-
#220 by The_Optimist on 17 Feb, 2020 07:47
-
Would you be so kind as to post a link to the thread which details the experimental rebuttal?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.0
Thanks,
Stu
Thank you. -
#221 by TheTraveller on 19 Feb, 2020 09:31
-
Roger Shawyer is giving a lecture at University College London on EmDrive.
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/technologies-of-hope-tickets-93506655925
He will be mentioning a cubesat application for low cost science missions, as in the attached slide.
This application is of interest to the Mullard Space Laboratory at UCL, who are sponsoring the lecture.
Seems others have developed their version of the old 3.85GHz Flight Thruster & designed it into a 12U CubeSat.
Based on Clyde Space EPIC 12U Cube Sat:
https://www.aac-clyde.space/epic-spacecraft/epic-12
Work on my Flight Thruster replication project is slowly moving forward.
-
#222 by dustinthewind on 20 Feb, 2020 05:54
-
Just a question, what will happen if:
This step is impossible, you would need 2 photons colliding from different directions to obey conservation of energy and momentum. (One way to see this is that with just 1 photon, you could look from a different reference frame where the photon would not have enough energy to create the particles.)
1) a photon with high energy created a pair of particles with mass
I omitted the details - of course a couple of photons or gamma rays are fed to the target in a strong magnetic field. Pair production often refers specifically to a photon creating an electron – positron pair near a nucleus.3) a pair of particles annihilates
Again, this step is impossible, annihilation can't conserve energy and momentum with just 1 photon, there needs to be 2, and these would not move in the same direction, they would move away from each other, so there would be no "cycle"
4) annihilation energy is utilized, used to create a new photonHas this trivial cycle been already discussed?
It isn't a cycle, it involves multiple physically impossible steps. Imagining some other more complicated variation where you don't break physical laws, the intermediate steps are irrelevant. At the end if the final thing the spacecraft pushes against is a electron positron pair, it obeys the equation I stated above. Any intermediate steps are irrelevant, as only the net result, the final momentum of the expelled particles matters. And as stated above, this is less efficient than letting the particles annihilate onboard and then reflecting the gamma rays to make sure that they go in the desired direction. (Or as a practical matter, probably easier to absorb the energy of the gamma rays and use it to power a laser at a frequency that is easier to control.)
When discussing the idea of stellar engines, people should not violate the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. But people can think about increasing the coefficient of useful quality, about the recovery of energy and the use of resources of the environment (the universe). A simple example is a heat pump, where the coefficient of performance (COP) is greater than 100%.
1. I thought about the engine, where there is a long pipe (nozzle), where the energy of the reactor creates photons, photons create pairs of particles, and the energy of the reactor is spent on pushing pairs of particles through a long pipe into the jet nozzle.
2. When a pair of particles flies in a pipe, it can annihilate.
3. If the annihilation of particles creates a photon flux perpendicular to the axis of the pipe and these photons are absorbed on the side wall of the pipe and create radiation pressure on only the side walls of the pipe.
4.The annihilation energy will return back to the rocket reactor, but the rocket will continue its flight.
What I was talking about when I mentioned recycling energy and pushing on quasi pairs many times per second in a cavity was that in the discovery of gravitational waves one of the papers discuss that even a star produces gravitational waves. The particles are undergoing massive amounts of changing acceleration.
To propel a cavity something needs to escape the cavity and carry away momentum and energy. This vacuum / space time seems to be capable of doing that. When black holes merge as they lose energy they spiral in and they just keep going faster and faster. But they are losing energy to space-time gravity waves. So how does this happen. Gravity or space-time has a lot of parallels between it and electromagnetism. Just as there is a magnetic effect in electromagnetism there's the gravito magnetic effect or Lens Thirring affect in Space-time. As the electric field drops off with distance squared, gravity drops off distance squared. They say gravity seems to be only attractive but I might beg to differ that there there may be a white hole equivalent in the form of dark energy, however for gravity like Fields attract instead of repel. It may be that for gravity unlike fields repel as in the negative universal cosmological constant is pushing away matter.
So anyway, when a charge accelerates it generates radiation that travels at the speed of light. This radiation is actually repulsive to the accelerated charge and absorbs energy from the charge itself. Any other charge absorbing this radiation is also repelled by the radiation. if the charge doesn't absorb the radiation then then the radiation can pass by without transferring energy as a gravity wave my pass by without exchanging energy.
