NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation

originally posted by: Nochzwei
blp claims restructuring of hydrogen atom and most skeptics are skeptical about this.

Restructuring as in collapse?

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Nochzwei
blp claims restructuring of hydrogen atom and most skeptics are skeptical about this.

Restructuring as in collapse?

As in, the ground state of the hydrogen atom not being the ground state.

And yet they claim that it can be sent into their supposed "real ground state" not through some incredibly intensive or esoteric process, but by simply heating it to very modest temperatures with some extremely common chemicals.

Really, if it were that easy then why wouldn't we see this process happening all the time in nature? Indeed, why wouldn't all the hydrogen have been converted to hydrinos already, many billions of years ago?

But once again, BLP's wacky claims have nothing at all to do with the thruster that this topic is (supposed to be) about!

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Nochzwei
blp claims restructuring of hydrogen atom and most skeptics are skeptical about this.

Restructuring as in collapse?

Yes something like that

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

It shows a general lack of knowledge to say the US doesn't produce anything. You could do a little simple searching and see this is ludicrous. The United States is the largest economy on this planet by a huge measure.The Chinese economy is growing by leaps and bounds because of its exports to the US. The US want the cheap labor provided by China. Labor is the largest cost in any business. Especially in the First World where you have so many regulations and requirements. China's economy is linked to the US. Without the US China's growth comes to a screeching halt. Remember, the United States drives the world markets.

Russia is a two bit dictatorship. They produce very little except for gas and oil. The whole place is built on lies and corruption - it's rotten to the core and headed down the path of self destruction. A once proud country ruled by mafia bosses with nukes. History has proved these types of situations end badly.

Variable

I give this pig of an economy less than a year before it keels over and dies. You have NO idea how close to the brink we are. Russian diplomats are talking with China every day about dumping the dollar. National currencies are only as valuable as the amount of tradable goods a nation produces.

We produce virtually NOTHING here, which means our currency should be worth next to nothing.

We produce oil, bombs, tanks, and crappy software that lets us spy on everyone. Not good. This pig is coming down.

a reply to: Variable
There's a special kind of irony here: he complains about the US economy not producing anything tangible and yet he's constantly touting people like BlackLight Power and Blue Eagle Refiners, who don't produce anything at all except empty promises and investment scams!

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Variable
There's a special kind of irony here: he complains about the US economy not producing anything tangible and yet he's constantly touting people like BlackLight Power and Blue Eagle Refiners, who don't produce anything at all except empty promises and investment scams!

Blacklight power 20 years and going of not a single viable product. They sell nothing but a pipe dream to the gullible. Really cant wait until there 100th anniversary when theyll announce that new unlimited power generator in testing again.

originally posted by: Variable
[Russia]: A once proud country ruled by mafia bosses with nukes. History has proved these types of situations end badly.

It seems that Russia went from being ruled by mafia bosses without nukes to mafia bosses with nukes.

Wired have answered 10 of the most common questions regarding the reactionless drive here

While wired is hardly a respected scientific institution, the answered are reasonable enough.

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe
Wired have answered 10 of the most common questions regarding the reactionless drive here

While wired is hardly a respected scientific institution, the answered are reasonable enough.

I think you posted the wrong link. Here.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
I think you posted the wrong link. Here.
Harte

Thanks - not sure how that happened as I tested the link. Shame I didn't read the text properly though

However the link I posted is to a NASA test of a Mills type cell which produced excess energy unexplained by the usual suspects. Whilst BLP haven't made good on their promises, at least there appears to be some effect to base their claims on.

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe

originally posted by: Harte
I think you posted the wrong link. Here.
Harte

Thanks - not sure how that happened as I tested the link. Shame I didn't read the text properly though

However the link I posted is to a NASA test of a Mills type cell which produced excess energy unexplained by the usual suspects. Whilst BLP haven't made good on their promises, at least there appears to be some effect to base their claims on.

if they were working with a more complex atom i might be tempted to say it might be nucleonic isomers. but i don't know if that applies to a single proton or how long a hydrogen proton can maintain a isomeric excited state. we really can't figure out how to mess with nucleonic isomeres very well. we thought we could but we turned out to be full of poop on the issue.

I got emailed this recently thought i would post it.

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe

originally posted by: Harte
I think you posted the wrong link. Here.
Harte

Thanks - not sure how that happened as I tested the link. Shame I didn't read the text properly though

However the link I posted is to a NASA test of a Mills type cell which produced excess energy unexplained by the usual suspects. Whilst BLP haven't made good on their promises, at least there appears to be some effect to base their claims on.

Yeah, I read that one too.

Thank God there are still things that are unexplained. Otherwise, science would be at an end.

Harte

Problems with Shawyer's EMdrive theory paper.

Referencing this: Shawyer's EMdrive theory paper

The problems start with Equation (1), the Lorentz force equation: F = q(E x vB). Shawyer goes on to explain that if the group velocity of the microwave is higher at one end than the other then this changes the force balance, using this equation.

But it is inapplicable, as it's describing the force on a *moving charge*. There are not charges moving at the group velocity in the EM cavity, just free space electromagnetism which is governed by Maxwell's laws.

Also, in the figure of for 1, Shawyer says how the group velocity of EM waves is different on the one end of the tapered cavity than the other, which is fine, but the radiation pressure also depends on the flux! So even if the wide side had a higher group velocity than the narrow side, because presumably other than resistive cavity losses the usual energy conservation applies so the intensity on the narrow side is proportionally higher. (Again, same mistake in equation (6))

The description about needing to go into different relativistic frames doesn't make too much sense and isn't explained.

Maxwell's equations are already relativistic, you need not do anything. You can take a stationary frame of reference and do your computations with fields and charges just fine, with electrodynamics as Maxwell said it was.

Shawyer is incorrectly assuming that you can use a group velocity of an electromagnetic wave as if it were equivalent to a particle with mass, and then applying the special relativistic formulae for addition of velocity.

You can't do that---you just need to solve Maxwell's equations.

And finally, in a small cavity where the dimensions are of order of the wavelength (and presumably in a resonant cavity with microwaves it's like this), then the concepts of 'group velocity' is less clear, that's defined for essentially infinite propagation in one dimension (or large compared to wavelength). Inside a small cavity you just have specific solutions of time-dependent E and B fields and their forces on the walls.

And the fundamental laws of total momentum conservation (fields plus particles) is very well established.

Lol that's a nice one
a reply to: dragonridr

Dr White's latest presentation (at the Mars Society's conference) has a very detailed overview of the NASA's Testing of the Shayer EM Drive device. lots of details on the tests, null test device result and so forth.

the sound quality sucks. there is some dude in the audience apparently dying of TB or pneumonia or something. and the screen viewing angle washes out a lot of the slides. but it's still worth watching all the way through.

its the day two recording. starts about 20 minutes in. first part is on the status of the warp bubble detection effort. little real news there. just working out all the false positive signal sources. and using a dual track to detect the warp via separate means that would have different sensitivities WRT false signal sources.

but at the end of that its a brief Q thruster summary followed by loads and loads of info on the shayer device test including protocols and s/n reduction methods. also the positve signal from the null device was characterized as a small systemic issue that they were aware of. IOW the null device results are not significant contraindication of anomalous thrust from the real device.

new.livestream.com...

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
if they were working with a more complex atom i might be tempted to say it might be nucleonic isomers. but i don't know if that applies to a single proton or how long a hydrogen proton can maintain a isomeric excited state. we really can't figure out how to mess with nucleonic isomeres very well. we thought we could but we turned out to be full of poop on the issue.

Interesting thought that is pretty easy to test for. I believe hydrogen has been made metastable via electric field leading to alpha emission.

originally posted by: mbkennel
Problems with Shawyer's EMdrive theory paper.

Referencing this: Shawyer's EMdrive theory paper

The problems start with Equation (1), the Lorentz force equation: F = q(E x vB). Shawyer goes on to explain that if the group velocity of the microwave is higher at one end than the other then this changes the force balance, using this equation.

But it is inapplicable, as it's describing the force on a *moving charge*. There are not charges moving at the group velocity in the EM cavity, just free space electromagnetism which is governed by Maxwell's laws.

Also, in the figure of for 1, Shawyer says how the group velocity of EM waves is different on the one end of the tapered cavity than the other, which is fine, but the radiation pressure also depends on the flux! So even if the wide side had a higher group velocity than the narrow side, because presumably other than resistive cavity losses the usual energy conservation applies so the intensity on the narrow side is proportionally higher. (Again, same mistake in equation (6))

The description about needing to go into different relativistic frames doesn't make too much sense and isn't explained.

Maxwell's equations are already relativistic, you need not do anything. You can take a stationary frame of reference and do your computations with fields and charges just fine, with electrodynamics as Maxwell said it was.

Shawyer is incorrectly assuming that you can use a group velocity of an electromagnetic wave as if it were equivalent to a particle with mass, and then applying the special relativistic formulae for addition of velocity.

You can't do that---you just need to solve Maxwell's equations.

And finally, in a small cavity where the dimensions are of order of the wavelength (and presumably in a resonant cavity with microwaves it's like this), then the concepts of 'group velocity' is less clear, that's defined for essentially infinite propagation in one dimension (or large compared to wavelength). Inside a small cavity you just have specific solutions of time-dependent E and B fields and their forces on the walls.

And the fundamental laws of total momentum conservation (fields plus particles) is very well established.

That's the interesting point here i think. I do not understand much of all the equations and stuff tbh. But what first catched my eye within his paper was:

However as the veloc it ies at each end of the waveguide are significant fractions of the speed of light , a derivation of the force difference equation invokes the difference in velocities and the refore must take account of the special theory of relativity

I think this is the crucial part of what his theory and everything that follows is made up.

Wether his theory behind this EmDrive turns out to be correct or not it might lead into the right direction to understand the whole principle at least...if the results from these tests turn out to be correct.

Beside that i really don't like all this "scientists are idiots"- , "Einstein was a retard"- and (my favourite one) "this/that will proof physical laws wrong"-yelling.

Of course new concepts, that in the first place seem to act against fundamental laws are looked over very sceptical, which is totally ok and nothing to worry about. I'm not speaking of "scientist" who just skip such ideas away for themselfs without even looking into the theories behind it. For sure there are some of such kind but in general the system of peer-reviewing and taking a closer look into upcoming new theories - especially if they seem to be groundbraking and of course especially² if they seem to violate a fundamental law - is what is called a scientific approach to really check for any mistakes one could have made before declaring something as a real breakthrough.

And by the way, Roger Shawyer himself doesn't seem to think, that a fundamental law is violated here. Instead he seems to work with well known physical concepts and some combination of them to explain his idea of an EmDrive.

Personally i think this system is working, since there were some tests already, that seem to back up the positive outcome of it but i wouldn't get too excited yet. Maybe this (possible) new technology will lead us to a better understanding of quantum fluctuations and a possible way to use it as energy source, yet i think, that before the theory isn't verified and developed further you won't be able to take any real advantage out of it yet.

originally posted by: Tichy

That's the interesting point here i think. I do not understand much of all the equations and stuff tbh. But what first catched my eye within his paper was:

However as the veloc it ies at each end of the waveguide are significant fractions of the speed of light , a derivation of the force difference equation invokes the difference in velocities and the refore must take account of the special theory of relativity

I think this is the crucial part of what his theory and everything that follows is made up.

Made up, as in 'invented'? That was just my point. Group velocity of waves is not the same thing as adding velocities of mechanical particles. He is applying relativity incorrectly.

Maxwellian electrodynamics is relativistically correct as it is, and can deal with all fluctuations of E & B fields whatever their 'group velocities' may be (which isn't really defined for small resonant cavities anyway, because the energy flux isn't traveling anywhere.

With relativity, Newton's laws had to be modified, and Maxwell's did not.

Einstein completed classical electrodynamics by giving you formulas for translating what E&B would appear to be if you, as an observer, happen to be moving in a separate inertial frame. E changes, B changes---but charge 'q' does not. It's always the same.

Einstein's genius was recognizing that this also implied something about all mechanics, not just specific to electromagnetism.

Wether his theory behind this EmDrive turns out to be correct or not it might lead into the right direction to understand the whole principle at least...if the results from these tests turn out to be correct.

Upon reading it, I found the theory is so confusing and wrong that I don't see how it helps. If there is some effect, it's something else.

Something like the Woodward Effect (which is admittedly very controversial and not verified) might be in play, if it's not a mistake.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's clear that Woodward is an actual physicist and has interesting and deep, if heterodox ideas. His basic theory is that inertia is the gravitational analogue to the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory for radiation reaction forces. And that is damn strange, because it means that your inertia in your object right now comes from backwards in time gravitational waves which which will be emitted in the future as a result of gravitational radiation being propagated out now to distant masses in the Universe.

Woodward does not believe that inertial forces are actually electromagnetic. (One main argument being that the sum of absolute value of charges of quarks in a proton and neutron are substantially different, but their masses and inertia are nearly the same).

physics.fullerton.edu...

An interesting comment:

Although the effect doesn't vanish for constant accelerations, even in the instantaneous rest frame, that doesn't necessarily mean that we can conserve energy and momentum locally. But that shouldn't be too surprising, for here we're dealing with an explicitly non-local interaction involving the most distant matter in the universe. When energy in the field and distant matter is taken into account, we may reasonably expect that conservation laws, instant-by-instant, aren't violated.

physics.fullerton.edu...

originally posted by: mbkennel
Made up, as in 'invented'? That was just my point.

I didn't really mean "invented" because i don't understand the whole formula as far as you seem to understand it or some physics, to really come to a final conclusion just by myself. Nevertheless i agreed with you, that this (from my point of view) seems a bit vague at least.

Thanks for the additional info and the links btw .