Ok, time for me to demonstrate my lack of comprehension here again:1) The Chinese paper says the thermal increase was greatest at the small end of the device.2) Yet if I remember right, the thrust was towards the large end.....
::Memo to self. Post while awake! It helps with reading comprehension.::Rodal -So if I follow you correctly this time, you advocate a purely or mostly thermal explanation for the thrust produced by the Chinese devices?
Quote from: Rodal on 11/27/2014 12:53 pm1) No, as I remarked...2) As apparent from the discussion we had with Mulletron...3) If the Chinese had a dielectric...4) Kudos to the Chinese...5) To this date, nobody...Rodal: After giving thanks for making it thru a year of "massive" life changes, I sit again before the screen and keyboard and offer you thanks for your patient repetition, over and over again, regarding these results. And the work which you prosecute with remarkable thoroughness.At least I grasp at real straws with detectable mass.(You too, Mulletron, Frobnicat, and others.)
1) No, as I remarked...2) As apparent from the discussion we had with Mulletron...3) If the Chinese had a dielectric...4) Kudos to the Chinese...5) To this date, nobody...
Rodal, this has to be an NSF first - professional physics paper rebuttal exclusive to NSF! Impressive.It would be possible for Eagleworks to eliminate thermal buckling as source of observed force by simply changing the attachment point of the device to the balance, no?
. . .To this date, nobody (not the Chinese, not Shawyer, not Cannae and not NASA) has reported force measurements of the EM Drives in a vacuum, and nobody has reported measurements as a free-body (as done by Goddard with his early rocket experiments or by Freeman and Taylor under Project Orion for their explosive-impulsively loaded experiments).
Finally got a few (snowed in) minutes to look at the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator.g= (X[subm,n])^2*c^2*lambda*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2)) where a anb b are the end plate radii and the X are the Bessel function zeros....
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 11/28/2014 04:52 pmFinally got a few (snowed in) minutes to look at the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator.g= (X[subm,n])^2*c^2*lambda*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2)) where a anb b are the end plate radii and the X are the Bessel function zeros....The zeros of the Bessel functions of the first kind (J) ?BesselJZero[0, 1] = 2.40483BesselJZero[0, 2] = 5.52008BesselJZero[0, 3] = 8.65373and so on?
Quote from: Rodal on 11/28/2014 06:12 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 11/28/2014 04:52 pmFinally got a few (snowed in) minutes to look at the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator.g= (X[subm,n])^2*c^2*lambda*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2)) where a anb b are the end plate radii and the X are the Bessel function zeros....The zeros of the Bessel functions of the first kind (J) ?BesselJZero[0, 1] = 2.40483BesselJZero[0, 2] = 5.52008BesselJZero[0, 3] = 8.65373and so on?X[subm,n] = m-th root of dJ[subn](x)/dx = 0[1,0]= 3.83, [1,1]=1.84, [1,2]=3.05, [2,0]=7.02, [2,1]=5.33, [2,2]=8.54, [3,0]=10.17, etcQuickie calculation to rotate waveguide into doppler frame for g. Needs more work but should be able to get to forces if I get time to keep head clear.
So...do we have a straight thermal artifact/effect? Or a thermal/artifact effect plus something else?
Quote from: ThinkerX on 11/27/2014 05:29 amSo...do we have a straight thermal artifact/effect? Or a thermal/artifact effect plus something else?IMHO, we have heat artifacts (mostly evident to me in the TE012 plot, figure 22 page 18, and through Rodal's exhaustive work) and something else. That something else is IMHO related to Casimir effects, as I've posted.It certainly is interesting how it seems that TE mode seems to be the best Q thruster solution in terms of input power to thrust. I've been torn between the diamagnetic QED vacuum idea and the asymmetric QV/RF interaction with atoms, not summing to zero in the asymmetric cavity, giving rise to a force. Given the TE mode outlier, I think the answer is both. I remember Dr. White mentioning in the video I recently posted here, that a great RF solution doesn't necessarily mean a great Q thruster solution. I've taken that to heart.Over the last few days, I've been trying fit all the Casimir momentum/dielectric stuff I've posted over the last few months, into the framework of Cavity QED. I think this is the final concept to understand in order to create a fully functional QV framework in order to describe the Anomalous thrust from these two devices. I can't find a single paper on Casimir cavity QED, but I've found talk about this stuff dating way back to 2004. These guys were chasing the same idea long long ago it turns out.http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?14897-Casimir-Effect-and-Vacuum-Fluctuation-PropulsionIn a nutshell, what I'm getting at here (and I'll put it into math if I can ever find the confidence to express ZPE IIRC 1/2 hbar omega for the given frequencies inside a sloping cavity), in a sloping resonant Casimir cavity, you end up with a situation inside the cavity where the modes allowed isn't just a simple to derive value, as you would get in parallel plates for example (see the Milonni video). You end up with a continuously changing value over the length of the cavity. This Casimir force acts on the atoms in the cavity. That is one side of the interaction....... The other side of the interaction is the RF behaving in a similar manner, both interacting with the atoms in the air and dielectric in the cavity. The resulting non zero summation of these competing forces is IMHO the cause of the thrust. So essentially I've reached the pinnacle of this avenue with a horrendous math problem that is Dr. Milonni caliber. Will I ever figure it out? Probably not. It is fun trying to find One-Eyed Willy's gold though. Somebody will eventually figure it out.
Slide 66 http://aphyr.com/media/pwl-2014-casimir.pdf
Cosmic acceleration: MiHsC predicts this as an effect of the cosmic horizon. The low-l cosmic microwave background anomaly: MiHsC predicts it as above. Cosmic mass: just enough to keep the cosmos closed: MiHsC predicts it. The anomalous motion of galaxy clusters: MiHsC predicts it without dark matter. Bullet cluster: MiHsC might fit, but there's not enough data to test it yet. The galaxy rotation anomaly: MiHsC predicts it without dark matter. Globular cluster rotation anomaly: MiHsC might fit, needs a computer model. Observed minimum galactic masses: MiHsC agrees. Is Alpha Centauri-C bound?: MiHsC predicts it's bound, agrees with independent data. Flyby anomalies: MiHsC agrees partly, but the analysis is incomplete. Pioneer anomaly: MiHsC agrees, but there's another 'complex' thermal explanation. Tajmar effect: MiHsC predicts it. EmDrive: MiHsC predicts it. Poher experiments: MiHsC is consistent, not enough data to test numerically. Podkletnov effect: MiHsC predicts the non-spinning part of it. needs more work.. Sonoluminescence: MiHsC predicts the observed core temperature. Planck mass: MiHsC predicts it within 26%.
Quasars are aligned with each other and cosmic filaments. The Andromeda satellite galaxies orbit in a disk. Galactic relativistic jets. The wide binary rotation anomaly. Anomalous, non-tidal, increase of lunar distance. Increase in the Astronomical Unit. Modanese effect: jump of masses near a cooler superconductor. Anomalies in the gravitational constant, big G.
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/29/2014 09:19 pmSlide 66 http://aphyr.com/media/pwl-2014-casimir.pdfAt approximately 47:30 he addresses the EM Drive, he says it appears to violate conservation of momentum, which is "not good", he says it is a "mystery". He doesn't buy Dr. White's virtual particles plasma explanation as the quantum vacuum "is not a plasma":
Quote from: cuddihy on 11/27/2014 11:16 pmRodal, this has to be an NSF first - professional physics paper rebuttal exclusive to NSF! Impressive.It would be possible for Eagleworks to eliminate thermal buckling as source of observed force by simply changing the attachment point of the device to the balance, no?Thank you .The best way to eliminate the possibility of thermal buckling (or electric charge buckling as experienced in MEMS) or thermoelastic dynamic coupling is simply to make the copper wall thick enough. I am confident that for the power inputs and diameter dimensions that have been used a 1/4 inch thickness of copper would be significantly more than enough to rule out the possibility of buckling. 1/8 of an inch is much more than enough for the NASA experiments.Concerning support if the whole truncated cone has equal stiffness it would not make much difference where it is supported along the axis of the cone, as the reaction force still would be transmitted. In a real situation there may be compliance at the connections that will diminish the measured dynamic magnification factor of the pendulum response, but the reaction will still be measurable (although the dynamic magnification factor may be smaller due to greater compliance: lower stiffness at the connections). So I think that the best way to rule out buckling is simply to employ thicker copper, as buckling is a nonlinear function of thickness.
I've been trying to formulate a thought experiment to examine the momentum as the RF radiation enters and leaves the dielectric, but no luck so far. Does light slow down in the dielectric?