-
#2720 by M.E.T. on 14 Nov, 2016 14:46
-
Nice article with Prof Woodward's latest thoughts on the EMDrive.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
Basically, he saw the paper that went in for review, and it was apparently only accepted for review after they were forced to cut all the impossible theories like Shawyer's Radiation Pressure theory and White's QVF theory from it, limiting it to physical observations only and no theories to try and explain it.
According to Prof Woodward, accidental Mach Effects being generated is the only way to explain the results, if they are indeed real. -
#2721 by Bob012345 on 14 Nov, 2016 18:12
-
I previously said I think there is energy stealing happening. I just don't know how yet.
But my example works so the only question is how much power would it take to create such a local field. If it depends on speed, in reference to what? A device floating in deep space doesn't know what speed it's moving at.
If it interact with the rest of the universe, it means that this interaction make the device "knows" it's speed relatively to this interaction.
Would you tell that gravity assist formulas, that clearly use the speed and Kinetic Energy in the sun referential are false ? I suppose not. The quantity of Kinetic energy stolen, and the speed that the probe can steal depends on the speed of the probe and the speed of the earth in the sun referential. So, when the probe interacts with the earth gravity fields, it knows it's speed in the relevant reference frame.
At the moment you admit that the Emdrive interacts with any field that is not isolated from the rest of the universe, it is a way of interacting with the universe Like the car with the road, or like the probe doing gravity assist with the earth. So, yes, at this moment, the speed of the ship relatively to the fields exists.
But if it is a local field, generated by the emdrive that doesn't interacts with the rest of the universe, yes, there is no logical reason to allow the drive to know it's speed. But in that case, the energy is stolen from nowhere, CoE is broken...
Since we don't know why it works, it's silly to argue about this too much. I don't see that a local interaction has to break CoE.
Also, there is the case where the device just makes funny photons that carry more momentum by a billion or so times for the same energy, maybe they are really slow. -
#2722 by aero on 14 Nov, 2016 19:08
-
Speaking of theories that have been cut, who among us has not heard of Heim Theory and Extended Heim Theory?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7678.0
In a nutshell, Heim postulated a "World" a term which was used to describe everything that exists, initially 6-D but extended to 10-12D. Basic Heim theory was quite successful in mathematically calculating the mass of the known elementary particles, I have the Mathematica code to do these calculations laying around somewhere. This world is made of 6-D "cubes" on the order of a Planck length in size.
I bring this up because Heim Theory postulates an expanding universe (World) based on the cubes dividing as the energy density of the World becomes more diffuse, and further, postulates a space warp engine that re-expands the cubes locally giving faster than light travel in the reference universe (ours).
Because the energy density in the EM drive frustum and other resonant cavities gets pretty intense I would interpret Heim theory as saying that the confined resonating energy causes the basic grid of the "World" to re-expand by some number of doubling of the Planck length. That re-expanding of the grid shrinks the number of cells separating adjacent points making them closer together in the "World" inside the frustum. A light ray or particle traveling through this shrunken space would appear to exceed the speed of light but it would not when COM was considered piecewise through the universes which the particle or ray traveled.
Before you blast me out of orbit, note that I don't seriously expect to defend Heim theory, it has been bandied about for nearly 40 years and has neither been accepted or killed. Others are (last I heard) still seriously working the theory. But it cannot be truthfully denied that the basic theory did successfully predict the masses of all the known elementary particles before anyone else had a math model, and even though the measured error bars of the masses have moved, the theory still gives the same good answers that it gave in the "80's. (Tightening error bars and improved measurements presents a moving target for a static math code based on older values of input physical constants that have also changed.) -
#2723 by Fan Boi on 14 Nov, 2016 19:53
-
Another possible test scenario for the EM Drive. How about two highly accurate synchronized atomic clocks with one setup near an working EM Drive for a while and the other one moved far away. Compare times after a few hours. I don't know why but I have a hunch that might reveal a clue.
-
#2724 by Gilbertdrive on 14 Nov, 2016 20:29
-
I previously said I think there is energy stealing happening. I just don't know how yet.
But my example works so the only question is how much power would it take to create such a local field. If it depends on speed, in reference to what? A device floating in deep space doesn't know what speed it's moving at.
If it interact with the rest of the universe, it means that this interaction make the device "knows" it's speed relatively to this interaction.
Would you tell that gravity assist formulas, that clearly use the speed and Kinetic Energy in the sun referential are false ? I suppose not. The quantity of Kinetic energy stolen, and the speed that the probe can steal depends on the speed of the probe and the speed of the earth in the sun referential. So, when the probe interacts with the earth gravity fields, it knows it's speed in the relevant reference frame.
At the moment you admit that the Emdrive interacts with any field that is not isolated from the rest of the universe, it is a way of interacting with the universe Like the car with the road, or like the probe doing gravity assist with the earth. So, yes, at this moment, the speed of the ship relatively to the fields exists.
But if it is a local field, generated by the emdrive that doesn't interacts with the rest of the universe, yes, there is no logical reason to allow the drive to know it's speed. But in that case, the energy is stolen from nowhere, CoE is broken...
Since we don't know why it works, it's silly to argue about this too much. I don't see that a local interaction has to break CoE.
Also, there is the case where the device just makes funny photons that carry more momentum by a billion or so times for the same energy, maybe they are really slow.
It is not only about a local interaction, it is about an interaction that doesn't involve at all the rest of the universe.
Supposing that I weight 80kg, and I am a magician. I move my magic wand and says Abracadabra. Then, a white rabbit appears. It is weighting 3kg, and I still weight 80kg.
If I have stolen the rabbit to the rest of the universe, or if I have stolen 3kg of matter in the rest of the universe, CoE is still safe.
If I did it without interacting with the rest of the universe (anything else than the Emship counts as the rest of the universe) it violates CoE, because I have made mater (what is equivalent to energy) from nowhere.
If the Emdrive works with a field that is only generated by the Emdrive, and that doesn't interact with the rest of the universe, supposing constant thrust for constant power imput, it is a way of getting energy. CoE means that all energy gained by a system has to be taken somewhere in the rest of the universe. So CoE is violated.
-
#2725 by Josave on 14 Nov, 2016 20:41
-
...
That is the point that I didn't understood in MiHsC. How the energy stolen by an Emdrive translate in the rest of the universe ?
For example, when a probe steal energy by a gravity assist, the planet concerned is loosing a bit of speed around the sun. We can calculate the exact modification of the trajectory (even if it is not mesurable)
With MiHsC, I don't have a global understanding of the theory, and I don't know what happen to the rest of the universe. But what I understood is that there is an interaction, and the Emdrive is not anymore an isolated system. That is the big difference with Shawyer explanations involving only standard physics.
If anybody has a better understanding of MiHsC, it would be welcome.
As far I understand the idea is that when a particle accelerates rightwards at a rate a, the left part of the universe is hidden from its view at a distance c2/a, creating a push due to the well known and experimentally tested Casimir effect. McCulloch explained this with the figure below from https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775
The assumption is that the photon mass (better let’s consider instead the equivalent mass of the energy density of the photons) is accelerating when the energy density center bounces inside the frustum cavity.
EmDrive is an open system, as everything in our universe, a car, a Faraday cage, or just our eyes looking at the distant stars. We cannot isolate us from the rest of universe, because Special Relativity states that our “border” is just our past and future light cones. In this sense, Dennis Sciama proposed in 1953 that 99% of local inertia arises from matter further away than 108 light years from us. This is the Mach Principle, long pursued by Einstein… see pag. 39 of his seminal work “On the origin of inertia”:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1953MNRAS.113...34S/0000039.000.html
As engineer I would say all this speculations could be true if some electromagnetic radiation of an Extremely Low Frequency is really received from both sides of the universe. Such a low frequency that the period is in fact longer than 10e8 years, and this electromagnetic radiation could be what MiHsC counts as Unruh radiation, but cannot be detected because the rate of variation is so slow that spans all our available observation time.
