Chris,
Spent the last hour reading this wonderful article (sitting in Regents Park!) . Love the engineering and the physics and looking forward to seeing this technology used in the future.
Great work by you and the team as NSF.
Epic article! :) I’m really looking forward to the tests... 8)
18.
Q. How can the EmDrive produce enough thrust for terrestrial applications?
A. The second generation engines will be capable of producing a specific thrust of 30kN/kW. Thus for 1 kilowatt (typical of the power in a microwave oven) a static thrust of 3 tonnes can be obtained, which is enough to support a large car. This is clearly adequate for terrestrial transport applications.
The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting EmDrive with a Q of 5 x 109. This Q value is routinely achieved in superconducting cavities.
Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle.
I've been binging on emDrive papers, theorys, and forum banter for the past few days. This is truly exciting stuff. We may be on the cusp of new physics and new possibilities. Many thanks to those who are making all this possible, and thanks for taking time to share it all with us on the forums.
I would like to throw out one question on the subject. The paper linked at the top of this thread, along with most of the forum discussions regarding possible emDrive applications have been focused on space travel. But wouldn't it be possible to use emDrives terrestrially as well? Think helicopters with no downdraft, levitating cars or trains. Heck, why not a emDrive SSTO vehicle? Are these concepts within the realm of possibility?
... But wouldn't it be possible to use emDrives terrestrially as well? Think helicopters with no downdraft, levitating cars or trains. Heck, why not a emDrive SSTO vehicle? Are these concepts within the realm of possibility?
I think that NasaSpaceflight.com's credibility will survive this. Anyway, I'm an empiricist - fly the thing and we'll see if it's a boondoggle.
Epic article Chris. I have been following the EM Drive threads sense they began but I must admit that the physics those guys are working thru are beyond my ability to comment intelligently. This article actually pulls a lot of what they were saying together in a way that I can almost understand it. Beyond that I really don’t have much more to say – I am too blown away. We appear to be at the threshold of an entirely new ear of space transportation and I can’t wait to see what becomes of this. In light of the potential payoff in terms of capability and national prestige I really hope the Congress will provide sufficient funding to continue this work at a reasonable pace.
I’ll be going back into lurking mode on the newest thread now, trying my hardest to work thru what those guys are saying. Thank you for doing the article. Very much.
:)
Epic article Chris. I have been following the EM Drive threads sense they began but I must admit that the physics those guys are working thru are beyond my ability to comment intelligently. This article actually pulls a lot of what they were saying together in a way that I can almost understand it. Beyond that I really don’t have much more to say – I am too blown away. We appear to be at the threshold of an entirely new ear of space transportation and I can’t wait to see what becomes of this. In light of the potential payoff in terms of capability and national prestige I really hope the Congress will provide sufficient funding to continue this work at a reasonable pace.
I’ll be going back into lurking mode on the newest thread now, trying my hardest to work thru what those guys are saying. Thank you for doing the article. Very much.
:)
I believe that eventually we have to start to think and act as a species, not as individuals or national states. If this technology is what it appears to be, then this knowledge has to be shared with everyone. Which is basically happening right now in those precious NSFF threads.
;D
Thank you so much for this article. I've been aware of the EM Drive threadnought for awhile, and surmised that there was Something There from the sheer enthusiasm therein, but haven't had the time or the brains to make much sense out of it. Now I at least understand what the excitement is about!
Indeed. If these findings are validated, then most countries, enterprises and wealthy citizens would have the recipe for at least a functional space drive.
I just want to point out that the final draft of the 3D Warp Drive, following Dr Sonny White's theories, is quite different. Sonny worked together with the 3D modeller to ensure the spaceship model followed his theory parameters... well, not the entire spaceship of course, just the part about the rings width and how close to the rings the entire ship needs to be (I guess that long cockpit would stay out of the warp bubble)
this is the final image that was circulating all over the internet some months ago (only links because the images are big and destroyed page formating)
http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/14305613177_9ef4f4e69d_o.jpg
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--jf_6nN4K--/huktzitxzojen9b5nvoi.jpg
here, a smaller image
(http://www.geometrycode.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/torusInWarpDrive.jpg)
most noticeable of course is the width of the rings... the thinner they are, the more negative mass would be needed according to Sonny White, until you need "Jupiter like negative masses", like in Alcubierre Drive.
compare how thin they are here
http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2011sotl_rademaker_r01.jpg
Absolutely astounding. Interesting question about whether this damages the quantum vacuum. The only tiny nit I had was that Ohio class SSBNs launch SLBMs, not ICBMs.Excellent point thank you :) . I'm always appreciative of such careful eyes.
Absolutely fascinating to see the reaction on twitter (which is the "tough crowd" on the internet). About five percent "yeah right - doubt it", 20 percent "sceptical, but interesting", 25 percent "cool!", 25 percent "very interesting" and 25 percent "OMG!" ;D
... But wouldn't it be possible to use emDrives terrestrially as well? Think helicopters with no downdraft, levitating cars or trains. Heck, why not a emDrive SSTO vehicle? Are these concepts within the realm of possibility?
Firstly, congrats on your first post! And to answer your question, it probably wouldn't be cost effective because of the amount of electricity you'd need to generate just to fight earth's gravity. The amount of thrust per kilowatt is extremely small. But for space, it'd be worth it not to have to use chemical propellants to move or make orbital corrections.
Absolutely fascinating to see the reaction on twitter (which is the "tough crowd" on the internet). About five percent "yeah right - doubt it", 20 percent "sceptical, but interesting", 25 percent "cool!", 25 percent "very interesting" and 25 percent "OMG!" ;D
Just passed 30,000 reads. About 10 percent follow through into the EM Drive threads, which is standard for an article (bar the launch/event articles, as more go through for live coverage on the forum). Main EM thread now at 512,000 views, but it's organically rising in tandem with the article boost.
I know you didn't write it, and I know you're a chemical propulsion hugger (Shuttle, etc. ;) ) but where would you stand in the above "color me...." scale?
Wouldn't you feel weird if this stuff does work out, and your website was instrumental in creating an "interest phase change" that finally led to adequate financing for these efforts? And someday people are flying all over the Solar System, and you're thinking "wow... I helped do this." Wouldn't that be weird? :)
Absolutely fascinating to see the reaction on twitter (which is the "tough crowd" on the internet). About five percent "yeah right - doubt it", 20 percent "sceptical, but interesting", 25 percent "cool!", 25 percent "very interesting" and 25 percent "OMG!" ;D
Just passed 30,000 reads. About 10 percent follow through into the EM Drive threads, which is standard for an article (bar the launch/event articles, as more go through for live coverage on the forum). Main EM thread now at 512,000 views, but it's organically rising in tandem with the article boost.
Absolutely fascinating to see the reaction on twitter (which is the "tough crowd" on the internet). About five percent "yeah right - doubt it", 20 percent "sceptical, but interesting", 25 percent "cool!", 25 percent "very interesting" and 25 percent "OMG!" ;D
Just passed 30,000 reads. About 10 percent follow through into the EM Drive threads, which is standard for an article (bar the launch/event articles, as more go through for live coverage on the forum). Main EM thread now at 512,000 views, but it's organically rising in tandem with the article boost.
Twitter is tough on some things, not so tough on others.
I'm very skeptical still. One smell test which it continually fails: when people spend far more time talking about what it will mean if it's true, rather than focusing on whether it is true...bad smell. Especially on a topic that at the most optimistic telling requires accepting extensive revision of many scientific principles, and accepting what its proponents acknowledge are a whole raft of theories that do not have mainstream acceptance. Makes for great fiction, but very poor science, because it puts the spotlight front and center on what is to the researcher a conflict of interest, a source of impartiality which threatens the integrity of their work. Queue up the Feynman quote about not fooling yourself.
It would not be the first bit of skanky science which NASA, or NASA researchers, have embraced. (Arsenic-based life forms, anyone?)
I'll look forward to seeing results several orders of magnitude larger by the NASA team in a controlled environment. And to see what the physics academic community thinks about the various theories put forward by the teams.
I rather think you're falling victim to the same sort of emotionally-charged evaluation you're assigning to others, only in reverse.
I don't work in the field, I'm a computer/network guy by trade, artist and dreamer by predisposition (yup), but I have to say, your insinuation that the greater volume in this discussion is of the 'what it will mean if it's true' sort is something I just can't get my head around.
The thread that is the source material for this article is so science and data dense it boggles the mind. More, your assertion that the theory building 'requires accepting extensive revision of many scientific principles, and accepting what its proponents acknowledge are a whole raft of theories that do not have mainstream acceptance' seems a little off base too, as the theory I've been able to find on the underlying subjects are quite old, some quite central to quantum mechanics ('Heisenberg's uncertainty principle' comes to mind). And seriously, how is the science presented by these researches in any way informed or impacted by what NASA has paid other people to do? Why the strawman?
Seriously, a bit of self-examination may be in order here. Just sayin'.
Follow the data, not your heart.
It sounds like the EM field is not pushing against NOthing, but SOMEthing that actually exists within what we typically consider to be the empty vacuum of space.My modern physics classes were a long time ago, but if memory serves, the idea is that particles are constantly popping in an out of existence in pairs - a particle and an anti-particle. They collide soon after. Their lifetime, and thus the the distance over which they can act, is bounded by uncertainty. They can even exchange wave packets with each other and with non-virtual particles, imparting force. "Something something something, Quantum Electrodynamics."
@TomH:
This guy: a_langwich
“Eppur si muove“
While it is interesting to theorize on how and why EM may work and even more interesting to speculate on what the ramifications and applications of EM may be I would suggest that it is far more important to adequately fund experimental research to prove or disprove that it works at all. I know that there are many unfunded and underfunded questions in fundamental and theoretical physics that many feel are more important than EM but it would seem to me that clear focus on experimental tests for EM can be done at a fraction of the cost of most others. NASA and other national space agencies are the most likely to benefit immediately from such research and are the logical agencies to fund such research. All the arguments I have seen against EM rest on the lack of theoretical foundations, but eppur si muove!
I remain a hopeful skeptic. Hopefully further funding will become available as public interest grows.
Before we gets lots of questions about terrestrial applications.Quote18.
Q. How can the EmDrive produce enough thrust for terrestrial applications?
A. The second generation engines will be capable of producing a specific thrust of 30kN/kW. Thus for 1 kilowatt (typical of the power in a microwave oven) a static thrust of 3 tonnes can be obtained, which is enough to support a large car. This is clearly adequate for terrestrial transport applications.
The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting EmDrive with a Q of 5 x 109. This Q value is routinely achieved in superconducting cavities.
Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle.
http://emdrive.com/faq.html
6.
Q. Is the EmDrive a form of perpetual motion machine?
A. The EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy and is therefore not a perpetual motion machine. Energy must be expended to accelerate the EmDrive (see Equation 16 of the theory paper). Once the EmDrive is switched off, Newton’s laws ensure that motion is constant unless it is acted upon by another force.
http://emdrive.com/faq.html
What's the cheapest EM spacecraft design that should do clearly impossible things?
The reason why the picture shown in the article was chosen is because it is the picture that appears on a NASA report authored by Dr. White.
The picture you posted in your post, instead, has "All Rights Reserved" by the artist, Mark Rademaker, a term of art used by artists and content creators to prevent ambiguity and clearly spell out the warning that their content cannot be copied freely. It has not appeared (to my knowledge) in that form, in a NASA report.
I find myself skepitcial as well - but that's based on the old adageIn Europe, yes.
“When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras”
can anyone explain this point better?
from http://emdrive.com/faq.html
Q. Why does the thrust decrease as the spacecraft velocity along the thrust vector increases?
A. As the spacecraft accelerates along the thrust vector, energy is lost by the engine and gained as additional kinetic energy by the spacecraft. This energy can be defined as the thrust multiplied by the distance through which the thrust acts. For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean velocity, the longer the distance travelled, hence the higher the energy lost by the engine.
This loss of stored energy from the resonant cavity leads to a reduction in Q and hence a reduction of thrust.
The key question is why can't you just turn the machine off and start again from a new reference frame, giving you a traditional interpretation of a propellentless drive and free energy.
Reading that Q/A, ascribing a 'book-keeping' ability to such a device in regards to reference frames sounds unphysical to me. I can't do anything with that. I tend to believe that Mr. Shawyer might have accidentally found something mind-blowing.. but his explanations just don't add up. It might work for, uh, different reasons than he assumes.
;)
Well you might ask how the electrons in the double slit experiment know they are being observed and therefore act differently.
What is the image of the bus-sized spacecraft pictured in the feature article? Who came up with that? It looks like a discarded blueprint from the modelshop of Zombies of the Stratosphere!
Yes, the speed reduces efficiency, there are only two ways for this to work :
- The drive remembers it's original reference frame to know it's speed
- There is an absolute reference frame for the universe the drive can accelerate/decelerate against (this contradicts relativity)
If someone has an explanation on this point I'd be happy to read it.
So this company SPR Ltd. has been working 15 years on this and the feasability of the concept is still not proven?
Well at least NASA is on it now, but I'm not optimistic.
Absolutely fascinating to see the reaction on twitter (which is the "tough crowd" on the internet). About five percent "yeah right - doubt it", 20 percent "sceptical, but interesting", 25 percent "cool!", 25 percent "very interesting" and 25 percent "OMG!" ;D
Just passed 30,000 reads. About 10 percent follow through into the EM Drive threads, which is standard for an article (bar the launch/event articles, as more go through for live coverage on the forum). Main EM thread now at 512,000 views, but it's organically rising in tandem with the article boost.
Page 21 of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130011213.pdf
Absolutely fascinating to see the reaction on twitter (which is the "tough crowd" on the internet). About five percent "yeah right - doubt it", 20 percent "sceptical, but interesting", 25 percent "cool!", 25 percent "very interesting" and 25 percent "OMG!" ;D
Just passed 30,000 reads. About 10 percent follow through into the EM Drive threads, which is standard for an article (bar the launch/event articles, as more go through for live coverage on the forum). Main EM thread now at 512,000 views, but it's organically rising in tandem with the article boost.
One more for the "Yeah right - doubt it" camp.
It's too easy to fall into the trap of thinking "But just imagine...". No surprise that the stats stack up that way.
I'm sceptical, but have no way of arguing one way or the other. Keep the ISS in orbit and I'll start allowing myself some excitement. Until then, I'll keep following those space saga's that are more likely to achieve real results.
Why don't I believe without even looking at the data? Well, you've just got to come and hit me in the face with it - sorry.
CNet has a loving little article (albeit a bit hyped IMHO) regarding the NSF article and associated thread this morning. They even reached out to Paul March (poor guy, I hope we didn't ruin his day) for a quote.
http://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-tests-physics-defying-method-of-space-travel-em-drive/
I've been looking around the various 'news' stories being thrown around in the wake of the NSF article, some of it very silly and sensationaliist.
The Eagleworks team seem to be decent people, I hope that they don't get reprimanded by 'the higher ups' over letting this stuff out into the popular consciousness. NASA has a vested interest in appearing non-kooky after all, and the way this is being reported by the tabloid end of the media spectrum is contrary to that.
I've been looking around the various 'news' stories being thrown around in the wake of the NSF article, some of it very silly and sensationaliist.
The Eagleworks team seem to be decent people, I hope that they don't get reprimanded by 'the higher ups' over letting this stuff out into the popular consciousness. NASA has a vested interest in appearing non-kooky after all, and the way this is being reported by the tabloid end of the media spectrum is contrary to that.
I've been looking around the various 'news' stories being thrown around in the wake of the NSF article, some of it very silly and sensationaliist.
The Eagleworks team seem to be decent people, I hope that they don't get reprimanded by 'the higher ups' over letting this stuff out into the popular consciousness. NASA has a vested interest in appearing non-kooky after all, and the way this is being reported by the tabloid end of the media spectrum is contrary to that.
To be fair it was well before this article. This isn't the first article on EM Drive. The difference is this "mainstream" sites are now linking to this latest article, so while they may still be using their tabloid angle, they are at least sending people who click through to us a more sane article to read.
The result is more sanity than Star Trek overall.
NASA cannot be held responsible for the silliness of aspects of the Internet.
NASA cannot be held responsible for the silliness of aspects of the Internet.
I'm not talking about being held responsible, I'm talking about image. I'm talking about them not appreciating being exposed to something that if proven to not work out, they'll look like they're indulging in fringe science, regardless of it being legitimate research or not.
The picture of "Warpstar 1"Page 21 of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130011213.pdf
Thanks for the answer Chris. My applogies, I should have been more specific, I meant the one that's labled 'Warpstar 1' and looks (probably more accurately) like the main cabin of the Fireball XL5. Sorry for the confusion.
I have no doubt now that this quantum vacuum derived propulsion system will be able to meet and ultimately surpass my conjectured WarpStar-I concept vehicle performance that I wrote about in my STAIF-2007 paper based on Woodward's Mach Lorentz Thrusters (MLT) of the day. A vehicle that could go from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the Moon with a crew of two and six passengers with luggage in under four hours and then return to the surface of the Earth in another 4 hours with the same payload using just one load of H2/O2 fuel cell derived electrical power assuming 500-to-1,000 N/kWe efficiency MLTs or Q-Thrusters. And yes, I know that's a mighty big leap from the 1.0uN/Watt we currently have demonstrated at the Eagleworks Lab, but if Dr. White's QVF/MHD conjecture is anywhere close to reality, it will be doable, at least in the long term.
Best, Paul M.
Absolutely fascinating to see the reaction on twitter (which is the "tough crowd" on the internet). About five percent "yeah right - doubt it", 20 percent "sceptical, but interesting", 25 percent "cool!", 25 percent "very interesting" and 25 percent "OMG!" ;D
Just passed 30,000 reads. About 10 percent follow through into the EM Drive threads, which is standard for an article (bar the launch/event articles, as more go through for live coverage on the forum). Main EM thread now at 512,000 views, but it's organically rising in tandem with the article boost.
One more for the "Yeah right - doubt it" camp.
It's too easy to fall into the trap of thinking "But just imagine...". No surprise that the stats stack up that way.
I'm sceptical, but have no way of arguing one way or the other. Keep the ISS in orbit and I'll start allowing myself some excitement. Until then, I'll keep following those space saga's that are more likely to achieve real results.
Why don't I believe without even looking at the data? Well, you've just got to come and hit me in the face with it - sorry.
It has also caused more pictures of the late Leonard Nimoy as Mr Spock to appear online around some articles. I'm sure Mr Nimoy would have approved.:)
NASA cannot be held responsible for the silliness of aspects of the Internet.
I'm not talking about being held responsible, I'm talking about image. I'm talking about them not appreciating being exposed to something that if proven to not work out, they'll look like they're indulging in fringe science, regardless of it being legitimate research or not.
To be honest, I expected a LOT more of that sort of comment, especially on an unforgiving (mean that in the best possible way) hardcore space site like ours.Perhaps it's because quite a lot of the people here have to measure stuff for a living and understand how thorough Dr White and his team have been to rule out experimental artifacts. AFAIK the sensationalist comments have been made by various parts of the media, IOW everyone but Dr White and his team.
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Supposing for a moment that this does actually work and space travel is eventually simpler than travelling between continents at the moment, it's going to highlight a few questions.You're confusing 2 different projects that Eagleworks is researching.
If you can zoom around the solar system using the product of an afternoon in the High School Metal Shop, then why haven't we been awash in vistors from nearby star systems?
Secondly, how much acceleration could this thing conceivably kick out?How good is your maths? A target figure for a developed version is 1 Newton /Kw of electricity.
If you pour juice into it will it just keep accelerating? What's the limit to that? How many G's can it sustain and for how long? Are we looking at a torchship, but just without the torch?No. Read the article and most of your questions will be answered.
There are several questions in this thread regarding the issue of free energy and the issue of acceleration.
Before we gets lots of questions about terrestrial applications.Oookaaaay. So I start up my 1000kg hover car, in Ecuador, in the spring, and I'm going to work, at the sunrise.Quote18.
Q. How can the EmDrive produce enough thrust for terrestrial applications?
A. The second generation engines will be capable of producing a specific thrust of 30kN/kW. Thus for 1 kilowatt (typical of the power in a microwave oven) a static thrust of 3 tonnes can be obtained, which is enough to support a large car. This is clearly adequate for terrestrial transport applications.
The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting EmDrive with a Q of 5 x 109. This Q value is routinely achieved in superconducting cavities.
Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle.
http://emdrive.com/faq.html
I go with "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The claim here defies known laws of physics. Therefore, the evidence must be very conclusive. So far, the evidence is enough to support further investigation, but not enough to believe the claim is true. As exciting as this is, there are tons of examples where extraordinary claims were crumbled to dust. Most recently: faster than light neutrinos, primordial gravitational waves, etc.
There are some extraordinary claims that came true though, bending of light through gravity, microwave background, etc. But these examples are VERY rare. Far rare than extraordinary claims that could not have been supported. So I will remain skeptical until there is really conclusive evidence. But I absolutely support the idea to generate this evidence, or at least try to.
The various posts here predicting what amounts to perpetual motion machines are, how shall I say it, distressing. Are these posters misinterpreting something, or is violation of conservation of energy really a possible outcome? Thanks.
There are several questions in this thread regarding the issue of free energy and the issue of acceleration.
The various posts here predicting what amounts to perpetual motion machines are, how shall I say it, distressing. Are these posters misinterpreting something, or is violation of conservation of energy really a possible outcome? Thanks.
Before we gets lots of questions about terrestrial applications.Oookaaaay. So I start up my 1000kg hover car, in Ecuador, in the spring, and I'm going to work, at the sunrise.Quote18.
Q. How can the EmDrive produce enough thrust for terrestrial applications?
A. The second generation engines will be capable of producing a specific thrust of 30kN/kW. Thus for 1 kilowatt (typical of the power in a microwave oven) a static thrust of 3 tonnes can be obtained, which is enough to support a large car. This is clearly adequate for terrestrial transport applications.
The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting EmDrive with a Q of 5 x 109. This Q value is routinely achieved in superconducting cavities.
Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle.
http://emdrive.com/faq.html
See any problem with that?
Let me spell it out just in case: unless this drive is pushing against Earth, Earth's orbital energy is increasing at a rate of about 300 megawatts (according to the Sun's rest frame).
Worse if taking Sun's motion around the centre of the galaxy.
QuoteThe various posts here predicting what amounts to perpetual motion machines are, how shall I say it, distressing. Are these posters misinterpreting something, or is violation of conservation of energy really a possible outcome? Thanks.
Quoting 'papers' which have not been peer-reviewed, published, presented before a skeptical, disinterested audience, etc. etc. is of little value beyond this limited enclave of sci-fi enthusiasts.
If one assumes it does work, what would it cost to make a heavily instrumented small sat test bed and carry it up as a secondary payload on an ISS or commercial launch?
Sort of a sink or swim test.
What's the cheapest EM spacecraft design that should do clearly impossible things?
About $10,000. You could Kickstarter it and get it on the next Dragon flight, ala A3R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources#Arkyd_3_Flight_test_system). Heck, there's cubesats that have flown for less.
There are several questions in this thread regarding the issue of free energy and the issue of acceleration.
The various posts here predicting what amounts to perpetual motion machines are, how shall I say it, distressing. Are these posters misinterpreting something, or is violation of conservation of energy really a possible outcome? Thanks.
1 m/s^2 acceleration of 1kg object, according to an observer moving in the direction of the rear of the drive, at 1 meter per second, is raising the kinetic energy at an instantaneous rate of 1 joule per second (1 watt). According to an observer moving at the velocity of 1km/s , by 1000 watts . Which observer is correct?There are several questions in this thread regarding the issue of free energy and the issue of acceleration.
The various posts here predicting what amounts to perpetual motion machines are, how shall I say it, distressing. Are these posters misinterpreting something, or is violation of conservation of energy really a possible outcome? Thanks.
I have read those objections. They all seem to be working from an unstated assumption: that the device produces a constant thrust and therefore acceleration for a given power input. If that were the case, then the kinetic energy would indeed eventually exceed the total input of energy into the drive.
So the obvious solution is that for a given energy input, thrust is not linear, but delta kinetic energy is linear instead. So as the kinetic energy increases, the thrust for a given power input would decrease, but the kinetic energy imparted would continue to increase at a steady rate over time.
This would mean that trip times for a given input energy would be longer than in the article, but you still avoid the negative effects of the rocket equation, so they remain a lot better than with conventional propulsion.
If one assumes it does work, what would it cost to make a heavily instrumented small sat test bed and carry it up as a secondary payload on an ISS or commercial launch?The problem with that would be the power requirement.
Sort of a sink or swim test.
Yeah... I'm not getting how this does not violate conservation of momentum and energy. For example if this works you should be able to construct a perpetual motion free energy machine. If constant electrical power produces constant acceleration you have a problem since kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity. You will quickly reach a point where your kinetic energy vastly exceeds the electrical energy input.
Sorry, I smell the stench of cold fusion.
There is one joker in the pack. It seems force produced falls as the payload accelerates, so this is an engine with a "top speed" limit.
If one assumes it does work, what would it cost to make a heavily instrumented small sat test bed and carry it up as a secondary payload on an ISS or commercial launch?The problem with that would be the power requirement.
Sort of a sink or swim test.
Dr White's test setup produces something around 50-80 x 10^-6 N of force for 100w of input.
The last time I checked triple junction PV cells have hit 43% and thin film types around 16%. A 4 wing roll out design would need 4 wings 10cm x about 1.3m, or 18 10x10cm plates of rigid plates.
Either way you're looking at a fairly tricky mechanism construction job to unfold enough array to be useful. :(
If one assumes it does work, what would it cost to make a heavily instrumented small sat test bed and carry it up as a secondary payload on an ISS or commercial launch?The problem with that would be the power requirement.
Sort of a sink or swim test.
Dr White's test setup produces something around 50-80 x 10^-6 N of force for 100w of input.
The last time I checked triple junction PV cells have hit 43% and thin film types around 16%. A 4 wing roll out design would need 4 wings 10cm x about 1.3m, or 18 10x10cm plates of rigid plates.
Either way you're looking at a fairly tricky mechanism construction job to unfold enough array to be useful. :(
If one assumes it does work, what would it cost to make a heavily instrumented small sat test bed and carry it up as a secondary payload on an ISS or commercial launch?The problem with that would be the power requirement.
Sort of a sink or swim test.
Dr White's test setup produces something around 50-80 x 10^-6 N of force for 100w of input.
The last time I checked triple junction PV cells have hit 43% and thin film types around 16%. A 4 wing roll out design would need 4 wings 10cm x about 1.3m, or 18 10x10cm plates of rigid plates.
Either way you're looking at a fairly tricky mechanism construction job to unfold enough array to be useful. :(
Just stick it in a shielded hermetic box, powered off a RC airplane battery on a timer, hang it off a hanging Cavendish style torsion pendulum (insensitive to shifts in CoM), and test it in different orientations to rule out magnetic effects. You'd be easily able to get all the drifts into sub-micronewton range with a fully shielded set up.
That's a lot cheaper than a satellite and a positive result would be much more convincing.
Yeah... I'm not getting how this does not violate conservation of momentum and energy. For example if this works you should be able to construct a perpetual motion free energy machine. If constant electrical power produces constant acceleration you have a problem since kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity. You will quickly reach a point where your kinetic energy vastly exceeds the electrical energy input.
Sorry, I smell the stench of cold fusion.
Again, as I said above, why are you assuming constant acceleration? Constant increase in kinetic energy would eliminate this objection, at the cost of requiring a fixed inertial reference frame to measure the kinetic energy against. Standard special relativity theory does not allow this, but some newer theories that are equivalent to special relativity in their observed effects do allow this.
The problem with that would be the power requirement.
Dr White's test setup produces something around 50-80 x 10^-6 N of force for 100w of input.
The last time I checked triple junction PV cells have hit 43% and thin film types around 16%. A 4 wing roll out design would need 4 wings 10cm x about 1.3m, or 18 10x10cm plates of rigid plates.
Either way you're looking at a fairly tricky mechanism construction job to unfold enough array to be useful.
Before we gets lots of questions about terrestrial applications.Oookaaaay. So I start up my 1000kg hover car, in Ecuador, in the spring, and I'm going to work, at the sunrise.Quote18.
Q. How can the EmDrive produce enough thrust for terrestrial applications?
A. The second generation engines will be capable of producing a specific thrust of 30kN/kW. Thus for 1 kilowatt (typical of the power in a microwave oven) a static thrust of 3 tonnes can be obtained, which is enough to support a large car. This is clearly adequate for terrestrial transport applications.
The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting EmDrive with a Q of 5 x 109. This Q value is routinely achieved in superconducting cavities.
Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle.
http://emdrive.com/faq.html
See any problem with that?
Let me spell it out just in case: unless this drive is pushing against Earth, Earth's orbital energy is increasing at a rate of about 300 megawatts (according to the Sun's rest frame).
Worse if taking Sun's motion around the centre of the galaxy.
We should be discussing the article, not an external link that we have nothing to do with. Star One seems addicted to posting as many links as his fingers will allow him! ;D
QuoteThe problem with that would be the power requirement.
Dr White's test setup produces something around 50-80 x 10^-6 N of force for 100w of input.
The last time I checked triple junction PV cells have hit 43% and thin film types around 16%. A 4 wing roll out design would need 4 wings 10cm x about 1.3m, or 18 10x10cm plates of rigid plates.
Either way you're looking at a fairly tricky mechanism construction job to unfold enough array to be useful.
Perhaps the Dragon trunk section could be used as a platform for the test after separation from the capsule. I suppose this would require the addition of thrusters of some kind to control the orientation of the solar panels. Probably more effort than a dedicated satellite, but just a thought.
There are several questions in this thread regarding the issue of free energy and the issue of acceleration.
The various posts here predicting what amounts to perpetual motion machines are, how shall I say it, distressing. Are these posters misinterpreting something, or is violation of conservation of energy really a possible outcome? Thanks.
It breaks conventional physics no matter what. If it breaks something too obvious, they adjust the theory to break something else instead.
Look at it from the point of view of a reasonable physicist. The theory makes little sense to them, so they treat it as a random attempt, those are very unlikely to succeed - an epsilon probability that it works.If one assumes it does work, what would it cost to make a heavily instrumented small sat test bed and carry it up as a secondary payload on an ISS or commercial launch?The problem with that would be the power requirement.
Sort of a sink or swim test.
Dr White's test setup produces something around 50-80 x 10^-6 N of force for 100w of input.
The last time I checked triple junction PV cells have hit 43% and thin film types around 16%. A 4 wing roll out design would need 4 wings 10cm x about 1.3m, or 18 10x10cm plates of rigid plates.
Either way you're looking at a fairly tricky mechanism construction job to unfold enough array to be useful. :(
Just stick it in a shielded hermetic box, powered off a RC airplane battery on a timer, hang it off a hanging Cavendish style torsion pendulum (insensitive to shifts in CoM), and test it in different orientations to rule out magnetic effects. You'd be easily able to get all the drifts into sub-micronewton range with a fully shielded set up.
That's a lot cheaper than a satellite and a positive result would be much more convincing.
That will happen. This is not a secret technology controlled by a single guy claiming it works, or anything like that. The data on how to build one is in the open, accessible and feasible to replicate for anyone with enough resources and technical ability to do so.
And given its "eppur si muove" type claims, it will unavoidably emerge to the light if it works or not, as long as people keep an open and transparent review process for the test setup and the results.
And as more people perform replications on their own, they will certainly try this. So I'm really hopeful because we will soon known if it works, of if it was just a waste of time. Either way, we win (a revolutionary invention, or just knowledge).
Exactly. There's also very tight bounds on how wrong they can be. There's all sorts of highly sensitive electronics that works the same as Earth rotates around it's axis, around the Sun, in addition to Sun's high velocity around the centre of the Milky Way.Yeah... I'm not getting how this does not violate conservation of momentum and energy. For example if this works you should be able to construct a perpetual motion free energy machine. If constant electrical power produces constant acceleration you have a problem since kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity. You will quickly reach a point where your kinetic energy vastly exceeds the electrical energy input.
Sorry, I smell the stench of cold fusion.
Again, as I said above, why are you assuming constant acceleration? Constant increase in kinetic energy would eliminate this objection, at the cost of requiring a fixed inertial reference frame to measure the kinetic energy against. Standard special relativity theory does not allow this, but some newer theories that are equivalent to special relativity in their observed effects do allow this.
The observed effects are that laws of physics are invariant relative to Lorentz boosts. Maxwell equations of electromagnetism are explicitly invariant relative to Lorentz boosts. This is a purely electromagnetic device. Which part of Maxwell equations is wrong?
Skepticism and Closed Mindedness are not the same thing. The first is an important frame of mind in scientific investigation; the second is antithetical to science.
At the close of the 19th century, virtually every physicist alive was of the belief that everything that could be learned about physics was already known. As described in Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the world of physics was about to be turned on its head. There were more than a few who accepted neither Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics. The skeptics needed to see the proof, but a skeptic examines evidence and accepts it if reasonable. A closed minded person refuses to abandon old models, in spite of new evidence to the contrary.
For over a century now, physics has found itself in limbo, a no man's land of seemingly irreconcilable contradiction between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Much has been learned and new discoveries continue to happen, but there is not yet a Unified Field Theory, nor a Grand Unified Field Theory, nor a Theory of Everything (each of those has a different meaning). String Theory is the leading candidate at the moment, yet there are over ten differing models of how String Theory might work. The theory of Loop Quantum Gravity is the second favored theory, and then there are lesser known theories such as Garrett Lisi's E8 Theory.
What we understand about the fabric of spacetime, about the Quantum Vacuum is still very limited. We do, however, know that it is something and not nothing. And yet we do not need fully to understand a phenomenon in to make use of it. Roentgen put X-Rays to use long before the mechanism behind their production was understood. In like manner, it is entirely possible that EM Drive may work and that it may be put to use before the entirity of the physics behind it is fully understood.
Reactions in this thread range from exuberance to completely closed minds. Science is not about jumping to conclusions, either that a theory is correct or that it is incorrect. Science is about approaching a hypothesis with an open mind, a neutrality regarding belief. It embraces a healthy skepticism for results that tend to be extreme outliers, but does accept them if they are shown to be independently repeatable by other scientists.
We used to ask whether the expanding universe had enough inertia to continue expanding forever at a decreasing rate, or if it would stop expanding and all mass implode into one singularity. Only recently did we discover the inflation is ocurring at an accelerating rate, leading us to theorize Dark Energy. It is all about the evidence. We have to follow the evidence. Whether we think this is the next great breakthrough in science or whether we think this is absurd, neither matters. This is not about opinion. What matters is the evidence. At present, there is no proof this is impossible, and there is no proof it is possible. We have to follow the evidence.
It is not close mindedness to point out that violating conservation of energy and momentum create massive problems for the supposed effect. This is especially true when many of the proponents do not understand that the conservation laws are being violated or understand the consequences of those violations.
It is not close mindedness to point out that violating conservation of energy and momentum create massive problems for the supposed effect. This is especially true when many of the proponents do not understand that the conservation laws are being violated or understand the consequences of those violations.
Cold fusion should have taught us to be very very skeptical of these types of revolutionary results. Instead I suspect we will see people claiming that the EM drive finally explains where the excess energy in cold fusion comes from.
It isn't impossible that there is something interesting here. It is just very very unlikely. This combination of low probability and high desire creates a strong possibility of self deception.
What's the cheapest EM spacecraft design that should do clearly impossible things?
About $10,000. You could Kickstarter it and get it on the next Dragon flight, ala A3R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources#Arkyd_3_Flight_test_system). Heck, there's cubesats that have flown for less.
What I'm not following from ppnl's (and other perpetual-motion theorizers') argument is how a constant thrust, sans propellant, results in a perpetual-motion, inventing-energy-from-nowhere scheme. Surely, even with a propellant-based thruster, there exists some threshold V relative to some reference frame, wherein the loss of M from propulsion is completely dominated by the increase in V, since KE = (1/2)M*V2?
Looking at KE, or dKE/dt, seems fallacious to me for that reason. Maybe I just don't understand the math well enough.
It is not close mindedness to point out that violating conservation of energy and momentum create massive problems for the supposed effect. This is especially true when many of the proponents do not understand that the conservation laws are being violated or understand the consequences of those violations.
You are assuming that conservation of energy or momentum would be violated. This is only true if the device (and its attached spaceship, if any) is a closed system, but the basis of the proposed theories of how it works is that it is NOT a closed system. Instead it is coupled to the quantum vacuum somehow, and the change in momentum of the device could be balanced by an equal but opposite change in the local momentum of the quantum vacuum, which could propagate from virtual particle to virtual particle in a wave-like manner (like a sound wave) until it is transfered to (possibly quite distant) non-virtual matter. Although by then the momentum transfer per unit mass would be so tiny that it would probably be quite undetectable.
Taking conservation of energy literally or dogmatically, then energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and hence should be Zero in any coordinate at any given instance in time.
I agree, it isn't closed minded to point that out. However it is closed minded if you believe what has been accepted as a LAW of physics can never be disproven or modified.
This theory will not be disproven by logic. It will only be disproven, or proven, by scientific experimentation and examination of emperical evidence. Anyone who thinks it will be proven solely by logical argument of currently known physics IS CLOSED MINDED. You have to experiment according to scientific method protocol and then you have to FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE.
Taking conservation of energy literally or dogmatically, then energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and hence should be Zero in any coordinate at any given instance in time.
The latter does not follow from the former.
A car doesn't contain reaction mass? What about gasoline?What I'm not following from ppnl's (and other perpetual-motion theorizers') argument is how a constant thrust, sans propellant, results in a perpetual-motion, inventing-energy-from-nowhere scheme. Surely, even with a propellant-based thruster, there exists some threshold V relative to some reference frame, wherein the loss of M from propulsion is completely dominated by the increase in V, since KE = (1/2)M*V2?
Looking at KE, or dKE/dt, seems fallacious to me for that reason. Maybe I just don't understand the math well enough.
It isn't clear to me what you are saying here.
Take a car. It takes four times as much energy to accelerate from 10 mph to 20 mph as it took to accelerate from zero to ten mph. A rocket has the same problem but much worse because it takes its reaction mass with it.
(snip...)
The thing to do now is to provide extraordinary, compelling evidence. Experiment needs to be redone in a much more clean environment. Eventually, if/when tests in vacuum but on Earth seem to still show the effect, it will need to be redone in space, away from Earth magnetic field, IR radiation etc.
*THEN* the claims will be taken by most scientists very seriously.
However, Paul March, an engineer at NASA Eagleworks, recently reported in NASASpaceFlight.com’s forum (on a thread now over 500,000 views) that NASA has successfully tested their EM Drive in a hard vacuum – the first time any organization has reported such a successful test.
To this end, NASA Eagleworks has now nullified the prevailing hypothesis that thrust measurements were due to thermal convection.
Insufficient characterization?What's the cheapest EM spacecraft design that should do clearly impossible things?
About $10,000. You could Kickstarter it and get it on the next Dragon flight, ala A3R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources#Arkyd_3_Flight_test_system). Heck, there's cubesats that have flown for less.
This seems about right and is a major reason I'm skeptical. Lab experiments are pointless for convincing anyone. Based on everything reported it should be quite easy to put an EMdrive on a little satellite paid for by Kickstarter and get it a free ride in the trunk of a Dragon. It just has to change it's orbit in a way that according to claims should be easy for First Gen EM drive but also be impossible for any accepted technology. It should be able to keep up orbital maneuvering long after it would be impossible using any known design. This would be transparent and open to the world. Cue Nobel prize, whatever funding they want, Heinlein prize, eternal glory. What's stopping this?
(snip...)
The thing to do now is to provide extraordinary, compelling evidence. Experiment needs to be redone in a much more clean environment. Eventually, if/when tests in vacuum but on Earth seem to still show the effect, it will need to be redone in space, away from Earth magnetic field, IR radiation etc.
*THEN* the claims will be taken by most scientists very seriously.
From the article, it looks like NASA Eagleworks has replicated the results in a vacuum in the lab:QuoteHowever, Paul March, an engineer at NASA Eagleworks, recently reported in NASASpaceFlight.com’s forum (on a thread now over 500,000 views) that NASA has successfully tested their EM Drive in a hard vacuum – the first time any organization has reported such a successful test.
To this end, NASA Eagleworks has now nullified the prevailing hypothesis that thrust measurements were due to thermal convection.
A car doesn't contain reaction mass? What about gasoline?What I'm not following from ppnl's (and other perpetual-motion theorizers') argument is how a constant thrust, sans propellant, results in a perpetual-motion, inventing-energy-from-nowhere scheme. Surely, even with a propellant-based thruster, there exists some threshold V relative to some reference frame, wherein the loss of M from propulsion is completely dominated by the increase in V, since KE = (1/2)M*V2?
Looking at KE, or dKE/dt, seems fallacious to me for that reason. Maybe I just don't understand the math well enough.
It isn't clear to me what you are saying here.
Take a car. It takes four times as much energy to accelerate from 10 mph to 20 mph as it took to accelerate from zero to ten mph. A rocket has the same problem but much worse because it takes its reaction mass with it.
Also, it doesn't take 4x the energy to double a car's velocity. A car has 4x the KE after doubling velocity, but that is not the same thing as saying 4x KE was required to get there.
Not to mention, the energy requirements of accelerating a car include overcoming wind resistance and friction, which resists the forward motion of the car. Maintaining a velocity against these forces is a measure of work, not energy. And since the formula for the force of drag resistance also includes V2, that means that there is 4x as much drag at 20mph as there is at 10mph, and so 4x as much work is required to maintain velocity each time you double velocity. This is still not the same thing as 4x as much energy.
Taking conservation of energy literally or dogmatically, then energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and hence should be Zero in any coordinate at any given instance in time.
The latter does not follow from the former.
If you want to avoid supernatural influence in shape of gods or other unphysical things that can magically pull any trick they want, it does.
(snip...)
The thing to do now is to provide extraordinary, compelling evidence. Experiment needs to be redone in a much more clean environment. Eventually, if/when tests in vacuum but on Earth seem to still show the effect, it will need to be redone in space, away from Earth magnetic field, IR radiation etc.
*THEN* the claims will be taken by most scientists very seriously.
From the article, it looks like NASA Eagleworks has replicated the results in a vacuum in the lab:
What I'm not following from ppnl's (and other perpetual-motion theorizers') argument is how a constant thrust, sans propellant, results in a perpetual-motion, inventing-energy-from-nowhere scheme. Surely, even with a propellant-based thruster, there exists some threshold V relative to some reference frame, wherein the loss of M from propulsion is completely dominated by the increase in V, since KE = (1/2)M*V2?
Looking at KE, or dKE/dt, seems fallacious to me for that reason. Maybe I just don't understand the math well enough.
Taking conservation of energy literally or dogmatically, then energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and hence should be Zero in any coordinate at any given instance in time.
The latter does not follow from the former.
If you want to avoid supernatural influence in shape of gods or other unphysical things that can magically pull any trick they want, it does.
Taking conservation of energy literally or dogmatically, then energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and hence should be Zero in any coordinate at any given instance in time.
The latter does not follow from the former.
If you want to avoid supernatural influence in shape of gods or other unphysical things that can magically pull any trick they want, it does.
No. There are theories in which the past has no beginning (say, cyclic Big Bang/Big Crunch models). In such theories, energy "was always there", there was no point in time when it had to be created.
Taking conservation of energy literally or dogmatically, then energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and hence should be Zero in any coordinate at any given instance in time.
The latter does not follow from the former.
If you want to avoid supernatural influence in shape of gods or other unphysical things that can magically pull any trick they want, it does.
No. There are theories in which the past has no beginning (say, cyclic Big Bang/Big Crunch models). In such theories, energy "was always there", there was no point in time when it had to be created.
What value is a theory that can never be tested? At best, it's a hypothesis. Sounds an awful lot like religion to me.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics
Is the trip time to alpha centauri based on the space drive, or based on the power source?
Of course, your kinetic energy would be ridiculously high, thousands of times greater than the energy you put into the drive.Is the trip time to alpha centauri based on the space drive, or based on the power source?
The Joosten/White IEEE paper shows that constant spacecraft acceleration of around 0.001 g should be possible with Q-Thruster performance of 0.4 N/kWe and reasonable power plant and thruster masses. The interstellar trip times merely reflect that constant acceleration. Those computations are quite straightforward, as special relativity as opposed to general relativity can be used, even for the decelerated case.
It ignores the "paradox velocity".
Yeah... I'm not getting how this does not violate conservation of momentum and energy. For example if this works you should be able to construct a perpetual motion free energy machine. If constant electrical power produces constant acceleration you have a problem since kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity. You will quickly reach a point where your kinetic energy vastly exceeds the electrical energy input.Much worse than cold fusion, IMHO. At least with cold fusion, you're still conserving momentum and energy.
Sorry, I smell the stench of cold fusion.
There are people who believe this is an incredibly exciting, civilization-changing breakthrough, and there are people who believe that it's all pseudo-scientific bunk. But in the interim, both opinions mean far less than the fact that regardless of this spirited, generally well-meaning debate, there are people who are continuing to do these experiments, and that data is being generated, and that sooner or later we will know the truth of the matter once and for all.
I encourage everybody to keep that in the forefront of their mind while reading all threads related to this research.
The thing to keep at the forefront of your mind is that decades after the first claim of cold fusion there are people still "generating data" and "doing experiments". It seems like every few years there is a new wave of results. Tech dirt was hyping the latest just last year I think. Every few years Rossi produces a new E-cat that he shops around. Decades from now people will still be debating the EM-drive along with the E-cat. Desire produces suspension of disbelief. That suspension hides the monstrous improbability of the claims. You really are the easiest person for you to fool.
The thing to keep at the forefront of your mind is that decades after the first claim of cold fusion there are people still "generating data" and "doing experiments". It seems like every few years there is a new wave of results. Tech dirt was hyping the latest just last year I think. Every few years Rossi produces a new E-cat that he shops around. Decades from now people will still be debating the EM-drive along with the E-cat. Desire produces suspension of disbelief. That suspension hides the monstrous improbability of the claims. You really are the easiest person for you to fool.
Paul March has been very forthcoming on NSF with experimental setup and data, allowing other experts to cross-check both and suggest possible sources of error. Other groups and individuals have been setting up similar experiments to further the body of data available. This isn't some conspiracy where one individual or small group has a financial incentive to fool the world. Either usable thrust is being generated, or it isn't; one way or another we will know in time.
Of course, your kinetic energy would be ridiculously high, thousands of times greater than the energy you put into the drive.Another useful meme is to beware of people who have simple answers to complex questions.
For .4N/kW and 40kg/kW specific power for a 1kW craft (weighing 40kg) just to make things easy:
(Kinetic Energy)/(Energy input)=
(.5*40kg*(92years*.4N/kW/(40kg/kW))^2)/(1kW*92years)
=
5806.5
Make no mistake, this is also a method to gain free energy.
An interesting (but off topic) question would be does a virtual particle cease to exist entirely IE it's whole life is the single existence it's there for, or does it pop up "elsewhere," and is that "elsewhere" this universe, or another universe?
The thing to keep at the forefront of your mind is that decades after the first claim of cold fusion there are people still "generating data" and "doing experiments". It seems like every few years there is a new wave of results. Tech dirt was hyping the latest just last year I think. Every few years Rossi produces a new E-cat that he shops around. Decades from now people will still be debating the EM-drive along with the E-cat. Desire produces suspension of disbelief. That suspension hides the monstrous improbability of the claims. You really are the easiest person for you to fool.
Paul March has been very forthcoming on NSF with experimental setup and data, allowing other experts to cross-check both and suggest possible sources of error. Other groups and individuals have been setting up similar experiments to further the body of data available. This isn't some conspiracy where one individual or small group has a financial incentive to fool the world. Either usable thrust is being generated, or it isn't; one way or another we will know in time.
An interesting (but off topic) question would be does a virtual particle cease to exist entirely IE it's whole life is the single existence it's there for, or does it pop up "elsewhere," and is that "elsewhere" this universe, or another universe?
LOL, maybe the EM drive allows you to propel objects in another universe ;D
The thing to keep at the forefront of your mind is that decades after the first claim of cold fusion there are people still "generating data" and "doing experiments". It seems like every few years there is a new wave of results. Tech dirt was hyping the latest just last year I think. Every few years Rossi produces a new E-cat that he shops around. Decades from now people will still be debating the EM-drive along with the E-cat. Desire produces suspension of disbelief. That suspension hides the monstrous improbability of the claims. You really are the easiest person for you to fool.
Paul March has been very forthcoming on NSF with experimental setup and data, allowing other experts to cross-check both and suggest possible sources of error. Other groups and individuals have been setting up similar experiments to further the body of data available. This isn't some conspiracy where one individual or small group has a financial incentive to fool the world. Either usable thrust is being generated, or it isn't; one way or another we will know in time.
Precisely. It's not like these experiments have been hidden away from the public view.
As to the conservation of momentum question the number of times that gets asked and answered suggests that a FAQ is needed.
A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?According to Shawyer, when the EMDrive accelerates, the resonate cavity loses energy to the accelerating mass and it's Q drops, which reduces the generated force. To maintain constant force, the primary energy source needs to restore the lost resonate cavity energy. End result is COE is conserved.
The engine was built with a design factor of 0.844 and has a measured Q of 45,000 for an overall diameter of 280 mm. The microwave source is a water cooled magnetron with a variable output power up to a maximum of 1.2 kW.
To obtain the predicted thrust the engine must maintain stable resonance at this high Q value. Major design challenges have included thermal compensation, tuning control and source matching.
The engine was tested in a large static test rig employing a calibrated composite balance to measure thrust in 3 directions, up, down and horizontal. A total of 134 test runs were carried out over the full performance envelope, with a maximum specific thrust of 214mN/kW being measured.
A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?According to Shawyer, when the EMDrive accelerates, the resonate cavity loses energy to the accelerating mass and it's Q drops, which reduces the generated force. To maintain constant force, the primary energy source needs to restore the lost resonate cavity energy. End result is COE is conserved.
EMDrive creates force from microwave energy input. To do work, accelerate the ship's mass, the EMDrive acts like a conversion conduit, converting source electrical energy into microwave energy, stored in the resonate cavity, into kinetic energy gain as the ship accelerates.A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?According to Shawyer, when the EMDrive accelerates, the resonate cavity loses energy to the accelerating mass and it's Q drops, which reduces the generated force. To maintain constant force, the primary energy source needs to restore the lost resonate cavity energy. End result is COE is conserved.
Yeah, see that isn't very clear. And at best it does not solve your problem. Worse, I can't even tell if you understand the problem.
Ok lets say you have a spaceship powered by the Em-drive. Say you are motionless in space and turn it on and a thousand watts of power gives you a tenth of a gravity of acceleration. You accelerate up to a mile per second. Ok now how many watts of power does it take to continue accelerating at a tenth of a gravity? The same thousand? A million watts? more?
If it is the same thousand watts then you are violating conservation of energy. Do you understand this?
If you need more power at higher velocity then you can tell your absolute velocity by how much energy your engine needs to accelerate. This effectively creates a preferred frame of reference in violation of just about all modern physics. Do you understand this?
EMDrive creates force from microwave energy input. To do work, accelerate the ship's mass, the EMDrive acts like a conversion conduit, converting source electrical energy into microwave energy, stored in the resonate cavity, into kinetic energy gain as the ship accelerates.A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?According to Shawyer, when the EMDrive accelerates, the resonate cavity loses energy to the accelerating mass and it's Q drops, which reduces the generated force. To maintain constant force, the primary energy source needs to restore the lost resonate cavity energy. End result is COE is conserved.
Yeah, see that isn't very clear. And at best it does not solve your problem. Worse, I can't even tell if you understand the problem.
Ok lets say you have a spaceship powered by the Em-drive. Say you are motionless in space and turn it on and a thousand watts of power gives you a tenth of a gravity of acceleration. You accelerate up to a mile per second. Ok now how many watts of power does it take to continue accelerating at a tenth of a gravity? The same thousand? A million watts? more?
If it is the same thousand watts then you are violating conservation of energy. Do you understand this?
If you need more power at higher velocity then you can tell your absolute velocity by how much energy your engine needs to accelerate. This effectively creates a preferred frame of reference in violation of just about all modern physics. Do you understand this?
COE is conserved.
At one time it was not known an electrical current, flowing in a coil, could produce a magnetic field, that produced force on nearby ferrous objects. However for the magnetic field to do work on the ferrous objects / move them, that energy came from the primary electrical energy source and not from the coil's magnetic force field.
Different dog, same leg action.
A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?Force is not Work.
Here's one of the very first refutations published against Shawyer's EMdrive - it's by someone named John Costella:
http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdf
Costella is apparently a PhD in electrodynamics, and his website shows an interest in investigating diverse things, including JFK's assassination.
A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?
Someone said that the reference frame of the wave inside the resonant cavity becomes a preferred frame of reference, since the wave is what's said to be losing energy. I don't know enough to say if that's plausible or outright nonsense.Calling the EMDrive a fraud is walking the plank, especially as multiple labs, in multiple countries, testing various build variations, all found significant thrust.
Here's one of the very first refutations published against Shawyer's EMdrive - it's by someone named John Costella:
http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdf
Costella is apparently a PhD in electrodynamics, and his website shows an interest in investigating diverse things, including JFK's assassination.
A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?Force is not Work.
Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source
No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.
If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.com
See his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
I'm just a hack engineer who designs, builds and commissions stuff. Mostly guided by a well educated gut, from making lots of stupid mistakes.A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?Force is not Work.
Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source
No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.
If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.com
See his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
I never said force is work. Force times distance is work but I have no idea why that is relevant here.
I do not assume that the thing accelerates constantly. I asked you if it accelerates constantly. You see if it accelerates constantly you have one problem and if it does not you have a different problem.
Ok you are going with it does not accelerate constantly although getting that out of you was like pulling teeth. Do you understand how this violates relativity and just about all of modern physics? It would almost be simpler to violate COE.
For example it creates the problem that the power needed by the drive would change massively depending on the time of year. Do you understand why?
I'm just a hack engineer who designs, builds and commissions stuff. Mostly guided by a well educated gut, from making lots of stupid mistakes.A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?Force is not Work.
Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source
No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.
If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.com
See his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
I never said force is work. Force times distance is work but I have no idea why that is relevant here.
I do not assume that the thing accelerates constantly. I asked you if it accelerates constantly. You see if it accelerates constantly you have one problem and if it does not you have a different problem.
Ok you are going with it does not accelerate constantly although getting that out of you was like pulling teeth. Do you understand how this violates relativity and just about all of modern physics? It would almost be simpler to violate COE.
For example it creates the problem that the power needed by the drive would change massively depending on the time of year. Do you understand why?
I see the "Laws of Physics" as a set of assumptions, which seem to closely fit and predict what we have so far observed. That the EMDrive works is beyond doubt. That it seems to violate the LAWS as you understand them is your issue. Shawyer has no issue with his understanding of the LAWS nor do I.
As for me, I think I can design one into a ship and make it work. What happens inside the resonate cavity and why is above my pay grade. What it works, is for me beyond doubt. That how it reacts to power input and kinetic energy output is understood enough to use it to move stuff.
BTW my frame of reference is my gut, which is now asking me for a nice glass of Red.
Yes well as a "hack engineer" you may want to figure out why your ship works fine in December but fails to produce significant thrust in June. To do that you will need to understand frames of reference. But if you take the time to do that you may rethink your confidence in the drive.Your reference link?
A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?Force is not Work.
Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source
No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.
If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.com
See his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
Yes well as a "hack engineer" you may want to figure out why your ship works fine in December but fails to produce significant thrust in June. To do that you will need to understand frames of reference. But if you take the time to do that you may rethink your confidence in the drive.Your reference link?
So how exactly does that apply to the case where it is traveling at a constant velocity and fighting friction? By the principle of relativity, there is no difference between the case of static thrust and the case of static velocity. So you can still use this to create more work than you put into it.If the ship is travelling at constant velocity, there is no acceleration occurring, no thrust being produced by the EMDrive, so the EMDrive is switched OFF.
What link? If the thrust is frame dependent then your ship will be in very different inertial frames in December and June and your drive will perform very differently depending on the time of year. That is a logical consequence of your choice to say that it does not accelerate constantly with constant energy input.When did I say the EMDrive will not constantly accelerate if supplied with a constant energy input to the magnetron, maintaining a constant level of microwave energy in the resonant cavity as cavity microwave impedance drops, due to acceleration, from cavity stored energy conversion into kinetic?
You don't even understand the nature of the problem I'm trying to explain.
That last illustration, with the double ring "Enterprise", shows a bluish exhaust or ionization trail. Maybe I misunderstood something, but I thought the EM drive did not have an exhaust. Artistic license? Pre-existing picture?
A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?Force is not Work.
Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source
No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.
If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.com
See his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
I never said force is work. Force times distance is work but I have no idea why that is relevant here.
I do not assume that the thing accelerates constantly. I asked you if it accelerates constantly. You see if it accelerates constantly you have one problem and if it does not you have a different problem.
Ok you are going with it does not accelerate constantly although getting that out of you was like pulling teeth. Do you understand how this violates relativity and just about all of modern physics? It would almost be simpler to violate COE.
For example it creates the problem that the power needed by the drive would change massively depending on the time of year. Do you understand why?
What link? If the thrust is frame dependent then your ship will be in very different inertial frames in December and June and your drive will perform very differently depending on the time of year. That is a logical consequence of your choice to say that it does not accelerate constantly with constant energy input.When did I say the EMDrive will not constantly accelerate if supplied with a constant energy input to the magnetron, maintaining a constant level of microwave energy in the resonant cavity as microwave impedance drops from cavity energy conversion to kinetic?
You don't even understand the nature of the problem I'm trying to explain.
It converts electrical energy into kinetic energy, if the EMDrive is allowed to move.
Ok,
Let me see if I can break this down to its simplest elements that laymen can understand.
One, in order for it to the drive to work, energy has to be expended to create a propulsive force. (ie. Thrust)
Two, "for every action, there has to be an equal and opposite reaction". Basic Newtonian Physics, not a hundred percent accurate, but close enough.
Three, electricity is being used to create radio Frequencies within "The Device".
Four, somehow, these "Radio Waves" are imparting their energy to "The Device" in such a way as to produce kinetic force. (ie. Thrust)
Five, the "Radio Waves" seem to be being expended in a direction opposite of the direction of thrust, if I understand the diagrams I have seen so far.
Six, since energy is matter in a more coherent form than lasers or plasma, mass is being expended in a direction opposite the direction of motion.
Seven, again, unless I am misunderstanding these diagrams, heat is being generated as part of this conversion of energy to thrust.
Eight, in order to continue to generate thrust, more energy must be expended in order to generate RF, which is converted by "The Device" into heat and thrust.
Nine, so, in order to generate thrust; mass, in the form of energy, is being expended and expelled in a direction of motion opposite of the direction of thrust, energy is being used to impart this motion. heat is being generated as a byproduct of this process, and an amount of energy, similar to or larger than the normal amount of energy needed to break free of inertia and produce thrust, is being used, and if no additional energy is applied to the device, it stops generating thrust. I think that pretty much sums up what we know so far.
So, Ten, it appears as though this device is a more efficient form of thrust convertion device than are chemical, plasma or nuclear rockets, which require mass be expended in the form of propellent, in order to produce thrust. It appears that mass, in the form of electrons, in this case, are being expended in order to impart thrust, but doing so in a much more energy efficent manner.
Finally, if "The Device" is indeed producing thrust in this manner, and we don't quite have a grasp on HOW it's doing what it does, (I'm pretty sure there is some very simple explaination that everybody is overlooking, as these things usually wind up being) I'm not really quite sure WHAT particular law of physics that it is violating. non-of the lawsof motion or thermodynamicsa appear to be violated on the face of it. So, if it is indeed producing thrust as all the tests so far seem to indicate, now all we need to do is figure out HOW it's doing it!
Jason, thanks for the explanation that's simple enough for a guy who flunked A-level physics to understand!
Ok,Heat is created by eddy currents in the walls of the cavity. They draw energy from the cavity energy, reducing stored cavity energy and cavity Q which is energy input per cycle to energy loss per cycle. This loss energy reduces cavity stored energy and thrust. The heat loss is not involved in thrust generation. It actually reduces thrust.
Let me see if I can break this down to its simplest elements that laymen can understand.
One, in order for it to the drive to work, energy has to be expended to create a propulsive force. (ie. Thrust)
Two, "for every action, there has to be an equal and opposite reaction". Basic Newtonian Physics, not a hundred percent accurate, but close enough.
Three, electricity is being used to create radio Frequencies within "The Device".
Four, somehow, these "Radio Waves" are imparting their energy to "The Device" in such a way as to produce kinetic force. (ie. Thrust)
Five, the "Radio Waves" seem to be being expended in a direction opposite of the direction of thrust, if I understand the diagrams I have seen so far.
Six, since energy is matter in a more coherent form than lasers or plasma, mass is being expended in a direction opposite the direction of motion.
Seven, again, unless I am misunderstanding these diagrams, heat is being generated as part of this conversion of energy to thrust.
Eight, in order to continue to generate thrust, more energy must be expended in order to generate RF, which is converted by "The Device" into heat and thrust.
Nine, so, in order to generate thrust; mass, in the form of energy, is being expended and expelled in a direction of motion opposite of the direction of thrust, energy is being used to impart this motion. heat is being generated as a byproduct of this process, and an amount of energy, similar to or larger than the normal amount of energy needed to break free of inertia and produce thrust, is being used, and if no additional energy is applied to the device, it stops generating thrust. I think that pretty much sums up what we know so far.
So, Ten, it appears as though this device is a more efficient form of thrust convertion device than are chemical, plasma or nuclear rockets, which require mass be expended in the form of propellent, in order to produce thrust. It appears that mass, in the form of electrons, in this case, are being expended in order to impart thrust, but doing so in a much more energy efficent manner.
Finally, if "The Device" is indeed producing thrust in this manner, and we don't quite have a grasp on HOW it's doing what it does, (I'm pretty sure there is some very simple explaination that everybody is overlooking, as these things usually wind up being) I'm not really quite sure WHAT particular law of physics that it is violating. non-of the lawsof motion or thermodynamicsa appear to be violated on the face of it. So, if it is indeed producing thrust as all the tests so far seem to indicate, now all we need to do is figure out HOW it's doing it!
No mass is being expelled.
Please read: http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
That is what I was asking when I asked if it accelerated constantly. I mean constantly with constant power input. If power input is constant then total energy input increases linearly with time producing constant acceleration so velocity increases linearly with time. But kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity and so increases with the square of time.Deep space Ion / Hall thrusters have constant energy input, resultant constant thrust as long as fuel lasts. They accelerate the craft to faster and faster velocities.
Power input (electrical energy) is constant while energy output (kinetic energy) is growing much faster and at an ever increasing rate. That violates COE. That is because kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity.
If you had an electric car, 100% efficient and no friction losses, and gave it constant power input it would not accelerate constantly. It would start off with good acceleration but that would quickly fall to near zero as its velocity increased. You would need ever higher power inputs in order to just maintain constant acceleration. If your EMdrive works any different then it violates COE.
Simple question; Do electrons have mass? If not, you are correct, if so, mass is being expended. Perhaps minute quantities, but it IS being expended.Forget me. I'm just the messenger.
From Jefferson Labs in Virginia: Electron = 9.1093897*10-31 kg.
So how exactly does that apply to the case where it is traveling at a constant velocity and fighting friction? By the principle of relativity, there is no difference between the case of static thrust and the case of static velocity. So you can still use this to create more work than you put into it.If the ship is travelling at constant velocity, there is no acceleration occurring, no thrust being produced by the EMDrive, so the EMDrive is switched OFF.
When the EMDrive generates thrust, unless restrained from moving, it will cause the mass of what ever it is attached to move / accelerate, dropping resonate cavity Q, causing the EMDrive microwave load impedance to drop, causing the microwave generator to transfer more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the loss of cavity energy converted to kinetic, causing the microwave generator to draw more power from the primary electrical energy source.
COE is conserved.
All EMDrive does is to convert electrical energy into, if the EMDrive moves, kinetic energy. No OU. No free energy.
Ok a new / strange energy conversion technique but so was the 1st coil generating a magnetic field, so was the 1st motor, converting electrical energy into a magnetic field, into torque.
For the coil, the motor and the EMDrive, COE was conserved.
Interesting history of the development of electrical energy being converted into torque:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_electric_motor
Soon to be added: History of the development of electrical energy being converted into kinetic energy:
A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?Force is not Work.
Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source
No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.
If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.com
See his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
I never said force is work. Force times distance is work but I have no idea why that is relevant here.
I do not assume that the thing accelerates constantly. I asked you if it accelerates constantly. You see if it accelerates constantly you have one problem and if it does not you have a different problem.
Ok you are going with it does not accelerate constantly although getting that out of you was like pulling teeth. Do you understand how this violates relativity and just about all of modern physics? It would almost be simpler to violate COE.
For example it creates the problem that the power needed by the drive would change massively depending on the time of year. Do you understand why?
Ok,
Let me see if I can break this down to its simplest elements that laymen can understand.
One, in order for it to the drive to work, energy has to be expended to create a propulsive force. (ie. Thrust)
Two, "for every action, there has to be an equal and opposite reaction". Basic Newtonian Physics, not a hundred percent accurate, but close enough.
Three, electricity is being used to create Radio Frequencies within "The Device".
Four, somehow, these "Radio Waves" are imparting their energy to "The Device" in such a way as to produce kinetic force in one particular direction. (ie. Thrust)
Five, the "Radio Waves" seem to be being expended in a direction opposite of the direction of thrust, if I understand the diagrams I have seen so far.
Six, since energy is matter in a more coherent form than lasers or plasma, mass is being expended in a direction opposite the direction of motion.
Seven, again, unless I am misunderstanding these diagrams, heat is being generated as part of this conversion of energy to thrust.
Eight, in order to continue to generate thrust, more energy must be expended in order to generate RF, which is converted by "The Device" into heat and thrust.
Nine, so, in order to generate thrust; mass, in the form of energy, is being expended and expelled in a direction of motion opposite of the direction of thrust, energy is being used to impart this motion. Heat is being generated as a byproduct of this process, and an amount of energy, similar to or larger than the normal amount of energy needed to break free of inertia and produce thrust, is being used, and if no additional energy is applied to the device, it stops generating thrust. I think that pretty much sums up what we know so far.
So, Ten, it appears as though this device is a more efficient form of thrust convertion device than are chemical, plasma or nuclear rockets, which require mass be expended in the form of propellent, in order to produce thrust. It appears that mass, in the form of electrons, in this case, are being expended in order to impart thrust, but doing so in a much more energy efficent manner.
Finally, if "The Device" is indeed producing thrust in this manner, and we don't quite have a grasp on HOW it's doing what it does, (I'm pretty sure there is some very simple explaination that everybody is overlooking, as these things usually wind up being) I'm not really quite sure WHAT particular law of physics that it is violating. none of the laws of motion or thermodynamics appear to be violated on the face of it. So, if it is indeed producing thrust, as all the tests so far seem to indicate, now all we need to do is figure out HOW it's doing it!
Oh! I also forgot to mention that the amount of theurst varies according to both the input of energy and the frequency of the RF generated. (From what I think I understand, the higher the frequency, the more thrust is directly cvreated by "The Device") Again, no violation of thermodynamics or Newtonian physics.
Ok,Heat is created by eddy currents in the walls of the cavity. They draw energy from the cavity energy, reducing stored cavity energy and cavity Q which is energy input per cycle to energy loss per cycle. This loss energy reduces cavity stored energy and thrust. The heat loss is not involved in thrust generation. It actually reduces thrust.
Let me see if I can break this down to its simplest elements that laymen can understand.
One, in order for it to the drive to work, energy has to be expended to create a propulsive force. (ie. Thrust)
Two, "for every action, there has to be an equal and opposite reaction". Basic Newtonian Physics, not a hundred percent accurate, but close enough.
Three, electricity is being used to create radio Frequencies within "The Device".
Four, somehow, these "Radio Waves" are imparting their energy to "The Device" in such a way as to produce kinetic force. (ie. Thrust)
Five, the "Radio Waves" seem to be being expended in a direction opposite of the direction of thrust, if I understand the diagrams I have seen so far.
Six, since energy is matter in a more coherent form than lasers or plasma, mass is being expended in a direction opposite the direction of motion.
Seven, again, unless I am misunderstanding these diagrams, heat is being generated as part of this conversion of energy to thrust.
Eight, in order to continue to generate thrust, more energy must be expended in order to generate RF, which is converted by "The Device" into heat and thrust.
Nine, so, in order to generate thrust; mass, in the form of energy, is being expended and expelled in a direction of motion opposite of the direction of thrust, energy is being used to impart this motion. heat is being generated as a byproduct of this process, and an amount of energy, similar to or larger than the normal amount of energy needed to break free of inertia and produce thrust, is being used, and if no additional energy is applied to the device, it stops generating thrust. I think that pretty much sums up what we know so far.
So, Ten, it appears as though this device is a more efficient form of thrust convertion device than are chemical, plasma or nuclear rockets, which require mass be expended in the form of propellent, in order to produce thrust. It appears that mass, in the form of electrons, in this case, are being expended in order to impart thrust, but doing so in a much more energy efficent manner.
Finally, if "The Device" is indeed producing thrust in this manner, and we don't quite have a grasp on HOW it's doing what it does, (I'm pretty sure there is some very simple explaination that everybody is overlooking, as these things usually wind up being) I'm not really quite sure WHAT particular law of physics that it is violating. non-of the lawsof motion or thermodynamicsa appear to be violated on the face of it. So, if it is indeed producing thrust as all the tests so far seem to indicate, now all we need to do is figure out HOW it's doing it!
No mass is being expelled.
Please read: http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
Simple question; Do electrons have mass? If not, you are correct, if so, mass is being expended. Perhaps minute quantities, but it IS being expended.
From Jefferson Labs in Virginia: Electron = 9.1093897*10-31 kg.
Yes electrons have very tiny mass and to get thrust you would need huge amounts of them traveling at near light speed. The energy demand would be huge and the radiation would cook you.Please read Shawyer. www.emdrive.com
That is what I was asking when I asked if it accelerated constantly. I mean constantly with constant power input. If power input is constant then total energy input increases linearly with time producing constant acceleration so velocity increases linearly with time. But kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity and so increases with the square of time.Deep space Ion / Hall thrusters have constant energy input, resultant constant thrust as long as fuel lasts. They accelerate the craft to faster and faster velocities.
Power input (electrical energy) is constant while energy output (kinetic energy) is growing much faster and at an ever increasing rate. That violates COE. That is because kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity.
If you had an electric car, 100% efficient and no friction losses, and gave it constant power input it would not accelerate constantly. It would start off with good acceleration but that would quickly fall to near zero as its velocity increased. You would need ever higher power inputs in order to just maintain constant acceleration. If your EMdrive works any different then it violates COE.
EMDrive is no different, has constant energy input, resultant constant thrust, except it doesn't expel mass at a high velocity nor require fuel other than to supply the electricity generators.
A Hall thruster is just a rocket and like any rocket it takes its reaction mass with it so it can have constant acceleration with (apparent) constant power. That would suggest that it does better than a electric car which can't accelerate constantly with constant power. But that is an illusion. The Hall thruster is using massive amounts of energy to accelerate its reaction mass and as a result it will always do much worse than the car. A rocket will always run out of fuel long before its kinetic energy exceeds the energy content of its fuel.Ion drive / Hall thruster / Vasimr uses fuel & electrical power. As long as it has fuel and electrical power, it can continuously accelerate or decelerate. Initially increasing craft velocity & kinetic energy, until it must turn 180 deg and decelerate to obtain orbit.
A Hall thruster is just a rocket and like any rocket it takes its reaction mass with it so it can have constant acceleration with (apparent) constant power. That would suggest that it does better than a electric car which can't accelerate constantly with constant power. But that is an illusion. The Hall thruster is using massive amounts of energy to accelerate its reaction mass and as a result it will always do much worse than the car. A rocket will always run out of fuel long before its kinetic energy exceeds the energy content of its fuel.Ion drive / Hall thruster / Vasimr uses fuel & electrical power. As long as it has fuel and electrical power, it can continuously accelerate or decelerate. Initially increasing craft velocity & kinetic energy, until it must turn 180 deg and decelerate to obtain orbit.
EMDrive does the same.
A Hall thruster is just a rocket and like any rocket it takes its reaction mass with it so it can have constant acceleration with (apparent) constant power. That would suggest that it does better than a electric car which can't accelerate constantly with constant power. But that is an illusion. The Hall thruster is using massive amounts of energy to accelerate its reaction mass and as a result it will always do much worse than the car. A rocket will always run out of fuel long before its kinetic energy exceeds the energy content of its fuel.Ion drive / Hall thruster / Vasimr uses fuel & electrical power. As long as it has fuel and electrical power, it can continuously accelerate or decelerate. Initially increasing craft velocity & kinetic energy, until it must turn 180 deg and decelerate to obtain orbit.
EMDrive does the same. Just no mass/ fuel is expelled, However some form of primary energy is used to generate electrical energy (as occurs in Ion / Hall thruster), which is then converted into kinetic energy and accelerates / decelerates the craft.
Different dog. same leg action.
Some form of primary energy is converted into kinetic energy.
COE is conserved.
Of course, your kinetic energy would be ridiculously high, thousands of times greater than the energy you put into the drive.Another useful meme is to beware of people who have simple answers to complex questions.
For .4N/kW and 40kg/kW specific power for a 1kW craft (weighing 40kg) just to make things easy:
(Kinetic Energy)/(Energy input)=
(.5*40kg*(92years*.4N/kW/(40kg/kW))^2)/(1kW*92years)
=
5806.5
Make no mistake, this is also a method to gain free energy.
If Dr White's team is right this thruster is more akin to a propeller or the air breathing nuclear ramjet of project PLUTO, and the "reaction mass" are the virtual particles being preferentially accelerated by the system.
An interesting (but off topic) question would be does a virtual particle cease to exist entirely IE it's whole life is the single existence it's there for, or does it pop up "elsewhere," and is that "elsewhere" this universe, or another universe?
But let me ask you a simpler question.
Do you believe there is something there or IYHO it's all a set of experimental artifacts that have simply not been analyzed out thoroughly enough?
A Hall thruster is just a rocket and like any rocket it takes its reaction mass with it so it can have constant acceleration with (apparent) constant power. That would suggest that it does better than a electric car which can't accelerate constantly with constant power. But that is an illusion. The Hall thruster is using massive amounts of energy to accelerate its reaction mass and as a result it will always do much worse than the car. A rocket will always run out of fuel long before its kinetic energy exceeds the energy content of its fuel.Ion drive / Hall thruster / Vasimr uses fuel & electrical power. As long as it has fuel and electrical power, it can continuously accelerate or decelerate. Initially increasing craft velocity & kinetic energy, until it must turn 180 deg and decelerate to obtain orbit.
EMDrive does the same. Just no mass/ fuel is expelled, However some form of primary energy is used to generate electrical energy (as occurs in Ion / Hall thruster), which is then converted into kinetic energy and accelerates / decelerates the craft.
Different dog. same leg action.
Some form of primary energy is converted into kinetic energy.
COE is conserved.
EMDrive violates the Rocket Equation as no ISP from expelled high velocity fuel mass but not overall COE.A Hall thruster is just a rocket and like any rocket it takes its reaction mass with it so it can have constant acceleration with (apparent) constant power. That would suggest that it does better than a electric car which can't accelerate constantly with constant power. But that is an illusion. The Hall thruster is using massive amounts of energy to accelerate its reaction mass and as a result it will always do much worse than the car. A rocket will always run out of fuel long before its kinetic energy exceeds the energy content of its fuel.Ion drive / Hall thruster / Vasimr uses fuel & electrical power. As long as it has fuel and electrical power, it can continuously accelerate or decelerate. Initially increasing craft velocity & kinetic energy, until it must turn 180 deg and decelerate to obtain orbit.
EMDrive does the same.
Gosh.
IT IS NOT THE SAME!!!!!!
Having reaction mass expelled *changes everything*! For one, now you need to include reaction mass' kinetic energy into energy balance.
Constant acceleration reactionless drive of any type violates COE.
The kinetic energy gain of the accelerated mass is matched by that drawn from the primary energy source, minus losses.This implies that there's a preferred frame of reference, which in turn implies that the thrust and the efficiency of the EM drive depends on it's orientation (because the Earth is moving through space) and on the time of day (because the Earth is rotating and thereby changing the experiment's velocity relative to the preferred frame of reference).
EMDrive violates the Rocket Equation as no ISP from expelled high velocity fuel mass but not overall COE.A Hall thruster is just a rocket and like any rocket it takes its reaction mass with it so it can have constant acceleration with (apparent) constant power. That would suggest that it does better than a electric car which can't accelerate constantly with constant power. But that is an illusion. The Hall thruster is using massive amounts of energy to accelerate its reaction mass and as a result it will always do much worse than the car. A rocket will always run out of fuel long before its kinetic energy exceeds the energy content of its fuel.Ion drive / Hall thruster / Vasimr uses fuel & electrical power. As long as it has fuel and electrical power, it can continuously accelerate or decelerate. Initially increasing craft velocity & kinetic energy, until it must turn 180 deg and decelerate to obtain orbit.
EMDrive does the same.
Gosh.
IT IS NOT THE SAME!!!!!!
Having reaction mass expelled *changes everything*! For one, now you need to include reaction mass' kinetic energy into energy balance.
Constant acceleration reactionless drive of any type violates COE.
The kinetic energy gain of the accelerated mass is matched by that drawn from the primary energy source, minus losses.
See Shawyer's equations for dynamic operation:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
Apologies if my explanations fails to convey how EMDrive works different to expelled mass rocket engine. Suggest need to stop comparing to conventional rocket engine and focus on overall primary energy input to final accelerating mass kinetic energy gain.
EMDrive violates the Rocket Equation as no ISP from expelled high velocity fuel mass but not overall COE.A Hall thruster is just a rocket and like any rocket it takes its reaction mass with it so it can have constant acceleration with (apparent) constant power. That would suggest that it does better than a electric car which can't accelerate constantly with constant power. But that is an illusion. The Hall thruster is using massive amounts of energy to accelerate its reaction mass and as a result it will always do much worse than the car. A rocket will always run out of fuel long before its kinetic energy exceeds the energy content of its fuel.Ion drive / Hall thruster / Vasimr uses fuel & electrical power. As long as it has fuel and electrical power, it can continuously accelerate or decelerate. Initially increasing craft velocity & kinetic energy, until it must turn 180 deg and decelerate to obtain orbit.
EMDrive does the same.
Gosh.
IT IS NOT THE SAME!!!!!!
Having reaction mass expelled *changes everything*! For one, now you need to include reaction mass' kinetic energy into energy balance.
Constant acceleration reactionless drive of any type violates COE.
The kinetic energy gain of the accelerated mass is matched by that drawn from the primary energy source, minus losses.
See Shawyer's equations for dynamic operation:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
Apologies if my explanations fails to convey how EMDrive works different to expelled mass rocket engine. Suggest need to stop comparing to conventional rocket engine and focus on overall primary energy input to final accelerating mass kinetic energy gain.
Actually he seems to be claiming that there is no constant acceleration with constant power input. If so then there may be no COE violation but we are back to the problem of a preferred frame of reference. And your ship will preform very differently in December than in June because of the orbit of the earth putting it in a different inertial reference frame.
The kinetic energy gain of the accelerated mass is matched by that drawn from the primary energy source, minus losses.This implies that there's a preferred frame of reference, which in turn implies that the thrust and the efficiency of the EM drive depends on it's orientation (because the Earth is moving through space) and on the time of day (because the Earth is rotating and thereby changing the experiment's velocity relative to the preferred frame of reference).
Couldn't it be a local inertial frame instead? With the inertial frame at any given point in space being tied to the local gravitational potential at that point (in this case, that of the Earth being dominant)?Only if that frame rotates with the Earth, I guess, otherwise the effect depends on the orientation of the device (I seem to remember that different orientations gave the same measurements, though I might be mistaken).
The kinetic energy gain of the accelerated mass is matched by that drawn from the primary energy source, minus losses.This implies that there's a preferred frame of reference, which in turn implies that the thrust and the efficiency of the EM drive depends on it's orientation (because the Earth is moving through space) and on the time of day (because the Earth is rotating and thereby changing the experiment's velocity relative to the preferred frame of reference).
Couldn't it be a local inertial frame instead? With the inertial frame at any given point in space being tied to the local gravitational potential at that point (in this case, that of the Earth being dominant)?
(Actually the local inertial field, defined in this way, might just be the definition of the local gravitational field.)
....Can you please further elaborate as to why you think this approach would be better than the present program to eventually have these tests replicated at NASA Glenn, JPL, John Hopkins or other academic institutions?
I have a strong interest in this effort and have been looking at different approaches that might be able to move the work to a more powerful foundation. My sense is that the strongest platform would empower the assembly of the right people to work the problem and resource them with the tools to do it right, without either hamstringing them with bureaucracy or the narrow interest of typical "VC-funded" enterprise.
....
While your cavity and ours arn't exactly the same one could say the situations are quite similar. The NASA Eagleworks system operated at 935MHz at (?)W, Roger Shawyer 2.45GHz at 850W, and Dr Yang at (?)MHz at 2.5KW (apologize if these missing values have been published, I didn't immediately see them).Welcome to the thread and the site.
My understanding is the current setup is a little over 1.9 GHz @ 50 watts.
Good luck, I can pass you some names off-line if that is of interest. If you havn't already, it would be useful to consult a high-power RF engineer, not necessarily and EM physicist (sorry guys! :) ). As stated, I am not an expert on this phenomenon but if there are further questions I can perhaps pass them along.
-Joseph Knuble
(Also, I hope I'm wrong!)
From what I can find out online, the end caps of the cavity are single sided FR4, but I couldn't find out if they were baked and post coated or not. Do you think they could be getting some out gassing or other effects from the FR4? Would glass Teflon be a better choice of dielectric?
JK: an earlier post by the good doctor with some details on the test setup.
Dr. Rodal:
"That amplitude, frequency and phase modulation of the carrier wave results in greater thrust force is a prediction from Dr. White's computer code, and not yet an experimentally proven fact."
I think I may have verified today the need for large time rate of change of the resonant circuit phase changes as the RF amplifier driven 1,937.088 MHz, +/- ~25kHz sine wave oscillates back and forth through the resonance frequency of the frustum cavity. Through a methodical tuning campaign using our triple stub Z-matching tuner and 2 feet of RG-8 coax as the main transmission line to the frustum, I marched the Smith Chart solution circle around its impedance space while checking the thrust output for each over a dozen stub tuner configurations. Only those tuning solutions that maximized the phase change through resonance over the smallest frequency span generated the largest thrust signatures and in fact it overcame its lower Q-factors that those solutions provided. In fact a running solution that yielded Q-factor solutions as high as 7,500 were out performed by two or even three to one in thrust output by tuning solutions that had half these peak Q-factors, but maximized the resonant phase change per kHz. And yes, the input power was maintained at around 50W for all tests. More data later this week as I continue this investigation.
BTW, our Eagleworks Dynamics of the Quantum Vacuum paper has finally been published on the NASA/NTRS server. You can find it here:
http://tinyurl.com/mw64rsn
Best, Paul M.
While your cavity and ours arn't exactly the same one could say the situations are quite similar. The NASA Eagleworks system operated at 935MHz at (?)W, Roger Shawyer 2.45GHz at 850W, and Dr Yang at (?)MHz at 2.5KW (apologize if these missing values have been published, I didn't immediately see them).Welcome to the thread and the site.
Eagleworks studies were done around 100W power level. However they did comment that it needed an HDPE insert in the cavities to make it work.
Largely to unconstrain the research from:
A) Resources allocated by these specific institutions;
B) Institutional politics
There is absolutely no reason why the efforts at Glenn, JPL, etc. couldn't or shouldn't be run in-parallel, but the ability to combine material resources with the open contribution of everyone in the world who is interested in the project ("open source R&D"?) presents a potentially powerful addition. We have reason to believe (cf the original X-prize, the work at SpaceX, etc.) that these kinds of "entrepreneurial" R&D can do things that existing institutions can't.
I'd suggest, for example, that the synergy of many of the good folks on this forum with the work at Eagleworks (including notably your recent excellent article) is a sample of what could be done. A properly architected crowd/funded + crowdsourced R&D effort could be extremely powerful.
Competitors around the world are increasing their investment in basic research, but science funding in the U.S. federal budget is at "the lowest it has been since the Second World War as a fraction of the federal budget," says MIT physicist Marc Kastner, who led the committee that wrote the report. "This really threatens America's future."
3) Work the other way around - crowd-fund an X-prize for some key milestone in EM Drive research. Say a $5M bounty for the first team that can generate material (say 1N) thrust.
Notably, we could really be innovative and use something like a scamfunding mechanism. Why not? A "decentralized collaborative organization" might be precisely the thing necessary to resource research on the EM Drive while keeping the results open to the public.
Largely to unconstrain the research from:
A) Resources allocated by these specific institutions;
B) Institutional politics
There is absolutely no reason why the efforts at Glenn, JPL, etc. couldn't or shouldn't be run in-parallel, but the ability to combine material resources with the open contribution of everyone in the world who is interested in the project ("open source R&D"?) presents a potentially powerful addition. We have reason to believe (cf the original X-prize, the work at SpaceX, etc.) that these kinds of "entrepreneurial" R&D can do things that existing institutions can't.
I'd suggest, for example, that the synergy of many of the good folks on this forum with the work at Eagleworks (including notably your recent excellent article) is a sample of what could be done. A properly architected crowd/funded + crowdsourced R&D effort could be extremely powerful.QuoteCompetitors around the world are increasing their investment in basic research, but science funding in the U.S. federal budget is at "the lowest it has been since the Second World War as a fraction of the federal budget," says MIT physicist Marc Kastner, who led the committee that wrote the report. "This really threatens America's future."
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2917200/government/mit-report-cuts-to-federal-funding-threaten-the-countrys-future.html
Since Eagleworks started doing real work on the EM Drive, there has been growing interest from outside in finding ways to support their work. So far this has been frustrated largely due to NASA regulations (you can't donate money, equipment, etc. directly to a NASA project). There are some work-arounds ([through the SSI](www.ssi.org)) but these are uninspiring.
I have a strong interest in this effort and have been looking at different approaches that might be able to move the work to a more powerful foundation. My sense is that the strongest platform would empower the assembly of the right people to work the problem and resource them with the tools to do it right, without either hamstringing them with bureaucracy or the narrow interest of typical "VC-funded" enterprise.
Given that, I can see three more aggressive approaches to funding EM Drive research:
1) Convince the Eagleworks crew to take their work outside of NASA and fund the efforts directly. After some research I'm reasonably confident that some form of crowdfunding could be expected to be able to raise $2.5M to $5M for this kind of effort. Would that be enough to a) get the Eagleworks crew feeling safe to make the leap; and b) provide the materials and resources necessary to really kick the tires on this thing? Hard to say - but we should note that an effort like this would also open the doors on allowing interested allies loan equipment. Which is to say that you could likely get a nice multiplier on actual cash contributions.
2) Assemble some other team than the Eagleworks team and fund them to do the research in a similar manner to the above. This could be a sort of public/private combo where two teams collaborate to enhance each-other's work. The gating item here, of course, would be the team - what is the right mix of people to get this done right?
3) Work the other way around - crowd-fund an X-prize for some key milestone in EM Drive research. Say a $5M bounty for the first team that can generate material (say 1N) thrust.
Notably, we could really be innovative and use something like a scamfunding mechanism. Why not? A "decentralized collaborative organization" might be precisely the thing necessary to resource research on the EM Drive while keeping the results open to the public.
I am in a position that I could organize any of these three and would be delighted to collaborate to make any of them happen. Obviously, #1 is gated by the eagleworks team and #2 is gated by identifying and assembling an alternate team.
I'm interested in the thoughts of those folks who have been close to the developments (and the people) so far.
I like the X Prize idea.
That's exactly what I would do if I could.
The question is how do you convince enough people to donate to your cause via crowdfunding when the underlying science isn't even established?
I haven't been following these threads closely until recently, but I'm really curious if anyone here has examined whether or not Modified inertia from Hubble scale Casimir effects (MiHsC), which is a theory I just came across today, makes any sense at all. I never got far enough in math to really evaluate this level of physics on my own, but the "crackpot" alarms in my head didn't sound as I was reading about it.
The basics of it are, any object moving to the right will create an event horizon somewhere to left beyond which information cannot be observed. Like other event horizons, this will result in radiation (similar to Hawking radiation) called Unruh radiation. The wavelengths for this radiation are at normal accelerations on the order of light years.
But if you have something like a tube with light inside and reflective surfaces, the photons (because of their speed) will generate Unruh wavelength that are the exact resonant frequency of the tube.
In a uniform tube, this does nothing, but in a cone shaped tube, it would bias the direction of force toward the narrow end.
Again, this isn't my theory, it is proposed by a physicist at Plymouth U in the UK, but it seemed... reasonable.
The theory evidently also has the nice benefit of explaining the effects of dark matter and dark energy without any special tuning, and it explains how inertia works in general from what I was reading.
Does any of that make sense or sound plausible?
EDIT: I ask mainly because a device like the EmDrive is one of the only testable predictions that you could make with this theory given the technology we have now.
Hi Jordan,
Good summary. I have tested MiHsC on the emdrive & the results are encouraging / not conclusive, see my paper:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-15.PDF
Best wishes,
Mike
So let's assume the EM drive works as described and Alpha Centauri can be reached in approximately 130 earth years accounting for acceleration, cruising and deceleration. Can anyone calculate the approximate time dilation spent? (i.e. the theory of relativity that shows time slowing down relative to earth time and stops at light speed.) Obviously gravitational effects on time dilation would probably be impossible to factor in.
If time were slowed down enough would it allow reaching Alpha Centauri in a generation or two? Assuming one didn't die of radiation poisoning, a spec of dust piercing a hole through them at that speed, or outright insanity. ::)
The speeds discussed in the Alpha Centauri mission proposal are sufficiently low that relativity effects are negligible.
a) the force measurements of the EM-drive,
They are inconsistent. For example, with the EM Drive re-oriented, rotated by 180 degrees so that it points in the opposite direction, the measurements differ significantly. Need to have consistent measurements replicated at several labs (NASA Glenn, JPL, John Hopkins have been mentioned) for the evidence to be conclusive. Also, even if the data would be consistent, and the EM Drive can be used for space propulsion, that would not be conclusive evidence that its operation is due to a degradable and mutable quantum vacuum as there are several other explanations being explored.
There are plenty of things in science that don't have an explanation for using modern understanding but that we find applications for -- the placebo effect, for example -- but I highly doubt anyone would have accepted as science any research into confirming the placebo effect if it hadn't been done in a completely academic setting.
Even if an independent group succeeds in replicating and isolating the phenomenon, it might take another Harold White to convince a reputable institution to take it seriously again -- and there aren't that many Harold Whites.
Ultimately the only reason people (myself included) are taking this seriously at all right now is because the experiments confirming the phenomenon were done at NASA. Once the major objections to the existence of a new phenomenon have been weeded out, I think people at more institutions will naturally begin to attempt to replicate and advance the experiments.
Crowdfunding might or might not work financially, but I don't think it'd be safe reputation-wise until everything can be ruled out that might potentially say the observations were all some kind of mistake. People will become even more skeptical than they are, and they'll begin to wonder if the crowdfunding money was the real motivation for the project all along.
I personally have nothing against scam, but I do worry that working on what many consider to be alternative science using what most consider to be alternative currency would just bring the alternativeness of the project over the edge and turn a lot of people off. I also don't think there are any political impediments to the project. No one is trying to shut it down or hide it or anything (at least for now), so half of the value of scam is moot.
Lastly, the research is slow-going, but it's not stalled. I'm as eager as anyone -- naysayer or not -- to see more come out of this, but the phrase "don't fix what isn't broken" comes to mind.
Sorry to be against the tide but: doesn't Xprize reward a team among others in competition, after some goal has been achieved?
Eagleworks' team doesn't need to be motivated. They don't need to be rewarded after they reach, say, a 1N milestone. Repeatable 1 newton of thrust and they will already have NASA and the whole world backing them, X-Prize or not. A lower goal, less impressive (millinewtons) and layman people won't even bother to donate. That would not make them dreaming.
Anyway, the issue is not within the goal itself.
The real problem is funding. Eagleworks needs money for equipments to run better experiments. They need money before they can reach any ambitious goal, and specifically they need money in order to reach that ambitious goal.
Or maybe there is something in X-Prize type funding that I do not know?
Sorry to be against the tide but: doesn't Xprize reward a team among others in competition, after some goal has been achieved?
Eagleworks' team doesn't need to be motivated. They don't need to be rewarded after they reach, say, a 1N milestone. Repeatable 1 newton of thrust and they will already have NASA and the whole world backing them.
QuoteThere are plenty of things in science that don't have an explanation for using modern understanding but that we find applications for -- the placebo effect, for example -- but I highly doubt anyone would have accepted as science any research into confirming the placebo effect if it hadn't been done in a completely academic setting.
Even if an independent group succeeds in replicating and isolating the phenomenon, it might take another Harold White to convince a reputable institution to take it seriously again -- and there aren't that many Harold Whites.
Ultimately the only reason people (myself included) are taking this seriously at all right now is because the experiments confirming the phenomenon were done at NASA. Once the major objections to the existence of a new phenomenon have been weeded out, I think people at more institutions will naturally begin to attempt to replicate and advance the experiments.
Crowdfunding might or might not work financially, but I don't think it'd be safe reputation-wise until everything can be ruled out that might potentially say the observations were all some kind of mistake. People will become even more skeptical than they are, and they'll begin to wonder if the crowdfunding money was the real motivation for the project all along.
I personally have nothing against scam, but I do worry that working on what many consider to be alternative science using what most consider to be alternative currency would just bring the alternativeness of the project over the edge and turn a lot of people off. I also don't think there are any political impediments to the project. No one is trying to shut it down or hide it or anything (at least for now), so half of the value of scam is moot.
Lastly, the research is slow-going, but it's not stalled. I'm as eager as anyone -- naysayer or not -- to see more come out of this, but the phrase "don't fix what isn't broken" comes to mind.
Your point on crowdscam as being a doubling-down on "edge" is well taken. At the same time, the cure to that problem is simple: provide unimpeachable evidence that the phenomenon is real. A multi newton thrust is more proof than an ocean of equations, simulations or presentations.
Intriguingly, I find that the concern that "but I don't think it'd be safe reputation-wise until everything can be ruled out that might potentially say the observations were all some kind of mistake. People will become even more skeptical than they are, and they'll begin to wonder if the crowdfunding money was the real motivation for the project all along." is one of the more compelling reasons why a more entrepreneurial approach might be necessary. When reputations and motivations are inhibiting efforts to get direct access to truth, something is broken.
Let me reverse the discussion: assuming that material resources could be raised to fund R&D, what *harm* would it do to the effort? Presumably the deep harm would be if the "private" R&D were irresponsible - lots of hype and little discipline; and this irresponsibility tarnished the entire concept making it impossible for responsible folks to try it on.
Certainly a risk. Implies that the X-prize approach would be the most appropriate.
While your cavity and ours arn't exactly the same one could say the situations are quite similar. The NASA Eagleworks system operated at 935MHz at (?)W, Roger Shawyer 2.45GHz at 850W, and Dr Yang at (?)MHz at 2.5KW (apologize if these missing values have been published, I didn't immediately see them).Welcome to the thread and the site.
Eagleworks studies were done around 100W power level. However they did comment that it needed an HDPE insert in the cavities to make it work.
No, actually Eagleworks' RF power amplifiers has now power ranges of up to 125 W, but they used powers ranging from a few watts to 17W in experiments conducted in ambient air (see the original full paper (http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf)) then up to 50W in a hard vacuum (5×10−6 torr) but with a failing (arcing) RF amp, as stated in this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1326608#msg1326608) by Paul March aka Star-Drive.
a) the force measurements of the EM-drive,
They are inconsistent. For example, with the EM Drive re-oriented, rotated by 180 degrees so that it points in the opposite direction, the measurements differ significantly. Need to have consistent measurements replicated at several labs (NASA Glenn, JPL, John Hopkins have been mentioned) for the evidence to be conclusive. Also, even if the data would be consistent, and the EM Drive can be used for space propulsion, that would not be conclusive evidence that its operation is due to a degradable and mutable quantum vacuum as there are several other explanations being explored.
Propellant: The Earth's magnetic field?
Sorry to be against the tide but: doesn't Xprize reward a team among others in competition, after some goal has been achieved?
Eagleworks' team doesn't need to be motivated. They don't need to be rewarded after they reach, say, a 1N milestone. Repeatable 1 newton of thrust and they will already have NASA and the whole world backing them.
If a team engineers a device with 1N of thrust, then the entire world would be skeptical of them...and they might have a very difficult time getting contracts simply because people won't take them seriously. In order to take them seriously, they would need to divulge all the details of their experiments and subject it to public scrutiny -- but if they do this, they completely lose their competitive advantage. If it turns out to be valid, then larger companies like Boeing etc would immediately jump in and beat them out of the market.
Thus, by creating an XPrize like goal, that becomes a financial objective thats easier to shoot for and will encourage more teams to take on the time and risk of development.
NASA teams cannot accept direct contributions, and the NASA Eagleworks team is not necessarily the best suited team to solve this problem -- and their theories of how it works might be completely wrong, even if it does work.
And now we have a pretty good video, objective (even including Sean Carroll from CalTech, and Alcubierre stating that he thinks his warp-drive concept is not practically feasible for centuries) about the NSF article on the EM Drive !
http://www.newsy.com/47123/
:)
There is some hope for the media, as these guys got this "right", fair and balanced, respecting science and yet keeping up some hope and they put the video together in a short amount of time
As to crowd funding or some kind of prize, I would not be one to say no to that. However any prize should not be limited to this technology because it will eventually be proven to be inconclusive as the measured "thrust" decreases further.
Since Eagleworks started doing real work on the EM Drive, there has been growing interest from outside in finding ways to support their work. So far this has been frustrated largely due to NASA regulations (you can't donate money, equipment, etc. directly to a NASA project). There are some work-arounds ([through the SSI](www.ssi.org)) but these are uninspiring.Hi all, and Jordan,
I have a strong interest in this effort and have been looking at different approaches that might be able to move the work to a more powerful foundation. My sense is that the strongest platform would empower the assembly of the right people to work the problem and resource them with the tools to do it right, without either hamstringing them with bureaucracy or the narrow interest of typical "VC-funded" enterprise.
Given that, I can see three more aggressive approaches to funding EM Drive research:
1) Convince the Eagleworks crew to take their work outside of NASA and fund the efforts directly. After some research I'm reasonably confident that some form of crowdfunding could be expected to be able to raise $2.5M to $5M for this kind of effort. Would that be enough to a) get the Eagleworks crew feeling safe to make the leap; and b) provide the materials and resources necessary to really kick the tires on this thing? Hard to say - but we should note that an effort like this would also open the doors on allowing interested allies loan equipment. Which is to say that you could likely get a nice multiplier on actual cash contributions.
2) Assemble some other team than the Eagleworks team and fund them to do the research in a similar manner to the above. This could be a sort of public/private combo where two teams collaborate to enhance each-other's work. The gating item here, of course, would be the team - what is the right mix of people to get this done right?
3) Work the other way around - crowd-fund an X-prize for some key milestone in EM Drive research. Say a $5M bounty for the first team that can generate material (say 1N) thrust.
Notably, we could really be innovative and use something like a scamfunding mechanism. Why not? A "decentralized collaborative organization" might be precisely the thing necessary to resource research on the EM Drive while keeping the results open to the public.
I am in a position that I could organize any of these three and would be delighted to collaborate to make any of them happen. Obviously, #1 is gated by the eagleworks team and #2 is gated by identifying and assembling an alternate team.
I'm interested in the thoughts of those folks who have been close to the developments (and the people) so far.
IT IS NOT THE SAME!!!!!!
Having reaction mass expelled *changes everything*! For one, now you need to include reaction mass' kinetic energy into energy balance.
Constant acceleration reactionless drive of any type violates COE.
Since Eagleworks started doing real work on the EM Drive, there has been growing interest from outside in finding ways to support their work. So far this has been frustrated largely due to NASA regulations (you can't donate money, equipment, etc. directly to a NASA project). There are some work-arounds ([through the SSI](www.ssi.org)) but these are uninspiring.Hi all, and Jordan,
I have a strong interest in this effort and have been looking at different approaches that might be able to move the work to a more powerful foundation. My sense is that the strongest platform would empower the assembly of the right people to work the problem and resource them with the tools to do it right, without either hamstringing them with bureaucracy or the narrow interest of typical "VC-funded" enterprise.
Given that, I can see three more aggressive approaches to funding EM Drive research:
1) Convince the Eagleworks crew to take their work outside of NASA and fund the efforts directly. After some research I'm reasonably confident that some form of crowdfunding could be expected to be able to raise $2.5M to $5M for this kind of effort. Would that be enough to a) get the Eagleworks crew feeling safe to make the leap; and b) provide the materials and resources necessary to really kick the tires on this thing? Hard to say - but we should note that an effort like this would also open the doors on allowing interested allies loan equipment. Which is to say that you could likely get a nice multiplier on actual cash contributions.
2) Assemble some other team than the Eagleworks team and fund them to do the research in a similar manner to the above. This could be a sort of public/private combo where two teams collaborate to enhance each-other's work. The gating item here, of course, would be the team - what is the right mix of people to get this done right?
3) Work the other way around - crowd-fund an X-prize for some key milestone in EM Drive research. Say a $5M bounty for the first team that can generate material (say 1N) thrust.
Notably, we could really be innovative and use something like a scamfunding mechanism. Why not? A "decentralized collaborative organization" might be precisely the thing necessary to resource research on the EM Drive while keeping the results open to the public.
I am in a position that I could organize any of these three and would be delighted to collaborate to make any of them happen. Obviously, #1 is gated by the eagleworks team and #2 is gated by identifying and assembling an alternate team.
I'm interested in the thoughts of those folks who have been close to the developments (and the people) so far.
I read your post with the three options, and I also noticed people favor option #3.
I am myself at the moment working on a business plan which quite coincidentally is to propose a large-scale Wi-Fi network in the Port of Rotterdam. I enjoy entrepreneuring, this is my first time so fingers crossed :)
As a business man, I would like to point out that offering a prize will make teams secretive about their work and probably also will mean the working results will be patented. And we all know what that means as far as this revolution becoming public domain....
Unless contracts are signed prohibiting this, this will happen (at least I fear it). The problem with contracts is that they are contracts. And we don't really want those.
I am not ramming option #3 into the ground, I think it is a good idea initially. But corruption is in the heart of every human I'm afraid, especially when it comes to money.
Now I am not completely up to speed ont he tread, so someone else might have pointed this out already. My apologies in that case.
IT IS NOT THE SAME!!!!!!
Having reaction mass expelled *changes everything*! For one, now you need to include reaction mass' kinetic energy into energy balance.
Constant acceleration reactionless drive of any type violates COE.
Does a magsail?
A test that should be performed:
NASA Eagleworks should very precisely measure the mass of the test article, and verify that it is not losing any mass while it is generating force.
So let's assume the EM drive works as described and Alpha Centauri can be reached in approximately 130 earth years accounting for acceleration, cruising and deceleration. Can anyone calculate the approximate time dilation spent? (i.e. the theory of relativity that shows time slowing down relative to earth time and stops at light speed.) Obviously gravitational effects on time dilation would probably be impossible to factor in.
If time were slowed down enough would it allow reaching Alpha Centauri in a generation or two? Assuming one didn't die of radiation poisoning, a spec of dust piercing a hole through them at that speed, or outright insanity. ::)
A frequent practice in academia especially among experimental groups is collaborative competition whereby the entire collaboration is split into teams which communicate with each other openly about their respective projects, but compete in order to be the first to obtain definitive results. If something like this could be fostered it would be the best option to really finding out if we have something here... but I don't know how one would apply this in principle outside of academia.
IT IS NOT THE SAME!!!!!!
Having reaction mass expelled *changes everything*! For one, now you need to include reaction mass' kinetic energy into energy balance.
Constant acceleration reactionless drive of any type violates COE.
Does a magsail?
A magsail is neither constant acceleration nor reaction-less. It is true that it does not carry its reaction mass with it but it is reacting against an external medium. But then so does a car, airplane or boat.
Since Eagleworks started doing real work on the EM Drive, there has been growing interest from outside in finding ways to support their work. So far this has been frustrated largely due to NASA regulations (you can't donate money, equipment, etc. directly to a NASA project). There are some work-arounds ([through the SSI](www.ssi.org)) but these are uninspiring.
I have a strong interest in this effort and have been looking at different approaches that might be able to move the work to a more powerful foundation. My sense is that the strongest platform would empower the assembly of the right people to work the problem and resource them with the tools to do it right, without either hamstringing them with bureaucracy or the narrow interest of typical "VC-funded" enterprise.
Given that, I can see three more aggressive approaches to funding EM Drive research:
1) Convince the Eagleworks crew to take their work outside of NASA and fund the efforts directly. After some research I'm reasonably confident that some form of crowdfunding could be expected to be able to raise $2.5M to $5M for this kind of effort. Would that be enough to a) get the Eagleworks crew feeling safe to make the leap; and b) provide the materials and resources necessary to really kick the tires on this thing? Hard to say - but we should note that an effort like this would also open the doors on allowing interested allies loan equipment. Which is to say that you could likely get a nice multiplier on actual cash contributions.
2) Assemble some other team than the Eagleworks team and fund them to do the research in a similar manner to the above. This could be a sort of public/private combo where two teams collaborate to enhance each-other's work. The gating item here, of course, would be the team - what is the right mix of people to get this done right?
3) Work the other way around - crowd-fund an X-prize for some key milestone in EM Drive research. Say a $5M bounty for the first team that can generate material (say 1N) thrust.
Notably, we could really be innovative and use something like a scamfunding mechanism. Why not? A "decentralized collaborative organization" might be precisely the thing necessary to resource research on the EM Drive while keeping the results open to the public.
I am in a position that I could organize any of these three and would be delighted to collaborate to make any of them happen. Obviously, #1 is gated by the eagleworks team and #2 is gated by identifying and assembling an alternate team.
I'm interested in the thoughts of those folks who have been close to the developments (and the people) so far.
Hi all, and Jordan,
I read your post with the three options, and I also noticed people favor option #3.
I am myself at the moment working on a business plan which quite coincidentally is to propose a large-scale Wi-Fi network in the Port of Rotterdam. I enjoy entrepreneuring, this is my first time so fingers crossed :)
It is argued that the EM-drive is also reacting against an external medium, in its case the quantum vacuum.The important question is whether this medium, whatever it is, is fixed (like a plane moving through air and a boat through water) or always seems stationary in your current frame in which case you can get more energy than you put in. This wouldn't kill the idea but it would make it puzzling to only focus on the application as a better ion drive.
Is there a photo, drawing or block diagram of the current resonator I could see? 50W is lower than I expected to hear but that is still a large amount of power in the RF world and high power design techniques would still need to be employed. FR4 and Teflon would both out-gas to some degree and I don't believe one is necessarily better than the other. For either, the materials would need to be in the chamber for sufficient time to outgas enough prior to applying high power.
-JK
We're spinning around the Sun at about 30km/s and the Sun is spinning around the centre of the Milky Way at about 230km/s . If you're pushing on some preferred frame that isn't geocentric then you get huge seasonal and daily variation. Even if I believed the drive worked, experimental set up still gets an F- for failing to be accurate enough to even guide theoretical work.It is argued that the EM-drive is also reacting against an external medium, in its case the quantum vacuum.The important question is whether this medium, whatever it is, is fixed (like a plane moving through air and a boat through water) or always seems stationary in your current frame in which case you can get more energy than you put in. This wouldn't kill the idea but it would make it puzzling to only focus on the application as a better ion drive.
There comparatively straightforward drives that propose pushing against the interstellar medium (the very thin ionised gas between stars), for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet#Electrostatic_ion_scoop
Potentially these could far outperform a rocket because a rocket has to carry its own reaction mass and that gets exponentially bad. Pushing on a fixed medium would allow a mere square relationship between energy and velocity. This velocity is relative the the medium. I think I read somewhere that we are moving through the interstellar medium at about 30km/s but I couldnt find the reference.
To move forward commercially, you would have to either come to an agreement with him/SPR, or wait for his patents to expire, or find some way around them. I'd guess that Guido Fetta has also protected his invention as well
Is there a photo, drawing or block diagram of the current resonator I could see? 50W is lower than I expected to hear but that is still a large amount of power in the RF world and high power design techniques would still need to be employed. FR4 and Teflon would both out-gas to some degree and I don't believe one is necessarily better than the other. For either, the materials would need to be in the chamber for sufficient time to outgas enough prior to applying high power.
-JK
Not having worked much with high power RF in a vacuum I'll talk about the non-vac testing. Assuming there's some kind of corona, since the cavity is closed, wouldn't the corona be on the inside of the cavity and therefore apply equal force in both directions when the particles bounce off the other side of the cavity? The cavity is sealed so I'm not sure what amount of leakage would be needed to produce this kind of thrust, but the particles released from the surface by the corona effect should be mostly reflected internally keeping all the momentum cancelled out.
IT IS NOT THE SAME!!!!!!
Having reaction mass expelled *changes everything*! For one, now you need to include reaction mass' kinetic energy into energy balance.
Constant acceleration reactionless drive of any type violates COE.
Does a magsail?
A magsail is neither constant acceleration nor reaction-less. It is true that it does not carry its reaction mass with it but it is reacting against an external medium. But then so does a car, airplane or boat.
It is argued that the EM-drive is also reacting against an external medium, in its case the quantum vacuum.
...Yes, the more crude the instrumentation, the stronger the effect.
Those people do not know the struggling of a scientist to get just a little more funding in their lab where only 3 or 4 other colleagues work with them. Eagleworks has an old dying RF amp and they do not even have the bucks to replace it… Paul had to build the copper frustum at home, in his wife's dining room! Really people would be shocked if they knew that....
Commander Chris Hadfield just tweeted it to his 1.3 million followers. :o
So let's assume the EM drive works as described and Alpha Centauri can be reached in approximately 130 earth years accounting for acceleration, cruising and deceleration. Can anyone calculate the approximate time dilation spent? (i.e. the theory of relativity that shows time slowing down relative to earth time and stops at light speed.) Obviously gravitational effects on time dilation would probably be impossible to factor in.
If time were slowed down enough would it allow reaching Alpha Centauri in a generation or two? Assuming one didn't die of radiation poisoning, a spec of dust piercing a hole through them at that speed, or outright insanity. ::)
I get around a month difference.
That violates energy conservation. You're talking about way more kinetic energy than you put into it in the first place.So let's assume the EM drive works as described and Alpha Centauri can be reached in approximately 130 earth years accounting for acceleration, cruising and deceleration. Can anyone calculate the approximate time dilation spent? (i.e. the theory of relativity that shows time slowing down relative to earth time and stops at light speed.) Obviously gravitational effects on time dilation would probably be impossible to factor in.
If time were slowed down enough would it allow reaching Alpha Centauri in a generation or two? Assuming one didn't die of radiation poisoning, a spec of dust piercing a hole through them at that speed, or outright insanity. ::)
I get around a month difference.
Yep, me too. v=0.067c at turnaround, t-tau = 36 days for 0.001 g's
That violates energy conservation. You're talking about way more kinetic energy than you put into it in the first place.So let's assume the EM drive works as described and Alpha Centauri can be reached in approximately 130 earth years accounting for acceleration, cruising and deceleration. Can anyone calculate the approximate time dilation spent? (i.e. the theory of relativity that shows time slowing down relative to earth time and stops at light speed.) Obviously gravitational effects on time dilation would probably be impossible to factor in.
If time were slowed down enough would it allow reaching Alpha Centauri in a generation or two? Assuming one didn't die of radiation poisoning, a spec of dust piercing a hole through them at that speed, or outright insanity. ::)
I get around a month difference.
Yep, me too. v=0.067c at turnaround, t-tau = 36 days for 0.001 g's
That violates energy conservation. You're talking about way more kinetic energy than you put into it in the first place.So let's assume the EM drive works as described and Alpha Centauri can be reached in approximately 130 earth years accounting for acceleration, cruising and deceleration. Can anyone calculate the approximate time dilation spent? (i.e. the theory of relativity that shows time slowing down relative to earth time and stops at light speed.) Obviously gravitational effects on time dilation would probably be impossible to factor in.
If time were slowed down enough would it allow reaching Alpha Centauri in a generation or two? Assuming one didn't die of radiation poisoning, a spec of dust piercing a hole through them at that speed, or outright insanity. ::)
I get around a month difference.
Yep, me too. v=0.067c at turnaround, t-tau = 36 days for 0.001 g's
The OP qualified his question "So let's assume the EM Drive works as described..." My response was based on that qualification.
So I wanted to ask...
The wave inside the resonant cavity is a standing wave, and it can exert force on the cavity itself. And in regards to its motion, that standing wave can be construed as a soliton. Ordinarily, a soliton on its own (outside of a resonant cavity) is said to be a "delicate balance of linear and nonlinear effects which counter dispersion" - but here we have a resonant cavity to counter the dispersion, with the consequence that cavity has force interaction with the trapped wave.
Is it possible that the power feed to the asymmetric cavity can somehow force the soliton to move, and thus make the cavity move with it? And thus your apparatus is then "surfing the wave"? (ie. surfing the soliton)
I have to think that this is only necessary in order to preserve the validity of the current understanding of such things.
In any case, whatever effect one can conjecture, the challenge is not only to prove the existence of the effect but just as important, to demonstrate conservation of momentum for a cavity accelerated under such an effect :)
actually no. It was outside critics that insisted they need to see how it performed in a vacuum chamber. :)From the day one, they've been performing experiments in a vacuum chamber (at ambient pressure lol).
In any case, whatever effect one can conjecture, the challenge is not only to prove the existence of the effect but just as important, to demonstrate conservation of momentum for a cavity accelerated under such an effect :)
Alright, so the standing wave loses energy in an amount that offsets the kinetic energy gain associated with acceleration - and this is supposed to satisfy conservation of energy. And conservation of momentum is satisfied by using energy-mass equivalency?
I was just wondering what the mechanism is by which pumping up the standing wave then creates a net force on the cavity.
Here's a debunking by Greg Egan, showing why you can't have net force just because the cavity happens to be asymmetric:
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Simple.html
Right. A lot of the handy-wavy "theoretical" justification isn't even falsifiable. Someone just makes up some other theoretical nonsense.In any case, whatever effect one can conjecture, the challenge is not only to prove the existence of the effect but just as important, to demonstrate conservation of momentum for a cavity accelerated under such an effect :)
Alright, so the standing wave loses energy in an amount that offsets the kinetic energy gain associated with acceleration - and this is supposed to satisfy conservation of energy. And conservation of momentum is satisfied by using energy-mass equivalency?
I was just wondering what the mechanism is by which pumping up the standing wave then creates a net force on the cavity.
Here's a debunking by Greg Egan, showing why you can't have net force just because the cavity happens to be asymmetric:
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Simple.html
Greg Egan is just showing the standing wave solution to Maxwell's equation for a truncated cone for mode shapes that have constant field in the transverse, azimuthal direction. The solutions shown by Egan are known since the 1930's.
That Maxwell's equations and special relativity satisfy conservation of momentum is known in general, for any problem, for any geometrical shape. Thus, Egan is just "debunking" attempts (as done by Roger Shawyer for example or by Prof. Yang in China) trying to justify EM Drive space propulsion just using Maxwell's equations and special relativity. Egan's paper does not and cannot debunk Dr. White's conjecture for example, or Prof. Woodward's conjecture. Dr. White's conjecture can be objected on the grounds that it implies a mutable and degradable quantum vacuum, for example, but not solely on the grounds discussed by Egan.
...Yes, the COMSOL Finite Element solutions are just based on Maxwell's equations (which satisfy conservation of momentum and conservation of energy). NASA Eagleworks performed those finite element calculations for the following reasons:
And the computer simulations ...are based on Maxwell's Equations which literally don't allow something like the EM-drive as they conserve both momentum and energy perfectly. ..
...
Right. A lot of the handy-wavy "theoretical" justification isn't even falsifiable. Someone just makes up some other theoretical nonsense.In any case, whatever effect one can conjecture, the challenge is not only to prove the existence of the effect but just as important, to demonstrate conservation of momentum for a cavity accelerated under such an effect :)
Alright, so the standing wave loses energy in an amount that offsets the kinetic energy gain associated with acceleration - and this is supposed to satisfy conservation of energy. And conservation of momentum is satisfied by using energy-mass equivalency?
I was just wondering what the mechanism is by which pumping up the standing wave then creates a net force on the cavity.
Here's a debunking by Greg Egan, showing why you can't have net force just because the cavity happens to be asymmetric:
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Simple.html
Greg Egan is just showing the standing wave solution to Maxwell's equation for a truncated cone for mode shapes that have constant field in the transverse, azimuthal direction. The solutions shown by Egan are known since the 1930's.
That Maxwell's equations and special relativity satisfy conservation of momentum is known in general, for any problem, for any geometrical shape. Thus, Egan is just "debunking" attempts (as done by Roger Shawyer for example or by Prof. Yang in China) trying to justify EM Drive space propulsion just using Maxwell's equations and special relativity. Egan's paper does not and cannot debunk Dr. White's conjecture for example, or Prof. Woodward's conjecture. Dr. White's conjecture can be objected on the grounds that it implies a mutable and degradable quantum vacuum, for example, but not solely on the grounds discussed by Egan.
And the computer simulations are worse. They are based on Maxwell's Equations which literally don't allow something like the EM-drive as they conserve both momentum and energy perfectly. If you get a different result, it's either because you modified the equations that you're solving or you're just seeing an artifact of the computation.
So the theoretical work can be safely ignored.
m_b1 = m_b2 = 4 kg mass of each bowling ballAnd the energy balance looks like this
m_r = 8 kg mass of rocket
v_r = 0 m/s velocity of rocket
v_b1 = 0 m/s velocity of bowling ball 1
v_b2 = 0 m/s velocity of bowling ball 2
v_r' = ? velocity of rocket after first bowling ball launchedSince the second ball is still on board the rocket, we know that v_b2' = v_r'. Also, this is an ordinary rocket, so energy is conserved, so the total kinetic energy of all the objects must equal the amount of energy stored in the spring. That gives us
v_b1' = ? velocity of first bowling ball after launch
v_b2' = ? velocity of second bowling ball after launch of first
Thus as the velocity of the waveguide increases in the direction of thrust, the thrust will decrease until a limiting velocity is reached when T=0.
What kind of damage would a special, or preferred frame of reference do to our understanding of the cosmos?
And now we have a pretty good video, objective (even including Sean Carroll from CalTech, and Alcubierre stating that he thinks his warp-drive concept is not practically feasible for centuries) about the NSF article on the EM Drive !
http://www.newsy.com/47123/
:)
There is some hope for the media, as these guys got this "right", fair and balanced, respecting science and yet keeping up some hope and they put the video together in a short amount of time
What kind of damage would a special, or preferred frame of reference do to our understanding of the cosmos?It would most probably slightly modify current theories. Special frames of reference are possible. At least according to new cosmological and astronomical data analysis of such things as WMAP and Plank observatory data. And there are always theories that invoke them despite the disrepute. There appears to be a preferred alignment of things in the universe like the rotational plane of the galaxies. and this evokes such things at the universe was spinning since it's inception and or dark flow and things like that. These things do lead to the dreaded preferred reference frame. If these observations prove true...
In order for White's proposed explanation to make any sense at all, you need to assume 3 things:If electromagnetic waves transfer a fraction of their own momentum to QVP that is a perturbation of the propagation of electromagnetic waves. There may be a very small experimental bound on that in resonant cavities.
(1) momentum can be stored and propagated through virtual particle pairs that are created in the vacuum fluctuations of free space. Call this the QVP. Obviously this is White's controversial claim, but let's entertain the idea.
(2) storing momentum int the QVP must be "difficult". If it were easy, then momentum would be lost into the QVP all the time, from all different types of interactions, and we wouldn't observe conservation of momentum in general. For some reason, we must accept that the situation of standing waves in a specially shaped resonant cavity is a special situation that does enable momentum transfer into the QVP.
Thank you so much. I took the liberty of uploading vacuum graphs into an album (http://temp bana/oosju).I'm sorry if this question is covered somewhere else, but is there a list of recent force plots that were posted on this forum?
Those are all the force plots I'm aware of concerning the frustum test article at Eagleworks
Source file name or figure in 2014 Brady report :
1/ Page 15, Fig 19 top
2/ Page 15, Fig 19 middle
3/ Page 15, Fig 19 bottom
4/ Page 17, Fig 21 top
5/ Page 17, Fig 21 bottom
6/ Page 18, Fig 22 Eagleworks Lab Conical Resonant Cavity Test Article Data-1, TE012 Mode_03-06-2014.jpg
7/ July 01, 2014 Copper Frustum PTFE_901.93MHz TM010 Thrust Signal in-Air.jpg
8/ March 2015 Copper Frustum 1,937.15MHz_50W_Forward_in-Air_Foam-Board Encl_Data Run.jpg
9/ Frustrum 2 energy and pressure Plus Lab Data_Polycarbonate-1_May 07, 2014.jpg
10/ Copper Kettle Data-Runs_TM212_12-12-2014A_5x10-6 Torr_50W.jpg
11/ Jan 16 2015_ Copper Frustum 1,937.188MHz in-5x10-4 Torr_35W_Reversed_Data Run-1B.jpg
Of those only the last 2 are results in vacuum
There is also
12/ Jan 2015 Copper Frustum 1,937.15MHz in-Air_50W_Forward & Reversed_Data Runs.jpg
but I'm unsure the forward data is different from one of the previous forward plots
The NASASpaceflight.com group has given consideration to whether the experimental measurements of thrust force were the result of an artifact. Despite considerable effort within the NASASpaceflight.com forum to dismiss the reported thrust as an artifact, the EM Drive results have yet to be falsified.Can someone clarify what exactly would it take for "NASASpaceflight.com forum to dismiss the reported thrust as an artifact"?
After consistent reports of thrust measurements from EM Drive experiments in the US, UK, and ChinaIn which of the competing theories was 0.7 N at 2.5kW consistent with ~78uN at 50W (linear extrapolated 14 000 uN) ? How was this non-linear relationship (quadratic?) consistent with 54uN at 2.6W ?
From another thread on this forum:Thank you so much. I took the liberty of uploading vacuum graphs into an album (http://temp bana/oosju).I'm sorry if this question is covered somewhere else, but is there a list of recent force plots that were posted on this forum?
Those are all the force plots I'm aware of concerning the frustum test article at Eagleworks
Source file name or figure in 2014 Brady report :
1/ Page 15, Fig 19 top
2/ Page 15, Fig 19 middle
3/ Page 15, Fig 19 bottom
4/ Page 17, Fig 21 top
5/ Page 17, Fig 21 bottom
6/ Page 18, Fig 22 Eagleworks Lab Conical Resonant Cavity Test Article Data-1, TE012 Mode_03-06-2014.jpg
7/ July 01, 2014 Copper Frustum PTFE_901.93MHz TM010 Thrust Signal in-Air.jpg
8/ March 2015 Copper Frustum 1,937.15MHz_50W_Forward_in-Air_Foam-Board Encl_Data Run.jpg
9/ Frustrum 2 energy and pressure Plus Lab Data_Polycarbonate-1_May 07, 2014.jpg
10/ Copper Kettle Data-Runs_TM212_12-12-2014A_5x10-6 Torr_50W.jpg
11/ Jan 16 2015_ Copper Frustum 1,937.188MHz in-5x10-4 Torr_35W_Reversed_Data Run-1B.jpg
Of those only the last 2 are results in vacuum
There is also
12/ Jan 2015 Copper Frustum 1,937.15MHz in-Air_50W_Forward & Reversed_Data Runs.jpg
but I'm unsure the forward data is different from one of the previous forward plots
Did the theory predict an increase in the rise/fall time constant in vacuum? If it did not, why is it not falsified by the experimental data?
Does the theory predict thrust disparity in those two graphs? If it does, why is it not falsified?
This paragraph seems very unclear to me.QuoteThe NASASpaceflight.com group has given consideration to whether the experimental measurements of thrust force were the result of an artifact. Despite considerable effort within the NASASpaceflight.com forum to dismiss the reported thrust as an artifact, the EM Drive results have yet to be falsified.Can someone clarify what exactly would it take for "NASASpaceflight.com forum to dismiss the reported thrust as an artifact"?QuoteAfter consistent reports of thrust measurements from EM Drive experiments in the US, UK, and ChinaIn which of the competing theories was 0.7 N at 2.5kW consistent with ~78uN at 50W (linear extrapolated 14 000 uN) ? How was this non-linear relationship (quadratic?) consistent with 54uN at 2.6W ?
What is the relation between this website ("nasaspaceflight.com") and NASA?
re: Star One, can you give me some examples?
Just a general comment even by the low standards of space & science reporting online it seems this particular article has suffered terribly in its wider reporting and analysis. I hope this hasn't caused any damage to the site's reputation.It is not so much the "low standards" but the uncontained urge for sensational reporting that usually does more damage then good.
What is the relation between this website ("nasaspaceflight.com") and NASA?
*snip*
I would like to remind the readers of SF of James Blish's Cities in Flight where a new space drive technology was quite simple and easy to build, but that verifying and understanding the physics of it became mankind's largest Giga project. However this works out in the end, I don't think any of us have any certainty of how that will be.
This may sound off the wall, but I have an idea for low cost experiments.You do know how a Crooke's device works don't you? Why would this elucidate anything to do with an EM drive?
Use a Crooke's Radiometer positioned adjacent to the device in the thrust direction. Distance to the device, pane charge, temperature, pressure, polarization of light allowed through the radiometer wall, and mill pane materials are controls to be varied. Very low mass panes should be constructed, perhaps by coating thin slivers of aerogel through vacuum metalization or other very thin layer material application processes for the emissive and aborbant sides of the pane.
Hypothesis: If any propellant is present, to include virtual particles temporarily conferred enough energy to bring them into a non-virtual state, then it should be possible to observe radiometer motion under the right combination of conditions and materials. The conditions and materials that achieve radiometer motion then provide insight into the nature of propellant.
I do not have the expertise to evaluate which materials and conditions should be tried, nor in which order.
Skepticism: The mass and friction of the radiometer system must be low enough that a fraction of the thrust generated by the device is sufficient to cause rotation. Experiments using materials with thermoelectric properties or other sophisticated materials may be required and may not be inexpensive.
edit: To clarify, the goal in the experiments would not necessarily be to demonstrate thermal phenomena, but to adapt the operating principle of the radiometer to different interactions with the environment until the correct interaction is discovered.
Just a general comment even by the low standards of space & science reporting online it seems this particular article has suffered terribly in its wider reporting and analysis. I hope this hasn't caused any damage to the site's reputation.It is not so much the "low standards" but the uncontained urge for sensational reporting that usually does more damage then good.
News reporting feels compelled to scale down information to its lowest understandable form, omitting all nuances and subtleties, hence stripping it from its real content and meaning. That's how the casual "mentioning of an observation of an anomaly reported by a NASA engineer" turns into "NASA discovers Startrek-type warpdrive" in no time...
Sadly, this does way more harm then good, because it tends to discredit any research attached to the subject.
In the same category, you have those who insist in turning the EMdrive into an over-unity device. It really doesn't help for the credibility of the EMdrive. Just stay away from any of those "contaminated" topics and focus on the device, on the theoretical and practical issues of the device...
The upcoming high power test, scheduled for July (according P.March), will be the make or brake event for me as I'm still on the balance. I remain skeptical, yet I do carry the hope it turns out to be a positive test, simply because it would mean a giant leap forward for human space exploration (stationary orbital spacestations, human interplanetary travel and even interstellar probe travel).. we'll see... give it another 2-3 months......
It is known to be impossible to violate energy conservation. Stating that it clearly does is a non-sequitur, as it implies complete knowledge of how Emdrive works (if it really does work). There is no accepted theory of operation for this thing.
For all we know, the universe might be a ginormous energy bank that you can borrow from and loan to; if you know how. You still have to balance the books at the end of the day. (pure conjecture)
I think we need to remember that until proven otherwise, this copper can is a black box. It is what it is, regardless of what some guy's theory says about it, which is likely wrong until proven correct.
This may sound off the wall, but I have an idea for low cost experiments.You do know how a Crooke's device works don't you? Why would this elucidate anything to do with an EM drive?
Use a Crooke's Radiometer positioned adjacent to the device in the thrust direction. Distance to the device, pane charge, temperature, pressure, polarization of light allowed through the radiometer wall, and mill pane materials are controls to be varied. Very low mass panes should be constructed, perhaps by coating thin slivers of aerogel through vacuum metalization or other very thin layer material application processes for the emissive and aborbant sides of the pane.
Hypothesis: If any propellant is present, to include virtual particles temporarily conferred enough energy to bring them into a non-virtual state, then it should be possible to observe radiometer motion under the right combination of conditions and materials. The conditions and materials that achieve radiometer motion then provide insight into the nature of propellant.
I do not have the expertise to evaluate which materials and conditions should be tried, nor in which order.
Skepticism: The mass and friction of the radiometer system must be low enough that a fraction of the thrust generated by the device is sufficient to cause rotation. Experiments using materials with thermoelectric properties or other sophisticated materials may be required and may not be inexpensive.
edit: To clarify, the goal in the experiments would not necessarily be to demonstrate thermal phenomena, but to adapt the operating principle of the radiometer to different interactions with the environment until the correct interaction is discovered.
Maybe I am missing something though...
I also do basic research at a NASA center and I agree that even the most meager resources are extremely hard to come by. I had to personally buy a lot of our equipment on E-bay with money I made working weekends at a second job. I strongly feel that all NASA centers should have a substantial budget for internally selected research projects. Our nation is falling behind in basic research. Unfortunately it requires at least modest taxpayer funding, and the NASA budget is flat, and every dollar is spoken for. NASA's viewpoint is they give you a little seed money and in less than a year you have to turn your idea into something venture capitalists will be fighting to finance. Not so easy when you are trying to understand basic science. I'd be happy to see this project better financed, and certainly to see a physicist added to the team, but there are many other deserving projects that are rejected or abandoned every year without notice but aren't talked about much because they are not as controversial....Yes, the more crude the instrumentation, the stronger the effect.
Those people do not know the struggling of a scientist to get just a little more funding in their lab where only 3 or 4 other colleagues work with them. Eagleworks has an old dying RF amp and they do not even have the bucks to replace it… Paul had to build the copper frustum at home, in his wife's dining room! Really people would be shocked if they knew that....
Even if it does work there's a vast gap between that & going on holiday to the moon on a regular four hour shuttle flight. It seems as if people expect to be flying around the Solar System by next year.
But a Crooke's device will rotate even in a uniform radiation field, even your fancy variant.
I am not clear how it could be used to test an EM drive, which doesn't emit any photons in a preferred direction.
"It doesn't emit EM radiation that has been detected so far. " The resonator in the NASA reports clearly emits EM radiation in the infrared band, and in an asymmetrical manner. IR radiation produces a recoil force and is now believed to be responsible for the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer probes.That would make it a photon rocket which the EM device clearly is not... Read the main thread for analysis of this.
Before we gets lots of questions about terrestrial applications.Quote18.
Q. How can the EmDrive produce enough thrust for terrestrial applications?
A. The second generation engines will be capable of producing a specific thrust of 30kN/kW. Thus for 1 kilowatt (typical of the power in a microwave oven) a static thrust of 3 tonnes can be obtained, which is enough to support a large car. This is clearly adequate for terrestrial transport applications.
The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting EmDrive with a Q of 5 x 109. This Q value is routinely achieved in superconducting cavities.
Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle.
http://emdrive.com/faq.html
Question from a layman... if the EM Drive works as described, would there be a force against whatever is behind it?
For example, a helicopter causes a lot of wind beneath the blades and displaces dust. Would an EM Drive do the same?
Before we gets lots of questions about terrestrial applications.Quote18.
Q. How can the EmDrive produce enough thrust for terrestrial applications?
A. The second generation engines will be capable of producing a specific thrust of 30kN/kW. Thus for 1 kilowatt (typical of the power in a microwave oven) a static thrust of 3 tonnes can be obtained, which is enough to support a large car. This is clearly adequate for terrestrial transport applications.
The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting EmDrive with a Q of 5 x 109. This Q value is routinely achieved in superconducting cavities.
Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle.
http://emdrive.com/faq.html
Maybe this is a stupid question, but if thrust drops off rapidly when used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector, how can it be useful for interstellar travel? You would be wanting to accelerate the vehicle in the same direction of the thrust for a long period of time (toward the target star system). I can only imagine that it would be useful for lifting payloads to a certain altitude, or repositioning from LEO to GEO. Watching the Shawyer Youtube videos, he even says that a propellant is needed to get up to orbital velocity once the altitude is achieved.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but if thrust drops off rapidly when used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector, how can it be useful for interstellar travel? You would be wanting to accelerate the vehicle in the same direction of the thrust for a long period of time (toward the target star system). I can only imagine that it would be useful for lifting payloads to a certain altitude, or repositioning from LEO to GEO. Watching the Shawyer Youtube videos, he even says that a propellant is needed to get up to orbital velocity once the altitude is achieved.Obeying conservation of energy could still give you a 'velocity proportional to kinetic energy squared' relationship, which is what they are trying to claim here. This is still vastly better than the exponential relationship between propellent and velocity that you get from the rocket equation.
Question from a layman... if the EM Drive works as described, would there be a force against whatever is behind it?
For example, a helicopter causes a lot of wind beneath the blades and displaces dust. Would an EM Drive do the same?
That's kind of like asking if a Unicorn existed what it's horn would be made of.
There are different proposed theories for what might cause an EM Drive to work, if it did work. Some people think all the proposed theories are likely wrong, even if it does work.
This is like people speculating about what the canals of Mars were made from, back during the craze when so many people thought they saw canals at the fringe of detectability through their telescopes.
So this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:
Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power.
Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.
If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.
So this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:
Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power.
Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.
If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.
I'm an Engineer and I've studied the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. What it would say is the following;
As a waveguide, the group velocity is something like;
v_g = c x sqrt(1 - (c/2d*f)^2)
Where, c is the usual speed of light, d is the diameter of the cylinder, and f is the frequency of the microwave excitation.
c/2d = fc, is the Low cut-off frequency of the waveguide.
The refractive index depends on the Low cut-off frequency as a function of the diameter,
K = 1/sqrt( 1 - (fc/f)^2)
For f >> fc, K~1. But for frequencies in the band fc1 < f <~ fc2, K is much larger.
There is a strong gradient in the refractive index from one end of the cone to the other. This "mimics" gravity, as interpreted in the PV Model.
Therefore, we can assume there is a "gravitational" gradient in the microwave band refractive index, along the length of the cone. At one end they have diameter d1, and at the other end they have diameter d2, and d1 > d2. Below fc1, the mode frequencies exponentially decay to zero. Just like the Casimir effect.
Here is how it conserves momentum;
In the PV Model, momentum transforms as,
p => p*sqrt(K)
In a resonant cavity, p is the SUM of all the photons “in phase", minus the losses of the cavity.
However, as photons “fall” from the large end toward the small end, they gain momentum, which is passed on to the cone when they are reflected from the small end. The photon then loses momentum as it travels back to the large end, where it imparts “less” momentum to the large end. The result is a NET propulsion in the direction of the small end. In other words, the photons are blue-shifted falling forward, and red-shifted going backwards, due to the gradient in the refractive index. It is literally gravitational red & blue shift, according to the PV Model.
The interesting thing is, the refractive index in the waveguide does not depend on the power of the microwaves, or the energy density. It is simply a matter of the geometry and frequency band relative to the cut-off. What matters more, is having enough resonant momentum stored to make the effect noticeable.
That’s IMHO as an engineer of course. Any comments?
See PV Model: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_%28Spacetime_Metric%29_Engineering
Todd D.
So this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:
Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power.
Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.
If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.
I'm an Engineer and I've studied the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. What it would say is the following;
As a waveguide, the group velocity is something like;
v_g = c x sqrt(1 - (c/2d*f)^2)
Where, c is the usual speed of light, d is the diameter of the cylinder, and f is the frequency of the microwave excitation.
c/2d = fc, is the Low cut-off frequency of the waveguide.
The refractive index depends on the Low cut-off frequency as a function of the diameter,
K = 1/sqrt( 1 - (fc/f)^2)
For f >> fc, K~1. But for frequencies in the band fc1 < f <~ fc2, K is much larger.
There is a strong gradient in the refractive index from one end of the cone to the other. This "mimics" gravity, as interpreted in the PV Model.
Therefore, we can assume there is a "gravitational" gradient in the microwave band refractive index, along the length of the cone. At one end they have diameter d1, and at the other end they have diameter d2, and d1 > d2. Below fc1, the mode frequencies exponentially decay to zero. Just like the Casimir effect.
Here is how it conserves momentum;
In the PV Model, momentum transforms as,
p => p*sqrt(K)
In a resonant cavity, p is the SUM of all the photons “in phase", minus the losses of the cavity.
However, as photons “fall” from the large end toward the small end, they gain momentum, which is passed on to the cone when they are reflected from the small end. The photon then loses momentum as it travels back to the large end, where it imparts “less” momentum to the large end. The result is a NET propulsion in the direction of the small end. In other words, the photons are blue-shifted falling forward, and red-shifted going backwards, due to the gradient in the refractive index. It is literally gravitational red & blue shift, according to the PV Model.
The interesting thing is, the refractive index in the waveguide does not depend on the power of the microwaves, or the energy density. It is simply a matter of the geometry and frequency band relative to the cut-off. What matters more, is having enough resonant momentum stored to make the effect noticeable.
That’s IMHO as an engineer of course. Any comments?
See PV Model: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space
_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_%28Spacetime_Metric%29_Engineering
Todd D.
In what sense does this conserve momentum?
Treat the device as a black box. I don't know or care what is happening inside it. At time T0 it has no momentum. Turn it on and let it accelerate so that it has some velocity and so momentum at time T1. Unless you can point to something with the same amount of momentum going in the other direction then by definition you have violated conservation of momentum. What happens inside the box simple does not affect that fact.
<snip>
In what sense does this conserve momentum?
Treat the device as a black box. I don't know or care what is happening inside it. At time T0 it has no momentum. Turn it on and let it accelerate so that it has some velocity and so momentum at time T1. Unless you can point to something with the same amount of momentum going in the other direction then by definition you have violated conservation of momentum. What happens inside the box simple does not affect that fact.
When you drop an object and it falls to the ground. Relative to you, it gained momentum from the gravitational field. It did not expel any propellant to fall. The gravitational field is simply a gradient in the refractive index of the vacuum surrounding the Earth. If you can explain conservation of momentum for falling objects in a gravitational field, then you have your answer.
(Edit) In other words, if the cavity were not tapered, then you have equal momentum inside traveling left and right. At T0, it will go nowhere. However, because it is tapered such that you have a gradient in the refractive index, then "just like gravity", photons will be blue shifted moving into higher K, and red shifted moving into lower K, because momentum,
p => p*sqrt(K)
THIS is a violation of conservation of momentum. Therefore, the cavity must move to conserve momentum, as it tries to establish equilibrium with it's own internal stress.
Regards,
Todd D.
Gravity certainly conserves momentum.
When I drop a brick it falls to the earth. But the earth also falls toward it. True, by only a tiny amount but multiplied by the huge mass of the earth and it gains as much momentum as the brick and in the opposite direction.
Did you really think that orbital mechanics did not conserve momentum?
<snip>
In what sense does this conserve momentum?
Treat the device as a black box. I don't know or care what is happening inside it. At time T0 it has no momentum. Turn it on and let it accelerate so that it has some velocity and so momentum at time T1. Unless you can point to something with the same amount of momentum going in the other direction then by definition you have violated conservation of momentum. What happens inside the box simple does not affect that fact.
When you drop an object and it falls to the ground. Relative to you, it gained momentum from the gravitational field. It did not expel any propellant to fall. The gravitational field is simply a gradient in the refractive index of the vacuum surrounding the Earth. If you can explain conservation of momentum for falling objects in a gravitational field, then you have your answer.
(Edit) In other words, if the cavity were not tapered, then you have equal momentum inside traveling left and right. At T0, it will go nowhere. However, because it is tapered such that you have a gradient in the refractive index, then "just like gravity", photons will be blue shifted moving into higher K, and red shifted moving into lower K, because momentum,
p => p*sqrt(K)
THIS is a violation of conservation of momentum. Therefore, the cavity must move to conserve momentum, as it tries to establish equilibrium with it's own internal stress.
Regards,
Todd D.
Gravity certainly conserves momentum.
When I drop a brick it falls to the earth. But the earth also falls toward it. True, by only a tiny amount but multiplied by the huge mass of the earth and it gains as much momentum as the brick and in the opposite direction.
Did you really think that orbital mechanics did not conserve momentum?
You are referring to Newtonian gravity. I'm referring to a form of GR, where it is the curvature of the manifold intersecting the object that causes it to fall, not some "action at a distance" or exchange of gravitons. In this case, that curvature is simply the gradient in the refractive index. Inside the cone, photons are moving in a variable refractive index. This causes red & blue shift and an imbalance in momentum. This is exactly what the Earth does to the vacuum surrounding it, it filters field modes and that causes the refractive index to increase. The cone is like the falling object, falling relative to the imbalance in the internal momentum which is the curved manifold.
I agree, this is not standard GR, it is certainly not accepted physics. It is based on my own understanding of the Polarizable Vacuum Model of GR which I referenced earlier, as well as the Quantum Vacuum by Milonni, and my own work. Which predicted some 10 years ago, that it is easier to mimic gravity in over a limited bandwidth, than it is to create artificial gravity that affects all frequencies of light and matter.
Todd D.
EM drive is a very clear case of pseudoscience. Not because it contradicts physics, as we know it. Questioning current science is a normal scientific endeavour - provided that the questioner knows what he/she is doing. It is pseudoscience because of the double-talk about acceptance, or non-acceptance, of the "usual" physics.Use of the QV as a momentum dump is a idea from Dr. White of Eagleworks (a part of NASA).
Chris' article explains that the EM drive supposedly exchanges momentum with the so called "Quantum Vacuum". The well-established physics knows absolutely nothing about this possibility. That is, they propose existence of a completely new physical phenomenon, which may, or may not exist. (Probably not.) However, look this site:
http://emdrive.com/principle.html
Here they explain EM drive without the slightest mention of the revolution they propose in physics. The attached theory paper makes specific calculations about the operation of the drive, apparently on the basis of the usual physics. Again, there is no mention of a momentum exchange with the "Quantum Vacuum". Chris' paper mentions also a "new computational code that models the EM Drive’s thrust". Again, this implies that their thinking is based on a known theory, instead of some speculation about a currently unknown phenomenon.
So, do they revolutionize physics? Or, they just apply the existing ones? In the first case, how can they make calculations without developing the quantum theory of their alleged momentum exchange to "Quantum Vacuum"? There is no such thing in their their theory paper. In the second case, momentum conservation prohibits EM drive to work and they calculations must be wrong. Momentum conservation is not something optional: Within the framework of the known quantum physics, momentum conservation is a direct consequence of translation invariance. You cannot tamper it without questioning the very basics of quantum physics.
It is pseudoscience.
EM drive is a very clear case of pseudoscience. Not because it contradicts physics, as we know it. Questioning current science is a normal scientific endeavour - provided that the questioner knows what he/she is doing. It is pseudoscience because of the double-talk about acceptance, or non-acceptance, of the "usual" physics.
Chris' article explains that the EM drive supposedly exchanges momentum with the so called "Quantum Vacuum". The well-established physics knows absolutely nothing about this possibility. That is, they propose existence of a completely new physical phenomenon, which may, or may not exist. (Probably not.) However, look this site:
http://emdrive.com/principle.html
Here they explain EM drive without the slightest mention of the revolution they propose in physics. The attached theory paper makes specific calculations about the operation of the drive, apparently on the basis of the usual physics. Again, there is no mention of a momentum exchange with the "Quantum Vacuum". Chris' paper mentions also a "new computational code that models the EM Drive’s thrust". Again, this implies that their thinking is based on a known theory, instead of some speculation about a currently unknown phenomenon.
So, do they revolutionize physics? Or, they just apply the existing ones? In the first case, how can they make calculations without developing the quantum theory of their alleged momentum exchange to "Quantum Vacuum"? There is no such thing in their their theory paper. In the second case, momentum conservation prohibits EM drive to work and they calculations must be wrong. Momentum conservation is not something optional: Within the framework of the known quantum physics, momentum conservation is a direct consequence of translation invariance. You cannot tamper it without questioning the very basics of quantum physics.
It is pseudoscience.
... Something is wrong here.Notwithstanding the known-objections to the proposed theoretical explanations (already pointed out in the article), the challenge has been to show whether the measurements are an experimental artifact or whether there is anything useful here for space propulsion.
The picture of "Warpstar 1"Page 21 of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130011213.pdf
Thanks for the answer Chris. My applogies, I should have been more specific, I meant the one that's labled 'Warpstar 1' and looks (probably more accurately) like the main cabin of the Fireball XL5. Sorry for the confusion.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=782189;image)
was posted by Paul March (an engineer at NASA Eagleworks) in the EM Drive thread
see: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1331771#msg1331771
In his own words:QuoteI have no doubt now that this quantum vacuum derived propulsion system will be able to meet and ultimately surpass my conjectured WarpStar-I concept vehicle performance that I wrote about in my STAIF-2007 paper based on Woodward's Mach Lorentz Thrusters (MLT) of the day. A vehicle that could go from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the Moon with a crew of two and six passengers with luggage in under four hours and then return to the surface of the Earth in another 4 hours with the same payload using just one load of H2/O2 fuel cell derived electrical power assuming 500-to-1,000 N/kWe efficiency MLTs or Q-Thrusters. And yes, I know that's a mighty big leap from the 1.0uN/Watt we currently have demonstrated at the Eagleworks Lab, but if Dr. White's QVF/MHD conjecture is anywhere close to reality, it will be doable, at least in the long term.
Best, Paul M.
Note that Paul's statement
" I know that's a mighty big leap from the 1.0uN/Watt we currently have demonstrated at the Eagleworks Lab"
refers to the measured force in a vacuum per input electric power at NASA Eagleworks. The highest measured force per input power was 1 Newton/kiloWatt for the experiments by Prof. Yang in China with a non-superconducting truncated cone EM Drive and by Cannae LLC in the USA for their superconducting EM Drive shaped like a pillbox.
EM drive is a very clear case of pseudoscience. ..................................
.................
It is pseudoscience.
The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.
Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.
This thrust should not exist according to physics, as we know it.
An unquestionable experimental result would mean a scientific revolution.
The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.
Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.
A sail in what medium?
The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.
Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.
A sail in what medium?
Nothing. Momentum from nothing.
There is actually real science here. You have to let go of your preconceptions first, and only stick to the facts.
https://www.google.com/search?q=momentum+from+nothing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
And a post I put together about the history of this:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1358659#msg1358659
I need you to acknowledge what you know to be fact, and embrace what you don't know. Let any emotional attachment to your worldview go, and you'll find the truth.
All of these experimentalist are telling us they're seeing an anomaly. They can't all be idiots. Nature is telling us something. Listen.
http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.it/2012/05/what-does-it-mean-to-be-experimentalist.html
Nature is going to come out the way she is
The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.
Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.
A sail in what medium?
Nothing. Momentum from nothing.
There is actually real science here. You have to let go of your preconceptions first, and only stick to the facts.
https://www.google.com/search?q=momentum+from+nothing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
And a post I put together about the history of this:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1358659#msg1358659
I need you to acknowledge what you know to be fact, and embrace what you don't know. Let any emotional attachment to your worldview go, and you'll find the truth.
All of these experimentalist are telling us they're seeing an anomaly. They can't all be idiots. Nature is telling us something. Listen.
http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.it/2012/05/what-does-it-mean-to-be-experimentalist.html
The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.
Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.
A sail in what medium?
The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.
Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.
A sail in what medium?
Nothing. Momentum from nothing.
There is actually real science here. You have to let go of your preconceptions first, and only stick to the facts.
https://www.google.com/search?q=momentum+from+nothing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
And a post I put together about the history of this:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1358659#msg1358659
I need you to acknowledge what you know to be fact, and embrace what you don't know. Let any emotional attachment to your worldview go, and you'll find the truth.
All of these experimentalist are telling us they're seeing an anomaly. They can't all be idiots. Nature is telling us something. Listen.
http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.it/2012/05/what-does-it-mean-to-be-experimentalist.html
Well as long as you understand that you are getting momentum from nothing then fine. I have no problem with oddball theories as long as you follow the logic all the way through. I'm not getting how this can be called a sail but whatever. You are also in stark disagreement with Shawyer here. That isn't a bad thing as I actually agree with you. The problem is Shawyer is wrong in a very simple and obvious way. That utterly destroys any confidence that he is competent to be involved at all. There are still the other tests but they have their own problems with frame dependence and such that they need to address.
And as for my emotional attachment to my "world view" I'm sorry but that's crap. I only note that COM, COE and frame independence are very useful principles and violating them is extremely problematical. If you can do it then my hats off to you but until then my Bayesian priors are elsewhere to say the least.
This idea of "emotional attachment" often comes up in fringe subjects. From bigfoot and UFOs to cold fusion the claim is made that people are only protecting the status quo because they have so much invested in it. Emotionally, professionally, financially they are committed. This argument rarely works out. Proponents of cold fusion for example charged that there was a "hot fusion (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)." actively opposing cold fusion research. How did that work out for them? I will leave bigfoot and UFOs for you to ponder.
I could offer the counter proposition that people are emotionally drawn to these kinds of hopeful theories. Christians who are sure the second coming is just around the corner. Spiritualists who believe in ghosts and a rich rewarding afterlife. UFO buffs with "I want to believe" t-shirts. And yes space buffs who would really like to have a reactionless drive. Me? I have a lotto ticket that I'm sure has a good chance this week. I think history is much kinder to this proposition than it is to yours.
So this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:
Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power.
Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.
If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.
I'm an Engineer and I've studied the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. What it would say is the following;
As a waveguide, the group velocity is something like;
v_g = c x sqrt(1 - (c/2d*f)^2)
Where, c is the usual speed of light, d is the diameter of the cylinder, and f is the frequency of the microwave excitation.
c/2d = fc, is the Low cut-off frequency of the waveguide.
The refractive index depends on the Low cut-off frequency as a function of the diameter,
K = 1/sqrt( 1 - (fc/f)^2)
For f >> fc, K~1. But for frequencies in the band fc1 < f <~ fc2, K is much larger.
There is a strong gradient in the refractive index from one end of the cone to the other. This "mimics" gravity, as interpreted in the PV Model.
Therefore, we can assume there is a "gravitational" gradient in the microwave band refractive index, along the length of the cone. At one end they have diameter d1, and at the other end they have diameter d2, and d1 > d2. Below fc1, the mode frequencies exponentially decay to zero. Just like the Casimir effect.
Here is how it conserves momentum;
In the PV Model, momentum transforms as,
p => p*sqrt(K)
In a resonant cavity, p is the SUM of all the photons “in phase", minus the losses of the cavity.
However, as photons “fall” from the large end toward the small end, they gain momentum, which is passed on to the cone when they are reflected from the small end. The photon then loses momentum as it travels back to the large end, where it imparts “less” momentum to the large end. The result is a NET propulsion in the direction of the small end. In other words, the photons are blue-shifted falling forward, and red-shifted going backwards, due to the gradient in the refractive index. It is literally gravitational red & blue shift, according to the PV Model.
The interesting thing is, the refractive index in the waveguide does not depend on the power of the microwaves, or the energy density. It is simply a matter of the geometry and frequency band relative to the cut-off. What matters more, is having enough resonant momentum stored to make the effect noticeable.
That’s IMHO as an engineer of course. Any comments?
See PV Model: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space
_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_%28Spacetime_Metric%29_Engineering
Todd D.
In what sense does this conserve momentum?
Treat the device as a black box. I don't know or care what is happening inside it. At time T0 it has no momentum. Turn it on and let it accelerate so that it has some velocity and so momentum at time T1. Unless you can point to something with the same amount of momentum going in the other direction then by definition you have violated conservation of momentum. What happens inside the box simple does not affect that fact.
When you drop an object and it falls to the ground. Relative to you, it gained momentum from the gravitational field. It did not expel any propellant to fall. The gravitational field is simply a gradient in the refractive index of the vacuum surrounding the Earth. If you can explain conservation of momentum for falling objects in a gravitational field, then you have your answer.
(Edit) In other words, if the cavity were not tapered, then you have equal momentum inside traveling left and right. At T0, it will go nowhere. However, because it is tapered such that you have a gradient in the refractive index, then "just like gravity", photons will be blue shifted moving into higher K, and red shifted moving into lower K, because momentum,
p => p*sqrt(K)
THIS is a violation of conservation of momentum. Therefore, the cavity must move to conserve momentum, as it tries to establish equilibrium with it's own internal stress.
Regards,
Todd D.
The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.
Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.
A sail in what medium?
Nothing. Momentum from nothing.
There is actually real science here. You have to let go of your preconceptions first, and only stick to the facts.
https://www.google.com/search?q=momentum+from+nothing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
And a post I put together about the history of this:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1358659#msg1358659
I need you to acknowledge what you know to be fact, and embrace what you don't know. Let any emotional attachment to your worldview go, and you'll find the truth.
All of these experimentalist are telling us they're seeing an anomaly. They can't all be idiots. Nature is telling us something. Listen.
http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.it/2012/05/what-does-it-mean-to-be-experimentalist.html
Well as long as you understand that you are getting momentum from nothing then fine. I have no problem with oddball theories as long as you follow the logic all the way through. I'm not getting how this can be called a sail but whatever. You are also in stark disagreement with Shawyer here. That isn't a bad thing as I actually agree with you. The problem is Shawyer is wrong in a very simple and obvious way. That utterly destroys any confidence that he is competent to be involved at all. There are still the other tests but they have their own problems with frame dependence and such that they need to address.
And as for my emotional attachment to my "world view" I'm sorry but that's crap. I only note that COM, COE and frame independence are very useful principles and violating them is extremely problematical. If you can do it then my hats off to you but until then my Bayesian priors are elsewhere to say the least.
This idea of "emotional attachment" often comes up in fringe subjects. From bigfoot and UFOs to cold fusion the claim is made that people are only protecting the status quo because they have so much invested in it. Emotionally, professionally, financially they are committed. This argument rarely works out. Proponents of cold fusion for example charged that there was a "hot fusion (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)." actively opposing cold fusion research. How did that work out for them? I will leave bigfoot and UFOs for you to ponder.
I could offer the counter proposition that people are emotionally drawn to these kinds of hopeful theories. Christians who are sure the second coming is just around the corner. Spiritualists who believe in ghosts and a rich rewarding afterlife. UFO buffs with "I want to believe" t-shirts. And yes space buffs who would really like to have a reactionless drive. Me? I have a lotto ticket that I'm sure has a good chance this week. I think history is much kinder to this proposition than it is to yours.
From my part, I will be very happy when we reach a closure about this. Whatever that is.
If after doing the replications, the experiments say "It doesn't work, it's a fluke/a mistake/a fraud", I'll be very relieved that science have been made and another dead end has been rooted out.
The same in case of having positive results. The truth, whatever that is, has to come out.
What I would be very disappointed to see, is for the experiments to be never performed or concluded, because pre-conceptions prevent us from properly validating things out.
Happily, this proposals seems to have already entered into popular consciousness, and people, those most unruly and disobedient things, will check things out now. For good or bad for the proposal and/or its critics, they will see it by themselves.
It isn't like this is the LHC or ITER either. You don't need billions of dollars for testing this out. It is really cheap, as potential breakthrough-testing setups go.
The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.
Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.
A sail in what medium?
Nothing. Momentum from nothing.
There is actually real science here. You have to let go of your preconceptions first, and only stick to the facts.
https://www.google.com/search?q=momentum+from+nothing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
And a post I put together about the history of this:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1358659#msg1358659
I need you to acknowledge what you know to be fact, and embrace what you don't know. Let any emotional attachment to your worldview go, and you'll find the truth.
All of these experimentalist are telling us they're seeing an anomaly. They can't all be idiots. Nature is telling us something. Listen.
http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.it/2012/05/what-does-it-mean-to-be-experimentalist.html
. On physical grounds one may ask: where does the net electromagnetic
momentum come from? Obviously, it cannot come from ’nothing’. We are
actually comparing two different physical situations here. The first is when
the conducting plates are infinitely far separated. This is our initial ’vacuum’
state. The final state is when the plates have been brought close to each other,
infinitely slowly.
Let the experiments do the talking, become your own worst critic, and find the truth regardless if that inconveniences some or most people's preconceptions. Including yours.
So this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:
Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power.
Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.
If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.
I'm an Engineer and I've studied the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. What it would say is the following;
As a waveguide, the group velocity is something like;
v_g = c x sqrt(1 - (c/2d*f)^2)
Where, c is the usual speed of light, d is the diameter of the cylinder, and f is the frequency of the microwave excitation.
c/2d = fc, is the Low cut-off frequency of the waveguide.
The refractive index depends on the Low cut-off frequency as a function of the diameter,
K = 1/sqrt( 1 - (fc/f)^2)
For f >> fc, K~1. But for frequencies in the band fc1 < f <~ fc2, K is much larger.
There is a strong gradient in the refractive index from one end of the cone to the other. This "mimics" gravity, as interpreted in the PV Model.
Therefore, we can assume there is a "gravitational" gradient in the microwave band refractive index, along the length of the cone. At one end they have diameter d1, and at the other end they have diameter d2, and d1 > d2. Below fc1, the mode frequencies exponentially decay to zero. Just like the Casimir effect.
Here is how it conserves momentum;
In the PV Model, momentum transforms as,
p => p*sqrt(K)
In a resonant cavity, p is the SUM of all the photons “in phase", minus the losses of the cavity.
However, as photons “fall” from the large end toward the small end, they gain momentum, which is passed on to the cone when they are reflected from the small end. The photon then loses momentum as it travels back to the large end, where it imparts “less” momentum to the large end. The result is a NET propulsion in the direction of the small end. In other words, the photons are blue-shifted falling forward, and red-shifted going backwards, due to the gradient in the refractive index. It is literally gravitational red & blue shift, according to the PV Model.
The interesting thing is, the refractive index in the waveguide does not depend on the power of the microwaves, or the energy density. It is simply a matter of the geometry and frequency band relative to the cut-off. What matters more, is having enough resonant momentum stored to make the effect noticeable.
That’s IMHO as an engineer of course. Any comments?
See PV Model: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space
_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_%28Spacetime_Metric%29_Engineering
Todd D.
In what sense does this conserve momentum?
Treat the device as a black box. I don't know or care what is happening inside it. At time T0 it has no momentum. Turn it on and let it accelerate so that it has some velocity and so momentum at time T1. Unless you can point to something with the same amount of momentum going in the other direction then by definition you have violated conservation of momentum. What happens inside the box simple does not affect that fact.
When you drop an object and it falls to the ground. Relative to you, it gained momentum from the gravitational field. It did not expel any propellant to fall. The gravitational field is simply a gradient in the refractive index of the vacuum surrounding the Earth. If you can explain conservation of momentum for falling objects in a gravitational field, then you have your answer.
(Edit) In other words, if the cavity were not tapered, then you have equal momentum inside traveling left and right. At T0, it will go nowhere. However, because it is tapered such that you have a gradient in the refractive index, then "just like gravity", photons will be blue shifted moving into higher K, and red shifted moving into lower K, because momentum,
p => p*sqrt(K)
THIS is a violation of conservation of momentum. Therefore, the cavity must move to conserve momentum, as it tries to establish equilibrium with it's own internal stress.
Regards,
Todd D.
What would be the equation for the acceleration or the force, given the geometrical dimensions of the truncated cone, the Q, the input power, the frequency, and any other variables? Do you have a closed-form solution that could be compared to actual experimental results and also compared with the equation of Shawyer, and also to the equation of McCulloch ?
Regards,
JR
2) here are some tests by Eagleworks and the thrust per watt.
A) 1932.6 MHz 5.4 uN/W
B) 1936.7 MHz 3.0 uN/W
C) 1880.4 MHz 21.3 uN/W
D) 2168 MHz no thrust detected, cause thought to be the lack of the dielectric resonator.
The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.
Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.
So this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:
Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power.
Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.
If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.
I'm an Engineer and I've studied the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. What it would say is the following;
As a waveguide, the group velocity is something like;
v_g = c x sqrt(1 - (c/2d*f)^2)
Where, c is the usual speed of light, d is the diameter of the cylinder, and f is the frequency of the microwave excitation.
c/2d = fc, is the Low cut-off frequency of the waveguide.
The refractive index depends on the Low cut-off frequency as a function of the diameter,
K = 1/sqrt( 1 - (fc/f)^2)
For f >> fc, K~1. But for frequencies in the band fc1 < f <~ fc2, K is much larger.
There is a strong gradient in the refractive index from one end of the cone to the other. This "mimics" gravity, as interpreted in the PV Model.
Therefore, we can assume there is a "gravitational" gradient in the microwave band refractive index, along the length of the cone. At one end they have diameter d1, and at the other end they have diameter d2, and d1 > d2. Below fc1, the mode frequencies exponentially decay to zero. Just like the Casimir effect.
Here is how it conserves momentum;
In the PV Model, momentum transforms as,
p => p*sqrt(K)
In a resonant cavity, p is the SUM of all the photons “in phase", minus the losses of the cavity.
However, as photons “fall” from the large end toward the small end, they gain momentum, which is passed on to the cone when they are reflected from the small end. The photon then loses momentum as it travels back to the large end, where it imparts “less” momentum to the large end. The result is a NET propulsion in the direction of the small end. In other words, the photons are blue-shifted falling forward, and red-shifted going backwards, due to the gradient in the refractive index. It is literally gravitational red & blue shift, according to the PV Model.
The interesting thing is, the refractive index in the waveguide does not depend on the power of the microwaves, or the energy density. It is simply a matter of the geometry and frequency band relative to the cut-off. What matters more, is having enough resonant momentum stored to make the effect noticeable.
That’s IMHO as an engineer of course. Any comments?
See PV Model: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space
_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_%28Spacetime_Metric%29_Engineering
Todd D.
In what sense does this conserve momentum?
Treat the device as a black box. I don't know or care what is happening inside it. At time T0 it has no momentum. Turn it on and let it accelerate so that it has some velocity and so momentum at time T1. Unless you can point to something with the same amount of momentum going in the other direction then by definition you have violated conservation of momentum. What happens inside the box simple does not affect that fact.
When you drop an object and it falls to the ground. Relative to you, it gained momentum from the gravitational field. It did not expel any propellant to fall. The gravitational field is simply a gradient in the refractive index of the vacuum surrounding the Earth. If you can explain conservation of momentum for falling objects in a gravitational field, then you have your answer.
(Edit) In other words, if the cavity were not tapered, then you have equal momentum inside traveling left and right. At T0, it will go nowhere. However, because it is tapered such that you have a gradient in the refractive index, then "just like gravity", photons will be blue shifted moving into higher K, and red shifted moving into lower K, because momentum,
p => p*sqrt(K)
THIS is a violation of conservation of momentum. Therefore, the cavity must move to conserve momentum, as it tries to establish equilibrium with it's own internal stress.
Regards,
Todd D.
What would be the equation for the acceleration or the force, given the geometrical dimensions of the truncated cone, the Q, the input power, the frequency, and any other variables? Do you have a closed-form solution that could be compared to actual experimental results and also compared with the equation of Shawyer, and also to the equation of McCulloch ?
Regards,
JR
Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;
p = h/lambda
wavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum.
That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.
I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.
Todd D.
What would be the equation for the acceleration or the force, given the geometrical dimensions of the truncated cone, the Q, the input power, the frequency, and any other variables? Do you have a closed-form solution that could be compared to actual experimental results and also compared with the equation of Shawyer, and also to the equation of McCulloch ?
Regards,
JR
Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;
p = h/lambda
wavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum.
That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.
I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.
Todd D.
<snip>
Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;
p = h/lambda
wavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum.
That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.
I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.
Todd D.
Well I certainly agree that You will never get Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. That's what makes it a violation of COM. Hard and simple. You are free to develop a theory that does not conserve momentum but you should call it what it is.
And I don't care what frames are inside the thing. Frames of reference are mathematical fictions. They don't exist. I should not need two frames of reference but only one and it is chosen only for convenience not truth. Any frame should do. Again you are free to develop a theory with a preferred frame that is real but you need to know that that is what you are doing and tell people that that is what you are doing.
Big spike at 1.89 GHz. Is this ideal cavity resonance? Believe I read a circulator is used to deal with isolating standing waves from the signal source. Any standing wave/return loss measurements been made on the frustrum?There is a dual directional coupler to take the measurements, it feeds a 2' cable to the frustum. I don't think he could hang the ddc directly to the frustum without compromising the thrust measurement.
<snip>
Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;
p = h/lambda
wavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum.
That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.
I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.
Todd D.
Well I certainly agree that You will never get Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. That's what makes it a violation of COM. Hard and simple. You are free to develop a theory that does not conserve momentum but you should call it what it is.
And I don't care what frames are inside the thing. Frames of reference are mathematical fictions. They don't exist. I should not need two frames of reference but only one and it is chosen only for convenience not truth. Any frame should do. Again you are free to develop a theory with a preferred frame that is real but you need to know that that is what you are doing and tell people that that is what you are doing.
If you insist on using Newtonian mechanics, then you will never understand COM in terms of General Relativity. I have not formulated a "new" theory, I'm using GR correctly. If you learn how to do COM in GR, then you would have no trouble seeing that this does indeed conserve momentum. The fact that you "don't care what is inside" is what is preventing you from learning. The "gravitational" field effect of a variable speed of light, acting on the photons inside the Frustum is what makes it move. If you neglect that it has a gravitational field inside it, then you neglect the very essence of how it works and why momentum is conserved. If you want to neglect GR and "believe" COM is violated, then that is your prerogative.
As for why it was not discovered already, I'm kicking myself in the a** for not thinking of this setup 10 years ago when I realized we can mimic gravity over a limited bandwidth with much less energy than over the full bandwidth of all light and matter waves. When my colleague and I wrote our EGM III paper, we had a resonant cavity like this in mind, but we didn't consider the taper.
Best Regards,
Todd D.
<snip>
Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;
p = h/lambda
wavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum.
That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.
I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.
Todd D.
Well I certainly agree that You will never get Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. That's what makes it a violation of COM. Hard and simple. You are free to develop a theory that does not conserve momentum but you should call it what it is.
And I don't care what frames are inside the thing. Frames of reference are mathematical fictions. They don't exist. I should not need two frames of reference but only one and it is chosen only for convenience not truth. Any frame should do. Again you are free to develop a theory with a preferred frame that is real but you need to know that that is what you are doing and tell people that that is what you are doing.
If you insist on using Newtonian mechanics, then you will never understand COM in terms of General Relativity. I have not formulated a "new" theory, I'm using GR correctly. If you learn how to do COM in GR, then you would have no trouble seeing that this does indeed conserve momentum. The fact that you "don't care what is inside" is what is preventing you from learning. The "gravitational" field effect of a variable speed of light, acting on the photons inside the Frustum is what makes it move. If you neglect that it has a gravitational field inside it, then you neglect the very essence of how it works and why momentum is conserved. If you want to neglect GR and "believe" COM is violated, then that is your prerogative.
As for why it was not discovered already, I'm kicking myself in the a** for not thinking of this setup 10 years ago when I realized we can mimic gravity over a limited bandwidth with much less energy than over the full bandwidth of all light and matter waves. When my colleague and I wrote our EGM III paper, we had a resonant cavity like this in mind, but we didn't consider the taper.
Best Regards,
Todd D.
I don't believe GR is even relevant but even if it were it makes no difference.
Take your engine. No power attached, no resonance it is just cold and dead. Calculate the momentum of the entire system. By whatever definition of momentum you are using.
Turn on the power. Now you can have imbalanced momentum, resonance whatever you want. I don't care. Let it accelerate up to some velocity.
Turn it back off. Let it cool to a cold dead object again. Melt it down to a simple copper sphere if you want. Now calculate the momentum of the system. Again by whatever definition of momentum you are using.
If the second calculation does not equal the first then you have violated COM. GR never enters into it because any definition of momentum must reduce to Newtonian momentum on the limit of ordinary objects moving at small speeds in flat space. That value is not conserved and therefore your GR did not conserve momentum. The whole point of momentum is as a conserved value that prevents this kind of thing. Take that away and the whole concept of momentum isn't very useful.
There is no reasonable definition of momentum that can call this a conservation of momentum. There is no reason to even want to. Bite the bullet and call it what it is.
If you want a mechanism for GR to violate COM that's fine with me. But you do have to call it what it is. And you will have problems showing a detectable GR effect on these energy scales.
<snip>
Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;
p = h/lambda
wavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum.
That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.
I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.
Todd D.
Well I certainly agree that You will never get Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. That's what makes it a violation of COM. Hard and simple. You are free to develop a theory that does not conserve momentum but you should call it what it is.
And I don't care what frames are inside the thing. Frames of reference are mathematical fictions. They don't exist. I should not need two frames of reference but only one and it is chosen only for convenience not truth. Any frame should do. Again you are free to develop a theory with a preferred frame that is real but you need to know that that is what you are doing and tell people that that is what you are doing.
If you insist on using Newtonian mechanics, then you will never understand COM in terms of General Relativity. I have not formulated a "new" theory, I'm using GR correctly. If you learn how to do COM in GR, then you would have no trouble seeing that this does indeed conserve momentum. The fact that you "don't care what is inside" is what is preventing you from learning. The "gravitational" field effect of a variable speed of light, acting on the photons inside the Frustum is what makes it move. If you neglect that it has a gravitational field inside it, then you neglect the very essence of how it works and why momentum is conserved. If you want to neglect GR and "believe" COM is violated, then that is your prerogative.
As for why it was not discovered already, I'm kicking myself in the a** for not thinking of this setup 10 years ago when I realized we can mimic gravity over a limited bandwidth with much less energy than over the full bandwidth of all light and matter waves. When my colleague and I wrote our EGM III paper, we had a resonant cavity like this in mind, but we didn't consider the taper.
Best Regards,
Todd D.
I don't believe GR is even relevant but even if it were it makes no difference.
Take your engine. No power attached, no resonance it is just cold and dead. Calculate the momentum of the entire system. By whatever definition of momentum you are using.
Turn on the power. Now you can have imbalanced momentum, resonance whatever you want. I don't care. Let it accelerate up to some velocity.
Turn it back off. Let it cool to a cold dead object again. Melt it down to a simple copper sphere if you want. Now calculate the momentum of the system. Again by whatever definition of momentum you are using.
If the second calculation does not equal the first then you have violated COM. GR never enters into it because any definition of momentum must reduce to Newtonian momentum on the limit of ordinary objects moving at small speeds in flat space. That value is not conserved and therefore your GR did not conserve momentum. The whole point of momentum is as a conserved value that prevents this kind of thing. Take that away and the whole concept of momentum isn't very useful.
There is no reasonable definition of momentum that can call this a conservation of momentum. There is no reason to even want to. Bite the bullet and call it what it is.
If you want a mechanism for GR to violate COM that's fine with me. But you do have to call it what it is. And you will have problems showing a detectable GR effect on these energy scales.
You puff and blow, but EW is trying to eliminate external forces and so investigate *anomalous forces*
I support them in a difficult task... Do you?
Gravity certainly conserves momentum.
When I drop a brick it falls to the earth. But the earth also falls toward it. True, by only a tiny amount but multiplied by the huge mass of the earth and it gains as much momentum as the brick and in the opposite direction.
Gravity certainly conserves momentum.
When I drop a brick it falls to the earth. But the earth also falls toward it. True, by only a tiny amount but multiplied by the huge mass of the earth and it gains as much momentum as the brick and in the opposite direction.
PPNL
I think you answered your own question here. Assuming the EM drive can create a gravity gradient, the created gravity well extends to infinity via inverse square law. It is essentially tugging at whatever is in front of it. The reason it tugs harder toward the front rather than the back is due to the front having a larger more shallow gravity well than the one in the back - the larger one wins.
(http://i.imgur.com/l6pKM5C.png)
Now if constant power input generates a constant gravity then acceleration will be constant. That leads to a violation of conservation of energy. Oops.
Now if constant power input generates a constant gravity then acceleration will be constant. That leads to a violation of conservation of energy. Oops.
Thanks for your response
No, from what I'm reading - constant input energy does lead to a sub-C speed barrier. What I visualize is happening is that as drive accelerates the shape of the frustum becomes more cylindrical until it is and there is no gravity gradient and therefore no more acceleration.
I cannot attest to Shawyers statements nor prove that a gravity gradient is being created. I agree this is all conjecture at this point.
If EMdrive becomes a sufficiently huge issue in the public eye, then couldn't Mythbusters be called in to spend some money on proving or disproving it? Or are they not professional enough?
No I'm not talking about speed of light problems. I'm simply pointing out that it should take four times as much energy to go twice as fast. But if the power needed to generate the gravity is constant then it only takes twice as much energy to go twice as fast. That would violate conservation of energy. But if the power needed to generate the gravitational field depended on the velocity of what it was pulling on then you can have conservation of momentum, conservation of energy and do away with the frame dependence problem. Perfect hat trick.
I'm starting to believe COM, linear and angular, is no longer the brick wall I once thought, especially in the quantum realm:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2811
...from Cornell, and other sources regarding "Transmutation of Momentum"
Way over my humble head: "Transmutation methods are developed for equations of the form x2 φ“ + x2(k2” - q̃(x)) φ = (v2 - (1/4)) φ, with v as spectral variable, which correspond to problems in quantum scattering theory at fixed energy k2 (here v ˜ l + (1/2) with l complex angular momentum). Spectral formulas for transmutation kernels are constructed and the machinery of transmutation theory developed by the author for spectral variable k is shown to have a version here. General Kontrorovič-Lebedev theorems are also proved."
Transmutation via the momentum plane
R. Carroll andD. S. Jones Communicater
Article first published online: 6 JUN 2011
DOI: 10.1002/mma.1670060129
Copyright © 1984 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
But if the power needed to generate the gravitational field depended on the velocity of what it was pulling on then you can have conservation of momentum, conservation of energy and do away with the frame dependence problem. Perfect hat trick.
But if the power needed to generate the gravitational field depended on the velocity of what it was pulling on then you can have conservation of momentum, conservation of energy and do away with the frame dependence problem. Perfect hat trick.
You get back to the perfect EM-Drive machine:
Electrical Energy in = Delta Kinetic Energy + Delta Gravitational Energy.
Which means that a chemically powered "Perfect" EM Drive cannot reach orbit* (Required: about 30MJ/kg) . It can however levitate to 100km altitude (Required: about 1MJ/kg - and atmospheric oxygen can be used for the first 50km), where upon solar panels can accelerate it to where ever.
*Unless it dumps its fuel-product overboard like a normal rocket. So a fuel cell, then dump the water product away. In this case, a rocket-equation can apply, and I'm not sure if the device is that much better than a fully reusable single stage to orbit rocket.
2) here are some tests by Eagleworks and the thrust per watt.
A) 1932.6 MHz 5.4 uN/W
B) 1936.7 MHz 3.0 uN/W
C) 1880.4 MHz 21.3 uN/W
D) 2168 MHz no thrust detected, cause thought to be the lack of the dielectric resonator.
And the China tests at 2.45 (2.457 seemed to be peak) with a dirty source and they got a lot of thrust as well.
If EMdrive becomes a sufficiently huge issue in the public eye, then couldn't Mythbusters be called in to spend some money on proving or disproving it? Or are they not professional enough?
No I'm not talking about speed of light problems. I'm simply pointing out that it should take four times as much energy to go twice as fast. But if the power needed to generate the gravity is constant then it only takes twice as much energy to go twice as fast. That would violate conservation of energy. But if the power needed to generate the gravitational field depended on the velocity of what it was pulling on then you can have conservation of momentum, conservation of energy and do away with the frame dependence problem. Perfect hat trick.
I haven't read anything regarding frame reference problems, I'll look into that - thanks for the tip.
No. Vastly different orders of magnitude.Honestly, I think you're underestimating what EM Drive would represent if true. EM Drive if real is an enormous departure from the current accepted laws of physics. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.
No. Vastly different orders of magnitude.Honestly, I think you're underestimating what EM Drive would represent if true. EM Drive if real is an enormous departure from the current accepted laws of physics. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.
If EM drive is real (which it isn't), then something like a warp effect could certainly be part of the new physics behind it.
Which is all the more reason to take EM drive with an enormous grain of salt. There's a powerful temptation to let wishes be horses.
Your god like omnipotence is impressive here and obviously there's no need to continue testing it. This sort of attitude has bedevilled this thread and I expected better of a regular poster on this forum. Especially when you're making claims about it that have been explained on multiple occasions are not applicable to it, even with my limited understanding I can understand it is not a free unlimited energy device. It only puts out kinetic energy wise what's put into it electromagnetically, it isn't a magical device from Harry Potter.
He's politely expressing skepticism without being rude or defamatory. Why be hostile back?
There's considerable to prove if real. If one is an advocate, one wants skepticism and to eventually marshal enough proof.
Whole lot better than outright conclusory declarations.
Maybe I'm just fed up with seeing this attitude replicated a hundred times in the media coverage of this story. Did those at NASA who kindly posted here deserve the harsh treatment that they were subjected to by some on this thread?
But while I'm certain the effect is an artifact, if it WERE to be true, the implications would be absurd. Unlimited energy (and yes, I know people try to tack on energy conservation whenever someone points it out,....
@Robotbeat. Serious question for you. You've mentioned several times that a working EMDrive would be an unlimited energy device. I don't follow your logic though. The EM drive converts electromagnetic input energy into output kinetic energy at some efficiency yet to be discovered, minus friction and other parasitic factors. How does that make a free energy device? Are you suggesting that it converts at greater than 100%? How so?
I think what Robotbeat is referring to has to do with differences in kinetic energy. To double the velocity of an object takes four times the energy. However, many EM drive theories state that to double the velocity of an object only takes double the energy. So, you use the EM drive to increase the velocity, then use a normal system to convert the KE into heat for your heat engine, and you get extra energy from nowhere, free energy.
But while I'm certain the effect is an artifact, if it WERE to be true, the implications would be absurd. Unlimited energy (and yes, I know people try to tack on energy conservation whenever someone points it out,....
@Robotbeat. Serious question for you. You've mentioned several times that a working EMDrive would be an unlimited energy device. I don't follow your logic though. The EM drive converts electromagnetic input energy into output kinetic energy at some efficiency yet to be discovered, minus friction and other parasitic factors. How does that make a free energy device? Are you suggesting that it converts at greater than 100%? How so?
I think what Robotbeat is referring to has to do with differences in kinetic energy. To double the velocity of an object takes four times the energy. However, many EM drive theories state that to double the velocity of an object only takes double the energy. So, you use the EM drive to increase the velocity, then use a normal system to convert the KE into heat for your heat engine, and you get extra energy from nowhere, free energy.
If your theory gets you free energy it is wrong.
Maybe something interesting and useful is going on in these devices, but it isn't going to throw away the past hundred years of physics.
Please forgive the dumb question, but I recall a comment along a similar line of thought before, so I figured I'd ask it here.This probably isn't the question you really meant to ask, or I am reading it wrong, but low ISP is what would allow this, and very easily. If two masses bounce off each other, most of the energy goes into the smaller faster object. A huge amount of light bouncing off you would hardly move you at all, but the same energy could move you quite fast if you were an electric train and could push against the entire earth.
Is it theoretically possible for an imaginary solar-electric vehicle, with imaginary, 100% efficient solar cells and a 100% efficient electrical system, with sufficiently high specific impulse and reaction mass to impart more kinetic energy into the rocket than the equivalent solar flux it used to accelerate?
If the spacecraft is accelerating (under thrust) it appears the photons approaching the "forward" end of the resonator where they would add momentum in the direction of travel will be redshifted by the acceleration of the resonator to a somewhat lower energy,
http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/waveguide-mathematics#velocity
Good article on the dynamic Casimir effect. http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714
Unfortunately the thrust from this mechanism is less than using the same energy to produce a stream of photons as an exhaust stream.
I'm starting to believe COM, linear and angular, is no longer the brick wall I once thought, especially in the quantum realm:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2811
...from Cornell, and other sources regarding "Transmutation of Momentum"
Way over my humble head: "Transmutation methods are developed for equations of the form x2 φ“ + x2(k2” - q̃(x)) φ = (v2 - (1/4)) φ, with v as spectral variable, which correspond to problems in quantum scattering theory at fixed energy k2 (here v ˜ l + (1/2) with l complex angular momentum). Spectral formulas for transmutation kernels are constructed and the machinery of transmutation theory developed by the author for spectral variable k is shown to have a version here. General Kontrorovič-Lebedev theorems are also proved."
Transmutation via the momentum plane
R. Carroll andD. S. Jones Communicater
Article first published online: 6 JUN 2011
DOI: 10.1002/mma.1670060129
Copyright © 1984 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Quantum mechanics can violate conservation of momentum locally but not globally. To see how this works consider the experiments that demonstrated the violation of Bell's inequality. The local measurement of a particle on one end is ruled by probability and can be anything. But when you connect that measurement to the measurement of its entangled twin they must match. That matching is driven exactly by the need to conserve angular momentum. It will do so even if it has to apparently cheat by violating Bell's inequality.
In the matrix mechanics formulation of quantum mechanics that conservation of momentum is built in at the ground level. In fact all the classical conservation laws are built in. In fact all of Newtonian and classical physics is built in on the classical limit. In the wave mechanics formulation it was less clear that conservation of momentum was preserved. It turned out that the two formulations were equivalent.
So if you want quantum mechanics to violate momentum conservation you are out of luck. It is like squaring the circle or trisecting the angle. The math just will not allow it.
