Still just poking around. This ref from another list (Polywell ?)http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/10455Suggests to me that the dielectric may not be there because of "flux capacitors", but rather to make that surface look as close to a superconducive surface as possible (perfect reflectivity). This is done all the time by adding a dielectric layer onto an existing reflective surface. (in extreme cases we've made neutron mirrors w/ 1300 layers, but I digress) You need all 3 complex indices at the wavelength of interest to get "perfect" reflectivity. Typical telescope reflector is Al/SiO2, etc etcNo way of telling unless someone tells what the model is.
Quote from: aero on 09/21/2014 07:35 pmWell, if the RF field can not turn the electron stream without a reacting force, then that leaves 1. Dr. White's idea of the electrons/protons appearing and disappearing from/to the quantum vacuum, and 2. The alternative of the real electrons disappearing into the quantum vacuum.The first idea has been discounted by critics. The second idea has not been put forward, to my knowledge. Of course there are the ideas put forth by Shayer, and by the Chinese experimental group, as well as new ideas that might be held Boeing and Cannae groups.Don't forget (what to me looks like) the (most likely) explanation:the measured thrust forces are due to spurious testing effects and these tested EM drives will not generate any (translational motion) thrust in space.
Well, if the RF field can not turn the electron stream without a reacting force, then that leaves 1. Dr. White's idea of the electrons/protons appearing and disappearing from/to the quantum vacuum, and 2. The alternative of the real electrons disappearing into the quantum vacuum.The first idea has been discounted by critics. The second idea has not been put forward, to my knowledge. Of course there are the ideas put forth by Shayer, and by the Chinese experimental group, as well as new ideas that might be held Boeing and Cannae groups.
Quote from: Rodal on 09/21/2014 08:04 pmQuote from: aero on 09/21/2014 07:35 pmWell, if the RF field can not turn the electron stream without a reacting force, then that leaves 1. Dr. White's idea of the electrons/protons appearing and disappearing from/to the quantum vacuum, and 2. The alternative of the real electrons disappearing into the quantum vacuum.The first idea has been discounted by critics. The second idea has not been put forward, to my knowledge.Of course there are the ideas put forth by Shayer, and by the Chinese experimental group, as well as new ideas that might be held Boeing and Cannae groups.Don't forget (what to me looks like) the (most likely) explanation:the measured thrust forces are due to spurious testing effects and these tested EM drives will not generate any (translational motion) thrust in space.Speaking to that- What do you suppose the chances are that this is just a very obscure implementation of a "Dean Drive?" Obviously the reaction is not due to bouncing on the ground. They used liquid metal contacts to avoid forces transmitted via the conductors. What about forces transmitted via the RF wave guide or was that question addressed already?
Quote from: aero on 09/21/2014 07:35 pmWell, if the RF field can not turn the electron stream without a reacting force, then that leaves 1. Dr. White's idea of the electrons/protons appearing and disappearing from/to the quantum vacuum, and 2. The alternative of the real electrons disappearing into the quantum vacuum.The first idea has been discounted by critics. The second idea has not been put forward, to my knowledge.Of course there are the ideas put forth by Shayer, and by the Chinese experimental group, as well as new ideas that might be held Boeing and Cannae groups.Don't forget (what to me looks like) the (most likely) explanation:the measured thrust forces are due to spurious testing effects and these tested EM drives will not generate any (translational motion) thrust in space.
Well, if the RF field can not turn the electron stream without a reacting force, then that leaves 1. Dr. White's idea of the electrons/protons appearing and disappearing from/to the quantum vacuum, and 2. The alternative of the real electrons disappearing into the quantum vacuum.The first idea has been discounted by critics. The second idea has not been put forward, to my knowledge.Of course there are the ideas put forth by Shayer, and by the Chinese experimental group, as well as new ideas that might be held Boeing and Cannae groups.
We could do that here (non-academic) but who in their right mind would put up the 100k or more to cover the time and overhead even if it was done at cost ?
Always a thought !Still pokin', COMSOL EM models ?http://www.microwavejournal.com/ext/resources/BGDownload/4/d/3D%20Electromagnetic%20Field%20Simulation.pdf?1326826605"Respective to the boundary conditions, thewalls of the cavity are considered as perfectconductors, represented by the boundarycondition0=×Enrr. That is, the tangentialelectric field component is zero. To simulate thetemperature variation in a ceramic material in thecavity, we used a symmetry cut as a mirrorsymmetry for the electric field, which isrepresented by the boundary condition0=×Hnrr. "Hmmmm. Need to figure out how to copy formulas, but you get the idea.
[Dielectric resonator] sample cracking means the strong possibility of dielectric breakdown and the field emission of real electrons, as we had discussed earlier on !
Quote from: Rodal on 09/23/2014 05:59 pm[Dielectric resonator] sample cracking means the strong possibility of dielectric breakdown and the field emission of real electrons, as we had discussed earlier on ! So, the actual thrust seen is essentially like the recoil from some sort of electron gun? Doesn't this indicate that thrust is being produced by the decay of matter from a microwave gun? Wouldn't that make this a sort of highly effecient ion drive? Much lower power requirements, solid matter being converted to high energy ions from a solid instead of from a gas. That is, If I understand what you're saying correctly. If so, then they DO has a sort of working high effeciency EM drive that is essentially a Solidstate Ion Thruster. Or am I not understanding what you're saying.
Where are the Boeing/DARPA specific force tests ?
The practical problem with independent verification (at John Hopkins or other universities) is that the scientific community has dismissed the NASA propellant-less tests (either vocally as done by John Baez and Sean Carroll, or quietly as done by most other academics in Aerospace Engineering -and quietly dismissing these results at other NASA propulsion centers-). The academic community -particularly nowadays- knows that it is not considered to be an advancement to their career to produce independent experimental data that nullifies esoteric claims (claims that run contrary to conservation of momentum and known physics) that the rest of the community will meet with "I could have told you that". So academics at MIT, Stanford, CalTech, etc., are negatively motivated, they actually have a disincentive to spend their time and effort to examine these exotic claims. It was a different case for Cold Fusion because in 1989 Martin Fleischmann -the Cold Fusion proponent- was considered to be one of the world's leading electrochemists and because the world has much more interest in a cheap form of power production than they have on a quicker trip to Enceladus.
That's depressing to read, sounds like its going to be hard to get anyone to stick their head above the parapet and actually look into this from a neutral third party viewpoint.
Quote from: Star One on 09/23/2014 08:09 pmThat's depressing to read, sounds like its going to be hard to get anyone to stick their head above the parapet and actually look into this from a neutral third party viewpoint.1) I think that independent testing with null results of EM drives has already been done and reported, utilizing a classical testing device. I will be posting shortly negative results already reported in the literature, performed by a third party, that I am presently reviewing.2) Regardless of positive or negative results by third parties, it is noteworthy that Boeing/DARPA as recently as 2013 had their device tested at NASA/Eagleworks who reported a specific force orders of magnitude above the 2014 campaign featuring the Cannae and Frustum devices (albeit with an impulse response rather than a rectangular pulse, which may be problematic for practical propulsion applications). If the Boeing/DARPA results were indeed valid, I think that both Boeing and DARPA would be pursuing further, perhaps secret, work, don't ya think?