-
#2240 by Peter Lauwer on 01 Nov, 2016 13:46
-
Do you have updates of your experiment? For example, photos of the settings. Thanks.
Soon. Torsion balance nearing completeness, test cavities still need to be soldered, some RF stuff has to be ordered.
Thanks as well, Peter -
#2241 by TheTraveller on 01 Nov, 2016 14:06
-
Your 2-forces description remains equivalent to saying that pushing something to the left makes it move to the right contradicting F=m*a.
I have asked you many times to answer 2 simple questions about a simple, real system that mimics the forces that the emDrive produces according to Shawyer. Your inability or unwillingness to answer them indicates that you either don't understand simple mechanics, or you are not interested in rational discussion. Either way, this there is no point in me providing further explanations of why your claims don't make sense until you answer the questions.
Actually there are 3 forces involved but more on that later.
It matters not what we say or wish to believe, the EmDrive generates the 2 forces (well actually 3) that have been measured. What I have described are the physical results of the real world forces that are generated by whatever happens inside the frustum.
And yes the forces generated are not what we have come to expect, but then are we so sure we have experienced all that nature has in store for us?
Ok it is hard to accept the reality of:
1) A Thrust force, with vector small to big, that can generate a static force on a non moving scale, yet not generate a dynamic force that can cause acceleration.
2) A Reaction force, with vector big to small, that can generate an accelerative dynamic force, yet not generate a static force on a non moving scale.
For sure very strange force characteristics there but that is what the experimental data says happens. So maybe instead of denying the experimental data, we need to try to understand what these 2 very different force characteristics are trying to tell us about what is happening inside the frustum.
There is a difference between a scale based test rig and a rotary test rig.
1) Scale: no movement and no change in the dual travelling EmWave path lengths big to small and small to big.
2) Rotary test rig: movement in big to small direction, with longer dual travelling EmWave path length big to small and shorter dual travelling EmWave path length small to big. Think differential Doppler / phase shift. Think change in CW and CCW path lengths for a rotating Laser Ring Gyro. -
#2242 by Peter Lauwer on 01 Nov, 2016 14:41
-
For sure very strange force characteristics there but that is what the experimental data says happens. So maybe instead of denying the experimental data, ...
I think there is a gap between what you consider to be 'experimental data' and what the more sceptical members of this forum think it should be.
In my view, a physics report should include:
1) a clear description of the test device (in our case: the rf cavity and rf source/amplicier/coupling...). In such a way that other experimenters can repeat the experiment.
2) a good description of the measurement device (torsion balance, scale, swinging plateau, whatever)
3) a clear description of the input signals
4) a clear description of the measurement results, maybe with some statistical analysis (not only showing the biggest force ever recorded (i.e., an outlier).
5) if possible an analysis of the possible error sources.
Do the reports of Shawyer comply to these requirements?
-
#2243 by PotomacNeuron on 01 Nov, 2016 15:01
-
I think there is a gap between what you consider to be 'experimental data' and what the more sceptical members of this forum think it should be.
In my view, a physics report should include:
1) a clear description of the test device (in our case: the rf cavity and rf source/amplicier/coupling...). In such a way that other experimenters can repeat the experiment.
2) a good description of the measurement device (torsion balance, scale, swinging plateau, whatever)
3) a clear description of the input signals
4) a clear description of the measurement results, maybe with some statistical analysis (not only showing the biggest force ever recorded (i.e., an outlier).
5) if possible an analysis of the possible error sources.
Do the reports of Shawyer comply to these requirements?
Photos of of the experiment are very helpful for people to identify important issues overlooked by the experimenters. -
#2244 by TheTraveller on 01 Nov, 2016 15:12
-
For sure very strange force characteristics there but that is what the experimental data says happens. So maybe instead of denying the experimental data, ...
I think there is a gap between what you consider to be 'experimental data' and what the more sceptical members of this forum think it should be.
In my view, a physics report should include:
1) a clear description of the test device (in our case: the rf cavity and rf source/amplicier/coupling...). In such a way that other experimenters can repeat the experiment.
2) a good description of the measurement device (torsion balance, scale, swinging plateau, whatever)
3) a clear description of the input signals
4) a clear description of the measurement results, maybe with some statistical analysis (not only showing the biggest force ever recorded (i.e., an outlier).
5) if possible an analysis of the possible error sources.
Do the reports of Shawyer comply to these requirements?
Yes they do and they include independent review of the report.
In my opinion the Demonstrator test report has more data and explanation than the Experimental test report but both should comply with your requirements.
But then I'm looking from the inside, with a lot of time talking to Roger, building my thruster and engaging with other successful builders. When I read the reports, I fully understand them on a line by line basis and they raise no issues for me.
However I can see how someone without my hands on experience could find the reports daunting as they claim the generation and measurement of forces that are outside normal human experience. That alone would cause many to stop reading and doubt the sanity of the writer.
However Roger is not alone in building EmDrives and measuring these strange forces.
What amazes me it is would seem that for some no amount of experimental data can get them past the point where they accept the existence of forces and their characteristics that are beyond anything they have ever experienced before. It is as if for some, what they have experienced to date is all that there is to know about forces and their characteristics and any data that suggests there may be forces and characteristic unknown to them is not possible and any experimental data that shows they are real can't be valid and MUST be dismissed.
Well I can tell you the forces generated by a EmDrive are very real and yes they have very new, to some, characteristics.
December will be interesting.......... -
#2245 by TheTraveller on 01 Nov, 2016 15:39
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
-
#2246 by Bob012345 on 01 Nov, 2016 16:03
-
Basically, your just saying EmDrive can't work so why discuss it. We discuss it because that's what thus thread is set up to discuss. I'm not the only one saying it might work and if it does, you will just have to change your perspective.
I am not just saying the emDrive can't work, you keep adding things to what people are saying. For consistency with the things we know about how the universe works, there are constraints on how the emDrive could work. I gave one example of how it could work right in my last post, somehow pushing against dark matter. There are other theories that are plainly inconsistent (e.g. Shawyer's claims that the device obeys conservation of momentum, but does not push against or transfer momentum to anything else.)
It's already been proven that with photon recycling, better than a photon rocket is possible. The EmDrive seems to offer a potential billion times improvement over a photon rocket.
And how many times do you need it explained to you that a recycling photon rocket is not constant force/power, when you account for the relative motions of the spacecraft and whatever the other mirror is attached to? Anything more efficient has some form of propellant or medium (the mirror for the recycling laser beam), which causes a relative velocity to exist that causes the force/power ratio to vary with velocity.
So, what would happen to an EmDrive in free space generating a force of say 1000N on a probe of 1000kg mass using a constant electrical power of 1KW? How would you describe the motion over time? -
#2247 by Peter Lauwer on 01 Nov, 2016 16:04
-
Most of you are discussing advanced topics, but I am still more or less in the 'plumbing phase'. Fortunately, according to Paul March, I don't have to get skilled in silver soldering but can use ordinary lead/tin solder as well to make a reasonable microwave cavity. That will save some time.
Best,
PeterQuotefrom thread 5
« on: 10/18/2015 04:45 AM »
The manufacturing tolerances for building these EMDrive based room-temp copper frustums does not have to be very good to get Q-factor results that are quite usable in obtaining interesting thruster performance. Our unloaded, (-7dB down from the VNA S11 amplitude reference plane assuming near optimal antenna coupling using a magnetic loop antenna), with no dielectric discs, the TE012 resonance at 2,167 MHz per our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper's copper frustum came out to be ~54,000. Considering our garage construction crew used a civil war vintage bending mill to form the copper sheet into a cone, which was then lead/tin soldered together with two half inch wide exterior flanges butted together, and pulled together using 0.050" thick by 1/2 inch wide copper hoops that I hand routered out of copper sheets, which were then lead/tin soldered to the cone, should tell you that great precision for your first frustum prototypes is not required. And since I also just used semi-flat 1/16" thick FR4 printed circuit boards with one side plated with 1.0 oz (34.8 microns thick) copper with the copper side towards the inside of the cavity, super parallel surfaces on the end caps is not required either.
