-
#520 by ThatOtherGuy on 06 Jul, 2017 16:17
-
As for reflective surfaces
I think that this metasurface applied to the end plates of a cavity may help quite a bit; sure, it's still experimental, but given that the creators say that they should be able to create metasurfaces able to act on different frequencies, such a material may help boosting the emdrive cavity
see here for further informations -
#521 by Josave on 06 Jul, 2017 22:06
-
Active resonators can be easily implemented in an experiment using solid state RF sources, to achieve a 1000x increase in Q factor, both loaded and unloaded. This can be another strategy to boost performance. Original idea is in this paper:
http://www.skvor.cz/pdf/actres2.pdf
These active resonators are actually used in dark matter experiments, with microwave cavities reaching Q factors exceeding 10e5 at frequencies similar to those used in EmDrive experiments:
http://home.fnal.gov/~pjfox/New_Perspectives_on_Dark_Matter/Schedule_files/Talk1_7.pdf
More on this topic, where a Q of 7 x 10e7 has been achieved:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6720
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4817537
This can be a setup with a solid state RF power generator controlled both in frequency and phase:
(Edit: Changed the picture, original from paper is for a band pass detector)
-
#522 by dustinthewind on 07 Jul, 2017 02:59
-
Active resonators can be easily implemented in an experiment using solid state RF sources, to achieve a 1000x increase in Q factor, both loaded and unloaded. This can be another strategy to boost performance. Original idea is in this paper:
http://www.skvor.cz/pdf/actres2.pdf
These active resonators are actually used in dark matter experiments, with microwave cavities reaching Q factors exceeding 10e5 at frequencies similar to those used in EmDrive experiments:
http://home.fnal.gov/~pjfox/New_Perspectives_on_Dark_Matter/Schedule_files/Talk1_7.pdf
More on this topic, where a Q of 7 x 10e7 has been achieved:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6720
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4817537
This can be a setup with a solid state RF power generator controlled both in frequency and phase:
(Edit: Changed the picture, original from paper is for a band pass detector)
Would I be correct in assuming this active resonator doesn't actually increase Q per photon? That is you inject a hand full of photons and the active resonator sees the photons, so it generates other photons based on what it sees.
Us not knowing the difference between individual photons, see the signal die off slower so think the Q higher if we neglect the energy required to sustain the additional quality (Q) factor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor Q being w*energy stored/(energy lost or fed in at equilibrium). At some equilibrium energy level does this active resonator actually reduce energy lost to thermal heat?
Don't get me wrong, I think such a device may have its merits but I am not seeing how it actually increases Q other than to give the illusion it increases Q. By not taking into account power from the signal antenna and active resonator antenna per energy stored, compared to just feeding energy from the signal antenna to maintain the same stored power. Maybe I am not seeing something key. -
#523 by SeeShells on 07 Jul, 2017 03:35
-
Interesting reading...Active resonators can be easily implemented in an experiment using solid state RF sources, to achieve a 1000x increase in Q factor, both loaded and unloaded. This can be another strategy to boost performance. Original idea is in this paper:
http://www.skvor.cz/pdf/actres2.pdf
These active resonators are actually used in dark matter experiments, with microwave cavities reaching Q factors exceeding 10e5 at frequencies similar to those used in EmDrive experiments:
http://home.fnal.gov/~pjfox/New_Perspectives_on_Dark_Matter/Schedule_files/Talk1_7.pdf
More on this topic, where a Q of 7 x 10e7 has been achieved:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6720
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4817537
This can be a setup with a solid state RF power generator controlled both in frequency and phase:
(Edit: Changed the picture, original from paper is for a band pass detector)
Would I be correct in assuming this active resonator doesn't actually increase Q per photon? That is you inject a hand full of photons and the active resonator sees the photons, so it generates other photons based on what it sees.
Us not knowing the difference between individual photons, see the signal die off slower so think the Q higher if we neglect the energy required to sustain the additional quality (Q) factor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor Q being w*energy stored/(energy lost or fed in at equilibrium). At some equilibrium energy level does this active resonator actually reduce energy lost to thermal heat?
Don't get me wrong, I think such a device may have its merits but I am not seeing how it actually increases Q other than to give the illusion it increases Q. That is by not taking into account, power from the signal and active resonator per energy stored compared verses just feeding energy from a single signal to maintain the same stored power. Maybe I am not seeing something key.
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=105280
-
#524 by mwvp on 07 Jul, 2017 06:54
-
Interesting reading...Active resonators can be easily implemented in an experiment using solid state RF sources, to achieve a 1000x increase in Q factor
...
This can be a setup with a solid state RF power generator controlled both in frequency and phase:
Would I be correct in assuming this active resonator doesn't actually increase Q per photon? That is you inject a hand full of photons and the active resonator sees the photons, so it generates other photons based on what it sees.
...
At some equilibrium energy level does this active resonator actually reduce energy lost to thermal heat?
...
I am not seeing how it actually increases Q other than to give the illusion it increases Q.
...
Maybe I am not seeing something key.
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=105280
@Josave,
Yes, you can increase Q by injecting positive feedback. And if you increase the positive feedback gain enough, you'll have an oscillator with negative Q - more energy out than you put in. A regenerative amplifier. You can research regenerative and super-regenerative receiver/amplifier. Alas, this maketh not a free energy machine...
@dustinthewind,
An active resonator will not reduce energy dissipated as heat. Reality being what it is, it will make more heat according to the efficiency and losses of the amplifier and its network.
Since, as I believe, propulsive force is the result of unbalanced radiation pressure, and the radiation pressure is proportional to the power in the cavity, and the power in the cavity is input power multiplied by the Q of the cavity (its ability to store energy), for active regeneration to help you really are suggesting using a more powerful amplifier.
Why bother? A while back, someone suggested synthesizing a waveform to optimize group-velocity difference. They failed to understand that, (for instance) for a 1 Newton differential force, they need to pump in 150 Megawatts at the apex and and 150 megawatts at the base of synthesized RF, and your frustrum can have a Q of 1.
If your frustrum has a Q of a million, then you may get on the order of a Newton of radiation pressure with 150 watts BUT, now your 150 watt synthesized signal is dwarfed by the stored 300 megawatt energy reverberating in the frustrum/filter. You'll only be nudging the phase. Energy will slosh around, and the cavity accelerate according to the sloshing radiation pressure, according the the reflective and dissipation characteristics of the cavity, along with the 1/1,000,000 energy you inject.
@Shell,
What's of interest? I gather that the idea is to avoid multiplying the phase noise of the low phase noise DDS, by adding it as an offset, rather than using it as the multiplicand in the signal chain. Is there some other relevance I'm missing? -
#525 by SeeShells on 07 Jul, 2017 14:46
-
No you didn't miss much. You never do.
Interesting reading...Active resonators can be easily implemented in an experiment using solid state RF sources, to achieve a 1000x increase in Q factor
...
This can be a setup with a solid state RF power generator controlled both in frequency and phase:
Would I be correct in assuming this active resonator doesn't actually increase Q per photon? That is you inject a hand full of photons and the active resonator sees the photons, so it generates other photons based on what it sees.
...
At some equilibrium energy level does this active resonator actually reduce energy lost to thermal heat?
...
I am not seeing how it actually increases Q other than to give the illusion it increases Q.
...
Maybe I am not seeing something key.
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=105280
@Josave,
Yes, you can increase Q by injecting positive feedback. And if you increase the positive feedback gain enough, you'll have an oscillator with negative Q - more energy out than you put in. A regenerative amplifier. You can research regenerative and super-regenerative receiver/amplifier. Alas, this maketh not a free energy machine...
@dustinthewind,
An active resonator will not reduce energy dissipated as heat. Reality being what it is, it will make more heat according to the efficiency and losses of the amplifier and its network.
Since, as I believe, propulsive force is the result of unbalanced radiation pressure, and the radiation pressure is proportional to the power in the cavity, and the power in the cavity is input power multiplied by the Q of the cavity (its ability to store energy), for active regeneration to help you really are suggesting using a more powerful amplifier.
Why bother? A while back, someone suggested synthesizing a waveform to optimize group-velocity difference. They failed to understand that, (for instance) for a 1 Newton differential force, they need to pump in 150 Megawatts at the apex and and 150 megawatts at the base of synthesized RF, and your frustrum can have a Q of 1.
If your frustrum has a Q of a million, then you may get on the order of a Newton of radiation pressure with 150 watts BUT, now your 150 watt synthesized signal is dwarfed by the stored 300 megawatt energy reverberating in the frustrum/filter. You'll only be nudging the phase. Energy will slosh around, and the cavity accelerate according to the sloshing radiation pressure, according the the reflective and dissipation characteristics of the cavity, along with the 1/1,000,000 energy you inject.
@Shell,
What's of interest? I gather that the idea is to avoid multiplying the phase noise of the low phase noise DDS, by adding it as an offset, rather than using it as the multiplicand in the signal chain. Is there some other relevance I'm missing?
Shell -
#526 by spupeng7 on 08 Jul, 2017 02:27
-
Ok.
Shell said her experimental efforts indicate some sort of purely magnetic explanation for how the EM Drive works - perhaps something similar to Dust in the Winds proposal.
However, much of the recent theory work seems oriented towards the Woodward/Mach effect or something close to it. (Rodal, among others.)
So, are these positions mutually exclusive? Or can they be combined somehow?
I seem to recollect a paper mentioned at the Estes Confab that linked internal magnetic effects of the frustum to Woodward/Mach, but I also have a hazy recollection there were issues with this paper.
Despite deep respect and admiration for the math and conceptualization surrounding the theory of magnetism, I can see no difference between magnetism and dynamic electrical fields. In complex time the electric field is simply the arrangement of charge. Is there agreement amongst readers here, that magnetic fields are no more than the consequence of the dynamic arrangement of charges? -
#527 by PotomacNeuron on 08 Jul, 2017 04:20
-
Ok.
Shell said her experimental efforts indicate some sort of purely magnetic explanation for how the EM Drive works - perhaps something similar to Dust in the Winds proposal.
However, much of the recent theory work seems oriented towards the Woodward/Mach effect or something close to it. (Rodal, among others.)
So, are these positions mutually exclusive? Or can they be combined somehow?
I seem to recollect a paper mentioned at the Estes Confab that linked internal magnetic effects of the frustum to Woodward/Mach, but I also have a hazy recollection there were issues with this paper.
Despite deep respect and admiration for the math and conceptualization surrounding the theory of magnetism, I can see no difference between magnetism and dynamic electrical fields. In complex time the electric field is simply the arrangement of charge. Is there agreement amongst readers here, that magnetic fields are no more than the consequence of the dynamic arrangement of charges?
You can completely remove M or B from the Maxwell equations and replace it with expressions of E. So what you said is a valid view of the EM theory. -
#528 by Augmentor on 08 Jul, 2017 04:35
-
Ok.
Shell said her experimental efforts indicate some sort of purely magnetic explanation for how the EM Drive works - perhaps something similar to Dust in the Winds proposal.
However, much of the recent theory work seems oriented towards the Woodward/Mach effect or something close to it. (Rodal, among others.)
So, are these positions mutually exclusive? Or can they be combined somehow?
I seem to recollect a paper mentioned at the Estes Confab that linked internal magnetic effects of the frustum to Woodward/Mach, but I also have a hazy recollection there were issues with this paper.
Despite deep respect and admiration for the math and conceptualization surrounding the theory of magnetism, I can see no difference between magnetism and dynamic electrical fields. In complex time the electric field is simply the arrangement of charge. Is there agreement amongst readers here, that magnetic fields are no more than the consequence of the dynamic arrangement of charges?
The difficulty holding to "magnetic fields are no more than the consequence of the dynamic arrangement of charges?" is that Heaviside's version of Maxwell's equations is inadequate but quite useful on a macro scale especially when one lives in a world of electric charge
Dirac applied symmetry to Maxwell's equations resulting in the discovery of antimatter. However, the magnetic monopole still waits to be discovered.
In 1987, Frank Wilczek applied axions to the Dirac set. However, the hunt for axions is not going well. Even so, from a theoretical standpoint, the Wilczek version of Dirac's version of Heaviside's version of Maxwell equations is the current roadmap.
Now, symmetry is rather interesting when applied to say, the Lorentz force which is equal to charge times the sum of E field and the product of velocity and B fields.
F = q (E + v X B)
For a magnetic monopole, m, symmetry suggests the following equation applies.
F = m (B + v X E)
Yet, no monopoles.
David M
-
#529 by Monomorphic on 08 Jul, 2017 12:31
-
Testing Quantised Inertia on Emdrives with Dielectrics (PDF attached below): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316650291_Testing_quantised_inertia_on_emdrives_with_dielectrics
This looks like a new version of Mike McCulloch's 2015 paper that includes consideration of dialectrics.
