The best thing about Hotson’s EPOS are that they come from outside of our box. As such it appears they have access to plenty of exotic properties. That they might be accelerated in proportion to ‘Q’ seems a near perfect bit of magic, dark magic. In that the environment of an EM drive is transparent to a limitless population of EPOS it seems perfectly reasonable that the local environment inside the EM Drive has access to as many EPOS as needed to provide the observed thrust. The frustum is immaterial to EPOS but very much involved with the environment of the bouncing microwaves. That frustum is rather like a beach with big waves where the rip tide is a powerful vector. I think Occam would approve.
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 1:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons BTW – Ron Clark reminds me of the theory of inertia and Unruh radiation which appeared a few months ago, and fits into a broader possibility. Actually there are two varieties as well as the “flyby anomaly”. Either of them opens up the scenario where several tiny asymmetrical forces and effects are at work in Emdrive, instead of one. If there were just one anomaly, the argument goes that abnormal thrust should have been noticed before now at NASA, since even a force as small as seen in the truncated cone would have been problematic for Apollo. In fact, the answer to that is that there could be two, three or more contributors to anomalous thrust - all of them tiny. In most geometries they will cancel but Shawyer found a way to make them additive. For instance, the cone can allow Unruh radiation of a certain wl at the large end but only a smaller wavelength at the other end. The inertia of photons inside the cavity must change as they bounce back and forth from end to end. This is where they can become entangled in scattering, so as to activate the epo field. To conserve momentum, the net effect can be to generate a tiny thrust, or it can cancel. A further prediction is that the thrust vector can be reversed 180 degrees by tailoring the radiation profile. <http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227146-a-new-theory-of-inertia-could-explain-the-em-drives-anomalous-thrust> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227146-a-new-theory-of-inertia-could-explain-the-em-drives-anomalous-thrust <https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601299/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601299/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/ Here are some parameters, or new understandings - which may interact to define a net thrust vector where there should be none. 1) A better understanding of a polarizable aether 2) A better understanding of inertia 3) Unruh (Hawking) radiation 4) Photon multiplication 5) Entangled photons 6) EPO (aether) polarization providing the displaceable element needed in Maxwell's equations… 7) Parametric scattering. I would emphasize the last one is full of possibilities. Wiki lists many known photon parametric nonlinear processes, most of which can arguably be involved with microwaves as well as light. They are overlooked in the Emdrive analysis. 1) Second harmonic generation or frequency doubling 2) Third harmonic generation and High harmonic generation 3) Nuclear Overhauser effect 4) Optical parametric amplification (OPA), pump wave and idler wave 5) Spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC) 6) Kerr effect - magneto-optic Kerr effect, or the surface magneto-optic Kerr effect (SMOKE) 7) Microwave solitons The last item – “microwave solitons” was reportedly investigated by NASA in the 1950s (if you believe Paul LaViolette) but not much accurate information is available online … leaving open the curious possibility that the Sawyer effect may have been a “black project” under a different name for the last 60 years… :) Maybe that reputed history is why it has special appeal to the LENR crowd…
