......As for the scalar-tensor theory of gravity, predictions (falsifiability) for the EmDrive have been calculated by Pr. Fernando Minotti in his peer-reviewed paper Scalar-tensor theories and asymmetric resonant cavities.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 03/19/2015 01:53 amQuote from: aero on 03/19/2015 01:49 amRe. Hypotheses looked at - where does our lengthy discussions of dark matter fit?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1347946#msg1347946we had a lengthy discussion of dark matter and i didn't know about it?!http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150306091617.htmhttp://phys.org/news/2015-03-mini-black-holes-lhc-parallel.htmlWell, I just searched the complete advanced concepts forum and found no mention of dark matter on any EM drive developments thread, so I guess either my memory is faulty or there has been some heavy clean-up of what many consider to be "Uggy-Bogy" science. That means we won't be including it in "hypotheses discussed."
Quote from: aero on 03/19/2015 01:49 amRe. Hypotheses looked at - where does our lengthy discussions of dark matter fit?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1347946#msg1347946we had a lengthy discussion of dark matter and i didn't know about it?!http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150306091617.htmhttp://phys.org/news/2015-03-mini-black-holes-lhc-parallel.html
Re. Hypotheses looked at - where does our lengthy discussions of dark matter fit?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1347946#msg1347946
Quote from: Star-Drive on 02/14/2015 09:06 pmAll:Sorry I didn't make the time to participate in this ME-Drive forum for the last 6-to-8 months up, but I will try to catch up with everyone else in due course. That said lets try to answer the questions that popped up since my morning post.1. I was not the lead author for the Eagleworks' 2014 AIAA/JPC paper and in fact I only supplied pictures and data for same during that period because Dr. White thought that my time was best spent in the lab gathering data instead of report writing. Thus some of the details that Dr. Rodal is looking for may have been lost or garbled in the report writing by the others on the author list.2.0 The thrust vector for the four resonant modes examined in detail, (the cavity's fundamental TM010, TE012, TM211 & TM212 for our copper frustum is normally in the frustum's large OD to small OD direction for most, but not all the E&M resonant modes checked. However, one can also reverse this thrust vector for this copper frustum by just changing which excited resonant mode is used and/or mounting the dielectric discs at the large OD end of the cavity instead of the small OD end, see attached resonant mode map. Sorry, but a one size fits all solution to this EM-Drive thrust direction is not available in this venue because of the importance of the ExB phase relationship of the expressed Lorentz forces between the excited E&M fields and the possible dielectric and QV plasma flow phenomenon that may be at work in each resonant mode expressed. That is why this type of E&M thruster is so hard to get a handle on, for there are far too many degrees of freedom in the system to track let alone directly control. 3. The Eagleworks vacuum chamber's main body is made from 304L stainless steel while its swing out door is made from aluminum. Most of the nuts and bolts in the vacuum chamber are also made from 18-8, 304 or 316 stainless steel alloys. Now to try to answer Dr. Rodal's specific questions:"1) In the NASA experiments the truncated cone's center of mass moved towards the [ ? ] diameter end (where ? stands for big or small)"For the TE012 and TM212 excited resonant modes, our copper frustum's center of mass moved toward the small OD end of the frustum when RF power was applied to the copper frustum."2) In the NASA experiments, we at NASA Eagleworks define the thrust force direction to be in the [? ] direction as the movement of the truncated cone's center of mass (where ? stands for same or opposite)"For just the TE012 & TM212 excited resonant modes, the thrust force direction AKA thrust vector was observed to be in the same direction as the movement of the frustum's center of mass when RF power was applied to the frustum's magnetic loop antenna. If I missed a question along the way keep asking, but I'll be in and out of the house for the rest of the day, so I may not get to answer them until late this evening or tomorrow afternoon USA based CST.Best, Paul M.I understand that we need to wait for Paul March to explicitly "re-verify" the manner in which thrust reversal was achieved, but it does appear to me that he has already addressed this in the above quote from Feb 14. Quoting Mr. March: "one can also reverse this thrust vector for this copper frustum by just changing which excited resonant mode is used and/or mounting the dielectric discs at the large OD end of the cavity instead of the small OD end". To my admittedly untrained eye, this appears to be in agreement with Dr. Rodal's earlier statements, and in conflict with Mr. Frobnicat's contention that reversal was achieved by simply rotating the entire mechanism 180 degrees.
All:Sorry I didn't make the time to participate in this ME-Drive forum for the last 6-to-8 months up, but I will try to catch up with everyone else in due course. That said lets try to answer the questions that popped up since my morning post.1. I was not the lead author for the Eagleworks' 2014 AIAA/JPC paper and in fact I only supplied pictures and data for same during that period because Dr. White thought that my time was best spent in the lab gathering data instead of report writing. Thus some of the details that Dr. Rodal is looking for may have been lost or garbled in the report writing by the others on the author list.2.0 The thrust vector for the four resonant modes examined in detail, (the cavity's fundamental TM010, TE012, TM211 & TM212 for our copper frustum is normally in the frustum's large OD to small OD direction for most, but not all the E&M resonant modes checked. However, one can also reverse this thrust vector for this copper frustum by just changing which excited resonant mode is used and/or mounting the dielectric discs at the large OD end of the cavity instead of the small OD end, see attached resonant mode map. Sorry, but a one size fits all solution to this EM-Drive thrust direction is not available in this venue because of the importance of the ExB phase relationship of the expressed Lorentz forces between the excited E&M fields and the possible dielectric and QV plasma flow phenomenon that may be at work in each resonant mode expressed. That is why this type of E&M thruster is so hard to get a handle on, for there are far too many degrees of freedom in the system to track let alone directly control. 3. The Eagleworks vacuum chamber's main body is made from 304L stainless steel while its swing out door is made from aluminum. Most of the nuts and bolts in the vacuum chamber are also made from 18-8, 304 or 316 stainless steel alloys. Now to try to answer Dr. Rodal's specific questions:"1) In the NASA experiments the truncated cone's center of mass moved towards the [ ? ] diameter end (where ? stands for big or small)"For the TE012 and TM212 excited resonant modes, our copper frustum's center of mass moved toward the small OD end of the frustum when RF power was applied to the copper frustum."2) In the NASA experiments, we at NASA Eagleworks define the thrust force direction to be in the [? ] direction as the movement of the truncated cone's center of mass (where ? stands for same or opposite)"For just the TE012 & TM212 excited resonant modes, the thrust force direction AKA thrust vector was observed to be in the same direction as the movement of the frustum's center of mass when RF power was applied to the frustum's magnetic loop antenna. If I missed a question along the way keep asking, but I'll be in and out of the house for the rest of the day, so I may not get to answer them until late this evening or tomorrow afternoon USA based CST.Best, Paul M.
These 1" thick by 6.25" (actually 6 5/16" because I left them a little wide for milling) wide HDPE circles need a ride in a lathe. Trouble is, I don't have a lathe. Cutting these with a jigsaw was not fun. Because the HDPE was so thick, the waste material would just bunch up around the cut in long ribbons and it was very tough to see the cut. Normally such thick material would be cut at low speed, but running the saw at full speed helped to clear out the pesky waste material so I could see better.Rest of pics:https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTXhSUTd5ZDN2WnM&usp=sharing
Paul's statement that "For the TE012 and TM212 excited resonant modes, our copper frustum's center of mass moved toward the small OD end of the frustum when RF power was applied to the copper frustum." Would seem to explicitly contradict the calculated chart as to the direction for those modes.
...(*) @Frobnicat asked whether the direction of the electromagnetic vector should matter for heat production due to electromagnetic power dissipation. The answer is NO !, because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: a reversal of the direction of the electromagnetic field cannot possibly lead to a cooling or a thermal contraction.
...What do you think of the formula used in the plot titled "S21 and surface integral of cavity with 1W input power" ? ....Do you see what motivates this particular formula ?...
There is electromagnetic pressure of course, but isn't it supposed to integrate to 0, at least in known frameworks ?
There appear to be no cross-product but a sum of e and b(h actually) fields' energy densities taken separately. Is it equivalent ?
....Anyway, factually, using Eagleworks mode nomenclature for convenience, the reported experiments of "anomalous thrust..." show both TE012 and TM211 modes in the same direction (the small end). And the blue plot says it should really reverse between TE012 and TM211. I won't go into battle as saying that it definitely - how you say that ? ah yes - imparts a death knell to this blue plot, but those initial results do weaken the theoretical statement, to put that in diplomatic terms.
...1) Experiments (like reversing at will the direction of the thrust from the small base to the big base directions) that would nullify yet another mechanism (like the one you proposed) pretending to show the EM Drive experiment as an artifact, are very important in that they advance our state of knowledge about "EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications."
On the other hand, discrepancies in sign between a blue plot and other plots, do not rise to the same level of significance.
One explanation, for example, could be simply that one (or both) of the plots have the wrong sign. Such errors in presentation do not rise anywhere to the same level of significance.
Do you know how many plots and equations contain errata in Feynman's original QED and path integral publications?
Ultimately what matters is whether the EM Drive experiments show phenomena that can be used for spaceflight applications, and ultimately what will matter least is whether plots were mislabeled.
When finding a contradiction between plots, one should not rush to judgement to toll the bell that the experiment is an artifact: it may simply be an innocent error in labeling a plot.
2) That there may be labeling questions is shown by:2a) What NASA Eagleworks labels as mode TM212 I have shown should be labeled TM2222b) The mode labeled as TM211 in the "Anomalous ..." report was reported to occur at 1.9326 GHz and 1.9367 GHz, with COMSOL FEA frequency calculated at 1.947 GHz. Yet now they report mode labeled TM212 to be tested and to occur at about the same frequency range.I calculate that the mode labeled "TM212" (which I think should be labeled TM222) -which does not appear in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=778912;image should occur at a significantly higher frequency than TM211, never at the same frequency ( "TM212" at 2.49 GHz without dielectric and "TM211" at 2.01 GHz without dielectric). These modes were analyzed and labeled (I understand) by different engineers. It is possible that they may be one and the same mode that has been mislabeled.
3)All the emphasis you place on the signs on the blue NASA Eagleworks plot and the other plots (which could be just an error in labeling the plots), yet you ignore the fact that Roger Shawyer published experimental information showing his EM Drive Demonstrator Engine showed practically the same magnitude thrust was experimentally observed to be reversed: Shawyer reports forces in opposite directions (towards the big end and towards the small end of practically the same magnitude: 214 mN/kW and 243 mN/kW) for his Demonstrator engine. The data being ignored (showing forces in opposite directions, towards the big end and towards the small end of practically the same magnitude), what should I say , oh yes, defenestrates, mechanical explanations for the EM Drive measurements being a mechanical artifact.
Quote2) That there may be labeling questions is shown by:2a) What NASA Eagleworks labels as mode TM212 I have shown should be labeled TM2222b) The mode labeled as TM211 in the "Anomalous ..." report was reported to occur at 1.9326 GHz and 1.9367 GHz, with COMSOL FEA frequency calculated at 1.947 GHz. Yet now they report mode labeled TM212 to be tested and to occur at about the same frequency range.I calculate that the mode labeled "TM212" (which I think should be labeled TM222) -which does not appear in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=778912;image should occur at a significantly higher frequency than TM211, never at the same frequency ( "TM212" at 2.49 GHz without dielectric and "TM211" at 2.01 GHz without dielectric). These modes were analyzed and labeled (I understand) by different engineers. It is possible that they may be one and the same mode that has been mislabeled.Yes, all right, sounds possible. So ?...
Thank for later part of previous answer. It does answer clearly to some aspects of my innocent questions, for the other aspects I'll have to learn German....
Thank for later part of previous answer. It does answer clearly to some aspects of my innocent questions, for the other aspects I'll have to learn German. Thank for editing the beginning. Unfortunately the tone is becoming a bit harsh so it becomes difficult to talk casually about just, you know, "what you think of ... patati patata", without resorting to lawyers....
Quote from: frobnicat on 03/20/2015 01:10 am...What do you think of the formula used in the plot titled "S21 and surface integral of cavity with 1W input power" ? ....Do you see what motivates this particular formula ?.......While waiting for Paul March (@Star-Drive) to explain the background, context and significance of the equation, the following is apparent:The terms in the http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=778912;image equation coincide with the Kronecker's delta (the unit dyadic) negative terms of Maxwell's stress tensor ("times the normal component in the z direction"). The remaining dyadic terms of Maxwell's stress tensor component are missing from this expression. ....