He also has a follow-up from yesterday on his blog: https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/
-
#530 by Chrochne on 08 Jul, 2017 19:06
-
Testing Quantised Inertia on Emdrives with Dielectrics (PDF attached below): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316650291_Testing_quantised_inertia_on_emdrives_with_dielectrics
This looks like a new version of Mike McCulloch's 2015 paper that includes consideration of dialectrics.
He also has a follow-up from yesterday on his blog: https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/
How hard would it be to try his theory? Can the thrust be increased as Mr. McCulloch describe? -
#531 by Monomorphic on 08 Jul, 2017 20:55
-
Testing Quantised Inertia on Emdrives with Dielectrics (PDF attached below): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316650291_Testing_quantised_inertia_on_emdrives_with_dielectrics
This looks like a new version of Mike McCulloch's 2015 paper that includes consideration of dialectrics.
He also has a follow-up from yesterday on his blog: https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/
How hard would it be to try his theory? Can the thrust be increased as Mr. McCulloch describe?
Not too hard. It would require a large enough dialectric to fit the big end, plus some clips to hold it in place. And then some balancing of the pendulum as adding a large dialectric to one side will cause a big shift in the center of gravity. I was thinking even a piece of dry wood could be used as a dialectric since the relative permittivity of wood is 1.5-2.0 -
#532 by Space Ghost 1962 on 08 Jul, 2017 23:20
-
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260
Breaking Lorentz reciprocity with frequency conversion and delay
https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09548
Thank you for this.
Reminds of the "lurch" that bent an SSC superconducting magnet. Which may have been due to a asymmetric resonance in the test's field bootstrap sequence. Part of my interest in this topic in general.
The field was to be ramped to look for anisotropy in the axial field - the intent to have a high intensity gradient that was uniform for the accelerator. Resonances weren't intentional. Perhaps the transient accidentally coupled to the frame in an unnoticed resonance.
Resonance in communications systems are how they function, usually with extreme Q. The materials sometimes break down for hard to understand failures, usually thought to be hidden flaws, but perhaps the cavity is somehow depositing its contained energy asymmetrically due to an artifact of design.
Could buy-off on chaotic leveraging here, but the group organizing phenomena escapes me.
Thank you Jose for posting this. -
#533 by Star-Drive on 09 Jul, 2017 04:05
-
Testing Quantised Inertia on Emdrives with Dielectrics (PDF attached below): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316650291_Testing_quantised_inertia_on_emdrives_with_dielectrics
This looks like a new version of Mike McCulloch's 2015 paper that includes consideration of dialectrics.
He also has a follow-up from yesterday on his blog: https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/
How hard would it be to try his theory? Can the thrust be increased as Mr. McCulloch describe?
Not too hard. It would require a large enough dialectric to fit the big end, plus some clips to hold it in place. And then some balancing of the pendulum as adding a large dialectric to one side will cause a big shift in the center of gravity. I was thinking even a piece of dry wood could be used as a dialectric since the relative permittivity of wood is 1.5-2.0
Jamie:
Don't use wood for it has a horribly high dissipation factor. Stick with either Polyethylene, e-r = ~2.3 or Teflon, e-r = ~2.1.
Best, Paul M. -
#534 by mwvp on 09 Jul, 2017 04:46
-
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260
Breaking Lorentz reciprocity with frequency conversion and delay
https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09548
Thank you for this.
Reminds of the "lurch" that bent an SSC superconducting magnet. Which may have been due to a asymmetric resonance in the test's field bootstrap sequence. Part of my interest in this topic in general.
...
Magnetics are notoriously non-linear.
WRT breaking Lorentz reciprocity, what's the relevance and application for us?
We have frequency conversion, with Doppler shifts. We have delay, from top to bottom. And dispersion along the delay path. Considering the top-to-bottom and bottom-top paths, the dispersion creates a difference in path lengths, in the same way a magnetic circulator has different path lengths around the circumference due to gyromagnetic impedance?
So can we say electromagnetic frequency, the energies' angular momentum (mass) is sorted by frequency, sort of like mass in a centrifuge or boiling point in a fractional distillation column?
And if, in cavity optomechanics context, we tune for sideband excitation (as opposed to sideband cooling), we create a propulsive mass/energy flow?
Is this merely restating the behavior Shawyer described with motor/generator mode? The device is an optomechanical pulse-compressor (generator) or pulse-expander (motor).
And the connection between Woodward and Shawyer? Both are Lorentz-reciprocity violation mechanisms.
(I say violating, not in the sense of violating conventional physics; gyromagnetic circulators, or a spinning anisotropic/birefringent dielectric, or a parametric amplifier can violate Lorentz reciprocity too).
With Woodward Effect, you push-heavy pull-light, making the active material heavier or lighter with charge. Vibration is required. The energy/momentum/mass is in the form of Minkowski momentum stored in, and adopting, the inertial frame of the active material.
With Shawyer Effect, the energy/momentum/mass is in the form of Abraham momentum, the standing wave has a sort of extraordinary zero inertial frame, the difference of +/- C, with which to push against its delayed, Doppler reflection in the frustrum. It may not need to be vibrated, but in the sideband-heated mode amplifies any initial acceleration. -
#535 by Augmentor on 09 Jul, 2017 16:07
-
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260
Breaking Lorentz reciprocity with frequency conversion and delay
https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09548
Thank you for this.
Reminds of the "lurch" that bent an SSC superconducting magnet. Which may have been due to a asymmetric resonance in the test's field bootstrap sequence. Part of my interest in this topic in general.
...
Magnetics are notoriously non-linear.
WRT breaking Lorentz reciprocity, what's the relevance and application for us?
We have frequency conversion, with Doppler shifts. We have delay, from top to bottom. And dispersion along the delay path. Considering the top-to-bottom and bottom-top paths, the dispersion creates a difference in path lengths, in the same way a magnetic circulator has different path lengths around the circumference due to gyromagnetic impedance?
So can we say electromagnetic frequency, the energies' angular momentum (mass) is sorted by frequency, sort of like mass in a centrifuge or boiling point in a fractional distillation column?
And if, in cavity optomechanics context, we tune for sideband excitation (as opposed to sideband cooling), we create a propulsive mass/energy flow?
Is this merely restating the behavior Shawyer described with motor/generator mode? The device is an optomechanical pulse-compressor (generator) or pulse-expander (motor).
And the connection between Woodward and Shawyer? Both are Lorentz-reciprocity violation mechanisms.
(I say violating, not in the sense of violating conventional physics; gyromagnetic circulators, or a spinning anisotropic/birefringent dielectric, or a parametric amplifier can violate Lorentz reciprocity too).
With Woodward Effect, you push-heavy pull-light, making the active material heavier or lighter with charge. Vibration is required. The energy/momentum/mass is in the form of Minkowski momentum stored in, and adopting, the inertial frame of the active material.
With Shawyer Effect, the energy/momentum/mass is in the form of Abraham momentum, the standing wave has a sort of extraordinary zero inertial frame, the difference of +/- C, with which to push against its delayed, Doppler reflection in the frustrum. It may not need to be vibrated, but in the sideband-heated mode amplifies any initial acceleration.
The jury is still out.
While the idea of resolving the controversy is appealing...
Resolution of the Abraham-Minkowski Controversy
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0872.pdf
However, correction is needed.
Is the Abraham electromagnetic force physical?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03054
Abstract
A conventional general electromagnetic force definition has been widely used to analyze radiation forces in dielectric media in published research works. However in this paper, we would like to indicate that this conventional force definition is flawed.
My need for a change momentum is tempered by collisions with physics.
I'm wondering if Conservation of Angular momentum plays a role in either Shawyer's or Woodward's theory. Woodward's theory seem to be the leading theory.
Is there common ground between the two theories. To date, I have not seen a good comparative analysis, just conjecture.What we don't know is the precise mechanism sans artifacts.
The emDrive of Shawyer appears to be photon fueled with charges from the walls and geometry interactions while the Woodward drive depends on accelerations to produce relativistic frame dragging and molecular stretching of PZT with asymmetric mass.
Bridging the gap between the two experimental approaches will require carefully using energy density calculations not just of a Poynting vector but the vector fields and quite possibly tensor fields. Even then, the six degrees of freedom may simply not be enough for a good answer but far too much to get at the physics which is usually 1 or 2 degrees of freedom.
Yes, m = E/c^2...however, energy density may be more important
m/volume = E/(volume c^2)
Conservation of angular momentum at the molecular, atomic and elementary level may also need to be taken into account.
David M
-
#536 by Space Ghost 1962 on 09 Jul, 2017 19:25
-
Definitely related to stress tensor. And it's some kind of "momentum dump" with magnetic coupling.
Repeating myself from above - but the group organizing phenomena escapes me. By standard statistical physics and E&M, there shouldn't be one.
Why all in such a given direction? What triggers the "cascade"? How do we express conservation of such?
And a thousand related questions. Perhaps simple classical mechanics can bound these, to hint more in the direction of more answers?
-
#537 by spupeng7 on 10 Jul, 2017 03:04
-
Monomorphic,Testing Quantised Inertia on Emdrives with Dielectrics (PDF attached below): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316650291_Testing_quantised_inertia_on_emdrives_with_dielectrics
This looks like a new version of Mike McCulloch's 2015 paper that includes consideration of dialectrics.
He also has a follow-up from yesterday on his blog: https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/
How hard would it be to try his theory? Can the thrust be increased as Mr. McCulloch describe?
Not too hard. It would require a large enough dialectric to fit the big end, plus some clips to hold it in place. And then some balancing of the pendulum as adding a large dialectric to one side will cause a big shift in the center of gravity. I was thinking even a piece of dry wood could be used as a dialectric since the relative permittivity of wood is 1.5-2.0
dry wood may have some suitable characteristics but is not isotropic. Its shape is not stable over time due to moisture moving about inside it, especially when unevenly heated with microwaves. Completely dry wood will suck moisture out of the air with a surprising appetite. -
#538 by spupeng7 on 10 Jul, 2017 09:19
-
ThinkerX,Ok.
Shell said her experimental efforts indicate some sort of purely magnetic explanation for how the EM Drive works - perhaps something similar to Dust in the Winds proposal.
However, much of the recent theory work seems oriented towards the Woodward/Mach effect or something close to it. (Rodal, among others.)
So, are these positions mutually exclusive? Or can they be combined somehow?
I seem to recollect a paper mentioned at the Estes Confab that linked internal magnetic effects of the frustum to Woodward/Mach, but I also have a hazy recollection there were issues with this paper.
Despite deep respect and admiration for the math and conceptualization surrounding the theory of magnetism, I can see no difference between magnetism and dynamic electrical fields. In complex time the electric field is simply the arrangement of charge. Is there agreement amongst readers here, that magnetic fields are no more than the consequence of the dynamic arrangement of charges?
You can completely remove M or B from the Maxwell equations and replace it with expressions of E. So what you said is a valid view of the EM theory.
the emdrive frustum is a Faraday cage so we cannot show electrical force between the longitudinally asymmetric current durations inside an emdrive frustum, and the wider universe made of charges, to be the mechanism of action for any emdrive thrust. But there must be some mechanism of action if the thrust measurements are genuine. So, short of accepting Shawyer’s relativistic explanation which seems to contravene conservation of momentum, short of accepting that there is a thrust reaction within an indefinable but local quantum vacuum energy, we are left without any feasible mechanism of action.
This forces us to consider other possibilities and the Machian universe is a logical possibility to pursue. It considers inertia to be an interaction between local mass and the rest of the universe, so it allows that a device could manipulate that interaction with the rest of the universe.
The problem with it is that Einstein abandoned the Machian universe in favour of General Relativity because it makes good account of both mechanics and electromagnetics. If we are to find another mechanism of action for emdrive thrust, we must begin by presenting a workable and seamless explanation for how gravity and inertia work, because these act by acceleration which is what the emdrive seems to produce. This explanation must fit the vast array of experimental evidence supporting General Relativity that has been amassed over the last century.
If complex time is considered in preference to General Relativity we still have Special Relativity as a cornerstone with which to understand mechanics and we can reduce all interactions to charge interactions across complex time without photons to complicate our understanding or our math. This allows both gravity and inertia to be the consequence of the interaction of all charges with each other but leaves us with a dilemma because electromagnetic interactions are singular and unique interactions between just one pair of charges no matter how distant they may be.
If the photons we know, are forward interactions within complex time, that leaves the possibility that the charges they transfer energy between also have universal interaction which is not contained within the Faraday cage of the frustum. In the same way that their mass has, via gravity and inertia. If, if, if, but we then have to explain how an electromagnetic shadow works as well as how fringe effects happen within complex time. This will take time.
In answer to your question the Woodward/Mach effect, or something close to it such as a magnetic explanation, may yet provide us with a mechanism of action for emdrive thrust, and maybe even a better explanation for electromagnetism in general. -
#539 by Callezetter on 10 Jul, 2017 12:12
-
Maybe offtopic but AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2017 just started their livestream over three days.
https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/PropEnergy2017
