"Impossible" EM space drive?

[Benj]

Don't accept it. Get as much cash as you can obtain,
mortgage your home, borrow money from loan sharks,
and give it all to the people working on this thing. With
no contract or promises.

I need the laugh.

Go laugh at Tesla (In case you forgot, the man who invented the 20th
century, easily proved with his list of patents, let alone the others
he influenced) Or go laugh at the Wright brothers. You can join the
knobs who embarrassed physics with their stupid pontifications.
Before you get yourself all worked up, I hope you noticed that I am
not supporting the conclusions given in this paper, I am QUESTIONING
them.

Being lazy isn't the same as being a fool.

It's possible to be both. That usually occurs with someone (like you)
too lazy to actually do the work but then shoots off their mouths with
conclusions based on nothing (like you).

The claim is that this thing runs on electromagnetism.
A homework assignment in 3rd year undergrad included
showing that EM is conservative. That proof includes
*all* possible configurations of charges, EM fields, etc.

Are you ready to stake your life on this claim that EM fields are
ALWAYS conservative? If it proves otherwise, may I come and kill you?
OK? Hint: advances in Physics are usually not done by 3rd year
undergrad students. So if that is your level of understanding in
physics you are WAY behind the curve.

Being lazy means that I'm not interested in doing the
homework of these knobs. I've *done* my homework,
and don't need to repeat it. The proof is exact.

Being lazy means you are sitting on your fat over-paid ass
pontificating using undergraduate level understanding while pretending
that you know it all. Maybe it fools undergrads and the PBS audiences,
but it doesn't fool me. It's being lazy. If you were one third the
brain you think you are, you'd take a few minutes to read the paper,
point out the errors in the theory (I mean in DETAIL not with some
professorial BS hand-waving) and get all our respect. If you are too
lazy to do that then you ought to respect science enough to keep your
mouth closed.

When you figure out the difference between what *those*
knobs were doing (making bad approximations) and the
mathematic proof that EM is conservative, do come back
and offer an apology.

"Bad approximations"? I don't think so. They doing JUST what you are
trying to do. Apply limited understanding to a totally new way of
thinking. They grabbed their undergrad course notes, checked all the
information in there they took down verbatim from the prof, and
immediately came to a sensible, but totally wrong, conclusion.

Well, of course, the device does *not* exist. What they
have is a lot of wire and plates and such, and it does
not work.

Of course, the device does not exist (as far as we know) but in trying
to understand something someone claims is a new concept, you have to
approach it with the assumption that it MIGHT work and then you have
to ask "how"? If you want to wait until a number of others have
verified the thrust etc. of the device, fine. But you ought to keep
your pie hole shut until something is tested one way or the other. To
simply say it's impossible without any information, just announces to
the world that you know nothing about how science works.

Asked and answered. No, it could not work.

So. It's settled then. Heavier than air craft simply don't fly and
induction motors don't exist. Glad we have your opinion on that.
Personally I'll wait for someone with the knowledge to examine the
relativity arguments to tell me it can't work. Excuse me if I don't
trust the opinion of someone too lazy to even read the paper before
forming an opinion. Do you know the difference between dogma and
science?

Near as i can tell, no sensible person has said that not
having seen it is the reason we won't see it.

We won't see it because it depends on EM, and EM is
an exactly conservative force.

You really won't give up, will you? You are determined to make
yourself look like a moron in a world-wide forum. Allow me to suggest
you go back and hit the books again. Maybe this time go a little bit
beyond the freshman class notes. Go look up the term "non-conservative
fields". Here's a little quote for you Dr. "genius":

"With special arrangements, a nonconservative field can be set up so
that the energy accumulated in a complete circuit by a unit of charge
is available as kinetic energy".

Moron.

Well, you assumed it was possible. You know what happens
when you assume, right? You make an ass out of u and me.

And you assumed it was impossible.

Well, you anyway.

Rats, you beat me to it!

One day, a cow went in the tunnel to be in the cool shade.
And while in there, she gave birth. Eventually she emerged
with her new calf. See? said the farmer. See? The tunnel
made me another cow! I'll be rich.
Well, the thing is, unless you slip in a little bull, your cows
are not going to produce extra cows, tunnel or not.

Oh sure, real cute. Your class is laughing like mad (at you!)

Let's see how this story measures up to YOUR attitude. You (and
everybody else) starts with the obvious assumption based on dogma and
little else that it is "impossible" for cows to multiply in a tunnel.
The farmer says you are wrong and of course you make fun of him and no
doubt suggest he construct a "tinfoil" helmet. Real "constructive"
criticism, I'm sure. And then, lo and behold the DATA proves you dead
wrong. The data staring you in the face says point blank that you are
a moron and the farmer is correct! Sure at that point a lot of
"jokes" and hand-waving is done to save your face, but the fact is
that your lazyness in failing to even consider that the farmer just
MIGHT be correct, led you to a whopper of an error: missing the fact
that cows can give birth. So you end up playing the fool and the
foolish farmer who really didn't understand all that "science" that
you did was proved smarter than you. And why not? You were guided by
"faith-based phsyics". You just parroted dogma, the farmer on the
other hand was not limited by dogma. In fact he may have even heard
stories (which doubtless you would have dismissed out of hand) of
OTHER tunnels where cows multiplied. The farmer was not in a straight
jacket of his own knowledge as you were. Which is why he made the
discovery and you ended up looking the fool.

And unless you slip in a little bull, EM isn't going to be
non-conservative. That is, unless you put in physics beyond
EM, you won't make this "space drive" work. Tunnels
do not change the number of cows.

See? There you go again. Go read my discussion of non-conservative
fields. And anyway, you've cleverly started to shift the tunnel story
from cows multiplying in the tunnel to the tunnel CAUSING the cows to
multiply. You've done that, of course, to try to make your position
seem more "correct" after the fact. But we see what you are trying to
do here. A bunch of Bull and clever manipulations with words only
means that you'll make a lot more money if you give up science and go
into politics. I think you've got what it takes for that. And in that
arena, it turns out that voting for bills you haven't read is not
considered bad form.

 

[Eric Gisse]

[snip]

Are you ready to stake your life on this claim that EM fields are
ALWAYS conservative? If it proves otherwise, may I come and kill you?
OK?  Hint: advances in Physics are usually not done by 3rd year
undergrad students. So if that is your level of understanding in
physics you are WAY behind the curve.

Are you a 3rd year undergrad in physics? Are you even a physics
student? Have you even taken a calculus course?

[snip]

 

[Eric Gisse]

[snip]

The claim is that this thing runs on electromagnetism.
A homework assignment in 3rd year undergrad included
showing that EM is conservative. That proof includes
*all* possible configurations of charges, EM fields, etc.
Are you ready to stake your life on this claim that EM fields are
ALWAYS conservative? If it proves otherwise, may I come and kill you?
OK? Hint: advances in Physics are usually not done by 3rd year
undergrad students. So if that is your level of understanding in
physics you are WAY behind the curve.

Are you a 3rd year undergrad in physics? Are you even a physics
student? Have you even taken a calculus course?

How does the waters momentum take a corner in a pipe Eric?
Turbulently.

If I have a pipe with a corner and it is blowing out gas in space.
Does it spin only or does it also move away from the direction it flows
before the corner?

If the flow is not perfect, there dispersion of fluid won't be
homogeneous and there will be net thrust in a particular direction.
How much, I have no idea however that's the way it would be.

Most of the thrust will be parallel to the pipe axis, and the degree
of which it will be true depends how far the joint is from the exit.
More specifically it depends on the viscosity of the fluid and how
long it takes for laminar or near laminar flow to be restored.

Does the momentum take the corner?

Think about it. While doing that, consider an answer to this question:
What the **** does this have to do with anything?

 

[TheM]

Go laugh at Tesla (In case you forgot, the man who invented the 20th
century, easily proved with his list of patents, let alone the others
he influenced) Or go laugh at the Wright brothers. You can join the
knobs who embarrassed physics with their stupid pontifications.
Before you get yourself all worked up, I hope you noticed that I am
not supporting the conclusions given in this paper, I am QUESTIONING
them.

Mentioning Tesla too often is a sure sign that... you need to put your
tinfoil hat back on. Or aluminum hat, whatever cures your particular
delusion.

M

 

[Benj]

Are you a 3rd year undergrad in physics? Are you even a physics
student? Have you even taken a calculus course?

Aren't you the one who figured out I mop floors at Burger King for a
living?

But I do recognize the importance of a calculus course given your
established fact that math is more real than reality.

 

[Bill Miller]

In message

Its proponent's argument is that it works because Newton's laws plus
Maxwellian electrodynamics, plus handwaving argument, proves something
inconsistent with the underlying assumptions of those laws. What does
_that_ argument say?

<snip>
So what does that make the person who argues that it "must" work because
of Newton's laws and Maxwellian electrodynamics, even when that would be
inconsistent with the assumptions of those laws?

I snipped most of the interchange because I see a pattern in the above that
has been replicated in some other postings. The pattern (and error) is in
establishing an equivalency between Maxwell's Equations and those of Newton.

We know that Maxwell's Equations (when we understand that they are
descriptive and not causal) appear to provide a complete description of EM
phenomena.( I say "appear" because there seem to be some "glitches" when we
try to apply them to the classic double slit experiment. The keyword is
"Plasmons." But that is probably for another thread.)

However, Newtons laws do not have this robust behaviour. This is because
Newtons laws do not include any terms that are related to relative motion,
acceleration or rotation. Heaviside in 1893 noted the similarity between
Maxwell and Newton. He suggested that forces analagous to magnetism were
probably present in the world of graviutation. Others have followed, noting
that there are instances when -- using Newton's *static* laws, momentum
appears NOT to be conserved. An explanation of this is way beyond the scope
of this post. For a full explanation and derivation of a *potential
augmentation* of Newton, please see Jefimenko's "Causality..." book and the
follow-on book "Gravitation and Cogravitation."

So, let's try to be cautious when we affirm the equivalence of Maxwell and
Newton. 'tain't so!

Cheers!

Bill

 

[Benj]

Why? He can come to the same valid conclusion with far less work by
following the method you agreed with above. If the conclusion is
inconsistent with the premises, you don't need to examine the details to
know that they are wrong.

The "catch 22" in your logic is that he is using established dogma to
make the leap. The proposed result seems to violate established dogma.
Therefore the argument is circular and worthless. Only hard data and
detailed examination of the proposal can be valid.

Its proponent's argument is that it works because Newton's laws plus
Maxwellian electrodynamics, plus handwaving argument, proves something
inconsistent with the underlying assumptions of those laws. What does
_that_ argument say?

It's the "handwaving" part that is the fundamental question here! In
particular one has to ask the question if relativity can produce a
differential in radiation pressure by reason of differences in wave
propagation velocities. My point is and has been that if the author is
simply handwaving then it should be simple to look at his derivation
and say, Hey! Look right HERE, this is a bunch of handwaving! But as
far as I can tell nobody (me included) has bothered to do that.
Everybody is arguing that establishment dogma says this can't work,
therefore, it's impossible. People have argued that non-conservative
fields do not exist, even though I quoted a major E&M textbook that
says they do. And Gisse of course added that such statements by me are
to be ignored because I'm uneducated and ignorant. (never mind that I
personally knew the authors and studied under them). TheM of course
goes further saying that my statements are all to be ignored because
I'm insane. Proof of insanity being that I told a story regarding
Tesla. So you tell me, are Gisse and TheM on the right track here?
Are libelous accusations without any proof the way science was meant
to be done? Will a little taste of the rack, induce me to renounce my
views? Inquiring minds want to know.

(As an aside, no, I don't know. People often cite these mythical
figures, but rarely give names and dates or verifiable references.)

Are you saying that these "deniers" don't exist and are fictional? The
professor story is in Tesla's biographies (Not good enough? ) The
statements about heavier than air craft being "impossible" are all
over the scientific literature of the age if you bother to dig back
(as I have!). I've seen this SO much in science it makes me want to
puke. It's the standard ploy to "prove" that you are always right and
everyone else is always wrong. I can't tell you how many times over
the years I've had knock-down yelling matches with geologists arguing
with me, saying that the "theory of uniformity" was absolute
unassailable, irrefutable FACT! And that I needed a "tinfoil" helmet,
and mentioned Velikovsky too much, and had no education in geology
etc. etc. But gee suddenly there was a whole body of undeniable
evidence that the old dogma was not only wrong but just plain stupid!
And guess what? Why, nobody actually EVER thought the theory of
uniformity was actually correct. Maybe a few "mythical" clowns
supposedly supported it, but no "real" scientist ever did. All those
arguments I had with these clowns? Guess what? They actually never
happened! Just ask them! These guys ALWAYS knew the "theory of
uniformity" wasn't always correct. Feh.

Cute politics, but very bad science.

So what does that make the person who argues that it "must" work because
of Newton's laws and Maxwellian electrodynamics, even when that would be
inconsistent with the assumptions of those laws?

It means you damn well better check his work closely which is exactly
what I've been suggesting.

You've seen it? Done the measurements to verify that claim?

Obviously not, Mr. "head of the debating team". The question is about
his THEORY, not the existence of the device, of course the device DOES
supposedly exist (there's a picture of it) The question is about the
measurement of forces it might generate. But as I have been stating
over and over, I am NOT trying to defend the validity of the device. I
am questioning whether the authors explanation of it is in error. All
the people saying that the device is "impossible" without even reading
the explanation of it, clearly have no leg to stand on.

If he'd published a paper saying "experiment has determined that thrust
can be produced in excess of what the standard theory predicts", it
would be a different story, and the question would be whether we were
seeing experimental error (or a badly designed experiment), fraud, or
genuinely new physics. But that isn't the case here: his argument claims
new and inconsistent results from standard physics, not any new theory.

So new and inconsistent results from standard physics is not possible
in your opinion? Never read any Jefimenko I take it? I hate to be the
one to point this out, but physicists are human and often get just as
sloppy and lazy and anyone else. Just using quick and dirty
assumptions instead of the actual "standard physics" true
calculations. For example, it's just too easy to ignore causality.
It's just too easy to say that the magnetic field outside a long
solenoid is always zero. Never mind that statements like these are
both ignorant and dead wrong by standard physics. So this is a lesson
that quick and dirty "rules" that declare this or that is "impossible"
are ALWAYS suspect. Statements that this or that is "impossible" like
all the predictions about what science will be like in the future (got
that household robot washing your dishes yet?) are always popular and
the height of stupidity. That anyone can defend them with a straight
face is even WORSE!

None of which is relevant to the actual claim being made here.

Sorry but this is EXACTLY the point! Your and MooseFET's claim that
it's totally valid to declare phenomena and theory "impossible" based
on scientific dogma and that one actually doesn't need to read and
understand a theory to be able to assert that the author is not only
wrong but insane, seems just a tad "unscientific" to me. And I'll be
specific as to why. If you make a claim of "impossiblity" based upon
standard science dogma there is the underlying assumption that science
today knows all there is to know about mathematics (the ultimate
reality) as well as it's child the physical universe. Such claims are
easily observed by anyone outside the science community to be
obviously false. The assumption underlying your assertions is that
science today is NEVER wrong, NEVER makes mistakes, and has ZERO wrong
assumptions about the nature of reality. And you are sitting there
with a straight face trying to get everyone to buy this whopper! Give
us a break, please. We are not the PBS audience here.

Of course it does. Momentum is conserved in special relativity just as
much as in Newtonian physics. Regardless of the details, the conclusion
is inconsistent with the premises.