Gravity waves are kind of similar. For a gravitational object you can imagine that the vacuum closer to it is more depleated in energy. In a sense matter is like a hole in the vacuum. Lower energy levels cause time to slow down which is a relativistic effect. Objects tend to want to gravitate toward the lower energy levels. I suspect a gravity wave may actually be indicated by elevated energy levels within the vacuum. As the black holes spiral in there should be an elevated wave in front of them, it's gravitationally repulsive, and time should tick faster in this energetic region. This energetic vacuum may be the white hole equivalent, represents how energy is pumped into the vacuum, witch prompts the negative cosmological constant.
Repulsive forces are necessary for exchange of energy between two different systems, matter and space-time. Just as an object emitting photons is repelled by their field so that energy can be absorbed from the object to the photons, gravitational waves should be repulsive which allows transfer of energy from the matter to space-time. A force is necessary for the energy transfer by F.dx=E . Normally though as the wave passes the object is pushed one way, and then is pushed back and no energy is actually transferred unless it is interacting with another Force.
I'll give an example of this. Ligo has mirrors in which they bounce lasers multiple times between them. This creates pressure on the mirrors. As the gravity wave passes because there is laser pressure on the mirrors energy is transfered from the gravity wave to the laser. some say it's just a phase change, but a change in the photon energy induces a change in wavelength, with which causes a change in phase and is an indicator of of energy transfer.
Another example is eugene podkletnov gravity impulse generator, which some are sceptical of, but I suspect to be the real thing. His gravity waves seems to be repulsive as it passes by pushing on a pendulum. Because the pendulum interacts with gravity, his gravity wave would normally just displace the matter speeding it up and then slowing it down and giving it no velocity in the end but in the gravity wave displacing his pendulum, it changes it's height in which the Earth's gravity is pulling it down and so energy is transfered. He claims this gravity wave can even deflect a laser. He does this by massively accelerating electrons in a superconductor via capacitor discharge. Jerk to create his gravity wave.
So my referencing a cavity which repeatedly creates some kind of a quasi pair which then is accelerated and then annihilated in the cavity where the energy of the photons is then recycled to recreate the quasi pair and then re-accelerate that pair again is suggestive of repeated gravitational wave generation. I mentioned the importance of a cavity and recycling that energy to increase efficiency. This happens in the combustion engine we're hot atoms are repeatedly accelerated against a cylinder wall. Without pressure, you just have one kinetic collision and very little energy exchanged between the gas atom and you're a massive object what you want to accelerate, your car.
So it's not the radiation pushing the cavity, it's the escaping energy in the form of spaceTime I was suggesting that would be pushing the cavity.
there may be other things you can do. Use of gravitational phased arrays to continue to amplify the wave. Larger more repulsive waves make for easier exchange of energy. Not sure if there is a way to surf the wave. Eugene claimed his gravity wave moved FTL , which was quite the claim but maybe if the plank length was largely inflated and the non local speed of light was increased. -
#223 by meberbs on 20 Feb, 2020 06:23
-
... Gravity or space-time has a lot of parallels between it and electromagnetism.
One of these parallels is that gravitational waves, like electromagnetic waves have a momentum/energy ration of 1/c. No matter what kind of generation method you come up with, you cannot do better than that, because it is fundamental to any momentum carried by anything without rest mass in relativity. (The math to show this general fact is a simple equation from any relativity, course, which I have repeated here many times E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2 )
...
So it's not the radiation pushing the cavity, it's the escaping energy in the form of spaceTime I was suggesting that would be pushing the cavity.
If you want to argue this point you need to use math, handwaving is useless. Pointing to some different extremely dubious claim that has no relation to the emDrive is both unhelpful and off topic. (If you think it is worthy of discussion you can try creating a new thread on it.) -
#224 by TheTraveller on 20 Feb, 2020 11:17
-
Roger Shawyer is giving a lecture at University College London on EmDrive.
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/technologies-of-hope-tickets-93506655925
He will be mentioning a cubesat application for low cost science missions, as in the attached slide.
This application is of interest to the Mullard Space Laboratory at UCL, who are sponsoring the lecture.
Seems others have developed their version of the old 3.85GHz Flight Thruster & designed it into a 12U CubeSat.
Based on Clyde Space EPIC 12U Cube Sat:
https://www.aac-clyde.space/epic-spacecraft/epic-12
Work on my Flight Thruster replication project is slowly moving forward.
Roger has informed that his lecture will be videoed, edited and then streamed by UCL, so it should reach a world-wide audience. -
#225 by Augmentor on 22 Feb, 2020 02:15
-
... Gravity or space-time has a lot of parallels between it and electromagnetism.
One of these parallels is that gravitational waves, like electromagnetic waves have a momentum/energy ration of 1/c. No matter what kind of generation method you come up with, you cannot do better than that, because it is fundamental to any momentum carried by anything without rest mass in relativity. (The math to show this general fact is a simple equation from any relativity, course, which I have repeated here many times E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2 )
...
So it's not the radiation pushing the cavity, it's the escaping energy in the form of spaceTime I was suggesting that would be pushing the cavity.
If you want to argue this point you need to use math, handwaving is useless. Pointing to some different extremely dubious claim that has no relation to the emDrive is both unhelpful and off topic. (If you think it is worthy of discussion you can try creating a new thread on it.)
The caveat is that 1/c does not apply directly in curved space a, only flat.
Keep in mind that General Relativity requires - at a minimum - four vector calculations. Instead of just tensors, I prefer quaternions so one can capture the potentials as well.
FWIW
David -
#226 by meberbs on 22 Feb, 2020 06:52
-
The caveat is that 1/c does not apply directly in curved space a, only flat.
Talking about energy and momentum at all in GR except with some amount of being "locally flat" is a problem, however there is always such a limit, and when discussing motions of objects smaller than planets, the linearized math is just fine. The math still says 1/c (unsurprising because GR was built as a theory of gravity that resolved contradictions between Newtonian gravity and special relativity)
It is mildly annoying to find decent references for this fact, because most searches I do end up finding more recent articles addressing more interesting things, which haven't necessarily been known for decades. I found one that plainly states in the abstract that energy radiated is c times the momentum radiated.
https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.165.1424Keep in mind that General Relativity requires - at a minimum - four vector calculations.
Special relativity also is done in general using 4-vectors, and the equations I provided are straight out of special relativity.Instead of just tensors, I prefer quaternions so one can capture the potentials as well.
Quaternions are great for rotations in 3d space, but your statement here is backwards, tensors are more powerful than quaternions in general. Tensors work just fine for capturing all aspects of spacetime, so your statement is wrong on that point. I looked it up in case anyone had come up with a creative way to use quaternions in general relativity, and the answer is no. To get quaternions to be useful in GR, you have to extend them to the point that they are no longer called quaternions, similar to how tensors are extended vectors.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169758/can-quaternion-math-be-used-to-model-spacetime -
#227 by D_Dom on 25 Feb, 2020 17:12
-
Diverging into a discussion of black holes. I have split those posts off and locked them as I think about possible merge or allowing a separate thread. PM me with any requests.
-
#228 by Mark7777777 on 01 Mar, 2020 09:08
-
Hi Seeshells
Have you still been working on your experimental device lately?
Regards
Mark -
#229 by SeeShells on 01 Mar, 2020 20:05
-
Hi Seeshells
Have you still been working on your experimental device lately?
Regards
Mark
Why, yes I am Mark. Thanks so much for asking.
My build for the new lab has slowed down simply because it's winter here at 8,600 ft in the Rockies and while the snows have been a boon for the ski industry it's slowed down construction until the weather breaks a little. But it's MARCH and dang if it's not looking up!
Otherwise I've been doing much reading/research and redesigning of electronics along with working on a paper.
My Very Best,
Shell
-
#230 by Bob Woods on 02 Mar, 2020 02:39
-
Hey Shell, will you post your paper here when done?Hi Seeshells
Have you still been working on your experimental device lately?
Regards
Mark
Why, yes I am Mark. Thanks so much for asking.
My build for the new lab has slowed down simply because it's winter here at 8,600 ft in the Rockies and while the snows have been a boon for the ski industry it's slowed down construction until the weather breaks a little. But it's MARCH and dang if it's not looking up!
Otherwise I've been doing much reading/research and redesigning of electronics along with working on a paper.
