-
#780 by rq3 on 14 Jan, 2019 02:45
-
Roughly 700 femtonewtons. About 0.00000000007 grams force. And Shawyer and his cronies are talking flying cars. Thanks folks. It's been an interesting decade. After I hit send for this post, I'll be deleting the bookmark to this site from my browser.
Seashells and Monomorphic, you've been great.
TT, good luck, whatever universe you're in.
Game over, at least for Shawyer. There's definitely "new physics", but it's not here. -
#781 by hyperplanck on 14 Jan, 2019 03:35
-
Roughly 700 femtonewtons. About 0.00000000007 grams force.
What is your logical reasoning behind the absolute value of the validity to the sigma significance of that claim? Did you account for the absorbtion in the media? Did you fail to acknowledge the other experiments that showed nano newtons? To me it seems like you just cherry picked the first thing you could find without actually critically assessing it and then you used your bias as an appealum ad absurdum to try to make others seem incompetent, but its your hubris that it is actually you who are the uninformed and uneducated in your attack.
The careful reader would have noticed that there was a higher newton of force in complex media, related to the recurrence thus enabling far higher ranges of newton forces in cavities. It also suggests a relative force that decreased towards stiff reflective materials and increased for more complex media, likely due to recurrence. Though again the entire schematic is not assessed and the electrostatic force assessment paper relative to photon force just published, was in the range of 1-10 nano newtons, of which the experiment has not been fully completed, nor has NISTs experiment been reproduced under different conditions. -
#782 by meberbs on 14 Jan, 2019 06:30
-
Did you bother to read the presentation I was responding to? They do the calculation there, which is where I got the 100mW number I used to do the calculation.a photon rocket without reflection is 0.3 nN,
May I ask for your source of this assertion and your logical reasoning to its sigma validity as an absolute value?
The formula for the force is extremely simple: F = P/c where F is the force, P is power, and c is the speed of light. In practice, you have to add in factors for how collimated the emitted photons are (i.e. are they all going in the same direction) and other related effects (like if there may be reflections happening.)
Contrary to your claim, understanding of the subject is not immature. The momentum carried by photons is a century old part of electrodynamics, with the formula stated above as a an important generic result from special relativity.
The references you provided are mostly irrelevant:
-A quantum mechanics measurement effect, which has no relevance (not dealing with single-photon anything)
-Abraham/Minkowski controversy, which is irrelevant (not dealing with transmission through a medium substantially different from vacuum) and mostly boils down to bookkeeping due to the way physicists approximate the effect of linear materials. (which is what the article says, the correct one to use depends on your perspective)
-Followed by 3 different discussions of sensitive force measurements, which gets back to one of the points I made previously: Much more detail is needed on how they measured the forces they claimed, because while there is no doubt about the force generated by radiation pressure, actually measuring such tiny forces is in fact difficult.
The force due to radiation pressure is so well understood (and only depends on the speed of light, which has an exactly known value, due to it being used in the definition of metric units) that NIST has developed techniques to use it for calibration.
In one case, they can use a known power laser as a calibration standard for small forces:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2016/08/measuring-tiny-forces-light
And in another, they use a situation where the force can be measured well to calibrate the RF power:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323217450_Measurement_of_Radio-Frequency_Radiation_Pressure
-
#783 by hyperplanck on 14 Jan, 2019 16:15
-
Did you bother to read the presentation I was responding to? They do the calculation there, which is where I got the 100mW number I used to do the calculation.a photon rocket without reflection is 0.3 nN,
May I ask for your source of this assertion and your logical reasoning to its sigma validity as an absolute value?
The formula for the force is extremely simple: F = P/c where F is the force, P is power, and c is the speed of light. In practice, you have to add in factors for how collimated the emitted photons are (i.e. are they all going in the same direction) and other related effects (like if there may be reflections happening.)
Contrary to your claim, understanding of the subject is not immature.
