Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Jack Cole]

Russ,

I don't know if this has been mentioned previously, but there has been a
hobbiest replication.  Definitely a good place to start.

http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/

Jack

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:22 PM Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreed the largest added Q comes from super-cooling. I had asked about
> silver over copper as it is very simple and inexpensive to electroplate
> silver onto a copper EM Drive. Building a LN2 cooled EM Drive has all
> manner
> of engineering issues. Perhaps the 6% added thrust from silver plated
> copper
> is observable and sufficient to prove the Q effect. The next issue is what
> is the ideal microwave electronics and antennae design, as in what
> brand/model of microwave oven do I buy to cannibalize for parts.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:31 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)
>
> In reply to  Russ George's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:18:21 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >In building a Shawyer EM Drive cavity copper is typically used but Shawyer
> notes a higher Q would result with silver. Would a cavity that was made of
> copper sheet then electroplated with silver suffice to give the cavity the
> Q
> of silver? Is there any potential for improved Q based on the design of the
> internal cavity antennae that emits the microwaves.
>
> The conductivity of silver relative to copper is not all that much, so I
> wouldn't expect much of a gain anyway. Far more gain should be obtained by
> cooling. According to Tesla, cooling with liquid nitrogen gives a 5 fold
> improvement.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Higgins]

The problem with this is creating the anisotropy in emissions from an
induced LENR so as to produce a directional thrust.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Of course what the EM Drive energy mystery suggests is an experiment where
> an addition inside the EM Drive might be made, a simple small amount of
> crystalline Li2D2 could well provide more available reactant than what the
> ordinary copper which always has some tramp H2 the EM Drive is made of
> holds.
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:47 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)
>
>
>
> Eric, my understanding of the Crookes radiometer is that it measures light
> intensity by the rotation of its vane, but the effect is NOT due to photon
> emission recoil, it is due to the effects of the differential heating of
> the minute amount of gas present in the bulb.  In a hard vacuum, this
> radiometer would not work - photon emission recoil would be insufficient to
> make the vanes move.  I had one of these as a teen.
>
> As I recall, the radiated photon recoil is proportional to power in the
> photons emitted, but not wavelength of the photon.  For a given power
> emitted, it takes fewer short wavelength photons but you would get more
> recoil per photon.  Laser emission would seem to be ideal.  But the effect
> is very small.
>
>
>
> I wish I had some insight in the case of the Shawyer thrust effect.  I
> cannot say that I really even have an informed opinion - that would require
> far more study than I have done.  It is a marvelous mystery and perhaps
> someday I will participate.  For now, I am trying to stay focused on LENR.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the thrust Shawyer
> calculates and measures from his devices is several orders of magnitude
> higher than what could be obtained from photon radiation recoil - even if
> all of the generated RF were radiated unidirectionally.  A small leak of RF
> would provide an undetectable thrust.  That's what makes his devices
> interesting.
>
>
>
> My intuition is actually in line with this.  Obviously there is no
> observable thrust with a flashlight, for example.  And a powerful spotlight
> doesn't budge, even though enough power is being fed into it to drive a
> motor.  Nonetheless I was curious what the relationship between energy and
> radiation pressure is.  Here is what Wikipedia says for a blackbody emitter:
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> P is pressure, epsilon is emissivity, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann
> constant and T is the temperature.  I wonder what the relationship would be
> for a non-blackbody emitter emitting photons at a specific frequency.
> Although radiation pressure is a small force, apparently it's nonneglible.
> Wikipedia says that "had the effects of the sun's radiation pressure on the
> spacecraft of the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have
> missed Mars orbit by about 15,000 kilometers."  We also see it doing real
> work in the case of a Crookes radiometer:
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> I see that the Shawyer device is operating more or less at the level of
> measurement uncertainty. There are no unequivocal results at this point by
> third parties. Some of the tests even show reverse thrust when positive
> thrust was intended.  Given this level of uncertainty, it would seem that
> little can be ruled out at this point.  Even air convection.  One imagines
> that much more testing is needed.
>
>
>
> Have you formed an opinion on what might conserve momentum in the case of
> the EM drive, if something like radiation pressure is ruled out?
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

Of course what the EM Drive energy mystery suggests is an experiment where an 
addition inside the EM Drive might be made, a simple small amount of 
crystalline Li2D2 could well provide more available reactant than what the 
ordinary copper which always has some tramp H2 the EM Drive is made of holds. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

 

Eric, my understanding of the Crookes radiometer is that it measures light 
intensity by the rotation of its vane, but the effect is NOT due to photon 
emission recoil, it is due to the effects of the differential heating of the 
minute amount of gas present in the bulb.  In a hard vacuum, this radiometer 
would not work - photon emission recoil would be insufficient to make the vanes 
move.  I had one of these as a teen.

As I recall, the radiated photon recoil is proportional to power in the photons 
emitted, but not wavelength of the photon.  For a given power emitted, it takes 
fewer short wavelength photons but you would get more recoil per photon.  Laser 
emission would seem to be ideal.  But the effect is very small.

 

I wish I had some insight in the case of the Shawyer thrust effect.  I cannot 
say that I really even have an informed opinion - that would require far more 
study than I have done.  It is a marvelous mystery and perhaps someday I will 
participate.  For now, I am trying to stay focused on LENR.

Bob

 

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com 
<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> > wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the thrust Shawyer calculates 
and measures from his devices is several orders of magnitude higher than what 
could be obtained from photon radiation recoil - even if all of the generated 
RF were radiated unidirectionally.  A small leak of RF would provide an 
undetectable thrust.  That's what makes his devices interesting.

 

My intuition is actually in line with this.  Obviously there is no observable 
thrust with a flashlight, for example.  And a powerful spotlight doesn't budge, 
even though enough power is being fed into it to drive a motor.  Nonetheless I 
was curious what the relationship between energy and radiation pressure is.  
Here is what Wikipedia says for a blackbody emitter:

 



P is pressure, epsilon is emissivity, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant 
and T is the temperature.  I wonder what the relationship would be for a 
non-blackbody emitter emitting photons at a specific frequency.  Although 
radiation pressure is a small force, apparently it's nonneglible.  Wikipedia 
says that "had the effects of the sun's radiation pressure on the spacecraft of 
the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have missed Mars orbit by 
about 15,000 kilometers."  We also see it doing real work in the case of a 
Crookes radiometer:

 



I see that the Shawyer device is operating more or less at the level of 
measurement uncertainty. There are no unequivocal results at this point by 
third parties. Some of the tests even show reverse thrust when positive thrust 
was intended.  Given this level of uncertainty, it would seem that little can 
be ruled out at this point.  Even air convection.  One imagines that much more 
testing is needed.

 

Have you formed an opinion on what might conserve momentum in the case of the 
EM drive, if something like radiation pressure is ruled out?

 

Eric

 

 

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[David Roberson]

Does anyone recall how the force generated by the EM drive varies with cavity 
Q?  I assume the force does not become infinite as the Q approaches that value. 
 If if does, then that should raise all types of flags.  

For instance, it would imply that much more kinetic energy can be imparted onto 
the vehicle than is converted from the mass depletion.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 4:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)



You can get about a 6% improvement in Q of the resonator by plating several 
skin depths of Ag on top of the Cu.  This is frequently done to reduce filter 
loss where the loss is dominated by metal losses.  It is possible to choose 
resonant cavity modes that have higher Q due to less coupling to the magnetic 
field.  Generally the Q goes up with the volume of the cavity and as the 
sqrt(resonant  frequency).  It is also important that the source be 
appropriately impedance matched to the losses of the cavity.  If the unloaded Q 
is Qu, then when the source is matched properly, the measured Q will be Qu/2.  
Cooling the cavity will also increase the Q because the resistivity of the 
metal decreases linearly with Kelvin temperature.



On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:


In building a Shawyer EM Drive cavity copper is typically used but Shawyer 
notes a higher Q would result with silver. Would a cavity that was made of 
copper sheet then electroplated with silver suffice to give the cavity the Q of 
silver? Is there any potential for improved Q based on the design of the 
internal cavity antennae that emits the microwaves. 

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Higgins]

I have not analyzed Shawyer's cavity design to understand what resonant
mode is responsible for his thrust, and what other resonant cavity modes
are supported by the cavity.  The microwave oven magnetron can be pulled in
frequency somewhat by a highly coupled resonant mode.  You want to make
sure that the magnetron is exciting the correct mode - the one that
produces the thrust.  The magnetron will have an output waveguide that will
have to be coupled to the resonator through a port in the cavity, but an
orifice may be needed at the entrance to the cavity, and tuning screws
between the magnetron and the cavity to adjust the match to the residue of
the desired cavity mode.  You will need a small microwave probe that can
preferentially detect the field in the desired cavity mode chosen to be at
a field node for the other cavity modes.  You would tune the match and
orifice size to maximize the intensity in the desired thrust-providing
cavity mode.

This optimization will not be a trivial job, but will result in maximum
thrust for a given power.

Other thing to note is that the microwave oven magnetron power supply is
DC, but not constant DC.  Usually microwave oven power supplies are just
half wave rectified AC with the magnetron on for 1/2 cycle, and the driven
half cycle is a half sine of DC.  The frequency of the magnetron will
change with the DC voltage in the half sine if there is not something, like
a coupled cavity mode, to stabilize it.  If Shawyer's cavity has multiple
close-in modes, the magnetron, driven as a half sine voltage sweep could
jump between modes as a function of voltage.  It may be more desirable to
modify the supply to have a lower constant voltage than having a peak half
sine voltage.  That will keep the magnetron from pulling off of the desired
thrust mode.

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> Agreed the largest added Q comes from super-cooling. I had asked about
> silver over copper as it is very simple and inexpensive to electroplate
> silver onto a copper EM Drive. Building a LN2 cooled EM Drive has all
> manner
> of engineering issues. Perhaps the 6% added thrust from silver plated
> copper
> is observable and sufficient to prove the Q effect. The next issue is what
> is the ideal microwave electronics and antennae design, as in what
> brand/model of microwave oven do I buy to cannibalize for parts.
>

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[mixent]

In reply to  Russ George's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:18:21 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>In building a Shawyer EM Drive cavity copper is typically used but Shawyer 
>notes a higher Q would result with silver. Would a cavity that was made of 
>copper sheet then electroplated with silver suffice to give the cavity the Q 
>of silver? Is there any potential for improved Q based on the design of the 
>internal cavity antennae that emits the microwaves. 

The conductivity of silver relative to copper is not all that much, so I
wouldn't expect much of a gain anyway. Far more gain should be obtained by
cooling. According to Tesla, cooling with liquid nitrogen gives a 5 fold
improvement.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Higgins]

You can get about a 6% improvement in Q of the resonator by plating several
skin depths of Ag on top of the Cu.  This is frequently done to reduce
filter loss where the loss is dominated by metal losses.  It is possible to
choose resonant cavity modes that have higher Q due to less coupling to the
magnetic field.  Generally the Q goes up with the volume of the cavity and
as the sqrt(resonant  frequency).  It is also important that the source be
appropriately impedance matched to the losses of the cavity.  If the
unloaded Q is Qu, then when the source is matched properly, the measured Q
will be Qu/2.  Cooling the cavity will also increase the Q because the
resistivity of the metal decreases linearly with Kelvin temperature.

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> In building a Shawyer EM Drive cavity copper is typically used but Shawyer
> notes a higher Q would result with silver. Would a cavity that was made of
> copper sheet then electroplated with silver suffice to give the cavity the
> Q of silver? Is there any potential for improved Q based on the design of
> the internal cavity antennae that emits the microwaves.
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

Agreed the largest added Q comes from super-cooling. I had asked about
silver over copper as it is very simple and inexpensive to electroplate
silver onto a copper EM Drive. Building a LN2 cooled EM Drive has all manner
of engineering issues. Perhaps the 6% added thrust from silver plated copper
is observable and sufficient to prove the Q effect. The next issue is what
is the ideal microwave electronics and antennae design, as in what
brand/model of microwave oven do I buy to cannibalize for parts. 

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  Russ George's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:18:21 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>In building a Shawyer EM Drive cavity copper is typically used but Shawyer
notes a higher Q would result with silver. Would a cavity that was made of
copper sheet then electroplated with silver suffice to give the cavity the Q
of silver? Is there any potential for improved Q based on the design of the
internal cavity antennae that emits the microwaves. 

The conductivity of silver relative to copper is not all that much, so I
wouldn't expect much of a gain anyway. Far more gain should be obtained by
cooling. According to Tesla, cooling with liquid nitrogen gives a 5 fold
improvement.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Eric, my understanding of the Crookes radiometer is that it measures light
> intensity by the rotation of its vane, but the effect is NOT due to photon
> emission recoil, it is due to the effects of the differential heating of
> the minute amount of gas present in the bulb.  In a hard vacuum, this
> radiometer would not work - photon emission recoil would be insufficient to
> make the vanes move.  I had one of these as a teen.
>

Thank you for the clarification. The fact that there is a vacuum tripped me
up, and I jumped to conclusions.

I wish I had some insight in the case of the Shawyer thrust effect.  I
> cannot say that I really even have an informed opinion - that would require
> far more study than I have done.  It is a marvelous mystery and perhaps
> someday I will participate.  For now, I am trying to stay focused on LENR.
>

The following thought occurred to me this morning: if neutrinos were the
ballast, they could exit the Shawyer drive without the interference that
photons would encounter.  Since neutrinos have mass, and since reactions in
which they arise are generally energetic, it seems likely that neutrino
recoil will be bigger than photon recoil in a system like this.

Of the two sources of neutrinos that readily come to mind, electron capture
and beta decay, there will be different characteristics if one or the other
predominates.  If electron capture is the primary source, the neutrinos
will be monoenergetic, and there will be little in the way of a rise in
temperature of the source material, as there is no accompanying beta
electron.  If beta decay is the primary source, the neutrinos will carry
away on average 2/3 of the Q value of whatever reaction produces them, and
there will be a significant rise in temperature of the surrounding material
as a result of the stopping of energetic beta electrons.

I am curious about what kind of reaction rates would be needed to produce
the thrusts seen in the EM Drive experiments.  One figure among several to
work with is 91.2 uN at 17 W power (one of NASA's results) [1].  To model
this, one wants a function that takes as input the average energy carried
away per reaction (going back to a specific set of Q values) and the
anisotropy of the neutrino flux, from 1 (anisotropic) to 0 (isotropic).

If the required reaction rates were below 1e15 per second, say, it seems
like this idea would be within the realm of possibility.  Whether the
neutrino source was electron capture or beta decay, the combination of
thrust and heat would make the drive appear as an overunity device to an
observer with no knowledge of the internal mechanism.  It seems, then, that
LENR is possibly in play in this instance.

Eric


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster#EmDrive

RE: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

Yes that is a problem, but apparently the EM Drives have just that anisotrophy. 
If the EM drive and cold fusion share mysterious enhanced energy output over 
input and the EM drive provides the directional element then my dilithium 
deuteride makes sense as an EM drive test over the poorly performing simple 
copper;) naturally a far superior result would be expected with a silver EMCF 
Drive!

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

 

The problem with this is creating the anisotropy in emissions from an induced 
LENR so as to produce a directional thrust.

 

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Of course what the EM Drive energy mystery suggests is an experiment where an 
addition inside the EM Drive might be made, a simple small amount of 
crystalline Li2D2 could well provide more available reactant than what the 
ordinary copper which always has some tramp H2 the EM Drive is made of holds. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

 

Eric, my understanding of the Crookes radiometer is that it measures light 
intensity by the rotation of its vane, but the effect is NOT due to photon 
emission recoil, it is due to the effects of the differential heating of the 
minute amount of gas present in the bulb.  In a hard vacuum, this radiometer 
would not work - photon emission recoil would be insufficient to make the vanes 
move.  I had one of these as a teen.

As I recall, the radiated photon recoil is proportional to power in the photons 
emitted, but not wavelength of the photon.  For a given power emitted, it takes 
fewer short wavelength photons but you would get more recoil per photon.  Laser 
emission would seem to be ideal.  But the effect is very small.

 

I wish I had some insight in the case of the Shawyer thrust effect.  I cannot 
say that I really even have an informed opinion - that would require far more 
study than I have done.  It is a marvelous mystery and perhaps someday I will 
participate.  For now, I am trying to stay focused on LENR.

Bob

 

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com 
<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> > wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the thrust Shawyer calculates 
and measures from his devices is several orders of magnitude higher than what 
could be obtained from photon radiation recoil - even if all of the generated 
RF were radiated unidirectionally.  A small leak of RF would provide an 
undetectable thrust.  That's what makes his devices interesting.

 

My intuition is actually in line with this.  Obviously there is no observable 
thrust with a flashlight, for example.  And a powerful spotlight doesn't budge, 
even though enough power is being fed into it to drive a motor.  Nonetheless I 
was curious what the relationship between energy and radiation pressure is.  
Here is what Wikipedia says for a blackbody emitter:

 



P is pressure, epsilon is emissivity, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant 
and T is the temperature.  I wonder what the relationship would be for a 
non-blackbody emitter emitting photons at a specific frequency.  Although 
radiation pressure is a small force, apparently it's nonneglible.  Wikipedia 
says that "had the effects of the sun's radiation pressure on the spacecraft of 
the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have missed Mars orbit by 
about 15,000 kilometers."  We also see it doing real work in the case of a 
Crookes radiometer:

 



I see that the Shawyer device is operating more or less at the level of 
measurement uncertainty. There are no unequivocal results at this point by 
third parties. Some of the tests even show reverse thrust when positive thrust 
was intended.  Given this level of uncertainty, it would seem that little can 
be ruled out at this point.  Even air convection.  One imagines that much more 
testing is needed.

 

Have you formed an opinion on what might conserve momentum in the case of the 
EM drive, if something like radiation pressure is ruled out?

 

Eric

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

Here’s a rather recent academic paper on EM Drives 
http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/emdrive.pdf

 

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 2:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

 

Does anyone recall how the force generated by the EM drive varies with cavity 
Q?  I assume the force does not become infinite as the Q approaches that value. 
 If if does, then that should raise all types of flags.  

For instance, it would imply that much more kinetic energy can be imparted onto 
the vehicle than is converted from the mass depletion.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com <mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 4:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

You can get about a 6% improvement in Q of the resonator by plating several 
skin depths of Ag on top of the Cu.  This is frequently done to reduce filter 
loss where the loss is dominated by metal losses.  It is possible to choose 
resonant cavity modes that have higher Q due to less coupling to the magnetic 
field.  Generally the Q goes up with the volume of the cavity and as the 
sqrt(resonant  frequency).  It is also important that the source be 
appropriately impedance matched to the losses of the cavity.  If the unloaded Q 
is Qu, then when the source is matched properly, the measured Q will be Qu/2.  
Cooling the cavity will also increase the Q because the resistivity of the 
metal decreases linearly with Kelvin temperature.

 

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

In building a Shawyer EM Drive cavity copper is typically used but Shawyer 
notes a higher Q would result with silver. Would a cavity that was made of 
copper sheet then electroplated with silver suffice to give the cavity the Q of 
silver? Is there any potential for improved Q based on the design of the 
internal cavity antennae that emits the microwaves. 

 

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Higgins]

Eric, my understanding of the Crookes radiometer is that it measures light
intensity by the rotation of its vane, but the effect is NOT due to photon
emission recoil, it is due to the effects of the differential heating of
the minute amount of gas present in the bulb.  In a hard vacuum, this
radiometer would not work - photon emission recoil would be insufficient to
make the vanes move.  I had one of these as a teen.

As I recall, the radiated photon recoil is proportional to power in the
photons emitted, but not wavelength of the photon.  For a given power
emitted, it takes fewer short wavelength photons but you would get more
recoil per photon.  Laser emission would seem to be ideal.  But the effect
is very small.

I wish I had some insight in the case of the Shawyer thrust effect.  I
cannot say that I really even have an informed opinion - that would require
far more study than I have done.  It is a marvelous mystery and perhaps
someday I will participate.  For now, I am trying to stay focused on LENR.

Bob

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
> My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the thrust Shawyer
>> calculates and measures from his devices is several orders of magnitude
>> higher than what could be obtained from photon radiation recoil - even if
>> all of the generated RF were radiated unidirectionally.  A small leak of RF
>> would provide an undetectable thrust.  That's what makes his devices
>> interesting.
>>
>
> My intuition is actually in line with this.  Obviously there is no
> observable thrust with a flashlight, for example.  And a powerful spotlight
> doesn't budge, even though enough power is being fed into it to drive a
> motor.  Nonetheless I was curious what the relationship between energy and
> radiation pressure is.  Here is what Wikipedia says for a blackbody emitter:
>
>
>
> P is pressure, epsilon is emissivity, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann
> constant and T is the temperature.  I wonder what the relationship would be
> for a non-blackbody emitter emitting photons at a specific frequency.
> Although radiation pressure is a small force, apparently it's nonneglible.
> Wikipedia says that "had the effects of the sun's radiation pressure on the
> spacecraft of the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have
> missed Mars orbit by about 15,000 kilometers."  We also see it doing real
> work in the case of a Crookes radiometer:
>
>
>
> I see that the Shawyer device is operating more or less at the level of
> measurement uncertainty. There are no unequivocal results at this point by
> third parties. Some of the tests even show reverse thrust when positive
> thrust was intended.  Given this level of uncertainty, it would seem that
> little can be ruled out at this point.  Even air convection.  One imagines
> that much more testing is needed.
>
> Have you formed an opinion on what might conserve momentum in the case of
> the EM drive, if something like radiation pressure is ruled out?
>
> Eric
>
>

RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Roarty, Francis X]

Russ, backfilling the cavity with any reactant would kill the standing wave 
formation –if we want to hybridize the EM drive with LENR reactors we might 
need to go the other way and instead  attempt to downsize the shawyer 
geometries and stack them via self assembly into a bulk powder or skeletal 
catalyst, maybe this was the missing concept DiFiore needed 
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109091  - I don’t think they utilized gas 
loading which IMHO would provide far more mass pushing against a relativistic 
vector to unbalance the spatial axis of reaction in our frame – my vote is that 
suppression of vacuum density allows for linkage between frames unlike the 
nature of near C relativistic effects. Suppression effects like Casimir are 
very near field and predominately “induced” without regard to gas velocity but 
allowing normal equal and opposite reactions to become unbalanced thru dilation 
and contraction..trading decay rate for spatial vector / pushing in the 
direction of time axis from the perspective of our macro isotropy.
Fran

From: Russ George [mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:30 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

Of course what the EM Drive energy mystery suggests is an experiment where an 
addition inside the EM Drive might be made, a simple small amount of 
crystalline Li2D2 could well provide more available reactant than what the 
ordinary copper which always has some tramp H2 the EM Drive is made of holds.

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

Eric, my understanding of the Crookes radiometer is that it measures light 
intensity by the rotation of its vane, but the effect is NOT due to photon 
emission recoil, it is due to the effects of the differential heating of the 
minute amount of gas present in the bulb.  In a hard vacuum, this radiometer 
would not work - photon emission recoil would be insufficient to make the vanes 
move.  I had one of these as a teen.
As I recall, the radiated photon recoil is proportional to power in the photons 
emitted, but not wavelength of the photon.  For a given power emitted, it takes 
fewer short wavelength photons but you would get more recoil per photon.  Laser 
emission would seem to be ideal.  But the effect is very small.

I wish I had some insight in the case of the Shawyer thrust effect.  I cannot 
say that I really even have an informed opinion - that would require far more 
study than I have done.  It is a marvelous mystery and perhaps someday I will 
participate.  For now, I am trying to stay focused on LENR.
Bob

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Eric Walker 
<eric.wal...@gmail.com<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Bob Higgins 
<rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>> wrote:

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the thrust Shawyer calculates 
and measures from his devices is several orders of magnitude higher than what 
could be obtained from photon radiation recoil - even if all of the generated 
RF were radiated unidirectionally.  A small leak of RF would provide an 
undetectable thrust.  That's what makes his devices interesting.

My intuition is actually in line with this.  Obviously there is no observable 
thrust with a flashlight, for example.  And a powerful spotlight doesn't budge, 
even though enough power is being fed into it to drive a motor.  Nonetheless I 
was curious what the relationship between energy and radiation pressure is.  
Here is what Wikipedia says for a blackbody emitter:

[Image removed by sender.]
P is pressure, epsilon is emissivity, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant 
and T is the temperature.  I wonder what the relationship would be for a 
non-blackbody emitter emitting photons at a specific frequency.  Although 
radiation pressure is a small force, apparently it's nonneglible.  Wikipedia 
says that "had the effects of the sun's radiation pressure on the spacecraft of 
the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have missed Mars orbit by 
about 15,000 kilometers."  We also see it doing real work in the case of a 
Crookes radiometer:

[Image removed by sender.]
I see that the Shawyer device is operating more or less at the level of 
measurement uncertainty. There are no unequivocal results at this point by 
third parties. Some of the tests even show reverse thrust when positive thrust 
was intended.  Given this level of uncertainty, it would seem that little can 
be ruled out at this point.  Even air convection.  One imagines that much more 
testing is needed.

Have you formed an opinion on what might conserve momentum in the case of the 
EM drive, if something like radiation pressure is ruled out?

Eric

RE: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

In building a Shawyer EM Drive cavity copper is typically used but Shawyer 
notes a higher Q would result with silver. Would a cavity that was made of 
copper sheet then electroplated with silver suffice to give the cavity the Q of 
silver? Is there any potential for improved Q based on the design of the 
internal cavity antennae that emits the microwaves. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

 

The problem with this is creating the anisotropy in emissions from an induced 
LENR so as to produce a directional thrust.

 

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Of course what the EM Drive energy mystery suggests is an experiment where an 
addition inside the EM Drive might be made, a simple small amount of 
crystalline Li2D2 could well provide more available reactant than what the 
ordinary copper which always has some tramp H2 the EM Drive is made of holds. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

 

Eric, my understanding of the Crookes radiometer is that it measures light 
intensity by the rotation of its vane, but the effect is NOT due to photon 
emission recoil, it is due to the effects of the differential heating of the 
minute amount of gas present in the bulb.  In a hard vacuum, this radiometer 
would not work - photon emission recoil would be insufficient to make the vanes 
move.  I had one of these as a teen.

As I recall, the radiated photon recoil is proportional to power in the photons 
emitted, but not wavelength of the photon.  For a given power emitted, it takes 
fewer short wavelength photons but you would get more recoil per photon.  Laser 
emission would seem to be ideal.  But the effect is very small.

 

I wish I had some insight in the case of the Shawyer thrust effect.  I cannot 
say that I really even have an informed opinion - that would require far more 
study than I have done.  It is a marvelous mystery and perhaps someday I will 
participate.  For now, I am trying to stay focused on LENR.

Bob

 

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com 
<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> > wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the thrust Shawyer calculates 
and measures from his devices is several orders of magnitude higher than what 
could be obtained from photon radiation recoil - even if all of the generated 
RF were radiated unidirectionally.  A small leak of RF would provide an 
undetectable thrust.  That's what makes his devices interesting.

 

My intuition is actually in line with this.  Obviously there is no observable 
thrust with a flashlight, for example.  And a powerful spotlight doesn't budge, 
even though enough power is being fed into it to drive a motor.  Nonetheless I 
was curious what the relationship between energy and radiation pressure is.  
Here is what Wikipedia says for a blackbody emitter:

 



P is pressure, epsilon is emissivity, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant 
and T is the temperature.  I wonder what the relationship would be for a 
non-blackbody emitter emitting photons at a specific frequency.  Although 
radiation pressure is a small force, apparently it's nonneglible.  Wikipedia 
says that "had the effects of the sun's radiation pressure on the spacecraft of 
the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have missed Mars orbit by 
about 15,000 kilometers."  We also see it doing real work in the case of a 
Crookes radiometer:

 



I see that the Shawyer device is operating more or less at the level of 
measurement uncertainty. There are no unequivocal results at this point by 
third parties. Some of the tests even show reverse thrust when positive thrust 
was intended.  Given this level of uncertainty, it would seem that little can 
be ruled out at this point.  Even air convection.  One imagines that much more 
testing is needed.

 

Have you formed an opinion on what might conserve momentum in the case of the 
EM drive, if something like radiation pressure is ruled out?

 

Eric

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the thrust Shawyer
> calculates and measures from his devices is several orders of magnitude
> higher than what could be obtained from photon radiation recoil - even if
> all of the generated RF were radiated unidirectionally.  A small leak of RF
> would provide an undetectable thrust.  That's what makes his devices
> interesting.
>

My intuition is actually in line with this.  Obviously there is no
observable thrust with a flashlight, for example.  And a powerful spotlight
doesn't budge, even though enough power is being fed into it to drive a
motor.  Nonetheless I was curious what the relationship between energy and
radiation pressure is.  Here is what Wikipedia says for a blackbody emitter:



P is pressure, epsilon is emissivity, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann
constant and T is the temperature.  I wonder what the relationship would be
for a non-blackbody emitter emitting photons at a specific frequency.
Although radiation pressure is a small force, apparently it's nonneglible.
Wikipedia says that "had the effects of the sun's radiation pressure on the
spacecraft of the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have
missed Mars orbit by about 15,000 kilometers."  We also see it doing real
work in the case of a Crookes radiometer:



I see that the Shawyer device is operating more or less at the level of
measurement uncertainty. There are no unequivocal results at this point by
third parties. Some of the tests even show reverse thrust when positive
thrust was intended.  Given this level of uncertainty, it would seem that
little can be ruled out at this point.  Even air convection.  One imagines
that much more testing is needed.

Have you formed an opinion on what might conserve momentum in the case of
the EM drive, if something like radiation pressure is ruled out?

Eric

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Russ George  wrote:

Your understanding is correct, the thrust observed is far from that
> possible due to photon radiation recoil. That’s a bogus strawman lure cast
> up from under the bridge.
>

Please explain how a thought experiment is a strawman argument.

Eric

RE: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

Your understanding is correct, the thrust observed is far from that possible 
due to photon radiation recoil. That’s a bogus strawman lure cast up from under 
the bridge. The higher Q = higher thrust prediction is long standing, 
easily/readily testable, and presumably Shawyer and others have done so to lead 
to that predicted characteristic.   There are more than a few interesting 
cross-over elements between EM Drives, cold fusion, lenr, and perhaps one or 
two other energy mysteries. It would sure be more likely to have one single new 
great miracle emerging than a handful of equally  wondrous miracles. I can see 
in my minds eye  Bussard collectors being put to a practical use.

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 9:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

 

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the thrust Shawyer calculates 
and measures from his devices is several orders of magnitude higher than what 
could be obtained from photon radiation recoil - even if all of the generated 
RF were radiated unidirectionally.  A small leak of RF would provide an 
undetectable thrust.  That's what makes his devices interesting.

Other notes ... superconductors have been discussed for their effects on 
Shawyer cavities.  One thing that can be said is that in space, if shielded 
from the sun, getting stuff really cold is not a problem.  Also, 
superconductors (even Type I) have a finite RF resistance and so don't produce 
infinite Q cavities.  Ordinary conductors like Cu and Ag have their surface 
resistance continuously declining with temperature, extrapolated to 0 
resistance at 0K.  For RF purposes, just cold copper is approaching the 
performance of a Type 1 superconductor at the low temperatures that would be 
needed for Type I superconductivity.  But, Cu and Ag have the advantage that 
they do not have a critical temperature where everything falls apart.  As I 
recall, the Shawyer thrust is proportional to cavity Q and power.  If the Q of 
the cavity goes up because of cold temperature improvement in the resistivity 
of the cavity metal in space, the thrust will go up too.

 

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Eric Walker  > wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson  > wrote:

 

I would assume that the guys working on these devices have the expertise to 
ensure that a very minimum amount of RF is escaping from their shielded cavity. 
 This is not too difficult to achieve in real life with highly conductive 
cavities.

 

What if ensuring that a minimum of RF escaped made the thrust go away, and it 
was found that RF in the radio and infrared was benign and correlated with the 
thrust?

 

Also, the actual thrust due to photons being emitted is extremely tiny due to 
their low mass when compared to the overall device.

 

The common understanding is that photons have no mass at all.  But it is easy 
to see how they can carry significant momentum in the case of the recoil of an 
atom when a gamma photon is emitted during a transition from an excited state.  
Radio and infrared photons do not have this kind of momentum.  But perhaps if 
you have a high intensity, and the beam is focused, there will be some thrust.  
Has anyone attempted to measure the thrust from a powerful flashlight, one 
wonders.

 

Eric

 

 

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

[Craig Haynie]

One advantage the EMDrive has over LENR, is that it's fairly replicable. 
The amateurs can do it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ

Craig

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

[Jones Beene]

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=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…

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

[Vibrator !]

There were one or two replication attempts on the NASA forums following the
most recent positive, albeit inconclusive, results.  But unfortunately it
suffers from a similar problem as LENR in that few folks have the cahoneys
or resources to play with live magnetrons.  This is lab science, not
desktop science.

I've been following keenly since the New Scientist piece on Shawyer, but
still don't fully understand these systems - a point that never seems to
get mentioned in these discussions is that even IF Shawyer et al are right,
and momentum is conserved, this can only be true from within the inertial
(on-board) reference frame - any effective violation of N3 symmetry
inevitably creates KE as observed from the non-inertial frame.

Such a drive system is velocity-agnostic.  If a 1 m/s acceleration costs,
say, 10 Joules per kg - a measly efficiency - it will nonetheless maintain
that exchange rate across any range of velocity - so from 0 to 1 m/s costs
10 J, but so does 99 to 100 m/s (normal price 95 J) and 999 to 1000 m/s (1
kJ RRP).  What we save on input energy has effectively been "created" in
the form of output KE.

Usually KE = 1/2MV^2, and only momentum P = MV, but an effective N3
violation blurs that distinction - input energy scales linearly from within
the inertial frame, while evolving via the usual 1/2^2 route as observed
from the external frame.  To all intents and purposes, the actual terms and
dimernsions of what is being input is not energy, but raw momentum.

So an EM drive in a lab cannot show an energy asymmetry because it can't
accelerate anywhere.  But if it works, any extended flight test could
really throw the cat amongst the pigeons..

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> Now that there are lenr kits and bits being sold and as well the Orbo's it
> is time for someone to offer EM Drive kits. Enough of this fantasy about a
> cell phone that needs no battery or an efficient home heater... What is
> really inspiring is making science fiction's most desired fiction a reality
> and seeing tonnes of propellant-less thrust with mere kilowatts of
> electrical power that will surely be an effective space propulsion.  Where
> is the best discussion and details on DIY EM drives to be found?
>
>