-
#2180 by rfmwguy on 09 May, 2016 20:44
-
Taking a step back from emdrive test, design and theory into the bigger picture is both needed and healthy from time to time for all. In a few short months, I've seen the best and worst in people as one would expect. Seems the best always wins out in the long run and the worst are needless distractions along the way. Most of both types are in a small minority, those with deeper understandings of science, technology and theory for Spaceflight. How I wish more people were knowledgeable to this level. Which is probably the single biggest mystery I have yet to solve...people with common interests often are not civil towards one another. We've all probably seen this countless times in our lifes, guess its a basic human failing.Maybe it is the other way around
, maybe it is that the old folks are the ones that have more drive (pun intended), from the Atomic age, the Space age, the Robot and AI age when nothing could stop their dreams, cars looked like rockets and rockets were going to the Moon instead of over and over to LEO as they have been doing for decades
I think you're on to something with this hypothesis, but there's little more to say on the topic that isn't wildly off the topic of EM Drive. Never the less, I am not even slightly surprised that so many in my generation are unwilling to have hope for things like EM drive. -
#2181 by Eusa on 09 May, 2016 21:11
-
No, potential energy can be gained from the other gravitating bodies by reducing space in front of drive with the artificial mass. Of course this is speculative based on that em-radiation as standing transverse electric component gives longitudinal magnetic curved standing wave and maybe it could be similar to normal standing gravitational wave with the spherical gravity field...
Yep. That's the hypothesis.It's coming to you, or being exact to your elementary particles, from all directions. If you could warp the Aether so that it is directing somewhere having no massive particle, it means you created synthetical mass. That is one mechanism which must be taken account if emdrive effect seem to be real. Then the drive would not be em-drive but qg-drive as making use of quantum gravity by artificial gravitating mass.
Thanks very much for the explanations. So, with this hypothesis, the Emdevice/QGdevice would manipulate gravitation, to get acceleration ?
And what is happening to CoE and CoM with this hypothesis ? Does it means that some energy can be gained from the Aether ? -
#2182 by SeeShells on 09 May, 2016 22:50
-
I wonder why Dr. White never followed up with his Laser interferometer testing?
No, potential energy can be gained from the other gravitating bodies by reducing space in front of drive with the artificial mass. Of course this is speculative based on that em-radiation as standing transverse electric component gives longitudinal magnetic curved standing wave and maybe it could be similar to normal standing gravitational wave with the spherical gravity field...
Yep. That's the hypothesis.It's coming to you, or being exact to your elementary particles, from all directions. If you could warp the Aether so that it is directing somewhere having no massive particle, it means you created synthetical mass. That is one mechanism which must be taken account if emdrive effect seem to be real. Then the drive would not be em-drive but qg-drive as making use of quantum gravity by artificial gravitating mass.
Thanks very much for the explanations. So, with this hypothesis, the Emdevice/QGdevice would manipulate gravitation, to get acceleration ?
And what is happening to CoE and CoM with this hypothesis ? Does it means that some energy can be gained from the Aether ?
Shell
-
#2183 by Rodal on 09 May, 2016 23:31
-
Just because the results have not been made public, it does not mean that he did not follow up. If one thing became clear from the publicity surrounding the EM Drive is that NASA did not want any talk about NASA working on a warp drive.
I wonder why Dr. White never followed up with his Laser interferometer testing?
No, potential energy can be gained from the other gravitating bodies by reducing space in front of drive with the artificial mass. Of course this is speculative based on that em-radiation as standing transverse electric component gives longitudinal magnetic curved standing wave and maybe it could be similar to normal standing gravitational wave with the spherical gravity field...
Yep. That's the hypothesis.It's coming to you, or being exact to your elementary particles, from all directions. If you could warp the Aether so that it is directing somewhere having no massive particle, it means you created synthetical mass. That is one mechanism which must be taken account if emdrive effect seem to be real. Then the drive would not be em-drive but qg-drive as making use of quantum gravity by artificial gravitating mass.
Thanks very much for the explanations. So, with this hypothesis, the Emdevice/QGdevice would manipulate gravitation, to get acceleration ?
And what is happening to CoE and CoM with this hypothesis ? Does it means that some energy can be gained from the Aether ?
Shell -
#2184 by rq3 on 09 May, 2016 23:36
-
I picked up the aluminum rectangle tube for the tortional pendulum beam today. I am using rectangle instead of square as it is more rigid than the square when oriented the right way. I hope to have some more progress images in a day or so.
I also stopped by the local piano shop and they gave me three different sizes of piano wire for free: #14 (0.033") #18 (0.041") #23 (0.051").
I swore to myself I wouldn't get involved in the physical hardware, but I happened to have this unused magnetron. So I nailed a 0.012 inch diameter silver plated music wire guitar string, 42 inches long (12 string guitar "G") to a cellar rafter, and used a handy 2.25 inch diameter steel 3 jaw chuck as a "bob".
A white spot on the chuck gives a rough rotational reference. Releasing the chuck after rotating 360 degrees required about an hour for the chuck to come to rest (stop rotational oscillation).
Placing a magnetron magnet in the proper orientation resulted in the chuck rotating roughly 30 degrees just from orientation with local magnetic north.
Just to give experimentors a feel for the miniscule magnitude of the potential error forces involved, and also the exquisite potential sensitivity (and repeatability!!!) of a torsion pendulum.
EDIT: The pendulum photos should be rotated 90 degrees clockwise. Thanks Apple.
-
#2185 by SeeShells on 09 May, 2016 23:49
-
Done for the day. Youth does have one advantage... stamina.
Ready to strip out the old electronics from one of the semi-machines I designed and revamp it to a Electromagnetic Drive controller. The're some great parts in this old box. This upgraded build will hopefully be able to get all the data I need... well for now.
You can see the steel piano wire going through the stainless steel tube that I had installed brass plugs into with small drilled holes to slide over. The wire is free to rotate in tube and the holes. It will be captured in the center of the platform torsional platform with a set screw.
I'm still working on my other data from my other tests, but know that data along with great input from here inspired me to roll all of it into this new test bed.
Shell
-
#2186 by zellerium on 09 May, 2016 23:55
-
There is going to be 1 critical point where thermal expansion of the insulator (more likely) or the copper will stretch/contract directly affecting your measurement. Any chance you have a pic of the setup?Hi everyone,
Hi Kurt, are you using multi-strand copper for all 3 leads: HV, Heater and Ground?
The deflections I've been observing have not been repeatable. Sometimes I'll have a test where the cylinder swings in the direction of the dielectric as well as laterally, sometimes just one or the other.
They are typically deflections that are consistent with about 10 to 20 mN of force based on my calibration weights. Sometimes the deflections are permanent, meaning the pendulum will settle in a new location. One time the x axis deflections switched directions between 15 second test runs. I have also observed similar deflections without a dielectric.
I have a feeling it's a thermal deformation of the wire leads to the magnetron. Every time I disconnect the magnetron and run a VNA sweep the precise orientation of the wires changes.
Has anyone calculated the thermal expansion of copper wires powering a magnetron? The resistance through mine is a maximum of 0.8 ohms.
Yes it is 14 gauge multi-strand copper wire.
p.s. While you are looking that up, here is the wire lead I used for the HV magnetron line. Note the operating temp range: http://www.mcmaster.com/#9620t19/
I'll have time to post some pics and plots tomorrow (hopefully).
What do you mean by <There is going to be 1 critical point where thermal expansion of the insulator (more likely) or the copper will stretch/contract directly affecting your measurement.> ?
Running current through a wire should cause it to heat up and expand, right? The setup is essentially the same as the last pictures I posted, where the leads are attached to the center of mass of the cylinder by a pipe clamp. If any of the three wires expanded it would certainly cause the cylinder to move.
-
#2187 by Vesc on 10 May, 2016 00:02
-
...
snip
snip
I am not talking about magnetic fields extending outside a power cable! You are!
I am talking about the fact that electromagnetic fields carry momentum, and that you are transmitting momentum through the power cables from a stationary device (that is being depleted) to the EM Drive that may self-accelerate as a result of the electromagnetic power flowing through your coaxial cable. I am discussing the issue of center of energy-momentum and that in electromagnetics momentum and energy are tied together in the same equation, for several posts now.
In electromagnetics, energy and momentum are tied together: (*)
in the same equation!
snip
______________
(*) where the electromagnetic energy density is uem and S is the momentum. It is improper to ignore the momentum that is being supplied from a location outside the moving platform.
The best test uses batteries self-integrated with the device, as done by Yang in her latest tests that nullify her previous tests with power cords.
Dr. Rodal,
Since the momentum transfer is via vector quantities, I'm not convinced you cannot design an experiment where power is delivered to the apparatus where momentum cannot be cancelled. One example I can think of is using a laser powered setup where light energy is delivered to a photovoltaic for conversion back to electrical power on-board. The laser is passed through a beam splitter and the beams focus onto back-to-back photovoltaic cells at 180 degrees, relative to each thus cancelling any net momentum.
Now this is a lot more sophisticated that what is probably really necessary with electrical conduction, but I only offer it for illustrative purposes.
The only reason I harp on this point is the idea that it will be hard to get higher power out of batteries. You say power level's should not matter. Well that is certainly a data point granted. But I'm not sure higher power levels should also not be tested (nor do I think you are either), nor a mechanism for being able to test at those levels.
Sorry to bring this up after what 10 pages of discussion? I was out over the weekend and am just returning to the thread. Doesn't anybody take a break on this forum?
-
#2188 by Vesc on 10 May, 2016 00:14
-
BTW, on your other two points I am in complete agreement.
And yes I concede that if the effect is demonstrable via an internal power source that would be more convincing proof than with an external source. But I don't also want hinge judgment only on power levels achievable by batteries and introduce a possible nullification bias due to tests only at low power.
Also a carefully crafted null experiment should be able to show if EM field momentum is a source of measurement error. If seen and calibrated and then applied to the non-control with a resulting net zero force, then I would consider that also an excellent null experiment.
For the record, although I haven't read carefully through the latest Yang results, (is there an English translation of this paper?) I am willing to accept their conclusion of the latest results as a nullification of the prior experiment. Looks like a zero result to me.
And why is that a bad thing? I agree with you Dr. Rodal on greeting this as good news.
-
#2189 by rfmwguy on 10 May, 2016 00:15
-
There is going to be 1 critical point where thermal expansion of the insulator (more likely) or the copper will stretch/contract directly affecting your measurement. Any chance you have a pic of the setup?Hi everyone,
Hi Kurt, are you using multi-strand copper for all 3 leads: HV, Heater and Ground?
The deflections I've been observing have not been repeatable. Sometimes I'll have a test where the cylinder swings in the direction of the dielectric as well as laterally, sometimes just one or the other.
They are typically deflections that are consistent with about 10 to 20 mN of force based on my calibration weights. Sometimes the deflections are permanent, meaning the pendulum will settle in a new location. One time the x axis deflections switched directions between 15 second test runs. I have also observed similar deflections without a dielectric.
I have a feeling it's a thermal deformation of the wire leads to the magnetron. Every time I disconnect the magnetron and run a VNA sweep the precise orientation of the wires changes.
Has anyone calculated the thermal expansion of copper wires powering a magnetron? The resistance through mine is a maximum of 0.8 ohms.
Yes it is 14 gauge multi-strand copper wire.
p.s. While you are looking that up, here is the wire lead I used for the HV magnetron line. Note the operating temp range: http://www.mcmaster.com/#9620t19/
I'll have time to post some pics and plots tomorrow (hopefully).
What do you mean by <There is going to be 1 critical point where thermal expansion of the insulator (more likely) or the copper will stretch/contract directly affecting your measurement.> ?
Running current through a wire should cause it to heat up and expand, right? The setup is essentially the same as the last pictures I posted, where the leads are attached to the center of mass of the cylinder by a pipe clamp. If any of the three wires expanded it would certainly cause the cylinder to move.
I'll have to look at your pics but here's what I did on mine. The beam carried the twisted supply lines from the center to the frustum. Every foot or so, I allowed a little drop loop. The last strap tie before the frustum dropped about 10 inches down then over to the magnetron on the frustum. Even though I measured no appreciable heating of the wires, if there would have been expansion, it was not on a fixed rigid length...the loops would help to compensate.
The critical point was the drop loop at the center of the beam. Any buckling, here would directly affect the balance point on the old teeter-totter setup, more so on the new torsional wire. The drop loop is far away from the mag, so only current would impact it (beam to frustum about 4 feet). The drop loop then went to a stationary platform, then drop looped over to the table where the power supply rested. The critical point was where the stationary platform dropped to the center of the beam.
Long description, but any thermal expansion of the wires would not exert much of a direct pull or push. This, however, is with the power supply off the beam, which I'm not sure you have.
This video sort of describes what I was doing last year. It will be somewhat different this year:
-
#2190 by Vesc on 10 May, 2016 00:22
-
Done for the day. Youth does have one advantage... stamina.
Ready to strip out the old electronics from one of the semi-machines I designed and revamp it to a Electromagnetic Drive controller. The're some great parts in this old box. This upgraded build will hopefully be able to get all the data I need... well for now.
Shell
That second photo leaves me with the eerie feeling that there may no longer be any working stereo audio amplifiers at villa Shell.... And don't look for the microwave in the kitchen either.... lol.... (just kidding)....
-
#2191 by Monomorphic on 10 May, 2016 00:52
-
Lots of work on test stands today! I cut the aluminum rectangular beam for the tortional pendulum and was able to hang and balance it with ease. I am using a simple washer here for balancing. It is very sensitive!
I used the #14 (0.033") piano wire here.
-
#2192 by rfmwguy on 10 May, 2016 00:57
-
I'll take a broad stab at that maze of wires and components...feels like home to meDone for the day. Youth does have one advantage... stamina.
Ready to strip out the old electronics from one of the semi-machines I designed and revamp it to a Electromagnetic Drive controller. The're some great parts in this old box. This upgraded build will hopefully be able to get all the data I need... well for now.
Shell
That second photo leaves me with the eerie feeling that there may no longer be any working stereo audio amplifiers at villa Shell.... And don't look for the microwave in the kitchen either.... lol.... (just kidding).... That looks like a power supply for a Vapor Deposition system, perhaps made by Advanced Energy back in the day. Full disclosure, they used to be my customer and I've visited their engineers in a previous life...a long time ago in a galaxy far away.
http://www.advanced-energy.com/
If I'm wrong...well, won't be the first time... -
#2193 by mwvp on 10 May, 2016 01:36
-
...the treatments of the Abraham-Minkowski controversy that I am aware of, deal with dielectric media, and not conductors like copper
Very true from what I've read also. Yet I attribute this to circumstance rather than principle. Most experiments I've read deal with dielectric atoms without magnetic moments, and photonic, dielectric waveguides like optic fibers rather than hollow metallic reflecting waveguides.
From an EE perspective, electric field energy is can be stored by polarizing the vacuum, or by polarizing an atomic dielectric. If atomic dielectrics are used, EM waves propagate with a lower velocity 1/Square Root of Ur x Er. One way Abraham and Minkowski momenta is defined is by scaling the fields with reciprocal of the group (refractive) index, or times the group index, respectively.
So this naturally begs the question, when considering that EM waves ricochet around inside a hollow metallic waveguide at a sub-C group velocity, is the momenta Abraham or Minkowski? If all the EM energy is in vacuum fields, what about the Minkowski momenta/energy implied by the lower than vacuum (C) group velocity?
Reasoning a bit, one notices that in free space the magnetic and electric fields are in phase, where in a resonant, approximately perfect waveguide cavity, the electric and magnetic fields are at 90 degrees, just like in a tuned LC tank circuit.
One notices also that language, such as "complex fields", "near fields", "evanescent" and "angular momentum" is used to describe the superposition of free-space propagating EM fields inside a cavity, and also around cutoff.
I conclude (FWIW) that in a hollow metallic waveguide cavity, the momenta/energy is in fact Abraham since the EM fields are vacuum and no work, or energy storage is occurring torquing electric or magnetic atomic dipole moments.
But,
EM fields are reflecting at some angle of incidence off the sidewalls, are superimposing (creating an interference pattern), at a complex, non-zero phase angle (characteristic of dielectrics), and can be thought of has having angular momentum.
Whether this is compressing, heating or cooling a quantum vacuum, I wonder.
Anyways, I rather suspect using a dielectric is going to create a Fresnel drag that will subtract from the Doppler effect, and consequently the EM-to-kinetic energy transfer in an accelerating EM Drive. -
#2194 by Rodal on 10 May, 2016 02:10
-
OK, assuming for argument's sake all that....the treatments of the Abraham-Minkowski controversy that I am aware of, deal with dielectric media, and not conductors like copper
Very true from what I've read also. Yet I attribute this to circumstance rather than principle. Most experiments I've read deal with dielectric atoms without magnetic moments, and photonic, dielectric waveguides like optic fibers rather than hollow metallic reflecting waveguides.
From an EE perspective, electric field energy is can be stored by polarizing the vacuum, or by polarizing an atomic dielectric. If atomic dielectrics are used, EM waves propagate with a lower velocity 1/Square Root of Ur x Er. One way Abraham and Minkowski momenta is defined is by scaling the fields with reciprocal of the group (refractive) index, or times the group index, respectively.
So this naturally begs the question, when considering that EM waves ricochet around inside a hollow metallic waveguide at a sub-C group velocity, is the momenta Abraham or Minkowski? If all the EM energy is in vacuum fields, what about the Minkowski momenta/energy implied by the lower than vacuum (C) group velocity?
Reasoning a bit, one notices that in free space the magnetic and electric fields are in phase, where in a resonant, approximately perfect waveguide cavity, the electric and magnetic fields are at 90 degrees, just like in a tuned LC tank circuit.
One notices also that language, such as "complex fields", "near fields", "evanescent" and "angular momentum" is used to describe the superposition of free-space propagating EM fields inside a cavity, and also around cutoff.
I conclude (FWIW) that in a hollow metallic waveguide cavity, the momenta/energy is in fact Abraham since the EM fields are vacuum and no work, or energy storage is occurring torquing electric or magnetic atomic dipole moments.
But,
EM fields are reflecting at some angle of incidence off the sidewalls, are superimposing (creating an interference pattern), at a complex, non-zero phase angle (characteristic of dielectrics), and can be thought of has having angular momentum.
Whether this is compressing, heating or cooling a quantum vacuum, I wonder.
Anyways, I rather suspect using a dielectric is going to create a Fresnel drag that will subtract from the Doppler effect, and consequently the EM-to-kinetic energy transfer in an accelerating EM Drive.
We still have the fact that the difference between the Abraham and Minkowski formulation are purely due to the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeabiltiy of the dielectric.
But Copper is just about the worst example of a conductor in which there could be a difference because for copper the real part of εr=1 (at GHz frequency), and μr=0.999994, or μr~1. So there is practically no difference whatsoever between εr and μr between copper and vacuum.
One would be hard pressed to find a dielectric with εr=1 and μr~1.
I mean, if one were to make the case that a metallic cavity has some kind of a Abraham/Minkowski controversy (I would not), it would be better to pick a ferrite, with high μr >>1 so that at least we have some difference to talk about in relevant properties that would affect the different momenta.
But copper is just about the worst metal to choose if anyone wanted to investigate the Abraham Minkowski controversy for metals. Why? Because for copper εr=1 and μr~1, and for εr=1 and μr=1, there is practically no difference between Abraham and Minkowski
For two media (copper and vacuum) that have the same ε and μ, there is no difference between Abraham and Minkowski:
gA = gM
-
#2195 by CuriousDreamer on 10 May, 2016 02:50
-
Maybe it is the other way around
, maybe it is that the old folks are the ones that have more drive (pun intended), from the Atomic age, the Space age, the Robot and AI age when nothing could stop their dreams, cars looked like rockets and rockets were going to the Moon instead of over and over to LEO as they have been doing for decades
I think you're on to something with this hypothesis, but there's little more to say on the topic that isn't wildly off the topic of EM Drive. Never the less, I am not even slightly surprised that so many in my generation are unwilling to have hope for things like EM drive.
I wish I had the courage to study physics in college like I wanted to. lack of faith in myself has prevented me from doing so many things up to this point in my life. It is disheartening how our society has turned more and more away from exploration, and more towards comfort. As my username suggests, I dream of the future. I dream of traveling the stars exploring this universe. and I hope that the years to come see the kind of advances in science that inspire a new generation of explorers and dreamers and innovators with the desire and drive to push the bounds of what is known and step into a new world of discovery.
As a member of the up-and-coming Generation I want to thank those of you who have been around the block and laid the foundation for your children and grandchildren to reach into the unknown. That said... we still need some help, so I expect you all to stick around for a while and continue to motivate my sorry generation to acts that can hopefully make you proud. You have certainly inspired me to pursue my interest in physics beyond regret of the past.
Dreamer -
#2196 by spupeng7 on 10 May, 2016 07:37
-
...
I like the idea and I hope he responds.
I project to send a mail to Shawyer. This mail would be.
Mr Shawyer
In the document named EmDrive Basis Science, at the slide Conservation of Energy, you mention the Kinetic Energy of the frustrum. In standard physics, the Kinetic Energy is only defined in a referential. You do not indicate this referential in your EmDrive Basis Science
We can not suppose that this referential would be the depart point of a ship powered by an Emdrive. It would means that if a ship has leaved the moon, and another has leaved the Earth, and they go to the same deep space aera, they would not have the same Q factor, nor the same thrust, even if they are identical, at the same speed, and very near each other.
We would be thankful if you indicate us what referential you are using for Kinetic Energy. Without this missing information, we can not understand correctly the Slide Conservation of Energy
Suggestion: to also include:
1) Frobnicat's reference to a road (for cars) or a rail (for a train) as the Kinetic Energy reference for a ground vehicle (due to friction with the road) , while in space there is no road or rail
2) Frobnicat's question as to whether an EM Drive on a speeding train behaves different than an EM Drive being fixed to the walls of a laboratory. How about an EM Drive free-falling in an elevator?
Thank you!
These arguments have been obvious to the curious for a long time. If there was any validity to the kinetic energy of motion limitations proposed, then we would all be permanently doomed to remain forever in our own solar system. I cannot accept that as a fait accompli and will continue in my efforts to disprove it till they shoot me for it.
JMN..
-
#2197 by Gilbertdrive on 10 May, 2016 10:26
-
No, potential energy can be gained from the other gravitating bodies by reducing space in front of drive with the artificial mass. Of course this is speculative based on that em-radiation as standing transverse electric component gives longitudinal magnetic curved standing wave and maybe it could be similar to normal standing gravitational wave with the spherical gravity field...
So, I should fit the theory that I had proposed earlier :
The Emdrive has a way to interact with other masses (to a non specified distance, and a non specified distribution) with respect of CoE, and CoM, so that, when the emdrives accelerate, the other bodies interacting with the emdrive accelerate at the opposite. Also, the acceleration of an EMdrive device needs to use at least an energy corresponding to the growth of kinetic energy of the device, and of the concerned bodies
If I correctly understood, with this new Aether, it is not a way to push against the masses that are in the back of the ship, but a way to pull the ship to the next masses. The formulation of my theory worked for both directions.
But, are there some calculus that gives us an order of the energy needed to warp the Aether ?
Would it work less if the masses are very distant ?
Also there is a point that I do not like in my own formulation. That is still about this silly Kinetic energy. In witch referential should I express it ? The ideal would be to express it in a referential that has very neglibeable interaction with my EM/QGship -for example a distant star, but this star has interaction with other stars, so it would not be a good referential.
Maybe I can take for referential the gravity center of the masses that interact with my system in a non negligeable way.
-
#2198 by Gilbertdrive on 10 May, 2016 11:42
-
Oops, I forgot I had one important point to modify.
The Emdrive has a way to interact with other masses (to a non specified distance, and a non specified distribution) with respect of CoE, and CoM, so that, when the emdrives accelerate, the other bodies interacting with the emdrive accelerate at the opposite. Also, the acceleration of an EMdrive device needs to use or stole at least an energy corresponding to the growth of kinetic energy of the device, and of the concerned bodies
Because, if I understand correctly, the energy does not need enymore to be taken in a ship generator, the energy can be stolen to other masses, as it is already when a probe does a flyby to gain speed
-
#2199 by Rodal on 10 May, 2016 12:54
-
This has a similarity with this aspect of Woodward's effect:
No, potential energy can be gained from the other gravitating bodies by reducing space in front of drive with the artificial mass. Of course this is speculative based on that em-radiation as standing transverse electric component gives longitudinal magnetic curved standing wave and maybe it could be similar to normal standing gravitational wave with the spherical gravity field...
So, I should fit the theory that I had proposed earlier :
The Emdrive has a way to interact with other masses (to a non specified distance, and a non specified distribution) with respect of CoE, and CoM, so that, when the emdrives accelerate, the other bodies interacting with the emdrive accelerate at the opposite. Also, the acceleration of an EMdrive device needs to use at least an energy corresponding to the growth of kinetic energy of the device, and of the concerned bodies
If I correctly understood, with this new Aether, it is not a way to push against the masses that are in the back of the ship, but a way to pull the ship to the next masses. The formulation of my theory worked for both directions.
But, are there some calculus that gives us an order of the energy needed to warp the Aether ?
Would it work less if the masses are very distant ?
Also there is a point that I do not like in my own formulation. That is still about this silly Kinetic energy. In witch referential should I express it ? The ideal would be to express it in a referential that has very neglibeable interaction with my EM/QGship -for example a distant star, but this star has interaction with other stars, so it would not be a good referential.
Maybe I can take for referential the gravity center of the masses that interact with my system in a non negligeable way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect#Gravity_origin_of_inertiaQuoteLocal momentum conservation is preserved by the flux of momentum in the gravity field that is chiefly exchanged with the distant matter in the universe.
, maybe it is that the old folks are the ones that have more drive (pun intended), from the Atomic age, the Space age, the Robot and AI age when nothing could stop their dreams, cars looked like rockets and rockets were going to the Moon instead of over and over to LEO as they have been doing for decades 
JMN..