[AR] Re: NASA test of quantum vacuum plasma thruster (was "Anyone heard of this?")
- From: Pierce Nichols <piercenichols@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 22:58:31 -0700
All of the defenses of this scheme boil down to claims that momentum and/or
energy is being smuggled in from somewhere outside the scope of
conventional physics. That is a quite extraordinary claim, to put it
mildly. Anyone bringing evidence has better bring equally extraordinary
evidence.
-p
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Neil Jaschinski <neil.jaschinski@xxxxxx>
wrote:
> It is all about eliminating measurement errors. If that is done and
> nothing else is left over for interacting with, than we can talk about
> energy laws ;-).
> If you build a scale for tiny forces (pendulum) than a lot of surounding
> objects interact with that. E.g. the moon is able to pull water up and down
> at the coastline. So he does it with the pendulum. Also a heavy truck
> outside but near will do it.
> Earth has a magnetic field than can interact with the device.
> Once the device is build, all possible interaction has to be tested. E.g.
> running the device in different ditection can eliminate magnetic field.
> Running for long time can eliminate or show gravitational forces from sun
> and moon.
> Than it would be nice to see if something left the device. Maybe it
> radiate in a non visible frequence for normal cameras and human eyes.
> The device must be surounded by mass objects and this objects also need a
> pendulum scale to show that the device is not pushing against them.
> All classic interaction has to be checked.
>
> Greetings
>
> Neil
>
>
>
>
> Michael Clive <clive@xxxxxxxxxxx>schrieb:
>>
>> 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: