EM Drive Developments Thread 1

[Mulletron]

I designed 2 ways to test modified inertia.
1. Take a test chamber and cover it with blocking meta materials. See if inertial mass of particles inside changes compared to outside.

2. Cover half sphere with metamaterial, see if it is easier to move one way vs other against gravity.

Edit:

3. Assuming that dielectric thrust holds true first, a sphere vs cone shaped emdrive should thrust differently, everything else kept the same. (Hard to do)

IMHO, in the cone shaped cavity, emdrive will work with the dielectric via the theoretical QV thrust mechanism, and without the dielectric, by uneven momentum transfer across the walls of the cavity, resulting in uneven heating, the imbalance causing movement. Both ways are due to conservation of momentum.

So dielectric thrust only, in any shaped device=some thrust
Cone shape with no dielectric=some thrust
Cone shape and dielectric=most thrust

They need to run the test campaigns for a long time, to see if there is any thrust from having no dielectric in the cavity. It is a question of 0-60 speed, more or less ponies as they say.

[Mulletron]

I hate to be a wet blanket, but until there's experimental evidence to support the idea, it's only a hypothesis - a far cry from the time to rewrite physics texts!

http://physics.aps.org/story/v12/st14

Facts that happen to fit the theory help, but rigorous testing of the theory's predictions are needed before they can be accepted as something more than a theory.

Which is what's happening.

Like I said, do the maths and see if our crazy ideas might work.

If the maths work,
build a better one.
Test it.

Classic science. Some crazy theorist has an idea, works it out in math, gives it to an engineer, the engineer says heck no this is stupid, then builds it as best as he can. The experimentalist make sense of it, then feed it back to the crazy theorist.

Rinse, repeat.

[Rodal]

Classic science. Some crazy theorist has an idea, works it out in math, gives it to an engineer, the engineer says heck no this is stupid, then builds it as best as he can. The experimentalist make sense of it, then feed it back to the crazy theorist.

Rinse, repeat.

http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/(en)/ZIF/FG/2012Quantumscience/abstract/02-27-vortrag/Vortrag-Satz.pdf

thermal hadron production in e+e− (positron electron) annihilation, including strangeness suppression, is reproduced parameter-free as Hawking-Unruh radiation of QCD


measurements cannot tell if the equilibrium was reached by thermal evolution or by throwing dice:

⇒ Ergodic Equivalence Principle ⇐

gravitation ∼ acceleration

kinetic ∼ stochastic

equivalence of kinetic vs. stochastic equilibration

[Mulletron]

Classic science. Some crazy theorist has an idea, works it out in math, gives it to an engineer, the engineer says heck no this is stupid, then builds it as best as he can. The experimentalist make sense of it, then feed it back to the crazy theorist.

Rinse, repeat.

http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/(en)/ZIF/FG/2012Quantumscience/abstract/02-27-vortrag/Vortrag-Satz.pdf

thermal hadron production in e+e− (positron electron) annihilation, including strangeness suppression, is reproduced parameter-free as Hawking-Unruh radiation of QCD


measurements cannot tell if the equilibrium was reached by thermal evolution or by throwing dice:

⇒ Ergodic Equivalence Principle ⇐

gravitation ∼ acceleration

kinetic ∼ stochastic

equivalence of kinetic vs. stochastic equilibration

Russian folklore. So basically a QCD thrust vector aka work path.

Good find!

[Rodal]

[Mulletron]

So let me get this straight...

Collect underpants
?
Profit



An interesting design note to remember is that you can't forget about doppler shift inside the cavity as you accelerate. You either gotta shorten the cavity or raise the frequency of operation, or something else....I'm thinking a feedback loop from an accelerometer to your magnetron, used to vary the operation frequency depending on if it senses positive or negative accelerations. To keep the ride smooth.

On the flipside, you can intentionally detune the cavity to provide variable thrust, or braking.

He's right you know:
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf

[Rodal]

So let me get this straight...
...
?
...

The big question mark is whether the microwave (~2GHz) EmDrive [copper ?] flat walls can make a horizon.

Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation and therefore that the Unruh waves are affected by the [copper ?] flat wall because they are partly ElectroMagnetic waves and the electrons in the [copper ?] flat walls move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns close at the [copper ?] flat walls just as at the Hubble horizon ?

Four questions really:

1) Is the NASA Eagleworks truncated cone a complete, closed, Faraday cage, including both flat end surfaces? (are the end surfaces also made of copper?)

2) Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation ?

3) Is it correct to assume that the Unruh wave patterns close at the [copper ?] flat walls just as at the Hubble horizon ?

4) Is McCulloch's MiHsC theory correct that inertial mass is caused by Unruh radiation, and so it is affected by the Hubble horizon since Unruh waves must fit exactly within this horizon?.

(In MiHsC the inertial mass (mi) depends on the Unruh radiation wavelength and the Hubble distance as follows:
 mi=m(1-L/4T)
 m = unmodified mass
 L = Unruh wavelength dependent on acceleration
 T = Hubble horizon distance)

[Rodal]

Again, what are the small and large flat walls of the NASA Eagleworks truncated cone made out of?
All we can see is that they are covered by PCB material.  Is there copper behind them?
Or is it just PCB material ?

[Rodal]

Shawyer drive

[Mulletron]

So let me get this straight...
...
?
...

The big question mark is whether the microwave (~2GHz) EmDrive [copper ?] flat walls can make a horizon.

Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation and therefore that the Unruh waves are affected by the [copper ?] flat wall because they are partly ElectroMagnetic waves and the electrons in the [copper ?] flat walls move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns close at the [copper ?] flat walls just as at the Hubble horizon ?

Four questions really:

1) Is the NASA Eagleworks truncated cone a complete, closed, Faraday cage, including both flat end surfaces? (are the end surfaces also made of copper?)

2) Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation ?

3) Is it correct to assume that the Unruh wave patterns close at the [copper ?] flat walls just as at the Hubble horizon ?

4) Is McCulloch's MiHsC theory correct that inertial mass is caused by Unruh radiation, and so it is affected by the Hubble horizon since Unruh waves must fit exactly within this horizon?. (In MiHsC the inertial mass (mi) depends on the Unruh radiation wavelength and the Hubble distance as follows:
 mi=m(1-L/4T)
where m is the unmodified mass, L is the Unruh wavelength determined by the acceleration, and T is the Hubble distance)

Unruh waves are all around you right now. They are not apparent to you until you accelerate and things start heating up (unruh radiation). In our everyday experience, all you can do to see unruh waves in action is measure their effect via the casimir effect.

[Rodal]

Unruh waves are all around you right now. They are not apparent to you until you accelerate and things start heating up. In our everyday experience, all you can do to see unruh waves in action is measure their effect via the casimir effect.

The existence of Unruh radiation is controversial. The skeptics accept that an accelerating object thermalises at the Unruh temperature, but they do not believe that this leads to the emission of particles, arguing that the emission and absorption rates of the accelerating particle are balanced.

[Mulletron]

Unruh waves are all around you right now. They are not apparent to you until you accelerate and things start heating up. In our everyday experience, all you can do to see unruh waves in action is measure their effect via the casimir effect.

The existence of Unruh radiation is controversial. The skeptics accept that an accelerating object thermalises at the Unruh temperature, but they do not believe that this leads to the emission of photons, arguing that the emission and absorption rates of the accelerating particle are balanced.

I liken it to Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is also the result of a large acceleration. The acceleration across a black hole's event horizon, which pulls apart particle pairs, resulting in Hawking radiation. Pretty much the same thing, different ways of looking at it.

Besides, we're not trying to go ludicrous speed here. Just a wiggle on a test bench is enough for me.

[Rodal]

Unruh waves are all around you right now. They are not apparent to you until you accelerate and things start heating up. In our everyday experience, all you can do to see unruh waves in action is measure their effect via the casimir effect.

The existence of Unruh radiation is controversial. The skeptics accept that an accelerating object thermalises at the Unruh temperature, but they do not believe that this leads to the emission of photons, arguing that the emission and absorption rates of the accelerating particle are balanced.

I liken it to Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is also the result of a large acceleration. The acceleration across a black hole's event horizon, which pulls apart particle pairs, resulting in Hawking radiation. Pretty much the same thing, different ways of looking at it.

Hawking radiation is also controversial. It leads to information problems.  To adress the information apparent "loss" different solutions have been proposed.  There is no consensus.  Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems Hawking radiation is too small to be observed directly.

[Rodal]

So let me get this straight...
...
?
...

The big question mark is whether the microwave (~2GHz) EmDrive [copper ?] flat walls can make a horizon.

Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation and therefore that the Unruh waves are affected by the [copper ?] flat wall because they are partly ElectroMagnetic waves and the electrons in the [copper ?] flat walls move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns close at the [copper ?] flat walls just as at the Hubble horizon ?

Four questions really:

1) Is the NASA Eagleworks truncated cone a complete, closed, Faraday cage, including both flat end surfaces? (are the end surfaces also made of copper?)

2) Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation ?

3) Is it correct to assume that the Unruh wave patterns close at the [copper ?] flat walls just as at the Hubble horizon ?

4) Is McCulloch's MiHsC theory correct that inertial mass is caused by Unruh radiation, and so it is affected by the Hubble horizon since Unruh waves must fit exactly within this horizon?. (In MiHsC the inertial mass (mi) depends on the Unruh radiation wavelength and the Hubble distance as follows:
 mi=m(1-L/4T)
where m is the unmodified mass, L is the Unruh wavelength determined by the acceleration, and T is the Hubble distance)

Unruh waves are all around you right now. They are not apparent to you until you accelerate and things start heating up (unruh radiation). In our everyday experience, all you can do to see unruh waves in action is measure their effect via the casimir effect.

Can you answer the first three questions I posed above, starting by the first one?

[Mulletron]

Unruh waves are all around you right now. They are not apparent to you until you accelerate and things start heating up. In our everyday experience, all you can do to see unruh waves in action is measure their effect via the casimir effect.

The existence of Unruh radiation is controversial. The skeptics accept that an accelerating object thermalises at the Unruh temperature, but they do not believe that this leads to the emission of photons, arguing that the emission and absorption rates of the accelerating particle are balanced.

I liken it to Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is also the result of a large acceleration. The acceleration across a black hole's event horizon, which pulls apart particle pairs, resulting in Hawking radiation. Pretty much the same thing, different ways of looking at it.

Hawking radiation is also controversial. It leads to information problems.  To adress the information apparent "loss" different solutions have been proposed.  There is no consensus.  Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems Hawking radiation is too small to be observed directly.

Hawking radiation is not just where particle pairs are pulled apart. It is also the mechanism for which information is conserved. It isn't a cause of information problems. A black hole slowly evaporates and returns that information back to the universe.

[Rodal]

...

Hawking radiation is not just where particle pairs are pulled apart. It is also the mechanism for which information is conserved. It isn't a cause of information problems. A black hole slowly evaporates and returns that information back to the universe.
...

Rather than arguing about what Hawking radiation encompasses, and whether there is a Hawking radiation paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox  (certainly there is no consensus) and such esoteric topics, why don't we concentrate on the EM drive?

I propose we should strive to answer the questions I posed, starting by the first simple question: is the NASA Eagleworks drive a closed Faraday cage?  are the flat ends indeed made out of copper?

[Mulletron]

...

Hawking radiation is not just where particle pairs are pulled apart. It is also the mechanism for which information is conserved. It isn't a cause of information problems. A black hole slowly evaporates and returns that information back to the universe.
...

Rather than arguing about what Hawking radiation encompasses, and whether there is a Hawking radiation paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox  (certainly there is no consensus) and such esoteric topics, why don't we concentrate on the EM drive?

I propose we should strive to answer the questions I posed, starting by the first simple question: is the NASA Eagleworks drive a closed Faraday cage?  are the flat ends indeed made out of copper?

By every method I use, it appears to be copper all around. Shawyer's design is copper. Nasa tested Shawyer's design.

Information entropy and casual horizons do apply to emdrive. Since the Casimir effect is confirmed, I don't tend to question Unruh waves. Since an object approaching C gets baked by radiation, I don't tend to question Unruh Radiation.

That gray stuff over the large end cap is a cover used for something. I don't know what for.

At emdrive.com, Shawyer says it is an enclosed cavity. The nature of it being an enclosed cavity is why it is controversial. So I say we can keep operating as if it is enclosed.

[Rodal]

...

Hawking radiation is not just where particle pairs are pulled apart. It is also the mechanism for which information is conserved. It isn't a cause of information problems. A black hole slowly evaporates and returns that information back to the universe.
...

Rather than arguing about what Hawking radiation encompasses, and whether there is a Hawking radiation paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox  (certainly there is no consensus) and such esoteric topics, why don't we concentrate on the EM drive?

I propose we should strive to answer the questions I posed, starting by the first simple question: is the NASA Eagleworks drive a closed Faraday cage?  are the flat ends indeed made out of copper?

By every method I use, it appears to be copper all around. Shawyer's design is copper. Nasa tested Shawyer's design.

