EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8

[Fan Boi]

Maybe this is sort of like half an Alcubierre drive, space-time is being warped slightly (expanded or contracted) and the center of mass follows along?

[StrongGR]

I need some help. Could anybody out there give me the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity, varying power source, mode frequency and so on? Thanks.

[SeeShells]

我测量到了TE013模，2.54G  S11 -8.1

I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1   -google translator

-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
[/quote这个结果符合HFSS仿真得出的数值，我采用的是单环耦合天线

Need to know everything with your design.
Cavity size, all parameters
Spherical end plates or flat?
Materials used?
Loop location or locations
Loop orentation
Loop size radius
Wire size used for loop
Coax lengths
Type of coax
Coax insertion point into frustum
How are you adjusting the loop position internally?

Dr. Rodal and a few others have summarized much of what has been talked about here in a must read blog. This is beautiful work and a gold mine of information. (Thank you Dr. Rodal and those who contributed!)

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347

Shell

[Rodal]

I need some help. Could anybody out there give me the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity, varying power source, mode frequency and so on? Thanks.

I would like to help but I am unable to do so for the next three weeks due to unrelated-business travel, and a conference presentation on breakthrough propulsion. 

There are many people that may be able (?) to help, I would suggest Monomorphic or X_Ray (in alphabetical order  ) if they could re-post one of the many solutions they already posted or, if you could detail a specific geometry or other information they could solve the particular geometry and input you are most interested in   

[oyzw]

我测量到了TE013模，2.54G  S11 -8.1

I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1   -google translator

-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
[/quote这个结果符合HFSS仿真得出的数值，我采用的是单环耦合天线

Need to know everything with your design.
Cavity size, all parameters
Spherical end plates or flat?
Materials used?
Loop location or locations
Loop orentation
Loop size radius
Wire size used for loop
Coax lengths
Type of coax
Coax insertion point into frustum
How are you adjusting the loop position internally?

Dr. Rodal and a few others have summarized much of what has been talked about here in a must read blog. This is beautiful work and a gold mine of information. (Thank you Dr. Rodal and those who contributed!)

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347

Shell

这是我的仿真结果，与实测基本一致

[Rodal]

这是我的仿真结果，与实测基本一致

You state that your calculated results are consistent with your measurement, but in your post you show completely different variables for what is calculated (electric field in volt/meter vs. geometrical location in the truncated cone)



 as opposed to what you measure (the input port voltage reflection coefficient, S₁₁ vs frequency). 




Where is the verification showing consistency of calculation vs. measurement, showing the same calculated variable for comparison with the measured variable?   

A verification would consist of:

*showing calculated input port voltage reflection coefficient, S₁₁ vs frequency [NOT SHOWN]
and comparing with
* measured input port voltage reflection coefficient, S₁₁ vs frequency [DONE]

or

*showing calculated electric field in volt/meter vs. geometrical location in the truncated cone  [DONE]
and comparing with
* measured electric field in volt/meter vs. geometrical location in the truncated cone  [NOT SHOWN]

[RERT]

StrongGR -

From recent remarks of yours I understand that you believe that distortion of spacetime could be the 'exhaust' which carries away momentum from the EMDrive.

If I'm correct in that reading of what you are saying, then it is interesting to note that because the observed effects are much larger than a photon rocket, at first blush it appears the distortions carrying momentum must have a much higher ratio of momentum to energy than regular gravitational waves.

Please tell me if mis-understood what you were saying, but if not, could you comment?

R.

[StrongGR]

StrongGR -

From recent remarks of yours I understand that you believe that distortion of spacetime could be the 'exhaust' which carries away momentum from the EMDrive.

If I'm correct in that reading of what you are saying, then it is interesting to note that because the observed effects are much larger than a photon rocket, at first blush it appears the distortions carrying momentum must have a much higher ratio of momentum to energy than regular gravitational waves.

Please tell me if mis-understood what you were saying, but if not, could you comment?

R.

This appears only possible if the Newton constant changes inside the cavity. I proved this possible in the Brans-Dicke model. I am computing the order of magnitude of this effect to see if it could be acceptable as an explanation for the observed thrust at EW, in view of the December's paper. Anyhow, it is interesting to note that the effect exists and depends on the geometry of the cavity.

[Star One]

Do you believe this effect would scale in a linear fashion with an increase in size of the cavity? Therefore become more measurable with a larger cavity.

[flux_capacitor]

The reason I ask is, in the Polarizable Vacuum Model of GR, it is not mentioned but c⁴/G must be invariant, as are all measurements of Force. Any change in G must also be a change made to c⁴, because all forces should be invariant in a gravitational field, including this, the Planck force.

Can you elaborate on why the only invariant constant in the PV model would be c⁴/G?

This reminds me of a work a few years ago about unearthing Einstein's constant κ and its roots in general relativity, which surprisingly does not force c and G to be absolutely invariant constants (as well as all the other so-called "constants" of physics), leading to the fact that all physical constants would be allowed to vary (though time, or through local energy density modifications, or another process to be defined) in a joint gauge process, letting all physical laws untouched.

The key to that finding is hereby described:

"The Einstein field equation has zero divergence. The zero divergence of the stress–energy tensor is the geometrical expression of the conservation law. So it appears constants in the Einstein equation cannot vary, otherwise this postulate would be violated.

However, since Einstein's constant had been evaluated by a calculation based on a time-independent metric, this by no mean requires that G and c must be unvarying constants themselves, the only postulate derived from conservation of energy is that the ratio G/c² must be constant.

Depending on the choice of natural units, this ratio can be set to a defined constant value; subject to measurement is the dimensionless gravitational coupling constant, variation in which would not necessarily amount to violation of the conservation of four-momentum."

The mathematical development leading to this conclusion is detailed in the Wikipedia link I provided in this post.

[WarpTech]

The reason I ask is, in the Polarizable Vacuum Model of GR, it is not mentioned but c⁴/G must be invariant, as are all measurements of Force. Any change in G must also be a change made to c⁴, because all forces should be invariant in a gravitational field, including this, the Planck force.

Can you elaborate on why the only invariant constant in the PV model would be c⁴/G?

This reminds me of a work a few years ago about unearthing Einstein's constant κ and its roots in general relativity, which surprisingly does not force c and G to be absolutely invariant constants (as well as all the other so-called "constants" of physics), leading to the fact that all physical constants would be allowed to vary (though time, or through local energy density modifications, or another process to be defined) in a joint gauge process, letting all physical laws untouched.

The key to that finding is hereby described:

"The Einstein field equation has zero divergence. The zero divergence of the stress–energy tensor is the geometrical expression of the conservation law. So it appears constants in the Einstein equation cannot vary, otherwise this postulate would be violated.

However, since Einstein's constant had been evaluated by a calculation based on a time-independent metric, this by no mean requires that G and c must be unvarying constants themselves, the only postulate derived from conservation of energy is that the ratio G/c² must be constant.

Depending on the choice of natural units, this ratio can be set to a defined constant value; subject to measurement is the dimensionless gravitational coupling constant, variation in which would not necessarily amount to violation of the conservation of four-momentum."

The mathematical development leading to this conclusion is detailed in the Wikipedia link I provided in this post.

Dimensional Analysis & Consistency!
In the PV Model, we have the relationships between space-time and the refractive index, K, in the frame of a distant observer where K=1. Where, he is comparing to observations in gravitational fields, regions where K > 1.

x = x0 / K^1/2
t = t0 * K^1/2
m = m0 * K^3/2

By dimensional analysis;

Force F = m*x/t² = m0*x0/t0²  is independent of K

If this were not true, then electromagnetic forces would be variables in a gravitational field. They are not. Atoms and their atomic transitions are scaled in space-time, but the forces between constituent particles are the same, regardless of the gravity well they are immersed in.

I give a very clear derivation of these details in my Quantum Gravity paper, on Research Gate.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY

The Planck Force = c⁴/G is no different. Since c(K) = c/K, G(K) must vary as G/K⁴.

The gravitational potential, Phi = 2*G*m/r*c² is also independent of K, and in order to be so, G(K) = G/K⁴. It is consistency in the dimensional analysis of the theory. It is what allows gravity to act as a gauge transformation of the Maxwell field, and leaves the Lorentz forces unchanged.

Note: The gauge transformation of the EM field requires adding the gradient of a scalar function to the potentials. That scalar function has units of Volt-sec, or magnetic flux. If we add a gauge transformation to Maxwell's equations, the potentials change in a way that mimics gravity. There is more flux per quantum of charge, but the forces that we measure do not change. If we add magnetic flux in the path of an electron propagator, each quantum of flux adds a 2*pi phase-shift to the electron's wave function. This is increasing the effective path integral, making it appear to propagate slower, velocity drops as v/K. I've determined that K is directly proportional to energy density, and the energy density of the vacuum can be modeled as a density of random magnetic flux, used as the potential of a scalar field theory. I'm working on the details for the re-write of my paper.

I am not very familiar with Brans-Dicke theory, but the PV Model as I've formulated it, is completely consistent with all observable data that supports GR. It is merely an alternative interpretation of the same data.

Todd

[Rodal]

....

I am not very familiar with Brans-Dicke theory, but the PV Model as I've formulated it, is completely consistent with all observable data that supports GR. It is merely an alternative interpretation of the same data.

Todd

Isn't that quite an overstatement ?

General Relativity is a very nonlinear theory, for which only very few solutions are known (*), even to this date.

What is the basis supporting the statement <<the PV Model as I've formulated it, is completely consistent with all observable data that supports GR. It is merely an alternative interpretation of the same data.>> ? 

Actually does the PV model also result in the same exact solutions as General Relativity (see below in particular  Reissner–Nordström,   and Kerr metric for black holes(*))?,   Black holes are certainly part of the observable universe...

---------

(*)  The best-known exact solutions, and also those most interesting from a physics point of view, are the Schwarzschild solution, the Reissner–Nordström solution and the Kerr metric, each corresponding to a certain type of black hole in an otherwise empty universe and the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker and de Sitter universes, each describing an expanding cosmos.

And the problem with perturbation solutions, particularly asymptotic perturbations goes without saying ... 

[StrongGR]

Do you believe this effect would scale in a linear fashion with an increase in size of the cavity? Therefore become more measurable with a larger cavity.

The effect has a non trivial dependence on geometry but appears to be scalable.

[WarpTech]

....

I am not very familiar with Brans-Dicke theory, but the PV Model as I've formulated it, is completely consistent with all observable data that supports GR. It is merely an alternative interpretation of the same data.

Todd

Isn't that quite an overstatement ?

General Relativity is a very nonlinear theory, for which only very few solutions are known (*), even to this date.

What is the basis supporting the statement <<the PV Model as I've formulated it, is completely consistent with all observable data that supports GR. It is merely an alternative interpretation of the same data.>> ? 

Actually does the PV model also result in the same exact solutions as General Relativity (see below in particular  Reissner–Nordström,   and Kerr metric for black holes(*))?,   Black holes are certainly part of the observable universe...

---------

(*)  The best-known exact solutions, and also those most interesting from a physics point of view, are the Schwarzschild solution, the Reissner–Nordström solution and the Kerr metric, each corresponding to a certain type of black hole in an otherwise empty universe and the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker and de Sitter universes, each describing an expanding cosmos.

And the problem with perturbation solutions, particularly asymptotic perturbations goes without saying ... 

In 1999 Puthoff showed the experimental validity to a weak field solution for the Perihelion of Mercury, Gravitational lensing and gravitational red shift. He also included EM in his Lagrangian solution.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1978393_Polarizable-Vacuum_PV_representation_of_general_relativity

In 2003, I showed that event horizons do exist in the PV Model, even when using the approximate exponential solution of Puthoff's original work.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231445_Event_horizons_in_the_PV_Model

In 2005 Puthoff also derived the Levi-Civita effect.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226076564_Levi-Civita_Effect_in_the_polarizable_vacuum_PV_representation_of_general_relativity

In 2005, 2006, Joe Depp and I then revised the model to derive precisely the Schwarzschild solution, Reissner-Nordstrom solution and the solution of an infinite wire.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265522894_Polarizable_Vacuum_and_the_Reissner-Nordstrom_Solution
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265111294_Polarizable_Vacuum_and_the_Schwarzschild_Solution

In 2012, Puthoff published a more refined version of his Model in JBIS.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_Spacetime_Metric_Engineering

In 2012, Puthoff made available his Quantum ground states paper, which has just been published in a peer reviewed journal last month; Quant. Stud.: Math. Found. 3 (1), 5-10 (2016).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222942820_Quantum_Ground_States_as_Equilibrium_Particle-Vacuum_Interaction_States

I used all of the above to compile my warp drive paper where I reproduced Alcubierre's warp drive and showed precisely how GR and PV are two interpretations of the same thing. The Kerr metric and the warp drive are both examples of frame dragging.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275336571_The_Electromagnetic_Quantum_Vacuum_Warp_Drive_Slides

Somewhere in the past 15 years, I did derive the Kerr metric too, but I never wrote it into a paper. It's stashed in one of my many notebooks, in a box somewhere. It was difficult but it still fit within the parameters of the model.

In 2016, I've shown how it corresponds to radiative damping of the harmonic oscillator, and I'm working on a re-write that will show how to quantize the model properly. Showing what is an inertial frame in terms of the EM Quantum Vacuum, ZPF and how the field is out of symmetry when there is acceleration, that results in increased radiation reaction damping and cooling. It's deep, but enjoyable!

In my view, all of the "experimental" evidence there is, is supported or reproduced to within the margin of error. It's just that GR predicts many things that have not been observed. If you count those, then the two theories are not equivalent, but I don't count what hasn't been observed (yet) when I make such statements. It complies with all the known observable data I am aware of.

For engineering purposes, a quantum field theory is much preferred over the geometrical approach.

Todd

[rq3]

I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1   -google translator

-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
[/quote这个结果符合HFSS仿真得出的数值，我采用的是单环耦合天线

This result is consistent with the numbers obtained from HFSS simulation. I used single ring coupling antenna. --human translator

S-parameters, by definition, require a 50 ohm system. If you are launching an S-parameter test set into an closed cavity, open cavity, free space or any impedance outside the calibrated impedance capability of the test set, the returned S-parameters will be non-sensical.

[Prunesquallor]

I just hope this isn't someone trying to pin the blame of any potential leaks on Paul.

If what Dr. Rodal disclosed about the abstract is correct, the paper will turn the world of propulsion physics on it's head.

Imagine what will happen to Ion and other exotic propulsion projects and budgets worldwide. There may just be a few who have investments & paychecks that do not wish the EW paper to have credibility or even to be published. I do trust Paul and others have taken measures to ensure the paper is published, no matter what. Can't imagine anyone would impersonate Paul to do good deeds.

Oh BTW Paul told me the paper will be a free download. Dr. White paid AIAA to make that happen, so
Dr. White, THANK YOU.

I think you are being over-paranoid. Right now this is a curiosity that no one can explain and no one knows whether scalability to useful applications is possible. I expect a bandwagon effect rather than a suppression conspiracy is more likely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheTraveller]

I just hope this isn't someone trying to pin the blame of any potential leaks on Paul.

If what Dr. Rodal disclosed about the abstract is correct, the paper will turn the world of propulsion physics on it's head.

Imagine what will happen to Ion and other exotic propulsion projects and budgets worldwide. There may just be a few who have investments & paychecks that do not wish the EW paper to have credibility or even to be published. I do trust Paul and others have taken measures to ensure the paper is published, no matter what. Can't imagine anyone would impersonate Paul to do good deeds.

Oh BTW Paul told me the paper will be a free download. Dr. White paid AIAA to make that happen, so
Dr. White, THANK YOU.

I think you are being over-paranoid. Right now this is a curiosity that no one can explain and no one knows whether scalability to useful applications is possible. I expect a bandwagon effect rather than a suppression conspiracy is more likely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paul March is leaving Eagleworks. Maybe you should ask him why.

[Bob Woods]

Paul March is leaving Eagleworks. Maybe you should ask him why.

I will hope it is for opportunity. However, you have certainly created a question that many would like explained.

[meberbs]

I just hope this isn't someone trying to pin the blame of any potential leaks on Paul.

If what Dr. Rodal disclosed about the abstract is correct, the paper will turn the world of propulsion physics on it's head.

Imagine what will happen to Ion and other exotic propulsion projects and budgets worldwide. There may just be a few who have investments & paychecks that do not wish the EW paper to have credibility or even to be published. I do trust Paul and others have taken measures to ensure the paper is published, no matter what. Can't imagine anyone would impersonate Paul to do good deeds.

Oh BTW Paul told me the paper will be a free download. Dr. White paid AIAA to make that happen, so
Dr. White, THANK YOU.

I think you are being over-paranoid. Right now this is a curiosity that no one can explain and no one knows whether scalability to useful applications is possible. I expect a bandwagon effect rather than a suppression conspiracy is more likely.

It is taxpayer funded research, that isn't classified or export controlled (otherwise it couldn't be published to begin with). The results have to be freely available in the end (A few extra months or even a year delay from the publication date would still be legal most likely, so we can be glad we don't need to wait more).

[Tellmeagain]

Paul March is leaving Eagleworks. Maybe you should ask him why.

I will hope it is for opportunity. However, you have certainly created a question that many would like explained.

Wish him all the best.