling upward.  Some are rich in color and I would guess that is field strength.  I could imagine hx inducing drag but not sure about hz. 

Some almost appear to have downward moving modes.  X-vu-ey, X-vu-hx is almost circular but down on the sides.  I think that's it. 

I almost want to say, that there is a phase relation to the currents in the side walls in the Z direction over a distance, giving the appearance of a traveling wave similar to a phased array antenna, but that the currents don't appear to be only circling.  Rather we have charge separation forming quadrupole electric fields along the sides.  Imagine currents racing along the X or Y axis from left to right and then getting charge separation. Maybe all this is already obvious.   

Maybe drag is only induced if the magnetic fields aren't perfectly lined up.  Edit: imagine the magnet in the pipe falling and the induced magnetic field in the pipe lags behind the falling magnet slightly. Then we can imagine one magnetic field attracts the other and the object is pulled along with the magnet or the reverse.  In this case maybe the magnetic fields are already in equilibrium and so there is no push or pull.  I would suppose the device that modeled that field should be able to tell if there is any force overall. 

There appears to be 2 injecting antennas in the simulation.  Left and right.

« Last Edit: 11/30/2015 04:23 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2707
  • 92111
  • Liked: 689
  • Likes Given: 218
X-vu, Y-vu Z-vu  are viewing the 3D lattice in the x, y, and z directions and so looking at the y,z plane, the x,z plane and the x,y plane where z is the axis of rotation of the cavity, the two sources are along the x axis and y completes the right hand coordinate system. The EM field has 6 vector components, three electric, ex, ey, ez and three magnetic, hx, hy, and hz.

One would think that by looking at the ex, hx vector component from the other coordinate directions, that there would be nothing to see. That does not seem to be the case. It would be helpful if there were an easy way to visually compare the energy levels across all of the 18 (24 because there are two slices in the x,y plane, BEZ and SEZ) slices but that is a surprisingly difficult challenge.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 10
First of all I would have to say I'm no physicist. I however do follow up on some of the more abstract ideas in physics, but my mathematical understanding is only in classical physics and some basic relativity and quantum theory. My question then may not be mathematically sound, but I believe it is an interesting one.

If string theory, or some other theory which allow for a multiverse or more spatial dimensions, is correct: Couldn't the conservation of momentum be conserved in a grander scale than just our universe or three spatial dimensions?

The reason I'm asking is because I feel this engine rests in some domain we don't understand yet. Lets say between quantum theory and relativity. Of course everything can just be a fluke of sorts and no new physics will be developed here. But I sure hope this is revolutionary in some way :)

Of course. New physics can be used to explain anything. The question is how confident are you that you have observed anything that needs new physics to explain? Remember Feynman's first principle that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

It is possible that some low energy device operating on a table top will profoundly alter our view of the universe. It is also profoundly unlikely that that will happen. OTOH people will frequently convince themselves that they have done just that.

So place your bets and good luck.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2164
  • Liked: 2674
  • Likes Given: 1124
...

My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too.  (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.)  I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all.  In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.

I don't mind you calling something I said as silly.  I have heard worse from better critics.   But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive.   The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary.  If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work.   Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out.  Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.
I dunno zen...something is out of balance best I can tell. It could be thermal or magnetic but something threw off my balance beam. EW is seeing it in their own configuration, shell is about ready to fire up her test stand...we may need your help to figure this anomaly out. While I can't claim my experiments are definitive proof, I do believe something is occuring. If it turns out to be mundane, I can accept that, but there is something there. Your theoretical expertise will be needed...

Dave,

I have said this once before but maybe it got lost?

Why is it such an absurd belief to wonder if all and any valid thrust produced by an EM Drive, is and always will be in a pure horizontal thrust direction in reference to any position that the larger end of a EM Drive is placed?

Don
Hi Don, early in the am, not sure I understand the question. force has something to do with a funneling or concentration of photonic energy in a small contained, assymetrical area best I can tell. The large diameter appears to be a reflector and sets up a reference plane for kinetic energy. It is the largest single flat surface that receives reflected photons internally. If I might take a rare dip into theory, perhaps something like this is happening...

Photon collisions abound in the frustum on one side of the large diameter plate. What does this induce if anything? Considering the trillions of photon particle or wave interactions in the frustum, you'd think one byproduct would be heat. I measured very little temp rise looking into the frustum with a thermal cam.

What other byproduct is created and how do we measure it? This is where I can't help much. I could barely describe what a photon is and its relative to the observer per the old slit experiments. All I can say is I believe new physics is involved one one side of the large diameter plate, thus creating kinetic energy perpendiculat to its surface. Casimir effect or something new...I'm not there yet.

Hope I didn't misinterpret your point...only had one cup of coffee so far.

Offline TheUberOverLord

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • U.S.
    • Secure Methods To Display IP Cameras In Websites
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 7
...

My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too.  (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.)  I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all.  In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.

I don't mind you calling something I said as silly.  I have heard worse from better critics.   But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive.   The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary.  If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work.   Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out.  Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.
I dunno zen...something is out of balance best I can tell. It could be thermal or magnetic but something threw off my balance beam. EW is seeing it in their own configuration, shell is about ready to fire up her test stand...we may need your help to figure this anomaly out. While I can't claim my experiments are definitive proof, I do believe something is occuring. If it turns out to be mundane, I can accept that, but there is something there. Your theoretical expertise will be needed...

Dave,

I have said this once before but maybe it got lost?

Why is it such an absurd belief to wonder if all and any valid thrust produced by an EM Drive, is and always will be in a pure horizontal thrust direction in reference to any position that the larger end of a EM Drive is placed?

Don
Hi Don, early in the am, not sure I understand the question. force has something to do with a funneling or concentration of photonic energy in a small contained, assymetrical area best I can tell. The large diameter appears to be a reflector and sets up a reference plane for kinetic energy. It is the largest single flat surface that receives reflected photons internally. If I might take a rare dip into theory, perhaps something like this is happening...

Photon collisions abound in the frustum on one side of the large diameter plate. What does this induce if anything? Considering the trillions of photon particle or wave interactions in the frustum, you'd think one byproduct would be heat. I measured very little temp rise looking into the frustum with a thermal cam.

What other byproduct is created and how do we measure it? This is where I can't help much. I could barely describe what a photon is and its relative to the observer per the old slit experiments. All I can say is I believe new physics is involved one one side of the large diameter plate, thus creating kinetic energy perpendiculat to its surface. Casimir effect or something new...I'm not there yet.

Hope I didn't misinterpret your point...only had one cup of coffee so far.

Thanks Dave,

What I meant was is it possible that some thrust force is not always completely horizontal to the position of the EM Drives large diameter end plate?

Would it not be odd that all thrust force produced is always 100 percent confined to exactly one small area of the large diameter end plate of the EM Drive vs. some residual thrust force going in slightly different and/or different directions?

That would seem like "Blind luck" no matter how much frequency tuning one does.  Even a scale or a rotatory table testbed for a EM Drive is not measuring thrust force in all directions at the same moment in time.

Hope that better explains my original question.

Don
EM Drive builders can use these free Interfaces to show their tests live using any IP Cameras in websites Click for live demo examples

Offline Blaine

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Spring Hill, KS
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 122
I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


Blaine:

The EW peer review lab report is now in its second rewrite after receiving our first round of comments from the two editors of the peer reviewed journal in question.  After that the new version of the report will be sent out to the four independent PhD peer reviewers that will have their shots at the content of the current restructured report that now includes a lot more of Dr. White's quantum vacuum modeling spelled out and demonstrated for all to see.  It's still hard to know when all of these reviews will be completed and answered, but we are hoping the final reviewed version of the report should go to press sometime during the first half of 2016, though Dr. White's last peer reviewed theoretical paper on this topic took just over year to go through the review process. 

See "Physics Essays": http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html

Abstract: This paper will begin by considering the quantum vacuum at the cosmological scale to show that the gravitational coupling constant may be viewed as an emergent phenomenon, or rather a long wavelength consequence of the quantum vacuum. This cosmological viewpoint will be reconsidered on a microscopic scale in the presence of concentrations of “ordinary” matter to determine the impact on the energy state of the quantum vacuum. The derived relationship will be used to predict a radius of the hydrogen atom which will be compared with the Bohr radius for validation. The ramifications of this equation will be explored in the context of the predicted electron mass, the electrostatic force, and the energy density of the electric field around the hydrogen nucleus. It will finally be shown that this perturbed energy state of the quantum vacuum can be successfully modeled as a virtual electron-positron plasma, or the Dirac vacuum.

It appears that academics like to think long and hard about new things... 

Best, Paul M.
Weird Science!

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2164
  • Liked: 2674
  • Likes Given: 1124
...

My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too.  (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.)  I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all.  In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.

I don't mind you calling something I said as silly.  I have heard worse from better critics.   But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive.   The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary.  If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work.   Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out.  Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.
I dunno zen...something is out of balance best I can tell. It could be thermal or magnetic but something threw off my balance beam. EW is seeing it in their own configuration, shell is about ready to fire up her test stand...we may need your help to figure this anomaly out. While I can't claim my experiments are definitive proof, I do believe something is occuring. If it turns out to be mundane, I can accept that, but there is something there. Your theoretical expertise will be needed...

Dave,

I have said this once before but maybe it got lost?

Why is it such an absurd belief to wonder if all and any valid thrust produced by an EM Drive, is and always will be in a pure horizontal thrust direction in reference to any position that the larger end of a EM Drive is placed?

Don
Hi Don, early in the am, not sure I understand the question. force has something to do with a funneling or concentration of photonic energy in a small contained, assymetrical area best I can tell. The large diameter appears to be a reflector and sets up a reference plane for kinetic energy. It is the largest single flat surface that receives reflected photons internally. If I might take a rare dip into theory, perhaps something like this is happening...

Photon collisions abound in the frustum on one side of the large diameter plate. What does this induce if anything? Considering the trillions of photon particle or wave interactions in the frustum, you'd think one byproduct would be heat. I measured very little temp rise looking into the frustum with a thermal cam.

What other byproduct is created and how do we measure it? This is where I can't help much. I could barely describe what a photon is and its relative to the observer per the old slit experiments. All I can say is I believe new physics is involved one one side of the large diameter plate, thus creating kinetic energy perpendiculat to its surface. Casimir effect or something new...I'm not there yet.

Hope I didn't misinterpret your point...only had one cup of coffee so far.

Thanks Dave,

What I meant was is it possible that some thrust force is not always completely horizontal to the position of the EM Drives large diameter end plate?

Would it not be odd that all thrust force produced is always 100 percent confined to exactly one small area of the large diameter end plate of the EM Drive vs. some residual thrust force going in slightly different and/or different directions?

That would seem like "Blind luck" no matter how much frequency tuning one does.  Even a scale or a rotatory table testbed for a EM Drive is not measuring thrust force in all directions at the same moment in time.

Hope that better explains my original question.

Don
This is a good thought. A symmetrical can or cavity should probably have forces against all sides equally. The conical shape is what appears to concentrate the field along the length axis. I am not aware of any experiments being done to measure kinetic force along the perpendicular axis. I think this is a worthwhile experiment, if nothing else other than eliminating all possibilities. I did have people suggest rotating my frustum 180 and 90 degrees and re-running the experiment and noting the results. Perhaps I can do this next year once I finalize my new design. Thanks!

One thing interesting is that the nozzle shape of the frustum seems to work just like a rocket motor, moving in the direction of the smaller diameter, yet nothing measurable flies out of the nozzle. Strange thing Don, its whats kept me interested so long in this thing. I think that once this is developed, if it gets there, is it will be analyzed in all 3 dimensions. Ideally, the EW experiment would be placed in LEO, fired up and watch what happens. Seems to me its a greater chance for advancement of science than some of the ISS experiments lately...but thats just me...I'm a little stuck on space exploration and not earth sciences or biology. ;)

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 255
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 164
I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


Blaine:

The EW peer review lab report is now in its second rewrite after receiving our first round of comments from the two editors of the peer reviewed journal in question.  After that the new version of the report will be sent out to the four independent PhD peer reviewers that will have their shots at the content of the current restructured report that now includes a lot more of Dr. White's quantum vacuum modeling spelled out and demonstrated for all to see.  It's still hard to know when all of these reviews will be completed and answered, but we are hoping the final reviewed version of the report should go to press sometime during the first half of 2016, though Dr. White's last peer reviewed theoretical paper on this topic took just over year to go through the review process. 

See "Physics Essays": http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html

Abstract: This paper will begin by considering the quantum vacuum at the cosmological scale to show that the gravitational coupling constant may be viewed as an emergent phenomenon, or rather a long wavelength consequence of the quantum vacuum. This cosmological viewpoint will be reconsidered on a microscopic scale in the presence of concentrations of “ordinary” matter to determine the impact on the energy state of the quantum vacuum. The derived relationship will be used to predict a radius of the hydrogen atom which will be compared with the Bohr radius for validation. The ramifications of this equation will be explored in the context of the predicted electron mass, the electrostatic force, and the energy density of the electric field around the hydrogen nucleus. It will finally be shown that this perturbed energy state of the quantum vacuum can be successfully modeled as a virtual electron-positron plasma, or the Dirac vacuum.

It appears that academics like to think long and hard about new things... 

Best, Paul M.

Being the only lab work done in vacuum, first half of 2016 seems an awfully long way off...

I wonder if replication at a second NASA lab is in the works.., before or after publication?...

I wonder if NASA will allow or make any of the lab data/results/conclusions available, independently?... As in separately from any theory of operation...

Can you tell I am impatiently waiting for even more DIY progress reports?


Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • California
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 365
I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


Blaine:

The EW peer review lab report is now in its second rewrite after receiving our first round of comments from the two editors of the peer reviewed journal in question.  After that the new version of the report will be sent out to the four independent PhD peer reviewers that will have their shots at the content of the current restructured report that now includes a lot more of Dr. White's quantum vacuum modeling spelled out and demonstrated for all to see.  It's still hard to know when all of these reviews will be completed and answered, but we are hoping the final reviewed version of the report should go to press sometime during the first half of 2016, though Dr. White's last peer reviewed theoretical paper on this topic took just over year to go through the review process. 

See "Physics Essays": http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html

Abstract: This paper will begin by considering the quantum vacuum at the cosmological scale to show that the gravitational coupling constant may be viewed as an emergent phenomenon, or rather a long wavelength consequence of the quantum vacuum. This cosmological viewpoint will be reconsidered on a microscopic scale in the presence of concentrations of “ordinary” matter to determine the impact on the energy state of the quantum vacuum. The derived relationship will be used to predict a radius of the hydrogen atom which will be compared with the Bohr radius for validation. The ramifications of this equation will be explored in the context of the predicted electron mass, the electrostatic force, and the energy density of the electric field around the hydrogen nucleus. It will finally be shown that this perturbed energy state of the quantum vacuum can be successfully modeled as a virtual electron-positron plasma, or the Dirac vacuum.

It appears that academics like to think long and hard about new things... 

Best, Paul M.

That abstract is quite a word salad.   I don't understand where it all comes from.  The EW lab has not demonstrated that any force has been produced, at least with what has been made public so far.    There was a paper Mr. White published some time ago that had pictures of an interferometer and that contained similar claims as this abstract.   With no data to prove a thrust has been produced I don't see any need for this elaborate theory.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2164
  • Liked: 2674
  • Likes Given: 1124
I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


...

Being the only lab work done in vacuum, first half of 2016 seems an awfully long way off...

I wonder if replication at a second NASA lab is in the works.., before or after publication?...

I wonder if NASA will allow or make any of the lab data/results/conclusions available, independently?... As in separately from any theory of operation...

Can you tell I am impatiently waiting for even more DIY progress reports?
Next up to bat is Shell, who should be putting some VNA scan results on soon. Not sure when her flight tests are scheduled. I think the EW update is what we already knew, 2015 was to be another test not yet publicly released. What might be new is the peer review process and the stage it is in. Not an expert, but this could take some time...as in months. Hopefully DIY stuff can fill the void.

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 255
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 164
I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


...

Being the only lab work done in vacuum, first half of 2016 seems an awfully long way off...

I wonder if replication at a second NASA lab is in the works.., before or after publication?...