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/physics/scale/frequency.html
There is no limit on the low frequency side of the electromagnetic spectrum we all studied in our physics books, but nobody has explored this as far I know by doing some recent search in the WoS and ArXiv. This incredible low frequency radiation on the range of the femtohertzs could in fact, if received in a coherent way that sums up over any object at rest, be responsible of the inertia we perceive.
-
#2726 by Gilbertdrive on 14 Nov, 2016 22:00
-
Thanks very much for the detailed answer. I understand why, in MiHsC, the frustrum is interacting with the rest of the universe. But I still don't understand how it translates for the rest of the universe. What happen to it ?...
That is the point that I didn't understood in MiHsC. How the energy stolen by an Emdrive translate in the rest of the universe ?
For example, when a probe steal energy by a gravity assist, the planet concerned is loosing a bit of speed around the sun. We can calculate the exact modification of the trajectory (even if it is not mesurable)
With MiHsC, I don't have a global understanding of the theory, and I don't know what happen to the rest of the universe. But what I understood is that there is an interaction, and the Emdrive is not anymore an isolated system. That is the big difference with Shawyer explanations involving only standard physics.
If anybody has a better understanding of MiHsC, it would be welcome.
As far I understand the idea is that when a particle accelerates rightwards at a rate a, the left part of the universe is hidden from its view at a distance c2/a, creating a push due to the well known and experimentally tested Casimir effect. McCulloch explained this with the figure below from https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775
The assumption is that the photon mass (better let’s consider instead the equivalent mass of the energy density of the photons) is accelerating when the energy density center bounces inside the frustum cavity.
EmDrive is an open system, as everything in our universe, a car, a Faraday cage, or just our eyes looking at the distant stars. We cannot isolate us from the rest of universe, because Special Relativity states that our “border” is just our past and future light cones. In this sense, Dennis Sciama proposed in 1953 that 99% of local inertia arises from matter further away than 108 light years from us. This is the Mach Principle, long pursued by Einstein… see pag. 39 of his seminal work “On the origin of inertia”:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1953MNRAS.113...34S/0000039.000.html
As engineer I would say all this speculations could be true if some electromagnetic radiation of an Extremely Low Frequency is really received from both sides of the universe. Such a low frequency that the period is in fact longer than 10e8 years, and this electromagnetic radiation could be what MiHsC counts as Unruh radiation, but cannot be detected because the rate of variation is so slow that spans all our available observation time.
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/physics/scale/frequency.html
There is no limit on the low frequency side of the electromagnetic spectrum we all studied in our physics books. This incredible low frequency radiation on the range of the femtohertzs could in fact, if received in a coherent way that sums up over any object at rest, be responsible of the inertia we perceive.
For example, for a gravity assist aroud earth, the probe steal Kinetic energy to the earth, and the earth is going a bit slower around the sun.
I would like something like "All photons are redshifted a little in the rest of the universe" or " speeds of some corpses are affected". Not these ones, of course, but something that help me to understand from where the energy is stolen. -
#2727 by Josave on 14 Nov, 2016 22:23
-
Well, I just try to summarize proposals of Dr. McCulloch and others, so as far I understand the net effect is that the generalization of CoE and CoM laws should be seen in the system as a whole.
In this sense, the invariant that is really conserved is the Energy + Information contained in the observable light cone seen by the radiation confined in the frustum. So the answer to the question of what happens to the rest of the universe, or from where the energy is stolen, is better answered if we read this book
http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p752
Dr. Laurent Nottale proposes in page 528:
"...that, ultimately, the concept of mass disappears from physics and be replaced by a relative combination of the interdistances between all bodies in the Universe"
and in the same page:
"Actually, we discover an even more profound fact: the length carries the fundamental meaning and the mass is only a derived concept"
If we start to conceptualize physics with these tools, EmDrive is just a machine to glide in the relativity of scales and information horizons. That is, you exchange energy with information, limited only by Landauer Principle, this is the conservation law that really applies here and not the naďve CoM and CoE laws we are taught in Newtonian physics: "Another way of phrasing Landauer's principle is that if an observer loses information about a physical system, the observer loses the ability to extract work from that system" -
#2728 by WarpTech on 14 Nov, 2016 22:32
-
Another possible test scenario for the EM Drive. How about two highly accurate synchronized atomic clocks with one setup near an working EM Drive for a while and the other one moved far away. Compare times after a few hours. I don't know why but I have a hunch that might reveal a clue.
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
What is going on is due to asymmetry in the "rate of decay time" of the energy, inside the frustum. Not the rate at which clocks tick.
-
#2729 by WarpTech on 14 Nov, 2016 22:35
-
I previously said I think there is energy stealing happening. I just don't know how yet.
But my example works so the only question is how much power would it take to create such a local field. If it depends on speed, in reference to what? A device floating in deep space doesn't know what speed it's moving at.
If it interact with the rest of the universe, it means that this interaction make the device "knows" it's speed relatively to this interaction.
Would you tell that gravity assist formulas, that clearly use the speed and Kinetic Energy in the sun referential are false ? I suppose not. The quantity of Kinetic energy stolen, and the speed that the probe can steal depends on the speed of the probe and the speed of the earth in the sun referential. So, when the probe interacts with the earth gravity fields, it knows it's speed in the relevant reference frame.
At the moment you admit that the Emdrive interacts with any field that is not isolated from the rest of the universe, it is a way of interacting with the universe Like the car with the road, or like the probe doing gravity assist with the earth. So, yes, at this moment, the speed of the ship relatively to the fields exists.
But if it is a local field, generated by the emdrive that doesn't interacts with the rest of the universe, yes, there is no logical reason to allow the drive to know it's speed. But in that case, the energy is stolen from nowhere, CoE is broken...
Since we don't know why it works, it's silly to argue about this too much. I don't see that a local interaction has to break CoE.
Also, there is the case where the device just makes funny photons that carry more momentum by a billion or so times for the same energy, maybe they are really slow.
It is not only about a local interaction, it is about an interaction that doesn't involve at all the rest of the universe.
Supposing that I weight 80kg, and I am a magician. I move my magic wand and says Abracadabra. Then, a white rabbit appears. It is weighting 3kg, and I still weight 80kg.
If I have stolen the rabbit to the rest of the universe, or if I have stolen 3kg of matter in the rest of the universe, CoE is still safe.
If I did it without interacting with the rest of the universe (anything else than the Emship counts as the rest of the universe) it violates CoE, because I have made mater (what is equivalent to energy) from nowhere.
If the Emdrive works with a field that is only generated by the Emdrive, and that doesn't interact with the rest of the universe, supposing constant thrust for constant power imput, it is a way of getting energy. CoE means that all energy gained by a system has to be taken somewhere in the rest of the universe. So CoE is violated.
No sir! It's taken from the battery that powers the drive. That energy is used to build up a counter-mass that is the field inside the frustum, then the frustum displaces and dissipates this mass to move forward. Look up "effective potential". -
#2730 by wicoe on 14 Nov, 2016 22:41
-
No sir! It's taken from the battery that powers the drive. That energy is used to build up a counter-mass that is the field inside the frustum, then the frustum displaces and dissipates this mass to move forward. Look up "effective potential".
How is momentum conserved in this case? Let's assume you apply power for a short time, and EmDrive starts moving (gains a positive momentum). When all fields "quiesce" after power-off, what object/field is going to carry the opposite momentum? -
#2731 by Josave on 14 Nov, 2016 22:53
-
No sir! It's taken from the battery that powers the drive. That energy is used to build up a counter-mass that is the field inside the frustum, then the frustum displaces and dissipates this mass to move forward. Look up "effective potential".
How is momentum conserved in this case? Let's assume you apply power for a short time, and EmDrive starts moving (gains a positive momentum). When all fields "quiesce" after power-off, what object/field is going to carry the opposite momentum?
You transfer the momentum from all the objects at the right side of the EmDrive to all the objects at the left side of the EmDrive. -
#2732 by WarpTech on 15 Nov, 2016 00:34
-
No sir! It's taken from the battery that powers the drive. That energy is used to build up a counter-mass that is the field inside the frustum, then the frustum displaces and dissipates this mass to move forward. Look up "effective potential".
How is momentum conserved in this case? Let's assume you apply power for a short time, and EmDrive starts moving (gains a positive momentum). When all fields "quiesce" after power-off, what object/field is going to carry the opposite momentum?
You transfer the momentum from all the objects at the right side of the EmDrive to all the objects at the left side of the EmDrive.
Correct, if by "objects" you mean the EM field inside it. The field exerts a force on the frustum, and the frustum exerts an equal and opposite force on the field.
I think the crux of the argument is; people expect that if you draw a box around the frustum, something has to come out of that box "with equal momentum" to make it move forward, or that it must push against something external, in order for CoM to be satisfied. That is true of standard physics as it is taught.
The NEW physics to be learned here is that the frustum pushes against something "inside" that is being dissipated as heat. The push is not symmetrical and the different decay times limit its ability to establish equilibrium, therefore it has to move to conserve momentum. So as the field moves to the left, the frustum moves to the right, with equal and opposite force. CoM is satisfied as long as this is true!
What is difficult to grasp for most is that the EM energy inside CAN and DOES disappear into heat. Something that billiard balls, or air particles cannot do. So if you think in terms of these solid objects, you will not get any thrust and you will not grasp the mechanism. You must consider that the EM field has this magic property, that it can be dissipated and lost as heat. You can't do that with billiard balls. But like billiard balls, if the balls roll from one side to the other, the container will move the other way. NOTHING has to come out for it to move. If those balls could just disappear and reappear at the other end, they could do it again. The EM drive moves as the field inside shifts position. Then that field disappears and we refill it from the battery. It moves, it has to move this way if the mass inside moves the other way. That is CoM, by definition. -
#2733 by wicoe on 15 Nov, 2016 00:50
-
Correct, if by "objects" you mean the EM field inside it. The field exerts a force on the frustum, and the frustum exerts an equal and opposite force on the field.
I think the crux of the argument is; people expect that if you draw a box around the frustum, something has to come out of that box "with equal momentum" to make it move forward, or that it must push against something external, in order for CoM to be satisfied. That is true of standard physics as it is taught.
The NEW physics to be learned here is that the frustum pushes against something "inside" that is being dissipated as heat. The push is not symmetrical and the different decay times limit its ability to establish equilibrium, therefore it has to move to conserve momentum. So as the field moves to the left, the frustum moves to the right, with equal and opposite force. CoM is satisfied as long as this is true!
What is difficult to grasp for most is that the EM energy inside CAN and DOES disappear into heat. Something that billiard balls, or air particles cannot do. So if you think in terms of these solid objects, you will not get any thrust and you will not grasp the mechanism. You must consider that the EM field has this magic property, that it can be dissipated and lost as heat. You can't do that with billiard balls. But like billiard balls, if the balls roll from one side to the other, the container will move the other way. NOTHING has to come out for it to move. If those balls could just disappear and reappear at the other end, they could do it again. The EM drive moves as the field inside shifts position. Then that field disappears and we refill it from the battery. It moves, it has to move this way if the mass inside moves the other way. That is CoM, by definition.
Thanks for the explanation. I apologize if this has been asked (and answered) before, but how does this get around the over-unity argument? If the "thrust" is initiated from inside the frustum and does not depend on its movement relative to the rest of the universe, then you get constant thrust and linear power consumption but quadratic kinetic energy increase in an external inertial ref frame. At some point the obtained kinetic energy will exceed the consumed electric power. -
#2734 by Rodal on 15 Nov, 2016 00:51
-
If it would be as simple as just having energy dissipation, it looks like a mechanical analogy is still possible.No sir! It's taken from the battery that powers the drive. That energy is used to build up a counter-mass that is the field inside the frustum, then the frustum displaces and dissipates this mass to move forward. Look up "effective potential".
How is momentum conserved in this case? Let's assume you apply power for a short time, and EmDrive starts moving (gains a positive momentum). When all fields "quiesce" after power-off, what object/field is going to carry the opposite momentum?
You transfer the momentum from all the objects at the right side of the EmDrive to all the objects at the left side of the EmDrive.
Correct, if by "objects" you mean the EM field inside it. The field exerts a force on the frustum, and the frustum exerts an equal and opposite force on the field.
I think the crux of the argument is; people expect that if you draw a box around the frustum, something has to come out of that box "with equal momentum" to make it move forward, or that it must push against something external, in order for CoM to be satisfied. That is true of standard physics as it is taught.
The NEW physics to be learned here is that the frustum pushes against something "inside" that is being dissipated as heat. The push is not symmetrical and the different decay times limit its ability to establish equilibrium, therefore it has to move to conserve momentum. So as the field moves to the left, the frustum moves to the right, with equal and opposite force. CoM is satisfied as long as this is true!
What is difficult to grasp for most is that the EM energy inside CAN and DOES disappear into heat. Something that billiard balls, or air particles cannot do. So if you think in terms of these solid objects, you will not get any thrust and you will not grasp the mechanism. You must consider that the EM field has this magic property, that it can be dissipated and lost as heat. You can't do that with billiard balls. But like billiard balls, if the balls roll from one side to the other, the container will move the other way. NOTHING has to come out for it to move. If those balls could just disappear and reappear at the other end, they could do it again. The EM drive moves as the field inside shifts position. Then that field disappears and we refill it from the battery. It moves, it has to move this way if the mass inside moves the other way. That is CoM, by definition.
Make the balls out of a material that upon impact experiences an inelastic collision: it suffers a plastic permanent deformation. Metals are known to experience this when sheared beyond their yield limit. Make the balls out of lead. Have a cannon inside your spacecraft that ejects lead balls against one of the spacecrafts rigid walls. The collision (given enough speed) is mostly inelastic (actually metals are modeled for engineering purposes as rigid-plastic for many processes involving large plastic strains), and there is little elastic bounce. Since most of the energy is dissipated (by internal friction between grain boundaries and in the dislocation pile up of plasticity in the elastic-plastic body) one would think according to your model that this could work as a means of space propulsion.
If you are not happy with internal energy dissipation (due to internal friction) as a model, one can certainly have the cannon eject balls of material that will experience heat generation as a result of the impact (it is well known that at a high enough speed the metal will melt).
Are you saying that this method will result in an efficient method of space propulsion? (notice that there is a propellant being used: the balls out of the cannon, but since they are not ejected into outer space, they could be recycled, since the mass is not lost into space).
The mass of the spacecraft does not change. Just the mass is re-distributed within it, leading to the center of mass shifting position within the spacecraft. As re-arranging the position of the chairs on the deck.
I don't think so... So it cannot be just the energy dissipation...
-
#2735 by M.LeBel on 15 Nov, 2016 01:33
-
No sir! It's taken from the battery that powers the drive. That energy is used to build up a counter-mass that is the field inside the frustum, then the frustum displaces and dissipates this mass to move forward. Look up "effective potential".
How is momentum conserved in this case? Let's assume you apply power for a short time, and EmDrive starts moving (gains a positive momentum). When all fields "quiesce" after power-off, what object/field is going to carry the opposite momentum?
You transfer the momentum from all the objects at the right side of the EmDrive to all the objects at the left side of the EmDrive.
Correct, if by "objects" you mean the EM field inside it. The field exerts a force on the frustum, and the frustum exerts an equal and opposite force on the field.
I think the crux of the argument is; people expect that if you draw a box around the frustum, something has to come out of that box "with equal momentum" to make it move forward, or that it must push against something external, in order for CoM to be satisfied. That is true of standard physics as it is taught.
The NEW physics to be learned here is that the frustum pushes against something "inside" that is being dissipated as heat. The push is not symmetrical and the different decay times limit its ability to establish equilibrium, therefore it has to move to conserve momentum. So as the field moves to the left, the frustum moves to the right, with equal and opposite force. CoM is satisfied as long as this is true!
What is difficult to grasp for most is that the EM energy inside CAN and DOES disappear into heat. Something that billiard balls, or air particles cannot do. So if you think in terms of these solid objects, you will not get any thrust and you will not grasp the mechanism. You must consider that the EM field has this magic property, that it can be dissipated and lost as heat. You can't do that with billiard balls. But like billiard balls, if the balls roll from one side to the other, the container will move the other way. NOTHING has to come out for it to move. If those balls could just disappear and reappear at the other end, they could do it again. The EM drive moves as the field inside shifts position. Then that field disappears and we refill it from the battery. It moves, it has to move this way if the mass inside moves the other way. That is CoM, by definition.
[/quote
So, if the photons were to push on the small end and return toward the large end to be deflected at 45 degrees by a sort of fresnel baffle towaad the sides to be absorbed (I don't know .. stealth fighter paint :-) and transformed into heat one would get this positive momentum .. .. But this would be like an "internal" photon rocket?? -
#2736 by WarpTech on 15 Nov, 2016 02:06
-
...
If it would be as simple as just having energy dissipation, it looks like a mechanical analogy is still possible.
What is difficult to grasp for most is that the EM energy inside CAN and DOES disappear into heat. Something that billiard balls, or air particles cannot do. So if you think in terms of these solid objects, you will not get any thrust and you will not grasp the mechanism. You must consider that the EM field has this magic property, that it can be dissipated and lost as heat. You can't do that with billiard balls. But like billiard balls, if the balls roll from one side to the other, the container will move the other way. NOTHING has to come out for it to move. If those balls could just disappear and reappear at the other end, they could do it again. The EM drive moves as the field inside shifts position. Then that field disappears and we refill it from the battery. It moves, it has to move this way if the mass inside moves the other way. That is CoM, by definition.
Make the balls out of a material that upon impact experiences an inelastic collision: it suffers a plastic permanent deformation. Metals are known to experience this when sheared beyond their yield limit. Make the balls out of lead. Have a cannon inside your spacecraft that ejects lead balls against one of the spacecrafts rigid walls. The collision (given enough speed) is mostly inelastic (actually metals are modeled for engineering purposes as rigid-plastic for many processes involving large plastic strains), and there is little elastic bounce. Since most of the energy is dissipated (by internal friction between grain boundaries and in the dislocation pile up of plasticity in the elastic-plastic body) one would think according to your model that this could work as a means of space propulsion.
If you are not happy with internal energy dissipation (due to internal friction) as a model, one can certainly have the cannon eject balls of material that will experience heat generation as a result of the impact (it is well known that at a high enough speed the metal will melt).
Are you saying that this method will result in an efficient method of space propulsion? (notice that there is a propellant being used: the balls out of the cannon, but since they are not ejected into outer space, they could be recycled, since the mass is not lost into space).
The mass of the spacecraft does not change. Just the mass is re-distributed within it, leading to the center of mass shifting position within the spacecraft. As re-arranging the position of the chairs on the deck.
I don't think so... So it cannot be just the energy dissipation...
...
Efficient? No, I never said it was efficient! It's like a ratchet. Instead of giving a delta-v, it gives a delta-x. It would be more efficient if you just moved all the cannon balls from one end of the ship to the other end to get a displacement. Then drop the cannon balls out the airlock, and recharge the front of the ship from the sun, using the ACME "Sun to Cannon Ball" machine. Each time it recharges and then relocates the mass, the ship gets another displacement, delta-x.
It requires that the field inside be an accelerated reference frame, which in this case is provided by the cannon powder.
-
#2737 by SeeShells on 15 Nov, 2016 02:32
-
Nice article with Prof Woodward's latest thoughts on the EMDrive.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
Basically, he saw the paper that went in for review, and it was apparently only accepted for review after they were forced to cut all the impossible theories like Shawyer's Radiation Pressure theory and White's QVF theory from it, limiting it to physical observations only and no theories to try and explain it.
According to Prof Woodward, accidental Mach Effects being generated is the only way to explain the results, if they are indeed real.
As a drive builder and an independent researcher I must keep open to all theories and this has been my mantra throughout my testing. I've specifically constructed a modular designed drive that could support, or not, any of the current theories and this includes The Mach effect.
Dr. Woodward has, like he stated, several independent labs support his findings of a very tiny thrust. Not much different than the EagleWorks team although the EW team results seem higher.
Just to say that what Q-Thrusters or EMDrives are seeing the Mach effect without an advanced theory that encompasses both designs is speculation. The same can be said for Dr. White's theory. The only thing that can be stated is both are seeing data from a thrust anomaly.
Paul March is still correct when he stated "And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain..."
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1440938#msg1440938
Also a refresher for what some were chatting about earlier:
http://agni.phys.iit.edu/~vpa/electromagnetic.html -
#2738 by Gilbertdrive on 15 Nov, 2016 07:07
-
...
If it would be as simple as just having energy dissipation, it looks like a mechanical analogy is still possible.
What is difficult to grasp for most is that the EM energy inside CAN and DOES disappear into heat. Something that billiard balls, or air particles cannot do. So if you think in terms of these solid objects, you will not get any thrust and you will not grasp the mechanism. You must consider that the EM field has this magic property, that it can be dissipated and lost as heat. You can't do that with billiard balls. But like billiard balls, if the balls roll from one side to the other, the container will move the other way. NOTHING has to come out for it to move. If those balls could just disappear and reappear at the other end, they could do it again. The EM drive moves as the field inside shifts position. Then that field disappears and we refill it from the battery. It moves, it has to move this way if the mass inside moves the other way. That is CoM, by definition.
Make the balls out of a material that upon impact experiences an inelastic collision: it suffers a plastic permanent deformation. Metals are known to experience this when sheared beyond their yield limit. Make the balls out of lead. Have a cannon inside your spacecraft that ejects lead balls against one of the spacecrafts rigid walls. The collision (given enough speed) is mostly inelastic (actually metals are modeled for engineering purposes as rigid-plastic for many processes involving large plastic strains), and there is little elastic bounce. Since most of the energy is dissipated (by internal friction between grain boundaries and in the dislocation pile up of plasticity in the elastic-plastic body) one would think according to your model that this could work as a means of space propulsion.
If you are not happy with internal energy dissipation (due to internal friction) as a model, one can certainly have the cannon eject balls of material that will experience heat generation as a result of the impact (it is well known that at a high enough speed the metal will melt).
Are you saying that this method will result in an efficient method of space propulsion? (notice that there is a propellant being used: the balls out of the cannon, but since they are not ejected into outer space, they could be recycled, since the mass is not lost into space).
The mass of the spacecraft does not change. Just the mass is re-distributed within it, leading to the center of mass shifting position within the spacecraft. As re-arranging the position of the chairs on the deck.
I don't think so... So it cannot be just the energy dissipation...
...
Efficient? No, I never said it was efficient! It's like a ratchet. Instead of giving a delta-v, it gives a delta-x. It would be more efficient if you just moved all the cannon balls from one end of the ship to the other end to get a displacement. Then drop the cannon balls out the airlock, and recharge the front of the ship from the sun, using the ACME "Sun to Cannon Ball" machine. Each time it recharges and then relocates the mass, the ship gets another displacement, delta-x.
It requires that the field inside be an accelerated reference frame, which in this case is provided by the cannon powder.
It is efficient if it it more efficient than a photon rocket. -
#2739 by mboeller on 15 Nov, 2016 07:38
-
Others are (last I heard) still seriously working the theory. But it cannot be truthfully denied that the basic theory did successfully predict the masses of all the known elementary particles before anyone else had a math model, and even though the measured error bars of the masses have moved, the theory still gives the same good answers that it gave in the "80's. (Tightening error bars and improved measurements presents a moving target for a static math code based on older values of input physical constants that have also changed.)
I suppose you mean the work from Droescher and Hauser?
http://www.hpcc-space.de/
