Quote from: Chrochne on 07/17/2015 12:00 pmQuote from: Jeff131 on 07/17/2015 08:35 amI like the idea because I actually think THAT the EMDrive IS a myth. And nothing else.And it definitely should be the matter of Mythbusters and not of serious scientists.I disagree. From the independent scientific level Dr. Rodal and the others here are actually very sceptic about the EmDrive. Still their research based on rigorous work is starting to show that there may be something into it. You have to understand that even after the years of claims that EmDrive works (claimed by Mr. Shawyer) the true research begun only just now ( from the time NASA EW and chinese folks showed their first results).I learned here that too much shouting why it can and why it can not work leads to dead end only and proves nothing.If the EM Drive turns out to be a valid form of propellant-less propulsion? Is it not also fair to also give credit where credit is due?After all. Do you think that the first human that discovered the wheel could explain why it worked? Does that mean that there was ("as you say") no ("true research") by the original builder of the wheel, until the reasons why the wheel worked could be explained in full detail, by others?After all. Even Newton was not 100 percent correct with all his known statements, Yet we still respect him on what he was correct about vs. trash talking him about what he was incorrect about.Note: We as humans have been manipulating atoms in many ways, for many reasons and for many purposes, for some time now. However, only recently have we been able to determine why atoms have mass.Don
Quote from: Jeff131 on 07/17/2015 08:35 amI like the idea because I actually think THAT the EMDrive IS a myth. And nothing else.And it definitely should be the matter of Mythbusters and not of serious scientists.I disagree. From the independent scientific level Dr. Rodal and the others here are actually very sceptic about the EmDrive. Still their research based on rigorous work is starting to show that there may be something into it. You have to understand that even after the years of claims that EmDrive works (claimed by Mr. Shawyer) the true research begun only just now ( from the time NASA EW and chinese folks showed their first results).I learned here that too much shouting why it can and why it can not work leads to dead end only and proves nothing.
I like the idea because I actually think THAT the EMDrive IS a myth. And nothing else.And it definitely should be the matter of Mythbusters and not of serious scientists.
Quote from: Ricvil on 07/17/2015 05:51 pmJust a thought. It is just a ray trace realization of a resonant cavity with metamaterial inside ( n= -1; negative refraction index)The result cavity shape is a tappered conical ( in 3D by revolution symmetry).I1,I2,I3 and I4 are the images of point P (no diffraction idealization).The metallic mirrors are to reflect back any ray from P point ( focal point inside metamaterial).My doubt... what will be the result force in resonance?Sounds like a job for MPD & Meep. I was thinking that the atomic dipoles of the metamaterial/dielectric will be in motion and subtract from the vacuum-mode reaction against the frustrum, but that doesn't seem to matter in fiber-optic gyros. I would think with using a gaseous or liquid masing/lasing medium the forces will go into merely stirring things up.After absorbing Jayne's paper on ghost modes in microwave waveguides, photonic crystals and Schrodinger-waves in semiconductors, and in light of apparent exhaust-less thrust being measured in phonon-dispersive Peltier devices, I can imagine a number of ways ratcheting could be created by energy, other than microwaves in a frustrum.Since some of the most efficient generators of EM energy are magnetrons and klystrons, why not just fire an electron beam down a tapered-impedance (dispersive) slow-wave waveguide, so as to integrate the microwave generator and thruster into a single assembly? But again, there would be the reaction against the electron beam.
Just a thought. It is just a ray trace realization of a resonant cavity with metamaterial inside ( n= -1; negative refraction index)The result cavity shape is a tappered conical ( in 3D by revolution symmetry).I1,I2,I3 and I4 are the images of point P (no diffraction idealization).The metallic mirrors are to reflect back any ray from P point ( focal point inside metamaterial).My doubt... what will be the result force in resonance?
...Good reading this AM has me leaning towards centered small base injection of the monopole because of what Shell said about the variety of insertion points yielding apparent results. ...
How bout that I know and have met and worked on air bearings, powered and not, with my design projects? How about working with the Load Point engineers and the VP of engineering back when the were called WestWind and even after they changed?I'm quite aware of who they are.Shell
SeeShells: notice<< to my specs ....and N2 filled >> chirality and nitrongen inversion at room temperature
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/18/2015 02:42 amQuote from: Rodal on 07/18/2015 02:35 amSeeShells: notice<< to my specs ....and N2 filled >> chirality and nitrongen inversion at room temperaturePure N2 in my cavity can convert to chiral molecules??Are you using polymer O Rings ?
Quote from: Rodal on 07/18/2015 02:35 amSeeShells: notice<< to my specs ....and N2 filled >> chirality and nitrongen inversion at room temperaturePure N2 in my cavity can convert to chiral molecules??
Quote from: mwvp on 07/17/2015 06:45 pmQuote from: Ricvil on 07/17/2015 05:51 pmI can imagine a number of ways ratcheting could be created by energy, other than microwaves in a frustrum.Axion electrodynamic too? Why not. Need some equivalent of Maxwell Eq. for the Axion field and coupling constant to the EM field.Maybe nuclear forces are dispersive; that could save a lot of bother. Red Mercury?
Quote from: Ricvil on 07/17/2015 05:51 pmI can imagine a number of ways ratcheting could be created by energy, other than microwaves in a frustrum.Axion electrodynamic too?
I can imagine a number of ways ratcheting could be created by energy, other than microwaves in a frustrum.
B) Paul March (NASA) with the drawing putting a magnetron at the very end of the small end, as the ideal design
Quote from: Rodal on 07/17/2015 09:51 pmB) Paul March (NASA) with the drawing putting a magnetron at the very end of the small end, as the ideal designI like it. Like Yang's test, he's got a tuned cavity to stabilize and narrow the magnetron bandwidth, and a small aperture to impedance match to the frustrum. And I suspect there may be the benefit of added group delay (for low velocity or acceleration), kind of like having a transmission with a low-gear. The aperture would be dilated for increased coupling, reduced impedance and increased BW for better efficiency - high-gear.
The name is Clarke.Sir Arthur C. Clarke.
Fission reactor? Heat radiators? Why use any fuel at all? Just power the main engines with a rotary overunity EmDrive power unit