-
#2140 by Tellmeagain on 22 Jan, 2016 18:42
-
...
Sure, we can pile up unverified supposition upon unverified supposition. That's why I was careful to state "assuming everything else stays the same".
Dr. Rodal,
This can happen if when EW measured the frustum without insert, they accidentally did not ground (well) the frustum; while when they measured the frustum with insert, they accidentally well grounded the frustum. Since we can not be sure that everything else (other than the insert) being the same, we can not rule out Lorentz forces for causing NASA's measured force of 55 microNewtons with insert.
But that is a long, long way from establishing that Lorentz forces were responsible for NASA's measured forces.
I emphasize this was my speculation, to provide a possibility to nullify other speculations that Lorentz force was not responsible. -
#2141 by Rodal on 22 Jan, 2016 18:49
-
...
TE012 NASA tests
Power Measured force
measurement without dielectric inserts 30 watts 0 microNewtons
measurement with dielectric inserts 2.6 watts 55 microNewtons
The power used for the measurement without dielectric inserts was more than 10 times greater than the amount of power for the measurement with dielectric, so that the data shows the opposite: all things being equal the data shows that the Lorentz force should have been greater (>10 times greater power) with the test without a dielectric insert, which is the complete opposite of what the data shows
So it appears based on this data (assuming everything else being the same) that Lorentz forces may not have been responsible for NASA's measured force of 55 microNewtons with a dielectric insert
Dr. Rodal, can you, please, elaborate on why do you think that 55 uN number above matters at all given that all those corresponding forces in the 50-200 uN range disappeared in vacuum? (And when not in vacuum, the force trace was showing a rather typical thermal profile with long post-RF tail).
1) I don't understand the basis for your statement. Even the data in vacuum that was reported by Paul March in these threads a long time ago was reported as measuring 55 microNewtons in vacuum. He exceeded this in later tests. So what is the basis for your statementQuoteall those corresponding forces in the 50-200 uN range disappeared in vacuum
EDIT: I just checked http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results and I was happy to find out that the data for the vacuum experiment is still correct as I wrote it, although I no longer curate the Experimental results wiki.
EDIT2: the NASA test with vacuum is the only one in the spreadsheet with a reported measurement in the other direction, hence to compare with the other measurements one should the 55 figure. Your point is well taken that objectively both directions should be taken. The spreadsheet unfortunately lacks both direction measurements for many tests.
2) Concerning your statement:Quote(And when not in vacuum, the force trace was showing a rather typical thermal profile with long post-RF tail).
you seem to be arguing that I am arguing that the measurements don't show a thermal response. You may be confusing me with Mr. Li (TellMeAgain), he is the one that argues that the forces measured by NASA are due to Lorentz forces.
I, on the other hand, have argued from my very first post about thermal effects: my very first post was about the dielectric thermally expanding and hence shifting the center of mass which affects the torque pendulum reading, in an e-mail I sent to Eagleworks and posted in my first post at NSF.
In my most recent post (see above) I show that the thermal softening "melting" of Nylon bolts is related to dielectric inserts, including mounting a dielectric insert at the Big End instead of the Small End.
Some people are confused and routinely argue that thermal effects A) cannot happen in vacuum and B) that thermal effects are too slow.
Both above statements A and B are incorrect, as it is easy to show.
To which I have routinely shown: 1) thermal expansion is unaffected by a vacuum and 2) thermal heating by induction occurs at the speed of light and thermal expansion occurs at the speed of sound.
speed of light = 299,792,458 m / s in vacuum
speed of sound in Polyethylene = 1,950 m/s also in vacuum (*) (almost 2 km per second !!!!!!)
How is that slow? Compared to what ? It is not slow compared to any of the time-temperature traces being shown.
the HDPE discs are 0.027 m thick, so the sound wave can travel it in ...14 microseconds
Since when is 14 microseconds too slow compared to force time traces that are shown in time scales of seconds?
