Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 12  (Read 281162 times)

Offline SpaceCadet1980

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 2
When other reactionless drive threads get shut down without mercy, I'm astonished that this one is still here tbh.

Because this thread provides a respectful place to share thoughts on a technology that has not been falsified. We could have an equally controversial thread on whether or not the Big Bang occurred as described in the Standard Model.

For my own part, I am of the opinion that this topic has generated enormous interest (some generated by posters in this thread), and the possibility of a reactionless thruster would open the stars to humanity, so I'm willing to put up with some level of handwaving in pursuit of the topic.

IMHO, a dedicated thread where hand-waving is discouraged and sober mathematics are pursued has almost no downside other than somehow offending people such as yourself.  This topic has remained remarkably self-constrained over a number of years, and we are now on thread 12. Please contribute to either the falsification or proof of the topic or move on.
You'd have a point in your last paragraph if what you described was even remotely related to the current state of this thread.

First of all, your statement at the beginning of your post that the emDrive has not been falsified is straight up wrong. See HoratioNelson's post above for just one example.

If handwaving was being effectively discouraged in this thread, then mod action would have been taken about TheTraveller's baseless assertions that all falsifications are wrong because he and/or Shawyer said so. (With a flimsy excuse about cavity shape that does not hold up historically.) AlexO's posts that start by asserting that the emDrive works with no doubt permitted are possibly even worse.

The "sober mathematics" has been clear from day 1, there is simply no reasonable possibility that the emDrive works. The original math ignored conservation of momentum, ignored forces on side walls, made unjustified assumptions, and even claimed that a force in one direction makes the object the force is applied to move in the opposite direction. As far as I know Shawyer has never admitted to any of these mistakes or made any fundamental changes to fix them, and no one has actually proposed a reasonable mathematical theory that predicts any thrust whatsoever. Since then, multiple failures of replications, and experiments with null results have solidly closed off any actual reason for this discussion to continue. These threads served a purpose when people were discussing ways to build better force measurement devices, but those who did so seem to have all left after those better devices never found evidence of real thrust.

Offline HoratioNelson

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 16
I have of course discussed the results of Tajmar et al. at the Dresden University of Technology state.
But I asked why there is no thrust?

Well, current physics predicts no thrust. And we get no thrust. So... The Dresden results have no mystery in them at all. Current physics stands. That is how science works.

And it is obvious that this physics (adapter) must work at some subtle, microscopic level, at some frequency, according to a special algorithm.

Well, the 'obvious' thing is always the thing in the physics textbook, and that predicts the Dresden results perfectly. So, why do you still think there is new physics here, if "a laboratory experiment of the highest possible purity" supports the standard model so accurately? And why point to Tajmar et al, saying "it worked", if their results refute the idea that anything novel is happening here?
« Last Edit: 11/29/2021 05:28 pm by HoratioNelson »

Offline Alex_O

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Russia
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 36
I have of course discussed the results of Tajmar et al. at the Dresden University of Technology state.
But I asked why there is no thrust?

Well, current physics predicts no thrust. And we get no thrust. So... The Dresden results have no mystery in them at all. Current physics stands. That is how science works.

Quote
And it is obvious that this physics (adapter) must work at some subtle, microscopic level, at some frequency, according to a special algorithm.

Well, the 'obvious' thing is always the thing in the physics textbook, and that predicts the Dresden results perfectly. So, why do you still think there is new physics here, if "a laboratory experiment of the highest possible purity" supports the standard model so accurately? And why point to Tajmar et al, saying "it worked", if their results refute the idea that anything novel is happening here?

No, no, I don't make mistakes. If you thought so, it means that I could not explain better. And yes, I use google translate, it doesn't always work well.

Phrase - In Dresden, the task of building a laboratory experiment of the highest possible purity was solved. It worked.

This means that the Tajmar et al. solved the problem of building a stand, where all known false signals were eliminated.
"It worked" - it means that the task of building the stand has been successfully solved.

This means that now we need to do some research on how to create an emdrive thrust. Above, I made an absolutely reasonable assumption that it is necessary to study the resonators of a traveling wave.

I also roughly showed the direction of research - where to dig. What to search. This is the problem of influencing the physical vacuum, of processing the vacuum, so that in a modified (modified) vacuum to create "flows" that will carry away the impulse from the drive outside.

Let's focus on discussing these particular ideas.

Offline HoratioNelson

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 16
This means that the Tajmar et al. solved the problem of building a stand, where all known false signals were eliminated.
"It worked" - it means that the task of building the stand has been successfully solved.

Ah, I understand now. We now have a good system for testing for very small thrusts. And that's good to have. I agree :).

This means that now we need to do some research on how to create an emdrive thrust. Above, I made an absolutely reasonable assumption that it is necessary to study the resonators of a traveling wave.

I also roughly showed the direction of research - where to dig. What to search. This is the problem of influencing the physical vacuum, of processing the vacuum, so that in a modified (modified) vacuum to create "flows" that will carry away the impulse from the drive outside.

Well, why do you think this is the direction to look? Now that we've worked out how to measure the forces, and found none? If the reasons people had for thinking that something unexpected was happening here are gone, why do you think this direction is worth pursuing?

Let's focus on discussing these particular ideas.

Well, I agree. That's the point of the thread, after all. But there are an infinite number of ways modern physics could in principal be mistaken. So, unless there is some evidence that microwaves in this context do something surprising, it doesn't seem like we have anything to discuss... So let's discuss evidence first, and any ideas only once it's been established that something unexpected is going on...
« Last Edit: 11/29/2021 06:56 pm by HoratioNelson »

Offline Alex_O

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Russia
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 36
This means that the Tajmar et al. solved the problem of building a stand, where all known false signals were eliminated.
"It worked" - it means that the task of building the stand has been successfully solved.

Ah, I understand now. We now have a good system for testing for very small thrusts. And that's good to have. I agree :) .

This means that now we need to do some research on how to create an emdrive thrust. Above, I made an absolutely reasonable assumption that it is necessary to study the resonators of a traveling wave.

I also roughly showed the direction of research - where to dig. What to search. This is the problem of influencing the physical vacuum, of processing the vacuum, so that in a modified (modified) vacuum to create "flows" that will carry away the impulse from the drive outside.

Well, why do you think this is the direction to look? Now that we've worked out how to measure the forces, and found none? If the reasons people had for thinking that something unexpected was happening here are gone, why do you think this direction is worth pursuing?

Let's focus on discussing these particular ideas.

What is there to say briefly??

1. It was argued that the thrust is created due to the forces of radiation pressure. It seems that the experiments in Dresden (and earlier, the experiment of Jamie Ciomperlik (hello Jamie!) disproves this. But, have you seen? - did anyone measure these forces on stands with emdrive? Show me a diagram of the distribution of radiation pressure forces, show me well, in dynamics, in nanoseconds, and then show it again, along the entire microwave path.

2. Classical electrodynamics categorically rejects the possibility of creating thrust due to internal forces, right? But this means that we see an ordinary technical contradiction and our task is to solve a simple inventive problem. Welcome!

3. There are two options and more options.

Option 1 - we are investigating the forces of influence on emdrive from the side of the universe. These are not yet studied forces, these forces create gravity, electromagnetism and more. These are not just forces - these are unknown physical phenomena, processes that occur in the universe from the moment of its birth.

These phenomena may be somewhere out there - far in the universe, but if they exist, then they must necessarily manifest themselves right here nearby, in the near zone of the EM resonator, for example, in a thin skin layer, and we have a chance to hit these forces (phenomena) with using a concentrated EM wave. Or something else.

This can be illustrated with the help of a bathyscaphe that is at rest at depth, in the water column.. The walls of the bathyscaphe are pressed by the forces of pressure from the side of the water, but all the forces are balanced.
The crew of the bathyscaphe is an ignorant observer, he does not see and does not know these forces.

Then you take a power source and annihilate a small portion of water outside the bathyscaphe. The balance of external forces is instantly disturbed and the bathyscaphe instantly starts to move. The key word here is gradient. And the term impulse is not used, it does not make sense, because the total impulse here is always zero. Forget about the impulse, it is not needed here. The momentum of the universe is always zero.

I've seen the term boil vacuum in peer-reviewed articles. All - no questions - everyone quickly ran to look for a way to boil the space vacuum.
 
Option 2 might be easier. You know that in nature there are two physical protocols for impulse transmission. These are electromagnetic and gravitational waves. It's all? Can't there be other physical protocols?

You need to find the third protocol. Instead of boiling the vacuum (this can be a bad method since you cannot directly control external forces) = you can just hit the vacuum. Kick the universe with foot. Create a flow in the universe and this flow will carry away the impulse from the electromagnetic resonator to the outside.

Traveling waves (if they are launched into a closed cavity, they will instantly build a wheel in the cavity (like the paddle wheel of an ancient steamer) and this wheel will begin to rotate at the "speed of light" and if you have something else (maybe even magic powder will be useful) right away will begin to create streams in a vacuum These streams are still unknown to modern (your) science, but this is the problem of "your" science, not the author of emdrive, right?

If you don't agree, just show how this science tried to catch or create these flows.

In Dresden there are no traveling waves, no streams, no thrust. Also, in Dresden, there is no boiler for vacuum. It is obvious.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2021 06:01 am by Alex_O »

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39
Because this thread provides a respectful place to share thoughts on a technology that has not been falsified.
That's not how technology development works. You cannot propose a device that violates currently tested laws of physics and then declare in the absence of evidence that "it works" and demands others 'falsify' it.
Instead, you need to demonstrate that it works, in a rigorous manner - i.e. eliminating all other possible sources of anomalous thrust. Thus far, that has not happened for emdrive: every test has either failed to eliminate sources of anomalous thrust (e.g. the commonly detected thermal distortions) or after eliminating all known anomalous sources has failed to detect any thrust at all (e.g. TU Dresden). The onus is on proponents to show that the device actually does anything, not on everyone else to 'falsify' a stream of varying proposed mechanisms of standing waves/travelling waves/resonance/mach effect/etc.

Offline Alex_O

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Russia
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 36
I have prepared a picture to illustrate the idea of ​​traveling waves.
Let's look at the distribution of fields in a waveguide or in a resonator with a curved part.

This is a classic picture, it will not create thrust if you think about radiation pressure, which in the curved part can create an asymmetry of pressure forces (as in classic emdrive).

Recently I thought that thrust could still be created, since I saw the movement of a short EM pulse through the curved part. I saw the rotation of the magnetic lines of force in the curved part, but then I realized that there is no pure rotation, but there are oscillations. And pendulums don't fly.

In a traveling wave resonator, one can create a movement of EM pulses along a closed circular path, and it seems that one can get the EM pulses to rotate in one direction (clockwise or counterclockwise).

This again cannot create thrust, and then I accidentally remembered about the gear oil pump.
I realized that it was necessary to use a pair (at least two copies) of a traveling wave resonator, where EM waves enter the resonators as short packets.
Here is an example of a picture of two resonators.


Here's an example of a pump.


Gears and their teeth are short packets of EM waves that move in a traveling wave resonator.
But the oil pump needs a body, the movement of oil is created by the flow of oil along the body. Without a housing (and in a void), this pump will not work.

This means that additional conditions are needed to create thrust in emdrive.

a) two resonators
b) traveling waves (analogue of gear teeth)
c) it is necessary to make oil (suspension) from emptiness (from vacuum)
d) and this oil (suspension) must get into the EM pump at the right place and at the right time.
e) taking into account all of the above, this will be an ideal space engine, since the energy from (for example) a nuclear reactor will be used to create EM waves and to create a oil (suspension) from a vacuum. The efficiency of such a motor will be two times worse than the most ideal photonic rocket, well, let it be twice as bad.

The thrust of an emdrive can exceed the thrust of a photonic rocket by 10 orders of magnitude, and a rocket weighing only 10 tons will reach Mars in 42 hours with a continuous acceleration of 10 m / s

f) it can be incredible luck if we find that the simplest technologies - for example, just an oxide film on the surface of an old (rusty!) copper cavity made of bad copper (defects in the chemical composition and crystal structure) automatically create small portions of "oil (suspension №1)" - when EM waves move correctly along the walls of the cavity, for example, creating an electromagnetic vortex in a single cavity (but with a curvilinear shape of the ends).

And due to the primitive imperfection of the test bench (the structure, racks, wires, walls of the vacuum chamber and even the concrete walls of the laboratory room and the random arrangement of the bodies of people in the laboratory room) - all this somehow badly and unreliably imitates the walls of the oil pump housing, and the usual RF cavity already creates thrust effects - simply due to the anisotropic in the motion of the "oil (suspension №1)" in a limited laboratory area. Where the thrust vector has some difficult to predict direction in the laboratory coordinate system. And emdrive may or may not show "strange" thrust on the stand.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2021 01:40 pm by Alex_O »

Offline Alex_O

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Russia
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 36
On the issue of traveling waves.

There are bottlenecks in this concept, for example:

1 . "it is necessary to make oil (suspension) from emptiness (from vacuum)"

There is no quick answer to the question of how this might work yet. As much as possible, spend 50% of the onboard energy source for the synthesis of  oil (emulsion).

It is clear that the law of conservation of energy works, and 1000 J spent will create 10-14 kg of oil (suspension). It is clear that this is somehow similar to the work of a positron factory, but antimatter is completely unnecessary here. And the law of conservation of charge is also important? Or is this law very harmful?

Okay, let's say we spent 1000 J and created a portion of oil (suspension). Then we want to use the rest of the energy and hit that portion of oil (suspension) with the EM field.

For this, a portion of oil (suspension) must have either electrical properties or magnetic and weigh 10-14 kg (at a price of 1000 J).

As a result, we will have a portion of the propellant that will fly away at some speed and carry away the required number of impulses.

It is clear that on the surface of the resonator or something else, in the near zone, we could apply the technology and build, for example, a microneedle. This technology can do it quickly.

https://spie.org/news/3271-vortex-laser-microprocessing?ArticleID=x43234&SSO=1

Quote
Vortex-laser microprocessing
A microneedle with a height greater than 10μm and a diameter less than 0.3μm is formed by deposition of only a few laser pulses onto a metal.
December 16, 2010 Takashige Omatsu


It is also clear that we want to have on board a nuclear reactor with a capacity of 2 MW, and an engine with a specific thrust of 3000 N / KW. To create a continuous thrust force of 3 MN for a rocket weighing 10 tons.

And it’s immediately clear that we have a problem and we must solve it.

To be continued.

Offline HoratioNelson

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 16
I have prepared a picture to illustrate the idea of ​​traveling waves.

I am familiar with the concept of traveling waves. But they don't do anything interesting, once you understand them. See https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-4/Traveling-Waves-vs-Standing-Waves for a simple explanation of the concept. And traveling waves don't create any thrust, or do anything interesting to modern science. This concept is useful, however, for example in an optical flat.

Quote
Here's an example of a pump.

Gears and their teeth are short packets of EM waves that move in a traveling wave resonator.
But the oil pump needs a body, the movement of oil is created by the flow of oil along the body. Without a housing (and in a void), this pump will not work.

This is a bunch of analogies, but they don't really add up - traveling waves don't make a pump. And analogies don't make science - it is not useful to just state an analogy and then continue as if it holds. You need to make testable predictions, founded in mathematics and our knowledge of science. And we have good systems for predicting the results of physical interactions of light in a chamber. See Quantum_field_theory for some basics. And these theories, which hold up everywhere we've tried them (including in the Dresden experiment), don't predict any thrust, or anything at all interesting happening to microwaves in a chamber constructed this way.

Quote
Vortex-laser microprocessing

You really haven't said at all what you think an interesting paper about making submicron spikes on a metal plate, has to do with any of this...

"it is necessary to make oil (suspension) from emptiness (from vacuum)"

Okay, let's say we spent 1000 J and created a portion of oil (suspension). Then we want to use the rest of the energy and hit that portion of oil (suspension) with the EM field.

It is also clear that we want to have on board a nuclear reactor with a capacity of 2 MW, and an engine with a specific thrust of 3000 N / KW. To create a continuous thrust force of 3 MN for a rocket weighing 10 tons.

And it’s immediately clear that we have a problem and we must solve it.

Frankly, this is all just crazy science fiction. None of this is real, or could be made real. There is no point in discussing what one would do with a reactionless drive, if there is no reason to believe one exists. We might as well be discussing the mass of a Star Trek "Star Destroyer", as discuss what we might do if we had matter transformation and a non-inertial engine...
« Last Edit: 11/30/2021 08:11 pm by HoratioNelson »

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0