This doesn't make any sense:
"For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean velocity, the
longer the distance travelled, hence the higher the energy lost by the
engine."
Since we're not talking about relativistic speeds, then the idea that a
device will consume more energy, over a given period of time, simply
because it's moving, would violate Einstein's Special Relativity which
says there's no preferred frame of reference. The moving object cannot
be said to be moving at all.
Craig
On 03/13/2016 02:27 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>]
*Sent:* Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:14 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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 <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:*Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:12 AM
*To:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:*RE: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)
*From:*Vibrator !
ØSo 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…
