Quote from: Star-Drive on 01/13/2017 02:47 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 01/13/2017 12:15 pmQuote from: sanman on 01/13/2017 11:55 amSo, pardon me if this is wrong or inapplicable, but is it technically correct to say "EMdrive has Isp equal to infinity"?Or would we use the "mass of energy expended" instead of conventional propellant mass in the calculation?Is Tsiolovsky's Rocket Equation applicable in the case of EMdrive? What might be the newly derived form?I'd say let's look beyond the rocket equation. It does not appear we have matter expulsion in a classical sense but a field coupling. Cannot say which field or define it as attractive or repulsive but I believe it's an open system with a yet to be understood field coupling which results in displacement. Without knowing the field, it's difficult to predict isp. This is only my engineering take on it. How fast is space expanding in all directions and is the emdrive trying to catch a ride is a topic for endless discussion.Dave:Concur, IMO the most likely explanation for how these EMdrive and Woodward's MEGA drives work is that the high intensity and fast changing E&M fields in their resonant systems allows interactions with the cosmological gravitational field in an open system way. And in that vein, if one treats the mass flow in the rocket equation as a mass/energy flow, where m= E/c^2 per unit time AKA power in Joules/second or Watts, one can derived an equivalent Isp for these EMdrives and MEGA drives per the attached slide. BTW, you will also find in these field drives that the drive's power plant's energy and power densities plays an integral part in determining the final field-drive's equivalent Isp number. That points one to using high energy-density, high power-density power plants such as fission-based plasma magneto-hydrodynamic nuclear reactors optimized for aerospace use.Best, Paul M.PS: The "G/I" field is the cosmological Gravitational / Inertial (G/I) field that gives rise to inertia per Woodward's Mach-Effect interpretation of General Relativity Theory (GRT).There appears to be an error in the slide. kg/s = P/c^{2}, not E/c^{2}, where P is power.Also, N/kg/s = m/s not 1/s. Including the gravitational acceleration 9.8 m/s^2, then Isp = 1.38 terra seconds.

Quote from: rfmwguy on 01/13/2017 12:15 pmQuote from: sanman on 01/13/2017 11:55 amSo, pardon me if this is wrong or inapplicable, but is it technically correct to say "EMdrive has Isp equal to infinity"?Or would we use the "mass of energy expended" instead of conventional propellant mass in the calculation?Is Tsiolovsky's Rocket Equation applicable in the case of EMdrive? What might be the newly derived form?I'd say let's look beyond the rocket equation. It does not appear we have matter expulsion in a classical sense but a field coupling. Cannot say which field or define it as attractive or repulsive but I believe it's an open system with a yet to be understood field coupling which results in displacement. Without knowing the field, it's difficult to predict isp. This is only my engineering take on it. How fast is space expanding in all directions and is the emdrive trying to catch a ride is a topic for endless discussion.Dave:Concur, IMO the most likely explanation for how these EMdrive and Woodward's MEGA drives work is that the high intensity and fast changing E&M fields in their resonant systems allows interactions with the cosmological gravitational field in an open system way. And in that vein, if one treats the mass flow in the rocket equation as a mass/energy flow, where m= E/c^2 per unit time AKA power in Joules/second or Watts, one can derived an equivalent Isp for these EMdrives and MEGA drives per the attached slide. BTW, you will also find in these field drives that the drive's power plant's energy and power densities plays an integral part in determining the final field-drive's equivalent Isp number. That points one to using high energy-density, high power-density power plants such as fission-based plasma magneto-hydrodynamic nuclear reactors optimized for aerospace use.Best, Paul M.PS: The "G/I" field is the cosmological Gravitational / Inertial (G/I) field that gives rise to inertia per Woodward's Mach-Effect interpretation of General Relativity Theory (GRT).

