Quantized Inertia, beyond the EM drive

  • Experiments are still not decisive... some claim, but some say it is artifact...
    Beside that McCulloch seems to hold a good direction, with galaxies supporting him, and that is much more convincing... Future will say.

    EmDrive is far less proven than LENR (but more than dark matter)

  • If we can talk about Covid we can talk about this technology crucial for leaving this planet.


    It looks like a low thrust, high ISP drive to me. So it is not good for leaving the planet (earth to orbit). But if it works it would be good for interplanetary trips, with some form of nuclear power.


    I assume this is better than an ion drive because it uses no mass at all. Right?

  • I don't understand why Quantized Inertie, MiHsC, does not seduce...

    In fact it is much more in line with curren quantume physics, and relativity theories...

    It is a unification theory that explains gravity with quantum effects and relativity, producing a conservation principle that invoice information, making entropy an evidence...

    Of course the mechanism are maybe not yet correctly explained...

    An just the rotating galaxies, seems best evidence, better than EmDrive...

  • small idea


    The EM drive irradiates microwaves inside the metal tube, but the metal tube has a cone-cut shape. Microwaves are reflected inside. Thrust is generated toward a surface with a large area.


    Considering this in terms of electromagnetic mass, when microwaves are reflected inside a metal tube, electromagnetic mass is generated in the direction of incidence. Then, the large surface and the small surface will be in the same state as when force is applied from the outside to each other. Therefore, a large-small surface force is generated.



    However, if you think about it more carefully, when the electrons are hit by microwaves, the direction of the electric field is random. The direction of the generated electromagnetic mass should also be random. In order to explain the generation of force by electromagnetic mass, it is necessary to align the electric field on only one side in some way.


    In order to align the electric field, it is possible to create a coherent microwave, adjust it precisely, and irradiate the electrons. However, this method is not realistic. The other is to apply a positive bias voltage to the metal to be irradiated and swing the electric field of the microwave to the negative side. In this case, when it hits an electron, it is possible to add a negative electric field even if the direction of the electric field is different.


    EM_bias.jpg


    There are many examples of EM drive experiments published online, but I can't find any experiments written about metal bias. The fact that the thrust of the EM drive is only a few grams at most has been confirmed, which may be because the difference in electromagnetic mass caused only by the shape of the chamber is measured. Or it could be biased by accident.

  • A sceptical analysis of Quantized Inertia

    https://academic.oup.com/mnras…bstract/489/1/881/5545603


    CONCLUSIONS

    In this paper we analysed two main articles (McCulloch 2007, 2013) describing Quantized Inertia. We found two major flaws on the derivation presented, and we propose some corections to address the found issues. Such flaws, if they do not invalidate, at least will require a major rethinking of the whole theory. In our article, we did not address the ability of Quantized Inertia to match the observational data.


    We consider that speculative physics is fundamental for the constant progress of science: Quantized Inertia was often criticized because it does go against well-established principles such as the equivalence principle. We consider this should not be the criterion used to establish the validity of a theory: history teaches us that many scientific breakthroughs, encountered, in the beginning, strong resistance from the scientific community because they were against existing principles. For this reason, it is of fundamental importance that any new iteration of quantized inertia should have a stronger mathematical derivation and, eventually, a strategy for a practical experimental verification.

  • it is of fundamental importance that any new iteration of quantized inertia should have a stronger mathematical derivation

    This obsession with putting the cart before the horse is annoying. Reality can’t be told what it is. If a experiment shows results, Let the experiment tell what the math should be and not the other way around. A 0.1 Newton force is being measured, not imagined.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • No obsession results:

    Quantum engine [QE] cargo


    "The author presents some design and graph-analytic study results, such as computation of the process of transporting a container from a container ship to the terminal storage area of the by means of a vehicle equipped with the QE"


    Motto:

    "El sueno de la razon produce monstruos"

  • Very good pillow reading. One of the citation cite the work of Leonov (not to be confused with the cosmonaut) . He develops anti-gravitation etc. Here is one of his devices https://images.app.goo.gl/p21XKyfitFaULiB9A


    it is not hard to see how it will move vertically given appropriate money infusion;)