Most microwave sources include a resonant cavity. Waveguides are resonant structures. Most concerning for the present work are superconducting RF cavities in particle accelerators (see the attached picture). I have personally worked with cavities similar to those in the picture. They are superconducting at 4K being made out of niobium, and typically support >10 MV/m of electric field, with quality factors of several 10's of million. Any loss of energy to an external medium would have been readily apparent, and we would not be able to run the LHC if there was some unknown effect affecting these sorts of cavities. Not to mention... those walls are actually fairly thin! If we believe the EM drive thrust claims... they would have buckled under the strain and torn from their mountings.
I tried asking some of these questions before but they were quickly drowned out by senseless bickering, so I'm going to try asking again.(0) Supposing that you were able to engineer the required negative energy density around the craft in such a way as to produce an Alcubierre style warp bubble. The spacetime curvature in the CENTER but the edges of the bubble itself would be highly warped, and yet you need to have engineered some structure to hold the negative energy density ring in place. Thus it seems that the warping of spacetime would necessarily destroy any toroidal structure used to hold the negative energy in place, making it impossible to maintain such a bubble. Am I missing something here?(1) The Eagleworks team reportedly made a simulation to predict thrust levels based on the assumption that the vacuum energy of empty space behaves like a plasma which is mutable as suggested by Dr. White. Then, virtual particles would be able to store and propagate momentum as a wave from one virtual particle to the next until it reached a non-virtual particle to finally absorb the momentum. Thus the EmDrive would leave a "wake" and this is exactly how White described it. However there seems to be a problem with this explanation, because with the EmDrive being a resonant cavity, any such QVP wave would need to be initially generated INSIDE the closed cavity, which means the first matter this virtual particle wave would interact with would be the walls of the cavity itself, which would absorb the opposite momentum and thus cancel out any net thrust. What additional assumptions were made in the simulation to make this not cancel out?(2) In "The Alcubierre Warp Drive in Higher Dimensional Spacetime", White and Davis (2006) theorized that, under the Chung-Freese model they predicted any torus of positive energy density would give rise to slight negative energy density in its core due to classical energy in 3+1 dimensions being shifted "off brain" into the unobservable higher dimensions. They proposed an experiment to test this by constructing a charged capacitor ring. However, under the mass-energy equivalence, a rapidly spinning torus made of lead would have orders of magnitude greater positive energy density -- so why were they using capacitors in their experiment?(3) If it were true that any torus of positive energy density contributes to a "boost" factor inside the torus, then it must be to an incredibly small amount, or else people would have noticed by pure chance that objects inside torus tend to move faster, and nobody has noticed this. However, we have noticed that large heavy toruses require more fuel to propel. Thus it seems that this theory of a positive energy density torus giving rise to a net boost in thrust must be impossible.(4) In "Experimental Concepts for Generating Negative Energy in the Laboratory" Davis and Puthoff (2006) showed that negative energy density was producible in the lab using high energy lasers and other methods, and this would not require the more radical assumptions of extra dimensions in the Chung-Freese model. Why weren't these methods explored? (5) On Rodal's writeup he mentioned that skeptics were hesitant to accept the idea of a mutable QVP because "The mainstream physics community assumes the Quantum Vacuum is indestructible and immutable because of the experimental observation that a fundamental particle like an electron (or a positron) has the same properties (e.g. mass, charge or spin), regardless of when or where the particle was created". However, if the QVP was storing momentum then any non-virtual particles exposed to it would merely absorb this momentum, which would restore the QVP to its usual ground state without changing any more fundamental properties. Thus this criticism seems to be moot.
Regarding 1):Virtual particle pairs only exist for an extremely short time and then vanish again. One question I already asked elsewhere is: If virtual particle pairs gained momentum and they afterwards 'disappeared' again, where would the momentum go?
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.
Adding to @Mulletron's guidelines:Excellent examples of constructive, skeptical criticism on the test set-up are the numerous posts of @frobnicat and @zen-in. They are objective, logical, analytical, systematic, methodical, and they follow the scientific and engineering method without resorting to abusive language...
Quote from: Rodal on 05/01/2015 02:55 pmAdding to @Mulletron's guidelines:Excellent examples of constructive, skeptical criticism on the test set-up are the numerous posts of @frobnicat and @zen-in. They are objective, logical, analytical, systematic, methodical, and they follow the scientific and engineering method without resorting to abusive language...Rodal,Back on the subject of logical and constructive discussion...would you mind responding to the points and questions I just raised above?
Speaking of virtual particles, have there been any attempts to quantify the radiation spewing out of the apparatus? Something like harmonics of 0.511MeV would be a dead giveaway to solving how this thing works (though I highly doubt it is this simple)...
I am assuming the microwaves path is something like this?Where forces F0 through F16 represent the force of a single microwave at different time intervals.If the directional force happens at F2, and the opposing force happens from F3 to F16, this still obeys Newtons third law. Isn't the opposing force just being damped like a spring over time? If M1, M2, ... Mn represent different microwaves, and each Mi is following a similar course, wouldn't this suggest that the directional force will remain positive at a constant rate until the device is shut off causing all forces to cancel?
Next, using this new Q-V plasma simulation tool that utilizes the instantaneous E&M fields from COMSOL for one complete RF cycle in 5 degree increments as its input file, we are now seeing why we need the PTFE or HDPE dielectrics in the frustum while using near pure sine wave power levels below ~100W in the ~2.0 GHz frequency range to generate detectable thrust, and why Shawyer and the Chinese didn't while pumping 80W to 2,500W using magnetron RF sources. We think the reasons are two fold. The first is that Shawyer and the Chinese both used magnetron RF sources for their experiments. An RF source that generates large AM, FM and PM modulation of the carrier wave with typical FM modulation bandwidth on the order of at least +/-20 MHz. (These time rate to change of energy modulations increase the Q-V density in our model.) The second reason we found running these 3D Q-V plasma simulations for the EMPTY copper frustum, was that increasing the input power tends to focus the Q-V plasma flow from near omnidirectional from the frustum at low powers, to a much more jet like beam at higher powers measured in kW to tens of kW-rf. In fact the simulation for the 100W run predicted only ~50uN for our pure RF system with dielectric, while the 10kW run predicted a thrust level of ~6.0 Newton without a dielectric in the cavity. And at 100kW-rf it was now up to ~1300 Newton, but the input power to thrust production nonlinearity was starting to taper off around 50kW. Of course these Q-V plasma thrust predictions are based on the Q-V not being immutable and non-degradable, a feature we admit is not widely accepted by the mainstream physics community, at least at the moment.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 04/05/2015 05:34 amNext, using this new Q-V plasma simulation tool that utilizes the instantaneous E&M fields from COMSOL for one complete RF cycle in 5 degree increments as its input file, we are now seeing why we need the PTFE or HDPE dielectrics in the frustum while using near pure sine wave power levels below ~100W in the ~2.0 GHz frequency range to generate detectable thrust, and why Shawyer and the Chinese didn't while pumping 80W to 2,500W using magnetron RF sources. We think the reasons are two fold. The first is that Shawyer and the Chinese both used magnetron RF sources for their experiments. An RF source that generates large AM, FM and PM modulation of the carrier wave with typical FM modulation bandwidth on the order of at least +/-20 MHz. (These time rate to change of energy modulations increase the Q-V density in our model.) The second reason we found running these 3D Q-V plasma simulations for the EMPTY copper frustum, was that increasing the input power tends to focus the Q-V plasma flow from near omnidirectional from the frustum at low powers, to a much more jet like beam at higher powers measured in kW to tens of kW-rf. In fact the simulation for the 100W run predicted only ~50uN for our pure RF system with dielectric, while the 10kW run predicted a thrust level of ~6.0 Newton without a dielectric in the cavity. And at 100kW-rf it was now up to ~1300 Newton, but the input power to thrust production nonlinearity was starting to taper off around 50kW. Of course these Q-V plasma thrust predictions are based on the Q-V not being immutable and non-degradable, a feature we admit is not widely accepted by the mainstream physics community, at least at the moment. @Paul (and Dr. Rodal who knows that matter for having written the breaking news on NSF homepage):Can you please clarify two things about that recent predictive simulation: 1- How (i.e. what is the physical cause) does the dielectric enhance and control (hence is mandatory) that almost omnidirectional flow of virtual particles at low power, into a detectable thrust, as per Dr. White's QVF conjecture?2- Why the model transforms that omnidirectional cloud of QV particles at low powers, into a "jet like beam" at higher powers? (progressively or in a non-linear way BTW?)Maybe I missed some important messages in the thread, but since there is more and more reactions to your posts and to the NSF news article in the media and twitter, and since Eagleworks hasn't published anything yet about the EmDrive vacuum tests, the RF resonant warp experiment, and the newest simulations, I think those claims (let's start with the low power dielectric and high power spike modeling of QV flow) deserve more explanation.
