Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 7  (Read 1663293 times)

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
Thanks doc, here it is: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1502273#msg1502273

This will be on every subsequent thread...hopefully it helps place the concept in perspective with others in the Q Thruster "family". Some of them have their own Topic Threads here, some do not. Any member in good standing is free to start a new Topic in New Physics. I have created a couple, one closed, one just started as an invite to the inventors.

Separate Technology Topic Threads could avoid confusion here on EMDrive but also give others an introduction to other Q Thrusters. Special note per Dr Rodal, EW's work is focused on the overall family, namely Q Thrusters which the theory is based upon. Some or no elements of the rest of the other concepts could be incorporated within their work (Let me know if this is worded correctly, Doc).

Note that this image links to a specific post by Dr Rodal in T7. Will need to know where I can find an updated version when changes are made...thanks all!
« Last Edit: 04/29/2016 03:55 pm by rfmwguy »

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1721
  • United States
  • Liked: 4363
  • Likes Given: 1403
I would feel uncomfortable to place other devices there without reports from Dr. White showing that he would agree to call them Q-Thrusters (because what is a Q-Thruster or not is really up to Dr. White's theory and Dr. White's theory has not been fully disclosed)

I think Q-Thruster should be replaced with a generic term like "Propellantless Thrusters" oir "Electromagnetic Thrusters". And then have bubbles for Q-thruster and RF resonant cavity, and each of the discrete theories, White, Shawyer, etc. - overlapping where necessary.

Looks like somone has defaced the Theory page on Emdrive wiki. Anyone know how to revert? http://emdrive.wiki/Theory
« Last Edit: 04/29/2016 03:51 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
I would feel uncomfortable to place other devices there without reports from Dr. White showing that he would agree to call them Q-Thrusters (because what is a Q-Thruster or not is really up to Dr. White's theory and Dr. White's theory has not been fully disclosed)

(snip)

Looks like somone has defaced the Theory page on Emdrive wiki. Anyone know how to revert? http://emdrive.wiki/Theory
Done

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5557
I would feel uncomfortable to place other devices there without reports from Dr. White showing that he would agree to call them Q-Thrusters (because what is a Q-Thruster or not is really up to Dr. White's theory and Dr. White's theory has not been fully disclosed)

(snip)

Looks like somone has defaced the Theory page on Emdrive wiki. Anyone know how to revert? http://emdrive.wiki/Theory
Done
There was also this in the page that Dave reverted to:

Quote
EM Drive may not violate the Conservation Laws in the instance of producing a pair of neutrinos
(neutrinos born in EM deexitation EW process through E0 transition inside the resonator).
It is known that the  correlation angle of the two neutrinos in the lab system
would be 60 deg. [Montoya-93], so an unbalanced force would appear, since neutrinos escape without interaction.
Unfortunately, this statement is not easy to prove in an experiment.

which I deleted.  Anybody that wrote that should write a more detailed explanation, explicitly quoting sources, journal, etc.(rather than just Montoya-93) as a separate entry
« Last Edit: 04/29/2016 04:13 pm by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5557
Thanks doc, here it is: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1502273#msg1502273

This will be on every subsequent thread...hopefully it helps place the concept in perspective with others in the Q Thruster "family". Some of them have their own Topic Threads here, some do not. Any member in good standing is free to start a new Topic in New Physics. I have created a couple, one closed, one just started as an invite to the inventors.

Separate Technology Topic Threads could avoid confusion here on EMDrive but also give others an introduction to other Q Thrusters. Special note per Dr Rodal, EW's work is focused on the overall family, namely Q Thrusters which the theory is based upon. Some or no elements of the rest of the other concepts could be incorporated within their work (Let me know if this is worded correctly, Doc).

Note that this image links to a specific post by Dr Rodal in T7. Will need to know where I can find an updated version when changes are made...thanks all!
Dave,

Upon a careful review of the data and consulting with experts, I have concluded that the Boeing/Darpa/Serrano field effect device should be included inside the set of Mach Lorentz thrusters, so I have revised the picture as attached below.

