EM Drive Developments Thread 1

[JohnFornaro]

I just forced myself to believe in an impossible thing.

What?  That I'm a super genius?  Think about that!

[Mulletron]

Well what I described doesn't exactly describe what is happening inside the EMdrive, because the EMdrive is flat at both ends. The one I described is a cone with a half circle back aft. That, in my view, qualifies as a valid fork toward another direction. If my ideas can stand up to ridicule, I'd like to call the new drive.....the MiDrive.

What would happen if (say you were flying through space, getting closer and closer to C) the internal and external Rindler Horizons both met the point of the device at the same time?

Would you yoink out of existence? Or would they invert to the other side?

[Rodal]

...
Well the whole notion of chirality was an idea I had while trying to invoke a better linear asymmetry in a tube of dielectric, so I could explain Cannae, and also explain if the dielectric was important or not in EMdrive; days later it became crystal clear that for emdrive to work, you had to react with something in order to move, then I found this paper and my heart started beating rapidly.......

http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990

On the "Casimir momentum" transferred to a chiral molecule in a strong magnetic field I find the following (2013)  presentation (http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf ) much clearer than the last paper.

Please observe:

1) The momentum is only transferred as an (infinitesimal duration) impulse during switching of the magnetic field

2) It requires simultaneous breakdown of Time symmetry and Parity symmetries.  The only force in nature that allows these breakdowns (of Time symmetry & Parity symmetry) is the weak force, so the effect must be associated with the weak force (related to radiation) and the authors acknowledge this

3) Kinetic energy is supplied by the external magnetic field

4) The chiral molecule in the magnetic field acquires a kinetic momentum directed along B (the magnetic field vector) and proportional to the fine structure constant (related to the Casimir effect as explained by Schwinger) and the rotatory power (the chirality of the molecule + the magnetic field)

5) For common chiral compounds they estimate, for a magnetic field of 10 Tesla (much larger than the magnetic field in the tested EM drives) a delta velocity of only  Δv~ 1nm/s .  That is extremely small (a nanometer per second)

[Notsosureofit]

...

All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.

We are discussing whether the bulk interior of the copper walls and the bulk interior of the dielectric plays a significant role as compared to the boundary surfaces.

At one point recently I understood you to ask or suggest that the cylindrical "can" inside the truncated cone was a dielectric.  That would make it a hugely thick dielectric.

Let me ask you: if you think that the inner bulk inner material of the dielectric plays an important role, then do you think that a dielectric several inches thick would be even better ?

I think that the tested cone has the large amount of dielectric, but that they came to the same conclusion (about surfaces) and have reduced it to the disk shown in the "optimized" diagram.

[Rodal]

...

All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.

We are discussing whether the bulk interior of the copper walls and the bulk interior of the dielectric plays a significant role as compared to the boundary surfaces.

At one point recently I understood you to ask or suggest that the cylindrical "can" inside the truncated cone was a dielectric.  That would make it a hugely thick dielectric.

Let me ask you: if you think that the inner bulk inner material of the dielectric plays an important role, then do you think that a dielectric several inches thick would be even better ?

I think that the tested cone has the large amount of dielectric, but that they came to the same conclusion (about surfaces) and have reduced it to the disk shown in the "optimized" diagram.

That would be very interesting, as the magnetic field mode shape inside the "cylindrical can" dielectric part of the cavity would be governed by the inner diameter of the dielectric.  In essence we would have:

A) a smaller cylindrical cavity formed by the cylindrical hole of the dielectric annulus

and

B) the much larger truncated cone cavity downstream of the dielectric annulus

EDIT:  If the dielectric was a huge annulus, how did they accomplish this?  Did they use a thin Teflon pipe? Did they use a Teflon sheet and roll it into an annulus? 

If it is a Teflon sheet rolled to form a thin cylinder of ~9 inch diameter, then, again, the main effect of the dielectric is its surface.  Ditto for a thin Teflon pipe.

I would be very, very surprised if they used a Teflon rod 9 inch outer diameter with a small inner hole (of say 1 inch inner diameter) such that the bulk thickness of the Teflon would be important. Or if they used a solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in outer diameter, without any inner hole.

Also, that's not what the magnetic field (see attached, the blue arrows) seems to show.  If there was such a large dielectric it must have been a thin pipe or rolled  sheet, seems to me:

[IslandPlaya]

...

All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.

We are discussing whether the bulk interior of the copper walls and the bulk interior of the dielectric plays a significant role as compared to the boundary surfaces.

At one point recently I understood you to ask or suggest that the cylindrical "can" inside the truncated cone was a dielectric.  That would make it a hugely thick dielectric.

Let me ask you: if you think that the inner bulk inner material of the dielectric plays an important role, then do you think that a dielectric several inches thick would be even better ?

I think that the tested cone has the large amount of dielectric, but that they came to the same conclusion (about surfaces) and have reduced it to the disk shown in the "optimized" diagram.

That would be very interesting, as the magnetic field mode shape inside the "cylindrical can" dielectric part of the cavity would be governed by the inner diameter of the dielectric.  In essence we would have:

A) a smaller cylindrical cavity formed by the cylindrical hole of the dielectric annulus

and

B) the much larger truncated cone cavity downstream of the dielectric annulus

EDIT:  If the dielectric was a huge annulus, how did they accomplish this?  Did they use a thin Teflon pipe? Did they use a Teflon sheet and roll it into an annulus? 

If it is a Teflon sheet rolled to form a thin cylinder of ~9 inch diameter, then, again, the main effect of the dielectric is its surface.  Ditto for a thin Teflon pipe.

I would be very, very surprised if they used a Teflon rod 9 inch outer diameter with a small inner hole (of say 1 inch inner diameter) such that the bulk thickness of the Teflon would be important.

Fnarr Dr Rodal fnarr. (Look up Viz comic (Finbar Saunders) and especially Roger's Profanisaurus.)

[Notsosureofit]

...

All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.

We are discussing whether the bulk interior of the copper walls and the bulk interior of the dielectric plays a significant role as compared to the boundary surfaces.

At one point recently I understood you to ask or suggest that the cylindrical "can" inside the truncated cone was a dielectric.  That would make it a hugely thick dielectric.

Let me ask you: if you think that the inner bulk inner material of the dielectric plays an important role, then do you think that a dielectric several inches thick would be even better ?

I think that the tested cone has the large amount of dielectric, but that they came to the same conclusion (about surfaces) and have reduced it to the disk shown in the "optimized" diagram.

That would be very interesting, as the magnetic field mode shape inside the "cylindrical can" dielectric part of the cavity would be governed by the inner diameter of the dielectric.  In essence we would have:

A) a smaller cylindrical cavity formed by the cylindrical hole of the dielectric annulus

and

B) the much larger truncated cone cavity downstream of the dielectric annulus

EDIT:  If the dielectric was a huge annulus, how did they accomplish this?  Did they use a thin Teflon pipe? Did they use a Teflon sheet and roll it into an annulus? 

If it is a Teflon sheet rolled to form a thin cylinder of ~9 inch diameter, then, again, the main effect of the dielectric is its surface.  Ditto for a thin Teflon pipe.

I would be very, very surprised if they used a Teflon rod 9 inch outer diameter with a small inner hole (of say 1 inch inner diameter) such that the bulk thickness of the Teflon would be important. Or if they used a solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in outer diameter, without any inner hole.

Also, that's not what the magnetic field (see attached, the blue arrows) seems to show.  If there was such a large dielectric it must have been a thin pipe or rolled  sheet, seems to me:

* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg  makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.

[Rodal]

* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg  makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.

Wow.  I admit to be very surprised at that !  A solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in diameter !

No wonder that supposedly Shawyer got rid of it 

[Notsosureofit]

* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg  makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.

Wow.  I admit to be very surprised at that !  A solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in diameter !

No wonder that supposedly Shawyer got rid of it 

Odd!  Thinking of Shawyers construction, his could have been filled w/ water, or oil.

[IslandPlaya]

@Rodal
A solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in diameter !
Fnarr!
etc
I will shut up now..

[Rodal]

* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg  makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.

Wow.  I admit to be very surprised at that !  A solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in diameter !

No wonder that supposedly Shawyer got rid of it 

Odd!  Thinking of Shawyers construction, his could have been filled w/ water, or oil.

Back to the respectable science here after Fnarrrrrrrrrrrrrr

A 9 inch solid rod of Teflon would be fairly isotropic with very little directional chirality.   

If it was extruded, I would expect a fair amount of shear mixing (therefore loss of directionality and chirality) in the throat of the extruder.  But it all depends on the dimensions of the throat of the extruder that extruded the Teflon rod.

[Notsosureofit]

* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg  makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.

Wow.  I admit to be very surprised at that !  A solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in diameter !

No wonder that supposedly Shawyer got rid of it 

Odd!  Thinking of Shawyers construction, his could have been filled w/ water, or oil.

Back to the respectable science here after Fnarrrrrrrrrrrrrr

A 9 inch solid rod of Teflon would be fairly isotropic with very little directional chirality.   

If it was extruded, I would expect a fair amount of shear mixing (therefore loss of directionality and chirality) in the throat of the extruder.  But it all depends on the dimensions of the throat of the extruder that extruded the Teflon rod.

Easily available up to 20.5 inch diameter !  http://www.enflo.com/molded_ptfe_rod.html

[Rodal]

* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg  makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.

Wow.  I admit to be very surprised at that !  A solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in diameter !

No wonder that supposedly Shawyer got rid of it 

Odd!  Thinking of Shawyers construction, his could have been filled w/ water, or oil.

Back to the respectable science here after Fnarrrrrrrrrrrrrr

A 9 inch solid rod of Teflon would be fairly isotropic with very little directional chirality.   

If it was extruded, I would expect a fair amount of shear mixing (therefore loss of directionality and chirality) in the throat of the extruder.  But it all depends on the dimensions of the throat of the extruder that extruded the Teflon rod.

Easily available up to 20.5 inch diameter !  http://www.enflo.com/molded_ptfe_rod.html

They are injection molded from Enflo.

I expect practically no overall directional chirality from a 9 inch solid rod made by injection molding.

Even if the product had chirality when injected into the mold, there should be a lot of mixing as the filling takes place.

[IslandPlaya]

Fnarr!
I couldn't resist!
No more I promise!

[Rodal]

* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg  makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.

Wow.  I admit to be very surprised at that !  A solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in diameter !

No wonder that supposedly Shawyer got rid of it 

Odd!  Thinking of Shawyers construction, his could have been filled w/ water, or oil.

The NASA report never states what the dielectric used for the truncated cone was.  They write that the dielectric for the Canae device was Teflon.

They only state for the truncated cone:  <<There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber>>

However, since they removed it and then they inserted it again with apparent ease, it is likely that what they removed and re-inserted was a solid than a liquid, if the solid was not glued inside it.

[Notsosureofit]

* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg  makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.

Wow.  I admit to be very surprised at that !  A solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in diameter !

No wonder that supposedly Shawyer got rid of it 

Odd!  Thinking of Shawyers construction, his could have been filled w/ water, or oil.

The NASA report never states what the dielectric used for the truncated cone was.  They write that the dielectric for the Canae device was Teflon.

They only state for the truncated cone:  <<There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber>>

However, since they removed it and then they inserted it again with apparent ease, it is likely that what they removed and re-inserted was a solid than a liquid, if the solid was not glued inside it.

It looked like only Shawyers early device might have taken liquid.  That would have allowed him to experiment w/ different dielectric parameters.

[IslandPlaya]

What would be the complications on conducting experiments in my garage?
I would need a copper frustum and optimised dielectric designed by you guys.
RF power source.
Suspend the whole thing from a wire and see if it moves.
Am I missing anything?

[Rodal]

What would be the complications on conducting experiments in my garage?
I would need a copper frustum and optimised dielectric designed by you guys.
RF power source.
Suspend the whole thing from a wire and see if it moves.
Am I missing anything?

Suspend it from the place that will give you the greatest height, as high as possible in a place with no air drafts.  > 20ft high would be nice.  Do you have access to an abandoned elevator shaft?


Use thin piano wire (strong and small diameter).  Use a laser to verify the small movement.

1 KWatt (as done by the Chinese) should give you ~0.3 Newtons.  Explore 1.5 to 3 GHz frequencies.
Take a movie and post it in our thread 

[aero]

And don't bake yourself with microwave or RF radiation, at least until after you post complete results

[Mulletron]

After I learned to let go of the absolute universality of EEP, I was then able to accept Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (and all the other theories) as facets of the same interaction, expressed at different levels of interaction.

Thanks Dr. McCulloch for bringing order to the madness via your fresh insight on the true origin of inertial mass. I hope you are correct.

As the great Feynman is quoted, "All mass is interaction."