Quote from: sanman on 01/13/2017 11:55 amSo, pardon me if this is wrong or inapplicable, but is it technically correct to say "EMdrive has Isp equal to infinity"?Or would we use the "mass of energy expended" instead of conventional propellant mass in the calculation?Is Tsiolovsky's Rocket Equation applicable in the case of EMdrive? What might be the newly derived form?I'd say let's look beyond the rocket equation. It does not appear we have matter expulsion in a classical sense but a field coupling. Cannot say which field or define it as attractive or repulsive but I believe it's an open system with a yet to be understood field coupling which results in displacement. Without knowing the field, it's difficult to predict isp. This is only my engineering take on it. How fast is space expanding in all directions and is the emdrive trying to catch a ride is a topic for endless discussion.

So, pardon me if this is wrong or inapplicable, but is it technically correct to say "EMdrive has Isp equal to infinity"?Or would we use the "mass of energy expended" instead of conventional propellant mass in the calculation?Is Tsiolovsky's Rocket Equation applicable in the case of EMdrive? What might be the newly derived form?

Quote from: WarpTech on 01/13/2017 04:54 pmThere appears to be an error in the slide. kg/s = P/c^{2}, not E/c^{2}, where P is power.Also, N/kg/s = m/s not sec. Including the gravitational acceleration 9.8 m/s^2, then Isp = 1.38 terra seconds.Todd:After all these years and I never saw that error, whoops, my bad! Thanks for catching it now, but even so, 1.38x10^12 seconds or Tera-seconds Isp is nothing to sneeze at when compared to the 454 seconds of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) Isp. In fact it is over 3 billion times higher... Best, Paul M.

There appears to be an error in the slide. kg/s = P/c^{2}, not E/c^{2}, where P is power.Also, N/kg/s = m/s not sec. Including the gravitational acceleration 9.8 m/s^2, then Isp = 1.38 terra seconds.

Also, has there been any consideration by anyone on whether the EMdrive thruster would produce a roll torque around the thrust axis? Conventional chemical thrusters and even ion-thrusters can do this, so would EMdrive do it too?

Quote from: Star-Drive on 01/13/2017 06:26 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 01/13/2017 04:54 pmThere appears to be an error in the slide. kg/s = P/c^{2}, not E/c^{2}, where P is power.Also, N/kg/s = m/s not sec. Including the gravitational acceleration 9.8 m/s^2, then Isp = 1.38 terra seconds.Todd:After all these years and I never saw that error, whoops, my bad! Thanks for catching it now, but even so, 1.38x10^12 seconds or Tera-seconds Isp is nothing to sneeze at when compared to the 454 seconds of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) Isp. In fact it is over 3 billion times higher... Best, Paul M.Hi Paul,Note that, because we are using P/c^{2} for dm/dt, this Isp is the same as for a photon rocket. I came upon this same thing about a week ago, looking at my own version of Dr. Woodward's equation. I came to the conclusion that "push when it's heavy and pull when it's light" will definitely create propellantless propulsion. However, it will be no better than a photon rocket of the equivalent power. I'm beginning to think that we have an illusion going on. What gives the impression of a thruster than can exceed the thrust of a photon rocket, is that the instantaneous thrust can be pulsed at the power P_{in}*Q. Where, in the case of the EmDrive, is in the GW's!

It could be redesigned to not need such a large flange connecting the side walls and the large end plate.

Quote from: WarpTech on 01/13/2017 07:14 pmHi Paul,Note that, because we are using P/c^{2} for dm/dt, this Isp is the same as for a photon rocket. I came upon this same thing about a week ago, looking at my own version of Dr. Woodward's equation. I came to the conclusion that "push when it's heavy and pull when it's light" will definitely create propellantless propulsion. However, it will be no better than a photon rocket of the equivalent power. I'm beginning to think that we have an illusion going on. What gives the impression of a thruster than can exceed the thrust of a photon rocket, is that the instantaneous thrust can be pulsed at the power P_{in}*Q. Where, in the case of the EmDrive, is in the GW's!...<snip> Particularly as the speed becomes a sizable fraction of the speed of light, the mass ratio of the photon rocket grows exponentially:If the space drive is going to depend on being pulsed at the power P_{in}*Q over significant lapsed amount of time, what matters is the time-averaged effect on delta V of such pulsing, and not the instantaneous amount P_{in}*Q If so, extrapolations based on constant P_{in}*Q are what Todd calls an illusion._______________________===>Also, the pulsed P_{in}*Q would be compatible with the "photon pair with destructive interference escaping theory" of Arto Annila published a few months ago (http://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.4953807), as the effective Isp is identical to the one of a photon rocket===>It would address the issues with conservation of energy and perpetual motion machine arguments===>Present pulsing in NASA and other experiments may have been so fast (at GHz frequencies) that is undetectable in seconds time of run, what is going on over nanoseconds.===> Tajmar measured Thrust/InputPower in vacuum for EM Drive is barely above photon rocket, about 8 times,===> NASA's is from 80 to 350 times depending on orientation and test