I wonder if NASA will allow or make any of the lab data/results/conclusions available, independently?... As in separately from any theory of operation...

Can you tell I am impatiently waiting for even more DIY progress reports?
Next up to bat is Shell, who should be putting some VNA scan results on soon. Not sure when her flight tests are scheduled. I think the EW update is what we already knew, 2015 was to be another test not yet publicly released. What might be new is the peer review process and the stage it is in. Not an expert, but this could take some time...as in months. Hopefully DIY stuff can fill the void.
Or if they take too long.., steel some thunder!

Offline oliverio

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 2
I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


Blaine:

The EW peer review lab report is now in its second rewrite after receiving our first round of comments from the two editors of the peer reviewed journal in question.  After that the new version of the report will be sent out to the four independent PhD peer reviewers that will have their shots at the content of the current restructured report that now includes a lot more of Dr. White's quantum vacuum modeling spelled out and demonstrated for all to see.  It's still hard to know when all of these reviews will be completed and answered, but we are hoping the final reviewed version of the report should go to press sometime during the first half of 2016, though Dr. White's last peer reviewed theoretical paper on this topic took just over year to go through the review process. 

See "Physics Essays": http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html

Abstract: This paper will begin by considering the quantum vacuum at the cosmological scale to show that the gravitational coupling constant may be viewed as an emergent phenomenon, or rather a long wavelength consequence of the quantum vacuum. This cosmological viewpoint will be reconsidered on a microscopic scale in the presence of concentrations of “ordinary” matter to determine the impact on the energy state of the quantum vacuum. The derived relationship will be used to predict a radius of the hydrogen atom which will be compared with the Bohr radius for validation. The ramifications of this equation will be explored in the context of the predicted electron mass, the electrostatic force, and the energy density of the electric field around the hydrogen nucleus. It will finally be shown that this perturbed energy state of the quantum vacuum can be successfully modeled as a virtual electron-positron plasma, or the Dirac vacuum.

It appears that academics like to think long and hard about new things... 

Best, Paul M.

That abstract is quite a word salad.   I don't understand where it all comes from.  The EW lab has not demonstrated that any force has been produced, at least with what has been made public so far.    There was a paper Mr. White published some time ago that had pictures of an interferometer and that contained similar claims as this abstract.   With no data to prove a thrust has been produced I don't see any need for this elaborate theory.

I have some background in logic/empirical philosophy, and the relevant notion here is a "just-so story".  If you can use all of the available tools to set up a story that, no matter how ridiculous, is logically and empirically possible, you place the burden of proof on your opponents' theory.

Essentially if White can demonstrate exactly what he says in the abstract (notable is the actual EXISTENCE of "virtual" [here understood to be virtual not as in simulated/digital, but rather virtual in the same way there is virtually no difference between a hole in the ground and the outer layer of dirt touching the hole's cavity] positron - abundance in the absence of all matter), then he will have given you a reason to believe that one could interact forcefully with the positron - sea (i.e. spacetime).  If his "just-so story" fits within known physics, then it lends support to the notion that a propellant-less drive is possible (and if your objections are any evidence, plenty of smart people are hung up on that part of this whole thing).

To slip in a bit of historical metaphysics, we should all note something important: amongst many others, Einstein, Feynman, Schrodinger, and Bell  were all thoroughly adamant on philosophical grounds that a vacuum is a medium that could in principle, if not practice, be observed/interacted with... as far as my understanding goes, physics has moved away from this concept of "aether" but only to its own detriment, because a little bit of rigorous logical philosophy can point out serious errors with the notion of the empty vacuum.  If anyone is interested I can try to lay out some of these proofs that make it (in my estimation) a fact of the matter that some medium contains all particles, which is to say a medium that has properties that interact in a forceful fashion with the particles within. This is kinda in the realm of metaphysics though, which was in a large part the project of many of our famed scientific forefathers (some mentioned above, all of whom considered there to be an extremely large value in the philosophical discussion framing the observations of quantum behavior).

Since those days, we have taught the metaphysics of quantum systems as "shut up and calculate," which is of course useful-- at the same time as making almost useless theoreticians as a trade for highly predictive statisticians.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2015 07:39 PM by oliverio »

Tags: