-
#1400 by Ron Stahl on 04 Oct, 2014 17:04
-
So, are polymers (like the PTFE dielectric resonator) according to you solids? Yes or No?
Polymers are mixtures. Parts are solid and parts are fluid. Cured mostly yes, uncured mostly no. You're being obtuse to no point. My point was that the issue of "constitutive relation" is not a proscription against making general statements. There is no doubt anyone can precise enough to make a general statement difficult or invalid in some way, but that is not the kind of example under consideration. After all, Woodward only uses perovskite crystals. -
#1401 by Mulletron on 04 Oct, 2014 17:12
-
Last thought before I take a break and sleep is that there is no way that dumping energy into a dielectric, be it a cap or piezoelectric electroactive polymer or whatever, the qed vacuum even, will contribute to the mass energy of that system.
Actually it does, by definition. E=mc^2. When you put joules into a cap, it weighs more. It's just that c^2 is such a large number we would normally not notice the delta mass, but indeed delta there is. This is the whole concept behind internal energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy
Not applicable. Macro vs micro. Different physical system. Does a hot battleship weigh more than a cold one? Or a charged vs uncharged one? Internal energy is thermodynamics. -
#1402 by Rodal on 04 Oct, 2014 17:29
-
This is the point: this is a thread about "EM Drive Developments". We are interested in the EM Drive experimental results of Shawyer, NASA Eagleworks, the Chinese University (Prof. Juan Yang), etc., and their possible theoretical explanations.So, are polymers (like the PTFE dielectric resonator) according to you solids? Yes or No?
Polymers are mixtures. Parts are solid and parts are fluid. Cured mostly yes, uncured mostly no. You're being obtuse to no point. My point was that the issue of "constitutive relation" is not a proscription against making general statements. There is no doubt anyone can precise enough to make a general statement difficult or invalid in some way, but that is not the kind of example under consideration. After all, Woodward only uses perovskite crystals.
It is not a thread about "Woodward", it is not a thread about "Woodward's book."
Rather than quibble about semantics, and answer "according to Woodward", or definitions from English dictionaries (rather than physics), or as you last did "After all, Woodward only uses perovskite crystals" instead of specifically addressing the below-mentioned drives it would be most constructive if you could use the theories by Woodward that you sponsor and champion to conduct a calculation of what are your predicted thrusts of the Shawyer, NASA Eagleworks, the Chinese University (Prof. Juan Yang) experiments.
Prof. Mike McCulloch has done this for the Shawyer drive using his theory for inertia and the Unruth effect. @frobnicat, @aero, @notsosureofit, @mulletron and many others (to all: please forgive me for not including a full list) and I have endeavored to also conduct calculations on photonic explanations, dark matter explanations, electron explanations, Quantum Vacuum explanations, an artifact of the testing equipment, and other explanations.
If the theories you sponsor are relevant to this thread, please show us by using the theories you sponsor to perform calculations that can throw light on the nature of the above-mentioned experimental results. Thank you.
-
#1403 by Notsosureofit on 04 Oct, 2014 18:00
-
So putting on the "what-if" hat, if Majorana fermions can appear on a superconducting surface, can they appear on a dielectric surface using the topical insulator analogy, oscillate, and radiate axions to provide thrust ?
Edit: at a 2D surface there is the possibility of a non-linear oscillation and thereby frequency multiplication (pretty far fetched, Eh ?) -
#1404 by Mulletron on 04 Oct, 2014 18:25
-
So putting on the "what-if" hat, if Majorana fermions can appear on a superconducting surface, can they appear on a dielectric surface using the topical insulator analogy, oscillate, and radiate axions to provide thrust ?
Edit: at a 2D surface there is the possibility of a non-linear oscillation and thereby frequency multiplication (pretty far fetched, Eh ?)
Help me visualize this pls. -
#1405 by birchoff on 04 Oct, 2014 18:41
-
...
Assuming Crammer is right in how to steer a wormhole
...
@ronstahl
Does some actually have a theory for steering a wormhole? -
#1406 by Ron Stahl on 04 Oct, 2014 18:48
-
If the theories you sponsor are relevant to this thread, please show us by using the theories you sponsor to perform calculations that can throw light on the nature of the above-mentioned experimental results.
IMHO, it is a mistake to make predictions of things like thrust, because there are far too many loose variables involved. For instance, Woodward has never known what is the percentage of binder in any of his dielectrics, so there's no way to know just how much active mass there is in the thruster. One can get around this to some degree, by using the k of the compound, but one is still left with several of these kinds of loose variables. Capacitance that changes with temperature and the inductance that needs to be changed to z-match it, lack of thermal stability, changing electrical impedance with temperature that changes current and power in, even dielectric decay which can be very pronounced in short periods of time, etc.
No one who does this work makes predictions for good reasons. Dr. White has traditionally been very free with his postdictions, but these always come after the data. All he's doing is fitting his model to the data, which is a worthless enterprise, IMHO. I've corrected him on this on numerous occasions and he continues to claim to make predictions when in fact, he does not.
You can do things like parametric studies, where when you have thrust you then change a single variable, and look to see if an effect like thrust scales with that variable (voltage, frequency, etc.), but that is about the best one should hope for so far as "prediction". Even this is dicey since none of these proof of science iterations is capable of continuous thrust yet. For this reason I have said, we will do the best proof of science demonstrations when we are doing proof of technology demonstrations. We need first of all to see these things provided with thermal stability so they can be run continuously. This is just doing good science.
So far as my involvement in this discussion, as it is a discussion about the possible explanations for supposed thrust found in these resonators, and as I have 7 years experience with them, and as I am familiar with the kinds of issues that often go overlooked when considering thrust from M-E, like the 1/4 wave v. 1/2 wave issue; I think I can make a real contribution here without using mathematica. -
#1407 by Notsosureofit on 04 Oct, 2014 18:52
-
So putting on the "what-if" hat, if Majorana fermions can appear on a superconducting surface, can they appear on a dielectric surface using the topical insulator analogy, oscillate, and radiate axions to provide thrust ?
Edit: at a 2D surface there is the possibility of a non-linear oscillation and thereby frequency multiplication (pretty far fetched, Eh ?)
Help me visualize this pls.
OK
http://www.theory.tifr.res.in/~hbar/PDF/ti.pdf
then if the teflon surface has the typical "telomer sticking up" structure w/ the monomers aligning in 2D "layers" (parallel monomer stacks")
So, the image is now of a multilayer which may have enough (luck) as to act as a topological insulator in which Majorana fermions can form and be driven by the RF energy input.
If things get that far there's a chance they would radiate axions (maybe even coherently w/ the photon directon
Told you it was a far-fetched chain of events. -
#1408 by Ron Stahl on 04 Oct, 2014 18:54
-
Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Cramer...
Assuming Crammer is right in how to steer a wormhole
...
@ronstahl
Does some actually have a theory for steering a wormhole?
I'm told his theory on this is online somewhere, but I've yet to find it. I think he delivered an informal presentation of this at his big birthday bash about two years ago, but I still haven't found it. He wrote the Foreward in Woodward's book, and his Transactional Interpretation of QM is beautifully consistent with both Woodward's work and QM, and IIUC, his thoughts on steering a wormhole were instigated by Woodward's work. -
#1409 by mboeller on 04 Oct, 2014 19:29
-
maybe this links are helpful:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1626 (AFAIK same information as in the "Kastner.pdf" from Cramers website 2009 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation
-
#1410 by Ron Stahl on 04 Oct, 2014 19:54
-
Yes, and note the reliance upon Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory in TIQM same as in M-E theory. So really this notion of advanced and retarded waves traveling forward and backward in time to achieve an instantaneous result, is not so far fetched. It solves problems in GR, QM and in how we understand Maxwell's equations. People don't often note that there are two ways to solve those equations and it is arbitrary for us to use only the retarded wave. Even the broader gravity theory has made use of this in Hoyle-Narliker. We're prejudiced however, whenever we consider stuff moving backward in time since we don't observe this. Hence why Cramer is still doing the work in entanglement, as this could provide powerful evidence for absorber theory in general, and his Transactional Interpretation in particular.
-
#1411 by Rodal on 04 Oct, 2014 20:01
-
OK, so according to your definition (a definition that I don't agree with from my R&D background in analysis of materials, but let's use it for your argument) <<Polymers are mixtures. Parts are solid and parts are fluid. Cured mostly yes, uncured mostly no. >>, since the dielectrics used in the NASA Eagleworks experiments are thermoplastics (that obviously are not crosslinked and not capable of being "cured" like thermosets), they are not solids according to you. Therefore according to your definition your theory is not capable of dealing with these dielectric materials.If the theories you sponsor are relevant to this thread, please show us by using the theories you sponsor to perform calculations that can throw light on the nature of the above-mentioned experimental results.
IMHO, it is a mistake to make predictions of things like thrust, because there are far too many loose variables involved. For instance, Woodward has never known what is the percentage of binder in any of his dielectrics, so there's no way to know just how much active mass there is in the thruster. One can get around this to some degree, by using the k of the compound, but one is still left with several of these kinds of loose variables. Capacitance that changes with temperature and the inductance that needs to be changed to z-match it, lack of thermal stability, changing electrical impedance with temperature that changes current and power in, even dielectric decay which can be very pronounced in short periods of time, etc.
No one who does this work makes predictions for good reasons. Dr. White has traditionally been very free with his postdictions, but these always come after the data. All he's doing is fitting his model to the data, which is a worthless enterprise, IMHO. I've corrected him on this on numerous occasions and he continues to claim to make predictions when in fact, he does not.
You can do things like parametric studies, where when you have thrust you then change a single variable, and look to see if an effect like thrust scales with that variable (voltage, frequency, etc.), but that is about the best one should hope for so far as "prediction". Even this is dicey since none of these proof of science iterations is capable of continuous thrust yet. For this reason I have said, we will do the best proof of science demonstrations when we are doing proof of technology demonstrations. We need first of all to see these things provided with thermal stability so they can be run continuously. This is just doing good science.
So far as my involvement in this discussion, as it is a discussion about the possible explanations for supposed thrust found in these resonators, and as I have 7 years experience with them, and as I am familiar with the kinds of issues that often go overlooked when considering thrust from M-E, like the 1/4 wave v. 1/2 wave issue; I think I can make a real contribution here without using mathematica.
Furthermore you state that you are not going to make any predictions of thrust concerning the Shawyer, NASA Eagleworks or Chinese University (Prof. Juan Yang) EM drives.
Therefore, until you notify me otherwise, my understanding from the above is that your theory is not capable of predicting thrust for the above mentioned EM drives. Thank you. -
#1412 by JohnFornaro on 04 Oct, 2014 20:14
-
Oooo. Oooo. Spank me next!
-
#1413 by Rodal on 04 Oct, 2014 20:17
-
So putting on the "what-if" hat, if Majorana fermions can appear on a superconducting surface, can they appear on a dielectric surface using the topical insulator analogy, oscillate, and radiate axions to provide thrust ?
Edit: at a 2D surface there is the possibility of a non-linear oscillation and thereby frequency multiplication (pretty far fetched, Eh ?)
Help me visualize this pls.
OK
http://www.theory.tifr.res.in/~hbar/PDF/ti.pdf
then if the teflon surface has the typical "telomer sticking up" structure w/ the monomers aligning in 2D "layers" (parallel monomer stacks")
So, the image is now of a multilayer which may have enough (luck) as to act as a topological insulator in which Majorana fermions can form and be driven by the RF energy input.
If things get that far there's a chance they would radiate axions (maybe even coherently w/ the photon directon
Told you it was a far-fetched chain of events.
@notsosureofit, your explanation above (axionic dark matter), and (thanks to @mulletron for bringing this to our attention) Prof. Mike McCulloch's Unruth-radiation explanation are turning out to be the most coherent, so far, explanations of the measured thrust forces.
Also, they do not violate local conservation of momentum, and they are based on physics as discussed at major academic institutions, they just involve predicted but not yet experimentally verified matter (in the first case) or radiation (in the second case).
The Unruth-radiation requires (correct me I am wrong) less of "a far-fetched chain of events" and it is also ahead because one can make a "back of the envelope" tentative predictive analysis (as done by Prof. Mike McCulloch ) that is pretty close to the measured thrust forces.
From the experimental side at NASA Eagleworks we have the issues of the magnetic interaction between the magnetic damper and the power cable. Also neither the Chinese University and the NASA Eagleworks (Cannae and truncated cone) experiments were yet conducted in a vacuum.
This is very exciting as, thanks to everybody involved in this thread, we have made real progress in analyzing these experiments.
______________
PS: concerning the axionic dark matter explanation we still have to hear from @frobnicat on his warning that it maybe several orders of magnitude off the measurements. I also have a concern due to some of the estimates made for the density of dark matter expected around our planet (being too low to explain the measurements), but that is an unsettled area of research.
-
#1414 by Ron Stahl on 04 Oct, 2014 20:36
-
Therefore, until you notify me otherwise, my understanding from the above is that your theory is not capable of predicting thrust for the above mentioned EM drives. Thank you.
I explained this to you ten pages back. Did you miss the memo? I'll tell you again: Woodward's theory may or may not be able to explain thrusts from the EM drives, depending upon how the dielectric is placed inside the resonator. If the field on the dielectric will generate an unbalanced mechanical action due to piezo or electrostrictive coefficients, then it is possible these devices are producing thrust due to M-E physics. Specifically, since the thrust from these devices vanishes when the dielectric is removed, and since it is pronounced during the on/off switching transients, there is good reason to believe these are acting as poorly designed Mach Effect Thrusters. However, regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET.
Someone here did a nice treatment of this and posted it over at T-P, noting 5 possible explanations for thrust from these devices. I was unfamiliar with one, and I favor the M-E explanation. The other three seemed to me obviously wrong, including the QVF conjecture. -
#1415 by aceshigh on 04 Oct, 2014 22:54
-
you know, before we blame Ron Stahl for bringing Woodward Theory here, we should remember he arrived AFTER people started talking about Woodward Theory here.
Dr Rodal himself was talking about Woodward theory here before Ron Stahl arrived, exactly to correct some misunderstandings regarding Woodward Theory (or Mach Effect, like Woodward himself preffers to call it)
Btw, it´s also important to question if Paul March himself, who worked on the experiments, believe the results may have relation to Mach Effect. -
#1416 by Rodal on 04 Oct, 2014 23:09
-
...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....
This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:
p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>> -
#1417 by frobnicat on 04 Oct, 2014 23:42
-
_______
PS: concerning the axionic dark matter explanation we still have to hear from @frobnicat on his warning that it maybe several orders of magnitude off the measurements. I also have a concern due to some of the estimates made for the density of dark matter expected around our planet (being too low to explain the measurements), but that is an unsettled area of research.
yes yes, me and my big mouth
Let's be clear that it's about the use of naturally occurring dark matter (be it light Axions rather than Wimps if the involved frequencies are indicative) and not about the production or use of dark matter considered in an "empty dark field" (gosh) that is at its rest state, lower point energy. The question were : is it worth to use this naturally occurring flow for momentum or energy? (which is the same as momentum = energy / c if we take the photon rocket as a proven baseline of "best spent mass_energy")
In fact I then tried a back of the envelope arithmetic like that :
mass flow = density * average speed * device cross section
kg/s = kg/m^3 * m/s * m^2
a few assumptions there : the dark flow is homogeneous in density and speed (so I guess this discards hot dark matter). I'm also assuming 100% of dark mass going through the device is "used" somehow (which for a weakly interacting particle would be a rare manifestation of goodwill).
Then I went other equations, like F=mflow*Vej and Pow=0.5mflow*Vej^2, going through the energy it takes to push on such a flow to get the reported thrusts (powered "propeller" device, not just passive sailing, which I believe would have seen quite a strong dependence on sidereal time, no thrust reversal with reversal of device...) and with the idea of seeing if the necessary velocity of ejection is indeed higher than the average velocity of flow that brings mass (therefore validating some of the "propeller&slow wind" hypothesis). Sorry for the convoluted line of reasoning and slow brain tonight.
At about 1Gev/cm^3 (as seen on this seemingly optimistic paper, maybe more optimistic is possible) and .01m² csection and 250km/s dark flow velocity that is mflow=1e9*1.8e-36/1e-6 * 2.5e5 * 1e-2 = 4.5e-18 kg/s.
With about 45*µN thrusters that yields Vej = F / mflow = 4.5e-5 / 4.5e-18 = 1e12m/s
Pow = .5 mflow Vej² =
= .5 * 4.5e-18 * 1e24 = 2.25 e6 = 2.25MW hence the 6 orders of magnitude boast (more like 5 actually with those numbers) when comparing to 20W power.
Since thing is relativistic I were humbled, and wrong to be starting with Newton. Seems you don't have the patience to wait a month before I gather my spirits around SR so...
The best use that could be made of recovering this mass flow : converting it to photons, sent collimated and push on expelled momentum. This is, standard, please feel free to disagree. Then just see the power equivalent of the dark mass flow and compare it with what we would get from that as a photon rocket :
darkPow = mflow c² = 4.5e-18 9e16 = .4 W and that would push at F=darkPow/c = .4/3e8 = 1.3 nN (nano Newton). Dark flow average velocity times mass flow also would impart a recoil of 2.5e5*4.5e-18 about 1e-12, a pN. This would be less efficient use of this incoming mass_energy flow (and incompatible with thrust reversion).
How does it (1.3nN) scales compared to the 45µN/20W numbers above? Well I don't know what the 20W have to do in it but to scale nN to 10s of µN is 4 order of magnitude higher, that is needs 100m² of "perfect dark harvestor" cross section, given 1GeV/cm^3 and 250km/s average dark flow. Maybe a strong dispersion in dark matter particles velocities around average velocity could make up for that, how hot is hot dark matter, could it be relativistic ?
Looks like that there is not enough dark matter though to be of practical value (in explaining the reported results in classical terms) since momentum benefit of harvesting dark mass and pushing on it can't beat the momentum you'd get from harvesting the energy and sending photons, and that energy is too low. Value of the "dark field" in BSM theories in another matter entirely.
-
#1418 by Rodal on 05 Oct, 2014 00:09
-
....
@frobnicat
At about 1Gev/cm^3 (as seen on this seemingly optimistic paper, maybe more optimistic is possible) and .01m² csection and 250km/s dark flow velocity that is mflow=1e9*1.8e-36/1e-6 * 2.5e5 * 1e-2 = 4.5e-18 kg/s.
With about 45*µN thrusters that yields Vej = F / mflow = 4.5e-5 / 4.5e-18 = 1e12m/s
Pow = .5 mflow Vej² = = .5 * 4.5e-18 * 1e24 = 2.25 e6 = 2.25MW hence the 6 orders of magnitude boast (more like 5 actually with those numbers) when comparing to 20W power.
...
Thanks! This is progress. Now perhaps we can get some feedback from @notsosureofit to continue with this interesting line of attack.
Definitely the density of dark matter is crucial. I have now to find a paper I recall seeing some time ago from renowned people at Harvard, which (if I recall correctly) computed the amount of dark matter that should be in our vicinity. -
#1419 by Notsosureofit on 05 Oct, 2014 00:54
-
Even more crudely, I think you have to have either the new generation of axions (in quantity at low velocity) or a "cold" dark matter state that acts with a lot of self interaction (take your pick of quantum states at this point)
Edit: 1 Gev/cm^3 was the max I had heard.
= .5 * 4.5e-18 * 1e24 = 2.25 e6 = 2.25MW hence the 6 orders of magnitude boast (more like 5 actually with those numbers) when comparing to 20W power.