_________
(*) the general public maybe confused thinking that "sound" only refers to air. The speed of sound is given by the SquareRoot of the ratio of the bulk modulus to the density of the medium. There is a speed of sound in any material, and the higher the modulus to density ratio, the higher the speed of sound. Actually there are several types of stress waves: bulk, shear, Lamb, Raleigh, etc., but that's a longer story... -
#2142 by X_RaY on 22 Jan, 2016 18:56
-
To stay clear, I'm not a "believer". I am open for all the possibilities whatever these signals explains.What is with the 50Ω dummy-Load test? EW used shielded RG-142 coaxial cable for the RF power. The amplifier consumes a lot of DC power i.e. relative strong currents... BUT this is also the case for the dummy-Load test! Using the Load there was NO thrust at all.
This can be explained by everything was subtracted with the dummy-load test. The dummy-Load test is subtracted with the dummy-Load test to yield zero. I emphasize that this is just speculation, to provide a possibility. I did not say this was what actually happened.
But Yes, I am full of hope that it works like most others reading this thread.
I don't think they subtract somewhat in this case, however your last assumption could be confirmed or refuted only by EW itself.
Ask Paul March aka Stardrive.
-
#2143 by RFPlumber on 22 Jan, 2016 18:59
-
Progress report.
Frustum forming hoops have finally arrived. Not the quality I expected, see the non cleaned up welded joints but they will do.
Also have attached my 1st very manual test setup, which should allow me to explore the frustum resonance, Q, nearby modes, bandwidth and others.
If this simple setup gens thrust, well you will know it here 1st. However that is NOT my objective. I need to get very up close and personal with this frustum, how it behaves and how to obtain a stable (which others have shared is NOT easy to do) high Q TE013 excited mode.
...
Do you agree the cavity should be made 100% hermetical before trying to detect any force asymmetry under RF when testing at ambient pressure? How are you planning to verify this?
Might be helpful to install an HVAC Schrader access port (something like this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ACCESS-SERVICE-VALVE-1-4-BAG-OF-5-VALVES-/201499158241?hash=item2eea4926e1:g:9JYAAOSwl9BWMoIY) and then put some compressed air in (just a little bit, so not to blow the frustum up) and verify that this does not result in any "thrust" and that the pressure holds for at least the time required for your RF tests.
... Assuming it is all hermitical and does not leak air, and is still showing thrust, one can then do the opposite and suck some air out of it through the same port and check if this has any effect on the observed force.
EDIT: Striking through above. Schrader valve will not work for below ambient test. Need a true valve for it.
-
#2144 by Tellmeagain on 22 Jan, 2016 19:01
-
To stay clear, I'm not a "believer". I am open for all the possibilities whatever these signals explain. I don't think they subtract somewhat in this case, however your last assumption could be confirmed or refuted only by EW itself.What is with the 50Ω dummy-Load test? EW used shielded RG-142 coaxial cable for the RF power. The amplifier consumes a lot of DC power i.e. relative strong currents... BUT this is also the case for the dummy-Load test! Using the Load there was NO thrust at all.
This can be explained by everything was subtracted with the dummy-load test. The dummy-Load test is subtracted with the dummy-Load test to yield zero. I emphasize that this is just speculation, to provide a possibility. I did not say this was what actually happened.
Just ask Stardrive.
Thank you! I just noticed that the dummy-load test had 2 test runs while other tests all had 1. This can be a side note of my (everything subtracted with dummy-load test) speculation.
[edit] silly me, I saw what I wanted to see. Other tests ran variate times. -
#2145 by RFPlumber on 22 Jan, 2016 19:14
-
...
TE012 NASA tests
Power Measured force
measurement without dielectric inserts 30 watts 0 microNewtons
measurement with dielectric inserts 2.6 watts 55 microNewtons
The power used for the measurement without dielectric inserts was more than 10 times greater than the amount of power for the measurement with dielectric, so that the data shows the opposite: all things being equal the data shows that the Lorentz force should have been greater (>10 times greater power) with the test without a dielectric insert, which is the complete opposite of what the data shows
So it appears based on this data (assuming everything else being the same) that Lorentz forces may not have been responsible for NASA's measured force of 55 microNewtons with a dielectric insert
Dr. Rodal, can you, please, elaborate on why do you think that 55 uN number above matters at all given that all those corresponding forces in the 50-200 uN range disappeared in vacuum? (And when not in vacuum, the force trace was showing a rather typical thermal profile with long post-RF tail).
1) I don't understand the basis for your statement. Even the data in vacuum that was reported by Paul March in these threads a long time ago was reported as measuring 55 microNewtons in vacuum. He exceeded this in later tests. So what is the basis for your statementQuoteall those corresponding forces in the 50-200 uN range disappeared in vacuum
there is no basis I know of for that statement.
EDIT: I just checked http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results and I was happy to find out that the data for the vacuum experiment is still correct as I wrote it, although I no longer curate the Experimental results wiki.
...
It is possible I am still missing something, but the result table is showing only the following 2 numbers for vacuum tests: 55 uN @ 50W and 10 uN @ 35W. The first result does not have any links with it, the second result has this "reversed 180 degrees" comment. The way I interpret these is that they did the first test in one particular orientation and have seen 55 uN. They then changed the orientation and have measured 10 uN in the opposite direction. Assuming my interpretation is correct, this then implies they have some force other than thrust definitely contributing to these results (because the expectation for thrust is that is it roughly the same in the value, yet opposite in direction between 2 orientations), and hence it is a far fetched statement to claim the other force should somehow be 100% the same at both frustum orientations, and hence any observed difference must be anomalous thrust. This is the same strange logic Tajmar is using in his paper.
... All it takes is that other force (whatever it is) not to be the same between 2 frustum orientations.
-
#2146 by Rodal on 22 Jan, 2016 19:22
-
...
TE012 NASA tests
Power Measured force
measurement without dielectric inserts 30 watts 0 microNewtons
measurement with dielectric inserts 2.6 watts 55 microNewtons
The power used for the measurement without dielectric inserts was more than 10 times greater than the amount of power for the measurement with dielectric, so that the data shows the opposite: all things being equal the data shows that the Lorentz force should have been greater (>10 times greater power) with the test without a dielectric insert, which is the complete opposite of what the data shows
So it appears based on this data (assuming everything else being the same) that Lorentz forces may not have been responsible for NASA's measured force of 55 microNewtons with a dielectric insert
Dr. Rodal, can you, please, elaborate on why do you think that 55 uN number above matters at all given that all those corresponding forces in the 50-200 uN range disappeared in vacuum? (And when not in vacuum, the force trace was showing a rather typical thermal profile with long post-RF tail).
1) I don't understand the basis for your statement. Even the data in vacuum that was reported by Paul March in these threads a long time ago was reported as measuring 55 microNewtons in vacuum. He exceeded this in later tests. So what is the basis for your statementQuoteall those corresponding forces in the 50-200 uN range disappeared in vacuum
there is no basis I know of for that statement.
EDIT: I just checked http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results and I was happy to find out that the data for the vacuum experiment is still correct as I wrote it, although I no longer curate the Experimental results wiki.
...
It is possible I am still missing something, but the result table is showing only the following 2 numbers for vacuum tests: 55 uN @ 50W and 10 uN @ 35W. The first result does not have any links with it, the second result has this "reversed 180 degrees" comment. The way I interpret these is that they did the first test in one particular orientation and have seen 55 uN. They then changed the orientation and have measured 10 uN in the opposite direction. Assuming my interpretation is correct, this then implies they have some force other than thrust definitely contributing to these results (because the expectation for thrust is that is it roughly the same in the value, yet opposite in direction between 2 orientations), and hence it is a far fetched statement to claim the other force should somehow be 100% the same at both frustum orientations, and hence any observed difference must be anomalous thrust. This is the same strange logic Tajmar is using in his paper.
... All it takes is that other force (whatever it is) not to be the same between 2 frustum orientations.
1) Again, as stated, the quoted forces where the first reported measurements in vacuum 1 year ago(*)
2) as stated they exceeded those measurements with later testing
3) whether they have addressed all the issues, including thermal effects, orientation, Lorentz forces, etc., remains to be reported in public. The public information disclosed by March lately has been:Quoteyet, the anomalous force remains
and that they have submitted their testing to a "NASA Blue Ribbon Panel" and a peer reviewed journal
__________
(*) Even taking those preliminary, rough initial measurements, average of 33 microNewtons, half-range = 22.5 (**) microNewtons, in vacuum, the measurement (33 +/- 22.5) still had some meaning when compared with the fact that they measured absolutely zero force when using no dielectric both for the Cannae and the Shawyer-type device
So clearly the dielectric is influencing the force. The controversy is just how.
NASA data shows no force without a dielectric insert
(**) Yes I know that the range is a function of the sample population, but with a sample population of just 2 numbers, there is not much statistics one can validly use
. Calculating a standard deviation for a population of 2 numbers would be equally problematic
-
#2147 by X_RaY on 22 Jan, 2016 19:35
-
Due to the Load experiment this is interesting, the dielectric loss of the insert is related to a gradient ∇ (?) or divergence ∇·F⃗ (?) of the field/energy, the Load also! But the results are very different. While both are potential sinks of the field energy.
NASA data shows no force without a dielectric insert -
#2148 by SeeShells on 22 Jan, 2016 19:48
-
...
TE012 NASA tests
Power Measured force
measurement without dielectric inserts 30 watts 0 microNewtons
measurement with dielectric inserts 2.6 watts 55 microNewtons
The power used for the measurement without dielectric inserts was more than 10 times greater than the amount of power for the measurement with dielectric, so that the data shows the opposite: all things being equal the data shows that the Lorentz force should have been greater (>10 times greater power) with the test without a dielectric insert, which is the complete opposite of what the data shows
So it appears based on this data (assuming everything else being the same) that Lorentz forces may not have been responsible for NASA's measured force of 55 microNewtons with a dielectric insert
Dr. Rodal, can you, please, elaborate on why do you think that 55 uN number above matters at all given that all those corresponding forces in the 50-200 uN range disappeared in vacuum? (And when not in vacuum, the force trace was showing a rather typical thermal profile with long post-RF tail).
1) I don't understand the basis for your statement. Even the data in vacuum that was reported by Paul March in these threads a long time ago was reported as measuring 55 microNewtons in vacuum. He exceeded this in later tests. So what is the basis for your statementQuoteall those corresponding forces in the 50-200 uN range disappeared in vacuum
there is no basis I know of for that statement.
EDIT: I just checked http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results and I was happy to find out that the data for the vacuum experiment is still correct as I wrote it, although I no longer curate the Experimental results wiki.
...
It is possible I am still missing something, but the result table is showing only the following 2 numbers for vacuum tests: 55 uN @ 50W and 10 uN @ 35W. The first result does not have any links with it, the second result has this "reversed 180 degrees" comment. The way I interpret these is that they did the first test in one particular orientation and have seen 55 uN. They then changed the orientation and have measured 10 uN in the opposite direction. Assuming my interpretation is correct, this then implies they have some force other than thrust definitely contributing to these results (because the expectation for thrust is that is it roughly the same in the value, yet opposite in direction between 2 orientations), and hence it is a far fetched statement to claim the other force should somehow be 100% the same at both frustum orientations, and hence any observed difference must be anomalous thrust. This is the same strange logic Tajmar is using in his paper.
... All it takes is that other force (whatever it is) not to be the same between 2 frustum orientations.
1) Again, as stated, the quoted forces where the first reported measurements in vacuum 1 year ago(*)
2) as stated they exceeded those measurements with later testing
3) whether they have addressed all the issues, including thermal effects, orientation, Lorentz forces, etc., remains to be reported in public. The public information disclosed by March lately has been:Quoteyet, the anomalous force remains
and that they have submitted their testing to a "NASA Blue Ribbon Panel" and a peer reviewed journal
__________
(*) Even taking those preliminary, rough initial measurements, average of 33 microNewtons, half-range = 22.5 (**) microNewtons, in vacuum, the measurement (33 +/- 22.5) still had some meaning when compared with the fact that they measured absolutely zero force when using no dielectric both for the Cannae and the Shawyer-type device
So clearly the dielectric is influencing the force. The controversy is just how.
NASA data shows no force without a dielectric insert
(**) Yes I know that the range is a function of the sample population, but with a sample population of just 2 numbers, there is not much statistics one can validly use. Calculating a standard deviation for a population of 2 numbers would be equally problematic
Before I get to an appointment, I want to mention why Dr. Rodal's statement on the dielectric measurements of thrusts at NASA may be of paramount interest. The inserts support Dr. White's QV QP theories and also the code he wrote to account for it in COMSOL.
Just a reminder.
All have a great day and be nice.
Shell -
#2149 by forgravity on 22 Jan, 2016 20:13
-
Just an idea (from a layman point of view)
There have been some tests with dielectrics but has anyone done any experiments with stronger diamagnetic materials (compared to copper) such as bismuth? Bismuth is fairly cheap and it is easily molded. Perhaps someone can clue me in if this would make any difference whatsoever.
Cheers -
#2150 by Rodal on 22 Jan, 2016 20:36
-
Just an idea (from a layman point of view)
Good idea.
There have been some tests with dielectrics but has anyone done any experiments with stronger diamagnetic materials (compared to copper) such as bismuth? Bismuth is fairly cheap and it is easily molded. Perhaps someone can clue me in if this would make any difference whatsoever.
Cheers
De Aquino predicted a huge improvement by using a ferromagnetic material at one end., since ferromagnetics have a much larger permeability, but nobody has tried it up to now, as far as I know. -
#2151 by forgravity on 22 Jan, 2016 20:40
-
Just an idea (from a layman point of view)
Good idea.
There have been some tests with dielectrics but has anyone done any experiments with stronger diamagnetic materials (compared to copper) such as bismuth? Bismuth is fairly cheap and it is easily molded. Perhaps someone can clue me in if this would make any difference whatsoever.
Cheers
De Aquino predicted a huge improvement by using a ferromagnetic material at one end., since ferromagnetics have a much larger permeability, but nobody has tried it up to now, as far as I know.
Interesting...
I was also thinking say if you have a ferromagnetic at one end and a diamagnetic material at the other. Wish I could test it out myself... -
#2152 by Rodal on 22 Jan, 2016 20:44
-
Yes, that's precisely DeAquino's idea. He has a paper with formulas supporting that: a ferromagnetic at one end and a diamagnetic in the rest of the cavity.Just an idea (from a layman point of view)
Good idea.
There have been some tests with dielectrics but has anyone done any experiments with stronger diamagnetic materials (compared to copper) such as bismuth? Bismuth is fairly cheap and it is easily molded. Perhaps someone can clue me in if this would make any difference whatsoever.
Cheers
De Aquino predicted a huge improvement by using a ferromagnetic material at one end., since ferromagnetics have a much larger permeability, but nobody has tried it up to now, as far as I know.
Interesting...
I was also thinking say if you have a ferromagnetic at one end and a diamagnetic material at the other. Wish I could test it out myself...
(See the paper by de Aquino "How the Thrust of Shawyer’s Thruster can be Strongly Increased" ( https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01074608/document) and my comment here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1328595#msg1328595 )
This is a paper by Todd "WarpTech"
http://emdrive.wiki/images/2/24/Desiato-EM_Drive_Mechanism-v2.pdf
Also Mulletron had a huge number of papers on cp paritiy violation and dielectrics -
#2153 by Rodal on 22 Jan, 2016 20:52
-
Just an idea (from a layman point of view)
...
In the land of the EM Drive everybody is a layman or becomes a layman because there should not be any anomalous force
-
#2154 by RFPlumber on 22 Jan, 2016 21:28
-
...
TE012 NASA tests
Power Measured force
measurement without dielectric inserts 30 watts 0 microNewtons
measurement with dielectric inserts 2.6 watts 55 microNewtons
The power used for the measurement without dielectric inserts was more than 10 times greater than the amount of power for the measurement with dielectric, so that the data shows the opposite: all things being equal the data shows that the Lorentz force should have been greater (>10 times greater power) with the test without a dielectric insert, which is the complete opposite of what the data shows
So it appears based on this data (assuming everything else being the same) that Lorentz forces may not have been responsible for NASA's measured force of 55 microNewtons with a dielectric insert
Dr. Rodal, can you, please, elaborate on why do you think that 55 uN number above matters at all given that all those corresponding forces in the 50-200 uN range disappeared in vacuum? (And when not in vacuum, the force trace was showing a rather typical thermal profile with long post-RF tail).
1) I don't understand the basis for your statement. Even the data in vacuum that was reported by Paul March in these threads a long time ago was reported as measuring 55 microNewtons in vacuum. He exceeded this in later tests. So what is the basis for your statementQuoteall those corresponding forces in the 50-200 uN range disappeared in vacuum
there is no basis I know of for that statement.
EDIT: I just checked http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results and I was happy to find out that the data for the vacuum experiment is still correct as I wrote it, although I no longer curate the Experimental results wiki.
...
It is possible I am still missing something, but the result table is showing only the following 2 numbers for vacuum tests: 55 uN @ 50W and 10 uN @ 35W. The first result does not have any links with it, the second result has this "reversed 180 degrees" comment. The way I interpret these is that they did the first test in one particular orientation and have seen 55 uN. They then changed the orientation and have measured 10 uN in the opposite direction. Assuming my interpretation is correct, this then implies they have some force other than thrust definitely contributing to these results (because the expectation for thrust is that is it roughly the same in the value, yet opposite in direction between 2 orientations), and hence it is a far fetched statement to claim the other force should somehow be 100% the same at both frustum orientations, and hence any observed difference must be anomalous thrust. This is the same strange logic Tajmar is using in his paper.
... All it takes is that other force (whatever it is) not to be the same between 2 frustum orientations.
1) Again, as stated, the quoted forces where the first reported measurements in vacuum 1 year ago(*)
2) as stated they exceeded those measurements with later testing
3) whether they have addressed all the issues, including thermal effects, orientation, Lorentz forces, etc., remains to be reported in public. The public information disclosed by March lately has been:Quoteyet, the anomalous force remains
and that they have submitted their testing to a "NASA Blue Ribbon Panel" and a peer reviewed journal
__________
(*) Even taking those preliminary, rough initial measurements, average of 33 microNewtons, half-range = 22.5 (**) microNewtons, in vacuum, the measurement (33 +/- 22.5) still had some meaning when compared with the fact that they measured absolutely zero force when using no dielectric both for the Cannae and the Shawyer-type device
So clearly the dielectric is influencing the force. The controversy is just how.
NASA data shows no force without a dielectric insert
(**) Yes I know that the range is a function of the sample population, but with a sample population of just 2 numbers, there is not much statistics one can validly use. Calculating a standard deviation for a population of 2 numbers would be equally problematic
Before I get to an appointment, I want to mention why Dr. Rodal's statement on the dielectric measurements of thrusts at NASA may be of paramount interest. The inserts support Dr. White's QV QP theories and also the code he wrote to account for it in COMSOL.
...
Scaling for the difference in RF power between their forward and reversed vacuum test, and assuming the most optimistic case where the null force is exactly the same between the 2 orientations, their "thrust" value is then something like ~25 uN (with 15 uN of null force) @30W. Now, given howbiasedpassionately they're approaching this task, I will believe in this number when someone else is able to verify it, but this is not even the point. The point is that they have just shown that their original ~230 uN (scaling to 30W) of "thrust" in air, for which they even had some undisclosed QV model and predictions is basically all gone. They have also just shown that there does indeed exist some interesting (but most certainly non-anomalous) air-related effects which result in (relatively large) observed forces changing almost perfectly in sync with the applied RF pulse. (So everyone testing in air and claiming "thrust" has to account for this). Why do some people still remain excited about any in-air tests after seeing these results is honestly beyond me. -
#2155 by GizzMoVest LLC on 22 Jan, 2016 21:56
-
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone is really trying to explain the thrust artifact
in terms a little beyond just saying its a Quantum field.
How about tying the effect to Aether theories ? They are a little separate in my mind.
Personally I subscribe to Aether theory because an Aether field allows for additional,
tandem universes and could explain the dramatic asymmetry of our 'local' universe.
Statistically speaking multiple tandem universes seem most likely since geometries
in nature that are anywhere similar to our universe are literally never seen alone.
What actually intrigues me the most about EM drives is the possibility that the
nature of what they are pushing against might be somewhat space-time independent.
In other words, has anyone considered that the thrust might
NOT be limited to light speed ?
I am not sure how experimenters could test this property of EM drives
(to find v limits or at least an apparent v gradient for the thrust effect).
For now it seems we are presuming a velocity limit for EM drives exists because
the E/M emission has that limit. I am just saying we should not presume
a limit until the nature of the field it is pushing against is understood.
I subscribe generally to idea that 'Zero' is a recursive placeholder only.
Zero was never intended to elevate the concept of 'Nothing' to perfection.
So in my universe there is no perfect vacuum, and no perfect singularity,
and multiple tandem universes are allowed on a plain of unlimited Aether.
I just think we should be open to the possibility that a quantum field / Aether
might represent effectively a dimension allowing us to leverage beyond c
(speed of light) because if we consider Aether as sort of a proto-matter
/ proto-energy, it may not necessarily be subject to all laws (from our perspective).
-
#2156 by Rodal on 22 Jan, 2016 22:07
-
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone is really trying to explain the thrust artifact
in terms a little beyond just saying its a Quantum field.
How about tying the effect to Aether theories ? They are a little separate in my mind.
Personally I subscribe to Aether theory because an Aether field allows for additional,
tandem universes and could explain the dramatic asymmetry of our 'local' universe.
Statistically speaking multiple tandem universes seem most likely since geometries
in nature that are anywhere similar to our universe are literally never seen alone.
What actually intrigues me the most about EM drives is the possibility that the
nature of what they are pushing against might be somewhat space-time independent.
In other words, has anyone considered that the thrust might
NOT be limited to light speed ?
I am not sure how experimenters could test this property of EM drives
(to find v limits or at least an apparent v gradient for the thrust effect).
For now it seems we are presuming a velocity limit for EM drives exists because
the E/M emission has that limit. I am just saying we should not presume
a limit until the nature of the field it is pushing against is understood.
I subscribe generally to idea that 'Zero' is a recursive placeholder only.
Zero was never intended to elevate the concept of 'Nothing' to perfection.
So in my universe there is no perfect vacuum, and no perfect singularity,
and multiple tandem universes are allowed on a plain of unlimited Aether.
I just think we should be open to the possibility that a quantum field / Aether
might represent effectively a dimension allowing us to leverage beyond c
(speed of light) because if we consider Aether as sort of a proto-matter
/ proto-energy, it may not necessarily be subject to all laws (from our perspective).
The Quantum Vacuum hypothesis of Dr. White at NASA Eagleworks counts as an "aether theory" where the aether is akin to Paul Dirac's "sea".
Ditto for Todd WarpTech's theory, etc.
See this post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38996.msg1469131#msg1469131 for the Superfluid vacuum theory: a very viable theory of the aether -
#2157 by GizzMoVest LLC on 22 Jan, 2016 22:44
-
Thanks that was a perfect reply and link for me and quite exciting as I have had
the feeling previously that Aether was related to Dark matter / dark energy.
In it's simplest form I look at Aether external to our universe as being
relatively 'Pure Aether'. And interstellar Aether as being a little different.
Progressively from there, Dark Matter / Dark Energy can be considered
as 'Dirty Aether' (Aether partially-converted into conventional matter-energy).
and then conventional matter-energy would represent a further conversion.
-
#2158 by Rodal on 22 Jan, 2016 22:45
-
... Why do some people still remain excited about any in-air tests after seeing these results is honestly beyond me.
I think that DoItYourself people are excited about in-air testing is because they lack access to a vacuum chamber. They are trying to solve a problem with the tools they can have access to, within their budget, not necessarily the best tools.
I don't follow why some people keep writing that a hermetic EM Drive with air inside may function in space. It appears clear to me that there is no viable physical theory to support such reactionless propulsion with air inside it being better than no air . I know that Dr. White's team does not think that, Maybe Ammonia or other gasses would do better. Not air, since the difference between air and vacuum regarding permeability and permittivity is negligible. Ditto for the Quantum Vacuum in air or without air.
Even in a vacuum, what may be measured at the moment, if not a thermal expansion effect, may be due to artifacts like multipaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipactor_effect. (*)
In a few words, the reason why people are excited is because this is something they can test themselves, they certainly cannot test by themselves other means of possible far-out space propulsion: they cannot test matter/antimatter propulsion, or an Alcubierre drive, etc. etc.
The science-fiction predictions by Shawyer and White on an EM Drive reactionless drive, including White's discussion of a warp Alcubierre type is probably another motivator. Wouldn't it be nice to be a Zefram Cochrane's in a Star Trek historic warp flight? The last 40+ years after Apollo, in low Earth orbit have been very boring and 2001 was not the Space Odissey we envisioned as children..
I think it is ingrained in humans: inventing tools, exploring the universe, testing, seeing what happens. When we are children we do a lot of exploring. As people grow up they do less testing. Some people don't like to be told not to test things. You may think that they should better divert their attention elsewhere that has a greater chance for payoff. Some people are so risk-averse that they deposit their money in a bank or buying Treasury bills. Others are willing to trade options, others are willing to trade with margin and yet others are willing to bet in Vegas. Most of those buying lottery tickets or betting in Vegas lose their money, very few win. The betting house has a much better business What is your risk-profile?
__________
(*) Nobel Prize winner, polymath Luis Alvarez, wrote about his experience with multipaction being an obstacle in the normal operation of his famous 40 ft long RF resonant cavity. He wrote that the lower the RF energy, the multipaction was more favorable to occur in the low energy regime.
Single-surface multipactor are known to occur on dielectric inserts
EDIT:
MULTIPACTOR DISCHARGE ON A DIELECTRIC
http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/pac97/papers/pdf/7P061.PDF
Multipactor experiment on a dielectric surface
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/71183/RSINAK-72-7-3095-1?sequence=2
Multipactor discharge on metals and dielectrics: Historical review
and recent theories*
http://www.ru.is/kennarar/av/MpacReview.pdf
MULTIPACTOR ON A DIELECTRIC SURFACE WITH
LONGITUDINAL RF ELECTRIC FIELD ACTION
http://www.jpier.org/PIERL/pierl24/20.11042305.pdf
-
#2159 by rfcavity on 23 Jan, 2016 02:44
-
... Why do some people still remain excited about any in-air tests after seeing these results is honestly beyond me.
In a few words, the reason why people are excited is because this is something they can test themselves, they certainly cannot test by themselves other means of possible far-out space propulsion: they cannot test matter/antimatter propulsion, or an Alcubierre drive, etc. etc.
The science-fiction predictions by Shawyer and White on an EM Drive reactionless drive, including White's discussion of a warp Alcubierre type is probably another motivator. Wouldn't it be nice to be a Zefram Cochrane's in a Star Trek historic warp flight? The last 40+ years after Apollo, in low Earth orbit have been very boring and 2001 was not the Space Odissey we envisioned as children..
I think its fine that people are excited and trying stuff out. As an EM person, the general public so rarely gets excited about anything in the field, this isn't lost on me (although asking people who don't know better for money starts to get iffy for me).
I also get the attraction to space and how repeated promises haven't actually materialized. I did some space stuff on the side during graduate school, comms stuff to make the real experiment run, and it was fun and interesting.
Therein lies the disconnect that I don't completely understand. It is cheaper than ever to get something you made into space. Space has never been more accessible. On top of that many citizen space 'programs' would absolutely die to have people that display the work ethic here on their team. They could be helping send stuff up doing what they already do, without having to disprove decades of experimentation. I dunno.
. Calculating a standard deviation for a population of 2 numbers would be equally problematic