...I tried to define what I meant by solenoidal: circulating around the axis of the frustum The Maxwell Field has 4 potentials, A^u=(phi, A), u = 0,1,2,3, "A" is parallel to the axis of the frustum. I understand solenoidal refers to any vector field that does not have divergence, but I was trying to describe the field wrapping around the axis, not a torroidal "B" field wrapping around the minor circumference. In QFT, the best example is a superconductor, where "phi" simply represents the scalar phase of the field.I understand oscillating from TE to TM, I'm just thinking out loud and you're correct it applies in both modes. A^u exists on both sides of the conductors, regardless of the mode. Todd
Quote from: Mulletron on 06/04/2015 03:19 amA perfectly reasonable argument for calling it an open system is to acknowledge that vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field are common to both inside and outside the cavity. They are everywhere.Agreed. In addition I can think of a few other ways that the system could be open and I'm sure there are others. I was putting this list together on my walk yesterday morning1. Earth's, Sun's, Galaxy's electromagnetic field,2. Earth's, Sun's, Galaxy's gravitational field,3. Unruh radiation,4. Neutrinos, (doubtful)5. Higgs Fields,6. Quantum Vacuum,7. 3 + Nth spatial dimension,8. 3 + Nth spatial dimension + Plank Brane,9. Quantum Tunneling (though this is unlikely due to thickness of the copper)10. Others?I would like to add to, and cross off of, this list
A perfectly reasonable argument for calling it an open system is to acknowledge that vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field are common to both inside and outside the cavity. They are everywhere.
The choice here is either not to include the experiments by Iulian (if you think that his tests self-nullify each other, and therefore you think that you cannot put any numbers in the common format) or, if to include them, to put a number for the experiments. @aero wrote, that Iulian's experiments should remain in the table. In that case, if you think that the quoted numbers from deltaMass are incorrect and misrepresent the true tests, what numbers for Iulian tests would you suggest to put in the table under the agreed format?
Quote from: X_RaY on 06/03/2015 09:31 pmQuote from: phaseshift on 06/03/2015 09:12 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 06/03/2015 09:08 pmQuote from: Rodal on 06/03/2015 08:53 pmQuote from: sneekmatrix on 06/03/2015 08:43 pmWouldn't the tunnelling effect also be constrained by conservation of momentum and therefore apply at both ends of the frustrum?You have to look at the energy density regarding radiation pressure, and don't ignore the lateral conical walls.Then perform a quantum tunneling analysis. Momentum will be favored to one side if there is a gradient of emission.correct andThe tunneling effect acts instantaneous. At the moment a photon is tunneling it impulse acts, that's like its reflected in a wall <z (lower qua the real length of the cavity). There has to be a blue shift of the signal means higher frequency like calculated r and z dependent.Are you sure that's a net blue shift? The frustum has to gain momentum which means the photon loses energy and red shifts. Is the blue shift something that photon's do when they tunnel?Yes, if there is a potential barrier (cutoff frequency, diameter )most of the photons would be reflected (may be at the sidewall may be at the energy barrier) but some photons able to tunneling that barrier in just zero time, i think than the cavity acts like shorter than it is.The small end looks like it is narrow to the small end. Its more a intuitiv thing, i have the luck to work with conical cavities for special applications. Got network analyser, Spectrum Analyzer, circulator, load, tapered cavities all available and i am able to build conical cavities like a want but in K-Band area I'm just wondering.. if tunneling happens instantaneously (in the literal sense), then there is no time to measure anything - it happens without any dt . Hence, I don't think it can be said that photons increase or decrease frequency during the transition through the barrier.. if there is null time passing, then logically no measurements can take place, from which we can derive a claim about how frequencies of photons might change during a null time transition.
Quote from: phaseshift on 06/03/2015 09:12 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 06/03/2015 09:08 pmQuote from: Rodal on 06/03/2015 08:53 pmQuote from: sneekmatrix on 06/03/2015 08:43 pmWouldn't the tunnelling effect also be constrained by conservation of momentum and therefore apply at both ends of the frustrum?You have to look at the energy density regarding radiation pressure, and don't ignore the lateral conical walls.Then perform a quantum tunneling analysis. Momentum will be favored to one side if there is a gradient of emission.correct andThe tunneling effect acts instantaneous. At the moment a photon is tunneling it impulse acts, that's like its reflected in a wall <z (lower qua the real length of the cavity). There has to be a blue shift of the signal means higher frequency like calculated r and z dependent.Are you sure that's a net blue shift? The frustum has to gain momentum which means the photon loses energy and red shifts. Is the blue shift something that photon's do when they tunnel?Yes, if there is a potential barrier (cutoff frequency, diameter )most of the photons would be reflected (may be at the sidewall may be at the energy barrier) but some photons able to tunneling that barrier in just zero time, i think than the cavity acts like shorter than it is.The small end looks like it is narrow to the small end. Its more a intuitiv thing, i have the luck to work with conical cavities for special applications. Got network analyser, Spectrum Analyzer, circulator, load, tapered cavities all available and i am able to build conical cavities like a want but in K-Band area
Quote from: X_RaY on 06/03/2015 09:08 pmQuote from: Rodal on 06/03/2015 08:53 pmQuote from: sneekmatrix on 06/03/2015 08:43 pmWouldn't the tunnelling effect also be constrained by conservation of momentum and therefore apply at both ends of the frustrum?You have to look at the energy density regarding radiation pressure, and don't ignore the lateral conical walls.Then perform a quantum tunneling analysis. Momentum will be favored to one side if there is a gradient of emission.correct andThe tunneling effect acts instantaneous. At the moment a photon is tunneling it impulse acts, that's like its reflected in a wall <z (lower qua the real length of the cavity). There has to be a blue shift of the signal means higher frequency like calculated r and z dependent.Are you sure that's a net blue shift? The frustum has to gain momentum which means the photon loses energy and red shifts. Is the blue shift something that photon's do when they tunnel?
Quote from: Rodal on 06/03/2015 08:53 pmQuote from: sneekmatrix on 06/03/2015 08:43 pmWouldn't the tunnelling effect also be constrained by conservation of momentum and therefore apply at both ends of the frustrum?You have to look at the energy density regarding radiation pressure, and don't ignore the lateral conical walls.Then perform a quantum tunneling analysis. Momentum will be favored to one side if there is a gradient of emission.correct andThe tunneling effect acts instantaneous. At the moment a photon is tunneling it impulse acts, that's like its reflected in a wall <z (lower qua the real length of the cavity). There has to be a blue shift of the signal means higher frequency like calculated r and z dependent.
Quote from: sneekmatrix on 06/03/2015 08:43 pmWouldn't the tunnelling effect also be constrained by conservation of momentum and therefore apply at both ends of the frustrum?You have to look at the energy density regarding radiation pressure, and don't ignore the lateral conical walls.Then perform a quantum tunneling analysis. Momentum will be favored to one side if there is a gradient of emission.
Wouldn't the tunnelling effect also be constrained by conservation of momentum and therefore apply at both ends of the frustrum?
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 06/04/2015 03:07 pmWhat about:Material ablation/ejectionThermal convection outside of the cavity from heated wallsThe force of the spring on Iulian's torque armAccumulating errors in the digital scale from rf exposureThermal buckling causing a shift in the COMForces between wires connected to the frustum and wires that are notetc. I would like to see a comprehensive enumeration of every experimental artifact that should be compensated/accounted for and get it on the wiki or some place that the experimenters have immediate access to.
What about:Material ablation/ejectionThermal convection outside of the cavity from heated wallsThe force of the spring on Iulian's torque armAccumulating errors in the digital scale from rf exposureThermal buckling causing a shift in the COMForces between wires connected to the frustum and wires that are notetc.
...My concern is a lot of noise in the data table. Iulian's first experiment, while important for him to do, probably isn't a data point that adds to our collective knowledge. It seems to me that there is a threshold above which the experiment needs to be in order for its data to be added. Having the null tests and failed tests listed on the wiki is also important.
Thanks for the explanation.My understanding is that A--Bohm effect takes place when the wave function of a charged particle passing around a long solenoid experiences a phase shift as a result of the enclosed magnetic field, despite the magnetic field being negligible in the region through which the particle passes and the particle's wavefunction being negligible inside the solenoid.What charged particles would be involved here in this effect ?or you are just thinking aloud how the EM Drive system can be inherently open, and you think that charged particles are not necessary. If so, then what is it open in relationship to ?(This brings to mind again Prof. Yang inviting the reader to think about charged particles in reference to the EM Drive)
Quote from: phaseshift on 06/04/2015 04:38 pm...My concern is a lot of noise in the data table. Iulian's first experiment, while important for him to do, probably isn't a data point that adds to our collective knowledge. It seems to me that there is a threshold above which the experiment needs to be in order for its data to be added. Having the null tests and failed tests listed on the wiki is also important.Well, if anyone doesn't like to take Iulian's data (or any other data in the spreadsheet) into account they are free to do so. At this point none of the experimental data in the table has been scientifically validated by replication at various other scientific institutions.Until that happens, if anyone wants to draw differences, there is one test that stands far above the others: NASA's test in vacuum.After more than 100 years of experimenters reporting radiation pressure measurements problems with tests run in ambient conditions, I don't see how anyone could consider the tests in ambient conditions to be on an equal footing with NASA's tests in vacuum. Particularly when the researchers conducting tests in ambient conditions have not used a wired mesh as done by the first researcher to successfully measure radiation pressure in microwave waveguides (Cullen in 1951).
Quote from: phaseshift on 06/04/2015 04:38 pm...My concern is a lot of noise in the data table. Iulian's first experiment, while important for him to do, probably isn't a data point that adds to our collective knowledge. It seems to me that there is a threshold above which the experiment needs to be in order for its data to be added. Having the null tests and failed tests listed on the wiki is also important.Well, if anyone doesn't like to take Iulian's data (or any other data in the spreadsheet) into account they are free to do so. At this point none of the experimental data in the table has been scientifically validated by replication at various other scientific institutions.Until that happens, if anyone wants to draw differences, there is one test that stands far above the others: NASA's test in vacuum.After more than 100 years of experimenters reporting radiation pressure measurements problems with tests run in ambient conditions, I don't see how anyone could consider the tests in ambient conditions to be on an equal footing with NASA's tests in vacuum. Particularly when the researchers conducting tests in ambient conditions have not used a wired mesh for the end plates as done by the first researcher to successfully measure radiation pressure in microwave waveguides (Cullen in 1951). So much for a list of issues, when the main known issue ("gas effect") is not addressed, either by testing in vacuum or by using a wire mesh.
Quote from: Rodal on 06/04/2015 04:56 pmQuote from: phaseshift on 06/04/2015 04:38 pm...My concern is a lot of noise in the data table. Iulian's first experiment, while important for him to do, probably isn't a data point that adds to our collective knowledge. It seems to me that there is a threshold above which the experiment needs to be in order for its data to be added. Having the null tests and failed tests listed on the wiki is also important.Well, if anyone doesn't like to take Iulian's data (or any other data in the spreadsheet) into account they are free to do so. At this point none of the experimental data in the table has been scientifically validated by replication at various other scientific institutions.Until that happens, if anyone wants to draw differences, there is one test that stands far above the others: NASA's test in vacuum.After more than 100 years of experimenters reporting radiation pressure measurements problems with tests run in ambient conditions, I don't see how anyone could consider the tests in ambient conditions to be on an equal footing with NASA's tests in vacuum. Particularly when the researchers conducting tests in ambient conditions have not used a wired mesh as done by the first researcher to successfully measure radiation pressure in microwave waveguides (Cullen in 1951).Absolutely agree. When that page has 100+ experimental results maybe then it will become clearer how to proceed.
Quote from: phaseshift on 06/04/2015 05:01 pmQuote from: Rodal on 06/04/2015 04:56 pmQuote from: phaseshift on 06/04/2015 04:38 pm...My concern is a lot of noise in the data table. Iulian's first experiment, while important for him to do, probably isn't a data point that adds to our collective knowledge. It seems to me that there is a threshold above which the experiment needs to be in order for its data to be added. Having the null tests and failed tests listed on the wiki is also important.Well, if anyone doesn't like to take Iulian's data (or any other data in the spreadsheet) into account they are free to do so. At this point none of the experimental data in the table has been scientifically validated by replication at various other scientific institutions.Until that happens, if anyone wants to draw differences, there is one test that stands far above the others: NASA's test in vacuum.After more than 100 years of experimenters reporting radiation pressure measurements problems with tests run in ambient conditions, I don't see how anyone could consider the tests in ambient conditions to be on an equal footing with NASA's tests in vacuum. Particularly when the researchers conducting tests in ambient conditions have not used a wired mesh as done by the first researcher to successfully measure radiation pressure in microwave waveguides (Cullen in 1951).Absolutely agree. When that page has 100+ experimental results maybe then it will become clearer how to proceed.I don't particularly agree with the focus and wording (I see the word "amateur" is present in the wiki) for Iulian Berca's experiment, when the same degree of stringent rigor is not dedicated to the tests reported by a private company in the UK and a University in China for their tests in ambient conditions.The one test in vacuum (NASA) only shows ~300 times the Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket. If you take into account the measurement with the EM Drive rotated by 180 degrees, then the measurement is ~100 times the Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket.The measurements giving 72,830 times the Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket were conducted in ambient conditions by a private company, and nothing much more has been disclosed about their experimental conditions.Iulian Berca at least provided all the dimensions of his experimental EM Drive, while the private company in question has not provided all the dimensions of the EM Drive being featured in the spreadsheet. We were reduced at guessing the dimensions by looking at photographs ? And none of the experiments by Prof. Yang are in the spreadsheet because so little has been disclosed about her experiments.So, is the focus and wording on Berca fair, taking into account that we cannot even put Yang's experimental results in the spreadsheet and that the UK private company has not even released the cavity dimensions and other vital data ?
Iulian Berca at least provided all the dimensions of his experimental EM Drive, while the private company in question has not provided all the dimensions of the EM Drive being featured in the spreadsheet. We were reduced at guessing the dimensions by looking at photographs ?
Quote from: phaseshift on 06/04/2015 05:01 pmQuote from: Rodal on 06/04/2015 04:56 pmQuote from: phaseshift on 06/04/2015 04:38 pm...My concern is a lot of noise in the data table. Iulian's first experiment, while important for him to do, probably isn't a data point that adds to our collective knowledge. It seems to me that there is a threshold above which the experiment needs to be in order for its data to be added. Having the null tests and failed tests listed on the wiki is also important.Well, if anyone doesn't like to take Iulian's data (or any other data in the spreadsheet) into account they are free to do so. At this point none of the experimental data in the table has been scientifically validated by replication at various other scientific institutions.Until that happens, if anyone wants to draw differences, there is one test that stands far above the others: NASA's test in vacuum.After more than 100 years of experimenters reporting radiation pressure measurements problems with tests run in ambient conditions, I don't see how anyone could consider the tests in ambient conditions to be on an equal footing with NASA's tests in vacuum. Particularly when the researchers conducting tests in ambient conditions have not used a wired mesh as done by the first researcher to successfully measure radiation pressure in microwave waveguides (Cullen in 1951).Absolutely agree. When that page has 100+ experimental results maybe then it will become clearer how to proceed.I don't particularly agree with the focus and wording (I see the word "amateur" is present in the wiki) for Iulian Berca's experiment, when the same degree of attention is not focused on the tests reported by a private company in the UK and a University in China for their tests in ambient conditions.The one test in vacuum (NASA) only shows ~300 times the Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket. If you take into account the measurement with the EM Drive rotated by 180 degrees, then the measurement is ~100 times the Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket.The measurements giving 72,830 times the Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket were conducted in ambient conditions by a private company, and nothing much more has been disclosed about their experimental conditions.Iulian Berca at least provided all the dimensions of his experimental EM Drive, while the private company in question has not provided all the dimensions of the EM Drive being featured in the spreadsheet. We were reduced at guessing the dimensions by looking at photographs ? And none of the experiments by Prof. Yang are in the spreadsheet because so little has been disclosed about her experiments.So, is the focus and wording on Berca fair, taking into account that we cannot even put Yang's experimental results in the spreadsheet and that the UK private company has not even released the cavity dimensions and other vital data ?
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 06/04/2015 03:07 pmWhat about:Material ablation/ejectionThermal convection outside of the cavity from heated wallsThe force of the spring on Iulian's torque armAccumulating errors in the digital scale from rf exposureThermal buckling causing a shift in the COMForces between wires connected to the frustum and wires that are notetc. I would like to see a comprehensive enumeration of every experimental artifact that should be compensated/accounted for and get it on the wiki or some place that the experimenters have immediate access to.The emdrive wiki has a rudimentary list - can we work to flesh it out?
Specific Setup Issues1) Spring Force (Iulian)2) Cooling Fans (Shawyer dynamic rig, Iulian(?))3) Interaction with permanent magnets (Upcoming Hackday text, Brady et al.(?))
2) Electrostatic induction - charge buildup on certain sections of the frustum leads to charge induction with local matter, both conductors and insulators.Much better stated than my "Electrostatics"...if this is a possibility, it has to be matter "outside" the DUT, conductive or nonconductive...for CoM. At first I suspected Earth's local + or - charge, but the reported horizontal "thrust" measurements kicked that out the window.Reminds me of a day in a meteorological lecture years ago where I commented "Cloud to ground lightning doesn't concern me, its the ground to human lightning that really freaks me out...." The professor was NOT amused