The only one claiming "propellant-less" in that absolutist way is Shawyer. Everybody else (McCulloch, White, etc.) no matter how unusual their theories, claims an interaction with the outside
Have confirmed the EW dielectric copper frustum does generate Force big end to small end. The latest Shawyer summary is incorrect. Have informed Shawyer.
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/30/2015 02:22 pmQuote from: Rodal on 07/30/2015 02:14 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/30/2015 02:11 pm...We now have two separate sets of experiments that confirm that thrust decreases significantly in air, and yet we still see the numbers for Yang and Shawyer (4 N/kW of 1 N/kW) bandied around. With the knowledge that thrust drops in air (but by an inconsistent/indeterminate amount), aren't we forced to essentially ignore any numerical results that come from either Yang or Shawyer? We know they are less, but how much less is impossible to tell.Any comment that extrapolates thrust results, or linearity of results wrt to Q, etc, using Yang and Shawyers results, is ignoring the experimental proof from two labs that thrust drops in vacuum. At the very least, from what Shell has said with the best being 10%, we have to throw away an order of magnitude, meaning the "best" thrust to power achieved so far was actually 0.4 N/kW, if that. No, see: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_ResultsBest reported thrust/InputPower in vacuum is 0.001 N/kWYour number is 400 times larger4 N/kW is 4,000 times largerYeah, I took the best result Yang reported (4 N/kW) and took Shell's reported 10% decrease in vacuum, to report a sort of "vacuum adjusted" best thrust to power ratio of 0.4 N/kW (in the best case scenario of only losing 90% of thrust in a vacuum, as per Shell).But you're right in that my "vacuum adjusted" methodology isn't winning any experimental honesty awards, and the only honest thing to do is to throw out Yang and Shawyer's results completely (at least their numerical results) and only focus on results that come from vacuum. Quote from: SeeShellsNo one has showed a working EMDrive in a vacuum that has decent thrust. The best I've seen is about 10% of the thrust in a air test. I suggest we need to wait to see what the latest EW vacuum data shows.In my opinion it is the Tajmar vacuum data that needs to be thrown out as it was a comedy of multiple measurement errors.
Quote from: Rodal on 07/30/2015 02:14 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/30/2015 02:11 pm...We now have two separate sets of experiments that confirm that thrust decreases significantly in air, and yet we still see the numbers for Yang and Shawyer (4 N/kW of 1 N/kW) bandied around. With the knowledge that thrust drops in air (but by an inconsistent/indeterminate amount), aren't we forced to essentially ignore any numerical results that come from either Yang or Shawyer? We know they are less, but how much less is impossible to tell.Any comment that extrapolates thrust results, or linearity of results wrt to Q, etc, using Yang and Shawyers results, is ignoring the experimental proof from two labs that thrust drops in vacuum. At the very least, from what Shell has said with the best being 10%, we have to throw away an order of magnitude, meaning the "best" thrust to power achieved so far was actually 0.4 N/kW, if that. No, see: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_ResultsBest reported thrust/InputPower in vacuum is 0.001 N/kWYour number is 400 times larger4 N/kW is 4,000 times largerYeah, I took the best result Yang reported (4 N/kW) and took Shell's reported 10% decrease in vacuum, to report a sort of "vacuum adjusted" best thrust to power ratio of 0.4 N/kW (in the best case scenario of only losing 90% of thrust in a vacuum, as per Shell).But you're right in that my "vacuum adjusted" methodology isn't winning any experimental honesty awards, and the only honest thing to do is to throw out Yang and Shawyer's results completely (at least their numerical results) and only focus on results that come from vacuum. Quote from: SeeShellsNo one has showed a working EMDrive in a vacuum that has decent thrust. The best I've seen is about 10% of the thrust in a air test.
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/30/2015 02:11 pm...We now have two separate sets of experiments that confirm that thrust decreases significantly in air, and yet we still see the numbers for Yang and Shawyer (4 N/kW of 1 N/kW) bandied around. With the knowledge that thrust drops in air (but by an inconsistent/indeterminate amount), aren't we forced to essentially ignore any numerical results that come from either Yang or Shawyer? We know they are less, but how much less is impossible to tell.Any comment that extrapolates thrust results, or linearity of results wrt to Q, etc, using Yang and Shawyers results, is ignoring the experimental proof from two labs that thrust drops in vacuum. At the very least, from what Shell has said with the best being 10%, we have to throw away an order of magnitude, meaning the "best" thrust to power achieved so far was actually 0.4 N/kW, if that. No, see: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_ResultsBest reported thrust/InputPower in vacuum is 0.001 N/kWYour number is 400 times larger4 N/kW is 4,000 times larger
...We now have two separate sets of experiments that confirm that thrust decreases significantly in air, and yet we still see the numbers for Yang and Shawyer (4 N/kW of 1 N/kW) bandied around. With the knowledge that thrust drops in air (but by an inconsistent/indeterminate amount), aren't we forced to essentially ignore any numerical results that come from either Yang or Shawyer? We know they are less, but how much less is impossible to tell.Any comment that extrapolates thrust results, or linearity of results wrt to Q, etc, using Yang and Shawyers results, is ignoring the experimental proof from two labs that thrust drops in vacuum. At the very least, from what Shell has said with the best being 10%, we have to throw away an order of magnitude, meaning the "best" thrust to power achieved so far was actually 0.4 N/kW, if that.
No one has showed a working EMDrive in a vacuum that has decent thrust. The best I've seen is about 10% of the thrust in a air test.
>>Dr. White's theory of virtual particles is the only one I can think of right now that gets momentum from inside >>(creating VPs) to the outside but lacks a good explanation of explaining air/no air test results. Back to ground zero so >>far.this isn't quite true, there is the possibility of a warp field as claimed to be detected by the laser interferometer resultsbut whether a small warp field or spacial distortion with a concave shape could produce the measured thrust is beyond me to tell. i think the warp effect should be included in the possibilities at this stage, it's no more outlandish that the quantum soup theory and actually has some evidence. i don't understand why no-one is talking about this
Back on track - Frustum, funnel, vortices and my initial theory.While building and thinking (dangerous combination), a theory has been brewing that is not ready for peer review, but is ready for my pals here at NSF. Nature often leads to answers. Growing up in the tornado belt has lead me to think about the known forces within a funnel cloud that touches the earth. A frustum is a portion of that funnel. Swirling electromagnetic waves, as with air, could create suction in the direction of the narrow end of the vortex. Thus, I've been reluctant to quantify the force as "thrust". Visualizing what occurs in a non-static frustum lead me to explore some papers on a electromagnetic vortices .Be aware, there are 4th dimensional properties going on here and its not for the faint of heart.Here is one of those papers: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1008/1008.3994.pdf"From the above it is possible to conclude: the state and evolution of the electro-magnetic field in a macroscopic approximation to the selected reference frame is clearly described by four-dimensional vector, which includes potential and solenoidal components and satisfies four-dimensional Dalamber equation."My emphasis Solenoidal, aka ratchet.Meepers will no doubt have issues with 4th dimensional properties as well as non-steady state EM waves in a Rotational propogation...just what fires naturally out of a magnetron's radome. There you have it. Its where I'll be spending my theory time. Comments and critiques welcomed.p.s. Yes, I know, a Z axis rotation needs to be measured along the longitudinal axis. To date, no one has tried this.
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/30/2015 03:43 pm...Dr. rodal, what does this look like to you???http://d1czgh453hg3kg.cloudfront.net/content/royprsa/467/2133/2500/F2.large.jpgFigure 2.Projection of Poynting vector direction (equation (3.2)) from a circularly polarized dipole, in the plane Embedded Image, showing swirl near the dipole axis and divergence far away.Ref...http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/467/2133/2500I think it's a great idea RFMWGUY!ShellSince you asked, here is my answer: I don't see how these ideas address the main question:* Conservation of Momentum and balance of forcesIf they do address it, and I missed it, I would appreciate knowing how they address conservation of momentum and balance of forces
...Dr. rodal, what does this look like to you???http://d1czgh453hg3kg.cloudfront.net/content/royprsa/467/2133/2500/F2.large.jpgFigure 2.Projection of Poynting vector direction (equation (3.2)) from a circularly polarized dipole, in the plane Embedded Image, showing swirl near the dipole axis and divergence far away.Ref...http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/467/2133/2500I think it's a great idea RFMWGUY!Shell
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/30/2015 03:43 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/30/2015 02:11 pmBack on track - Frustum, funnel, vortices and my initial theory.Oh I think it needs to be investigated, I gleaned the same thought sitting in the hot tub months ago swirling the water seeing vortexes form. One reason I started researching helical antennas and when aero is done with his current runs we should see if he could do a 1/4 wave shifted Dipole in the large end simulating a rotating wave pattern.Dr. rodal, what does this look like to you???http://d1czgh453hg3kg.cloudfront.net/content/royprsa/467/2133/2500/F2.large.jpgFigure 2.Projection of Poynting vector direction (equation (3.2)) from a circularly polarized dipole, in the plane Embedded Image, showing swirl near the dipole axis and divergence far away.Ref...http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/467/2133/2500I think it's a great idea RFMWGUY!ShellSince you asked, here is my answer: I don't see how these ideas address the main question:* Conservation of Momentum and balance of forcesIf they do address it, and I missed it, I would appreciate knowing how they address conservation of momentum and balance of forces
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/30/2015 02:11 pmBack on track - Frustum, funnel, vortices and my initial theory.Oh I think it needs to be investigated, I gleaned the same thought sitting in the hot tub months ago swirling the water seeing vortexes form. One reason I started researching helical antennas and when aero is done with his current runs we should see if he could do a 1/4 wave shifted Dipole in the large end simulating a rotating wave pattern.Dr. rodal, what does this look like to you???http://d1czgh453hg3kg.cloudfront.net/content/royprsa/467/2133/2500/F2.large.jpgFigure 2.Projection of Poynting vector direction (equation (3.2)) from a circularly polarized dipole, in the plane Embedded Image, showing swirl near the dipole axis and divergence far away.Ref...http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/467/2133/2500I think it's a great idea RFMWGUY!Shell
Back on track - Frustum, funnel, vortices and my initial theory.
Quote from: Rodal on 07/30/2015 03:47 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/30/2015 03:43 pm...Dr. rodal, what does this look like to you???http://d1czgh453hg3kg.cloudfront.net/content/royprsa/467/2133/2500/F2.large.jpgFigure 2.Projection of Poynting vector direction (equation (3.2)) from a circularly polarized dipole, in the plane Embedded Image, showing swirl near the dipole axis and divergence far away.Ref...http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/467/2133/2500I think it's a great idea RFMWGUY!ShellSince you asked, here is my answer: I don't see how these ideas address the main question:* Conservation of Momentum and balance of forcesIf they do address it, and I missed it, I would appreciate knowing how they address conservation of momentum and balance of forcesI think it is not that you missed it. I feel it is that you don't believe it. The group velocity, phase velocity and the speed of light, are not the same at both ends of the cavity. The momentum carried by EM waves depends on the refractive index and the phase velocity. It is not "free space" inside the cavity. Light is being squeezed at the small end and expands toward the big end. In doing so, there is a force created by this gradient that is not symmetrical because dp/dt is not symmetrical. Nothing has to escape for this to be true, it only needs to be dissipated by doing work to thrust the frustum. It is GR, it is geometry, it is Maxwell's equations in curved space-time, acting over a narrow bandwidth near the cut-off.That is what all 4 equations are saying. How each of us interpreted the geometry and it's effects on these velocities is different, but we all agree that this is how momentum is conserved. Space-time is being curved at this frequency, which per the PV Model is "identical" to a variable refractive index. Until you "accept this", you will continue to expect CoM to be violated, because there is NO OTHER explanation. Puthoff & Davis have done experiments with squeezed light, in an attempt to create exotic matter.http://www.earthtech.org/publications/davis_STAIF_conference_1.pdfSqueezed Light: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4118E. Davis might actually stop knocking the EM Drive if he understood what I'm talking about. It is right up his alley!Todd
Don't know about the others but my EMDrive will soon be on a rotary turntable accelerating from 0 rpm to 120 rpm.
Quote from: lmbfan on 07/30/2015 04:56 amI don't know much about loop antenna. This file makes a giant 2-D source (24 units X 24 units, infinitely thin) and a square metal loop 2.928 X .7 units (center line), the "wire" width is .2, height of .1 units. The loop is called a "scatterer" and is not generated by default. Does any of that sound right for a loop antenna?If I (or someone else) were to make a square loop antenna somehow, how would we know if it was a loop? What fields would we look at and what would they look like? Quickly testing different ideas can be painful if I use the truncated cone geometry/steps with long calculation times.This may helphttp://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/AN639.pdf
I don't know much about loop antenna. This file makes a giant 2-D source (24 units X 24 units, infinitely thin) and a square metal loop 2.928 X .7 units (center line), the "wire" width is .2, height of .1 units. The loop is called a "scatterer" and is not generated by default. Does any of that sound right for a loop antenna?If I (or someone else) were to make a square loop antenna somehow, how would we know if it was a loop? What fields would we look at and what would they look like? Quickly testing different ideas can be painful if I use the truncated cone geometry/steps with long calculation times.
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/30/2015 04:31 pmQuote from: Rodal on 07/30/2015 03:47 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/30/2015 03:43 pm...Dr. rodal, what does this look like to you???http://d1czgh453hg3kg.cloudfront.net/content/royprsa/467/2133/2500/F2.large.jpgFigure 2.Projection of Poynting vector direction (equation (3.2)) from a circularly polarized dipole, in the plane Embedded Image, showing swirl near the dipole axis and divergence far away.Ref...http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/467/2133/2500I think it's a great idea RFMWGUY!ShellYes, you are correct. It is that I don't believe it.I have written a program with Wolfram Mathematica, and for Yang/Shell (which is much closer to a cylinder and much further from the cone vertex) I get a net force (taking into account all stresses) to be practically zero. Nada. Zilch.But for NSF-1701 geometry (which has a small base much closer to the vertex), I'm getting a net force pointing from the big base towards the small base, and the major component is coming from the copper conical lateral surface. I'm trying to make sense out of this, because as you say, I don't believe it.Momentum is conserved in General Relativity.So here is my question: can you think of another phenomenon in Nature where something will accelerate only due to internal electromagnetic fields without anything ejecting to the outside?
Quote from: Rodal on 07/30/2015 03:47 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/30/2015 03:43 pm...Dr. rodal, what does this look like to you???http://d1czgh453hg3kg.cloudfront.net/content/royprsa/467/2133/2500/F2.large.jpgFigure 2.Projection of Poynting vector direction (equation (3.2)) from a circularly polarized dipole, in the plane Embedded Image, showing swirl near the dipole axis and divergence far away.Ref...http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/467/2133/2500I think it's a great idea RFMWGUY!Shell
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/30/2015 03:43 pm...Dr. rodal, what does this look like to you???http://d1czgh453hg3kg.cloudfront.net/content/royprsa/467/2133/2500/F2.large.jpgFigure 2.Projection of Poynting vector direction (equation (3.2)) from a circularly polarized dipole, in the plane Embedded Image, showing swirl near the dipole axis and divergence far away.Ref...http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/467/2133/2500I think it's a great idea RFMWGUY!Shell
Quote from: Rodal on 07/30/2015 01:24 pmThe only one claiming "propellant-less" in that absolutist way is Shawyer. Everybody else (McCulloch, White, etc.) no matter how unusual their theories, claims an interaction with the outsidetrue, but it´s quite different to claim an interaction with something that doesn´t care about the engine/ship walls, in other words, the engine push "it" but "it" doesn´t interact with the the rest of the ship... like virtual particles in White's Theory or "the rest of the mass of the universe", in Mach Effect Theory...... and pushing air... which in that case, EM Drive is not a propellantless propulsion, but just a propeller-less air engine.
...Interestingly enough Doc it doesn't agree with the data published about thrusts. Is the data from the Yang tests totally bogus? Or we don't have the matter of the RF injection correct yet?I'd be wondering what your stress / poynting vector analysis is really showing? As of now it is only showing a asymetrical differential of stress levels from one end vs the other. What are you looking for your asymmetrical stress figures to do I guess would be the question? Right now I can take a enclosed can of air, put a air pump in it blowing at one end and the can sits still, but the pressure is higher at one end vs the other. If your saying that the increased stress in one end compresses and acts like a gravity induced gradient at that end and that causes the can to "squirt" along in it's own micro gravity well trying to equalize itself than that's a gravity warp drive.shell
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/30/2015 04:31 pmQuote from: Rodal on 07/30/2015 03:47 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/30/2015 03:43 pm...Dr. rodal, what does this look like to you???http://d1czgh453hg3kg.cloudfront.net/content/royprsa/467/2133/2500/F2.large.jpgFigure 2.Projection of Poynting vector direction (equation (3.2)) from a circularly polarized dipole, in the plane Embedded Image, showing swirl near the dipole axis and divergence far away.Ref...http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/467/2133/2500I think it's a great idea RFMWGUY!ShellSince you asked, here is my answer: I don't see how these ideas address the main question:* Conservation of Momentum and balance of forcesIf they do address it, and I missed it, I would appreciate knowing how they address conservation of momentum and balance of forcesI think it is not that you missed it. I feel it is that you don't believe it. The group velocity, phase velocity and the speed of light, are not the same at both ends of the cavity. The momentum carried by EM waves depends on the refractive index and the phase velocity. It is not "free space" inside the cavity. Light is being squeezed at the small end and expands toward the big end. In doing so, there is a force created by this gradient that is not symmetrical because dp/dt is not symmetrical. Nothing has to escape for this to be true, it only needs to be dissipated by doing work to thrust the frustum. It is GR, it is geometry, it is Maxwell's equations in curved space-time, acting over a narrow bandwidth near the cut-off.That is what all 4 equations are saying. How each of us interpreted the geometry and it's effects on these velocities is different, but we all agree that this is how momentum is conserved. Space-time is being curved at this frequency, which per the PV Model is "identical" to a variable refractive index. Until you "accept this", you will continue to expect CoM to be violated, because there is NO OTHER explanation. Puthoff & Davis have done experiments with squeezed light, in an attempt to create exotic matter.http://www.earthtech.org/publications/davis_STAIF_conference_1.pdfSqueezed Light: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4118E. Davis might actually stop knocking the EM Drive if he understood what I'm talking about. It is right up his alley!ToddYes, you are correct. It is that I don't believe it.I have written a program with Wolfram Mathematica, and for Yang/Shell (which is much closer to a cylinder and much further from the cone vertex) I get a net force (taking into account all stresses) to be practically zero. Nada. Zilch.But for NSF-1701 geometry (which has a small base much closer to the vertex), I'm getting a net force pointing from the big base towards the small base, and the major component is coming from the copper conical lateral surface. I'm trying to make sense out of this, because as you say, I don't believe it.In General Relativity momentum is part of the energy-momentum tensor, which transforms as a covariant quantity, not as an invariant. Hence it is difficult to have intuition about it. So here is my question: can you think of another phenomenon in Nature where something will accelerate only due to internal electromagnetic fields without anything ejecting to the outside?
Hmmm....EM Drive sounds a lot like the claims of anomalist theorists (I'm being charitable) who speculate that so-called 'flying saucers' (no proof they exist) are supposedly propelled by microwaves.But back to the issue of a genuine EM Drive. Rodal and Seeshells are now arguing in circles when the only way to settle the issue is?...Is for some (eccentric perhaps) millionaire or billionaire to provide funds to build (at least) a small-scale 'working' prototype to be sent into LEO to see if it works; and if it works, to see if it has any real advantage over VASIMR, or even an ordinary ion rocket-motor.