Quote from: Stormbringer on 05/05/2015 06:34 pmQuote from: sanman on 05/05/2015 06:23 pmFrom what I remember, originally there was the Alcubierre "Warp Drive" concept proposed by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre, which required a jupiter-sized mass of dark matter. Then Dr White came up with a refinement of the geometry, so that the amount of dark matter was much less (someone compared it to the mass of the Voyager space probe.) Then Dr White announced his intention to test whether a "space warp" was possible, by using a Michelson interferometer to try to detect a path-length difference when a voltage was applied to a capacitor ring.So that stuff was all purely related to Alcubierre "Warp Drive". And of course news media were widely reporting that NASA was researching how to develop a Warp Drive, and the news stories were of course showing pictures of the starship Enterprise from Star Trek. But Shawyer's EMdrive was nowhere in that picture, and was an altogether separate and much less reported story on its own.Then when the Eagleworks lab got involved in experimental testing to verify the Shawyer EMdrive concept (or Cannae drive, whatever) that's when suddenly the 2 stories began to merge, and speculation was put forth that the EMdrive was somehow a "Q-thruster" and then further that it was a "Warp Drive". Since the actual mechanism - if any - is unknown, what it is seems to depend on who's doing the speculating.Maybe there is some of that going on out there. But what i am recalling is from this thread. and I think it may have been Mr March or someone directly in a conversation with Mr March in this thread. Again my memory may be faulty on who but not where. It happened here. ...or maybe i am insane. And besides that, Paul March was initially involved with research on Prof Woodward's "Mach Effect" theory, which is again something altogether different from Alcubierre warp drive and EMdrive. Mach Effect as of yet cannot be claimed to violate the established laws of physics, and is supposedly a prerequisite or necessary consequence of Einstein's Relativity. But so the Woodward Mach Effect experiments were about oscillating masses, weren't they? They were not the same type of apparatus as the EMdrive. So when I see people mentioning warp drive, Woodward's theory, and EMdrive all in the same thread, it kind of looks like the lines are being blurred here. These things originally started out as completely distinct from each other - they were 3 separate things - and now it looks like they're all being mashed together in the thread discussions. Perhaps it's because the same researchers at Eagleworks have been involved in investigating all 3 things.
Quote from: sanman on 05/05/2015 06:23 pmFrom what I remember, originally there was the Alcubierre "Warp Drive" concept proposed by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre, which required a jupiter-sized mass of dark matter. Then Dr White came up with a refinement of the geometry, so that the amount of dark matter was much less (someone compared it to the mass of the Voyager space probe.) Then Dr White announced his intention to test whether a "space warp" was possible, by using a Michelson interferometer to try to detect a path-length difference when a voltage was applied to a capacitor ring.So that stuff was all purely related to Alcubierre "Warp Drive". And of course news media were widely reporting that NASA was researching how to develop a Warp Drive, and the news stories were of course showing pictures of the starship Enterprise from Star Trek. But Shawyer's EMdrive was nowhere in that picture, and was an altogether separate and much less reported story on its own.Then when the Eagleworks lab got involved in experimental testing to verify the Shawyer EMdrive concept (or Cannae drive, whatever) that's when suddenly the 2 stories began to merge, and speculation was put forth that the EMdrive was somehow a "Q-thruster" and then further that it was a "Warp Drive". Since the actual mechanism - if any - is unknown, what it is seems to depend on who's doing the speculating.Maybe there is some of that going on out there. But what i am recalling is from this thread. and I think it may have been Mr March or someone directly in a conversation with Mr March in this thread. Again my memory may be faulty on who but not where. It happened here. ...or maybe i am insane.
From what I remember, originally there was the Alcubierre "Warp Drive" concept proposed by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre, which required a jupiter-sized mass of dark matter. Then Dr White came up with a refinement of the geometry, so that the amount of dark matter was much less (someone compared it to the mass of the Voyager space probe.) Then Dr White announced his intention to test whether a "space warp" was possible, by using a Michelson interferometer to try to detect a path-length difference when a voltage was applied to a capacitor ring.So that stuff was all purely related to Alcubierre "Warp Drive". And of course news media were widely reporting that NASA was researching how to develop a Warp Drive, and the news stories were of course showing pictures of the starship Enterprise from Star Trek. But Shawyer's EMdrive was nowhere in that picture, and was an altogether separate and much less reported story on its own.Then when the Eagleworks lab got involved in experimental testing to verify the Shawyer EMdrive concept (or Cannae drive, whatever) that's when suddenly the 2 stories began to merge, and speculation was put forth that the EMdrive was somehow a "Q-thruster" and then further that it was a "Warp Drive". Since the actual mechanism - if any - is unknown, what it is seems to depend on who's doing the speculating.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/05/2015 08:13 pmQuote from: zen-in on 05/05/2015 07:50 pmEagleworks mounted their PA on the balance beam. The frequency source could also be custom made and mounted on the balance beam. That would eliminate the coax problem.Interesting photograph; I have not seen it before. The experiment is nicely setup with very good shielding for air currents. But I don't see how it can be called cryogenic. It looks like the Nitrogen dewar is just supplying dry Nitrogen. The apparatus inside the clear boxes and sitting on a postage scale is not a dewar. Unless he has found a supplier of room temperature superconductors it is not a superconductor test. Superconducting cavities have to be cooled with liquid Helium and to keep the lHe from boiling off in a flash the lHe dewar has to be surrounded by a liquid Nitrogen dewar. A high vacuum has to separate the dewars from everything and high IR reflective surfaces and other exotic contrivances are needed. Otherwise the cryogens boil off and the whole thing turns into a missile. High temperature superconductors are easier to work with because they only require liquid Nitrogen. The second picture shows my crufty rotating magnetic field setup. The white thing is a styrofoam container filled with liquid Nitrogen and the dut (device under test). Here is what is inside the shiny metal cylinder. An EM Drive with a superconducting inner surface.According to Shawyer it is designed to be cooled by liquid Nitrogen and it's super-conducting surfaces are formed from YBCO thin films on sapphire substrates.OK I see how that works now; just a liquid Nitrogen dewar with the dut suspended in it. Very similar to my setup. Nitrogen boil-off will affect the lower scale but not the one that supports the dut so much. I would imagine there is a lot of boil-off during a test. YBCO thin films have high AC losses; typically above 60 Hz. No doubt these are specially designed to minimize those lossses.
Quote from: zen-in on 05/05/2015 07:50 pmEagleworks mounted their PA on the balance beam. The frequency source could also be custom made and mounted on the balance beam. That would eliminate the coax problem.Interesting photograph; I have not seen it before. The experiment is nicely setup with very good shielding for air currents. But I don't see how it can be called cryogenic. It looks like the Nitrogen dewar is just supplying dry Nitrogen. The apparatus inside the clear boxes and sitting on a postage scale is not a dewar. Unless he has found a supplier of room temperature superconductors it is not a superconductor test. Superconducting cavities have to be cooled with liquid Helium and to keep the lHe from boiling off in a flash the lHe dewar has to be surrounded by a liquid Nitrogen dewar. A high vacuum has to separate the dewars from everything and high IR reflective surfaces and other exotic contrivances are needed. Otherwise the cryogens boil off and the whole thing turns into a missile. High temperature superconductors are easier to work with because they only require liquid Nitrogen. The second picture shows my crufty rotating magnetic field setup. The white thing is a styrofoam container filled with liquid Nitrogen and the dut (device under test). Here is what is inside the shiny metal cylinder. An EM Drive with a superconducting inner surface.According to Shawyer it is designed to be cooled by liquid Nitrogen and it's super-conducting surfaces are formed from YBCO thin films on sapphire substrates.
Eagleworks mounted their PA on the balance beam. The frequency source could also be custom made and mounted on the balance beam. That would eliminate the coax problem.Interesting photograph; I have not seen it before. The experiment is nicely setup with very good shielding for air currents. But I don't see how it can be called cryogenic. It looks like the Nitrogen dewar is just supplying dry Nitrogen. The apparatus inside the clear boxes and sitting on a postage scale is not a dewar. Unless he has found a supplier of room temperature superconductors it is not a superconductor test. Superconducting cavities have to be cooled with liquid Helium and to keep the lHe from boiling off in a flash the lHe dewar has to be surrounded by a liquid Nitrogen dewar. A high vacuum has to separate the dewars from everything and high IR reflective surfaces and other exotic contrivances are needed. Otherwise the cryogens boil off and the whole thing turns into a missile. High temperature superconductors are easier to work with because they only require liquid Nitrogen. The second picture shows my crufty rotating magnetic field setup. The white thing is a styrofoam container filled with liquid Nitrogen and the dut (device under test).
Small signal testing at 77 deg K confirmed the design, with a Q of 6.8x106 being measured
Quote from: zen-in on 05/05/2015 08:52 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/05/2015 08:13 pmQuote from: zen-in on 05/05/2015 07:50 pmEagleworks mounted their PA on the balance beam. The frequency source could also be custom made and mounted on the balance beam. That would eliminate the coax problem.Interesting photograph; I have not seen it before. The experiment is nicely setup with very good shielding for air currents. But I don't see how it can be called cryogenic. It looks like the Nitrogen dewar is just supplying dry Nitrogen. The apparatus inside the clear boxes and sitting on a postage scale is not a dewar. Unless he has found a supplier of room temperature superconductors it is not a superconductor test. Superconducting cavities have to be cooled with liquid Helium and to keep the lHe from boiling off in a flash the lHe dewar has to be surrounded by a liquid Nitrogen dewar. A high vacuum has to separate the dewars from everything and high IR reflective surfaces and other exotic contrivances are needed. Otherwise the cryogens boil off and the whole thing turns into a missile. High temperature superconductors are easier to work with because they only require liquid Nitrogen. The second picture shows my crufty rotating magnetic field setup. The white thing is a styrofoam container filled with liquid Nitrogen and the dut (device under test). Here is what is inside the shiny metal cylinder. An EM Drive with a superconducting inner surface.According to Shawyer it is designed to be cooled by liquid Nitrogen and it's super-conducting surfaces are formed from YBCO thin films on sapphire substrates.OK I see how that works now; just a liquid Nitrogen dewar with the dut suspended in it. Very similar to my setup. Nitrogen boil-off will affect the lower scale but not the one that supports the dut so much. I would imagine there is a lot of boil-off during a test. YBCO thin films have high AC losses; typically above 60 Hz. No doubt these are specially designed to minimize those lossses. Shawyer reports on that unit:QuoteSmall signal testing at 77 deg K confirmed the design, with a Q of 6.8x106 being measuredAn EM Drive with a Q of 6,800,000! Massive!
Shawyer reports on that unit:QuoteSmall signal testing at 77 deg K confirmed the design, with a Q of 6.8x106 being measuredAn EM Drive with a Q of 6,800,000! Massive!
Quote from: ThereIWas3 on 05/05/2015 05:10 pmHow much power are you planning on putting through that coax? The thicker it gets, the stiffer it gets, which would mess up any delicate movements of the balance beam. My experience is with amateur radio, and there 50 watts is the most you would try to put through something like RG-59 (looks like cable-TV cable). RG-8, which can handle a kilowatt, is about 1 cm in diameter and not very flexible at all.Power losses in the cable of course turn into heat...Thanks for the feedback.Did a few years as a ham. You are right. Cable heat losses need to be considered. Will be very small. Max power will be 100W.
How much power are you planning on putting through that coax? The thicker it gets, the stiffer it gets, which would mess up any delicate movements of the balance beam. My experience is with amateur radio, and there 50 watts is the most you would try to put through something like RG-59 (looks like cable-TV cable). RG-8, which can handle a kilowatt, is about 1 cm in diameter and not very flexible at all.Power losses in the cable of course turn into heat...
TravellerI strongly suggest you do not place your "mass displacement measurement device" underneath the drive unit. If you invert your thinking and make the opposite end of the fulcrum lever "heavier" such that it places a small but measurable force on the scale, you can data log the hopefully rising-value differences on activation. The reasoning behind this is that your scales "might" be impacted by a grav-wave event originating from the em-drive, creating a chaotic temporal event stream.You may also need to consider the geometric shape of the end caps. I suggest you have a browse though data on Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes for the optical path folding models employed and their direct relevance to the end cap shapes. Consider the possibility for the existence of a focal-point inside the actual tube assembly "that has not been mentioned in the literature", and where this point may occur relative to the end caps. Also consider the ability to extend the tubes physical length with simple mechanical sliding action end cap(s). These factors could impact the deliberate creation of a specific point-of-intersection and as such an area of modified intensity relative to the internal space of the unit. The energy imbalances.. could be interesting. OrConsider end cap shapes as a geometric means of creating a parallel-path guide for simple reflection/refraction in a laser-like mode
I have another question, is there any official statement that NASA is working on warp field experiments? Just for the Wikipedia article on the topic.
Mr March told us recently back in the thread that they had a small positive signal on the warp interferometry front.
Quote from: JonnyDamnnox on 05/05/2015 11:33 pmI have another question, is there any official statement that NASA is working on warp field experiments? Just for the Wikipedia article on the topic.Mr March told us recently back in the thread that they had a small positive signal on the warp interferometry front.
Here is my KISS EMDrive test system rough draught.
Although most of what's being discussed here concerns the static force produced by an EmDrive, I would like to look ahead to the dynamics in free space. In this regard, and needing no recourse to relativity for low velocities, all types of propellantless propulsion device are created equal; i.e. we model them with constant input power which results in a constant thrust, which in turn produces a constant acceleration. A little high school physics and a dash of algebra (see below) should suffice to convince you that, for any and all such devices, there exists a break-even velocity, above which more energy has been produced than has been consumed. As the device continues to further accelerate, a continuous source of free power is available. Thus we have not only perpetual motion, but free energy to boot.It is worthwhile to quantify the value of this break-even velocity, which turns out to be a very simple expression. The relevant equations we use (symbols having their usual meaning) are:k := F/P in Newton/Wattv = a t = (F/m) t Ein = P tEout = 0.5 m v2From the first 2 equations we gett = (m v) / (k P)At breakeven, Ein= Eout and v := v0or2 P m v0 / (k P) = mv02sov0 = 2/kArmed with this expression, the performance of any propellantless propulsion device may be examined, if its 'k' value is known.
Or perhaps they are connected as there are countless examples I can give in physics where what was supposed to be earlier theories (thought to be very different at the time) they turned out to be incomplete parts of a bigger theory encompassing them. Many examples: Schrodinger wave equation and Heissenberg's matrix formulation, etc etc
Quote from: sanmanSo if it's the standing wave inside the resonant cavity which is losing energy, then how is that energy being converted into momentum? If the standing wave is pushing on the cavity in a net direction, then how is that standing wave creating an asymmetric radiation pressure inside the cavity? How does the asymmetric shape of the cavity result in asymmetric radiation pressure? Shouldn't radiation pressure inside a cavity always be symmetric?GoatGuy in reply to sanman:…then how is the energy being converted to momentum… is one of the fundamental questions which physicists are arguing over. The notion is that the asymmetry of the cone as a waveguide for RF energy realizes a net force away from the small end as the RF wave stream propagates outward and out the end. This is my gross simplification, but it has a large analogy to help visualize the principle(s) involved: the classic chemical rocket engine. If one thinks of a chemical rocket engine combustion chamber as NOT a combustion chamber, but merely a round sphere full of high pressure gas, if the sphere is unperforated, obviously there is no gas escape, and no net thrust. No matter how much pressure is in the theoretical sphere. Now, poke a hole in it. The entrained gas will escape. The speed with which it escapes depends on its viscosity, the size of the hole, its density and the speed of sound in the gas, and the interior pressure. The thrust can be either measured or calculated with relative ease. Yet, this is not the highest thrust that the pierced sphere can produce.Higher thrust can be produced by having an expansion nozzle on the other side of the hole. How's this? Simple enough: the exhaust stream is still pressurized, and will expand in 3 dimensions, so its cross sectional area is also increasing. This too is an outward radial pressure. If not captured (from a simple hole), then it is lost thrust/force. If the expanding gas though impinges on the exhaust cone as it expands outward, the outward expansion is vectored “downward”. Change of momentum vector results in more thrust.Same gas, more thrust. (This is one of the chief reasons there are shock diamonds in jet and transparent rocket thrust.)_______Now, take the analogy back to the EM-thruster regime. And a very brief review of electromagnetic principles. The first is, that when one reflects an electromagnetic wave, there will be momentum transfer orthogonal to the net moment vector change. Fancy wording, but what it means is this. IF you reflect an electromagnetic wave 180°, or exactly backwards at 100% efficiency (no loss), the reflection will produce a force F which equal to 2E/c. (E = energy, c is speed of light). 1 joule of reflected energy will produce a force of 6.67×10⁻⁹ newton-seconds. (Note that this applies to light itself. Hence why giant reflectors of sunlight in space might make useful force generators someday. The light is “free”)Now, imagine instead that we are reflecting the EMR (electromagnetic radiation) only 90°, at a right angle. The moment change will be the same, but the vector isn't ½(180°) but ½(90°) = 45°. The force will depend on the grazing angle, but just suffice to say that we'd realize something closer to E/c instead of 2E/c. (Again in the solar-sail idea, if one were to fold the solar sail at right angles, and present the corner to the Sun, obviously one side would reflect sunlight away at right angle, and the other side would reflect the other way. The outward force would cancel. But there'd still be a net push. Only ½ that of the reflected backward geometry.)OK, enough EMF theory. The point is clear: reflected EMR generates a force which depends on the angle of reflectance and the power of the EMR being reflected. You might want to re-read that! The principle of the EM-Thruster is that it is a cone of (at this point) constant angle. Looks like about 30° to me or so. Like the rocket-engine, the "high pressure gas" or intense EMR is injected at the small end. Being standing waves in a resonant structure, it bounces around a lot, making its way outward after many reflections. Every time it reflects, it imparts a bit of force against the angled surface of the cone. This results (as the theory goes) in an amplification of imparted momentum-vector change force. The purveyors of the idea go on to theorize that the amplification should depend on the number of times the EMR wave reflects before exit (or diminishment from lossy-ohmic resistance by the copper metal each reflection). This is actually a rather reasonable idea. The trick though is to keep the RF energy entrained in that cone for as many reflections as is possible while also maximizing the cone's 'exhaust angle'. (i.e. make it a loooooong pencil of a cone, and the angle is so small that there would be very little net propulsive force. But you'd get zillions of reflections. Make it quite wide, and you get good force from each reflected wavelet, but they won't hang out in the cone very long. So, not much net force.)ANYTHING that I've heard so far seems to rest upon the above idea. Which is fine, because its solid physics. It even explains why someone got the thought of putting a dielectric back there at the concentrated end, to try to keep the EMR in-tube longer. More reflections. Keeping the energy in-tube. But where the principle goes “crazy” is in supposing that the Q of a EMR reflective cone -and-dielectric-system- can be engineered up to the giga Q level or higher (through superconduction). Obviously, not for an open-ended system. So far (and the images are surprisingly hard to find), I believe that the cone is not open ended, but is capped with a flat reflector. Again, to entrain the EMR in the cone for as many reflections as possible. (and the only way to get Q above about 100 or so for 30° angle cones). So, we must wait and see. Tho' my electromagnetic theory is pretty solid, I really haven't spent significant time analyzing the train-of-physics that is concocted to support the idea that thrust is dependent on power² (which it should not be!), or of EMR frequency² (which it should not be!). Lastly, there is a kind of “esthetic solution” to the problem of the high-output devices violating conservation of energy above W/F (watts of power per newtons of force) m/s (meters per second velocity)… sort of. The first is, when the device accelerates, the reflecting EMR inside the cone is bouncing off surfaces which are also accelerating; though infinitesimal, each reflected wave will lose energy, lowering (widening) its wavelength. Since by its nature, resonant systems have a sharper-and-sharper frequency of resonance as Q increases, the wave-system will no longer be in resonance, and won't optimally reflect endlessly. This is helpful in solving the free-energy-device problem, though not complete. The actual conservation of energy solution comes from noting that in any reflected momentum system, one cannot derive more momentum energy from the energy reflected, than the reflected energy itself. Sounds circular? It is. But it also works. Bounce a fast-moving glass ball bearing back and forth between large glass reflective surfaces, and it will bound perhaps thousands of times (losing near-all of its kinetic energy to sound (tick-tick-tick…) and to heat). Put the reflectors though on perfect bearings (so that they might accelerate). The ball bearing will only now bounce a few dozen times. If one calcultes how much kinetic energy is imparted to the moving reflector wall, its easy to show that no more kinetic energy than what was within the bearing's frame of reference is imparted to the accelerating reflector. In a perfectly coupled system, the energy transfer would be 100%. The ball would come to rest, and the moving reflector would have all its original kinetic energy added to whatever Ek it had to begin with. This then looks (to me) like the same system. The EM-Drive concept is bouncing the EMR around, transforming its electromagnetic energy into kinetic thrust energy, with some limit, which is very probably asymptotic to the input energy. Which would be just fine. Exactly what electric motors do all the time. Transforming electromagnetic energy to kinetic energy. The trick is to find a way to "do this" and also limit the transfer of kinetic energy to that imposed by the basic rocket equation. (Which limits imparted kinetic energy in the vehicle to 1/2 the kinetic energy of the exhaust, integrated over the flight of the vessel.)GoatGuy
So if it's the standing wave inside the resonant cavity which is losing energy, then how is that energy being converted into momentum? If the standing wave is pushing on the cavity in a net direction, then how is that standing wave creating an asymmetric radiation pressure inside the cavity? How does the asymmetric shape of the cavity result in asymmetric radiation pressure? Shouldn't radiation pressure inside a cavity always be symmetric?
Now, take the analogy back to the EM-thruster regime. And a very brief review of electromagnetic principles. The first is, that when one reflects an electromagnetic wave, there will be momentum transfer orthogonal to the net moment vector change. Fancy wording, but what it means is this. IF you reflect an electromagnetic wave 180°, or exactly backwards at 100% efficiency (no loss), the reflection will produce a force F which equal to 2E/c. (E = energy, c is speed of light). 1 joule of reflected energy will produce a force of 6.67×10⁻⁹ newton-seconds.