Information entropy and casual horizons do apply to emdrive. Since the Casimir effect is confirmed. I don't tend to question Unruh waves. Since an object approaching C gets baked by radiation, I don't tend to question Unruh Radiation.

That gray stuff over the large end cap is a cover used for something. I don't know what for.

At emdrive.com, Shawyer says it is an enclosed cavity. The nature of it being an enclosed cavity is why it is controversial. So I say we can keep operating as if it is enclosed.

Thank you.  That's progress.
Now to the 2nd question:

2) Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation ?

Can we at least  "back of the envelope" calculate what are the accelerations involved ?  (never mind whether they are large enough)

What is accelerating? Why is it accelerating? When is it accelerating? What is the acceleration?

[Mulletron]

...

Hawking radiation is not just where particle pairs are pulled apart. It is also the mechanism for which information is conserved. It isn't a cause of information problems. A black hole slowly evaporates and returns that information back to the universe.
...

Rather than arguing about what Hawking radiation encompasses, and whether there is a Hawking radiation paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox  (certainly there is no consensus) and such esoteric topics, why don't we concentrate on the EM drive?

I propose we should strive to answer the questions I posed, starting by the first simple question: is the NASA Eagleworks drive a closed Faraday cage?  are the flat ends indeed made out of copper?

By every method I use, it appears to be copper all around. Shawyer's design is copper. Nasa tested Shawyer's design.

Information entropy and casual horizons do apply to emdrive. Since the Casimir effect is confirmed. I don't tend to question Unruh waves. Since an object approaching C gets baked by radiation, I don't tend to question Unruh Radiation.

That gray stuff over the large end cap is a cover used for something. I don't know what for.

At emdrive.com, Shawyer says it is an enclosed cavity. The nature of it being an enclosed cavity is why it is controversial. So I say we can keep operating as if it is enclosed.

Thank you.  That's progress.
Now to the 2nd question:

2) Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation ?

Can we at least  "back of the envelope" calculate what are the accelerations involved ?  (never mind whether they are large enough)

What is accelerating? Why is it accelerating? When is it accelerating? What is the acceleration?

No this doesn't apply to electromagnetic radiation itself. It is already going the speed of light.

No, you just confused the heck out of me. Radiation doesn't experience Unruh radiation. It is radiation.

Besides, Unruh waves are important here. Not Unruh radiation.

Just keep in mind, for clarity, the Temperate of the background QV is non zero. That is the Unruh waves. All possible waves at their ground state randomly happening all at once. Noise. The QV. Some fit, some don't and it depends on how close two things are together, how far they are from the Hubble Horizon, and how fast they are going, and their shape.

[Rodal]

...

Hawking radiation is not just where particle pairs are pulled apart. It is also the mechanism for which information is conserved. It isn't a cause of information problems. A black hole slowly evaporates and returns that information back to the universe.
...

Rather than arguing about what Hawking radiation encompasses, and whether there is a Hawking radiation paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox  (certainly there is no consensus) and such esoteric topics, why don't we concentrate on the EM drive?

I propose we should strive to answer the questions I posed, starting by the first simple question: is the NASA Eagleworks drive a closed Faraday cage?  are the flat ends indeed made out of copper?

By every method I use, it appears to be copper all around. Shawyer's design is copper. Nasa tested Shawyer's design.

Information entropy and casual horizons do apply to emdrive. Since the Casimir effect is confirmed. I don't tend to question Unruh waves. Since an object approaching C gets baked by radiation, I don't tend to question Unruh Radiation.

That gray stuff over the large end cap is a cover used for something. I don't know what for.

At emdrive.com, Shawyer says it is an enclosed cavity. The nature of it being an enclosed cavity is why it is controversial. So I say we can keep operating as if it is enclosed.

Thank you.  That's progress.
Now to the 2nd question:

2) Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation ?

Can we at least  "back of the envelope" calculate what are the accelerations involved ?  (never mind whether they are large enough)

What is accelerating? Why is it accelerating? When is it accelerating? What is the acceleration?

No this doesn't apply to electromagnetic radiation itself. It is already going the speed of light.

No, you just confused the heck out of me. Radiation doesn't experience Unruh radiation. It is radiation.

Quoting Prof. McCulloc:  << but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field,>>

The acceleration is the "a" in the formula you (at least momentarily) posted.

Again I ask you:

What is accelerating?   <<huge accelerations (as Prof. McCulloc assumes for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) >> [http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html  ]
Where is it accelerating?
Why is it accelerating?
When is it accelerating?
What is the acceleration?