Hat tip to Flux-Capacitor for this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1525261#msg1525261 with information the Boeing/Darpa/Serrano field effect device, including this:  http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/act/html/sfptv1.htm

The rationale for this classification is that transient electric and magnetic fields (perpendicular to each other) created during the induced charge and discharge of the capacitive device create the correct field conditions needed to generate a Lorentz force that deforms (strain) the dielectric (*) via its electrostrictive response that could generate the required frequency (stress and hence) force rectification pulses needed to rectify the Woodward Mach Effect mass fluctuations in the dielectric so that the  Boeing/Darpa/Serrano device is operating as a Mach Lorentz Thruster.


Could you please be so nice as to replace the image at the start of the thread with this revised image?

Thanks

______________

(*) According to http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/act/html/sfptv1.htm , the Serrano field effect device uses a polymer as the dielectric

« Last Edit: 04/29/2016 05:22 pm by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
Post 1, T7 revised!

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5557
I was wrong about the fact stating Serrano's Field Thruster experiments have always been conducted without any Faraday cage.

Attached below is an excerpt (page 40) of Eagleworks 2013 warp field physics PDF showing the Serrano thruster within a Faraday cage. The results were apparently positive although small, but while the experiment was placed inside a vacuum chamber, it was conducted at ambient air pressure like Eagleworks' first cavity thruster experiments.

Please note that Boeing directly provided the test article to JSC… Too bad they never accepted to also send Shawyer's flight thruster they own too. Was it because the former was managed by Boeing/Darpa and the latter by Phantom Works (same or different teams and decision-makers?) or something else, we don't know.
1) Please note that the figure of merit for these Q-Thrusters is the force/InputPower, and that the force/InputPower for the Boeing/DARPA Serrano Field Effect device in a Faraday cage had great results at NASA, per that slide: they eclipse any EM Drive claim: 1 to 20 N/kW. 20 N/kW is 20 times the maximum amount claimed by the EM Drive non-superconducting with maximum reported results: Yang's 1 N/kW.  It is also more than 20 times the Cannae superconducting claimed force/InputPower



2) As to Boeing terminating the Shawyer EM Drive relationship and not sending their device to NASA, please note that the Boeing official that signed the contract is still working with Boeing.  Another Boeing employee, a Boeing spokesman confirmed to the press that Boeing terminated the relationship with Shawyer and they discontinued working on Shawyer's EM Drive concept:

http://aviationweek.com/awin/propellentless-space-propulsion-research-continues
Quote
“Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue.

This is in contrast with Boeing/DARPA in 2013 sending the Serrano device to NASA for test verification, with up to 20 times the force/InputPower of the highest claimed result for an EM Drive, and 50 times the force/InputPower of the highest claimed result by Shawyer for Boeing's Flight Thruster EM Drive.
Upon further review of the published information, the above-quoted relative over-performance of the Boeing/Darpa/Serrano field effect device tested at NASA Eagleworks in 2013 needs to be tempered with caution by the following considerations:

1) Yes, Flux-Capacitor is correct that the Boeing/Darpa/Serrano field effect device was shielded from mundane electrostatic effects during the NASA test

2) it appears, from Dr. White's slide that the Boeing/Darpa/Serrano field effect device produced no significant thrust response in the torque pendulum when operated at constant high voltage Direct Current.  This stands in contrast with the EM Drive truncated cone results that do show a thrust signature at constant power.

3) The high force/InputPower figure in the NASA slide refers only to pulse response (an electromagnetic burst with very short-time response), instead of operation at constant high voltage.  The pulse response, apparently, being a result of switching the high voltage Direct Current on and off. 

4) Looking at Dr. White's slide the pulse response is not that repeatable.  There is one large pulse.  Is this rogue pulse real or an artifact? The efficiency numbers need to be met with caution (is that why they are quoted as 1 to 20 N/kW?, that is a huge range).  Even if the large pulse can be produced consistently, how are the (largely bi-directional, but slightly skewed) force pulses going to be rectified into a unidirectional force for practical space propulsion ?

5) Although the claimed results for the EM Drive are significantly lower (ranging from milliNewtons/kW to 1 N/kW) they all claim (for those claiming positive results) a thrust signature at constant power, hence the Boeing/Darpa/Serrano experimental problem of rectifying a pulse response into a unidirectional force for practical space propulsion is not present in the EM Drive experiments, at least in the up-to-now short-time experiments for the EM Drive.  It is much better to experimentally obtain a unidirectional fairly-constant thrust signature at constant power (the EM Drive claimed experimental results) than a skewed bi-directional pulse response (the apparent response of the Boeing/Darpa/Serrano field effect device in the NASA tests as per the above slide).
« Last Edit: 04/29/2016 06:59 pm by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5557
Thanks doc, here it is: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1502273#msg1502273

This will be on every subsequent thread...hopefully it helps place the concept in perspective with others in the Q Thruster "family". Some of them have their own Topic Threads here, some do not. Any member in good standing is free to start a new Topic in New Physics. I have created a couple, one closed, one just started as an invite to the inventors.

Separate Technology Topic Threads could avoid confusion here on EMDrive but also give others an introduction to other Q Thrusters. Special note per Dr Rodal, EW's work is focused on the overall family, namely Q Thrusters which the theory is based upon. Some or no elements of the rest of the other concepts could be incorporated within their work (Let me know if this is worded correctly, Doc).

Note that this image links to a specific post by Dr Rodal in T7. Will need to know where I can find an updated version when changes are made...thanks all!
Dave,

Upon a careful review of the data and consulting with experts, I have concluded that the Boeing/Darpa/Serrano field effect device should be included inside the set of Mach Lorentz thrusters, so I have revised the picture as attached below.

Hat tip to Flux-Capacitor for this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1525261#msg1525261 with information the Boeing/Darpa/Serrano field effect device, including this:  http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/act/html/sfptv1.htm

The rationale for this classification is that transient electric and magnetic fields (perpendicular to each other) created during the induced charge and discharge of the capacitive device create the correct field conditions needed to generate a Lorentz force that deforms (strain) the dielectric (*) via its electrostrictive response that could generate the required frequency (stress and hence) force rectification pulses needed to rectify the Woodward Mach Effect mass fluctuations in the dielectric so that the  Boeing/Darpa/Serrano device is operating as a Mach Lorentz Thruster.


Could you please be so nice as to replace the image at the start of the thread with this revised image?

Thanks

______________

(*) According to http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/act/html/sfptv1.htm , the Serrano field effect device uses a polymer as the dielectric

Please note that I have also added this image to the Wikipedia article on Quantum vacuum thruster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_thruster

this Wikipedia article already referenced NSF's EM Drive article:  http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 02:47 am by Rodal »

Offline Eusa

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 118
I wrote a view to the Wikipedia article on Quantum vacuum thruster under chapter "criticism":

Especially the disregard of the violation of energy and momentum conservation laws has been under heavy criticism. Some propositions suggest that if the phenomenon is real, the quantum gravity-inertia effects could be an explanation and the process dismissed vacuum quanta and reduced space so that under the causality other bodies would accelerate as an reaction to thruster's thrust. Hence the violations of fundamental laws of physics can be avoided.

I appreciate if someone could check and modify it in the better English.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 06:32 am by Eusa »

Offline SergioZ82

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Italy
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 10
Hello everybody,

I'm Sergio, the author of PNN blog Neo Leges Motus. I'm writing here on behalf of Emidio Laureti, because he can't access the forum and asked me for support: apparently his IP results banned from this site and he can't register. If moderators can solve this problem he would be glad to partecipate in the discussion.
For the moment, if you like, I can try to answer some questions if I can (I'm not a physicist).

I had a look at the scheme posted by Rodal (very helpful btw). I think PNN should stay outside the Q-Thruster set, because the inventor has always stated that PNN works because there is a fault in electrodynamics - the displacement current concept - that can be exploited to generate thrust without reaction.
In fact, he always distanced himself from quantum/gravitic hypothesis to explain e.m propulsion.
Sergio, welcome to this very long topic.

Could you please elaborate a bit more on the part I highlighted in red?
It is a rather daring statement and I would like to understand why you would say that there is a "fault in electrodynamics" ?


Hi Flyby, thank you.

I wrote a bit about it in the thread dedicated to PNN. The "faulty" part is the displacement current.
 I cut/past part of a post I wrote on my blog:

Given the nature of the PNN engine, which works by exploiting Lorentz forces generated in a capacitor, it was unavoidable that ASPS would have had the need to take tests and measurements regarding the effects of the displacement current in the system operation. Its conclusion is simply baffling: such phenomenon does not exist!

Association’s theory in fact is the following: “only something similar to the electric field propagates in the vacuum and when it hits a conductive material it makes its charges to oscillate, thus generating the magnetic field“.

For a brief recap: if for Maxwell the magnetic field inside a capacitor is generated by the moving charges of a dielectric material, for ASPS it’s generated by the oscillation of the charges in the conductive material stimulated by the electric field.


I know it is a daring statement but for what I understood if displacement current was true, PNN couldn't work. Laureti has always repeated that since the postulation of displacement current more than 150 years ago there has been very few attempts to experimentally measure it because everyone took it for granted (and the measurements methods are questionable for ASPS). The road to e.m propulsion for ASPS lies beneath the displacement current concept. There is something else happening between a capacitor plates that remained hidden for all this time and mainly because displacement current hasn't been practically experimented enough. In PNN thread there is an example of how to exploit a capacitor to generate a force without its reaction counterpart

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
On the lighter side for our emdrive experimenters...it can happen to anyone:

Weasel halts LHC experiments after chewing on a power cable

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2086451-weasel-halts-lhc-experiments-after-chewing-on-a-power-cable/

Happy building and testing!

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
https://plus.google.com/u/0/117663015413546257905/posts/E1ecoYsa5ae

John Baez, a well known theoretical physicist and blogger has dismissed the emdrive for a while. He has a new blog entry this past week addressing Mike McCullouch's new theory regarding Unruh and the Casmir Effect:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/117663015413546257905/posts/E1ecoYsa5ae

Of course, I was compelled to add my own comment, not to attack the critique nor the author, but to address something that's bothered me ever since I undertook the time, expense and effort to debunk the emdrive myself.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5557
https://plus.google.com/u/0/117663015413546257905/posts/E1ecoYsa5ae

John Baez, a well known theoretical physicist and blogger has dismissed the emdrive for a while. He has a new blog entry this past week addressing Mike McCullouch's new theory regarding Unruh and the Casmir Effect:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/117663015413546257905/posts/E1ecoYsa5ae

Of course, I was compelled to add my own comment, not to attack the critique nor the author, but to address something that's bothered me ever since I undertook the time, expense and effort to debunk the emdrive myself.

My fellow alumni Prof. John Baez makes excellent points in his article, for example:

Quote from: John Baez
McCulloch talks a lot about the Unruh effect, so you should learn a bit about that.   It's never been detected, but most physicists believe in it, because it's a consequence of special relativity and quantum mechanics.   When you put these theories together, they predict that an accelerating observer will see a faint glow of thermal radiation.

For example, suppose you accelerate at a trillion gee - a trillion times more than a falling object on Earth.  Then the theory predicts you'll see thermal radiation at a temperature of 40 billionths of a degree Celsius above absolute zero.   That's so faint nobody knows how to detect it!
...
There are arguments about this, but whatever happens, it'll be too small to detect under most circumstances.  Chen and Tajima have proposed an experiment to accelerate a single electron at 10 septillion gee  (that is, 10^25 gee).  That might be enough for something interesting to happen.  However, the EmDrive gadget is nowhere near as intense. The version NASA built is weaker than a typical microwave oven.
 
This has not stopped McCulloch from claiming that the Unruh effect "explains" the EmDrive!
...
Why hasn't it been detected?   Because it's predicted to be very, very  weak.   Absurdly weak!

McCulloch is not setting Planck's constant to 1 by a suitable choice of units, he is just saying the phrase "Unruh effect" and then writing down equations that don't involve the Unruh effect.  That's why his equations don't contain Planck's constant.  And that's how he's able to predict an effect vastly larger than anything the Unruh effect could account for!
...
 One amusing thing is that while the Unruh effect involves quantum mechanics, Planck's constant - the number that shows up in every calculation in quantum mechanics - never shows up in this paper.


There are countless things for young people to dream about.  Scientists like John Baez actually benefit such minds by showing them that

a) the heart of science is to prove theories, and this involves disproving false models and

b) enabling young minds to focus their dreams on things that might be able to be accomplished, rather than those that are false

Ignoring what's wrong, thus confusing young minds, might actually be more cruel to them, as our life is finite and precious, and resources are finite. We only have one life to live, to create or to waste.

« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 03:26 pm by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
https://plus.google.com/u/0/117663015413546257905/posts/E1ecoYsa5ae

John Baez, a well known theoretical physicist and blogger has dismissed the emdrive for a while. He has a new blog entry this past week addressing Mike McCullouch's new theory regarding Unruh and the Casmir Effect:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/117663015413546257905/posts/E1ecoYsa5ae

Of course, I was compelled to add my own comment, not to attack the critique nor the author, but to address something that's bothered me ever since I undertook the time, expense and effort to debunk the emdrive myself.
We should stick to discussing the technical issues associated with the EM Drive and any explanatory theories.

My fellow alumni Prof. John Baez makes excellent points in his article, for example:

Quote from: John Baez
McCulloch talks a lot about the Unruh effect, so you should learn a bit about that.   It's never been detected, but most physicists believe in it, because it's a consequence of special relativity and quantum mechanics.   When you put these theories together, they predict that an accelerating observer will see a faint glow of thermal radiation.

For example, suppose you accelerate at a trillion gee - a trillion times more than a falling object on Earth.  Then the theory predicts you'll see thermal radiation at a temperature of 40 billionths of a degree Celsius above absolute zero.   That's so faint nobody knows how to detect it!
...
There are arguments about this, but whatever happens, it'll be too small to detect under most circumstances.  Chen and Tajima have proposed an experiment to accelerate a single electron at 10 septillion gee  (that is, 10^25 gee).  That might be enough for something interesting to happen.  However, the EmDrive gadget is nowhere near as intense. The version NASA built is weaker than a typical microwave oven.
 
This has not stopped McCulloch from claiming that the Unruh effect "explains" the EmDrive!
...
Why hasn't it been detected?   Because it's predicted to be very, very  weak.   Absurdly weak!

McCulloch is not setting Planck's constant to 1 by a suitable choice of units, he is just saying the phrase "Unruh effect" and then writing down equations that don't involve the Unruh effect.  That's why his equations don't contain Planck's constant.  And that's how he's able to predict an effect vastly larger than anything the Unruh effect could account for!
...
 One amusing thing is that while the Unruh effect involves quantum mechanics, Planck's constant - the number that shows up in every calculation in quantum mechanics - never shows up in this paper.

I agree and the next poster commented much better on what I was trying to get across...technically:

Here's the thing. The Standard Model does not offer a description of inertia. Mass is proposed as kinetic energy plus the Higgs field ( I am simplifying for brevity) but inertia remains an assumed result of mass. So assumptions form part of the standard model, in fact it's littered with assumptions and 'normalisation' to get rid of those pesky infinities. The technical term for these adjustments is 'hack' , or bodge in laymans terms. Further to this unfortunate state the following observed states were not predicted by either the standard model or relativity.

Inflation ( actually inflation is another bodge purported to explain CBR homogeneity)
Dark matter ( galactic rotation anomaly bodge)
Dark energy( cosmic acceleration bodge).

So far from conventional physics being a gold standard by which to judge alternative suggestions it's got holes, big gaping holes through which the observable universe pushes all sorts of interesting anomalies. Anyone who challenges such a patched and falsified authodoxy with a testable hypotheses should be welcomed, not scorned, particularly where it has been peer reviewed in a perfectly acceptable publication. A shabby attempt at a denouncement Mr Baez

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5557
...Anyone who challenges such a patched and falsified authodoxy with a testable hypotheses should be welcomed, not scorned, particularly where it has been peer reviewed in a perfectly acceptable publication. A shabby attempt at a denouncement Mr Baez[/i]
Precisely, Prof. John Baez tested McCulloch's hypothesis and showed it to be wrong, on several counts.  If you or others think otherwise, they should address Baez technical points, for example:  that McCulloch equations don't contain Planck's constant, and that's how he's able to predict an effect vastly larger than anything the Unruh effect could account for.

Talking about the fact that we don't know everything about the Universe is neither here nor there. (With that premise, that since we don't know everything about the Universe, we cannot discuss technical points, I doubt that science would have progressed  :)  ) .What we need instead is people to explain what happened to Plank's constant in McCulloch's equations and how does he answer Baez other technical points.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 03:17 pm by Rodal »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2428
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3180
  • Likes Given: 2704
On the lighter side for our emdrive experimenters...it can happen to anyone:

Weasel halts LHC experiments after chewing on a power cable

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2086451-weasel-halts-lhc-experiments-after-chewing-on-a-power-cable/

Happy building and testing!

I know about these things that jump out of nowhere and trash your experiments. They also can lead you to ask different questions that normally wouldn't arise. One question that has perplexed me in my matchstick drive failure during the first light in testing my drive a couple months ago. Why did I see a large thrust component during the failure while turning one antenna into a copper fused matchstick? Until I accepted my own rhetoric, there is no bad data. That something good can be gained from any testing data that I was ok with it.

