I’ve published a paper showing mathematically how MiHsC predicts the emdrive (see the reference below), but the struggle is to convince people with an explanation that takes them from what’s known & solid and guides them into this new area. This is one of the, possibly flawed, ways I use to explain it to myself. Starting from the known: the Casimir effect is well tested (see below left). If you put two conducting plates (the black lines) close together, these damp the zero point field (orange wiggles) between them, more virtual particles hit the plates from outside then from inside & the plates move together (red arrows).
It has also been noted, this time in fluid dynamics that if you subject a boomerang-shape to random perturbations (the middle diagram above) then it also has a shadow-zone for waves between its arms, and in this case the waves push it rightwards, since the waves put inwards (and rightwards) on the arms, but there are no waves to push from inside out (and leftwards) (eg: Chakrabarty et al., 2013). Now, imagine the reverse, where you have the same boomerang shape, but the random field is more intense inside (see the right hand diagram above). This is like the emdrive whose internal em field is high. By symmetry, the boomerang now moves towards its narrow end. We’re getting close.
The MiHsC explanation of emdrive is in a similar line but the derivation is more difficult because there’s no open end now. MiHsC says that the zero point field can be made to vary in space by setting up horizons (these can be real Casimir plates or abstract information horizons). In the emdrive then the supercharged zero point field in the copper cone is more energetic at the wide end (see diagram below, note the waveforms shown are cartoons only). There is now a gradient in it from which work can be extracted, just as the Casimir effect gets energy to move from the gradient it creates in the zero point field.
One way to work out the effect of MiHsC on the emdrive is to consider the photons resonating within it. On moving towards the wide end of the cone, the photons are moving to a more energetic zero point field and so gain inertial mass due to MiHsC (yes, light has inertial mass, the Japanese have just tested a light sail: IKAROS). Going the other way the photons lose mass. The almighty cosmic accountant says "Oh dear! Net mass is going towards the right, so I'd better conserve momentum & move the emdrive to the left. Make it so!". In this new way MiHsC predicts the observed emdrive thrust quite well. As shown in the bar chart below which shows the thrust data (the purple bars) from the eight emdrive experiments so far, and the MiHsC prediction in red. For the details, see my paper below.
References
Chakrabarty, A. Konya, A., Wang, F., Selinger, J.V., Sun K., Wie, .H., 2013. Brownian motion of boomerang colloidal particles. Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 160603.
McCulloch, M.E., 2015. Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive. EPL, 111, 60005. PDF
12 comments:
@Mike. Very interesting. Any models that can be built to generate optimum configurations? It would seem plausible that once it has been established as a quantifiable phenomena, that the development of efficient devices would be desirable.
Thank you for putting some theoretical background to this idea!
Hi Mike
Interesting paper on the Flyby Anomaly from 2015, which *might* explain it as being due to reflecting sunlight off the vehicles:
http://issfd.org/2015/files/downloads/papers/153_Jouannic.pdf
Mystery solved?
Doh! I just saw you'd Tweeted it late last year.
How, in your EM Drive notion, might we explain the observed and predicted increase in thrust as the Q of the chamber increases... is this just a simple multiplication of the abundance of microwave photon/gnats that are chasing mysterious Casimir elephants out of the chamber in one particular direction aka thrust? I rather fancy the mysterious beasts might be Cherenkov magneton wilderbeasts for purely fanciful reasons. Whatever the beasts are they are mischugenons as Edward Teller used to call them.
I like the word mischugenons. I don't need any, but I could apply it very well to dark matter. The dependence on Q is clearly explained in my EPL paper as being due to the number of trips the photon takes back and forth, see just below Eq. 13.
As well I like your views of some strange aspects of our world/universe. Q being equal to trips photons make back and forth in the chamber works for me. I have performed experiments which led to my colleague and advisor Teller naming my result 'mischugenons' we simply could not make any sense of the observed particles. I managed to catch them by converting them to the equivalent of ionizing radiation but the implied count meant I was working for hours in a 100 Sievert flux which of course was not possible as the lab rat (me) survived, thus the new name mischugenon was all that Edward could offer. Very spooky experiment. He admonished me to not eschew the discovery as he said 'it was like the discovery of neutrons, before they knew how to look for them more properly.' Mischugenons are readily generated an environment of intense oscillating electric/rf fields in the presence of deuterium bound to nanometric hydrogen loving particles. They behave like neutrons in that they readily pass through much/most matter/metal with no apparent loss but can captured/converted/observed by high neutron cross section matter, conveniently increasingly so in step with an offering of stepped up higher the neutron capture coefficients, WITHOUT the observation of expected neutron activation (thus the mystery). This of course might just allow for your Bussard collector equipped craft to harvest its fuel and not need to have a bulky heavy conventional fusion reactor aboard.
I've often wondered if LENR could be caused by very high accelerations on the small scale producing Unruh radiation (ie: heat from a new source). Do you have any estimates of the normal-particle accelerations going on in LENR? Or at least the diameter of particle orbits in the palladium, and their speeds?
Alas I don't have a handle on the details you ask for. There are still a lot of mysteries within the cold fusing ecology of atoms. A recent paper by Stubbs might be something you would find interesting reading and I would be delighted to hear your comments on same... the paper is here http://vixra.org/pdf/1511.0191v1.pdf There is another report by Holmlid et al about production of muons from Rhydberg hydrogen which is perhaps related as surely within some hydrogen loaded metal lattices the hydrogen attains a Rhydberg state. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/rsi/86/8/10.1063/1.4928109 More reading you might find of interest.
about LENR the most miraculous is not the concentration of energy to allow the fusion at high probability.
the greatest miracle is that the outcome is not violent. few tritium (sign of He4 excited state), fewer neutrons (showing that tritium is not linked to a He4* decay, but to calm D+H fusion), nearly no radioactive outcome among the few transmutations...
the real characteristic of LENR is a preference to calm outcome.
This is why I support the theory of edmund Storms, for it's approach (detail may be wrong, like hydroton).
you shoudl really read his book
http://lenrexplained.com/
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf
and exchange with Ed
what I have understood from his vision is the difefrence in approach between hot and cold fusion.
hot fusion happens by impacting nucleus at high energy, with few body involved, resulting in energetic outcome, high energy particles, excited nucleus, all decaying quickly.
many physicist consider cold fusion as a hot fusion that happen through tunneling, like a terrorist sabotaging a big tower through the basement...
colld fusion is not like sending plan in a tower (hot fusion), or even getting through the basement discretely to make it collapse by breaking it's balance (a bit like fission).
Cold fusion is like deconstructing a tower, brick by brick until all is flat. without any collapse.
Edmund propose that the energy of the fusion is dissipated slowly because a collective object (the hydroton) is in a coherent insulated state like an atom in a cavity, and can decay slowly by small keV nuclear collective-isomeric transition.
only at the end when all the energy of the fusion is dissipated, is the collective system in a state not far from pep fusion.
To be clear, as long as you don't explain the preference to calm outcome of LENR, you don't have a theory.
anyway there is a big challenge in Hydroton theory, which is credible in chemistry domain.
It is how the insulated collective object interact with it's component to make a complex energy scale appear, allowing small transitions.
it mean you have keV interaction at long distance between nucleus, insulated from chemistry context...
I've heard of Discrete breather (Dubinko), of ponderemotive force (Lidgren), of huge evanescent wave (Srivastava/Widom)... no idea if it can be compatible with Ed.
I just know the scientists themselves don't mix well.
Would be interesting to see how much thrust a spaceship scaled emdrive powered by a theoretical fusion reactor could produce according to MiHsC theory ;) (e.g. would it be scaleable to a usefull thrust ?)
I found you're page searching for "mischugenon".
There are several examples of large scale Inertia Drive type effects. People laugh at these things but I've never seen a cognizant explanation of how they operate. Maybe you have one? I'll list several. The Dean drive was two counter rotating weights on a platform that surged the platform forward in one direction the slowly released it to the other direction. Acceleration of an accelerated body. The key in all of these is "accelerated accelerate of mass" or "surge" as Davis called it from Davis mechanics.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward137.htm
I heard about Davis Mechanics from G.Harry Stine of Analog Science Fiction Science Fact. Here's a page where they say it's all nonsense but they show the counter weights.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/reactionlessdrive.php
Here's a page with a description of how it works.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100325154708/http://www.inertialpropulsion.com/the_dean_drive.htm
Similar to Professor Laithwaites gyroscopes. Accelerating an accelerating/rotating object. Look at this guys video. The spinning wheel is pushing against something. He can't hold it up and the torque explanation doesn't work because it should push his hand. I don't agree with his explanation because look at where he just lifts the wheel with no offset how he strains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo
Here's a video of Professor Laithwaites gyroscopes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmRQI70RIP4
Here's a new one I found. Lagiewka Bumper. Look at this extraordinary video. If that's not a inertia control device I would be extraordinarily surprised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_5oseSVUc4
It works on the same principle as all the others. It has a straight "rack" gear linked to a flywheel that when the front hits something the gears spin the flywheel very fast. He says it's redirecting the force but what it's really doing is the flywheel is giving out "Inertia????" waves. That this sort of strong force is shown with such a low frequency is a good sign that it can be controlled. He also has lots of other videos. One he runs a Fiat into a wall with his bumper on it and it doesn't hurt the driver at all. Here's a link to more info from the magnificent Rex Research.
http://www.rexresearch.com/lagiewka/lagiewka.htm
Now this device has been stolen by formula one race car drivers. They're making a shock absorber out of it. If you could use inertia to bleed away shock instead of heat think of the advantages to a race car that wants to save every ounce. They call it an inerter or J-Damper. It's directly stolen from lagiewka as he missed something on his patents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerter_%28mechanical_networks%29
These seem to be direct low frequency devices that work off inertia. Maybe thinking about these will help you're research. At least you should be able to explain them.
I forgot another oddity with large acceleration. Rail guns. They don't seem to have an actual recoil force opposite the round firing that's equivalent.
http://scripturalphysics.org/4v4a/ADVPROP.html#RailGunRecoil
G. Harry Stine wrote in an article that large rockets somehow lose a small amount of thrust when they take off and the actual amount to reach orbit based on engine thrust test is more than the calculated amount.
Professor Laithwaites gyroscopes. He picks up a 40 pound gyroscope straight over his head. The problem is you can see him straining to pick the gyro up when it's not spinning. He's an old guy. Look for video's of him and how he effortlessly raises it over his head. Now people say the torque causes the force to be concentrated by his hand while all the time missing that it's difficult and extremely hard for him to pick up the weight at all in a smooth manner. Notice his arm position is NOT like expected to use leverage to hoist something heavy over your head. The same with the bumper and the rail gun.
There's a video that shows someone weighing themselves while lifting the gyroscope. It shows the same weight on average with a few jitters as he's lifting. So in some way the force is localized. Is it conductive? You can have electric fields in a ferrite core and have no reaction until you put a wire through the core and connect it. A good article that might provide insight into this "field" of inertia is by that heretic Bill Beaty but it's about electric fields.
http://amasci.com/elect/mcoils.html
Be interesting to try the bumper car but with a wood body or ceramic. Would it be the same? Would a concrete gyroscope be the same as iron?
What bothers me is you can see something that clearly does not correspond to the standard paradigm and people just ignore it or wish it away.
I noticed you read and many of your readers read Nick Cook's "The Hunt for Zero Point". It's a great book. I'm not so sure the Nazi's had a UFO but I differ from you on whether the US has one or not. The reason is during the Reagan administration a vast amount was spent on black projects. Especially rail guns which have abnormalities in their operation. During this time period Jerry Pournelle's book "The Strategy of Technology" was taught at the Air Force Academy. It doesn't take a genius to see that Air Force cadets taught about technology acceleration as being a great force multiplier would try to grasp onto any abnormality that might strengthen our defense, or offense if you please.
The idea that you can't hide things is completely wrong. I'll give you an example. I was working on fighters at Nellis AFB in the 80's. We had a navy plane, A-7, that would taxi down the runway and take off every now and then. The commander said publicly there was no A-7's on the base. It had a missile under the pilots cockpit with a bright flashing red light and a radioactive symbol. What the f%^$???? In my shop we had one girl who worked on A-7 Inertial navigation for a plane that wasn't there. If you asked about it she would tell she didn't know anything she just worked on parts a guy brought in.
I read Ben Riches book years later on the stealth fighter and he said they used A-7 navigation and weapons computers because they were great for bombing. I immediately knew what the A-7 business was. They were hiding the maintenance. I'll bet there's not more than three or four others that know this unless they were in the program. You can hide stuff and they will use bizarre means to confuse you.
Post a Comment