Page 48 of 53

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:54 pm
by kurt9
Dr. White did two sets of experiments based on his theory starting about 10 years ago. The first set produced null results within the sensitivity of his interferometer measurement setup that was deemed necessary by his theory. He then increased the measurement sensitivity of his interferometry by a factor of a thousand, way beyond that which his theory said was needed for a definitive measurement and then performed another set of experiments. He still got a null result. This was around '12 I think. It reasonable to conclude his theory, and the theory this presentation is based on, is wrong.

Dr's Woodward and Fearn, working on their Mach Effect Thruster, got side-tracked for a couple of years with doing a set of experiments to answer once and for all all of the vacuum energy schemes. Their experiments effectively discredited the various vacuum energy/ZPE once and for all. This was a couple of years after White's experiments mentioned above. Another side results of Woodward and Fearn's Mach Effect work over the years is that they have established that there are no possible links between electromagnetism and gravity/inertia. This is the reason why their "Mach_lorenz" thruster scheme that was proposed during the oughts did not work (If it had, we really would have "star-trek" like transportation by now and all of the people involved would be trillionnaires). This is also significant because it discredits all of the anti-gravity schemes, all of which are based on there being such a link between electromagnetism and gravity/inertia.

My point is that I consider Woodward and Fearn's work to be real. But everything else in this milieu is fantasy.

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:25 pm
by Carl White
The thing that started Roger Shawyer off was his observations of certain perturbations in satellite orbits. I wonder whether anyone ever came up with a plausible explanation for them.

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:21 pm
by kunkmiester
No one ever did an audit of other satellites to see if the oddity he found was more consistent.

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:27 am
by williatw
Carl White wrote:The thing that started Roger Shawyer off was his observations of certain perturbations in satellite orbits. I wonder whether anyone ever came up with a plausible explanation for them.
kunkmiester wrote:No one ever did an audit of other satellites to see if the oddity he found was more consistent.

If it is obviously a fraud and and/or fantasy then why did DARPA commit a million bucks last year to test the idea? DARPA test on the EmDrive started late last year. Probably allot more money/equipment/resources than Sonny White (or Woodard) had to play around with.

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:40 am
by williatw
kurt9 wrote:Dr. White did two sets of experiments based on his theory starting about 10 years ago. The first set produced null results within the sensitivity of his interferometer measurement setup that was deemed necessary by his theory. He then increased the measurement sensitivity of his interferometry by a factor of a thousand, way beyond that which his theory said was needed for a definitive measurement and then performed another set of experiments. He still got a null result. This was around '12 I think. It reasonable to conclude his theory, and the theory this presentation is based on, is wrong.
I hadn't heard that White ran a 2nd series of test with more sensitive measuring equipment that would have detected the laser beam distortion; last I heard he said the first thing, that his detector wouldn't be able to discern the result he thought he would get even if it worked the way he hoped. He just ran it hoping for the best.
kurt9 wrote: Another side results of Woodward and Fearn's Mach Effect work over the years is that they have established that there are no possible links between electromagnetism and gravity/inertia. This is the reason why their "Mach_lorenz" thruster scheme that was proposed during the oughts did not work (If it had, we really would have "star-trek" like transportation by now and all of the people involved would be trillionnaires). This is also significant because it discredits all of the anti-gravity schemes, all of which are based on there being such a link between electromagnetism and gravity/inertia.
Since we don't really have as far as I know any really good accepted theories as to what the hypothetical link between electromagnetism and gravity/inertia is I don't see how anyone could definitively rule out any connection. Lacking such that only suggested yield would be the result of experimental trial and error. I thought we were on the verge in the last few years of developing better super conductors capable of handling sustainable electromagnetic fields strengths much stronger than previously possible; would think you would have to run many different tests at many different (increasing) field strengths and different configuration(s) (oscillating or otherwise) to make such a blanket statement.

kurt9 wrote:My point is that I consider Woodward and Fearn's work to be real. But everything else in this milieu is fantasy.
Did Sonny White as far as you know get any results from his "Q-Thruster" idea? The idea that "virtual particles" that winked into existence briefly and then winked out of existence could still be used to generate thrust with a properly configured electromagnetic field. I think that was part of his explanation for why he thought the Shawyers' EM Drive worked.

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:50 pm
by kurt9
I think you're right that White may not have fully tested his Q-thruster concept. I know at the time NASA gave him money and specifically told him to focus on the warp interferometry experiments, both of which resulted in null results as far as I recollect. I do know that Paul March has worked with Harold White on some of this, Paul March who has a long working relationship with Dr. Woodward.

I must admit that I am biased more towards Woodward's Mach work than White's work, partly because Woodward's theories ultimately derive from Relativity and White's from quantum theory. I consider Relativity to be the more fundamental of the two theories. Woodward has been much more open with his work than White.

The Q-thruster concept is essentially a vacuum energy scheme.

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:04 am
by RERT
Someone claims to have validated a 'zero fuel' thruster at 45mN/Watt in vacuum conditions, and are launching it on SpaceX:

https://ivolimited.us/press-release-ivo ... e-systems/

https://ivolimited.us/press-release-ivo ... atellites/

Here is the website of the company they 'worked with to validate the thruster'

https://www.e-labsinc.com/

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 4:22 pm
by Carl White
So, "pure electricity". No gaseous, liquid or solid fuels. What could they be doing, capturing electrons from the solar wind and expelling those at high velocities? Except that those already travel at 250–750 km/s, and electrons have so little mass.

From their website:
IVO Ltd., the pioneer of capacitive based technologies, today announced its pure electric thruster for satellites, the IVO Quantum Drive, will be aboard SpaceX Transporter 8. Hosted by IVO’s partner, Rogue Space Systems, the Quantum Drive-powered satellite will begin its journey to low earth orbit on June 10th, 2023.
Guess we might see.

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:25 pm
by RERT
Quite. They will either crash and burn, or change the world: 45mN/Watt is huge.

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:24 pm
by Giorgio
Well, 45 mN/W is not huge, is totally insane if true.
It's 3 orders of magnitude better than an ion thruster and without fuel. I mean, there is no word to describe the changes this will bring IF true.

I am quite skeptical due to lack of any real information and the excessive use of the word "quantum" on the website, but I give them the benefit of the doubt because of the test in 3 month time, meaning they really believe to be onto something.

Either way it will be very interesting to know more.

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2023 5:34 pm
by Giorgio
It seems like Mike McCulloch is involved with this company.
He is the ideator of "Quantized inertia" that was discussed in another thread few years ago.

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:30 am
by Skipjack
We will see how it turns out. If it works, it would be revolutionary. If it does not... well at least we can put that stuff to grave once and for good.

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:07 am
by GPecchia
It's been many years since last post.
Most of the folks at the nsf forum are convinced this will not work. However the fact that this will be launched aboard the SpaceX Transporter 8 mission says a lot. Launch is set for NET June 10 2023.

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 12:20 pm
by Giorgio
GPecchia wrote:
Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:07 am
It's been many years since last post.
Most of the folks at the nsf forum are convinced this will not work. However the fact that this will be launched aboard the SpaceX Transporter 8 mission says a lot. Launch is set for NET June 10 2023.
I give them full respect for believing on the idea and putting their money into play.
McCulloch Quantized Inertia (QI) theory is still far from perfect and his math still suffers along the way with many optimistic assumptions, but anyhow is better than the pure "faith" that is required to accept Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

There was still way too many interference related issues that could account for the results that they was obtaining. I also remember that few years ago Dr. Tajmar was giving McCulloch several indications on how to filter them out, but not many news since than.

If anyhow this experiment will give a positive result I doubt it will follow QI theory as devised. Yet, even an unexplained 45 mN/100W will be enough to force the scientific establishment to wake up from the lethargy they have fallen into for the last 50 years and to start to revise and question the Standard model, the Quantum model and all connected assumptions that are not fully coherent with many observations .
I do not think that both models are inherently incorrect, but we are clearly missing something that bridges the whole of the phenomena that we observe with the math of these models that we are actually using to describe nature. Finding that link could really open a window to a completely different technological world and yet every institution seems interested only in making proselytism in favor of DM and DE....

Re: EM Drive

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 7:17 pm
by RERT
Giorgio wrote:
Sun Apr 09, 2023 12:20 pm
…anyhow is better than the pure "faith" that is required to accept Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
The first BS claxon I remember going off was for ‘inflation’ in the late 70s/early 80s.