The references you provided are mostly irrelevant:
-A quantum mechanics measurement effect, which has no relevance (not dealing with single-photon anything)
-Abraham/Minkowski controversy, which is irrelevant (not dealing with transmission through a medium substantially different from vacuum) and mostly boils down to bookkeeping due to the way physicists approximate the effect of linear materials. (which is what the article says, the correct one to use depends on your perspective)
-Followed by 3 different discussions of sensitive force measurements, which gets back to one of the points I made previously: Much more detail is needed on how they measured the forces they claimed, because while there is no doubt about the force generated by radiation pressure, actually measuring such tiny forces is in fact difficult.
The force due to radiation pressure is so well understood (and only depends on the speed of light, which has an exactly known value, due to it being used in the definition of metric units) that NIST has developed techniques to use it for calibration.
In one case, they can use a known power laser as a calibration standard for small forces:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2016/08/measuring-tiny-forces-light
And in another, they use a situation where the force can be measured well to calibrate the RF power:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323217450_Measurement_of_Radio-Frequency_Radiation_Pressure
Yes i did 'bother' to read it. You have made that 'photon rocket' data figure before this paper. You are absuive to people working on experiments but dont have any type of critical assessment of your own claims. Still you make no sigma significance validity to your claim. You have the gaul to state it as an absolute value when its not and can differ in experiments with complex media. Nor did you actually answer my question.
Contrary to your claim the understanding of photon pressure is immature. You have not assessed the flaws of the experiments nor have you assessed the sigma validity of them, yet you seem to go into diatribe attacks on others and their experiments, but cant seem to be critical of your own claims and cited research.
The citations are not at all 'mostly irrelevant' in the least. In FACT THEY ARE ALL RELEVANT.. None of them are irrelevant. That is a fallacious appeal to irrelevancy. You even used ONE OF THEM IN YOUR your argument against my statements but didnt even know you did.
You dont even realize that i cited the paper which you claim they use it for 'calibration'. You are citing the paper of the femto radition pressure which is the paper i cited but you provided the summarized NIST article and made false conclusions from it.
`Its not the force of light they are using as the calibration. If you would of actually 'bothered' to read it, here is the summarized article they link in your article about that 'calibration'.
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2014/12/nist-sensor-could-improve-one-nano-researchs-most-useful-microscopes
Considering you made such erroneous conclusions with the information right in front off you, it makes me question your ability to logically assess complex dynamics at play in these technologies and experiments. I also doubt your ability to use reason in a scientific context as you make many fallacious appeals in many of your arguments but are unaware that you do. You didnt even realize they werent using photon forces for calibration but a chip sensor that was the calibrator because you were too lazy to actually read the article.
This aggressive tone and attempt to undermine is how you talk to people and Im pretty sick of it. You need an attitude adjustment because your toxic attitude wears off on other people and keeps us from progressing and moving forward. -
#784 by meberbs on 14 Jan, 2019 18:46
-
Yes i did 'bother' to read it. You have made that 'photon rocket' data figure before this paper.
If you had read it, then you would know that they did the calculation, so it is not "my claim" but a general known fact of electrodynamics.You are absuive to people working on experiments but dont have any type of critical assessment of your own claims.
You are now resorting to ad hominem attacks on me. I have not been abusive to anyone, though I have on occasion been short with people who insult me when I point out problems with their claims, or explain basic accepted physics.Still you make no sigma significance validity to your claim. You have the gaul to state it as an absolute value when its not and can differ in experiments with complex media.
You appear to not understand the concept of experimental uncertainty. It only applies when you are talking about a specific experiment. Theoretical calculations for a given defined situation have no uncertainty on them when the only constants involved are ones like the speed of light which are perfectly known by definition. The fact you would get a different result if you did an entirely different experiment is not something that can be expressed as an uncertainty. Also, you appear to have missed the point entirely, because one significant figure (which is all I gave) is all that is needed for the purposes in my original post.Nor did you actually answer my question.
The force due to radiation pressure is so well understood (and only depends on the speed of light, which has an exactly known value, due to it being used in the definition of metric units) that NIST has developed techniques to use it for calibration.
That should have answered the question, there is no uncertainty because the power is defined by the experimenters (and the "perfectly collimated" "no reflections" and "not through a dielectric" assumptions are so obvious to people who know electrodynamics that they shouldn't need to be stated, though I stated the reflection one anyway)Contrary to your claim the understanding of photon pressure is immature.
Again, it is a century old, the formulas are in countless textbooks.You have not assessed the flaws of the experiments nor have you assessed the sigma validity of them, yet you seem to go into diatribe attacks on others and their experiments,
In the specific case referenced, my criticisms mostly boil down to the lack of information required to do any of the things you just said. In cases where there was sufficient information to do so, I have assessed the flaws in experiments, so your whole statement here is a baseless ad hominem attack.but cant seem to be critical of your own claims and cited research.
If there is something to criticize about the references I linked, then point it out, your failure to do so is not helping you.The citations are not at all 'mostly irrelevant' in the least. In FACT THEY ARE ALL RELEVANT.. None of them are irrelevant. That is a fallacious appeal to irrelevancy. You even used ONE OF THEM IN YOUR your argument against my statements but didnt even know you did. You dont even realize that i cited the paper which you claim they use it for 'calibration'.
I stated why they were irrelevant, your bare assertion to the contrary is meaningless. And I was aware that you had also referenced related work at NIST, I hoped that the summary would help you to understand the fact that the purpose of the research is to use the extremely well known properties of light to calibrate a force measurement device. Calibration is literally the primary purpose of NIST. (In case you don't know what that means, it means to compare measurements to a standard reference to ensure that measurements are accurate) It is not my claim that they are using photon pressure for calibration, but a direct statement from them.
You are citing the paper of the femto radition pressure which is the paper i cited but you provided the summarized NIST article and made false conclusions from it.Quote"There are very few references for these small forces," Shaw says. "This is a way to try and get at those."
They would not even be attempting to use radiation pressure as a calibration source unless the physics was very well understood. Referencing their work to claim otherwise only shows that you did not understand what you read.`Its not the force of light they are using as the calibration. If you would of actually 'bothered' to read it, here is the summarized article they link in your article about that 'calibration'.
As they state in the article, that link is a related application based on the same technology. If you actually read the whole article, and don't skip the parts you find inconvenient to your point you would see they say:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2014/12/nist-sensor-could-improve-one-nano-researchs-most-useful-microscopesQuoteThey found that if you reflect laser light off the surface, there's a relatively straightforward way to calculate what the force should be based on the laser power.
QuoteBut even at the lowest laser powers they have used so far – just millionths of a watt – the light still contains an enormous number of photons. Someday, Shaw says, he hopes to develop a force measurement device capable of single-photon detection. The reason is that integers don't have uncertainty; if you count individual photons, and you know how much force each photon produces, then you can calculate the force.
QuoteShaw says it's exciting to be able to use essentially one physics principle for accurate measurements of force, mass, and laser power across such a large range, from milligram-scale objects to atomic interactions. "Because this is still in the basic research phase, there's a little room to develop new methods and think about things in a different way," Shaw says.
They are explicitly stating my point here: the physics principle is well understood, and therefore can be used for all kinds of measurement calibrations.Considering you made such erroneous conclusions with the information right in front off you, it makes me question your ability to logically assess complex dynamics at play in these technologies and experiments. I also doubt your ability to use reason in a scientific context as you make many fallacious appeals in many of your arguments but are unaware that you do. You didnt even realize they werent using photon forces for calibration but a chip sensor that was the calibrator because you were too lazy to actually read the article.
As I stated in my previous post, depending on the application, they are using the well known force of radiation pressure to calibrate power either power or force. It is certainly true that one of us doesn't understand what they read (hint: look in a mirror)
You accuse me of making "fallacious appeals," but you don't point to any of them, while in literally the same sentence you make the ad hominem fallacy.This aggressive tone and attempt to undermine is how you talk to people and Im pretty sick of it. You need an attitude adjustment because your toxic attitude wears off on other people and keeps us from progressing and moving forward.
More ad hominem attacks, who is being aggressive here?
The only thing keeping discussion from moving forward is people who make ad hominem attacks in response to any technical criticism. (Take a look back in this thread to see how people who actually care about doing science respond to criticism that they both accept and reject.)
Edit: If anyone has specific examples of the "abusive" behavior I was accused of, please PM them to me, as that would never have been my intention with anything I have written, and I would want to apologize as appropriate, and avoid such accidents in the future. I ask for PM, because that is obviously off topic. Responses to the actual technical statements I made obviously would go in the thread. -
#785 by OnlyMe on 15 Jan, 2019 21:57
-
....
meberbs,
I have looked at both of your earlier references. Both seem to be claiming that they can DETECT pressure from in one case a laser and the other an RF source. They have not claimed the current ability to MEASURE force in either case... though they seem to have high hopes. The paper on Measuring RF force actually ends with, Finally, the uncertainties of these types of measurements are currently being investigated, …
One of the things in many of these discussions that bothers me is that there is all too often, no real distinction between what remains theoretical, what is based on theory, what has been experimentally demonstrated based on theoretical assumptions and what has been experimentally demonstrated without (some) reservation.
Most of what is being discussed on all sides of these discussions is far less certain, than parties on either side of the discussion believe. Even where some published experimental evidence suggests certainty, as far as it applies to an exchange of momentum between photons/EM radiation pressure and any massive object, that certainty remains limited to a vary narrow set of circumstances/conditions. A photon does not interact with and transfer momentum to every atom it might encounter, in an identical manner.
-
#786 by meberbs on 15 Jan, 2019 23:13
-
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/calcon/CALCON2018/all2018content/9/....
meberbs,
I have looked at both of your earlier references. Both seem to be claiming that they can DETECT pressure from in one case a laser and the other an RF source. They have not claimed the current ability to MEASURE force in either case... though they seem to have high hopes. The paper on Measuring RF force actually ends with, Finally, the uncertainties of these types of measurements are currently being investigated, …
One of the things in many of these discussions that bothers me is that there is all too often, no real distinction between what remains theoretical, what is based on theory, what has been experimentally demonstrated based on theoretical assumptions and what has been experimentally demonstrated without (some) reservation.
This abstract states power measurements through force (and therefore force measurements) have been demonstrated to about 1%, matching other power measurement techniques. Without seeing an error budget, I can't know for certain, but the force uncertainty should be a bit better than power uncertainty, since the power measurement would have a couple other error terms such as reflectivity (which has 0.025% uncertainty for one mirror that was used, so not significant compared to 1%)
Measuring these forces in these applications is obviously cutting edge, and still being researched, I only brought it up as evidence that we understand the theory very well, since NIST wouldn't be able to consider using radiation pressure for calibration if the basic theory of radiation pressure wasn't well understood and generally accepted. -
#787 by cvbn on 16 Jan, 2019 20:02
-
US Navy patent “Craft Using an Inertial Mass Reduction Device":
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=10144532&IDKey=049BA918F26D%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fpatimg.htm -
#788 by OhYeah on 16 Jan, 2019 20:20
-
US Navy patent “Craft Using an Inertial Mass Reduction Device":
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=10144532&IDKey=049BA918F26D%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fpatimg.htm
Can anyone with an actual physics degree comment on whether the technology described in this patent makes any sense or not?
-
#789 by PotomacNeuron on 17 Jan, 2019 01:33
-
US Navy patent “Craft Using an Inertial Mass Reduction Device":
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=10144532&IDKey=049BA918F26D%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fpatimg.htm
Can anyone with an actual physics degree comment on whether the technology described in this patent makes any sense or not?
They quoted "quantum vacuum plasma", the concept used by White. Likely not working. -
#790 by meberbs on 17 Jan, 2019 07:01
-
I believe they are trying to say something different than what White did, but just as wrong. First, some background. Quantum vacuum is a real part of accepted physics, but it is deep enough into quantum field theory, that not nearly as many people understand what it means in any depth (to the extent that anyone understands anything about quantum mechanics.) The particle physics of QED that talks about this is beyond the what is taught in introductory or intermediate quantum mechanics classes. This makes "quantum vacuum" a term that seems popular among people who want to handwave their wa around actual physics. Most people never see the math backing it up to begin with, so fewer people know how to call BS when someone starts giving incorrect explanations of it. This is a area I am not expert enough in to quickly tell bunk from good science either. I know a few things about it though, enough to find it questionable when they claim the Casmir effect is evidence of the reality of the quantum vacuum, when that effect is identical to the concept of van der Waals forces between plates, all the effect shows is that quantum vacuum is compatible with existing physics, and doesn't change it at most accessible scales.US Navy patent “Craft Using an Inertial Mass Reduction Device":
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=10144532&IDKey=049BA918F26D%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fpatimg.htm
Can anyone with an actual physics degree comment on whether the technology described in this patent makes any sense or not?
They quoted "quantum vacuum plasma", the concept used by White. Likely not working.
In this case I managed to find a couple issues with their claims, mostly because they tied in concepts I can talk about more easily. The obvious red flag is they are claiming violations of Noether's theorem. By definition, they are claiming a device which can change its inertial mass, which means change its own rest energy, which violates conservation of energy. If that were true, the violation of conservation of momentum they were claiming goes hand-in-hand.
The harder part was finding the root cause of their mistake. I dislike working backwards from patents since the format and information presented is focused too little on the theoretical support. In this case it appears that the problem is when they claim that the quantum vacuum lets them create true negative energy (or negative mass, same thing) complete with negative spatial curvature, because "quantum vacuum." They cite Harold Puthoff, which in itself is a very bad sign (go look him up on Wikipedia for details). The problem here is that fundamentally quantum vacuum already effectively represents the lowest possible energy state (greater than 0.) You can in theory create an electron and a positron by applying a large enough electric field to it, but that is all positive energy. Claims that you can use it to create negative energy are simply in contradiction to the basic theory.
If there really was a way to create true negative energy, it would make all kinds of "impossible" devices possible.
Also, since this is a patent, I noted an interesting reference on the previously mentioned WIkipedia article, which talks in detail about why many non-physical devices like this one manage to get patents, despite not actually working. -
#791 by MathewOrman on 17 Jan, 2019 08:02
-
The links to document's PDF and Matlab script are in the description as everybody else's...Orman Force Drive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
Try posting a link to a pdf, rather than a painfully formatted youtube video of a pdf.
Also, the Lorentz force works and has been measured and confirmed by countless experiments. Go study some basic electrodynamics before making absurd claims to the contrary. There are some unintuitive aspects to electrodynamics, and they only all make sense together when considered alongside special relativity, and energy and momentum being present inside of fields (which ties to massless particles in special relativity.)
As for the Lorentz experimental confirmation evidence of, please provide a link to at least one... -
#792 by meberbs on 17 Jan, 2019 08:33
-
Okay:
The links to document's PDF and Matlab script are in the description as everybody else's...Orman Force Drive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
Try posting a link to a pdf, rather than a painfully formatted youtube video of a pdf.
Also, the Lorentz force works and has been measured and confirmed by countless experiments. Go study some basic electrodynamics before making absurd claims to the contrary. There are some unintuitive aspects to electrodynamics, and they only all make sense together when considered alongside special relativity, and energy and momentum being present inside of fields (which ties to massless particles in special relativity.)
As for the Lorentz experimental confirmation evidence of, please provide a link to at least one...
You should be able to use a basic web search and find countless variations. The one I linked to shows an experiment that uses a magnetic field to bend electrons in a cathode ray tube. Since old CRT TVs worked by electron beams you can find some interesting videos of people distorting CRT monitor images with powerful magnets. -
#793 by MathewOrman on 17 Jan, 2019 08:48
-
I expected that you would provide this very link :-)
Okay:
The links to document's PDF and Matlab script are in the description as everybody else's...Orman Force Drive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
Try posting a link to a pdf, rather than a painfully formatted youtube video of a pdf.
Also, the Lorentz force works and has been measured and confirmed by countless experiments. Go study some basic electrodynamics before making absurd claims to the contrary. There are some unintuitive aspects to electrodynamics, and they only all make sense together when considered alongside special relativity, and energy and momentum being present inside of fields (which ties to massless particles in special relativity.)
As for the Lorentz experimental confirmation evidence of, please provide a link to at least one...
You should be able to use a basic web search and find countless variations. The one I linked to shows an experiment that uses a magnetic field to bend electrons in a cathode ray tube. Since old CRT TVs worked by electron beams you can find some interesting videos of people distorting CRT monitor images with powerful magnets.
I have to disappoint you: In this setup there is no place where electrons move in constant linear velocity...
Electrons are accelerated by the electric field generated by anode and after they pass anode aperture they are decelerated or pulled back by the anode thus the curve liner trajectory of electrons are due to and consistent with Orman Force law and equation... To confirmed it I used my own setup where I've placed second anode outside the glass of my Teltron 552 and made the beam curve in opposite direction thus proved as invalidating evidence of Lorentz force... -
#794 by meberbs on 17 Jan, 2019 08:52
-
I expected that you would provide this very link :-)
I will reply in the other thread, because your claims are more relevant to that thread, and splitting this conversation between threads will just confuse people.
I have to disappoint you: In this setup there is no place where electrons move in constant linear velocity...
Electrons are accelerated by the electric field generated by anode and after they pass anode aperture they are decelerated or pulled back by the anode thus the curve liner trajectory of electrons are due to and consistent with Orman Force law and equation... To confirmed it I used my own setup where I've placed second anode outside the glass of my Teltron 552 and made the beam curve in opposite direction thus proved as invalidating evidence of Lorentz force... -
#795 by dustinthewind on 18 Jan, 2019 04:54
-
I believe they are trying to say something different than what White did, but just as wrong. First, some background. Quantum vacuum is a real part of accepted physics, but it is deep enough into quantum field theory, that not nearly as many people understand what it means in any depth (to the extent that anyone understands anything about quantum mechanics.) The particle physics of QED that talks about this is beyond the what is taught in introductory or intermediate quantum mechanics classes. This makes "quantum vacuum" a term that seems popular among people who want to handwave their wa around actual physics. Most people never see the math backing it up to begin with, so fewer people know how to call BS when someone starts giving incorrect explanations of it. This is a area I am not expert enough in to quickly tell bunk from good science either. I know a few things about it though, enough to find it questionable when they claim the Casmir effect is evidence of the reality of the quantum vacuum, when that effect is identical to the concept of van der Waals forces between plates, all the effect shows is that quantum vacuum is compatible with existing physics, and doesn't change it at most accessible scales.US Navy patent “Craft Using an Inertial Mass Reduction Device":
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=10144532&IDKey=049BA918F26D%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fpatimg.htm
Can anyone with an actual physics degree comment on whether the technology described in this patent makes any sense or not?
They quoted "quantum vacuum plasma", the concept used by White. Likely not working.
In this case I managed to find a couple issues with their claims, mostly because they tied in concepts I can talk about more easily. The obvious red flag is they are claiming violations of Noether's theorem. By definition, they are claiming a device which can change its inertial mass, which means change its own rest energy, which violates conservation of energy. If that were true, the violation of conservation of momentum they were claiming goes hand-in-hand.
The harder part was finding the root cause of their mistake. I dislike working backwards from patents since the format and information presented is focused too little on the theoretical support. In this case it appears that the problem is when they claim that the quantum vacuum lets them create true negative energy (or negative mass, same thing) complete with negative spatial curvature, because "quantum vacuum." They cite Harold Puthoff, which in itself is a very bad sign (go look him up on Wikipedia for details). The problem here is that fundamentally quantum vacuum already effectively represents the lowest possible energy state (greater than 0.) You can in theory create an electron and a positron by applying a large enough electric field to it, but that is all positive energy. Claims that you can use it to create negative energy are simply in contradiction to the basic theory.
If there really was a way to create true negative energy, it would make all kinds of "impossible" devices possible.
Also, since this is a patent, I noted an interesting reference on the previously mentioned WIkipedia article, which talks in detail about why many non-physical devices like this one manage to get patents, despite not actually working.
I wanted to add a little to this for thought. I didn't like the patent because its quite obscure. I think that is what I don't like about a lot of patents. I noticed they were suggesting they are spinning the cone. This creates an acceleration on the electrons. It seemed they are attempting to create asymmetrical acceleration on the electrons. I would suspect they would induce a transverse magnetic mode in the cone. This means the current accelerates back and forth between the large end and the tip. When accelerated out radially the electrons should accelerate more rapidly while spinning than when being accelerated inward toward the tip of the rotating cone. I suspect they are trying to replicate the Mach Effect where you asymmetrically accelerate a metal disk (aluminum for instance).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
The Woodward effect or Mach Effect equation has a negative mass term in it. Negative mass is required for warp drive.Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_massIt is used in certain speculative hypotheses, such as on the construction of traversable wormholes and the Alcubierre drive. Initially, the closest known real representative of such exotic matter is a region of negative pressure density produced by the Casimir effect.
Arrow of time and energy inversion
In quantum mechanics
See also: T-symmetry § Time reversal in quantum mechanics, and T-symmetry § Anti-unitary representation of time reversal
In quantum mechanics, the time reversal operator is complex, and can either be unitary or antiunitary. In quantum field theory, T has been arbitrarily chosen to be antiunitary for the purpose of avoiding the existence of negative energy states:
I included the below quote because I suspect anti-matter or matter upon annihilation reveals it self to its partner as negative mass as they annihilate. However before annihilation the negative mass is also reverse time so it behaves just like normal matter until annihilation in which it transforms. If this is the case then negative mass can exist in a vacuum state but to recreate the mass takes positive energy.
In Feynman diagrams there are virtual particles that exist in the vacuum that seem to run backward in time or maybe they have negative mass. I suspect this is the nature of quantum tunneling. Quantum tunneling seems instantaneous. If a particle has a wave function and it comes up to a barrier and its wave function extends beyond the barrier then there is a chance with thermal vacuum fluctuations that it will provide the energy for the particle to exist on the other side of the barrier. I think when this happens the particle tunnels but its previous position is instantaneously annihilated. Imagine an energy spike that exist with in its wave function shrinking while growing on the other side of the barrier. What is annihilating the particles previous position? How about negative mass or reverse time virtual particles while the counter parts of the vacuum accumulate at the particles new position creating new mass. In a sense the particle is made non-unique. Its previous position was annihilated and a new particle was created. Is this evidence of negative mass or reverse time in the vacuum? Is this what Feynman diagrams describe?
http://scipp.ucsc.edu/outreach/23FeynmanDiagrams.pdf <-- see attached pdf from this link at bottom.
Back to the Woodward effect. I don't think they mention superconductors in the patent but I suspect the way to really see the mach effect is to use superconductors. Superconductors are not normally conductive so when they do become conductive there are very few electrons involved unlike in copper where there is a lot of electrons. So when there is a current in a superconductor this current is at a much higher velocity than in copper.
Now I don't accept Eugene Podkletnov's experiments as absolute truth but I am not one to assume they are liars untill I have good reason, so I'm still very interested in this guy currently.
He claims to have generated very intense gravitational waves in a gravity impulse generator. These waves he describes in my opinion are negative gravity waves because they repel objects.
Imagine drawing a line down the center of the waves. As an object encounters it, it is pushed away till the wave passes and after the waves passes the wave slows the object. The object wouldn't feel the acceleration because its being gravitationally accelerated but it might feel the gradient in the force the same as how a black hole can spaghettify an object falling into an event horizon.
He does this by accelerating electrons in a superconductor via charged capacitors discharging. Now think thecurrentcharge velocity that is in a superconductor is larger than in copper and the accelerations are massive. Now relate this to the mach effect equation for change in mass above. Remember that negative mass term? I think that is the vacuum.
Here is what I think may be going on. The accelerated electrons are inducing friction in the vacuum. You can think of the vacuum as possibly cubes with plank-length (the minimum size of the vacuum). The more thermal energy they contain the more they swell up like balloons. The plank length defines the non-local speed of light, time and mass (less energy slower time, slower speed of light, more effective mass). Locally the speed of light and time if you live in a plank cell is always the same but non-locally the plank length can change depending on how energized the vacuum is. We have measured this non-local change in time above the surface of the earth and clocks closer to earth tick slower than clocks away from earths gravitational field. Space is curved because of the physical shrinking of the plank length I think.
The gravitational field is the rate in which these cubes change in thermal energy. A very fast moving object may also have an accompanying vacuum wave of depleted vacuum which slows its time and speed to remain c and creating the effect of what seems to be increased mass.
Eugene Podkletnov claims in the video to have measured the velocity of one of his waves as traveling not only faster than light but much faster than light. I think it was something like sixty four times faster than c. I think he claims the waves deflect a laser and he uses multiple lasers to detect the waves velocity. I think this might fit in with swelling the plank length of the vacuum. If you swell the plank length of the vacuum you increase the speed of light and induce effects that seem to induce negative mass (hence the negative gravitational effect).
I think this may be related to Woodward's negative mass term.
Now how do we use it? I think we need a rectangular superconductive cavity. In such a cavity I think we can have the 1f 2f 3f frequencies needed to properly emulate the mach effect simultaneously in a cavity. We induce via the sum of frequencies the electrons to experience large accelerations in the superconductive cavity, mainly in one direction, generating these negative mass gravitational waves. The energy put into these waves may be the rocket term in the Woodward effect (propellant) but what we want to push us is the negative gravitational effect so we feed the waves through our ship and at some power level it should start pulling us in the same direction as the propellant (the vacuum waves).
rectangular cavity description
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1812364#msg1812364 <--should be rectangular cavity I think. See top image at bottom.
Fourier series of frequencies to induce asymmetric electron acceleration.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1806976#msg1806976 <---See 2nd image at bottom.
When we reach relativistic velocities where our effective mass would increase, our time slow, we begin to pancake and become flatter the negative g waves swell the vacuum back to normal size at the proper energy levels. We effectively eliminate the Lorentz contraction and the slowing of time allowing us to exceed the speed of light while keeping the clock at normal levels.
Anyways it's currently my speculation, but I think its pretty good speculation, though I'm open to other insights based on reality and physics that is.
Anyway I think the patent doesn't direct electron acceleration in the proper direction. Forwards. They don't mention superconductors and they seem obscure to me using terminology more than being concise. They however do strike me as possibly attempting to replicate the mach effect. Their claims of negative mass or energy may possibly have some merit and is necessary for warp drive I think.
-
#796 by MathewOrman on 18 Jan, 2019 07:52
-
Navy has many nonworking concepts but they have a policy that any idea developed by member of Navy must be patented...
-
#797 by dustinthewind on 18 Jan, 2019 15:26
-
Navy has many nonworking concepts but they have a policy that any idea developed by member of Navy must be patented...
I don't know that it works or doesn't. I just feel it's obscure. That could be for security reasons or even lack of understanding for all we know. In the field of science being concise is highly valued. We shouldn't like fumbling around in the dark. -
#798 by MathewOrman on 19 Jan, 2019 14:12
-
I have just learned from Mike McDonald from the US Navy Emdrive group that he is also reporting negative results.
Which video is that? -
#799 by MathewOrman on 19 Jan, 2019 14:48
-
Did not fool me, when I first saw his video demo I've estimated that the torque exhibited in his video is at least million times higher than what NASA reported, also the direction of rotation was opposite to what his theory claims...Funny though, how he managed to fool us (well, at least some of us) for almost 20 years.
You can't put this all on Shawyer. A lot of us were thinking with our hearts instead of our heads. We were all to eager to buy what he was selling.
I email him and he replied: Force action is on the bigger end so emdrive reaction is in the opposite direction...
