EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 12

#100 by meberbs on 04 Nov, 2019 22:13
Quote from: TheTraveller on 04 Nov, 2019 21:15
Plus there is a direct background vibrational pathway, bottom of EmDrive to scale, scale to table.

So any vibrations on the table are transmitted to the almost balanced EmDrive.
Vibrations are transmitted through the balance beam to the drive in the case without the extra mass placed on the drive or the scale being involved. This is a direct pathway.

The drive also is not "almost balanced," since other than the forces from its mass and the balance mass on the far end of the beam, there is 0.5 grams worth of weight pushing down and an equivalent force pushing up from the scale. making it a balanced situation.

Quote from: TheTraveller on 04 Nov, 2019 21:15
With 0.5g pressing down and 14mg of vibration pressing up, the EmDrive will occasionally move up from the upward component of the vibration.
This description is nonsensical. Vibrations aren't pushing up, they are vibrating. As kenny008 mentions, you keep using the wrong units. Grams are problematic in this context, because they look like g's (of acceleration) which is often used when discussing vibrations. also, at least keep units consistent, such as 500 mg and 14 mg.

Quote from: TheTraveller on 04 Nov, 2019 21:15
If Rf power is applied to the cavity, during one of those upper vibrational force events, the EmDrive may engage Motor Mode & start to generate an upward directed force.

When it does so, the weight sensed by the scale will drop and the scale's compressed spring will release some of it's stored potential energy, pushing the EmDrive upward.
You have posted this exact description before. My response is the same as before, there is no reason this exact sequence of events would not happen in the case without the extra mass on the cavity. The additional force comes from the downward force on the other end of the balance beam pushing the drive up.

Quote from: TheTraveller on 04 Nov, 2019 21:15
Background vibrations can only then reach the EmDrive via the central pivot, where then need to lift a 10kg mass, instead of the 0.5g mass as existed when the EmDrive was touching the scale.
The 10 kg is present in either case, and the inertia of it has to be dealt with in either case. The force of it is irrelevant in either case due to the balance mass on the other end of the beam cancelling it out.

If anything vibrations would be larger in amplitude without the scale present, because the scale only allows a tiny amount of physical motion for a given applied force. Without that extra point of support the drive is on the end of a cantilevered beam which can increase the effective motion due to vibration.

Quote from: TheTraveller on 04 Nov, 2019 21:15
In this case there is no compressed scale spring ready to push the weight reducing EmDrive upward.
There is force being applied by the mass on the other side of the balance beam ready to push the emDrive upward.

I bolded it this time, because despite you quoting the equivalent statement from my previous post, you don't acknowledge it. The drive itself just knows if there is a net force applied, it does not care if it is from a spring or the gravitational force on the weights on the other end of the beam.
#101 by Vlad Kri on 05 Nov, 2019 04:29
Quote from: meberbs on 04 Nov, 2019 13:42
Quote from: Vlad Kri on 04 Nov, 2019 09:01
Quote from: demofsky on 04 Nov, 2019 06:33

The coupler was almost as large as the cavity (!)

Absolutely right. The coupler along with the cavity were a simple receiver. Together with the plate beneath them, Tajmar received GRAVITSUP. This was the reason that then he turned EMdrive thrust was maintained.
That is the opposite of any result reported by Tajmar. Please don't make things up.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters

Page 3 " The thrust direction also seems to reverse for the 180° direction. However, at 90° we see a similar thrust as in the 180° direction, where we should expect zero thrust. "
#102 by meberbs on 05 Nov, 2019 06:18
Quote from: Vlad Kri on 05 Nov, 2019 04:29
Quote from: meberbs on 04 Nov, 2019 13:42
Quote from: Vlad Kri on 04 Nov, 2019 09:01
Quote from: demofsky on 04 Nov, 2019 06:33

The coupler was almost as large as the cavity (!)

Absolutely right. The coupler along with the cavity were a simple receiver. Together with the plate beneath them, Tajmar received GRAVITSUP. This was the reason that then he turned EMdrive thrust was maintained.
That is the opposite of any result reported by Tajmar. Please don't make things up.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters

Page 3 " The thrust direction also seems to reverse for the 180° direction. However, at 90° we see a similar thrust as in the 180° direction, where we should expect zero thrust. "
That 90° thrust (which is thrust in the 180° direction when the device is pointed at 90°) indicates that there is an error source is causing the thrust, not a useful force. The same is true of the next sentence after what you quoted that indicates that rerouting the power through an attenuator has no effect on the thrust signal, again showing that the result is an experimental error.
#103 by TheTraveller on 07 Nov, 2019 15:40
Consider:

Mass in space knows neither velocity nor distance moved.
Both are frame variants.