My Very Best,
Shell -
#231 by SeeShells on 02 Mar, 2020 02:49
-
Hey Bob. Simply, yes I will.
Hey Shell, will you post your paper here when done?Hi Seeshells
Have you still been working on your experimental device lately?
Regards
Mark
Why, yes I am Mark. Thanks so much for asking.
My build for the new lab has slowed down simply because it's winter here at 8,600 ft in the Rockies and while the snows have been a boon for the ski industry it's slowed down construction until the weather breaks a little. But it's MARCH and dang if it's not looking up!
Otherwise I've been doing much reading/research and redesigning of electronics along with working on a paper.
My Very Best,
Shell
My Very Best,
Shell -
#232 by Johnny_Tsunami on 10 Mar, 2020 20:56
-
I've been following here since Thread 1, post 1. There was a lot of scientific discussion, a lot of theory and debate, a bit of horseplay, some humor, some fun, some ranting and arguing and some chastising, some bonding and probably some genuine angst, misery, hurt feelings . . . the whole range of human emotions.
So I'm checking in much less often now. It seems like most of the people I was cheering for, have gone. Most of the science has gone. Nobody even seems to want to exchange barbs with Phil (TT) anymore, even as he still eggs them on with the promise of a flying machine.
So I ask; where is the science and the theory? Where is the drama and the debate?
And where . . . is the damned thruster?!
Is it time for De Kelley to make a cameo from beyond and say, 'Its dead Jim'?
Johnny -
#233 by WarpTech on 12 Mar, 2020 01:42
-
I've been following here since Thread 1, post 1. There was a lot of scientific discussion, a lot of theory and debate, a bit of horseplay, some humor, some fun, some ranting and arguing and some chastising, some bonding and probably some genuine angst, misery, hurt feelings . . . the whole range of human emotions.
So I'm checking in much less often now. It seems like most of the people I was cheering for, have gone. Most of the science has gone. Nobody even seems to want to exchange barbs with Phil (TT) anymore, even as he still eggs them on with the promise of a flying machine.
So I ask; where is the science and the theory? Where is the drama and the debate?
And where . . . is the damned thruster?!
Is it time for De Kelley to make a cameo from beyond and say, 'Its dead Jim'?
Johnny
Experiments were done a couple of years ago that basically showed it doesn't work very well. What little, if any, thrust that was observed is unscalable. Nothing can violate conservation of momentum, even if it were somehow bending space-time, it would still require it to exhaust something out the back, be it photons, gravitons or space-time fabric, something has to balance the equation and that something has to be massless. So there is really no point in this thread anymore IMO. I check back every now and then and yeah, it's been dead for a long time. I'm surprised it's still going, but someone has to keep meberbs occupied.
-
#234 by JohnFornaro on 12 Mar, 2020 12:09
-
... it would still require it to exhaust something out the back, be it photons, gravitons or space-time fabric, something has to balance the equation ... I'm surprised it's still going, but someone has to keep meberbs occupied.
As meberbs would say: "The thing's gotta have a tailpipe." Oh wait, what's this? Lt. Uhuru said that?
-
#235 by SeeShells on 12 Mar, 2020 15:24
-
Just going back almost 2800 of my posts ago to the very first. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=48229;area=showposts;start=2380 Interesting for me (or you) to read again.... it would still require it to exhaust something out the back, be it photons, gravitons or space-time fabric, something has to balance the equation ... I'm surprised it's still going, but someone has to keep meberbs occupied.
As meberbs would say: "The thing's gotta have a tailpipe." Oh wait, what's this? Lt. Uhuru said that?
It struck me how even then I agreed with this basics of conservation. in one of my very first posts. 05/10/2015
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1372379#msg1372379QuoteFor the last month I've been digging through the mountains of well thought out (some not so well thought out) material, tests and ideas of why this EM Drive does what it does. It's a beautiful conundrum. For over 40 years as an engineer I've built/designed/tested computers, electronics, electro-mechanical, semiconductor machines, imaging systems for the Super Conductor Super Collider , the list is long.
Not a single thing I built defied the laws of physics or the formulas of the trade. . . Maxwell, Ohms law, etc. If something didn't work for some weird reason, it still followed the basic laws and formulas when it ended up.
It doesn't really matter to me what is happening inside of the EM Chamber it must follow the principals of physics and conservation of energy and momentum is one of them. If I have a Air Tank pressurized with 200psi of air and a audio speaker inside that can blast at 100 watts any frequency range no matter what mixture of sound or what mixture of harmonics I crank, the tank will not move, but put a hole in one end and stand back. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases and the EM Chamber is an isolated enclosed system, we think. If we are getting thrust that, thrust must be acting outside the chamber in some form. This is why I asked the simple question if smoke was used in the tests, it wasn't to detect thermal air currents but to see if it was moving away from any thrust from the EM Chamber. Smoke is small .5 to 2 um and might be be directly effected. If not then look for other forms of accelerated energy, providing thrust emanating out of the EM Chamber.
Frobicat said "Appears the only compulsory casualty is apparent CoE, not necessarily CoE in itself if one can find a suitable positive energy source (or a negative energy sink) and a mechanism to couple with such source (or sink to get rid of debt).
How the (few) other theories out there deal with the apparent CoE demise" ?
Just my 2 cents on this Rocky Mountain Snowy Morning. FWIW A hot tub in the snow is a great place to simply think.
"
Things have progressed in the last few years on many fronts and many force devices being tested. We are a impatient group as a people and want answers now or even sooner, but realize if these devices being tested work it is a major upset in the knowalage set we use to see the world around us and doing it right to prove or disprove with little doubt simply takes time and money. For me above all else it's been fun and challenging. So I (and others) continue to work the problems.
Shell -
#236 by RotoSequence on 12 Mar, 2020 18:47
-
Things have progressed in the last few years on many fronts and many force devices being tested. We are a impatient group as a people and want answers now or even sooner, but realize if these devices being tested work it is a major upset in the knowalage set we use to see the world around us and doing it right to prove or disprove with little doubt simply takes time and money. For me above all else it's been fun and challenging. So I (and others) continue to work the problems.
Shell
Six million dollar questions: have you found something? Is there something to be found? -
#237 by SeeShells on 12 Mar, 2020 19:26
-
I've seen something react differently than it should have. No, it wasn't just steady state RF in a can (which showed only artifacts of the devices or test bed) but a combination of different factors that I'm currently chasing down.Things have progressed in the last few years on many fronts and many force devices being tested. We are a impatient group as a people and want answers now or even sooner, but realize if these devices being tested work it is a major upset in the knowalage set we use to see the world around us and doing it right to prove or disprove with little doubt simply takes time and money. For me above all else it's been fun and challenging. So I (and others) continue to work the problems.
Shell
Six million dollar questions: have you found something? Is there something to be found?
“Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.” Richard P. Feynman
Also my mantra.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard P. Feynman
So the answer is yes/maybe but I'm not going to fool myself thinking it is real and I'm on the road to star-ships.
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”
― Richard P. Feynman
So as I've said before "Data doesn't lie" it just may be hard to see.
Shell
-
#238 by SeeShells on 12 Mar, 2020 20:20
-
I've seen something react differently than it should have. No, it wasn't just steady state RF in a can (which showed only artifacts of the devices or test bed) but a combination of different factors that I'm currently chasing down.Things have progressed in the last few years on many fronts and many force devices being tested. We are a impatient group as a people and want answers now or even sooner, but realize if these devices being tested work it is a major upset in the knowalage set we use to see the world around us and doing it right to prove or disprove with little doubt simply takes time and money. For me above all else it's been fun and challenging. So I (and others) continue to work the problems.
Shell
Six million dollar questions: have you found something? Is there something to be found?
“Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.” Richard P. Feynman
Also my mantra.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard P. Feynman
So the answer is yes/maybe but I'm not going to fool myself thinking it is real and I'm on the road to star-ships.
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”
― Richard P. Feynman
So as I've said before "Data doesn't lie" it just may be hard to see.
Shell
Did I correctly answer for 6 million bucks?
With all the craziness happening in the world today I'd love nothing better than to say "Ad astra per aspera". Well, at least part of it is right.
My Very Best,
Shell
-
#239 by RotoSequence on 12 Mar, 2020 20:57
-
Did I correctly answer for 6 million bucks?
With all the craziness happening in the world today I'd love nothing better than to say "Ad astra per aspera". Well, at least part of it is right.
My Very Best,
Shell
Do you take Monopoly Money?
"