[snip..] the talk about conservation of energy got entangled in relativity, and the reason confuses me. Could we agree to discuss scenarios where v<<c so gamma is close to 1? This way we can use classical mechanics and not get needlessly bogged down on einstenian paradoxes while imultaneously recognizing that al inertial reference frames should be equivalent. Not that you need relativity for that, since equivalence under Galilean transformations has been part of classical mechanics for a very long time.
The transmitter at Arecibo is 1 megawatt at 2.3 GHz CW.It was built by Continential Electronics out of Texas, I'm sure if you have the money, they will make whatever you want.
The Arecibo Radio Telescope has three radar transmitters, with effective isotropic radiated powers of 20 TW at 2380 MHz, 2.5 TW (pulse peak) at 430 MHz, and 300 MW at 47 MHz.
Quote from: Tron on 07/15/2015 09:22 pm[snip..] the talk about conservation of energy got entangled in relativity, and the reason confuses me. Could we agree to discuss scenarios where v<<c so gamma is close to 1? This way we can use classical mechanics and not get needlessly bogged down on einstenian paradoxes while imultaneously recognizing that al inertial reference frames should be equivalent. Not that you need relativity for that, since equivalence under Galilean transformations has been part of classical mechanics for a very long time.You can thank @WarpTech for that. He continually obfuscates what is clearly a problem in strictly classical mechanics with his gammas, gravity references, black holes, rest energies and metric tensor components. I for one am sick of it.
Quote from: ElizabethGreene on 07/15/2015 06:00 pmThe largest microwave sources I found were Gyrotrons. ...Along gyrotrons, the most powerful manmade source of microwaves are klystrons. SLAC uses 150 megawatts (pulsed) S-band (3GHz) klystrons and 1.25 MW CW klystrons!
The largest microwave sources I found were Gyrotrons. ...
But we don't wand to ignite the plasma of a tokamak or power a particle accelerator, and we're not quite yet feeding lift engines of a mothership.
How to help scientists gather data and study the EMDrive, even if you are an absolute novice.If you are excited about the EMDrive and wants to contribute to its research, but don't know how, this is a step-by-step guide that if performed correctly by anyone out there interested in helping would provide valuable information for the scientists to study and better understand the EMDrive behavior.1. Install MEEP http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep (preferably from your package manager)2. Download https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1042821 and rename it to NSF-1701.ctl3. meep NSF-1701.ctl4. Eventually, MEEP will output nine .h5 files. It may take a long time depending on your computer. Patience is a virtue.5. h5totxt -t 13 -0 -y -0 ex.h5 > zCopper-exy.csv6. Open your zCopper-exy.csv on a spread sheet and aero's zCopper-exy.csv on another. Open a third spread sheet that is one spread sheet minus the other, entry by entry. Check that highest entry (in absolute value). If it's negligible you are good to go. If it's a value too big, greater than 10^-6, your MEEP installation isn't in sync with ours, so it's no use.7. Now you are good to go. Make a new directory to start the tests. Copy NSF-1701.ctl there.8. Open NSF-1701.ctl in a text editor and change a single value. For example, (set! high 10.2) means the model is 10.2 inches high. Change the 10.2 to another value and save NSF-1701.ctl with this single change. This is called sensitivity analysis. One value at a time. (set! high 10.2) was just an example, change any value of interest9. meep NSF-1701.ctl10. h5totxt -t 13 -0 -y -0 ex.h5 > zCopper-exy.csv11. Compare your new zCopper-exy.csv with your old one. See if there was any relevant change (do the spreadsheet comparison again). If there was no considerable change in values, it means the modification made doesn't impact the behavior of the EMDrive. This is an important information for scientists, so let us know. Otherwise, if there was a significant change, let us know if it was positive or negative and its intensity. If you don't know how, just upload the .h5 files somewhere and we will analyze it.
