EM Drive Developments Thread 1

[Stormbringer]

Random thought:  Several years ago a physicist named Mallet was going to experiment with a laser ring or laser cage to create frame dragging to create a microscopic time machine. It would have been constrained to traveling into the past only as far as the time when the machine was first turned on. That is basically identical to Dr. Kramer's description of how a worm hole could create permissible time travel. I think Dr Mallet got null results (at least WRT time traveling subatomic particles) but what about using a similar apparatus to be the test article for Dr white's warp experiment? If its supposed to create measurable inertial frame dragging that should clearly warp space enough for a good measurement system.

Tangentally; I wonder what Dr Mallet would make of the time traveling quantum entanglement experiment that confirmed entanglement is not constrained to the present like just about every other thing in the universe?

[Ron Stahl]

Edit: Page 73 of the book has a nice equation for the mass fluctuations, but nothing to support it other than a reference to the flux capacitor paper. Flux capacitors? Couldn't he have picked a better name that didn't scream gobbledygook? I am understanding why the "QVFers" have the funding. The PR job on Mach effects is just awful.

I have at times made the same complaint.  I do like that Jim renamed the Universal Force Generator (UFG) to the Mach-Effect Thruster (MET).  It's deceivingly important what you call this stuff.  A rose by any other name will smell as sweet, but the name matters regardless.  On the flux capacitor I would point out Jim almost never uses that nomenclature.  It's from the 90's.   And in a business like this, you have to keep a sense of humor.  Jim has done this work for decades now, and without fantastic tenacity and good humor, the only other way anyone could survive such a monumental task would be if they were batty.  Jim's not batty and in fact, this is one of the reasons he posts each week to a list of about a hundred people, to keep his feet to the fire as it were and guard against battiness.  You can find other signs of good humor if you look carefully.  In the second photo from that piece posted up by Gary yesterday, just to the left of the ARC Lite chamber, you'll see peeking up the head of a green velvet stuffed alligator.  There's a humorous story that goes with the lab mascot but I don't recall it just now.

[Ron Stahl]

It makes no sense to dismiss Mach's ideas on inertia, or Newton, or Haisch&Rueda, or other "QVers." Dollars to donuts, they are all correct.

Now that I've had a good night's sleep and a cup of coffee I want to take a moment and address what was for me the most distressing portion of this post.  I do understand the impulse to tell everyone they're right, and I do understand the judgement often made that someone is participating in adolescent reductionism when they take a stand and say someone is wrong.  I would note here though, that we earn our convictions through hard work.  The more you study an issue, the more entitled you become to hold certain convictions on that issue.  This is an issue I've studied for a decade now, and I am indeed entitled to my convictions here, even if I'm wrong.

As regards this notion that ZPF/QVF and M-E are different sides of the same coin--this is Paul March's view and though I disagree, I respect Paul and his views.  Let me explain why I don't think such a thing can be true.

Einstein was never forced to answer the question of whether inertia is an intrinsic property of matter or if there is a mechanism that results in matter's mass.  This is the only point where Einstein and Woodward differ.  Woodward is treating Mach's Principle as true, and MP says that inertia is NOT an intrinsic property of matter, but rather is the result of the gravitational connection between all the universe's bits.  If Mach is correct, then we have some hope we can manipulate inertia as the Mach Effect Thruster claims.

So it can be that inertia is intrinsic to matter, or that it's caused, and if it's caused we have then two theories about how.  ZPF theory says that virtual particles generate a kind of quantum friction that results in inertia.  This is a very different explanation than Mach's, and the two are logically inconsistent with one another.  If you restrict your analysis to only those explanations for inertia where it is caused and not intrinsic, then ZPF theory and M-E theory form what philosophers call an "exhaustive disjunction" in that the two cover all the known explanations and mutually exclude one another.  How do they exclude one another?  They do this because M-E requires that EEP be true, and ZPF requires that EEP be false.  These two theories CANNOT both obtain.  At best one of them can be true, but not both.  They could both be wrong.  Inertia could be an intrinsic property of matter (though few physicists think this likely, and we have to hope not or there's no way to manipulate inertia) but logically, these two explanations for the origins of inertia CANNOT both be true.

IMHO.

[aceshigh]

Ron, can you tell us how Paul March addresses this explanation of why ZPF and ME are contradictory, considering he believes they are both sides of the same coin?

I guess that if he believes that, you must have told it to him, and he must have replied disagreeing with you. How he disagrees with what you said above?

[Ron Stahl]

We've had the conversation several times over the years and he hasn't ever responded.  I think though, it's important to remember that Paul is friends with both Jim and Sonny.  I doubt he'd want to go on record as having chosen sides.  The "opposite sides of the same coin" attitude is a politically safe one, even if a bit strained.

[aceshigh]

maybe he was not talking about the scientific theory point of view of both being two sides of the same coin, but about practical applications, nature of research, etc?

[Ron Stahl]

I'm pretty sure we understand each other but if he wants to go into more detail he can post about it.  I don't want to put words in his mouth.

[Notsosureofit]

Just an FYI

http://wulixb.iphy.ac.cn/EN/abstract/abstract60316.shtml

[Mulletron]

From the abstract:

When the temperature of the tapered resonant cavity wall rises, the resonant frequency will be decreased and the quality factor changed separately.

This is good to point out but shouldn't be heralded as a new discovery. Metal expands when heated, thus changing the size of the resonant cavity, thus changing the resonant frequency of the system. Larger cavity=lower resonant frequency.

I am pleased there is work happening on this. Progress gentlemen. Thanks for finding that.

[Ron Stahl]

I'm pretty sure the work in China has been going on since Shawyer lost his funding in the UK.  Many people think the Shawyer thing is just a CIA counter-intel OP like the Baker HFGW stuff, only that the Chinese turned around and used back.  I've no idea about this either way.

[Mulletron]

I just read the abstract. Just tried and failed on the pdf.

[Mulletron]

I'm pretty sure the work in China has been going on since Shawyer lost his funding in the UK.  Many people think the Shawyer thing is just a CIA counter-intel OP like the Baker HFGW stuff, only that the Chinese turned around and used back.  I've no idea about this either way.

Edit:

Seriously though, given the current geopolitical environment. If our govt gets word that another govt is actually making progress in this kind of research. The dollars will flow like water over at Eagleworks.

[Mulletron]

Woodward has been getting a lot of attention lately over at NBF and Boing Boing. I understand that the unfortunate use of the term "flux capacitor" doesn't necessarily detract from the actual science involved. It was a seriously good laugh though, I was laughing so hard I was in tears laughing. As Ron said, it does seem Dr. Woodward has a sense of humor, so maybe he used that term as a ha ha, but it flopped.

I just think the whole concept of a gravinertial flux/field and "flux capacitors" are forced and contrived in order to force a fit with Mach's Principle....eg old (less informed) ideas. If it isn't forced or contrived, then Woodward is indeed a renaissance man of the ages, quite possibly ahead of his time. I want him to be correct, of course. But I must question everything equally.

The current state of the art, which I've devoted considerable time to researching, suggests that inertia isn't due to a singular component. It is the net product of all interaction. I've become keenly aware that popularized science is at least 5 years behind actual science. The popularizers, while extremely valuable ambassadors of science, seem to also stick with over the top and exciting, sensational terms like dark energy, dark matter, blah blah blah. That gets ratings.

I'm watching this video now. It is a good opportunity to hear from the man himself. The audio is kinda bad so you gotta listen closely:

[Rodal]

Just an FYI

http://wulixb.iphy.ac.cn/EN/abstract/abstract60316.shtml

I just read the abstract. Just tried and failed on the pdf.

Here I attach the full paper

Resonance experiment on a microwave resonator system
Shi Feng Yang Juan Tang Ming-Jie Luo Li-Tao Wang Yu-Quan
(College of Astronautics, Northwestern Polytechnic University, Xi’an 710072, China)
Acta Phys. Sinica Vol. 63, No. 15 (2014)

Abstract
A microwave resonator system is made, which has a tapered resonant cavity, a microwave source, and a transmission device. Because of the electromagnetic pressure gradient on the tapered resonant cavity, a net electromagnetic force along the axis of the cavity may be observed, which is needed to verify experimentally the use of the independent microwave resonator system. It is also needed to keep the independent microwave resonator system in resonating state, which is the important procedure to demonstrate the possibility of net electromagnetic force. Thus, a low-signal resonating experiment on the tapered resonant cavity combined with resonating parts is completed to accurately find out the resonant frequency of 2.45 GHz and to analyze the influence of temperature on the resonant state. Experimental result shows that the resonant frequency and quality factor of the independent microwave resonator system are 2.44895 GHz and 117495.08 respectively. When the temperature of the tapered resonant cavity wall rises, the resonant frequency will be decreased and the quality factor changed separately.

