“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] <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 ! * 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> 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> 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…
