A new emdrive result has just been published by the Chinese (Juan et al., 2016) and I have updated my former table (there are now 9 results, see below). Despite the negative buzz online, this Chinese result is happily consistent with all the other experiments & MiHsC (unlike their earlier 2012 results).
Also, I gather there has been a frantic search for Planck's constant in the MiHsC formula. Planck's constant is implied in the formula, but the physical fact that the photons are resonating (tuned to fit) within the cavity means that it is possible to re-express h using E, c and L (the length of the cavity). My full response to John Baez is here.
(Thanks to Dr Rodal for pointing out that the new result was 0 not 0.7mN. When I've checked the literature it may be also that the uncertainty +/-3mN should be +/-0.7mN, but this doesn't alter the agreement).
References
McCulloch, M.E., 2015. Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive, EPL, 111, 2, 60005. Preprint
Yang, Juan et al., 2016. Thrust Measurement of an Independent Microwave Thruster Propulsion Device with Three-Wire Torsion Pendulum Thrust Measurement System. Journal of Propulsion Technology (in Chinese) 37 (2): 362–371.
(Thanks to Dr Rodal for pointing out that the new result was 0 not 0.7mN. When I've checked the literature it may be also that the uncertainty +/-3mN should be +/-0.7mN, but this doesn't alter the agreement).
References
McCulloch, M.E., 2015. Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive, EPL, 111, 2, 60005. Preprint
Yang, Juan et al., 2016. Thrust Measurement of an Independent Microwave Thruster Propulsion Device with Three-Wire Torsion Pendulum Thrust Measurement System. Journal of Propulsion Technology (in Chinese) 37 (2): 362–371.
9 comments:
Dear Mike,
Please review your statement that Prof Yang measured 0.7 +/- 3 mN, by seeing the actual data plot of 20 tests of actual measurements using batteries instead of a power cord (which was the source of the experimental artifact responsible for her previous, now nullified, claims):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1527449#msg1527449
Her actual measurements with the batteries are actually 0 +/-0.7 mN with several individual measurements below 0.7 mN. I don't see a justification for the skew as you present the data, perhaps you intended 0 +/- 3 mN, but it is actually more like 0 +/- 0.7 mN because the +/-3 mN refers to her other series of tests without batteries.
Best regards,
Jose'
J. Rodal, Ph.D.
The table looks convincing - or not? I don't think that EMDrive drag originates somewhere at the very distant and esoteric Hubble/Ringer horizons, but the common points with Shawyer's and White's theory are apparent here.
IMO the EMDrive behaves like the conical barrier, floating at the water surface. Try to imagine, we are doing ripples & splashes inside this barrier, which are bouncing back and forth, but because they cannot leave the barrier, they cannot spread into outside. If we would neglect the (existence of) underwater, then the floating barrier wouldn't propagate in any direction in similar way, like the classical physics predicts for EMDrive in vacuum. But the surface ripples also induce an underwater sound waves, which can escape from behind of barrier, and because it's wider at one end, the sound pressure will push it into reactive motion in opposite direction.
http://i.imgur.com/Qg25uML.gif
In this way, the EMDrive would also serve as a source of scalar wave beam like the rocket drive, which is the primary source of its acceleration and it could be detected by another devices, by another antigravity drive in particular (the reactive forces of two EMDrives would compensate mutually at proximity). IMO this beam could be sniffed out by charged capacitor or Jossephson junction detectors, which would become subject of the invisible force field and electric noise escaping from EMDrive in anisotropic way. This field consists of many tiny magnetic turbulences of space-time, which are behaving like the bubbles of vacuum and they make the propagation of light through it faster. So that the laser light would also exhibit interference shift around EMDrive like around Alcubiere drive, in similar way, like the Harold White is trying to prove. In this way the predictions of existing theories could be connected mutually.
Ironically for mainstream physicists, the positive result of EMDrive could also provide the evidence of extradimensions of string theory, between other things. The scalar waves are hyperdimensional effect in similar way, like the sound waves of 3D underwater for 2D water surface.
Mike,
Somebody using the monicker "TheTraveller" at the public NSF forum has just posted a comment: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1528818#msg1528818 claiming that you sent him a personal email, where you predicted 2.8 mN for his (unverified, unpublished, no photographs or other data) claimed experiment giving 8mN:
[quote author=TheTraveller link=topic=39772.msg1528818#msg1528818 date=1462427783]<<~8mN, unloaded Q ~16,000, forward Rf power ~95W.
BTW Mike McCulloch in personal email predicted 2.8mN,
Shawyer's equation predicted 6.7mN,>>
He claims that Shawyer's equation predicted more than 2 times than what your equation predicted, and that his claimed experimental result is almost 3 times what your equation predicted.
Questions:
1) is he correct that you sent him a personal email, as he claims, predicting less than half of what his experiment claims?
2) if this is true, how were you able to make a prediction? What are the geometrical parameters, input power and quality of resonance (Q) that you used in your prediction?
3) since the results of both your equation and Shaywer's equation are linearly dependent on Q, and the prediction was made BEFORE he conducted his experiment (otherwise it would not be a prediction), how does one know what was the actual Q in his experiment, and therefore what is the actual accuracy of the equations to calculate the claimed "anomalous force"?
Best regards,
J. Rodal, Ph.D.
Dear Jose,
The Traveller direct mailed me the day before yesterday on twitter telling me his new cavity was as follows: 1st build loaded Q 8,000, unloaded Q 16,000, small diameter 159mm, big diameter 259mm, length 288mm, forward power 95W, res freq 2.405GHz, flat end plates, mode TE013 and it showed a thrust of 8 mN.
So I then made a 'prediction' of 2.8 mN (everyone knows my formula, so I don't know why he asked me to do it). Now, I don't wish to ruffle feathers or denigrate people who are experimenting, but I do not pay serious attention to work that has not been openly published so that others can verify and judge what has actually been done..
Best regards, Mike
The poorly designed experiments may involve the effects, which McCulloch's theory doesn't cover (the various electromagnetic and thermal convection forces) - and vice-versa: the MiHsC theory may not account to alternative mechanisms of reaction-less drives, like the interaction of charge carriers with vacuum. That is to say, I presume there are more energetically effective principles of reaction-less drive than EMDrive, which would fit McCulloch's formula neither. In particular Nassikas superconductive thruster doesn't require any external energy for its working.
A general MiHsC question: How hard would it be to calculate the extra 'vacuum pressure' from other sorts of horizons? For example, the information horizon of a black hole? For example, given relativity, then at a certain distance from a black hole, the way light bends means that the black hole's horizon takes up at least half of the visible sky - or even more than that. Is there a way to calculate the difference between relativity's standard predictions about the forces involved, and what an MiHsC-style prediction would propose?
Thank you for your time.
DataPacRat: It would need a calculation of the asymmetry in Unruh radiation caused by the black hole horizon, similar to what I did for a Rindler horizon here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775 but more challenging since there would be the BH horizon, the Rindler horizon and the Hubble horizon. Black holes have not been a priority for me since there are no direct observations to test whatever result is predicted.. but it would be interesting from an theoretical/consistency point of view.
Not a physicist or mathametician but seems some analogy to resonance force you can give yourself swinging in a swingset you can start from 0 and go positive by changing center of gravity. could the positive results be from something similar in testing in high gravity of earth surface or from measuring results on earths surface?
How do you like to go up in a swing,
Up in the air so blue?
Oh, I do think it the pleasantest thing
Ever a child can do!
Up in the air and over the wall,
Till I can see so wide,
River and trees and cattle and all
Over the countryside--
Till I look down on the garden green,
Down on the roof so brown--
Up in the air I go flying again,
Up in the air and down!
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Theodore: I love the poem :) There is an element of the swing in the MiHsC model of the emdrive because the photons bounce back and forth, but a swing does not generate net momentum in one direction (just equally back and forth), unlike the emdrive.
Post a Comment