Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 9  (Read 1413587 times)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 854
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 937
  • Likes Given: 17
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?
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/c2, not E/c2, 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.

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.
Star-Drive

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1383
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1432
  • Likes Given: 1910
There appears to be an error in the slide. kg/s = P/c2, not E/c2, 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/c2 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 Pin*Q. Where, in the case of the EmDrive, is in the GW's!


Offline mwvp

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 263
  • Coincidence? I think Not!
  • Liked: 173
  • Likes Given: 31


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?

I have considered it, regarding my apprehension a 1 or 2 D simulation of a 3 D thruster may not account for any polarization and orbital angular momentum, and lack fidelity. I see Shawyer, in a recent patent, uses on circular polarization to launch energy, and its compliment to sense. Polarization is reversed on reflection.

I would expect torques would pretty much cancel. A high Q cavity would be a reciprocal network, but for dissipation and Doppler spreading, more than for its dispersion.

I would expect the energy in an EM driven craft to acquire spin and orbit momentum as it maneuvered.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6123
  • Likes Given: 5511
There appears to be an error in the slide. kg/s = P/c2, not E/c2, 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/c2 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 Pin*Q. Where, in the case of the EmDrive, is in the GW's!

This is an excellent point, add to that illusion, the illusion created from experiments in air at ambient pressure where experimenters are attributing "thrust" exceeding by orders of magnitude the one of a photon rocket without having performed any fluid mechanics analysis of the thermal convection forces.  Also the illusion of extrapolating results for very short amounts of time and very small measured forces, to something that can be used for space propulsion.

As Peter always signs below his posts:

Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.   ó Richard Feynman

Still, we must persevere trying to find ways to break this barrier (a perfectly collimated photon rocket) even when doing so it seems frustratingly difficult to do  ;)

« Last Edit: 01/13/2017 09:18 pm by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Liked: 2691
  • Likes Given: 1124
There appears to be an error in the slide. kg/s = P/c2, not E/c2, 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/c2 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 Pin*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?
« Last Edit: 01/14/2017 12:15 am by rfmwguy »

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3969
  • Likes Given: 1285
It could be redesigned to not need such a large flange connecting the side walls and the large end plate.

If we can eliminate the flanges on the big end and the gimbals, then it is possible to squeeze a ~6.8Ghz TE013 frustum into 10cm3.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2017 01:21 am by Monomorphic »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6123
  • Likes Given: 5511
There appears to be an error in the slide. kg/s = P/c2, not E/c2, 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/c2 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 Pin*Q. Where, in the case of the EmDrive, is in the GW's!
It is worthwhile to remind the readers of the problems associated with a photon rocket, and why even a perfectly collimated photon rocket is not viable for transportation.  A photon rocket is not propellant-less, because of the mass necessary to convert into photons.




Image: photon rockets are not propellant-less. Here is an image of a 1960s Russian's impression of a photon
 rocket (from (G.G. Zel'kin's article). A huge vessel, many kilometers long  because of all the propellant (matter to be converted into photons (matter/antimatter reaction ?)) necessary for a photon rocket to carry in order to get close to the speed of light:

(see this post http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1483927#msg1483927 for more details)

Here is a comparison of the photon rocket compared to the buildings of Moscow University, so that you get an idea of all the propellant that the photon rocket needs to carry:



Particularly as the speed becomes a sizable fraction of the speed of ligh, the mass ratio of the photon rocket grows exponentially:






If the space drive is going to depend on being pulsed at the power Pin*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  Pin*Q


If so, extrapolations based on constant Pin*Q are what Todd calls an illusion.

_______________________

===>Also, the pulsed Pin*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
« Last Edit: 01/14/2017 01:16 am by Rodal »

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1383
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1432
  • Likes Given: 1910

Hi Paul,

Note that, because we are using P/c2 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 Pin*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 Pin*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  Pin*Q


If so, extrapolations based on constant Pin*Q are what Todd calls an illusion.

_______________________

===>Also, the pulsed Pin*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

What you're saying is true, but it may be misleading to some readers. As I understand the high Isp, it means that for missions where the speed is NOT much more than what we have available to us now, the photon rocket would require significantly LESS mass stored as electrical energy (propellant) than a conventional rocket, for the same delta V.

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1383
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1432
  • Likes Given: 1910
There appears to be an error in the slide. kg/s = P/c2, not E/c2, 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/c2 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 Pin*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 Pin*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.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Liked: 2691
  • Likes Given: 1124
There appears to be an error in the slide. kg/s = P/c2, not E/c2, 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/c2 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 Pin*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 Pin*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.
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?

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1383
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1432
  • Likes Given: 1910
...
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 Pin*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? ;)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 854
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 937
  • Likes Given: 17
...
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 Pin*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? ;)

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 itís 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 itís 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 ďentrained & compressed vacuum volumeĒ 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 turbofanís 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.   
« Last Edit: 01/14/2017 04:34 am by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4603
  • Liked: 717
  • Likes Given: 8
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 Pin*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.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2017 04:45 am by sanman »

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1383
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1432
  • Likes Given: 1910
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 Pin*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?

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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?

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.

Quote
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2017 05:23 am by WarpTech »

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1383
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1432
  • Likes Given: 1910

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? ;)

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 itís 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 itís 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 ďentrained & compressed vacuum volumeĒ 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 turbofanís 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 c0/K inside the frustum does not allow it to go faster than c0 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!


Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4603
  • Liked: 717
  • Likes Given: 8
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.

Ah, ok - so does aspect ratio matter? Can one go bigger on just either the height or diameter alone? Or do they both have to grow together for optimal results?

Quote
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.

Yeah, the repulsive Casimir force (higher "Vacuum pressure"?) can be achieved from nested hemispheres. I remember reading 15 years ago about experiments done at UC Riverside, where nano-precision corrugated surfaces were nested with each other, and able to slide past each other frictionlessly, due to the Casimir force acting as a virtual spring / bearing / shock-absorber.

http://www.mit.edu/~kardar/research/seminars/Casimir/PRL-ChenMohideen02.pdf

https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00928

http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.83.022508

http://www.mit.edu/~kardar/research/seminars/Casimir2010/talks/Clark/Repulsion.html

Does the Casimir Effect on the huge Hubble Scale cause the expansion of the universe?


Perhaps if photons could be bounced inside such a Casimir-repulsion space with its elevated "Vacuum pressure", and where C has a lower value, then it could result in greater Action-Reaction somehow.



Quote
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.

What is the threshold value or approximate magnitude of field strength required to get "pushing traction"?
"Significantly" means...?
What parameters affect this threshold value - does anything influence it?

Shouldn't you be looking to run currents through the sidewalls that will help to create a vortex field inside the frustrum cavity along the axis of thrust?

Quote
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.

I didn't mean the idea of photons pairing up into Cooper-like pairs (photons are already bosons) -- what I meant was the idea of photons themselves being the result of other things (from the Vacuum) combining together to form them. (ie. just as a Cooper-pair is the result of 2 electrons of opposite spins coming together, likewise maybe a photon is a composite resulting from multiple things combining together out of the Vacuum) The significance/relevance would be that the bosonic-ness might get disrupted by strong EM field (aka. polarized vacuum)
« Last Edit: 01/14/2017 08:30 am by sanman »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Liked: 2691
  • Likes Given: 1124
...
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 Pin*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? ;)
I'm glad you're here to clarify your prior statements as opposed to others trying to shape it around their own agenda. Keep hanging around here and make sure your emerging theory doesn't get sidetracted or compromised. I've been following it very closely, as I have prof mike's which I consider both being in the top few spots for THE answer. Good work...

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3969
  • Likes Given: 1285
FYI - This "super conductive paint" as a substrate for electroplating 3d printed parts comes highly recommended on the 3d printing subreddit. Apparently it works better than the graphite paint sold by most electroplating shops.

http://www.mgchemicals.com/products/emi-and-rfi-shielding/other-coating-systems/super-shield-nickel-841

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 854
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 937
  • Likes Given: 17

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? ;)

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 itís 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 itís 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 ďentrained & compressed vacuum volumeĒ 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 turbofanís 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 c0/K inside the frustum does not allow it to go faster than c0 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.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2017 02:08 pm by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Liked: 2691
  • Likes Given: 1124

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? ;)

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 itís 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 itís 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 ďentrained & compressed vacuum volumeĒ 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 turbofanís 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 c0/K inside the frustum does not allow it to go faster than c0 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.
Paul & Todd,

What I told prof mike is 18.4 mN was achieved (best result) with 1701A based on ~750W into a Q of ~10K. Both power and Q had a margin of error of 5-6%, displacement force is tighter at 2%. So it went with my home lab setup...Q was measured on a VNA, Power was based on factory specs with new, conventional magnetron directly coupled into cavity, centered on large diameter plate. Note that the mag pulled down from 2455 to 2440 MHz only a few times before thermal runaway and mag degradation (about 7 or 8 test runs). After this, I ended my testing in the summer as mag dropped both in core temp and relative (spec an) output. This is what I had; to few data points to compile a formal test report, but enough to know what my ideal displacement force was when mag was passing thru resonance at full power.

Tags: