The problem in trying to tap spin is that it's an elementary, higher-dimensional construct.. for instance a full rotation of a half-spin particle requires 720°... so it's quite unlike the mechanical property. And while we can spin off quasi particles such as spinons or polaritons etc., these are compound behaviours in aggregate matter rather than direct manipulations of spin itself.
It's tempting to suppose it might somehow constitute Tesla's infamous "wheelwork of nature", that we might one day attach our machinery to, except that like the static magnetic field its divergence and curl are zero (it's tempospatially symmetrical and not like a current), and as far as it can be considered gear-like, it's inextricably meshed with every other gear-particle in the universe, so it wouldn't for instance be possible to tap a single particle's spin without braking the global value. Which is moot anyway as a zero or fractional-spin particle can't exist (half-spins aside).. Unless we had a situation in which say, an integer-spin boson dissociated into an odd number of half-spin fermions, instead of even, and so leaving an excess of momentum for something else.. but that's a needless mutliplication of entitites and anyway, then we'd have a clear emission or charge accumulation corresponding to the thrust. We do however have a particle for conveying linear momentum between charges - the virtual photon - which itself is a construct for ambient quantum momentum wrt the magnetic field, and so fairly neatly fitting your description.. Any EM drive worthy of that designation is by definition propelled by magnetic force, and thus virtual photon exchanges. IIRC Shawyer's claim is that there's an asymmetric distribution of momentum along the length of the frustum, but the material form of that momentum remains virtual photon interactions. As i see it, the system has more in common with traditional mechanical attempts at "inertial motors" - futile as they are (due to mass constancy and Newton's 3rd law). Just as a working inertial motor would need no reaction mass, so a working EM drive doesn't need to eject anything, wave or particle. In short, anything with an asymmetric distribution of momentum, by definition, already has a net momentum 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… >