However the Rf amp driving the EmDrive knows only constant W input & Joules of energy consumed = RfW * sec.

Consider a 100m long EmDrive driven ship not accelerating.
The crew ejects a ping pong ball at the nose.
The crew then powers the EmDrive with constant input RfW, until the end of the ship has reached the floating ping pong ball and then depowers the EmDrive.

The time to move the ship so the aft of the ship reaches the ping pong ball & Joules of energy consumed, being W * sec, is noted.

Each experiment measures the time of acceleration for the aft of the ship to reach the floating ping pong ball & Joules input to the EmDrive during the acceleration time.

The experiment is repeated 100 times.

It is noted there is no significant variation in acceleration time nor in Joules inputted to the EmDrive.

Why should there be any variation?
Which would imply mass somehow how's it's velocity and distance moved.
Which is not possible as both are distant observer frame variants.
#104 by meberbs on 07 Nov, 2019 16:44
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07 Nov, 2019 15:40
Consider:

Mass in space knows neither velocity nor distance moved.
Both are frame variants.

However the Rf amp driving the EmDrive knows only constant W input & Joules of energy consumed = RfW * sec.
I am not sure what point you were trying to make, but continuing a couple steps past where you stopped leads to a meaningful result. (This post like yours ignores relativistic effects that would cause certain quantities such as time to be frame dependent, as that would be a 1 part in a million level for reasonable speeds.)

From your post:
-The total power consumed by the drive is a constant (and this is frame invariant)
-The acceleration, time, and therefore change in velocity are constant for each step. These are also frame invariant.
implicitly:
-The amount of energy converted to thermal energy each time is a constant, again thermal energy is frame invariant.

Now lets look at energy conservation. An external observer is needed, because momentum and energy conservation only apply within a constant inertial reference frame, which obviously is not the ship. (The need for an inertial reference frame should be clear, because for an object at rest, an observer in one frame would see it with 0 momentum and 0 kinetic energy, but in another frame finite values of both would be measured.)

The total energy consumed by the drive is equal to the sum of the waste heat and the change in kinetic energy. E_tot = E_therm + E_kin The kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared, to have numbers, lets call the change in velocity 10 (units don't matter) and lets set the mass to 2 to cancel out the 1/2 in the kinetic energy equation 1/2 m v^2.

For the first acceleration, velocity changes from 0 to 10:
E_tot = E_therm +(10^2 - 0^2) = E_therm + 100
For the second time the same experiment is run, velocity changes from 10 to 20:
E_tot = E_therm +(20^2 - 10^2) = E_therm + 300

Since it has been established that E_tot and E_therm are constants, the above equations cannot both be simultaneously true, and therefore energy conservation is broken.

The equivalent for momentum conservation is too trivial to write in detail. The velocity (and therefore the momentum) changed and there is nothing external to carry away that change of momentum (If there was, accounting for its kinetic energy could potentially balance the above equations.)
#105 by MathewOrman on 08 Nov, 2019 20:12
Quote from: demofsky on 04 Nov, 2019 07:22
Quote from: TheTraveller on 30 Oct, 2019 08:32
Roger Shawyer's 2019 IAC paper:

"EmDrive Thrust/Load Characteristics. Theory, Experimental Results and a Moon Mission"

is available on
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC2019Paper.pdf

Plus attached.

Enjoy.

“The problem is that, unlike a rocket, but more like an electrical machine, EmDrive requires to work against a load before thrust can be measured.”

This is a key point that seems to fall on deaf ears intentionally or otherwise.

Very simply the issue at hand is the proof or falsification of Sawyer’s results. And very simply, if someone has built an apparatus and not introduced “a load” as Sawyer understands and documents then they have proven nothing. (Watching folks build their apparatus like Jamie and rmfwguy is certainly educational however.)

It is like piling up dynamite claiming it is not an explosive because it does nothing, throwing up ones hands and walking away muttering. Introducing a blasting cap with a lit fuse may confound what are otherwise very premature conclusions.

The method of propelling without momentum split is to convert electric energy to kinetic using full momentum transfer by pushing or pooling against space occupied by xxxx entity of matter... That way momentum and energy i conserved... In reality some energy will be converted to heat due to ohmic loses... :-)
#106 by JohnFornaro on 09 Nov, 2019 22:23
Quote from: MathewOrman on 08 Nov, 2019 20:12
pushing or pooling

Do you know even what you're saying?

Tighten up.
#107 by MathewOrman on 10 Nov, 2019 13:50
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09 Nov, 2019 22:23
Quote from: MathewOrman on 08 Nov, 2019 20:12
pushing or pooling

Do you know even what you're saying?

Tighten up.

Yes, resulted motion relative to an observer... :-)
#108 by flux_capacitor on 15 Nov, 2019 18:41
Quote from: TheTraveller on 04 Nov, 2019 21:15
With 0.5g pressing down and 14mg of vibration pressing up, the EmDrive will occasionally move up from the upward component of the vibration.

If Rf power is applied to the cavity, during one of those upper vibrational force events, the EmDrive may engage Motor Mode & start to generate an upward directed force.

When it does so, the weight sensed by the scale will drop and the scale's compressed spring will release some of it's stored potential energy, pushing the EmDrive upward.

Which will enforce the strength of Motor Mode.

Hi TT. As meberbs already pointed out, a vibration like this is a rapid movement of an object over a short distance that alternately goes in a direction then in the opposite direction. This is pretty obvious for everyone I think. A vibration does not provide only one directional force component.

Therefore let me rephrase your statement with this equal but opposite event:

"While such vibration is transiently pulling the apparatus down, the EmDrive moves down along the downward component of the vibration. If Rf power is applied to the cavity, during one of those downward vibrational force events, the EmDrive may engage Generator Mode & start to generate a downward directed force."

This, considering the same orientation of the cavity of course (i.e. small end upwards). Correct? If so, this is like playing heads or tails, how do you know what you will measure? Do you have to rerun the experiment a hundred times or more to separate the two events statistically?
#109 by bprager on 17 Nov, 2019 05:29
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 15 Nov, 2019 18:41
...

Hi TT. As meberbs already pointed out, a vibration like this is a rapid movement of an object over a short distance that alternately goes in a direction then in the opposite direction. This is pretty obvious for everyone I think. A vibration does not provide only one directional force component.

What happens when the vibration shortens the gap in one direction to allow a Casimir effect while widen it at the other direction and then doesn't? Just curious??
#110 by dustinthewind on 17 Nov, 2019 20:48
I know the EM drive was speculated to possibly be connected to the mach effect. Especially when the dielectric was used via its expansion and contraction. The dielectric being the accelerated mass and the cavity being the anchor.

Some others are looking into the space-time carrying away momentum. The general relativistic conservation of momentum.
This is what is needed in order for something to escape the cavity in order for the cavity to gain momentum. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48855.msg2015351#msg2015351

That is T. Padmanabhan's paper and it was stated this is what woodward is looking for now. T. Padmanabhan's paper merges the idea of the thermal vacuum and starts joining the quantum vacuum and general relativity.

There are mentions here about the Unruh effect also and how to maximize it on a limited energy budget via Aida Ahmadzadegan, Achim Kempf. The Unruh effect is probably related to the dynamical casmir effect but also probably related to the deceleration of black holes in maximizing the observation of the Unruh effect. I think its observation of the vacuum and general relativistic effects. Its also possibly related to the evaporation of black holes and the thermal observation of the vacuum on null surfaces at the event horizion.

Lastly its emphasized the use of cavities in maximizing energy conversion between systems. One example being LIGO's laser cavity to not only observe gravity waves but possibly making them via coupling between systems. Why diesel engine braking is more efficient for diesel engines than gasoline. Some other examples given.
#111 by Alex_O on 18 Nov, 2019 12:34
It’s just a question - what will happen if an open type cavity resonator is placed on the surface of a solar sail device, for example, a conical-shaped dielectric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_resonator). The quality factor of such a resonator can be of the order of 10⁴-10⁶ (The Dielectric Microwave Resonator). Can we expect the magical effect of increasing the rocket thrust of such a device?
#112 by X_RaY on 18 Nov, 2019 20:43
Quote from: Alex_O on 18 Nov, 2019 12:34
It’s just a question - what will happen if an open type cavity resonator is placed on the surface of a solar sail device, for example, a conical-shaped dielectric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_resonator). The quality factor of such a resonator can be of the order of 10⁴-10⁶ (The Dielectric Microwave Resonator). Can we expect the magical effect of increasing the rocket thrust of such a device?
I guess nothing special would happen. The sail would be slightly less efficient* than the naked one due to the dielectric loss in the resonator and the additional mass of the resonator itself. It applies CoE & CoM. However, the resulting vector states of the inner field of the dielectric resonator could still be interesting, since the resonator would still be excited by several frequencies with corresponding energy and different natural frequencies, since the energy spectrum supplied to it is broadband. The resulting vector field in the dielectric is thus the result of the superposition of the different excitation modes.
Please note that resonances at discrete frequencies occur only depending on the resonator geometry and the material properties, but not over the entire spectrum at each frequency that reaches the resonator. During
Q describes a dimensionless relationship between energy supply and energy loss (internal and external), nothing else.
Also here, final result would be no more, but less effective than at naked sail based on losses (randomly induced oscillations of molecules involved, caused by passing EM-fields).

*This point could be worked out on the basis of the corresponding equations concerning the ε" and the associated loss of reflected radiation. However, this cannot lead to a more efficient solar sail.
#113 by meberbs on 18 Nov, 2019 21:03
Quote from: bprager on 17 Nov, 2019 05:29
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 15 Nov, 2019 18:41
...

Hi TT. As meberbs already pointed out, a vibration like this is a rapid movement of an object over a short distance that alternately goes in a direction then in the opposite direction. This is pretty obvious for everyone I think. A vibration does not provide only one directional force component.

What happens when the vibration shortens the gap in one direction to allow a Casimir effect while widen it at the other direction and then doesn't? Just curious??
Nothing, the point here is that TT's claims have embedded contradictions in them. Casimir effects do not violate momentum conservation and are always balanced by nature.
#114 by dustinthewind on 19 Nov, 2019 02:09
Quote from: Alex_O on 18 Nov, 2019 12:34
It’s just a question - what will happen if an open type cavity resonator is placed on the surface of a solar sail device, for example, a conical-shaped dielectric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_resonator). The quality factor of such a resonator can be of the order of 10⁴-10⁶ (The Dielectric Microwave Resonator). Can we expect the magical effect of increasing the rocket thrust of such a device?

Well the point of a cavity or resonator is that you want it to store energy and do work multiple times per second. This is done if the nature of converting energy between systems is normally inefficient. This allows your stored energy to be converted multiple times into the other system but is done at a rate of n*%efficiency=total %efficiency where n=number of exchanges, is a gross approximation but not completely accurate. Usually this occurs in exchange between systems of different mass because the % of kinetic energy exchanged in a collision is very small between systems of large and small mass. The only system that exchanges 100% of energy in a kinetic collision is systems of equal mass. An example is Newtons Cradle.

I assume your wondering about the comparison of the recycled photon thruster where for example the photons reflect maybe a thousand times or more. Photons reflecting change in frequency as they give up kinetic energy but the % of their energy they give up is very small. An approximation is maybe about the effective mass of the photon over the mass of the object they strike = ratio of energy exchanged. To increase this efficiency they ramp up the number of times the same photon which holds energy is reflected - increasing pressure. Basically the photon becomes the resonator. I guess you can call it the recycled photon thruster.

The combustion cylinder is the same in that the energy is stored in the hot gas and they reflect of the cylinder wall n number of times before being exhausted. % effeciency is ~ mass of the hot gas atom over the effective mass of the vehicle times the number of times they are reflected off the receding cylinder wall. The faster that cylinder wall receeds this reduces the internal pressure so you don't want your rpms to go to high or you reduce your pressure or torque. You want to build a transmission that keeps the engine at optimal rpm for maximum torque and a transmission that can handle that torque. This is why I don't like automatic transmissions in that they allow the car to rev up, lowering efficiency. For gasoline engines that don't have a lot of torque, and are more inefficient, because of their low pressure, they have to let it rev up because the engine can't handle the torque.

This pressure couples the hot gas to the kinetic energy of the car and so engine braking in a diesel engine is more efficient because of this increased pressure. So we have a reversible system. More efficient at converting energy from gas to vehicle and from vehicle to gas.

This coupling is why they suggested LIGO is coupled to space time and can generate gravity waves. This coupling pressure is the beginning of increasing efficiency so as to effectively manipulate another system there is normally very little interaction with.

So back to your resonator your storing energy in. You want it to push against something and develop a pressure. This is the whole concept of say the mach effect where you push heavy and pull light. Pushing heavy develops pressure in an omni-directional manner. Pulling back light is when you decouple from a system - reducing friction and you get the return stroke.

In the combustion cylinder pushing heavy is the increased pressure stroke of combustion where there is an increased number of atoms and heat leading to pressure. Pulling light is decoupling by exhausting the hot gas and the cylinder returns under lower pressure.

Maximizing the jerk seems to increase observation of the unruh effect, effective mass in the mach effect, coupling with the vacuum, but the idea is to throw off the effective mass into the vacuum which would be the rocket part of the mach effect. This would be the phase where black holes brake the hardest when their vector of acceleration is rapidly changing - they are undergoing jerk.

You could do this once but it would be more efficient to use a cavity or resonator to store the energy and do it repeatedly. So the rocket part would be the thrown off momentum into the vacuum during the high pressure phase, but the mach effect worm hole part would be manipulating the thermal energy of the vacuum I suspect. Thermally energizing the vacuum should increase the rate of time, countering Lorentz effects, reducing effective mass, behaves like negative energy in the vacuum, making possible stuff like alcubierre drives. I have my reasons for suspecting artificially induced curvature in the energy of the vacuum would induce artificial gravitational effects.

What seems magical when understood becomes science. Magic swords for instance ages ago and revered black smiths.
https://giaconda.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/blacksmiths-for-gods-and-heroes-tracing-the-magical-blacksmith-through-myth/
#115 by Alex_O on 19 Nov, 2019 18:15
Quote from: X_RaY on 18 Nov, 2019 20:43
Quote from: Alex_O on 18 Nov, 2019 12:34
It’s just a question - what will happen if an open type cavity resonator is placed on the surface of a solar sail device, for example, a conical-shaped dielectric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_resonator). The quality factor of such a resonator can be of the order of 10⁴-10⁶ (The Dielectric Microwave Resonator). Can we expect the magical effect of increasing the rocket thrust of such a device?
I guess nothing special would happen. The sail would be slightly less efficient* than the naked one due to the dielectric loss in the resonator and the additional mass of the resonator itself.
Thanks. But according to the idea of Emdrive, such a resonator (on the surface of the sail) should create thrust emdrive. Of course, this is poorly said for the term "solar sail", it is better to define a system that consists of the parts: a) an RF source b) an RF emitter (horn antenna, for example) and an RF receiver - an open type dielectric resonator. I used the term "sail" for brevity.
#116 by Alex_O on 19 Nov, 2019 18:30
Quote from: dustinthewind on 19 Nov, 2019 02:09
Quote from: Alex_O on 18 Nov, 2019 12:34
It’s just a question - what will happen if an open type cavity resonator is placed on the surface of a solar sail device, for example, a conical-shaped dielectric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_resonator). The quality factor of such a resonator can be of the order of 10⁴-10⁶ (The Dielectric Microwave Resonator). Can we expect the magical effect of increasing the rocket thrust of such a device?

Well the point of a cavity or resonator is that you want it to store energy and do work multiple times per second.
It's probably hard for me to describe my question in a nutshell. I thought that in the known versions of emdrive there is a technical problem when the RF antenna is placed inside a copper cone (emdrive). And I thought about resonators of the open type, that somehow they use the EM field from the source from the outside. And it became interesting to me to understand what physics can do here, in principle.
#117 by meberbs on 19 Nov, 2019 19:01
Quote from: Alex_O on 19 Nov, 2019 18:15
Quote from: X_RaY on 18 Nov, 2019 20:43
Quote from: Alex_O on 18 Nov, 2019 12:34
It’s just a question - what will happen if an open type cavity resonator is placed on the surface of a solar sail device, for example, a conical-shaped dielectric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_resonator). The quality factor of such a resonator can be of the order of 10⁴-10⁶ (The Dielectric Microwave Resonator). Can we expect the magical effect of increasing the rocket thrust of such a device?
I guess nothing special would happen. The sail would be slightly less efficient* than the naked one due to the dielectric loss in the resonator and the additional mass of the resonator itself.
Thanks. But according to the idea of Emdrive, such a resonator (on the surface of the sail) should create thrust emdrive. Of course, this is poorly said for the term "solar sail", it is better to define a system that consists of the parts: a) an RF source b) an RF emitter (horn antenna, for example) and an RF receiver - an open type dielectric resonator. I used the term "sail" for brevity.
There is no "idea of an emDrive," as you phrase it because there is no consistent theory that actually predicts that the emDrive works.

