-
#2540 by SeeShells on 03 Feb, 2016 16:41
-
No I haven't because it's beyond my pay grade Dr. Rodal....
What is there to disagree with?
I'd agree with you Doc except for one thing...the reported interferometer results by Dr White. Until that is proven to be a measurement error, it seems that a non-macro/micro stretching of spacetime (elongated laser path) occurred within an EM field. It does not appear to be controversial theory that EM can distort spacetime.
What appears to be controversial is the amount of energy necessary to do so. Alcubierre invented negative mass/energy to make his warp drive formulas, but this is only one approach and there appear to be many over the years. What have we stumbled upon is perhaps my point.
Until we falsify the EW interferometer testing, I'm still betting a sixpack on this being the cause of the emdrive effect. I'll even bet Dogfishhead 120 min IPA (sorry 4 pack only)
When you stateQuoteIt does not appear to be controversial theory that EM can distort spacetime
where did I ever state that it was controversial?
Again, with moving red text, as you employedI am not considering warping of spacetime
Not mathematically considering warping of spacetime does not mean that one is saying that it is controversial.
Neither you or others in this thread have mathematically considered warping of spacetime either
But interestingly enough I still feed the need to push and know and inderstand. At 3:30 am I was up reading with my cup of coco.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70993/how-energy-curves-spacetime
Which helped me see things a little better.
Shell
Added: Be back in a bit, the microwave dinged, it's done.
-
#2541 by glennfish on 03 Feb, 2016 16:45
-
I think you're spot on the math, Glenn. So now, we'll have to consider if all EM warping of spacetime involves a mass conversion...THAT is not in my wheelhouse, at least not yet.
Well, E=MC2. So, at the absolute simplest, if we are feeding E into the cavity at some specific bandwidth, then M equivalency has to go up for the duration we're feeding energy into the thing [minus losses]. Right?
Well, if you could convert energy into mass, which isn't likely under the EM Drive modes, but assume you could, then if you have total conversion of a 1kw microwave oven output converted into mass, you would have a thrust equivalent if it's totally in one direction (another unlikely assumption) that would be about 1 X 10-9 newton/s, which would be awfully hard to measure... assuming I did the math correctly.
I think you can take space-time warping off the short and long list of possibilities at least as a mass from energy concept. 1 billionth of a newton would be less than you'd expect from a photon rocket I think. -
#2542 by Rodal on 03 Feb, 2016 16:51
-
...
Well actually, we worked through Dr. Marco Frasca's paper on General Relativity on the EM Drive.
No I haven't because it's beyond my pay grade Dr. Rodal.
But interestingly enough I still feed the need to push and know and inderstand. At 3:30 am I was up reading with my cup of coco.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70993/how-energy-curves-spacetime
Which helped me see things a little better.
Shell
Added: Be back in a bit, the microwave dinged, it's done.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917
It looks to me that rfmwguy may be confusing Dr. Frasca's interest in Dr. White's interferometer experiment with the the claims being made by EM Drive experimenters.
I will remind all reading this that the forces claimed by EM Drive experiments could not be explained in Dr. Frasca's paper, since they are off by large orders of magnitude.Quote from: FrascaThen, I considered a frustum in the form of a truncated cone. I have shown that general
relativity introduce a large scale that makes all the effects really miniscule. For the frustum
I have shown that the gravitational effects can be described by a susceptibility multiplying
the energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field inside the cavity
My understanding is that Dr. Frasca was very clear that he did not think that the EM Drive forces claimed by Shawyer and Yang could be explained this way, and that Dr. Frasca's interest in Dr. White's interferometer experiment stands on its own, but not as an explanation of the forces being claimed by EM Drive experiments.
-
#2543 by rfmwguy on 03 Feb, 2016 16:54
-
http://www.space.com/2026-antigravity-propulsion-system-proposed.html
Doc, far more than I could list...Above is a nice summary article from 2006...so just a start -
#2544 by aero on 03 Feb, 2016 16:58
-
I wonder if someone could verify that the formula in the attached for TE 0,1,0 mode is incorrect? Or explain why, at 2.45 GHz, the cavity diameter for that mode is one meter or more.
http://tinyurl.com/hq68a8a -
#2545 by Rodal on 03 Feb, 2016 17:01
-
http://www.space.com/2026-antigravity-propulsion-system-proposed.html
Even if you are seriously willing to consider an "apergic force" discussed in the linked article above the request explicitly excluded any form of propulsion relying on external forces or fields to satisfy conservation of momentum or energy.
Doc, far more than I could list...Above is a nice summary article from 2006...so just a start
This is clearly an external force field, so it is not relevant to what was requested
-
#2546 by rfmwguy on 03 Feb, 2016 17:19
-
I will review the video when I get more time. Basically, I'm not sure we can exclude any type of force (known or unknown) right now. We're probably speculating in the realm between Quantum and Classical Physics, an area unresolved by Einstein and everyone else. In simplified terms, between a large-mass, large-scale gravity force and subatomic, small-scale low mass nuclear forces... a DMZ zone where few venture except those discussing the Grand Unified Theory (GUT).http://www.space.com/2026-antigravity-propulsion-system-proposed.html
Even if you are seriously willing to consider an "apergic force" discussed in the linked article above the request explicitly excluded any form of propulsion relying on external forces or fields to satisfy conservation of momentum or energy.
Doc, far more than I could list...Above is a nice summary article from 2006...so just a start
This is clearly an external force field, so it is not relevant to what was requested
So, until GUT is resolved, we'll unconditionally have people poking around for something in-between...hey, why not? -
#2547 by Rodal on 03 Feb, 2016 17:29
-
..
Outside forces and fields were excluded from the request because it is trivial to show conservation of momentum and conservation of energy when the acceleration is a result of an outside force field.
I will review the video when I get more time. Basically, I'm not sure we can exclude any type of force (known or unknown) right now. ..
That's why there are no conservation issues with:
* solar sails
* electrodynamic tethers
* magnetic field propulsion
* gravitational sling shot
and on and on and on -
#2548 by rfmwguy on 03 Feb, 2016 17:36
-
OK, but isn't EW's whole assumption is an interaction with the Quantum Vacuum?..
Outside forces and fields were excluded from the request because it is trivial to show conservation of momentum and conservation of energy when the acceleration is a result of an outside force field.
I will review the video when I get more time. Basically, I'm not sure we can exclude any type of force (known or unknown) right now. ..
That's why there are no conservation issues with:
* solar sails
* electrodynamic tethers
* magnetic field propulsion
* gravitational sling shot
and on and on and on -
#2549 by Rodal on 03 Feb, 2016 17:42
-
...
1) In which direction does the Quantum Vacuum wind blow? How is frame-indifference of a blowing QV addressed?
OK, but isn't EW's whole assumption is an interaction with the Quantum Vacuum?
2) If the Quantum Vacuum is the zero point energy, how can any energy be extracted from it?
So the QV explanation, unlike other force fields involves non-trivial issues.
In his latest paper White argues for a mutable and degradable QV with several energies, which is a non-standard QV since QV is usually understood as immutable and non-degradable. Conservation of energy (unless he invokes negative mass) is an open problem in such consideration .
-
#2550 by rfmwguy on 03 Feb, 2016 17:49
-
Yes, it seems his route is against the conventional wisdom of immutable QV. Therein lies his dilemma of maybe not getting it published IMHO....
1) In which direction does the Quantum Vacuum wind blow? How is frame-indifference of a blowing QV addressed?
OK, but isn't EW's whole assumption is an interaction with the Quantum Vacuum?
2) If the Quantum Vacuum is the zero point energy, how can any energy be extracted from it?
So the QV explanation, unlike other force fields involves non-trivial issues.
In his latest paper White argues for a mutable and degradable QV with several energies, which is a non-standard QV since QV is usually understood as immutable and non-degradable. Conservation of energy (unless he invokes negative mass) is an open problem in such consideration . -
#2551 by Rodal on 03 Feb, 2016 18:19
-
...
I'm pretty sure that their Quantum Vacuum paper was published in a journal. That's where they explained the mutable, degradable QV theory. The paper did not address using it for space propulsion F=Power*Q*factor conjectures
Yes, it seems his route is against the conventional wisdom of immutable QV. Therein lies his dilemma of maybe not getting it published IMHO. -
#2552 by X_RaY on 03 Feb, 2016 18:19
-
2) Casimir effect...
1) In which direction does the Quantum Vacuum wind blow? How is frame-indifference of a blowing QV addressed?
OK, but isn't EW's whole assumption is an interaction with the Quantum Vacuum?
2) If the Quantum Vacuum is the zero point energy, how can any energy be extracted from it?
So the QV explanation, unlike other force fields involves non-trivial issues.
In his latest paper White argues for a mutable and degradable QV with several energies, which is a non-standard QV since QV is usually understood as immutable and non-degradable. Conservation of energy (unless he invokes negative mass) is an open problem in such consideration . i.e. generate a lower zero point energy state. OK energie extraction aaaah itīs just a force 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
-
#2553 by rfmwguy on 03 Feb, 2016 18:49
-
Another AIAA Journal to watch for publication: http://arc.aiaa.org/toc/jsr/0/0
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets -
#2554 by Rodal on 03 Feb, 2016 19:12
-
OK
2) Casimir effect...
1) In which direction does the Quantum Vacuum wind blow? How is frame-indifference of a blowing QV addressed?
OK, but isn't EW's whole assumption is an interaction with the Quantum Vacuum?
2) If the Quantum Vacuum is the zero point energy, how can any energy be extracted from it?
So the QV explanation, unlike other force fields involves non-trivial issues.
In his latest paper White argues for a mutable and degradable QV with several energies, which is a non-standard QV since QV is usually understood as immutable and non-degradable. Conservation of energy (unless he invokes negative mass) is an open problem in such consideration . i.e. generate a lower zero point energy state. OK energie extraction aaaah itīs just a force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect, but it does not address space propulsion with only one spacecraft self-accelerating:
1) You need 2 plates to generate the Casimir force between them, one would need a plate in front of the spacecraft nanometers in front of it for the spacecraft to be attracted to it. A magnet in front of the spacecraft would generate a greater force and act at a greater distance
2) I agree with you concerning energy extraction: can't extract energy from the original Casimir effect of 2 plates attracting each other when nanometers apart. It is a unidirectional force. If you separate the plates you have to provide a force in the opposite direction, hence one cannot extract more energy from it than the amount put in. Strangely enough some people tried to get patents for concepts using the Casimir effect to extract energy from the QV.
Anwawy, Dr. White realizes this. What he proposes is a mutable degradable QV from which force and energy can be extracted because it has a number of energy states. -
#2555 by X_RaY on 03 Feb, 2016 19:17
-
To make it short: YES
OK
2) Casimir effect...
1) In which direction does the Quantum Vacuum wind blow? How is frame-indifference of a blowing QV addressed?
OK, but isn't EW's whole assumption is an interaction with the Quantum Vacuum?
2) If the Quantum Vacuum is the zero point energy, how can any energy be extracted from it?
So the QV explanation, unlike other force fields involves non-trivial issues.
In his latest paper White argues for a mutable and degradable QV with several energies, which is a non-standard QV since QV is usually understood as immutable and non-degradable. Conservation of energy (unless he invokes negative mass) is an open problem in such consideration . i.e. generate a lower zero point energy state. OK energie extraction aaaah itīs just a force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect, but it does not address space propulsion with only one spacecraft self-accelerating:
1) You need 2 plates to generate the Casimir force between them, one would need a plate in front of the spacecraft nanometers in front of it for the spacecraft to be attracted to it. A magnet in front of the spacecraft would generate a greater force and act at a greater distance
2) I agree with you concerning energy extraction: can't extract energy from the original Casimir effect of 2 plate attracting each other when nanometers apart. It is a unidirectional force. If you separate the plates you have to provide a force in the opposite direction, hence one cannot extract more energy from it than the amount put in. Strangely enough some people tried to get patents for concepts using the Casimir effect to extract energy from the QV.
BTW I found a funny site about "constant net force" using the effect. It is almost blablabla 
http://perpetualmotion21.blogspot.de/2014/09/casimir-effect-force-generator-part-ii.htmlQuote"Casimir Effect as a possible method of spacecraft propulsion."
aaaaaah NO
Nevertheless the existence of this effect is a great confirmation of theoretical theorems and an interesting answer to the question "Is the vacuum really empty?" -
#2556 by StrongGR on 03 Feb, 2016 19:59
-
...
I'm pretty sure that their Quantum Vacuum paper was published in a journal. That's where they explained the mutable, degradable QV theory. The paper did not address using it for space propulsion F=Power*Q*factor conjectures
Yes, it seems his route is against the conventional wisdom of immutable QV. Therein lies his dilemma of maybe not getting it published IMHO.
Yes, it was http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.020404 that can be obtained from arxiv at http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0304100. The effect was proved really minuscule in http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.130402 (beyond a paywall). It is important to emphasize that this is a Casimir effect in a medium. So, I think that Harold White should have this in mind when talk about a quantum vacuum effect. But, as I have already stated, it cannot explain the presumed values of thrust that people claims to have observed also without a dielectric.
On the other side, I showed in my paper that a high Q value and dielectric constant can increase the effect making it possibly observable. In any case, the claimed measured values appear rather high to not suspect some more mundane effect at work. -
#2557 by rfmwguy on 03 Feb, 2016 20:32
-
Anyone want to "meep-out" on my new frustum dimensions, let me know...they are different with the non-mesh sidewalls of NSF-1701.I will correct the computation of permittivity to use the actual signal frequency rather than the fixed 2.4 GHz it is now. I am trying to eliminate "magic constants" in the code as much as possible, so everything automatically tracks the input model data.
Please make a backup copy of your model before you refine it so that we can be sure to reconcile our models. The Shells model you are using was much different than mine, but I have made a model of what I think you are running. If the attached looks like what you have, I will run it with your input data to verify our models. I don't recall whether or not it is similar to the model that Dr. Rodal worked with. Maybe he does.
Edit: meep does not do well at simulating very thin layers, unless you set the lattice size really small, which increases computation time enormously. So I would keep the current thickish material specification and set the permitivity somewhere between Cu and Ag. The current thickness is greater than real life for the same reason. We do not need to simulate the escape of fields outside for the current purposes.
Edit add: Oh, and I suggest that you change your coordinate system to use the z-coordinate as the axis of rotation. I used x at the time the NSF-1701 model was uploaded but it did cause confusion among our physicists friends. That's why I changed it to the generally accepted convention that holds z as the direction of propagation of EM waves. -
#2558 by Rodal on 03 Feb, 2016 22:33
-
Well, E=MC2. So, at the absolute simplest, if we are feeding E into the cavity at some specific bandwidth, then M equivalency has to go up for the duration we're feeding energy into the thing [minus losses]. Right?
Well, if you could convert energy into mass, which isn't likely under the EM Drive modes, but assume you could, then if you have total conversion of a 1kw microwave oven output converted into mass, you would have a thrust equivalent if it's totally in one direction (another unlikely assumption) that would be about 1 X 10-9 newton/s, which would be awfully hard to measure... assuming I did the math correctly....
Even if you would be able to convert a huge amount of matter into Energy inside a closed cavity, that will not help you one bit with this conservation of momentum problem, because:
added...
I heard the total mass converted to energy of the first atomic bomb was on the order of a dollar bill. The drive doesn't come close.
Shell
E = m c^2
It is not a matter of getting rid of mass by converting mass into energy, because, under energy-mass conversion, the total amount of mass-energy remains immutable.
If you wanted to use matter-antimatter reaction, this will NOT help you one bit either with the conservation of momentum problem if all of the mass-energy is kept inside a closed cavity.
For acceleration, the mass-energy in the closed system must decrease, to conserve momentum (*). It actually requires negative mass-energy creation, instead of converting mass into energy, for energy-momentum conservation, if one doesn't allow any mass-energy ejection (as in conventional rocket propulsion) and if you don't allow propulsion by external force or fields (as in gravitational sling-shot, solar sail, electrodynamic or magnetic tethers, etc.). In other words, if one considers conservation of mass and energy for a closed system that self-accelerates its center of mass through space without any mass-energy escaping and without outside force fields
Even the Alcubierre drive and similar self-acceleration concepts (see Lobo) involve negative mass.
_________
(*) If one just re-arranges the distribution of inner mass-energy inside the closed system, as others are proposing, all that is going to accomplish is to move the center of mass-energy with respect to the geometrical dimensions, but it will not move the center of mass-energy in outer space with respect to outside observers, if the total mass-energy remains constant in the closed system.
There is a small caveat to this statement for General Relativity, because in curved (or warped) spacetime, the location of "center of mass-energy" does not have a unique single-valued answer in a curved manifold.
So, for those considering the EM Drive as a closed system, the practical question is, can negative mass be created?, can positive mass-energy be converted into negative mass-energy ? -
#2559 by rfmwguy on 03 Feb, 2016 23:00
-
Doc, let's assume ew saw a small stretching of ST...do you envision that as linear or nonlinear? I know its measured straight line with a laser but distortions do not have to remain just along the laser path.
If I were to speculate, it is nonlinear and decreasing exponentially with distance. I am also not certain the distortion was contained within the frustum...ideas?