BTW, since the wave-length of ~2.0 GHz RF is 5.906" (0.1500m), keeping within 1/100th of a wavelength (0.0591") tolerance of your design in your first build as the telescope builders do, one should just use moderate (0.03") shop tolerances for your first prototype builds and go from there.
Best, Paul March -
#2248 by Peter Lauwer on 01 Nov, 2016 16:08
-
Photos of of the experiment are very helpful for people to identify important issues overlooked by the experimenters.
Sometimes, I would say. Often a good technical drawing is better. (both of them would be even better, I agree). -
#2249 by InterestedEngineer on 01 Nov, 2016 17:24
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
There's no net force if you use bouncing balls instead of photons. (at least I hope that's obvious). Try doing the integration across slanted surface (either analytically or numerically, but be careful of rounding errors if numerically).
However, what changes when you get standing waves? There's no data showing the system works without standing waves, so until you show standing waves I don't think your model is complete.
You could get standing waves acoustically using air. Would that generate a net force? If not, why not? Something unique about photons that's not shown in your diagram? -
#2250 by Bob012345 on 01 Nov, 2016 17:26
-
The basic point is that you say the EmDrive, if it works at all, will stop accelerating as it's kinetic energy grows faster than its electrical energy input. You're claiming you know Shawyer, Fetta and anyone else who shows a fixed thrust for a fixed electrical power doesn't understand how physics works if they claim that acceleration will just continue. Myself and others believe if it works at all, nothing can limit the acceleration since all observer frames are arbitrary. I believe the energy conundrum is only an apparent violation.
Velocity is relative but acceleration is absolute. Thus, if the EmDrive works, it produces a force and thus an acceleration regardless of anything. There is no way for it to "know" what velocity it's going such as to "know" it's kinetic energy is in danger of growing at a rate beyond which the power it is supplying can handle. The only limitation must be that the force it produces is proportional to the power it uses to produce that force which is the point Woodward made.
What you claim as a basic point from me is a total mistake about what I have repeated, including in preceding answers to you. I am deeply disappointed that it happens after so many exchanges.
I never claimed that the Emdrive would necessary stop accelerating as it's kinetic energy grows faster than its electrical energy input. I have claimed that if the Emdrive doesn't steal energy to something else, and still gives constant thrust for constant imput power, it breaks CoE. I also repeated several times the example of Gravity Assist, what is a perfect example of stolen Energy, and had been precedently used by Dr Rodal.
How can you remove this condition ?
Also, even if this condition was no satisfied, I had written that it would break CoE. Not that it was impossible. The only thing that I consider, in the context of these threads to be impossible to break are the maths and the logic.
Also, I do not understand how you can consider than a ship with a small 200kVe generator coming back on the earth after 20 years of space travel, and making an impact and releasing the energy of 5 million Hiroshima bombs without having stolen energy to anything else is only an apparent violation ? What do you need to make a violation not only apparent ? destroying the entire solar system with the energy of a battery AAA ?
You think There is no way for it to "know" what velocity it's going such as to "know" it's kinetic energy is in danger of growing at a rate beyond which the power it is supplying can handle.
It depends of how it works.
For example, if the Emdrive is a way of pusing against distant masses, with a new interaction, the emdrive could "know" it's Kinetic Energy just like a car knows it's Kinetic energy when pushing against the road, or a maglev train "knows" it's Kinetic energy relatively to the rail.
If the emdrive is a way of pushing against Dark matter, and if the movement applies to dark matter, the Kinetic energy in the referential of the dark matter the Emdrive is pushing against will be relevant.
Etc.
The claim that the emdrive can give thrust superior to P/V in any inertial reference frame closes these possible theories. How do you know that these theories are impossible ?
I don't know that they are impossible. I don't know how the device works. I just suspect that if it produces a real force, it would produce the same force in any reference frame. If it does, then it should just accelerate without regard to whatever frame it starts from. I'd be surprised if it turned out to be frame dependent.
Also, I do assume there is some as yet unknown interaction, some "propellant" that allows that force to be generated, momentum conserved and kinetic energy to be borrowed or stolen if you like. -
#2251 by wicoe on 01 Nov, 2016 17:32
-
I don't know that they are impossible. I don't know how the device works. I just suspect that if it produces a real force, it would produce the same force in any reference frame. If it does, then it should just accelerate without regard to whatever frame it starts from. I'd be surprised if it turned out to be frame dependent.
Also, I do assume there is some as yet unknown interaction, some "propellant" that allows that force to be generated, momentum conserved and kinetic energy to be borrowed or stolen if you like.
You got a contradiction here... if there is a propellant, there is a reference frame in which it is "at rest", and this frame will play a special role. Just like a car/train uses the Earth as a "propellant", it becomes harder and harder for it to accelerate as the relative velocity increases (relative to the "propellant"). When you're pushing against something that is already moving relative to you, you need to apply more power to get the same velocity change (just look at the kinetic energy formula). -
#2252 by Bob012345 on 01 Nov, 2016 17:51
-
I don't know that they are impossible. I don't know how the device works. I just suspect that if it produces a real force, it would produce the same force in any reference frame. If it does, then it should just accelerate without regard to whatever frame it starts from. I'd be surprised if it turned out to be frame dependent.
Also, I do assume there is some as yet unknown interaction, some "propellant" that allows that force to be generated, momentum conserved and kinetic energy to be borrowed or stolen if you like.
You got a contradiction here... if there is a propellant, there is a reference frame in which it is "at rest", and this frame will play a special role. Just like a car/train uses the Earth as a "propellant", it becomes harder and harder for it to accelerate as the relative velocity increases (relative to the "propellant"). When you're pushing against something that is already moving relative to you, you need to apply more power to get the same velocity change (just look at the kinetic energy formula).
Not necessarily. Just as the speed of light is the same to all observers in all frames, perhaps the Center of Momentum frame of the universe is the same for all observers, there is no preferred frame. Then, whatever the "propellant" is, it acts like a real propellant on a real rocket which always acts in the rest frame of the rocket. Thus, to all observers, the"propellant" has the initial kinetic energy of the speed of the EmDrive being observed and it can lend some of that energy to the device. So, whether you observe a device at 1000m/s or at half the speed of light, in each case the "propellant" has the proper energy to give to the device. -
#2253 by wicoe on 01 Nov, 2016 17:54
-
Not necessarily. Just as the speed of light is the same to all observers in all frames, perhaps the Center of Momentum frame of the universe is the same for all observers, there is no preferred frame. Then, whatever the "propellant" is, it acts like a real propellant on a real rocket which always acts in the rest frame of the rocket. Thus, to all observers, the"propellant" has the initial kinetic energy of the speed of the EmDrive being observed and it can lend some of that energy to the device. So, whether you observe a device at 1000m/s or at half the speed of light, in each case the "propellant" has the proper energy to give to the device.
In which case we got ourselves a free energy device, which is great! But not very realistic, or is it? -
#2254 by Josave on 01 Nov, 2016 18:18
-
I agree with Bob012345, there is no preferred frame. Moreover, energy is relative:
-If you take potential energy, it is due to position, which depends on the origin.
-If you take kinetic energy, it is due to velocity, which depends upon the reference frame.
-If you take mass energy, again, mass is relative, depends upon reference frame.
-If you take acceleration, acceleration for one observer is detectable while it occurs, by means of accurate clocks. But the comparison of elapsed time can only be made if the two observers later return to the same event, and can compare their clocks. This will not be the case in a relativistic trip if one day this can be done…
However, feeling acceleration in a frame is another thing. It has to do with some local experiment made in this frame. If I am in an inertial frame, yes you can say acceleration is absolute. This is not the case in non-inertial frames (for instance, at the surface of the Earth, our frame is a non-inertial). Each observer or frame has in fact a local feeling of the word, which is dictated by the metrics "felt" locally by this observer.
The concept of "relative acceleration” could make sense, for instance, if we consider another accelerating observer looking at us. We could choose, at any instant t, an inertial comoving-frame (different for each t) which has, at any time, the same speed that we have (and with same origin). So in this frame acceleration disappears and in this sense, acceleration (remember, defined as the derivative of the velocity that is also a relative concept) is clearly a relative magnitude.
Going back to EmDrive, imagine we are a zero rest mass observer (a bunch of photons trapped inside a Shawyer cavity or some grams of photons inside the holraum of a just imploded nuclear weapon warhead http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-4.html#Nfaq4.4.3.1 ) and we are isolated in the middle of a huge empty space and there is no one single point to define a reference frame, an origin or a comoving-frame. There will be no possibility to define neither velocity, nor acceleration or moreover energy!!!
We need clearly some reference object (and inertial frame) to say we are accelerating, and probably the only we can define are the distant galaxies, or let’s say worse, the microwave cosmic background, that is escaping from us also at the speed of light. Up to this, all is traditional relativity physics.
From here is where new physics start and this forum is for its discussion: please, let’s suppose that our most essential and basic comoving- frame is accelerating at a minimum rate, just the cosmological acceleration a0 = 2c2/H0, the rate at which the universe expands and precisely a rate of acceleration so low, but just enough, to reach exactly the speed of light in the entire life of universe. Let’s say:There are no pure inertial frames, this is impossible, because any frame is accelerating at a minimum rate, and this is the rate of cosmological acceleration.
Moreover, if we accelerate at this very low rate, our (relative) acceleration disappears and so there is no necessity of energy to move. In other words, we need zero force to reach the speed of light in the entire life of universe of course at a very low acceleration, because the cosmological acceleration (or simply the rate of expansion of the universe) will make us to do so for free. Is this correct?
Let’s suppose this is true. In fact cosmological constant or dark energy is just another way to explain this idea in traditional physics. How can we design some experiment to check that?
This is where EmDrive comes, maybe based in the effect that the minimum acceleration needs no force at all...
-
#2255 by X_RaY on 01 Nov, 2016 18:44
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
Oh man, I have got a hard time to understand what do you try to explain with this sketch!
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
Maybe the EMdrive works, who knows. What I can understand is there are forces for sure, for example the poynting vectors field, heat driven displacement currents, force caused of emitted ir-photons into the sourrounding environment, magnetic forces or even maybe some friction against dark matter like someone has suggested during the last days.
What kind of forces do you speak of?
WarpTech offers his ideas very well, so it's obvious of what he is talking about.
Sorry I (and maybe some other) don't know what kind of forces you are talking about and where it may comes from, especially in the context of general relativity.
-
#2256 by InterestedEngineer on 01 Nov, 2016 18:52
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
There's no net force if you use bouncing balls instead of photons. (at least I hope that's obvious). Try doing the integration across slanted surface (either analytically or numerically, but be careful of rounding errors if numerically).
However, what changes when you get standing waves? There's no data showing the system works without standing waves, so until you show standing waves I don't think your model is complete.
You could get standing waves acoustically using air. Would that generate a net force? If not, why not? Something unique about photons that's not shown in your diagram?
I hate replying to myself, but I thought about a simple way to explain the intricacies of working in two+ dimensions on complicated shapes.
Imagine I have a circle with balls (or photons) bouncing around inside it. Eventually, no matter the initial direction and location of the ball, the ball bounces around a full circle, canceling out any momentum imparted on the circle. If I were to analyze only one bounce however (as in your diagram), I would come to the conclusion that there was a net momentum imparted on the circle, but I would be incorrect. The analysis of any two+ dimensional bouncing ball system is not complete until you integrate the momentum changes over all the bounces of the ball, taking into account the x and y components of momentum transfer with each bounce.
A frustum, triangle, square, etc. is no different. The internal angles add up to 360 degrees, just like a circle. Eventually the ball (or small photon, or ...) bounces in all directions equally, imparting no net momentum on the frustum. The more complex the shape, the harder this is to prove analytically of course, but that just gives people the incentive to make as complicated shape as possible in order to make it impossible to prove analytically... if you attempt to model the complex shape numerically you have to be extremely careful about rounding errors, as the Paul Kocyla is likely to discover.
I believe I can also model the idea that there's a preference side for the ball being absorbed using the same circular model. In this model the hypothesis is that the absorption side causes a momentum transfer. For example if I put an absorbing substance on one side of the circle (or a small patch) and the instantaneous input energy = instantaneous absorbed energy, then it's no different than if I had a photon (or a tennis ball) rocket. If instantaneous input energy != instantaneous absorbed energy, then internal energy would continue to increase to infinity, which is clearly not happening by anyone's measurements. The systems clearly reach an equilibrium of input energy and absorption. (by absorption, I really mean, turn photons into heat)
I don't think you can describe the behavior of the frustum with a simple mechanical model. A suitable model needs to likely include the idea that the photons are about the size of the frustum (i.e. standing waves), that (likely) standing acoustic waves won't reproduce the same phenomena because of something different about photons. There might be more than these minimum requirements. More importantly than this thought experiment, the current physical evidence supports these minimum requirements of a model. -
#2257 by InterestedEngineer on 01 Nov, 2016 19:31
-
Oh man, I have got a hard time to understand what do you try to explain with this sketch!
Maybe the EMdrive works, who knows. What I can understand is there are forces for sure, for example the poynting vectors field, heat driven displacement currents, force caused of emitted ir-photons into the sourrounding environment, magnetic forces or even maybe some friction against dark matter like someone has suggested during the last days.
What kind of forces do you speak of?
WarpTech offers his ideas very well, so it's obvious of what he is talking about.
Sorry I (and maybe some other) don't know what kind of forces you are talking about and where it may comes from.
The Poynting vectors visually look like they add up to net zero in your TE012 picture... assuming your modeling is similar enough as a set of statistically meaningful positive result experiments, that eliminates assymetric Poynting vectors from the list of possibilities.
Might be Captain Obvious here, but why not just state the obvious to be sure... -
#2258 by Gilbertdrive on 01 Nov, 2016 20:25
-
I know the question is for Meberbs, and I am not Meberbs, but I shall give my own answer for this interesting question.Basically, your just saying EmDrive can't work so why discuss it. We discuss it because that's what thus thread is set up to discuss. I'm not the only one saying it might work and if it does, you will just have to change your perspective.
I am not just saying the emDrive can't work, you keep adding things to what people are saying. For consistency with the things we know about how the universe works, there are constraints on how the emDrive could work. I gave one example of how it could work right in my last post, somehow pushing against dark matter. There are other theories that are plainly inconsistent (e.g. Shawyer's claims that the device obeys conservation of momentum, but does not push against or transfer momentum to anything else.)
It's already been proven that with photon recycling, better than a photon rocket is possible. The EmDrive seems to offer a potential billion times improvement over a photon rocket.
And how many times do you need it explained to you that a recycling photon rocket is not constant force/power, when you account for the relative motions of the spacecraft and whatever the other mirror is attached to? Anything more efficient has some form of propellant or medium (the mirror for the recycling laser beam), which causes a relative velocity to exist that causes the force/power ratio to vary with velocity.
So, what would happen to an EmDrive in free space generating a force of say 1000N on a probe of 1000kg mass using a constant electrical power of 1KW? How would you describe the motion over time?
My answer is that we don't know. There are several possible evolutions for the motion over time, following different theories. Without being exhaustive, here are a few of the possible solutions. I start the most pessimist, and go to the most exotic solution.
1 : Emdrive works only by thermals, or by any terrestrial artifact. The probe shall give no thrust as soon as it is in space, and the thrust shall stay to zero all the time. CoE satisfied.
2 : Emdrive works by directing gravity of big masses. In fact, directing the frustrum towards a planet or a star gives the possibility to pull the ship as if there was an invisible cable. It would be a distant gravity assist. In that case, the thrust shall not be constant, but shall not automatically decrease. It will depends of the mass, the distance, and the Kinetic energy of the planet or the star it is directed.
In fact, it would work like a man on a skateboard with a winch and a harpoon navigating on the roads. When he want to accelerate in a direction, he harpoon a car, than he can use his winch to go closer to the car.
If the car is not moving relatively to the road, he moves only by using the winch, and in that case the Kinetic energy gained is limited to P/V in the road reference frame. At the opposite, if the car is going in the right direction, the man on the skateboard can get speed (and Kinetic energy in the road reference frame for free)
If the drive works like that, the possibilities depends on the distance of the corpses that can be used, and their effectives positions. It would be like navigating on the sea with a sail boat. The speed depends on the winds. Their forces, and their directions. A sail boat can't just go in straight line at constant speed from it's departure to it's destination. CoE satisfied
3 : Emdrive works because it is pushing against an uknown type of aether. The space being like a road, with a local prefered reference frame. It does not means that it is absolute. For example, it may be the Quasilocal Center-of-Mass for Teleparallel Gravity
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403101
If this quasilocal center of mass could be used like a reference frame for this new kind of aether, globally, it would not moves much compared with the near masses. Probably Only a few hundreds of kilometers per second for our earth.
In fact, space would be like the water of a river. It is easier to go in the direction of the current.
In that case, the Emship performance should depends it's direction, and the thrust should be limited to P/V in the local space referential. But the thrust can be superior to P/V in the right direction, in an earth referential, as the energy is stolen to the current.. CoE satisfied.
4 : The emdrive is a way of stealing energy beyond the Rindler horizon, or in the entire universe, for example by modifying inertia. Depending on how it works, it may be possible to get constant acceleration for constant imput power, and exceding P/V, in the limit of the quantity of energy that can be stolen, by this mean, in the universe.
5 : The emdrive works because MiHsC applies. It is another way of stealing energy. Constant thrust for constant imput power seems to be a consequence. CoE satisfied, energy stolen elsewhere (even If I did not understood clearly how and where)
6 : The emdrive works because it harvest energy from a degradable Quantum Vacuum. It steals energy to the Quantuum Vacuum.
6a) It can also give constant thrust for constant imput power, but degrade for long term the Quantum vacuum, as we do with the Oil under the ground. CoE satisfied.
6b) The Quantum Vacuum regenerates quickly without stealing energy to something else. So, the Quantum Vacuum can give energy from nowhere, or from outside of our 3D+time universe. In that case CoE is broken from the viewpoint of our universe. But if our 3D+time universe is a part of a 4D+time universe, CoE may still apply in this bigger universe.
7)We live in a simulated universe (the creators of the simulation merit the name of gods) and the calculus are made with a limited precision. The emdrive is a way of using the approximations in a way that violates the general laws.
I need to give an example to make it more concrete. Imagine a game with your child. If he gives you the 3 leaves of a Clover, you give him one dollar. But he can give you only one leaf, you give him the third of one dollar. When your child give you money, you give back to him flowers with the same ratio. But your are limited to cents.
If your child want to scam you, he will bring you the 2 leaves of a Clover. You will have to give him 0,666666666666… dollars. But your are limited to cents. So you have to make an approximation. If you approximate to the closer, you will give him 0,67 dollars.
Than, he ask you to by again a leaf. One leaf would be 0,33333333333… dollars. But the approximation gives only 0,33 dollars. So you ask to your child 0,33 dollars, and gives him a leaf.
Than, he buy again the second leaf for anonther 0,33 dollars.
He has recovered his two leaves, and has gained 0,01 dollars. And he can do the same again, and again.
Maybe it is the same with the emdrive. Cheating with the approximations of the universe would be a form of a soft bug exploit. It probably breaks CoE and CoM, but, as in all the theories that I mentioned, maths and logic are still intact.
As you can see, the Emdrive should comport differently in deep space for different theories. And I just mentioned a few of them.
The theories are now in work, and many needs development before giving numerical results.
-
#2259 by Gilbertdrive on 01 Nov, 2016 20:45
-
I don't know that they are impossible. I don't know how the device works. I just suspect that if it produces a real force, it would produce the same force in any reference frame. If it does, then it should just accelerate without regard to whatever frame it starts from. I'd be surprised if it turned out to be frame dependent.
Also, I do assume there is some as yet unknown interaction, some "propellant" that allows that force to be generated, momentum conserved and kinetic energy to be borrowed or stolen if you like.
I have resumed 7 possible theories, with 6 where the emdrive is working. In these theories, several have a prefered reference frame, in which the acceleration has to decrease with the speed for constant power and constant efficiency, as it is for the small propeller airplane.
It is not necessary the frame where it starts from. It is the relevant frame. For example, if I walk in a train, and if an observer outside the train want to make my balance sheet about CoE, he has to take the train into account, and consider that me feets are pushing against the train. He will not take into account the place I am born.
