IBTimes UK ; EmDrive Exclusive: Roger Shawyer confirms MoD interested in space propulsion tech (Full Version)

/* propeller's airfoil creates a pressure imbalance due to the Bernoulli effect */

Rather than nozzle try to think about EMDrive in terms of this device - the pipe, which separates the stream of gas to hot and cold part with vortex. The hot gas is more lightweight and it has lower momentum.

The nozzle for vacuum also reportedly exist as so-called Nassikass' drive. Nassikass thruster is even wilder stuff, as it reportedly doesn't require any external energy for its working, thus behaving like true perpetuum mobile in this way.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

All the sides of the resonator are supposed to reflect EM wave only as well as possible. The actual momentum transfer occurs during mutual interference of photons of the opposite spin at the end of resonator.

Quote from THHuxley

Maxwell's equations are pretty clear and allow em momentum to be calculated. They also obey conservation of momentum. So in this enclosed cavity there is no theory that gives thrust unless it is non-standard giving results that depart from normal (as Woodford's, for example). That is not what is claimed here.

Classically spoken: Unless I don't know how much energy is put into the wave generation process and how much thrust is the outcome I would never discuss any phantastic theory, which explains an effect which may be there.

Any change of momentum at a physical hardware (wall/mirror) will produce heat. Unless we know something about the COP, we should stop any discussion.

(COP propulsion: Energy input/ Energy equivalant acceleration - delta E-kin) This includes the weight of the thrust system!

Thank you very much, Michael, for joining this thread at Alan’s invitation.

You write:

Quote

What makes a difference is when the standing waves inside the cavity have a different group velocity than the standing waves at the other end of the cavity - then a pressure differential is setup similar to the propeller in the NASA paper.

I understand your paper to be saying that something about the geometry of the EMDrive is causing the EM radiation to create a kind of "pressure" differential between the inside and outside of the cavity. This seems to imply that the EMDrive is pushing off of the vacuum itself. Is this correct?

In your writeup you introduce the following equation, which relates the thrust (Fg1 - Fg2) with the power (P) and the taper angle of the cavity (ϕ):

Two questions of mine have to do with the power.

• In a comment above, Jack Cole mentions not finding any correlation between input power and thrust. Do you agree that it’s important that such a correlation be seen in order to validate your explanation?
• I would expect the thrust to be roughly on the order of the photon recoil, which is a function of the input power, and just accomplished by different means. According to this discussion that took place sometime back, photon radiation recoil would be insufficient to explain the thrust reported for the EMDrive for the input powers used. Do you have any comment on this suggestion as it relates to your explanation?

Quote from MrSelfSustain

The EM Drive is like a sail that is made to nullify the wind (movement of the aether) in one direction so the aether moving from the other direction can impart thrust.

In the analogy of the sail, the wind is blowing in a single direction. With tacking you can make the boat to move most directions you wish, but this is made possible by the friction provided by the sea. In drawing an analogy to the EM Drive, do you accept the implications that (1) that the "wind" for the EM Drive is unidirectional, and (2) that if one were somehow able to exploit this wind for thrust in any other direction, there would need to be some kind of friction in the vacuum to push off against?

Quote from MrSelfSustain

The wind is coming at the EM Drive from all directions.

If the wind is coming at the EM Drive from all directions, then as the EM Drive moves in one direction, West, say, the opposing wind will come at it even stronger and counter what differential one is able to conjure up out of the depths of the cosmos. I don't think this line of thinking will work if the wind is omnidirectional.

Quote from MrSelfSustain

The asymmetric nature of the EM Drive attenuates the incoming "wind" in one direction allowing for an imbalance of force.

Space sailors wellcome. There are free microwaves out there... ( The explanation is talking about micro wave - = energy - input...)

Here is a chart of the input power by output force. Where a range of values were given (e.g., 8-10), I used an average value (9). It does not look promising to me, but maybe someone else will have an explanation to make sense of it. The line on the chart is the regression line.

Just for fun, you could do that regression again, but this time controlling for taper angle.

Actually Michelson & Morley interferometer is already used for confirmation of EMDrive warp drive theory. Just in exactly the opposite sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…warp-field_interferometer

I would have no problem with incorporation of aether and scalar waves into EMDrive model - the question is, if it's really necessary, once the transfer of EM energy to spin momentum gets considered.

And we still indeed have the Cannae drive, which the existing theory should explain too. Shawyer has said the Cannae drive "operates along similar lines to EmDrive, except that its thrust is derived from a reduced reflection coefficient at one end plate," which he says would "reduce its thrust".

The dark matter model can recognize the low spin photons (superluminal scalar waves, which propagate faster than the normal light, because they're enriched with longitudinal component of EMWave) and also high spin photons (dark or heavy photons, heavily polarized photons, which propagate slower than the normal light, because they're enriched with transverse component of EM wave). Analogously, we have two possible ways, how to get momentum from closed system:

• the input energy is systematically converted into a momentum of stream of tachyon particles, which can leave the system freely preferentially at one end of thruster (so called the pushing model)
• the input energy is systematically consumed into a momentum of massive particles, which get absorbed inside the resonator, preferentially at one end of thruster (so called the pulling model)

The conversion of photons to massive particles is more close to mainstream physics, as such photons can be prepared by polarization of photons by reflection. The scalar wave model is also less preferred, because it should involve the material or system with Dirac fermions, which aren't apparently present within normal EMDrive resonator. It can already apply for resonators with superconductive walls.

In the pushing model the photons are converted to a cloud of tachyon particles which leave the resonator preferentially through one side. The pulling model considers, that the photons are converted to a cloud of massive particles, which get absorbed preferentially with one side of resonator. Both models can actually work in parallel, but the stream of tachyons should be detectable outside the resonator in independent way.

Hi Eric,

"I understand your paper to be saying that something about the geometry of the EMDrive is causing the EM radiation to create a kind of "pressure" differential between the inside and outside of the cavity. This seems to imply that the EMDrive is pushing off of the vacuum itself. Is this correct?"

This is correct - when a resonance condition exists between photons inside the walls of a metal cavity, the vacuum pressure from the outside of the cavity increases one the longer side as opposed to the shorter one. This is evidence of a underlying wave structure that is enforced with electron wave centers both inside and outside of the cavity. It's the confinement of an internal standing wave in the cavity that requires a balance of pressure from the incoming waves on the outside of the cavity. We can think of concepts many different waves - quantized angular momentum for instance is:

mvr = nh/2pi

which can easily be rearranged to:

h/mv = 2(pi)r/n = lambda

which is another wave of saying that the electron is a standing wave of fixed, quantized wavelength in a path around the fixed energy level (radius) from the nucleus. The fact that we can see so the same concept different ways suggests we may need to revisit our QM understanding (which is happening by Penrose and others). The pressure differential is real and very similar to what happens in the Casmir Effect (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html ).

Hi Eric,

Now to answer the questions you asked about input power (sorry, still getting used to the format of this forum, I can't read the thread I am replying to while replying):

"Two questions of mine have to do with the power.In a comment above, Jack Cole mentions not finding any correlation between input power and thrust. Do you agree that it’s important that such a correlation be seen in order to validate your explanation?

I would expect the thrust to be roughly on the order of the photon recoil, which is a function of the input power, and just accomplished by different means. According to this discussion that took place sometime back, photon radiation recoil would be insufficient to explain the thrust reported for the EMDrive for the input powers used. Do you have any comment on this suggestion as it relates to your explanation?"

1. Yes, I believe the input power and output thrust should be correlated, but the geometry is important here - if this is a low Q cavity (like Tajmar's was) you can't expect a lot of correlation because without having high resonance (high Q) you won't get that differential pressure.

2. The thrust from a classical photon rocket ( h/lambda) is not the same as the pressure differential we are talking about - the classical photon momentum is way too low to be responsible for the measured thrust values in my opinion. I think we are looking at standing-wave pressure imbalance as described previously with the Casmir effect, except induced by standing wave photons which has the effect of multiplying the small force seen in the Casmir experiments by many orders of magnitude.

The aether theory was rejected because it didn't make sense with M-M - if we turn the interferometer in any direction we get the same result, but the old aether theory of the time was that it was like a gas that came up to the edge of a planet or solid object, not that it was actually part of the solid object (like the Earth). So the relative motion of the earth to the aether was a null result, but if you include the Earth as part of the aether (like the Earth is actually made of the aether), then a moving subset of the aether along with the Earth would also give a null result. If you imagine the Earth as a set of interacting in and out waves that travel in the aether (so the space medium is moving as well), then you get a null result on the M-M. But if you have a black hole merging with another one (two separate reference frames), the combined wave effect is to generate a modulating wave (called a GRAVITY WAVE) outside of the reference frame of either object, which is exactly what LIGO is seeing this year and last.

The luminiferous aether concept was actually never understood well: it doesn't behave like the sparse gas pervading/filling space, but like the dense elastic matter or foam forming the space. For such an aether the compliance with Michelson-Morley experiment is quite natural instead.