Notice that Fig.1 shows the force "F" directed towards the small base of the truncated cone.

Notice in the last Figure shown below that the increase of temperature vs. time of this truncated cone is much higher than the increase in temperature reported by NASA Brady et.al.  (this is expected because the Chinese run their experiment with up to 385 times higher input power than NASA Brady et.al.'s).
The Chinese report that they run their experiment in Transverse Electric (TE) modes, which give an axial magnetic field at the central axis of the cone. 

[Rodal]

Here I attach the full paper

Resonance experiment on a microwave resonator system
Shi Feng Yang Juan Tang Ming-Jie Luo Li-Tao Wang Yu-Quan
(College of Astronautics, Northwestern Polytechnic University, Xi’an 710072, China)
Acta Phys. Sinica Vol. 63, No. 15 (2014)

The Chinese paper also repeatedly states that

"the electromagnetic field intensity calculated in the vicinity of the axis is larger, therefore the center of the small end has a higher thermal energy, thus heating quickly,"

as I expected (and contrary to Egan's webpage analysis because Egan did not take into account the heating from the magnetic field producing eddy currents on the copper).

Also it states:

"we measured the cavity surface surface temperature at different locations as shown in Figure 11 with a thermocouple.   [Fig. 11, which I attach below shows the positions of the thermocouples noted as "1" to "6"] Temperature measurements at different points vs.  time, are shown in FIG 12 [Fig 12 which I attach below shows the temperature vs time at the 6 different thermocouple locations]. The temperature at the center of small end [thermocouple #1] first began rising rapidly."

Notice that the temperature of the small end (thermocouple #1) rises much more than the temperature of the big end (thermocouple #6).

Notice that the rise of the temperature vs time at the center of the small end is nonlinear (the upper temperature curve) while the temperature measured at the other locations show fairly linear behavior.


Clearly, there is a large temperature difference between the small end (thermocouple #1) and the large end (thermocouple #6)

Maximum temperature is reached at the center of the small end.

The heating profile is completely different from the one shown by Egan.  Egan's temperature profile is incorrect.

[JohnFornaro]

...something one would consider as if "grasping at straws"...

Just checked with the mixologist.  She said I could grasp at straws anytime during regular business hours...

[ThinkerX]

Ok, time for me to demonstrate my lack of comprehension here again:

1) The Chinese paper says the thermal increase was greatest at the small end of the device.

2) Yet if I remember right, the thrust was towards the large end.

So...do we have a straight thermal artifact/effect?  Or a thermal/artifact effect plus something else?

My hazy memory also recollects the neat colored diagram he posted a bunch of pages back showing the weird concentration of something (electrical energy?) towards the big end of the device. 

Ughh...maybe some sort of internal displacement effect?

And why am I seeing multiple screens>.,

[RotoSequence]

http://www.fz-juelich.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/UK/EN/2014/14-11-26van-der-waals-kraft.html

According to this paper, the strength of the van der Waals force increases disproportionately with the size of the molecule. Perhaps the impact of teflon in an EM drive stems from sort of relationship between EM drives and van der Waals forces?

[Mulletron]

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-07-boosting-space.html

Use your imagination. Happy turkey day!

[frobnicat]

I'm in lurker mode for the time being. Not chasing the virtual particle through the quantum rabbit hole, but while searching on introductory material on the added mass of agitation, thermal or harmonic (something hot is slightly more massive that something cold, and same for a vibrating bulk, isn't it ?) to get a grasp on "ME effect", stumbled on this paper (not fresh) that might be added to the assorted link for those interested in the Unruh connexion :
Some Heuristic Semiclassical Derivations of the Planck Length, the Hawking Effect and the Unruh Effect
Conclusions in the lines of "... stresses the link between Unruh effect and Hawking effect, and the latter appears clearly to be a particular case of the former."