Quote from: Rodal on 04/07/2015 08:50 pmQuote from: JasonAW3 on 04/07/2015 08:10 pm....Be it nuclear, fuel cell or even solar, as the source of electricity, mass is being expended in the form of electrons. (Solar is taking advantage of the Sun's own expendature of mass in the form of photons). Whiloe the quantity of mass being expended is minute, it IS being expended. ...Even if (for discussion's sake) mass would be converted into energy with a nuclear reaction E=mc^2 inside the spacecraft to provide the electricity for the EM Drive, that does not solve the conundrum: the issue is not "to expend energy", the issue is to satisfy conservation of momentum. If no mass leaves the spacecraft, while kinetic energy is converted into a change in momentum of the spacecraft's center of mass, you still have the same conundrum and the same paradoxes I previously noted: The needed power for the EM Drive (to escape the surface of the Earth, or anything else you want the spacecraft to do) depends on your frame of reference. As Paul March himself admitted, for their Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive to hold, they need to disrespect the mainstream physics assumption that the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable.Bottom line: no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces). If the EM Drive were to work for space propulsion, it certainly would not be explainable in terms of mainstream physics where conservation of momentum is paramount, and the Quantum Vacuum is both indestructible and immutable.Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 04/07/2015 08:10 pm....Be it nuclear, fuel cell or even solar, as the source of electricity, mass is being expended in the form of electrons. (Solar is taking advantage of the Sun's own expendature of mass in the form of photons). Whiloe the quantity of mass being expended is minute, it IS being expended. ...Even if (for discussion's sake) mass would be converted into energy with a nuclear reaction E=mc^2 inside the spacecraft to provide the electricity for the EM Drive, that does not solve the conundrum: the issue is not "to expend energy", the issue is to satisfy conservation of momentum. If no mass leaves the spacecraft, while kinetic energy is converted into a change in momentum of the spacecraft's center of mass, you still have the same conundrum and the same paradoxes I previously noted: The needed power for the EM Drive (to escape the surface of the Earth, or anything else you want the spacecraft to do) depends on your frame of reference. As Paul March himself admitted, for their Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive to hold, they need to disrespect the mainstream physics assumption that the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable.Bottom line: no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces). If the EM Drive were to work for space propulsion, it certainly would not be explainable in terms of mainstream physics where conservation of momentum is paramount, and the Quantum Vacuum is both indestructible and immutable.
....Be it nuclear, fuel cell or even solar, as the source of electricity, mass is being expended in the form of electrons. (Solar is taking advantage of the Sun's own expendature of mass in the form of photons). Whiloe the quantity of mass being expended is minute, it IS being expended. ...
Quote from: CW on 04/07/2015 09:06 pmQuote from: Rodal on 04/07/2015 08:50 pmQuote from: JasonAW3 on 04/07/2015 08:10 pm....Be it nuclear, fuel cell or even solar, as the source of electricity, mass is being expended in the form of electrons. (Solar is taking advantage of the Sun's own expendature of mass in the form of photons). Whiloe the quantity of mass being expended is minute, it IS being expended. ...Even if (for discussion's sake) mass would be converted into energy with a nuclear reaction E=mc^2 inside the spacecraft to provide the electricity for the EM Drive, that does not solve the conundrum: the issue is not "to expend energy", the issue is to satisfy conservation of momentum. If no mass leaves the spacecraft, while kinetic energy is converted into a change in momentum of the spacecraft's center of mass, you still have the same conundrum and the same paradoxes I previously noted: The needed power for the EM Drive (to escape the surface of the Earth, or anything else you want the spacecraft to do) depends on your frame of reference. As Paul March himself admitted, for their Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive to hold, they need to disrespect the mainstream physics assumption that the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable.Bottom line: no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces). If the EM Drive were to work for space propulsion, it certainly would not be explainable in terms of mainstream physics where conservation of momentum is paramount, and the Quantum Vacuum is both indestructible and immutable.Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?If the QV is not immutable and indestructible, the theoretical and practical consequences would be so groundbreaking that they would make the 20th century's discoveries of atomic and nuclear energy pale in comparison.
Quote from: Rodal on 04/07/2015 09:16 pmQuote from: CW on 04/07/2015 09:06 pm....Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?If the QV is not immutable and indestructible, the theoretical and practical consequences would be so groundbreaking that they would make the 20th century's discoveries of atomic and nuclear energy pale in comparison.Could you expand on that to help out a poor layperson to these matters, I hadn't realised that the QV being described in this way was such a fundamental cornerstone of physics as it stands?
Quote from: CW on 04/07/2015 09:06 pm....Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?If the QV is not immutable and indestructible, the theoretical and practical consequences would be so groundbreaking that they would make the 20th century's discoveries of atomic and nuclear energy pale in comparison.
....Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?
Quote from: Star One on 04/07/2015 09:59 pmQuote from: Rodal on 04/07/2015 09:16 pmQuote from: CW on 04/07/2015 09:06 pm....Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?If the QV is not immutable and indestructible, the theoretical and practical consequences would be so groundbreaking that they would make the 20th century's discoveries of atomic and nuclear energy pale in comparison.Could you expand on that to help out a poor layperson to these matters, I hadn't realised that the QV being described in this way was such a fundamental cornerstone of physics as it stands?The mainstream physics community assumes the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable because of the experimental observation that a fundamental particle like an electron (or a positron) has the same properties (e.g. mass, charge or spin), regardless of when or where the particle was created, whether now or in the early universe, through astrophysical processes or in a laboratory. Another reason is that the Quantum Vacuum has what Albert Einstein in 1913 called "Nullpunktsenergie" (zero point energy): the lowest possible (time-averaged) energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have.If the Quantum Vacuum is instead like a fluid (experiencing vortices and streamlines for example) as Paul March hinted (perhaps because our universe is part of a higher multidimensional multiverse as described by string theory and the QV was there before the Big Bang) and if it can be used for space propulsion, it may also be used for energy (as a loose analogy one can use the wind to sail the ocean as well as to produce energy with windmills) for peaceful as well as for destructive purposes... Of course, this is just science fiction at the moment, certainly as to the destructive purposes (as we cannot yet even control the weather for destructive purposes, although we have been able to use the wind for sailing and energy production for centuries).
Quote from: Rodal on 04/07/2015 10:25 pmQuote from: Star One on 04/07/2015 09:59 pmQuote from: Rodal on 04/07/2015 09:16 pmQuote from: CW on 04/07/2015 09:06 pm....Just being curious: What, in your book, would be the most important theoretical consequences of the discovery of a different QV nature?If the QV is not immutable and indestructible, the theoretical and practical consequences would be so groundbreaking that they would make the 20th century's discoveries of atomic and nuclear energy pale in comparison.Could you expand on that to help out a poor layperson to these matters, I hadn't realised that the QV being described in this way was such a fundamental cornerstone of physics as it stands?The mainstream physics community assumes the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable because of the experimental observation that a fundamental particle like an electron (or a positron) has the same properties (e.g. mass, charge or spin), regardless of when or where the particle was created, whether now or in the early universe, through astrophysical processes or in a laboratory. Another reason is that the Quantum Vacuum has what Albert Einstein in 1913 called "Nullpunktsenergie" (zero point energy): the lowest possible (time-averaged) energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have.If the Quantum Vacuum is instead like a fluid (experiencing vortices and streamlines for example) as Paul March hinted (perhaps because our universe is part of a higher multidimensional multiverse as described by string theory and the QV was there before the Big Bang) and if it can be used for space propulsion, it may also be used for energy (as a loose analogy one can use the wind to sail the ocean as well as to produce energy with windmills) for peaceful as well as for destructive purposes... Of course, this is just science fiction at the moment, certainly as to the destructive purposes (as we cannot yet even control the weather for destructive purposes, although we have been able to use the wind for sailing and energy production for centuries).Thank you for that clear explanation, is it something that could ever be proved either way experimentally? It sounds a little like the assumption that Gravity is the same everywhere in the universe which some are now disputing. But that's thread drift again.
we use the fact that, when real photons are emitted (and propagate at the speed of light), the photons leave a small afterglow of virtual photons that propagate slower than light. This afterglow does not carry energy (in contrast to real photons), but it does carry information about the event that generated the light. Receivers can 'tap' into that afterglow, spending energy to recover information about light that passed by a long time ago
We show that it is possible to use a massless field in the vacuum to communicate in such a way that the signal travels arbitrarily slower than the speed of light and such that no energy is transmitted from the sender to the receiver. Instead, the receiver has to supply a signal-dependent amount of work to switch his detector on and off. This type of communication is related to Casimir-like interactions, and it is made possible by dimension—and curvature—dependent subtleties of Huygens’ principle.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 04/07/2015 02:23 pm.... In theory, according to basic physics, it should be possible to convert one form of energy into another, such as kinetic energy being converted to heat energy as a vehicle is decellerated via air during reentry. ...If electrical energy can be converted directly into spacecraft's momentum, without any matter or energy leaving the spacecraft then many problems appear. One interesting problem has been repeatedly pointed out by @frobnicat in this thread. Since the kinetic energy is:K = (1/2) m v^2The power needed to accelerate (a question appearing in this thread over the last few pages concerning a comparison with chemical rockets) is dK/dt,and since in this EM Drive spacecraft, the mass doesn't change, the only thing that changes is the velocity, therefore:dK/dt = (1/2) m [2 v dv/dt] = m v aSo the power needed to accelerate is a function of not only the acceleration wanted, but also the speed at which you're currently traveling. But, according to relativity, there is no absolute measurement of spacecraft speed, it depends on the observer. So, the needed power (to escape the surface of the Earth, etc.) depends on your frame of reference. So, no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces).There are several paradoxes with the EM Drive related to this.
