The Yang Juan et al. paper, however, is more akin to that haystack. They quote many valid equations of electrodynamics, but then stitch them together with numerous assumptions, and then use numerical simulation to compute a result. Without having a spare year to dig through their calculations and simulations, it’s impossible to know where they made their mistake. (Now you know why the Patent Office refuses to accept any more applications for perpetual motion machines.) I recommend that they submit their paper, and simulation code, to a reputable physics journal like the Physical Review, who might be able to find a graduate student with nothing better to do than debunk their submission.A possible source of their error is their Fig. 1. In diagram (a) they show an open system, where microwaves are thrust into outer space. Such a system would indeed show a tiny amount of thrust: the microwave photons are the propellant. But they reject diagram (a) because the microwaves leak out (obviously), which prevents a standing wave (Shawyer’s claimed mechanism for getting amplification of the tiny thrust) from being maintained. They then replace this with diagram (b), which has placed on the exhaust a “matched load used to absorb the heat transferred from reflected microwaves”. This statement makes no sense at all: reflected microwaves would not transfer heat—only momentum, namely, the force that would prevent the system from getting any net thrust. If something more sophisticated is meant, then it is not explained, and certainly not modeled in their equations. It is possible that neglect of the momentum transfer to this “matched load” is the missing force in their calculations.
Quote from: WarpTech on 06/17/2015 03:16 am... now I understand that the stored current may be DC and the associated magnetic field, stored in the small end of the frustum and caused by the time-asymmetry of the evanescent wave's near-field induction effects. Along the walls of the frustum, the gauge potential has a divergence, offset by a change in the refractive index. This divergent field can escape and away we go!What is the best way to measure (or model) this field that's escaping the frustum and correlate it to measured thrust?And how would the "DC" EMDrive be setup so as not to use microwaves?
... now I understand that the stored current may be DC and the associated magnetic field, stored in the small end of the frustum and caused by the time-asymmetry of the evanescent wave's near-field induction effects. Along the walls of the frustum, the gauge potential has a divergence, offset by a change in the refractive index. This divergent field can escape and away we go!
(From Dr. Costella)(Now you know why the Patent Office refuses to accept any more applications for perpetual motion machines.)
I don't know what paper by Juan Yang contains this Fig 1 showing microwaves thrusting into space, and where is diagram b which has placed on the exhaust a “matched load used to absorb the heat transferred from reflected microwaves”. Does anybody know ?
Quote from: Rodal on 06/17/2015 04:54 pmI don't know what paper by Juan Yang contains this Fig 1 showing microwaves thrusting into space, and where is diagram b which has placed on the exhaust a “matched load used to absorb the heat transferred from reflected microwaves”. Does anybody know ?Yes, I found the paper: Yang, Juan; Wang, Yu-Quan; Ma, Yan-Jie; Li, Peng-Fei; Yang, Le; Wang, Yang; He, Guo-Qiang (May 2013). "Prediction and experimental measurement of the electromagnetic thrust generated by a microwave thruster system" (PDF). Chinese Physics B (IOP Publishing) 22 (5): 050301. doi:10.1088/1674-1056/22/5/050301Figure 1 a) and b) from that paper attached below.
Quote (From Dr. Costella)(Now you know why the Patent Office refuses to accept any more applications for perpetual motion machines.)Actually, this is not entirely accurate. While highly skeptical as they should be, there is no prohibition against filing an application for a perpetual motion machine--at least in the U.S. There is a requirement that such a machine be physically presented at the Patent Office for verification before any patent would be granted.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 06/17/2015 03:47 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 06/17/2015 03:08 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 06/17/2015 02:12 pm....If you can only excite at 2.45 GHz then make it around 9.91 inches.......My understanding is you need to insert the antenna at the internal diameter point where the effective guide wavelength is equal to the actual guide wavelength and the antenna should be a 1/4 wave stub at the effective guide wavelength.In my EMDrive Calc, the lower left chart shows a red vertical line where that condition is satisfied.Had a question on the chart below (my apologies in advance):Not sure I understand the X and Y axis definitions. Know I'm looking for vertical transition, how does this define locale of rf injection? Thanks in advance...
Quote from: TheTraveller on 06/17/2015 03:08 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 06/17/2015 02:12 pm....If you can only excite at 2.45 GHz then make it around 9.91 inches.......My understanding is you need to insert the antenna at the internal diameter point where the effective guide wavelength is equal to the actual guide wavelength and the antenna should be a 1/4 wave stub at the effective guide wavelength.In my EMDrive Calc, the lower left chart shows a red vertical line where that condition is satisfied.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 06/17/2015 02:12 pm....If you can only excite at 2.45 GHz then make it around 9.91 inches.......
....If you can only excite at 2.45 GHz then make it around 9.91 inches....
The quote comes from Dr. Costella. In his paper: http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdf[…]
....BTW you should know when citing Costella, that after the man criticized publicly Shawyer's EmDrive as being "a fraud" (not an "experimental error" but a "fraud" which can be considered as defamation according to the English law) that a question about the validly of SPR ltd research was raised in the UK House of Commons (logged on UK Parliament Publications and Records, Hansard Commons Debates, 5 Dec 2006, Column 340W, Electromagnetic Relativity Drive) caused in part by this claim of fraud. Questioned on that investigation, Shawyer answered a background check was carried out by the UK authorities about Costella. This inquiry showed that he was not an electrodynamics expert working for the Australian Department of Defence, but had been briefly employed as a junior reliability engineer. He was however known to the Australian authorities as a persistent conspiracy theorist, as demonstrated by various comments he wrote on many blogs.Not to play devil's advocate here, but sometimes things are not exactly what they seem to be. So everything on that matter that is not true facts (like falsifiable replicable experimental setups) should be taken with a grain of salt.
Electromagnetic Relativity DriveAlan Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department has provided to the electromagnetic relativity drive design proposed by Roger Shawyer; and from what budget funding has been drawn. [103254]Margaret Hodge [holding answer 27 November 2006]: Awards have been made to Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd from the DTI’s Small Firms and Enterprise budget.July 2001—£43,809 paid.A feasibility study into the application of innovative microwave thruster technology for satellite propulsion. The study involved development of an experimental thruster followed by independent tests and evaluation.August 2003—£81,291 total grant awarded, £68,399 paid to date.A follow-on from the above project, to design and develop a demonstration model engine. To be tested on a dynamic test rig, to demonstrate continuous thrust and the conversion of thrust into kinetic energy.Both grants were awarded against the criteria of the DTI’s Smart scheme that was designed to help fund pioneering and risky R and D projects in small and medium enterprises. Highly qualified technical experts and academics carried out an assessment on behalf of the Department.
Quote from: DIYFAN on 06/17/2015 06:02 pmQuote (From Dr. Costella)(Now you know why the Patent Office refuses to accept any more applications for perpetual motion machines.)Actually, this is not entirely accurate. While highly skeptical as they should be, there is no prohibition against filing an application for a perpetual motion machine--at least in the U.S. There is a requirement that such a machine be physically presented at the Patent Office for verification before any patent would be granted.1) The quote comes from Dr. Costella. In his paper: http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdfhe lists his residence as being in Australia, so perhaps what he means is that the Australian Patent Office refuses to accept any more applications for perpetual motion machines.This article http://blog.patentology.com.au/2015/04/patenting-perpetual-motion.html concludes: <<So, alleged perpetual motion machines certainly used to be patentable in Australia, and now they probably are not.>>2) For people interested in sending their perpetual motion machines to the US Patent Office, their rules on models is here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e50532. I'm told by a friend Patent Attorney that used to work for them that they run out of room to store perpetual motion machine models a long time ago 3) Further discussion on perpetual motion machines will be handled by Messrs. @frobnicat and @deltaMass
Quote from: Rodal on 06/16/2015 11:51 pm...However, I do not see a direct connection yet between the article in Nature and the work of Igor Pikovski, about quantum decoherence to what Todd has been proposing. The microwave electromagnetic fields inside the EM Drive are carried by photons, which are quantum particles. Photons are capable of displaying quantum coherence and decoherence. The laser, superconductivity and superfluidity are examples of highly coherent quantum systems whose effects are evident at the macroscopic scale.I know of nothing in the EM Drive experiments that has shown a state of quantum coherence, and therefore nothing that has shown that decoherence takes place in the EM Drive. So where is the connection to the EM Drive?Regarding Todd's papers, if he posited quantum coherence, I missed that in his papers. My understanding is the contrary, that his emphasis is on geometric attenuation producing evanescent waves that can carry momentum. Todd is not even looking for a super-high Q, but portrays the tug-of-war between Q storage and attenuation and evanescent waves as what could enable the EM Drive to work.Jose,If I were talking about gravity in atoms, their paper would be a a spot-on way to look at it. Equation's (5) & (6) are similar in form to the Zitterbewegung motion of the electron in the Dirac equation that I typically refer to. When 2 particles are coupled, they have coherent states. In a gravitational field, we have asymmetry in time. In the case of the frustum, it is not "quantum" but the standing waves are still a coherent state, just as they are in a laser or a maser. We have 2 waves, "forward" and "backward" that are phase shifted due to the asymmetrical attenuation, i.e., asymmetrical wave velocity, guide wavelength, geometry, whatever. The two waves are out of phase and you can see in their Fig. 1c, that the phase shifted superposition has a component along the "real" Power axis, i.e, the Power Factor is not 0. This action causes the center of mass between the two to shift. The "decoherence" they are referring to, is what I've been referring to as "constructive and destructive interference". This is the information contained in the Matrix terms they are referring to. I'm just saying it in my own Engineering-speak. If the frustum were replaced by a cylinder, this phase interference would not happen. The frustum is a nice conical-section representation of a spherically symmetric gravitational field, that only exists over a very narrow bandwidth. Todd
...However, I do not see a direct connection yet between the article in Nature and the work of Igor Pikovski, about quantum decoherence to what Todd has been proposing. The microwave electromagnetic fields inside the EM Drive are carried by photons, which are quantum particles. Photons are capable of displaying quantum coherence and decoherence. The laser, superconductivity and superfluidity are examples of highly coherent quantum systems whose effects are evident at the macroscopic scale.I know of nothing in the EM Drive experiments that has shown a state of quantum coherence, and therefore nothing that has shown that decoherence takes place in the EM Drive. So where is the connection to the EM Drive?Regarding Todd's papers, if he posited quantum coherence, I missed that in his papers. My understanding is the contrary, that his emphasis is on geometric attenuation producing evanescent waves that can carry momentum. Todd is not even looking for a super-high Q, but portrays the tug-of-war between Q storage and attenuation and evanescent waves as what could enable the EM Drive to work.
Quote from: Rodal on 06/17/2015 07:18 pmThe quote comes from Dr. Costella. In his paper: http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdf[…]BTW you should know when citing Costella, that after the man criticized publicly Shawyer's EmDrive as being "a fraud" (not an "experimental error" but a "fraud" which can be considered as defamation according to the English law) that a question about the validly of SPR ltd research was raised in the UK House of Commons (logged on UK Parliament Publications and Records, Hansard Commons Debates, 5 Dec 2006, Column 340W, Electromagnetic Relativity Drive) caused in part by this claim of fraud. Questioned on that investigation, Shawyer answered a background check was carried out by the UK authorities about Costella. This inquiry showed that he was not an electrodynamics expert working for the Australian Department of Defence, but had been briefly employed as a junior reliability engineer. He was however known to the Australian authorities as a persistent conspiracy theorist, as demonstrated by various comments he wrote on many blogs.Not to play devil's advocate here, but sometimes things are not exactly what they seem to be. So everything on that matter that is not true facts (like falsifiable replicable experimental setups) should be taken with a grain of salt.
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 06/17/2015 07:28 pmQuote from: Rodal on 06/17/2015 07:18 pmThe quote comes from Dr. Costella. In his paper: http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdf[…]BTW you should know when citing Costella, that after the man criticized publicly Shawyer's EmDrive as being "a fraud" (not an "experimental error" but a "fraud" which can be considered as defamation according to the English law) that a question about the validly of SPR ltd research was raised in the UK House of Commons (logged on UK Parliament Publications and Records, Hansard Commons Debates, 5 Dec 2006, Column 340W, Electromagnetic Relativity Drive) caused in part by this claim of fraud. Questioned on that investigation, Shawyer answered a background check was carried out by the UK authorities about Costella. This inquiry showed that he was not an electrodynamics expert working for the Australian Department of Defence, but had been briefly employed as a junior reliability engineer. He was however known to the Australian authorities as a persistent conspiracy theorist, as demonstrated by various comments he wrote on many blogs.Not to play devil's advocate here, but sometimes things are not exactly what they seem to be. So everything on that matter that is not true facts (like falsifiable replicable experimental setups) should be taken with a grain of salt.Hmmmm...meet Mr Costella, now a Facebook software engineer: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johncostella
Quote from: rfmwguy on 06/17/2015 08:04 pmQuote from: flux_capacitor on 06/17/2015 07:28 pmQuote from: Rodal on 06/17/2015 07:18 pmThe quote comes from Dr. Costella. In his paper: http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdf[…]BTW you should know when citing Costella, that after the man criticized publicly Shawyer's EmDrive as being "a fraud" (not an "experimental error" but a "fraud" which can be considered as defamation according to the English law) that a question about the validly of SPR ltd research was raised in the UK House of Commons (logged on UK Parliament Publications and Records, Hansard Commons Debates, 5 Dec 2006, Column 340W, Electromagnetic Relativity Drive) caused in part by this claim of fraud. Questioned on that investigation, Shawyer answered a background check was carried out by the UK authorities about Costella. This inquiry showed that he was not an electrodynamics expert working for the Australian Department of Defence, but had been briefly employed as a junior reliability engineer. He was however known to the Australian authorities as a persistent conspiracy theorist, as demonstrated by various comments he wrote on many blogs.Not to play devil's advocate here, but sometimes things are not exactly what they seem to be. So everything on that matter that is not true facts (like falsifiable replicable experimental setups) should be taken with a grain of salt.Hmmmm...meet Mr Costella, now a Facebook software engineer: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johncostellaWrong guy. Try thishttp://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcostella.htmTwo physics degrees is a little different to the picture painted by Shawyer of a "junior engineer".I first encountered Shawyer via Costella's paper. I am grateful to Costella for pointing out that not only does Shawyer not understand Newton's laws (or if he does, is unable to communicate them clearly), but also seems incapable of correctly drawing force vectors at the sidewall. This in Shawyer's mind gave a finite net thrust, based purely on the summation of his incorrect reflected force vectors over the complete surface of the frustum. A childish error unworthy of even a junior reliability engineer, one might say?
I am grateful to Costella for pointing out that not only does Shawyer not understand Newton's laws (or if he does, is unable to communicate them clearly), but also seems incapable of correctly drawing force vectors at the sidewall. This in Shawyer's mind gave a finite net thrust, based purely on the summation of his incorrect reflected force vectors over the complete surface of the frustum. A childish error unworthy of even a junior reliability engineer, one might say?
I stand corrected. Apparently he is all of the above and more. I was also misled by the great apparent difference between the portrait photos.