Here's one of the very first refutations published against Shawyer's EMdrive - it's by someone named John Costella:http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdfCostella is apparently a PhD in electrodynamics, and his website shows an interest in investigating diverse things, including JFK's assassination.
A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?
Someone said that the reference frame of the wave inside the resonant cavity becomes a preferred frame of reference, since the wave is what's said to be losing energy. I don't know enough to say if that's plausible or outright nonsense.Here's one of the very first refutations published against Shawyer's EMdrive - it's by someone named John Costella:http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdfCostella is apparently a PhD in electrodynamics, and his website shows an interest in investigating diverse things, including JFK's assassination.
Quote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 07:23 amA FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it? Force is not Work. Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.comSee his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/01/2015 09:24 amQuote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 07:23 amA FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it? Force is not Work. Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.comSee his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdfI never said force is work. Force times distance is work but I have no idea why that is relevant here.I do not assume that the thing accelerates constantly. I asked you if it accelerates constantly. You see if it accelerates constantly you have one problem and if it does not you have a different problem.Ok you are going with it does not accelerate constantly although getting that out of you was like pulling teeth. Do you understand how this violates relativity and just about all of modern physics? It would almost be simpler to violate COE. For example it creates the problem that the power needed by the drive would change massively depending on the time of year. Do you understand why?
Quote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 09:51 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/01/2015 09:24 amQuote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 07:23 amA FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it? Force is not Work. Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.comSee his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdfI never said force is work. Force times distance is work but I have no idea why that is relevant here.I do not assume that the thing accelerates constantly. I asked you if it accelerates constantly. You see if it accelerates constantly you have one problem and if it does not you have a different problem.Ok you are going with it does not accelerate constantly although getting that out of you was like pulling teeth. Do you understand how this violates relativity and just about all of modern physics? It would almost be simpler to violate COE. For example it creates the problem that the power needed by the drive would change massively depending on the time of year. Do you understand why?I'm just a hack engineer who designs, builds and commissions stuff. Mostly guided by a well educated gut, from making lots of stupid mistakes.I see the "Laws of Physics" as a set of assumptions, which seem to closely fit and predict what we have so far observed. That the EMDrive works is beyond doubt. That it seems to violate the LAWS as you understand them is your issue. Shawyer has no issue with his understanding of the LAWS nor do I.As for me, I think I can design one into a ship and make it work. What happens inside the resonate cavity and why is above my pay grade. What it works, is for me beyond doubt. That how it reacts to power input and kinetic energy output is understood enough to use it to move stuff.BTW my frame of reference is my gut, which is now asking me for a nice glass of Red.
Yes well as a "hack engineer" you may want to figure out why your ship works fine in December but fails to produce significant thrust in June. To do that you will need to understand frames of reference. But if you take the time to do that you may rethink your confidence in the drive.
Quote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 10:23 amYes well as a "hack engineer" you may want to figure out why your ship works fine in December but fails to produce significant thrust in June. To do that you will need to understand frames of reference. But if you take the time to do that you may rethink your confidence in the drive.Your reference link?
So how exactly does that apply to the case where it is traveling at a constant velocity and fighting friction? By the principle of relativity, there is no difference between the case of static thrust and the case of static velocity. So you can still use this to create more work than you put into it.
What link? If the thrust is frame dependent then your ship will be in very different inertial frames in December and June and your drive will perform very differently depending on the time of year. That is a logical consequence of your choice to say that it does not accelerate constantly with constant energy input.You don't even understand the nature of the problem I'm trying to explain.
That last illustration, with the double ring "Enterprise", shows a bluish exhaust or ionization trail. Maybe I misunderstood something, but I thought the EM drive did not have an exhaust. Artistic license? Pre-existing picture?
Quote from: ppnl on 05/01/2015 12:36 pmWhat link? If the thrust is frame dependent then your ship will be in very different inertial frames in December and June and your drive will perform very differently depending on the time of year. That is a logical consequence of your choice to say that it does not accelerate constantly with constant energy input.You don't even understand the nature of the problem I'm trying to explain.When did I say the EMDrive will not constantly accelerate if supplied with a constant energy input to the magnetron, maintaining a constant level of microwave energy in the resonant cavity as microwave impedance drops from cavity energy conversion to kinetic?It converts electrical energy into kinetic energy, if the EMDrive is allowed to move.
Ok, Let me see if I can break this down to its simplest elements that laymen can understand. One, in order for it to the drive to work, energy has to be expended to create a propulsive force. (ie. Thrust) Two, "for every action, there has to be an equal and opposite reaction". Basic Newtonian Physics, not a hundred percent accurate, but close enough. Three, electricity is being used to create radio Frequencies within "The Device". Four, somehow, these "Radio Waves" are imparting their energy to "The Device" in such a way as to produce kinetic force. (ie. Thrust) Five, the "Radio Waves" seem to be being expended in a direction opposite of the direction of thrust, if I understand the diagrams I have seen so far. Six, since energy is matter in a more coherent form than lasers or plasma, mass is being expended in a direction opposite the direction of motion. Seven, again, unless I am misunderstanding these diagrams, heat is being generated as part of this conversion of energy to thrust. Eight, in order to continue to generate thrust, more energy must be expended in order to generate RF, which is converted by "The Device" into heat and thrust. Nine, so, in order to generate thrust; mass, in the form of energy, is being expended and expelled in a direction of motion opposite of the direction of thrust, energy is being used to impart this motion. heat is being generated as a byproduct of this process, and an amount of energy, similar to or larger than the normal amount of energy needed to break free of inertia and produce thrust, is being used, and if no additional energy is applied to the device, it stops generating thrust. I think that pretty much sums up what we know so far. So, Ten, it appears as though this device is a more efficient form of thrust convertion device than are chemical, plasma or nuclear rockets, which require mass be expended in the form of propellent, in order to produce thrust. It appears that mass, in the form of electrons, in this case, are being expended in order to impart thrust, but doing so in a much more energy efficent manner. Finally, if "The Device" is indeed producing thrust in this manner, and we don't quite have a grasp on HOW it's doing what it does, (I'm pretty sure there is some very simple explaination that everybody is overlooking, as these things usually wind up being) I'm not really quite sure WHAT particular law of physics that it is violating. non-of the lawsof motion or thermodynamicsa appear to be violated on the face of it. So, if it is indeed producing thrust as all the tests so far seem to indicate, now all we need to do is figure out HOW it's doing it!
Jason, thanks for the explanation that's simple enough for a guy who flunked A-level physics to understand!