(2) In "The Alcubierre Warp Drive in Higher Dimensional Spacetime", White and Davis (2006) theorized that, under the Chung-Freese model they predicted any torus of positive energy density would give rise to slight negative energy density in its core due to classical energy in 3+1 dimensions being shifted "off brain" into the unobservable higher dimensions. They proposed an experiment to test this by constructing a charged capacitor ring. However, under the mass-energy equivalence, a rapidly spinning torus made of lead would have orders of magnitude greater positive energy density -- so why were they using capacitors in their experiment?
Quote from: WarpTech on 05/01/2015 03:44 amGo back and read the entire thread, you'll find they already did most of what you suggested. Their Rig has been tested and has not been falsified.There is another explanation that has been around for many decades, it is that variations in the gravitational field are indistinguishable from variations in the refractive index of the vacuum. When you refer to the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations, this does not hold in a vacuum where epsilon0 and mu0 are variables. In General Relativity we refer to the metric components, g^uv. These can and are interpreted as components of a variable refractive index, in the Polarizable Vacuum Model. Primarily refined by Hal Puthoff, a few papers of my own and many others have contributed to it. There are many, many papers on this available. In this case, the interior energy density is not symmetrical, so the refractive index has a gradient. It was said in a previous post that the speed of light inside is different than it is outside. This is the correct interpretation, however it must include a gradient in the refractive index, as it passes through the structure itself, to cause motion. The gradient in the refractive index "is" a gravitational field. That is what the warp drive requires. In a separate experiment, they may have shown that the speed of light inside the chamber varies. The amount is varies would only be noticed "IF" you were looking for it. Most resonant systems are "tuned" to eliminate such affects in manufacturing. In such a small cavity, I'm not confident it can be measured.Yes, the simple formula I put up is based on a similar type of assumption. Could you reference your papers ? (publicly or privately)Thanks Edit: Many decades is correct, I'm 40 years out of date trying to catch up on any changes.
Go back and read the entire thread, you'll find they already did most of what you suggested. Their Rig has been tested and has not been falsified.There is another explanation that has been around for many decades, it is that variations in the gravitational field are indistinguishable from variations in the refractive index of the vacuum. When you refer to the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations, this does not hold in a vacuum where epsilon0 and mu0 are variables. In General Relativity we refer to the metric components, g^uv. These can and are interpreted as components of a variable refractive index, in the Polarizable Vacuum Model. Primarily refined by Hal Puthoff, a few papers of my own and many others have contributed to it. There are many, many papers on this available. In this case, the interior energy density is not symmetrical, so the refractive index has a gradient. It was said in a previous post that the speed of light inside is different than it is outside. This is the correct interpretation, however it must include a gradient in the refractive index, as it passes through the structure itself, to cause motion. The gradient in the refractive index "is" a gravitational field. That is what the warp drive requires. In a separate experiment, they may have shown that the speed of light inside the chamber varies. The amount is varies would only be noticed "IF" you were looking for it. Most resonant systems are "tuned" to eliminate such affects in manufacturing. In such a small cavity, I'm not confident it can be measured.