The force generated from such a process/mechanism is muchlarger than the force generated directly from the conventional light pressure, which ismuch smaller than the force required to propel the samples.
The mechanism behind this novel phenomenon is believed to be anefficient light-induced ejected electron emission process, following an Auger-like pathdue to both the unique band structure of graphene and its macroscopic morphology ofthis unique material.
Quote from: Star One on 05/28/2015 07:39 amQuote from: Stormbringer on 05/28/2015 07:18 amso, no scat, there i was... I learned you can do stuff that violates the laws of physics so long as you label the process as happening in imaginary time even if it has real physical consequences.http://phys.org/news/2015-05-physicists-quantum-tunneling-mystery.htmlSynopsis: Massive things that quantum tunnel can violate the physical speed limit of light so long as there isn't anybody watching and there cannot be anyone watching because it happens in imaginary time.I don't know about you; but i kind of had a different idea of what "imaginary" means but evidently imaginary does NOT mean unreal.Isn't that the same thing as I just posted above but with a different spin, if you pardon the pun?I saw someone suggesting & no idea if it's correct that this allows theoretical for greater than speed of light & teleportation?It may just be the articles treatment of the underlying paper but but i do not take it as being the same thing as your post. But really a half a year to a year ago there were a couple of articles on entanglement and wormholes and gravity all being related in the manner you suggest. In my case the thing was quantum tunneling of a massive object being instantaneous and thus implying FTL travel albeit in "imaginary" time.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 05/28/2015 07:18 amso, no scat, there i was... I learned you can do stuff that violates the laws of physics so long as you label the process as happening in imaginary time even if it has real physical consequences.http://phys.org/news/2015-05-physicists-quantum-tunneling-mystery.htmlSynopsis: Massive things that quantum tunnel can violate the physical speed limit of light so long as there isn't anybody watching and there cannot be anyone watching because it happens in imaginary time.I don't know about you; but i kind of had a different idea of what "imaginary" means but evidently imaginary does NOT mean unreal.Isn't that the same thing as I just posted above but with a different spin, if you pardon the pun?I saw someone suggesting & no idea if it's correct that this allows theoretical for greater than speed of light & teleportation?
so, no scat, there i was... I learned you can do stuff that violates the laws of physics so long as you label the process as happening in imaginary time even if it has real physical consequences.http://phys.org/news/2015-05-physicists-quantum-tunneling-mystery.htmlSynopsis: Massive things that quantum tunnel can violate the physical speed limit of light so long as there isn't anybody watching and there cannot be anyone watching because it happens in imaginary time.I don't know about you; but i kind of had a different idea of what "imaginary" means but evidently imaginary does NOT mean unreal.
i just looked at a critique based on the bayes outlook of emdrive and i can only say...bayes theorem is the dumbest thing i have ever heard of in my life. i understand the math just fine. its just so hand wavy abd full of hot air that i cant take the critism seriously at all.
From which we conclude, because 0 <= Df <= 1, that 0 <= F <= 2 Q P/c , where F is the thrust.So with Df = 1 and even if Q =1, F is twice that which would be delivered by a photon rocket at power P. Sound right to you?
In the Chinese devices, the test device movement is horizontal, so external rising hot air and internal buoyancy effects of heated air should have little effect on horizontal thrust.
The problem is that if you talk about "accelerating" or "decelerating" photons when there is no change in refractive index in play, you will be dismissed peremptorily by physicists.
Please check with NSF site administrators, as I am not familiar with the latest rules on creating new threads. The only thread I introduced at NSF was this 3rd thread as Chris warned that he had to close the 2nd thread because it was too long.
Two comments: a) nothing here is worth more than 2 or 3 digits of precision, and b) Df does serve at least the purpose of bounding the thrust from above at the limiting value given by Df = 1.
Calculating Shawyer Demonstrator Df.Shawyer's thrust equation T = (2 * Df * Po * Q) / c gives us the ability to calc Df, knowing Q, T & Po as Df = (c * T) / (2 * Po * Q)Demonstrator EM Drive, published data:Q: 45,000Po: 334WT: 0.096NTherefore Df = 0.95714. This suggests Shawyer's reported Df of 0.844 is correct as effective Q at measured power may not be 45,000 due to thermal detuning or the magnetron frequency not being at cavity resonance.When calculating the small end diameter, we must know the TEm,n or TMm,n excitation mode as the cutoff wavelength can vary quite a lot, which effects guide wavelengths Lambda g1 and Lambda g2 and thus Df. As we don't the mode, we must assume the Df of 0.844 is the correct value. A bit of playing with modes and trying different small end values may reveal the mode and true small end size. Have fun.
For the Eagleworks team: do you report the net RF power entering the resonator (forward - reflected at feedpoint)? Or total PA output? For example in this picture ~50w is listed:
@RodalApologies, but I thought that there'd already been some tests done in a vacume chamber with this device while still producing apparent thrust. Was I mistaken on this?If not, I would think that heated air convection would no longer be considered a potential factor in this device.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/26/2015 08:36 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 05/26/2015 08:22 pmI...Point well taken.It would be very useful to get strong skeptical reviews of Prof.Yang's paper ((translated) page 4 ( http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdf ) concerning her equations stating that having a gas/fluid with charged particles inside the EM Drive results in transfer of its momentum to the EM Drive metallic body. ...I was under the impression that Yang had built an EM drive and had done a series of experiments that showed it could produce a mN thrust. There is no mention of any experiments or measurements in the above translated paper. I'll have to tip my hat to whoever translated it. A well done job.So this is the problem I have with believing the EM-drive is not a hoax; or stated more politely a case of mistaken measurements. In thread 2 I stated the EW thrust signatures were not consistent with the known step response of their torque pendulum. The calibration pulse, generated by a capacitive device, always produced an underdamped response (thrust graph). This is the response that anything that pushes on the cavity should produce. If a moth flew at the cavity, this same step response would be seen. This is an immutable physical observation of mechanical systems. They all have a natural frequency and a damping coefficient. Any perturbation will exhibit the same step response. However the EW thrust signatures when the RF power was turned on were completely different. From this observation it can be concluded the RF power is not producing thrust. Others have offered alternative explanations for the apparent movement when RF power is applied. Since we are talking about only 4-5 microns of apparent movement there can be many alternative, conventional explanations.All the essays describing these experiments (EW, Shawyer, and now Yang) make a lot of claims but show very little data. Shawyer has been doing this since 2003 and yet his raw data has never been released. EW has released a few graphs but one can assume that given the amount of time they have been experimenting there is a lot more data. So have they cherry-picked the data and just shown us the graphs that appear to show thrust? If so that would indicate a very low percentage of possibly "good" tests.In Monday's new York Times (pages A1, A11 "Maligned study..") there is a piece on a paper that the journal Science is considering retracting. One of the authors has his hopes set on a "dream job" as a professor at Princeton. However his faculty advisor has asked Science to retract the paper because the author "... had misrepresented his study methods and lacked the evidence to back up his findings." (quoted from NYT article) The author was asked several times to make his raw data available in case his work needed to be checked, but never did.It is one thing to say you have a propellantless microwave thruster and that in a few years cars will be flying but if there is no data to support these claims any sane individual would have to say it has all been a hoax.So to all you DIY'ers out there: Don't electrocute yourself or give yourself cataracts, etc., chasing a dream that will never materialize.
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/26/2015 08:22 pmI...Point well taken.It would be very useful to get strong skeptical reviews of Prof.Yang's paper ((translated) page 4 ( http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdf ) concerning her equations stating that having a gas/fluid with charged particles inside the EM Drive results in transfer of its momentum to the EM Drive metallic body. ...
I...
Have asked Roger Shawyer to confirm the quoted Df for the Demonstrator EMDrive is 0.844:http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/28/2015 02:10 pmHave asked Roger Shawyer to confirm the quoted Df for the Demonstrator EMDrive is 0.844:http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.htmlCan you please ask for him to check his original data documents (rather than his published papers) , and re-calculate the Design Factor based on known geometry, to make sure that there was not an unintended typo somewhere?
is there any change in the light propagation inside such cavities causing an asymmetry due to these small gravitational effects?