-
#2620 by flux_capacitor on 07 Nov, 2017 00:20
-
Dr. Rodal,
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
Hi Jose,
That is one way to do it.
Hi Phil,
Do you imply there are other ways? -
#2621 by TheTraveller on 07 Nov, 2017 00:28
-
Dr. Rodal,
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
Hi Jose,
That is one way to do it.
Hi Phil,
Do you imply there are other ways?
Hi FC,
The EmDrive does not use external fields nor does it exhaust mass.
There are other ways for EmDrive mass to gain momentum than from throwing some of it's mass away. -
#2622 by Rodal on 07 Nov, 2017 00:32
-
Please follow the chain discussion, which as a reply to aero, had to do with producing a side force at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the EM Drive (as reported last week by TU Dresden with high Q cavities having NO waveguide entrance, but instead excited with an antenna, and solid state) rather than "gaining momentum" for the EM Drive "without throwing its mass away". My understanding is that even Roger Shawyer does not agree that Shawyer's formulas can lead to a side force at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis!Dr. Rodal,
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
Hi Jose,
That is one way to do it.
Hi Phil,
Do you imply there are other ways?
Hi FC,
The EmDrive does not use external fields nor does it exhaust mass.
There are other ways for EmDrive mass to gain momentum than from throwing some of it's mass away. -
#2623 by aero on 07 Nov, 2017 00:36
-
Dr. Rodal,
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
That's not quite the question I asked. The authors show that EM waves do, under the circumstances addressed, impart a longitudinal and a lateral force. Take that as given. Can their circumstances be generalized to a resonant cavity? Or the end plate of a resonant cavity because interaction must occur at the boundary. (Unless of course, the EM waves are interacting with a penetrating field as you suggest.)
-
#2624 by Rodal on 07 Nov, 2017 00:38
-
No. If you think that such interpretation is even possible, you are mis-reading their paper. There is nothing new in the fact that, under the correct conditions, you can have transverse shear Maxwell stresses at a surface (transverse shear stresses are just the non-diagonal components of the Maxwell stress tensor). The authors do not imply or make a claim that what they are discussing applies to an axi-symmetric resonant closed cavity made of copper that is several times the thickness of the skin depth at the operating frequency.Dr. Rodal,
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
That's not quite the question I asked. The authors show that EM waves do, under the circumstances addressed, impart a longitudinal and a lateral force. Take that as given. Can their circumstances be generalized to a resonant cavity? Or the end plate of a resonant cavity because interaction must occur at the boundary. (Unless of course, the EM waves are interacting with a penetrating field as you suggest.)
And in any case, if it would be an open cavity, like a waveguide, such a force/unitPower would never be able to exceed the one of a photon rocket in any case, solely based on ejecting photons.
Meberbs' posts, addressing this very issue are correct. I thought that had been settled, but since you are insisting, I cannot avoid giving you a more direct response.
-
#2625 by WarpTech on 07 Nov, 2017 01:02
-
...
In falling from h1 to h2, the atom lost energy. In this distant observer's frame, the atom's ground state energy is lower at h2 than it was at h1.
...
If in your view, as I understand it, the ZPF essentially supports all processes, is the field emanating from a charge or even a magnet a propagating field that must be continuously supplied by the ZPF? In other words, in your model is there really a continual flux from the ZPF keeping up appearances even in static situations? Thanks.
It's not just my view. It's part of QED;
In section 3.3 of The Quantum Vacuum, Milonni [2] writes,
“The fact that an accelerating charge loses energy by radiating implies, according to classical ideas, that an electron should spiral into the nucleus and that atoms should not be stable. The balancing of the effects of radiation reaction and the vacuum field..., however, suggest that the stability of atoms might be attributable to the influence on the atom of the vacuum field.... We now know that the vacuum field is in fact formally necessary for the stability of atoms in quantum theory. As we saw..., radiation reaction will cause canonical commutators [x, px] to decay to zero unless the fluctuating vacuum field is included, in which case commutators are consistently preserved.”
In my own words: Atoms are in equilibrium with the vacuum fields. Where, the ZPF is the driving field that inflates them, and RR and/or the fields of all mater in the universe, is the damping field that contracts them. Any imbalance in these two fields will cause matter to seek a new equilibrium by moving in the direction which reduces its self-energy. This is the direction of increased damping, which results in gravitational length contraction and time dilation.