Hi Paul,Note that, because we are using P/c^{2} for dm/dt, this Isp is the same as for a photon rocket. I came upon this same thing about a week ago, looking at my own version of Dr. Woodward's equation. I came to the conclusion that "push when it's heavy and pull when it's light" will definitely create propellantless propulsion. However, it will be no better than a photon rocket of the equivalent power. I'm beginning to think that we have an illusion going on. What gives the impression of a thruster than can exceed the thrust of a photon rocket, is that the instantaneous thrust can be pulsed at the power P_{in}*Q. Where, in the case of the EmDrive, is in the GW's!

Quote from: WarpTech on 01/13/2017 07:14 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 01/13/2017 06:26 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 01/13/2017 04:54 pmThere appears to be an error in the slide. kg/s = P/c^{2}, not E/c^{2}, where P is power.Also, N/kg/s = m/s not sec. Including the gravitational acceleration 9.8 m/s^2, then Isp = 1.38 terra seconds.Todd:After all these years and I never saw that error, whoops, my bad! Thanks for catching it now, but even so, 1.38x10^12 seconds or Tera-seconds Isp is nothing to sneeze at when compared to the 454 seconds of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) Isp. In fact it is over 3 billion times higher... Best, Paul M.Hi Paul,Note that, because we are using P/c^{2} for dm/dt, this Isp is the same as for a photon rocket. I came upon this same thing about a week ago, looking at my own version of Dr. Woodward's equation. I came to the conclusion that "push when it's heavy and pull when it's light" will definitely create propellantless propulsion. However, it will be no better than a photon rocket of the equivalent power. I'm beginning to think that we have an illusion going on. What gives the impression of a thruster than can exceed the thrust of a photon rocket, is that the instantaneous thrust can be pulsed at the power P_{in}*Q. Where, in the case of the EmDrive, is in the GW's!Looks like you and Paul have some interesting comments regarding isp. In effect saying pulsed GW in high Q is the key towards useful propellantless propulsion. Certainly this level is obtainable. In your view, what mechanism takes it to the outside world?

Quote from: rfmwguy on 01/13/2017 11:19 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 01/13/2017 07:14 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 01/13/2017 06:26 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 01/13/2017 04:54 pmThere appears to be an error in the slide. kg/s = P/c^{2}, not E/c^{2}, where P is power.Also, N/kg/s = m/s not sec. Including the gravitational acceleration 9.8 m/s^2, then Isp = 1.38 terra seconds.Todd:After all these years and I never saw that error, whoops, my bad! Thanks for catching it now, but even so, 1.38x10^12 seconds or Tera-seconds Isp is nothing to sneeze at when compared to the 454 seconds of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) Isp. In fact it is over 3 billion times higher... Best, Paul M.Hi Paul,Note that, because we are using P/c^{2} for dm/dt, this Isp is the same as for a photon rocket. I came upon this same thing about a week ago, looking at my own version of Dr. Woodward's equation. I came to the conclusion that "push when it's heavy and pull when it's light" will definitely create propellantless propulsion. However, it will be no better than a photon rocket of the equivalent power. I'm beginning to think that we have an illusion going on. What gives the impression of a thruster than can exceed the thrust of a photon rocket, is that the instantaneous thrust can be pulsed at the power P_{in}*Q. Where, in the case of the EmDrive, is in the GW's!Looks like you and Paul have some interesting comments regarding isp. In effect saying pulsed GW in high Q is the key towards useful propellantless propulsion. Certainly this level is obtainable. In your view, what mechanism takes it to the outside world?There are two "mechanisms".1) The antenna sends out a "heavy" (high energy) wave, which is reflected back as a "lighter" (low energy) wave. Some energy is lost to heat at the far end, and each period of this oscillation incrementally displaces the CM toward the antenna side. Having the antenna in the middle is the worst position for it.2) Similar to Arto Annila's idea, I claim that the resistive losses in copper allow magnetic flux (volt-seconds) (photons) to tunnel through it when it gets hot. So as the temperature of the metal increases, it becomes more transparent to the microwaves, letting out the stored energy P_{in}*Q and driving the thrust.In both cases, the resulting force is a pulsed photon rocket that simply depends on an asymmetrical amount of power being lost to heat and photons escaping the cavity. A proper design would maximize power dissipation at one end and minimize it at the other end, then drive the heck out of it.

Quote from: WarpTech on 01/14/2017 02:30 am...In both cases, the resulting force is a pulsed photon rocket that simply depends on an asymmetrical amount of power being lost to heat and photons escaping the cavity. A proper design would maximize power dissipation at one end and minimize it at the other end, then drive the heck out of it.There was a planned experiment I had in mind before turning the cavity over...graphene coating small diameter. Has interesting properties of trapping photons.Regardless, are any emdrive results observed realistic in your mind?

...In both cases, the resulting force is a pulsed photon rocket that simply depends on an asymmetrical amount of power being lost to heat and photons escaping the cavity. A proper design would maximize power dissipation at one end and minimize it at the other end, then drive the heck out of it.

Quote from: rfmwguy on 01/14/2017 02:42 amQuote from: WarpTech on 01/14/2017 02:30 am...In both cases, the resulting force is a pulsed photon rocket that simply depends on an asymmetrical amount of power being lost to heat and photons escaping the cavity. A proper design would maximize power dissipation at one end and minimize it at the other end, then drive the heck out of it.There was a planned experiment I had in mind before turning the cavity over...graphene coating small diameter. Has interesting properties of trapping photons.Regardless, are any emdrive results observed realistic in your mind?Sure, I believe most of the positive results are showing an effect that is real. I also think many of the assumptions and interpretations of that data are still a matter of opinion and bias, because there's no accepted theory to back it up. If we look at this as a pulsed photon rocket, with power proportional to, and less than P_{in}*Q. This model fits most of the data. Except the highest thrust values reported by Shawyer.My idea for an experiment is to put a loop antenna just outside both ends, and compare the power spectrum that comes out. Theoretically, it should be zero, right?

Sure, I believe most of the positive results are showing an effect that is real. I also think many of the assumptions and interpretations of that data are still a matter of opinion and bias, because there's no accepted theory to back it up. If we look at this as a pulsed photon rocket, with power proportional to, and less than P_{in}*Q. This model fits most of the data. Except the highest thrust values reported by Shawyer.My idea for an experiment is to put a loop antenna just outside both ends, and compare the power spectrum that comes out. Theoretically, it should be zero, right?

Quote from: WarpTech on 01/14/2017 03:10 amSure, I believe most of the positive results are showing an effect that is real. I also think many of the assumptions and interpretations of that data are still a matter of opinion and bias, because there's no accepted theory to back it up. If we look at this as a pulsed photon rocket, with power proportional to, and less than P_{in}*Q. This model fits most of the data. Except the highest thrust values reported by Shawyer.My idea for an experiment is to put a loop antenna just outside both ends, and compare the power spectrum that comes out. Theoretically, it should be zero, right? Regarding "pulsed photon rocket" based on Pin*Q - then doesn't this point towards making as small a frustrum cavity as possible, in order to minimize travel-time between bounces/pulses, and to thus maximize the pulse frequency? What would be the theoretical limits this could be taken to?

Could it even be possible to have a Casimir cavity with photons bouncing back and forth inside at a speed higher than C? Because apparently some Casimir cavities can elevate the value of C.

The laser-wakefield effect produces huge EM gradients inside a plasma, and since Paul loosely compared the Quantum Vacuum to a plasma (I guess that's the closest analogy available, since there is no closer example to compare against), then could the laser-wakefield idea maybe work on the vacuum? Laser-wakefield makes use of the short-and-sharp pulses as well.Furthermore, another analogy I keep thinking of is superconductor research - their quest is to minimize resistance, usually by turning electrons into bosons via pairing. But meanwhile propulsion is based on Action-Reaction, with the Reaction part being referred to as a form of "resistance"/"opposition" to the Action. In contrast to electrons, photons are naturally bosons, so they're naturally low on resistance, having action-reaction mass only due to their energy. One of the challenges in superconductor research is in avoiding magnetic vortices, because they tend to increase resistance and undermine bosonic pairing. Could there thus possibly be an analogy whereby promoting vortices in the Quantum Vacuum would somehow analogously increase the "resistance" that is part of Action-Reaction?

Is it possible to think of the photon as a composite boson like an electron Cooper-pair is, whose "bosonic-ness" can be undermined by larger vortex effects?I dunno - just some goofy thoughts.

Quote from: WarpTech on 01/14/2017 03:10 amMy idea for an experiment is to put a loop antenna just outside both ends, and compare the power spectrum that comes out. Theoretically, it should be zero, right? Todd & Jose':The EMdrive & MEGA drive Isp calculation was meant just an analogy of the rocket equation for folks who know nothing else. And like any analogy, when it’s taken too far off its intended comparative point, and is instead taken as true physics, it can lead one astray to conclude all of these propellantless propulsion devices are all an illusion of a conventional photon rocket, when it’s really not. From my in-vacuum experimental EMdrive data, in my opinion, both the EMdrive and MEGA drives will be found to be creating and using high energy intensity, fast (nanosecond or less) time-varying E&M fields to entrain, compress and accelerate a confined volume of the cosmological gravitational field, AKA spacetime, AKA the quantum-vacuum, that is accelerated to some velocity that could be less-than, OR greater-than the speed of light as measured at the ambient intergalactic vacuum density of 9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3. Note that I said the “entrained & compressed vacuum volume” that is accelerated to less than c in the thrusters we have built to date, like a turbofan jet does with the faster engine core air-flow when it mixes with the slower and denser outer bypass air from the front outer fans blades in its exhaust, i.e., it slows the velocity of the core air, in exchange for increasing the net thrust of the turbofan’s thrust output. However this new GRT vacuum propellant can also go faster than light, since it is spacetime itself and NOT limited to c by GRT, so theoretically it can go at any velocity with any amount of force generated from same dependent on the RF input power creating the E&M fields and the Q of the resonant cavity that constrains the vacuum volume. I.e., it can becomes a warp-drive as well, depending on how much peak energy you can drive it with and the geometry of the device wrapped around your ship.Best, Paul M.PS: In Woodward's Mach Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA) drives its high-k, high-density ceramic dielectrics being excited with low frequency E&M in the 20 kHz to 2.0 MHz range, take the place of the EMdrive's low-density, low-k vacuum dielectric being excited by GHz E&M fields driven to much higher E-field strengths to compensate for the solid dielectric's vacuum compression effects.

My idea for an experiment is to put a loop antenna just outside both ends, and compare the power spectrum that comes out. Theoretically, it should be zero, right?

Bigger is better. It will have a higher Q, all else scales equally. The higher Q will be primarily due to the size of imperfections, relative to the size of the wavelength, but other factors such as slower heating also allow the Q to get higher at lower frequencies.

To my knowledge, the Casimir effect between two flat plates is attractive, and just like a waveguide, the velocity of light between the plates will be < c. There are repulsive Casimir tests, where it is suspected the it increases c, but I am not aware of any such test. Such cavities I believe involve spherical objects, not flat ones. If you look it up, LMK.

Yes! I model the classical quantum vacuum as random magnetic flux, or "vortices", but QED simply refers to this as the probability density of the quantized EM field at each point in space-time. We would need to increase the probability density "significantly" to allow us to push off of it. As I wrote in my paper, I believe the EM field, internal to the EmDrive, is what it's pushing against. THAT is where the field has enough density to have an effect. But if it's pushing it in one direction, it needs to be able to get out! We can see from the simulations that the energy is being pushed to the small end. It needs a way out, and the two hypothesis I've given are the only two I can think of.

No. (Edit:) ...but there is an effect known as Photon Bunching, where photons have a probability to be found in "pairs", but only in random Gaussian distributions.

Quote from: Star-Drive on 01/14/2017 04:16 amQuote from: WarpTech on 01/14/2017 03:10 amMy idea for an experiment is to put a loop antenna just outside both ends, and compare the power spectrum that comes out. Theoretically, it should be zero, right? Todd & Jose':The EMdrive & MEGA drive Isp calculation was meant just an analogy of the rocket equation for folks who know nothing else. And like any analogy, when it’s taken too far off its intended comparative point, and is instead taken as true physics, it can lead one astray to conclude all of these propellantless propulsion devices are all an illusion of a conventional photon rocket, when it’s really not. From my in-vacuum experimental EMdrive data, in my opinion, both the EMdrive and MEGA drives will be found to be creating and using high energy intensity, fast (nanosecond or less) time-varying E&M fields to entrain, compress and accelerate a confined volume of the cosmological gravitational field, AKA spacetime, AKA the quantum-vacuum, that is accelerated to some velocity that could be less-than, OR greater-than the speed of light as measured at the ambient intergalactic vacuum density of 9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3. Note that I said the “entrained & compressed vacuum volume” that is accelerated to less than c in the thrusters we have built to date, like a turbofan jet does with the faster engine core air-flow when it mixes with the slower and denser outer bypass air from the front outer fans blades in its exhaust, i.e., it slows the velocity of the core air, in exchange for increasing the net thrust of the turbofan’s thrust output. However this new GRT vacuum propellant can also go faster than light, since it is spacetime itself and NOT limited to c by GRT, so theoretically it can go at any velocity with any amount of force generated from same dependent on the RF input power creating the E&M fields and the Q of the resonant cavity that constrains the vacuum volume. I.e., it can becomes a warp-drive as well, depending on how much peak energy you can drive it with and the geometry of the device wrapped around your ship.Best, Paul M.PS: In Woodward's Mach Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA) drives its high-k, high-density ceramic dielectrics being excited with low frequency E&M in the 20 kHz to 2.0 MHz range, take the place of the EMdrive's low-density, low-k vacuum dielectric being excited by GHz E&M fields driven to much higher E-field strengths to compensate for the solid dielectric's vacuum compression effects. Paul,It's not just an analogy anymore. I have the equations and I see that is how it works. I will admit that, "IF" we could pack enough energy density inside a frustum, such that the internal speed of light was significantly lower than the external speed of light. I.e., change the refractive index K, AKA increase the probability density of the vacuum EM field, AKA Quantum Vacuum. Then, there might be a possibility to amplify the resulting force. I just don't think the experiments done so far, are anywhere near that level of distorting space-time. Someday... maybe, but such conjecture needs something to back it up, and I have nothing. In my model, Power and the speed of light are co-variant, and the force F = P/c, is invariant of any change in the refractive index, or gravitational fields as used in GR as well. The unknown variable is that the "exhaust" is passing through a boundary condition between two refractive indexes. "That" is what we're pushing against. Almost identical to the pressure differential terms at the output of a rocket nozzle. So yes, IF we had a way to test it at much higher power levels, we might see something like that, but first we need to get this thing working well as it is."Scotty! I need warp power. Now!" PS: Note, amplifying the force by lowering c_{0}/K inside the frustum does not allow it to go faster than c_{0} through space. It just lets it get more traction.... maybe. It could also result in more reflected power and less exhaust, making it a less efficient thruster. Who knows!

Quote from: WarpTech on 01/14/2017 05:43 amQuote from: Star-Drive on 01/14/2017 04:16 amQuote from: WarpTech on 01/14/2017 03:10 amMy idea for an experiment is to put a loop antenna just outside both ends, and compare the power spectrum that comes out. Theoretically, it should be zero, right? Todd & Jose':The EMdrive & MEGA drive Isp calculation was meant just an analogy of the rocket equation for folks who know nothing else. And like any analogy, when it’s taken too far off its intended comparative point, and is instead taken as true physics, it can lead one astray to conclude all of these propellantless propulsion devices are all an illusion of a conventional photon rocket, when it’s really not. From my in-vacuum experimental EMdrive data, in my opinion, both the EMdrive and MEGA drives will be found to be creating and using high energy intensity, fast (nanosecond or less) time-varying E&M fields to entrain, compress and accelerate a confined volume of the cosmological gravitational field, AKA spacetime, AKA the quantum-vacuum, that is accelerated to some velocity that could be less-than, OR greater-than the speed of light as measured at the ambient intergalactic vacuum density of 9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3. Note that I said the “entrained & compressed vacuum volume” that is accelerated to less than c in the thrusters we have built to date, like a turbofan jet does with the faster engine core air-flow when it mixes with the slower and denser outer bypass air from the front outer fans blades in its exhaust, i.e., it slows the velocity of the core air, in exchange for increasing the net thrust of the turbofan’s thrust output. However this new GRT vacuum propellant can also go faster than light, since it is spacetime itself and NOT limited to c by GRT, so theoretically it can go at any velocity with any amount of force generated from same dependent on the RF input power creating the E&M fields and the Q of the resonant cavity that constrains the vacuum volume. I.e., it can becomes a warp-drive as well, depending on how much peak energy you can drive it with and the geometry of the device wrapped around your ship.Best, Paul M.PS: In Woodward's Mach Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA) drives its high-k, high-density ceramic dielectrics being excited with low frequency E&M in the 20 kHz to 2.0 MHz range, take the place of the EMdrive's low-density, low-k vacuum dielectric being excited by GHz E&M fields driven to much higher E-field strengths to compensate for the solid dielectric's vacuum compression effects. Paul,It's not just an analogy anymore. I have the equations and I see that is how it works. I will admit that, "IF" we could pack enough energy density inside a frustum, such that the internal speed of light was significantly lower than the external speed of light. I.e., change the refractive index K, AKA increase the probability density of the vacuum EM field, AKA Quantum Vacuum. Then, there might be a possibility to amplify the resulting force. I just don't think the experiments done so far, are anywhere near that level of distorting space-time. Someday... maybe, but such conjecture needs something to back it up, and I have nothing. In my model, Power and the speed of light are co-variant, and the force F = P/c, is invariant of any change in the refractive index, or gravitational fields as used in GR as well. The unknown variable is that the "exhaust" is passing through a boundary condition between two refractive indexes. "That" is what we're pushing against. Almost identical to the pressure differential terms at the output of a rocket nozzle. So yes, IF we had a way to test it at much higher power levels, we might see something like that, but first we need to get this thing working well as it is."Scotty! I need warp power. Now!" PS: Note, amplifying the force by lowering c_{0}/K inside the frustum does not allow it to go faster than c_{0} through space. It just lets it get more traction.... maybe. It could also result in more reflected power and less exhaust, making it a less efficient thruster. Who knows!Todd:The unknown variable is that the "exhaust" is passing through a boundary condition between two refractive indexes. "That" is what we're pushing against. Almost identical to the pressure differential terms at the output of a rocket nozzle."Agreed, and the two attached slides from Dr. White & associated paper show how this requirement could be met. And since Dr. White's bottom-up derived QV plasma code is predicting all know thruster data including Mr. Shawyer's to within a factor of two, I think it is still in the running. I also like Dr. Woodward's M-E conjecture, Dr. Brandenburg's GEM conjecture, Dr. McCulloch's Unruh conjecture and your dissipation approach to this business as well. However, IMO the only real way forward is to demonstrate thrust scaling from the ~100 micro-Newton (uN) at ~1.2 milli-Newton (mN)/kW efficiency levels we obtained under hard vacuum conditions in the Eagleworks (EW) Lab in 2015, and be able to push it up to at least the 10 mN plus thrust range and beyond, so we can further explore the questions we all have on how these Gravity/Inertia (G/I) field drives really work.Best, Paul M.