Marian Mesina has invented a similar propulsion. Two opposing electromagnets attract or repel each other. The magnets can be excited with alternating current. Whether they attract or repel depends only on frequency, phasing and distance. Marian Mesina found a combination of those where one magnet should be repelled by the other while the other should be attracted by the first one. As far as I remember distance = lambda/2 or similar.

Regards,

Joachim

Your link is only to the abstract which has few details. It takes a minimum of 15 kW of RF power to generate 50 uN of thrust due to radiation pressure. Do you know what RF power level is used in the NASA experiment?

@P Colby, I only have the public information you see and don't particularly care to go poking around officially.  But I did complain about the broken link to the webmaster so maybe it will be fixed and we can see the full report.

@J Pimiskern, never heard of the magnet propulsion, do you have a reference?

@ R Shuler

You say "On the face of it, this technique seems to violate conservation of momentum. As far as I know, no one has provided a theoretical model of how this might come about without tearing up almost all of physics. Do the researchers need to look harder for other explanations of their results?"

I have not been able to locate the "report" either. Without facts and detail how can the topic even be discussed let alone be researched? I wish people would make these public before the press releases and sound bites. My money is on it's either a familiar and well known effect, or an uninteresting experimental artifact.  Either way, bad science. 

@Robert Shuler:

http://www.google.com/patents/DE3414422C2?hl=de&cl=en

http://www.google.com/patents/DE3414422A1?cl=en

I'd like to throw in a thought experiment.

There are gigantic magnetic fields in the galaxies,

maybe extremely strong light years away from their

source. Suppose a satellite in such a strong

magnetic field switches on a current in a cable

loop, will it experience thrust immediately?

Regards,

Joachim

I was once in discussions with serious scientists in Iran. In fact, I was invited to the country to live and participate in their research. I explained to them how to develop a propulsion system that could block the gravitational attraction between say a ship and the Earth. I have since heard reports that they have succeeded in the prototype experiments.

I predicted the effect with the Aether Physics Model, which quantifies the structure of space (Aether) and shows how matter gains its structure from space.

A simple proof of concept vehicle could be constructed with a Tesla coil mounted inside, and powered from inside, an aluminum sphere. The ground connection from the Tesla coil connects to the sphere and the top load is at the center of the sphere.

The high frequency, high potential currents going to the outer shell cause the quantum spaces (Aether units) surrounding the aluminum shell to disorient themselves from the space of the greater environment. The transmission of gravity occurs through space, but if space is cut off, the gravitational effect is also cut off. 

The result is that the space of the aluminum sphere has become a space bubble, much like a soap bubble separates the air inside from the air outside and can still move freely in the greater atmosphere. Without gravity, a ship could float in space as though there were no Earth nearby.

The electric and magnetic fields within the bubble, however may still be in contact with the surrounding environment. More complex arrangements of Tesla coils can change the shape of the space bubble and cause all sorts of space distortion effects including transparency, bright plasma, rotating magnetic fields, and propulsion. 

Using similar physics, it is possible to extend tubes of magnetic flux across great distances through which the vehicle can pass. These magnetic flux tubes are more like gateways (worm holes) than propulsion systems.

Oddly enough, NASA used to publish unedited LASCO satellite images that showed huge magnetic flux tube-like structures appearing near the Sun. Now their images are highly cropped, presumably to hide these features. If they were explainable as lens flares or some other camera artifact, one would think they would simply allow them to be published.

@David, well I did say that if there was anything to quantum vacuum propulsion, it would be an ether theory.  I have not heard of your theory, and in examining several web pages (I noticed you didn't include a link to a paper) I was not able to get a sense of it.  I think you need to work on your introduction.  How does it relate (or does it) to Sonny White's work?  I have not heard him mention it.

I was not aware of Sonny White's work, but DARPA and other military agencies and the House Science Committee investigated my work back in 2004 - 2006. My biggest obstacle with personally getting through to NASA, DARPA and others was Stephen Weinberg, because my work stepped on his toes.

In my work, I lay down the mistakes in modern physics and then use the correct physics to produce a beautifully simple Unified Force Theory using only three simple force laws, two of which were already known, namely the Coulomb Electrostatic Force Law and the Newton Gravitational Force Law. The third equation is based on a second type of charge that is fully quantifiable and observable, but which nobody had previously quantified. It is the magnetic charge.

When I re-examined the whole of the foundations of physics by looking closely at the relationship of dimensions, units, and constants, I was able to induce significant insights into the structures of space (Aether) and quantum matter (primary angular momentum). Several key scientists took an interest in my work, but due to the heavy handedness of Stephen Weinberg, the cult-like following of Albert Einstein, and the naive belief that Aether does not exist because of the misinterpretation of Michelson-Morley's experiment. I was kept out of the loop. Ahh, but that didn't stop several European and Iranian scientists from seeing the validity of my work. 

It's just a matter of time before Weinberg passes away, and technology advances to the point where it needs an Aether theory to explain how the structure of space can be manipulated at all. Then, perhaps, people will decide it's safe to openly discuss my work and help to fully flesh it out.

As extensive as my work is in unifying the fundamental forces, identifying the structures of Aether, charge, and mass, establishing a new and more useful system of dimensional units, and identifying new physical constants, it is still in its infancy. 

I have had to live through a shattered leg and slowly rebuild my health and resources over the past ten years, which significantly reduced my time and ability in continuing and promoting my work.

To more directly answer your question, there are no other scientists on my level of understanding at this time. Everybody else is still working with the old and broken system of units, the useless mass-energy equivalence principles, and nonsense like quantum chromodynamics, wave-particle duality, and force particles. My statement sounds arrogant even to me, but it is the truth. I am one of those few people in history, like Rene Descartes, who can sit back with an open mind and question everything in light of known facts, and come up with a simple and elegant solution to an unsolved problem.

And I have learned what all great minds learn, you can't easily uproot even an undesirable tree if it has been growing a long time. Iranian scientists were more open to my work simply because they did not have the burden of Western science hanging over them. It was just common sense to them.

I have not had any contact with US military agencies since they evaluated my work. But I have seen several black projects showing up on Youtube, which indicates they already have been working with these technologies for some time. In fact, while I was researching Nikola Tesla's work I heard rumors that he was working on the very experiment I mentioned above, and in fact, I have seen one of the military's many Flying Triangles just south of Bakersfield California in May or June of 1978 as it flew about 100 feet over the top of my car. It was that event that got me interested in physics in the first place, and it was Tesla's clues that helped me figure out how it worked.

In any case, I am quite certain that Harold "Sonny" White is basing his work on existing technology. As has been mentioned, the Standard Model of physics does not allow for the engineering of Aether, mostly because the adherents of the Standard Model believe the Aether does not exist. In addition, the Standard Model incorrectly applies the conservation of energy, matter, and momentum to the quantum realm, which is a very huge mistake. Matter and energy are constantly being both created and destroyed throughout the Universe, and there is abundant evidence in our collective possession to see this. When technicians play around with the high tech available to black projects and science institutions, they witness the manipulation of space and suddenly realize the world does not work the way it was previously believed.

What boggles me is that someone will then invent a new system of math to try to explain the observation, rather than re-examine the foundations of Classical Mechanics to see why we didn't expect this in the first place. And that is what my work is all about. It is a tweak to our notation of charge, which results in a chain reaction of corrections, and which provides simple and elegant solutions to all our observations of the quantum realm.

@Robert - BTW, if you want to see my papers and book, just click on my name. 

David, seems like to me your biggest problem is lack of published papers in reputable journals (I have that problem also in some areas) and lack of a following of people who understand your work.  This QA thread is for discussing quantum vacuum propulsion, and Sonny White's research program.  I am not interested in what Weinberg thinks, but I am interested in staying focused.  : )

Robert, it is not for lack of trying that I am not published in a mainstream journal. But it is hard to do when your work includes a Unified Force Theory and Stephen Weinberg is a reviewer. As for quantum vacuum propulsion, I have presented a proof of concept experiment for discussion. Also, I just found this paper on Sonny White's work:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936_2011016932.pdf

David, thanks for the link but that is on the warp drive, not the vacuum drive.  Very different.  The experimental results are claimed only for the vacuum drive.

S.W. is not a reviewer on all publications.  Try the European ones.  If you are trying to get a totally new theory in any Physical Review journal, forget it.  That is an editorial decision they have made that really has nothing to do with your theory.  Write a short paper on just one tiny thing on which you can convincingly argue a change to existing theory, try to sound as conventional as possible, and try submitting to Foundations. 

What I want to do in this thread is get some specific comments and analysis on the quantum vacuum propulsion.  Is the amount of thrust reported credible?  Is the theory sufficiently expounded that we know what we are experimenting on?  What modifications to theory are necessary to reconcile the conservation of momentum problem?  And so forth . . .

In other words, to correctly relate the quantum vacuum drive to existing theory, if possible, or show what type of modifications are absolutely necessary, if there is no way to explain it in conventional theory (which would bear a heavy burden of proof).  To take on another unaccepted unproven theory, no matter the merit, would muddy the discussion irretrievably.

Also, I think Dr. White views and has sold his experiments as fitting within a more or less conventional theoretical framework.  Taking the edges of it somewhat, but not proposing to be based on entirely new theory.  I think to be fair to Dr. White we should discuss his work within that framework.  Is my assertion true?  Is there something published by him indicating a different theoretical framework?  I have heard him speak and have a copy of his charts from a few years ago and I don't think so.  Unfortunately I am not at liberty to post them and they don't pop up on a Google search, at least not easily.  I did find this link to his lab, but I'm not sure it will come up on a non-NASA computer: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140005831.pdf

Thanks for your practical advice, Robert. I was accepted as a speaker at PIRT 2006 in London, and who do you suppose showed up in the audience so he could coerce my speaking time to be changed to just after lunch, and invite everyone to an extended lunch during my speaking time? Fortunately, half the people came back to hear my presentation. Weinberg has a vendetta for me, and yes, he is the go-to man for field theories for the government, especially since he got a Nobel prize for the Electroweak theory and wants to protect his status.

I just spent the afternoon reading the NASA forums concerning Sonny White's work. Even within NASA there is great contention over his proposed experiments. The mainstream does not like the idea of experiments based on new physics. They want the physics proved before the idea can be proposed. It's madness.

I hope someone does come up with detailed explanation of White's work. It sounds interesting and his ideas for the most part are reflected in my work. However, his interferometer experiment is a mistake. You can't shoot a laser through space that is being warped and expect to detect the warp. This is because photons travel in the fabric of space, not through or between the space. In other words, the laser beam is part of the space and will move with the space, not independent from it. That is precisely why LIGO is such a colossal failure at detecting gravitational waves. 

Robert,

As a casual lay reader, I don't understand how the torsion pendulum effects were not directly produced by photon pressure. The abstract http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052 states:

"Approximately 30-50 micro-Newtons of thrust were recorded from an electric propulsion test article consisting primarily of a radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity excited at approximately 935 megahertz. Testing was performed on a low-thrust torsion pendulum that is capable of detecting force at a single-digit micronewton level, within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure."

I find no mention in the abstract of tests being performed in an effective vacuum. Surely I'm missing something?

BTW, your last link is generally accessible.

@David, well just avoid him as much as possible.  He'll lose interest eventually.  I would say the attention would not have been merited if there were obviously no merit to your work.  If you come up with something along the lines I suggested, shoot it to me by private message.

@James, I am by no means expert on this type of testing.  I might be able to persuade Dr. White to answer your questions if you like.  I don't know if he will.  I'll send you a private message with my email address.

Robert,

I did find in http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140005831.pdf under "Future Work":

Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster

Seal heat sink container with epoxy, implement pressure transducer, test in vacuum chamber for effectiveness

This seems to me to confirm that the 'Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster" has not yet been tested in vacuum conditions. The fundamental problem would seem to me to be that, without eliminating real particles from the test environment, any thrust effect imparted could have been transferred by real particles filling the vacuum chamber. Attributing the thrust to interactions with transient virtual particles seem to require that an effective vacuum has been created to remove most, if not all, stable, real particles...

Again, there may also be an elementary explanation to explain why the RF photons cannot simply impact the torsion pendulum directly by imparting photon pressure, but I don't know what it is...

@James

One of my frustrations with this discussion is the horrific lack of details. To know even the scale magnitude of the radiation pressure on needs to know both the RF power and the design of the "device". Also at the uN force level there are many many convention effects which could contribute at this low force level. Your observation about the test being done in a vacuum is one. How does the thrust depend on ambient gas pressure is a relevant question. Another potential contribution is due to passive intermodulation (PIM). It has long been known that metal contact points can and do rectify RF power. Looking at the image of the device I see more than ample opportunities for PIM to occur. Rectification can lead to non-zero charge buildup. If this is the case the observed uN force could well be the result of regular old coulomb attraction between the device and the chamber walls. Have these effects been considered? We simply don't know given the reports I've seen.

I sent Dr. White an email asking if he has a more detailed report he will share with us.

Independent of his having material he's willing to share will you let it be known if he responds?

