EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2

[D_Dom]

Woodward discussion thread here;
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.465
Somewhat highjacked but may be returned to the original topic.

[Notsosureofit]

There is some similarity of the EMDrive to the Sagnac oscillator if the optical fiber has a linear variation in the index of refraction.  The frames of reference are stationary and accelerating rather than constant velocity.  But, I havn't seen any reference or calculation giving rotary forces as yet.  At the moment I'm chasing old photon to graviton papers.

The Sagnac effect compares the (rotating) velocity frame of reference in which the opposing photons show the same frequency w/ the (stationary) frame in which the doppler photons are observed.

The Shawyer cavity photons can be compared in the (stationary) dispersion frame w/ the same frequency and in an (accelerated) frame which balances out the dispersion and expresses the doppler shifts.

A classic (1967, Air Force Cambridge Research Lab , Massachusetts) article on the Sagnac effect, by Post:

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Post1967.pdf

Post admits in his great review article: “The search for a physically meaningful transformation for rotation
is not aided in any way whatever by the principle of general space-time covariance (relativity), nor is it true that the space-time theory of gravitation (general relativity) plays any role in establishing physically correct transformations (relevant to the Sagnac effect).”

(parenthesis and bold added for explanatory purposes)

For a contentious viewpoint, here is a paper claiming interferometric measurements validate the classical approach and invalidate the relativistic approach (W. Engelhardt, Division Head, Wissenschatlicher Angestellter JET, Max-Planck-Institut für Physik)

http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie.de/Anhaenge/Wolfgang-Engelhardt-Sagnac.pdf

In 1925 Michelson and Gale built a huge earth-fixed Sagnac Interferometer in Illinois demonstrating that the light velocity is anisotropic on the rotating earth. For Sagnac this result did not come as a surprise having explained the underlying effect on the basis of the ether theory in 1913. The Special Relativity Theory (SRT), however, had predicted on the basis of the Lorentz Transformation (LT) that the velocity of light is isotropic in all inertial systems

After reading these papers my conclusions are that you can dismiss the second one as looking to disprove relativity.  The 1967 paper is exhaustive and it shows decisively (I could see no errors in the math) that the closed path of the Sagnac effect is an example of a "closed system" even in the case of a dispersive medium.

Edit:  I suppose I should add that the EMDrive can be treated the same way(s) with the radius and area = to infinity (or the cosmological size ?) but the implications are not immediately obvious.

Edit2: Went back to check a few thoughts.  Nothing was considered that could give any relevant calculation to the EMDrive, unfortunately.  The only dispersion considered here would just cancel out.

Edit3: (the last ? for now)

By way of clarification, I've been following the proposition that the existance of photon dispersion in a (gravitational, for instance) accelerated frame of reference (AFR) can imply the generation of an acceleration in a stationary frame by the presence of a dispersed photon field and it's possible application to the EMDrive.

In practice, the dispersion relation is translated to an AFR in which the wavenumber dispersion disappears and the doppler shifted frequency dispersion can be used to calculate the force exerted per photon.

The required conditions for a cavity resonator would seem, so far, to be the assymetry of the cavity dispersion relation and the existance of higher order modes which exhibit "cutoff frequencies".

The 1967 paper above, and other papers I've looked at so far do not include calculations that meet those criteria.

The conservation of momentum is still to be rationalised.  So far, none of the electro-gravitational papers I've seen have had the interaction arise "naturally" out of General Relativity. (that may be my own predudice, so I'm still looking)

Thanks for your patience.

[Rodal]

.....

After reading these papers my conclusions are that you can dismiss the second one as looking to disprove relativity.  The 1967 paper is exhaustive and it shows decisively (I could see no errors in the math) that the closed path of the Sagnac effect is an example of a "closed system" even in the case of a dispersive medium.

Edit:  I suppose I should add that the EMDrive can be treated the same way(s) with the radius and area = to infinity (or the cosmological size ?) but the implications are not immediately obvious.

Edit2: Went back to check a few thoughts.  Nothing was considered that could give any relevant calculation to the EMDrive, unfortunately.  The only dispersion considered here would just cancel out.

Edit3: (the last ? for now)

By way of clarification, I've been following the proposition that the existance of photon dispersion in a (gravitational, for instance) accelerated frame of reference (AFR) can imply the generation of an acceleration in a stationary frame by the presence of a dispersed photon field and it's possible application to the EMDrive.

In practice, the dispersion relation is translated to an AFR in which the wavenumber dispersion disappears and the doppler shifted frequency dispersion can be used to calculate the force exerted per photon.

The required conditions for a cavity resonator would seem, so far, to be the assymetry of the cavity dispersion relation and the existance of higher order modes which exhibit "cutoff frequencies".

The 1967 paper above, and other papers I've looked at so far do not include calculations that meet those criteria.

The conservation of momentum is still to be rationalised.  So far, none of the electro-gravitational papers I've seen have had the interaction arise "naturally" out of General Relativity. (that may be my own predudice, so I'm still looking)

Thanks for your patience.

Thanks for the great comment and explanation  !

It is known that an electric charge emits radiation if there is a relative acceleration between the charge and its electric field.  And that emission of radiation produces a force.  Unequal radiation produced in opposite directions should result in a net force in one direction.  (In order to satisfy energy and momentum conservation, the charged particle must experience a recoil at the time of emission. The radiation must exert an additional force on the charged particle: the Abraham–Lorentz force)

This should exist both for a charge accelerated in a free space, as well for a charge supported at rest in an accelerated field, for example, a gravitational field. In both situations, the charges radiate.

But, if this is due to the acceleration of gravity, at first glance it seems like the charge would radiate in a dipolar power pattern that looks like an asymmetric radially-polarized doughnut (a dougnhut with a larger cross-section in one direction and a smaller cross-section in the opposite direction).  A doughnut whose axis is parallel to the direction of the gravity force, hence one should be able to discriminate this by orienting the EM Drive with the central axis of the truncated cone oriented like the force of gravity, and orienting it perpendicular to that direction.  NASA Eagleworks unfortunately did not orient the truncated cone with its longitudinal axis oriented in the vertical direction, parallel to the direction of the acceleration of gravity.  Dr. White said in the NASA Ames 2014 August Conference that he was planning to do this in the next series of trials.  However, Shawyer did orient his EM Drive in the vertical direction and did obtain similar results as in the horizontal direction, which would seem to preclude this explanation?

[Notsosureofit]

For any closed cavity the gravitational component is just the "weight" of the RF energy

W=PQahf/c^2

The Shawer effect seems to be something else which requires the dispersion relation to have a specific form.

(just had a minute to quip...more later)

Maxwell's equations are just the tautological relationship between the field and particle representations.

Yes, so much easy info to wait for.  My (Xmas) wish is that they looked for any new frequencies in the spectra. (probably not there but cavity modes are bound states and it would be good to look for transitions anyway)

Correction: W = Nahf/c^2 = (PQ/hf)*(ahf/c^2) = PQa/c^2

(I gotta find a way to get more than a minute free at a time !)

[ThinkerX]

Another blog post from Professor McCulloch.  He links to a paper he just published describing how he believes the EM drive is a manifestation of his theory:

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/

[Notsosureofit]

Another blog post from Professor McCulloch.  He links to a paper he just published describing how he believes the EM drive is a manifestation of his theory:

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/

Certainly close enough to be interesting.  I would have liked to see simplified Eq. 6 filled out to include the effect of the cavity modes.

[Notsosureofit]

Awoke to memories of the '60s, ie. the Sachs-Schwebel version of GR using quaternions having an addl. coupling.  Found at least one ref. this AM.

mendelsachs-fromspecialtogeneralrelativity-macrotoquantumdomains28p-120114095137-phpapp02.pdf

"This expression predicts a coupling of the ‘gravitational field’ (in terms of qk) with the matter field components Tρ to define a gravitational current contribution. The latter is not foreseen in the conventional theories that neglect the gravitational coupling to matter fields."

That expression has a form that is at least "similar" in outline to that from the cavity dispersion relation.  The "gravitational current" might provide the missing momentum.

I need to find a way to get copies of the original papers which were in Il Nuovo Cimento as I recall.

Edit:  Looking for,


    Sachs, M. (1964).Nuovo cimento,31, 98.
    Sachs, M. (1968a).International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 387.
    Sachs, M. (1968b).Nuovo cimento,53A, 561.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1961).Nuovo cimento, Supplement21, 197.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1962).Journal of Mathematics and Physics,3, 843.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1963).Nuclear Physics,43, 204.

Also: Schwebel, S. L. INT J THEOR PHYS , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 61-74, 1972, "Interaction theory of the electromagnetic field"

[Star One]

If you wanted to build a vehicle using this technology would there be a preferred shape to use?

[Rodal]

Awoke to memories of the '60s, ie. the Sachs-Schwebel version of GR using quaternions having an addl. coupling.  Found at least one ref. this AM.

mendelsachs-fromspecialtogeneralrelativity-macrotoquantumdomains28p-120114095137-phpapp02.pdf

"This expression predicts a coupling of the ‘gravitational field’ (in terms of qk) with the matter field components Tρ to define a gravitational current contribution. The latter is not foreseen in the conventional theories that neglect the gravitational coupling to matter fields."

That expression has a form that is at least "similar" in outline to that from the cavity dispersion relation.  The "gravitational current" might provide the missing momentum.

I need to find a way to get copies of the original papers which were in Il Nuovo Cimento as I recall.

Edit:  Looking for,


    Sachs, M. (1964).Nuovo cimento,31, 98.
    Sachs, M. (1968a).International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 387.
    Sachs, M. (1968b).Nuovo cimento,53A, 561.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1961).Nuovo cimento, Supplement21, 197.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1962).Journal of Mathematics and Physics,3, 843.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1963).Nuclear Physics,43, 204.

I found this this paper that Sachs wrote under sponsorship from the Air Force Cambridge Research Lab in Trieste in July 1966 while on leave from B.U., "To be submitted to Nuovo Cimento"

"ON FACTORIZATION OF EINSTEIN'S FORMALISM INTO A PAIR OF QUATERNION FIELD EQUATIONS"

http://streaming.ictp.trieste.it/preprints/P/66/081.pdf

it might be remarked that the quaternion form of the metrical field equations lends itself in a natural way to a unification between the inertial and gravitational manifestations of interacting matter. This is because of the basic expression of the matter fields themselves in terms of the same spinor and quaternion variables.

Mendel Sachs has a website:

http://mendelsachs.com/


In his website he has posted several of his articles.  For example this relatively recent one on the Mach principle and origin of inertia:

http://mendelsachs.com/wp-content/uploads/articles/the-mach-principle.pdf

In that reference, Sachs convincingly argues against the approach to Mach's Principle followed by Woodward (-of course- he does not mention  Woodward), he considers the particle-antiparticle pairs of the quantum vacuum having a most important effect, while the effect of distant stars is negligible:

I have found in my research program in general relativity, that the primary contribution to the inertial mass of any local elementary matter, such as an ‘electron’, are the nearby particle-antiparticle pairs that constitute what we call the ‘physical vacuum’. [The main developments of this research are demonstrated in my two monographs: General Relativity and Matter, and Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity]. A prediction of this research program is that the main influence of these pairs on the mass of, say, an electron comes from a domain of the ‘physical vacuum’ in its vicinity, whose volume has a radius that is the order of 10^(-15) cm. Of course, the distant stars, billions of light-years away, also contribute to the electron’s mass, though negligibly, just as the Sun’s mass contribution to the weight of a person on Earth is negligible compared with the Earth’s influence on this person’s weight! Nevertheless, it was Mach’s contention that in principle all of the matter of the closed system – the nearby as well as far away constituents – determines the inertial mass of any local matter.

(Bold added for emphasis) ==> this is the anti-thesis of Woodward's approach to Mach's principle!

There are many other interesting references, for example this one on Dirac's Quantum Negative Energy Problem:

http://mendelsachs.com/publication/view/the-quantum-negative-energy-problem-revisited/

[Notsosureofit]

Yes, thanks.  This is great stuff and will require a lot of reading.  (not to mention the brain-busting)
But do look back at that expression in the AM reference, it looks (to me w/o justification) like it could be the "doppler frame" expression.

Edit:  Found the AM paper online, (on the Beardon site, of all places!  I have NO idea what this would have to do w/ free energy.)

http://www.cheniere.org/references/Symmetry_in_Electrodynamics.pdf

 See p.24, the three-current density

[Mulletron]

So what TRL would you guys say the devices presented in the "Anomalous Thrust Production...." papers are at right now? I'd say probably a TRL 2. Possibly on the way to a TRL 3, hopefully.  I base this partly on Dr. White's comments at the 29:55 mark in the NASA Ames Research Director’s Colloquium, August 12, 2014 video posted here recently. He remarks that the Q-thruster concept is potentially higher TRL than the Warp concepts at least.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/technology-readiness-level/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level#NASA_definitions

The reason I'm asking is, what kind of actual real "space flight applications" can we discuss given what we know right now? What can we actually do right now in space with the numbers quoted below?

"With more focus on space flight applications " (as per http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1301658#msg1301658) the metric chosen by the NASA's "Anomalous" report was the thrust force per power input.

Here is a comparison of reported measurements for EM Drives.........

reported measurement ForcePerPowerInput (milliNewtons/kW)

(* Brady c TE mode *)                                     21.31
(* Brady a TM mode*)                              5.396
(* Brady b TM mode*)                              3.000

A quick online conversion of the 21 milliNewton figure gives me a 0.0755 ozf figure. That has to be worth something given that solar panels essentially supply electrical power for free (besides building/getting the space vehicle in orbit to begin with). So would this be useful for at least station keeping even now? Or could it power a small probe somewhere interesting, faster than the usual burn and coast method?

According to the oracle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect_thruster
"Devices operating at 1.35 kW produce about 83 mN of thrust" "...hall effect thrusters have input power 1.35–10 kilowatts, exhaust velocity 10–50 kilometers per second, thrust 40–600 millinewtons and efficiency 45–60 percent."

That 21 milliNewton/KW figure is creeping up on what a Hall thruster can do, but with NO propellant.

[Rodal]

So what TRL would you guys say the devices presented in the "Anomalous Thrust Production...." papers are at right now?....

Hey Mulletron, a very warm WELCOME BACK !
We really missed you !
Glad that you are back

[Rodal]

Yes, thanks.  This is great stuff and will require a lot of reading.  (not to mention the brain-busting)
But do look back at that expression in the AM reference, it looks (to me w/o justification) like it could be the "doppler frame" expression.

Edit:  Found the AM paper online, (on the Beardon site, of all places!  I have NO idea what this would have to do w/ free energy.)

http://www.cheniere.org/references/Symmetry_in_Electrodynamics.pdf

 See p.24, the three-current density

Very interesting.  Also p. 21:

The role of the Mach principle is revealed at this stage of the analysis. Since Fρλ depends on the spin curvature tensor Kρλ, which automatically vanishes in a vacuum (i.e. a flat spacetime), the electromagnetic field, and therefore the previously considered electric charge of any quantity of matter in a vacuum must vanish. Thus, not only the inertial mass but also the electric charge of a ‘particle’ of matter does not exist when there is no coupling to other matter. I have generalized this idea in the field theory based on General Relativity, to the case where all previously considered intrinsic properties of discrete matter, in addition to inertial mass and electric charge, vanish identically in a vacuum. This view exorcises all of the remaining features of the discrete, separable ‘elementary particle’ of matter. It is replaced with a view of matter in terms of a closed, continuous field theory, according to the theory of general relativity. I have called this view of matter, whereby all of its previously considered intrinsic properties are explained in terms of coupling within the closed system, ‘the generalized Mach principle’.

Sachs formally answered (in the 1960's !) the criticism that the matter in Quantum Vacuum "does not gravitate": intrinsic properties are explained in terms of coupling within the closed system, they don't really exist (thus they are "virtual") in the vacuum per se, they only become into existence when there is coupling.

[birchoff]

...

Sachs formally answered (in the 1960's !) the criticism that the matter in Quantum Vacuum "does not gravitate": intrinsic properties are explained in terms of coupling within the closed system, they don't really exist (thus they are "virtual") in the vacuum per se, they only become into existence when there is coupling.

Not sure I understand what your saying here. do you mind breaking that down?

[Notsosureofit]

Hmmm, Schwebel had mentioned, at the time, that because of that, there was no need for renormalization, but because it had already been done, no one cared. 

[birchoff]

...
In his website he has posted several of his articles.  For example this relatively recent one on the Mach principle and origin of inertia:

http://mendelsachs.com/wp-content/uploads/articles/the-mach-principle.pdf

In that reference, Sachs convincingly argues against the approach to Mach's Principle followed by Woodward (-of course- he does not mention  Woodward), he considers the particle-antiparticle pairs of the quantum vacuum having a most important effect, while the effect of distant stars is negligible:

I have found in my research program in general relativity, that the primary contribution to the inertial mass of any local elementary matter, such as an ‘electron’, are the nearby particle-antiparticle pairs that constitute what we call the ‘physical vacuum’. [The main developments of this research are demonstrated in my two monographs: General Relativity and Matter, and Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity]. A prediction of this research program is that the main influence of these pairs on the mass of, say, an electron comes from a domain of the ‘physical vacuum’ in its vicinity, whose volume has a radius that is the order of 10^(-15) cm. Of course, the distant stars, billions of light-years away, also contribute to the electron’s mass, though negligibly, just as the Sun’s mass contribution to the weight of a person on Earth is negligible compared with the Earth’s influence on this person’s weight! Nevertheless, it was Mach’s contention that in principle all of the matter of the closed system – the nearby as well as far away constituents – determines the inertial mass of any local matter.

(Bold added for emphasis) ==> this is the anti-thesis of Woodward's approach to Mach's principle!

So I read the paper expecting the supporting arguments for why Sach's claims that it is the matter closest that has the most important effect. Unfortunately I realized by the end that those arguments actually lie in his books. I read the descriptions of them on amazon and the reviews and I do not believe this is a show stopper for woodward. For the following reasons

* If Sach's is right then Mach's Principle is apart of Einsteins General Relativity theory. Which Woodward is also claiming.

* From my perspective (NOT A PHYSICIST) I get the impression that for the Mach Effects being claimed by woodward it isn't so much that we start with the farthest matter to determine the effects on local matter. Instead it is more important that the inertial mass of any local matter depends on all the matter in the universe.

* In the Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity book. It looks like from the reviews that Sachs also proves the Feynman & Wheeler Absorber theory (which is the "delayed action at a distance" being referenced by the customer review). This is important because it is also being used by Woodward to explain how inertial actions are instantaenous.

...

The "delayed action at a distance"of Feynman and Wheeler is restored to currency. The "advanced" solutions take their place beside the "retarded" solutions in a single, complete space-time.

...

From my limited perspective I see two men looking at the same thing from different perspectives. And while I believe this will end up affecting the details. The question really is whose version is a more accurate representation of reality?


P.S. Yes I know this may sound like a ME fan boy defending his sacred cow,but I can guarantee you that I am just as much a fan boy of NASA's EmDrive research and eagerly awaiting more results to digest. That said without a thorough understanding of both Sach's and Woodwards theories the only way I can compare the two is to look at just how similar or different their line of reasoning is. And from where I stand the detail being pointed to seems small enough to not matter. Especially given the extensive experimental work Woodward and Paul March has done. The only questions I have for them in my mind is can they scale it up? What material science issue need to be resolved? And what is their timeline to get to a performance level applicable to micro gravity applications?

[birchoff]

...
Sachs formally answered (in the 1960's !) the criticism that the matter in Quantum Vacuum "does not gravitate": intrinsic properties are explained in terms of coupling within the closed system, they don't really exist (thus they are "virtual") in the vacuum per se, they only become into existence when there is coupling.

so how does one create this coupling?

[Notsosureofit]

...
Sachs formally answered (in the 1960's !) the criticism that the matter in Quantum Vacuum "does not gravitate": intrinsic properties are explained in terms of coupling within the closed system, they don't really exist (thus they are "virtual") in the vacuum per se, they only become into existence when there is coupling.

so how does one create this coupling?

See:  http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/986/art%253A10.1007%252FBF02755823/000.png

[birchoff]

...
Sachs formally answered (in the 1960's !) the criticism that the matter in Quantum Vacuum "does not gravitate": intrinsic properties are explained in terms of coupling within the closed system, they don't really exist (thus they are "virtual") in the vacuum per se, they only become into existence when there is coupling.

so how does one create this coupling?

See:  http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/986/art%253A10.1007%252FBF02755823/000.png

Since I am not a physicist, and I didnt sleep at a holiday in express last night. I will not even begin to pretend I understood most of what that reply was attempting to show. All I could get out of it  was Sachs provided a point of clarification on why the complaint of his theory lacking internal consistency was not correct. other than that didnt see an argument for how one could physically force the virtual particles to experience coupling and gain their intrinsic properties. Though I suspect this experiment may light the path towards doing something of the sort

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/secret_projects/project077.htm

[Rodal]

...
Sachs formally answered (in the 1960's !) the criticism that the matter in Quantum Vacuum "does not gravitate": intrinsic properties are explained in terms of coupling within the closed system, they don't really exist (thus they are "virtual") in the vacuum per se, they only become into existence when there is coupling.

so how does one create this coupling?

See:  http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/986/art%253A10.1007%252FBF02755823/000.png

Since I am not a physicist, and I didnt sleep at a holiday in express last night. I will not even begin to pretend I understood most of what that reply was attempting to show. All I could get out of it  was Sachs provided a point of clarification on why the complaint of his theory lacking internal consistency was not correct. other than that didnt see an argument for how one could physically force the virtual particles to experience coupling and gain their intrinsic properties. Though I suspect this experiment may light the path towards doing something of the sort

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/secret_projects/project077.htm

Instead of photons colliding with electrons "whizzing down the two-mile-long Stanford accelerator" as in the above paper  (".. The paths of colliding electrons and photons in the experiment ")

it's better to think of low energy two photon physics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics ).  See this article for example on such experiments:

Probing the quantum vacuum with polarized light: a low energy photon-photon collider

http://indico.cern.ch/event/1743/contribution/8/material/slides/0.pdf

Theme
– Vacuum as a “target”: low energy photon-photon collider
• QED interactions
• other interactions?

Aim
– Measure the magnetically induced linear birefringence and linear dichroism (optical rotation) of the Vacuum element (in practice a gas in the zero-pressure limit)
– Possible contributions to macroscopic properties
• photon-photon scattering
• photon splitting
• production of:
– neutral bosons

Main parameters of the apparatus
– magnet
• dipole, 6 T, temp. 4.2 K, 1 m field zone
– cryostat
• rotation frequency ~300 mHz, sliding contacts, warm bore to allow light propagation in the interaction zone
– laser
• 1064 nm, 100 mW, frequency-locked to the F.-P. cavity
– Fabry-Perot optical cavity
• 6.4 m length, finesse ~100000, optical path in the interaction region ~ 60 km
– heterodyne ellipsometer
• ellipticity modulator (SOM) and high extinction (~10-7) crossed polarisers + Quarter Wave Plate (QWP)
• time-modulation of the effect
– detection chain
• photodiode with low-noise amplifier
– DAQ
• Slow: demodulated at low frequency and phase-locked to the magnetic field instantaneous direction
• Fast: high sampling frequency direct acquisition