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. 2

Introduction and “Misc.” Notes. 3

Last-Paper Errata and Embellishments. 4

Using a Newton’s Cradle for Testing QI Theories. 6

Misc. Transition-Intermission, and Testing a QI Thruster in a Lab Setting. 8

Testing QI Theories Using a Centrifuge. 12

Concluding Remarks. 19

 

 

Preamble, and Bits of Boilerplate

 

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).

 

Introduction and “Misc.” Notes

 

“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”).

 

 

Last-Paper Errata and Embellishments

 

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.

 

 

Using a Newton’s Cradle for Testing QI Theories

 

 

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…

 

 

Misc. Transition-Intermission, and Testing a QI Thruster in a Lab Setting

 

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:

  1. Consider heating 1 kg of iron from room temperature (20°C) to its melting point (1538°C).
  2. The energy required is approximately 745,000 joules.
  3. Using E = mc², the mass increase would be:
    Δm=Ec2=745,000(3×108)2≈8.28×10−12 kgΔm=c2E​=(3×108)2745,000​≈8.28×10−12 kg

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!

 

Testing QI Theories Using a Centrifuge

 

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!

 

Concluding Remarks

 

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.