In answer to a question Dr. Rodal asked of one presenter: In the manner I described above, the two fields might have infinite energy and we are taking the difference between these two infinities, as is done elsewhere in QED. The imbalance is what "gravitates". If matter is in equilibrium, it is an inertial reference frame. However, the "strength" of the frame, as was discussed by Marc Mills, I equate to the spectral energy density of the fields in equilibrium. Hence, we can have gravitational effects such as time dilation and length contraction, in an inertial frame (of any strength), and we can have gravitational effects at the order of magnitude we are familiar with, without the fields themselves causing a 120 order of magnitude catastrophe for the ZPF. It's all in how I/we interpret what we have for data.
-
#2626 by TheTraveller on 07 Nov, 2017 01:03
-
Please follow the chain discussion, which as a reply to aero, had to do with producing a side force at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the EM Drive (as reported last week by TU Dresden with high Q cavities having NO waveguide entrance, but instead excited with an antenna, and solid state) rather than "gaining momentum" for the EM Drive "without throwing its mass away". My understanding is that even Roger Shawyer does not agree that Shawyer's formulas can lead to a side force at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis!Dr. Rodal,
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
Hi Jose,
That is one way to do it.
Hi Phil,
Do you imply there are other ways?
Hi FC,
The EmDrive does not use external fields nor does it exhaust mass.
There are other ways for EmDrive mass to gain momentum than from throwing some of it's mass away.
Hi Jose,
You are making statements from a paper that none of us have access to. So what is the point in discussing this claimed result until the data is available to us all?
When it is published, I'll do an analysis vs known EmDrive operational characteristic and post it here.
BTW how is the thrust development going with the MEGA drive? Does the thrust still scale with the square of the power? -
#2627 by Rodal on 07 Nov, 2017 01:18
-
...
Hi Phil, you are the one that appears to have misinterpreted what was being discussed. Contrary to your statement I am discussing what what was presented at the workshop, I looked at the data. You did not look at the data, which apparently you have not yet seen. The other person that was there was WarpTech, who can also give his opinion. Since you were not there and apparently are unaware of this work you cannot comment on it until it gets released: on that we agree
Hi Jose,
You are making statements from a paper that none of us have access to. So what is the point in discussing this claimed result until the data is available to us all?
When it is published, I'll do an analysis vs known EmDrive operational characteristic and post it here.
BTW how is the thrust development going with the MEGA drive? Does the thrust still scale with the square of the power?
You will get to see the videos in a few weeks at the SSI.org website.
As to the MEGA drive you are in the wrong thread, but the answer to your questionQuoteDoes the thrust still scale with the square of the power?
is yes, it goes like the 4th power of the voltage. This was also brought up by others to distinguish the EM Drive from the MEGA drive. It may point to fundamental differences. -
#2628 by TheTraveller on 07 Nov, 2017 01:53
-
...
Hi Phil, you are the that appears to have misinterpreted what was being discussed. Contrary to your statement I am discussing what what was presented at the workshop, I looked at the data. You did not look at the data, which apparently you have not yet seen. The other person that was there was WarpTech, who can also give his opinion. Since you were not there and apparently are unaware of this work you cannot comment on it until it gets released: on that we agree
Hi Jose,
You are making statements from a paper that none of us have access to. So what is the point in discussing this claimed result until the data is available to us all?
When it is published, I'll do an analysis vs known EmDrive operational characteristic and post it here.
BTW how is the thrust development going with the MEGA drive? Does the thrust still scale with the square of the power?
You will get to see the videos in a few weeks at the SSI.org website.
As to the MEGA drive you are in the wrong thread, but the answer to your questionQuoteDoes the thrust still scale with the square of the power?
is yes, it goes like the 4th power of the voltage. This was also brought up by others to distinguish the EM Drive from the MEGA drive. It may point to fundamental differences.
Hi Jose,
My point was, AFAIK, you and Todd are the only forum members who have seen this data from Martin. So why engage in discussions in this forum when the data is only available to a few members of this forum? Why not wait to discuss when everyone has access to the same data?
I do trust SSI will be publishing ALL the conference papers and not just videos? As we know, the devil is in the details.
BTW the 1st cavity from Martin was not Roger's design. What Roger did was to try to help Martin obtain some force generation from a bad design.
As for Martin's current build, I trust the resonance used was not from coupler self resonance. Will be interesting to see the full test rig and understand why he decided to build a Roberval Balance. It needs a lot of bearings, which may induce starting stiction and reduce sensitivity. My guess is to try to eliminate thermal expansion of the arms causing false force measurement. Do also trust there was enough external forces, vibration, to trigger Motor mode.
-
#2629 by aero on 07 Nov, 2017 01:54
-
No. If you think that such interpretation is even possible, you are mis-reading their paper. There is nothing new in the fact that, under the correct conditions, you can have transverse shear Maxwell stresses at a surface (transverse shear stresses are just the non-diagonal components of the Maxwell stress tensor). The authors do not imply or make a claim that what they are discussing applies to an axi-symmetric resonant closed cavity made of copper that is several times the thickness of the skin depth at the operating frequency.Dr. Rodal,
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
That's not quite the question I asked. The authors show that EM waves do, under the circumstances addressed, impart a longitudinal and a lateral force. Take that as given. Can their circumstances be generalized to a resonant cavity? Or the end plate of a resonant cavity because interaction must occur at the boundary. (Unless of course, the EM waves are interacting with a penetrating field as you suggest.)
And in any case, if it would be an open cavity, like a waveguide, such a force/unitPower would never be able to exceed the one of a photon rocket in any case, solely based on ejecting photons.
Meberbs' posts, addressing this very issue are correct. I thought that had been settled, but since you are insisting, I cannot avoid giving you a more direct response.
Thank you. -
#2630 by Rodal on 07 Nov, 2017 02:03
-
...
Phil, I am discussing data that was presented at a workshop, for public release, and that was heard by all attendees, some of which are also reading these posts (besides WarpTech) but do not wish to be identified as to their pen name. This is not private data or confidential information. It will be shortly available in ssi.org. One benefit of discussing these things ahead of time, is that when the videorecordings are made available, you know ahead of time what to look for. In the past when other members have been at a public conference, for example the AIAA Propulsion and Power conference, where TU Dresden first presented EM Drive paper, just to name one of them, we all appreciated having a first hand report on what was presented at such a public conference, although many of us were not able to attend the paper presentations.
Hi Jose,
My point was, AFAIK, you and Todd are the only forum members who have seen this data from Martin. So why engage in discussions in this forum when the data is only available to a few members of this forum? Why not wait to discuss when everyone has access to the same data?
....
By the way, talking about confusions, TU Dresden has NOT used a Roverbal balance. Where did you get such a wrong and strange idea?
Certainly not from me. Neither WarpTech or I ever used the term "Roverbal balance". I have repeatedly stated that TU Dresden used a torsional pendulum.Quote from: TheTravellerWill be interesting to see the full test rig and understand why he decided to build a Roberval Balance.
Wrong!
Please pay attention to the thread chains to avoid such confusion.
-
#2631 by TheTraveller on 07 Nov, 2017 02:36
-
...
Phil, I am discussing data that was presented at a workshop, for public release, and that was heard by all attendees, some of which are also reading these posts (besides WarpTech) but do not wish to be identified as to their pen name. This is not private data or confidential information. It will be shortly available in ssi.org. One benefit of discussing these things ahead of time, is that when the videorecordings are made available, you know ahead of time what to look for. In the past when other members have been at a public conference, for example the AIAA Propulsion and Power conference, where TU Dresden first presented EM Drive paper, just to name one of them, we all appreciated having a first hand report on what was presented at such a public conference, although many of us were not able to attend the paper presentations.
Hi Jose,
My point was, AFAIK, you and Todd are the only forum members who have seen this data from Martin. So why engage in discussions in this forum when the data is only available to a few members of this forum? Why not wait to discuss when everyone has access to the same data?
....
By the way, talking about confusions, TU Dresden has NOT used a Roverbal balance. Where did you get such a wrong idea?
Certainly not from me. I have repeatedly stated that TU Dresden used a torsional pendulum.Quote from: TheTravellerWill be interesting to see the full test rig and understand why he decided to build a Roberval Balance.
Wrong!
Please pay attention to the thread chains to avoid such confusion.
Hi Jose,
My apology.
I'm undergoing chemo for a reoccurrence of my cancer.
Don't check in as much as in the past.
Will start rereading everything several times.
Did I miss a post or link with Martin's paper? -
#2632 by ThinkerX on 07 Nov, 2017 02:52
-
...
Phil, I am discussing data that was presented at a workshop, for public release, and that was heard by all attendees, some of which are also reading these posts (besides WarpTech) but do not wish to be identified as to their pen name. This is not private data or confidential information. It will be shortly available in ssi.org. One benefit of discussing these things ahead of time, is that when the videorecordings are made available, you know ahead of time what to look for. In the past when other members have been at a public conference, for example the AIAA Propulsion and Power conference, where TU Dresden first presented EM Drive paper, just to name one of them, we all appreciated having a first hand report on what was presented at such a public conference, although many of us were not able to attend the paper presentations.
Hi Jose,
My point was, AFAIK, you and Todd are the only forum members who have seen this data from Martin. So why engage in discussions in this forum when the data is only available to a few members of this forum? Why not wait to discuss when everyone has access to the same data?
....
By the way, talking about confusions, TU Dresden has NOT used a Roverbal balance. Where did you get such a wrong idea?
Certainly not from me. I have repeatedly stated that TU Dresden used a torsional pendulum.Quote from: TheTravellerWill be interesting to see the full test rig and understand why he decided to build a Roberval Balance.
Wrong!
Please pay attention to the thread chains to avoid such confusion.
Hi Jose,
My apology.
I'm undergoing chemo for a reoccurrence of my cancer.
Don't check in as much as in the past.
Will start rereading everything several times.
Did I miss a post or link with Martin's paper?
Chemo sucks big time. Get well soon.
Maybe use the opportunity to organize what results you do have and can present to a general audience.
-
#2633 by spupeng7 on 07 Nov, 2017 04:49
-
TT,
be well if you can, forum needs you.
jmn.. -
#2634 by Mark7777777 on 07 Nov, 2017 05:33
-
...
Phil, I am discussing data that was presented at a workshop, for public release, and that was heard by all attendees, some of which are also reading these posts (besides WarpTech) but do not wish to be identified as to their pen name. This is not private data or confidential information. It will be shortly available in ssi.org. One benefit of discussing these things ahead of time, is that when the videorecordings are made available, you know ahead of time what to look for. In the past when other members have been at a public conference, for example the AIAA Propulsion and Power conference, where TU Dresden first presented EM Drive paper, just to name one of them, we all appreciated having a first hand report on what was presented at such a public conference, although many of us were not able to attend the paper presentations.
Hi Jose,
My point was, AFAIK, you and Todd are the only forum members who have seen this data from Martin. So why engage in discussions in this forum when the data is only available to a few members of this forum? Why not wait to discuss when everyone has access to the same data?
....
By the way, talking about confusions, TU Dresden has NOT used a Roverbal balance. Where did you get such a wrong idea?
Certainly not from me. I have repeatedly stated that TU Dresden used a torsional pendulum.Quote from: TheTravellerWill be interesting to see the full test rig and understand why he decided to build a Roberval Balance.
Wrong!
Please pay attention to the thread chains to avoid such confusion.
Hi Jose,
My apology.
I'm undergoing chemo for a reoccurrence of my cancer.
Don't check in as much as in the past.
Will start rereading everything several times.
Did I miss a post or link with Martin's paper?
Be well.
-
#2635 by Peter Lauwer on 07 Nov, 2017 09:12
-
...
If the mass and energy of the frustum (and indeed of the universe itself) is just information, then by gosh, all we're trying to do is move around a bunch (a WHOLE bunch) of 1s and 0s.
...
No, it's not. The universe is a quantum computer, not a binary one.
'-)
Peter -
#2636 by moreno7798 on 07 Nov, 2017 17:46
-
...
Phil, I am discussing data that was presented at a workshop, for public release, and that was heard by all attendees, some of which are also reading these posts (besides WarpTech) but do not wish to be identified as to their pen name. This is not private data or confidential information. It will be shortly available in ssi.org. One benefit of discussing these things ahead of time, is that when the videorecordings are made available, you know ahead of time what to look for. In the past when other members have been at a public conference, for example the AIAA Propulsion and Power conference, where TU Dresden first presented EM Drive paper, just to name one of them, we all appreciated having a first hand report on what was presented at such a public conference, although many of us were not able to attend the paper presentations.
Hi Jose,
My point was, AFAIK, you and Todd are the only forum members who have seen this data from Martin. So why engage in discussions in this forum when the data is only available to a few members of this forum? Why not wait to discuss when everyone has access to the same data?
....
By the way, talking about confusions, TU Dresden has NOT used a Roverbal balance. Where did you get such a wrong idea?
Certainly not from me. I have repeatedly stated that TU Dresden used a torsional pendulum.Quote from: TheTravellerWill be interesting to see the full test rig and understand why he decided to build a Roberval Balance.
Wrong!
Please pay attention to the thread chains to avoid such confusion.
Hi Jose,
My apology.
I'm undergoing chemo for a reoccurrence of my cancer.
Don't check in as much as in the past.
Will start rereading everything several times.
Did I miss a post or link with Martin's paper?
An honest mistake. Get well my friend. -
#2637 by Star-Drive on 07 Nov, 2017 18:25
-
...Aside - The EM drive seems to produce a force ...
...Please lets look at other answers for how this might work, because it does seem to work. ...
TU Dresden reported measuring a "force" of comparable magnitude with the EM Drive's longitudinal axis oriented along the arms of the torsional pendulum: a force perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the EM Drive: a force parallel to the end walls.
In other words the experiments (which in several cases have resulted in forces in the opposite direction than predicted by theory) are also giving a force perpendicular (!) to the one predicted by theory.
Can you make sense out of that as something that is not an artifact due to external magnetic fields?
The reported measured Q this time was between 40,000 to 500,000 (that is not a typo). The force vs. time looked similar to what Monomorphic has been showing.
Monomorphic:
Todd (who also was at the workshop) and I really missed you !
does your setup allow you to also orient the EM Drive's longitudinal axis along the length of the arm of the pendulum? In other words: can you orient the EM Drive perpendicular to its present direction?
Can you run the experiments with Helmholtz coils designed to isolate the experiment from the Earth's magnetic field?
Helmholtz coils (hoops) on three perpendicular axes used to cancel the Earth's magnetic field inside the vacuum tank in a 1957 electron beam experiment
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Helmholtz_coil
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62151/cancel-out-earths-magnetic-field
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/67822/current-to-cancel-earths-magnetic-field
Jose':
"Can you make sense out of that as something that is not an artifact due to external magnetic fields?"
Why yes I can, and so can Dr. White using his Q-Thruster conjecture based on the reality of the Quantum Vacuum (QV) as pointed out by Todd (WarpTech) in the quote from Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum" Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) book.
In section 3.3 of The Quantum Vacuum, Milonni [2] writes;
“The fact that an accelerating charge loses energy by radiating implies, according to classical ideas, that an electron should spiral into the nucleus and that atoms should not be stable. The balancing of the effects of radiation reaction and the vacuum field..., however, suggest that the stability of atoms might be attributable to the influence on the atom of the vacuum field.... We now know that the vacuum field is in fact formally necessary for the stability of atoms in quantum theory. As we saw..., radiation reaction will cause canonical commutators [x, px] to decay to zero unless the fluctuating vacuum field is included, in which case commutators are consistently preserved.”
The Eagleworks Lab team explored this connection is several of our joint papers from 2013 to 2016 and Dr. White then applied these insights to develop a Q-Thruster QED based cellular electrical plasma code that predicted thrust signatures from frustum resonant cavities based on Millioni's above observation that all subatomic particles and the atoms that make up matter have to be in dynamic equilibrium with the QV. This Eagleworks QV plasma code used the COMSOL E&M package to predict the E&M fields in a given frustum geometry for a given resonant mode over an entire RF cycle in one degree phase increments for a given input power and loaded Q-factor for the frustum. This is a long and tedious set of cellular iterative calculations that require parallel processing techniques to accomplish them on a PC workstation in hours instead of days, thank you Dr. White, but it was accomplished, and the results were very interesting as the attached slides and mp4 QV simulation for the Eagleworks copper frustum file indicates.
In short, through the wild thrashing of the QV by the E&M fields in the frustum at resonance, the frustum generates multiple QV fountains from the frustum volume that generates net thrust vectors in all three axes of the frustum, and NOT just from the primary Z-axis thrust vector of the frustum. It a messy process and why the current frustum designs are so inefficient. Ultimately these various frustum generated QV jets need to be corralled and focused into just one jet being sent down the primary Z-axis of the thruster thus yielding the maximum thrust possible for a given thruster design. However you will note from the last attached QV plasma code thrust prediction plot by Jerry Vera, that one has to specify up front what thrust vector is to be predicted and plotted because it would take way TOO LONG to do all three thruster axes using the computer hardware available to the EW crew at the time.
Best, Paul M.
-
#2638 by Rodal on 07 Nov, 2017 19:11
-
...
Paul,
Jose':
"Can you make sense out of that as something that is not an artifact due to external magnetic fields?"
