Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10  (Read 1167412 times)

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 42
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 19
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.

Not enough of them by orders of magnitude. They have done gravitational microlensing surveys to nail down how many planets and small stars are wandering about. Theory makes it hard to believe there could be enough. Observations shows that there are not.

There was a recent idea that a large population of black holes in a specific narrow size could account for missing mass. I think it was soundly rejected bur future gravity wave detection should give us an idea of the size and distribution of black holes.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1860
  • Liked: 1726
  • Likes Given: 410
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.

Not enough of them by orders of magnitude. They have done gravitational microlensing surveys to nail down how many planets and small stars are wandering about. Theory makes it hard to believe there could be enough. Observations shows that there are not.

There was a recent idea that a large population of black holes in a specific narrow size could account for missing mass. I think it was soundly rejected bur future gravity wave detection should give us an idea of the size and distribution of black holes.
To add to this, here is an article discussing some of the evidence for dark matter. Some of the observed properties such as passing through a galaxy collision unimpeded are simply not consistent with regular matter.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Liked: 831
  • Likes Given: 1070
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.

Not enough of them by orders of magnitude. They have done gravitational microlensing surveys to nail down how many planets and small stars are wandering about. Theory makes it hard to believe there could be enough. Observations shows that there are not.

There was a recent idea that a large population of black holes in a specific narrow size could account for missing mass. I think it was soundly rejected bur future gravity wave detection should give us an idea of the size and distribution of black holes.

I've thought about this a lot, and my thinking is that dark matter isn't matter at all, and it seems most likely to me that what we describe as dark matter can be attributed to the electromagnetic field actually being massive. Sounds crazy, right? I don't think it is anymore. I understand that one quanta of the electromagnetic field is massless, but not the ensemble. There's mass in all those counterpropagating photons, where only one (or more than one traveling in parallel) has none. Maybe my thinking about this has been polluted (or maybe it was helpful) by studying the EMdrive, but I never would have thought about dark matter in this way if I hadn't been thinking about it and the EMdrive at the same time.
And I can feel the change in the wind right now - Rod Stewart

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1860
  • Liked: 1726
  • Likes Given: 410
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.

Not enough of them by orders of magnitude. They have done gravitational microlensing surveys to nail down how many planets and small stars are wandering about. Theory makes it hard to believe there could be enough. Observations shows that there are not.

There was a recent idea that a large population of black holes in a specific narrow size could account for missing mass. I think it was soundly rejected bur future gravity wave detection should give us an idea of the size and distribution of black holes.

I've thought about this a lot, and my thinking is that dark matter isn't matter at all, and it seems most likely to me that what we describe as dark matter can be attributed to the electromagnetic field actually being massive. Sounds crazy, right? I don't think it is anymore. I understand that one quanta of the electromagnetic field is massless, but not the ensemble. There's mass in all those counterpropagating photons, where only one (or more than one traveling in parallel) has none. Maybe my thinking about this has been polluted (or maybe it was helpful) by studying the EMdrive, but I never would have thought about dark matter in this way if I hadn't been thinking about it and the EMdrive at the same time.
2 main problems with that concept, first is that dark matter being in anyway related to electromagnetism, contradicts the known properties of dark matter not interacting with regular matter. Second is that it would end up classified as "hot dark matter" which we know doesn't fit the data, at least not on its own. (Neutrinos for example are a known instance of hot dark matter)

I feel like I should mention that dark matter is one of the known gaps in our knowledge about the universe. While we don't know what it is, there is still a lot of data to look at which does tell us something. Criticisms of ideas of what dark matter could be like what I am doing here is what scientists who study this stuff do to each other all the time, to try and narrow down the answer. Unfortunately it seems like what we know about dark matter is just enough to shoot down every useful theory anyone can come up with, and not enough to tell us if it is even possible to directly detect, let alone how to do so. I am sure this frustrates the scientists who work on this on a regular basis to no end.

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 19
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.

Not enough of them by orders of magnitude. They have done gravitational microlensing surveys to nail down how many planets and small stars are wandering about. Theory makes it hard to believe there could be enough. Observations shows that there are not.

There was a recent idea that a large population of black holes in a specific narrow size could account for missing mass. I think it was soundly rejected bur future gravity wave detection should give us an idea of the size and distribution of black holes.

I've thought about this a lot, and my thinking is that dark matter isn't matter at all, and it seems most likely to me that what we describe as dark matter can be attributed to the electromagnetic field actually being massive. Sounds crazy, right? I don't think it is anymore. I understand that one quanta of the electromagnetic field is massless, but not the ensemble. There's mass in all those counterpropagating photons, where only one (or more than one traveling in parallel) has none. Maybe my thinking about this has been polluted (or maybe it was helpful) by studying the EMdrive, but I never would have thought about dark matter in this way if I hadn't been thinking about it and the EMdrive at the same time.

An electromagnetic field has mass but only in propotion to it's energy. A field strong enough to have that much mass would be very very undark.


Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9805
  • UK
  • Liked: 1891
  • Likes Given: 183
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

Just waiting for the media to notice, bet it will not be for a while, and see if we actually get any decent reporting of it.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • Liked: 1358
  • Likes Given: 348
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

I posted on this in the Woodward thread so as not to hijack the EM drive thread.  We should probably take any discussion of it there.

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2380
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3109
  • Likes Given: 2671
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

I posted on this in the Woodward thread so as not to hijack the EM drive thread.  We should probably take any discussion of it there.
On that I'd agree.
Shell

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Liked: 831
  • Likes Given: 1070
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

I posted on this in the Woodward thread so as not to hijack the EM drive thread.  We should probably take any discussion of it there.

They're the same thing! Asymmetric resonant systems (supposedly) producing thrust.
And I can feel the change in the wind right now - Rod Stewart

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 24
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.

Not enough of them by orders of magnitude. They have done gravitational microlensing surveys to nail down how many planets and small stars are wandering about. Theory makes it hard to believe there could be enough. Observations shows that there are not.

There was a recent idea that a large population of black holes in a specific narrow size could account for missing mass. I think it was soundly rejected bur future gravity wave detection should give us an idea of the size and distribution of black holes.
This hypothesis is seriously considered after LIGO measurements :

The gravitational wave surprise

From the shape of the signal captured by Ligo, physicists calculated that each of the two black holes involved in the fusion was about thirty times more massive than the Sun. In other words, their mass was double or triple that of ordinary black holes, which are born in the heart of the supernova explosion of massive stars. These black holes were so heavy that it is difficult to explain how they formed from stars.

Moreover, even admitting that they were born independently when massive stars died, it remains to explain how they were able to meet in the vastness of the cosmos and form a binary system: a scenario that seems very unlikely.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that these massive black holes were formed by another, more exotic mechanism, not involving any stars. Beyond the detection of gravitational waves, Ligo may well have uncovered something even more extraordinary: black holes prior to the formation of the stars themselves.

Although these hypothetical "primordial" black holes have never been observed, some theoretical models suggest that they formed in large numbers in the dense, burning plasma that filled the cosmos less than a second after the Big Bang. This hidden population would then be the solution to several enigmas of modern cosmology.

In particular, these primordial black holes could constitute all or part of dark matter, which represents 85% of the matter of the Universe. Although invisible and of unknown nature, dark matter was designed to serve as a gravitational binder: it would ensure the cohesion of galaxies and galactic clusters. Because it seems that galaxies rotate too fast to be held gravitationally by the only mass of visible matter that we observe in these galaxies. Dark matter would bring the extra attraction that prevents rotating galaxies from ejecting gas and stars from their outermost regions.

Offline FattyLumpkin

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 266
  • Boise ID
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 0
Does anyone know of a relatively low mass, high kilowatt/e power source other than the SAFE400 prototype, whether for (use for) EM drive, Woodward Mach or Photon rocket?   thnx  FL

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 580
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 18
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

I posted on this in the Woodward thread so as not to hijack the EM drive thread.  We should probably take any discussion of it there.

They're the same thing! Asymmetric resonant systems (supposedly) producing thrust.

Hang on. Surely the above is just an attempt by the EMDrive proponents to avoid admitting they've backed the wrong horse all this time, by trying to claim that the EMDrive and Mach Effect are just two different names for the same thing.

Ultimately, one theory was derived from Shawyer's physically impossible truncated thruster theory, while the other was based on the solid maths and peer reviewed papers of Dr. James Woodward. One was a theory no one could really explain with established physics, and the other was based on solid science, painstakingly put together over two decades.

They really can't be conflated.

If I recall, Dr. Woodward at one point allowed that maybe the EMdrive experiments were picking up some unintended Mach Effects without realizing it, but the fact is, the Mach Effect does not rely on any type of truncated cone activated by microwaves whatsoever, and instead has a very sound theoretical basis for its operation.

The fact that they are both theories that propose propellantless propulsion is about the only thing they have in common. Unless I have missed a lot in the last 6 months or so.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2018 08:48 PM by M.E.T. »

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • France
  • Liked: 789
  • Likes Given: 1055
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.

Not enough of them by orders of magnitude. They have done gravitational microlensing surveys to nail down how many planets and small stars are wandering about. Theory makes it hard to believe there could be enough. Observations shows that there are not.

There was a recent idea that a large population of black holes in a specific narrow size could account for missing mass. I think it was soundly rejected bur future gravity wave detection should give us an idea of the size and distribution of black holes.
This hypothesis is seriously considered after LIGO measurements :

The gravitational wave surprise

From the shape of the signal captured by Ligo, physicists calculated that each of the two black holes involved in the fusion was about thirty times more massive than the Sun. In other words, their mass was double or triple that of ordinary black holes, which are born in the heart of the supernova explosion of massive stars. These black holes were so heavy that it is difficult to explain how they formed from stars.

Moreover, even admitting that they were born independently when massive stars died, it remains to explain how they were able to meet in the vastness of the cosmos and form a binary system: a scenario that seems very unlikely.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that these massive black holes were formed by another, more exotic mechanism, not involving any stars. Beyond the detection of gravitational waves, Ligo may well have uncovered something even more extraordinary: black holes prior to the formation of the stars themselves.

Although these hypothetical "primordial" black holes have never been observed, some theoretical models suggest that they formed in large numbers in the dense, burning plasma that filled the cosmos less than a second after the Big Bang. This hidden population would then be the solution to several enigmas of modern cosmology.

In particular, these primordial black holes could constitute all or part of dark matter, which represents 85% of the matter of the Universe. Although invisible and of unknown nature, dark matter was designed to serve as a gravitational binder: it would ensure the cohesion of galaxies and galactic clusters. Because it seems that galaxies rotate too fast to be held gravitationally by the only mass of visible matter that we observe in these galaxies. Dark matter would bring the extra attraction that prevents rotating galaxies from ejecting gas and stars from their outermost regions.

Interesting questions. Two facts:

Q. Do stars 30× more massive than the Sun exist?
A. Yes. And 100×, 200×, 300× M (and primordial stars were much more than that), even if the majority of massive stars are below 80 M. The Sun is not a dwarf, but it is really tiny in comparison to some other massive stars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_stars

Q. How can two black holes meet in such a vast and empty cosmos?
A. In the Universe, half of the stellar systems are multiple star systems. So there should statically exist a quite large number of binaries, where one of the two stars reached the supernova state then became a subcritical neutron star after its gravitational collapse. Such a neutron star could still be described with the exterior and interior Schwarzschild metrics. But it is not alone. Its companion star is there, called the donor as it continues to emit stellar wind that is gravitationally captured by its small companion, called the accretor. The additional mass supplied by the stellar wind of the donor companion star gradually increases the mass of the neutron star, until the geometric criticality is reached (i.e. when the Schwarzschild radius reaches the stellar radius). Then, the neutron star becomes a black hole.
The same process would apply to two supernovæ that have become two neutron stars in triple, or even quaternary, quintenary, sextenary, septenary… star systems, with multiple donors.
The process donnor-accretor transforming a neutron star into a black hole after some time si a "soft" one. The hard way exists too, where the gravitational collapse of a supernova is so strong that it directly triggers a black hole.

Binary blackholes can be explained that way. They do not "meet" by luck, drifting randomly in the cosmos.
"Massive" (~ 30 M) black holes may originate from supermassive superluminous supernovæ (what a fancy name!)
« Last Edit: 03/31/2018 09:44 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2380
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3109
  • Likes Given: 2671
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

I posted on this in the Woodward thread so as not to hijack the EM drive thread.  We should probably take any discussion of it there.

They're the same thing! Asymmetric resonant systems (supposedly) producing thrust.

Hang on. Surely the above is just an attempt by the EMDrive proponents to avoid admitting they've backed the wrong horse all this time, by trying to claim that the EMDrive and Mach Effect are just two different names for the same thing.

Ultimately, one theory was derived from Shawyer's physically impossible truncated thruster theory, while the other was based on the solid maths and peer reviewed papers of Dr. James Woodward. One was a theory no one could really explain with established physics, and the other was based on solid science, painstakingly put together over two decades.

They really can't be conflated.

If I recall, Dr. Woodward at one point allowed that maybe the EMdrive experiments were picking up some unintended Mach Effects without realizing it, but the fact is, the Mach Effect does not rely on any type of truncated cone activated by microwaves whatsoever, and instead has a very sound theoretical basis for its operation.

The fact that they are both theories that propose propellantless propulsion is about the only thing they have in common. Unless I have missed a lot in the last 6 months or so.
All,
Over the last 3 years I've been working on not so much operational theories but building devices to test one or all of the theories and their related devices. This work has evolved into a hybrid drive device for testing.

My Best,
Shell

PS: This is a truncated report is just to summarize a little of what I've been doing. Maybe what I'm seeing in thrusts are Mach Effects or maybe something else (many other theories) or maybe a combination. It's a forgone conclusion at my end that much more testing is needed.

PSS: All my very best to the Woodward Team. They are a phenomenal group leading the world in advancing the science and art of propellantless propulsion.

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • France
  • Liked: 789
  • Likes Given: 1055
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

I posted on this in the Woodward thread so as not to hijack the EM drive thread.  We should probably take any discussion of it there.

They're the same thing! Asymmetric resonant systems (supposedly) producing thrust.

Hang on. Surely the above is just an attempt by the EMDrive proponents to avoid admitting they've backed the wrong horse all this time, by trying to claim that the EMDrive and Mach Effect are just two different names for the same thing.

Ultimately, one theory was derived from Shawyer's physically impossible truncated thruster theory, while the other was based on the solid maths and peer reviewed papers of Dr. James Woodward. One was a theory no one could really explain with established physics, and the other was based on solid science, painstakingly put together over two decades.

They really can't be conflated.

If I recall, Dr. Woodward at one point allowed that maybe the EMdrive experiments were picking up some unintended Mach Effects without realizing it, but the fact is, the Mach Effect does not rely on any type of truncated cone activated by microwaves whatsoever, and instead has a very sound theoretical basis for its operation.

The fact that they are both theories that propose propellantless propulsion is about the only thing they have in common. Unless I have missed a lot in the last 6 months or so.
All,
Over the last 3 years I've been working on not so much operational theories but building devices to test one or all of the theories and their related devices. This work has evolved into a hybrid drive device for testing.

My Best,
Shell

PS: This is a truncated report is just to summarize a little of what I've been doing. Maybe what I'm seeing in thrusts are Mach Effects or maybe something else (many other theories) or maybe a combination. It's a forgone conclusion at my end that much more testing is needed.

PSS: All my very best to the Woodward Team. They are a phenomenal group leading the world in advancing the science and art of propellantless propulsion.

At last! Thank you so much Shell for a long overdue update :-*

So, a "HyperMach Parametric Drive"? No less!
I hope you will soon give us more explanation about that applied-field coil on top of the small end and its "parametric amplification"… I see your drawing is already two years old, wondering where you are today!

Do you use the coil in an inductive (eddies) mode the same way as in an electrodeless plasma thruster (like a space Pulsed Inductive Thruster (PIT) or an air-breathing induction MHD aerodyne) following the hypothesis of White's virtual plasma, to accelerate the virtual particles with Lorentz forces in a preferred direction? Or something else?
« Last Edit: 03/31/2018 10:18 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 24
Interesting questions. Two facts:

Q. Do stars 30× more massive than the Sun exist?
A. Yes. And 100×, 200×, 300× M (and primordial stars were much more than that), even if the majority of massive stars are below 80 M. The Sun is not a dwarf, but it is really tiny in comparison to some other massive stars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_stars

Q. How can two black holes meet in such a vast and empty cosmos?
A. In the Universe, half of the stellar systems are multiple star systems. So there should statically exist a quite large number of binaries, where one of the two stars reached the supernova state then became a subcritical neutron star after its gravitational collapse. Such a neutron star could still be described with the exterior and interior Schwarzschild metrics. But it is not alone. Its companion star is there, called the donor as it continues to emit stellar wind that is gravitationally captured by its small companion, called the accretor. The additional mass supplied by the stellar wind of the donor companion star gradually increases the mass of the neutron star, until the geometric criticality is reached (i.e. when the Schwarzschild radius reaches the stellar radius). Then, the neutron star becomes a black hole.
The same process would apply to two supernovæ that have become two neutron stars in triple, or even quaternary, quintenary, sextenary, septenary… star systems, with multiple donors.
The process donnor-accretor transforming a neutron star into a black hole after some time si a "soft" one. The hard way exists too, where the gravitational collapse of a supernova is so strong that it directly triggers a black hole.

Binary blackholes can be explained that way. They do not "meet" by luck, drifting randomly in the cosmos.
"Massive" (~ 30 M) black holes may originate from supermassive superluminous supernovæ (what a fancy name!)
The detection of a black hole of mass below the so-called Chandrasekhar limit (1.45 solar mass), below which stars cannot produce a black hole, would be the undeniable manifestation of a primordial origin. And precisely, Ligo could very soon reach the sensitivity necessary to detect such a black hole if his companion is more massive (more than 10 solar masses). Finally, on a cosmological scale, binary systems of abundant black holes should produce a scattered background of gravitational waves, which could be detected by the future Lisa space observatory (Laser interferometer space antenna) and by other experiments based on pulsar observation.

There are so many questions to answer in our vast Universe that we definitely need an EMDrive to go where the answers are! (Smile)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9805
  • UK
  • Liked: 1891
  • Likes Given: 183
Was reading an article very recently talking about how some theorists now believe that space time is like a fluid, it certainly appears to be possible to simulate aspects of the universe in fluids. With the example of Jeff Steinhauer being mentioned with his work simulating an event horizon and the production of something that mirrors Hawking radiation around black holes in a fluid as a result. I wondered if this overall idea has any place here when considering the theory of such devices?

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2380
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3109
  • Likes Given: 2671
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

I posted on this in the Woodward thread so as not to hijack the EM drive thread.  We should probably take any discussion of it there.

They're the same thing! Asymmetric resonant systems (supposedly) producing thrust.

Hang on. Surely the above is just an attempt by the EMDrive proponents to avoid admitting they've backed the wrong horse all this time, by trying to claim that the EMDrive and Mach Effect are just two different names for the same thing.

Ultimately, one theory was derived from Shawyer's physically impossible truncated thruster theory, while the other was based on the solid maths and peer reviewed papers of Dr. James Woodward. One was a theory no one could really explain with established physics, and the other was based on solid science, painstakingly put together over two decades.

They really can't be conflated.

If I recall, Dr. Woodward at one point allowed that maybe the EMdrive experiments were picking up some unintended Mach Effects without realizing it, but the fact is, the Mach Effect does not rely on any type of truncated cone activated by microwaves whatsoever, and instead has a very sound theoretical basis for its operation.

The fact that they are both theories that propose propellantless propulsion is about the only thing they have in common. Unless I have missed a lot in the last 6 months or so.
All,
Over the last 3 years I've been working on not so much operational theories but building devices to test one or all of the theories and their related devices. This work has evolved into a hybrid drive device for testing.

My Best,
Shell

PS: This is a truncated report is just to summarize a little of what I've been doing. Maybe what I'm seeing in thrusts are Mach Effects or maybe something else (many other theories) or maybe a combination. It's a forgone conclusion at my end that much more testing is needed.

PSS: All my very best to the Woodward Team. They are a phenomenal group leading the world in advancing the science and art of propellantless propulsion.

At last! Thank you so much Shell for a long overdue update :-*

So, a "HyperMach Parametric Drive"? No less!
I hope you will soon give us more explanation about that applied-field coil on top of the small end and its "parametric amplification"… I see your drawing is already two years old, wondering where you are today!

Do you use the coil in an inductive (eddies) mode the same way as in an electrodeless plasma thruster (like a space Pulsed Inductive Thruster (PIT) or an air-breathing induction MHD aerodyne) following the hypothesis of White's virtual plasma, to accelerate the virtual particles with Lorentz forces in a preferred direction? Or something else?
You're very welcome.

The coil(s) were started off from the idea of a modified Hall Effect within the cavity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall-effect_thruster
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/Hall.html

Currently I'm in a large rebuild of the test rig and isolation system and I'm redoing the "HyperMach Parametric Drive" to isolate the exact physics or blend of physics and until finish the building and accompany it with solid data I'd not speculate of the driving forces behind it (Of course I have some ideas). Needless to say I am very excited.

I hope to be able by this summer to provide much more data.

My Very Best,
Shell

Tags: