Quote from: meberbs on 07/15/2017 03:15 PMQuote from: moreno7798 on 07/15/2017 02:29 PMAll I'm really interested in is this:https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdfNow, tell me how that is wrong.I assume you have not taken any classes in electrodynamics, because if you had , it shouldn't be hard to find dozens of errors in Shawyer's papers. First error is the original statement of force difference between the end plates ignoring the force on the sidewalls.Next, he points to the Lorentz force equation and puts in the "group velocity of the EM wave" rather than "the velocity of the charged particle" which is the actual definition of v in that equation.After that he makes a claim that special relativity magically makes it an open system. There is nothing in special relativity that supports this.And that is all just on one page. Need more?I've stated from the start of my visits over 2 years ago, building several cavities and test stands that you can not have an enclosed system that self accelerates without having a path to the outside universe, otherwise stuff just bounces around according to dear old Maxwell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations Even Dr. white's theory of Quantum Vacuum particles makes it outside the cavity and as does the MACH effects, or any theory that maybe causes a gravitational link or disturbance to the outside.Anyone who says that they have a theory of just particles of light or matter that stay inside of the enclosed frame environment of the cavity bouncing around giving thrusts is going to get flack and questions asked in do they understand completely Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics" and I don't believe Shawyer's theories trump them.Further reading.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_lawMy Very Best,Shell

Quote from: moreno7798 on 07/15/2017 02:29 PMAll I'm really interested in is this:https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdfNow, tell me how that is wrong.I assume you have not taken any classes in electrodynamics, because if you had , it shouldn't be hard to find dozens of errors in Shawyer's papers. First error is the original statement of force difference between the end plates ignoring the force on the sidewalls.Next, he points to the Lorentz force equation and puts in the "group velocity of the EM wave" rather than "the velocity of the charged particle" which is the actual definition of v in that equation.After that he makes a claim that special relativity magically makes it an open system. There is nothing in special relativity that supports this.And that is all just on one page. Need more?

All I'm really interested in is this:https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdfNow, tell me how that is wrong.

Quote from: SeeShells on 07/15/2017 04:42 PMQuote from: meberbs on 07/15/2017 03:15 PMQuote from: moreno7798 on 07/15/2017 02:29 PMAll I'm really interested in is this:https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdfNow, tell me how that is wrong.I assume you have not taken any classes in electrodynamics, because if you had , it shouldn't be hard to find dozens of errors in Shawyer's papers. First error is the original statement of force difference between the end plates ignoring the force on the sidewalls.Next, he points to the Lorentz force equation and puts in the "group velocity of the EM wave" rather than "the velocity of the charged particle" which is the actual definition of v in that equation.After that he makes a claim that special relativity magically makes it an open system. There is nothing in special relativity that supports this.And that is all just on one page. Need more?I've stated from the start of my visits over 2 years ago, building several cavities and test stands that you can not have an enclosed system that self accelerates without having a path to the outside universe, otherwise stuff just bounces around according to dear old Maxwell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations Even Dr. white's theory of Quantum Vacuum particles makes it outside the cavity and as does the MACH effects, or any theory that maybe causes a gravitational link or disturbance to the outside.Anyone who says that they have a theory of just particles of light or matter that stay inside of the enclosed frame environment of the cavity bouncing around giving thrusts is going to get flack and questions asked in do they understand completely Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics" and I don't believe Shawyer's theories trump them.Further reading.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_lawMy Very Best,ShellSince the microwave energy gets converted to heat (phonons) in the cavity walls, and that heat must ultimately propagate to the outer surface and radiate away, it's not truly a closed system with respect to radiation and should be able to at least provide a reduced photon thrust in some direction by virtue of the Stephan-Boltzmann law of radiation. I don't think it's even possible to have a perfectly closed system with respect to electromagnetic radiation. Has anyone modeled that aspect of the cavity design? Thanks.

The observed thrust of experimental results has been argued to exceed the maximum efficiency of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, comprised between 3.33 and 6.67 µN/kW.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/15/2017 08:37 PMQuote from: SeeShells on 07/15/2017 04:42 PMQuote from: meberbs on 07/15/2017 03:15 PMQuote from: moreno7798 on 07/15/2017 02:29 PMAll I'm really interested in is this:https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdfNow, tell me how that is wrong.I assume you have not taken any classes in electrodynamics, because if you had , it shouldn't be hard to find dozens of errors in Shawyer's papers. First error is the original statement of force difference between the end plates ignoring the force on the sidewalls.Next, he points to the Lorentz force equation and puts in the "group velocity of the EM wave" rather than "the velocity of the charged particle" which is the actual definition of v in that equation.After that he makes a claim that special relativity magically makes it an open system. There is nothing in special relativity that supports this.And that is all just on one page. Need more?--Further reading.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_lawMy Very Best,ShellSince the microwave energy gets converted to heat (phonons) in the cavity walls, and that heat must ultimately propagate to the outer surface and radiate away, it's not truly a closed system with respect to radiation and should be able to at least provide a reduced photon thrust in some direction by virtue of the Stephan-Boltzmann law of radiation. I don't think it's even possible to have a perfectly closed system with respect to electromagnetic radiation. Has anyone modeled that aspect of the cavity design? Thanks.This was discussed during the past threads from the beginning on. We talk about much more thrust than generated by a photon rocket. QuoteThe observed thrust of experimental results has been argued to exceed the maximum efficiency of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, comprised between 3.33 and 6.67 µN/kW.http://www.wikiwand.com/en/RF_resonant_cavity_thrusterHowever, you are right about there is no perfect isolated system within our universe.

Quote from: SeeShells on 07/15/2017 04:42 PMQuote from: meberbs on 07/15/2017 03:15 PMQuote from: moreno7798 on 07/15/2017 02:29 PMAll I'm really interested in is this:https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdfNow, tell me how that is wrong.I assume you have not taken any classes in electrodynamics, because if you had , it shouldn't be hard to find dozens of errors in Shawyer's papers. First error is the original statement of force difference between the end plates ignoring the force on the sidewalls.Next, he points to the Lorentz force equation and puts in the "group velocity of the EM wave" rather than "the velocity of the charged particle" which is the actual definition of v in that equation.After that he makes a claim that special relativity magically makes it an open system. There is nothing in special relativity that supports this.And that is all just on one page. Need more?--Further reading.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_lawMy Very Best,ShellSince the microwave energy gets converted to heat (phonons) in the cavity walls, and that heat must ultimately propagate to the outer surface and radiate away, it's not truly a closed system with respect to radiation and should be able to at least provide a reduced photon thrust in some direction by virtue of the Stephan-Boltzmann law of radiation. I don't think it's even possible to have a perfectly closed system with respect to electromagnetic radiation. Has anyone modeled that aspect of the cavity design? Thanks.

Quote from: meberbs on 07/15/2017 03:15 PMQuote from: moreno7798 on 07/15/2017 02:29 PMAll I'm really interested in is this:https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdfNow, tell me how that is wrong.I assume you have not taken any classes in electrodynamics, because if you had , it shouldn't be hard to find dozens of errors in Shawyer's papers. First error is the original statement of force difference between the end plates ignoring the force on the sidewalls.Next, he points to the Lorentz force equation and puts in the "group velocity of the EM wave" rather than "the velocity of the charged particle" which is the actual definition of v in that equation.After that he makes a claim that special relativity magically makes it an open system. There is nothing in special relativity that supports this.And that is all just on one page. Need more?--Further reading.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_lawMy Very Best,Shell

A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram massesQuoteThis paper addresses a simple question: how small can one make agravitational source mass and still detect its gravitational coupling to a nearby testmass? We describe an experimental scheme based on micromechanical sensing toobserve gravity between milligram-scale source masses, thereby improving the currentsmallest source mass values by three orders of magnitude and possibly even more.We also discuss the implications of such measurements both for improved precisionmeasurements of Newton’s constant and for a new generation of experiments at theinterface between quantum physics and gravity.....For this reason, simply scaling down a Cavendish experiment is not sufficientto measure the gravitational effects of small source masses.Instead, we periodically modulate the gravitational potential created by a smallsource mass in order to resonantly enhance the amplitude response of a cantilever testmass. ‡ For simplicity we assume that the effective mass of the oscillator mode is identical to the gravitationalmass.§ The frequency shifts in actual measurements of G are typically one order of magnitude higher, asthe geometry of a torsion balance pendulum is only vaguely approximated by our 1-dimensional, linearmodel.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdf

This paper addresses a simple question: how small can one make agravitational source mass and still detect its gravitational coupling to a nearby testmass? We describe an experimental scheme based on micromechanical sensing toobserve gravity between milligram-scale source masses, thereby improving the currentsmallest source mass values by three orders of magnitude and possibly even more.We also discuss the implications of such measurements both for improved precisionmeasurements of Newton’s constant and for a new generation of experiments at theinterface between quantum physics and gravity.....For this reason, simply scaling down a Cavendish experiment is not sufficientto measure the gravitational effects of small source masses.Instead, we periodically modulate the gravitational potential created by a smallsource mass in order to resonantly enhance the amplitude response of a cantilever testmass. ‡ For simplicity we assume that the effective mass of the oscillator mode is identical to the gravitationalmass.§ The frequency shifts in actual measurements of G are typically one order of magnitude higher, asthe geometry of a torsion balance pendulum is only vaguely approximated by our 1-dimensional, linearmodel.

Quote from: Rodal on 07/15/2017 05:58 PMA micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram massesQuoteThis paper addresses a simple question: how small can one make agravitational source mass and still detect its gravitational coupling to a nearby testmass? We describe an experimental scheme based on micromechanical sensing toobserve gravity between milligram-scale source masses, thereby improving the currentsmallest source mass values by three orders of magnitude and possibly even more.We also discuss the implications of such measurements both for improved precisionmeasurements of Newton’s constant and for a new generation of experiments at theinterface between quantum physics and gravity.....For this reason, simply scaling down a Cavendish experiment is not sufficientto measure the gravitational effects of small source masses.Instead, we periodically modulate the gravitational potential created by a smallsource mass in order to resonantly enhance the amplitude response of a cantilever testmass. ‡ For simplicity we assume that the effective mass of the oscillator mode is identical to the gravitationalmass.§ The frequency shifts in actual measurements of G are typically one order of magnitude higher, asthe geometry of a torsion balance pendulum is only vaguely approximated by our 1-dimensional, linearmodel.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdfI'm having a little difficulty understanding this in detail. Equation 3d seems to have different units of measure than 3a, b & c. Is x(t) a position, displacement or signal strength? Also, their terminologies like, "mechanical susceptibility" and "displacement power" are unfamiliar to me.Anyone care to explain?Thanks.

Quote from: WarpTech on 07/16/2017 02:23 PMQuote from: Rodal on 07/15/2017 05:58 PMA micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses...https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdfI'm having a little difficulty understanding this in detail. Equation 3d seems to have different units of measure than 3a, b & c. Is x(t) a position, displacement or signal strength? Also, their terminologies like, "mechanical susceptibility" and "displacement power" are unfamiliar to me.Anyone care to explain?Thanks.Equation 3d has the same dimensions as Eq. 3c

Quote from: Rodal on 07/15/2017 05:58 PMA micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses...https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdfI'm having a little difficulty understanding this in detail. Equation 3d seems to have different units of measure than 3a, b & c. Is x(t) a position, displacement or signal strength? Also, their terminologies like, "mechanical susceptibility" and "displacement power" are unfamiliar to me.Anyone care to explain?Thanks.

A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses...https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdf

x is a position(x_{0} − x_{sup}) is a difference between positions, which gives you a displacement"displacement power spectral density" S_{xx} has units of m^{2} /Hz = s* m^{2} (square meter times second)Explanation: Power spectral density in general has units of whatever you measure, squared, and divided by frequency. So if you measure displacement in meters, it has units of m^{2}/Hz.If you measure acceleration in g's, "acceleration power spectral density" would have units of g^{2}/Hz or if you measure in (m/s^{2}) it would have units of (m/s^{2})^{2}/Hz. If you measure velocity, "velocity power spectral density"will have units of (m/s)^{2}/Hz.

"displacement power" P_{xx} has units of m^{2} (square meter)Explanation: "displacement power" P_{xx} is defined in p.5 immediately prior to Eq. (3) as the integral of S_{xx} with respect to omega. So the integral of something measured in m^{2}/Hz with respect to frequency, will have units of m^{2}. The transfer function T_{E} is dimensionless (the way it is defined in the paper)Q is dimensionless"mechanical susceptibility" is defined in the text, p.5 after Eq. (2)Think of these quantities as "analogs to..." Obviously m^2 is a unit of surface area, and not a unit of power, and so on. Ditto for the transfer function being dimensionless...Or you can think of some implicit constants being defined as unity, like in General Relativity, we take the speed of light c=1, instead of 299 792 458 m / s, and we use in GR -t +x instead of -t*c +x , which looks wrong since time and position have different units, but it is right if you take c=1 .

Quote from: Rodal on 07/16/2017 07:05 PMQuote from: WarpTech on 07/16/2017 02:23 PMQuote from: Rodal on 07/15/2017 05:58 PMA micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses...https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdfI'm having a little difficulty understanding this in detail. Equation 3d seems to have different units of measure than 3a, b & c. Is x(t) a position, displacement or signal strength? Also, their terminologies like, "mechanical susceptibility" and "displacement power" are unfamiliar to me.Anyone care to explain?Thanks.Equation 3d has the same dimensions as Eq. 3cNo, it doesn't. 3c has units of m^{2} but 3d has units of m^{2}/s.

Quote from: WarpTech on 07/16/2017 09:34 PMQuote from: Rodal on 07/16/2017 07:05 PMQuote from: WarpTech on 07/16/2017 02:23 PMQuote from: Rodal on 07/15/2017 05:58 PMA micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses...https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdfI'm having a little difficulty understanding this in detail. Equation 3d seems to have different units of measure than 3a, b & c. Is x(t) a position, displacement or signal strength? Also, their terminologies like, "mechanical susceptibility" and "displacement power" are unfamiliar to me.Anyone care to explain?Thanks.Equation 3d has the same dimensions as Eq. 3cNo, it doesn't. 3c has units of m^{2} but 3d has units of m^{2}/s.Wrong. Eq. 3d has unit of m^{2} as I proved previously. P_{xx} has units of m^{2}Q is dimensionlessT_{E} is dimensionlessS_{xx} has units of m^{2}/Hz=m^{2} / (1/sec)=m^{2} * sΓ has units of 1/secIf you multiply Q xT_{E} xS_{xx} xΓ= 1 x 1 x (m^{2} /(1/s)) x (1/s) = m^{2}When you multiply (m^{2}/Hz) * (1/s) you get units of m^{2}, because the unit of time cancels out.Please let's not make this into a never ending argument back and forth on whether you don't like their choice of units. You said that you had difficulty understanding the units. They are as I defined above. Equations 3 c an 3 d have the same units for displacement power: m^{2}.I am not going to discuss the units in the other equations as I have work to do and I thought I was just helping here, did not want to get into a never ending argument about the definition of units in somebody else's paper

...you get square meters, the units of "displacement power" P_{xx} QED (quod erat demonstrandum)-------------------(*) The right hand side of the equation is expressed in terms of SI units. Therefore, while "m" in the left-hand side of the equation stands for mass -the symbol used by the authors-, notice that "m" in the right-hand side of the equation stands for the SI unit of length: meter. "x" stands for "times": the multiplication symbol.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/15/2017 08:37 PMQuote from: SeeShells on 07/15/2017 04:42 PMQuote from: meberbs on 07/15/2017 03:15 PMQuote from: moreno7798 on 07/15/2017 02:29 PMAll I'm really interested in is this:https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdfNow, tell me how that is wrong.I assume you have not taken any classes in electrodynamics, because if you had , it shouldn't be hard to find dozens of errors in Shawyer's papers. First error is the original statement of force difference between the end plates ignoring the force on the sidewalls.Next, he points to the Lorentz force equation and puts in the "group velocity of the EM wave" rather than "the velocity of the charged particle" which is the actual definition of v in that equation.After that he makes a claim that special relativity magically makes it an open system. There is nothing in special relativity that supports this.And that is all just on one page. Need more?I've stated from the start of my visits over 2 years ago, building several cavities and test stands that you can not have an enclosed system that self accelerates without having a path to the outside universe, otherwise stuff just bounces around according to dear old Maxwell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations Even Dr. white's theory of Quantum Vacuum particles makes it outside the cavity and as does the MACH effects, or any theory that maybe causes a gravitational link or disturbance to the outside.Anyone who says that they have a theory of just particles of light or matter that stay inside of the enclosed frame environment of the cavity bouncing around giving thrusts is going to get flack and questions asked in do they understand completely Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics" and I don't believe Shawyer's theories trump them.Further reading.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_lawMy Very Best,ShellSince the microwave energy gets converted to heat (phonons) in the cavity walls, and that heat must ultimately propagate to the outer surface and radiate away, it's not truly a closed system with respect to radiation and should be able to at least provide a reduced photon thrust in some direction by virtue of the Stephan-Boltzmann law of radiation. I don't think it's even possible to have a perfectly closed system with respect to electromagnetic radiation. Has anyone modeled that aspect of the cavity design? Thanks.This was discussed during the past threads from the beginning on. We talk about much more thrust than generated by a photon rocket. QuoteThe observed thrust of experimental results has been argued to exceed the maximum efficiency of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, comprised between 3.33 and 6.67 µN/kW.http://www.wikiwand.com/en/RF_resonant_cavity_thrusterHowever, you are right about there is no perfect isolated system within our universe.

Quote from: Rodal on 07/17/2017 02:29 PM...you get square meters, the units of "displacement power" P_{xx} QED (quod erat demonstrandum)-------------------(*) The right hand side of the equation is expressed in terms of SI units. Therefore, while "m" in the left-hand side of the equation stands for mass -the symbol used by the authors-, notice that "m" in the right-hand side of the equation stands for the SI unit of length: meter. "x" stands for "times": the multiplication symbol.What you say is perfectly correct. I saw this yesterday "provided" Sxx has units of m^{2}/Hz. However, if you look at the first line of their equation 2, I get m^{2}, but line 2 of equation 2 gives m^{2}/Hz. So there seems to be a factor of "time" missing in the first line. That is what caused the confusion. It must be that the Delta function has units of "s", because I don't see anywhere else it could be.

3D printer arrived! I have it set up and fully calibrated. A test model was printed and the quality is very good! I should be able to start printing the spherical end-plates as early as tomorrow. I want to double check the geometry of the 3D models as they were created several weeks ago.

2nd paper about the EmDrive and McCulloch's MiHsC just published in EPL and freely available:• McCulloch, M. E. (July 2017). "Testing quantised inertia on emdrives with dielectrics" (PDF). EPL. 118 (3). doi:10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003.In this second EPL paper, the speed of light does not vary anymore within the cavity. Instead, more Unruh waves fit the wide end of the cavity than its narrow end, continuously shifting the center of inertial mass of the microwaves towards the wide end: the cavity then has to move towards the small end, for momentum to be conserved. As the speed of light does not change in the latter model, there is no more relativistic violation, which was the main criticism of the 1st paper.