Quote from: Alex_O on 19 Nov, 2019 18:30
Quote from: dustinthewind on 19 Nov, 2019 02:09
Well the point of a cavity or resonator is that you want it to store energy and do work multiple times per second.
It's probably hard for me to describe my question in a nutshell. I thought that in the known versions of emdrive there is a technical problem when the RF antenna is placed inside a copper cone (emdrive). And I thought about resonators of the open type, that somehow they use the EM field from the source from the outside. And it became interesting to me to understand what physics can do here, in principle.
You have been given this answer clearly multiple times over. In principle, physics does not allow any device of this type to be useful period. All of known physics obeys conservation of momentum, and propulsion based on massless particles (such as photons) according to special relativity is limited to a 1/c momentum/energy ratio.
#118 by X_RaY on 19 Nov, 2019 19:07
Quote from: Alex_O on 19 Nov, 2019 18:15
Quote from: X_RaY on 18 Nov, 2019 20:43
Quote from: Alex_O on 18 Nov, 2019 12:34
It’s just a question - what will happen if an open type cavity resonator is placed on the surface of a solar sail device, for example, a conical-shaped dielectric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_resonator). The quality factor of such a resonator can be of the order of 10⁴-10⁶ (The Dielectric Microwave Resonator). Can we expect the magical effect of increasing the rocket thrust of such a device?
I guess nothing special would happen. The sail would be slightly less efficient* than the naked one due to the dielectric loss in the resonator and the additional mass of the resonator itself.
Thanks. But according to the idea of Emdrive, such a resonator (on the surface of the sail) should create thrust emdrive. Of course, this is poorly said for the term "solar sail", it is better to define a system that consists of the parts: a) an RF source b) an RF emitter (horn antenna, for example) and an RF receiver - an open type dielectric resonator. I used the term "sail" for brevity.
Regarding your post, standard physics predicts you would get a thrust equivalent to a photon rocket. The so called Em-drive effect is postulated by its inventor using crude and some false premises. It is not a proven concept as meberbs already states.

There are some concepts published who try to explain unproven experimental data. From my point of view, it is more likely at the moment that the data are due to experimental artifacts.
Please don't misunderstand me, I really hope that thing works and these thrust signals are real but I haven't seen any convincing replication of the postulated thrust by independent labs yet.
#119 by meberbs on 19 Nov, 2019 19:23
dustinthewind, your post does not discuss anything with any relevance to this thread, and generally is wrong in the places where your statements aren't completely meaningless, to avoid wasting time, I'll just respond to one part of your post where the fact that your statements are in error can be easily researched.

Quote from: dustinthewind on 19 Nov, 2019 02:09
You want to build a transmission that keeps the engine at optimal rpm for maximum torque and a transmission that can handle that torque. This is why I don't like automatic transmissions in that they allow the car to rev up, lowering efficiency. For gasoline engines that don't have a lot of torque, and are more inefficient, because of their low pressure, they have to let it rev up because the engine can't handle the torque.
Modern automatic transmissions are more efficient than manuals, and "letting it rev up" is not why the older ones were less efficient, but because of fundamental losses in the design. Engines do have an optimal RPM, but not for the reasons you describe, and modern automatic transmissions enable more gears which helps keep the engine in the optimal RPM range. The "because of their low pressure" does not even make sense where you have it in this quote nor does claiming that you have to let something rev up (and therefore apply more torque) because it can't handle the torque. It is simply a self-contradictory statement.

The rest of your post is equal levels of wrong, nonsensical, and irrelevant, since even if your statements here were correct, they would still in no way, shape or form be relevant to any of the topics of discussion in this thread.