-
#2980 by TheTraveller on 20 Nov, 2016 14:59
-
Has anyone, including Shawyer, managed to verify that EM Drive thrust scales as a straight multiple of Q-factor in their test data? Can we be sure that field intensity isn't the chief factor, or that it's not otherwise a more subtle and/or less potent numerical operator?
The low riders are cavities with loss creating dielectrics.
Personal corro with Roger says field intensity is NOT a factor.
-
#2981 by TheTraveller on 20 Nov, 2016 15:05
-
At 1g half way there, then a flip & burn, then 1g deceleration the last 1/2 way, it is 3.6 ship years, 6 Earth years to Alpha Centauri.
For a 1,000,000kg (1,000t) ship that requires 1×10^7N of force. At 1x10^4N/kWrf that requires 1x10^3kWrf.
Doable.
Or at least within the realm of dreams.., with what is currently understood.
You are talking about relative velocities that could result in the destruction of the ship solely based on collisions with interstellar dust, atoms and ions (bare nuclei).
You'll need to add both mass and technologies to engineer a means to avoid such collisions... but then you will run into truly testing some of the predicted limitations associated with the energies required for acceleration within the context of special relativity.., and just how even low end relativistic velocities might affect boundary condition interactions between any massive object and the quantum vacuum (QV)... even assuming an immutable QV. Step into the world and potential of a mutable QV and you will almost certainly need even more new technology, like a warp drive...
The point is we are only just at the beginning of an era where the gap between what we know and what we imagine might be, begins to become significant and potentially testable.
If predictions of special relativity are even close to realistic and a QV does exist, it would seem, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Just as what we have seen in accelerations associated with the Pioneer Anomaly tests the boundaries of our current understanding, so will any attempts at even greater adventures and excursions into the depths of the unknown.
The obstacle avoidance issue plus a heap more are serious engineering challenges to be sure.
Point was 10 year, ship time, interstellar voyages can be done at 1g. Should add 3.6 ship years would be 6 Earth years, so not so much time difference, 10 year ship voyage would be 14.8 Earth years. -
#2982 by Rodal on 20 Nov, 2016 15:18
-
1) Data is plotted in Log-Log Plot. Most experimental data will appear roughly linear (hence as a power law) when plotted in Log-Log Plots. Even though that data is plotted in a Log-Log plot over 6 orders of magnitude, there are still some considerable outliers in this plot.Has anyone, including Shawyer, managed to verify that EM Drive thrust scales as a straight multiple of Q-factor in their test data? Can we be sure that field intensity isn't the chief factor, or that it's not otherwise a more subtle and/or less potent numerical operator?
The low riders are cavities with loss creating dielectrics.
Personal corro with Roger says field intensity is NOT a factor.Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log%E2%80%93log_plot#Applicationsobserving that data appears as an approximate line on a log–log scale and concluding that the data follows a power law – is invalid.[ Clauset, A.; Shalizi, C. R.; Newman, M. E. J. (2009). "Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data". SIAM Review. 51 (4): 661–703] https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1062
In fact, many other functional forms appear approximately linear on the log–log scale, and simply evaluating the goodness of fit of a linear regression on logged data using the coefficient of determination (R2) may be invalid, as the assumptions of the linear regression model, such as Gaussian error, may not be satisfied; in addition, tests of fit of the log–log form may exhibit low statistical power, as these tests may have low likelihood of rejecting power laws in the presence of other true functional forms. While simple log–log plots may be instructive in detecting possible power laws, and have been used dating back to Pareto in the 1890s, validation as a power laws requires more sophisticated statistics
2) Predicted data assumes the ad hoc Shawyer "Design Factor" ~ 0.6
No justification is given for this assumption, an assumption which may actually be negated by some of the geometrical designs included in the plot. For example, what would be the correctly calculated Shawyer Design Factor for the Cannae device ?, I doubt it would be 0.6
Shawyer himself does not plot the data in this plot using his prescription on how to calculate the "Design Factor" and therefore his prescription on how to calculate the "Design Factor" is made to appear more as an ad hoc quantity introduced into his original calculations in order to make it fit observations or expectations.
If the Shawyer Design Factor is not an ad hoc quantity, it should have been calculated according to Shawyer's prescription in this plot. -
#2983 by Bob012345 on 20 Nov, 2016 15:22
-
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
Possibly one of the side effects of the NASA paper is that critics who now admit EmDrive is possible will argue that 1.2mW/kW is the best one can do. They will argue that all larger results were and are artifacts.
Shawyer already published a conceptual probe design that gets to Alpha Centauri in ten years earth time as a flyby going at 0.67c using a small nuclear reactor. -
#2984 by TheTraveller on 20 Nov, 2016 15:32
-
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
Possibly one of the side effects of the NASA paper is that critics who now admit EmDrive is possible will argue that 1.2mW/kW is the best one can do. They will argue that all larger results were and are artifacts.
And they would be wrong.
EW measured 21.3mN/kWrf in TE012. 55, 4uN @ 2.6Wrf.
Why did they not use that mode?
-
#2985 by TheTraveller on 20 Nov, 2016 15:36
-
there are still some considerable outliers in this plot.
The outliners used lossy dielectric. -
#2986 by Rodal on 20 Nov, 2016 15:39
-
there are still some considerable outliers in this plot.
The outliners used lossy dielectric.
The largest outlier is marked with the label "952". What experiment is "952"?
It has a Q of 10 million !
It looks like a superconducting device, hence unlikely to have any lossy dielectric inside it, because any dielectric will severely bring down the Q to a much lower level !!!
Instead, it seems it may be the Cannae (Fetta) Test conducted in January 2011 by G. Fetta, with a completely different shape from the other EM Drives: this is not a truncated cone, but instead it is shaped like a pillbox with a circular cross-section. Results were posted in the Cannae webpages. Page is no longer available, but an archived version as of 2 November 2012 is available at archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-results. A better description is available in this US Patent Application http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20140013724.pdf -
#2987 by Bob012345 on 20 Nov, 2016 15:44
-
there are still some considerable outliers in this plot.
The outliners used lossy dielectric.
The largest outlier is marked with the label "952". What experiment is "952"?
It has a Q of 10 million !
It looks like a superconducting device, hence unlikely to have any lossy dielectric inside it, because any dielectric will severely bring down the Q to a much lower level !!!
Isn't that the Cannae superconducting result? -
#2988 by Rodal on 20 Nov, 2016 15:46
-
Precisely, and it is well known that the Cannae superconducting device does not have any "lossy" dielectric, as any lossy dielectric would not allow a device to have a Q of 10 million.there are still some considerable outliers in this plot.
The outliners used lossy dielectric.
The largest outlier is marked with the label "952". What experiment is "952"?
It has a Q of 10 million !
It looks like a superconducting device, hence unlikely to have any lossy dielectric inside it, because any dielectric will severely bring down the Q to a much lower level !!!
Isn't that the Cannae superconducting result?
Hence the comment that "The outliers used lossy dielectric." is shown to be false
It was improper for Shawyer to assume the Design Factor to be 0.6 for the Cannae device.
The problem for Shawyer in explaining the Cannae device is that if Shawyer follows his calculations for his Design Factor for the Cannae device, it would give a very small value for the Design Factor, much smaller than 0.6 used for his plot -
#2989 by TheTraveller on 20 Nov, 2016 15:47
-
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
Possibly one of the side effects of the NASA paper is that critics who now admit EmDrive is possible will argue that 1.2mW/kW is the best one can do. They will argue that all larger results were and are artifacts.
Shawyer already published a conceptual probe design that gets to Alpha Centauri in ten years earth time as a flyby going at 0.67c using a small nuclear reactor.
Point being EmDrives makes Interstellar missions possible.