But while I'm certain the effect is an artifact, if it WERE to be true, the implications would be absurd. Unlimited energy (and yes, I know people try to tack on energy conservation whenever someone points it out,....
@Robotbeat. Serious question for you. You've mentioned several times that a working EMDrive would be an unlimited energy device. I don't follow your logic though. The EM drive converts electromagnetic input energy into output kinetic energy at some efficiency yet to be discovered, minus friction and other parasitic factors. How does that make a free energy device? Are you suggesting that it converts at greater than 100%? How so?
I think what Robotbeat is referring to has to do with differences in kinetic energy. To double the velocity of an object takes four times the energy. However, many EM drive theories state that to double the velocity of an object only takes double the energy. So, you use the EM drive to increase the velocity, then use a normal system to convert the KE into heat for your heat engine, and you get extra energy from nowhere, free energy.
If your theory gets you free energy it is wrong.
Maybe something interesting and useful is going on in these devices, but it isn't going to throw away the past hundred years of physics.
Here is a concrete contraption to get unlimited energy, and unlimited deltaV, given the hypothesis of constant "propellantless thrust" at constant power :
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=619550;image)
bigger (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=619549;image)
Em drives mounted on a rotor turning at 2000m/s tangential velocity (not easy but this is the kind of tangential velocity attained in some energy storage flywheels...). Em drives consuming 1kW microwave, radiating some (all ?) of this power as heat and thrusting at 1N : 1N/kW is in the ballpark of what has been experimentally claimed already. This gives 2000m/s * 1N = 2kW mechanical power to the shaft of the rotor. 2kW mechanical power at the shaft are converted to 1800W DC current by a generator (and 200W radiated as heat). Of this 1800W DC electrical power, 250W are diverted for any use we like. To keep it in line with the topic I put it to good use to power another Em drive but really we are free to use those 250W for whatever (creating mass for instance). The power splitter is not 100% efficient, it radiates 50W of power. 1800-250-50 = 1500W to feed the RF amplifier. The RF amplifier wastes (radiates) 500W as heat and pumps 1000W of clean microwave back into the Em drives on the rotor.
The process needs an initial investment in energy (to make rotor move at 2000m/s tangential velocity) but then this is a free energy generator for all practical purpose. If small variations in efficiency make the rotor lose a bit of velocity, just divert a little more power to the RF amplifier : this is just a regulation problem, there is ample margins to adjust and stabilize around the optimal operating point.
If this consequence is a feature of the Em drive, great. If this is a problem then the problem rests in the initial hypothesis of "propellantless thrust magnitude at constant power". But we often see by proponents the contradictory position that "of course EM drive respects COE, and somehow at constant power input at some (ill defined) point thrust has to surrender" and that "with that technology we could reach Proxima in less than a century", that later hope being made possible only by breaking COE, that is considering "constant thrust at constant power".
So either "constant thrust at constant power" is true and this is (apparently) breaking COE.
Then let's state it : "This journey to the stars is made courtesy of free energy", and be consistent : stop advocating nuclear power generators as Em drive tech could then be self powering.
Or either "constant thrust at constant power" is not true, COE might be preserved, then we would like to see a not so ill defined formula of thrust=function(power, other objective parameters ?), and short of that at least not be sold deep space mission profile that do presuppose constant thrust at constant power, undercover.
BTW "acquired kinetic energy" could by no way be an objective parameter in the mysterious thrust function that would leave COE unscathed, as has been clearly stated above by PPNL about frames, either we have a physical favored rest frame of "something" we are pulling onto, or we don't and "acquired kinetic energy" is going mystical as it depends on arbitrary choice of frame and we know frames are a fiction (even if some are more convenient and look more "natural").
Short journeys to the stars depend on (apparent) COE breaking. No (apparent) COE breaking (ie free or dirt cheap energy), no short journey to the stars. Even if we had an asphalt road to drive on between Sun and Proxima this would be of little help unless there were also cheap gas stations along the way : this is not a problem of shortage of momentum but of shortage of energy.
...
Though, I suppose this discussion isn't about the article, and should go over to the main EMDrive thread...
Do they apply for example, to:
1) An idealized military search light used as a photon rocket (assuming, for argument's sake, in a Gedankenmodell that components have an infinite life without degradation, and you operate it an indefinite amount of time with energy supply)
Do they apply for example, to:
1) An idealized military search light used as a photon rocket (assuming, for argument's sake, in a Gedankenmodell that components have an infinite life without degradation, and you operate it an indefinite amount of time with energy supply)
A photon rocket does not have this problem because even at its theoretical maximum thrust per power ratio (which is about 3.336 * 10^-9 N/W), the speed it would have to reach in order to start the violation is the speed of light in vacuum. So, even though it has a constant thrust per power input it will simply never reach the required speed no matter what you do.
But any increase in the thrust/power ratio will decrease the speed to something that can be reached and at 1N/kW that speed is only 1 km/s.
Hello everybody.
First of all, thanks to all who have made this discussion possible. I think that some good scientific discussion is being done here and in the other EmDrive thread. I have started lurking in this forum two weeks ago when the buzz about the new tests started, but only now I've decided to register and post some comments.
First of all, disclaimer: I am an engineer, not a physicist, but for my degree I had to do several exams to do with electromagnetism and even some quantum-related effects (the ones related to how a semiconductor works). So I have a healthy interest in physics, and I've read more on the matter than just what I studied for the exams, but I am not an expert.
I am perplexed by this paragraph in the article:
In Dr. White’s model, the propellant ions of the MagnetoHydroDynamics drive are replaced as the fuel source by the virtual particles of the Quantum Vacuum, eliminating the need to carry propellant. This model was also met with criticism in the scientific community because the Quantum Vacuum cannot be ionized and is understood to be “frame-less” – meaning you cannot “push” against it, as required for momentum.
I'd like to know more about Dr. White's model than just this description, and I don't know enough about the QV in terms of the complicated quantum mechanics maths, but I can wrap my head around virtual particles. I trust in their existence because they are related to black hole Hawking radiation, and we have observed that radiation. We have a model, and it works.
From what I understand of the model, though, I think I have a further observation about the model of "pushing against the virtual particles" that could lead to an experiment to disprove it.
Suppose you have a fluctuation where a particle-antiparticle couple spawns into existence and then annihilates pretty much immediately, just as in the model for virtual particles; in very simplistic terms (and I'm sure the reality is more complicated) they "borrow" some energy and momentum and "return" it when they annihilate (gah, I know, I'm butchering it, but bear with me). Now suppose that it was possible to "push" that particle-antiparticle pair as reaction mass with some (magic?) apparatus in the time while the pair is briefly in existence. The pair would gain a total momentum p equal and opposite to the apparatus pushing it.
Then the pair annihilates - but wait! Now the two particles have more momentum (and energy) than what they "borrowed" to come into existence. Because of CoM, that extra momentum must go somewhere. It can't just disappear. The system would have to transform in such a way that it's conserved.
The only way I can see this happening is if it is released as radiation (or other by-product particles). We know that radiation has momentum, so this is possible. In other words, a device using the virtual particles as reaction mass would "shine" with some extra radiation that can't be explained in any other way.
This radiation is either massive (i.e. it's made of particles) or massless (i.e. it's light).
In the latter case, energy and momentum for radiation are related by the E = pc relation. If we have measured a momentum variation p in our apparatus, and therefore we have an equivalent momentum variation to be radiated, then the energy released as radiation would be pc, which for any meaningful value of momentum would be utterly huge and it would likely destroy the apparatus. Plus, where is the energy coming from?!?
In the former case, then this extra stream of particles is radiated from the apparatus in such a way that it must be detectable by some experiment. Granted, it might be difficult (it they're neutrinos, we're basically stuffed) but it must be conceptually possible.
We might even be able to estimate a range of bounds for the average total mass generated by this interaction, because for each particle E = mc^2 + pv which can be summed over all the particles, and we know the upper bound of the total E (because of CoE that is at most what energy we pumped into the apparatus as input), the total p (which is equal to the momentum change of the apparatus) and we know that for every massive particle it must be true that 0 <= v < c.
So, I would argue that another objection to the "pushing against virtual particles" model is that since we haven't observed a huge amount of gamma rays melting the lab, then some mass must be created somehow from the expended energy. However it has not been explored in the experiments whether this extra mass was produced (and personally I suspect we won't find it, but that's just my opinion).
Does this make sense?
Hello everybody.If you are interested in Dr. White's conjecture regarding the above, see this:
First of all, thanks to all who have made this discussion possible. I think that some good scientific discussion is being done here and in the other EmDrive thread. I have started lurking in this forum two weeks ago when the buzz about the new tests started, but only now I've decided to register and post some comments.
First of all, disclaimer: I am an engineer, not a physicist, but for my degree I had to do several exams to do with electromagnetism and even some quantum-related effects (the ones related to how a semiconductor works). So I have a healthy interest in physics, and I've read more on the matter than just what I studied for the exams, but I am not an expert.
I am perplexed by this paragraph in the article:
In Dr. White’s model, the propellant ions of the MagnetoHydroDynamics drive are replaced as the fuel source by the virtual particles of the Quantum Vacuum, eliminating the need to carry propellant. This model was also met with criticism in the scientific community because the Quantum Vacuum cannot be ionized and is understood to be “frame-less” – meaning you cannot “push” against it, as required for momentum.
I'd like to know more about Dr. White's model than just this description, and I don't know enough about the QV in terms of the complicated quantum mechanics maths, but I can wrap my head around virtual particles. I trust in their existence because they are related to black hole Hawking radiation, and we have observed that radiation. We have a model, and it works.
From what I understand of the model, though, I think I have a further observation about the model of "pushing against the virtual particles" that could lead to an experiment to disprove it.
Suppose you have a fluctuation where a particle-antiparticle couple spawns into existence and then annihilates pretty much immediately, just as in the model for virtual particles; in very simplistic terms (and I'm sure the reality is more complicated) they "borrow" some energy and momentum and "return" it when they annihilate (gah, I know, I'm butchering it, but bear with me). Now suppose that it was possible to "push" that particle-antiparticle pair as reaction mass with some (magic?) apparatus in the time while the pair is briefly in existence. The pair would gain a total momentum p equal and opposite to the apparatus pushing it.
Then the pair annihilates - but wait! Now the two particles have more momentum (and energy) than what they "borrowed" to come into existence. Because of CoM, that extra momentum must go somewhere. It can't just disappear. The system would have to transform in such a way that it's conserved.
The only way I can see this happening is if it is released as radiation (or other by-product particles). We know that radiation has momentum, so this is possible. In other words, a device using the virtual particles as reaction mass would "shine" with some extra radiation that can't be explained in any other way.
This radiation is either massive (i.e. it's made of particles) or massless (i.e. it's light).
In the latter case, energy and momentum for radiation are related by the E = pc relation. If we have measured a momentum variation p in our apparatus, and therefore we have an equivalent momentum variation to be radiated, then the energy released as radiation would be pc, which for any meaningful value of momentum would be utterly huge and it would likely destroy the apparatus. Plus, where is the energy coming from?!?
In the former case, then this extra stream of particles is radiated from the apparatus in such a way that it must be detectable by some experiment. Granted, it might be difficult (it they're neutrinos, we're basically stuffed) but it must be conceptually possible.
We might even be able to estimate a range of bounds for the average total mass generated by this interaction, because for each particle E = mc^2 + pv which can be summed over all the particles, and we know the upper bound of the total E (because of CoE that is at most what energy we pumped into the apparatus as input), the total p (which is equal to the momentum change of the apparatus) and we know that for every massive particle it must be true that 0 <= v < c.
So, I would argue that another objection to the "pushing against virtual particles" model is that since we haven't observed a huge amount of gamma rays melting the lab, then some mass must be created somehow from the expended energy. However it has not been explored in the experiments whether this extra mass was produced (and personally I suspect we won't find it, but that's just my opinion).
Does this make sense?
The only thing I would add is that it takes a whole lot of energy to produce a tiny amount of mass. The energy needs of the thing would be worse than if you were only producing photons. And you would still burn down your lab with intense radiation.
If you are interested in Dr. White's conjecture regarding the above, see this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect#Quantum_mechanics
and associated references.
...
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=619550;image)
Em drives mounted on a rotor turning at 2000m/s tangential velocity (not easy but this is the kind of tangential velocity attained in some energy storage flywheels...). Em drives consuming 1kW microwave, radiating some (all ?) of this power as heat and thrusting at 1N : 1N/kW is in the ballpark of what has been experimentally claimed already. This gives 2000m/s * 1N = 2kW mechanical power to the shaft of the rotor. 2kW mechanical power at the shaft are converted to 1800W DC current by a generator (and 200W radiated as heat). Of this 1800W DC electrical power, 250W are diverted for any use we like. To keep it in line with the topic I put it to good use to power another Em drive but really we are free to use those 250W for whatever (creating mass for instance). The power splitter is not 100% efficient, it radiates 50W of power. 1800-250-50 = 1500W to feed the RF amplifier. The RF amplifier wastes (radiates) 500W as heat and pumps 1000W of clean microwave back into the Em drives on the rotor.
The process needs an initial investment in energy (to make rotor move at 2000m/s tangential velocity) but then this is a free energy generator for all practical purpose. If small variations in efficiency make the rotor lose a bit of velocity, just divert a little more power to the RF amplifier : this is just a regulation problem, there is ample margins to adjust and stabilize around the optimal operating point.
...
@frobnicat: how general are the statements above, concerning the hypothesis of constant "propellantless thrust" at constant power ?
Do they apply for example, to:
1) An idealized military search light used as a photon rocket (assuming, for argument's sake, in a Gedankenmodell that components have an infinite life without degradation, and you operate it an indefinite amount of time with energy supply)
2) Woodward's propellant-less Mach Effect (assuming, for argument's sake, that Woodward's conjecture is valid, and you can operate it an indefinite amount of time with energy supply)
If there are differences that constrain the energy paradox between the above two and the EM Drive, please point out the differences, as it may be instructive for this discussion to unveil these differences regarding what is possible and what is not possible (under conservation of energy and conservation of momentum).
Thanks
I'm confused about something ( o.k. many things). I have now read many articles that say this can't work and is all junk science. It violates COM/COE etc.
But isn't that taking a Newtonian view of something operating at a quantum level? Tunnel diodes have negative resistance, but they are quantum tunneling diodes after all. We have been making tunnel diodes for 50+ years but the logic that says the emdrive can't work, in my mind, says tunnel diodes can't work either.
Am I missing something?
I'm confused about something ( o.k. many things). I have now read many articles that say this can't work and is all junk science. It violates COM/COE etc.
But isn't that taking a Newtonian view of something operating at a quantum level? Tunnel diodes have negative resistance, but they are quantum tunneling diodes after all. We have been making tunnel diodes for 50+ years but the logic that says the emdrive can't work, in my mind, says tunnel diodes can't work either.
Am I missing something?
Quantum mechanics and quantum field theory still has conservation of energy-momentum. As mentioned, it is even more explicit there than in classical physics. Tunnel diodes were a straightforward application of known physics and have no relation to this.
....Good point. My understanding is that @frobnicat attempts to address that with what he calls "Harvesting" energy from the Quantum Vacuum or "Harvesting" energy from the universe in Woodward's formulation.
If the QV is a large storage of negative energy, I might only need to put a little in to get a lot out?? I didn't put the same energy in as I got out, I just just my small energy to tap a large pile of stored energy. That wouldn't be a violation of COE, would it?
Trying to make the propellantless drives to comply with apparent COE yields so much inconsistencies that I'm convinced that, if they are for real (which I'm not convinced), they must indeed be energy harvesters, and COE is to be saved by determining what is (silently) harvested. For White this means altering/lowering the ZPF density (which in principle can't be done since it's already a baseline). Could be detected locally. For Woodward this means imparting some entropy (unsure about that one) on the spatio-temporal walls of reality. Would be hard to prove, but experimental proof of apparently unlimited energy generation from a closed box could be indirect evidence.
If true, wouldn't this degrade the universe by using up a finite resource?There is another way this could explain the fermi paradox.
Perhaps other advanced species figured this out at some point, and hense a solution to the Fermi paradox!
....
If true, wouldn't this degrade the universe by using up a finite resource?
Perhaps other advanced species figured this out at some point, and hense a solution to the Fermi paradox!
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268804028_NASA%27S_MICROWAVE_PROPELLANT-LESS_THRUSTER_ANOMALOUS_RESULTS_CONSIDERATION_OF_A_THERMO-MECHANICAL_EFFECT
Thanks. But not the end I'm afraid, as buckling is very sensitive to initial imperfections, and hence unlikely to affect all experiments in the same direction. There are other mechanisms that could explain the measurements.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268804028_NASA%27S_MICROWAVE_PROPELLANT-LESS_THRUSTER_ANOMALOUS_RESULTS_CONSIDERATION_OF_A_THERMO-MECHANICAL_EFFECT
As an observer, I have been taking huge interest in the ongoing discussion for the last couple of weeks. I am deeply convinced that the discovery of even the slightest possibility of feasible and realistic interstellar superluminal travel would profoundly and positively alter our species' trajectory. Thus, I want to thank all of you for investing so much in this slight chance.
However, Dr. Rodal's paper seems to effectively end these investigations with respect to the EM Drive, as it makes a lot of sense with a very strong argument.
The judging panel must include a profession stage magician. Some extravagant claims in the past have been debunked this way, because they see things that observing physicists have missed.
Claimed it could fly for eons at the equivalent of 450 million miles an hour
Its inventor calculates that an interstellar probe would take ten years to reach two-thirds the speed of light, which he sees as pretty much the limit of how fast we could practically travel.
The Daily Mail article on Mr Shawyer reports
"Its inventor calculates that an interstellar probe would take ten years to reach two-thirds the speed of light, which he sees as pretty much the limit of how fast we could practically travel."
Which is presumably where the "450 million miles an hour" comes from.
When I tracked down Mr Shawyer to his base in Havant, Hants, he said he was pleased Nasa was ‘having fun’ with his creation and felt some vindication after years of scepticism.
Given the known physics this violates the question naturally rises "why didn't we notice anything related to this before?"
Given the known physics this violates the question naturally rises "why didn't we notice anything related to this before?"
Likely, the effect was so small that no one noticed it before. In this case, someone was looking for just such a result.
Except that the effect isn't small. The force may be small, but the difference to the standing wave pattern necessary to push the cavity with such net force is really huge, the coupling between microwaves and this neo-aether is huge, etc.Given the known physics this violates the question naturally rises "why didn't we notice anything related to this before?"
Likely, the effect was so small that no one noticed it before. In this case, someone was looking for just such a result.
If one were to use an alblative shield of some sort ahead of the probe and a huge solar sail during decelleration, the probe could arrive after achieving nearly 3/4 C, and decellerate enough to make a more leasurely pass through the starsystem. (Mind you, this also assumes a turn over along the course, in conjunction with the use of the solar sail).
For the second time in two weeks, the Daily Mail is reporting on EM Drive (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3080846/Fly-moon-FOUR-hours-British-scientist-says-s-secret-Star-Trek-s-wrap-speed.html).
This second article is pretty much a summary of the principles of the concept and the objections raised against it in pure layman's terms. The overall tone is neutral (with a gleeful hint of 'who knows what else THEY aren't telling us!').
Still, It's odd that the DM should report on this twice in such quick succession. The first article was, oddly enough, heavily drawn from the threads here on NSF. I'm wondering if the Rothschilds (who ultimately own Associated Newspaper Group) may have invested some cash in EMDrive and are trying to talk it up.
The Daily Mail article on Mr Shawyer reports
"Its inventor calculates that an interstellar probe would take ten years to reach two-thirds the speed of light, which he sees as pretty much the limit of how fast we could practically travel."
The Daily Mail article on Mr Shawyer reports
"Its inventor calculates that an interstellar probe would take ten years to reach two-thirds the speed of light, which he sees as pretty much the limit of how fast we could practically travel."
How does he reconcile that with his "because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector"? (#18 in http://emdrive.com/faq.html)
~Kirk
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-warp-drive-are-two-different-things-nasas-still-working-emdrive-1501268
I'm linking to this because it mentions us, is mostly accurate (not completely) and is fair and balanced. It has lots of quotes from Shawyer himself. The final comment from him about the West has me extremely unnerved.
I'd say both the article above and several of the commenter above clearly have the wrong idea about which Eagleworks project is more likely to pan out into anything.
A warp drive does not break any obvious laws of physics, and is merely an esoteric construct that happens to require yet undiscovered forms of matter, but is clearly allowed by GR if these forms of matter are allowed. The Alcubierre metric is straightforward enough to show up as a source of homework exercises in general relativity courses.
The EM-drive on the other hand does break some rather important laws of physics, and otherwise should set off enough red lights that calling it a cargo cult is warranted.
With no trouble at all. That is why the EM Drive stops at two-thirds of the speed of light.
Similar rules apply to cars, only with lower top speeds.
The second generation engines will be capable of producing a specific thrust of 30kN/kW. Thus for 1 kilowatt (typical of the power in a microwave oven) a static thrust of 3 tonnes can be obtained, which is enough to support a large car. This is clearly adequate for terrestrial transport applications.
The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting EmDrive with a Q of 5 x 109. This Q value is routinely achieved in superconducting cavities.
Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle.
With no trouble at all. That is why the EM Drive stops at two-thirds of the speed of light.
Similar rules apply to cars, only with lower top speeds.
I don't think you're following me.
Shawyer's FAQ (http://emdrive.com/faq.html) #18 deals with terrestrial applications:QuoteThe second generation engines will be capable of producing a specific thrust of 30kN/kW. Thus for 1 kilowatt (typical of the power in a microwave oven) a static thrust of 3 tonnes can be obtained, which is enough to support a large car. This is clearly adequate for terrestrial transport applications.
The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting EmDrive with a Q of 5 x 109. This Q value is routinely achieved in superconducting cavities.
Note however, because the EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy, this thrust/power ratio rapidly decreases if the EmDrive is used to accelerate the vehicle along the thrust vector. (See Equation 16 of the theory paper). Whilst the EmDrive can provide lift to counter gravity, (and is therefore not losing kinetic energy), auxiliary propulsion is required to provide the kinetic energy to accelerate the vehicle.
This reduction in specific thrust is important to public acceptance of Shawyer's claim because otherwise his device would be more easily recognized as a free energy machine. His attempt to enforce energy conservation is not invariant under Galilean transformation (more on that in a later post), but that's a point lost on the layman who doesn't understand the issues raised by a reactionless drive.
What we should all be asking after reading this interview is, if specific thrust drops so rapidly upon acceleration along the thrust vector that his proposed flying car (http://emdrive.com/terrestrialapplications.html) can be levitated by EmDrive but requires auxiliary engines for propulsion, then how is it able to accelerate a spacecraft to 2/3 c in 10 yr.? Let's crunch some numbers and figure out what kind of power density he is envisioning for its power source.
He addresses the reduction of specific power (thrust per unit power = T/P) with velocity (due to acceleration along the thrust vector of the EMDrive) starting on page 8 of his Theory Paper (http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf). Combining equation (16) with his formulas for thrust and taking the limit on Q gives (T/P)max < 1 / v, with the maximum specific thrust approaching the inverse of the velocity as Q increases without bound. Figure 3.2 plots the specific thrust against Q for a velocity of 3 km/s and shows it maxing out at 333 mN/kW.
Assume that our spacecraft of mass m and power P starting from rest is somehow able to achieve its maximum permitted specific thrust at all times. Combing T/P = 1/v and T = m v-dot (where v-dot = dv/dt, acceleration) yields the differential equation v-dot = (P/m) v-1 with the initial condition v(0) = 0 and solution v(t) = sqrt(2Pt/m). Plugging in v(10 years) = 2/3 c and solving for power density gives P/m = (2/90) c2 / yr = 63.3 MW / kg. But that isn't even taking relativity into account. 2/3 c is not highly relativistic, but it does yield a Lorentz factor of 3/sqrt(5) = 1.34, so doing the calculations relativistically reveals a required power density of 97.3 MW / kg. Accounting for electrical losses, payload, and the mass of the EmDrive itself will further increase the required power density of the spacecraft's power source.
Proponents of VASIMR driven 39 day trips to Mars are rightly taken to task for not pointing out that their plan requires a power source capable of generating an astounding 1 kW / kg. Shawyer's zero to 2/3 c in 10 years spacecraft needs a power source with five orders of magnitude greater power density.
~Kirk
Shawyers equations are in my opinion rubbish. If you can float a car, that means you can accelerate at the rate of at least 10 m/s^2 (1g is 9.8m/s^2). If you can do this then you can slowly float higher and higher and accelerate as gravity grows weaker and acceleration wouldn't change from 10m/s^2...
His distinction between hovering (unlimited) and accelerating horizontally at 9.8 m/s^2 (limited due to reduction in specific thrust) would appear to violate the equivalence principle.
~Kirk
Shawyer's a nut. That whole The West is slowly dying, and that's all for the good' business is wild speculation. His math has been shown to be nonesense by many people smarter than him, and the boffins in the other thread are closing in on more conventional and mundane explanations for EMDrive thrust.
End of.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-C1cgolGV6r0/VUCw2IWncwI/AAAAAAAACWQ/8RhssZGNGKA/s1600/22.JPG
I'd say both the article above and several of the commenter above clearly have the wrong idea about which Eagleworks project is more likely to pan out into anything.
A warp drive does not break any obvious laws of physics, and is merely an esoteric construct that happens to require yet undiscovered forms of matter, but is clearly allowed by GR if these forms of matter are allowed. The Alcubierre metric is straightforward enough to show up as a source of homework exercises in general relativity courses.
The EM-drive on the other hand does break some rather important laws of physics, and otherwise should set off enough red lights that calling it a cargo cult is warranted.
One possible explanation for the optical path length change is that it is due to refraction of the air. The NASA team examined this possibility and concluded that it is not likely that the measured change is due to transient air heating because the experiment’s visibility threshold is forty times larger than the calculated effect from air considering atmospheric heating.
By the way, I just joined this site today, so I'm brand-new here. Is there a forum somewhere here about possible tests to see if two hydrogen bombs launched directly at each other in deep space might create a star?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-warp-drive-are-two-different-things-nasas-still-working-emdrive-1501268
I'm linking to this because it ... has me extremely unnerved.