Recently rfmwguy was postulating that Cu ions might somehow be directly related to a thrusting component. I started thinking what would a Copper wire antenna 1/4Wl that was arcing towards a matchstick condition make? Cu ions!

Then I read here a bit ago where the EM fields do not reflect a counter force back to the source. So can someone help me here and explain what happens when I flood the cavity with Cu ions from my antenna and then they accelerate due to the E and H field mode configuration into the small end?

I know the center of mass is still unchanged (Dr. Rodal) but the field actions on the Cu ions in accelerating isn't felt on the antenna source. Does the induced magnetic charges in the Cu ions restrict the magnetic movements within the modes reflecting in the sidewalls of the cavity?

(I've a coupe other thought about this action in red shifting the photons in the modes and thereby changing of the cutoff frequency increasing evanescent wave actions but they will wait)

Any thoughts would be welcome.

Shell

 

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5557
On the lighter side for our emdrive experimenters...it can happen to anyone:

Weasel halts LHC experiments after chewing on a power cable

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2086451-weasel-halts-lhc-experiments-after-chewing-on-a-power-cable/

Happy building and testing!

I know about these things that jump out of nowhere and trash your experiments. They also can lead you to ask different questions that normally wouldn't arise. One question that has perplexed me in my matchstick drive failure during the first light in testing my drive a couple months ago. Why did I see a large thrust component during the failure while turning one antenna into a copper fused matchstick? Until I accepted my own rhetoric, there is no bad data. That something good can be gained from any testing data that I was ok with it.

Recently rfmwguy was postulating that Cu ions might somehow be directly related to a thrusting component. I started thinking what would a Copper wire antenna 1/4Wl that was arcing towards a matchstick condition make? Cu ions!

Then I read here a bit ago where the EM fields do not reflect a counter force back to the source. So can someone help me here and explain what happens when I flood the cavity with Cu ions from my antenna and then they accelerate due to the E and H field mode configuration into the small end?

I know the center of mass is still unchanged (Dr. Rodal) but the field actions on the Cu ions in accelerating isn't felt on the antenna source. Does the induced magnetic charges in the Cu ions restrict the magnetic movements within the modes reflecting in the sidewalls of the cavity?

(I've a coupe other thought about this action in red shifting the photons in the modes and thereby changing of the cutoff frequency increasing evanescent wave actions but they will wait)

Any thoughts would be welcome.

Shell
You have to take into account the power source for the antenna, as previously explained by Notsosureofit.

Thus, any test that has the power source stationary and the EM Drive with its antenna moving, and only focuses on the moving part is inherently flawed as it ignores conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.

Such a test reminds me of The Wizard of Oz, with the power source behind a curtain (the Wizard is the power source behind the curtain). If you don't take into account the power source, the force appears to be magic,

The best test would have the power source self-integrated with the moving device, for example powered by batteries.  For space propulsion (the subject of this thread) one does not get to have the EM Drive in space with a power cable coming back to Earth to supply it with power.

Prof. Feynman has a number of excellent examples of conservation of momentum paradoxes in his Feynman Lectures, 50 years ago.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 03:31 pm by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
...Anyone who challenges such a patched and falsified authodoxy with a testable hypotheses should be welcomed, not scorned, particularly where it has been peer reviewed in a perfectly acceptable publication. A shabby attempt at a denouncement Mr Baez[/i]
Precisely, Prof. John Baez tested McCulloch's hypothesis and showed it to be wrong, on several counts.  If you or others think otherwise, they should address Baez technical points, for example:  that McCulloch equations don't contain Planck's constant, and that's how he's able to predict an effect vastly larger than anything the Unruh effect could account for.

Talking about the fact that we don't know everything about the Universe is neither here nor there. (With that premise, that since we don't know everything about the Universe, we cannot discuss technical points, I doubt that science would have progressed  :)  ) .What we need instead is people to explain what happened to Plank's constant in McCulloch's equations and how does he answer Baez other technical points.
I think what the other poster and perhaps myself are trying to get across is Planck's constant is an example of a fairly recent belief that may or may not apply for this anomaly. My position on the Constant is fine...but has there ever been a single experiment to disprove the constant or observe an anomaly which does not need it?

