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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:47 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *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 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> > 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 > > > > >