At 1g solid burn, is about 5.2 Earth years to Alpha Centauri for a flyby or 6 Earth years with a mid way flip & burn to go into orbit.
http://nathangeffen.webfactional.com/spacetravel/spacetravel.php
-
#2990 by TheTraveller on 20 Nov, 2016 15:50
-
Precisely, and it is well known that the Cannae superconducting device does not have any "lossy" dielectric, as any lossy dielectric would not allow a device to have a Q of 10 million.there are still some considerable outliers in this plot.
The outliners used lossy dielectric.
The largest outlier is marked with the label "952". What experiment is "952"?
It has a Q of 10 million !
It looks like a superconducting device, hence unlikely to have any lossy dielectric inside it, because any dielectric will severely bring down the Q to a much lower level !!!
Isn't that the Cannae superconducting result?
Hence the comment that "The outliers used lossy dielectric." is shown to be false
Pardon?
Roger's data is based on the device Cannae supplied to and was tested by EW, which had a dielectric. Remember?
Do you have information from Cannae that their devices don't use dielectrics?
-
#2991 by Rodal on 20 Nov, 2016 15:52
-
No, the Cannae device tested at NASA EW was not superconducting. It had a Q orders of magnitude smaller than 10 million. The outlier we are discussing has a Q of 10 million. It looks like the superconducting Cannae (Fetta) Test conducted in January 2011 by G. Fetta reported at the AIAA conference and in one of Fetta's patents.
Precisely, and it is well known that the Cannae superconducting device does not have any "lossy" dielectric, as any lossy dielectric would not allow a device to have a Q of 10 million.there are still some considerable outliers in this plot.
The outliners used lossy dielectric.
The largest outlier is marked with the label "952". What experiment is "952"?
It has a Q of 10 million !
It looks like a superconducting device, hence unlikely to have any lossy dielectric inside it, because any dielectric will severely bring down the Q to a much lower level !!!
Isn't that the Cannae superconducting result?
Hence the comment that "The outliers used lossy dielectric." is shown to be false
Pardon?
Roger's data is based on the Cannae device tested by EW, which had a dielectric. Remember?
Fetta's superconducting drive cannot contain any lossy dielectric, since a lossy dielectric would not enable a Q of 10 million ! -
#2992 by TheTraveller on 20 Nov, 2016 16:00
-
Fetta's superconducting drive cannot contain any lossy dielectric, since a lossy dielectric would not enable a Q of 10 million !
So you have information that Cannae doesn't use dielectrics? Dielectric resonators can have very high Qs. My information says they do. -
#2993 by Rodal on 20 Nov, 2016 16:02
-
Cannae uses a dielectric for their copper devices. Cannae does not use a dielectric for their superconducting device, as a dielectric would not allow a Q of 10 million:Fetta's superconducting drive cannot contain any lossy dielectric, since a lossy dielectric would not enable a Q of 10 million !
So you have information that Cannae doesn't use dielectrics? Dielectric resonators can have very high Qs. My information says they do.
1) Please review your notes and review Cannae's website
2) Your note that the outlier is due to a lossy dielectric is completely contradicted by the fact that the largest outlier has the largest Q.
3) Large Q means low losses ! Q is the inverse of damping !
4) The largest outlier in Shaywer's plot has the lowest losses in the plot!
This is the complete opposite of your statement that the outlier is due to lossy dielectric. -
#2994 by Star-Drive on 20 Nov, 2016 16:23
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Thank you for taking the time to address these particular concerns, Mr. March.
My friend's primary concern is that the experiment has not controlled for a variable that could nullify the hypothesis that EM Drive produces thrust. Specifically, the published experiment doesn't control for the hypothesis that the geometry affects thrust independently of the resonance mode itself.
The experiment that was not included in the paper absolutely helps the argument that EM Drive is functional. The stakes being as high as they are, any significant gaps where the eternal skeptics can poke holes in the evidence shouldn't be left unaddressed.
RotoSequence:
"Specifically, the published experiment doesn't control for the hypothesis that the geometry affects thrust independently of the resonance mode itself."
I advise that you go back to the Eagleworks Lab's 2014 AIAA/JPC paper and look at the Cannae tests performed in the EW lab in August of 2013 and January of 2014 with the take-away that ANY microwave resonant cavity shape that generates large E&M fields created by its RF input power P times the resonant cavity's loaded Quality-factor Q that yields effective P*Q power levels in an asymmetrical manner should be able to generate a unidirectional force even using symmetrical RF sine-wave excitation's.
In the case of the Cannae pillbox thruster the EW lab found that it required a Teflon cylinder on one side of the pillbox resonant cavity to create the necessary asymmetry that created the recorded unidirectional force of up to 60 micro-Newton (uN) with ~25W of RF input power.
In the EM-drive the required force rectification symmetry break is supplied by the frustum's Z-axis asymmetrical shape and/or the addition of low-dielectric constant and low loss polyethylene or Teflon discs at one or the other ends of the frustum.
IMO no-matter what theory of operation you care to ascribe to, as long as fast time varying (~500 MHz or higher) E&M field strengths measured in the hundreds of kV/m or higher are combined with asymmetries in the resonant cavity system, this system will generated sensible thrust signatures. Their thrust magnitudes will then be dependent on the chosen excited resonant mode times the peak E-fields obtained times the asymmetry in the system. And yes, it's a parametrically amplified bootstrapping system that has to get all its subsystems coordinated in a cooperative manner before large thrusts can be obtained.
Best, P.M. -
#2995 by OnlyMe on 20 Nov, 2016 16:27
-
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
Possibly one of the side effects of the NASA paper is that critics who now admit EmDrive is possible will argue that 1.2mW/kW is the best one can do. They will argue that all larger results were and are artifacts.
Shawyer already published a conceptual probe design that gets to Alpha Centauri in ten years earth time as a flyby going at 0.67c using a small nuclear reactor.
As I attempted to point out earlier.., when you dream of even low end relativistic velocities, let alone velocities on the order of the 0.67c suggested above, you have to be assuming a perfect classical Newtonian vacuum.., an entirely empty space. Even at a fraction of the velocity suggested any spaceship would be torn to pieces by both collisions with the dust and stray atoms of interstellar space, as well as the extreme heat those high energy collisions would generate...
Even if you assume no dust or stray atoms in your path, if any itineration of a quantum vacuum exists, these same relativistic velocities would very likely result in vaporizing unruh radiation. Assuming a quantum vacuum exists, in any form the vacuum of empty space cannot be thought of as presenting no resistance to either acceleration or relativistic velocities, at least not where the movement of physical objects, at relativistic velocities is concerned.
So the questions become: Is empty space empty, even to the exclusion of stray atoms and dust? And does the quantum vacuum exist in any form that interacts with with the motion of an object composed of atoms... If so might that interaction mediated by the boundary conditions between the physical object and the QV, involve in a potentially vaporizing heat gain or other disruptive process to the integrity of the atoms and molecules the object is composed of.
When I read claims associated with interstellar travel as presented in your post above and elsewhere, they read to me as science fiction rather than any realistic example of currently predictable science fact.
One thing that will be certain even at low end EmDrive projections of useable thrust, there is a potential to engineer more conservative probes in the spirit of the Voyager and Pioneer projects, that will have the potential to provide answers to the questions I raised above, as well as test the validity and limitations of special relativity and even some aspects of general relative currently beyond our reach. -
#2996 by Bob012345 on 20 Nov, 2016 16:58
-
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
Possibly one of the side effects of the NASA paper is that critics who now admit EmDrive is possible will argue that 1.2mW/kW is the best one can do. They will argue that all larger results were and are artifacts.
Shawyer already published a conceptual probe design that gets to Alpha Centauri in ten years earth time as a flyby going at 0.67c using a small nuclear reactor.
As I attempted to point out earlier.., when you dream of even low end relativistic velocities, let alone velocities on the order of the 0.67c suggested above, you have to be assuming a perfect classical Newtonian vacuum.., an entirely empty space. Even at a fraction of the velocity suggested any spaceship would be torn to pieces by both collisions with the dust and stray atoms of interstellar space, as well as the extreme heat those high energy collisions would generate...
Even if you assume no dust or stray atoms in your path, if any itineration of a quantum vacuum exists, these same relativistic velocities would very likely result in vaporizing unruh radiation. Assuming a quantum vacuum exists, in any form the vacuum of empty space cannot be thought of as presenting no resistance to either acceleration or relativistic velocities, at least not where the movement of physical objects, at relativistic velocities is concerned.
So the questions become: Is empty space empty, even to the exclusion of stray atoms and dust? And does the quantum vacuum exist in any form that interacts with with the motion of an object composed of atoms... If so might that interaction mediated by the boundary conditions between the physical object and the QV, involve in a potentially vaporizing heat gain or other disruptive process to the integrity of the atoms and molecules the object is composed of.
When I read claims associated with interstellar travel as presented in your post above and elsewhere, they read to me as science fiction rather than any realistic example of currently predictable science fact.
One thing that will be certain even at low end EmDrive projections of useable thrust, there is a potential to engineer more conservative probes in the spirit of the Voyager and Pioneer projects, that will have the potential to provide answers to the questions I raised above, as well as test the validity and limitations of special relativity and even some aspects of general relative currently beyond our reach.
The papers I have seen regarding this usually are talking about higher speeds and 0.67 is about the limit. I really doubt we have to worry about quantum vacuum since it's not even proven real. I doubt a probe would be destroyed until much faster than 0.67c. Sure there might be a little damage. -
#2997 by M.LeBel on 20 Nov, 2016 17:16
-
..... The frustum is pushing against the field inside it, and the field is pushing back against the frustum. ......
WarpTech,
The portion of your .......... creation of even a very weak tidal gravity from a concentration of energy, not directly involving an associated center of mass.
Physics studies how the universe appears to works from our point of view. But, in order to understand how the universe really works by itself, one has to leave this point of view. There are many theories being thrown around here and when the understanding is missing we just pull another equation of physics. At this moment, physics is a blindfold we use as a substitute for thinking. So, let’s think for a moment.
What is gravity? Bill Unruh tells us the following from GR.
“..... A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...” [Time, Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics” W. G. Unruh, arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993]
Not a word on space. “Space” is just our way to throw a metric grid over the process of gravity. This metric is only there on a “need to know” basis for us. The universe doesn’t need to know any equation or metric in order to work.
My research suggests that out there, there is only one type of stuff, an explosive type of process we call “time” and everything is made of it in different structures.
Time has a variable property, that of having a rate of evolution that varies.(Unruh’s “flowing unequably). Now, a wave is usually a travelling variation of the variable of the medium. Then, the EM wave is a travelling wave of variation in the rate of evolution of the time process. (Luminiferous .... all the way to carrying light. This would raise questions about the very rational behind even attempting an M&M type experiment).
This time process comes with quantum fluctuations of energy 1/2h√. [ “Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations” arXiv:quant-ph/0105053v2 19 Jun 2001 ] These fluctuations are values above (+) and below (-) the local rate of the time process. These values are not just maths; they are actual structures. A radio antenna would couple electrically these + and - 1/2h√ fluctuations to produce the full h quantum of action, an EM waves, spread over √. All that we say that exists is made of combinations of these quantum fluctuations. So, on one hand we have the time process and/and on the other we have everything else made of combinations of the quantum fluctuations of the time process.
Let’s recap. The cavity, the microwaves and us are all made of quantum fluctuations combinations. Remember that these fluctuations are very short lived. Somehow they obviously can outlive the self life given by the uncertainty principle by being in combinations. Gravity on the other hand is a differential in the rate of evolution of the time process.
The question then is, what is the emDrive doing? How does playing with quantum fluctuations affect the rate of the time process. Gravity (or inertia) is a time rate differential. Is the cavity creating/building a time rate differential by:
a) slicing and sorting microwaves into their original + and – 1/2h√ quantum fluctuations?
b) using the various microwave EM modes E and H fields to sort out and collect/aggregate quantum fluctuations already present, moving apart the + and – 1/2h√ fluctuations?
Both a) and b) would require to have these sorted fluctuations to be in some form of combination in order to increase their self life.. Polarization in a field format might do it.
Food for thought.....
Of course, my original idea was to use a rotating bottle brush type (radial) electric field to sort out and separate quantum fluctuations. I bought a small wood lathe and mounted on it a cylindrical 270uf (measured 258uf) electrolytic capacitor charged at 180v (about 4 joules) and rotating at about 4000 rpm....rig shielded .... mirror suspended from ceiling with fishing lines and laser beam spot 20 feet away... = no joy on the beam!
A rotating radial electric field normally induce an axial magnetic field.... which is just your polarized field of quantum fluctuation as mentioned above.... This is where I thought that some of the emdrive microwaves modes may produce a much faster electric field rotation speed than my wood lathe can...A very fast rotating polarization of the microwave in the emdrive might do the job.
Again, food for thought...
Thanks M.LeBel,
will give the Unruh paper some of my time... it seems to me that the metric of spatial relations you mention is an entirely artificial construct. Very useful of course but misleading when an attempt is made to comprehend the nature of interactions, all of which require locations within complex time to be properly described.
Are complex time and the direction between interacting charges enough to fully describe any one interaction and if so, can we form a more revealing mechanical analysis from such a beginning. Could this be required to explain the thrust produced by the emdrive, other explanations being inevitably inadequate.
Thanks, Spupeng7. Unruh’s article was offered for the quote alone. Not sure about the rest of the article.. You may find the answer (?) to your second question in the discussion below..
Continued.. (Essay on time a prerequisite)
Of course, option (2) is more seductive... (creating the time differential field) But, creating a lower rate of time and where you want it is not so easy. Naturally, any mass or energy replaces by logical substitution the time process (of the same nature) and produces this time deficit we call gravity. This is, in spirit, all GR without the map.
We forget placing a large mass in front of the craft...
. We could concentrate a lot of energy somewhere in front of the craft, it could move with the craft, but ...mass for mass ... E=MC2 means a LOT of energy... So, the logical substitution scheme is a no-go. Sorting and harvesting quantum fluctuations could be used to produce both a time surplus and a time deficit.. (push-pull). But playing with those always return a looped H and an electric line, everything that exist other than the time process itself.
IMO, the em waves are made of four conjugate monopoles pointing: lower down, lower up, upper up and upper down. Each pair of monopoles, uppers or lowers, are fluctuations above or below the local rate of time. Because each pair contains an up and down component they each a) dissipate back to nothing and b) they always move as they appear and disappear because the up-down ( whether upper or lower) is a causal structure. Of course, you can’t find an up or down whatever alone as the structure doesn’t lead back to nil; think of the quarks.. Both opposite pairs were free fluctuations before they got couple together to form an em wave. You could equally consider each pair as a single structure with curl... since they can never be found alone. In pair creation the em wave gets splited back into its original fluctuations .. with a twist! They are not translating but rather rotating on themselve; positive and negative electrons. As a rule, I see here conservation of structure...
The idea then is to separate and collect these fluctuations and preserve them under a field in order to build up a lasting lump of both above and below fluctuations and form the causal structure of motion/inertia. The problem is to collect these monopole fluctuations while preserving their monopolar structure i.e. without creating the bipolar closed loop H.
The only place where I thought I could “see” such monopolar structure was in a type of Podkletnov disk.. .... where surface currents would produce half a curl .. but (?) the superconductor mirror image of the field is just the opposite curl.. (remember the floating magnet..) canceling any net effect..
In other words, I "think" I know what we have to start with and what we need to achieve as end result ... but not really how to go about to get one from to the other. You obviously have achieved the causal structure to some extent... I am just trying to figure how we are actually doing it so that we can do it better while cutting down on the empirical exploration time..
Hope this had at least some entertainment value ...
-
#2998 by OnlyMe on 20 Nov, 2016 18:54
-
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
Possibly one of the side effects of the NASA paper is that critics who now admit EmDrive is possible will argue that 1.2mW/kW is the best one can do. They will argue that all larger results were and are artifacts.
Shawyer already published a conceptual probe design that gets to Alpha Centauri in ten years earth time as a flyby going at 0.67c using a small nuclear reactor.
As I attempted to point out earlier.., when you dream of even low end relativistic velocities, let alone velocities on the order of the 0.67c suggested above, you have to be assuming a perfect classical Newtonian vacuum.., an entirely empty space. Even at a fraction of the velocity suggested any spaceship would be torn to pieces by both collisions with the dust and stray atoms of interstellar space, as well as the extreme heat those high energy collisions would generate...
Even if you assume no dust or stray atoms in your path, if any itineration of a quantum vacuum exists, these same relativistic velocities would very likely result in vaporizing unruh radiation. Assuming a quantum vacuum exists, in any form the vacuum of empty space cannot be thought of as presenting no resistance to either acceleration or relativistic velocities, at least not where the movement of physical objects, at relativistic velocities is concerned.
So the questions become: Is empty space empty, even to the exclusion of stray atoms and dust? And does the quantum vacuum exist in any form that interacts with with the motion of an object composed of atoms... If so might that interaction mediated by the boundary conditions between the physical object and the QV, involve in a potentially vaporizing heat gain or other disruptive process to the integrity of the atoms and molecules the object is composed of.
When I read claims associated with interstellar travel as presented in your post above and elsewhere, they read to me as science fiction rather than any realistic example of currently predictable science fact.
One thing that will be certain even at low end EmDrive projections of useable thrust, there is a potential to engineer more conservative probes in the spirit of the Voyager and Pioneer projects, that will have the potential to provide answers to the questions I raised above, as well as test the validity and limitations of special relativity and even some aspects of general relative currently beyond our reach.
The papers I have seen regarding this usually are talking about higher speeds and 0.67 is about the limit. I really doubt we have to worry about quantum vacuum since it's not even proven real. I doubt a probe would be destroyed until much faster than 0.67c. Sure there might be a little damage.
I believe this paper "THE INTERACTION OF RELATIVISTIC SPACECRAFTS WITH THE INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM" https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05284v1 . Which Dr. Rodal was kind enough to locate for me in response to an earlier discussion, (I already had a copy but could not locate it).., at least begins to address the issue of the effect of relativistic velocities on spacecraft traveling through an interstellar medium.
I did not re-read it but as I recall it does not consider the QV, only velocities on the order of 0.2c and collisions with interstellar dust and atoms.
Even setting this aside the speed of light is only considered constant for an inertial observer. For an accelerating spaceship the closing speed of the real background EM radiation and the spaceship would be c + (whatever fraction of c the spaceship has accelerating to). A controversial interpretation for sure but intended to emphasize the fact that sensationalized discussions of even relativistic velocities, are not accounting for the implications of, even the effects of the classical impacts with interstellar dust/atoms, let alone many of the untested predictions, of special relativity, involving the energies required to accelerate any mass to realativistic velocities or any potential issue that may arise as a function of predictions within the context of quantum mechanics.
Most of the time my recent posts, including those involving any alternate theory of operation have not been intended to present any absolute position on the realities of either mechanism or, in the case at hand, the implications of interstellar travel. They have been an attempt to broaden then discussion base and at times, introduce some caution, where it seems that purely theoretical projections are being presented and discussed as accurate descriptions of nature, when the conditions being described are far beyond any existing direct experience.
-
#2999 by Star-Drive on 20 Nov, 2016 18:57
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
I have been following this research for a few years now. In the AIAA paper I noticed an interesting discrepancy. All of the "forward" graphs show the distance measured by the optical displacement sensor increasing when RF is turned on. This is the opposite of the capacitor force. Fig. 2 (first graphic below) in the paper shows the two devices mounted on the same X-Y-Z stage on the small end side of the fustrum. In the paragraph labeled "5. Forward Thrust Overview" it says the forward thrust makes the device shown in Fig 14 (second graphic below) move to the left. This is the same movement that Shawyer reported. If the configuration shown in Fig. 2 was ever used the accepted direction of the em-drive thrust would move the mirror closer to the optical displacement sensor, resulting in a decrease in the distance measurement. However what we see in all the graphs is the opposite. This discrepancy might just be oversimplification on their part and they may actually have the position sensor at the big end side and the capacitor force sensor on the small end side as shown in Fig 2. I will read the paper again to see if that is stated.
Another interesting statement in their paper occurs in the same paragraph 5 I referred to above
quoted from AIAA paper
"
5. Forward Thrust Overview
The tapered RF test article was mounted on the torsion pendulum as shown in Fig. 14. Forward thrust was defined as causing displacement to the left in the photograph. Viewed from above, the torsion arm moved clockwise, causing the mirror attached to the torsion arm to move away from the optical displacement sensor, which appears as an upward motion or positive displacement in the plots of displacement vs time in Figs. 9 and 13. This displacement was also in the same direction as that due to the CG shift from thermal effects.
"
end quote
They are saying the displacement due to thermal change in CG is in the same direction as the measured "thrust". Yet there have been no calibration or baseline experiments done to determine how much of the measured thrust is due to this thermal effect. Thermal expansion could be a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the displacement they are claiming indicates an em-drive thrust effect.
I also disagree with the use of the term "impulsive thrust". All the graphs show the capacitive test force. This is a step response. The first part, where there is a falling edge and undershoot is the impulse response of a damped second order system, ie: the torque pendulum. The rising edge also shows the same impulse response. The whole waveform is the step response of a second order system. Any force applied to the torque pendulum has to have this step response. What we see when RF is switched on is the step response of a first order system. I don't see any indication of a second order step response in the "thrust" waveform. The thermal effects have not been measured independently. It is entirely possible the "thrust" waveform is completely due to thermal effects; eg: the change in CG as mentioned in paragraph 5 above.
**Corrected**
Zen-in:
"They are saying the displacement due to thermal change in CG is in the same direction as the measured "thrust". Yet there have been no calibration or baseline experiments done to determine how much of the measured thrust is due to this thermal effect. Thermal expansion could be a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the displacement they are claiming indicates an em-drive thrust effect."
Once again and IMO, a large part of my calibration work was not given sufficient coverage in this report after Dr. White and the AIAA reviewers got through with it. These calibration efforts on my part addressed and quantified the magnitude of the torque pendulum's center of gravity (cg) shifts due to the temp rise and fall driven thermal expansions of the copper frustum and the counter thermal expansion of RF amplifier's aluminum heat-sink and aluminum case. (The copper frustum was mounted on one side of an 0.090" thick 6061 aluminum spine plate while the RF amplifier and its heat-sink were mounted on the opposite side of this aluminum spine plate. A few slides with some of this thermal cg shift data is appended below and I'll post more as need, but in short the graphic signatures you are seeing in this EW in-vacuum report consist of an impulsive signal riding on top of the thermally driven TP cg shifting signal as defined in the force diagrams.
Best, P.M.
. We could concentrate a lot of energy somewhere in front of the craft, it could move with the craft, but ...mass for mass ... E=MC2 means a LOT of energy... So, the logical substitution scheme is a no-go. Sorting and harvesting quantum fluctuations could be used to produce both a time surplus and a time deficit.. (push-pull). But playing with those always return a looped H and an electric line, everything that exist other than the time process itself.