[AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone heard of this?")
- From: Michael Clive <clive@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joel Brinton <jdbrinton@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 22:06:04 -0700
I bought the paper. I personally don't care about the physics of how it
works YET.
All I care about is verifying if it works.
So I am gonna build one.
Here is where yall come in.
Let us define what would be a two factor test for this. I want two high
accuracy sensors to measure force. I am thinking a diaphragm backed by an
ultra high accuracy pizeo pressure transducer, an lvdt to measure
displament against the diaphragm and possibly a laser interferometer for
measuring distance.
Background on me: I work at spacex, used to work at xcor, I live in a
giant warehouse with three phase power. I am on first name basis with half
the machine shops in los angeles. I build test systems everyday all day.
Never done microwaves before but I am a quick learner.
What I need from the people on this list is help on design for an ultra
sensitive verification system. Then I will start a kickstarter, collect the
fifty grand or so from the cloud, and build the thing. I will build it in
a portable self contained unit. I will run the first batch of experiments.
If there are positive results, I will freely hand it off to the first
university that wants to play with it, and so on.
If there are negative results, I want to make sure I am the one to put a
bullet in this things head.
Why do I want to do this? This would change the entire game as far as mars
colonization and settlement is concerned. Also, I have many of the
required skills to build test and verification equipment, and I am
perfectly willing to accept a negative result.
If anyone wants to team up, I am based out of los angeles.
Here is what I need
1. A primary way to verify operation or non operation of the device, by
direct force measument.
2. A secondary indirect system to verify the device.
3. A tertiary analog system to rule out electro magnetic interference.
4. An electrical engineer to help
5. An RF engineer to help. Jb plz
6. Money. Which I will try to kick start cloudfund after I work out a
budget for this.
Goal is to have a running test bed by January.
The paper is pretty clear on expemient setup. If we triple down on
verification systems, I think we can nail this to a wall, one way or
another.
Who's with me?
On Aug 2, 2014 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: