I had the thought a long time ago that the measured thrust might have to do with photon angular momentum. That's why I knew where to find the paper I linked above.It occurs to me now that this phenomenon might hint at an explanation of the difference in thrust between Brady a" and Brady b" which differ in measured force, but otherwise very little.
Quote from: frobnicat on 11/02/2014 11:33 pmNext batch of scraped data from figure 19 page 15 of "anomalous thrust..." from Brady et al. The top (result1.txt) and middle (result2.txt) graphs are scraped. Same caveats as previously posted. For first curve (top figure 19) I removed the (non existent) flat last sampled data of the previous version to avoid artefacts when analysing with filters.Each line of those files is the value in µN at each .1 s interval (linearly interpolated from manual reconstruction). The vertical scale were roughly given by the calibration pulses at about 30µN (expect no more than 5% precision). Absolute values are arbitrary (because of the drifting baseline). Horizontal scale given by the indication of 196 s for the whole display graph window of the pictures.Will proceed with other graphs when time permits. Will post attempts at original signal reconstruction : thrust(t) while what we see is only balance displacement(t). Since the balance is underdamped, a lot can hide behind those oscillations and drifts in position.Frobnicated Top of Fig. 19 page 15 of anomalous (Mean and Linear Least Squares Fit)Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Mean (Blue)Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)Power Spectral Density (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)horizontal scale = frequency(Hz) * 0.1 * (DataLength/2) = frequency(hz)*94.6Peaks Period (seconds)3 1/(3/(94.6)) = 31.53 s Pulse period5 1/(5/(94.6)) = 18.92 s 4*Pendulum Period7 1/(7/(94.6)) = 13.51 s10 1/(10/(94.6)) = 9.46 s 2*Pendulum Period15 1/(15/(94.6)) = 6.31 s <---- This unidentified frequency appears on both Top and Middle18 1/(18/(94.6)) = 5.26 s20 1/(20/(94.6)) = 4.73 s Pendulum Period25 1/(25/(94.6)) = 3.78 s41 1/(41/(94.6)) = 2.31 s 1/2 Pendulum Period
Next batch of scraped data from figure 19 page 15 of "anomalous thrust..." from Brady et al. The top (result1.txt) and middle (result2.txt) graphs are scraped. Same caveats as previously posted. For first curve (top figure 19) I removed the (non existent) flat last sampled data of the previous version to avoid artefacts when analysing with filters.Each line of those files is the value in µN at each .1 s interval (linearly interpolated from manual reconstruction). The vertical scale were roughly given by the calibration pulses at about 30µN (expect no more than 5% precision). Absolute values are arbitrary (because of the drifting baseline). Horizontal scale given by the indication of 196 s for the whole display graph window of the pictures.Will proceed with other graphs when time permits. Will post attempts at original signal reconstruction : thrust(t) while what we see is only balance displacement(t). Since the balance is underdamped, a lot can hide behind those oscillations and drifts in position.
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/04/2014 08:03 am... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy. The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization). No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality. In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.
Quote from: Rodal on 11/04/2014 02:09 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 11/04/2014 08:03 am... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy. The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization). No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality. In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.The only thing that takes away a perfect infinity is the cutoff at the Planck length. That takes away ridiculously small wavelengths. That is the lower bound. The upper bound is ridiculously long wavelengths. In between is a practically infinite amount of available wavelengths available. It is infinite otherwise. Not able to be exhausted.
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/04/2014 02:14 pmQuote from: Rodal on 11/04/2014 02:09 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 11/04/2014 08:03 am... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy. The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization). No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality. In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.The only thing that takes away a perfect infinity is the cutoff at the Planck length. That takes away ridiculously small wavelengths. That is the lower bound. The upper bound is ridiculously long wavelengths. In between is a practically infinite amount of available wavelengths available. It is infinite otherwise. Not able to be exhausted.Where does your idea of force due to evanescent coupling with the chamber stand? I have found some information quantifying such force mathematically. The information I have found is just a start though as the geometry is quite different than that of the cavity within the vacuum chamber.I note that another name for evanescent is "near field." The two are almost, if not completely identical but described using different terminology.So, did you rule out evanescent coupling as a source of the measured force?
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/04/2014 02:14 pmQuote from: Rodal on 11/04/2014 02:09 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 11/04/2014 08:03 am... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy. The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization). No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality. In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.The only thing that takes away a perfect infinity is the cutoff at the Planck length. That takes away ridiculously small wavelengths. That is the lower bound. The upper bound is ridiculously long wavelengths. In between is a practically infinite amount of available wavelengths available. It is infinite otherwise. Not able to be exhausted.I think you're missing his point. It's the *lowest* state of energy. For practical purposes it doesn't matter what that energy density is because you can't access any of it; to do so you would need a lower energy state to transition to and this lower energy state doesn't, by definition, exist.if you're interested in learning more about quantum mechanics, I recommend this series of lectures by Leonard Susskind: http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses .
Thanks. But we need to explain this video before we can attribute the EM Drive thrust in general to chamber wall/cavity interactions.http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.htmlVideo clips are near the bottom of the page. I don't see anything in the video that the EM Drive could interact with.
Quote from: frobnicat on 11/02/2014 11:12 amQuote from: Mulletron on 11/02/2014 10:32 amI'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math. Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion."One of the issues to consider for a constant thrust system is the matter of conservation of energy."You can't have constant thrust with action/reaction scheme, because there can be a constant expelled mass flow for only so long. So for me this is broadly "we are talking about propellantless propulsion". And indeed any such propellantless scheme has an issue of energy conservation. In the terminology of this appendix, the Hall thruster is conventional, the EMdrive (propellantless whatever) is advanced.I see another spectacularly failed attempt at addressing the intrinsic issue with energy conservation of propellantless schemes, as bad as Shawyer's. Any serious physicist/engineer reading this appendix A will immediately see the plain absurdity of the argument, one way or another. This is not serious.What is most perplexing is that this report follows the "Anomalous..." Brady experiment report....
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/02/2014 10:32 amI'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math. Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion."One of the issues to consider for a constant thrust system is the matter of conservation of energy."You can't have constant thrust with action/reaction scheme, because there can be a constant expelled mass flow for only so long. So for me this is broadly "we are talking about propellantless propulsion". And indeed any such propellantless scheme has an issue of energy conservation. In the terminology of this appendix, the Hall thruster is conventional, the EMdrive (propellantless whatever) is advanced.I see another spectacularly failed attempt at addressing the intrinsic issue with energy conservation of propellantless schemes, as bad as Shawyer's. Any serious physicist/engineer reading this appendix A will immediately see the plain absurdity of the argument, one way or another. This is not serious.
I'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math. Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion.
Ron, I value your input. I must remind you to not fall in love with a theory. Fall in love with the truth. Are you trying to sell me a book or the truth?
I wasn't even responding to you. Do you have these suspicions often about people talking about you behind your back?
Can you break down what your interpretation of non-reciprocity means.
Now this is interesting stuff!
I want to be clear that I'm not screaming "over unity" here. I'm not tapping into the ZPE here trying to get free energy. Just because there is an infinite reservoir available of something, that doesn't mean it is all available for use. In the application described by me, you must put in energy to get thrust. So there is no free lunch. You don't get back any more than you put in. The energy of the QV is infinite in the sense that it is available everywhere to push on you.
The debate is whether it can be used for anything useful, like push on you in a particular direction, instead of all directions. The papers on Casimir momentum linked to previously, seem to suggest this is possible.
More info on the Feigel Effect:http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/10/06/rspa.2011.0481.full.pdf (A peer review with surprising results!)http://physics.aps.org/story/v13/st3The anomalous thrust production from an RF test device was due to the Feigel–van Tiggelen effect.
Feigel considers the following situation: a region of a dielectric fluid far fromthe boundaries of its container is initially at rest (t = 0). Subsequently, strongelectrical and magnetic fields crossed at right angles to each other are appliedto the region. As the fields reach their constant final values, Eext and Bext forelectrical and magnetic fields, respectively, the fluid is accelerated by the Lorentzforces (FLorentz ∝ vt(Eext × Bext)) to a final velocity v.