Why yes I can, and so can Dr. White using his Q-Thruster conjecture based on the reality of the Quantum Vacuum (QV) as pointed out by Todd (WarpTech) in the quote from Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum" Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) book.
...
I understand that (the quoted) Dr. Milonni himself does not support White's explanation of the Quantum Vacuum as a means of propulsion for the EM Drive tested at Eagleworks.
We certainly missed you being there to argue in favor of White's theory and to argue (separately) for the validity of the test results at Eagleworks. Several experts on Quantum Mechanics were there: Prof. John Cramer (author of the excellent book "The Quantum Handshake" which I highly recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Handshake-Entanglement-Nonlocality-Transactions/dp/3319246402/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510085833&sr=8-1&keywords=the+quantum+handshake and Prof. Ray Chiao of Berkeley (now at Merced).
The discussion about focusing the force: the EM Drive made at TU Dresden had a Q (40,000 to 500,000) higher than those reported by Eagleworks. Shouldn't it have been better "focused"?
But let's get to experimental facts, instead of discussing controversial theories. There are more theories than physicists, and in the end what matters are experimental results.
Did NASA Eagleworks ever place the EM Drive with the longitudinal axis parallel to the arms of the torsional pendulum and measured a force perpendicular to the pendulum's arms?
Did Eagleworks also measure a considerable force in this direction?
Thanks
-
#2639 by WarpTech on 07 Nov, 2017 19:40
-
...
Paul,
Jose':
"Can you make sense out of that as something that is not an artifact due to external magnetic fields?"
Why yes I can, and so can Dr. White using his Q-Thruster conjecture based on the reality of the Quantum Vacuum (QV) as pointed out by Todd (WarpTech) in the quote from Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum" Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) book.
...
I understand that (the quoted) Dr. Milonni himself does not support White's explanation of the Quantum Vacuum as a means of propulsion for the EM Drive tested at Eagleworks, and certainly nobody I can recall that spoke at the workshop last week. We missed you being there to argue in favor of that theory and to argue (separately) for the validity of the test results at Eagleworks. Several experts on Quantum Mechanics were there: Prof. John Cramer (author of the excellent book "The Quantum Handshake" which I highly recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Handshake-Entanglement-Nonlocality-Transactions/dp/3319246402/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510085833&sr=8-1&keywords=the+quantum+handshake and Prof. Ray Chiao of Berkeley (now at Merced).
One must say that if this theory by White, that the Quantum Vacuum gives chaotic forces in all directions, would apply, it looks like the center of mass will not get accelerated in any well-defined direction when placed in Space (if the forces balance each other over suitable periods of time). Let's say that they don't balance in the orthogonal directions.
Also, if you have a force perpendicular to the longitudinal axis as well as a longitudinal force, it looks like the EM Drive would not travel parallel to the longitudinal axis.
But let's get to experimental facts, instead of discussing controversial theories. There are more theories than physicists, and in the end what matters are experimental results.
Did NASA Eagleworks ever place the EM Drive with the longitudinal axis parallel to the arms of the torsional pendulum and measured a force perpendicular to the pendulum's arms?
Did Eagleworks also measure a force in this direction?
Thanks
There is one point that hasn't been mentioned. The Eagleworks frustum and the one at TU Dresden both have the MW coax cable and antenna on the "side". Unless the input port is oriented "Up" or "Down", I would not rule out that the input antenna contributes a significant amount of thrust. This is why I encouraged Jamie and anyone, to put the input at one end or the other. Not only is it better for exciting symmetrical TE modes, it also keeps the input momentum in line with the expected thrust vector, not orthogonal to it.
Also, just FYI: The difference between my QV model of gravity and Dr. Whites Q-thruster theory, is that I do not require electron-positron pairs. I only require the EM field in free space. IMO and as I see it, despite Heisenberg, electron-positron pairs can only be created where there is matter present to provide a sufficiently strong EM field above the Schwinger limit. Such as, the field in the immediate vicinity of an electron or charged ion. In free space, I expect that they are few and far between.
It is the presence of the e-p pairs, their numbers and life-times, that lead to Dr's. Fearn and Woodward's refutation of Dr. Whites theory in the JBIS article published earlier this year; (Vol. 69, No. 9/10, Sept./Oct. 2016). In my model, this refutation would not apply.
What I'm working on is to determine is how to relate momentum exchange to gravito-magnetic flux being emitted from the frustum, using a gravito-magnetic gauge field. And, how to generate it.
