Please notice that the first worldwide replication test by a "Do it yourself", by Iulian Berca (in Romania), had a measured thrust force that when calculated as an average of runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely "gas effect", as per @deltaMass calculated net thrust of 0.29gf effective thrust, which is 2.84mN, according to the EM Drive wiki page: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results...
Quote from: Rodal on 06/03/2015 05:58 pmPlease notice that the first worldwide replication test by a "Do it yourself", by Iulian Berca (in Romania), had a measured thrust force that when calculated as an average of runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely "gas effect", as per @deltaMass calculated net thrust of 0.29gf effective thrust, which is 2.84mN, according to the EM Drive wiki page: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results...That is an overly optimistic analysis of Iulian's experiment. He did 3 tests. The first, which attempted to observe a horizontal deflection, was null. Test 3.0 (are there other tests that haven't been reported? That sounds familiar) attempted to measure an upward force on the cavity. His one measurement from that experiment was 0.508 gram force. If that force was entirely from the RF energy and not from air heating inside the cavity one would expect the first test to show a deflection since he did say that approximately a gram force was necessary to cause an observable horizontal deflection. Experiment 3.1 was a 180° change in orientation. Again, if the force was entirely from the RF energy one would expect an equal but opposite force. The fact that the measured force in the downward direction was 7X smaller nullifies both experiments. Another experiment that could be done would be to stick a lighted match inside the cavity and measure the "thrust" that produces.This is not a criticism of Iulian. I think he showed a lot of ingenuity and craftsmanship. And if he has decided to move on to other projects, so much the better.
Because of the high profile nature of the tests, they are included here merely to give a rough comparison to the more scientifically rigorous tests. The measured thrust in this table is an average of multiple runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely effects of hot air. @deltaMass calculated the net thrust for the EmDrive across both tests to be 0.29gf effective thrust, which is 2.84mN.
...Well yes. In my spare time I play a zombie survival game. ....
...The fact that the measured force in the downward direction was 7X smaller nullifies both experiments. Another experiment that could be done would be to stick a lighted match inside the cavity and measure the "thrust" that produces.This is not a criticism of Iulian. I think he showed a lot of ingenuity and craftsmanship. And if he has decided to move on to other projects, so much the better.
...do you think that Iulian's test should be taken out of the comparison table?
Quote from: WarpTech on 06/02/2015 01:36 pm...The speed of light is ONLY constant in an inertial reference frame. As soon as you introduce acceleration or gravity, it is not constant....What you are saying about the speed of light is true, but where you are going wrong is counting this as acceleration. This does not mean that photons accelerate or decelerate. Light does not get slowed or sped up. Light being affected by gravity is a geometric argument, light follows the null geodesic.http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/c_in_gfield.htmhttp://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_in_general_relativityOnce again, just because the speed of light appears to be different in or out of a gravity well as viewed by a distant observer, has nothing to do with photons being accelerated/decelerated. Light entering a gravity well is blueshifted, light exiting a gravity well is red shifted. Light crossing a gravity well is curved. That is what really happens.
...The speed of light is ONLY constant in an inertial reference frame. As soon as you introduce acceleration or gravity, it is not constant.
Now onto the PV model of GR...Harold E. Puthoff has a lot of neat ideas (I've read his work too) and his PV model (his alternative approach to general relativity and quantum mechanics) certainly is interesting reading but none of it is accepted by the scientific community. I do find some merit in some of what he says (because the QED vacuum is a dielectric and vacuum polarization is a real thing) but there is no proof that it has anything to do with gravitation.
EmDrive is already on very shaky ground from a theoretical standpoint, and reports of thrust from them are also on shaky ground. Do we really need fringe science on the table right now? We're all screaming, "It ain't a warp drive!" and you're bringing taboo science to the table that isn't accepted by the scientific community, and proclaiming, it is a warp drive.http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PV_Found_of_Physics.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Puthoff_H/0/1/0/all/0/1
Quote from: zen-in on 06/04/2015 04:08 amThat is an overly optimistic analysis of Iulian's experiment. He did 3 tests. The first, which attempted to observe a horizontal deflection, was null. Test 3.0 (are there other tests that haven't been reported? That sounds familiar) attempted to measure an upward force on the cavity. His one measurement from that experiment was 0.508 gram force. If that force was entirely from the RF energy and not from air heating inside the cavity one would expect the first test to show a deflection since he did say that approximately a gram force was necessary to cause an observable horizontal deflection. Experiment 3.1 was a 180° change in orientation. Again, if the force was entirely from the RF energy one would expect an equal but opposite force. The fact that the measured force in the downward direction was 7X smaller nullifies both experiments. Another experiment that could be done would be to stick a lighted match inside the cavity and measure the "thrust" that produces.This is not a criticism of Iulian. I think he showed a lot of ingenuity and craftsmanship. And if he has decided to move on to other projects, so much the better.I noticed that somebody put Iulian's test in the wiki http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results with this message, quoting DeltaMass:QuoteBecause of the high profile nature of the tests, they are included here merely to give a rough comparison to the more scientifically rigorous tests. The measured thrust in this table is an average of multiple runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely effects of hot air. @deltaMass calculated the net thrust for the EmDrive across both tests to be 0.29gf effective thrust, which is 2.84mN. Which gives a thrust/InputPower similar to the one measured by NASA.On the basis of your comment above, do you think that Iulian's test should be taken out of the comparison table?Or, if you think that Iulian's test should remain in the comparison table, what numbers would you suggest to put in the table instead of the numbers in the table?
That is an overly optimistic analysis of Iulian's experiment. He did 3 tests. The first, which attempted to observe a horizontal deflection, was null. Test 3.0 (are there other tests that haven't been reported? That sounds familiar) attempted to measure an upward force on the cavity. His one measurement from that experiment was 0.508 gram force. If that force was entirely from the RF energy and not from air heating inside the cavity one would expect the first test to show a deflection since he did say that approximately a gram force was necessary to cause an observable horizontal deflection. Experiment 3.1 was a 180° change in orientation. Again, if the force was entirely from the RF energy one would expect an equal but opposite force. The fact that the measured force in the downward direction was 7X smaller nullifies both experiments. Another experiment that could be done would be to stick a lighted match inside the cavity and measure the "thrust" that produces.This is not a criticism of Iulian. I think he showed a lot of ingenuity and craftsmanship. And if he has decided to move on to other projects, so much the better.
Quote from: phaseshift on 06/02/2015 06:57 pmWe are using the same definition of open system I do think Shawyer attempted to "open" the cavity by invoking Special Relativity (incorrectly). White uses the QV (almost in an extra dimensional way) to open the system. Yang appears to make no attempt at doing so and thus the reason for my question. Going extra dimensional, 4+1, also opens up the cavity. However, in looking over Randall/Sundrum I realized that their +1 is not on our D-Brane and is rather the bulk itself. According to string theory this means RF energy can not enter the +1 dimension,yet in the same breath Randall wonders if Standard Model particles are in the bulk. Of course there is the possibility of other dimensions outside of their theory.I am hoping that given Yang's substantially higher thrust that the manner in which the cavity is opened up could be discerned helping theory move forward.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.
We are using the same definition of open system I do think Shawyer attempted to "open" the cavity by invoking Special Relativity (incorrectly). White uses the QV (almost in an extra dimensional way) to open the system. Yang appears to make no attempt at doing so and thus the reason for my question. Going extra dimensional, 4+1, also opens up the cavity. However, in looking over Randall/Sundrum I realized that their +1 is not on our D-Brane and is rather the bulk itself. According to string theory this means RF energy can not enter the +1 dimension,yet in the same breath Randall wonders if Standard Model particles are in the bulk. Of course there is the possibility of other dimensions outside of their theory.I am hoping that given Yang's substantially higher thrust that the manner in which the cavity is opened up could be discerned helping theory move forward.
This is not a criticism of Iulian. I think he showed a lot of ingenuity and craftsmanship. And if he has decided to move on to other projects, so much the better.
It is my experience and opinion that "curved space time" and "variable refractive index" are two interpretations of the same phenomenon. You can't say one is correct and the other is not, just because the opinion of main stream physicists "prefer" GR over PV. You are entitled to your own opinion however, please don't discredit me for having one of my own.
Hello Todd - it's me, the thorn in your side.QuoteIt is my experience and opinion that "curved space time" and "variable refractive index" are two interpretations of the same phenomenon. You can't say one is correct and the other is not, just because the opinion of main stream physicists "prefer" GR over PV. You are entitled to your own opinion however, please don't discredit me for having one of my own. But I can disagree with your opinion. So I shall.In a curved space time, a photon travels its geodesic at c.In a medium with a non-unity refractive index n, a photon is involved with continual interactions with atoms and molecules, and is continually absorbed and re-emitted, and part of the time it is expressed as a phonon or a polariton etc. Whenever it is actualised, which is part of the time, it travels at the vacuum value of c. As a result of this messy collection of processes, it appears as though the photon is travelling at c/n along its straight refracted path.These two scenarios are not equivalent at all.
To equate the smooth motion of a photon along a curved geodesic to the jumpy progress of a photon in a medium seems a stretch to me.
Electromagnetic fields and transmission properties in tapered hollow metallic waveguides https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-17-1-34&id=175583
Quote from: Rodal on 06/04/2015 04:26 amQuote from: zen-in on 06/04/2015 04:08 amThat is an overly optimistic analysis of Iulian's experiment. He did 3 tests. The first, which attempted to observe a horizontal deflection, was null. Test 3.0 (are there other tests that haven't been reported? That sounds familiar) attempted to measure an upward force on the cavity. His one measurement from that experiment was 0.508 gram force. If that force was entirely from the RF energy and not from air heating inside the cavity one would expect the first test to show a deflection since he did say that approximately a gram force was necessary to cause an observable horizontal deflection. Experiment 3.1 was a 180° change in orientation. Again, if the force was entirely from the RF energy one would expect an equal but opposite force. The fact that the measured force in the downward direction was 7X smaller nullifies both experiments. Another experiment that could be done would be to stick a lighted match inside the cavity and measure the "thrust" that produces.This is not a criticism of Iulian. I think he showed a lot of ingenuity and craftsmanship. And if he has decided to move on to other projects, so much the better.I noticed that somebody put Iulian's test in the wiki http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results with this message, quoting DeltaMass:QuoteBecause of the high profile nature of the tests, they are included here merely to give a rough comparison to the more scientifically rigorous tests. The measured thrust in this table is an average of multiple runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely effects of hot air. @deltaMass calculated the net thrust for the EmDrive across both tests to be 0.29gf effective thrust, which is 2.84mN. Which gives a thrust/InputPower similar to the one measured by NASA.On the basis of your comment above, do you think that Iulian's test should be taken out of the comparison table?Or, if you think that Iulian's test should remain in the comparison table, what numbers would you suggest to put in the table instead of the numbers in the table?If it was up to me I would report his test verbatim. Just quote what he stated in his blog. Readers can form their own conclusions.
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?