Shawyer's theory explicitly repect CoE, and it explains that acceleration consume energy, through dopler effect and decalibration of the cavity... http://emdrive.com/faq.html "*6.*
*Q.* *Is the EmDrive a form of perpetual motion machine?* *A. *The EmDrive obeys the law of conservation of energy and is therefore not a perpetual motion machine. Energy must be expended to accelerate the EmDrive (see Equation 16 of the theory paper). Once the EmDrive is switched off, Newton’s laws ensure that motion is constant unless it is acted upon by another force. *7.* *Q.* *Why does the thrust decrease as the spacecraft velocity along the thrust vector increases?* *A. *As the spacecraft accelerates along the thrust vector, energy is lost by the engine and gained as additional kinetic energy by the spacecraft. This energy can be defined as the thrust multiplied by the distance through which the thrust acts. For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean velocity, the longer the distance travelled, hence the higher the energy lost by the engine. This loss of stored energy from the resonant cavity leads to a reduction in Q and hence a reduction of thrust." I'm not very convinced by Shawyer except that his equations seems to work... seems, with the scarce data available... You can also consider MiHsC theory by McCulloch this theoreticians is pushing the idea that inside the event horizon energy+information+mass is conserved. http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/one-wave-approximation-of-mihsc.html 2016-03-13 18:28 GMT+01:00 Russ George <[email protected]>: > “And it is this direct implication that Shayer et al have not yet > answered to, so far as I'm aware. The conversion of input energy to > acceleration would remain constant, at any velocity. If 1 m/s/kg costs a > whopping kJ, it'll ALWAYS cost 1kJ, whether from 0 - 1 m/s or from 999 m/s > to 1 km/s, and hence passing a threshold beyond which energy is being > created as observed from an external frame.” > > I thought that was the essence of why Shawyer’s EM Drive has been > described as a ‘warp drive’ not because of the simple notion that it > ‘might’ reach ‘faster than light’ but that if the energy required for > acceleration remains constant it ‘MUST’ be capable of reaching ftl speeds. > > The super conducting version of Shawyer’s drive that he says is the real > goal/gold is surely very near to hand. That sort of tech is widely in use > in a variety of fields and simple adaptations of on the shelf hardware > could be immediately diverted to build such a drive. It seems likely this > is already underway by Shawyer and his ilk as they are very ‘coy’ on this > topic. > > Of course using EM Drives to spin an electrical generator shaft is a > logical useful earth bound tech. There seem to be a whole flock of black > swans starting to be heard honking in the distance and getting louder by > the day. > > > > > > *From:* Vibrator ! [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:14 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) > > > > @Jones - i have no doubt the efficacy of the principle can be tested in > the lab - i'm not talking about an ability to detect thrust. > > I use the qualifier "effective" N3 violation in reference to a system in > which mechanical (classical) momentum is not conserved - quantum or > relativistic effects notwithstanding. > > An EM drive would be such a system. > > And as regards conservation of energy, an effective N3 break, like a real > one, creates free energy from the classical perspective. > > KE squares with veloicty, so a 1 m/s/kg acceleration from stationary only > costs 1/2 J. But the cost of that same 1 m/s/kg is then subject to > compound interest as velocity rises - it costs 9.5 J to get from 9 m/s up > to 10 m/s, and 95 J to get from 99 m/s up to 100 m/s. In short, > acceleration costs more per unit the faster we go. > > And if you consider WHY this cost escalates, it boils down to Newton's 3rd > law, and the need for reaction mass. > > If however our reaction mass can be quantum or relativistic, ie. > non-classical, then we circumvent this limitation of diminishing returns - > the cost per unit of acceleration remains constant, regardless of velocity. > > Like the magnetic field, or a rotating body, these systems have their own > independent resting frames. > > And it is this direct implication that Shayer et al have not yet answered > to, so far as i'm aware. The conversion of input energy to acceleration > would remain constant, at any velocity. If 1 m/s/kg costs a whopping kJ, > it'll ALWAYS cost 1kJ, whether from 0 - 1 m/s or from 999 m/s to 1 km/s, > and hence passing a threshold beyond which energy is being created as > observed from an external frame. > > This point applies to whatever the exploit - chiralty effects included > (obviously the force mediator for an EM drive is virtual photons which > exchange signed (+/-) quantum momentum between moving charges, so a SSB is > already implicit - albeit more likely an active, rather than passive > example). > > By its very nature, this I/O energy anomaly requires cummulative > acceleration - momentum has to be allowed to build up, in order to measure > the input energy per unit of acceleration as a function of rising > velocity... and it is this that is difficult to perform in a lab. Though > not impossible - given a long enough vacuum chamber, i suppose.. > > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > > It may be that the intrinsic spin (and angular momentum) of a particle is > converted preferentially to a particle with linear momentum in the > direction of a magnetic field. In this case there would be no apparent > conservation of linear momentum. This seems to happen in macroscopic > systems—a kid running and jumping on a merry-go-round to make it go > faster. It may only require a QM coherent system to produce linear > momentum from scratch in the EM drive devices. > > > > It’s all about spin... > > > > Bob Cook > > > > *From:* Jones Beene <[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:12 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:EM Drive(s) > > > > *From:* Vibrator ! > > > > Ø So an EM drive in a lab cannot show an energy asymmetry because it > can't accelerate anywhere. > > > > That does not add up logically or scientifically… Despite conflicting > claims, no one has yet “busted” all of the positive results, which are > probably about “chirality” more so than any other anomaly. Newton may not > apply fully to chiral systems and possibly not the Laws of thermodynamics > either. That is why this field is of great interest to LENR. > > > > Or… based on your ‘handle,’ is this a lead-in to the Mythbuster lesson? > > > > OK, I’ll bite: here is the reference to the small and large scale > analogies of violating Newton’s law by “blowing your own sail” expressed > in the Mythbuster videos which have a broader message to offer the > microwavers (e.g. oscillate (vibrate) the magnetron beam, around the axial > vector) > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKXMTzMQWjo&html5=1 > > > > If the EM drive is valid, it can be demonstrated beyond doubt in a Lab > model, like the sail analogy. It’s probably a cop-out to dream up a lame > excuse otherwise. The lesson from the sails, which seems to be missing from > the failed experiments with microwaves - is that you have to find the > symmetry break – and therefore - need to vector thrust slightly on your > virtual sail, prior to reflection in a way that maximizes the chiral > anomaly. > > > > Ron Kita may want to expound on this subject, but chirality is the > symmetry breaking property of some reflected systems which encompasses > variation from a mirror image- which is the simplified version. LENR can be > looked at as a reflected system of hydrogen oscillating between dense and > ambient states. > > > > The larger question for LENR is this: is the thermal anomaly of Ni-H (as a > non-fusion reaction) explainable as the impedance gap in the Chiral anomaly > (of hydrogen oscillating between dense and inflated states around 13.6 eV) > … as expounded in the first graph of the Cameron paper? > > http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0109v4.pdf > > > > Or alternatively, does an additional Lamb shift modality of the type that > Haisch claims also enter into the picture as gain from hydrogen oscillation > between two asymmetric states? > > > > It’s all about spin… > > >
