Electromagnetic Drive Produces Thrust in Vacuum: NASA:

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, May 5, 2015.

  1. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    The way you dropped the above link and quote in, without any personal comment/explanation, seems to imply you equate Forbes, with a peer reviewed journal.

    I did read the article but it comes across to me, as it relates to the discussion here, as more of a reaction to Shawyer's theoretical explanation, than a reasoned examination the current work being done at the NASA Eagleworks Group. While individuals inside and outside the group have voiced their own theoretical speculations, the work itself seems limited to experimental design testing, not theoretical development and explanation. It is my understanding that the vacuum chamber and test equipment were already being assembled/designed before the EMDrive, became the focuse of testing.

    I believe that the issue of the theoretical EM explanation and any involved conservation of momentum issues, and the NASA Eagleworks Group's tests, were addressed at least indirectly, by the following from Paul March, posted on another discussion group,

    From: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.800
    I believe that elsewhere in that discussion, Paul March indicated that in the latest tests data there was still some contamination, addressed with an analytical tool..., he ended post #805 with,
    "... we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all."

    So it appears that they are still identifying and attempting to address data contamination issues... In the end if they are still finding thrust that cannot be accounted for in some other way, the final test might be a small scale in orbit test. That will only happen if NASA proper finds the lab data compelling enough.., or some other deep pockets source is willing to fund something... I don't think they are anywhere near that point yet.

    Back to the article you linked... There were a number of conclusions or assertions, that seemed unsubstantiated.., like suggesting that the concept of zero-point energy itself is a violation of conservation of momentum, but any further comment or discussion of specifics, would be a knee jerk reaction, on my part...
    Q-reeus likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Those comments have changed my mind - looks like they are NOT slowly zeroing in on where it's really all at - but sticking with 'if it's real, vacuum virtual plasma is the only option'. Almost certainly March's and no doubt other team member's conclusion re classical EM is simply based on the standard and generalized treatment as per linked article I gave in #73: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node91.html

    The Chinese North Western University team claim non-zero results are explainable via classical EM, but their only paper translated into English gives no actual theory: http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf
    More than likely they have simply followed Shawyer's lead (down a blind theoretical alley). As you say, what matters, at least in the shorter term, are reliable results.
    Notwithstanding above reproduced link to standard 'proof' article, I stick by that claimed in #71. I know what else is out there in the literature, and have done my own analysis that pinpoints where net non-zero stems from.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    I don't believe you can lay the virtual plasma speculation on the group as a whole. That, from some of what I have read, is White's favorite speculation...

    I have also seen something on one of the discussion groups that mentioned that Yang Juan has been prevented from further comment or providing any data not published, so it is difficult to know any detail beyond what is in print about the Chinese tests or device(s)... I think they tested several configurations.

    BTW there is also quite a bit of headlong enthusiasm in the general (more or less) lay audience, tending to push a cautious observer more toward skepticism, than patient optimism.

    On the other hand, new physics or even a new application of what turns out to be old physics in my life time, would be.., exciting!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive
    M.E. McCulloch ∗
    April 13, 2016

    It has been shown that truncated cone-shaped cavities with microwaves resonating within them move slightly towards their narrow ends (the emdrive). Standard physics has no explanation for this and an error has not yet been found. It is shown here that this effect can be predicted by assuming that the inertial mass of the photons in the cavity is caused by Unruh radiation, whose wavelengths must fit exactly within the cavity, using a theory already applied successfully to astrophysical anomalies such as galaxy rotation where the Unruh waves have to fit within the Hubble scale. In the emdrive this means that more Unruh waves are allowed at the wide end, leading to a greater inertial mass for the photons there, and to conserve momentum the cavity must move towards its narrow end, as observed. The model predicts thrusts of: 3.8, 149, 7.3, 0.23, 0.57, 0.11, 0.64 and 0.02 mN compared with the observed thrusts of: 16, 147, 9, 0.09, 0.05, 0.06, 0.03, and 0.02 mN and predicts that if the axial length is equal to the diameter of the small end of the cavity, the thrust should be reversed.

    5 Conclusion:
    More than eight tests in four independent labs have shown that when microwaves resonate within an asymmetric cavity an anomalous thrust is generated pushing the cavity towards its narrow end. This force can be predicted fairly well by using a new model for inertia (MiHsC) which assumes that the inertial mass of the photons is caused by Unruh radiation whose wavelengths have to fit exactly inside the cavity so that the photons’ inertial mass is greater at the wide end. To conserve momentum a new force appears to to push the cavity towards its narrow end, and the predicted force is similar to the thrust observed. MiHsC suggests that the thrust can be increased by increasing the input power, the Q factor, or using a dielectric. As a direct test MiHsC predicts that the thrust can be reversed by making the length L equal to the width of the narrow end.

Share This Page