From (by) RocketSlinger@SBCGlobal.net (email me there please)… This is a sub-site
to main site at www.rocketslinger.com …
This web page last updated 17 January 2025
Experiments
for Testing Quantized Inertia Theories
Abstract
This sub-page to www.ResearchGate.net ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388117533_Experiments_for_Testing_Quantized_Inertia_Theories
) is duplicated at www.rocketslinger.com also (at http://www.rocketslinger.com/Quant_Inert2/ ). This
is ALMOST purely speculation and internet research here. Only ONE small, simple (almost child-like, or even silly) experiment was conducted, by the
author of this paper. Mostly, experimental
designs are proposed here. This is a follow-on to https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377926730_Proposed_Versions_of_Quantized-Inertia_Drives .
The simple or child-like experiment was to
put a “Newton’s Cradle” so-called “executive toy” into a freezer overnight, and
then submerge two end-balls in boiling-hot water (for them to soak up
heat). The other balls were left
freezing cold, and the device was activated.
Now if “Quantized Inertia” (QI) theories are true, AND cause LARGE
effects, then the hot molecules (in the hot end-balls) will “bounce around”
vigorously, experiencing high accelerations, and display more inertia. The cold end-balls will do the opposite,
displaying less inertia. We would expect
the cold-end balls to bounce higher than the hot-end balls, since these cold
balls contain or exhibit less inertia to “work against” motion-energy elastic
impacts. No such effects were visually
observed. Of course, the effects MIGHT
have been there, but were too small to observe.
This paper will (in passing) propose possible
elaborations on “Newton’s Cradle” devices for use to try to demonstrate that QI
theories are true. This, however, isn’t
intended to be the main focus of this paper.
Also, testing a QI thruster (as described in the previous paper) will be
VERY briefly discussed, as another method of testing QI theories.
The main focus of this paper will be to
propose a modification to the design of a large high-speed centrifuge (in a
vacuum) such as is used by SpinLaunch.
If we have two balanced spin-arms, with one arm having a tank full of a
gas (such as Xenon) which is cooled, while the other arm has the same amount of
gas which is heated, then temperature-induced imbalances could be measured, if
they exist. Such imbalances could be
measured in different ways, as are discussed here. Difference molecular weights of gasses,
different pressures and temperatures of the gasses, and simply reversing the DC
power polarities of Peltier heat pumps (to reverse who is hot and who is cold)
could be experimentally varied to try to “suss out” small unintended,
unforeseen effects of confounding variables, such as are highly troublesome in
such experiments.
Contents
Preamble, and Bits of Boilerplate
Introduction
and “Misc.” Notes
Last-Paper
Errata and Embellishments
Using a
Newton’s Cradle for Testing QI Theories
Misc.
Transition-Intermission, and Testing a QI Thruster in a Lab Setting
Testing QI
Theories Using a Centrifuge.
As before, as with
other sub-pages of www.rocketslinger.com, the intent here is to “defensively publish” miscellaneous ideas,
to make them available to everyone “for free” (sometimes called “throwing it
into the public domain”), and to prevent “patent trolling” of (mostly) simple,
basic ideas. Accordingly, currently-highly-implausible or
speculative design ideas (often marked as such) are sometimes included, just in
case they ever become plausible, sometimes through radical new technology
developments (often in materials sciences).
Dear Reader,
excuse me as I will often slip out of stilted formal modes of writing
here. I have no boss or
bosses to please with these “hobby” writings of mine, so I’ll do it my
way! I’ll
often use a more informal style from here on in, using “I”, “we”, “you”,
etc. “We” is you and me. “You” are an engineer, manager, or other party
interested in what’s described here.
Let’s thwart the patent trolls, and get ON with it!
PS, if some of my speculations are
wrong (based on mistaken assumptions), please email me at RocketSlinger@SBCGlobal.net, and note that I’m open to co-authoring articles, even if they
are short, as in, corrections or updates to this article, for example. If you send comments, please specify whether
or not you’re open to having your name mentioned (up to and including being
named as a co-author) in any follow-up article(s).
“QI” (Quantized Inertia) theories are regarded by some to be
“fringe science”, or, a realm of “crack-pots”.
I’m no expert, but would simply like to know, one way or the other, are
the theories true? Hence this
paper… For generic background on all
this, I would recommend to the beginning reader, https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/01/darpa-partially-funded-quantum-space-drive-orbital-test.html , “DARPA Partially Funded Quantized Inertia Science BUT Not IVO”,
and https://quantizedinertia.com/about/ . Also… First, there was “The Google, Which Knows All
Things”, and now there is AI also. My
favorite AI is “Perplexity”, which I used to help me with researching this
paper (but which didn’t help me actually write this paper). Blame me for my errors, please, and NOT
Perplexity! Between “Google” searches
and AI, though, even fairly complex or detailed questions can be quickly
answered. So rather than cluttering up
this paper with such rabbit-holes (of collections of links) concerning topics
which get to be a bit tangential, I will ask you, Dear Reader, to pursue such
things, while I will sometimes simply provide some search-string suggestions,
and little else. As usual, if you have
comments, corrections, or questions, please email me at RocketSlinger@SBCGlobal.net .
PS, all that having been said, here are some generically
associated topics that you can investigate for yourself: “EM Drive” (by now fairly conclusively shown
not to work), “IVO Quantum Drive”, “Unruh Radiation” (or “Unruh Effect”), and “Rindler Horizon” (or “Rindler
Coordinates”).
As has become my habit by now, I will now add comments and
corrections to my most recent (topic-associated) previous paper. This is easier than writing and posting supplements, or new short paper just for that purpose. In this case, that previous paper is https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377926730_Proposed_Versions_of_Quantized-Inertia_Drives (AKA, exact same
paper is also at http://www.rocketslinger.com/Quant_Inert/ ).
The following list is prioritized, with the most important items towards
the top.
‘1) See Figures #1 and #2 of the previous
papers for diagrams for a basic design of a thermal-gradient-based QI
thruster. Like a picture of a rocket
taking off, the leading edge is to the top of the page, and the
thrust-emitting, lagging edge of the thruster is towards the bottom. I had thought that gas pressures inside this
thruster would balance each other, pressing outwards equally in all outward
directions, on the vertical walls (walls parallel to the thermal gradient). This is true, if we only think on a gross,
top level about these gas molecules pressing (on an gross
AVERAGE) outwards against the vertical walls, perpendicular to the walls.
However, I now think that my thinking was NOT
detailed enough! The outward pressures of the gas is an average of many-many small
vectors of many-many molecules bouncing, at many angles, against this vertical
cavity-wall. The HOT molecules from the
TOP of the thermal gradient will mostly come in at higher speeds (bouncing off
of the walls with higher accelerations and with higher inertia if QI theory is
true), and most of them will come in at a down-bouncing angle. The exact opposite will be true of the colder
molecules sideways-bouncing upwards. So
even if QI theories are true, the hot molecules (which gave us upwards thrust
as they bounced downwards off of the hot top of the QI thruster) will now
demand their “pound of flesh” (of thrust) BACK from the thruster as they (the
hot molecules again) bounce downwards-sideways, cooling off (slowing down) as
they hit (and bounce off of) a colder wall.
Which means that such hot down-bouncing molecules push
DOWNWARDS on the walls! That is,
they come in downwards HOT, and leave (bounce downwards) colder, leaving a
net-downwards thrust, per each such bouncing molecule.
Upwards-sideways bouncing colder (getting
hotter) molecules will work exactly opposite to this, as far as direction of
travel and changes in speed (temperature) are concerned… But not opposite for thrust also! They HARM us, on these walls, adding to the
damage done by their opposite molecules.
They come in (upwards) colder, hit the hotter wall, and bounce further
upwards with greater speed, resulting in wall-imparted thrust NOT in our favor
(pushing our thruster downwards, parasitizing our thrust, the same as the
bouncing-sideways-downwards hot molecules).
I will bet that it all balances out, with or
without QI effects. I haven’t the
expertise to run simulations, nor the money to pay for tests, in orbit or in
the lab! If QI theories are true, the
whole scheme might still work. But it is
far more complex than I had initially thought.
This latter thought is all that I can relay with reasonable certainty.
I can add pictures if the verbal-intuitive
methods here aren’t enough. Again, let
me know at RocketSlinger@SBCGlobal.net .
‘2) In
my last paper, I don’t think that I did a good job of explaining WHY I was looking
for non-existent ferromagnetic gas molecules, or considering backing off of
using gasses with a thermal gradient, and using liquids with a thermal
gradient, instead. Liquids
containing colloidal ferromagnetic molecules (ferrofluids),
for example. So let me back off,
now, and try it again.
It seems to me that if QI theories are true,
then I could “push mass out of my ass” for thrust, as usual, at HIGH
accelerations (with high inertia… Say,
shooting bullets off of my backside), and then reel the bullets back in VERY
slowly (low accelerations, low inertia), shoot them back off AGAIN, and derive
net thrust! Clearly, we could be Wile E.
Coyote or Rube Goldberg designers here, attaching long slinky-springs to fetch
back each bullet for example, but I will resist such temptations…
If we do the reeling-them-back-in-slowly
thing with heavier gas or liquid molecules, using something other than random
temperatures (molecular movements)… Then
maybe that might work. With our without
liquids or gasses in a thermal gradient, it just might work. Magnetic fields might do the trick, or ions
and electrical fields? I am in over my
head! But I just wanted to clarify what
I was thinking about, and why.
The abstract (here, in this paper) already includes a brief
description of a very, very simple experiment that I conducted with a Newton’s
Cradle, and why, and so, that description will not be repeated here. The Newton’s Cradle that I used was bought at
Amazon , just FYI.
Now I will just somewhat haphazardly jot down
some notes concerning what one could do if one wanted to construct a customized
(and more expensive!) version of such a device for better testing QI theories.
One might want to place the device in a
vacuum, and possibly try to keep temperatures (and other variables?) very
stable as well.
One might want to make it larger. If too large, then the large bouncing masses
might stop being “elastic”, and start damaging each other, though.
One might survey what all good
elastic-collision materials are available.
Steel is used for small, toy “Newton’s Cradles”. Billiard (pool) balls materials are typically
elastic resin or polyresin. Other choices may work as well. Research away, Dear Reader!
Such balls might be made larger, and filled
with a gas like Xenon, for example.
Probably less wisely, they might be filled with a liquid or a gas-liquid
mixture.
One would want to make one end of the
Newton’s Cradle hot, with the other end cold, to measure thermally-caused QI
effects. Placing Peltier heat pumps on
the outermost sides of the outermost balls (or partially inside the balls, with
an exposed heat-pump surface), heating one end-ball while cooling the other,
could be done with reversible DC currents running down the ball-suspension
strings. By reversing DC currents to the
heat pumps, one could possibly eliminate certain confounding variables, the
same way as goals are reversed in sporting games, for “fairness”.
The insides of hollow balls might be
instrumented with temperature gauges at the very least, and perhaps pressure
gauges as well.
If balls (spheres) can’t be made large enough
to accommodate all of this, while remaining elastic, then consider other
geometries. The sphere could become a
cylinder, for example, with top-of-a-“T” shaped twin arms to twin suspension
wires (or strings) to prevent twisting, also.
The cylinders collision zones would become lines instead of points,
distributing the collision forces. Even
boxes (or other shapes) could be used, instead of spheres or cylinders.
For taking human judgements out of the
measured results, an AI could be trained to analyze video of the collisions in
our fancy Newton’s Cradle. Train the AI
on such videos with cradles that deliberately have tiny mass imbalances added,
and then move to the thermal-QI test.
If one is going to spend time and money on a
fancy Newton’s Cradle for such experiments anyway, one might as well take some
extra data, just in case it (the extra data) is useful. I’m not thinking of any highly specific
reasons why, but hollow bouncing shapes full of gas (or perhaps even liquids)
could be used at various different temperatures and pressures, for
example. Also different molecular masses
for the gasses (or liquids) could be tried as well, and mixed fluids (of
different types) could certainly be used as well. If nothing else, the added data that is gathered
might help eliminate (or confirm) theories about unintended effects (of
variables not considered during the experimental design phases) that have crept
into the experimental results.
Some people claim or imply that Unruh
radiation can be shielded out, using, for example, metal plates. A fancy Newton’s Cradle as described here
(***IF*** it were to prove to be able to demonstrate and-or measure QI effects)
should be small enough to allow affordable shielding to be added (Faraday cage,
EM shielding, magnetic shielding, etc.) to help “suss out” exactly what Unruh
radiation might be or not be. Color me
skeptical, while, of course, I’m no expert…
But see the drawings here, with respect to Unruh radiation and metal
plates: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/01/darpa-partially-funded-quantum-space-drive-orbital-test.html … One drawing has a
caption “A metal plate blocks Unruh radiation from below…”
I’m frankly skeptical about the whole idea of
testing QI theories with any version of a Newton’s Cradle, for lack of
sufficient precision. But I thought I’d
document it anyway. Let’s move on…
When thinking about testing QI theories, it is perhaps easy to
forget that we can’t simply measure WEIGHT (mass in a gravity field). I have found myself making that mental error
on occasion. We have to measure INERTIA
of masses as they are accelerated or decelerated, or are accelerated or
decelerated differently from one mass to another. I am thinking and hoping, of course, that
accelerated and decelerated tiny-tiny masses (molecules at different
temperatures bouncing around) will fit the bill, here. For creating differences in inertia, that can
be measured, of course.
As we have seen, a Newton’s Cradle would be one way to measure
inertia. Putting masses into a
centrifuge would be another way to measure inertia, and we’ll get to that
shortly, as a main feature of this paper.
In passing, let me briefly mention that
testing a QI thruster (in orbit or in the lab) would be another fairly obvious
way to test QI theories. A
thermal-gradient-based QI thruster was described in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377926730_Proposed_Versions_of_Quantized-Inertia_Drives . Put
one of these in orbit and take it for a test drive! Your treat this time, though, because I’m
broke! The same applies to lab tests,
which can quickly get expensive as well.
My garage, attic, and tool sheds are full of junk, so I don’t have the
room to run lab tests either, you see.
If lab tests are run on this
thermal-gradient-based QI thruster, I would suggest doing it in a vacuum
chamber. Some of the same suggestions
that I made (above, under “Using a Newton’s Cradle for Testing QI Theories”) would
apply here as well. It should be obvious
which ones they are. I would also add
the following: This thruster should be
suspended on strings, horizontally (not vertically) in lab tests. Since the lab tests will be conducted in
Earth’s gravity to save money, a vertical orientation for testing would
possibly invite convection currents to set in, in our thruster cavity’s thermal
gradient. Such currents should be far
less troublesome with the thruster held horizontally.
Now as the thruster is turned on and off,
while suspended horizontally on strings…
If QI theories are true… The thruster should react by moving some tiny
bits back and forth. To measure the tiny
movements, laser interferometers might be used, as they are used in LIGO. See https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-is-interferometer to get started. Since this (measuring tiny displacements)
isn’t a main focus of this paper, the Dear Reader is left to conduct further research… However, similar methods might be used here
as what were used to show that the EM drive doesn’t work. Start maybe here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive and https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35991457/emdrive-thruster-fails-tests/ and https://bigthink.com/the-future/emdrive-debunked/ … This last one in turn directs to “…three
papers. The title of one “High-Accuracy Thrust
Measurements of the EmDrive and Elimination of False-Positive Effects” tells the story. The other two studies are here and here.” Note that all 3 of these
latter papers can be found at ResearchGate.
While discussing trying to measure VERY tiny
forces… These types of disputes
concerning the matters at hand… It is
obvious that the (perhaps only hypothetical) forces are tiny, or else there
would be no dispute or question! I did
pose the question(s) to my favorite AI, which is “Perplexity” Here below is my question and the AI’s
answer. It is the best that I can easily
do to provide any kind of answer to, HOW small might forces be,
when generated for testing QI thrust?
Question: Hi Perplexity, You answered some
questions from me yesterday (thanks!). In the answer to QI (Quantized Inertia) testing in the lab
questions(s)… You wrote…
“High-precision measurements: Due to the
small predicted effects of QI, these experiments require extremely sensitive
force measurements, likely in the range of 10^-12 N (Newtons)
or better.” Could you please repeat a
link or links about where this came from, and where I can find more details?
Answer: I apologize, but I cannot provide a
direct link to the specific information about high-precision measurements for
Quantized Inertia (QI) testing at the 10^-12 N level or better. The search
results don't contain this exact information. However, the search results do
provide some relevant information about high-precision force measurements in
quantum systems:
A study on quantum precision measurement of
two-dimensional forces achieved a long-term stability at the level of 10^-28 N
for measuring and controlling forces
This is far more precise than the 10^-12 N
level mentioned in the previous answer. Research
on spin-exchange relaxation-free (SERF) effect-based quantum precision
measurement has shown potential for ultra-high sensitivity. For inertial
measurements, a theoretical accuracy of 10^-12°/s/Hz^(1/2)
has been achieved, which is four orders of magnitude higher than the highest
international index.
These examples demonstrate that quantum
precision measurements can indeed achieve extremely high sensitivities,
potentially suitable for testing theories like QI. However, the specific
requirement of 10^-12 N for QI testing is not directly supported by the current
search results. For more details on high-precision quantum measurements, you may
want to explore recent publications in journals focusing on quantum metrology
and precision measurements.
This was the end of Perplexity’s answer,
except for one perhaps-useful link, which was https://faculty.pku.edu.cn/_resources/group1/M00/00/30/cxv0A2Qz3vuACX3yABkAPMg7Mu0645.pdf
“Quantum precision measurement of two-dimensional forces with 1028
-Newton stability”.
While we are
discussing AI’s answers to my relevant questions (concerning trying to design
thermal-gradient-based QI thrusters and testing them, or using other methods to
try to measure QI effects using thermal methods), let me also mention the
following issue or question. At the
very-very tiny scales of forces we are dealing with, it might be possible to
confuse QI effects with the effects of matter-energy equivalence. When we add heat to an object, the addition
of the heat energy will add a tiny-tiny (TINY!!!) amount of mass to the heated
item. Here is what Perplexity wrote
about that:
Yes, heating
a chunk of solid metal would indeed increase its mass, albeit by an extremely
small amount that is typically undetectable with current measurement techniques.
The
mass-energy equivalence principle, expressed by Einstein's famous equation E =
mc², implies that adding energy to an object in any form, including thermal
energy, will increase its mass.
When you heat
the metal, you're adding thermal energy to its atoms, increasing their kinetic
energy and the potential energy of their bonds. This additional energy
contributes to the object's total mass.
However, the
change in mass would be incredibly small due to the large value of c² in the
equation. For example:
This change
is far too small to be measured with current technology. In practice, other factors like thermal
expansion or measurement uncertainties would likely mask this tiny mass
increase.
(End of
Perplexity’s answer).
In passing,
let me mention this: Since the hot
molecules at the top (leading edge) of the QI thruster will have more mass
(tiny additional mass as mentioned right above, here), compared to the cold
molecules at the bottom (lagging edge of the QI thruster, using a thermal
gradient), then this will perhaps add a (tiny to be sure) amount of thrust to
our design! This all concerns the forces
imparted by our bouncing molecules, of course.
Perhaps-hypothetical-only QI-imparted forces and thermal matter-energy
equivalence will actually HELP (complement) each other, in this design, I do
believe!
So then here’s what I personally consider to be a more promising
approach, especially compared to trying to use a Newton’s Cradle. The approach here is to put a cooled mass
(most likely a tank full of a gas, but possibly also the mass could be solid, a
liquid, or some mixture of solids, liquids, and-or gasses) into the centrifuge
on one spin-arm. On the opposing
spin-arm, put an identical item, but plan to heat it instead. Balance these against each other as precisely
as possible, while neither one is heated nor
cooled. While spinning the centrifuge,
heat one mass and cool the other, and measure the resulting force imbalances,
if any.
Some considerations that I mentioned earlier (for the Newton’s
Cradle method) will apply here as well.
I may now repeat or modify-repeat some of those remarks, from the “Using a Newton’s Cradle for Testing QI
Theories” heading above: Placing Peltier heat
pumps on the masses on the opposing centrifuge spin-arms could be done with
reversible DC currents running down the spin-arms. By reversing DC currents to the heat pumps,
one could possibly eliminate certain confounding variables, the same way as
goals are reversed (at half-time) in field-sporting games, for “fairness”.
The Peltier heat pumps do require considerable (DC) electrical
power. The same is true of simple
resistance heater wires (electrical heater elements). We will need to add a power source
(batteries?) to the centrifuge, paying attention to undesired side effects
which may confuse our measurements.
Radio waves, microwaves, or contactless transformers might be used for
power transfer… Or perhaps simple carbon
brushes as are used on some types of electrical motors. I think that this latter choice (carbon
brushes) would (even if well-balanced) interfere with our measurements, and
we’ll see why, in a little while. But
Dear Reader… Research away about power
transfer onto a spinning device, and think it through! We don’t want any unanticipated effects to
creep onto our measurements! (See more
about this further below, actually.)
We will also need to collect and transmit data, some of it from
the spin-arms to the outside world. I think
that radio waves might work best. Once
again, Dear Reader, research away!
Temperatures of the balanced masses, and perhaps pressures as well (if
the masses are gasses, or contain gasses) would be examples of data collected
on the spinning arms, that need to be
transmitted. Onboard “black-box” data
recorders (without data transmission) would be another design choice that could
be considered, though.
So then (while we oppositely vary the
temperatures of the opposing, spinning, balanced masses), how do we collect our
most important data? This data is in the
form of variations in the centrifugal forces, between the two arms. If the spin-speed is high
(so as to amplify the QI-generated differences in forces), then the base-rate
forces (without having added the heat differences) will be high as well. I consider the following idea to be hopeless,
but mention it for completeness: We
could do a straight-forward measurement of forces on the spin-arms. Pulling out a (say for example) thousandths
or millionths of a Newton, from thousands or millions of total Newtons of force, seems like a tough job to me! But I could be wrong. So in passing I mention force-measuring
techniques, which can include strain gauges, load cells (including hydraulic
load cells), piezoelectric sensors, capacitive force sensors, optical force
sensors, and magnetic force sensors.
(Thanks Perplexity!) Other choices
are possible, but, Dear Reader, you’re on your own! Especially since I think that raw,
straightforward force measurement here is hopeless!
The BEST method of measuring any force
differences in the centrifuge (which would be caused by differential heating
and cooling of the balanced masses) would be to actively spin-balance the
centrifuge, while spinning. Measure
distortions in the centrifuge’s rotor and-or axle, and actively correct
them. The magnitudes of these
measurements and corrections (being caused by our differential heating and
cooling) will be exactly what we need!
These kinds of techniques are already
established. See “automatic balance
adjusting centrifuges”, “laser interferometry” (to measure imbalance-induced centrifuge
axle-wobble for example), “high-precision accelerometers” (placed on the
spin-arms for example), “rotor balancing systems”, and more. To correct the imbalance… OK, I am “spit-balling” a bit here… We could pump a fluid from one small tank on
one spin-arm to another tank on the other spin-arm. The quantity of pumped fluid (to make the
wobble go away completely) will be the measure of the imbalance that we have
caused, of course. Scooting a mass back
and forth (linearly up and down a spin arm) with electrically controlled
magnetic fields, finely-controlled analog solenoid-style, might be a better
choice. If magnetic
fields are used for this (or are varied by some other associated
spin-imbalanced cause), then precise measurements of magnetic fields might
work. See SQUIDs, Superconducting
Quantum Interference Devices.
Last but not least, also consider piezoelectric
sensors. Install these at the base of
the centrifuge to detect minute vibrations caused by imbalances. See https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/8/3797 “A
Deep Learning-Based Unbalanced Force Identification of the Hypergravity
Centrifuge”
You will want your high-speed centrifuge to
be vacuum-filled. Consider asking to
rent some time on a SpinLaunch centrifuge, for example. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpinLaunch . They’ve
already solved a lot of the engineering problems at hand, here. A SpinLaunch centrifuge will have its
spin-plane vertically oriented (with the spin axis parallel to the Earth’s
surface). Does this orientation get in
our way? Should our spin-plane be
horizontally oriented? If our centrifuge
is well-balanced, I don’t think that it should matter, but I’m not totally
sure. If it doesn’t cost extra, I think
that I would prefer for the spin-plane to be horizontally oriented, just to be more sure.
The comments that I made when discussing
testing a thermal-gradient QI thruster (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377926730_Proposed_Versions_of_Quantized-Inertia_Drives ) in the lab were as follows, above: “Some of the same suggestions that I made
(above, under “Using a Newton’s Cradle for Testing QI Theories”) would apply here
as well. It should be obvious which ones
they are.” These suggestions often apply
equally as well here, for centrifuge-based testing. One difference, though, is
that under lab-based testing of a thermal-gradient QI thruster, I was concerned
about thermal convection currents. The
same probably doesn’t apply here as much, for centrifuge-based testing (if we
evenly or sensibly distribute the heating and cooling within a test mass), but
we do have a vaguely related concern.
For centrifuge-based testing, if we do use
differently-heated test masses that are fluids (liquids or gasses), then under
the high “G” forces induced by the centrifuge, then (depending on physical
details of test hardware implementation), convection currents might not be much
of a problem, but density stratification is highly likely to be a problem! Under high “G” forces, the cold (dense) fractions
of a given test-mass fluid will settle to the bottom, and the hot (lighter)
fractions of fluids will gather at the top.
This may change the “angular momentum” of one spin-arm compared to the
other, under differential heating of the test masses. That is, I suspect that hotter, more-fluid,
“thinner” fluids will more rapidly density-sort than colder, “thicker” (more
viscous) fluids will (when comparing test masses). For this reason, the experimenter may need to
add active circulation (a powered Archimedes screw or “propeller”) inside the
fluids inside each test mass, to keep the fluids stirred. Either that, or add a LOT of stabilization
time (for the colder, more viscous fluids to become density-stratified) after
the temperature differentiation is added.
There are
several other potential “cans of worms” to be opened here. Some have simple and-or obvious fixes, and
some do not. If (as makes all the sense
in the world to me) we are going to NOT make direct measurements of centrifugal
force, but are, instead, going to measure centrifuge spin imbalances, as our
measurement method, then we will have to pay careful attention and NOT take any
test measurements while the centrifuge is being actively spun up and spun
down! Take test measurements ONLY when
“coasting freely”. The reason why is… As I have personally learned while using
contactless magnetic hysteresis rotary brakes…
The spin-down force exerted in this case is very clearly “lumpy” or
“chattering”, turning on and off during a single rotation, and not at all
smooth. This is often called “cogging
torque” (also known as ripple effect or torque ripple, in some cases). This is near-guaranteed to pollute our (spin-wobble-based)
measurements! This same phenomenon
(let’s just call it “cogging torque” from now on) will apply, not only to
hysteresis brakes, but also to electrical motors, in varying degrees, and to contactless
power transfer operations also.
OK, so then
the “fixes” for this (“cogging torque”), in various flavors (one was already
mentioned):
‘1) Take measurements of possibly-QI-caused
wobble ONLY in “free coasting” modes, NOT during centrifuge spin-up or spin
down times! Spin up your centrifuge up,
apply your favorite wobble-correction methods, and THEN apply differential
heating and-or cooling to your test masses!
Now (while still coasting freely) take your axle-wobble
measurements. Take your axle-wobble
measurements both before and after adding differential temperatures to your
test masses, of course.
‘2) The process of adding test-masses
temperature-differences will be power-intensive, regardless of whether
resistance wires or Peltier heat pumps (or other heat pumps) are used. Power transfer “cogging torque” may therefor
pollute our readings. Take measurements
of possibly-QI-caused wobble ONLY in “freely coasting” THERMAL modes, NOT
during heating and-or cooling times!
Take “neutral” measurements (apply imbalance-correction steps if needed
and desired), and THEN apply differential heating and-or cooling to your test
masses! Now (while THERMALLY coasting
freely, after STOPPING the heating and-or cooling), take your axle-wobble
measurements, and compare them to baseline (before differential heating)
readings (of axle-wobble measurements).
While
THERMALLY coasting freely, with respect to our test masses, it would be wise to
have added thermal insulation to our test masses! We do NOT want to rapidly lose our special
temperature differences!
‘3) If for some strange reason(s), we just MUST
take test-measurement wobble readings while the centrifuge is being spun up or
down, or while heavy-duty power transfers are being conducted, polluting our
wobble measurements… Then (knowing your centrifuge
spin-rate) back out or electronically filter out (using signal processing) the
known frequency or frequencies of your “cogging torque” (or torques, if
filtering out both centrifuge spin-up or spin-down noises, AND power-transfer
noises).
‘4) If power-transfer noises are highly
troublesome, even after having taken the steps of NOT taking (and believing)
axle-wobble readings during heavy-duty power transfers (for heating and-or
cooling test masses)… When all of the
power being transferred is merely for base power to instrumentation and
on-centrifuge control, processing, and communications functions… Then we may want to consider ‘A) going to
on-board battery power and totally shutting down contactless power transfer
during this “sensitive measurements” times, and-or ‘B) Recording measurements
on a black-box recorder, and shutting down contactless data transmission,
during these times. Less power
transferred means less noise and a better signal-to-noise ratio! So better “quiet time” for taking critical
measurements seems to be a wise idea.
The next
possible “can of worms” should hopefully be minor, but does need to be kept in
mind. That is, matter-energy equivalence
means that a test mass will gain a TINY amount of mass, just from being heated
up! This was previously mentioned in
this paper right here. Use search-string
“matter-energy equivalence” to find it (in this paper). Use calculations so as to prevent confusing
matter-energy equivalence effects with QI effects, when heating test masses.
The final
“can of worms” here is fairly ugly, and will now require a significant amount
of discussion. That is, where are we
going to pump the heat to? If we are on
one arm of the centrifuge, using a Peltier (or other) heat pump to cool our
test mass, we have to pump heat to somewhere!
We can pump heat to the structural materials (chassis) of the spin-arm,
and wait for this heat to VERY slowly dissipate into the vacuum chamber of the
centrifuge. The vacuum won’t be perfect,
so yes, it (the heat) will dissipate. To
truly reach equilibrium with the other spin-arm, the wait times could be quite
long. On the other spin-arm, we will
“pump cold” to the chassis (pump heat to the test mass). If we aren’t careful, we will have a muddled
mess of having pumped heat from here to there (within the same spin-arm), with
QI effects and matter-energy equivalence measurements all clouded up.
Additional
associated thoughts, considerations, and possible fixes are as follows:
‘1) As was already mentioned, be sure to thermally insulate your
test masses, in all areas except for where heat pumps “touch” the test masses. Now you can wait for a while, for the
unwanted heat or cold (which has been sunk to the chassis of the spin-arm) to
“bleed off”. This will be true if you
use heat pumps on both sides, for sure!
If you use simpler heater elements to heat one side only, then if you
want to reverse the test (heat one side and not the other, and then vice
versa), then you’re stuck with HOW do you (fairly rapidly) get the heat out of
your insulated test mass? For both the heat-pump
and the heater-element cases, one may wish to add some
mechanical-and-or-plumbing elements to switch between more-fully-insulated mode
and a mode where the heat pump or heater element has good thermal contact with
the test mass. Without a “thermal
switch” here, we may have, here, a case of, you can’t
have your cake and eat it, too! Pick one
or the other!
‘2) If the arm-chassis
is going to be your heat sink, maybe add finned (often aluminum) heat sinks,
similar to what is used in circuit boards.
Since your centrifuge should be working in an imperfect vacuum, these (finned
heat sinks) won’t work miracles, but they should help.
‘3) Make your thermal
test masses as large as is practical and affordable. This will help you get better test
readings. This isn’t a “fix” here, but
sort of fits in here… The “cube-square
law” will help your efficiency of insulating your test masses, too, if the test
masses are larger. For “cube-square
law”, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law for
starters.
‘4) This should be obvious, but put temperature
gauges all over all sensible places that you can think of, according to your
solution. Inside and
around your test masses, of course, and also to where you are going to pump
your heat to (or from). You will
want to know when the two spin-arms are fully temperature-balanced (equal to
each other), in all locations except inside the test masses. Alternately, for a “neutral” spin-wobble
reading, you will want to know when the two spin-arms are fully temperature-balanced,
in all locations, INCLUDING inside the test masses.
‘5) Put
on your tinfoil thinking cap, and “channel” Wile E. Coyote and-or Rube Goldberg! No actually, I think that this would be a
wise test-design choice to “gear up” as follows: Each test mass’s heat pump should be
thermally coupled to a large “active” (powered) heat sink. Think of your car radiator. Now a hermetically sealed bidirectional pipe
or tube should run clear across both spin-arms, from one “radiator” to the
other. Fill the bidirectional tube with
a thermally conductive liquid like water, salt water, glycerol and water,
hydraulic fluid, ammonia, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, mineral oil, silicone
oil, mercury (not recommended because of its toxicity), perfluorinated
carbons, or glycerine. Consider your design and choose wisely! Your design’s desired temperature and
pressure ranges in the test masses will obviously need to be considered. We do NOT want a “working fluid” where there
is a phase change, because that could cloud our centrifuge-balance
(axle-wobble) picture! We want the
liquid to stay a liquid at all times, that is.
Now add
temperature gauges onto both radiators, and pump the fluids around and around,
until both radiators are at the same temperature. Done deal; collect your paycheck and go home
happy!
Anyone
who has ever considered the idea of propulsion (especially in the vacuum of
outer space) that does NOT require reaction mass,
knows that such a thing would be quite the “Holy Grail” of satellite
station-keeping and space travel in general. So knowing whether or not “QI” (Quantum
Inertia) is “real” or not, is clearly of great
importance. I hope that this paper will
help someone, somewhere, then, of course.
Well,
I don’t have anything (that’s not obvious) left to say. So it’s time to quit! I, for one, am sure hoping that “QI theories”
(of Quantum Inertia) can be successfully tested! Especially with respect to
temperature variations (and thermal gradients), and with clear results. And now I quit!
Back to main site at www.rocketslinger.com … Send
comments or corrections to RocketSlinger@SBCGlobal.net please…
References
Stauffer, Titus. (2024). Proposed
Versions of Quantized-Inertia Drives
Tajmar,
Martin & Neunzig, Oliver & Weikert, Marcel. (2021).
High-Accuracy Thrust Measurements of the EMDrive and
Elimination of False-Positive Effects.
Neunzig,
Oliver & Weikert, Marcel & Tajmar, Martin. (2021). Thrust Measurements
and Evaluation of Asymmetric Infrared Laser Resonators for Space Propulsion.
Monette,
Maxime & Kößling,
Matthias & Neunzig, Oliver & Tajmar, Martin. (2021). The SpaceDrive Project – Mach-Effect
Thruster Experiments on High-Precision Balances in Vacuum.
Xinxin, Guo & Yu, Zhongcheng &
Wei, Fansu & Jin, Shengjie & Chen, Xuzong &
Li, Xiaopeng & Zhang, Xibo
& Zhou, Xiaoji. (2022). Quantum precision
measurement of two-dimensional forces with ${\bf 10^{-28}}$-Newton
stability. 10.48550/arXiv.2208.05368.
Lin, Kuigeng
& Li, Yuke & Wu, Yunhao
& Fu, Haoran & Jiang, Jianqun
& Chen, Yunmin. (2023). A Deep
Learning-Based Unbalanced Force Identification of the Hypergravity
Centrifuge. Sensors. 23. 3797. 10.3390/s23083797.