Difference between revisions of "Theory"

From EM Drive
Jump to: navigation, search
(Undo revision 1008 by 127.0.0.1 (talk))
(Undo revision 1007 by 127.0.0.1 (talk))
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
== Proponent Theories ==
 
== Proponent Theories ==
 
+
* Roger Shawyer's EMDrive full theory paper <ref>[http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf Roger Shawyer EMDrive Theory]</ref>
* Prof. Juan Yang's theory <ref>[http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf Pro Juan Yang EMDrive Theory and Results]</ref>
+
* Roger Shawyer's EMDrive basic theory <ref>[[File:EmDrive Basic Theory.ppt]]</ref>
 +
* Prof. Juan Yang's theory <ref>[http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf Prof Juan Yang EMDrive Theory and Results]</ref>
 
* Dr. Harold Sonny White's Quantum vacuum plasma thruster model (QVP thruster)
 
* Dr. Harold Sonny White's Quantum vacuum plasma thruster model (QVP thruster)
 
* [[Evanescent waves]]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1330521#msg1330521 2/2/15 post by @aero modeled evanescent waves] using [http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep MEEP].  Conclusion was that, due to rapid dropoff at the frustum surface, these were of insufficient magnitude to explain the thrust.</ref>
 
* [[Evanescent waves]]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1330521#msg1330521 2/2/15 post by @aero modeled evanescent waves] using [http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep MEEP].  Conclusion was that, due to rapid dropoff at the frustum surface, these were of insufficient magnitude to explain the thrust.</ref>
Line 9: Line 10:
 
* [[@notsosureofit Hypothesis]]
 
* [[@notsosureofit Hypothesis]]
 
* [[Mike McCulloch's MiHsC Theory]]
 
* [[Mike McCulloch's MiHsC Theory]]
* Roger Shawyer's EMDrive <ref>[http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf Roger Shawyer EMDrive Theory]</ref><ref>[[File:EmDrive Basic Theory.ppt]]</ref>
 
 
* [[Todd Desiato (@WarpTech)'s Evanescent Wave Theory]]
 
* [[Todd Desiato (@WarpTech)'s Evanescent Wave Theory]]
 
* Curving Rf beams<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1379281#msg1379281 Post by @aero]</ref> - The magnitude of the bending needed, was not shown by the thermal camera images taken at Eagleworks.
 
* Curving Rf beams<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1379281#msg1379281 Post by @aero]</ref> - The magnitude of the bending needed, was not shown by the thermal camera images taken at Eagleworks.

Revision as of 02:58, 14 July 2015

This page will outline some candidate theories of operation (or non-operation).

Proponent Theories

Debunking Theories

These theories should be explained, then debunked with the simplest explanation, with a link to a dedicated page to show the work or work in progress that backs up that explanation.

Energy and Momentum Conservation

If the EM Drive produces constant-acceleration it will violate Energy Conservation.

It may also violate Momentum Conservation.

Exact Standing Wave Solution of Maxwell's Equations

On 8/5/14, Greg Egan posted an exact solution for the resonant modes (for modes having constant electromagnetic field variation in the azimuthal direction, such that m=0) of a cavity in the shape of a truncated cone with spherical ends. Egan also calculated the forces and showed a proof that the net force is zero and therefore that there is no thrust force in a resonant electromagnetic cavity of any arbitrary shape, for any arbitrary mode shape, when the cavity is analyzed according to the standing wave solution of Maxwell's equations (assuming no sources or sinks in the cavity).

Experimental Artifacts

This assertion is that all positive experimental results are results of artifacts, such as:

  • Measuring error
  • Thermal effects
  • Mechanical vibration
  • Magnetic effects with environment

These are discussed in more detail at Possible Error Sources.

References