Quote from: aero on 07/14/2015 04:11 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/14/2015 01:06 pmCongrats New Horizons team, very impressed...the best media question I heard was "when are we going back?" The answer was interesting, there are designs being worked on. IMHO, the key for planetary science and space exploration success is becoming clear. It is not more sensitive instrumentation, it is not lower cost hardware...it is faster propulsion. This is your challenge scientific community...to shrink the fabric of space and time with modern propulsion research. To the propulsion industry...think outside the box. Your equations have shown us that propellants will never get us to where we want to go...faster and farther. Perhaps in this forum, one of us may help show you the way.In case you are wondering, Space is big. Here is a "to scale" map of the solar system with the moon diameter as the scale length of one pixel. http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html No wonder it takes so much time to get anywhere.Yep, which it never ceases to amaze me that we are trying to illuminate the solar system with a match. Goddard and Von Braun had their day, time to take the next step. Sounds crazy, but if I were a billionaire that really wanted to leave a scientific legacy, here's what I would do:Offer a $250M prize to a winner of a race. The race would be:From LEO to 2AU...shortest time to get there wins.Let them use gravity assist, chemical propellants, ion engines, floobie dust (hat-tip deltamass), its a simple time and speed calculation. Limit total mass to lets say a few hundred kg just to make it interesting.Once qualified, Mr Billionaire pays for standardized ride to LEO and a standardized telemetry pack to be built in. Time begins at release. Releases can be sequential. Window of release: 2 years.Now, there's something outside the box for all those X prize types out there. Call it the Galactic 500 (only because I'm from Indy).
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/14/2015 01:06 pmCongrats New Horizons team, very impressed...the best media question I heard was "when are we going back?" The answer was interesting, there are designs being worked on. IMHO, the key for planetary science and space exploration success is becoming clear. It is not more sensitive instrumentation, it is not lower cost hardware...it is faster propulsion. This is your challenge scientific community...to shrink the fabric of space and time with modern propulsion research. To the propulsion industry...think outside the box. Your equations have shown us that propellants will never get us to where we want to go...faster and farther. Perhaps in this forum, one of us may help show you the way.In case you are wondering, Space is big. Here is a "to scale" map of the solar system with the moon diameter as the scale length of one pixel. http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html No wonder it takes so much time to get anywhere.
Congrats New Horizons team, very impressed...the best media question I heard was "when are we going back?" The answer was interesting, there are designs being worked on. IMHO, the key for planetary science and space exploration success is becoming clear. It is not more sensitive instrumentation, it is not lower cost hardware...it is faster propulsion. This is your challenge scientific community...to shrink the fabric of space and time with modern propulsion research. To the propulsion industry...think outside the box. Your equations have shown us that propellants will never get us to where we want to go...faster and farther. Perhaps in this forum, one of us may help show you the way.
Sorry for interrupting, but there are a couple things that puzzle me. I don't think I'll post much or at all after this, since the thread is so active and I don't have the energy to keep up with it continuously.First, I don't quite understand the discussion about how wave behave in a waveguide, when we're not dealing with waveguides; the frustrum is a not (just) that but a resonant chamber. This means the radiation inside should form standing waves, with their nodes where the field is always zero, and whatnot, am I correct? I've been looking at several sources, but they confirm that, if we have a standing wave the phase velocity is zero and group velocity is infinite. I can't tell who's right, but either the resonant chamber should not move at all, or resonant chambers should all explode the instant you put some energy in them, depending on who's right.Second, the talk about conservation of energy got entangled in relativity, and the reason confuses me. Could we agree to discuss scenarios where v<<c so gamma is close to 1? This way we can use classical mechanics and not get needlessly bogged down on einstenian paradoxes while imultaneously recognizing that al inertial reference frames should be equivalent. Not that you need relativity for that, since equivalence under Galilean transformations has been part of classical mechanics for a very long time.
Length of Dipole Antenna modeled: 0.058 mWe can calculate the free-space wavelength as: λ = c / frequency Taking the frequency to be 2.45 GHz (as per @rfmwguy's model) then λ = c / frequency = 0.122364 mTherefore the ratio of the dipole antenna length L to the wavelength λ is: L / λ = 0.058 m/0.122364 m = 0.4740
Quote from: ElizabethGreene on 07/15/2015 06:18 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 07/15/2015 06:04 pm So forget about Phase Velocity when dealing with EM waves inside a waveguide.I've yet to find any use for the Phase Velocity. I had a brief thought that obscene >> c values might cause some issues due to charges or magnetic fields being unable to rearrange fast enough in the material, but I intuit that should cause localized heating, not thrust.Phase Velocity, inside a waveguide, is above c and is imaginary.http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/waveguide-mathematics#velocityAny reference or belief that anything inside a waveguide travels at Phase Velocity (greater than c) is just plain wrong and a failure to understand basic microwave waveguide engineering and physics.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/15/2015 06:04 pm So forget about Phase Velocity when dealing with EM waves inside a waveguide.I've yet to find any use for the Phase Velocity. I had a brief thought that obscene >> c values might cause some issues due to charges or magnetic fields being unable to rearrange fast enough in the material, but I intuit that should cause localized heating, not thrust.
So forget about Phase Velocity when dealing with EM waves inside a waveguide.
However, after yesterdays misunderstanding, revelation and embarrassment. I am still trying to put all the pieces back together in a comprehendible way.
...There is an imbalance in the cosmos which classical physics has failed to resolve. Gravity and its antithesis; a counterbalance to the only known force without a repulsive state. While I surmise em radiation has a counterbalance for CoE and may not directly produce thrust, gravity has zero, zip, nada CoE. This leaves us an opening to explore. Definition of this force is still in the "duh" phase. While I think no new physics are needed to resolve it, it remains unresolved because an old master failed to grasp it. So try this one for size; gravity is weak and extends to a cosmic scale. For every instance of gravity, a weak cosmic force equal to it is created. Failure to accept this theory leads to the opposite of what the universe is doing right now. So DM, time to define this force...perhaps its the only real explanation for what people are reporting. c'mon dm, you can do it! I'll even get you startedg = GM/r2Write its equivalent opposite equation. Forget that 5th force thinghttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_force(Crickets)x = r2/GMx is worth thinking about
Quote from: leomillert on 07/15/2015 02:55 pmHow to help scientists gather data and study the EMDrive, even if you are an absolute novice.If you are excited about the EMDrive and wants to contribute to its research, but don't know how, this is a step-by-step guide that if performed correctly by anyone out there interested in helping would provide valuable information for the scientists to study and better understand the EMDrive behavior.1. Install MEEP http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep (preferably from your package manager)2. Download https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1042821 and rename it to NSF-1701.ctl3. meep NSF-1701.ctl4. Eventually, MEEP will output nine .h5 files. It may take a long time depending on your computer. Patience is a virtue.5. h5totxt -t 13 -0 -y -0 ex.h5 > zCopper-exy.csv6. Open your zCopper-exy.csv on a spread sheet and aero's zCopper-exy.csv on another. Open a third spread sheet that is one spread sheet minus the other, entry by entry. Check that highest entry (in absolute value). If it's negligible you are good to go. If it's a value too big, greater than 10^-6, your MEEP installation isn't in sync with ours, so it's no use.7. Now you are good to go. Make a new directory to start the tests. Copy NSF-1701.ctl there.8. Open NSF-1701.ctl in a text editor and change a single value. For example, (set! high 10.2) means the model is 10.2 inches high. Change the 10.2 to another value and save NSF-1701.ctl with this single change. This is called sensitivity analysis. One value at a time. (set! high 10.2) was just an example, change any value of interest9. meep NSF-1701.ctl10. h5totxt -t 13 -0 -y -0 ex.h5 > zCopper-exy.csv11. Compare your new zCopper-exy.csv with your old one. See if there was any relevant change (do the spreadsheet comparison again). If there was no considerable change in values, it means the modification made doesn't impact the behavior of the EMDrive. This is an important information for scientists, so let us know. Otherwise, if there was a significant change, let us know if it was positive or negative and its intensity. If you don't know how, just upload the .h5 files somewhere and we will analyze it.FYI, I've begun down this path. Gave up trying to get RPM packages with all the right versions to work together, and installed Debian 8. Am running on a dual quad-core Xeon in VMware, allocated 2 processors x 2 cores each, but I see it's only really using 1 cpu (which is maxed out, purely user space cpu time as expected). 6GB memory allocated, but it's only using a shade more than 3GB for the meep process. Have not investigated the MPI alternatives, as I think those are more intended for clusters than symmetric multiprocessors.It's presently up to step 1339 of its first run through NSF-1701.ctl. Has about 57 min of cputime so far. 3 *.h5 files produced so far.I'll work my way through your steps above and report results when I have them.
* In my idea book I have a sketch of a unique nuclear reactor. It uses an accelerator to fire high energy electrons into a Tungsten target that fires high energy protons into Thorium and Beryllium fuel rods. Be + 1.5 MeV photon = 1 neutron + 2 4He... 4Be + n = 2 4 2He + 2n ... 4Be + 4 2He = 12 6C + n ... Thorium + n = U233. U233 Fission = Power for the mothership.This is the only nuclear reactor I know of that a.) can be bought/built by Greene on the street and b.) you can turn on, i.e. make hot, once you are in orbit and safely out of the purview of NEST, the IAEA, etc. Until you set it off the components are safe**.** Ok, you aren't going to put Beryllium in your kids crayons, but it's still "safe" compared to your average nuclear reactor fuel rod.*** I don't know if this works from a neutron economy POV, It's just another idea in the book until I do that research. The EmDrive comes first.
Quote from: Eer on 07/15/2015 11:38 pmQuote from: leomillert on 07/15/2015 02:55 pmHow to help scientists gather data and study the EMDrive, even if you are an absolute novice.If you are excited about the EMDrive and wants to contribute to its research, but don't know how, this is a step-by-step guide that if performed correctly by anyone out there interested in helping would provide valuable information for the scientists to study and better understand the EMDrive behavior.1. Install MEEP http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep (preferably from your package manager)2. Download https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1042821 and rename it to NSF-1701.ctl3. meep NSF-1701.ctl4. Eventually, MEEP will output nine .h5 files. It may take a long time depending on your computer. Patience is a virtue.5. h5totxt -t 13 -0 -y -0 ex.h5 > zCopper-exy.csv6. Open your zCopper-exy.csv on a spread sheet and aero's zCopper-exy.csv on another. Open a third spread sheet that is one spread sheet minus the other, entry by entry. Check that highest entry (in absolute value). If it's negligible you are good to go. If it's a value too big, greater than 10^-6, your MEEP installation isn't in sync with ours, so it's no use....FYI, I've begun down this path. Gave up trying to get RPM packages with all the right versions to work together, and installed Debian 8. Am running on a dual quad-core Xeon in VMware, allocated 2 processors x 2 cores each, but I see it's only really using 1 cpu (which is maxed out, purely user space cpu time as expected). 6GB memory allocated, but it's only using a shade more than 3GB for the meep process. Have not investigated the MPI alternatives, as I think those are more intended for clusters than symmetric multiprocessors.It's presently up to step 1339 of its first run through NSF-1701.ctl. Has about 57 min of cputime so far. 3 *.h5 files produced so far.I'll work my way through your steps above and report results when I have them.You need MPI in order to make use of more than one core. You seem to be running serially on one cpu and it is taking a long time. Allocating 2 processors is quite adequate for the NSF-1701 problem, it is not so large as to benefit from more than 2 processors, (a little benefit, but very little). But without MPI, meep can't work with the second processor. I run that problem, all 6527 timesteps, in 1 hr. 33.9 minutes (5635.3 seconds) on my AMD Phenom quad core. (2.9 GHz). Xeon in VMware - Your Xeon is very likely a better processor than mine, and as I understand it, the virtual box imposes surprisingly little overhead for this problem. I urge you to take the step of installing Open MPI or MPICH, MIT's version of MPI. You will be rewarded by significantly better run time. It won't cut the run time in half, but it will reduce it a lot.
Quote from: leomillert on 07/15/2015 02:55 pmHow to help scientists gather data and study the EMDrive, even if you are an absolute novice.If you are excited about the EMDrive and wants to contribute to its research, but don't know how, this is a step-by-step guide that if performed correctly by anyone out there interested in helping would provide valuable information for the scientists to study and better understand the EMDrive behavior.1. Install MEEP http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep (preferably from your package manager)2. Download https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1042821 and rename it to NSF-1701.ctl3. meep NSF-1701.ctl4. Eventually, MEEP will output nine .h5 files. It may take a long time depending on your computer. Patience is a virtue.5. h5totxt -t 13 -0 -y -0 ex.h5 > zCopper-exy.csv6. Open your zCopper-exy.csv on a spread sheet and aero's zCopper-exy.csv on another. Open a third spread sheet that is one spread sheet minus the other, entry by entry. Check that highest entry (in absolute value). If it's negligible you are good to go. If it's a value too big, greater than 10^-6, your MEEP installation isn't in sync with ours, so it's no use....FYI, I've begun down this path. Gave up trying to get RPM packages with all the right versions to work together, and installed Debian 8. Am running on a dual quad-core Xeon in VMware, allocated 2 processors x 2 cores each, but I see it's only really using 1 cpu (which is maxed out, purely user space cpu time as expected). 6GB memory allocated, but it's only using a shade more than 3GB for the meep process. Have not investigated the MPI alternatives, as I think those are more intended for clusters than symmetric multiprocessors.It's presently up to step 1339 of its first run through NSF-1701.ctl. Has about 57 min of cputime so far. 3 *.h5 files produced so far.I'll work my way through your steps above and report results when I have them.
How to help scientists gather data and study the EMDrive, even if you are an absolute novice.If you are excited about the EMDrive and wants to contribute to its research, but don't know how, this is a step-by-step guide that if performed correctly by anyone out there interested in helping would provide valuable information for the scientists to study and better understand the EMDrive behavior.1. Install MEEP http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep (preferably from your package manager)2. Download https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1042821 and rename it to NSF-1701.ctl3. meep NSF-1701.ctl4. Eventually, MEEP will output nine .h5 files. It may take a long time depending on your computer. Patience is a virtue.5. h5totxt -t 13 -0 -y -0 ex.h5 > zCopper-exy.csv6. Open your zCopper-exy.csv on a spread sheet and aero's zCopper-exy.csv on another. Open a third spread sheet that is one spread sheet minus the other, entry by entry. Check that highest entry (in absolute value). If it's negligible you are good to go. If it's a value too big, greater than 10^-6, your MEEP installation isn't in sync with ours, so it's no use....
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/15/2015 11:27 pm...There is an imbalance in the cosmos which classical physics has failed to resolve. Gravity and its antithesis; a counterbalance to the only known force without a repulsive state. While I surmise em radiation has a counterbalance for CoE and may not directly produce thrust, gravity has zero, zip, nada CoE. This leaves us an opening to explore. Definition of this force is still in the "duh" phase. While I think no new physics are needed to resolve it, it remains unresolved because an old master failed to grasp it. So try this one for size; gravity is weak and extends to a cosmic scale. For every instance of gravity, a weak cosmic force equal to it is created. Failure to accept this theory leads to the opposite of what the universe is doing right now. So DM, time to define this force...perhaps its the only real explanation for what people are reporting. c'mon dm, you can do it! I'll even get you startedg = GM/r2Write its equivalent opposite equation. Forget that 5th force thinghttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_force(Crickets)x = r2/GMx is worth thinking about The "balance" or symmetry of gravity is that for any quantum harmonic oscillator in it's ground state, the power radiated by the oscillator TO the ZPF is equal to the power absorbed by the oscillator FROM the ZPF.Gravity depends on gradient in the available power of the ZPF. Particles "contract" as they fall toward the CM and into a gravity well. They also "inflate" or expand when they move away from the CM. So gravity is a lack of available power in the ZPF, and its opposite would be an increase in available power of the ZPF. Like inflating a balloon with ZPF energy. This is "exotic matter", the opposite of gravity.Todd
Its the missing link of GUT...giving away some working theories of mine, if thrust appears, I predict it will differ towards and away from a gravitational source. Interested? Hope so...its a hot potato subject you know.