[AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone heard of this?")
- From: Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 22:25:52 -0400
Sorry, but the last time I saw a rail gun firing, there was a rather
unavoidably obvious mass going south...in consequence of which the rail gun had
to be rather firmly attached to it's foundations, least it head suddenly north.
I believe this physics was first described by Mr. Newton....
Rail guns expel propellant; the pushing against the field only occurs in a
local--and not a global--frame of reference.
The fantasy that we will be relived of our troubles by new physics is bankrupt:
no new physics in four centuries has invalidated the previous understanding:
the new physics of the past has simply expanded existing understanding to new
physical regimes.
New physics is coming. It is about the nature of so-called dark matter and dark
energy. Four centuries of human effort teach us that it is very unlikely that
this new understanding will prove existing understanding to be wrong. What is
coming is most likely to fit into--likely will provide a deeper understanding
of--the standard model. Any other outcome ultimately requires believing in
fairies...and I avoid beliefs.
There is new physics coming; it will no doubts prove technologically
revolutionary...but it will not be magic: it will just be a more refined
understanding of that which we already know.
Unless there are Aliens, and they are messing with us....
Bill
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 2, 2014, at 21:02, Nathan Mogk <nm8911@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That's exactly what things like rail guns do. They work by pushing against a
> field, rather than by expelling propellant. This is just supposed to push off
> of the field of virtual particles. I can't judge whether or not the physics
> is correct, but the quantum vacuum is at the heart of how forces like
> magnetism are understood to work, and there is experimental evidence for
> being able to produce forces from it (a la, the Casmir Effect). I'm fairly
> certain the physicists involved don't believe any conservation laws have been
> violated, and not because they haven't checked them.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> There's essentially no chance that a thruster can work where you turn it on,
>> feeding only electricity through it, and with nothing leaving it; where you
>> switch it off, and you're now moving faster. This is what the emdrive is
>> claimed to do.
>>
>> If you could do that, we're in perpetual motion territory; because it
>> violates both conservation of momentum, and (more subtly) it can be shown to
>> violate conservation of energy.
>>
>> The emdrive paper tried to fix that by using the kinetic energy equation in
>> one frame of reference, but you can show that energy is violated in every
>> other frame of reference except the one he did the calculation in. So he's
>> done something wrong. You can fix it, if you introduce an efficiency
>> variable, and set the variable to zero.
>>
>> On 2 August 2014 23:44, Willow Schlanger <wschlanger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I just bought the AIAA paper (it's a 21 page PDF) from this location:
>>> http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029
>>>
>>> I also discovered I have an old paper on the EmDrive from "Satellite
>>> Propulsion Research Ltd." The filename is "theory paper V9.3.doc" and I
>>> received it September 16, 2006 from (if I remember correctly) Roger
>>> Shawyer. Here is the first sentence from the Abstract: "A new principle
>>> of electric propulsion for spacecraft is introduced, using microwave
>>> technology to achieve direct conversion of d.c. power to thrust without
>>> the need for propellant."
>>>
>>> It's been a while since I've read that paper (and I'm surprised I was
>>> able to find a copy of it saved from all those years ago), but I don't
>>> think it mentioned anything quantum related. I'm taking a quick look; I
>>> think he attempted to use only special relativity and non-quantum
>>> physics to describe the effect.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I'll be able to figure out what any of this means, but I'll
>>> try to do some reading and post my thoughts here, if I can decipher what
>>> they're all talking about. The AIAA paper was $25.00, and the old
>>> "theory paper" mentioned above was sent to me back in 2006 for free (but
>>> both documents are copyrighted so I can't share them).
>>>
>>> Willow Schlanger
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Satadru Pramanik <satadru@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> There's some discussion of the merits of this paper on reddit by this user
>>>> here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.reddit.com/user/dalovindj
>>>>
>>>> He says that the null article wasn't a control, but used to test under
>>>> which conditions the effect occurred:
>>>>
>>>> "The null configuration (not the RF load - not the control but the central
>>>> subject of a test) was one of two test articles. There are two competing
>>>> theories as to how the phenomenon works. Fetta believes that it works
>>>> based on asymmetry in the design, while White believes it works by pushing
>>>> against the quantum vacuum.
>>>> They tested an asymetric and a symetric design. The symmetric design
>>>> (neither were "broken") is what they refer to as the null. It was meant to
>>>> test a prediction of Fetta's theory on how the device produces thrust. He
>>>> believes that the force is produced by an imbalance of the lorentz force
>>>> caused by the asymmetric chamber. This test seems to indicate that Fetta's
>>>> theory is incorrect (or at the very least innacurate). Dr. White's theory
>>>> on how thrust is produced (pushing against the quantum vacuum), however,
>>>> predicted that both test articles should produce thrust, which they did.
>>>> It would seem an endorsement of White's theory over Fetta's."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is stated in the paper as such:
>>>>
>>>> Prior to testing, Cannae theorized that the asymmetric engraved slots
>>>> would result in a force imbalance (thrust). As a result, a second
>>>> (control) test article was fabricated without the internal slotting
>>>> (a.k.a. the null test article).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if anybody wants a copy of the paper. Seriously discussing
>>>> the merits of the physics in this paper is currently above my pay grade.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 11:15 AM, David Weinshenker <daze39@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> William Blair (Redacted sender wbblair3@xxxxxxxxx for DMARC) wrote:
>>>>> > How could they then be certain that air movement caused by the
>>>>> > differential heating
>>>>> > of the air within the RF cavity hadn't caused the measured
>>>>> > micro-thrust? I must be
>>>>> > missing something because this seems to be too obvious of a potential
>>>>> > flaw in the test.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, the abstract (is the full text available anywhere?) did mention a
>>>>> comparison
>>>>> run they did with an "RF load" replacing the test device, which seems to
>>>>> be intended
>>>>> to control for effects such as you suggest. (If the test device wasn't
>>>>> designed and
>>>>> baked out for operation in vacuum, escaping air from crevices, and
>>>>> outgassing of
>>>>> surfaces, could conceivably create spurious forces of their own if the
>>>>> chamber was
>>>>> pumped down to vacuum.)
>>>>>
>>>>> -dave w
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Ian Woollard
>
Other related posts: