If you setup a sealed system to give an impulse that would provoke particles to move what would seem faster then the speed of light in classical mechanics, consequential reaction would be smaller then the impulse and a part of the impulse would "externalize". This is just my guess.What happens on the level of quantum physics will probably be the last thing we find out on the topic. If we knew quantum physics this well then we wouldn't even need an experiment. However, empirical is still the primary method and everything more specific is also way more abstract.My working prototype uses a different approach, has better power to weight ratio and will probably be the one to withstand the test of time.
Quote from: ThinkerX on 07/05/2015 07:39 pmDoctor McCulloch made a comment on the MEEP results:Quote I applaud the NSF people for the work: it's interesting (though they don't give the magnitudes in their plots) but I've been revising Poynting vectors & I don't believe they are going to move the cavity: the consequences still have to obey conservation of momentum as usual (so nothing to do with MiHsC).In general, I'm wary of the tendency in physics to use complex computer models (eg: thermal explanation of Pioneer, dark matter) to explain things, it is so seductive but the details are hidden and it can give the right answer for the wrong reasons. How many free parameters are in the model? Have they tested it on cavity data?The comment about free parameters was previously made by him also in reference to "analysis with a large number of Finite Elements" analysis by JPL of the Pioneer anomaly or something to that effect. I'm sorry to say this but this is either a poorly phrased statement or a misunderstanding of FD and FE methods, as of course the number of finite elements or finite difference grid points are not free-parameters.
Doctor McCulloch made a comment on the MEEP results:Quote I applaud the NSF people for the work: it's interesting (though they don't give the magnitudes in their plots) but I've been revising Poynting vectors & I don't believe they are going to move the cavity: the consequences still have to obey conservation of momentum as usual (so nothing to do with MiHsC).In general, I'm wary of the tendency in physics to use complex computer models (eg: thermal explanation of Pioneer, dark matter) to explain things, it is so seductive but the details are hidden and it can give the right answer for the wrong reasons. How many free parameters are in the model? Have they tested it on cavity data?
I applaud the NSF people for the work: it's interesting (though they don't give the magnitudes in their plots) but I've been revising Poynting vectors & I don't believe they are going to move the cavity: the consequences still have to obey conservation of momentum as usual (so nothing to do with MiHsC).In general, I'm wary of the tendency in physics to use complex computer models (eg: thermal explanation of Pioneer, dark matter) to explain things, it is so seductive but the details are hidden and it can give the right answer for the wrong reasons. How many free parameters are in the model? Have they tested it on cavity data?
Quote from: Rodal on 07/05/2015 08:37 pmQuote from: ThinkerX on 07/05/2015 07:39 pmDoctor McCulloch made a comment on the MEEP results:Quote I applaud the NSF people for the work: it's interesting (though they don't give the magnitudes in their plots) but I've been revising Poynting vectors & I don't believe they are going to move the cavity: the consequences still have to obey conservation of momentum as usual (so nothing to do with MiHsC).In general, I'm wary of the tendency in physics to use complex computer models (eg: thermal explanation of Pioneer, dark matter) to explain things, it is so seductive but the details are hidden and it can give the right answer for the wrong reasons. How many free parameters are in the model? Have they tested it on cavity data?The comment about free parameters was previously made by him also in reference to "analysis with a large number of Finite Elements" analysis by JPL of the Pioneer anomaly or something to that effect. I'm sorry to say this but this is either a poorly phrased statement or a misunderstanding of FD and FE methods, as of course the number of finite elements or finite difference grid points are not free-parameters.His criticism of numerical methods does make sense here (although I don't personally agree with his criticism, I'm much more in your camp) if you consider that McCulloch considers the Pioneer anomaly to not be explainable by conventional physics. Since any software, whether it be MEEP, Mathematica, Matlab or C++ can only simulate what is known, and to him the pioneer anomaly isn't explainable with what exists in known physics, he chose to attack the use of numerical simulation tools in general rather than trying to prove exactly what was wrong in the numerical code that resulted in the pioneer anomaly being explained with conventional physics.In essence, McCulloch has a horse in the race with the pioneer anomaly (he has rejected the thermal emissions explanation), and in order to reject the thermal emissions explanation, he must in some sense reject the accuracy of numerical models.
Your first equation ( the definition of the wave vector K), is wrong.It establishes a erroneous z dependence on K.The K will depend at most on total geometry( including the dimensions of cavity), medium constitutive relations (mu and epslon), and boundary conditions, which defines de modes inside the sctruture, and thus the modes cut off frequencys.
"...The conical geometry of cavity can produce a gradient intensity of the fields inside it, and resulting on a axial non symmetric scattering of axions (produced by the stationary wave of hybrid modes), and thus the thrust is formed....".
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/05/2015 09:00 pmQuote from: Rodal on 07/05/2015 08:37 pmQuote from: ThinkerX on 07/05/2015 07:39 pmDoctor McCulloch made a comment on the MEEP results:Quote I applaud the NSF people for the work: it's interesting (though they don't give the magnitudes in their plots) but I've been revising Poynting vectors & I don't believe they are going to move the cavity: the consequences still have to obey conservation of momentum as usual (so nothing to do with MiHsC).In general, I'm wary of the tendency in physics to use complex computer models (eg: thermal explanation of Pioneer, dark matter) to explain things, it is so seductive but the details are hidden and it can give the right answer for the wrong reasons. How many free parameters are in the model? Have they tested it on cavity data?The comment about free parameters was previously made by him also in reference to "analysis with a large number of Finite Elements" analysis by JPL of the Pioneer anomaly or something to that effect. I'm sorry to say this but this is either a poorly phrased statement or a misunderstanding of FD and FE methods, as of course the number of finite elements or finite difference grid points are not free-parameters.His criticism of numerical methods does make sense here (although I don't personally agree with his criticism, I'm much more in your camp) if you consider that McCulloch considers the Pioneer anomaly to not be explainable by conventional physics. Since any software, whether it be MEEP, Mathematica, Matlab or C++ can only simulate what is known, and to him the pioneer anomaly isn't explainable with what exists in known physics, he chose to attack the use of numerical simulation tools in general rather than trying to prove exactly what was wrong in the numerical code that resulted in the pioneer anomaly being explained with conventional physics.In essence, McCulloch has a horse in the race with the pioneer anomaly (he has rejected the thermal emissions explanation), and in order to reject the thermal emissions explanation, he must in some sense reject the accuracy of numerical models. If somebody has a mathematical theory, it certainly can be simulated with Mathematica or with an open code like Meep (where you can write your own equations for pre, concurrent or post-processing), or using C (there is a mathematical proof about that that goes back more than 60 years).If somebody does not have a mathematical theory about something , then, in my opinion they have nothing, and they should stay silent on the subject, instead of sermonizing to others whether they can analyze the problem or not.
My apparatus is different and I am not disclosing until IP is protected and published. I can say for sure that I could get 3 grams from a 100 gram apparatus. Now I get 2 from 500 grams with common materials.
Quote from: frobnicat on 07/05/2015 12:24 amQuote from: WarpTech on 07/04/2015 05:27 pm...The question of, "How does the momentum get out?", is a different answer. Obviously, it would have more thrust if the big end were open. Any momentum reflecting off the big end plate will negate the momentum gained in getting there. However, in a dissipative system, after each bounce the wave rotates the momentum a little more into the "x" direction, but loses energy due to dissipation of heat into the copper. That means that when it reaches the back wall, it has less momentum than it should have. The NET is not zero because something was lost along the way....Sorry, please explain to the Newtonian guy in me : how a play of throwing and bouncing and catching balls within a free floating box could give any persistent deltaV to the box ? deltaX I see, but not deltaV at the end of the story (when the game stops). At one end of the box you have a source of energy, the energy flows in some arbitrary geometry and after long or short path ends absorbed asymmetrically by some inner walls. Some walls (patches) will have received more energy, some less. A source full of energy (loaded battery, or fresh radioisotopes generator) weighs more than when depleted. A hot wall patch weighs more than a cold one. All that has happened is a (tiny) displacement of the centre of mass within the box, following the displacement of conserved energy. A corresponding tiny deltaX in the opposite direction will be observed from the outside of the box, no deltaV between start and end of "discharge". That is, unless the inner walls bleed thermal IR outside, with photon rocket efficiency as an upper bound.Do you really say that the mechanism you propose here would allow a system fully enclosed in an ideal perfect thermal blanket to gain an ultimate deltaV, i.e. without bleeding any radiation having permanently (asymptotically after switch off) changed its velocity relative to its initial inertial rest frame, as good as the velocity acquired by a chemical thruster burst is still there indefinitely after power off of said thruster ?Not addressing the later hypothesis involving DC components, just this specific part quoted, as you seem to imply that it could be valid by itself and independently."... throwing and bouncing and catching balls within a free floating box..." Is a linear equation of momentum. The momentum coming out of the waveguide is a non-linear equation, with a force exerted as 1/r^2. The momentum transferred by the wave is proportional to the phase velocity, not c. So there is more momentum exchange at the small end due to higher phase velocity, than there is at the big end. A photon rocket in free space is a linear equation. Inside a tapered wave guide, it is non-linear. It can't be explained in terms of billiard balls. The question you are asking is the one I am trying to resolve mathematically. My theory is not quite there yet.This is where I'm at... The attached image is the derivation of the Photon Rocket equation, for an open-ended circular waveguide. So anyone who says a photon rocket can only exert a maximum force of F = 2P/c, is only correct in free space but not when confined to a waveguide. The thrust-to-power ratio is much, much larger near the cut-off.Todd
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/04/2015 05:27 pm...The question of, "How does the momentum get out?", is a different answer. Obviously, it would have more thrust if the big end were open. Any momentum reflecting off the big end plate will negate the momentum gained in getting there. However, in a dissipative system, after each bounce the wave rotates the momentum a little more into the "x" direction, but loses energy due to dissipation of heat into the copper. That means that when it reaches the back wall, it has less momentum than it should have. The NET is not zero because something was lost along the way....Sorry, please explain to the Newtonian guy in me : how a play of throwing and bouncing and catching balls within a free floating box could give any persistent deltaV to the box ? deltaX I see, but not deltaV at the end of the story (when the game stops). At one end of the box you have a source of energy, the energy flows in some arbitrary geometry and after long or short path ends absorbed asymmetrically by some inner walls. Some walls (patches) will have received more energy, some less. A source full of energy (loaded battery, or fresh radioisotopes generator) weighs more than when depleted. A hot wall patch weighs more than a cold one. All that has happened is a (tiny) displacement of the centre of mass within the box, following the displacement of conserved energy. A corresponding tiny deltaX in the opposite direction will be observed from the outside of the box, no deltaV between start and end of "discharge". That is, unless the inner walls bleed thermal IR outside, with photon rocket efficiency as an upper bound.Do you really say that the mechanism you propose here would allow a system fully enclosed in an ideal perfect thermal blanket to gain an ultimate deltaV, i.e. without bleeding any radiation having permanently (asymptotically after switch off) changed its velocity relative to its initial inertial rest frame, as good as the velocity acquired by a chemical thruster burst is still there indefinitely after power off of said thruster ?Not addressing the later hypothesis involving DC components, just this specific part quoted, as you seem to imply that it could be valid by itself and independently.
...The question of, "How does the momentum get out?", is a different answer. Obviously, it would have more thrust if the big end were open. Any momentum reflecting off the big end plate will negate the momentum gained in getting there. However, in a dissipative system, after each bounce the wave rotates the momentum a little more into the "x" direction, but loses energy due to dissipation of heat into the copper. That means that when it reaches the back wall, it has less momentum than it should have. The NET is not zero because something was lost along the way....
QuoteMy apparatus is different and I am not disclosing until IP is protected and published. I can say for sure that I could get 3 grams from a 100 gram apparatus. Now I get 2 from 500 grams with common materials.At this point, you are making an unsubstantiated claim.Putting up the relevant data on the wiki does not constitute disclosure....
I propose that we should not put any such claimed data on the wiki without some minimum standards. If somebody wants to keep their experimental information proprietary that's fine, but we should agree on some minimum standards of disclosure to put data on the wiki. Either one is pregnant or one isn't.Either one is releasing experimental information to the public for public examination or one isn't.I suggest that at the minimum we should have the name of the researcher and institution (if they are associated with one) (i.e. "Prof. Yang NWPU", "Brady et.al. NASA", "Iulian Berca", etc.) -no monikers-, geometrical dimensions, force, power input, etc. etc., to put experimental information on the wiki "Experimental Results" section.Monikers are fine for builds.
QuoteI propose that we should not put any such claimed data on the wiki without some minimum standards. If somebody wants to keep their experimental information proprietary that's fine, but we should agree on some minimum standards of disclosure to put data on the wiki. Either one is pregnant or one isn't.Either one is releasing experimental information to the public for public examination or one isn't.I suggest that at the minimum we should have the name of the researcher and institution (if they are associated with one) (i.e. "Prof. Yang NWPU", "Brady et.al. NASA", "Iulian Berca", etc.) -no monikers-, geometrical dimensions, force, power input, etc. etc., to put experimental information on the wiki "Experimental Results" section.Monikers are fine for builds.Agreed. As I pointed out his initial posts fell into the 'unsubstantiated claim' category, something we have enough here already. I was hoping he'd post evidence to support that claim. Suggestion: Given the number of DIY builds at the moment, could the wiki be modified to include your requested criteria for the EM test models?
Dr. Rodal,The yz slices along the cavity axis are up. Same top level csv file. Read and understand the description, I won't try to explain my naming convention until/unless more or different information is needed. Ask.
F=2P/c is for a perfectly reflective solar/laser sail receiving an (normal) illumination of power P. The only admitted (upper bound) yield for a photon rocket is F=P/c, not F=2P/c.While what you are at with your gradient is above my head (not your fault, I'm a Newtonian guy) I think that if it tells you that an open EM drive (big end plate removed) would yield significantly more thrust per power than the closed frustums tested so far (assuming they did thrust) then you have (at least) a contradiction arising.On attached illustration top, an "open" EM drive :orange rectangle is battery, blue rectangle is RF amp, black is frustum without big end plate, blue arrow microwave radiations bouncing around before escaping (geometry illustrative only, no details). Dotted line ellipse around figures the whole free floating system. So that we discuss on firm ground : your claim is that this configuration can make for more than thrust/power (power drawn from battery) than claimed by closed frustums tests, that are themselves claimed to be between 1 and 5 orders of magnitude above the "official" thrust/power of photon rocket (namely, 1/c) ? Is that it ?...
Quote from: aero on 07/05/2015 10:29 pmDr. Rodal,The yz slices along the cavity axis are up. Same top level csv file. Read and understand the description, I won't try to explain my naming convention until/unless more or different information is needed. Ask.I did not see a text file with a description.The files are labeled as follows in this example:exx-s03-m26e= Electric Field (h for magnetizing field)xx= x component in the plane with normal x (where x is the Cartesian axis oriented along the longitudinal axis of axisymmetry of the cone)s03=time step 03m = does this mean "metal model" ? (and if so, "p" stands for copper model ?)26 = this must be an identifier of the x position, if so I don't understand why the number 26 instead of 150 though
meep images.https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfkF0Z184NHRtd0ViN28tNzRDY3JzSVc0WFBTOGZmSFZMcUpWLWJfcDRfZEU&usp=sharing
Quote from: Ricvil on 07/05/2015 08:54 pmYour first equation ( the definition of the wave vector K), is wrong.It establishes a erroneous z dependence on K.The K will depend at most on total geometry( including the dimensions of cavity), medium constitutive relations (mu and epslon), and boundary conditions, which defines de modes inside the sctruture, and thus the modes cut off frequencys.I am not describing a cavity. It's an open ended tapered waveguide and the radius "IS" dependent on the z coordinate. Can you provide a better way to derive the propagation vector kz for a tapered waveguide than to parameterize the radius in terms of z? The radius is a variable in this waveguide, as is the transverse resonant frequency. Both are dependent on the location along the z axis of the waveguide. It is not "erroneous", it is precisely what makes the tapered waveguide different from a straight one.EDIT: You said in a previous post, Quote from: Ricvil"...The conical geometry of cavity can produce a gradient intensity of the fields inside it, and resulting on a axial non symmetric scattering of axions (produced by the stationary wave of hybrid modes), and thus the thrust is formed....". Are you saying that you believe the conical geometry can produce a gradient thrust only with axions but not with transverse, resonant EM standing waves? The equation I derived is exactly that, the gradient in the potential energy stored in the transverse standing wave as it travels down the waveguide. How else would you do it than to parameterize the potential energy wrt z?Todd