.... In theory, according to basic physics, it should be possible to convert one form of energy into another, such as kinetic energy being converted to heat energy as a vehicle is decellerated via air during reentry. ...
@Star-DriveThis is all very exciting. I cannot wait to read it and then pretend I understand. The very best of luck to you Paul and your colleagues, and no pressure, but:
Quote from: Left Field on 04/08/2015 08:31 am@Star-DriveThis is all very exciting. I cannot wait to read it and then pretend I understand. The very best of luck to you Paul and your colleagues, and no pressure, but:It's already past the point when the Eagleworks team should have found results or their funding gets pulled, and there has been no response to a contributor on this thread who asked a direct question about this point. I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Quote from: Rodal on 04/07/2015 05:23 pmQuote from: JasonAW3 on 04/07/2015 02:23 pm.... In theory, according to basic physics, it should be possible to convert one form of energy into another, such as kinetic energy being converted to heat energy as a vehicle is decellerated via air during reentry. ...If electrical energy can be converted directly into spacecraft's momentum, without any matter or energy leaving the spacecraft then many problems appear. One interesting problem has been repeatedly pointed out by @frobnicat in this thread. Since the kinetic energy is:K = (1/2) m v^2The power needed to accelerate (a question appearing in this thread over the last few pages concerning a comparison with chemical rockets) is dK/dt,and since in this EM Drive spacecraft, the mass doesn't change, the only thing that changes is the velocity, therefore:dK/dt = (1/2) m [2 v dv/dt] = m v aSo the power needed to accelerate is a function of not only the acceleration wanted, but also the speed at which you're currently traveling. But, according to relativity, there is no absolute measurement of spacecraft speed, it depends on the observer. So, the needed power (to escape the surface of the Earth, etc.) depends on your frame of reference. So, no, "according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces).There are several paradoxes with the EM Drive related to this.A possible exception to this restriction is the lorentz force. Satellites use torque coils to dump angular momentum. Space tethers, if they ever are shown to work, transfer momentum to the Earth when current flowing along the tether is normal to the Earth's magnetic field. The return path is provided by ions. In fact any current-carrying wire experiences a lorentz force with a direction that is the cross product of the current direction and the magnetic field direction. The force is the same if the wire is stationary or is moving. So, in the case of an electrodynamic tether the restriction:dK/dt = (1/2) m [2 v dv/dt] = m v aDoesn't apply. How this applies to the EM-drive I can't even guess.
"according to basic physics, it should" not be possible to directly convert electrical energy into a spacecraft's momentum change without any change in mass of the spacecraft (or the action of external forces).
How this applies to the EM-drive I can't even guess.
Quote from: WBY1984 on 04/08/2015 08:58 amQuote from: Left Field on 04/08/2015 08:31 am@Star-DriveThis is all very exciting. I cannot wait to read it and then pretend I understand. The very best of luck to you Paul and your colleagues, and no pressure, but:It's already past the point when the Eagleworks team should have found results or their funding gets pulled, and there has been no response to a contributor on this thread who asked a direct question about this point. I wouldn't get your hopes up.Whoops, let that one slip by. Just for the record I think due to team's other work on the theoretical side the Q-V, I was given a reprieve on my contract termination date until the end of September 2015. Management still wants us to perform and IV&V at Glenn Research Center (GRC), but appears to be willing to wait a few months more until we can get our arms around increasing the current test setup's thrust up to a repeatable 100+uN force every time we apply power. Right now its about every third time that I can find the "Just-So" conditions needed to evoke the thrust signature in the reversed thrust mode.Best, Paul M.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 04/08/2015 12:47 pmQuote from: WBY1984 on 04/08/2015 08:58 amQuote from: Left Field on 04/08/2015 08:31 am@Star-DriveThis is all very exciting. I cannot wait to read it and then pretend I understand. The very best of luck to you Paul and your colleagues, and no pressure, but:It's already past the point when the Eagleworks team should have found results or their funding gets pulled, and there has been no response to a contributor on this thread who asked a direct question about this point. I wouldn't get your hopes up.Whoops, let that one slip by. Just for the record I think due to team's other work on the theoretical side the Q-V, I was given a reprieve on my contract termination date until the end of September 2015. Management still wants us to perform and IV&V at Glenn Research Center (GRC), but appears to be willing to wait a few months more until we can get our arms around increasing the current test setup's thrust up to a repeatable 100+uN force every time we apply power. Right now its about every third time that I can find the "Just-So" conditions needed to evoke the thrust signature in the reversed thrust mode.Best, Paul M.Is the inability to hit the "Just-So" conditions a side effect of some sort of degredation of either the cavity (as a result of thermal expansion or something similar) or the RF amplifier (failing while in vacuum)? If not can you share any ideas on what you think is impeding repeatability at the 100un level and above?