He's not responded so far.  A lot of people are on vacation during mid-August.  I will give him a call if I have not heard by the first week of September.  Beyond that, there is not much I can do.  I'm sure he would not remember me.  I was just in the audience several years ago.  But since he has been asking for support from my division, he might be inclined to respond.  On the other hand, if they have already turned him down, he might be miffed with us.

Without having a specific proposal to critique, I would assume this "quantum vacuum propulsion" either attempts to transfer kinetic energy from matter to space, or it attempts to utilize space as a ballistic projectile. In the first case, I would agree with you that it is a violation of the conservation of momentum. I can't imagine how it could be done.

In the second case, there is already an example of space being used as a ballistic projectile. It is called a rotating magnetic field. The rotating magnetic field has no inherent mass, yet it can be used to impart momentum to matter. In principle, a drive could be constructed that creates a large scale rotating magnetic field, and a ship could be the projectile. The rotating magnetic field generator would be mass-based and provide the reference for the field. However, the scale of the rotating magnetic field would be an issue.

Another possibility would be to create a magnetic field "jet" through a toroidal rotating magnetic field. Logically, a toroidal magnetic ring should not have a net vector, and yet observed toroidal rings in fluids are common and they can move quite fast. It can be reasoned that if a ring can move quickly through a fluid, then a fluid might move quickly through a ring.

My work shows that Aether is a fluid, and not a static, rigid, or imaginary reference frame. When the quantum structure of Aether is understood, it is an easier matter to engineer propulsion systems that harness its properties. This may be what Dr. White is working on.

I would think any EM field, rotating or not, would have some energy and therefore mass.

@Robert - A stream of photons (aka light) ripples space. A rotating magnetic field moves space. Light can be thought of as a wave on water, whereas a properly engineered rotating magnetic field would be like a water current.

There are several different rotating magnetic field vector arrangements that can be constructed. To use a ring, the electromagnets may have a variable rate rotating component around both the small radius and great radius of the toroid. 

Basically, what we are doing is creating a laboratory-induced frame dragging effect. The idea of positive holes moving in a transistor is also related to this concept, 

It should be easy enough to build a small test project and send it up as a satellite. 

Easy for you to say, but since it is not a conventional view (I have two degrees in electrical engineering) it sounds like speculation.  Anyway, taking it as fact, anything we can sense or interact with has energy, and E=mc2 therefore mass.

Again, the referenced abstract states:

... Approximately 30-50 micro-Newtons of thrust were recorded from an electric propulsion test article consisting primarily of a radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity excited at approximately 935 megahertz. Testing was performed on a low-thrust torsion pendulum that is capable of detecting force at a single-digit micronewton level, within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure...

Doesn't this describe a transfer of RF resonance to a pendulum via the atmosphere?

We don't even have a cavity diagram, much less a diagram of the whole apparatus.  Nor do we have information about power input.  The question is not whether the door to the chamber was closed.  That would only keep out air currents (which definitely would exert way more than 50 micro-newtons on just about anything).  But the RF cavity.  If it was open on one end, even a small amount of energy absorbed by the air would cause it to heat and expand creating thrust.

I am doubtful of direct RF interaction with the torsion pendulum, but careful testing with more than one orientation with respect to the pendulum should be able to isolate the effect. 

I do not feel comfortable posting all White's charts, but it is legit to quote sections in the context of specific discussions.  After a while of this, much of the information will come out, but still there will not be a full copy of the charts anywhere on the web for downloading.  Let's begin with what is a quantum vacuum thruster.  See below for that page out of White's 2011 charts.

It looks like to me if there are any stray ions in the atmosphere, there would be thrust produced from them.  There is constantly some low level of ionizing radiation on the surface of the earth, and nearby electrical equipment can produce more ions.  Perhaps one could measure the ionization of the air, and try different amounts of it, lacking equipment that will operate in a vacuum.

I can't evaluate, but my impression from the quote in my previous comment is that the thrust measured was far smaller than would be expected using a plasma fuel source. It seems to me that the fundamental difference then might simply be the energy density of the 'plasma fuel source' in the QVPT tests to date - the 'fuel' being the particles of the ambient atmosphere...

James if I understand you correctly, that would be my assumption, that there are a few stray ions in the atmosphere which act as reaction mass.

Robert the slide in your post claims QVPT derives its thrust by acting on the "quantum vacuum fluctuations." Since QCD and the standard model are Lorentz invariant can't this explanation of a thrust be rejected out of hand? I say this because the vacuum state is unique and the same in all inertial frames. All correct process diagrams one can construct in QCD conserve momentum.  Sounds to me the observed thrust may be due to hand waving and not quantum fluctuations.

This is over my head, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect states

Because the strength of the force falls off rapidly with distance, it is measurable only when the distance between the objects is extremely small. On a submicron scale, this force becomes so strong that it becomes the dominant force between uncharged conductors. In fact, at separations of 10 nm—about 100 times the typical size of an atom—the Casimir effect produces the equivalent of about 1 atmosphere of pressure (the precise value depending on surface geometry and other factors).[7]

It seems that any energy wave imparted to hypothetical virtual particles could not propagate any significant distance due to their transient nature.

Moreover, the experiments that have been conducted so far seem to be more similar to the "water wave analogue of the Casimir effect" illustrated in inset at the link above -http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Water_wave_analogue_of_Casimir_effect.ogv - which I suspect is not so limited in its effects by distance...

Paul, that would be my first reaction also.  But I don't know everything so I posed this question.  : )  James' idea is interesting.  I think he is basically agreeing with you.  Above James & I concluded a test in atmosphere is too likely to be influenced by presence of stray ions (not quite hand waving but very similar).

A coworker found what I think is the NASA paper. He got it off the internet so hopefully sharing it in this discussion isn't a breach of some rule or social thingy. There are many details in the paper and I've only skimmed it. There are also two other papers he (the coworker) deemed relevant. If so I'll post these as well. 

This is great, now we have something to look at, thanks!

I've look a little more closely to the NASA paper. There are many constancy and "sanity" checks that haven't been done. The one I find most troublesome is the leakage of RF power into the vacuum chamber. Both devices under test us a small antenna to broadcast RF from the interior of the cavities to the network analyzer which resides outside the vacuum chamber. I suggest that any RF power in the region exterior to the device and interior to the vacuum chamber could lead to a net force on the balance from passive intermodulations. The test that was run was to use a terminator in place of the device. This test would remove the RF power in this region and thus remove the observed force. 

Paul, just a few days ago I talked with an R&D engineer here who has consulted with White, and he brought up the same concern, about the leakiness of the setup, and a possible small force from stray RF.  I believe what White requested from our division is help with a better setup, less leakiness, more repeatabiity.  So they seem to be doing the right things, just maybe bragging about results a bit early.  It is a temptation I fell into again this week, sending out a paper and then realizing all the mistakes in it.  When we get our friends to look over our work they are unwilling or too busy to be critical.  :D

Robert, To put things in perspective I would suggest that any experiment that demonstrates a closed isolated system which somehow "pushes" on space yielding a net force would be extremely fundamental and far reaching. Much more so than say the finding of the Higgs boson or detecting gravitational radiation. The reason is that (if true) the results breaks our science at a very fundamental level. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction holds for *all* currently accepted theories. I for one cannot see a clear way through an earthbound experiment which wouldn't in the end leave some residual doubt. It's a far more difficult experiment than one might think. Nothing I read so far suggest an experimental approach complete enough that a positive result would get any traction in the community.   

That matches my opinion.  And White's too I know for a solid fact based on his requests for help.  The question is not whether the work is being pursued with sufficient care and vigor.  I'm sure it is a matter of funding.  There has been virtually no R&D money since 2009.  If arguing for money one should have a strong case.  This can be discussed independently of any experimental work that White or anyone has done.  The question I asked is not whether the experiments were done well.  It was whether it was worth doing proper experiments.  Is there theory?  Is applying it within our technological reach?  What is the value of results?  How much thrust can one expect to produce?  There was one comment on that earlier, from James I think.

Yes but the best work is not published in a timely way.

Dear Dr. Robert Shuler,

If you should have a glance at

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316438315_Gravitational-magnetic-electric_fields_interaction

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313315115_A_Design_of_GemDrive?ev=prf_pub

I should thank you very much.

Best wishes.

Experiment Findings Gravitational-magnetic-electric fields interaction vi

Experiment Findings A Design of GemDrive

@Jerry, is it too sensitive to upload a draft here?

@Yin,you have an intriguingly simple concept.  But I find two equally intriguingly simple problems with it:

@ALL, the quantum vacuum propulsion needs a theory of how the device can push on the mass (gravitational) field, transferring momentum in a diffrent direction from gravity's always attractive direction.