I've never heard if people using neutrino's as an imaging technique since they are extremely hard to make and hard to interact with anything. Trillions go through you every second and probably none hit anything. Are you sure they didn't mean neutrons?
Quite possibly. The post said "neutrinos" so I ran with it. 
The cascade would be triggered by the realignment of magnetic field lines as the oscillating and rotating fields connect with weaker outer fields, driven by electron pressure as verified recently by Fox, Sciortino et al.*.
Is reconnection relevant?
EmDrive does not appear to have plasmas - it's about an impressed resonant cavity of high intensity microwaves.
We've been futzing around with plasma arcing as a null hypothesis for a while.
To find out what is going on inside especially inhomogeneties, either turn the emDrive into a Schlieren photography setup using windows or even properly aligned small holes, or put a small camera inside sensitive to a variety of frequencies.
Makes you wonder what a optically transparent Quartz tube through the center would see...
I think I'll make it so next run.
Shell
(...)
Space doesn’t really exist because it is a representation in one moment (drawing, illustrations etc.) of points that are not at the same moment (spacetime) except in our minds. The Earth-Moon “distance” is approximately 1 light second. No two points of this “distance” are at the same moment, or else light would not take any time to travel the distance. We may use kilometers (or geodesics) for convenience but it doesn’t make space real. “Space” is a dimension of consciousness, not a dimension of the universe. So, we may forget the poetics of “curving space” or “this telling that” what to do.
In conclusion, “space” is a necessary tool for representing concepts of physical knowledge but it plays no part in the universe since it doesn’t exist. IMO, we should replace the “false cause” for motion as “curvature” or “geodesics” by the true and logical cause for motion, a higher probability of existence due to a differential in the rate of time. I don’t dispute any of the representations used in physics. Here, I only want to remind us to carefully remove our own observer contributions from our knowledge before we say that the universe is this or that.
Marcel,
"There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive solution could provide considerable elucidation. What becomes of the energy of a photon after complete emission? Does it spread out in all directions with further propagation in the sense of Huygens' wave theory, so constantly taking up more space, in boundless progressive attenuation? Or does it fly out like a projectile in one direction in the sense of Newton's emanation theory? In the first case, the quantum would no longer be in the position to concentrate energy upon a single point in space in such a way as to release an electron from its atomic bond, and in the second case, the main triumph of the Maxwell theory - the continuity between the static and the dynamic fields and, with it, the complete understanding we have enjoyed, until now, of the fully investigated interference phenomena - would have to be sacrificed, both being very unhappy consequences for today's theoreticians."
Max Planck, Nobel Lecture, June 2, 1920.
****************************
Marcel,
much of the last three centuries of physics has been a battle to avoid acceptance of remotely acting forces. This has been a necessary struggle but one that is, in my opinion, ultimately doomed. I believe the understanding you have reached in the above quote, has a potential solution to Planck's dilemma, encapsulated within it.
If we accept that space exists as a consequence of the nature of human perception, we may then see that the presence of a charge has gravitational and therefore inertial consequence everywhere. We may also see that the acceleration of a charge accelerates the next nearest charge in line of sight and in resonance with it, with respect to the relative rates of passage of time within which they reside.
The line of sight being that geodesic specific to the interaction. This may be visualized without contradiction if the acceleration of the charges interacting electromagnetically are aligned to that geodesic at the moment of complex time at which they interact. We might then find better explanations for inertia, gravity, electromagnetic action and emdrive thrust. It may even be possible to find an explanation for fringe effects and Young's two slit experiment if geodesics intersecting atomic orbitals are considered.
Attempting always to nobble my own argument. 
JMN..
Spupeng,
I have an explanation for the fringe. The direction of the photon is free i.e. it has a normal distribution tapering off on each side on infinity. This absence of real boundary is its freedom and uncertainty. It does not allow any specific state of existence for “direction”.
Once the photon goes through the slit, infinities are (destroyed) replaced by actual boundaries which forces the actual quantization of “direction” i.e. “direction” become a quantum number of the photon, with a limited number of values of allowed wave function within the slit opening. The photon will exit the slit following one of the allowed directions.
The simple fringe experiment is probably the first one in quantum mechanics.
Marcel
Perhaps that's "arc deposition/sputtering" instead? Happens with magnetrons. For plasma, need to form a quasi-neutral domain with specific gas (ion).
A little column A, a little column B; If I recall the idea correctly, the drop in thrust in vacuum testing gets pinned on the lack of gasses in the cavity.
Makes you wonder what a optically transparent Quartz tube through the center would see...
I think I'll make it so next run.
Shell
Quartz does not see anything - in the center "0" zone
As in the "bucket" Roger J. SHAWYER
You can put an iron nail in the center - it is heated at high power - it means your "copper pan" is poorly made - there are geometric deformations
I will disagree with you on a camera seeing something through the end caps of the Quartz rod. The antenna is in the center Z axis and considering the angle of view of the video camera (AOV) or the angular spread that can be imaged by a camera. I'll be able to see ionization effects even slightly distorted through the sidewalls of the Quartz tube.
In a TE013 excited mode there will be a EM null or hole through the center of the frustum in the Z axis. Correct.
Shell
Makes you wonder what a optically transparent Quartz tube through the center would see...
I think I'll make it so next run.
Shell
Quartz does not see anything - in the center "0" zone
As in the "bucket" Roger J. SHAWYER
You can put an iron nail in the center - it is heated at high power - it means your "copper pan" is poorly made - there are geometric deformations
I will disagree with you on a camera seeing something through the end caps of the Quartz rod. The antenna is in the center Z axis and considering the angle of view of the video camera (AOV) or the angular spread that can be imaged by a camera. I'll be able to see ionization effects even slightly distorted through the sidewalls of the Quartz tube.
In a TE013 excited mode there will be a EM null or hole through the center of the frustum in the Z axis. Correct.
Shell
Hi Michelle,
Sure but don't forget the H field which is max through the lobes along the length axis.
Makes you wonder what a optically transparent Quartz tube through the center would see...
I think I'll make it so next run.
Shell
Quartz does not see anything - in the center "0" zone
As in the "bucket" Roger J. SHAWYER
You can put an iron nail in the center - it is heated at high power - it means your "copper pan" is poorly made - there are geometric deformations
I will disagree with you on a camera seeing something through the end caps of the Quartz rod. The antenna is in the center Z axis and considering the angle of view of the video camera (AOV) or the angular spread that can be imaged by a camera. I'll be able to see ionization effects even slightly distorted through the sidewalls of the Quartz tube.
In a TE013 excited mode there will be a EM null or hole through the center of the frustum in the Z axis. Correct.
Shell
Hi Michelle,
Sure but don't forget the H field which is max through the lobes along the length axis.
It will be mainly the E-Field that any fireworks happen. The Magnetic susceptibility of the fused Quartz is: −11.28×10
−6 with a Dielectric loss factor of less than 0.0004 at 20 °C @ 1 MHz. In plain English the Quartz rod isn't effected by the H (or some call it the B field) magnetic field.
Shell
Shell, the TE013 data plot does show a top plate center high intensity surface current where your quartz rod will be entering, along with what looks like a helical antenna. That confuses me a little. Is the antenna offset, or is the plot just representational and not based on the actual build?
Shell
Shell, the TE013 data plot does show a top plate center high intensity surface current where your quartz rod will be entering, along with what looks like a helical antenna. That confuses me a little. Is the antenna offset, or is the plot just representational and not based on the actual build?
No, it was just to show the E-Field locations of a TE013 mode, nothing else.
My Very Very Best,
Shell
emdrive.com is down?? anyone else having troubles?
emdrive.com is down?? anyone else having troubles?
It is not just you. The server is not responding.
emdrive.com is down?? anyone else having troubles?
It is not just you. The server is not responding.
Btw a reminder for people that Emdrives.com takes you to the last post here.
emdrive.com is down?? anyone else having troubles?
It is not just you. The server is not responding.
Link is ok down here in Aus. 3:05pm ACST 13/7/2017
(...)
Space doesn’t really exist because it is a representation in one moment (drawing, illustrations etc.) of points that are not at the same moment (spacetime) except in our minds. The Earth-Moon “distance” is approximately 1 light second. No two points of this “distance” are at the same moment, or else light would not take any time to travel the distance. We may use kilometers (or geodesics) for convenience but it doesn’t make space real. “Space” is a dimension of consciousness, not a dimension of the universe. So, we may forget the poetics of “curving space” or “this telling that” what to do.
In conclusion, “space” is a necessary tool for representing concepts of physical knowledge but it plays no part in the universe since it doesn’t exist. IMO, we should replace the “false cause” for motion as “curvature” or “geodesics” by the true and logical cause for motion, a higher probability of existence due to a differential in the rate of time. I don’t dispute any of the representations used in physics. Here, I only want to remind us to carefully remove our own observer contributions from our knowledge before we say that the universe is this or that.
Marcel,
"There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive solution could provide considerable elucidation. What becomes of the energy of a photon after complete emission? Does it spread out in all directions with further propagation in the sense of Huygens' wave theory, so constantly taking up more space, in boundless progressive attenuation? Or does it fly out like a projectile in one direction in the sense of Newton's emanation theory? In the first case, the quantum would no longer be in the position to concentrate energy upon a single point in space in such a way as to release an electron from its atomic bond, and in the second case, the main triumph of the Maxwell theory - the continuity between the static and the dynamic fields and, with it, the complete understanding we have enjoyed, until now, of the fully investigated interference phenomena - would have to be sacrificed, both being very unhappy consequences for today's theoreticians."
Max Planck, Nobel Lecture, June 2, 1920.
****************************
Marcel,
much of the last three centuries of physics has been a battle to avoid acceptance of remotely acting forces. This has been a necessary struggle but one that is, in my opinion, ultimately doomed. I believe the understanding you have reached in the above quote, has a potential solution to Planck's dilemma, encapsulated within it.
If we accept that space exists as a consequence of the nature of human perception, we may then see that the presence of a charge has gravitational and therefore inertial consequence everywhere. We may also see that the acceleration of a charge accelerates the next nearest charge in line of sight and in resonance with it, with respect to the relative rates of passage of time within which they reside.
The line of sight being that geodesic specific to the interaction. This may be visualized without contradiction if the acceleration of the charges interacting electromagnetically are aligned to that geodesic at the moment of complex time at which they interact. We might then find better explanations for inertia, gravity, electromagnetic action and emdrive thrust. It may even be possible to find an explanation for fringe effects and Young's two slit experiment if geodesics intersecting atomic orbitals are considered.
Attempting always to nobble my own argument. JMN..
Spupeng,
I have an explanation for the fringe. The direction of the photon is free i.e. it has a normal distribution tapering off on each side on infinity. This absence of real boundary is its freedom and uncertainty. It does not allow any specific state of existence for “direction”.
Once the photon goes through the slit, infinities are (destroyed) replaced by actual boundaries which forces the actual quantization of “direction” i.e. “direction” become a quantum number of the photon, with a limited number of values of allowed wave function within the slit opening. The photon will exit the slit following one of the allowed directions.
The simple fringe experiment is probably the first one in quantum mechanics.
Marcel
Thanks Marcel,
hoping you are right but not quite keeping up.
The shadow in the one slit in comparison to the fringes in the two slit, these are radically different mechanisms. Yes these experiments constitute the dawn of quantum mechanics but I cannot be the only one who struggles to understand them
Could you explain a little further. jmn..
Get your EMdrive to generate its own power via induced beta decay using electromagnetic radiation. Very interesting concept.
https://www.google.com/patents/EP0099946A1?cl=enCavity example begins at [0157]
[0169]
Output power is still expressed by Eq. (60) with the important proviso that the z employed in the evaluation of Wdind in Eq. (60) comes from Eq. (64) and not from Eq. (57). Equation (64) takes into consideration the spatially periodic decline to zero of the fields within the cavity. With the same set of assumptions employed for the transmission line example with 113Cd, one obtains again p = 1.68m forℓ= 10 4 m with z = 3.394 and P = 3x108W. A calculation of input power now requires an assumption for n. If n=10, then ν= 75kHz and U = 3 x 106W. In the case of a cavity, output thermal power is then about 100 times input power. For the same set of assumptions as employed for the transmission line 40K example, one obtains again p = 0.481m for ℓ = 104m with z = 18.647 and P = 2.5 x 109W. If n = 20, then v = 130kHz and U = 2.5 x 107w.
Yes! First impressions: This must be related to the higher wave compression at boundaries discussed earlier! If the wave can be compressed into a theoretical non-linearly polarized nanowire (note: their model is probably difficult to extrapolate to an EM Drive scale due to the B field/E field size mismatch) due to resonance, as the authors argue, then wavelength remains constant while amplitude increases. It must be photons trapped in the magnetic layers leading to continuous particle excitation like a positive feedback loop. The more circularized the path the greater the field strength, in other words Q implies field strength even not between walls, fair enough.
In contract[sic], for a high-index dielectric the light wavelength within the particle decreases, when its refractive index increases. Then, at large enough n the size of the particle becomes an integer multiple of the half of the wavelength, no matter how small the geometric size of the particle is. It gives rise to resonances, which, in turn, bring about a giant enhancement of the electromagnetic field within the particle.
A mini-cavity at half wavelength filled with water might be interesting... A quartz rod and walls (
http://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier152/07.15061807.pdf) should also boost the field strength if I understand the implications correctly
Imagine designs of a beautiful quartz helix in water with carbon doped wall and nanowire mesh balls in the upper cavity... All the signs point towards encouraging higher energy density via increased intra-cavity resonance...
Also have a look at some of their excellent literature review! Fascinating to see more research at this intersection of different fields!!!
Edit: Reference list attached
JMN..