Ok. fine. Then point to the place in his theory where he makes this
mistake. Simple.
But I believe that your argument is that it's valid to simply
pontificate that something is "wrong" without actually taking time to
read and understand what is being said. If it's BS it should be a
small matter to prove it for someone with the understanding of physics
at your level, right? So why all the resistance? Lazy?

For a definition of "velocity" that applies to macroscopic wavepackets,
not photons.

Valid point. OF course since nobody is quite sure what a "photon"
actually is I find it interesting that people are claiming to "know it
all" about this theory.

According to relativity the energy and momentum of a photon have a fixed
ratio, c. And for the duration of the photon's life, both are constant.

See, now THIS is the sort of discussion that I expected with respect
to this "theory". It certainly is a much better and more valid
argument than to say fields are always conservative (which is
obviously false).

Photons don't behave like that, so you're now into idle speculation.

Yes, I know that and it is idle speculation as you say, but since
when is idle speculation prohibited when kicking around some purported
"new" theory or at least some "new" interpretation of "standard
physics". I'm thinking, of course, what if there is a plasma inside
this cavity? I think it's an interesting question. You apparently
think it's heresy and perhaps taste of the stake might discourage such
evil speculations. But then nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Benj]

Mentioning Tesla too often is a sure sign that... you need to put your
tinfoil hat back on. Or aluminum hat, whatever cures your particular
delusion.

Oh now heres a truly useful contribution. Lessee. Tesla never existed.
He never invented anything of value. All the inventions the cranks
attribute to him were actually done by others first. I'm glad you set
us straight on this point.

And now you seem to have some evaluation stating that I am suffering
from delusional mental illness. Could you be more specific? Perhaps
you could reference the appropriate sections of the DSM-IV for us?
And while you are at it, please list your psychiatric credentials that
give you the authority to perform such a diagnosis.

Obviously you are one of the "clowns" I spoke of in the opening post.

 

[Puppet_Sock]

Are you ready to stake your life on this claim that EM fields are
ALWAYS conservative? If it proves otherwise, may I come and kill you?

You should consider getting competent medical therapy.
You clearly have some bolts not completely tightened.

Actually, it's more than possible you don't have *any*
bolts completely tightened.
Socks

 

[Richard Herring]

I snipped most of the interchange because I see a pattern in the above that
has been replicated in some other postings. The pattern (and error) is in
establishing an equivalency between Maxwell's Equations and those of Newton.

The "Newton's laws" referred to above are the three laws of motion, not
his gravitational law, which is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Bill Miller]

The "Newton's laws" referred to above are the three laws of motion, not
his gravitational law, which is irrelevant to this discussion.

OK Let me add to my list of suggestions that when one is referencing a
parameter, it is usually appropriate to define what you are talking about.

I'm not all that sure that gravitational effects are irrelevant when/if we
drag in relatavistic activities.

Bill

 

[[email protected]]

You should consider getting competent medical therapy.
You clearly have some bolts not completely tightened.

Actually, it's more than possible you don't have *any*
bolts completely tightened.
Socks

Look who's talking. Let me guess, your screws' threads are so lose,
they are like crochet needles.

 

[Strich.9]

[snip]
The claim is that this thing runs on electromagnetism.
A homework assignment in 3rd year undergrad included
showing that EM is conservative. That proof includes
*all* possible configurations of charges, EM fields, etc.
Are you ready to stake your life on this claim that EM fields are
ALWAYS conservative? If it proves otherwise, may I come and kill you?
OK? Hint: advances in Physics are usually not done by 3rd year
undergrad students. So if that is your level of understanding in
physics you are WAY behind the curve.
Are you a 3rd year undergrad in physics? Are you even a physics
student? Have you even taken a calculus course?

How does the waters momentum take a corner in a pipe Eric?
Turbulently.

If I have a pipe with a corner and it is blowing out gas in space.
Does it spin only or does it also move away from the direction it flows
before the corner?

If the flow is not perfect, there dispersion of fluid won't be
homogeneous and there will be net thrust in a particular direction.
How much, I have no idea however that's the way it would be.

Most of the thrust will be parallel to the pipe axis, and the degree
of which it will be true depends how far the joint is from the exit.
More specifically it depends on the viscosity of the fluid and how
long it takes for laminar or near laminar flow to be restored.

Does the momentum take the corner?

Think about it. While doing that, consider an answer to this question:
What the **** does this have to do with anything?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Come on Eric, show us that 4 dollar watch you lifted from Walmart.

 

[Timo A. Nieminen]

It's the "handwaving" part that is the fundamental question here! In
particular one has to ask the question if relativity can produce a
differential in radiation pressure by reason of differences in wave
propagation velocities. My point is and has been that if the author is
simply handwaving then it should be simple to look at his derivation
and say, Hey! Look right HERE, this is a bunch of handwaving! But as
far as I can tell nobody (me included) has bothered to do that.

Easy enough to do.

(a) Using eqn (1) to justify the dependence of radiation pressure on wave
speed is crap - v in (1) is _not_ wave velocity. This is worse than
handwaving.

(b) What is the difference in the force acting on the end plates (in the
rest frame of the resonator)? With propagation constant beta, wavenumber k
(which will be the free-space wavenumber), power P, angular frequency w,
and phase and group velocities vp and vg the force acting on an endplate
is F = 2P*beta/(ck) = 2P*beta/w = 2P/vp = 2P*vg/c^2. Therefore, equation
(6) is correct. The derivation, however, from the radiation pressure of a
beam at normal incidence, is handwaving, and looks wrong. Specifically,
the text between (3) and (4) appears to be using a result from [3] (alas,
not available via IEEE, and google scholar doesn't provide it - note that
the title given is probably wrong, so don't depend on it for searching),
which is either (i) a result for non-perpendicular incidence or (ii) for a
beam in a dielectric medium. Neither is mentioned. If (ii), the result is
wrong (it's 2 time the Abraham momentum of the beam, which is _not_ equal
to the force on the reflector). So, handwaving, but yielding the correct
result.

(c) Bottom of pg (4). Since with the resonator in steady-state, the
time-averaged force on each endplate is constant, why not just use F1 - F2
as the force difference? To use the relativistic velocity transformation
formula is needless, and potentially misleading (consider, for example,
the force-on-moving-stars paradox). Just find the thrust in the rest frame
of the resonator, and, if the resonator is moving fast enough, then use
the relativistic transformation law to find the thrust in the frame of
interest. At the top of page (5), "each operating within its own reference
frame" is handwaving of the worst kind - it's just wrong.

(d) Page 6, following figure 2. The statement that no force will be
exerted on a reflection-free interface due to a beam entering a dielectric
medium is wrong. This has been experimentally falsified (OK, the
experiment would have had some reflection, but you can compensate for that
by putting the beam through the interface both ways - the reflection force
would change direction, but other forces would not). The theory for this
was all done in the 1970s (if not earlier). Also, this claim directly
opposes the author's (correct, but note the problems with using the
Abraham force to predict the radiation pressure) claim that the momentum
flux of the beam changes upon entry into the dielectric medium.

(e) Use of the Abraham force only to predict the force on the
dielectric-immersed endplate is wrong. Note experiments done by R. V.
Jones (1948, and later, iirc 1960s).

(f) Entire paper: the force on the tapered walls of the waveguide is
ignored. Consider the vacuum-filled case: the force on the large endplate
is F = 2P*beta1/w (my P = Q*author's P, being the power flux in
the resonator, not the power provided by the microwave source), and F =
2P*beta2/w on the small plate. Note that the overall effect of the tapered
section is to convert beta1 to beta2, while leaving the wavenumber
unchanged. This requires the wavevector to change direction, and there is
a resultant radiation pressure force on the tapered section. This force
cannot be handwaved away, as it results from exactly the same process that
gives rise to the force on the endplates: a change in direction of the
wavevector. This force is equal to F = 2P*(beta2-beta1)/w, for a total
force of zero. Since the radiation pressure forces on the walls of a
vacuum-filled non-absorbing stationary waveguide result from the change in
the direction of the wavevector, it is instructive to consider propagation
in a closed path from point A to one end plate, reflection to the other,
and back to A - the wavevector at A is equal to the wavevector at A, in
both magnitude and direction, and hence the total force is equal to zero.

So, plenty of handwaving, claims that have been demonstrated to be wrong
by experiments done decades ago, a bizarre, un-necessary, and probably
wrong application of relativistic transformations, and the crucial error
of ignoring the force on the tapered section of the waveguide.

What more is needed?

However, if somebody wants to build it to test it, let them go ahead!
Cheap enough to do out of curiosity if one has the time available (and
likely enough to lead to publication in New Scientist, even if only as an
experimental refutation of the original NS publication). Of course, if the
would-be builders are deliberately scamming investors, then that's another
story.

 

[Eric Gisse]

Aren't you the one who figured out I mop floors at Burger King for a
living?

No, why? Is it true?

But I do recognize the importance of a calculus course given your
established fact that math is more real than reality.

Never said that either. You are a confused soul.

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

It's the "handwaving" part that is the fundamental question here! In
particular one has to ask the question if relativity can produce a
differential in radiation pressure by reason of differences in wave
propagation velocities. My point is and has been that if the author is
simply handwaving then it should be simple to look at his derivation
and say, Hey! Look right HERE, this is a bunch of handwaving! But as
far as I can tell nobody (me included) has bothered to do that.

Easy enough to do.

(a) Using eqn (1) to justify the dependence of radiation pressure on
wave speed is crap - v in (1) is _not_ wave velocity. This is worse than
handwaving.

(b) What is the difference in the force acting on the end plates (in the
rest frame of the resonator)? With propagation constant beta, wavenumber
k (which will be the free-space wavenumber), power P, angular frequency
w, and phase and group velocities vp and vg the force acting on an
endplate is F = 2P*beta/(ck) = 2P*beta/w = 2P/vp = 2P*vg/c^2. Therefore,
equation (6) is correct. The derivation, however, from the radiation
pressure of a beam at normal incidence, is handwaving, and looks wrong.
Specifically, the text between (3) and (4) appears to be using a result
from [3] (alas, not available via IEEE, and google scholar doesn't
provide it - note that the title given is probably wrong, so don't
depend on it for searching), which is either (i) a result for
non-perpendicular incidence or (ii) for a beam in a dielectric medium.
Neither is mentioned. If (ii), the result is wrong (it's 2 time the
Abraham momentum of the beam, which is _not_ equal to the force on the
reflector). So, handwaving, but yielding the correct result.

(c) Bottom of pg (4). Since with the resonator in steady-state, the
time-averaged force on each endplate is constant, why not just use F1 -
F2 as the force difference? To use the relativistic velocity
transformation formula is needless, and potentially misleading
(consider, for example, the force-on-moving-stars paradox). Just find
the thrust in the rest frame of the resonator, and, if the resonator is
moving fast enough, then use the relativistic transformation law to find
the thrust in the frame of interest. At the top of page (5), "each
operating within its own reference frame" is handwaving of the worst
kind - it's just wrong.

(d) Page 6, following figure 2. The statement that no force will be
exerted on a reflection-free interface due to a beam entering a
dielectric medium is wrong. This has been experimentally falsified (OK,
the experiment would have had some reflection, but you can compensate
for that by putting the beam through the interface both ways - the
reflection force would change direction, but other forces would not).
The theory for this was all done in the 1970s (if not earlier). Also,
this claim directly opposes the author's (correct, but note the problems
with using the Abraham force to predict the radiation pressure) claim
that the momentum flux of the beam changes upon entry into the
dielectric medium.

(e) Use of the Abraham force only to predict the force on the
dielectric-immersed endplate is wrong. Note experiments done by R. V.
Jones (1948, and later, iirc 1960s).

(f) Entire paper: the force on the tapered walls of the waveguide is
ignored. Consider the vacuum-filled case: the force on the large
endplate is F = 2P*beta1/w (my P = Q*author's P, being the power flux in
the resonator, not the power provided by the microwave source), and F =
2P*beta2/w on the small plate. Note that the overall effect of the
tapered section is to convert beta1 to beta2, while leaving the
wavenumber unchanged. This requires the wavevector to change direction,
and there is a resultant radiation pressure force on the tapered
section. This force cannot be handwaved away, as it results from exactly
the same process that gives rise to the force on the endplates: a change
in direction of the wavevector. This force is equal to F =
2P*(beta2-beta1)/w, for a total force of zero. Since the radiation
pressure forces on the walls of a vacuum-filled non-absorbing stationary
waveguide result from the change in the direction of the wavevector, it
is instructive to consider propagation in a closed path from point A to
one end plate, reflection to the other, and back to A - the wavevector
at A is equal to the wavevector at A, in both magnitude and direction,
and hence the total force is equal to zero.

So, plenty of handwaving, claims that have been demonstrated to be wrong
by experiments done decades ago, a bizarre, un-necessary, and probably
wrong application of relativistic transformations, and the crucial error
of ignoring the force on the tapered section of the waveguide.

What more is needed?

However, if somebody wants to build it to test it, let them go ahead!
Cheap enough to do out of curiosity if one has the time available (and
likely enough to lead to publication in New Scientist, even if only as
an experimental refutation of the original NS publication). Of course,
if the would-be builders are deliberately scamming investors, then
that's another story.

Somehow I don't think you will get many detailed replies to the above

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Richard Herring]

OK Let me add to my list of suggestions that when one is referencing a
parameter,
"Parameter"?

it is usually appropriate to define what you are talking about.

It's implicit in the newsgroup names, the thread title and the actual
paper under discussion. *Electromagnetic* space drive. Not electrogravic

I'm not all that sure that gravitational effects are irrelevant when/if we
drag in relatavistic activities.

Don't let the R-word confuse you: there are two distinct theories
labelled "relativity". The relativity being invoked here is _special_
relativity, as it relates to electrodynamics. The only forces being
considered are electromagnetic.

_General_ relativity is a theory of gravity; special relativity is not.

 

[Jasen Betts]

How does the waters momentum take a corner in a pipe Eric?
If I have a pipe with a corner and it is blowing out gas in space.
Does it spin only or does it also move away from the direction it flows
before the corner?

Does the momentum take the corner?

no the momentum pushes on the pipe and the pipe pushes on the water.

if water flows south and turns east, net force on the pipe
the net force on the pipe is to the southwest.

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Benj]

Timo A. Nieminen wrote:

Somehow I don't think you will get many detailed replies to the above

I don't either! GREAT JOB, Timo!!!

See guys? That wasn't so hard now was it? Timo didn't need to invoke
dogma and not even bother to read the paper to pretend to prove that
there were holes in the theory. He just went right in and pointed
right at the holes!

And then having done that he properly pointed out that if you still
think physics is somehow mistaken about this device that the next step
is to build one and measure the forces (if any) it produces. Notice
that he did not say "it's impossible for this device to work", since
that would imply he believes physics knowledge has no gaps and is
never wrong. Obviously such a statement is far from justified.

I hope all you clowns that who actually trying to justify rejecting
papers you haven't even read with quick and dirty arguments such as
"everybody" knows E&M is conservative and the like are now properly
embarrassed by Timo showing you how it's supposed to be done!

Again, Great Job, Timo.

And the rest of you, maybe you'll be a bit more cautious next time...

 

[TheM]

I hope all you clowns that who actually trying to justify rejecting
papers you haven't even read with quick and dirty arguments such as
"everybody" knows E&M is conservative and the like are now properly
embarrassed by Timo showing you how it's supposed to be done!

Maybe people don't have time for every fruitcake who comes out with
a zero-point generator or faster than light coaxial cable?

I wonder what happened to that FTL coaxial cable thing, was it Omar
who proposed it and even sold it on eBay?

M