Difference between revisions of "Theory"
(→The back-of-the-envelope debunk) |
(→The back-of-the-envelope debunk: Formatted using MathJax) |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
*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. | *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. | ||
− | ===The back-of-the-envelope debunk=== | + | ===The back-of-the-envelope "kinetic energy debunk"=== |
Given: | Given: | ||
− | + | <math>f=ma</math> | |
− | |||
− | + | and | |
− | + | <math> | |
+ | e=\cfrac{1}{2}mv^2 | ||
+ | </math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | then | ||
+ | |||
+ | <math>a=\cfrac{f}{m}</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | So if this device can produce a constant force then it will produce a constant acceleration. | ||
BUT!... because Kinetic Energy is proportional to the SQUARE of velocity, and the energy being put in is constant, then at some time the attained velocity will mean there is more kinetic energy in the device than has been put in to the device. Yay, free energy! | BUT!... because Kinetic Energy is proportional to the SQUARE of velocity, and the energy being put in is constant, then at some time the attained velocity will mean there is more kinetic energy in the device than has been put in to the device. Yay, free energy! |
Revision as of 04:58, 29 May 2015
This page will outline some candidate theories of operation (or non-operation).
Contents
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.
The back-of-the-envelope "kinetic energy debunk"
Given:
[math]f=ma[/math]
and
[math] e=\cfrac{1}{2}mv^2 [/math]
then
[math]a=\cfrac{f}{m}[/math]
So if this device can produce a constant force then it will produce a constant acceleration.
BUT!... because Kinetic Energy is proportional to the SQUARE of velocity, and the energy being put in is constant, then at some time the attained velocity will mean there is more kinetic energy in the device than has been put in to the device. Yay, free energy!
Experimental error
- It's all a hoax/conspiracy
- Simple measuring error
- Thermal effects
- Mechanical vibration
- Magnetic effects with environment
These are discussed in more detail at Possible Error Sources.
Proponent Theories
- Guido Fetta's, Cannae Drive creator's Theory
- Roger Shawyer's, EM Drive creator's theory
- Quantum foam MHD
- Harold White's Quantum vacuum plasma thruster (QVP thruster)
- Harold White's Warp effects
- Evanescent waves[1]
- Transfer of linear momentum from the Quantum Vacuum to magnetoelectric and chiral molecules [2]
- @notsosureofit Hypothesis
- Mike McCulloch's MiHsC Theory
- Curving Rf beams[3] - The magnitude of the bending needed, was not shown by the thermal camera images taken at Eagleworks.
8/5/14 - Greg Egan obtained an exact solution for the resonant modes (having azimuthal quantum number m=0, constant electromagnetic field variation in the azimuthal direction) of a cavity in the shape of a truncated cone with spherical ends. Greg Egan 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, and for any arbitrary mode shape, when the cavity is analyzed according to the standing wave solution of Maxwell's equations.
References
- ↑ 2/2/15 post by @aero modeled evanescent waves using MEEP. Conclusion was that, due to rapid dropoff at the frustum surface, these were of insufficient magnitude to explain the thrust.
- ↑ http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1330846#msg1330846 and http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1333392#msg1333392
- ↑ Post by @aero