I understand that once a general consensus is reached, it becomes difficult to argue against it. As a devil's advocate (which I hate playing) have you personally ever investigated a scenario where the Planck Constant is disproved or useless? All this type of mantra does is to elevate an argument, so I tend to avoid that.

I invited Dr McCullough to NSF some time ago and probably due to his paper, he has not been back here. He did reply and perhaps this forum can bring both together to discuss it with civility.

I understand that's how science has been working over the past few decades...reliance on someone else's theory which has gained wide acceptance as the fundamental argument to new concepts. I'd simply say lets keep testing the emdrive until the definitive answer is found...real or artifact?

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5557
...
I think what the other poster and perhaps myself are trying to get across is Planck's constant is an example of a fairly recent belief that may or may not apply for this anomaly. My position on the Constant is fine...but has there ever been a single experiment to disprove the constant or observe an anomaly which does not need it?

I understand that once a general consensus is reached, it becomes difficult to argue against it. As a devil's advocate (which I hate playing) have you personally ever investigated a scenario where the Planck Constant is disproved or useless? All this type of mantra does is to elevate an argument, so I tend to avoid that.

I invited Dr McCullough to NSF some time ago and probably due to his paper, he has not been back here. He did reply and perhaps this forum can bring both together to discuss it with civility.

I understand that's how science has been working over the past few decades...reliance on someone else's theory which has gained wide acceptance as the fundamental argument to new concepts. I'd simply say lets keep testing the emdrive until the definitive answer is found...real or artifact?
It is important to start by understanding that it was Dr. McCulloch who was the one that put forth a theory that the Unruh effect and the Casimir effect explain the EM Drive.  Both these effects (the Unruh effect and the Casimir effect) involve the Plank constant.  Yet the Plank constant does not appear in McCulloch's equations.  This is the contradiction that Prof. Baez is addressing.

By arguing against the Plank constant you are arguing against the theory of Dr. McCulloch, not for it.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 03:47 pm by Rodal »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2428
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3180
  • Likes Given: 2704
On the lighter side for our emdrive experimenters...it can happen to anyone:

Weasel halts LHC experiments after chewing on a power cable

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2086451-weasel-halts-lhc-experiments-after-chewing-on-a-power-cable/

Happy building and testing!

I know about these things that jump out of nowhere and trash your experiments. They also can lead you to ask different questions that normally wouldn't arise. One question that has perplexed me in my matchstick drive failure during the first light in testing my drive a couple months ago. Why did I see a large thrust component during the failure while turning one antenna into a copper fused matchstick? Until I accepted my own rhetoric, there is no bad data. That something good can be gained from any testing data that I was ok with it.

Recently rfmwguy was postulating that Cu ions might somehow be directly related to a thrusting component. I started thinking what would a Copper wire antenna 1/4Wl that was arcing towards a matchstick condition make? Cu ions!

Then I read here a bit ago where the EM fields do not reflect a counter force back to the source. So can someone help me here and explain what happens when I flood the cavity with Cu ions from my antenna and then they accelerate due to the E and H field mode configuration into the small end?

I know the center of mass is still unchanged (Dr. Rodal) but the field actions on the Cu ions in accelerating isn't felt on the antenna source. Does the induced magnetic charges in the Cu ions restrict the magnetic movements within the modes reflecting in the sidewalls of the cavity?

(I've a coupe other thought about this action in red shifting the photons in the modes and thereby changing of the cutoff frequency increasing evanescent wave actions but they will wait)

Any thoughts would be welcome.

Shell
You have to take into account the power source for the antenna, as previously explained by Notsosureofit.

Thus, any test that has the power source stationary and the EM Drive with its antenna moving, and only focuses on the moving part is inherently flawed as it ignores conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.

Such a test reminds me of The Wizard of Oz, with the power source behind a curtain (the Wizard is the power source behind the curtain). If you don't take into account the power source, the force appears to be magic,

The best test would have the power source integrated with the moving device, for example powered by batteries.

Prof. Feynman has a number of excellent examples of conservation of momentum paradoxes in his Feynman Lectures, 50 years ago.
I remember watching a back and white film of one of his lectures in collage on this very thing. I remember so little of it though. It should be on youtube now, geez everything in on youtube.

I also understand that my beam moved a few microns to be able to measure this thrust on the digital scale and it's wrong for me to think that the power source didn't. So according to conservation of momentum the power source 3 foot away would show a equal opposing vectored force?

Shell

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0