I would feel uncomfortable to place other devices there without reports from Dr. White showing that he would agree to call them Q-Thrusters (because what is a Q-Thruster or not is really up to Dr. White's theory and Dr. White's theory has not been fully disclosed)
Quote from: Rodal on 04/29/2016 02:36 pmI would feel uncomfortable to place other devices there without reports from Dr. White showing that he would agree to call them Q-Thrusters (because what is a Q-Thruster or not is really up to Dr. White's theory and Dr. White's theory has not been fully disclosed)(snip)Looks like somone has defaced the Theory page on Emdrive wiki. Anyone know how to revert? http://emdrive.wiki/Theory
Quote from: Monomorphic on 04/29/2016 03:43 pmQuote from: Rodal on 04/29/2016 02:36 pmI would feel uncomfortable to place other devices there without reports from Dr. White showing that he would agree to call them Q-Thrusters (because what is a Q-Thruster or not is really up to Dr. White's theory and Dr. White's theory has not been fully disclosed)(snip)Looks like somone has defaced the Theory page on Emdrive wiki. Anyone know how to revert? http://emdrive.wiki/TheoryDone
EM Drive may not violate the Conservation Laws in the instance of producing a pair of neutrinos(neutrinos born in EM deexitation EW process through E0 transition inside the resonator). It is known that the correlation angle of the two neutrinos in the lab system would be 60 deg. [Montoya-93], so an unbalanced force would appear, since neutrinos escape without interaction.Unfortunately, this statement is not easy to prove in an experiment.
Thanks doc, here it is: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1502273#msg1502273This will be on every subsequent thread...hopefully it helps place the concept in perspective with others in the Q Thruster "family". Some of them have their own Topic Threads here, some do not. Any member in good standing is free to start a new Topic in New Physics. I have created a couple, one closed, one just started as an invite to the inventors.Separate Technology Topic Threads could avoid confusion here on EMDrive but also give others an introduction to other Q Thrusters. Special note per Dr Rodal, EW's work is focused on the overall family, namely Q Thrusters which the theory is based upon. Some or no elements of the rest of the other concepts could be incorporated within their work (Let me know if this is worded correctly, Doc).Note that this image links to a specific post by Dr Rodal in T7. Will need to know where I can find an updated version when changes are made...thanks all!
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 04/28/2016 03:52 pmI was wrong about the fact stating Serrano's Field Thruster experiments have always been conducted without any Faraday cage. Attached below is an excerpt (page 40) of Eagleworks 2013 warp field physics PDF showing the Serrano thruster within a Faraday cage. The results were apparently positive although small, but while the experiment was placed inside a vacuum chamber, it was conducted at ambient air pressure like Eagleworks' first cavity thruster experiments.Please note that Boeing directly provided the test article to JSC… Too bad they never accepted to also send Shawyer's flight thruster they own too. Was it because the former was managed by Boeing/Darpa and the latter by Phantom Works (same or different teams and decision-makers?) or something else, we don't know.1) Please note that the figure of merit for these Q-Thrusters is the force/InputPower, and that the force/InputPower for the Boeing/DARPA Serrano Field Effect device in a Faraday cage had great results at NASA, per that slide: they eclipse any EM Drive claim: 1 to 20 N/kW. 20 N/kW is 20 times the maximum amount claimed by the EM Drive non-superconducting with maximum reported results: Yang's 1 N/kW. It is also more than 20 times the Cannae superconducting claimed force/InputPower2) As to Boeing terminating the Shawyer EM Drive relationship and not sending their device to NASA, please note that the Boeing official that signed the contract is still working with Boeing. Another Boeing employee, a Boeing spokesman confirmed to the press that Boeing terminated the relationship with Shawyer and they discontinued working on Shawyer's EM Drive concept:http://aviationweek.com/awin/propellentless-space-propulsion-research-continuesQuote“Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue.This is in contrast with Boeing/DARPA in 2013 sending the Serrano device to NASA for test verification, with up to 20 times the force/InputPower of the highest claimed result for an EM Drive, and 50 times the force/InputPower of the highest claimed result by Shawyer for Boeing's Flight Thruster EM Drive.
I was wrong about the fact stating Serrano's Field Thruster experiments have always been conducted without any Faraday cage. Attached below is an excerpt (page 40) of Eagleworks 2013 warp field physics PDF showing the Serrano thruster within a Faraday cage. The results were apparently positive although small, but while the experiment was placed inside a vacuum chamber, it was conducted at ambient air pressure like Eagleworks' first cavity thruster experiments.Please note that Boeing directly provided the test article to JSC… Too bad they never accepted to also send Shawyer's flight thruster they own too. Was it because the former was managed by Boeing/Darpa and the latter by Phantom Works (same or different teams and decision-makers?) or something else, we don't know.
“Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 04/29/2016 03:40 pmThanks doc, here it is: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1502273#msg1502273This will be on every subsequent thread...hopefully it helps place the concept in perspective with others in the Q Thruster "family". Some of them have their own Topic Threads here, some do not. Any member in good standing is free to start a new Topic in New Physics. I have created a couple, one closed, one just started as an invite to the inventors.Separate Technology Topic Threads could avoid confusion here on EMDrive but also give others an introduction to other Q Thrusters. Special note per Dr Rodal, EW's work is focused on the overall family, namely Q Thrusters which the theory is based upon. Some or no elements of the rest of the other concepts could be incorporated within their work (Let me know if this is worded correctly, Doc).Note that this image links to a specific post by Dr Rodal in T7. Will need to know where I can find an updated version when changes are made...thanks all!Dave,Upon a careful review of the data and consulting with experts, I have concluded that the Boeing/Darpa/Serrano field effect device should be included inside the set of Mach Lorentz thrusters, so I have revised the picture as attached below.Hat tip to Flux-Capacitor for this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1525261#msg1525261 with information the Boeing/Darpa/Serrano field effect device, including this: http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/act/html/sfptv1.htmThe rationale for this classification is that transient electric and magnetic fields (perpendicular to each other) created during the induced charge and discharge of the capacitive device create the correct field conditions needed to generate a Lorentz force that deforms (strain) the dielectric (*) via its electrostrictive response that could generate the required frequency (stress and hence) force rectification pulses needed to rectify the Woodward Mach Effect mass fluctuations in the dielectric so that the Boeing/Darpa/Serrano device is operating as a Mach Lorentz Thruster.Could you please be so nice as to replace the image at the start of the thread with this revised image?Thanks______________(*) According to http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/act/html/sfptv1.htm , the Serrano field effect device uses a polymer as the dielectric
Quote from: SergioZ82 on 04/29/2016 07:34 amHello everybody,I'm Sergio, the author of PNN blog Neo Leges Motus. I'm writing here on behalf of Emidio Laureti, because he can't access the forum and asked me for support: apparently his IP results banned from this site and he can't register. If moderators can solve this problem he would be glad to partecipate in the discussion.For the moment, if you like, I can try to answer some questions if I can (I'm not a physicist).I had a look at the scheme posted by Rodal (very helpful btw). I think PNN should stay outside the Q-Thruster set, because the inventor has always stated that PNN works because there is a fault in electrodynamics - the displacement current concept - that can be exploited to generate thrust without reaction. In fact, he always distanced himself from quantum/gravitic hypothesis to explain e.m propulsion.Sergio, welcome to this very long topic.Could you please elaborate a bit more on the part I highlighted in red?It is a rather daring statement and I would like to understand why you would say that there is a "fault in electrodynamics" ?
Hello everybody,I'm Sergio, the author of PNN blog Neo Leges Motus. I'm writing here on behalf of Emidio Laureti, because he can't access the forum and asked me for support: apparently his IP results banned from this site and he can't register. If moderators can solve this problem he would be glad to partecipate in the discussion.For the moment, if you like, I can try to answer some questions if I can (I'm not a physicist).I had a look at the scheme posted by Rodal (very helpful btw). I think PNN should stay outside the Q-Thruster set, because the inventor has always stated that PNN works because there is a fault in electrodynamics - the displacement current concept - that can be exploited to generate thrust without reaction. In fact, he always distanced himself from quantum/gravitic hypothesis to explain e.m propulsion.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/117663015413546257905/posts/E1ecoYsa5aeJohn Baez, a well known theoretical physicist and blogger has dismissed the emdrive for a while. He has a new blog entry this past week addressing Mike McCullouch's new theory regarding Unruh and the Casmir Effect:https://plus.google.com/u/0/117663015413546257905/posts/E1ecoYsa5aeOf course, I was compelled to add my own comment, not to attack the critique nor the author, but to address something that's bothered me ever since I undertook the time, expense and effort to debunk the emdrive myself.
McCulloch talks a lot about the Unruh effect, so you should learn a bit about that. It's never been detected, but most physicists believe in it, because it's a consequence of special relativity and quantum mechanics. When you put these theories together, they predict that an accelerating observer will see a faint glow of thermal radiation.For example, suppose you accelerate at a trillion gee - a trillion times more than a falling object on Earth. Then the theory predicts you'll see thermal radiation at a temperature of 40 billionths of a degree Celsius above absolute zero. That's so faint nobody knows how to detect it!...There are arguments about this, but whatever happens, it'll be too small to detect under most circumstances. Chen and Tajima have proposed an experiment to accelerate a single electron at 10 septillion gee (that is, 10^25 gee). That might be enough for something interesting to happen. However, the EmDrive gadget is nowhere near as intense. The version NASA built is weaker than a typical microwave oven. This has not stopped McCulloch from claiming that the Unruh effect "explains" the EmDrive! ...Why hasn't it been detected? Because it's predicted to be very, very weak. Absurdly weak!McCulloch is not setting Planck's constant to 1 by a suitable choice of units, he is just saying the phrase "Unruh effect" and then writing down equations that don't involve the Unruh effect. That's why his equations don't contain Planck's constant. And that's how he's able to predict an effect vastly larger than anything the Unruh effect could account for!... One amusing thing is that while the Unruh effect involves quantum mechanics, Planck's constant - the number that shows up in every calculation in quantum mechanics - never shows up in this paper.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 04/30/2016 02:32 pmhttps://plus.google.com/u/0/117663015413546257905/posts/E1ecoYsa5aeJohn Baez, a well known theoretical physicist and blogger has dismissed the emdrive for a while. He has a new blog entry this past week addressing Mike McCullouch's new theory regarding Unruh and the Casmir Effect:https://plus.google.com/u/0/117663015413546257905/posts/E1ecoYsa5aeOf course, I was compelled to add my own comment, not to attack the critique nor the author, but to address something that's bothered me ever since I undertook the time, expense and effort to debunk the emdrive myself.We should stick to discussing the technical issues associated with the EM Drive and any explanatory theories.My fellow alumni Prof. John Baez makes excellent points in his article, for example:Quote from: John BaezMcCulloch talks a lot about the Unruh effect, so you should learn a bit about that. It's never been detected, but most physicists believe in it, because it's a consequence of special relativity and quantum mechanics. When you put these theories together, they predict that an accelerating observer will see a faint glow of thermal radiation.For example, suppose you accelerate at a trillion gee - a trillion times more than a falling object on Earth. Then the theory predicts you'll see thermal radiation at a temperature of 40 billionths of a degree Celsius above absolute zero. That's so faint nobody knows how to detect it!...There are arguments about this, but whatever happens, it'll be too small to detect under most circumstances. Chen and Tajima have proposed an experiment to accelerate a single electron at 10 septillion gee (that is, 10^25 gee). That might be enough for something interesting to happen. However, the EmDrive gadget is nowhere near as intense. The version NASA built is weaker than a typical microwave oven. This has not stopped McCulloch from claiming that the Unruh effect "explains" the EmDrive! ...Why hasn't it been detected? Because it's predicted to be very, very weak. Absurdly weak!McCulloch is not setting Planck's constant to 1 by a suitable choice of units, he is just saying the phrase "Unruh effect" and then writing down equations that don't involve the Unruh effect. That's why his equations don't contain Planck's constant. And that's how he's able to predict an effect vastly larger than anything the Unruh effect could account for!... One amusing thing is that while the Unruh effect involves quantum mechanics, Planck's constant - the number that shows up in every calculation in quantum mechanics - never shows up in this paper.
...Anyone who challenges such a patched and falsified authodoxy with a testable hypotheses should be welcomed, not scorned, particularly where it has been peer reviewed in a perfectly acceptable publication. A shabby attempt at a denouncement Mr Baez[/i]
On the lighter side for our emdrive experimenters...it can happen to anyone:Weasel halts LHC experiments after chewing on a power cablehttps://www.newscientist.com/article/2086451-weasel-halts-lhc-experiments-after-chewing-on-a-power-cable/Happy building and testing!
Quote from: rfmwguy on 04/30/2016 02:22 pmOn the lighter side for our emdrive experimenters...it can happen to anyone:Weasel halts LHC experiments after chewing on a power cablehttps://www.newscientist.com/article/2086451-weasel-halts-lhc-experiments-after-chewing-on-a-power-cable/Happy building and testing!I know about these things that jump out of nowhere and trash your experiments. They also can lead you to ask different questions that normally wouldn't arise. One question that has perplexed me in my matchstick drive failure during the first light in testing my drive a couple months ago. Why did I see a large thrust component during the failure while turning one antenna into a copper fused matchstick? Until I accepted my own rhetoric, there is no bad data. That something good can be gained from any testing data that I was ok with it.Recently rfmwguy was postulating that Cu ions might somehow be directly related to a thrusting component. I started thinking what would a Copper wire antenna 1/4Wl that was arcing towards a matchstick condition make? Cu ions!Then I read here a bit ago where the EM fields do not reflect a counter force back to the source. So can someone help me here and explain what happens when I flood the cavity with Cu ions from my antenna and then they accelerate due to the E and H field mode configuration into the small end? I know the center of mass is still unchanged (Dr. Rodal) but the field actions on the Cu ions in accelerating isn't felt on the antenna source. Does the induced magnetic charges in the Cu ions restrict the magnetic movements within the modes reflecting in the sidewalls of the cavity? (I've a coupe other thought about this action in red shifting the photons in the modes and thereby changing of the cutoff frequency increasing evanescent wave actions but they will wait)Any thoughts would be welcome.Shell
Quote from: rfmwguy on 04/30/2016 03:04 pm...Anyone who challenges such a patched and falsified authodoxy with a testable hypotheses should be welcomed, not scorned, particularly where it has been peer reviewed in a perfectly acceptable publication. A shabby attempt at a denouncement Mr Baez[/i]Precisely, Prof. John Baez tested McCulloch's hypothesis and showed it to be wrong, on several counts. If you or others think otherwise, they should address Baez technical points, for example: that McCulloch equations don't contain Planck's constant, and that's how he's able to predict an effect vastly larger than anything the Unruh effect could account for.Talking about the fact that we don't know everything about the Universe is neither here nor there. (With that premise, that since we don't know everything about the Universe, we cannot discuss technical points, I doubt that science would have progressed ) .What we need instead is people to explain what happened to Plank's constant in McCulloch's equations and how does he answer Baez other technical points.
...I think what the other poster and perhaps myself are trying to get across is Planck's constant is an example of a fairly recent belief that may or may not apply for this anomaly. My position on the Constant is fine...but has there ever been a single experiment to disprove the constant or observe an anomaly which does not need it?I understand that once a general consensus is reached, it becomes difficult to argue against it. As a devil's advocate (which I hate playing) have you personally ever investigated a scenario where the Planck Constant is disproved or useless? All this type of mantra does is to elevate an argument, so I tend to avoid that.I invited Dr McCullough to NSF some time ago and probably due to his paper, he has not been back here. He did reply and perhaps this forum can bring both together to discuss it with civility.I understand that's how science has been working over the past few decades...reliance on someone else's theory which has gained wide acceptance as the fundamental argument to new concepts. I'd simply say lets keep testing the emdrive until the definitive answer is found...real or artifact?
Quote from: SeeShells on 04/30/2016 03:16 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 04/30/2016 02:22 pmOn the lighter side for our emdrive experimenters...it can happen to anyone:Weasel halts LHC experiments after chewing on a power cablehttps://www.newscientist.com/article/2086451-weasel-halts-lhc-experiments-after-chewing-on-a-power-cable/Happy building and testing!I know about these things that jump out of nowhere and trash your experiments. They also can lead you to ask different questions that normally wouldn't arise. One question that has perplexed me in my matchstick drive failure during the first light in testing my drive a couple months ago. Why did I see a large thrust component during the failure while turning one antenna into a copper fused matchstick? Until I accepted my own rhetoric, there is no bad data. That something good can be gained from any testing data that I was ok with it.Recently rfmwguy was postulating that Cu ions might somehow be directly related to a thrusting component. I started thinking what would a Copper wire antenna 1/4Wl that was arcing towards a matchstick condition make? Cu ions!Then I read here a bit ago where the EM fields do not reflect a counter force back to the source. So can someone help me here and explain what happens when I flood the cavity with Cu ions from my antenna and then they accelerate due to the E and H field mode configuration into the small end? I know the center of mass is still unchanged (Dr. Rodal) but the field actions on the Cu ions in accelerating isn't felt on the antenna source. Does the induced magnetic charges in the Cu ions restrict the magnetic movements within the modes reflecting in the sidewalls of the cavity? (I've a coupe other thought about this action in red shifting the photons in the modes and thereby changing of the cutoff frequency increasing evanescent wave actions but they will wait)Any thoughts would be welcome.ShellYou have to take into account the power source for the antenna, as previously explained by Notsosureofit.Thus, any test that has the power source stationary and the EM Drive with its antenna moving, and only focuses on the moving part is inherently flawed as it ignores conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.Such a test reminds me of The Wizard of Oz, with the power source behind a curtain (the Wizard is the power source behind the curtain). If you don't take into account the power source, the force appears to be magic,The best test would have the power source integrated with the moving device, for example powered by batteries.Prof. Feynman has a number of excellent examples of conservation of momentum paradoxes in his Feynman Lectures, 50 years ago.
